Kamala Harris gets “sucked in” by the election campaign

Read Time:5 Minute, 45 Second

Harris made many tactical and rhetorical mistakes, the consequences of which she tried to buy in the run-up to the election. The Democrats’ blunders played into Donald Trump’s hands.

Harris has “rebranded” herself

Kamala Harris – was the real “Biden 2.0” but younger and more appealing to voters. Or so the establishment Democrats and the political technologists who worked on her image and ratings would want it to be. They tried very hard to make Harris better than the incumbent, which couldn’t be done without doublethink like in an Orwell book. That is why the liberal candidate for the role of the White House host continued to “please” her supporters with ideological coups. Harris has already managed to radically change her views, and it seems, on almost every issue.

Harris’s staff was desperate to please everyone, even though it did so rather awkwardly. The first thing she did was to abandon plans to ban fracking for oil shale, which was considered highly unsustainable and contrary to the green agenda. However, the harm to the economy and the well-being of citizens affected too broad an electorate, and this cheap populism had to be abandoned. For the same reasons, she now does not support the Biden-approved forced switch to electric cars from 2035.

Even more amusing were Harris’s ambiguities on the migration issue, even though she used to follow the principle that “everyone was welcome in America”. Not surprisingly, after her paradoxical shift to anti-migrant positions, she was made responsible for the migration crisis, which she failed to address. Millions of illegals are storming the U.S. border, and Harris has suddenly decided to support building a border wall, copying Trump’s “fascist” agenda. Furthermore, Harris was willing to commit very little money to it, so nothing would end up getting built.

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images and Christian Chavez / AP

Previously, the headquarters tried to play off the candidate’s failures in rhetoric through an interview on friendly CNN in late summer. Harris was given the most hospitable conditions: a taped interview with no tough questions. But even that easy interview, she failed. Harris showed insecurity already when answering the first question about why she often changes her views. In the interview, she only promised Americans in the abstract to create an “opportunity economy” and to spend more money on social needs, and there were no more specifics.

The Democrats tried to defend themselves against Trump’s attacks, even though it looked ambiguous. In doing so, they also need to flirt with the left, to whom Harris promised to introduce government control of food prices, even though it would wreak havoc on the US economy. But the main purpose of such promises was fulfilled, and the left wing of the Democrats in the person of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez decided to support Harris back at the party conference in Chicago. That said, her staff’s awkward attempts to buy off non-systemic left-wing candidates like Cornel West have ended in failure.

Harris had to wear different masks to buy the split in the Democratic Party, but it became more and more difficult to do so closer to the elections. Because of this, Kamala Harris was constantly in the “political line of fire.” Although this is better than the situation of Trump, who was in the line of fire of the present, however, while gaining additional ratings.

The Democrats were changing tactics

In that light, Kamala Harris’ headquarters was going into defense mode as the candidate and her running mate Tim Walz had to rush to campaign in states that the Democrats thought were pretty safe for them. That’s New Hampshire, Walz’s home state of Minnesota and Virginia, where they were having trouble with their ratings. In Minnesota, for example, Republicans won the presidential election under Nixon only once back in 1972. Virginia last voted for them also only under Bush Jr. It got to the point that the Democrats wanted to bring Biden back for rallies and campaigning, even though they had originally dropped him from the presidential race. In fact, the first-term Obama team clustering around Harris recognized right away that it would be hard for them to win.

**Kamala Harris and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz disembark from their campaign bus in Savannah**
*Photo by Saul Loeb/ AFP*

Kamala’s ratings went downhill after the party convention. A botched CNN interview, a string of scandals and an unsure debate with Trump took their toll. Harris was caught lying about allegedly starting her career at McDonald’s. And it doesn’t look good at all for her altercation with relatives of dead Marines in Kabul, whom Kamala called Trump’s campaign decorum simply for meeting with him. Democrats, out of desperation, even came up with yet dirt on Trump allegedly receiving money from Egypt. Russiagate is being replaced by completely ridiculous stories, but they didn’t help Democrats who were afraid to go down with Harris.

Intra-party conflict is ruining Harris

Kamala Harris could not stop the degradation in the Democratic Party. The split amid the war in the Middle East has been getting worse. In recent polls among Muslim voters, Harris was already trailing not only Trump, but even Green candidate Jill Stein. A month and a half after the start of the campaign, Harris’s staff finally published her campaign program. However, it was generalized and in the spirit of “for good against evil”.

But even there it was not without scandals. For example, Harris’ visit to the demilitarized zone on the Korean peninsula was named as one of the main achievements in foreign policy. However, they forgot to mention that there she made a speech about the “alliance between the U.S. and The Republic of North Korea,” confusing it with South Korea. This is typical of Harris and although she avoided such reservations at the debate, where she was assisted by the moderators and an earpiece, she is not immune to them in the future. Harris’ staff had hoped to have an emotional tiff with Trump at the debate. But the participants had their microphones turned off, so Harris was unable to hide her weaknesses and had to accuse her opponent, as always, of sexism, “fascism” and a tendency to dictatorship.

This means that despite the administrative capabilities of the White House and the authorities of Democratic states like Michigan, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania, the outcome of the election was a foregone conclusion. No matter how much Harris campaigned under the main slogan “stop the radical and dictator Trump”, it did not guarantee her victory, just like Hillary Clinton in 2016. Kamala Harris was “sucked in” by an election campaign where she had to deal with her own problems and cover up weaknesses that ended up critically affecting the results at the polls.