By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Kamala Harris’s political standing is hampered by her association with unpopular Biden administration policies, particularly the handling of inflation and the response to the situation in Gaza. Furthermore, a lack of visible leadership during the second Trump administration, coupled with appearances at high-profile events rather than engaging directly with voters or taking impactful action, has hindered her image. This contrasts sharply with other prominent figures actively addressing key issues and engaging with the public, highlighting a need for a party leader more visibly connected to the concerns of all Americans. Her failure to distance herself from controversial policies and her limited public engagement demonstrate a deficiency in leadership.
Read the original article here
Kamala Harris 2028? Hard Pass. The sentiment is widespread, reflecting a complex mix of concerns about electability, policy preferences, and broader anxieties about the Democratic Party’s future. Many feel that her 2024 loss, even against a deeply unpopular opponent, effectively disqualifies her from another presidential run. The argument isn’t about her personal qualities, but rather a cold calculation of political viability. Running again risks another defeat, jeopardizing the party’s chances in a crucial election.
The feeling that a fresh face is needed is prevalent. The sense is that the Democratic party is at an impasse, and sticking with familiar figures from previous administrations—Clinton, Obama, Biden, and by extension, Harris—isn’t inspiring confidence. Voters are craving something new, a candidate who can galvanize enthusiasm and offer a clear break from the past. This desire transcends simple generational shifts; it’s a yearning for different leadership styles and approaches to campaigning.
The discussion frequently touches on identity politics and electability, particularly concerning gender and race. Some believe the United States is not yet ready to elect a woman president, citing ingrained biases as a significant hurdle for female candidates, regardless of their qualifications. This isn’t a criticism of Harris herself, but rather a reflection of perceived realities of the American electorate. Others contend the electorate is ready for a woman of color, but that Harris herself failed to connect with enough voters to win.
Concerns about her performance as Vice President frequently emerge. The assessment is often not overly critical of her actions in office; the issue is more about perceptions and the lack of widespread enthusiasm for her leadership. Some voters felt she lacked a strong presence and a compelling vision that could capture national attention and drive voters to the polls. Her close association with the Biden administration is also viewed as a potential liability. The argument is that the perceived failures of the Biden presidency have tarnished her image and created a strong headwind for any future political aspirations.
Some argue that the Democratic primary process itself needs reform. There is strong belief that an open and competitive primary is necessary to identify a candidate who can genuinely appeal to the broadest possible base of Democratic voters. The suggestion is that if a real primary had taken place in 2020, Harris would have faced stronger competition, and potentially wouldn’t have even received the nomination. This reflects a general distrust in the party establishment and the perception that it prioritizes its own internal interests over the needs of the wider electorate.
The specter of Donald Trump looms large in this discussion. His unexpected victory in 2016, followed by a narrow defeat in 2024 and the concerns surrounding his enduring popularity serve as a constant reminder of the unpredictable nature of American politics. Harris’s loss to Trump highlights the anxieties surrounding her electability; the argument is if she couldn’t beat him, she lacks the ability to defeat other strong Republican candidates in the future. This leads to a broader sense that the Democrats need a candidate who can not only win, but win decisively and with a clear mandate.
Beyond all this, there’s a widespread sense that the Democratic party needs a fundamental shift in strategy and messaging. Some believe the party needs a more populist and progressive candidate, one who can effectively challenge conservative narratives and appeal to disenfranchised voters. The idea that the party needs to focus on selecting a candidate who excites the base and unites the party is ever-present, not only for the sake of winning the presidency but for the overall health and morale of the Democratic Party. The idea is that the party has been too complacent, clinging to symbolism and superficial strategies, neglecting the need for genuine connection with voters.
The comments reveal a deep-seated frustration and uncertainty within the Democratic electorate. There is a general acknowledgement that the party needs to make major changes in order to regain its standing and position itself for future success. The conclusion that a Harris presidential bid in 2028 is unwise is a symptom of this larger concern, reflecting broader anxieties about the party’s direction and the challenges facing it in the coming years. The path forward remains uncertain, but the desire for a different approach is undeniable.