logo
Kamala Harris hints at a 2028 re-run, raising the question: Can a woman win?

Kamala Harris hints at a 2028 re-run, raising the question: Can a woman win?

Kamala Harris does not want to be governor of California, which has a whole lot of contenders (and some voters) doing a happy dance this week.
But with her announcement Wednesday that she is bowing out of a race she never officially entered, Harris has ignited a flurry of speculation that she's warming up for another run at the White House in 2028.
Whether you like Harris or not, a possible run by the XX chromosome former vice president raises a perennial conundrum: Can a woman win the presidency?
'This question is legitimate,' Nadia E. Brown told me.
She's a professor of government and director of the Women's and Gender Studies Program at Georgetown University. She points out that post-election, Democrats can't figure out who they are or what they stand for. In that disarray, it may seem easy and safe in 2028 to travel the well-worn route of 'a straight, old white guy who fills the status quo.'
That may be especially true in the Trump era, when an increasingly vocal and empowered slice of America seems to believe that women do, in fact, belong in the kitchen making sanwhiches, far away from any decision beyond turkey or ham.
Brown points out that even Democrats who flaunt their progressive values, including how much they'd love to vote for a female president, may harbor secret sexism that comes out in the privacy of the voting booth.
Post-2024, Harris' defeat — and deciphering what it means — has caused a lot of 'morning-after anxiety and agita,' she said. 'We're all doing research, we're all in the field trying to figure this out.'
While confused Democrats diddle in private with their feelings, Republicans have made race and gender the center of their platform, even if they cloak it under economic talk. The party's position on race has become painfully clear with its stance that all undocumented immigrants are criminals and deserving of horrific detention in places such as 'Alligator Alcatraz' or even foreign prisons known for torture.
The Republican position on women is slightly more cloaked, but no less retrograde. Whether it's the refusal to tell the public how Trump is included in the Epstein files, the swift and brutal erosion of reproductive rights, or claims, such as the one by far-right podcaster Charlie Kirk, that the only reason for women to attend college should be to get a 'Mrs.' degree, Republicans have made little secret of the fact that equality is not part of their package.
Although Trump's approval ratings have tanked over immigration, he did win just over half of the popular vote last fall. So that's a lot of Americans who either agree with him, or at least aren't bothered by these pre-civil rights ideas on race and gender.
Add to that reality the eager pack of nice, safe Democratic white guys who are lining up for their own chance at the Oval Office — our current California governor included — and it does beg the question for the left: Is a woman worth the risk?
'I've definitely seen and heard consultants and, you know, even anxious women donors say, 'Maybe this means we can't run a woman.' And I think it's completely normal for certain elements of the party to be anxious about gender,' said Mini Timmaraju, president and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All, a grassroots advocacy group.
She too thinks the gender question is 'logical' since it has been blamed — though not by her — as 'the reason we lost to Donald Trump twice in a row, right? Whereas Biden was able to beat him.'
While Timmaraju is clear that those losses can't — and shouldn't — be tied to gender alone, gender also can't be ignored when the margins are thin.
Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of the progressive political organizing group Our Revolution, which backed Bernie Sanders for president in 2016, said that gender and race are always a factor, but he believes the bigger question for any candidate in 2028 will be their platform.
Harris, he said, 'lost not because she was a woman. She lost because she did not embrace an economic populist message. And I think the electorate is angry about their standard of living declining, and they're angry about the elites controlling D.C. and enriching themselves.'
Greevarghese told me he sees an opposite momentum building within the party and the electorate — a desire to not play it safe.
'Whoever it is — male, female, gay, straight, Black, white, Asian — the candidate's got to have a critique of this moment, and it can't be a normie Dem.'
Brown, the professor, adds, rightfully, that looking at the question of a female candidate's chances through the lens of just Harris is too narrow. There are lots of women likely to jump into the race. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are just two names already in the mix. Brown adds that an outside contender such as a woman from a political dynasty (think Obama) or a celebrity along the lines of Trump could also make headway.
The criticisms of Harris, with her baggage of losing the election and critiques of how she handled the campaign and the media, may not dog another female candidate, especially with voters.
'Whether Kamala runs again or not, I'm optimistic that the American people will vote for a female president,' Vanessa Cardenas told me. She is the executive director of America's Voice, an advocacy group for immigrants' rights.
Cardenas points out that Hillary Clinton received more than 65 million votes (winning the popular vote), and Harris topped 75 million. If just Latinos had gone for Harris, instead of breaking in an ongoing rightward shift, she would have won. Cardenas thinks Latino votes could shift again in 2028.
'After the chaos, cruelty and incompetence of the Trump presidency, Latino voters, like most Americans, will reward candidates who can speak most authentically and seem most ready to fight for an alternative vision of America,' she said. 'I believe women, and women of color, can credibility and forcibly speak to the need for change rooted in the lived experiences of their communities.'
Timmaraju said that regardless of what Harris decides, Democrats will probably have one of the most robust primaries in recent times — which can only be good for the party and for voters.
And rather than asking, 'Can a woman win?' the better question would be, 'Do we really want a system that won't let them try?'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Gifford fire burns 30,000 acres in Los Padres National Forest
Gifford fire burns 30,000 acres in Los Padres National Forest

Los Angeles Times

time26 minutes ago

  • Los Angeles Times

Gifford fire burns 30,000 acres in Los Padres National Forest

The Gifford fire has scorched more than 30,000 acres in less than two days in Los Padres National Forest as firefighters struggle to quell the blaze in the Sierra Madre mountains. Wildland firefighters were continuing to battle the blaze Saturday along Highway 166 in rural Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties, about 20 miles east of Santa Maria, according to the U.S. Forest Service and Cal Fire. But fire crews were faced with challenging conditions such as high temperatures, dry vegetation and rugged terrain. As of Saturday evening, the fire was 5% contained and continuing to chew through the tall, dry grass and chaparral that covers the steep hills and mountains. Evacuation orders and warnings were issued for agricultural lands near the unincorporated community of Garey. Although the fire is on federally managed land, Cal Fire crews joined the response to assist with more ground personnel and firefighting aircraft. Criticized on the social media platform X for the fire's explosive growth, Gov. Gavin Newsom's press office reiterated that the fire was not on state land. 'The #GiffordFire started on Trump's federally managed land in the Los Padres NATIONAL Forest,' read the post. 'While Trump just gutted wildfire funding, @CAL_FIRE is now stepping in to clean up what federal mismanagement helped fuel.' Newsom has criticized President Trump for cutting funding for forest management, including activities such as prescribed burning, a process that reduces the risk of explosive fires by proactively burning vegetation in a controlled environment. As of Saturday evening, a California Interagency Incident Management Team — composed of federal, state and county firefighters from various agencies, including the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, National Park Service, Cal Fire, the state's Office of Emergency Services and county-level fire departments — was tasked with taking command of the incident. The fire was first reported about 2 p.m. Friday near Los Padres National Forest's Gifford trailhead, not far from the perimeter of the recently extinguished Madre fire. According to Cal Fire, the blaze had multiple start points along Highway 166. The cause of the fire remains under investigation.

Trump's ‘Slap in the Face' Puts Neutral Switzerland in Trade-War Crossfire
Trump's ‘Slap in the Face' Puts Neutral Switzerland in Trade-War Crossfire

Wall Street Journal

time41 minutes ago

  • Wall Street Journal

Trump's ‘Slap in the Face' Puts Neutral Switzerland in Trade-War Crossfire

MEZZOVICO-VIRA, Switzerland—When Nicola Tettamanti looked at his phone Friday morning, his first reaction was disbelief: Overnight, President Trump had slapped Switzerland with close to the highest tariffs of any country in the world. Tettamanti is the chief executive of a 55-year-old precision toolmaking business nestled in this mountain-hugged town. He had planned in the near future to expand further into the U.S. by opening an office in Indiana.

Trump tells Schumer to 'GO TO HELL' over Senate nominee deal funding demands after negotiations collapse
Trump tells Schumer to 'GO TO HELL' over Senate nominee deal funding demands after negotiations collapse

Yahoo

time42 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump tells Schumer to 'GO TO HELL' over Senate nominee deal funding demands after negotiations collapse

Hours of tense negotiations to strike a deal on President Donald Trump's nominees blew up Saturday night, and now lawmakers are headed home. Senate Republicans and Democrats were quick to point the finger at one another for the deal's demise, but it was ultimately Trump who nuked the talks. Pirro Confirmed As D.c. U.s. Attorney Amid Partisan Clash As Dem Nominee Blockade Continues In a lengthy post on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump accused Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., of "demanding over One Billion Dollars in order to approve a small number of our highly qualified nominees." "This demand is egregious and unprecedented, and would be embarrassing to the Republican Party if it were accepted. It is political extortion, by any other name," Trump said. "Tell Schumer, who is under tremendous political pressure from within his own party, the Radical Left Lunatics, to GO TO HELL!" "Do not accept the offer," he continued. "Go home and explain to your constituents what bad people the Democrats are, and what a great job the Republicans are doing, and have done, for our Country. Have a great RECESS and, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!" Read On The Fox News App Dems Dig In, Trump Demands All: Nominee Fight Boils Over In Senate As Gop Looks For A Deal Instead of finding a pathway to vote on as many as 60 of the president's nominees, all of which moved through committee with bipartisan support, lawmakers rapid-fire voted on seven before leaving Washington until September. But Schumer treated Trump's move as a victory for Senate Democrats. He countered that it was the president who gave up on negotiations while he and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., worked to find a bipartisan solution, "provided the White House and Senate Republicans met our demands." "He took his ball, he went home, leaving Democrats and Republicans alike wondering what the hell happened," Schumer said, standing next to a poster-sized version of the president's post. "Trump's all-caps Tweet said it all," he continued. "In a fit of rage, Trump threw in the towel, sent Republicans home, and was unable to do the basic work of negotiating." But prior to the president's edict, both sides of the aisle believed they were on the verge of a breakthrough to both meet Trump's desire to see his nominees confirmed and leave Washington. Thune said that there were "lots of offers" made between him and Schumer over the course of negotiations. "There were several different times where I think either or both sides maybe thought there was a deal in the end," he said. Senate Democrats wanted the White House to unfreeze billions in National Institute of Health and foreign aid funding, in addition to a future agreement that no more clawback packages would come from the White House. In exchange, they would greenlight several of Trump's non-controversial nominees. Recess On Ice As Republicans Hunker Down For High-stakes Nominee Blitz Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., accused Schumer of going "too far" by upping the price tag on his demands. "We've had three different deals since last night," he said. "And every time it's been, every time it's 'I want more,'" Mullin said of Schumer's demands. He said that Republicans weren't caught off guard by Trump's call to halt talks, and noted that the White House had been heavily involved in negotiations. "You get to a realization that there was, it was never about making a deal," he continued. "They want to go out and say the President's being unrealistic, and because he can't answer to his base to make a deal like we have in every other president in history." Now, Republicans won't pursue recess appointments, but Mullin noted that moving ahead with a rule change to the confirmation process when lawmakers return in September was going to happen in response. "The asks evolved on both sides quite a bit over time," Thune said. "But in the end, we never got to a place where we had both sides agree to lock it in." Senate Democrats, on the other hand, countered that their offer never changed, and that Republicans kept increasing the number of nominees they wanted across the line, and attempted to include more controversial, partisan picks. Schumer wouldn't reveal the details of his demands, but charged that any changes to Senate rules would be a "huge mistake," and urged Trump to work with Senate Democrats moving forward, particularly as Congress hurtles toward yet another deadline to fund the government in September. "They should stop listening to him," Schumer said. "If they want to do what's good for the American people, they shouldn't be in blind obeisance to Donald Trump."Original article source: Trump tells Schumer to 'GO TO HELL' over Senate nominee deal funding demands after negotiations collapse

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store