What Went Wrong in the Democratic Party?

The hard conversation we need to have if we have any hope of saving American democracy

This article will upset some people. But my responsibility as a human rights lawyer is not to speak soothing falsehoods, but hard truths. The Democratic Party has lost two winnable Presidential elections in the last three contests, resulting in devastating consequences for the American people. This moment calls for self-reflection and self-analysis. The fate of our republic is literally at stake, and we cannot afford continued failure. What went wrong, and how do we fix this? Let’s Address This.

Credit: Getty Images

A Quick Overview

Let’s start with some high level points. Black women and Black men showed up, voting 92% and 78%, respectively, for Harris. White women and white men, meanwhile, voted 52% and 59%, respectively, for Trump. Latino men shifted right 18% from 2020, and 54% voted for Trump in 2024. Latino women shifted right 7% from 2020, and 37% voted Trump in 2024. In short, Black people showed up for Harris, white people showed up for Trump, and Latino’s shifted right to Trump—with the overall majority of Latinos still voting for Harris.

Let’s also acknowledge the continued failure of legacy media. From LA Times and Washington Post refusing to endorse any candidate, to CBS and CNN refusing to fact check the Presidential debates, to the New York Times whitewashing Trump’s clear cognitive decline—legacy media absconded in its responsibility to hold powerful politicians accountable. Many will note that while Biden’s age was a constant state of focus, the moment he resigned media completely forgot that Trump is only a few years younger than Biden.

Next, racism and misogyny absolutely played a damaging role in this election. Legacy media gobbled up Trump’s attempts to question Harris’s identity, distracting from issues that matter—like her actual policies. Disinformation about Haitian migrants created fear and hate of Black people and of immigrants. Misogyny and racism continued to dominate political discourse and Harris faced the onslaught of both, undoubtedly costing her votes in ways she had no ability to mitigate.

And finally, third party candidates like Jill Stein, Cornell West, and RFK played their roles in trying to break up the duopoly, with negligible success. Election results demonstrate that Stein did not cost Harris any electoral votes, and little evidence exists that her involvement played any meaningful role in Trump’s win. In other words, she did not pull a Nader 2000.

All of the above are factors that impacted the election, but none of them individually, or even collectively, prevented Harris’s victory. It is critical the Democratic Party reflect on the matters within their control that they fumbled—fumbles that directly resulted in a Harris loss and Trump re-election to the White House—if they have any real hope of preventing a third presidential loss in four tries in 2028.

Early on November 6 I tweeted:

To recap. Democrats lost the White House, the US Senate, the Electoral College, eight of 10 Governors races, the popular Presidential vote, and are on the cusp of losing the House of Representatives. If anyone really thinks its because 51% of the country is xenophobic—and not because Democrats ignored their own base—it explains why Democrats lost so badly.

The semi-viral tweet attracted significant negative attention from fellow Democrats, taunting me about being deported, calling me a ‘filthy pig,’ telling me to ‘f*ck off,’ and accused me of supporting Trump. The lack of introspection is concerning, and does nothing but assure another loss in 2026 and beyond. We need to do better, and that starts by honestly assessing what went wrong. Here are the three critical errors that led to the November 5 debacle, and what the Democratic Party must do going forward to prevent future such losses.

1. Joe Biden’s Arrogance

Let’s be blunt about this. I put the primary blame for the Election 2024 debacle on Joe Biden. And I will be as bold as to say that he set up Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party for failure. Here’s why. Back in 2020 Joe Biden ran for President on the promise of being a “bridge President” to a younger generation, suggesting he would only serve one term and then pass the torch. At numerous rallies he loudly declared,

Look, I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else. I view myself as a transition candidate.

It was with that explicit expectation that a monsoon of young voters helped him cross the finish line with a victory, earning 7 million more votes than Donald Trump. But when it became clear that President Biden had no intention of stepping down, those who suggested he follow through on his campaign promise were dismissed, decried, and denounced. Even as poll after poll showed that Biden’s support among the young people who helped him win in 2020 was all but gone, those who believed Biden should withdraw were shouted down. For example, here’s a mere snapshot of the hundreds of angry responses Democratic candidate Adam Frisch got for calling on Biden to withdraw on July 2.

And there are countless such examples. By backtracking on his campaign promise to serve only one term, and then stepping down last minute, Joe Biden denied Democrats a robust primary. How valuable is a robust primary? It is quite literally the difference between winning and losing. The data on this is undeniable.

In 2008, despite a favorite in Hillary Clinton, the Democratic party held a robust 10 candidate primary. And in that open field, Americans got to see a dynamic young candidate from Illinois make his case. The end result? President Obama made history as the nation’s first Black major party nominee for President, made history as the nation’s first Black President, winning by an astounding 9.5 million votes, and decimating the Republican nominee McCain 365-173 in the Electoral count. Voter turnout was at a then historic 61.6%—a level that won Democrats the White House, the House, and the Senate.

Democratic presidential candidates in 2007. Credit: Justin Hayworth-Pool/Getty

Contrast the open and robust 2008 primary with the 2016 primary in which the Democratic Party cleared the field for Hillary Clinton. My statement is not opinion. The DNC itself acknowledged in 2016 it unfairly favored Hillary Clinton. Thus, voter commitment was not secured the way it was in 2008. As the Party establishment coalesced around Clinton, it left many Democratic primary voters upset at an unfair fight. And in the general, despite winning the popular vote by 3 million votes, Clinton lost the Electoral count 227-332, and voter turnout dropped to 59.2%—a drop that cost the Democratic Party the White House, the House, and the Senate.

Note—a 2.4% drop in turnout was the difference between the Democratic Party controlling all of the White House, Senate, and House, and controlling none of them.

Now contrast 2016 with 2020, when the Democratic Party held a robust 28 candidate primary (though admittedly somewhat hindered as Obama eventually helped clear the field for Biden). Still, the size of the primary better pressure tested Biden and forced him to rise to the occasion to win. Biden won by 7 million votes and won the electoral count 306-232. Moreover, that primary helped provide critical data and insight into selecting a VP candidate that would most strengthen the ticket, i.e. Kamala Harris. Voter turnout was at a historic 67%—a level that once again won Democrats the White House, the House, and the Senate.

Now in 2024, the Democratic Party did not, or was unable to, hold a primary. The end result—Harris lost the popular vote by 4.5 million votes, lost the Electoral count 226-295+, and voter turnout dropped 2.5% to 64.5%—a drop that cost the Democratic Party the White House, the Senate, and potentially the House.

Just like in 2016 when a 2.4% drop in turnout was the difference between controlling all of the White House, House, and Senate, and controlling none of them, in 2024 a 2.5% drop in turnout has resulted in Democrats losing control of the White House, the Senate, and grasping at straws to win control of the US House.

To be clear, this analysis does not absolve the very real misogyny and racism Kamala Harris faced. But those two obstacles of misogyny and racism make holding a primary that much more important, because such primaries help build the critical and larger coalitions needed to more effectively overcome the obstacles of misogyny and racism.

Likewise, this analysis does not second guess nominating Kamala Harris. After Joe Biden finally dropped out, she was the most logical choice as the Democratic Party’s nominee. This analysis is a critique of the fact that an impossible job was thrown upon her—pick a VP running mate with negligible voter input, speed date 330 million Americans, and define yourself as distinct from Joe Biden, all in 100 days or less. Black women can, and do, many amazing things, but a person can only be at one place at one time. It is revealing that even on Election Day one of the top google search questions was, “Did Joe Biden drop out?” That is not a question any voter should be asking on November 5, and one no voter would be asking if the Democratic nominee had more than the blink of an eye to make her case to the American people via a robust primary.

In short, Joe Biden’s decision to deny the American people and Democratic voters a primary is simply inexcusable, and one of the major reasons the Democratic Party suffered major losses in the 2024 election. But it is not the only reason. The groundwork for this loss was laid in the aftermath of January 6.

2. Merrick Garland’s Failures

In January of 2022, Journalist Dean Obeidallah wrote a powerful piece calling on US Attorney General Merrick Garland to finally charge Donald Trump for the January 6 insurrection, stating:

It was sincerely heartening to hear Garland say, “The Justice Department remains committed to holding all January 6th perpetrators, at any level, accountable under law — whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy.” If Garland, however, ultimately chooses not to prosecute Trump for his attempted coup and his role in the Jan 6 terrorist attack, I believe historians will count it among the key mistakes that ultimately led to the end of the United States as a democratic republic.

Dean’s words are prophetic. Garland’s cowardice in this critical moment in American history has now gone down as one of the key mistakes that could ultimately lead to the end of the United States as a democratic republic. Democratic Party leadership agreed Donald Trump was singularly responsible for the insurrection. Republican leadership in Mitch McConnell agreed that Donald Trump was singularly responsible for the insurrection. Garland charged and convicted over 1000 rioters who participated in the insurrection—but the one man most responsible for violence that day faced no accountability and no justice. And now, he will be the next President.

Just as guilty in failing to hold Donald Trump accountable is Joe Biden. When he saw that Garland would not fulfill his obligations of prosecuting a literal insurrectionist, Biden could have fired Garland and appointed a new AG. He could have used his bully pulpit to deride apathy in the face of the most violent attack on our nation’s capitol in our nation’s history. But Biden, like Garland, did not act. That set the stage to normalize the January 6 attack, absolve Trump of responsibility and accountability, and enable him to run for and win the Presidency once more—this time with Supreme Court immunity. Had Garland done his job, Trump would be behind bars for his crime of inciting an insurrection. Garland’s failure, and Biden’s apathy, directly enabled what Dean Obeidallah warned of nearly three years ago, and now it is too late to act.

3. The Democratic Party’s Bizarre Obsession With Moving To The Center Abandoned It’s Own Supporters

After Biden finally withdrew, I wrote a detailed piece itemizing the three things Kamala Harris must do to win the White House. They were, expose the dangers of Project 2025, present an inspiring vision of economic, social, and climate justice, and stand firm against war crimes in Palestine. Unfortunately, the exit polling shows that with the exception of successfully tying Trump to Project 2025, the Democratic Party failed to land an inspiring economic, social, or climate vision, and failed to stand against the genocide in Palestine. And both of these were part of the collective Democratic Party collapse on election night.

Yes, racism and white supremacy absolutely helped Trump win—you might have read my detailed piece on the Nazi rally he held at Madison Square Garden. But the idea that it was singularly racism, and not also working class issues, is simply not something the data supports.

For example, Trump will end up receiving 1.5 million fewer votes in 2024 than he did in 2020. Meanwhile, Harris is receiving roughly 13 million fewer votes in 2024 than did Biden in 2020. No matter how racist Trump’s base is, and it is pretty racist, it cannot result in 13 million fewer votes for Harris. Those fewer votes are the combination of Harris not reaching the base (in part due to the short runway), the Democratic Party not listening to their base, and the Democratic Party actively working opposite of what their base is telling them. And we saw all this coming with each part of its base that the Democratic Party abandoned.

Losing the Youth Vote

Way back on July 22 I wrote,

Gen-Z voters are drowning in student debt, unable to afford out of control home prices, and devastated about the climate crisis. Few demographics better understand the struggles of working Americans today than do Gen-Z Americans, making it no surprise that they are turned off by the 2024 election. The 2020 election proved that when you inspire young voters, you win across the board. Thus, it behooves the Democratic Party to listen to our next generation of voters and leaders to ensure Democrats earn that vote this November, and beyond.

This is exactly why, after being promised a bridge presidency in 2020, Gen-Z activated and helped Joe Biden win. And it is also why Gen-Z made no secret about their disappointment in lack of options for President in 2024. Given their massively growing influence, it was deeply unwise to ignore Gen-Z this election, yet this is what Joe Biden enabled—even as polling showed Democrats were losing youth support. And 2024 post-election data further affirms the catastrophic impact of Biden’s decision, as 18-29 year old voters shifted some 30 points to the right.

This shift happened due to a combination of Biden’s refusal to step down when he promised to, failure to properly engage Gen-Z voters, and finally due to aggressive Republican outreach to young voters via social media. Republicans recognized that young voters trust social media as much or more than regular media, and heavily invested in social media outreach via Daily Wire, Turning Point USA, and Prager University—leaving Democrats flat footed. Since 2021, Republicans successfully lobbied social media companies to stop fact checking election misinformation—again leaving Democrats flat footed. And when Trump saw how unpopular a TikTok ban was among young Gen-Z voters, he flipped the script quickly and condemned Biden for trying to do so. Again, Democrats stood flat footed with no answer—a fact right wing pundit Charlie Kirk loudly bragged about.

Losing the Economic Argument

Failing to capture the youth vote that catapulted them to victory in 2020, the Democratic Party also abandoned their economic populism, another fatal mistake. A Gallup Poll in October found that the economy was the number one issue for both Democrats and Republicans, and all voters gave Trump a 9% hire rating on the economy. Harris touted her Nobel Economist endorsements, her newspaper endorsements of her economic plan, and the work she and Biden did over the last four years—but did that messaging get to voters? The election results would make us conclude in the negative.

In fact as data scientist and scholar Stephen Semler points out, Biden and Harris all but abandoned their Build Back Better economic message after 2022, writing,

As 47 million Americans went hungry and 43 million lived below the poverty line, all Biden-Harris seemed to talk about was economic growth and their ironclad support of Israel.

Semler goes on to point out in his research article that poverty increased a shocking 67% under the Biden/Harris administration. Credit where due, Harris’s plans offered promising relief of child tax credits, business tax credits, and first time home buyer assistance. But plans for the future rarely overcome the suffering people face in the present, especially when that suffering happens under your administration.

Losing the Immigration Argument

Likewise, immigration was a top 5 issue for voters of both parties—and Trump successfully secured a 9 point advantage over Harris. The Democratic Party’s messaging to Latinos clearly didn’t land. Rather than slamming Latino voters for shifting right towards Trump, they should reflect on why their message wasn’t heard? Dismissing the shift as “Latinos suddenly became racist after 2020” is not a logical answer.

Losing the Palestine Argument

Despite the improved rhetoric from Harris on Palestine, when asked whether she has any policy shifts from Biden, the answer was always a firm no. This is significant because polling was absolutely clear that stopping arms to Netanyahu would result in more votes for Harris. Harris could have broken away from Biden by stating that she sees no contradiction between maintaining Israel’s security and upholding American and international human rights law. She chose not to, and Trump was able to commandeer the brand of the “peacetime President.”

A YouGov/IMEU Policy Project poll among Democrats and Independents in the swing states of Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania, found that the Harris/Walz path to victory included announcing a cessation of arms to Netanyahu.

• In Arizona, 35% of voters said they would be more likely to vote for the Harris if she vowed to stop weapons to Israel. Only 5% said they are less likely to vote for that policy—a 7:1 ratio of voter support in a state Biden won by only 11,000 votes.

• In Georgia, 39% of voters said they are more likely to vote for Harris if she vowed to stop weapons to Israel. Only 5% said they are less likely to vote for that policy—an 8:1 ratio of voter support in a state that Biden won by 12,000 votes.

• In Pennsylvania, 34% of voters in Pennsylvania said they are more likely to vote for Harris if she vowed to stop weapons to Israel. Only 7% said they would be less likely to vote for that policy—a 5:1 ratio of voter support in a state Biden won by only 82,000 votes.

And beyond swing states, a national CBS/YouGov poll reported the following critical facts about American support of a policy change to withhold arms from Israel:

• 61% of Americans oppose weapons to Israel’s assault in Gaza

• 77% of Democrats reject US weapons to Israel

• 63% of moderates reject US weapons to Israel

• 77% of voters under 30 oppose weapons to Israel

• 75% of Black Americans oppose weapons to Israel

• 66% of women oppose weapons to Israel

• 64% of Hispanic Americans oppose weapons to Israel

• 56% of white college grads oppose weapons to Israel

American Muslims comprise of roughly 1% of the United States population. The vote some American Muslims withheld due to Biden’s policy on Israel did not impact the election results. But the Biden administration’s refusal to listen to 77% of Democrats, 63% of moderates, and 61% of all Americans, absolutely did.

Losing the Lurch to the Center

Kamala Harris served as one of the most progressive Senators in the US Senate. Joe Biden tapped her as his VP pick to pull in the left block of the Democratic Party. It worked. Yet, when it came time for Harris to continue that rise in her run for President and distinguish herself from Biden, she seemed to refuse to do so.

For example, despite the abysmal state healthcare in the United States, and despite her past staunch advocacy for Medicare for All, Harris dropped it from her platform as a Presidential candidate. Again, a policy with more than 70% support—gone, an act that failed to fully capitalize on Trump’s ridiculous “concepts of a healthcare plan.”

Harris moved away from condemning Trump’s asylum ban, as she and Biden loudly did in 2020, and instead introduced legislation mimicking Trump’s ban. Harris flipped on her anti-fracking policy, and supported fracking in Pennsylvania, further alienating young voters and voters who prioritize climate justice. Each of these moves to the center were designed to pick up centrist and Republican votes. Instead, while picking up nominal Republican votes, they alienated the critical Gen-Z and progressive Democrat base that helped push Biden and Harris to victory in 2020.

The Democratic Party’s obsession with courting Republican voters by moving to the center is an abject failure of a strategy. In 2020 the Biden Administration actively courted Republicans. Only 6% of registered Republicans flipped party lines and voted for him. In 2024, Kamala Harris actively courted Republicans, promising to appoint a Republican to her cabinet, inviting former Republican members of Congress Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger to speak at the DNC, and even proudly accepting the endorsement of former Republican Vice President Dick Cheney—a man credibly accused of war crimes by Amnesty International. As a result, a whopping 5% of registered Republicans flipped party lines and voted for her, while 4% of Democrats flipped party lines and voted for Trump. All that for a net 1% gain, while losing young people nearly 30% to Trump. A truly failed strategy.

Harris became a successful Senator and Vice President by running as a progressive. Early polling after Biden finally stepped down had her up 6-8 points because voters were excited at the prospect of a new and fresh voice that was not Joe Biden. Progressive policies of economic, social, and climate justice resonate far beyond party lines. Sadly, rather than embrace that truth, Harris repeatedly doubled down that she would not do anything different than Biden—she refused to break from him. This contributed to nearly 13 million voters who voted for her in 2020, staying home in 2024.

Conclusion

The Harris campaign raised nearly $1 billion in just three months, compared to Trump’s $388 million over 10 months. Yet, at the end of the day, Trump found ways to ensure his base came out and voted for him, and the Democratic Party found ways to ignore the critical voters that catapulted them to victory in 2020. Racism, misogyny, media failures, Russian interference, third party candidates—all played a role. But at the end of the day, this was the Democratic Party’s election to lose, and they must take responsibility if they hope to meaningfully reform their fatal flaws and win in 2026 or 2028, and beyond.

Donald Trump is a fascist, and Project 2025 will invite fascism to America. This is the reality we face. The Democratic Party must understand that it will never ‘out conservative’ or ‘out center’ Republicans. Instead, the Democratic Party must stop cosplaying as a left party, and actually become a left party that prioritizes economic, social, and climate justice with meaningful action, not meaningless rhetoric. Today, the Democratic Party has two very distinct paths ahead of it. It can either blame everyone else as racist, embrace war criminals like Dick Cheney, and hold loaded primaries, thereby ensuring a repeat of this election’s failures in the future. Or, the Democratic Party can look inwardly and actually listen to its base and future—young voters, Black voters, Asian and Muslim voters, and Latino voters—and ensure success on the local, state, and federal level for a generation or more.

As for me, I will be doing everything in my power over the next four years to stave off fascism in the United States, and I cannot do it alone. I invite you to support my work and advocacy by subscribing below. Thank you for your trust and partnership.