In the aftermath of the Democratic Party’s disappointing performance in the 2024 election, particularly marked by Kamala Harris’s defeat, it becomes crucial to examine the underlying issues. This analysis highlights the Democratic establishment’s failure to grasp the central concern affecting their support base. The party’s persistent reliance on a simplistic narrative of “Republicans bad” has overshadowed the need for substantive policies that genuinely resonate with everyday Americans. By prioritizing the interests of the professional-managerial class and relying on affluent donors, the Democrats risk alienating the very workers they once aimed to represent, potentially consigning themselves to political irrelevance.
By Sam Rosenthal, the political director for RootsAction. Originally published at Common Dreams
The ongoing debate surrounding the Democratic National Committee’s unexplored autopsy report remains heated, as more voices from within the party’s establishment offer their insights. The latest input comes from Rob Flaherty, the former deputy manager of Harris’s presidential campaign, in a column published by The Bulwark.
In his piece titled “Here’s What I Told the DNC Autopsy,” Flaherty discusses his interactions with DNC operatives responsible for the still-unreleased report, ultimately offering his own analysis of the campaign’s failures.
Flaherty deserves credit for being one of the few mainstream Democrats willing to take a detailed and public examination of Harris’s campaign shortcomings. However, similar to other establishment critiques, he concludes that minor adjustments to messaging and media strategies could have turned the tide in the election.
Progressives within the party argue that no amount of refined messaging could have masked a fundamental issue: the lack of popular policies in Harris’s platform. At RootsAction, where I serve as political director, we’ve compiled our own post-2024 autopsy, focusing specifically on how Harris’s campaign diverged from the electorate’s sentiments.
Flaherty primarily managed the campaign’s digital strategy, including social media and content development. His analysis, therefore, reflects that perspective. He emphasizes the need for message alignment across various channels, from earned to paid media, yet lacks clarity on what the message actually was.
As Joe Biden’s presidency entered its final phase, the country faced multiple crises. The aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic had yielded uneven recovery, leaving many struggling to secure stable employment amidst escalating inflation. Americans across all financial backgrounds were grappling with soaring prices for essential goods. Moreover, as the crisis in Gaza unfolded, the Biden administration maintained its unwavering support for Israel. On top of this, Biden’s decision to run for a second term, despite a clear desire among Democrats for a new candidate, left many frustrated until he backed out under immense scrutiny following a poor debate performance.
Harris was left with only 107 days (as she frequently reminds us) to mount a viable presidential campaign against Donald Trump. This short timeframe raised significant logistical hurdles, but it also required her to confront Biden’s record. Would she align herself with Biden’s assertions that his approach—termed “Bidenomics”—was beneficial for the working class? Would she continue to support Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu amidst ongoing violence in Gaza? These crucial questions remained inadequately addressed by her campaign.
Flaherty recognizes that indecision regarding the campaign’s main message was a significant drawback. He contrasts it with Trump’s clear communication: “Trump’s message was much clearer: The economy feels bad, and Harris claims it’s good. Those sentiments are tough to dispute.”
He focuses extensively on the “vibe” of the campaign: “When the [BidenHQ] account transitioned to Harris, the campaign adopted a new vibe that influenced polling. We needed to solidify the base, create a more appealing campaign image, and establish a voice that was more adaptable than the candidate herself.”
While “vibe shifts” may influence polls, it’s apparent that Flaherty’s analysis leans heavily toward branding rather than substance. He dives into the details of individual social media accounts and their impacts on key demographics. Was the KamalaHQ presence too “girls and gays” oriented? Did it alienate male voters? For someone who criticizes the “DC crowd” for assuming Biden is unpopular, Flaherty seems immersed in the Beltway perspective regarding the relevance of a single social media presence in an election where over 152 million people voted.
Campaign strategies should not hinge solely on vibes. While it’s true that a discontented electorate necessitates a tailored approach, Democrats must also engage in the challenging task of formulating a compelling political message. Coordination and message discipline among social media influencers, independent expenses, surrogates, and official campaign communications become futile without a persuasive argument at their core. In the 2024 election, the Democrats’ greatest political vulnerability stemmed from voters’ uncertainty about what four more years of a Democratic administration would entail. Harris’s messaging echoed Biden’s earlier assertion to donors that “nothing would fundamentally change”—a notion that was untenable in the face of widespread dissatisfaction.
Upon stepping back, Flaherty seems to grasp this issue effectively. He observes that the Democrats have overly concentrated on attracting comparatively affluent, suburban voters while neglecting broader voter demographics. “The resulting [Democratic] coalition, reliant on fewer working-class voters of color, isn’t significant enough to rival a motivated MAGA base,” he remarks. He even suggests that Democrats adopt “economic populism with substance.”
Progressives within the Democratic Party would undoubtedly support this approach. Numerous polls indicate that populist policies, such as increasing taxes on the wealthy and ensuring a more just distribution of wealth, are widely supported. Flaherty acknowledges this idea in passing, yet seems either hesitant or unable to follow through with it, failing to advocate for Democrats to fully embrace this reality and amplify it within their platform and messaging. Like many from the Democratic establishment, Flaherty diagnoses the party’s ailments without offering an actionable cure.
This pattern persists. While Flaherty briefly addresses the discord between Harris and pro-ceasefire activists, he quickly downplays its potential impact on her campaign. He asserts that Biden’s administration’s backing of Israel’s actions in Gaza adversely affected the campaign “but not in the ways people think.” He quotes another campaign staffer who likens Biden’s support for Israel—and Harris’s inability to distance herself from it—to “a giant, rotting fish around [the campaign’s] neck.”
This perspective aligns closely with how progressives believe the policy toward Gaza undermined Harris’s campaign. Many of us advocating for a ceasefire were concerned that Harris’s alignment with the Biden administration’s stance would create insurmountable ethical dilemmas for voters, particularly as critical demographics—young, Arab, and Muslim Americans—were confronted with graphic images from Gaza on social media. It is evident that 6.8 million voters who supported Biden in 2020 did not extend that support to Harris. This stark decline in backing suggests that the Democratic Party’s position on Gaza was out of sync with the popular sentiment within its base. This disconnect deserves careful attention, rather than dismissal.
Flaherty admits that when the Harris campaign finally launched, they were merely “playing around the edges,” meaning the staff was only allowed to make minor adjustments to a campaign that was already in motion; the time for sweeping strategy was long gone. The postmortems from insiders often read like recollections of survivors from a disaster of their making. Flaherty himself was a deputy manager in Biden’s waning 2024 campaign.
While Donald Trump’s political influence may be waning, the impacts of Trumpism are likely to linger for years. For Democrats to present a viable alternative to a post-MAGA Republican Party, they must clearly articulate their political distinctions. Progressive policies are increasingly gaining traction among Democrats and the wider American public: universal healthcare, debt-free public college, AI regulation, and an end to endless war all stand as appealing policy goals backed by substantial majority support. Any candidate vying for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028 would do well to prioritize these issues at the heart of their platform.
In conclusion, there exists no strategy involving consulting, brand management, influencer engagement, or narrative shaping that can salvage a campaign devoid of a strong message. If Democrats cannot learn from the true lessons of Harris’s campaign, they risk repeating past mistakes in future elections.
