The one massive factor that is ignored here is the billionaire (oligarch) propaganda that drives the unpopularity of Dem incumbents. When the oligarchs control almost all media - mainstream & social - it's no surprise that a moderately progressive admin like Biden's gets slammed with bad vibes. It's true that the oligarchs are better at creating discontent, anger, resentment and fear than anything positive, such that even their favorite autocrat gets pretty unpopular fast. But for progressives, the need to cut off the oligarch hydra's heads once and for all is overwhelming.
I can appreciate how campaign staffers feel after reading this compelling discussion of structural factors in presidential elections. They all want to find ways that actually win elections and not feel like we are driven by outside forces.
I think there are still important ways to win even with economic headwinds. First, Biden's team could have done a better job keeping his popularity ratings up. Biden seemed to think doing a good job would be rewarded, a common error among Democratic politicians. (People don't vote on facts or policy wins, they vote based on emotional narratives.) Biden needed to acknowledge the danger of voter distress over the economic chaos following Covid and actively blamed Trump and the Republicans much more aggressively than he did. That could have raised the presidential approval rating and possibly even voter sentiment about the future which drives the structural prediction model
The other interesting question is why did some past presidential campaigns do quite a bit better or worse than the structural model predicts? Just looking at the chart, plus being old and remembering elections since 1968, it looks like campaigns can have an effect beyond structural factors. Reagan had great messaging strategy and beat the model. Nixon did worse and of course Ford in 1976 was stuck with Nixon's Watergate scandal.
As a marketing guy, I have long argued that the Democratic party and it's national campaigns do a poor job of messaging and appear resistant to understanding the basics, much less how to build the vital brand building strategy that requires constant, consistent messaging around core values. Republicans have much more effective messaging and attack Democrats daily with coordinated messages. Dems think they will get rewarded by enacting popular policies and doing a big ad blast in two months before the general election every four years. The greatest ad campaign in the world has a hard time against four years of daily attacks.
If the Dems had a competent long-term messaging effort, that wouldn’t win every election but it would win a lot more.
This is most important analysis any politician can read. It's doubtful that many pay much attention to the 'autopsy' report, but the DNC did put out some money for a worthless document. And as for the pundits who make recommendations based on mythical voters, they're not worth reading either. Pundits who imagine NYT or WaPo reporting is going to sway some fraction of the electorate are living in a bubble.
Neither party organization is strong enough to prevent big screwups (Trump, CA gov primary), but looking at where candidates improved the margins, and systemic changes (National Popular Vote) would help. Otherwise, we'll just have to hope for charismatic, effective candidates to emerge.
Perfectly said!! I mentor young progressives running state and local offices and tell them exactly this! They will have a good chance winning through 2028 (because Trump will continue to screw up the economy) but they MUST use their power when in office, not just be status quo. That it might be hard to be a newbie bucking the party but voters need to see them fighting or they will vote them out.
It's global neoliberal economics killing the planet, and overpopulation.--Martha Ture
And here are two monstrous problems.
One is the Economics pedagogy, that can tell us that during the 1930's, the Soviet Union had fantastic growth, while starving and brutalizing more than 5 million people. The measurement of growth as GDP unrelated to social wellbeing or maintaining a sustainable planet is killing us all, faster and faster.
And Two is the fact that Democrats need money from autocratically benefited people and PACs, so Democrats are not likely to vote against the hands that feed them. They aren't going to kill neoliberal economics.
The vast inequality that has been permitted since the 1970's by Supreme Court decisions, the transfer of wealth upwards while buying power for 90% of the people has stagnated and diminished, can not be addressed by building millions of houses, because the limits to growth include water, land, roads, power, and food.
You can't build houses where you can't deliver water. You can't fix the grid in fewer than 10 years. Voters want relief yesterday, not ten years from now.
1. Anyone who still parrots Paul Ehrlich's Malthusianism is either misguided or a grifter. He has not just been disproven over and over again, but in fact the opposite is more likely to be true.
2. Political donors (of both parties) tend to be richer than the median voter. Democratic donors are way more likely to be college-educated, white, and more conscious about social issues than the median voter. Letting donors instead of voters drive Democratic politics is exactly the problem, but you're wrong about the direction it pushes the party.
I said nothing about Paul Ehrlich nor about Malthus. However, there is nothing erroneous about the fact that the planet is finite, that water is finite, that water is not available everywhere, ditto services, roads, jobs, farmland, pollinators, "free" ecosystem benefits. You might want to read about sustainable economics. If you think that humans or any other species can simply breed infinitely, I will happily sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. If you would like to look at political donors please visit opensecrets.org.
I believe 115,000 voters in swing states determined the electoral college. So even a broad mix of minor variables should be treated as "the real reason" regardless of the fundamentals working against Harris.
This was the best explanation of Harris' loss I have seen. It is also the best explanation of why Democrats, with only a few exceptions like Zohran Mamdani and maybe a Graham Platner, are seen as weak and need a 2028 version of FDR.
Many races are close so candidate strategy and opposition weakness can make a difference in those races. That Harris lost by only 1.5% suggests that had the GOP nominated a better candidate she would have lost by more.
Finally, a request: Please do one of your dives into the effect that money has on campaigns.
Excellent piece! One thing that you didn’t mention is that the mishandling and poor construction of the autopsy, along with current bad fundraising numbers in what’s shaping up to be a very good Dem environment, is an absolute indictment of the DNC’s choice of Ken Martin (the establishment candidate) for DNC chair. The Dems needed someone capable of out of the box thinking, who understands this moment, not the same-old same-old consultant-driven nonsense, and they blew it. (I preferred Ben Wikler, but I think almost anyone from outside the DC establishment would have been a better choice.)
This is excellent. You are correct that it was the fundamentals that largely determined the outcome of the 2024 election much more than candidate issue positioning, messaging strategies, or any of the other things that political consultants obsess about. Where I disagree with you is about the size of the anti system swing vote. I think it's actually quite small, although important. The vast majority of voters choose the same party in election after election in the current era. And the vast majority of voters also hold fairly consistent views across issues that reflect their partisan orientation. The high level of partisan loyalty in the electorate probably helps to explain why Kamala Harris outperformed what you would expect based on presidential approval and economic conditions. The vast majority of Democrats were not going to vote for Donald Trump, no matter what.
I agree with much of your analysis, although it leaves me with one big question.
"... structural factors .. nothing you can do about them."
If there's nothing a candidate can do to change the math, why did a 4 point predicted loss become a 1.5 point actual loss? If nothing matters except "at the margins", why was it closer than expected?
I hate to say it, but it feels like the Anti-Strategist Brain is at work here. You can be right about the structural factors, and still miss what matters for the future. Because SOMETHING mattered.
And that " something" is what the 2028 and 2032 strategy needs to build on.
I think this article implies that the Harris campaign... did a good job (at least, on a strategic level)? Like in the first chart, obviously it would be better if the confidence interval were higher and to the right. But given the model inputs, it really seems like the Harris campaign overperformed the expectations. It's close to the top of the 80% confidence interval, so that would be like a ~90th percentile performance?
Maybe we should be learning strategic lessons from the campaign instead!
The one massive factor that is ignored here is the billionaire (oligarch) propaganda that drives the unpopularity of Dem incumbents. When the oligarchs control almost all media - mainstream & social - it's no surprise that a moderately progressive admin like Biden's gets slammed with bad vibes. It's true that the oligarchs are better at creating discontent, anger, resentment and fear than anything positive, such that even their favorite autocrat gets pretty unpopular fast. But for progressives, the need to cut off the oligarch hydra's heads once and for all is overwhelming.
"The word 'inflation' isn’t mentioned in the autopsy a single time . . ."
This is mind-boggling. Like trying to analyze the fall of France in 1940 without ever mentioning the German army.
I can appreciate how campaign staffers feel after reading this compelling discussion of structural factors in presidential elections. They all want to find ways that actually win elections and not feel like we are driven by outside forces.
I think there are still important ways to win even with economic headwinds. First, Biden's team could have done a better job keeping his popularity ratings up. Biden seemed to think doing a good job would be rewarded, a common error among Democratic politicians. (People don't vote on facts or policy wins, they vote based on emotional narratives.) Biden needed to acknowledge the danger of voter distress over the economic chaos following Covid and actively blamed Trump and the Republicans much more aggressively than he did. That could have raised the presidential approval rating and possibly even voter sentiment about the future which drives the structural prediction model
The other interesting question is why did some past presidential campaigns do quite a bit better or worse than the structural model predicts? Just looking at the chart, plus being old and remembering elections since 1968, it looks like campaigns can have an effect beyond structural factors. Reagan had great messaging strategy and beat the model. Nixon did worse and of course Ford in 1976 was stuck with Nixon's Watergate scandal.
As a marketing guy, I have long argued that the Democratic party and it's national campaigns do a poor job of messaging and appear resistant to understanding the basics, much less how to build the vital brand building strategy that requires constant, consistent messaging around core values. Republicans have much more effective messaging and attack Democrats daily with coordinated messages. Dems think they will get rewarded by enacting popular policies and doing a big ad blast in two months before the general election every four years. The greatest ad campaign in the world has a hard time against four years of daily attacks.
If the Dems had a competent long-term messaging effort, that wouldn’t win every election but it would win a lot more.
Did Morris just talk himself into "schmoderation"?
Brilliant!!
This is most important analysis any politician can read. It's doubtful that many pay much attention to the 'autopsy' report, but the DNC did put out some money for a worthless document. And as for the pundits who make recommendations based on mythical voters, they're not worth reading either. Pundits who imagine NYT or WaPo reporting is going to sway some fraction of the electorate are living in a bubble.
Neither party organization is strong enough to prevent big screwups (Trump, CA gov primary), but looking at where candidates improved the margins, and systemic changes (National Popular Vote) would help. Otherwise, we'll just have to hope for charismatic, effective candidates to emerge.
Wow. I can see clearly now. This is why I subscribed, Elliott! Thank you. What’s the best way for your readers to advocate for this approach?
Fantastic analysis, thank you!
Ds must “go big”, and it seems some might be heading that way!
Let’s hope so.
Perfectly said!! I mentor young progressives running state and local offices and tell them exactly this! They will have a good chance winning through 2028 (because Trump will continue to screw up the economy) but they MUST use their power when in office, not just be status quo. That it might be hard to be a newbie bucking the party but voters need to see them fighting or they will vote them out.
It's the economy, stupid! - James Carville
It's global neoliberal economics killing the planet, and overpopulation.--Martha Ture
And here are two monstrous problems.
One is the Economics pedagogy, that can tell us that during the 1930's, the Soviet Union had fantastic growth, while starving and brutalizing more than 5 million people. The measurement of growth as GDP unrelated to social wellbeing or maintaining a sustainable planet is killing us all, faster and faster.
And Two is the fact that Democrats need money from autocratically benefited people and PACs, so Democrats are not likely to vote against the hands that feed them. They aren't going to kill neoliberal economics.
The vast inequality that has been permitted since the 1970's by Supreme Court decisions, the transfer of wealth upwards while buying power for 90% of the people has stagnated and diminished, can not be addressed by building millions of houses, because the limits to growth include water, land, roads, power, and food.
You can't build houses where you can't deliver water. You can't fix the grid in fewer than 10 years. Voters want relief yesterday, not ten years from now.
Where does this lead us?
It leads us to learning from analyses like Elliott’s and implementing the findings.
1. Anyone who still parrots Paul Ehrlich's Malthusianism is either misguided or a grifter. He has not just been disproven over and over again, but in fact the opposite is more likely to be true.
2. Political donors (of both parties) tend to be richer than the median voter. Democratic donors are way more likely to be college-educated, white, and more conscious about social issues than the median voter. Letting donors instead of voters drive Democratic politics is exactly the problem, but you're wrong about the direction it pushes the party.
I said nothing about Paul Ehrlich nor about Malthus. However, there is nothing erroneous about the fact that the planet is finite, that water is finite, that water is not available everywhere, ditto services, roads, jobs, farmland, pollinators, "free" ecosystem benefits. You might want to read about sustainable economics. If you think that humans or any other species can simply breed infinitely, I will happily sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. If you would like to look at political donors please visit opensecrets.org.
Oh my god *you* are Martha Ture. I had no idea who that was. But it was just you being pretentious.
Your and Ehrlich's assumption that humans will "breed infinitely" is unexamined. If you look at population trends, it's just fully false.
The only good thing Carville’s said. He’s been wrong ever since.
I'm not sure about ever since, but I haven't paid him a lot of attention for a while.
I believe 115,000 voters in swing states determined the electoral college. So even a broad mix of minor variables should be treated as "the real reason" regardless of the fundamentals working against Harris.
This was the best explanation of Harris' loss I have seen. It is also the best explanation of why Democrats, with only a few exceptions like Zohran Mamdani and maybe a Graham Platner, are seen as weak and need a 2028 version of FDR.
Many races are close so candidate strategy and opposition weakness can make a difference in those races. That Harris lost by only 1.5% suggests that had the GOP nominated a better candidate she would have lost by more.
Finally, a request: Please do one of your dives into the effect that money has on campaigns.
Excellent piece! One thing that you didn’t mention is that the mishandling and poor construction of the autopsy, along with current bad fundraising numbers in what’s shaping up to be a very good Dem environment, is an absolute indictment of the DNC’s choice of Ken Martin (the establishment candidate) for DNC chair. The Dems needed someone capable of out of the box thinking, who understands this moment, not the same-old same-old consultant-driven nonsense, and they blew it. (I preferred Ben Wikler, but I think almost anyone from outside the DC establishment would have been a better choice.)
Excellent analysis. Thanks.
This is excellent. You are correct that it was the fundamentals that largely determined the outcome of the 2024 election much more than candidate issue positioning, messaging strategies, or any of the other things that political consultants obsess about. Where I disagree with you is about the size of the anti system swing vote. I think it's actually quite small, although important. The vast majority of voters choose the same party in election after election in the current era. And the vast majority of voters also hold fairly consistent views across issues that reflect their partisan orientation. The high level of partisan loyalty in the electorate probably helps to explain why Kamala Harris outperformed what you would expect based on presidential approval and economic conditions. The vast majority of Democrats were not going to vote for Donald Trump, no matter what.
I agree with much of your analysis, although it leaves me with one big question.
"... structural factors .. nothing you can do about them."
If there's nothing a candidate can do to change the math, why did a 4 point predicted loss become a 1.5 point actual loss? If nothing matters except "at the margins", why was it closer than expected?
I hate to say it, but it feels like the Anti-Strategist Brain is at work here. You can be right about the structural factors, and still miss what matters for the future. Because SOMETHING mattered.
And that " something" is what the 2028 and 2032 strategy needs to build on.
I think this article implies that the Harris campaign... did a good job (at least, on a strategic level)? Like in the first chart, obviously it would be better if the confidence interval were higher and to the right. But given the model inputs, it really seems like the Harris campaign overperformed the expectations. It's close to the top of the 80% confidence interval, so that would be like a ~90th percentile performance?
Maybe we should be learning strategic lessons from the campaign instead!