Detailed Analysis & Breakdown
This piece critically examines the role of race in Kamala Harris’s political positioning, specifically during the last election. It argues that her failure to lead with substantive policies led to race becoming a defining issue in her candidacy. The analysis also explores how the Black electorate has evolved post-Obama, demanding tangibles over symbolism.
1. The Race vs. Policy Debate
“God knew the reason Kamala Harris’s race became a big deal in this last election was because she didn’t lead with any policy.”
This statement establishes the central argument: Kamala Harris’s race only became a major point of discussion because she failed to present clear policies. If she had prioritized policy, race would not have been the focus.
“Nobody cared about Donald Trump’s race because we know what he stands for.”
This contrast suggests that politicians who clearly define their platform—regardless of their race—are judged more on their policies than their identity. Trump’s race was never a defining factor in his political rise because he had a distinct, well-known agenda. The critique here is that Kamala Harris relied on racial identity without delivering a policy-driven message.
2. The Black Electorate’s Shift in Expectations
“If you’re Black, you’re like, OK, what are you gonna do for us?”
This reflects the growing demand for policy-based voting among Black Americans. The statement suggests that the Black electorate is no longer satisfied with symbolic representation alone—they want concrete policy commitments that address systemic issues.
“And she said, ‘Well, I’m Black.’”
This critique suggests that Kamala Harris relied heavily on racial identity politics rather than articulating a clear policy agenda. It argues that Black voters are becoming increasingly strategic and are moving beyond the “vote for representation” model.
“Then the Black bourgeoisie came out—the Steve Harveys, the DL Hughleys, the Rickey Smileys—they came out and said, ‘Vote for her because she’s Black.’”
Here, the argument points to celebrity influencers promoting identity-based voting, which, according to the critique, is no longer sufficient for many voters. It suggests a disconnect between elite Black figures and grassroots Black voters, who are demanding policy over symbolism.
3. The Candace Owens Factor: Questioning Identity
“So because this is the only thing you gave us as a reason to vote for you, man, we gotta look at it closer. So that’s when Candace Owens and others came in and really went in on the ancestry and exposed that she probably really isn’t African, right?”
This section highlights how Harris’s vague racial positioning left her open to attacks from figures like Candace Owens, who questioned her Black identity. The suggestion here is that had Harris focused on policy, discussions about her racial identity would have been irrelevant.
This also underscores how racial identity politics can be a double-edged sword—when a candidate leans on race without policy, it invites scrutiny on whether they are “authentically” part of the group they claim to represent.
4. The Barack Obama Strategy: Why It Doesn’t Work Anymore
“She tried to use the Barack Obama strategy. The problem with the Barack Obama strategy is that was 16 years ago.”
This statement argues that Harris attempted to replicate Obama’s success by appealing to racial solidarity, but the political landscape has changed.
“The people voting now were children, and they’ve learned from their parents’ error of not asking Obama to do anything.”
Here, the argument is that younger Black voters have learned from their elders’ disappointment in Obama’s presidency, where they felt he did not specifically address Black issues. This new generation is more policy-focused and less willing to vote purely for representation.
“They think Black people are still in the same mindset they were when we voted for Obama. No, the children are adults now, and they see that Obama didn’t benefit us.”
This emphasizes the generational shift in the Black electorate. The critique is that politicians who assume Black voters will continue to support them based solely on identity are misreading the political moment.
5. The Missing Tangibles: What Kamala Harris Failed to Deliver
“If she would have led with policy, race would have never mattered.”
The central argument is reiterated: If Harris had presented a strong policy agenda, her racial identity wouldn’t have been the dominant conversation.
“If she would have said: ‘I’m going to do something about miseducation, mass incarceration, gentrification, police genocide, economic apartheid’—race would have never mattered because you’re delivering tangibles.”
This section lays out key issues affecting Black communities that voters expected to see addressed. The phrase “delivering tangibles” is crucial—it signifies that symbolic representation is no longer enough; Black voters want policies with real, measurable impact.
“Kamala Harris didn’t bring anything to the table, and that’s why she lost out.”
This final critique asserts that her failure to provide a concrete policy vision cost her the ability to galvanize the Black vote in a meaningful way.
Key Takeaways: The Evolution of Black Political Engagement
- Race vs. Policy: Harris’s race became a major topic because she didn’t lead with policy. Politicians who articulate clear agendas face less scrutiny over identity.
- The Shift in Black Voter Expectations: The Black electorate is moving away from symbolic voting and demanding substantive policy commitments.
- The End of the Obama Strategy: Younger Black voters have learned from the past and are now holding candidates accountable for delivering tangible benefits.
- The Consequence of Relying on Identity Politics: When politicians lean on race without policy, they risk backlash, scrutiny, and loss of voter trust.
Final Thought: The Future of Black Political Power
This analysis suggests that the era of race-based appeals without policy substance is over. Future candidates must deliver tangibles, address systemic issues, and recognize that Black voters are now more politically sophisticated.