Kamala Harris’s Rhetorical Failures from the Campaign Trail

By Michael Kelman Portney

Kamala Harris’s 2024 campaign rhetoric provides a case study in the challenges of connecting with voters through speech. Despite her extensive experience and qualifications, Harris’s rhetorical choices often failed to inspire or resonate. This post examines her missteps through the classical rhetorical framework of ethos, pathos, and logos—three essential tools for persuasive communication—and explores how integrating lessons from pro-wrestling psychology could have helped her campaign succeed.

1. Introduction: Overview of Kamala Harris's Rhetorical Challenges During the 2024 Campaign

Kamala Harris, with her impressive credentials as a former district attorney, attorney general, and vice president, entered the 2024 campaign with high expectations. However, her rhetorical approach often fell short of engaging and inspiring the electorate. This analysis delves into the specific areas where her rhetoric faltered and offers insights into how she could have improved her communication strategy.

2. Ethos: Analysis of Harris's Use of Credentials and the Impact on Trust-Building

Ethos, or the establishment of credibility, is a cornerstone of effective rhetoric. Harris leaned heavily on her impressive résumé to establish her authority, often citing her roles in law and governance. However, this approach had mixed results.

• Overuse of Credentials: Harris frequently reiterated her past roles, such as stating, “I was a prosecutor, I was attorney general, I was vice president—so believe me when I say I know people like Donald Trump’s type.” While initially reinforcing her credibility, the constant repetition diluted its impact, leading audiences to become desensitized to her qualifications.

• Lack of Personal Connection: Ethos is not merely about listing qualifications; it’s about making those qualifications relatable and trustworthy. Harris often failed to connect her roles to specific achievements or voter concerns, missing opportunities to build a personal connection with her audience.

• Defensiveness: Over-relying on credentials can appear as overcompensation, especially when not paired with tangible examples of success. This defensiveness can alienate rather than engage.

• Suggested Improvements: Instead of relying solely on titles, Harris could have tied her experience to relatable stories. For example, she might have said, “As attorney general, I fought to hold big banks accountable after the financial crisis. As vice president, I’ve worked to defend democracy and protect your rights. I’ll bring that same fight to the White House.” This approach emphasizes credibility while connecting it to real-world impact, building trust with the audience.

3. Pathos: Examination of Emotional Appeals and Their Effectiveness

Pathos involves appealing to the audience’s emotions, whether it’s hope, anger, pride, or fear. Great speakers use stories and imagery to create an emotional connection that motivates action. This is where Harris’s rhetoric often lacked depth.

• Generic Slogans: Harris frequently used phrases like “When we fight, we win” and “We will not be shaken. We will not be moved.” These slogans, while catchy, were not tied to specific actions or outcomes, leaving them feeling hollow and uninspiring.

• Niche Appeals: Harris focused heavily on the sandwich generation, speaking about the challenges of juggling work, raising children, and caring for aging parents. While this resonated with some, it excluded many voters, such as younger people struggling with student debt or older voters concerned about healthcare and retirement.

• Missed Emotional Opportunities: Harris rarely shared personal stories or voter anecdotes that could have created a deeper connection. Personal narratives can humanize a candidate and make their message more relatable.

• Suggested Improvements: Harris could have used universal emotional appeals to broaden her connection with voters. For instance, she might have said, “I’ve spoken with families who are struggling to afford groceries, let alone save for their kids’ futures. They deserve a government that works for them—and I’m running to make that a reality.”

• Pro-Wrestling Psychology and Pathos: Wrestlers use emotional build-ups and clear stakes to rally the crowd. Harris could have taken a similar approach: “We all know what’s at stake—our rights, our democracy, our future. But let me tell you this: when we stand together, when we vote, we win. That’s the fight we’re in.” This builds emotional anticipation while directing it toward action.

4. Logos: Evaluation of Logical Clarity and Specific Actions in Harris's Rhetoric

Logos is about logic—presenting clear, actionable ideas and connecting them to the audience’s concerns. This is where Harris’s rhetoric was often weakest, as she relied on vague generalities rather than offering concrete solutions.

• Disconnected Calls to Action: Phrases like “fight for justice” sounded good but didn’t explain how voters could make a difference or what policies she would implement to achieve these goals.

• Lack of Policy Depth: Harris rarely provided details on how she would address key voter concerns like inflation or healthcare, leaving her rhetoric feeling surface-level.

• Suggested Improvements: Harris needed to tie her ideals to specific policies and actions. For example, she could have said, “We will fight for justice by reforming the criminal justice system and ending cash bail. We’ll fight for equality by ensuring equal pay for women. And we’ll fight for democracy by protecting voting rights nationwide.” This approach provides tangible solutions, making her vision feel achievable and grounded.

5. Pro-Wrestling Psychology: Insights from Pro-Wrestling on Building Engagement

Pro-wrestling psychology excels at creating engagement through narrative build-up, audience participation, and emotional payoffs. Harris’s speeches often lacked these elements, resulting in flat, uninspired delivery.

• Lack of Crescendo: While Harris used repetition to build momentum, such as saying, “We will not be shaken. We will not be moved. We will not be turned away,” it never led to a satisfying emotional or logical payoff. Audiences were left wondering, “And then what?”

• Lack of Audience Engagement: Unlike pro-wrestlers, who involve the audience with chants and direct appeals, Harris’s speeches often felt one-sided.

• Suggested Improvements: Harris could have used repetition more effectively by tying it to a concrete action or outcome: “We will not be shaken—because we know the stakes. We will not be moved—because we know our power. And we will not be turned away—because when we vote, we win!” This creates a strong emotional build-up and directs it toward action, much like a wrestler rallying a crowd before the big fight.

6. Conclusion: Implications for the Democratic Party and the Importance of Effective Rhetoric

Kamala Harris’s rhetorical missteps highlight a broader concern for the Democratic Party: the need for better communicators. In an era where political rhetoric shapes public perception, candidates must balance ethos, pathos, and logos to inspire and engage voters. Harris’s failure to strike that balance—and her team’s inability to craft a compelling message—underscores the importance of strong rhetorical leadership.

The lesson is clear: rhetoric matters. It’s not just about what candidates say, but how they say it—and how it makes voters feel. Without bold, emotionally resonant, and logically clear messaging, even the most qualified candidates will struggle to win hearts and minds. As the Democratic Party looks to future elections, investing in effective communication strategies will be crucial for success.