Great analysis, Paul. It will be interesting to see what they do.
In advertising and marketing, "new" is a powerful concept.
After defeat, both parties have the same bad habits: blame it on a bad candidate or incompetent campaign, blame the messaging, blame it on circumstances they deem beyond their control, blame the minority voices in their own party and blame the voters, but they usually don't acknowledge that they didn't understand what voters cared about, nor do they want to find out. When that happens, sometimes a new leader walks into the mix and displaces the established order. Reagan, Clinton, Obama, Trump were all "new" and exciting to voters who'd grown cynical about party leadership.
I saw some parallels between this race and Reagan/Carter, remembering the hostility and outrage with which the media and the Washington establishment greeted Reagan's campaign (cowboy, dummy, wannabe dictator, threat to world peace, B-actor, unfit for office, etc.). But importantly, we had a candidate with a bold position, sincerely held, and an incumbency that was clearly exhausted, posting poor results, and stunk of weakness. Like last night, it was deemed close right up til election day, but new leadership emerged a big winner.
Similarly, this year we had a candidate people know from recent governing experience, saw as authentic, running against an exhausted, vapid incumbent. Both were trying to present themselves as new - a change in direction, even though Harris's vice presidency bonded her to the failed old leadership and ideas.
Now Democrats have an opportunity, as they did after Mondale, to recalibrate. The period after Mondale's crushing defeat was followed by Bill Clinton's DLC recalibration. They completely re-tooled their idea/issue set. It was not entirely a fake-out, like Obama's, but it did acknowledge the concerns voters had a the time.
The period after Gore's defeat was also a time in the wilderness for the democrat party. Hillary lined up for succession, but that effort was pumped up by money and influence, not voter interest, and her support collapsed once a new and charismatic figure (Obama) emerged. That recalibration (Hope and Change) was built solely on platitudes and Obama's personality. Harris thought she could do the same thing, but was dogged by her own mediocrity and the Carter-like record she was running with. "New" prevailed again.
I would also point out the republicans' moments in the wilderness, after 2008 and 2012. The 2012 aftermath recognized Romney as a poor candidate, but it offered two competing narratives: return to "bold colors and strokes" like Reagan, or retreat into the mushy middle (the famous RNC post mortem that urged republicans to embrace liberal immigration policies, etc., to be competitive). As it turns out, the party establishment was off by a mile, and along came Trump. People wanted something new and they got it.
I think all of these moments reveal whether or not party leadership or (their young turks) care about what's going on the lives of ordinary working people. Do they have a clue or are they just in love with their own ideas and political careers? Can they get outside the Washington bubble, listen to voters and find candidates who genuinely share their concerns?
This year, Democrats thought they found one in abortion, but Trump easily disarmed them with federalism. People knew Trump well enough to know that he was not a zealout on this issue, and generally he had governed last time the way he said he would. And the contrast between his nationalist populist agenda and the current order was so bold as to make the old candidate look new again.
The utter failure of the democrat party to recognize the crushing impact of 20%-over-3 year inflation on households that have no income beyond their bi-weekly paycheck was beyond obtuse. So was their rush to cram as many illegal migrants into the country as they could in four years, for their own political benefit. Democrats are so used to cramming their "reforms" down our throats, they gave up taking voter perceptions seriously.
The idea/issue set they've built their party on for the last 20 years will not provide them any tools for re-alignment. Their "young turks" aren't interested in finding new ones. Tulsi Gabbard, who may have provided them with a new direction, is now a republican (hello, Nikki Haley). I think democrats are going to be in the wilderness for a long time.
The problem with the Democrats isn't that they don't hear. It's that they don't listen.
Great analysis, Paul. It will be interesting to see what they do.
In advertising and marketing, "new" is a powerful concept.
After defeat, both parties have the same bad habits: blame it on a bad candidate or incompetent campaign, blame the messaging, blame it on circumstances they deem beyond their control, blame the minority voices in their own party and blame the voters, but they usually don't acknowledge that they didn't understand what voters cared about, nor do they want to find out. When that happens, sometimes a new leader walks into the mix and displaces the established order. Reagan, Clinton, Obama, Trump were all "new" and exciting to voters who'd grown cynical about party leadership.
I saw some parallels between this race and Reagan/Carter, remembering the hostility and outrage with which the media and the Washington establishment greeted Reagan's campaign (cowboy, dummy, wannabe dictator, threat to world peace, B-actor, unfit for office, etc.). But importantly, we had a candidate with a bold position, sincerely held, and an incumbency that was clearly exhausted, posting poor results, and stunk of weakness. Like last night, it was deemed close right up til election day, but new leadership emerged a big winner.
Similarly, this year we had a candidate people know from recent governing experience, saw as authentic, running against an exhausted, vapid incumbent. Both were trying to present themselves as new - a change in direction, even though Harris's vice presidency bonded her to the failed old leadership and ideas.
Now Democrats have an opportunity, as they did after Mondale, to recalibrate. The period after Mondale's crushing defeat was followed by Bill Clinton's DLC recalibration. They completely re-tooled their idea/issue set. It was not entirely a fake-out, like Obama's, but it did acknowledge the concerns voters had a the time.
The period after Gore's defeat was also a time in the wilderness for the democrat party. Hillary lined up for succession, but that effort was pumped up by money and influence, not voter interest, and her support collapsed once a new and charismatic figure (Obama) emerged. That recalibration (Hope and Change) was built solely on platitudes and Obama's personality. Harris thought she could do the same thing, but was dogged by her own mediocrity and the Carter-like record she was running with. "New" prevailed again.
I would also point out the republicans' moments in the wilderness, after 2008 and 2012. The 2012 aftermath recognized Romney as a poor candidate, but it offered two competing narratives: return to "bold colors and strokes" like Reagan, or retreat into the mushy middle (the famous RNC post mortem that urged republicans to embrace liberal immigration policies, etc., to be competitive). As it turns out, the party establishment was off by a mile, and along came Trump. People wanted something new and they got it.
I think all of these moments reveal whether or not party leadership or (their young turks) care about what's going on the lives of ordinary working people. Do they have a clue or are they just in love with their own ideas and political careers? Can they get outside the Washington bubble, listen to voters and find candidates who genuinely share their concerns?
This year, Democrats thought they found one in abortion, but Trump easily disarmed them with federalism. People knew Trump well enough to know that he was not a zealout on this issue, and generally he had governed last time the way he said he would. And the contrast between his nationalist populist agenda and the current order was so bold as to make the old candidate look new again.
The utter failure of the democrat party to recognize the crushing impact of 20%-over-3 year inflation on households that have no income beyond their bi-weekly paycheck was beyond obtuse. So was their rush to cram as many illegal migrants into the country as they could in four years, for their own political benefit. Democrats are so used to cramming their "reforms" down our throats, they gave up taking voter perceptions seriously.
The idea/issue set they've built their party on for the last 20 years will not provide them any tools for re-alignment. Their "young turks" aren't interested in finding new ones. Tulsi Gabbard, who may have provided them with a new direction, is now a republican (hello, Nikki Haley). I think democrats are going to be in the wilderness for a long time.