Remember how many primary delegates Kamala Harris won in the 2020 Democrat primaries? Oh, yes – none. She dropped out before a single primary vote was cast, in no small part because she was the recipient of a devastating attack by then-Democratic candidate Tulsi Gabbard (HI), who abandoned her laid-back aloha composure to tear Harris apart over her record as attorney general of California. I was recently able to uncover some previously unknown video coverage of Tulsi’s takedown of Kamala Harris:
Now, by dint of befuddled old Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 presidential election, Kamala Harris has been anointed as the candidate. And, we may very well ask, how many primary delegates was Kamala Harris awarded in the Democrat’s 2024 primaries? Oh, yes – none.
This whole thing is starting to make some Democrats nervous. And they should be.
Behind the public jubilation over Vice President Harris’s swift rise to become their party’s likely nominee for president, Democratic lawmakers are privately anxious about her prospects of defeating former President Trump, acknowledging she is largely untested as a candidate and faces serious challenges.
The anxiety, for the most part, has been set aside out of a deep sense of relief that President Biden decided to drop his reelection bid. After months of unease over the 81-year-old incumbent, Democratic lawmakers are glad to rally behind Harris in hopes she will rev up Democratic donors along with young and minority voters.
The relief over the withdrawal of doddering old Joe is palpable, although it does nothing to assuage the nervousness a lot of us harbor about an arguably senile old man who has trouble recognizing his own primary Cabinet members remaining in place as POTUS. But we can’t help but question how “glad to really support” Democrats actually are when they look at Kamala Harris’ record.
See Related: Hot Takes: Democrats Try Out ‘JD Vance Is Weird’ Smear, Social Media Obliterates It
The Rebranding of Kamala Harris Is the Very Definition of ‘Weird’
At least some of them are catching on, though.
But concerns are already bubbling up over Harris’s ability to connect as well as Biden did in 2020 with white working-class and union voters in three states that were critical to defeating Trump: Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
“She wasn’t a great candidate,” one Democratic senator said of Harris’s performance as a presidential candidate in 2020, when she pulled out of Democratic primary before the Iowa caucuses.
“And she may not be as a political campaigner as good as Biden was in his prime,” the senator added.
OK, there’s a lot to unpack there.
First, yes, absolutely, the far-left Kamala Harris – who is, arguably, to the left of Bernie Sanders, the daffy old Bolshevik from Vermont – won’t connect well with blue-collar, union voters in the Rust Belt. Most of these people are far more conservative than what passes for moderates in the Democratic Party today since the Democrats have dragged their party’s Overton Window so far to the left that many of them would consider Nikita Khrushchev to be a flaming reactionary. Plenty of these folks see the appeal in Trump’s America-First proposals and will look askance at a Kamala campaign hectoring them about their carbon footprint.
And while we’re not sure who the “one Democratic senator” is, that unknown person not only correctly points out that Kamala Harris “wasn’t a great candidate” in 2020 but also that she “…may not be as a political campaigner as good as Joe Biden was in his prime.” Not only is this a Harris-worthy word salad, but it’s also the very definition of damning with faint praise.
The fact is that Kamala Harris is a horrible candidate, the worst in fact since Her Imperial Majesty Hillary I, Dowager-Empress of Chappaqua – who lost, it must be pointed out, to none other than Donald Trump. She is a lousy communicator, she is on the far left of even the far-left morass the Democrats have become mired in, and frankly she gives every indication of not being very bright. Why say this? One of the best indicators of intelligence is the ability to speak extemporaneously. Politicians should be good at this. Ronald Reagan was good at this, and honestly, Bill Clinton was very good at it. Barack Obama was not; off a teleprompter, he was painful to listen to. And Kamala Harris is even worse.
Still, roughly a third of the populace will always vote for the Democratic candidate, even if that candidate is comatose. Combine that with the endless fawning from the legacy media and perhaps (let’s say this quietly) a little ballot-stuffing in a few key precincts, and Kamala Harris may well pull off a win.
That’s why the Trump campaign, as we keep reminding them, needs to run like they are 20 points behind in the polls and better be planning to sprint to the finish.
