November 5th
What happened November 5th? What went wrong? What comes next? A few (long & dark) reflections.
The Electoral College, though once perhaps useful, is now a glaring relic that undermines the popular will in our modern democracy. Its flaws are more visible than ever, but no matter how problematic our voting structure may be, giving up our right to vote is not an option, especially willingly. Reflecting on 2016, we learned hard lessons about the Electoral College and the urgency to abolish or reform it. Its flaws were exposed and showcased its fragility. Our power as citizens lies directly in our vote, and failing to use it is a forfeiture of the values we claim to uphold.
It’s deeply frustrating that only 66 million Americans voted Democrat in the recent election—a failure that speaks to the strength we have but failed to mobilize because some believed their vote didn’t matter. It does. Even worse to think about is more than 14 million people declined to vote in 2024 who previously voted in 2020. Of these, many liberals protested a conflict abroad citing human rights, war crimes, and genocide but then opted out of voting in our own democracy. Shame on them. Such choices are not neutral—they are a reckless gamble on our future. It’s the popular vote that underpins the Electoral College, and while that system needs reform, voter apathy only strengthens its hold.
That apathy has put us down a path we will never recover from.
Reflecting now on the failures of 2024, many have put blame on the Harris-Walz campaign itself. Where did she go wrong? What could she have done better? The fact of the matter is, she actually ran a good campaign, and trying to find fault in what she did only proves the fundamental flaws of our society.
It wasn’t her, it was us.
In this imperfect system, no candidate will be flawless, and Kamala Harris, while not without error, ran a strong and strategically sound campaign. Yet gender bias placed greater expectations on her as a woman, requiring a near-flawless performance while Trump’s blunders were readily excused. Harris’s campaign had to navigate a demand for perfection—a double standard rooted in a bias we must confront if we ever hope to move toward true equity in politics.
By choosing not to vote, we lost a critical chance to shatter the highest glass ceiling in America, a step that would have redefined what is possible. Instead, many opted for candidates who directly undermine women’s rights, healthcare protections, foreign policy, and national security. Some rationalized their vote as an economic choice, yet seem to forget that the economy they credit Trump with propping up was, in fact, the result of Democratic policies enacted to mitigate the impact of the pandemic. Trump took credit for Democratic-led stimulus packages and PPE loans that sustained the economy, but many voters have ignored these facts in favor of short-term financial gains.
And let’s not overlook the role of housing market profiteering by those who, during the pandemic, inflated rental rates and drove housing prices sky-high, fueling inflation. These individuals have contributed to the economic strain that burdens us all, yet they now support an agenda built on their own selective understanding of the economy.
Kamala Harris was damned if she did, damned if she didn’t when discussing her economic policies. Why must she be the one to present a sound proof economic plan when the burden is actually on Trump? The economy is better off now than it was during the Trump years. No sound proof plan was ever made on behalf of Trump, yet Harris was demanded to do so and criticized for every remark made because it didn’t go far enough. Her plan was favored by many economists, raised the debt significantly less than Trump’s, but her promise to combat record inflation was not good enough for some reason.
Perhaps the most surprising shift in this election was the Latino vote, which came out for Trump in unprecedented numbers, swinging results in critical regions. How could a group so often targeted by his administration’s rhetoric be drawn to his message? Exit polls reveal three primary factors. First, many Latino voters prioritized family economic stability. Second, they felt misunderstood and stereotyped by a liberal narrative that treated them as a monolithic group. Third, many Latinos who’ve fled authoritarian regimes are deeply wary of socialist or communist ideals. The Left’s messaging often fails to consider how words like “socialism” carry personal histories of repression for these communities. Communism and socialism, regardless of their potential benefits, remain toxic buzzwords to those who have fled from these systems. Sharing memes of ‘Camrade Kamala’ was not in jest, nor to be taken lightly, and they viewed this election as a slippery slope and merely chose the lesser of two evils. Donald Trump. Lesser of two evils. I’d say let that sink in but we’ve heard that before in 2016, so it’s not new.
Socialism and communism are good on paper. There is ample evidence of success with these platforms, such as socialism which many, if not all, have benefited from in this country. But those words are clearly weaponized, demonized. The progressive left failed to adapt their talking points, to evolve their messaging into something of substance, all the while holding liberals hostage. This is not progress, not progressive. It’s a threat. And when they don’t get their way, they refrain and abstain, sacrificing freedoms we hold dear.
Abortion is another explosive issue liberals have mishandled in public discourse. The debate too often ignores the fact that many abortions are not elective; miscarriages, for example, fall under this category and would be criminalized under specific bans. Conservatives see no distinction, equating all abortions as elective and vilifying those seeking medical care. Those eighth and ninth month horror stories we’re always hearing about? Life threatening miscarriages, with very rare exceptions. Reproductive rights has public support, but the constant use of the word abortion without context, without additional explanation of its full scope and depth led to the spread of misinformation and misinterpretation of the facts. Pro-choice, like socialism and communism are immensely valid and sound. The pro-choice movement itself must rethink how it communicates reproductive rights if it hopes to reach beyond the choir.
Our inability to adapt and evolve gave MAGA the ammunition needed to vilify the radical left. We, in our refusal to budge on our principles, allowed a movement who rallied behind an individual unafraid to combat them, their messaging, their ideals, their woke agenda—even sacrificing their own freedoms in the process—and then we have the audacity to question what Harris did wrong.
It wasn’t her. It was us.
We handed over the country on a silver platter. Harris wasn’t good enough for progressives. She was part of the system of same-old policies, and so they fed her to wolves, all the while the once-majority of liberals was unknowingly chipped away. We all believed MAGA was a loud minority, and as our vocal opposition and protests occurred on media platforms, it became nothing more than virtue signaling, and we didn’t realize we were only slowly choking ourselves to a point we no longer even noticed.
66 million votes for Kamala Harris to nearly 73 million votes for Donald Trump. The issue of Electoral College is not even a factor this time. Yes, it still has flaws and is a hindrance in numerous circumstances, still 14 million people didn’t vote. They gambled on false security, on faith, not realizing that a loss for Kamala Harris was a loss for us all.
This election held profound implications, especially concerning is Project 2025. While some liberals dismissed this 900-page conservative manifesto as fantasy, and MAGA questioned its validity and any ties to Trump, it represents a chilling blueprint for unrestrained power. And as conservatives secure more influence, each guardrail of democratic checks and balances erodes.
The Project seeks to “secure” elections, but as laid out in its own framework, it’s clear this ambition would ultimately strip elections of genuine choice. As a democratic republic there are five total guardrails afforded to us as citizens. The voting booth is the first, and with it the Electoral College, while imperfect now, was designed to safeguard equal representation across the country. It is important to note the United States is the only “democracy” in the world who has continued to use an Electoral College indirectly electing an executive president in over 100 years. Now with a conservative-controlled Supreme Court, a Senate and House majority, and a hostile executive—guardrails two, three, four, and five—the balance protecting our republic has never been more fragile.
According to pages 562-564 (summed up here) of the Presidential Transition plan (Project 2025), the following scenario becomes probable when combining the plan’s provisions with statements Trump has made since losing the 2020 election:
Likely ahead of the 2026 House and Senate elections, Trump makes an order to ensure future elections are protected from fraud. He amends the National Voters Registration Act of 1993, forging federal control over state and municipal voter agency’s to be placed under his purview, and its agents are loyal only to him. He presents this as a means to prevent the Big Steal of 2020 from ever happening again. His base supports this. The opposition does not. Many don’t realize the implications of such action, while political adversaries are unable to stop him.
Next, under the same 1993 Voters Act, intended to place voting rights under the protections of civil rights, it is moved to the Department of Justice, providing even more federal control over elections and for the purpose of protecting, investigating, and prosecuting claims of voter fraud. At this point someone is likely ringing alarm bells, followed by protests, mobilization efforts, rallies and riots, while being demonized by MAGA as anti-Trump, anti-election, and unpatriotic.
Claiming to seek truth and vindication, an investigation in the 2020 election miraculously finds evidence of fraud. This cannot be independently verified because none no longer exists. “Co-conspirators” are rounded up and face tribunals under the Republican controlled government. Consisting of but not limited to Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and Liz Cheney, they each are found guilty and used to support a narrative they are “enemies within.” Determine for yourself if he’d have them executed (as stated during the campaign) or imprisoned to showcase his compassion.
His support reaches an all-time high having “drained the swamp,” and any radicals become targets and enemies.
Elections seemingly go on as usual. Threats and potential fraud rooted out, Trump will validate and verify the results himself. Any irregularities—and opposing votes—are discarded and declared invalid. Republicans win unanimous victories because he doesn’t want to look bad and maintains constant success. Note, this is how elections take place in Russia.
Election denying radicals push on to fight, resorting to increased violence which only amplifies Trump’s previous warnings. Project 2025 also gives Trump authority to unleash undue force on protestors, and so loyal armed services are deployed.
During all of this, America withdraws from NATO, or at least threatens to do so for bargaining power. An alliance with Russia is solidified, and any domestic opposition has been neutralized by means of controlling the electorate, preventing fallout from the NATO discord. The alliance with Russia is made in part through the US-backed resolutions between Russia and Ukraine after Trump threatens to withhold resources and weapons unless Ukraine agrees to sit at the bargaining table. Zelenskyy makes certain concessions, Russia takes control of the country, and Trump is regarded as a master negotiator by the base. Putin and Trump, both antisemitic, target Israel and war in the Middle East erupts.
To add a spice of hope, Trump dies. He is celebrated as a hero, replaces Ronald Reagan as the savior of the Republican Party, and pictures of him are hung in every school classroom. For good measure, the Pledge of Allegiance is recited to him, as he’s long remembered as the single most important US President in history. Conservatives maintain full and unrestricted power in the country, imposing strict compliance to religious values.
I hope I’m wrong and this is not the end. It is no doubt bleak. Trump has always delivered on promises made. Even with opposition in the government who managed to impeach him twice, imagine what he will do when he has no opposition at all. All arms of the government are in conservative control, and worse yet, Trump has the people. The loud minority is now the majority. No amount of mobilization, activism, rallies, and protests will be effective. The politician who admires fascist dictators, modeled himself after Vladimir Putin and others, has the ability to change elections under pretenses of security, and he will be applauded for it. The military will fall in line due to hand-selected generals and commanders, and protests in the streets will lead to unfathomable amounts of violence. He will again be applauded for it.
We must realize we are the enemy within. The Left saw too many flaws— Harris, the Electoral College, the system—to be bothered to vote, and so 14 million people declined to be bothered to go to the voting booth. We allowed ourselves to be passive, treating elections as but a vaneer of democratic choice, and we held our own ideals hostage. Democracy doesn’t die alone in the dark; it dies with our complicity, our reluctance, and as Senator Amidala famously said, “With thunderous applause.”
It wasn’t her. It was you.