The Democrats’ devastating loss wasn’t due to any single factor. President Joe Biden’s unpopularity, with a 56% disapproval rating on election eve, certainly played a role, as did public frustration over inflation eroding household income. Additionally, billionaires spreading misinformation on social media amplified discontent.
In the coming days, explanations for the loss will vary widely, often reflecting individual biases. One notable factor was the Harris campaign’s unwillingness to distance itself from the administration’s unpopular stance on funding and arming an ongoing conflict, which alienated the Democratic base and forced the campaign to court new voters—a move that may have dampened turnout and fostered cynicism.
The campaign’s centrist strategy came with risks. While appealing to moderate Republicans seemed savvy, it alienated Democrats for whom progressive ideals were central, leading to a noticeable drop in grassroots energy. Campaign operatives like Anita Dunn and pollster David Shor championed this strategy, yet they offered little justification for why it would succeed over a more progressive approach.
The issue of Gaza became a persistent challenge, with many Harris supporters privately troubled by her stance. In the 2020 election, Biden’s campaign rode the momentum of social and racial justice protests, securing broad support among progressives. Harris, however, did not emphasize such causes, avoiding the topic of Gaza and instead embracing a status quo approach. As a result, her campaign’s appeal to youth and activist circles was lukewarm, despite their participation in campaign efforts.
Multiple Democratic insiders warned Harris of potential fallout from her Gaza policy, and polls suggested discontent among her base. Yet Harris remained committed to the administration’s stance, weighing the risk of losing progressive support as worthwhile to maintain her platform on international issues.
Despite attempts to compartmentalize the issue with vague assertions of “working tirelessly” toward a ceasefire, many voters were unconvinced. The Gaza policy led to a simmering discontent that likely reduced enthusiasm among potential Democratic voters. Although further analysis is needed to quantify its impact, this stance affected the campaign’s tone and priorities, ultimately weighing down Harris’s support from the beginning. Faced with a choice between progressive ideals and loyalty to existing policy, Harris chose the latter—a decision that may have contributed to this election’s outcome.