Democratic strategist James Carville predicted that Vice President Kamala Harris will win the presidency in a new New York Times column.
Democratic strategist and former Bill Clinton adviser James Carville declared with certainty this week that Vice President Kamala Harris will win the presidency in November.
The famous pundit published his prediction in a New York Times column on Wednesday, giving three reasons why he believes Harris will defeat former President Trump at the ballot box. He argued it’s because Trump is on a losing streak, Harris has more money, and lastly, because it’s a “just a feeling” he has.
“America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain,” he wrote.
TRUMP MAKES FRIES AT PENNSYLVANIA MCDONALDS: ‘I’VE NOW WORKED FOR 15 MINUTES MORE THAN KAMALA’
Carville began the piece by acknowledging the “palpable anxiety” that voters have over this election, which mainstream pundits have called the “closest campaign in a generation.”
“More than in any other election in my lifetime, I’ve been consistently asked by people of all stripes and creeds: ‘Can Kamala Harris win this thing? Are we going to be OK?’ This sentiment is heard over and over from sweaty Democratic operatives who all too often love to run to the press with their woes,” he wrote.
The pundit assured these concerned voters that she will win and provided his three reasons why, starting with his point that “Mr. Trump is a repeat electoral loser. This time will be no different.”
“The biggest reason Mr. Trump will lose is that the whole Republican Party has been on a losing streak since Mr. Trump took it over,” Carville continued, noting how the party took losses in the 2018 midterms, lost the 2020 presidential election, and had an “embarrassment of a midterm” in 2022.
Additionally, he noted that abortion – which drives turnout for Democratic candidates – is on the ballot again, and that Trump just does not simply inspire voters beyond his base.
Carville added, “On the other side, in just three months Ms. Harris has assembled a unified and electrified coalition. From Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Liz and Dick Cheney, it is the broadest we have seen in modern political history… and if the bigger coalition turns out with equal enthusiasm, it will be lights out for Mr. Trump.”
His second reason is that Harris’ money and resources dwarf Trump’s.
“Since joining the race, the vice president has raised an eye-boggling $1 billion, and last quarter one of her fund-raising committees reeled in $633 million — dwarfing what Mr. Trump raised with two committees combined,” he wrote.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF MEDIA AND CULTURE
“All this cash not only effectively offsets the flow of money funneling in for Mr. Trump from some tech billionaires, but it has also given Ms. Harris the resources she needs to persuade swing voters with ads and to organize on the ground,” the strategist continued elsewhere, adding, “She is strapped with the necessary cash to forcefully remind suburban women and voters in the middle that Mr. Trump is, in fact, the extremist candidate.”
Finally, Carville chalked up his prediction to his gut feeling. “My final reason is 100 percent emotional,” he said.
He explained, “I refuse to believe that the same country that has time and again overcome its mistakes to bend its future toward justice will make the same mistake twice. America overcame Mr. Trump in 2020. I know that we know we are better than this.”
Carville called for aggressive and perhaps even unfair tactics in beating Trump this election cycle during a podcast appearance earlier this week. “I’m really not interested in being very fair about the whole god—n thing. OK? I really don’t think we should have fought fair against the Germans and the Japanese,” he said. “I think we should have like snuck around them. And I think we should have, you know, gone behind the enemy lines and cut their god— throats because that was what was at stake. I think we’re literally approaching the same place right now.”
The pundit quickly clarified he was speaking metaphorically and not calling for violence.
