Mr. Blow, has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, "Black voters" simply do not identify themselves with the Identity Politics that you and your cohorts do?
20
I knew from the beginning she was a hoax! She knew she wasn’t a winner but took millions of dollars from the black community. The same community she robbed of countless black men. She is just like the rest of the millionaire congressmen a selfish egotistical opportunist. Never ever fell for her SCAM!
7
So Mr. Blow, were Kamala's own staff in on the conspiracy? Because they don't seem to be a very happy bunch...
10
Imagine--with her corporatist neoliberalism masquerading as progressivism, her long history of cozying up to the big-money Bay Area elites, and her climbing up the CA political ladder by being tough on people of color--if Kamala Harris had been a white man. Charles Blow wouldn't have given her the time of day.
Now whose bias should we be examining?
15
This is kind of predictable. One of the most fake, gimmicky candidates finally dropped out of an over crowded race. It wasn't even discernible why she was running other than she wanted to be president. She spent each debate trying to land some clever soundbite. She went after Tulsi in a gross and unfair manner, and Tulsi rightfully pointed out her record. Finally this ridiculous inauthentic candidate is out of the race.
And within a manner of days, the New York Times has two articles opining that the real reason Harris dropped out is because of racism. And one of the articles is from Charles Blow. Could the Times be more predictable?
What I learn from this is that black people are very very racist. There are black people who make entire careers obsessing over race. Charles Blow is the worst offender. Even on a slow news week, he'll find someone who is racist to write an article about. It's almost laughable at this point. And it's gross.
Also, a large part of both articles is that racism is so entrenched in America and black people are so racist, er I mean pragmatic, that not even they would vote for Harris, a black woman. Followed by the obligatory accusation that white people wouldn't support her either.
Maybe voters of all skin colors are just people! They vote for the candidates they like and support. Kamila was a subpar and unlikeable candidate. Done.
That racism had anything to do with Kamila's failed campaign is a delusion.
11
Mr. Blow - are you seriously claiming that the Democratic Party is sexist and racist? Is there no refuge remaining for the unbiased voter?
9
This feels like a science fiction movie where Earth has been invaded by aliens and Charles wants us to discuss why the pilot we’re sending to blow up the alien’s ship isn't a Black man.
Yeah Charles, you raise some fine questions, but maybe this isn’t the best time to bring it up.
6
One can only hope that Americans in general aren’t as fixated on race as are NYT Op-Ed writers. Particularly today.
9
Charles Blow once again sees something through the prism of race. It was racism that killed the Harris campaign but not the Beto O'Rourke campaign. It is racism that is keeping Cory Booker from gaining national support but not the Klobucher campaign. I am sorry Mr. Blow, but not every problem; not every failing; not every bad thing in this world is due to racism. Your constant bellowing of the race alarm will only serve to anesthetize us to this country's real race problems. Wait, I know what you are thinking when you read this......I must be a racist.
11
Yes. The Democrats are racists.
The Republicans are racist.
Everyone is racist.
Got it.
[Meanwhile the most popular former President, a Black man, wonders why all these "racists" voted for him, love him, and adore his family.]
13
Alright Mr. Blow have it your way. You’ve convinced me that the Democratic Party is just a bunch of women hating racist.
7
Iowa is primarily white. Iowans turned out to support Obama. You are way off base where you lay the blame here, Blow.
10
It was "the system." Of course.
Tell that to all the white people who donated millions of dollars to Kamala Harris. Those awful racists.
8
So if Americans are so racist, how did Obama win twice ?
6
Charles Blow, I must say that I've stopped listening to you once you've become a never-Bloomberg. Are you going to vote for Donald instead? Your articles are to the detriment of America and the detriment of humanity.
8
There was another columnist who ran an article today about Kamela Harris.
There is one letter writer who hit the nail on the head when they said this:
[I ask myself though, what if Stacey Abrams ran for President, would she end the way Ms. Harris did?
I doubt that very much. Stacey is one with great intellect, charismatic, and a down to earth woman. She lifts us up here in Georgia, she fights for voting rights, she fights for the underdog, the poor, and the sick.
In many parts of the country, not just Georgia, she is a name that reminds one of the love, and respect we had as a nation just a few years ago.]
I personally feel Stacey Abrams. in a way that Kamela didn't project to me.
Stacey makes me feel as if what she is saying is true and she believes it with all her heart and soul.
I never felt that with Kamela Harris even if she said it and probably meant it.
It's not a black thing, as I am also black.
As for the system, it is hard for blacks to get in be taken seriously, but Corey Booker comes off better in trying to make those feelings felt than Kamela Harris.
I don't think Corey has a change in hell of being the nominee but if he does make it, he will have my vote heartedly.
.
5
Here are my answers to the questions raised:
- Racism and sexism. Race and sex probably helped Harris. Wasn't that a big part of her appeal? The current Democratic Party is the wokest in American history and bends over backwards for diversity; let's attack the very real racism in our country and not the people who care most about stopping it.
- Media coverage. Harris's media coverage was commensurate with her polling numbers. According to the NYT tracker, she was 5th in polling and 6th in media coverage at the beginning of December. If any candidate got screwed by media coverage, it's Andrew Yang (6th in polling but 11th in media).
- Donation requirement for debate. Harris had no trouble meeting the donations requirement. Ironically, this requirement is hurting Bloomberg the most, as he can't get into the debates because he hasn't raised any donations.
- Primaries schedule. The schedule is hurting Biden the most. If we started in a mostly-black state like South Carolina, Biden would win in a landslide. And if we wanted to pick the most racially representative small state to start in, that would be Biden's home state of Delaware.
- Why only white candidates have qualified for the next debate. Because Harris chose to drop out. Also, there is still time, chances are Yang and Tulsi will be in.
I didn't like Harris because she struck me as too Hillary Clinton-like (not clearly standing for anything and a bit too comfortable with the levers of power).
5
The DNC/DCCC have screwed up the primaries before, as they did in 2016, by interfering in the processes to benefit their 'chosen candidate' rather than allowing the voters to make their choices be heard. Hopefully, the same exact mistakes won't occur again, but 'groupthink' seems to be an ongoing problem for Establishment Dems.
1
How about we don’t need a prosecutor as president. White black woman or man.
4
Charles, you are columnist for the times and frequently appear on TV. You are and have been in a position to promote the Harris campaign and her ideas. I did a quick search and didn't see any articles prior to this one about Harris. Is that racism? Is that media bias?
You have a bullhorn to advocate for your candidate and/or positions. It doesn't seem that you did that for Harris, but you now question if the primaries are fair, if racism was part of it...
You tell me... Was it racism or media bias that kept you from advocating for Harris?
9
You never cease to amaze me in your ability to find “ism” where it ain’t.
7
Like many commentators on this article, I started off supporting Harris. I liked the way she sounded. I liked her energy. But then I listened to her in an extended interview (nearly an hour podcast) on NPR. I was shocked. She had No Vision. She seemed to want to run for town council, to fill in potholes. Really. Potholes. That's the substantive take away from an hour.
Ultimately, Harris failed because she confuses process and substance. She may be a good fighter (process), but she doesn't know what she's fighting for (substance). That won't cut it when running for President. Too lead, you have to have some idea where you're going. All the leading Dem candidates do. Harris doesn't.
The idea expressed by many--not just Blow--that she failed because people want a while person, preferably a white male, to take on Trump is offensive. It treats us, the Dem voters who ceased supporting or never supported Harri, as racist and sexist and unable to judge substance. Please, don't reach for that explanation first when the truth is so much more obvious and so much less insulting.
6
Why doesn't NYT run more varied opinions on Kamala Harris. Second poorly advised opinion piece on her in the day.
Also, when is someone going to take a serious look at homophobia in America for another candidate running?
5
Is Blow saying white people are bigoted for not supporting Harris, but black people are realistic for doing so?
8
The democrats have built a system that is stacked against black candidates, you say, which is why Obama was nominated in '08 and won the presidency twice??? White people have decided that black candidates are not electable??? Mr Blow, your justifiable rage against racism has made your columns in recent months irrational. I happen to be white and knocked on doors for Obama.
9
Love NYT but nothing new here Mr. Blow. Where’s the insights? I liked Harris a lot until she practically called Biden a racist on the debate stage- after Biden “carried water” for President Obama for eight years. It boggled my mind. What was she thinking? It hurt to hear her speak this way. I kind of knew that it was all downhill for her after that debate. She never recovered.
5
Charles, I have a question that grows out of reading your colleague Thomas Chatterton Williams' (TCW) second memoir:
Self Portrait In Black and White - Unlearning Race
You are the New York Times expert on the American fiction that there are two genetically distinct races, one called black and one called white. (I am well aware that readers are ready to reply, no Larry, the races are socially constructed. My reply, they were politically constructed in the crystal clear belief that one was genetically superior to the other, a belief widely held in America, even today.)
Tell me why do you and many of your colleagues endlessly see Kamala Harris as "black" when TCW and I, both of living in Europe,know that she would not be seen as black here and of course would not be assigned to a race, either in his France or my Sweden.
Then tell me if you see her as African-American, and, if you do, what attributes one must have to qualify as African-American.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
10:07 GMT 2019-12-05
3
Kamala Harris wanted to be the "David" who could kill the "Goliat" (Biden), but she threw the wrong "stone" to kill her rival.
Obama is black, but he started his campaign with charisma and without visible "stones" in his hands.
5
Sorry, Mr. Blow, but your acknowledgment that Barack Obama scored a nomination victory over the heavily-favored Hillary blows a hole in your entire thesis. He had to contend with the same set of rules and obstacles that she did and still he prevailed. Maybe she needed that seal of approval from Oprah. In any case, she never made clear to black Americans- or to white Democrats- why she was the best possible candidate who match up against an incumbent who's clearly a racist. Yes, blacks want a winner, especially given the current situation. And the rest of us do as well.
8
While Mr Blow predictively uses the "isms" in his analysis of her failure I would offer three google searches. The first "Kamala Harris sleeping her way to the top", then "Kamala Harris fathers comments on marijuana" and finally "Kamala Harris prosecutorial record".
4
Kamala Harris. Steve Bullock. Joe Sestak. Mark Sanford. Beto O'Rourke. Tim Ryan. Bill DeBlasio. Kristen Gillibrand. Seth Moulton. Jay Inslee. John Hickenlooper. Mike Bravel. Eric Swalwell. Richard Ojeda. What do these people all have in common? They all dropped out of the democratic race for President. But certainly not race or gender!
6
"Advantaging"? Come on...
2
No much in terms of hard facts here, just bloviating from a columnist who is contemptuous of our thanksgiving myths and it’s ties to abolition in the civil war, while his son goes to a college started and continued by scions of those pilgrims and abolitionists.
4
She was a lousy candidate -- at almost every turn .. she really only had one moment. The beginning ... that'e when it started to end.
Beto was the same
5
She's also part Indian. Cue Joe Biden talking about Indians running 711 from few years ago. State of some democrat primary voters thinking.
2
Harris' demise confirms the view that blacks refuse to take black crime as a serious issue that has nothing to do with slavery or racism or bigotry and a lot to do with black deficiencies.
1
"There is absolutely no reason Harris should be out this race so early."
Umm, yes there is (are). Lack of a compelling and coherent platform of issues that matter to her other than her rather transparent careerist motivation. A shambolic campaign that shows a failure to lead even among her adherents. A past that shows her predatory tendencies as a prosecutor--there's the real injustice against people of color. A faux narrative of suffering due to her race when in fact she comes from a privileged background.
Apart from the particular case of Kamala Harris here (and I was an earlier fan before her presidential nomination campaign), Mr Blow seems to be crying wolf once again. Racial setbacks and prejudice are all too real but they should be clearly identified and targeted based on real arguments and not just a persistently jaundiced worldview. This may be Mr Blow's stock in trade but ironically it's one that *relies* upon the condition, and it often rings hollow.
6
Kamala Harris is not a nice person as evidenced by her below-the-belt attack on Joe Biden. Remember she said during a debate that she like him and then, in the next breath, called him a racist. She strikes me as a person who would do anything to get a slight edge over her opponent. I would walk with my back along the wall if I were Joe Biden.
4
I'd think Mr Blow might have minded Harris' treatment of minorities in her power in California. Surely he knows her cruel decisions which hurt so many to please the "law-and-order" bunch. That's why I turned from her when I finally learned of them (not from her pundit fans here, btw). It's ironic that Blow sees that as being about institutional or other racism.
3
I very much like Gail Collins' columns, but I wonder if she realizes that ridiculing Biden as out of date is in a way comparable to Harris's crticism of him for his opinions on busing in the 1970s, another reason her campaign went into decline.
1
So sad to lose her strength and brilliance in the race.
Republicans desperate for a win chose a hapless black man to run against Senator Paul Simon in Illinois. Simon's share of the black vote went from high to nearly unanimous
1
this article is sheer nonsense. harris was a candidate with no serious qualifications to be president other then she was black and female. talk about reverse bigotry!
3
So the party that nominated Barack Obama is now racist because another black candidate didn't go the distance? Black candidates can't be bad candidates, their failure has to be rooted in racism?
This sounds like a case of having only a hammer to swing, and thus seeing only nails everywhere.
Harris tried to be a weather vane, blowing whichever way the week's polls were pointing. She ended up turning off progressives and moderates, both. She was cynical in her baseless attack on Joe Biden in the first debate and sale the next morning of pre-made T-shirts to commemorate the occasion. She came across as phony.
We won't learn anything by bending to Mr. Blow's call for more tortured navel gazing over how racism was secretly behind Harris' failure. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. She was a lousy candidate and that's why she's out.
4
Sorry Charles, I really like her and hoped she would be a the race, However, she simply did a bad job getting her ideas set and out to the people. Everything does not have to be a racist issue.
4
I'm white. An older white guy. I proudly voted for Obama...twice. I would have voted for Harris in a heart beat. But come on, Charles. Disorganization, walk backs, poor advice from strategists knows no color or gender.
PS I like your columns too, Charles.
3
You're wrong on this one, Mr. Blow. And it's because you see everything through the same monochromatic lens (racism). Ask yourself if the deck would have been stacked to the point that Michelle Obama couldn't have gotten any traction. If the Dems do in fact nominate a white man, it will be the first time in 3 cycles.
5
Entered with a bang...left with a wimper. Poorly organized, no ideas, no strategy to get majority of country behind her besides talking about teacher pay and racism... Good luck with that
2
I've christened my comment: "What Charles Blow's Column 'What Kamala Harris's Campaign Teaches Us' Teaches Us." (Marvelous, no?) What indeed? Well, I, for one -- though not for two -- say that it teaches us that Herr Blow's wokeness is now at a point where lifelong insomnia will likely ensue, along with increasing bouts of paranoia and hallucinations, of which this column provides ample demonstration.
It is fair to ask everything Blow says it's fair to ask. But it's fair to ask if Blow is asking in a spirit of fairness; and I think the answer to that is no. Kamala Harris's failures mustn't be put down to the things we'd put her failures down to if she were lighter hued. The explanation must be deeper and -- ahem -- darker, according to Charles. It must, you see, be evidence of the underlying racism and sexism that's a mainstay of American life (of course no other societies have such problems).
When inequities are insurmountable, they're tolerable. Anger rises as equity increases, not decreases. Indeed, it's when fairness is within reach that remaining inequity becomes unbearable. As Western societies have advanced women's rights, minority rights, peacefulness, toleration, like no other societies in history, we hear the loudest complaints about sexism, racism, and warfare (particularly from leftist Europeans whose lily-white welfare states were made possible by America).
(I was wondering, by the way, if The Times cared to respond to Wood and McPherson on "1619"? Or ... no?)
2
Political "pros", like Charles, just hate it when we the people don't do what they tell us to.
2
So let me understand this. Kamala Harris' failed campaign is the fault of black voters because they only vote for "sure things" and white people, because, of course, they're racists. But there's no way it could be due to Harris' lack of a winning strategy.
Right ....
4
It is also fair to ask if Obama was such a disappointment to working class people that he spoiled things for black candidates thereafter.
1
Now she can run as an Indian or a Jamaican—or both!
1
>When it comes to picking a nominee, black people don’t adhere to racial tribalism, broadly speaking
You're joking? In 2012, 93% of Blacks voted for Obama. Pretty much like North Korea voting for Kim Jong-un.
2
When will Black voters realize that the Democrats are using them?
Mr. Blow, the article published in Politics in the Times on Nov. 29 clearly and cogently details the collapse of Senator Harris’ campaign: “How Kamala Harris’s Campaign Unraveled” (https://nyti.ms/2L2GQYw)
As noted, Gil Duran, a former aide to Ms. Harris, hit the nail squarely on the head: “You can’t run the country if you can’t run your campaign.”
It really is that simple…
3
The simple fact that Barack Obama was elected (albeit not against an incumbent) makes Charles' and other writers and opinion leaders argument less than convincing.
Neither Obama or Harris represent our past definitions of "black" in America, but they do represent the "brown" of future America. Both were successful prior to running for President, thus their black or female traits were not hurdles they could not overcome in their prior elections.
A woman almost became President in 2016, halted only by the Electoral College. In 1960 no one thought a Catholic could be elected President. Culture and bias tends to stay with generations, and as new generations come along they create new culture and bias that may allow new things to happen.
Mayor Pete may or may not stand a chance either in primaries or the general election...this cycle. Who would have given him any chance (or money) 10 years ago?
It is unfortunate we have such a large field of democratic candidates-that is Harris' greatest barrier, not race or race/sex. She did not stand out after her first few months, she did not come across well in debates, and she seemed to have a chaotic campaign team.
I do agree that the entire election process for President is broken. As it was in 2016, giving us our current Moron-In-Chief, the early primaries make later primaries seem useless, and not having open primaries pushes the candidates to extremes (thus moderates suffer). Fix elections by having all primaries same day!
Generally speaking, white Democrats do not have anywhere near the level of racism as those who are not Democrats, most particularly Republicans. Agreed, the process favors those with name recognition. It is very clear that over 99% of Democratic voters would support Kamala Harris or any other Democratic candidate running for President in 2020, regardless of skin color, gender or sexual orientation. The Kamala Harris story is not over, as she will continue to be a very meaningful leader in the U.S. no matter her success as an elected official.
1
Kamala Harris was stumped by her own hubris.
To ascribe other reasons for her downfall is insulting to the intelligence of the democratic electorate (White and Black) who saw through her facade and saw a politician who brought nothing but a raging sense of entitlement to the campaign.
Kamala Harris is vapidity and venality of present day politics personified.
8
I don’t think so. Harris is out because she was a bad candidate. She didn’t articulate a clear vision for the country, or what she stood for. I WANTED to like Harris, but she failed to impress.
Democratic primary voters are the most progressive in the country. They backed Obama in 2008. They pushed Elizabeth Warren, a woman, into the lead. If Democrats just wanted an older white man, Joe Biden would be running away with the nomination.
As Mr. Blow notes, African-American voters tend to be moderate, and overwhelming support Biden in South Carolina. (While we’re on the subject of bigotry, Pete Buttigieg may be getting 0% of the black vote in part because he’s gay.)
The primary structure in America is ridiculous, there’s no question about that. But I think Kamala Harris has mainly herself to blame for her poor showing, and not any “isms.”
11
Note how accurate Nate Silver's prediction was with respect to any of the other candidates the author has listed. The ones he predicted would succeed have flopped, and the ones he predicted would flop have stayed near the top of polls. This probably means his model was simply bad, not that it is evidence that one or two candidates of the several mentioned suffered from some un-modeled bias.
How candidates perform matters. Her reckless attack on Biden may have been the end of her chances even if it got a ton of undue attention for a few weeks afterwards. Her health care stance seemed hyper-calculated for political positioning instead of being a serious proposal. She could not handle an attack from Tulsi Gabbard at a debate, perhaps because her actions that motivated the attack were close to indefensible. When there are a dozen other candidates and an electorate keenly aware of the Electoral College and of the fate of Clinton in 2016, people will just look elsewhere when a candidate from California screws up as big as Senator Harris did.
4
And yet Obama didn't have these problems with race and the system the Democrat's built didn't get in Hillary Clinton's way. It's fair to ask these questions for the writer's purposes, but maybe it isn't fair or useful to ask these questions for Ms. Harris's purposes. She's brilliant, she's charismatic, and she didn't know how to run a campaign on the biggest stage this time around.
She attracted 20,000 people on her home turf. She's ran against a weaker candidate in her senate race. She's held national office for about a year. She had no clear platform. Her debate style was that of a litigator. Why does the media insist that she run black and fail for not being black enough?
Yes, I blame her exit on the way she ran her campaign. From that point, she can figure out what to do better next time.
12
My thoughts on Kamala Harris:
-Lack of an aspiring vision for America
-Too wishy-washy on healthcare issues
-Lack of noticeable, self-confidence in running for the presidency
-She isn’t as inspiring as an Elizabeth Warren or Hillary Clinton
-Lack of creative/demonstrable policy initiatives
-Not convinced she really wanted to be President
Bottom line: She is a trailblazer. Fearless to a certain degree, but not ready (yet) for prime time.
7
Democratic candidates would do well to consider the late Speaker of the House Tip Oneil's advice to campaign in poetry, govern in prose. Elections are mainly decided on the basis of emotions.
2
Kamala Harris did lose because of race she lost because she she had the baggage of being a DA which hurts on the criminal reform part. She also seemed to have a fundamental misreading of the time when school busing was being debated. She was too young to fully understand the issue at that time and to try to bludgeon Biden on it was viewed as a score in that debate for everything else she had nothing. She had no discernible message and with out that you will not be a candidate no matter what your race.
6
My wife and I identified Harris early on as the democrat we’d most like to see win the nomination and hopefully the presidency. We soon realized that she’s a terrible campaigner, missing opportunities to capitalize on gains and seemingly fixated on misguided strategies and less than compelling messaging. Ultimately we were not surprised, but definitely saddened, to see her campaign fall apart. So when Charles writes, “[t]here is absolutely no reason Harris should be out of this race so early,” I must conclude that he paid scant attention to her campaign. The reasons are legion.
9
I'm not sure what happened, Kamala was my top choice. I did get to the point when her popularity was fading in the polls that I was looking for the person -- any person -- who could beat Trump. Frankly, if a blind giraffe was running against Trump and had a shot, I'm going with the long-necked one.
That said, I hope she runs for president again. I think she's got the policies, personality, and moxie, to make a great leader or our country. Certainly this time around, she'd make a tremendous vice presidential candidate.
39
Very sorry that Mr. Blow yet again goes into his default mode of finding racism and sexism as the root causes for most outcomes.
Here in California we know Kamala a little better than the rest of the nation. Her waffling and political opportunism has become painfully conspicuous in recent years. If anything, she initially got our votes exactly because of her race, gender, and background; but she thereafter never cultivated a solid political philosophy which reassured us of her genuine potential and capacity.
Instead, she seemed to approach every issue with her own self-interest in mind--she wanted to spin or not spin in such a way that it propelled her forward politically, rather than resolved an issue or helped someone. Where she really lost me was her summarily condemning Senator Al Franken, before he had any real hearing or opportunity to respond. Good politics for her with MeToo, et al., but bad for real justice.
She made similar gaffes a regular feature of her campaign and by the end of it many of us wondered if she was even a good person at her core. I certainly don't have an answer for that, but with impressive alternatives like Pete B., Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, etc., many of us here in California were asking ourselves: Kamala Who?
15
I'm sorry Kamala Harris dropped out. I wanted to see her succeed, however, what did she stand for exactly? Other columns have asked the same questions. She had a good resume but it seemed that was it. She kept looking back at her history/story rather than looking ahead; telling voters how you will partner with them to make their lives better. She seemed to be out there, not connectable. The jury is still out there for a Vice-Presidential candidate, or Attorney General for the matter.
4
No Charles, it's not fair to blame her demise on racism and/or sexism. Had Obama not served two terms, it might be fair. That said, I do believe the U.S. is one of the most insidious racist countries on earth and that Trump and his base lifted the rocks where they were hiding, but that wasn't a factor in her demise.
5
If Dems win in 2020, Harris would be good as Attorney General
1
Blow offered no actual numbers to back up his thesis that race/gender was an important factor. Humorist Dave Barry opined that Americans carefully consider policies and strategies and then vote for whoever is taller. How truthful is that? People voted for the incompetent W. Bush over the competent Gore since he was possibly more fun to have a beer with.
And then there are additional problems - one is that lawyers are trained to be....lawyers...which can subtly rob them of the type of leadereship qualities people seek in a government executive/CEO/president; and Senators likewise have a poor track record of ascending to executive positions (in my lifetime, only 2 became president - JFK and Obama - and they are very rare in US history).
My wife accurately forecast that US voters could handle a minority man being pres before a woman about 20 yrs ago. Way way too many men with their fragile egos are unduly threatened by powerful women. A smart, liberal friend couldn't vote for Hilary because she reminded him too much of the strict nuns in his Catholic elementary school - so silly! (At least he was honest).
Otherwise, agree that Harris wasn't specific enough for me about what she would do as Pres. I have zero bias against women or people of color being leaders - they just need to be true leaders.
How did Trump get elected when his past should have thoroughly prevented it (esp Birther baloney)? Fame. Fortune. Bully-nature. Narcissism. Outsider. Naiivete. Anger.
5
I think Mr. Blow forgets that Kamala is also Indian (and she forgets that also.) It was her Indian family that raised her when her father left. But enough of her family history.
She withdrew because she does not inspire. Her speeches for the most part are forgettable.
During speeches and debates in California she gets easily irritated with questions she doesn't like or beneath her.
Give me a better female ethnically diverse candidate who inspires and they will have America's vote!
8
Race doesn't matter if you are gorgeous.. which KH is... but only on the outside.
3
"Racism, racism, racism". You can tell it is the NYT op-ed page (or the "news" pages) without looking.
Face it: she was an unskilled and unappealing candidate who changed her positions often enough to put off possible supporters. Some people (Bill Clinton) have a gift of magically appealing to almost anyone, wherever they stand on the issues. And some don't.
10
If we play the race card too often, it loses its value. Charles Blow should know better. Elizabeth Warren might well have the same problem as Harris in the perception (or reality?) that she can't beat Trump. Should we then play the "Native American card?" I am being flip, but this card is only slightly more absurd that the race card played here. Kamala Harris flip-flopped on positions, didn't have a consistent or coherent message, reveled in taking down Joe Biden in the first debate but then squirmed when being taken down by Tulsi Gabbard in the last debate. That has zero to do with race. Besides, how does one state that "black voters reward familiarity" and "black people don't adhere to racial tribalism" (both true and both pluses for Joe Biden) while also attributing race as one reason for Ms. Harris's demise? Where's the logic? What Kamala's campaign "teaches us" is that candidates must CONNECT with voters – it's as much about intangibles as tangibles. Kamala just didn't have it – not for this race, and certainly not because of her race.
11
I think Charles Blow underestimates his readers. We know better than to vote for a candidate simply because of their gender, skin color or sexual orientation.
Kamala Harris never caught on because she never presented cohesive policies that appealed to the common people -- no matter what their gender, skin color, or whatever.
Charles, maybe you are behind the times: most people now know how to look past the superficial and focus on the issues.
7
So Beto is out because of rampant racism against white men? Seems like you are seeing what you want to see; avoiding the obvious, that Harris was and is a poor politician. She is a US Senator for God’s sake, hardly an oppressed person.
10
You are the one being dishonest, with a litany of "it is possibles" and no facts. There is no reason the party that nominated Barack Obama could not nominate Kamala Harris, save one: Mr. Obama was a spectacularly strong candidate, while Ms. Harris was a spectacularly weak one.
8
Neither condescending paternalistic liberal white pity nor condescending paternalistic conservative white contempt accepts the diverse individual accountable humanity of black Africans in America. Liberals presume black loyalty. Conservatives assume black antipathy.
And blacks have never been sentimental nor unrealistic about their political partisan freedom rising liberation struggle options.
Demanding that they be fully and finally integrated fairly into every phase of American civil secular education political socioeconomic life.
While at the same time accepting and making the best of their unique physically identifiable isolated segregated historical enslaved and separate and unequal heritage.
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton didn't make it to the White House. Nor did Shirley Chisolm. Hillary Clinton lost to Obama and Trump.
1
Increasingly I feel as if Blow--whose editorials in the early days of Trump were powerful clarion calls--has succumbed, like so many on the left, to Trump Derangement Syndrome. Because our prez is so polarizing, Blow--like so many media and liberal elites--sees almost everything through the narrow lens of identity politics. Not that many of his points are not valid, but they are too heavily weighted over other variables. Of course, this plays right into the hands of Trump and Fox & Friends. It's time for the left to take a step back on gender, race, and sexual orientation: correlation need not always equate causation.
4
She came across as non- charismatic and non-authentic. The majority of people are not intersectionalists checking boxes, as Mr. Blow seems to be (black - check, woman - check, authentic and inspiring - doesn't matter?).
6
What about the vast host of white male candidates who never got any media attention? How did white supremacy and the patriarchy benefit Hickenlooper? Steyer? Delaney?
7
“It is fair to ask what role racism and sexism played in her campaign’s demise.”
Yes, it's fair to ask. And it's fair to answer: little if any.
She was a bad candidate. She performed poorly.
She squandered a hatful of intrinsic advantages – among which, in the Democratic Party in 2019, *were* her race and gender.
She seemed unprepared to work past her baggage as an abusive, corner-cutting prosecutor.
The “stacked” system you’re tilting against here has resoundingly nominated an African-American and a woman the last three times the presidency was contested.
“If Harris had Biden’s level of support in the polls among black voters she would still be in the race.”
Tautology challenge accepted: If Harris had done a better job and made a more compelling appeal, she might have had Biden’s level of support in the polls among black voters.
Enough, Mr. Blow. Of all the things wrong with your take, the worst is its predictability. To paraphrase the current dimwit-in-chief, if Ms. Harris were to shoot someone on live TV in downtown Sacramento, you'd publish a column the next day saying the resulting criticism of her was racist and sexist.
3
Everything is not about race Mr. Blow. I love you to death but you are wrong. The reason I did not support Kamala Harris in the end was varied, but the most prominent was because every other word out of her mouth was, I, me, mine and I just didn't trust her... She gave me no hint she knew what she was doing beyond naked ambition.
She was a poor choice. She lacked any sort of convincing behavior that we'd be better off with her and she would make a good president. Remember this country and this party elected Barack Obama. Not once but twice and he is to this day very well loved by everyone. It is not about race.
We have many poor choices this cycle. She was one of them and that is why people did not support her. Black people did not support. Are you calling them racist?
Most of the "white" people will fall as well and I will tell you, I resent this, very much. Your implication is that these people have no right to be here beyond their skin color which I'm sure is not what you intended. But nevertheless that is what you've implied.
4
When Harris advocated a position on healthcare while demonstrating total ignorance of the current system she lost credibility with many voters.
3
Sorry, it wasn’t the “isms” this time. Incoherence of policies, preference to speak nationally than to do more retail, face to face politicking. Also I think she totally blew taking advantage of her constituencies in the Black and sorority community. Yes us black voters are very practical, while I think she could go toe to toe with Trump - what was the vision for after the election?
4
The blame Blow pins on prejudice (sexism, racism) for Harris's loss is similar to Secretary Clinton's blaming sexism for her own loss (along with Comey, Putin, social media, Bernie, Jill Stein, etc.)
The truth is that both women made for weak, uninspiring, uncharismatic, untrustworthy candidates. Period.
Harris didn't know how to respond to Gabbard's valid criticisms of her track record as Cali A.G., one that included jailing pot users (and laughing about it) and parents of truant kids and letting Steve Mnuchin off the hook for his crimes in the state.
She waffled on Medicare for All.
She changed her campaign theme every season.
She wanted to be all things to all people, thus standing for nothing.
Even her criticisms of Biden on his past busing policies (which were valid) blew up in her face when we learned she'd pre-printed T-shirts commemorating that apparently scripted moment.
Then she couldn't decide on her OWN position on busing...
I could go on. :/
The danger of Blow and other pundits' and elites' false contention that Harris lost primarily due to her race and gender is it can dissuade up-and-coming women of color from running for office themselves.
Why?
Because they'll assume society simply won't abide it. Based on ignorant pundits' lazy thinking, that is.
The truth is that most African-Americans didn't support her or Booker because they didn't like them. And they ran out of money because their super-rich donors pulled the plug.
End of story.
7
Charles, Can you write one article that doesn't cite racism as being a reason why something doesn't work out? My guess is no because you don't have much else to say. This country elected Obama twice on merit and because he was the best one of the field. If Harris had that she would still be there. Ask progressives why she's not there. Maybe it's her stance on justice reform. You conveniently left that out to support your false narrative. Let's judge on content of character shall we. None of us chose our skin color. For that matter I don't like any of the candidates running.
10
Doomed from the start. Just like Beto's. And soon to be Booker's. Thank you.
5
She was steamrolled by Tulsi Gabbard, who was at the end of the stage during the first debate because of her dismal polling numbers.
And we are supposed to have faith with her when she is up against, Putin, Xi, Kim and other tyrants?
3
THE SYSTEM! THE SYSTEM! THE SYSTEM!
Oh, wait. Harris ran a trainwreck campaign. How about letting her take responsibility for that as a mature human politician?
6
So Charles Blow just called me dishonest for thinking Harris has only herself to blame for her failure. That's O.K. I'm not sure about Blow's honesty when it comes to discussing black candidates, either.
10
@Mirjam...
Or when he discusses the true level of homophobia in the Black community.
When you look at candidates like Harris and Beto, I believe context matters. Both gained attention through an outstanding performance in another context… Harris as an outstanding questioner in Senate hearings and Beto as an energetic Senate candidate.
Running for president requires different abilities, which neither were able to demonstrate. In a less crowded field, perhaps they could have grown into the role, but voters have had a hard time focusing.
As a white voter who donated to Harris’s campaign, I don’t believe her race was the problem. As much as I wanted to support a smart woman who could prosecute the case against Trump, Harris never lived up to my hopes for her. I hope she’ll think about what she could have done better and try again in the future.
3
I'm a white guy. I liked what Ms. Harris had to say when I first was introduced to her run for the presidency. Then I saw a number of debates and town halls and what I was left with was a very mixed bag of feelings as to what she was about.
On one hand I saw someone who was assured and clear about a number of policies and stances and the next time I would see her she seemed scattered, a little confused and unclear about other things. This left me scratching my head.
There was no other candidate I felt strongly about or not who left me feeling this way.
I wanted to believe that Ms. Harris was ready to step into the job of being President but in the end that didn't happen for me.
Obviously, this is one persons opinion and doesn't account for how anyone else came to support or take a pass on Ms. Harris's run for the office.
1
All of the Democratic candidates who started to run and are still running have a lot of talent and a lot to offer in a 2020 Democratic administration. There is so much work to do that we will need all of them on board.
I was troubled from the start and still am by some of Harris's history as a prosecutor, which was overzealous in a number of instances. My reservations had nothing whatsoever to do with her race.
I know we have a real problem with racism and America and that it's far greater than many Americans are willing to admit. I didn't grow up here so I have a pretty decent third-party perspective on that and other issues. I wish the country could get past it but I suspect it may in fact, and unfortunately, take someone like Biden at the top of the ticket to beat Trump. I don't like it, but it's certainly a lot less bad than a two-term Trump presidency.
1
Our absurd primary system has been formed by the need for something consistent from one presidential election to another and by the victory of certain states in the competition to have the first primary, which brings the voters of these states extra influence and the states themselves an economic boost to their travel and tourism business. Both parties are to blame, as is our dislike of social engineering.
Our primary system was not designed by anybody. It is much more a product of market forces and competition. Every candidate and party tries to change it to get competitive advantage, and we wind up with an election season that is much too long. The fact that it is also much too expensive is beloved and defended by our rich and superrich, since it gives them all sorts of influence.
Designing a more reasonable primary or election system would be possible, but its first use would be a nightmare. Everybody would try to bend it to their advantage, and no one would know what to expect or count on. So we do not question Iowa or New Hampshire.
Mr. Blow often uses the term "It is fair to ask ...."
How about this:
- "It is fair to ask who the best candidate in the Democratic slew of candidates is regardless of their race, color, creed or sexual preference."
- "It is fair to ask how a candidate is capable of representing the peoples of the United States without a constant call to their unfortunate upbringing."
Of the candidates presented by the Democratic Party, the one IMHO who is the most "Presidential" is Mayor Pete. His responses are well thought out; his military experience is called upon ONLY as part of a relevant structured response; his background and upbringing are a non-issue.
If he had more experience, he would be an exceptional candidate.
Democratic Party, maybe you should think about grooming this man for the Presidency in 2024, 2028 or beyond. Maybe you consider HIM for the VP position in 2020.
6
@Dr. F Well said!
The author asks, "It is fair to ask about the Democrats’ schedule of caucuses and primaries that begin with two states — Iowa and New Hampshire — that are overwhelmingly white, so that candidates who poll best there get the benefit of momentum even before a ballot is cast and also before the contests move to states with more minorities."
Let's remember Barack Obama won the 2008 Iowa caucuses and reached a virtual tie with Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire Primary. He accomplished it with an exciting and consistent message. Obama achieved the candidacy with an outstanding organization.
I am sad Kamala Harris is leaving the race. It wasn't race or all-white early primaries. She failed to follow Obama's path.
2
Good points about the practicality of black voters. However, it seems to me one of the reasons Harris started losing support was that her policies remained incoherent. She had good one-liners at the debates, and certainly, a strong presence, but when it came to articulating what she intended to do, it was all mush.
5
Here we go again. Let's blame the system for Kamala's failure. Nobody blamed the system when Obama created a movement, inspired us and won. Of course there are structural disadvantages. Yes, money matters. Kamala simply did not play well the cards she was given. She did not inspire. She had no vision. Her debate performances were inconsistent with useless one liners. Her campaign was in disarray according to published report. Sorry but it was not the system. It was her shortcomings that did her in. We move on.
8
Come off it, Mr. Blow. Race is not the only reason a voter is for or against a candidate. Other respondents to this column give valid reasons why they believe Harris to be less preferable than other candidates. I suspect she dropped out for a reason like that which prompted Beto to do so: like his campaign, hers showed no signs of gaining momentum. Although I did not favor either of them, I do believe that whoever gains the Democrat nomination should seriously consider Harris for Attorney General. Her strengths make her a good candidate for that position, which should not be slighted.
7
Any candidate who focuses on grievances, past and present, instead of the country as a whole should not be the nominee. If we make the 2020 campaign about racism and or sexism, or about how we should have a woman or a minority as president, we will lose.
Harris was so intent on winning the primary she ignored the fact that in order to win the general election a candidate needs to remember that it takes approx 65 million votes to win and that MI, PA, and WI are the key states that have to be accounted for. Obama understood that it's one of the reasons he became the first African American president.
4
Charles, I'm a fan of your work, but you expressly equate "white people" with "voters who abide racism." Well, I voted twice for Obama and in many years of college teaching I've mentored dozens of black students. Yet I'm white, so I must abide racism? You're too smart not to see that you're not winning hearts and minds with such sweeping claims. A little nuance, please.
12
Sorry, this reminds me of all the lamenting about the so-called sexist glass ceiling after Hillary Clinton's 2016 defeating, ignoring the plain and simple truth that she was a flawed candid who ran an awful and incompetent campaign. The same can be said about Kamala Harris, who was unable to articulate why she was running as well as being unable to keep her campaign staff together. She simply didn't have what it takes. That she was black is totally beside the point.
5
How is it, if racism played a part in Senator Harris
departing the field of electoral battle so soon and
that having the first two primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire
hurts the chances of Minority candidates,
that Obama won Iowa ?
Why is Harris seen as "Black"
as she is no more "Black" than "Asian"
[ One can wonder if Obama would have called himself
"Black" if he had inherited his Mother's skin color.]
Time to re-consider your demographic categories Mr. Blow.
Don't tell me the skin color of the candidate, tell me the
Socio-Economic category they grew up in and what have they done for the Americans in the lower half in Income.
Senator Harris may become the VP nominee for the Democrats.
If she is teamed with Biden, she may through his illness
become President.
4
Trump is an existential threat, the likes of which we have never seen. This is no time for trotting to your rose colored glasses, opining on the one thing you think about 24/7. We should vote for the most electable troll, as long as we know he'll read briefing papers, listen to experts, and not commit felonies.
1
[[It is fair to ask what role racism and sexism played in her campaign’s demise. These are two “isms” that are permanent, obvious and unavoidable in American society.]]
So, then...some people have permanent victim status based on their genitalia and/or the color of their skin?
You know, we JUST HAD a two term president who was biracial. Not only did a white woman born in Kansas in the 1940s "overcome" her "permanent, obvious and unavoidable" personal racism to marry a Nigerian, she later married an Indonesian.
And Harris is still a United States senator, right?
[[It is fair to ask why, as of now, only white candidates have qualified for the next debate, even though the field began as one of the most diverse.]]
No, it is not "fair." Don't couch your wants in terms of "fairness"...if you have something to say, spit it out.
1. She ran a bad campaign.
2. She prioritized firming up her base with women, especially her sorority sisters, who were going to be her "secret weapon." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/us/politics/kamala-harris-alpha-kappa-alpha.html It turns out the secret weapon she needed was money to run her campaign.
3. She seems insincere. Every candidate is trying to get their slogans out, but something about Harris doesn't ring true. Deval Patrick seems sincere. So is that +1 woke point for being "black" but -1 woke point for being male?
Stop claiming permanent victim status. It's not a good look.
4
@Third.Coast ...Kenya, not Nigeria.
Much like Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris was a poor politician and a bad candidate. There. I said it.
4
It also seems fair to ask whether Kamala's background locking up thousands of blacks as prosecutor hurt her standing with black voters.
2
@DoctorRPP
Shhh, Charles doesn't want to talk about that. Doesn't work for his vindictive narrative.
Kamala Harris's rotten history as a prosecutor doomed her. She did it wrong, and she looked like an opportunist.
For example:
https://theappeal.org/kamala-harris-criminal-justice-record-killed-her-presidential-run/
4
Please spare us further indignation with this pseudo-analysis.
Harris lost because of Harris. The most common refrain from supporters was that she's a "pit bull" who could take on Trump due simply to her prosecutorial demeanor in Senate questioning...As if that's the sole qualification for the Presidency.
We already have a pit bull in the White House. Another as a female Democrat isn't an upgrade from the current occupant. No more pit bulls, thank you very much.
3
It is counterproductive to try and view everything through the lens of possible racial and/or sexual discriminations. Although these issues are real in this (and most other) societies, trying to put a racial/sex discrimination spin on everything only heightens these tensions within society, especially when the evidence for it, as in this case, is rather flimsy.
Having said that, I would agree that the whole primary system in the US is embarrassing in the way it is geared to money - as indeed our whole electoral process is controlled by money.
The framers feared the corrosive influence of "factions", political parties, and thus no mention, and thus no legitimacy is given to them in the Constitution. Yet political parties have usurped for themselves virtually complete control over who runs for public office. They are, it seems, a logistical necessity in representative democratic governance.
As part of my attempt to catalog all of the weaknesses in our Constitution, which have become apparent over at least the past 50 years, and have accelerated exponentially under Trump, and provide suggestions for how a new Constitution might remedy these, one suggestion focuses on political parties: legitimize them as part of the Constitution, and define their roles and responsibilities in republican, democratic governance.
1
My guess is that the ticket is going to be Biden-Harris. By bowing out now, Harris avoids the stigma of being a loser or a direct competitor to Biden for actual votes. A ticket of two white men is not going to be viable for the Dems, and she will present to women better than Booker or Castro,the other obvious alternatives.
1
Look, Biden has already signaled that he may pick her as VP, so I think she may have had other, unexpressed reasons for leaving the race when she did.
Biden/Harris is the ticket I want to see. I think she will have another crack at the top job.
21
@Todd Biden is a respectful person and he would consider any presidential candidate as a VP. However, in my view, Harris is not up to a VP job. She has no vision, no substance, no plan, and is lack of core principles. Klobuchar is a much better choice than Harris.
10
This is the second editorial today (the other being "Why There Won’t Be a Black Woman Running for President by Melanye Price)
in which a black columnist claims that racism prevented Harris from being successful. In the comments for both editorials, there is near universal agreement that race had little to do with it and that viewing all people through an identity lens is wrong. I hope that Charles and Melanye are listening
6
Kamala's exit is on Biden and his supporters.
The worst thing happening in this race is Biden.
He has not the capacity to take on or beat a liar like Trump, intellectually or physically. He is not sharp.
AND he is taking up the centre lane which someone like Kamala could share in.
This is on Biden and his supporters.
1
What did Kamala Harris's campaign teach us? Nothing, nothing at all. Thank you.
2
Kamala Harris is a powerful woman! She is certainly no victim. Please stop throwing around race and gender bias when things don't go one's way, Mr. Blow. Other candidates seeking the Democratic nomination are running better and more focused campaigns than Ms. Harris.
1
The only reason we are lamenting Ms. Harris leaving the race is that she is black.
She was a below average candidate dogged by a difficult past record of public service.
She ran a bad campaign.
She pulled the plug on herself.
She might have done better if she had stayed.
She was outflanked by the virtue signaling candidate du jour Mr Buttigieg.
Hmm-she wasn't marketable and credible.
Thank God for black wisdom-to see through a bad candidate.
Now if we could only pray for some white wisdom.
Mr. Blow please never assume you are speaking for us!
2
The African American community is sending a message to you, Charles, and to the black politicians. They are capable of thinking for themselves!! I'm mixed race. My first impression of Harris is that she suffered from the HRC disease...ENTITLEMENT. She did not have a platform, nor did she develop one as time went on. I think she felt that as a mixed-race woman she would sail thru the primaries and win. But there she stood, next to Warren who worked hard. Visibly. And made sure her platform was heard, and heard often. What Harris' failure should teach the Dems is their voters will not accept candidates regardless of the color of their skin or their gender. They will not like them because they do not offer the voters what they want....period!
4
Kamala had no traction because she was a corporate donor candidate over-hyped by our mainstream media & had nothing to offer voters except snarky comments about Trump & empty platitudes. She had a zero grass-roots following & completely lacked any signature policies except one pushing to remove Trump's Twitter account! How stupid do you have to be before big-money donors catch on & decide to drop you to move on to someone else? Kamala dropped out because her corporate sponsors decided she was no longer a viable candidate, nothing more, nothing less. Mr. Blow's analysis on race & politics doesn't really hold water for the simple fact that both Black AND White America voted twice for a black man with a Muslim name for president during the era of Osama Bin Laden & 9/11.
4
The simplest explanation has nothing to do with sexism or racism. The Harris campaign began to implode when another woman of color (Tulsi Gabbard) took Kamala down hard for being an inauthentic opportunist who had risen to prominence because of the minorities she unjustly put and kept in prison.
1
She is an untalented first term, junior senator in a state where a Democrat cant lose. If the first peimary state was California, she would lose to Bernie Sanders. She ran because she was falsely hyped by the media. She is not charismatic like Obama, she does not have a hold on the party like Hillary. She is anti-weed, anti-MFA, anti-debt forgiveness so young people wont like her. She is tough on crime so minorities wouldnt like her. The only people that liked her were educated 30 somethings that listen to Pod Save America and worried about TV focus groups and electability.
I gave you just some of the reasons she failed besides race and gender. Can you accept any of them?
1
You cant ascribe a candidate's failures to sexism and racism all the time, especially in a party that elected a black man and a white woman in the last three cycles. Kamala Harris had a spectacular start for which she alone gets the credit. Crowds, money, endorsements, positive media coverage - she had it all. And she blew it away by her inability to build on it.
By blaming sexism and racism for her campaign's failure, you diminish sexism and racism.
1
Obama ( African American ) won Iowa. Hilary Clinton ( Female ) won Iowa.
2
The 800 pound gorilla in the equation: the Obama campaign. Why did he succeed while Harris fell short.
"It is fair to ask what role racism and sexism played in her campaign’s demise."
Democratic presidential primary voters are racist and sexist? Who knew?
Meanwhile, Nikki Haley would do very well in a 2024 Republican primary. Woman of Indian descent, you know.
3
"It is fair to ask what role racism and sexism played in her campaign’s demise"
No it's not. It's pathetic to do so. Racism and sexism had nothing to do with it.
So now Charles Blow asserts that the party that nominated Barak Obama twice is racist?
Kamala Harris imploded because after she came out for Medicare for All, she floundered. Also other candidates did better. Did you consider that Elizabeth Warren and others pushed Harris out by running better campaigns?
2
This just reconfirms the importance of Blexit.
1
Another opinion piece in the NYT with the narrative that the ostensibly best candidate - Kamala Harris - didn’t get support from the African-American community and from others in the Democratic Party because “everyone just wants to pick a winner”.
I don’t vote that way nor do any of my Democratic friends - and nobody was voting for Obama in early 2008 because he seemed like he had the best chance to win. People voted for Obama because he was whip smart, articulate, engaged with other’s ideas, acted with great class and dignity - he was easily the best candidate in the field. Senator Harris was not.
Mr. Blow demeans African Americans when he implies that all they are interested in is winning - isn’t it about time to recognize that this isn’t a monolithic group and that reasonable/smart/decent people can reach a different conclusion about who should be the next President, even if that person is of a different race?
2
The lady simply is not easy to like.
3
"It is fair to ask what role racism and sexism played in her campaign’s demise. These are two “isms” that are permanent, obvious and unavoidable in American society."
Permanent? I guess if you believe in Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox.
Better to say 'in our lifetimes', Mr. Blow. Republicans wouldn't be fighting so hard right now if by permanent you really meant permanent.
Mr Blow states:
You can blame her exit on her past and her execution of her campaign, sure, but if you do so without examining the system the Democrats have built and the way that even black people feel that it’s stacked against the black candidates, you are not being honest.
Really? The same party that expresses ongoing adulation of Barack Obama?
And the odds are stacked against black candidates but in favor of homosexual candidates?
Initially, Harris was my number one choice: strong, articulate, moderate. But she stumbled away from being a moderate. When pressed on specific issues, she lost her clear strong voice, and stuttered through attempted retorts. Worst of all, I felt like I had no clear idea of her true views. Maybe that is part of the reason why black people did not support her. Or, perhaps, it was her record as a very successful prosecutor.
Often people fail for reasons other than race, sex, creed, religion. When Sanders lost to Clinton, not once did I say: It's because the Democrat establishment was stacked against Jews. If one always falls back on the minority card to explain lack of success, the way to success becomes obscured.
It teaches us that you have to have a plan and stick to it. It teaches us that we the people really don't like to be conned. It teaches us you don't sucker punch Biden just to get ahead. People don't like back stabbers.
1
No reason to be out of the race this early..Are you kidding?..Charles oft times I like your columns and love your reasoning. Not this time. She made a big splash because she was a black female who had success in California. But she never got an organization together which functioned and focussed a message. Truly I believe a lot of fault can be laid at the feet of her sister who was charged with organizing the staff.
What were her burning issues? Please answer that.
You do yourself and your cause a disservice when you try to make her failure a failure of the system because of race. She didn't fail because she is black. She failed because she didn't strike a cord with the public. And that my friend is politics.
1
She is Half Jamaican andHalf Indian (South Asia). Is everyone of darker pigmented skin considered AfricanAmerican?
2
The presidential candidate Harris most resembles is.....Jeb Bush!
Both campaigns started with a lot of fanfare, and the press said each of them was the obvious frontrunner with a great chance at the nomination. Both of them raised a lot of funds and spent a lot of money. What happened? The voters didn't care for either one of them!
That's the crucial thing about running for President. Whether you're a white man or a black woman, you've got to catch on with actual voters. All the press coverage and money in the world can't save you if the voters don't like you.
Actually her main supporters were white people who wanted to display their liberal munificence by backing a person of color. She never caught on with minorities because her background and career was a poor fit with them.
Other than some snappy one-liners and that haymaker she landed on a defenseless Biden about his past opposition to busing ("that little girl was me") there wasn't much to Harris.
That Biden was so utterly defenseless then pointed me to Harris in the first place. After that I kept waiting and waiting, and she never stood up or out from the pack. She settled too comfortably into the role of a middling candidate seemingly always reactive to other candidate's initiatives. She sank to about the right level of support. I think that she can be an effective Senator. That first step back will be playing a role in the Senate impeachment trial.
Mr. Blow, please don't include me in "everyone," e.g., "white people made a different choice. Everyone seems to have settled, for whatever reason, on the notion that a white person has the best chance of beating Trump."
I may be unfashionably white and male, but I'm voting FOR something, a platform that will improve people's lives, which the Democrats clearly stand for, not AGAINST something, even though it's not difficult for me to disapprove and dismiss the Republican agenda. You're premise here is generalized and unfair. Not "everyone" is voting about race.
3
There's a problem with approaching Ms. Harris' failure from this perspective: it over generalizes about people and under appreciates the difficulty of the task and the amount of luck involved in becoming even a major party candidate for President. As far as being out too soon, I would agree except for the number of candidates. It's divided the vote, and the big names (that is, Biden, Sanders, and Warren) have stood out even more than usual. When Barack Obama ran the first time, he was the only reasonable choice to Hillary Clinton. People unhappy with Clinton flocked to him. Not true this time. I hope she learns from this and becomes a nominee soon.
What Mr. Blow overlooks is what an advance there has been since Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Candidates of color had no qualms about entering the race. Women had no qualms either. Is there room for improvement? However, that many of them didn't or won't make it to the end, does not take away from what two trailblazers made possible.
And alas, in this day when the Republican party is led by Donald Trump and Mike Pence, a candidate who can win is more important than anything else. Absent that, we won't have a democracy in which to vote.
1
Kamala Harris is biracial; she's got a long history in law enforcement; she's smart, and she's a Californian. Those are all plusses for me. What turned me off was her response to Tusli Gabbard's attacks during the second debate. Other than a statement of general "pride" in her work in California, she didn't respond until after the debate, when a reporter questioned her. Harris said that she would not dignify the attack with an answer because, after all, she (Harris) was a "top tier" candidate. If she can't do better than that with Tulsi Gabbard, what's she going to do with congress or world leaders or dictators like Putin, who have been emboldened by the warm welcome from our current president? Say what you will about racism, sexism, all kinds of isms, but she's just not there yet for me. Maybe she will be later on, but today, she's not the right candidate.
59
@Connie
Harris herself is an elitist and a racist. Look at her horrible record as AG in CA. No compassion but worse no science allowed. All conviction including the death penalty based on opinion.
Hey CA voters, why can't you do better than this. Ethnicity does not matter one iota in determining the moral value of a person.
7
We all wanted to like Kamala but she came across as angry and mean in debate after debate. That's why her numbers kept dropping.
1
My goal for the 2020 election is to dump Trump. All else is secondary. According to Mr. Blow, if I support a white candidate because I believe he/she can make that happen, I am "abiding racism". Absurd. Ms. Harris lost the momentum she started with because she could not clearly convey her vision and policies to the electorate. If you doubt that, go back a re-watch the televised debates. You can blame the "isms" if you want, but her inability to define her position on issues was her downfall.
2
This op-ed and another in today's Times seem to imply racism and sexism were major factors in why Harris' campaign failed.
Perhaps they played a role. When do we ever acknowledge that sometimes a black woman might not be a good candidate for reasons other than her race and sex? What did Harris stand for, other than attacking Biden for something he did over 40 years ago, and coming up with catchphrases like "Dude gotta go" and "3am agendas"? Harris may have said she wanted to be president but didn't seem to have a good reason why, not that she was able to explain to us. Barack Obama could, and it had nothing to do with his being a man.
And it's entirely reasonable that the DNC adopted poll and fund-raising metrics to winnow out candidates. Those metrics win general elections. They aren't part of an insidious system built to purposely disadvantage candidates like Harris.
3
Harris is a person quite willing to destroy people’s lives to further her ambitions as shown during her tenure as a prosecutor. I don’t care what sex or color she is, I’ve had enough of people like her.
4
Hey, now wait a minute.....are you suggesting I (we) should look to a person of color or gender as the primary way to vote for a candidate? That's ridiculous! I look at the person, their ideas, their promise, and their ability to reach me, not the color of their skin or their gender. Ms. Harris never reached me. Her programmed attack on Biden turned me off when I was open to all candidates - wanting to get to know them! That demonstrated what I hate in politics....personal direct attacks as so well executed by the current president. I want someone with honor!
1
Frustrating read. How blacks support for Biden is practical, but white support for other candidates is racist and old sexist is beyond me.
Let’s not forget the last two nominees for the Democrats were a woman and black man. This overwhelming focus on race dilutes the candidates personal appeal and vision for America. Let’s please avoid these presumptuous platitudes
3
Harris is out of money, that's the whole ballgame, it has nothing to do with being a black woman. After all, Mr. Obama established a country that is now post racial, any running for President needs popular support. Ms. Harris couldn't make the grade. Game over.
1
Yes.
She only withdrew, secondary to endemic racism.
Why can't people see it?
@El Shrinko No. She withdrew because of her own incapability and lack of core principles and visions. btw, I'm a person of color and I think playing race card only hurt people of color, not helpful at all in the long run.
2
Mr. Blow, I am so terribly sad for my chosen candidate, Kamala Harris. You have said the truth and I am not at all sure that the media and the voters will hear __ even though it is demonstrably obvious - and has been so - for as long as I can remember. White nations, people and organizations find admission of their personal prejudice far too painful to see it straight on. You are surely aware that WHITE FRAGILITY is a hard sell. Even so, I want to believe that our multiple ordinary candidates are a good problem for us to have, as that indicates many people care about our future as a Democracy.
I dont know dude - a lot of white people from really white states i.e. Bullock got jettisoned and didnt even get on the debate stage so not sure you can point the finger at the whites in America and the electoral system that we got together and rigged. Is it just possible that she wasnt a good candidate? You cant possibly be arguing that a well attended rally and T shirt sales indicate that some nefarious play was at hand? I know youre bummed that Bloomberg is in the race, but its OpEds like these that dont make people *think* but kind of exhaust people.
1
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Harris was a unlikeable phony with no core values. To blame other outside forces deflects from the real issue. She was a horrible candidate.
5
Charles, I'm just an ordinary long-time subscriber of the New York Times. I don't have access to the reams of documentation available to you about why Kamala Harris failed to make the cut. Why play the race card, when it was obvious Harris outplayed herself trying to be all things to all voters on Medicare For All. Her flip flops at first were an embarrassment, till it was clear she was serious about playing both sides of the street on health care. No, Harris dropped out because her corporate donors wanted results, and got tired of sending good money after bad. Oh, and did I forget to mention Harris' sister and the rest of her bumbling staff? There is a rumor Joe Biden is considering Harris as his running mate. Now that's playing the race card.
3
And yet another article about someone playing the race card rather than acknowledging that this person simply wasn't good enough. Ms Harris failed because she wasn't very good on the campaign trail, she did not have a coherent message and according to her own staffers, she did not have people skills.
Those who blame racism for all of the problems in the black community are doing everyone a disservice. They are being lazy and pointing fingers rather than taking the time to find the root cause of the issues. Usually the first place to start is to look in the mirror. Does racism exist? Of course but it is not the cause of everything. Those who blame everyone else will never get better. You are the one who sets the conditions of your own life, and you are the one who determines if you are going to let those conditions defeat you or motivate you toward success.
1
I watched Kamala Harris at the first debate where she took the cheap shot at Joe Biden about busing for desegregation decades ago. I thought, "cheap shot by Harris".
The next morning, as I watched the morning news at 7 AM Eastern Time the reporter showed a photo of Kamala Harris as a child waiting for her bus to school--and the photo was on a T-shirt being sold by her campaign! I thought, "that cheap shot was planned way in advance; nobody made those t-shirts this morning."
Two cheap shots within 24 hours told me what Kamala Harris was: another cheap politician with no integrity.
Kamala Harris' two cheap shots killed my interest in her as a President--she did it to herself and can't blame anyone else.
1
“There is absolutely no reason Harris should be out this race so early” is the most demonstrably false statement I’ve read in the NYT that wasn’t issued by Trump.
3
If I had a nickel for all the white commenters, who quickly rebuke Blow's column for even considering racism was a factor. Of course, it was a factor, was it the only one, NO. My God we live in two different worlds....
Here you go again, Mr. Blow: skin-partisanship. Compare the many comments of readers who were either early supporters of Kamal Harris or wanted her to succeed (from black to white supporters). The tenor is: lack of focus and vision. I would add nastiness in the sense of: I am better than you, not: my proposal, my policy is better for our country. The many disappointed commenting readers made it clear: it wasn't your "-isms" appearing time and again in your arguments, it was the lack of quality in this particular candidate that doomed her candidacy.
3
Harris came across as tough and bright. She also came across as affected and with no clear direction. She isn't out because she's black; if Michelle Obama decided to run, she would be declared the Democratic nominee by acclimation.
BTW, Mr. Blow's aside on FiveThirtyEight showed Nate Silver's prognostication model is an embarrassing failure.
3
Biden/Harris 2020. If so, first woman President.
@CB Biden/Klobuchar 2020. Harris does not cut for a VP. btw, I'm a person of color and have no race preference.
3
Yet again, spot on. Thank you.
Mr. Blow; I am a fan of your writing and for the most part I agree with you.
Telling me I'm not being honest with myself because I haven't examining the inherent racism that is prevalent in today's society is telling me I can't think for myself.
Lost me there.
1
Not a good idea to have your sister running the show.
1
Mr. Blow, a bad candidate can be any race or gender.
The obvious (and well-documented) internal strife in the Harris campaign, debate performances that were lethargic and tactically unsound, and inconsistent positions on major issues, provide plenty of explanation for her nose-dive.
To try to make it about race and gender, you have to account for the fact that black voters didn't like her either, so you chalk that up to their "enduring practicality." Meanwhile, white people, in your view, are sexist and racist as always.
I don't find your argumentation persuasive.
2
Barack Obama was my vote. A light shines from his eyes - I don't see that light in Kamala Harris prosecutorial gaze.
The black community has given Pete Buttigieg a hard time because of his sexuality and now wants to make our presidential race about color? Perhaps those that are throwing stones need some self reflection.
3
What does it teach us and Ms. Harris?
Don't play the identity obsession card.
The best way for a black woman to be president is not to run as a black women.
Minorities classically made that mistake in modern history.
Obama was the master teacher how to break the trend. He ran as an American uniting people not as an angry young black man dividing people.
Hillary was the latest person who made the lethal mistake before Ms. Harris.
She ran as an identity obsessed, men are the problem, half the opposition is deplorable candidate and it was lethal to her.
2
Barack Obama was nominated and then beat John McCain by 7 points and Mitt Romney by 5, but Mr. Blow says the Democrats' nominating process is racially rigged. Maybe voters were judging Ms. Harris on the content of her character and not the color of her skin.
1
"Every campaign has missteps."
Then....there's Donald Trump.
"The first black woman" this or that is the only history she made? That's like winning the participation trophy, not a real trophy. No wonder why few white people were interested in her campaign. Heck, black people weren't that interested in her campaign either and being black was her biggest appeal to those folks. At the end, with nothing on offer, most folks were left wondering "How did she even get in here?"
"There is absolutely no reason Harris should be out this race so early."
Did you support Kamala Harris? Do you think she could've been president? Did you contribute to her campaign, buy her merchandise?
Well, who exactly were you counting on to keep Harris afloat until the right time for her to quit, while you supported someone else?
Did it ever occur to you that she has only spent two years in the Senate and that she is inexperienced and unqualified to run an entire country? Also her smug attitude didn't come off too well among voters, in addition to her previous record as attorney general for CA. She put away a lot of minorities for simple offenses such as marijuana possession, etc.
1
We dehumanize Senator Harris when we think she's incapable of being just a lousy candidate on her own merits.
3
Dear Mr. Blow: Everything is not about race...except in your columns.
Kamala Harris could not articulate to the public why she was running for President and what she stood for, except her own ambition. THAT is why her candidacy failed.
4
Harris's campaign teaches us that if you are relying on "narrative" as a substitute for content, you don't stand a chance this time around.
4
2008 Iowa Democratic Caucus winner Barack Obama could not be reached for comment.
1
Mr. Blow doesn't just play the race card. he lays our an entire solitaire of race cards.
In the process he shreds any credibility on the issue he may have used to make his points.
She was terribly flawed. Cutting, catty, but lacking any real gravitas to make up for that.
You can't just use the same old, hackneyed arguments to avoid what is obvious. You diminish the cases where those arguments are legit.
Just like Trump supporters ignore his lack of fitness of the job, Mr. Blow refuses to see that his emperor also has no clothes.
2
Morning Charles. Maybe I'm a tad optimistic about Senator Harris's exit from the democratic scrum but my prayer has been answered. After listening to SKH--smart, compassionate, energized, fun, did I say real smart too?--I'm convinced she needs to be our next AG. There's a huge D.C. stink to clean up and I think of nobody more qualified than SKH to do it. The bonus stocking stuffer, here, is she won't have a presidential campaign to worry about when the trial starts in the Senate. I'm buckling up and continuing to pray. SKH is young(er) and I believe the fire in her belly is legitimate and I pray long lasting. Lots of time to get to the round office in the corner. First things first however. Get the broom out.
1
"There is absolutely no reason Harris should be out this race so early." Yet, you managed to cover most of the reasons for her departure.
"...the system the Democrats have built and the way that even black people feel that it’s stacked against the black candidates, you are not being honest."
Did anyone notice this in previous elections? Has the Democrat Party ever tried to rig the system, so one candidate had a stealth advantage?
I think, to better illustrate your column, an analogy is in order. African Americans will find this more than believable. Suppose you go to a car dealership in town. The Democrat Deals on Wheels Emporium. The customers wants something stylish, but practical. New is good, but a car 1 or 2 years old could be considered. Reliable is very important. When the salesman finally comes out, the customers tell them what they're looking for. The salesman guides them to the rear of the lot.
He shows them several compact imports. They are all quite old. They are rusty and dented. One car even has a recapped tire, about to become un-recapped. Most have a million or more miles. A couple even have more than a billion miles. As the salesman rambles on, the wife whispers, "Maybe we should look somewhere else. What do we have to lose?"
The Biden/Harris ticket is a winning combination. Wait for it!
@Jonathan Biden/Klobuchar is a winning ticket. Both are down to earth in action. Harris is a phony opportunities and will turn voters like me away.
6
All I have to say about Kamala Harris is please God, don't let her reappear as the potential Democratic Vice President pick.
5
I like Kamala, I was in her corner the entire time she was in the campaign. I think she has been most impressive as a member of the Senate, questioning Mr. Barr, and Mr. Kavanaugh, also Mrs Ford. Maybe she is in the best position right now as a Senator from California. She can have an important role in the Senate, and it's worthy and valued national position. I hope she dedicates herself to that job, and make an impact for years to come.
Charles Blow sites the debate rules as an obstacle for Kamala Harris but doesn't mention that she was one of only seven candidates who qualified for the next debate. His criticism that the rule on campaign contributions discriminates against candidates with poorer supporters ignores the fact that a contribution of $1 will qualify a person as a supporter of that candidate. I expect a higher degree of intellectual honesty than this.
1
Kamala Harris is not out of the race because of racism or because she is a woman. I wanted to support her, but I don't know what she's for. That's the problem. Obama genuinely believed in making the future better, HOPE. What does Kamala stand for? I should have a sense and I don't beyond I know she supports basic democratic planks. She is ambitious, but without a clearly aritculated vision. Even before she officially ran for president, democrats in California talked about her with an attitude of meh. She is very good as a senator on the Judiciary Committee questioning witnesses, but running for president requires a vision for people to believe in. She has not articulated that and that's why she's out. I'm not saying she doesn't have a vision, but I don't know what it is.
Also, I have ranted for years that Iowa should never be first...tiny state with too many white people, but that's still not Kamala's main problem.
2
@Barking Doggerel
"In this, as in every other dimension of American life, folks of color must be better than their white counterparts. Women must be better than their co-workers in order to be equally successful."
I agree that this is a true statement. The problem for Ms. Harris is that she she simply was not better, or even as good, as most of her competitors in the nomination race. When she announced, I wanted very much to support her. As time went on, I found that I did not. She started out well on her own merits; she fell down on them, also.
2
People need to stop defending their loss of confidence in Senator Harris and ponder institutionalized racism. It is pervasive and it unquestionably had a quashing effect on her campaign. I agree with you, Mr. Blow. We see the consequences of this racism and we look for flaws in the candidate, just as we do when sexism sidelines a woman executive in the office.
We have to use our powers of abstraction and our education her to recognize these forces at work, in front of our very eyes. The question to ask is why did a grifting buffoon of a candidate - Trump - get away with nonstop gaffes and scandals and still be considered suitable by his party? Why did/does Hillary Clinton provoke such intense loathing? Why did Martha Stewart do time for crimes for which white men do time?
As a young voter I volunteered for the campaign of Jesse Jackson, and I heard it all back then: people sifted his past and his platform, even the behavior of his half-brother, for flaws and then brandished them as their reason for supporting (I still flush with anger) Dukakis? Fresh from my University of Pennsylvania education's outstanding tutelage regarding institutionalized racism, I confronted these excuses until I was blue in the face.
Beware of concocting arguments where you seek intellectual justification for a gut feeling where a person of color just bugs you. The bar we hold over women and African-Americans is so preposterously high that it is a miracle that Barack Obama could clear it.
“But also, white people made a different choice. Everyone seems to have settled, for whatever reason, on the notion that a white person has the best chance of beating Trump, that a racial minority is too risky this time around.”
Mr. Blow has written a careful analysis of Kamala Harris’s campaign, the enduring effects of racism, and (quickly) African-American conservatism, which inclines voters of color to support Joe Biden.
But then Charles Blow, in the paragraph quoted above, accuses “white people” of the same sin for which he has just forgiven “Black” people: the sin of choosing a favorite candidate based on one’s judgment of his or her ultimate viability.
And there is a key factor hobbling Kamala Harris that Mr. Blow simply ignores—
Misogyny. The conviction of many American voters that they don’t want to see a woman choosing, and directing, the Cabinet and commanding the troops. The conviction that a president should not be wearing a brassiere.
Sexism, misogyny, helped defeat Hillary. It may well doom Elizabeth Warren, whose face and manner are even more sharp and uppity than Hillary’s. And it didn’t help Kamala Harris, who (I’ve read) also had trouble organizing her campaign and settling on a coherent message.
There were many factors that led to Harris’s decision that it was best to return to the Senate.
Accusing folks of not seeing what you see as being "dishonest" is more than simply a forced opinion, it narrows any discussion that follows....not a seed we need to plant in today's climate of self-righteous indignation posing as character. This tactic does more to sabotage Blow's previous points and ignores the obvious...one, that some may disagree with his take and won't appreciate being called out as dishonest, and, two, what about those folks who simply are not paying attention to the same things Blow is choosing to point out? Insulting someone is rarely an effective way to open their minds....or haven't we seen enough of that already in just the last two years?
Here we go again. When a candidate doesn't catch on, it's all about race prejudice and gender prejudice. Which all so perfectly explains Beto O'Rourke.
1
It’s only “fair” to move immediately to race and secondarily in your article gender if you can only think in such a limited, damaged way. Harris has been replaced with a gay, a woman and a old Jewish man as the front runner despite the implication of your article that the first primaries states would not suggest that a gay man, nor a Jewish candidate would thrive. The fact that warren is a woma and the last democratic nominee was a woman would suggest that bias is not the issue with Harris. Perhaps we should be having the first primary in Hawaii,the only state with a large scale Asian population because Asians are far more under represented in government than any other group and have the fastest growing population. Charles, what about the lack fo Latino candidates and FL not being the first state? In the end, Harris ran a bad campaign, disorganized, lacking compelling messages and lacking a compelling candidate.period. Oh and she happened to be a CIS presenting female, Indian/Black, ex-law enforcement candidate who got the job in part because of who she was sleeping with.
As someone who is seeking a candidate for all of America and not simply those that live in victimhood,
When everything is blamed on race and gender prejudice, then it weakens the argument when legitimate examples of racial and gender prejudice take place.
There are a lot of African-American female Democrats in South Carolina, but the polls indiated that she was getting little traction there. Are African American women in South Carolina guilty of racism and sexism?
1
I kindly remind you that Beto, a white man of privilege, flamed out as well. Black folk vote as pragmatists because they need substantial change and or protection. They don't need woke and they don't need bathroom solutions. Biden is the creaky old house where a family was raised. For better or worse, most Americans want that.
"It is fair to ask what role racism and sexism played in her campaign’s demise"
Barack Obama won the nomination in two of the last three elections. Hillary Clinton won the other. What, were the Democrats not racist and sexist and then switched to racism and sexism after Hillary lost? That is a ridiculous premise. Harris lost because she was an awful candidate who ran an awful campaign.
Harris simply proved that showing up as a POC - even for the POC voting group - is no longer enough.
You can also entail "showing up female" is also no longer enough.
Jesse Jackson's incoherent run was proby the last time it actually did work.
Ask my friends I was touting KAMALA for president before she did. After seeing her confident killer ways in the KAVANAUGH hearing she had my vote.That was until I saw her pause and struggle with answers in the debates.
It is fair to say that she is not fast enough on her feet to keep up. This has ZERO to do with racism and I'm getting sick of hearing that every unsuccessful black person gets to blame racism. No sir.
Her campaign teaches us that racism is alive and well in America and that we remain committed to a double standard where a grifting buffoon like Trump has the support of millions and immensely qualified women and people of color are picked apart for flaws to justify our bias.
We set the bar so high for anyone who is not a white male that it is a miracle Barack Obama was able to clear it.
Danged good op-ed. Man, you really get to the point, and the points are sharp and painful, especially regarding racism and sexism: "These two 'isms' are permanent, obvious, and unavoidable in American society."
Ouch! Somebody call a doctor: I'm bleeding: I still see those isms hiding inside me, embarrassed to say, despite twice voting for Obama, once for Hillary, and despising Trump and his fascist minions.
These isms are probably both hard-wired and learned, and "unavoidable," as Charles says. Perhaps all one can do is admit the truth -- that's the difficult part -- and strive to improve one's shortcomings. Works-in-progress perhaps we are, or perhaps not: Our reach really can't exceed our grasp, despite what motivational speakers claim.
If not quite dead-in-the-water, we are dragging twin anchors.
Yes it does remind us that crappy candidates usually get weeded out.
A big kerfuffle about nothing. You imply that she was kicked to the curb, while in reality she kicked herself to the curb. I know racial editorial opinions sell papers, but we are in a post racial American society and especially for President. Why, because voters want a candidate who is not owned. They all appear to be, even Sanders, yet without money sponsors, the game is over for damn near most candidates.
She probably could be as good of president as any of the rest, yet money flows based on stupid poll numbers and influence buying. Sad.
1
“There is absolutely no reason Harris should be out this race so early.
You can blame her exit on her past and her execution of her campaign, sure, but if you do so without examining the system the Democrats have built and the way that even black people feel that it’s stacked against the black candidates, you are not being honest.”
Mr. Blow, I think you overreach. Having two black nominees in the Democratic field is progress indeed. And I don’t think it’s about race. Barack Obama sailed into the White House for two terms and was very successful and revered. His personality resonated with voters, black and white. I doubt Republicans will ever have a black nominee, let alone a frontrunner or primary candidate.
Ms. Harris may have lost credibility when Tulsi Gabbard called her out for her record on black prosecutions while she was either District Attorney or Attorney General. Kamala, at that time (on stage) seemed less than credible and perception is everything, whether justified or not.
Plus sexism may play a roll. My personal choice is Elizabeth Warren but the cards are stacked against her. And of course last election I thought Hillary had a shot.
Women simply have a harder time. They MUST be believable, and they must be strong without being a bitch, so to speak. Men simply don’t have that issue because as we know, even morons get elected easily.
This is one of several Op-Ed pieces and news analyses in the Times over the past day or so that acknowledge the many faults of Kamala Harris and her campaign organization but still come down on the other foot: an indictment of racism in American society and nervous pragmatism in the Democratic Party.
The racism is there, of course. So is the pragmatism. However, it's disturbing to see that so much commentary on Harris's failure seems to have been preordained by a template of talking points. We Democrats will damage our own chances of success if we're so heavily invested in certain narratives and critiques that we can't process information without them.
Beto O'Rourke entered the race with star quality. He foundered after an extremely successful launch. Other candidates, mostly white males, have also fallen by the wayside. If one can analyze those failures without recourse to generic explanations, one should be able to bring the same objective gaze to bear on Harris's case. She was one of my favorites, for a while. Then she lost me.
Sigmund Freud acknowledged that a cigar is sometimes nothing more than a cigar. Something similar might be said about Kamala Harris's shipwreck.
258
@Longestaffe Beto is the perfect example of a charismatic, promising candidate who simply fizzled out.
Not everything is racism and sexism. It's not easy to become President of the United States. Most people who try, never get close.
25
@Longestaffe
Very good comment.
If I were you, though, I would use my real name to show that you fully stand behind what you're saying, that you aren't hiding, which your posts certainly do not require: You're certainly not trolling, but, instead, shedding light.
We need courage, accountability, and full responsibility in our angry society, which in this small way, I contend, your bona fides, so to speak, would provide.
@Longestaffe -
Shipwrecked? She isn't shipwrecked. Not at all.
The American presidency is a Mt. Olympus whose sides are covered with ice. Most hopefuls climb towards its invisible summit only to lose their grip and uncontrollably slide back to where they started.
In her case it was much too soon.
She’ll be back. Whether her second attempt to scale the heights will fare any better isn’t possible to predict.
8
I think that it is more simple than Mr. Blow suggests or asks. She never provided me with her vision for America.
106
This is a bad example to prove racism. In the debates Harris never stood for anything palpable. Alone among Democratic candidates (excepting the weird case of Gabbard) it was never clear why she was in the race. Her one attempt, on healthcare, was a non-sequitur.
That lack of definition was actually scary. Who knew what she would do as President?
1
Kamala did not move me as a person once during this entire run. The ONE time she came close during the debate, the one time I though perhaps I was getting a glimpse of WHO she was - she had t-shirts already printed. It was a one-liner that she knew would sell. She failed not because she was a she, not because she was black but very simply because she is terrible at national level retail politicking.
3
The superficial positives for Harris-- she's attractive, confident, and likable-- are in addition to being a non-white female. Why is there an argument that they are detriments? Where does the notion that "a racial minority is too risky this around" come from? These are Democratic voters, not Alabama Republicans.
A white male with Harris' resume and baggage wouldn't have gotten half as far-- a ruthless and power-hungry prosecutor who jailed minorities for victimless crimes is not an attractive candidate. Harris rode her looks and charm as far as they would take her.
3
Difficult for me to accept your conclusion Charles that the system the Democrats have built has been stacked against black candidates. Black candidates do have the deck stacked against them though, but it's at the national level.
And it's also stacked against gays and white women, actually anyone that's not a white heterosexual male. Many parts of this country continue to live in the dark ages, and I'm not sure we'll ever be dig our way out.
1
Making this about race is an intellectual exercise that has little to do with how Americans actually vote. Black candidates have to earn votes, just like the other candidates. Obama figured out how to win votes. Harris and Booker did not.
5
Blow views everything in life through the prism of racism. How about laying the blame on Harris where it belongs.
She failed to own her prosecutorial record and her constant waffling on issues, her inability to state unequivocally what she believed it, drove voters to other candidates.
Make no mistake. Racism and sexism are alive in America. But Harris's failure is her own. This is something she should own and something Blow should embrace.
2
Perhaps she didn't do well in part because she has a spotty history in California? She was not a justice reformer. She didn't seem to be that concerned with potential innocence of the convicted. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html
As Attorney General she violated the state constitution by allowing 3 separate issues to be combined into one Proposition. This wasn't isolated.
https://www.aclunc.org/article/no-proposition-46-medical-malpractice-lawsuits-cap-and-drug-testing-doctors-initiative
https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Poorly-crafted-state-Proposition-46-puts-doctors-5751918.php
2
Ms. Harris had no vision for the future, lived in the past (and maybe not a totally true past), and as a result she got in her own way. Nothing to do with your well known conspiracy "isms".
Presidency or any other position, particularly those with power & influence must not have any quota rule or such unwritten norm.
Why can't we accept that Kamala and many other candidates with non-White skin color are not up to the task?
Such quota rule always fail in real world test as we see in many countries, mainly developing world and even in many functional democracies like India. It mostly give rise of the politics of revenge and rise of a section of opportunists from such communities. I'm telling that despite of being from a minority racial group.
Yes, it's so emotionally attractive to invoke quota for traditionally oppressed section of the society. Will it not be better to work to make the rules of the game more neural and the field more leveled? Sensible & decent people from the minorities & others need work to promote truth & justice, reduce role of religious/clan mentality, which is more among minorities, as per PEW survey, etc.- via education, social activism etc. Reform (& rise) of minorities must come from within even though media might promote mainly the Whites taking credit for it.
There is no doubt that a large section of American population is still very racist. White supremacists, with its tactical political appeasement, pose most serious national security threat as per many law enforcement agencies. But appealing to race & religion was & still is very counterproductive in US politics.
At the end of the day one wrong does not make another one right.
1
What-ifs, missteps, racism, sexism. All valid things to weigh in Ms. Harris's rise and fall.
But for me, her main obstacle was her biggest fault: she is disingenuos. It was for the same reason I didn't like Beto.
When I listened to Ms. Harris at the debates, her feigned passion always seemed to be working toward a biting punch line, or audience applause, but in the end, it sounded hollow.
If I want to see pretend passion, I'll go see a Tennessee Williams play.
When all you have is a hammer, I guess everything looks like a nail.
I live in a very progressive city in Ms. Harris' home state. No one I know was excited about her. She did little on the trail to make people excited. She failed to gain support. She dropped out.
But I'm sure there's a crevice somewhere in that story into which Mr. Blow can drive the nail of racism.
The preamble is false: Harris's campaign was never "ablaze" with any idea or any group of voters.
This is a profoundly disappointing column. Harris's race was no more a compelling reason for her candidacy than HRC's gender was for her. You want to know why her support drained away upon inspection of who she was and what she stood for? Busing. That fraudulent "little girl was me" premeditated attack on Biden. You do not specifically mention either of these, presumably lumping them in with the kind of "missteps" every campaign has, and concluding that Harris' crash and burn must be due to the racism of white people. Maybe you'll have to lump me with the deplorables. HRC got something like 25% of the white male vote. In the name of racial purity you apparently would be fine seeing that number go down to about zero.
Until reading this column, I had not realized how sophisticated the Democratic Party was in hiding its racist and sexist process through the red-herring nominations of Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton. I look forward to Mr. Blow's analysis of the real reasons Steve Bullock, John Delaney, and Michael Bennet are no longer in the Democratic race.
Don't try to paint Harris's withdrawl with your ever ready racism brush. That has nothing to do with her failure to convince voters to support her. In my opinion she came across as opportunistic, scripted, and phony from day one. Others just took a little longer to see the same.
I like Charles Blow's work; his voice and perspective are important. But this column is offensive to just about everyone but Kamala Harris. Correct, the system isn't fair - nor is life. But if Harris was delivering, she'd still be in the race.
What Kamala Harris' campaign teaches us is that you have to run on deeply held conviction and never waver. She didn't.
What Kamala Harris' campaign teaches us is that you have to run on your record and be sure it is defensible. She couldn't.
What Kamala Harris' campaign teaches us is that you can't be one thing and then, when you run for higher office, pretend you were this other thing all along. She did.
All that can be true at the same time as being a Black woman in America is what it is. Everything is harder, less accessible.
Kamala Harris will continue to make a fine senator. Next term, when Democrats have both houses, she will shine and be of service. She will have a chance to make good on the platform she just tried to run on and be of service to those who are incarcerated, those who are oppressed, those who are underpaid and under-covered.
Kamala has a future. A very bright one.
2
Please. This has nothing to do with race.
Harris gained no traction because she came off as mean and disingenuous.
That’s all there is to it.
It is a shame that Senator Harris left the field early. It will be a shame when Senator Booker suffers the same fate. But every dark cloud has a silver lining. If the final four are Biden, Warren, Sanders, and Buttigieg, the kingmaker will be the person who can deliver the black vote.
That person is Stacey Abrams.
So fear not, in a few months a strong, young, black woman will be interviewing four whites to see which is best suited to serve as president on her vice presidential campaign. Think of it as Bush/Chaney without the evil and the incompetence.
Ms. Harris' "base" is the California Democratic Machine. Our former District Attorney of San Francisco found out being an anointed star of our one-party state doesn't mean bupkis to much of the country and carries a high negative for others. No one will be analyzing this debacle more than our governor's campaign team.
Let's face it, race and racism transcends all political parties and politics. As one great author put it, to paraphrase, white people in a room do not have to think about being white until a black person walks into the room then all dynamics quietly and sometimes not so quietly change. I wonder why that is?
Mr. Blow has fallen into the same trap as others when considering Ms. Harris' exit from the race for nomination as the Democratic candidate: He drags in the race card, and as numerous comments in this paper, along with other national media sources, it has been clear that perhaps her ONLY major quality is her mixed, not black, heritage.
Time and again thoughtful, well written and believable comments have indicated that the voter wants a trustworthy, believable and honest candidate who captures imagination and restores the voters' hope for a great leader. And time and again, if we filter out those comments who's writer indicates they were captivated by her being of black heritage, the message is that she is not that person. Many state they were initially hopeful her patina of being 'the one' would pay off.
Sadly, she's not 'the one.' It has become clear she cannot choose handlers who will propel her to win over Trump (which is also part of the need of this country), but no longer can charm those into thinking she is qualified to run this country (which is a bigger need of the USA) right now.
Stop being so simplistic in bemoaning the loss of a black candidate. The black candidate the Democrats put forward is sorely lacking in qualifications. That, plain and simple, is why she's gone from the race.
Barack Obama won the primary in Iowa and many largely white states. It’s thus ridiculous to say those states won’t vote for a person of color. Bad candidates lose when they fail to connect with voters generally not just one voter cohort. That’s the story of Kamala Harris who failed to connect with African American voters and just about every else. Harris lost because she was a bad candidate not because of racism. Shame on The Times for filtering almost every political story through the lens of identity politics.
As a candidate, she had great potential.
Unfortunately.. in a presidental run... you need much more then potential... you need a cracker jack campaign organization and money.. lots and lots of money.
Kamala failed at campaign organization, and as such... she lost her access to money as well. She did not have a large grass roots funding program like Obama and now Sanders. And in the absence of a well organized campaign... she never created a focused presence and platform on the campaign trail and hence the big donors that got her started put their wallets away.
She stopped her campaign not because she wanted to, but because she lacked the finances to continue.
All the drive by attacks on her character and lack of focus in the comments here miss the mark. Bad candidates with incoherant focus, gaffs galore, and an actual campaign machine that knows how and where to campaign can win .. if they have the money and the endorsements. Trump is proof of this.
Although Charles Blow makes good points about both white and black voters, he doesn't get to the point about Harris. She didn't show any policy/governing chops. She was theatrical, more style than substance. Harris had as much panache when stabbing her opponent as when she smiled at voters. Although she jumped in the polls right after her rehearsed set-up for Biden, it quickly backfired. The way she attacked the nice grandfather fellow won her mistrust. I don't know why that didn't occur to Blow as one of the major reasons she didn't fly.
Mr. Blow never bothered to listen to what her constituents are saying about her not doing her job of representing them. He ignores the intentional suppression of evidence in at least 5 cases where said evidence proved the innocence of the black men on trial. When ordered by a higher court to fix this, she refused. Jer scant record as AG was an environmental disaster as well as being dotted with more restrictions on human rights and support for a GOP agenda. We already have had enough presidents trampling on our rights, we surely do not need another one.
Americans as a whole are sick of identity politics. It wasn't that Black voters are clinging to the tried and true white devil they know, it was that Ms Harris offered more of the same old discrimination and reduction of rights that 3-Strikes and Super Predator brought us.
Actually, MSM tried so hard to sell Harris, Warren, Buttigieg, Biden; Klor, to the public but these people have no appeal to the public. Harris was one of those loved and favored by the media, but has no grassroot appeal. So, this only shows how the public has changed and MSM no longer hold down the fort on public opinion. That is why Andrew Yang thrives, people see him as he is--despite the explicit systemic exclusion attack on him by MSNBC and its affiliates. These kinds of journalism on Yang reveals that those who wrote have no idea about his policy, have not bothered to know him but chose to defame him to thwart public opinion of him, sorry it is not Kamala but Yang, Gabbard and sometimes Sanders who have been unfairly suppressed by what I see as the 'white elite' media.
2
I kept awaiting "the vision." It never came. Shrug...
If the voting public can detect anything, it is insincerity. Ms. Harris needs to learn how to fake that as well as having some reason to desire the presidency besides filling out her CV. Maybe next time.
She was just a bad candidate with little appeal, and according to reports unable to run a national campaign.
However Mr blow can blame ISMs as that seems to be his only answer to any situation.
1
Undoubtedly gender and race are crucial reasons Kamala Harris did not gather enough support.
It seems the political pecking order in America is:
1. White male
2. Black male (at least 1 after 41 white predecessors)
3. Gay white male
4. White woman
5. Woman of color.
Of course this is always how it has been since America was founded.
Sadly this will not change much in the near future.
1
As a Californian, I voted for Kamala Harris for the state's Attorney General as well as the U.S. Senate. But to think she's qualified to run for President Of The United State is hard to fathom.
Her ascent to the national stage has shown her to be more of a prosecuting attorney than a politician with the experience and skill to formulate a plan that appeals to the masses.
Overall I found her to be unprepared, wavering, and condescending with a likablity factor that would ruin any political campaign.
1
Kamala Harris aside, what strikes me is the timidity of the dialogue on the Democratic side, the continual second-guessing and allowing pundits and Republicans to drive the narratives over who or what is most "electable" in 2020.
Assuming Trump will not be removed from office or keel over from a Big Mac attack, the quality I look for most is a candidate who can go toe-to-toe with Donald Trump in the modern media landscape, not be sidetracked or intimidated, and demolish him in the general election.
Harris the prosecutor certainly seemed like a good contender, as did Sen. Klobuchar at one point. But the spotlight does reveal flaws, and many potential torchbearers seemed to wobble under prolonged scrutiny. Despite all the hand-wringing about liberalism and gender politics, the strongest campaigners in the Democratic fold seem to be Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg, either of whom seem fully capable of taking the fight to the finish line, and unlikely to fold under pressure.
Personally, I would love to see a ticket with women running for both the presidental and vice-presidential positions - hard to imagine a stronger or more effective rebuke of Trump and his regressive world view.
Oh my! The backlash against Blow's column is disappointing.
He acknowledges the flaws in Harris's campaign but asks that we examine the systemic biases that might have contributed to her demise.
"Oh no," say most readers, complaining that this is misapplication of the undeniable, pernicious effect of racism and sexism.
I vehemently disagree. Harris was not my favorite either, but to reject the role of race and gender is foolish. In this, as in every other dimension of American life, folks of color must be better than their white counterparts. Women must be better than their co-workers in order to be equally successful.
One cannot precisely parse out the relative impact of her flaws versus the relative impact of her race and gender. But to argue that she had no headwind as a woman of color is to pretend we are colorblind and that women are fully equal partners in civic life.
Those things are false and to pretend that racism and sexism simply don't exist in this particular case is willful ignorance.
42
@Barking Doggerel
Yes, racism and sexism are alive and flourishing in America, but that is not why Kamala is out this early in the process.
20
@Barking Doggerel
Are you suggesting she shouldn't run until we have eliminated racism and sexism from our society ?
That's kinda... silly. It will always be a part of of society hopefully less and less over time but to think it will go away completely is naive at best.
I was pleasantly surprised by the comments but not all by Mr Blows piece. He can only see the world through a raced based lens. I feel bad for him candidly
The Democrat field was very wide, some would say too wide from the onset. She started out strong but faded, as all but one will eventually do. I would say this is good experience for her and she can hopefully learn from it and perhaps run again with more experience.
I think those are better lessons to take away here.
8
@Pushkin Hedlund
While you're here and declaring outcomes with such clarity -- please tell us who will win in 2020.
1
This is a quite odd opinion piece, and I say this with regret as a huge admirer of Mr. Blow and his column. Just look at Senator Harris' low numbers in California, which had no problem electing her statewide to Attorney General and the Senate. She simply never took real positions that informed voters. Was she progressive, was she moderate? For Dems, there is clearly a progressive lane and a moderate lane. Harris could have battled Sen. Warren and Bernie for the left. She could have, like Senator Klobuchar and Mayor Pete, stood in the center. The clear reality that she did not come into the election with a firm and clear articulation of what she believes in (flip flop on single payer) hurt her and that's on her, not the party, not the voters. And the gimmicky attack on Biden over busing, while a temporary boost, was an embarrassment. It was exactly what voters hate--a "gotcha" moment that misled about Biden's record, and an out of context discussion of an issue from the past that has no current relevance. To beat Trump, I think most Dems want candidates who say what they believe and believe what they say--principled and authentic. And her campaign was not a competent organization. I supported Obama despite some misgivings over his lack of experience because his campaign was run with extraordinary competence. Warren is among frontrunners because of a well run and highly disciplined campaign and a clear political orientation--same can be said about Mayor Pete.
The main reason that Kamala Harris is out is that she consistently failed to have a cohesive policy on what her plans were and always seemed to waffle back and forth on her positions. Positions on policy and consistency still matter
I think the reality is this: Americans tolerated a black male president. They are not ready to see a female of any color be president. Americans cannot fathom a female commander in chief. We still see women in a sociological role of being warm and nurturing. We are repelled by a woman who is strong, opinionated and demonstrably competent. Such a president just wouldn't be nice. She's perceived as unfriendly. You wouldn't want to have a beer with her. Even female commentators talk about the sartorial choices of women candidates as much as their policies. Here, I am thinking especially of Kathleen Parker. American needs to grow up before it will ever accept a woman president. Perhaps a female vice presidential choice could start to break down the barriers paving the way for a female president. I just don't see that happening yet.
43
@Susan I really think that you are 100% wrong. Certainly you are 100% wrong on how the approximately 50% of the population that tends to vote Democrat votes. I think that they look 100% at the ability of the candidate. President Obama won by quite a bit in both of his elections. Hillary Clinton won by 3 million votes. The Democrats had about 25 candidates running for President. I believe that every potential Democrat voter evaluated those candidates on the basis of their ability and policies. Not on their race, gender, religion, etc., etc. Certainly they did not hold any of those things against a candidate. I really think that we are making progress in this area. Yes, too bad it takes so long. Liberals, progressives, and those on the left should celebrate that progress.
11
@Susan
I wonder what you mean by your statement that Americans "tolerated" a black president. Obama was elected -- twice. You make it sound as though he was appointed instead.
1
Nominations and elections are won by individuals who are skilled and successful at getting votes. Simple as that, nothing more. Skin color, gender, sexual orientation or age are irrelevant. Voters choose candidates who are believable.
In 2016, there was only one candidate in the pre-election field of potential nominees who was seen as less honest than Trump. That was Clinton.
Trump has cemented his persona as untrustworthy. The Democrats still running are headed by Biden, who has lost his two previous attempts at securing the nomination and thus shown an inability to seem trustworthy. Warren and Sanders are also flawed, in that Sanders failed in his attempt at securing the nomination in 2016, and Sanders' choice to sit out revealed her lack the fortitude necessary to win. That leaves two proven vote getters who espouse sensible programs, Klobuchar and Buttigieg. Each has come forward and shown him/herself capable of saying I have these things that you might think are disqualifying - homosexuality, short stature, obesity - but so what? I am qualified to run the executive branch, and I can win election. Yang would be another, but he's never won election for anything, but he's still in the mix, and the debate field.
Not to say that any of the other candidates still running would lose to Trump, just that they are unlikely to get the nomination.
Black voters know that a contest between OK and Great in the primary is useless if the general election will produce a choice between OK in the first case and utter disaster in the second.
White voters like me are facing the same primary choice but a choice between OK in the first case and Bad in the second in the general election. I can personally more easily afford to vote for Great in the primary.
The real question is why the major issue in the next 4 years: climate change, is not anywhere in any campaign. Our choices this year are between 1950 level Alabama governance and early Nixon national governance.
1
Voters eventually gravitate to "authenticity". Those who are ahead project this attribute. Kamala Harris has credentials, but lacks authenticity. Her initial support vanished for this reason among all demographic groups.
2
It's pretty interesting that this piece doesn't even consider the possibility that Harris' approach was simply mismatched with what any particular Dem constituency is looking for right now. I'm not suggesting there are no racists, or that no minority voters aren't gunshy about supporting a black woman because they feel she would have a more difficult time winning.
What I am confident of, however, is that I don't know a single person whose first choice was Harris - at any point in the race. She seemed to be trying to find an ideological middle ground between Sanders/Warren on the left and Biden on the right, and simply couldn't find the right chord to strike to make it happen.
Also, while it's been said before, it bears repeating. Her record isn't all that great, and her background as a prosecutor probably alienated some of the folks that might have otherwise been more open to her candidacy.
I would *love* to vote for a female candidate of color. Like seemingly the vast majority of Dems, however, I just didn't find much to like about Harris in particular.
I have hitched my wagon to Biden. But I was ready for Harris to be a great candidate, and she looked like one when she launched and In some of her questioning of administration figures and nominees who came before her in the senate. But she is just not ready for presidential prime time in 2020. Her mistakes were huge in the sense that they made her look like an opportunist with no core message. Plus, when Tulsi Gabbard, who has her own problems, threw a punch at her, Harris, the heavyweight champ of the previous debate, had no real answer. Even when a counter attack was teed up for her by MSNBC moderators, she was not able to take Gabbard out.
Of course Mr. Blow is right bout the whiteness of the early states as a problem for Harris. And Mayor Pete has made big mistakes as a mayor in his handling of relations between the Black community and the police. So I am not sure why he is so far ahead of Harris and Booker. Maybe some racial bias is involved there. But if South Carolina were up first, Biden would blow Harris and Pete out. So the story here is not about primarily race, no matter how much pundits might want to make it so.
26
@Mike
South Carolina is very very very likely to vote for whoever the Republicans nominate. They chose Hillary over Sanders in the primary, and that helped how?
5
@Mike "The heavyweight champ of the previous debate?" She sucker-punched an old guy and demonstrated that she knew next to nothing about Congressional politics in the 60s and 70s, when all those racist Senators were Democrats. Some heavyweight champ. Cheap shot artist is more like it. And Gabbard did eviscerate her. She not only had no answer, but she acted like a diva at the interview after the debate. Someday Harris might have the chops and, if she is lucky, Gabbard's toughness.
6
@Mike
Why weren't the early white states a problem for Obama?
5
I’m sorry, but Kamala Harris always sounds like a prosecutor to me, and from what I can tell of her positions, she thinks and acts like one. I read her book trying to get a better perspective on her. It reinforced my beliefs. Her race, color, and sex had nothing to do with my lack of support for her. In fact, those three things were why I tried to overcome my initial dislike of her. I was a public interest lawyer, myself, but I certainly did/do not feel from Harris the compassion and concern that I want in my presidential candidate nor did I get the sense of a “big idea” candidate.
54
I just don't see how you can attribute racism and sexism to Kamala Harris's fall. I'm not saying those isms weren't there, just that that's not what sunk her. She was a deeply flawed candidate who ran a deeply flawed campaign. She seemed like a political windsock to me. She took unfair jabs at the other candidates, and she adopted a weird, flirty persona that really put me (at least) off. Now, why Booker or Klobuchar or Castro haven't made more headway seems more of a mystery. Is it racism or sexism or just that they lack some indefinable quality that voters are looking for? I don't think we can ever know for sure because there's always a plausible alternative explanation.
60
@Carol I agree that Booker & Klobuchar's failure to resonate with more people is a bit of a mystery, but Castro doomed himself when he tried to emulate Kamala's viral moment by aggressively going after Biden in that second debate. Biden's performance was already making people feel bad for him - Castro looked like he was just being mean to a confused elder statesman.
4
Kamala Harris is a Gifted Powerful Senator who ran on honest, powerful messages in her campaign for President.
She hasn't lost just because she has pulled out of the race.
She has won - opening avenues for women of all color to step up and run for the highest job in America.
She will return to the Senate even stronger.
If, Biden wins the Democratic nomination - he should ask Kamala Harris to be his running mate - they would make an invincible pair.
9
@Karen
If the Dem ticket is Biden/Harris, this reliable Dem voter might leave the top ballot line blank.
Trump is a disaster, and 4 more years of Trump will make things worse. But a center-right Dem ticket in 2020 is simply unacceptable, because while a center-right Dem administration will slow down the disaster, it won't make much of a dent in the trajectory we're on, towards climate disaster, ever-worsening inequality, and a bipartisan embrace of the pro-business neoliberal ideology responsible for so many of the issues we face as a nation and world.
People like me have been told for over two decades that centrists are more "electable" than someone to the left, and that every election is "too important to risk it" by nominating someone with actual progressive principles. Then, the most "electable" candidate in years went out and lost to a reality teevee buffoon famous mostly for being a greedy self-centered jerk. Now, we're being told that THIS is actually the too important election and we can't "risk" running progressives.
I was told for years that my "only option" was to vote for business-friendly technocrats. The result? A Dem party that's fine-to-good on social issues but doesn't seem concerned about some of my most pressing concerns in 2020. Maybe losing TWO elections to a clown like Donald Trump will finally penetrate this suicidal Conventional Wisdom. I'm not counting on it, but I'm tired of being a useful idiot for a party that takes me for granted.
2
I usually agree with the writer's columns, which I find refreshing for being so direct and on point. But the "isms" sound like an excuse and are not valid. Obama was president so racism is not a factor for Harris and Hillary won the popular vote and quite handily, so sexism doesn't cut it. Harris's polices changed with the direction of the wind. And she badly hurt herself by going after Joe Biden at one of the early debates with a manufactured vigor bordering on disrespect toward an elder statesman. Worse yet it was over busing of all non-issues. Oops. Next time tone it down lady and figure out what you believe in.
40
@Sammy Zoso
"Obama was president so racism is not a factor for Harris and Hillary won the popular vote and quite handily, so sexism doesn't cut it. "
Might be worth keeping in mind that Obama was running against McCain/ Palin in 2008 (remember when she used to be considered the craziest person in national politics? ah, those were the days).
Also, I can't help suspecting [just suspecting, not stating it as a fact, okay?] that if Hillary had been a male candidate with all the identical baggage from Whitewater, Bengazi, etc., her popular-vote majority would have been bigger,-- maybe even big enough to overcome the electoral college deficit.
3
@Sammy Zoso So racism and sexism don't exist? or don't exist in presidential elections? Or don't exist if you win? You have to clarify "...not a factor" and "...doesn't cut it".
1
@Sammy Zoso
So, Sammy, guess you never heard [from legal scholar Kimberle Crenshaw and others] that just because a Black man and a white woman can make it, all's well for a Black woman. Nope--in fact, as Crenshaw pointed out, companies knew that they didn't have to worry about their treatment of Black women if they could show that they hired Black men and white women. Discrimination against Black women can all too happily accompany anti-discrimination laws protecting Black men and white women.
Life is complicated. People can be nasty.
2
All of Mr. Blow's analysis would be a lot more convincing if Senator Harris had run a good campaign. But aside from a few good moments in debates she never made the case for her candidacy. Her years as California's attorney general were not especially noteworthy, and her three years as a senator are noteworthy primarily for her questioning of Attorney General Barr. Why would anyone think she should be president?
2
Kamala's exit is absolutely because too few saw her as capable to win the White House. That is because voters are smarter than this opinion gives them credit for. Her attorney general days weren't helpful as a democrat. Her strategy, if you want to call it that, was unclear at best. Her prosecutorial badgering of Biden made no sense and showed poor judgement on her part. It's fair to ask why everything has to come back to race. It's fair to ask why Blacks shouldn't support candidates who they believe are the best candidates for them and ones who have a chance to win without regard to color.
43
I think the real meaning of the end of the Harris race is that Black voters are not interested in a neo-liberal former prosecutor who carries a lot of baggage from her term as prosecuter and States Attorney.
Hopefully we are waking up to the tactic of candidates leaning left to gain our support and then when in office governing to satisfy the status quo. This is Harris to a tee.
Now we need to apply that same lesson to Biden in the South Carolina primary.
Biden opposed busing, as long as it was for school integration, favored the banks and credit card companies that prey on us, supported every meaningless and endless Middle East war, supported mass incarceration knowing it would target Black and brown people and profoundly disrespected Anita Hill.
If local black officials try and sweep this under the rug just because Biden shakes hands and kisses babies, then they have to go as well.
This is not a system that is serving us well and unless it changes we will still be struggling for the basic municipal services that good government is supposed to provide.
1
I'm a white guy. My top two favorites were Kamala Harris because she seemed like she can punch hard in a debate and Elizabeth Warren because she has so carefully worked out so many policy positions. I am sad to see Ms Harris leave the race.
1
She was opportunistic and smarmy and I really disliked her character. Since we just had a fantastic African American president for eight years who won both the popular and the electoral college vote, honestly I think your argument is pretty weak. Normally I 100% agree with everything you write but not in this case.
2
Politics is and will always be a personality contest. Yes, we want a leader that is capable and visionary but we also want a leader that we just sort of like.
No everyone comes across as likable, especially when they are reaching out to voters over mass media. Kamala Harris suffered from the same problem as Hillary Clinton. They are both whip smart but come across as sort of cold and impersonal. When they tried to be just people they seemed fake. Of course, this is just perception. In person they are both probably great.
Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W Bush, Barac Obama all became president largely due to their personalities. Heck, Obama might have one on his smile alone.
When analyzing political events it is important to remember that at the end of the day we are all apes and a lot of our decisions on who to support or not are based on animalistic reactions to people.
1
It's very interesting to watch the conundrum of racial politics when there aren't Republicans to conveniently blame it on. Also, how can anyone foist the idea of racism and misogyny when it's clear that Harris's sex and race were her main campaign advantages?
2
An incorrect assessment on so many levels, otherwise we'd have to attribute Barack Obama's election in part to him being black. But that wasn't the reason; he was elected in part because he has the right combination of warmth, intelligence, and integrity many found appealing and felt they could believe in. But most important, he was elected because he didn't vote in favor of the Iraq war, as his opponent had, and because McCain represented the party responsible for the deepening abyss the economy was falling into. As Election Day 2008 approached, those two issues had become paramount, and Mr. Obama happened to be on the right side of both. So, yes, a little luck was involved. It also helped that black voters turned away from Hillary Clinton in droves after she made some particularly inane and, some would say, insensitive remarks about the possibility of him being assassinated. But my point is that what should matter most is what a candidate brings to the table in terms of messaging and policies, along with timing. Thinking Ms. Harris had a good chance or didn't mainly because she is also black is very superficial, as is thinking Mayor Buttegieg has a good chance or not because he's gay. So thinking she had to fold her campaign because she's black is also superficial. She simply did not resonate with folks -- African-Americans being but one group -- in the same sense that Cory Booker has not caught on because she had no message and no policies.
4
Black though she is and coming out of the gate with support, Kamala Harris did not offer me as a White left-leaning voter much to get excited about or support. I didn’t take her missteps too hard, but haven’t seen or heard anything from her that makes me think she’d beat Trump, unite the country, or even make progress for women and minorities. Maybe I haven’t researched her enough, maybe the media had been routinely biased against candidates like her, but it’s the candidates’ responsibilities to break through all that and win the support of the constituency. I think she’d make a good attorney general. I hope she’ll keep fighting Trump and his despicable, corrupt minions.
1
Among the majority of folks who do not follow politics closely, each candidate's attributes are often condensed into a single sentence or phrase. Thus, Warren is the wonky professor; Buttigieg is the young gay mayor. Biden is the politically correct VP who may be too old. Regarding Harris; she's the one who slept with the married mayor on her way to the top.
1
Maybe she ran a poor campaign?
The woman is responsible for her outcomes. She doesn't need you to make excuses for her failure.
2
And then trump stole the election. Does any of this matter if the Russians are getting set to elect our next president?
1
Racism surely exists, but it is too often invoked as a cause for someone's, especially if they are African American, misfortune.
If Michele Obama were running for the Democratic Presidential Nomination she would clearly be one of the most popular candidates, if not, by far, the most popular.
While it is certainly fair to ask the questions Mr. Blow asks here, the likelihood that Harris' campaign failed due to the fact that she is African American is extremely unlikely.
1
Hogwash. She was not an effective communicator, and her debate performances were spotty. She's no Barack Obama, nor is Senator Booker.
I, a white dude in his seventies, who pulled the lever twice for Obama, within my ability to be unprejudiced, gave Harris as fair a look as any other candidate, and found her wanting. Too many one-line zingers and not enough policy gravitas.
Put plain: Ms. Harris did not have a clearly stated manifesto. She did not nail her colors to the mast and say, These are my ideas.This is where I want to take the country. Follow me over the cliff.
Why was she running? I asked myself.
Ms. Harris was the first black woman candidate to run out of loot. Before her were several white dudes.
2
"Everyone seems to have settled, for whatever reason, on the notion that a white person has the best chance of beating Trump, that a racial minority is too risky this time around."
But that leaves out my personal preference for Biden - I just like the guy, I think he has tons of experience on the national and world stage, and he is "articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy" .
I feel weary of political analysis that seems to say that if I like an older white male more than a younger multiracial woman, then I am being in a horrible place, being sexist and racist. I really think I am able to rise above some of the isms and consider the person, not the labels.
I liked Obama better than Hillary in 2008. Was I only being sexist then and not racist?
1
@Fletcher I would suggest - and this is something I know I need to do myself - reading carefully, keeping in mind potential biases. A political analysis might seem to say something, but sometimes our defensiveness can oversimplify an argument.
I see a lot of political analyses arguing that sexism and racism are one of a number of factors in voters' decision making (it seems Charles Blow's argument fits this category), but very few that argue that sexism and racism are the only factor.
As Blow is suggesting, "it is fair to ask what role racism and sexism played in her campaign's demise." I asked myself similar questions when I was less than impressed with her debate performances and while I'm satisfied that I made a the right decision in not backing her candidacy, it was still a worthwhile exercise in self-reflection.
The Democrats & the media have built a system that tries to eliminate any candidate Left of Center, regardless of race or gender. Obviously doesn't apply to Harris; no one could figure out where she stood on anything.
1
When is the Democratic party going to learn it isn't about identity. We vote for people that share our hopes and ideologies. We vote for people who we consider trustworthy and authentic. I would put money on the fact that in the eyes of most black voters it's a bonus if a candidate is black but they'll happily vote for an asexual, Asia albino, little person instead so long as that persons policies and the arch of their career aligns with their hopes and goals in a trustworthy manner. Sure there's racists in the party and the same goes with sexists. There's a lot, lot more who aren't though. There's a lot more who don't care what color you are or what gender your are so long as you speak to the issues they care about. Kamala didn't do that. The barrage of articles diagnosing her failure as being about race or gender is just another example of the Democratic party refusing to face reality in favor of assuming everything is about identity. After all if the focus is on identity than no serious effort need be made to address the systemic issues disadvantaging those identities. If everything is because of sexism and racism than by definition it can't be because of inequality of education, income, legal rights or treatment under the law. It's all because of bigotry and has nothing to do with her ideology or plans for the future. Let's not forget in the beginning she was the anointed one from the party machine and it's donors. She failed with plenty of advantages.
1
Please. So many people were rooting for her, myself included. She let us down by not having a clear message and relying on phony gimmicks to get her across the line. I suspect it was because she didn't want to go far left. Moderates don't have a message except be moderate. Snooze.
So if anyone has something to learn it's Kamala Harris and the moderate wing of our party. At least Joe Biden can say he can beat Trump. Even black voters prefer Joe over Kamala or Corey. Get real, Charles.
1
Malarky. No reason she should be out of the race? He lack of a message or coherent policy on anything for a started. She let me down.
1
This column illustrates the importance of “intersectionality”.
Given that Amy Klobuchar is still in the race (and Hillary won the nomination last time), Harris isn’t out because she is a woman.
And given that Cory Booker is still in the race (and Obama won the nomination twice before), Harris isn’t out because she is black.
Kamala Harris is out because she is black AND a woman. Intersectionality.
Hope that clarifies things for readers who thought she might have lost because she ran a bad campaign.
1
Most Democrats, not matter what their racial background, agree that racism and sexism are "two "isms" that are permanent, obvious and unavoidable in American society."
However, Harris's failure to run a coherent campaign cannot be separated from her inability to maintain support among all voters, most specifically black voters.
Harris could not credibly argue she was a progressive or a moderate as she ran to left one day, then recalibrated her positions based on polling, and ran to the center the next. As Harris kept doing it, rinse, repeat, it made her appear insincere and opportunistic. That, among a host of other failures, turned off many of us who enthusiastically picked Harris as our top choice knowing she was a black women.
The Democratic primary schedule is a mess, however, acting as if Harris was never given a chance to compete in Iowa, as Obama was, is incorrect.
Harris was doing poorly in the 1st, very white, caucus state of Iowa, yet she wasn't simply doing badly with black voters, she was doing terribly in the 3rd and 4th primary states, Nevada and South Carolina, which are equally non-representative. (Nevada is over 27% Latino, South Carolina, 27% black. Latinos comprise 16% of the national population, blacks 12%).
You offer reasons why Harris did poorly with whites (racism), and with blacks (internalized anti-black bigotry). However, this fails to explain why Harris did so poorly with every other major group of Democrats, including Latinos and Asians.
2
Trump has left me reeling in the wake of his blatant incivility. To the point that I find myself repelled by candidates who, though demonstrating other positive characteristics or views, veer toward arrogance, sarcasm, meanness, bullying, etc. Hence, one by one, many candidates---who initially elicited positive responses on my part---have left a sour taste. At the beginning of the debates I was ready to support anybody but Trump. As the interminable debates proceeded, the candidates had more and more and more opportunities to demonstrate that they, like Trump, could be mean. Cruel. Sarcastic. Impulsively dreadful. I Know: human. Still. The reality is that Harris stepped on my sensitive toes with her unnecessary attack on Biden in the second debate. At that moment she plummeted in my estimation. Even perky Pete is edging toward Trumpdom characteristics that set me on edge. I have felt that Warren---perhaps unelectible---at least sticks to the issues and that alone shows good judgment. So is it racism? Sexism? For me....it is never Trumpism. Not policies (he has none): CHARACTER AND CIVILITY. I want someone who thinks before she/he speaks. I want someone smart, diplomatic, and civil. Debates inherently and unfortunately tempt participants with momentary glory achieved by grandstanding and incivility. I am sick of both.
1
I don’t know Charles. Plenty of white women like me were ready to go all in for Kamala Harris. But she turned out to be a flawed candidate with no message. As documented by many her campaign was poorly managed and had no strategy the opposite of Barack Obama .
1
Double-Wow! I'm a 'white' voter - a 74-year-old Vietnam Vet - who voted for Obama twice, and I would have been happy to vote for Harris. But I never felt she made a case for why she was running, or why I or anyone should vote for her. All sizzle, no steak! I'm glad she's out now. Maybe she'll be better next time. C'mon, man, you can't always blame the prejudice of 'white' voters for your candidate's poor showing.
2
Sen. Harris will have other chances in the future. She was just not ready this time.
Her failed 2020 bid has very little to do with race or sex IMO.
1
Kamala Harris is just getting started !
I find the reaseon for her suspending her campaign because she wants to remain an effective CA Senator.
Watch now, all will praise her and want Kamala to be their VP Candidate.
Hope Senator Harris says NO, thank you.
1
Charles, in simple terms beyond the two palpable "isms," I saw three flaws in her candidacy:
1. She seemed to lack politcos actively boosting her into the primary orbit.
2. Most of her media interviews were too overtly "me" oriented.
3. Attacking Biden was plain dumb on her part. There is reverence for him as an elder statesman.
So black folks want their votes to matter? As opposed to white voters? Why not mandate that primary scheduling vary each year? Why indeed is it Iowa instead of Alabama that gets the early attention?
Mr. Blow, this should be a prize winning analysis not only of a failed campaign, but a failing Country. I was very excited by Her entering the Campaign, and I watched the slow erosion of support and the over reliance on poll numbers and finding the
“ perfect candidate “. You know that particular unicorn doesn’t exist, We must work with what we have. You’re very honest, blunt and accurate in highlighting the ridiculous importance of the early primary States. Particularly States that are very White and older than the median across the Country. No wonder the advantages go to White Males, it’s built into the entire system. One little piece of advice to Vice President Biden : Choose your VP running mate wisely, don’t settle for a Pence, Quayle, or Cheney. Oh, right. Those guys are Republicans. My Bad. Bury the hatchet and choose Senator Harris OR Stacey Abrams as your VP. I would personally crawl over broken glass to VOTE for them, and therefore you.
Just saying.
1
It is "fair to ask" if the author is using this expression to suggest things he is unable to actually argue for.
Sometimes a cigar is a just a cigar, and sometimes candidates fail simply because they ran a subpar campaign.
1
Tulsi Gabbard made it clear why Harris wasnt fit to be President. we dont need an aggressive insincere Prosecutor as President. We need a sincere straight talking person like Tusi and Bernie. Two candidates the Times deliberately downplays.
1
She lost me when she said there should be reparation payments for slavery and vacillating on a healthcare plan. It had nothing to do with the DNC.
1
Mr. Blow calls black support for Biden “practicality” but then calls white support for a white candidate “racism”.
His evidence of white racism is the existence of white candidates. Yet, it is black voters who overwhelmingly decided who would proceed to this point.
I must say the charges of racism against white people for every perceived slight have veered into the ridiculous at this point. If everything is racism, nothing is.
1
So the Democrat establishment torpedoed the Harris run because of either overt or latent racism? What nonsense. What's more, Mr. Blow is suggesting that black voters are behaving through a racist lens as well because of their support for Biden. More (absolutely incredible) nonsense.
As for gaming the process by making virtually all-white Iowa and New Hampshire early primary states, I say Remember Barak Obama. He did very well there in 2008.
The default argument of racism to explain everything from a politician losing to a person not getting a job is getting tired. Harris was a LOUSY candidate, both in her waffling on issues and the manner in which her campaign was run. Period.
1
Charles, love your columns. I like Kamala Harris but maybe, just maybe she didn't have a unified vision, a purpose behind her candidacy. Add that to a lousy organization (don't hire relatives!) and you have a recipe for flame out before the first primary or caucus.
This is a country that elected a black man to two terms as President and a party that just nominated a woman as the first female major party candidate to run for President.
Please, don't write Harris' failure off as racism or sexism. Plenty of both exist in this country, no doubt about it but no matter what, a candidate has to have a vision and an organization to get a nomination.
1
Sometimes candidates have all the right credentials but don't have the "IT" factor-that combination of charisma, leadership, and likeability that it takes to be a successful presidential candidate.
2
I think her exit has nothing to do with her color but everything to do with her lack of ideas. when she was making those heavy remark about Trump which everybody agrees on she looked out of place and opportunistically using her prosecutorial past profession as a cheap way to mobilize people. No, she was not a winning candidate and her lack of clear idea and her moderatism all made her sink.
PS: the fact that Black voters prefer Biden, a man without a good racial record and so moderate is not a good sign.
2
I have always appreciated Mr. Blow's intellect, passion, and excellent writing skills. This article has many salient points regarding areas of the election process that could help support diversity among the candidates. The best point in my mind is that Iowa and New Hampshire are predominantly white states. Mr. Blow also seeks to balance the reasons why Kamala Harris has dropped out. One must note also that many white men have dropped out and two billionaires that are white men have barely made a dent. Another issue- there are strong black candidates not running: Colin Powell, Susan Rice, Michelle Obama, etc.
I personally can't figure out what happened with Kamala Harris either. She was my first choice out of the box and is still a viable candidate for vice president in my book. I'm sure race played a factor in her demise. But black voters favored Biden over Ms. Harris. And Obama was and still is black.
I think the bigger factor is people are leaning toward those with which they are familiar. Thus we have three candidates in their seventies that are white vying for the opportunity to run against an over seventy white Republican. I think there are definitely still racial tensions and stereotypes at work in today's politics. But not like in the past. I think black candidates simply haven't had time to establish themselves in numbers.
I want the best candidate regardless of color or sex. We still may see Kamala again at the convention as a vice presidential candidate.
My takeaways from Ms. Harris' candidacy: 1) Female candidates are held to an impossibly high standard vs a male candidate. 2) Varying degrees of sexism, especially as it relates to Presidential candidates, runs maddeningly deep throughout all demographic groups, even young women raised in a patriarchal culture. 3) Black female candidates face much higher scrutiny in the form of heinous racial bias 4) Her passion and rage against injustice and Trump on the campaign trail and debate stage, along with a confrontational style overshadowed and muddled her political policy. Ms. Harris increasingly failed to articulate clear political policy positions even though her appeal as a fighter to those looking for a candidate who will verbally "destroy" Donald Trump never waned. Anger is no substitute for good policy that will move the country forward.
Kamala Harris is smart and passionate. She has a bright political future. Hopefully, she will use this unsucessful Presidential run as a learning experience and come back as a more effective candidate. Never give up even when the odds seem insurmountable.
I have always been impressed with Harris. But using movie business language, she never developed a campaign title and log line that connected with voters. Also, personally I was completely put off by her first debate non sequitur attack on Biden. And she made a lawyer's basic mistake of bringing up an issue before knowing what the answer would be.
2
"But also, white people made a different choice. Everyone seems to have settled, for whatever reason, on the notion that a white person has the best chance of beating Trump, that a racial minority is too risky this time around."
Come on, Mr. Blow. This is grossly insulting to white people, is it not? Are white people really looking at Biden, or Warren, or Sanders, and saying yeah, I'll support him/her because he/she is white? Is such an inference really justified or is it just a prejudice?
This is way beneath the grace and humanity that I am accustomed to see in your columns.
2
still a guy world, but barely. joe pa gets it- one term only, with whispers that he will retire in a year or two.
Kamala drops out somewhat early. no more hits on joe pa.
why?
because she will be the VP nominee! no more hits on joe pa.
she will then serve for 6 to 10 years- leading us into the gal world which is surely coming.
so get off kamalas' back, please.
I blame it on her past. She never did anything progressive as district attorney in SF or as AG in California, so what to expect of her now?
3
It teaches us that she does not have enough support. Period.
4
Your repeated refrain of "it is fair to ask", means everything you list is unfair.
I agree that racism and sexism are "two "isms" that are permanent, obvious and unavoidable in American society." However, answering the questions you pose means your argument falls apart. Harris's failure to run a coherent campaign is not separate from her inability to maintain support among all voters, including black voters. Harris could not credibly argue she was progressive, or moderate, (or sincere), as she ran to left one day, then recalibrated her positions based on polling, and ran to the center the next.
The Democratic primary schedule is a mess, however, acting as if Harris was never given a chance to compete in Iowa, as Obama was, is a bizarre assertion.
While you address that Harris was doing poorly in the first, very white, caucus state of Iowa, you ignore that Harris wasn't simply doing badly with black voters, she was doing terribly in the 3rd and 4th primary states, Nevada and South Carolina, which are equally non-representative, as the first is over 27% Latino, and the second over 27% black. (Latinos comprise 16% of the national population, blacks 12%).
You give explanations as to Harris doing poorly with whites (racism), and poorly with blacks (various types of internalized anti-black bigotry). However, as your formulation attributes everything to racism, how do you explain Harris doing so poorly with every other major group of Democrats, including Latinos and Asians?
4
Democrats were more than willing to take a look at a woman of color as noted by your description of her entrance into the race (big rally, big media attention, big donations, big sales of merch). But as her platform began to show cracks the real Harris didn't look so attractive. End of story.
4
Can Pete make African-American voters shift the same way Obama did after he won Iowa in 2008? If Pete wins both Iowa and New Hampshire will African-Americans move to Pete's column in South Carolina? Will IA and NH prove to African Americans that Pete is a serious candidate that can actually win? Or will Biden win SC because African-Americans still support him, despite the fact that Pete wins IA and NH? These and many other questions will be answered soon.
2
Mr. Blow says, "There is absolutely no reason Harris should be out this race so early." You mean, no reason other than the fact that she didn't run a good campaign? I regret that she is out of the race, but I think this is the right move, since her campaign has been flatlining for some time. She was my initial favorite, and the first candidate to whom I gave a donation. But doubts first crept in after she attacked Biden on the busing issue at the first debate, and when it quickly emerged that her position on busing was in fact indistinguishable from Biden's. She never developed a clear, consistent message.
Unlike Mr. Blow, I have no problem with the criteria established by the DNC for the debates. The thresholds were more than reasonable, and necessary to avoid a debate stage completely overrun with candidates. The DNC accepted national polls for meeting the threshold, not just state polls, so the trope of blaming Iowa and New Hampshire can only go so far. Furthermore, Mr. Blow's criticism of a white-only debate doesn't even stand up on his own terms, since Harris in fact qualified for the next debate. It was her campaign that made the decision - the right one, in my opinion - not to continue. This is not about race, Mr. Blow.
3
"Everyone seems to have settled, for whatever reason, on the notion that a white person has the best chance of beating Trump, that a racial minority is too risky this time around." Everyone? Get real. She didn't have the bucks which rules our election process. Perhaps if Steyer or Bloomberg had not entered the race but had chosen to support Harris, it might have given her the finances needed to run a campaign. Secondly, perhaps if she had had a clear platform with attainable goals, it might have proved beneficial. Thirdly, perhaps if she had embraced and fired up the Dem base, she might have had a chance. No money, atrocious campaign management, lack of concrete ideas--all contributed to her demise.
1
To tell you the truth I and many others are sick of being divided via race, gender, and all the other alphabet soup of ways of pushing us apart. We are sick of it. We want a candidate that is going to do well for all of us. Yang isn't running as the Asian, Biden isn't running as the white guy, we just want someone who is running as an American who will do something about our awful state of our country. Things aren't working out for most of us, and Harris was unconvincing that she'd so much about it.
2
"It is fair to ask" whether Harris was ever qualified to run for POTUS? She was dissected on stage by Gabbard regarding Harris' horrific treatment of criminal defendants in California and about her record of withholding evidence from defendants (oops, I don't think that has anything to do with her race or gender, or the public's perception thereof).
"Is it fair to ask" whether she ever knew how to intelligently articulate her policy platforms during her campaign?
She was a horrible candidate. I don't even believe she has the chops to be a U.S. Senator.
She's out because she was a lousy candidate, Mr. Blow.
And our analysis can stop right there.
4
Well let's see. Of the top five - there are two women on the ticket (and Amy is almost a slam dunk to be the VP), three people in their 70s (Truman was the oldest when he ran at 60), one gay, and one Jew. Three - Amy, Joe, and Pete from the midwest or rust belt and two - Bernie and Liz from the coast. Maybe not a perfect rainbow - but it's not a bunch of Mad Men.
1
It is fair to point out that black (and non-Hispanic brown) people comprise less than 13% of the US population.
It is fair to ask, when you factor in the percentage of black people who are adults, who are registered to vote, and who actually do vote, what percentage of them will vote for a woman (any woman)?
It then becomes fair to ask why anyone should expect a black or brown candidate to be elected President because of their skin color, ethnicity, or gender. (Kamala was kind of running on those things).
Why shouldn't all people vote for whoever they believe will be most effective in promoting their interests?
3
What Kamala Harris's failure taught us was this :
1. Trying to make the highlight reel has a short shelf life
2. Ignoring half of one's ethnicity with a desire to pander to the other half because of a numbers game is bound to disappoint either demographic
3. Advancement of your career by engaging in unethical conduct will always come back to haunt you
4. It helps to have a substantive policy portfolio
5. Selling yourself on purely on racial factors does not always succeed
Barack Obama succeeded where Kamala Harris failed because Barack had substance. Real substance.
5
It teaches us that unless you have something important to say, something useful to propose, and something intelligent to say, you are going to get kicked down the stairs.
She was a poseur, seeking only to garner some momentary fame and publicity.
2
There is so very much wrong with this piece. No, it's not fair to ask a bunch of loaded have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife type questions. Kamala Harris had little to no support among any communities. So no, she isn't out just because she is a woman, or just because she is black. She is out because she was a lousy candidate who ran a lousy campaign.
And this article seems to conveniently ignore the early primary state of South Carolina, with it's outsized black demographic when complaining about the unfairness of early states. And that Harris's home state of California, with 20% of the delegates needed to secure the nomination, is another early state.
And I find it very hard to label the rules the Democratic Party has established as biased against women and minorities when they have resulted in Obama getting the nomination twice and Hillary once. No white man has been nominated by the Democrats since Kerry in 2004.
2
Kamela Harris' departure teaches us that poor campaigns headlined by poor candidates are likely to fizzle.
2
Really Charles? Kamala Harris withdrew because she ran out of money, and she ran out of money because she failed to inspire the same confidence that Barack Obama did. She was no Obama, and she was no Shirley Chisholm. And if we took a black woman's candidacy as seriously in 1972 as we do now, we might have had a President Chisolm. Your argument is that Barack Obama only won the nomination because the predominantly white states of Iowa and New Hampshire made the black candidate safe enough for the majority black Democratic electorate in South Carolina might be true, but the argument is facile. Both black and white Democrats want to win - in this we are no different. Obama did not articulate a black or white raison d'être for his campaign. He articulated a red, white and blue reason to vote for him - something Kamala Harris utterly failed to do. Perhaps we will have a black woman as our standard bearer in the future, but not until one comes along with the tools necessary to win - tools that any candidate must possess whether white, black, gay, straight, man or woman. The Democratic Party's deck is not stacked against black or female candidates as President Obama's two terms and Hillary Clinton's candidacy attest.
2
"It is fair to ask what role racism and sexism played in her campaign’s demise."
Oh, please, don't play the race card, again. To be a president, one must have leadership and other necessary skills. Obama had them so his leadrship skills prevailed over his race. Isn't this easy to figure out?
I don't think Kamala Harris, although a beautiful woman and a lawyer, has the ability to be a president, and neither did Corey Booker regardless of their race.
Trump didn't have the ability needed to be president either but he fell through the cracks because Hillary Clinton lacked hers.
If one wants to be president, one needs to understand that color of the skin or sexuality, are not the main ingredients that decide on winning or loosing supremacy. Leadership skills is.
I grow tired of your broad pronouncements...
"But also, white people made a different choice. Everyone seems to have settled, for whatever reason, on the notion that a white person has the best chance of beating Trump, that a racial minority is too risky this time around."
Harris was my choice and I'm very sorry she's out of the race. She would have been the best retort to Trump in any debate. She would have told him to sit down and shut up if he had stomped after her like he did Clinton. And she admits to owning a side arm, which, along with her prosecutor credentials, would have made her credible to a lot of independent voters.
I would have enjoyed her as president, and would have been proud as a white male to have a Jamaican-Indian as president.
Wow, Charles, I love your writing and I love the way you think, and in most of your columns you inspire people to goodness or greatness. But talk about "not being honest" here. You imply that all those racist white voters in Iowa and New Hampshire would never give a black candidate a look (or a vote), but somehow Obama beat Clinton in Iowa in 2008. And when he did, suddenly all those totally-not-racist black voters got behind his candidacy. So how does this work? Do Democratic primary voters pick candidates on the basis of racial identity before the candidate gets momentum, or after the her candidacy really takes off? Or in fact is race not much of a factor for Democratic primary voters? And if all it takes is for a candidate to prove her viability to get black voters behind her, then isn't that the explanation for the Harris candidacy right there? Voters (black, white, whatever) could see she was not a viable candidate: she could not articulate a vision for the future of your country, and she could not defend or account for her past record as Attorney General or as Senator. Throw in a little hint that she was a member of the Indian diaspora masquerading as an African American, and that about sums it up for many voters.
2
I agree it’s fair to ask all of the questions you posed and we should look at all the issues raised, but you left out (or only vaguely alluded to) the elephant in the room; Black Americans didn’t like her! Her prosecutorial record and her self serving pivot to concern about issues concerning Black folks struck many as phony and opportunistic. As for our support for Biden, well there are many mysteries in the known universe. That’s one of them.
1
Harris was a once highly promising candidate who didn't connect to voters. So was Beto O'Rourke who is white and male.
Not everything is racism and sexism.
1
It could also be possible that voters care about a candidate's record, not their skin color, gender, or location on the sexuality spectrum. I never would have voted for Kamala Harris for the same reason I'll never vote for Joe Biden or Michael Bloomberg -- their long (relative to their ages) history of advancing our brutal, barbaric law infliction system. It has nothing to do with the fact that she's Black or female.
She also didn't do herself any favors by trying to gaslight people with her claim to be a "progressive prosecutor". That assertion is simply and amply debunked by very recent facts.
1
I thought the best combo to beat Trump was Biden for prez and Harris for VP. Still do.
This has nothing to do with sexism or racism. This is a story about an unpopular over zealous prosecutor who displayed zero empathy being unfit for President. Period.
1
Harris lost me when she used emotional manipulation against Biden on the debate stage while simultaneously suggesting the man was racist.
I was strongly considering her as my candidate of choice prior to that remark, because it was such a blatant manipulation.
That strategy will only work against a candidate with the ability to feel shame and demonstrate introspection.
In the general election, a lob like that against the President Trump will only strengthen his standing with his base as he is incapable of shame nor introspection.
2
There is only one way to beat racism and sexism charges, every time they run, just elect them, even if your reasons are other non-identity issues.
You could also blame Harris's exit on her flip-flopping on so many issues, on her negativity, on her flawed debate performances, or on her awkwardly playing of the race and sex cards. But that would make her responsible for her loss, rather than systematic excuses that pass for analysis these days.
1
I don't abide by racism, but I think it is more important to get rid of Trump. It is way too important to leave to chance. As much as I would like to see a woman as the candidate, Trump will do to her what he did to Hillary.
We need to fight sexism and racism. Do you really think we can do that under Trump?
BTW sexism is the bigger issue. There are far more women in the world than in any ethnic group. Fix this and the rest will follow. Fixing racism only fixes the problem for men.
1
She was a terrible candidate with no message, no vision, wooden presence, an inability to connect, and no consistency or legible authenticity. Her gender and mixed race background were her strongest assets as a marketable candidate.
1
As usual, Charles Blow attributes societal or individual failings to race. As usual, we can regard it as a load of bunk in 99% of circumstances with those one or two instances where it might hold true.
After last election with a female candidate coming on the heels of a black man as president, and with a current president with low approval ratings, the idea that race and gender are factors in this to any meaningful degree is absurd. Let's face it- Kamala just isn't a likable person, and she fails to appeal to either of the two camps vying for power amongst the democrats. She comes off as conceited (the personal attacks she took on Biden really made me think lowly of her and the fact that she resorted to that instead of saying anything of substance and focusing on policy really is pathetic), plus her obsession with race and left wing policies alienates many white voters, and justifiably so. Conversely, her actions during her time as a prosecutor alienated her to the left. And this is all on top of the fact that she just isn't that recognized, even within her own state, amongst people who should be her constituents.
Let's call this for what it is- Kamala Harris is overall just a lousy candidate. She neither is a visionary nor a compromiser, which are what voters are looking for
1
Since Mr. Blow poses many rhetorical questions that push his oppression narrative, let me add a few more.
Why didn't Harris have a consistent or appealing message?
Why weren't minority voters willing to ignore her record of incarcerating black men who were likely innocent and fighting to keep them there when strong exculpatory evidence came to light?
Why should we vote for someone only because she's female and a minority?
When will the Democratic Party move away from extreme policy ideas like reparations and dismantling the healthcare system?
Seriously, the Democrats will lose if all they can do parrot identity political slogans.
1
What Senator Harris's campaign should teach us is that authenticity, experience, clarity, and facts matter, at least to Democrats.
If you want honesty and not a bespoked narrative that relies heavily on suspension of disbelief and vicarious victimhood, Harris wasn't ready for primetime.
Imagine if Hillary was Black. I don't think the demonization of her character and candidacy would have elicited such a passive response even among numerous Democrats.
If we're being honest, Senator Harris was more Nicky Haley than Stacey Abrams.
And If there's anything dysfunctional about the Democratic primary process, it's that Harris was considered a serious candidate but Stacey Abrams isn't.
3
It doesn't matter what color she was. What matters is that she was a woman, and too many Americans don't like strong women. It's disgusting, but true. Any man, regardless of race or sexual orientation, has a better chance of winning the Electoral College than an equally qualified woman--- or even a male running against a far superior female opponent. The Clinton - Trump election proved that all too clearly.
I voted for Obama (twice) and Hillary. I would vote for Elizabeth Warren or Corry Booker. I am very happy I do not have to vote for Kamala Harris.
2
Oh stop it, Charles. It is exactly Harris' color and gender which gave her the "buzz" and early excitement in the first place. God knows it wasn't her charisma, dedication to policy positions, or vision for the country.
She was rejected for being the cynical, empty suit she is, as so many now-anonymous straight, white male politicians who have come before her.
Please at least allow her the dignity of holding her responsible for her own campaign failure.
3
In 2008, Obama won the Iowa caucus with 38% of the vote. The voters are the same white voters then as they are now. Perhaps, Harris and Booker aren’t resonating with voters because they just aren’t that likable, not because they are black.
1
Obama beat them all at this unfair game and if she wanted to be President she had to do the same.
1
"What Kamala Harris’s Campaign Teaches Us"
is that the black community should nominate a black woman as candidate who is really competent and competent and not a wannabe hyped by some ideologic wishdreams refering to her person whose open flaws have to be stonewalled by all these well-known identity politics etc. rhetorics all the time.
The problem is that particularly such a person will reasonably decide not to run because even if she will get elected she is going to face the Obama problem - this means to fail in the end because she will also not be able to cope with party structures and hampering legislation due to an obsolete constitutional framework. Simply promising a change won´t do. As long as there is no collective willingness and readiness for profound changes of these structures to make the system workable again like it had been the case in the New Deal era it will not be succesful. The social and political environment - no majorities, no awareness of the real problems - isn´t prepared. No human being could do in present situation. As soon as a person who s bright enough will have realized this situation she/he won´t run. So there is none - except some of this Kamala Harris of this world.
You need proof for this bold these?
Exhibit A: Michelle Obama.
This is the second opinion piece published in the Times today which seeks to lay the blame of Harris' fall at the feet of white voters. Not on black voters, and not on Harris' campaign mistakes.
Blow correctly argues that it's unfair to assume black voters flock to a black candidate...but loses me when he suggests it's somehow whites' faults for not voting for the black candidate. Maybe both races saw the same in Harris: a politician with no clear message or conviction.
Blow suggests black voters favored Biden for his perceived ability to defeat Trump and white voters favor other candidates for their...whiteness. Really?
We read over and over again that blacks are the lifeblood of the Democratic primary process. Just today the Times also published their millionth article about how black voters are the Achilles' heel of Buttigieg's campaign.
In 2016, blacks overwhelmingly voted for Hillary Clinton, giving her the nomination from states like SC that were never going for her in a general election. Today, we are watching history repeat itself - a moderate, establishment Democratic front-runner with massive enthusiasm issues, but who will likely capture the nomination thanks largely to black voters from deep red states. Seems to me they have tremendous influence in this race - arguably outsized seeing it's voters from purple PA, MI, FL who will determine our next president. With influence should come some of the "blame" that Blow insists on dishing out over Harris' exit.
1
Kamala Harris had the same chance that the other "top tier" candidates had and blew it, pure and simple. She was clearly uncomfortable with a progressive agenda but kept making stupid efforts to get those votes. Private insurance yes, no, maybe. What day is it? She could be such a good questioner in a Senate hearing but couldn't articulate policy which just made her campaign less viable. When your home state can't produce endorsements for you, you're done (see Sen. Gillibrand). There simply was no there there.
With even President Obama advocating for moderates, a black candidate was never going to be well received this time around. White democrats and white independents would be unwilling to support a candidacy which would exacerbate Trump's racism and racist base. Black primary voters appear to have joined them in this opinion. Where 2008 was a race between Hope and an idea-lite McCain, 2020 is a race between Prejudice as Power and an encompassing Progress (or something that looks encompassing). I agree, Democratic primary voters need a better system, but next year they need a winning candidate more.
2
Harris was the most likeable candidate of all, imo, on a personal level. I happen to prefer Warren's politics. It seems to me that black democrats have taken a realistic approach to black candidates: If they can prove they can win the white vote, they will get behind them, literally, 150%, the extra 50% being turnout.
So bring on the black candidates, by all means, because if the right guy or gal steps up, he or she will win, with the turnout making the difference.
Now let's get down to the task of convincing black voters that progressive policies are not anti-black or too "extremist" . Biden will not get the white progressive turnout he needs to beat Trump.
9
I knew as soon as Harris dropped out there would be the predictable progressive whining on why she wasn't given a fair chance. Oh if she had just been a white male she would still be in the race because the standards are so much lower. Give me a break. Harris was the architect of her own demise. Every time she was given the ball she dropped it. From running a disorganized campaign to changing her position on the issues every other week. More importantly, she lost moderate voters when she pulled the busing stunt, clobbering Biden & having her campaign t-shirts ready to send out right after the debate. Pretty craven. Harris lacked authenticity. She came across as overly calculated & somehow not genuine. She had no positions beyond what her staff and a poll told her, and used cheap identity politics to give her a personality where there was none. But her biggest liability is she's a stereotypical west coast progressive. This won't play well with midwest voters. November's election results are in. You have to be blind to not be able to read these tea leaves. Voters, especially swing voters are rejecting Trumpism but endorsing centrists. The Dems who won in red & purple states ran as moderates. We need to be realistic & abandon progressive candidates that will lose us votes. There's no progressive majority in the U.S. & never will be. The numbers are not there. Harris is out because voters weren't buying what she was selling. She simply isn't qualified to be President.
1
Charles Blow:
It's possible you are overthinking some factors and underthinking others with regards to Kamala Harris.
Overthinking: The process dictated by the Party (yes it was flawed last time but not so much this year), and bias towards candidates who are women and/or people of color.
Underthinking: Charisma, message, authenticity, and a genuine reason/agenda for running for President.
She is very flawed in the areas that you are not assigning much importance to.
1
Your points about the whiteness of Iowa and New Hampshire are well taken. But consider that Harris never could articulate why she was running. And she was miserable in the debates. I wish she had been better - but she wasn't.
4
Kamala Harris is out of the race because she failed to articulate a good reason to vote for her. Blacks, whites, men and women, young and old, all generally came to that same conclusion.
Charles Blow of course sees race as the primary factor in Harris’ failure. It wasn’t.
Barack Obama’s election and reelection proved that Americans will vote for an African-American for President. Elizabeth Warren’s top tier status shows that Democrats will support a woman who proposes policies that we think will further the common good.
3
Harris is my state senator and I voted for her. She did nothing wrong. This is just not the right year for another African American who happens to be a Woman. Identity politics is a weakness now, we are looking for that one top job type who can exude power. Biden and Bloomberg are tough competition for a one term senator from a super Liberal state. Harris will go on as our beloved senator from our true blue coast. Harris would make a great attorney general.
You could also argue that black voters are not monolithic and that the majority of them, just like the rest of the Democrats, didn't see much to excite them this time around. You can argue about the system all you want but you can't argue that the black candidates didn't know the rules when they threw their hat in the ring.
Bernie was arguing throughout the aftermath of the 2016 Democratic nominating process that the system was rigged against him. Yet, if my memory serves me correctly, he chose to enter the contest without even being a Democrat.
I'm not reading about Asian Americans or Hispanic Americans lamenting that they are not represented as we head into 2020. The electorate is speaking, Mr. Blow. You may not like what you're hearing but you need to listen rather than complain because when you strart blaming voters, you've lost.
1
I’ll share that Ms. Harris’s candidacy inspired me when she announced it, but her performance as a candidate thoroughly disappointed.
Mr. Blow, you raise great points about the primary system, but level with us about Ms. Harris. Did she really inspire you personally as a candidate? Was she really your pick for Democratic nominee? I don’t sense she was.
2
Senator Kamala Harris was a great brown hope, a female person of color who ticked at least all of the visual boxes.
Problem: Sen. Harris didn't get people excited plus too many other distractions with similar "cred:" credentials and credibility.
1
Charles Blow's questions about the system are not germane to why Kamala Harris failed to thrive. She didn't falter because Iowa's voters are mostly Caucasian-- look, she was polling poorly in S. Carolina, where the Black voting population is much more significant.
She failed because she didn't present a clear message and didn't answer questions strongly and clearly in the debates.
Charles, please don't link Harris' failure to systemic bias. That wouldn't do justice to the seriousness of whatever bias there is.
1
It's a little hard to take Charles Blow lecturing us that if we don't see that the system the Democrats "have built," is "stacked against" Black candidates, then we're "not being honest."
Let's start with the smaller point that the system isn't "built," the states choose when to hold their primaries.
It's also not stacked against Black candidates. Harris' plan to focus on South Carolina and California would have worked perfectly fine if the Black voters of South Carolina wanted her but they did not. Neither did her own home state voters. So, then she tried the Obama strategy focusing on Iowa and they didn't want her there either. How exactly does this show anything about the system being stacked against Black candidates? Especially since the last Black candidate won Iowa and by a wider margin than he did in the primaries overall. In fact, Clinton actually won more primary votes in the aggregate than Obama. He won because he played the system -- the one supposedly stacked against him -- better than she did.
It's Mr. Blow who needs to be honest with himself. He doesn't say that Harris was the best candidate. He doesn't even sound excited about her. And if Charles Blow didn't really want Harris to be President, why should the rest of us?
Racism didn't kill Harris's campaign. Harris did.
Harris came across from day one like Hillary Clinton and voters, highly intuitive about this sort of thing in today's news cycle, knew it. They could see that she was insincere, switched sides at the drop of a poll and did not know how to plant her feet on on an issue and stand by it. Obama faced the same problems as Harris. The difference in their character is what changed their outcomes, not the biased structure of the process.
1
I not only supported Harris, I donated to her campaign. I thought she was the smartest and toughest person on the stage, and I hoped that her nomination and victory could serve as a national rejection of white male identity politics. When I made my support public, however, I heard from POC friends who were very angry about her performance as DA and AG in California. They strongly felt that some of her decisions and non-decisions had hurt the black community. There's more than just racism, sexism, and the reported desire of black voters to go with a safer option, behind her candidacy's failure to take off.
Charles, it's not always about race. Harris ran a very undisciplined, unprofessional campaign that poisoned her chances. Maybe more of a racial case can be made with regard to Cory Booker, who for reasons that evade me has failed to gain any traction despite his attractiveness as a candidate.
2
Admittedly, electability was my concern with Kamala Harris. Not because she was black or a woman, but because black voters did not seem to support her much.
Could it be that people didn't connect with her and it had nothing to do with her race? It seems racism is always the justification when a person of color is not ultimately chosen. I think that perpetuates dealing with the actual reason one is not chosen.
Another apologist explanation...the system is designed to thin the herd by "combat" of campaigns which require money, organization, direction and unfailing dedication, if not maniacal devotion, to the cause. Witness the winning campaigns of Reagan, Clinton, Bush 43, Obama and Trump. Anything else is an excuse or the fog of campaigning in the "modern" era. BTW, to the victor go the spoils...and columnists are still just commentators and spectators, vice active participants.
Maybe Barack Obama won Iowa and black voters in part because he did not have Senator Harris’s verifiable and overly punitive history as a prosecutor. Not sure why this is disregarded by her supporters outside of California because her policies continue to wreak havoc on families.
I am an old liberal white male with a PhD. I was enthusiastic about Harris and I donated to her campaign several times. But she was a huge disappointment. She never articulated her goal, her vision. She ran an awful campaign. Compare her with Buttigieg who has problems with the electorate with his sexuality. Every time he speaks he smoothly presents and articulately defends his vision. There is no question that racism is alive and well in the US and that sexism is still a major problem. But Harris never got to the point where that was the dominant factor. She simply did a bad job
1
"It is fair..." to look at the candidate's flaws that contributed to her failure to connect with a broad spectrum of Democrats. Fundamental to this is her speaking style - oratorical mannerisms matter in politics. Unfortunately, Ms. Harris often spoke in a choppy way that sounded like audio equipment with faulty connections. Now, I am sure some will jump up and down and claim that my observation is sexist. Get over it. Mannerisms matter. I'm sick of being screamed at by Bernie Sanders and being told "the truth is..." by Elizabeth Warren. Words matter and so does their presentation.
1
So we should never, ever vote for Bloomberg because of his racist past policies on stop and frisk, but it's some sort of racialized tragedy that Kamala Harris, the Supercop who laughs at her prosecutorial victims, is out of the race. Moral outrage is a valuable thing, but only if it's consistent. When it reaches this level of incoherence, it becomes special pleading.
1
Perhaps Kamala Harris and Cory Booker were doomed from the start of their campaigns. That's not what I believed when they entered this race for POTUS. I like them both very much.
Then during the first few debates they both attacked Joe Biden with snarky if-you-had-been-raised-in-my-neighborhood commentary. Their stock value began to slide while Joe's gained more traction.
But here's the thing. A day or so after a July 4th BBQ in the backyard, Jonathan Capehart — the terrific columnist for the Washtington Post — got some surprising feedback from the women in his African-American family. Their opinion on who can/must beat Trump was, to paraphrase, "It's too soon after Obama's two terms to expect another candidate of color to win again." Given the polarity dividing the country, they are probably right.
Now, Kamala Harris is out; Cory Booker is hanging on by a thread. In their zeal to dismantel Biden's momentum, they fell on their own swords. Castro is slipping though he had not gotten far in the polls.
That leaves a field of white candidates, including two billionaires, that may be just fine with black voters and voters of color in general.
The herd still needs serious thinning and hopefully the next debate will take care of over-crowding in the race.
"But, that is a horrible place to be: courting the voters who abide racism rather than trying to excite the voters who despise racism."
And yet Charles, horrible and sad is where we are. The system stinks but so does our environment today where a corrupt demagogue laughs at the law, a white nationalist advises on immigration, and the attorney general just said, ostensibly to black people, give more respect to police or you'll have no policing at all.
So what does Kamala have to do with all that? Democratic voters are fairly screaming,through their funding, beating Trump is more important than anything else.
You know he'll destroy everybody before he's through, so stay away from someone he'd find easy: a black woman, two attributes Trump and his allies despise.
It's awful and sickening but that's where we are. And black people know it, shown in who they're supporting.
She is out not because of missteps or racism or Black pragmatism or sexism or the primary structure. She is out because she was disturbingly inauthentic and condescending. She was the Hillary Clinton of this election cycle. The Democrats were wise to reject her.
1
Quick question, Chuck: what did she stand for? What was her vision? What were her plans for the country?
Exactly, nobody knows. STILL.
"It is fair to ask what role racism and sexism played in her campaign’s demise."
Just as it is wrong to judge or dismiss someone based on their race and gender, it is also wrong to expect anyone to vote for you based on their race and gender. I voted for Obama twice. He didn't base his campaigns on being black. If Ms. Harris, or anyone else, wants my vote, I need to know what their plans are.
Mr. Obama had a vision and plans, and a sense of himself and his purpose. She didn't. That's not racism. Sorry.
She's out because she was a lousy candidate with too many fingers to the wind who couldn't appeal to voters or raise sufficient funds in order to continue flying around the country wasting the donations that apparently sincere individuals sent her in the hope that ... well, who knows? Apparently she also treated her staff abysmally which is never a sign of good things to come.
1
I learned early that Mrs. Harris was backed by big money. I liked her education, her looks, her blackness, her femaleness but these traits couldn’t overcome the big money backing that seemed to push her into the race. I wish it were otherwise.
Here we go again... the old Democratic self-immolation. Despite 1) a diverse slate of candidates and 2) a number of flaws and mis-steps by Harris herself, we're going to immediately throw the racism/sexism grenade into our own midst as soon as she bows out. And right as we're prepping to take on a truly and brazenly racist and sexist opponent. It's no wonder Trump is the favorite, even as he faces impeachment. Imagine if the GOP ran a semi-normal person?
She lost, not because of "ism's." It's because she never put forward a vision of What President Harris Would Do. She ran a campaign that defined herself as a "me too, but BF and tough on crime."
The two newcomers that have broken through the pack and made it a race with Biden and Bernie (who have done it before) are Warren and Pete. And both of them have the vision thing, in spades. Ask them. Then try to get the mic back from them. Good luck with that.
Me Too plus demographics won't beat Trump in those pesky 6 purple states. Ya gotta bring your A game, and if you haven't done it after a year, please learn your lesson for the future.
My impression is that her tenure as CA Attorney General and the policies she pursued are what did her in. She was attacked for being too conservative, although she probably would never had been elected AG as a black woman without the conservative positions she held. For example, she defended the death penalty and expressed solidarity with law enforcement. Liberals turned on Kamala
As one of my least favorite presidents said HERE WE GO AGAIN. Harris was not a good candidate. Black, brown or purple. I think democrats were biased against HRC. Older, heavy and married to an EXPOTUS. We should examine ourselves and rid ourselves of this bias.
Or Dear Readers, she was a bad candidate and people regardless of how Mr. Blow characterizes them reacted accordingly. That’s how it’s is supposed to work.
From the start Beto and Kamala persistently shrouded their messages in sentimentality, it was not a convincing show of fortitude from this white male or from this black female, the emotional theatrics were unbecoming of a presidential candidate. That the two are no longer in the race is no surprise to me.
Despite the disappointing disarray of her campaign, Kamala will be the beneficiary of the white field of candidates and should be in demand as a VP in the coming months. As someone who supported her early, I’m glad we haven’t seen the last of her in this election.
2
I'm happy to see so many women on the stage and in the campaign. That said, I will support and vote for the Democratic nominee whoevever they are.
The key is going to be following up after the election. President, House Reps and Senators need to know where the poeple who put them in office stand on issues like Medicare, health insurance, immigration, voting rights and reform, etc. (Myparticular issue is the sparation of church and state.)
I normally agree with you Mr. Blow. But I have to strongly disagree with you when you assert that candidates are "courting voters who abide racism rather trying to excite the voters who despise racism." If you want to point fingers at endemic racism, point at the Republican party, not the Democratic party. I want to see Donald Trump kicked out of office in the next election. If the Democratic candidate who succeeds at that happens to be white, so be it.
32
Harris played the race and gender card early in her campaign, making that a major point of her platform, and she blew it. Americans, including devoted Democrats like myself, recognize identity politics as divisive and alienating to people who, maybe white, maybe male, maybe straight, still face complex political and economic hardships that must be addressed by a President eager for change. By emphasizing her race and gender, Harris was focusing on herself, not the diversity of the populace that needs help at a very difficult time. She did poorly as a result, and deserved to. Remember how Barack Obama allowed his race to be something emphasized by his very presence, not identity politics? That's why he won. That's why Harris lost. Time to move on.
5
As you point out, the system was against her from the start.
And yet I want to talk about her past. In particular, her status as a former prosecutor in an age of unjust mass incarceration. I can't help but feel that some black people may have seen her as a cop, and therefore not to be trusted.
1
Mr. Blow asks some worthy, obvious and subsidiary questions as to what role did racism or race play in the Harris campaign and its early demise. But it would be nicer to have this experienced columnist, excellent writer and Black Man opine for once on something other than race.
There is a lot of analysis out there about Harris, her personality, her positions on the issues, her track record as a prosecutor and her campaign organization's disfunction, each of which appears to be much more relevant to the campaign's demise than race.
The unfortunate (for her and us) truth is that the Democrat Party is dividing ever more deeply week by week into two factions on policy and the issues: one which is Center-Left and another which is Far-Left, and both are hostile to Harris' track record as a prosecutor. Secondarily, despite her obvious intelligence, winning personality and good faith attempts to straddle both factions, the chasm is too great and her admirable attempt failed. Nothing to do with race.
1
Regardless of whether or not the ism's were a factor, the system of getting from a potential party candidate to becoming president is incredibly flawed. The electoral college is one outdated factor, but the primary process, beginning in Iowa and New Hampshire is just ludicrous. Mix in the out-sized role of money and the whole mix is disastrous. The one thing I thought of when she bowed out, especially in today's reality of having an odious AG like Barr, is that presidential candidates may have to reveal who their core team might be ahead of an election. Not enough to pick a good VP candidate, you may have to declare who your AG & Secretary of State (if not more) will be.
I like her a lot.
BUT
The attack on Joe was sloppy.
Busing was a disaster. K may have benefited, but it divided America and was a failure.
I moved in Omaha to avoid having my kids spend two hours on a bus everyday. It was not racism, but practicality,
2
Two words encapsulate why I would not vote for Kamala Harris in a Democratic primary: Kevin Cooper. If you don't know who he is, it's worthwhile to do some research, As California's AG, Harris could have saved this demonstrably innocent and railroaded man from further imprisonment. She didn't. I consider her inaction, her choice of politics over justice, a deal-breaker.
3
I was glad to see Sen Harris run even though I thought it was too soon. I did not support Obama in 2008 for the same reason & still think he should have waited. Obama was not as wise to the ways of Washington as he might have thought & a lot of good opportunity was wasted as he tried to play Kumbaya with the Republicans.
I did not support her because she had no defined set of things she wanted to accomplish. I do not want promises of “hope”’ & “change”, I want policy proposals and for candidates to ask for a mandate for them. The smartest thing Newt Gingrich did was the Contract for America which clearly listed what the GOP wanted to accomplish & they turned that mandate into a string of profound political victories unimaginable before that time.
I know what Bernie stands for. I know what Andrew Yang stands for. I know Joe Biden wishes it was still 1976. I know Mike Bloomberg is a Republican. What I do not know is what most of the rest truly want to accomplish other than the title POTUS. I think Sen Warren’s decline has a lot to do with the softness of her convictions. As soon as she started to waffle on Medicare for all and signaled the donor class that she was more centrist than she is selling herself to be, Progressives and Liberals started looking elsewhere.
Sen. Harris needs to go home and tend to California. If she does not pay attention she will be primaried. While her state was literally on fire she was walking around Iowa and New Hampshire. Not too smart.
1
While I cheered Kamala Harris being elected as a U.S. Senator, I felt that Harris bent to any which way the polls told her to plant her flag. I saw her ambition and 'gotcha' sound bites but never felt an ounce of sincerity or integrity coming from her during her campaign.
2
This piece is offensively anti-democratic. Senator Harris is out of the race because she failed to garner enough support to stay in it. Full stop. She had a team of well-paid consultants and strategists, just like all "top tier candidates" whose job was to surmount the hardly revelatory obstacles Mr. Blow describes here. They, and she, failed.
Meanwhile, many of Sen. Harris's supporters were attracted to her candidacy for the exact reasons Mr. Blow ascribes to her undoing: that her race and gender were more even important than her positions or leadership. Suggesting otherwise, maybe Mr. Blow's the one being dishonest.
Ultimately, all this cynicism and convenient application of generalizations are meaningless compared to the primary reason Americans of any race or gender support a candidate: because they believe he or she would make the best president. Voters don't owe financial or electoral support to candidates for ANY other reason.
4
Mr. Blow's piece teaches the wrong lesson. A different black female candidate could win. It's a mistake to walk away from the Harris fiasco and think otherwise.
If Stacey Abrams ran, she might well be among the front runners. She's authentic and sensible in ways Harris just isn't.
Though pundits loved Harris, she never clicked with Americans, white or black. Her entree - the attack on Biden's opposition to mandatory busing - was feted by the NYT analysts. They said she chopped Biden to size, and made herself appealing. To ordinary Americans, regardless of ethnicity, it was a joke. Busing is the least popular public policy of the past half century, not just among whites. Harris had made a critical first impression on people, and they didn't like it.
I also think something has to be said about ethnic complexity. Harris is Indian and Jamaican. Lots of Americans can identify with a polyglot heritage. As Obama said, we're mutts. Instead of celebrating that, instead of reaching out to Asian-Americans as a member of their diaspora too, Harris doubled-down on being just black. It didn't resonate with many African-Americans. She even antagonized Jamaicans.
Please, what Harris teaches is that candidates have to do more than attack.
2
@Brian
Thank you for mentioning ethnic complexity. I've been struggling with a way to raise that issue, but was afraid anything that I wrote would be attacked as racist.
Thanks again.
Kamala Harris was a prosecutor and DA who held back evidence of exoneration in several cases, so that innocent defendants rotted in jail. There is little I abhor more, and I wish that prosecutors could be prosecuted for such misconduct. Her campaign started floundering when Tulsi Gabbard pointed out this blatant prosecutorial misbehavior during a national debate, but the media postmortems have barely hinted at this reason, Harris got exactly what she deserved, and I am very thankful she is gone.
2
That she should not have run for office because enough people looked into her over zealous prosecutorial past and thought she was a bad choice?
Oh, that and Al Franken.
1
I voted for Sanchez not Harris. I thought Harris would do exactly what she did, use the Senate as a jumping place for an even higher public position. Newly elected she hit the road almost immediately, leaving her district to hear the squeal of her tires as she hit the road. My opinion, she needed to prove herself in the Senate first, build CRED there, and then if successful move forward if she could find backing. Once on the national stage she proved her self unable to run a campaign, to secure a message that caught on, belittled a democrat with many years of putting in the work for all the people and even cried foul. Kamala should have known better, agent orange has torn this country down for the past 3 years, and look were he is headed in history.
1
Given the number of candidates that started in this race, is it not even possible that Kamala Harris dropped out for the same reasons the others did? Her only "moment" came when she dissed Joe Biden with a pre-planned attack complete with t-shirts for sale. Her donations and poll numbers went up after that and then, that was it. Maybe she just ran a lousy campaign. After all, even her own people were leaving in droves and complaining about how lousy a campaign it was.
1
Racism and sexism most certainly made things more difficult for Harris, and, while the official Democratic party makes it harder for some than for others--they loathe Sanders and work against him at every point--it simply is not accurate to say it is stacked against black candidates. It is stacked in favor of those they see, however myopically, as winners.
Harris could not settle on a message; she could not be consistent in her positions. And, apparently, she could not get her staff all on the same page. Racism and sexism can never be discounted in this country: but they are not the foremost reasons she did not do well.
1
I, an older white, centrist Democrat, liked Kamala, when she started. I liked her because she was a former prosecutor, current senator, occupying the left of center lane. Then she left that lane, joining Bernie and Warren, on the far left. Then she left that lane, and wondered back. on the debate stage she seemed only animated when on a personal attack, Biden, Gabbard, Trump. Voters want to know what you are for, not just who you are against. It is too bad she did not have a consistent voice.
And I am getting weary of Mr. Blow looking at everything through the woke lens.
1
Kamala Harris' problem was Kamala Harris. She stood for nothing. Her campaign message was horribly vague. Her routine flip flops did not help either.
2
I was/am impressed by Booker. Harris was good on the attack. Something else, it seemed to me, seemed lacking and it was not about her blackness or gender actually. So maybe that translated into money.
Biden is strong because people think he is strong and a safe choice against Trump. He's a perception based on a perception. He seems very weak and careful to me. We need strength at this point. It's hard to see Biden's real strength. But we need change too.
Harris's reason for leaving the race was money. This is a very big fault in our system. Money equals viability, the ability to be heard. This is horrible criteria and denies us choice at a critical time.
Harris though ultimately was a victim of the same thing that drives Biden: people's perceptions about who can and who cannot win particularly against Trump. This may be a collapsible house. Harris may've been the better attack dog.
Others have had to drop out because they aren't independently wealthy. We are all the poorer being so denied.
1
The system is always unfair. Having 20 odd candidates sanctioned by the DNC was unfair and foolish. You can't stop a candidate from running but most running had no chance ever. So it's hard to understand the DNC's thinking.
There are candidates who arrive seemingly out of thin air and go on to win. Clinton, Obama, Carter are examples. In the past, politicians were on the scene for decades, built alliances, developed bona fides. Or the nomination was brokered in a back room by the movers and shakers. Today a term or two as a Congressman or Senator, a few good sound bites at committee hearings, some media exposure and suddenly they believe they're a household name.
Mayor Pete is erudite, but he looks like he's twelve and has no federal government experience. Couldn't he have worked his way up the ladder, built up a political base? What is his hurry?
I don't believe Ms Harris is the victim of sexism or racism. Just like Corey Booker, I believe she's the victim of believing passion and some effective sound bites creates nation-wide exposure. Maybe Washington politicians believe everyone is watching. They aren't. Unfortunately the ones watching are watching Fox. Just believing it will happen won't make it happen. Ms Harris didn't spend the years developing a nation-wide support system. She's a moderate so that doesn't inspire true believers. It inspires people like me but with so many nominees I decided to wait until the field narrowed to a few.
I disagree. I voted for Obama and Clinton, and racism or sexism has never been a part of my decision making process in any venue, including hiring, firing and selecting friends. I did not support Harris because of her choices and character. She made the poor choices as District Attorney and California Attorney General. She made the poor choice to try and fatally damage Biden, if he were to face Trump in 2020, with her busing fiasco during the debate. She chose to display a personality on the debate stage that was not presidential. You know what Charles, if Michelle Obama was running, I bet she’d still be in the race, though she would not be the best candidate based on experience.
Harris was a terrible candidate whose “achievements” were polarizing to most of the voters she was trying to woo. However, Blow is correct when he points out that electability has become code for white and male. He is also correct that the Democrats seem more interested in courting the votes of slightly-racist voters than the votes of those harmed by white supremacy.
Centrist liberals may want to spend more than a few minutes watching Joe Biden. He is white and male, but he doesn’t stand a chance against Donald Trump. The man can barely speak. I don’t like Kamala, but she was at least as electable as Joe.
Noting you did not disagree with the belief a white candidate is more electable.
Only that it's regrettable.
It is. But no less true.
Devastated that she didn't go the distance, I remain pretty convinced that misogyny is the deepest prejudice there is. Yes, even deeper than racism. It was no accident that Barack broke the color barrier but Hillary didn't smash the glass ceiling. Men and even many women find such a powerful woman off-putting, intimidating, threatening. It is precisely her extraordinary intellect, her incisive eloquence, her obvious gifts, that rendered her not viable as a candidate. Hand on heart, I believe there's only one black woman who could get elected--Oprah.
My understanding is Ms. Harris was polling at 5% among African Americans. Is that racism showing? Ms. Harri's campaign by all accounts was poorly organized. I do agree that putting so much emphasis on Iowa and New Hampshire is silly -they are small states not representative of the electorate at large. However, Mr. Blow seems to find racism in everything when a minority doesn't achieve what he seems to think they should. I don't think there was a lack of coverage of Ms. Harris-in fact initially she had a lot of coverage. Could it just be that she didn't have a coherent message, and couldn't convince donors in the long run that she could beat Trump?
1
"Everyone seems to have settled, for whatever reason, on the notion that a white person has the best chance of beating Trump, that a racial minority is too risky this time around.
But, that is a horrible place to be: courting the voters who abide racism rather than trying to excite the voters who despise racism."
I don't see how if follows that I, as a white male, "abide racism" because I feel that another candidate has a better chance at beating Trump than did Ms. Harris. As a matter of fact, I am supporting the candidate that has the most support of African Americans over the one I would rather be our next president, who has virtually no African American support.
1
It's a sad day when our best hope for defeating Trump just walked out the door based on polling data that is bogus and has been proven wrong for decades and in this case was more about name recognition than anything else. Most of these polls were done with a 1,000 or less respondents nationally, some lower than 200 out of a voting population of 236 million rather than an actual vote. Senator Harris was really our only hope of bringing an Obama coalition of women, who are the majority and minorities together in overwhelming numbers to kick this President to the curb as our first woman President. Sure the campaign made mistakes but which one's didn't. The pile on of articles of her campaign's mistakes were over the top, which were then parroted throughout the industry even by women journalists was shameful. It was over the top misogyny and racism. It's embarrassing to think that here we are in the 21st century and we allowed misogyny and racism to eliminate the most qualified candidate on the stage over dubious at best polling data and the countless discrediting of her resume, her exceptional qualifications and accomplishments to trade all that in on an old regurgitated white guy who can't remember what position he took on the legalization of marijuana the day before. The rest of the world has enjoyed exceptional women leaders both past and present and we are still stuck in the 15th century on the diversification of that top seat. Unfortunately, we just lost to Trump.
It's amazing that a country that elected an African American for president, twice, is still questioning if racism determines the outcome of an election cycle. I'm a Republican, voted for Bush and Trump, but also voted for Obama 2x because I thought he was the better candidate. The one lesson the Democrats should learn is that your candidate has to be remotely likable, which she was not.
Barack Obama overcame much bigger odds in his first campaign than Kamala Harris faced during this one, and it's not even close.
The man overcame birtherism, claims of being a secret muslim and an incredibly formidable opponent, Hillary Clinton.
Your conclusion is simply preposterous, there's just no other way to frame it.
The DNC made a mess out of 2016 election and they are making one now of the 2020.The debates are boring, not substantial. Chris Wallace would have made it interesting.The DNC said no no to Fox.
Kamala Harris is the kind of candidate the more you get to know her the less likable she is.Her attacking Bidden not supporting forced busing decades ago was gathering headlines but her nastiness about it turned people off.
People of color vote their interest.We have a Republican governor in Florida because he supported school choice and black mothers voted for him in unexpected numbers.The mothers voted for the best education they can get for their children and not fora black Democrat.Harris ironically hurt blacks as attorney general by being overzealous with petty crime.Contrast that with Trump's criminal justice reform, low black and Hispanic unemployment and secure borders that help the poor.
The world is not black and white Charles but all shades and policy and record matters the most.
Kamala Harris just much too indecisive and cautious during the debate. She really needed to articulated the reason why she wanted to be President. This was the general opinion of many people that wanted to support her
She failed because substance didn't come close to hype. Even her brief "surge" came from a completely scripted and cynical attack on Biden.
Charles has it exactly backwards. Harris was strong out of the gate precisely because of her identity as a black woman. He even cites the Nate Silver analysis of the “coalitions” she could bring together. The problem was she looked great on paper, but couldn’t overcome being a poor candidate.
"Joe Biden just fits that bill for the plurality of black voters. When it comes to picking a nominee, black people don’t adhere to racial tribalism, broadly speaking. They want their votes to matter; they want to pick a winner."
Sadly, so does Trump.
Because he tells black voters that they have nothing to lose, he doesn't care about them anyway, neither does anyone else, and for that matter, neither do they care about each other.
Some six percent (small but significant) number of black voters believed him in 2016 and voted for him. This time around, if they attribute their tax cuts and jobs to him, I am expecting about 15% to vote for him. Black candidates on the left cannot take black voters for granted by relying on fealty. But candidates on the right apparently can by sticking to the message: "go away, you don't matter."
Kamala Harris was simply a bad candidate. Though extremely well suited on paper, she lacked an identifiable central philosophy. Unfortunately she failed a fundamental test, consistent character. Whether right or wrong you have to stick with your core beliefs, with Kamala those core beliefs seemed to always be in flux. The fact that she's a woman or non-caucasian were, of course, factors but far from her fundamental flaw.
The Wall St. donor crowd in the Democratic Party has long since bought the black Democratic establishment, including black preachers, to create a voting block to keep economically progressive candidates from getting nominated, as they did with Hillary's victory over Bernie in 2016, and as they are trying to do with Biden over Warren and Bernie this year. Bernie won the white primary vote, of course. Rich donors use blacks in the Democratic Party exactly as rich donors use white Evangelicals in the Republican Party, as the reliable block that allows them to control the nomination process for their own economic advantage. So neither Harris or Booker had the slightest chance with black voters from Day 1. The fix was in. Soon enough, the equally irrelevant Booker will have to fold up his tent, too. It's not the blacks are so cleverly pragmatic. It's that their influencers are so well bought by the rich whites who control them. In 2016, the blacks were incredibly impractical in forcing the nomination of the most hated candidate in either party in living memory, in a year in which the election Rust Belt exit polls proved incontrovertibly that Bernie would have crushed Trump in the Rust Belt, and thus nationally. So the blacks disastrously shot themselves in the foot. They will do the same thing this time around if they cause the nomination of such a weak candidate as Biden.
Well, given that nobody has voted yet I'd put this largely on the media and, especially, the punditry. I'm a very active progressive, I've voted in every primary and election at all levels of government for 46 years. And, like the vast majority of citizens, I've ignored the noise which is this race and will continue to ignore it until the voting starts.
It was bad enough when BHO was labeled a "lame duck" in 2014; the term is for a president who's in his last few months in office, post-election. It was bad enough when the presidential campaign for 2016 started in 2014 rather than the fall of 2015; but this idiocy started as soon as Trump took office, maybe as soon as his election (for which the media and punditry have much to atone for, not that you ever will, as you continue to hang onto the false narratives you built which helped defeat HRC).
And that's it. It's the narratives you build. It's the never-ending presidential races that you require. It's the never-ending noise you create. Iowa is a few months away. Imagine the campaign had started in October. Would 26 people jump into the race? I doubt it. Where would Harris be? She'd be in Iowa running an actual race. Then we could see what her support would be. Not to belabor the point, but the rest, as Alex Ross says, is noise.
Ms. Harris’s first stop after she decided to run for President was a big fund raising group from Wall Street. She may pretend to be a progressive but she’s a corporatist and everyone including Wall Street knows it. I don’t care what color she is; I care whether she is a progressive, a real one. Neither gender nor races guarantees progressive policies or a progressive record. Enough people knew who she really was. That is why her campaign cratered.
Kamala Harris is out because she was all over the map on her policy proposals, throwing stuff to see what stuck to the wall and came across as phony. Period.
1
Mr. Blow, maybe she just wasn't good enough, or if she was, like many other qualified candidates, she just didn't manage properly or get that luck break that others do... Let's not always blame the system, which your articles generally trend towards doing.
1
"... the coalition-building model has made me more skeptical about the chances for Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden and Amy Klobuchar, for instance, but more bullish about Kamala Harris, Beto O’Rourke and Cory Booker.”
One thing we've learned is to stop paying attention to Nate Silver's pronouncements -- as if the 2016 election had not already proven the fraudulence of his "models."
Hay, wait a sec: Nate later decided he was "bullish" about Klobuchar, another going-nowhere candidate.
Harris failed because she was a lousy candidate, period. Her campaign was a mess and was brutally exposed as such by one of her key staffers. She also could not escape the fact that her career was built on being a prosecutor something that is not a badge of honor in progressive circles given the history of the legal system's abuses against the poor and minority people. Finally, Harris was arrogant and projected a sense of entitlement. Maybe now she will concentrate on doing the job she was elected to do, being a great senator instead of using the position as a springboard for higher office.
59
Gosh Charles the system is also stacked against people seen as "too old", "too progressive", "too young" and so forth. Obama won not once but twice in spite of the system. Why, because he was viewed as competent, calming but most of all because he offered hope. You claim that "If Harris had Biden’s level of support in the polls among black voters she would still be in the race." That is only partially true, her main obstacle is her inability to raise campaign contributions. If we had a system of publicly funded elections the process and candidates might look very different.
I am a 70 year old white guy who was hopeful for a woman candidate regardless of race. I am a Warren supporter, why, because she has a clear message and she offers hope for a more equal and better America. Kamala Harris failed at this, that is why she is gone.
3
Yes. Primary schedule should be changed to have more diverse and crucial States at the beginning of the process. However, that is only one factor in Harris' lack of support by voters. Obama won Iowa. He was a better candidate pure and simple.
4
Not everything is about race, Charles.
Kamala Harris just didn't perform up to expectations.
She didn't seize the moment in the debates apart from the one Biden attack, and gets stuck too often telling her own life stories rather than hammering on the issues like Bernie or Warren.
Besides, she will make a great US Attorney General.
12
Charles Blow’s most important observation here is the outsize role played by Iowa and New Hampshire. Neither state is representative of the racial and ethnic diversity of our country, let alone the Democratic Party.
The two parties need to engage in a review of the system that focuses too much attention to two states. Perhaps then partied can study the election maps for the last twenty years and find two or three truly swing states, battlegrounds, as the first primary hosts. Those two states won’t quit without a fight, the present economic benefit to them is real, but it needs to go.
African-American, Latino, urban, millennial, rural, high income and low income all need to be heard in those first votes.
7
@Richard Barnes ,
Or maybe a national primary? Our NJ primary is in June, and usually the Democratic candidate is all but decided by then, leaving me feeling that my primary vote is useless.
1
I don't think it's possible to elect a prosecutor as president. Prosecutors are like priests, they both think they are righteous and in some cases above the law. I sure do not want someone whom made those life choices being president. Race and gender can't overcome being the top cop, not in 2019.
4
Everything you say has some relevance. But the real reason her campaign came to a grinding halt is she wasn't clear on what she stood for and her positions on different issues. She also didn't know how to present herself--the hard driving District Attorney who was tough on crime or one who would think out a way to reduce the number of people imprisoned. Like Hillary before her, there was no clear consistent message. Voters tend to pick that message up.
9
"There is absolutely no reason Harris should be out this race so early".
Yes there is. Harris ran an unfocused campaign; she changed/modified her positions without a rational; she attacked Joe Biden, which did not endear her to lots of voters and according to all the polls, she was unable to excite minority voters. I tried to like her and support her campaign but, like lots of people, I got turned off by her flip flopping and her inability to articulate a reason for her candidacy.
15
Rather than wasting a lot of time discussing the election systems and who it benefits, let's be honest here. Kamala Harris is 100% responsible for her early exit from this campaign. She never had a message that extended beyond beating Donald Trump. While I believe that she would make a great Attorney General in a Democratic administration, she is not prepared to hold the highest office in the land at this point in time. And by the way, neither is Corey Booker, who I suspect will exit the race in the very near future. As an African American voter, I always vote for the person who I believe is most qualified to hold the job; and sadly, that is not Kamala Harris at this time.
17
@Duane Thank you Duane. Well put. Mr. Blow's litany of excuses for Senator Harris' withdrawal/failure painted a landscape that was a papered over back drop. President Obama captured voters attention because of who he was; a principled, inspirational person with real human qualities. Ms. Harris made it clear, perhaps too clear, that she wanted to be President. No one was buying.
1
Not sure I agree.
I thin she lost a lot of voters with the attack on Biden in the first debate. It was heralded as a triumph but history will characterize it as a Pyrrhic victory.
Her point was fair but it seemed especially harsh and impolitic in its delivery. She was prosecuting him and its was a turnoff.
Finally she just didn't seem to have a fully formed platform or even governing philosophy.
I am a California and have supported her as Senator. I was inclined to support her again but she proved to be a lousy presidential candidate.
17
Every campaign has to answer these two questions: why do I want the job? Why am I the best candidate for this job? This is the same in a job interview.
Kamala answered both questions. For number one, she said, "I am running to be a president by the people. Of the people. For all the people." For number 2, she said, "My whole life, I've only had one client: the people." So I think she answered number 2 well. She was the best candidate because as a professional - either as prosecutor or senator, she was best positioned to run against Trump.
But for number 1, did she effectively answer the question? She talked about M4A and race relations, to an extent, but did not really address her passionate positions with Biden, Warren, Sanders and Buttigieg.
I'm disappointed but I'm not surprised. Lawyers who are senators often don't make it to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I hope Booker can hang in there - get on the debate stage and fight back against Warren et. al.
2
I wanted to love Ms Harris. But on a NY TImes Podcast, her "big idea" that we could all get behind was fixing potholes. That's right. Potholes. And this: she said she wanted to accomplish something practical and "not just write a book about it." Uh, okay. She seemed to be without a clear vision or the kind of idealism that so many of us are looking for. Still, maybe she can make in impact from California...
5
Part of the problem is that she seemed to me to only be running as the little girl who participated in early integration in Oakland Schools.
Cory Booker to me only ran as a guy who grew up in a black neighborhood in Newark and lives there now and understands issues in that neighborhood.
Those are important things to a large group of voters, and helps make them compelling human beings but they also aren't important to a lot of voters and doesn't sell you on them being worth my vote.
For good or ill a lot of voters in this country are looking for the sure bet to beat Trump and a lot of people right now aren't necessarily willing to take a flier on candidates who they view as less electable (women and POC).
For my money I love Warren, I plan to vote for her in the primary, and I hope that at this point enough people are disgusted enough that voting for a sack of potatoes is better than voting for Trump and they guy will lose on his own merits.
However, a lot of people I know who are politically informed are so scared of his reelection that they are willing to vote for a guy like Biden, who seems so slow on the draw and so out of touch, because they think his name recognition will carry him to the white house that they just aren't going to support anyone they perceive as having enough weaknesses to lose.
I personally think it's a mistake to just run as ANTI-TRUMP, you should stand for something, but that's the temperature amongst my general peer group.
8
As a California voter I supported Kamala Harris in becoming one of our U.S. Senators. That is what I expected her to do for at least one term. Not use it as at platform to jump for a more prestigious position at the first opportunity. I didn't see anything about her other than checking a number of minority membership boxes that distinguished her from the inevitable pack of Democrats running against the abomination that is Trump. A distinguished career in the position she was so recently elected to would have made a big difference to me. As just another me too member of the pack that had to be culled I am pleased to see her step back and hopefully distinguish herself in the position we already had elected her to.
12
It is fair to talk about the early states being overwhelmingly white, and then note how well Barack Obama did in both. It is fair to talk about gender, and note that Hillary Clinton did well in Iowa and that Bernie only won NH because he was from next door. Stop lazily using the same old tropes and talk about how the candidate herself came across as inauthentic and packaged, how she did not differentiate herself from the field in any meaningful way, and how little time she spent in New Hampshire compared to other candidates who are doing much better.
9
Race remains a compelling and destructive value in the lives of too many people. Racism remains a disease with terrible consequences in the United States. It has been been effectively treated though certainly not eradicated. The gains have been substantial transforming the lives of millions of people.
Not all failures or successes can be attributed to race and the withdrawal of Kamala Harris like the withdrawal of other promising candidates has many causes. With so many candidates in the race for the Democratic nomination, rising and staying in the top tier is a gamble only a few can win.
While it is true that under the Party rules the next debate will be among all white candidates. It is also true that Joe Biden is the current leader because of the overwhelming support of African American voters.
Barack Obama did not win the Presidency because he is black and Kamala Harris will not lose the nomination of her Party because she is black.
The Democratic Party may make mistakes on its way to the election of 2020, but racism will not be one of them.
10
This strikes me as a somewhat blinkered piece. My sense is that Senator Harris didn't define herself, and that probably had something to do with her relative lack of legislative or executive branch experience working with and thinking about issues such as health care.
11
She could not tell voters what she wanted to accomplish.
A campaign should be an extended job interview and she could not tell me why she deserved the job.
3
@Tom That sounds about right. Bernie and Warren own the issues, Biden and Buttigieg own the "reasonable" position but she kind of fell in between.
Her hook could have been relentless and hard attacks on Trump as no candidate has been really doing that. It would have suited her reputation as being tough.
3
Instead of turning to racism, let's evaluate Harris' campaign based on her performance, which, at least in the debates, was noticeably spotty. She was overly prosecutorially aggressive (not surprising) in attacking Joe Biden over the bussing issue early on, and as the debates have proceeded, she continually seemed to be looking for attack angles, moments when she could spring on rivals with pre-prepared sound bites. Whenever the camera focussed on her, unfortunately, she looked like she was less interested in listening to questions and the responses of others, than in making her next point. And no, that's not a sexist comment; Castro seems to have the same problem. Amy Klobuchar has figured out how to be assertive while also seeming to listen to those around her. - Cory Booker is also far more thoughtful in his performances, responsive (rather than reactive)
16
"It is fair to ask what role racism and sexism played in her campaign’s demise."
Sorry, Charles, but this is (dare I say it) malarky. Everyone I know -- and I know a lot of white liberals -- were excited by, interested in, or at least open to, Harris's candicacy. She messed up and blew it. Being an African American woman doesn't make a candidate immune to failure as a candidate.
"It is fair to ask about the Democratic debate rules and how they prioritize donations in addition to polls, thereby advantaging the opinions of people who can afford to give over those who can’t."
No, it's not. For one thing, Harris had no trouble qualifying for all the debates. For another, as of the last reporting (Sept 30), Harris had raised and spent $23 million. That's a pretty nice boodle and not incidentally far more than the leader, Joe Biden, raised. And in any case, the debate rule simply required donations of ANY amount, however small, which is why all the candidates have been asking routinely for $1.00 contributions. Finally, Harris has plunged in the POLLS, not just in fundraising.
12
Mr Blow overlooks a worrisome sign of Kamala Harris' apparent discomfort in her own shoes. Her almost continuous and often exaggerated nervous laughter in unfamiliar circumstances revealing a lack of self confidence (in my eyes). Most politicians have arrogance and self-deception enough for several of us, but exhibiting a natural assurance, a sense of composure, of being together, (Obama, for instance) is possibly one of the more distinguishing characteristics magnetizing voters. That plus her indecisive campaign leadership, ambiguous strategy, cannot be be ignored.
3
There were twenty people running for President. Only one will win. Those are reality show odds.
I was initially excited about Harris, but let’s be frank: she didn’t have any message. Remember her initial signature, a middle-class tax cut? She didn’t articulate a platform, instead backing into various progressive positions because they seemed popular. If I were progressive, I might have forgiven the squishiness, but I’m not. I also didn’t like her canned one-liners at the debates.
I do really think it’s a shame that we may have only white candidates at our debates. But we will have a woman, a gay man, and a Jewish man. Our last real president was black. It’s certainly not what would have been possible twenty years ago. It’s progress.
I wouldn’t mind putting some more diverse states earlier in the lineup. Nate Silver of 538 said that having two very white states go first hurts non-white candidates.
3
"But also, white people made a different choice. Everyone seems to have settled, for whatever reason, on the notion that a white person has the best chance of beating Trump, that a racial minority is too risky this time around."
You're essentially accusing me - in broad strokes - of racism. I am white and I gave a lot of money early on to Kamala Harris's campaign. I was very enthusiastic about Harris after seeing early interviews with her with Colbert and Maddow. But I stopped my monthly giving. Harris was simply not an effective candidate, and she did not or could not clearly lead the way on issues that are important to me.
7
I refused to support Harris because she was California Attorney General in the aftermath of the biggest foreclosure crisis in the country’s history, yet she did nothing to punish criminal banks for illegally foreclosing on millions of people. Her campaign never told me what she wanted to do as president. Her debate performances gave little substance, and her online announcements focused on what kind of music she likes to dance to. Those things disqualified her for me, regardless of what race and gender she is.
4
Too bad she's out of the primary race, but she is intelligent, strong and well-spoken. She would be an excellent candidate for a cabinet position, or perhaps AG if a Dem. wins the white house. I hope she is not discouraged. Even if she stays in the Senate, that's is something, for the present, and who knows, the future.
2
Interesting piece. I really like Kamala Harris: she is capable, tough, and assertive. I certainly have less problems seeing her in the White House than I have seeing Warren or Biden. Without a doubt, she was not perfect and her campaign made mistakes... like everyone else's. And here is where it gets interesting: it seems to me that the media helped her campaign unravel. I just cannot get past the whiff I get that she was "helped" out of the way. Remember the constant pounding about Hillary Clinton not being likable? Until she was not likable enough? Kind of like that. I do believe the news media needs to reflect on their praxis sometimes. In the meantime, we have Yang pouring whipped cream in people's mouths, but that's cool. Boy are we in trouble, I fear.
2
Harris is out of the race for very good reasons. She had no business running for president in the first place. She lacked the experience and credentials to ever think she could do the job. She has done absolutely nothing as a U.S. Senator and she did next to nothing as California attorney general, becoming best known for keeping innocent people behind bars. Harris was a waste of time from the start.
3
I can't even name all the middle aged white males who have already dropped out of the race. There are plenty of democratic voters ready to support a woman of color, but she has to stand for more than her own ambition and she has to run a strong campaign. I would not vote against a candidate because of ethnicity or gender, but I would not vote for a candidate simply because of ethnicity or gender.
18
Mr. Blow, I typically agree with many of the arguments made in your articles. However, on this one I disagree. Questioning this selection process in connection with Senator Harris' decision to leave the 2020 race seems to me to be the wrong time and place to raise these issues. Which I do believe should be raised, but not at this time. Quite frankly, I think Harris was not a good candidate. She seemed inauthentic. She had no real message. Her positions shifted too often. As you described, Harris entered the race with a bang. After that point it was up to her to make her case for why we voters should select her over all others to represent us as the best person to beat Donald Trump. She simply didn't rise to the occasion, period. She did not convince black voters like me to believe in her. In fact the more she spoke publicly the more uncertain I and members of my inner circle became. But what did it for me to no longer support her was two things. First, her confusing attack on Joe Biden on the busing issue. Second, was when Harris was being interviewed at a Move On Org event by Carin Jean-Pierre. During the interview a protester jumped onstage and took Ms. Harris' mic. Ms. Jean-Pierre immediately rushed to confront the protester placing herself in harms way, potentially. The reaction from Ms. Harris was to "slink" off the stage to a more safe position. To me, that signified a degree of cowardice. Ms. Jean-Pierre's star rose from that point; Ms. Harris' star sank further.
8
I was so disappointed to hear of Kamala Harris stepping out of the race. She was one of my top candidates running in the primary, mostly because of her big heart, her brilliance as a prosecutor, and her energy. Her spirited way of getting to the heart of any matter convinced me that she has the strength to be a great leader. I still haven’t decided who I will vote for in the primary–Kamala was in my top three.
Yesterday I donated to Cory Booker and Julián Castro’s campaigns. No matter who the nominee eventually is, we need to hear the voices of people of color on our debate stage.
4
Charles, your analysis is valid up to a point. However, for me, the problem with Harris is that she just doesn't seem genuine. I never felt she really cared about the issues that are so important to black men and women, to poor people of all colors, or to young people. Also, if you can't organize your own campaign, how are you going to run the country? She was not an appealing candidate.
5
I have read and watched everything to do with the next Democratic presidential candidate for 2020.
There are many factors in play in choosing that candidate, some logical and some pure gut feeling.
In my opinion, Harris was just not the right person plain and simple.
Does racism and sexism play a role? Yes.
But racism and sexism applied and still do to Obama and Warren and others. The right candidate just rises above or in spite of these prejudices.
It takes more than the right resume for better or worse.
3
Racism and sexism doesn't explain why the campaign failed. There are more mundane reasons. Otherwise, you have to explain why Elizabeth Warren is still a leading contender or why Cory Booker is still in the race. The simpler explain is often better: she ran a poor campaign and didn't position herself clearly enough from others on the issues. I thought she would make a good running mate for Biden at the beginning of all this. There's a lot wrong with "the system" but it mainly has to do with the role of big money, super Pacs etc. And Harris didn't address failures of the system.
8
While I'm willing to acknowledge the reality of sexism and racisim in USA elections, I think they would play a much stronger role in the General Election, than in the Primaries. I was super interested in Harris, then got turned off by th facts of her prosecutor past (at least as appeared in the media), but even more so, by her performance. She came off more and more as Hillary did, running because she was someone who should be elected, vs someone offering ideas and/or a kind of leadership that inspired me. I didn't vote for Obama to be the first Black President, I voted for Hope and Change. I got neither from Harris, and I think in the end few people did. While these other factors didn't help her, I think they were hugely overshadowed by her own weak performance on the campaign trail.
4
I am glad she dropped out. I am personally not interested in voting for a candidate who promises to be the next Barack Obama, because in the end, his message of being a unifier was ineffective at halting the increasingly radicalization of the Republican party.
As we see now in the impeachment hearings, the Republicans are wielding the Democrats earlier calls for bipartisanship in the process as a weapon against them, touting their own refusal to participate in the process as evidence of the impeachment's unfairness.
We are past the point of bipartisanship. Republicans have figuratively seceded from the union in congress and have made it clear that they have no intention of cooperating on any fundamental Democratic initiatives.
The only way Democrats are going to succeed is by gaining the majorities in Congress. We are at war and we need a fighter, with an ability to rally the troops.
7
To be completely honest, I didn't really know too much about KH before the debates aside from the Al Franken incident, which is a a sore point for many Democrats. Personally, I did begin to appreciate her wit, feistiness, and ability to go toe to toe with anyone in the room. She was growing on me and I was saddened to learn that she had stepped out before she better defined her positions and her brand. That being sad, from reading many of the comments, I don't get a sense that race played a part in her exit. My impression was that many actually wanted to give her a chance, but she just didn't or couldn't give it to them. Rather, she came across as someone without a clear platform or mandate who opportunistically looked for a place for a soundbite instead of making an impassioned case for why America needs her and what she plans to do for Americans.
3
"There is absolutely no reason Harris should be out this race so early."
Actually, there is. Attacking Joe Biden backfired and from then on she lost traction. Harris was wishy-washy on healthcare and other issues, making it unclear what she stood for. People voted with their pocketbooks and her campaign ran out of money.
I voted for Senator Harris and hope she will continue to do California's work in Washington. Who knows, she could be a viable VP running mate for the eventual nominee.
5
I donated $50 to Kamala's campaign early on, but was quickly disenchanted when I was immediatly hounded to donate again, and donate more. It felt like no one even appreciated my donation. And what was even worse, the campaing filled my mailbox with tons of mail having to do with how I could help her raise more money. Sorry, but I already have a job! There was no real gratitude and no recognition that a real person had sent a donation. Big turn off.
8
True words about the constant hounding for money. I gave small amounts to several of the candidates,
early on, as I wanted to see them make the stage for the early rounds of debates. I’d donate, and five minutes later I’d be asked to donate again.
I don’t like this system, but it’s ether than limiting our choices to Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg, or the reliable old pols who can shake the party bankrollers to launch their start, like Biden.
I was very excited about Kamala Harris when she first came on the scene, but I think she lost my vote when she attacked Joe Biden in one of the early debates.
8
It's not a good look to blame Iowa for being unrepresentative, and then later in the same article acknowledge that the state voted for Obama over Clinton in 2008, which gave him the legitimacy he needed to build momentum for his eventual nomination. Imagine if the first primary had been in South Carolina: Obama would have lost, hard, and probably never gotten the momentum he needed to secure the nomination.
8
@DH
The notion of "momentum" is a farce.
It's not "momentum" but people changing their votes because they don't want to vote for a person that they believe is going to lose.
That is precisely the opposite of what democracy is supposed to be about.
Democracy is supposed to be about voting your conscience, not voting in line with what you perceive to be the popular trend.
If the party nomination process was in any way democratic, every state would vote at the same time, like in a real election.
@DH You are correct. Harris had no message and lacked the sincerity and charisma that President Obama had. I supported him early in 2007 when I heard him speak in the gym of our high school. You don't know Iowa Democrats if you assume otherwise.
1
This is what's called using the "race card." That is, blaming one's challenges, difficulties and failures on one's race. But here, we also have the "gender card," where the write also implies sexism had a hand in Harris' demise. While I do agree it's fair to consider how the primary system is stacked against diversity, with the first two momentum-creating contest occurring in small, overwhelmingly white states, it shouldn't be the main argument for the downfall of a once-promising candidacy. Pundits once called her the "female Obama," because she is smart, articulate, and attractive. The charisma and soaring rhetoric, though, were missing. Ms. Harris' candidacy was punctuated by ideological and rhetorical zigs and zags, and created disinterest and distrust in the electorate. Others have written how her ploy to "be everything to everyone," actually led people to believe she didn't have a vision or real focus for the presidency. After her June debate attack on Biden, which spike her fundraising and poll numbers, she undermined her own arguments with squishy explanations and constant backtracking. She was her own worst enemy. I will say, though, I do agree with Mr. Blow on one thing: it seems the electorate is convinced we can't beat Trump with a person of color, and that is extremely unfortunate and wrong.
7
@Sergio Benavides
The electorate is convinced of that because they saw what a farce it was with Obama.
Sorry, identity politics doesn't sell much in the real world.
1
She didn't have a plan. The one thing I look for in a candidate is a long-standing conviction that life could be better for Americans and "here's my idea of how to fix it." I want someone who's been indignant and pondering for a long time, and has the viability to bring her plans to completion.
Ms Harris just latched onto other people's plans, and without conviction. The only thing convincing about her, as far as I could tell, was her ambition.
She might make a good Attorney General, but she's not a leader.
14
@PNRN
Any law enforcement person that throws out evidence that could exonerate people has no business being AG of anything, and should be disbarred.
Her behavior as prosecutor in CA was appalling.
1
Although Harris probably had the best potential to bridge the left and center and unite the Democratic party, it just wasn't in the cards for her in 2020.
However, a Biden / Harris ticket will course correct and be the best ticket to beat Trump.
4
I am intrigued by the fact that the nation's largest state for delegates, California, would not hold their Presidential primary elections on Feb.3. Why does Iowa have that distinct advantage to hold the earliest primary when it does not represent the nation's diversity of registered voters?
3
Charles reminds of of one thing in this piece - that to him the world will always come down to racial animus, explicitly or implicitly conveyed through people, places and rules. Within this article alone there are several specious, if not entirely tenuous arguments that can easily be debunked.
If there's sexism at play, why is Elizabeth Warren a top contender?
If media coverage is biased, why did Harris get so much of it early on and then only have it fade when she struggled to define her candidacy and lead in the polls? It sure seemed like she was a media darling for quite a while.
The idea that the schedule of the primaries is inherently biased based on the color of the population in certain states is, in my opinion entirely unsubstantiated, lacking in proof or any evidence whatsoever.
That Black voters overwhelmingly support Biden, seems, to be very upsetting to Mr. Blow, as if they have collectively failed to fulfill some higher purpose and in doing so are missing a historic opportunity. This of course reeks, since it implies that black voters don't know what is best for them.
Absent that, Charles would have us believe that black voters have abandoned Harris for Biden because the system made her candidacy a non-starter. Where's the proof of this, when, per the polls, Biden has had high black support from the begging?
Sorry Charles, I'm just not buying what you are selling.
29
@John
It's difficult for a person of one ethnicity to appreciate the viewpoint of another ethnicity; in other words, pure objectivity may not exist.
For example, I tend to think that big, strong guys are bullies, because I'm a little, weak guy; so I'm looking for the bully to come out in them.
The Presidency is the only office elected by people in all 50 states. Or, to be more precise, elected by electors from all 50 states. And to be sure, it is an election that receives more than 50 times the media coverage, commentary and criticism than single state elections.
Seemingly excellent candidates have wilted under this pressure and scrutiny in every presidential election I can remember. Interestingly, Joe Biden has been one of the "wilters" on several occasions, although this time around he is being so careful that we might all die from boredom.
Like Mr. Blow, I do not rule out a role for racism and sexism in the demise of Senator Harris's campaign. But there were enough missteps and other issues that certainly contributed to a first-time national candidate to say that these were the only reasons.
On the other hand, Senator Harris is one of only 6 or 7 of this large field of candidates whose name I could remember. And she is sufficiently young to have time enough to craft her skills on the national stage to make a better effort in the future.
3
Frankly, Harris did not come off as either sincere or clear about why she was running. Another woman is both clear and sincere: Elizabeth Warren.
14
@Edward Clark Elizabeth Warren comes off as pretty fake at times. One minute she is passionately talking about the middle class economic struggles, but then the next she is claiming to be Native American and is desperately trying to avoid saying how she would pay for Medicare for All. Warren and Harris both do a bit too much of trying to tell people what they thing people want to here (and really don't) just so that they can win an election. Warren needs to be more vulnerable and authentic.
1
@Edward Clark
Clear Maybe. But also clear on running on plans and policies that have zero chance of being enacted.
Increasingly, voters get this and ask themselves what's the point of supporting a loser.
@James Thanks for your perspective. Harris's father is a Stanford Professor, Warren's father was a janitor. Warren grew up in a working class environment and as a single parent. I agree she needs to be more vulnerable, and comes across too strident at times. But, unlike you, I think she is the real deal, and really cares about everyday folks, having been there.
1
Teaches us nothing. Other than provide fodder for an article looking for a reason to be written. Every election is different since different circumstances prevail. And different candidates differently oppose one another differently.
10
Despite some heavy handed and overly staged soundbites, Harris added a lot to the debates. It's certainly fair to examine the systematic hurtles that may have exacerbated the fizzling out of the campaign, as long as we don't get carried away like the 2016 Bernie folks, who never seemed to get over it.
1
I voted for Harris in her Senate campaign, but the sad fact is that she failed to demonstrate why she ought to be elected president. Her campaign seemed to be all hype and no substance; and taking a gratuitous shot at Joe Biden (whom I do not support) during the first debate indicated a certain shallowness and desperation on Harris's part.
22
This has little if anything to do with race and more to do with authenticity. I felt Senator Harris was playing a role not truly running to make a difference.
26
@Gus True.
She was not acting the part. What you saw was her normal personality. And voters were not duped by it.
1
Charles- other candidates, including prominent white men like Beto O’Rourke- have also had to drop out of the race. Why? Was it misandry? Or anti-white bias? Or was it maybe because they didn’t resonate with voters? Or their message was muddled? Or perhaps because people simply disagreed with them?
Could it be- gasp- the same with Kamala Harris? It doesn’t fit the identity politics narrative of grievance, I know. But maybe, for once, Democrats should view things through a lens that is wider than one focused on just race or gender. Kamala Harris, on equal standing with her white male counterparts, failed for the same reasons some of them did: they were bad candidates.
44
Another column reported that African American voters were having trouble with Harris because of her background as a prosecutor: "she's a cop".
Biden according to polls has the African American vote--Obama did wholeheartedly. So beyond what this column points out, the "she's a cop" issue is something to consider.
13
There's a lot of hand-wringing going on over Harris's dropping out of the race, as if she was clearly the best choice but was undone by other (sinister) forces. I think that's all wrong.
Harris is a likable and admirable senator, but she didn't have what it takes to motivate enough people to want to vote for her to be president. It's no shame and it's no great slight. Most people don't have what it takes, even if on paper they look ideal.
24
If candidates can't manage their own campaigns, you can't expect them to be able to manage the federal bureaucracy. Harris wasn't up to the job on the management level. And she either hadn't formulated any policies or couldn't communicate them. Her gender and ethnicity had nothing to do with her poll numbers.
28
As a white Republican I wanted a Biden/Harris ticket from the beginning. Experience and a moderate with a progressive woman would be my ideal ticket. It would give Harris the springboard for a Presidential run in the future and I still believe this is a winning ticket especially for all us GOP's looking for some decency in government.
11
@mnc Mrs Obama for POTUS and mayor Pete for VP
@mnc
As VP she would have been a female attack dog that would worsen if not end working across the Aisle before it started.
What it taught us was something anyone with a basic understanding of politics already knows; your rallying cry cannot just be "At least I'm better than the other guy". Bright, charismatic, and articulate will only get you so far, after that you have to actually be for something. It must be clear, concise, easy to digest, and (sadly) communicated in 10 words or less. I love Kamala, but she takes 30 minutes just to say "hello", an even though you love hearing her speak in the end you often have no idea what she actually said.
12
I totally agree that the DNC messed up. They turned over the debates to media and entertainment companies whose interests are in stirring up friction among the candidates to get better ratings.
Not incidentally, those media companies benefit from campaign ad buys.
The way we run politics in this country is corrupted by money. Who has it? Who gets it?
We spend more on political campaigns than we spend on disaster relief. Imagine what public schools could do with tens of billions of dollars.
We need mandatory public campaign financing and a severe restraint on perennial campaigning, which is more important to the winners than governing.
The people need to take government back from the money.
19
The country is not served by having these media-driven "debates" of gotcha questions and no time to answer thoughtfully. So many minor candidates on stage with an incentive to take down the real contenders. Think of all the frothing of the mouth regarding healthcare angles. Not much actual difference, and whomever is elected will need the political skills of Lyndon Johnson to effect a change. Leadership qualities should be what is evidenced to voters who don't live in the early primary states. The Democratic Party's 2020 platform will specify a goal for healthcare. What actually happens depends on the composition of Congress, and the power of the lobbies in our for-profit, bottom-line "culture."
2
I was really looking forward to Senator Harris debating President Trump. Too bad. You're absolutely right about Iowa and New Hampshire having outsized, white influence on the course of events. Hopefully the primaries schedule gets revised to be more diverse in the near future.
4
@KC
Her ferocious prosecutorial manner might have had the opposite affect than what she intended.
1
@KC ---------------------------KC, I thought that, too, but then I remembered that President Trump is unable to debate. Instead, he can and does instead growl, shriek and bite like a deranged dog. But that's the problem; we Americans love our dogs so much that we will defend them no matter what. We protect them, hug them and mend their wounds. And so we would elect Trump again.
I so appreciate your thoughtful and honest article. This white, senior, Democrat-voting red state resident is feeling a terrible sting about Ms. Harris' exit from the POTUS run. Further more, I am especially unhappy about the lack of diversity on my party's platform where women are concerned. I feel we are critiquing the wrong people when we knit-pick candidates. It is not them who will beat Trump, it is us, as a coalition of voters who can do that. The loss of candidates will sting even more if the candidates who eventually run against Trump lose. Let's spend some time looking in the mirror and stop policing great candidates with all of our biases intact.
4
Not sure I buy all Mr. Blow's arguments, but questioning the system resonates. My examination of the primary system Democrats have built leads me to believe ranked choice primary voting would be a substantial improvement.
5
I was initially interested in her as candidate. She lost my my interest by always talking about being a prosecutor, over and over and over... Leadership is a different set of skills and sensitivities. Promoting issues of people of color is important, but to me her speeches were not balanced with issues that effect all citizens. She did not make a strong case for herself and what she brings to the table. I do not think she or any candidate should be given extra credit for being a person of color or any minority. Frankly, I think she ran a poor campaign and has no one to blame but herself.
19
I'm a Californian, and while I voted for Ms. Harrris for several offices I fail to see any great record of accomplishment here, other than her getting elected to increasingly higher offices. Any great accomplishments in the Senate I managed to miss? How she could not order a review of the Kevin Cooper case in her six years as attorney general? And by the way, I did work on Shirley Chisholm's all-too-brief presidential campaign as a teenager. If only Ms. Harris were as pioneering today as Ms. Chisholm was then, well, it would be a different presidential race.
22
Kamala Harris was on my radar since before she publicly announced her campaign and I had very high expectations of her... but she just wasn't able to get organized and produce a compelling message when her competition did exactly that. She seems to build a message as she goes, flip flop and look for what would sell at the moment and in this way she came across as less prepared. She could be a great debater but without a clear message it is hard to remain relevant. I really don't think race or gender has anything to do with Kamala Harris' performance
22
This white person is solidly behind Senator Booker. Character, experience, intelligence, message – not sure many in the field come close to articulating who they are, why they're running, and what they plan to do as President. Senator Harris was a strong candidate, Booker is stronger in my opinion.
And no one on the left seems to be interested.
14
@Bob
I agree. I feel Corey would restore honor and dignity to the White House and the discourse but he is doing something "not right". Why is he lost in the haze? And Harris was and is formidable, I do not know what happened to her campaign but I am confident we have not seen the last of her.
7
@Bob
Booker presents the voter with a conundrum. His one claim appears to be 'bringing people together.' Yet thus far he's been unable to do that even for himself.
Even so, his fresh faced, open, almost endearing trait would make him an excellent VP choice.
2
@Bob
I have lived in Newark, when Mr. Booker was mayor. His great strength is his ability to manipulate the media and white people. Like Trump you see a building where there is no building you see potential but you don't do anything to help the people of Newark. You give a lot of speeches go on TV every week talking about nothing. Sell public schools off to charter systemsm Booker has great relationships with hedge fund managers, the Trump family and with Betsy the Educational Trump appointed leader. Booker has a great relationship with Bloomberg because he wanted to make Newark the next SoHo, push the poor people out and bring in the New Yorkers. Facebook was a Bloomberg idea and the uncertified educators from NYC who were all about their ambitions came with the package. Bloomberg was very happy
I have no idea why Booker is running except that he is on stage for another position, like Harris he has no concrete record of achieving anything for the people he professes to care so much about.
This election the democrats have to win, and win down the ticket. Trump is a cancer to everyone no matter what they look like and we cant take a chance with the wrong candidate because everything is on the line.
Ms. Harris had two years to know the issues, meet and work with the people of this country. Hire experienced campaign advisors, this was not the election to have on the job training.
This election is not about color, gender it is about winning and saving democracy .
3
This column asks many important questions, although it's not easy to see how the Dems will go about answering them. The white, rural populations of Iowa and NH are clearly factors in post-Obama politics, where one party strives for greater racial / ethnic inclusion and the other promotes racism. But the Democrats would have to win very, very big indeed in order to effect structural change of this kind, and that initial win must still happen within this system.
Besides, isn't there a more important and easily amendable factor that undoubtedly contributed to K.H.'s lack oftraction? Over the past six months, numerous opinion pieces in the Times (and other papers) created a narrative that directed attention to candidates based on polls. Every week, it seemed, another poll would could up, and they always showed Biden with the lead and someone else rising or falling. These polls were then used to put forward an argument about "electibility," a ambiguous phrase that was mostly code for the (imagined) preferences of white working class voters. This narrative has appeared in these pages on numerous occasions. It makes Biden and other perceived 'moderate / white' candidates appear "inevitable," even though at this stage in the campaigns, the polls are meaningless (except as a self-fulfilling prophecy). This narrative clearly helped to push K.H. out.
1
I did not vote for her for her present senate seat because I researched her history as CA AG. But as a US Senator she has done a good job. Because she was not my pick going into the senate I watched her closer than others from CA. But, even though I favor people of color and other than males for office because I firmly believe it is to our country's benefit to be governed by them, I do not support her over the others running for the office of POTUS. Even so, I believe we have a wealth of good people, including her, to be the next POTUS. She serves out nation very well in the senate. I am grateful to her for her devotion to her office as a US Senator.
2
All excellent points Mr. Blow, especially about New Hampshire and Iowa. Why are we stuck on the same old testing grounds? The country's demographics are changing, and so are attitudes. I'm sorry, but some of us want to move on past old white guys for president and see from fresh, diverse talent for a change.
4
@Birdygirl
We all do, but we don't want to have a moral victory and lose the war. Most people have no clue why democrats are doing the impeachment, they have never read the Constitution. Most people don't understand gerrymandering and the negative effects on the democratic process. The minority candidates have had unique challenges and we have to work harder, than white people we all know that we have to get our messages out to the people over and over again. AOC was in the face of everyone in her district and outside the district, Pressly the same hard work in Boston, so running for President is 100 times harder, you have to play 50 states
The unfortunate state of affairs is that we have a great deal of education that needs to be done prior to the election, Ms. Harris had two years to go from one town to another. Clinton spent a year during a listening tour, whether you liked her or not there was not one issue she could not speak fluently about. Ms. Harris needs to instill confidence in the people who are going to vote for her. That if we have another 9/11 she is ready, or a space shuttle incident, climate change
What's so hard about doing your homework? if you want to represent everyone in this country. This is a 50 state race and you need the infrastructure , talented people and daily flow of money coming into the race. 40 million is a great deal of money but this is a 50 states to keep your voice heard every day. Election slogans just wont cut it.
@Birdygirl
I agree with your honest comments.
@Birdygirl
Your vote for Mayer Pete would grant you your wish.
Blow seems to dismiss the fact that Harris's inconsistency on the issues, the inability to present a clear explanation of why she should be president and what she would bring to the task were primary factors that brought her candidacy to its end. Fact is, in going through the campaign process, she showed herself unprepared for the office she was seeking. She did appear however to make a smashing Attorney General.
Could we please stop attributing her failed candidacy to race?
28
Well said, Mr. Blow. The anomaly that is Obama -- winning Iowa, therefore displaying a sense of possibility -- is what Sen Harris won't get the chance to do. But your most important point is that the democrats want to court people who abide racism rather than trying to excite the voters who abhor racism.
This is why winning in the legislative branches count, too. Black voters and progressive voters (not the same thing) need to always come out in elections. 2018 can't be an aberration. Excitement is important, but consistency is equally important. Too many weren't excited by Secretary Clinton and sat it out, or cast a vote on principle. Now their principled positions on the environment and more are being dismantled.
Harris and Senator Booker haven't caught on, but Mayor Pete has because of race. I think that's pretty easy to conclude.
Black folks have always voted for the White candidate, while White folks still have never cast their majority votes for a Black one at the national level. That says a lot about America.
2
@newyorkerva
How did President Obama get elected twice. President Obama was lightening in the bottle, he is brilliant, cool and he so cared about everyone in the entire world. He made decisions that were based on facts and every nuance
There is only one President Obama but plenty of want to be's.
Everyday you attempt to be a better person and we all can do our part to move the country forward. Ms. Harris doesn't impress me as a person who can be bothered with the find details, she is no Eric Holder but based on one performance against Barr people think that she can do the AG position. The totality of her work and how she grows will be the factors that decide whether she runs a better campaign the next time around or does she just wait for someone to give her the VP position as she did in California with Willie. It will say a great deal about who she is and what she really thinks about this country.
@newyorkerva
That IS American history, past and present. Great points.
It is fair to ask all of those questions and I think they should be asked. The answers may reflect poorly on the Democratic party or on Democratic voters and Democrats should face up to that. But, while Harris was not my first choice for the Democratic nomination, I remained open to the possibility that she might earn my vote. In the end, she pulled the plug on her campaign before I did. What I found lacking in her message was a clear vision of what she would do, other than attack Trump, and who she would be, other than an executive prosecutor. I have no doubt that she would be a much better president than Donald Trump and I would have happily voted for her if she were the nominee. But other candidates have impressed me as having a clearer and more persuasive message than Harris. Those include (for example) Warren (a white woman), Buttigieg (a gay man), and Booker (a black man). And there have been candidates who have impressed me less than Harris did (some of whom are men and some of whom are white). While systemic biases are certainly still be having an effect on this campaign, the field of candidates is larger and more diverse than it ever has been and the minds of Democratic voters seem more open than they ever have been. Consequently, this has been a campaign in which the surest path to recognition and success for each candidate is to make their mark as an individual. No candidate will win the nomination without doing that effectively.
3
@Stan Sutton
Great points Stan. But you seem to totally missed the point of enduring, incoming money ( or lack their of) played in Harris' campaign.
@Wayne: Money certainly has a direct and immediate effect on the ability to conduct a campaign, and that's certainly been true for Harris. In the bigger picture, I think that the ability to establish and maintain financing probably depends on the whole range of factors under discussion. Some of these will be systemic, reflecting historical trends and biases, and some will be more particular to the individual candidates and campaigns. Nine of the remaining candidates have met the donor threshold for the December debate and it's quite a diverse group. (The group of candidates who have not yet qualified is also quite diverse.) All have different stories with regard to financing. So I think that financing across the field has to reflect many different things.
1
Kamala Harris had the potential to be a great candidate at the onset. Unfortunately, she failed to do a good job defining herself as a candidate. I still don't understand where she stood on the key issues of the day.
I can only imagine that Joe Biden is polling well with low-information voters. People who support him because of name recognition and his association with Obama. Nobody who's watched him in action this campaign season could possibly feel comfortable with him as the nominee.
11
@Matthew
I agree that Biden is living off points made in the past. I believe Harris was as sharp as any candidate running, and obviously someone who does her homework. Harris would have made an excellent Vice-President if she could have endured the time wasted in Iowa and New Hampshire, where no non-white candidate seems to have a fair chance of coming out on top, and with clear momentum.
@Matthew Please don't dismiss people who support Biden as ill-informed with only name recognition. It cannot be farther from the truth. Many Biden supporters understand what would uphold our democracy and desire a leader with core values and principles. Biden has core principles while Karmala Harris is lack of. You are who you elect!
5
@jnl Biden ran for president in both 1988 and 2008. Neither time did he make any inroads. His success this time is strictly due to his association with Obama. I like Biden's politics, and I'd much prefer a moderate over Warren/Sanders, however, I just don't think Biden is up for the task. He's really not looking sharp.
As Hillary, for whom I voted, demonstrated, badly wanting to be President is not a compelling reason by itself for voters to choose a candidate.
14
"...why, as of now, only white candidates have qualified for the next debate,"
Since you ask, I will explain.
Only white candidates are qualified.
Period.
That wonderfully diverse field was brimming with people of every assortment of physical characteristics imaginable and few qualifications to actually run this nation.
So, while the Democrats are playing "Name That Color", one of the least qualified candidates running next year is touring the nation, collecting funds and the adulation of the masses.
I'm sure it will be gratifying to look back on this wonderfully "enlightened" nominating process waiting for DT's second inauguration featuring the largest number of human beings in one place in all of history.
@Good John Fagin
Trump maybe raising money that he wont be able to use in prison or in the mental big house, he wont be at the White House.
If we don't stand for the Constitution and for the dignity of everyone in this country, then why do we exist? Our nominee will win because if we don't stand up for the constitution then we are just like Russia and those people fighting in Hong Kong were fighting for nothing.
Ms. Harris needs to get her backers excited about supporting another candidate and work hard, get her name out there and be a positive force in this election.
We are fighting for democracy and believe me Trump will be going somewhere but not back to the White House.
1
@Good John Fagin
Did DT win the popular vote? Yes or No.. ( )
A one word answer would suffice.
@Good John Fagin I am a person of color, and I'm really sick and tired of people playing race card. Could we just look beyond color and elect someone who is most qualified, regardless of race?
Kamala Harris wasn't my first choice candidate, but I've appreciated her voice in Congressional hearings, thought she had a lot of potential as a president, and would like to see her as a VP or Attorney General. I think her campaign suffered from a few things. One is what this column describes--people are feeling skittish about who they place in front of Trump and there's a pull towards moderates and someone who matches Trump demographically (a pull I disagree with). But Kamala Harris also suffered from getting lost ideologically in such a large field--she didn't have clear keyword positions, and from my corner of Twitter her background as a prosecutor hurt her among younger Black voters and progressive voters. I think Booker is struggling similarly, in that he sounds good but doesn't seem distinctive enough and has some negatives with progressives when it comes to education. Julian Castro is the candidate of color who is most progressive and has a strong record and I think he is suffering most from structural issues of the campaign and big imbalances in the resources of different candidates.
2
@Katie
Harris was the most prepared to take on DT, and is clearly not intimidated by anyone running. I believe she was a great choice for VP and Attorney General, and cant be counted out for either should she pursue either.
But of course that up to others and the eventual front runner. She will be a strong and leveled headed executive partner for ANY President, regardless of party.
I believe Harris couldn't see a good endgame this time around, and knew Iowa and New Hampshire were placed first as a "setup" NOT to embrace her, and she simply chose to re-group for a later time.
@Wayne It's hard to imagine this ever happening, but I would REALLY like to see the primary schedule be reworked so that the first primary happens sometime in January and occurs simultaneously in Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Nevada--it would be a much more effective cross section of the electorate and would provide useful information about states that wind up being important in the general election.
@Katie
Seventeen other GOP candidates failed to take Trump down, despite him insulting each and every one of them. That was 2016. 2020 the opposite approach will prevail because folks are sick and tired of lies and bullies.
If you're looking for confirmation, check the London video showing Trump in a one-on-one with Macron. Our President leans forward—almost to the point where he might lurch from the chair. So blinded with seething suppressed rage, he's clearly unable to recall his scripted points.
1
Ms Harris' candidacy was always doomed. She stood never for anything more than herself. She neither has specific policy ideas like Warren, is principled like Sanders, a change of political to the better like Obama, or a change to the at least reliable like Biden.
One of Mr. Blow's own column a few months ago was revealing and for me more destructive than any attack. It was an opinion piece in support of Ms. Harris, but it mostly talked about the electability of her, and her personal story. It did not talk about what she would accomplish as president and what she would change. And if even an talented writer can conjure a positive vision of her presidency there is something missing.
For the lacking support of the black community I imagine this might be due to the hierarchy of needs. Black Americans on average are less wealthy than their white compatriots. Many have immediate concerns regarding health care, jobs and housing. They can no afford to vote for a politician just to feel better about themselves. Being able to do that is probably the ultimate expression of (white) privilege.
16
Blow thinks that the way to win and presumably to ultimately make America a better country is to "excite the voters who despise racism". Going along with that is the practice of despising the voters who abide racism. The main problem with this is that it is basically Republicans' strategy - they win when the majority can be divided on "social" matters - mainly race but also religion and regionality. The things which excite the base on one side also excite the base on the other side, and the result is cultural war based mainly on race. Meanwhile the plutocracy continues to win the class war.
If the majority is to be united for reform, now or ever, it will have to be on economic grounds. How about showing how most people who have been falling behind, of whatever color, could improve their material status by working together, rather than against each other?
8
Blow asks questions that will be asked. Seems very logical, orderly and rationale. Except one component: personal appeal. Separate from race (you can do it), Harris lacked the charisma, inspirational message and style required for a candidate to transcend the pack. In fact, she enjoyed a number of unfair advantages. For goodness sakes, before the first debate I saw a children’s book in Barnes & Noble depicting her as a super hero! My expectations soared! No, the country’s voters (of any race) were let down by the real Kamala Harris, who whines about truth and justice, and kept saying, “We’ll have to look into that,” (whatever it was) and left us flat. That must have blown right past Charles.
We wanted her to rise. But she just left US flat.
12
Charles, recognize that it was Iowa that went for an upstart first term Senator from Illinois, in 2008, announcing to Democrats that they had an alternative to the party favorite, Hillary Clinton. Iowa put Jimmy Carter on the “map” - probably the most progressive President since FDR. Iowa was one of only 2 States in the Country not won by Trump, other than Ohio, who went for favorite son, Kasich - long after Trump had essentially secured enough delegates to win the Republican nomination in 2016.
Maybe Kamala didn’t impress enough people. I’m not sure any former prosecutor could win the Democratic nomination this time around. Her flip flopping on Medicare for all (she was for it completely, until she wasn’t) didn’t help.
I like Kamala. She’ll be back. The most important thing now is making sure her supporters vote Democratic in 2020. Blaming her failures on Iowa not being diverse enough is not productive.
11
@Fred : Correction: Minnesota Republicans went for Rubio.
She withdrew for a simple reason: she lacked support. Why did she lack support? Because voters weren't moved by her or what she had to say.
I'm not really sure what Charles wants here. Is he suggesting some sort of structural change to keep female and candidates of color in the race even when they lack popular support? How does that make sense?
24
@Christopher Hoffman
Understandably, I think Charles is oversensitive to race: True, racism certainly exists, but only to a certain degree in politics, maybe 15 percent?
While looking for racism (confirmation bias), he saw Harris' withdrawal as due to racism. That's the ex post propter hoc fallacy. Easy to do; I'm guilty of it constantly, often unconsciously, I'm willing to bet.
@Christopher Hoffman She lost because she didn't win?
When Kamala Harris announced her candidacy, I thought she had definite promise as a candidate. I was impressed with her first debate performance, but after that she seemed to flounder. Her message and platform were unfocused and quixotic. She was trying too hard to figure out what would "sell", rather than what where she stood on the issues. It seemed that she wanted to be president because she wanted to be president. That wasn't enough.
17
"It is fair to ask about the Democratic debate rules and how they prioritize donations in addition to polls, thereby advantaging the opinions of people who can afford to give over those who can’t."
A $1 contribution is sufficient to qualify anyone as a donor to satisfy the debate rules.
$1 may not help the candidate buy TV ad time, but the debate rule does not prioritize anyone over anyone else.
So it is NOT fair to ask.
7
I'm both sorry to see her go and glad she's gone. There are too many candidates and we need to get behind a nominee to focus on the prize: getting Trump out of the White House.
Everything else is secondary.
6
Without disputing the points in the article. it also seems true that there are some candidates who flash well when they start, but then fade fast as time goes on. The frisson falls out of fashion.
Likability may be a part of it (for men too but more so for women). She had it but seem to shuck it as she went after bigger game. I think she will find her voice and be better at integrating the personas. I don't think she's done.
5
The author cites Nate Silver's prediction/model that Booker, Harris and Beto would do well and that Biden and Sanders and Kloubuchar would fade. This model was wrong about everyone except perhaps Klobuchar who is still in the game but at the fringe.
That some model said they could do well but they did not is not evidence of bias when that model got approximately nothing right.
There are grave limitations to a data-only approach to social problems even if it makes it easy to generate content and will it will outperform some random commentator. Among other problems, one will get surprised when the world changes somewhat abruptly.
Being better than most at something is often close to useless. One needs to be world-class at something for one's opinion to matter much, and if one start off thinking the world never changes one will have imposed a constraint on one's assessment that is close to disqualifying.
2
Harris was never on my radar, because I could not get a clear picture of what she stood for or what her vision for the country was.
Whether that was her fault or (quite possibly) the fault of the media, I don’t know.
I have never met Obama, but friends who did, even those who became disillusioned later, said that he has a compelling, charismatic personality, which would have been a real advantage in the face-to-face campaign that characterizes Iowa.
8
Charles misses the point by asserting that racism and sexism where large contributing issues:
1. Kamala’s organization was dysfunctional and lacked a clear strategy. She didn’t fix it.
2. Kamala’s track record as a DA didn’t resonate with blacks (or whites either). She couldn’t change that.
3. Bernie and Elizabeth locked up the ultra progressives. Joe and Mayor Pete grabbed the centrists. Kamala and the other candidates struggle to be identified with an enduring cause or block of supporters. Obama did that with hope for blacks: Hillary represented hope for women.
Kamala's campaign started like that first sip of an ice cold Coke on a hot day. Sweet and incredibly refreshing. But, after it it sat on the table for an hour, it became flat and too temperature. It couldn’t quench the thirst and just wasn’t worth the calories.
19
@Scott Smith
Agree with Scott. My sense of her and what a negative presence she brought made her hard to support.
6
Blow not only misses the point, rather he diminishes both sexism and racism as being a factor in Kamela's awful managed campaign. I had hope for her but shortly after the first debate she revealed herself as a wingnut.
This is simply not true. Racism and sexism will come into play in the general election, however, within the democratic cohort - especially young democrats - being a person of color provides an advantage at this point. Do you have numbers to back up a claim that voters are shying away from a candidate of color for fear of losing to Trump. If so please share ..I haven't seen anything of the sort.
Harris did not run a good campaign. Her own staff derided her.
Lastly, she may not be polling in the top tier, but she is polling better than others who are still in.
Harris just didn't want this. Or that's what it felt like in any case.
8
@Angrydoc
She felt like she was the chosen one, she was full of slogans and no substance. People didn't believe in anything she state because she changed from Monday to Tuesday.
We need a smart leader and she didnt want to be that person. As Nancy stated "the times have found us" and Ms. Harris had a very long learning curve.
1
Harris' campaign, which I supported, failed not because of either racism or sexism, but incompetence. For all of her qualities, Harris has two flaws (which hopefully she can fix by 2024): 1. She was not able to organize a large-scale political organization and 2. She is neither a dynamic candidate nor one with a coherent, compelling message. But she's young and inexperienced, so maybe will learn from hard-taught lessons and come back stronger.
14
Other than coming across as likable in a short bio clip while singing “one nation under a groove” I can’t think of any reason to like Kamala Harris. Her prosecutorial style always seemed like grandstanding to me besides.
12