Kamala Harris mocked for post celebrating one-year anniversary of failed presidential campaign
Former Vice President Kamala Harris was mocked on Monday for commemorating the one-year anniversary of the start of her failed presidential campaign.
One year ago Monday, then-President Joe Biden announced via social media that he would be dropping out of the presidential race.
He shortly thereafter endorsed Harris, who went on to become the Democratic nominee for the 2024 presidential election.
Advertisement
Harris celebrated the anniversary by writing a post on X with photos from her past campaign.
'One year ago today, I began my campaign for President of the United States. Over the 107 days of our race, I had the opportunity and honor to travel our nation and meet with Americans who were fighting for a better future. And today, millions of Americans continue to stand up for our values, our ideals, and our democracy. Their courage and resolve inspires me. Whether you are attending a protest, calling your representatives, or building community, I want to say: Thank you. We are in this fight together,' Harris wrote.
4 Former Vice President Kamala Harris was mocked on Monday for commemorating the one-year anniversary of the start of her failed presidential campaign.
@KamalaHarris/X
Many social media users were not as impressed, with some pointing out that she neglected to reference Biden in the photos or the post.
Advertisement
'You didn't get a single primary vote. How very democratic,' Twitchy's Amy Curtis wrote.
RNC Research, managed by the Republican National Committee, posted, 'Becoming the presidential nominee without getting a single vote is not the flex you think it is.'
4 One year ago Monday, then-President Joe Biden announced via social media that he would be dropping out of the presidential race.
@KamalaHarris/X
4 Harris celebrated the anniversary by writing a post on X with photos from her past campaign.
@KamalaHarris/X
Advertisement
Washington Free Beacon investigative reporter Chuck Ross joked, 'lol. complete Joe Biden erasure.'
Political commentator Link Lauren agreed, 'No mention of Biden again. Really trying to erase her association with him. She was there in lockstep with that failing administration. I don't have amnesia.'
'I wonder what caused that campaign to begin on July 21,' National Review senior writer Dan McLaughlin remarked.
4 Many social media users were not as impressed, with some pointing out that she neglected to reference Biden in the photos or the post.
@RantyAmyCurtis/X
'One year ago today, I began my campaign for President of the United States.' Oh wow, I remember that. What did Drew Barrymore call you? Momala? Oooh, and Beyonce endorsed you, right? How did you work out? Did you win?' author John Hawkins joked.
'Your failure and reputation were complete,' Townhall.com columnist Kurt Schlichter wrote.
Fox News Digital reached out to Harris' team for comment.
Advertisement
FEC filings showed the Harris campaign spent more than $1 billion in three months, including spending on celebrity influencers, radical activist groups and private jets.
She lost to President Donald Trump in November.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Paramount, Skydance expected to close deal on Aug. 7
Paramount and Skydance announced Friday that, with the Trump administration's approval, the highly anticipated merger between the entertainment giants is expected to take place next month. The Aug. 7 date, unveiled in a press release, comes after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Thursday allowed Skydance's acquisition of Paramount to move forward after the merger was first proposed last year. FCC Chair Brendan Carr in announcing the decision said he welcomed Skydance's commitment to remaining 'unbiased' in its journalism and willingness to promote 'a diversity of viewpoints across the political and ideological spectrum.' 'Americans no longer trust the legacy national news media to report fully, accurately, and fairly,' Carr added. 'It is time for a change.' The move caps off months of turmoil between Paramount Global, the parent company of CBS, and President Trump. Trump sued CBS's '60 Minutes' last year after he argued an interview it aired with former Vice President Harris was altered in her favor during the 2024 presidential election cycle. While the company fought the claims, including releasing a full transcript from the episode, it ultimately settled with the administration for $16 million. Those funds are set to go to Trump's eventual presidential library. The news outlet has also faced criticism in recent days after CBS made the decision to sunset 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert' next May, after more than 30 years on air. Paramount said the move was based on finances, but critics have argued the settlement and Skydance deal were likely involved — and bribery allegations have been floated. Comedian Stephen Colbert, who has hosted the show since 2015, has been openly critical of the merger. Colbert blasted the network earlier this week for choosing to axe the show and thanked those who have reached out in support, including Democrats, press freedom advocates and many of his late-night counterparts. He added that 'one key mistake' the network made when moving forward with the plan is that 'they left me alive.' Colbert also lashed out at Trump after the president said in a post online that he 'absolutely' loved that the comedian was getting 'fired.' 'How dare you, sir,' the host responded. 'Would an untalented man be able to compose the following satirical witticism: 'Go f‑‑‑ yourself.'' Under the terms of the $8 billion merger, the company will become 'New Paramount' and will be led by Trump-ally and billionaire David Ellison, the son of tech tycoon and Oracle founder Larry Ellison.
Politico
13 minutes ago
- Politico
Americans don't approve of Trump. But they don't like Democrats either.
While voters still have significant concerns over the president's and the Republican Party's handling of the economy, inflation, tariffs and foreign policy, the majority of respondents nonetheless say they trust Republicans more to handle those issues in Congress. Despite criticism of the administration's handling of inflation — disapproval outweighed approval by 11 points in the poll — the Republican Party, by 10 points, is trusted more than Democrats to deal with inflation. That's the same case when it comes to thoughts on the president's drastic tariffs policy. By 17 points, voters disapproved of Trump's handling of tariffs, while still trusting Republicans more on the issue to Democrats by 7 points. Health care and vaccine policy are the only two policy issues in which respondents favor Democrats to Republicans on. Both Trump and the Republican Party at large are also disliked by more Americans than liked, but by far lower margins than Democrats in this survey. The president has a -7 point net unfavorability, while the GOP is at -11 in the WSJ survey. The Journal poll has found Trump's favorability rating to be relatively stable through the beginning of his second term. But other recent surveys have found far lower approval ratings for Trump. 'The Democratic brand is so bad that they don't have the credibility to be a critic of Trump or the Republican Party,' Anzalone told the newspaper. 'Until they reconnect with real voters and working people on who they're for and what their economic message is, they're going to have problems.' Despite widespread irritation of Democrats, voters still said that if an election was held today, they would back a Democrat for Congress over a Republican by 3 points, 46 to 43 percent. It's still a drop from this time in 2017, six months into Trump's first term, when Democrats held an 8-point advantage in that category. The Journal polled 1,500 registered voters, conducted from July 16-20 by landline and cellphone. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.
The Hill
43 minutes ago
- The Hill
Silence kills: Now is the time to speak up against deadly gun silencers
In 2019, a gunman shot and killed 12 people in a Virginia Beach municipal building. His semiautomatic weapon was fitted with a silencer, making the gunshots sound, to one survivor, 'like a nail gun.' If the shots had been louder — if the people inside had been given even 30 more seconds of warning — lives could have perhaps been saved. But muffled sounds from the silencer created confusion and, ultimately, death. Silencers are dangerous. Now, they're more accessible than ever. Within President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act was a little-noticed but dangerous provision eliminating the $200 federal tax requirement on firearm silencers. Sold as a win for freedom and self-defense, this repeal does nothing to make ordinary Americans safer. Instead, it makes it easier to acquire deadly tools that muffle the sound of gunfire, and can make shootings harder to detect and survive. On July 4, Trump signed the so-called 'big beautiful bill,' a 1,200-page piece of legislation that overhauled taxes, took down social programs, and included a long list of far-right priorities. Buried within it was a provision that eliminated the federal tax on gun silencers, and stripped away regulations under the National Firearms Act. For nearly a century, silencers, also called suppressors, were subject to a $200 tax and required a federal registration process with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The goal wasn't to ban them outright, but to treat them with caution and scrutiny. By removing the tax, the bill treats them like ordinary firearm accessories. With the federal tax removed, the financial and procedural barriers that once slowed down silencer purchases are gone, making it easier and potentially faster to obtain them. In effect, this policy turns silencers into impulse buys available with minimal oversight, even in states with already loose gun laws. Supporters of the provision framed it as an effort to cut red tape, and to fully express Second Amendment freedoms. But in reality, it was a quiet win for the gun lobby — one that came at the cost of long-standing public safety protections. Silencers don't make guns completely silent, but they do make shootings harder to hear. That extra delay of seconds of confusion, lost sound or disbelief can cost lives. Proponents of silencer deregulation argue that suppressors reduce hearing damage for recreational shooters and make gun ranges less disruptive to neighbors. They frame the tax and registration process as bureaucratic overreach that burdens lawful gun owners. But these talking points ignore the ultimate threat to public safety that silencers carry: people have, and will continue to, die because of easy access to silencers. Further, with the removal of federal tax on silencers, the gun lobby is better equipped to argue in court against any and all government regulation of silencers. Even if silencers have some legitimate uses, removing the federal tax and treating them like common firearm accessories opens the door to widespread abuse. Responsible gun owners can still protect their hearing with earmuffs. Communities can't protect themselves from gunfire they never hear coming. This repeal didn't happen by accident. It slipped through quietly, buried in a massive bill, with little debate and even less public awareness. But that doesn't mean the story ends here. What happens when silencers become easier to buy than ever before? What role can we play in making sure our communities stay safe, and our voices stay heard? Maybe it starts with a message to a senator, a petition, or a post. Maybe it's showing up at a town hall, or supporting groups already doing the work: groups like Brady United Against Gun Violence, Everytown, Moms Demand Action, Giffords, and Sandy Hook Promise. We don't all have the same tools. But we all have a voice. And in the face of policies that turn down the volume on violence, maybe the most powerful thing we can do is refuse to stay quiet. If our leaders won't raise the alarm, we have to. Because the more we let silence spread, the more dangerous this country becomes. It's time to make some noise and address this hidden upheaval of public safety.
