Dan K. Eberhart

Current election cycles are feeling more and more like professional sporting events. We make predictions, compare statistics, listen to pundits, and love to “Monday morning quarterback” the results. Everyone has an opinion on what campaigns could have and should have done better and why the results are the way they are.

From former presidents to former and sitting senators, there’s been no shortage of hot takes as to why the Democratic Party’s electoral prospects have been dim throughout recent electoral cycles. While some midterm losses are always to be expected for the party that controls the White House, the uncomfortable truth is that even when they win (see: the 2020 general election), modern Democrats tend to underperform.

Almost every Election Day starts the same way for candidates, parties and party die-hards — with excitement, optimism and a healthy dose of nervousness. But as exit polls and early returns roll in, that excitement and optimism, more often than not, morphs into concern. Then come the questions — why did the polls get it so wrong? Why are Democrats faring worse in this district than they did last time? Why are fewer members of this voting bloc voting blue? Where is the voter enthusiasm? What happened?

Don’t expect a consensus to emerge on that front any time soon. As for me, though, the answer seems crystal clear: It’s the economy, stupid.

It’s as true now as it was 30 years ago when legendary Democratic strategist James Carville used it to convey the reality of the political landscape to then-candidate Bill Clinton.

I’ve written about Washington’s struggles to arrive at a cohesive approach for bringing inflation under control. I respect the challenges of correcting rapid shifts in the ever-changing global economy. However, I also stand by the fact that the party in power has inarguably failed to offer solutions.

The big problem is that their failure hasn’t driven them back to the drawing board. Instead, it caused them to waste metric tons of political energy and voter goodwill in an attempt to demonize their GOP counterparts. They spend excessive energy pointing out the latest controversial tweet, drawing national attention to local-level policy outrage, or attacking GOP candidates or officials they see as weak without ever discussing a plan of action. On and off for years, the Democrats have repeatedly been called “the party of no,” and this cycle has proven to be no different — all attack, no substance.

Such aggressions no doubt feel good, and if we’re being honest, some in the GOP deserve their fair share of scrutiny. But the reality is that this political back and forth doesn’t move the needle with voters the way so many seem to think it does or want it to. In fact, for millions, this approach feels almost wholly disconnected from the fundamental factors that determine the future of our nation and, therein, the future of millions of American families.

In other words, the party in power should focus on what voters focus on. And while there are always exceptions, most voters care more about things like inflation and gas prices than they do about nearly anything else.

The Washington Post, in summarizing President Obama’s guidance to the party, put a fine point on the matter: “Relate to people’s worries. Don’t spout ‘policy gobbledygook.’ Don’t over-focus on ‘the latest crazy thing’ Republicans have said. And maybe don’t police speech quite so much.”

No matter what happened when ballots were cast, there will be no shortage of expert “autopsies” to sift through, but here’s a tip: whichever side of the political spectrum you sit on, you can probably skip the dissection of polling crosstabs and precinct-by-precinct demographics in search of answers.

It’s the economy, stupid. The party in power is charged with keeping those words front of mind at all costs. When they fail to do so, the results on Election Day are often predictable.

Dan K. Eberhart is a Republican donor and CEO of Canary, an oilfield service company. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.

Newsletter