By Michael Kelman Portney

I'm not going to make a habit of including warnings at the beginning of any pieces that I write. This is an exception. In this space we are going to speak truthfully and candidly about all matter of topics influencing the world. This is a space for objective analysis and uncomfortable truths. I will never publish anything that I believe can harm anybody, however at the same time if somebody or some organization needs to be held accountable for something, we will hold them accountable regardless of who they are or what they represent. I’ve thought deeply about this topic based on my studies and observations, which I carried out with an open mind. I hope you will read this piece with an open mind as well.

As the recent election results come into focus, it’s clear that Kamala Harris’s campaign faced unique challenges, some of which may have stemmed from the intense support of her sorority, Alpha Kappa Alpha (AKA), and various segmented support movements. AKA, the first historically Black sorority in the United States, took a prominent role in supporting Harris, one of its most high-profile members, throughout the election cycle. Additionally, niche groups like “Men for Harris” and “White Women for Harris” were formed to rally specific demographic support. However, these enthusiastic backing efforts may have inadvertently created challenges for both Harris’s candidacy and the broader Democratic Party, unintentionally tipping the scales in ways that may not have served the intended goals.

This paper explores how AKA’s influence, the visible presence of segmented support groups, and pressures on the Biden administration might have affected perceptions, voter turnout, and the overall outcome. It raises important questions about the impact of identity politics, group loyalty, and the role of targeted movements in high-stakes elections.

AKA’s Support for Harris: Strength in Unity, But Perceived Exclusivity

AKA’s support for Harris was based on a commitment to uplift Black women and champion representation at the highest levels of government. As the first Black and South Asian woman to serve as vice president, Harris’s candidacy represented a significant milestone for AKA and for underrepresented groups more broadly. The sorority’s members mobilized extensively, creating grassroots initiatives, social media campaigns, and public events to rally support around her candidacy.

This enthusiasm was intended to project strength and solidarity, demonstrating the power of AKA’s network and the importance of diverse representation in American politics. For AKA, Harris’s success was seen not only as a win for Black women but also as a validation of decades of community-building and social advocacy. However, the high visibility and intensity of AKA’s support may have had unintended consequences that impacted how the broader electorate viewed Harris’s candidacy.

The Role of AKA’s Influence in the Media and Pressure on Biden

As the election approached, support for Harris from high-profile AKA members expanded into the media. Prominent Black journalists—many of whom are AKA members—began to publicly discuss Biden’s potential succession and even suggested that Biden step aside, positioning Harris as a viable successor. This alignment in messaging led some voters to perceive an orchestrated attempt to promote Harris, creating concerns that support for Harris was being pushed not out of broad voter consensus but by influential networks aiming to secure representation for Black women.

To some observers, this dynamic suggested that Harris’s campaign was operating on a kind of implied ultimatum: that the loyalty of Black women, particularly those within AKA, was contingent on Harris remaining in line for the presidency. This perception of potential conditional support left many voters feeling as though AKA and its media allies were effectively “taking the party hostage,” giving the impression that Black women would withhold their votes if Harris was passed over. While AKA’s motivation was one of solidarity and progress, the intensity of this push may have alienated parts of the Democratic base, who felt that Harris’s campaign was overly reliant on selective support rather than broad, inclusive appeal.

Unintended Consequences: Identity Politics and Public Perception

While AKA’s support was genuine and deeply motivated, the focus on identity politics may have contributed to a perception that Harris’s candidacy was centered more on her identity than her qualifications or policies. In a political climate where many voters prioritize policy over symbolism, this emphasis on identity may have inadvertently alienated segments of the electorate who felt that Harris’s support was overly reliant on loyalty from her base rather than a comprehensive appeal to diverse voter groups.

This effect is particularly notable when contrasted with how it would appear if a white male politician received comparable backing from his fraternity. Such a display would likely be perceived as elitist, raising concerns about exclusivity, “backroom deals,” and potential conflicts of interest. By contrast, AKA’s support was motivated by a desire for representation rather than power, but the intensity of this backing could still risk appearing exclusive to broader audiences, reinforcing an impression of selective appeal.

Voter Alienation and the Risks of Overrepresentation

AKA’s support for Harris was intense and widely publicized, but this may have inadvertently alienated moderate and independent voters who were less connected to AKA’s mission. By centering Harris’s identity in the campaign, AKA’s influence may have led other parts of the Democratic base to feel that their priorities were not being fully addressed. Some voters, particularly independents or those outside the historically Black Greek-letter community, may have perceived Harris’s campaign as focusing too narrowly on a single demographic, rather than reaching out to a broader coalition.

This dynamic also risks reinforcing stereotypes about “identity politics” by implying that Harris’s appeal was limited to specific racial and social groups. For moderate and undecided voters who were hesitant about Harris, this visible alignment with AKA may have amplified concerns that her candidacy lacked universal appeal, diminishing her ability to unify a wide and diverse base.

---

The Fragmenting Effect of Niche Support Movements

Alongside the backing of Alpha Kappa Alpha, Harris’s campaign saw the emergence of movements such as “Men for Harris,” “White Women for Harris,” “Black Men for Harris,” and other demographic-focused groups intended to showcase widespread support. While these movements were launched to broaden her appeal, they may have had unintended consequences, reinforcing the perception that Harris’s campaign was reliant on segmented demographic support rather than a broad, cohesive base.

By emphasizing support from distinct groups, these niche movements may have created a sense of division rather than unity. The frequent references to specific demographic segments, instead of rallying a universal voter coalition, risked appearing exclusive or overly focused on identity. For undecided or moderate voters, this fragmented support base could have highlighted differences rather than common ground, creating a perception that Harris’s campaign was focused on piecing together identity-driven support instead of uniting voters under a shared policy agenda.

The fragmentation also risked making voters outside these demographic categories feel less connected to Harris’s campaign, which may have contributed to an impression that her candidacy prioritized certain identity groups over universal concerns. This dynamic underscores the challenges of balancing identity-based appeals with a cohesive message that resonates widely across demographic lines.

Challenges for the Broader Democratic Party

AKA’s support for Harris, while valuable in activating a specific demographic, may have inadvertently tipped the scales against the Democratic Party by contributing to a perception that the party prioritized symbolism over substance. The focus on Harris’s identity—highlighted by AKA’s visible backing and the various niche support groups—may have reinforced the view among some voters that the Democratic Party is overly concerned with “identity politics” at the expense of broader issues like the economy, healthcare, and national security. This perception can be particularly damaging in close elections, where undecided voters may look for candidates who project stability, unity, and a focus on universal issues.

Moreover, AKA’s influence may have created pressure within the Democratic Party itself, with members feeling obligated to support Harris despite concerns about her ability to unify and expand the party’s base. This dynamic may have limited the party’s flexibility, making it more challenging to adapt its messaging and appeal to a broad spectrum of voters.

Lessons for Future Campaigns: Balancing Representation and Broad Appeal

The impact of AKA’s involvement in the election and the segmented support movements underscores the importance of balancing representation with a broader, policy-driven appeal. While organizations like AKA play a crucial role in advocating for underrepresented communities and fostering solidarity, campaigns must carefully balance these alliances to avoid perceptions of exclusivity or narrow appeal. Here are a few takeaways:

1. Aligning Identity with Policy: Instead of focusing exclusively on identity, future campaigns could benefit from a clear alignment of the candidate’s background with a strong policy platform that resonates with a wide array of voters.

2. Expanding Coalition-Building Efforts: Campaigns should work to ensure that alliances with specific organizations are part of a larger strategy to build a broad coalition, incorporating diverse voices and perspectives to create an inclusive appeal.

3. Addressing Voter Concerns Head-On: To counter perceptions that a candidate’s support base is limited to certain demographics, campaigns must openly address universal voter concerns—such as economic stability, healthcare access, and security—in addition to representing specific communities.

Conclusion: Navigating the Complex Role of Identity in Politics

Alpha Kappa Alpha’s involvement in Kamala Harris’s campaign was motivated by a commitment to representation and social progress. However, the election results suggest that this approach may have inadvertently complicated Harris’s ability to appeal to a broad coalition of voters. By emphasizing identity, AKA’s visible support, combined with niche support movements, may have contributed to perceptions that hindered Harris’s campaign and, by extension, affected the Democratic Party’s broader appeal. Future presidential candidates that are a member of any society or organization with a secret handshake would do well to leave that organization out of the spotlight.

For future elections, the Democratic Party might benefit from recalibrating its approach to identity-based support, ensuring that these alliances are strategically aligned with broad, inclusive messaging that resonates with diverse voter groups. Balancing the strength of identity-based support with a focus on universal issues could create a path forward that unites and energizes a more extensive coalition, laying the groundwork for greater success in future campaigns.