“The Mirage That Led Democrats Astray in 2024”

Distracted and heart sick as we are by the shit show that is the second Trump presidency, we must remember that we lost the election because of immigration and the border, and, more importantly because of the misery of the working class. Misery to which affluent center-left people like me were blind. Misery that was ruthlessly exploited by the MAGA noise machine. 

For a deep dive, please check out Eugene Ludwig, Voters Were Right About the Economy. The Data Was Wrong. Here’s why unemployment is higher, wages are lower and growth less robust than government statistics suggest (Politico, Feb. 11, 2025).

Mr. Ludwig writes,

­­ What we uncovered shocked us. The bottom line is that, for 20 years or more, including the months prior to the election, voter perception was more reflective of reality than the incumbent statistics. Our research revealed that the data collected by the various agencies is largely accurate. Moreover, the people staffing those agencies are talented and well-intentioned. But the filters used to compute the headline statistics are flawed. As a result, they paint a much rosier picture of reality than bears out on the ground.

Take, as a particularly egregious example, what is perhaps the most widely reported economic indicator: unemployment. Known to experts as the U-3, the number misleads in several ways. First, it counts as employed the millions of people who are unwillingly under-employed — that is, people who, for example, work only a few hours each week while searching for a full-time job. Second, it does not take into account many Americans who have been so discouraged that they are no longer trying to get a job. Finally, the prevailing statistic does not account for the meagerness of any individual’s income. Thus you could be homeless on the streets, making an intermittent income and functionally incapable of keeping your family fed, and the government would still count you as “employed.”

I don’t believe those who went into this past election taking pride in the unemployment numbers understood that the near-record low unemployment figures — the figure was a mere 4.2 percent in November — counted homeless people doing occasional work as “employed.” But the implications are powerful. If you filter the statistic to include as unemployed people who can’t find anything but part-time work or who make a poverty wage (roughly $25,000), the percentage is actually 23.7 percent. In other words, nearly one of every four workers is functionally unemployed in America today — hardly something to celebrate.

Ludwig goes on to analyze the flaws in other indicia, including earnings averages, inflation measures. “The resources required simply to maintain the same working class lifestyle over the last two decades,” he writes, “have risen much more dramatically than we’ve been led to believe.” Moreover,

the aggregate measure of GDP has hidden the reality that a more modest societal split has grown into an economic chasm. Since 2013, Americans with bachelor’s or more advanced degrees have, in the aggregate, seen their material well-being improve — by the Federal Reserve’s estimate, an additional tenth of adults have risen to comfort. Those without high school degrees, by contrast, have seen no real improvement. And geographic disparities have widened along similar lines, with places ranging from San Francisco to Boston seeing big jumps in income and prosperity, but places ranging from Youngstown, Ohio, to Port Arthur, Texas, falling further behind. The crucial point, even before digging into the nuances, is clear: America’s GDP has grown, and yet we remain largely blind to these disparities.

Take all of these statistical discrepancies together. What we have here is a collection of economic indicators that all point in the same misleading direction. They all shroud the reality faced by middle- and lower-income households. The problem isn’t that some Americans didn’t come out ahead after four years of Bidenomics. Some did. It’s that, for the most part, those living in more modest circumstances have endured at least 20 years of setbacks, and the last four years did not turn things around enough for the lower 60 percent of American income earners. …

In an age where faith in institutions of all sorts is in free fall, Americans are perpetually told, per a classic quote from former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, that while we may be entitled to our own opinions, we aren’t entitled to our own facts. That should be right, at least in the realm of economics. But the reality is that, if the prevailing indicators remain misleading, the facts don’t apply. We have it in our grasp to cut through the mirage that led Democrats astray in 2024. The question now is whether we will correct course.

Autopsy

Politico, New research shows the massive dole Dems are in: Even voters who previously backed Democrats cast the party as weak and overly focused on diversity and elites.

N.Y. Times, Frank Bruni, Tim Ryan; Anat Shenker-Osorio, Lis Smith, “The Democratic Brand Is in the Toilet”: 4 Writers Tell the Democrats’ Fortune

The Politico piece appears to be mostly straightforward reporting of what people said in focus groups—the people in question being several categories of wishy-washy, definitely non-elite voters. Takeaway: “In a trio of focus groups, even voters whopreviously backed Democrats cast the party as weak and overly focused on diversity and elites, according to research by the progressive group Navigator Research.”

If you care about American democracy, the N.Y. Times article is most definitely worth a read. In it, Frank Bruni of the Times moderates an email conversation among himself, Tim Ryan, the former congressman, and two others. (“Ms. Shenker-Osorio is the host of the podcast “Words to Win By.” Ms. Smith was a senior adviser to Pete Buttigieg’s presidential campaign.”)

Some highlights:

Lis Smith: The Democratic brand is in the toilet. Many of the Democrats who succeeded this cycle — our best over-performers in House races, for instance — are people who ran against the Democratic Party brand. Trump tore down the blue wall in the industrial Midwest, but he also expanded his vote the most in our bluest and most urban areas. …

Tim Ryan: The Dems got pinned as the status quo party on inflation, instability, insecurity and every other issue facing working people. Trump was the change candidate in a year when 65 percent of people thought we are on the wrong track. And they failed to redefine themselves on the culture issues on which they were on the other side of 60 percent to 70 percent of Americans. …

Anat Shenker-Osorio: … Voters, outside of hard partisans, think most politicians lie at least some of the time. I know — we just asked them in a survey. Seventy-two percent of them said this of Republican leaders and 70 percent said this of Democrats. This is astonishingly good for authoritarians. What it means, and we hear this in nearly every focus group we do, is that they discount the threats of MAGA. It sounds like this: “Well, Trump’s just saying things. He doesn’t really mean them.” So, he gets to keep his base engaged and enraged, while also seeming like the guy who’s just going to give you a personally signed check.

Meanwhile, it’s absolutely detrimental to Democrats because their purported achievements, desirable agenda and dire warnings are all not credited as real. Nationally, extrapolating from AP VoteCast data, 19 million Biden 2020 voters sat it out this time. This was mainly a lurching couch-ward, not rightward. Why? Voters here and around the world are looking around at what there is on offer and saying: not this. …

Smith: We need to look to who succeeded and overperformed this cycle and why. Some of the top overperformers in House races couldn’t have had more disparate profiles — Pat Ryan, Jared Golden, Tom Suozzi, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, Angie Craig. What they had in common was that they were willing to run against the party brand, they met voters where they are on their frustrations with the border and public safety issues, and they talked more about their vision for the future than how bad Donald Trump is. I’d also throw in another thing — these members largely were among the first to call for Joe Biden to step down as nominee. They weren’t in the crew of Democrats who told voters not to believe what they’d seen with their own eyes in that first debate.

Shenker-Osorio: If you want to look at successes that seem to defy “conventional wisdom,” to me that’s Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky. He has consistently run on, not from, his values, mixing economic populism with a clear and powerful explanation for the siren song of the right wing: scapegoating, hate peddling and fear mongering. Beshear creates the biggest possible “we” and then conveys why right-wing attacks on groups that have been intentionally “othered” are Trojan horses to enable widespread harms, from taking away our freedoms, to controlling our lives, to screwing over our livelihoods. …

The largest voting bloc in the United States is almost always voter-eligible nonvoters. Folks are opting out of participation for a reason — and it’s feeling as if neither party is actually focused on making life better for working people. Democrats cannot be running as the protectors of norms and institutions, and yes, that includes democracy, because democracy never bought anyone dinner.

Bruni: I’m encouraged, in a way, that I don’t sense Democrats spoiling to fight Trump on every initiative and at every turn. Democrats cannot live on a diet of sour grapes, and that kind of blanket resistance could look less like principle than like reflexive obstructionism and haughty dismissal of election results, and could doom Democrats to failure in the fights that count the very most. Which are those? Which of Trump’s proposals must Democrats do all in their power to defeat and — maybe just as important — are there proposals or general priorities of his that aren’t awful and that Democrats should try to find ways to work with him on?

Ryan: We should be all over the Robert F. Kennedy Jr. food reform initiative. We don’t have to agree with him on everything and we can fight him on other things. It is criminal what we have allowed to happen. We are basically poisoning our own people, driving up health care costs, lowering productivity while it’s all being subsidized by the taxpayer for American farmers to grow crops that go into fake food.

We should put forward a dozen recommendations on the “department of government efficiency” effort. Our federal government is so wasteful and bloated that we should be able to come up with major reforms to save money and help government provide better services.

Smith: We don’t actually know what Trump is serious about doing as president yet. Unlike Tim, I don’t think Kennedy was picked to take on Big Ag and Big Food — I think all of that is being used as a smokescreen for his truly dangerous views on things like vaccines. We should fight Trump and Kennedy tooth and nail if they sow doubt about lifesaving vaccines for polio and M.M.R., because that will actually have life-or-death consequences for Americans (see what Kennedy did in Samoa).

But broadly, we shouldn’t just oppose things because Trump supports them. If he really wants to build more American manufacturing or cut taxes for the middle class we should be for it.

Knock! Knock! The Center for Working Class Politics Would Like Your Attention for a Moment, Please!

Dustin Guastella, The left’s best defense against Trump? Ditching limousine liberalism: An effective fight against the president-elect requires a struggle that takes the frustrations of working-class voters seriously

Mr. Guastella works for the Center for Working Class Politics, an institution not previously within my radar screen, but one that probably should be within our awareness.

The article is published by the Guardian, so you can read if for free. Its message is broadly consistent with a theme that I have been pushing: that we progressives need to listen to the non-college-educated working class once again, hear their concerns, and form a coalition with them to advance our common interests, versus the ultra-wealthy business elites. ­

After damning the Democrats and Kamala Harris for not embracing the working class, Guastella writes,

OK, so Harris represented limousine liberals, that still doesn’t explain why blue-collar voters would choose an uber-wealthy playboy like Trump, not to mention his billionaire henchman Elon Musk, over her. And, according to analyses from the Center for Working Class Politics, working-class voters did prefer Trump. But we don’t need some description of “false consciousness” to understand why this might be. The fact is working-class people do not have a genuine political home in our new Gilded Age, they are forced to ally either with billionaires in the Republican party or Democratic liberal elites in hopes that someone will allay their concerns. Fixing this requires a politics that confronts both. …

Almost all of the content of American politics – the candidates, the policies, the priorities – concerns the top 20% of the income and wealth hierarchy. Remember, less than 2% of members of Congress come from working-class backgrounds. Working-class candidates face immense political obstacles because they have neither the money, nor the credentials – won in the halls of elite schools, conferences and institutions – needed to break into the fortress of American government. Many voted for Trump in the hopes that he could take a wrecking ball to the whole thing.

Having made these important points, Guastella then segs into the argument that Democrats must reverse course not only on economic issues but also on non-economic cultural and values issues:

Though, it will not be enough for the left to protest the billionaire economy. An honest assessment of progressive liabilities is in order. Those on the left must confront the cultural elite that has pushed the party away from workers on all sorts of non-economic issues. While Trump and his billionaires won’t be able to adequately represent the economic interests of the working class, liberals must recognize that their party doesn’t represent their values. The Democrats captured by highly credentialed clerics has led them to embrace the cultural values of an aristocratic elite. From crime, to climate, to gender politics, and the border, mainstream liberal opinion is much further from the views of workers than many liberals are willing to admit. And this too is a class story.

Well, Knock! Knock! I Have Two Important Things to Say About Embracing Alleged Working Class Culture and Values.

First important thing: Yes, yes, it’s high time to reconsider some issues. For example, lots of minority people feel that aggressively pushing DEI can make them look like “token hires”—not the accomplished, fully deserving people they are. 

Second important thing: But while we’re doing all this cultural/value reconsidering, let’s insert a step: think carefully about what is the right thing to do, not the thing to do that might improve your messaging.

And here is why we need to actually consider the right thing to do: because, ladies and germs, the right thing to do will probably, at the end of the day, also be the politically expedient thing to dol. 

Posted by Ron Davis, Dec. 21, 2024

“People Aren’t Anti-Immigrant, They’re Anti-Chaos”

Hard Truths About How the Immigration Mess Happened, Hard Truths About the Current Political Environment

Frank Sharry elaborates on the Dec. 16, 2024, piece in the Atlantic that he wrote with Cecelia Munoz, How Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration: The party once championed an approach popular with voters and politicians alike. Why give up on it?

Why indeed? Well, as Sharry explains, there were lots of reasons: Republican bad faith, especially back in 2013, plus lots of misjudgments and political malpractice on the liberal side.

But it’s got to get fixed. 

Frank Sharry is an immigration activist and advocate. If you’re interested, check out his Wikipedia article. As a point of personal privilege, I was happy to learn that he’s a Princeton man. As we used to say back in the day: “Princeton in the Nation’s Service.”

Preaching From Matthew 25 While Jesús Cleans the Church—For Very Little Money

Here are the key points. 

First, there was a big, big bump in immigration under Biden.

Second, that big, big bump noticeable downward pressure on wages for all types of unskilled workers in the United States. See my previous post

Third, Trump thinks the resulting anger among Latino and other voters was what put him over the top in the 2024 election—and, for once, Trump is almost surely right. 

Fourth, lots of people like me were reluctant to crack down on undocumented immigrants. After all, didn’t Rabbi Jesus teach us to welcome the stranger? And didn’t Exodus and Leviticus in the Hebrew Scriptures teach us the very same thing?

Conclusion?

It’s a win-win situation! 

Opening the floodgates to undocumented immigrants is the right and moral thing to do!

And we economically comfortable folks get to benefit from cheap labor.

Like I said, a win-win.

And if unskilled working class people here in the United States see their wages depressed, well then, they had just better reread what Jesus said in Matthew 25, learn to share, and not be so picky about what wages they receive. If they have to choose between paying the rent and buying groceries, that’s just the burden they have to bear in order to do the right thing and welcome the stranger.

Oh Wait! That Sounds Like Hypocrisy!

It sounds like prosperous progressives are using purported morality as a cover for economic oppression of the working class.

Maybe we should all cover ourselves in sackcloth and ashes, rend our garments, and spend the next six months in profound contemplation of our own wickedness.

No! No! No! No! No!

Listen up, folks. Here’s the takeaway message. 

We are in a political crisis. Trump and his enablers have leveraged concern over immigration to get the electorate to vote for a proto-fascist regime. 

If your house is on fire, you put out the damn fire before you start to think deeply about what caused the fire.

Contemplating our own alleged hypocrisy at length is a luxury we can no longer afford.

Establishing a fine moral balance between the worth of a poor person in Guatemala versus a not quite so poor person here in the United States is, likewise, something that we cannot afford to do.

What we MUST do—well in advance of the 2026 election—is to work with the Latino community to develop a politically acceptable solution.

More posts on this issue to follow soon.

Posted by Ron Davis, Dec. 16, 2024

Why Political Realignment is Essential

Tyler Austin Harper, Is This How Democrats Win Back the Working Class? Embracing populism could help the party build a lasting political coalition—if the Republicans don’t do it first.

N.Y. Times, The Upshot: How Some Voters Moved from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump: For some young men in particular, the populist pitches from Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump aligned with their attitudes about the ruling class.

By “political realignment” I’m referring specifically to the need for economically comfortable,  college educated people to wake up and smell the coffee, to inform ourselves about the realities of working class life in America, and align with persuadable working class voters to oppose the continued dominance of the super rich. 

If you can, you really need to read and digest both of the articles I cite. The Times piece provides a lot of helpful information on the attitudes of young working class men. The other article, from The Atlantic online, works off an interesting but problematic premise: that Republicans and Democrats are in competition to form a “lasting political coalition” with working class voters. Read it and see what you think. 

As for me, here’s what I think. I think the incoming Trump administration is going to be dominated by billionaires with a tax cutting, regulation slashing agenda. 

I think that if this tax cutting, regulation slashing agenda were to produce big economic gains for working class people, then lots of those working class people would decide that fascism works for them—and our country would well and truly be in deep doodoo.

I also think that if my grandmother had wheels, she could ride on the railroad tracks. 

Plus, if my aunt had balls, then she would be my uncle. 

Posted by Ron Davis, Dec. 13, 2024

Facing MAGA on Immigration

Rogé KarmaWhy Democrats Got the Politics of Immigration So Wrong for So Long: They spent more than a decade tracking left on the issue to win Latino votes. It may have cost them the White House—twice

I want to make two distinct points about facing MAGA on immigration. I believe that each of my two points is terribly important. (You might not share that opinion, and if you don’t share it, then bless your heart. It’s a free country—at least for the moment.)

Point One: Really Bad Situational Awareness and Strategy

That aptly named Mr. Karma, who is a staff writer for The Atlantic, offers up a lengthy, thorough, and brutal exposition of the Democratic political malpractice that led to the loss of Latino support in 2024 and to the catastrophic Trump victory. 

Although I am no expert on the topic, I find Karma’s analysis persuasive. If you are interested in Democratic victories going forward, then I urge you to read it. 

Point Two: A Vital Missing Piece of the Analysis—What’s the Right Thing to do About Immigration?

The immigration question is really two issues: 1) What legal standards ought to govern who can, and who cannot, immigrate to the United States, and how are these legal standards best enforced? 2) What should be done about the 11 million plus undocumented people who already live here? Should all of them be deported? Some of them? If only some of them, how to decide who gets to stay and who has to leave?

These are hard questions. Very hard questions. In large measure, because many considerations need to be taken into account in answering them. And because those considerations point in all sorts of different directions.

One of these considerations, among many others, is what is politically feasible. What proposed answers can someone of good will, acting in good faith, present to the American people and obtain their consent?

Because no matter how fair and wise your preferred approach might be, trying to push that approach without public buy-in will only make matters worse.

And conversely: shouldn’t you at least try to identify a sound, moral policy and then see whether you can sell that policy? Shouldn’t you try that approach first, before leaping into a discussion about which bumper sticker slogan is most likely to sell?

And, by the way, I don’t fault Mr. Karma for writing an article on political inside baseball rather than an article on what is good and sound public policy. He and his editors get to choose the topic on which they want to write.

I’m just saying: realize that any analysis of political inside baseball, no matter how fine the analysis, needs to be married to good, defensible public policy. 

Posted by Ron Davis, Dec. 10, 2024

Democrats and Working Class Voters: Facing Reality, Biting the Bullet

Dana Milbank, Democrats don’t have a working-class problem. America does: Extreme income inequality and unchecked corporate power gave rise to FDR’s New Deal—Democrats should be no less ambitious now

Milbank lays it on the line. He writes,

Working people no longer vote their interests as “workers” but cast ballots for all kinds of different reasons. They shifted several points away from Democrats between 2020 and 2024 — but so did many different groups across the electorate, mostly because they were unhappy with the Biden administration’s performance on inflation.

The reductive analysis of working-class voters abandoning Democrats is particularly maddening because it misses what’s actually happening to those voters, which is a crisis much bigger than the temporary fortunes of a political party. This is less a Democratic problem than an American problem — but Democrats have a fresh chance to try to fix it.

For nearly half a century, and particularly over the past two decades, corporate America has plunged workers ever deeper into job and income insecurity. Employers, benefiting from weakened labor laws and lax enforcement of those that remain on the books, have been forcing workers into erratic schedules, hiring them as contractors or temporary or gig workers and stealing their wages. It’s no coincidence that all this happened while labor union membership, which peaked at one-third of the workforce, shriveled to the current 10 percent.

With the decline of unions and collective bargaining, pay has stagnated and pensions have disappeared. Wealth inequality has soared, earnings have become less dependable, and most workers report that they feel stressed, unappreciated, disconnected and distrustful of their employers. They are surveilled on the job, sanctioned for expressing themselves and subjected to dehumanizing workplaces. “Here most of us are, toiling under the authority of communist dictators, and we do not see the reality for what it is,” wrote University of Michigan philosophy professor Elizabeth Anderson. The financial collapse of 2008 and the coronavirus pandemic only deepened the insecurity and misery.

Voting patterns, not just this year’s but this century’s, reflect the discontent and instability. In nine of the past 10 federal elections, one party or the other has lost control of the White House, Senate or House. Voters, desperate for a fundamental change, punish the incumbent party and then, inevitably finding no relief, punish the other party two years later. Politics has become a depressing game of ping-pong, with no enduring wins.

“We’ve never had a period since at least the late 19th century where there have been so many knife’s-edge elections,” Podhorzer [the former political director of the AFL-CIO] told me. “So, coming out of every election, Democrats assume all we need is fine tuning, because we barely lost. We have to get past thinking we’re going to message our way out of this moment. It’s so much bigger than that. And it ignores the fact that, for all of the 21st century, we’ve been seeing that voters just want a different system, a more profound change.”

Even some on the right have begun to argue for a revival of labor unions and New Deal-style government intervention to undo the damage of the past half-century of neoliberalism, the era of the unfettered free market that began with President Ronald Reagan. The conservative writer Sohrab Ahmari argued in his 2023 book, “Tyranny, Inc.,” that the current “domination of working and middle-class people by the owners of capital, the asset-less by the asset-rich,” has “drained the vigor and substance out of democracy, facilitated massive upward transfers of wealth, and left ordinary people feeling isolated and powerless.”

In the short term, Democrats could change nothing and they’d still probably do well by default in the 2026 midterms as disenchanted voters once again punish the incumbent party. President-elect Donald Trump doesn’t have much of a popular mandate: The latest figures show he got below 50 percent of the popular vote, Harris lost by about 1.6 percentage points, and Democrats may have actually gained a seat or two in the House. And he’s already overreaching with outlandish nominations and announced plans to start a trade war with Canada, Mexico and China.

But in the long term, doing nothing would be a huge mistake — for the party and, more important, for the country. We are, in some ways, back to the extreme income inequality and unchecked corporate power over workers that gave rise to the modern labor movement in the 1930s and the New Deal’s government-regulated capitalism, which led America to three decades of broadly shared economic prosperity after World War II. What’s needed to relieve workers’ pain this time is no less ambitious.