Vice President Kamala Harris‘s concession speech positioned her to help lead Democrats from the political wilderness they find themselves in after the president-elect Donald Trump dismantled the party with its dominance in Tuesday’s elections.
But some Democrats are willing to take Harris’ advice and turn the page on the president Joe Bidenthe vice president, and the policies they have come to embody.
Trump, a convicted felon criticized by Democrats as a xenophobic, misogynistic fascist, not only won the Electoral College on Tuesday but became the first Republican since 2004 to win the popular vote with 4.3 million more votes for him than Harris. He also led the Republicans to victory in the House of Representatives Senatewith a majority of 53-45 seats, and the Republican Party is likely to retain control of the elections House.
By comparison, Democrats, including strategist Jim Manley, argue that their party is currently leaderless and rudderless.
Most Democrats are distraught at the thought of having to endure another four years of Trump. But while many don’t hold Harris responsible for Tuesday, they don’t view her as the future of the party.
“She ran a better campaign than I ever expected, especially considering the bad position President Biden put her in, but there’s no reason to think she should run again in four years,” Manley told the newspaper. Washington Examiner. “None, zero, zip.”
Others, including more liberal Democrats and lawmakers, blame Harris, or at least her campaign and the party’s broader trend toward the center of the political spectrum.
“It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party that has failed the working class would conclude that the working class has failed them,” Senator Sen said. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said after the elections. “While Democratic leaders defend the status quo, the American people are angry and want change. And they are right.”
It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party that has failed the working class finds that the working class has failed them.
While Democratic leaders defend the status quo, the American people are angry and want change.
And they are right. pic.twitter.com/lM2gSJmQFL
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) November 6, 2024
Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) had a similar complaint, but from the center of the Democratic Party, saying that the working class “doesn’t buy the ivory tower nonsense that the far left sells.”
“Donald Trump has no greater friend than the far left, which has managed to alienate historic numbers of people Latinos, blacks, AsiansAnd Jews of the Democratic Party with absurdities like ‘Defund the Police,’ or ‘From the River to the Sea’ or ‘Latinx,’” Torres said. “There is more to lose than there is to gain politically by pandering to the far left which is more representative TweetTwitch, and TikTok than in the real world.”
Donald Trump has no bigger friend than the far left, which has managed to alienate historic numbers of Latinos, blacks, Asians and Jews from the Democratic Party with absurdities like “Defund the Police” or “From the River to the Sea” or “Latinx.” ”
There’s more to lose than…
— Ritchie Torres (@RitchieTorres) November 6, 2024
Democratic disagreement over what went wrong on Tuesday does not bode well for the party, which is trying to right itself before the next election cycle, even though the 2026 Senate map is just as disadvantageous as this year’s.
Democratic strategist Stefan Hankin downplayed the disagreement, at least over whether Harris should have adopted a grassroots strategy for liberal Democrats, rather than trying to appeal to anti-Trump Republicans.
Instead, Hankin argued that Democrats should decide what the party’s “vision” should be.
“This feels like something bigger, fundamental is happening,” he said Washington Examiner. “If the Democratic Party can’t beat this, what are we doing? This isn’t tinkering. This is not an adjustment to the messages. Large-scale changes are needed.”
According to Manley, the Democratic Party is “in tatters,” in part because voters, to use Torres’ terminology, did not buy what Harris was “selling.”
“She can play an important role in that debate if she wants, but we don’t have any real leaders right now,” he said.
During her concession speech, which came under scrutiny because it was to be delivered on Wednesday afternoon and not Tuesday evening, Harris told a crowd at her alma mater, Howard University, in Washington, DC, that she conceded the election to Trump but not “the fight that fueled this campaign,” including “the fight for freedom, for opportunity, for fairness and the dignity of all people.”
“During the campaign I often said, ‘If we fight, we win,’ but the thing is, sometimes the fight takes a while,” she said. “That doesn’t mean we won’t win. Most importantly, never give up. Never give up.”
Harris’ role in the Democratic Party is likely to diminish “after losing so decisively to someone who the overwhelming majority of Democrats view as the political equivalent of the antichrist,” said California Democratic strategist Garry South.
“If the Democrats have a candidate who comes out of the closet – George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis – they tend to put them in the rearview mirror and move on,” South said Washington Examiner.
South alluded to “widespread rumors” that Harris would run to become governor of California in 2026. If she does, the strategist claimed the vice president would likely be a front-runner, “even as a middle finger from Democrats to Trump.”
“There was another sitting vice president who was defeated in a bid to become president and came home two years later to run for governor: Richard Nixon,” he said. “He was defeated. But he ran against a sitting Democratic governor even though the seat will be open in 2026.”
A second Democratic strategist from California, who asked not to be named to speak candidly, said the field for the governor’s race is “already quite crowded,” including Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis.
The same strategist dismissed the likelihood of Harris running for president again “because her loss was so big,” unlike Trump in 2020 and another Democratic vice president, Al Gorein 2000.
“It’s clear she has a world of options once she’s done with her elected office — teaching, boards of directors, building an organization focused on an issue she cares most about,” the Democrat told the newspaper. Washington Examiner.
He continued: “Looking at others who have lost presidential elections, there is precedent. Jimmy Carter’s good works are untouchable. Al Gore joined Apple‘s governance pre-iPhone and remains focused on climate change solutions. Mitt Romney won a seat in the Senate. George W Bush is a painter.”
In the past, unsuccessful presidential candidates have had a “tough road” in terms of comebacks, but the list that succeeded is interesting, according to presidential historian David Pietrusza.
In addition to Trump and Nixon, the list of unsuccessful and then successful nominees also includes Andrew Jackson and Grover Cleveland. Nominees who failed twice include William Jennings Bryan, Adlai Stevenson and Tom Dewey.
“I suspect the Democratic Party will move on from Harris,” Pietrusza told the newspaper Washington Examiner. “She didn’t run a stronger race, she certainly wasn’t underfunded, and she largely carried the Senate and House with her.”
Harris’ camp has indicated it is too early to speculate about her future as Democrats bicker over the party’s.
Regardless of the policy and message, Biden has become Democrats’ first target after Tuesday, a lame-duck president who only a few months ago was praised by his party for suspending his campaign and endorsing Harris.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINATOR
Independent Republican Dan Schnur, communications director of Arizona Republican Senator. John McCainDuring the 2000 presidential campaign, there was consensus that “Harris’ fate may have been sealed when Biden waited too long to withdraw from the race.
“If Biden immediately after the debate instead of waiting almost a full month, there would have been time for even an abbreviated competitive process in which Democrats could have weighed Harris’ strengths against other potential candidates,” Schnur told the newspaper. Washington Examiner. “They took a huge gamble by going all-out with her, and they were left with an overly cautious candidate who was unable to provide a compelling alternative to Trump.”
Leave a Reply