Here's the vote for president in California for 2020 and 2024:
It's easy to see what happened here. Donald Trump gained no traction at all, but two million Democratic voters from 2020 didn't bother to show up and vote for Kamala Harris. Why? There are two obvious theories:
- They didn't like Kamala much.
- They knew she'd win the state easily so they just didn't bother.
For what it's worth, in final polling before the election Trump gained a couple of points compared to 2020, which turned into a 1% increase in his vote. Harris lost a couple of points, which turned into a 17% drop in her vote. This points in the direction of laziness/strategic voting.
Was this a problem with Harris in particular or with Democrats in general? Here's the House vote over the past couple of decades:
The Democratic share of the vote was down this year, so maybe it really is a D problem. But there's evidence this is mostly strategic. Here's the number of seats Democrats have won:
It was up! Democrats voted where they needed to but skipped out where a seat was uncompetitive. In the end, the Democratic share of the California delegation reached an all-time record aside from the blowout year of 2018.
I don't have a big axe to grind here. I just want to know: Was there a specific problem with Kamala Harris this year or is there a widespread problem with the Democratic brand in general? Honestly, I see evidence both ways. You really can't ignore the fact that every single state (in fact, every single county) shifted red. On the other hand, Harris lost by only 1.5% of the vote nationwide, while House Democrats gained 0.6% of the national vote compared to 2022 and picked up two seats. It's the same dynamic that played out in the deep-blue state of California.
It's just a genuine mystery. Trump really did pick up support compared to 2016, but then again, so did Harris by a little bit. Trump mainly picked up support from the third-party vote, not from Democrats.
I'm still not sure what to think, and it's going to be months before we have more reliable data to dive unto. Until then, we're fumbling around in the dark. But if I had to pick a story right now, it would be this:
- Overall, Democrats ran about even compared to 2022. There's little sign that the party's brand is in serious trouble.
- However, the Trump/Harris race clearly exposed dissatisfaction with the Biden/Harris administration. That needs to be investigated.
- One way or another, the answer is mostly going to lie with Hispanics, who deserted Harris in droves.
- We are still, basically, a 50-50 nation.
It was mostly inflation. The Biden admin gambled on keeping everyone employed and the economy growing. it worked but they got inflation. While it wasn't entirely their fault that doesnt matter as people blame whoever was in office. Inflation affected everyone. Immigration and trans issues were important issues for sub-groups, but inflation was the big one.
Steve
It's especially enraging because, as you say, not their fault.
The developed economies that did austerity instead still got big inflation!
For example, let's take Germany, which is deeply allergic to fiscal stimulus and constrained by rigid debt rules. Germany's inflation peaked about the same as ours did; they peaked at ten percent, we peaked at nine.
We had a booming GDP and historically low unemployment. Germany, in contrast, has had anemic or contracting GDP and unemployment around six percent.
So it wasn't even "what Biden did caused inflation kept everyone working and the economy booming, but caused inflation." His policies probably caused ZERO inflation. He engineered a mythical soft landing and got zero credit for it.
+1
Respectfully disagree. It was a female candidate. A small, but significant enough to determine outcomes percentage of the electorate will not vote for a woman for president.
And the question really isn't why didn't people vote for Harris, it's why did they vote for a corrupt, lying, bigot who tried to overthrow our democratic govenrment? Why did those things just not matter?
Probably. Blaming inflation might be a way for people to rationalize what happened and still feel okay with the people who made this decision and the direction of the country. The inflating rationale doesn't make much sense and doesn't hold up to scrutiny, but it may be comforting.
+1
I don’t think we’re 50-50 literally but the electoral college makes it seem this way. There are zero competitive elections where I live- state level is all red, local is all blue. Nobody turns out for the general (me included) unless there’s a big ballot initiative, all the action is in the primary. National polling on issues tends to be 60-40 liberal, and I think if we ever got proper elections the right would get wiped out. So we’re 50-50 in practice but not a 50-50 nation.
+1. I think it's tough to analyze stuff like CA's turnout (or NYC's, or North Dakota's) because of dynamics like this.
"Nobody turns out for the general (me included) unless there’s a big ballot initiative"...
..."I think if we ever got proper elections the right would get wiped out."
So you're saying that if people turned out to vote they'd get better results, but they don't because they believe their vote doesn't matter.
Sounds like a voter problem.
I definitely think it was unhappiness with Biden, which Kamala couldn't get out from under. Not sure what it would have taken to do that. For some voters, that was a proxy for other forms of general unhappiness with the Way Things Are Going (as perceived generally - these folks are almost always positive in polling and focus groups on their own lives).
She would have had to resign as VP and run against the Biden and his administration (like a WWE heel turn where she trashes Biden). It would have been completely disingenuous, but it would have worked.
"It would have been completely disingenuous, but it would have worked."
I doubt it would have worked. Biden had ~40% approval rating, which meant that the great majority of Democratic voters liked him; Harris appearing to backstab him in any way shape or form would have turned off a lot of the voters that Harris needed.
Plus, had there been acrimony between Biden and Harris, that would have lent fuel to Pelosi's foolhardy "let's nominate somebody at the convention--y'know, somebody nobody ever voted for" plan.
That said, it couldn't have hurt for Harris to have had a good few lines about how she was proud of the Biden-Harris administration's accomplishments, but here are [X] major things she is going to do differently to build on that success . . .
Nominating somebody at the convention might have nominated a winner. Harris was never going to win. You cannot run a San Francisco liberal nationally unless he or she is an exceptionally strong candidate and Harris is was decidedly ordinary. Tim Walz clearly lost his debate to Vance and was no help.
One thing the Democrats need to learn: Never pick a VP candidate named Tim.
Well, of course most of California's presidential votes were "wasted" in both 2020 and 2024. Since the US still uses the 1700s idiocy/compromise of the electoral college, a win by one or two votes is just as good as a win by 5 million in the Presidential race.
What's concerning is how easily hoodwinked the electorate has become, and how open to appeals to their worst natures. Fat, hate-filled, and ignorant is no way for a country to go through life.
+1
Those damn small colonies should have just let Virginia and Pennsylvania have their way…
Yes, they should have. That's democracy. States, or in this case, "colonies," are human constructs, whereas humans are actually humans.
Also, the ratio of population of the least populous state to the most populous state has gotten way, way worse over time: in the 1790 census, the population of Pennsylvania was only 7x that of Delaware, whereas today, the population of California is 67 times bigger than that of Wyoming. So, even if it was a good idea to consider the input of Delawarians to be somehow worth ~seven times as much as that of Pennsylvanians way back in the 18th century, the problem is an order of magnitude worse now.
It's worth noting that we experienced similar dropoffs with Obama. Not in California specifically, but nationwide.
Harris dropped about six million from Biden. Obama 2012 dropped about three and a half million from Obama 2008... but from a lower total.
That is to say, Obama 2008 got around 69.5 million; that dropped to around 66 million for Obama 2012.
Biden got around 81 million in 2020, which dropped to 75 million for Harris.
So when you adjust for the higher vote totals we're dealing with, proportionally this is roughly the same dropoff.
I'm yet unsure what conclusion to draw from there, but this isn't unprecedented. Harris only dropped off by... the same amount the most popular President of the 21st century so far did.
"I just want to know: Was there a specific problem with Kamala Harris this year or is there a widespread problem with the Democratic brand in general?"
The elephant in the room is, as usual, the electoral college.
How so this year, given Trump received a majority of the votes cast?
Plurality, but also people aren't ignorant of its existence.
The other elephant in the room is near-universal vote by mail was a thing in 2020. It was not a thing in 2024.
Fair point. 49.9%. Those cognizant of the Electoral College, certainly those opposed to it should have been out there voting.
In the interest of accuracy and not giving Trump ANYTHING,
he got 49.8 percent of the vote as of the latest count. Harris got 48.33 or less than one and a half percent less than Trump.
(According to the Cook Political Report)
The mere existence of the electoral college means a lot more people fall into the “my vote doesn’t matter” abyss - because jt’s actually true in “solidly” blue states* - and don’t turn out, depressing counts for senate and House races too.
*Until I lived in VA, I had never lived as an adult in a state in which my presidential vote mattered at all. The Electoral College outcome for DC, IL and FL (at least when I lived there) were all known months if not years before any Election Day. So if the only race I truly care about is the presidential one - which is probably the case for a good quarter or more of all voters given the lack of civics education and the common person’s Green Lanternish view that the president is a kind of king/CEO of the US - and I also know that race is a lock for one candidate or the other, my motivation to actually vote (and affect other races) just fell.
Totally agree. My first election was 1976 in GA (the only state at the time where 18 yr olds could vote). Since then in SC. There has never been a presidential election where there was any doubt where the state would go. I vote anyway, but there is a sense of futility. I understand why the founders went with the electoral college, but it is long past time to kill it.
Well, I voted for Jimmy Carter in '76 in MA, and I was 20 then. The 26th amendment was passed in 1971.
The reason put forth by Kevin’s old blogging grounds: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/12/los-angeles-county-voter-data-latino-asian-wealthy-swing-southeast-working-class-2024-trump-harris-biden/
Democrats want change (broad brush change) and don't get it – and except for political junkies, don't vote.
Republicans want change and are promised it – and buy the ruse in lockstep.
Petulance and gullibility?
The other option is that (at least some) people were really angry about Trump in 2020 and were motivated to turn out and vote when they wouldn’t normally bother in a solid blue state. The temper had subsided in 2024 and they went back to not bothering to vote in a solid blue state.
These are certainly possibilities:
“There are two obvious theories:
They didn't like Kamala much.
They knew she'd win the state easily so they just didn't bother.”
But I’d posit a closely related third:
They may have found themselves in actual agreement with Trump on many issues; but they can also recognize he’s just not well, so they didn’t vote for their own (Dem) candidate but couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Trump either.
I realize the Lefty crowd has a hard time accepting it, but Harris may have been as close to a genuinely Left candidate as we will see for a generation or more (if we ever see one like that again), and yet she was firmly rejected. And I don’t think that’s entirely due to inflation. The Left just isn’t popular. In fact, it’s so unpopular that it can make a deplorable like Trump look acceptable by comparison.
There is of course Harris’s infamous support for federally sponsored surgeries for trans prisoners. But she also spent the last so many years as an explicit proponent of “equity” (or proportional racial outcomes). And that stance may be popular in academia, but not elsewhere. Even the blue state of CA shot down an affirmative action referendum just a short four years ago. So Harris set herself up in distinct opposition to the concept of equality of opportunity which commands overwhelming popular support even in the liberal state in question: California.
And she may have avoided her incredibly unpopular Leftism during her 90 day campaign, but she never repudiated it in any way. In fact she asserted that her values had not changed, seemingly without realizing that most people who believed her would thereby be less inclined to vote for her!
And I am of course speaking somewhat from my own perspective. Biden should have never chosen Harris as his VP. She was the worst Dem candidate for president in my lifetime. And I felt deeply unhappy about voting for a Leftist champion of “equity.”
The only reason I did so was because her opponent was Trump, and I consider his 2021 insurrection disqualifying. And yet Trump has made proposals that I agree with, such as ridding the federal government of its absurd DEI bureaucracy.
So I can certainly understand if voters didn’t like Harris, actually agreed with Trump on some issues, but ultimately couldn’t vote for either one. That’s just how badly the Dems have made themselves vulnerable by refusing to stand up to the excesses of the Left.
Kamala Harris may be a lot of things but she is certainly not a "Leftist". Her proposed policies, which are detailed on her campaign site (free for you to read), were firmly center-left.
Also, if a voter claims that Trump is disqualified because of the insurrection, felonies, etc and that voter does not actually vote against Trump, then that voter clearly does not think that Trump is really "disqualified".
I mean, we know from your posting history here that you are about as far from a liberal or Democrat as you can be, despite your transparent protests otherwise, but there are plenty of actual Democrat/liberal voters who chose to sit it out and thus shirk their civic duty.
@cistg
If you are implying that I failed to vote against Trump, then you did not read my post carefully.
Also, I believe this is the most inaccurate and potentially self-destructive election analysis that the Dem party could possibly adopt:
"Kamala Harris may be a lot of things but she is certainly not a 'Leftist'. Her proposed policies, which are detailed on her campaign site (free for you to read), were firmly center-left."
The evidence of Trump's win is staring us all right in the face: Harris's supposedly centrist campaign did not fool anyone. Her unequivocally Leftist views were effectively used against her, and even then she was either unwilling or just unable to refute them.
Kevin himself made this point (to his credit) in an earlier blog post: without her ever having actually renounced her Leftist views, it is simply inaccurate to say that Harris ran a "center-left," or a moderate, campaign.
No one cares what is on her campaign's website. People care, rather, about what comes out of her mouth. And when asked, for example, what would differentiate her from the Biden Presidency, she failed to even so much as explicitly condemn his overwhelmingly unpopular (but distinctly Leftist) immigration policies. Trump hammered her with attack ads about "they/them," yet she simply would not renounce her earlier support for the most extreme positions of trans rights activists.
She had every opportunity to present herself as a moderate by distancing herself from her own Leftism, and she failed at every turn. Leftism was therefore on the ballot, and it lost.
I know there are Leftist cult leaders like John Oliver who refuse to admit that their extremist ideology has been firmly discredited and utterly rejected by the American people, but those are nevertheless the facts. The big open question is how long and difficult the process will be for the Dem party to recognize that fact and act accordingly. Here's hoping for Fetterman 2028!
There's nothing in Leo1008's post that isn't pretty typical liberal Democrat, including voting for Harris despite being unhappy with her. So, I'm not sure why you're claiming that Leo's as far from being a Democrat as can be. I'm guessing you don't talk to a lot of Republicans.
Every day, the angry bigot desperately looks for ways to scream about the "DEI's".
I think a lot of progressives have no idea how unpopular DEI classes and required statements are. Honestly, what is a software tester supposed to say to show their dedication to diversity, equity and inclusion?
And how many times do you need to hear about not hiring people just because they look like you before you understand the concept?
I was looking at the 3 “blue wall” swing states, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The thing that really struck me was that Harris actually outperformed Biden’s 2000 result (in which he won the state) yet still lost. I also note that although Republicans knew there was no chance that Trump would win in California they still came out and voted for him.
My own conclusion is that Trump is popular. People support him and are motivated to show their support. I really don’t get why, but he is. When he talks people seem to hear what they want to hear rather than what he says. That’s how you get that weird dynamic of people who are here illegally saying they support him.
“The state” being Wisconsin.
The presidential campaign platform of joy and opportunity did not resonate with the joyless whose opportunities ended in failure. These frustrated entrepreneurs of the self had no reasons to vote for Harris, who offered no platform of relief nor one offering to legalize opioids so users could legally treat their despair.
Control-f: “black woman” not found
Maybe the problem was just name recognition.
Look at how many people googled some version of "Why isn't Biden on the ballot" on or before November 5th.
How many voters simply didn't know Kamala Harris was the D candidate?
In the race between "Are Americans cruel or stupid," it keeps looking like a tie.
I predict you'll keep asking this question and coming to the same conclusion throughout the next two years.
This analysis of those bar charts is utter innumeracy. Those numbers are equally consistent with an overall decline in turnout plus a shift in some voters from D to R. There’s no way to tell from aggregate counts and claiming otherwise is just really bad math.
The fact that turnout overall is down from
2020 suggests that it’s probably the case that overall turnout dropped plus a bunch of people swung to Trump — that’s certainly what the polling crosstabs were suggesting — but I suppose it’s possible every 2024 Trump voter somehow stuck with him and there was a massive Dem-only decline in turnout. But in any case, the bar graph doesn’t answer that question and thinking otherwise is sheer innumeracy.
The problem with discussing election outcomes in terms of who got what % of the vote is that it implies there's a fixed number of votes available. Harris getting a lower % than Biden did in 2020 must therefore mean some voters switched from Biden to Trump. Kevin's bar chart, however, shows no such thing happened. Harris's % dropped simply because lots of Biden voters stayed home.
If he'd included the figures for 2016, they would have shown Clinton getting 8,753,788 votes compared to 4,483,810 for Trump. On my understanding, California's population hasn't grown much over the last 8 years, so Biden's 2020 result was an astonishing improvement. But so was Trump's. Sadly for Democrats, all those first-time voters Joe got out to vote stayed home again last November, probably because they decided Joe's inflation was just as bad as Trump's pandemic so to hell with all of them. Trump's new voters came out again, however, because they liked what he did last time and they wanted him to do it again.
If this is even close to describing what happened, the election outcome had nothing to do with Harris's campaign, nor was there anything she could have done to alter the result. This was effectively the result we could have expected in 2020 if the pandemic hadn't motivated millions of Americans to vote in a fit of rage against the man who'd caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of their friends and family members.
Oh, Kevin. People who considered themselves financially secure voted their prejudices. Same as it ever was.
Oh, Kevin. It's People who considered themselves financially secure voted their prejudices. Same as it ever was.