Why Kamala Harris fell short

Last month, Kamala Harris took part in an interview on ABC's "The View," where she was asked by the host Sunny Hostin if she would have done anything differently than President Joe Biden during the past four years. 

In a rare misstep for a politician of her stature aiming to become the first female President of the United States, she stumbled in an incredible fashion and said: "There is not a thing that comes to mind. Not a thing."

The aftermath of the incident is anyone's guess: it sent shockwaves through the Democratic camp, with many fearing it was a missed opportunity to carve out her own path, while 'team Trump' seized on the moment, playing her response on a loop to their advantage.

It was like a goalkeeper throwing the ball directly to the opposing striker— an open goal for Trump in a one-on-one situation.

And that sums up the reason behind Harris's anticipated fall in the election. 

It had long been said that Biden, maybe due to his age or something else, was increasingly out of touch with the general people of the US. And Harris, much younger than him, made the same mistake. She simply overlooked the frustration brewing across the nation over the years.

The rising costs of essentials like gas, groceries, and rent weighed heavily on people's minds, leaving them searching for a candidate who could relate to their struggles. Biden's handling of the Ukraine-Russia war also faced criticism, with many believing the conflict fueled inflation and economic strain in the US, further amplifying frustration over supply chain disruptions and government spending.

Even within the Democratic Party, Biden's support was not unanimous. Concerns about his approach to immigration, border security, and policies like student loan forgiveness divided the party.

Yet, in her campaign, Harris failed to acknowledge these issues or reach out to frustrated voters. Instead of addressing these grievances head-on, she seemed to gloss over them. This inability to connect on pressing issues made many question if she was the right candidate for a time when the nation faced significant challenges.

To add to that, she failed to win over the "progressive section" of the voters as well. Particularly her record as a prosecutor and attorney general also worked against her and alienated progressive voters. 

She might have branded herself as a "progressive prosecutor," but her policies were viewed as harsh and disproportionately targeted communities of colour. Her support for aggressive prosecution of "quality of life" crimes (like loitering and truancy), her role in enforcing strict penalties under the three-strikes law, and her previous stance against decriminalising sex work contributed to a perception that she was more of a "tough-on-crime" candidate than a genuine progressive.

Her approach was shaped by a political strategy from the pre-Black Lives Matter era, where being "tough on crime" was often viewed positively.

However, as attitudes shifted among the Democrats and independent progressives alike, this strategy backfired. Voters became increasingly aware of her prosecutorial record, leading to a decline in her support, fundraising struggles, and difficulties connecting with the progressive wing of her party.

And then comes the Israel-Palestine issue. 

Harris's stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict, particularly her unwavering support for Israel's "right to defend itself" while also acknowledging the devastating humanitarian crisis in Gaza, further contributed to her political fall. 

While her position aligned with President Biden's, it did little to distinguish her as a leader capable of addressing the complex frustrations many Americans felt regarding the war and its toll on innocent lives. Her failure to decisively address the demands of pro-Palestinian activists, combined with the perception that her statements lacked boldness or originality, alienated a key portion of the country's progressive base. 

This, along with her public positioning against Israeli military actions, opened her up to criticism from both pro-Israel groups and her political adversaries as well, further eroding her appeal and setting her back in a highly polarised election race.

On the flip side, Donald Trump didn't really have such issues. He may have been touted by many as the walking, talking, classic example of a modern day fascist, he at least had been able to amass a cult following who kept on standing behind him even in the face of his most controversial moments. 

Trump tapped into the sentiments of white identity, nationalism, and populism in a way that figures like Pat Buchanan or Ross Perot never managed to. Unlike traditional conservative followers, Trump's core supporters displayed an extreme loyalty that resembled a cult of personality, distinguishing them from typical voters.

At the end of the day, it was Trump's firmly loyal fans, in contrast to Harris's deeply divided base, that worked in his favour and relegated Harris to the backseat.