1067
submitted 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Summary

Historians suggest Democrats might have fared better against Donald Trump by embracing the economic issues championed by Senator Bernie Sanders, who has long pushed for a focus on “bread-and-butter” concerns for working-class voters.

Despite Kamala Harris’s progressive policies, polls showed Trump was favored on economic issues, particularly among working-class and Hispanic voters.

Historian Leah Wright Rigueur argued that Sanders’ messaging on economic struggles could be key for future Democratic strategies.

Sanders himself criticized the party for “abandoning” the working class, which he said has led to a loss of support across racial lines.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ThirdWorldOrder@lemm.ee -2 points 5 days ago

Lol I actually voted and voted for Harris. FWIW I’m also a former Republican who voted for Trump in ‘16.

If I’m able to fucking learn then so will all these morons who stayed home and didn’t vote because of either their apathy or “principles”.

Those people gave Trump the path to the White House again.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Lol I actually voted and voted for Harris. FWIW I’m also a former Republican who voted for Trump in ‘16.

Oh look, it's the only voter Harris cared about.

[-] ThirdWorldOrder@lemm.ee 1 points 4 days ago

Why does it matter if Harris cared about my vote? I did my job. Did you?

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

Why does it matter if Harris cared about my vote?

Because seeking votes is what campaigning is.

I did my job. Did you?

I voted for Harris. Harris didn't do hers. She ran to the right and alienated the left.

Me and others like me warned what would happen as a result, and it was interpreted in all cases as trump support. Got called Russians so often that c/politics eventually made a rule forbidding it. Centrists thought they knew better. Thought that genocide had popular support. Thought that Dick Cheney's endorsement was a win. No one likes Dick Cheney. Even Republicans hated him before the endorsement. The constant abuse aimed at Muslim voters left Trump an in-road that he exploited. Pretending that the economy was fine and that everything was better now, after all the inflation that it sure as fuck looked like the Biden administration just sat back and watched.

Not to mention the very public failures of the Biden administration on labor: Failing to pass BBB, killing the minimum wage increase, and breaking the rail strike. The Biden administration earned the distrust of workers, and it doesn't matter how fair you think that is. Harris didn't do a damned thing to differentiate herself from him on this issue. More of the same was untenable, worse was the only alternative, so people stayed home because they weren't being represented by either party, and one was insulting them and telling them that they weren't struggling because the economy was working fine for billionaires.

Hell, the only daylight between Harris and Biden was when she moved to his right. Promising to appoint a Republican to her Cabinet. Campaigning with Liz Cheney. Even Biden wasn't that tonedeaf.

We warned you. We kept warning you because we knew what was at stake. You were all so fucking pigheaded that you refused to listen.

[-] ThirdWorldOrder@lemm.ee 0 points 4 days ago

No one wanted Dick Cheney’s endorsement lol. You are right about most of the points you are making. Unfortunately for the further left, america is about to get a lot more right now. The ideas that progressives are offering are just not resonating with voters while prices are going up up up.

Dems are going to have to start playing nasty if they want to compete now.

this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
1067 points (97.3% liked)

politics

19088 readers
2270 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