How The Hubris of Major Democratic Party Figures Paved The Way For Trump’s 2024 Victory

By Michael Kelman Portney

In 2024, after a turbulent four years, Donald Trump reclaimed the presidency—a victory that some attributed to a new wave of populism but one that also stemmed from Democratic missteps long in the making. The seeds of this momentous shift were sown not only in recent years but also in the legacy and decisions of prominent Democratic figures, such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and others. These leaders, marked by resilience and historic achievements, also exemplified a pattern of hubris that subtly eroded the party’s foundation, culminating in a historical reversal.

The Costs of Staying Too Long

The careers of figures like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Dianne Feinstein were inspirational, yet their longevity in power carried a significant cost. Ginsburg, an indomitable force on the Supreme Court, held her seat into advanced age, declining calls to step down when President Obama could have appointed a successor. Rooted in her steadfast belief in her resilience and right to wield her hard-earned power, this decision ultimately left her seat open for a conservative appointment after her passing—a significant turning point in the judicial landscape.

Similarly, Dianne Feinstein’s legacy in California politics is undeniable, but her decision to remain in office through periods when her health raised concerns reflected a reluctance to pass the torch. While her experience was invaluable, this commitment reinforced the perception of the Democratic Party as unwilling to embrace new perspectives, deepening the generational disconnect within the party.

Biden and the “Moderate Promise”

Joe Biden’s victory in 2020 restored a sense of decency to American politics. His moderate approach appealed to those seeking stability, but his focus on bipartisanship often clashed with the party’s growing progressive wing. While some lauded his bridge-building efforts, others saw his hesitation to pursue transformative policies as a betrayal of the party’s base. This centrist stance frequently disappointed younger and more progressive voters, leading to apathy or a shift toward alternatives that promised bolder change.

Pelosi and the Iron Grip

Nancy Pelosi’s tenure as Speaker exemplified formidable leadership, but her insistence on controlling a rapidly diversifying caucus created friction. Her decades-long influence painted the Democratic Party as resistant to emerging leadership and invested in maintaining the status quo. This rigidity, while strategically driven, alienated grassroots voices who felt the party was more focused on preserving establishment politics than addressing the country’s evolving challenges.

Obama and the “Post-Racial” Myth

Barack Obama’s presidency brought hope and an image of progress, but his reluctance to engage deeply with rising racial justice movements revealed a gap. While he inspired many, his centrism sometimes alienated those who felt unaddressed racial tensions. This paved the way for Trump’s “law and order” rhetoric, revealing how the Democratic Party’s embrace of a “post-racial” narrative sometimes missed the mark with communities facing systemic inequalities.

Clinton and the “Inevitable” Candidate

Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign exemplified establishment overconfidence. Seen as the inevitable Democratic candidate, her campaign often overlooked the brewing discontent among working-class voters left behind by globalization and unaddressed economic shifts. Her confidence—and the party’s backing of an “establishment” candidate over grassroots challengers—alienated independents and many Democrats, setting the stage for Trump’s victory in both 2016 and 2024.

Schumer and the Senate’s Stalemate

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s risk-averse approach prioritized procedure over bold reform, contributing to the perception of Democratic indecision. This incrementalism hindered efforts to enact major reforms in areas like voting rights and climate change, frustrating a base that felt promises made in campaigns were rarely seen in action. Schumer’s careful tactics left space for Republicans to claim themselves as the party of decisive action, feeding directly into Trump’s appeal.

Harris and the “Symbolism Over Substance” Debate

Kamala Harris’s historic vice presidency signaled progress, but her tenure has often seemed constrained, with limited visibility on key issues. Her role, at times feeling more symbolic than substantial, reinforced criticism that the Democratic Party prioritizes appearances over real change. For many progressives, this sense of symbolism without substance reflected a pattern of overlooking the party's ideals in favor of maintaining the status quo.

The Influence of Centrism and Big Donors

Centrism in figures like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema and a reliance on corporate backing have further distanced the party from its base. By blocking or softening progressive initiatives, they exposed internal divides and alienated voters who felt their leaders prioritized appeasing moderates and donors over the needs of constituents. Corporate influence on issues like healthcare and climate added to a credibility gap, casting the party as more interested in big money than bold action and giving Trump’s populist message room to resonate.

Conclusion: The Need for a Humble Reassessment

In hindsight, the cumulative effect of these influential figures’ decisions reveals a consistent pattern: prioritizing establishment power over the pulse of the party’s evolving base. A blend of centrism, institutionalism, and overconfidence led to missed opportunities, unaddressed grievances, and a widening disconnect between leadership and constituents. This vulnerability opened the door for Trump’s resurgence in 2024.

For the Democratic Party to regain its footing, it must heed these lessons and embrace a more inclusive, responsive, and adaptable approach. Welcoming younger voices, aligning with grassroots movements, and practicing genuine humility could allow the party to regain relevance without needing yet another political reset. The future lies in a Democratic Party that sees evolution and humility as strengths, not weaknesses—one that understands legacy can only endure when it adapts to the moment.