Postmortem-palooza

Ten genres of takes for why Democrats lost to Trump.

The postmortem on Kamala Harris's defeat has turned into a symphony of overlapping theories, each one attempting to explain why Democrats lost their footing with voters. What we’re seeing now is the sorting of these takes into ten genres, each highlighting a different wound in the Democratic Party’s body politic. There’s the economic critique, which holds that Democrats failed to deliver real relief on high prices, rent, and wages, leaving voters skeptical of their promises. Then there’s the argument that the party became “too woke,” alienating working-class voters with language and priorities that seemed more attuned to cultural elites than everyday struggles. Others argue Democrats ignored border security or overspent, fueling perceptions of fiscal irresponsibility.

Beyond these, deeper currents run: accusations of elitism, the power of conservative media shaping narratives, the universal anti-incumbency sentiment post-COVID, and the racial and gender biases Harris confronted in every corner of the electorate. Perhaps most damning is the critique that Harris failed to break free from Biden’s shadow, appearing as an undefined placeholder rather than a fresh voice for change.

Together, these takes don’t just suggest a simple policy misstep—they tell the story of a party struggling to connect, caught between political ambitions and an inability to read the room in a country yearning for material change.

1 | Democrats Didn’t Deliver Tangible Economic Change
Bernie Sanders and Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor argue the Democratic Party failed to address the real and worsening economic hardships that burden working Americans—skyrocketing rent, crushing debt, and the relentless grind of low wages against high costs of living. Biden’s optimistic claims of economic recovery and stability were drowned out by the reality of high prices, stagnant wages, and a sense that recovery was something enjoyed elsewhere, perhaps in affluent urban centers but not in the struggling towns and rural stretches that once anchored the Democratic base.

Bharat Ramamurti points out missed opportunities within the Democratic Party, particularly in the failure to pass elements of the Build Back Better plan—such as housing, care, and child tax credits—which could have provided clear, tangible cost-of-living relief for voters. Ramamurti emphasizes the need for Democrats to prioritize speed and tangibility in their policies. He notes the delayed implementation of popular measures, like the Medicare out-of-pocket cap that won’t take effect until 2025, which he views as a political misstep.

That estrangement was laid bare in the response to the Democratic National Convention’s “joy” messaging. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez noted the party’s persistent struggle to speak to a working-class agenda that resonates across lines of race and geography. Jack Herrera, a POLITICO reporter, shared what he heard most when interviewing Latino voters in recent months: “Under Biden, there were days I couldn’t afford to fill up my truck with gas; the price of eggs doubled; my rent went up. Entonces, Biden is fired. It’s time for change.”

Former Biden aide Jen Psaki explained that the Biden administration prioritized taking action over focusing on public perception, which made it challenging to create a compelling narrative. She noted that while Biden achieved significant progress, especially on the economy and climate, gradual improvements are difficult to communicate and often fail to earn public credit, as people don’t immediately feel the effects of economic recovery.

2 | Democrats Are “Too Woke”
Maureen Dowd, Joe Scarborough, James Carville, Al Sharpton, Charlamagne Tha God, Seth Moulton, Tom Suozzi, and John Fetterman, argue that the Democratic Party has drifted into a territory of “hyper-political correctness” that feels distant and alienating to many everyday Americans. By placing a premium on identity politics and advocating for niche cultural issues—transgender rights or the use of terms like "Latinx"—the party, they suggest, has embraced an academic language and agenda that often seems to condescend to its own base. Working-class and minority voters, especially, have voiced frustration with a rhetoric that feels imposed from above rather than responsive to their lived realities.

Democrats have strayed from the unifying bread-and-butter issues that once galvanized their broad coalition. By championing causes seen as niche or fringe to many Americans, they have, in essence, left a void—one that Trump has readily filled with simple, clear messages on economic and cultural stability. In the process, he has positioned himself as the candidate who speaks plainly to the struggles and values of the working class, a group increasingly disillusioned by a Democratic Party they once considered home.

Pod Save America hosts had a slightly different take that Harris's campaign didn’t adequately counter the anti-trans, “taxpayer-funded” gender-affirming care ads that ran frequently, particularly in battleground states, which the hosts believed swayed some voters toward Trump. Prior to the election, Anat Shenker-Osorio and others argued Democrats should address cultural issues like transgender rights and immigration head-on, reframing them around universal values. Instead of ignoring these issues or allowing right-wing narratives to define them, Democrats could persuade the public on them year-round rather than being caught left playing defense in election season. This approach would counter the GOP’s divide-and-conquer and hate-for-profit tactics by connecting these issues to shared values and fostering empathy.

Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, countered saying Democrats should not give in to prejudice and misinformation. She compared the fight for transgender rights to the struggle over gay marriage, in which public opinion shifted quickly. “

We need to create space for people’s fears and let them get to know people,” said Ms. Jayapal, who described herself as “the proud mom of a daughter who happens to be trans.” “And we need to counter the idea that my daughter is a threat to anyone else’s children,” she said.

Jon Stewart criticized claims that the Democrats lost the election for being "too woke," arguing instead that Democrats ran on conservative-leaning issues, focusing on border control, pro-police messaging, and gun rights. Stewart suggested Democrats were running against an outdated "woke" stereotype, shaped largely by past social media posts, and advised them to avoid letting these labels define their political image.

3 | Democrats Ignored the Border
Ezra Klein argues that Democrats’ failure to address border security left them looking disconnected from key voter anxieties, particularly as public opinion began shifting rightward on the issue. Biden’s delayed push for stricter asylum policies and a bipartisan border bill came too late, leaving many Black and Brown voters with the impression that border security had been better managed under Trump. This reluctance to prioritize voter concerns, Klein suggests, made Democrats appear more focused on ideology than on addressing everyday insecurities, feeding a perception of detachment from the real struggles of many Americans.

Charlamagne Tha God and some swing-district Democrats echoed these frustrations, noting that for many minority communities, especially those new to the issue, border security had become a significant concern. Charlamagne highlighted how Trump’s clear “build the wall” messaging resonated with voters who craved straightforward solutions, contrasting sharply with Democrats’ lack of clear messaging on border issues. Representatives like Henry Cuellar warned that Democrats’ inaction on immigration, combined with a heavy focus on cultural issues over economic or border security concerns, had alienated working-class and non-college-educated voters. In battleground districts, this disconnect ultimately weakened the party’s appeal, costing Democrats support where it mattered most.

Carlos Odio of Equis stresses that immigration and border issues were significant factors in Harris's loss among Latino voters. They argue that Democrats' failure to present a clear and empathetic stance on these topics allowed Trump to define the narrative with his hardline approach, which resonated with voters concerned about order and fairness at the border. Odio notes that Latino voters, while not anti-immigrant, were frustrated by perceived unfairness in how new arrivals were treated compared to long-standing undocumented families, a sentiment that Democrats did not effectively address, weakening their support in key states.

4 | Democrats Spent Too Much Money
Larry Summers has long contended that Biden’s ambitious spending initiatives, particularly the American Rescue Plan, contributed to inflation by pushing federal debt to unprecedented levels. This spending gave Republicans an easy line of attack, framing Democrats as fiscally reckless and out of touch with the economic realities facing everyday Americans. By fueling inflationary pressures, these policies undermined public trust, making it harder for Democrats to defend their economic agenda.

Jonathan Chait adds that while Trump’s appeal was a factor, it was Democrats’ handling of the economy that ultimately exacerbated voter frustrations. As prices soared and wage growth stagnated, Harris’s ability to project economic competence faltered, and Democrats struggled to connect with voters feeling the pinch. Together, these dynamics reinforced a perception of economic mismanagement, creating an opening for Republicans to reclaim a narrative of fiscal responsibility and stability.

5 | Democrats Appear Elitist, Not Populist
Senator Chris Murphy and Thomas Frank argue that Democrats’ focus on affluent, suburban voters has eroded their working-class support, with Frank criticizing the party’s embrace of corporate-friendly policies as a hollow form of populism. This shift, he says, leaves Democrats vulnerable to Trump’s “anti-elite” messaging, which taps into widespread frustration with entrenched power. Murphy notes that Democrats’ responses to fears about globalization and societal change often seem dismissive, offering platitudes instead of real solutions, which fuels resentment among those seeking genuine accountability.

David Brooks argues that the Democratic focus on identity issues, like racial and gender inequalities, led to a neglect of class-based inequality, leaving many working-class Americans—especially those without college degrees—feeling undervalued and forgotten. Donald Trump, on the other hand, effectively mobilized a multiracial working-class coalition, speaking directly to these voters' sense of betrayal by elites.

Bhaskar Sunkara criticized the lack of effective economic messaging, particularly in addressing inflation and the rising cost of living. Many voters felt financially worse off than four years ago, and Biden’s administration struggled to communicate solutions effectively.

Ocasio-Cortez points to both parties’ reliance on wealthy donors, while Marie Gluesenkamp-Perez calls for Democratic candidates with authentic local connections who prioritize practical issues over broad, impersonal messaging. She also criticizes Vice President Harris for lacking engagement with local concerns, like those of farmers and small business owners, furthering the perception that Democrats are disconnected from everyday struggles. Together, these voices suggest that Democrats must reconnect with working-class values and move away from the elite-driven priorities that alienate core voters.

David Axelrod emphasized that the party has distanced itself from working-class voters, becoming too focused on suburban, college-educated Americans and losing touch with blue-collar communities. He highlighted the problem of a subtle disdain toward working people, pointing out that the Democrats’ messaging can feel elitist or missionary-like rather than genuinely populist. Axelrod argued that the party needs to address economic and populist concerns more directly and avoid appearing as though they’re trying to "enlighten" or "fix" working-class voters.

Pod Save America hosts said the Democratic economic message hasn't resonated in years. Harris's economic messaging lacked direct, populist critiques of corporate behavior, which could have helped connect with voters frustrated by inflation and economic instability. They also argued that the Biden administration’s stance on issues like weapons aid to Israel and emphasis on aiding Ukraine alienated certain voter demographics. Young voters and Arab American communities, especially, were disillusioned by the administration's foreign policy stance, contributing to turnout issues in areas like Dearborn, Michigan.

6 | Anti-Incumbent Sentiment Post-COVID
Several commentators have argued that a widespread anti-incumbent sentiment is reshaping global democracies in the post-COVID era, with voters increasingly penalizing ruling parties for inflation and economic instability. They see Harris’s defeat as part of this broader trend: amid a climate of international crisis and economic precarity, voters were inclined to oust incumbents who they perceived as unable to secure household finances. This pattern suggests that, regardless of individual leaders or party policies, incumbents worldwide are vulnerable as citizens seek change in response to mounting economic pressures.

7 | Entrenched Racism and Sexism
Eddie Glaude and Nikole Hannah-Jones argue that Harris faced biases that go beyond political policies. They believe many voters’ frustrations with “wokeness” stem from deeper discomfort with racial and cultural shifts, reflected in their unease about demographic change. This underlying cultural and racial anxiety contributed to Harris’s struggles, with voters swayed by a desire for familiarity over change, consciously or unconsciously retreating to “traditional” America.

Trump’s win was driven by demographic and status anxiety, particularly among white voters willing to overlook his threats to democracy and human rights. While America’s economy is strong by global standards, the perception of economic hardship and a perceived loss of social standing fueled support for a candidate openly embracing autocratic ideals. Black Americans, facing real economic struggles, overwhelmingly rejected Trump, showing that deeper social fears, not just economic woes, were at play. The press must confront this reality, as misreading the moment risks normalizing authoritarianism in exchange for vague comfort.

Joy Reid criticized Latino men for largely supporting Trump over Kamala Harris, accusing them of voting against their own interests, especially given Trump’s policies on immigration and family separations. She stated that by aligning with Trump, Latino men were choosing leaders who would harm their communities and families, contrasting this with the strong support Harris received from Black women. Reid also argued that Black women feel betrayed by White female voters who supported Trump, leading them to withdraw from "saving" the Democratic Party.

Jill Filipovic contends that the 2024 election highlighted deep-seated sexism among American voters, who largely supported abortion rights at the state level yet chose Donald Trump—a candidate opposed to those very rights—over Kamala Harris. Filipovic argues that, for many voters, support for abortion is conditional; they may approve of it to protect women as mothers, wives, or daughters but balk at supporting women’s broader autonomy or political power. Trump’s appeal lies in his ability to resonate with male voters who, while not necessarily anti-abortion, are uncomfortable with a society where women hold equal standing, especially in positions of authority. Filipovic sees this as a reflection of a pervasive discomfort with women’s power, where the freedom to control one’s body doesn’t translate into support for women in leadership—a bias that, she suggests, contributed to Harris’s loss as voters favored the familiar, male-dominated status quo over a female-led future.

8 | Outplayed by Conservative Media
Media analyst Brian Beutler observes that conservative media dominated public narratives, outpacing Democrats in crafting a resonant, accessible message. Democrats’ lack of sustained, relatable media presence left voters vulnerable to right-wing propaganda, with figures like Joe Rogan shaping opinions on issues Democrats failed to address clearly. Beutler argues Democrats need to invest in media-savvy, non-traditional, authentic influencers to connect with a wider audience and challenge conservative messaging that drowns out Democratic accomplishments. Ocasio-Cortez observed that billionaire-controlled media outlets and platforms, such as Elon Musk’s Twitter, shape public opinion and manipulate algorithms in ways that disadvantage progressive voices, limiting the Democrats' reach. Pod Save America hosts argued Harris didn't leverage non-traditional media or reach voters through channels like podcasts or shows that appeal to broader audiences outside of traditional news outlets. This approach could have humanized her and reached disaffected or apolitical voters.

9 | Harris Failed to Differentiate from Unpopular Status Quo of Biden
Journalists like Astead Herndon and Ezra Klein argue that Biden’s unpopularity was the single biggest issue, with his advanced age and limited engagement hurting the Democratic image. Harris’s connection to Biden’s policies and her cautious campaigning left voters questioning what made her different. By not promoting a fresh voice, Democrats missed an opportunity to distance Harris from the administration’s struggles, making it hard for her to mobilize disillusioned or undecided voters. Ocasio-Cortez also mentioned the organizing difficulties posed by the U.S. policy on Gaza. She believes the political climate surrounding Gaza added “tremendous static” that hampered engagement and morale among key progressive organizers and activists.

Astead Herndon also argued that the Democrats’ refusal to hold a primary stifled necessary internal debate and prevented the party from recalibrating its vision to reflect the shifting concerns of voters. Julián Castro suggested she was "dealt a bad hand," attempting to lead in the shadow of an unpopular president without an open primary’s legitimacy. By bypassing a primary, the party missed an opportunity to openly address dissatisfaction with Biden’s policies and the status quo, keeping Democrats tethered to outdated assumptions about Black voter loyalty from the Obama era. Without a primary’s competitive push, Democrats were unable to introduce fresh ideas on pressing issues like the economy and immigration, leaving them out of step with the public's desire for change. This decision, Herndon suggests, allowed Republicans, especially Trump, to seize the mantle of change, presenting themselves as more responsive to the national mood and working-class frustrations while Democrats appeared rigid and resistant to adapting.

10 | Kamala Harris Seen as an “Empty Suit”
Harris’s critics argue she lacked the bold clarity needed to stand out. Despite her potential as a historical candidate, her defensive approach and reluctance to take risks left her appearing more establishment than transformative. Framed as indecisive on key issues, she failed to inspire the centrists she tried to court or mobilize a base of Democratic base voters Her ties to Biden’s unpopular policies only cemented the perception of her as a placeholder rather than a champion of change. Harris's campaign messaging, reliance on celebrities, and use of generic slogans like "joy and freedom" came across as insincere, particularly in the face of serious crises affecting Americans. This tone, combined with the Democratic Party's polling-tested, sanitized messaging, reinforced the perception of elitist disconnect. 

Symone Sanders Townsend, a former aide to President Biden, criticized Nancy Pelosi for her role in Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 race, which she argues undermined the Democrats' chance of effectively challenging Trump. Sanders Townsend contended that Pelosi’s influence led to a lack of a competitive primary, weakening Kamala Harris’s position and ultimately contributing to the Democratic loss.

After Biden’s debate performance underscored his age, many voters may have also felt duped, suspecting Democratic leaders had downplayed his health issues to protect their own interests. This fueled a sense that the party establishment was out of touch, prioritizing its own agenda over the transparency voters expect. Pod Save America hosts argued that Harris had only 100 days to mount a full campaign, which limited her ability to effectively reach voters, define her platform, and differentiate herself from Biden. The Biden administration's decision to delay the transition further shortened her campaign timeline. The hosts criticized Biden’s choice to run for re-election as a strategic mistake. They believed his unpopularity and the lack of primary allowed the Trump campaign to paint Democrats as tied to the Biden administration, without any new platform.