Stephen A. Smith, the SiriusXM host, delivered a strong rebuttal to Rep. James Clyburn’s claim that gender might have influenced Kamala Harris’s failure in the 2024 election. On his show, “Straight Shooter with Stephen A.,” Smith firmly pushed back against the narrative suggesting that Harris’s gender played a role in her loss to President Trump, stating, “I emphatically disagree.”
Clyburn’s proposal posited that voters might have struggled to move past Harris’s identity as a woman. However, Smith countered this by recalling the political landscape over the last several years. He pointed to Hillary Clinton, who won nearly three million more votes than Trump in 2016, and highlighted Harris’s notable achievement of nearly 75 million votes in her campaign, the highest ever for a Democratic candidate. Yet, it’s important to note that Harris’s vote count fell short of what Biden achieved in 2020.
Smith’s argument extends beyond individual cases. He reflected on the broader implications, mentioning significant Democratic victories, such as the elections of governors in New York and New Jersey, along with the historic role of former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. His contention is clear: if gender were truly a determining factor in voting behavior, then Harris would not have had the opportunity to assume such a prominent role in the election with only 107 days to make her case to the electorate.
Additionally, Smith took exception to former First Lady Michelle Obama’s statement that the nation might not be “ready” for a female president. He contended that “we’re very ready as a country to elect a woman,” emphasizing a sentiment that women tend to be “smarter, more composed, more disciplined” than their male counterparts. This marks a significant reclaiming of agency regarding the narrative around gender in politics, countering the notion that societal readiness is still in question.
Further complicating the conversation around Harris’s campaign was a remark from comedian Jon Stewart during an episode of “The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart.” Stewart suggested that while Harris claimed her campaign suffered from being too brief with just over three months until the election, it might have actually been the opposite. He argued persuasively that, under different circumstances, a shorter campaign could have potentially benefitted Harris, creating a sense of urgency that might have galvanized the electorate more effectively.
As the political landscape shifts and evolves, analysis from figures such as Smith provides crucial insights into the dynamics at play. His dedication to dissecting the underlying reasons for electoral outcomes challenges the narrative that external factors, such as gender, are responsible for a candidate’s success or failure. Instead, Smith suggests a deeper examination of campaign strategies, timing, and voter perceptions as essential components in understanding the electoral process.
In essence, Smith’s remarks call for a comprehensive analysis of why Harris’s campaign did not resonate as anticipated, pushing aside superficial reasons tied to gender and instead focusing on the tactical and perceptual elements at play in modern elections.
"*" indicates required fields
