Should Harris have continued with her more Populist messaging?

[farce©]

True. I understand the point about unilateral disarmament for sure. That being said, Trump was at a severe dollar disadvantage compared with Harris and still won.

The Trump campaign was at a disadvantage. The spigot filled with GOP-leaning PAC money was flowing wide open.

 

[superrific]

True. I understand the point about unilateral disarmament for sure. That being said, Trump was at a severe dollar disadvantage compared with Harris and still won.

Not if you count the value of Fox News programming.

 

[CallMeTyler]

He had no plan. It’s just completely asinine to sit here and say that she lost on policy.

Messaging. Not policy.

She had no sound bites. Nothing you could latch onto, make meme's about, shout to your friends.

We're Not Going Back sounds good as a slogan, but didn't inspire people to go to the polls.

 

[Paine]

Not if you count the value of Fox News programming.

Fair. It also doesn’t count the massive amounts of dark money that ran ads on behalf of Trump and R Senate candidates. Idk what the solution there is other than harnessing a movement that has enough power to elect a majority willing to make changes to our electoral system and constitution.

A revitalized labor movement could help offset it, as could a robust small donor operation.

 

[dukeman92]

Messaging. Not policy.

She had no sound bites. Nothing you could latch onto, make meme's about, shout to your friends.

We're Not Going Back sounds good as a slogan, but didn't inspire people to go to the polls.

And that’s a fair criticism. But I don’t think it would have changed the outcome. Most people said they decided who they would vote for back in September. So nothing he or she said between then and now changed that. And that speaks to the stupidity and prejudice (and I’m speaking about prejudice to the issues in this instance) of the electorate.

 

[lightbluenc]

She didn't lose on policy.

She lost on being tied to Biden on the border and on the inflation of 22 and 23. Dems never messaged about that well and here we are.

She also lost to a guy who knows TV whose entire current persona was created for The Apprentice. They built this guy, this facade of who he is. The only thing close on the dem side would be if Mark Cuban ran

I hate the idea of celebrities running, but I do like Mark Cuban, and as far as celebs running I still think Jon Stewart is the brash populist tell-you-how-it-is messenger Dems need.

 

[CallMeTyler]

And that’s a fair criticism. But I don’t think it would have changed the outcome. Most people said they decided who they would vote for back in September. So nothing he or she said between then and now changed that. And that speaks to the stupidity and prejudice (and I’m speaking about prejudice to the issues in this instance) of the electorate.

I don't think she had the charisma to pull it off regardless. She didn't carry the gravitas to battle a personality like Trump.

 

[Paine]

I hate the idea of celebrities running, but I do like Mark Cuban, and as far as celebs running I still think Jon Stewart is the brash populist tell-you-how-it-is messenger Dems need.

I wonder if Shawn Fain has any interest in running for office. I doubt it because he is focused on gearing up for a general strike in 2028. I would love to vote for him, and I think he would appeal to a lot of people.

 

[dukeman92]

I don't think she had the charisma to pull it off regardless. She didn't carry the gravitas to battle a personality like Trump.

Eh? I just think she didn’t get the stage to show it. She was great during the debate. Her facial expressions and ability to react to what he was saying in real time were great. She was at her best. She just didn’t get anymore of those opportunities. He was smart to stay away from her after that.

 

[superrific]

At this point, I think the PTB in the party are more willing to ride out a Trump presidency than to make left-wing promises and have to govern after running a left-wing campaign.

They wanted their base of support in a potential Harris admin. to be suburban Republicans and educated liberals. They don’t want to propose left wing ideas because the party itself is beholden to billionaires and corporate interests.

1. This is a load of crap. The PTB in the Democratic party wanted to win by any means possible. If mocking billionaires was a winning message, they would have gone with it. You know, like "every billionaire is a policy failure." Remember that? It didn't die because Dems chose not to message it. It died because it's not an effective message. Do you know any heavy hitters? I have an acquaintance who made tons of money trading bonds. He's liberal. He and his wife support redistributive taxes. I'd bet nycfan makes seven figures or at least high six. Is she a squish who won't support liberal policies?

Ever since fucking slavery, the white patrician strategy has been to stand above the fray and let other people do their dirty work. In daily life, overseers were way crueler than the planters themselves, on average. And that mentality exists today. MAGA doesn't hate billionaires because they don't interact with billionaires. They hate lawyers and doctors and professors. They know they had no chance to be billionaires, but they also know they could have been professionals had they studied in school and went to college. They didn't; they regret it; and they take out their anger on the people who did. This is just Death of a Salesman redux.

2. The idea that we would have won with Medicare for all is just not supported by the record. I don't know if you were around or paying attention during the Obamacare debates, but they fought Obamacare tooth and nail. Socialism, blah blah blah. And they won the 2010 midterms with that message. On the merits, it was good for them. It was always going to be good for them. But they listen to Tucker or Bill O'Reilly or whoever the next guy is to tell them their opinions. MAYBE Medicare For All would have driven turnout, but there's no real evidence for that proposition. Virtually every data point I have seen suggests that running to the left does not work. Remember, in 2016, voters by and large saw Trump as the moderate candidate. They rejected HRC as too liberal.

3. We can never nominate a woman for president again, or at least not for the foreseeable future. I hate typing that, but it's true. Look at the 2020 primaries. Bernie lost to Biden everywhere he beat HRC. Was Biden way more populist than HRC? Or was it that men won't vote for a woman to lead the country?

4. The big mistake that Dems made was assuming that abortion would carry the day. THAT's why they were reaching out to the burbs. They were trying to win women. And the data was all telling them that they would. Everyone in America thought Kamala was going to clean up with women.

5. I really need to get off the board today but I'm having trouble. I can't concentrate on anything. There's a lump in my stomach that just won't go away.

 

[lightbluenc]

Trump knew all he had to do after that debate was to be himself. Do something, say something, anything every day to get the attention. Didn't matter if it was good or bad. The MSG rally seemed terrible but it made no difference in 99.9999% of Americans eyes.

 

[Paine]

1. This is a load of crap. The PTB in the Democratic party wanted to win by any means possible. If mocking billionaires was a winning message, they would have gone with it. You know, like "every billionaire is a policy failure." Remember that? It didn't die because Dems chose not to message it. It died because it's not an effective message. Do you know any heavy hitters? I have an acquaintance who made tons of money trading bonds. He's liberal. He and his wife support redistributive taxes. I'd bet nycfan makes seven figures or at least high six. Is she a squish who won't support liberal policies?

Ever since fucking slavery, the white patrician strategy has been to stand above the fray and let other people do their dirty work. In daily life, overseers were way crueler than the planters themselves, on average. And that mentality exists today. MAGA doesn't hate billionaires because they don't interact with billionaires. They hate lawyers and doctors and professors. They know they had no chance to be billionaires, but they also know they could have been professionals had they studied in school and went to college. They didn't; they regret it; and they take out their anger on the people who did. This is just Death of a Salesman redux.

2. The idea that we would have won with Medicare for all is just not supported by the record. I don't know if you were around or paying attention during the Obamacare debates, but they fought Obamacare tooth and nail. Socialism, blah blah blah. And they won the 2010 midterms with that message. On the merits, it was good for them. It was always going to be good for them. But they listen to Tucker or Bill O'Reilly or whoever the next guy is to tell them their opinions. MAYBE Medicare For All would have driven turnout, but there's no real evidence for that proposition. Virtually every data point I have seen suggests that running to the left does not work. Remember, in 2016, voters by and large saw Trump as the moderate candidate. They rejected HRC as too liberal.

3. We can never nominate a woman for president again, or at least not for the foreseeable future. I hate typing that, but it's true. Look at the 2020 primaries. Bernie lost to Biden everywhere he beat HRC. Was Biden way more populist than HRC? Or was it that men won't vote for a woman to lead the country?

4. The big mistake that Dems made was assuming that abortion would carry the day. THAT's why they were reaching out to the burbs. They were trying to win women. And the data was all telling them that they would. Everyone in America thought Kamala was going to clean up with women.

5. I really need to get off the board today but I'm having trouble. I can't concentrate on anything. There's a lump in my stomach that just won't go away.

Super, I already know your thoughts on this and you already know mine. We can just disagree on it, that’s okay.

 

[superrific]

Fair. It also doesn’t count the massive amounts of dark money that ran ads on behalf of Trump and R Senate candidates. Idk what the solution there is other than harnessing a movement that has enough power to elect a majority willing to make changes to our electoral system and constitution.

A revitalized labor movement could help offset it, as could a robust small donor operation.

How did your guy do in Nebraska?

There are some areas where you have some wisdom. Probably that's because you've recently been at university. There are valuable lessons to be learned there, and I'm not anyone who would discount that LOL.

But it's also true that some of us have a lot of experience with this shit. We've seen Dan Osborns before. There is always a Dan Osborn. Some guy who maybe looks like he's outperforming and then he doesn't. Beto actually didn't come all that close in the end. Jamie Harrison was never a thing. Whoever was running against Susan Collins bombed. Labor-backed candidates don't win just because they are labor backed. How did Sherrod Brown do? Few Senators have tried harder for working class families than he has. It doesn't matter because trans and black people coming from the Congo. I can't remember all the names right now.

Do you remember John Edwards? You might remember him as a POS. But before that all came to light, he was a class warrior in American politics. I always thought his "two Americas" speech was right on. His economic message was not different than Bernie's. It didn't get him the presidential nomination in 04 (one would think he would have been better than Kerry), but it got him to the VP nomination. And then he lost. And nobody wanted it any more, because it didn't play well. I remember so many media articles from centrists and leftists: Americans do not want this type of division. Why not, said me?

Labor did shit for Democrats this cycle. This has always been the problem with labor movements in America. Labor movements require solidarity. America's working classes do not have solidarity. They never have. I'm sure you listened to Billy Bragg's response to "Rich men north of richmond." In that, he talks about the value and need for solidarity. Is anyone else talking about that?

Right now, college educated white liberals (and black women) are the most liberal demographic in the country. The problem isn't that we are tied to corporate overlords. It's that we can't win without minorities, and apparently we can't win with them either.

 

[sunnyheel]

Duke Mu, I'm so glad you asked. I bailed on the old ZZL early this year partly to avoid the inevitable angst produced during the toxic election cycle, but I'm rejoining the conversation, albeit in an abbreviated and perhaps brief turn, to pound home my message to Democrats: the Neoliberal Order is over, and, like the other party has (but contrariwise to the Republicans' proto-fascist/state-capitalism model), it's time to develop a new approach.

But nycfan is, as is the custom, mostly right in her assessment: the cake was baked when the DNC picked a woman of color to assume the role of keeper of the (vaguely liberal) status quo. The change from Biden, while undoubtedly an improvement upon what would have been a wipeout, was met in the predictable way: it was the intrinsic 47%-47% political split with the diminished (glass) ceiling represented in the racial/gender hierarchy. Black women still suffer a built-in opposition among even some who might otherwise be of a like mind.

Of course, this was the best Democrats could do, and it mostly worked (rousing the base, creating energy and media attention, raising the funds, etc.) except for the winning part.
But the mistake referenced on your question "Should Harris have continued with her populist message?" should have been corrected after the Hillary debacle.

As Paine keeps reminding us, because the Democrats have had to try to weave together a fractious coalition of the investor/donor class and working classes, management and labor, human rights activists and Zionists, etc., they are in the game of "hide the ball" and misdirection, offering nuanced policies (read: pabulum) to a population that is hungry for red meat: systemic change.

The thing about this situation is that it's an obvious reality that has played out across the Western world in an almost consistent and seemingly inevitable way: the loss of confidence in the center-left and consequent rise of far right nationalism. And none of those members of the center-left coalition has yet to find a landing spot.

Macron tried a technocratic centrist approach, which only landed him in the doghouse with all sides, harking back to our own Clintonism. There seems to be no taste for a wholesale return (in Europe) to social democracy, but we've never tried that here. Unless there is some breakthrough in the zeitgeist (which the looming disaster of Trumpism might offer) or in the political economy, the Dems are stuck on stupid.

As far as the horror of knowing over half of our voters favor authoritarian populism to that center-left pabulum: something always beats nothing. Democrats have to find their something.

 

[superrific]

I don't think she had the charisma to pull it off regardless. She didn't carry the gravitas to battle a personality like Trump.

Every time I watched her, I was impressed. I think her smile and her laugh are infectious. Watching her made me happy, and it obviously made others happy too judging by the enthusiasm among the rank and file.

The problem is that Americans don't actually want a smile. They want to crush people under a boot.

 

[Paine]

How did your guy do in Nebraska?

There are some areas where you have some wisdom. Probably that's because you've recently been at university. There are valuable lessons to be learned there, and I'm not anyone who would discount that LOL.

But it's also true that some of us have a lot of experience with this shit. We've seen Dan Osborns before. There is always a Dan Osborn. Some guy who maybe looks like he's outperforming and then he doesn't. Beto actually didn't come all that close in the end. Jamie Harrison was never a thing. Whoever was running against Susan Collins bombed. Labor-backed candidates don't win just because they are labor backed. How did Sherrod Brown do? Few Senators have tried harder for working class families than he has. It doesn't matter because trans and black people coming from the Congo. I can't remember all the names right now.

Do you remember John Edwards? You might remember him as a POS. But before that all came to light, he was a class warrior in American politics. I always thought his "two Americas" speech was right on. His economic message was not different than Bernie's. It didn't get him the presidential nomination in 04 (one would think he would have been better than Kerry), but it got him to the VP nomination. And then he lost. And nobody wanted it any more, because it didn't play well. I remember so many media articles from centrists and leftists: Americans do not want this type of division. Why not, said me?

Labor did shit for Democrats this cycle. This has always been the problem with labor movements in America. Labor movements require solidarity. America's working classes do not have solidarity. They never have. I'm sure you listened to Billy Bragg's response to "Rich men north of richmond." In that, he talks about the value and need for solidarity. Is anyone else talking about that?

Right now, college educated white liberals (and black women) are the most liberal demographic in the country. The problem isn't that we are tied to corporate overlords. It's that we can't win without minorities, and apparently we can't win with them either.

Osborn outperformed the Democrat running in the other Senate race by ten points.

Like usual, you miss the point that I try to make in regards to class and labor.

You too often conflate people seeing candidates as “too liberal” with them being too far left. Hillary and Kamala were both seen as too liberal. Was this because of their policy positions? Not a chance. It’s all optics. Like Walz said, one person’s neighborliness is another person’s socialism. Americans don’t know what it means to be far left or far right, by and large.

I’ve never said anything about labor backed candidates winning just because they’re labor backed. My points are always about messaging and aesthetics. Policy does a good job of reinforcing those. But if the messaging and aesthetics are off, the policy doesn’t really matter.

Sherrod Brown is close to this type of candidate, though still a bit too moderate for my liking. His ability to last in Ohio up to this point was impressive. Same for Tester. Again, I think a big part of their appeal was aesthetics. The Democratic brand was too trashed in Ohio and Montana for them to get over the hump again.

 

[superrific]

As Paine keeps reminding us, because the Democrats have had to try to weave together a fractious coalition of the investor/donor class and working classes, management and labor, human rights activists and Zionists, etc., they are in the game of "hide the ball" and misdirection, offering nuanced policies (read: pabulum) to a population that is hungry for red meat: systemic change.

What is your evidence that they want systemic change? Trump represented systemic change? Seriously? He clowned organized labor and the rank and file men, mostly white men, stayed with him. Getting rid of immigrants is the least systemic of all changes. Except maybe for anti-trans nonsense. People complaining about protecting women's sports from biological males are not people asking for systemic change. It's almost the precise opposite. They want their old system back.

Trump's campaign was mostly cultism and hate. His only consistent message was "we are being invaded by dark skinned people." They even started talking about the Congo and the non-existent jungles of Haiti. Oh, the other message was radical left democrats. How this becomes, "if only Dems had run on systemic change . . . " is beyond me.

I have no issue with left-wing social policies. I just want to win. That's all. If you can point me to any evidence at all that radicalism is the way to do that, I'm all ears.

 

[Paine]

What is your evidence that they want systemic change? Trump represented systemic change? Seriously? He clowned organized labor and the rank and file men, mostly white men, stayed with him. Getting rid of immigrants is the least systemic of all changes. Except maybe for anti-trans nonsense. People complaining about protecting women's sports from biological males are not people asking for systemic change. It's almost the precise opposite. They want their old system back.

Trump's campaign was mostly cultism and hate. His only consistent message was "we are being invaded by dark skinned people." They even started talking about the Congo and the non-existent jungles of Haiti. Oh, the other message was radical left democrats. How this becomes, "if only Dems had run on systemic change . . . " is beyond me.

I have no issue with left-wing social policies. I just want to win. That's all. If you can point me to any evidence at all that radicalism is the way to do that, I'm all ears.

Trump is your evidence that radicalism wins.

 

[lightbluenc]

Authoritarian populism is waaaay easier to sell that economic populism (or any other kind).

 

[Paine]

Duke Mu, I'm so glad you asked. I bailed on the old ZZL early this year partly to avoid the inevitable angst produced during the toxic election cycle, but I'm rejoining the conversation, albeit in an abbreviated and perhaps brief turn, to pound home my message to Democrats: the Neoliberal Order is over, and, like the other party has (but contrariwise to the Republicans' proto-fascist/state-capitalism model), it's time to develop a new approach.

But nycfan is, as is the custom, mostly right in her assessment: the cake was baked when the DNC picked a woman of color to assume the role of keeper of the (vaguely liberal) status quo. The change from Biden, while undoubtedly an improvement upon what would have been a wipeout, was met in the predictable way: it was the intrinsic 47%-47% political split with the diminished (glass) ceiling represented in the racial/gender hierarchy. Black women still suffer a built-in opposition among even some who might otherwise be of a like mind.

Of course, this was the best Democrats could do, and it mostly worked (rousing the base, creating energy and media attention, raising the funds, etc.) except for the winning part.
But the mistake referenced on your question "Should Harris have continued with her populist message?" should have been corrected after the Hillary debacle.

As Paine keeps reminding us, because the Democrats have had to try to weave together a fractious coalition of the investor/donor class and working classes, management and labor, human rights activists and Zionists, etc., they are in the game of "hide the ball" and misdirection, offering nuanced policies (read: pabulum) to a population that is hungry for red meat: systemic change.

The thing about this situation is that it's an obvious reality that has played out across the Western world in an almost consistent and seemingly inevitable way: the loss of confidence in the center-left and consequent rise of far right nationalism. And none of those members of the center-left coalition has yet to find a landing spot.

Macron tried a technocratic centrist approach, which only landed him in the doghouse with all sides, harking back to our own Clintonism. There seems to be no taste for a wholesale return (in Europe) to social democracy, but we've never tried that here. Unless there is some breakthrough in the zeitgeist (which the looming disaster of Trumpism might offer) or in the political economy, the Dems are stuck on stupid.

As far as the horror of knowing over half of our voters favor authoritarian populism to that center-left pabulum: something always beats nothing. Democrats have to find their something.

Please keep posting here.