Politics

Opinion: Democrats are finger-pointing. Does the evidence support them?

Published

2 months ago

November 17, 2024

Opinion: Democrats are finger-pointing. Does the evidence support them?

The Democrats have some tough choices in front of them. With Vice President Kamala Harris, they ran a very strong candidate in an incredibly well-resourced campaign, in which hundreds of prominent members of the opposing party endorsed their nominee — and still lost. Now, they are thinking about which direction to move next, and that consideration will affect the politics of the coming years.

Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016 caused many Democratic activists and leaders to question their long-standing assumptions about politics. They developed all sorts of narratives to explain it, that she practiced identity politics, campaigned in the wrong places, her messaging wasn’t engaging, there was too much racism and sexism in the electorate, Russia interfered and more. A lot of these diverse narratives led to a common set of beliefs: Clinton was somehow too unconventional a candidate, and the party needed a bland, relatively moderate white guy if they were ever going to defeat Donald Trump in 2020. That is, Clinton was New Coke and they needed to pivot back to Coke Classic as quickly as possible. Joe Biden was very much the Coke Classic candidate.

The outcome of 2020 confirmed those Democrats’ beliefs. We can’t prove it, of course, but as far as many Democrats were concerned, they needed to moderate (both ideologically and symbolically) to win, and they did and it worked.

With Harris’ loss, Democrats will be considering a new set of narratives.

This was about Harris’ race and sex

I get why this is an obvious argument, especially since the Democrats have lost both contests in which they nominated a woman for president. I believe it’s wrong. For one thing, women candidates do as well as men candidates in contests for governor, the Senate, the House and elsewhere, even while many party leaders are convinced they don’t. Many nations with far less progressive views toward women’s rights have had women as prime ministers and presidents.

It is a very unfortunate case of timing that the Democrats nominated women in two elections where the national mood was already inclined against their party. In 2016, Democrats had held the White House for two terms (winning a third consecutive term is very rare) and economic growth was modest at best. In 2024, voters were convinced that the economy was awful and blamed the Democrats for it. In both elections, Democrats counted on people’s revulsion toward Trump to carry them to victory. It wasn’t a baseless idea, but it didn’t work.

I know some Democrats are convinced that the nation is too racist to elect a Black candidate. I’d note that only a handful of people have won the White House by majority vote twice; one of them was a liberal Black man from Chicago, and it wasn’t that long ago.

And some are convinced that white voters are more likely to vote for a white candidate, but to that I’d note that Harris, as a Black woman, did not really see a particular spike for her campaign among either Black or women voters. Conversely, Trump made impressive gains among Latino voters while directly insulting Latinos. Racial electoral politics are not always as straightforward as we’d like to think.

The party was too ‘woke’

Versions of “The party was too embracing of the trans community / undocumented immigrants / crazy cat women / pronouns, etc.” are already emerging. There are often more conservative Democrats who are not as enthusiastic about the party’s mission of inclusiveness and are ready to throw an unpopular minority under the bus in the name of electability.

But Harris was not particularly embracing of what we call “identity politics.” In her many speeches, she rarely talked about her own race or gender (possibly having internalized a lesson of Clinton’s loss), instead focusing on the economy and on her opponent’s flaws.

To be sure, the party was widely accused of doing things along these lines, but parties are regularly accused of many things; that doesn’t mean it’s the reason they lost.

Messaging was poor

An understandably frustrating thing for Democrats is that the Biden administration made legitimate and substantial policy gains, and the party was not rewarded for it. They are often accused of being out of touch with the needs of working-class voters but presided over substantial gains for union laborers and significant income growth for lower-income people, in a way that actually reversed the trend of economic inequality. Maybe, the concern goes, it’s Democrats’ fault for assuming policy achievements will be rewarded, and not knowing how to message about it.

This is a plausible concern, but it’s not as if the Democrats didn’t speak about this. Also, when Trump is talking about the middle class, he is often speaking in very different terms — less about gains in income or political power, and more about racial, gender and cultural statements, advocating for an Archie Bunker-esque vision of America.

Harris needed more time or a competitive primary

This is a narrative that’s likely to take care of itself, since the next Democratic presidential nominee will probably emerge from a competitive nomination contest. I’m skeptical that any particular skills Harris would have honed or any sorts of attacks she would have sustained during a tough primary campaign would have made much of a difference in the end. It could potentially have resulted in a different nominee (although probably not), but that nominee would have faced the same headwinds Harris did. And it’s hard to say that Democrats weren’t unified behind Harris — they were. There were just more voters on the other side.

These internal party conversations are useful — indeed the “campaign after the campaign” to decide just what the lessons of the election were can determine a lot about what the party will do to prepare for the 2026 and 2028 election cycles, and what sort of candidates it will nominate. These debates are often informed by emotions and instincts, but as Democrats chart a path forward, it is useful to consider just what the evidence says.

Seth Masket is a professor of political science at the University of Denver and a visiting senior scholar at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions at Vanderbilt University. He is the author of “Learning From Loss: Democrats 2016-2020” and writes the Substack “Tusk.”

Politics

Video: How Trump Could Justify His Immigration Crackdown

Published

3 hours ago

January 10, 2025

Press Room

President-elect Donald Trump is likely to justify his plans to seal off the border with Mexico by citing a public health emergency from immigrants bringing disease into the United States. Now he just has to find one. New York Times White House Correspondent, Zolan Kanno-Youngs, explains.

Politics

Trump to be sentenced in New York criminal trial

Published

4 hours ago

January 10, 2025

Press Room

Trump to be sentenced in New York criminal trial

President-elect Trump is expected to be sentenced Friday after being found guilty on charges of falsifying business records stemming from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s years-long investigation.

The president-elect is expected to attend his sentencing virtually, after fighting to block the process all the way up to the United States Supreme Court this week.

Judge Juan Merchan set Trump’s sentencing for Jan. 10—just ten days before he is set to be sworn in as the 47th President of the United States.

TRUMP FILES MOTION TO STAY ‘UNLAWFUL SENTENCING’ IN NEW YORK CASE

Merchan, though, said he will not sentence the president-elect to prison.

From left to right: Judge Juan Merchan, former President Donald Trump, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. (Getty Images, AP Images)

Merchan wrote in his decision that he is not likely to “impose any sentence of incarceration,” but rather a sentence of an “unconditional discharge,” which means there would be no punishment imposed.

Trump filed an appeal to block sentencing from moving forward with the New York State Court of Appeals. That court rejected his request.

Trump also filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that it “immediately order a stay of pending criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court of New York County, New York, pending the final resolution of President Trump’s interlocutory appeal raising questions of Presidential immunity, including in this Court if necessary.”

“The Court should also enter, if necessary, a temporary administrative stay while it considers this stay application,” Trump’s filing requested.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg walks in the hallways of Manhattan Supreme Court

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg arrives at Daniel Penny’s trial following a lunch break at the Manhattan Supreme Criminal Court building in New York City on Monday, December 2, 2024. (Julia Bonavita/Fox News Digital)

TRUMP FILES EMERGENCY PETITION TO SUPREME COURT TO PREVENT SENTENCING IN NY V. TRUMP

Trump’s attorneys also argued that New York prosecutors erroneously admitted extensive evidence relating to official presidential acts during trial, ignoring the high court’s ruling on presidential immunity.

The Supreme Court denied Trump’s emergency petition to block his sentencing from taking place on Friday, Jan. 10.

The Supreme Court, earlier this year, ruled that presidents are immune from prosecution related to official presidential acts.

But New York prosecutors argued that the high court “lacks jurisdiction” over the case.

JD Vance, Tom Cotton, John Barrasso, Donald Trump, Shelley Moore Capito, John Thune

Trump has previously explained a strategic component to his one-bill reconciliation approach. (Getty Images)

They also argued that the evidence they presented in the trial last year concerned “unofficial conduct that is not subject to any immunity.”

Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. He pleaded not guilty to those charges. After a six-week-long, unprecedented trial for a former president and presidential candidate, a New York jury found the now-president-elect guilty on all counts.

Trump has maintained his innocence in the case and repeatedly railed against it as an example of “lawfare” promoted by Democrats in an effort to hurt his election efforts ahead of November.

Brooke Singman is a political correspondent and reporter for Fox News Digital, Fox News Channel and FOX Business.

Politics

Column: Trump shoots his mouth off as L.A. burns. His claims about fire hydrants don’t hold water

Published

4 hours ago

January 10, 2025

Press Room

Column: Trump shoots his mouth off as L.A. burns. His claims about fire hydrants don’t hold water

SACRAMENTO — OK, I admit it. I’m biased. I hate it when an opportunistic politician capitalizes on other people’s miseries and tries to score political points.

I’m especially biased when it’s a president-elect who shoots off his mouth without regard for facts and blames a governor for fire hydrants running dry.

Not that Democrat Gavin Newsom is a perfect governor. But his California water policies had no more to do with Pacific Palisades hydrants drying up during a firestorm than did Republican Donald Trump’s turning on sprinklers at his golf course.

News reporters shouldn’t allow personal biases to seep into their stories, as Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong has reminded us. Reporters have long strived to not do so and mostly succeeded. But I’m not a reporter. I’m a columnist who analyzes and opines. And yes, I’m biased — but on issues, not politics.

It has always been my view that liberals, moderates and conservatives all have good and bad ideas. Neither party has a monopoly on truth and justice — except in relating to Trump.

I wanted to give Trump the benefit of the doubt and watch whether he really intended — as promised — to be a president for all Americans. But the guy just can’t help himself.

When Trump blamed Newsom for water hydrants going dry as Pacific Palisades burned, it wasn’t something people should dismiss as just another Trumpism.

Here was a president-elect mouthing off and showing his ignorance in a barrage of vindictiveness and insensitivity as thousands of people fled for their lives and hundreds of homes blazed into ashes.

Yes, I’m biased against anyone who’s that uncivil, especially when he disrespects facts or — worse — is a pathological liar.

So, let’s recap what Trump did.

As scores of hydrants went dry while fire crews battled flames in Pacific Palisades, the president-elect instinctively went on social media to point the finger at his left coast political adversary, the Democrat he tastelessly derides as Gov. “Newscum.”

“Governor Gavin Newscum refused to sign the water restoration declaration put before him that would have allowed millions of gallons of water from excess rain and snow melt from the north to flow daily into many parts of California, including the parts that are currently burning in a virtually apocalyptic way,” Trump asserted.

“He wanted to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt … but didn’t care about the people of California. Now the ultimate price is being paid.

“I will demand that this incompetent governor allow beautiful, clean, fresh water to flow into California. He is the blame for this. On top of it all, no water for fire hydrants, not firefighting planes. A true disaster.”

True drivel, putting it politely.

First, what was this so-called water restoration declaration?

“There’s no such document,” responded Izzy Gardon, Newsom’s communications director. “That is pure fiction.”

Trump probably was referring to his policy differences with Newsom on water exports from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to farmlands in the San Joaquin Valley. In his first presidency, Trump wanted to drain more fresh water from the delta for irrigation in the valley. But both Govs. Jerry Brown and Newsom took a more centrist approach, striving for a balance between farms and fish.

Second, it’s not the demise of the tiny smelt — the Republicans’ favorite target — that’s so concerning to many conservationists. It’s the rapid decline of iconic salmon that previously provided world-class recreational angling in the delta and fed a healthy commercial fishery on the coast. Salmon fishing seasons have been closed recently to save what’s left of the fish.

Third, despite Trump’s claptrap, plenty of fresh delta water is being pumped south to fill fire hydrants and the tanks of firefighting aircraft. Hundreds of millions of gallons of water flow daily down the California Aqueduct. Major Southland reservoirs are at historically high levels. Anyway, much of L.A.’s water doesn’t even come from the Delta. It flows from the Owens Valley and the Colorado River.

Fourth, the hydrants went dry simply because there were too many fires to fight, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power explained. Storage tanks went dry.

“We pushed the system to the extreme,” Janisse Quinones, DWP chief executive and chief engineer, said. “Four times the normal demand was seen for 15 hours straight.”

Yes, I’m biased against politicians who make up stuff.

But you’ve got to listen to Trump because he could follow through on what he’s bellowing about.

For example, Trump vowed during the presidential campaign to deny Newsom federal money to fight wildfires unless the governor diverted more water to farms.

That apparently wasn’t an idle threat.

Trump initially refused to approve federal wildfire aid in 2018 until a staffer pointed out that Orange County, a beneficiary, was home to many voters who supported him, Politico reported. And in 2020, the Federal Emergency Management Agency rejected an aid request during several California wildfires until Republicans appealed to Trump.

So, what’s Trump going to be like when he actually becomes president again and is wielding real power, not just running off at the mouth?

Will he try to annex Greenland? Seize the Panama Canal? When a reporter asked him whether he’d commit to not using “military or economic coercion” to achieve these goals, he immediately answered: “No.”

Will he keep calling Canada our “51st state?”

Yep. I’m biased against such immature and dangerous political leaders.