USA Politics

[Azas]

———-
To the various other posters saying the Democrats never alienated voters by going too far left, there is enough evidence that the Democratic party saw that as a factor in losing the middle.

I said this sometime after the U.S. presidential elections — maybe not in the most polished way, but still. And mind you, I live on the other side of the world! Yet one particular user went absolutely berserk and wanted to ban me.

 

[Sheriff_of_Huddersfield]

I said this sometime after the U.S. presidential elections — maybe not in the most polished way, but still. And mind you, I live on the other side of the world! Yet one particular user went absolutely berserk and wanted to ban me.

Political topics tend to make people emotional.

Sounds like we’re seeing the same things.

I’m a little baffled, however, at how other commenters, regardless of where they live, can claim the US Democratic party never fell into identity politics and alienated a significant voting segment.

They even lost support in communities they purported to stand up for.

That’s the central issue the Democratic party is analyzing in how they lost to a candidate and party that they logically shouldn’t have.

 

[MrKnickerbocker]

I think this issue with identity politics is much more an issue with voters than with actual Democratic politicians. As others have said, Harris did not in any way go all in on identity politics but Republicans made it seem like she did. This both emboldened the hordes of disgusting Trumpers who hate anyone who isn't exactly like them and made progressive voters scream louder about it. At least on social media, the months leading up to the election were drowning in identity politics. This became conflated with candidates and politicians being rampantly obsessed with it, when it wasn't the case.

Harris didn't lose the election by pushing identity politics. If anything, she probably could have pulled some lazy non-voters off the couch by going in harder (like Trump did). But if you talk to Joe Backhoe from Buttcracken, Missouri, I'm sure he'd say all those damn liberal trans-queerdos were taking over the world prior to November because that's the narrative that Trump (and algorithms programmed by Elon Musk and other Conservative billionaires with shiny boots made for licking) pushed on them.

 

[Sheriff_of_Huddersfield]

I think this issue with identity politics is much more an issue with voters than with actual Democratic politicians. As others have said, Harris did not in any way go all in on identity politics but Republicans made it seem like she did. This both emboldened the hordes of disgusting Trumpers who hate anyone who isn't exactly like them and made progressive voters scream louder about it. At least on social media, the months leading up to the election were drowning in identity politics. This became conflated with candidates and politicians being rampantly obsessed with it, when it wasn't the case.

Harris didn't lose the election by pushing identity politics. If anything, she probably could have pulled some lazy non-voters off the couch by going in harder (like Trump did). But if you talk to Joe Backhoe from Buttcracken, Missouri, I'm sure he'd say all those damn liberal trans-queerdos were taking over the world prior to November because that's the narrative that Trump (and algorithms programmed by Elon Musk and other Conservative billionaires with shiny boots made for licking) pushed on them.

You’re not wrong about perception vs. reality when it comes to Joe Budweiser (wait, not anymore — Joe Schlitz?).

But, really starting with Hilary’s campaign in 2016, the Democrats did trot out a lot of academic sounding social talking points that alienated much of the working class. Whereas, at one point, the Democrats were the party of the working class (or tried to be).

Harris directly didn’t lose for where she stood on the political spectrum. I think she lost more because she wasn’t a very active or visible VP and was pushed into the spotlight by necessity.

But, it wasn’t just Harris, look at Congressional elections.

I doubt Harris lost much of the progressive vote. Left party groups aren’t taking the blame for her loss anyway.

My opinion is that, in oder to prevent the shitshow happening now from happening yet again, either the Democrats or some third way moderate group needs to appeal to the middle and working class voter base.

 

[MrKnickerbocker]

The Democrats need to be able to connect with the working class and continue fighting for progressive values when it comes to marginalized communities. Skewing wholly centrist to appease the working class isn't going to gain them votes, it's just gonna shift the votes from blue to purple. If they abandon the more progressive gains of the last couple decades just to appear more "blue collar" or something, they're going to keep losing faith with voters.

Or, you know, maybe enough Trumpers will wake up and realize all the bullshit that's happening under their Orange God King and defect, but that requires empathy, intellect and moral fortitude. And we know they have none of that.

 

[JudasMyGuide]

You’re not wrong about perception vs. reality when it comes to Joe Budweiser (wait, not anymore — Joe Schlitz?).

But, really starting with Hilary’s campaign in 2016, the Democrats did trot out a lot of academic sounding social talking points that alienated much of the working class. Whereas, at one point, the Democrats were the party of the working class (or tried to be).

Harris directly didn’t lose for where she stood on the political spectrum. I think she lost more because she wasn’t a very active or visible VP and was pushed into the spotlight by necessity.

Bur, it wasn’t just Harris, look at Congressional elections.

I doubt Harris lost much of the progressive vote. Left party groups aren’t taking the blame for her loss anyway.

My opinion is that, in oder to prevent the shitshow happening now from happening yet again, either the Democrats or some third way moderate group needs to appeal to the middle and working class voter base.

(the following is from a point of a traditional conservative - I am against Trump and even old-school Reagan-style Republicans, if I was a US citizen, I wouldn't vote for either party, because I couldn't - just to stress I am no Trumpet and I am certainly not happy that Trump had won)

There are two things to this - first, yes, Harris did partake in the identity politics/cultural war via abortion. The debate about abortion in the US is completely unhinged on both sides (one side wants to criminally persecute mishandling embryos, another wants absolutely unrestricted aborting, including post-viability, late-term etc) but that's no excuse, Harris could have pushed for some kind of compromise like most European countries have or something, but the abortion stuff was a huge part of the campaign, it was one of the main points and I was pointing out how that's a bad idea even back then (not many people on this forum wanted to listen to it, though). It doesn't matter how euphemistically you try to put it, as "reproductive rights" or "women's rights to their bodies" - much like with a hypothetical anti-abolitionist trying to defense slave owners like "merely managing your property", many moderate people will intuitively feel that there is something wrong there and it is a topic that you should approach with utmost carefulness. Especially in America.

Another part of the identity politics was the open hostility towards Christians that some may try to talk away, but which was subjectively felt pretty much by every US Christian I've been in contact before and around the time of the election (including "get out of this rally" moments, prominent Democrat politicians' reels parodying/mocking the Eucharist and wholehearted embracing of drag queens mocking Catholics, among other things). Again, it might seem like a trifle, but it was a vital mistake.
I might disagree with American Catholics being too much influenced by their Evangelical brethren and being US-first and too right-wing (whereas the teaching of the Church is very left wing in many ways), but when confronted with the choice to either vote for a party that is a cynical performative exploitation/hypocritical mockery of their faith vs. a party that's openly hostile to it (to quote Babylon Bee), I can hardly fault them for picking the former. Many US Catholics might or might not have voted for Trump, but nearly all of them felt they can't vote for Harris. And that's besides such a huge part of the campaign being about abortion.

Besides that, it is true that Harris herself didn't dabble in identity politics that much, but there's the second problem, another one that I had mentioned before the election and that was uncomfortable to be heard - Harris was simply unlikable. I mean, she bypassed the primaries - think of how well would she do in those. And no, it's not beause she's a woman or because she's black, it's because if you put aside party politics and affiliation, she has no charisma at all, or at least not the type that would help you in politics.

With Joe, even with his diminished cognitive capabilities and overall age, they could have stand the chance, once Harris became the candidate, my immediate thought was for fuck's sake, they're going to lose against Trump AGAIN, aren't they?.

 

[MrKnickerbocker]

Another part of the identity politics was the open hostility towards Christians that some may try to talk away, but which was subjectively felt pretty much by every US Christian I've been in contact before and around the time of the election (including "get out of this rally" moments, prominent Democrat politicians' reels parodying/mocking the Eucharist and wholehearted embracing of drag queens mocking Catholics, among other things). Again, it might seem like a trifle, but it was a vital mistake.

I might disagree with American Catholics being too much influenced by their Evangelical brethren and being US-first and too right-wing (whereas the teaching of the Church is very left wing in many ways), but when confronted with the choice to either vote for a party that is a cynical performative exploitation/hypocritical mockery of their faith vs. a party that's openly hostile to it (to quote Babylon Bee), I can hardly fault them for picking the former. Many US Catholics might or might not have voted for Trump, but nearly all of them felt they can't vote for Harris. And that's besides such a huge part of the campaign being about abortion.

Sorry, but as a non-American citizen and a devout Christian, you do not have an objective take on this subject. I am not trying to attack your faith here, but American Christians saying their faith is being persecuted is the same argument as "what about White Lives Matter!" Conservative American Christians are some of the least Christian people I have ever encountered. Of course I'm generalizing there and I'm sure there are plenty of good ones, but on the whole, they are some of the most hypocritical, hateful people in this country. Many faithless people on the left have more Christian values in their heart than anyone who goes to church.

And regardless of that, Harris wasn't attacking faith. I do not believe this had a major part in her loss.

Besides that, it is true that Harris herself didn't dabble in identity politics that much, but there's the second problem, another one that I had mentioned before the election and that was uncomfortable to be heard - Harris was simply unlikable. I mean, she bypassed the primaries - think of how well would she do in those. And no, it's not beause she's a woman or because she's black, it's because if you put aside party politics and affiliation, she has no charisma at all, or at least not the type that would help you in politics.

Harris didn't have enough time to be likable. She started showing her personality towards the end, but it was too late. Conversely, Donald Trump didn't win new voters by being likable. The guy is fucking repugnant.

And yes, it is absolutely because she is a woman and because she is black. If you don't believe that played a part in people's votes, you are 100% wrong.

 

[Mosh]

Sorry, but as a non-American citizen and a devout Christian, you do not have an objective take on this subject. I am not trying to attack your faith here, but American Christians saying their faith is being persecuted is the same argument as "what about White Lives Matter!" Conservative American Christians are some of the least Christian people I have ever encountered. Of course I'm generalizing there and I'm sure there are plenty of good ones, but on the whole, they are some of the most hypocritical, hateful people in this country. Many faithless people on the left have more Christian values in their heart than anyone who goes to church.

And regardless of that, Harris wasn't attacking faith. I do not believe this had a major part in her loss

This exactly. Abortion is an issue that democrats routinely poll better on and Trump clearly tried to either avoid the issue or give the impression that he wouldn’t touch abortion as president. Also, notice how despite having controls of all government branches there hasn’t been a push for a national abortion ban. This idea that abortion was an albatross for Harris isn’t a serious argument.

 

[JudasMyGuide]

Sorry, but as a non-American citizen and a devout Christian, you do not have an objective take on this subject. I am not trying to attack your faith here, but American Christians saying their faith is being persecuted is the same argument as "what about White Lives Matter!" Conservative American Christians are some of the least Christian people I have ever encountered. Of course I'm generalizing there and I'm sure there are plenty of good ones, but on the whole, they are some of the most hypocritical, hateful people in this country. Many faithless people on the left have more Christian values in their heart than anyone who goes to church.

And regardless of that, Harris wasn't attacking faith. I do not believe this had a major part in her loss.

Just a slight correction, so that we understand each other - I didn't say "persecuted" (that's nonsense), I said seemingly hostile. It was Kamala who was sending Christians away from her rally, IIRC and it was Kamala who took pictures with the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence"



Regardless of what is your personal opinion is in the matter, this is controversial for a politician, it certainly cost her more votes than it gained, it was completely unnecessary and, well... just imagine a politician taking pictures with drag queens known for mocking Islam and the fact that they'd lose the Muslim vote would be the least of their problems.

But I admit that my take upon that, abstract as I may try to make it, is still subjectively coloured.

And yes, it is absolutely because she is a woman and because she is black. If you don't believe that played a part in people's votes, you are 100% wrong.

I admit that it is a factor, but it isn't the only one. Meaning it is quite easy to imagine someone not liking her even though they'd have no problem with a black person, a woman or even a black woman in the office. What did she score in the primaries, when she did participate? 4 % or so? I have a hard time thinking that the Dem base is this racist and sexist, after Obama and Hillary.

 

[MrKnickerbocker]

Just a slight correction, so that we understand each other - I didn't say "persecuted" (that's nonsense), I said seemingly hostile. It was Kamala who was sending Christians away from her rally,

Two Christians who actively tried to interrupt a Presidential candidate during a speech regarding women's rights. Who also shouted their beliefs at the same time as someone (or the very same people) yelling "Lies! Lies!" in regards to Trump's appointment of Supreme Court Justices selected to purposefully kill Roe V Wade. She made a joke to diffuse the situation and the protestors started leaving the venue, at which point random volunteers "kicked them out" for protesting. She wasn't hostile.

and it was Kamala who took pictures with the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" Regardless of what is your personal opinion is in the matter, this is controversial for a politician, it certainly cost her more votes than it gained, it was completely unnecessary and, well... just imagine a politician taking pictures with drag queens known for mocking Islam and the fact that they'd lose the Muslim vote would be the least of their problems.

Imagine a world where voters are completely swayed by a politician taking a single photo with drag queens with questionable talking points but not swayed by a politician being in dozens of photos with Jeffrey Epstein.

I admit that it is a factor, but it isn't the only one. Meaning it is quite easy to imagine someone not liking her even though they'd have no problem with a black person, a woman or even a black woman in the office. What did she score in the primaries, when she did participate? 4 % or so? I have a hard time thinking that the Dem base is this racist and sexist, after Obama and Hillary.

Of course it wasn't the only factor, I never said it was. But your previous post was very direct that it had "no" impact. Which is very untrue. The Dem base wasn't the issue for racists and sexists, it was for the moderates. There is a massive percentage of Americans who are consciously or subconsciously guided by years of entrenched racism and sexism.

 

[____no5]

Conservative American Christians are some of the least Christian people I have ever encountered. Of course I'm generalizing there and I'm sure there are plenty of good ones, but on the whole, they are some of the most hypocritical, hateful people in this country. Many faithless people on the left have more Christian values in their heart than anyone who goes to church.

Religious people are often like this everywhere; with religion being more of a social badge thing than a matter of faith.

 

[Mosh]

I think Knick and @Sheriff_of_Huddersfield in particular are making a lot of good points here. Dems certainly have an image of engaging in identity politics but Harris’ 2024 campaign was pretty non controversial to anybody who followed her rallies/debates/etc. She made controversial choices in her 2020 primary, but I am not sure I believe that this significantly damaged her campaign in 2024. I just don’t think the average voter pays that much attention.

Which is what gets to my biggest takeaway from all this, which is how much it actually matters how far to the right or left the party moves. I question how much political campaigns even matter at this point. I also think we have to reckon with the fact that most voters are stupid/uninformed. Look at Trump’s approval rating. He has the worst approval of a president in their first 100 days in modern history, yet all of his major actions (tariffs, dismantling government programs/firing employees, mass deportations) were major pieces of his campaign. People are getting what they signed up for, yet Trump’s popularity is already rapidly deteriorating. There are people on this board who voted for him yet cannot explain how his policies are making their lives better. You might call the whole political situation here a farce.

 

[Flaming Blimp Crash]

The biggest thing that doomed Harris in 2024 is running as the VP of an incumbent president that had an approval rating in the high-30s and saying you wouldn't do anything different than said incumbent president.

Biggest flaw of the campaign was refusing to find any daylight between herself and an unpopular president.

 

[Jer]

Biden went left, Biden won.
Harris went right, Harris lost.

Sure, let the Dems go further to the right. That will certainly win them the next election. Pursuing moderates has certainly never shown to be a disastrous idea that simply doesn't work out and doesn't win elections.

Biden was an actual moderate who took a public left turn to pick up more base voters. Biden won.

Harris was an actual hardcore progressive who publicly flip-flopped on multiple major issues to try to appeal to the middle. Harris lost.

Preexisting branding and perceptions of authenticity could just as easily make the opposite of the point you’re trying to make — that Biden won because people actually believed he was a moderate, and Harris lost because no one believed anything she said at all.

 

[The Garlon]

There are two things to this - first, yes, Harris did partake in the identity politics/cultural war via abortion. The debate about abortion in the US is completely unhinged on both sides (one side wants to criminally persecute mishandling embryos, another wants absolutely unrestricted aborting, including post-viability, late-term etc)

Now that's a complete load. I'd like to see some proof of politicians supporting late term abortions. That would not be a popular opinion anywhere in this country.

 

[____no5]

Look at Trump’s approval rating. He has the worst approval of a president in their first 100 days in modern history, yet all of his major actions (tariffs, dismantling government programs/firing employees, mass deportations) were major pieces of his campaign. People are getting what they signed up for, yet Trump’s popularity is already rapidly deteriorating.

I can't speak about the internal matters but for tariffs and Ukraine he's been a mess. The intentions were there, but there was no strategy only showtime, rush and confusion. People were right to vote for him then and they are right to disapprove him now I don't see any contradiction whatsoever.

In many regards he's worse now than during his first term and with no excuse of inexperience.

 

[JudasMyGuide]

Now that's a complete load. I'd like to see some proof of politicians supporting late term abortions. That would not be a popular opinion anywhere in this country.

Well, obviously


Especially Minnesotta passed a law in January 2023 that extended the "right to abortion" from "until viability" to "no restriction".

A friend of mine watched the legislative process dilligently and yes, it was of primary concern to Dems to pass the law with no restrictions whatsoever (explicitly including late-term abortions - the amendment to limit third trimester abortions was openly refused).

What's a complete load about that? I'm not being sarcastic, I genuinely want to know.

(and in general, "viability" shouldn't be the word to use in this discussion at all, if an idea of post-viability abortion doesn't fill you with genuine terror, then I genuinely don't know what to say to that. I nearly went to med school, I have the misfortune to know how even second-term abortion looks like)

Imagine a world where voters are completely swayed by a politician taking a single photo with drag queens with questionable talking points but not swayed by a politician being in dozens of photos with Jeffrey Epstein.

What's this bout of whataboutism? First of all, I'm not a Trumpet, but besides that, yeah, Epstein probably had a lot of friends. And? That's not even in my top 20 problems with Trump. But if the standard Dem answer is going to be "But Trump...!", I fear the lesson hasn't been learned.

Of course it wasn't the only factor, I never said it was. But your previous post was very direct that it had "no" impact. Which is very untrue. The Dem base wasn't the issue for racists and sexists, it was for the moderates. There is a massive percentage of Americans who are consciously or subconsciously guided by years of entrenched racism and sexism.

I don't believe I said it had "no" impact, I just wanted to stress that I don't accept it as a convenient excuse and I'm tired of that one. The US society is racist and sexist? Okay, then don't actually hurt your case and instead try to test that theory by putting there someone charismatic. Politics is a popularity contest, one that the Dems are currently losing to fucking Trump (long term, he might be unpopular now again, but they lost to him twice). If people are so influenced by racism as you say and putting a person of colour is already this risky, then you should make up for it and have your Morgan Freeman or pre-slap Will Smith in the race. The party is supposed to win the majority of voters, isn't it?

My entire point in this thread is that Dems should start to care about what other people think as well and act accordingly. You may counter how I'm wrong (I certainly am, in various points) and have a million excuses, but I've seen the wiser Dem supporters on social media saying what I do right after the election. That the party should learn from this and not just blame anything but itself. Otherwise it's just that Skinner meme all over again.

Currently it seems to me the Dems are mostly practicing the surprised Pikachu face.
2016: Oh, Trump won't win, that's absurd.
surprised_pikachu.jpg
2024: Oh, Trump won't win, that's absurd.
surprised_pikachu.jpg


Again, you don't have to explain to me why "Trump bad", I know he is. I'm not your enemy. Just putting my own POV (which is supported by people from certain demographic with whom I actually have contact) which may be correct or not and you may accept or reject it, but I'd recommend to stop and at least think about it a bit, for the benefit of everyone. Can't hurt, can it?

I also think we have to reckon with the fact that most voters are stupid/uninformed.

Exactly. But - and sorry if this sounds hostile, I don't mean it against you in particular - you have to get their support first before you start to try making them as clever as you are. (Sarcasm partially intended)

Telling people they are stupid that they didn't vote for you doesn't sound like a winning strategy for me. Lamenting how US people are terrible for electing Trump doesn't seem compatible with trying to win with the same people.

Anyway, I'll leave it at that, just as an outsider - if moderates win in any of the political parties (preferably both), that is the only hope for a bright future in the US. As of now, you're more of a cautionary tale for us. Not exactly sure regarding what, but just an overall, general cautionary tale nonetheless.

 

[Mosh]

Exactly. But - and sorry if this sounds hostile, I don't mean it against you in particular - you have to get their support first before you start to try making them as clever as you are. (Sarcasm partially intended)

Telling people they are stupid that they didn't vote for you doesn't sound like a winning strategy for me. Lamenting how US people are terrible for electing Trump doesn't seem compatible with trying to win with the same people.

There is of course a lot of truth to this, and I don’t encourage democrats to start calling voters stupid. But, considering in just five months my day to day life and economic condition has been negatively affected by Trump’s policies, I can’t help but feel resentful at the average American’s lack of intelligence.

On the less spiteful side, I do think this is something that democrats need to figure out a way around. See the below post as a perfect example:

I can't speak about the internal matters but for tariffs and Ukraine he's been a mess. The intentions were there, but there was no strategy only showtime, rush and confusion. People were right to vote for him then and they are right to disapprove him now I don't see any contradiction whatsoever.

In many regards he's worse now than during his first term and with no excuse of inexperience.

Everything Trump has done on tariffs and Ukraine is what he said he would do. If you are surprised at how much of a mess this has been, you are either gullible, an idiot, or both.

 

[The Garlon]

It's something like 1% of abortions in the US are late term and those are typically for medical reasons. Sates with abortion restrictions have much higher infant and maternal mortality rates and just worse healthcare overall. If you think Amercians are supporting chopping up babies, I'm sorry to disappoint.

 

[Flaming Blimp Crash]

The intentions were there, but there was no strategy only showtime, rush and confusion.

I- what?