Democrats: WTF Just Happened?

---

We’re transforming your reading experience by removing all ads and focusing on high-quality, in-depth geopolitical analysis. Enjoy a cleaner, more enjoyable news experience, free from distractions. Help us continue to provide exceptional content by donating today. Your support ensures we remain independent and reader-funded. Visit linktapgo.com/thedumshow to contribute. Thank you for making The DUM News better than ever! – Matt

---

Donald Trump’s 2024 election victory over Kamala Harris marks a turning point in American politics, illustrating a decisive rejection of the Democratic Party’s current agenda and a growing populist movement concerned with government overreach, economic mismanagement, and cultural disconnect. Trump’s victory showcases a unique coalition-building effort that expanded his appeal to include more working-class and minority voters while drawing a clear line between him and a Democratic establishment many Americans view as out of touch with everyday concerns.

Trump’s theory of the case was straightforward and effective: he bet that he could form a broad, multi-ethnic coalition grounded in working-class values and focused on economic empowerment, community security, and individual freedoms. His campaign resonated across demographics, revealing a deep alignment with the values of many Americans who feel increasingly marginalized by Democratic priorities.

Building a Working-Class, Multi-Ethnic Coalition

Trump’s campaign successfully extended his appeal to voters beyond his traditional base, creating a diverse coalition of support. According to exit polls, he significantly increased his support among Black and Latino voters, particularly men, who have traditionally been strong Democratic supporters. His share of the Black male vote rose from 12% in 2020 to 20% in 2024, while he carried 54% of Hispanic men. These numbers indicate a shifting loyalty among minority voters who resonated with Trump’s focus on economic opportunities and skepticism of progressive social policies that they felt did not align with their everyday concerns.

Young adults were also notably responsive to Trump’s message, as his share of the youth vote grew from 35% in 2020 to 42%. Much of this shift came from young men who felt increasingly disconnected from progressive agendas and instead gravitated toward Trump’s direct, unfiltered communication. By engaging through alternative media channels, particularly podcasts like Joe Rogan’s, Trump reached young men who are often overlooked by traditional campaign efforts. These platforms allowed him to bypass what his supporters consider biased mainstream outlets, directly connecting with voters who appreciated his candor and pragmatism.

This coalition of working-class Americans—across racial, generational, and geographic lines—saw in Trump a candidate willing to stand up for their interests, defend their communities, and protect their livelihoods. Trump’s emphasis on job creation, a stable economy, and support for law enforcement resonated with these voters, many of whom felt ignored by a Democratic agenda they perceived as prioritizing elite cultural concerns over practical solutions.

 

Strategic Decisions: A Gamble That Paid Off

After winning the Republican primary, Trump’s team faced a key strategic decision: to broaden his appeal by softening his populist message or double down on his base while unifying Republicans under a singular, unapologetic vision. His campaign chose the latter, and this decision proved to be pivotal. Trump’s decision to remain unapologetically populist resonated with his core supporters, who viewed his campaign as a crusade against what they believed was a corrupt and biased system working against him and, by extension, them. By focusing on his grassroots support, he secured a remarkable 94% of the Republican vote and reduced the Democrats’ lead among Independents to five points, compared to nine points in 2020.

Trump’s campaign made three tactical decisions that shaped the election’s outcome. First, they opted to bypass traditional voter mobilization efforts, instead outsourcing much of this work to supporting organizations. His team believed that Trump’s strong connection with his supporters would naturally drive turnout, and they were right. Although Harris’s campaign emphasized its advantage in the “ground game,” it ultimately had little impact.

Second, Trump capitalized on Harris’s stance on progressive issues, particularly transgender rights, which played poorly in culturally conservative and working-class communities. His campaign strategically highlighted her views, particularly in the South, where these issues starkly contrasted with traditional values, positioning her as a representative of elite, coastal progressivism rather than a candidate for the average American.

Finally, Trump took a measured stance on the divisive issue of abortion, emphasizing that each state should decide this matter. By promising to veto a national abortion ban, Trump struck a balance that retained broad support among conservatives while avoiding alienating more moderate voters, securing 81% of the white evangelical vote.

Harris’s Uphill Battle and Campaign Missteps

From the outset, Harris’s campaign faced a daunting challenge: running on the record of Joe Biden’s administration, which was plagued by economic uncertainty, rising inflation, and ongoing issues with immigration. Biden’s approval ratings remained low, especially on issues central to the electorate like economic stability and border security, leaving Harris with a legacy many Americans found unfavorable. Biden’s delayed decision to exit the race further hindered her campaign, denying Harris the opportunity to hone her message in a primary and forcing her to adopt much of Biden’s campaign infrastructure without sufficient time to develop her own identity.

Harris’s decision to focus her campaign on reproductive rights was a gamble that did not pay off as expected. While she anticipated that centering her platform on reproductive rights would rally women to the polls in record numbers, turnout remained relatively unchanged. Harris’s approach failed to resonate with a broad audience, particularly men, among whom her support fell to 43%, down from Biden’s 48% in 2020. For many voters, this focus seemed tone-deaf to their more pressing concerns, such as economic stability, immigration, and public safety.

In her closing arguments, Harris framed Trump as an existential threat to democracy. However, this tactic fell flat. Many Republicans and Independents viewed Harris and the Democratic establishment as the true threats to democratic principles, due in large part to what they saw as the weaponization of government institutions to target Trump. For voters who felt that Harris’s campaign focused too heavily on Trump’s character rather than her own policies, her approach only reinforced their support for a candidate they perceived as a defender against government overreach.

 

Weaponizing Government: Trump’s “Witch Hunt” Narrative

Trump’s allegations of a “witch hunt” against him became a powerful rallying cry throughout the campaign. Many of his supporters saw his legal troubles as evidence of a weaponized government, one that had become an arm of the Democratic Party and was using its power to silence political opposition. Trump’s legal battles, widely covered by the media, became symbolic of what his base saw as a corrupt, biased system bent on suppressing him. Key instances in Trump’s legal journey underscored this sentiment:

1. Russia Collusion Investigation: The lengthy investigation into alleged collusion with Russia during Trump’s first term ultimately found no definitive evidence, leading many to see it as a smear campaign intended to discredit his presidency.
2. Impeachment Trials: Trump’s two impeachment trials, first over Ukraine and then over the Capitol riots, became focal points for his base, who viewed them as politically motivated attempts to block his policy agenda.
3. Classified Documents Case: Trump faced charges related to classified documents, which his supporters felt were blown out of proportion, especially in comparison to similar allegations against prominent Democrats.
4. Georgia Election Case: Trump was accused of attempting to interfere with Georgia’s election results—a charge his supporters saw as criminalizing his right to question election integrity.
5. January 6th Investigation: The investigations into Trump’s alleged role in inciting the Capitol riots were perceived as a selective focus on his supporters rather than an unbiased search for accountability.
6. IRS Audits: The repeated IRS audits of Trump’s finances were viewed by his base as part of a politically motivated effort to undermine his business credibility and trustworthiness.
7. Scrutiny of the Trump Foundation: Legal scrutiny of the Trump Foundation for alleged self-dealing was viewed as selective, especially when compared to other high-profile foundations that faced minimal investigation.
8. Spying Allegations: Claims of spying on Trump’s campaign in 2016 and beyond deepened the belief that intelligence agencies were complicit in efforts to prevent his success.
9. Media Bias and Fact-Checking: The extensive, often negative media coverage of Trump’s campaign and presidency, along with selective fact-checking, fed the perception of a media landscape weaponized against him.
10. Business Investigations in New York: Investigations into Trump’s business dealings, particularly in New York, were seen by many of his supporters as politically motivated attacks on his character and finances.

Disconnect Between Democrats and Their Constituents

Trump’s victory also exposed the widening gap between Democratic leadership and the priorities of their traditional base. While Harris’s campaign emphasized progressive issues like reproductive rights and climate change, exit polls revealed that these were not the central concerns for many Americans. Inflation, high grocery prices, job security, and economic stability were at the top of voters’ minds, especially as rising costs continued to impact working- and middle-class families. Harris’s inability to pivot and address these bread-and-butter issues reinforced the sense that the Democratic Party had become disconnected from everyday Americans.

Harris’s struggle to retain support among key Democratic constituencies was glaring. Exit polls indicated significant declines in support from Latino voters (a 13-point drop) and Black voters (a two-point drop), groups that have historically been loyal to the Democratic Party. Young voters also drifted toward Trump, with many citing economic concerns and a desire for practical solutions over progressive ideals. This erosion of Democratic support among traditional groups highlights the party’s challenge in addressing the core needs of its constituents.

Moreover, Harris’s reluctance to engage with the media and her carefully controlled public appearances created an impression of a candidate out of touch with the American public. Her avoidance of unscripted interviews signaled a lack of confidence in her ability to defend her policies, an approach that reinforced her image as part of an elite establishment disconnected from the challenges facing most Americans.

A Stark Divide: Looking Ahead for Both Parties

Trump’s 2024 victory has sent a clear message: Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of the Democratic Party and are wary of what they see as overreach by government institutions. While Trump’s personality may be polarizing, his emphasis on issues that resonate with working- and middle-class Americans, his critique of government overreach, and his unconventional coalition-building approach struck a chord with voters across diverse backgrounds.

For the Democrats, Trump’s win is a warning. Reconnecting with the needs of their traditional voter base—working-class families, minority communities, and young Americans—will be essential if they hope to remain competitive. To do this, the Democratic Party must shift its focus from elite-driven agendas and progressive ideals to tangible solutions that address economic stability, immigration, public safety, and community concerns.

In the coming years, Democrats will need to grapple with a hard reality: the American electorate is increasingly impatient with rhetoric that prioritizes identity politics over practical results. If they want to challenge Trump’s populist appeal and reestablish their connection with working Americans, they must shift toward policies that emphasize economic empowerment, secure borders, and respect for individual freedoms. Only by embracing these priorities can the Democratic Party regain the trust and support of the American people.