Should Harris have continued with her more Populist messaging?

[gtyellowjacket]

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.

This is the way. And unfortunately plenty of Democrats have won plenty of primaries and plenty of safe seats by focusing racism and trans issues. It's going to take them a while to learn a different way of doing things but it needs to happen.

 

[dukeman92]

Democrats have lost the populist message. They are a part of elites that are out of touch with working America.

I hope we get back to the basics next cycle.

I don't think Democrats are out of touch with working Americans. I think most working Americans are out of touch with reality.

 

[superrific]

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?

1. I'm not saying that we should message that way. I'm saying that we shouldn't take that shit at face value. That's a strategy issue, not a messaging one.

2. Look, I want to improve standards of living. I'm against income inequality. I'd like to see more progressive taxation and, as a former antitrust attorney (briefly), I'd like to see more of the aggressive antitrust enforcement (though it's doubtful it will work with these courts). But I just don't see that it works politically.

I keep thinking about Michigan because that's where I thought we would do best. One reason for that was that the Democrats in the state government have done a lot for working people. They got rid of right-to-work laws, which was a huge priority for the unions. And the unions won some big contracts that will increase pay for autoworkers by a lot. They did that with Biden's support and not Trump's. Biden, after all, joined the picket line.

And despite all that, Trump rolled. So what are we supposed to do? Elon Musk was going around to all the battleground states literally promising temporary economic hardship. Did the blue collar workers hear that and think, "boy, I don't want to vote for that, I'm already stressed enough?" They did not.

The unions know that tariffs are bullshit, and will cause more harm than good. I don't know about autoworkers, but certainly unions in export industries. Did that make a difference? It did not.

3. Think about this: what is the commonality between Trump's claim that "we're going to make foreigners pay for the privilege of doing business here" and "Mexico will pay for the wall"? It's the projection of dominance. It's the idea that we can bully foreigners into giving us money. Trump was not the first candidate to propose a border wall. It's been a staple of GOP politics since the first Bush. Trump was the first to use the idea as a weapon, like when he responded to pushback from the Mexican government with "the wall just got 10 feet taller." It was never a serious idea. It was just an appeal to authoritarian dominance.

That's the same work tariffs are doing here. Trumpism, at its core, is about bullying. It's the narrative that runs through everything he does and says. It is, of course, who he is and always has been. And most of his favored policies are presented as bullying, and that's how people respond to it. Or maybe it's just coincidence that his crowds chant "lock her up" even to this day.

This is why I simply don't believe the economic anxiety thing. It doesn't explain at all what we actually see. Bullying is a theory with a lot of evidence. It also helps explain why Trump appeals to men, and in particular men with a certain belief system about male dominance. The GOP's Senate candidate in Minnesota actually said that women were getting too mouthy. Was that something a Senate candidate would have said 15 years ago, or is that Trumpism at its core?

 

[Paine]

This is the way. And unfortunately plenty of Democrats have won plenty of primaries and plenty of safe seats by focusing racism and trans issues. It's going to take them a while to learn a different way of doing things but it needs to happen.

The most frustrating thing about “the Squad” for me is how their economic populism was completely neutered by the Democratic Party.

The party made it clear to progressives that the they would only tolerate their progressivism on matters of identity. Identity politics is not threatening at all to the status quo of the current internal party apparatus or the power structure of the country at-large. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

 

[dukeman92]

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?

How long has Bernie Sanders been in Politics?

It's ridiculous to ridicule Democrats for not "being in touch with the everyman" when the everyman just elected a man who shits on golden toilets and has never wanted for anything in his life.

They connect with him because he, like them, has the intelligence level of a potato and talks the way they talk.

 

[superrific]

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

A Better Way of Understanding the US Consumer: Decomposing Retail Spending by Household Income

The Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Washington DC.

www.federalreserve.gov

"

1. Since mid-2023, low, middle, and high-income households have all been increasing their real average spending.
2. As of August 2024, real average spending by low-income households is up 7.9% relative to January 2018, real average spending by middle-income households is up 13.3%, and real average spending by high-income households is up 16.7%.9
3. Overall average retail spending (shown in red) better captures the spending behavior of middle- and high-income households than it does low-income households. While the overall average suggests consumers have remained resilient, similar to the narrative one obtains when looking at the Census Bureau's Advance Monthly Sales for Retail and Food Services reports, our decomposition suggests consumer resilience has been driven by middle- and high-income households, while low-income households have pulled back since mid-2021 through mid-2023 and only recently recovered to their mid-2021 levels of real average retail spending."

Note that there are a lot more middle and low income spenders than high income spenders. But anyway, maybe the Fed is just making this up. Or maybe the same people who were complaining about economic anxiety in 2016, not complaining about it in the much worse environment of 2020, and are again complaining about economic anxiety today aren't being fully honest about their financial situations?

 

[Paine]

1. I'm not saying that we should message that way. I'm saying that we shouldn't take that shit at face value. That's a strategy issue, not a messaging one.

2. Look, I want to improve standards of living. I'm against income inequality. I'd like to see more progressive taxation and, as a former antitrust attorney (briefly), I'd like to see more of the aggressive antitrust enforcement (though it's doubtful it will work with these courts). But I just don't see that it works politically.

I keep thinking about Michigan because that's where I thought we would do best. One reason for that was that the Democrats in the state government have done a lot for working people. They got rid of right-to-work laws, which was a huge priority for the unions. And the unions won some big contracts that will increase pay for autoworkers by a lot. They did that with Biden's support and not Trump's. Biden, after all, joined the picket line.

And despite all that, Trump rolled. So what are we supposed to do? Elon Musk was going around to all the battleground states literally promising temporary economic hardship. Did the blue collar workers hear that and think, "boy, I don't want to vote for that, I'm already stressed enough?" They did not.

The unions know that tariffs are bullshit, and will cause more harm than good. I don't know about autoworkers, but certainly unions in export industries. Did that make a difference? It did not.

3. Think about this: what is the commonality between Trump's claim that "we're going to make foreigners pay for the privilege of doing business here" and "Mexico will pay for the wall"? It's the projection of dominance. It's the idea that we can bully foreigners into giving us money. Trump was not the first candidate to propose a border wall. It's been a staple of GOP politics since the first Bush. Trump was the first to use the idea as a weapon, like when he responded to pushback from the Mexican government with "the wall just got 10 feet taller." It was never a serious idea. It was just an appeal to authoritarian dominance.

That's the same work tariffs are doing here. Trumpism, at its core, is about bullying. It's the narrative that runs through everything he does and says. It is, of course, who he is and always has been. And most of his favored policies are presented as bullying, and that's how people respond to it. Or maybe it's just coincidence that his crowds chant "lock her up" even to this day.

This is why I simply don't believe the economic anxiety thing. It doesn't explain at all what we actually see. Bullying is a theory with a lot of evidence. It also helps explain why Trump appeals to men, and in particular men with a certain belief system about male dominance. The GOP's Senate candidate in Minnesota actually said that women were getting too mouthy. Was that something a Senate candidate would have said 15 years ago, or is that Trumpism at its core?

I’m not going to respond to all of this, but union households were one of the few groups that seem to have held steady for Harris at the same level Biden had.

 

[Paine]

How long has Bernie Sanders been in Politics?

It's ridiculous to ridicule Democrats for not "being in touch with the everyman" when the everyman just elected a man who shits on golden toilets and has never wanted for anything in his life.

They connect with him because he, like them, has the intelligence level of a potato and talks the way they talk.

Authenticity with the voters is the goal here. Sanders’ authenticity comes from a different place than having a working class background. Same for Trump. Their authenticity comes from persistent and consistent messaging over a long period of time, as well as their demeanor.

Running working class candidates is just a way to ratchet up the authenticity factor.

 

[dukeman92]

There is nothing authentic about Trump. He doesn't give two shits about his electorate.

 

[superrific]

The most frustrating thing about “the Squad” for me is how their economic populism was completely neutered by the Democratic Party.

The party made it clear to progressives that the they would only tolerate their progressivism on matters of identity. Identity politics is not threatening at all to the status quo of the current internal party apparatus or the power structure of the country at-large. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

The rise — and fall? — of the New Progressive Economics

Progressives conquered economic policy under Biden. Would they lose it under Harris?

www.vox.com

Elon Musk assures voters that Trump’s victory would deliver “temporary hardship”

And he’s half right.

www.vox.com

The Squad is mostly gone. The one who is still around and prospering is the one who talks most about economic populism. Are you really saying that the path for Dems is Summer Lee (I'll just let Cori Bush pass without further mention)?

 

[lightbluenc]

There is nothing authentic about Trump. He doesn't give two shits about his electorate.

I think he feels authentic to them because he's brash, not very educated and a fuck up.

 

[superrific]

I’m not going to respond to all of this, but union households were one of the few groups that seem to have held steady for Harris at the same level Biden had.

CNN exit poll: Ohio Union Members Leaning Towards Trump

Harris slipped among union households compared to Biden in 2020, according to CNN's exit poll data.

www.newsweek.com

Kamala won union members with 53%. If your theory of politics was correct, it really should be a lot higher than that, don't you think?

 

[dukeman92]

I think he feels authentic to them because he's brash, not very educated and a fuck up.

Oh absolutely. Like I said, he talks like them and has the emotional range of a potato. Which is why they relate to him.

 

[Paine]

The rise — and fall? — of the New Progressive Economics

Progressives conquered economic policy under Biden. Would they lose it under Harris?

www.vox.com

Elon Musk assures voters that Trump’s victory would deliver “temporary hardship”

And he’s half right.

www.vox.com

The Squad is mostly gone. The one who is still around and prospering is the one who talks most about economic populism. Are you really saying that the path for Dems is Summer Lee (I'll just let Cori Bush pass without further mention)?

Has nothing to do with the point I made in my post. Reread and try again.

CNN exit poll: Ohio Union Members Leaning Towards Trump

Harris slipped among union households compared to Biden in 2020, according to CNN's exit poll data.

www.newsweek.com

Kamala won union members with 53%. If your theory of politics was correct, it really should be a lot higher than that, don't you think?

My theory of politics is that union voters would vote 100% for Democrats?

You ignore every structural force in the country that has hollowed out unions and the working class and then ask me why they aren’t voting for Democrats in higher numbers?

What unions are included in these numbers? Police unions? Teamsters? Investments have to be made into the labor movement for it to bear more fruit. Would you like to look at some past data about union households voting for Democrats?

You’re smart enough to know this yourself without me spelling it out for you, unless you’re a lot more ignorant about history outside your immediate lived years than I thought you were.

 

[LeoBloom]

Sorry for the length of this post as I am putting most of my thoughts here.

Racism, sexism, misogyny, demonization, etc., etc. won. It often wins in American politics. I don't think policy was going to ultimately win for Harris. I don't think messaging was ultimately going to win for Harris. There is no way to know this for sure, but my guess is a white, straight male who ran the exact same campaign as Harris would have garnered more votes. I'm sure many will disagree with that.

Trump is clearly a racist and a misogynist. I don't think that is up for dispute. I'm sure conservatives would disagree. However, throughout Trump's career he has shown his racist attitudes. Heck, what brought him onto the modern political scene was birtherism. Trump's disdain for women is well-documented.

For his supporters, that did not matter or they could rationalize it. Again, I'm sure many would disagree, but throughout American political history, the demonization of the "other" has been successful. Rather than focusing on the issue at hand that is actually prohibiting growth among a group of people, a party gives these groups an "other" to blame or look down on.

Racism, of course, is at the core of the founding of this country. That did not end with slavery. The election of 1876 was a bitter one. Samuel Tilden actually won the popular vote but the electoral college was razor thin. Rutherford B. Hayes assured southern states that he would end reconstruction if those electors would opt for him. They did. And he did. What happened? The vile curtain of Jim Crow descended and African American basically lost the right to vote in the south for decades. The voting rights act of 1965 corrected some of this. Of course the Roberts court defanged the voting rights act, taking out preclearance.

We are to act like racism and demonization are over? No. They still work. This election proves it. Some might say, but look at these groups that Trump made inroads with and that voted for him? My response to that is how a party (and in recent decades that has been the Republican party) still makes a group, some other, a scapegoat by demonizing them. Illegals, transgender, whatever. A woman. These groups are presented as both villains and as lesser than.

Trump lied continually. People who worked with Trump, respected military leaders, said he was unfit that he praised Hitler, that he called military personnel losers. None of that mattered. I don't know all of the reasons why, but to dismiss what has been true throughout the history of American politics, that demonization works, is to be willfully blind. The message is "things are bad for you because of X group. You are better than X group." Trump's message was that.

Add in a willing right wing media that constantly tells its followers that X group is out to get you social media that allows for people to only be exposed to what they agree with, complete with "experts" that can justify what they believe in, and Trump's demonization of ther other is able to explode.

There is much anguish about connecting with working class voters. Harris embracing some populist or progressive or whatever policy positions or messaging was not going to attract these working class voters. Not when the opposing message is to give them groups of people to disdain.

The American experiment is just that: an experiment. It is a young experiment in the annals of history. But American nature, in perhaps it is human nature, is to want to blame others. Give voters someone to hate and they are more motivated.

This is who we are.

Understanding this requires critical thinking and self-reflection. Those are two things that most Americans, and maybe people in general, do not want to embrace. It requires us to look within. Why look within when there are so many others saying, "look without. That is where your problems come from." Not only do you not have to look within, you get to appear tough by looking without. "This group is hurting you, let's get tough against them."

That does not mean we should not try to be better. Of course we should. We should work to be better. But ignoring that racism, sexism, demonization doesn't work is ignoring American history. For now, this is who we are.

 

[Paine]

There is nothing authentic about Trump. He doesn't give two shits about his electorate.

Brother, you voted for Mitt Romney.

 

[Peppers49]

Tried to find an abridged version of this clip but the whole thing is worth a watch. Guy has always been on the nose with the things we’re all saying in this thread.

 

[HintonJamesHeel]

I don't think Democrats are out of touch with working Americans. I think most working Americans are out of touch with reality.

Sounds like a way to lose a lot of elections.

 

[Paine]

Sounds like a way to lose a lot of elections.

The Venn Diagram of people who say that it’s the voters fault that Kamala Harris lost and people who say Bernie Sanders would’ve lost at “Walter Mondale levels” is just one circle.

These people are everything that they claim progressive Democrats are. Telling American voters that they’re “out of touch with reality” was literally the Walter Mondale message.

 

[superrific]

Has nothing to do with the point I made in my post. Reread and try again.

My theory of politics is that union voters would vote 100% for Democrats?

You ignore every structural force in the country that has hollowed out unions and the working class and then ask me why they aren’t voting for Democrats in higher numbers?

What unions are included in these numbers? Police unions? Teamsters? Investments have to be made into the labor movement for it to bear more fruit. Would you like to look at some past data about union households voting for Democrats?

You’re smart enough to know this yourself without me spelling it out for you, unless you’re a lot more ignorant about history outside your immediate lived years than I thought you were.

1. No, not 100%. But one would think that they would support the party that has consistently fought for their economic interests over the one who has opposed them, and continues to oppose them.

2. I'm not sure why "every structural force in the country that has hollowed out unions" would mean they won't vote for Democrats. Binary choice. It was Trump's court that turned right-to-work into a constitutional principle, at least for public sector unions (they will come for private sector ones next). Seems like they wouldn't like that.

3. You are correct that there are different types of unions and I don't know the breakdown.

4. This chicken-and-egg problem is at the heart of our disagreement, which is in large measure epistemic. Why would Democrats invest a lot of money in unions if they are only going to get 53%? And you will counter, why should the unions vote Dem if the Dems won't make that type of investment?

Still, to me at least, it seems not rational to bite the hand that has long fed you and maybe sometimes has slaps you, instead of biting the hand that has been trying to skewer you and roast you over a fire basically since unions began.