Photo Credit: Herald Sun.
Harris served as an Attorney General and a Senator from California, the most populous and rich state in America. She has also served for four years as the Vice President of America.
Harris was highly qualified, and her candidacy promised to make history in elevating a non-white woman to the most powerful leadership position in the most powerful nation on the planet. On top of that, with her African and Indian heritage, her win would have role-modeled that America thinks and lives above color and faith.
This should have been an easy win for Kamala Harris. Had women voted for her to shatter the most prestigious leadership ceiling, men supported her as allies of women, and had people of color favored her, she would have won. Kamala Harris was all set for a landslide victory.
Then why did Harris lose the American Presidential election?
Looking through a leadership lens, Harris lost because of one simple, overarching reason:
She lacked the practice of connecting with the people. Harris struggled to project authenticity, and appeared scripted at townhalls, uninformed in interviews, and evasive of media interactions.
Harris looked out of place.
Imagine a college quarterback who never played professional ball suddenly thrust into a Superbowl game in the last quarter. Harris did not know how skilled quarterbacks slip out of the pocket under pressure, spot an open receiver and throw the ball with speed and precision to score a touchdown.
Or picture, Harris as an amateur boxer watching champions spar but never stepping into the ring. She got dropped in a heavyweight championship match at the last minute never having landed a knockout punch and not knowing how champions win.
And perhaps the best analogy: Imagine Harris as a pit-crew member suddenly parachuted into a champion driver’s seat. At the last minute. At a Grand Prix race needing to make split second decisions to shift gears and slip in and out of the curves to outmaneuver the competitors to clinch the winner’s trophy.
Winners develop spontaneity and instinctive reflexes from practicing through pressure-packed practice. Harris had no practice in agility, fighting, or racing.
What should her party leaders have done differently? During the first 30 days of her campaign, they should have schooled her to:
- #1
Get a tight grasp of what mattered to the voters: their safety, their income, and their future. Equality, empathy, and charity are important, but these should have taken a backseat to addressing the voters’ top concerns. - #2
Present detailed plans to fix the top priorities. This is the foundation to earn the credibility and legitimacy to be president. - #3
Win fans on friendly and hostile media channels where hosts dig deeply into the candidates’ authenticity giving them a chance to become likable, and even loved.
None of this happened for Harris. She came across as a soft candidate in the game of hardened politics.
Practice is what Harris needed. Practice is what she did not get.
Practice in scoring, breaking through blocks, taking hits, and winning when the chips are down.
Practice builds resilience, strength, and the confidence to overcome barriers. Practice forges wins, and practice is what Harris lacked.
Harris lost.
Even so, inspiration shines bright that a woman of color did indeed run for the top job on the planet, and with the right training, could have very well become the President of America.
Through the lens of leadership, this loss reinforces the need for rigorous training.