Dick Tuck was a political operative with a wicked sense of humor. Once, after his candidate lost an election, he quipped, “the people have spoken, the bastards.”
Last night, the Trump-haters on MSNBC had a variation on Tuck’s line: The people have spoken, the dumb bastards.
Instead of those exact words, the commentary went something like this: In 2016, the electorate had an excuse for voting for Trump; they didn’t know what he’d be like. Now, after eight years, there’s no excuse.
Also: Americans complain about the economy generally and inflation, in particular. Don’t they know that inflation — a post-covid phenomenon around the world — has been licked here? Don’t they know that our economy is the envy of the world and, in fact, is helping keep the rest of the world afloat?
What dumb bastards.
At CNN, the Trump-haters had a slightly different take: The people have spoken, the racist, sexist bastards. That was a crestfallen David Axelrod’s take. Van Jones picked up the theme with aplomb.
I turned to MSNBC and CNN when, fairly early on, it became clear that Henry Olsen had nailed this election. I wanted to see some heads explode. I wasn’t disappointed, as should be clear from the preceding paragraphs.
But I also wanted to get an early indication of how Democrats will respond to what the electorate told them in this election. The response I heard last night — the electorate is stupid, racist, and sexist — won’t go away, but it will be overtaken by two competing narratives.
First, the party lost because Kamala Harris ran too much as a moderate. She should have stayed true to leftist principles. She should have seen Trump’s populism and raised it with left-wing populism. Instead of waffling on the war in the Middle East, she should have broken with Joe Biden and gone all in on the Palestinian side.
Alternatively, the party lost because for almost the entire Biden administration it governed too far to the left. It should have adopted tough on crime, tough on illegal immigration (which is a crime) stances from the beginning. It should have distanced itself decisively from wokeism. It should have shared America’s disgust with boys competing against girls in sports.
In my view, the second theory comes much closer to the truth (and, to be fair, I did hear it from two MSNBC commentators). It would have been difficult for the Dems to win given the way Americans perceive the economy. But a more centrist administration — the kind many thought, or at least hoped, they would get from “Scranton Joe” — might have given them a fighting chance.
Will the Democrats adopt the second narrative? That’s the second biggest question of the day (the first is how Trump will govern).
I believe there will be a major struggle between the two narratives, and that the outcome is unclear.
This kind of struggle isn’t new, and history suggests it could go either way. Sometimes a big defeat causes parties to move towards the center. The Democrats did in 1992, with success. The Republicans did it in 2000, with success.
But sometimes after a big defeat, the losing party doubles down and, in fact, becomes less centrist. The Republicans did this in 1964 (and lost big) and in 2016 (and won narrowly). The Democrats did it in 1972 (losing big) and in 2004 (and lost).
There are two common threads in these examples. First, it usually takes more than one lost presidential election to dissuade a party from doubling down on non-centrism. Second, the party that recalibrates has more success than the party that doubles down.
There is a third way, though. The losing party can fake recalibration.
That was Barack (“there are no blue states or red state”) Obama’s approach. Even more so, it was Joe Biden’s.
Kamala Harris tried it this year. The problem was that faking doesn’t work when your party has been in power for four years. People tend to believe what they’ve seen, not what they’re suddenly being told.
The bastards.
The Democrats don’t have to pick an approach yet. They can hope that the second Trump administration will be such a train wreck that they can win in 2028 without moderating. Other things being equal, non-moderation would be their preferred option.
Absent a train wreck, though, I expect a big battle within the party, not right away but coming fairly soon. If I had to guess, I’d bet that the fake moderation approach will prevail. It’s the path of least resistance.
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.