What Democrats Should Learn From Their Loss

To the Editor:

Re “Democrats Sift Through Rubble, Seeking Answers” (front page, Nov. 10):

Rather than pointing fingers at one another, the party needs to do what the Republicans did with Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” and Ronald Reagan’s “Reagan Democrats”: Figure out who didn’t vote for them; discern what they wanted — but didn’t see forthcoming from the Democrats; develop programs to respond to those wants; and, finally, replicate the communications network, social media and mass media campaign that the Republicans mounted.

The inbox of this registered Democrat was filled over the past 90 days with emails extolling the virtues of Donald Trump and the evils of Democrats. There was also the shrewdest TV barrage I have ever seen.

I would humbly suggest that nobody connected with this election, including the bicoastal Pelosi-Schumer coalition, should have anything to do with the project. As the saying goes, “They blew it, big time.”

Stephen Phillips
St. Petersburg, Fla.

To the Editor:

I appreciate all the recent coverage of reasons for the Democratic defeat in the election — particularly Ezra Klein’s recent podcasts. I am left wondering, however, how the Democrats should best respond.

I suspect that the party will now pivot to the right, à la Bill Clinton, as it tries to woo working-class, non-college-educated voters. But I wonder if that’s the answer.

As a moderate, I cringed at woke rhetoric and thought it was alienating and counterproductive. But I believe in many of the ideals behind it, such as protecting minority interests, showing respect and sensitivity to identity concerns, acknowledging the effects of systemic racism and police brutality, and empowering women.

The thing I can’t get my head around is how do Democrats hold onto those values while trying to attract a large group of voters who don’t seem to share them? I would love to hear some answers to that question.

Elissa Warantz
Huntington Beach, Calif.

To the Editor:

Re “Trump Offered Men Something the Democrats Never Could,” by Elizabeth Spiers (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, Nov. 6):

As a lifelong Democrat, and an old retired white guy, I am now a member of the party that is almost completely devoted to elite working women and minorities. A party that bends over backward to please the tiniest minorities yet fails to recognize the needs of the vast majority of people.

The policies of the Pelosi-Schumer Democratic Party have been a complete disaster. The fact that they lost an election to a septuagenarian demagogue says it all.

I remain a committed Democrat because it is the lone party that still values ethics, but I told my friends in the spring of 2016 that Hillary Clinton was going to lose because she was ignoring white guys like me. And she did.

This latest defeat rests on the shoulders of the Pelosi-Schumer administration.

John Palmieri
Bronx

To the Editor:

Contributors to The New York Times’s Opinion page have been obsessed with cataloging all of the Democratic Party’s failings, some of the criticisms being of genuine merit (e.g., “The Democratic Blind Spot That Wrecked 2024,” by Ezra Klein, column, nytimes.com, Nov. 10), and any number being of no constructive use.

A perennial problem for the Democrats is that they rarely articulate a succinctly stated point of view while the Republicans tend to identify hot-button issues with unambiguous terseness.

The Democrats can’t blunt attacks on their economic or immigration policies because they always come across as equivocators: “Well, it’s complicated.” Yes, these matters are complicated, but to win an election in the United States you have to be blunt in stating an outcome everyone should want.

The Democratic National Committee needs to go to Madison Avenue to find its bearings. The inner workings of your policies may have to be complicated, but the public declaration of them should be as clear as day.

Paul Betz
Chapel Hill, N.C.

To the Editor:

A lifelong Democrat, I face an inconvenient truth: The Democratic Party is now the party of the elites. Data can be interpreted, but it’s undeniable that the Dems have been steadily losing the populist vote, in the Rust Belt, in rural areas and even in cities. While I do believe that there is more racism, prejudice and sexism than I would like to admit, the Democrats can’t write off this group as ignorant or racist or clinging to religion if they want to win. They have to understand them.

It is a savage irony that the party that purports to care about the poor and working class does not have their support. At the risk of stating the obvious, Democrats need to get off their ideological high horse and reach out to people in ways they haven’t for decades. Treat minority groups or rural blocs as a monolith at your peril.

John J. Arent
San Francisco

Kennedy’s Role in Health Policy

To the Editor:

Re “Kennedy, Vocal Critic of Vaccines, Is Poised to Wield New Power” (news article, Nov. 8):

As a physician, I find the prospect of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. playing any role in public health policy to be nothing short of terrifying. He is a skeptic of vaccinations, despite the consensus of experts that vaccines are safe and effective.

It was bad enough when Donald Trump’s unwise refusal to accept the reality of the Covid pandemic caused hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths. We can expect similarly bad outcomes if Mr. Kennedy is making important decisions about public health policy.

Clearly, a second Trump term would be an unprecedented public health disaster.

Harvey M. Berman
White Plains, N.Y.

The Shuttering of the ‘Mom and Pop’ Pharmacies

To the Editor:

Re “Powerful Firms Driving Out Local Pharmacies” (front page, “The Middlemen” series, Oct. 20):

The forces squeezing the independent neighborhood pharmacies into oblivion are analogous to those that have nearly decimated the private practice of medicine, as large entities monopolize the business of health care.

As far as the “mom and pop” pharmacy, a staple of the community, the pharmacy benefit managers are wielding unchecked powers skewed in favor of the large-chain pharmacy conglomerates.

For the independent operator, there is little wiggle room for cost containment when fixed operating expenses rise and reimbursement is reduced. Only creative revenue sources from ancillary services keep some of these independents afloat.

It is no wonder stores are shuttering in astounding numbers. There is something special about those surviving small-town pharmacies where you can still know your pharmacist by name and make an inquiry about your concerns about a newly prescribed medication.

As a physician in a solo private practice, I am fortunate to collaborate with one of our town’s only surviving apothecaries. I can definitively attest to the fact that the services are superior to the large-chain counterparts, and you can actually get to speak to a live person.

Our dependence on the large chains will invariably lead to longer wait times as the bulk of independent pharmacies gradually wither away into obscurity. This is an example of one more casualty of a health care system usurped by corporate greed.

Ronald G. Frank
West Orange, N.J.

Source: New York Times