You are right. The blame game is pointless. Kamala ran an excellent campaign against very difficult, virtually insurmountable odds.
The big problem was inflation. Consider (annual inflation figures are from Investopedia):
1968 Election
- Inflation in 1967 – 3.0
- Inflation in 1968 – 4.7
- Humphrey barely loses, suggesting that Nixon was quite vulnerable (also end of 2d Dem term)
1976 Election
- Inflation in 1975 – 6.9
- Inflation in 1976 – 4.9
- Ford loses (remember Whip Inflation Now? – also end of 2d Rep term)
1980 Election
- Inflation in 1979 – 13.3
- Inflation in 1980 – 12.5
- Carter loses
1988 Election
- Inflation in 1987 - 4.4
- Inflation in 1988 – 4.4
- Bush I wins despite end 2d Rep term
2008 Election
- Inflation in 2007 – 4.1
- Inflation in 2009 – 0.1
- McCain loses to Obama (also end of 2d Rep term)
2024 Election
- Inflation in 2022 – 6.5
- Inflation in 2023 – 3.4
- Inflation in 2024 – 2.6 (different source)
- Biden/Harris loses
It’s very difficult, perhaps impossible, for an incumbent (or incumbent’s party) to win against high inflation. And we have to measure inflation from the year before because that’s what sets the tone.
I decided to look at inflation rates of 4 or higher. Voter reactions probably varied according to inflation expectations. In 1968, e.g., 4.7 was high relative to earlier 3.0. By the 1988 and 2008 elections, I suspect the 4+ rates weren’t as significant because inflation had generally been higher.
There were lots of other issues in all these elections. Vietnam War, Iran hostages, Bush II’s wars, etc. But when inflation gets high, it seems determinative. See 1976, 1980, and 2024.
It is striking that Kamala barely lost the 2024 election despite very high concerns about inflation. Her fight was complicated by the fact that there was probably a stronger sense the Biden was specifically to blame due to massive COVID relief expenditures.
By rights, given the high inflation concern, she should have lost by a substantial margin, as with Carter and Ford. This tells us Trump’s margin was even thinner than the numbers make it seem. Probably many voted for Trump on inflation/economy despite not liking him otherwise.
Given the thin margin, it’s possible that relatively fringe issues (e.g., Gaza in Michigan, wokeness generally, trans bathroom issues, and the like might have made the difference. The fringe issues became significant, if they did, only because inflation (and probably the border) lowered the threshold that Trump needed to reach.
There is no need for despair. No need for dramatic changes. Certainly no need for internal squabbles.
The horserace dominates news for so many months. It is a disservice to keep it going
Meanwhile lots of actual news happens.
Michael Cohen, I was impressed w your writing on foreign relations, your historical perspective, and what's up in the Senate and House before you started your substack. I followed you to substack hoping for more of those insights.
How about your insights on the greater world? We in the US don't live in a vacuum.
Anything that may target who and what bills etc that we have the power to support also great.
Biden is still president. Some people are writing on what he might be able to do with this period.
I hope to follow what Kamala Harris does in the future. An amazing candidate.
I wouldn’t mind an analysis of Georgia. I live in a swing district in Atlanta Metro. I always check how my precinct voted. Some history: it voted for McCain and Romney. Then in 2016, Hillary won by 8%. But 2020 was wild. Turnout increased and Biden won by a whopping 20%! Alas this time turnout was down considerably and Harris won by 13%. While results were disappointing in Georgia, it’s stunning how stable the flip has been for Democrats in my precinct. Those voters aren’t going back to the GOP. At least a Trumpy GOP.
I’ve seen way more articles on the election than I need to both before and afterward. Got enough of an idea of what’s up by now. No one has a crystal ball. Readers who expect that, well I do hope some writers are not catering to that. Meanwhile lots of actual news happens. I was impressed w your writing on foreign relations and things happening in the Senate and House and more before you started your substack. I followed you to substack hoping for more of those insights. The horserace dominates news for so many months. It is a disservice to keep it going. What Kamala is doing now would interest me, anything that may target who and what bills etc to support also great. But actually that isn't what I subscribed to your letter for. So maybe your insights on the greater world, we don't live in a vacuum. Thank you
I will push back on the headwinds. You can read that poll as "well, Harris was screwed regardless" or you can read it as damning towards her campaign. Was Harris facing strong headwinds, or did the kind of campaign she run impact how voters perceived her? There is a degree of truth to both, I would bet. But Harris refused to throw Biden under the bus, which is looking increasingly like a mistake. She refused to create a strong contrast between herself and Biden, which she easily could have done. She therefore left herself wide open to attacks that she's a Biden clone or worse (based on her far left positions from 2019).
Perhaps it would not have mattered, and I do think Harris was not the right choice (either as VP or for this campaign), but I don't think the evidence conclusively proves she only lost due to headwinds.
It's a fair counter-point. I think the headwinds mattered the most, but I don't disagree that some of her campaign decisions might have played a role, too. It's just very hard to figure out which ones -- and how much!
You are right. The blame game is pointless. Kamala ran an excellent campaign against very difficult, virtually insurmountable odds.
The big problem was inflation. Consider (annual inflation figures are from Investopedia):
1968 Election
- Inflation in 1967 – 3.0
- Inflation in 1968 – 4.7
- Humphrey barely loses, suggesting that Nixon was quite vulnerable (also end of 2d Dem term)
1976 Election
- Inflation in 1975 – 6.9
- Inflation in 1976 – 4.9
- Ford loses (remember Whip Inflation Now? – also end of 2d Rep term)
1980 Election
- Inflation in 1979 – 13.3
- Inflation in 1980 – 12.5
- Carter loses
1988 Election
- Inflation in 1987 - 4.4
- Inflation in 1988 – 4.4
- Bush I wins despite end 2d Rep term
2008 Election
- Inflation in 2007 – 4.1
- Inflation in 2009 – 0.1
- McCain loses to Obama (also end of 2d Rep term)
2024 Election
- Inflation in 2022 – 6.5
- Inflation in 2023 – 3.4
- Inflation in 2024 – 2.6 (different source)
- Biden/Harris loses
It’s very difficult, perhaps impossible, for an incumbent (or incumbent’s party) to win against high inflation. And we have to measure inflation from the year before because that’s what sets the tone.
I decided to look at inflation rates of 4 or higher. Voter reactions probably varied according to inflation expectations. In 1968, e.g., 4.7 was high relative to earlier 3.0. By the 1988 and 2008 elections, I suspect the 4+ rates weren’t as significant because inflation had generally been higher.
There were lots of other issues in all these elections. Vietnam War, Iran hostages, Bush II’s wars, etc. But when inflation gets high, it seems determinative. See 1976, 1980, and 2024.
It is striking that Kamala barely lost the 2024 election despite very high concerns about inflation. Her fight was complicated by the fact that there was probably a stronger sense the Biden was specifically to blame due to massive COVID relief expenditures.
By rights, given the high inflation concern, she should have lost by a substantial margin, as with Carter and Ford. This tells us Trump’s margin was even thinner than the numbers make it seem. Probably many voted for Trump on inflation/economy despite not liking him otherwise.
Given the thin margin, it’s possible that relatively fringe issues (e.g., Gaza in Michigan, wokeness generally, trans bathroom issues, and the like might have made the difference. The fringe issues became significant, if they did, only because inflation (and probably the border) lowered the threshold that Trump needed to reach.
There is no need for despair. No need for dramatic changes. Certainly no need for internal squabbles.
Thanks for all you do.
Harris lost by a small amount. And so on.
The Dems circular firing squad... as usual.
The horserace dominates news for so many months. It is a disservice to keep it going
Meanwhile lots of actual news happens.
Michael Cohen, I was impressed w your writing on foreign relations, your historical perspective, and what's up in the Senate and House before you started your substack. I followed you to substack hoping for more of those insights.
How about your insights on the greater world? We in the US don't live in a vacuum.
Anything that may target who and what bills etc that we have the power to support also great.
Biden is still president. Some people are writing on what he might be able to do with this period.
I hope to follow what Kamala Harris does in the future. An amazing candidate.
Thank you for your insights
Spent the afternoon researching a piece on Syria ... so stay tuned!
I wouldn’t mind an analysis of Georgia. I live in a swing district in Atlanta Metro. I always check how my precinct voted. Some history: it voted for McCain and Romney. Then in 2016, Hillary won by 8%. But 2020 was wild. Turnout increased and Biden won by a whopping 20%! Alas this time turnout was down considerably and Harris won by 13%. While results were disappointing in Georgia, it’s stunning how stable the flip has been for Democrats in my precinct. Those voters aren’t going back to the GOP. At least a Trumpy GOP.
I’ve seen way more articles on the election than I need to both before and afterward. Got enough of an idea of what’s up by now. No one has a crystal ball. Readers who expect that, well I do hope some writers are not catering to that. Meanwhile lots of actual news happens. I was impressed w your writing on foreign relations and things happening in the Senate and House and more before you started your substack. I followed you to substack hoping for more of those insights. The horserace dominates news for so many months. It is a disservice to keep it going. What Kamala is doing now would interest me, anything that may target who and what bills etc to support also great. But actually that isn't what I subscribed to your letter for. So maybe your insights on the greater world, we don't live in a vacuum. Thank you
Sooo, apathy plus racism and a boatload of disinformation. Oh wait, misogyny too!
Those likely played a role, but dissatisfaction over the economy was probably more decisive.
I will push back on the headwinds. You can read that poll as "well, Harris was screwed regardless" or you can read it as damning towards her campaign. Was Harris facing strong headwinds, or did the kind of campaign she run impact how voters perceived her? There is a degree of truth to both, I would bet. But Harris refused to throw Biden under the bus, which is looking increasingly like a mistake. She refused to create a strong contrast between herself and Biden, which she easily could have done. She therefore left herself wide open to attacks that she's a Biden clone or worse (based on her far left positions from 2019).
Perhaps it would not have mattered, and I do think Harris was not the right choice (either as VP or for this campaign), but I don't think the evidence conclusively proves she only lost due to headwinds.
It's a fair counter-point. I think the headwinds mattered the most, but I don't disagree that some of her campaign decisions might have played a role, too. It's just very hard to figure out which ones -- and how much!
True! If we could figure it out we wouldn’t be here we’d have been leading the campaign