- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- politics
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- politics
To win working-class voters — and possibly today’s election — Democrats need to attack economic elites. But the Kamala Harris campaign hasn’t consistently offered an anti-elite counter to Donald Trump’s right-wing populism.
You must log in or register to comment.
because the fascists are offering real change even if their electorate doesnt understand completely what it is.
the democrats and their worldwide equivalents are offering the shitty status quo we already have.
This is why.
Hundreds of millions of people working paycheck to paycheck wanted change and she spent two months of her campaign repeating memes.
How does that make any sense? Conservatives everywhere always just want things to go back to the good old days, eliminates earned freedoms, and kick people out of the country that don’t look like them.
It doesn’t, but it doesn’t have to. It’s like if you give a sack of rotten fruit to a starving man, he’ll eat it gladly, even if it kills him.
deleted by creator
There is that, but there is also the fact that the Democratic party and especially affiliated media has been systematically moving to the right and suppressing the left as much as they can. The Dems being hamstrung is most likely a feature, not a bug.
And even if it isn’t, does it matter? They courted the Cheney people, and had one of their greatest losses against a guy with the IQ of a toaster. It’s not like they have anything to lose by giving progressives a chance at this point.
sometimes they do, and do nothing substantial with it.
I don’t think it works. People voted for Trump because he is the economic elite. They believe that just because he’s a businessman, he’s going to make good economy.
Democrat voters and Republican voters are different. As I’d like to hope the DNC learned today, you can’t win democrat votes with Republican policy.
Anyone undecided between Trump or Harris wouldn’t suddenly decide for Harris if she was more anti economic elite. They probably voted for Trump in the end because he’s economic elite.
The only voters they could potentially earn are those who otherwise wouldn’t vote for either because both are too right leaning. I don’t believe there are many votes to gain in this group. If you’re to the left of Harris, then you’re probably going to vote for her over Trump.
If you’re to the left of Harris, then you’re probably going to vote for her over Trump.
This conclusion rests on three assumptions: All left-leaning Americans are rational actors, their main or most important goal is keeping Trump out of office and they’re all invested in that goal enough to turn out no matter the Dem candidate. All these are false. American elections have for decades been a matter of how many Democrats go out to vote, which is a function of how inspiring the Dem candidate is. A good Dem candidate produces good turnout which wins Dems elections, while a bad Dem candidate (like Harris or Hillary) puts off Democrat voters, causing low turnout and a Republican victory. How bad the Republican candidate is, frankly, not as decisive as more politically invested Dems would like it to be without an electable Dem candidate. Ignoring these fundamental truths is what did Harris in.
PS: It’s not a matter of Harris being just too right wing. I mean that’s part of it, but American politics isn’t nearly as simple as rightwing = GOP vote, leftwing = Dem vote. Reality’s deviation from that hypersimplified idea is why things like inspiring candidates and smart campaigning matter.
Given that Democrats pulled less votes than 2020, it’s not the undecided between D&R that decided this election, it’s the ones undecided between D or not voting. As stupid of a choice that is, those are the ones that voted way less in this election, and those voters maybe would have voted more if the platform was more anti-elite. I don’t know how many swingers would pass to R with that move, though.
Really stupid to not vote in protest because D is not left enough since that mathematically is equivalent to voting the winner, in this case R. In any case, going more left might have helped more.
Yeah, but you don’t understand. It’s Kamala’s turn. she deserves it.
-That strategy has never failed the Democrat party before.
All the downvotes forget that she promised to seek the democrat nomination, and then was essentially selected 12 hours later after only discussion with likes of Nancy Pelosi and Hakeem Jeffries (aka party leaders). Source, but if you call that clearly fascist move what it is you’re the bad guy.
This is 100% what everyone was saying in 2016. And the truth is, the rich got way richer. So naturally they were right.
Right, because lowering taxes for the rich is attacking the elite while raising em is not. What fucking twilight world do I live in??? I almost feel like learning some weird esoteric language, just to get away from this American brain rot.
People are going to be processing and justifying this any way they can. Everyone is going to be an idiot for awhile.
No way she’ll lose, she has all those Dick Cheney supporters on her side.
With every mistake, we must surely be learning
People have been saying it for 40 years, and the Democrats just kept moving right instead. They won’t learn because the people that run the campaigns get paid regardless, and they get paid more if the campaign can raise billionaire donor money.
The Harris campaign was entirely similar to the H. Clinton campaign. Nothing has changed in the Democratic party. I honestly was not surprised to see her lose.
But Trump with billionaire support is attacking economic elites… One should never underestimate how dumb the general person is.
We tried running a man whose sole position was attacking elites. Bernie tanked.
Correction: the DNC fucked Bernie over.
yup. not a democracy.
What? Both times?
Yeah man. Both times. The same system that did it the first time didn’t change and did it again.
And we see where that system led. Great work, Bloomberg et al.
