What did Democrats do wrong?

[Brainster]

G. Elliott Morris, who took over 538 after Nate Silver left, says the Democrats actually over-performed compared to a simple but reasonably accurate model:

Political scientists have been pointing out for decades that you can predict presidential elections reasonably well using just two pieces of information: how voters feel about the incumbent president, and how voters feel about the economy. There are many variants of this model — such as the “Bread and Peace” model (Douglas Hibbs), the “Time for Change” forecast (Abramowitz), Ray Fair’s “Fair” model, and Wlezien/Erikson’s work with “Leading Economic Indicators” — but all use a similar set of economic and political “fundamentals” to predict the result of the election.

<snip>

That’s it: two variables, both measured before Labor Day, both knowable months before any ad runs, and in some cases, before candidates are even picked.

Which leads to this:

In 2024, Kamala Harris received about 49.3% of the two-party vote. The model — fit on data from 1956 through 2020, with 2024 held out — predicted she’d get about 48%, with an 80% prediction interval of 46.6% to 49.9%. Harris’s vote share lands on the upper end of this range, but still squarely inside of it.

Note that this more or less undercuts racism or sexism as an explanation for her loss.

Morris notes that politicians and their staff really don't like this simple explanation:

I recently tried at a meeting with congressional staffers, and I think it left them dejected and/or upset, because it left them with few action items besides “run anti-incumbent candidates when the economy sucks.”

Another reason consultants don’t focus on structural factors more often is that they can’t sell you any services to solve that problem, because there’s nothing you can do about them.

 

[d4m10n]

I mean “run anti-incumbent candidates when the economy sucks” is solid advice though.

 

[Lithrael]

It has become an article of faith among liberals that Biden and Harris' support for Israel cost them the youth vote in 2024.

I mean. I don't know that I'd call it 'faith.' It was a sentiment that was everywhere in the youth adjacent spaces I'm in, in the runup to the election and shortly after, and it's even still around a bit. It was extremely frustrating to see. Everyone was saying 'you do know the other team isn't better on that count, right?' and they'd say something something appeasement something something zionists and carry on hating on Dems on the grounds that a vote for them was a vote against the revolution or something.

 

[Trausti]

Supporting Israel probably did cost some extremely lefty voters, but these were probably in blue states that Harris won anyway.

 

[Brainster]

I mean “run anti-incumbent candidates when the economy sucks” is solid advice though.

True enough, and if you're the incumbent party, "make sure the economy doesn't suck" is also sound.

 

[dirtywick]

there was nothing they could have done to make sure the economy didn't suck.

Another reason consultants don’t focus on structural factors more often is that they can’t sell you any services to solve that problem, because there’s nothing you can do about them.

oh, really did say nothing they could have done.

 

[d4m10n]

True enough, and if you're the incumbent party, "make sure the economy doesn't suck" is also sound.

Slightly more achievable than a stable two-state solution in the near term, as of late 2024.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

True enough, and if you're the incumbent party, "make sure the economy doesn't suck" is also sound.

This is where Democrats made their big mistake. Biden should have thrown the 2020 election and left Trump in charge, then Republicans would have to eat their own ◊◊◊◊ sandwich instead of handing it to Democrats. The Dems should have given Trump as much rope as possible, then 4 years later roared in with an attractive young populist of their own (heterosexual white Christian male of course, to maximize the advantage). That would also have avoided the stolen election narrative and failed insurrection that pushed Republicans into getting serious about subverting democracy.

But no - not only did they jump the gun, they didn't quickly replace Biden on some pretense like declining health - which eventually would be true. That's Democrats for you, always fighting battles instead of developing a strategy to win the war.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Supporting Israel probably did cost some extremely lefty voters, but these were probably in blue states that Harris won anyway.

Depressing the Vote: Genocide and 2024 US Presidential Race

Compared to 2020, Democrats lost an estimated 422,000 votes in swing states due to voter demobilization. Many Democrats did not turn out in the same numbers as in the previous election cycle, and some former Democratic voters defected to Trump... 29% of former Biden voters who did not choose Harris—equivalent to roughly 122,380 votes across six swing states—were influenced by Gaza.

In May 2024, an Americans for Justice in Palestine Action (AJP-Action) poll conducted with YouGov revealed that a net 16% of Democratic and independent voters in four battleground states, as well as Minnesota, would have been more likely to vote for Biden if he changed his policy to “no longer support Israel’s war in Gaza.” In August, an IMEU poll, also conducted with YouGov, found that a net 27% of voters in three swing states would have been more likely to support Harris if she pledged to support an arms embargo on the Israeli regime. Similarly, a Cato Institute poll in September showed that foreign policy disagreements could determine the votes of over 50% of swing-state voters

Let's not forget that Trump campaigned on ending wars, claiming that Harris would be the one to embroil the US in conflicts in the Middle East. He also asserted that Hamas’s attacks on Israel would “never have happened” if he were president, talked about 'minimising civilian casualties', and said he was “truly confident” that “real” and “lasting” peace would happen soon. Swing voters could have interpreted that as meaning Truimp would bring a quick end to the situation in Gaza.

We should also not forget that Charlie Kirk turned down money from Jewish donors as he described Gaza as a genocide, and claimed that his (young, conservative) followers felt similalry. So it wasn't just a few 'extreme lefties' who weren't happy with Biden's unwavering support for Israel.

 

[Brainster]

This is where Democrats made their big mistake. Biden should have thrown the 2020 election and left Trump in charge, then Republicans would have to eat their own ◊◊◊◊ sandwich instead of handing it to Democrats. The Dems should have given Trump as much rope as possible, then 4 years later roared in with an attractive young populist of their own (heterosexual white Christian male of course, to maximize the advantage). That would also have avoided the stolen election narrative and failed insurrection that pushed Republicans into getting serious about subverting democracy.

I agree that we'd be in a much better place today had Trump won in 2020, mainly because he'd be off the stage, but also less of the revenge BS and no January 6th. But was that going to happen on election day 2020? I don't think so. Trump would have won 2020 easily absent one thing and that's the thing 2020 is known for: Covid.

But no - not only did they jump the gun, they didn't quickly replace Biden on some pretense like declining health - which eventually would be true. That's Democrats for you, always fighting battles instead of developing a strategy to win the war.

Biden should never have run, but once he became the nominee in an open process I don't see how you replace him. The interesting thing to ponder is who would have gotten the nomination absent Biden. Kamala seems a decent bet; remember that the reason why she flamed out is because she attacked Biden in the first debate.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I agree that we'd be in a much better place today had Trump won in 2020, mainly because he'd be off the stage, but also less of the revenge BS and no January 6th. But was that going to happen on election day 2020? I don't think so. Trump would have won 2020 easily absent one thing and that's the thing 2020 is known for: Covid.

That's the thing. Democrats weren't going to throw the election when they were very likely to win. But they should have.

Biden could have faked significant physical and mental decline, while refusing to cede the nomination to another candidate. We know he could have pulled this off because in 2024 he did it for real. There's a ton of other things Democrats could also have done to seize defeat from the jaws of victory, a skill they have honed to perfection over the years.

Biden should never have run, but once he became the nominee in an open process I don't see how you replace him. The interesting thing to ponder is who would have gotten the nomination absent Biden. Kamala seems a decent bet; remember that the reason why she flamed out is because she attacked Biden in the first debate.

If Biden had bowed out in 2021 there would be plenty of time to preen up a new contender for 2024 to replace Harris, who by this time would probably be even less popular than Biden. We see this in how rapidly her support faded after the initial boost when replacing Biden in 2024.

But again, Democrats wouldn't do this because it requires long-term planning and subterfuge. They are playing tic-tac-toe when they should be playing chess.

 

[Brainster]

That's the thing. Democrats weren't going to throw the election when they were very likely to win. But they should have.

So lose in 2020. Got it.

Biden could have faked significant physical and mental decline, while refusing to cede the nomination to another candidate. We know he could have pulled this off because in 2024 he did it for real. There's a ton of other things Democrats could also have done to seize defeat from the jaws of victory, a skill they have honed to perfection over the years.

So lose in 2020, got it.

If Biden had bowed out in 2021 there would be plenty of time to preen up a new contender for 2024 to replace Harris, who by this time would probably be even less popular than Biden. We see this in how rapidly her support faded after the initial boost when replacing Biden in 2024.

What? Are you suggesting that Biden win in 2020, then drop out in favor of his VP? Keep in mind, Biden's people hated Kamala. She was a ticket-filler. Nobody on that team wanted her as vp let alone prez.

 

[Susheel]

The only thing Democrats did wrong was underestimate the stupidity of the American electorate.

 

[Susheel]

So lose in 2020. Got it.


So lose in 2020, got it.

What? Are you suggesting that Biden win in 2020, then drop out in favor of his VP? Keep in mind, Biden's people hated Kamala. She was a ticket-filler. Nobody on that team wanted her as vp let alone prez.

You seem to be projecting your own erstwhile Republican mindset here, rather than what the Dems actually think.

 

[ahhell]

no, that's what progressive have been saying should have been obvious to anyone who voted for Trump last time.
The Harris campaign failed because it tried to make Republicans stay home instead of working to make Democrats come out to vote.

Which is what's wrong with US politics. Nobody is trying to convince anyone that doesn't already agree with them.

 

[ahhell]

Calling blue-collar voters stupid might help Democrats get past these persistent accusations of elitism.

Hay, if you don't vote the way I want you too, you have to be stupid or evil! No other possiblities.

Which to be fair, the GOP does the same.

 

[Tero]

This thread is getting almost as long as that one about the American college student in Italy connected to the murder.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Which is what's wrong with US politics. Nobody is trying to convince anyone that doesn't already agree with them.

Incorrect.
What's wrong is that there are basically no channels Republican voters use to see content outside their bubble.
The other way is slightly more permeable, as many studies have shown.
When Fox lets progressives like Sanders on their show, it's usually a disaster as many viewers who were supposed to be appalled are instead converted.

 

[Susheel]

Calling blue-collar voters stupid might help Democrats get past these persistent accusations of elitism.

When did that happen? I think anyone, whether blue collar or not, spewing bigotry and racism in support of Trump can safely be called stupid. In fact they are quite oa few of them who are admitting they were so under the present circumstances.

 

[d4m10n]

When did that happen?

#4,873 among many other posts