Harris Misses the Mark

A woman president would be historic. That's no reason to support Kamala Harris.

There is a clear distinction between believing women are capable of the presidency and wanting to elect a female because it is high-time that point in history occurs. To be sure, when a woman is elected to the highest office in the land, it will be a history-making event. There is nothing wrong with recognizing that aspect of it. But the desire to mark "female president" off the list of nation goals isn't reason enough to head down that path. In fact, to err on that side of the issue is more patronizing than one may think. 

The first female presidential nominee for a major political party was Hillary Clinton. (I won't include Victoria Woodhull's 1872 candidacy because she represented the Equal Rights Party, not a major political party. But she is considered by many historians as the first.) Clinton's 2016 loss to the worst of all possible opponents, Donald J. Trump, was acutely felt by those who viewed her as inevitable. She wasn't. President Joe Biden's win in 2020 served as an official rebuttal by the Democratic Party. The enthusiasm for Biden wasn't so much for the man himself, but that he was the best possible choice at the time to keep Trump from another term. Four years later, the only decent option the Democrats have is the woman who has been a wholly unremarkable vice president in Biden's administration. Since Biden's arrogance (and the pressure from those around him) caused him to stay in the 2024 race well past his campaign's expiration date, Harris's own campaign has been abbreviated. But that's no excuse for the kind of poor performance we've seen from her. 

For someone hoping to make history, Kamala Harris is really terrible at this. 

There are more than enough reasons to reject both major party nominees on November 5th. Some, like myself, are doing that very thing, while not neglecting down ballot races. This bipartisan disgust brings with it a type of clarity the worst party sycophants clearly don't possess. Democrats and others who outright oppose Donald Trump have been attempting to sell Kamala Harris as not just the other option, but an accomplished, coherent, capable leader who will steer the country in the right direction. It's an extremely tough sell, mostly because voters have ears and eyes. 

When Harris ran for president, Democrats were so unenthusiastic about her that she dropped out in December 2019, long before primary season. Her campaign was of no significance. She is currently in this exclusive position as Democratic Party nominee for president solely because Joe Biden needed a foil. It worked out for Biden, who balanced the old, white man persona with a younger woman of color. And it clearly worked for Kamala Harris, who has, for the last almost four years, been a heartbeat away from the presidency. Unbeknownst to the party as a whole in 2020, she would eventually take the reins once an addled Biden was finally convinced of his senility. With Biden as nominee, Trump would almost certainly win. With Harris, the chances are better. At least that was the feeling on July 21, 2024 when Biden suspended his campaign. In her brief 2024 campaign, Harris has done one thing well: reminded all of us why no one cared for her in 2019. 

You would think a second chance to make history with the first female president might induce the Democratic Party nominee to do their best. And you'd be correct. The sobering reality for Democrats? This is Kamala Harris's best. And that best might not be good enough to beat Trump. Considering the baggage Trump brings with him, Harris should be doing much better in the polls. According to FiveThirtyEight, Harris is only up 2.4% in the polls nationally, as of October 13. That's hardly reason enough to get comfortable, which is ironic, because Harris was brought in to replace Biden as nominee for that very reason. 

There is an air of deservedness emanating from and surrounding Kamala Harris. While Hillary Clinton carried with her a supposed inevitability, Harris and her strongest supporters are certain she deserves this position. Their collective feeling is a combination of the following: it's time for a female president and Harris has done her duty standing by Joe Biden during his term. 

Kamala Harris's turn as nominee is marred by several glaring problems. She is eager to appear on shows and with interviewers who are more friend than foe, or even neutral. Just recently, she has been on The View, Howard Stern, and The Late Show With Stephen Colbert. None of these appearances tested her abilities as a politician in general, and certainly not someone vying for the White House. Most noticeable is her lack of preparation even for the softball questions. Last week on The View, Harris was asked "...if she would have done something differently from President Biden over the past four years, Harris responded: 'There is not a thing that comes to mind.' " And she's trying to convince us to give her a chance? During her 60 Minutes interview with Bill Whitaker, Harris could not give specifics about how she planned to pay for her economic plans. Instead, she gave the usual leftist talking point. 

Whitaker pressed Harris on how she intended to pay for her economic plans, which have been estimated by the Committee for Responsible Federal Budget to add around $3.5 trillion to the national debt, whilst Trump's could add $7.5 trillion.  

Harris pointed to other economic analyses of her plan, saying that hers would strengthen the economy, and Trump's weaken it. 

When pushed again on how exactly she intended to pay her plan, Harris said she was "going to make sure that the richest among us who can afford it pay their fair share in taxes."

Among other things, her flip-flopping on issues is legendary, she is famous for empty meanings and word salad, speaks in generalities, and wants us to feel joy and happiness more than anything else. 

If Kamala Harris wins the election, her ascendancy to the Oval Office will have been driven by luck and biology. A Harris win would be a noticeably shallow event. As a conservative woman in America, I would gladly support a female for president, provided her values and policy goals line up with mine. Needless to say, the Democratic Party nominee's do not. 

Kamala Harris's abysmal performance is proof that substance and ability don't matter as long as the correct boxes are checked. But hey, at least we're making history?

Kimberly Ross is a freelance opinion writer who has written political and cultural commentary since 2015. She has bylines at The Federalist, USA Today, The Bulwark, Arc Digital, and ACN Ireland, among others. She was a senior contributor at RedState from 2015-2019. She has been a contributor to Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential Blog since 2018 and frequently appears in Washington Examiner magazine. She is co-host of The Right Thoughts Podcast. She holds a BA in History with graduate work in political science. She lives with her husband and two energetic sons in the Southern United States. Follow her on X, formerly known as Twitter, at @SouthernKeeks.