Toxic workplace in VP Kamala Harris’ office mirrors campaign woes

By David Marcus and Samuel Chamberlain

July 1, 2021 | 7:27pm | Updated Enlarge Image

Vice President Kamala Harris
It was reported that Vice President Kamala Harris’ office is a toxic environment.



Joe Biden’s failing first crisis: Goodwin

Border czar Harris plans trip to Asia as US-Mexico migration crisis worsens

‘More harm than good’: Dems worried about Kamala Harris approval

Harris unveils ‘root causes’ migration strategy amid worsening border crisis

report by Politico outlining the dysfunction and toxic environment in Vice President Kamala Harris’ office recalls similar stories about the final days of her 2020 presidential campaign, which fell apart before the first nominating contest. 

As the wheels came off the then-California senator’s primary run, stories of mistreatment of employees and dissent in the ranks began bubbling up before eventually spilling into public view.

In November 2019, the Harris campaign’s state operations director, Kelly Mehlenbacher, stepped down. Her resignation letter contained a blistering account of mismanagement that had culminated in major staff layoffs days earlier. 

“This is my third presidential campaign,” Mehlenbacher wrote, “and I have never seen an organization treat its staff so poorly.”

“With less than 90 days until Iowa we still do not have a real plan to win,” the departing operative added.

Tina Flournoy is VP Kamala Harris’ chief of staff.

Politico’s reporting about the current state of the Veep’s office — which cites current and former Harris aides, White House officials, and others — contains echoes of the stories from the campaign trail. 

A source told Politico that in Harris’ office, “People are thrown under the bus from the very top, there are short fuses and it’s an abusive environment. It’s not a healthy environment and people often feel mistreated. It’s not a place where people feel supported but a place where people feel treated like s—.”

According to reports at the time, much of the blame for Harris’ flop as a presidential candidate was laid at the feet of two figures: campaign manager Juan Rodriguez, and campaign chairwoman Maya Harris, the vice president’s sister. Neither occupy current positions in the vice president’s office, and yet the complaints about problems coming from “the very top” persist.

Vice President Kamala Harris and her Chief of Staff Tina Flournoy clap as they watch the Senate vote to pass the American Rescue Plan, Saturday, March 6, 2021.

Harris has previously drawn fire for her handling of the border crisis, which was assigned to her portfolio by President Biden in March. Since then criticism has mounted, especially around the vice president’s failure for several months to visit the southern border. The vice president did visit El Paso, Texas, last week, but criticism of herhandling of the illegal immigration crisis — such as her insistence on dealing with its “root causes” — has continued. 


She’s No. 2: Report claims Kamala Harris’ staff feels they are ‘treated like s–t’

Harris spokeswoman Symone Sanders tried to tamp down the reports of dissension in the vice president’s office, telling Politico that “We are not making rainbows and bunnies all day. 

“What I hear is that people have hard jobs and I’m like ‘welcome to the club,’” adding, “We have created a culture where people, if there is anything anyone would like to raise, there are avenues for them to do so. Whoever has something they would like to raise, they should raise it directly.”

She’s No. 2: Report claims Kamala Harris’ staff feels they are ‘treated like s–t’

It’s like “Veep,” but real and less funny. 

A bombshell Politico report published Wednesday describes Vice President Kamala Harris’ office as “chaotic” with a “tense and at times dour” atmosphere — a place where, as one source memorably put it, “people feel treated like s–t.”

The report, which cited nearly two dozen “current and former vice presidential aides, administration officials and associates of Harris and [President] Biden,” pointed the finger at Harris herself for the dysfunction as well as Tina Flournoy, a longtime Democratic operative who works as Harris’ chief of staff and gatekeeper. 

“People are thrown under the bus from the very top, there are short fuses and it’s an abusive environment,” said the same source who claimed staffers are “treated like s—.” “It’s not a healthy environment and people often feel mistreated.”

Sources quoted by Politico described an insular environment marked by a failure to get on the same page for big moments, like the announcement of Harris’ trip last week to the US-Mexico border. On that occasion, the VP’s underlings — including those responsible for making travel arrangements — reportedly were blindsided and left scrambling to make sure everything was in order. 

The report pointed the finger at Kamala Harris herself for the dysfunction as well as chief of staff Tina Flournoy.

According to Politico, Flournoy’s efforts to protect Harris from flak have led to her dismissing or ignoring staff ideas, refusing to delegate responsibility, unnecessarily prolonging decisions, and blaming those under her for negative outcomes.

So complete is Flournoy’s control over who sees and speaks with Harris, the report states, that even a friend of Harris who tried to connect the vice president with a top Democratic donor for a meeting waited weeks for a response before being told Harris was too busy.

“This is someone who has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars — millions, even — for your boss and you’re just blowing them off?” the Harris friend asked Politico. “Next time Kamala wants [them] for something, it’s like, ‘Hey, I couldn’t even get a call-back from your chief of staff!’”


Kamala Harris’ trip to US-Mexico border dogged by GOP attack ads

The report recalls the final days of Harris’ abortive 2020 presidential campaign, which was launched amid great fanfare only to flame out a monthbefore the Iowa caucuses.

Days before Harris dropped out, the New York Times printed a resignation letter from the campaign’s state operations director that claimed: “This is my third presidential campaign and I have never seen an organization treat its staff so poorly.”

Symone Sanders, a Harris senior adviser and chief spokesperson, decried Politico’s anonymous sources as “cowards” for airing their complaints in the media.

“We are not making rainbows and bunnies all day. What I hear is that people have hard jobs and I’m like ‘Welcome to the club,’” Sanders told the outlet. “We have created a culture where people, if there is anything anyone would like to raise, there are avenues for them to do so. Whoever has something they would like to raise, they should raise it directly.”

Vice President Kamala Harris’ office was described as a “tense and at times dour” atmosphere.

Documentary filmmaker Ken Burns calls Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg an ‘enemy of the state’ and says he should be JAILED

  • Burns, famed documentary filmmaker, blasted Facebook founder Zuckerberg 
  • He called Zuckerberg ‘an enemy of the state’ and said he thinks he belongs in jail 
  • Burns also hit out at Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, saying she was ‘complicit’ 
  • He said Zuckerberg, Sandberg, and other tech moguls should face a tribunal 
  • ‘The Nuremberg of this, is if it ever happens, which it won’t, will be pretty interesting,’ Burns told New York Times podcaster Kara Swisher
  • Burns, a prominent Democrat, did not say why he thinks Zuckerberg is a traitor
  • In 2016, Facebook was blamed for allowing pro-Trump misinformation to spread
  • Democrats believe the misinformation helped Trump defeat Hillary Clinton
  • Trump supporters say Facebook has a liberal bias and has censored them
  • Former president has been banned by social media after January 6 riot 


PUBLISHED: 14:25 EDT, 4 August 2021 | UPDATED: 15:08 EDT, 4 August 2021 

Ken Burns blasted Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg as ‘an enemy of the state’ who ‘doesn’t give a s***’ about the United States and thinks he and his No. 2, Sheryl Sandberg, should be tried for crimes against humanity and put in prison.

‘He knows he can transcend it. He can get away to any place,’ Burns, the award-winning film documentarian and historian, told The New York Times.

‘And so it’s just about filthy lucre, that’s it.’

Burns, the 68-year-old two-time Oscar winner, made the remarks during an interview with Times podcaster Kara Swisher, who invited the filmmaker to talk to him about his latest project – famed boxer Muhammad Ali.

He brought up Zuckerberg’s name unprompted even though Swisher didn’t ask about the tech mogul.

Swisher did not follow up on Burns’ comments, and the filmmaker did not specify why he thought Zuckerberg was a traitor.

Instead, Swisher responded to the Zuckerberg comments by cryptically telling Burns: ‘You’re going to love my memoir, Ken.’ 

The two then move on to discuss the craft of documentary filmmaking. has reached out to Facebook and Burns seeking comment. 

Zuckerberg, the founder of the world’s most popular social media platform that counts more than 2.7 billion users globally, is the fifth richest person on the planet thanks to a net worth that is estimated at around $130 billion.

Swisher asked Burns who he thought ‘would be the version of Muhammad Ali in 100 years?’

Burns then mentioned Stacey Abrams, the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial candidate.

Abrams lost her election to the Republican, Brian Kemp, though she did make history as the first black woman to represent a major party in a race for governor.

‘She’s the real deal,’ Burns said. ‘I mean, I hope Zuckerberg is in jail by then.’

Burns also lashed out at Sandberg, the ‘Lean In’ author and Facebook COO who, along with her boss, has come under fire in recent years over data leaks and the platform’s role in helping Donald Trump win election.

Burns, the documentary filmmaker, also hit out at Zuckerberg’s top deputy, Sheryl Sandberg (seen left with her boss in Sun Valley, Idaho last month), saying she was ‘complicit’

The filmmaker said he thought tech moguls like Zuckerberg, Sandberg, and others should stand trial like the Nazis at Nuremberg after the Second World War.

‘Because these people – and Sheryl is a complicit – the Nuremberg of this, is if it ever happens, which it won’t, will be pretty interesting,’ he said.

‘The way that we’ve been able to temporize and say, oh, it’s okay, we’ll just go a little bit further. Right?’ 

For years, Burns has been a prominent supporter of the Democratic Party, which may explain his antipathy toward Zuckerberg.

Facebook and other social media platforms have been accused by Democrats of allowing Trump and other Republicans to spread misinformation – leading to the 2016 shock election victory over Hillary Clinton.

A BuzzFeed News report from November 2016 revealed that fake news stories outperformed actual news on Facebook – particularly in the weeks and months leading up to the election. 

The most widely read ‘news’ article that year was a fake story which claimed that Pope Francis endorsed Trump. That story generated more than 900,000 engagements on Facebook.

In 2018, Facebook was once again in the news – this time after it was learned that Cambridge Analytica, the now-defunct political consulting firm, mined the data of tens of millions of Facebook users.

The firm was hired by Trump’s campaign in 2016.

Facebook has also drawn the ire of conservatives and Trump supporters, who accuse the social network of having an inherent liberal bias and of censoring pro-Republican views.

In April, Facebook stopped users from sharing articles by about a BLM founder Patrisse Cullors’ multi-million dollar property empire while users were allowed to share it from other outlets.

Burns, a supporter of the Democratic Party, did not say why he thinks Zuckerberg is a traitor. The social network has been blamed for allowing misinformation to spread during the 2016 election, when Trump defeated Hillary Clinton.  

Users that wanted to share links to the were met with a message that said it ‘couldn’t be shared.’ 

‘This content was removed for violating our privacy and personal information policy,’  a Facebook spokesperson told

However, other outlets, such as Black Enterprise, a media company that covers black-owned businesses, was allowed to be shared by Facebook users. 

It’s not the first time Facebook has censored content from conservative voices. 

In March, the social media platform removed a video interview from Lara Trump, interviewing her father-in-law, Donald Trump. 

In the interview, Trump tore into social media and the mainstream media for suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story, he criticized President Biden’s green agenda and railed against cancel culture which he said obliterates US culture. 

Readers of the New York Post on Facebook were also blocked from sharing a story about Cullors’ multi-million-dollar property holdings. 

The Facebook spokesperson claimed that the article ‘shared multiple details which could identify the residence of one of the BLM founders, in violation of her privacy rights.

‘As per our Community Standards: We do not allow people to post personal or confidential information about yourself or of others,’ the spokesperson said.

‘We remove content that shares, offers or solicits personally identifiable information or other private information that could lead to physical or financial harm, including financial, residential, and medical information, as well as private information obtained from illegal sources.’   

Earlier this year, Facebook lifted its ban on discussing whether COVID-19 originated in a lab in Wuhan – this after the claim that was once dismissed as a fringe conspiracy theory has now been accepted as a real possibility.

In April of last year, Facebook announced that it was imposing limits on ‘harmful misinformation about COVID-19’, including about how dangerous the virus is and how many people it was killing.

And in February of this year, the company announced that it was expanding its crackdown to include claims that the virus was man-made, insisting it was a conspiracy theory that had been ‘debunked’. 

Earlier this year, Trump filed suit against Facebook, Twitter, and Google, claiming he and other conservatives have been wrongfully censored.

But legal experts say the suits are likely doomed to fail, given existing precedent and legal protections.

Trump introduced other members of the class action suit who had also been kicked off social media. His team has set up a website for other people to sign onTrump announces class action lawsuit against ‘social media giants’

Trump announced the action against Facebook, Twitter and Google’s YouTube, demanding that his accounts be reinstated.

Trump has been suspended from the platforms since January, when his followers violently stormed the Capitol building, trying to block Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s presidential win.

The companies cited concerns that Trump would incite further violence and have kept him locked out.

‘We’re asking the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida to order an immediate halt to social media companies’ illegal, shameful censorship of the American people,’ Trump said of the filings.

‘We’re going to hold big tech very accountable.’

Twitter, Facebook and Google are all private companies, and users must agree to their terms of service to use their products. Under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, social media platforms are allowed to moderate their services by removing posts that, for instance, are obscene or violate the services’ own standards, so long as they are acting in ‘good faith.’

The law also generally exempts internet companies from liability for the material that users post.

But Trump and some other politicians have long argued that Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms have abused that protection and should lose their immunity – or at least have it curtailed.

While conservatives often claim the sites are biased against them, several recent studies have found that isn’t the case.

Indeed, posts by conservative commentators like Ben Shapiro, Franklin Graham, Dan Bongino and Dinesh D’Souza are routinely among the most widely shared on Facebook.  

How Judicial Top-Down Corruption Plays Out in California

VIEW FROM HERE – Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye, the 28th Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, does not deserve all the credit for California’s judiciary’s descent into a cesspool of corruption. 

The process was well underway prior to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s nominating her on July 22, 2010. 

From their outset, the California courts have immersed themselves in skullduggery, beginning with the land thefts from the Californios after the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe-Hilgado had guaranteed the prior land grants under Spain and Mexico. The legal proceedings by which the Californios were swindled out of their lands established much of the corruption which characterizes today’s California courts. One of the main ways to steal the Californios’ land was to force them to undergo endless bogus legal challenges until they ran out of funds. As victims of our Family Courts learn, litigation seldom ends until the families run out of money for attorney fees and expensive child custody evaluators. 

After World War II, California did have a respite from the corruption of the land thefts and the railroads’ rule with the appointment of Roger Traynor as a Supreme Court Justice in 1940 and as chief justice from 1964 through 1970 during which time the California Supreme Court became one of the most respected in the nation. Subsequently, Gov. Jerry Brown appointed Rose Bird as Chief Justice in 1977. In 1986 she lost the judicial retention election along with Justice Joseph Grodin and Justice Cruz Reynoso. Governor George Deukmejian then appointed his law partner Malcolm Lucas as Chief Justice touching off the era of never-ending judicial corruption which plagues us today. 

One should not discount the influence which the reign of Manny Real, judge in the United States District Court for Central District of California from 1966 through 2018 (Chief Judge from 1982-1993), had in spurring on state court corruption. How the immoralities of the state court and the federal court systems interact, however, is beyond the ken of this article as is the obsequious pandering of Rep. Adam Schiff in allowing Judge Real to remain on the bench

Soon after the 1986 Election, Pro-corruption Opinions Issued. 

(1) Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., (1988) 47 Cal.3d 65, which held it was okay for executives to fire employees who objected to the hiring of an embezzler to help loot the corporation,  

(2) Moradi-Shalal v Firemans’ Fund (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, giving insurance companies the right to cheat claimants, and 

(3) Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, requiring courts to enforce binding arbitration awards which were wrong on their face and worked a substantial injustice. Soon thereafter Justice Lucas, author of the Moncharsh decision, retired to a lucrative career of being an arbitrator with his income fortified by his Moncharsh decision.  

As Justice Joyce Kennard wrote in her Moncharsh dissent, “I will not agree to a decision inflicting upon this state’s trial courts a duty to promote injustice by confirming arbitration awards they know to be manifestly wrong and substantially unjust.” Justice Kennard was fighting a losing battle. In January 2015, federal judge Alex Kozinski in the Baca case, where the prosecution used a lying jailhouse informant and the prosecutor took the stand and committed perjury, stated that the California courts had a “epidemic of misconduct.” The state’s appellate courts found no problem with prosecutors who suborned perjury and then committed perjury themselves. The California state courts had turned crimogenic. Judge Kozinski was later forced off the bench. 

By the time Judge Kozinski’s 2015 comments in Baca, Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye had been chief justice for four years. That year, she let stand the decision that Cal Const. Art VI Sec 10 allowed judges to use their personal bigotries as the basis for their rulings. Hollywoodians Encouraging Logical Planning had argued that Judge John Torribio was excluding it from the multi-party case on the Hollywood Community Plan as its attorney was a troublemaker Jew “who would refuse Jesus Christ.” (As disclosed in previous articles, I was the miscreant Jewish attorney.) Judge Torribio never disputed the charges but instead signed an opinion, faxed to him from the office of Frederick Bennett III, that Cal. Const. Art VI Sec 10 gave him the right to exclude Jews and to alter evidence offered by Jews.  In 2021, the Chief Justice again let stand a case arising from the disbarment of Save Hollywood’s Jewish attorney based on Judge Torribio’s dislike of Jews. (Yes, Yours Truly again)  One suspects that my interference with judicial money laundering played a larger role than my religious-ethnic identification. 

The important aspect of Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye’s interpretation of the Art VI Sec 10 is that it reveals the crimogenic nature of the state’s judicial system – that is, judges and their friends may do whatever they wish without regard to facts or law. Three recent cases reek of the corruption: (1) Attorney Tom Girardi’s theft of millions of dollars with the cooperation of the judges and State Bar, (2) the abuse of Britney Spears and (3) Jolie-Pitt Divorce. 

Tom Girardi Stole Millions of Dollars from His Clients 

“Looking the other way” would be too mild to characterize the judges involved with Girardi. Girardi ran a far-flung operation of favors for judges with his special retreats and gifts, while the State Bar squelched all complaints of his wrongdoing. The State Bar is one of the three judicial institutions over which Chief Justice holds sway. 

The Los Angeles Probate Court’s Predatory Abuse of Britney Spears 

Britney Spears has been suffering abuse from the Los Angeles Probate-Conservatorship court since 2008. Britney’s experience is typical. Under the tutelage of the Chief Justice, the conservatorship court has written out the game plan for looting the estates of elders in Mozer v Augustine, Sept 2019, #B288162 assuring the thieves that they will never be held accountable. The Mozer Process: judges force persons with mental problems and elders into mediations where they are forced to sign mediation agreements which strip them of all their rights and property and then forbid them to ever mention what was done to them. The Mozer case is classic predatory behavior where the abuser then intimidates the victim into silence. 

Jolie Pitt Divorce Case’s Endless Predation 

(Case # 308958, 2d Dist, Div 7) 

On July 23, 2021, at page 15, the appellate court wrote: 

“The standard for (a judge’s) disqualification . . . is fundamentally an objective one. It represents a legislative judgment that due to the sensitivity of the question and inherent difficulties of proof as well as the importance of public confidence in the judicial system the issue is not limited to the existence of an actual bias. Rather, if a reasonable man would entertain doubts concerning the judge’s impartiality, disqualification is mandated. ‘To ensure that the proceedings appear to the public to be impartial and hence worthy of their confidence, the situation must be viewed through the eyes of the objective person.’” [Bold added] 

Everything the appellate court wrote is a crock! None of those rules apply in the real world. They are merely BS for which Jolie and Pitt probably have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney fees. Once again, the rule for the entire California judicial system under Cal Cont Art VI Sec 10 is simple: a judge can do anything he/she wants. Watch as Jolie and Pitt are now suckered into paying hundreds of thousands of more dollars in attorney and private judging fees. Neither needed any disclosure to know what Ouderkirk was like; he had married them in France in 2014. 

According to the Chief Justice, judges may have secret ex parte communications with the opposing attorneys; judges may exclude attorneys from sidebars; judges may alter the evidence, judges may reverse the testimony of a witness, invent new testimony, withhold transcripts, etc.  In two cases six years apart, Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye has affirmed that Art VI Sec 10 allows judges to whatever they wish, (except step on the toes of more important judges.) 

Being disbarred for complaining about anti-Jewish bigotry is mild to what has happened to thousands of minority defendants due to the prevailing ethos of Art VI Sec 10.  For decades, minority defendants have been coerced into plea deals since they know that a fair trial is a delusion in Los Angeles County. Ten of thousands of pages could not begin to mention all the injustices which the California judiciary has inflicted on Californians, not the least of which has been the mass destruction of poor people’s homes resulting in the homeless crisis. 

While Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye may not claim sole credit for turning the California judiciary into a haven for predators and bootlickers, she merits honorable mention for California’s decline into its moral abyss.

(Richard Lee Abrams has been an attorney, a realtor and community relations consultant as well as a CityWatch contributor. The views expressed herein are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of CityWatch. You may email him at

Photos [top L&R] Paul Sakuma/AP, Screenshot courtesy of Bravo/Youtube.  [bottom L&R] Kevin Winter/Getty Images, Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP

Kamala Harris’ Poor Poll Numbers Concern Democrats

kamala harris speaks into mic

Vice President Kamala Harris delivers remarks in the South Court Auditorium in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on July 27, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

Vice President Kamala Harris has work to do to improve her favorable rating among voters, three recent polls have found.

The surveys’ results have created a dilemma for the Biden administration as it maps out its midterm strategy, The Hill reported Thursday.

Three polls combined to produce an unfavorable rating of 46% for Harris, according to an aggregate average compiled by RealClearPolitics. The Hill reported that the number is 3 points below Biden’s 43% unfavorable rating.

An Economist-YouGov poll conducted July 24-27 found Harris’s unfavorable rating to be 48%.

Normally, a vice president travels to support the party’s candidates before a midterm election. Harris’ polling numbers, however, are making Democrats wonder whether she can help them retain majorities in the House and Senate.

“As of right now, I think she has the potential of doing more harm than good for some of these candidates,” one Democrat strategist told The Hill. “My sense is she’ll probably raise a lot of money and maybe she’ll go to some specific districts, but they’ll have to be really strategic with her.

“She doesn’t have the standing at this moment to go to a lot of these tighter districts.”

Even Harris allies are skeptical about her chances to support candidates before the midterms as this puts Democrats in a no-win position. If they use Harris to campaign for the midterms, she could do damage. If they don’t, it confirms that she is politically toxic:

“No one is coming out and saying she’s doing an amazing job, because the first question would be ‘On what?’” one Harris ally told The Hill. “She’s made a bunch of mistakes and she’s made herself a story for good and bad.”

Last week, a Trafalgar Group survey found that more than 60% of likely U.S. voters are not confident Harris is ready to be president.

A total of 58.6% answered “not confident at all” and another 5% said “not very confident,” in the survey conducted July 12-13 among 1,161 likely voters.

Harris has been criticized for several missteps during her first six months in office. She waited three months to visit the southern border after being named to take charge of the immigration surge, and recent reports have said her staff suffers from low morale.

She told asylum-seekers attempting to enter the U.S. “don’t come here” when she finally visited the border. That comment angered some progressives.

“I don’t think someone like [Sen.] Mark Kelly would want her anywhere around him,” the Harris ally told The Hill.

Kelly, D-Ariz., is seeking reelection in a state that Republicans have identified as a pickup opportunity.

However, some disagree, arguing that Democrats would be making a mistake to shy away from Harris ahead of the midterms.

“The reason that Harris is unpopular is that they haven’t been able to make headway against Joe Biden personally, so they really have switched their messaging strategy to focus on Harris and attack him indirectly,” political analyst Rachel Bitecofer told the Hill.

“If Democrats buy into the old-school political book and make the same mistakes that they’ve made in the past and try to shelf her, hide her, run away from her, all they’re doing is reasserting the right’s negative frame against her,” she said.

This is a short-term problem. The bigger, long-term problem for Democrats is figuring out what they’re going to do with Harris if Joe Biden can’t or won’t run in 2024.

Picking Kamala Harris has BACKFIRED on Democrats, as Leftists HATE Her and even Black Voters now say NO WAY! Republicans claim she is far left of the most liberal actual leftists and progressives claim she is right wing or centrist. Worse for Democrats still is that among black voters today, one third say they are now LESS likely to vote for Harris, while a third also said they’d be more likely to ultimately conclude picking her did nothing to help the black vote and only made the leftists angrier with the Democrats!

Kamala Harris struggles in the polls behind Biden amid border crisis and reports of ‘toxic’ office

Kamala Harris is facing a steep uphill battle if she wants to succeed her boss Joe Biden in 2024.

Recent poll numbers show the vice president – and Biden’s heir apparent – hovering at just 44.3 percent favorability, according to poll aggregator RealClearPolitics. Her unfavorability is slightly higher at 46.3 percent. 

Plagued by years’ worth of accounts of a toxic work culture under her watch, as well as her very public missteps while handling the monumental task of fixing the border crisis, Harris’ weaknesses are even apparent to Biden’s supporters.

The same aggregator site showed Biden with 51.8 percent favorability against 42.8 percent, and almost one in five people who supported Biden last fall did not think highly of Harris or did not have an opinion of her.  

Harris' favorability is two points lower than her unfavorability, according to RealClearPolitics

Harris’ favorability is two points lower than her unfavorability, according to RealClearPolitics

A majority of people in almost every age group ranked the struggling vice president as ‘very unfavorable,’ according to a new YouGov survey. The exception was 18 to 29-year-olds, who mostly (32 percent) said their opinion of Harris was ‘somewhat favorable.’

Only 13 percent of the same age group showed stronger support.

Data shows Harris’ unpopularity is strongest among those aged 65 and up and white men without college degrees – with both numbers hovering above 50 percent. 

The majority of both men and women surveyed ranked their opinion of Harris as ‘very unfavorable’ – 41 percent of males and 34 percent of females.  

Less than half of Democrats surveyed (49 percent) found Harris ‘very favorable,’ while a whopping 87 percent of Republicans chose ‘very unfavorable.’

Harris is facing an uphill battle if she wants to succeed Biden in 2024

Harris is facing an uphill battle if she wants to succeed Biden in 2024

Suffolk University Political Research Center Director David Paleologos suggest Biden be ‘more supportive publicly and engage with Vice President Harris so that he can at least shore up his own voters,’ in an interview with the Washington Examiner.

The politics expert said it was clear that some people who voted for Biden in 2020 ‘thought there was a better pick or they’re not convinced that they like her.’ 

Harris has also reportedly been unpopular among her own staff. A damning Politico report from late June uncovered allegations of ‘an abusive environment’ they say ‘starts at the top.’

‘It’s not a healthy environment and people often feel mistreated. It’s not a place where people feel supported but a place where people feel treated like s—,’ a source with direct knowledge of how Harris’ office is run told the outlet. 

A Harvard/Harris poll from June before Harris’ trip to the southern border showed voters’ discontent at her handling of the crisis, which Biden tapped her to lead the response to.

A Harvard/Harris poll from June 15 - 17 2021 reflected Americans' discontent with the VP's handling of the border crisis

A Harvard/Harris poll from June 15 – 17 2021 reflected Americans’ discontent with the VP’s handling of the border crisis

People surveyed said Harris made no progress on her trip to Central America, before she traveled to the southern border

People surveyed said Harris made no progress on her trip to Central America, before she traveled to the southern border

Harris’ trip to Guatemala to tackle the ‘root causes’ of the crisis was criticized when she bluntly announced during a speech ‘do not come’ to the US. 

In a contentious interview with NBC’s Lester Holt during the trip, Harris appeared to dodge the anchor’s attempts to press her on visiting the border.

At one point Harris told Holt ‘we’ve been to the border,’ to which he pointed out she herself had not – prompting a somewhat confusing response. 

‘And I haven’t been to Europe,’ Harris said. ‘And I mean, I don’t understand the point that you’re making. I’m not discounting the importance of the border.’ 

Biden's approval rating on immigration comes despite apparent discontent in Harris' handling of the border crisis, according to numbers from just before her southern border visit (pictured July 22)

Biden’s approval rating on immigration comes despite apparent discontent in Harris’ handling of the border crisis, according to numbers from just before her southern border visit (pictured July 22)

The majority of Americans polled by Harvard at the time said Harris was doing a bad job handling the root causes of illegal immigration. 

The vice president made ‘no progress’ on that trip, 40 percent said, and nearly three-quarters say she should have visited the border on the same trip.

The survey also showed Biden had more than 50 percent support on the topic of immigration in June 2021.

Related Stories: