The Electoral Kool-Aid Market Test
A reliable irony of human perception is that you can see across to the bubble that others are encased in, while not noticing that you are looking out from within your own. To the great majority of Americans who are neither active in party politics nor working members of the mainstream news media, it can be baffling to witness the conventional wisdom and first draft of official history on events like President Biden’s 2024 State of the Union address — no less a stumble through political platitudes and theatrical jousts with opponents than any other speech by this middling orator and average bureaucrat (or any of his counterparts, really), but fervently inflated to a vigorous manifesto by party faithful and a media contrite over their elevation of Donald Trump eight years ago. The enthusiasm can feel like the product of a parallel reality to many of us, but then the stakes are high, for mainstream institutions’ social interest in keeping a much more proactively destructive figure from regaining the presidency, and for Biden supporters’ personal investment in being right.
A staple of Democratic candidates’ stump speeches in this high-stakes election year has been, to use representative terms from Senate candidate Andy Kim, how “terrified” they are for the America their kids will grow up in. When we are afraid, of course, is not when we do our clearest thinking. And a subtle setback is built in from the outset when you define the race on what your opponent might do. They are already set up as the one to beat (even if, as in Trump’s case, they are not currently in office), rather than you being the one to support. And you are in a defensive posture from the start, which is not conducive to setting the terms of the contest and articulating your own vision affirmatively.
Psychologically, this signals to voters an image of hiding rather than leading. We humans are social, and usually hierarchical animals, and these are unnerving times. So, we will tend to choose the one who leads.
Leading is about forward motion, and venturing beyond a guaranteed comfort zone. (MAGA politicians and their voters will not venture beyond certain assumptions and prejudices, but they realize that the America they have in mind will not come easily and must, rhetorically and literally, be seized.) Consolidating a current status quo is about holding a position; it is, ironically, the conservative stance, and involves insistence on how well things are going, and reinforcement of how dangerous any diversion or doubt from those with us in the garrison could be.
This is the reason for a number of websites and social media accounts, disseminated by QR-code at Democratic get-out-the-vote meetings, listing the current President’s accomplishments (which usually take the form of dollar-amounts raised through legislation for as-yet invisible gains like climate-change relief, and other numerical figures like overall upward trends in employment). Subjective problems are met with analytical answers; the real-time experience of prohibitive grocery bills is treated as an imperviousness to concrete spreadsheet fact, rather than a human difficulty to put personal incident in a broader context of socioeconomic forces, which we all need to find our path forward through in common purpose (i.e., the klepto-capitalism which allows prices to remain at Covid-scarcity levels after the crisis has subsided, and which neither party’s leaders or their funders have much interest in confronting to begin with). The implication of a possible messaging problem on the part of any President who needs to have surrogates explain to people how positively his programs are impacting them is not acknowledged, even though his predecessor had no trouble at all expressing what he stood for, and the results of his policies were self-evident.
(The Biden-scorecard links cut both ways; those making the case for him include Biden’s Wins and What 46 Has Done, while there are others, like Biden’s Broken Promises, which catalogue the disaffection of those in his declared base. The latter tends toward taking stock of his tradeoffs in the immigration space, a constituency that even conventional wisdom and establishment outlets see him as having abandoned. This is a demonized demographic who face “terrifying” prospects in the present tense, and yet maneuver in a way which makes honest accountings of leaders’ performance and grounded assessments of available options; this clarity and composure from a continually threatened population with no luxury for partisanship is instructive.)
The bunker mentality is also the reason for so many articles and speeches about how a vote for any third party, or Democratic primary challenger, or “none of the above” ballot option, is a vote for Trump; and analyses pressing the idea that a mathematical strategy must be adhered to in supporting the incumbent, because math is what it will come down to given the intricacies and unfairness built into our non-direct-popular-vote system. Which calls for the calculation of a handful of swing districts and states to concentrate on, and an activation of those who agree with you in those areas, rather than a general contest for hearts and minds amongst a broad electorate and nationwide, ideologically diverse community. Indeed, it is an accepted commonplace of mainstream reporting to note how Biden needs to neutralize discontent within his own base — about his support for a Middle East war massively unpopular with both the Arab-Americans and Jewish-Americans most likely to vote for him; about his adoption of Republican talking-points and policies on immigration; about his age (also a numerical fact) — rather than engage these views.
(Even when Tammy Murphy, Kim’s main primary opponent to replace indicted NJ Senator Bob Menendez, dropped out of the race — a clear and rare case of voters flexing their muscle against political machines, since Murphy was favored by the state’s party bosses but lost to Kim in every county that allows voting among registered Democrats to decide whom to endorse — she framed it in terms of the importance of closing ranks against the Trump slate and sparing New Jersey a “divisive and negative” contest, the premise being that competitive primaries “tear down” rather than test and temper the participants.)
It’s all about fear, and about how someone who disagrees with you could ruin everything. No one seems to ask how we get, time and again, to a point where the window of victory is so narrow that tiny vote margins and minute divergence from a unanimous plan make all the difference. This model allows for little to no dissent and disagreement, and that often means it rules out deliberation. Strategy becomes entirely about overcoming voters’ misgivings about the candidate, rather than addressing any possible liabilities of the candidate.
This is poor salesmanship, which is ironic since Trump is the serially-failed “businessman” and Biden is the skilled “retail politician” who has survived and advanced in public office for half a century. If anyone is prepared to make a “pitch” to the individual voter, it’s him. The failure of previous Democratic candidates to visit base constituencies (particularly communities of color) in favor of the few areas considered crucial to swinging the election statistically, is legendary; the greater antagonism of the party establishment to groundswells of enthusiasm for non-dynastic candidates than to the other party’s nominee, and even active suppression of these grassroots campaigns, is infamous; the refusal to acknowledge dismal poll figures for the frontrunner which rival the negatives of their opponent, illustrating the voter’s perception of no meaningful choice or reason to vote, is persistent but unaddressed.
This is committing to failure, since the ineffectiveness of it has been proven repeatedly. The possibility of a different outcome is defended with microscopically parsed statistics which are presented as showing favorable trends. At a recent county Democratic party convention, I heard candidate after candidate note how they had lost by fewer votes that anyone in their district since a given date fifteen or twenty years ago. The implication is that a gap is being closed, but that’s a message of quiet incrementalism; in contrast, a sense of urgent transformation is what has been shown to get voters at both ends of the political spectrum — or anyone in-between seeking to feel that their vote has consequence — actually out to the polls. Bold social movements attract a broad public; with a resonant message, you change the tenor of the times and can expect waves of supporters, and don’t have to focus on piecing slim victories together vote by vote. The latter, by definition, isolates individuals; it treats people as single data points rather than as partners with you or with each other. It implores them to take one action, but does not invite them to commit time; in the process, it does not welcome them to voice their perspective or contribute ideas.
Biden voters are motivated, at most, to win one battle (a yearly or quadrennial election) and then once again leave the field. MAGA voters are fortified for a war, and they’ve been on the field every day of the past eight years. The Democrats’ model turns away multitudes of potential supporters who see beyond the next battle and can offer thoughts on how victories for the people are actually secured and built on (and yes, the metaphor of military mindset versus stable, sustained civil society is intentional). This leaves the field to people who are pressing their offensive at all times.
The positive case for democracy, pluralism, peace and fairness is not made; the active alternative to authoritarianism and bigotry is not presented. Models of community-based mutual support and consensual self-governance are not considered; voices of innovative social service and environmental solution are not consulted; constituencies not aligned with traditional party structures and organizational edifices are not admitted; representatives of youth are dismissed, discouraged, and barred outright. A constricted middle is defended, without risks being taken or ground being gained. The result is that, even if a victory is eked out, the winners remain tentative about their mandate and noncommittal in the wake of their own compromises, and the very fact that such immense effort was expended in the name of a slim technical victory leaves the legitimacy and strength of democratic processes and institutions more frayed after each electoral cycle. If there’s a trend that everyday people and major parties alike should be keeping their eyes on, it’s that.
