Why Did the Democratic Party Lose in 2024?

The Dems could have retained the White House and even flipped the House

Let’s look at some analytics from the 2024 election results:

1. The total voter turnout in the 2024 election decreased by 3.5 million from the 2020 election.
2. VP Harris received 6.2 million fewer than Biden in 2020.
3. Trump gained 3.1 million more votes than in in 2020.
4. In Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, and Nevada, all four Democratic senatorial candidates won, but Harris lost. In Pennsylvania, the Dem. senatorial candidate lost by only 0.2%,  while Harris lost by 1.7%.
5. Had VP Harris increased her votes by 14,700 (0.5%), 40,053 (0.7%) and 60,134 (0.9%) in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, respectively, she could have flipped the 44 electoral votes in these three states, thus winning the White House.
6. In the House, the Dems received 6.3 million votes fewer than in 2020, while the GOP gained  2.4 million more votes than in 2020.
7. However, the Dems gained two more seats than in 2022. AOC even asked on Twitter why some  voters voted for her and Trump at the same time.
8. In addition, in Ohio, Montana, and Texas, although the Democratic senatorial candidates lost the election, their vote share was higher than Harris’ shares.
9. As a reference, in 2020 the GOP gained 14 House seats and had 47.20% of popular votes, higher than Trump’s 46.85%, reflecting a significant number of voters voted for the GOP candidates but rejected Trump.

The above analytics show among the 6.2 – 6.3 million votes the Dems lost in 2024, potentially 3 million stayed home, 3 million switched to Trump, and 2.4 to the House GOP, and the drop of 3.5 million in total turnout most likely came from those who voted Democrats in 2020 but stayed home in 2024.

Given the significant decreases in popular votes, the extremely close margins in the swing states, and the noticeable split-tickets, one can argue with high confidence that with a stronger presidential campaign and nominee, the party could have won enough swing states to retain the White House in the 2024 election.

Among the 22 most competitive House seats, the two parties won 11 each. Had the Democratic presidential nominee won Pennsylvania, the coattail-effect could have helped not only retain the senate seat, but also win the PA 7/8/10 where the GOP won by only 1.0%, 1.6%, and 1.3%, respectively, thus flipping the House.

The Direct Cause for the Loss of the White House and the House

All the above analytics points to one conclusion, had the Democratic party had the opportunity to run a full, open and fair primary, as they did in 2008, the Dems could have a much stronger presidential nominee, who could have a better chance to retain the White House and even helped flip the House.  This nominee could still have been VP Harris, who could have benefited from the full open primary, much more tested and better known/received by the general electorate beyond the party base.

Had President Biden passed the baton to the next generation right after the 2022 midterm, he would have been the greatest one-term president in American history regardless of the 2024 election results.

Despite of her lifetime services and achievements, the late justice RBG will be forever remembered for putting her own vanity above the country thus enabling Trump & McConnell to cement a 6-3 super conservative majority on the Court. RBG was already 80 years old with declining health in 2013 when President Obama invited her for a quiet lunch. RBG’s death in office at 87 (as well as Senator Dianne Feinstein’s death in office at 90) reminded us of those dictators who did everything they could to hold on power until their last breath. While RBG failed her final test, we the people have suffered the gravest consequence every day ever since and for decades to come because of her recklessness. In contrast, former justice Anthony Kennedy retired at 82 in 2018, the second year of Trump 1.0, thus ensuring his seat filled by one of his former clerks.

On January 6, 2026, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced his resignation after nine-year in office.

Trudeau’s resignation allowed his Liberal Party to choose a new leader for the next parliament election. “This country deserves a real choice in the next election and it has become clear to me that if I’m having to fight internal battles, I cannot be the best option in that election.”

George Washington is remembered not only for leading the 13 colonies to the victory for Independence, but also – more importantly – for voluntarily stepping down after two terms when he was at the age of 64 with reasonably good health. A truly great leader knows when to exit the stage with dignity.

Hopefully all future Democratic leaders will never repeat such grave mistake for the third time.

The Dems must reflect why the 2024 election had become such a close contest in the first place

However, beyond the campaign and candidate, the Dems as a political party must also reflect on a number of policy areas they should and could have done differently. After all, Trump is a twice-impeached, four times indicated, and 34-count convicted felon. The 2024 election should have never been such close.

The Chaotic Withdrawal from Afghanistan

Most of the public including myself supported the withdrawal, and many of us knew Trump negotiated a set of bad terms and even undermined the process as his own Secretary of Defence, Mark Esper acknowledged in a CNN interview.

However, the serious misjudgment of the intentions and capabilities of the Afghan government and its army, the lack of a comprehensive plan, and the chaotic implementation, thousands of Afghan personnel and their families left behind, and hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of military equipment fell into the hands of the Taliban… such a chaotic withdrawal reminded the public of the desperate and tragic scenes in Saigon 1973. It was no surprise that President Biden’s poll support slipped to net-negative for the first time in September 2021.

President Biden was right to insist on withdrawing the troops, but his team could have (1) renegotiated the terms with both the Afghan government and the Taliban to reach a political compromise for coexistence, (2) forced the Taliban to accept the reformed social order that included women’s right to study and work, (3) extended the withdrawal time to ensure the safe exit of all Afghan individuals who served the US and allies, and perhaps (4) maintained a small base in Kabul as a deterrent force in support the Afghan force and keep the Taliban in check.

The Slow-Action in Border Security

President Biden signed an executive order on June 4, 2024 (1) to close the border if the number of illegal border crossings reaches an average of 2,500 per day over a week, and (2) to allow immediate deportation of asylum seekers who cannot prove they face “credible fear.” The order had an immediate effect, reducing illegal border crossings to less than 54,000 in September 2024, a 75% year-on-year decrease from September 2023. But this significant improvement proved too late.

The number of illegal border crossings soared from about 70,000 in January 2021 to about 180,000 in March. President Biden and the Democratic congressional leaders must reflect on why they failed to take immediate action to strengthen border control and reduce the number of illegal crossings.

Had President Biden and the Democratic congressional leaders pushed a bill similar to the 2024 Border Act before the 2022 midterm elections, when Trump was at his political low point, it could have passed with the GOP support. Had the GOP continued to obstruct, then the Dems could have immediately campaigned on such against the GOP in the 2022 midterm and the 2024 general election, reminding convincingly the general electorate that since 2013 the GOP had always used immigration and border as a campaign issue, while refusing to solve the problem.

The Inaction on inflation

The Biden administration’s belief that the rise in CPI was temporary or transient was obviously a serious misjudgment. Moreover, the inaction apart from releasing the country’s strategic oil reserves was inexcusable for millions of working families who suffered the most, many of them therefore expressed their frustration in their votes.

President Biden and the party leadership should have taken more aggressive measures combating the persistent increase in inflation. The UK implemented a windfall profit tax on oil and gas companies in May 2022, the European Union implemented a natural gas price cap policy in December 2022, and in Switzerland, the prices of more than 25% of daily consumer goods are regulated. And let’s not forget, the US government implemented price controls during World War II.

The Moral Failure in the Israel-Hamas War

Hamas is no doubt a terrorist organization that has committed the most heinous atrocities and must be punished and decapacitated. However, for decades the Israeli extreme right-wing government has blatantly violated the United Nations 1948 resolution and the 1994 Oslo Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, continued illegal settlements ignoring numerous UN resolutions. It has been widely reported that it was  Netanyahu and his right-wing government who has propped up Hamas and suppressed Fatah, then claimed there was no partner for peace.

Therefore, both Hamas and the Israeli extreme right-wing government have been the enemy to the realization of peace between Israel and Palestine. Let’s not forget, former Israeli Prime Minister Rabin who signed  the Oslo Accords in 1994 and won the Nobel Peace Prize, was assassinated by a Jewish far-right terrorist. Rabin’s widow effectively called Netanyahu had her husband’s blood on his hands.

While the entire global community has condemned (reflected in 17 UN resolutions) Netanyahu’s right-wing government for its mass destruction of Gaza that had caused 46,000 deaths, more than half of which were women and children, and 1.9 million out of 2.2 million population having been displaced, the Biden administration has failed to do so. Instead, President Biden had been repeatedly played by Netanyahu, who did not want to see Biden/Harris to win the 2024 election.

As a result, our country has lost its moral credibility in the eyes of the world, and the Democratic party lost enough votes in some of the swing states thus losing the White House.

The Biden administration should have taken strong actions in early 2024 to compel Israel’s far-right government to change its tactics of indiscriminate bombing and killing, to commit to two-state peace solution mandated by the 1948 UN resolution and the 1994 Oslo Accords signed by Israel and Palestine as the condition of the U.S. support in fighting Hamas.

The Inaction on Radical Cancel Culture

As early as October 2021, I published an article in the World Journal (the largest Chinese language newspaper in North America) reflecting on “cancel culture”. My column included three examples of radical cancel culture: (1) a city council committee in NYC passed a unanimous resolution to remove the Jefferson’s statue from the council hall, (2)  Mr. Sheng Zongliang, a music professor at the University of Michigan, was forced to step down from his class for showing in his class an old movie in which white people played black faces; (3) the San Francisco School Board voted to remove the names of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and other historical figures linked to the colonization of the indigenous Indians and slavery from 44 public schools.

Indeed, four of the first five US presidents were slave owners, and such fact should be discussed as part of their legacy. However, we should not judge historical figures beyond their time. I have the greatest admiration for Washington, Jefferson and other founding fathers because they established the founding principles that have transcended their era, and founded the first constitutional democratic republic with promise of equality, liberty and unalienable rights for all people.

In contrast, the statues of confederate leaders such as Jefferson Davis and Robert Lee should be removed from public squares because they committed secession and rebellion against the United States to preserve slavery, resulting in nearly 700,000  deaths in the bloodiest civil war in America’s history. Let’s not forget, quite a few Western European countries such as Britain had abolished slavery in the first half of the 19th century.

President Biden and the party leadership should have taken a far more pronounced stand against these radical “cancel culture” rhetoric and acts that ignored history. Instead, they and gave Trump and the GOP an opening to smear the entire party as radical leftists who “hate the United States”.

The Inaction on Defund the Police

In our country there have been far too many tragedies where white police officers violated disciplines and overused forces in performing their duties, resulting in unnatural deaths of ethnic minorities, Eric Garner on July 17, 2014 in NYC, George Floyd on May 26, 2020 in Minneapolis, just to name a few. Worse, none of the police officers who caused such unlawful deaths has been prosecuted. Therefore,  such repeated injustice has resulted in public outcries and protests, during which some shouted  “Defund the Police.”

Based on my observation, the majority of public supports measures to reform policing, provide effective training, enforce discipline, implement transparency, and establish accountability.

President Biden and the party leadership should have clearly rejected the “Defund the Police” rhetoric, rather than giving Trump and the GOP  another excuse to smear our entire party as anti-police and soft on crimes.

The Unfairness of Student Debt Forgiveness

According to CNBC on January 17, 2025, the Biden administration spent a total of $188.8 billion on loan forgiveness, benefiting 5.3 million borrowers, or about $35,600 per person.

The Democratic party used to be the party of ordinary working people. There have been many studies and pundits on why the party has lost the working class, such as the New York Times “How the Democratic Party Lost the Working Class” on January 4, 2025.

One of the most fatal mistakes by the Obama administration was its failure to hold Wall Street accountable for the 2008 financial crisis – as admitted by his own chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. Such moral failure had a grave political consequence, contributing to the rise of the Tea Party, which was composed of many ordinary blue-collar workers, and the Tea Party laid the hotbed for Trump.

Most people, including myself, subscribe to the belief that one should repay what he/she borrows. The student loan forgiveness program has not only violated such moral code, but also failed to address the root causes of the problem.

Imagine two people both in their 30s-40s, person A graduated from college and person B did not. Person B would very likely be angered by the unfairness of the student debt forgiveness, feeling double-insult by the fact that Person A most likely already has earned a higher income.

In my own case, I worked 20 hours a week during my college years, and paid off the loan within two years because I lived by the moral value of always repaying what I owed. 

The policy of student loan forgiveness likely has further alienated millions of people who either did not go to college or worked hard to pay off their student loan. There is no rational basis, moral and fiscal, to forgive any home loans, the same should apply to student loans. 

It would be reasonable to make college loan interest tax deductible for individuals whose annual income is below certain threshold within their residency state, similar to mortgage interest on primary home.

According to the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 2 million high school graduates enter college each year. The $188.8 billion could have been added to the Pell Grant, then provide students from low-income families with tuition aid of $10,000 per year, or $40,000 for four years. This would help over 4.7 million students improve their upward mobility, directly help their working-class parents, and prevent taxpayers’ money from being turned into bank profits and huge bonuses for CEOs.

Black Lives Matter vs. Every Life Matters

On June 24, 2015, NPR reported that Secretary Clinton was swiftly condemned for saying “All Lives Matter” by some of the audience in a townhall meeting and online social media. Secretary Clinton had to apologize the next day. However,  I believed that Secretary Clinton was not wrong at all.

Our country was founded on “all men are created equal”. Our ultimate goal is to achieve equal dignity in life, equal protection under the law, equal justice at the court, equal opportunities and equal rights guaranteed by the Constitution for every American, regardless of race, color, or ethnicity, etc.

In my article posted on medium.com,  I expressed full support for BLM, but proposed “Every Life Matters” be used according to the Declaration of Independence, so that the BLM movement could attract support from all racial and ethnic communities. Seeing the slogan of BLM, people of other racial/ethnic background might ask “does my life matter?” If the answer is YES, then why not calling for “Every Life Matters”? However, I was immediately attacked, and my account was swiftly blocked.

Kennedy in 1960 and Obama in 2008, when they ran for president and after they took office, both rejected narrow-mindedness, and emphasized that they wanted to be a president for all Americans because they understood by striving to achieve equal opportunities and equal justice for every American, the Catholics community and the African Americans community would be equally served and lifted.

Equal Opportunity v. Equal Outcome

African American players have consistently accounted for well over 70% in the NBA, while Black alone accounts for only 13.7% of the U.S. total population according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Should the basketball court be made smaller, the basketball hoop be lowered, the game time be shortened, and every NBA team be required to meet a certain quota in terms of racial ethnicity among its players … all in the name of DEI? The answer is of course NO.

In December 2015 the Obama administration ordered to allow women to serve in all combat roles while keeping the same physical standards as Ashton Carter, then secretary of defense said, “There must be no quotas or perception thereof.” However, Democratic senators, including New York’s Kirsten Gillibrand, have put pressure on the Army to delay implementation of the Army Combat Fitness Test, arguing, as The Washington Post reported in 2020, that it “could undermine the goal of creating a diverse force.”

In New York City, there have been various efforts to change the admission policy for the specialized high schools including proposals to eliminate the SHSAT in order to achieve diversity. The SHSAT started in 1971 and opened to all students in the city. Most first-generation Asian Americans came from lower social economic background and spoke little English, but they took their children to weekend schools and made sure they studied hard because these parents believed education was the key to achieve the American Dream. Asian Americans played by the existing rules and exceled in the academic competitions established long before their arrival.

One frequently cited complaint has been that those weekend schools (for SHSAT, SAT, ACT) are expensive. However, the weekend school tuition is actually in the same ball park of the average household holiday shopping, and the self-study guidebooks cost under $50 and are available in public library. It largely boils down to each parent’s priority in spending and each student’s self-motivation/discipline.

As for the local government, it has two choices: allocate resources to help every student of any rachial and economic background who is willing to put in the necessary time and effort to better prepare for exams such as SHSAT, SAT, ACT, and even help low-income families pay for these exams; OR, eliminate the SHSAT thereby making the specialized schools no longer special.

Some even equated specialized high schools and top colleges to segregation. While Jim Crow laws enforced racial segregation and were rightly outlawed, SHSAT, SAT and ACT are open and fair academic competitions to all willing students of all racial and economic backgrounds. (However, the legacy policy among some elite colleges is indeed questionable, to say the least.)

We support the concept of DEI because it is consistent with our founding principle of “All men are created equal.” However, the governing policy should help every willing individual to have equal opportunity to perform and compete while holding everyone to the same standards rather than manufacturing equal outcome/distribution.  Not everyone can become an NBA player or an Olympian athlete, only those who are willing to work hard through years of rigorous training can qualify.

“Deplorables” and “Not Much Different”

From Secretary Clinton’s “basket of deplorable” to VP Harris’ “There is not a thing that comes to mind in terms of – and I’ve been a part of most of the decisions that have had impact, the work that we have done,” will future Democratic candidates learn not to self-destroy?

The Democratic Party Must Learn Its Lessons

Dr. King reminded us “We shall overcome because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

Next year, 2026, will be the 250^th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. We must not allow the fate of German Weimar Republic to repeat in America during our time.

In the next four years of darkness, craziness, contemptuousness, and even cruelty, we must not despair, we must stand up to speak the truth, uphold the founding principles, and defend our democratic constitutional republic, so that the fate of German Weimar Republic will not repeat in America on our watch.

Learning from one’s own mistakes is always the first step.

According to the Gallup data, GOP has held edge in party affiliation for third straight year since 2022. The last time Republican Party held advantage was in 1992. The Democratic party must reflect and shall never repeat the above self-inflicting blunders. If the Democratic party continues failing to confront any irrational rhetoric and acts by the radical few, the Dems will never be able to win the support and trust from a broad-based electorate.