The truth behind Kamala Harris’ election defeat

Doing the usual news interviews on the day of the US elections (Nov. 6 in Manila), the questions proffered to me tended towards the fundamentals: the election results’ effect on trade, security, immigration, and so on. However, one question asked of me that night had me completely stumped.

The query, made during a popular “live” news broadcast was: “Where did Kamala’s campaign go wrong?”

Now, I’d like to think I’m a pretty quick-witted guy but I have to admit my brain short-circuited that moment. Reviewing the clip later, it was palpable.

“What’s wrong with Kamala?”

To be clear, the news hosts were all kind and very smart. But I had to exert every bit of willpower in me not to sputter: “Where do I begin? For a start, she’s a freakin’ inane cackling moron.”

Besides, the show was only for around 45 minutes.

Kamala Harris was so terrible a candidate (and by certain accounts, even as a person) that Democrat operative Lindy Li, who happens to sit on the Democratic National Committee Finance Committee, would admit that the Harris campaign was a “$1 billion disaster.”

That’s right. The Kamala campaign spent $1.37 billion (as compared to Donald Trump’s $345.42 million), ending up $20 million in debt for a result where she lost in all the swing states, had a huge loss in the Electoral College vote, and lost the popular vote by nearly five million votes.

Not only that, Kamala’s campaign was so bad that Trump saw swings in his favor, as follows: Voters under 30: a 12-point shift to Trump; Black voters: a 15-point shift; Hispanic voters: 38 points; and Asian voters: 32 points. Interestingly, Trump’s support amongst Filipino-American’s remained around 30+% since 2020.

The following states, normally considered as “safe blue,” saw the following shifts in Trump’s favor: New York: an 11 point shift to Trump; California: an 11 point shift; New Jersey: 11 points; Massachusetts: nine points; Maryland: nine points; Illinois: eight points.

Remember, this is a political campaign that outspent its rival by three times as much, with on its side 80% of media, 99% of Hollywood, and clearly 100% of federal institutions.

Predictably, the Kamala campaign made much of the fact that it had so many celebrities on its side: from Jimmy Kimmel to Robert De Niro to Mark Ruffalo, from Beyonce to Cardi B, and — of course — Taylor Swift.

Who did Trump have? Hulk Hogan.

Even then, Hulk Hogan was the better draw.

“Despite Swift’s attempt to rally support for Kamala Harris, the YouGov poll, conducted on Sept. 11 and 12, suggests the endorsement has had a limited impact, as per the Yahoo News report. Only 8% of respondents said Swift’s approval would make them “somewhat” or “much more likely” to vote for Harris in the upcoming election.

On the other hand, 20% of those surveyed indicated that they would be less likely to support Harris after hearing about Swift’s endorsement. (“Did Taylor Swift’s endorsement hurt Kamala Harris more than it helped?,” The Economic Times, September 2024).

Also, a poll taken after the “childless cat lady’s” (as Taylor Swift referred to herself) endorsement saw only “8% of voters said Swift’s endorsement would see them ‘somewhat’ or ‘much more likely’ to vote for Harris, while 20% said they would be ‘less likely to vote for her.’” (“Has Taylor Swift’s endorsement damaged Harris’s campaign? New poll reveals all,” Independent, September 2024).

But ultimately the problem is Kamala herself — in the Frasier series episode “The Ski Lodge,” Niles commented on a female character that Frasier was lustily eyeing: “I grant you she’s comely, but don’t you find her a tad — what would the polite euphemism be? — stupid?”

Popular podcaster Kareem Rahma reportedly hoped to get some somewhat reasonable comments from Harris regarding Gaza. The Democratic presidential hopeful ignored this request and instead said: “Bacon is a spice.”

Rahma, a Muslim who obviously does not eat pork, responded skeptically. But Harris would not take the hint:

“‘Think about it, it’s pure flavor,’ Harris continued, talking about the various different dishes that could be enhanced by bacon bits.”

When Rahma wanted to change topic, “Harris decided to declare her love of anchovies on pizza” but only “after conferring with a staffer.”

It was then that Rahma admitted “the interview had gone so badly that he decided not to publish it.” (“TikToker reveals he refused to post ‘boring’ Kamala Harris interview because of her bizarre topics”; Daily Mail, November 2024).

Harris’ vapid nit-wittedness got globally highlighted when she was sent to Europe in February 2022 to warn Russia not to invade Ukraine. Five days later Russia invades Ukraine.

Of course there’s also Harris’ misguided, malignant, utterly incoherent positions in favor of illegal immigration, abortion, identity politics, transgender surgery, and tax increases, and which are anti-religion and anti-police.

But really: Kamala Harris lost not only because she is not all there but also because there is simply nothing there.

Jemy Gatdula is the dean of UA&P Law, as well as a Philippine Judicial Academy law lecturer for constitutional philosophy and jurisprudence.