r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/RedHeadedSicilian52 • 2d ago
US Elections What’s the case for making Kamala Harris the Democratic nominee again?
Seems like she’s been consistently leading whenever Democrats are polled on who they want to win their party’s 2028 presidential nomination. To an extent, you can say this is name recognition, but with the midterms only a few weeks away and the beginning of the 2028 election cycle only a few months away, I think we have to reckon with the fact that a significant chunk of Democrats really want to nominate her again.
But why?
Kamala Harris has been tested on the national level multiple times at this point, and each time she’s fallen flat. Her 2020 bid was heavily hyped at the outset, and yet so decisively did she fail to gain traction that she actually had to drop out before the end of 2019. Biden picked her as his running mate, sure, but he’d already boxed himself in by promising to choose a woman, and post-George Floyd, it was clear that he needed a black woman specifically, and Harris was already in everyone’s proverbial Rolodexes. She apparently didn’t have a great relationship with the Biden team once in office, FWIW.
Come 2024, you could say she only lost narrowly, which is true, but…
1) She was the first Democratic presidential candidate to lose the popular vote in twenty years, and
2) When Biden first dropped out, Harris was actually polling ahead of Trump. She lost support over the course of her short presidential campaign, suggesting that the more people saw her, the less they liked her.
Now, despite all this, you could still make the case that she could win in 2028 because the environment will be more favorable to Democrats. That’s a risky bet in the first place, but even if I were to stipulate your contention about the environment, you could still back someone with broader appeal to really turn a win into a landslide, or make the most of the opportunity by nominating a more consistent progressive.
But anyway, I’ve laid out the anti-Kamala case. Tell me why I’m wrong. And do note that I’m not asking you to tell me why you think she’d be a better president than Trump is/JD Vance would be. If you’re a Democrat who supports Harris (or at least are playing Devil’s advocate for such a person), explain why she’d be preferable to the rest of the primary field.
19
u/hoodoo-operator 1d ago
She polls well because of name ID.
The 2026 midterms haven't even happened yet, I wouldn't put too much stock in 2028 polls at this point.
-3
u/RedHeadedSicilian52 1d ago
Recent history suggests that it’s very unlikely that someone who isn’t polling among the top two by the time of the midterms will become the nominee:
https://www.reddit.com/r/fivethirtyeight/s/X9CZ38NXpn
So you’re left with Harris or Newsom, and the latter currently maintains he won’t run if the former does.
6
3
u/Bodoblock 1d ago edited 1d ago
As someone points out in the thread, the sample size is small. Since 1990 we've only had 5 competitive Democratic primaries: 2000, 2004, 2008, 2016, and 2020.
It's an interesting trend but not some ironclad law of history. If Harris runs she will likely be a frontrunner. She has the donor network, the name ID, and the staffing to get an operation up and running quickly.
But I am skeptical that she will be the nominee even with her frontrunner status. She's just not very compelling a candidate for this moment. She's lawyerly (unsurprising), calibrated, and cagey. I don't know what she has to offer outside of people "know" her. She's not someone that inspires an emotional connection.
Like you, I think history echos itself. But I'm more interested in 1976. One of the reasons Carter was elected was because of the American public's exhaustion with the corruption, deceit, and acrimony that Nixon embodied. They ran to what they perceived as a polar opposite: a Baptist Sunday school teacher outside of conventional DC.
I find it quite interesting that Democrats are leaning on religious leaders in this time and that they're making to be compelling candidates. Talarico and Hamilton are the most prominent, but there's a whole slew of Democratic religious leaders running very competitive House races.
I kinda think we'll see a mimic of that. My vibes-based hunch is that people want a palette cleanser of all this grime and filth that Trump represents. That they'll find moral clarity and honesty refreshing.
I wouldn't be surprised if Talarico or Hamilton take a stab at the presidential race if they win their 26 races. Warnock is someone who also fits this mold. I also think Beshear fits a very similar profile. Though he isn't an overt religious leader he is quite involved in the church.
0
u/RedHeadedSicilian52 1d ago
And in any case, I find it telling that the first few responses aren’t actually making the case for Harris, but rather attempting to assure me that her odds of winning the nomination aren’t actually great. She may very well end up being the nominee, but at least on paper, she does have a good chance of getting there, and I think people need to be prepared for such a possibility coming to pass.
3
u/Thinkosopher 1d ago
I think Bill Clinton was largely unknown at midterms before his election.
Dark horse candidates happen.
0
u/RedHeadedSicilian52 1d ago
Ever since 1992, though, all the eventual Democratic nominees were polling among the top two by the time of the midterms.
3
u/AsparagusTamer 1d ago
Lord in heaven the Dems do love nominating whoever "deserves" to be the candidate rather than who might win
3
u/The_B_Wolf 1d ago
with the midterms only a few weeks away and the beginning of the 2028 election cycle only a few months away, I think we have to reckon with
What we have to recon with is the fact that it's far too early to make any guesses, draw any conclusions, or handicap hypothetical races. Far too early. Look at history and you'll see. What people thought at this time in the cycle bears zero resemblance to what actually transpires later. Give it a rest and we'll see who announces what in a few months. Even then it's ridiculously too early to say much.
-2
u/RedHeadedSicilian52 1d ago
Recent history suggests that it’s very unlikely that someone who isn’t polling among the top two by the time of the midterms will become the nominee:
https://www.reddit.com/r/fivethirtyeight/s/X9CZ38NXpn
So you’re left with Harris or Newsom, and the latter currently maintains he won’t run if the former does.
0
u/The_B_Wolf 1d ago
It isn't after midterms.
0
u/RedHeadedSicilian52 1d ago
It’s very close!
0
u/The_B_Wolf 1d ago
That's like saying we can measure the hurricane destruction before it hits because it's just a few days away from landfall.
0
u/RedHeadedSicilian52 1d ago
Do you think Democrats would be inclined toward a different nominee in the scenario where they have a relatively good midterm than they would in the scenario where they have a relatively bad midterm?
1
u/The_B_Wolf 1d ago
Could be, sure. Then factor in what the Trump admin does/doesn't do to steal the election. Protests. Possible violence. Who knows. And even after all that, there's still a hell of a lot of ball game before state primaries. Literally anything could happen. Think international. Think impeachment. Think Trump health issues.
0
3
u/just_helping 1d ago
People are not giving you the strong case. I don't particularly want her to be the nominee, but they are underselling her. If you genuinely want the affirmative case:
She has national name recognition. That is an electoral strength, regardless of how stupid it is.
She was a prosecutor. There's not going to be less need for prosecuting come 2029.
She has federal executive branch experience. Given that Congress will inevitably be completely dysfunctional unless we abolish the filibuster, that matters.
She's of the same ideological cloth as Biden - her policy is pragmatic left but sells as centrist. The rightwing media will call any Democrat a communist and the social media communists will hate any pragmatist, but this policy space wins the center, insofar as anyone actually cares about policy at all.
make the most of the opportunity by nominating a more consistent progressive.
I think this whole way of thinking is pretty naive to be honest. In terms of what gets accomplished, what matters outside of Congress is the President's ability to quickly appoint the right people to the right positions and coordinate them, people who want change but also have the experience at bureaucratic knife-fights. People who appear to be more 'committed progressives' are not more effective at gathering these people, and often appear to be significantly worse at it.
She lost support over the course of her short presidential campaign, suggesting that the more people saw her, the less they liked her
The more the right wing mud slinging targeted her, the worse she polled. It's not a defence exactly - whoever the Democratic nominee is will have rightwing bullshit slung at them - but it is more that you should expect any person who emerges as the Democratic leader to slip in the polls because the media has to retarget to them. The question isn't whether they will slip in the polls, but which candidate will slip relatively less in the polls. In this sense, Harris, because she has already been attacked, we know where her floor is, we know what the lines of right wing attack will be, we know what the supposed 'scandals' are - and that they are relatively weak.
Again, I don't know if Harris will be the best candidate, but people saying there is no case for her are not thinking it through.
1
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ 1d ago
She has federal executive branch experience.
No, she has very limited experience as the Biden admin's border czar—and her performance in that role was less than impressive to say the least. In the event that she does try to run on it she's going to wind up spending more time trying to defend her actions in the past than selling her vision for the future, and that's a surefire way to lose the election.
1
u/just_helping 1d ago
No, she has very limited experience as the Biden admin's border czar
You realize you contradict yourself within one sentence there right?
2
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ 1d ago
No.
Being placed in a position of no power at all and still managing to mail it in is not "executive experience."
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ 1d ago
More of a case of you being unable to discuss this issue and instead trying to run off down a tangent as a result.
1
u/just_helping 1d ago
There is a simple fact: Harris has executive branch experience. Some people will like this. Some people will not.
You - I consider this fact a weakness and therefore will deny that it exists.
3
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ 1d ago
Judging by your repeated refusal to define it beyond repeating the same claim over and over with zero elaboration we can surmise that you do not understand what it means to have executive branch experience, unless you are trying to argue that doing nothing constitutes executive branch experience.
2
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 1d ago
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; mockery, taunting, and name calling are not.
-1
u/NoDig3444 1d ago
Being VP absolutely counts as executive branch experience. Hell, Hillary ran on her experience as first lady.
0
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ 1d ago edited 1d ago
The VP has zero executive responsibilities or authority and someone running on it does not give their claim that it's relevant any validity.
0
u/NoDig3444 1d ago
Just because she wasn't the ultimate authority of the executive branch doesn't mean she didn't experience working in the executive branch.
-1
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ 1d ago
The VP has zero executive authority and does not work in the executive branch.
This is basic civics.
1
u/NoDig3444 1d ago
What, do you think the VP spends all day hanging out in the Senate on the off chance they need a tie breaking vote?
0
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 1d ago
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors or political figures, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, trolling, inflammatory, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; name calling is not.
You are welcome to send a modmail once you have edited the uncivil language out of your post, and the mod team will review for reinstatement.
3
u/bakeacake45 1d ago
None. We need a candidate that motivates the undecided and voting resisters, that is not Harris.
1
u/Halberd96 1d ago
Conspiracy theorist in me has to wonder if this news or polling is being faked to hurt dems in the midterms, but I may just be out of touch with whoever is being polled, maybe she really does have this popularity cause of name recognition. Still so many better candidates for me, Gretchen Whitmer, Jon Ossoff, even Newsom is better
3
1
u/CyberDalekLord 1d ago
Harris has name recognition and despite how people feel about it was VP during a decently successful presidency that had to deal with alot different issues while not having the Supreme Court and a congress that lacked enough votes to pass better legislation. She was able to callout what Trump was going to do and now that he's done those things she can easily point to why voters needed to listen to her.
1
u/DJ_HazyPond292 1d ago
Its all based around name recognition, that she’s actually been in the Washington system, that she’s under the age of 70, and she’d be free of the Biden apparatus that hamstrung her campaign.
For some, that’s enough.
0
u/AVeryBadMon 1d ago edited 20h ago
She doesn't have a case for 4 reasons:
She actually ran her own presidential campaign back in 2020. She was never a top candidate, her peak was a very short lived 3rd place. Then she got exposed by Andrew Yang and her campaign imploded because people realized he was right.
Right before she ended her 2020 campaign, she tried to play the victim card as a last desperate attempt to garner support. She chose to attack Biden as an evil racist who kept her down in her youth... A few months later, she accepted his offer to be his VP.
Her performance as VP was so horrid that she polled LOWER than Biden. She was the first VP in 20 years, since Dick Cheney, to poll lower than the sitting president. Do you understand how crazy that is? A VP's job is lowkey and most of the attention is usually on the president, so for VP to poll lower means that they're extremely incompetent or did something insanely unpopular.
When she launched her campaign in 2024, she had nothing to offer the American people. She was running against the worst candidate in American history. She was handed a win on a sliver platter. All she had to do was the absolute bare minimum, she couldn't. She managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
People will say that she lost because she's black or because she's a woman or because the Democratic party put her in an unfavorable situation by pushing Biden till the very end, but that's not why she lost. At the same time, people will say we should back her again because she name recognition and is popular now, but that just won't work. The reason why she lost in 2020 in the primary and again in 2024 against Trump is because she is what she's always has been. She's inauthentic, she's opportunistic, she's dishonest, she's corrupt, and she has no vision to offer the country. The people sensed that in her and they avoided her like the plague twice. That's it, she's done. There's no third chance, the Democrats have to move on.
0
u/wresltingandskava 1d ago
She 100% lost due to racism and misogyny (and meddling). Clinton lost due to misogyny. To claim otherwise is ignoring a huge flaw in our society.
•
u/AVeryBadMon 20h ago
That's such a mind numbingly lazy excuse for why they lost. It sounds good for people who are both out of touch and too lazy to look into anything actually substantive. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to debunk it. I'll do it for you:
Racism - We literally elected a black president to two terms, and Obama enjoyed much higher approval rating than both Trump and Biden. Not only that but we have minority senators, representatives, governors, supreme court justices, mayors, and the list goes on and on. Clearly people do not have an issue with elected people of different races. Do racists exist? Sure, are there enough to tank elections? All the evidence points to a resounding no.
Misogyny - Hillary literally WON the popular vote over Trump. So clearly, her losing was not due to her gender. Just like with race, we female governors, supreme court justices, senators, representatives, mayors, and so on. We have women in every level of public office. Based on all actual evidence, people don't have a problem voting for women either. Are there sexists out there? Sure, but again, nothing indicates that this was a signficant factor at all in determining why Harris or Clinton lost.
So if they didn't lose because of racism or sexism, then what could be the cause? Could it be that these were unpopular establishment politicians with inauthentic personalities and shady political track record? Could it be possible that these women actually have agency as human being and have traits that are worthy of criticism? It seems like you don't think that's the case. You seem to think that they can't possibly do anything wrong beause they're women, and Harris is also a minority... which is, ironically, incredibly racist and sexist notion to hold.
You would think that after a decade of holding on to this false belief, that people like you would eventually wisen up and try to employ actual political analysis and strategy, but nope, you just keep doubling down again and again, year after year, election after election regardless of how many losses that come from these false assumptions.
0
u/MakeUpAnything 1d ago
How in God's name was she handed a win on a silver platter? For one, Trump was incredibly popular due to being an outsider attacking a very unpopular status quo. For two Harris had less than 1/3 a year to campaign while Trump was essentially campaigning for four years and had the entirety of the GOP on his side the entire time (so much so he was able to instruct them to kill a border bill so he could continue to run on the border issue). For three, Biden was telling her he expected 0% daylight between them so she was given virtually no support from her own boss and the leader of the US. Fourth, and most importantly, democrats were incredibly unpopular as a whole due to the massive pandemic related inflation that ravaged the nation for most of Biden's term.
If anything Harris's campaign was a VERY unlikely longshot that had virtually no chance of success. We saw the party in power thrown out all around the world due to inflation that shook MANY nations.
I'd actually say she had plenty to offer Americans since she wasn't running on raising prices like her opponent literally was. She had policies to try to assist in affordability such as attacking price gouging and helping first time homebuyers. Maybe not perfect, but again her opponent literally promised to raise prices all throughout his campaign. And he's done so! Repeatedly!
Harris lost because Americans perceive Trump as "authentic" due to his bigotry, much of which they agree with, so they believed he'd lower prices even though he literally repeatedly promised the opposite. Harris would have been a great president and people should have voted for her. Period.
•
u/AVeryBadMon 19h ago
Complete nonsense.
Trump was neither popular nor was he an outsider. 2024 was not 2016. Trump by then has already served a full 4 year term. He already established himself as THE head figure of the GOP. He was no longer seen as the fresh new outsider who was going to take on the establishment, he was the establishment. Keep in mind, despite this, he had record low approval rating throughout his first term. He was so unpopular that he ended up losing his reelection bid. By the end of his term, Trump was shown to have colluded with Russia, to have ties to the Epstein files, to have botched the Covid response, and to have lied about the 2020 election being stolen. He was incredibly unpopular.
I'm talking about the 2020 election, not 2024. People seem to conveniently forget that she launched her own campaign for presidency in 2020. She was aiming for the DNC nomination. However, she never gained any real base of support and largely seen as corporate candidate. She rode high off of her name for awhile until Andrew Yang exposed her in a debate, and her campaign imploded. As a desperate attempt to salvage her campaign, she attacked Biden by crying on live TV about he was the evil racist who kept her down when she was a little girl... but not even 6 months later, she accepted the offer to be the VP of this evil racist man. Seems kind of contradictory, no? Well, a lot of people saw it that way.
Biden didn't give her daylight for a reason. When Biden first took office, he sent Harris out to do some damage control regarding the migrant caravans from central America. Her performance was abysmal. Biden tried to give her more chances, but the results were the same so he had no choice but to keep her out of sight. Biden picked her as VP so he clearly believed in her abilities, and he also gave her plenty of opportunities to shine, she just didn't preform well.
Yes, but also no. The Democrats certainly didn't do themselves any favors by choosing to walk back on their word of Biden being a single term president, not having primaries, and then forcing Biden to step down at the last minute. Those are all valid criticisms... However, that's only a part of it. Harris didn't start from scratch, she inherited what Biden built up. All the campaign funds, endorsements, and even platform... but she had a really hard time giving people reasons to vote for her. Trump, despite his infinite amount of faults, had a vision for the country that got people excited for him, Harris didn't. That's not the DNC's fault.
Despite all of this, you are right, she was the better candidate. She had a solid platform, the Biden administration had a lot of achievements, she already had name recognition, she was already VP, she had all the endorsements and funds she could possibly ever need, and most importantly, her opponent was the worst candidate in American history. She had everything going in her favor, and a lot of polls were expecting her to win, so why did she lose? She not just lost, but lost handily.
The answer to that question is exactly like I said in my original comment. Harris lost because she was incompetent, dishonest, inauthentic, opportunistic, corrupt, and has no vision for the country. People sensed this in her and avoided voting for her. You could say the same applies to Trump, even more so actually, and you would be right. Here's the thing though, Trump managed to convince the dumbest Americans that his vision is the future, and they go out and vote for him in droves. Harris has convinced nobody. Nobody bought in to her vision, because she had none. People seem to have amnesia about Harris nowadays where they pretend that she everything but what she actually was, but that's a mistake that will cause the Democrats the 2028 election if they nominate her again.
0
u/sweetequuscaballus 1d ago
For god's sake, no a million times. Who cares if she's nice, and smart. It's the middle voters that matter. They would have liked Walz. They didn't like Harris. Dumbest idea in history.
1
u/HeloRising 1d ago
The most good faith case I can make for her (and I say this as someone who withheld his vote from her in 2024) is that she really didn't have much time or room to cook.
She had about four months to actively campaign and she couldn't really stray outside the bounds of what the Biden administration had done lest she invite criticism of her own activities and seem like she was "going rogue."
She's also had time to understand that maybe taking a "I love Israel" tack wasn't the smartest idea and to reevaluate her decision to largely ignore LGBTQ+ people so there is a chance, a slim one I grant, but a chance that she's refined her technique in the intervening time and can actually run a proper campaign with enough time to do a full job.
-1
u/MacrosInHisSleep 1d ago
I'm a nobody, but here's my take.
There are no other faces who are vetted by the establishment. If you're a Democrat and you side with anyone else you're going to ostracize yourself. You're making a statement and politically you've made yourself a target not only to other establishment Democrats but you're now a beacon for the Republican propaganda machine to start bashing. So everyone rallies around the safe bet until it feels safe to run or rally around someone else.
Right now nobody knows who they would be running against anyway. So strategically you don't want to reveal your cards. Trump announced he'll run for a 3rd term. Will the Republicans even allow that to happen? It doesn't make sense.
IMO. It would be funny if they did try to force it through, only for Obama to run again and beat him.
-1
u/NoDig3444 1d ago
You don't have to make the case that she's the perfect candidate. You just have to make the case that she's better than her competition. So between her, Newsom, Buttigeig, and i dunno, AOC, who's the better candidate? I mean, I know who I would vote for out of that list, but not everyone agrees with me on that.
-1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 1d ago
Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion: Memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, political name-calling, and other non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
All submissions are automatically removed and placed in a queue for the moderators to manually review. Please allow the moderators time to do so. Only about 25% of submissions are approved, but the remainder are given a removal reason that may include steps the poster can take to make their submission approvable the next time they submit it. Moderators are not notified of any edits made after a removal reason is posted, and therefore will not review them. You may contact the mod team via modmail if you need more direction about how to fix your post, and you are welcome to resubmit any submission after making the requested changes.
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.