Given how events unfolded, it was never going to be easy for Kamala Harris. Many Democrats are convinced her campaign saved the party from an even worse result. To be fair, it achieved some real highs: she won the debate. But she never won the argument, at least not with the voters who mattered most.
The US election triggered a scary deja vu moment for those of us who had watched the 2019 UK general election from behind our sofas, hands over our eyes. The Democrats lost votes with almost everyone, almost everywhere, but, like Labour in the “red wall”, most dramatically with traditional heartland voters: working-class, low-paid, non-graduates. And, like Labour back in 2019, that lost connection with core voters had not happened overnight.
Working with the DC-based Progressive Policy Institute, we conducted post-election polling and focus groups with past Democrat voters who voted for Trump on 5 November. The work laid bare an anxious nation desperate for change. Be in no doubt, this was a change election: any candidate failing to offer the change the electorate craved had become a risky choice. Asking how voters felt about the results on 6 November, “relieved” was the word we heard most often.
Overwhelmingly, change focused on two issues: inflation and immigration. Trump enjoyed a clear lead on both. Sure, Harris had some popular policies (anti price-gouging, tax cuts, help for first-time buyers and small businesses), but these seemed sidelined in an overcrowded campaign, with voters concluding that she was not on their side and was too focused on “woke” issues.
Among working-class voters, 53% agreed the Dems had gone “too far in pushing a woke ideology”. They’ve “gone in a weird direction”, said one, “lost touch with our priorities”, said another. Worse still was the sense that any voter who disagreed with them was “a bad person”.
American liberals were out of step with these voters’ views – most importantly, on loving their country. As many as 66% of Americans say theirs is the greatest country in the world, rising to 71% of working-class voters. Liberals were the only group who disagreed. What this patriotism means matters. Voters expressed it in terms of putting US interests ahead of others – it also meant recognising that change is needed and being prepared to act. As one voter put it: “If you’re not championing change, you’re not patriotic.”
Hungry for that change, voters yearned for a shake-up in the way that both government and the economy operates. Just 2% said the system needed no change, while 70% believed the country was heading in the wrong direction. The Democrats did not seem to hear this - some even interpreted Harris’ pledge to “protect democracy” as “protecting the status quo”. By contrast, Trump’s appetite for disruption, coupled with his contempt for Capitol Hill sacred cows, seemed to promise change that for once might actually deliver for working class voters.
Are there things the Harris campaign could have done differently? Of course. Joyful celebrities seemed tin-eared to an electorate feeling worried, pessimistic, even scared. But what should really trouble the Democrats now is the sense that the party – not just the candidate or the campaign – has, since 2020, parted company with the voters that its electoral success depended on: millions of Americans who work hard, pay their taxes, do the right thing and now feel they are not getting a fair deal. The Democrats can only win by putting those “hero voters” back at the centre of their politics. The same was true for Labour in 2024 and is true for centre-left parties elsewhere. That requires a course correction which needs to start now.
As Democrats absorb the result, without an immediate leadership contest to provide direction, local leaders must be prepared to step up, flex their muscles and challenge Trump. Change demands strong leadership – all the more so when voters feel vulnerable. Polling gave Trump a 28% lead on strength. Described as a “powerhouse”, he was likened to “neat whisky – gives it to you straight” while Harris was a “watered down cocktail”. Imagined as a car, he was a “sturdy dump truck owning the road, not to be argued with” while she was a “flimsy Kia”. The grit that took a mixed race woman tantalisingly close to the top job in world politics was just not evident to voters. Having absolute clarity of conviction is a must for tomorrow’s aspiring candidates – and showcasing that must start today.
This is eerily familiar ground to those of us who worked hard to distance Labour from what led to catastrophic loss in 2019. It remains to be seen if the Democrats embrace the change their party needs as courageously as Keir Starmer did over the past four years.
But there is food for thought for the new Labour administration, too. Labour must continue to channel its powerful change message in government, reflecting the anti-establishment mood that now exists both sides of the Atlantic. It must be prepared – enthusiastic even – about disrupting rather than defending old, tired institutions. It needs a strong overarching narrative and a plan to reform government and the economy so it can truly deliver back to the hero voters that delivered its electoral success in July. That work started last week with the launch of Starmer’s Plan for Change with its powerful emphasis on working people being better off, but there remains much to do.
Deborah Mattinson is Keir Starmer’s former director of strategy. Claire Ainsley was Labour’s executive director of policy from 2020-2022
