Distinction

When referring to Democrats, I mean national Democrats. State Democrats have been performing relatively well and legislating even more effectively. In spite of the presidential failure of Kamala Harris, state Democrats held their own, maintaining power. Although issues exist within state Democratic parties, compared to national Democrats, they are not as concerning, nor as impactful to American life.

America Did Not Vote For A Rapist

One common theme that has emerged in a post-Trump victory is ‘How could America vote for a rapist?’ This theme is especially prominent among young women who are entering the realm of politics in a Trump presidency. This theme is very misleading to the characterization of what actually occurred this election. 

Kamala Harris (with reference to Joe Biden) lost voters compared to the last election (74 million to 81 million). Although COVID played a major role in fewer votes being cast, the difference is too large to be attributed solely to that. Especially when Donald Trump won 3 million more votes than he did in 2020. Information shows that this wasn’t just voters switching to Donald Trump, but voters actively not going out to vote for Harris. Various reasons contributed to this, which will be explained below. But if the election were to be summarized in one sentence it comes down to this: Kamala Harris lost her base, while Donald Trump held onto his.

It is also often forgotten that Donald Trump’s approval rating remains low. Contrary to popular “vibes” in the political sphere, Donald Trump’s current approval rating remains between 45-50% nationally, and it will more than likely decrease during his presidency, as is common for most presidents, and especially common for Trump. 

It is valid for women in this country to feel afraid under a Trump presidency. However, this mindset of ‘Americans voted for a rapist’ can have long-lasting effects on the psyche of women, particularly young women in this country. Most Americans still feel put off by Donald Trump. Hopefully that gives some semblance of comfort to young women in this country who may feel encircled and alienated in America. Donald Trump isn’t popular, Democrats and Kamala Harris simply were politically worse. 

Young Men Have Problems, Women Do Too

Another common point made by misguided liberals is that young men are the reason for Harris’s loss. Although not entirely incorrect, female voters turned out less for Harris than the past three Democratic candidates. Which may come as a shock to many liberals who drew this election’s boundaries on abortions rights and women’s bodily autonomy. 

I ask this: Putting abortion rights aside (which is no small feat), what did women stand to gain under a Harris administration? Kamala Harris did not promise any solutions for the oligarchic economy Americans live under, nor did she offer real solutions to the housing crisis (she promised to “cut the red tape” to build more homes, which essentially means giving private developers millions of dollars just to price out the homes, also should be noted it is the private sector to blame for the housing crisis in the first place). She said she would build more wall on the southern border, a stance overwhelmingly disapproved of by women. She did not promise any solutions to the exorbitant cost of healthcare, which disproportionately affects women. The list continues: on Israel, women support a ceasefire; on college debt forgiveness, which Harris abandoned, women bear the brunt; and on unions, which women highly approve of, Harris barely addressed. Essentially, this boils down to a simple point: abortion rights, amid all these issues, did not take precedence.

Liberals might say, ‘Well, Republicans would be worse!’ Although true, at least Republicans promised solutions. Economy: tariffs. Housing: deportation. Healthcare: deregulation. If one party runs on ‘the other side is worse’ and objectively unpopular policy priorities, and the other party runs on, (albeit terrible) solutions. Yes, the latter will win. 

No, Trans People Did Not Lose Democrats The Election 

Another point beginning to be pushed by liberals is that “they were too woke.” Although I am confused about where the “wokeness” was in Harris’s campaign, let’s address this narrative. 

In the hunt for a scapegoat, liberals are saying there’s been too much focus from Democrats on transgender rights, there is no evidence to support this claim. Rep. Tom Suozzi, a moderate Democrat from New York who won re-election, said “The Democrats have to stop pandering to the far left.” He continued by saying “I don’t want to discriminate against anybody, but I don’t think biological boys should be playing in girls’ sports, Democrats aren’t saying that, and they should be.”

I ask both you, the reader (and Rep. Tom Suozzi): who spoke at the Democratic National Convention? Former Republicans, Border Patrol Agents, and some of the most right-wing Democrats in office (two exceptions, Bernie Sanders and AOC). Or transgender people, Palestinians, and “radical” leftists”? I’ll let you research that for yourselves, but you can probably guess. I also ask what trans-focused policies did Kamala Harris promise?

Put straightforwardly: No, Democrats should not be following Rep. Suozzi’s advice. It’s a reaction based on fear that should be rejected by the party. Putting aside moral obligation, in a time where trans people are endangered, it’s also wrong as a political strategy. By doing this, Democrats would be trying to appeal to voters who would be no more incentivised to lend the Democratic Party support even if it abandons trans people.

Even with Republicans spending a historic $215 million on ads targeting trans people in Senate races, what was the Democratic Party’s response? Senator Sherrod Brown, who was running for re-election in Ohio, and Representative Colin Allred, who was trying to unseat Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, chose to accept that trans youth in sports is somehow wrong. Both saying they didn’t want trans girls playing in girls’ sports. Both lost. 

There is also no evidence that abandoning trans people would benefit the Democrats. Even with a majority of Americans believing that trans girls should not play in girls sports, data from Pew Research Center shows that roughly eight-in-ten Americans say transgender people face discrimination. A survey from Data for Progress showed a majority of voters are more likely to support candidates supportive of trans rights than one who opposes them (should be noted that Donald Trump was relatively pro-trans in 2016, won, Biden in 2020 also promised protections for trans Americans, won, Kamala Harris lost, with no mention of trans people in the campaign.) Those numbers are even more encouraging when seeing the margin includes 80% of Democrats and 46% of independent and or third-party voters. 

Kamala Harris Was Not Too Radical 

Following the notion that trans people were the reason for the historic loss. Liberals and analysts are also making the argument that Kamala Harris was “too radical”. Again I ask, on what? Regardless, let’s address it. Harris geared her entire campaign towards winning over Republicans, she failed, to put it bluntly. Harris won 5% of republicans, for comparison Joe Biden won 6% in 2020. That was with Kamala Harris moving right on every single major issue.  

• Kamala Harris supported building a border wall and signing into law a republican immigration bill. When questioned about the border bill she would pass, and the fact it gave 650 million dollars to construct a border wall, At CNN’s town hall she said “I’m not afraid of new ideas where they occur”. When followed up she essentially said, she’s in favor of it, just not how “he (Trump) did it.” 
• Ran on a “public-private sector” relationship platform, emphasizing the private sector aspect, which is a big turn-off for many Americans.
• Said she would appoint a Republican to her cabinet (don’t worry she’s happy, now the incoming cabinet is full of Republicans). 
• Abandoned medicare for all, although polls vary, a majority of Americans support some form. 
• Said she would not ban fracking, after previously saying she would (polling from Data for Progress, found that a strong majority of voters preferred Harris’ approach to climate policy, and wanted to see an administration that would hold oil and gas companies accountable). 
• She campaigned with republican Liz Chenny. A Democratic advisor who spoke out about the situation, can summarize this issue plainly. “People don’t want to be in a coalition with the devil.”

Lastly, It wasn’t just that she swung to the right; she also abandoned progressive policies, including some that Biden had pushed for, such as labor.

Palestine, Third Party, And Alienation 

If all other issues were to be put aside, and one issue alone was to define this election: it would be Gaza. Gaza was decisive this election, polls show that in every single swing state, if Kamala Harris leaned towards an arms embargo, her chances of winning the election would have significantly increased, to a point of potentially winning the election. Liberals have been criticizing third-party voters (add third party voters up, Harris still loses) and Arab voters who either didn’t vote, didn’t vote at the top of the ticket, or voted for Trump in protest. Although the last option out of those three is counter productive, I understand why they did so. Democrats seem to be missing the point. 

Putting aside the moral situation in Gaza, let’s be clear, these people did not “leave the party”, they were pushed out. If national Democrats started running on a pro-life platform, and women stopped voting for Democrats, that wouldn’t be considered leaving the party; those women would have been pushed out. If 80% of the base supports a woman’s right to a abortion, and the party goes against it, why blame the women? Now switch the statistic for the right to an abortion with an arms embargo and you see the bigger picture. And that’s just the base. The majority of U.S. citizens, 62% to be specific, say the U.S. government should not send weapons to Israel, but should send humanitarian aid to Gaza, according to a CBS poll in June. These voters were pushed out of the party, alienated from it. That’s Harris’ fault, not theirs.

Immigration

Immigration does not constitute a national security threat, period. But that’s not the purpose of this section. This section is dedicated to one of the most shocking shifts in the Harris campaign: the right wing shift on immigration. 

Harris (following Joe Biden’s lead), has shifted the entire democratic party’s immigration platform. The most famous example being her shift on the border wall. As stated above, Harris came out in support of a border wall, which demonstrates an abrupt shift away from the 2016 era of calling Republicans “Nazis” and racists for supporting such policies. A border wall is inefficient and doesn’t even work; Democrats should not abandon that principle.

Setting aside the moral arguments on immigration, Kamala Harris hemorrhaged her base by turning on the issue. And was likely a reason, alongside Palestine, that young voters didn’t turn out this election. Compared to older Americans, younger people are more supportive of increasing legal immigration and providing a pathway to citizenship for people here illegally. Once again highlighting that such dismal election results were not the voters’ fault, but Harris’s, who failed to promote what her base was advocating for.  

Black, and a Woman? Doesn’t Matter

Racism and sexism are also being blamed for Harris’ loss. While it would be naive to claim that racism and sexism played no role in the election, the way many liberals are framing this issue is arguably more disingenuous. Harris did not lose because she was a woman, or because she was Black. Had Kamala Harris run on a progressive platform, advocating for policies that the broader American public supports, she would have won. Attributing her loss purely to identity politics not only diminishes the real racism and misogyny occurring daily in America, but is also misleading as to the reasons for her loss.

For example, why did Rashida Tlaib, a Brown, progressive Palestinian woman, win in Dearborn, Michigan, where Harris lost? Were people racist and sexist to Harris, but not Tlaib? Consider Elissa Slotkin, who won Michigan’s 7th district, which Trump split. Or Tammy Baldwin and Jacky Rosen—despite the presidential results, these female Senate Democratic candidates won in states Harris lost. Where was the misogyny then? 

Using racism and misogyny as a blanket explanation for Kamala Harris’s historic loss is harmful to the recognition of real racism and misogyny occurring in America. Harris did not lose because she was a woman, nor because she was Black. She lost because she ran, in essence, as a right-wing Democrat, as a ‘diet Republican.’ Why vote for a ‘diet Republican’ when you can vote for the real thing?

Democratic Response

The Democratic Party’s response has been akin to a child throwing a tantrum. To clarify, this is not about the base (though there are certainly frustrating liberals among them); this is about the party itself. A majority of Democrats, along with a substantial number of Republicans, support a public healthcare option, an arms embargo, mass public transit, and higher taxes for billionaires and corporations. A majority of Americans aren’t Democrats; they’re progressives. Democrats are not only at odds with their base, but also with the entire country, as well as the working class.

The Future Of America

The future of America remains undetermined. And it won’t be determined by Republicans; it will be determined by Democrats. Will they abandon their fear of upsetting corporate donors for pragmatic reasons, to combat the growing fascism within the United States, and to embrace progressive policies for the working class? Or will they continue to capitulate on more and more issues; maybe gay marriage is immoral, maybe abortion is wrong, maybe women shouldn’t vote, maybe Black people are inferior, maybe unions should be banned, maybe climate change is fake, and so on. As we look to the future of America, I urge Democrats not to look too far back, lest they find themselves reflected in those they now despise.