The Real Reason Kamala Harris Lost:
White Liberals
In the wake of the 2024 U.S. presidential election, where Donald Trump clinched a decisive victory over Kamala Harris, multiple groups, including the Democratic Party, media, academia, and even bloggers like myself, have conducted detailed analyses to understand this surprising outcome.
The Democratic Party finds itself asking why Harris lost. Various explanations have surfaced, yet a recurring theme in these analyses points to Kamala Harris herself. Some argue she was a poor candidate, while others staunchly defend her, claiming she ran a “flawless campaign” but was undermined by societal biases like racism and sexism. Anti-war groups from the far left attributed her loss to her stance on the Gaza genocide.
There’s also the argument that Harris’s own shortcomings in character and policy were to blame. Critics suggest she lacked the charismatic oratory prowess that iconic figures like Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, or even Michelle and Barack Obama are known for, which could inspire and mobilize voters. However, expecting every Black candidate to possess such eloquence might be an unrealistic benchmark for electoral success. Regardless, there’s an opinion that Harris presented herself more like an AI-generated candidate than embodying the lived experience of a Black woman.
I believe, however, that an overlooked factor in Harris’s defeat might be the role of white liberal voters. Consider the election results in swing states: while Harris lost, other Democratic candidates in these states secured victories. This discrepancy suggests a phenomenon of split-ticket voting, where voters, particularly white liberals, might have shown their biases by supporting white candidates over Harris. This pattern was evident in North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Michigan, where voters favored candidates like Josh Stein for governor, and Senators Elissa Slotkin and Tammy Baldwin, while rejecting Harris.
Get ABDI’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
This isn’t the first instance of such voter behavior. During the 2022 midterms, predictions of a “red wave” sweeping Democrats out of Congress turned out to be exaggerated. Despite the media and Democratic strategists later claiming it was more of a minor setback, the reality was that while white Democratic candidates largely won, Black candidates were swept away by the predicted red wave, suggesting a racial dynamic at play. I’ve previously discussed how what was termed a “red wave” was actually more of a “purple wave,” with racial lines influencing voting patterns, leading to a disproportionate impact on Black candidates.
So where’s this coming from?
Throughout history, white liberals have largely viewed Black Americans as vote banks rather than as leaders within the party. They appreciate them when they vote for them but resist when Black candidates compete against them for votes. To translate this resistance into policy, white liberals have over the years employed sneaky and cruel tactics, including gerrymandering and outright bribery through campaign finances. They typically gerrymander Black voters by spreading them across majority-white districts. This way, Black candidates often lose in the general election even if they win the primaries.
When this happens not once, but twice or thrice, party leadership might interfere, asking Black candidates not to run or encouraging multiple Black candidates to run in the primary to split their votes, thus clearing a path for one or two white candidates to advance to the general election. This practice is prevalent throughout the United States but is often abandoned during times of crisis or significant social justice movements, like the one following the murder of George Floyd in 2020.
Do you think it was a coincidence that a record number of Black candidates were elected to various statewide and district offices, including governors and mayors in some of the largest cities in the United States? Kamala Harris was selected as VP even though she wasn’t in anyone’s mind until George Floyd was murdered. Four years later, these gains and privileges have been largely revoked. Black candidates running for Congress, governor, and mayor positions were mostly defeated or under investigation, making way for elite white women.
So, what happened to Kamala on November 5th can be seen as the final act in a series of efforts to clean up after the political and cultural gains made by Black Americans and their allies, including the LGBTQ+ community, following George Floyd’s murder. We’ve already witnessed corporate America’s role in this by purging Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs.
All of these actions have been part of a concerted effort by white liberals to reshape the Democratic Party following the increased political influence of Black Americans in the wake of the George Floyd murder. This movement is akin to MAGA in its intentions. It turns out that “Make the Democratic Party white liberal again” resonates just as powerfully within the Democratic Party electorate as “Make America Great Again” does with American voters at large.
