What Did the Democrats Do Mistaken?

Subscribe right here: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | Overcast | Pocket Casts

Within the aftermath of Donald Trump’s victorious reelection bid, Democrats are looking for a proof of Kamala Harris’s loss in an effort to start rebuilding for the long run. So it goes each election cycle—a loss, a scramble for causality, and competing narratives start to set.

Only one week out from Election Day, there are a number of dissenting and overlapping arguments being made to attempt to make sense of the outcomes. In 2016, many Democrats believed that Trump’s assault on commerce insurance policies was core to his victory. In consequence, the Biden-Harris administration pursued Trump-like insurance policies on commerce, none of which appear to have made a major distinction in growing the union vote share, decreasing Trump’s probability of victory, or stemming the circulation of working-class voters out of the Democratic Social gathering.

Now, once more, varied components of the Democratic coalition are looking for to outline the occasion’s loss. However what will we truly find out about why the Democrats had been defeated? There are nonetheless theories forming, however on as we speak’s episode of Good on Paper, I discuss with the previous Republican strategist and present host of The Bulwark Podcast, Tim Miller concerning the postelection narratives jockeying for energy.

“However for these of us who do have a perception that there’s one thing sort of particular concerning the American system and which have revered America, that perceive that America is flawed and has made errors, that also is a singular experiment on this planet. That “America is an concept” sort of factor. The thought is fairly dim at this level,” Miller argued.

The next is a transcript of the episode:

[Music]

Jerusalem Demsas: Within the aftermath of a bruising electoral loss, the dropping occasion begins taking part in a well-worn democratic custom: slinging takes about what occurred.

That is democracy! When the voters ship a dissatisfied response, the messy work of recalibration requires parsing the sign from the noise.

Had been voters mad due to a world inflationary surroundings that no Democrat may dig their method out of? Did they wish to see particular breaks between Harris and Biden on coverage? Had been they annoyed by a candidate they noticed as too left on cultural points?

There are knowledge factors in favor of many alternative theses. Right here’s the place I’d put my stake within the floor, with the caveat that we nonetheless don’t have a whole evaluation on subgroup dynamics, or perhaps a closing vote depend on all of the races:

First, incumbents worldwide had been going through robust election odds. Electorates had been annoyed by the COVID inflationary years and had been clearly looking for change. In Australia, Sweden, the Netherlands, France, and past, ruling coalitions misplaced energy throughout the political spectrum.

Second, I don’t assume Kamala Harris was ever going to be a fantastic candidate. After Biden’s disastrous debate effort in late June and it appeared he may be pressured to drop out, I wrote an article calling on Democrats to not coronate their vice chairman, and pointing to key vulnerabilities she displayed and the worth of an open democratic course of.

Determining how a lot of that is within the marketing campaign’s management—would it not actually have mattered that a lot if she’d gone on Joe Rogan’s podcast?—or determining what this implies for America’s two political events will take months, if not years. As you’ve heard on this podcast, I’m nonetheless arguing about what 2016 actually meant on commerce and immigration.

My title’s Jerusalem Demsas, I’m a employees author at The Atlantic, and that is Good on Paper, a coverage present that questions what we actually find out about well-liked narratives. As a disclaimer, I labored for the Harris main marketing campaign in 2019 earlier than changing into a journalist, and my visitor as we speak, Tim Miller, is a political strategist who was Jeb Bush’s 2016 communications director on his presidential marketing campaign. He’s been an anti-Trump conservative since then and is the host of The Bulwark Podcast.

As we speak we’re going to speak by a few of these inchoate narratives and debate which of them we expect are prone to maintain water.

[Music]

Demsas: Tim, welcome to the present.

Tim Miller: Hey Jerusalem. What’s taking place?

Demsas: Nicely, we’re recording this six days after Election Day. And—as you could have seen on Twitter, and I’m certain in your varied interviews—the takes are already coming in very, highly regarded. And this can be a present the place we regularly take a look at narratives which have already baked, and sort of take a look at the analysis and knowledge behind how these narratives shaped and what fact is there and what types of issues have gotten forward of themselves.

However we’re in an attention-grabbing second proper now the place we’re seeing essential narrative formation occur in actual time. Within the aftermath of an election, everybody’s scrambling to outline what occurred in an effort to possibly wrest management of the way forward for the occasion from an ideological perspective or only a pure energy perspective. And so we’re seeing a bunch of individuals arguing about why Trump gained and why Harris misplaced in a time the place there’s a bunch of unknowns. So we’re going to undergo a number of of those totally different narratives which are arising.

However Tim, proper off the bat, I needed to ask you: What’s your notion of why Trump gained and Harris misplaced?

Miller: I’m going to preempt my reply by saying that I feel that uncertainty is essential on this second, and that false certainty can result in some very mistaken and disastrous outcomes. I say this from expertise, having labored on the Republican post-mortem in 2013, when the standard knowledge congealed in a short time that Republicans, in an effort to win once more, wanted to reasonable on immigration and cultural points to enchantment extra to Hispanics and ladies. And never solely was that mistaken, however the person who turned the nominee after which the president used that post-mortem for bathroom paper and went precisely the other way.

It additionally all the time didn’t additionally work out in Trump’s favor. In 2022, the standard knowledge was that Trumpism was badly damage and that Ron DeSantis was ascendant. Proper? So anyway, within the week after the election, dangerous takes abound.

Demsas: [Laughs.]

Miller: That stated, my reply is, I’m open to a wide range of various things that the Democrats might need to do, amongst them being possibly nothing and watch Trump self-implode. Is perhaps so simple as that. That stated, the one factor that I feel is definite that the Democrats have to replicate on on the subject of this query of why Trump gained and why Harris misplaced—it’s that the Democratic message just isn’t touchdown exterior of a selected demographic of middle- to upper-income, college-educated, not notably spiritual, urban- and suburban-dwelling white People, along with Black girls, proper? These are the demos that the Democrats are doing nicely with, that Kamala Harris grew her share with from final time, not less than within the case of college-educated girls. And I feel that the Democrats are doing a really poor job of speaking to folks in all of these different demographics.

On what they should do, I’m very open to varied prospects about whether or not it’s about have an effect on or vibe or coverage or no matter. However I’m sure that there’s—truthful or unfair, there’s a notion that the Democrats don’t care about these different demographics, notably working-class demographics, notably working-class males. And that they didn’t supply them one thing that was extra interesting than the nostalgia and guarantees of gold bullion that they acquired from Donald Trump. And so we will hash by all of the totally different theories about why that was. However I feel the truth that what occurred—you’ll be able to’t argue with.

Demsas: Yeah. I feel that that’s very descriptively true. However I assume what I’d wish to know from you is do you are feeling like there are particular issues that Democrats have carried out that tipped the scales in opposition to them? I feel that what you’re outlining right here could be very sound. There’s a distinction between why Harris could have misplaced and what the Democrats have to do going ahead to be a extra electorally related occasion on the presidential stage. And so out of your perspective, although, is there one thing concerning the Democratic argument across the economic system or different points that you just assume was notably related this time round?

Miller: I feel that, for starters, folks had been sad with the economic system. And I don’t assume that the Democrats offered a message to them about how they plan to alter that for the higher. However, once more, I’m additionally not even actually able to concede that, except for inflation being annoying and that broadly hurting folks, the Democrats had been damage primarily based on their financial argument. It’d merely be cultural. It may be the best way that they spoke, and having folks really feel like they weren’t being heard.

I feel the Democrats specifically—I all the time wish to instantly go to, What’s the coverage prescription that might have appealed? And I’m like, It’s doable that there wasn’t one.

Demsas: Yeah. An essential backdrop that I feel you’re alluding to right here, as nicely, is that the inflationary surroundings was actually, actually dangerous for incumbents the world over, proper? You’re sort of going into an election the place the basics are kind of rigged in opposition to incumbents as a result of the inflationary episode was simply actually, actually onerous for folks. I feel one narrative that I’m seeing come up lots is about marketing campaign technique. And this looks like one thing that’s going to be hashed out considerably. However I assume the query I’ve right here is whether or not you assume Harris may have gained with a marketing campaign run in another way, even given the shortened timeline.

Miller: I’m giving one other “I don’t know” reply to that query: I don’t know. I feel that she, by all accounts, ran a robust marketing campaign that was primarily based on her strengths. And I feel she had an undeniably dominating debate efficiency. They ran a pleasant conference. Her speeches had been good. The messaging pivot, the launch was good. There wasn’t a variety of drama contained in the marketing campaign, proper? There are different issues that she isn’t notably sturdy at. I don’t assume that she is that nice in unscripted moments. Generally she’s higher than others.

And so then that’s the opposite factor that folks come to, which is like, Oh, she ought to have carried out Rogan and all this. And I agree. I feel she ought to have carried out extra of these interviews, however additionally they weren’t actually her sturdy go well with. And I feel that this was one thing which may’ve borne out had there been an extended main, and possibly any individual else would have emerged. However that stated, I don’t assume so. I feel Kamala Harris was going to emerge from a main, irrespective of when Joe Biden dropped out.

And so I’m not saying, Oh, this was inevitable. Simply hand over. Life is ache. [Laughs.] That’s not likely what I’m saying. Any particular factor that individuals are like, Oh, if this tactic had been totally different, that might have helped—I don’t actually purchase that. I imply, I feel that broadly talking, her being able to separate herself from the administration would have been useful, and I feel that was very difficult to do given the state of affairs Joe Biden left her in and the time interval that was left. And I feel that it’s very probably that she might need separated herself from the administration extra and nonetheless misplaced, and we might have been right here on this podcast with folks saying, Why did she distance? [Laughs.] You already know what I imply? Why did she break up the Democratic coalition?

Demsas: Yeah. I imply, it’s humorous. I feel that, on the techniques, I’m kind of with you right here. I used to be among the knowledge analyses which are popping out now, and it appears to be like like, at this level, given the information we’ve, whereas the nationwide common from 2020 to 2024 shifts roughly six factors, in battlegrounds, that quantity goes to finish up nearer to a few factors. And that speaks to marketing campaign results. That speaks to the truth that in battleground states the place, once more, nearly all of the cash goes, individuals are placing advertisements in battleground states, the marketing campaign is placing rallies there, she’s visiting, they’re actually working the press in these locations to get her story and message out in a method that you just’re not likely going to do in a secure, Dem county in Illinois or one thing.

And so because of this, what they see is that the marketing campaign results had been good on a tactical stage. Their advertisements had been persuasive. There’s proof from Dan Rosenhack at The Economist that it appears to be like just like the marketing campaign results had been simpler than Trump’s on issues like—indicating issues like advertisements and rallies had been higher for Harris.

I feel on this type of broader meta query that you just sort of raised, proper, about Harris because the nominee, I don’t assume that is inevitable. I imply, I wrote an article on July ninth arguing that she was unlikely to be a superb nominee and the occasion shouldn’t coronate her, and Nancy Pelosi to The New York Instances—I don’t know in the event you noticed this quote, after Harris’s loss—she says that she had anticipated that if the president had been to step apart that there can be an open main. And that possibly Kamala would have been stronger going ahead if she’d gone by a main and that the president endorsed Kamala Harris instantly, which made it not possible to have a main on the time. But it surely sounds such as you’re saying that you just assume that, regardless, this could not have actually modified the sport that a lot.

Miller: Yeah, I imply, I feel that had Joe Biden adopted the—you’ll be able to argue whether or not it was a promise or whether or not it was a sign that he was going to be a one-term [president] and move the torch. And had there been a two-year course of, possibly Kamala Harris doesn’t emerge. However, look, there are three issues that I consider after I hear this counterfactual about what would have occurred had it been a extra open course of. The very first thing is, the Democrat—one of many issues that the Democrats have a variety of baggage round is identification politics. I feel it could have been very difficult for a Black lady to be handed over.

Demsas: However the Democratic main voters did this in 2019, proper? There was this argument being made, however they stated, no, we care most about electability and so they selected Joe Biden.

Miller: Proper, that’s true. However Joe Biden had been the vice chairman in that case. Kamala Harris was the vice chairman. You already noticed this on social media. I noticed this on social media, and I used to be mainly for Kamala but additionally, on the similar time, was like, possibly I feel it’d be wholesome to have an open course of. And I assume in the event you may wave a magic wand, I most likely would need Shapiro, Whitmer. As a result of hopefully that might win two of the three states it’s good to win the presidency. And that simply looks like a safer guess to me. That was my place: It was like pro-Kamala and/however. And I had tons of of individuals calling me a racist over that.

So, I feel that it could have triggered a variety of turmoil throughout the occasion.

Now, once more, in an extended, two-year course of, is that a variety of warmth that then simply dies out after some time, and also you decide on one thing that’s just a little bit extra electable and everyone will get behind it aside from a number of individuals who have damage emotions? Perhaps.

No. 2, an open course of opens up Gaza [as a] wound and rips that aside even wider, and I feel creates doubtlessly even larger turmoil than she already was coping with on that situation. And that’s value her, frankly. After which No. 3 is then if the idea of the case is a extra electable particular person with somebody that might get extra distance from the Biden-Harris administration, that assumes that the Democratic voters had been on the lookout for any individual to do this.

And that’s actually the place the strain is right here, Jerusalem, as a result of in the event you take a look at the information, a majority of the Biden-Harris Democrats had been mainly proud of the administration, proper? There have been certainly large components of the Democratic coalition, notably youthful voters, notably working-class Black and Hispanic voters, the kinds of those that they misplaced floor with, that had been sad with the Biden administration. However I feel that there was a plurality throughout the occasion that was not going to be for any individual—take a look at the response to Dean Phillips, not precisely essentially the most proficient candidate, however whole rejection and mockery for any individual who ran attempting to get distance from the Biden-Harris administration.

So I feel it could have been very difficult to run as a candidate and get distance. So to me, it’s like if we lived in an imaginary world the place identification politics wasn’t a problem, Gaza wasn’t a problem, and there was no backlash to distancing your self from Biden, then definitely the Democrats may have give you a stronger possibility.

We don’t dwell in an imaginary world. And I feel that throughout the world that we dwell in, inside all these constraints, I feel it’s very difficult to see a state of affairs the place you find yourself with any individual stronger than Harris.

Demsas: Yeah, I imply, all these factors I feel are very nicely taken. And I feel I’m seeing lots of people make that argument of each Harris’s inevitability because the vice chairman, and in addition this kind of sense of It might have been a worse candidate. I do assume that sort of my basic perception is kind of, once you assume you’re behind, you run a high-variance play. For those who’re gonna lose anyway, you simply sort of throw all the things you’ll be able to on the kitchen sink.

And on this type of inevitability level, proper, I feel there may be this burgeoning sense that Democrats had been simply repudiated throughout the board right here. You sort of introduced this up, this concept that Democrats wouldn’t have a superb reply on financial points or on the problems that People care about.

However I don’t know, how do you reconcile that with the clear ticket-splitting you see occurring right here? [Nebraska’s Dan] Osborne ran seven factors forward of the Harris ticket. [Montana Senator Jon] Tester ran seven factors forward of the ticket. Amy Klobuchar ran six factors forward. That’s simply within the Senate. And within the Home, we see over-performances from everybody from AOC to Jared Golden in Maine, who’s a way more reasonable member of the Democratic coalition. Doesn’t that point out at some stage that candidate high quality was essential right here and that there have been different candidates that had been far more electable?

Miller: For starters, working the presidential race is to this point totally different from working a Senate or Home race that it’s nearly not even the identical sport.

It’s actually like T-ball versus the key leagues. What folks anticipate from their—I imply, no one’s like, Oh man, does Amy Klobuchar should go on Joe Rogan? No one watches Amy Klobuchar’s debates. Clearly it’s just a little totally different in Montana, the place you’re working a aggressive race. However once more, simply the curiosity in Senate races is totally different. I feel that the Democrats have a coalition that’s completely sturdy and capable of win nonpresidential elections. I feel that this commerce within the voters that has occurred the place the Democrats are selecting up extra high-trust, extra middle- to high-income, extra college-educated voters, and the Republicans are selecting up extra low-trust, extra middle- to low-income, and fewer educated voters. As a commerce, that accrues to Democrats advantages in off-year elections and midterms and particular elections, simply because it’s the kind of individual that exhibits up for these kinds of issues, and it accrues to the Republicans profit in presidential elections. In order that’s not good when the Republicans are nominating Donald Trump, and the Republicans’ presidential nominee is an existential risk to the material of our republic. And in order that’s an issue.

And so I agree which you could’t take a look at the information and say, oh, the Democratic model is irreparably harmed. Like, no, the Democrats gained. And a variety of these Senate races are going to finish up very slender minorities, within the Home and the Senate, that they are going to most likely be capable of win again within the midterms, relying on what occurs.

However I feel that there are two issues, which is, No. 1, the Democrats should not nicely suited to working presidential elections proper now, on this media surroundings, after which No. 2 is that the Democrats have deserted large components of the nation the place they don’t seem to be viable. And that’s notably problematic, given the Senate and Electoral Faculty and the best way that’s arrange.

So okay, again to No. 1. Democrats are actually good at working campaigns which are set items. They’ve professionals which are working these campaigns: the advertisements, the conventions, the speeches, the going to the editorial-board conferences, the 2004-type campaigns. And that’s how Senate and Home campaigns are mainly nonetheless run in many of the nation, and even governor’s races, proper? Folks simply don’t care about these races at that deep of a stage. However the presidential race is—the media surroundings round it’s so totally different. I imply, individuals are consuming details about the presidential race on their TikTok, listening to sports activities discuss, listening to their random podcasts that aren’t about sports activities in any respect which are cultural, on girls’s blogs, at a faculty operate, individuals are speaking about it casually, what I imply?

I’m a father or mother, and clearly this can be a little little bit of choice bias since I’m in politics and folks know that, however folks don’t come as much as me and ask me what I take into consideration the Home race in my district. No one’s talked about Troy Carter to me at any occasions,, at any college capabilities or any of my youngsters’ sporting occasions.

Demsas: He’s acquired to get his title on the market. [Laughs.]

Miller: And so the data surroundings is only a whole class distinction. And Trump and even J. D. Vance in sure methods had been capable of benefit from that by working campaigns which are just a little bit extra unwieldy, which are higher for viral clips, which are additionally higher for sitting down for 2 hours and broing out with the Theo Von and speaking about how one can’t even do coke on this nation anymore as a result of the fentanyl is in it, proper?

She wasn’t doing any of that. And doing a type of interviews isn’t actually the reply, proper? It’s like, are you able to talk in a method that feels genuine? It may be pretend authenticity, however in a method that feels genuine to folks of their Instagram Tales, of their TikTok, of their podcasts, no matter.

And Democrats should not producing a variety of candidates who I really feel are good at that.

Demsas: However I feel there’s additionally this broad concern that the media ecosystem itself just isn’t producing convincing, progressive-sounding or left-leaning media personalities. There’s a 2017 AER examine that I bear in mind being very, very surprising to folks when it first got here out, proper after Trump’s election in 2016. And there are a pair economists, they take a look at the impact of Fox Information, and so they discover that watching Fox Information for an extra 2.5 minutes per week will increase the vote share by 0.3 proportion factors. However watching MSNBC has basically no impact, and so they see that Fox Information is definitely capable of shift viewers’ attitudes rightward. They usually take a look at 2004 and 2008 and discover that Republican presidential candidates’ share of the two-party vote would have been greater than three factors decrease in 2004, and 6 factors decrease in 2008 with out Fox Information.

And in order that’s one thing the place I’m identical to—there’s something to the truth that the media ecosystem doesn’t have that kind of focused equipment. However my regular perception about these types of issues is that we’re discounting the truth that a lot of the media is so liberal that Fox Information can have this huge impact as a result of it I feel stands out amongst a pack of extra liberal establishments, however I’m sort of shocked at MSNBC.

Miller: Yeah, I imply, as an individual on MSNBC, did that examine go on earlier than I used to be a political contributor? I feel it did. So we would have to replace the examine and have them concentrate on my hits and see if that modifications something.

I assume I wish to noodle on that for just a little bit. That does shock me just a little bit as nicely, however I’d say this: I feel that I’m much less involved. I feel there’s a class of particular person on the market, and possibly that is proper, that’s targeted on Republicans have higher propaganda shops than the Democrats do.

Demsas: Yeah.

Miller: And possibly that’s true. I don’t know. So to me, then the query is, okay, what might be carried out? What’s reasonable on this media surroundings? And it goes again to this query of, can the Democrats converse extra by utilizing present shops or discovering a candidate who has a compelling story in their very own proper, or compelling communication abilities to determine easy methods to converse to those that don’t watch mainstream information?

And that’s simply actually what it comes all the way down to. The Democrats are superb at speaking to folks which are high-information, high-engagement, high-education, middle-to-high-income, and providing persuasive arguments. I feel that they’re not good at speaking to anyone else. And Obama was good at that, and Clinton was good at that. And we’re in a very totally different media surroundings now than we had been again then. However I feel that there’s nonetheless issues that may be discovered from that.

[Music]

Demsas: After the break, why the abortion-ballot-measure technique didn’t pan out for the Harris marketing campaign.

[Break]

Demsas: I wish to pull us out of this media dialog right here, as a result of I feel that there’s additionally this, let’s say issues go just a little bit in another way—and once more, the margins right here should not very large—and Harris has gained.

I feel one of many large issues we’d be listening to proper now could be that she gained due to abortion, proper? And Election Night time, you see a variety of wins for abortion. There are 10 states which have referendums on abortion insurance policies, and 7 of them win: New York, Maryland, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Montana, Missouri. And in Florida, the place it loses, the brink is 60 % and it earns 57 %, so it misplaced, however there’s clearly a majority in favor.

And, getting in, I imply, particularly after the midterms, there was an actual feeling, sort of the massive narrative that got here out of these midterms was that abortion is the place the place Democrats can clearly distinguish and might clearly win over Republican candidates, even in deeply Republican states, and particularly in deeply purple states.

And I’m attempting to assume by this. What explains in your thoughts the kind of distinction between what number of voters had been saying, Sure, I do have extra liberal views on abortion; I’m prepared to specific these in these poll measures; however no, I’m not going to then reward Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris for it?

Miller: Nicely, a few issues. No. 1, this stress has all the time existed as outdated as time, and it’s notably existed as outdated as time in locations like Florida. I did certainly one of these, , time is a flat circle—

Demsas: [Laughs.]

Miller: I neglect which election it was at this level, however it was like, how did the minimum-wage-increase poll initiative in Florida move on the similar time that Ron DeSantis gained by 18 factors or no matter, whichever election that was.

And it’s like, voters are sophisticated. Voters have advanced views. And so that you see this as sort of only a frequent factor in voter habits. On this case, I feel that there are a few complicating components as well as. No. 1 was, Donald Trump muddied the waters on his views.

Demsas: Yeah.

Miller: And I feel that Donald Trump’s complete model and vibe—I do know we’re getting exterior of the information house that you just prefer to be in, Jerusalem, however there’s a sure group of individuals which are like, Yeah, that man’s not gonna ban abortion. You already know what I imply? And there’s just a few proportion of voters on the market that that’s simply it. He doesn’t come off like Ted Cruz on abortion. He comes off as totally different, as a result of they assume that he paid for an abortion or no matter, that he doesn’t care about it, and that he’s not gonna—this isn’t gonna be what he’s targeted on. There are going to be folks which are pro-choice that prioritize their financial views or their nativist views, proper?

So that’s going to be a few of it. I feel much less so in Florida, however extra in Arizona. To me, I feel that there’s truly a strategic backfiring of getting these poll initiatives on the poll nearly gave some folks an out to do each, proper? Those that didn’t like Kamala Harris or that had been extra center-right and stated, Oh, okay, nice, I can defend abortion in Arizona and in addition vote for Donald Trump. I can have my cake and eat it, too.

Demsas: Yeah, I imply, I feel my learn of it’s extra that when you concentrate on the precise argument being made about abortion, it was largely, he’s accountable for all these horrible issues which are taking place to girls in states which have made abortion inaccessible. And by he, I imply Trump is accountable for that. And in addition, , he appointed these Supreme Court docket nominees who overturned Roe v. Wade. However as a prescription for the long run, I really feel like there was not an actual clear argument made to voters of how Kamala Harris goes to truly defend abortion.

However once more, all of it comes again to the overarching query, did voters view this as an abortion election? And it appears clear that they considered it as an inflation election. That was the core factor that they had been targeted on. And I feel that one factor that I’ve heard lots is what this implies for understanding America, proper?

So after 2016, folks had been simply, I feel, in shock, and had been saying, I can’t imagine that is the nation I dwell in. And once more right here I’m listening to the kind of query of, , this can be a black mark on the conscience of America, that folks would vote for somebody who threatened to overturn the outcomes of the 2020 election, who talks with such liberal disdain for ladies and immigrants.

One thing somebody stated to me in 2016 was actually attention-grabbing: In case your total notion of America would have shifted if a number of hundred thousand folks voted in another way, possibly don’t utterly change all the things you imagine about everybody. And to me, I feel that this framing about Trump’s reelection means one thing actually darkish about all of the those that voted for him doesn’t actually sit nicely with me as a result of it looks like individuals are voting primarily based on value of dwelling. On the similar time, too, I feel they’re taking their sign from Democrats who, in the event that they’d taken their very own warnings about the specter of fascism or the risk to our establishments, I feel would have behaved very in another way over the previous couple of years in attempting to win.

Miller: Yeah. It doesn’t change my view of the American folks, actually, that there are good folks and dangerous folks in all places, that all of us have good and dangerous within us. I’ll say that what it does impression for me—and possibly that is mistaken and possibly I’m uncooked and it’s six days out—however for these of us who do have a perception that there’s one thing sort of particular concerning the American system and which have revered America, that perceive that America is flawed and has made errors however nonetheless is a singular experiment on this planet. You already know, the “America is an concept” sort of factor.

The thought is fairly dim at this level. And, to me, that’s the change, having him win once more, that I’m having bother getting over. Mentally, it’s not that it makes me look poorly at my neighbors, however that we simply may be on the finish of the experiment and the sense that America is one thing totally different than Hungary or Switzerland or no matter, any nation—you title the nation.

It was the outdated combat with Republicans and Democrats in the course of the Obama years, which is, Obama doesn’t consider America as any totally different than Belgium. Obama believes in Belgian exceptionalism. And that to me is sort of the place I’m. I feel that we’re about to maneuver into an period the place America’s flaws, along with all of our present flaws like gun violence and our historical past of racism, et cetera—the American system’s flaws look much more like what flaws seem like in different international locations.

There’s going to be oligarchy, kleptocracy, corruption. There’s no particular sense that the huddled lots around the globe are welcome right here any greater than they may be welcome anyplace else. They frankly are most likely going to be welcome right here lower than they’re welcome in sure different locations.

And so to me, that’s what I see in another way. I reserve the suitable to alter my thoughts about that sooner or later, however that’s the place I’m at proper now.

Demsas: Yeah. I feel in distinction to this huge view concerning the American concept of possibly being totally different than we believed beforehand is that this, I feel, actually well-liked take that’s selecting up steam, which is about simply Democrats have to reasonable on cultural points, whether or not it’s about immigration, or it’s the difficulty of trans girls and ladies in sports activities. They’re simply too left of the median voter, and also you don’t truly have to do a bunch else aside from settle for that individuals are the place they’re on these locations and never go so far-off from it.

The information level that’s sort of in favor of this, notably on the trans-girls-in-sports one, is Kamala Harris’s main tremendous PAC, Future Ahead, finds that the best, or one of the crucial efficient, Trump advertisements is likely one of the “Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you” advertisements. They discover that it shifted the race 2.7 proportion factors in Trump’s favor after folks watched it.

How related do you assume that the Democratic Social gathering’s leftward shift on cultural points is to Harris’s loss? And I imply, there’s some individuals who I feel are actually making the declare that you might simply actually concentrate on this and also you don’t have to make these sort of bigger arguments about technique or how we’re talking to America on financial coverage.

Miller: I don’t assume that this was alone to account for Harris’s loss and even possibly the largest factor to account for her loss. I feel that she didn’t actually reply to that advert specifically fairly nicely, and that possibly that was a strategic mistake. I feel her marketing campaign—and he or she didn’t run like a very “woke,” culturally left marketing campaign. Ao the query is, did the Democratic model on these points drag her down? I feel presumably.

To me, look, may Kamala Harris have squeaked out a victory this time whereas holding the identical positions on trans points had inflation been 20 % higher? Perhaps. In all probability. It was a transparent victory for Trump, however it wasn’t, , Reagan ’84.

A few issues modified, and had that one, the cultural stuff stayed static, may she have nonetheless gained? Clearly. I imply, Biden gained in 2020, when all of these points had been extra high-salience, I feel, than they had been this time. Biden, not a Black lady—so possibly there’s one thing to that as nicely, that he was capable of be just a little bit extra resilient in opposition to assaults on these points.

So possibly that’s value serious about. I’d say this, although. If the Democrats wish to have 60 senators once more ever, then yeah, they acquired to reasonable on cultural points. You already know what I imply? There are two methods to take a look at this: Can Democrats nonetheless win elections by sustaining their views on all the things? Sure. Are the Democrats making a gift of large swaths of the nation by not likely even partaking with their issues concerning the leftward shift of the occasion on a big selection of points? Yeah, they’re. I get the land-doesn’t-vote factor, I get it, however take a look at the map.

Demsas: [Laughs.] We’ve all seen the map.

Miller: The map remains to be the map, what I imply?

And Trump gained in all of these little pink counties on the market the place it’s simply land, all proper? However he gained. There are a handful of individuals on the market, and he acquired extra of them, in each county. And the Democrats’, I feel, selection to simply say, Nicely, we’re simply giving up on that and we’re simply going to concentrate on the extra dynamic components of the rising components of the nation and, finally, demographics are future and blah, blah, blah, that appears like a reasonably dangerous guess as we speak.

I’m not out right here being like, yeah, you bought to throw trans folks or migrants beneath the bus for them to win. However definitely the cultural leftward shift has created a ceiling on Democratic help that I feel has a unfavourable impact for the occasion, but additionally for progress on a variety of these points.

Demsas: Yeah. I feel it’s clearly very up within the air right here, how individuals are gonna take this mantle of how you must reasonable, and I feel that there’s dangerous and good ways in which folks can take this. And I feel that there’s a stage to which individuals—you don’t should be throwing trans folks beneath the bus. Perhaps we have to determine methods, whether or not it’s how Democrats responded to this with homosexual rights, the place they talked about federalism lots and made certain the nation moved towards the difficulty earlier than making it a nationwide situation.

However I feel a very powerful and damning factor that Democrats are clearly liable for within the selections they’ve made is concerning the poor governance in blue cities and states. That is certainly one of my hobbyhorses, however you see huge shifts, as you talked about, in high-cost-of-living locations which are closely democratic, in New York and in California and in a variety of the Northeast. And I feel it’s onerous to see that as something aside from only a repudiation of Democratic governance and notably the price of dwelling and the price of housing in these locations.

And so, to me, once you talked concerning the Democratic model, I imply, once you’re in a cost-of-living election, sure, there are marginal results on these cultural points we’re speaking about right here. Sure, there are issues that campaigns can do higher. Sure, there are candidate results. But when individuals are asking themselves, What does it seem like, how does it really feel to my pocketbook to dwell in a Democratically run state versus a Republican one? I really feel like they’re being informed a really clear story.

Miller: I feel that that’s true. I’ve been ruminating on this lots over the previous week. I dwell in Louisiana, so there may be the sort of emotional guttural response I’ve to this, which is, do you assume Louisiana is being ruled that nicely? As a result of I don’t.

Demsas: Yeah. Nicely, on value, although, proper? It’s cheaper, clearly, to have a home in Louisiana.

Miller: It’s cheaper to have a home in Louisiana due to the financial destruction of the state over the previous couple of a long time and the truth that everyone that grows up in components of the state that’s not this hall between New Orleans and Baton Rouge depart residence. And lots of people in these locations depart residence, too, on the lookout for higher financial alternatives. And that’s unhappy for the state.

That’s my preliminary response, which is emotional, which is like, okay, certain. However why does Kamala Harris have to hold the bags for the place I used to dwell—Oakland—however Donald Trump doesn’t have to hold the bags for the hollowing out of huge components of Louisiana? That stated, it’s true that it damage the Democrats, proper? And it’s additionally true that the Democrats have been badly managing these large cities. And in the event you simply take a look at the numbers, suburban Democrats—and this might be a counterargument. Now, I’m going to actually offer you a galaxy mind, Jerusalem, to your authentic knowledge level earlier that the three-point impact within the battleground states versus nationwide speaks to a marketing campaign impact? Perhaps.

Perhaps it additionally speaks to the truth that a variety of these battleground states are made up of locations which have combined governance and massive suburbs the place the Democrats are doing higher. Democrats are doing higher in suburban America as a result of they know they’re not feeling the acute ache of governing points which have plagued a variety of the massive cities. And certainly there are a few large cities in these seven swing states, however not one of the ones you consider once you consider main disruptions, and that possibly that explains it and that the Republican features had been in much more of these locations like that, Illinois, New Jersey, California. Anyway, simply one thing to noodle on.

However I feel that it’s objectively true that Democrats are doing higher in locations that haven’t been suffering from a few of these dangerous governing selections on crime and on housing that we’ve seen for in Democratic cities, and the Democratic mayors and Democratic governors in blue states ought to repair that.

And it’s the No. 1 factor—the very last thing I’ll say on that is—the No. 1 factor that involves thoughts after I already hear silly parlor-game stuff about 2028 and it’s like Gavin Newsom and J. B. Pritzker. And to me, the No. 1 factor Gavin Newsom and J. B. Pritzker have to do in the event that they wish to run in 2027 is make Illinois and California run higher within the meantime. In any other case, nothing in opposition to both of these two guys, however I feel that they’re going to hold this baggage that you just’re speaking about.

Demsas: Nicely, I may go on about housing in blue states without end. And there’s an article popping, I feel as we speak, listeners, as you’re listening to about this, about why I feel this was a giant situation for the election.

However Tim, all the time our final and closing query.

Miller: Okay.

Miller: What’s one thing that you just as soon as thought was a good suggestion however ended up solely being good on paper?

Miller: Oh, okay. Maintain on. I wasn’t ready for this. I misinterpret the query. I assumed it was an concept that was solely good on paper that then ended up being not good on paper.

Demsas: Thought might be good.

Miller: No, no, no. I’ll give you one the place I’m mistaken. I’m blissful to guess the place I’m mistaken. I used to be simply saying the concepts are infinite on these.

Demsas: Oh. Yeah, yeah, yeah. One thing that you held, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Miller: An concept that I thought that was good on paper that ended up not being good on paper. Nicely, I assume I’ve to provide the plain reply to that query, sadly. I don’t get to rant about daylight financial savings time as I hoped to—an concept that was definitely good on paper within the 1800s or at any time when they got here up with it that’s now not good. Falling again, that’s. Everlasting daylight saving time: good concept.

Altering occasions: not good.

Demsas: 4 hundred electoral votes for whoever does this.

Miller: Yeah. The concept that I assumed that was good on paper that’s related to this podcast—as a result of I actually put it on paper and wrote it—was the aforementioned 2013 GOP post-mortem.

Demsas: Oh, yeah.

Miller: Nicely, how nice! Compassionate conservatism. Republicans can diversify their occasion by getting softer on cultural points and reaching out to the suburbs and reaching out to Hispanic voters and Black voters, criminal-justice reform, and that by criminal-justice reform and immigration reform and softening on gays, that Republicans can have a brand new, various citizens, and we will all transfer into a contented, bipartisan future.

That was a fantastic concept on paper that backfired spectacularly, and now the Republicans have their most various citizens that they’ve had ever, I feel, voting for Donald Trump after rejecting all of these strategies that I placed on paper. So there you go.

Demsas: As one vote of confidence for youthful Tim, there are very many ways in which historical past may have gone. I feel that folks usually neglect how contingent issues are and the way distinctive of a determine Trump is. And proper now we’ve talked by a bunch of various ways in which individuals are studying this second, however there are a variety of ways in which folks can go, relying on what candidates do and say and the way they catch fireplace and their charisma and what finally ends up being related in two years and in 4 years. So just a little little bit of sympathy for youthful Tim.

Miller: I respect that. And that’s true. Who the hell is aware of, proper?

Demsas: Yeah, precisely.

Miller: Had Donald Trump not run that point and he determined he needed to do another rip-off as an alternative, then possibly Marco Rubio is the nominee and people issues do come to move.

Demsas: [Laughs.] Yeah. If Obama doesn’t make enjoyable of him on the White Home Correspondents’ Dinner, we’re not even sitting right here on this podcast.

Miller: Nice job, Jon Lovett, or whoever wrote that joke.

Demsas: [Laughs.]

Miller: I’m simply joking.

Demsas: Yeah. Nicely, thanks a lot, Tim. Thanks for approaching the present.

Miller: Thanks, Jerusalem.

[Music]

Demsas: Good on Paper is produced by Jinae West. It was edited by Claudine Ebeid and engineered by Erica Huang. Our theme music consists by Rob Smierciak. Claudine Ebeid is the chief producer of Atlantic audio. Andrea Valdez is our managing editor.

And hey, in the event you like what you’re listening to, please depart us a score and assessment on Apple Podcasts.

I’m Jerusalem Demsas, and we’ll see you subsequent week.