The aftermath of Kamala Harris’ defeat in the 2024 election to Donald Trump has sparked extensive debate over her campaign’s strategies. An area of particular interest has been her choice of running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. Many pundits labeled Walz’s performance, especially during the vice presidential debates, as a key factor in Harris’ lackluster campaign. What is revealing, however, is that Harris appears to have acknowledged this misstep long before the campaign trail began to turn against her.
According to an excerpt from Harris’ upcoming book, “107 Days,” her ideal running mate was former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. Harris described Buttigieg as the “ideal partner… if I were a straight white man.” This confession raises questions about the considerations that may have influenced her choice of Walz. Harris reflected on the burden she believed minority candidates like herself faced, stating, “We were already asking a lot of America… to accept a woman, a Black woman, a Black woman married to a Jewish man.” This candid admission highlights the intricate calculations bold candidates must navigate in today’s political landscape.
Yet, Buttigieg countered Harris’ perspective, suggesting that her reservations were misguided. The former mayor contested Harris’ assumption that the public might reject a ticket featuring both a Black woman and an openly gay man. Buttigieg argued, “The way that you earn trust with voters is based mostly on what they think you’re going to do for their lives, not on categories.” His viewpoint invites a broader discussion about how political candidates connect with voters, suggesting results resonate more profoundly than identity politics.
Buttigieg’s remarks imply a belief in the electorate’s ability to embrace diversity without prejudice. He stated, “You just have to go to voters with what you think you can do for them.” This reflects a philosophy centered on action and outcomes rather than demographics—a sentiment that could challenge established narratives about coalition-building in modern politics.
Interestingly, Buttigieg noted that these concerns about electability were never brought to him directly by Harris, which may hint at a missed opportunity for discourse during their joint campaign efforts. “These issues were not something that we ever talked about,” he revealed. This lack of communication underscores the complexities and potential pitfalls of campaign dynamics, especially regarding candid discussions between a ticket’s members.
As Harris promotes her book, she remains somewhat insulated from the political fray. Her brief candidacy for California governor and continued presence in national discussions indicates that both she and Buttigieg remain significant figures on the political landscape despite their earlier setbacks. Both are poised as potential candidates for the 2028 presidential election, suggesting a continued relevance that may outlast their failed bids in 2020.
The backdrop of this analysis reveals not just the miscalculations in a single campaign but also the evolving nature of politics where identity can both empower and constrain. Understanding the dynamics between candidates, their choices of running mates, and the public’s perception of those choices will continue to define future elections.
"*" indicates required fields
