In light of the recent election, it’s clear that the Democratic Party needs a significant leftward shift to better address the needs and concerns of the American people. The party’s centrist approach is increasingly out of touch, limiting its ability to appeal to a broader base and especially to young voters, who are looking for bold and transformative policies. The fact that young men became a substantial part of the conservative voting bloc should be a wake-up call—it’s essential that the Democratic Party broadens its appeal by offering real solutions that resonate with this demographic.

Furthermore, one major missed opportunity was the decision to forgo primaries, which could have brought new energy and ideas to the ticket. Joe Biden’s choice to run for a second term, despite earlier implications of a one-term presidency, may have ultimately contributed to the loss by undermining trust in his promises. Had the party explored alternative candidates in a primary process, the outcome could have been vastly different. It is now imperative for the Working Families Party and the Progressive Caucus to push for a stronger, unapologetically progressive agenda within the Democratic Party. The time for centrist compromises has passed, as evidenced by setbacks dating back to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss, the persistently low approval ratings for Biden since 2022, and Kamala Harris’s recent campaign, which left many progressives feeling alienated. To regain momentum and genuinely connect with the electorate, a clear departure from moderate politics is essential.

  • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    Sorry, you are saying that folks joined the GOP and voted for orange voldemort because … he was to the left of Dems?

    Trump got 72 million votes in 2024, compared to 74 million votes in 2020, so I’m not sure where you’re getting this idea that Dem voters moved to Trump. Trump just successfully turned out the same base of supporters that he had before, while Harris didn’t. But even if your claim were true, it would still indicate that moving to the right is ineffective, because in that case it failed to stop them from leaving. It’s just utter nonsense no matter how you try to look at it.

    I disagree. She was on places like “Call Me Daddy” and SNL - the outreach was there.

    I cannot possibly emphasize enough how much I do not mean “going on SNL” when I talk about mobilizing and energizing the base.

    Well, it worked in 2020, but not in 2024. Meanwhile, Clinton did not purse this in 2016 - instead calling the worst of these folks “deplorables” - and still lost.

    So that one comment outweighs the entire rest of the campaign where she moved to the right to try to appeal to moderate republicans?

    Hey, you know what, Harris called republicans “weird.” So I guess we can’t count this either as an example of your ideology being proven decisively wrong for the upteenth time. And the next time that the democrats try this and it blows up in their face yet again, there will be some random comment that means you can exclude that data point too.

    • abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      16 hours ago

      so I’m not sure where you’re getting this idea that Dem voters moved to Trump.

      This makes me think you’re replying without reading. I’ll make it easy for you though and quote my earlier comment,

      Consider that he’s gained in previously blue strongholds, like in Beverly Hills as per https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-07/trump-victory-by-the-numbers/104573034 and even in Brooklyn as per https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/06/trump-voter-gains-new-york-00188078

      Moving on,

      But even if your claim were true, it would still indicate that moving to the right is ineffective, because in that case it failed to stop them from leaving.

      This is a good point. Agreed.

      Trump got 72 million votes in 2024, compared to 74 million votes in 2020,

      Citation needed.

      What I’m aware of (e.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/11/07/uncalled-house-senate-races-popular-vote-2024-election/ - https://archive.is/W93jB) says we don’t have the final popular vote counts yet.

      It’s just utter nonsense no matter how you try to look at it.

      No, nonsense doesn’t make sense. But this does make sense. The issue is - if I’m right and the whole country is moving rightward, then Dems can only survive by also moving to the right.

      In other words, one interpretation is that Dems and Harris didn’t go far right enough.

      I hope that’s wrong though, since it suggests lefties like myself are an endangered breed.

      how much I do not mean

      That’s fair - would be helpful then if you state what you do mean. Or in other words, what you think would be effective in “mobilizing and energizing the base.”

      So that one comment outweighs the entire rest of the campaign where she moved to the right to try to appeal to moderate republicans?

      It wouldn’t - if that had happened. But - while it is true Clinton tried to get moderate Republicans on board back in 2016, she really didn’t shift at all for them. Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/while-wooing-republicans-clinton-sticks-progressive-policy-n628501

      And the next time that the democrats try this and it blows up in their face yet again, there will be some random comment that means you can exclude that data point too.

      Again, it’s more than just a random comment.

      Hey, you know what, Harris called republicans “weird.”

      Hmm… I don’t recall this actually. Citation needed.

      So I guess we can’t count this either as an example of your ideology being proven decisively wrong for the upteenth time.

      Well, you can’t count it as that, but for a different reason - you’ve failed to prove anything wrong, let alone decisively.

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Citation needed.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election

        The final vote totals are not in yet, true, but I’m going off what information we have now.

        No, nonsense doesn’t make sense. But this does make sense. The issue is - if I’m right and the whole country is moving rightward, then Dems can only survive by also moving to the right.

        In other words, one interpretation is that Dems and Harris didn’t go far right enough.

        I hope that’s wrong though, since it suggests lefties like myself are an endangered breed.

        Well, the good news is that you are completely wrong.

        Harris lost for two very simple reasons. First, because she attached herself to a status quo that many people were dissatisfied with. Second, because she attempted your shitty strategy of shifting right to win over republicans, when republicans are perfectly satisfied with the party they’ve got.

        You’re operating on lots of false assumptions, like this idea that who people vote for just comes down to who’s closer to them on the political compass or something. Honestly, Harris could’ve run to the right of Trump on every issue and Trump supporters still wouldn’t vote for her. That’s just how reality is, and your ideology is out of line with it.

        That’s fair - would be helpful then if you state what you do mean. Or in other words, what you think would be effective in “mobilizing and energizing the base.”

        Running a progressive campaign with progressive policy. Not punching left. Not supporting genocide. Not bragging about Dick Cheney being on your side.

        Even just calling Republicans weird was actually working but she couldn’t even stick with that because she was too concerned with winning over the mythical moderate republican vote.

        Hmm… I don’t recall this actually. Citation needed.

        Really?

        • abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          Really?

          Yep. So that happened very close to Biden dropping out, hence I think I missed it in all the noise about the change.

          It’s good to have source though. In this case it provided additional context - the comments were limited to the top two, unlike Clinton who insulted potential voters. (Actually let’s not kid ourselves - these folks almost certainly voted against her in the end.)

          The final vote totals are not in yet, true, but I’m going off what information we have now.

          That’s not unreasonable, but I’d argue it’s premature. If the results change, that could invalidate the conclusion.

          The sources I referenced seem to disagree with you, but after all they may yet be proven to have jumped to conclusions too soon as well.

          Well, the good news is that you are completely wrong.

          Like I said, it’s premature to conclude this.

          I’ll grant you this - if the final numbers show that the GOP didn’t get more than 2020, and Harris ended up getting a lot less than Biden did (on the order of tens of millions), then I’ll concede and agree.

          Though I’ll through in an additional wrench - I’d want to see what happens with the popular vote in California specifically. To rule out things like Dem voters in Republican or battleground states getting their votes suppressed as being the cause of the GOP win.

          But if the numbers say differently - that more people voted this year overall, for example, then I’d argue that supports my original (and deeply disappointing) case. (I’m not sure year if 2020 is the right comparison either due to the effects of the pandemic - that might have been an unrepeatable one off. I’d also want to compare to 2008 or 2012 after adjusting the numbers for population changes.

          Honestly, Harris could’ve run to the right of Trump on every issue and Trump supporters still wouldn’t vote for her.

          Agreed. I confess that why his core voters like him so much remains a bit of mystery to me - even the most extreme on the right haven’t been able to displace this guy, a new york liberal who basically stole their playbook and used the bits he liked.

          But this puzzles me less than a Clinton and Biden supporting Dem turning red this year.

          Running a progressive campaign with progressive policy.

          Like Clinton did in 2016, as per the NBC source I referenced earlier? We know how that turned out.

          Not punching left. Not supporting genocide. Not bragging about Dick Cheney being on your side.

          Yup, agreed. I can see Palestine/Gaza indeed being a sticking point. I still will never understand those folks who voted GOP because they didn’t like Biden/Harris on Gaza - which many claimed to do as per https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/14/hamtramck-donald-trump-arab-american-muslim - but I could easily understand them sitting out or voting third party. And with Dick Cheney’s history, that might influence single issue voters negatively who might otherwise be primed to want to believe in the best of intentions from Harris.

          Of course, Harris was between a rock and a hard place on this issue - but we don’t need to rehash all of that. From what’s coming out now, it’s clear that Harris wasn’t able to strike the necessary balance and win over this important voting bloc - such as https://www.voanews.com/a/in-historic-shift-american-muslim-and-arab-voters-desert-democrats/7854995.html and https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/11/7/dont-dare-blame-arab-and-muslim-americans-for-trumps-victory - and I certainly can’t rule out the possibility that your suggestion here might have been enough to swing things the other way.

          That’s just how reality is, and your ideology is out of line with it.
          You’re operating on lots of false assumptions, like this idea that who people vote for just comes down to who’s closer to them on the political compass or something

          If that’s false - then how do people choose who to vote for? What else would be the measure that they use?

          like this idea that who people vote for just comes down to who’s closer to them on the political compass or something

          Well, they also tend to follow endorsements (hence why AOC and Sanders endorsed Harris), and do things like punish the incumbent if the economy feels really bad, etc. I’d agree that closeness isn’t the sole thing.

          Even just calling Republicans weird was actually working

          Per your citation it was just the two folks who are heading to the White House, not Republicans generally.

          but she couldn’t even stick with that because she was too concerned with winning over the mythical moderate republican vote.

          Actually, she did - see https://www.npr.org/2024/10/30/nx-s1-5170908/harris-argues-that-trump-poses-a-threat-to-democracy-in-the-final-days-of-the-race & https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/15/harris-slams-trump-in-pennsylvania-as-us-election-race-heats-up

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            13 hours ago

            Christ. If Hilary Clinton is your idea of a progressive candidate and going on SNL is your idea of mobilizing the base, then you are just on a wavelength that is so far removed from mine that frankly I don’t think there’s any real possibility of a productive conversation.

            this idea that who people vote for just comes down to who’s closer to them on the political compass

            If that’s false - then how do people choose who to vote for? What else would be the measure that they use?

            Seriously, come on. People have all sorts of reasons for chosing a candidate. This is so obvious that I shouldn’t have to explain it.

            • Seriously, come on. People have all sorts of reasons for chosing a candidate. This is so obvious that I shouldn’t have to explain it.

              Funny where you cut off the part where I list some of the other reasons. I’d agree that it’s obvious that people have all sorts of reasons for choosing a candidate, but what didn’t compute for me is why someone who would be more progressive - or even just pro-Gaza - would support the anti-progressive who wanted to let Israel’s prime minister “finish the job”, so to speak.

              This is so obvious that I shouldn’t have to explain it.

              Well, it can be worthwhile explaining it anyways sometimes. Often I’ve seen two people who actually agree but keep arguing because of semantics or the like, but if it’s all laid out plainly then these tend to quickly come to an agreement. Other times, it’s useful just to see how far the “wavelengths” are apart, as you put it.

              • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                12 hours ago

                Very few people supported Trump because they thought he’d be better on Gaza. Some may have chosen to take a gamble on literally anyone because the Dems are so bad on it, but I doubt that represents a major bloc.

                On the other hand, I think it does represent a major factor when it comes to the economy. People are dissatisfied with the status quo and Kamala ran on the status quo. Trump was able to present himself as an alternative, and he was the only other choice.

                I honestly think she could have not just mobilized more democrats, but also peeled off more republicans by seperaring from Biden’s economic policies and presenting a further left alternative. Not everyone who votes republican is ideologically committed.

                • From the sources I referenced earlier though it seems like may have been what broke the core three swing states - Arab voters who backed Biden in 2020 flipped to the GOP in 2024. In absolute terms the margins by which Penn and Michigan turned red are tiny - so it’s easy to believe that winning over the Arab vote would have made all the difference in the EC.

                  That was the one major issue that I wasn’t sure on w.r.t. Harris. It seems to me like she did everything else right except that. Now, she was between a rock and a hard place there - but perhaps she should have counted on the Jewish voting block staying loyal no matter what and then appeased this group by much stronger measures.

                  Anyways, I saw a Harris win as being the last chance to implement a plan to reform the entire system and give progressives and far-left folks a fair chance, starting with a bunch of new constitutional amendments that would get ratified. But now I fear the exact opposite may happen. It all depends on who takes the House majority.

                  • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    6 hours ago

                    She did truly so much stuff wrong. The only reason I thought she had any chance at all was because Trump is such a shitty candidate that the bar was very low. She was a bad candidate who never would’ve won a normal primary, like 2020 showed, and she underperformed downballot candidates all over the place, including Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin, where democratic senators won or are winning, and which combined make up enough EVs to win (not to mention PA where the senate candidate outperformed Harris but lost by a hair, or NC which elected a democratic governor by a wide margin).

                    Losing Arab voters was probably enough to cost her the election, but even with them it’s doubtful she would’ve won. There was a 14 point swing among Hispanic voters compared to last election, likely because of the Democrats pivoting right on immigration, and the economy was voters’ biggest concern where Harris’ messaging was very weak. Fundamentally, this whole strategy that they tried that you apparently like of dismissing everyone’s concerns except the moderate republicans who were never going to vote democrat is completely self-defeating.

            • For the record, Clinton wasn’t progressive enough for me (but I would have indeed settled on her back in 2016) and I don’t watch SNL (though considering how many do, I still think it’s great outreach).

              But I’m not the only one who thinks this way. Here’s a great post - https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/18340229 - describing how much and how well Dems turned out this year (with the estimate being that Dems will have actually beat their 2020 numbers once the popular vote count is finished). It’s just that red voters turned out in even higher numbers this year.

              Since the final popular vote tally is still unknown, it is speculative, but if it’s right, then I think it’s enough to disprove your contention (that Harris lost because turnout from Dems was low because they were turned off by the lack of progressive policies and Gaza and etc - this can’t be the reason if turnout went up instead of down!).

              • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                12 hours ago

                That’s still speculation, but whether it’s more people voting Trump or fewer people voting Democrat is a moot point. If the Dems moving right led to the outcome that more people voted Trump, then it was still a losing strategy.

                • On that last point - I’m moving to the view that you’re right - it is a losing strategy.

                  As another commenter in this thread pointed out, https://lemmy.world/comment/13326761 , it’s the economy that was the biggest factor. That will always shift wins to the opposing party.

                  This tells me that a) 2024 might have just been unwinnable, as the economy really really sucked due to factors out of the control of anyone in the USA (Ukraine war still having devastating impacts on the US economy today).

                  But it also suggests that if we still have all the same elections that we expect to in 2026 and 2028, then Dems would be able to make a major comeback without changing much as this idiot trashes the economy. Alas, that feels like a really big if right now, and it shouldn’t be.