Last month, KaMala Harris participated in an interview on ABC’s “The View,” where host Sunny Hostin asked her if she would have done anything differentlymore than President Joe Biden in the last four years.

Unusually for a politician of her stature with ambitions to become the first female president of the United States, she stumbled incredibly and declared: “Nothing comes to mind. Nothing. »

The consequences of the incident are uncertain: it sent shockwaves through the Democratic camp, with many fearing it was a missed opportunity to forge their own path, while “team Trump” seized the opportunity, broadcasting his response in a loop on their own path. advantage.

It was as if a goalkeeper threw the ball directly to the opposing attacker – an open goal for Trump in a one-on-one situation.

And that sums up the reason for Harris’ anticipated fall in the election.

It has long been said that Biden, perhaps because of his age or something else, was increasingly out of touch with the American population. And Harris, much younger than him, made the same mistake. She simply overlooked the frustration that has been brewing across the country over the years.

The rising costs of essentials like gasoline, groceries, and rent have weighed heavily on people’s minds, forcing them to look for a candidate who can identify with their struggles. Biden’s handling of the Ukraine-Russia war has also faced criticism, with many saying the conflict has fueled inflation and economic tensions in the United States, further amplifying frustration over the disruption supply chain and public spending.

Even within the Democratic Party, support for Biden was not unanimous. Concerns about his approach to immigration, border security and policies such as student loan forgiveness have divided the party.

Yet during her campaign, Harris failed to acknowledge these issues or reach out to frustrated voters. Instead of addressing these grievances head on, she seemed to gloss over them. This inability to connect on pressing issues led many to question whether she was the right candidate at a time when the nation was facing significant challenges.

Moreover, she also failed to convince the “progressive section” of voters. In particular, her record as a prosecutor and attorney general also worked against her and alienated progressive voters.

She may present herself as a “progressive prosecutor,” but her policies are seen as harsh and disproportionately targeting communities of color. His support for aggressive prosecution of “quality of life” crimes (such as loitering and truancy), his role in enforcing strict penalties under the three strikes law, and his previous stance against decriminalization of sex work contributed to the impression that she was more of a “tough on crime” candidate than a true progressive.

His approach was shaped by a political strategy from the pre-Black Lives Matter era, where being “tough on crime” was often seen in a positive light.

However, as attitudes shifted among independent Democrats and progressives, this strategy backfired. Voters have become increasingly aware of his prosecutorial record, leading to a decline in his support, difficulty raising funds and difficulty establishing ties with the progressive wing of his party.

And then comes the Israeli-Palestinian question.

Harris’ stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly her unwavering support for Israel’s “right to defend itself”, while acknowledging the devastating humanitarian crisis in Gaza, further contributed to her political downfall.

Even if her position aligned with that of President Biden, it did little to distinguish her as a leader capable of addressing the complex frustrations felt by many Americans regarding the war and its toll on innocent lives. His failure to respond decisively to the demands of pro-Palestinian activists, combined with the perception that his statements lacked boldness or originality, alienated a key part of the country’s progressive base.

This, along with her public stance against Israeli military actions, exposed her to criticism from pro-Israel groups and her political opponents, further eroding her appeal and throwing her into a highly polarized electoral race.

On the other hand, Donald Trump didn’t really have such problems. He may have been held up by many as the walking, talking classic example of a modern-day fascist, he was at least able to gather a cult following that continued to support him even in the face of his most controversial moments.

Trump has exploited feelings of whiteness, nationalism and populism in a way that figures like Pat Buchanan or Ross Perot never managed to do. Unlike traditional conservative supporters, Trump’s core supporters demonstrated extreme loyalty that resembled a cult of personality, setting them apart from typical voters.

Ultimately, it was Trump’s staunchly loyal fans, unlike Harris’s deeply divided base, who worked in his favor and relegated Harris to the background.