Why Kamala Harris Lost the 2024 Election.

If you’re surprised by a Trump win, it suggests you have been living under a rock and in a bubble. The polls have been consistently close since Harris became the nominee—often within the margin of error, especially in the swing states. If this outcome surprised you, you need to read more sources of information and step outside whatever bubble you live in.

In the coming days, weeks, months, and even years, you’ll hear a variety of explanations for why Harris and the Democrats lost. But in my view, this election wasn’t decided in the final days of the campaign, when Harris became the nominee, or when Biden made his decision to run for reelection. The outcome was shaped by a few events, years ago: the massive stimulus packages passed by both the Trump and Biden administrations to combat the economic fallout of COVID-19; the war between Russia and Ukraine, which caused gas prices to surge almost overnight; the Federal Reserve’s delayed response to inflation; and the supply chain crises which together triggered the highest inflation in over 40 years. These factors, more than any political maneuvering or campaign messaging, decided the election. And some of our priors would have confirmed these results even before the election. In the past two years, we’ve seen a clear pattern emerge worldwide: politicians and political parties that held power during the COVID lockdowns and the inflation crisis have faced significant losses at the ballot box. This trend has been evident in many countries, and certainly going to happen to our neighbors in the north with Trudeau.

The American economy, by most measures, is performing well. Unemployment is very low, inflation is approaching our 2% target once again, the stock market is reaching all-time highs, nominal wage growth has exceeded inflation for over 18 months, and GDP growth has been robust. However, real wage growth has not outpaced inflation, leaving many people feeling the strain of rising prices. Additionally, with interest rates at a 20-year high, purchasing a home or a new car is out of the question for many folks. Ultimately, no economic indicator matters if people feel worse off and are facing increasing costs reflected in their bills or in the very least have the perception.

There were many comparisons between President Jimmy Carter and President Joe Biden early on in the election cycle, particularly regarding inflation and their significant unpopularity during their respective presidencies. However, these comparisons diminished once Biden stepped back and Vice President Kamala Harris took the spotlight. President Carter’s Administration was plagued by stagflation, and then Ronald Reagan had a landslide victory over Carter in the 1980 election, and then in 1984, Reagan defeated Carter’s Vice President Walter Mondale in an even greater landslide. This latter comparison seems particularly relevant; given that both were Vice Presidents during administrations that faced significant inflation, which American voters ultimately ended up punishing. These Historical trends suggest that voters tend to punish the incumbent party in such economic climates, an insight that should have been considered in the context of today’s election and inflation.

The 2024 election represents President Trump’s most decisive victory to date. It can be argued that the 2016 election results were somewhat of a fluke. Had Hillary Clinton run a more effective campaign—free from hubris and had a greater focus on the crucial Blue Wall states—the results might have been different. And most importantly, had there been no Comey’s letter in late October, my guess is that swung the entire election, allowing Clinton to become the 45th President.

This year, was not that, we witnessed significant demographic shifts, with Trump making notable improvements across all groups. Signs of Latino voters shifting towards the right had been emerging in the last few elections, and that shift became evident early on during election night as results from Florida and Texas came in. This election was a total repudiation of the Democratic party and allowed Trump to win the popular vote for the first time in two decades for a Republican president. Working-class voters are continuing to realign with Trump as they have done since 2016, especially even more as they feel the worst of inflation. Large Urban States like IL and NY had their best showing for GOP at the Presidential level in decades, more evidence that voters are very unhappy with the Democratic party and their governance.

Democrats fared quite well overall, particularly in down-ballot races. They were defending several Senate seats in Solid Republican and Swing states, including Arizona, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and West Virginia. Democrats successfully won in Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin, and they are currently favored in Arizona, despite voters splitting their tickets and supporting Trump at the presidential level. Montana, Ohio, and West Virginia are very Republican states, so these results should not be surprising, even if Tester and Brown were serial overperformers throughout their career. The loss in the Pennsylvania Senate is the only truly devastating loss for Democrats. It appears that control of the House will likely remain with the GOP once all the votes are counted. Moderate House candidates outperformed Harris across the board, and many managed to hold onto seats that were considered vulnerable, while Trump performed strongly at the top of the ticket.

One of the reasons, it was close as it was because Trump remains largely unpopular even if people voted for him. I imagine if someone like Nikki Haley were on the ballot on Tuesday, it would have been a blood bath and Democrats would not have won all of these Senate seats. Are these realignments permanent or merely a reaction to current economic conditions? While the answer will remain unclear for some time, it is evident that demographics are not destiny, as some once believed in the Democratic Party.

Race and Ethnicity

Image 1 of 3

Could Harris Have Won?

I think Harris overall ran a great campaign even if they didn’t win, but that is not to say it was not without its flaws.

The announcement of her Presidential run, initially, led to a surge in her approval ratings even becoming net positive at some point in the campaign. Before running, her approval rating was not far off from Biden’s which means in the toilet. She had high name recognition for being the Vice President, most were unfamiliar with her policies, and most Americans knew very little about her previous campaigns. The campaign struggled at the beginning of the campaign and into the middle to define its core messaging and policy. Additionally, they adopted a questionable media strategy by avoiding interviews, which left the media frustrated and in a tizzy. Meanwhile, Trump criticized her for these missteps. This proved to be a major failure of the campaign, as, despite having more clearly outlined and detailed policies than Trump, the negative framing resonated with voters and stuck because they failed to answer questions and adequately answer them.

The Harris Campaign’s messaging worked, particularly well in swing states that experienced smaller shifts to the right compared to many other areas across the country. This suggests that the campaign’s messaging and advertisements were effectively resonating with voters. However, it is challenging to distance yourself from the sitting President’s unpopularity when you are his sitting Vice President and have been by his side through the best and worst of it. It is hard to criticize the President when many American Voters think you are directly involved in the decision-making process (whether or not the Vice President was involved is another matter). Moreover, it becomes even harder to create distance when, during interviews, you provide answers saying that you would do nothing differently than President Biden. While you attempt to distance yourself too much, it can come across as disrespectful and may alienate the President’s some of his fervent supporters.

I genuinely believe that an open primary process would have led to more chaos than constructive results. Joe Biden famously says there’s a battle for the soul of the nation, the real conflict is within the Democratic Party itself amongst the different wings of the party, and that division has yet to be settled. The Democratic Party shifted left after Donald Trump’s election and Bernie Sanders’ [un]successful primary campaign, which drove nearly all candidates in the 2020 Democratic Primary to adopt more progressive stances, leaving Biden as the moderate candidate. Biden moved to the left during the 2020 General Election and then governed as a Liberal. Despite his policies, he has faced widespread unpopularity amongst Conservatives, Progressives, and Moderates. Despite all of his Liberal policies, Progressives still fail to acknowledge him as one of the most liberal presidents in U.S. history. I suspect that these conversations would have only reopened these old wounds. It’s possible that a quick and effective primary could have been smooth enough to avoid alienating moderates or progressives, yet I remain skeptical. While there’s a chance that a better candidate could emerge, how many Presidential hopefuls truly wanted to risk their candidacy on the headwinds and fundamentals of the election?

The argument that Harris should have run a more left-leaning or progressive campaign is fundamentally flawed. The notion that moving left would attract more young voters and engage the working class has repeatedly proven to be untrue. In fact, progressive candidates often underperform. For example, Sen. Sanders’ re-election this year; he underperformed compared to Harris, while most other Democrats ran ahead of her. In what tangible ways did Harris moderate her positions? She took a sensible approach by moving to the right on border issues, which most people would agree with. She also stated she wasn’t opposed to fracking and largely refrained from taking clear stances on various progressive causes, trying to maintain ambiguity about her positions. The Israel-Palestine issue continued to be a significant divide within the progressive wing of the party, she maintained her stance, emphasizing “Israel’s right to defend itself” while also advocating for “dignity” and “security” for Palestinians. Additionally, she campaigned with former Rep. Liz Cheney and received an endorsement from VP Dick Cheney, which, in hindsight, may have been a misstep given Cheney’s past unpopularity and probably even more so today. While her strategy aimed to appeal to more independents and Republicans, it likely failed to achieve that goal. Ultimately, it was still probably a better approach than shifting left and alienating independent and moderate voters. But in my opinion, she did not moderate in any meaningful way, besides maybe fracking?

And finally, Harris did not lose because she was a woman. Numerous women in politics have demonstrated strong electoral performances; for example, Senator Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota achieved a significant victory this year, winning the state with a margin of +15 points against Royce White, while Harris carried Minnesota by a narrower margin of +4 points. This highlights that various factors contribute to electoral results, and the Democratic Party should avoid simplifying these outcomes to gender alone. All of these things might have contributed to her loss, but they are not the penultimate reasons why she lost.

What Happens Next?

The Democratic party has to rediscover who it is once again, the blame game is certainly going around already for its failure to deliver this election. It has leaned into being the party of the elites in the last decade while Trump’s almost total transformation party has left them as more of the anti-establishment, anti-elite party which was a very different case, not all that long ago. That change makes sense, given that Democrats have appealed to and gained more and more with College-educated voters since 2016. But directing your message at them does not help you rewin the working-class voters in your coalition that you have lost. It does not help when Democrats, for the most part, have moved Left on a handful of social issues while a lot of the country has not.

I am hoping as these conversations start, that Democratic voters will lean into moderation across several social and economic issues, embrace policies that promote economic growth, meritocracy in social policy, and finally enough with cancel culture and the constant policing of speech. Moving away from these classically liberal ideas has made it the enemy of working people and turned into a party of elites that constantly tells you what you cannot say or do those things. How about building more Housing to make it affordable, and pushing for zoning reform at the local and state levels, which would reduce costs in a big way in this country. Democrats just as a whole need to be more reasonable in their policies, enough of the absolutism bullshit the party has come to know and that Progressives have tried to push over the last few election cycles.

Looking into the future, Democrats will all but certainly have a good showing in 2026 if the new Trump Administration is anything like the first one, and its college-educated voters are for sure to turn out, while Trump’s low-propensity voters will not. Then eyes onto 2028 Primary which will likely be large, chaotic, and once again very competitive. I like Pete Buttigieg, he’s young, a great communicator, and is a mainstay liberal-moderate.

Thanks for Reading

If you made it this far into my ramblings, kudos to you for listening. As I tell people sometimes, Election Day is my Superbowl, and I love everything about them (except the constant text messages, and campaign advertisements, oh and how everything seemingly goes crazy and conspiratorial during election season). If you ever want to talk about politics hit me up, nothing that I would love more.