Democratic political strategist James Carville, who has been vocal in his critiques of the Harris campaign following the Democrats’ electoral setbacks in 2024, has expressed regret over his erroneous forecast that Vice President Harris would emerge victorious against President-elect Trump, describing it as “very depressing.”
During an interview with CNN’s Michael Smerconish on Saturday, Carville addressed a recent opinion piece he authored for The New York Times attributing the vice president’s defeat to the state of the economy, relying on his well-known catchphrase, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Smerconish read a response from a reader to Carville’s op-ed, suggesting that the American electorate may not prioritize the character, integrity, or decency of a candidate while casting their votes. Carville concurred with the sentiment, stating, “I totally agree with that person. It’s very depressing.”
Emphasizing the importance of introspection in political strategy, Carville drew parallels to investigating an airplane crash to identify what went wrong rather than simply moving past the failure. He lamented that the focus in the election had shifted away from the voters and onto personalities, a misstep he acknowledged even in his own contributions to the campaign.
Carville criticized the Democratic Party for inadvertently providing excessive attention to Trump during the campaign, neglecting to center the election narrative on the needs and priorities of the electorate. Reflecting on the missteps, he admitted, “We didn’t make it about voters. And that’s all. It’s never a good idea. And how could I, at 80 years old, been doing this for 50 years, lapse into that level of stupidity? You know, I’ve got to ask myself.”
The seasoned strategist stressed the importance of learning from the past to avoid repeating mistakes, characterizing the failure to do so as a grave error. In a separate interview on The Hill’s “Rising” show, Carville rebuked Democrats for adopting what he referred to as “NPR language,” including phrases like “defund the police” and “LatinX,” which he deemed counterproductive and alienating to voters.
Carville also castigated the Harris campaign for its excessive expenditures, particularly in light of her eventual concession to Trump. The mismanagement of resources and messaging strategies were among the factors he highlighted as contributing to the party’s defeats in the 2024 election cycle.
As Carville reflects on the Democrats’ losses and critiques their campaign strategies, his assessments underscore the ongoing challenges faced by the party in navigating complex political landscapes and effectively engaging with voters. The lessons drawn from these experiences serve as a reminder of the imperative to prioritize the concerns of the electorate and craft resonant messaging that aligns with their values and aspirations.
