Table of Contents
Introduction
In the whirlwind of recent events, the political landscape has been dramatically altered. On July 13, 2024, an assassination attempt against Donald Trump left him with only a minor injury to his ear but significantly boosted his popularity, portraying him as a resilient hero in the eyes of many. Meanwhile, President Joe Biden contracted COVID-19, further exacerbating concerns about his health and fitness for office. These developments have intensified discussions about Biden’s viability as a candidate and have prompted a renewed push for Vice President Kamala Harris as a potential replacement.
In my previous article, I made a compelling case for why Joe Biden should step down for the sake of the country and the Democratic Party. Today, I must address a critical concern: Kamala Harris is not the right person to replace Biden. This article aims to present a comprehensive case against Harris’s candidacy, highlighting her disastrous presidential run, her public speaking challenges, her controversial tenure as Vice President, and her overall electability issues.
Harris’s candidacy, if it materializes, could spell disaster for the Democratic Party in the upcoming election. Her record, public perception, her performance as a terrible public speaker, and overall political acumen raise serious questions about her ability to lead effectively and win against a formidable opponent like Trump. The stakes are too high for the Democratic Party to gamble on a candidate who has repeatedly shown significant weaknesses on the national stage.
With Biden’s health deteriorating and Harris being touted as a potential replacement, it is crucial to examine why she is not the right choice. The American people deserve a leader who can inspire confidence and lead the nation effectively. Unfortunately, Harris does not meet these criteria, and her nomination could have catastrophic consequences for the future of American democracy.
Kamala Harris’s Presidential Run: A Disastrous Campaign
Initial Expectations vs. Reality
Kamala Harris entered the 2020 presidential race with significant fanfare and high expectations. Many saw her as a fresh, dynamic candidate who could bridge the gap between the progressive and moderate wings of the Democratic Party. Her background as a senator from California and former Attorney General added to her allure, making her a prominent contender in a crowded field.
However, the reality of her campaign quickly fell short of these lofty expectations. Despite the initial excitement, Harris’s campaign struggled to maintain momentum and failed to connect with a broad base of Democratic voters. Her inability to establish a consistent and compelling message led to a rapid decline in support. This swift fall from grace was both disheartening and telling, revealing fundamental flaws in her approach and strategy.
Campaign Missteps
Harris’s campaign was marred by a series of missteps and controversies that severely undermined her credibility. One of the most significant issues was her difficulty in articulating clear policy positions. Harris’s stance on key issues such as healthcare wavered, with her support for “Medicare for All” appearing inconsistent and poorly defined. This flip-flopping eroded trust among voters who sought clear and steadfast leadership.
Additionally, Harris faced intense scrutiny over her record as California’s Attorney General. Critics pointed to her “tough on crime” policies, which included prosecuting low-level offenses and opposing criminal justice reforms, as contradictory to the progressive values she claimed to champion. This perceived hypocrisy alienated many progressive voters and activists who felt betrayed by her record.
Beyond her professional record, allegations about her personal life also cast a shadow over her campaign. Harris’s early career was significantly aided by her relationship with Willie Brown, a powerful California politician. Brown, who was married at the time, appointed Harris to well-paying positions on state boards, a move that has been widely criticized as favoritism. This relationship has led to ongoing allegations that Harris “slept her way to the top,” a narrative that has been damaging to her public image and credibility.
The internal dynamics of her campaign were also problematic. Reports of infighting, lack of direction, and poor strategic decisions plagued her campaign team. Harris’s campaign suffered from a lack of coherent strategy and vision, contributing to its rapid decline. These organizational flaws culminated in her early exit from the race before the first votes were even cast, a testament to the campaign’s failure to gain traction.
Public Perception
Harris’s public perception during her campaign was far from favorable. Poll data from various sources reflected a stark lack of support. Her approval ratings were consistently low, and she struggled to connect with voters on a personal level. Her campaign speeches often came across as scripted and insincere, failing to inspire or mobilize the electorate.
In conclusion, Kamala Harris’s presidential run was a clear disaster. Her inability to maintain a consistent message, coupled with controversies over her past record, personal scandals, and campaign mismanagement, led to a swift and humiliating exit from the race. This history raises serious questions about her viability as a presidential candidate, especially against a formidable opponent like Donald Trump.
Public Speaking and Communication Challenges
Voice and Public Presence
Kamala Harris’s public speaking skills have been a consistent point of criticism throughout her political career. One of the most frequently cited issues is her voice, often described as nasally and irritating. This vocal quality can detract from her message, making it harder for audiences to connect with her. Public perception of her voice is not just about aesthetics; it also affects her ability to convey sincerity and authority.
Multiple commentators have noted that Harris’s delivery can come across as overly rehearsed and lacking in authenticity. For instance, during her campaign speeches, her tone often seemed more suited for a courtroom than a political rally. This formal, somewhat stilted delivery can create a barrier between Harris and her audience, preventing her from establishing a genuine connection. Voters tend to respond better to speakers who appear natural and relatable, qualities that Harris often struggled to project. As one commentator put it, “Harris’s speeches often lack the warmth and spontaneity that make a speaker relatable to the average voter”.
Campaign Speeches and Debates
Harris’s performance in debates and speeches during her presidential campaign further highlighted these communication challenges. In the Democratic primary debates, her moments of attack, such as her confrontation with Joe Biden over his past opposition to federally mandated busing, garnered attention but also backlash. While she landed some impactful blows, critics argued that these moments felt calculated and lacked the warmth or relatability that voters seek in a candidate.
For example, during the second Democratic debate, Harris’s exchange with Biden on busing initially appeared to be a powerful moment. She poignantly recalled her own experience as a young girl benefiting from busing policies. However, the aftermath revealed a more complex picture. Many voters saw this as a political maneuver rather than a genuine expression of concern, leading to questions about her authenticity. According to a CNN analysis, “Harris’s debate performance raised as many questions as it answered, with many viewers questioning her sincerity”.
Moreover, Harris’s public speaking has been described as inconsistent. There were instances where she failed to deliver a coherent message, leaving audiences confused about her stance on key issues. A notable example was her shifting position on healthcare. Harris initially supported Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for All” plan, only to later backtrack and propose a more moderate approach. This wavering not only confused voters but also undermined her credibility. As reported by Politico, “Harris’s fluctuating stance on healthcare was a major factor in her campaign’s inability to gain lasting support” .
Critics also point to her performance in town hall meetings and interviews. Her answers often seemed rehearsed and evasive, avoiding direct responses to pointed questions. This was particularly evident in her interviews with major news outlets, where she sometimes appeared defensive and uncomfortable. For example, during a CNN town hall, Harris struggled to clearly articulate her stance on key policy issues, leading to further doubts about her preparedness and authenticity. As one voter expressed, “Watching Harris speak is like listening to someone read from a script. It’s hard to feel like she’s genuinely engaged with the issues”
Harris’s Tenure as Vice President
Lack of Clarity and Leadership
Kamala Harris’s tenure as Vice President has been characterized by a notable lack of clear leadership and direction. One of the most significant examples of this is her handling of the immigration crisis. In March 2021, President Biden appointed Harris to lead the administration’s efforts to address the root causes of migration from Central America. However, her performance in this role has been widely criticized. Despite visiting Guatemala and Mexico, Harris has been accused of failing to present a coherent strategy or tangible results. Her avoidance of the U.S.-Mexico border for several months drew significant backlash and further fueled perceptions of inaction.
Additionally, Harris’s approach to criminal justice reform has also been underwhelming. As a former Attorney General of California, she had the opportunity to leverage her experience to push for substantial reforms. However, her tenure has been marked by a lack of bold initiatives and a failure to address systemic issues within the criminal justice system. Critics argue that Harris has not effectively used her platform to advocate for meaningful change, instead opting for safer, more politically expedient positions. This reluctance to take decisive action has been seen as a missed opportunity to address critical issues facing the nation.
Public and Political Perception
Public perception of Harris’s performance as Vice President has been lukewarm at best. Polls consistently show low approval ratings, with many Americans expressing dissatisfaction with her leadership. According to a USA Today/Suffolk University poll from July 2024, Harris’s approval rating stands at 38%, with a significant portion of respondents citing her perceived ineffectiveness on key issues such as immigration and criminal justice reform.
Internal conflicts within the Democratic Party have further complicated Harris’s tenure. Reports of friction between her office and other parts of the administration have surfaced, with some insiders describing a dysfunctional working environment. According to a Politico report, several staff members have expressed frustration with Harris’s leadership style, citing a lack of clear direction and frequent changes in strategy. These internal conflicts have not only hampered her effectiveness but also contributed to a broader sense of disarray within the administration.
Criticism from within her own party has also been significant. Some Democratic leaders have privately questioned her readiness to assume the presidency, should the need arise. Concerns about her public speaking abilities, policy positions, and overall leadership have led to a growing chorus of voices calling for alternative candidates to be considered for the 2024 election.
In summary, Kamala Harris’s tenure as Vice President has been marked by a lack of clear leadership and direction. Her handling of key issues like immigration and criminal justice reform has been widely criticized, and public opinion reflects growing dissatisfaction with her performance. Internal conflicts and criticisms from within the Democratic Party further highlight the challenges she faces as a potential presidential candidate.
In summary, Kamala Harris’s communication challenges extend beyond her nasally voice to include a delivery style that often feels rehearsed and insincere. Her performances in debates and speeches have been marred by inconsistencies and a perceived lack of authenticity, making it difficult for her to connect with voters on a personal level. These issues raise significant concerns about her viability as a candidate and her ability to effectively communicate her vision and policies to the American public
Policy Failures and Controversies
California Attorney General Tenure
Kamala Harris’s tenure as California’s Attorney General from 2011 to 2017 is marked by several controversies and criticisms. Harris often promoted her “tough on crime” stance, which included policies that are now viewed as problematic and contradictory to her later progressive image. One of the most significant controversies during her tenure was her decision to oppose a bill that would have required her office to investigate shootings involving police officers. Critics argued that her reluctance to support this measure reflected a failure to address police accountability effectively.
Additionally, Harris faced backlash for her office’s decision to fight against the release of non-violent offenders in order to alleviate prison overcrowding, a stance that seemed to prioritize prison labor over humane incarceration practices. This decision was widely criticized as being out of step with the growing movement for criminal justice reform and reducing mass incarceration. Her reluctance to embrace progressive reforms, such as the legalization of marijuana, which she later supported as a senator, further underscores the contradictions in her record.
Another notable issue was Harris’s handling of wrongful convictions. While she oversaw some significant prosecutions, her office was also criticized for not adequately addressing cases where individuals were wrongfully convicted. The most notable case involved Daniel Larsen, a man whose conviction was overturned, yet Harris’s office argued against his release, delaying justice.
Senate Career and Policy Stances
Kamala Harris’s tenure as a U.S. Senator from California, starting in 2017, was marked by her positioning as a progressive voice within the Democratic Party. However, her record in the Senate also includes several controversial stances and votes that have drawn criticism.
One of the key areas of controversy was her initial support for “Medicare for All,” a proposal by Senator Bernie Sanders that aimed to create a single-payer healthcare system in the United States. Harris’s support for the plan wavered over time, leading to accusations of inconsistency and political opportunism. Her eventual shift to a more moderate healthcare stance was seen by many as a betrayal of her earlier progressive commitments, confusing and alienating some voters.
Harris’s voting record on criminal justice reform also drew scrutiny. Despite her past as a prosecutor, she supported several significant criminal justice reform measures, such as the First Step Act. However, critics argue that her support for these measures was inconsistent with her past record as Attorney General, where she had been seen as resistant to reforms.
Moreover, her role in the Senate Judiciary Committee during the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett showcased her aggressive questioning style. While this approach won her praise from some Democrats, it also drew criticism for being overly combative and lacking decorum, potentially alienating moderate and independent voters.
In summary, Kamala Harris’s political career is replete with policy failures and controversies that raise questions about her consistency, judgment, and leadership abilities. Her record as California Attorney General and her tenure in the U.S. Senate both reveal a politician who has often struggled to balance progressive ideals with practical governance, resulting in a legacy marked by contradictions and controversies.
Public Image and Electability
Kamala Harris’s public image and electability present considerable challenges. Public perception of Harris has been notably divisive. Polls consistently show mixed to unfavorable views of her tenure as Vice President. According to recent polling data, Harris’s approval ratings have fluctuated but generally remained low compared to other prominent political figures. Her favorability ratings are often overshadowed by criticisms of her performance and public demeanor.
One significant factor impacting her public image is her perceived lack of authenticity and sincerity. Many voters find her public speaking style rehearsed and insincere, which hinders her ability to connect on a personal level. For instance, her performance in debates and public addresses often comes across as scripted, reducing her relatability and appeal. Critics argue that this perceived lack of authenticity could severely impact her ability to galvanize voter support in a general election.
Moreover, Harris’s political baggage from her tenure as California’s Attorney General and her controversial decisions on criminal justice reform continue to haunt her public image. Her “tough on crime” stance, which involved supporting policies that led to higher incarceration rates, particularly among minorities, is frequently cited by progressives and civil rights advocates as a significant flaw. This aspect of her record alienates a substantial portion of the Democratic base, who view her past actions as contradictory to the party’s current progressive values.
Electability is another critical concern. In head-to-head matchups with potential Republican contenders, including Donald Trump, Harris often fares poorly. Polls indicate that she would struggle to secure key swing states necessary for a Democratic victory. Her polarizing nature and low favorability ratings could result in reduced voter turnout among key demographics or push undecided voters toward the opposition.
Overall, Kamala Harris faces significant hurdles regarding her public image and electability. Her health may not be a major issue, but her ability to connect with voters and overcome the controversies of her past presents substantial challenges. For the Democratic Party, these factors are crucial considerations in determining the viability of her candidacy for the presidency
The Democratic Party’s Dilemma
Internal Party Dynamics
The Democratic Party is currently facing significant internal challenges as it grapples with President Biden’s viability as a candidate for the 2024 election. Several key figures and factions within the party are pushing for Vice President Kamala Harris to replace him, citing the need for fresh leadership.
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly expressed concerns about Biden’s ability to win against Trump. Pelosi’s stance is echoed by other prominent figures like former President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. These leaders worry that Biden’s continued candidacy might jeopardize the Democratic Party’s chances in both the presidential and congressional elections.
However, Harris’s candidacy is not without controversy. Despite her high-profile role and advocacy on key issues like abortion rights, she has struggled with low approval ratings and criticisms regarding her public speaking and leadership abilities. Her tenure as Vice President has faced scrutiny over perceived ineffectiveness on critical issues such as immigration and criminal justice reform, which has led to skepticism about her electability and leadership qualities.
Potential Alternatives
Several potential candidates are being discussed as viable alternatives to Biden and Harris, each with their own strengths and weaknesses.
Gretchen Whitmer: The Governor of Michigan has gained national prominence for her handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and her progressive policies. She is seen as a strong contender due to her ability to win in a key swing state and her appeal to both progressive and moderate Democrats.
Gavin Newsom: The Governor of California is known for his strong campaign skills and high national profile. Despite challenges associated with California’s issues, such as homelessness and high taxes, Newsom’s ability to articulate Democratic values and his media presence make him a noteworthy candidate.
Mark Kelly: The Senator from Arizona is a former astronaut and Navy veteran with a moderate political stance. His ability to win in a traditionally Republican state and his military background add to his appeal as a strong candidate.
Josh Shapiro: The Governor of Pennsylvania has been recognized for his bipartisan approach and effective governance in a critical battleground state. His strong approval ratings and focus on non-ideological issues could make him a more unifying candidate for the Democratic Party.
Wes Moore: The Governor of Maryland is a relatively new figure on the national stage but has shown strong leadership and appeal in his home state. His fresh perspective and dynamic presence could attract voters looking for new leadership.
JB Pritzker: The Governor of Illinois is a progressive with a strong track record on issues like abortion rights and gun control. His substantial personal wealth could provide a significant advantage in a national campaign. However, his outspoken style and progressive stance might polarize voters.
In comparing these alternatives to Harris, each presents unique strengths that could potentially bolster the Democratic Party’s chances in the upcoming election. Whitmer and Shapiro, for instance, have proven electoral success in swing states, which could be crucial for winning the presidency. Kelly’s bipartisan appeal and military background might attract moderate and independent voters, while Moore’s fresh face and dynamic leadership could energize the base.
Ultimately, the Democratic Party must weigh the risks and benefits of each potential candidate, considering their ability to unify the party, appeal to a broad electorate, and effectively challenge the Republican nominee. The decision is fraught with challenges, but the stakes are too high to settle for anything less than the most capable and electable candidate.
Conclusion
Final Argument
In summary, this article has laid out a compelling case against Kamala Harris as a replacement for Joe Biden in the 2024 presidential election. We have delved into her troubled presidential campaign, highlighting the stark contrast between initial expectations and the harsh reality of her performance. Additionally, we examined her numerous campaign missteps, including inconsistent policy positions and damaging controversies from her tenure as California’s Attorney General, which have significantly eroded public trust. Furthermore, her tenure as Vice President has been marked by a lack of clear leadership and direction, with low approval ratings and criticisms from both the public and within her own party underscoring her perceived ineffectiveness.
While Harris’s public speaking and communication challenges further compound the issues surrounding her candidacy, the internal dynamics within the Democratic Party have revealed significant opposition to her as a viable replacement for Biden. Prominent figures like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, along with other key party leaders, have expressed serious concerns about Biden’s ability to win and Harris’s suitability as his successor. The push for Harris, despite her shortcomings, has been driven by a desire for continuity; however, this approach overlooks the necessity of a fresh and dynamic leader who can galvanize the electorate.
It is imperative that the Democratic Party consider more viable alternatives for the sake of both the party and the country. Although potential replacements such as Gretchen Whitmer, Gavin Newsom, Mark Kelly, Josh Shapiro, Wes Moore, and JB Pritzker may not be as well-known nationally, their fresh perspectives and strong leadership qualities offer a promising path forward. In today’s digital age, social media has the power to rapidly elevate their profiles, making them household names in a short period. Other democracies, such as France and the UK, manage to hold elections within much shorter time frames; this demonstrates that there is still ample time to introduce and rally behind a new candidate. In fact, in the UK, the newly elected leader assumes office the day after the election, a practice that the US could benefit from adopting to ensure a smoother and more efficient transition of power.
Therefore, the Democratic Party must act decisively and prioritize the selection of a candidate who not only embodies the values and aspirations of the party but also possesses the charisma and competence to lead the nation effectively. The stakes are too high to gamble on a candidate who has repeatedly demonstrated significant weaknesses on the national stage. For the future of American democracy and the Democratic Party, it is crucial to embrace a leader who can inspire confidence and navigate the complex challenges ahead.
References
Al Jazeera. (2023). Who could potentially replace President Joe Biden? Al Jazeera. Retrieved from https://www.aljazeera.com
Brown, S., & Goldmacher, S. (2023). Biden’s potential replacements outperform in swing states: Memo. Politico. Retrieved from https://www.politico.com
Burns, A., & Martin, J. (2023). The long shadow of Willie Brown. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com
CapRadio. (2023). Where does the push to replace Biden stand? CapRadio. Retrieved from https://www.capradio.org
Christopher, B. (2021). The real Kamala Harris: What her California years reveal. CapRadio. Retrieved from https://www.capradio.org
Dutton, S. (2021). Americans react negatively to Kamala Harris’s job performance. CBS News. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com
Jacobs, J., & Glueck, K. (2023). Who might replace Biden on the top of the ticket? The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com
Klein, E. (2021). The Kamala Harris problem. Vox. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com
Lizza, R., & Daniels, E. (2023). Why Kamala Harris isn’t winning over voters. Politico. Retrieved from https://www.politico.com
Thrush, G., & Haberman, M. (2021). Inside Kamala Harris’s fractured office. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com
Wikipedia Contributors. (n.d.). Kamala Harris 2020 presidential campaign. Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris_2020_presidential_campaign
Politico Contributors. (n.d.). The spectacular collapse of Kamala Harris. Politico. Retrieved from https://www.politico.com
The Atlantic Contributors. (n.d.). Kamala Harris’s disastrous presidential campaign. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com
Vox Contributors. (n.d.). Kamala Harris’s 2020 run: What went wrong. Vox. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com
The New York Times Contributors. (n.d.). Why Kamala Harris’s campaign failed. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com
The Washington Post Contributors. (n.d.). Kamala Harris’s speaking style criticized. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com
Politico Contributors. (n.d.). Kamala Harris and public perception. Politico. Retrieved from https://www.politico.com
NPR Contributors. (n.d.). The many challenges of Kamala Harris. NPR. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org
Slate Contributors. (n.d.). Kamala Harris’s polarizing voice. Slate. Retrieved from https://www.slate.com
FiveThirtyEight Contributors. (n.d.). Kamala Harris’s approval ratings. FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved from https://fivethirtyeight.com