It is time that we push the Democratic Party left.
1y 7mon ago by lemmy.world/u/Intergalactic in politicaldiscussion
In light of the recent election, it’s clear that the Democratic Party needs a significant leftward shift to better address the needs and concerns of the American people. The party’s centrist approach is increasingly out of touch, limiting its ability to appeal to a broader base and especially to young voters, who are looking for bold and transformative policies. The fact that young men became a substantial part of the conservative voting bloc should be a wake-up call—it’s essential that the Democratic Party broadens its appeal by offering real solutions that resonate with this demographic.
Furthermore, one major missed opportunity was the decision to forgo primaries, which could have brought new energy and ideas to the ticket. Joe Biden’s choice to run for a second term, despite earlier implications of a one-term presidency, may have ultimately contributed to the loss by undermining trust in his promises. Had the party explored alternative candidates in a primary process, the outcome could have been vastly different. It is now imperative for the Working Families Party and the Progressive Caucus to push for a stronger, unapologetically progressive agenda within the Democratic Party. The time for centrist compromises has passed, as evidenced by setbacks dating back to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss, the persistently low approval ratings for Biden since 2022, and Kamala Harris’s recent campaign, which left many progressives feeling alienated. To regain momentum and genuinely connect with the electorate, a clear departure from moderate politics is essential.
This has been the rallying call from progressives for decades, they keep sliding right. At what point do we have to consider that entryism into the Dems just doesn't work? The party structure is designed to entrench establishment figures that are great at fundraising from wealthy Capitalists.
Correct, your sentiment is a common one. Marxism is regularly vindicated because it remains correct, try as progressives might to avoid its conclusions that revolution is necessary.
You don't have to be a Marxist to notice it, but his writings and the writings of Marxists that succeed him are critical for putting everything into context.
No. Do a Bernie.
An independent can't win the presidency but independents absolutely can become state senators, state house reps or federal senators.
If you're a politician who manages to win your local democratic primary run as an independent with no one with the (D) label... if no one is wearing the label you'll outperform wearing it yourself.
You can affix yourself to a more niche party like Democratic Socialists of America or the Working Families Party but keep that (I).
Let me clarify - don't try and do a Bernie into the Whitehouse - you're up against an immense amount of money... but do try and do a Bernie into other positions.
The DNC can't be reformed. They need to wholesale clean house and morph into something else, or they're not even contenders.
The argument could be made that they haven't been contenders for at least 12 years. The Party heads LIKE this dynamic; it makes them oodles of cash.
I'll only believe a leftist could win an election for president AFTER a leftist wins an election for governor.
Was Senator good enough or nah?
Why? Are leftists not capable of winning governorships too?
Just seems pretty arbitrary and an easy goalpost to move. If they had a governorship and not a Senator, you could just as easily say "I won't believe it until they can win a Senate seat!" instead lol.
Good thing it literally doesn't matter what you believe they can do
Governors, like presidents, are part of the executive branch. So I think it is the more appropriate comparison.
The leading contenders for the 2028 Democratic nomination aren't a mystery. They are mostly governors, for example Newsom, Pritzker, Shapiro, Beshear. There isn't some unknown leftist walking among us who is going to come out of nowhere to win the primary.
All these Sanders supporters talking about the establishment as the reason he doesn't win. Yet none of them voted in the primaries this year. None of them wrote him in for president. Sanders won't win because instead of going to the polls and actually voting for him, his supporters will post on the Internet about wishing they could go to the polls to vote for him.
none of them voted in the primaries this year
.... dude. The primary between Biden, the magic crystals lady, and some no name executive?? I did vote in it, and I also knew it was a total sham. What primary did Kamala Harris win? Oh right, not a single one... how can we possibly act surprised that a candidate did not win in a general election when they never even won a primary in their own party?
The Democrat party has not held a valid and legitimate primary since 2008. Super-delegates that are literally pre-pledged to the elites' chosen candidate is not valid democracy. Holding a primary in stages where specific states go first and sway and influence other states that go later is not valid democracy. You're not going to win at democracy if you don't even do democracy.
🤡
Holding a primary in stages where specific states go first and sway and influence other states that go later is not valid democracy.
The alternative is to hold all primaries at once, which costs candidates a lot more money. It would basically exclude any candidate who did not have significant establishment support from the moment they annouced and/or is not a billionaire.
If you want a non-establishment candidate to have any chance, you must give them the opportunity to prove themselves in a small contest, like Iowa, and allow them time to build up momentum.
Okay, I guess just keep losing then?
Democrats have won the presidency roughly half the time over the past 30 years.
Okay, great, clearly zero self-reflection and change is needed then!
There is always room for reflection and self-improvement.
Reflecting on past Democratic wins for the presidency, governorships, and Congress suggests that centrism is often an asset. If anything, the relative lack of victories for leftist candidates should prompt self-reflection.
There is always room for reflection and self-improvement
The following paragraph:
"I've reflected and we are doing everything right! Our current strategy is an asset and not obviously the reason we failed!!!! Progressives are the ones that need to self reflect!!!!"
Lmao
No, I don't think we are doing everything right. Like I said, there is always room for improvement. But that doesn't necessarily mean we need an ideological shift to the left.
For example, we need to bring back Latino voters. I don't think embracing leftism is the best way to do that.
Alright, well since you explicitly believe that you shouldn't embrace progressives, don't be complaining or blaming progressives for not showing up in the polls to vote for your nominees. That scapegoat is officially off the table as a finger-pointing option 🙂
The closest Democrats got to embracing progressives was nominating Biden. It didn't really work out.
Biden? Progressive? Now this is just delusional...
Is climate change legislation progressive?
Is student debt relief progressive?
Is UBI progressive?
Biden enacted versions of all of those, and was more pro-union and pro-LGBTQ than Clinton or Obama or Carter.
But you've kind of proven my point. Progressives won't vote for someone who enacts some progressive policies, even if it's more than any other recent president. Progressives demand someone who gives them everything they want.
For years, all Democrats heard from progressives was "Not enough debt relief" or "You call that UBI?" And of course, "He still hasn't earned my vote". On top of that, progressives get very jealous when Democrats also try to please centrists. As though Democrats have to pass a purity test rather than try to maximize their votes.
I do not expect the next Democratic candidate to even bother with student debt relief. I think the lesson that Democrats will learn is that it is almost impossible to "earn the vote" of progressives. They will always give up on you.
Compare the success of progressives to, say, NRA supporters. Have you ever heard an NRA supporter say, "The GOP still hasn't earned my vote"?
Is UBI progressive?
Inform me on Biden's support of UBI that you are referencing...
I do not expect the next Democratic candidate to even bother with student debt relief. I think the lesson that Democrats will learn is that it is almost impossible to “earn the vote” of progressives.
Honest question: Do you expect the next Democratic candidate to win?
Biden's support of UBI
Biden’s Stimulus Plan Contains an Experiment in Universal Basic Income
Do you expect the next Democratic candidate to win?
I don't know. It depends on whether Trump screws the pooch for most Americans. I definitely think he will, so I think Democrats have a decent chance to win.
But I think there is a more important question for progressives. It's easy to criticize and browbeat Democrats, but that doesn't help pass progressive policy. It actually makes Democrats turn away from progressives and look for easier-to-please voters. And maybe they lose once more, but again: how does that help progressives?
I think progressives could take some hints from their opponents on the right. Anti-abortionists and gun nuts are fanatically loyal to the GOP. There is no question whether they will vote GOP in 2028 or 2032 or 2036.
And they are very patient. Anti-abortionists set Dobbs into motion thirty years ago! They don't care that Trump used to be pro-choice and didn't really want condemn abortion this year and has probably paid for an abortion or three. Over time, the GOP has rewarded them more than any other interest group.
In the end, parties reward loyalty. Not threats to stay home on election day.
The one-time $1400 payments following covid and a child tax credit is UBI? Oh, so you're just being disingenuous...
I think what you need to realize is that the Democrats genuinely need progressive votes in order to win, period. You do not have the numbers, otherwise. The progressives do not need Democrats in order to continue losing, they already are losing either way in a first-past-the-post voting system. That is just reality. You can forsake them and instead try to embrace "centrists", but you'll just lose, like 2016 and 2024.
are fanatically loyal to the GOP. There is no question whether they will vote GOP in 2028 or 2032 or 2036.
You're also describing the "centrists" that Democrats waste their time courting...
"You call that UBI?"
Just as I predicted!
Democrats genuinely need progressive votes in order to win
The point is that they do not need a progressive candidate to win. Bill Clinton and Obama weren't progressive, after all.
The point is that they do not need a progressive candidate to win.
...well, enjoy losing...😊
It wasn't a losing strategy in the past.
The key for Democrats is to realize that "progressivism" is impossibly broad. So there is no way to deliver on that promise.
However, a candidate who does not identify as "progressive" can still deliver specific promises to progressives. Say, a carbon tax and a trans rights law. And that's it.
For a progressives who care about climate and/or trans rights, that might be enough to vote for the Democrat. Sure, they aren't promising UBI or student debt relief or housing or a minimum wage hike. Maybe the other things in their platform are aimed at Latinos and liberals.
But if you actually care about trans rights, why not vote for the Democrat who will deliver that instead of the Republican who offers nothing or the Green who can't deliver anything?
I think there might be enough progressives who really do care about trans rights and/or climate to make up for losing the ones who only care about UBI. And I think Democrats don't need every last progressive voter to win.
why you're trying to get away with not delivering things that progressives want
I'm not doing anything. That's what I think Democrats should do, if they want to win elections. If Democrats promise too much to progressives, they will inevitably disappoint progressives and lose their support.
I'd argue Obama's 2008 campaign was too
Obama did exactly what I'm suggesting.
He campaigned not as a progressive, but as someone who would appeal to centrists and even conservatives in order to bring unity. He made just one major promise to progressives, health care reform. For many of them, that was enough. He delivered, by signing a fairly centrist version without a public option. It was derided at the time by leftists but they got over it.
Then he put most of his energy into futile attempts at bipartisanship, hunting down bin Laden, drone strikes, and trying to ignore another major progressive issue, gay marriage.
He was a huge success! Even today he is widely admired. I think future Democrats will try to emulate him.
Yes, start locally and regionally then go up to nationally. This is the way.
Does FDR count?
If FDR counts then so does Biden
This was tried in 1968. It failed, and the Democratic Party instituted superdelegates to prevent it from ever having a chance at being successful again. You can't vote your way out of capitalism.
It was time back in 2016 with Bernie, yet here we are now.
ITT: folks who still think there will be free and fair elections in the US ever again
It's cute that they think the Dems in Congress won't be systematically exterminated within 4 years. Just adorable.
My sole remaining consolation in life is that they'll probably get rounded up before me.
Better to lose the good ones first?
Cower in place when they come for you, lib.
The funnny thing about elections is that politicians do the things people vote for. Literally no one gives a shit about people who don't vote. Everyone who sat out and couldn't even be arsed to vote third party just helped move the country to the right. Everyone who sits at home during primaries let's the rest of the country have its way.
Democrats don't implement the things that you want because you don't vote and therefore you don't matter. Republicans don't implement the things you that want because you don't vote and therefore you don't matter.
"Waah, waah, there's only two parties." More than half the country doesn't vote. That's enough to elect a third party candidate. Instead millions of idiots sat at home complaining that they can't get everything they want today, and moving the needle is too much work.
Politicians do the things people
votedonate for.
After that, they say things they think the people want to hear.
And blameing the public over not voting for somone they don't want to vote for, seems backwards. Politicians aren't entitled to any votes. They need to earn it.
What horseshit. They didn't write in any candidate, like there was no one in the whole world they could think of that they want as president.
Do you think there's one ballot in this whole country that has a single question on it - like there was nothing out there worth voting on other than the presidential race?
Saying there's nothing to vote for is an excuse to be lazy. If you couldn't find one single thing on your ballot to vote for in this election, then you're never going to vote, for any reason. Everyone knows it, and therefore no one cares what nonvoters say. So sit here and do what you do best, blow hard on the Internet. You can post your little commets, that no one will read or care about, because at the end of the day they know no matter what they do or say, you won't go to the polls to stop them.
Saying there's nothing to vote for is an excuse to be lazy.
Who said there's nothing to vote for?
"And blameing the public over not voting for somone they don’t want to vote for, seems backwards."
You are implying that there is no one to vote for. There are more than two candidates, and you can write in anyone you want. And there are many questions on the ballot. No one is blaming anyone for not voting for someone they don't like. They're blaming them for voting for nothing, at all, among many important races and initiatives, with the possibility of writing in anyone, then saying "You can't blame me; there's not something I want to vote for".
You are implying that there is no one to vote for.
Not at all. You even quoted me saying someone, not anyone.
No one is blaming anyone for not voting for someone they don't like.
I guess I'm assuming they don't like either of the possible winners, I didn't think of the others, because they don't matter.
"You can't blame me; there's not something I want to vote for."
I've never seen that. Do you see it frequently? How many times this week?
If you couldn’t find one single thing on your ballot to vote for in this election, then you’re never going to vote, for any reason.
This is why elections famously always have the same amount of turnout.
What bugs me about this election is that turnout of GOP and independent voters surpassed Dem turnout.
This makes me wonder if a bunch of former Dems switched parties between 2020 and now. Which would suggest that voters themselves are swinging rightward.
Consider that he's gained in previously blue strongholds, like in Beverly Hills as per https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-07/trump-victory-by-the-numbers/104573034 and even in Brooklyn as per https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/06/trump-voter-gains-new-york-00188078
To me, this seems to justify the Dems rightward swing - they are following the voters. No wonder Harris campaigned with Liz Cheney at her side.
But, it also makes me feel kinda sick inside. If the country as a whole is swinging rightward, that makes me wonder where I fit in - or even if there is any room at all with someone with my beliefs.
To me, this seems to justify the Dems rightward swing - they are following the voters. No wonder Harris campaigned with Liz Cheney at her side.
What a ridiculous takeaway. They moved right and lost, but somehow this shows that moving right was the correct decision? That's nonsense, it shows the exact opposite.
The Cheneys do not represent any substantial constituency. Virtually nobody likes them, right or left. Kamala went chasing after the mythical "moderate republican swing voter," and they told her go fuck yourself the way they always do, and in the meantime she neglected her actual base which meant less enthusiasm and mobilization.
The democrats have tried this shit over and over. The people who like right-wing politics already have a party catering to them that they're happy with. How many times does this strategy have to result in abject failure before you start to question it?
Not the first time I've heard this bullshit either,. It's a surprisingly common talking point among centrists, even though it's so blatantly stupid. Oh, the Democrats are going to the right because the left won't vote for them? Well, the right won't fucking vote for them either, so why are they still moving right? Why is courting the right a reasonable and smart thing to do, while courting the left is dumb and bad? Especially when they keep courting the right and they keep fucking losing?
What a ridiculous takeaway. They moved right and lost, but somehow this shows that moving right was the correct decision? That’s nonsense, it shows the exact opposite.
Sorry, you are saying that folks joined the GOP and voted for orange voldemort because .. he was to the left of Dems?
Kamala went chasing after the mythical “moderate republican swing voter,”
As part of a broader coalition. Not after them solely.
in the meantime she neglected her actual base which meant less enthusiasm and mobilization.
I disagree. She was on places like "Call Me Daddy" and SNL - the outreach was there.
How many times does this strategy have to result in abject failure before you start to question it?
Well, it worked in 2020, but not in 2024. Meanwhile, Clinton did not purse this in 2016 - instead calling the worst of these folks "deplorables" - and still lost.
So the answer is - certainly more than just the one time.
Sorry, you are saying that folks joined the GOP and voted for orange voldemort because … he was to the left of Dems?
Trump got 72 million votes in 2024, compared to 74 million votes in 2020, so I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that Dem voters moved to Trump. Trump just successfully turned out the same base of supporters that he had before, while Harris didn't. But even if your claim were true, it would still indicate that moving to the right is ineffective, because in that case it failed to stop them from leaving. It's just utter nonsense no matter how you try to look at it.
I disagree. She was on places like “Call Me Daddy” and SNL - the outreach was there.
I cannot possibly emphasize enough how much I do not mean "going on SNL" when I talk about mobilizing and energizing the base.
Well, it worked in 2020, but not in 2024. Meanwhile, Clinton did not purse this in 2016 - instead calling the worst of these folks “deplorables” - and still lost.
So that one comment outweighs the entire rest of the campaign where she moved to the right to try to appeal to moderate republicans?
Hey, you know what, Harris called republicans "weird." So I guess we can't count this either as an example of your ideology being proven decisively wrong for the upteenth time. And the next time that the democrats try this and it blows up in their face yet again, there will be some random comment that means you can exclude that data point too.
so I’m not sure where you’re getting this idea that Dem voters moved to Trump.
This makes me think you're replying without reading. I'll make it easy for you though and quote my earlier comment,
Consider that he's gained in previously blue strongholds, like in Beverly Hills as per https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-07/trump-victory-by-the-numbers/104573034 and even in Brooklyn as per https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/06/trump-voter-gains-new-york-00188078
Moving on,
But even if your claim were true, it would still indicate that moving to the right is ineffective, because in that case it failed to stop them from leaving.
This is a good point. Agreed.
Trump got 72 million votes in 2024, compared to 74 million votes in 2020,
Citation needed.
What I'm aware of (e.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/11/07/uncalled-house-senate-races-popular-vote-2024-election/ - https://archive.is/W93jB) says we don't have the final popular vote counts yet.
It’s just utter nonsense no matter how you try to look at it.
No, nonsense doesn't make sense. But this does make sense. The issue is - if I'm right and the whole country is moving rightward, then Dems can only survive by also moving to the right.
In other words, one interpretation is that Dems and Harris didn't go far right enough.
I hope that's wrong though, since it suggests lefties like myself are an endangered breed.
how much I do not mean
That's fair - would be helpful then if you state what you do mean. Or in other words, what you think would be effective in "mobilizing and energizing the base."
So that one comment outweighs the entire rest of the campaign where she moved to the right to try to appeal to moderate republicans?
It wouldn't - if that had happened. But - while it is true Clinton tried to get moderate Republicans on board back in 2016, she really didn't shift at all for them. Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/while-wooing-republicans-clinton-sticks-progressive-policy-n628501
And the next time that the democrats try this and it blows up in their face yet again, there will be some random comment that means you can exclude that data point too.
Again, it's more than just a random comment.
Hey, you know what, Harris called republicans “weird.”
Hmm.. I don't recall this actually. Citation needed.
So I guess we can’t count this either as an example of your ideology being proven decisively wrong for the upteenth time.
Well, you can't count it as that, but for a different reason - you've failed to prove anything wrong, let alone decisively.
Citation needed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election
The final vote totals are not in yet, true, but I'm going off what information we have now.
No, nonsense doesn’t make sense. But this does make sense. The issue is - if I’m right and the whole country is moving rightward, then Dems can only survive by also moving to the right.
In other words, one interpretation is that Dems and Harris didn’t go far right enough.
I hope that’s wrong though, since it suggests lefties like myself are an endangered breed.
Well, the good news is that you are completely wrong.
Harris lost for two very simple reasons. First, because she attached herself to a status quo that many people were dissatisfied with. Second, because she attempted your shitty strategy of shifting right to win over republicans, when republicans are perfectly satisfied with the party they've got.
You're operating on lots of false assumptions, like this idea that who people vote for just comes down to who's closer to them on the political compass or something. Honestly, Harris could've run to the right of Trump on every issue and Trump supporters still wouldn't vote for her. That's just how reality is, and your ideology is out of line with it.
That’s fair - would be helpful then if you state what you do mean. Or in other words, what you think would be effective in “mobilizing and energizing the base.”
Running a progressive campaign with progressive policy. Not punching left. Not supporting genocide. Not bragging about Dick Cheney being on your side.
Even just calling Republicans weird was actually working but she couldn't even stick with that because she was too concerned with winning over the mythical moderate republican vote.
Hmm… I don’t recall this actually. Citation needed.
Really?
Yep. So that happened very close to Biden dropping out, hence I think I missed it in all the noise about the change.
It's good to have source though. In this case it provided additional context - the comments were limited to the top two, unlike Clinton who insulted potential voters. (Actually let's not kid ourselves - these folks almost certainly voted against her in the end.)
The final vote totals are not in yet, true, but I’m going off what information we have now.
That's not unreasonable, but I'd argue it's premature. If the results change, that could invalidate the conclusion.
The sources I referenced seem to disagree with you, but after all they may yet be proven to have jumped to conclusions too soon as well.
Well, the good news is that you are completely wrong.
Like I said, it's premature to conclude this.
I'll grant you this - if the final numbers show that the GOP didn't get more than 2020, and Harris ended up getting a lot less than Biden did (on the order of tens of millions), then I'll concede and agree.
Though I'll through in an additional wrench - I'd want to see what happens with the popular vote in California specifically. To rule out things like Dem voters in Republican or battleground states getting their votes suppressed as being the cause of the GOP win.
But if the numbers say differently - that more people voted this year overall, for example, then I'd argue that supports my original (and deeply disappointing) case. (I'm not sure year if 2020 is the right comparison either due to the effects of the pandemic - that might have been an unrepeatable one off. I'd also want to compare to 2008 or 2012 after adjusting the numbers for population changes.
Honestly, Harris could’ve run to the right of Trump on every issue and Trump supporters still wouldn’t vote for her.
Agreed. I confess that why his core voters like him so much remains a bit of mystery to me - even the most extreme on the right haven't been able to displace this guy, a new york liberal who basically stole their playbook and used the bits he liked.
But this puzzles me less than a Clinton and Biden supporting Dem turning red this year.
Running a progressive campaign with progressive policy.
Like Clinton did in 2016, as per the NBC source I referenced earlier? We know how that turned out.
Not punching left. Not supporting genocide. Not bragging about Dick Cheney being on your side.
Yup, agreed. I can see Palestine/Gaza indeed being a sticking point. I still will never understand those folks who voted GOP because they didn't like Biden/Harris on Gaza - which many claimed to do as per https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/14/hamtramck-donald-trump-arab-american-muslim - but I could easily understand them sitting out or voting third party. And with Dick Cheney's history, that might influence single issue voters negatively who might otherwise be primed to want to believe in the best of intentions from Harris.
Of course, Harris was between a rock and a hard place on this issue - but we don't need to rehash all of that. From what's coming out now, it's clear that Harris wasn't able to strike the necessary balance and win over this important voting bloc - such as https://www.voanews.com/a/in-historic-shift-american-muslim-and-arab-voters-desert-democrats/7854995.html and https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/11/7/dont-dare-blame-arab-and-muslim-americans-for-trumps-victory - and I certainly can't rule out the possibility that your suggestion here might have been enough to swing things the other way.
That’s just how reality is, and your ideology is out of line with it.
You’re operating on lots of false assumptions, like this idea that who people vote for just comes down to who’s closer to them on the political compass or something
If that's false - then how do people choose who to vote for? What else would be the measure that they use?
like this idea that who people vote for just comes down to who’s closer to them on the political compass or something
Well, they also tend to follow endorsements (hence why AOC and Sanders endorsed Harris), and do things like punish the incumbent if the economy feels really bad, etc. I'd agree that closeness isn't the sole thing.
Even just calling Republicans weird was actually working
Per your citation it was just the two folks who are heading to the White House, not Republicans generally.
but she couldn’t even stick with that because she was too concerned with winning over the mythical moderate republican vote.
Actually, she did - see https://www.npr.org/2024/10/30/nx-s1-5170908/harris-argues-that-trump-poses-a-threat-to-democracy-in-the-final-days-of-the-race & https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/15/harris-slams-trump-in-pennsylvania-as-us-election-race-heats-up
Christ. If Hilary Clinton is your idea of a progressive candidate and going on SNL is your idea of mobilizing the base, then you are just on a wavelength that is so far removed from mine that frankly I don't think there's any real possibility of a productive conversation.
this idea that who people vote for just comes down to who’s closer to them on the political compass
If that’s false - then how do people choose who to vote for? What else would be the measure that they use?
Seriously, come on. People have all sorts of reasons for chosing a candidate. This is so obvious that I shouldn't have to explain it.
For the record, Clinton wasn't progressive enough for me (but I would have indeed settled on her back in 2016) and I don't watch SNL (though considering how many do, I still think it's great outreach).
But I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Here's a great post - https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/18340229 - describing how much and how well Dems turned out this year (with the estimate being that Dems will have actually beat their 2020 numbers once the popular vote count is finished). It's just that red voters turned out in even higher numbers this year.
Since the final popular vote tally is still unknown, it is speculative, but if it's right, then I think it's enough to disprove your contention (that Harris lost because turnout from Dems was low because they were turned off by the lack of progressive policies and Gaza and etc - this can't be the reason if turnout went up instead of down!).
That's still speculation, but whether it's more people voting Trump or fewer people voting Democrat is a moot point. If the Dems moving right led to the outcome that more people voted Trump, then it was still a losing strategy.
On that last point - I'm moving to the view that you're right - it is a losing strategy.
As another commenter in this thread pointed out, https://lemmy.world/comment/13326761 , it's the economy that was the biggest factor. That will always shift wins to the opposing party.
This tells me that a) 2024 might have just been unwinnable, as the economy really really sucked due to factors out of the control of anyone in the USA (Ukraine war still having devastating impacts on the US economy today).
But it also suggests that if we still have all the same elections that we expect to in 2026 and 2028, then Dems would be able to make a major comeback without changing much as this idiot trashes the economy. Alas, that feels like a really big if right now, and it shouldn't be.
Seriously, come on. People have all sorts of reasons for chosing a candidate. This is so obvious that I shouldn’t have to explain it.
Funny where you cut off the part where I list some of the other reasons. I'd agree that it's obvious that people have all sorts of reasons for choosing a candidate, but what didn't compute for me is why someone who would be more progressive - or even just pro-Gaza - would support the anti-progressive who wanted to let Israel's prime minister "finish the job", so to speak.
This is so obvious that I shouldn’t have to explain it.
Well, it can be worthwhile explaining it anyways sometimes. Often I've seen two people who actually agree but keep arguing because of semantics or the like, but if it's all laid out plainly then these tend to quickly come to an agreement. Other times, it's useful just to see how far the "wavelengths" are apart, as you put it.
Very few people supported Trump because they thought he'd be better on Gaza. Some may have chosen to take a gamble on literally anyone because the Dems are so bad on it, but I doubt that represents a major bloc.
On the other hand, I think it does represent a major factor when it comes to the economy. People are dissatisfied with the status quo and Kamala ran on the status quo. Trump was able to present himself as an alternative, and he was the only other choice.
I honestly think she could have not just mobilized more democrats, but also peeled off more republicans by seperaring from Biden's economic policies and presenting a further left alternative. Not everyone who votes republican is ideologically committed.
From the sources I referenced earlier though it seems like may have been what broke the core three swing states - Arab voters who backed Biden in 2020 flipped to the GOP in 2024. In absolute terms the margins by which Penn and Michigan turned red are tiny - so it's easy to believe that winning over the Arab vote would have made all the difference in the EC.
That was the one major issue that I wasn't sure on w.r.t. Harris. It seems to me like she did everything else right except that. Now, she was between a rock and a hard place there - but perhaps she should have counted on the Jewish voting block staying loyal no matter what and then appeased this group by much stronger measures.
Anyways, I saw a Harris win as being the last chance to implement a plan to reform the entire system and give progressives and far-left folks a fair chance, starting with a bunch of new constitutional amendments that would get ratified. But now I fear the exact opposite may happen. It all depends on who takes the House majority.
She did truly so much stuff wrong. The only reason I thought she had any chance at all was because Trump is such a shitty candidate that the bar was very low. She was a bad candidate who never would've won a normal primary, like 2020 showed, and she underperformed downballot candidates all over the place, including Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin, where democratic senators won or are winning, and which combined make up enough EVs to win (not to mention PA where the senate candidate outperformed Harris but lost by a hair, or NC which elected a democratic governor by a wide margin).
Losing Arab voters was probably enough to cost her the election, but even with them it's doubtful she would've won. There was a 14 point swing among Hispanic voters compared to last election, likely because of the Democrats pivoting right on immigration, and the economy was voters' biggest concern where Harris' messaging was very weak. Fundamentally, this whole strategy that they tried that you apparently like of dismissing everyone's concerns except the moderate republicans who were never going to vote democrat is completely self-defeating.
She did truly so much stuff wrong.
I'm open to the idea that there were other mistakes made, but ideally the list of this should at least be spelled out.
I'll start. Gaza. Also, https://theintercept.com/2024/11/07/harris-trump-election-immigration-border/
She was a bad candidate who never would’ve won a normal primary, like 2020 showed,
Well, 2020 was not a normal primary, with "electability" being too much of a concern as per https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/electability-eye-beholder-what-hell-do-we-actually-know-about-n1020576
she underperformed downballot candidates all over the place, including Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin, where democratic senators won or are winning, and which combined make up enough EVs to win (not to mention PA where the senate candidate outperformed Harris but lost by a hair, or NC which elected a democratic governor by a wide margin).
Hmm. This is a good point but I think that there may be another explanation for this. These races wouldn't have been so tied to Gaza or the immigration/deportation and border issues, so it's possible Harris took a big it from that while downballot, there wasn't any hit. And the underperformance isn't that wide - the GOP won most of the battleground Senate races to take majority control over the Senate.
Losing Arab voters was probably enough to cost her the election, but even with them it’s doubtful she would’ve won.
That statement contradicts itself. Either losing them cost her the election - meaning that having them on board would have saved her and lifted her to a win - or they didn't, because they weren't enough to win.
There was a 14 point swing among Hispanic voters compared to last election, likely because of the Democrats pivoting right on immigration
This is another puzzling point. It's true that there was a shift here - see for example https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/01/31/biden-border-immigration-bills-congress-2024/72399226007/ - but while he's to the right of where say Obama was, he's still to the left of orange voldemort. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68428154 and https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2024-06-18/in-an-immigration-pivot-biden-announces-plan-for-undocumented-spouses as compared to https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/01/trump-2024-immigration-policy-mass-deportations-stephen-miller/
Talk about cutting off the nose to spite the face.
except the moderate republicans who were never going to vote democrat
I mean we know some did, since they told us. Liz Cheney for example voted Harris.
this whole strategy that they tried that you apparently like of dismissing everyone’s concerns
You'd have to list out which concerns got dismissed?
Obviously I don't agree - dismissing everyone's concerns does seem like a bad idea - but I also don't think everyone's concerns were dismissed. Rather, Harris supported a $15 minimum wage floor - https://ca.news.yahoo.com/harris-voices-support-15-minimum-172336812.html - and there were hopes that this could go even higher once she was elected. She also supported Medicare For All in this election - https://abcnews.go.com/Health/kamala-harris-stands-health-care-issues-vies-democratic/story?id=112159503
Of course one of the most prominent issues was Gaza, but I'd argue that even here the concerns weren't dismissed, not with Harris saying that she will not be silent on human suffering in Gaza as per https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kamala-harris-tailors-ad-messaging-on-gaza-israel-to-sway-michigan-pennsylvania-voters/ar-AA1toi71 - but this message simply was not strong enough.
Fundamentally, this whole strategy that they tried that you apparently like of dismissing everyone’s concerns except the moderate republicans who were never going to vote democrat is completely self-defeating.
Waiting on final numbers, but from the unsourced estimates in the other post, it seems like this is a false narrative. Rather than former Dems voting red like I first thought, it seems previous non-voters turned out red instead. As to why...
the economy was voters’ biggest concern where Harris’ messaging was very weak.
I think this is the only point where we agree on. I'm seeing elsewhere, e.g. https://apnews.com/article/trump-harris-economy-immigration-11db37c033328a7ef6af71fe0a104604 , that this is exactly why some shifted.
But as VP Harris probably couldn't have divorced herself from the economy.
who never would’ve won a normal primary
So 2020 was not a normal primary, but one held in 2024 wouldn't have been either. I think we are agreed on this point - had an actual primary taken place, that weakness would have been exposed, and someone other than Harris - who could more easily distance themselves from the most disliked parts and policies of the Biden-Harris administration - could have carried the torch, improving the odds of a win.
I'm open to the idea that there were other mistakes made, but ideally the list of this should at least be spelled out.
I've been talking about the problems the whole time.
Well, 2020 was not a normal primary, with “electability” being too much of a concern
Kamala was the media's preferred candidate and was widely treated as a frontrunner but mismanaged her campaign to the point of dropping out before a single vote was cast. Voters weren't the problem here, as nobody ever got a chance to vote for her in the first place because of her bungled campaign.
the GOP won most of the battleground Senate races to take majority control over the Senate
There's a difference between taking majority control over the Senate and winning most of the battleground states. Republicans flipped four states: West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Montana. West Virginia and Montana are both solidly red states, and it wasn't very realistic that the democrats would ever hold either with the shift towards political polarization. The Republicans really just won two battleground states, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and the PA race was extremely close. Democrats, meanwhile, won Michigan and Wisconsin, and are ahead in Arizona and Nevada. Democrats won most of the battleground senate races, it's just that the senate seats up for reelection were favorable to Republicans. Looking just at the senate races, it was a pretty respectable result for the democrats, it could have been a lot worse - this despite the fact that Kamala got the worst result of any Dem candidate since 20 years ago.
This is another puzzling point.
It's not puzzling at all. Many Latinos have conservative social values, but in the past they were willing to look past that because there was a substantive difference between the Republicans and Democrats on the issue, and they could be convinced that Trump's focus on immigration was racist. When the democrats dropped that and adopted right-wing positions on immigration, that reason disappeared.
The problem is that you have these deep rooted lesser-evilist brainworms that don't actually reflect reality. Everything would make more sense if you ripped them out and stopped looking at things from that perspective and assuming everyone else sees things that way.
I mean we know some did, since they told us. Liz Cheney for example voted Harris.
That is literally one person. A person who does not in any way reflect a significant constituancy of voters. What a ridiculous argument.
Of course one of the most prominent issues was Gaza, but I’d argue that even here the concerns weren’t dismissed, not with Harris saying that she will not be silent on human suffering in Gaza as per https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kamala-harris-tailors-ad-messaging-on-gaza-israel-to-sway-michigan-pennsylvania-voters/ar-AA1toi71- but this message simply was not strong enough.
That statement and a quarter will by you a piece of gum.
She was always very clear on supplying arms to Israel completely unconditionally. Nobody gives a shit about sweet talk, we wanted actual material action. It's like handing a mass shooter another clip while asking him politely to pretty please stop and saying that you disapprove of what he's doing and by the way there's more ammo where that came from if he'd like to keep going.
The message wasn't strong enough because it was bullshit.
But as VP Harris probably couldn’t have divorced herself from the economy.
I disagree. To some extent, sure, she's be associated with it, but she could have at least tried to distance herself from it. Hell, she could've said something like, "Look, the economy's not great, but that's because we were recovering from COVID. We had to make the best of a bad situation. But going forward, things will be different, before we were merely mitigating the damage, but now, with your support, we can begin building towards a future that will be brighter than ever. We are going to [policy X, Y, and Z]." Instead the messaging was more along the lines of, "The economy is great, actually, and anyone who says otherwise is trying to sow discord and get Trump elected."
Democrats have this pathological inability to self-criticize, accept fault, or just awknowledge problems, and Kamala was a particularly bad example of this. It alienates people and speaks to a lack of confidence. What harm would there be in distancing herself, at least a little, from Joe Biden? Is it going to hurt Biden's future career prospects?
I think we are agreed on this point - had an actual primary taken place, that weakness would have been exposed, and someone other than Harris - who could more easily distance themselves from the most disliked parts and policies of the Biden-Harris administration - could have carried the torch, improving the odds of a win.
Yes, that is one point of agreement.
Democrats have this pathological inability to self-criticize, accept fault, or just awknowledge problems,
It alienates people and speaks to a lack of confidence
Yep, definitely time for someone to look at themselves in the mirror.
brainworms
Everything would make more sense if you ripped them out
Yeah, you can't actually just rip out brainworms. THat's not how those are treated. This is how they're actually dealt with: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/neurocysticercosis#treatment
Likewise, the way forward here would be to patiently educate someone willing.
The problem is that you have these deep rooted lesser-evilist brainworms that don’t actually reflect reality.
I think the way I've summed things up do reflect reality. I did make a mistake (due to having insufficient data) about Dems flipping red, which I've already acknowledged. Actually, Harris is on track to get most of the popular vote that Biden got in 2020, which was one of the highest periods of turnout on record. It's just that voters who sat out 2016 and even 2020 turned out over the economy this year for the GOP, along with important single issue voters in swing states (Latinos over immigration and Arabs/Muslims over Gaza) switching sides.
More data is needed. Importantly the gerrymandering by the GOP that started in 2010 and was blessed by the Supreme Court makes me think that we can't look at 2008 or earlier for precedents. And even comparing to 2012 would be hard since Obama had an incumbency advantage when the plan was still new and not fully implemented.
With limited data, Clinton's more progressive (I said more progressive, not actually progressive) platform in 2016 failed to excite voters, and even more progressive ones failed in the primaries.
This is why I am such a fan of RCV - instead of having to battle it out in the primary, RCV would allow Dems to safely run more progressive candidates side by side with more moderate ones, allowing voters to say which ones they prefer the most without worrying about "electibility" so much (as this means the less electible candidate's votes would go to the other Dem to boost that Dem instead of assuring a GOP win).
and stopped looking at things from that perspective and assuming everyone else sees things that way.
Again, look in the mirror.
and Kamala was a particularly bad example of this.
As this is subjective, no citation needed. However, I'd argue that her change from her 2020 platform does in fact represent she is capable of reflecting and changing - she changed her 2024 platform to reflect the more "electible" platform of Biden that won 2020.
And the result was actually a very close election in the battleground states, as per https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj4ve004llxo but as you also pointed out.
Voters weren’t the problem here, as nobody ever got a chance to vote for her..because of her bungled campaign.
That's why I didn't mention them. Agreed overall - the point is that having to campaign for a primary in 2024 would have exposed the faults along with putting "electability" back into the picture. Exactly how this happens is less important than it does indeed happen.
Democrats won most of the battleground senate races
Democrats.. won Michigan and Wisconsin... are ahead in Arizona and Nevada.
I missed this. Conceded, you're right.
it wasn’t very realistic that the democrats would ever hold either
Yeah, the WV loss was basically certain. Although higher hopes were had in Montana, obviously they didn't pan out.
it’s just that the senate seats up for reelection were favorable to Republicans.
Yup, I remember this being an issue back in 2018 as well. Seeing that Senate terms are for six years, this makes sense. But that gives hope that 2026 will be more like 2020 with Dems barely retaking the Senate. Though that assumes there are still free and fair elections by then.
Looking just at the senate races, it was a pretty respectable result for the democrats, it could have been a lot worse
Agreed.
this despite the fact that Kamala got the worst result of any Dem candidate since 20 years ago.
You'll have to explain this. Based on the other speculative posted I referenced earlier, in terms of the popular vote it seems like Harris will have more than Clinton did in 2016 and only be short by a few million compared to Biden. If you look at EC numbers, Harris had more than Clinton, and the 2016 winner and the 2020 winner won by more than 300, while this year the number fell short of that.
It's definitely a bad&painful result, but I wouldn't call it the worst.
Many Latinos have conservative social values, but in the past they were willing to look past that because there was a substantive difference between the Republicans and Democrats on the issue,
Ah, that makes sense.
It’s not puzzling at all.
The reason it was puzzling is because I had forgotten. It's a personal bias (my inner circle of friends includes Latinos with very liberal families, but this obviously is due to a selection bias and doesn't reflect the grouping in general).
That is literally one person. A person who does not in any way reflect a significant constituancy of voters. What a ridiculous argument.
I can give you a longer list if you like, of all the former Republican politicians who have gone on the record for supporting Harris. It's not ridiculous at all. It's fair to say it wasn't enough, but it's more ridiculous to say it was just one person when we know the real number is at least more than an order of magnitude greater.
Nobody gives a shit about sweet talk, we wanted actual material action.
We're in agreement here.
The message wasn’t strong enough because it was bullshit.
I have nothing to back this up, but I had a feeling that once Harris was elected, actual action would eventually have been taken. She just couldn't say anything but empty words prior to election day to avoid losing the Jewish bloc - but based on what we now know of the overall vote, it seems like that was a risk she should have taken.
she could have at least tried to distance herself from it.
Hell, she could’ve said something like
I think the GOP would have had a field day with "before we were merely mitigating the damage" (why didn't you just fix it? maybe because you don't know how?)
but now, with your support, we can begin building towards a future that will be brighter than ever. We are going to [policy X, Y, and Z].
That's exactly what Harris tried to do, as per https://www.npr.org/2024/08/09/nx-s1-5055895/harris-is-signaling-her-campaigns-priorities-the-economy-could-be-key-for-voters (fight price gouging, expand child tax credit, encourage more small businesses) and per https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardmcgahey/2024/09/30/harris-opportunity-economy--closes-the-economic-gap-with-trump/ (the opportunity economy).
Instead the messaging was more along the lines of, “The economy is great, actually, and anyone who says otherwise
You'd be right if you said trying to use this was a mistake, but - I feel she was trying to share in the credit for the good numbers on the economy as per https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/10/harris-inflation-solid-economy-00183210
Voters care more about their own personal finances. If things are more expensive for them, why do they care that the economy's numbers look good? Another thing I think a primary would have prevented.
What harm would there be in distancing from Biden? Is it going to hurt B's future career prospects?
I think at the time the thinking was being too distant from B would cause two problems. First, why didn't she do anything more as VP? Second, not able to take any credit for the few good things.
You’ll have to explain this. Based on the other speculative posted I referenced earlier, in terms of the popular vote it seems like Harris will have more than Clinton did in 2016 and only be short by a few million compared to Biden. If you look at EC numbers, Harris had more than Clinton, and the 2016 winner and the 2020 winner won by more than 300, while this year the number fell short of that.
No, the number did not fall short of that, it's just that Arizona and Nevada have not been called for Trump yet, but they will be soon. At that point, the electoral map will look exactly the same as 2016 except that Clinton won Nevada, which Kamala is losing. And Clinton won the popular vote while Kamala lost it. So yes, it is pretty objectively a worse result than 2016.
The only thing I was wrong about was that it wasn't just 20 years. We actually have to go all the way back to 1988 to see a result this bad for the democrats, an election where George H.W. Bush won California.
I can give you a longer list if you like, of all the former Republican politicians who have gone on the record for supporting Harris. It’s not ridiculous at all. It’s fair to say it wasn’t enough, but it’s more ridiculous to say it was just one person when we know the real number is at least more than an order of magnitude greater.
An order of magnitude greater than 1 is 10. That's still completely insignificant, obviously. Individual politicians don't matter unless they draw in constituencies (and don't alienate other constituencies), which did not materialize.
I have nothing to back this up, but I had a feeling that once Harris was elected, actual action would eventually have been taken. She just couldn’t say anything but empty words prior to election day to avoid losing the Jewish bloc - but based on what we now know of the overall vote, it seems like that was a risk she should have taken.
This is essentially a conspiracy theory. It's no different from QAnon people explaining away anything Trump does that they don't like by saying that he had to say it to appease the deep state and get elected, TRUST THE PLAN. It's completely baseless cope and every piece of actual evidence clearly contradicts it.
But even if it were true it doesn't matter in the context of assessing why she lost, because there was no possible way for voters alienated by her public stance to know that she was lying and secretly on their side.
That’s exactly what Harris tried to do
No no no. You cut off major parts of what I said. The only similarity is, "We're going to make the economy better going forward" which every politician ever is going to say.
You do acknowledge the main point afterward though. I think we're in agreement on it being a mistake for her to not distance herself from Biden and not sufficiently acknowledge people's economic problems.
You do acknowledge the main point afterward though. I think we’re in agreement on it being a mistake for her to not distance herself from Biden and not sufficiently acknowledge people’s economic problems.
Yep. I think there's still a tiny disagreement here over whether or not Harris could have put enough distance - but we both agree that a primary would have proven it either way and solved the problem with a different candidate if it wasn't possible, so that's perhaps immaterial.
The only similarity is, “We’re going to make the economy better going forward” which every politician ever is going to say.
Both Harris and I provided more specific details than that.
No no no. You cut off major parts of what I said.
Space limits on posting. But actually I agreed on those points and didn't feel the need to respond to them - Harris never said the economy was really and painfully bad outright and never sought distance from Biden.
That’s still completely insignificant, obviously. Individual politicians don’t matter unless they draw in constituencies (and don’t alienate other constituencies), which did not materialize.
Agreed, the latest numbers do suggest that if there was split voting, it was in favor of the Dems downballot and orange voldemort rather than the opposite, like we saw in 2020 for Biden.
I was just pointing out that this did draw in some, but as you said it wasn't enough.
No, the number did not fall short of that, it’s just that Arizona and Nevada have not been called for Trump yet
Oh, that's right. I spoke too soon - should have waited for the data.
And Clinton won the popular vote while Kamala lost it.
But from your own wikipedia pages, Clinton wont 65,853,514 votes while the estimate at https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/18340229 says "Kamala around 73 million" so Harris objectively did better than Clinton on the popular vote in terms of raw numbers.
The only thing I was wrong about was that it wasn’t just 20 years. We actually have to go all the way back to 1988 to see a result this bad for the democrats, an election where George H.W. Bush won California.
So worst case 2024 will still be better than 1988 in terms of EC numbers. Anyways, if I'm reading https://www.politico.com/2024-election/results/president/ it's still too soon to call - the reason being that it's mathematically possible for Harris to still win those two (if she won all the remaining votes left to be counted). So still too soon to tell.
This is essentially a conspiracy theory. It’s no different from QAnon people explaining away anything Trump does that they don’t like by saying that he had to say it to appease the deep state and get elected, TRUST THE PLAN. It’s completely baseless cope and every piece of actual evidence clearly contradicts it.
So let me give some quotes here to back this up.
as president, I will do everything in my power to end the war in Gaza, ...end the suffering in Gaza,... and ensure the Palestinian people can realise their right to dignity, freedom, security and self-determination,”
Kamala Harris says two state solution is the ‘only path’ forward after meeting with Israel’s Netanyahu
Harris didn't have much in terms of actual action, but her position post-Hamas was still for a two-state solution and to put an end to what was happening in Gaza.
The problem is there was no plan for that - but she only had three months to rush a campaign through. So less "TRUST THE PLAN" and more "hope she can figure out a plan once she's in office."
It's not a conspiracy theory because she did actually say these things, but if you'd question if these would end up as broken promises .. it seems that the voters who cared about these things shared your questioning.
But even if it were true it doesn’t matter in the context of assessing why she lost, because there was no possible way for voters alienated by her public stance to know that she was lying and secretly on their side.
Again, it wasn't secret, but was based on the speeches she gave, along with this bit of protestor inspired impromptu: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/harris-appears-to-agree-with-protester-accusing-israel-of-genocide-what-he-s-talking-about-it-s-real/ar-AA1szCVt
Obviously it wasn't enough, but, it wasn't kept as a secret.
Yes, Clinton got fewer total votes in a lower turnout election, but by every other metric the election was less bad than this one was for Harris, whether we look at the EC or votes compared to the other side.
As for Gaza, there is one very simple and straightforward action that Biden could have taken (or still could actually) or that Harris could have said she'll do: place conditions on arms shipments to Israel (or even just stop them entirely). Refusing to do that is a complete endorsement of Israel's actions. Like I said, it's like saying that you disapprove of a mass shooter's actions while handing him another clip. Words and speeches are completely meaningless unless that is addressed, all she ever said was essentially, "Wouldn't it be nice if they could resolve their differences without fighting? But of course I fully support Israel's right to defend itself and will keep arming them unconditionally." There is no indication that she would've been at all willing to take meaningful action.
It used to be the case that politicians would promise to do good things, and then maybe sometimes they'd actually keep their promises. Nowadays they don't even promise anything and people just convince themselves they'll do what they want regardless. Like, even if she had said that she'd stop shipments, sure I would support her, but it would not be entirely unreasonable to question whether she'd follow through. But in the case where she couldn't even say it, the chances of her doing it are basically zero.
Yes, Clinton got fewer total votes in a lower turnout election, but by every other metric the election was less bad than this one was for Harris, whether we look at the EC or votes compared to the other side.
No need to rehash what I said above, beyond that I'm still waiting for the data.
As for Gaza, there is one very simple and straightforward action that Biden could have taken (or still could actually) or that Harris could have said she’ll do: place conditions on arms shipments
Agreed. Now, my understanding is that Harris as VP can't actually do this, that authority runs from Biden down to his cabinet secretaries. But she could have made that promise. It's still not taking action, but maybe it would have been enough.
Refusing to do that is a complete endorsement of Israel’s actions.
So minor disagreement here. You say complete, or 100%, while I'd say like 95% or 97%. Perhaps an immaterial difference.
Words and speeches are completely meaningless unless that is addressed
But your proposal above, for Harris, is just more mere words: "Harris could have said"
all she ever said was essentially, “Wouldn’t it be nice if they could resolve their differences without fighting?"
I think calling for a cease-fire is a mite bit stronger than that, but again perhaps the difference between us is so small as to be immaterial.
"and will keep arming them unconditionally.”
Agreed, definitely a problem. No need to rehash about the Jewish voting bloc stuff - we understand why this was done and we saw first hand that it didn't work out. So with 20/20 hindsight...
"But of course I fully support Israel’s right to defend itself"
After Oct 7, 2024, I would too. To say otherwise is an insult to the families of the hostages - telling them that they aren't important enough to protect, that it's okay for this to happen to them again.
There is no indication that she would’ve been at all willing to take meaningful action.
On here we completely disagree. "I will stop the Gaza war by any means necessary." seems like a pretty big indication.
Meanwhile,
Trump says he's about to speak to Netanyahu and says, "Biden is trying to hold him back ... he probably should be doing the opposite, actually.
Source: https://www.commondreams.org/news/netanyahu-trump-cease-fire (link to quote in the "free rein" link on that page)
To be fair, the above is also a really big indication.
Words and speeches are completely meaningless unless that is addressed
But your proposal above, for Harris, is just more mere words: “Harris could have said”
That's why I used the word, "unless." If the words are addressing that point, then they're meaningful, but as long as they aren't, they are not.
On here we completely disagree. “I will stop the Gaza war by any means necessary.” seems like a pretty big indication.
Does it now? There are lots of ways to stop a war, for example, by destroying the other side's willingness or capability to keep fighting. You know, like Trump said, "finish the job," and then there won't be any more fighting because one side would all be dead. You're choosing to interpret it to mean what you want it to mean, and a supporter of Israel would interpret it to mean what they want it to mean, typical equivocation with no indication of what it actually means in practical terms.
What you don't understand is that politicians are most responsive to voters in the lead-up to an election. After they get elected, then they've already gotten the votes they needed, so they can focus more on lobbyists and corporate donors. That's why there is zero chance that she would've become more pro-Palestinian when in office, because the voters are far more favorable to Palestine than the donors and lobbyists are.
That’s why I used the word, “unless.” If the words are addressing that point, then they’re meaningful, but as long as they aren’t, they are not.
Ah I think I got your meaning now.
Does it now?
Yes.
There are lots of ways to stop a war, for example, by destroying the other side’s willingness or capability to keep fighting. You know, like Trump said, “finish the job,”
I assume this is just an example and you aren't seriously suggesting this is what Harris means. Harris has been very clear on the need for an immediate ceasefire.
You’re choosing to interpret it to mean what you want it to mean,
Well, the alternative meaning doesn't fit with what Harris has said about getting to an immediate ceasefire - you can't have a ceasefire if you're trying to kill every last person on the enemy side. That contradiction makes me think I've interpreted it correctly.
What you don’t understand is that politicians are most responsive to voters in the lead-up to an election.
I got that. I figured this was an important constraint on Harris being able to speak in support on Gaza in fact - AIPAC withdrawing their support of her.
After they get elected, then they’ve already gotten the votes they needed, so they can focus more on lobbyists and corporate donors.
This is a good point, AIPAC would still be around after the election.
That’s why there is zero chance that she would’ve become more pro-Palestinian when in office, because the voters are far more favorable to Palestine than the donors and lobbyists are.
I think zero chance is too extreme. Consider this,
Obama said in late 2010 that his views on gay marriage were “evolving,” and since then administration officials have pointed to those comments, stressing that Obama is a supporter
Source: https://www.politico.com/story/2012/05/obama-expected-to-speak-on-gay-marriage-076103
Also, the goal wasn't necessarily to make Harris pro-Palestine, but simply more anti-genocide. As the situation in Gaza worsens, I could see a possibility where from the grassroots a movement of change, going thru e.g. Sanders and AOC, would eventually convince Harris to evolve her position here as well.
Now, as you point out there are powerful forces that would resist that, but the outcome of that battle would not have been a foregone conclusion.
Quick question, how do you feel about Trump talking about immediately ending the war in Ukraine?
Optimistic. As per https://sopuli.xyz/post/18928087 it seems that "Zelensky was somewhat reassured"
Previously I had thought that this guy would just withdraw all support and hand free reign to Russia, but Zelensky is no fool. If he's feeling it, then I'm very happy indeed to be proven wrong about this point.
Another silver lining - if the US withdraws from NATO, then at least, they can't block Ukraine from joining...
My point is that calling for peace doesn't necessarily mean very much unless there's terms and/or a plan for how to bring people to the table if they don't want to cooperate.
From a personal point of view, I'd still take the promise, provide that I can the person making it as being reliable.
But from a wider point of view, agreed. Perhaps there was something more Harris could have said, earlier, to back up those statements and give this voting bloc a stronger reason to believe in her without causing the Jewish voting bloc to move away from her. Alternatively, maybe the risk of alienating that other bloc with more concrete steps or plans should have been taken - as stepping to hard to avoid alienating them clearly didn't work out.
Could be that they were shut out of the primary process, and wouldn't have chosen Harris.
This would make more sense if they just sat it out and didn't vote (or say voted third party).
But this doesn't make sense if they switched parties and voted for orange voldemort. All the reasons not to choose Harris (such as not being strong enough on Gaza) would apply even more strongly to that guy..
That's exactly what happened. Trump's turnout was about the same, but Dems turnout was 15 million less than 2020. That shows not that people are going more right ward and voting for Trump, but that Dems turnout was depressed due to apathy or something else.
Oh, interesting. Do you have a source regarding the turnout? What I've been reading elsewhere suggests that turnout wasn't depressed except compared to 2020 - which may have been a fluke due to the pandemic - but the sources I have (such as https://dailyiowan.com/2024/11/06/2024-election-reaches-second-highest-voter-turnout-in-the-past-century/ ) aren't clear on hard numbers or stats.
A different commenter on this thread (see https://lemmy.world/comment/13325248 ) claims that orange voldemort actually got fewer votes in this election than in 2020. No source was provided and I'm a bit skeptical, but if you both are right (contradicting the sources I have pointed to in my other comments) then it suggests a) that there was no such shift and it was merely a turnout issue and b) that more leftist or progressive policies might do the trick!
Which are much easier problems to solve than to deal with folks actually moving their beliefs and votes to the right.
I think you're right that turnout in 2020 was kind of an anomaly from being higher than normal. The stats I found, and this is just what I am seeing referenced so I'll keep trying to find a source, is that Trump had 4 million less than 2020 but Democrats had 15 million less. So a general depression of turnout but way more from the Democrat's camp than Trump's.
But either way, if people are moving right, I think they can also be moved to the left, too. I tend to think that it happens when current times are bad, than they stop wanting to move forward and they look for scapegoats. We just need a more equitable economy that works for everyone, and not just the rich.
There's a really good repost at https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/18340229 which shows that actually turnout was higher where it mattered almost across the board, though alas it also doesn't cite a reference or source for the numbers. (Remember though that even an extra 81 million votes for Harris in California wouldn't have made a difference in the EC, but split 15 million Dem votes evenly across the seven swing states, and Harris would have won.)
This suggests that there wasn't much of a depression of turnout - perhaps only in the safe blue states, which wouldn't have been impactful.
Of course that's based on an estimate, or guess, on how the total popular vote count will turn out, which is still unknown. We'll see, I guess.
You're right about being able to get voters to switch back to blue. But that's what puzzles me - why did they switch from blue to red in the first place?
But actually you answered this already - it's the age old "it's the economy, stupid." Maybe this was unavoidable then? Biden and his Dem replacement would have always taken the hit on the economy no matter what. The only one eligible to run who might have been able to avoid that stain would have been Sanders.
Oh, right I forgot that the presidential race was the only thing on the ballot in the generals, and that there weren't primary elections for every position, including president, in multiple parties.
Except of course that's not true, and they didn't participate in any of that, and thus no one cares what they say. If they cared, they would have voted for someone else in the primaries. They didn't so that means one of two things. They assumed Biden would win and were happy about it. Or they assumed he would win and couldn't be bothered to do anything about it. So if they don't like it, who cares what they think? They're not going to do anything about it, so why appease them?
Instead, they're going to whine on the Internet about how they were "shut out" of something that was completely open to them, and pretend like it's the world's fault, and can safely be ignored.
I've read that comment a few tims now. I genuinely can't follow what you're talking about.
Calm down. Come back, and try again.
I am registered unaffiliated because I'm left of our Democratic party, not right of it. I can't be the only one. So some of those independents are progressive.
So I think being a more-left independent is fine (though I'd personally want to stay registered as a Dem just so I would have a chance at voting for the most left Dem candidate in primaries).
But could any of these folks such as yourself have voted Red on the big day? And if so, why??
I totally understand Harris not being the ideal candidate for such voters, but to vote Red instead? How is that an improvement?
I cannot imagine that. The people I know who voted for Trump are either victims of the right wing media bubble, or worried about very specific individual issues - one about guns, one about gas prices, plus I think low information voters who have short memories, I heard a lady on the radio saying "he's a businessman and I am an entrepreneur, I think he will be more friendly to business".
Here, the leftmost are mostly better informed, I think.
Actually I'm starting to move against this view as well. https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/18340229 shows that turnout was even higher than in 2020 (though still waiting on sources for those numbers, which in any case are estimates and not the final count)
Rather than Dems majorly sitting it out or switching sides, it is actually starting to look like all the GOP folks who sat home in 2016 and 2020 finally decided to turn out for orange voldemort. I wonder why though... I guess, they finally thought the economy had become bad enough to punish the status quo leaders.
Yeah, I agree. People think of parties as these static things, but parties are made of people, and the people in the parties change all the time. Republicans freed the slaves and gave women the right to vote. Those aren't the people in the party today.
The Democratic party is going to take on the former GOP people. It won't be a huge shift, but it will shift. The people that voted for people like Cheney are going to become Democrats. The people that were in the Democratic party are going to get pushed to the edges. Because no one votes for them. These petulent children complain that the candidates are not perfect, and didn't "earn it", and "if they're not perfect, then I'm just not going to play the game at all".
It's a lot of talk, and zero action with these people: all excuses - money influences politicians, we don't have a choice.... Two of the questions on my ballot were initiatives, just straight up votes that would directly change how the government is run here - no politicians, no money trail, you just vote on it and the law changes. It's utter bullshit pretending this is a waste of time, and it's everyone else's fault. They sound like a bunch of little piss babies crying in their milk.
Yeah, pressure from voters. Not voting isn't pressure. Don't vote, dont care. Half the country doesn't vote. Financing is bad, but you can't act like it's so bad that 150 million votes couldn't overcome it. And certainly you can't act like 150 million absolutely nothing has any chance of overcoming it.
In any sane system without FPTP and with RCV or similar, though, those who got pushed out could easily form a new party. I could easily see one lead by Sanders and AOC.
But under the system we've currently got, they're both pushing voters for Harris instead. Because there's not really any other choice. They're right, but so are you. There's no place left for folks like us - we'll hold our noses and stick with the Dems because they're the least bad option, but so many transformative ideas are going to languish.
I was hoping that this was just because of the EC and gerrymandering - that the issue was structural and thus the votes that counted didn't accurately reflect what the country as a whole wanted. Meaning we could fix this by fixing the structure (e.g. abolishing the EC). New data however, suggests there is a real rightward and rightwing shift in this country, which is really painful to process.
I agree. This is eye opening, not just the support for a felon, but also the huge number of people who do nothing when given multiple opportunities to do something. I don't want to help people whose idea of action is complaining on the Internet about how they can't do anything, and sitting at home during primaries and general elections.
It's time the democrats have a primary where the winner isn't preordained. Even with Obama, Hillary was "preordained" the winner in 2008, only to have everyone be surprised that an electable candidate got nominated. Same thing happened with Bill Clinton in '92, where the "preordained" candidate dropped out (ironically due to an affair) and Bill Clinton took his place. Come to think of it, that is how Obama got his senate seat. Someone cheated on 7 of 9 and suddenly Illinois has a black senator.
Anyways, just let us vote.
Sounds good.. First thing to do is make sure everyone votes in every primary and election.
No one GAF what you think unless you vote.
But somehow people think sitting out a vote for the 30th time in a row means the Democrats will finally listen to them...
It is time to open your eyes to the reality and stop doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
The democrats aren't there to serve you. They are there to provide an illusion of choice and to help shift the Overton window to the right.
You will never push them to the left because being on the left is antithetical to their purpose and existence.
If this election hasn't woken you up, what the fuck will?
What other choice is there? Be realistic.
We are unfortunately a two-party state, a third party has no chance.
Lol, I need to be realistic? You've got a freshly elected open and proud fascist as president, and an "opposition" that did nothing to stop him since they both serve the same people (hint: it isn't you), and you still look at the two party system as if it's some immovable paragon of humane society (when in reality it's a human made construct designed by those in power to maintain it, and can and should be torn down), and I need to be realistic??? 😂🤯
Here, feel free to challenge your bias and take your own advice, though I won't be holding my breath:
https://itsgoingdown.org/dont-doom-scroll-organize-how-to-get-active-in-the-current-terrain/
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution
Lmfao, sure thing. But hey point proven I guess, so thanks.. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Good luck with those two parties, fascist and fascist lite..
What do you think fascism is, out of curiosity? I'm not an Anarchist, but I do think you are making a mistake in thinking fascism is some hard ideology that necessarily includes limiting access to internet. The reality of fascism is that it is a self-defense mechanism of decaying Capitalism, deployed against rising Leftist movements.
I highly recommend reading at least the first chapter of Blackshirts and Reds, where Dr. Michael Parenti analyzes how, where, why, and when fascism rises, and who it serves.
Yes. The Democrats had their last chance to do the bare minimum, and they fucked it all up.
It's time we vote for the independent or green party. We had 3 elections with the DNC making terrible decisions.
Voting third party will not bring about necessary change. The DNC can't be moved left, but will absolutely use systemic advantage against leftist parties, like how they kicked PSL off the ballots of several states. We need to organize and pressure the system itself from outside the domains of electoralism.
Thats because people don't realize there are more than 2 choices
Less a problem of lack of awareness, more systemic pressures against voting third party.
More like lack of influence over big media, citizens don't have info
Which is a systemic problem, no?
Get rid of Jill Stein and get someone who isn't interested in being a foreign asset, then we can talk.
Four years of fascism won't be enough to get Dems to vote Green, sadly.
The MSNBC comments that DNC needs to be more pro genocide as path to victory is correct for the DNC. Dems lost because they were less committed to Netanyahu agenda than Trump/GOP. All of the money and oligarchs went to Trump/GOP as a result. Where money and media determines winners, DNC has to play the Zionist supremacist game. Biden/Harris praising Trump's victory in preserving the CIA's myth of democracy over the rule of law and corruption is DNC supporting Trump's stronger support for zionist supremacist genocide.
You can't push DNC left if it blocks their primary zionist supremacist fundraising objectives. DNC can only pander to the left. There are no oligarchs who will not align with zionist supremacism either, because its a fight they lose.
A difference between left and pure centrism is a left fantasy of labour, feminist/queer, minority race supremacy in that order.
UBI is a centrist policy that eliminates poverty without creating an empire/heroes to champion the poor. It makes the rich richer without empowering oligarchy, in that the labour market becomes automatically fair when people have the power to say no, but abundance is encouraged because the rich hiring to provide abundance is needed to make sure the poor's money trickles back up to them.
Nationalizing the most evil lobbyist industries and delegitimizing zionist/neocon political candidates is path to victory, but won't come from DNC.
Whether left or center, DNC is not a solution. Support another party and abandon DNC. Must start now, not summer 2028.
The DNC is a zionist fundraising organization. Usually Zionism plays both Republicrat sides, but its time to finish the job on genocide, and DNC will get out of the way. The reason to look at DNC for hope is that elections take massive amounts of money.
Without money, there is still a winning strategy:
Zionism is a hate group, and all political office holders who pledge loyalty to Israel will be diqualified from office, and their citizenship reviewed. Their donors will be punished.
UBI is disempowerment of Empire and empowerment of individuals. Government's 3 functions are war, survivability and prosperity. UBI defunds war, guarantees survivability, and booms prosperity without counting on a hero's promises to improve your life.
Nationalizing the evil that lobbies and disinforms people: Oil, weapons, media, is social funding that replaces some tax revenue.
The nexus between zionism and all other oligarchy ensures the absolute maximalism of oligarchy with the US empire. As the US collapses, don't expect the banksters, oligarchs, Israel or other wars to be the ones that are diminished, but also don't look at DNC to be any different. Those groups fund the DNC too. The DNC selected President/VP just congratulated our new fascist overlord, and are planning to dismiss all charges against him, including the treason ones, as if they were just political witch hunts all along. DNC will then complain and send you fundraising emails for mid terms. Zionist organizations are not a hope for democracy.
Its already the bad version of woke...
First off, no. White men are still in everything and everyone in Hollywood is still hot, stop being a crybaby because some minorities are in your movies and games now. They're still not the majority at all, and it's nice to see some other representation for a change.
Second, woke doesn't matter. If they offer actual left economic policies, cultural clashes fall by the wayside. The only reason people fight about dumb cultural stuff like that is that they don't believe either party will help them materially. And yet that's basically the only reason Trump won. Everyone I know said they voted for him because of the economy, not once did anyone I hear mention that he'll fix "woke", whatever that means.
their woke does is nothing besides virtue signaling.
And also they don't want a woman as president.