How Kamala Harris and the media got it so wrong

Vice President Kamala Harris’s resounding defeat at the hands of former President Donald Trump is not only a rejection of the Democratic Party and what it stands for, but also of the mainstream media, and the narrative they created for Harris.

Why is that? Quite simply, because both Harris and Democrats fundamentally mistook the mood of the electorate. The mainstream media went along with the illusion that Harris and the Democrats operated under, despite substantial evidence to the contrary.

Specifically, Democrats came to believe that by turning over the campaign to Harris’ “new way forward” and “politics of joy,” without a primary process or any serious discussion of the issues, they could somehow circumvent two key facts about the electorate. The first was that President Biden’s approval rating (36 percent per CNN) rivaled that of former President Jimmy Carter on the eve of his overwhelming 1980 loss to Ronald Reagan (37 percent per Gallup polling).

Second, the share of voters believing the country is headed in the “right direction” was nearly identical between that 1980 election and the 2024 election, and not in Democrats’ favor. Less than one-fifth (17 percent) of Americans felt that way in a pre-election Ipsos poll, and a similar 20 percent said the same ahead of the 1980 election, according to the Roper Center.

Taken together, the fact that the American people wanted a new direction, new policies, and new leadership, doomed Democrats in 1980 as it doomed Kamala Harris this week.

Although Harris had historically low approval ratings prior to her replacing Biden (36 percent per Economist-YouGov), no substantial accomplishments, and indeed, a failure as Biden’s “border czar,” Democrats coalesced around her once Biden, former President Bill and Hillary Clinton, and former President Barak Obama and his wife Michelle, endorsed her.

As one of us wrote following Harris clinched the nomination, by automatically rallying around her and shunning an open primary after Biden’s withdrawal, Democrats doomed themselves to failure.

Not only did this result in a weaker candidate than they had to have, but also one who could not distance herself from the failed policies of the current administration.

To be sure, this seemed like the path of least resistance initially, particularly as Harris’s dollar receipts and poll numbers surged. However, it quickly became clear that in the absence of substance, her “new way forward” was empty and hollow.

In their haste to nominate Harris, neither she nor the party writ large outlined an agenda that was fundamentally different from Biden’s. Nor did they effectively address the overarching issues — the economy, immigration, and the cost of living.

Only at the end, when it was clear that Harris was losing support in the Southwest over immigration, did she change her policy on tightening the Southern border. Even then, the change did nothing to address voters’ concerns.

What Democrats now require is a thorough reassessment of their ideology, similar to what they did in the 1980’s, when the Democratic Leadership Council was formed.

In that instance, the party, led by Bill Clinton, sought to halt its leftward shift, and move to the center through welfare reform and a commitment to “innovative, non-bureaucratic, market-based solutions.”

What is paramount is that Democrats do not draw the absolute wrong conclusion from Harris’s drubbing and move further to the left, with a continued embrace of "woke" policies, DEI, and redistribution of wealth, as some Democrats have called for.

In rejecting a left-wing agenda, Democrats need to understand that running a national campaign based on abortion, climate, and simple opposition to Trump was a recipe for failure.

In other words, the Democratic agenda of woke, climate, and abortion, is one that has no central relevance to winning an election for the nation’s highest office.

Frankly, should Democrats fail to realign the party in the middle or continue to embrace left-wing policies, they could permanently consign themselves to minority status.

The new agenda must recognize that the American people want a smaller government, lower taxes, a balanced budget, and a clear assertion of American values. The Democratic Party also needs to reject woke policies and liberal elites wildly out of step with the average voter.

Beyond the Democratic Party, the mainstream media was complicit in propping up the message that Harris’ lack of an agenda would not impede her winning a presidential election.

According to the Media Research Center, “Harris received 78 percent positive coverage” while Trump received 85 percent negative coverage on the same networks.

Despite the mainstream media's attempts to put its finger on the scales, polling was consistent. Harris never opened a lead outside of the margin of error, and Trump continued to maintain support nationally and in swing states, despite the media assault that he faced, as well as his criminal convictions and other legal issues.

Ultimately, elections with an incumbent on the ballot tend to be referenda on the administration he or she served in. And indeed, polling in this election — as in 2016 and 2020 — underestimated the level of support Republicans garnered.

Once again, we saw that Republican voters were less likely to take polls, less likely to acknowledge their intention to vote for Trump, and finally, that lower propensity voters tended to break against the incumbent party on Election Day.

The media attempted to write Trump off, and sought to facilitate his electoral defeat — if not his incarceration — preemptively. Trump’s overwhelming victory — he looks headed for 312 Electoral Votes and a popular vote victory as of this writing — is irrefutable evidence that the mainstream media missed the story.

And yet again, the mainstream media has proven itself to be inaccurate, biased and out of touch with the facts on the ground. This has further eroded confidence in what they produce, given that the Democratic Party will have lost not only the White House and Senate but probably the House as well once the counting is finished in Arizona, Colorado, California and Alaska.

Indeed, the best way to sum up the election is to suggest that unless there is a fundamental change in the Democratic Party and the media, there could continue to be erosions of interest in not only what Democrats have to offer, but what the mainstream media is offering the public on a daily basis.

Douglas E. Schoen and Carly Cooperman are pollsters and partners with the public opinion company Schoen Cooperman Research based in New York. They are co-authors of the book, “America: Unite or Die.”