Yesterday, Nate Cohn at the NY Times published a story confirming something he’d written about months ago. Kamala Harris didn’t lose the election because of low Democratic turnout. On the contrary, if the turnout had been higher she still would not have won.
In the wake of last November’s election, many Democrats blamed low turnout for Kamala Harris’s defeat…
Newly available data, based on authoritative voter turnout records, suggests that if anything, President Trump would have done even better if everyone had voted.
The new data, including a new study from Pew Research released Thursday, instead offers a more dispiriting explanation for Democrats: Young, nonwhite and irregular voters defected by the millions to Mr. Trump, costing Ms. Harris both the Electoral College and the popular vote.
This really has been an argument on the left since last November’s defeat. Traditionally, the argument has always been that higher turnout helps Democrats and lower turnout helps Republicans. Last year, that consensus turned into a battle between progressives and moderates. The progressives argued that Harris lost because she didn’t excite the Democratic base with progressive policy promises and, as a result, many Democrats stayed home. The moderates argued something very different: That progressives scared away swing-voters with their extreme positions and some of those voters wound up voting for Trump.
It has been clear (to many of us) since November that the moderates were right on the facts. The issue in this election was not uninspired Dems staying home, it was moderates deciding the party had moved too far left on some issues (immigration, trans rights) and jumping ship. Nevertheless, they party has essentially ignored the autopsy results from the last election and continues doubling down with left-wing extremism. The primary win for Zohran Mamdani in New York is just the latest example.
In any case, the newly released data confirms that no amount of higher turnout would have helped Kamala Harris. There was no scenario in which she could have won.
Nonvoters preferred Mr. Trump, even if only narrowly. None show Ms. Harris winning nonvoters by the wide margin she would have needed to overcome her deficit among those who turned out.
And with that in mind, let’s jump to a story published today by Politico. It’s about Kamala Harris trying to ramp up her run for governor of California. But for some reason, no one is excited by the prospect.
“There was more enthusiasm at first,” said Mather Martin, a San Francisco-based fundraiser who has worked for past Harris campaigns. “I think it waned a bit.”
One California Democrat who contributed six-figures to her presidential bid said a Harris candidacy would only serve as a reminder of how “traumatizing” the last election was.
“Kamala just reminds you we are in this complete s**t storm. With Biden, we got bamboozled … I think she did the best she could in that situation, but obviously she knew about the cognitive decline too,” the donor said. “I’ve written so many checks because I knew the Trump administration would be horrible, but we’re living in a nightmare because of the Democrats. I’m furious at them, truly.”
In short, the stench of failure hasn’t dissipated yet. The party spent a billion dollars and, as Cohn points out above, could not have won. One of the things donors seem to be dreading is a retread of the questions about what Kamala knew and when she knew it regarding Joe Biden’s mental decline.
Donors “realize it’s just going to bring up the whole pathetic last presidential, which no one wants to hear about again. And then it’s the whole ‘Did you know Joe Biden?’ thing,” said one Southern California fundraiser who was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive conversations. “She still would probably lead, but honestly, no one is incredibly pumped.”
There are two options here. One is that Harris was so sidelined by “the Politburo” of people actually running the White House that she didn’t know. The other option is she knew and said nothing. Either way it doesn’t reflect very well on her.
The sad thing is that she’s probably going to be the leading candidate once she finally gets going. She’s a failed candidate who was a terrible Vice President and she’s the best the Dems have to offer.
Read full article at source
Stay informed about this story by subscribing to our regular Newsletter
