Kamala Harris has been lying low since her defeat in the presidential race, unwinding with family and senior aides in Hawaii before heading back to the nation’s capital.
But privately, the vice president has been instructing advisers and allies to keep her options open — whether for a possible 2028 presidential run, or even to run for governor in her home state of California in two years. As Harris has repeated in phone calls, “I am staying in the fight.”
She is expected to explore those and other possible paths forward with family members over the winter holiday season, according to five people in the Harris inner circle, who were granted anonymity to discuss internal dynamics. Her deliberations follow an extraordinary four months in which Harris went from President Joe Biden’s running mate to the top of the ticket, reenergizing Democrats before ultimately crashing on election night.
“She doesn’t have to decide if she wants to run for something again in the next six months,” said one former Harris campaign aide. “The natural thing to do would be to set up some type of entity that would give her the opportunity to travel and give speeches and preserve her political relationships.”
True. They only won in 1992, 1996, 2008, 2012, and 2020. That’s only 5 of the last 9 Presidential elections! And of course they lost 3 in a row from 1980 to 1988.
Democrats definitely are good at losing Presidential elections. The only party with a similar record is the Republican party.
lol, 1992 was 32 years ago. Also the last time the
RedskinsCommanders won a Superbowl. 1996 was 28 years ago. Gen Z had not even been born.Obama won 2008 and 2012 on a campaign of Hope for Change. A populist platform. That the Dems then squandered.
Biden didn’t win 2020, people voted against Trump. And then the Biden admin squandered the high ground. And then failed to provide for the processes to select a new Democratic leader, and instead anointed his successor, who failed spectacularly.
But, if you can look at the last 32+ years, and rationalize it to yourself, nothing I have to add will sway your decision.
This is some insane rationalization. 5 of the last 9, but the first 2 don’t count because they were a long time ago, and then the next 2 don’t count because it was a populist, and the last one didn’t count because the other guy was worse.
Yeah, I guess if you look at it that way, the Democrats do nothing but lose…
lol, ok
You cherry picked 9. Republicans won 11 of the last 19. See, everyone can do that.
And? 11 of the 19 is not “losing is our strategy.” It’s close to even (9.5 of 19).
But you forgot that none of the 8 Democratic wins count because of reasons.
8/19 vs 11 of 19. 42 to 58 percent. A 16 point difference seems “close to even” to you?
Well OK-- that explains how we came to the last election loss after we were assured the race was “close to even”.
I’d hate to see your conclusions in a stats class.
A guy who cherry picked his population data so it seems to support his hypothesis wants to pretend he’s using stats? thats very cute.
My claim was that Democrats aren’t consistent losers, and it’s ridiculous to treat them as such because of the result of the last election. Your counterexample fails to dispute that. 5 wins out of 9 or 11 losses out of 19 are not differentiable from a coin toss. Same with 1 loss out of 1, 1 loss out of 2, 2 losses out of 3, 2 of 4, 2 of 5, 3 of 6, 4 of 7, 4 of 8, 4 of 9, 5 of 10, 6 of 11, or even 7 of 12 (going back to first Reagan win).
Unless, of course, you discount some or all of the wins post hoc with silly excuses.
My point regarding stats: If you flip a coin 19 times and you get 8 heads, there is a 16 point spread between the frequency of heads and tails. Should we conclude the coin is unevenly weighted?