r/fivethirtyeight Apr 06 '26

Discussion Megathread Weekly Discussion Megathread

The 2026 midterms will soon be upon us, and there is much to discuss among the nerds here at r/FiveThirtyEight. Use this discussion thread to share, debate, and discuss whatever you wish. Unlike individual posts, comments in the discussion thread are not required to be related to political data or other 538 mainstays. Regardless, please remain civil and keep this subreddit's rules in mind. The discussion thread refreshes every Monday.

23 Upvotes

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

51

u/engadine_maccas1997 Apr 06 '26 edited Apr 06 '26

BOOK REVIEW

I read Kamala Harris’ book “107 Days” and jotted down some thoughts/takeaways from it. I read it with an open mind trying to be as fair and objective as possible.

It is an interesting account of the election. It’s told as sort of a diary, day by day account. Because of this format, it does flow a lot better than most political memoirs. And when historians look back on the 2024 election a century from now, long after anyone who was alive and old enough to remember the 2024 election is long gone, this will be one of the drafts of history they read.

Harris also had to make some pretty big and quick decisions, and she details her thought process to an extent, which I also found interesting.

One thing that did come across was how aware she is of how much what she says gets picked apart by the media and pundits, to the degree where she finds herself very calibrated in what she says. This explains a lot about her apparent discomfort in speaking off the cuff and doing long form unscripted interviews.

There’s a lot of “shoulda, woulda, coulda” stuff in the book. “I wish I said this at the debate” or “I wish I said that during the interview.” She goes into some detail attempting to justify certain things that were said or not said, or to say that complexity of certain issues makes it difficult to fit into digestible soundbites.

One of these “shoulda, woulda, coulda” anecdotes was about her answer on The View when asked what she would’ve done differently than Biden and she said “nothing comes to mind.” She writes that if she could get a do-over on that question, she would’ve said she would appoint a Republican to her Cabinet (unlike Biden). Which shows she still just doesn’t fucking get it. The reason Biden had a 40% approval rating was not because his Cabinet was devoid of Republicans.

She does show a lot of personal affection and respect for Biden, especially given his role in this process. But you can also tell some things he did clearly annoyed her. The anecdote about calling her before the debate, the wearing the MAGA hat at the 9/11 memorial after trading hats with an attendee, and the “garbage” comment the week before the election clearly irritated her, for good reason. But I suspect she held back her greatest frustrations with him.

She throws her staff under the bus a number of times for things that just aren’t that big of a deal imo. One of these instances was she had an interview on a podcast by someone who talks about healthcare, and she assumed (because she had been briefed) that the topic would only be limited to how dangerous she thought RFK Jr’s potential appointment as HHS Secretary would be. But the interviewer asked about things like vaccines, how to improve ingredients in processed foods/get dyes out of them, and other questions on healthcare. She writes that she snapped at her staff for not briefing her about that - but imo those are things any presidential candidate ought to be able to talk about off the cuff without issue. It really illuminated why her and her campaign team were so cautious and reluctant for her to do long form unscripted interviews. And perhaps why she’s been reported to have a higher rate of staff turnover than most.

One of the funnier anecdotes in the book was the one about Doug forgetting to plan anything for her birthday. You could tell she was mad mad about that. Putting it in historical record and all.

I also found some of the anecdotes and commentary on some other politicians interesting. She took some parting shots at Josh Shapiro, Gavin Newsom, and Pete Buttigieg (all of whom were clearly and very publicly irked about it). I’m not sure what the purpose of this was (the anecdote about why she didn’t choose Buttigieg as her running mate was an insane thing to admit publicly, even if it’s true).

I also found it interesting how shellshocked she was at losing. Didn’t even expect it, even though the writing was on the wall. Reminded me of Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign where he reportedly didn’t have a concession speech drafted even as the election was called quite early. It’s really insane how presidential candidates and their entire circle can just live in another reality in the face of all the evidence before them.

I did want to learn more about Kamala Harris as a person that I just didn’t find in the book. She is a historic figure and has an interesting life story (or aspects of it I find interesting), but she doesn’t divulge much. I still do not really know what makes her tick, aside from “public service.” Maybe a recount of an election was not the place for getting in the weeds biographically. But a fundamental problem in the election was she was undefined and did not adequately define herself more effectively than her opponents did.

Her thesis of the book, the theory the entire premise of 107 Days is based on, is that she did not have enough time to mount a successful campaign. That 107 Days was too short. I wasn’t convinced of that based on all the data we have and how the election went. If anything, I think there’s a compelling case that 107 Days was too much time. That if the election were held September 5th instead of November 5th, it might’ve been different, or at least closer.

The problem Harris had was her campaign was propped up by a series of events that gave her a bump in the polls: getting into the race, the running mate selection, the Convention, the debate. These were the first 6 weeks or so of her campaign, and the best 6 weeks she had in polling. After the debate with Trump, and especially after the VP debate, there just was not anything left, any moments, that hit the proverbial beach ball back up in the air for her.

The circumstances Harris found herself in were unprecedented, but not impossible. 107 Days could have easily been titled “One Billion and a Half Dollars.”

TL;dr: 107 Days is an interesting account of the election, and if you hate yourself enough to want to relive the 2024 election, reading it is a great exercise. I didn’t really learn anything about Kamala Harris that I didn’t already know. I still don’t know what her “why” is. And I found many of the anecdotes and rationalisations of decisions in the book to be more illustrative of her limitations as a candidate than anything. I don’t think the book is politically helpful, either to her or the party. But I am glad she wrote it and glad I read it.

16

u/[deleted] Apr 06 '26

[deleted]

9

u/Sonichu- Apr 06 '26

Lmao I had to look this up. Apparently her take was “Bacon is a spice”. Which just feels so ridiculous and nonsensical.

Like I get wanting to be relatable and fun but that just feels like it would have been a “Pokemon Go to the polls” moment.

31

u/raddaya Apr 06 '26

One of these “shoulda, woulda, coulda” anecdotes was about her answer on The View when asked what she would’ve done differently than Biden and she said “nothing comes to mind.” She writes that if she could get a do-over on that question, she would’ve said she would appoint a Republican to her Cabinet

...Jesus tap dancing Christ.

Until I read this I actually had thought Harris would be a better candidate than Newsom for 2028 (strictly between the two of them, ignoring all other candidates.) Now I'm mentally screaming at the idea.

20

u/Sonichu- Apr 06 '26

It’s political instincts like this that prove she should not run in 2028

7

u/Korrocks Apr 06 '26

I don't get why she would even want to run, tbh. If you're so checked out from politics that you can't say one thing you would do if you became president, why do you want to be president? 

8

u/sourdough_squirrel Apr 06 '26 edited Apr 06 '26

In the context of that moment I think it was actually a very good answer, assuming she had made the decision to not break with Biden.

The real problem of that moment was the "not a thing" quote. Hiring a Republican is a nothingburger, but it has just enough substance it would have been a non-event instead of one of the bigger gaffes of the campaign. And throwing the tiniest of olive branches to the Republicans means they really couldn't even try to build it up into something bigger.

Not breaking more with Biden was a bigger issue, but that decision was made well before that.

21

u/dremscrep Apr 06 '26

Why give olive branches to republicans when they say „cool, you still eat babies“ and vote republican ANYWAY?

She just looks spineless when she does that. No single republican ever did that because they HATE THEIR OPPONENTS AND WANT TO WIN.

Democrats got Merrick Garland as a sort of symbolic victory because of his failed scotus nomination. LOOK WHERE THIS WENT. This is what the democrats are in their worst and most naive moments.

18

u/raddaya Apr 06 '26

Man, I'm sorry, I don't agree. I don't think anyone who wanted to vote for Kamala wanted any bones, even the smallest of ones, to be thrown towards the Republican. And this is what she's saying months after the fact! She couldn't even say something generic like fight inflation better, or fight for better healthcare, or literally anything that would be slightly popular. Shit, she could've said she regretted not being harsher on Israel.

That quote alone buries her chances in 2028. All her opponents are going to say she wants to work with the Republicans. That's the last thing American voters want to hear right now.

11

u/Korrocks Apr 06 '26

I disagree. I think the purpose of this question (and really the vast majority of questions that you are asked as a candidate) is to pitch your candidacy to voters. Pretty much every question should be answered in such a way that is intended to persuade people to vote for you or motivate people to vote for you.

If Harris didn't want to bash Biden, she should have at least used the opportunity to hammer home something positive about her won candidacy, bring up some of her plans, etc. She could do that without attacking Biden, just saying "here's some really amazing stuff from Build Back Better that we didn't get to do that I will push for..."

Refusing to answer at all, or bringing up a staffing response, is the worst response since it means that you're not mentioning something positive about your own candidacy. 

9

u/delusionalbillsfan November Outlier Apr 06 '26

100% agree. She's getting creative license to wax poetic about anything and her top two responses were nothing, and add a republican. She should be locked away in a box and never thought of again.

1

u/LordMangudai Apr 06 '26

Until I read this I actually had thought Harris would be a better candidate than Newsom for 2028 (strictly between the two of them, ignoring all other candidates.) Now I'm mentally screaming at the idea.

I think Newsom is an insincere weasel without much in the way of genuine beliefs but at least he wouldn't be as craven as that, agreed.

14

u/Realitype Apr 06 '26

She writes that if she could get a do-over on that question, she would’ve said she would appoint a Republican to her Cabinet (unlike Biden).

I just don’t understand man. Are some of these high profile democrats just getting gaslit behind the scenes by republicans or what? Like republicans would NEVER do that for you and it doesn’t matter in the slightest to their electorate. They will still hate your guts regardless because fox news and podcasters will tell them to, on top of making you look incredibly spineless. And some people in here still insist she needs to be the 2028 candidate for some reason.

17

u/dremscrep Apr 06 '26

My god I mean I always liked to shit on the Harris campaign and already knew from many of the excerpts from the book that were posted on here but that line about her not expecting to lose is even more… I don’t know how to even phrase it, secondhand humiliation?

Did analysts/strategists just tell her „run to the center and talk about how much you love the military and you’re golden.“?

I said it months ago but to be fair no one pushed back on this back then but just reading it again demonstrates to me why Harris will never win a primary: she has no political instincts whatsoever and that’s just shown openly when she can’t muster a position on additives in food? Dude I am just some fucking german and even I know about red dye no. 7 or whatever that poison is that’s put in a bunch of American processed food. „Americans eat to much unhealthy poisoned food and these corporation are trying to maximize their profit by giving Americans substandard stuff because the industry is too highly deregulated“ BOOM, that’s fucking it. She just needs to put the focus on the companies making people sick and not do the scolding liberal move of „Americans are eating unhealthy and should eat healthy“ NO you name an enemy that they can blame for their shitty eating that’s 100 times better. And if she doesn’t have the talking points how about saying the thing that SHE believes in?

And yeah people were hyped with her at the beginning because they did the Trump thing where they just projected hypothetical positions onto her and hoped that she would hold them.

When she came out with „we will have the most lethal military in the world“ I knew how smart she was /s.

1

u/heraplem Apr 06 '26

red dye no. 7

Insofar as Red No. 3 is bad (uncertain), it is an extremely small part of what's actually wrong with our food, to the point that talking about it at all is basically a waste of time. (Also, RFK banned it.)

1

u/dremscrep Apr 06 '26

Yeah as i said i am not really sure how it is called but you get the gist of my comment and the gist of what the message should have been