Kevin O’Leary Warns Democrats – The Kamala Harris Mistake

kevin o'leary

Kevin O’Leary warns Kamala Harris could be a destructive force for the Democratic Party’s electoral success.

At a Glance

  • Kevin O’Leary warns Democrats about the potential mistake of nominating Kamala Harris.
  • O’Leary draws comparisons between Harris and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.
  • He criticizes the lack of a competitive nomination process within the Democratic Party.
  • O’Leary believes Harris’ policy proposals could harm the American economy.

Kevin O’Leary’s Stark Warning

Kevin O’Leary, an investor from ABC’s Shark Tank, recently raised alarms over the Democratic Party’s decision to anoint Kamala Harris as their presidential candidate. O’Leary believes Democrats could be making a “huge mistake” by pushing Harris forward without a rigorous selection process, recalling Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss.

O’Leary posits that Harris may face a similar fate unless the party conducts a thorough political assessment.

Drawing from the past, O’Leary compared Harris’ current position to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, suggesting that both were “anointed” rather than chosen through a competitive process. Despite Clinton winning the popular vote, she lost the presidency due to the Electoral College system.

O’Leary emphasized the need for multiple options, arguing that the Democratic Party might avoid potential pitfalls if they considered a broader range of candidates.

Lack of Competitive Nomination Process

O’Leary criticized the Democrats for not running a thorough primary process for their 2024 candidate. Unlike Clinton, who went through a traditional primary election, Harris secured her position with high-profile endorsements after President Biden decided not to run. Other potential candidates, including California Governor Gavin Newsom and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, did not gain significant traction.

“If in fact, Harris loses — and it’s 50-50, she may win, she may lose — this whole party, the Democratic Party, is going to revisit what happened here because they did the same thing with Hillary Clinton. It was assumed she would win. They anointed her. She lost.”

Potential Economic Impact

O’Leary didn’t stop at electoral criticism; he lambasted Harris’ policy proposals, including her recent price-fixing policy which he termed “beyond crazy.” Harris’ plan to ban price gouging at grocery stores to combat high inflation could, according to O’Leary, wreak havoc on the American economy. He cited past U.S. attempts at price fixing in the 1970s, which led to economic chaos, as proof that such policies are detrimental.

“Every investor, including foreign investors, are hungry for information. So over the last 48 hours, what we’ve learned is the potential to take corporate taxes from 23 to 28 percent.”

O’Leary called attention to Harris’ proposal to increase corporate taxes from 23% to 28%, predicting it would be detrimental to America’s global competitiveness. Drawing parallels between Harris’ policies and economic failures in other countries, O’Leary stressed the urgent need for more thoughtful economic strategies.

Possible Strategic Reassessment

O’Leary warned that if Harris loses the 2024 election, the Democratic Party will have to reassess its strategies fundamentally. Comparing Harris to Clinton, O’Leary concluded that presumptions of an inevitable victory could lead to devastating results. He stressed that a more competitive and inclusive primary process might have prevented the potential risks the party now faces heading into the election season.

“I’m not saying she’s going to lose, but I would have never let that happen if I’m selling a business. I tell my managers, never bring me one offer, bring me a process, show me there’s no other bid out there that I want, then I’ll make a decision if I’m selling. I was amazed they didn’t do that here.”

O’Leary’s observations undoubtedly resonate with many who value a transparent and democratic selection process, with apprehensions about policy directions that could further erode economic stability. His insights underscore the importance of competitive hearings and multiple avenues of assessment, especially when the stakes involve the highest office in the land.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR