Harris weighs up 2028 comeback after embarrassing election woes
Claims Joe Biden "killed" her campaign
This is the first article in a new weekly column of mine, called Other Side of The Coin
An article titled Democrats eye Harris 2028 presidential run as they devise political comeback was published by The Guardian yesterday.
Unsurprisingly, it was stocked with bias.
At times, it was subtle. For example, this article liked to remind readers at strategic moments that Joe Biden defeated Trump in the 2020 election or that Trump has a criminal conviction.
These reminders soften the blow of other facts (like Biden being forced to step down in July or Trump winning the election handily).
The Guardian article also implied that Harris not getting the nomination again would be an example of sexism.
“Supporters further point to unequal political consequences for male and female candidates following a ballot box loss. Hillary Clinton did not attempt another run after losing to Trump in 2016, handing the Democratic torch to one-term president Biden.”
It goes on with this line of thinking.
The implication is that people who argue against a second Harris nomination are being sexist, as Donald Trump was granted a third chance by his party (this ignores the unusual control Trump wields over the Republican base).
The article also only quotes Harris aides, Democrats, and supportive professors. This creates the illusion of unity around a second Harris run. The closest it comes to addressing the many challenges she would face is mentioning the names of three potential competitors.
On top of this, there is no mention of her failed 2020 campaign, which should logically appear when discussing her ability to run a primary campaign. .
Overall, the article was biased towards Harris, no doubt about it. In fact, anyone who knows the six sly tricks of biased media would see right through its smokescreen.
But what if it had been biased against her?
It’s time to answer the most electrifying post-election question of them all. Let’s consider the other side of the coin and ask if Kamala Harris can make political comebacks great again.
Rollercoaster Campaign
Vice President Kamala Harris ran a rollercoaster campaign earlier this year. The Biden No. 2 spent billions on star-studded events, strategic photo ops, and endless influencer endorsements.
She demonstrated her experience as a lifetime politician by dodging difficult questions and ducking sit-down interviews. It was looking good, and yet the rollercoaster ride ultimately came to a crashing stop and a big vote drop.
Donald Trump won the popular vote, the electoral college, and the presidency.
Republicans have a majority in both the House and Senate. Democrats have been banished from the halls of power, and many blame Harris.
Still, her remaining allies give the VP credit. The campaign was bogged down by a Biden presidency and up against a Trump resurgence.
More importantly, reports have emerged that Harris herself is not ready to give up. Despite a record swing against her, speculation swirls that the one-time nominee wants back in the game.
A Rare Opportunity
The timing could not be better. The California governor's mansion is opening up in 2027, right alongside the wide-open Democratic primary.
The alternative is a “cushy” law firm role, but the sixty-year-old won’t settle for that just yet. Throughout her most recent failed campaign, Kamala Harris proudly declared that her only employer has been the American people.
Commentators considered this an unusually intelligent way to disguise her status as a career politician.
However, it did cast further doubt on the legitimacy of her supposed stint working at McDonald’s.
Governor, Babe?
Harris is also weighing up an unusual pivot back to California politics. Her identity as the most progressive US senator was shaped by her time in West Coast liberal politics.
A return home and a shot at the Governor’s Mansion would be an extraordinary turn of events. As her husband, Doug Emhoff, returns to entertainment law, it seems increasingly likely.
The pair have long expressed a desire to return home, and aides have speculated about what the Second Gentleman is pushing for.
The only issue? Harris lost nearly two million votes in California compared to Biden in 2020.
This number rang alarm bells inside the DNC. Admittedly, the state was one of the few wins that evening for Harris. However, she still suffered from lethargic turnout and an unenthused voter base.
Consolation Prize
Many of the up-and-coming California lawmakers will not sit out and allow the VP her “consolation prize”. She will be in for a bruising fight against competent communicators and intelligent lawmakers.
Harris will need to counter these qualities with the unique stardom of a previous presidential run. Her noted ability to shapeshift policy positions to align with “unchanged values” will be an asset.
Still, pollsters believe Harris could even give Republicans a rare chance to wrest the solidly blue state back.
Back in her California days, Harris consistently underperformed her peers and was seen as the weakest link by Republicans.
Her attempt at the presidency back in 2020 continued her mixed track record. It was a familiar whirlwind of big donors and flashy events that swept through the early voting states.
Following devastating poll numbers, Harris quietly dropped out before a primary vote was even cast.
A Triumphant Return
Harris has promised in predictably vague fashion to “stay in the fight”. Her campaign is still sending emails requesting as little as $3 from former supporters. She’s dining with powerbrokers and meeting kingmakers.
She’s doing everything she can to fan the political flames a little longer.
When it comes to the presidency, an ambitious Harris won’t rule anything out. A tough pill for voters but good news for JD Vance.
That was the flipped version of the Guardian article I read yesterday. My version was filled with a whole lot of bias in a very different direction.
I’ll discuss some of my biased techniques in the comment below. Feel free to share what you spotted throughout too.
And don’t worry, I'm not just picking on The Guardian.
I’ll be back with more on the Daily Wire, Vox, Fox News, NBC, and plenty more. They’re all guilty of bias, and they’ll get their chance to face the music.
Want to learn more on the important topics? Check out my opinion piece on why the Pentagon can’t balance the books and why I fully support it.
In the meantime, stay sharp and stay critical. Don’t let biased articles like this one fool you too much.
Yours critically,
Leonard
The Biased Journalist
Well, there sure was plenty of bias to go around. The descriptive language for Harris (failed campaign, ambitious career politician) was all very negative. I also insinuated that she was a liar (McDonald's work) and implied that she was neither competent nor intelligent but relied on stardom and sneaky tactics.
Let's not forget the abundant omission that plagued my article. Where is her strong favorable numbers? Or her small dollar donor records? Sources were vaguely titled 'commentators' and 'pollsters'.
Overall, the framing bias was strong too. Harris wasn't searching for new ways to fight on but rather new ways to cling on to power. The article was brutally biased and I'm sure there's plenty more examples hidden throughout.
If we had a real primary this time around with real candidates - neither one of them would have been the Democratic candidate for president and she won’t be next time around either.