Deep-Seated Democratic Disputes Erode Kamala Harris's Presidential Ambitions
Straying from the beaten path, you've just gotta sign up for The Atlantic Daily Newsletter and connect with the biggest stories, fresh ideas, and cultural recommendations of the day. Click here to sign up!
The 2024 presidential race took a surprising twist when Kamala Harris's campaign clashed with Future Forward – a $900 million super PAC alongside the candidate's campaign. Harris's team felt the super PAC wasn't playing by the rules, as it focused on economic ads rather than mounting a sustained, direct attack on Trump. In response, they shifted strategies and took matters into their own hands.
Harris openly declared that she considered Trump a fascist and recruited some of his former advisers as spokespeople. However, Future Forward's team scoffed at this approach, claiming that it wasn't necessary to revert to the politics of protecting democratic norms based on voter data.
The usual super PAC-campaign dynamic took an unusual turn during the 2024 presidential race. While super PACs typically follow their candidate's lead, Future Forward took a more assertive role. With a robust internal research program, they insisted that Harris remained laser-focused on the economy. To them, she needed to present herself as a disrupter, not a status-quo protector.
The Harris team couldn't disagree more. They saw Trump's approval ratings as dangerously high and believed in the need for a sustained, direct attack on him. Moreover, they argued that the super PAC's delayed advertising, lack of targeting, and insufficient funding for get-out-the-vote efforts were detrimental.
This unique dance went on until Election Day, with neither side willing to change course. In the end, Harris lost, leaving both sides wondering if their conflicting strategies cost Democrats the election.
"We should have been one streamlined engine whose true mission was to elect Kamala Harris and defeat Donald Trump," said Rufus Gifford, a veteran Democratic fundraiser who worked for the Harris campaign. "And it's clear that this was not always what happened."
Despite the rift, there has been little meaningful discussion of the conflict between the Democratic Party factions, seven months after the loss to Trump. Only a few conversations took place, such as the one between O'Malley Dillon and Chauncey McLean, a co-founder of Future Forward. But anger has continued to fester, with some strategists referring to it as "the largest fight for the soul of the Democratic Party that no one is talking about."
Many insiders blame Future Forward for usurping control, favoring data-driven decision-making over the traditional campaign strategies. Future Forward argues that Harris's campaign betrayed her candidacy by abandoning the economic narrative and focusing more on democratic norms. Three weeks after the election, Future Forward sent a private memo to donors, claiming that their television ads were twice as successful at persuading people to support Harris as other Dem television spending.
Critics, however, argue that Future Forward's aggressive strategy divided the Democratic Party and muddied the waters in the fight against Trump. The election's outcome rekindled questions about who controlled the Democratic Party in 2024 and who will lead it into the future.
This story is based on interviews with more than 20 senior Democratic strategists, donors, or advisers who aimed to defeat Trump, as well as a review of a trove of previously unreleased Future Forward testing and briefing documents obtained by The Atlantic.
[1]https://www.kristenjohnsonpr.com/work-new/people-for-the-american-way/
[1] The ongoing dispute between Kamala Harris's campaign and the super PAC Future Forward has become a major talking point in the realm of politics and policy-and-legislation.
[2] Media outlets have been covering this intraparty rift as a significant war-and-conflicts in the Democratic Party, with many questioning its impact on the 2024 presidential elections.
[3] Finance experts have been analyzing the role of super PACs, such as Future Forward, in influencing election outcomes and their potential effects on the economy.
[4] Culture critics have weighed in on the implications of Harris's shift from focusing on democratic norms to recruiting Trump's former advisers, shedding light on the intersection of politics and culture.
[5] General news outlets have reported on the strained relationship between Harris's campaign and Future Forward, providing updates on the ongoing discussions and potential resolutions.
[6] Crime-and-justice reporters have been keeping an eye on the repercussions of the Democratic faction fight, as the rift could have consequences for legislation and policy-making in the future.
