Kamala Harris is unfortunately the wrong choice
For a short while, a fighting spirit shone among US Democrats: Why not a mini-primary with several candidates? But Kamala Harris is to do it. The party prefers the safe choice. Unfortunately, it's not the best.
Uff, and all in the party can take a moment to look back: Kamala Harris has enough Democratic delegates together who support her candidacy for the US Presidency. With a clear majority of votes in the online primary, she will be nominated and celebrated grandly at the party convention in Chicago in August. A simple majority of votes is required for the Vice President in the online voting beforehand, and that is likely to be behind her. Cow from the ice, no competition, no hectic mini-primary with further candidates, no fight over issues. Instead: Everything peaceful and united in the campaign for the future candidate. Yes, we Kam!
This all sounds good and in view of the rather heavy situation for Democrats, especially, it somehow seems feasible. But: Many prominent US experts, journalists, analysts say that in the decision for or against Donald Trump on November 3, the USA ultimately decided about the continuity of their democracy. And whoever looks at the "Project 25" of the Trump-aligned Heritage Foundation will come to a similar assessment. If that's the case, then feasibility is the wrong parameter. Then, the Democrats should subordinate every initiative, every strategy, every personal interest to this one goal: Preventing Trump's return to the White House.
The Frontal Attacks are Yet to Come
That's a clear goal, but it seems that the Democrats have deviated from the best way to achieve it. For Trump's propaganda strategists, who relentlessly attack their opponent's weaknesses but also have no qualms about lying or being distasteful, Harris offers too much attack surface.
The Democrats could have prevented this - with a new candidate, a fresh face. At least through an honest primary, in which Harris would have had to assert herself in the race for the Democratic nomination. The fact that they lacked the audacity for this may pain the party.
Harris has a clear advantage over anyone new: She is already known everywhere in the US. That's not to be underestimated. Selling a Josh Shapiro, who has successfully governed as Governor in Pennsylvania, to voters in Salt Lake City 30 hours away would be at least laborious and therefore expensive. Thanks to her fame, Harris was able to generate more than 80 million US dollars in campaign donations, in addition to the 90 million-dollar budget of the previous Biden/Harris campaign. In terms of fame and finances: Advantage Harris.
That was it then also with the advantages. A significant problem that the Trump team immediately began to exploit: Harris was part of the Biden Administration. All the problems that one could attribute to Biden from his tenure, the campaign managers only need to shift a piece further onto Harris. To make matters worse, she had helped Biden solve the difficult problem of illegal immigration at the southern border, and in three and a half years, she had achieved nothing tangible. She is therefore complicit in Biden's mistakes and additionally attackable for her own failures. Trump will know how to use it.
Where is the Show?
The soft transition from Biden to Kamala Harris is comfortable for the involved parties, but the public is missing the show. There's no question that Harris made headlines yesterday and today. The decision has been made, but there are still more than three months until the election. What will she dominate the remaining 105 days with? A primary campaign for the nomination - "Who will make it through? The Vice President or one of the successful governors as counter-candidates?" - would have generated a lot of news until the nominating convention in Chicago in August. They could have painted a bold, vibrant picture of a party where support and power must be earned by its members.
Instead, a few people in Washington made some calls, and delegates were handled remotely until they had enough supporters for Harris. This is not only boring but also lacks the essence of living democracy. It looks more like inheritance and party members being brought into line, bitterly expressed. The Trump strategists have already identified this open flank. Their claim: They managed to sway Biden supporters. Even if that's not correct, it can still be effective. The strong counter-argument is missing.
The election on November 5th is expected to be decided in the Swing States: Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona - states whose inhabitants suspect they are not in the focus of politics in Washington. Perhaps rightly so. A politician from the Washington bubble will find it hard to convince these people. Her home state of California does not help her at all. A economically successful high-tech hub full of left-wing environmentalists, who actually just want to surf - many in states like Wisconsin or Michigan see California in this light. But more votes will come from their states than from many others.
As for the actual, substantive open flanks, there's also the vast field of polemics, lies, racist insinuations, and sexism that the Trump strategists shamelessly exploit and will continue to do so. The real problem is: They will score points with it. Just like they did against Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Why not Michelle? Why not Oprah?
It's frustrating, perhaps even painful, to choose the defensive in anticipation of such nonsense, not to offer an attack surface, to put up a white, genteel man as Trump's opponent: It would have been the right choice in this case.
Or the Democrats could have put all their eggs in one basket: with Michelle Obama, with Oprah Winfrey, with a woman who is virtually untouchable due to her prominence for Trump. A woman whose popularity acts like Teflon, on which sexist slurs of all kinds slide off. Such ideas were there. But nothing could gain traction. In November, democracy seems to be in danger - but the Democrats are not ready to take a risk.
Kamala Harris has many qualities needed to govern in the White House. It would be wonderful if the USA were governed by a woman in the next four years who is intelligent and articulate, who has laid a notable legal career, is 59 years old, and sympathetic. Alone, that is not the goal for this year. The goal is to prevent the USA from being governed by an unpredictable, criminally investigated, misogynistic, poorly advised 78-year-old authoritarian.
The question was never: Would Kamala Harris be a good president? But always: Would she be the safest choice to prevent Trump? That's what matters in 2024. Since the answer to this question is no, Harris might be the right woman at the right place, but at the wrong time.
- Despite the Republicans' potential opposition, some analysts believe that Kamala Harris' substantial campaign donations and nationwide recognition, accumulated during her time as Vice President, could prove advantageous in the US Presidential Election 2024.
- If Democrat nominee Kamala Harris wishes to effectively counteract Donald Trump's propaganda strategies, she may need to confront his relentless attacks head-on, rather than providing ample attack surfaces through her past actions and associations within the Biden administration.
- The Democratic Party's choice of Kamala Harris as their candidate for the US Presidential Election 2024 has raised concerns among some analysts that her prominence within the Biden Administration could make her a prime target for GOP attacks, as well as her past involvement in immigration policy at the southern border.
