Should Harris have continued with her more Populist messaging?

[Paine]

Anybody who thinks the primary people to blame for us not having Medicare 4 All and lower prescription drug prices and more robust paid family and medical leave is Democrats is an idiot. Tell me exactly when, during the last decade, Dems had the ability to unilaterally do that, or Republicans would have joined in supporting it. You want to blame people like Sinema and Manchin individually, fine; I have cursed their names many times. But to act like Biden or Harris didn't want those things and shot them down? Come on.

Progressives want us to believe that working class voters will immediately flock back to Dems if we just push these big ticket item, European-style policies. I want those policies. I think they're good policy. I'm not a neoliberal trying to protect capital or whatever you want to call me. But progressives just got all the evidence you could ever want that promising economic policy that will help workers is not what voting workers want. They just voted for tariffs and tax cuts and deportations. The vast majority of Trump voters said that Kamala fucking Harris, a mainline centrist Dem, was too liberal. No matter how many times you say it you can't simply wish away the overwhelming evidence that the current electorate is not going to vote for those policies right now. I'm not any happier than you are that the Harris campaign chose to feature endorsements from the freaking Cheneys, but this incessant insistence that Dem leadership is solely to blame for every lost election and that leftist ideas would win every election if the Dems just got out of the way is exhausting.

I’ve addressed your points in this post multiple times today.

I’m of the belief that voters thinking Kamala Harris is “too liberal” is about her being a Black woman from California. It’s damn sure not because of the policy positions she espoused on the trail.

It’s easy to say that Kamala Harris disproves my theory when you completely misrepresent what my theory is. I could easily turn around and say that Kamala Harris disproves the theory that running to the right on the border and crime is a loser.

Not once have I said the Democrats need to propose more “plans.” That is not how you win campaigns. Saying that healthcare is a human right and that everyone deserves a living wage and housing is not a detailed plan. I, and other progressives like me, call for simple messaging that has broad based appeal on economic grounds. Not complex, technocratic plans a la Warren or HRC.

Voters don’t know wtf tariffs are. They heard Trump talking about protecting American workers.

Right now you’re saying Kamala Harris disproves me and I’m saying Kamala Harris disproves you. Seems there’s a fundamental disconnect as to what sort of campaign she ran.

 

[CHAMTRAIN]

Saw this post on reddit in response to what the Republican party offers working class people, thought it was excellent:



Honestly? Held emotional space for their pain. As a person in counseling grad school- it amazes me that people still fail to understand that human beings are emotional beings first, and not Vulcans. Very few of us can make reasonable choices when in a heated emotional state. The only way to reach angry, frustrated people (and I said the same thing to people policing BLM activists breaking windows) is to start by contacting the anger and pain.

That looks like this: your suffering is valid, this situation is super hard that you are in.

This is what the republicans do effectively, then once the emotions are validated, they blame the wrong people (immigrants, trans people etc) and claim to be able to fix it.

This is what democrats do: “I don’t understand what the big deal is, here’s a series of facts explaining why your feelings are wrong.”

I mean it’s literally the same dynamic that often gets men in trouble in close relationships. Meeting emotions with intellectual arguments and facts like it’s a high school debate or something.

That’s just literally not how humans operate at a deep level, like millions of years of evolutionary biology.

Bernie Sanders effectively starts by saying “the economy is rigged against you, your pain is valid” … then he blames the appropriate parties and puts forward policy after policy to fix it.

Dems can’t keep downplaying how bad wealth inequality and affordable housing and cost of living and wage stagnation has been and then point to GDP and jobs numbers like that matters when the quality of jobs available is often not great pay and benefit wise. And quite honestly the Democratic alliance with people like Mark Cuban is out of touch.

Is it bizarre and irrational people fall for Trump’s Everyman con and alliance with Elon Musk? Sure. But it’s also entirely understandable people are angry and fed up with, yes, the death of the American dream, and it’s very human to not be able to think rationally when upset and in the midst of real survival concerns. And if only Trump contacts their anger and creates space for it then he wins. When things reach a point like this, populism will win - and unfortunately if left wing populism of the FDR quality isn’t available, what’s left is right wing populism.

There is a way to contact and hold space for anger and allow it to transform into optimism but it has to start with contacting and validating the pain.

 

[rodoheel]

Not once have I said the Democrats need to propose more “plans.” That is not how you win campaigns. Saying that healthcare is a human right and that everyone deserves a living wage and housing is not a detailed plan. I, and other progressives like me, call for simple messaging that has broad based appeal on economic grounds. Not complex, technocratic plans a la Warren or HRC.

Health care as an important right, making housing more affordable and accessible, and increasing wages (including by increasing the minimum wage nationally) were all constant parts of Harris's messaging. You hear what you want to hear.

 

[Paine]

Health care as an important right, making housing more affordable and accessible, and increasing wages (including by increasing the minimum wage nationally) were all constant parts of Harris's messaging. You hear what you want to hear.

Your characterization of the policy underwent some sleight of hand between what I said and what you said. Messaging is everything. And she did not focus her message on these issues.

You can’t look at me with a straight face and say raising the minimum wage was a focus of her campaign. She talked much more about abstract concepts that the average voter doesn’t understand like protecting democracy.

She mentioned raising the minimum wage at two rallies, and didn’t say by how much it should be raised. This gets at the heart of this issue in that much of the campaign was mealy mouthed. A problem that the Democrats consistently have according the interviews with voters.

Housing rights messaging is a far cry from a $25,000 home buyers assistance. Come on man.

 

[rodoheel]

Saw this post on reddit in response to what the Republican party offers working class people, thought it was excellent:



Honestly? Held emotional space for their pain. As a person in counseling grad school- it amazes me that people still fail to understand that human beings are emotional beings first, and not Vulcans. Very few of us can make reasonable choices when in a heated emotional state. The only way to reach angry, frustrated people (and I said the same thing to people policing BLM activists breaking windows) is to start by contacting the anger and pain.

That looks like this: your suffering is valid, this situation is super hard that you are in.

This is what the republicans do effectively, then once the emotions are validated, they blame the wrong people (immigrants, trans people etc) and claim to be able to fix it.

This is what democrats do: “I don’t understand what the big deal is, here’s a series of facts explaining why your feelings are wrong.”

I mean it’s literally the same dynamic that often gets men in trouble in close relationships. Meeting emotions with intellectual arguments and facts like it’s a high school debate or something.

That’s just literally not how humans operate at a deep level, like millions of years of evolutionary biology.

Bernie Sanders effectively starts by saying “the economy is rigged against you, your pain is valid” … then he blames the appropriate parties and puts forward policy after policy to fix it.

Dems can’t keep downplaying how bad wealth inequality and affordable housing and cost of living and wage stagnation has been and then point to GDP and jobs numbers like that matters when the quality of jobs available is often not great pay and benefit wise. And quite honestly the Democratic alliance with people like Mark Cuban is out of touch.

Is it bizarre and irrational people fall for Trump’s Everyman con and alliance with Elon Musk? Sure. But it’s also entirely understandable people are angry and fed up with, yes, the death of the American dream, and it’s very human to not be able to think rationally when upset and in the midst of real survival concerns. And if only Trump contacts their anger and creates space for it then he wins. When things reach a point like this, populism will win - and unfortunately if left wing populism of the FDR quality isn’t available, what’s left is right wing populism.

There is a way to contact and hold space for anger and allow it to transform into optimism but it has to start with contacting and validating the pain.

Find me one example of Harris, Walz, or any prominent campaign surrogate saying anything remotely close to this: “I don’t understand what the big deal is, here’s a series of facts explaining why your feelings are wrong.” Harris relentlessly pounded the message that she knew times were hard and that people were struggling. and that she wanted to help them.

This entire paragraph is just mind-blowing:

"Dems can’t keep downplaying how bad wealth inequality and affordable housing and cost of living and wage stagnation has been and then point to GDP and jobs numbers like that matters when the quality of jobs available is often not great pay and benefit wise. And quite honestly the Democratic alliance with people like Mark Cuban is out of touch."

Again, find me one example of Dems "downplaying how bad wealth inequality is." Dems have consistently campaigned on this! They have lost elections campaigning on this! The people they're trying to reach think it's socialism to talk about wealth inequality! You talk like Dems use charts and graphs to claim wealth inequality and wage stagnation aren't bad, but they use charts and graphs for the exact opposite purpose! And the idea that it was "out of touch" for Mark Cuban to be involved in the Harris campaign when Elon fucking Musk was basically the mouthpiece for Trump's campaign is absurd. Clearly using wealthy billionaires as campaign surrogates is not what's turning off working-class voters!

Also, the idea that right-wing populism only wins when left-wing populism isn't an option is simply not true as a matter of historical fact. You could just look at recent European history, if nothing else, to know that isn't true. The sad truth is that people sometimes chose an authoritarian brand of popuiism over any other option in times of stress. The working class voters flocking to Trump are choosing going backwards over going forwards. They are choosing order and security over fairness and equality. The most naive part of socialist/progressive ideology is to assume that of course no one would ever actually choose reactionary conservatism over progressive ideology, so that if people are choosing the former it must be because they weren't effectively given the option of the latter. The sad truth is that people will sometimes choose a warped vision of the past over an uncertain vision of the future. They will choose (perceived) safety and security for themselves over justice for all. Sometimes the message isn't the problem. Sometimes the people just don't want to hear it.

 

[firebyrd516]

Men aged 18-29 shifted to the GOP this cycle. I have to admit I did not see that coming. I thought the Gen Zs were largely left leaning. I guess I was wrong. I guess it all comes down to the fact that most men will not vote for a woman, especially not a black/asian woman. What a shame. I really thought she would win.

 

[mpaer]

Men aged 18-29 shifted to the GOP this cycle. I have to admit I did not see that coming. I thought the Gen Zs were largely left leaning. I guess I was wrong. I guess it all comes down to the fact that most men will not vote for a woman, especially not a black/asian woman. What a shame. I really thought she would win.

They will "tell you" it what over economic anxiety

 

[altmin]

Saw this post on reddit in response to what the Republican party offers working class people, thought it was excellent:



Honestly? Held emotional space for their pain. As a person in counseling grad school- it amazes me that people still fail to understand that human beings are emotional beings first, and not Vulcans. Very few of us can make reasonable choices when in a heated emotional state. The only way to reach angry, frustrated people (and I said the same thing to people policing BLM activists breaking windows) is to start by contacting the anger and pain.

That looks like this: your suffering is valid, this situation is super hard that you are in.

This is what the republicans do effectively, then once the emotions are validated, they blame the wrong people (immigrants, trans people etc) and claim to be able to fix it.

This is what democrats do: “I don’t understand what the big deal is, here’s a series of facts explaining why your feelings are wrong.”

I mean it’s literally the same dynamic that often gets men in trouble in close relationships. Meeting emotions with intellectual arguments and facts like it’s a high school debate or something.

That’s just literally not how humans operate at a deep level, like millions of years of evolutionary biology.

Bernie Sanders effectively starts by saying “the economy is rigged against you, your pain is valid” … then he blames the appropriate parties and puts forward policy after policy to fix it.

Dems can’t keep downplaying how bad wealth inequality and affordable housing and cost of living and wage stagnation has been and then point to GDP and jobs numbers like that matters when the quality of jobs available is often not great pay and benefit wise. And quite honestly the Democratic alliance with people like Mark Cuban is out of touch.

Is it bizarre and irrational people fall for Trump’s Everyman con and alliance with Elon Musk? Sure. But it’s also entirely understandable people are angry and fed up with, yes, the death of the American dream, and it’s very human to not be able to think rationally when upset and in the midst of real survival concerns. And if only Trump contacts their anger and creates space for it then he wins. When things reach a point like this, populism will win - and unfortunately if left wing populism of the FDR quality isn’t available, what’s left is right wing populism.

There is a way to contact and hold space for anger and allow it to transform into optimism but it has to start with contacting and validating the pain.

problem is the second a Democrat tries to point out the cause of it - naked capitalism - they are labeled bad for business, bad for the economy, communists, marxists etc.

so that leaves you with what, lying? I mean it works for the GOP. "It's the illegal aliens that are stealing your future... "

 

[lightbluenc]

Health care as an important right, making housing more affordable and accessible, and increasing wages (including by increasing the minimum wage nationally) were all constant parts of Harris's messaging. You hear what you want to hear.

They were part of it but got overshadowed largely by abortion I think, which only 10% of voters cared about. Also campaigning on Trump being bad didn't work AT ALL. Nobody cared what generals said about Trump or any of that. Calling Trump Hitler, and Nazis just turned people off, that if you like any of Trump's policy's then you're a Nazi.

If her central theme was
- the child tax credit = more money for you every month
- affordable housing = more money for you every month
- increased minimum wages = more money for you every month
- fixing the cost of education (NOT canceling student debt) = more money for you every month

and then just run on human rights and not just going all in on abortion only, I think that's better. But she only had 3 months. It hampered her greatly, and even then, a lot of young Dems hated that she was just picked. It showed them they don't get a voice. Its not her fault, but its what it is.

 

[CHAMTRAIN]

Find me one example of Harris, Walz, or any prominent campaign surrogate saying anything remotely close to this: “I don’t understand what the big deal is, here’s a series of facts explaining why your feelings are wrong.” Harris relentlessly pounded the message that she knew times were hard and that people were struggling. and that she wanted to help them.

This entire paragraph is just mind-blowing:

"Dems can’t keep downplaying how bad wealth inequality and affordable housing and cost of living and wage stagnation has been and then point to GDP and jobs numbers like that matters when the quality of jobs available is often not great pay and benefit wise. And quite honestly the Democratic alliance with people like Mark Cuban is out of touch."

Again, find me one example of Dems "downplaying how bad wealth inequality is." Dems have consistently campaigned on this! They have lost elections campaigning on this! The people they're trying to reach think it's socialism to talk about wealth inequality! You talk like Dems use charts and graphs to claim wealth inequality and wage stagnation aren't bad, but they use charts and graphs for the exact opposite purpose! And the idea that it was "out of touch" for Mark Cuban to be involved in the Harris campaign when Elon fucking Musk was basically the mouthpiece for Trump's campaign is absurd. Clearly using wealthy billionaires as campaign surrogates is not what's turning off working-class voters!

Also, the idea that right-wing populism only wins when left-wing populism isn't an option is simply not true as a matter of historical fact. You could just look at recent European history, if nothing else, to know that isn't true. The sad truth is that people sometimes chose an authoritarian brand of popuiism over any other option in times of stress. The working class voters flocking to Trump are choosing going backwards over going forwards. They are choosing order and security over fairness and equality. The most naive part of socialist/progressive ideology is to assume that of course no one would ever actually choose reactionary conservatism over progressive ideology, so that if people are choosing the former it must be because they weren't effectively given the option of the latter. The sad truth is that people will sometimes choose a warped vision of the past over an uncertain vision of the future. They will choose (perceived) safety and security for themselves over justice for all. Sometimes the message isn't the problem. Sometimes the people just don't want to hear it.

I think the insistence from the DNC/Dem party spokesmen that the economy is doing really really well while the vast majority of voters are really struggling with prices is an example of this. Yes, there was some talk by Harris and Walz about prices being out of control and going after price gouging but I think more time was spent selling the state of the economy. I know the metrics are great but blue collar America isn't feeling great, they have much less disposable income now than they did four years ago.

Trump says to them "You are right, prices are too high, the economy sucks (theirs does), I'll fix that, and this is who you should be angry at". For low information voters his messaging resonates, I think that is the point of the post. Makes sense to me.

 

[Paine]

I think the insistence from the DNC/Dem party spokesmen that the economy is doing really really well while the vast majority of voters are really struggling with prices is an example of this. Yes, there was some talk by Harris and Walz about prices being out of control and going after price gouging but I think more time was spent selling the state of the economy. I know the metrics are great but blue collar America isn't feeling great, they have much less disposable income now than they did four years ago.

Trump says to them "You are right, prices are too high, the economy sucks (theirs does), I'll fix that, and this is who you should be angry at". For low information voters his messaging resonates, I think that is the point of the post. Makes sense to me.

A ton of people on this board are insulated from rent pressure that a ton of these working class voters feel.

Macro economic metrics matter to people with money in the stock market and the suits who control the economy. It doesn’t do much when real wages are lower than they were 40 years ago, evictions are up, rent and homelessness are up, income inequality is up.

 

[Paine]

Loading…

www.politico.com

 

[superrific]

I know the metrics are great but blue collar America isn't feeling great, they have much less disposable income now than they did four years ago.

Link? If they have so much less disposable income, then why are they spending so much money? Why is consumer confidence so high?

Blue collar America might or might not be feeling great. But I've learned better than to take them at face value when they complain about these things. It's the exact thing you would expect someone to say who gravitates to Trump knowing that, in some sense, it's wrong.

 

[superrific]

A ton of people on this board are insulated from rent pressure that a ton of these working class voters feel.

Macro economic metrics matter to people with money in the stock market and the suits who control the economy. It doesn’t do much when real wages are lower than they were 40 years ago, evictions are up, rent and homelessness are up, income inequality is up.

Income inequality has compressed post-pandemic, at least among people who earn less than seven figures a year.

How does real wages being higher 40 years ago affect whether people feel better about the economy today than they did four years ago?

Macroeconomic metrics are a snapshot of reality. They matter because they tell a story that is informative. They can't tell you everything. I'd just like someone to explain how consumer spending can be so high if so many Americans are having trouble making ends meet.

 

[lightbluenc]

Loading…

www.politico.com

"Finally, they should adopt one central mission: improving Americans’ standard of living. They should abandon policing cultural behaviors, especially since many of their stances aren’t even popular with Democrats in real life. They should also create solutions for men and boys — who are struggling — instead of engaging in identity politics that excludes at least half of the country."

This this this!

I think I'm all in with you Paine

 

[Paine]

Income inequality has compressed post-pandemic, at least among people who earn less than seven figures a year.

How does real wages being higher 40 years ago affect whether people feel better about the economy today than they did four years ago?

Macroeconomic metrics are a snapshot of reality. They matter because they tell a story that is informative. They can't tell you everything. I'd just like someone to explain how consumer spending can be so high if so many Americans are having trouble making ends meet.

Super, telling people you know better than them about their own economic situation is never going to work. You can type as many 8 paragraph essays about the consumer confidence index, GDP, etc. as you want. Biden and Harris just ran a campaign saying how great the economy is.

Income inequality was astronomical prior to Covid. Going back to post Covid levels isn’t enough. Trump’s whole campaign is MAGA, and you don’t get how people making less money than their father is frustrating and alienating?

 

[superrific]

Loading…

www.politico.com

I'm with Sarada Peri and Will Stancil.

I just can't understand what they mean when they (in this case, Faiz Shakir) say we need more candidates from working class backgrounds. Joe Biden was from a working class background. Kamala Harris worked at McDonalds and has never come from privilege.

Meanwhile, Dems are losing to hedge fund billionaires. Why is it Dems who have to run working class candidates, when Pubs do their populism schtick with David McCormick, Rick Scott, and Elon Musk?

 

[Calheel]

I'd just like someone to explain how consumer spending can be so high if so many Americans are having trouble making ends meet.

Because most of the spending is done by a minority of the voters.

 

[Paine]

"Finally, they should adopt one central mission: improving Americans’ standard of living. They should abandon policing cultural behaviors, especially since many of their stances aren’t even popular with Democrats in real life. They should also create solutions for men and boys — who are struggling — instead of engaging in identity politics that excludes at least half of the country."

This this this!

I think I'm all in with you Paine

This gets to the heart of cleavage point within the progressive wing of the party as well. I’ve had issues with woke scolds ever since college. It’s like Hillary telling Bernie that it’s racist to talk about economic issues. The infamous “will breaking up the big banks solve racism?”

This identity focused offshoot of progressivism that exploded during Covid was midwifed by the Clinton and Obama wing of the party, and now they try to turn it around on “progressives” as whole.

Said it once and I’ll say it again, none of this means abandoning liberation for gay people or trans people. It means broadening the message to one where every American, regardless of race or sexuality, benefits from the same standard of living improvements.

 

[Paine]

I'm with Sarada Peri and Will Stancil.

I just can't understand what they mean when they (in this case, Faiz Shakir) say we need more candidates from working class backgrounds. Joe Biden was from a working class background. Kamala Harris worked at McDonalds and has never come from privilege.

Meanwhile, Dems are losing to hedge fund billionaires. Why is it Dems who have to run working class candidates, when Pubs do their populism schtick with David McCormick, Rick Scott, and Elon Musk?

They don’t mean people who were working class 30-60 years ago. They mean people who are working class now. People who are connected with the everyday concerns of the average American. Not someone who has been in politics since the 1970s or someone who worked at McDonalds 40 years ago.

Your point about Trump being a billionaire and surrounded by billionaires is true, but it rings hollow to the voter when there’s no contrast. By and large, voters think both parties are controlled by monied interests (they are), so why would they vote for Democrats if they feel Republicans are speaking to their acute economic concerns and Democrats aren’t?