Kamala Harris may have lost the 2024 US election because of her identity: she’s a woman and an ethnic minority, which may have automatically excluded her as a ‘credible candidate’ in the eyes of certain Americans. While it is entirely possible that this offers, at least partially, an explanation for what happened, as Democrat canvassers have attested, there are other reasons to consider when evaluating the Democratic Party’s failure to triumph over Trump in 2024, eight years after his first election victory. It seems to me that a potential explanation for the Democrats’ loss was their lack of a persuasive political identity, which caught up with them in the end. Ultimately, it would not suffice to exist as ‘Not Trump’. To win votes, they need to be recognisable as a distinct political entity in their own right.

 

A potential explanation for the Democrats’ loss was their lack of a persuasive political identity

After all, the Democratic Party’s campaign was criticised for its lack of a future vision: unappealing economic policies (at a time in which many Americans are living under great financial stress), an unconvincing swing towards centrism (especially on issues such as Gaza), and a campaign which was largely characterised by disorder. The Party initially insisted on running with Joe Biden when he did not appear fit to do so, before his abrupt replacement with Kamala Harris – the scrambling around was undignified, and suggested systemic incompetence.

 

But it is not as if scrambling to run a campaign is an unforgivable crime in US politics. The dying weeks of Trump’s campaign were characterised by racism towards Latin Americans and poor attendance at rallies. Yet Trump was evidently not held to the same high standard of public performance as Harris. The perception of Harris will be clouded by racism and sexism, and not only at the polling stations. She was equally judged in the way people managed their expectations of her intellect, her credentials, her debating style, her rallies, her family, even her dress sense – the list goes on. From Harris, people expected more.

 

It would make sense for women to understand this double standard on a cellular level, but the votes suggest otherwise. As a demographic, white women voted for Trump; Harris simply being a woman was not enough to attract them across the party lines. And perhaps the Democratic Party were, at least in part, relying on this to win them the race.

It would make sense for women to understand this double standard on a cellular level, but the votes suggest otherwise

 

The Democratic campaign managers had a handful of recent election success stories from around the globe on which to model their own campaign trajectory: a good example being the recent banishing of the far-right in the French parliamentary elections, with left-wing parties joining forces as the New Popular Front. However, it was Keir Starmer and the UK Labour Party which the Democrats chose as their projection model; their campaign strategists even held discussions with one of the chief advisers of Starmer’s campaign.

 

The Democrats might plausibly have seen themselves mirrored in the Labour Party: Starmer’s win in July 2024 marked a new, centrist beginning after the fall of the incumbent, wildly unpopular right-wing government. The Democrats likely thought that they were chasing the same goal: centrism and liberalism prevailing over a far-right darkness threatening the nation. Except, the Democrats perhaps failed to realise that they were not the Labour Party in this metaphor: they are the unpopular incumbents. The UK and US elections were two different situations, with different players on the field, and therefore they were not suitably comparable; this shocking misreading of their own situation may well have contributed to the Democrats’ complacency. After all, Harris made the perhaps fatal error of announcing that she ‘would not have done anything differently to Joe Biden’. This was a grave misstep for, say, a rural American who had experienced a tough four years under Biden’s economy. It was upon hearing this proclamation from Harris that, perhaps, the votes for Trump were assured.

 

After all, for certain voters it is not enough for a candidate to be Not Trump, much to the Democrats’ disappointment. From our vantage point across the ocean, we are able to look on in horror at America’s decision to overlook one of the most highly-qualified presidential candidates in history in favour of a convicted felon. But the nuances of Trump’s popularity among rural Americans are dissected every election cycle; perhaps the Democratic Party would do well to read into some of this research, and to get to know their voters. After all, their easiest way out is to lament America’s sexism and racism as the sole reasons why Harris lost. To look into their own decision-making, campaign management and Party identity will take a great deal more ambition.

---

If you liked this article, you should read these…

Do Patriarchal Structures Continue to Undermine Women’s Autonomy?

The Real Losers of the US Presidential Debate

Trump’s Second Term: What’s in Store for the UK?