'The biggest wildcard for Harris’s nascent campaign is her leadership style.' (Julia Beverly/Getty Images)
![](https://unherd.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/thumbnail-man-1-150x150.jpg)
In 2016, mainstream analysts were virtually certain that Donald Trump would not win the GOP nomination. Then, when he did, they claimed that it was nearly impossible that he would win the presidency. They were convinced they were able to see the future: a destiny where Democrats would indefinitely enjoy decisive electoral majorities. We know how that turned out.
These days, people are much more alive to the possibility that conventional wisdom might not apply to highly unconventional cases. This is good because, in many respects, the 2024 cycle is far more unusual than 2016.
This was true even when the race was still Trump versus Biden. It had been over a century since a former president last squared off against a sitting president (in 1912), and nearly 70 years since the last time two presidential candidates had a rematch. Both Trump and Biden were unprecedentedly old for presidential contenders, and other candidates were deeply unpopular. Everything, it seemed, was to play for.
However, even with Biden out of the running, this is still an extraordinarily unusual contest. Most obviously, substituting one’s candidate — as the Democrats did last month — is largely unheard of in US presidential contests. Precedents from abroad suggest that, because this is a tactic usually deployed by parties heading for certain defeat, candidate substitution typically improves a party’s performance, but not enough to change the overall outcome of the race. But sometimes — as in the case of Jacinta Ardern replacing the previous Labor Party candidate in New Zealand — it does flip the election.
It’s also unclear how to think about incumbency in this cycle. As a result of various psychological tendencies, incumbents are often strongly advantaged in electoral contests. However, this benefit does not seem to transfer to vice presidents or other chosen successors. In this race, then, Kamala Harris is not an incumbent.
But might Trump be? It’s hard to know. In previous cases where former presidents (Grover Cleveland, Teddy Roosevelt) have run for re-election after a spell out of the White House, they were running against direct incumbents — currently sitting presidents — so the advantage of their presidential experience likely washed out. In this case, Trump is running against someone who has never served in this role. Hence, if there is an incumbency advantage this cycle, it likely favours him. But Trump was the direct incumbent in 2020, and he lost anyway (the only time since 1980 that the winning party failed to stay in power for at least eight years).
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI have faith in my fellow Americans to recognize that Kamala Harris is no more competent to be president the next four years than Joe Biden, and probably less. But as time goes on, my faith has started to waver. I don’t just want the honeymoon to be over. My faith will be tested until the divorce papers are signed. Here’s hoping that happens on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
As soon as she starts talking the race will be over.
I think you underestimate the power of Democrat machine politics. As a longtime California resident I’ve seen the machine take Kamala Harris from being an unknown 29-year-old assistant district attorney to be San Francisco District Attorney, California Attorney General, Senator from California, and now Vice President. All with no talent or experience at getting things done. Just by being a Barbie doll with a nice appearance and a pleasant voice.
I’m scared stiff the Democrat machine will put the woman in the White House where she’ll serve up word salads with no choice of dressing.
Someone called her BIPOC Barbie. That’s a great nickname!!
That is a great nickname.
And we can’t forget the Ken doll that completes the California set, Gavin Newsom. I can still remember seeing the two of them on local television when their political careers were first taking off. Attractive. Well spoken. Airheaded. Barbie and Ken.
Decades later neither one has an accomplishment of note other than the ability to win elections thanks to good connections and machine politics.
“Someone called her BIPOC Barbie. That’s a great nickname!!”
No Jim (and Carlos [1]) it’s a piece of racist, sexist, misogynist abuse, and you’d better hope that more vindictive equality warriors than me aren’t monitoring your comments.
[1] All with no talent or experience at getting things done. Just by being a Barbie doll with a nice appearance and a pleasant voice.
Their job must be a bit easier given that her opponent is Trump. Far from being “an unknown”, everyone knows exactly what he is about.
Trump is nothing but a symbolic target. It would not matter who the opponent was. If anyone effectively weakens the Global Green Agenda, they’re going to be treated the same way. Notice JD Vance is the new target. After the Establishment got rolled like Romney and McCain the nasty attacks moved to Tucker, DeSantis, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Larry Elder and any other Conservative. Although let’s not forget Secular Agnostics like Musk, Rodgers and Rogan. No matter the dissident, it’s relentless Ad Hominem from the Agenda Setters that perpetually whine about “divisiveness.”
I did notice that JD Vance is the new target. He makes himself a pretty big target with some of the things he says. I suspect that Trump probably regrets picking him.
If the attackers are focused on your running mate, they’re not paying attention to you. Trump made a political drug deal; he took Peter Thiel’s guy in exchange Thiel’s deep pockets and those of others, along with a massive data mining operation.
I think they fear him, because unlike Trump, he seems to have some genuine political skill beyond bluster and self-promotion, and seems to have some self-awareness and self-discipline which trump dose not have at all. He also talks about issues that many American worry about but those in power don’t talk about or don’t talk about candidly, Trump only dose so only in reference to himself and his personal wants. He also has a great life story that’s compelling and he comes from a part of the country full of people that the ruling class fears and despise. Not to say he is without flaws, but he seems to have hit a nerve with them. I also think Trump will grow jealous of him as time goes on.
Does not ‘dose’.
“I have faith in my fellow Americans to recognize that Kamala Harris is no more competent to be president the next four years than Joe Biden, and probably less”
And your evidence that Kamala Harris is in a worse advancing state of dementia than her boss, President Joe Biden?
Or is this yet another Trumpian ‘a women’s place is on her back in my bed or in the kitchen at the sink’ piece of bigotry?
“Harris studied political science and economics at Howard, the elite historically Black university in Washington, D.C., graduating in 1986. There she was on the debate team and, signaling her political ambitions, was elected to the student council. From Howard, she returned to California, where she earned her law degree at the University of California’s premier Hastings College of the Law in 1989. The following year, she became deputy district attorney in Oakland, California, near San Francisco, and from 1990 to 1998 developed “a reputation for toughness as she prosecuted cases of gang violence, drug trafficking, and sexual abuse. She became district attorney in 1998. In 2010 she narrowly won election as the state’s attorney general, becoming the first woman, African American, and South Asian to hold that office. As attorney general, she won a signal court battle with state banks over unfair practices in which she won roughly $20 billion in mortgage relief for homeowners. Her refusal to defend Proposition 8, which banned same sex marriage in California, led to that law being overturned.
And don’t worry there’s much more evidence of competence to shatter your prejudice.
This author reads like a polite rant mingled with slurs that are half hinted at and never revealed in detail. He does not talk about Kamala’s myriad “accomplishments” that he refers to even one time. What has she either said or done that is clever, original, or worthwhile? If he cannot indicate this plainly, then what is the purpose of his article?
Also, this author is lying or doesn’t know how to listen. Vance did not call Harris a “childless cat lady”. Read the quote: “We are effectively run in this country, be it via the Democrats, be it via our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies, who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made …. “.
Nowhere in that quote is Vance calling Harris a “childless cat lady”. This author’s credibility straightaway goes out the window and he calls himself a liar with his words.
While reading this I got the distinct impression this guy never consumes anything other than the regime media – his comments for both sides read like misinformed talking points from the NYT. And then I see he’s another journalism prof. Ugh!!
This is probably a prof disease of profs.
Here you are a bit earlier Veenbaas:
“Someone called her BIPOC Barbie. That’s a great nickname!!”
So where do your principles come from Jim?
Or do you just pretend no one’s ever going to challenge your use of the sexist, misogynistic comment ‘BIPOC Barbie’ ?
BIPOC – Black, Indigenous, and people of color
Barbie – A female fashion doll – totally submissive to any fetish a man might demand.
Trump has not been impeached twice. Impeachment proceedings were started twice and failed twice. So one can reasonably assume that the author of the article is all too willing to accept ‘accusations’ as evidence.
To be impeached is to be charged, regardless of the subsequent verdict. Trump was impeached twice, and acquitted twice. Bill Clinton was impeached and acquitted. Nixon was impeached, but resigned before the process was concluded.
The language is dishonest. He should have said unsuccessfully impeached twice.
That said, female Democrats are busy knitting their pink p***y cat hats for the second round. Meow.
Meow? 😉
I want Trump to win but, as noted in the article, so far the Dems are much better at attacking Trump/Vance than the Republicans are at attacking Harris (yes, I know the msm is 200% behind Harris which puts Trump at a disadvantage).
She has such a long, unimpressive record in public life but, for some inexplicable reason, all the Republicans can do is call her names. Why don’t they highlight her failures and inconsistent policies? Why don’t they highlight her stated (often contradictory) positions on issues most Americans care about?
I really hope the Republicans get their act together soon.
“Calling people names” is how Trump campaigns.
Seriously? They all do it. We still have no idea what Harris will do as president. At least Trump will speak about the isuues.
Do note Trump has always only targeted individuals by bestowing nicknames on them, in fact what has turned out to be a clever shorthand to encapsulate their personas. However, Trump had NEVER disparaged the electorate at large as have Hillary’s ‘irredeemable deplorables’, Obama’s ‘bitter Bible clingers’ and Biden ‘You-Ain’t-Black-unless-you-vote-Democrat’ just one of the latter’s myriad racist remarks.
Fully agree. You can only get so far finding fault with your opponents and riding the wave of backstreet anger without offering something positive to the voters. If I lived in the States, I’d be most likely a fence sitter and would be curious about what each side has to say about the things of importance to me (cost of living, taxes, crime, job opportunities etc.). As much as I dislike wokeism, the identity politics and personalities of politicians have been discussed to death. I am tired even of hearing about these things. Give me the real stuff. Give me a plausible action plan.
Why don’t they highlight her failures and inconsistent policies?
They have done that, specifically the border. The media’s response was to claim that Harris was never the border czar, despite an avalanche of evidence to the contrary. If they will lie about or hide something so obvious, what makes you think they won’t hide other arguments against her that are also based on substance?
Give it a chance. Kamala just nominated Walz – enough fuel for myriad fires.
This article is a masterclass in how to purvey propaganda. It is filled with claims, “facts”, subtle spins of fact, and the like. Consider the following quotes:
“No one wants J.D. Vance to be President. Even Trump isn’t prepared to say his running mate is well-suited for the job.”
–
Who is “no one”? How can the author prove that “Trump is not prepared to say _____ is ‘well-suited’ for the job”? Was this question even asked?
“Voters are now deeply concerned about Trump’s age, health, mental acuity and viability in office — concerns that are especially salient because his VP choice is one of the least popular picks in modern history.”
–
Who are these nameless “voters”? Has the author provided polls indicating the “popularity” of specific VP picks in previous history?
“On the Republican side of the equation, the candidate is a twice-impeached former president who recently survived an assassination attempt. Since he was last on the ballot, Trump has also been convicted of multiple felonies with myriad other criminal and civil cases pending.”
–
Trump, a Republican, was impeached by Democrats, fined by Democrats, and convicted by Democrats. One Democrat judge and twelve Democrat jurors voted to convict one Republican. That does not make him a “convicted felon”.
“Rather than focusing on any of the genuine weaknesses described above, he’s tried to portray Harris as unintelligent, weak, and not black enough. Other Republicans have called her a DEI hire; J.D. Vance, meanwhile, has previously referred to her as a “childless cat lady”.”
–
Notice the language: He’s “tried” to portray (in other words, he’s unsuccessfully tried this, because [hints the author] it is untrue). Also, Trump did not say she is not “black enough”; the author is making up words willy-nilly. He said that she began her Senate career identifying primarily as Indian and only later identified as Black once it became politically advantageous to do so.
–
The accurate quote from Vance is: “We are effectively run in this country, be it via the Democrats, be it via our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies, who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made …. “.
“But these kinds of attacks are unlikely to stick. In fact, they echo precisely the kind of thing that has been alienating prospective Democratic voters from their party over the past decade: a focus on niche identity and “very online” discourses over the bread-and-butter issues that voters actually care about.”
–
The author’s syntax is poor and leaves his meaning unclear. Democrats focus on trans and LGBTQIA+ issues, opening up our borders, granting the vote to illegal immigrants, raising taxes, deficit spending and endless borrowing, onerous regulations, and the like.
Republicans focus on increased prosperity, secure borders and families, religious freedom, lowering taxes, reducing regulations, and similar bread-and-butter issues.
“Incidentally, these lines of attack also exemplify what many have consistently found unpalatable about the Republican nominee: his pettiness, his lack of basic decency, his inability to conduct himself in a manner befitting his office. ”
–
Perhaps the author can oblige us with a few (true) examples of the blatant character assassination that flows with ease from his poisonous tongue.
“In the coming months, Republicans will likely sharpen their attacks … ”
–
Notice the use of “attacks”; the author indicated above what (in his view) these ‘attacks’ are based on. He is attempting in cause the reader to think that the Republicans are ‘attacking’ the noble Kamala Harris, but she will surely fend off their deceitful assault.
“It is also the case, though, that Harris probably won’t be able to rely on her opponents’ incompetence forever. It’s not enough for her to coast on the current positive shifts.”
–
The author, having built a house on sand (did he prove incompetence?) is now attempting to add a second story to it. He hasn’t at all indicated what this supposed “incompetence” is composed of.
–
Notice that he doesn’t say Harris will coast on her “accomplishments”, as these are few and far between, but again he uses nameless “positive shifts”. Whatever that means.
Marxism is almost like an intellectual ponzi scheme. Each person that tries to defend the last clown trying to defend it starts using more and more ridiculous clown arguments. It’s an infinite regress.
Marxism? Where does marxism come into this?
A Marxist ethos undergirds progressive ideology.
You can also argue that a fascist ethos undergirds conservative ideology, it’s an extreme position either way
Exactly!
What on Earth has this has to do with anything? Neither of the main political parties in the US is remotely “Marxist”. But let’s just try and make faux arguments based on redefining terminology. “Fascist” is of course similar.
He does go on a bit. He is a sociologist.
In the USA, it’s been the sociologists in academia that have pushed and fired up the woke / intersectional movement which has been tearing the country apart.
His final paragraph is probably accurate though.
Harris is not ‘accomplished’ and soon enough that will be made evident. Her first pick of Walz as VP is evidence of her lack of judgment.
Well said ..and very much agree with the use of mainstream media propaganda to illustrate his points. So unfortunate.
Jesus dude, three separate comments on this article. Stop comparing this to something out of the Kremlin or the PRC. Talk about hyperbole, yikes. Yes, the author did some generalizing, but most of his points are salient enough.
I like Trump as a president, well, definitely a lot more than I like where the left is headed, anyway. He will get my vote in November. But come on, this guy acts like a complete fool when he speaks off the cuff. Just go on YouTube and watch any of his campaign rallies, or public appearances.
Your response looks like a bunch of semantics to defend Trump and Vance, but it makes you look like such a shill.
I don’t find Vance to be a particularly likeable human yet, but that also isn’t the most important thing to me. It comes down to doing the job. Being a likeable person is icing on the cake. I don’t think his perspective here is that far off.
After four years of Biden getting his mental acuity bashed (and rightfully so), Trump’s age does concern me. Biden’s age concerned me more, but now Trump is the old guy. He still seems with it, but a lot can change in four years, so I don’t think these concerns are completely unfounded either.
Describing political parties as “attacking” one another is perfectly normal, and I think you are also reading into this way too much.
Philip, thank you for your comment. I typically confine myself to one response, but this article is unusual on Unherd for containing actual, blatant falsehoods. I enjoy reading contrary opinions, but not fibs, lies, and slander. This author is a liar, and his lies should be named in detail, which I have done
How dare you doubt the demigod Trump and his crony vp choice. Of course the Republicans have a leadership issue, you need to be blindly ideological to not see it. Trump just wants to win at all costs, he doesn’t give a hoot about the people, and he will deny the election results again as he did in 2020 and create chaos (unless he wins of course, then the people will have spoken in his favor).
Exactly. As a bay area reformed Dem, Vance on the ticket makes it easier to vote Republican. Locals have always seen Harris as a vacuous, ambitious playa.
I dislike Harris and the Democrats, but Trump is in my opinion a poor candidate and always has been, not only from the point of view of policy but also politics – he has lost for the Republicans more times than he has won.
This article is to my mind reasonably balanced on the politics of the campaign – it doesn’t have to represent the authors own views ! It may well have its faults and yes the popularity or not of JD Vance should be evidenced.
However your comments are so extremely partisan they are in a completely different league! You’re comment that the author suggest that Kamala Harris is somehow “noble” is for one utterly risible.
All too many people on here don’t even seem to know what objectivity is, let alone at least try and practice it.
What does ‘risible’ mean, Andrew? I’m afraid your vocabulary is too complex for me ….. 😉
The honeymoon phase will never be over with authors such as this shilling for Harris.
She never had one, it was all astroturfed and was ridiculously cringe. I get the impression those in power want her to be the next Obama along with having the personality cult that grew around him, but that wont work. The reason being that she has no charisma and is replant personality wise to many people, she is handicap do to not having any of Obama’s political skill. also the media environment has changed rapidly in the las ten years as well as the state of the country with it being polarized. I fear the the Identitarianism will get worse under her do to dem base desperately wanted to elect a female and black one at that in order to feel better about themselves.
The comments indicate that Unherders have been quick to spot the flaws in this article. I am experiencing the same when discussing the issue with friends and relatives: their opinions are a ‘tell’ on what flavour of media they consume. When it became obvious Biden had to step aside the reason was subtly adjusted to be age, not cognitive decline. Now suddenly Trump’s age is an issue too.
Biden didn’t actually promise that he would make a black woman his VP but he did say that four black women were on the shortlist and that he owed black women for supporting him over his career. So yes, Harris is pretty much a DEI hire.
Aside from the usual celebrity cheerleaders, Harris’s California political pedigree should work against her as the state is increasingly setting itself as the example of what not to do – about anything.
It isn’t just “flaws” in the article, this is propaganda. The author is straight-out lying, spinning, and making-up quotes as he goes along. This is a Kremlin or China Today piece and has no place in Unherd. I’m glad to hear viewpoints from all sides, but this author is lying.
Certainly, the levels of accuracy and intellectual curiosity are open to debate. Example: the “cat lady” statement. The author links to an NPR piece.
The NPR is referencing statements made in 2021
“In a 2021 interview with Fox News host Tucker Carlson, then-Senate-candidate Vance complained that the U.S. was being run by Democrats, corporate oligarchs and “a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too.”
“It’s just a basic fact — you look at Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, AOC — the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children,” Vance continued. “And how does it make any sense that we’ve turned our country over to people who don’t really have a direct stake in it?”
The problem is that according to the NPR, Harris has two stepchildren. They and their biological mother claim Kamala was/is a wonderful mother figure.
Vance’s statements are four years old and it looks like he incorrectly included Harris in a group that he was targeting with his opinion. It’s now being used against him in the media wars but does it mean that his argument is invalid or do voters actually care? The author didn’t ask.
“However, despite Harris’s obvious virtues,” Being a woman of colour are her only obvious characteristics and are not virtues as they were bestowed on her, not earned.
I lightweight analysis that ignores the changing voter behaviours which are increasingly focused on policies and policy choices and not on race and gender.
despite Harris’s obvious virtues,
Like what? Harris was summarily rejected by Democrat voters in 2020. Her campaign ended without gaining a single vote or delegate. Her key assignment in the administration – that of border czar – can only be called a success if eliminating the border was the goal.
The “honeymoon” was a manufactured attempt at hiding the reality of that Kamala Harris is a political lightweight who is even less popular than Joe Biden. But she makes for it by being a lousy manager with poor leadership skills, but that’s only according to people who’ve worked for her.
“Word salad” underplays the problem significantly. Calling it a salad sounds almost pleasant. But I’ve never heard a non-demented adult talk like that before, ever. Rambling and empty rhetoric is a common enough problem in politics, but when Harris speaks there’s clearly something very different going wrong.
I don’t mean there’s a medical problem, I just mean she doesn’t seem able to organize thoughts in a coherent way at all, about anything, to a much greater extreme than anyone else out there. The parts of her brain responsible for making words are firing but nothing seems to be connected to them so we get language that sounds like an early-gen poorly trained AI: full of repetition and awkward loops that seem to be trying to home in on whatever the most likely next word is, without any regard for higher level structure.
Please tell me this sort of speech doesn’t indicate something fundamentally concerning about her thought patterns – and remember these are from speeches where she prepared and got up on a podium, not ad hoc answers when she was surprised:
or
Search YouTube for “Kamala Harris Ultimate Word Salad Compilation” for more.
This is remarkably like the kind of language AIs generate when their next token function is top(1) instead of randomized a bit. If you pick the exactly most probable next word with no “surprise factor”, you get these kinds of pseudo-grammatical loops that don’t mean anything.
Right up until she replaced Biden everyone acknowledged this problem. Even liberal stalwart The Daily Show did a segment mocking her by likening her to a yoga crystal healer type (but that’s offensive to crystal healers). Now of course suddenly there’s nothing and academics are desperate to tell us about how brilliant she is.
This analysis comparing her utterances to an AI chatbot is fascinating and hadn’t occurred to me before. Many thanks for pointing it out!
She even challenges Judith Butler for word salad queen.
“full of repetition and awkward loops that seem to be trying to home in on whatever the most likely next word is, without any regard for higher level structure.” Or exactly the sort of discourse found in “Critical (Fill in Blank) Studies” among the denizens of contemporary groves of academe. Ms. Harris is perhaps unusual only in that she went on to law school, rather than aiming for the presidency of Harvard.
Lots of the best essays on Unherd are heavily linked to back up claims, I think Mary Harrington does this well for example. Lots of opinions marskerading as facts here. I agree with some, but opinions should be framed as such.
Author doesn’t know basic facts.
Bush senior lost election as serving president to Bill Clinton in 1992
The writer talks about Trump “losing” in 2016 and it being the only case of an incumbent not getting 2 terms “since 1980”. Well 1980 wasn’t long ago and the fraud pattern and spread in 2020 was unlike anything since the carpet bagger era – kramaaala might as well campaign on the DemRat Mayor daly’s slogan from the 60s – vote early, vote often. The writer talks about the USA as if this were the 1950s thru 80s when nearly everyone accepted the social contract enshrined in the constitution when in reality our great nation is Balkanised. The hanging chads for the GOP and wholesale fraud of the ‘Rats are the story here. Not some dumb broad who thinks all Jamaicans smoke weed.( I worked there, they’re not all stoners and many are devout Christians.)
Boy, you lost me on “No one wants JD Vance to be President.” If you’re that far off base on this, what reason to read further?!
Thanks for a good article with many interesting links. Particularly useful your article Some Awkward Truths About the “Big Lie”I tend to assume peoples statements are attempts to communicate factual positions that they really believe, maybe I am neurodivergent! but its true, as you say, these utterances have nothing to do with actual beliefs.
Harris may be on the autistic spectrum? Some of the traits described suggest so.
“Precedents from abroad suggest that, because this is a tactic usually deployed by parties heading for certain defeat, candidate substitution typically improves a party’s performance, but not enough to change the overall outcome of the race.”
And even the opposite in the case of the UK’s 1945 General Election when the Conservative candidate Winston Churchill, who had ‘won the war overseas’ was comprehensively defeated by his wartime deputy the Labour Party’s Clement Attlee, a brilliant administrator, who had ‘kept the peace’ and almost the entire population alive at home, won a landslide victory, with a majority of 145 seats.
The unexpected and unpredictable – one of the great characteristics of democracy.