Kamala Harris hints at another presidential run: “I am not done”

Former US vice president Kamala Harris has hinted she could make another bid for the White House in an interview with the BBC, saying she would “possibly” be president one day and expressing confidence that America will see a woman in the Oval Office in the future.

Speaking to Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Harris also turned her fire on her former rival, branding Trump a "tyrant", and said warnings she made about him on the campaign trail had been proved right.

Harris also criticized American business leaders and institutions she believes have been too quick to yield to Trump’s authority.

“There are many, that have capitulated since day one, who are bending the knee at the foot of a tyrant, I believe for many reasons, including they want to be next to power, because they want to perhaps have a merger approved or avoid an investigation,” she told the BBC.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2n7k2veywo

The full interview will be broadcast on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg at 0900 on Sunday 26 Oct 2025.

That's London time, btw.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

Knew all along she would run again. She's got some powerful backing.

For the 2024 presidential campaign, Kamala Harris raised approximately $997.2 million while Donald Trump raised about $388 million.

Context of Fundraising

Harris's Campaign: The fundraising figure reported primarily applies to her own campaign efforts starting after she became the nominee.

Trump's Campaign: His total reflects funds raised by his campaign specifically during this election cycle.

Biden's initial fundraising efforts are generally considered separate and do not contribute to the totals for Harris and Trump in the context of their direct presidential campaigns.

Thus, the numbers can be viewed as independent for the candidates in the current election cycle.

Me: I ask this specifically because she only could raise that money in a few months. Biden dropped out.
.
GPT-4o mini

You're correct that Kamala Harris's fundraising of approximately $997.2 million took place over a relatively short period after she became the Democratic nominee.

Key Points:

Biden's Withdrawal: Joe Biden dropped out of the race earlier in the election cycle, which limited direct contributions from his campaign's resources to Harris’s efforts during this time.

Short Fundraising Window: Harris's figure reflects her campaign's rapid fundraising momentum within only a few months, particularly as she gained support from various donor networks.

On the other hand, Donald Trump's figure of $388 million encompasses his fundraising efforts throughout the entirety of the campaign, giving Harris a notable edge in terms of funds raised in a shorter timeframe, especially after Biden's exit from the race.

RedBaron · M

@DeWayfarer But she’s not a strong politician or candidate, and she never would have won the 2024 nomination in her own right.

The party needs to look elsewhere to have any hope of winning the election.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@RedBaron Well it's looking in the wrong direction with Newsom. I see him like Reagan on economic issues. Or has everyone forgotten reagnomics or supply side economics.

RedBaron · M

@DeWayfarer But the overarching priority needs to be electability. It’s more important than any specific opinions or policies.

They realized that with Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and got it right.

Insisting on some sort of ideological purity is the completely the wrong approach.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@RedBaron You're going down the wrong rabbit hole. There be dragons there. You can't convert Republicans. Which is what you're talking about.

RedBaron · M

@DeWayfarer Which is what is necessary and got Clinton, Obama, and Biden elected.

And converting Democrats is what got Reagan, both Bushes, and Trump elected.

Elections are won in the center, not on the extreme right or extreme left.

If you fail to grasp that principle, then you fail to understand the politics of presidential elections. Plain and simple.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@RedBaron And which started Trump's Reign of Terror. Yes the French revolution applies. To remove a King, you create a dictator.

Please don't go down the insult path. I know history.

RedBaron · M

@DeWayfarer Not insulting, just stating facts.

Regardless of Trump’s character and conduct in office, he won in 2016 because he appealed to voters in the political center better than Hillary Clinton did, and he did the same better than Harris did last year.

In each of at least the last 12 presidential elections dating back to 1980, the winner was the candidate who best appealed to centrist voters, from Reagan down through Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, Obama, Trump, Biden, and Trump again.

It’s an elegantly simple explanation, and nobody needs to be insulted by it.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@RedBaron Your claim...

If you fail to grasp that principle, then you fail to understand the politics of presidential elections.

Is insulting!

Strong people are the one's used to overthrow King's. This has been proven over and over throughout all of history. And they usually become dictators or "Emperor's" in the case of Napoleon. Or Alexander the great of Greece.

I would rather have a strong women, than a dictator at the helm. At least they know of compassion.

This is about human nature. Not elections.

RedBaron · M

@DeWayfarer Please try to let any insult roll off your back, because it’s not personal.

Anyone who fails to grasp that principle fails to understand the politics of presidential elections.

And I agree with your last statement, although gender should not be the paramount consideration.

The Democratic party has business in 2028 to nominate the candidate, male or female, who can best appeal to the political center of the electorate because it will the only way to win the election and have a Democrat in the White House.

I don’t believe that Kamala Harris is that candidate. Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, and Josh Shapiro come to mind as stronger choices.

Any funds raised by Harris will be equaled or exceeded by the candidate strong and appealing enough to emerge from the primary process as the nominee.

Furthermore, and this is not intended to insult you or anyone else, by focusing on Reagan’s specific positions and policies, you’re missing the mark of why he was a successful candidate.

He ran against and defeated Jimmy Carter because the voting public in general viewed Carter as ineffectual and Reagan as the best candidate to make life better for them.

This had as much to do with Reagan’s charismatic, appealing personality as with any specific positions or policies.

Much the same was true of Bill Clinton relative to George HW Bush in 1992.

Kamala Harris is simply not that charismatic, and if she runs, I would bet dollars to donuts that she will not emerge from a full primary process as the Democratic nominee.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@RedBaron You're missing the mark why Trump was elected as well. He appeals to his own constituents.

The same way way King Louie the 16th did to his aristocracy. The same way Napoleon Bonaparte appealed to his people. The same way Alexander the great appealed to his soldiers. On and on and on.

It's that appeal that is the wrong approach. You go down that hellish rabbit hole into a nightmare with that type of appeal.

You want a woman example with that type of appeal? Cleopatra of Egypt.

RedBaron · M

@DeWayfarer But that is irrelevant to what the Democrats need to do in order to win the next election, and that is what is important now.

The past cannot be changed.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@RedBaron It is totally relevant! Because it doesn't matter what type of government in which that appeal is in.

That appeal is wrong. Alexander the great became emperor of a once great Greek democracy.

Genghis Khan had that type of appeal.

Those who don't learn from history, shall repeat history