A post-mortem is absolutely necessary and due. After that we part ways.
"Most Americans" is a vague measurement but if it means more than 50% I suspect that it's not true. And if it is true, it was Harris's "celebrity centric" campaign that offered real relief with incentives for housing starts, help with purchasing houses, tax credits, subsidized child care and more while Trump's "economic package" consists of tax cuts for the rich and tariffs, which are a hidden tax on everybody at amounts never before seen if he is to be believed (admittedly no sure thing). I'm still waiting for a good explanation of why an economically motivated voter would vote for Trump.
One also has to grapple with this fact: 40% of North Carolina voters voted for Mark Robinson for governor. There has probably never been a more unqualified, unacceptable, outrageously extreme, personally flawed candidate for major office in the US and the man still got 40% of voters to vote for him. One can argue about what that means, but to me it means that we can count on 40% of the population to vote Republican no matter who the candidate is or what the issues supposedly are. I'm sure it's not materially different for Democrats; the point is not to blame unthinking Republican automatons, it is to observe that the number of voters who actually vote based on measurable criteria is vanishingly small, and that's before one considers that 1/3 of eligible voters didn't even vote. Were they protesting? Are they fat and satisfied? Nobody knows. But w/out knowing, it is truly impossible to say that "most" American voters were motivated by economic hardship and that most of that most concluded that the Republicans offered a better chance for relief.
It is apparently a truism that Democrats courted upscale suburban voters. If one takes their platforms seriously it is hard to see how the Republicans courted working class and middle class voters, and more importantly, how the Democrats did not. Reproductive rights is for some reason widely seen as a "suburban women's" issue but I am hard-pressed to understand why. As noted above, only one party crafted a package of economic initiatives aimed at the working and middle classes and it wasn't the Republicans.
The Democrats definitely need a serious post-mortem and self-examination. But imho, the explanations I've read so far, including the ones offered by you, Elizabeth, miss the mark.
I agree with that but I would say that there are at least 3 different messaging problems:
1. The social media world with its incredible right wing/nihilist closed feedback loop that gleefully and purposely spread lies and disinformation. Unless the Democrats can crack this loop, either by becoming a player in it or persuading meaningful numbers of participants to move beyond it (presumably by offering a better alternative) they are well and truly fucked.
2. Throughout his term, Joe Biden has leaned over backwards and then some to be inclusive and bipartisan. This allowed, for example, many Republican Congresspeople to claim credit for improvements and investments in their states/districts even if they voted against the programs that created those results. Bad politics for sure, but I can't blame Biden for what he tried to do. I'd rather that more people emulate him. I know that's unrealistic and maybe that means this approach is now discredited but it was not without merit in its moment.
3. The Democrats need to find a positive message that is explainable in memes, soundbites and even single words. That's 2 problems in one right there, both the message itself and the communication of it. It amazes me that the so-called Party of Hollywood types and creatives has been beaten so badly and so regularly at this game. If it continues, the Dems will become uncompetitive.
This may not be a popular opinion with this group but Trump did have a very clear economic message that resonated with the working class and non-college educated. That was the voting bloc that tipped the election in his favor. To those groups, the economy is issues number one, two, and three. Specifically, Trump’s policies on trade, inflation, and immigration resonated with those groups in contrast to the Democrats economic message. On trade, the working class still feels crushed by a couple decades of bipartisan open trade policy. Balancing the playing field makes sense to them. I would also argue that academics are beginning to catch up with the idea that tariffs can work for a country, that China is taking too much advantage of a free and open trade system, and the tariffs aren’t necessarily inflationary. A good Twitter follow on how this thought is changing is Michael Pettis. For inflation, while mostly caused by bipartisan Covid related spending, the inappropriately named Inflation Reduction Act, which was a Democrat only initiative, put a cherry on top of that spending. I would also argue the Federal Reserve was irresponsible in both urging and accommodating that spending. What the Biden/Harris administration failed to realize is that while the rate of inflation had gone down, the cumulative effect of several years of high inflation is what consumers saw when they went to the supermarket. The Democrat message did not address that and Trump’s talk of reducing spending makes sense to these groups. On immigration, there is a reason that Trump’s share of the Hispanic vote jumped up into the mid 40s. I would argue to many of those voters, additional immigration looks to them as either more competition for jobs or, in some cases, more social welfare, neither of which benefits them economically. Biden/Harris policies such as cancelling student debt, housing subsidies, or abortion, do not address the economic concerns of the working class/non-college educated and reinforce a view that Democrats don’t understand.
Even Laurence Tribe sounds like the guy on the next barstool on Twitter so I'm not about to go there, but I did just buy Pettis's book on trade & class wars. It would be an overstatement to say I'm looking forward to reading a book on international trade but I am curious and hope to learn something, especially about how tariffs aren't necessarily inflationary.
Thank you very much for this clear and cogent explanation. It is very helpful even though I disagree with much of it. The one thing I absolutely agree on is the cumulative effect of inflation and Biden/Harris's inability to address this in a meaningful way or even to acknowledge it appropriately.
Unfortunately I am dealing with a couple of fairly overwhelming personal issues currently and just don't have it in me to engage on the points where I disagree with you. Which is a shame because it is very rare to have the chance for a meaningful discussion. My apologies.
Thank you for this considerate reply. One very positive trait about Elizabeth (and Tim) is that while they have strong political views they are very open to hearing other’s thoughts and it is nice that this nascent comment community is similarly thoughtful and cordial. I’m not sure I am right about all I wrote but I am confident what I wrote is how Trump’s political people think. In a past life I spent a lot of time in rooms with Trump, his Hill leadership allies, and his senior staff and I know what they think.
The handoff from Biden to Harris was better than expected and she ran a good campaign. It was just the wrong one. I have two smart, liberal kids in their 20s, and while they voted for Democrats they think the party has completely lost touch.
I remember, Post-Dobbs, your (correct) reaction was people need to get organized in response. This analysis of November's election is just as trenchant.
A post-mortem is absolutely necessary and due. After that we part ways.
"Most Americans" is a vague measurement but if it means more than 50% I suspect that it's not true. And if it is true, it was Harris's "celebrity centric" campaign that offered real relief with incentives for housing starts, help with purchasing houses, tax credits, subsidized child care and more while Trump's "economic package" consists of tax cuts for the rich and tariffs, which are a hidden tax on everybody at amounts never before seen if he is to be believed (admittedly no sure thing). I'm still waiting for a good explanation of why an economically motivated voter would vote for Trump.
One also has to grapple with this fact: 40% of North Carolina voters voted for Mark Robinson for governor. There has probably never been a more unqualified, unacceptable, outrageously extreme, personally flawed candidate for major office in the US and the man still got 40% of voters to vote for him. One can argue about what that means, but to me it means that we can count on 40% of the population to vote Republican no matter who the candidate is or what the issues supposedly are. I'm sure it's not materially different for Democrats; the point is not to blame unthinking Republican automatons, it is to observe that the number of voters who actually vote based on measurable criteria is vanishingly small, and that's before one considers that 1/3 of eligible voters didn't even vote. Were they protesting? Are they fat and satisfied? Nobody knows. But w/out knowing, it is truly impossible to say that "most" American voters were motivated by economic hardship and that most of that most concluded that the Republicans offered a better chance for relief.
It is apparently a truism that Democrats courted upscale suburban voters. If one takes their platforms seriously it is hard to see how the Republicans courted working class and middle class voters, and more importantly, how the Democrats did not. Reproductive rights is for some reason widely seen as a "suburban women's" issue but I am hard-pressed to understand why. As noted above, only one party crafted a package of economic initiatives aimed at the working and middle classes and it wasn't the Republicans.
The Democrats definitely need a serious post-mortem and self-examination. But imho, the explanations I've read so far, including the ones offered by you, Elizabeth, miss the mark.
I think this is all very astutely observed.
Thanks.
I don’t disagree on the substance, but the messaging problems throughout the Biden years were egregious, and I think that speaks to something crucial.
I agree with that but I would say that there are at least 3 different messaging problems:
1. The social media world with its incredible right wing/nihilist closed feedback loop that gleefully and purposely spread lies and disinformation. Unless the Democrats can crack this loop, either by becoming a player in it or persuading meaningful numbers of participants to move beyond it (presumably by offering a better alternative) they are well and truly fucked.
2. Throughout his term, Joe Biden has leaned over backwards and then some to be inclusive and bipartisan. This allowed, for example, many Republican Congresspeople to claim credit for improvements and investments in their states/districts even if they voted against the programs that created those results. Bad politics for sure, but I can't blame Biden for what he tried to do. I'd rather that more people emulate him. I know that's unrealistic and maybe that means this approach is now discredited but it was not without merit in its moment.
3. The Democrats need to find a positive message that is explainable in memes, soundbites and even single words. That's 2 problems in one right there, both the message itself and the communication of it. It amazes me that the so-called Party of Hollywood types and creatives has been beaten so badly and so regularly at this game. If it continues, the Dems will become uncompetitive.
This may not be a popular opinion with this group but Trump did have a very clear economic message that resonated with the working class and non-college educated. That was the voting bloc that tipped the election in his favor. To those groups, the economy is issues number one, two, and three. Specifically, Trump’s policies on trade, inflation, and immigration resonated with those groups in contrast to the Democrats economic message. On trade, the working class still feels crushed by a couple decades of bipartisan open trade policy. Balancing the playing field makes sense to them. I would also argue that academics are beginning to catch up with the idea that tariffs can work for a country, that China is taking too much advantage of a free and open trade system, and the tariffs aren’t necessarily inflationary. A good Twitter follow on how this thought is changing is Michael Pettis. For inflation, while mostly caused by bipartisan Covid related spending, the inappropriately named Inflation Reduction Act, which was a Democrat only initiative, put a cherry on top of that spending. I would also argue the Federal Reserve was irresponsible in both urging and accommodating that spending. What the Biden/Harris administration failed to realize is that while the rate of inflation had gone down, the cumulative effect of several years of high inflation is what consumers saw when they went to the supermarket. The Democrat message did not address that and Trump’s talk of reducing spending makes sense to these groups. On immigration, there is a reason that Trump’s share of the Hispanic vote jumped up into the mid 40s. I would argue to many of those voters, additional immigration looks to them as either more competition for jobs or, in some cases, more social welfare, neither of which benefits them economically. Biden/Harris policies such as cancelling student debt, housing subsidies, or abortion, do not address the economic concerns of the working class/non-college educated and reinforce a view that Democrats don’t understand.
Even Laurence Tribe sounds like the guy on the next barstool on Twitter so I'm not about to go there, but I did just buy Pettis's book on trade & class wars. It would be an overstatement to say I'm looking forward to reading a book on international trade but I am curious and hope to learn something, especially about how tariffs aren't necessarily inflationary.
Thank you very much for this clear and cogent explanation. It is very helpful even though I disagree with much of it. The one thing I absolutely agree on is the cumulative effect of inflation and Biden/Harris's inability to address this in a meaningful way or even to acknowledge it appropriately.
Unfortunately I am dealing with a couple of fairly overwhelming personal issues currently and just don't have it in me to engage on the points where I disagree with you. Which is a shame because it is very rare to have the chance for a meaningful discussion. My apologies.
Thank you for this considerate reply. One very positive trait about Elizabeth (and Tim) is that while they have strong political views they are very open to hearing other’s thoughts and it is nice that this nascent comment community is similarly thoughtful and cordial. I’m not sure I am right about all I wrote but I am confident what I wrote is how Trump’s political people think. In a past life I spent a lot of time in rooms with Trump, his Hill leadership allies, and his senior staff and I know what they think.
This no-none sense analysis is first rate.
The handoff from Biden to Harris was better than expected and she ran a good campaign. It was just the wrong one. I have two smart, liberal kids in their 20s, and while they voted for Democrats they think the party has completely lost touch.
I remember, Post-Dobbs, your (correct) reaction was people need to get organized in response. This analysis of November's election is just as trenchant.