Why Kamala Harris Lost the Election

Kamala Harris’s 2024 bid for the White House was met with high expectations but ultimately resulted in a resounding defeat. Her campaign strategies, media approach, and messaging choices are seen as pivotal in alienating core constituencies while also failing to resonate with the broader American electorate. A major blunder was her campaign’s inability to connect with white men and key segments of her base, such as white women and Hispanic voters. Her focus on social issues, particularly trans rights and abortion, took precedence over concerns like illegal immigration and economic uncertainty. In doing so, her campaign minimized issues that many voters felt more acutely in their daily lives. This perceived disconnect eroded trust and contributed to the impression that her policies did not prioritize their concerns.

Although polls showed that voters felt that Donald Trump would be more competent at managing the economy and immigration, Kamala allowed identity politics and social issues to become the definitive features of her campaign. She mistakenly thought that pandering to a coalition of far-left activists, who want to “dismantle the patriarchy,” was a path to victory, but the election results have shown that their influence was exaggerated. Unlike Donald Trump, she was inept at appreciating that traditional media sources were being overtaken by alternative channels that captured more viewers. If she had been as attuned to these changes, she would have recognized that the tide was turning against progressive tropes.

Harris’s choice to avoid high-profile interviews and unscripted conversations distanced her from potential supporters. Her reluctance to engage with non-traditional media, such as popular podcasts hosted by figures like Joe Rogan, contrasted sharply with Donald Trump’s media approach. Trump’s willingness to engage directly on such platforms bolstered his image as relatable and accessible. Harris’s reliance on the legacy media missed a valuable opportunity to connect with an increasingly diverse audience that seeks information outside traditional channels. However, when she did appear on an alternative channel, it was none other than the sensational “Call Her Daddy” podcast where she discussed reproductive rights and other over-hyped left-wing issues.

Another sore point for Harris’s campaign was the slogan, “Turn the Page,” which struck some as incongruent, given that her party held power. While the phrase aimed to inspire progress, it inadvertently signaled a lack of confidence in her administration’s current direction. For many, it seemed to imply dissatisfaction with the Democratic leadership’s achievements, undermining her position as a continuity candidate. This mixed message may have confused or alienated voters who expected a clear, forward-looking vision. Left-wing writer Owen James notes in a post-mortem of the campaign that he was impressed by the energy exuded by Trump’s supporters who could articulate an explicit message for the country. During his visit to the United States, he observed that Harris’s campaign was faltering because it lacked a sense of direction, and her defeat has proven that this analysis to be accurate.

Additionally, Harris overestimated the impact of endorsements and traditional media influence. Relying on figures like Liz Cheney and Dick Cheney, whose neoconservative policies are viewed critically by both sides of the political spectrum, was a critical misstep. Instead of broadening her appeal, these endorsements likely fueled skepticism and disconnected her from both progressive and moderate voters. Further, her support from entertainment figures did little to sway undecided voters, signaling a miscalculation in the importance of celebrity influence in the political arena. Indeed, embracing the endorsements of Diddy-linked celebrities exposed her as a hypocrite who only gives lip-service to protecting the victims of sexual assault.

Conversely, in contrast to Trump’s multi-racial coalition, which tapped into diverse concerns, Harris’s campaign doubled down on social issues like diversity, equity, and inclusion. While these issues attracted an audience, an overemphasis on them may have sidelined the economic, immigration, and security concerns that resonate broadly across racial and ethnic groups. This singular focus likely contributed to her failure to galvanize the broader coalition needed for victory. Her opponent instead penetrated minority communities with his message and even gained the confidence of Muslim Americans who think that a Trump Presidency will guarantee peace in the Middle East.

Harris’s campaign also struggled to win over male voters. Her targeted advertisements, intended to energize men, were often viewed as awkward or “cringe,” failing to present an authentic message. This lack of connection left many male voters feeling overlooked or underrepresented in her platform, thereby contributing to her loss. Kamala Harris’s defeat in 2024 was shaped by an accumulation of strategic missteps.

Her approach alienated key demographic groups, relied on outdated media channels, and leaned on endorsements from polarizing figures. By focusing her campaign on polarizing social issues, she missed an opportunity to build a broader coalition. Ultimately, her lack of adaptability in a rapidly changing political landscape, where voters increasingly turn to diverse and alternative sources, cemented her loss. Yet the primary lesson of this defeat is that Democrats are so out-of-touch that they won’t develop the awareness to understand why they lost to Trump.

Originally Posted at https://mises.org/

zerohedge
Economics , News , Politics , Science
November 22, 2024
2 views

Utility Companies Are Not On Our Side

Authored by Linnea Leuken & H. Sterlin Burnett via RealClearPolitics,

When electric power was a novel idea and just beginning to be adopted in urban centers, the industry had a Wild West feel to it as multiple companies strung wires, opened power plants, and sold electricity on an unregulated market. Competition was fierce, but state and local governments concluded that the inefficiencies and redundancies endangered the public and imposed higher costs.

So states set up service territories with monopolistic or oligopolistic service providers, who were entrusted with providing reliable power and sufficient reserve for peak periods in return for being guaranteed a profit on rates proposed by the utilities but approved or set by newly established state public utility commissions (PUCs). These commissions were charged with ensuring public utilities served the general public universally within their territory, providing reliable service at reasonable rates.

Much has changed since then. Politicians began to supplant engineers to decide, based on self-interested calculations, what types of power should be favored and disfavored, and what types of appliances and modes of transportation Americans could use. As the 21st century dawned, a new consideration entered the picture: Climate change.

Under the banner of combatting global warming, utilities were at first encouraged and then coerced into adopting plans and policies aimed at achieving net zero emissions of carbon dioxide. The aim of providing reliable, affordable power – the rationale for the electric utilities’ monopolies in the first place – was supplanted by a controversial and partisan political goal. Initially, as states began to push renewable energy mandates, utilities fought back, arguing that prematurely closing reliable power plants, primarily coal-fueled, would increase energy costs, compromise grid reliability, and leave them with millions of dollars in stranded assets.

Politicians addressed those concerns with subsidies and tax credits for renewable power. In addition, they passed on the costs of the expanded grid to ratepayers and taxpayers. Effectively, elected officials and the PUCs, with a wink and a nod, indemnified utilities for power supply failures, allowing utilities to claim that aging grid infrastructure and climate change were to blame for failures rather than the increased percentage of intermittent power added to the grid at their direction.

Today, utilities have enthusiastically embraced the push for renewable (but less reliable) resources, primarily wind and solar. PUCs guarantee a high rate of return for all new power source (wind, solar, and battery) installations, which has resulted in the construction of ever more and bigger wind, solar, and battery facilities. The costlier, the more profitable – regardless of their compromised ability to provide reliable power or the cost impact on residential, commercial, and industrial ratepayers.

A new report from The Heartland Institute demonstrates the significant financial incentives from government and financiers for utilities to turn away from affordable energy sources like natural gas and coal, and even nuclear, and instead aggressively pursue wind and solar in particular. All of this is done in the name of pursuing net zero emissions, which every single major utility company in the country boasts about on their corporate reports and websites. Reliability and affordability come secondary to the decarbonization agenda.

Dominion Energy is a good example, as they are one of the most aggressive movers on climate-focused policy. Dominion CEO Robert Blue speaks excitedly about government-forced transitions to a wind- and solar-dominated grid in interviews. During one interview with a renewable energy podcast, he said:

“[S]ometimes the government needs to focus on outcomes. We’re trying to address a climate crisis, and we are going to need to move quickly to do that.” In the same interview, he expressed enthusiasm about federal policy that would achieve a government-directed transition.

And why wouldn’t he? Dominion, like most utilities, is granted government tax credits and guarantees on returns for investing in large, expensive projects like offshore wind, the most expensive source of electric power. The bigger the project, the bigger the profit with guaranteed returns.

Also, onshore wind companies have received special “take limits” from the Fish and Wildlife Service to kill protected bald eagles and golden eagles, while prosecuting oil companies if birds are injured or killed on their sites.

Net zero policies are not the environmental panacea that climate change activists proclaim. Industrial-scale wind and solar use substantially more land than conventional energy resources, disrupting ecosystems and destroying wildlife habitats in the process.

And despite recent technological advances, wind and solar are still not dispatchable resources, meaning they cannot provide consistent power at all times needed. Refuting claims made by environmentalists and utilities that wind and solar are the cheapest sources of electric power, costs have risen steeply as the use of wind and solar has increased. Customers of Duke Energy in Kentucky, for example, are paying 78% higher rates in the wake of coal-fired plant closings.

Politicians and utilities are pushing for even more electrification for appliances and vehicles despite the fact that Federal Energy Regulatory Commission officials have repeatedly warned in recent years that adding more demand for electric power while replacing reliable power sources with intermittent renewables is destabilizing the power system.

It appears that the utilities prioritize short-term profits over grid reliability or keeping costs reasonable – and the government officials who are supposed to keep them in check are only encouraging them. It doesn’t need to be this way. The U.S. grid was not always this way. Only in recent years, with the obsessive pursuit of net zero, have rolling black and brownouts become so common.

Today, utility companies are sending lobbyists to conservative policymakers in order to convince them that the utilities have our best interests in mind. Their track record tells another story. Meanwhile, Americans have less reliable electricity at higher costs.

Linnea Lueken (llueken@heartland.org, X: @LinneaLueken) is a research fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 11/22/2024 – 06:30