How Democrats Lost Support

All they had to be was not be nuttier than a fruitcake - and they couldn't even do that.

Since Barack Obama’s election in 2008, Democrats have faced a steady erosion of popular support, a trend that has intensified over the years. Between 2008 and 2016, the party alienated many voters- particularly moderates, or "normies" - by reflexively labeling any disagreement with Obama’s policies as racism. This tactic, meant to stifle dissent, instead fostered resentment among those who felt their legitimate concerns were dismissed. The loss of this broad base was temporarily obscured by substantial financial backing from NGOs, foreign governments (via channels like USAID, Ukraine, Russia, and China), and major donors with hidden agendas. These "pay-to-play" schemes, most notably the Clinton Global Initiative, funneled money to the party, camouflaging the decline in grassroots support. However, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss to Donald Trump severed this financial lifeline, forcing Democrats to pivot toward fringe groups to maintain relevance.

Trump’s presidency disrupted their momentum but inadvertently provided a new rallying cry. Democrats weaponized his image as a "fascist" boogeyman to reignite donor enthusiasm, a strategy amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic. This fearmongering, coupled with loosened election protocols, helped propel Joe Biden into office in 2020, allowing Democrats to recoup financial losses from the Trump years. Yet, to sustain this narrative, they leaned heavily on vocal, radical groups - smaller in number but fervent in their activism. These groups, often at odds with mainstream values, projected an arrogance that further distanced the party from the broader electorate. Examples include the embrace of policies like defunding the police or prioritizing identity politics over economic concerns, which alienated working-class voters in swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Throughout Biden’s term, Democrats mistook the radical fervor of these groups for widespread popularity. Polling companies, eager to maintain their lucrative contracts, produced polling numbers as unreliable as DC crime statistics - that reinforced this illusion. Meanwhile, the Democratic base engaged in a form of "quiet quitting," disengaging from a party increasingly out of touch with their priorities. By 2024, the cracks became undeniable. Biden’s presidency, marked by visible frailty and questions about his leadership, exposed him as a figurehead. Billions in campaign and administrative spending vanished into opaque channels, with little tangible benefit. While the public may not have seen the full paper trail, they sensed the misuse of funds, as Oliver Wendell Holmes’ adage suggests: even a dog knows the difference between being stumbled over and being kicked. The "normies" felt kicked. They know the difference.

The Democrats’ outrage machine, once a reliable tool, began to falter. The party elevated figures willing to make inflammatory statements on television, regardless of their absurdity, only to see these narratives unravel quickly. For instance, the rapid debunking of exaggerated claims about Trump’s policies or the mishandling of incidents like the 2025 arrest of an individual with an active deportation order, charged with sexual battery of a child on the National Mall, exposed the party’s tendency to manufacture controversies. Such missteps, amplified by commentators like Jessica Tarlov, failed to gain traction as the public grew skeptical of orchestrated outrage.

Gavin Newsom epitomizes this disconnect. As California’s governor, he has presided over policies blamed for the state’s decline - skyrocketing homelessness, business exodus, and energy costs. Yet, his presidential ambitions for 2028 rely on pandering to the party’s radical base, resulting in a social media presence that feels like a South Park caricature, as if managed by a troop of crack-addled macaques. While Newsom enjoys popularity among the "abnormies" - the vocal, ideologically extreme minority - he struggles to connect with the broader electorate, who view him as an out of touch, Trump wannabe douchebag.

The Trump administration has focused on delivering results, achieving what Democrats long claimed was impossible - streamlined bureaucracy, economic gains, or border security - often by Friday afternoon, leaving time for SEC football. Meanwhile, Democrats continue to push fringe priorities, like government-funded gender-affirming surgeries, which resonate with their base but alienate the mainstream. As the market for such rhetoric collapses, the party’s appeal, in Spinal Tap terms, has become increasingly "selective," confined to a shrinking echo chamber. The normies have moved on, and the Democrats are left wondering why their outrage no longer sells.

My take: the market for bullshit has collapsed.