The 2020 Harris presidential campaign faced significant criticism for its outreach strategy, particularly concerning Black and Latino voters in crucial swing states like Pennsylvania. A New York Times report highlighted the deep frustration and even insubordination among campaign staffers, many of whom felt that campaign leadership prioritized white suburban voters over Black and Latino communities. This neglect manifested in multiple ways, from a lack of basic campaign materials like yard signs and T-shirts to a perceived absence of targeted community engagement in predominantly Black and Latino neighborhoods. Former campaign organizers recounted experiences of encountering voters who felt ignored, stating that no one from the campaign had previously reached out to them. This perceived lack of attention fueled a sense of abandonment and disconnection among potential supporters in a state where every vote mattered.
The Times report detailed the experiences of several campaign volunteers and organizers who felt the campaign’s official strategy was inadequate. Amelia Pernell, a former organizer, described being the first campaign representative to canvass certain neighborhoods, encountering residents who felt neglected and unseen by the Harris campaign. Other staffers reported being instructed to avoid traditional get-out-the-vote tactics in these communities, such as attending local events, registering new voters, and building relationships with community leaders. This directive, perceived as a deliberate sidelining of Black and Latino voters, led some staffers to take matters into their own hands. They established an unofficial headquarters to organize door-knocking efforts in the neglected neighborhoods, directly contradicting the campaign’s official strategy. This act of insubordination underscores the deep divide between the campaign leadership’s perceived priorities and the ground-level realities witnessed by field organizers.
The lack of visible campaign presence in these communities was striking. Volunteer Donnel Baird noted the absence of yard signs, literature, bumper stickers, and other traditional campaign materials, creating an impression of disengagement. This lack of visibility further compounded the feeling among residents that the campaign was not invested in their communities. Philadelphia City Council member Isaiah Thomas criticized the Harris campaign for its late-stage blitz, arguing that the lack of consistent engagement prior to the election’s final days rendered these efforts too little, too late. This sentiment was echoed by others who felt the campaign had failed to capitalize on early momentum and allowed enthusiasm to dwindle due to a lack of consistent outreach.
The perceived neglect of Black and Latino communities resonates with the criticisms leveled against the 2016 Clinton campaign, which also faced scrutiny for underperforming in key urban areas. Similar to Clinton’s loss, Harris’s defeat in Pennsylvania and other battleground states highlighted the critical importance of robust outreach to diverse voter blocs. Mayor Dwan B. Walker of Aliquippa emphasized the local nature of politics, pointing out the campaign’s disconnect from this fundamental principle. This disconnect, combined with a perceived lack of targeted messaging on bread-and-butter economic issues, contributed to a sense of disillusionment among voters who felt their concerns were not being addressed. Labor leader Ryan Boyer Sr. specifically criticized the campaign’s focus on reproductive rights over economic messaging, arguing that this imbalance failed to resonate with voters struggling with economic anxieties.
While some senior advisors disputed the claims of insufficient outreach, their arguments did not entirely address the concerns raised by field organizers and local leaders. Kellan White, a senior campaign advisor in Pennsylvania, maintained that the campaign’s efforts to reach Black and Latino voters were extensive, asserting that the problem lay not in the lack of contact but in the message itself. He argued that the campaign’s message failed to connect with these voters, suggesting a need for further analysis to understand the reasons behind this disconnect. However, this explanation fails to account for the testimonies of organizers who reported encountering voters who had not been contacted at all, suggesting a deeper issue than simply ineffective messaging. Furthermore, the lack of visibility and campaign materials, as noted by numerous volunteers and local leaders, suggests a significant deficiency in the campaign’s ground game and community engagement efforts.
The experiences and observations recounted in the New York Times report paint a picture of a campaign that struggled to effectively connect with Black and Latino voters in a crucial swing state. The reported lack of consistent outreach, the absence of visible campaign presence in key communities, and the perceived prioritization of other voter groups created a sense of alienation among potential supporters. While senior advisors offered alternative explanations, the testimonies of field organizers and local leaders suggest a deeper systemic issue within the campaign’s outreach strategy. The Harris campaign’s struggles in Pennsylvania offer valuable lessons for future campaigns regarding the crucial importance of inclusive and consistent engagement with diverse communities, particularly in closely contested elections. The campaign’s perceived missteps underscore the need for a comprehensive approach that goes beyond simply knocking on doors and requires genuine investment in building relationships and addressing the specific concerns of all voter segments.
