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.
When republicans lie and misrepresent us, all we can do is speak to each lie – that puts us on the defensive and talking about specific issues that do not carry the weight that “country first” and patriotism does.
I think we should attempt to redefine patriotism – it’s not just about fighting and dying for your country – it could mean making your country a better place for future americans. The man or woman who works two jobs to give their children more opportunities than they had is equally as heroic and patriotic as a kid who goes to war to fight for what he/she thinks their country believes in.
I think Obama should give a speech that addresses the footprint or the legacy of our country – A speech that harkens to America’s past as a benevolent world leader – an indicate that we could be that again – It’s not that we care about what the French think of us – we should care about what future generations of americans think about us – we want our children to know that we saw policies that were wrong and we stopped doing them.
So I’m thinking you play the Iraq card – most of the country believes that Iraq was a mistake – the architects of it can not own up to it – but that doesn’t mean we as a people can’t own up to it – Barack should spell out the mistake – point to that “mission accomplished” moment and say that it was the one thing Bush got right. We had indeed overthrown the evil Saddam – and we should have left – The republicans who continue to believe that the war in Iraq can still be won have somehow forgotten that their leader had already declared it over and won five years ago – They’ve kept calling an occupation a war because it’s good for business – That should be our theme – Everything the republicans do is “good for business.”
“…they passed this bill and gave out that contract because it was… good for business.” Repeat and rinse several times and then finish with… “in fact for the last 8 years they’ve been giving us… THE BUSINESS!
Point out that people were the ones that benefitted the least – and then jam “People first” down their republican throats.
People are no more perfectly rational in their political decisions than they are in their economic ones. Issues, character, narrative and emotion all play a role, in infinite combination of importance, making it all but impossible to know what truly motivates an individual voter in any given election. Last week, issues took a back seat to biography and curiosity. I agree with Ed that issues are still a key variable in voter decision-making this year. But issues are being strongly challenged by character and narrative. McCain’s greatest strength is his biography; Obama’s advantage is issues. Going after McCain and Palin’s character won’t be as effective as attacking them on issues. Obama just doesn’t have the “character brand strength” that McCain does; his experience lacks a convincing and seamless arc, and, unfortunately, many voters find him “different.” But he’s savvy, smart and dead-on aligned with voters on the main issues of this election. I believe that if Obama can, as Ed said, recapture the narrative, as well as continue his success in mastering the fundamentals of voter turnout, then Obama can win. I’m optimistic. My guess is that McCain and Palin have hit their apex; I just don’t see how they go up from here. It’s highly doubtful that Obama will self-destruct, and he still has a lot of upside potential.
Good point: “Unless we are incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, we can do what you want and what I want, and in fact, we should.” But who said the voting public can walk and chew gum at the same time? Driving through Pennsylvania last month, I saw this message spray painted on the back of an 18-wheeler: “Shut up and drill.” Or today, this bumper sticker was stuck on the back of a pickup in my town: “Liberals s**k.” Last night, I spoke with a labor organizer who called to urge me to vote for a Democratic candidate running in a primary for state office. He was knocking on doors for Kerry in NH in 2004 and met another union member who told him he would never vote for Kerry because of what he heard from the swiftboaters. In other words, this union member was going to vote against his own interests! I hope you’re right that American voters can walk and chew gum at the same time. Too bad so many people seem to want to “keep it simple and stupid.” I believe that most Americans want to “Bring on the passionate wonkery, the compelling talking points, the policy debates wrapped in narrative and the needs of ‘real people!'” At least, I hope they do.
I strongly disagree. The McCain bump happened because the GOP oonvention shifted the playing ground from issues to those vague substitutes for issues, the “maverick” pose.
We need to shift it back, and if we don’t, we’ll lose. As my post indicated, I believe it’s a false choice to suggest that we have to reject issue appeals in order to maintain what you call a “fighting image.” Fights can be over policy, you know. Unless we are incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, we can do what you want and what I want, and in fact, we should.
Ed Kilgore
“But voters do have concrete concerns that are connected to specific needs, for themselves and their country, and specific grievances about the performance of those in power today.”
They do. And they voted AGAINST their own said issues in 2004 to give Bush the White house again. Why?
BECAUSE IT IS ALL ABOUT THE FIGHTING IMAGE!
Bring on the policy wonkery? Bring out the initiatives and numbers? You forgot to add one thing to your list..bring out the loss!
Democrats, and out numbers, and figures, and ideas are not, not, NOT sexy enough to win elections against war heroes and beauty queens that lie and fight ugly. Policy will not work, because it has not worked. We went from 7 points up to for down..ine ONE WEEK. One week people! An eleven point drop in one week, why? Because the country dissaproves of Barack’s health plan? No! It is because of IMAGE…because of the MILF on the ticket.
As long as we continue to actually believe the voting public has enough energy or intelligence to make a decision based on numbers and policies, (despite all eveidence to the contrary…2004, the low approval rating of the Democratic Congress), we will continue to be beaten badly, as we are well on our way to being this year.