A Failure of the Democratic Establishment

(ema finalized Nov. 23, 2024)  Former President and now President-elect Donald J. Trump accomplished a wildly improbably comeback on November 5.  That Trump was able to win re-election to the highest office in the land despite his many flaws and while in the midst of multiple legal entanglements can be explained by a) failings of the Democratic establishment, b) intractable issues of illegal immigration, inflation and affordability, and the inability to halt the brutal war in Gaza and Ukraine, and c) the fact that Trump and his campaign did the work, stayed to the course, and proved the naysayers and doubters wrong.

OVERVIEW
One of the big surprises of the 2024 presidential election was the fact that Trump carried all seven of the battleground states.  With those, he secured a comfortable Electoral College win, carrying 31 states and 1 electoral vote from ME for 312 electoral votes to 19 states, DC and 1 electoral vote from NE for 226 electoral votes for Harris.  However, the popular vote shows this was indeed a close election.  According to AP as of Nov. 22, Trump won by a bit more than 2.5 million votes out of 153.6 million votes tallied in the presidential race (1.64 percentage points) (>).  Trump tallied 76.8 million votes (49.99%) to 74.3 million (48.35%) for Harris, and 2.5 million (1.66%) for other candidates. 

This was a high turnout election.  As of Nov. 21, University of Florida's Election Lab reported 155.8 million ballots counted from a voting eligible population of 244.7 million for a voting eligible population turnout rate of 63.7%, not as high as 2020 (65.99%), but higher than 2016 (60.12%) (1,2,3).  Also according to the Election Lab, a record 85.9 million Americans voted early, comprising 39.4 million mail votes and 46.7 million in-person early votes.

Many Americans were dissatisfied with both of the major party candidates.  Trump was an immensely polarizing figure.  Biden's approval rating had been underwater since Sept. 2021 and stood at 56.3% disapprove, 38.1% approve on Election Day.  Of course, Biden was not a candidate by then, having been persuaded to step aside, but his unpopularity created a daunting political environment for any Democratic presidential candidate in 2024.

THE DEMOCRATIC ESTABLISHMENT FAILS
As the campaign began and progressed, Democratic leaders turned a blind eye to warning signs about President Joe Biden's strength and robustness, and then, at almost the last moment, less than a month before the Convention, they installed Vice President Kamala Harris as his successor.  It was not exactly a coup, but it was not a good look, and it could and should have been avoided.

President Biden celebrated his 81st birthday on Nov. 20, 2023.  He could point to some signature accomplishments, but his age was apparent in the tentativeness of his steps.  At that age, a fall could lead to disaster (>).  It was difficult to see how he would be able to fill out another four-year term.  Yet the inner circle around Biden did not address what people could see with their own eyes.  Biden's DNC forestalled a competitive primary in 2024.  Only U.S. Rep. Dean Phillips and activist Marianne Williamson dared to enter the race, and Biden coasted through the primaries.  Matters finally came to a head with the disastrous performance in the June 27, 2024 debate (+). 

Recall that even in the 2020 campaign, Biden was not a great candidate.  The COVID pandemic allowed the Biden-Harris ticket to win the election running a kind of "pseudo-campaign" which masked their weaknesses as candidates.  Biden had decades of experience, but was a bit past his prime and fairly awful on the stump (+).  He did poorly in the first contests in Iowa (4th with 13.7%), New Hampshire (5th with 8.36%), and Nevada (a distant 2nd behind Sen. Bernie Sanders).  After Biden won South Carolina, the Democratic establishment, fearing Sanders, united behind him (+).  Biden won big on Super Tuesday. Then COVID hit, and the contest was effectively over.  By the general election, COVID was on the upswing.  Trump did some rallies, but the Biden campaign ran a very careful, constrained operation with Biden and Harris doing virtual events and even drive-in events where they spoke to 50 or 100 people sitting in their cars in a parking lot (1, 2).  Thus Biden and Harris were insulated from the rough-and-tumble of a normal campaign.  Biden won, but as his administration progressed and the effects of aging worsened, his inner circle kept him increasingly cloistered (>).
 
After the June debate, there followed a drip, drip, drip of calls for Biden to step aside.  Two scenarios were posited, that Vice President Kamala Harris would take up the mantle or that there would be an open contest as outlined in the "blitz primary" proposal by Georgetown University law professor Rosa Brooks and venture capitalist Ted Dintersmith (1, 2).  On July 21, Biden bowed to the inevitable and withdrew "in the best interest of my party and my country."  Subsequently, he endorsed Harris.  Over a couple of days the Democratic establishment lined up behind the Vice President.  It was all a bit too cute. 

A "blitz primary" and open convention would have been risky, challenging to organize, and possibly messy, but it would have allowed for democratic competition, rather than having a Democratic nominee foisted upon the electorate.  Harris could well have won or one of the governors who were mentioned—Beshear, Newsom, Pritzker, Shapiro, and Whitmer—might have won.  There was no guarantee that the candidate selected through such a process would have done any better than Harris, but he or she would have been able to have some separation from the failings of the Biden-Harris administration.  Democratic leaders opted for the safe, known route.

One other area where the Democratic establishment failed was in its efforts to keep third party and independent candidates off the ballot out of fears those candidates might cost them the election.  In the particular, the DNC put significant resources in to undermining the candidacy of independent Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., which backfired, ultimately contributing to his decision to endorse Trump.

NOT A COMFORTABLE CAMPAIGNER...OR A RELATABLE CANDIDATE
Harris enjoyed a phenomenal start to her campaign (+), but as the weeks progressed the luster faded.  At times it seemed as if the grizzled veteran Biden had been replaced with a JV candidate (>).  As with Biden, there were advance warnings about Harris' abilities as a candidate.  Most notably in her 2020 campaign, Harris started out as a high flyer.  She had star quality and did a huge launch event, but she suspended the effort on Dec. 3, 2019 before the first contest.  

As 2024 showed, Harris is not great communicator or an inspiring speaker like Barack Obama nor is she a comfortable campaigner like Bill Clinton, or Joe Biden for that matter.  For all the talk of Harris being a "candidate of joy," her manner can be a bit grating and at times oleaginous, and she appears at times awkward and slightly uncomfortable in her interactions.  Harris also faced the challenge that she had, earlier in her career, including in her presidential run in 2019, espoused some leftist positions that she had to tiptoe around; this inspired Trump's "Comrade Kamala" moniker.  While Trump was doing a steady stream of interviews, albeit with largely sympathetic media, Harris delayed doing major interviews until her October media tour.  Listening to some of her interviews, one sees why: Harris comes across as careful and somewhat banal, working in the talking points and delivering occasional word salads.  Unlike Trump and Vance, who seemed comfortable engaging in chit-chat or courting the "bro" vote in myriad podcasts, Harris seemed to find such interviews a chore.  Instead of free-ranging town halls, Harris favored more controlled moderated discussions.  When Harris had time to do extensive preparation as for her convention speech, the debate, or her closing argument speech, she could deliver strong performances. 
 
Harris faced the challenges of running as Vice President and running as a woman.  There are in America, it seems, still voters who discount or will not accept the notion of a woman as President.  There are downsides to the Office of the Vice President, in terms of being linked to the administration's failings and being emasculated by not being able to claim accomplishments as one's own.  (Hence Jason Dudash's joke book "The Achievements of Kamala Harris" filled with blank pages). 

CAMPAIGNS MAKE A DIFFERENCE
In addition to the candidates, the quality and campaigns themselves can make a difference.  Harris had an abnormally short 107-day campaign.  The transition from Biden for President to Harris for President seemed to go relatively smoothly.  However, after the election, some of its spending decisions drew scrutiny.  Messaging was a mixed bag.  Harris focused on the "to-do list" rather than the historic nature of her candidacy and the prospect of becoming the first woman president.  There seemed to be an over-reliance on reproductive freedom, which likely did not sway voters preoccupied with economic concerns.  Also, the campaign's policy proposals were perhaps not as bold as they might have been; for example, instead of advocating tax credits, she might have benefited from presenting a tax reform plan that addressed the growing economic inequality.  The outreach to Republicans seemed effective, both in terms of countering the "radical leftist" argument and in presenting Harris as a leader who could unify the country. 

Meanwhile, the Trump campaign also did some things right.  They did not panic during the period of Kamalamania.  They did not ditch their vice presidential nominee Vance when he was described as "the least liked VP nominee in decades."  Indeed the smooth talking Vancee ulitmately proved more of asset than the folksy Walz, most notably in the debate.  The Republican campaign tried some new things.  The outsourcing of field efforts to outside groups drew a lot of skeptical commentary, but in the end it seemed to work (although there might have been a different result had Elon Musk not stepped in with an estimated $200 million in spending, including those $100 and $1,000,000 checks).

AN UNFAVORABLE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE...
Any Democratic would have had a tough race, but Harris was Biden's hand-picked number two, and would likely continue many of Biden's policies (>).  Even so Harris might have won, despite her limitations, but for the three intractable issues: immigration, inflation and affordability, and the administration's inability to bring an end to the killing in Gaza. 

Immigration was in a real sense an unforced error.  This was Trump's signature issue, and it would have made sense for the Administration to be seen to be actively addressing it, but during the first two years the crisis at the Southern border did not seem to be a priority (>).  Biden made his first visit to the border in Jan. 2023.  In Feb. 2024 the Administration rallied around the bipartisan Senate immigration bill ("the toughest reforms in decades"), but the legislation quickly failed in part due to Trump's opposition.  In June Biden announced some executive actions.  On Sept. 27, Harris made a tough speech on immigration, but it was really a case of "too little, too late."  While Democrats hoped to ride abortion and reproductive rights to electoral success, immigration and border security proved equally effective for Republicans.

Inflation was the top issue on many voters' minds.  The CPI spiked at 9.1% in June 2022  but was down to about 2.5% by Aug. 2024 ("12 month percentage change...not seasonally adjusted") (1, 2).  Although inflation had fallen substantially, its effects were still very noticeable on trips to the grocery store or gas station.  Harris presented her ideas to address inflation and affordability in a major speech on Sept. 25, 2024, advocating "a new way forward" and vowing to build an "opportunity economy."

The brutal war in Gaza started with Hamas' deadly attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.  The Biden administration has supported its ally Israel throughout the conflict, even as the Netanyahu government inflicted untold devastation, destruction and suffering on Gaza.  Throughout the election year, pro-Palestinan protesters have sought to raise the issue by demonstrating outside many campaign events including at the Democratic National Convention.  The administration's efforts to broker a ceasefire proved unsuccessful.  Harris did not stray from the administration line on this issue.

...AND AN EVER-EVOLVING MEDIA LANDSCAPE
The media mix and how people get there information has changed radically in the last several decades.  The number of newspapers, newspaper staff, and newspaper readership have declined.  Use of social media is ubiquitous.  Democrats seem to be at a significant disadvantage when one surveys the media landscape today.  The number of Facebook followers of top conservative news websites far exceed those of liberal news websites (1,2).  These concerns are not new.  In the mid-1990s, the Clintons charged there was a "vast right-wing conspiracy."  Conservatives, led by Rush Limbaugh, dominated talk radio, and that continues to this day.  Much attention has focused on FOX News, founded by Rupert Murdoch in 1996, which is "the number one network in basic cable for the last eight years and the most-watched television news channel for more than 22 consecutive years, currently attracting nearly 50% of the cable news viewing audience according to Nielsen Media Research (+)."  Founded by Rupert Murdoch in 1996, FOX has has perfected a form of "partisan journalism (1,2,3)" which is emulated by other outlets such as OAN and Newsmax.
  
Meanwhile, Republicans argue that the mainstream media (MSM) are in the Democrats' pocket.  For example, a Media Research Center study of coverage of the 2024 presidential campaign found that "evaluative coverage of Harris — excluding 'horse race' assessments — on ABC, CBS and NBC was 78% positive vs. 22% negative. For Trump, those numbers were flipped: just 15% positive press, vs. 85% negative coverage (>)."  Trump has long dismissed "fake news," and in the closing stretch of the campaign he repeatedly attacked CBS News over "60 Minutes" editing of its closing interview with Harris (>).

Did you hear the one about immigrants in Springfield, OH eating pets?  Truth is, in a sense, the currency of democracy, and an informed citizenry is vital to the functioning of democracy.  There is a distinction between hard news and media which blend opinion and fact or allow false assertions and misinformation to go unchallenged and unchecked.  The proliferation of misinformation is distorting and affecting the political discourse in ways that are not always evident.  A diet of just FOX News or just CNN or MSNBC is not a healthy media diet.  Americans are operating in different realities.   Trump's well documented casual relationship with the truth and his frequent baseless claims, which are then repeated by some "news" outlets—contribute to a misinformed citizenry.  For Trump, it has proven to be a winning formula, but it puts other less facile candidates and rational discussions of issues at a disadvantage.  In 2024, Elon Musk's X added a new misinformation channel, and Trump found a new way of effectively connecting with the "bro" demographic via podcasts.  Democrats didn't have answers. 

DEMOCRATS HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO
Democrats are going to study what went wrong in 2024.  Seen as a party of elites, appealing largely college educated voters, they need to find candidates and messages that can to connect the people working at the CVS or grocery store, driving the Uber, and living in the vast swathes of the country that show up as red on results maps.  They need candidates who won't get tripped up over questions about men in women's sports. 

This election was very close.  It may be enough for Democrats to find a top-notch campaigner and communicator—a Bill Clinton or a Barack Obama—to turn the tide in 2028.  It may be that in the upcoming four years of the Trump-Vance administration, Republicans will show that they are incapable of effective governance, that they are a party of billionaires and oligarchs, that they will create economic chaos with mass deportations and tariffs, that they will implement an unpopular Project 2024 agenda, and that they will get bogged down in retribution and vengeance, scandals, and conflicts of interest.  The Democratic establishment should not count on such scenarios.  Democrats need to take a hard look at 2024 and the lessons to be learned, or the party may find itself in the wilderness for a long, long time.  
 
# # #

See also:
Pod Save America.  "Exclusive: The Harris Campaign On What Went Wrong."  Crooked Media, Nov. 26, 2024 (E958).