Can Democrats bounce back from "Trump shock"?

In 2020, Joe Biden won 81 million votes. On November 5, Kamala Harris's count stands around 70 million, according to the latest numbers, while Trump’s 2024 vote tally is about the same as his 2020 count. Trump and the Republicans clinched both the White House and both chambers of Congress.

The most unsettling outcome for the Democrats was losing the seven critical swing states. They had been confident of winning the so-called “Blue Wall” states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Securing these would have ensured Harris's presidency, but Trump shattered the Democrats' Blue Wall.

Economic and immigration issues played a major role in shaping the election. Yet, the Biden-Harris Administration’s support for Israel’s actions in Gaza seemed destined to cost them in states with significant Arab-American populations. Back in 1968, Vice President Hubert Humphrey lost the election amid backlash against the Vietnam War. Now, a similar story has unfolded: Arab-Americans, who traditionally lean Democrat, as well as young voters opposed to unconditional support for Israel, had repeatedly warned Biden and Harris. Relying on neoconservatives and anti-Trump Republicans to offset these losses, Harris dismissed these warnings, overlooking that even small margins in swing states could lose an election.

This disregard proved costly for the Democrats. Some Arab-Americans stayed home, others voted for Trump as a protest, while a large number chose Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Biden won Michigan, the state with the highest Arab-American population, by a margin of 154,000 votes in 2020. This time, Trump defeated Harris there by roughly 78,000 votes, while votes for the Green Party and other candidates totaled over 100,000.

Arab-Americans and other voters concerned about unconditional support for Israel made their voices heard—first to Biden and, after his withdrawal, to Harris. This frustration extended to widespread protests across American universities, but Harris’s response was firm: her support for Israel would not waver. The Michigan results reflect the intensity of this discontent with the Biden-Harris administration’s stance on Israel.

Think of it like a company that ignores feedback from loyal customers dissatisfied with its products. When the complaints escalate to protests, the company responds by saying, “We understand, but we’re sticking to the same product.” What options are left for those customers but to walk away?

Kamala Harris expected blind loyalty from her voters. However, politics is a field where “exit” and “voice” are powerful forces. By ignoring the “exit threat,” Harris handed Trump the rope to hang the Democrats.

In his influential book, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States, Albert Hirschman argued that when “exit” is an option, “voice” is powerful. He also noted that understanding the role of “voice” is key to grasping how organizations truly operate. In Harris’s case, her and the Democratic Party’s refusal to heed their voters’ voices was a major misstep.

The Democrats also lost considerable support among young, Black, and Latin voters—groups they once took for granted. Biden had secured 92% of Black voters and 65% of Latin voters in 2020. By 2024, Trump had captured 32% of Black votes and 46% of Latin votes, achieving significant gains across all racial and ethnic groups.

Another striking development was the American working class’s shift away from the Democratic Party, tilting toward the Trumpian right. The Democrats had already lost much of the white working class and are now losing Black and Latin workers as well.

It’s crucial to examine not only why the victor won but also why the loser lost. Will the Democratic Party conduct a post-mortem to understand its defeat, or will it blame the voters who opted to “exit”? The immediate challenge for the Democrats lies in addressing internal conflicts among its factions. The key question now is: Will the “Trump shock” prompt the Democrats to reform, or will it lead to the collapse of an already fragile coalition?