Your Guide to the 2024 Election Fallout

Well, while I should’ve trusted my gut with my election prediction, I hit a damn bullseye with my post-election piece (linked here). I predicted that the mainstream media, democratic establishment, and the pundits would blame leftists/progressives, third-party voters, resort to racist tropes, and advocate for the Democratic party to shift even more to the right. I am disappointed to report that I was indeed correct.

Over the past few days, I’ve had conversations with a lot of people about the election. Despite a multitude of backgrounds, levels of education, socioeconomic status, and media diets, the consensus has been the same: Harris ran a bad campaign. While that idea is nothing new, there is a new sentiment among liberals that seems to be creeping in; people are being influenced by the mainstream coverage of why Kamala lost. Unfortunately, I have already seen people regurgitate concerning talking points about third-party voters, demographics where Kamala lost ground, and leftist/progressives. So, I’d like to address them in this article and perhaps provide you some counterpoints to use against your friends or family who have already drunk the Kool-Aid.

There’s Only so Much Lipstick You Can Put on A Pig

Even before Harris’ loss was confirmed, every Harris campaign strategist ducked for cover and scrambled to save their own ass. One wasn’t, and still isn’t, able to watch or read election coverage without seeing Democratic strategists and campaign consultants going on individual self-preservationist tirades. In other words, the internal blame game has already begun.

There has been an unholy reverse love triangle: Biden people blaming the Harris and Obama people, Harris people blaming the Biden and Obama people, Obama people blaming the Harris and Biden people, and the occasional strays directed at the Walz or Clinton people. Ironically, the realization has not yet hit these warring factions that perhaps, just maybe, they all suck.

Different factions from this unholy triangle have been anonymously shiving each other in the media. For instance, as a way-too-early April Fools prank, Biden folks wrote an article in the Atlantic claiming that Biden would’ve won the election (I wish I was joking). Additionally, all sides of this circular firing squad have been criticizing each other for how funds were allocated. However, though somewhat relevant, at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter how the funds were spent. No matter how much ground game, targeted ads in swing counties, or focus group tested messaging you have, if your platform sucks, you’re going to lose. There’s only so much lipstick you can put on a pig here. So, in reality, while funds were certainly squandered, where they were spent is irrelevant if you’re running a losing campaign.

The establishment shills and pundits seem to be blind to this reality. Instead, they shamelessly blame everyone else except themselves. If you turn on CNN or MSNBC, you can watch their lifeless faces spew bile about how the use of ‘Latinx’ (even though neither Kamala nor Biden have used that terminology since 2020) is why Kamala lost the Latino vote, and that it couldn’t have possibly been anything else. I seriously can’t tell whether these people are truly delusional or just so in the pocket of corporations that they’ll say whatever it takes to get their next check. They all operate under this solipsistic belief that the platform they helped build was perfect, and that there must be something or someone else who is at fault. They cannot possibly imagine that running a pseudo-Republican campaign will never work. Will the epiphany of their stupidity eventually dawn on them? It’s doubtful. But regardless, I’m here to set the record straight.

Should We Blame Third Party Voters?

One of the more prevalent and ridiculous claims I’ve seen is that third-party voters are to blame. In what is now a post-election tradition for Liberals, they have begun their incessant quest to blame the third-party voters. I am going to say this very simply and clearly: the margins are not there. Even if all the third-party voters in the swing states voted for Harris, she still would’ve lost. You can berate third-party voters all you want, and you may not agree with them, but to blame them would be a waste of time.

I’m actually going to take it a step further here; I empathize with, and totally understand the third-party vote in this election. You may be wondering where the hell I’m going with this, but stick with me here. You can’t expect people, when their principal concern is stopping the genocide in Gaza, to stifle that desire and vote for Harris. I saw an incredibly interesting interview with a leader in the Muslim community in Michigan who said that she will be voting for Trump. She claimed that if she votes for him, there’s a 99% chance of the genocide continuing, but if she votes for Harris, there’s a 100% chance. You can’t help but empathize with that decision, because it’s fair.

If you’re looking for someone to blame, blame the Democrats. You can’t fault the voters for not wanting to vote for an unlikeable platform and a poor candidate. They sacrificed the base so that they could go after country club Republicans who were aways going to vote red. The consultants and strategists illogically believed in some farcical Nixonian ‘silent majority’ that would rise from the ashes like some version of a phoenix made from white suburban women to bail out their crap campaign on election day. They were wrong. They thought abortion would be a panacea, and it ended up being only the third most important priority to voters. Though, when it comes to abortion, there were some single-issue voters, that fairytale of all the white suburban women singing the praises of Harris very clearly did not happen. However, rather than admit to being caught with their pants down, the Harris campaign pulled out ‘ol reliable’ and blamed third-party voters instead.

Centrism is Not The Answer

One of my least favorite takes I’ve seen is that Harris was not centrist enough, that she was not the ‘common sense’ candidate. This has proven to be a popular narrative amongst pundits, so let’s break it down. Media figures have been repeatedly shoving a chart down our throats that examines the political shift in the electorate from the 2020 election. They claim that all the red arrows mean that Kamala was too ‘woke’ and too ‘radical’. I will be blunt: if that is your takeaway from this map, then, for the sake of society, please check yourself into the nearest mental institution. Millions of democratic voters from 2020 sat this one out. The only thing this map represents is a consistent and overwhelming rejection of the incumbent. Of course there’s going to be red arrows everywhere; Biden’s approval rating is in the gutter, and Kamala did nothing to distance herself. Biden is very clearly hated by almost everyone. Offering four more years of Biden’s America to the voters is like returning a pair of shoes the store, and the clerk giving you the exact same pair in exchange. Who the hell is going to vote for that?

However, the liberals have abandoned all rational thought processes. They basically just want the Democrats to run as the diet-Republican party from here on out. For instance, they continually point to Trump’s ‘Kamala is for they/them’ ad as the ‘nail’ in Harris’ coffin, saying it was a ‘damning’ ad for the Harris campaign. Don’t listen to that foolishness. Kamala did not lose because she wasn’t adequately transphobic. The average American views the transgender community as being at risk and discriminated against. Overall, the electorate doesn’t hate transgender people; they just don’t understand them. The only reason why that ad moved the needle at all was because one couldn’t watch anything on TV without seeing it at least 15 times. For God’s sake, the Trump campaign spent something like 80% of their ad money on that damn commercial. The real issue is the material conditions of the voters. Their vote has nothing to do with transgender people, it’s more that Americans are struggling. Trump just used transgender people as the vessel to convey his economic message. He did this because the Republican party has been trying to shoehorn transgender people into being a culture war issue for years. They started off screaming about bathrooms, but that didn’t work, so after some trial and error, they landed this current iteration of their new anti-transgender messaging. Overall, I can guarantee you that if Kamala ran a transphobic campaign, she would’ve just lost the election by an even greater margin.

As part of this internal push for centrism, the narratives around demographics have been nothing but misguided. I can guarantee you that Harris did not lose 25 points amongst Latino people because a bunch of Liberals said LatinX in 2020 or because of ‘machismo’. Additionally, Harris didn’t lose ground across young men of all backgrounds because she is a woman. Is there deep rooted misogyny in this country? Yes, of course there is. However, what drove this voting trend was the material conditions of the voters. Economic hardship transcends race and gender, but not class. The elitists in DC could not feel the weight of the past four years in their wallets, but across the country, working class families did. That is why Harris’ margins in urban areas were especially bad. Her shadow council of well-paid consultants, just like Clinton in 2016, assumed they had these demographics in the bag. However, the truth was the opposite, and Harris did nothing to address their primary concerns.

Another fun aspect of this trope is the Israel element. You occasionally will see an AIPAC plant on a news stations say that Harris lost because she was not pro-Israel enough. That is arguably the worst of all the aspects of this centrist stupidity. One of the reasons Harris lost is because she alienated significant portions of her base by being pro-genocide; she sidestepped the Palestine question at every single junction. The argument that she didn’t support Israel enough is just trying to frame the narrative and deflect blame. 55% of Republicans and 70% of independents support a de-escalation of violence and a permanent ceasefire in Gaza. The difference between Harris winning and losing was not whether or not she called for the arrest of college students for protesting a genocide.

The best part about this whole entire centrist argument is what their end goal is. It should come as no surprise, that when compile the takes of all the pundits on national television (who are all former Republicans, mind you), what they wanted was a right-wing Harris campaign. They wanted a campaign that was even more pro-genocide, hated immigrants even more, and was extremely transphobic. At that point, stop beating around the bush, and just say that you wanted Harris to be a Bush. It is comical how unserious these so-called ‘analysts’ are. This all relates back to my overarching point from all the articles I’ve written: if you abide by the Republican framework, and try to outflank Republicans from the right, you will always lose. I am going to continue to bang the drum on this until my arms fall off because the further right Democrats go, the greater the margins of their defeats will be.

Not so Fast, Biden

Would Biden have done better? No. However, say what you want about Biden’s campaign, but it had a couple of redeeming qualities. His campaign had some populist economic aspects, was very pro-union, and was anti-monopolies. Let’s not forget that Biden did actually have a few decent moments before he went all ‘Weekend at Bernie’s’ on us. However, somehow (ahem, corporate donors) the more popular platforms of Biden’s campaign were lost in the transition. Harris took Biden’s campaign, kept all the bad proposals, and ditched all the good ones. Once again, this is not to say that Biden would have performed better than Harris. Don’t get me wrong, Trump would’ve given Biden the belt in a generational beatdown reminiscent of the Reagan years. When Biden leaves office, he will go down as one of the most unpopular Presidents in history. Nevertheless, Harris’ platform was somehow worse than Biden’s.

Continuing, the belief that centrism is what will defeat Trump is deeply flawed. Biden’s ‘achievement’ in 2020 was far from admirable. A lot of people make the claim that ‘Biden did what no one else could; he beat Trump.’ In reality, any generic Democrat would have beaten Trump in 2020. Even if the Democratic party wheeled out our very own American version of Keir Starmer, we still would’ve won. In 2020, Trump was deeply unpopular. He still is now, but the only difference is that Biden and Harris embarked on a race to the bottom to see who can have lower approval ratings than Trump.

The Leftists Don’t Deserve Blame Either

There has been a considerable amount of media coverage blaming the left or progressives for the failure that was Harris’ campaign. The DNC’s ability to deflect blame onto everyone except themselves knows no bounds. Something that I think has been lost on the Democratic strategists is that there is a considerable amount of overlap in a large portion of the voters Trump has captured, and who Bernie appealed to in 2016. That is because Bernie, like Trump, recognized their suffering. Additionally, Democrats found success in 2022 by running on progressive platforms. However, that fact is often swept under the rug by the DNC. The Biden and Harris campaigns (with the influence of the DNC) were unwilling to admit their economy wasn’t working because they didn’t want to realize that their world view was wrong. You may not remember, but in the lead-up to the Democratic Convention, Harris originally ran a progressive campaign. She utilized the most popular proposals from the victories in 2022 to build genuine grassroots momentum. However, the DNC and their wealthy backers took Kamala’s campaign by the throat, and just like the Somali pirate in Captain Phillips, they said: “I am the captain now.” Everyone noticed that the Harris platform dramatically changed during the convention. Her shift from the progressive candidate to the establishment candidate killed all the enthusiasm in the base; it was like a butterfly who turned back into a caterpillar. She sacrificed a winning coalition to go after Republican voters who were never going to budge.

In its current iteration, the modern Democratic party will continue to lose. They will never win a meaningful majority by running a campaign based on lesser-evil voting. Regardless of party affiliation, Americans experience the same problems; the name of the game is convincing voters that you’re the one who can fix them. The Democratic party needs to meet voters where they are, not where they want them to be. Obama won in 2008 by claiming that we needed to stop spending money on foreign wars and start spending it at home. That sentiment is popular, and the Democrats made a full 180 degree turn. We are viewed as the war party now.

There is also a funny irony here. We gave the centrists the ball, and they fumbled it on the goal line. They did so by doing all the things that they claimed the leftists do. There is a prevailing stereotype that leftists and progressives are too busy making an ideological stand to get anything done, and yet, that is exactly what the establishment Democrats did. They could not get over the fact that voters don’t share their fetish for neocon policy and Joe Biden centrism. Rather than changing course, they could not admit that they were wrong. Over the past few years, while establishment Democrats died on the hill of their unpopular platform, the progressives have been the pragmatic ones. Additionally, there is another narrative that is pushed by the establishment: leftists are too busy fighting each other to be effective. Once again, that is exactly what the establishment did. In an effort to save his own skin and stifle competition, over the past four years, Biden gave VP Harris the worst possible assignments. Furthermore, even when it became clear that Biden must drop out in order for the party to have any semblance of a chance, Biden’s team told the media that Kamala was a worse option and had less of a shot at winning. Ironically, it was the establishment who did everything they claim disqualifies the progressives from being in power.

The Long-term Battle

The long-term battle will be fought on multiple fronts. First and foremost, if Democrats want to recapture the vote of young men, there needs to be more progressive voices in the spaces they occupy. All the most popular hobbies for young men are dominated by ‘manosphere’ content creators. Whether it’s sports, video games, politics, working out, podcasts, etc., all of them are dominated by these toxic creators. The Republican party recognized that, and took advantage of young and insecure men who are unsure of their place in the world. Due to an absence of popular progressive influencers in these fields, the conservatives have been allowed to define ‘masculinity’ in their own terms. Under their own manufactured definition, they claim that one cannot possibly call themself a man if they vote for Harris, and that messaging worked. The needle won’t move until this monopoly on what it means to be a man is challenged in these fields. However, the answer isn’t flooding the airwaves with a million annoying little liberals like Harry Sisson, but building organic sentiment in these online communities that promotes a healthier relationship between young men, their insecurities, and a more acceptable definition of masculinity.

Continuing, the battle for controlling the narrative behind Harris’ loss has just begun. This is an internal struggle that must be waged through 2026. all the way to 2028, and beyond. While you may be thinking that, based on how terrible Democrats are at rhetoric, this will be an easy task, don’t get too excited. Ironically, the only time the DNC is good at messaging is when they’re trying to deflect blame. Regardless, we cannot let the Democratic establishment pin the blame on anyone except themselves. If the current Democratic leadership apparatus, their strategists, and their consultants are successful in clinging to power, then expect to lose in 2028. Bernie Sanders is correct in his claim that “it should come as no great surprise that a Democratic party, which has abandoned the working-class people, would find that the working class has abandoned them.” In order to have success in four years, the Democratic party must be reorganized into one that more accurately reflects the base and the needs of the American people.

Over the next four years, Trump’s policies will fail. They will line the pockets of special interest groups, and will fail to improve the material conditions of the average American (See my article here as to why). For instance, Trump’s tariff plan is just a convoluted way of cutting taxes for the rich and making the poor pay for it. To explain this, imagine there is a T-shirt that costs $10 to make in China and ship to the US, and let’s say it’s sold here for $15. If there is a $5 tariff on that shirt, the seller will maintain their profit margin by raising the price to $20, putting the financial burden on the consumer. Trump will use this new tariff income as an excuse to further slash taxes for the 1% and corporations, thus making the poor pay for the 1%’s tax cuts.

The real question is, when his policies inevitably miss the mark, who will be blamed? (Again referring back to my article here) It is our responsibility to make sure that the blame falls on his administration rather than the marginalized communities that he uses as scapegoats. As his policies continue to fail, the violent rhetoric towards the scapegoats will intensify. If we are not there to counter message, we risk more violent attacks on these communities. However, at the end of the day, it’s on the American people individually to eventually see the light and reject MAGA politics (though, I wouldn’t hold my breath on that happening).

Final Thoughts

 It’s interesting, I am a bit of a history nerd (go figure), and I’ve always wondered how the people of the Weimar Republic could’ve voted for the Nazis. However, their material conditions were significantly worse than those of the average American, and like Trump, Hitler promised change. So, as I’ve watched our own illiberal populist strong man who promises to round up the enemy from within get elected, it seems that I’ve solved the mystery. The populace’s susceptibility to a demagogue, and how extreme said candidate is, is directly proportional to the prevailing material conditions in the nation. We see the same thing in Europe today, the ‘losers’ of globalization in eastern Europe are susceptible to strong men like Orban. For those of you who believe that I am being hyperbolic by comparing Trump to Hitler, I can see why that is confusing, so allow me to explain. The Democratic messaging of calling Trump ‘literally Hitler’ was a dud. If anything, it actually distracted people from his actual policies. I’ve found that when I talk to Trump supporters, they are often unaware of the specifics of Trump’s proposals, and say “he wouldn’t do that” or “I don’t think that’s actually going to happen.” Especially when it comes to project 2025, the normal Trump voters seem to believe it is a democratic misinformation campaign. However, I wouldn’t be so sure. His actual proposals are very real, and very concerning. Furthermore, conservative media personalities haven’t been able to help themselves when it comes to gloating about the imminent implemention of project 2025, and from the early confirmed and rumored appointments of this new Trump administration, it seems project 2025 will in fact be implemented. While I hope I’m wrong, I don’t think I will be. But in two years, the American people will have an opportunity to hold Trump accountable. However, that only happens if the DNC is gutted and overhauled, progressive campaigns that address the concerns of the voters are run, and Trump (rather than a scapegoat) is blamed for the consequences of his actions.