Kamala Harris tops potential 2028 polls, but she shouldn't run! Lindsey Granger

Kamala Harris is polling at or near the top of most Democratic presidential primary surveys, and it's causing a bit of conflict among Democratic and independent voters. Let me start here. She's not new to this. She's a career prosecutor and public servant who has spent more than three decades in positions of real authority, district attorney, attorney general, the largest state in the country, United States senator, and then vice president. She made history, first woman, first black woman, first South Asian American in that role. And she wasn't just ceremonial. She cast a record number of tie-breaking votes in the Senate that helped move major legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act and the American Rescue Plan. Let's give her her flowers. But we also have to deal with the reality voters handed down in the 2024 presidential election. And here's the hard truth. I don't think she should run for president in 2028. Not because she lacks experience. Clearly she does not. But because voters just don't forget what happened. This wasn't a narrow loss that you could spin or explain away with timing. On election day, she lost all seven swing states. Donald Trump improved his margin in all 50 states. When you break it down, four issues define that loss. First, obviously, was the economy. Not inflation as a concept, but the actual prices people felt squeezed every single day. Second, immigration policy under the Biden administration, which consistently pulled poorly. Third, Gaza. Her unwavering support for continuing to arm Israel became politically damaging at a time when a majority of Americans were signaling they wanted that policy to change. And fourth, her own candidacy, her inability to clearly separate herself from all those policies. That last point is key. As vice president, she was tethered to President Biden's record. But she didn't do enough to create daylight. By the time the Democratic convention rolled around, any early sense that she might chart a different path was completely gone. She sounded like continuity, not change. And in an election where voters were looking for something different, that became a problem. Which brings me to what feels like a major missed opportunity. California. The governorship there isn't just a state job. It's really a national platform. Ronald Reagan, Jerry Brown, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Gavin Newsom. This is a role that lets you lead a massive economy, tackle real world crises, and shape policy at scale. Crime, homelessness, cost of living. California is dealing with all of that, often in amplified ways. She would have likely won that easily. And more importantly, it would have given her something she currently lacks. Distance, a chance to govern independently, to own her decisions that are fully hers, and to rebuild a national narrative not tied to Biden-era policies. Even some Democrats are saying the quiet part out loud, telling the New York Times that a 2028 run comes with, quote, a real burden and a lot to explain. A governorship could have been that reset, that proven ground, the argument for a future presidential run, maybe 2032, built not on just her resume, but built on recent, viable, visible leadership. Instead, she's back in the conversation for 2028. And the question is not whether she's qualified. It's whether the political conditions and the memory of 2024 will allow voters to see her differently this time. I agree. I think you make a good point. Given that, I mean, I did not foresee, or maybe I just didn't pay enough attention to what a disaster this California governor race was shaping up to be for the Democrats. And it's too late for her to join. Yeah, it's too late now. Damage is done. But, you know, when I had said, I don't think she should bother with that, why would she want to do that? She's been vice president. She has to go back to doing real work. Well, the problem, and, you know, any Democrat can do that job. Well, it turns out Republicans might actually pick that one off because the Democrats that are running are, some of them are flawed. There's too many of them. It is a huge mess. Yeah, she would have cleared the field very easily and been elected governor of California with minimum difficulty. And yeah, there could have been a chance for her to maybe rebuild her reputation. I think that would have been a good idea. I think for all the reasons you're mentioning, you know, she wants another crack at it. But I think the ground is shifting away from her a little bit. I know in the Louis, our producer always shows me the betting markets, all that stuff. And Newsom's at the top. And I always push back against that because I think it's too early. And I'm hoping to see somebody new with a lot of energy. But I don't think it's not that Newsom is a response. And it's not about qualifications. I want to stress that. It really just is the fact of like, you have to listen to the timing and the moment. And the fact that Biden left with such conversation, even to this day, about how qualified he was to do the job due to his mental capacity at the time, and how everybody was quiet around that, about how he responded to COVID. I know you often criticize about the immigration policy that I have criticized. I mean, there's too much tied to Biden's policies that I think frustrates folks that Kamala has to completely break away from. It's the same conundrum that J.D. Vance might be in if Trump keeps on the path that he's on. And it's hard to do. So she should take some space. And I noticed yesterday, a report came out that she bought a home in Malibu. And people signaled that as maybe she's backing away from this idea of running for president because it's like relaxing, planting some roots. Right, just chill. She can't run for governor now. So maybe she can do it in the future. But I do think that it would make sense for her to completely come back with a vengeance, with a new attachment. It can't be Biden. And it can't be Walz. You know, it can't be any of the people that people remember you for. And I think you have to make space for somebody new and fresh ideas to come in and really kick the door down. Because after Trump runs, you know, there's always a fatigue if we look at the past times that he's been president in the past election. And I think we need somebody new in the spot. And I know a lot of people don't want to say that. They don't want to say it out loud because they think that it's not right. It's her turn. Yeah, it's her turn. And I believe that it was her turn. But I believe right now we need something different. I've talked to a lot of people that you think would be her core base. I've sat down with, you know, she has a lot of the black folks, she has a lot of specifically black women. And it's just like, quietly, they'll be like, well, even Sonny Hostin said it on The View. She's not sure. And that's a lot, right? Sonny pretty much supports her through and through. She did lose. And Democrats would like to win. Well, Trump lost and then he won again. So yeah, impossible. Biden didn't even make it very far. And then he became president later. Very curious election. He lost. No, stop. Don't say that. It was an unusual election. Not not curious in a way that it was. The results were not correct. That's not what I was saying necessarily. It was an unusual elect. It was held under unusual conditions. Biden didn't have to campaign at all because we weren't allowed to go out of our house. It wasn't safe. There was, you know, everybody got mailed a ballot and many states adopted mail in policies given the pandemic that, you know, I don't know. Don't do that. There's no, according to the Heritage Study that I love, Heritage Foundation, there's no widespread proof of any mail in ballot fraud or. We just did an election a different way from how we've ever done it before. That's all I'm saying. Yeah. So what does that mean? No, Biden won fair and square. You have to accept the results of the election. I don't think that. Are you an election denier? No, I accept the results of the one. Yes. So then we shouldn't have any problem with those results. I don't. You're saying it leaving room for questioning. Don't leave room for questioning. It was an unusual several years. It was the pandemic. Well, right. Which is why I often urge you. Under atypical conditions. That's not a controversy. I know. I often urge you to lay off of your COVID criticisms because it was an atypical condition for the whole world. That's what my argument to you is. But you won't lay off Fauci. So that's why if you can extend that. We didn't have we didn't have conventions. We had conventions remotely. Right. We had Biden. So you're saying with more visibility, Trump is the winner. I absolutely think with more visibility, Trump would have done better. And with more time, perhaps with more winner. That's the people arguing right now with more time and not just 170 days that Kamala would be the winner. I mean, Kamala had an atypical campaign, too. Yes, that's it was very unusual the circumstances by which she was given the nominee. But it's possible we had a normal nominee. She might not even gotten the nomination if you had a normal election. That was an option. Yeah, that's all I'm saying.