Should Harris have continued with her more Populist messaging?

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[superrific]

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.

I don't recall that being the Mondale message.

I don't think Bernie would lose at Mondale levels because there's no way he would lose the Dem strongholds to Trump. But I also don't think Bernie could have won because socialism is one of the worst labels to bear in American politics. If there was a guy just like Bernie, who called himself a liberal Democrat, avoided the word socialist or socialism in all respects, and didn't have lots of good things to say about Castro, then the conversation might be different. And again, that's part of the epistemic dilemma.

But I'm 100% positive that nobody who embraces the word socialist in any capacity can win an American presidential election -- not for quite a while, at least.

Also, I'm aware that my alternate-timeline Bernie sounds a lot like Liz Warren. Unfortunately, Warren has little charisma. She couldn't, at such a late date in her career, wash away her law professor vibe.

 

[BlueSmoke]

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

The real world is the real world. It doesn't matter what reality Americans are in touch with. Elections have to be won. Period.

Now lets talk reality. Being in the construction industry, over the years I have written many a checks on Friday's where the sub raced to get the check cashed. If it was after hours, many would have to go to a check cashing service . They had a bill collector on them or they needed food on the table.

For these working Americans, they have to focus on immediate needs and it carries over to voting. The best many of these voters can do is simply focus on which side seems to support their economic needs or better yet the economy. These voters are always, always in a near panic whether there will be a downturn in the economy. Will the phone ring for paying work or not? If the phone don't ring, there isn't going to be money the coming Friday.

 

[BlueSmoke]

On the last day of October, I saw a Times Radio podcast with NBC's Chuck Todd. He was asked about the Harris Campaign's message pivot after the debate. He stated that the Harris Campaign had calculated that they could not win unless they could pull some Nicki Halley, Republican voters.

Think about that? If he's correct, then they knew they had to throw up a Hail Merry. Its never good when in the last weeks of a campaign you have to go steel GOP voters.

Why is that? Well its pretty clear Trump has stolen blue collar, non college educated Americans from the Democrats.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

On the last day of October, I saw a Times Radio podcast with NBC's Chuck Todd. He was asked about the Harris Campaign's message pivot after the debate. He stated that the Harris Campaign had calculated that they could not win unless they could pull some Nicki Halley, Republican voters.

Think about that? If he's correct, then they knew they had to throw up a Hail Merry. Its never good when in the last weeks of a campaign you have to go steel GOP voters.

Why is that? Well its pretty clear Trump has stolen blue collar, non college educated Americans from the Democrats.

If nothing else, this disastrous election has hopefully cured even the Democratic high command of the fiction that they can somehow win enough Republicans over to their side to make a real difference. I've read that after all of the Harris campaign's strenuous efforts win over Haley Republicans, she basically got the exact same percentage of the GOP vote as Biden did in 2020 - about 6%. If Democrats are going to have a chance to win in the future they're going to have to either start winning back minority voters or win back some working-class whites. Chasing Republicans just isn't going to cut it.

 

[BlueSmoke]

If Democrats are going to have a chance to win in the future they're going to have to either start winning back minority voters or win back some working-class whites.

Seem like I saw that 57% of voters are non-college educated. Just math and you can't fight it.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

Seem like I saw that 57% of voters are non-college educated. Just math and you can't fight it.

The figures I've seen place it closer to 60%, but either way you're right. For Democrats to stay competitive they simply have to start winning back minority voters they've gradually lost since 2012 or working-class whites. Without that they're never going to win another presidential election or likely ever win control of the Senate back either. As you said, the math just isn't there.

 

[farce©]

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.

Who exactly is “the party” and how did they enforce such a (dubious) mandate on the squad? What is your source for such a conspiracy?

 

[lightbluenc]

Corporate Donors Guided Kamala Harris to Defeat

Rich donors like Mark Cuban boasted about their success in shaping Kamala Harris’s campaign and inducing her to ditch progressive economic policies. We shouldn’t let them shrug off responsibility for a disastrous defeat.

jacobin.com

Felt like her campaign changed drastically from the first 3-4 weeks when it was attacking Trump, riling him up and talking about the economy is broader terms, and how to fix it. After the DNC it was very much different.

 

[stankeylegjones]

The real world is the real world. It doesn't matter what reality Americans are in touch with. Elections have to be won. Period.

Now lets talk reality. Being in the construction industry, over the years I have written many a checks on Friday's where the sub raced to get the check cashed. If it was after hours, many would have to go to a check cashing service . They had a bill collector on them or they needed food on the table.

For these working Americans, they have to focus on immediate needs and it carries over to voting. The best many of these voters can do is simply focus on which side seems to support their economic needs or better yet the economy. These voters are always, always in a near panic whether there will be a downturn in the economy. Will the phone ring for paying work or not? If the phone don't ring, there isn't going to be money the coming Friday.

You highlight a major issue that, unfortunately, several here can't seem to comprehend (or willfully ignore).

 

[dukeman92]

The real world is the real world. It doesn't matter what reality Americans are in touch with. Elections have to be won. Period.

Now lets talk reality. Being in the construction industry, over the years I have written many a checks on Friday's where the sub raced to get the check cashed. If it was after hours, many would have to go to a check cashing service . They had a bill collector on them or they needed food on the table.

For these working Americans, they have to focus on immediate needs and it carries over to voting. The best many of these voters can do is simply focus on which side seems to support their economic needs or better yet the economy. These voters are always, always in a near panic whether there will be a downturn in the economy. Will the phone ring for paying work or not? If the phone don't ring, there isn't going to be money the coming Friday.

None of what you said is some sort of profound revelation. Most working class Americans struggle. And in the "real world" we now know that they vote against their best interests in droves.

 

[LeoBloom]

You highlight a major issue that, unfortunately, several here can't seem to comprehend (or willfully ignore).

But then what is the answer? Messaging? The Dems need better messaging?
I get it. Economic anxiety for many people is real and it is the most important political issue for them. OK.
Well, the economy does better under Democrats. But these people are not getting that message. Why? Is it that they don't appear to have serious empathy? Bill Clinton's "I feel your pain?" It can't be that. Trump has no empathy. Rather than feeling their pain, he stokes their anger. He says, "you should be pissed off."

For decades and decades conservatives preached that "liberal" is a dirty word. "Liberals" hate America and hate America's values. "Liberals" are the enemy of the American way of life. That messaging goes way back. Fox News and other right wing outlets spread the message even more rapidly over the airwaves. Social media has spread it even more broadly and allowed people to believe that they have "sources" that show this. You can find whatever you want to support your beliefs via the internet and social media.

Personally, I think the Dems should embrace a liberal agenda and call it what it is. Advocate for universal healthcare. Advocate for...name it. Let's do it. But we have to understand that we have to combat decades and decades of right wing messaging.

 

[Peppers49]

But then what is the answer? Messaging? The Dems need better messaging?
I get it. Economic anxiety for many people is real and it is the most important political issue for them. OK.
Well, the economy does better under Democrats. But these people are not getting that message. Why? Is it that they don't appear to have serious empathy? Bill Clinton's "I feel your pain?" It can't be that. Trump has no empathy. Rather than feeling their pain, he stokes their anger. He says, "you should be pissed off."

For decades and decades conservatives preached that "liberal" is a dirty word. "Liberals" hate America and hate America's values. "Liberals" are the enemy of the American way of life. That messaging goes way back. Fox News and other right wing outlets spread the message even more rapidly over the airwaves. Social media has spread it even more broadly and allowed people to believe that they have "sources" that show this. You can find whatever you want to support your beliefs via the internet and social media.

Personally, I think the Dems should embrace a liberal agenda and call it what it is. Advocate for universal healthcare. Advocate for...name it. Let's do it. But we have to understand that we have to combat decades and decades of right wing messaging.

All of this is sad but true, especially the part about how conservatives have hammered home very simple narratives like “liberal” being a dirty, anti-American word. If anyone brings up something that would be objectively beneficial to the average American like universal healthcare, all conservative politicians have to do is cry “socialism” over and over again and voila, the average American will proudly vote against their own self interest because they associate that very simply messaging with evil communism or whatever. Then to your point about media/social media, they will always find some pundit or grifter out there that makes content that validates their beliefs.

It is definitely an uphill battle trying to untangle decades of Fox News propaganda, but you still have to at least try. I agree that the solution needs to focus on tweaking and simplifying the messaging. Identify the handful of policy issues that matter to the average American and then be clear and consistent with how it’s broadcasted. In terms of presidential candidates, I think the next one has to be someone that comes across as more serious and direct when it comes to campaigning. No need to stoop to the Republican strategy of using fear and paranoia to whip people into a frenzy, just someone who can be straightforward and less “meme-y” (for lack of a better word) than Kamala.

 

[LeoBloom]

I think you’re hitting on an important point in terms of embracing the messaging.

It feels like Democrats spend way too much time running away from their policy positions because they’re still operating with a mindset that was crystallized in the 1980s and 1990s.

Truth is, most Americans like liberal and/or progressive policy solutions. Dems tie themselves in knots and then wonder why no one trusts what they’re saying.

I'm with you on Dems not tying themselves into knots.

Be who you are.