Kamala Harris Did Listen To Working-Class Voters. They Didn't Listen To Trump.

Politicians, if they want to earn votes, can't blame voters for their poor listening skills. But newsletter writers can.

One week later and the Democratic Party's self-flagellation continues.

"We don't listen enough; we tell people what's good for them," scolded Senator Chris Murphy on X. "Listen to poor and rural people, men in crisis. Don't decide for them."

"No one is listening to anything else you say if you try to talk them out of their lived experiences with data points from some economists," Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez lectured in a New York Times interview.

"The reason we didn't win ultimately is we didn't listen enough to people on the ground," Representative Ro Khanna claimed on CBS's Face The Nation. "People like [Representatives] Chris Deluzio, Pat Ryan, who were saying, talk about the economy. Talk about people's economic struggles," .

This is, to quote Joe Biden one last time, malarkey.

Kamala Harris absolutely listened to working-class voters. She heard their frustrations about high prices; developed a set of policies designed to improve the affordability of groceries, housing, and health care; and centered them in her speeches and ads.

Working-class voters, however, didn't listen to her, nor what Donald Trump had to say about prices. He repeatedly pledged to raise prices with tariffs on all imported goods. He even dreamed of a future that resembled the past: a federal government largely funded by sky high tariffs, instead of progressive income taxes.

Of course politicians, if they want to earn votes, can't blame voters for their poor listening skills.

But newsletter writers can.

More, after highlighting what's leading the Washington Monthly website:

***

A Very Rough Day in New Jersey: Executive Editor Digital Matthew Cooper digs into Trump's near-victory in the Garden State and the disturbing lessons for the Democrats. Click here for the full story.

How Francis Fukuyama and “The Big Lebowski” Explain Trump’s Victory: Author David Masciotra examines the influence of nihilism on the 2024 election. Click here for the full story.

***

As noted here last week, an accurate pinpointing of the factors that led to the election shock is important. Otherwise, effective solutions can't be found.

But many of the bullets flying in the Democratic circular firing squad are missing the target.

For example, NOTUS reported on a critique from Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:

[Ocasio-Cortez] said the party’s positioning with “corporate interests” prevented it from accurately and effectively messaging against inflation.

“Instead of saying things like, ‘By the way, Kroger or CVS or Rite Aid or Exxon Mobil are price gouging you,’ we get, ‘We’re combating inflation,’” Ocasio-Cortez said, calling it a “passive-voice perspective.”

But Harris did not use passive-voice when talking about her proposals to reduce prices. Here's what Harris said in her August policy rollout:

Many of the big food companies are seeing their highest profits in two decades. And while many grocery chains pass along these savings, others still aren’t. 

Look, I know most businesses are creating jobs, contributing to our economy, and playing by the rules. But some are not, and that’s just not right, and we need to take action when that is the case.

As attorney general in California, I went after companies that illegally increased prices, including wholesalers that inflated the price of prescription medication and companies that conspired with competitors to keep prices of electronics high. I won more than $1 billion for consumers.

So, believe me, as president, I will go after the bad actors. And I will work to pass the first-ever federal ban on price gouging on food. 

The problem Harris faced was that too many voters did not want to listen to what she, or perhaps any Democrat, had to say because they blamed Democrats for inflation.

Yesterday for Politico, Jack Herrera recalled an interview he conducted of a Mexican immigrant working for an Iowa meatpacker, before the state's Republican caucuses:

[Ismael] Cardenas told me he was supporting Trump. Over the last three years, his family had been crushed by inflation and gas prices. Though they had once voted Democrat, they’d stopped believing that the party actually cared about working people like them, no matter how the politicians talked. "What Trump says is what Trump does. If he promises something, he is going to do it," Cardenas told me.

This voter stopped listening to Democrats, not the other way around.

Moreover, he wasn't listening to what Trump was promising. If he was, he would have been far more concerned about Trump's tariffs crushing his family anew.

Once voters tune out Democratic talk and put their trust in Trump, the argument is lost. The specifics of what Harris said and what Trump said became irrelevant.

Such was the damage done by the inflation in the first half of the Biden presidency.

As I argued on Thursday, Biden's failure to immediately pin inflation on the pandemic-ravaged economy handed to him by his predecessor allowed Trump to redirect blame. Other incumbent presidents–including Ronald Reagan, and Barack Obama–were able to overcome economic problems early in their first terms and successfully run for re-election on an improving, if still imperfect, economy.

Obama was often charged with lecturing to voters that they should feel better about the economy than they did. But if an incumbent can't successfully take credit for any improvements, even while recognizing there is more work to do, re-election is impossible. Evidence of improvement is what earns credibility to tackle remaining problems.

I had believed this dynamic would repeat in 2024. But in retrospect, Biden's declining communication skills were too much to bear. The argument that Trump's economy was superior to Biden's stuck in the minds of voters, leaving Harris without the ability to run on her own administration's successes.

Precisely because she was listening to working-class voters, she repeatedly acknowledged the higher prices they were shouldering. When she said, "A loaf of bread costs 50 percent more today than before the pandemic. Ground beef is up almost 50 percent," the Trump campaign gleefully retorted, "Nice to see her tell the truth for a change."

Lazily concluding that Democrats don't listen to average voters fits a familiar narrative of college-educated elites who can't connect with the non-diploma-holding masses. But it's simply inaccurate.

Because fickle, cynical swing voters who don't follow the news closely can't be expected to listen to complex policy arguments on a short timetable before an election, in the years prior politicians have to do their best to frame their argument on favorable terms.

So instead of self-flagellation, better to self-congratulate, even now: The economy did improve thanks to the actions of the Biden-Harris administration. Trump is being handed a growing economy with low unemployment, rising wages, and sharply reduced inflation.

That way if Trump bobbles the ball in the coming years, it will be much harder for him to try to deflect the blame.

Best,

Bill Scher, Washington Monthly politics editor

WE'RE HIRING!

The Washington Monthly is looking for a talented journalist to be its newest editor.

Since 1969, the Monthly has been a leading voice in liberal policy circles. (New York Times op-ed columnist David Leonhardt recommended it as the policy magazine to subscribe to.) Our staffers routinely appear on national and international radio stations, like NPR, Sirius XM, and the BBC. And the unique editor position has long been known as a training ground for successful journalists. Past editors include James Fallows (The Atlantic), Nicholas Confessore (New York Times), Benjamin Wallace-Wells (The New Yorker), Michelle Cottle (New York Times), and Eric Cortellessa (TIME). We’re a small publication that routinely punches above its weight, and we do so by recruiting and developing world-class talent.

The position is a hybrid of staff writer and features editor. On the editing side, your responsibilities will cover the full spectrum of putting a magazine together, from developing story ideas and working with writers to line-editing their pieces to perfection. On the writing side, you will produce deeply reported longform features on a wide range of political and policy topics. With its mix of responsibility, mentorship, and throw-you-into-the-fire experience, this job is a rare opportunity to develop your talents as a writer, editor, and policy expert.

About you: We’re less interested in what you’ve done than what you’re capable of doing. So while full-time journalistic experience is a plus, it’s not a requirement. What is a requirement is that you be a strong, clear writer with a great deal of intellectual curiosity and a healthy sense of humor. People from diverse backgrounds are strongly encouraged to apply. 

How to apply: Send a resume, cover letter, and links to two to four published clips to jobs@washingtonmonthly.com with “Editor/Writer Search” in the subject line.

FIND THE MONTHLY ON SOCIAL

We're on Twitter @monthly

We're on Threads @WAMonthly

We're on Instagram @WAMonthly

We're on Facebook @WashingtonMonthly