There's no silver medal. You win or lose, and failing to objectively analyze your past performance is the best way to keep losing. Difficult yes, but Trump was very beatable. Harris not breaking off sharply with Biden was a choice. Poorly addressing inflation was a choice. https://t.co/Qmy70zZvR2
— Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63) November 7, 2024
However, that's not accurate. If the Democratic Party wanted a candidate who would break off sharply from the unpopular Joe Biden, it could have nominated someone who wasn't a part of his Administration. The universe of individuals which would have qualified would have been..... anyone but Kamala Harris.
Nonetheless, replacing Joe Biden on the ticket, which was virtually unavoidable, could have resulted in victory, and should have against an individual most of the country believes is repugnant.
Victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan. Alternatively, victory always finds a hundred fathers but defeat is an orphan, depending upon whether you want to credit (respectively) John F. Kennedy or Benito Mussolini. So no one will be honest enough to admit that the Harris camp ran an excellent campaign. Thus, even though the Harris camp ran an excellent campaign, you won't hear that, even though it was implied repeatedly the last few months by everyone with a last name beginning with any one of 26 letters.
First, it was the message of joy at the Democratic National Convention, which not only energized supporters but also emitted the scent of momentum, which turned into reality after the convention. The sight of dozens of flags waving at the affair, appearance of country music stars, and periodic chants of "USA! USA!" proved nearly orgasmic among centrists and liberals alike, giving hope that, at last, Democrats had sagely learned to be Republicans.
Harris was declared the indisputable "winner" of the debate with her opponent. She "won" that partly on merit- but also because her team successfully negotiated a smaller podium, thus negating the appearance of a difference in height between the 5'4" or 5'3" Harris and the 6'3" or 6'2" Trump. Also,- and for whatever reason- the lighting at the debate gave clear advantage to the Democratic nominee.
The nominee was derided for avoiding interviews or news conferences. Recognizing her own limitations, Harris consented to a few interviews while eschewing news conferences, which would have exposed her to hostile questioning.
One of those interviews was with Brett Baier of Fox News, which can be considered a coup by Harris strategists assuming Baier was truthful (which he was):
During an on-air discussion following the interview, Baier said that Harris arrived to the interview around 5:15 p.m., later than expected, and that Fox was "pushing the envelope" to complete what was expected to be a 25-minute interview before 6 p.m.
The once unusually unpopular presidential candidate of 2020, current vice president and now "brat," she was riding the wave of a good "vibe." She chose to be interviewed or chat with the friendly Call Her Daddy podcast, moderately liberal Democrat Howard Stern, Oprah Winfrey, and the National Association of Black Journalists. These were excellent choices by the campaign, as was hoisting a beer with Stephen Colbert (phony, sure, but strategically wise). The once unusually unpopular presidential candidate of 2020 and current vice-president rose in popularity.
.
Similarly, the women of The View- each of whom, rather passionately, supported Harris- should have bolstered her popularity. Yet when asked, in a question she had to expect, what she would do differently than President Biden, she answered "there is not a thing that comes to mind."
This was not a slip up by the campaign- or by Joe Biden- but by the candidate herself. Asked a question she could have answered in several ways, she whiffed.
Nonetheless, "blame Biden" has been all the rage. Forbes noted
Atlantic columnist Tyler Austin Harper wrote in a piece bluntly titled “Blame Biden,” that while Harris bears some responsibility, “she had an 81-year-old albatross hanging around her neck: Joe Biden.”
Writer Ross Barkan, who also titled his Substack column “Blame Biden,” wrote that Biden’s “ego blinded him and his myopic advisers enabled a foolhardy campaign,” opining that Biden should have announced his retirement in 2022 and allowed Democrats to hold an open primary.
Franklin Foer, Biden biographer and Atlantic staff writer,
wrote "Biden cannot escape the fact that his four years in office paved
the way for the return of Donald Trump. This is his legacy. Everything else is
an asterisk." David Plouffe, who helped engineer Barack Obama's win in
2008 and was a senior adviser for candidate Harris, claimed the campaign
"dug out a deep hole but not enough."
Matt Bennet, an official at Third Way, contended "Harris was dealt
a really bad hand. Some of it was Biden's making and some maybe not."
That "bad hand" the candidate was dealt, as well as the hole alleged, was Kamala Harris.
The night before Election Day, Harris held outside the Philadelphia Museum of Art a "star-studded" rally which "featured performances and appearances by pop star Lady Gaga, hip hop artist Fat Joe, hip hop producer DJ Jazzy Jeff, pop star Ricky Martin, hip hop group the Roots, soul singer Jazmine Sullivan and Oprah Winfrey." This served to remind the voting public that the candidate was promising a celebrity presidency.
Despite an effective campaign strategy, very few people voters wanted a celebrity Commander in Chief, nor a second Biden term. Still, they did know that Kamala Harris is no Joe Biden. Given her opponent, it is an unfortunate reality that voters unambiguously decided they did not want her to replace him.
No comments:
Post a Comment