Kamala Harris Taking Leading Role in 2024 Campaign
A counterintuitive move.
CNBC’s Emma Kinnery reports “Harris to play a leading role in Biden’s 2024 campaign.”
Be prepared to see a lot more of Vice President Kamala Harris.
The central role that Harris will play in President Joe Biden’s reelection effort was laid out in a campaign memo Friday, that coincided with the three year anniversary of Biden’s tapping Harris to be his running mate.
Harris “remains uniquely popular among several groups of voters that are key to our victory in 2024,” wrote Biden reelection campaign manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez and senior adviser Becca Siegel.
Over the coming year, the vice president will be strategically deployed to shore up support for Biden among constituencies that make up the core of the Biden-Harris coalition, including young people, people of color and women.
Calling the vice president “a fearless voice on many of the issues that are most important to the core voters in the Biden-Harris coalition,” Chavez Rodriguez wrote that she will be a voice on issues important to the Democratic base, like reproductive rights, voting rights, gun control and climate change.
On Friday, Harris traveled to Chicago to headline an event for Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit founded in the wake of the Sandy Hook school massacre.
The role could provide Harris with an opportunity to redefine herself after a mixed tenure as vice president.
Harris was given a portfolio of notoriously difficult issues to address, like the surge in migration and threats to voting rights, where options are severely limited by a lack of momentum in Congress.
As of Friday, her overall polling numbers remained low: 52.1% disapprove of her, compared to 38.8% who approve, according to the FiveThirtyEight polling average.
But it’s not just Democrats who are eager to see Harris on the campaign trail. To Republicans, the California Democrat has proven to be a convenient foil in political attack ads ever since she first entered national politics.
On the surface, the move seems counterintuitive. She has the worst net approval ratings of any Vice President in the history of the NBC News poll (although she has competition in other polls). She’s a polarizing figure even in the context of our polarized climate.
Presumably, the Biden campaign team has more targeted polling than I’m privy to. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if she were more popular than 80-year-old President Biden among young voters, Blacks, and women. Then again, Harris didn’t win those demographics in the 2020 primaries before flaming out spectacularly.
Regardless of the politics, given that Biden would be 82 at his second inaugural and 86 if he served out a full second term, Harris is rightly going to be under much heavier scrutiny in this campaign than she was in 2020. While Biden is doubtless healthy for his age (and healthier than his likely Republican opponent), it’s hardly a great leap of logic to think his vice president could be called upon to finish out the term.
Writing at Daily Beast, David Rothkopf and Bernard L. Schwartz contend, “It’s Time to Give Kamala Harris Her Due.”
It appears that it is, at long last, time to acknowledge the extraordinary and vital role being played by Vice President Kamala Harris on behalf of the Biden administration and the United States.
Finally, the narratives in the press that had for too long been colored by the political agenda, misogyny and racism of critics, have begun to change to reflect reality.
That said, there is still an aspect to Harris’ performance as vice president that remains underappreciated—the substance of her record as a full partner to the president, at the lead on domestic and international issues. That record not only makes her one of the most effective vice presidents in modern U.S. history, it has been part of President Joe Biden’s active effort to ensure that no one is better qualified to succeed him as President of the United States.
Honestly, this strains credulity. First, the notion that the only reason she gets criticized is because she’s a woman of color is absurd. Second, aside from casting a whole lot of tie-breaking votes, what is it that she’s done? Despite recent experience as a Senator, it’s been Biden, not Harris, who’s managed to wrangle concessions from Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema.
Regardless, they note, she’s getting good press lately:
Recently, positive stories about the role being played by Vice President Harris have become much more common in the media. The New York Times ran a major piece entitled, “Kamala Harris Takes on a Forceful New Role in the 2024 Campaign.” Bloomberg ran a piece citing the fact that she is now the most in-demand speaker at Democratic fund-raising events. Politico ran a piece arguing Harris “is a better VP than you think.”
What is more, you can tell this about-face in the press is real and not just the result of some White House press campaign because of the outsized attention Republican presidential candidates have placed on the vice president. As argued in the Boston Globe, a “re-energized” Harris is living “rent free” in the heads of Republicans. GOP candidates from Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley have targeted Harris. And Harris has proved very effective in responding to those attacks, a factor that has no doubt played a role in the current reappraisal of her.
I’m not sure that a couple of op-eds from Democrats trying to bolster her reputation constitutes a “reappraisal.”
The president’s faith in Harris is not just offered in the form of public expressions of support. He has made the choice to place her out front and in the lead on a wide array of the issues that will be central to deciding the 2024 election. These include abortion, affirmative action, LGBTQ rights, the right to be safe from gun violence, and voting rights.
Which makes sense. She’s certainly a more credible voice on these issues given the baggage that comes from such a long career in politics.
Not long ago, Harris traveled coast-to-coast and played a leading role in the media as the administration commemorated the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. As EMILY’s List president Laphonza Butler characterized it to Vanity Fair, Harris is seen as “the convener, the leader, the empathizer, and the fighter that we need.” White House officials have told us that they see this as one of the most crucial issues in the coming election.
Last year, immediately after the Supreme Court decision striking down affirmative action, Harris spoke out, calling the issue “a step backward for our nation.” She specifically cited the importance of affirmative action to college students, a group with which she has been actively engaged in outreach. In the past year alone, she has visited a dozen college campuses, and her aides say many more such programs can be expected throughout the next 18 months. Her message, tailored for young voters, has been extremely well-received at all the colleges she has visited.
Another of the hot button issues on which Harris has been leading for the White House is gun violence. This role, of course, draws directly on her strength and years of experience as a prosecutor—two terms as San Francisco’s district attorney, two terms as attorney general of California, and her time in the U.S. Senate.
In addition, throughout her time as vice president, Harris been an effective and impassioned Biden administration point person on LGBTQ issues, advancing efforts to enhance equality and fight hate both internationally and in the U.S.—including very recently at gay pride celebrations including at New York’s Stonewall Inn, a landmark location in the battle to ensure gay rights in America.
This bolsters the argument that she’s effective with at least parts of the base. I don’t think she’s going to change a lot of minds on any of these issues. Indeed, those who disagree with her are likelier to be more receptive to Biden.
But this may simply be a bet on this being a turnout election rather than an issues election. If she’s more effective at rallying turnout among some groups than Biden, it makes sense to lean on her.
I think you’re missing the point here.
One standard Republican line of attack is “a vote for Biden is a vote for Harris, and she’s a terrible, incompetent, awful Commie who wants to destroy the country — and if you don’t believe that, ask yourself why Biden keeps her hidden away.”
Presumably Biden has some faith in Harris after working with her for the last couple of years, and he knows that — despite the fact she wasn’t a brilliant campaigner in 2020 — that the real woman is much more appealing than the boogey-man the Republicans are describing. After all, she was able to win a couple of pretty high-profile elections before running for the top job.
So he’s going to get her out in public and let people — particularly Democrats — see what he sees in her.
So it’s really not counterintuitive at all. It’s going straight at one of the Republicans’ chief attacks and trying to neutralize it.
Regardless of what is said of Biden’s age, because of it there will be a segment of swing voters that will weigh Harris as well as Biden in making a choice. More so, if trump isn’t the R nominee. The campaign can’t hide her and send her to campaign only is safe Dem states, she needs to make her case and the only way to do that is to be front and center.
If trump is the nominee and chooses someone like Kari Lake as his VP, Harris could end up looking like a winner by comparison.
One merely has to go look up the partisan affiliation crosstabs for Kamala Harris’s favorability rating, and it becomes obvious what the strategy is here. The only noteworthy thing about this is it suggests the Biden campaign sees 2024 more as a turnout driven election than an influence driven election.
…
From the OP:
Is it? Let’s face it, the modern GOP doesn’t really need any other reason other than she is a woman of color to attack her. It’s not like race wasn’t the overarching reason Obama was criticized by the GOP, even in a slightly less loopy era. But the other criticism of Harris as being not a great campaigner is one of the weaker arguments of any candidate, are we electing an executive in chief or a spokesmodel?
We value personality way too much in US politics.
Only? Of course. But, perhaps, main? I think maybe. I will admit that I do not come armed with data at the moment, but I will say that there seems to be a bit of a pattern in how the press deals with female politicians and their alleged personality flaws.
Sure, but such is being vice president, yes?
Let’s stipulate that she has been a very good and effective VP. She might make a good POTUS. However, she is a horrible campaigner. Her performance running for POTUS was awful. I guess we can use this campaign to evaluate and see if she has gotten better but let’s hope we dont lose this one because we wanted to give her a trial.
Steve
@Rick DeMent: @Steven L. Taylor: Fair enough. I just tire of it, as it was always the same thing with Obama. It’s practically ad hominem and I just find it cynical.
@James Joyner:
I assure you people in various minority groups also tire of having to point out the bigotry constantly directed at them as well. However, they’re not the people your ire should be directed at.
@Sleeping Dog:
Trump isn’t going to pick Kari Lake; he’s afraid she might steal the spotlight from him. He’ll probably choose Tim Scott. I can’t wait for him to refer to Scott as “my Negro.”
@CSK: Sure. But how to react when Scott responds by nodding, clapping, and waving his arms is the real question.
If Harris can bring in the bucks then that means Biden doesn’t have to. Also, if she is not going to be replaced, hiding Harris is a loser strategy. You got to work a problem to solve it.
If Harris can bring out more African Americans, young people, and women to the polls in 2024, it will be worth it. She was very effective going down to Florida and rebuking DeSantis in his own backyard. If she does the same speech in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Wisconsin, Georgia, and North Carolina, she will be successful. She will focus on three things:
1. A woman’s right to choose. This will a simple message to shout from the rooftops. And it will be effective, based on recent Kansas, Wisconsin and Ohio elections.
2. The right-wing ban/war on history, science, and, education. Again, this will not be a hard message to push – given the book banning overreactions in Florida and Oklahoma.
3. How the Biden policies have helped middle class families, while the GOP continues to pander to the .01%
It’s great that the GOP criticizes her so much. It’s a low bar for her to clear. She will be fine.
@CSK: @Sleeping Dog:
He won’t pick Scott. He’d lose the Proud Boys, Oathkeepers, and the other racist elements of the GOP coalition. Even if that number is only 10%, it’s enough to swing a whole lot of races (no pun intended).
You really think the Tarrio’s and Rhodes of the world are gonna vote for Trump if he has a “n****r” on his ticket? Um… no.
He should pick Haley, but he won’t because she’s not subservient enough to him. But if he does, I’d love to see a Harris/Haley debate. I’ve seen Kamala destroy a few people in debates, Joe Biden included.
Trump will pick a VP like Mike Pence – someone who is passive and obedient. (Yeah, I know, he got a spine on the one day it really mattered but we’re talking as VP during Trump’s term here. And if anything that one-day experience convinced Trump that he needs someone even more craven.) And it won’t be someone who the official GOP want, and it won’t be someone who has ambitions post-Trump. He wants dog-like devotion.
On the other hand, Putin might be looking for a job by the fall and I would bet anything that Trump doesn’t know or care that the VP has to be an American…
@EddieInCA: I agree he won’t pick Scott but not because of the prejudices of his base. My impression is that it is relatively easy for them to transfer an individual or two into the “one of the good ones” category. Trump won’t pick him because of his own deep rooted bigotry coupled with his phobias. His entire history screams that he doesn’t want to be around a black man for any extended length of time.
@MarkedMan:
I agree that the Proud Boys, etc. would accept Scott, because they think anything Trump does is wonderful.
As for Trump’s racism, he’ll deliberately keep Scott as distant as possible if Scott’s skin color upsets him.
@EddieInCA: “It’s great that the GOP criticizes her so much. It’s a low bar for her to clear. She will be fine.”
I saw her speak at the 92 Street Y just before she launched her presidential bid, and I was really impressed. She was warm and funny and personable — all qualities that sadly she tends to lose when she’s doing bigger campaign events.
I think Hillary Clinton had the same problem — people who have met with her in small situations come across wowed by her personality, but in large events she just comes across like a politician…
@steve:
Kamala = [insert ad hominem du jour]
Warren = shrill
Hillary = unlikeable
Blah blah blah. There’s not a single ambitious, powerful woman that reaches for the glass ceiling woman that of American white men aren’t going to smear as a horrible campaigner, due to their collective refusal to deal with their daddy and mommy issues.
@wr:.
This does not speak for black voters, btw. But from children, we are used to the charms of strong women.
@James Joyner:
Somebody play the world’s tiniest violin.
I’m tired of America’s racism and sexism that keeps a majority of America’s most powerful demographic backing a turd like Donald Trump, and very tired of ad hominem attacks on woman politicians.
Cynical is pushing a strawman suggesting what you quoted intended to suggest the “only” reason Harris is disliked is because of her identity, instead of grappling with what was actually written: that there is a correlation between Harriet’s race and gender and her having “the worst net approval ratings of any Vice President in the history of the NBC News poll.”
Per usual, the nattering nabobs are long on amorphous, broadstroke criticism and short on detail. What, exactly, do you want Harris to be doing that she is not doing? Selling fascism to evangelicals like Pence? Pushing for endless Middle Eastern oil war like Cheney? What, exactly, is Harris doing that is so terribly and horribly worse than Pence, Biden, Cheney, Gore, and Quayle?
Inquiring minds want to know, as the answers will be clarifying — especially as those answers will likely be little more than confused sputtering. But grappling with unconscious bias is difficult. Defensiveness and dismissiveness are sometimes much easier.
@DK: Of the various Democratic VPs in my adult life, Harris is the only one that I haven’t noticed.
She’s also the one who has roughly the same national experience as their President, just less of it. Gore and Biden both worked congress for their relatively inexperienced Presidents, and that was a bit more high profile.
I’m suspicious that anyone has an informed opinion on her. It’s mostly racism, misogyny and vibes.
Unfortunately she has “self-proclaimed cool aunt” vibes and it feels inauthentic*. But even that is probably a very calculated effort to avoid being labeled a “bitch” and ties into the misogyny.
——
*: say what you will about Trump, that man is authentic. Biden too, once you recognize that he loves gladhanding.
I think it was about six months ago, in a post on Biden’s age, I argued that the administration needed to start working on positioning Harris to be more popular and be perceived as able to step in and competently replace Biden should something happen to him. So it’s not surprising to see that finally happening. It’s interesting that she will focus more on the base than moderates, but I guess that makes sense in context.
@Steven L. Taylor:
That’s the trouble – the extent to which racism and sexism are factors working against Harris isn’t really knowable and seems to be a Rorschach test. But we’ll surely see them as the go-to arguments used by Harris partisans to deflect any criticism of her.
The alternative is that her bad favorable rating is because she’s the VP for a President with a similarly bad favorability rating. If you look, for example, at a chart comparing the favorability ratings for Biden and Harris since they entered the WH, they have always been within a few points of each other. She had a net favorable rating at inauguration and it’s fallen exactly in step with Biden’s.
“There’s not a single ambitious, powerful woman that reaches for the glass ceiling woman that of American white men aren’t going to smear as a horrible campaigner, due to their collective refusal to deal with their daddy and mommy issues.”
Not every man or woman is a good campaigner.
Steve
@steve: Sure. But anyone who reaches statewide office in a state with a population of 40M should be considered a good campaigner.
@Andy:
How did I know you were going to say that?
1. Yes, it is. Read the literature. You’re perfectly capable of grokking it.
2. Unless you’re going to argue that racism and sexism are negligible factors, it doesn’t matter that the the extent isn’t exactly precisely quantifiable. Are you ready to argue that?
@James Joyner: here is cynical for you. Ap European history fees will be paid for by the state of Arkansas while AP African American history won’t. Sorry…your former party is and has been motivated by racism for longer than you care to admit.
https://twitter.com/MarkJacob16/status/1690374658372014080
@steve:
Not every white American man is a good judge of what constitutes a good campaign, given the bad people, bad policies, and bad campaigns that collect a supermajority of the white male votes.
Not every man or woman is good at grappling with their unconscious biases, then reflecting honestly on how that colors what they consider “good” and “bad” in campaigns and politicians.
@James Joyner:
At the end, Dr. Joyner, you’re just a regular, red-blooded, ordinary White dude, after all. I’m disappointed.
@Gustopher:
I suppose it depends on how one defines authentic.
To me, by definition “authentic” cannot describe a pathological liar. Trump is more full of crap than any politician in my lifetime. A fraud and a con artist, the very definition of inauthentic, by my metric.
@DK: For me, the fact that I can recognize what he is makes him authentic enough. Perhaps, you’re confusing “authentic” with “moral” or “likeable” or “worth supporting” or “politically viable as a choice.” He can be recognizable for what he is without having any recognizable positive qualities at all by my metric.
I am of the opinion that for most (MAGA) Republicans it comes down to this:
Dogwhistle: ‘If Joe dies the scary Black woman becomes president!’
Maybe it’s not a dogwhistle, and by next August it will be a megaphone.
All this talk about how there’s no misogyny, yet we see “Joe and the Ho” bumper stickers on the MAGA trucks…..
@DrDaveT:
I definitely think they are factors. Yes, it isn’t close to precisely quantifiable. But we can get an indication from other data. For instance, if you look at the difference in favorability right now between Biden and Harris it is about 2 points. Over over the course of the Biden’s entire Presidency, she’s been consistently less popular than Biden by 2-5 points. I think it’s reasonable to postulate that sexism and racism account for much or most of that difference.
Harris’ Presidential campaign didn’t implode because progressive Democratic primary voters are full of sexists and racists – it imploded because it was a poorly run campaign which is not my opinion, but the opinion of many principles who worked on her campaign (see this NYT piece for example). If one is going to claim it’s sexism or racism and not the reported facts about her campaign, then one needs to show their work.
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
Maybe, but I don’t think so. To be authentic you have to mean what you say and say what you mean most of the time, whether things you say are moral or not. Authencity means having essentially the same core in private that you have in public. I think Rush Limbaugh was authentic and amoral both. Ditto Pat Buchanan.
Trump a troll, a grifter, and a con artist who’ll say and do anything for power and money — a bullshitter who repeatedly says things that he does not believe and knows are not true. That, to me, is the very definition of inauthentic. Trump pretends to care about the military while trashing dead troops in private. He paints himself as the champion of evangelical Christianity while privately telling his staff how stupid evangelicals are. What about this is authentic?
Perhaps y’all are confusing “authentic” with “lowbrow and crass” maybe?