Democratic Party direction post-Harris

Doesn't matter, he was a de facto Dem under the two-party system, and was running in their primary.


She failed to distinguish herself from Biden, who pumped the brakes on many of the popular economic measures from the pandemic.

And the democratic voters rejected him. No conspiracy theory required. His only chance was vote splitting he never came close to 50% of Democrats primary voters supporting him.

Feeds back into the point there's not enough progressives.
 
And the democratic voters rejected him. No conspiracy theory required. His only chance was vote splitting he never came close to 50% of Democrats primary voters supporting him.
Funny how that works when the media constantly craps on you. You know, actual media bias, not the lack of bootlicking Trump is always crying about.
 
Late night TV shows are pro Democrat but have very little cultural sway. Fox is bigger than all of them combined and quintupled. Facebook skews its algorithim in favor of right wing content, Youtube does, and TikTok does, especially in light of Trump being very close with the CEO of TikTok. The owners of the NYT, Washington Post (Bezos), and LA Times all have recently personally struck down some pro Kamala or anti Trump opinion pieces and cartoons. The LA Times especially is being intentionally turned into a conservative news outlet by owner Patrick Shoon-Shiong, who is very right wing, pro Trump, and Qanon adjacent. The owners of CNN and Politico also did the same thing; intentionally shifted right wing to try to make more money. Almost every major local news station is owned by Sinclair, who mandates pro Trump coverage to their stations. The list is endless. It’s 10000000 times worse than most people realize and a massive boon to the GOP. It will take decades to undo.
i'm just gonna +1 particularly the last line here; the extent of republican media on the micro level is bonkers. rural radio..~
 
Luigi 2025
 
The election was close even thought it was a sweep in the swing states. The margin of victory was thin: All seven swing state losses were within 6 percentage points with the exception of WI which Harris lost by 0.8%


(# in the middle is the difference in votes)

AZ- 187,362 5.5%
NV - 46,008 3.1%
WI - 29,397 0.8%
MI - 80,103 1.4%
Penn - 120,266 1.7%

NC - 183,048 3.2%
GA - 115,100 2.2%

The closest being Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania had those three states been won by Harris it would have been a Democrat victory. So even though they had the losing argument a substantial amount of people voted for them. In total Trump won the popular vote by 2,285,488 votes. To me that says that the Democrats don't need to make sweeping changes in their message though the changes they make may need to be drastic. They are within reach of victory.


However, it is alarming that they are hemorrhaging working class voters. Bernie Sanders says, “It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them” They are losing white working class voters and allowing MAGA to make gains with the Latino working class. It always amazes when working class people vote Republican. Romney said it best “The Republican Party, made up of working class Americans, and Republican policy positions don’t necessarily line up terribly well,”

To regain white working class votes and Latino votes they probably need to reel in some of their most divisive culture war positions and maybe lean into satisfying people with traditional world views. Oh, and almost everyone is concerned about immigration that issue cannot be side stepped anymore, Immigration reform does not need to be punitive but it needs to be stern and substantial. If they keep the present course which it looks like they will do, they are in for a continued decline. I hope the whole rotten structure burns down, Bernie Sanders brief ascendancy in 2016 was a huge red flag that they ignored. In my opinion the current leadership in the Dem party is responsible for the Trump ascendancy, they were at the helm when disaster struck...twice.
 
Last edited:
Funny how that works when the media constantly craps on you. You know, actual media bias, not the lack of bootlicking Trump is always crying about.

Well would you vote for someone who conveniently jumps on board then quits after he loses?

Bernies not a Democrat. Why should they vote for him? Or support him.

He's popular with the progressive wing sure. They're nit the majority amoung democrats let alone country at large.

I woukd vote for Bernie myself. Most Democrat primary voters did not.
 
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.
I don't love media being positioned as the engine to the extent it's done here. I favor a bottom up view of politics, that elite opinion mirrors public opinion moreso than shapes it. In this case, I think there's real distrust as a consequence of different classes interacting with one another, but that aside, yeah, media shifts the Overton window.

I just get nervous every time I run into this argument, though. Gives me the same Illuminati vibes that I get when talking to my (unfortunately) conspiracy theory brained dad.

How does a party take real stock of what views are popular and which are not if the majority of its members go "it's FN, there is little to no organic opposition to our preferred values,". If a values gap is actually there, you'll get blindsided, repeatedly. You won't be losing voters over a single issue, where you could plausibly get them back with another, you're losing voters because the identity of your party is too far away for them to consider. It's much more damaging, and more permanent.
 
Brown was still an idiot who couched most of his campaign in response to whatever Moreno said instead of actually articulating his own thoughts. He was even calling trans women "biological men", for god's sake. Not quite as much a cockup as Portman's campaign running exclusively on a platform of "China is evil!" but still deeply embarrassing.
Yeah, we're really far apart. I see nothing that would suggest Brown would've won by going social left. This is a state carried by Trump by a really healthy percentage.

That Brown was even competitive speaks to the strengths, not weaknesses, of his politics in the state of Ohio. He outperformed Harris by around 7pts.
 
Well would you vote for someone who conveniently jumps on board then quits after he loses?

Bernies not a Democrat. Why should they vote for him? Or support him.

He's popular with the progressive wing sure. They're nit the majority amoung democrats let alone country at large.

I woukd vote for Bernie myself. Most Democrat primary voters did not.
Not a response to anything I just said.
 
She failed to distinguish herself from Biden, who pumped the brakes on many of the popular economic measures from the pandemic.
Agree, I just don't think it can explain the whole of it. It could just as easily be said that Gen Z men moving Trump lost her it, or Latino men moving right, or just...men moving right generally.

Realistically, she was never gonna be able to distance from Biden, too. There's a reason I advocated some sort of primary process after Biden suspended his campaign. Particularly because it appears a buncha his staffers were already miffed with events: direct criticism woulda seen damaging leaks follow.
 
Not a response to anything I just said.

Basically does. Bernies not a Democrat. Why expect Democrats to support him.

This us basic human interaction 101. Understand tgat and you might figure out what Democrats got beaten by Trump twice.

TLDR people will disagree with you for whatever reason. It's up to you to change their minds.
 
I don't love media being positioned as the engine to the extent it's done here. I favor a bottom up view of politics, that elite opinion mirrors public opinion moreso than shapes it.
It really unfortunately is alllllll top down. A well established political science/psychology reality is how people develop voting preferences. Most people think:

Person organically develops values as they grow —> votes for person that best represents them

Instead it is - and I cannot stress this enough - overwhelmingly:

Person gets to like/respect elite/public figure—> Adjusts preferences to line up with said figure

This is why we see support for renewable energy is lowest in swingy Obama to Trump counties. In some places like Texas, renewable energy predates Trump and a lot of local (and obviously GOP) politicians supported it for “jobs.” It was a relatively apolitical stance. In places like Michigan and Pennsylvania where there’s been a big recent redshift in some of these rust belt union towns, Trump is the Republican elite a lot of voters grew to follow, so their values now match his - wind kills birds and business and shuts down or whatever he yaps about. There are endless examples like this. Evangelical elites pushing antiabortion on followers in the 70s is another well documented one. Fun story; when Tony Hawk endorsed Bagel Bites, their annual sales increased by over 300%.

The reality is the vast majority of people get their voting preferences and values from elites and not organic moral revelation. This also explains why “who someone’s parents vote for” explains so many people. Their parents are their “elite.”

I think in general a lot of people would be stunned at how you can get people to waffle on something not by pointing out counterpoints/facts (never works) but instead point out an athlete or actor or politician they love disagrees with them.

If Trump really started working an anti-tariff angle suddenly, his voters would follow.
 
It really unfortunately is alllllll top down. A well established political science/psychology reality is how people develop voting preferences. Most people think:

Person organically develops values as they grow —> votes for person that best represents them

Instead it is - and I cannot stress this enough - overwhelmingly:

Person gets to like/respect elite/public figure—> Adjusts preferences to line up
The thing about that last bit is that who they like, and consequently trust enough to represent their interests in matters they don't particularly understand, is... basically determined by moral authority, and of course the moral center of a population is something that is holistic and determined by much more than candidate A's policy.

The effect you're describing occurs after. "Trump is aligned with me on traditional masculinity, against radical alterations in norms, therefore I trust him on the Paris Accords or tariffs or whatever".

I don't see that as particularly top-down tbh, because it all occurs after population or demo X has already concluded A is more aligned morally than B.
 
Basically does. Bernies not a Democrat. Why expect Democrats to support him.

This us basic human interaction 101. Understand tgat and you might figure out what Democrats got beaten by Trump twice.

TLDR people will disagree with you for whatever reason. It's up to you to change their minds.
I never denied that Bernie did not receive a majority of the vote, I stated that this was not because the American people are wildly in love with capitalism or because he technically doesn't have a D next to his name on the ballot despite it not having any practical difference, but because a generally hostile media landscape towards anti-capitalism in the U.S. Believe it or not, most media outlets are owned by capitalists, who probably (Just a wild guess :p) don't like anti-capitalism, and therefore probably won't sign off on anti-capitalist coverage. But feel free to keep calling basic logic conspiracy theories.

It's also worth noting that support for progressive policy out paces the number of self-identified progressives by your estimation. Support for government or corporate health care is tied, and a support for a double-digit minimum wage is an overwhelming majority.
 
Matt Yglesias posted this.

GhNgj8gWIAA79ik.jpeg
 
I never denied that Bernie did not receive a majority of the vote, I stated that this was not because the American people are wildly in love with capitalism or because he technically doesn't have a D next to his name on the ballot despite it not having any practical difference, but because a generally hostile media landscape towards anti-capitalism in the U.S. Believe it or not, most media outlets are owned by capitalists, who probably (Just a wild guess :p) don't like anti-capitalism, and therefore probably won't sign off on anti-capitalist coverage. But feel free to keep calling basic logic conspiracy theories.

It's also worth noting that support for progressive policy out paces the number of self-identified progressives by your estimation. Support for government or corporate health care is tied, and a support for a double-digit minimum wage is an overwhelming majority.

I don't think the problem in America for the Dens is policy. It's messaging. Sone of tgeor policies are popular buy you're cherry pick thrm. Others are not. They're getting wrecked on identity politics and immigration.
 
The cheese stands alone?
 
Back
Top Bottom