The 2026 Midterm Elections, One Year Out, Looks Good for Democrats

[NotHardUp1]

Reminder: Kamala Harris got 75,017,613 votes in 2024 - more than any President, except for Biden in 2020 and Donald Trump in 2024. And even then, the margin was the 4th closest margin in the past 65 years. Harris got 10,000,000 more votes than Hillary and 13,000,000 more than Trump in 2016. She got more votes than Trump did in 2020.

Harris was not the problem. Biden was the problem. His administration and the national Democratic party managed to turn out 6,000,000 fewer voters in 2024 compared to 2020, against a candidate that anyone should have been able to beat. The fact that Harris ended up the candidate can be squarely blamed on Biden and his advisors who should have set Harris up as the candidate after the 2022 midterms.

Trump has been deeply unpopular for 10 years. The fact that the Democrats can't take him down is on the Democrats.

View attachment 3653503
View attachment 3653501
View attachment 3653510

View attachment 3653474

It was both Harris AND Biden.

Being an "heir apparent" by virtue of being Vice President is no longer good enough, and it hasn't been for a long time. It also didn't work for Clinton as a party-annointed heir.

Walter Mondale was damaged goods after Carter's hostage crisis and tough love on energy and responsibility. Even with a dynamic female VP candidate, he couldn't break the spell.

Bush Sr. barely pulled it off, and then lost his re-election run.

Gore was thought to be a lock due to the success of the Clinton Administration UNTIL the affair broke and all the accomplishments were wiped out by a bad taste left in the mouths of voters. Gore was literally raised to run for president.

As I've posted repeatedly, the either / or ultimatum is wearing thin.

Harris was never anyone's dream candidate. She was a token black and female when Biden's own lackluster career and stint as VP wasn't enough to get him over the line against Trump. The Dems got just enough women and blacks to turn out to oust Trump, but only because Trump had made war on his own party and it cooled turnout for him.

The 2024 race was a perfect storm of fuck-up party management. Biden was too busy reading his own memoirs to believe anyone else could beat Trump. Harris was simmering from being cheated out of her fair shot at an open primary to be properly annointed. The Dems tried to do a Hail Mary and replicate the "Change" run of Obama, but Harris had nowhere near the support Obama had rallied. Her record was too insignificant and her platform flip-flops at the last second were deal-breakers for both moderates and the true believers.

She is damaged goods now, so serving leftovers with any whiff of a repeat of former races is a poison pill. No one is excited to see her run. She has none of the charisma of Michelle Obama and no accomplishments in the Biden Administration for her to run on. And, as with previous VPs listed above, she will be punished for what Biden caused since Trump took office again.

The Dems need a new voice, a strong voice, and not one the is only strong after swallowing hard and gathering her courage.

 

[KaraBulut]

Being an "heir apparent" by virtue of being Vice President is no longer good enough, and it hasn't been for a long time. It also didn't work for Clinton as a party-annointed heir.

VPs coming out an 8 year term are rarely electable. We don't have enough examples of one-term Administrations to know whether a VP would be a good choice for a "passing of the torch". During the Obama Administration, we saw Biden all the time. It was apparent that he was heavily involved in policy discussions and we had 3 decades of his Senate career to know that he was knowledgeable, competent and imperfect.

Harris didn't have that experience and she was not nearly as visible as Biden was during the Obama years. She was liked when she was in the Senate but did not have a good relationship on the other side of the aisle.

The way that the US picks VPs is like a reality dating show. We expect that two people, who likely have never worked together, to become a competent ticket and then a competent administration. Bill Clinton chose well. Obama chose well. Hillary Clinton did not. Harris did not.

The Biden choice of Harris was a mixed bag. Harris was competent but because Biden had made promises to black voters in South Carolina, she came across as a token selection. Once they won, Biden's old-school, east coast Democrat staff did not mix well with Harris' young, inexperienced west coast staff. Harris was given a shitbag assignment: immigration. She not only didn't rise to the occasion, she ended up being tagged with the Administration's biggest failure: the southern border. Harris had a lot of potential but because of the internal White House intrigue, she was all but invisible.

Harris was never anyone's dream candidate. She was a token black and female when Biden's own lackluster career and stint as VP wasn't enough to get him over the line against Trump. The Dems got just enough women and blacks to turn out to oust Trump, but only because Trump had made war on his own party and it cooled turnout for him.

This is probably where I disagree with you, having known of Harris from her days in California. She was considered an up-and comer in California politics- smart, warm, likeable and very competent. After her career as the California State Attorney General, it assumed that she would one day be the governor.

Back in 2014, one of my Democratic friends was complaining about the lack of "stars" in the Democratic party who could win a Presidential race. I replied, "Kamala Harris could".

Harris is a damn good politician. Ask anyone who has ever met her. She has a lot of the qualities that Obama has. What she lacks is an innate political compass. She makes short term choices that backfire on her later. She also doesn't pick her advisors well.

Do I think she would have been a good President? Well, she's not Hillary and a lot of the answer would depend on who she picked for her advisors and cabinet members. But looking at what we have now, historians are likely to look back at this period in American History as the point where the US became the declining empire. Things might have been different with a younger, "normal" and more forward-looking Democratic Administration.

The 2024 race was a perfect storm of fuck-up party management.

I have always like Joe Biden. He will likely be another Jimmy Carter or Herbert Hoover, where historians look back and see the substantial things that were accomplished during the 4 years but who was taken down by a failure at the end of his term. Biden, like Hoover and Carter, failed to communicate well to the American public during a crisis that he (like Carter and Hoover) had inherited from prior Administrations.

I blame a lot of what happened on Biden's inner circle of advisors and on the terrible leadership in the DNC. The DNC needs to be thrown out and rebuilt from the ground up.

If Biden's health had not declined after his bouts of COVID and if he were a better communicator, he might have prepared the American public for global inflation that was predictable after the pandemic. The biggest mistake- Biden's equivalent of Hoover's Depression or Carter's Iran hostage situation- was Biden's foolish decision to run again. The insular, feckless advisors around him didn't tell him the truth. What might have been a Presidency that historians would deem as largely successful will always be overshadowed by his decision to try to run for a second term.

I don't know of any Democratic politician who could have followed Biden and pulled off what Harris pulled off in 170 days. I don't blame Harris for the loss- which like Hillary was because of several midwestern swing States in an illogical Electoral College system. I blame the DNC. The GOTV operations in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona failed. Neither candidate got over 50% of the vote but because of the antiquated, slavery-era Electoral College system, Trump's win looked more substantial than it actually was.

 

[NotHardUp1]

VPs coming out an 8 year term are rarely electable. We don't have enough examples of one-term Administrations to know whether a VP would be a good choice for a "passing of the torch". During the Obama Administration, we saw Biden all the time. It was apparent that he was heavily involved in policy discussions and we had 3 decades of his Senate career to know that he was knowledgeable, competent and imperfect.

Harris didn't have that experience and she was not nearly as visible as Biden was during the Obama years. She was liked when she was in the Senate but did not have a good relationship on the other side of the aisle.

The way that the US picks VPs is like a reality dating show. We expect that two people, who likely have never worked together, to become a competent ticket and then a competent administration. Bill Clinton chose well. Obama chose well. Hillary Clinton did not. Harris did not.

The Biden choice of Harris was a mixed bag. Harris was competent but because Biden had made promises to black voters in South Carolina, she came across as a token selection. Once they won, Biden's old-school, east coast Democrat staff did not mix well with Harris' young, inexperienced west coast staff. Harris was given a shitbag assignment: immigration. She not only didn't rise to the occasion, she ended up being tagged with the Administration's biggest failure: the southern border. Harris had a lot of potential but because of the internal White House intrigue, she was all but invisible.



This is probably where I disagree with you, having known of Harris from her days in California. She was considered an up-and comer in California politics- smart, warm, likeable and very competent. After her career as the California State Attorney General, it assumed that she would one day be the governor.

Back in 2014, one of my Democratic friends was complaining about the lack of "stars" in the Democratic party who could win a Presidential race. I replied, "Kamala Harris could".

Harris is a damn good politician. Ask anyone who has ever met her. She has a lot of the qualities that Obama has. What she lacks is an innate political compass. She makes short term choices that backfire on her later. She also doesn't pick her advisors well.

Do I think she would have been a good President? Well, she's not Hillary and a lot of the answer would depend on who she picked for her advisors and cabinet members. But looking at what we have now, historians are likely to look back at this period in American History as the point where the US became the declining empire. Things might have been different with a younger, "normal" and more forward-looking Democratic Administration.


I have always like Joe Biden. He will likely be another Jimmy Carter or Herbert Hoover, where historians look back and see the substantial things that were accomplished during the 4 years but who was taken down by a failure at the end of his term. Biden, like Hoover and Carter, failed to communicate well to the American public during a crisis that he (like Carter and Hoover) had inherited from prior Administrations.

I blame a lot of what happened on Biden's inner circle of advisors and on the terrible leadership in the DNC. The DNC needs to be thrown out and rebuilt from the ground up.

If Biden's health had not declined after his bouts of COVID and if he were a better communicator, he might have prepared the American public for global inflation that was predictable after the pandemic. The biggest mistake- Biden's equivalent of Hoover's Depression or Carter's Iran hostage situation- was Biden's foolish decision to run again. The insular, feckless advisors around him didn't tell him the truth. What might have been a Presidency that historians would deem as largely successful will always be overshadowed by his decision to try to run for a second term.

I don't know of any Democratic politician who could have followed Biden and pulled off what Harris pulled off in 170 days. I don't blame Harris for the loss- which like Hillary was because of several midwestern swing States in an illogical Electoral College system. I blame the DNC. The GOTV operations in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona failed. Neither candidate got over 50% of the vote but because of the antiquated, slavery-era Electoral College system, Trump's win looked more substantial than it actually was.

I don't know any Democrats who think Harris would have been a bad president. But her lack of appeal and savvy made her wet wood on the fire for independents, moderates, and the young.

And the DNC indeed gets the blame for not operating as a political machine should.

The problem remains, Trump has star power, that of a villain to the sane among us, but undeniably a lightning rod. Harris doesn't have that. California's general reputation as progressive makes its left almost unelectable in a national race, for precisely their inability to convince the center of the country that they will be centrist enough.

The recent winners coming from the West have been conservatives:: Bush, and Schwarzenegger.

I'm all for Newsom, but am not sure he will play well enough in the moderate states.

 

[KaraBulut]

I don't know any Democrats who think Harris would have been a bad president. But her lack of appeal and savvy made her wet wood on the fire for independents, moderates, and the young.

I'm of the opposite opinion. She far exceeded my expectations, even though I thought well of her from her California days.

I did have the same frustration that I had in 2016 with Hillary. The woman had to play by the rules. Trump didn't... if anything, his cult finds his inability to follow the rules to be a feature.

Both women were caught in the same trap: one misstep and the press would play it on a loop for days. Hillary dealt with this by being superserious, to the point that men felt like she was their ex-wife's divorce lawyer. Kamala was more relaxed and just laughed at Trump's lies and inability to answer any question in the debate with knowledge.

In one of the debates with Hillary, Trump played a distraction from his sexual assault history by bringing the Bill Clinton bimbo eruption women to the debate. He tried the same trick with Kamala, dragging her husband through the mud but that fortunately didn't stick and Harris just brushed it off and stayed focused on the campaign.

It's really appalling to look back at what millions of Americans accepted as "normal" and "Presidential".

I recently heard an interesting historical fact: the 1932 election was one of the first elections to have public opinion polls. The nation was in the midst of the Great Depression. Hoover was criticized for not doing enough on the economy. Much of that criticism was actually disinformation fomented by an ultra-rich man, John J Raskob, who put hit pieces out against Hoover as part of a personal grudge that he had against Hoover (kind of like Elon Musk and his $200 million in 2024?). A look back at the polls indicate that voters didn't favor Roosevelt because they thought he would be better on the economy. In fact, polls showed that they like Roosevelt because he said that he would repeal Prohibition.

The narrative for the 2024 results is still bring written. Like most things, Americans tend to want a single, simple answer to complex questions. That is probably because we're not very good at understanding the motives of the American voter. We also make a mistake in believing that "the voters know best". We have enough results from elections to know that is not always the case. In the chart I posted earlier, one of the closest modern elections was the 1960 race between JFK and Nixon. In retrospect, one has to wonder why so many voters would vote for Nixon over Kennedy.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt21-S1-2-3/ALDE_00013856/

 

[NotHardUp1]

I'm of the opposite opinion. She far exceeded my expectations, even though I thought well of her from her California days.

I did have the same frustration that I had in 2016 with Hillary. The woman had to play by the rules. Trump didn't... if anything, his cult finds his inability to follow the rules to be a feature.

Both women were caught in the same trap: one misstep and the press would play it on a loop for days. Hillary dealt with this by being superserious, to the point that men felt like she was their ex-wife's divorce lawyer. Kamala was more relaxed and just laughed at Trump's lies and inability to answer any question in the debate with knowledge.

In one of the debates with Hillary, Trump played a distraction from his sexual assault history by bringing the Bill Clinton bimbo eruption women to the debate. He tried the same trick with Kamala, dragging her husband through the mud but that fortunately didn't stick and Harris just brushed it off and stayed focused on the campaign.

It's really appalling to look back at what millions of Americans accepted as "normal" and "Presidential".

I recently heard an interesting historical fact: the 1932 election was one of the first elections to have public opinion polls. The nation was in the midst of the Great Depression. Hoover was criticized for not doing enough on the economy. Much of that criticism was actually disinformation fomented by an ultra-rich man, John J Raskob, who put hit pieces out against Hoover as part of a personal grudge that he had against Hoover (kind of like Elon Musk and his $200 million in 2024?). A look back at the polls indicate that voters didn't favor Roosevelt because they thought he would be better on the economy. In fact, polls showed that they like Roosevelt because he said that he would repeal Prohibition.

The narrative for the 2024 results is still bring written. Like most things, Americans tend to want a single, simple answer to complex questions. That is probably because we're not very good at understanding the motives of the American voter. We also make a mistake in believing that "the voters know best". We have enough results from elections to know that is not always the case. In the chart I posted earlier, one of the closest modern elections was the 1960 race between JFK and Nixon. In retrospect, one has to wonder why so many voters would vote for Nixon over Kennedy.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt21-S1-2-3/ALDE_00013856/

It begs the question of the abolishment of the Electoral College. I support that notion, even though recent support for Trump by too many, the veritable rabble that Shakespeare mocked so well, is against me.

It is just so galling to see the better candidate win the popular vote, yet be denied the office.

And I agree about the narrow space afforded women. My guess is that we will have to see a phenom like Ann Richards rise somewhere, and then steamroll the conservatives. My money is still on somene like New Mexico's governor, Michelle Lujan Grisham. She's earned her liberal stripes, she's a Latina, she's been raised in a savvy political family, and she's photogenic. Her advocacy of health care and seniors will sell well on the national stage. She's not associated with either coast, so passes the sniff test for the leery in Middle America.

Again, the machinery of the DNC needs to get behined somone like her, someone without baggage, without a GOP campaign already built against her, and somene the young can believe will bring change, real change. She needs a dynamic young running mate, someone as gifted as Corey Booker.

 

[rareboy]

It is weird, but I think that Orban losing the election in Hungary will be a good boost to energize Dems to come out in November.

The fact that even in an autocracy, voters all across a country could rise up in a record turnout and oust a strongman may inspire US Americans to do the same through electing a Congress that can restrain
his regime before turning him and his henchmen out in 2028.

 

[KaraBulut]

It is weird, but I think that Orban losing the election in Hungary will be a good boost to energize Dems to come out in November.

The fact that even in an autocracy, voters all across a country could rise up in a record turnout and oust a strongman may inspire US Americans to do the same through electing a Congress that can restrain
his regime before turning him and his henchmen out in 2028.

It would be a great thing if it foretells the decline of western autocracies and wannabe dictators. It was inevitable since autocrats don't like to develop a next generation of leadership, other than family members.

If nothing else, Trump's bumbling bombastic incompetent incoherent leadership style is showing up as expensive gasoline, higher retail prices, higher unemployment and a sluggish economy. And the corruption... All those Tucker Carlson types who were praising Putin and Orbán are discovering that maybe having a dictator isn't as swell as they thought that it would be?

 

[rareboy]

But the 1% are lovin' it.

 

[rareboy]

​