After Donald Trump’s victory, there’s been a flood of explanations and finger pointing as to why Vice President Kamala Harris lost this important election to an unpopular, twice impeached, traitorous coup plotter and convicted felon. Among the reasons cited are America’s long history of racism and misogyny that has undermined support for women presidential candidates, with Harris being of both black and South Asian descent. Other explanations include Joe Biden’s very late decision to leave the race, giving Harris little time to introduce herself to voters, in addition to strong public opposition to the Biden Harris administration’s unconditional support for Israel’s vicious war in Gaza that has killed tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians.
It’s also been pointed out that after the post-COVID pandemic explosion of inflation that’s eroded working families buying power around the world, almost all incumbent governments that stood for elections have been booted out of office.
But after the election, progressive independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders had his own explanation for Harris’ loss when he said in a statement, “It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them.” Between The Lines’ Scott Harris spoke with Branko Marcetic, a staff writer with Jacobin magazine, who concludes that the vice president’s failure to effectively address working class economic discontent was a major factor contributing to her loss of support among virtually all of America’s diverse demographic groups.
BRANKO MARCETIC: I think the Trump campaign, this election was one of the nastiest, most scurrilous political campaigns I think I have seen in my life. The attacks and scapegoating of immigrants and virtually every vulnerable group under the sun—often very hateful rhetoric, a real anger behind it. It was very disturbing. We saw what Trump often tries to do, which is to stir up resentments among people and divide people.
And I think that to an extent did work for him. So I think what is being not seen in the aftermath of this—if you listen to a lot of the analysis and rhetoric from Democratic officials, from high profile media commentators—it’s a very simple explanation, as one that the voters have told us again and again and again.
They are not happy in this economy. It is not working for them. There’s a significant amount of material hardship going on right now. And what happens in U.S. elections when a party, one party, is presiding over poor economic conditions and you have a presidential election? The voters reject that party. They punish them, and they bring the other side in, hoping for change.
That’s what happened in 2020. So what happened in ‘08, in 2008, when Obama won. You go through American history to find some examples. And, look, this is what voters were saying in poll after poll after poll for years going into the election, that the economy was not working for them and that that was going to be the main thing that was going to motivate their voting intention.
They said that they were unhappy with the Biden administration and that they were particularly unhappy with its economic handling. And after the election, the exit polls and we have many—not just exit polls, but the post-election polls—the people who voted, people say the exact same thing. It’s the people who overwhelmingly were unhappy with the economy and saw as the biggest priority, who ended up voting for Trump.
And some of those voters, not just white voters. Trump improved his share of the electorate with every group under the sun, particularly Muslim voters. And we can talk about that later on too, the impact of the Gaza genocide and how that demoralized some Democratic-leaning constituencies. But ultimately, this was a wave election that rejected the party in power that had failed to address what they have been saying for years, which was that they were really struggling to keep their heads above water, in an economy where the cost of living has skyrocketed over the past few years.
SCOTT HARRIS: Branko, voters in many of these states that went all in for Trump also voted for minimum wage referendums. They voted for paid sick leave referendums and pro-union referendums as well. They also split their tickets, often supporting Democratic senators and in red states that went for Trump.
And there was an interesting editorial that I know you and many of our listeners are aware of. And that was, conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks, who wrote in an editorial titled, “Voters to Elites, Do You See Me Now?” And in part, he said,
“I’m a moderate. I like it when Democratic candidates run to the center. But I have to confess that Harris did that pretty effectively and it didn’t work. Maybe the Democrats have to embrace a Bernie Sanders’ style disruption, something that will make people like me feel uncomfortable.”
I thought that was telling coming from a conservative columnist. What do you think?
BRANKO MARCETIC: Clearly, David Brooks, whatever his ideological leanings, he is looking at reality as it is. The thing that we have been told so many times—that the way to win elections, particularly against a far right or extreme candidate—is you run to the center. Harris ran to the center. The New York Times called it a Wall Street-approved campaign.
She lost. She lost miserably. This was a losing strategy. And so? So he’s right. You know, in many ways, you can trace the seeds of this defeat to that moment in February 2020 when Barack Obama got on the phone with Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar and he suggested they pull out before the South Carolina primary so that Joe Biden would inherit their voters and be the only challenge to Sanders and ultimately paved his way for the nomination.
That was a demoralizing victory to the grassroots movement behind Bernie Sanders. You know, Sanders as well, because of the kind of figure he is and also because of the movement behind him. He had the loyalty of many of the voters that Democrats lost in this election. Now, look, I’m not saying renominate Bernie Sanders, but I think the party needs to look at what he has been saying for the past eight years, which is that the way that you win elections, you have to try and actually appeal to the working class to give them something to vote for that will actually improve their lives.
You know, Trump did that. Unfortunately, the message he used is a vile and I think, racist one — blaming every single problem in American life today on undocumented immigrants, which is of course, absurd, but it was an economic message ultimately. You know, the Democrats didn’t really have one. So I’m glad to see that this conversation is at least being held, even if it is far too late, to you know, to go back in time and try to replicate the kind of movement that Brooks is talking about.
But maybe, maybe it will cause some rethinking. If that doesn’t happen, I think a lot of Democratic voters have the right to be really, really angry because this is the one thing that the party promises them, that they’ll win elections and stop the far-right from winning, and they have failed to deliver that twice now.
Listen to Scott Harris’ in-depth interview with Branko Marcetic (18:26) and see more articles and opinion pieces in the Related Links section of this page.
For the best listening experience and to never miss an episode, subscribe to Between The Lines on your favorite podcast app or platform.
Or subscribe to our Between The Lines and Counterpoint Weekly Summary.
