It is reasonable to argue that the Democratic Party is now the party of the so-called urban elites, just simply looking at voting maps by county. But swaths of the Latino coalition have been ceded to Trump, the working class no longer backs Democrats, and Harris underperformed in nearly every single county that mattered (hint: that’s not called underperforming, that’s called losing), and while I hate to give the extremist MAGA movement the satisfaction, it is increasingly clear that the Democratic Party is out of touch.
According to Shawn Hubler of the New York Times, “abstract truths mattered less, voters said, than tangible issues, like the ability to pay rent or concerns over border crossings. In a time of widespread distrust in institutions, Ms. Harris’s call to protect the nation’s norms rang hollow for many Americans.”
In short, as real as protecting democracy and fighting fascism is, it fell flat. An unpopular vice president was unable to build a case for change with the baggage of an unpopular administration, and the call to arms to fight for democracy appeared high-minded and overly idealistic or even fluffy to voters, confining Harris’s appeal to well-off, well educated groups and skipping over the tens of millions of Americans who don’t have space of mind to stress about fascism because they’re stressing about putting food on the table, taking care of their sick mother, and putting their kids through school.
Returning to Sanders’ statement, Trump and the Republican base, for a brief moment, ignoring their terrible and dehumanizing messaging, tapped into a real anger that exists within the American people, an anger and a desire to see the fall of the establishment.
“I am not better off than I was 4 years ago” is the common sentiment for voters leaning towards Trump, fantasy nostalgia of no wars and a good economy, even as everything came crashing down in the second half of his term, and the convenient memory omission of the pure inefficiency, wild unpredictability, and at times, incompetence of the administration as a whole. This can be seen in all the interviews with undecided voters published by the New York Times and the Washington Post.
While Harris focused on relating with voters through TikTok content and securing endorsements from big-name celebrities, they could not shake the baggage of the current deeply unpopular administration. America wanted change, and Harris did not give it to them. Like James Carville says, change has the advantage.
In the aftermath of the Harris-Trump debate, I wrote this: “I know we need to defeat Donald Trump, and if we do that through watered-down moderate policies, that is something I’m okay with, because a Harris win will improve the standing of this country. But at the same time, it feels like we are always postponing real change.”
And now, it is clear that not only has America postponed real change, it is on a path backwards. The progressive push that kicked off with the Obama administration and pushed through the social justice campaigns of Black Lives Matter have been effectively radicalized, demonized, and positioned as anti-American. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg talks about “reclaiming language” from the conservative branch of our nation, and he is correct: MAGA Republicans have capitalized on the American ideals of freedom and family, and redefined them in their own image. Progressivism in America has been largely trashed by remarkable smear campaigns across the aisle.
But it is not progressivism that is failing America. Looking at the votes, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez outperformed Harris even in New York. It could also just be that Harris was bogged down by the unpopular administration and was unable to effectively convey her message properly: Harris leaning consistently moderate as Trump, Project 2025, and company yanked right didn’t sway moderate voters like polls showed, rather it just normalized extremist policies. Additionally, the immovability of Democrats in far-left policies rather than getting back to the bread and butter of feeding and clothing every American didn’t ring across the country; that is to say, the Democrats moved too radically on policies that weren’t fundamental to most Americans and this allowed the Republicans to scapegoat them. Perception is everything.
Yes, Harris didn't have enough time to mount a truly successful campaign. Then again, one look at the overwhelming red wave across the nation (county by county) highlights the failure of the Democratic Party to truly understand the average American's concern.
We must return to the basics: there is majority support in the American population for public universal healthcare coverage, a majority of Americans support the continued existence and bolstering of gun laws, a majority of Americans support free education. As Tim Walz put it best earlier in the campaign (when they had arguably a lot more momentum), feeding kids and taking care of your mother are not radical ideas. Sanders echoes this.
We must return to the basics: there is majority support in the American population for public universal healthcare coverage, a majority of Americans support the continued existence and bolstering of gun laws, a majority of Americans support free education. As Tim Walz put it best earlier in the campaign (when they had arguably a lot more momentum), feeding kids and taking care of your mother are not radical ideas. Sanders echoes this.
What Sanders writes about is not just about Harris/Walz, it’s a lack of sufficient, digestible liberal populism with wide enough appeal to capture a decent segment of the American electorate. In an era of antiestablishment sentiment and dissatisfaction with the status quo, there needs to be a Democratic candidate that embodies populism in the middle class at a time when Democrats are continuously ceding the working class vote to Republicans. It’s not about leaning more right, campaigning heavily with Cheneys and conservative icons, or talking up gun ownership like Harris did, it’s about nailing messaging on the fundamental issues that affect everybody, that turn the average citizen into a warrior and champion rather than talking down to them about the death of democracy.
Hindsight, of course, is 20/20. The midterms in 2026 and the presidential election in 2028 will be a test to see whether Democrats understand the current political climate and are able to put together a populist coalition to meet the Republicans on their level, or whether the Democratic Party is an out-of-touch elite machine that will continue crumbling into the ground.
How Trump Connected With So Many Americans - The New York Times
Opinion | The Real Reason Harris and the Democrats Lost to Trump - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/06/us/politics/harris-voters-democracy.html
Bernie Sanders blasts Democratic Party following Kamala Harris loss - ABC News
AOC wins reelection as voters determine fate of remaining members of House 'Squad'
‘Trump’s America’: His Comeback Victory Signals a Different Kind of Country - The New York Times
Health Care and Public Opinion - PMC
Democrats overwhelmingly favor free college tuition, while Republicans are divided by age, education
A Party of Prigs and Pontificators Suffers a Humiliating Defeat - The New York Times
NY Democratic Congressman Says Best Ally to Trump Was 'The Far Left' - Newsweek
Opinion | James Carville, the Cajun Who Can’t Stop Ragin’ - The New York Times
James Carville Blames Democrats' Losses on 'Woke Era' Politics - Newsweek
5 comments:
The Democratic party's obsession with appealing to everyone has really amounted to them appealing to... no one. Appeal to the youth through TikTok, but makes sure that we're looking out for the senior vote! Make Kamala out to be a candidate that's relatable to the working class, and then alienate them at the same time. It's hard to be shocked at the results of this election when one takes a very surface-level view of what went into Harris' campaign, and the campaigns of the Democratic Party as a whole.
Even Obama, with his very Democratic views on Medicare, was very adamant about not forgetting the other Partisan side. And yet who benefits from this? Not the people who voted for you. Elections are supposed to be polarized, and the more I see, the more I feel maybe the Democratic Party doesn't get that, while the Republican Party (or at least the Trump Administration) does.
Kamala Harris tried to peel off the "moderate conservative" vote by campaigning with the Cheneys, focusing a decent chunk of her new policy proposals on business/tax credit, and talking up gun ownership, which resulted in losing the main base in the process. The progressive coalition made up of white and Latino working class voters that heavily supported Bernie's progressive policy on healthcare, education and the economy disappeared in the process because turns out constantly dragging your party towards the opposite party is both a weak move and a self-destructive one.
The Republican Party understands rallying the base and the messaging needed to do that. The Democrats do not. Again - hindsight is 2020. But Democrats have resisted the policies their base wants for almost ten years. This isn't about "Bernie or bust," I doubt Sanders in his electability given American perception of his so-called socialism and I don't agree with all of his policies either.
However, doubling down on a simple populist message around the economy, healthcare, and education when so many are suffering seems like an easy choice to make.
I strongly agree with your point about the Democratic party losing appeal among many people who don't have time to vote based on idealism. As we saw in class, those with university degrees have gone from more likely to vote for Trump to now mostly voting democrat, and I think this is because they understand economics and care more about social issues. I see a lot of people act like the red wave is a result of most of the country shifting hard right, but I honestly think people are just worried about their money. Whether they understand economics or not, people remembered being in a better financial situation when Trump was president than Biden. Is most of this the result of the pandemic and the inflation it caused, yes. Is the economy recovering now under Biden, also yes. However, it is simply the reality that most people won't look so deeply into the situation, and resort to Trump=more money/lower prices and Biden/Harris=less money/higher prices.
The Democratic Party had too many baskets but too few eggs, trying to appeal to too many voter groups, which may have contributed to Trump’s victory. Trump, on the other hand, stayed true to his original 2016 strategy, focusing on Southerners, white men, and those with a strong anti-Democrat stance—a group that's only grown in 2024. After Obama’s two terms, many Republicans felt marginalized, with initiatives like Obamacare further souring their perception of Democrats. What began as mild frustration evolved into outright hostility during Trump’s 2016 campaign, where he labeled left-leaning media as "fake news" and promised to dismantle the political establishment that, in his view, had failed Americans. By 2024, this resentment had solidified, fueling Trump’s base with a shared sense of grievance against the Democratic Party. His campaign messaging, though divisive, resonated deeply with voters who felt overlooked, ultimately reinforcing the polarized landscape that helped drive his resurgence.
I love the opening statement of this comment; it reflects in part what I believe too. I think that the democrats had an "easy job"; to appear as a less insane candidate, however I guess that simply was not enough for the 2,500,000 million deficit between the parties. As we learned in class about getting through to the 'other side' that is important. Harris rhetoric was centered around the unification of a divided nation, but that did not come through very coherently in the debate or in the many presidential campaign ads.
Post a Comment