Democratic Party direction post-Harris

[Kyriakos]

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.

As long as we have another global pandemic in four years. Let's not... forget... that tiny detail

The US elections - and in that they are in no way unique - appear to be mostly about allowing people to feel like they have a say. The state doesn't make life better for them, just caters to its oligarchic pals and patrons. But if you are at least given an excuse to think you can change this, you may well end up hibernating for the intervote period.

 

[Voidwalkin]

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.

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

Yeah, explicitly stating the 'why' of the Harris pick was a mistake.

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.

This is a common enough view. I don't agree. It can be seen as Dems under attack by a viciously biased right, and characterized as culture war, because that is to some extent true. It misses the bigger picture, though.

It's not that Dems take seriously liberal social positions, and then catch hell. For the most part, they don't. They're not the vanguard.

It's that they humor the activist vanguard, which has fostered dire distrust over the past decade. That's enough, all it takes. To show sympathy, via, say, declaring pronouns like Biden, or even discussing reparations(a total non-starter, presently) like even Bernie did is to become a vicar of the substantial anger activist cadets have created. They've engaged in an extremely wide ranging assault, on everything from gender roles, and even how genders speak, to rethink and restructure of how race is engaged with(promoting equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity, most prominently), to challenging classic American foreign policy positions, to border security, even extending into whether borders conceptually are morally defensible, and my, does the list go on.

This generation of activists, putting aside the merits or lack thereof of the aforementioned positions, have managed to piss off substantial amounts of people in every demographic in America, including minority demographics, or, at the very least, foster distrust. There's little agreement that their positions are correct.

It's not really Dems being voted against, but the activists themselves. Dems, as the vicar, catch the heat, because they can neither convince the public the activists are uninfluential, nor convince the public the positions and attitudes of the activists are worthy of wholesale, genuine adoption. It's not tenable to consistently take on majority opinion across such a wide range.

I'd prefer they go local on social issues. Explicitly so, because I doubt simply avoiding social questions is enough to bridge the trust gap.

 

[danjuno]

They pumped the brakes on the economic populism/progressivism/whatever you wanna call it. Simple. At the end of the day, people vote based on their wallets.

 

[Gorbles]

This generation of activists, putting aside the merits or lack thereof of the aforementioned positions, have managed to piss off substantial amounts of people in every demographic in America, including minority demographics, or, at the very least, foster distrust. There's little agreement that their positions are correct.

It's not really Dems being voted against, but the activists themselves. Dems, as the vicar, catch the heat, because they can neither convince the public the activists are uninfluential, nor convince the public the positions and attitudes of the activists are worthy of wholesale, genuine adoption. It's not tenable to consistently take on majority opinion across such a wide range.

You're weighting factors too heavily based on what you personally disagree with. Can't recommend this as being good advice for the party either. If you truly want the Democrats to win, you need to take a step back and appreciate the bigger picture.

 

[Voidwalkin]

The lesson of Brown's loss should really terrify Dem party leadership. He went economic populist for the entirety of his career, about as authentic and dogged as you can reasonably expect, and the Dem brand was still so toxic that he lost.

I doubt it requires explaining to another Midwest guy from Ohio, but Brown's politics are quite possibly the winningest available model from Madison to Philadelphia. They should really be asking if they're prepared to write off the blue wall entirely, and if the answer is no, some sorta niche for the Brown's and Fetterman's must be created. I'd prefer if they were encouraged to represent their districts moral leanings on federal legislation(which, frankly, is gonna require voting against Dems occasionally) provided they're avid backers of pro-working class legislative efforts.

An intentionally created wing of that nature would be competitive across the whole region. Insistence on the same-old, tow the moral line of the arch-liberal Boswash, California centers of gravity is, however, witnessing Dems clinging by increasingly spread out threads in PA, WI and MI, with OH and IA basically completely written off. It's grim electoral math.

 

[Farm Boy]

As long as we have another global pandemic in four years. Let's not... forget... that tiny detail

The US elections - and in that they are in no way unique - appear to be mostly about allowing people to feel like they have a say. The state doesn't make life better for them, just caters to its oligarchic pals and patrons. But if you are at least given an excuse to think you can change this, you may well end up hibernating for the intervote period.

The particularly lethal strain of bird flu is poised to jump any time. It's already jumped to cows.

 

[danjuno]

The lesson of Brown's loss should really terrify Dem party leadership. He went economic populist for the entirety of his career, about as authentic and dogged as you can reasonably expect, and the Dem brand was still so toxic that he lost.

Because they didn't replicate Brown's economic progressivism at the top of the ballot and down ballot Dems got dragged down as a result. Culture War mush has nothing to do with it.

 

[Syno]

This is a common enough view. I don't agree. It can be seen as Dems under attack by a viciously biased right, and characterized as culture war, because that is to some extent true. It misses the bigger picture, though.

It's not that Dems take seriously liberal social positions, and then catch hell. For the most part, they don't. They're not the vanguard.

It's that they humor the activist vanguard, which has fostered dire distrust over the past decade. That's enough, all it takes. To show sympathy, via, say, declaring pronouns like Biden, or even discussing reparations(a total non-starter, presently) like even Bernie did is to become a vicar of the substantial anger activist cadets have created. They've engaged in an extremely wide ranging assault, on everything from gender roles, and even how genders speak, to rethink and restructure of how race is engaged with(promoting equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity, most prominently), to challenging classic American foreign policy positions, to border security, even extending into whether borders conceptually are morally defensible, and my, does the list go on.

This generation of activists, putting aside the merits or lack thereof of the aforementioned positions, have managed to piss off substantial amounts of people in every demographic in America, including minority demographics, or, at the very least, foster distrust. There's little agreement that their positions are correct.

It's not really Dems being voted against, but the activists themselves. Dems, as the vicar, catch the heat, because they can neither convince the public the activists are uninfluential, nor convince the public the positions and attitudes of the activists are worthy of wholesale, genuine adoption. It's not tenable to consistently take on majority opinion across such a wide range.

I'd prefer they go local on social issues. Explicitly so, because I doubt simply avoiding social questions is enough to bridge the trust gap.

A lot of what you cite here are things explicitly peddled by manosphere podcasters and self-help gurus obsessed with crabs and hierarchies, so I'm not sure it works as a counterargument. To believe the Dems represent this stuff and are contributing to the decay of moral society, you have to first buy in to the initial propaganda (I use this term neutrally, we all create and consume propaganda) from figures that represent something like they/them pronouns as litter-box maniacs cruising in the bathroom for victims.

The reason I'm so confident about that is because a lot of what you cite, like "gender roles," are things that just change over generations. The oldest Boomers/Silent Generation folks grew up in a world where being a woman meant not having a bank account and wearing an apron, and being a man meant smoking and driving drunk and wielding the belt. When I was a child they complained endlessly about the state of gender dynamics as much as people complain today about them. Even if you eliminated trans people from the public eye again, they would still be angry because the world is different than how it was.

The easiest way to know that the source of this anger is born from a malicious actor is because a lot of the arguments are self-defeating or reliant on hypothetical extremes. The common retort against they/them pronouns, for example, is reliant on a falsely argued belief that it's a new thing invented by blue-hair baristas, when in reality it's been actively used since Shakespeare, and the people angry about they/them pronouns use them on a daily basis in their lives without ever noticing it. Everyone uses gender-neutral bathrooms on a daily basis already, and rapists don't need to live a life as the opposite gender in order to prey on people in one specific location.

This is why I am unconvinced that the Democrats would see any success retreating further on their lack of principled socially progressive values. The premise of the anger isn't based on legitimate fact or concern. To have that anger at all requires buying in to a value system that is reliant on extremes and that is actively being sold to you. There is no way for the Democrats to target that same demographic. It was started by Republican interests/sponsors, and Republican it will remain.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The Dems bring knives to a gun fight. They have for years. To overcome that disadvantage they need a hero, a new Obama.

 

[Voidwalkin]

A lot of what you cite here are things explicitly peddled by manosphere podcasters and self-help gurus obsessed with crabs and hierarchies, so I'm not sure it works as a counterargument. To believe the Dems represent this stuff and are contributing to the decay of moral society, you have to first buy in to the initial propaganda (I use this term neutrally, we all create and consume propaganda) from figures that represent something like they/them pronouns as litter-box maniacs cruising in the bathroom for victims.

I don't listen to podcasts on politics. As an info source, they're weak. I can read two to three times the speed of speech. I get more information that way, but I digress.

My reading list is basically whatever RCP links to, barring some outlets like NYP.

for victims.

The reason I'm so confident about that is because a lot of what you cite, like "gender roles," are things that just change over generations. The oldest Boomers/Silent Generation folks grew up in a world where being a woman meant not having a bank account and wearing an apron, and being a man meant smoking and driving drunk and wielding the belt. When I was a child they complained endlessly about the state of gender dynamics as much as people complain today about them. Even if you eliminated trans people from the public eye again, they would still be angry because the world is different than how it was.

The easiest way to know that the source of this anger is born from a malicious actor is because a lot of the arguments are self-defeating or reliant on hypothetical extremes

This is why I am unconvinced that the Democrats would see any success retreating further on their lack of principled socially progressive values. The premise of the anger isn't based on legitimate fact or concern. To have that anger at all requires buying in to a value system that is reliant on extremes and that is actively being sold to you. There is no way for the Democrats to target that same demographic. It was started by Republican interests/sponsors, and Republican it will remain.

These two are related, because I think your thinking in both is built on a faulty foundation: you're presuming the new attitudes are thought healthier universally, and opposition probably stems from bring misled, or from some other spring of less than luminary dissent.

But: people do not universally agree that all of these changes in attitudes, or values, or whatever, are socially healthy to begin with. The principled opposition, if you will.

There are those that oppose because they believe traditional hierarchy benefits their social position, and they fear that loss. The selfish opposition. The left, although it's often unsaid, characterizes much, if not the whole, of their opposition as motivated by this extensively, if not exclusively.

To understand the pushback, it has to be understood that it isn't all about the latter. The former is in there, too. It's entirely possible for a national party to move itself further from the moral center of the population locally, and this appears to be what has happened. The principled opposition kicks in in that event: the disagreement that the new is healthier is real, and it's based on real values differences.

 

[Voidwalkin]

You're weighting factors too heavily based on what you personally disagree with. Can't recommend this as being good advice for the party either. If you truly want the Democrats to win, you need to take a step back and appreciate the bigger picture.

If the beliefs you imagine to be so widespread actually were, the squad wouldn't be called the squad. They'd just be called the Dems.

Because they didn't replicate Brown's economic progressivism at the top of the ballot and down ballot Dems got dragged down as a result. Culture War mush has nothing to do with it.

Harris was indisputably better for poor people. I mean, very obviously better. If culture and vibes were really irrelevant, she'd have won handily. But she didn't.

 

[Zardnaar]

About 1/3rd democrat primary voters are progressives in NYC.

Opinion: Who’s winning the battle for the left?

Will Assembly Member Zohran Mamdani's clear messaging overshadow Comptroller Brad Lander, the darling of Brownstone Brooklyn, and feisty millennial state Sens. Jessica Ramos and Zellnor Myrie?

www.cityandstateny.com

 

[Gorbles]

If the beliefs you imagine to be so widespread actually were, the squad wouldn't be called the squad. They'd just be called the Dems.

I don't imagine any such beliefs are widespread in the party itself. You should look to your assumptions. The same goes for whatever link you see between this point and what I was replying to.

 

[Narz]

This is why I am unconvinced that the Democrats would see any success retreating further on their lack of principled socially progressive values.

It's a matter of focus. Focus 99% on universalities

The Dems bring knives to a gun fight. They have for years. To overcome that disadvantage they need a hero, a new Obama.

Not a new Obama, Obama created Trump. So exciting, so disappointing.

Obama promised big but also specifically, transparency in government is the one that stuck out in my mind during his campaign, being able to track online how govt money was being spent.

Harris by contrast just had a few vague promises so specific groups (better paid family leave iirc, and incentive for small business owners). You can't promise like Obama anymore because Obama didn't deliver (how much of that was his fault is another question) so they don't promise like him, sticking instead to 'hey look it's not that bad, I won't change anything from nothing-will-fundamentally-change BIden, it's me or facism' misreading the public mood & suffering entirely.

I really don't know what we need, another unmemorable status quo Dem like Harris definitely not, another Obama... no because Obama couldn't win again, America vastly different now than in 2008.

 

[Zardnaar]

It's a matter of focus. Focus 99% on universalities

Not a new Obama, Obama created Trump. So exciting, so disappointing.

Obama promised big but also specifically, transparency in government is the one that stuck out in my mind during his campaign, being able to track online how govt money was being spent.

Harris by contrast just had a few vague promises so specific groups (better paid family leave iirc, and incentive for small business owners). You can't promise like Obama anymore because Obama didn't deliver (how much of that was his fault is another question) so they don't promise like him, sticking instead to 'hey look it's not that bad, I won't change anything from nothing-will-fundamentally-change BIden, it's me or facism' misreading the public mood & suffering entirely.

I really don't know what we need, another unmemorable status quo Dem like Harris definitely not, another Obama... no because Obama couldn't win again, America vastly different now than in 2008.

Best politician in my lifetime underpromised over delivered.

 

[amadeus]

Not stating it as matter of fact but Democrats’ talk of “economic populism” always sounded to me as—not benefiting me, but a kind of bum class that doesn’t and won’t work. Anecdotal but a lot of the people I personally know (out in areas not considered a safe lock for Democrats) feel the same. This includes some old school labor Democrats who still vote for them.

Culture war issues, I don’t think those are in the mainstream of the party; that is, at least in the mainstream I’ve experienced. Media outlets definitely play it up, but I think the party does a horse-doo job of distancing themselves from the most offensive radicals.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Not stating it as matter of fact but Democrats’ talk of “economic populism” always sounded to me as—not benefiting me, but a kind of bum class that doesn’t and won’t work. Anecdotal but a lot of the people I personally know (out in areas not considered a safe lock for Democrats) feel the same. This includes some old school labor Democrats who still vote for them

It's a common enough view. Personally, I would try to get social spending to occupy the same mental niche as infrastructure spending. Roads widen the market. Aim of social spending is comparable, just a little more abstract in moving people from A to B.

I'd also favor job retraining programs and incentives for people who are unemployed to use them. Not because I agree that spending benefits a "bum class" or that there's anything noble about work(I actually think work is almost inherently degrading via exposure to social hierarchies that cannot be withdrawn from nor fought). I just think you'd have to tailor it to the common sensibility to have support in many states. My own, Ohio, included.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

There’s a lot of fretting from Dems that probably is warranted in the sense that Trump and the GOP are authoritarian evil, but the campaign Harris ran was ok. It was a B+ campaign. If you lived in a midwest battleground state (me) 100% of her ads were economic populism and there were a LOT of them. They all focused entirely on groceries and health care. I think people have this weird idea she was running like “DEI” ads in Bad Axe, Michigan but that is simply untrue. Her biggest problem there was they were all TV ads and only partially streaming ads. She needed more ads on Netflix/Hulu/etc. She also should have distanced herself from Biden more. That was her biggest issue. Biden also dropped out way, way too late and gave Harris so little time. He should have said from day 1 he is a one term president. I will never forgive him for that.

As an incumbent party, the Dems did better than just about anywhere else in the world. The House margin is record thin. The presidential election was borderline a squeaker. Public opinion is incredibly thermostatic. They are in ok shape for 2026 electorally, but they gifted Trump the best economy a president has been gifted in decades. Like many decades. He is going to ride that for awhile.

I think a bigger issue nobody is discussing is that it’s impossible for parties of any ideology to be liked once they are in power. Look where UK labour is already. Trump is going to be admitted with the lowest approval rating of a new president in modern history; lower than his first term and lower than Biden. Institutional and personal trust is so decimated that I expect us and all peer countries are entering a stage of extreme political whiplash and anger where everyone keeps oscillating between parties who quickly end up with negative 30 approval ratings. How to overcome that so you can actually pursue a political project is the bigger question. This is especially true in the US where our government is already intentionally slow, fractured, and ineffective at getting much done compared to Europe.

The other big issue is the entire US media appratus is pro GOP. Tik Tok is pro Trump. All news is pro Trump. Facebook is pro Trump. The Dems need to somehow buildup their own media project and do it pronto. They are way behind here and it’s an existential threat.

At some point the Dems need to make a positive case for immigration and not killing trans people. Again, with thermostatic opinions, immigration is going to be considered much more positively by 2026. Dems should get out in front of that and take the lead. Can’t keep getting trounced on it.

How Dems claw back their losses with people of color is also a million dollar question. It’s increasingly clear that Americans view the dems as moving too far left, but I think most or almost all of that goes back to the media landscape and not actual policy.

Also Whitmer and Buttigieg have shockingly decent approval ratings, especially in midwest states, so either one of them could be the 2028 nominee.

 

[Senethro]

Look, don't be bringing UK Labour into this. They're setting themselves up for something truly spectacular in terms of self destruction. It will not very comparable, and they will only be saved if the Tories outdo them. Which is not inconceivable.

 

[Narz]

The other big issue is the entire US media appratus is pro GOP.

I don't own a TV but all the late night show clips I scroll past on YouTube are anti Trump. Only big proTrump US media channel I thought was Fox.