But the DNC would rather hand their country to the fascists than allow progressive ideas to gain traction.
If you read that article, all of those policies are economic policies that Harris was pushing. Punishing price gouging, lowering rent and mortgages costs by incentivizing building and banning price fixing algorithms, etc.
Those races either had more effective communicators, or shittier opponents. They were democratic candidates that ran on the Democratic Party’s policies.
I think you’re just wrong about what Harris was saying. I watched many of her speeches and read many newspaper articles quoting her, and there’s just no way that she was pushing a pro worker platform. It wasn’t in her blood, there was never any sign that she would do so.
I just want to bring up one issue that I think is a classic. The price of housing has gone up, and her solution was going to be to raise the first time homeowners tax credit. Now you might say to yourself, hey, that’s great. But the reality is bringing it up by tens of thousands of dollars was not going to make property affordable to the average person. A few people who are on the threshold, sure, but most people would still be screwed. But even for people who were near the threshold, we all know what was going to happen. Houses were going to get more expensive because more money was thrown into the mix. To think that you can fix massive corporate greed by having a small tax cut is just laughable.
If you actually want to solve the problem with expensive houses you need to ban real estate speculation or you need to create massive public housing programs. I think this is common sense to millions of americans. Of course millions of other Americans disagree, and I think Harris would disagree, too.
And there are a few positive examples of things that the Biden administration tried to do, but many of them were too little too late, and others were stopped by the courts and then the president just shrugged his shoulders. So it’s not just Harris’s policies in her speeches that matter. She was the vice president of a president who was generally a failure. And you could argue that it’s not his fault, that obstructionist people in Congress and the courts blocked him, but then you just admitting how bad his PR campaign was. And his success and failure went hand in hand with hers.
How on earth do you have a shittier opponent than Donald Trump?!?
Ted Cruz comes to mind…who also won
For the love of god… how?
He campaigned from Cabo
People saw it as a sign of strength.
Those are things she and Biden said at the very start of their presidency but then said nothing about for the last two years and never mentioned again.
If the more progressive of the policies were popular, then those should have been at the forefront. But the DNC was too concerned with wooing independents and ensuring the party didn’t seem too left.
We have two right-wing parties in America, and the sooner we come to grips with that, the sooner we can work to change it.
There’s no pressure on them to support progressive policies in a 2 party system. All they have to do is wait until Trump’s administration shits the bed and they’ll win again.
I think this is the real ticket for any party that doesn’t want to just be Republican 2.0. Just stop sucking corporate cock and service the working class. But, like, with real, actual helpful things and not just bigotry and feelings that people want to hear like the pube-lickans do.
The problem is that the people who can get elected don’t have any money, and the people who have money can’t get elected. But you need money to run a successful campaign.
Or course, being moderates, they didn’t mean a word of it.
But it does show that even feigned progressive populism brings out the voters that running to the right alienates.
Yeah, but read the article, look at the policies those people campaigned on, and google whether or not Harris also backed those economic policies. She did. She supported and ran on most of those policies.
IMHO, this was probably more of an issue around how effective the candidates, and their opponents, were at getting the policies or “vibes” in voter’s minds.
It’s both a policy and messaging issue. On both fronts the campaign did not take either seriously enough
Yeah, just saying that the policies mentioned in the article were not what made those people win or made Harris lose. They basically had the same policies.
I disagree, from the article those candidates had more anti-corporate policies that addressed the issue of cost of living. The closest thing Harris ran on was to crack down on Price gouging, which was/is one of her most popular positions, yet she also did not campaign enough on that front and contrasted it with housing deregulation
Of course they were taking it seriously. You can criticise the strategy, but clearly they took it very seriously.
She supported and ran on most of those policies.
She ran on “don’t do anything different from Biden” and “Look! We got Cheney’s endorsement!” and “shut up, the economy’s fine!”
This was my perception as well - I live in a deeply red state and what local coverage and ads I saw didn’t mention any of these policies.
They kept the good stuff under wraps and tried to play it safe but not spooking anyone with “communism.”
If I was an average American (obese, uneducated, easily frightened, provincial, and racist), I would not have been swayed to vote for Harris. Actually, the average American didn’t vote at all.
T**** did a better job of giving the impression that he was going to do something to help the everyday American. It’s a total lie but one that’s hard to see through - if you’re an average American.
They kept the good stuff under wraps and tried to play it safe but not spooking anyone with “communism.”
This is it exactly, and I feel like this bit of this Salon article (arc’d) perfectly captures why this happened
Tobias described a dynamic where campaign staff and candidates are hesitant to publicly push back on the assertions of billionaire donors like Hoffman, even if the campaign doesn’t intend to let them direct policy.
Tobias indicated that the apparent influence of the super-wealthy has a dual effect. It undermines the Democratic Party’s support from its traditional base by steering policy discussions away from economically populist ideas that go against the interest of the wealthy, while simultaneously helping support candidates who are charismatic but don’t come into politics with a consistent ideological framework.
The influence of billionaires was directly early in Harris’ bid for the presidency when moguls like Mark Cuban warned the Harris campaign that a billionaire tax, for example, would be too aggressive, according to the Washington Post. Other business executives, like Tony West, the chief legal officer at Uber and Harris’ brother-in-law, also served as advisors and, according to the Atlantic, helped steer the campaign away from criticism of corporate power.
She legitimately didn’t run on any of those policies. Two weeks before the election she told everyone that she would do nothing different from Biden. She ran on the platform that Biden was a good president and nothing would change when the entire country was screaming for cha.ge
Oh for fuck’s sake. Attitudes like that are why candidates don’t bother going for the left’s votes.
You can’t meet half way between “a fair world where human life has value” and "complete corporate monopolization of everything. "
The Dems made the choice to continue bending the knee to the rich instead of representing the people who elected them
Wanting leftists to support leftist policies instead of the rich is totally reasonable
I voted for Kamala who was the only correct choice but can’tblame othersfor being apathetic.
You will accept any excuse to move to the right and only the right. You already got genocide support and loved every last second of it.
