Vice President Kamala Harris ran a promising campaign that initially had all the ingredients for success. Her background, policy knowledge, and the support she garnered as the first female Vice President provided her with a unique position to make history. However, despite a solid start, Harris ultimately lost to Donald Trump. Why?
To begin, it’s important to acknowledge that Harris’s campaign had a strong initial takeoff. She was able to draw support with well-crafted policies and had the advantage of substantial experience in government. And she raised a ton of money! Yet, as the campaign progressed, her initial cautious strategy never subsided. She avoided open press conferences. She stayed away from unfriendly media. So rather than expanding her reach, she stuck to familiar ground, she preferred safe spaces and friendly media as to avoid opportunities to engage with opposing viewpoints. This overly cautious approach limited her appeal and left her unable to sway undecided voters who may have been open to her message but never got to hear it.
Choosing only friendly media venues may have seemed like a smart strategy to control the narrative, but in reality, it isolated her from a wide segment of the electorate. Harris missed out on opportunities to directly address criticism and explain her positions to audiences beyond her base. As a result, she didn’t have the chance to convince skeptical voters or build rapport with people who might have been open to hearing her views.
Harris avoided ad hoc press conferences where questions would be unpredictable. Ad hoc press conferences, while risky, offer candidates the chance to demonstrate their ability to think on their feet and respond authentically. When voters see a candidate handle tough, unscripted questions, it can build trust and show resilience. By avoiding these moments, Harris missed opportunities to demonstrate her leadership in real-time. The reality is, the more you do, the better you become. Without these candid interactions that help the candidate look relatable and sincere, , her campaign appeared overly polished and careful, lacking the spontaneity. It’s what Donald Trump characterized as “the Weave”.
Another significant misstep was Harris’s heavy reliance on traditional rallies and celebrity endorsements. While rallies are useful for energizing one’s base, they largely reach voters who are already committed. Rallies may reinforce existing support, but they rarely expand it. Celebrity endorsements, meanwhile, can backfire when used excessively, especially in a political climate where many Americans feel alienated from the elite. Rather than broadening her appeal, the celebrity-centered events risked reinforcing a sense of disconnect between Harris and everyday Americans who may already feel overlooked by the political establishment. You can see how easy it would be for a voter to disregard a celebrity endorsement because they are not living in “my shoes”.
Harris’s strategy also failed to account for the reality of how most voters receive information. For those reading this, you are likely part of the small percentage of the voting population that watches the news and seeks information actively. The truth is, most Americans don’t follow every detail of a campaign; instead, they vote based on limited information — often just the last tidbit they received, rather than something they actively researched. Harris’s controlled approach may have seemed logical, but it didn’t reach these voters. In contrast, look at Trump’s appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast, spending over three hours talking to a specific but broad audience. This unconventional choice reached people who might not normally tune in to political coverage. Even though this delay caused him to be late for one of his rallies— where some supporters left early — the podcast has received over 46 million views, providing Trump with invaluable exposure. The Harris campaign didn’t do a Rogan podcast because they allegedly wanted to many restrictions on what he should ask her.
Another criticism I have is Harris’s handling of the administration’s record. Many voters want candidates to acknowledge past mistakes, explain what they learned, and describe how they would do things differently; take how the Biden administration handled the border problems. Harris often deflected criticism, stating that she wouldn’t have done anything differently. This response didn’t resonate with voters who wanted reassurance that she would bring a fresh approach to leadership. A willingness to acknowledge shortcomings and lay out a vision for improvement can enhance credibility. By sidestepping these issues, Harris appeared defensive and failed to connect with voters who felt disillusioned with the status quo.
Finally, there was a notable contrast in how the two campaigns framed policy. Trump has a distinctive approach: he presents policies in broad terms and then applies them to various demographics when prompted. For example, Trump spoke about his immigration policy in ways that he claimed would help “Black jobs,” presenting it as a solution for Black workers. His framing, though simplistic, connected with voters in a straightforward way because any job I, as a Black person has, is a Black job. Harris, on the other hand, seems to start with the demographic and crafts a policy to address their perceived concern. While her approach may have been more detailed, it didn’t resonate as broadly as it is too targeted and left some voters feeling addressed as a demographic group rather than as individuals with universal concerns.
The election results reveal a striking reality: in 2020, Democrats received 81 million votes, while Trump received 75 million. By 2024, Trump managed to retain nearly all his support, while Harris garnered roughly 15 million fewer votes than Biden had four years earlier. Her campaign simply didn’t reach enough voters to secure the win. Harris’s failure to expand her base and appeal to undecided or skeptical voters was a critical factor in her loss.
In the end, Kamala Harris’s campaign was well-organized and focused but lacked the boldness needed to capture undecided voters. Her strategy of playing it safe, sticking to friendly media, and avoiding unpredictable interactions limited her appeal. The lessons from Harris’s campaign are clear: in today’s political environment, candidates must be willing to engage with all audiences, reach people where they are, and show genuine accountability for past actions. Campaigns that fail to step out of their comfort zones and speak to all voters risk falling short in an increasingly divided electorate. Future candidates need to embrace boldness, transparency, and accessibility in order to connect with a diverse public who make their voting preferences based on their current personal situation and the latest tidbit of information they have in front of them.
