Senate Democrats are casting sideways glances and whispering under their breath about the possibility of Kamala Harris pulling herself off the political mat for another presidential run in 2028. After her resounding defeat to President Trump last November—losing all seven critical battleground states, including the once reliably blue states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—there is understandable skepticism about Harris’s viability as the party’s standard-bearer. Yet, Democrats, ever hesitant to close doors, are leaving the possibility cautiously open.
Last week, the former Vice President reemerged at a San Francisco gala to deliver a blistering attack on Trump’s first 100 days in office. Her rhetoric, accusing Trump of creating “the greatest man-made economic crisis in modern presidential history,” made clear she’s not retreating to the political sidelines quietly. Make no mistake: Harris is angling to remain relevant, positioning herself perhaps for a gubernatorial bid in California in 2026, or even another presidential campaign two years later.
But Harris faces a daunting uphill climb. Her 2024 campaign was an unmitigated disaster, despite enjoying the full backing of Democratic mega-donors and the mainstream media machine. Even with over $1.5 billion spent in 15 weeks—a staggering sum—Harris lost the popular vote by nearly 2.3 million ballots. Her campaign’s stunning failure not only handed Donald Trump a decisive victory, but also dragged down vulnerable Democratic senators like Bob Casey, Sherrod Brown, and Jon Tester, all of whom lost their seats amid Harris’s political implosion.
Democrats in the Senate are understandably hesitant to rally behind her again. One Democratic senator, speaking anonymously, put it bluntly when asked if Harris should run again: “No.” The message from many in her own party is clear—she had her shot, and the American people delivered their verdict. It’s time for her to move on.
Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), himself a former presidential hopeful, offered cautious comments about Harris’s future. “I think she will add value to the national conversation,” he said diplomatically. “What’s going to happen over the next six to 18 months is going to be lots of Democrats having lots of different opinions about what our priorities should be. I think she will have a valuable perspective on that.” But Hickenlooper’s lukewarm endorsement underscores the reality that Harris lacks enthusiastic support even among fellow Democrats who once served with her in the Senate.
Let’s face facts: Kamala Harris’s defeat wasn’t just about lack of time or campaign strategy—it was about substance and authenticity. Her inability to connect with voters in heartland states, her record as California Attorney General, and the public’s memory of her failed tenure as Vice President under Biden all contributed to her rejection at the ballot box. Americans remember the chaos unleashed by Biden’s disastrous policies—open borders, economic stagnation, reckless spending, and weak leadership abroad. Harris, as his number two, bears significant blame.
Democratic strategist Steve Jarding contends that Harris remains a “legitimate candidate,” pointing to her experience and vast donor network. But even he acknowledges the elephant in the room: her catastrophic loss to Trump. “I understand the skepticism, she lost the battleground states, she lost to Donald Trump,” he admitted. Democrats would indeed “be making a mistake if they didn’t take her seriously,” but taking someone seriously doesn’t mean handing them the nomination again.
Harris’s allies argue that her 107-day general election sprint was insufficient for voters to truly get to know her. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) even suggested that Harris was “handicapped” by Biden’s stubborn refusal to bow out of the race earlier. But blaming Biden’s incompetence doesn’t erase Harris’s own shortcomings—her awkward public appearances, muddled policy positions, and inability to inspire confidence even among her party faithful.
Democrats who think Harris could be a viable general election candidate again in 2028 believe she was handicapped by having only a few weeks to campaign as the party’s nominee, since President Biden didn’t drop out of the race until July 21.
The reality is harsh but unavoidable: Harris’s political brand has been severely damaged, perhaps beyond repair. Her husband Doug Emhoff’s law firm’s controversial decision to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services to President Trump’s administration further complicates her already troubled image. Despite Emhoff’s public criticism of the move, the optics are disastrous.
Nonetheless, some Democrats remain hesitant to shut the door completely. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) called Harris “a strikingly attractive and effective candidate and public official,” but quickly hedged: “The question would be whether she’s the best candidate, and there will be a lot of debate about that question.”
That debate is exactly what Democrats fear most—a protracted, divisive primary battle that weakens the eventual nominee. Harris’s possible candidacy would guarantee just that. Her presence in the race could fracture the party further, giving Republicans a golden opportunity to expand their majority in Congress and secure the presidency once again.
Republicans should welcome the prospect of Harris’s return to the national stage. Her record, her policies, and her electoral failures are glaring vulnerabilities that conservatives can—and will—exploit. But Democrats looking to rebuild after Biden’s disastrous presidency would be wise to turn the page, not return to a candidate who has already proven she can’t deliver victory. Harris had her chance, and America spoke loudly and clearly: No thanks.
