Why Did the Democrats Lose the 2024 U.S. Election?

Nemat Sharif | Exclusive to iKurd.net

Many expected that President Biden would not run or he would be advised as such earlier, perhaps in the primaries. This would have reflected better on the President, his party, allowed them time to run an effective campaign, and perhaps would not have cost them the White House. This would have allowed time to select a suitable Democrat to run against Mr. Trump.

Whether VP Harris would have been chosen or someone else is now only a hypothetical question. Suddenly dropping the issue on her lap that late in the game was a heavy burden for any one to handle successfully. Barely 90 days left in the race, it was almost impossible to catch up in selecting a running mate, putting together an election platform, and travel the country up and down, east and west to win the hearts and mind of voters.

American election politics is complex, only with planned collective effort of the team and party in a timely manner, a candidate can win the race. Despite her energy and sense of urgency, time was critical not only for her but also for the voters who also need time to publicly discuss, think over the agenda, and reach a voting decision especially in swing states. In these states, there is no dominant party that decides the outcome regardless of minority votes.

The 93 electoral votes across the seven swing states were pivotal in the race between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. A swing state, is a state deemed to have a critical role in presidential elections and major candidates enjoy similar levels of support. In the 2024 elections, seven were identified as swing states, Arizona (11 electoral votes), Georgia (16), Michigan (15), Nevada (6), North Carolina (16), Pennsylvania (19), and Wisconsin (10).

The Supreme Court, for the first time in US history, with two conservatives appointed by Trump in his first term, voted to expand presidential powers, and to put on hold his court cases. The 3 Justices, Neil Gorsuch (4/2017-?), Brett Kavanaugh (10, 2018), Amy C. Barrett (10, 2020), obviously applied their ideological standing, combined with other conservatives on the bench to clear the way for the former president to put all his court trials aside in favor of his race for the White House, his presidential duties if he wins, and further expand presidential powers while he is in office.

This stands in stark contradiction to his court trials (34 cases) and the expectation of possible banning his nomination. A number of legal scholars “argued that the former president was ineligible to serve again under a clause that disqualifies anyone who took an oath defending the Constitution and then subsequently participated in a rebellion or an insurrection…”

“They said that Trump’s attempt to steal the 2020 election and his incitement of the January 6, 2021 riot meet the criteria.… If the failure to swiftly prosecute Trump enabled his election, then his election seems to guarantee that he will never face accountability for the acts he committed, including those for which he has already been convicted of 34 felonies.” (David. A. Graham, theatlantic.com). The former president is the first convicted felon to be re-elected as president.

As I watched the presidential debates, I was surprised to see that Mr. Trump had no agenda to speak of what will he do to ‘make America great again’. He hammered in fear-inducing phrases used over and over to whip voters with if he did not win.

“If we don’t win on November 5th, I think our country is going to cease to exist…This could be the last election we ever have. I actually mean that. That’s where our country is going.” (Donald Trump, campaign rally, Grand Rapids, MI), Bloodbath, no more elections, the country will cease to exist were used describe Democrats and President Biden.

Scenes of street violence, the attack on the Capitol, police killing etc.. are still fresh in the minds of people. While fear-mongering is not new, Mr. Trump pushed it up to an unprecedented level; even a website, (BidenBloodBath.com) was created by the Republican National Committee, and controlled by the Trump campaign.

Discussions among people on and off record indicated that Americans were deeply concerned that what would happen to our democracy in the case of Trump losing instead of thinking what would happen if he wins! Violence and perhaps ‘civil war’ at whatever scale it may be will be devastating to American democracy and way of life.

Socio-political researchers called it “Terror Management Theory”. The fear tactics worked for him in his first term elections, why would not work again! Furthermore, he pressed Republicans to show loyalty and stand with him, instead of Republican leaders demanding that of him to keep ranks and stay within the vision of the Party. “..drove several who bucked him from office, notably Senators Bob Corker and Jeff Flake” (Tackett &Haberan,

While Ms. Harris happily and eloquently presented her agenda, it was a ready-made democratic platform that was also drummed up by president Biden, instead of having her own agenda that is responsive to current needs of the people and election atmosphere. Democratic leaders were busy with settling the candidacy issue with President Biden. Primaries were over with no viable candidate challenged the president. They picked the next in line as if the president was incapacitated.

It seems that Democratic leaders did not do as well as Republicans financially. Democrats relied more on their legacy with the middle and lower classes, the democratic power base, for support. By definition, their power base is of lower income.

U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris, September 18, 2024. Photo: The White House

By comparison, the Republican party revolves around the wealthy and big companies. This is clearer than ever before. The rapprochement between Trump and Musk stands as testimony at the top of the Republican hierarchy. Despite the energy Ms. Harris pumped into the campaign, it seems that it was doomed from the beginning. Uncertainty about whether the American people is ready for a female president, is uncalled for.

Tackett and Haberman summarized his weaknesses well “Mr. Trump has found that his lack of experience in politics and diplomacy, which require policy knowledge, team building and nuanced negotiating ability, has left him at a decided disadvantage despite his boasts about his deal-making prowess.” (Tackett & Haberan).

Apparently, Democratic strategists did not focus on his shortcomings, and his reliance on instilling fear and anxiety in his first and second term elections to attract voters’ attention. Running a traditional positive campaign for the incumbent, and later for the VP Harris was certainly shortsighted.

While president-elect’s campaign was and is a socio-political phenomenon, the voter landscape is changing too. Voters, especially in the swing states, demonstrated sensitivity to campaign pressures, psychological and otherwise without addressing underlying social issues such as race, immigration or economy. For example, existential fear tactics is not comparable to reducing Social Security benefits for the elderly; invasion vs. character flaw as lying.

The Trump phenomenon is not going away by the end of his second term, just as his legal problems should not go away. Mr. Trump will play his role further in US politics. For example, he might push for a constitutional convention to leave his mark on history. He did once when he appointed ideologically hardened justices to the supreme court.

The congressional and Supreme Court (6 to 3) conservative majority might be of help once again if he picks up the issue. Several issues are awaiting such a convention including the possibility of extending presidential term to 3 or more, or even expand it beyond the 4 year term.

The U.S. constitution’s adaptability as a living document while preserving core principles is its greatest strength to ensure that liberty, equality and justice continue to guide the nation. Therefore, a convention becomes a viable option for the President-elect to keep his popularity and the constitution living in time with a lasting power.

Nemat Sharif, a political analyst, a contributing writer and columnist for iKurd.net.

The opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of iKurd.net or its editors.