I’ve been reflecting deeply on the results of this election, and while I’m not interested in pointing fingers, accountability is essential. Understanding what went wrong is the only way to fix mistakes and move forward. One critical misstep, in my view, was Joe Biden’s decision to stay in the race as long as he did. He should have announced early that he would be a one-term president, opening the door for a competitive primary to select the strongest candidate to take on Donald Trump. For those who believe Biden could have won, I must respectfully disagree—the polls were clear, and he likely would have lost by a wider margin.
The Harris campaign, while valiant, had just 90 days to build a national campaign against a candidate who had been preparing for this moment since 2020. Dismissing Trump early on, as many did, was a grave mistake. The reality was plain: Trump’s path to the Republican nomination was inevitable, and with Biden’s age, inflation concerns, and short-term political memory among voters, the conditions were ripe for a Trump victory. The Democratic Party underestimated the stakes and missed key opportunities to meet the moment.
Messaging was the biggest failure. The Democrats needed to hammer home that Biden inherited an economic disaster from Trump—a botched pandemic response, inflationary policies, and a struggling global supply chain. Instead, Biden and Harris were left defending an economy that they had worked hard to stabilize. Inflation went up at the start of Biden’s presidency, yes, but his policies were working. Inflation came down faster in the U.S. than in any other developed nation, and Biden’s economy—according to The Economist—was “the envy of the world.” Biden rescued Trump’s failing economy and is on pace to tackle Trump’s inflation quicker than any other advanced economy. The Harris campaign should have owned this narrative, contrasting Biden’s achievements with Trump’s economic mismanagement. As James Carville has always stated, “it’s the economy, stupid.” Regardless of what you think of James Carville, he’s been right more times than not. Listen to his advice.
Instead of focusing on these successes, the campaign leaned too heavily on the threat Trump poses to democracy. While this issue is critical, it simply wasn’t a winning message for enough undecided voters, particularly those feeling economic pain. Campaigns must meet voters where they are. The Harris campaign failed to address voters’ anxieties about inflation, housing, and wages with clarity and urgency. The focus should have been on how Harris would create opportunities for middle- and working-class families—how her policies would lower housing costs, increase wages, and promote job growth.
The anti-trans ads? Of course, they impacted the election. Donald Trump is a master manipulator, using fear and hate to divide the electorate. He excels at exploiting voters’ anxieties, leveraging culture war issues to win over those who might otherwise support Democratic policies on reproductive rights or other mainstream issues but feel alienated by policies they perceive as too far outside the norm. These issues must be addressed directly. Despite affecting only a minuscule portion of the population, Trump skillfully weaponized anti-trans rhetoric to galvanize his base, distracting from broader national challenges.
The Harris campaign failed to expose this tactic for what it was—a divisive ploy—and missed the chance to highlight the hypocrisy of Trump’s administration, which had previously enforced similar policies. Instead of countering Trump’s fearmongering, the campaign should have shifted the narrative to focus on what truly matters to voters: creating economic opportunity and improving the lives of all Americans. Let’s be clear—failure to craft a winning, unifying message not only undermines electoral success but also puts the LGBTQ+ community at greater risk of harmful, transphobic policies.
Consider this: Trump suggested absurd scenarios, like kids spontaneously deciding to change their gender at school, and Harris failed to call out the ridiculousness of this rhetoric. And while we must absolutely defend the rights of our LGBTQ+ allies, the best way to protect them is by winning elections. Without a compelling and inclusive message, we risk allowing figures like Trump to retain the power to strip those rights entirely. This fight demands both clarity and strategy.
Let’s also address the missed opportunities to connect with broader audiences. Harris could have engaged with platforms like Joe Rogan’s podcast, despite its controversies. Young voters, particularly young men, were drawn to Trump in unprecedented numbers, and the Harris campaign barely tried to reach them. Discussing policies like down-payment assistance for first-time homebuyers could have resonated with this group, showing how Democratic policies directly address their economic challenges. The refusal to engage felt dismissive and contributed to the Democrats’ inability to broaden their coalition.
Even on issues like border security, Democrats failed to offer a clear, effective message. Americans are rightfully concerned about the border crisis, but Trump’s solutions were ineffective and ego-driven. His wall was laughable, and his administration killed a bipartisan border bill endorsed by Border Patrol agents. Democrats needed to contrast this failure with smart, humane, and cost-effective solutions, but they failed to capitalize on the opportunity.
Finally, we must reconsider how we approach cultural and social issues. Cancel culture and performative wokeness alienate potential allies. While it’s essential to elevate marginalized voices, it should not come at the expense of shutting down others. We need to build bridges, not walls, if we hope to win back white working-class voters and others who feel excluded from the Democratic message. This doesn’t mean compromising values; it means being strategic and compassionate in our communication.
At the end of the day, this election wasn’t lost by a landslide. Trump gained ground in almost every demographic, but the margin of loss in battleground states was narrow—2-3% on average. With better messaging and outreach, these voters could have been reached. Yes, there was bigotry, misogyny, and racism at play. But many voters were also genuinely anxious about their economic futures and felt Trump was their best hope, no matter how flawed he is.
Let’s address the broader conversation around inclusivity and how we amplify voices. I strongly believe in elevating minority voices—voices that have historically been overlooked or marginalized. This is a critical step toward building a more equitable and just society. I’ve made it a priority in my work to provide platforms and support for those voices. However, this effort to elevate should never come at the expense of silencing others, especially based on their background. Dismissing the perspectives of “privileged” white males entirely, or outright rejecting their voices, isn’t a productive way to build coalitions or win elections. It’s not about diminishing one group to elevate another—both can coexist without being mutually exclusive. Alienating a demographic, particularly non-college-educated white working-class voters, doesn’t help the progressive cause; it only weakens it.
Recently, I shared my perspective as a white man, acknowledging that it’s not my place to dictate how minority voters should feel or act. I understand and respect the anger and frustration many feel, and I don’t seek to invalidate those emotions. But dismissing opinions outright simply because of the speaker’s identity—be it mine or anyone else’s—doesn’t move us forward. It creates division where unity is needed. Progress comes from amplifying all voices of reason, not selectively silencing those that may not perfectly align with every view.
To those who disagree with my take, that’s entirely fine—engage with me, debate me, or disregard my opinion. But shutting down rational discourse, especially on the basis of identity, only harms the larger cause. We need every rational voice we can get, and we need to build bridges across divides if we’re serious about winning elections and delivering on progressive ideals. Creating space for all thoughtful contributions strengthens our movement—it doesn’t diminish it.
We can either be angry and distance ourselves from Trump voters or fight to win them over. Broadening our coalition isn’t about abandoning progressive values; it’s about making the case that those values are the best path forward for all Americans. If we want to secure future victories, I believe we should engage with these voters, address their concerns, and focus relentlessly on building an inclusive, optimistic vision for the future.
