Hilary Rosen serves as a political analyst for the Democratic Party
I’ve had the pleasure of knowing and appreciating Vice President Kamala Harris for quite some time, stretching back to my tenure with Senator Dianne Feinstein. Her warmth and character have always been admirable to me.
She takes her commitment to public policy seriously and genuinely dedicates herself to serving the public. Throughout this campaign, her innate joy in advocating for the people—all people—was prominently displayed. It was clear she poured her heart and soul into her efforts.
Finding joy in our work is an aspiration for many, even if few ever experience it. This leads me to discuss this campaign.
Like countless others, I am devastated by the outcome. Like many, I contributed more financially to this campaign than to any previous presidential campaign in my life. And like others, I have lingering questions. Questions we are entitled to have answered. Given the magnitude of our losses on Tuesday, it is now essential for those involved in the campaign to provide these answers.
If we fail to conduct a thorough examination of what transpired, I fear—echoing the concerns of many who have reached out to me—that we will miss crucial lessons to be learned.
A staggering billion dollars was allocated for this campaign. Hundreds of millions were spent on focus groups, polling, voter outreach, and data analysis. What insights did this data provide? Who was responsible for interpreting it? Why do many decisions appear misguided or out of touch? Should more of us have raised our concerns sooner? What information was missing regarding the decisions that were executed?
So yes, I am seeking answers. We all are. This election was one that felt winnable; instead, we lost, and we must confront that reality with brutal honesty.
1. What was the overarching strategy guiding the campaign? What data influenced it? Did the Harris team merely adopt Biden’s approach of running a campaign aimed solely at vilifying Donald Trump? Or was there solid data indicating this was the only viable route? What prompted the transition from “Turn the Page” to “Country over Party”? What discussions took place internally regarding distancing from Joe Biden? Who made those calls? Were they informed by data? What was the decision-making framework? Because from an external vantage point, unlike the structured command of the Trump campaign, the Harris campaign appeared to have a multitude of leaders.
2. Why was there such a pronounced emphasis on Liz Cheney? Was there any evidence that this level of focus would attract specific voters? If so, will you share who those voters were? Who was behind this decision? At the moment, I believed Cheney didn’t lose us voters (although many progressives would argue otherwise), but it certainly seems a considerable amount of time and resources were devoted to supporting her which might have been better utilized elsewhere.
3. What happened to the economic messaging? Why could the campaign never agree on a straightforward message that resonated with working-class and lower-middle-class voters? This demographic is crucial for us, especially among POC and minority communities. Who were the primary players involved? What were the differing opinions that hindered cohesion? Would emphasizing an economic narrative during interviews in that critical first month following the convention, when attention towards her was heightened, have yielded more positive results? What did the data indicate regarding the influence of the media strategy choices made?
4. Why didn’t the Harris campaign address the evidently impactful anti-trans advertisements? How was this strategy discussed, and what inhibited a stronger counter-response? This issue is multifaceted, and many voters who do not hold trans-phobic views have valid inquiries. As a lesbian and devoted queer activist, I’m open to this dialogue; so why wasn’t the Harris campaign?
5. Did you possess data indicating that likening Trump to Hitler and labeling him a fascist would persuade undecided voters to support us? What data led you to believe that such messaging was compelling? There are multiple aspects of Trump’s unsuccessful administration we could have highlighted: How he falsely promised the creation of new factories that never came to fruition, his claims of economic revival in Wisconsin and Michigan that did not materialize, and the financial benefits he provided to housing developers through his tax cuts instead of promoting affordable housing. Were these angles ever tested? Did you genuinely believe John Kelly’s comments about Trump were so persuasive to independents as to warrant millions in ad spending? Once more, what did the data reveal about the voters she was targeting?
6. Governor Tim Walz seemed to start strong but then appeared to fade, taking part in only a few rallies and interviews. Was this a response to negative voter sentiment? Did focus group feedback turn unfavorable? What implications arose from this choice?
7. Why did the campaign boast so much about its voter turnout efforts in the final weeks instead of framing itself as the underdog needing more assistance? What data suggested that low-propensity voters would be influenced by high-profile rallies? If we knew who those voters were, what strategies would have been most effective in mobilizing them to the polls?
I hope this list of inquiries inspires others to ask additional questions. Transparency is crucial, and I trust that the many dedicated individuals within the Harris campaign will be eager to share their perspectives so that we can learn and improve for the future.
Rebuilding trust with some of these voters will be a challenging journey. Let’s commit to t
