To the dismay of 70 million voters, the Associated Press announced President-elect Donald Trump will be the 47th president of the United States.
Vice President Kamala Harris, who sat atop the Democratic ticket alongside Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, was projected to win, albeit narrowly, by several notable polls. However, with a final electoral vote margin of 312-226, including losses in all seven battleground states, what the U.S. saw was nothing short of a blowout.
Before President Joe Biden dropped out of the 2024 election, the majority view from Democrats was if the party could find a younger candidate, the party’s chances to win would be much better.
That is what makes the choice of Harris to represent the Democratic party the first mistake.
The largest differentiating factor between Harris and Biden was Harris’ much stronger, proactive stance on abortion rights. Whether Harris would have followed through on that stance will never be seen, but aside from her views on the singular issue, she and Biden were much the same.
32% of Americans saw the economy as the biggest issue in the 2024 national exit polls. Harris' campaign put forth little to give Americans hope of change after what was widely seen as a failure of a term from Biden and herself.
This is largely why, despite many of his policies being seen as harmful, specifically Project 2025, Trump was able to win by proposing active economic changes. These changes were largely agreed upon to be worse than Harris’ plan; however, the information environment of the U.S., or lack thereof, blocked citizens from learning why that is.
When the nation is feeling pain, failure to appeal to a solution is exactly that: a failure.
Another mistake came with Harris’ choice of Vice President. Although Walz has many supporters, including myself, he was not made for the Harris campaign, and it showed in several moments. Walz, an impassioned picture of the Midwestern man, grew in popularity not because of his projection as a politician, but due to his emphasis on empathy and normal-person policies.
In the Vice Presidential Debate, where Walz was pitted against Vice President-elect JD Vance, they discussed topics that didn’t appeal to someone with Walz’s emphasis. He floundered, optically losing in what was largely seen as a debate he should have run away with against the widely unpopular Vance.
If the Democrats wanted to run a campaign on foreign policy and shine a better light on the policies of the Biden administration, Walz simply wasn’t the pick. If they wanted to run a campaign on empathetic policy and getting progressive legislation passed, Walz works perfectly.
For the former campaign, it would have made far more sense to have gone with someone like Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, who, despite some major warts, is known for his ability to put forth good debate performances, and would have framed Harris’ agenda far better. Additionally, Shapiro could have been a key asset in winning Pennsylvania, which ultimately ended up being the failing point for Harris in the race.
Many have taken to social media to remark on Harris’ spot on the political spectrum. Somehow, there are a bevy of takes saying Harris was either too far right or too far left. The truth of the matter is this: Harris, as well as Biden – and by extension Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama – ran on center-right platforms.
The reason behind this is to appeal to the undecided, anti-Trump Republican. Yet this has been a failure of an effort, losing the party’s base while barely shifting the opponent’s. The Harris ticket was an objective failure, not due to the perception of voters on characteristics of Harris, nor the small, annoying minority who chose to champion third-party candidate Jill Stein in the weeks leading up.
Simply put, the Harris-Walz campaign just failed.
Logan Adams is a junior studying journalism. Please note that the views and opinions of the columnists do not reflect those of The Post. Want to talk more about it? Let Logan know by tweeting him @LoganPAdams.
