Kamala Harris’ run for the presidency ended in a decisive defeat, revealing several fundamental flaws in her campaign strategy and approach. Despite being a sitting vice president with considerable name recognition, Harris struggled to carve out a distinct political identity, alienated key voter groups, and failed to offer a compelling vision for the future. These missteps, combined with a national climate that was increasingly favorable to Donald Trump, ultimately doomed her chances.
Struggling to Define Herself
From the beginning, Harris struggled to define herself as a candidate with a unique agenda. Her attempt to differentiate her campaign from President Joe Biden’s administration was often unconvincing. A particularly damaging moment occurred during a September appearance on The View when Harris was asked what she would do differently than Biden. “Not a thing that comes to mind,” she replied. The awkward response quickly became fodder for Republican attack ads, highlighting her inability to distance herself from a president whose approval ratings had been in the doldrums for much of his tenure.
While Harris tried to position herself as a “new generation of leadership,” her role as vice president tethered her too closely to Biden, whose handling of key issues like inflation and border control had turned off large swaths of the electorate. Despite her attempts to distance herself, Harris couldn’t escape the fact that she was viewed by many as an extension of a presidency that was increasingly unpopular.
Failing to Connect with Key Voter Groups
Harris entered the race with the expectation that she would be able to rally key voting blocs—especially Black, Latino, and young voters. However, she underperformed in crucial demographics, particularly among Black and Latino voters, two groups that are essential to the Democratic coalition.
According to exit polls, Harris carried Black voters by an 86%-12% margin, a sharp drop from Biden’s 92%-8% advantage over Trump in 2020. Her support among Latino voters was similarly weaker, winning just 53%-45%, compared to Biden’s 65%-32% performance in the previous election. This erosion of support in urban centers like Philadelphia, Detroit, and Milwaukee, where she struggled to match Biden’s 2020 numbers, was particularly concerning.
Moreover, Harris’ efforts to woo moderate Republicans and independents—a group that had been growing disillusioned with Trump—largely fell flat. Although she invested heavily in battleground states like Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia, she was unable to flip enough moderate voters to change the outcome of the election. Similarly, states that had been central to the Democrats’ “blue wall,” such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, turned against her as Trump expanded his base.
An Overreliance on Attacking Trump
One of the major tactical mistakes Harris made was her decision to focus much of her campaign on Donald Trump. While Trump was, undoubtedly, a polarizing figure who drew significant Democratic opposition, voters were already well acquainted with his controversial track record. Yet, rather than putting forth a detailed policy agenda, Harris increasingly turned the campaign into a referendum on Trump.
In the final weeks of the campaign, she ramped up her rhetoric, calling Trump a “fascist” and warning that he was “unhinged and unstable.” While these statements resonated with some of the Democratic base, they failed to draw in independents or moderate Republicans, who were looking for more than just anti-Trump rhetoric. “Voters already know everything there is about Trump,” said veteran pollster Frank Luntz. “What they wanted to hear was Harris’ own vision for the future.”
This focus on Trump also overshadowed the important issues that could have been central to her platform, such as healthcare, economic reform, and climate change. In the end, her campaign seemed less about Harris and more about opposition to the former president—an approach that ultimately proved insufficient to inspire voters.
The Abortion Issue: Not a Game-Changer
As in 2022, abortion rights were a central theme in Harris’ campaign. She hoped to build on the momentum Democrats had gained in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which had motivated many voters to show up in support of reproductive rights. However, the issue did not have the same galvanizing effect in 2024.
Although Harris did win female voters by a margin of 54%-44%, it was a smaller margin than Biden’s 57%-42% performance with women in 2020. Trump, in turn, carried male voters by the same 54%-44% margin, meaning Harris’ advantage with women was effectively offset by Trump’s strong performance among men. The abortion issue, which had been a major motivator for many Democrats in 2022, failed to be as decisive a factor in the presidential race as hoped.
Harris’ Leadership and Experience Under Scrutiny
Harris also faced challenges stemming from her own political history. Though she had made history as the first female vice president and the highest-ranking woman of color in U.S. history, she was still seen by many as an untested and unproven political figure at the top of the ticket. Her 2020 primary bid ended prematurely before any votes were cast, and while she secured the Democratic nomination in 2024, it was more out of necessity than enthusiasm.
Harris attempted to moderate her positions from her 2020 primary run, hoping to appeal to Republicans and moderates. But this pivot, which some saw as a flip-flop, alienated portions of the Democratic base who were looking for bold, progressive leadership. Meanwhile, polling consistently showed that Americans were increasingly nostalgic for Trump’s leadership, particularly on economic issues, despite his controversies and legal issues.
In contrast, Harris’ campaign offered few clear policy proposals that could distinguish her from the current administration or present a compelling reason to vote for her over Trump. This left many voters feeling uninspired, particularly in crucial battleground states.
The Democrats’ Reckoning: Was Harris the Right Choice?
The results of the 2024 election will lead to a period of intense reflection within the Democratic Party. Harris’ loss raises significant questions: Was she the best candidate to take on Trump? Should the Democrats have chosen someone else, or stuck with Biden for another term?
While it’s difficult to pinpoint one specific failure, the campaign’s inability to effectively differentiate Harris from Biden, coupled with her failure to connect with key voter groups, was a recipe for disaster. The election was not just a rejection of Harris, but a broader repudiation of the Democratic establishment, which struggled to present a clear vision for the future.
Harris’ defeat signals that the Democratic Party must reassess its strategies going forward. The challenges she faced in connecting with voters of color, her overreliance on anti-Trump rhetoric, and her inability to offer a distinctive leadership vision all contributed to the loss. As the party looks ahead, it will need to decide whether it will continue with the status quo or embrace a new direction that better reflects the demands of an increasingly diverse electorate.
