This Is Why You Lost in 2024
A reflection from someone who wasn’t at the protest—but was watching for the signal
I wasn’t in the streets on April 5.
I was miles away, eating barbecue on a sunny afternoon, trying to follow what was happening. But the feeds were quiet. The networks were quieter. I kept checking—local news, national, even Fox. Nothing.
Tens of thousands were marching.
And it was like it wasn’t happening at all.
That silence said something.
And then came the email.
“Tens of thousands stood up…”
The message from the state party opened with that line, as if it had been right there. But it hadn’t. It was absent the day of the protests. Silent when people took to the streets. Unseen when organizers shared safety guides, when students held signs, when old friends marched like they used to, before the pandemic and the burnout.
But now—days later—it was back.
With a donation link.
With urgency.
With a “we’re in this together” tone that felt retrofitted after the fact.
You marched. We monetized it.
We Noticed the Absence
This post isn’t about blame.
It’s about noticing who wasn’t there, and who noticed that you weren’t.
It’s about the difference between participation and posturing.
Between being on the ground and catching the tailwind.
April 5 was a moment. Maybe a fragile one. Maybe the start of something.
But it was real. And for the thousands who showed up—who risked surveillance, ridicule, erasure—it mattered. Even if the cameras didn’t see them.
Especially because the cameras didn’t.
This Is Why You Lost in 2024
Not because of polling. Not because of policy gaps.
Because when the base showed up, you didn’t.
Because you keep mistaking inbox engagement for trust.
Because you think the story starts when you’re ready to tell it.
Because when people act without you, you don’t ask how to help—you ask for a check.
Because “solidarity” is just a font in your fundraising emails.
And because your silence wasn’t strategic. It was just silence.
The Gap We Felt, the Gap They Won’t Name
The Hands Off protests on April 5 didn’t come from nowhere—but they didn’t come from the Democratic Party either.
They came from unions, students, faith groups, climate coalitions, and abortion rights networks. They came from people who have already lost too much time to waiting. People who don’t need another poll-tested slogan—they need action. Urgency. Presence.
And what did they get from the DNC?
Nothing that showed up in the streets.
Nothing that appeared in CNN’s article, either.
No quotes. No faces. No names.
Because this wasn’t their show. And they knew it.
Maybe that’s why, when the inbox lit up with fundraising emails days later, it felt like a quiet betrayal. Not because they asked for money—but because they didn’t ask first how it went. Or why it mattered. Or what people in the crowd were afraid of.
The gap we felt was emotional, not just strategic.
The absence wasn’t just political—it was personal.
And yet, the Party still won’t name it.
They call it enthusiasm. They call it “mobilization.”
They forget that people didn’t show up to be counted.
They showed up because they felt unseen.
We noticed who wasn’t there.
And so did the silence.
What Could Have Been Different
You could have shown up late and said:
“We missed it, but we’re listening.”
You could have named the organizers, not the party.
You could have shared the risks, not just the receipts.
You could have said:
“You don’t owe us anything. But we owe you presence.”
Instead, you sent a boilerplate about Project 2025 and asked for donations.
We read it. We saw the absence still glowing underneath.
From One Who Stayed Home
I wasn’t there either.
And I’m not writing this to pretend otherwise.
But I was watching for the signal.
I wanted to see how we’d show up—not just in the streets, but in the story.
And what I saw was this:
You didn’t carry the banner.
You didn’t hand out water.
You didn’t even nod toward the crowd.
But you sent an email.
And this is why you lost in 2024.
Afterword: Assumptions, Biases & Other Glittering Debris
We’re not neutral here. That’s part of the point.
Assumptions
- That the protests were meaningful, even if under-covered.
- That people who showed up wanted more than validation—they wanted witness.
- That the Democratic Party missed an opportunity for relationship, not just rhetoric.
Biases
- A belief in bottom-up energy over top-down strategy.
- A soft spot for protest culture and political improvisation.
- A deep suspicion of inbox activism and fundraising-as-solidarity.
Blind Spots
- We weren’t there either.
We saw it from the edge, in the absence, in the scroll.
That distance limits our view, even as it sharpens our listening. - We don’t speak for the organizers, or the people in the street.
- And we can’t know what was happening inside the party apparatus—what constraints, fears, or quiet efforts went undocumented.
But we do know what showed up in our inbox.
And we know what didn’t.
So this reflection doesn’t claim moral superiority.
It offers a mirror. With stickers on it.
Footnote: The Bono Promo Cart That Never Was
Years ago, we joked about cutting a fake radio promo.
A Bono impersonator (whom we never found) would say:
“This is Bono. You too can make a difference—buy our record.”
We never made the spot.
But the vibe stayed with us.
It echoes in every political email that mistakes awareness for alignment, and every pitch that shows up too late to the gig but still tries to sell the merch.
Cameo: The Trash Panda of the Truth
We don’t claim moral clarity.
We’re just here with a flashlight and some composted snark.
But we’d be lying if we said TPOTT wasn’t nearby—leaning against a lamppost, shaking their head at the party email, sipping something out of a thermos labeled WE WARNED YOU.
They didn’t say anything.
They didn’t have to.
The wind already changed.
Postscript, in the Key of 1989:
“I got a letter from the government (or the Democrats, in this case) the other day— Opened it, read it, said they were suckers.”
—Public Enemy