Donald J. Trump is president yet again, and while the focus must shift toward the future, the only rational response to Trump’s victory is radical action. An autopsy of the Harris campaign’s failures can provide valuable insights into the course forward.
The DNC and Harris campaign relied heavily on appeals to figures like former Vice President Dick Cheney, adopting positions that aligned with neoconservatives and promising a bipartisan cabinet, including Republicans. They commended strict border policies and spotlighted Harris’s prosecutorial record—a stance that alienated many voters.
Her campaign, which younger critics dismissed as “mostly vibes,” counted on women rallying to protect abortion rights. Yet Harris offered little beyond a vague return to the flawed and unreliable framework of Roe v. Wade.
Harris was inextricably attached to, and a vocal proponent of, the Biden administration’s support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza, failing to distance herself ideologically from prominent Zionists like Biden and Trump.
President Biden’s most recognizable achievements revolved around union support and organized labor, but surprisingly, these were not a focus of the Harris campaign. Instead, the Democrats promoted an economic plan friendly to corporate interests, offering little concrete support for the middle class beyond flowery language about “opportunity.”
Many Democrats are blaming the Palestine Solidarity movement for Harris’ loss, but data does not support this accusation as the cause for such a decisive Trump victory. Harris, a deeply uninspiring and problematic candidate, failed to drive voter turnout in the way Biden did in 2020. We may never have reliable data on how many voters simply abstained, disillusioned by the choice between two unappealing candidates, but this perspective undoubtedly influenced the election.
The Harris campaign, quite simply, moved too far to the right, alienating parts of its base that are committed to progressive, left-wing policies. Many others grew apathetic, watching the Democratic Party—a party often seen as centrist—adopt conservative positions to appeal to disaffected white conservative voters and independents.
It appears that the DNC’s logic was to draw in these conservative-leaning voters to hold back the far right. But this approach is likely to fail. “Republican Lite” will never beat “Republican actual,” especially since the electoral system itself structurally favors Republicans.
This misstep has been a disaster in realpolitik. One could argue that the Democrats’ inability—or unwillingness—to embrace progressive platforms has had lasting consequences, harming America’s most vulnerable communities and intensifying struggles for those in the Global South who endure the impacts of U.S. imperialism.
The salient question remains: Will Democrats learn from these mistakes and losses? History, in that regard, looks bleak. Establishment Democrats have already started to blame the left for their poor and alienating decisions, with surprising bile. “I hope you are happy; just look what Trump will do to Gaza now” is a common refrain. The Palestine solidarity movement is an easy scapegoat, but again, it’s not reflected in the data.
On this episode of State of Play, we discuss how the Democratic Party cannot save us—so how do we save ourselves?
Greg Stoker is a former U.S. Army Ranger with a background in human intelligence collection and analysis. After serving four combat deployments in Afghanistan, he studied anthropology and International Relations at Columbia University. He is currently a military and geopolitical analyst and a social media “influencer,” though he hates the term.