Harris, Trump, Musk and the Democrats' Failure to Adapt: Lessons for Progressives?

Why Harris' centrist strategy couldn't match Trump's (anything but 'chaotic') messaging, his new Big Tent coalition, and social media dominance.

Although Kamala Harris's essentially spent considerable energy in the months since the convention with appealing to Republicans, including high-profile appearances with none other than Liz Cheney, prevailing narratives are likely to attribute her failure to being 'too liberal,' 'too left,' 'too woke,' and similar labels. And within the German SPD and Greens this will certainly be discussed in a similar way as they prepare for the upcoming snap election following the collapse of their coalition today. Yet, this interpretation is a fallacy, much like the belief, only 15 years ago, that demographic shifts and increasing diversity would secure Democratic dominance for years to come. Yesterday, Trump won the popular vote and made significant inroads among Latino, people of color, and younger voters—despite running with only a fraction of the Democrats' advertising budget. Neither funding nor organizational prowess can compensate for a campaign that lacks genuine resonance with voters.

Whether you are government or opposition: Elections always represent a symbolic turning point, a 'caesura,' and a chance to engage the electorate in a conversation about their experiences and expectations, about what went well and what didn’t. Replacing Biden on the ticket—especially with a new, female candidate—presented an even greater symbolic opportunity, one that the Democratic Party and Harris failed to capitalize on. Rather than addressing widespread discontent, acknowledging missteps (without discrediting their legacy or validating Trump’s narrative), and defining what she should do differently, Harris clung to continuity and a centrist, DC-focused approach with limited populist appeal. Despite her frequent visits to key swing states, her efforts seemed more focused on defending the status quo, securing endorsements from 'Never Trump' Republicans (which persuaded nobody) and touting support for her economic policies from Nobel Prize-winning economists which did little to sway those who felt alienated—and ultimately worse off—after the past four years. Making policy concessions across the board, shifting right on issues like immigration (despite some polls indicating that legal pathways to citizenship are, particular among Democrats, still more popular than mass deportations), and telling different groups different things about issues such as Israel/Gaza, Harris ultimately came across as a flip-flopper, lacking a clear, distinguishable stance and, most importantly, a distinct, compelling vision for the future. That the Dems somewhat fell into the trap of identity politics by treating the Latino vote as a monolithic bloc they could take for granted, while Trump approached them as swing voters he needed to persuade, didn't help either.

Another fallacy has been viewing Trump solely as a chaotic, unhinged force—a dominant media narrative especially in the campaign's final days after the Madison Square Garden rally. In reality, what was going on – and apparent to everyone who wanted to see it in his speeches, on social media and elsewhere – was a highly strategic and effective strategic messaging, outreach and coalition-building effort that not only transformed the Republicans into a new, more inclusive 'big tent' party but changed the political landscape. He effectively tapped into anti-corporate, 'anti-war' ('anti-Cheney') sentiments among formerly independent or disengaged parts of the electorate, took over RFK's 'Make America Healthy Again' message and put JD Vance to use where his right-wing populism worked best. It was striking to witness how he intensified his criticism of the 'neocons' and the DC foreign policy establishment—essentially grouping the Democrats with the old GOP as 'warmongers.' In his speeches, he condemned 'the millions we killed in Iraq in senseless wars,' adding 'and some of our own soldiers' only afterward.

Trump’s ability to activate disaffected citizens and expand the voter base through higher turnout—echoing Obama’s overperformance in 2008—challenges, no, completely overturns how we conceive of elections. It shows that true power does not lie in simply responding to what's directly in front of you and pandering to a the mirage of a political 'center'. The real power lies in reshaping how people perceive politics itself. Politics is fluid, malleable, and campaigns that can reframe voters' understanding of it have the potential to reshape the electorate. Bernie Sanders’s campaigns, often ridiculed, dismissed, or labeled outright dangerous by the center-left establishment, proved that attitudes and preferences are not static—they can be transformed. The much-discussed 'center' ('Mitte') of society is not a fixed entity; it is not a clearly defined, arithmetically demarcated constituency nor a position that can simply be targeted through focus groups and marketing strategies. The center is a metaphor for political hegemony, one that must be won.?

In this context, the 'Elon effect' cannot be overstated. According to the Center for Countering Digital Hate, disinformation shared by Musk on X garnered over two billion views ahead of the election, likely influencing perceptions in critical battleground states. While Musk’s role is obviously catastrophic—and Kara Swisher’s critique, that he has essentially turned X into a 'Nazi porn bar,' valid— it is also prescient. Musk, who, not without self-interest, has repeatedly proclaimed the end of mass media on X ('You are the media now'), criticized Harris for relying on short, highly controlled interviews with traditional media and delegating social media posts to an (admittedly talented and young) PR team. Nevertheless, this strategy failed to match Trump’s direct, unfiltered communication on various social platforms and highly influential podcasts such as Joe Rogan's (with whom the Harris campaign failed to secure an interview). Just as Roosevelt’s fireside chats, Kennedy’s mastery of national broadcasting, the rise of cable TV, Obama's use of Facebook, and Trump's dominance on Twitter in 2016, this election cycle has also been marked by shifts in campaign strategies (and by unprecedented information warfare on the social platforms). This new environment has transformed how political narratives are shaped - largely outside legacy media frameworks. There is no reason why other politicians, without resorting to Trump’s outrageous and hateful rhetoric, should not adapt to this. People want their leaders to speak directly to them and reveal their true convictions. Authenticity, for lack of a better word, not only builds trust but relationships. Or as Maya Angelou aptly put it: 'People will forget what you said. People will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.' The challenges for progressivism, in the US and countries like Germany alike, are massive. They lie in substance, but also in perception, emotion and communication. But a progressive agenda rooted in trust and authentic communication still holds potential.

?

?