Welcome to Eureka Street

back to site

How the Democrats relived Clinton's nightmare

 

The pundits, psephologists and political strategists, accompanied by any number of media outlets, were all emphatic: the 2024 US Presidential elections were set to be the tightest on record. According to The Global and Mail, polls showed ‘a lockstep march between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump’, thereby giving ‘new meaning to ‘nail-biter.’

The Virginian Daily Press remarked that polls on the last day of the campaign ‘showed one of the closest presidential elections in the history of American politics’ even going as far as to say that there had ‘never been a race where the final polls showed such a close contest.’ The good people of the Bipartisan Policy Center, in also calling the contest a ‘nailbiter’, warned that election results would not be conclusive on the day itself.

Within a matter of hours, commentators and election watchers were seeing the ghost of Hillary Clinton’s past make a reappearance. There was nail biting, but only from those on networks baffled that Trump was galloping away in counties across the battleground states. Within twenty-four hours, it was clear that Trump had won such vital states as Michigan and Pennsylvania, won more than the requisite 270 Electoral College votes and, much to the horror of his detractors, secured the popular vote. 

In 2016, Clinton was seen as the logical, establishment candidate by the Democratic Party machinery, despite facing a bruising primary race with the far more progressive Vermont Senator, Bernie Sanders. This time around, it was Harris, whose pathway to the Democratic Party nomination was unmarked and unblemished by primaries and challengers.

This was one of a number of mistakes made by the Democrats. In terms of planning, the continued, stubborn presence of President Joe Biden as an automatic contender left little room for any fresh candidates. Biden insisted he was the only one qualified to defeat Trump. The denials and concealments of his declining faculties by the party machinery, a fact so cruelly unmasked in his June 27 debate with Trump, left little to no time in staging a competitive process.

Harris, unremarkable as a Vice President, and even more unremarkable as a campaigner, given her lamentable performance in the lead-up to the 2020 race, became a poor choice. Drawn from the liberal state of California, a point that blunted her appeal with the voters of middle-America, she was always going to struggle. That struggle became even more pronounced with her selection of the barely known Tim Walz, governor of Minnesota.

None of this seemed to concern the pundit and party classes. It did not bother the Democrat donors who coughed up scandalously large sums (US$1 billion over three months) to back Harris. Celebrities aplenty crowed with delight that good sense had prevailed with Biden withdrawing from the race in favour of someone who ticked all the appropriate identity markers: woman, colour, professional. 

 

'The Democrats, in treating Trump as epiphenomenal, a passing fad that could be extinguished through prosecution, litigation and denigration, failed to understand the local mood and anxieties in poorer, rural and suburban communities. Harris, like Clinton, merely presumed that Hispanic and Black voters would surge to her via a motley coalition of independents, women, and disaffected Republicans of the Nikki Haley-Liz Cheney variety. How dangerous, and how costly that proved to be.'

 

The campaign itself was simple and simplistic. Trump was demonised on various fronts. Idiotic statements from him or his supporters (comedian Tony Hinchcliffe’s ‘floating island of garbage’ remark on Puerto Rico stood out) were pounced on as self-evident instances of disqualification. His Madison Square Garden performance suggested to the Harris campaign a Nuremberg rally from 1939, the yearnings of an inner fascist.

Accordingly, he was attacked constantly as a danger to democracy, a point that merely served to double his exposure. (When your opponent cannot stop mentioning your name, half the battle on publicity has been won.)

He was attacked for being a convicted felon, a point true enough till you realise it made no difference to broader voter considerations, adding, if anything, some appeal to the outlaw, anti-hero theme that runs so strongly in the narrative of American folklore. Ditto being a twice-impeached president, a misogynist, and a sexual predator.

The Harris campaign failed to carve out a distinct message. There was nothing to suggest that any administration with her at the helm would be too different from that of Biden. This was particularly crucial on such issues as inflation and border security. The indifference shown by Harris to the former, in particular, was encouraged by a mantra that the US economy was purring and humming to the tune of growth. This did little to comfort the weekly shopper alarmed by the sharp rise of prices on food, rent and fuel during the Biden administration. To the question ‘Are you better now than you were four years ago?’, there came no reliable answer.

Damaging to the Harris campaign, a point revealing in showing how little the Democrats had understood their defeat in 2016, was its slight against voters for gravitating towards Trump in the first place. It suggested a feeble mind and moral defectiveness. An astonishing error of judgment by Clinton then was to call Trump supporters a ‘basket of deplorables’. In September this year, Clinton remained unchastened and untutored, writing in The Washington Post that ‘deplorable is too kind a word for the hate and violent extremism we’ve seen from some Trump supporters.’ Such language is fatal to the endeavour of persuasion.

How, then, were things so misread? Because political analysis of the sort seen in 2024, just as it was in 2016, had everything to do with an echo chamber of self-affirming believers and little to do with what voters were saying. Hard as it is for those in the politics information industry to understand, most voters are simply not inclined to think in broad political terms. Trump’s preternatural understanding for voter behaviour is that it is instinctive and unworldly, not cerebral and rarified. Home budgets, the cost of living, groceries, fuel and housing are earthly matters.  

Nothing illustrated this better than the remarkably localised campaigns run by the GOP, typified by the work of conservative activist Scott Presler. His Early Vote Action effort encouraged voter registration and an increase in absentee and early voting. In the crucial battleground state of Pennsylvania, Presler proved adept at mobilising the Amish vote for Trump, capitalising on disgruntlement caused by a Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture raid on a local raw milk farm in Hand in January. The raid on Amos Miller’s farm was motivated by health reasons; Amish supporters for Miller saw it as an aggressive overreach of governmental bureaucracy.

The Democrats, in treating Trump as epiphenomenal, a passing fad that could be extinguished through prosecution, litigation and denigration, failed to understand the local mood and anxieties in poorer, rural and suburban communities. Harris, like Clinton, merely presumed that Hispanic and Black voters would surge to her via a motley coalition of independents, women, and disaffected Republicans of the Nikki Haley-Liz Cheney variety. How dangerous, and how costly that proved to be. Trump, and Trumpism, is here to stay.

 

 


Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University.

Main image: Following Vice President And Presidential Nominee Kamala Harris Delivers Concession Speech At Howard University. (Getty Images)

 

Topic tags: Binoy Kampmark, USA, Election, Harris, Trump, Democrats, Clinton

 

 

submit a comment

Existing comments

All very true. But why talk about "the popular vote" when 40% approximately of eligible voters either do not register or simply abstain? As for political polls their main use appears to be to give mainstream media material for vacuous speculation.

I thought OZ political reporting was shallow enough but in the USA it is mostly regurgitated press releases/authorised leaks. As for the millions of dollars spent by individual campaigners - senators, Congress representatives, etc. Who profits? Democracy in the USA is being undermined by plutocrats and technocrats. Maybe Trumpism will prove to be the new political ideology that the USA needs to survive, not a democratic model that is no longer fit for purpose.


Uncle Joe | 14 November 2024  

Sadly, your final observation that Trump and Trumpism is here to stay is true - well at least for 4 years. We have had to endure yet another US presidential election when most of the main-stream media studiously avoided covering the major issues and party policies and concentrated mostly on Trump's ridiculous assertions, the inane speeches at political rallies and the replies by Harris. And we also have to realise that there is not much difference in policies between the Republicans and Democrats. There was no coverage of what the US Greens candidate - Dr Jill Stein - or the other alternative candidates were saying. I mention Stein because she at least had responsible policies to deal with the key current political issues in the US. Because of the huge amounts of the US budget being devoted to purchasing armaments to maintain US strategic dominance, ordinary Americans living in poverty with a healthcare system that is in shambles are overlooked by the major parties. And the Biden-Harris administration gave $20 billion worth of armaments to Israel not long before the election to continue its ongoing slaughter in Palestine and Lebanon. Having said that, many of those struggling Americans voted for the multi-billionaire Trump who has even less sympathy for them than the Democrats. I have read that about 60% of Americans obtain their news from ultra-conservative and fundamentalist-owned media outlets, so maybe the Trump victory should have been more widely predicted.

In Australia - where there is also not much difference between the two major parties - the LNP and the ALP -we have a federal election occurring in 2025. Many are predicting that the LNP led by Peter Dutton could well win meaning that there would be stronger support for US hegemony and warmongering and much less support for battling Australians than the ALP. We will need to ensure that there is deep and meaningful public discussion of the important political issues we face in the lead-up to that election.


Andrew (Andy) | 15 November 2024  

Similar Articles

With stars in their eyes, the Dems lost sight of America

  • Warwick McFadyen
  • 11 November 2024

After a stunning defeat, Kamala Harris urged Americans not to despair even though as Trump returns to the White House, the Democrats face a harsh reckoning. Beyond the star-studded stages and celebrity endorsements, the real work lies in understanding the voters they overlooked and finding a way back to them. 

READ MORE

The end of politics as usual

  • Julian Butler
  • 11 November 2024

As Americans confront the start of a second Trump presidency, the questions go deeper than policy. This victory, far from an anomaly, reflects deeper fractures and discontent in a polarized nation. How can a society move forward when politics seem unable to address, let alone heal, its divisions?

READ MORE