Why Kamala Harris Was Defeated in the Election
Harris opted not to distance herself completely from the previous four years.
TroibNews 
In the final push toward the election, Kamala Harris’ campaign — at her insistence, according to aides and allies — began showcasing Donald Trump’s most incendiary remarks on jumbotrons at her rallies, vividly highlighting his meandering, racist, and at times, violent rhetoric.
This tactic served as a stark reminder of the election's significance, but ultimately, it yielded little benefit for her. The aftermath on Wednesday was devastating for Harris, marking a severe defeat for Democrats nationwide.
Harris took over a campaign from Joe Biden during the summer that seemed stagnant, given the president’s unpopularity and struggles to communicate effectively. Following Democrats’ decision to remove Biden from the ticket, she quickly worked to unify her struggling party, engaging women, rallying TikTok and Instagram creators to support her with memes, and raising substantial amounts from donors.
Despite her advisers claiming she had built momentum, this proved elusive. She was unable to sufficiently move past Biden’s shadow, which crippled her efforts to convince voters that her candidacy was a fresh alternative.
The issues stemmed from Harris' reluctance to dissociate from the past four years at a time when voters were signaling they desired change. Moreover, she hesitated to differentiate herself from her boss on Biden’s most significant vulnerability — his economic management — and struggled to articulate how her presidency would differ from his, apart from proposing a Republican in her Cabinet.
Some close associates and even a few staff questioned her continued closeness to Biden, particularly as her campaign did not leverage their record extensively. However, within her campaign, there was a general consensus that she shouldn’t shoulder the blame for the loss, as aides pointed to her success in improving battleground numbers and limiting Trump’s margins, alongside a shared understanding that Biden and a wider anti-incumbent sentiment placed her in a challenging position.
“We ran the best campaign we could, considering Joe Biden was president,” expressed one Harris aide, allowed to speak anonymously. "Joe Biden is the singular reason Kamala Harris and Democrats lost tonight.”
Another aide noted that it became apparent Biden should have stepped down much earlier, enabling Democrats to hold a primary they believed Harris would have won.
The defeat was so pronounced that emerging leaders within the party began advocating for a thorough examination of its failures in countering the red wave.
“This is not just one county. This is not just one storyline. This is not just someone using this to explain their priors, right? This is pretty systematic,” said Democratic Rep. Brendan Boyle of Philadelphia. “This is a solid Republican victory, and the largest Republican victory by a presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1984" in Pennsylvania. "I don't think any Democrat who wants to improve upon this situation should sugar coat this.”
Although Harris’ team had long touted advantages like a professional ground game compared to Trump’s coalition of MAGA activists and billionaire backers, these were diminished. Some officials and strategists within the campaign were already raising concerns that not only was their operation faltering, but it was also mismanaged.
Three weeks ahead of Election Day in Pennsylvania, the primary swing state, Jewish Democrats and their allies convened in private with Harris' officials in Pittsburgh. According to four attendees, they argued that the surrogate operation was lacking, a sentiment echoed in other crucial states. They highlighted that the Pennsylvania team lacked connections with key elected officials, which hindered their ability to mobilize validators to encourage voter support for a candidate they hardly knew.
Infighting and second-guessing ensued.
One Democrat, who spoke privately, described the meeting as “a venting.” By that stage, many ballots had already been mailed in.
“There's no amount of social media ads or TV ads or podcast interviews or anything that you can do that's going to influence people because their ballots are cast and they can't go back and change it,” said another Democrat.
In Philadelphia, Latino and Black Democrats convened similar meetings with Harris’ team in the lead-up to Election Day, voicing comparable concerns.
On Wednesday, the focus also shifted to Harris’ data team. A Pennsylvania Democratic strategist, who requested anonymity, noted that the campaign had predicted higher turnout in key counties like Chester and Montgomery in the Philadelphia suburbs.
“This is looking like Robby Mook 2.0,” the strategist remarked.
It was evident to them that organizing was supposed to be their strong suit. Unfortunately, other areas were falling short of expectations as well.
In a truncated campaign where the candidates' daily activities often overshadowed practicalities, Harris lagged, frequently tying with or trailing Trump in television and streaming coverage. Trump’s chaotic approach disguised the more strategic campaign efforts of his advisers, who relentlessly targeted Harris with ads that went unanswered for days.
Despite Democrats, led by Future Forward PAC, unleashing unprecedented spending in battleground states highlighting Harris as a champion for the middle class, Trump and his allies invested millions in ads that left a more tangible impact. Some featured Harris’ endorsement of taxpayer-funded healthcare for gender transitions for detained immigrants and federal prisoners; others showcased her reluctance to distance herself from Biden.
Democrats did issue warnings regarding what they characterized as Trump’s oligarchic ambitions, as per a Democrat close to the campaign. They were concerned that Trump was already so clearly defined that the campaign should have prioritized clarifying Harris’ own priorities and making specific appeals to Black and Hispanic voters.
Harris had slightly over 100 days to run her campaign — an aspect some Democrats viewed as beneficial, allowing her to avoid a crowded primary and the demands of a prolonged general election campaign.
Her strategy was straightforward. Even before Democrats sidelined Biden, Harris had quietly begun assembling her campaign weeks earlier. She convened several top aides and close allies to prepare for what they anticipated would be a vice presidential debate.
At that time, Biden was still in the race, and with Trump yet to select a running mate, Harris faced no opponent for the debate. Consequently, they began formulating messages that framed the choice as one between her, a longtime prosecutor championing the needs of everyday Americans, and Trump, a convicted felon focused on self-interest, as reported by five individuals involved in those preliminary discussions.
Their plan concentrated on the vice presidential debate, positioning Trump’s pick merely as a placeholder; someone Harris could portray as loyal to the former president rather than to the country. This approach was how they envisioned her running as Biden’s second-in-command, making the election a referendum on Trump, not on her unpopular boss, who struggled to connect with Democrats.
With a compressed timeline, Harris had to organize her new staff in Wilmington and key battlegrounds, create a core inner circle, channel a surge of donations into the campaign, select a running mate, prepare for the debate against Trump, deliver an acceptance speech at the DNC, and then execute the debate strategy. Everything unfolded as intended.
Central to Harris’ narrative, shaping her tactical choices, was the idea that she represented the safer choice.
This reasoning explained her frequent campaigning with Republicans and never-Trumpers; her rhetorical embrace of the American flag; her emphasis on her own middle-class upbringing while saturating the airwaves with messages concerning the perils of Trump's economic policies. It elucidated her intention to position herself as the law-and-order candidate devoted to preventing the nation from descending into chaos under a convicted felon. It also clarified why she did not focus on the historic significance of her candidacy and nomination.
Once initial excitement among Democrats subsided, Harris faced scrutiny from the media — as well as criticism from Trump and his campaign — regarding her limited engagement with major news outlets. More than a month passed before she participated in her first extended interview and subsequently appeared on only a few selected programs and friendly media platforms.
Harris opted against providing detailed explanations — or sometimes any justification — for the significant shifts in her policy positions on numerous topics, from hydraulic fracturing and clean car mandates to offering citizenship to undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children. She adopted a “my principles haven’t changed” stance, which she expected would encompass all queries.
Most around her endorsed this strategic move, believing that less exposure meant less scrutiny and that deep explanations would only invite new questions and opportunities for Trump and Republicans to mount relentless attacks. However, this choice neglected the chance to convey even a hint of awareness that constituents might still have questions about her policy transformations.
Other internal decisions appeared riskier — notably her decision to remain closely aligned with Biden, even after he publicly indicated she could separate herself. Harris’ aides emphasized that this was a line she was unwilling to cross, asserting that doing so would contradict numerous public statements she’d made about the president and undermine her own record of achievements in the White House.
Eugene Daniels contributed to this report.
James del Carmen contributed to this report for TROIB News
This tactic served as a stark reminder of the election's significance, but ultimately, it yielded little benefit for her. The aftermath on Wednesday was devastating for Harris, marking a severe defeat for Democrats nationwide.
Harris took over a campaign from Joe Biden during the summer that seemed stagnant, given the president’s unpopularity and struggles to communicate effectively. Following Democrats’ decision to remove Biden from the ticket, she quickly worked to unify her struggling party, engaging women, rallying TikTok and Instagram creators to support her with memes, and raising substantial amounts from donors.
Despite her advisers claiming she had built momentum, this proved elusive. She was unable to sufficiently move past Biden’s shadow, which crippled her efforts to convince voters that her candidacy was a fresh alternative.
The issues stemmed from Harris' reluctance to dissociate from the past four years at a time when voters were signaling they desired change. Moreover, she hesitated to differentiate herself from her boss on Biden’s most significant vulnerability — his economic management — and struggled to articulate how her presidency would differ from his, apart from proposing a Republican in her Cabinet.
Some close associates and even a few staff questioned her continued closeness to Biden, particularly as her campaign did not leverage their record extensively. However, within her campaign, there was a general consensus that she shouldn’t shoulder the blame for the loss, as aides pointed to her success in improving battleground numbers and limiting Trump’s margins, alongside a shared understanding that Biden and a wider anti-incumbent sentiment placed her in a challenging position.
“We ran the best campaign we could, considering Joe Biden was president,” expressed one Harris aide, allowed to speak anonymously. "Joe Biden is the singular reason Kamala Harris and Democrats lost tonight.”
Another aide noted that it became apparent Biden should have stepped down much earlier, enabling Democrats to hold a primary they believed Harris would have won.
The defeat was so pronounced that emerging leaders within the party began advocating for a thorough examination of its failures in countering the red wave.
“This is not just one county. This is not just one storyline. This is not just someone using this to explain their priors, right? This is pretty systematic,” said Democratic Rep. Brendan Boyle of Philadelphia. “This is a solid Republican victory, and the largest Republican victory by a presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1984" in Pennsylvania. "I don't think any Democrat who wants to improve upon this situation should sugar coat this.”
Although Harris’ team had long touted advantages like a professional ground game compared to Trump’s coalition of MAGA activists and billionaire backers, these were diminished. Some officials and strategists within the campaign were already raising concerns that not only was their operation faltering, but it was also mismanaged.
Three weeks ahead of Election Day in Pennsylvania, the primary swing state, Jewish Democrats and their allies convened in private with Harris' officials in Pittsburgh. According to four attendees, they argued that the surrogate operation was lacking, a sentiment echoed in other crucial states. They highlighted that the Pennsylvania team lacked connections with key elected officials, which hindered their ability to mobilize validators to encourage voter support for a candidate they hardly knew.
Infighting and second-guessing ensued.
One Democrat, who spoke privately, described the meeting as “a venting.” By that stage, many ballots had already been mailed in.
“There's no amount of social media ads or TV ads or podcast interviews or anything that you can do that's going to influence people because their ballots are cast and they can't go back and change it,” said another Democrat.
In Philadelphia, Latino and Black Democrats convened similar meetings with Harris’ team in the lead-up to Election Day, voicing comparable concerns.
On Wednesday, the focus also shifted to Harris’ data team. A Pennsylvania Democratic strategist, who requested anonymity, noted that the campaign had predicted higher turnout in key counties like Chester and Montgomery in the Philadelphia suburbs.
“This is looking like Robby Mook 2.0,” the strategist remarked.
It was evident to them that organizing was supposed to be their strong suit. Unfortunately, other areas were falling short of expectations as well.
In a truncated campaign where the candidates' daily activities often overshadowed practicalities, Harris lagged, frequently tying with or trailing Trump in television and streaming coverage. Trump’s chaotic approach disguised the more strategic campaign efforts of his advisers, who relentlessly targeted Harris with ads that went unanswered for days.
Despite Democrats, led by Future Forward PAC, unleashing unprecedented spending in battleground states highlighting Harris as a champion for the middle class, Trump and his allies invested millions in ads that left a more tangible impact. Some featured Harris’ endorsement of taxpayer-funded healthcare for gender transitions for detained immigrants and federal prisoners; others showcased her reluctance to distance herself from Biden.
Democrats did issue warnings regarding what they characterized as Trump’s oligarchic ambitions, as per a Democrat close to the campaign. They were concerned that Trump was already so clearly defined that the campaign should have prioritized clarifying Harris’ own priorities and making specific appeals to Black and Hispanic voters.
Harris had slightly over 100 days to run her campaign — an aspect some Democrats viewed as beneficial, allowing her to avoid a crowded primary and the demands of a prolonged general election campaign.
Her strategy was straightforward. Even before Democrats sidelined Biden, Harris had quietly begun assembling her campaign weeks earlier. She convened several top aides and close allies to prepare for what they anticipated would be a vice presidential debate.
At that time, Biden was still in the race, and with Trump yet to select a running mate, Harris faced no opponent for the debate. Consequently, they began formulating messages that framed the choice as one between her, a longtime prosecutor championing the needs of everyday Americans, and Trump, a convicted felon focused on self-interest, as reported by five individuals involved in those preliminary discussions.
Their plan concentrated on the vice presidential debate, positioning Trump’s pick merely as a placeholder; someone Harris could portray as loyal to the former president rather than to the country. This approach was how they envisioned her running as Biden’s second-in-command, making the election a referendum on Trump, not on her unpopular boss, who struggled to connect with Democrats.
With a compressed timeline, Harris had to organize her new staff in Wilmington and key battlegrounds, create a core inner circle, channel a surge of donations into the campaign, select a running mate, prepare for the debate against Trump, deliver an acceptance speech at the DNC, and then execute the debate strategy. Everything unfolded as intended.
Central to Harris’ narrative, shaping her tactical choices, was the idea that she represented the safer choice.
This reasoning explained her frequent campaigning with Republicans and never-Trumpers; her rhetorical embrace of the American flag; her emphasis on her own middle-class upbringing while saturating the airwaves with messages concerning the perils of Trump's economic policies. It elucidated her intention to position herself as the law-and-order candidate devoted to preventing the nation from descending into chaos under a convicted felon. It also clarified why she did not focus on the historic significance of her candidacy and nomination.
Once initial excitement among Democrats subsided, Harris faced scrutiny from the media — as well as criticism from Trump and his campaign — regarding her limited engagement with major news outlets. More than a month passed before she participated in her first extended interview and subsequently appeared on only a few selected programs and friendly media platforms.
Harris opted against providing detailed explanations — or sometimes any justification — for the significant shifts in her policy positions on numerous topics, from hydraulic fracturing and clean car mandates to offering citizenship to undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children. She adopted a “my principles haven’t changed” stance, which she expected would encompass all queries.
Most around her endorsed this strategic move, believing that less exposure meant less scrutiny and that deep explanations would only invite new questions and opportunities for Trump and Republicans to mount relentless attacks. However, this choice neglected the chance to convey even a hint of awareness that constituents might still have questions about her policy transformations.
Other internal decisions appeared riskier — notably her decision to remain closely aligned with Biden, even after he publicly indicated she could separate herself. Harris’ aides emphasized that this was a line she was unwilling to cross, asserting that doing so would contradict numerous public statements she’d made about the president and undermine her own record of achievements in the White House.
Eugene Daniels contributed to this report.
James del Carmen contributed to this report for TROIB News
