Ex-Dem insider drops bombshell on where Harris ranked in secret poll for Biden replacements
Former Democratic Fundraiser Claims Internal Polling Undermined Harris in Favor of Biden
A former Democratic fundraiser and political insider, Lindy Li, has alleged that the Democratic Party’s internal polling and internal decision‑making process played a pivotal role in the selection of Vice President Kamala Harris as the party’s nominee for the 2024 presidential election – a decision she says was made more out of fear than electoral logic.
Li, who has switched her party registration to Republican after what she describes as “unheeded warning signs” about President Biden’s viability in the 2024 race, is the author of the forthcoming book Unburdened. In it she chronicles the months leading up to Biden’s decision to withdraw from the race and the internal deliberations that followed.
According to Li, Democratic operatives were aware that President Biden’s advancing age would create an unassailable liability in a general‑election showdown against Donald Trump. Yet, rather than seek a candidate with a stronger electoral footing, the party’s leadership turned to Kamala Harris, who, she says, ranked far below other potential replacements in internal polling data.
A “Bottom‑of‑the‑List” Choice
Li recalls that before Biden announced he would step aside, several high‑profile figures were floated as potential alternatives: former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, California Governor Gavin Newsom, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, and Harris herself. She claims that in internal surveys conducted within the party’s finance and strategy circles, Harris consistently trailed behind Buttigieg, Newsom and Whitmer – a fact she says the leadership was unwilling to confront.
“We saw the numbers,” Li said. “The data suggested that Buttigieg, who received essentially zero support from the Black electorate, was a stronger candidate than Harris. Yet the party chose Harris anyway.” She argues that the party’s focus on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) principles left little room for an alternative that might have better positioned the party against Trump.
Fear of the Online Mob
Li also suggests that the decision to hand the ticket to Harris was driven by fear of backlash from a vocal and tightly knit group of supporters she calls the “K‑Hive.” The nickname, she says, is used within party circles to describe the group’s tendency to mobilize online in a way that is “toxic and coordinated.” She claims the party feared that moving away from Harris could provoke accusations of racism or anti‑Black sentiment, a risk too great for the party to take.
“People were terrified of the online mob,” Li said. “They didn’t want to be labeled as racists, and Harris had a devoted following that made it hard to consider other options.” In her view, Harris’s proximity to the party’s major donors and her strategic positioning within the fundraising network made her the only candidate the party could not ignore.
Internal Polling and the Party’s Narrative
Li says the internal poll that informed the decision was “guarded like the papal conclave,” yet she claims it was shared among a small group of key fundraisers, including herself. She has said that she does not typically trust polling data because “it’s basically funded propaganda.” However, she notes that this particular survey was intended to provide an objective assessment of who could mount the most formidable challenge to Trump.
In an interview with Fox News Digital, Li expressed frustration that the numbers ran counter to the narrative the party wanted to present. “The polling numbers went directly against the narrative that the party wanted to espouse,” she said. “They knew that skipping over Kamala Harris would be a slap in the face to the bedrock of the party, which is Black women in particular, and they just wouldn’t have it.”
Reactions
Representatives for Kamala Harris have not yet responded to a request for comment. The Democratic National Committee has also declined to comment on Li’s allegations.
Li’s claims, if true, could have far‑reaching implications for the Democratic Party’s future strategy and its relationship with Black voters. They also raise questions about the extent to which internal polling and party politics can override empirical evidence about candidate viability.
As the 2024 election cycle moves forward, observers will be watching to see whether the allegations made by Li are corroborated by additional sources within the party. For now, her book Unburdened promises to provide a detailed insider look at a moment when the party’s internal calculus may have altered the course of a national election.