Guys, I’m not sure Kamala Harris is going to make it. Don’t get me wrong — I think she can win. Well, no. She can’t win. But the Democrats can.

I firmly believe that if Democrats unite, supported by their captured institutions like the media, academia, Wall Street, the health care industry, local and state governments, and schools, and launch a full-court press like they did in 2020, they can carry Harris over the finish line, regardless of history. But will they? That’s a more complicated question.

Is Kamala really going to inspire enough Democrats to fight for the second first female presidential candidate this decade? It feels a little bit stale.

What’s in it for them?

A united Democratic Party might not be enough to defeat Donald Trump this time. The polls suggest that Harris will need more than just support and votes; she’ll need special support and “special votes” to secure decisive swing-state victories. Organizing door-to-door harvesting, ballot curing, and the intense effort to bring Democratic voters and ballots to the polls will require an army of skilled operatives.

What will all these operatives gain if Harris wins?

The Democratic Party is a coalition of factions, each driven by its own interests and loosely unified by a shared desire for federal dollars and the ability to dodge the consequences of their policies. For many of the power players in these factions, a Harris victory means staying out in the cold for eight more years. But if Trump wins, they only need to wait four.

Republicans argue that Biden and Harris are figureheads for a shadow government. According to this view, their competence doesn’t matter because they’re merely placeholders for whoever truly pulls the strings. Therefore, it’s irrelevant, conservatives claim, if Kamala Harris struggles to retain staff or lacks the magnetism of a coalition builder. She remains useful and convenient to the people who actually call the shots.

Therefore, we are doomed.

This argument misses key truths about politics and power. For the past decade, many on the right have viewed the Democratic Party as an unstoppable juggernaut. Its size and ideological consistency seem so overwhelming that leadership almost appears irrelevant. Alternatively, some claim that the deep state’s corruption and financial security prevent any internal power struggles from threatening its dominance. The house always wins — except for that one slip in 2016 when it wasn’t paying attention. Conventional wisdom on the right now holds that the people and history stand no chance against a fully alert and engaged Democratic Party machine.

We’ll see.

This isn’t a guarantee that Kamala Harris will cross the finish line. Biden’s 2020 victory was different. The current ruling faction of the Democratic Party — led by Barack Obama and veterans of his administration — could expect uninterrupted control with Biden at the helm. As the party moved from its Chicago superstar to what came next after Hillary Clinton's defeat, Obama’s allies could rest assured that his former vice president wouldn’t disrupt the status quo. But does Harris give the Obama camp or what’s left of the Clinton machine the same assurance?

That’s hard to imagine. Harris represents California’s political establishment, linked to former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Gov. Gavin Newsom. Her White House would not necessarily continue the Obama legacy, even though she serves as Biden’s vice president. Nor would she reignite the Democratic base in New York or Pennsylvania.

Will all these state Democratic organizations push full steam ahead in November, knowing they might be crowning California Democrats for the next eight or even 16 years? And with a more vigilant electorate already aware of the Democratic Party’s pre- and post-electoral shenanigans, will operatives in places like Arizona and Georgia risk it all for California Kamala?

The Democratic Party chose Biden as the compromise candidate for the 2020 election after securing key endorsements, such as Jim Clyburn’s in South Carolina. This process was crucial to determining which faction would lead in the post-Obama era. In 2015, it was clear that Hillary Clinton would have her turn, but after Trump’s 2016 victory, the party struggled to settle on a new leader.

Biden’s selection signaled a refusal to hand the party to the progressive factions backing Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. Instead, he represented a continuation of Obama’s legacy — a placeholder who could attract disaffected white voters. It was widely understood that Biden would likely serve only one term, giving other ambitious party members room to vie for leadership in the next cycle.

The trouble is, Harris didn’t win a single primary in 2020, making her rise to the top of the ticket without full coalition consultation highly doubtful. While the party bigs will support her, it remains uncertain whether they will put in the same effort to carry her over the finish line.

It doesn’t seem like history (with-a-capital-H) is on Kamala’s side. Sure, sure, the “first female president” and all that. But I can’t be the only woman who feels like we already simultaneously checked and crossed out that box when Hillary ran for what felt like 20 years straight a few years back. Clinton was the woman everyone thought should have been the first female president but — whoops! — we didn’t get around to it.

Is Kamala really going to inspire enough Democrats to fight for the second first female presidential candidate this decade? It feels a little bit stale.

If the Democratic Party’s sundry factions fail to realize the same first black president enthusiasm they felt in 2008 or the first female president energy of 2016, or even please just not the Bad Orange Man in 2020, Kamala Harris will find herself the second first female president to be denied by Donald Trump.