I’m writing this to blow off steam, and also pose a question to readers: “Why were Democrats so enthusiastic about Kamala Harris’s candidacy for President.?” Sure, she was the default candidate and Democrats had to vote for her if they didn’t want the abysmal Trump, but why the outpouring of enthusiasm for someone who seemed palpably unqualified for the Presidency? Whence the “great joy” that Harris brought to some Democrats? Why the “Kamala is brat” memes, with “brat” meaning “confidently rebellious, unapologetically bold, and playfully defiant.”
I want to blow off stem because yesterday I had an “animated discussion” with a good friend about Harris, with my point being that Democrats can’t afford to get really enthusiastic over a lame candidate. He told me that Harris wasn’t lame, that he was enthusiastic over her, and that she lost largely because she was a woman. Then it was off to the races. (Upshot: we’re still friends, but agreed to differ.)
Confession: I voted for neither Harris nor Trump. In Illinois, Harris was sure to get the electoral votes, but I couldn’t stand Trump. Harris, on the other hand, made me queasy. So I wrote in “Gretchen Whitmer.” If I had to go back, I may well have written in “Pete Buttigieg”, who would be a great candidate in 2028 but people consider him unelectable because he’s gay. (I don’t believe that, by the way. If Americans can elect a black person President, they can elect a gay one. After all, voters elected a sexual assaulter who advocated grabbing women by the genitals, who was married three times, and who paid off a pornstar to keep her mouth shut after having sex with her. Next to that, being gay a godly position.)
Why couldn’t I stand Harris? For several reasons. First, she lacked gravitas, or even the ability to string together words in a meaningful sentence. I don’t know how many times the phrase “word salad” was used to characterize her speeches and interviews. Have a gander, and this is typical. (Don’t forget that Harris avoided interviews and speeches during her candidacy.)
She was long on metaphors like the coconut-tree meme and “I can imagine what can be, unburdened by what has been,” and, even for NPR she was short on specifics in her “60 minutes” interview. You’l remember that her words in that piece were edited by CBS to remove some of the salad. That interview, below, is just another word salad.
I could not vote for a President who could not outline their views clearly.
I didn’t disdain Harris because she was a woman; after all, I had no compunction about voting for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and don’t give a hoot about about a candidate’s sex, race, or sexual orientation. What I want is someone who can lead the country. And if you can’t articulate your views, or establish a policy platform, and if you gaslight the American public about “what has been,” you won’t get my vote.
Though averring she was going to distinguish herself from Biden, Harris proffered only a continuation of Biden’s policies—policies on immigration, on economics, and on foreign issues. She was not particularly pro-Israel, and was insistent that the IDF not go into Rafah (“I’ve looked at the maps,” she said). He campaign focused more on serving up word salad and attacking Trump than on advancing her own policies.
Her past: she was not a particularly good Vice-President, though I realize that the Veep has to make their own jobs. Nevertheless, she was assigned to deal with immigration issues and didn’t do squat. She took the “right” positions on issues like women’s and LGBTQ rights as California’s attorney general as Senator, so I can’t say she was “Trumpish” in any way. My worries are that she went along to get along, wasn’t particularly smart or reflective, was too progressive, and, since she couldn’t put two words together, could not lead in the sense of persuading Americans to go along with her.
Given all this, I was baffled at the outpouring of Demorcratic enthusiasm for her. They not only urged others to vote for her (which was fine), but also extolled her as some kind of iconic Democratic figure (which was not fine). We can’t afford, as liberals, to distort someone’s views and image to win elections. Rather, we have to find good, solid candidates. Harris was not one. The American public was not fooled by her promises to bring change, nor were they heartened by her incoherence in the few public speeches and interviews she gave. People weren’t fooled, and she lost.
Our job as liberals (and for me as a left-centrist) is to find candidates who have the potential to be leaders, and can articulate a vision. I think Pete Buttigieg is one, but can’t think of others, though of course both Clinton and Obama emerged at the last minute to win the Presidency. Please put below the candidates you’re enthusiastic for now.
In his column in today’s NYT (archived here), Thomas Edsall mentions three issues that the Democrats must be “normies” about if they’re to win (“normies” means adhering to the majority Democratic view, not the “progressive” view. A quote:
Even now, according to a new survey by the left-leaning group Data for Progress, the Democratic Party has a net negative rating of minus 29 percentage points among swing voters, worse than the minus 25 for the Republican Party. Democrats seeking to restore their party’s credibility with the electorate as a whole, but especially among those crucial swing voters, might consider adding three planks — on immigration, urban disorder and transgender issues — to the 2028 Democratic platform.
Why? Because it is these three issues that serve to reinforce the perception that Democrats are willing to sacrifice the interests of the working and middle classes in favor of special interest constituencies.
I am more than a little queasy making these suggestions, but I think the Democratic Party needs to perform a kind of brutal surgery on itself.
And here are the three issues and what Democrat has to believe about them if they’re to win (bolding is mine):
On immigration, I would suggest — with plenty of room for amendment — the following:
Democrats will firmly enforce laws on illegal immigration, including tough border enforcement and deportation of unauthorized immigrants who commit crimes.
Unauthorized immigrants with no criminal record who have been in this country for at least five years, along with Dreamers, should be offered green cards with a path toward citizenship. More recent arrivals should be deported.
On crime:
The Democratic Party supports aggressive prosecution of those accused of violent crime, those who engage in crowdsourced “teen takeovers” of stores, as well as all forms of child abuse.
The party backs restoration of bail requirements in the case of felonies, lifetime sentences for offenders convicted of multiple violent crimes, tough enforcement of child support laws and the death penalty if supported by the voters in a state and endorsed by a jury.
Transgender and gender dysphoria:
There are two sexes: men and women.
A man can claim an identify as a woman, and the same in reverse for a woman. They have every right to do so. Their claim should be respected and they should be protected from any form of discrimination for their choice.
Their claim does not, however, alter their biological sex.
Consequently, it is legitimate in areas such as sports where a transgender person would have a competitive advantage over non-trans people to bar such participation. Similarly, a claim to a sexual identity does not give a trans woman the right to incarceration in a woman’s prison.
Finally, the debate over gender affirming surgery and hormone treatments is fraught with contradictory assertions. For now, because there are credible scientific claims of irreversible harms, such treatments for those under 18 should be barred pending further study.
This is the best of the many pieces I’ve read about what Democrats need to do to start winning.
I agree with all these positions, save that I don’t think the death penalty is justifiable, nor do I think it will turn voters off so long as you advocate for the possibility of life sentences without parole.
The problem with Democrats is that they’ve been gaslighting us: pretending that crime is down, that something close to open borders is okay, and that trans rights always trump women’s rights—that biological men are identical to women in all respects. Voters are not taken in by these positions, and all three of the critical issues Edsall mentions are ones that Democrats tell us are not problematic.
The next President does need to hew to something like Edsall’s program. Edsall doesn’t mention Israel, which is the thorn on the rose, and it’s possible that no Democrat can be elected who doesn’t criticize Israel for overreacting in Lebanon and Gaza. Could I vote for someone like that? I suppose I could—if they have the other virtues.
Quite well said, and you covered most of the bases. But I would not be able to vote for any ticket that attempted to incorporate DSA influence in some misguided search for inclusivity.
Ditto
I would also add support of free speech, someone on our side has to disavow the speech suppression that occurred in the teens and twenties (of the current century).
I am not a one issue voter, but free speech comes extremely close.
I think it’s important to remember that the enthusiam for Harris could have easily been curated, by the media, the party, and her campaign. It’s clear that the enthusiasm at the poll was lacking. Like Biden, she was easily an “anyone but Trump” candidate.
It’s also fair to say that the distaste for Harris was strongly pushed by right leaning media.
In fact extreme partisanship has become a serious problem.
Part of the problem is the primary system, where there is a tendency for only the more extreme voters to participate. We had something like this in the UK, when both major parties went populist and gave us the disasters of Corbyn and Truss as their respective leaders.
Re: Harris. I was not enthusiastic for Jimmy Carter, but I voted for him. Same with Bill Clinton, Al Gore & John Kerry. Heck, I thought Obama was too wishy-washy, but I voted for him. Hilary? I wasn’t sure but still voted yes. Biden? Too old, but . . . in our system, elections are binary. It really is enough to vote AGAINST the other guy.
So yeah, I voted for Harris. I’m not sorry.
That’s the thing. It’s going to be one or the other, and I’m sure there’s plenty I won’t like about each of them, but one is going to be clearly worse than the other, and <that’s the choice I’m offered. It’s obvious to me that Harris would be a less-bad candidate than any Republican that could be nominated.
That’s the thing. It’s going to be one or the other, and I’m sure there’s plenty I won’t like about each of them. But one is going to be clearly worse than the other, and that’s the choice I’m offered. It’s obvious to me that Harris would be a less-bad candidate than any Republican that could be nominated.
sorry about the duplication…
Marco Rubio v. VP Harris. Who gets your vote and why?
Harris would sign rather than veto new laws from the Democrat-controlled Congress. Harris would nominate Supreme Court justices to replace Alito and Thomas when they {retire}. Et cetera.
I agree boss, feel similarly though you’re still a bit behind me on your exit from Dems journey. Things change. Our party is now the party of BLM, maximum genderwang, open borders and (my personal fave) Palestine.
It can be hard to leave an abusive spouse.
Look, I volunteered for Hillary, shlepping over to Brooklyn Clinton High Command to man the phones (a first for me) but I’m less lit by TDS b/c he’s done some good, the bastard.
Buttigieg: Love the guy and even gave him (a bit of) Money but I’ll add that for many people who aren’t you and I voting for a black man is much less problematic than voting for a gay guy.
best,
D.A.
NYC
D.A. writes:
Ditto. Maybe even, tritto.
Jerry, Edsall’s list of positions that the Democratic Party must take could practically have been copied and pasted from the Republican Party platform.
Things change.
Half of being a good president is your character and surrounding yourself with good, qualified people. Biden did that. Harris would have done that. Look at what Trump has done.
Per google : “Kamala Harris launched her 2020 presidential campaign on January 21, 2019. Despite a massive launch and a standout debate performance against Joe Biden in June 2019, she struggled to differentiate her policies and suffered from internal staff turmoil. Facing depleted funds and low polling, she officially withdrew on December 3, 2019”
I’m not sure how much that looks like enthusiasm to you – it doesn’t look much like it to me. In the last election she was forced on us as the only alternative to Trump (I seriously doubt she would have won a primary) so she got some enthusiasm based on that (per DrB, possibly massaged by the media), which didn’t translate to votes – in fact people didn’t vote for her in droves.
My presidential vote was also a write-in in 2024. I couldn’t vote for someone as inarticulate as Harris, who came across as just silly, at times. But when you look at the current leading candidates (on Polymarket) for the Democratic nomination in 2028, Kamala and AOC are two of the top four — AOC is not as inarticulate as Kamala but she is certainly misguided, so maybe that’s even worse. Number one in the prediction markets is Newsom, who seems to be wholly incompetent insofar as he’s administrated CA budgets and projects. I don’t understand why the Democrats can’t provide us with better options.
To most directly answer your question: Why were Democrats so enthusiastic about Harris running for President? I don’t think that they were. I think that SOME were, and the rest was a show of solidarity. But these some were not enthusiastic because of her rousing speeches or history in public service. The genuine enthusiasm was based on glass-ceiling-breaking superficialities, and the compelled enthusiasm was based on wanting to win. Personally, speaking as a NY Democrat, I know of one person genuinely enthusiastic about Harris and the rest of us were merely accepting. I don’t believe that, if Biden decided not to run, Harris would have won a primary.
Well said and I’m of the same mind here.
No way will Harris be the candidate again in 2028. I think Buttigieg is doing a slow walk to being the Democratic candidate.
I don’t agree that a gay man couldn’t be elected. There are definitely people who wouldn’t vote for a gay man but I’m guessing they’re almost all religious Republicans.
Or Black men. (AIUI. I don’t have the polling numbers handy.)
Or Muslim Democrats.
In 2019, there actually were primaries on the Democratic side. Harris got zero delegates Would 2024, have been any different? Yes, in my opinion. She would have gotten a non-zero number of delegates. Would she have won? I would say no. A long list of Democrats would have easily trounced her.
I absolutely don’t understand the attraction. You covered it. She’s inarticulate; she executed poorly as Vice President; and she was captured by wokeness (to the extent that she could be understood).
I neither voted for Harris nor Trump, but wrote in a candidate. I simply cannot vote for a candidate who doesn’t meet my bar. The party doesn’t matter. It’s quite possible that people voted for Harris simply because of her party affiliation, thinking that her presidency would bring about a national swing toward the Democrats. But there were surely other Democratic candidates who could have done better. One of the others might actually have won.
A late colleague of mine, when I was a college professor, thought that voting ballots should include “None of the above” as an option. At the time, I didn’t understand why he thought that such an option would be useful. Now I think that “None of the above” would be an interesting measure of voter disaffection. Many voters choose one candidate or the other simply because they calculate that they have no other choice. But what if “None of the above” got, say 25% of the vote? That would say something.
🎯
We keep being told to that people are too apathetic to vote, and they don’t really care about politics if they don’t vote. That is not true. A lot of people are just disenchanted by politicians and parties.
I believe that it is important that everyone votes, but for me, that became impossible in our most recent election. Last time I voted for an independent, who I knew wouldn’t get in anyway, but this time there were zero candidates I could vote for.
I have also argued for a “none of the above” option as it would allow me to show that I care about politics, but that no party meets my needs. With a 25% “none of the above” option, the parties would see that there are votes to be gained by actually listening to people and they might make an effort to appeal to those voters.
🎯🎯
In Students’ Union elections in the UK, there is usually (perhaps always) the option of voting Reopen Nominations – in some elections, there are active “Vote for Ron” campaigns.
Harris is far down my list of preferred candidates, but I really take issue with the “unqualified” label. As a fellow Californian I watched her rise through Attorney General, then Senator, then VP. You don’t do this by falling out of a coconut tree! How on earth is ‘Mayor’ Pete considered more qualified? (And, I like him.) And, then Harris had to survive Biden. First, as being damned as VP because it had to a ‘black woman’. Then charged with impossible tasks and given no power to accomplish them. And, finally having to choose between either being called a ‘backstabber’ if she broke with Biden on issues, or ‘sycophant’ if she remained loyal. Funny, I don’t remember any of the ‘more qualified’ democrats speaking up about Biden being clearly not up to the job. Where was Pete??? Crickets. And, all of them them ducked the tough job of actually challenging her for the nomination when Biden finally gave in. Yes, she’s lousy at interviews and speeches. And, she prefers to dodge tough questions rather than answer them. Which is why she’s down on my list, and has a way to go to get my vote. But honestly, she was given a horrible hand to play in 2024 and I don’t think any of the ‘more qualified’ would have done any better.
Umm. . . your opinion is registered but no Democrat was going to criticize the President in public for being not up to the job. You know that, right?
I maintain that Buttigieg is wicked smart and could rise to any job; he sure did as Secretary of Transportation. And I still maintain that Harris is unqualified to be President. As someone mentioned, she couldn’t keep staff, and someone else tried to save her by saying, “Well, she’d appoint good staff”!!
Gretchen Whitmer and Josh Shapiro would be the best presidential candidates for the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, that does not mean that any of them could win the Democratic primaries.
Sadly, Shapiro won’t win because he’s a Jew. Maybe for VP. . .
In the realm of coulda, woulda, shoulda had Shapiro, Whitmer, or Buttigieg said at one point in 2023, “Thank you Joe, but it’s time to pass the torch”, and actually run for the nomination, they would be the President now. But they did not, and that lack of courage/guts is not a point in their favor. I’m also old enough to remember when Presidents actually had to deal with challenges and criticism from within their own party (Johnson, Ford, Carter, and Bush I). Ah, the good old days!
Harris got a great hand in 2024. She had plenty of money and her opponent was Trump. In addition, the media massively favored her. It should have been an easy win (for her), but wasn’t.
I was never a Harris fan, but I think the trope about her being inarticulate was rather overblown. Of course she flubbed things up once in a while, it’s a rare politician who does not. She was/is more articulate than Biden, even before his decline, and was/is certainly more articulate than Trump, by leaps and bounds.
I voted for her because she was not trump. I thought she would be an adequate president. I was furious that Biden decided to run again, followed by anointing Harris. I saw videos of her as senator grilling Republicans during investigative hearings and she was terrific, powerful. I too am a liberal not happy with Democratic candidates. Agree 100% that the suggestions made by Edsall sound sensible to me, except for capital punishment. I can’t get behind that at all.
Like you, I filled in my ballot but just couldn’t bring myself to vote for either Harris or Trump. (The fact that my vote as a DC resident renders it pointless made that an easier choice.) I thought Harris was the ultimate DEI candidate. Also, her reputation in DC is as someone who can’t keep good staff; she apparently is somewhat lazy about reading briefing materials and when an event goes bad, as they often did, she loudly blames her staff. Think about that – young political staffer types work their way up to the VP’s office and even then they’d rather quit than keep working for Harris. My California friends, some of whom are involved in politics, say it was the same story there. As for Buttigieg, I like him and wish he’d put himself out there more. I was a bit surprised, at a big family event here in DC, when a distant cousin who’s a long time political staffer for Republicans talked about what an impressive boss Buttigieg was at Transport, that he was always fully prepared, respectful of staffers, etc. It’s a shame if his gayness is what prevents him from higher office. I also really like Shapiro, but the far left/DSA crowd renders that option almost moot. Right now I’m hoping that we’ll at least get a sane Republican candidate (Rubio?), because that might be our only chance.
Seems that there a a lot of participants here, as well as our host, who chose to write in votes for POTUS, all presumably because of unhappiness with the 2 candidates. And I confess to having doing the same, though I wrote in Jerry Garcia. When friends pointed out that he was dead, I replied “so? He would still make a better president than those 2 yahoos.”
Deeply true.
indeed
Democrats clung to Biden too long. Buttigieg was too new in 2020 and America was not going to elect a gay president. Obama and Biden were not perfect presidents but they did surround themselves with qualified, competent people who could give sound advice, instead of the unqualified former FOX News talking heads and podcasters we have now. Harris also would have selected qualified people during her presidency and we would have had a routine, mundane, and stable administration. Compare that to today’s lurching from crisis to crisis, either manufactured or resulting from incompetence.
I find the Democrats have lost the plot. The POTUS needs to be a leader, someone capable of acting independently of outside influences. Barring that they don’t fulfill their function as a counter to the power of the other branches of government. When it became obvious that the DNC was trying to push Biden through despite being completely incompetent at the time and only switching to Harris when they absolutely could no longer convince even the most loyal Dem. voters that he was still all there. It became clear to me, the Democratic party does not want a leader, they want a puppet. Biden was perfect in that role. When he didn’t work out, they went for the next best marionette, Harris, a careerist politician who would be willing to take direction from the party. She was obviously and admittedly a DEI hire. But she was more than willing to run with whatever script she was given.
As much as Trump’s personality irritates me at a very instinctual level, he was the obvious choice. I still think so. Despite his many flaws, he was and is still miles better than Harris would have been in my opinion. With Harris we could only guess who is actually wielding power through her.
All the left-leaning democrats who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Harris gave us Trump 2. How has that worked out? Same thing happened to Hillary in 2016. How many dems just couldn’t vote for her? Same thing happened. Trump 1, how did that work out? Sometimes you have to vote for party and not the person. Voting for a party rather than just an individual candidate can have significant implications for governance, policy-making, and the overall political landscape. Here are five compelling reasons to consider party affiliation when casting your vote: https://medium.com/political-representation/5-reasons-why-we-must-vote-for-party-and-not-just-for-the-candidate-e88d7bdcb21c
I knew some miscreant would come over here and blame me for helping Trump get elected, and I vowed when I put up myt post that I would deep-six any chucklehead who accused me of that. You happen to be the first. First of all, I am not a left-leaning Democrat but a left-centrist Democrat. Second, I said that I could vote the way I wanted because I was dead certain that Harris would get elected in Illinois, a solidly Democratic state. And I said that if the state were marginal, I’d have voted for Harris. I guess you want to tut-tut me without having read what I wrote.
Nice seeing you!
Voting for the party is one of the big features (or bugs, depending on PoV) of proportional representation voting systems.
My opinion (n=1) is that America would elect a gay president if he/she represented mainstream views and values, so I could see Buttigieg (or equivalent) elected but not a Scott Weiner.
I find party politics very similar to sports. We love our hometown teams and excuse their faults and amplify the negative aspects of the others. If a Red Sox player calls the Yankees a bunch of bums, Boston fans will tell you that that’s showing fire and competitiveness, but if the situation is reversed, then it’s blatant disrespect and beyond the pale. Watching my blue buddies (I mean that sincerely – they are friends) bending and twisting to justify why Platner was still a great candidate to vote for right up until the end of his candidacy only reinforced my opinion. Musk touches his chest and extends his hand to a crowd – obviously a nazi. A guy with an actual nazi tatoo on his chest – he didn’t know what he was doing, or thought it meant something else. And the r*** stuff was just misunderstandings and politically driven attacks.
I’ve seen the same with my friends on both sides – my blue friends excusing away of Harris’s word salad inarticulateness and my red friends excusing Trump’s wild social media rants. I couldn’t vote for either of them either, and my state was in play.
I also judged Harris by her handling of the border, which judging by the actions taken quickly and effectively by the current administration, looks more and more like a lot of inaction and ineffectiveness on her part.
Our leaders should be able to articulate their positions clearly and succinctly, and field as many questions as they can. I love watching the UK Prime Minister’s Questions for this reason, and can’t imagine Harris being even the least bit effective in this type of forum.
The None of the Above would be an interesting alternative. I suspect if “None” prevented the other two candidates from winning 270 electoral votes, the determination of the next president would shift to Congress. Given the significant unpopularity of both parties, it could happen.
I really appreciate this post, as it summarizes all of the reasons why Harris was not, and would not be a good candidate. I will forward to many friends that still think she would be the best candidate 2028. (Full disclosure – I live in Oregon, so this is to be expected). The only disagreement I have is the death penalty.
If the Dems nominate her, or AOC, or some other “progressive candidate”, they will lose and likely lose big. I recommend the attached article on the prospect of having a one party system. If that happens, I suspect our democracy is over.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/25/opinion/one-party-rule-two-party-system.html
An impressive article, IMO. Also archived at https://archive.ph/qw3hZ .
[Why is this one awaiting moderation?]
As atheists, we have frequently been puzzled over the way liberal theists enthusiastically embrace a “God” which is essentially a content-free word salad of inexpressible specialness. God can only be defined by what He/She/It isn’t (hint: it isn’t whatever YOU think it is) accompanied by the flabby conviction that It is ground zero for love, empathy, and progressive values. The more intelligent and sophisticated the believer, the more appealing and joy-inducing they find a God which can no more be defined than they can define “woman.”
Politics shouldn’t seem exempt from this tendency. It’s just what some people do.
Unlike you, i wasn’t baffled by Democrats’ fervent embrace of Harris. I think their enthusiasm was rooted in blind and unthinking partisanship, and that’s it. The most upsetting thing is that so many seem to be true believers, rather that mere pragmatists. Me? Like you, from the limbo of my non-swing state, I did a write-in (Richie Torres). I’ll probably do the same next time. In addition to the three issues you highlight, the Dems must completely reject the DSA and Jew-hatred if they ever want my vote again.
I was going to write a long explanation about why I didn’t think Buttigieg could get votes in red rural America and then I went to the Post Office to get my mail (pop. 900, no home delivery) and the nice man in the MAGA hat and the “Let’s Go Brandon” t-shirt held the door for me, yes, in 2026. And that pretty much says it all.
My married lesbian neighbors in my smallish (pop. 10,000, semi-rural) town also wear MAGA hats and have an LGBT flag in their yard that shows the statue of Liberty above the L, a Gun above the G, a mug of Beer above the B, and a silhouette of Trump above the T. They too are very nice people and very polite.
Trump was the luckiest man on Earth to run against Biden and then Harris. Does he know that? Probably, not.
I presume he considers it his due and his destiny. Certainly many of his acolytes do.
The Edsall comments, which are absolutely sensible, will probably have no effect on the Democratic Party. What are the underlying reasons for the Dems’ difference from the Danish Social Democrats? Is it just the parliamentary system in which the latter functions? Or the SocDems’ close connection to organized labor (as opposed, in the US case, to connections only with unions of government employees)? Is it something in the Party’s general culture? One
reason for the Democratic Party’s disrepute was its long, finally futile attempt to cover up Biden’s increasing disability. This, unfortunately, reveals something about the attention to honesty amongst Democratic Party operatives. The same feature is revealed by slippery evasions in regard to woke clichés.
“Why were Democrats so enthusiastic about Kamala Harris’s candidacy for President?”
We should have a conversation about that.
No matter what explanation anyone gives, I will NEVER be able to understand why someone would vote for a politician who either isn’t on the ballot or can’t win in America’s two-party system. Trump’s and the GOP’s actions/crimes in the past two Trump terms make it impossible for me to ever consider voting for a Republican but I’d vote for a Democrat in a heartbeat whether she laughs too much, is a gay, is a Jew, is a person of color, or anyone who is unlikely to surround themselves with incompetent criminals. I am so tired of the lies and the chaos.
I was not trying to persuade you too vote for any Democrat no matter how bad they are. You are a truly virtuous voter, I see But I was trying to do what I said at the beginning: blow off steam and explain my perplexity at the enthusiasm fr Harris, which many Dems seem to have forgotten (you can hold your nose and vote, you know). I was safe voting for someone I actually liked because I live in Illinois.
I applaud your virtue again. .
Why would someone waste their vote on a guaranteed loser, or dead person, or fictional character? Easy: their other acceptable alternative would be to not vote. As discussed above, a big advantage of having “None of the above” on the ballot is to encourage voter participation. Those of us who already value the opportunity to vote sometimes face a situation where the lesser of the two evils is just too evil.
To those who suggest Harris could have simply surrounded herself with good people, I ask you to consider the nature of cabinet and presidential-level politics. A president isn’t surrounded by “the” staff; he encounters multiple competing power centers: institutionalists, ideologues, party loyalists, donor advocates, self-interested acolytes, and on and on. Even the well-meaning, level-headed staff will often disagree vehemently on a course of action and jockey for influence behind the scenes: sidelining competing views, freelancing discussion with the Hill, leaking to the press.
An executive who does not have a firm sense of direction, the ability to ask the right questions, and an eye for pertinent details either gets rolled or produces incoherent policy. The strongest executives will impose discipline and kneecap those who are pursuing agendas other than his own.
I think one commenter above honestly assessed the motivation of many, many voters. I paraphrase: an unqualified person from our tribe is better than anyone the other tribe could ever offer.
The last high-quality Democratic presidential candidates who could compete with Marco Rubio were Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The current Democratic candidates are not in the same league.
Fortunately for the Democratic Party’s prospects, it’s not unlikely that the Republican Party will nominate an extreme MAGA-ist rather than Rubio.
I confess that I have no idea why Rubio is better than any current potential Democratic candidate. Please explain–several inquiring minds (besides mine) want to know.
It is somewhat puzzling that, despite Jerry’s arguments, you still seem to think that Kamala Harris is on the same level as Marco Rubio. I’m afraid I cannot make the case any better than Jerry did to persuade you otherwise.
Funny, but after re-reading the above piece by PCC(E), I can find no mention of Marco Rubio. How, exactly, do you compare him to Harris, and why do you claim that PCC(E) does?
To what extent will the Democratic platform in 2028 highlight the bashing of Israel? How much of it will be covert — or overt — antisemitism? Looking at the momentum right now, i have my worries.
Don’t know whether Buttigieg is electable. But I don’t want to think America is generally anti-gay. Nor anti-Black. Nor anti-woman.
Nor antisemitic!
I work in Florence, South Carolina, so pretty much the heart of MAGA country and in the last two elections, everyone I spoke to would have supported a Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell ticket (in whatever order you prefer) over every other Republican candidate.
So I am not seeing racism or sexism. Call it anecdotal or selection bias, but I do think any portrayals that support a sexist/racist determinant of motivations in elections is dogma in want of evidence. Makes us feel good and morally superior but I do not think it is accurate.
Agreed. I have similar experiences in two MAGA-heavy states. I’ve known racist voters, mostly dead, and they now seem to be few. The overseas readers here might be surprised to know that, aside from the recently-departed Lindsey Graham, you also have a black senator from South Carolina. As Wiki notes, he is “the first African-American senator in the Southern United States to be directly elected, the longest-serving African-American senator in U.S. history, the first African-American to serve in both the House and Senate, and the first African-American senator to chair a full committee.” I’m not quite sure why he isn’t hailed by the identity voters; give me a minute to figure it out.
Condi Rice is also an interesting case. She was the first woman to serve as national security advisor. She was the first black woman to serve as Secretary of State. Yet she wasn’t endlessly and breathlessly hailed as the “first” of anything—nor would she have wanted to be. On another identity front, Scott Bessent, who hails from your fine state, is the highest-ranking gay to have ever served in the cabinet. He waves off the nod and focuses on merit. As he should.
Interestingly enough, the only blatant racists that I’ve encountered in the past 20 years or so have been Democratic voters – an older uncle, my father in law (who we’re estranged from), and an ex-coworker who’s a manufacturing union member. All three were not afraid to use the n-word, and all three voted for Obama.
OTOH, none of the people I know who are blatant MAGA-ites denigrate blacks, women, gays, or others. They tend to see sexual preference as something to stay in the bedroom and not talked about, and don’t care about color or sex as long as someone can do the job. They do tend to be anti-abortion, and also pro-Israel and pro-law & order (I know, they’re hypocrites because the voted for a felon, etc. – trust me, they’ve heard that).
While I’ve voted D for the majority of elections, I’m actually much closer to the current R platform than the recent and likely future DSA-influenced D platform. Not 100%, but on balance.
I am ashamed I did not know about Bessent, but that is why these things exist, for all of us to learn. Thank you.
Also,
My bother is big in the state legislature (we don’t discuss politics), and the massively republican congress gave redistricting up to the democratics.
Reason being, the state is so integrated there is no way to gerrymander it.
Simply can not be done (with the exception of Clyburn’s district, geez).
Kinda feels like what we claim to want? Maybe?
For an overall view with some poll numbers on “In 2024, why were Democrats SO enthusiastic about Kamala Harris’s candidacy for President?”, here’s what GPT-5.4-mini says:
Democrats were enthusiastic about Kamala Harris in 2024 mainly because she became the party’s fastest route to regaining momentum after Joe Biden withdrew, and she immediately improved the party’s mood, turnout energy, and electoral confidence. Polling found a sharp jump in Democratic enthusiasm after Biden stepped aside and party leaders quickly rallied around Harris; one survey showed Democratic enthusiasm rising from 55% in March to 78% by late August, with the surge attributed to the switch in nominee. Another found enthusiasm among Democrats jumping from 46% in June to 85% in August once the race became Harris vs Trump.
The enthusiasm was also about contrast and relief: Harris polled better than Biden on favourability, helped reduce the number of voters who disliked both candidates, and looked like a fresher, more energising option than an ageing Biden rematch. In one poll, 88% of Democrats said they were enthusiastic about Harris as nominee, while 86% said she should be the nominee at all.
A few practical reasons drove the mood:
Search queries used:
The supposed enthusiasm for Harris was short-lived and then mostly manufactured and fake, as was the “joy” and “brat summer” stuff. Whether accurate or not, she often came across as an airhead, a “wine mom” without the mom part. Meanwhile Trump ran a brilliant campaign, from serving fries at McDonalds to spending 3 hours on Joe Rogan (which Harris was too afraid to do). Plus Trump for all his faults had been POTUS before, and people remembered that prior to COVID the country was doing very well economically. But the final blow against Harris may have been that iconic image of a wounded Trump defiantly raising his fist to the sky with a US flag waving behind him.
Then there were the so-called 80/20 issues of illegal immigration, trans women are women, DEI, etc. that the Dems were on the wrong side of.
My take was that Trump worked so much harder than Harris to win in 2024 that perhaps he deserved it. Nevertheless I could not bring myself to vote for either candidate, so I wrote in Bill Maher!
I have voted straight Democratic since 1984, the first election in which I was old enough to vote.
Now, however, I am politically homeless.
I held my nose and voted for Harris in 2024 as did all my friends. I was voting against Trump, not for Harris. Recently USA elections have been between the better of two evils — which is still evil, as a previous commenter noted.
I do not think Harris was and is a viable candidate, and like PCCE the enthusiasm for her baffles me. I honestly think she was a woke DIE candidate. While I do think she is very qualified to be president, I find her too woke and incoherent to be a good leader.
Shapiro will not be the Dem candidate because he’s an observant Jew. This is why he was not Harris’s VP. The Dems didn’t want to offend its loony left-wing by nominating him. Shapiro is also firmly riding the Dems’ trans train.
Both Dems and GOP have completely abandoned women. The GOP with their anti-abortion and now anti-contraception nonsense, and the Dems with their TWAW and complete rejection of biology nonsense. I refuse to vote for any political party that does not respect me as a woman, with independent moral agency and common sense.
So I don’t know who will get my vote in 2028. I might write in myself. Why not?
If Democrats believe that Kamala only lost last time because she is a woman, then why run her again? Do they think that the country has become less sexist?
Also…she didn’t lose because she was a woman.
Late to this discussion — and yes, I agree. I recall I disagreed with you early on in K’s candidacy, but that was hopium and on the basis of one pretty good speech. As time passed, the cringe-worthy aspects brought themselves forward and I came to see your view But I voted for her. Trump loomed too large. Gretchen W would have been good. Pete B? Maybe.What are there positions on trans? Crime? Meth, heroin, and ultra strong opioids (fentanyl, etc.) are a scourge. These must be extirpated, no mealy mouth: “prohibition doesn’t work”.
Like our host, I lived in a state that was and is certain to go Democratic, so my vote does not matter.
I think that part of the problem is that the Democrats (or at least the folks making the decisions) cannot believe, or refuse to believe, that there are people who vote for individuals. Not classes of people: race, sex, gender, religion, whatever. I am a Jew, but I would not automatically vote for a Jewish candidate. I am white, but I would not automatically vote for a white candidate. And I am a heterosexual male, but those characteristics do not determine my vote. My vote is determined by the political opinions and the personal qualities of the candidates. And I would bet that that is true for many of the participants on this site.
The question is what percentage of the population share these views: Individual qualifications versus group affiliations. (This also includes political parties, by the way.) The Dems and also, to some extent the Republicans seem to think that people like me are a negligible percentage of the population: that all minorities obviously vote the minority candidate, all women need to vote for the female candidate, etc. They may well be correct in most cases. I would like to see a party try to bet on individual qualities.
I can’t quite get over the idea that someone honestly believes Harris lost ‘because she was a woman’! You have to be living deep inside an alternate reality to believe that.
Reminds me of Sasha Baron Cohen playing his character Ali G in an appearance before Parliament. When ridiculed by Parliamentarians for saying stupid things, Ali G responded “Is it coz I iz black?”
Keep in mind that, aside from Harris’ inability and/or lack of desire to articulate specific opinions, she also has a track record. Supposedly, as VP, she was responsible for border policy in the Biden administration. In my opinion, that policy, or lack of policy, was a disaster. Therefore, she is not someone for whom I would vote.
A word about that border policy. The progressive wing wants open borders (not necessarily by that name). But they also want to see immigrants entering the Obamacare (by whichever name) healthcare system. Those 2 policies, if combined, would lead to financial collapse.
And who could blame the immigrants? If there are open borders, who would not want to enter the US and receive better healthcare than in their home counties? Especially if a family member was ill? Which of us would not do the same?
“Why Democrats need to stop gaslighting other Democrats if we want to start winning.” Maybe stop treating politics as a team sport. I voted Dem most of my life. Gay, Gay Married atheist who’s first real political donations were to Obama’s campaigns. The Democratic Party no longer exists to me. Rhetoric, actions, policies across a wide spectrum issues. I voted Trump without hesitation but really Trump didn’t matter – whomever opposed the “Progressive” Democrats got my vote and that could have Ted Cruz. I started following this blog during the period of the “New Atheists” and it’s hard to fathom how ridiculous the skeptical has fallen. Sure they’ll argue with a Young Earth Creationist all day, but ask them about the supremacy of biological sex and they become the YEC or geo-centrist but with enough power to cancel and willingness to use violence. The modern Left, which includes American Dems but extends across Western Culture has become impossible to support.
Her speeches are full of transparent level high school bullshitting (that’s when you need 250 words, and you have to repeat yourself in a way that aims to be engaging). Even weeks before the election, she had no clear policy, and refused to take a stance on important issues. The American people were smart enough to see past the smokescreen. They want someone decisive and competent, and sometimes that means voting for someone who they disagree with on various policies. As far as the comment about American’s electing a homosexual, I believe that this is a long ways off (opinion of an openly queer person). Look at the color coded electoral map, and you will see that many states are largely red, punctuated with little dots of dark blue surrounded by some light blue areas. That’s MOST OF THE USA. And as a person who has lived in some dark red states including Texas and Oklahoma, you will find that even the Democrats there are often church goers who hold fairly conservative beliefs. At this point I think a centrist/free-market woman has a much better chance than a gay to be elected for president.
Democratic Party rules should state that no candidate for President can be from California, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut or New Jersey. Can’t that be a bye-law or something?
The short window of the campaign has been cited as contributing to her failure – it takes time to build engagement with voters (see the election “autopsy” report). This is fair, but it doesn’t explain her utter lack of substantive policy platform. She was the vice president under an octogenarian president who, while technically living, was often difficult to classify as “alive”. She could have become president at literally any moment yet she behaved as if she had never given the job of being president any serious thought during 3+ years as VP. This is inexcusable and on its own is sufficient to disqualify her from the office.