I figured this was as good a time as any to come clean about reasons Democrats are fretting the 2024 election results despite some quite positive signs for Kamala Harris, so I wrote them up at New York:
One of the most enduring of recent political trends is a sharp partisan divergence in confidence about each party’s electoral future. Democrats are forever “fretting” or even “bed-wetting;” they are in “disarray” and pointing fingers at each other over disasters yet to come. Republicans, reflecting the incessant bravado of their three-time presidential nominee, tend to project total, overwhelming victory in every election, future and sometimes even past. When you say, as Donald Trump often does, that “the only way we lose is if they cheat,” you are expressing the belief that you never ever actually lose.
The contrast between the fretting donkey and the trumpeting elephant is sometimes interpreted as a matter of character. Dating back to the early days of the progressive blogosphere, many activists have claimed that Democrats (particularly centrists) simply lack “spine,” or the remorseless willingness put aside doubts or any other compunctions in order to fight for victory in contests large and small. In this Nietzschean view of politics, as determined by sheer will-to-power (rather than the quality of ideas or the impact of real-world conditions), Democrats are forever bringing a knife to a gun fight or a gun to a nuclear war.
Those of us who are offended by this anti-intellectual view of political competition, much less its implicit suggestion that Democrats become as vicious and demagogic as the opposition often is, have an obligation to offer an alternative explanation for this asymmetric warfare of partisan self-confidence. I won’t offer a general theory dating back to past elections, but in 2024, the most important reasons for inordinate Democratic fear are past painful experience and a disproportionate understanding of the stakes of this election.
It’s very safe to say very few Democrats expected Hillary Clinton to lose to Donald Trump in 2016, or that Joe Biden would come so close to losing to Donald Trump in 2020. No lead in the polls looks safe because in previous elections involving Trump, they weren’t.
To be clear, the national polls weren’t far off in 2016; the problem was that sparse public polling of key states didn’t alert Democrats to the possibility Trump might pull an Electoral College inside straight by winning three states that hadn’t gone Republican in many years (since 1984 in Wisconsin, and since 1988 in Michigan and Pennsylvania). 2020 was just a bad year for pollsters. In both cases, it was Trump who benefitted from polling errors. So of course Democrats don’t view any polling lead as safe. Yes, the pollsters claim they’ve compensated for the problems that affect their accuracy in 2016 and 2020, and it’s even possible they over-compensated, meaning that Harris could do better than expected. But the painful memories remain fresh.
If you believe the maximum Trump ‘24 message about Kamala Harris’s intentions as president, it’s a scary prospect: she’s a Marxist (or Communist) who wants to replace white American citizens with the scum of the earth, which her administration is eagerly inviting across open borders with government benefits to illegally vote Democratic. It’s true that polls show a hard kernel — perhaps close to half — of self-identified Republicans believe some version of the Great Replacement Theory that has migrated from the right-wing fringes to the heart of the Trump campaign’s messaging, and that’s terrifying since there’s no evidence whatsoever for it. But best we can tell, the Trump voting base is a more-or-less equally divided coalition of people who actually believe some if not all of what their candidate says about the consequences of defeat, and people who just think Trump offers better economic and tougher immigration policies. While the election may be an existential crisis for Trump himself, since his own personal liberty could depend on the outcome, there’s not much evidence that all-or-nothing attitude is shared beyond the MAGA core of his coalition.
By contrast, Democrats don’t have to exercise a lurid sense of imagination to feel fear about Trump 2.0. They have Trump 1.0 as a precedent, with the added consideration that the disorganization and poor planning that curbed many of the 45th president’s authoritarian tendencies will almost certainly be reduced in 2025. Then there’s the escalation in his extremist rhetoric. In 2016 he promised a Muslim travel ban and a southern border wall. Now he’s talking about mass deportation program for undocumented immigrants and overt ideological vetting of legal immigrants. In 2016 he inveighed against the “deep state” and accused Democrats of actively working against the interests of the country. Now he’s pledging to carry out a virtual suspension of civil service protections and promising to unleash the machinery of law enforcement on his political enemies, including the press. As the furor over Project 2025 suggests, there’s a general sense that the scarier elements in Trump’s circle of advisors are planning to hit the ground running with radical changes in policies and personnel that can’t be reversed.
An important psychological factor feeding Democratic fears of a close election is the unavoidable fact that Trump has virtually promised to repeat or even surpass his 2020 effort to overturn the results if he loses. So anything other than a landslide victory for Harris will be fragile and potentially reversible. This is a deeply demoralizing prospect. It’s one thing to keep people focused on maximum engagement with politics through November 5. It’s another thing altogether to plan for a long frantic slog that won’t be completed until January 20.
Trump has been working hard to perfect the flaws in his 2020 post-election campaign that led to the failed January 6 insurrection, devoting a lot of resources to pre-election litigation and the compilation of post-election fraud allegations.
Though if you look hard you can find scattered examples of Democrats talking about denying a victorious Trump re-inauguration on January 20, none of that chatter is coming from the Democratic Party, the Harris-Walz campaign, or a critical mass of the many, many players who would be necessary to challenge an election defeat. Election denial in 2024 is strictly a Republican show.
As my colleague Jonathan Chait recently explained, the odds of Republicans winning control of the Senate in November are extremely high. That means that barring a political miracle, a President Harris would be constrained both legislatively and administratively, in terms of the vast number of executive-branch and judicial appointments the Senate has the power to confirm, reject, or simply ignore.
If Trump wins, however, he will have a better-than-even chance at a governing trifecta. This would not only open up the floodgates for extremist appointments aimed at remaking the federal government and adding to the Trumpification of the judiciary, but would unlock the budget reconciliation process whereby the trifecta party can make massive policy changes on up-or-down party-line votes without having to worry about a Senate filibuster.
Overall, Democrats have more reason to fear this election, and putting on some fake bravado and braying like MAGA folk won’t change the underlying reasons for that fear. The only thing that can is a second Trump defeat which sticks.
THE BOOK “THE COLDEST WINTER EVER” WAS HOT, I’M NOT GONE HATE…BUT AFTER READING THE BOOK ONLY TWICE, A FUNNY VIBE SPARKED A LOT OF QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER SISTA SOULJAH HERSELF DIDN’T KNOW WINTER SANTIAGA (CHARACTER IN THE BOOK) OR EVEN IF SHE EVER EXSIST OR NOT SOUNDS CHILDISH… HAVE TO KNOW WHAT YALL THINK.
Please don’t use the phrase “national security street cred” again. Ever.
Thank you.
Great blog, by the way.
Let’s not get hung up on names. I don’t think the Democrats should focus on independents, moderates, liberals or conservatives. They should focus on the average guy who is not rich and not benefiting from Bush’s tax cuts.
John Edwards has it right. There are 2 Americas: the rich and the rest of us. Bush serves the rich. Kerry will serve the rest of us.
The biggest problem for Kerry and the Democrats is the negative advertisements sure to be thrown at us. Every slur, every lie must be answered. And I think we should do this respectfully. The Democrats should not get into the gutter with the Republicans. Such a strategy will eventually show the population the BIG difference between the 2 parties.
attack: massachsetts liberal.
response: when that viet cong who wounded me caught me in his sites he didn’t say “i’ll let this one go becasue he is from massachusetts and a liberal.”
Our enemies don’t make these distinctions and neither should we.
Additionally about the Massachusetts Liberal label, the early history of Massachusetts is U.S. history. John Addams wrote the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. which in turn was used as a pattern for the Constitution of the U.S.
Further to Mark Alan’s excellent defense of the Massachusetts Liberal label , how about this:
“I’m proud to be from the bithplace of such great Americans as Paul Revere, John F. Kennedy, and George Herbert Walker Bush. ”
Paul C, I’m not sure what it says about our society but I think your observations about the guy who would “get the girl” winning our recent presidential elections are on the mark.
Bruce Reed has what I think is a funny and perceptive (albeit self-serving) piece on “wonks and hacks” in the current issue of The Washington Monthly magazine.
Paul C, I’m not sure what it says about our society but I think your observations about the guy who would “get the girl” winning our recent presidential elections are on the mark.
Bruce Reed has what I think is a funny and perceptive piece on “wonks and hacks” in the current issue of The Washington Monthly magazine.
I have been thinking about something similar to what Bob H just said. If you look at the presidential elections of the past 40 or so years, the guy with the most “sex appeal” has won almost every one. Not necessarily the most macho, but the most vital. Look at the match-ups and decide who would play the leading man and “get the girl” at the end of the movie. Reagan or Carter? Reagan or Mondale??? It is almost unbelievable that GHW Bush could find someone with less sex appeal, but he did, in Mike Dukakis. Clinton/Bush and Clinton/Dole were no contest. Al Gore almost pulled it out with “the kiss,” but then he reverted to his wonky form.
Kerry can easily top Bush, if he keeps up certain themes and practices. His war hero record and “I know something about aircraft carriers for real” is a great start. His distainful talk about W as the pretend Marlboro Man helps also. Drip by drip, the portrait of W as the effite son of a priviledged family really helps. Kerry may be rich also, but he served in the war rather than getting Daddy to get him into the guard (forget whether he actually served, all of us who lived through that era know what the deal was with the Guard at that time). Kerry may have gone to an elite prep school, but he played hockey there, while W was a cheerleader. The Harley may have been over-contrived, but the idea is right. Theresa can be a great help, if she continues to gaze at John with pride and admiration, like Nancy Reagan used to do. Laura Bush, who may well be a nice lady, has never really connected with the public.
Vigor and vitality, along with judgment and trustworthyness, should be main themes. We can win with them.
Paul
I just sent in the first of what I hope will be many contributions to the cause. I would like to make a superficial observation:
Before they even open their mouths, Kerry and Edwards present an image of fighting vigor, physical attractiveness, youthfulness, and optimism. Compare the increasingly haggard and drawn president, the angioplastic VP. The Dem team looks the part. Such things are important-look at California!
$100 revolution? Try $100 status quo. Astoundingly, we small donors are not the Party’s mad money ATM machine, where they can rack up the cash while selling access to the big bucks.
You want the money? Start fixing the crooked system.
Link is to the intelletually honest William Saletan’s look at yesterday’s data on the independent and Republican vote:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096505
as a long time kerry supporter, I am very glad to see all of us coalesing around him, times will be rough b4 election day but we must stick together and get these clowns out of the white house. donated before and will donate money and time again.
I think many are seized by the same instinct–the first thing I did this morning was logon and give Kerry my hundred bucks. But I think the challenge should be higher–don’t simply give $100 but give whatever you can, whenever you can. I intend to make another contribution next month, and the month after, etc. so long as I have money to give. Just like paying the gas bill.
I’ve been having a lot of drinks with a lot of different democrats over the last few days, and I don’t know any who aren’t falling in with Kerry now that he is the nominee. Even the Kucinich voters are planning on turning out for Kerry. The only people I’ve spoken to who DON’T plan on voting for Kerry are the Republicans and the black-helicopter new-world-order people. And the latter probably aren’t as numerous in the population as they are in my drinking circles.
I was a Dean supporter who switched to Edwards in the last few weeks. I just donated to the Kerry campaign and will do all that I can to help him win (I also ordered two free bumper stickers from his website). I hope everyone else like me is doing the same.
> Does he need a Sista Souljah moment?
Doesn’t Nader’s candidacy already provide this?
Does he need a Sista Souljah moment? What should be the target?
He should try to neutralize the liberal tagging coming his way soon. Not sure how.
And yes, donate. (click on name.)
On your suggestion, I just donated to the Kerry campaign. Thanks.