By Michael Kelman Portney 

In my view, the Democrats, under Biden’s and Harris’s leadership, lost the 2024 election due to a combination of outdated approaches, missed opportunities for bold action, an inability to connect with the real needs of voters, and an overreliance on identity politics.

1. Return to the Status Quo: I see Biden’s presidency as a return to centrist, traditional politics that didn't address urgent, real-world economic issues like inflation, housing, and corporate accountability. This approach felt “old-fashioned” and out of touch with the demands of an electorate facing rising costs and inequality.

2. Democratic Power Structure and Self-Preservation: The Democratic National Committee (DNC) and influential figures like Obama have prioritized maintaining power within the party, even if it means resisting progressive candidates like Bernie Sanders. This self-preservation focus has kept the party from evolving to meet the needs and views of a changing voter base, stifling its potential to adapt or inspire a broader coalition.

3. Biden’s Reluctance to Take Bold Action: Voters expected strong action on critical issues, but in my opinion, Biden’s perceived “fecklessness” led to a sense that the administration was unable or unwilling to make meaningful changes. Issues like corporate regulation, healthcare reform, and consumer protections went unaddressed, leading to frustration from those wanting a more decisive leader.

4. Struggles of Harris’s Campaign: With Biden opting not to run, Kamala Harris inherited the challenges of Biden’s presidency without enough differentiation to inspire voter enthusiasm. Tied closely to Biden’s record, Harris’s campaign faced difficulty rallying support or distancing itself from the perceived shortcomings of the past four years.

5. Reluctance to Embrace Economic Populism: I believe the Democratic Party’s hesitation to engage with economic populism left a gap in addressing corporate power, affordability, and other bread-and-butter concerns. Voters who wanted clear, bold measures on these issues felt the party wasn’t willing to challenge corporate interests or disrupt the status quo.

6. Obama’s Influence and Resistance to Change: To me, Obama’s influence encouraged the party to stick with establishment candidates like Biden and Clinton, rather than embracing figures like Sanders who represented a break from traditional Democratic policies. This perceived resistance to change may have deepened the party’s disconnect from its base and dampened enthusiasm among progressives. We owe President Obama a debt of gratitude for his transformative eight years, however he should have as much say over the current state of the party as Jimmy Carter. His stewardship has proven ineffective, and frankly detrimental.

7. Contrast in Executive Action on Border Policy: Comparing Biden to Trump, I see Biden’s reluctance to take direct executive action on the border and immigration policy as another point of frustration. Trump used executive orders to act swiftly on these issues, and Biden’s choice to roll back Trump’s policies without replacing them in a decisive way left me and other voters wondering why he seemed unwilling to do what his predecessor had done to address our concerns. His approach of emphasizing Congressional involvement may have seemed too slow or cautious for voters who valued quick, tangible results.

8. Influence of Identity Politics: I also feel that the Democratic Party’s heavy focus on identity politics may have alienated some voters who are looking for solutions to practical issues rather than symbolic gestures. While identity politics can be a powerful tool for representation, the overemphasis on it without tangible progress on core economic issues may have left many Americans feeling overlooked. Voters struggling with everyday financial pressures might see the focus on identity as out of touch when they want leaders who will address broader systemic issues that impact everyone. This emphasis on identity over universal economic reform could have contributed to the sense that Democrats weren’t focused on policies that would improve the lives of all Americans.

Additionally, the last-minute addition of Kamala Harris to the ticket when Biden stepped aside seemed to be driven largely by identity politics, with the consolidation around her campaign generated, in part, by Democrats being pressured to rally behind her out of a narrative of entitlement, that was largely purpotrated by her Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority sisters, many of whom are famous journalists, on mainstream media. Many may have felt “guilted” into supporting her as a symbolic choice, rather than a candidate who would effectively address policy concerns. This identity-driven approach may have created a sense that the Democratic Party was choosing symbolism over substance, which could have alienated voters seeking more concrete solutions to economic and social challenges.

9. Handling of the Gaza Conflict: I believe the Biden administration’s stance on the Gaza conflict alienated both progressives and some independents who wanted a more balanced or humanitarian approach to U.S. foreign policy. By aligning closely with Israel without a strong emphasis on humanitarian aid or support for Palestinian civilians, the administration may have disappointed voters who are increasingly concerned about human rights and international justice. For many Americans, particularly younger voters, the issue of Gaza represents a call for more ethical foreign policy practices. This conflict, and the perceived lack of decisive, compassionate action from Biden, might have led some to question the Democrats' commitment to values they believe are essential. The party’s stance on Gaza likely reinforced a perception that the Democrats, like the Republicans, often put strategic alliances above humanitarian priorities, which many voters find difficult to support.

10. Wider Image of Democratic Leadership: Altogether, these factors contribute to an image of Democratic leadership as overly procedural, cautious, and wedded to an outdated political style. This perception may have played a key role in their loss, with voters feeling the Democrats were unable to deliver bold, direct solutions to the most pressing issues facing the country.

11. When They Go Low, We Go High—And How It Backfires: I believe the Democrats’ commitment to the “When they go low, we go high” mantra may have backfired in today’s polarized political landscape. By attempting to maintain civility and restraint, the party might have appeared too passive or unwilling to engage with the tough, direct tactics often used by Republicans. This “high road” approach, while admirable in principle, may have left some voters feeling the Democrats weren’t willing to fight hard enough for their concerns. In an era where many voters want leaders who show strength and are ready to directly confront their opponents, this approach might have come across as weakness or avoidance, especially when facing challenges like disinformation or voter frustration.

Additionally, this mantra can sometimes project an air of moral superiority that may turn people off. By emphasizing their commitment to “going high,” Democrats may appear to suggest that their values are inherently more virtuous, creating a sense of distance and alienation. For some voters, this can feel patronizing or dismissive, as if the party believes itself to be above the concerns or strategies that other people feel are necessary to address the challenges of the moment. This perceived sense of superiority may make Democrats seem disconnected from the day-to-day struggles and realities that people want addressed, reinforcing the idea that the party is out of touch with a more practical, grounded approach to politics. 

12. Biden’s Promise to Be a Transition Leader—and the Walkback: Early in his campaign, Biden presented himself as a “transition” figure—a bridge to a new generation of leadership. Many voters interpreted this as a promise to bring fresh faces and perspectives into the party, making room for future leaders to emerge. This created an expectation that he would pave the way for a new era, potentially even stepping aside for younger, more progressive candidates in 2024.

However, Biden’s eventual decision to run for re-election and deny any primary challenges left many feeling disappointed, as though he had backtracked on that initial promise. By closing off the primary process, Biden may have alienated those who hoped for a more open and democratic choice within the party. This refusal to embrace a primary might have reinforced a perception that the Democratic leadership was clinging to power and avoiding a true transition.

The decision to walk back the “transition” promise may have felt like a broken commitment, particularly to younger or more progressive voters eager for change. Many may have seen it as a self-preserving move that kept the party stagnant instead of allowing it to adapt to the shifting priorities of the electorate. This walkback may have added to frustrations with the party’s resistance to change and contributed to a sense that Biden was more focused on maintaining the status quo than preparing the way for future leaders.

13. Kamala’s Interview Gaffe – “I Wouldn’t Have Done Anything Differently”: During an interview, Kamala Harris was asked if there was anything she would have done differently from Biden’s administration. Her response—that she wouldn’t have done anything differently or couldn’t think of any changes—came across as a missed opportunity to set herself apart and demonstrate her unique vision. For many voters, this statement reinforced the perception that Harris was fully aligned with Biden’s policies, without offering fresh perspectives or acknowledging areas where the administration might have fallen short.

This response may have alienated voters looking for leadership that is willing to acknowledge mistakes or demonstrate an independent approach.  

14. Perceptions of Authoritarianism in the COVID Response: The Democratic approach to COVID-19, while intended to protect public health, may have been perceived by some as overly authoritarian, particularly in comparison to Trump’s more hands-off stance. Biden and Democratic governors implemented strict measures like mask mandates, vaccination requirements, and extended lockdowns, which many viewed as heavy-handed or invasive, especially as the pandemic wore on and public patience wore thin.

These measures, while rooted in public health goals, may have created a perception that Democrats were willing to prioritize control over individual freedoms. This perception of “authoritarian” policies may have alienated not only conservatives but also independents and even some Democrats who valued personal choice. Voters who felt that the government had overstepped its bounds may have found themselves more receptive to Republican messaging about personal freedom and limited government intervention.

By enforcing these measures more rigorously than Trump or Republican leaders, Democrats may have inadvertently reinforced the narrative that they favored government control over individual autonomy. This perception of overreach on pandemic measures likely fostered distrust among some Americans who were frustrated with ongoing restrictions and concerned about government authority.

15. Biden’s Perceived Decline and Resentment Toward Harris for Not Stepping Up: Throughout his presidency, Biden’s frequent appearances looking physically frail or mentally fatigued fueled public concern over his ability to handle the rigors of the office. These perceptions led some to quietly question if invoking the 25th Amendment—a constitutional mechanism allowing for the transfer of presidential power due to incapacity—might even be necessary.

In this context, some voters may have felt frustration or resentment toward Kamala Harris for not stepping up more assertively when Biden appeared to be struggling. As vice president, Harris might have been expected to take on a more visible, supportive role, particularly if there were doubts about Biden’s stamina. However, her relatively low profile and apparent reluctance to fill in more actively may have led some to believe she was either unprepared or unwilling to take on additional leadership responsibilities.

This perception could have deepened doubts about the Democratic ticket, as voters may have felt neither Biden nor Harris was fully prepared to lead. For those worried about Biden’s capability, Harris’s lack of assertiveness may have suggested an unwillingness to confront the issue, which could have compounded frustrations and raised questions about both her readiness and the administration’s overall stability.

16. Resentment Toward Political Dynasties and the Obama Legacy: Many Americans have shown discomfort with political dynasties, seeing them as symbols of entrenched power and a lack of fresh perspectives. Biden, as Obama’s vice president from 2008 to 2016, represented a continuation of the Obama legacy, which some voters may have viewed as a reluctance to move forward and embrace new leadership.

Even when Biden considered stepping aside, his choice of Kamala Harris—a candidate viewed as a symbolic nod to the Obama coalition—only reinforced perceptions that the Democratic Party was clinging to the same power structures and relying heavily on identity politics. Many voters may have seen this decision as a move designed to maintain continuity with the Obama administration, rather than a bold step toward new ideas or broader representation. For those who felt that the party needed to move beyond the Obama era, Biden’s and Harris’s candidacies likely felt like an extension of an outdated administration.

This sense of “dynasty politics” may have further alienated voters who wanted a genuine change in leadership and a break from past administrations. The Democratic Party’s perceived reliance on familiar figures rather than fresh candidates could have contributed to a sense of stagnation and reluctance to adapt to the evolving political landscape.

17. Economic Pain and Disconnect in Messaging: Another significant factor in Harris’s loss was the acute financial pain Americans were feeling due to inflation, rising costs of essentials, and stagnant wages. Despite messages from the Biden administration that the U.S. was faring better than other nations, this rhetoric failed to resonate with many Americans whose wallets were under serious pressure. The disconnect between optimistic messaging and the reality of economic hardship left many feeling that the administration was out of touch with their struggles. Branding the economy with  “Bidenomics” was particularly damaging, because it was perceived as an attempt to gaslight hurting Americans into thinking the economy was performing well, while more people fell behind, unable to see the tangible results.

Around the globe, incumbents faced similar challenges, as economic stress led to dissatisfaction with existing leadership. In the U.S., however, Biden’s perceived reluctance to take on corporations over price hikes may have been particularly damaging. Voters frustrated by rising costs in groceries, gas, housing, and healthcare likely felt that corporate interests were being prioritized, adding to the perception that Biden and the Democrats were unwilling to address the root causes of their economic struggles.

This sense of betrayal over economic issues may have depressed turnout among disillusioned voters who felt that the party wasn’t advocating strongly enough for their financial well-being. Biden’s unwillingness to confront corporations head-on likely fueled doubts about whether the administration genuinely understood or cared about the economic pain affecting everyday Americans, ultimately hurting Harris’s chances as the Democratic successor.

18. Pushback Against PC Culture: Another factor that may have contributed to Harris’s loss is the growing frustration with political correctness and the perception that the Democratic Party is increasingly out of touch with everyday language and cultural norms. Many Americans feel that political correctness has gone too far, creating an environment where people are overly cautious about expressing themselves or where certain viewpoints are quickly dismissed or labeled as offensive.

For some, the Democratic Party’s alignment with PC culture reinforces an image of elitism or a lack of authenticity. This can create a sense of alienation, particularly among voters who feel their beliefs or experiences are unfairly criticized or overlooked. The perception that Democrats emphasize “correct” language and ideological purity over practical issues may have further distanced voters who feel alienated by what they see as cultural overreach. Phrases like LatinX likely patronized large portions of the Latin American community who saw it as a meaningless platitude that was all the Democrats had to offer them.

This pushback on PC culture may have left some Americans more receptive to Republican messaging, which often emphasizes free speech and a rejection of “woke” politics. Voters who resent the constraints of political correctness likely found it difficult to relate to Democratic messaging, which they may have perceived as lecturing or out of touch with mainstream culture. This cultural disconnect added to the broader sense of disillusionment with the Democratic Party and contributed to Harris’s struggles in connecting with key segments of the electorate.

19. Resentment Toward the “It’s Their Turn” Mentality: Americans have repeatedly shown they don’t like being told it’s someone’s “turn” to be president, viewing this attitude as a sign of entitlement and an insult to the democratic process. This resentment surfaced in 2016 when Hillary Clinton’s candidacy was presented by some in the Democratic establishment as a natural progression—“her turn” after years of public service. Similarly, in 2020, Biden’s candidacy was framed by some as his “turn,” particularly after years as vice president. This notion likely didn’t sit well with voters, who feel strongly that presidential candidates should earn their place through merit and a compelling vision, not simply through seniority or establishment support.

Biden’s victory may have only been possible because the pandemic led many voters to prioritize stability over excitement. But by 2024, the idea that it was “Harris’s turn” likely contributed to her loss. As Biden’s vice president, Harris may have been seen by some within the party as the natural successor, yet this idea may have felt forced or out of touch with voters’ desire for genuine, compelling leadership. Voters want fresh, inspiring candidates, not those pushed forward based on seniority or political connections.

This pattern of suggesting it’s someone’s “turn” only reinforces a perception of political entitlement and elite-driven politics—both of which voters tend to reject. In a time of political and social upheaval, when many are seeking authentic change, the idea of choosing a president based on hierarchy rather than vision likely backfired. Many Americans resent the implication that political figures are handed the presidency based on internal party decisions rather than earning it by addressing the real needs of the people.

20. Desire for a Return to “America First”: Biden’s commitment to sending aid overseas, especially during times of economic hardship, likely contributed to a renewed desire for an “America First” style of governance among many Americans. With inflation, high gas prices, and increased costs for essentials weighing heavily on people’s minds, the decision to direct substantial resources toward foreign conflicts and alliances may have felt out of touch with the immediate needs at home.

For many voters, the idea of “America First” is not just a slogan but a call to focus on domestic priorities—like economic stability, job security, and direct relief for struggling families—before investing abroad. Biden’s foreign aid commitments, especially in regions with complex and controversial conflicts, reinforced the perception that his administration was more focused on global interests than on alleviating economic pain within the U.S.

This disconnect likely underscored a broader feeling that Biden’s leadership was rooted in outdated priorities, failing to adapt to a public increasingly looking inward. As people struggled with their own financial realities, the desire for pragmatic, localized solutions over traditional foreign policy commitments grew stronger. Biden’s perceived focus on global issues over domestic well-being may have left many Americans yearning for a leader who prioritizes their needs above all else, making the “America First” message particularly compelling as a response to the administration’s perceived inattention to homefront issues.

Overall, I believe that Democrats struggled to capture the urgency and willingness for transformative action that a significant portion of the electorate demanded. This perceived gap between the party’s direction and the priorities of everyday Americans might explain why voters turned away, feeling that the Democrats’ approach wasn’t responsive enough to the challenges of the moment.