With just two weeks until Election Day, the spotlight is firmly on Vice President Kamala Harris, and it’s not exactly shining bright. Initial optimism has faded as polls show former President Donald Trump gaining ground in pivotal battleground states. The energy that Harris once had seems to have sputtered out, leaving her campaign feeling more like a slow leak than a steady ascent.
Compounding her woes, a recent opinion piece from The Hill has raised eyebrows and questions about whether President Biden might have actually been the stronger candidate. Harlan Ullman, the author of the piece, suggests that while Harris took over gracefully after Biden’s temporary exit from the race, the final weeks have exposed her campaign as a shaky structure built on sand. The piece insinuates that Biden might have been better suited to withstand the Trump onslaught, stirring up doubt on the eve of what is shaping up to be a contentious showdown.
I’m still laughing at this headline. Even the guy with dementia who can’t control his bowels is a better candidate than Kamala Harris. https://t.co/jr5wEDvw9M
— Siraj Hashmi (@SirajAHashmi) October 22, 2024
Ullman emphasizes that the race is still incredibly close, essentially a dead heat between Harris and Trump. However, there’s a catch: Trump is pulling ahead in some polls, leaving the Democrats wondering if Biden, despite his own baggage, could have staved off Trump’s resurgence more effectively than the current vice president. The disastrous debate performance against Trump has been pinpointed as a pivotal moment, shining a spotlight on Harris’s vulnerabilities and leaving many to question her stamina in this heated political environment.
If there had been a twist in the debate script or if Biden had chosen to stay in the race, Ullman argues that the entire narrative could have shifted in favor of the incumbent president. The ever-inquisitive media and political analysts are already speculating whether Biden, despite the hurdles he faces, could have countered Trump’s challenge more successfully than Harris. These discussions only add to the mounting pressure on the vice president as Election Day approaches.
One of Harris’s main challenges is her perceived lack of presence compared to Trump, who continues to be a magnetic force in the political arena. Trump’s relentless energy, drawing massive crowds and keeping his base electrified, starkly contrasts with Harris’s comparatively lackluster campaign style. Voters are noticing the difference, and while Harris struggles to rev up her base with domestic issues like healthcare and economic stability, the nagging doubt about her readiness to fulfill presidential duties lingers, amplified by Ullman’s narrative questioning her viability as a candidate.
As both candidates hustle through swing states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Arizona, Harris’s missteps are magnified against the vibrant and boisterous backdrop of Trump’s rallies. The dynamics of this election cycle clearly favor the former president, who, love him or hate him, brings an undeniable flair to the stage that Harris has yet to replicate. The question hanging heavily in the air as the clock ticks toward November 5 is whether Harris can regroup and find her footing in a race that is quickly slipping through her fingers.