6 Messaging Lessons from Kamala Harris’ 107 Days

Last summer, I was really frustrated with the Democrats’ campaign and messaging. 

When Kamala Harris became the top of the ticket, I found myself commenting on her social posts and even writing letters to her team, urging them to fix their messaging.

I think more frustrating was that I knew I wasn’t the only one feeling this way. So why couldn’t her team see what was so clear to so many of us–that they were leading with the wrong issues, telling the wrong story, and communicating in a way that didn’t connect?

​

So I was eager to read her book 107 Days in hopes of understanding her communication choices and perhaps what went wrong. After reading it, I walked away with six key messaging lessons, which I’ve mapped out against my W.I.T.C.H.Y. messaging framework.

It’s the framework I use with impact-driven entrepreneurs who want to sell without selling out–who want their words to move people without manipulation, pressure, or posturing. It’s about finding your authentic voice–the one buried under years of conditioning about how we “should” sound–and using that voice to tell the truth, honor consent, and communicate from a place of alignment instead of extraction.


But first, if you haven’t read it, it’s important to know that this book is literally a day-by-day recounting of these 107 days. It’s not a sexy or provocative read. It’s not gossip-worthy. It’s just facts. She recounts what happened, and some of the thought processes behind certain decisions. A few chapters are as simple as, “[This and this happened on this day.]”

I wouldn’t even call the book reflective. It doesn’t feel like she’s trying to prove any point. This book is purely Kamala Harris making sure she has a say in this unprecedented part of history that really only she could tell as it relates to her. And true to her own style, she just lays out the facts for us with some background context and information. 

Still, it’s honest and revealing.


6 W.I.T.C.H.Y. Lessons
​
1. W - Who you are / Who you’re for

For any story or message to be effective and impactful, we always have to start with who you are and who you’re for. This is the anchor that gives your story distinction, clarity, and specificity.

Lesson: Flawless is a myth.
I’ve heard Kamala Harris talk about in interviews that she expects herself to be flawless. She’s not always flawless, but she aims to be and that is the standard she holds for herself.

If you’re a perfectionist, you may understand this. Yet, this is part of what hurts her. It’s probably why I hear some people say that it feels like she’s inauthentic.

Kamala Harris’ perfectionism–most likely born at least in part from necessity as a Woman of Color in politics and leadership–made her appear controlled, careful, and disciplined. But it also created distance.

When we are starved for authenticity, people didn’t need her to be “flawless.” They needed her to be real. I think that’s why so many of Donald Trump’s supporters continue to support him. They can forgive his flubs, because it makes him “human.” They don’t “like the way he talks about some things, but he feels real to them.

That’s how Bernie Sanders is, too. Bernie Sanders is just very real and no nonsense.

→ Takeaway: When your voice is too polished, people can’t feel you. Your audience wants connection, not composure. And when we show up as flawless, we don’t just hide who we are–we also make it harder for the people we’re for to recognize themselves in us.

→ How I would’ve advised her: Shed the decades of conditioning she’s experienced on how she as a Woman of Color needs to show up in order to be taken seriously, and let people see the woman behind the résumé. We trust what we can relate to. Of course, this is easier said than done when there’s no escaping the racism and sexism, but being more human and less “flawless” could’ve helped sway the undecided.

Now on her book tour, I feel like we’re seeing more of an unfiltered side of her–-and it’s not just about dropping f* bombs. It’s the honesty.


2. I - Instinct + Intuition + Intellect (alliteration borrowed from Jen Kem)

Numbers can guide you, but they don’t tell the whole story. Without checking in with instinct and intuition, you can miss what truly matters to your audience.

The lesson: Relying too much on numbers without allowing room for intuition can mislead you.

Bernie Sanders seemed to predict what was going to happen, because his response to Kamala Harris when she called him to ask for his support after Joe Biden dropped out of the race was: “I supported Joe because he was the strongest voice for the working class. Please focus on the working class and not just abortion.”

This was the very question I had during the campaign. Why were they leaning so heavily on abortion? Not that it’s not important, because it’s critical in more ways than people commonly think about. But the math wasn’t mathing in my mind.

However, her campaign leaned heavily on numbers and stats, which sounds like a smart thing to do right? And it is, but it’s incomplete data. The numbers Kamala Harris’ team looked at told them that reproductive rights was the #1 issue. 

Numbers and stats are great and necessary, but we also have to be able to read the room. And throughout the entire campaign, it did not feel like they were reading the room. In fact, it felt frustratingly like they weren’t listening at all.

Because when in everyday life, most Americans are worried about the price of groceries and basic survival, talking about sometimes even the most important issues can feel abstract when there isn’t everyday immediacy.

Reproductive rights is the loud, sexy issue that gets a lot of noise (as it should), but when the cost of living is crushing people the messaging priorities should’ve been about what Americans experience on the day-to-day. But the economy is not sexy and it’s complicated. So it can feel like background noise compared to reproductive rights.

→ Takeaway: Numbers can inform you, but instinct and intuition connect you, and connection is what drives change. Messaging isn’t just about what’s statistically resonant, it’s about reading the room.

→ How I would’ve advised her: Look at the numbers, but then look up and listen to the humans not just the numbers, because that’s also data. We have to look at the whole picture.

3. T - Transformation

Transformation is the heart of all powerful messaging. It’s not about what you do–it’s about how people’s lives change because of you.

The lesson: If people can’t envision their lives under your leadership, they’re not going to buy from you, mobilize for you, or in this case…vote for you.

In 107 Days, Kamala Harris shares the valid point of time constraints. Not only did she only have 107 days to completely turn the tides; this meant, anytime she had an audience, she needed to get the most important pieces of information out.

What ended up happening is what I Iiken to speaking only to the features, not the transformations. We hear this more and more now: ”People don’t buy products from you, they buy the transformations.”

Many folks couldn’t envision life under Kamala Harris. At best, we just knew we didn’t want to live under fascism, but beyond that…what was she going to do? She had a few plans here and there about helping first-time home buyers, and other things. 

But especially when you’re up against an incessant liar and conflationist who is promising to end wars and lower grocery prices on Day 1, we’ve got to help people envision themselves in the world we want to build for them. And that means meeting them where they are, being transparent, and just plain honest.

In messaging, harm reduction isn’t just about avoiding exploitation–it’s also about closing the emotional gap between you and your audience.

→ Takeaway: Real transformation happens when we meet people where they are–not where we think they should be–and take them to where they want to be.

→ How I would’ve advised her: Sell the vision not the résumé.

4. C — Core Stories

Every message we put out shapes our narrative–and people can feel when parts of the story are missing.

Lesson: Focusing too much or only on wins feels like a half-truth. 

Kamala Harris is great at sharing personal stories that serve the purpose of a particular message, but there was one area of storytelling that she and her team were not addressing well.

The campaign focused so much on what went right in the Biden-Harris administration, it avoided addressing what didn’t–leaving voters to fill in the gaps themselves which can lead to messy conclusions. I understand from reading the book, that she wanted to remind people of what actually got done, because so much focus now was on Gaza, and people questioned “what did she even do?” 

But by only focusing on wins, not only did it at times feel like she wasn’t answering the direct question, but that she was just trying to force talking points and like she was hiding something.

Bernie Sanders is a great example of someone who is just plain and simple honest. He owns up to mistakes, and he calls it like it is. It’s why so many people who voted for him in the past, would vote for Donald. Or like AOC voters who also voted for Donald in the last election. 

Not that Donald owns up to mistakes, but he speaks without a filter, and whether or not he really cares, he addresses real concerns that real people have–calling out things that are broken in the system.
We don’t just want to know what’s right, we want to know what’s wrong–that our leaders see our problems/challenges–and that they have a solution for those problems.

→ Takeaway: When you leave out the full truth, you unintentionally manipulate the message–even if you don’t mean to–and ultimately create distrust.

→ How I would’ve advised her: Be vulnerably honest. Be real. Honoring consent means letting your audience make informed decisions—and that requires the whole story.

5. H — Harm Reduction & Honoring Consent

Ethical messaging isn’t just about avoiding manipulation–it’s about creating trust, humanity, and safety in your communication.

The lesson: You can’t dismantle oppressive systems while still playing by their rules.
 
Kamala Harris did everything right–but right according to whose playbook? She stayed measured, careful, and “presidential.” She refused to exploit fear or division, which was admirable. But she also played by an old set of rules–the rules written by and for white men–about how leaders should look, sound, and behave.

The problem isn’t that she lacked integrity. It’s that she operated within a system that rewards performance over authenticity, dominance over discernment. And for Women of Color, there’s no winning in that system no matter how “right” you get it.

I’m not saying she should’ve played dirty, but her short, factual responses were efficient yet emotionally flat. Not because she lacked heart, but because her words were filtered through the old expectations of what “presidential” should sound like.

​She didn’t shrink–she showed up with grace, composure, and conviction. But those same qualities, when shaped by a political machine built for white male candidates, can come across as distant or overly polished. Her communication played by the rules of credibility, but those rules were never written with women like her in mind.

And that’s the problem. When we communicate within systems designed to limit us, even our truth can sound like a performance.

→ Takeaway: You can’t dismantle oppressive systems while still playing by their rules. Doing things the “right” way isn’t always the most real way.

→ How I’d advise her: Keep the composure, but loosen the script. Let your truth breathe between the talking points. Connection doesn’t come from control—it comes from the courage to sound like yourself, even when the system doesn’t know what to do with that.


6. Y — Your Offer’s Role in the Bigger Picture

Every offer–political, personal, or professional–exists within a larger story. If you don’t articulate how you fit into the big picture, people will fill in the blanks themselves.

The lesson: Assuming the difference between her and Joe Biden was obvious.

In her book, Kamala Harris admits to underestimating the need to spell out how she was different from Joe Biden. She thought it was obvious. But when we don’t connect the dots between our stories and logic, our audience fills in the blanks themselves — and those assumptions can be wrong, confusing, or paralyzing.

She was loyal to a fault and wanted to protect Joe Biden’s legacy, which is admirable, but it came at her own expense. When asked on The View what she would do differently, she said “Nothing,” a response that ended up being detrimental to her campaign.

And she explains why she said that in the book. I think it’s in large part due to her lawyer brain, thinking of all the consequences of answering differently and not having enough time to fully engage in a thorough response.
Still, her differences should’ve been emphasized.

→ Takeaway: Spelling out your differences isn’t divisive–it’s clarifying. If people don’t know what makes your offer distinct, they can’t see why it matters.

→ How I would’ve advised her: Spell out the differences. The whole reason she became top of the ticket was because people wanted someone different. And listen to your audience, because the audience was begging to know how she’d be different.



Kamala Harris had some of the smartest, most experienced people around her—folks who have navigated multiple administrations and know the playbook inside and out. But brilliance alone isn’t enough. We can’t rely on the same old marketing and messaging tactics or assume that past methods will always work. 

In today’s world, flawless isn’t enough; we need authenticity, relatability, and vision that inspires action. Even the best team can only take you so far if the messaging doesn’t meet people where they are.

And especially for us Women of Color, we have to shed these old patriarchal and white supremacist ways that don’t work for us in the first place.

Perhaps an unpopular opinion amongst my usual audience…Kamala Harris would’ve been an excellent president, because she cares. No matter what you may disagree with her on, she was possibly the most qualified person to ever run for president, and we so very badly needed her eldest daughter energy in the oval office. We are in desperate need of matriarchal leadership.

Have you read 107 Days? What are your thoughts?

Stay curious,
🎈Justine

P.S. If this article ever gets to Kamala Harris or her people, I would love to be part of what she’s doing next. Call me!