It's Kamala Harris's nomination to lose in 2028 — and she's already losing it
Maybe the Democratic insiders in Washington were right about Kamala Harris.
Despite a wealth of advantages, Harris and her team don't seem to know what to do next. Her reappearance in the public has been rather unremarkable, rehashing Democratic tropes about Donald Trump along with the expected policy bromides. That's just not going to cut it.
From the outside, it is astonishing how quickly the political cognoscenti have dismissed the former vice president. There should be no question about her being the leader of the Democratic Party, and she's an obvious front-runner for the 2028 nomination. Harris got over 75 million votes in 2024 with 95 percent of Democrats voting for her, according to the exit polls. In a party still mired in identity politics, Harris checks more boxes than any other putative Democratic candidate.
She remains popular as well, with the most recent YouGov poll showing Harris at 87 percent favorable against 9 percent unfavorable with Democrats. The McLaughlin poll has Harris at 88 percent favorable against 10 percent unfavorable.
But the cracks start to show with her ballot tests versus other Democratic hopefuls.
The most recent polling by McLaughlin has Harris with just 30 percent of Democratic primary voters, while Echelon Insights has her at 32 percent. She remains far ahead of any rivals, leading second-place Pete Buttigieg by 22 points in the Echelon poll and Gavin Newsom by 22 points in McLaughlin.
As long as Harris is in the mix, she is likely to lead all Democrats just based on name recognition. If she does run in the next election, she will lead in all national polls until the first Democratic primary contest. But can she actually win the nomination once she has to get votes on her own? Her first run in 2020 ended rather ignominiously and the 2024 nominating contest involved not much more than a spate of phone calls and allowing the weight of being the incumbent vice president to crush any potential opposition.
The last few months are showing why the D.C. establishment was extraordinarily unimpressed during her VP tryout.
The return of Harris has been, at best, desultory. Her first major address was a ChatGPT-inspired cataloguing of Democratic complaints about President Trump and perfunctory praise for her grand-standing potential rivals. Her follow-up was a private address to Australian real estate agents. Who is scheduling this nonsense?
This tentative, scattershot rollout shows the fundamental trouble with Harris and her team. They lack any strategic vision, while Harris herself seems petrified of angering or even slightly annoying anyone in her fractious party. She lacks confidence, and what charisma she has is definitely low wattage. Her polling numbers, identity qualifications (i.e., a minority woman) and ex-VP status should be intimidating to other Democrats, but nobody is afraid of Kamala.
Flirting with running for California governor is not helping. Seeking that office will end her presidential ambitions; she cannot run for governor in 2026 and president in 2028. Between the bad timing, unfortunate Nixon comparisons and immediately violating a pledge not to run for president (which she would have to make on the gubernatorial campaign trail), it's just not feasible.
That puts Harris in the mix for 2032, at the earliest. If a Democrat wins in 2028, Harris will be staring at 2036, 72 years old and likely needing to knock out an incumbent VP and whoever else jumps in.
Making matters more difficult, California is a mess policy-wise, fiscally and politically. It is hard to believe that Harris can make much more than a dent in the state's myriad problems. Plus, the politics of the state are far to the left of the rest of the country, meaning her own politics will necessarily be drawn in that direction in order to get anything done.
Harris should re-emerge aggressively — not just attacking Trump, but presenting at least a skeleton of ideas for the future. She should have a real theme. The term 'opportunity economy' that she used in 2024 wasn't great, but it is serviceable. She could be riding that. And she should absolutely ignore all other potential rivals, with the idea that they are politically beneath her. Kamala Harris is the leader, while Buttigieg, Cory Booker, J.B. Pritzker and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez can be helpful to her.
But the most important task for Harris is to escape culpability for Trump 2.0 by pinning the blame on Team Biden for losing. That doesn't mean attacking Joe — after all, he is a sick, confused old man, taken advantage of by his dissolute son and scheming inner circle. Given the revelations in the recent books 'Fight' and 'Original Sin,' this task should be easy.
It is a challenging weave, but not too difficult for a decently competent politician. Given the reporting, the best line she can deliver is that Biden's inner circle only did two things well: hide President Biden's mental infirmity and get Donald Trump elected. In a Democratic Party where the grassroots are as hostile to the establishment as the Republican grassroots, that line is a sure crowd-pleaser.
Harris has to establish herself independently. She has to take some risks bashing the Democratic insider. They never were on her side when she was vice president, so she doesn't really have much to lose.
The bottom line for Harris is that the 2028 nomination is not going to be handed to her. She is going to have to work for it and show she has the political chops to run for president on her own. That cannot be done trying to be all things to all people. Kamala Harris has all the advantages, but she is showing she doesn't know what to do with them.
Keith Naughton is co-founder of Silent Majority Strategies, a public and regulatory affairs consulting firm, and a former Pennsylvania political campaign consultant.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
13 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump asks Supreme Court to green light Education Department firings
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to give the go-ahead to carry out a plan to fire almost 40 percent of the Education Department's workforce. In an emergency appeal filed Friday morning, Solicitor General John Sauer asked the high court to lift a preliminary injunction a federal judge in Boston issued last month after determining that such sweeping staffing cuts would cripple the agency's ability to carry out functions assigned to it by Congress. While Trump has vowed to eliminate the Education Department, Sauer insisted that the proposed, wide-ranging reductions in force target 'inefficiency' and are not an attempt to kneecap the agency as the president advocates for its demise. Sauer said Boston-based U.S. District Judge Myong Joun's order was part of a pattern of federal judges overstepping their proper role and second-guessing executive branch decisions. The Constitution 'does not empower district courts to presume that all 1,400 employees must be reinstated to their previous jobs and functions based on anecdotal speculation about impairment of some of the Department's services,' Sauer wrote, adding: 'The Department remains committed to implementing its statutorily mandated functions.' Joun issued the injunction May 22 in connection with lawsuits brought by Democratic-led states, the Somerville, Massachusetts, public school system and several labor unions. Noting that Trump has repeatedly vowed to shutter the Education Department 'immediately,' the Biden appointee concluded that the layoffs amounted to 'an attempt … to shut down the Department without Congressional approval.' The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals refused to block Joun's order, although the administration's appeal remains pending. In April, the Supreme Court stepped in at the administration's request to block an order Joun issued in a separate lawsuit involving the Education Department. That directive required the agency to keep funding certain teaching-related grants that Trump appointees had sought to terminate. Four of the high court's nine justices dissented from the stay blocking Joun's order in that case. In an emergency appeal already pending at the Supreme Court, the Trump administration is trying to lift a block a federal judge in San Francisco issued on tens of thousands of layoffs at all major federal agencies except for the Education Department.
The Hill
14 minutes ago
- The Hill
Jeffries declines to embrace Musk amid the billionaire's feud with Trump
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) is keeping his distance from Elon Musk even after the billionaire's extraordinary public rebuke of President Trump and the GOP's domestic agenda. Asked Friday if Musk's bitter break from Trump presents Democrats with an opportunity to form a strange-bedfellows alliance with the tech titan, Jeffries shifted the conversation immediately to the Democrats' efforts to kill Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' 'The opportunity that exists right now is to kill the GOP tax scam,' Jeffries told reporters in the Capitol. 'It's legislation that we have been strongly opposed to, and uniformly opposed to, from the very beginning. … It rips health care away from millions of people. It snatches food out of the mouths of hungry children. And it rewards billionaires and [GOP] donors in ways that are fiscally irresponsible.' Pressed on whether Musk should be 'welcomed back' to the Democratic Party after the high-profile split from Trump, Jeffries punted again. 'Same answer,' he said. Jeffries cautious remarks demonstrate the limits of the old adage that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. They also highlight the potential difficulties Democrats would face if they embraced a polarizing and nationally unpopular figure in Musk — one they've spent most of the last year bashing for heavy spending on Trump's campaign and, more recently, for his role in heading Trump's efforts to gut the federal government. Still, some Democrats say Musk's influence is significant enough that Democrats should make the effort to try to court him to their side amid the Trump feud. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who represents parts of Silicon Valley, is leading the charge. 'If Biden had a big supporter criticize him, Trump would have hugged him the next day,' Khanna posted Thursday on X, which is owned by Musk. 'When we refused to meet with @RobertKennedyJr, Trump embraced him & won. We can be the party of sanctimonious lectures, or the party of FDR that knows how to win & build a progressive majority.' Jeffries isn't going nearly so far. But he has welcomed Musk's attacks on Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' and the Republicans who voted for it. And he aligned Democrats with Musk's sentiments that the package piles too much money onto the federal debt, a figure the Congressional Budget Office estimated to be $2.4 trillion. 'To the extent that Elon Musk has made the same point that everyone who has voted for this bill up until this moment should be ashamed of themselves, we agree,' Jeffries said. 'And to the extent that Elon Musk has made the point that the bill is a 'disgusting abomination,' we agree. And to the extent that Elon Musk has made the observation about the GOP tax scam — that it is reckless and irresponsible to explode the deficit by more than $3 trillion, and that potentially could set our country on a path toward bankruptcy — we agree.' 'These are arguments that Democrats have been making now for months.'
The Hill
14 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump administration issues rule undermining Biden car fuel efficiency rules
The Trump administration on Friday took a step to undermine Biden-era rules that tightened fuel efficiency requirements for cars and trucks. The Transportation Department published an interpretive rule that says that the Biden administration improperly considered electric vehicles as a way to make vehicle fleets more efficient While this determination does not formally end the Biden-era rule, the Trump administration indicated that while the rulemaking process plays out it may not enforce the Biden-era standards. 'Pending the rulemaking process for the establishment of replacement standards, [the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration] will exercise its enforcement authority with regard to all existing… standards in accordance with the interpretation set forth in this rule,' it stated. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, in a written statement, accused the previous administration of trying to push an electric vehicle 'mandate.' 'Under President Trump's leadership, we are making vehicles more affordable and easier to manufacture in the United States,' Duffy said. 'The previous administration illegally used [Corporate Average Fuel Economy] standards as an electric vehicle mandate.' The Biden administration issued a rule requiring cars to be about 2 percent more fuel efficient each year while heavy duty pickup trucks and vans would have to be 10 percent more efficient each year from 2030 to 2032 and 8 percent more efficient in the years after. President Trump has long talked about getting rid of the Biden administration's efforts to promote electric vehicles. He has argued that these efforts harm consumers' freedom to choose what kinds of cars they want to drive and could lead to strife for autoworkers. Democrats, meanwhile, have argued that shifting toward more electric vehicles would mitigate air pollution and climate change – and put the U.S. at the forefront of an emerging market. While Trump has long lamented the previous administration's electric vehicle policy, the release of the administration's determination comes just one day after an explosive feud emerged between the president and Tesla mogul Elon Musk. The Transportation Department rules came alongside a separate, more stringent regulation for vehicle tailpipe emissions from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that in practice has a greater effect on the vehicle market's fuel efficiency and is not impacted by the Trump administration's latest maneuver. However, the department's fuel economy rules would act as a backstop if the EPA rule was to be overturned. Republicans are attempting to eliminate that rule through their 'big, beautiful bill.'
