Election Reflection: What Went Wrong with the Harris Campaign

Gabriella Ronquillo ’26

In the days leading up to the election, I had no doubt that Donald Trump was going to win. However, the reality of the result and its incoming implications only settled on the Wednesday following the election. Faced with the election outcome, New Yorkers reeled—many still attempting to process the gravity of the situation. It came as a shock that so many Americans would choose someone who would harm the country’s economy and deport many immigrants who have been living in the U.S. Those who voted for Harris wondered, “How could we elect Trump for a second term, and irrespective of political standings of the candidates, choose the one convicted for falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments made to an adult film star?” As is the nature of politics, the decision wasn’t as simple for the many swing voters who swayed towards Trump. This was underscored by the historic increase in the Black and Latino vote for Trump. What caused voters to turn against Harris? Here are a few things  I think went wrong with Harris’ campaign: 

Biden

Harris was put at a disadvantage when she became the candidate for the Democratic party in August. She was associated with the inflation felt under the Biden administration, according to Andrew Prokop in the Vox article, “Why Kamala Harris Lost.” During her presidential debate, she attempted to separate herself from Biden’s economic policies, but by proxy to the President, she was associated with a weak economy, especially for low- and middle-class families. Additionally, she was connected to an uptick in illegal immigration, which was cause of much concern for many Americans This wasn’t helped by her failure and reluctance to clearly communicate how her policies would be different from that of Biden. When Harris was asked by co-host Sunny Hostin on The View whether she would have done anything differently from President Biden during his administration, she responded, “There is not a thing that comes to mind.”

Voter Interests

According to the Pew Research Center in its “Issues and the 2024 election” report, the economy was the top priority for 81% of voters. For general voters, her pitch of an opportunity economy, which, according to Nik Popli in the Time article “What a Harris Win Would Mean for the Economy” included reducing minimum wage and banning price gouging, fell short for general voters because she didn’t define a clear perpetrator for the poor state of the economy. Because of increasing mistrust in the U.S. government, prospective Trump voters unfortunately needed to be pacified with a cause for the issues this country is facing that is not the U.S. government itself. Trump’s campaign established a cause and effect relationship between immigrants and the economy. In the New York Times article, “Trump Thinks the Border Got Him Elected in 2016. He’s Convinced It Will Do So Again,” the newspaper asked how a Trump administration would lower housing costs. His campaign argued that mass deportation would free up the housing market, making everyday Americans better off. From the perspective of Harris voters, Trump was able to villainize immigrants as people responsible for taking up the job market and raising the cost of housing by increasing competition. Contrary to Trump’s theories, in the NPR article “Without immigrants, America’s job growth would have stalled,” Scott Horsley found that immigrants help the economy by encouraging job growth, and they don’t take away the positions of U.S.-born workers by replacing retiring baby-boomers. Instead of disrupting the cycle of job availability, immigrants have historically been crucial to keeping the economy running because they maintain the large workforce that industrialization demands. 61% of all voters stated that immigration would be critical to determining their vote (Pew Research Center). The Trump campaign’s clear scapegoat of immigrants for the poor economy overshadowed Harris' less liberal immigration policy. In the article, “Where Kamala Harris stands on 10 key issues, from immigration to guns,” BBC News cites her support of the cross-party bill to continue building the border as an example of her moderate immigration policy. Undermining her work as vice president, in which she created more legal pathways to enter the country, Trump created an opening to paint her as irresponsible. In reality, Harris’ immigration policies in office ended up reducing illegal immigration rates, according to the New York Times video, “If You Think Biden and Harris Were Weak on the Border, Think Again.” If people were more aware of her true policy stances, she would have won over conservative voters that her campaign desperately needed. That being said, Harris avoided communicating this to avoid upsetting her far-left leaning main voter base. Having to rely on voters who are very polarized on the issue of immigration left her no room to convince swing-state voters that she had a plan that would effectively reduce illegal immigration. 

Final Thoughts

I didn’t write this article to argue that Trump’s policies or campaign strategy was more effective or better than Harris’. However, I encourage you the reader to consider how elections will become increasingly in favor of Republicans because voters have taken for granted how far-right and radical the party has become, thereby giving the Democratic party less leeway to shift from far-left and moderate policies to gain acceptance from their voter base. A lot of the noise and snippets of political discourse we hear, such as “they’re eating the cats, they’re eating the dogs” serve to distract us from an obvious truth: politicians are professionals in misleading voters about their policies. As future voters, it is our responsibility to educate ourselves on candidates’ policies.