It's good for archives
Former Vice President Kamala Harris is weighing yet another presidential run in 2028, according to a conversation she had with the Rev. Al Sharpton in April.
“I served for four years, being a heartbeat away from the presidency of the United States,” Harris said. “I spent countless hours in my West Wing office, footsteps away from the Oval Office. I spent countless hours in the Oval Office, in the Situation Room. I know what the job is. And I know what it requires.”
I have no doubt in my mind that she knows what the job entails. What I doubt is that she has the backing to actually secure the presidency for the Democrats. In all of this fanfare over her potential run, my question is, “Why?”
Why is she willing to humiliate herself and the Democratic Party for a second time? Why does she think she has a better shot this time? What has she done to better the lives of people who voted for her in the months since she lost the presidential election?
I was a Harris supporter in 2024. I covered her race extensively and voted for her that November. But even I think her chances of attaining the presidency are slim – and the nation has far too much to lose to bet on her. It’s up to her to decide whether to run again – but as a Democratic voter, I’m wary of seeing her at the top of the 2028 ticket after her devastating loss.
At least Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016. {Note: If I weren't a establishment ghoul yet replaced her for candidacy with such stats, I'd at least contest the electoral system as such, but ah well, let the precedent of Al Gore go}
Kamala Harris is doing well in polls. So what?
The polls are looking good for Harris, should she decide to run.
A new survey of registered voters from the Center for American Political Studies, The Harris Poll and HarrisX shows that 50% of Democrats support her in a presidential primary that could also include California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.
Oh, damn the Zionist lot. No wonder, I'm not part of politics
An April poll from YouGov showed Harris ahead of the competition with 24% support, and an Echelon Insights poll from a similar time period showed her at the top with 22% support.
Yet prediction markets are saying otherwise. As of April 30, both Kalshi and Polymarket put the former vice president’s odds of being the Democratic nominee at just over 9%. I’m wary of believing gamblers and pollsters alike, but these odds tell a much different story.
Sure, she’s popular with Democrats. That does not mean she’s popular with the overall population. For most people, Harris’ name carries baggage from the 2024 presidential campaign, as well as her failure to do anything of note following her attempt to reach the Oval Office. She hasn’t done much to cement herself as the new leader of the Democratic Party in the aftermath.
President Donald Trump has completely decimated the United States over the course of his second term. There is no corner of the country he hasn't affected, from mass firings of federal workers and tariffs that have raised the cost of living for American families to his attacks on trans people. Instead of standing up for the people who voted for her, Harris has been absent from the conversation that Democrats should be easily winning.
It's clear to me Harris shouldn't run. Here is why.
My problems with Harris go beyond the tired trope that a woman, especially a woman of color, cannot be president. It may not have happened yet, but to say that this is the only thing keeping her from the presidency is naive. Harris, while qualified, simply doesn’t have the popularity it would take to win against whichever Republican becomes the 2028 nominee.
Harris is not a candidate who can ignite enthusiasm among the most progressive Democrats, and she burned bridges with the establishment wing of the party when she published her memoir in 2025.
On the presidential campaign trail, Harris failed to establish a clear message on affordability, continuously touted the lethality of the U.S. military and gave non-answers on the situation in Gaza and transgender issues. She aimed for the middle by following the playbook that former President Joe Biden had laid out for her, and ended up pleasing no one in the process. Her role in his administration, as well as the way she came to be the nominee in 2024, still casts a long shadow over her legacy.
Though Harris would not be running against Trump in 2028, she would be running against someone – be it Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio or some other Republican waiting in the wings – who is hand-selected by the president. The Republicans will select someone molded in Trump’s image to see if they can pull off another eight years of complete political dominance.
Even if Democrats like her, Harris would be a weak candidate against any of the Republicans mentioned. She does not have the messaging down, and the country can’t afford another vibes-based election. If she does run again, it'll just be a replay of what happened in 2024.
Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on Bluesky: @sarapequeno.bsky.social
"I know what the job is. And I know what it requires.”
I'm fascinated by how they keep acting like there is any skill involved in being the POTUS despite the multiple dementia cases and menchildren involved
Unfortunately for everyone, it's Harrises all the way down
This is extreme nitpicking but the sentence
President Donald Trump has completely decimated the United States over the course of his second term.
doesn't really make sense. The colloquial usage of decimate more or less means to destroy, while the traditional usage is to reduce by 10%. Neither of those apply. Did Trump blow up a bunch of states while I wasn't looking?
I don't know how often you talk to libs but they think this way about the damage he has done to institutions and norms.
Sure but in that case you would say that he has decimated federal institutions or something, not "The United States" itself.
The population already resoundingly said they do not want her even with the most putrid man in america running on the other side.
No means no.
This shit feels exactly like Brexit to me, if we went ahead and did that again the population would vote for Brexit even harder this time in a big "we already fucking said no to this stop trying to bring it up again" response. That's exactly what Harris would get too, her attempt to re run it would motivate even more people to just say no to her.
Rubio vs Harris is like shrinkflation for just how shockingly awful the choices are compared to 2024
Harris vs Rubio in 2028 would set some modern record for lowest voter turnout
She should never have even been VP. A series of unforced errors all involving the Democratic party elevating Kamala Harris against all better judgment, insanity. No wonder voters don't trust Democrats to lead the county lmao
they wanted Klob but she had stapler gate and there was some accusations of racism that would've been a bigger deal if she got the spotlight
I thought the idea was that they needed someone who wasnt a threat to Biden who was also a woman and preferably a poc to counteract his being an old white man with direct connections to segregationists.
IIRC they needed it to be a woman of color because Biden said his VP would be a WOC on the campaign trail.
Yeah I definitely remember this being if not explicitly stated then definitely what they were going for. The video of Stacy Abrams' soul leaving her body on live tv when they made it clear it wasn't gonna be her is so good
i'm sure they felt like the obama thing was enough to cover the racism. i have very vague memories of Klob semi-quietly scandaling out.
dems really take the black vote for granted, especially at the national level. obviously that's not news to anyone here
Im open to being wrong, but I remember his racism and connection to racists being a big thing during the primary that was really dragging him down, and something that Harris ironically hammered him on in her one good showing during tbe primary (Remember "It was a debate"?)
Genuinely hilarious that Biden was picked as Obama's VP because of his racism, then they needed someone else to be VP counter his racism
yeah i remember that too. i think it all happened. they knew at the time how bad harris was because of her primary non-performance and didn't want to take warren out of her senate seat so that left stapler woman
They genuinely perceived Warren as too radical. Any consideration about her Senate seat is secondary to the fact that she also ran a campaign promising reform, which is absolutely out of the question. From our perspective, she is the epitome of a lanyard technocrat, who thinks better policy (she's got PLANS!) can succeed on merit, without being forced into implementation by working class mobilization and power, but the Democrats don't think in those terms. From their perspective, America Is Already Great, and if you disagree you can go fuck yourself after you get hate crimed or deported. They boosted her because she was a weak progressive candidate who was useful in splitting the progressive vote, not because they wanted her anywhere near the reigns. As soon as she was no longer useful for this purpose, she was promptly returned to obscurity.
As much of a disappointment Bernie Sanders has turned out to be, he ran his campaign on the premise that he would accept no corporate donations. This was a substantial threat to the status quo. Warren went half-ass as usual and promised to run her primary campaign with no corporate donations (then accepting them in the general election for some inexplicable fucking reason). Though it is a complete joke of a position, it was still completely unacceptable to the gangsters who run this country. You're supposed to take the bag of money, let the monopolies wring every last cent out of the people, not ask questions, and smile for the cameras.
Quick quick hide this report we don't want anyone to know
here's an old video from a Harris event https://xcancel.com/gaynarcan/status/1832861964915126404#m
the couch!
