Dem
46
Ties
2
GOP
52
The "twin" to the "what went wrong" letters (and op-eds, etc.) are the "How do the Democrats do better next time?" letters (and op-eds, etc.):
K.B. in Chicago, IL, writes: As devastating of a result as Tuesday was—and let's not minimize it, because it is absolutely devastating for all of the people Trump wants to target—I hope that Democrats take away a few key lessons from this loss so that we can somehow recover from this:
- American voters are not ready for a female president. Both Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris have lost to someone who could charitably be described as a monster. Not only did they suffer a penalty for being women, but female voters did not vote in solidarity with the female candidates who went up against a man who bragged on tape about sexual assault and has been found liable for sexual assault in a court of law. This obviously makes me very sad to say, since we might not see a female president for many more years (decades?) to come.
- It is a waste of time trying to appeal to mythical "moderate Republicans." They no longer exist. They're either Democrats now or independents. The Republican Party is the MAGA Party now. The Harris campaign gambled that they could woo enough moderate Republicans in the homestretch to offset losses among the working class. Her campaign repeatedly talked about how it was going to help the middle class instead of what it was going to do for the working class. She barely even attempted to pin the blame for inflation on greedy corporations. It failed spectacularly.
- Unyielding support for Israel—even when its far-right government is committing heinous war crimes and setting the stage for more illegal land seizures—is politically toxic. Democrats lost the overwhelming support from Arab Americans that they previously enjoyed. Combined with the young progressives who either voted for Jill Stein or stayed home, it was easily enough to cost Harris Michigan (and probably Wisconsin, too).
In a stunning rebuke of the Democrats, Dearborn (which has a majority Arab-American population) went for Trump. Dearborn is part of Wayne County, which is also home to other large Arab-American communities. Trump did four points better and received 20,000 more votes in Wayne County than he did in 2020. Harris received 61,000 fewer votes than Biden in Wayne County. In other words, the shift in Wayne County alone was enough to tip the state.
W.V. in San Jacinto, CA, writes: Last time I wrote in to Electoral-Vote.com, my argument was published the day Joe Biden dropped out and I said that the problem is Trump is winning with a "Trump Strong/Biden Weak" message. I was thrilled to see Biden replaced by a younger, more assertive fighter. But while door knocking out-of-state (Arizona and Nevada) in October, I still noticed the same type of short, memorable messaging used by the Trump campaign and observed that Harris had not developed an alternative. Driving in Mohave and Clark counties I saw sign after sign that said "Harris: High Taxes/Trump: Low Taxes." Or "Harris: Open Borders/Trump: Secure Borders."
It was the same, short, easy messaging that could be noted and digested in an instant. Which meant it could fit on a lawn sign, or, dozens of lawn signs repeated down a main road, reinforcing the groupthink. Just like in 2016, when Trump's main messages were each 3 words long (Build the Wall, Drain the Swamp, Lock Her Up), the 2024 Trump had an easy message to get across; "They broke it, I'll fix it." And they drove it home often enough that it stuck. Now, Harris voters, think to yourself, if you could distill Harris' message in 3 seconds or less, what was it? What simple, repeatable message did she drive home to voters? Abstract messages like "Freedom"? Or "Joy"? Targeted first-time homebuilder credits? How about trying to explain tariffs? "If you're explaining, you're losing" said St. Ronnie of Reagan and Harris supporters needed to explain every proposal. Once again, Harris went with complicated policy proposals that needed time and attention to understand, instead of something simple like "They don't care, I do." or "He's a criminal, I'm a cop."
I used to coach my school's academic decathlon team and the advice I would give them when writing their theme for prepared speech was "If you can't explain what your speech is about in 7 seconds, you don't know what your speech is about." I have thought about this for the past several weeks: "What was the Harris equivalent to the 3 word Trump slogans?" or "Why does it take so long to explain her proposals?" Every time I try to explain why voting for her would be good, it always took longer than 7 seconds. And let's face it, the average TikTok scroller won't even give you 7 seconds... you're lucky to get 2.
Trump and his voters could do it in 2 seconds. Harris and her voters couldn't. They overlooked the power of a simple message that supports the brand.
D.F. in Birmingham, AL, writes: The Democratic party needs to change course. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is what Donald Trump has tapped into. The harder Democrats have pushed to the left, the harder Trump has pulled the GOP to the right. The answer is simple: Come back close to the center, where the bulk of America wants to be voting. From that position, sane people won't have to choose between two unpalatable extremes.
The money doesn't matter. Raise and spend to your heart's content, it isn't winning voters. It won't beat Ted Cruz, or Rick Scott, or Trump. Just stop. Find out what the Trump team did (for far less money), and figure out how to do that better.
A.O. in Cornelius, NC, writes: Well, here we are, post-election, and it's hard to ignore what played a massive role: the Democratic Party's struggle with men. We didn't just lose ground with one group—we failed with all men. White men, Black men, Latino men. Across different demographics, men are moving away from the Democratic Party, and it's not hard to see why, if we're willing to be honest.
Consider the crisis points. The male suicide rate is almost four times higher than that of women, yet Democratic leaders barely talk about men's mental health. Life expectancy for men is falling, but public health conversations don't address why men are dying younger. These issues are absent from our platform.
The educational gap is another glaring issue. Men's college enrollment and graduation rates continue to decline, and boys consistently lag behind girls in literacy from a young age. Today, the gender gap in bachelor's degrees is exactly the inverse of what it was in the 1970s, yet where is the focus on helping boys and young men succeed? Democrats talk about education broadly, but we don't acknowledge the specific struggles boys face.
Men's voting patterns this election speak volumes. The numbers are staring us right in the face, but nobody seems to be addressing them. Across racial and socioeconomic lines, men overwhelmingly broke for the other side. It's clear that our messaging and policies are failing to connect with men and it cost us a Trump presidency.
It's no wonder men feel overlooked. They are. The lack of focus from Democrats on issues directly affecting men is driving them away, and we need to acknowledge that if we want to turn things around. Taking these challenges seriously isn't just a policy necessity—it's critical to our electoral success.
V.G. in New York City, NY, writes: Post mortem. Maybe Kamala Harris couldn't have won anyway, but I think the campaign made a mistake at the very beginning. Instead of treating the economy as a liability, she should have treated it as an asset. By the time she entered into the race, the post-COVID inflation surge was pretty much over. The economy was in terrific shape—low unemployment, low inflation, increased real income gains, rapid overall growth; it had responded better than all the G5 countries—the U.S. economy was the envy of the world. She should have emphasized that. She could have then qualified it by agreeing that the gains had not been uniform; while the Biden/Harris team had tried to change that, they couldn't get anything done being confronted by a hostile House. That is why, she should say, I need your help to get the House to be Democratic.
By avoiding the topic, she let the Republicans define the economic issue—Bidenomics is a disaster, etc. I believe that her advisers were a bunch of PR people with zero knowledge of economics and they decided that she should take the idiotic position that the solution (to a non-problem) was to go after price gouging.
She should also have been clear about inflation. If the inflation rate fell to zero, we do not go back to 2021 prices. To do so would require a massive deflation (and the increased unemployment that would go with that). Maybe the public can't be convinced of all this. Maybe she can't understand it. But a campaign stressing this, rather than ducking it, could have worked.
So, like in his first term, Trump inherits a terrific economy, for which he will take credit.
Here, we think there is actually some good news for the Democrats.
Of course the Party will commission countless autopsies, and will spend much time tearing out hair and rending garments as they try to figure out what went wrong. But beyond that, there are systematic factors that will be in the Democrats' favor in the next few years (and would have been against them if Harris had won).
First, as we have written many times, midterm elections are nearly always bad for the party that holds the White House. There's no reason to think that won't be true in 2026. Second, while the Democrats might have a knock-down, drag out primary in 2028, the Republicans will have one, too. And the Republican one figures to be uglier, as various contenders try to out-Trump Trump. Third, when the 2028 election happens, it is likely to favor the Democrat. In part, because we are apparently in a "throw the bums out" era, not unlike the Gilded Age. In part, because nobody can out-Trump Trump, and his successor is not likely to command the loyalty of the base the way Trump can. Remember, every Trumpy Republican runs behind Trump himself.