One week on from Trump’s win over Kamala Harris, the dust begins to settle around the American election and explanations are becoming clearer. With a loss this embarrassing, there are thankfully plenty of reasons to go around. Most obviously rising to the top is that the Democratic party gave working people no reason to believe they will ever change their material conditions, but also that they actively act against and do not respect those people they are supposed to represent. They also cannot be trusted to do so in the future.
Starting with the old truism in American elections, the economy played an important role. Many voters from important swing states stated this as an important reason for their dissatisfaction with the Biden administration. And Harris was unable to distance herself from this record. How could she? Undemocratically hoisted to the top of the ticket once Biden’s decline became too obvious for his aides to conceal any longer, she was obviously the establishment pick. This was exacerbated by her extreme un-likability as a candidate. At the start of her term as vice president, her likability ratings were below 10%. Back then, the administration limited her public appearances to the point where people were wondering where she had gone. This was also evidenced by her uncharismatic public appearances. In an appearance on “The View”, she was unable to think of any way she would deviate from any Biden administration policy. This was grist to Trump’s mill, and his campaign plagued swing state voters with this clip. This article does not suggest that a Trump administration has any answers to inflation, but his campaign did understand the power of these genuine grievances.
This is the most obvious distinction between Biden’s 2020 campaign and Harris’s. The Biden campaign recognised the impact that populist economic messaging got from the popularity of Bernie Sanders. Sanders’ messages were clearly seen in the Biden campaign. This time around, there was not even an opportunity for these messages to penetrate the party. There was neither a competitive primary nor an open convention. This was substituted by an orchestrated propaganda event for wealthy donors who sought stability. Even Tim Walz, who gave hints at a more populist messaging when he first arrived, was soon relegated to the sidelines. Harris went back to the 2016 tack of trying not to alienate mythical moderate Republicans by highlighting endorsements from similarly unpopular vice presidents, their offspring, and celebrities. As Jonathan Pie pointed out, unless Leonardo DiCaprio has a movie to promote, no one really cares what he has to say.
This strategy has failed twice now. Instead of bringing new voters into this coalition, it serves to alienate those who are supposed to be part of it. The biggest cause of this defeat was not a Trump victory because he lost 1 million votes from 2020, rather it was a Harris loss, where she lost over 10 million votes from Biden in 2020. This resembles the recent UK election, where Starmer’s Labour won a comprehensive majority with fewer votes than they got under Corbyn. They just weren’t as unpopular as their opponents. Hardly a thrilling victory for democracy.
This apathy was most obvious when asking voters about the pummelling of Gaza using US-made weapons and US taxpayer money. Then voters expressed disbelief that money could be spared for international wars in Gaza and Ukraine, but not to fully fund FEMA through the hurricane season. A YouGov poll found that a weapons embargo was more popular than unpopular in both Pennsylvania and Arizona. The later hearty congratulations offered to Trump by Netanyahu makes you wonder what political benefit Harris thought this genocidal policy would grant them.
It was, in one way, promising to see US imperial policy finally getting attention at the ballot box. Because many voters from the Blue Wall justifiably reasoned that they cannot express support for a president currently funding genocide and with no likelihood of stopping this policy. These voters had already made this clear before, as over 100,000 voted ‘uncommitted’ in the Michigan Democratic primary instead of voting for Joe Biden. That in a state that Biden had won in the Presidential election by only 150,000 votes against Trump. The reaction to this apathy by the Democrats was truly appalling. There was no place for Palestinian-Americans at the DNC, those protesting genocide at Harris’s rallies were shouted down. Her notorious put-down – “I’m speaking” – was ceremoniously turned into merch. Then voters in these states were lectured at by former war criminals or their relatives Bill Clinton and Liz Cheney. In the south end of Dearborn, Michigan, an area which is over 90% Muslim, and which voted for Biden by 88% in 2020, Trump won with just over 40% of the vote.
As if this record was not horrible enough, the reaction to this loss should be enough of a reason for working-class voters to vacate the Democratic Party. Those not voting for Harris were classed as sexist by some commentators. This take does not hold up, unless we assume these people took a break from their sexism to vote Democrat in 2020, and also voted Democrat in this cycle’s Senate and House races. As well as also supporting abortion ballot measures, but without casting a vote for Harris. Voters have also been labelled as racist and young men have also taken a share of the blame.
Professional spin doctors claim the progressive era is over, and that the Democrats need to go more conservative. I would like to know when this progressive era began. What do these spin doctors think a progressive agenda looks like? How much more conservative could the campaign get? The Democrats had already adopted the same border policy as Republicans and promised to put some of them in their cabinet.
The Democratic Party serves the interests of the wealthy. They prompted the decision to force Biden to step aside and the influence of wealthy donors was seen in the days and weeks leading up to election day. While these wealthy elites benefit from the fiscal austerity of a Republican government, they operate in social circles that would make that position untenable. The Harris campaign raised and spent over $1 billion on this campaign, with the biggest SuperPAC raising over $700 million. Where did all this money go? They were so desperate to spend some of this money they were even sending shocking text messages on election day. In reality, most of this money will flow back to consultants, with one of these companies earning $48 million over the past two years supporting Democratic PACs.
These people do not have working people’s interests at heart, and it is long time that Americans search for and create a socialist alternative.
