Heading into the elections, polls suggested a neck-and-neck race between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. The outcome was uncertain, and the competition was tight. Yet, once the ballots were counted, Trump secured a decisive victory with 312 electoral votes, gaining support in key swing states that Harris had hoped to count on. The results contrasted the predictions, raising an inevitable question amongst Democrats: Could Kamala Harris have actually won the presidential election?
For Harris, the loss was not just a numbers game. Firstly, she had only 107 days to campaign after Biden’s resignation – a fraction of the time usually needed to launch a serious presidential bid. Secondly, Harris made the misstep of shadowing Biden, whose unpopularity was growing amongst the public. Biden’s withdrawal from the race revealed his declining approval, and Harris missed the opportunity to craft an independent vision of her policies and offer an alternative vision. Lastly, she faced a strong opponent, who gained support from swing states, the Senate, and his Republican base.
Harris succeeded 81-year-old President Joe Biden after his resignation on July 21st, 2024. Concerns within the Democratic Party and the public over Biden’s “possible mental or physical decline” likely influenced his decision to step aside. Critics argue that Biden should have withdrawn sooner, allowing a younger candidate with more time and a stronger chance of winning to take over. Typically, candidates spend a year or more campaigning, gradually building recognition and connections, but Harris had only three months to rally the Democratic campaign. This short timeline put her at a serious disadvantage, limiting her ability to fully present herself as a competent and prepared candidate. But perhaps even more “disastrous” was her choice to shadow Biden’s troubled legacy, despite widespread dissatisfaction with his administration. According to one Democrat aide, “Joe Biden is the singular reason Kamala Harris and Democrats lost tonight”.
During an interview on The View, Harris was asked whether she would have done anything differently from President Biden. Her response – “There is not a thing that comes to mind” – was quickly used against her by Republican opponents. This statement was criticized for aligning with Biden at a time when the public was seeking change, instead of continuity. Trump’s political aide Karoline Leavitt, for instance, said on X (formerly Twitter) “Kamala wouldn’t change a thing that’s happened over the four years. If you elect her, you can expect four more years of the same: Inflation. Border Crisis. Crime. War. Chaos. Division. Only President Trump will bring CHANGE!”.
This “Biden baggage” weighed heavily on Harris, particularly regarding economic and immigration issues. During Biden’s presidency, inflation grew rapidly, and many Americans associated the administration with economic mismanagement. Biden’s delayed response to the border crisis only deepened public dissatisfaction. In December 2023, encounters with migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border reached a record high of 250,000. His stricter immigration controls, introduced just six months before the election, came too late to shift public opinion. The timing highlighted the administration’s major weaknesses, portraying both Biden and Harris as ineffective at handling critical issues. Since tougher immigration measures were delayed, voters had already sided with Trump’s campaign. Harris’ close alignment with Biden thus weakened her vision among voters, potentially costing her the victory.
Lastly, Harris had a powerful competitor: Donald Trump. Despite controversies around his rhetoric, marked by racist comments, impeachments, and human rights abuses, Trump earned substantial votes. He secured key victories across all seven swing states and drew unexpected support from women, Black and Latino voters, despite prediction polls suggesting otherwise. Trump’s stance on the economy further strengthened his position, as many voters claim he would adopt stronger economic policies than Harris. Interestingly, Harris’ support wasn’t limited to traditional Democratic voters; many Republicans reportedly voted for her not because they aligned with her policies, but by their opposition to Trump. This “anti-Trump” dynamic shows how his controversial speeches and policies drove some voters toward Harris.
Despite these shortcomings, Kamala Harris presented herself as a credible, down-to-earth candidate, winning 48.1% of the vote. In her short campaign period, she inherited Biden’s legacy, skillfully used social media to increase her visibility, and built a campaign on optimism, as exemplified by her slogan “We’re not going back!”. Her progressive proposals, especially her commitment to reestablish Roe v. Wade, drew support from younger generations. However, these efforts weren’t enough to secure a majority of support from women overall. She also fell short of support from Black and Latino communities, whose votes she had counted on but ultimately lost to Trump.
Harris’ defeat raises a more complex question: Did her sex influence the election outcome? As the potential first female U.S. President, Harris struggled to break the hard glass ceiling for the second time in eight years. Some argue that gender may have affected the results, suggesting that the U.S. may still be unprepared for a female President. Although Harris did not win, her campaign and her role as the first woman to serve as vice president undeniably “brought women much closer” to breaking the glass ceiling.
In the end, while Harris’ campaign was disadvantaged by limited time, Biden’s baggage, and a strong opponent, her achievements and efforts should not be ignored. Her campaign highlighted the necessity of an independent vision and a clear strategy for winning broad support. Could Harris have won under different circumstances or was it doomed to fail?
