By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The authors of these letters express significant doubts regarding former Vice President Kamala Harris’ potential 2028 presidential candidacy. Concerns are raised about her past campaign performances and her perceived silence on President Biden’s cognitive decline, which some believe disqualifies her. Instead, suggestions are made for her to demonstrate leadership by influencing California gubernatorial candidates or for the Democratic Party to nominate more viable candidates with broader appeal, such as Senator Mark Kelly.
Read the original article here
It feels like a significant portion of the Democratic Party is stuck in a loop, and the conversations emerging suggest a pressing need for some serious soul-searching. The repeated suggestion that Kamala Harris is the answer for future elections, particularly for the presidency, seems to be met with a growing wave of skepticism and a call for a fundamental reevaluation of the party’s direction. It’s almost as if, in the rush to position for the next electoral cycle, the lessons of past campaigns and the current political climate are being overlooked.
The idea of primaries is precisely for sorting through these questions, and yet, the discussion around Harris often feels like it bypasses that crucial process. When past campaign performances, even against deeply flawed opponents, didn’t yield victory, and when respected publications have raised doubts about her viability, the focus shouldn’t be on pushing for another run. Instead, there’s a palpable sentiment that the party needs to “get its shit together” and move beyond individuals who have already faced significant electoral setbacks.
There’s a frustration that the party seems to be talking about 2028 before even addressing the immediate challenges of the midterms, a sentiment that resonates with the everyday concerns of people trying to navigate the realities of life. The prevailing thought is that the immediate priority should be securing Congress and then, and only then, engaging in the vital internal discussions that primaries are designed to facilitate. Rushing the presidential conversation now feels like a distraction from the urgent tasks at hand.
While acknowledging that Harris is a pleasant individual, there’s a distinct feeling that the party needs a candidate who possesses a greater degree of awareness, passion, and conviction. The desire is for someone who can genuinely connect with a broad spectrum of America, not just a pre-selected choir. The critique suggests that if Harris has been considering a presidential bid, her efforts should have been more strategically focused on building grassroots support, actively engaging in tough races, traveling to diverse communities to understand and address voter concerns, and developing a more robust and detailed national vision.
The concern is that Harris’s continued presence as a potential contender in the primaries could inadvertently harm more promising fresh candidates who might have a stronger chance of winning in the future and delivering meaningful reforms. It’s a blunt assessment, but the feeling is that her candidacy might do more to disrupt the party’s path forward than to advance it, particularly when considering the urgent need for tangible change and accountability.
A stark, albeit painful, reality is being voiced: that in the current political landscape, America has demonstrated a willingness to elect deeply flawed candidates over women of color. This isn’t about a lack of qualification or merit on the part of potential candidates like Harris, but rather an acknowledgment of societal biases that persist. It’s a harsh truth that the time for electing a woman or a person of color to the highest office may not yet be fully realized, and that the party must contend with this reality when strategizing.
The fear articulated is that putting forward any candidate who doesn’t fit a perceived mold of electability – be it a woman, a gay individual, a Jewish person, or a person of color – regardless of their qualifications, could lead to more years of Republican leadership. This sentiment, while disheartening, reflects a pragmatic concern about winning elections and avoiding further detrimental governance. It’s a recognition that while progress is desired, the immediate need is to secure a victory that can initiate positive change.
The emergence of discussions about Harris’s potential 2028 run is sometimes viewed as a deliberate effort to sow discord within the Democratic Party, particularly when it arises so far in advance of major elections. The critique points to past campaigns where Harris struggled to articulate a clear vision and qualifications beyond ambition, and highlights the perceived failure to address critical issues, such as the President’s cognitive state, during her tenure as Vice President.
The underlying message is that simply being “not Trump” is insufficient to win back the White House. A tactical focus on short-term issues like gas and grocery prices, while important, won’t secure long-term electoral success. What’s needed, according to this perspective, is a fundamental shift in the party’s approach to messaging and governance, moving away from data-driven strategies towards a deeper understanding of the American psyche, employing psychologists and sociologists to bridge the perceived gap between the party’s core and the electorate’s gut feelings.
The emphasis on primaries as the democratic mechanism for selecting candidates is reiterated, underscoring the idea that voters should have a genuine choice. There’s a suspicion that the media and potentially the Democratic National Committee (DNC) are actively pushing the narrative of another Harris presidential bid, while the broader base desires a departure from the status quo and a move away from neo-liberal approaches. The success of more progressive figures is seen as an indication of a desire for candidates who prioritize issues like taxing the wealthy and building from the ground up, rather than perpetuating an era perceived as corrupt and overly aligned with corporate interests.
The core of this sentiment is a yearning for a candidate who genuinely works for the middle and lower classes, focusing on improving quality of life through effective governance, addressing the cost of necessities, and fighting for universal healthcare. The fear is that the DNC might revert to offering a more corporate-aligned “moderate” candidate, a strategy that is seen as increasingly out of touch with the current political reality, where “moderate” has shifted significantly to the right.
The call is for a younger, more progressive candidate in the vein of an FDR-style New Deal approach, rather than a continuation of a neo-liberal, corporate-influenced status quo. There’s a strong belief that the progressive wing of the party, which is seen as the majority, is being suppressed and ignored by an old guard that benefits from their established connections. The argument is that until the party is run by those who are truly connected to the base, rather than establishment figures and focus-group-driven staffers, it will lack the fire and enthusiasm needed to win.
The assessment of Harris herself, while sometimes acknowledging her positive attributes, often concludes that she lacks that crucial “special sauce” required for presidential success. The very idea of her considering a 2028 run is seen by some as evidence of how out of touch some Democrats are. There’s a strong conviction that her candidacy would be detrimental to the party’s chances, especially given the context of recent electoral history and the performance of deeply flawed opponents.
The criticism extends to the perceived dysfunction of the DNC, suggesting that the party’s leadership is so out of touch that they would even consider Harris again, especially after the challenges of the past few years. There’s a sentiment that the party is “braindead” and regressive in its thinking, potentially due to the influence of older leadership who are not attuned to the current electorate’s desires. The idea of pushing Harris after experiencing the current political climate is seen as potentially disastrous.
A more progressive alternative is clearly desired, with suggestions of candidates who are at least a “Diet Mamdani,” signaling a clear rejection of what’s perceived as continued centrism. The notion of simply being “not Trump” is insufficient; the focus needs to be on a candidate who can actively fight and win, a stark contrast to a perceived “when they go low, we go high” strategy that is seen as ineffective in the current political climate.
The electoral success of a candidate is paramount, and the argument is made that past losses, especially against deeply problematic figures, should be a significant factor in determining future nominees. The repeated assertion that Harris has already lost and will not be able to win a general election highlights a pragmatic, results-oriented approach to political strategy.
There’s a profound concern that the majority of Americans may be ready for more liberal and left-leaning Democrats, but without substantial, tangible changes in people’s lives, the country is seen as doomed. This underscores the urgency for real, impactful change from the outset of any new administration, suggesting that this is potentially the last chance to save the nation.
While some acknowledge Harris’s past positions, the current need is perceived as being for someone more progressive. The game theory analogy of “tit for tat” being a more effective strategy than “going high” when facing opponents who cheat speaks to a desire for a more assertive and combative approach from Democrats. The goal is not just to govern sensibly, but to actively fix the systemic “exploits” that have been gamed by Republicans.
The idea of shrinking the power of the executive office and re-establishing checks and balances is a significant theme, suggesting a desire for leaders who will fundamentally alter the current power structures. The need for structural changes to engage the electorate and adequately represent every voter is seen as crucial for America’s credibility both domestically and internationally.
The electability of Harris is questioned with a straightforwardness that suggests she simply “doesn’t cut it with enough people to get elected.” The idea of re-running a candidate who has already demonstrably lost is seen as illogical and a disservice to voters who desire someone they can genuinely support. The sentiment is that the country, in its current state, might not be ready to elect a female president, a harsh but prevalent viewpoint being expressed.
The perception that primary outcomes are heavily influenced by the DNC’s support, rather than being entirely organic, is also present. This fuels a skepticism about whether the party genuinely offers voters a free choice, or if the perceived options are curated. The desire for new, young, progressive leadership, shedding the “old wisdom” of the 1990s DNC, is a recurring theme.
The belief that some within the Democratic leadership *want* to lose, perhaps for personal financial gain, is a cynical but voiced perspective. This is tied to the idea that they benefit from GOP tax breaks and therefore have no incentive to push for policies that would impact their wealth, such as raising taxes. The past “tanking” of Bernie Sanders’ nomination is cited as evidence of this alleged motive.
The notion that America would elect “a literal turd over Trump” in a backlash is a pessimistic view of the electorate’s susceptibility to negative campaigning and the party’s perceived strategy. The frustration is palpable, with some stating that they “didn’t make this world” but are forced to navigate its political realities.
The observation that 51% of white women voted for Trump over Harris is used to highlight deep-seated misogyny in the country, suggesting that a woman, regardless of qualification, faces significant societal hurdles. This leads to the conclusion that considerable societal change is needed before a Democratic woman can be elected president, with the uncomfortable prediction that the first female president might well be a Republican. The implication is that Harris, while potentially qualified, is not the candidate to break that barrier in the current climate, and that past campaign funding, even when substantial, wasn’t enough to secure victory, pointing to a need to find someone better.