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 latest Democracy Corps congressional poll also has only a 1% Dem lead.
Off track—
The new LA Times Poll has Democrats leading in the generic Congerssional poll 54-35, and leading among men 51-38. I don’t recall any national poll in the last 20 years which had any Democrat over 50%.
Today’s Rasmussen generic congressional poll is only 42-38, however. And reportedly the White House pollster, Matthew Dodd, is calling the networks in an attempt to spin the story and question the LA Times poll result.
The increase in Latino voters (Hispanic is virtually never used in the southwest) is why many people think Texas will again be a Democratic state within a few years.
It is why California has gone from a marginal Republican state to a strong Democratic state.
Carl,
The 2000 census showed that in the preceding 10 years the total number of Hispanics in Arizona nearly doubled, from 688,338 to 1,295,617, an increase of 607,279. White non-Hispanics were up only slightly more, from 2,626,185 to 3,274,258, an increase of 648,073. The result was that the total Arizona population in 2000 was 63.8% White non-Hispanic, 25.3% Hispanic, 4.5% Native American non-Hispanic, and 2.9% Black non-Hispanic. At that rate of growth since the April 1 ,2000 census date, it’s very likely that a plurality or a majority of new population in Arizona since 2000 is Hispanic.
In Nevada the figures are as follows: Hispanics increased from 124,419 to 393,970 (a 217% increase). White non-Hispanics were up from 946,357 to 1,303,001 (up 38%, probably the biggest increase in White non-Hispanics of any state in the Union in that decade–in most states it’s about 6 or 7 percent)). Total Nevada population in 2000 was 65.2% White non-Hispanic, 19.7% Hispanic, 6.6% Black non-Hispanic, 4.4% Asian. Again it seems likely that a plurality or majority of added population since April 1, 2000, is Hispanic.
In New Mexico, Hispanics were up from 579,224 to 765,386, a 32% increase. White non-Hispanics were up 6%. from 764,164 to 813,495. American Indians were up 26%, from 128,068 to 161,460. Total New Mexixco population in 2000 was 44.7% White non-Hispanic, 42.1% Hispanic, 8.9% American Indian, 1.7% Black non-Hispanic. We have almost certainly passed the point at which added Hispanic population exceeds added White non-Hispanic population since 2000 in New Mexico. There are very likely more Hispanics than white non-Hispanics in New Mexico today.
All of these figures are population, of course, not voters, eligible voters, or registered voters. But they certainly provide evidence of the scale of Hispanic migration to these three states.
According to the 2000 presidential exit polls, 10% of Arizona voters were Hispanic, and they broke 65-34 for Gore. In Nevada, Hispanics were 12%, and they went for Gore 64-33. And in New Mexico they were 32%, and broke 66-32 for Gore. White non-Hispanics in those states went for Bush 38-57 in Arizona, 40-55 in Nevada, and 37-58 in New Mexico.
Ruy,
Can you compare overall population growth in these states with the growth in these states’ hispanic population. Is one outstripping the other? Have new voters essentially been added to the Democratic tally?
Thanks
When thinking about Latino/Mexican American voters in the American Southwest, I think keeping an eye on history is especially instructive. The last time a Catholic U.S. Senator from Massachusetts ran for President, it is a little known fact that Mexican Americans made an incredible difference in that close election. The year was 1960 and the JFK-LBJ Democratic ticket won a squeaker partly on close margins of victory in Texas and New Mexico. TX and NM, along with IL, provided the electoral vote difference between JFK and Nixon that year. During that election Mexican Americans participated in electoral politics at a level not yet seen in this nation through “Viva Kennedy” clubs that, according to historian Ignacio Garcia, trained a whole generation of young activists and shaped Mexican American politics for a generation.
Though Democrats usually have an advantage against Republicans on national polls of Southwestern Latinos, the margin of difference seems much larger now than when a Reagan or Bush I in the 1980s could split large chunks of that vote. Though Bush II rode a significant Tejano following in 2000 and conceeded the Mexican Americans of other Southwestern states, I’m not sure even that is especially likely in this election. As Ruy’s analysis of the AZ, NM, NV numbers demonstrates, this is a fascinating election already! Apologies for the long message.
Now that’s what I call refreshingly straight to the point!!
Eldon
As a Hispanic/Latino voter (though not in the south) I can attest that Latinos are quite aware that Bush is a Fucking Liar.