Winning a presidential election or a similar national position of power is a combination of many factors. The grievous errors made by the  democratic party in the 2024 election can be summarized as follows:  

1. Improper election preparedness 
2. Lack of knowledge about their constituents and general voters
3. Inability to “Know the ropes to know and ropes to skip” in modern-day politics
4. Over-reliance on the same experts of yesteryear 
5. Unrealistically casting a wide net for all voters
6. Inability to listen and understand the voters 
7. Inability to throw away the dead fish in the voting stockpile despite the boat sinking 

This is an excerpt from my next book: Democracy in the United States of America. 

An email from a friend

A dear friend wrote me the other day, stating that “Since the 2024 presidential election ended, she has not been herself. She had been depressed about the whole election thing, especially how on Earth can anyone with a conscience vote for President Donald J. Trump….” 

I am not a political pundit, but I wanted to share my brief personal response to my friend’s email about her current state of mind. I actually wanted to tell her to get a life. : 

Dear Ms. Discouraged: 

Let me apologize for my delayed response to your email of July 4, 2025. It has taken me this long to overcome my shock and sorrowful state of mind over the whole November election debacle as well. 

Please join the rest of the universe who are devastated by the election. Indeed, many of us doubted the rosy pictures presented to us by their leaders before and during the election about their plans to change and embrace “Joy.” They promised to save the world from itself, the irrational world in which we live. Even though many anticipated the outcome, we all prayed that the Lord would have mercy upon us and let their dream come true. 

Remember the political rancor about the democratic changeover of leadership? What a nightmare. They messed up the changing of the guard. They miscalculated the receiver of the baton in a single relay, when the audience was not ready to watch the track and field sport. Please, don’t remind me about the campaign, the political pundits, and the highly compensated image makers for the party. Even a mediocre high school graduate would have performed better. 

Honestly, I have not watched the news (national or local) on any social media platforms that disseminate information relating to the election. If you asked me, I would say, they still don’t get it. They are all a bunch of folks against reality, all dying to keep their political brand and political mentality.  

All I need to know is whether the inauguration will still be held on January 20^th. That’s all the news I can mentally handle and digest for the foreseeable future about anything political. I no longer have the stomach for media pundits’ analysis and opinions, having been paid millions of dollars in compensation to share their flawed analysis or for a line of individuals’ commitment to appear on stage. I have concluded that I should not be further depressed by my actions, but rather believe in a better nation for all. I find it disheartening to listen to these experts and their often mediocre conclusions. 

I am finally convinced that “All politics are local, ” but with national consequences.  

Ms. Discouraged, this is my conclusion about the entire election matter: 

Democrats are increasingly disillusioned about their strengths and their ability to win a presidential election in the current political landscape and the foreseeable future, especially in a country as divided as it is, where the political map favors the majority with their agenda. 

Although people have tried to change over time, what has not changed in this election cycle is the resurrection, in broad daylight, of our reality, with conviction, that we continue to ignore our reality and still divided not because of our differences but because of our mental state of mind that one ideology is created better than the rest.  

Democrats lack a clear understanding of how to sustain a political campaign before, during, and after elections. After the democratic President came to power, the Democrats stopped campaigning, but the Republican President continued to campaign nonstop. By so doing, the Republican President was in the face and minds of the citizens 24/7. Instead, the Democrats only took the position of a reactionary and indirectly promoted the agenda of the Republican ex-president rather than telling the citizens their agenda or their achievements. 

At times, I felt as if we had two presidents at the same time, except that one was referred to as The President and the other as President. For the democrats to tell us in their infinite wisdom that the substitute of their new flagbearer did not have enough time to campaign was disingenuous and shallow. In a relay race, the baton is passed from one runner to the next continuously, from start to finish. Both sides in the race are constantly running to the finish line. The team that wins the race is usually the team that outruns the opponent with the baton. In many instances, the last person with the baton often wins the race, even when the baton is transferred late. 

For the Democrats, the person with the baton stumbled on the track with her policies and her perception of the country’s composition and the directions of the nation and its people: A divided country.        

The fact is that the big obstacle to reaching the 270 electoral votes cannot be easily overcome under the current state of the nation, given the Electoral College design. 

How, then, can the Democrats win future Presidential elections? Two factors must come into play:

1. Events or circumstances that will unite the country with national interest must occur. The (9-11) tragedy is an example. Of course, we pray that such a tragedy would never happen again. 

2. Political segmentation, a strategic approach to the so-called “blue states” and “red states,” is overdue for redefinition and realignment. 

3. The economy of the nation must be so bad that every citizen is yawning for any change by anybody with a pulse, regardless of political persuasions. A younger, agile, and orator will bring added benefit. For example, I believed President Obama won the 2008 election because he ran during the real estate debacle. The auto industry was on life support, and the financial institutions were in peril. Yes, he’s a great orator, but the circumstances at the time united the country beyond race, geographical divide, and the irrational behavior of the past of the voters. Even those adamant against unity wanted to preserve their nation. Everyone then wanted the Government of their people, by their people, and for the people. 

Another example is that President Biden won the 2020 election because COVID-19 was running rampant, and the incumbent President had handled the worldwide disease very poorly. Of course, President Biden running as a centrist at the time also helped.  

My dear friend, do you remember how President Carter came to power in 1976? It was the same national disaster that preceded him that propelled him to victory, and his economic disaster during his first term also led to his loss in the reelection four years later. This is how politics work, my friend.  

In all the above campaigns, almost every American was affected in some way or another by the economic and national health disasters, respectively. Translation: Everyone was looking for someone to be the deliverer. Under these circumstances, it was much easier, by all, to vote for the lesser of two evils: the evil they know but have failed them, and the hope in the evil they don’t know. It’s similar to folks rooting for the winning football team by every race in the stadium (even when they hated each other anywhere else, outside the stadium). Still, for a brief moment, the players joined hands together for the winning team, as if they were all one family under God, for the sake of the team and the sport. 

I am sure all shades and shapes placed bets on whoever would win the game. At this point, winning is the thread of unity for all, and making money is the catalyst for the temporary togetherness.  

Frankly, I believe one solution for democrats is to do what marketers have done so well over the years, with their little strategy called “Market Segmentation. “  In other words, democrats need to wake up to reality and stop building a ‘Big tent mentality.” They need to inject different medicines for different segments of the country because not all citizens are suffering from the same disease or responding to the same treatment cocktails. For example, they need to send a serious liberal candidate or surrogate (for example, Senator Sanders) to campaign for all Democratic values in New York and a republican minded candidate to campaign for all Republican values in Mississippi or Georgia. The liberals can campaign for women’s rights and abortion rights in California, while the Republican – like can campaign for gun rights as narrowly define in the second amendment and anti-abortion in the great state of Texas; These Democratic candidate\s need to double down and energize the campaign of “Go to hell” with gay rights or LGBTQ in the Bible Belt. 

Candidates should be selected accordingly, even within the same party, in the same way products are segmented in any advertising campaign. Same party but different products – call it branding, if you wish. 

For instance, the same products are sold with varying brand names to the citizens of Canada (our old neighbor to the North) and the United States of America. Political parties need to catch up with the modern marketing strategies employed by successful entities with good track records. Such is our political reality today, my friend. Politics is a product that needs to be branded and sold to different sectors of the country. The people are not monolithic, nor do they consider themselves morally identical. 

Here are a few examples of effective campaigns in recent decades:

Remember Jimmy Carter, as indicated earlier? He won the 1976 presidential election because he presented himself as a southern common man with a peanut business. Of course, the economy was bad, and the international scene was awful. He drove around in a flannel shirt in a beat-up truck, and told his voters he was one of them. He didn’t mention race or gender by name, but they knew his voters were his top priority from the blue mountains of Oregon to Washington.  Many voters could relate to him.

Remember John Anderson? He was the handsome, white hair gentleman who spoke the correct English and walked around all stuffy as if he was better than everybody else. He made a wave but couldn’t finish the touchdown line because many voters couldn’t relate. 

Remember Bill Clinton? He is the handsome gentleman from Arkansas that 52% of the voters loved, especially over 55% of the female voters. He, too, almost lost the second presidential election, after the scandal of the century came to light, but rebranded himself and got down to every corner where voters sojourned. 

Remember Barack Hussein Obama? The young charismatic, energetic, eloquent orator (who spoke very good English). Of course, he won the first presidency because he was campaigning against the worst American economy in decades. But he almost lost the second election (remember his first debate debacle with Senator Willard Mitt Romney from Utah? His vice president, Senator Biden, rescued him from Senator Romney’s running mate, Senator Paul Ryan, in the vice presidential first debate. But among Obama’s various adjustments, readjustments, with the assistance of competent handlers, he rebranded himself, garnering tremendous support at home and internationally. Remember the time he appeared on “Between Two Ferns” in a sarcastic interview with the host, Zack Galifianakis, in an attempt to reach the younger demographics crucial to the ACA, to encourage young people to sign up for health insurance. Now that was campaigning for the books.    

The facts as perceived by democratic or by any other name, are these:

1. The Democrats are weak in delivering their messages

2. They have no spine in opposing the opposing candidate

3. They look and sound elitist

4. They are afraid of their own shadow when they deliver their incoherent messages

5. Their messages are confusing, unfocused, and many times incoherent

6. Voters can’t relate to them because they are afraid to speak the language of the voters they are courting. For example, when President Trump often said, among other related expressions, facts that voters can relate to. At a campaign event in February 2016 and in subsequent campaigns, President Trump stated, “I love the poorly educated”. This statement sparked attention. Some felt it was controversial, while it resonated with a segment of the electorate who felt ignored by the political establishment. The Democrats stayed away from such descriptions of great Americans, as if there were no such American citizens who are poor, uneducated, and work in a coal factory. Instead, the Democrats just wanted to be politically correct and made speeches about Hollywood for the elite Hollywood. Politically correct to whom? 

In the end, democrats lost these crucial voters. At times, voters want the truth, and telling the truth about voters is not an insult, but facts – we do have criminals, haters, uneducated, and stupid voters among us. Heavens, what works is what is politically correct, in my opinion, of practical and effective politics. What the democrats should have done in their campaigns is double down on President Trump’s statement and say the same or more – I call it, speaking to the people. If one side lies, then my gosh, let the other side lie even more. Let the voters decide which lie is better or more convincing. When someone said all the so-called disrespectful things about women, democrats would say the same about women. After all, President Trump’s statement about women of America helped him win over more women voters during his first term in office. If someone says ‘shit’ and everyone is laughing, my goodness, the democrats would say double ‘shit.’ Such language is no longer derogatory if effective. Let the voters decide which of the ‘shit’ is more effective and attractive. Politics is a game, and each side should use whatever tricks in the book to win the jackpot. I saw many leaders around the world being abused and disrespected, and yet, they still kowtow to the leader. It’s called international politics. I don’t see anything wrong with it, if these leaders want to be in a ring of getting what they must die for. 

The American political landscape remains largely unchanged: America is what America has always been over the past few decades. It has become divisive, and it will continue to be divisive; for anyone to think otherwise is, at best, delusional.  To say that America will be back to the days when things were considered normal (the golden years) is a pipe dream at best.  

Please don’t be disturbed by the election results. We are what we are as a nation. I’m certain that your past heroes, eminent fathers, great mothers, and admired friends, especially those who signed the Constitution in 1776 in Philadelphia, are probably looking down on all of us and turning in their graves, wondering what we’ve become as a nation. May their souls continue to rest in perfect peace on the right hand of our Lord. 

Those who care about the future of this great country continue to pray for new generations of leaders and their followers to see the light. To be candid, I doubt if the Lord is even listening to our prayers on this matter because one party refused to follow the winning formula.   

How about this school of thought

The chances of Democrats winning the presidential seat within the next 11 and a half years are less than 10 percent: the remaining 3.5 years for the current president and another 8 years for the next republican president. That is my prediction. Don’t argue with me about my prediction, please predict yours. And may the best person win. Please note that I am an amateur political analyst.  

My take on the two major parties in the United States of America:

The Democrats speak in different tongues, while the Republicans speak with one tongue. The way Republicans speak can be compared to what Steve Harvey said in the Kings of Kings comedy, “The temptations had eight mics but sang into one mic.” On the other hand, the Democrats have eight microphones but managed to sing into twenty different microphones.  The Republicans have one party, the Republican Party. Still, some Democrats become an amoebic party, metamorphosing into different mini parties: Some call themselves independent, while others call themselves libertarian, and a hybrid of many faces. All they manage to do is cannibalize the main party at the electorate level. — a house divided within itself.