ANALYSIS AND POLITICAL THEORY
Why did Kamala Harris lose?
Por: Leoncio Díaz (Politólogo)
Kamala Harris had everything in her favor to win the 2024 elections: she did not go through primary elections, she was part of the government with the position of vice president and she had all the media and “woke” movements campaigning for her constantly. However, he lost in a way that not even his Republican enemies expected. Based on the results, there are many variables that are obvious and that are not taken into account to correct them and reverse the results. 1. The party system These elections have shown that having the support of all the media, influencers, famous actors and the support of the government is not enough to ensure an electoral victory: nothing is said in an electoral contest, even less in a two-party system like It is the US, where there is a high percentage of hard voting, both for Republicans and Democrats; the other parties do not even reach 1%. That is, the majority of people tend to keep their vote regardless of what the media says and the mistakes that a candidate may make during the campaign. In that sense, Donald Trump, despite having been constantly attacked by the media, having nearly 90 complaints of all kinds, during the last 4 years, has not lost the possibility of being re-elected president again. His voting intention never dropped below 45% before and during the election campaign, which is why he had to focus his campaign strategy on the 7 key states. This does not happen in multi-party systems where there is a lot of volatility. Likewise, what was at stake is approximately 15% of undecided people who will not take a chance on anyone until they hear all the arguments for and against. The message must be sectorized and convinced to win their votes that will finally give electoral victory. 2. The “Anti” method does not always work The anti method, which is the most mediocre way to try to win a presidential election - or any other election - is used when there is no clear political program to convince voters. Although sometimes it works to stigmatize the opponent, favoring political polarization based on the "bad guy", in many cases, far from eliminating that sinister character constructed by the media, it strengthens him and puts him in the center of attention, giving him the opportunity to respond to attacks and prove others wrong about who he really was: just as Trump took advantage of. During the last days of the campaign, when he was called the candidate of the rich by Kamala Harris, who boasted of having worked at McDonald's, he had no problem staging a normal worker serving people in a multinational McDonald's store and presenting himself as a “humble man” (images have more impact than words); When called “garbage” by President Biden, he had no problem getting on a garbage truck where his name was written in large letters, and driving around showing empathy with the workers in that sector. Thousands of advisors will already be taking note of these campaign tactics. 3. Discursive subjectivity cannot always hide economic reality Making big promises, faking reality or lying is a common habit of politicians, whether for survival, to give the impression that everything is fine or to exaggerate their achievements. However, when you try to deny the obvious and people do not believe the story, problems arise. That is precisely the case of the American economy, something that Harris and his team never took into account and did not propose changes in this regard. They did not mark differences with Biden. Inflation that weakens the purchasing power of American citizens was ignored, as were other problems such as insecurity, illegal immigration, fentanyl, etc. They are central issues that the most conscious people take into account when voting. However, what they did throughout the campaign was focus on attacking Trump, as if that were enough to convince voters. For that reason, even Latinos, who have always supported the Democrats, have complained and denied them the vote. This is a general rule for any election: if a candidate belongs to the outgoing government, he will pay the liabilities of that government and will have greater difficulty winning if he cannot convince that he will make changes. 4. The international political agenda International politics is key to deciding the vote of the most thoughtful and informed people about what is happening in the world. They know that the United States is essential to maintaining world peace. These voters are relatively few, but they are the ones who do the most activism on social networks, are informed about everything and have a clear and critical position on the media: they are not susceptible to cheap Political Marketing strategies. Some call them International Public Opinion and within them there are many influencers with tens of thousands of followers around the world. The central issue at this point is the war in Ukraine and Gaza. Here Kamala Harris lost many votes for being ambiguous and evasive in her answers. Unlike Trump, who has shown himself to be frank in his intentions: end the war between Russia and Ukraine, and support Israel. 5. Political preparation Political marketing serves to make the electorate believe that the person running is the best option for government. This is done mainly by appealing to sympathy and identification with the candidate; but it does not deal with the intellectual and ideological preparation of the candidate: that is another level of preparation and political training. In short, it is not enough to have sympathy and rapport with people, it is also necessary to demonstrate qualities to govern. When a candidate whose only talent is sympathy with the public shows his weaknesses and lack of decision on the political level, people perceive it and lose their support. There are always situations that ask them questions that put them against the wall and they don't know what to answer. That is what people perceived in this campaign with Kamala Harris, who came to assume responsibility for the Biden government but at no time did she make clear what her government program was. He always evaded answers by attacking Trump, which raised doubts. Political preparation does not mean hiding the personality of artificial phrases that have media force. That's just the promotional part, also in the background is the person and their convictions to assume the government. Something that caught a lot of attention in one of the many interviews with Kamala Harris was when she was asked the question about what she would have done differently regarding President Biden's government. She simply said that she couldn't think of anything and that she shares responsibility for the wrong decisions that were made. In another live interview, he also evaded the answer when asked what he would do differently about Joe Biden's government if he won the election. To which she simply said "I'm not Joe Biden, I'm not Donald Trump and I'm 28 days away." His response was so simple that it cost him credibility as a future ruler. The point is that it was obvious that they were going to ask her those kinds of questions, so she had to be prepared for it. This is how he spent all the interviews, avoiding giving answers about what was going to be in a possible government of his, resorting to the tactic of evasion called "TRUMP", making it clear that he is only the continuation of Biden.
<< Kamala Harris had everything in her favor to win the 2024 elections: she did not go through primary elections, she was part of the government with the position of vice president and she had all the me...>>
2024-11-15 12:42:14
Visitas: 22
Why did Kamala Harris lose?
Kamala Harris had everything in her favor to win the 2024 elections: she did not go through primary ...
Leer más...
Social and work Constitutionalism: genesis of economic constitutionalism
If for the Liberal State of Law the basic idea was the category of individual, for the Social State ...
Leer más...
Kamala Harris vs Donald Trump Who won the debate?
The second presidential debate 2024 between Donald Trump vs Kamala Harris
Leer más...
WHY TAKE THE 2030 AGENDA SERIOUSLY?
The 2030 Agenda includes all those problems that today are at hand and can be solved by the great tr...
Leer más...
Michel Foucault and Byung-Chul Han en el Perú
Michel Foucault and Byung-Chul and their postulates on biopolitics and psychopolitics
Leer más...
The crisis in Haiti: multidimensional analysis of its causes, consequences and futuro
aggravated since the social outbreak of February 2019, which has become what many today describe - a...
Leer más...
Miró Quesada Rada and the political science of self-liberation
The political science of liberation is a system with diverse sources, typical of social philosophy a...
Leer más...
How did Jacques Lacan think?
For Lacan, the fundamental mechanisms of the unconscious are mechanisms of discourse, and are found ...
Leer más...
How did Jacques Lacan think?
For Lacan, the fundamental mechanisms of the unconscious are mechanisms of discourse, and are found ...
Leer más...