Kamala Harris Courting Insane Ideas For 2028 Run

The redistricting battle has turned into a revealing display of just how far Democrats are willing to go to gain —or hold onto— political power. The reactions alone have been something to watch.

One of the more remarkable responses came from Kamala Harris, who continues trying to stay politically relevant as speculation about a 2028 presidential run lingers. That effort took another strange turn when she tried rallying Democrats by suggesting there are essentially “no bad ideas” in the fight ahead. Naturally, the internet quickly responded by pointing out that many of the ideas she promoted were, in fact, pretty unpopular outside progressive activist circles.

Harris proceeded to run through the standard Democratic wishlist: attacking the Electoral College, floating Supreme Court expansion, and pushing for Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., to become states. The justification, as always, is that they’re supposedly “saving democracy” and preventing red states from “cheating.” But what they’re really advocating is a fundamental restructuring of long-standing institutions because they dislike certain political outcomes and court rulings. Apparently, “protecting democracy” now means changing the rules whenever Democrats lose.

And the irony here is impossible to ignore. Democrats regularly accuse Republicans of authoritarianism, yet they openly discuss altering the Supreme Court, weakening the Electoral College, and reshaping the Senate to secure more favorable electoral math. If Republicans proposed half of these ideas after losing elections, the media reaction would be absolute hysteria.

What makes Harris’ comments on the Electoral College especially odd is that even under a pure popular vote system, she still would not have won nationally. So it’s difficult to present that argument as anything more than frustration with the constitutional system itself.

Then there was Harris’ confusing claim about Supreme Court nominees supposedly lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Existing laws already cover that issue. Witnesses who knowingly lie under oath to Congress can face perjury charges. There are already “rules in place,” despite Harris suggesting otherwise.

She also claimed Democrats need to examine all the blue-state maps, seemingly ignoring that many heavily Democratic states have already pushed gerrymandering as far as they realistically can. The outrage now appears less about principle and more about fear of losing political leverage.