The American people, at least the ones who voted for a criminal for president of the United States, are nuts. Talk about perception and issues all you want. That character meant nothing apparently to millions of people is the most sickening spectacle I have witnessed in my 80 years. The country did a horrible thing here, and the horrors will keep coming.
We make another mistake by focusing on the recent election in traditional and “normal” terms. Our moral compass is off course, and our country is in great peril because it elected a moral cretin to its most sacred office.
Pardon me,but I doubt I ever will be able to forgive those who voted for this despicable human being.
"In 2020, they had to defend against the “defund the police” movement and the perception they sided with looters over cops."
On this point, what would you have them do?
I get that people perceived their actions this way, but no elected Dem ever supported abolishing police departments, indeed Biden put more money into policing. And no Dem candidates, even the Palestinian ones, supported anti-semitism (unless you define all criticism of Israel as anti-semitic as the ADF does). Indeed they called it out in the strongest terms. While I do believe there is a lot Dems can do to improve, I don't see a change in Branding as the solution.
It's possible to overthink why Democrats lost the presidency. It might just be low-info voters felt frustrated by inflation, remembered Trump's pre-pandemic economy, and noted his courage after the assassination attempt. I would like to see an analysis of the split-ticket Stein-Jackson-Trump voters. Let's hope Roy Cooper runs for Senate in 2026 against Thom Tillis.
AOC engaged directly with split ticket voters who backed her and Trump. As I recall the basic conclusion is they wanted prices, and indeed government to change but not radically and they voted accordingly. While Harris tried to present herself as the change candidate Trump already had that down.
On the nose. Because the concept of “perception” possesses such weight or pull. Perceptions are difficult to pierce once a collective “judgment” gains traction and perception becomes “misconception.” Fine line(s).
Basically I think almost everything about this is wrong. You have bought into the Republican narrative endlessly pounded by Fox, Newsmax and the other propaganda outlet. Honestly, you should know better.
Sharing a view with somebody that you might disagree with on many things is an irrelevancy. That is a guilt by association argument, not any reflection on the merits of the position which you offer no argument against other than the bad guys also think that way.
I'm sick of people blaming Democrats for the horrible corruption in the Republican-MAGA party that created this mess. Mitch McConnell stole the supreme court seat of Scolia from Obama, the Repubs today are overriding the governors' veto of a bill stripping Democrats of power in NC. Their blatant unfairness and evil is at the heart of this problem, not Democrats.
I don't blame the Democrats, but I can't change the MAGAs and just beating up on them as a way to avoid ones own weaknesses is a way to continue to lose elections.
I don't disagree with anything you said, but it is no answer to how to win elections.
The answer to why we lost is not, but the Republicans are bad. That will get you nowhere.
The reality is that many people voting GOP were not MAGAs but also did not like Democrats, and polls show clearly that Dems are the least liked party on immigration, crime, the Identarian stuff.
By Gallup the voting public identifies as 37% Conservative, 37% Moderate, and 25% Liberal. We are a moderate to conservative country. Roy Cooper understood that. Bill Clinton understood that. Biden and Harris did not and after 3 years of trying to please the progressive wing they had too many albatrosses. And inflation is the third rail.
The climate crisis is too big a threat to be ignored, and going backwards with trump is no solution but increases the problems of hurricanes, droughts, warming seas. The American electorate needs better education so they can think for themselves and the Repubs & Koch & Heritage Foundation are dismantling that as fast as they can.
Well I dont disagree with you that climate is important, and it actually is an issue where most voters favor the Democrats as opposed to immigration, crime, and transgender females participating in sports or prisoners getting tax payer funded gender affirming surgery.
I dont understand how what you are saying does anything to improve our fortunes as a party. It is just complaining as opposed to improving We cant wave a wand and then society will be better educated. That same uneducated electorate voted for B Clinton and Obama twice, Heritage Foundation has the right to say whatever they want and there is Brookings on the left of center. If your solution is, well people are stupid, you aren't going to win friends.
Being right doesn't guarantee you an election. Others think you are wrong. I certainly think the Biden immigration policy was incoherent. And although inflation was somewhat unavoidable, the Dems made the same mistake Trump did with Covid, underplaying it and telling people, well the gdp was great, as if half of people even know what that is, while they see gas and the price of eggs going off the roof.
The transgender issue was not a big policy initiative, but something Trump team used in ads. As long as Repubs are setting the perspective on Democrats we won't get far. Democrats need to set the agenda better, articulate better. The fact covid and supply chain issues added to the price of food could have been explained better. Trump inherited a good economy from Obama's administration. Biden inherited Trump's policy mistakes with covid. No point in our arguing here.
She lost for many reasons, but one is that she is a progressive in a moderate to conservative country and did nothing to distance herself from the policies of the very unpopular administration she was part of. Biden won in the moderate lane and then pivoted left to the point that their biggest supporter was Sanders. She had no clear message that got through other than abortion, but that was not as important as the pocketbook stuff.
Probably no point in arguing but we are doing that.
Actually, trying to save the world from climate crisis catastrophe is a "moderate" common sense policy and economically sane. Taking the right to one's own body away, taking the privacy of one's health and child bearing out of women's hands is an extremely right wing fundamentalist policy; a moderate position is freedom and the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. We don't even agree on terminology or values.
Tom, thanks for bring this to public attention. During this election cycle I was hearing a lot of talk about Democrats are week on border control, using public money for gender-affirming procedures and placing. Moreover, Democrats are responsible for allowing millions of undocumented workers to enter this country to commit heinous crimes against the lawful residents. Of course, in the real world, there is some doubt this is the case.
Obama set records for the number of undocumented workers his administration deported. Many credible studies found no link between immigration status and criminal behavior. In fact, undocumented individuals tend to avoid contact with the system to prevent deportation. It is also true that in 2019 Harris did support a policy that would give access to trans people who depend on state-funded health care — including inmates and detained immigrants — to gender-affirming care, which includes surgery. A position she later half heartily rejected.
In 2022, a court mandated gender-affirming surgery for a trans federal inmate. In 2023, Then, of course , Trump’s Supreme Court upheld a ruling that includes gender dysphoria in the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Trump team seized on these issues, twisted them around and made it appear that all Democrats are wild eyed liberals seeking to turn this country into a quire of communists singing kumbaya. Well apparently, it worked, as Trump narrowly eked out a victory. There is nothing new here, as Nixon used it effectively to be elected and reelected.
The strategy, developed by professional political advisor Lee Atwater, used coded language to indirectly address issues, appealing to voters concerned about job displacement to Mexico or perceived impacts of affirmative action on college admissions or employment. These decisions are typically made by private enterprises and are often unrelated to government policies, sometimes involving automation by robots.
Trump suggested that the US bears the financial burden for NATO, but NATO countries fund their own military. Each member must allocate a portion of its GDP to support a military capable of collaborating with others to defend against attacks on any one of it’s members.
Trump was able to pull this off as there are many among us who do not comprehend how this country works and are confused by the complexity of world affairs.
Civics education, including constitutional law and the Bill of Rights, should be reintroduced in early education. Students should also learn about international relations from an early age. Education can help provide a broad understanding of political systems and promote informed citizenship. Hopefully, there will be a something left to work with after these near do wells and profiteers have
As a moderate Democrat it is not that I believe the GOP bs about immigrants running amok, but I do believe in rule of law and that a sovereign country can determine who and how many people can cross the border. It should not be about who sneaks in, or who uses asylum as an end run to get in the country. And then once in, it does not help Dems to argue that this justifies their status.
By 60-40 voters trust the GOP on immigration. It is their strongest issue.
Obama was correct in enforcing the law. I sympathize with those trying to come in, and I am pro immigration, legally, but it remains the prerogative of the people to make that decision and it further stigmatizes Democrats as the party of not enforcing the law.
And the weakness of the Dem case is belied by the fact that in June 2024 the Biden administration did close the border with 'remain in Mexico' and the record number of illegal entrants dropped to normal levels. If you argue that we were correct in allowing all the record number of asylum claimants in the country before June 2024, then the actions since seem like just political expediency.
Jack, immigration is indeed a multifaceted and challenging issue. While I agree that regulating who enters a country is a sovereign’s duty, we must also consider the complexities that make enforcement difficult. Cartels have developed sophisticated methods to bypass security measures, including underground tunnels and elaborate deceptions. These activities are not only highly profitable but also less risky in terms of legal penalties compared to drug trafficking.
Addressing immigration effectively requires a comprehensive approach that includes securing borders, improving detection methods, and addressing the root causes that drive people to migrate. It is a delicate balance between enforcement and compassion, ensuring safety while recognizing the human stories behind migration. My Grandfather and his brothers left Scotland seeking an environment that allowed them fully to develop their potential. If they had not, I would not be here today, as is the case with most US Citizens. He and his brothers easily assimilated as their accent they did not offend the white Christian sense of solidarity.
But this is not the case with immigrants from Mexico or Asia. They stand out which offer convenient opportunities for unscrupulous politicians who care less about the rule of law and more about power and profits. My point is simple, Trump and his marry little band of looser are just using immigrants as scrape goats to further their desire to augment their wealth at the expense of the US Taxpayer. I am still waiting for Mexico to pay for a wall!
I understand the difficulties about enforcing the border but let me address three aspects:
1) Many if not most of the entrants in 2021-2023 were just people who showed at ports of entry claiming asylum, not the traditional river swimmers and desert crossers. Then they are admitted pending adjudication on their claim which can take 10 years and they are free to join the undocumented if they dont show in court or are denied. What was once a process that started with protecting people during WW2 who were sent back to be murdered is now just an end run over the border.
2) The idea that border enhancement is not good because there are ways that people can evade it is a fallacy argument that the gun people eg use to oppose stricter regulation. Sure, people will figure out ways to get around whatever you do, but it will make it harder, which will reduce entrants. And a similar parallel argument is the "address root causes" similar with the pro gun people crying mental health as if miraculously we can end insanity so don't need gun laws. I have no problem with helping to solve the problems in the world, but that is a separate issue and you can still secure the border as you help other countries.
3) I too am a grandson of immigrants and very pro immigration. I would favor higher quotas of legal immigration - guest workers, refugees, family reunification. But this is a democracy, and I can make that argument in the public space and try to persuade my countrymen, but just trying to allow illegal entrants in is forcing my will on the public.
Yes, Trump stirs up the nativist hatred, and some people will hate immigrants, legal or illegal, but that is not the point. The vast majority of Americans do not support illegal immigration, many of them, like myself, who might be pro immigration, but believe in rule of law, democracy, and sovereignty.
!. According, to a report by the American Immigration Council, approximately 11% of asylum seekers who were not detained failed to appear for their court hearings over an 11-year period from 2008 to 2018. This percentage is significantly lower than some claims suggest. The report also found that 96% of those represented by an attorney attended all their court hearings. It's important to note that many factors can affect an immigrant's ability to attend court, including lack of notice, transportation difficulties, and other hardships.
2. I never implied that border enforcement is impossible. Rather, it has become more dynamic to counteract cartel techniques. Simply arresting and deporting individuals is ineffective, as they often return quickly, costing taxpayers millions with nothing to show for the money spent. We need to address the entry mechanisms instead. Arresting many people may appear tough but won't resolve the issue. But in Trump’s mind it is all about appearances, that is why he wanted a badly disfigured vet removed for his public appearance.
I have other matters to attend to, but I suggest that Jack conduct research before creating these scenarios.
Jack, regardless of your age or background, (which have no bearing on the issues at hand) the recent election saw Democrats lose a close race to an unacceptable candidate. One who has never concerned himself about moral values. Despite the narrow margin, this candidate will emphasize the victory and benefit from it, as seen with the inauguration slush fund. He may also pursue business ventures in Moscow, Saudi Arabia, and China. The terms of such deals could have a significant effect on the wellbeing of this country. Of course, the man child will have sufficiently benefited from the sale of tennis shoes, bibles printed in China and guitars enabling him to pack up and leave this country.
Concerns have been expressed about his respect for the Constitution and the rule of law, particularly given his appointments. Persons lacking any significant background for the job and having the morals of an alley cat appear to be his favorites.
While it is important to acknowledge the value of constructive self-examination within our party, it is also important to recognize the effect of the big lie. Certain mis perceived Democratic stances, such as discussions on "white privilege" or "de fund the police," can be polarizing, as they address underlying issues. However, messaging and strategy must be clear and comprehensible to avoid alienating potential supporters.
Extreme views often dominate political discourse, distorting perceptions. It is essential to defend our values without endorsing impractical policies. Learning from past experiences, like the support for taxpayer-funded transgender surgery for prisoners, (which occurred on both sides, (as I pointed out in previous statements) can guide us in crafting more inclusive platforms.
When the dust settlers, voters may be able to clearly see where this clown is going and elect a Democratic majority in the house and senate. After which restoration of the rule of law is a distinct probability. Hopefully by then, the man child would have sufficiently lined his coffers with taxpayer funds and skipped town making an impeachment and trial unnecessary.
I see that there are a lot of activists commenting here. As a lifelong middle of the road Democrat I applaud your analysis. I think it is extremely important that the party starts to pay attention to the middle and I plan to share your view with others.
It's worth noting that the people most vehemently opposed to centrism aren't responsible for getting candidates elected, while those running and advising campaigns understand and accept the math of complex democratic elections. No majority support = no victory -- and therefore no opportunity to set public policy. Unaccountable purists are screaming pointlessly from the sideline, safely avoiding the gritty on-field battle for swing voters.
I agree with you completely. You can't change policy if you are not in office. Purists need to learn the art of compromise if Democrats are ever to win national elections again.
The Dems could have codified access to abortion; they didn't. As a matter of fact all the Dems do is stifle progress and act a an impotent foil to insure the conservative types continue to advance their objectives. The reason I did not vote for the Dem ringer is the Dems support for the savages piling up the corpses of babies. A vote for the Dems was a mandate in support of the slaughter. No thanks
I wish there was more info here about the GQP plans to defeat the will of the voters by stripping the Dems we just elected and all voters instead of bs about Nate Silver.
Update: Nate Silver is a right-wing activist now with unreliable polls.
Your fellow Democratic realist Nate Silver agrees:
"Well, this time around, the public saw what it got with Trump — including the pandemic, January 6, and all those crimes and misdemeanors — and decided it liked it better than Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. ... That Trump’s victory was secured with massive shifts among precisely those groups that Democrats once thought of as their base — the working class, young voters, racial and ethnic minorities, and voters in the nation’s bluest cities — make the just deserts all the more rich."
C'mon, do you actually have any evidence of this. I presume he is a liberal. He actually under estimated Trump three elections in a row. Usually the right pollsters - RCP, Rasmussen always over predict their favorites.
And as opposed to your 'because a and b both work with c logic" here is an actual press conference where Silver announced he was voting for ...........drum roll............Kamala Harris, as he had in the past announced he voted for Barack Obama. Somehow that seems unusual for a "right wing activist" Do you know any other "right wing activists" holding press conferences announcing they are voting for Harris.
So the total basis of this is guilt by association, Because one person has a connection to an organization that another does, it implies that they share the same view. That is not logical and you can do that to show Harris is a Communist or whatever you want to show, Do you actually have anything that Silver has said that gives credence to this.
I have no doubt that Nate Silver has relationships with 100s of people- left, right and center. I have read him and subscribe to him and from his language he clearly doesn't like Trump and I would presume he is a liberal. Nothing in that article dissuades me. And if you check mediabiasfactcheck they rate Alternet as fairly far left biased.
And the premise is that because Silver gave Trump the edge at the time of the piece back in September, he was serving the right wing. The reality is that he ended up favoring Harris by a 50-49.6 very minimal margin in the last few weeks. So by their logic that makes him left biased. Actually I dont think he is biased at all, it doesn't help him to get things wrong, but he has underestimated Trump in the last three elections calling 9 states wrong total and everyone he called for the Dems but went to Trump. RealClearPolitic the other main aggregator and that is actually right wing has gotten 7 states wrong and 6 of them were D calls that went R. So if anything by the logic of the author that somehow predicting that who you project to win is where your politics are, then you can only conclude Silver is a tool of the Democrats.
I find polls exhausting. I am 85 years old. I knocked on 350 doors for Dems, (our little group of Blue Dots in Carteret Co. knocked on 4500 doors), wrote letters and talked to folks about Mo Green, Stein, Hunt and Jackson. As a former teacher I spent most of my time talking about public education in NC. People responded to these conversations. I did not talk about Harris or Trump although my list of candidates included backgrounds on all candidates. We did well in NC but to deny that racism and sexism played a role in the election of President, is to be blind. Wonder what would have happened if we voted on men’s reproductive rights. Would men really allow the state to tell them what they could or could not do with their bodies?
"to deny that racism and sexism played a role in the election of President, is to be blind"
I am blind I guess.
Not only do I think it is both unprovable, but likely wrong, but if you are right, then as Dems I guess we should just run white men.
If you are just going to be mad at the electorate, instead of adapting policies that appeal to voters that seems self defeating. Just tell them they are racist and sexist and that will convince them to like us.
btw the most successful Dem candidate since LBJ was one African American named Barack. I guess all the racists stayed home.
It also is notable that comparing 2020 with 2024 the Dems lost more of the women's vote where the margin shifted 5 points to Trump then men which shifted only 2 points. I guess that would mean that women are becoming more sexist than men.
Congrats on all your work and the Dem winners in NC. I too canvassed and worked the polls in Firsyth Co, NC. I agree, it has been exhausting. I agree with Thomas, Dems simply have git to apoeal to a wider swath of people. Thanks for all your hard work Lela.
And Thomas, a segue on Democratic lack of self examination, I hope you do something about the Hunter Biden pardon which seems unconscionable and gives Trump a justification for any such pardon. I consider this a Litmus test for Democratic integrity on issues that they very pointedly claim the high moral ground - gun regulation and nepotism.
Nate Silver did a good bit on this just today writing: "Biden and the White House, of course, repeatedly lied about Biden’s intentions even after the election was over. It will surely enable Trump to feel like he can pardon the January 6 rioters without a political cost, as well as the various and sundry criminals in his orbit, though Trump would likely have had no problem doing that anyway. It will further reduce Biden’s ranking in the history books and contribute to the perception that he was a failed president, provided that historians aren’t blinded by their partisanship." The whole article which is a good self analysis of Dem failures along the lines you bring up: https://www.natesilver.net/p/the-expert-class-is-failing-and-so
Post-election polling by Third Way reached similar conclusions. In a diverse, pluralistic democracy where citizens count equally and majorities (usually) decide elections, hoping to win on a platform of unpopular positions while ignoring or downplaying most voters' top concerns is irrational if not suicidal. And insulting voters might feel good, but it never works.
On every issue important to the progressive left, which tends to adopt maximalist stances, there's a more nuanced position that would appeal to swing voters *and* Democrats, if only their party embraced them. As Bill Clinton has said, the subtitle of the U.S. Constitution should be "Let's Make A Deal." That's how democracy works in the real world.
Great article Mr. Mills, and I usually tangle with you as a Dem gadfly and you as the loyalist, but on this we absolutely agree.
Bret Stephens said it wisely: ".... the difference between the Democratic and the Republican Party, which is the Democrats are hostage to their crazy minority, and the Republicans are hostage to their crazy majority."
If you want to look at what is wrong with our party, and self examination brings more benefit than trying to psychoanalyze MAGAs, look at what Trump campaigned on border, transgenders, inflation, soft on crime.
For the inevitable sports analogy you need to play good offense and defense. You play offense on the things that the public majority supports you on - for Dems that is abortion, healthcare, environment.
But where Harris and Dems failed is playing defense. That Harris was on record for supporting tax payer funded so called 'gender affirming' surgery for prisoners, is probably about her having a political career that only required her to win primaries in CA ( I doubt Roy Cooper would have been on record for that, one reason he would have been a better candidate).
And on the border, if Biden/Harris in June 2024 decide to end the record asylum entrants, with a remain in Mexico policy, how can you say when asked by FOX on that interview whether you would have done anything different in your years in office "I can't think of anything". This was a golden opportunity that Harris had to distance herself from an unpopular administration and flubbed it. Polls show that the public favors the Rs 60-40 on immigration, yet she did nothing to suggest that record illegal entrants was not a wise move.
Unless, you pro actively distinguish yourself from the overly noisy extremes you will be tied to them.
Wolf, your analysis does not fully address the differences between Democrats and Republicans. While citing Brett Stephens' statement may seem reasonable, stating that Democrats are solely focused on minority issues is an oversimplification. Stephens suggested that more extreme elements are perceived as having considerable influence on their respective agendas.
This view is based on the belief, expressed by some Republicans many years ago, that highly progressive individuals strongly influence Democratic policies, while Republicans represent regular industrious, church-going folks.
Contrary to this stereotype, if Republicans were indeed as depicted, they would be disapproving of Trump's alleged misconduct, legal issues, and history of fraudulent activities. However, some Republicans have supported or downplayed Trump's conduct, with some even promoting it through slogans.
The Republican party has evolved over time, and phrases like “rule of law” frequently appear in Republican rhetoric but have taken on new interpretations. The rule of law is a fundamental principle in democratic societies, mandates that all individuals, institutions, and government entities are accountable to the same set of laws. The concept does not endorse false claims about election results, inciting followers to attack the Capitol, assaulting police officers, or defacing historical artifacts. Nor does it mean enacting laws that interfere with women's health issues just because they offend their recently acquired religious principles.
The distinction between political parties, such as Democrats and Republicans, can be observed in their approaches to critical thinking, evaluating conclusions, and making decisions based on facts rather than opinions. The Republican party has increasingly pursued retribution against news agencies, judges, and FBI agents who have brought certain actions to light. This is not the party my dad belonged to but is one made up of folks who want to get even for wrongs they believe suffered at the hands of wild-eyed liberals. It has nothing to do with country first. To them an aging, malignant narcissists is the vehicle through which they will seek vengeance.
Doug, thank you for the thoughts. You, as myself, are obviously over 40 as you are capable of multiple paragraphs of thought, and not part of the meme and tweet generation, so I applaud our mutual long windedness.
Firstly, as much as I may critique Democrats, I am one, albeit a conservative one, meaning that I am a typical Democrat from 1990 before the great awakening.
I just find that Dems endlessly putting down the other side is not particularly helpful. For the best critiques of MAGA I go to The Dispatch b/c the old line Never Trumper conservatives know that terrain better. And I find that self examination is more helpful than railing against ones enemies. Your enemies won't listen to you, but if Democrats don't self correct they will become a minority party.
When you say "stating that Democrats are solely focused on minority issues is an oversimplification." I would agree and don't know that I used the word "only" but I do think they are obsessive about it, and it is an unpopular position that the GOP can exploit. "White privilege" when hurled at working class heartlanders is about as popular as "defund the police". Do they blow it out of proportion, sure they do, just as the Dems blew Project 2025, which Trump repeatedly denounced, out of proportion. The phenomena is labelled "nut picking" to take the most extreme position of your enemies and blow it out of proportion. But, that is the nature of politics and the answer is to play good defense and counter the inevitable smears the Rs will throw at you by not endorsing stupid things in the first place and admitting past mistakes like supporting taxpayer funded transgender surgery for prisoners.
In terms of woke Jeff Maurer points out an interesting process:
"This seems to be representative of a pattern that I’ve noticed recently:
Someone on the left over-steps.
The right freaks out.
Many on the left respond with “Wow, can you believe what the right is freaking out about now?”
The third response is legitimate, but I also think it's incomplete. The problem is that it fails to note that the thing that the right is freaking out about is, indeed, pretty harebrained."
The article goes on to elucidate some of that harebrainededness in an article about how they made the M & M characters woke some years back. It is funny:
I don't disagree with your take on the GOP, I just think the answer is that the Dems need to rethink the policies that they are most unpopular on, and they are by various surveys immigration, crime, and some versions of woke.
The American people, at least the ones who voted for a criminal for president of the United States, are nuts. Talk about perception and issues all you want. That character meant nothing apparently to millions of people is the most sickening spectacle I have witnessed in my 80 years. The country did a horrible thing here, and the horrors will keep coming.
We make another mistake by focusing on the recent election in traditional and “normal” terms. Our moral compass is off course, and our country is in great peril because it elected a moral cretin to its most sacred office.
Pardon me,but I doubt I ever will be able to forgive those who voted for this despicable human being.
"In 2020, they had to defend against the “defund the police” movement and the perception they sided with looters over cops."
On this point, what would you have them do?
I get that people perceived their actions this way, but no elected Dem ever supported abolishing police departments, indeed Biden put more money into policing. And no Dem candidates, even the Palestinian ones, supported anti-semitism (unless you define all criticism of Israel as anti-semitic as the ADF does). Indeed they called it out in the strongest terms. While I do believe there is a lot Dems can do to improve, I don't see a change in Branding as the solution.
https://open.substack.com/pub/publis324843/p/the-democratic-party-is-not-working?r=7av8t&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
It's possible to overthink why Democrats lost the presidency. It might just be low-info voters felt frustrated by inflation, remembered Trump's pre-pandemic economy, and noted his courage after the assassination attempt. I would like to see an analysis of the split-ticket Stein-Jackson-Trump voters. Let's hope Roy Cooper runs for Senate in 2026 against Thom Tillis.
AOC engaged directly with split ticket voters who backed her and Trump. As I recall the basic conclusion is they wanted prices, and indeed government to change but not radically and they voted accordingly. While Harris tried to present herself as the change candidate Trump already had that down.
On the nose. Because the concept of “perception” possesses such weight or pull. Perceptions are difficult to pierce once a collective “judgment” gains traction and perception becomes “misconception.” Fine line(s).
I'm pretty new to politics, so I wouldn't know how much Democratic Party went into "far left" ideas.
From what I've heard, though, the PERCEPTION has been that they have, mostly because they don't have their own media to fight back on the B.S. claims.
Either way, I agree that Democrats should be for the people again, including the poor.
They still are, in my opinion. But have put their focus on people further into the background, after dealing with the rich and businesses first.
Really hope that flips upside down, and fast.
Basically I think almost everything about this is wrong. You have bought into the Republican narrative endlessly pounded by Fox, Newsmax and the other propaganda outlet. Honestly, you should know better.
Sharing a view with somebody that you might disagree with on many things is an irrelevancy. That is a guilt by association argument, not any reflection on the merits of the position which you offer no argument against other than the bad guys also think that way.
I'm sick of people blaming Democrats for the horrible corruption in the Republican-MAGA party that created this mess. Mitch McConnell stole the supreme court seat of Scolia from Obama, the Repubs today are overriding the governors' veto of a bill stripping Democrats of power in NC. Their blatant unfairness and evil is at the heart of this problem, not Democrats.
I don't blame the Democrats, but I can't change the MAGAs and just beating up on them as a way to avoid ones own weaknesses is a way to continue to lose elections.
I don't disagree with anything you said, but it is no answer to how to win elections.
The answer to why we lost is not, but the Republicans are bad. That will get you nowhere.
The reality is that many people voting GOP were not MAGAs but also did not like Democrats, and polls show clearly that Dems are the least liked party on immigration, crime, the Identarian stuff.
By Gallup the voting public identifies as 37% Conservative, 37% Moderate, and 25% Liberal. We are a moderate to conservative country. Roy Cooper understood that. Bill Clinton understood that. Biden and Harris did not and after 3 years of trying to please the progressive wing they had too many albatrosses. And inflation is the third rail.
The climate crisis is too big a threat to be ignored, and going backwards with trump is no solution but increases the problems of hurricanes, droughts, warming seas. The American electorate needs better education so they can think for themselves and the Repubs & Koch & Heritage Foundation are dismantling that as fast as they can.
Well I dont disagree with you that climate is important, and it actually is an issue where most voters favor the Democrats as opposed to immigration, crime, and transgender females participating in sports or prisoners getting tax payer funded gender affirming surgery.
I dont understand how what you are saying does anything to improve our fortunes as a party. It is just complaining as opposed to improving We cant wave a wand and then society will be better educated. That same uneducated electorate voted for B Clinton and Obama twice, Heritage Foundation has the right to say whatever they want and there is Brookings on the left of center. If your solution is, well people are stupid, you aren't going to win friends.
Being right doesn't guarantee you an election. Others think you are wrong. I certainly think the Biden immigration policy was incoherent. And although inflation was somewhat unavoidable, the Dems made the same mistake Trump did with Covid, underplaying it and telling people, well the gdp was great, as if half of people even know what that is, while they see gas and the price of eggs going off the roof.
The transgender issue was not a big policy initiative, but something Trump team used in ads. As long as Repubs are setting the perspective on Democrats we won't get far. Democrats need to set the agenda better, articulate better. The fact covid and supply chain issues added to the price of food could have been explained better. Trump inherited a good economy from Obama's administration. Biden inherited Trump's policy mistakes with covid. No point in our arguing here.
She lost for many reasons, but one is that she is a progressive in a moderate to conservative country and did nothing to distance herself from the policies of the very unpopular administration she was part of. Biden won in the moderate lane and then pivoted left to the point that their biggest supporter was Sanders. She had no clear message that got through other than abortion, but that was not as important as the pocketbook stuff.
Probably no point in arguing but we are doing that.
Actually, trying to save the world from climate crisis catastrophe is a "moderate" common sense policy and economically sane. Taking the right to one's own body away, taking the privacy of one's health and child bearing out of women's hands is an extremely right wing fundamentalist policy; a moderate position is freedom and the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. We don't even agree on terminology or values.
Tom, thanks for bring this to public attention. During this election cycle I was hearing a lot of talk about Democrats are week on border control, using public money for gender-affirming procedures and placing. Moreover, Democrats are responsible for allowing millions of undocumented workers to enter this country to commit heinous crimes against the lawful residents. Of course, in the real world, there is some doubt this is the case.
Obama set records for the number of undocumented workers his administration deported. Many credible studies found no link between immigration status and criminal behavior. In fact, undocumented individuals tend to avoid contact with the system to prevent deportation. It is also true that in 2019 Harris did support a policy that would give access to trans people who depend on state-funded health care — including inmates and detained immigrants — to gender-affirming care, which includes surgery. A position she later half heartily rejected.
In 2022, a court mandated gender-affirming surgery for a trans federal inmate. In 2023, Then, of course , Trump’s Supreme Court upheld a ruling that includes gender dysphoria in the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Trump team seized on these issues, twisted them around and made it appear that all Democrats are wild eyed liberals seeking to turn this country into a quire of communists singing kumbaya. Well apparently, it worked, as Trump narrowly eked out a victory. There is nothing new here, as Nixon used it effectively to be elected and reelected.
The strategy, developed by professional political advisor Lee Atwater, used coded language to indirectly address issues, appealing to voters concerned about job displacement to Mexico or perceived impacts of affirmative action on college admissions or employment. These decisions are typically made by private enterprises and are often unrelated to government policies, sometimes involving automation by robots.
Trump suggested that the US bears the financial burden for NATO, but NATO countries fund their own military. Each member must allocate a portion of its GDP to support a military capable of collaborating with others to defend against attacks on any one of it’s members.
Trump was able to pull this off as there are many among us who do not comprehend how this country works and are confused by the complexity of world affairs.
Civics education, including constitutional law and the Bill of Rights, should be reintroduced in early education. Students should also learn about international relations from an early age. Education can help provide a broad understanding of political systems and promote informed citizenship. Hopefully, there will be a something left to work with after these near do wells and profiteers have
done their thing.
As a moderate Democrat it is not that I believe the GOP bs about immigrants running amok, but I do believe in rule of law and that a sovereign country can determine who and how many people can cross the border. It should not be about who sneaks in, or who uses asylum as an end run to get in the country. And then once in, it does not help Dems to argue that this justifies their status.
By 60-40 voters trust the GOP on immigration. It is their strongest issue.
Obama was correct in enforcing the law. I sympathize with those trying to come in, and I am pro immigration, legally, but it remains the prerogative of the people to make that decision and it further stigmatizes Democrats as the party of not enforcing the law.
And the weakness of the Dem case is belied by the fact that in June 2024 the Biden administration did close the border with 'remain in Mexico' and the record number of illegal entrants dropped to normal levels. If you argue that we were correct in allowing all the record number of asylum claimants in the country before June 2024, then the actions since seem like just political expediency.
Jack, immigration is indeed a multifaceted and challenging issue. While I agree that regulating who enters a country is a sovereign’s duty, we must also consider the complexities that make enforcement difficult. Cartels have developed sophisticated methods to bypass security measures, including underground tunnels and elaborate deceptions. These activities are not only highly profitable but also less risky in terms of legal penalties compared to drug trafficking.
Addressing immigration effectively requires a comprehensive approach that includes securing borders, improving detection methods, and addressing the root causes that drive people to migrate. It is a delicate balance between enforcement and compassion, ensuring safety while recognizing the human stories behind migration. My Grandfather and his brothers left Scotland seeking an environment that allowed them fully to develop their potential. If they had not, I would not be here today, as is the case with most US Citizens. He and his brothers easily assimilated as their accent they did not offend the white Christian sense of solidarity.
But this is not the case with immigrants from Mexico or Asia. They stand out which offer convenient opportunities for unscrupulous politicians who care less about the rule of law and more about power and profits. My point is simple, Trump and his marry little band of looser are just using immigrants as scrape goats to further their desire to augment their wealth at the expense of the US Taxpayer. I am still waiting for Mexico to pay for a wall!
I understand the difficulties about enforcing the border but let me address three aspects:
1) Many if not most of the entrants in 2021-2023 were just people who showed at ports of entry claiming asylum, not the traditional river swimmers and desert crossers. Then they are admitted pending adjudication on their claim which can take 10 years and they are free to join the undocumented if they dont show in court or are denied. What was once a process that started with protecting people during WW2 who were sent back to be murdered is now just an end run over the border.
2) The idea that border enhancement is not good because there are ways that people can evade it is a fallacy argument that the gun people eg use to oppose stricter regulation. Sure, people will figure out ways to get around whatever you do, but it will make it harder, which will reduce entrants. And a similar parallel argument is the "address root causes" similar with the pro gun people crying mental health as if miraculously we can end insanity so don't need gun laws. I have no problem with helping to solve the problems in the world, but that is a separate issue and you can still secure the border as you help other countries.
3) I too am a grandson of immigrants and very pro immigration. I would favor higher quotas of legal immigration - guest workers, refugees, family reunification. But this is a democracy, and I can make that argument in the public space and try to persuade my countrymen, but just trying to allow illegal entrants in is forcing my will on the public.
Yes, Trump stirs up the nativist hatred, and some people will hate immigrants, legal or illegal, but that is not the point. The vast majority of Americans do not support illegal immigration, many of them, like myself, who might be pro immigration, but believe in rule of law, democracy, and sovereignty.
!. According, to a report by the American Immigration Council, approximately 11% of asylum seekers who were not detained failed to appear for their court hearings over an 11-year period from 2008 to 2018. This percentage is significantly lower than some claims suggest. The report also found that 96% of those represented by an attorney attended all their court hearings. It's important to note that many factors can affect an immigrant's ability to attend court, including lack of notice, transportation difficulties, and other hardships.
2. I never implied that border enforcement is impossible. Rather, it has become more dynamic to counteract cartel techniques. Simply arresting and deporting individuals is ineffective, as they often return quickly, costing taxpayers millions with nothing to show for the money spent. We need to address the entry mechanisms instead. Arresting many people may appear tough but won't resolve the issue. But in Trump’s mind it is all about appearances, that is why he wanted a badly disfigured vet removed for his public appearance.
I have other matters to attend to, but I suggest that Jack conduct research before creating these scenarios.
Jack, regardless of your age or background, (which have no bearing on the issues at hand) the recent election saw Democrats lose a close race to an unacceptable candidate. One who has never concerned himself about moral values. Despite the narrow margin, this candidate will emphasize the victory and benefit from it, as seen with the inauguration slush fund. He may also pursue business ventures in Moscow, Saudi Arabia, and China. The terms of such deals could have a significant effect on the wellbeing of this country. Of course, the man child will have sufficiently benefited from the sale of tennis shoes, bibles printed in China and guitars enabling him to pack up and leave this country.
Concerns have been expressed about his respect for the Constitution and the rule of law, particularly given his appointments. Persons lacking any significant background for the job and having the morals of an alley cat appear to be his favorites.
While it is important to acknowledge the value of constructive self-examination within our party, it is also important to recognize the effect of the big lie. Certain mis perceived Democratic stances, such as discussions on "white privilege" or "de fund the police," can be polarizing, as they address underlying issues. However, messaging and strategy must be clear and comprehensible to avoid alienating potential supporters.
Extreme views often dominate political discourse, distorting perceptions. It is essential to defend our values without endorsing impractical policies. Learning from past experiences, like the support for taxpayer-funded transgender surgery for prisoners, (which occurred on both sides, (as I pointed out in previous statements) can guide us in crafting more inclusive platforms.
When the dust settlers, voters may be able to clearly see where this clown is going and elect a Democratic majority in the house and senate. After which restoration of the rule of law is a distinct probability. Hopefully by then, the man child would have sufficiently lined his coffers with taxpayer funds and skipped town making an impeachment and trial unnecessary.
I see that there are a lot of activists commenting here. As a lifelong middle of the road Democrat I applaud your analysis. I think it is extremely important that the party starts to pay attention to the middle and I plan to share your view with others.
It's worth noting that the people most vehemently opposed to centrism aren't responsible for getting candidates elected, while those running and advising campaigns understand and accept the math of complex democratic elections. No majority support = no victory -- and therefore no opportunity to set public policy. Unaccountable purists are screaming pointlessly from the sideline, safely avoiding the gritty on-field battle for swing voters.
I agree with you completely. You can't change policy if you are not in office. Purists need to learn the art of compromise if Democrats are ever to win national elections again.
The Dems could have codified access to abortion; they didn't. As a matter of fact all the Dems do is stifle progress and act a an impotent foil to insure the conservative types continue to advance their objectives. The reason I did not vote for the Dem ringer is the Dems support for the savages piling up the corpses of babies. A vote for the Dems was a mandate in support of the slaughter. No thanks
I wish there was more info here about the GQP plans to defeat the will of the voters by stripping the Dems we just elected and all voters instead of bs about Nate Silver.
Update: Nate Silver is a right-wing activist now with unreliable polls.
Your fellow Democratic realist Nate Silver agrees:
"Well, this time around, the public saw what it got with Trump — including the pandemic, January 6, and all those crimes and misdemeanors — and decided it liked it better than Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. ... That Trump’s victory was secured with massive shifts among precisely those groups that Democrats once thought of as their base — the working class, young voters, racial and ethnic minorities, and voters in the nation’s bluest cities — make the just deserts all the more rich."
https://www.natesilver.net/p/the-expert-class-is-failing-and-so
Nate Silver has been a right-wing activist for a while now.
C'mon, do you actually have any evidence of this. I presume he is a liberal. He actually under estimated Trump three elections in a row. Usually the right pollsters - RCP, Rasmussen always over predict their favorites.
Here ya go. There are more links in the article to support Nate’s ties to right-wing activism.
https://www.alternet.org/nate-silver-stuart-stevens-polymarket/
And as opposed to your 'because a and b both work with c logic" here is an actual press conference where Silver announced he was voting for ...........drum roll............Kamala Harris, as he had in the past announced he voted for Barack Obama. Somehow that seems unusual for a "right wing activist" Do you know any other "right wing activists" holding press conferences announcing they are voting for Harris.
https://www.newsweek.com/nate-silver-reveals-election-vote-donald-trump-kamala-harris-1952655
So the total basis of this is guilt by association, Because one person has a connection to an organization that another does, it implies that they share the same view. That is not logical and you can do that to show Harris is a Communist or whatever you want to show, Do you actually have anything that Silver has said that gives credence to this.
I have no doubt that Nate Silver has relationships with 100s of people- left, right and center. I have read him and subscribe to him and from his language he clearly doesn't like Trump and I would presume he is a liberal. Nothing in that article dissuades me. And if you check mediabiasfactcheck they rate Alternet as fairly far left biased.
And the premise is that because Silver gave Trump the edge at the time of the piece back in September, he was serving the right wing. The reality is that he ended up favoring Harris by a 50-49.6 very minimal margin in the last few weeks. So by their logic that makes him left biased. Actually I dont think he is biased at all, it doesn't help him to get things wrong, but he has underestimated Trump in the last three elections calling 9 states wrong total and everyone he called for the Dems but went to Trump. RealClearPolitic the other main aggregator and that is actually right wing has gotten 7 states wrong and 6 of them were D calls that went R. So if anything by the logic of the author that somehow predicting that who you project to win is where your politics are, then you can only conclude Silver is a tool of the Democrats.
I find polls exhausting. I am 85 years old. I knocked on 350 doors for Dems, (our little group of Blue Dots in Carteret Co. knocked on 4500 doors), wrote letters and talked to folks about Mo Green, Stein, Hunt and Jackson. As a former teacher I spent most of my time talking about public education in NC. People responded to these conversations. I did not talk about Harris or Trump although my list of candidates included backgrounds on all candidates. We did well in NC but to deny that racism and sexism played a role in the election of President, is to be blind. Wonder what would have happened if we voted on men’s reproductive rights. Would men really allow the state to tell them what they could or could not do with their bodies?
"to deny that racism and sexism played a role in the election of President, is to be blind"
I am blind I guess.
Not only do I think it is both unprovable, but likely wrong, but if you are right, then as Dems I guess we should just run white men.
If you are just going to be mad at the electorate, instead of adapting policies that appeal to voters that seems self defeating. Just tell them they are racist and sexist and that will convince them to like us.
btw the most successful Dem candidate since LBJ was one African American named Barack. I guess all the racists stayed home.
It also is notable that comparing 2020 with 2024 the Dems lost more of the women's vote where the margin shifted 5 points to Trump then men which shifted only 2 points. I guess that would mean that women are becoming more sexist than men.
Congrats on all your work and the Dem winners in NC. I too canvassed and worked the polls in Firsyth Co, NC. I agree, it has been exhausting. I agree with Thomas, Dems simply have git to apoeal to a wider swath of people. Thanks for all your hard work Lela.
And Thomas, a segue on Democratic lack of self examination, I hope you do something about the Hunter Biden pardon which seems unconscionable and gives Trump a justification for any such pardon. I consider this a Litmus test for Democratic integrity on issues that they very pointedly claim the high moral ground - gun regulation and nepotism.
Nate Silver did a good bit on this just today writing: "Biden and the White House, of course, repeatedly lied about Biden’s intentions even after the election was over. It will surely enable Trump to feel like he can pardon the January 6 rioters without a political cost, as well as the various and sundry criminals in his orbit, though Trump would likely have had no problem doing that anyway. It will further reduce Biden’s ranking in the history books and contribute to the perception that he was a failed president, provided that historians aren’t blinded by their partisanship." The whole article which is a good self analysis of Dem failures along the lines you bring up: https://www.natesilver.net/p/the-expert-class-is-failing-and-so
Post-election polling by Third Way reached similar conclusions. In a diverse, pluralistic democracy where citizens count equally and majorities (usually) decide elections, hoping to win on a platform of unpopular positions while ignoring or downplaying most voters' top concerns is irrational if not suicidal. And insulting voters might feel good, but it never works.
On every issue important to the progressive left, which tends to adopt maximalist stances, there's a more nuanced position that would appeal to swing voters *and* Democrats, if only their party embraced them. As Bill Clinton has said, the subtitle of the U.S. Constitution should be "Let's Make A Deal." That's how democracy works in the real world.
https://www.thirdway.org/memo/what-voters-told-democrats-in-2024
Great article Mr. Mills, and I usually tangle with you as a Dem gadfly and you as the loyalist, but on this we absolutely agree.
Bret Stephens said it wisely: ".... the difference between the Democratic and the Republican Party, which is the Democrats are hostage to their crazy minority, and the Republicans are hostage to their crazy majority."
If you want to look at what is wrong with our party, and self examination brings more benefit than trying to psychoanalyze MAGAs, look at what Trump campaigned on border, transgenders, inflation, soft on crime.
For the inevitable sports analogy you need to play good offense and defense. You play offense on the things that the public majority supports you on - for Dems that is abortion, healthcare, environment.
But where Harris and Dems failed is playing defense. That Harris was on record for supporting tax payer funded so called 'gender affirming' surgery for prisoners, is probably about her having a political career that only required her to win primaries in CA ( I doubt Roy Cooper would have been on record for that, one reason he would have been a better candidate).
And on the border, if Biden/Harris in June 2024 decide to end the record asylum entrants, with a remain in Mexico policy, how can you say when asked by FOX on that interview whether you would have done anything different in your years in office "I can't think of anything". This was a golden opportunity that Harris had to distance herself from an unpopular administration and flubbed it. Polls show that the public favors the Rs 60-40 on immigration, yet she did nothing to suggest that record illegal entrants was not a wise move.
Unless, you pro actively distinguish yourself from the overly noisy extremes you will be tied to them.
Wolf, your analysis does not fully address the differences between Democrats and Republicans. While citing Brett Stephens' statement may seem reasonable, stating that Democrats are solely focused on minority issues is an oversimplification. Stephens suggested that more extreme elements are perceived as having considerable influence on their respective agendas.
This view is based on the belief, expressed by some Republicans many years ago, that highly progressive individuals strongly influence Democratic policies, while Republicans represent regular industrious, church-going folks.
Contrary to this stereotype, if Republicans were indeed as depicted, they would be disapproving of Trump's alleged misconduct, legal issues, and history of fraudulent activities. However, some Republicans have supported or downplayed Trump's conduct, with some even promoting it through slogans.
The Republican party has evolved over time, and phrases like “rule of law” frequently appear in Republican rhetoric but have taken on new interpretations. The rule of law is a fundamental principle in democratic societies, mandates that all individuals, institutions, and government entities are accountable to the same set of laws. The concept does not endorse false claims about election results, inciting followers to attack the Capitol, assaulting police officers, or defacing historical artifacts. Nor does it mean enacting laws that interfere with women's health issues just because they offend their recently acquired religious principles.
The distinction between political parties, such as Democrats and Republicans, can be observed in their approaches to critical thinking, evaluating conclusions, and making decisions based on facts rather than opinions. The Republican party has increasingly pursued retribution against news agencies, judges, and FBI agents who have brought certain actions to light. This is not the party my dad belonged to but is one made up of folks who want to get even for wrongs they believe suffered at the hands of wild-eyed liberals. It has nothing to do with country first. To them an aging, malignant narcissists is the vehicle through which they will seek vengeance.
Doug, thank you for the thoughts. You, as myself, are obviously over 40 as you are capable of multiple paragraphs of thought, and not part of the meme and tweet generation, so I applaud our mutual long windedness.
Firstly, as much as I may critique Democrats, I am one, albeit a conservative one, meaning that I am a typical Democrat from 1990 before the great awakening.
I just find that Dems endlessly putting down the other side is not particularly helpful. For the best critiques of MAGA I go to The Dispatch b/c the old line Never Trumper conservatives know that terrain better. And I find that self examination is more helpful than railing against ones enemies. Your enemies won't listen to you, but if Democrats don't self correct they will become a minority party.
When you say "stating that Democrats are solely focused on minority issues is an oversimplification." I would agree and don't know that I used the word "only" but I do think they are obsessive about it, and it is an unpopular position that the GOP can exploit. "White privilege" when hurled at working class heartlanders is about as popular as "defund the police". Do they blow it out of proportion, sure they do, just as the Dems blew Project 2025, which Trump repeatedly denounced, out of proportion. The phenomena is labelled "nut picking" to take the most extreme position of your enemies and blow it out of proportion. But, that is the nature of politics and the answer is to play good defense and counter the inevitable smears the Rs will throw at you by not endorsing stupid things in the first place and admitting past mistakes like supporting taxpayer funded transgender surgery for prisoners.
In terms of woke Jeff Maurer points out an interesting process:
"This seems to be representative of a pattern that I’ve noticed recently:
Someone on the left over-steps.
The right freaks out.
Many on the left respond with “Wow, can you believe what the right is freaking out about now?”
The third response is legitimate, but I also think it's incomplete. The problem is that it fails to note that the thing that the right is freaking out about is, indeed, pretty harebrained."
The article goes on to elucidate some of that harebrainededness in an article about how they made the M & M characters woke some years back. It is funny:
https://imightbewrong.substack.com/p/omg-stop-freaking-out-is-a-bad-response
I don't disagree with your take on the GOP, I just think the answer is that the Dems need to rethink the policies that they are most unpopular on, and they are by various surveys immigration, crime, and some versions of woke.