490
submitted 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Summary

Historians suggest Democrats might have fared better against Donald Trump by embracing the economic issues championed by Senator Bernie Sanders, who has long pushed for a focus on “bread-and-butter” concerns for working-class voters.

Despite Kamala Harris’s progressive policies, polls showed Trump was favored on economic issues, particularly among working-class and Hispanic voters.

Historian Leah Wright Rigueur argued that Sanders’ messaging on economic struggles could be key for future Democratic strategies.

Sanders himself criticized the party for “abandoning” the working class, which he said has led to a loss of support across racial lines.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 41 points 3 hours ago

It is absolutely clear now. The DNC is a private company whose main function is to fund raise, period. If they also win an election then that's great, but if it comes to a choice between winning and raising money, they will choose raising money. They will never move to the left to win voters if it will cost them fund raising opportunities from the center and right.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 10 points 3 hours ago

This honestly makes so much more sense than anything else. I think you nailed it. Republicans are motivated by money and exerting social control so they write up manifestos (p2025), take over the courts, work hard to disenfranchise voters, lie, cheat, anything is on the table. The DNC does indeed seem fairly comfortable with losing by comparison, despite the fact that the leftist ideals they supposedly dabble in create a moral imperative to never lose. I wonder if Republicans fucking pay the DNC money to run these candidates we all know aren't the best. They're just good enough to get votes against mother fucking Trump. But not always good enough to win, barely good enough when they are, typically.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 8 points 3 hours ago

It's downright sad that I can't think of any argument against this.

[-] OpenPassageways@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 hours ago

I'm not thrilled with the DNC either, but I'm not buying this whole idea that they are shooting themselves in the foot on purpose. The DNC does better when they win elections.

In previous elections, the candidate that raised the most money was more likely to win. Also, a moderate Democrat won the last election. They made the decisions they made in this election cycle because they thought it was their best chance of winning.

I don't have access to the data that they have to determine whether the leftist that Lemmy wants on the ticket could actually win the general.

I'd certainly like to believe that it's just that simple and all the DNC needs to do is put up a pro-Palestine Democratic Socialist and the election is in the bag... I just don't know if that's the reality on the ground. If that is not the reality on the ground, are the leftists that stayed home still committed to their protest? Or is there a point at which they would admit that we haven't had a true leftist on the ticket because a true leftist is not viable?

I hope someone can put together some clear data to answer that question soon... I'm afraid that a pro-Palestine Socialist will get crushed by AIPAC funded attack ads about Marxism and supporting terrorism that will really stick with moderates, and that no matter how energized the base is it wouldn't be enough to win the general.

[-] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

I am not saying that they are losing on purpose. I'm saying that they are making decisions about policies and candidates based on fund raising rather than on attracting voters. On purpose or not, they did shoot themselves in the foot by courting disaffected Republican voters. Everyone knew they were not going to win a lot of those voters, but they sure did rake in a lot of dough. I believe that is their primary motivation.

[-] That_Devil_Girl@lemmy.ml 16 points 3 hours ago

Bernie is a leftist politician. The Democrat party is not a liberal leftist party, they're a conservative corporatist party.

[-] JamesStallion@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 hours ago

I recently tried to explain to Lemmy that non-white working class voters see their social program as weird and off putting. I was downvoted to oblivion just for honestly relating an opinion from people these chronically online "allies" would never hear from, because they simply don't associate with seamstresses/fruit packers/construction site crossing guards etc. Not to mention the majority of these folks can't speak any language but English.

Tell my Chilean wife how she is going to make more money tomorrow than she did today and she will listen. Tell her she is a bigot because she believes that it takes more than "feeling like" a women to actually "be" a woman and she will stop listening. That is what just happened here.

I am from a different cultural context than her and I tend to believe what the people who study these issues have to say ie: gender affirming care saves lives. But to say that this one issue determines a persons entry or exclusion from our ever shrinking tent is political suicide, no matter how much we might wish that wasn't the case.

[-] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 14 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Dems imbraced the race to the bottom instead of being a true opposition party. I voted for them this time around but never again unless they make a platform surrounding core left prencipals and left leadership. Many within my communities gave up on political means to help their communities and threw themselves into volunteering, activism, and self sustainability. You can't demand bottomless support and obedience from your base while ignoring their cries for help.

Dems said they are the party of science and facts but wouldn't support universal health care or simply stop sending weapons to Isreal. If they were just as ravenous as republican are, can you honestly say we couldn't achieve those good things?

Dems said the Supreme court and justice system was courupt, but never even investigated the court or made cuts to the militarization of the police forces. Police are still killing people at the same rates with no real accountability. If the Supreme Court was left leaning Republicans would have expanded the court to make it right leaning.

Just do what Republicans do to get there way but for good. I honestly can't think of one dem policy that has been as impactful as some of the top Republican changes in the past 50 years.

Ultimately we need to come together and demand better because if the dems don't change it'll be 50 more years of being steamrolled.

[-] telllos@lemmy.world 7 points 3 hours ago

Honestly, your democratic party is very right wing to most of European. And you saying people give up on politics and turn to sctivism is so sad.

If the government doesn't take care of his poor, minorities, what are they doing.

[-] SoleInvictus 9 points 3 hours ago

If the government doesn't take care of his poor, minorities, what are they doing.

Facilitating the transfer of wealth to the richest fraction of the population.

[-] BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world 7 points 3 hours ago

If the government doesn't take care of his poor, minorities, what are they doing.

Grifting and insider trading.

[-] thisphuckinguy@lemmy.world 40 points 6 hours ago

Thats what they get for squeezing Bernie out and giving the people garbage candidates. Eat it, you fools.

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 25 points 6 hours ago

We tried. Biden's Build Back Better bill had a lot of pro-working class stuff in it. We just couldn't pass it with Manchin and Sinema resisting.

Details are important.

[-] moncharleskey@lemmy.zip 28 points 5 hours ago

This is about messaging, not policy. Most people don't really pay attention to actual policy, so it's more about convincing your average Joe you're working for them. Bernie had that, Biden and Harris didn't.

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 7 points 4 hours ago
[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 20 points 5 hours ago

I think the inherent problem with the build back better deal is it's still framed within the neoliberal trickle down economics of post Regan America.

Would it have increased some workers protections and child care, sure. But it would ultimately be a gift to the shareholders and owners of corporations able to tap into the 3 trillion dollars of funding.

Americans are tired of progressive bills that vicariously improve their lives by further bribing the economic class that actually have their boots on our necks.

People are tired of seeing headlines that the American economy is doing fine while they struggle to put food on the table. Nobody cares if your bosses retirement portfolio is breaking records when they have to pull overtime to maintain the same quality of life they had 20 years ago.

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 8 points 4 hours ago

Funny when it was the more neoliberal, pro-business dems that shot it down, shortly before leaving the democratic party. There's really not a whole lot of corporate profits to be found in here, though, despite the rampant misinformation floating around online. It actually raised corporate taxes, which is not a neoliberal policy position:

https://schakowsky.house.gov/build-back-better-act#:~:text=The%20Build%20Back%20Better%20Act%20invests%20in%20securing%20universal%20preschool,and%20the%20universal%20preschool%20initiative.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/build-back-better/

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 3 points 4 hours ago

Funny when it was the more neoliberal, pro-business dems that shot it down, shortly before leaving the democratic party.

Shot it down? The bill passed in 2022 after being modified to hell by special interest.

There's really not a whole lot of corporate profits to be found in here, though

If it's not going to be implemented directly by the state it means that it's going to be implemented by private businesses. Those private business owners are going to walk away with the lion's share of any money they accept from the government.

It actually raised corporate taxes, which is not a neoliberal policy position:

It's almost like corporations aren't a monolith of mutual aid and support. You don't think Raytheon wouldn't support raising some taxes if it meant they could funnel a ton of government funding towards the privatized military industrial sector?

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

No, that is a false claim. It was not passed by the Senate and never became law. We can certainly criticize our neoliberal factions, but we should do it factually instead of weaving whatever narratives we find most convenient. Unless you're confusing it with the Infrastructure bill, which did pass. They were linked at one time, but were separated after both failing became likely.

https://ballotpedia.org/Build_Back_Better_Act

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 1 points 2 hours ago

My dude..... The inflation reduction act is an amended version of the build back better deal. What are you talking about?

On July 27, Manchin and Schumer announced the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the final result of these negotiations, surprising other congressional Democrats.[192] The bill, which includes provisions on tax, health care, and climate and energy spending, was introduced in the Senate as an amendment to the Build Back Better Act. On August 7, the Senate passed the bill on a 50–50 vote with Vice President Harris breaking the tie.[193] On August 12, 2022, the House passed the bill on a 220–207 vote.[194] President Biden signed it into law on August 16.[195]

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Fine, technically true I suppose. But when you gut something that comprehensively and change its thrust, I think it's a little disingenuous to call it the same thing. It had all the workers rights stuff stripped out of it.

edit: Disingenuous on the bill author's part, not yours. Though tbf, they did rename it.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago

Yeah, they split it into two bills, one with all the stuff that was intended to pass, and the one with all the stuff they ran on that they never intended to pass.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago

We just couldn’t pass it with Manchin and Sinema resisting.

There are always enough Manchins.

[-] thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago

Yep. That excuse does not fly.

[-] mp3@lemmy.ca 64 points 7 hours ago

In hindsight it seems obvious, but to be honest I really thought Kamala would have fared better.

[-] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 14 points 4 hours ago

To me the main takeaway is that I live in a completely separate reality from most voters. I would have voted on a dead dog over Trump. He is mean, narcissistic and never shows any empathy. On top of that he is clearly losing his wits. If a majority of voters prefers a candidate like this, is even enthusiastic to vote for him, what can you do?

I also know that Lemmy skews left, but I think we have to face the fact that most voters have no ability to empathise with those worse off. There is no left wing politics without empathy and solidarity. What most of us here want is dead.

[-] telllos@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

I think social media has put everyone in their own eco chamber.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Tyfud@lemmy.world 43 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

We all did, you're not wrong.

It's a sad reality we all woke up to on Wednesday. Learning that the majority of Americans are ignorant, racist, misogynistic, selfish assholes.

[-] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 20 points 6 hours ago

We all did

No, we did not "all" think so, a lot of us have been saying this for quite a while. In fact since at least the 2016 election cycle started in 2015.

[-] krashmo@lemmy.world 22 points 6 hours ago

This is what many said in 2016 after Clinton lost but we still did it again in 2020 and yet again in 2024. If I were a betting man I'd say that if there's sill an election worth having in 2028 we'll see another, even further right leaning, centrist Democrat win the nomination.

[-] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 11 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Yoyo look, this guy's fucking nostradamus up in here, right? It's gonna happen just like this.

I'm thinking newsome is the "perfect" candidate for 28.

Whoever it is, I bet you, just like me can't wait to be told how stupid i am and actually great they are by credulous online political minds who call parroting the pundits talking points word-for-word fucking theory

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 5 points 4 hours ago

Progressives need to start picking a single nominee to get behind right now. Or we're getting whichever candidate the establishment wing of the party has already selected. Maybe they'll run Liz Cheney.

Lol i bet in 4 years we'll be beggin' for a moderate Dem like Cheney

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 6 points 4 hours ago

And Democrats will run her if they think they can get away with it.

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 109 points 8 hours ago

More voters should have listened to Bernie.

He told people what to do.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] bruhbeans@lemmy.ml 52 points 7 hours ago

The screams of "Dems need to move right" (not from Bernie, obv) are fucking clown shoes and hilarious. She was running around with Liz and Dick Motherfucking Cheney. There's no more right to move to without literally just embracing Trump.

But here's the thing: libs keep cutting their noses off. Why would the actual left give the DNC the fucking time of day? They raise a billion fucking dollars, light it all on fire and go out to brunch. They co-opt movements like the Floyd uprising and metoo but leave everyone else to do the actual work. When we need bodies in the streets, when we need material support, when we fucking TELL THEM WHAT POLICIES WILL WORK FOR US, they spout some 1950s realpolitik bullshit and have some more wine.

Biden: you're immune. Have some fun with it. Show us you have skin I the game. $100 says he keeps up this "when they go low we go high" bullshit and does somewhere between nothing and the bare minimum.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 8 points 4 hours ago

They raise a billion fucking dollars, light it all on fire and go out to brunch.

This is the most infuriating part, and it made me happy I kept replying STOP to all their fucking "ZOMG 10X MATCHING" texts. They blew all that money and their political consultant cronies made out like bandits. They outraised and outspent Trump and have fuck all to show for it.

[-] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 hours ago

Not only that,they're still sending them to help with recounting.

were on our knees to stop trump, by only fund raising not doing anything to actually deal with the issues

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ElcaineVolta@kbin.melroy.org 20 points 6 hours ago

TIL I'm a fucking historian, apparantly

[-] khornechips@sh.itjust.works 51 points 7 hours ago

That’s great analysis except for one detail… what progressive policies?! Like ceding the “border issue” to the republicans? Like backpedaling on fracking when they needed votes from PA? I voted for her because she was the only option but in no universe was her campaign progressive.

[-] krashmo@lemmy.world 22 points 6 hours ago

I think they mean that her running mate did some progressive stuff as governor. Or maybe we're just so far right now that referring to LGBT as if they're human beings counts as being progressive

[-] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

The build back better bill had Republicans calling fixing roads instead of letting them collapse progressive. The 'middle' point on infrastructure seems to be 'let some roads and buildings collapse' like that apartment building in Florida. Roads are something even libertarians want the government to do. It literally doesn't matter what dems say, Republicans will have the media calling it progressive to demonize it.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
490 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19090 readers
3696 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS