a short campaign that began weeks before the party’s national convention amid a political conflagration. The news media has bigger expectations for Kamala Harris than for Donald Trump. A hurricane that “f**ked up” while campaigning for two weeks.
In an interview made public on Tuesday, Harris’ presidential campaign executives defended their choices and attributed the Democrat’s loss three weeks ago to a number of outside causes.
“There was a cost associated with the brief campaign,” stated David Plouffe, Harris’s top advisor and the Democratic presidential nominee during the summer following Joe Biden’s withdrawal.
Plouffe and three other Harris advisors made their first public statements on the lefty podcast “Pod Save America” three weeks after the election. They claimed that a 107-day campaign did not allow Harris enough time to set herself apart from Biden and formulate a message that would help Democrats in a chilly political environment. The vice president might have done better with additional time, according to Harris’ top aides, who did not express any significant regrets.
“It was challenging to accomplish our goals in a 107-day race,” said campaign chair Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, who refuted accusations that they spent too much time criticizing Trump and alerting voters to the potential consequences of his second term and not enough time presenting a compelling argument for Harris.
It is a blatant misconception, according to Dillon, for people to believe they already know everything there is to know about Trump.
While none of the campaign officials specifically mentioned Biden, they frequently mentioned political “headwinds” and emphasized how much Harris had to give up to remain competitive in the race.
“She truly leaned into her own vision every time she spoke to a voter or stood on the stump. However, Dillon noted that the headwinds were difficult. “We performed significantly better than the rest of the nation where she ran.”
In a Tuesday chat with grassroots supporters, Harris also discussed the campaign. The vice president also implied that the brief campaign hurt her chances, but she appeared less willing to assign blame.
“Obviously, this election’s result is not what we were hoping for. I am proud of the race we ran, even though it is not what we prepared so hard for. Your contribution was crucial, Harris added. “What we accomplished in 107 days was extraordinary.”
Campaign executives also denied on “Pod Save America” that they ought to have directly addressed Trump’s scathing attack ad on transgender rights, which concluded with the catchphrase, “Kamala is for they/them.” President Trump is on your side. Harris’ own statements were utilized in the commercial to emphasize support for taxpayer-funded sex reassignment procedures for transgender inmates.
Deputy campaign manager Quentin Fulks agreed that Trump could benefit from the advertisement.
Fulks stated, “It was obviously a very effective ad at the end.” “I believe it gave the impression that she was out of touch.”
Yet the architects of the Harris campaign dismissed suggestions that some Democrats have made since the election that not responding to the ad played a major role in Harris’ defeat. The advisers said they tested several response ads, but none were seen in focus groups as particularly effective.
Plouffe stated that it did not decide the election, but that “we took it very seriously.” “This, like the economy, was not influencing voter behavior.”
The Harris aides defended their campaign strategy, which included reaching out to a large number of moderate Republicans in the final weeks of the contest, in a comprehensive interview with podcast host Dan Pfeiffer, a former adviser to Barack Obama.
Naturally, you want to make the most of your foundation. And we invested a great deal of time and resources there. It’s crucial,” Plouffe stated. Dominating in the middle must be combined with it. Not just a small victory. We must control the moderate vote.
According to Stephanie Cutter, another senior advisor to Harris, the vice president was “ready and willing to go on Joe Rogan,” the well-known podcast where Trump eventually made an appearance and gained the host’s support. They were unable to agree on a schedule, she said.
“Is there anything that it could have changed?” According to Cutter. “It would have succeeded because she was doing it, not because of the talk with Joe Rogan.
” Additionally, Cutter and Dillon criticized the “traditional media” for failing to exert more pressure on Trump to participate in a substantive policy interview.
Cutter claimed, “Trump did none” of those things. “Very none,” Pfeiffer continued.
Dillon concluded, saying, “And got no sh*t for that.”
“We received a ton of shit about her not doing enough media,” Cutter remarked.
Dillon stated, “We would conduct an interview, and to Stephanie’s point, the questions were brief and procedural.” “Stupid,
” Cutter remarked. “Just stupid.
” Dillon claimed, “They weren’t educating a voter who was attempting to listen in order to understand or learn more.”