Why Did Kamala Lose? Blame Joe Biden and the Democratic Party

Hello, I hope you’re doing well after an intense election season. I just published a piece on Newsweek analyzing the factors behind Kamala Harris' loss and what it means for the Democratic Party moving forward — I thought you might find it insightful.

Why Did Kamala Lose? Blame Joe Biden and the Democratic Party

The election is over. Vice President Kamala Harris lost and former President Donald Trump won. How did this happen?

People are going to point fingers. Harris inherited President Biden's political team with some of former President Barack Obama's team bolted on, and they will all be very eager to divorce themselves from the loss. The less thoughtful will point to misogyny or racism or some combination. Yet while I'm sure the country's first woman president will experience a different kind of scrutiny, the real cause of the Dems' loss was their refusal to hold a nomination process.

President Biden's refusal to step down and allow a primary in January of this year is why the Democrats lost. If a primary had taken place, Josh Shapiro, Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, J.B. Pritzker, Wes Moore, Andy Beshear, and others would have run alongside Kamala. The result would have been a strong nominee chosen by voters in a competitive process. If it had been Kamala — which you'd have to consider unlikely, based on her 2019 run — she would have been a different candidate who would have done scores of interviews and been fully prepped and toughened.

Kamala had well-established weaknesses. One is that she was attached to the current administration with all of its drawbacks. Another is that she struggles with sit-down interviews. When asked a question, she seems to be thinking, "What should I say here?" instead of, "What do I think and believe?" That's a critical flaw. Her team managed to avoid this in the presidential race for a while by focusing on the DNC speech and the debate, but eventually she had no choice but to conduct interviews, and the results were uneven at best. If your candidate can't win people over by talking to them or in front of them, it's a major problem.

By the way, I don't think this is that big a deal ordinarily. Many politicians are kind of unmemorable and resort to talking points whenever they sit down. But in a presidential campaign, it's glaring. People expect the President to be a strong leader and communicator, and talking points seem scripted and inauthentic. This is one reason why Kamala's campaign in 2019 didn't go well. Again, that's what a nomination process is for.

President Biden insisting that he was running only to drop out belatedly after his disastrous June debate and then endorse Harris short-circuited any chance for the party to meaningfully vet a candidate and field the strongest ticket.

There was one member of Congress who tried to force a nomination contest: Dean Phillips of Minnesota. His reward was a premature end to his political career and endless stories maligning his character. Dean tried to save the party from itself, but it didn't want to be saved; instead, it chanted "four more years" at a visibly declining 81-year old Joe Biden, who would drop out six months later.

A genuine nomination process would have made the Democratic Party seem much more functional, because, well, it would have been. Voters would have spoken, and the best candidates would have emerged. That never happened.

Even after Kamala Harris was the nominee, they could have gone bolder. She could have shown daylight between herself and Joe Biden on multiple fronts. I would have considered accepting RFK Jr.'s endorsement and giving him a role in trying to clean up food additives. Many of his followers are sincere. The Dems refused to take his call. I would have named Mitt Romney Secretary of State. As far as I know they never had that conversation. I would have said, "Ordinary Americans are fed up with bureaucracy. Democrats should be trying to deliver services efficiently. I will name a task force to minimize waste and deliver results." Take some of Elon's thunder. Who likes bureaucracy? Accept some of the grievances Americans have as being in good faith, and make yourself someone who redefines party orthodoxy to build a bigger tent.

But to do these things it would take someone — either the candidate or the campaign manager — with a real vision. The candidate matters. If your candidate is a particular person with real strengths and weaknesses, you can't make them into a different person or swap them out (more than once).

There were also issues with Harris inheriting Biden's team and campaign; there wasn't a multi-year arc of trust built up. I don't think the campaign team had confidence in Kamala to take on certain tasks. And instead of figuring out how to grow to a win, the strategy became trying to eke out a narrow win that eventually turned into a loss, despite a massive fundraising advantage.

Tons of campaign time was spent on raising money for ads that never moved the needle. There's a lesson there too.

Now the Democratic Party will say, "It's okay, we'll come back in '28!" Consultants will burnish their resumés by throwing someone else under the bus. Profiles will be written about the next crop of candidates for what they hope will be the next election.

Will they learn? Why would you imagine so after witnessing this year?

Fundamentally, the party has become insular — more concerned about itself than the people and families it pretends to represent. Conformity ruled over courage or common sense. Enough Americans have lost faith to give the reins of power back to Donald Trump.

No one should walk away from this thinking that the situation is tenable. The question should not be "Who's next?" but instead "What is next?" Everything, including a new political party that gets us beyond the tedious us vs. them, should be on the table.

—

If you’re exhausted by a system that isn’t working, it’s time to look forward — join the Forward Party and be part of the change we need.