Harris Only Three Points Ahead of Gabbard After Ridiculing Her Poll Numbers a Month Ago
Sen. Kamala Harris’s mockery of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s July polling numbers comes back to haunt her.
In politics as in all things, glory can be fleeting.
After the first Democratic debate in late June, the MSM and liberal political commentators treated Sen. Kamala Harris (CA) like the invincible presidential candidate. Her polling numbers rose significantly after she broadsided frontrunner Joe Biden in the opening round. She also saw a nice boost in fundraising.
But the last two months have seen the Harris campaign endure an embarrassing freefall. Her polling numbers have tanked, she’s lost a significant amount of support from key Democratic voting blocs, and was on the receiving end of a brutal smackdown from Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI) at the second debate over her troubling criminal justice record.
You may remember that in a post-debate response to questions about Gabbard’s remarks, Harris mocked Gabbard’s polling numbers:
https://twitter.com/ScottJenningsKY/status/1156773241827893248
Kamala Harris on Tulsi Gabbard’s comments regarding her record as a prosecutor: “I’m obviously a top tier candidate and so I did expect that I would be on the stage and take hits tonight. … I'm prepared to move on” #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/kPNYfBs2rB
— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) August 1, 2019
Those comments have now come back to haunt Harris. A new poll shows that she’s ahead of Gabbard by only 2 points, which is within the poll’s margin of error:
Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) called herself a “top-tier” candidate in July while mocking Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D., Hawaii) for her low polling, but in a new survey Harris leads Gabbard by less than the margin of error.
Harris received just 5 percent support from likely Democratic primary voters in a new Economist/YouGov poll, down [3] points from the same survey last month. Gabbard was right behind Harris with 3 percent support, meaning Harris’s advantage is within the poll’s margin of error of 2.6 percent.
Here are the numbers:
Economist/YouGov poll: 2020 Dems
Biden 26% (+2 since last week)
Warren 21% (+1)
Sanders 14% (-)
Buttigieg 6% (+1)
Harris 5% (-3)
Yang 3% (+1)
Gabbard 3% (+1)
Castro 2% (-)
de Blasio 2% (+1)
[everyone else 1% or less]— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) September 4, 2019
So just what caused Harris’s dramatic decline? I speculated in August that Democratic voters might not approve of her racially-tinged attacks on Joe Biden, especially black voters who remember (and are frequently reminded of) his eight years with President Obama.
A recent report from Bloomberg bears that out, but notes plenty of other issues plaguing the Harris campaign:
Harris’s attempt to replicate her feat in the second debate backfired among Democrats who say she went too negative on Biden. The Californian also suffers from a perception that she lacks a deep ideological well to guide her policy ideas, in contrast to her three main rivals who are better-defined. And her past as a prosecutor has earned her supporters and detractors.
Harris and Senator Cory Booker “really went after Vice President Biden — it rebounded to their detriment that they went after Biden so much. Because it also looked like they were not just going after Biden, but they were going after the Obama legacy,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, which is neutral in the primaries.
Weingarten said many Democrats left the June debate thinking, “Kamala seems really feisty and let’s look at her.” But in the July debate they were turned off by Harris and other aggressors because “it looked like they were burning the house down, as opposed to building on what Democrats believe in.”
The report also quoted some California voters as viewing Harris as a convenient flip-flopper:
“Too flippy-floppy. I just don’t like her,” said Debby Fisher of Richmond, California — near Harris’s hometown of Oakland — who plans to support Sanders.
Suzanne Cowan of San Francisco said she soured on Harris after her change on health care.
“That’s not my kind of candidate. Either you know what issues you support and you have the courage to stand up for them or you don’t,” she said. “For me she’s ‘I’ll be in favor of whatever is trending’ — and that doesn’t cut it.”
With the next debate just a week away, look for Harris to pull out all the stops. She may try by attacking the frontrunners in an attempt to recapture some of the positive headlines and post-debate glory she enjoyed for a short time after the first round.
If she fails to do so, the fourth debate in October will see her viewed as auditioning for a vice presidential nod by that point.
Gabbard, by the way, has a realistic chance of qualifying for that one according to CBS News:
At least two candidates were on the brink of qualifying for the third debate and have a good chance of meeting the thresholds for the fourth. Hawaii Representative Tulsi Gabbard and billionaire Tom Steyer have met the donor threshold but not the polling threshold.
Stay tuned.
— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“A new poll shows that she’s ahead of Gabbard by only 2 points, which is within the poll’s margin of error … .”
Given the facts, the headline is misleading. It should read:
“Harris Tied with Gabbard After Ridiculing Her Poll Numbers a Month Ago”
I would put to much stock in a YouGov poll. I never trust any poll till I see the internals but at least this doesn’t have a wild MOE.
Anyone that believes any polls (from the left or right sources) after 2016 is wasting their time.
The DNC is managing, in part, who gets to participate in their debates with these polls.
Yes, and it’s almost comical to watch as the disenfranchised candidates (e.g., Gabbard) figure out that the “Democratic” party is manipulating their fortunes (again, as in 2016). The corruption of the Democratic Party is staggering.
Here’s a crazy hypothesis. Gabbard has more political talent than most of the other candidates, in particular she’s much taller than the other women and younger. And never loses her cool in public.
She doesn’t know anything, so she really doesn’t want to speak much.
So what if the Dems wanted to nominate her with the strongest possible platform? Wouldn’t they let the other 10 or 20 slug it out and bring their best ideas and “analyze” those ideas with everything apparently at stake — then bring in Gabbard in Debate 4 to clean up the mess, with prepared talking points based on what emerged from the carnage?
Because I can’t see any Dem other than Biden (too old) or Gabbard (knows nothing) that might even make the race competitive. And Biden’s age isn’t curable, but Gabbard’s ignorance might be.
Would be so happy to never have to see Harris’ face again.
Every time I see that squinty smug face all I can think of is … One Ringy-dingy, Two Ringy-dingy, …
Seriously, I see this as even “woke” sheep can see through her phony act and see the evil within her. Though I still see her pulling out something out of this, like a VP slot so when Biden would be forced to resign to spend more time with his family she will be in.
I think there are a lot more people who are quietly already decided that despite his flaws, Trump is doing a good enough job in many areas that has been neglected far too long. They might not talk about it as who wants those rabid leftists attacking them, but the left looks more and more unappealing to a lot of people.
Harris was touted as the female Obama. She, as a natural-born Jamaican, is also constitutionally ineligible to hold the presidency and vice presidency.
Hence Gabbard knocked her out.
I think Gabbard is the female Obama. Young, tall, attractive, doesn’t actually know much of anything, from an Obama stronghold (Hawaii), off-white in an unusual diverse way (Hindu). And very far left.
I’m sticking to my year-old prediction that she will be their nominee after Biden flames out or collapses. At that point, it’ll be a contest between her, Liz Warren, and Bernie, and she’s a smoother liar not to mention a two-fer with the Clinton money machine behind her.
Her running mate will be either Sherrod Brown of Ohio or Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota — most likely Klobuchar. We’re barely into the first inning, kids. Stay tuned.
I’m sticking to my year-old prediction that she will never be their nominee after Biden flames out or collapses.
I think the fake Indian gets the nod. Honestly, at this rate, Biden will be a slobbering, dementia-ridden mess by Christmas. So, the only options are Bernie and Warren. The party insiders still don’t like Bernie and he would leave them open to charges of running an “old white man.” Plus, Warren’s support seems solid and genuine. Like Trump in 2016, she’s blowing out the venues for her rallies. Now, I personally can’t stand the woman. She’s just so fake in so many ways, not just her heritage (the beer video made me gag). But I think amongst all the crazies, she’s the one.
I think it will dawn on the Ds just how deep a hole they’re in after Biden is forced out, or collapses, or an eyeball explodes. At that point, I still think they turn to Harris, who I truly despise but who I think is the most electable of the bunch because of her smooth demeanor.
If they pick Warren or Bernie, I think they’ll be clobbered.
Klobuchar could be a good VP for a male candidate. She’s from a swing state, an important qualification for a VP. She’s not tall enough nor doing well enough to be nominated.
I don’t think a female candidate would choose a female VP. Women in particular would be scared to death at the prospect, no matter how feminist they might sound to their “sisters”.
How about a Gabbard – Buttigieg or Gabbard – O’Rourke ticket, with Gabbard on top? Mixed gender, VP candidate from swing state, young and energetic pair.
I think Gabbard would be a disaster as a president, but mainly for all the reasons progressives would love her.