The Democrats 2024 Campaign: An Obituary

Did you think we would be sitting in our pajam-a-las, singing fa-la-la-la-la-la as Kamala led America to keep calm-a-la and carry-on-a-la? Well, then, you haven't been paying attention. Every election, the Democratic party shifts more and more to the right—so much so that it no longer caters to the left but is the Republican party from 20 years ago. Kamala Harris's 2024 presidential campaign reinforced this idea, so let's dive deep into this postmortem analysis.

A flawed nomination process

There were no Democratic primaries, simply put. President Biden was clearly unfit to run for a second term already in 2022. Had he been honest about his intentions to run again, the pushback for him to stand down could've happened earlier and possibly given way for a more open and competitive Democratic primary process. Instead, you have the typical power-hungry man who can't step down for fear of a bruised ego. Let alone the fact that an 80-something-year-old shouldn't be president. By the way, Trump is 78 years old.

Instead, what did we get? Years of dissatisfaction during Biden's administration only to fall into further disgrace with a detrimental debate in the summer, which then thrusted Kamala as the Democrat's nominee. Mind you, a nominee whose initial run for the presidency in 2020 was a failure. As the New York Times put it, " Ms. Harris is the only 2020 Democrat who has fallen hard out of the top tier of candidates. She has proved to be an uneven campaigner who changes her message and tactics to little effect and has a staff torn into factions."

A short and rushed campaign

Let's say Harris had four years to recover, regroup and reorient. With only 107 days to campaign, Harris was significantly disadvantaged compared to Trump's years-long re-election effort. This limited timeframe hindered her ability to build a robust campaign and effectively communicate her vision to voters.

Did you know American presidential elections are much longer than in other countries? Many nations have laws on campaign lengths, but not America. In 1896, Republican William McKinley famously campaigned from the front porch of his home in Ohio and won the presidential election. So perhaps year-long campaigns should be outlawed, especially considering that most campaigns cost billions or more than the GDP of various small nations.

Still, as anyone in marketing knows, brand awareness and staying top of mind are key. Whether you liked it or not, you could discuss Trump's vision for the future and detail his strategy (or lack thereof). But when it came to Kamala, this wasn't the case. I still don't know what the hell "Brat Summer" is. Am I brat? A short and rushed campaign did her no favors.

Missteps on foreign policy

Harris's stance on the genocide in Gaza alienated many voters who were calling for a ceasefire. Let me backtrack a bit. Maybe the "G" word makes you feel uncomfortable. Or, you don't agree. The United Nations Human Rights Council declared it as such in March of this year. So did the Lancet, one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals in the world that already, in May, estimated about 8% of the population had been exterminated. Or how about Boston University? Do internationally recognized governing bodies, human rights organizations, scientists and academics not do it for you? Fine, hear it directly from the horse's mouth, as Israeli media calls it: ethnic cleansing.

As I stated before, her stance alienated many voters, and polls suggested that her unconditional support for Israel is what could've cost her dearly in the Swing States. It turns out people do care about genocide, and refusing to acknowledge this is one potential theory for why about 4 million fewer voters showed up to the elections. I'm talking about the total compared to the 2020 election.

What we do know is that according to several polls, many more Americans are against what's happening in Gaza, and many are in favor of halting or stopping arms sales to the Israeli regime. Did the Democrats listen? Are they doing it now? No. Instead, we had Democrats neglect their fatigued and disillusioned base by taking certain demographics for granted and holding others in contempt.

By the way, Harris accepted half a million in donations from AIPAC.

Failure to capture the working class

The vast majority of Americans care about kitchen-table issues. Many would rather focus on fixing their "home" than on issues abroad. The majority are looking for a higher minimum wage, universal healthcare, and some form of gun control. Instead, they are given economic inequality and the feeling of abandonment.

If we adjust for inflation, the US has given Israel over $251.2bn since 1959. Even so, the $17.9bn spent since October 7, 2023, is the most military aid sent to Israel in one year. This is without considering Ukraine, Taiwan, and everywhere else.

Do you know what $3.8bn to Israel's weapons could instead fund in the US?

• 451,735 households with public housing for a year
• 1,322,199 children receive free or low-cost healthcare
• 41,490 elementary school teachers
• 10,818,505 households with solar electricity produced for a year
• 100,563 students with their loan debt cancelled
• and the list goes on.

Harris was tested over the summer with four major Atlantic hurricanes—Beryl, Helen, Kirk, and Milton— which gave Americans a preview of how their needs would be prioritized. Spoiler: the relief efforts were subpar.

Or how about the fact that in 2023, 44% of flipped single-family houses were purchased by private equity firms, raising concern about the potential consequences for housing affordability and market competitiveness? Again, maybe people don't care about what happens on the other side of the planet, but when they see their tax dollars being used to fund war crimes rather than taking care of the people who elected them into power, it's hard to feel cared for.

Let alone the death of Marcellus "Khaliifa" Williams (there were others who didn't make the news), who was executed via the death penalty despite having evidence proving his innocence. Harris didn't speak up for her fellow Black Americans or her stance on the death penalty, which, once upon a time, she was against, much like?fracking. But we know where that went.

At the end of the day, Harris ran to the right of Trump on the border topic. She toured the country with Dick Cheney's daughter (whose father is responsible for one million+ Iraqi civilian deaths, to name a few of his atrocities), all while her administration sent money to kill hundreds of thousands in the Middle East. Maybe you view this as an exaggeration, but remember that a Republican won the popular vote for the first time since 2004.

Never mind the current inflation, which isn't that bad if you just think of it as an additional tax you pay directly to corporations in addition to creating surplus value for them through a lifetime of meaningless toil. But I digress...

Demographic shifts and voter turnout

I've heard a lot of people blaming Arab Americans, Blacks, Latinos, and pretty much anyone else who isn't white, costing her the vote. False. It was white people. White males and females carried Trump to victory with over 50% in their statistics, which no other demographic had.

After all, white people are the gatekeepers to white supremacy. And with the constant rhetoric of immigrants taking over and promoting figures like Elon Musk, who's a huge advocate of the replacement theory, it's no wonder that this was the largest demographic that brought him to the finish line.

And while some people believe that Harris being a woman and not white is what led to her demise, how can you then explain the successful re-elections of progressive women of color like Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar? Who, might I mention, stood by the fact that Israel is committing genocide and who, despite various threats in the past year, won by a landslide and in states where Harris performed miserably. The widespread disillusionment was real, especially considering the "no commitment" movement.

The influence of money in politics

Perhaps the most overlooked fact, however, is that money rules our political system. Thank you, Bernie Sanders, for calling the American system what it is: not a democracy but, in fact, an oligarchy.

The 2024 election further highlighted the outsized influence of wealthy donors and corporate interests in American politics. Since the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision, the role of "dark money" and super PACs has grown exponentially. In 2023 alone, $5.6 billion was spent on lobbying, with the energy, finance, tech, and pharmaceutical sectors leading the way.

Consider political scientist Thomas Fergusons' "Investment Theory of Politics."

At it's core, it's:

• Political parties and candidates are primarily controlled by blocks of major investors, not ordinary voters.
• Businesses and wealthy individuals "invest" in political parties and candidates to advance their interests.
• Changes in industrial structures and the interests of major economic players can significantly alter political agendas and public policy.

In the context of American elections, this explains:

• Campaign finance: the ever-increasing costs of political campaigns necessitate substantial financial backing, primarily from wealthy donors and corporate interests.
• Policy alignment: on issues where major investors agree, there is often little to no substantive difference between political parties, regardless of public opinion.
• Agenda setting: the political agenda is largely determined by the interests of major investors, often sidelining issues that may be important to the general public but not to economic elites. Case in point: the huge jump in the stock market after Trump's victory.

This is why we can consider the American political system to function more like an oligarchy than a true democracy:

• Limited choice: voters are presented with candidates who have already been vetted and supported by major investors, limiting real political alternatives.
• Policy influence: policies tend to align more closely with the preferences of economic elites than those of average citizens.
• Barrier to entry: The high cost of running successful campaigns effectively excludes candidates who lack support from wealth backers.
• Systemic stability: the system tends to perpetuate itself, as those in power have the means to maintain their influence through continued investment in the political process.

Thus, this context shows that, more often than not, candidates aren't actually doing anything for their constituents but rather for their donors, and you can often see this parroted in their talking points and who they support.

The path forward

Now, we're in another four years of Trump.

That's fine, right? He's a bumbling, racist, mentally-sunsetting neofascist who, during his term, rolled back over 125 environmental regulations and protections, including the Stream Protection Rule, which opened the door for coal companies to dump mining waste into rivers, lakes, and streams. Who lifted the coal mining ban on federal lands. Who attempted to decimate the EPA, dropped out of the Paris Climate Accords, and restarted the Keystone XL pipeline. Who made it harder to obtain Medicaid and was only one vote away from overturning the ACA, which would've resulted in 20 million people losing healthcare. Who reinstated and expanded the global gag rule, severely impacting reproductive rights across the world, and appointed the regressive right-wing judges who later overturned Roe. v. Wade. Who rolled back Dodd-Frank, a law designed to regulate big banks. Who ended a Justice Department initiative to phase out private prisons. Who rescinded discrimination protections for federal LGBTQIA+ employees and tried to eliminate their protections in healthcare. Who further militarized the police by lifting a ban on military gear purchases for police departments.

It's fineeeeee! However, can you really blame the voters for their choices or the illusion of choice they were given? It's actually the fault of the system: a restrictive, hypercapitalist, plutocratic duopoly controlled by big money entities with no interest in peace, equality, justice, or the literal survival of all living things on this planet.

Now, all hope is not lost. Here's what we can do!

1. Support the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement, which has gained traction recently and impacted corporations involved in human rights abuses. For instance, McDonalds is on the list, and thanks to BDS, it saw its first quarterly decline in same-store sales since COVID-19 in early 2020. In any case, many of these corporations are bad for your health and the planet, so it's actually a win-win.

2. Get involved in local politics and grassroots organizing efforts to build power from the ground up. Sure, you can say you're not into politics, but everything around you is based on politics. You can either get up and make a change or stay silent and stay complacent.

3. Engage in open dialogues about political issues with friends, family, and colleagues to raise awareness and combat misinformation. Knowledge is power.

4. Support campaign finance reform efforts to reduce money's political influence.

5. Participate in consumer activism by making conscious choices about where to spend money and which companies to support. Especially with the holiday shopping spree approaching, rethink whether you really NEED to spend and shop. Resistance is key. That includes resisting buying outfits from Temu and Shein.

6. Advocate for ranked-choice voting and other electoral reforms to create a more representative democracy.

7. Stay informed about corporate influence in politics and support independent journalism that investigates these connections, like truthout.org.

Remember, the political elite doesn't care about your little hats, your weekend marches, or even your votes. They care if you work and shop. So let's take collective action to build a more equitable and responsive political system that truly represents the will of the people.

In the meantime, R.I.P. Democrats.