In case you missed it yesterday, veteran Democratic strategist James Carville has been yelling to anyone who will listen about how awful Kamala Harris was as a presidential candidate. He's not wrong on that score, of course, but he also doesn't deserve much credit for this post-mortem "insight." The first reason is that this is the same guy who penned a smug, widely-distributed essay for the New York Times in late October declaring his confidence that Harris would win the election. "Today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK," he wrote. "Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain." He praised Harris for having "assembled a unified and electrified coalition." He went on, cheering her amazing fundraising and ground operation:
Ms. Harris is processing Cheddar like a Wisconsin cheese factory. Since joining the race, the vice president has raised an eye-boggling $1 billion, and last quarter one of her fund-raising committees reeled in $633 million — dwarfing what Mr. Trump raised with two committees combined. All this cash not only effectively offsets the flow of money funneling in for Mr. Trump from some tech billionaires, but it has also given Ms. Harris the resources she needs to persuade swing voters with ads and to organize on the ground. With her field operation moving like a tremendous machine, it seems likely there has never been a greater disparity in voter contact efforts.
The election would signify "lights out for Mr. Trump," he confidently asserted. Remember, he was "certain" of this. Once he was proven spectacularly wrong by the voters, Carville is singing a very different tune, ripping into Harris' shortcomings. But these were obvious observations prior to the election, back when Carville was absolutely sure she would win:
James Carville takes Kamala Harris to the woodshed by calling her a '7th string quarterback' that couldn't put together a sentence:
— Eric Abbenante (@EricAbbenante) February 1, 2025
James Carville: "We ran a presidential election, if we were playing a superbowl, we started our 7th string quarterback. You can't address a problem… pic.twitter.com/RBUXKNJSMa
James Carville elaborates on his viral comments referring to Kamala Harris as a '7th string quarterback', by bemoaning Democrats' 'lack of tryouts':
— Eric Abbenante (@EricAbbenante) February 2, 2025
Elex Michaelson: "You say that Democrats started their 7th string quarterback."
James Carville: "We played with a 7th string… pic.twitter.com/bgwaTJvoqB
Sorry, but she wasn't the "7th string quarterback." She was the second string quarterback. She was the Vice President of the United States, picked by the party's presidential nominee and nominated by the party faithful. It's basically inarguable that she was selected for very stupid, counter-productive, identity-fixated reasons, but that was the choice that was made. They wanted someone who fit a very specific identity profile to fill that slot, and she got the nod. That's their second string, based on their priorities and decisions. The fact that she was devoid of talent and appeal, and couldn't 'complete a sentence,' is their problem. As for the "tryouts" complaint, that one is also rich. There were no "tryouts" -- ie, a primary -- because Democrats aggressively lied to us about the capacity and condition of the 46th President of the United States, whom they'd repeatedly insisted could continue to serve for another four year term.
They lied and lied and lied until their lies couldn't be sustained, thanks to perhaps the most disastrous 20 minute debate stretch in American history. Because they angrily clung to their lies for so long, by the time the whole scandalous deception fully imploded, it was too late to have "tryouts." The "democracy" party moved to nullify their entire primary election and switch out their nominee for literally the only other realistically available option. She was their second string QB, chosen for immutable characteristics above all else, who had served one heartbeat away from the presidency for four years. If she was so plainly terrible (she was, as primary voters seemed to very much grasp in 2019), her position on the depth chart was a reflection on her party, for elevating her for the reasons that they did. And their inability to unburden themselves of her was a direct result of their breathtaking lies about the incumbent's status. But based on the freshly-minted DNC leadership elections, it's unclear if any lessons have actually been learned:
"Show of hands … how many of you believe that racism and misogyny played a role in Vice President Harris’ defeat?" — MSNBC's Jonathan Capehart to DNC chair candidates pic.twitter.com/XfJQWBhcTP
— Charlie Spiering (@charliespiering) January 31, 2025
"You all passed," the MSNBC partisan quipped. Wrong. Yes, I'm sure there was some fringe element that opposed her for those reasons, just as some fringe bigots voted the other way for similarly bad reasons. But nearly every Democrat in the country, and certainly all of them on that stage, would at least privately admit that Joe Biden would have lost the election by an even greater margin than Harris did. The American people saw, in no uncertain terms, how unfit he was for the job, based on his mental acuity diminishment. According to everyone with knowledge of the internal polls, including and especially Nancy Pelosi, Biden was on a path to destruction. He probably would have taken more Senate and House candidates down with him. That's why they so urgently sprinted away from their lies about him in order to throw their election in the trash can, shove their elected nominee out of the race, and shoehorn their backup into it. They all understand he would have lost worse than she did. Let me repeat that: The old white guy would have lost worse. But Harris was sunk by racism and misogyny, you see. These are their people, their habits, their obsessions, their neuroses:
Protester starts waving Palestinian flag. “We appreciate your stance,” says Harrison, telling her to “go down the street” and protest Trump. pic.twitter.com/pSTA6S5QUl
— David Weigel (@daveweigel) February 1, 2025
Native American land acknowledgment taking place during vote.
— David Weigel (@daveweigel) February 1, 2025
And this is their party's new Vice Chairman, whose rise is damningly summarized here:
Here is an interview with @davidhogg111, who was just elected as a vice-chair of the @DNC. The interview took place in October, just after Sinwar was killed. Democrats reportedly have been having an informal internal debate over the past 3 months on a range of issues, including… https://t.co/RjN5etnBKO
— Dan Senor (@dansenor) February 2, 2025
One day, I'll tire of looking backward at the Biden administration and the 2024 election. There's a new administration in charge now, and they have governing responsibilities. But as long as Democrats attempt to spin and re-write history, we'll keep pushing back -- and looking back. For example (keep this in mind as you assess Trump administration action taken against these people):
“Trying to give the campaign a talking point…” https://t.co/vNThHaW1Yq
— Randy Barnett (@RandyEBarnett) February 2, 2025
They put their reputations on the line, along with the credibility and force of the US intelligence community, to "give the [Biden] campaign a talking point" against Trump, "particularly during the debate." It was a partisan hatchet job, and was orchestrated and wielded as such. Biden cited their "expertise" during that very debate, in order to lie that his criminal son's laptop was 'Russian disinformation,' rather than authentic and packed with damning evidence. The basis for that false claim was explicitly solicited from and furnished by people who knew exactly what they were doing, and why they were doing it. Forgive me if I'm not over that just yet.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member