Let's be clear: the simplest answer is generally the right one.

[Self Esteem]

Democrats clearly out-performed the top of the ticket across the nation.

This election wasn't a rebuke of Democrats necessarily, but rather a rebuke of this administration (fair or not).

We can spend years trying to diagnose what went wrong but the most likely explanation remains: Americans didn't feel the economy was working for them.

We've spent three years now dismissing those concerns and telling these people they were wrong for feeling the way they did, especially since unemployment was so low and we had so many monthly jobs!

But despite all that, it's clear inflation hit a lot of people harder than we want to believe.

The most simplest of answers as to why Harris lost Tuesday? Inflation.

Sure, other smaller things certainly were at play but the bottom line is that prices, especially as it related to CPI, killed Democrats.

It doesn't help this country is borderline economic illiterate (if not outright so) and refuse to understand the complexities of why inflation was high.

They just want someone to blame and that someone unfortunately was the President.

Because of that, this election was always going to be brutal and an uphill battle. All those polls in 2023 and early-to-mid 2024 that showed Biden losing, were accurate and a sign of what the mood would be like in November.

The fact Biden has only been above water in maybe five approval polls at the most since the summer of 2021 was also a sign.

But we all refused to believe it.

We didn't want to believe it.

The midterms going so well for Democrats really lulled us into a false sense of security. But that was even proof that Americans weren't largely rejecting Democrats.

This wasn't like 2006 where gas prices and overall foreign policy incompetence sank EVERY Republican and was a precursor to the devastating 2008 elections.

The Republicans aren't very well liked right now, either.

The fact the Democrats are mathematically still alive in the House and managed to keep senate seats in swing states that went to Trump, show that.

Trump was successful in making people blame Biden for inflation. It didn't hurt that prices were much lower when he was president. You can point to the pandemic but that contrast was always going to be a challenge for Democrats.

It was just a tough environment to run as an incumbent.

It sucks. I know it's scary now and there's a lot of fear and uncertainty even about having future elections but we will persevere. We have to.

But it's important to not get too distracted by the why when it's probably the most likely answer.

It's inflation, stupid.

[EarlG]

1. I don't disagree with this

It seems pretty clear that opinions were baked in early on. Switching to Harris improved the administration's standing, but not enough to overcome people's perceptions of the economy.

[IbogaProject]

38. I warned in comments that T's campaign was a simple sound bite

I saw it in low word count memes, comparing prices over years. Or just people feeling they were better off economically during the last administration. As retail voters really don't care about the deficit as it's beyond their comprehension and they have the kitchen table view of the budget. They believe that their taxes are being given to someone else. They don't understand income multipliers and our party and my self failed to really hammer that point. What happens when you give someone already wealthy more money? Do they rush out and "create new jobs"? No, they likely don't spend it right away and when they do it is most often just going to another of their cohort for some asset, fine art, jewelry far flung mansions and so on. You give a lower income person more money they spend it fast and as best they can local, these huge companies like google, amazon and Apple have shifted that some but not having a steeply progressive tax system dampens economic growth. The wealthy don't care they are already rich and often profit from downturns. I tried to speak well of how Joe Biden got the two largest discretionary spending bills in history through with 51 seats in the Senate and how those were so good for the economy. But thanks to those two fake D senators, Sinema, and Manchin we got held back.

[stopdiggin]

2. very well stated !

and probably about 100% right on target.

It is exceedingly difficult to change minds - that are already made up.
"Could have done this, and should have done that .. " - - - All essentially boil down to, "Kamala should have convinced people that were angry and a little bit scared - that they weren't really angry and scared." Pretty heavy lift.

[Omnipresent]

3. Exactly!

Those exit polls with the economy as being the first priority, immigration being second, then reproductive rights coming in at third place.

No one could really figure out why the media kept calling the polls as being “tied”, because no one could believe trump would be re-elected.

We were kept in a “bubble” believing that Kamala’s Republican endorsements, crowd sizes and money would translate into enthusiasm at the ballot box.

I know i felt good watching content from places like the ‘Meidastouch network’, but in the end very little of that content corresponded with reality.

[Jose Garcia]

4. "It's the economy, stupid!"

Just another iteration of "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

[moose65]

30. Yep

It is ALWAYS the economy. It trumps (UGH) everything else. Always has, always will.

Like it or not, Biden was blamed for inflation. And that was baked in.

[Ferrets are Cool]

5. I will make it more simple than that. Misogyny.

[Self Esteem]

6. I don't buy that answer tbh.

If Biden had remained on as the nominee I think he would have lost by a lot more than she did.

[Ferrets are Cool]

7. Do you think that if a 50 yr old man had been the candidate that HE would have won?

[Self Esteem]

8. No.

I don't think any Democrat would have won in this climate. I outlined how difficult it was above. Inflation was the driver and that would have sunk pretty much every candidate who ran outside someone who was a generational candidate maybe, like an Obama.

But there is no Obama out there right now. Well, you know, outside Obama himself.

Shapiro would have lost.

Newsom would have done worse than Harris.

Beshear from Kentucky would not have won.

It was just a very tough climate for Democrats running for president. Simple as that

[kentuck]

14. I agree.

I think the only way that Kamala could have won would have been to have a stronger coalition with Republicans. The one criticism I would have of her is that she maybe got started too late to bring enough Republicans to her side. She had a winning message - she just did not have the time to get it across, in my opinion.

[orwell]

18. I agree with everything you said...

...but Obama as candidate in 2024 would have lost as well.

He won in 2008 because of the economic collapse, not because he was a generational candidate. In many respects he was no where near as effective as Joe Biden operationally as POTUS.

dRump was able to win this because people are hurting economically, and he positioned himself as the "big daddy" who would fix it, even if he needed to be a dictator to do it. A majority of people do not like him or Couch Fucker.

People were fine with all of that if DickTater makes their life better.

We all know how this is going to end...

[Ferrets are Cool]

41. I couldn't disagree more, but that is ok.

[bearsfootball516]

25. It depends who that person is.

If it was someone unconnected to the Biden administration, possibly. One of Kamala's greatest flaws in this election was something she had absolutely no control over - She's the VP to Joe Biden, who is unpopular and was blamed for inflation. And in an election where people were angry and wanted change, she represented more of the same.

[Zeitghost]

39. Not if he

Had been the sitting VP with no record of ever winning a primary in the past 5 years.

[indypendent]

32. Biden's own team had a poll

that he and Harris would be crushed by Trump. I can see why they wanted Biden to step down but why not have a primary and pick a new candidate?

[RandomNumbers]

36. Why not have a primary? - not enough time

It would have been a debacle.

The only way we would have won this election - given the size of the "depravity is okay with me!" electorate - is if we had a great (for this climate) candidate who was pre-ordained well before the normal primary season. Sort of like Hillary Clinton was anointed in 2015 I'm not saying she would have been a bad President (I think she would have been excellent), but this country was NOT going to elect her (misogyny + the preceding years of smears). We needed a "generational candidate" (term someone used above) that had the backing of the major players from the beginning, so no one would question Biden stepping aside (including himself!), and that candidate would waltz through the primaries.

The thing is, the Democratic party is a coalition of people who feel marginalized in some way (rightly); and we desperately want and believe that it is perfectly okay for our President to be from one of these communities. But we seem to underestimate the resistance of the American electorate ( "depravity is a-ok!!" ) to electing a woman, a black (or any non-white), someone not cisgender, someone not "Christian" (according to the majority of what people seem to think that is - the one testthe Rapist Felon clearly fails for most of us, yet somehow he was accepted), someone "too old" or "too young", or - whatever I missed. Obama was exceptional, that is the only way he won.

A primary do-over may have been legally impossible anyway, but certainly would have been very difficult just from a logistical standpoint.

[Self Esteem]

37. Yes. At the time Biden stepped aside, his internals had him losing New York.

We were looking at 1980 for the Democrats.

But a primary at that point would have created more chaos and the Dems would have lost by a wider margin last week.

[indypendent]

34. Biden's own team had polls

that showed he and Harris would be crushed by Trump. I can see why they wanted Biden to step down but why not have a primary and pick a new candidate?

[RJ_MacReady]

35. Yup

They showed trump gaining 400+ EVs that means traditional blue states would be flipped.

[Tommymac]

9. The DNC and Harris appealed to MIDDLE CLASS and Repugs sick of T.

Unfortunately, they did not reach out effectively to the WORKING CLASS. They ignored their own left to cater to Rethugs supposedly disenchanted with t.

The Dems swallowed that bait hook line and sinker.

In retrospect, they tried to appeal to Liz Cheney voters, rather then Bernie and others on the Dem left.

Most of us online are Middle Class. We really don't seem to get that Joe and Jane Sixpack are not high info voters but working stiffs without a lot a lot of extra $$ or time. They are working 2 and 3 jobs. Not much time left for social media and discussions on blogs.
Unfortunaly this has left them open to being brainwashed by the lies that have been rethug political discourse since Nixon.,

The Democratic Party needs to take a good look at itself and it's (lack of) coherent messaging for Working class stiffs.

It ain't always about the smartest and sanest. That is reality.

Why wasn't the plank that Dems would have stopped taxing tips more in the front and center.

They get their news at the neighborhood dive bar, or from their uneducated but charismatic Right Wing Christian minister, or from other like them on Social media (those that even have internet - and a large percentage of Working Class folks do NOT have regular internet access).

They perceived the Dems as not caring - and saw themselves in t, right or wrong.

We gotta get our memes straight if we have the chance in the future - the Democratic Party is seen by many lower socio-economic folks as out of touch. They are angry and turned to someone they perceived was 'like them' - they ate up the lies since they feel the Dems have abandoned them - - hell I can afford $3 a dozen eggs ... but I am comfortably MIDDLE Class.

Working class housewives see that same $3 and realizes it is killing their food budget. Fox and X are jumping all over that - have been since Covid.

Yes - the game has been rigged against us, but we have also shot ourselves in the foot because we are in a 'Middle Class' messaging bubble and don't realize it.

Hope we have a chance to fix it. It will take another FDR to reach the have nots. But probably not in my lifetime.

[Mosby]

10. Lol, you couldn't be more wrong.

The law of Parsimony says that people aren't reading this diatribe, they don't give a fuck about all your words, or explanations about the economy.

That the real truth right their, sorry.

[markodochartaigh]

11. Inflation? About that...

https://fortune.com/2024/01/20/inflation-greedflation-consumer-price-index-producer-price-index-corporate-profit/

[H2O Man]

12. Recommended.

I agree.

[kentuck]

13. I go grocery shopping once a week.

I have noticed the huge increase in prices of food that I used to eat, including bacon and eggs and bread. And milk? And meat of every kind? My shopping habits changed, as I am sure many other people looked for substitute foods.

[LoisB]

15. Yeah, and record corporate profits had absolutely nothing to do with inflation, right?

[GenThePerservering]

19. That's something Americans refuse

to believe. They think somehow Biden is responsible for inflation. So the dems have to go. Anything else is a distant second - this is an issue that hits women as well.

[LoisB]

23. I just don't understand it.

[Elessar Zappa]

16. Half agree.

I think misogyny is the other piece of the puzzle.

[ancianita]

17. Inflation, ok. But NOT smaller things, much BIGGER things were involved, namely racist sexist

votes from all demographics.

Black women cannot continue on -- they have every right to refuse to continue, even if it is what their enemies want. Because, in spite of being treated as social, legal, spiritual inferiors by any demographic that calls itself American, they will stop holding up a sick body politic and they will still survive.

Any post mortem will deal with the public's hate of "inflation," which will not go down over the next four years.
But the best post mortem will definitely require harder thought, learning and action about the oligarch reality that has overtaken this government, and therefore the nation -- in order to revive the dying liberal body politic that has fought for the founders' goal of a more perfect union that does good in the world. But not fought enough against racist misogynists, nor enough for women.

[dlk]

20. The sad truth is RW propaganda works

I’m afraid it will become much worse before it gets better.

[jeffreyi]

21. Well, now that the wave function has collapsed

We know what we are dealing with. I'm hearing black lady racism, "we don't care how smart or good she is" from my poll worker friends. But I live in magazi land.
If we ever have real elections again, we gotta play the white male candidate stealth card, I guess. In the meantime, reaching out to friends and family helps.

[Hope22]

22. The problem is that lying liars run unbridled.

Million dollar ads full of lies. Debates packed to the brim with avoiding the question and the truth. Now we hear that candidates need to go on conservative podcasts if they expect to make inroads. Truth, honesty, integrity mean nothing. And now the people who voted for a lying liar will feel the boot on their own a$$ And sadly that might be what it takes. Unfortunately we are all in peril. Bring back the fairness doctrine and get corporate money out of elections. Two much needed giant steps.

[Elessar Zappa]

27. The Fairness doctrine would

only apply to the three broadcast networks and over the air radio. It couldn’t be used on social media, podcasts, or cable. Even liberal judges wouldn’t allow that.

[Rhiannon12866]

24. And the voters expect a failed businessman/convicted felon to fix this?!

[sop]

26. I agree: "The most simplest of answers as to why Harris lost Tuesday? Inflation."

Now, let's see if Trump will do anything to bring down the high cost of food, housing, insurance, energy and other necessities.

[Doodley]

28. Trump spoke and people listened and believed him. The economy now, he said, is near to depression. It was the best

when he was president. Only he can fix it. Plus we had never busted the myth that Trump is a business guru and therefore good with the economy. IMO, what we needed was an attack dog who barked as loud as Trump and denigrated Trump's record in every speech, laid the blame for inflation with Trump, and exposed his business incompetence, and that could have been Kamala.

[Freethinker65]

29. Disagree. If Trump had no history of being President, perhaps.

Trump was a horrendous President with low approval ratings. He screwed farmers and businesses with arbitrary tariffs. He denied the risks of COVID as thousands were dying (remember Italy and planes of tourists trying to get home), stole PPE from cities, and was against wearing masks to lessen the spread. He used COVID to ban brown minorities from entering the country when COViD was already here and spreading.

Trump profited by handing out aid/contracts, etc. to entities that stayed at Trump properties (DC hotel anyone?). Trump packed the courts to overturn Roe.

Trump slow walked disaster aid to Blue States and threatened to send the military to urban areas when defied.

Gas prices plummeted when no one was going anywhere during COVID, not because of Trump. Global Inflation occurred after the risk of COVID had lessened due to vaccines (Trump does actually deserve a bit of credit for policy rushing vaccines, though delivery of vaccines was left to Biden to figure out-not flawless in the beginning, but ended up organized and orderly) when consumer demand for products and business supply for materials/resources re-emerged after the global economic pause created by COVID.

Betsy DeVos was appointed to try to destroy public education...

Trump is/was a known disaster.

A significant portion of the country that actually voted did not feel comfortable with a minority female, even if qualified, to serve as the face of our country. They voted for the white asshole vindictive self-serving POS they already knew. They were not voting for change. They never tried to take her campaign seriously.

[Cosmocat]

31. Its stupid, stupid

Voting a massively corrupt rich elitist, championed by super rich elitists and his party, which lives to give tax cuts to the rich and corporationsand squeeze everyone else into office over supposed economic concerns is a proxy for something else. Bullshit to convince yourself, and others stupid enough to believe it, otherwise.

I know these people, and they know it's bullshit.

[milestogo]

33. That's how people get brainwashed.

That's why the truth about the Kennedy assassination was covered up for years. There was even a patsy and a fake investigation. If you want to read about it, i recommend this book: The Hidden History of the JFK Assassination, by Lamar Waldron

There are other incidents in American history that have been whitewashed, sometimes for centuries. And sometimes it happens in plain sight.

Believing the MSM does not lead you to the truth.

Its not what they tell you, its what they leave out.

[Morbius]

40. Actually, this is a misrepresentation of Occam's Razor.

Many people believe Occam's Razor is, "The simplest answer is most likely to be correct." I was taught this myself. I only recently learned it's not true. Sir William of Occam actually wrote that the answer with the fewest assumptions is likely the right one, using his "razor" to shave away excessive assumptions. This may seem like a semantic distinction, but there's a big difference between least complicated and fewest assumptions.

Here's another truism: for every complicated problem there's a simple solution... and it's wrong.

Now, why did Donald Trump win on November 5th? Inflation was part of it. Voter misinformation was part of it. A good part of this country doesn't want a President without a penis, apparently. Trump's numbers weren't far off what he got in 2020, but since fewer states are doing vote-by-mail this time around, a lot fewer people are voting. The numbers are telling me that the turnout for Trump is roughly the same, and the turnout for the Democratic candidate is off. I expect the actual reason is a combination of factors, because it is always a combination of factors. Assuming otherwise doesn't help anyone.