Why Harris downplayed her identity during her historic run for US president

Kamala Harris could have been the first multi-ethnic Black woman to serve as president of the United States. Yet, her campaign spent little time discussing her gender – as well as her race – when reaching out to voters.

While it is too early to tell if this is the reason why Harris lost, it may be a factor in why some key demographic groups did not turn out for her on Tuesday.

Her strategy may have been a tactical response to witnessing Hillary Clinton's failed 2016 campaign, in which she made her gender a key factor in why Americans should vote for her. In that election, Clinton offered Americans the opportunity to cast their ballots and make history by voting for her.

Clinton lost that election to Donald Trump. In fact, 53 percent of white women voted for her opponent and decidedly showcased the limits of predominantly centering one's campaign on a gendered identity.

The Harris campaign, perhaps, decided to follow the lead of former president Barack Obama rather than Clinton's. Obama, who similarly ran a historic campaign and went on to be elected the first Black president of the United States in 2008, did not overtly discuss his race.

Notably, his A More Perfect Union speech addressed race and racism as well as his identity as the son of an African father and a White American woman. But this March 18, 2008, speech was the only campaign speech in which Obama spoke forthrightly about his racial identification and how it mattered for this election.

This tactic was successful for then-Senator Barack Obama, who would later go on to win the presidency. Hillary Clinton's focus on identity proved to be fruitless. Thus, Kamala Harris seemed to stick to what her team saw as a winning strategy as she sought to become a historic first in American politics.

My research on Black women Democratic candidates for office indicates that this group of electoral seekers often experience race and gender-based discrimination from voters as well as elites within their party.

Various forms of this kind of discrimination all result in Black women being pigeon-held, type cast, ignored, and/or told to stay in their place - which is often a supportive role to other candidates or political elites. Thus, Kamala Harris’ candidacy is unique inasmuch as she received overwhelming support from her political party in a matter of weeks.

While it is too early to accurately depict what happened and why Harris lost, it most likely is the low voter turnout of her base.

She did worse in counties that Biden won in 2020 and did not pick up new voters. Furthermore, Latinos and White women did not support her campaign at levels that would have allowed for this to be a closer race between the candidates.

Campaigning on issues, not identity

Harris has not embraced continued conversation about her identity. To be clear, she is aware of how her identity matters and does not shy away from talking about her positionality as the daughter of an Indian mother and Jamaican father.

Rather, Harris relied on her experiences as the daughter of immigrants and later as a child of a single mother who grew up in a working-class community and chose to attend a historically Black university as well as join a Black sorority to provide context to the values that she holds.

These values, which are shaped by her life experiences, give way to her policy preferences and political behaviour. When Harris mentions her upbringing, professional experiences, and family values, they are always framed as the necessary background information to explain to voters what informs her politics.

Previously, Harris has been able to win her political campaigns over the past 20 years by focusing on the issues and not centering on her identity.

For example, during a 2017 interview, Kamala Harris was asked what was it like to be the first woman to serve as San Francisco District Attorney and California Attorney General, she retorted "I really don't know how to answer that question, because you see, I've always been a woman, but I'm sure a man could do the job just as well."

Perhaps this strategy was ineffectual because voters want to connect to a candidate, and one way to do so is via their identity-based experiences. Others may be interested in supporting a candidate precisely because of the opportunity to cast a historic ballot for the first president from a specific demographic group.

Evelyn Simien’s research forcefully demonstrates that voters draw inspiration for historic first candidates.

Trump doesn't shy away from race

As the Democratic nominee for president, Harris hoped voters would assess a politician's ability to lead, judge their policy preferences, or examine how they handle international affairs.

Conversely, president-elect Donald Trump preferred highlighting his opponents' identities or, at the very least, making identity the centre of discussion rather than substantive issues.

For example, in September, during their only presidential debate, Trump was asked about his previous comments at the National Association of Black Journalists, where he stated that he did not know that Kamala Harris was Black.

In her response, Harris redirected the moderator's questions to highlight Trump's record of race-baiting, courting white supremacists, and the legal culpability of race discrimination.

Harris used that moment in the debate to call into question Trump's character and then highlighted her own record on advancing equitable policies for marginalised communities.

What might have been an opportunity for Harris to lay into Trump for his controversial comments turned into a chance to showcase differences between the candidates.

Additionally, Harris's rhetoric about "not going back" was both a reference to returning to the days when Donald Trump served as president, as well as when de jure and de facto discrimination curtailed the life chances of marginalised groups.

She was well aware that this phrase works for her campaign precisely because Harris is not trying to play both sides. Her campaign did not talk about race or gender, but her opponent did.

Though Harris talked in universal terms about the American dream in a way that did not alienate, ostracise, or pit demographic groups of voters against each other, she still lost.

What we can learn

Black women in the United States are underrepresented in American government. For example, there have only been three Black women senators in the nation's history – and Harris is one of the three.

The country has yet to elect a Black woman to the governorship of any state. Black women candidates have difficulty securing statewide victories, but can win district-level positions.

Perhaps playing by Kamala Harris's playbook would allow other Black women to win executive offices in the state or on the federal level. To be sure, other Black women candidates will choose their own path.

They may not want to downplay their own identity in order to secure electoral success. My research shows, however, that Black women candidates are racialised/gendered by voters and are expected to talk about their identity on the campaign trail.

Downplaying identity, discussing one's background in relation to the values that have shaped political orientation, and turning one's opponent's preoccupation with playing negative identity politics into a unifying tactic did work twice this election cycle.

Politically ambitious Black women such as Angela Alsobrooks (Maryland) and Lisa Blunt Rochester (Delaware) won historic elections as the first Black women senators from their states this week. Perhaps others could win if they strategically know how and when to talk about their own identity on the campaign trail.