Tuesday, July 30, 2024

The ugly calculus behind MAGA’s racist and sexist attacks on Harris

They try to undercut her legitimacy — and stoke fears about women of color in power.


Vice President Kamala Harris attends an NCAA championship teams celebration on the South Lawn of the White House on July 22, 2024, in Washington, DC. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images


Li Zhou is a politics reporter at Vox, where she covers Congress and elections. Previously, she was a tech policy reporter at Politico and an editorial fellow at the Atlantic.

In their opening wave of attacks on the Democrats’ likely presidential nominee, some Republicans are homing in on Vice President Kamala Harris’s race and gender — despite certain party leaders’ pleas for them to steer clear.

Members of the religious right have dubbed her a “jezebel,” while other conservative activists suggested that she’s slept her way to the top by citing past romantic relationships she’s had. GOP commentators have also echoed many of the same “birtherism” attacks that were once used against former President Barack Obama, falsely claiming that her candidacy isn’t viable because her parents were Jamaican and Indian immigrants. (Harris is a US citizen who was born in California.) And they’ve tapped into common GOP talking points about diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), implying that Harris isn’t up for the job and was selected for VP solely because of her identity.

“The media propped up this president, lied to the American people for three years, and then dumped him for our DEI vice president,” Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) said in a post on X. (Burchett has since said he wishes he hadn’t said this, while adding that it’s the “truth.”)

There is a common thread in all these attacks: They take aim at Harris’s identity, rather than her agenda or experience.

And they come despite the fact that last week, House Speaker Mike Johnson implored his party to focus their criticisms on policy and politics. “This is not personal with regard to Kamala Harris, and her ethnicity or her gender have nothing to do with this whatsoever,” Johnson said.

Many of these remarks are simply hateful and examples of misogynoir, a compounded form of sexism and racism directed at Harris, a Black and South Asian woman.

But there’s a sinister political calculus to them as well. Collectively, they aim to undercut Harris’s legitimacy as a candidate and are one prong of sweeping critiques Republicans have made about her eligibility. Plus, they strive to leverage existing racism and sexism against Harris, activating voters who share those biases.

“They hope to taint her with the suspicion of not having earned the positions she has achieved and harness the fears of those who resent seeing women and people of color in elite spaces,” says Juliet Hooker, a Brown University political scientist and author of Black Grief/White Grievance, a book on race and politics.

The MAGA attacks try to question Harris’s legitimacy

The throughline across the attacks against Harris is that they utilize aspects of her identity to argue that she isn’t suited for the job.

In a thread on X, Nina Janckowicz, an expert on disinformation who’s published the book How to Be a Woman Online and who ran the short-lived Biden administration initiative on this issue, noted that there are consistent threads that have emerged in past statements, which she evaluated as part of a 2020 study. Other experts, like Melanie Smith, director of research for the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, have noted, too, that women of color bear the brunt of this type of abuse.

These statements include implications that Harris is promiscuous and that she’s weaponized her sexuality to get to where she is — a misogynistic claim that’s often used against successful women to question whether they deserve the position that they’re in. Such attacks have manifested in conservative references to her past relationship with former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown and repeated offensive taglines like “Joe and the Ho.”

That’s often paired with questions about why Harris hasn’t had any biological children, and how that discredits her from being a leader due to claims that she’s not sufficiently invested in the country’s future. Beyond the fact that this line of attack is incredibly dismissive of the role of stepparents in America (Harris is the stepmother to a son and daughter), these sexist statements both superimpose traditional expectations on women and seek to undermine the VP by arguing that she doesn’t conform to those standards.

Racist narratives, including “birtherism” style attacks that question Harris’s citizenship status, similarly seek to cast doubt on whether she’s eligible for office. It’s part of a long tradition of conservatives portraying nonwhite politicians as short of “real Americans” and therefore not fit to hold these positions.

And statements referring to Harris as a “DEI candidate” also intend to poke at her qualifications and ignore the significant experience she’d bring as a nominee.

Those remarks stem from Biden’s statement committing to selecting a woman as his number two when he ran for office in 2020. He then narrowed his final list of contenders to include four Black women. Those choices were intended to improve representation and diversity at the highest levels of the party, which had never previously had a Black woman as president or vice president. Republicans, however, have seized on his decision to suggest that Harris was picked only for this reason, and not because she also brought significant qualifications including decades of experience as a legislator and prosecutor. Such monikers are so demeaning because they suggest that people of color are undeserving of the roles they get, and “implies that [they] can only succeed when we are needed to fill quotas, and not because of merit, hard work or talent,” writes Variety’s Clayton Davis.

The misogynoir directed at Harris aims to suggest that she’s somehow illegitimate as a candidate, and signals to people who hold these biases that the GOP is a home for them. Democrats have been guilty of such rhetoric toward Harris, too, says Howard University political scientist Keneshia Grant, who notes that calls from some party donors about selecting other presidential candidates than her included variations of these same themes.

The recent MAGA onslaught, in particular, however, points to how focused Republicans have been on activating white, male grievances — and exploiting fears of women and people of color obtaining more power.

“White supremacy is above all a powerful organizing construct,” Grant told Vox. “The GOP repeatedly makes these claims that we can’t succeed together in a society, that one group absolutely has to be failing, and that one group is absolutely stealing from another.”

Kamala Harris Courts Gen Z With Project 2025 Warning

Kamala Harris Slams Project 2025: 'We Are Not Going Back'

By Jasmine Laws
Live News Reporter
Published Jul 29, 2024 

Kamala Harris has issued a stark warning to young voters, saying she needs their support to help her defeat Donald Trump.

Speaking to Voters of Tomorrow, a movement promoting the political engagement of Gen Z, Harris said Trump has "an extreme and divisive agenda for a second term."

She went on to talk about Project 2025, a plan developed by the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation to make significant changes to the backbone of the U.S. federal government if Trump wins the 2024 election.

Its policies include overhauling federal bureaucracy, reversing many of the Biden administration's climate policies, rolling back abortion and LGBTQ+ rights, and changes to education standards, including the Head Start early education program.

"There is so much at stake this November, our most fundamental freedoms," Harris said in the video.
Vice President Kamala Harris delivers remarks at a campaign event in Pittsfield, Massachusetts on Saturday, July 27. A video was released on Saturday of Harris talking about the importance of the young generation's votes in... More Stephanie Scarbrough/AP

Trump has tried to distance himself from Project 2025, even though some of his policy advisers appear to be involved, according to Reuters. Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for Trump, told Newsweek that Harris was "clearly misinformed" as "President Trump has said repeatedly he has nothing to do with Project 2025."

Newsweek has approached Harris for comment.

The video was posted on July 27 on the Voters of Tomorrow X account, with the caption, "Vice President @KamalaHarris knows she must earn our generation's votes, and that is exactly what she will do." It has received 25,000 views.

In the clip, Harris said, "Because young voters showed up, we have made progress, historic progress, on everything from gun violence prevention to taking on the climate crisis." She added that in November, "We will win again and we need your support. In this election, we know that young voters will be key and we know that your vote cannot be taken for granted. It must be earned, and that is exactly what we will do."

The video was posted ahead of Trump's rally in Minnesota, where the former president spoke to around 8,000 people at St. Cloud State University. In his speech, he targeted Harris with fresh verbal attacks, saying she would be "worse than Biden" if elected. Trump also continued to attack his former opponent, Joe Biden, before returning his criticisms to Harris.

Harris' presidential campaign has been gaining momentum since Biden withdrew from the election on July 21, with young voters in particular appearing receptive to her candidacy.

A poll by Axios/Generation Lab found that of voters between the ages of 18-34, 60 percent favored Harris over Trump.

On Sunday, an ABC News/Ipsos survey of 1,200 adults showed that support for Harris is continuing to grow, with an eight-point increase in her approval rating from 35 percent to 43 percent since Biden ended his 2024 campaign.

kamala_mode will be activated july 30


The model has been coconut-pilled.

One of the most important decisions you face as a forecaster is simply when to publish a statistical model for public consumption. If you’re just running a model for your personal edification — or to make bets with — the threshold may actually be lower. If you’re evaluating the impact of a player injury on an NFL or NBA game that you’re considering betting on, for instance, then you might only get a couple of minutes before some reasonably rational assessment of the impact has already been priced into prevailing betting lines. Under these circumstances, a good first-pass estimate can go a long way. By the time you dot all the ‘i’s and cross all the ‘t’s to incorporate the impact of the injury into a formal model, it may be too late.

When you issue a statistical forecast publicly, though, I think the responsibility is slightly greater. In some cases, probabilistic forecasts can be confusing to people. And in other circumstances, people can take statistical models too seriously and treat them as oracular when in fact all models rely on the researcher’s assumptions. Let’s not get too carried away with this — some assumptions are better than others, which is why some models are better than others. (And putting a model behind a paywall is a pretty useful trick for self-selecting a more knowledgeable reader base.) But there are times when a subjective estimate may be better, especially in unforeseen circumstances that your model wasn’t really designed to handle.

For instance, when Joe Biden dropped out of the presidential race last Sunday, I suppose we could have just done a hot swap and immediately replaced him with Kamala Harris — pollsters have periodically tested the Harris vs. Trump matchup, especially since Biden’s disastrous debate on June 27. But I think this would have misinformed even our smart, self-selected group of Silver Bulletin readers more than it informed them. The polls were already in flux, given Biden’s mounting crisis on top of the assassination attempt against Trump on top of the Republican convention, which is typically a period when polls can produce short-lived bounces. And Harris’s candidacy was still hypothetical, although she was clearly prepared, working behind the scenes to become the Democrats’ presumptive nominee within 24-48 hours.

It’s still only been eight days since Biden quit — a long eight days, but just eight days. However, there’s now been a fair amount of polling since Biden’s decision and Harris’s formal entry into the race. It indeed shows Harris doing better than in the immediate post-RNC/assassination/Biden-crisis period — quite a bit better, actually — although since I put a slightly clickbait-y headline on this newsletter, I should remind our Democratic readers that she still faces a lot of challenges, most notably Democrats’ persistent Electoral College disadvantage.

Still, there’s enough data to get a reasonable baseline for the current state of the race — and although the model is more likely than usual to show further shifts over the course of the next week or so, enough data that it’s worth turning the model back on.

So we’ll do that tomorrow. In fact, we’ll be publishing three stories tomorrow:

  • The first Harris-Trump version of the model, which we’ll publish at the same URL where the Biden-Trump forecast previously appeared. The Biden-Trump version has been archived here — we’ve totally unlocked the Biden-Trump numbers, in fact, so you get a sense for all the cool charts and data that are available in the paywalled version.

  • A fresh, model-driven narrative overview of the state of the race.

  • And third, a short-ish methodological update, outlining what kamala_mode actually entails. Short answer: there are actually very few changes, as we’re trusting the pre-existing model logic as much as possible, although we need to make some adjustments to account for the fact that there wasn’t much Harris-Trump polling until the debate occurred on June 27. We also took the downtime to examine a few other minor things, like the home-state adjustment for presidential and VP candidates. But literally about 99.5 percent of the code is the same.

As before, polling averages will be free for all readers, while probabilities and forward-looking components will be paywalled. We’ve been updating the model 6-7 times a week (i.e. nearly every day) and we’ll plan to continue that. (Eli and I were lying to ourselves when we said we were only going to update the numbers once per week.) Paid subscribers also get a weekly Model Talk column (twice weekly after Labor Day) and a monthly subscriber Q&A — there’s still time to submit questions for this month’s edition, by the way, although I plan to focus this time on questions that aren’t about the election. To sign up, you can use the link below.

And don’t worry — there will still be plenty of free content too, both about the election and other things. Surely the political news cycle has to slow down, right? Although at this rate, I’m halfway expecting to type a sentence like “the model doesn’t yet fully account for the alien invasion on Aug. 11” at some point in the near future.