Election Reflections 2024: Harris Lost--Now Therefore What, Democrats?
Part 4
Election Reflections 2024: Harris Lost—Now Therefore What, Democrats?
The presidential race by Kamala Harris was painfully subpar from the outset. We have to rewind the tape back to 2023 and early 2024 to appreciate what went wrong. The Democrats played internal hardball to protect President Joe Biden from any form of primary contest. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was blocked from competing and turned Independent in October 2023. Dean Phillips was sidelined. The party insiders controlled the narrative.
Sadly, the smoke & mirrors around Biden’s health fully dissolved when he failed to perform on the national debate stage vs. Donald Trump. This moment raised the serious backlash that DNC leaders were gaslighting the American public. What to do?
With little time and much at stake, they followed the money. Harris wasn’t the pick who was battle-tested by campaign interactions. Harris didn’t win any primaries. Harris had access to hundreds of millions of campaign contributions that belonged to the Biden/Harris ticket. A switch to anyone would forfeit the money. And at such a late starting point, any other top Democrat candidate would be almost guaranteed a failure, which is not helpful for a rising political career. It would have to be Harris to own the risk of a short run. After all, she was inside the White House and complicit in watching Biden’s health decline on the job.
How did Kamala Harris lose? Let me count the ways…
1. Economic Discontent:
Inflation and high cost of living were major concerns for voters, overshadowing campaign promises and endorsements. Despite some economic recovery, the perception of the economy was negative, with many voters feeling the financial pinch. This dissatisfaction was not mitigated by Harris's campaign, which struggled to address these economic grievances effectively.
2. Voter Disillusionment with Biden's Legacy:
Harris inherited a campaign from Joe Biden, who was deeply unpopular at the time of his exit. Her inability to distance herself from Biden's administration, particularly on economic policies, meant she bore the brunt of anti-incumbency sentiment. Voters wanted a clean break from the policies and perceived failures of the previous administration.
3. Lack of Clear Policy Differentiation:
Harris's campaign failed to articulate a distinct vision separate from Biden's, especially on key issues like the economy, immigration, and law enforcement. Her policy proposals were seen as either too vague or too similar to the existing administration, lacking the appeal needed to win over undecided voters.
4. Identity Politics Backlash:
Some analyses suggest that Harris's identity as the first woman of color to lead a major party ticket might have played a role in voter resistance, with underlying racial and gender biases impacting the election outcome. This was compounded by Trump's campaign leveraging these aspects negatively.
5. Shifting Turnout and Poor Enthusiasm:
Harris struggled to generate enthusiasm among key Democratic constituencies like young voters and certain minority groups, which resulted in weaker voter turnout in critical regions compared to previous elections. This was particularly evident in swing states where Trump managed to increase voter participation among his base.
6. Trump's Effective Campaign Strategy:
Trump's campaign capitalized on economic concerns and expanded his appeal among minority voters, particularly Latino and Black communities, by focusing on jobs and border security. His strategy of building a multi-ethnic working-class coalition was successful, contrasting with Harris's perceived disconnect from these groups.
7. Campaign Organization and Strategy:
The rushed nature of Harris's campaign after Biden's late withdrawal meant there was less time to organize effectively, develop a robust voter outreach strategy, or build the necessary ground game in key states. There were also criticisms about her campaign's focus on certain issues like abortion, which might have alienated other voter groups.
8. Public Perception:
Harris was often portrayed in negative terms by Trump and his supporters, with labels like "incompetent" or "weak," which influenced public perception. Her public speaking style and some past policy decisions were used against her, painting her as out of touch with working-class concerns.
9. Historical and Societal Factors:
The U.S. has never elected a woman as president, and this historical precedent might have been a psychological barrier for some voters. Additionally, the political environment, including post-COVID economic recovery issues, played into a broader pattern of anti-incumbent sentiment worldwide.
These reasons collectively illustrate why Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election, highlighting both strategic campaign failures and broader socio-political trends.
Now Therefore What, Democrats?
The party soul-searching has been going on for over a month. Memos have been written and privately shared. Key lessons have surfaced. But what really went wrong?
Lawfare backfired in a big way—The many avenues used by Democrats to win political points in the courts became a public form of disgraceful theater. Multiple lawsuits and prosecutions against Trump had the air of politically motivated attacks. This angered conservatives as well as numerous independents. Then came the No Labels plan to gain ballot access to run a Unity Ticket (one Republican/one Democrat). The Democrat machine smeared the political group and began lawsuits to keep them off the ballot. Then came Robert F. Kennedy Jr. seeking 50-state ballot access as an independent candidate for President. Again, lawsuits were filed immediately out of the gate challenging him in numerous states—Nevada (signatures), New York (residency issues), Pennsylvania (signatures), North Carolina (party formation), Hawaii (party formation), Delaware (challenge third party certification), New Jersey (sore loser law), Washington (convention proceedings).
After enough court battles to deny natural campaign activity under the U.S. Constitution, any attempt by Democrats to claim they were protecting democracy looked like total rubbish. The hypocrisy was outlandish and began to destroy their brand image.
A faltering coalition with awkward leadership—The Democrats lost ground with minorities; key cohorts fighting for change didn’t help win support. To bolster this viewpoint, I refer to the post-election reactions from Sanity Clause by Joe Klein.
But the Democrats have a deeper problem, deeper now than any that confronted the party in the 1990s. It is not merely wokery, although there’s plenty wrong with that. It is also not merely the subtle and relentless feminization of the party, though that has been a quiet, gathering calamity over time. It is also not only the cultural signposts—Bill Clinton became a Vegan, for god’s sake! (I suspect a President must be willing to eat steak, for the foreseeable future)—and the disdain for superheroes and cleavage and cops and tattooed men in tank tops. It is not only the willingness to denigrate our glorious if flawed history and proselytize the foolishly overdrawn 1619 Project, or the anti-military thread that runs through the party. It is not even that the Democratic coalition—not even its fantasy “emerging” majority—is insufficient and waning.
Klein argues that two key interest groups are driving the coalition bus off the road and scaring others away from the party.
There are two Democratic bus “drivers” that are inimical to the cause of good government, which supposedly is the root project of the party. They are lawyers and public employees unions, especially the teachers…. [T]he agglomeration of teachers and lawyers into special interest lobbying groups has not been good for education or law. And it has been a slow-burning disaster for the Democratic Party.
Klein raises some well-known issues: education performance has deteriorated, COVID-19 school closures were not well received, and the union can extract direct concessions from backing a political candidate. Regarding trial lawyers, the litigious lawfare overreach helped sour voters on the Democratic agenda and tactics. Likewise, the growth of regulatory burdens at multiple levels of government has stirred a backlash to government in general.
The point is, these are the people driving the Democratic bus. They are forces of reaction, of profound sclerosis. And no one wants to talk about it.
So What Are Key Elected Democrats Saying?
Connecticut U.S. Senator (X Post)—Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut poured some fuel on the failures of his Democratic Party with a 10-part tweet on the X platform. He said, “Time to rebuild the left.”
The left has never fully grappled with the wreckage of fifty years of neoliberalism, which has left legions of Americans adrift as local places are hollowed out, rapacious profit seeking cannibalizes the common good, and unchecked new technology separates and isolates us.
The things that mattered are disappearing. We spend half as much time with friends as a generation ago. Hard work no longer guarantees economic mobility. Institutions (like churches) are delegitimized. Place based identity evaporates as we all become “global citizens.”
The left skips past the way people are feeling (alone, impotent, overwhelmed) and straight to uninspiring solutions (more roads! bulk drug purchasing!) that do little to actually upset the status quo of who has power and who doesn't.
Does racism explain part of the attraction of the right’s nativism? Of course. But mass deportation is a (terrible) response to Americans’ real sense they are helpless in the face of global forces (like increased migration). The left largely ignores this pain.
We don’t listen enough; we tell people what’s good for them. And when progressives like Bernie aggressively go after the elites that hold people down, they are shunned as dangerous populists. Why? Maybe because true economic populism is bad for our high-income base.
Meanwhile, men tumble into a different kind of identity crisis, as the patriarchy, society’s primary organizing paradigm for centuries, rightly crashes. The right pushes an alluring dial back. The left says “get over it”. Again, a refusal to listen/offer responsible solutions.
We cannot be afraid of fights—especially with the economic elites who have profited off neoliberalism. The right regularly picks fights with elites—Hollywood, higher ed, etc. Democrats (e.g. the Harris campaign) are tepid in our fights with billionaires and corporations.
Real economic populism should be our tentpole. But here’s the thing—then you need to let people into the tent who aren’t 100% on board with us on every social and cultural issue, or issues like guns or climate.
Those are hard things for the left. A firm break with neoliberalism. Listen to poor and rural people, men in crisis. Don’t decide for them. Pick fights. Embrace populism. Build a big tent. Be less judgmental.1
Massachusetts U.S. Congressman—Seth Moulton penned a provocative op-ed in November, “I’m done with Democratic purity tests”, that hit at recent failings by the party.
Since Election Day, I’ve learned two things about the Democratic Party: The word police will continue to patrol no matter how badly we lose, and a growing number of us are finally ready to move beyond them to start winning again.
Voters want elected officials to give voice to their concerns, not tell them what they should think.
Until not so long ago, we were the party of free speech. We welcomed real, rigorous debate when orthodox conservatives in the Republican Party were afraid of change. We raised the struggles of the working class to become national issues.
In every case, we listened, we built trust, and we welcomed those who disagreed into our expanding tent—the definition of a majority party. Just 12 years ago, we even nominated a Democrat who was against gay marriage for president.
Independents and Republicans see what we do to fellow Democrats who disagree with the party line. Why would they think they’d have a prayer with us?2
What is his point? Word policing and canceling leaders who step out of line kills free speech. Talking down to people perpetuates a growing frustration about the gap between elites and commoners. Listening and building trust are no longer party behaviors of key officials. Thus, Independents and Republicans aren’t interested in participating with such a party.
Vermont U.S. Senator (Campaign Email)—While Bernie Sanders is technically unaffiliated, he has caucused with Democrats for years and even ran for president as such.
The American people understand that our economic and political systems are rigged. They know that the very rich get much richer while almost everyone else becomes poorer. They know that we are moving rapidly into an oligarchic form of society.
The Democrats ran a campaign protecting the status quo and tinkering around the edges.
Will the Democratic leadership learn the lessons of their defeat and create a party that stands with the working class and is prepared to take on the enormously powerful special interests that dominate our economy, our media and our political life?
Highly unlikely.
They are much too wedded to the billionaires and corporate interests that fund their campaigns.
Given that reality, where do we go from here? That is the very serious question that needs a lot of discussion in the coming weeks and months.
Should we be supporting Independent candidates who are prepared to take on both parties?
And with that key question, Senator Sanders is channeling the message of The Common Sense Papers!
Conclusion
Yes, Harris lost more ground than indicated by the polls from major media outlets. The realignment is on and independents are not coming back easily. This will be a battle for realignment. The young Gen Z voter and Hispanics are up for grabs as the world changes quickly on items that impact voter preferences and perceptions. Will there be a housecleaning for Democrats or just a rebranding?
Notes:
The Common Sense Papers are an offering by Common Sense 250, which proposes a method to realign the two-party system with the creation of a new political superstructure that circumvents the current dysfunctional duopoly. The goal is to heal political divisions and reboot the American political system for an effective federal government.