Kamala Harris, what exactly did she represent?

Kamala Harris, what exactly did she represent?
Kamala Harris, what exactly did she represent?

The Democratic Party, its leaders, its activists and its experts – of which there is no shortage – are plunged into a frenzied questioning. Beaten by Donald Trump, this rude character, inveterate liar, condemned by the courts? You must have been really bad.

There is already a lot to say and there will be even more in the coming weeks and months. I’m already hearing from people on the left who, digging through trash cans, find remains that are still edible: access to abortion has been protected in seven of the ten states that voted on the procedure and Kari Lake, who promoting wild claims of voter fraud in 2020, is on track to lose her battle for an Arizona senatorial seat.

There is no other way to reconfigure the American political Rubik’s cube: Donald Trump’s victory is complete and undeniable. His successes in the electoral college and in the popular vote should be enough to silence the last doubters.

To the right!

In fact, the more results come in, the darker the picture becomes for the Democrats. Donald Trump did better than in 2020 in 48 of the country’s 50 states. Even in dark blue states – New Jersey, California (Harris’ state) and Illinois (Obama’s state) – he managed to significantly narrow the gaps separating him and Harris.

As the magazine noted The Atlanticintense sessions of introspection await the large progressive cities: Houston has shifted to the right by eight points, Chicago by eleven and Miami-Dade County by 19. New York, Democratic metropolis par excellence, has not escaped it : Manhattan moved right by nine points, Queens by 21 and the Bronx by 22.

Whose fault is it?

Joe Biden deceived everyone by presenting himself, in 2020, as a “transitional president”, then seeking re-election despite obvious shortcomings. When the balloon burst, Kamala Harris, his vice-president, quickly established herself not only as the designated successor, but as the savior of the Democrats. Suddenly, hope was “back.”

What exactly did she bring? How was it the ideal response to the supposed threat to democracy embodied by Donald Trump? Her campaign turned out to be a long questioning of what distinguished her from the unpopular president she served.

There is an intrinsic weakness in the concept of natural heir. After George W. Bush’s eight tumultuous years in the White House, Hillary Clinton, the former first lady and Democratic stoup frog, appeared to be the one to whom the torch of the party fell until Barack Obama came along. swamp water, to use an image dear to Donald Trump.

A problem of “branding»

Eight years later, Clinton, again, but this time ennobled by her time at the State Department, presented herself one more time as the natural heir to the Democratic nomination. Trump, certainly the most inadequate candidate – to put it mildly – ​​that the Republicans could propose, won to everyone’s amazement.

In 2020, after four years of Trumpian turmoil in the White House coupled with an exhausting pandemic, Joe Biden offered experience and more calm for a short time, the time of a transitional presidency, he assured. We know the rest.

By hanging on, Biden prevented the Democratic Party from presenting to Americans an inspiring, intoxicating alternative, a new project, a better future. The Democrats lined up behind the woman who, it was claimed, naturally deserved to represent the party in the presidential election. Donald Trump and his campaign of personal recriminations were enough to beat them. The “Democrat” brand is cheap these days.

-

-

PREV Following the election of Donald Trump, New Yorkers practice “Post-it therapy” – rts.ch
NEXT Arms sale to Ukraine: UN denounces “renewed threat” of antipersonnel mines: News