top of page
Nov 21, 20206 min read

What do the 2020 election results indicate for the future of the Democratic Party?

By: Jack Siegel


Over the past several years, Democrats have had to struggle to bring together a wide coalition of voters to match a unified and increasingly extremist Republican voter bloc. In 2020, they barely succeeded through a temporary truce of socialists, conservatives, minorities, suburban white women, and everything in between, but this loosely connected patchwork of ideas and backgrounds has left the party fractured, a problem it’s faced since 2016 when young progressives nearly nominated the self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders to face Donald Trump. Now that the truce between the old-guard moderate establishment and the new leftist movement is ended, it’s clear that America could see a return to the intense ideological battle that threatens to tear the Democratic Party apart.


The Short Term

Now that Democrats have taken control of the House and the Presidency (we’re still waiting on the Senate), they have just a few short years to pass policy capable of inspiring more voters in the 2022 and 2024 elections, a difficult task considering the narrow margins they’re working on. Democrats need near-unanimous consensus within their party to pass anything in either chamber of Congress, even in the best-case scenario where they win the Senate, because a single rogue vote (like conservative Democrat Joe Machin of WV) could derail any progressive legislation. So, just like in the election, they’ll need to show amazing unity in order to work towards their goals.


What does this mean for the future? It means that at least for the next four years moderates have a chance to prove that compromise and political strategy work to get things done, and passing useful legislation with Republican votes will help them solidify their place in power within their party. Likewise, if Democrats can’t accomplish anything in four years with control of most of the government, it will be seen as proof that compromise is impossible in modern government, and progressives will feel energized to nominate bold candidates that further polarize our democracy.


A ‘Deep Dive’

Although Democrats mostly maintained power in Congress and gained the White House, 2020 wasn’t the blue wave that they had hoped, and party officials pointed to a number of causes for a disappointing election night. Here, too, the factions disagreed over what had cost them vital seats: many moderates who lost close elections blamed polarizing and radical positions from prominent activists, including defunding the police and abolishing fracking, while progressives blamed poor campaign strategy, especially a lack of digital engagement, on down-ballot elections. In a conference call shortly after election night, party leaders promised a “deep dive” on the specifics of the election, but some preliminary results can give us an idea of what that deep dive might find.


Part of the shock of the seats that flipped Republican this year is that very few of them were in Republican-controlled states, or even swing states. In fact, most of them were in California and New York, in rural districts that voted for Barack Obama in 2012 but pivoted to vote for Trump in 2016. This is part of a growing trend: land type (rural, suburban, or urban) is now statistically the best indicator of a district’s party vote, including race. This may hurt Democrats in the future, as much of their vote is concentrated in dense urban districts that don’t let them capture as many House seats as possible. To progressives’ dismay, the party will have to shift away from just appealing to urban leftists if they want to control more than just the White House.


Another nationwide problem was that Democrats took minority votes for granted, especially from Hispanic and immigrant communities. It was these communities who decided the vote for Trump in Florida and Texas and held crucial House districts that could have been a part of a blue wave. This is because Donald Trump and Republicans made serious efforts to court the Hispanic vote, not on issues of identity politics but on tight borders and economic policy. (They also had a catchy theme song.) In the future, Democrats will either have to accept these losses or be much more careful and meaningful in their messaging to minorities, rather than taking their vote for granted.


What about the campaign organization problems that progressives like AOC brought up shortly after the election? These also hold some blame for Democrats’ failings this year. To start, Democrats barely do any online campaigning, a major failure that both lets Republicans advertise more easily to young people and prevents party leadership from controlling the online conversation about liberal ideas. For example, the Trump campaign app was effectively social media, allowing users to share news and encourage their friends to vote, while the Joe Biden app was lackluster at best. The Trump campaign also has many friends in digital media, which helped them spread their messaging, and spent millions on YouTube advertising leading up to the election, an area where the Biden campaign failed.


The party leadership’s fear of modern campaign organization may come from the fact that many high-ranking Democrats have been primaried by progressives using efficient, tactical, and heavily digital campaign operations. Over the past four years, many long-time incumbents have been primaried in safe districts, including Michael Capuano and Joseph Crowley, both of whom served ten terms in the House of Representatives. In response to this, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has blacklisted several new, more digital firms from working with primary candidates at all, intervening on the side of incumbents with older strategies. This may threaten Democrats’ ability to succeed in an era where online campaigning is essential and force them to waste money on strategies that aren’t as efficient or effective. Although they raised the most money of any congressional race in history, Democrats weren’t able to win seats in the House that should have been flippable, perhaps due to wasted funds. They’ll need to tighten their operation if they want to remain competitive.


Passing the Torch

With Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi both entering what are expected to be their last terms in any political office, and with voters more frustrated than ever at how old their elected officials are, it’s apparent that new leaders and figureheads are needed for a rapidly changing Democratic Party. The 2020 primaries gave us a good idea of who’s looking for national leadership, but just like the party’s voters at large, they represent a lot of clashing ideals, goals, and strategies. What does the future party platform look like?

Based on the 2020 results, it looks like the future leaders of the party will remain in the moderate wing as long as the current party dynamic continues. In the primaries, moderates Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Bloomberg together garnered about 60% of total support in polls, while progressives Warren and Sanders found it difficult to break past a hard barrier of 40%. This alone indicates that leftists have yet to outnumber liberals in enough force to nominate someone who isn’t willing to compromise on some key issues. However, this election is framed as a referendum on Donald Trump may have benefited moderates, who argued that they were more electable.


Assuming that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders don’t run again due to their age, the progressives are left with very few standard-bearers for a potential 2024 presidential bid, which may help bridge the gap between the left-wing of the party with its establishment. Many Senators and governors have made themselves open to progressive ideas and to a 2024 campaign, including Cory Booker, Michelle Lujan-Grisham, and of course Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris. If any of them is able to pick up an endorsement from Sanders or Warren, they would be in prime condition to sweep the nomination.

On the moderate end of the party, Joe Biden has been given the power of choosing his successors. If he appoints someone to an important cabinet position or signs their sponsored legislation, that could be a key campaign piece to avoid the start-from-scratch campaigns of 2020. This especially applies to Pete Buttigieg, who won a state in the primary without ever having held an office above mayor. There are many possible leaders from this end of the party as well, including Sens. John Hickenlooper and Amy Klobuchar as well as Governors Andy Beshear and Gretchen Whitmer.


The 2020 election showed that nothing is certain about the Democratic electorate and its preferences. A turbulent primary fed into an unprecedented and frighteningly close general election, which surprised Republicans and Democrats alike with its varied and heavily consequential results. Before 2022, Democrats will have to tighten their operation, focus their messaging, and groom new party leaders as they prepare to transition from a long establishment dynasty to a new generation of voters and ideas.


Discussion Questions:

- What should the Biden Administration prioritize over the next four years?

- Will the Democrats be able to keep the House of Representatives in 2022?

- What impact has social media and digital campaigning had on the election process?



Sources Used/Further Reading:

Comments

bottom of page