Inside the Democratic Rupture That Undermined Kamala Harris's Presidential Hopes

[Celerity]

In the weeks before Election Day, it seemed like the candidate had two campaigns.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/06/future-forward-pac-kamala-harris/683154/

https://archive.ph/g9jP3



Kamala Harris’s campaign thought it knew exactly how to beat Donald Trump. With just weeks left before Election Day, it warned over and over that he was “unhinged, unstable, and unchecked.” But instead of amplifying that message, Future Forward—the $900 million super PAC that the campaign was counting on for a flood of ads—had a different plan. The campaign leader Jen O’Malley Dillon grumbled in private meetings that the group had gone rogue, threatening Harris’s chances of winning. O’Malley Dillon told her team that she had never seen anything else like this.

Usually super PACs follow the lead of the candidates they support, while taking on less savory tasks, such as viciously attacking their opponents. But Future Forward had built a bigger internal research program than the campaign had, and its leaders saw only one clear path to victory. Harris had to stay laser-focused on the economy. She had to present herself as a disrupter, not as a protector of the status quo.

The Harris team liked Future Forward’s economic ads, but they believed that Trump’s approval ratings were dangerously high. There needed to be a sustained, direct attack on him. They also argued that the super PAC had delayed its advertising for too long, had not targeted those ads enough to different groups of voters, and had failed to properly distribute money for get-out-the-vote efforts. So Harris’s team shifted strategy to do some of that themselves. Harris told reporters that she saw Trump as a fascist, and recruited some of his former advisers as her spokespeople.

Future Forward’s team scoffed. “People might not mind ‘unhinged’ if their fingers are caught in the door,” one Future Forward strategist started telling colleagues inside the organization. They did not believe that there was evidence in the voter data to justify a switch back to the politics of protecting democratic norms. Campaigns and groups such as super PACs are not allowed to directly coordinate on many ad-spending decisions, but there are legal ways for them to signal their desires. Future Forward began quietly raising alarms in private polling memos that it knew the campaign would read. O’Malley Dillon publicly suggested in September that top donors give to other groups in addition to Future Forward.

snip

[cadoman]

1. "The campaign leader Jen O'Malley Dillon grumbled in private meetings that the group had gone rogue..."

The entire point of PACs is that they're not tied to the campaign and the campaign doesn't direct them... Anything beyond that is pretty much admission of a crime.

I don't want to see this Jen O'Malley involved in any future campaigns...

[mopinko]

3. no kidding.

watch the orange asshole make hay out of this.

[Celerity]

8. this video below aged well

Election Night Preview with Kamala Harris' Campaign Chair Jen O'Malley Dillon

[Silent Type]

2. Campaign was too focused on bashing/attacking trump, though deserved. It didn't work, unfortunately.

Of course, VP Harris was at a disadvantage from the start. She campaigned tirelessly, but had to abandon criticizing economy, offering anything new on immigration, etc. Very little talk of struggling people “living paycheck to paycheck” as campaigns rolled into March or so.

And most of us thought good would prevail. Election results indicate are far more white wing haters in this country than I thought.

Hope we figure something out going into midterms.

[BannonsLiver]

4. Agree

Anyone who cared that Trump was an unhinged fascist was off the fence long before 2024. Was a waste of time.

[Baitball Blogger]

5. In retrospect, something terrible went wrong.

Last edited Sun Jun 15, 2025, 03:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Here in Florida, the Reds submerged the airways with Harris promoting taxpaid sex-changes. Not once did I hear the Democrats counter.

And, in retrospect, f the Dems had warned latinos about the deportations; or the Muslim Americans that things can get worse...I just don't know. How could they convince these people that all that could happen, would happen the way it did?

I think American people lost sight of the differences and the balance between Democrats and Republican policies. I think that even though Republicans were barking in their face about the ugly things they planned to do, the voters couldn't believe it because it never happened before. The Democrats always managed to pull the Republicans out of their worst steals and ideas. But all the safeguards are gone because the Republicans have successfully reframed what everyone thinks the Democrats are all about.

And the sad thing is, that the Democrats need a new way to communicate with everyone. The old, stale way they went about doing things are not going to impress anyone.

[AStern]

6. Michael Scherer and Ashley Parker have zero credibility - SKIP IT

nt

[Celerity]

7. argumentum ad hominem

[usonian]

9. The campaign is not next year or 3 years away. It's TODAY.

The party has no constant, consistent and concerted presence delivering its message LOUDLY.

Do you know who's doing that?
Bernie Sanders
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and in congress:
Jasmine Crockett

Rather than ramble, the point of the shitshow referenced in the article is that by flitting about based on this week's or that week's poll results, YOU WIN TODAY, and tomorrow and next year and in 2028 by delivering the message (like the opposition does)

• 24 by 7 by 365
• Consistently, not bouncing around.
• Concerted. Everyone agrees on basic principles and beats the drum on them.

Not "policy by reacting to the latest lies and distortions the others put out there"

Take this message I got from Bernie. (below)
HOW HARD IS IT to push this via our marches, our media posts, and by distinguished former presidents and cabinet members?
And for hopefuls to agree on these rather than dig down for differences?

People attending rallies in huge numbers are saying
YES to raising the minimum wage,
YES to expanding Social Security,
YES to guaranteeing health care as a human right,
YES to cutting the cost of prescription drugs,
YES to paid family and medical leave,
YES to equal pay for equal work,
YES to more affordable housing,
YES to making childcare and higher education affordable to all,
YES to taking on the existential threat of climate change.

And most importantly they are saying
YES to a government and an economy that works for all of us and not just the billionaire class and the Oligarchs.

Didn't we just do that?
And who organized it?
The DNC, busy with their food fight? or
Indivisible.

The micro-poll trackers have COMPLEXITY BIAS.
https://fs.blog/complexity-bias/

The more complex a solution that's adopted, the more necessary the complexifiers are.
The point is to WIN, and constant, consistent, and concerted messaging wins.

A party of paddles or a party in power?
You must choose wisely