So, now we're getting the full story on Harris's numbers. While public polling was showing her up in September, the polling error did show me that Harris likely couldn't have won. My model basically spat this out at me, and yeah, this is likely what the reality was based on what my model approximates:
Apparently on pod save america, the same podcast that leaked Biden's apocalyptic poll numbers, they said that yeah, Harris was behind by several points the whole time. I don't know what the internal poll numbers were like, but it seems clear that the narrative the dems are trying to spin with this is that it didn't matter what the dems did, they were going to lose. They're doing this to absolve themselves of any failures, so they can ram the same thing down our throats in 2028 (my own assessment of the situation).
I'm going to admit, I'm mixed on this narrative. Polling wise, yeah, I do think the democrats were screwed and it likely wouldn't have mattered what the democrats did, the fundamentals were just too anti incumbency this year. However, at the same time, I do think that the dems had a stinker of a strategy. They played this overly safe campaign with an artificial robotic economic message that didn't resonate. They were out of touch with what I think people wanted, and yeah, I'm gonna say it, they ran too hard to the center.
And I'm not going to argue that just within the context of 2024, but the big picture since 2016.
During the Obama years, it seemed like, despite poor economic performance, the rise of an unstoppable democratic coalition was inevitable. 2008 broke the GOP, and the dems had all of the energy, and they were starting to win people over, especially young people. I was an ex conservative who came over during the Obama era, and economic populism in 2012 was a big part of that. I realized trickle down doesnt work and we need a new way forward. I think the energy for change was electric between 2012 and 2016, and I was riding that wave. But then...the dems fumbled the ball, went hard center, and ended up trying to trade white working class voters like me for these stuffy suburbanite republicans while compensating by running up demographic margins with minority voters. And it failed.
In 2020, Biden kind of ran a triangulation campaign that was mildly successful, but keep in mind, he barely won, he underperformed too. It's just that 2020 was reverse 2024, the fundamentals were so anti incumbent that it didnt matter what the democrats did, they would've won. And they did so barely.
But because no one really liked that democratic brand, biden's poll numbers soured, and we found that once again, 2024 was a very anti incumbent year, this time going against democrats, and with the democrats' demographic strategy failing badly.
Basically, my assessment is in the grand scheme of things, the democrats do need to change. I mean, from the same people who are gonna tell you that this is election is a lost cause, "the numbers just don't work." I mean, it's not just year, this is their trajectory since 2016. And while that article mentions the moderate vote, keep in mind my own theory, there are TWO moderate demographics. The fiscally conservative and socially liberal type the dems wanna win, but also socially conservative, fiscially progressive types. Trump is courting the latter, and he's KILLING us. Keep in mind, this is what the demographics look like. Trump wins because he can go right on social issues and then at least play populist on economics. Clinton/Harris lose because the suburbanite demographic the dems are pursuing is clearly not big enough to score a victory.
The democratic coalition has been built since the 1990s on triangulation. Energizing the base, winning over moderates. I keep saying it, the tent is too big, it's not ideologically consistent, and it cant keep everyone happy. And IMO, what's holding us back? This obsession with winning over these bush/mccain/romney republicans who have, since 2016, voted for democrats. Even the republicans didnt want these guys. Why? because their politics are a loser for the general public. And we were winning in part because the GOP was stuck with them, their brand of politics was dying out, suddenly clinton said "LETS TRY TO WIN THESE PEOPLE OVER", so clinton fractured the obama coalition and now we're screwed. I'm not saying we have to become conservative, but socially moderate? Sure. Stop leaning into woke culture war BS and run on economic populism instead.
If we do that, we'll win elections a lot easier.
As long as we work within the current political reality the GOP defines for us, we're gonna lose. But that's the problem with the democrats. They're too fixated on moral purity on insular social causes and they tend to be fixated on winning over this mythical moderate voter. Maybe that's what the billionaire class wants, but that isn't what VOTERS want. And voters win elections. Campaign cash just helps people reach them. But if voters dont like what they're selling it doesn't matter. Which is how we get a situation where democrats are asking "how the everloving fudge did we spend a billion dollars and still lose?" Uh duh, because you can spend all the money in the world, but if people dont like your message, you're not gonna win. So yeah, I'm gonna say, the democrats need to change their entire strategy and do their own voter realignment if they want to win. And that means rebuilding the obama coalition from the ground up. It means expanding it into what a yang/sanders coalition would have looked like, and it means being fiscally progressive, but socially moderate. That's how you win.
Now, in all fairness, let's go back to the harris question this time. Was harris the best candidate for the job? Well...it seems like it. Polling is showing that Harris was down 2 points vs trump. That's about how we did. Harris lost the popular vote by 1.6, and the total results were off roughly 1.7 from expectations nationally. But it says in the above article that if Biden ran, he would've lost by 9, so 7 whole points worse than Harris. And given the actual margins, that would've meant losing Virginia, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Maine, New Mexico, and even New Jersey.
Basically, this minus colorado:
Yikes. I guess those apocalyptic red biden maps weren't so inaccurate after all.
At least we would theoretically keep NY and IL in this one...
As far as alternatives, they looked at Gretchen Whitmer and Josh Shapiro, and they would've been down 10 and 7 respectively. To be fair, I'm not sure how reliable that is, keep in mind, some of these numbers have to do with name recognition, and I was against replacing Biden because I thought HE was the best one for the job and harris would do worse, so keep that in mind. It's possible an alternative would've improved their poll numbers if name recognition went up.
But still, do I think any of these guys could've really done better than harris? probably not. Maybe on par at best. Why? Because 2024 was that fundamentally of an anti democratic party year for one, and for two, because i have a theory that you can replace the candidate but if it's the same crappy brand, it doesn't matter who you run. Say we did run someone else. They would maybe, if they were as charismatic as harris, reach harris's level of performance, but fail to seal the deal. Because the democrats are selling an unpopular political brand. Their brand sucks. I keep saying it, but it doesnt matter what color the can your diet coke comes in, if you hate diet coke. And the democrats are basically diet coke. Bland, watered down, aspertamey, old people like it, but younger people don't. Sure, it beats literally flint michigan water with it being all toxic and orange, but to be honest, people are just tired of being offered a choice between flint water and diet coke every 4 years. They want something different, something better. And the democrats dont understand that. Pelosi thinks if we had an open primary it would've helped, and maybe if we started from the get go, but lets face it, the dems functionally rig their primaries to ensure diet coke wins. I'm not saying that stuff ballot boxes, but they do use the party and media infrastructure to put their fingers on the scale in favor of the default option. So if you get something like regular coke or dr pepper, or fanta orange in there, it can't win. Because the dems wanna make sure diet coke wins. Again, it doesnt matter what your diet coke looks like, if it's diet coke, it's gonna have the same problems.
Because the democrats have a problem that runs deeper than candidates. it's a coalitional problem, a demographic problem, an ideology and policy position problem. It's that the brand of politics that they're selling is deeply unpopular, and that we need bigger change than these guys are willing to accept.
Until the dems change their entire brand, they're gonna keep losing like this, while only barely winning when the public gets tired of conservatives screwing everything up. That's what happens when you go with the loser strategy of triangulation and being the "moon party" for another generation of politics. So no, let's not throw up our hands and say it was the best you can do. I mean, yes, it kinda was, but also, it's not. It's the best we can do within the current political reality, but the democrats have had a coalitional issue since 2016, and it came around to bite us again. And it's gonna keep biting us until we fix it. And that means running more socially moderate and economically progressive candidates.
No comments:
Post a Comment