this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2024
137 points (94.2% liked)

politics

19098 readers
4001 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 30 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (4 children)

I don't think it's that difficult. Trump had a rather focused message: anti-immigration and pro-tariffs. He hammered just two issues and it brought out his biggest demographics, uneducated whites and business owners. The big surprise to Democrats is that this also won over many Latino voters.

Democrats need to be similarly focused on their biggest demographics, with two or three major initiatives to differentiate them from the GOP.

Codifying Roe worked to bring out college educated voters. They should probably keep that.

Now add a major new program aimed at blue collar voters (Harris lacked this) and a major new program aimed at Latino and/or Black voters (Harris lacked this too).

[–] seaQueue@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Now add a major new program aimed at blue collar voters (Harris lacked this) and a major new program aimed at Latino and/or Black voters (Harris lacked this too).

This is it right here, Dems didn't have a big economic plan to get folks back to where they were before the pandemic and so blue collar voters just didn't turn out for them.

We've had 32y of the neoliberal Democrat party and the bulk of the wealth created during that time has funnelled to the top 10%. Voters want to hear about the plan to give them a share of prosperity too and until that's on the menu they're not going to show up unless a previous Republican administration makes some sort of catastrophic fuck up.

Bush walked into the 2008 crash with his face and Obama ran on change and opportunity for all. He won, then passed healthcare reform and won again. Hillary pushed neoliberal business as usual and her foreign policy expertise and failed. Biden won because Trump catastrophically fucked up the government's COVID response and voters didn't trust him to steer the country out of it. Harris ran on neoliberal business as usual at a time shortly after record setting inflation (and corporate profits) without spending any time talking about how she'd address these things or how they were going to make new opportunity for the working class. It shouldn't be a surprise that her campaign failed, neoliberalism isn't particularly popular with anyone except the wealthy and the educated who see the long term benefit of democrats other policies.

It's pretty easy to see the pattern, Democrats don't represent the change voters want to see unless we're coming out of a catastrophic economic fuck-up during the prior administration.

What does that buy you, an unpredictable win every 8-12y followed by 4 more years of business as usual?

[–] snowboardbum@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

That's hard to disagree with. Kerry couldn't beat Bush even though he was a respectable Senator who also was a drafted Purple Heart war hero in Vietnam. A "Standard Democrat" can't win in a time of aggravation. You need someone on the verge of Fire Brand to rally the troops.

[–] seaQueue@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

You need someone who's very obviously pushing a "change and prosperity for all" message at this point. A standard neoliberal has very little chance of winning at a time when we've suffered 2? 3? once in a lifetime economic crises in the last 25y.

There needs to be some plan to include everyone in the economic prosperity that we've funnelled to the top 10% and the candidate needs to beat that drum over and over until there's no space left to talk about anything else. We already know Democrats are for women's issues, we already know Democrats are for equal racial opportunity, we already know Democrats are (generally) more sane than the other guy - now we need to tell folks that we've got the better plan to uplift everyone that's fallen behind over the last 30y.

When the other side has candidates willing to say "I'll break the law to change things" you really have to step up your game beyond "we're better for long term growth and stability, and by the way we're not the other guy and we ❤️ PoC."

(Honestly it's exhausting that this needs to be spelled out, it's like national Democrats don't know a single person who's been left behind over the last 30y.)

[–] snowboardbum@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

When the other side has candidates willing to say “I’ll break the law to change things” you really have to step up your game beyond “we’re better for long term growth and stability, and by the way we’re not the other guy and we ❤️ PoC.”

(Honestly it’s exhausting that this needs to be spelled out, it’s like national Democrats don’t know a single person who’s been left behind over the last 30y.)

Well put.

[–] BadmanDan@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

Harris won 47% of white women, that is absolutely HUGE in today’s political climate.

[–] very_well_lost@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The big surprise to Democrats is that this also won over many Latino voters.

It blows my mind that anyone continues to be surprised by this. Republicans have been gaining ground with Latino voters since Bush. How much longer do we have to wait before the DNC stops scratching their heads and actually tries to do something about it?

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Bush was popular among Latinos, and got 40% of their vote in 2004. But that's not true of all Republicans since then. McCain got 31% in 2008, and Romney got 27% in 2012.

Trump himself only got 29% in 2016 (much less than this year).