The Missed Opportunity: Understanding Kamala Harris’s Loss
The narrative surrounding Kamala Harris’s loss is filled with various justifications: inflation soared, voter turnout faltered, and President Biden lingered in the race longer than he should have. His summer polling deficit proved too daunting to surmount. Yet amidst these explanations lies a more profound and troubling truth: the leadership of the Democratic Party failed to genuinely listen to and earn the trust of young voters. This demographic had the potential to be pivotal in her campaign, particularly in crucial swing states like Michigan.
As a pollster dedicated to capturing the aspirations and concerns of young Americans, the prospect of losing to Donald Trump—not once, but twice—signals a significant failure. Harris’s campaign needed to sway merely one percentage point of voters across key states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin to clinch the presidency. Instead, her campaign floundered in college towns such as Ann Arbor, Michigan, and other traditionally blue areas. Consider the implications: flipping just one in every hundred voters could have effectively halted the threat of mass deportations, tax cuts favoring the wealthy, rollbacks of L.G.B.T.Q. protections, and the reversal of vital climate regulations.
This was a contest that could have been won. Ms. Harris’s campaign launch, her convention address, and her performance in debates initially ignited enthusiasm among many young Americans, presenting a vision of leadership anchored in progress and aligned with their core values. However, in the crucial weeks that followed, her campaign struggled to resonate with Generation Z, who perceived her as an extension of a presidency they felt had let them down.
Some observers noted the troubling trajectory of her poll numbers in the fall and warned of impending challenges, only to be dismissed as “bed wetters.” Yet, one must ask: can anyone articulate a vision or set of ideas from her campaign that would have significantly improved the lives of young people, alleviating their economic burdens and advancing their aspirations for a fair society, a peaceful world, and a sustainable planet? The reality is that simply being “not Trump” was never going to suffice.
Data from multiple sources cautioned against an overreliance on abortion messaging in the final weeks of the campaign, highlighting that it was neither a silver bullet nor a magical solution. These warnings were largely ignored, leading to a sense of alienation among many young voters—both women and men—who felt their voices were not being heard. While vocal and explicit support for abortion rights was a strategy Ms. Harris employed to distinguish herself from the more moderate stance of Mr. Biden and to galvanize women, including younger female voters, many Americans understood deep down that she was unlikely to restore Roe v. Wade and were prioritizing issues that felt more immediate and pressing.
This oversight is particularly striking given that the Biden-Harris administration had achieved meaningful victories during its early years—such as student debt relief, unprecedented investments in climate initiatives, and significant gun safety legislation. However, these accomplishments were often invisible to many young people, who struggled to perceive their benefits in real time. Furthermore, Mr. Biden lacked the oratory skills and persuasive abilities necessary to effectively communicate these successes in today’s fragmented media environment.
Imagine if Mr. Biden or Ms. Harris had the agility and fluency to engage with young audiences on platforms like YouTube with influencers such as Hasan Piker or appear on Joe Rogan’s podcast, effectively articulating their achievements to young Americans. Instead, many young voters did not recognize the tangible effects of their votes in 2020 for Mr. Biden, which not only eroded their trust in the Democratic Party but also deepened their skepticism toward government and politics as a whole. This disenchantment left some more susceptible to Mr. Trump’s narrative that the current administration was ineffective and that he alone could address their anxieties. Others became inclined to support third-party candidates like Jill Stein or opted to write in the name of someone they genuinely trusted, rather than casting their vote for a candidate they felt disconnected from.
