Jared Golden walks political tightrope with refusal to support Kamala Harris
By Matthew Gagnon
U.S. Rep. Jared Golden has had a tough month and a half.
It all began just before the Fourth of July, which at this point feels like a lifetime ago. Back then, President Joe Biden was still in the race, things were looking grim for him and the Democratic Party, and Golden was apparently looking for a way to distance himself from the sinking ship. So he took to the pages of the Bangor Daily News to declare that Donald Trump was going to win the election, and that despite his party’s repeated arguments to the contrary, “democracy was going to be just fine.”
To many, the argument itself and its timing looked deeply political.
In 2022, the Cook Political Report published its latest version of the Cook Partisan Voting Index, which is an evaluation of the partisan lean of each congressional district. It looks at the results in the prior two presidential elections and describes how much more Republican or Democratic the district is, compared to the country as a whole. Golden’s 2nd Congressional District is six points more Republican than the nation.
Given that, at that time, most pundits believed Trump was likely to win, and given that his district is so conservative, it did seem a bit self-serving to make that kind of statement at that time.
Still, that doesn’t mean that Golden wasn’t being truthful, or genuinely describing what he believes. It is possible to do something that is in your political best interest while also being authentic at the same time. I actually do think his BDN column was a fair reflection of what he really thought.
The chaos that has taken place since then has repeatedly put Golden in an awkward position, forcing him to walk a very difficult political tightrope.
When Biden dropped out and Kamala Harris was immediately selected and elevated by the Democrats with no real opposition, people — particularly reporters — started asking Golden what he thought about the switch, and about Harris.
At first, he tried to be non-committal. Asked about Harris, Golden demurred, not committing to voting for Harris but also not saying he wouldn’t. Rather, he suggested he had some studying to do. “Kamala Harris has been a candidate for president for less than a week and I look forward to learning more what kind of leader she would be.”
This argument, equally political in nature, I did believe was contrived. I do not accept that anyone who is even interested in politics, let alone an active participant in it, would need a “get to know” period about the sitting vice president of the United States. Harris was his colleague in Congress for two years. She ran a very public (and disastrous) campaign for president in 2020, and then became Biden’s running mate. She has been vice president for nearly four years.
He knows what kind of leader she is already.
Golden seemed to recognize the insufficiency of that answer, and shortly thereafter stated that he had come to a decision about his vote this November. He would not, after all, be making any endorsement in the 2024 presidential campaign. He then refused to participate in the voting process to officially nominate Harris, and announced he would not be attending the Democratic convention in Chicago.
The reason he was taking a pass on endorsing a candidate, he said, was simple. “I am running to represent all the people of this district, regardless of who they vote for at the top of the ticket.”
The statement was curious. If he wasn’t making an endorsement, would he be making a choice for president at all on his ballot? And if an endorsement is somehow inappropriate because he wants to represent everyone, why did he endorse U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado for president in 2020, before ultimately supporting Biden in the fall campaign?
That first question — as well as others — was asked of Golden by the Portland Press Herald. Golden’s response to the questioning was irate, saying he had “never seen a more biased or politically motivated set of questions from a reporter” in his time in politics.
I actually do agree with him that some of the questions (“why is Golden still a Democrat?”) that were asked were needlessly antagonistic. But the curiosity as to the extent to which Golden’s public statements have implications for his choices in this election, and for the future, is fair.
The bigger political question here is this: Do any voters in the 2nd District care about any of this, and will the uncomfortable dance Golden has been doing hurt him with those voters?
To be certain, Golden’s opponent Austin Theriault certainly hopes so. We’ll find out in November.
Gagnon of Yarmouth is the chief executive officer of the Maine Policy Institute, a free market policy think tank based in Portland. A Hampden native, he previously served as a senior strategist for the Republican Governors Association in Washington, D.C.