All of This Chaos Makes Perfect Sense
If Democrats want to get back in the game, they need to focus on adequately representing their constituents.
The election results from last week are, to put it mildly, difficult to digest. Democrats suffered losses across the board, from the highest office in the federal government to the upper and lower chambers of the South Carolina legislature.
Nationally, former President Donald Trump will reclaim the White House, potentially with a majority in both the Senate and the House (provided he stops nominating House Republicans for cabinet positions). Locally, Republicans retained their supermajority in the South Carolina House and flipped four Senate seats. As it stands, the State Senate now consists of 32 Republicans and 12 Democrats, while the House comprises 87 Republicans and 35 Democrats (with 2 vacancies). These numbers mean South Carolina Republicans can amend the state constitution without needing a single vote from Democrats.
While it's tempting, and necessary, to point to the strategies that Republicans and the MAGA movement have mastered, the most crucial thing we can do at this moment is take a long, hard look at ourselves. Democrats, how did we get here?
Democrats Have Lost Touch with Working-Class Voters
In the post-Obama era, Democrats tried to build on the energy and momentum they gained in the Obama years. According to New York Times columnist Ezra Klein, in a recent episode of Pod Save America, the party's approach was and has been to cater to advocacy groups representing specific demographics. If you want to win Hispanic voters, for example, you listen to the immigration groups. But as Klein points out, the problem is that these groups often don't reflect the views of their broader constituencies. For instance, many Hispanic voters are not as far left on immigration policy as some of the advocacy groups that represent them. Union leaders are more progressive than union members.
In our quest to adequately represent every voting block, we developed closer ties to these groups, but we lost sight of the actual voters—the people behind the labels. This became a problem as we began listening more to the interests of organizations rather than the everyday needs and concerns of the working-class voters they represent.
Moreover, some parts of the Democratic Party have alienated voters by growing increasingly intolerant of anyone who doesn't adhere to the party line.
Starting with Hillary Clinton in 2012, Democrats became hesitant to reject any group that represented a potential demographic we wanted to include. Take Kamala Harris as an example. As a former tough-on-crime prosecutor in San Francisco, she eventually found herself echoing calls to “defund the police” during her 2020 presidential campaign, a stance that alienated many moderate Democrats, especially in swing states. While building a broad coalition is a noble goal, and supporting interest groups with good intentions for needed change is imperative to progress, it’s important to realize that this strategy risks sidelining large segments of the electorate who don’t align with the most vocal progressive voices. Of course, it’s good to have a big tent, but the strategy behind building that tent has convinced some voters that the other tent was better.
The Rhetoric of Division
Even more damaging is the rhetoric that has emerged from within the party, particularly the dismissive and polarizing language aimed at Trump supporters. Democratic leaders like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton have labeled large segments of Trump’s base as “garbage” or “deplorable,” sending the message that certain voters, some potentially persuadable voters, are unwelcome in the Democratic fold. This kind of rhetoric not only alienates potential allies but also isolates an entire portion of the electorate, leaving many feeling they have no party to turn to.
Additionally, there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what voters actually wanted in 2024. For years, Democrats warned that Trump would "burn the system down" if elected. But as inflation skyrocketed, many voters—disconnected from the constant churn of political headlines—may have felt that "burning it down" was exactly what they wanted. When your paycheck no longer stretches far enough to cover your grocery bills, the promises of a “political outsider” who vows to dismantle the system might start to sound appealing.
Let me be clear: I am not endorsing a vote for Donald Trump. His policies represent a grave threat to American democracy and global stability, and electing him would likely do nothing to ease the economic burdens most voters face. But that is a different article. In this context of solely focusing on ourselves as Democrats, it’s important to acknowledge that, in a time of widespread disillusionment, Democrats also bear responsibility for failing to address the core concerns of working-class voters.
The Bright Side
The Republican dominance of recent elections may feel overwhelming, especially to many of our readers in South Carolina, but there is a brighter side to the story. Despite the setbacks for Democrats, American politics remains as competitive as ever. Voters have swung back and forth in tight races for over a decade. Historically, incumbents have had an advantage—access to money, name recognition, and experience. But in recent years, incumbency has been a disadvantage, particularly in presidential races.
In 2020, Donald Trump lost the popular vote by roughly four percentage points. Voters felt the chaos of the pandemic and were unhappy with the system. They voted for a change. Four years later, Vice President Kamala Harris, who was tied to the incumbent administration, lost the popular vote by roughly three percentage points, for generally the same reasons. The pattern is clear: economic dissatisfaction and a desire for change are primary motivators, and this is not an anomaly.
The Road Ahead for South Carolina
Democrats in South Carolina face a tough battle, especially given the supermajority that Republicans now hold. But there are glimmers of hope. Local victories by Democrats like State Representatives Heather Bauer and Spencer Wetmore demonstrate that it is still possible to connect with voters in meaningful ways and secure wins even in a hostile political environment. These successes can serve as a roadmap for Democrats as they work to regain their footing in upcoming elections. Plus, the eyes of the Democratic party are now on South Carolina, as we host the first Democratic primary in the country for the 2028 presidential campaign.
For Democrats to succeed, they must remember that political strategy is not just about pleasing advocacy groups or aligning with the loudest voices in the room—it’s about reconnecting with working-class voters, understanding their concerns, and offering real solutions. Only then will the party rebuild the broad coalition it needs to compete in future elections.
Politics, like life, is full of contradictions and complications. But by focusing on genuine representation, respecting the diversity of thought within the electorate, and providing meaningful solutions to real problems, Democrats can re-establish a connection with voters and begin to turn the tide. The path forward may be difficult, but it is not impossible. The party’s future is still very much in our hands.
If we Democrats conduct a serious autopsy of the disastrous 2024 Presidential nominating process and election, it must start right here in South Carolina.
That would be with the so-called "First in the Nation" primary, which was really no primary at all. It was never meant to assess and weed out candidates in a competitive race. Rather, as all of us knew at the time, it was meant to clear the field for Joe Biden and forestall any challenge to his nomination for a second term.
South Carolina was safe ground on which to hold this charade. Democratic voters had propelled Biden to the nomination in 2020, and the state's political machinery was safely in the hands of Congressman James Clyburn and his hand-picked protege, State Chair Christale Spain.
The only challengers to Biden on the ballot were Congressman Dean Phillips of Minnesota and author Marianne Williamson. Biden received more than 90 percent of the votes, but the turnout for him was pathetic: 126,000 votes. By contrast, 539,000 Democrats voted in 2020, when there really was a primary, and Biden won 48.6% of the vote.
The results of this sham 2024 primary should have been a clear warning sign to the national party, if it had been interested....which it wasn't. Enthusiasm for a Biden second term, even in South Carolina, was faint.
Nevertheless, the national party used the "victory" in South Carolina to quickly sideline Phillips and Williamson, and the national media played along, as they usually do.
The story for them became a Biden-Trump re-match. They did not frame the story as a mistake by the DNC for rigging the primary process. How many other possible Democratic candidates did the party sideline through arm-twisting and threats? Who else might have run if the process had been an honest one?
The national party has a habit of putting its thumb on the scale to choose the candidate it wants, all the while claiming it is neutral. The DNC helped sink Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary Clinton in 2016, and lost with her. This year they offered only Biden, starting in South Carolina, and lost again in November.
As an active Democrat in Dorchester County, I recognized this "first in the nation" primary was a political stunt meant to launch Biden's coronation as the nominee. I resented it at the time but was powerless to stop it, given that Clyburn and Spain (and, of course, Biden) were behind it.
What I and most rank-and-file Democrats didn't know was how ill Biden was, and that he would be in no condition to campaign in 2024 or to govern, if he managed to win. Recall that Biden was almost entirely absent from South Carolina for this sham primary.
So, here are some lessons for state and national Democrats if they write an autopsy report:
Hold a real primary contest in 2028, and keep the DNC thumb off the scale. Be truly neutral for a change.
Treat your voters like adults. Don't lie to them. Don't tell them it's an honor to host the "first in the nation" primary when it's a made-for-the media event intended to eliminate any real competition.
Most important, listen to what the voters are telling you. Biden's low approval rating in 2024, the invisible primary turnout for him in South Carolina, and his poor health should have ended his candidacy when there was still time to find a nominee around whom voters might rally. South Carolina should have been the place where party leaders faced reality and put a halt to the Biden second term fantasy.
Instead, come July after Biden's messy eleventh hour withdrawal from the race, we were handed a hobbled nominee, Kamala Harris, who was immediately and dutifully hailed as the party's choice by our clueless state party organization.
And then....four more years of Donald Trump.
David M. Rubin
There may be a wee bit of truth in your argument about the working class, but I suggest it's time to complicate our notions of who is in the working class. Rebecca Solnit does that well here in this excerpt from her Facebook page (which I'll also link for lots more great posts of her own analysis and that of many scholars).
Solnit: "Every four years we hear that the Democrats don't listen to/speak to "the working class," from people who seem to, however unconsciously, define that category as white, which it's not, and sometimes also male, which it's not, and it often becomes a way to excuse white men (who as a whole hold more wealth, earn higher pay, and vote Republican in higher numbers than anyone else) and to ignore Black women who vote Democratic in higher numbers than anyone else. Or rather blame everyone but white men for white men's choices in the classic "she made him do it" mode.
"The working class" in 1934 was women in textile mills as well as men in steel plants as well as Black and white sharecroppers and farmworkers; the working class now is as much immigrant women in nail salons and immigrant families in agricultural fields and gig workers of all races as whatever fetishized image of white male industrial workers a certain sector romanticizes (but note: Biden created hundreds of thousands of good manufacturing jobs and walked the picket line with unions).
I wish people could talk about class while also talking about race and gender and all the other combos (and yeah, talk about race while including gender and class and gender while including race and class: that intersectionality). The Democrats talk a lot about issues that impact the working class, put forth a lot of legislation and plans that benefit low- and middle-income Americans. Abortion, for example, is a crucial economic issue for a huge percentage of the population.
But there are more powerful messaging systems at work, including the Republican Party in league with the right-wing media system and the Internet, which the mainstream media mostly normalizes and too often amplifies. And the main meat of the Republican menu is the idea that liberals somehow scorn some version of regular people and the zero sum game/lifeboat economics of "if we let those people have anything there won't be enough for us, who are the true and rightful owners." The politics of scarcity and othering and resentment which all too many white people in particular slurp up. And a survey just before the election documented that the more misinformed a voter was about crime, immigration, and the economy, the more likely they were to vote for Trump.
p.s. Who has a working definition of the working class? There is no clear definition--is the plumber who makes $300k a year more working class than the adjunct history professor who makes $45k a year? People go to college and then end up being gig laborers and a lot of immigrants go from being teachers in their country to janitors in ours. And then their kids go to college and become middle-class professionals. California's public universities are full of first-in-their family students. Is it economic? An identity? About the kind of work you do rather than the income? I do know the Democratic Party has an annoying habit of forever talking about "the middle class" -- working class can be a leftist buzzword in some circles-- but who thinks they're middle class vs. working class? Of course someone a while back said a lot of Americans vote against their economic interests because they perceive themselves as temporarily embarrassed billionaires.
Michael Cohen at MSNBC: Since Tuesday night’s election results were tallied, there has been a recurrent refrain as to why Democrats lost so badly — they ignored the working class, both white and nonwhite.
In what amounted to the proverbial act of coming down to the battlefield and shooting the survivors, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., labeled the Kamala Harris campaign “disastrous” and said Democrats should not be surprised that “a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them.”
There are a couple of problems with Sanders’ argument. The most obvious and glaring is that it simply isn’t true that Democrats abandoned the working class.
It simply isn’t true that Democrats abandoned the working class.
During his nearly four years in office, President Joe Biden was arguably the most pro-union president since FDR. He literally walked a picket line, supported union organizing efforts, increased funding for the National Labor Relations Board. He infused $36 billion into the Teamsters Union pension plan (an act that Sanders praised).
Biden’s attention to the working class went far beyond the symbolic. The Inflation Reduction Act, the bipartisan infrastructure bill and the CHIPS Act all led to a fertile job creation environment — and a significant increase in manufacturing jobs, which declined during Donald Trump’s presidency. (It bears noting that all of this legislation passed in the U.S. Senate with the support of the senior senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders.)
Indeed, since Biden took office, the U.S. economy has added more than 16 million jobs — which starkly contrasts Trump’s negative job growth rate. As for wages, the working class saw a higher increase in their pay than any other group of Americans, so much so that it undid one-third of the growth in wage inequality since 1980.
During Biden’s administration, subsidies for Obamacare grew. He forgave billions in student loan debt, much of which went to community college students. His Department of Labor changed overtime eligibility rules, boosting wages for more than 4 million workers and also increased pay for construction workers on federal projects.
Critics like Sanders would likely argue that these successes weren’t messaged properly to working-class Americans. That’s not true either. As the New Republic’s Greg Sargent pointed out earlier this week, the Harris campaign poured $200 million into ads that focused on her economic message. In fact, she outspent the Trump campaign by around $70 million on ads about the economy.
What was the content of these ads? Calls to end corporate price gouging, lower housing costs, cut middle-class taxes and protect Social Security and Medicare. Other Harris ads accused Trump of only looking out for his billionaire pals and corporations and attacked him for enacting tax cuts that were primarily directed at the wealthiest Americans.
This is the definition of an economic populist message.
Yet, Biden’s record and the disparity in the two candidates’ economic messages didn’t increase the party’s support among working-class voters (which are defined here as those without a college degree). Arguably, it improved Harris’ margins in swing states where these ads predominately ran, but according to preliminary exit polls, Trump won them by 14 percentage points over Harris (56%-42%), a 6-point improvement over his performance in 2020.
Harris only did one point worse than Biden among white working-class voters, but she was still mired in the low 30s with them. Instead, her losses came among the nonwhite working class, a group with which she did 16 points worse than Biden — and 26 points worse than Hillary Clinton.
In short, under Biden, Democrats adopted one of the most pro-working class policy agendas in recent political memory, enacted much of it — and accrued no electoral benefit.
As for Trump, his main economic agenda item was a pledge to increase tariffs, which by increasing costs on imported items, would have disproportionately harmed low-wage workers. Did he have a plan for lowering housing or dealing with health care? What about lowering inflation?
As in 2016, Trump served as a political voice channeling the fears, cultural grievances and resentments of working-class Americans — and, as has been the case for much of the past 60 years for Republicans, it worked.
Of course, it’s not just Trump. The GOP’s attention to the white working class is overwhelmingly symbolic. They offer nothing substantive on policy. They oppose expanding health care access or raising the minimum wage.
During Trump’s tenure in office, his major legislative accomplishments were a tax cut for the wealthy and the further tilting of the economic playing field in favor of corporations and not workers. While some working-class voters drifted away from him in 2020, he easily won them back in 2024 (and of course, won the majority of such voters in both elections). None of his policy positions mattered much at all.
During Trump’s tenure in office, his major accomplishments were a tax cut for the wealthy and further tilting the economic playing field in favor of corporations, not workers.
Take, for example, what happened in Missouri on Election Day. Voters in the Show Me State didn’t just narrowly support a referendum enshrining a right to abortion in the state constitution by a 58%-42% margin, they backed a ballot measure raising the minimum wage and requiring employers to provide paid sick leave. Yet, at the same time, only 40% of the state’s voters cast a ballot for Harris, who, unlike Trump, supports both policy initiatives.
Democrats are a party of “doing stuff” with an electorate utterly indifferent to the stuff they do.
As Larry Mishel, former president of Economic Policy institute, who has written extensively on politics and the working class, said, there is a glaring lack of connection between material reality, even material gains, and recognition or appreciation for such gains. “Partisanship shapes perceptions. There is simply a disconnect between policy, outcomes, and political rewards.”
https://www.facebook.com/rebecca.solnit