Joe Biden is out, and Kamala Harris is in. That's right, the cackler-in-chief is poised to take his place at the top of the 2024 Democratic ticket. With Biden's endorsement on Sunday night, Harris’s glaring weaknesses are once again under intense scrutiny. Opinions about the 59-year-old from those who have worked closely with her are often highly critical. Nevertheless, some argue that she might be the most strategically placed Democrat to challenge Donald Trump in the upcoming November election. This reflects the embarrassing state of the Democratic Party. In essence, despite her deep unpopularity, Harris is seen as their best option to defeat Donald Trump in November.
The Dems are desperate.
Given that Harris is even less popular than Biden, her chances of defeating Trump hover somewhere between slim and nonexistent. Mainstream media outlets already know this, hence the reason why they are already preparing justifications for her probable failure to become the country’s first female president. Yes, you guessed it correctly: Americans are allegedly too sexist and racist to vote for a black woman.
This is nonsense. Her lack of appeal has nothing to do with her gender or race; it is entirely about her track record and her lack of likability.
Throughout her career, she has faced considerable criticism as a political candidate, and her shortcomings are emblematic of deeper issues that resonate with the electorate. Her tenure, both as Attorney General of California and as a U.S. Senator, reveals a series of failings that undermine her credibility and appeal. In the past, Harris oversaw institutions that received plenty of criticism from proponents of criminal justice. Specifically, Harris was criticized for being overly aggressive in seeking convictions and lacking transparency. These concerns seemed to contradict her public image as a "progressive prosecutor” and reinforce the narrative that she is, in fact, “extraordinarily nasty.”
In 2010, while Harris was campaigning for California's attorney general position, San Francisco authorities shut down a crime lab at the Hunters Point naval yard. Technician Deborah Madden faced allegations of stealing drugs, casting serious doubts on the lab's ability to handle evidence properly in criminal cases. Madden later admitted guilt to these charges.
Initially, Harris dismissed a couple of dozen drug cases, but the total number eventually surged to over 1,500. Documents later revealed that Harris's office had been aware of Madden's questionable reliability for months before the lab's closure but failed to inform defense attorneys.
A superior court judge subsequently criticized Harris's office, stating that the violations undermined the defendants' constitutional rights.
In response, Harris established a unit to oversee the sharing of evidence with criminal defense attorneys and claimed she was unaware of the crime lab issues until the scandal broke. However, not surprisingly, few people believed her then, and few people believe her now.
As a U.S. Senator, Harris’s record has been characterized by frequent shifts in policy positions. A notable example of this inconsistency is her stance on Medicare for All. Initially, she supported the idea, aligning herself with progressive demands for a universal healthcare system. However, her subsequent retreat from this position—driven by political pragmatism and pressure from moderate Democrats—left many questioning her commitment to the cause. My aim here is not to defend Medicare, but to emphasize that Harris seems to lack a consistent ethical or moral compass. She appears to adapt to prevailing political currents, prioritizing her own interests over those of the people she represents. Such a tendency is problematic in politics and especially troubling for the presidency.
This inconsistency is emblematic of her broader political behavior, where her positions often seem more reactive than principled. Harris’s public persona as a champion of women’s rights and racial justice stands in stark contrast to her record on issues like criminal justice. Her opposition to the early release of non-violent offenders, despite advocating for criminal justice reform, reflects a disconnection between her public statements and her policy actions. She is a shapeshifter who is only interested in self-preservation. Her "progressive" posturing is nothing more than an act—a thoroughly unconvincing one. Also, it's important to note, she's just not very good at her job. Remember, she was assigned the task of managing the immigration crisis. A simple observation and a basic grasp of the facts reveal that she, along with the rest of the current administration, has failed miserably. Rather incredibly, Border Patrol Chief Jason Owens recently stated that Harris has not communicated with him since his appointment in July of last year.
Harris’s many difficulties as a political candidate are reminiscent of the challenges faced by Hillary Clinton. Both Harris and Clinton have struggled with significant "likability" issues. Clinton’s political tenure was plagued by similar criticisms of deceit, untrustworthiness, and a lack of authenticity, which ultimately played a role in her 2016 defeat. Harris mirrors these problems; her public image is often viewed as insincere and calculated. This perception affects her ability to connect with voters on a personal level, creating a barrier to building genuine trust.
In presidential elections, "likability" transcends mere superficial charm; it is a huge factor that influences a candidate's prospects. Likability encompasses a candidate's personal appeal, charisma, and perceived authenticity. On all three counts, Harris falls markedly short.
Like it or not, this is the age of social media and virality. Presidential elections are no longer solely about policies and platforms. Today, they are equally concerned with the emotional resonance candidates have with voters. A likeable candidate can foster a sense of trust and relatability, forging a deeper connection with the electorate. In truth, this has been the case for decades. For instance, John F. Kennedy’s charismatic and personable nature enabled him to cultivate a strong emotional bond with voters, which was crucial to his electoral triumph. The same dynamic was evident with Trump in 2016, and it is likely to play a significant role in the upcoming November elections.
Likability often translates into perceived reliability, a crucial attribute for anyone aspiring to the highest office. Richard Nixon’s lack of likability, compounded by the Watergate scandal, tarnished his reputation and political career, culminating in his resignation. Similarly, Harris, who has been complicit in perpetuating the falsehood that Biden is free from cognitive decline, exhibits troubling unreliability. Her gender and race are mere distractions from her record, which, as is clear to see, does not reflect favorably. As the New York Times pointed out, "the content of her message remains a work in progress." This observation underscores a rather obvious truth: she doesn’t have a message, not a convincing one anyway. Trump, however, does.
