David Plouffe, a senior adviser to Kamala Harris’s campaign, found himself swimming in a pool of disillusionment when reflecting on their electoral prospects. Although the campaign started with a glimmer of hope—after all, who wouldn’t be optimistic with a little fairy dust sprinkled on internal polls?—Plouffe had to admit that reality hit harder than a freight train on Election Day. Surprises were in store, not just for Harris but for the entire Democratic camp, as their internal metrics revealed that she never took the lead over Donald Trump.
It gets juicier from there. While Democrats were cheering about supposed leads shown in public polls from late September and early October, Plouffe acknowledged they were nothing more than wishful thinking. It turns out being “tied” in an election can still feel like a loss when you expect to rattle the wheels of power. Apparently, those bold public polling numbers were nothing but Cinderella stories that ended at midnight, leaving Plouffe and friends stranded without a ride home.
Kamala Harris Campaign Advisers Admit She Had No Path to Victory. While David Plouffe makes honest admissions, what he does not admit that America had no appetite in electing a wholly unlikeable and incoherent Kamala Harris, inserted after a soft Dem couphttps://t.co/driSokaVj7
— S D Picker /🇺🇸~~ (@PicAxe6) November 27, 2024
Harris’s campaign strategists, including Jen O’Malley Dillon and Stephanie Cutter, seemed perplexed over why the Vice President failed to carve out her own identity separate from President Biden. The campaign’s grand plan included showing Harris as forward-thinking and independent—except the strategy didn’t actually involve teaching her how to stand on her own two feet. Instead, during high-profile appearances like an interview on The View, Harris practically pranced right into a loyalty trap, suggesting she would have done nothing different than her boss. Talk about a refreshing way to blend into the wallpaper!
Cutter defended Harris’s fealty to Biden, arguing that a loyalty narrative might spare them scrutiny. However, common sense would dictate that voters want a leader who is willing to break free from the mold. While Harris may have felt a kinship with the president, she still needed to give the electorate something that characterized her priorities rather than merely echoing her boss’s moves. It appears that loyalty in this case was a double-edged sword, possibly cutting Harris’s chances at winning the voters over.
Meanwhile, Quentin Fulks chimed in with some insight into the impact of Trump’s attack ads focused on Harris’s positions surrounding transgender issues. Those ads were like a well-aimed arrow that pierced through the fog of her carefully crafted image, revealing a perceived disconnect with the average American. Fulks suggested that the narrative wasn’t just about gender; it was about showing voters that Harris appeared to be using taxpayer dollars on what many might see as questionable priorities. The brilliance of Trump’s strategy shone through, making Harris seem more like an out-of-touch elite rather than a relatable politician.
Fulks lamented the campaign’s choice to avoid directly countering Trump’s criticisms, hoping to present Harris in a favorable light instead. As if this was just a game of dodgeball and they’d rather play by their own rules on neutral turf. But the reality is, in politics, not engaging directly with attacks can lead to giving the opponent a free pass on the playing field. In the end, Harris’s campaign strategy seems to have fallen short, standing in stark contrast to the competitive nature of Trump’s approach. It remains clear that trying to redefine the narrative while ignoring the reality of engagement is a risky gamble that paid off poorly.