At the same time, citizens expect their government to understand and resolve issues at a micro level. Too large of a government might be a bureaucracy they feel needs to be dismantled and rebuilt to serve their community.
A sustainable political party should understand and embrace both views.
We are only 12 days out from the 2024 election results, results which seemed to shock millions of people. Going into the voting booth, we were told that the polls had the seven battleground states "too close to call," and both major parties had their strategies for navigating to 280 electoral votes.
So what happened, and where do our political parties go from here?
A Landslide Victory Was Likely
Let's be clear about this. The statistics of the polls pointed to one outcome that was more likely than any other. As reported in Newsweek, Nate Silver calculated a 34-40% chance of a landslide victory.[^ Silver's analysis gives Trump a 24.4 percent chance of winning all seven swing states in November, making it the most likely scenario to occur. Meanwhile, Harris has a 15.6 percent chance of winning all the battleground states. -Newsweek, 10/24/24][^ Vice President Kamala Harris' chances of winning seven key swing states and securing a landslide victory are 12.6 percent—nearly half the 21.4 percent likelihood of former President Donald Trump achieving the same result. -Newsweek, 11/04/24] The open question was which candidate would stand on top and which would be buried.
The Wrong Questions To Ask
What Did Democrats Do Wrong?
The list of where to point fingers is quite long...
- It was Biden’s fault
Yes. At the peak of his disapproval, Biden chose to run for re-election and the party backed him. - It was inflation, stupid
Yes. Worldwide, the party of incumbant candidates lost due to backlash from the inflation caused by the Covid pandemic recovery.[^ With a few notable exceptions, and to the extent that those elections were free and fair, the result has been largely the same: Virtually every party that was the incumbent at the time that inflation started to heat up around the world has lost. -Dayen, 11/06/24, American Prospect ] - Harris was an unusually weak candidate
Nonsense. - Trump was an unusually strong candidate
Absurd. - The Democratic Party went too far left
No. Down ballot Democrats did ok in swing states; not great but better than the top of the ticket.[^ Democrats’ swing-state Senate candidates did well — several of them won despite Harris losing their states — and that even amid the backlash in New York, Democrats flipped several House seats in New York. -Prokop, 11/11/24, Vox ] - Harris went too far right
Yes. I predict she lost more Democrats to the couch than she gained from Republicans who voted with Liz Cheney.[^ Conservatives backed Trump by bigger percentages than in 2020. And time spent with Cheney prevented Harris from reaching out to the voters she needed. -Nichols, 11/12/24, The Nation ] - Defending democracy was wrong
Yes. A valid and righteous cause, but Democrats already had that voting block. - Defending freedom and basic rights was wrong
Yes. See above. - Defending the middle class was wrong.
No. But Democrats lost that voting block for two reasons incorporated in one simple (tho incorrect) phrase: incumbants caused inflation. - Harris failed to be seen as the agent for change.
Yes. The public’s judgment of Biden's performance on two core issues—inflation and immigration—was harshly negative, and Harris inherited this disapproval.[^ Harris spurned opportunities to create a clearer political profile. Although Biden’s unpopularity burdened her campaign, she refused to separate herself from him in any way that broke through to persuadable voters. -Galston, 11/06/24, Brookings Institute ]
Was It About Racism and Misogyny?
No. A black man won a landslide victory in 2008 and was re-elected in 2012. A woman won a (popular vote) landslide victory in 2016. Though genuine issues, I don't think we can say Harris lost because of racism and misogyny.
What Changed In 2024?
With Democrats winning in 2008, 2012, 2016 (popular vote), and 2020, we need to examine what changed to cause a landslide loss in 2024.
Wait, do we?
Harris lost ground in most demographic breakdowns of those who voted. The Democratic party needs to look deeply into how and why the Republicans were able to create a winning multi-ethnic working-class coalition.[^ Trump won a personal victory in the 2024 election, sweeping all the swing states, improving his vote share just about everywhere. -Galston, 11/06/24, Brookings Institute ]
In a prior editorial article, I asked if the winning electorate lived in an alternate reality because I know a bit about virtual reality technology. If I can talk about VR and create projects to test and validate a hypothesis, I can use that to educate people about the scientific method. I may not change our political climate in the least, but that's not in our mission statement.
But some things do not change.
The Rock in the Room
162 million people did not vote for the incoming Republican administration. Once again, the largest electoral block was the 36.4% of people who chose "none of the above" by failing to participate in the political discourse of our Great American experiment.
The Republican party does not have a mandate except to legislate and govern our nation to improve economic positions for the working-class coalition they claim to represent.
The Democratic party can wait it out and flip 3% of the voting public after Republicans either fail to deliver on their actual mandate or after Republicans overreach on their larger agenda and cause harm to their electoral base and the nation.
OR... a political party could initiate a small bit of actual scientific inquiry into the thoughts of the 89 million people who rejected both major parties. If this were to happen, step one would be to notice the rock.
