Introduction 

In my last podcast, I had an A after the number 106, since I wanted to indicate I was doing a series of things I am reading about that will help us know what Democrats did that was not the message the U.S. citizens wanted to hear. Now, I cannot put a letter after my number for my podcasts on the system I am using. Please know that my desire is to understand as much as I can what happened in this election, and share my learnings with you. I need to know the mistakes so I can see how we need to progress forward. Again, I do not support blame; let’s learn what happened and where we need to go next as a Democratic party.  

In the 107 podcast, I am going to address a major issue of misinformation, and how it shaped the date that was presented to us. I got an email from a friend of mine, who sent me the Boston Globe on the gains and losses in this election. Thank you, dear friend, since I know more what happened, and the Democrats didn’t lose everything. We need to keep in perspective what happened. I also know that winning the house, senate, and presidency can change in 2026, since that is often what has happened in the past elections. I will also provide a clear message about the drop-off of Democrats that did not vote like they did in 2020 that lead to Biden’s success. 

The Power of Misinformation in Shaping the Electorate 

The Washington Post on November 12, 2024, at 7:45 am EST, by Jennifer Rubin’s article, “Democrats need to reclaim reality from the right-wing disinformation machine—Disinformation has taken hold over democracy,” has provided us with a noticeably clear message. Here are direct quotes from the article: 

“Whether you believe that Americans embraced President-elect Donald Trump’s misogynistic, racist and bullying persona because they misunderstood what he stood for or because they liked what he stood for; or because they believed (falsely) that the economy was in a recession or because they could not afford to buy their own home, or because of some combination of all of these, we cannot ignore the success of the right wing media’s disinformation network in shaping how million of Americans view the country. 

“Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Inquirer put it succinctly: The things that pundits have been talking about since Tuesday—an economy that hasn’t worked for the working class since the time of Ronald Reagan, anxieties among white voters about a potential end to white privilege and the patriarchy, and a Democratic Party that’s lost touch with the great American middle—all factored into this election. But nothing mattered more than this: Donald Trump was returned to power by the most badly informed electorate in modern American History.” 

“A now much discussed Reuters-Ipsos poll found that ‘Americans who primarily get their news from Fox News and Conservative Media and social media/other are more likely to answer questions about inflation and crime incorrectly than Americans writ large.’ When tens of millions of Americans believe things that simply are not true, Democrats’ accomplishments matter very little. Their message does not reach the intended audience. And frighteningly, ‘You can get people to vote away their democracy…as long as you create a false world for them to believe in, as historian Heather Cox Richardson said.” 

“In the right-wing media’s world, the economy is in a shambles, crime is surging, and kids are being lured into sex-reassignment surgery. In such an atmosphere, Democrats’ positions and proposals become divorced from the public’s perceptions of Politics.” 

Echo Chambers and the Rise of a Parallel Media Reality 

Here are the right-wing media—”Fox News (and the entire News Corp), Newsmax, One America News Network, the Sinclair network of radio and TV stations and newspapers, iHeart Media (formerly Clear Channel), The Bott Radio Network (Christian radio), Elon Musk’s X, the huge podcasts like Joe Rogan’s and more–set the news agenda in this country says Michael Tomasky of the New Republic.” 

Uninformed Voters and the Limits of Democratic Messaging 

“It behooves Americans who care about the future of democracy, decent governance and the fate of their most vulnerable fellow Americans to understand the fundamentally different media reality that envelops a substantial number of voters. ProPublica, for example, documented an operation peddling vicious right-wing propaganda disguised as religious news. 

This kind of news was traced to Brian Timpose, a former TV reporter, Metric Media, and right-wing super PAC’s funded by conservative billionaire Richar Uihlein. 

Brookings Institution’s Darrell M. West wrote “that waves of false, menacing messages and ‘disseminated broadly on social media platforms, promoted through funny memes, picked up and publicized by mainstream media outlets, circulated by internet mega-influencers, and amplified by leading candidates during rallies, debates, and interviews.” 

West continued: “On views about inflation and the overall economy, people in 2024 consistently reported very negative opinions compared to actual inflation, unemployment and GDP figures. The Economist magazine even had a cover story saying the U.S. economy was the envy of the world. Yet voters had a dismal view of the economy and rated Harris negatively for the economic situations.” 

The article includes the serious need to combat the “avalanche of disinformation, sadly, does not reside primarily in legacy media, which million upon millions of Americans never see or read. (It certainly does not reside in outlets that offered false equivalence.”) 

Thank goodness the article provided us with ideas for solutions. They made it clear that we are going to need to foster new forms of media to counteract the right-wing misinformation media. There is a need for a “new crop of relevant opinion makers, local media and investigative journalists is required to get basic information to voters and combat the right’s conspiracy-laden hysteria. Then democracy and good governance stand a fighting chance. 

They end with “democracy requires public virtue and an informed citizenry. Pro-democracy funders would do well to organize a comprehensive study of the right-wing ecosystem and its impact on the electorate. Getting the truth out to the wider electorate will require a new, culturally relevant media ecosystem firmly rooted in liberal democratic values.  

Why Democrats Stayed Home: The Voter Drop-Off of 2024 

I am going to summarize excellent data from The Boston Globe with two articles. First is the article by John Hancock, updated November 15, 2024, 10:45 am, entitled, “Did Democrats stay home in 2024? Were’s what we know.” This is a detailed analysis of the results that far surpasses the other articles I have read; therefore, I encourage you to use my reference list and read this article in its entirety. Here are the points that my friend and I agree on which are important for a summary: 

“The narrative of the 2024 election has so far been defined by a broad shift right in the electorate, with President-elect Donald Trump garnering higher vote shares in counties across the United States than he did in 2020. But that doesn’t mean he got dramatically more votes this time around. In many counties, data show Vice President Kamala Harris’ support failed to materialize at levels she needed to win.” 

The apparent drop in turnout was harmful to Harris, particularly in counties where Trump also lost votes or only marginally increased his raw vote totals. In the 2,066 counties where Trump’s vote total fell or increased by 5 percent or less, Harris saw her vote totals decrease on average by more than 7.5 percent per county, while turnout in those counties was down 3 percent per county. Across these counties — which make up two-thirds of all counties with votes tallied — Trump added just over 225,000 votes, while Harris lost a staggering 2.15 million compared to 2020 levels. 

“The crucial swing state of Pennsylvania offers a striking example. In Philadelphia county, more than 36,000 votes evaporated for Harris from Biden’s 2020 level, but Trump only increased his vote totals over 2020 by about 11,000 votes. 

“Unfortunately, though a monumentally diversely targeted campaign was built in a short time frame, nuances proved challenging and impactful.” 

A Shift in Youth Support: Trump’s Appeal to Younger Generations 

When President Biden defeated Trump four years ago, voters between ages 18 and 29 backed him 61 percent to 36 percent. But on Tuesday, Harris carried the demographic by only six points, 52 percent to 46 percent, according to an analysis of AP VoteCast survey data by the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) at Tufts University. 

Democratic presidential candidates had enjoyed “significant double-digit leads” among young voters going back to 2008. “ 

“Justin Lokere, 21, vice president of the Tufts University Republicans, said Democrats struggled to relate to young men and their view of masculinity. ‘The way Democrats view masculinity does not resonate with Gen Z men,” he said. ‘I think with trying to push Doug (Emhoff, Harris’s husband) and Tim Walz as the model of masculinity, men just stood up and said no.’” 

Other men and women provided some thought provoking statements in this article. There was a toucg choice for a lot of younger voters who felt a vote for “Harris is for reproductive health, and a vote for Trump was for personal financial independence.” 

“At Northeastern, Yulan Wang, 19, voted for Harris and said ‘she believes gender bias was a factor in young men’s support for Trump. I think there’s still a lot of deep-rooted biases in society that might be coming into play when voting, ether unconsciously or consciously, especially for men who might have these biases,’ Wang said. ‘Its harder to grasp the idea of a woman in power and in control.’” 

Prediction Markets vs. Polling: Who Saw Trump’s Victory Coming? 

The second article in The Boston Globe is entitled, “Polls showed a race in dead heat. How did prediction markets know Trump would prevail?” This article by Hiawatha Bray was updated November 8, 204, 9:11 am. Here are some important comments from this article: 

“The public opinion polls said Tuesday’s presidential election would be a nailbiter. But it looked a lot different at online prediction markets where people bet real money on the outcome. Markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket showed a consistent lead for Donald Trump.’ 

‘And they were right. In the end, the election wasn’t even close. Trump easily exceeded the 270 electoral votes he needed and unlike his 2016 victory, he appears on track to win a majority of the popular vote.” 

Which we know today that he won the electoral and popular vote.  

“Meanwhile, sites that relied on aggregating data from public opinion polls consistently predicted a razor-close race. The respected 538 site called it 50-49 Harris; statistician Nate Silver had 48.6 percent for Harris versus 47.6 percent for Trump; and Real Clear Polling gave both candidates a 48.5 percent chance of victory. Clearly, investors at prediction sites saw something that the pollsters missed.” 

“’The winner of this election has been prediction markets,’ said Thomas Miller, a data scientist at Northwestern University and creator of Virtual Tout, a website that displayed prediction data on the presidential election in near-real-time.” 

It is important to understand how these prediction markets work so we can understand how they are a much better predictor of elections than the polls. 

“Prediction markets let investors—or gamblers—buy and sell contracts similar to traditional futures contracts, but linked to real-world events. For instance, you can buy a contract at Kalshi betting whether the Nasdaq 100 stock exchange index will close the year above or below 18,500.” 

“An investor  thinks the answer is ‘no’ can buy contracts for nine cents each, reflecting the fact that few people believe this will happen. But if the Nasdaq 100 does fall that far, each of those nine-cent contracts will be worth one dollar. Buy a thousand of them for $90, and you’ve made a $910 profit, less transaction fees.” 

When Kalshi’s index on the morning of the election was selling Trump victory contracts at 57 cents, while pricing Harris victory contracts at just 42 cents, we should have listened. The same goes for Polymarket, which favored Trump over Harris 62 cents to 38 cents.” 

“Academic researchers say the prices of prediction contracts can accurately foretell the future, because investors won’t put their own money into a contract without a lot of thought and research.” 

The article is worth reading, since he shows where Harris surged, and then what happened closer and closer to the election. 

A Stark Decline in Turnout Across Key Democratic Demographics 

“Why Was There a Broad Drop-Off in Democratic Turnout in 2024?” addresses the Democrats that failed to turn out to vote at the rate they did in 2020 when they ousted Donald Trump was written by Michael C. Bender, updated November 13, 2024, in The New York Times.  

“Voters in liberal strongholds across the country, from city centers to suburban stretches, failed to show up to vote for Vice President Kamala Harris at the levels they had for Joseph R. Biden Jr. four years earlier, contributing significantly to her defeat by Donald J. Trump, according to a New York Times analysis of preliminary election data.” 

“The numbers help fill in the picture of Mr Trump’s commanding victory, showing it may not represent the resounding endorsement of his agenda that the final Electoral College vote suggests. Mr. Trump won the White House not only because he turned out his supporters and persuaded skeptics, but also because many Democrats sat this election out, presumably turned off by both candidates.” 

“Counties with the biggest Democratic victories in 2020 delivered 1.9 million fewer voters for Ms. Harris than they had for Mr. Biden. The nation’s most Republican-heavy counties turned out an additional 1.2 million votes for Mr. Trump this year, according to the analysis of the 47 states where the vote count is largely complete.” 

“The drop-off spanned demographics and economics. It was clear in counties with the highest job growth rates, counties with the most job losses and counties with the highest percentage of college-educated voters. Turnout was down, too, across groups that are traditionally strong for Democrats—including areas with large numbers of Black Christians and Jewish voters.” 

“The decline in key cities, including Detroit and Philadelphia, made it exceptionally difficult for Ms. Harris to win the battlegrounds of Michigan and Pennsylvania.” 

“The drop-off is an extraordinary shift for Democrats, who, motivated by Mr. Trump’s surprise victory in 2016, had turned out in eye-popping numbers for the three subsequent elections. They clipped his power in Washington in 2018, removed him form office in 2020 and defeated many of his handpicked candidates for battleground races in 2022. 

Lessons for Democrats: Building a Reinvigorated Campaign Strategy 

This article has lots of valuable information. Here are some of the things I took away from this article. As Democrats, we need a new way to re-engage voters, since I believe many are fatigued by the anti-Trump message. Voters are distrustful of both parties. Here is a point that I had not thought of: “Some analysts point out that Ms. Harris was simply the latest political casualty of a post pandemic global trend favoring challengers, no matter the incumbents’ politics, in places like Japan, South Africa, South Korea and Britain. 

Other reasons that I believe are mentioned in this article are Harris did not have enough time to overhaul the campaign after taking it over from Biden, whose popularity dropped significantly from his win in 2020. I will leave you, the listeners, to read the other reasons that were formulated for the defeat of Harris with this election. 

Conclusion 

The 2024 election results offer a profound opportunity for reflection within the Democratic Party. The influence of misinformation, the disconnect between the media’s narrative and voter perceptions, and a fatigued base all underscore the need for a strategic overhaul. Moving forward, Democrats must craft a more resonant message, one that reaches beyond traditional boundaries and addresses the issues that matter most to a diverse electorate. As we assess these lessons, let us embrace the chance to realign and reinvigorate our mission to inspire, engage, and empower voters. The future of the Democratic movement will be shaped by our ability to reconnect authentically with those we aim to represent. 

References for Podcast 107:

• The Washington Post on November 12, 2024, at 7:45 am EST, by Jennifer Rubin’s article, “Democrats need to reclaim reality from the right-wing disinformation machine. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/11/12/disinformation-threat-democracy/
• The Boston Globe with two articles. First is the article by John Hancock, updated November 15, 2024, 10:45 am, entitled, “Did Democrats stay home in 2024? Were’s what we know.” https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/11/15/nation/voter-turnout-county-harris-trump
• The Boston Globe is entitled, “Polls showed a race in dead heat. How did prediction markets know Trump would prevail?” This article by Hiawatha Bray was updated November 8, 204, 9:11 am.https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/11/08/business/election-2024-prediction-markets-polymarket-predictit-kalshi
• “Why Was There a Broad Drop-Off in Democratic Turnout in 2024?” Written by Michael C. Bender, updated November 13, 2024, in The New York Times.