Why Kamala Harris lost the US presidential election

It was touted to be one of the closest US presidential elections. But as the polls closed on November 5 and the tallying of the votes began, one thing was clear. Kamala Harris had lost the presidential election and the American public had chosen Donald Trump over her.

Harris’ presidential dreams seemed to dim once major news outlets called most of the major swing states — North Carolina, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin — for Trump giving him an Electoral College majority, leaving her with no path to victory.

She conceded defeat later, telling supporters in a speech in Washington “do not despair”, urging them to “keep fighting” after her loss. “While I concede this election, I do not concede the fight that fueled this campaign,” Harris said in her short, powerful speech at Howard University, her alma mater. “I know many people feel like we are entering a dark time,” she said. “But for the benefit of us all, I hope that’s not the case.”

Now, as Harris mulls her future — it won’t be easy — we mull the many factors that contributed to her loss.

The economy, economy and economy

Perhaps, one of the biggest factors contributing to Harris’ loss is also the most basic one: the economy. Americans are deeply dissatisfied with the brutal economy and they didn’t trust Harris to fix it.

After Washington put an end to COVID-era pandemic aid programs, Americans suffered two years of sky-high inflation, impacting the price of nearly everything, alongside higher interest rates — which drove up credit card rates, mortgage rates, the costs of car loans, and more.

Editor’s Picks

1

Kamala Harris did not win the race to White House. But she has many other firsts under her belt 2

Donald Trump is all set to become next president of the US. Here’s how he did it

In recent months, US economic data has steadily improved in recent months, but it seems that it wasn’t enough. Several pre-poll and post-poll surveys revealed a largely negative sentiment among voters about the economy. The Edison Research exit poll showed that two-thirds of voters believe the state of America’s economy is poor or not so good. Additionally, when asked what the most important issue in their vote was, 31 per cent of voters said the economy.

“People still (view) inflation as a problem, because they are not thinking of the year-over-year rate as economists do, but in terms of price levels,” Bernard Yaros, of Oxford Economics, told AFP, adding, “It may upset people that essentials are taking.”

And Trump used this dissatisfaction to his advantage. He relentlessly hammered Harris on the campaign trail over elevated grocery and gas prices, which seems to have worked wonders for him.

As Rolling Stone wrote in one analysis, Americans, enraged about the economy, were not voting for Trump’s economic agenda, in particular. They were simply registering their disapproval of the state of the economy as it stands, today.

The Biden baggage

Harris’ defeat at the hands of Trump is also because of her inability to shrug off the angst that people had against US President Joe Biden. Biden was overwhelmingly unpopular — with poll after poll showing voters irate with his handling of the economy and immigration.

Foreign policy, particularly the Israel-Gaza war and the Russia-Ukraine war and US spending on it was a problem too.

And since Harris served in his administration as vice president, voters connected her to those issues too. Her inability to separate herself from Biden’s policies with a clear plan also didn’t help her cause.

She also struggled with addressing Biden’s record. She didn’t criticise him or question his policies. When asked about anger over inflation and immigration, she didn’t acknowledge any errors. She, in fact, argued that the economy was doing well.

Now, some aides wonder if she should have distanced herself from Biden even more. But Jamal Simmons, the vice president’s former communication director, told BBC it was a “trap”, arguing any distance would have only handed Republicans another attack line for being disloyal. “You can’t really run away from the president who chooses you,” he said.

Unable to build on existing support

Harris had hoped that she would be able to build on Biden and the Democrats’ existing voter base of Black, Latino and young voters. However, their support eluded her when it mattered the most — on the ballot.

Harris lost 13 points with Latino voters, two points with Black voters, and six points with voters under 30, according to exit polls. Harris also hoped that women would support her in favour of Trump and she would be able to deliver a win to the Democrats.

However, that wasn’t to be. She was unable to win over suburban Republican women, losing 53 per cent of white women.

As Julián Castro, former secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Obama administration told MSNBC, “I think this calls into question a lot of the traditional identity politics. This is going to rewrite I think how the parties approach Latinos and other groups.”

Too much focus on Trump

When Harris entered the presidential race in July after Biden dropped out, she focused much of her campaigning on Trump, her rival.

Amid the last leg of the race, she escalated her attacks on Trump, calling him a “fascist”, and warning that he is “unhinged and unstable”. She further framed the election as a fight for democracy.

However, experts note that this is where she went wrong. “Kamala Harris lost this election when she pivoted to focus almost exclusively on attacking Donald Trump,” pollster Frank Luntz said on X. “Voters already know everything there is about Trump – but they still wanted to know more about Harris’ plans for the first hour, first day, first month and first year of her administration.

“It was a colossal failure for her campaign to shine the spotlight on Trump more than on Harris’ own ideas.”

A wrong VP pick

Now as the dust settles on the polls, many believe that Harris’ decision to pick Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate was the wrong one. She should have instead gone with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, they say. While Walz was seen as a capable figure with appeal to rural white voters, Shapiro was viewed as a stronger choice, especially given his political clout in a critical battleground state like Pennsylvania. Shapiro’s proven ability to connect with suburban voters and his polished speaking style might have better balanced Harris’ ticket.

Now, the Democrats are left wondering: Was Harris, in fact, the right choice to take on Donald Trump. Should they have looked for another choice?

With inputs from agencies