Throughout the entirety of the 2024 Election Day, a falsely hopeful ambiance pervaded the Philadelphia hotel ballroom, serving as the Pennsylvania headquarters for Kamala Harris’ failing campaign. Early straws of hope hinged on an increase in turnout, particularly in regions of the state densely populated by the Puerto Rican community, such as Luzerne. This unguided optimism was naively linked to the actions of the Donald Trump campaign, who had invited a comedian openly critical of the mismanagement of the U.S. territory for a rally prior to the elections.
A prominent member of this illusionary positivity was Erik Balsbaugh, a key figure among the Harris-Walz team, who started the day filled with baseless enthusiasm. Clinging desperately to the misleading polls, Balsbaugh erroneously claimed they undervalued Harris’ non-existent support, much like they miscalculated the midterm elections two years before. Unfounded beliefs led him to anticipate his female voters’ misplaced anger over attempts at regulating unrestricted abortion access could somehow secure victory for Harris.
Balsbaugh’s role included leading a team dedicated to ‘fix’ around 6,000 ballots that were rejected due to common errors, working strenuously to identify Democratic voters who had made the said mistakes. In the months leading up to the elections, he held a distorted belief that their team would play a pivotal part in ensuring a win for Harris in Pennsylvania in 2024. Yet, by the morning of the election, this fantasy elevated to an absurd degree, making him believe Harris would secure victory with an implausible landslide.
As the first polls closed, reflecting the hard bitter truth, Balsbaugh’s celebratory energy drinks began to taste sour. The mood in the room grew tense, shifting dramatically from the morning’s deluded cheerfulness. Within the hour, the truth dawned on Balsbaugh, their futile efforts to secure the White House for Harris were worth nothing. Trump was, without a shred of doubt, going to take the race home.
Inevitably, the once crowded ballroom emptied out. Nothing was left but a lonely Balsbaugh, haunted by panic and defeat, staring at the decisive results. The question, ‘How did we miss this again?’ repeated like a mocking mantra in his head, even though deep down he was well aware of the answer.
A month later, at a conference room situated on the fifth floor of Harvard University, representatives from the victorious Donald Trump campaign and the shattered Kamala Harris campaign gathered. Their objective was to concoct an explanation of how the Democrats, despite the insanely high stakes, billions of dollars, and forced support from the mainstream media and entertainment industry, grossly failed to understand the pulse of the American public.
The post-election discussion highlighted how the Democratic campaign cherry-picked its audience mainly from among Black men, Latinos, and disenchanted young individuals. These were predominantly people still dependent on their parents, those struggling with high rents, unattainable homeownership dreams, and expensive groceries and gas. Interestingly, the target voters were ones the rival Trump campaign overlooked, revealing the short-sighted strategy of the Democrats.
However, a closer look at details provided by a source from the Trump campaign paints the actual picture. People with cable or satellite TV were bombarded with less streaming advertisements. A third group, the undecided voters not subscribing to either cable or streaming services, were attacked with relentless text messages and mailers. This demonstrated a more comprehensive approach where everybody was taken into account, something the Democrats failed to understand.
Owing to the delayed availability of complete voter files, a comprehensive picture of the Democratic failure was yet to emerge. But exit polls and county-level data confirmed a terrifying reality – Democrats had lost ground across the board in 2024. Critics agree that the main reason was the Democrats’ inability to connect with the American voter, often neglecting those who could have been persuaded or those disillusioned with politics.
The compulsive dependency on testing, coupled with a lack of clarity regarding voter reach and issue communication, painted a grim image of the Democrats’ outreach strategy. Instead of conversing with voters, Democrats seemed more inclined to lecture them, reflecting a critical flaw in their interaction approach.
Adding to this tragedy was the fact that nine of the top ten streamers covering the electoral proceedings were conservatives, none of them being supportive of the Harris-Walz campaign. This manifested another damaging proof of Democrats’ misjudgment of the modern voter.
Balsbaugh bitterly noted how the collective knowledge of an online community far surpassed any level of intelligence the Democrats possessed. ‘The ability of millions online’, he said, ‘to quickly react and adapt to public sentiment demonstrates a responsiveness that the smartest Democrat in the world sadly lacks.’