The fight for control of the Democratic Party between far-leftists and less extreme Democrats will be a central political story for the next four years. I discussed that impending struggle here.
The fight has already started. Some say the party needs to stop trying to be all things to all people and double down on leftism across-the-board. Others, to the contrary, say the party needs to moderate, in particular by ending its embrace of wokeism and identity politics.
Bernie Sanders seems to take a middle-ground position. He wants hardcore leftism on economic issues, but a lot less identity politics. Sanders complained that the “Democratic Party increasingly has become a party of identity politics, rather than understanding that the vast majority of people in this country are working class."
But before this struggle can begin in earnest, the party must fight the battle over which individuals are to blame for Harris’ defeat. This question is related to, but distinct from, the matter of what direction the party should take going forward.
On the face of things, if anyone is to be blamed the most logical person is the candidate herself. After all, she’s the one whom voters decisively rejected.
Oddly, though, the party big-wigs are reluctant to blame Harris. I’ve heard David Axelrod and others praise the candidate and her campaign as nearly flawless.
But maybe this isn’t so odd. Not only must the Democrats nominate a “woman of color,” that identity means they must pretend she was a good candidate who ran a good campaign.
Odd or not, Axelrod and company can’t be serious. Harris did not run a good campaign.
One huge mistake was selecting Tim Walz as her running mate. What poor judgment. It’s difficult not to think she selected this self-described “knucklehead” because he’s among the few elected Democrat officials who wouldn’t outshine her in office.
Another serious blunder was Harris’ refusal to distance herself from Joe Biden. Harris was asked if she would have done anything differently than Joe Biden. “There is not a thing that comes to mind,” she answered.
Given Biden’s strongly negative approval rating — and, of course, all the things he should have done differently — that was a terrible answer. A skilled candidate would have been prepared to answer the question by distancing herself from Biden on a few specific points without savaging him.
Harris also erred by skipping the Al Smith dinner in New York. Nearly every presidential candidate has appeared at that event — a tribute to the first Catholic nominated for president by a major party and an event that raises millions of dollars for Catholic charities. They do it, of course, to cultivate the Catholic vote. Harris couldn’t be bothered.
Skipping the dinner wasn’t a big thing in itself. But it was emblematic of Harris’ approach to the campaign. Cultivate celebrities and their Instagram followers, who probably support her anyway and aren’t all that likely to show up on election day. Give short-shrift to regular Americans — in this case, fifty million Catholics.
Let’s be fair, though. In hindsight, it’s difficult to see how Harris could have won this election given the unpopularity of the Biden administration.
This brings us to the second natural target of blame — Joe Biden.
Indeed, Biden seems to be getting almost all of the blame, but for the wrong reason. He isn’t being blamed for having a wretched administration — one that will be remembered for humiliation in Afghanistan and run-away inflation in America.
Instead, he’s being blamed for not dropping out of the race sooner. Had he done so, the argument goes, it would have given Harris more time to organize her campaign and sell herself to the American people.
This argument overlooks the fact that the longer Harris tried to sell herself, the less popular she became.
In the first few weeks following Biden’s withdrawal, Harris surged ahead of Trump in the polls. But as the race dragged on, Trump pulled even. It wasn’t time that Harris lacked, it was an appealing personality and a winning message.
An alternative theory of blaming Biden holds that had he pulled out early enough for the Democrats to hold true primaries, the party might have nominated a better candidate than Harris. But, as Ed Morrissey points out, it’s Democratic operatives and big-hitters, not Biden, who are to blame for the absence of genuine primaries:
The question wasn't whether Biden should run in 2024, but why Democrats then chose to discourage primary challengers by changing the rules to protect Biden. Ask Dean Phillips, the Minnesota Congressman who warned in 2023 that Biden was both too unpopular and too old for a second term. Robert F. Kennedy Jr issued the same warning; both launched primary challenges, with Phillips openly hoping to draw a bigger and more effective candidate into the race.
Instead, the same Democrats now "livid" at Biden for sticking around shunned Phllips and RFK while they circled the wagons around a clearly declining incumbent. They all claimed that Biden was "sharp as a tack" and running rings around aides while Biden stumbled and muttered his way through public appearances. State parties changed rules for primaries and caucuses to encumber challengers; Florida's Democrat Party canceled their primary altogether to protect Biden. None of these Democrats ever spoke up at all before June 27 to suggest that Biden step down; in fact, they doubled down on their support for a second term.
There’s also the question of who would have prevailed in the primaries if Biden had pulled out. I think it would have been Harris.
She is, after all, “a woman of color” and it was “her turn.” Was there any white alternative compelling enough to have overturned this narrative and defeated the identity-politics darling and heir apparent? I can’t think of one.
And let’s not forget that early this year, Democrats were confident they could defeat Donald Trump with any respectable candidate. Democratic primary voters would have viewed Harris as such a candidate.
Why did Democrats lose this year? First and foremost, a bad economy, due in part to bad policies. Second, an embrace of woke policies, especially on immigration, that put them out of touch with most Americans.
In my view, running a below average candidate for president comes in no better than a distant third place and Joe Biden’s reluctance to leave the race, no better than fourth.
You leave out perhaps the biggest reason. Even bigger than inflation. The completely porous borders that have led to an unprecedented crisis of illegal immigration. I also think that while less important, the combination of horrible American weakness abroad coupled with a seeming loss of control of the streets to Jew hating America hating hordes of leftists and Muslim immigrants hurt her considerably.