Vice President Kamala Harris is drawing renewed criticism for her claim that she has been “playing 3D chess against Donald Trump.” This statement, made during a series of public appearances in mid-November 2025, has not gone over well with many commentators. Greg Gutfeld, a prominent Fox News host, swiftly ridiculed her remark, stating bluntly, “Chess is already 3D! She probably meant 4D — but she probably had already drank a 40!” This quip captures a wider dissatisfaction with Harris’s approach and messaging.
During her November events, including a speech at the Arlene Schnitzer Concert Hall in Portland and a presence at the Women’s March in Los Angeles, Harris sought to frame her actions against Trump as calculated and strategic. However, observers noted the discord between her declarations and her electoral successes. Gutfeld highlighted that “boasting about strategy only makes sense when you win,” indicating a disconnect between Harris’s claims and her perceived effectiveness.
Harris’s comments came at a time of significant tension within her party and in the wider public sphere. While she received some encouragement at the Women’s March, her efforts have failed to bridge the divide among supporters and skeptics. Polling data shows her in a tough spot, with a recent Morning Consult survey revealing a disapproval rating of 52%. This negative perception may stem partly from her growing ties to influential left-wing fundraising groups, such as the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which face heavy scrutiny over their transparency and alleged political motives.
Her defenders point to her advocacy at events like the Women’s March. Her declaration, “We will not be silent. We will not go back,” struck a chord with many attendees. Despite this, Harris continues to grapple with the reality of translating passion into political wins. The discrepancy between her advocacy and tangible results underscores a significant challenge for her as she navigates rising expectations.
The mounting criticism may also be influenced by her indirect association with ongoing controversies, including a recent Federal Communications Commission settlement involving comedian Jimmy Kimmel. Although Harris wasn’t directly involved, the fallout from the decision has exacerbated concerns about political manipulation. Such incidents feed the narrative that her strategy lacks the sophistication she implies.
The “3D chess” comment has triggered notable mockery beyond the confines of traditional media, gaining traction across social platforms. This ridicule may reflect a broader public skepticism about her political savvy. As online commentators observe, chess is a game reliant on logic and foresight, contrasting starkly with Harris’s political outcomes thus far.
Gutfeld’s sharply satirical video, which amassed over 2.8 million views within 24 hours, illustrates the frustration many feel. The subtitle stating, “3D chess, but losing pawns every move,” epitomizes a growing concern about Harris’s readiness for leadership. With the midterm elections approaching and discussions of potential 2028 candidates intensifying, the pressure is mounting. Despite her increased visibility, there is little indication that it will translate into favorable outcomes for her party.
Ironically, characterizing her campaign as a game of “chess” echoes a long-standing narrative among conservative commentators: that the Democratic establishment has misjudged Trump while overestimating their strategic competence. Trump’s unwavering support among working-class voters in battleground regions poses a formidable challenge. Current polling suggests that in a hypothetical rematch against Biden, Trump leads by three points—an even larger gap when Harris is included in the hypothetical race.
This backlash against her remarks intertwines with a broader critique from conservative circles regarding what they term “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” This phenomenon refers to an irrational response to Trump administration policies, which some argue undermined effective governance in favor of reflexive opposition. Legislative proposals in states like Minnesota suggesting that TDS be classified as a mental illness exemplify the extreme perceptions that exist within this discourse.
Amidst the heightened scrutiny, the mockery of Harris holds real political significance. Commentator Douglas Murray succinctly summarized the situation with his remark, “If delusion were a strategy, Kamala Harris would be an admiral.” The underlying concern is both profound and clear: does Harris possess the necessary instincts and credibility to alter the trajectory of a progressive agenda perceived as failing?
Harris’s attempt to redefine her record through metaphors such as “3D chess” may be unraveling faster than anticipated. What was meant to convey strength now provides more fodder for critics pointing out her political missteps. The implications of her gaffe are unmistakable: declining polling figures, resurgent conservative opposition, and a regular subject of late-night comedy routines.
In chess, strategy is often about anticipating moves ahead. For Harris, the pressing question now is straightforward: what’s her next move?
"*" indicates required fields
