Democrats Ponder: Have We Become Overly Correct?

It may seem counterintuitive, but the extent of Vice President Kamala Harris' defeat could serve as an unexpected opportunity. By losing all seven battleground states, experiencing their first popular vote loss in two decades, and witnessing President-elect Donald Trump win with a working-class coalition that used to belong to them, Democrats have the chance to transform despair into decisive action.

In contrast to 2016, when they secured the popular vote but narrowly lost in the swing states, and 2020, when they made a comeback, Democrats now possess a clear mandate for change. This goes beyond mere tactics or shifts in focus; the magnitude of their loss and the number of voters who left the party signal a need to rethink their approach to affinity group politics.

The crucial question is whether they will be inspired to act bold or will instead retreat when “the groups,” which are invariably referred to as identity-based organizations, voice their concerns.

However, the potential rewards are significant. The candidate who can maintain the party’s traditional commitments to the most vulnerable while appealing to those voters who just turned away from Harris will likely emerge as the Democrats' strongest contender for 2028 and possibly the next president.

Let’s be clear from the outset; the best remedy for any political party’s loss is typically the inevitable excesses, overreach, and failures of the opposing party. Despite their considerable talents, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama benefitted from fortuitous timing.

In a deeply polarized country, though, the next Democratic leader will face an even steeper challenge than those before them, as there are simply fewer swing voters in play. If Democrats cling to their current appeals, they will encounter the same cultural obstacles that have hindered them in recent elections.

To begin with, they must acknowledge that they inadvertently laid the groundwork for Trump’s resurgence. Their leftward shift during his presidency provided him with the ammunition needed to depict the opposition as radical.

This shift, while well-meaning and understandable, was a political misstep. Take note of Harris' now-notorious stance on transgender surgery for prisoners—a commitment she made in 2019 based on the belief that core Democrats desired such ideological purity. In reality, the main goal was to defeat Trump, a sentiment recognized by Joe Biden, while many others in the party misinterpreted the moment.

As Trump continued to target vulnerable groups, Democrats increasingly resembled academic faculty attempting to appease radicalized students for whom identity politics take center stage, alienating those voters who don’t view the world through that lens. This was one issue when the dissent came primarily from blue-collar white individuals.

“But now there is contagion,” pointed out Rep. Brendan Boyle.

Boyle recalled a 2015 encounter with Black Texas Democrat Rep. Marc Veasey in the House cloakroom, where they discovered shared interests and eventually decided to establish a blue-collar caucus.

“I’m an Eagles fan and he’s a Cowboys fan, but we have working-class backgrounds,” Boyle shared. “We realized if we don’t do better with working-class voters, we’re going to have a real problem. And we both expressed fear it wouldn’t just remain a white working-class issue — and now it has spread.”

Veasey emphasized that the party needs to avoid being "so dogmatic" and especially should not fear repercussions from their intra-coalition enforcers.

“Every time some group tells us to use some language, we get scared or worried we’re going to get canceled or primaried so we clam up and look stupid and out of touch,” he said.

Veasey decided not to pursue a caucuswide leadership role partly to maintain his freedom of expression. “I’m just done with the nonsense,” he declared.

Boyle and Veasey are not alone in their sentiments.

Seth London, an advisor to Democratic donors and a veteran of Obama’s campaigns, has authored a scathing memo aimed at the party’s elected officials, urging them to learn from this election’s lessons.

“Parts of the Democratic establishment accepted as gospel the myth that elections are won by mobilizing the ‘base’ through appeals to group, not individual, identities,” London expressed in the 3½-page memo I obtained.

He called for the emergence of a new cohort of “Common Sense Democrats,” advocating for a complete rejection of race- and group-based identity politics in favor of a focus on delivering the American dream through specific, actionable steps.

A prominent voice echoing this sentiment is Rahm Emanuel. While he still technically serves as the U.S. ambassador to Japan, Emanuel has been vocal about both Harris’ missteps and the structural challenges facing his party since her defeat.

His potential future political ventures remain uncertain—whether seeking the Illinois governorship, chairing the DNC, or running for president—but his message for Democrats is clear.

“Identity politics did not work electorally and it failed miserably strategically,” Emanuel stated.

As a confirmed moderate, Emanuel also holds concerns over the party’s policy positioning. However, despite their differing substantive views, he and Sen. Bernie Sanders may find common ground in the necessity of shifting away from affinity group culture to prioritize economic opportunity.

This leads to another crucial point: Democrats need to stop using phrases like “uplift.”

Any post-election analysis should include a guide on avoiding insider jargon and campus lingo. Notably, Sen.-elect Ruben Gallego’s criticism of “Latinx” has drawn attention, but the issue runs deeper.

“Use words that everyday Americans use,” urged Rep. Grace Meng, who significantly outperformed Harris in her Queens-based district. “If I can’t say it to my grandma, I’m not going to say it to my constituents.”

Maine Gov. Janet Mills, who successfully overcame a proto-Trump Republican challenger on two occasions, added, “We’ve got to talk about pocketbook issues and get over the identity politics — that’s in the past, I think — and get rid of the buzzwords.”

Barack Obama has been one of the most prominent Democrats to warn against the dangers of becoming the language police. He recognized this risk so well that he even mentioned it in his convention speech this summer.

“If a parent or grandparent occasionally says something that makes us cringe, we don’t automatically assume they’re bad people,” Obama explained. “We recognize the world is moving fast, and that they need time and maybe a little encouragement to catch up. Our fellow citizens deserve the same grace we hope they’ll extend to us.”

That is, Obama continued, “how we can build a true Democratic majority.”

However, the challenge for Democrats extends beyond mere vocabulary.

Many leaders in the party have miscalculated for too long, assuming that bigotry is the primary motivating factor for many voters.

"Instead of making tough choices to recalibrate on culture, many Democratic message-makers have hand-waved away our [working-class] erosion under the convenient assumption that most blue-collar whites must surely be primarily motivated by anti-Black racial animus that should never be excused," said Democratic pollster Zac McCrary.

The misreading didn't stop with white voters; Democrats were also caught off guard as the patterns extended further.

As former Rep. Filemon Vela, who represented a South Texas district that saw a significant pro-Trump shift, noted, part of the party's struggle comes from interest group leaders who are more liberal and identity-focused than the actual constituents they claim to represent.

“Their viewpoint is from the Hispanics they know in Boston and Brooklyn, which is totally different from people here,” Vela noted.

Seeing Hispanics as a single voting bloc is misguided, according to former Rep. Joe Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat.

“It's akin to thinking of a white vote,” he remarked. “We’d never think of white vote as monolith.”

Mills highlighted how Democrats are perceived to prioritize issues related to "transgender this and that, every multicultural person," which only exacerbates the alienation felt by those who do not identify within those confines.

Fundamentally, Democrats will also need to navigate substantial policy choices—something that will prove even more challenging.

Consider the backlash Rep. Seth Moulton faced recently for questioning whether boys assigned at birth should compete in girls’ sports. However, Moulton wasn’t alone; as more individuals raise questions about perceived orthodoxies—not just on this issue but across the board—they should ultimately find safety in numbers.

At least, they ought to.

Experiencing defeat, and particularly a resounding one, should inspire such an effect.

Frederick R Cook contributed to this report for TROIB News