Democratic Party direction post-Harris

Voidwalkin

Emperor
Joined
Jun 12, 2024
Messages
1,362
We have a couple Trump threads, but no Dems threads, even though OT leans Democrat pretty heavily.

Dems are down for now. These things happen. Sometimes, losing the popular vote provokes a shift in direction. Not always. In this particular case, there have been calls for change in Democratic direction. Where would you prefer to see the party go? What should be moved towards, or moved away from, what priorities need adjustment?

Matt Yglesias posted this. It's a decent enough summary of one side of the current debate. I'm kinda aligned with that side.


You can feel the zeitgeist sorta flowing in more directions than usual. The warp is temporarily disturbed. Eventually, a new form will emerge(probably!) but for now, it's an interesting time.
 
Not 100% sure. Probably a combination of the following.

1. Identity politics. You're not really gaining more votes from people inclined to vote for you. It's preaching to the converted.

2. Economic populism. Everyone hates corporations and Healthcare insurance. Focus on that.

3. Charisma charisma, charisma.

4. Probably more unpopular. If the electorate is sexist and racist why nominate a women/PoC? I suspect the 1st American female president will be GoP. I would vote AoC myself but others won't.

GoP campaigns in the real America, Democrats campaign in the America they want to exist.
 
Last edited:
2. Economic populism. Everyone hates corporations and Healthcare insurance. Focus on that.
This seems to be the pivot. It's reasonable. I think it's the answer Dems prefer.
1. Identity politics. You're not really gaining kire votes from people inclined to vote for you. It's preaching to the converted.
4. Probably more unpopular. If the electorate is sexist and racist why nominate a women/PoC? I suspect the 1st American female president will be GoP. I would vote AoC myself but others won't.

GoP campaigns in the real America, Democrats campaign in the America they want to exist
Here's the question: let's say Dems tone down idpol, other controversial, very Demmy attitudes. Do enough people buy it? If Dem leaders decide to moderate, it may not be enough, because it's about the base, the grassroots, and its interactions with the wider culture.
 
Here's the question: let's say Dems tone down idpol, other controversial, very Demmy attitudes. Do enough people buy it? If Dem leaders decide to moderate, it may not be enough, because it's about the base, the grassroots, and its interactions with the wider culture.
You can turn down the identity politics but you don't have to moderate and you can still nominate women and people of color. Obama won. Hillary and Harris almost won. Just don't do stuff like Biden did when he picked his cabinet and explicitly say you're picking people based off of their skin color/gender. Stuff that like turns most people off. The class divide in America has been a bigger issue than any racial/gender divide for some time. Republicans have figured that out and seem to be winning campaigns off it. Bernie Sanders, someone far to the left of most Democrats figured that out long ago as well.

Speaking of Bernie, remember in 2016 when those emails leaked about how the DNC was undermining his campaign? Don't do that. Also, remember in 2024 how prominent Democrats went on national TV saying Biden was as sharp as ever, then that debate happened where Biden couldn't put together a sentence, then they didn't even have a primary and just picked Harris cuz, I don't know, she was VP and just the next one up I guess. Don't do that either. Respecting the primary process and making sure it accurately reflects the will of your voters should be a no brainer, yet Dems have flubbed it up twice in the past three elections.

Also figure out a way to win Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. All 3 states were super close in 2016 and 2024 and would have flipped the elections in Democrats favor.
 
Just don't do stuff like Biden did when he picked his cabinet and explicitly say you're picking people based off of their skin color/gender.
Or send Bill Clinton to Michigan. I wonder of the two statements here, which will be learned from and which won't.

It seems to me a lot of pressure is being put on "identity politics", but there's very little evidence of it actually being used except the one thing everyone keeps mentioning.

I do wonder why Kamala abandoned her early anti-corporate messaging. As has been said, peoples' concerns were overwhelmingly economic in the last election. Whatever made her change tracks all of a sudden probably had a far larger impact than whatever Biden said about picks made.
 
Or send Bill Clinton to Michigan. I wonder of the two statements here, which will be learned from and which won't.

It seems to me a lot of pressure is being put on "identity politics", but there's very little evidence of it actually being used except the one thing everyone keeps mentioning.

I do wonder why Kamala abandoned her early anti-corporate messaging. As has been said, peoples' concerns were overwhelmingly economic in the last election. Whatever made her change tracks all of a sudden probably had a far larger impact than whatever Biden said about picks made.

Iirc someone close to her told her to town it down.
 
Given the party's behaviour since their loss, I don't have any hopes at all that they'll pivot and do something different for a change. Establishment Dems are a stagnant, geriatric corpse, an issue we're facing in Canada as well with our Liberal party. They are cursed with undying loyalty to ineffectual status quo.

I think anyone arguing they should "move away from wokeness" has bought into right-wing culture-war nonsense. The Democrats have given lip service to progressive values but have demonstrated on numerous occasions they'll throw anyone to the wolves for the maybe of a concession. Their support for minorities is an unserious veil and about as trustworthy as a corporation's avatar switching to the rainbow during June.

I actually think they'd be doing better if they were more willing to be principled and more willing to suggest radical change. The core of the Democrat party is grown out of cowardice and over-reliance on procedural decorum, and such a core is doomed to accomplish nothing.
 
3. Charisma charisma, charisma.
This.

Who can remember anything Kamala said besides that she'd change nothing Biden did?

We live in an entertainment age, we need someone with a bit of charge who seems to be having fun out there.

Dems got this attitude like 'yo you seen this other guy? You owe us by default, nuff said', clearly not enough.

Also take people on board. Trump doesn't gaf, anyone Dems shun he'll take on board, RFK being most obvious example.

Oh noes, RFK is a vaccine skeptic, nevermind any good things you may have done in your career, go over there. Sure, hop aboard says Trump.

We're all 'problematic' in our own ways... Have the Democrats considered inclusion? Not in a look we got a full collection of superficial characteristics inclusion but you know, actual inclusion? Might be worth a try. But if they haven't learned in a decade I don't expect any difference. It's hard not to conclude they're not trying to win just raise money each cycle to 'try' to win.
 
Oh noes, RFK is a vaccine skeptic, nevermind any good things you may have done in your career, go over there. Sure, hop aboard says Trump.
What good things has RFK done that would benefit the Democrat Party platform and / or electability in a way that actually distinguishes themselves from the opposition?

My answer upfront is: if the Republicans are willing to take him, the criticism of the Democrats not taking him on actually closes the gap between the two parties. It doesn't cause the Democrats to be seen as meaningfully different, and they'll continue to cede political ground. That's what your advice will cause. Won't work out.
 
What good things has RFK done that would benefit the Democrat Party platform and / or electability in a way that actually distinguishes themselves from the opposition?
He's had some environmental victories.

My answer upfront is: if the Republicans are willing to take him, the criticism of the Democrats not taking him on actually closes the gap between the two parties. It doesn't cause the Democrats to be seen as meaningfully different, and they'll continue to cede political ground. That's what your advice will cause. Won't work out.
It's already not working out and they're already ceding ground.

Republicans willing to take on any grifter.

Most politicians are grifters. Democrats just pretend to have the moral high ground. In some cases they may but that's irrelevant, people want change and they're burnt out, they assume they're all crooks so at least gets an entertaining crook who MAY alter things.
 
He's had some environmental victories.

It seems like he's voided his past competencies in favour of politics.
It's already not working out and they're already ceding ground.
Yes, and I'm saying your suggestion would make them cede more ground. Your opinion is "might as well try", mine is "that will make their current problems worse".
 

It seems like he's voided his past competencies in favour of politics.

Yes, and I'm saying your suggestion would make them cede more ground. Your opinion is "might as well try", mine is "that will make their current problems worse".
. Suggest something then. There's a finite amount of progressives to go around.

Traditionally you head to the center at election time.
 
. Suggest something then. There's a finite amount of progressives to go around.

Traditionally you head to the center at election time.
Already did. Economical concerns. That said, I don't have any faith that the Democrats will take any lessons from their losses, nevermind progressive lessons.
 
They can still nominate a Woman. Harris would have won in 2020 and Biden would have lost in 2024.

Trumps Reign will be so disastrous that they will likely win in 2028. The question is how do you make it so that you win a trifect there and can meaningfully update the democratic system so that it works again. Electoral refom needs to be at the center.

Of course, economic populism would be a strong policy plan to win elections, as the whole story around Luigi Mangione and that healtch insurance CEO shows. But do the Democratic Part Officials want that?

So, how do you manage to hold the senate in 2028 as well as the house - that's the big question!
 

It seems like he's voided his past competencies in favour of politics.
Yeah any integrity he may have had he threw out the window to attach to power.

But if he thought Harris might have won and he'd have a position there he might have shifted his voters in her direction.

Yes, and I'm saying your suggestion would make them cede more ground. Your opinion is "might as well try", mine is "that will make their current problems worse".
But if moral high ground small tent status quo isn't working why stick w it?

Power is more important than purity.
 
But if moral high ground small tent status quo isn't working why stick w it?
The Democrats have anything but a small tent. They take in more right-wingers than the Republicans do progressives. Regardless, I think there are other ways to broaden their appeal.

Focusing on the economy and how much big business gets away with was very popular early in Harris' campaign. Unfortunately it seems she was pressured to abandon that angle.
 
This.

Who can remember anything Kamala said besides that she'd change nothing Biden did?

We live in an entertainment age, we need someone with a bit of charge who seems to be having fun out there.

Dems got this attitude like 'yo you seen this other guy? You owe us by default, nuff said', clearly not enough.
I thought it would have been very smart for talk show host Oprah Winfrey to run like 10 years ago instead of Hillary Clinton but that window has long since closed.
You need to be looking for someone like that, someone with both showmanship/entertainment and political chops. Not someone "graduating" from the Senate.**

**To add: With all due respect to the fans of parliamentary democracy out there, I don't think the political system really "creates" effective national leaders; I think they step into the fray on their own. The US had a history of this ever since some upstart Virginia militia colonel named George Washington.
 
What makes you think that? She was wildly unpopular among Democrats how would she win a general election?

Because a sack of rice would have won against Trump in 2020. People have a short memory, but four years of Trump nonsense keeps getting stuck in the head. It will in four years as well.
 
Top Bottom