Nobody likes to eat crow. So here’s David Rothkopf, another public intellectual who refuses to do so: “In my view, not only is Donald Trump a terrible choice to be our president, but that Kamala Harris would have been an exceptionally good leader for America.” Well, David, I endorsed her too, but it’s over and she was partly responsible for blowing it. So let us move on and hear how other prominent liberal critics expiated their guilt.
I think Matt Bai summed things up pretty well, saying
you must admit that Harris, like Hillary Clinton then, was not a perfect candidate with a clear message. I think the most stunning numbers in some of the state exit polling are those that show Trump winning significant shares of union voters, Black voters and Latino voters. To me, that sort of confirms my instinct that it was risky, if not negligent, for Harris to run a campaign that was almost entirely about how awful her opponent is. I agree that tactically, in terms of execution, she did a fine job of that—better than I expected. But there was nothing she could tell voters about Trump that they didn’t already know. I think people needed a reason to feel good and hopeful about voting for her.
Many have indicted Biden’s policies and indeed his dramatic failure to step down. Jonathan Chait, the Intelligencer’s hard-nosed critic, had his say about that: “The Democrats’ only chance of winning, in retrospect, was to pick a nominee who could credibly run as a complete outsider untainted by either the 2020 primary left-a-thon or the Biden administration’s record on inflation and immigration.”
I thought Harris’s biggest flaw was her failure to break from Biden’s administration. She failed to acknowledge the vitriolic pessimism about the country’s direction. She pussyfooted in her answers. Yet as Frank Bruni said, she “showed more grace and grit than many Americans had previously attributed to her.” Well, that didn’t keep her from losing, did it?
The best putdown of the Dems came from the politically ecumenical Bret Stephens in “A Party of Prigs and Pontificators Suffers a Humiliating Defeat.” Bret’s titles are often notable, and this is a good piece. Here’s the gist of it: “The broad inability of liberals to understand Trump’s political appeal except in terms flattering to their beliefs is itself part of the explanation for his historic, and entirely avoidable, comeback.” He goes on to cite the party’s many political and tactical missteps.
And, finally, I thought Bernie Sanders uncovered a bottom-line truth: “It’s not just Kamala,” he said. “It’s a Democratic Party which increasingly has become a party of identity politics, rather than understanding that the vast majority of people in this country are working class. This trend of workers leaving the Democratic Party started with whites, and it has accelerated to Latinos and Blacks.”
In the end, Trump won because of the Dems’ unforced errors. “The Economy” was again a major issue, and for working people that meant their daily cost of living, food-on-the-table struggles, not the economy at large which is how most politicians think of it. It’s the mini versus the mega economy.
Finally, Ed Kilgore on the consequences of the GOP so broadly embracing Trump: “Republicans ought to wonder whether anyone other than Trump would have won more easily without the collateral damage to their principles, their sensibilities, and their long-term prospects.”
They seem to have made a Faustian bargain, according to Peter H. Wehner, former strategic adviser to President George W. Bush and vocal critic of Mr. Trump. “This election was a CAT scan on the American people, and as difficult as it is to say, as hard as it is to name, what it revealed, at least in part, is a frightening affinity for a man of borderless corruption.”
Great article John. I absolutely agree with Brett Stephens, Bernie Sanders as well as Nancy Pelosi on their assessments of why the Dems lost (although Nancy was, in my opinion, not quite as honest).
Time to march on. Enough of the wringing of hands and blaming others. It falls on too many.
John…Jane and I agree that it was about gender. If SHE had been a HE, we would have a Democrat for the next 4 years. No doubt about it. Did hammer away at improving the lives of the working class but it fell deaf ears. Her handlers should have made her aware that the country had shifted to a Republican majority in 2021 and that never came out of the mouths of the talking heads. I agree that she blew it with her comment on The View, but there were few other mistakes. Read Jon Meacham’s essay on the subject./Users/anne/Desktop/Opinion | I’m a Presidential Historian. This Is My Biggest Regret About Trump. – The New York Times.pdf
Identity Politics:
a tendency for people of a particular religion, ethnic group, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.
And these prognosticators don’t think the Republicans are doing just that? Give me a break!!!!
so you’re saying it was a marketing mistake, but Dems ultimately stood for the right things? tough sell.
Jim, why are you so misreading what I wrote? Much more involved here than marketing.
I hear a lot of people say that the Dems don’t know how to market what they believe in. I don’t think that’s “IT”.
I live in Texas, so unless you also live in a batshit crazy state, your perspective reflects an already draconian way of life in this country.
This election has done nothing but concrete my determination to find my own form of freedom.
I have officially decided to “file for DIVORCE” as a multigenerational Texan and 60 year US citizen. As with a divorce, I will no longer allow a MAN to decide my future and my well being. I will no longer be forced to accept soul gutting rules that minimize my identity as a female without even considering my convictions.
With my new found mental freedom, I will evacuate my life of responsibilities for the direction the country/state will take. From this point on, I view myself as a foreign visitor, I must follow their authoritarian rules, but completely release myself from the culpability of what I see as a disastrous future for us all.
Looking forward to my SINGLE lifestyle!
Our BRIDGE candidate didn’t build a bridge after all, did he? An open convention might have produced a consensus candidate and a consensus policy agenda. And they shamed us for even asking if JOE was really up to the job… I am furious at the party bosses (include Cliburn and the others) and have been since Joe refused to give any other new leaders any “air”. He refused to step aside. Had Nancy not brought the issue to a head, he might not have at all. Expecting Kamala to save us–BAH–she got a bad deal.
Trump’s got 2 years to do make everything better everywhere. By the 2026 mid-term elections, if the price of basics – groceries, clothing, fuel, insurance, etc. – feel lower (I emphasize the word “feel”), Trump will have succeeded. If not, the Dems will get their shot again.
In the general (and understandable!) immediate post election freakout, few people are recognizing what really drove Trump’s victory.
Contrary to the NYT pundits, I don’t believe that the results were a signal that we’ve become a fundamentally “different country.” In 2020, 74 million people voted for Trump.This year: 74 million voted for him. There has been no change in the number of voters supporting him.
The difference this year is that 11 million fewer people voted for the Democratic candidate. This year 70 million voted for Harris, but in 2020 81 million voted for Joe. Had they turned out, she would have beaten Trump handily. The question for deep analysis is why didn’t those 11 million people vote this year?
We don’t have the data yet, but one major factor will be that the Democrats have failed working people. This is a class issue, not a race issue. Some went to Trump, but more simply didn’t vote. Neither party serves the best interests of working people, and I’m becoming convinced neither ever will. Time for a third party? Now that would really be a fundamental change in our politics.