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 supposed to do that. The party prefers the safe choice. Unfortunately, it's not the best.
Uff, and for a moment, everyone in the party can 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 needed in the primary beforehand, and that is likely to be behind her. Cattle from the ice, no competition, no hectic mini primary with more 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 5th, the USA ultimately decided about the continuation of their democracy. And if you look at the "Project 2025" of the Trump-affiliated Heritage Foundation, you 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 in this year to one goal: Preventing Trump's return to the White House.
The Frontal Attacks are coming yet
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 lies or bad taste, Harris offers too much attack surface.
The Democrats could have prevented this - through a new candidate, a fresh face. At least through a real primary, in which Harris would have had to assert herself in the race for the Democratic candidacy. The fact that they lacked the audacity for this may pain the party.
Harris has a clear advantage over someone 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 driving distance 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 also the advantage, but it also brought problems. The Trump team immediately began to use it: Harris was part of the Biden Administration. All the problems that were attributed to Biden during his tenure can be shifted to Harris by the campaign managers. To make matters worse, Harris had helped Biden with the difficult problem of illegal immigration at the southern border, and in three and a half years, she had achieved nothing. She is therefore complicit in Biden's mistakes and additionally vulnerable to criticism for her own failures. Trump will use it.
Where is the Show?
The soft transition from Biden to Kamala Harris is comfortable for those involved, 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 about the nomination - "Who will make it through? The vice president or one of the successful governors as counter-candidates?" - would have generated plenty of news until the nominating convention in Chicago in August. They could have painted a brave, vibrant picture of the party, where the support of the members and thus the power is earned.
Instead, some people in Washington made a few phone calls and managed to gather enough delegates for Harris remotely. This is not only boring but also lacks anything resembling lively 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 win over Biden supporters. Even if that's not correct, it can still be effective. The strong counterargument is missing.
The election on November 5th is expected to be decided in the Swing States: Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona - states whose inhabitants quickly 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 doesn't help her at all. A economically successful high-tech hub full of left-wing environmentalists who basically just want to surf - that's the image many in states like Wisconsin or Michigan have of California. But more votes will come from their states than from many others.
As for the real, substantive open flanks. And then there's the vast field of polemics, lies, racist insinuations, and sexism, which the Trump strategists shamelessly exploit and traffic in. The really terrible thing is: They will score points with it. Just as 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 absurdities, not to offer an attack surface, to put up a white, polite 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, from which sexist slurs of all kinds slide off. Such ideas existed. But none 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 desirable for the USA to be governed by a woman with Jamaican and Indian roots in the coming four years, who is intelligent and articulate, who has built a remarkable legal career, and who is sympathetic at the age of 59. Alone, that's not the goal this year. The goal is to prevent the USA from being governed in the near future by an unpredictable, criminally investigated, woman-hating, 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 in the right place, but at the wrong time.
- Despite the Democrats preferring a safe choice for the United States Presidential Election 2024 with Kamala Harris, some analysts argue that the party should prioritize preventing Donald Trump's return to the White House.
- The Trump team is expected to exploit Harris' association with the Biden administration, using her involvement in border control policies to criticize her and shift blame for Biden's perceived failures.
- Some critics argue that if the Democrats had allowed a real primary, with Harris facing potential challengers, she could have strengthened her position and reduced her vulnerability to attacks by both the opposition and the media.
