logo
Why Haven't Top Democrats Learned From the Harris Campaign's Failures?

Why Haven't Top Democrats Learned From the Harris Campaign's Failures?

Newsweek2 days ago
Political upstart assemblyman Zohran Mamdani stunned the political world last month with an upset defeat of former governor Andrew Cuomo in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary. What was even more stunning, however, was that Cuomo made every major mistake in his mayoral campaign that Kamala Harris did in her presidential campaign. He clearly did not learn a single lesson from the presidential race of only eight months ago, and as a result he lost, 56 percent to 44 percent, to Mamdani.
I wrote prior to Kamala Harris' formal anointment as the Democratic presidential candidate that the then-vice president was the weakest candidate Democrats could have chosen. I believed, up until now, that if any of the other major contenders (except for Joe Biden of course) had been nominated instead, they would not have run the failed campaign Harris did, and we as a nation would have been spared a second Trump presidency. However, after watching Andrew Cuomo lose, it occurred to me that I may have been very wrong to assume other major Democrats would not have made the significant unforced errors that cost Harris the election.
Why do I say that? Because there were a number of incredibly obvious lessons to learn from the Harris campaign's failures, and yet a proven Democratic political figure like Cuomo clearly did not learn them.
First and foremost, it was clear from the presidential election, and just as clear from the New York Democratic primary results, that questions of the affordability of housing and consumer goods drove voter sentiment more than anything else. Kamala Harris fell short when it came to understanding voters' concerns over inflation, or articulating how her administration would lower the cost of groceries. Cuomo fell equally flat on this set of issues. That was a lesson no Democrat could "afford" to miss after last November's result. How Cuomo missed it is totally unexplainable.
By contrast, it appears current Mayor Eric Adams understands not only the importance of the affordability issue, but that crime and safety matter just as much to general election voters—Adams reportedly plans to run his independent campaign on the ballot line "Safe Streets, Affordable City."
NEW YORK, NEW YORK - JUNE 24: New York mayoral candidate, Andrew Cuomo, speaks to the media as he arrives to vote in the Democratic primary at the High School of Art and Design on...
NEW YORK, NEW YORK - JUNE 24: New York mayoral candidate, Andrew Cuomo, speaks to the media as he arrives to vote in the Democratic primary at the High School of Art and Design on June 24, 2025 in New York City. MoreHarris missed how important affordability was to attracting even the younger voters many observers believed would never break for Trump—something that indeed took the Harris campaign very much by surprise. Similarly, Cuomo failed to motivate younger voters.
Instead of affordability, Harris emphasized the abortion issue during the campaign, taking advantage of an issue that Trump was highly vulnerable on among the most important Democratic constituency: women. Unfortunately, relying so heavily on that issue diverted an awful lot of much-needed attention from questions of the economy and affordability. Similarly, Cuomo went hard at Mamdani's biggest vulnerability among what many believe is the most important demographic in the New York City Democratic primary—the Jewish vote. Mamdani's stance on Israel is in fact abominable, but Cuomo missed how much more important to the broader primary electorate pocketbook issues were.
Kamala Harris famously failed to disassociate herself from President Biden by saying outright that she would not do anything differently than the president she served. In one sentence she basically destroyed her opportunity to run as anything other than an incumbent in an age where all incumbents seem to have a major political disadvantage. Cuomo, instead of diminishing the perception of his recent incumbency, committed the same general mistake Harris did in coming off as part of the status quo establishment.
Moreover, Harris ran a campaign that sheltered her from regular interaction with the press and minimized opportunities to engage with journalists to create moments of unscripted authenticity. Cuomo, too, stayed aloof from the press and in so doing came off as a lot less authentic and genuine than Mamdani. Both campaigns failed to use social media in a way that would create an authentic picture of the candidates, or portray them as genuine warriors for a cause that would inspire voters to get behind and get out to vote.
In addition, Harris relied heavily on having raised more money than Trump and deployed it lavishly. Cuomo relied on the very same campaign tactic, failing to recognize that money does not create passion on the part of voters around a clear and compelling message, something Mamdani, like Trump, excelled at.
To have missed so many lessons of the Harris campaign is nothing short of political malpractice. Let's hope Democrats finally learn the lessons they need to from these two major campaign flops, before there's a third.
Tom Rogers is executive chairman of Claigrid, Inc. (the cloud AI grid company), an editor-at-large for Newsweek, the founder of CNBC and a CNBC contributor. He also established MSNBC, is the former CEO of TiVo, a member of Keep Our Republic (an organization dedicated to preserving the nation's democracy). He is also a member of the American Bar Association Task Force on Democracy.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Supreme Court hands Trump a win on Consumer Product Safety Commission firings
Supreme Court hands Trump a win on Consumer Product Safety Commission firings

USA Today

time25 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Supreme Court hands Trump a win on Consumer Product Safety Commission firings

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump can fire three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission for now the Supreme Court said on July 23 in the latest decision boosting the ability of the president to control independent agencies. The ruling was made over the objections of the court's three liberal justices. 'Once again, this Court uses its emergency docket to de­stroy the independence of an independent agency, as estab­lished by Congress,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote. "By means of such actions, this Court may facilitate the permanent transfer of authority, piece by piece by piece, from one branch of Government to another." The five-member regulatory commission, created by Congress in 1972, aims to keep people from being injured or killed by defective or harmful products. Commissioners are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate in staggered seven-year terms to protect them from political or industry pressure and to protect the agency from abrupt changes in composition. By law, commissioners can be removed only for 'neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.' But, in May, Trump fired without cause the three members appointed by President Joe Biden: Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr. A federal judge in Maryland ordered the commissioners reinstated, saying the threat to public safety from removing them outweighed any hardship the administration might suffer from keeping them on while the firings are being challenged. In his June ruling, U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox also said the product safety commission is similar in structure and function to another independent agency that was the center of a landmark 1935 ruling − Humphrey's Executor v. U.S. − limiting the ability of the president to remove independent agency officials. 'Humphrey's Executor remains good law and is binding on this Court,' Maddox wrote. But the Trump administration said Maddox instead should've taken his cue from the Supreme Court's May decision allowing the president to fire Democratic members of two federal labor boards while the former members challenge their dismissals. The product safety commission is now effectively controlled by Biden's appointees even though Trump is president, lawyers for the government said in a filing. Decisions made by the commissioners who are 'hostile' to Trump's agenda have 'thrown the agency into chaos and have put agency staff in the untenable position of deciding which Commissioners' directives to follow,' the Justice Department said. Attorneys for the three commissioners appointed by Biden reminded the Supreme Court that the justices twice in the past year declined to review appeals court decisions that upheld restrictions on the president's ability to remove Consumer Product Safety Commission members without cause. And Maddox, the district judge, noted that the term of one of the three Biden appointees expires in October, giving Trump the chance to appoint her successor and to 'exert significant influence over the agency.'

Dem Senator Elissa Slotkin complains party is too worried about ‘p—ing off' the Internet
Dem Senator Elissa Slotkin complains party is too worried about ‘p—ing off' the Internet

New York Post

time25 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Dem Senator Elissa Slotkin complains party is too worried about ‘p—ing off' the Internet

Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., says that Democrats are too worried about making people angry and that they 'constrain' themselves too much. During an interview last week on PBS's 'Firing Line with Margaret Hoover,' Hoover asked Slotkin about President Barack Obama's recent criticism of Democrats, where he said that his party should 'toughen up.' 'President Obama chided Democrats, saying they need to 'toughen up' against Donald Trump. You have said we need more 'alpha energy' in the Democratic Party,' Hoover told Slotkin. Slotkin agreed, and Hoover asked if she and Obama are 'saying the same thing.' 'I don't know if we're saying the exact same thing, but it sort of smells the same, right,' Slotkin said. 'And I think this idea that Democrats are so careful, and they're so caveated, and they're so worried about offending each other, offending other people, they're so worried about pissing off people on the Internet. They live often in a world where they constrain themselves.' Hoover then asked if Democrats are 'too sensitive.' 'I think some of them, sure, are too sensitive,' Slotkin said. 'And this is, to me, the central point, especially with Donald Trump in the White House, this is just not a moment to be careful and polite. We need a plan. We need to be on the same page. We need to play as a team. We need to call out when someone isn't helping the team. And we need to hug someone when they do something great.' 3 'They're so worried about pissing off people on the Internet,' Senator Slotkin said about Democrats. 'They live often in a world where they constrain themselves.' PBS 3 Slotkin agreed with Barack Obama's statement that the party should 'toughen up.' 'It sort of smells the same, right,' Slotkin said. Getty Images The PBS host asked Slotkin if she was saying that Republicans are afraid of Trump, and if Democrats 'fear each other's factions.' Slotkin responded by saying that some 'fear' backlash on X, still often referred to as its former name Twitter. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! 'You know, I've been shocked — you know, I'm new to the Senate, six months in — how many of my peers said, 'Well, Elissa, I'd love to be with you on that issue, but, you know, Twitter will be mad. You know, the Internet people will be mad at me,'' Slotkin said. 'They literally say that,' Hoover asked. 3 'Especially with Donald Trump in the White House, this is just not a moment to be careful and polite,' the sentor said. 'We need a plan.' AP 'Yeah. There'll be a bad online response,' Slotkin admitted. Obama's 'toughen up' comments referenced by Hoover were made at a fundraiser in July where he said Democrats should complain less.

Supreme Court lets Trump fire federal product safety commissioners, liberal justices dissent
Supreme Court lets Trump fire federal product safety commissioners, liberal justices dissent

The Hill

time25 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Supreme Court lets Trump fire federal product safety commissioners, liberal justices dissent

The Supreme Court on Wednesday paved the way for President Trump to fire three members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) — the second time the justices have allowed Trump's terminations at independent agencies to go into effect. The emergency order lifts a lower court's ruling that determined the firings were unlawful and effectively ordered the reinstatement of commissioners Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr. as the litigation progresses. The majority pointed to its May emergency ruling greenlighting Trump firing members of two other independent agencies, saying the CPSC did not differ in 'any pertinent respect.' 'Although our interim orders are not conclusive as to the merits, they inform how a court should exercise its equitable discretion in like cases,' the unsigned order reads. The three justices appointed by Democratic presidents publicly dissented, saying their colleagues had 'negated Congress's choice of agency bipartisanship and independence.' 'By means of such actions, this Court may facilitate the permanent transfer of authority, piece by piece by piece, from one branch of Government to another. Respectfully, I dissent,' wrote Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The decision marks an immediate victory for the Trump administration, which has looked to vastly expand executive power since Trump returned to the White House. The administration has sought to eviscerate removal protections for members of independent agencies throughout the government, pushing back on a 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent that cleared the way for Congress to establish those protections. The new order marks the second time the justices have intervened to permit Trump's firings of independent agency leaders. In May, the justices cleared the way for Trump to fire National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said lower courts still haven't gotten the message, including when U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox later blocked Trump's termination of the three CPSC members. Sauer urged the Supreme Court to firmly settle the issue by leapfrogging the lower courts to take up the CPSC case on their normal docket. 'This case illustrates that the sooner this Court resolves the merits of this application and decides foundational questions about the scope of the President's removal authority, the better,' Sauer wrote in the application. The majority declined to do so, instead sending the case back to the lower courts. But Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Trump's second appointee to the court, said he would've taken that additional step. He warned his colleagues may leave 'extended uncertainty and confusion' about whether the court will overrule the precedent. 'Moreover, when the question is whether to narrow or overrule one of this Court's precedents rather than how to resolve an open or disputed question of federal law, further percolation in the lower courts is not particularly useful,' Kavanaugh wrote. The CPSC commissioners, appointed by former President Biden, were let go earlier this year. Trump did not purport to have cause to fire them, despite federal law providing independent agencies across the federal bureaucracy with for-cause removal protections. CPSC commissioners cannot be fired by the president except for 'neglect of duty or malfeasance in office' under federal law. Similar setups exist for a handful of other agencies, providing a degree of independence from the political impulses of the White House. The commissioners, represented by consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, urged the justices to stay out of the case. 'The government now asks this Court to disrupt the status quo and enter a stay that would prevent the Commissioners from serving in the roles that the district court held they are entitled to occupy and that they have in fact been occupying for the last month. The government cannot establish its entitlement to this extraordinary relief,' the group's attorneys wrote in court filings.

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