Kamala Harris campaign reveals misjudged focus in age of chaos

The 2024 US presidential race was an intense, high-stakes contest with the country’s fate at stake. Two completely different figures — Donald Trump and Kamala Harris — were at the heart of this chaotic battle.

Their campaigns represented the deep political divisions that have come to characterise America. Yet Harris’s performance — despite her landmark position as the first woman of colour on a major party’s presidential ticket — revealed another politician unable to connect with crucial segments of voters, particularly conservative Christians, while navigating an increasingly polarised and treacherous political sea.

Although the media focused heavily on Trump’s theatrics and viral moments — like his infamous “fries in the bag” story — the narrative around Kamala was much more complex. While her campaign focused on themes of unity, progress, and social justice, beneath this rhetoric sat a deeply divided country. Harris’s stance on key issues — including her approach to Christian communities — raised serious concerns among many voters.

Over her political career, Harris has frequently been criticised for what opponents describe as dismissive attitudes toward religious groups, especially conservative Christians who feel their values are being overshadowed by a progressive agenda. Many voters pointed to her strong pro-abortion stance and perceived lack of emphasis on religious freedoms in workplaces and schools as reasons they felt alienated and unheard.

While Harris worked hard to project competence and stability, large swathes of the electorate remained disenchanted with her candidacy.

In a political era dominated by spectacle and media theatrics, her quieter, policy-driven approach struggled to break through the noise created by Trump’s bombastic campaign.

For many, Trump’s ability to dominate headlines — through defiant statements, viral moments, or even his narratives of survival — drowned out Harris’s calm and methodical tone.

Despite credible threats to her safety, Harris chose to keep these issues private, contrasting sharply with Trump’s strategy of using such events to fuel his “fighter” persona in a nation embroiled in political violence.

Physically and symbolically, Trump displayed resilience, surviving two assassination attempts — one involving a gunman near his West Palm Beach golf course on the 15th of September (AEDT) and another incident at a Pennsylvania rally where he sustained minor injuries on the 13th of July this year (AEDT).

These harrowing episodes became central to Trump’s campaign narrative, portraying him as a determined fighter who refused to back down.

Trump’s resilience became a cornerstone of his campaign, drawing attention to his defiance of political norms and his ability to keep the media focused on him. Even trivial moments, like the well-known “fries in the bag” story, symbolised his rebellious, everyman persona that resonated with his base while dominating the news cycle.

By contrast, Harris’s efforts to promote unity were overshadowed by the increasing political divide in the country — a divide that Trump expertly exploited for his gain. While Harris emphasised healthcare reform, education, and expanded voting access, her inability to connect with religious conservatives, coupled with her steadfast support for controversial issues like abortion rights, left many voters feeling alienated.

The Kamala Harris of the 2024 election represented a political establishment that failed to adapt to the new age of American politics — a landscape where spectacle, media manipulation, and defiance of norms often determines electoral success. Her muted approach, focused on policies and unity, contrasted sharply with Trump’s ability to command attention and shift narratives at will. Trump’s campaign tapped into the frustrations of millions of Americans who felt ignored, while Harris’s appeals to traditional policies seemed increasingly out of sync with the modern political environment.

Additionally, Harris’s approach only exacerbated the contrast between candidates. As the first female Vice President and a prominent Democratic figure, Harris emphasised her commitment to social justice, healthcare reform, and expanded access to education. Her speeches focused on policy details and emotional appeals, portraying herself as a steady, experienced leader who would build upon the Biden administration’s accomplishments. Yet, despite her credentials and progressive agenda, Harris struggled to connect with key segments of the electorate, especially disillusioned conservatives and religious voters.

Harris’s alienation of Christian voters added further complexity to her candidacy. By sidelining their concerns and prioritising progressive issues that conflicted with their values, Harris inadvertently alienated a significant segment of the electorate. Meanwhile, Trump positioned himself as a defender of religious freedoms, appealing directly to conservative Christians who felt increasingly marginalised in today’s political landscape. Harris’s failure to engage with these groups left her vulnerable in a race where Trump’s appeal to religious voters continued to grow.

While Trump thrived in chaos, transforming every moment into part of his grand spectacle, Harris’s traditional approach made her seem disconnected from the electorate she had hoped to lead. Ultimately, Harris’s inability to adapt to the spectacle-driven nature of contemporary politics — combined with her estrangement from key conservative and religious groups — led to her downfall in one of the most consequential elections in modern history.

Please note: This Junior Journo competition entry is a work of opinion commonly called an “op-ed”. Op-ed is a fascinating form of persuasive writing, but it is not news reporting.

Images were also added to by Kids News editors and edits applied as per publishing requirements and editorial guidelines on the site.