Is Kamala Harris really bad at politics?
A YEAR ago this week, Joe Biden tapped the then-junior senator from California and a former 2020 Democratic presidential primary foe to be his running mate. It was not an unexpected choice, but the historic decision to select a minority woman to be his second in command has been overshadowed, at times, by her supposed missteps.
Democratic strategist Mike Nellis, a senior adviser to Kamala Harris during the primary, is adamant Democrats are not suffering from buyers’ remorse. Still, opponents of the Vice President seem to have settled on an attack line against her: As a Washington Examiner columnist argued a few weeks ago, she’s “bad at politics”.
One way to asses this is to look at who was the runner-up for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020.
The “bad at politics” jibe is something that I see pretty often in reader emails and on Twitter, mostly from Republicans but in some cases from liberal Democrats. There’s no surprise here; the vice presidency makes everyone look bad, and the idea that the first black and Asian-american woman to hold this office is not up to the job is consistent with certain stereotypes.
It’s also preposterous. Yes, once nominated almost anyone can win a general election, and perhaps every once in a while a nomination is just luck – in fact, I’ve argued that Donald Trump’s first nomination was largely a fluke. But Harris managed to work her way up in local and state politics in California, without money or family connections on her side, winning multiple nominations. That’s the mark of a good politician. So, for that matter, is securing the vice-presidential nod. Using presidential nomination results as evidence of a politician’s weakness is like criticising someone for failing to medal in the Olympics; just getting into the competition is usually evidence of considerable ability.
Granted, after entering the contest, Harris dropped out before the first vote in Iowa. But whether we should consider her effort a flop gets back to the question I started with: Who was the runner-up to Joe Biden?
You can make the case for several candidates. Bernie Sanders is the most obvious one, given that he finished second in delegates, states won and overall votes. But there’s reason to think he wasn’t the candidate who came closest. The evidence suggests that a solid majority of Democratic party actors, and perhaps of voters overall, was prepared to support anyone but Sanders. If that’s the case, then he really had only a small chance of winning and I’m not sure it makes sense to call him the runner-up.
If not Sanders, who? Pete Buttigieg at least managed to win an important state – Iowa – and finished second in New Hampshire. But Buttigieg sparked even less enthusiasm among party actors than Sanders did.
There’s even a case to be made for Amy Klobuchar or Elizabeth Warren. Both had some backing from party actors; both had occasional (albeit small) surges of support among voters. Suppose that their strong debates right before the New Hampshire primary (for Klobuchar) or Nevada (for Warren) had taken place in November or December, in time for them to really capitalise on it?
It’s not hard to imagine Klobuchar or Warren, rather than Buttigieg, emerging from the pack in Iowa, and perhaps either senator would’ve been better positioned to take advantage of it.
The counterargument is that none of these candidates had any black support, and without that they were doomed in South Carolina and in most of the rest of the primaries. We don’t get to rerun the contest to see whether Representative James Clyburn would’ve endorsed whoever looked most viable after the Nevada caucuses.
But Harris, despite her early exit, may have been closer to the nomination than she’s usually given credit for. She did enjoy a brief polling surge after a strong early debate, which turned out to be mistimed. And she won some party-actor support. Perhaps there are fewer what-ifs involved in projecting her into the nomination than there are for some of the other also-rans.
You certainly don’t have to buy that argument – I’m not sure I do – to concede that the Vice President has some valuable political skills. Mostly, however, I think the question about the runner-up is useful because answering it involves thinking carefully about what really goes into winning presidential nominations, and helps clarify what we really know and what we’re not sure about. – Tribune News Service