logo
Kamala Harris hints at a 2028 re-run, raising the question: Can a woman win?

Kamala Harris hints at a 2028 re-run, raising the question: Can a woman win?

Kamala Harris does not want to be governor of California, which has a whole lot of contenders (and some voters) doing a happy dance this week.
But with her announcement Wednesday that she is bowing out of a race she never officially entered, Harris has ignited a flurry of speculation that she's warming up for another run at the White House in 2028.
Whether you like Harris or not, a possible run by the XX chromosome former vice president raises a perennial conundrum: Can a woman win the presidency?
'This question is legitimate,' Nadia E. Brown told me.
She's a professor of government and director of the Women's and Gender Studies Program at Georgetown University. She points out that post-election, Democrats can't figure out who they are or what they stand for. In that disarray, it may seem easy and safe in 2028 to travel the well-worn route of 'a straight, old white guy who fills the status quo.'
That may be especially true in the Trump era, when an increasingly vocal and empowered slice of America seems to believe that women do, in fact, belong in the kitchen making sanwhiches, far away from any decision beyond turkey or ham.
Brown points out that even Democrats who flaunt their progressive values, including how much they'd love to vote for a female president, may harbor secret sexism that comes out in the privacy of the voting booth.
Post-2024, Harris' defeat — and deciphering what it means — has caused a lot of 'morning-after anxiety and agita,' she said. 'We're all doing research, we're all in the field trying to figure this out.'
While confused Democrats diddle in private with their feelings, Republicans have made race and gender the center of their platform, even if they cloak it under economic talk. The party's position on race has become painfully clear with its stance that all undocumented immigrants are criminals and deserving of horrific detention in places such as 'Alligator Alcatraz' or even foreign prisons known for torture.
The Republican position on women is slightly more cloaked, but no less retrograde. Whether it's the refusal to tell the public how Trump is included in the Epstein files, the swift and brutal erosion of reproductive rights, or claims, such as the one by far-right podcaster Charlie Kirk, that the only reason for women to attend college should be to get a 'Mrs.' degree, Republicans have made little secret of the fact that equality is not part of their package.
Although Trump's approval ratings have tanked over immigration, he did win just over half of the popular vote last fall. So that's a lot of Americans who either agree with him, or at least aren't bothered by these pre-civil rights ideas on race and gender.
Add to that reality the eager pack of nice, safe Democratic white guys who are lining up for their own chance at the Oval Office — our current California governor included — and it does beg the question for the left: Is a woman worth the risk?
'I've definitely seen and heard consultants and, you know, even anxious women donors say, 'Maybe this means we can't run a woman.' And I think it's completely normal for certain elements of the party to be anxious about gender,' said Mini Timmaraju, president and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All, a grassroots advocacy group.
She too thinks the gender question is 'logical' since it has been blamed — though not by her — as 'the reason we lost to Donald Trump twice in a row, right? Whereas Biden was able to beat him.'
While Timmaraju is clear that those losses can't — and shouldn't — be tied to gender alone, gender also can't be ignored when the margins are thin.
Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of the progressive political organizing group Our Revolution, which backed Bernie Sanders for president in 2016, said that gender and race are always a factor, but he believes the bigger question for any candidate in 2028 will be their platform.
Harris, he said, 'lost not because she was a woman. She lost because she did not embrace an economic populist message. And I think the electorate is angry about their standard of living declining, and they're angry about the elites controlling D.C. and enriching themselves.'
Greevarghese told me he sees an opposite momentum building within the party and the electorate — a desire to not play it safe.
'Whoever it is — male, female, gay, straight, Black, white, Asian — the candidate's got to have a critique of this moment, and it can't be a normie Dem.'
Brown, the professor, adds, rightfully, that looking at the question of a female candidate's chances through the lens of just Harris is too narrow. There are lots of women likely to jump into the race. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are just two names already in the mix. Brown adds that an outside contender such as a woman from a political dynasty (think Obama) or a celebrity along the lines of Trump could also make headway.
The criticisms of Harris, with her baggage of losing the election and critiques of how she handled the campaign and the media, may not dog another female candidate, especially with voters.
'Whether Kamala runs again or not, I'm optimistic that the American people will vote for a female president,' Vanessa Cardenas told me. She is the executive director of America's Voice, an advocacy group for immigrants' rights.
Cardenas points out that Hillary Clinton received more than 65 million votes (winning the popular vote), and Harris topped 75 million. If just Latinos had gone for Harris, instead of breaking in an ongoing rightward shift, she would have won. Cardenas thinks Latino votes could shift again in 2028.
'After the chaos, cruelty and incompetence of the Trump presidency, Latino voters, like most Americans, will reward candidates who can speak most authentically and seem most ready to fight for an alternative vision of America,' she said. 'I believe women, and women of color, can credibility and forcibly speak to the need for change rooted in the lived experiences of their communities.'
Timmaraju said that regardless of what Harris decides, Democrats will probably have one of the most robust primaries in recent times — which can only be good for the party and for voters.
And rather than asking, 'Can a woman win?' the better question would be, 'Do we really want a system that won't let them try?'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Smithsonian denies Trump admin pushed to get rid of exhibit's impeachment placard
Smithsonian denies Trump admin pushed to get rid of exhibit's impeachment placard

New York Post

time21 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Smithsonian denies Trump admin pushed to get rid of exhibit's impeachment placard

The Smithsonian on Saturday denied it was pressured into removing a placard detailing the two impeachments against President Trump at an exhibit in the National Museum of American History. The federal arts and history institution, while confirming it removed the placard from the impeachment section of its 'The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden' exhibit last month, said it did so only because of aesthetic concerns. 'We were not asked by any Administration or other government official to remove content from the exhibit,' the Smithsonian said in a statement. 4 The exhibit spotlights US presidents who were impeached — or in the case of Richard Nixon, nearly. REUTERS It explained that the move was made because 'the placard … did not meet the museum's standards in appearance, location, timeline and overall presentation. 'It was not consistent with other sections in the exhibit and moreover blocked the view of the objects inside its case. For these reasons, we removed the placard,' the Smithsonian said. 'The section in question, Impeachment, will be updated in the coming weeks to reflect all impeachment proceedings in our nation's history,' it added. 4 The impeachment display is part of a broader exhibit on the American presidency. REUTERS Last week, the Washington Post reported that references to Trump's two impeachments had been scrubbed from the exhibit and claimed that it was the result of a content review the museum chain initiated under pressure from the administration. Some lefty critics quickly jumped on the notion, ripping the administration. But the Smithsonian explained that the placard in question was intended only to be a 'temporary' add-on to the exhibit, which is about 25 years old. 4 Donald Trump is the first US president to have been impeached twice and survived. AP Trump is one of three US presidents to have been impeached, or had charges brought against him, by the House, alongside Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. All three were eventually acquitted by the Senate. Former President Richard Nixon is also mentioned in the Smithsonian display, although he resigned right before he could be impeached over Watergate. The first impeachment against Trump in 2019 was over his alleged pressure campaign to leverage aid for Ukraine to entice the US ally to dig up dirt on the Biden family. His second impeachment took place over the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Trump is also the first former or sitting US president to be criminally indicted — something he also survived. The charges involved falsifying business records. Trump's White House team has been leaning on the Smithsonian to root out wokeness in its policies and exhibits. In March, the president signed an executive order seeking to eliminate any alleged divisive narratives and to champion 'American' values. 4 Smithsonian officials denied that political interference led to the removal of a placard detailing Trump's impeachments. REUTERS 'The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden' exhibit opened to the public in 2000 and features a photo from Johnson's impeachment, copies of a report that sparked Clinton's impeachment and a battered filing cabinet from the Watergate controversy. Trump is briefly mentioned in a web-page companion to the exhibit.

White House officials defend Trump's firing of BLS chief
White House officials defend Trump's firing of BLS chief

The Hill

time21 minutes ago

  • The Hill

White House officials defend Trump's firing of BLS chief

White House officials on Sunday defended President Trump's decision to fire the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) following a weak jobs report, a move that has sparked broad criticism. 'The president wants his own people there so that when we see the numbers, they're more transparent and more reliable,' Kevin Hassett, chair of the National Economic Council, said on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' Hassett said in another interview on 'Fox News Sunday' that the BLS commissioner has a responsibility to explain major revisions such as the one seen in Friday's jobs report, which showed 258,000 fewer jobs for prior months than initially reported. 'The big downward revision is something of a puzzle. I don't think it was explained very well. And I think that markets might be as much unsettled by the fact that the data are so noisy,' Hassett said. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, one of Trump's top tariff negotiators, said in an interview that aired on CBS's 'Face the Nation' Sunday that the president has 'real concerns' about the jobs numbers reported by the Labor Department. 'Even last year during the campaign, there were enormous swings in the jobs numbers, and so sounds to me like the president has real concerns. You know, not just based on today's, but everything we saw last year,' Greer said in the interview taped on Friday. 'You want to be able to have somewhat reliable numbers,' he added. 'There are always revisions, but sometimes you see these revisions go in really extreme ways. And it's, you know, the president is the president. He can choose who works in the executive branch.' Trump on Friday directed his team to fire BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer after the latest jobs report showed the country only adding 73,000 jobs in July, and major revisions for jobs added in May and June. The move prompted immediate outcry from Democrats and a handful of Republicans, with some calling for an investigation. McEntarfer was nominated by former President Biden and overwhelmingly confirmed by the GOP-led Senate early last year in an 86-8 vote. Trump's advisers underscored the president's concerns about revisions to the labor data while defending McEntarfer's firing. Hassett noted that jobs data reported by the government has seen major swings since the COVID-19 pandemic. 'What we've seen over the last few years is massive revisions to the jobs numbers. In fact, they were extremely reliable, the kind of numbers that you want to guide policy decisions and markets, through COVID. And then when COVID happened, because response rates went down a lot, then revision rates skyrocketed. So the typical monthly revision often was bigger than the number itself,' Hassett said on NBC. Trump, in axing the BLS chief, claimed without evidence that McEntarfer 'faked the Jobs Numbers' before the 2024 election in order to boost former Vice President Kamala Harris's White House bid, citing labor statistics revisions during the Biden administration that boosted job numbers ahead of the election. The president accused her of manipulating data to make him and Republicans look bad, writing on Truth Social on Friday, 'She will be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified. Important numbers like this must be fair and accurate, they can't be manipulated for political purposes.' McEntarfer reacted to Trump's firing of her in a social media post over the weekend, saying it was the 'honor of my life' to serve in the role and hailing the 'vital and important work' carried out by civil servants at the agency.

Senate confirms Jeanine Pirro as US Attorney for DC
Senate confirms Jeanine Pirro as US Attorney for DC

The Hill

time21 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Senate confirms Jeanine Pirro as US Attorney for DC

The Senate on Saturday night confirmed President Trump's pick Jeanine Pirro as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Pirro, a former Fox News host and prosecutor who served as district attorney for Westchester County in New York, was confirmed along party lines in a 50-45 vote. Sens. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) did not vote. Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated the vote in a post on social platform X. 'Congratulations to my dear friend @USAttyPirro on her confirmation today! Jeanine is not only a wonderful person — she is a warrior for law and order,' Bondi wrote. 'I am absolutely thrilled to work side by side with my friend to keep Washington, DC safe,' she added. In a post on Saturday, Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Pirro 'should never be a permanent U.S. Attorney.' 'She endorsed the firing of January 6 prosecutors. She recklessly spread the Big Lie to the point her *own producers* had to tell her to cool it. Ultimately, she's a rubber stamp for Donald Trump,' he wrote. The Judiciary panel gave its approval to Pirro in mid-July despite Democratic backlash. Democrats walked out of a business meeting after debate on Pirro and another controversial Trump nominee was cut short. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said in his own X post that it was 'a sad moment for the Senate and the country.' 'Republicans just confirmed Jeanine Pirro as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Yes, the same Judge Jeanine that even Fox News said was 'crazy' and had to take off the air. How can they vote to confirm these people?' the Democratic senator wrote. Pirro, who has been serving as the interim U.S. Attorney in D.C. since May, thanked Trump in a post on X 'for giving me the opportunity to bring justice to the swamp in D.C.' and she shared a message for the city: 'get ready for a real crime fighter.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store