Democrats spent nearly two years warning voters that the nation was on the brink of calamity. Party leaders stressed the necessity of a win in November, claiming that failure would spell disaster not only for American democratic institutions but also for the economy and the working class.
Typically, when a party fails to avert such a crisis, one would expect significant self-reflection and leadership changes. Historical precedents, such as the Republican reevaluation after 1960 or 2008, suggest that a party would critically assess the choices that led to their current predicament.
However, the current Democratic Party seems unbothered, with long-standing leaders continuing as if nothing has changed. From former staffers of Kamala Harris distancing themselves in the media to leadership elections on Capitol Hill that ignore the need for change, Democrats appear to be willfully blind to the systemic issues plaguing their party. It seems that accountability is deemed necessary only for others.
Party leaders seem oblivious to the need for change as they face mounting electoral challenges
This approach is unlikely to resolve the problems at hand. Recent interviews with party elites portray them as more passive spectators than active agents of change within the Democratic Party. This lack of initiative is concerning for voters who rely on Democrats to unify and launch an effective campaign to reclaim Congress in 2026.
On Monday, Rob Flaherty, deputy campaign manager for Kamala Harris, expressed to Semafor that Democrats were “losing hold of culture.” He noted the party’s inability to counter Donald Trump’s relentless digital and alternative media outreach, particularly his appearance on Joe Rogan’s influential podcast. Flaherty acknowledged that “the institutions by which Democrats have historically had the ability to influence culture are losing relevance,” marking a decline for cable news.
However, as Harris’s digital strategist, shouldn’t Flaherty have acted on these observations during the campaign? The leadership within the VP’s unsuccessful campaign recognized that Trump was making gains within the Democratic coalition by engaging with YouTube influencers and podcasters.
Yet, they provide their analyses of Harris’s inaction in a passive manner, as if they were not the ones making crucial decisions. I don’t aim to criticize Flaherty personally; he comes across as a thoughtful individual. Influential advisers like Jennifer Palmieri also appeared stagnant during the critical moments.
At least Flaherty and Palmieri show some self-awareness, which cannot be said for the elected leaders of the Democratic Party, who have largely dismissed any accountability for their failures in retaining control of the House and Senate. Recent weeks have showcased the stark disconnect between Washington’s reality and the frustrations of the voters they represent.
Rob Flaherty’s insights highlight a disconnect between party strategy and voter concerns
Despite overseeing a tough electoral defeat last month, the same Democrats have returned to their leadership roles, often more entrenched than before. A prime example is Sen. Chuck Schumer, who was unanimously reelected as the Democratic leader, despite having contributed to a Senate campaign strategy that lost the majority.
Remarkably, Schumer has avoided addressing pressing questions from the media regarding what went wrong, what lessons have been learned, or what changes he intends to implement moving forward. The situation in the House is equally troubling, with Nancy Pelosi and the established Democratic leadership actively working to hinder the rise of a new generation of party lawmakers seeking committee leadership positions.
This has been particularly evident in the competition for the Oversight Committee’s ranking Democrat, which became public when Pelosi started organizing votes against Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Ocasio-Cortez, 35, was defeated by 74-year-old Gerry Connolly with a vote of 131-84.
This outcome has exacerbated the divide between the party base and its elites, leaving rank-and-file voters questioning why the party’s most prominent young figures are sidelined in favor of older, entrenched leaders. Such leadership decisions would be more acceptable if the party had exceeded expectations. Instead, they recently lost the White House and Senate while squandering a chance to reclaim the House.
Rather than heeding the demoralized and frustrated Democratic voters, the party’s older members opted to protect leadership that has lost public trust. If the party has gleaned any lessons from the November 5 debacle, its actions do not reflect that understanding.
The results of last month’s elections made it clear that voters are unwilling to wait while Democrats figure out that it’s time for change. The sooner the party acknowledges this reality, the better it will be for both its future and the health of our democracy.
