In a candid assessment of the Democratic party's future, veteran strategist James Carville reflected on the unsuccessful presidential campaign of Kamala Harris.
According to the New York Post, Carville's critique followed the defeat of then-Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election.
Despite former Vice President Harris boasting substantial campaign resources and high-profile endorsements, she was defeated by Donald Trump, who secured the presidency with 312 electoral votes and a 1.5% lead in the popular vote. Harris’s campaign, while well-funded and widely supported by prominent figures, failed to resonate as strongly with voters as anticipated.
Before the election, Carville had expressed his confidence in Harris's victory, citing her campaign’s financial advantage and significant organizational presence, which included numerous storefronts and supporters conducting door-to-door canvassing. He assumed these factors would give Harris a crucial edge.
"The polls looked even, all right? I thought that Harris had more money. She also had more storefront locations, she had more doorknockers, and better surrogates with two ex-presidents out there. Trump was going around with Scott Baio or something ... And I thought a combination of all of that would be worth a point and a half. It was not," said James Carville.
Harris's pivotal moment occurred during an appearance on "The View," where she struggled to differentiate her policies from those of then-President Joe Biden. This incident, referred to by Carville as the "worst answer ever given" in such a setting, significantly hindered her campaign.
Carville stressed that candidates must present voters with clear, compelling reasons for change, a principle he believes Harris's campaign strategy overlooked. "You relearn the oldest lesson in politics. The greatest motivator of turnout, of voting, of persuasion is a reason. If you don’t have a reason, you can’t [win]. People had a reason to vote for Trump. The one reason that they were looking for, I should have taken this into more account, was people wanted some change," he explained.
This reflection sheds light on the dynamics that often dictate electoral success and may serve as a crucial learning point for future campaigns.
"She completely flubs it. Well, 70% of people, we’ll have time to argue whether they were right or wrong, 70% of people want something different. Well, give it to them! ... [Say] anything you want other than ‘I can’t think of anything.’ Worst answer ever given. Ever given," commented Carville on Harris's response.
While the 2024 run did not yield the desired result for Harris, she remains a significant figure within the Democratic party, stirring speculation about future endeavors, including a possible 2028 presidential bid or a run for the California governorship in 2026.
Carville remains nuanced in his view of Harris’s potential candidacy in future elections. Although acknowledging her comprehensive resume, he stresses the heightened need for her to evolve as a candidate if she decides to run again.
Carville concluded with a reflection on the broader implications of electoral rhetoric and public engagement: "The public will never care if you’re wrong. When they’ll turn on you is when you’re boring or predictable. That’s what they don’t like. If you don’t say something in a colorful way that sticks with people, you know what you’re saying? It’s vapid stuff. And I think the public is just tired of talking points. They’re just worn out," he summed up, highlighting the critical nature of authenticity and engagement in political communication.
As the Democratic Party looks to the future, the lessons from the 2024 election will likely influence their approach to candidate selection and campaign strategies. The need for a resonant, compelling message remains clear, underpinning the complex dynamics of American presidential races.
