Today, Nate Cohn has an analysis of polling data collected by the NY Times and Siena College. What it shows is exactly what this earlier Vox article also found. Democrats did not lose the 2024 election because of turnout. Put another way, they didn't lose because the progressive base was unenthusiastic and decided to stay home. They lost because swing voters turned away from them and toward Donald Trump.

The low turnout among traditionally Democratic-leaning groups — especially nonwhite voters — was a reflection of lower support for Harris: Millions of Democrats soured on their party and stayed home, reluctantly backed Harris or even made the leap to Trump...

...in a presidential election, turnout and persuasion often go hand in hand. The voters who may or may not show up are different from the rest of the electorate. They’re less ideological. They’re less likely to be partisans, even if they’re registered with a party. They’re less likely to have deep views on the issues. They don’t get their news from traditional media.

Throughout the race, polls found that Trump’s strength was concentrated among these voters. Many were registered Democrats or Biden voters four years ago. But they weren’t acting like Democrats in 2024. They were more concerned by pocketbook issues than democracy or abortion rights. If they decided to vote, many said they would back Trump...

...our data suggests that most voters who turned out in 2020 but stayed home in 2024 voted for Biden in 2020 — but about half of them, and maybe even a slight majority, appear to have backed Trump this year. Regardless, there’s no reason to believe that they would have backed Harris by a wide margin, let alone the kind of margin that would have made a difference in the election.

In other words, there were hundreds of thousands of registered Democrats who stayed home but if they had decided to vote they probably wouldn't have helped Harris win. They might even has added slightly to Trump's overall edge.

Cohn really leaves his analysis with that conclusion but the earlier Vox piece applied these findings to the ongoing argument within the party about what Democrats should do next. Inevitably after any big loss, progressives argue that Democrats stayed home because the party was too mushy and centrist. But that doesn't seem to be true in this case. 

If anything, some of those voters may who opted out may have felt the party was too far left. Identity politics, DEI and trans issues in particular seem to have had an impact. These weren't the biggest issues in the race, inflation and immigration were #1 and #2 for most voters, but the cultural politics may have been right behind those. 

Even in deep blue California progressives lost this year. Two progressive DAs were voted out along with the only Democratic Socialist on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Americans everywhere have decided there is such a thing as too far to the left. Unfortunately for Kamala Harris, she ran as a far-left progressive in 2020 which left her open to those attacks.

As a conservative, the best thing that could happen is that progressives decide they had a messaging problem (or something else) and double down on the culture wars. That will probably soften them up in the midterms when the party out of power is usually in a stronger position. On the other hand, it would probably be better for the country if Democrats stopped testing the limits and moved back toward the center where most people are. Then maybe we could tone down the extreme rhetoric on the left.