“Taking responsibility for oneself is empowering and freeing, but often it’s easier to point fingers and make others the villain of our stories.” — Unknown
By Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel
CHULA VISTA, California — When I think about how Kamala Harris ran her campaign, she faced significant challenges, some of which stemmed from her campaign’s messaging strategies and public perception issues. Here are several key factors that played into her campaign’s difficulties:
Harris failed to understand what the average American citizen was going through whenever they went to the store to purchase groceries. Housing costs and the rising utility bills made American citizens feel resentment and anger. When the inflation rate exceeds the typical family’s income, the people begin to feel she is not listening to their financial pain. Hollywood actors gave the impression that Harris appealed to the wealthy and powerful and did not relate well to the working class, who found Trump’s message more assuring.
Over the last four years, the Democratic Party seemed obsessed with promoting expensive EV vehicles, and their promise to eliminate the combustive engine made transportation difficult. Democratic leaders were again out of touch with the soaring rise of energy. Harris’s messaging may not have sufficiently or effectively addressed these top voter priorities, which could have impacted her appeal among crucial voter segments.
Politicians running for the Presidency must be articulate and persuasive. Kamala’s endless word-salads and repetitious communication style gave the impression she had little ability to think while standing on her feet. Had she possessed the oratorical skills of Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, she probably would have done a lot better.
Harris’s campaign tone may have been perceived as too critical. This is significant in political campaigns, where candidates’ conduct can heavily influence voter sentiment. Negative campaigning has often been seen to backfire if it goes beyond what voters are comfortable with. Rather than stressing her plans for improving the country, Harris focused on invoking Trump’s name dozens of times. Decent people have a strong disdain for negative campaigning.
Initially, I thought when Tony Hinchcliffe made crude jokes about Latinos having babies and called Puerto Rico a “floating island of garbage,” I thought this October surprise might have doomed Trump, even though most of the people at Madison Square Garden booed the stupid comedian. But when President Biden called Trump supporters “garbage,” Trump cleverly donned the uniform of a garbage man. Working at McDonald’s showed that Trump was endearing and likable. Biden seemed to be passive-aggressive when “supporting” Harris, especially when he wore a MAGA hat!
Trump has the charisma and spirit of President Andrew Jackson and PT Barnum combined with a dash of Teddy Roosevelt. His marketing was ingenious and endearing. Donald Trump and Andrew Jackson both leveraged populist appeal and anti-establishment rhetoric in their presidential campaigns. They positioned themselves as representatives of the “common man,” fighting against political elites. Both were controversial figures, utilizing media effectively to communicate directly with voters—Jackson through supportive newspapers and Trump via social media. Their presidencies were marked by strong nationalism and contentious policies; Jackson’s most notable accomplishment included the Indian Removal Act, while Trump focused on strict immigration policies. Each faced significant election controversies, with Jackson’s 1824 loss involving claims of a “corrupt bargain” and Trump raising issues of electoral interference and voting irregularities. Their strategies reshaped American politics by mobilizing a base of ardent supporters and challenging traditional political norms.
Maybe the most serious problem affecting Harris’s campaign was her inability to focus on a positive and coherent message. Political commentators and campaign consultants often scrutinize campaign ads, labeling them as “powerful” or “game-changing,” though the effectiveness of these ads is often overestimated. The infamous “daisy ad” that President Lyndon Johnson deployed against Barry Goldwater and others like it didn’t demonstrably alter voter behavior as much as is popularly believed. Research in political science shows that negative ads don’t consistently work; they might make the attacked candidate look bad, but they can also make the attacker seem negative. Moreover, while negative ads are memorable, they don’t necessarily convert to votes and are not effective at boosting voter turnout.
Research also counters the common belief that negative campaigning depresses turnout. Instead, it might slightly mobilize voters by highlighting the election’s stakes. Most campaign ads, positive or negative, don’t significantly impact whether people vote. Personal interaction, rather than impersonal broadcast ads, tends to be more effective at mobilizing voters.
Political advertising also has no “secret sauce” that guarantees success. The myriad details of ads, from the use of color and music to the choice of voiceover, do not conclusively sway voters. The effectiveness of these elements is dubious, and even if an effective formula were found, it would likely be quickly adopted by others, neutralizing any advantage. Thus, while campaign ads are costly, their impact on election outcomes is limited and often overstated by those who stand to profit from their production.
Choosing Tom Walz over Josh Shapiro as VP was a dreadful mistake. Josh Shapiro would have helped her claim Pennsylvania.
In short, the Democratic Party should have fielded a stronger candidate than Kamala Harris. I hope the party leadership finds a superior candidate to unite our country better. President Trump’s Teflon personality helped him, and his family weather numerous cases designed to deter him from running, showing that the United States is tired of the politics of lawfare. In addition, let’s not forget how he survived two assassination attempts. I hope the Democratic Party can extricate itself from the ghosts of Clinton and Obama. Trump showed a fearlessness seldom seen in politics.
*
Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel is spiritual leader of Temple Beth Shalom in Chula Vista.
Rabbi Samuel, you state that Vice President Kamala Harrris ” failed to understand what the average American citizen was going through whenever they went to the store to purchase groceries as well as housing costs and the rising utility bills.
https://apnews.com/article/harris-economy-taxes-homes-food-prices-insurance-e1ad3f26f2ce8e6cb365a4ffe2ca3e6b
https://apnews.com/article/harris-economy-taxes-homes-food-prices-insurance-e1ad3f26f2ce8e6cb365a4ffe2ca3e6b
https://nlihc.org/resource/harris-campaign-releases-plans-lower-housing-costs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWtZB0KHmmk
“Kamala’s endless word-salads and repetitious communication style”: As an educated attorney with a Juris Doctorate, and a successful prosecutor polished in courtrooms, she is skilled in solid comprehensible oratory. Please give me links to at least two examples of this word salad allegation.
Are you absolutely unaware that Trump closed down a McDOnald’s and staged the entire McDOnald’s skit? Are you aware it was because Harris had actualy worked at one in her younger years, as as member of the workign class. Trump is now and always has been out of touch with poor and working class people. Did you really not know any of this?
The Indian Removal Act. Are you actually PRAISING Jackson’s racist act that resulted in The tail of Tears and deaths of Native Americans? The Indian Removal Act of 1830 was a law that allowed President Andrew Jackson to negotiate treaties with Native American tribes to relocate them from their homelands in existing states to unsettled land west of the Mississippi River. While some tribes accepted the act, many resisted. For example, the Cherokees were forcibly removed in 1838–1839 on a march that became known as the Trail of Tears. It’s estimated that around 100,000 Native Americans were forced from their homes and 15,000 died during the Trail of Tears. The ones who resued to leave were told they could no longer be Indian. Today they are the Eastern Band Cherokee tribe.
Trump/Vance ran the negative campaign, with a constant stream of racist and sexist comments. Trump is the “grab them by the P***y” guy, referring to women and so many more disturbing things. Vance is no better and perhaps even more disturbing as a future presidential candidate. THey outright lie.
Harris has put in 200% as a leader and yet her detractors lie and falsely claim she is unintelligent, arrogant, uneducated, lazy and only got anything in life because she is a Black woman. This is all the lies of racist people. Wag the dog style. You need not call a Black person the n-word to show that is what you think of them. You simply use words like “angry”, “arrogant”, “lazy” and “stupid” and lie about who she is as well as denigrate her reputation
This op/ed is lacking in facts. I hope you will read the links and give examples and respond.
“The most disrespected person in America is the Black woman. The most unprotected person in America is the Black woman. The most neglected person in America is the Black woman.” ~ Malcolm X.
Kamala Harris’ loss was not surprising at all. However, the reason, in my view, why the Democratic party lost the presidency is not because they chose Harris as their candidate, although she did run an abysmal campaign based on the fear of the other guy and no real proposals, but because of Democratic party itself. Until they stop pointing fingers at the voters and call half of the country racists etc. and begin to look introspectively how to get it together and connect with an average voter in America, they are going to be losing elections. They have become completely detached from reality, no real platform to run on besides pondering to the fringe groups on the left. It did not start on October 7th, but after October 7th it is certainly brought it home to many voters, especially Jewish voters. When the party does not care enough to combat antisemitism and anti-American rhetoric and actions on the streets of our cities and college campuses, when feminist organizations who are now crying over Trump’s win stay completely silent about what happened to Jewish women on October 7th and silent about Jewish girls still being held hostage, while appeasing pro Hamas fraction of their party, it is hard to vote for them. And let’s not forget economic challenges average Americans are facing that Democratic party is not addressing because they are busy with DEI departments and virtue signaling. As reported by Tablet Magazine, 48 out of 50 states shifted republican. Even in blue California, 10 of California’s 58 counties flipped from blue to red — choosing Joe Biden in 2020 and Trump in 2024. That includes Orange Country which gave 49.2% of its vote to Trump and 48.2% to Harris. If Democratic Party is going to continue to not listen to the voters at large and not going to make some changes and shake up inside the party, they are going to lose next election also.
Thank you, Rabbi, for your analysis. It was cogent and very, very accurate.
Kamala was the worst candidate that the Dems could have chosen. She has a long, long history of incompetence. She is arrogant and very difficult to work with and for. 94% of her Staff quit. She is demonstrably lazy.
The decision to select Kamala, most likely linked to her racial background and gender, not her ability, reflected the decay the Democrat Party had sunk to under Obama’s leadership.
If she truly had abilities in the political world, she should have chosen Josh Shapiro for V.P. She might have won.
Gavin Newsom is, to most of the country, a typical California nut case politician who has driven one of the most magnificent states in the Union into the ground.
Josh Shapiro, if the extremists in the Democrat Party can be pushed aside, could be the 28 nominee and possibly the 48th President of the U.S.