Democrats’ defeat was even worse outside blue bastions

OPINION:

Vice President Kamala Harris’s defeat runs deeper for Democrats than its surface appearance. Even at first sight, it was stunning: Ms. Harris didn’t just lose the presidency but, unthinkably, the popular vote too. Yet below the surface—or more accurately, between the coasts where 80% of America’s electoral votes lie—Ms. Harris’s defeat was a landslide.

Although not all ballots have been counted, Ms. Harris lost to President-elect Donald Trump by roughly 3.2 million votes and in percentage terms 48.1-50.2%. This is the first time a Republican has won the popular vote since 2004. Conversely, Ms. Harris’s popular vote percentage is the lowest for a Democrat since President Bill Clinton’s in 1992’s three-way race.

Her electoral vote defeat was an even more lopsided 226-312. And of the seven states that have proved pivotal over the last three elections, she lost all seven. In comparison, Messrs. Trump and Biden only won six in each of the prior elections

Finally, Ms. Harris finished 3.2 points behind Biden’s 2020 popular vote percentage. She also allowed Mr. Trump to raise his 2020 popular vote percentage by 3.8 points—thoroughly vindicating the opponent Democrats had demonized.

Yet beneath this staggering defeat, its particulars are even worse for Ms. Harris—and especially for Democrats. When compared to Mr. Biden’s 2020 showing in the 50 states and District of Columbia, Ms. Harris went 2-49, gaining only in Utah and Washington state, and there by just 0.5 percentage points. Compared to Mr. Biden, she dropped by 4.6 percentage points in California and 5.5 in Maryland.

Astoundingly, she won by less than double digits in deep blue Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and New Mexico.

Amazingly, bad as these results are, Ms. Harris’s defeat was cushioned by big blue bastions, California and New York. Ms. Harris won California by 2.7 million votes (so far) and New York by 909,000. Subtracting these two states, Ms. Harris lost by 6.8 million votes in the other 48 states.

When the Harris and Trump vote totals are combined (i.e., disregarding third-party votes), the split is 46.5-53.5%.

Additionally, Ms. Harris won Washington and Massachusetts, two other bicoastal big blues, overwhelmingly: Washington by 692,000 votes and Massachusetts by 836,000 votes.

Subtract all four of these states from Ms. Harris’s total, and she lost 8.4 million votes in the remaining 46 states—46.3-53.7%. Put in general election terms for all 50 states, and no candidate of either party has lost by such a percentage since Mondale’s 1984 debacle.

Far from just comparative interest, these points are of supreme electoral importance to Democrats.

In electoral vote perspective, California and New York account for 82 electoral votes. Washington and Massachusetts combine for another 23 electoral votes. Together, these four give California and New York a big head start toward the magic 270 needed to win the presidency.

However, viewed from the other side, the remaining 46 states account for 433 electoral votes—80% of the total. Here, where the presidency is won or lost, Ms. Harris lost by 7 percentage points.

Votes aren’t the only way to quantify Ms. Harris’s defeat. Money is another.

The Biden-Harris campaign raised $997.2 million from January 2023 to mid-October 2024. Mr. Trump’s campaign raised $388 million. Ms. Harris raised $97 million in the first half of October alone; Mr. Trump, just $16.2 million. Overall, Ms. Harris raised $713 million to Mr. Trump’s $170.8 million from the end of June to mid-October.

Yet, despite this huge cash advantage, Ms. Harris and Democrats suffered a landslide defeat.

It also begs two questions. First, how much worse would Democrats have performed without this financial advantage? With it, Ms. Harris lost to Mr. Trump by 3 percentage votes and 226-312 in electoral votes.

Second, after such a poor performance, how can Democrats count on receiving it again? Despite her enormous dollar advantage, Ms. Harris lost 121-312 in electoral votes in the 46 states where her campaign should have been spending its money and 0-7 in the states where it should have focused its cash advantage. That’s hardly a good return on such a substantial financial investment.

Measuring Ms. Harris’s defeat must also consider her nonquantifiable advantages. These include extremely forgiving press coverage and Mr. Trump’s high unfavorable ratings. Democrats, in their candid postmortem, must ask whether such advantages can be expected again in 2028.

Yes, Ms. Harris’s defeat was big on the surface. But below its surface, it was bigger still. Biggest of all though is Democrats’ problem: Their emphasis is on positions that aren’t most Americans’ priorities and their stances on these are seen as extreme by all but themselves.

• J.T. Young is the author of the new book, Unprecedented Assault: How Big Government Unleashed America’s Socialist Left, from RealClear Publishing and has over three decades’ experience working in Congress, Department of Treasury, and OMB, and representing a Fortune 20 company.