Former Biden White House press secretary Jen Psaki voiced disapproval of former Vice President Kamala Harris's choice to conclude her presidential campaign by collaborating closely with Liz Cheney, a longtime Republican notable, making her position clear on Jon Stewart's podcast, The Weekly Show.

The 2024 election left Democrats reflecting on their communication style, with Psaki highlighting a disconnect due to Harris and her surrogates' use of "elite language" that appeared out of touch with ordinary citizens, as Fox News reports.

Psaki's critique centered on the choice of language used throughout the campaign, which she described as overly academic and reminiscent of an "Ivory Tower," failing to address everyday issues that resonate with the public.

She shared that this approach might have backfired, resulting in a poor connection with voters who sought straightforward discussions about critical issues affecting their lives.

Impact of Collaboration with Liz Cheney Assessed

The decision to present a united front with Cheney, particularly to wrap up Harris's campaign, was another focal point of Psaki's feedback. Cheney, once a prominent Trump ally, had transformed into a vocal critic, especially after she supported the impeachment following the January 6th incident.

Her role as the head of the House's Jan. 6 committee earned her respect in some quarters, including from Psaki, who called Cheney's actions "heroic."

Despite Cheney’s endorsement of Harris, Psaki felt that the strategy may have alienated some voters. Psaki did acknowledge the importance of Cheney’s work but expressed that the campaign needed a message that would appeal more broadly and personally to the lives of everyday Americans.

Cheney's Controversial Political Path

Cheney's path took a markedly controversial turn after she voted to impeach Trump, leading to accusations from House Republicans of witness tampering during her committee’s activities. This, combined with her political transformation, culminated in a loss of her House seat.

Despite these challenges, Cheney’s willingness to stand against pressure from her party gained her recognition, even leading to a pre-emptive pardon from President Biden before he left office.

Accompanying Cheney in receiving pardon were several notable figures, including Anthony Fauci, reflecting Biden's acknowledgment of their respective contributions.

Stewart and Psaki Discuss Democrats' Strategy

In her discussion with Stewart, Psaki examined the broader implications of the Democrats' communication strategies, suggesting that they have inadvertently become seen as the "party of the government." Stewart's assertion that Democrats need to escape "institutional" trappings was a point Psaki echoed, agreeing that the perception of being distant from the grassroots could be detrimental.

Psaki dissected how the campaign and the broader party narratives contributed to the perception of being out of touch with the communities they aim to serve. There was a clear call from her to simplify the language and approach to better resonate with the average voter.

Lessons from 2024 Election

Post-election, Psaki emphasized key lessons learned from the Democratic defeat, particularly focusing on the language and presentation. Using terms like authoritarianism and oligarchy were, according to Psaki, words that "nobody talks" about in everyday discourse. This aspect of the campaign, she argued, led to voters feeling disconnected and unwilling to support the status quo perceived in Democratic messaging.

Harris's decision to align with Cheney was supposed to symbolize bipartisanship and a willingness to cross the aisle. However, according to Psaki, it may have backfired by emphasizing alliances over the issues that directly impact voters' lives.

Rethinking Campaign Strategies for Future Elections

The dialogue between Psaki and Stewart highlighted the need for Democrats to rethink their strategies, focusing more on centrism and grassroots understanding. This reflection represents a broader challenge for political parties to evolve in how they communicate crucial messages, particularly at a time when voter engagement is increasingly scrutinized.

Understanding and addressing these criticisms is crucial for future Democrat campaigns hoping to regain traction. The discussion highlighted the necessity for language that speaks directly to voters' needs and concerns rather than adhering strictly to academic or elite frameworks that may obscure the intended message.

The 2024 election cycle has sparked numerous discussions about political strategy, voter engagement, and party positioning. By insisting on clearer, more relatable communication, Psaki’s insights guide a pathway forward for those reflecting on past mistakes to improve upon in upcoming elections.

Overall, the campaign choices offer a significant learning opportunity, shedding light on the complex interplay between political alliances and voter expectations that future candidates will need to navigate.