Clinton vs. Harris: The Real Reason Hillary Lost—America Wanted Change, Not the Same Old Politics

 

Clinton’s failure in 2016 had nothing to do with her being a woman and everything to do with her being a symbol of Washington elitism, while Harris taps into the same populist energy that Clinton never could.

Hillary Clinton may have shattered the glass ceiling, but it seems Kamala Harris is dancing on the shards. The 2016 presidential election was supposed to be a historic moment for women in America, with Hillary Clinton standing as the first major female candidate for president. However, Clinton's campaign faced challenges, and she ultimately lost to Donald Trump, sparking a debate about whether America was ready for a female president. Some analysts argued that sexism played a role in her loss, while others pointed to Clinton’s personality and history. Fast forward to today, and Kamala Harris, a woman of color and the first female vice president, seems to enjoy a level of popularity and political influence that Clinton struggled to attain. The question is: what changed? Why is Kamala Harris enjoying more widespread appeal, and is America now truly ready for a female president?

Looking back at Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, it is clear that her candidacy was viewed through a much different lens than that of Kamala Harris today. Clinton was often described as unlikable, cold, or distant. Even many women didn’t rally behind her as the expected feminist candidate. In fact, a Gallup poll during the campaign showed that Clinton’s unfavorable rating was 55%, higher than that of any previous Democratic presidential candidate. Clinton's long political history, which included controversies such as the Benghazi attack and her private email server, cast a shadow over her candidacy. Her close ties to the political establishment didn’t help either. For many voters, she represented more of the same in a time when the country was crying out for change.

In contrast, Kamala Harris’s rise to prominence has been swift. Just a few months ago, she was perceived by some as a "giggling" political nobody, largely unknown on the national stage outside of California. But today, as vice president, she is regarded as a highly popular figure, especially among women. This change seems to have happened almost overnight. Her identity as a woman of color, her relatively short national political career, and her charismatic public persona seem to have struck a chord with voters. In particular, her background as a child of immigrants and her work as a prosecutor resonates with a broad base of supporters. A Reuters poll conducted in 2023 showed Harris with a 53% approval rating among women, significantly higher than Clinton’s during her campaign. But why the difference? What’s changed in the political landscape?

It’s tempting to say that America has evolved since 2016, but the truth is likely more complicated. The idea that America wasn’t ready for a female president in 2016 doesn't hold much weight when examined closely. After all, if a woman could be the most powerful candidate in the race at the time, how could it be argued that Americans weren’t prepared for a woman in the White House? In fact, the very notion seems to be a convenient excuse for a range of other factors that contributed to Clinton’s loss. Her policy positions, her political baggage, and her inability to connect with key voting blocs may have been more decisive than any supposed gender bias. To argue otherwise is to overlook the role of personal choice in voting decisions, reducing it to an issue of gender alone.

Harris, on the other hand, has managed to navigate these political waters with a different approach. She presents herself as a candidate of the future—young, diverse, and energetic. But it’s not just that she’s a woman of color; it’s that she’s a woman who speaks to a different demographic. While Clinton appealed more to older, white voters, Harris has been embraced by younger voters and people of color. Her background as a former prosecutor, rather than being a liability as some feared, has allowed her to present herself as a tough-on-crime politician, while also advocating for criminal justice reform. In a country where racial inequality has become a central political issue, Harris’s identity and record are seen as assets.

Moreover, Harris’s rise can also be attributed to the change in political dynamics. In 2016, Donald Trump’s outsider status, brash personality, and promise to shake up the political system overshadowed Clinton’s experience. Trump’s victory was a rejection of the political elite, and Clinton, as a long-time figure in that world, became a symbol of the status quo. Harris, however, benefits from the current political climate. After four years of Trump’s presidency, voters were eager for a return to normalcy. Harris, alongside Joe Biden, represents stability and professionalism. Unlike Clinton, she is not burdened by years of political baggage. Her relative newness to the national stage works in her favor.

But let’s not forget the changing role of gender in politics. Women are now more active and visible in American politics than ever before. In 2021, a record number of women were sworn into Congress. Figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Stacey Abrams have become political powerhouses. In this context, Harris’s gender is no longer a novelty. If anything, it’s an advantage. Women voters, in particular, are more likely to rally behind a candidate who they believe represents them. The #MeToo movement has also shifted perceptions, with women demanding more representation and power in political spaces.

Yet, despite this, the question remains: is America ready for a female president? Some would argue that Harris’s rise to vice president suggests that the country is finally prepared to break that final barrier. However, others may point out that Harris’s popularity may not be as broad as it seems. She has faced criticism from conservatives, and some moderates question her progressive positions on issues like immigration and healthcare. Just because Harris is popular today doesn’t guarantee that the American public is ready to elect her—or any woman—as president.

In plain terms, it may be that Clinton’s loss in 2016 wasn’t about gender at all. Perhaps it was more about the candidate herself. Clinton’s decades in politics made her a polarizing figure, while Harris, with her fresh face and dynamic background, offers voters something new. But whether Harris’s popularity will last or whether America will truly elect a female president remains to be seen. As the saying goes, “Only time will tell.”

For now, Harris is enjoying her moment in the sun, and perhaps she’s figured out something that Clinton never did. But one thing’s for sure: if Clinton cracked the glass ceiling, Harris may be poised to shatter it completely—unless, of course, America decides it prefers the view from below.