It is time that we push the Democratic Party left.
It is time that we push the Democratic Party left.
In light of the recent election, it’s clear that the Democratic Party needs a significant leftward shift to better address the needs and concerns of the American people. The party’s centrist approach is increasingly out of touch, limiting its ability to appeal to a broader base and especially to young voters, who are looking for bold and transformative policies. The fact that young men became a substantial part of the conservative voting bloc should be a wake-up call—it’s essential that the Democratic Party broadens its appeal by offering real solutions that resonate with this demographic.
Furthermore, one major missed opportunity was the decision to forgo primaries, which could have brought new energy and ideas to the ticket. Joe Biden’s choice to run for a second term, despite earlier implications of a one-term presidency, may have ultimately contributed to the loss by undermining trust in his promises. Had the party explored alternative candidates in a primary process, the outcome could have been vastly different. It is now imperative for the Working Families Party and the Progressive Caucus to push for a stronger, unapologetically progressive agenda within the Democratic Party. The time for centrist compromises has passed, as evidenced by setbacks dating back to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss, the persistently low approval ratings for Biden since 2022, and Kamala Harris’s recent campaign, which left many progressives feeling alienated. To regain momentum and genuinely connect with the electorate, a clear departure from moderate politics is essential.
You're viewing a single thread.
The funnny thing about elections is that politicians do the things people vote for. Literally no one gives a shit about people who don't vote. Everyone who sat out and couldn't even be arsed to vote third party just helped move the country to the right. Everyone who sits at home during primaries let's the rest of the country have its way.
Democrats don't implement the things that you want because you don't vote and therefore you don't matter. Republicans don't implement the things you that want because you don't vote and therefore you don't matter.
"Waah, waah, there's only two parties." More than half the country doesn't vote. That's enough to elect a third party candidate. Instead millions of idiots sat at home complaining that they can't get everything they want today, and moving the needle is too much work.
Politicians do the things people
votedonate for.After that, they say things they think the people want to hear.
And blameing the public over not voting for somone they don't want to vote for, seems backwards. Politicians aren't entitled to any votes. They need to earn it.
What horseshit. They didn't write in any candidate, like there was no one in the whole world they could think of that they want as president.
Do you think there's one ballot in this whole country that has a single question on it - like there was nothing out there worth voting on other than the presidential race?
Saying there's nothing to vote for is an excuse to be lazy. If you couldn't find one single thing on your ballot to vote for in this election, then you're never going to vote, for any reason. Everyone knows it, and therefore no one cares what nonvoters say. So sit here and do what you do best, blow hard on the Internet. You can post your little commets, that no one will read or care about, because at the end of the day they know no matter what they do or say, you won't go to the polls to stop them.
If you couldn’t find one single thing on your ballot to vote for in this election, then you’re never going to vote, for any reason.
This is why elections famously always have the same amount of turnout.
Saying there's nothing to vote for is an excuse to be lazy.
Who said there's nothing to vote for?
"And blameing the public over not voting for somone they don’t want to vote for, seems backwards."
You are implying that there is no one to vote for. There are more than two candidates, and you can write in anyone you want. And there are many questions on the ballot. No one is blaming anyone for not voting for someone they don't like. They're blaming them for voting for nothing, at all, among many important races and initiatives, with the possibility of writing in anyone, then saying "You can't blame me; there's not something I want to vote for".
You are implying that there is no one to vote for.
Not at all. You even quoted me saying someone, not anyone.
No one is blaming anyone for not voting for someone they don't like.
I guess I'm assuming they don't like either of the possible winners, I didn't think of the others, because they don't matter.
"You can't blame me; there's not something I want to vote for."
I've never seen that. Do you see it frequently? How many times this week?
What bugs me about this election is that turnout of GOP and independent voters surpassed Dem turnout.
This makes me wonder if a bunch of former Dems switched parties between 2020 and now. Which would suggest that voters themselves are swinging rightward.
Consider that he's gained in previously blue strongholds, like in Beverly Hills as per https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-07/trump-victory-by-the-numbers/104573034 and even in Brooklyn as per https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/06/trump-voter-gains-new-york-00188078
To me, this seems to justify the Dems rightward swing - they are following the voters. No wonder Harris campaigned with Liz Cheney at her side.
But, it also makes me feel kinda sick inside. If the country as a whole is swinging rightward, that makes me wonder where I fit in - or even if there is any room at all with someone with my beliefs.
To me, this seems to justify the Dems rightward swing - they are following the voters. No wonder Harris campaigned with Liz Cheney at her side.
What a ridiculous takeaway. They moved right and lost, but somehow this shows that moving right was the correct decision? That's nonsense, it shows the exact opposite.
The Cheneys do not represent any substantial constituency. Virtually nobody likes them, right or left. Kamala went chasing after the mythical "moderate republican swing voter," and they told her go fuck yourself the way they always do, and in the meantime she neglected her actual base which meant less enthusiasm and mobilization.
The democrats have tried this shit over and over. The people who like right-wing politics already have a party catering to them that they're happy with. How many times does this strategy have to result in abject failure before you start to question it?
Not the first time I've heard this bullshit either,. It's a surprisingly common talking point among centrists, even though it's so blatantly stupid. Oh, the Democrats are going to the right because the left won't vote for them? Well, the right won't fucking vote for them either, so why are they still moving right? Why is courting the right a reasonable and smart thing to do, while courting the left is dumb and bad? Especially when they keep courting the right and they keep fucking losing?
What a ridiculous takeaway. They moved right and lost, but somehow this shows that moving right was the correct decision? That’s nonsense, it shows the exact opposite.
Sorry, you are saying that folks joined the GOP and voted for orange voldemort because .. he was to the left of Dems?
Kamala went chasing after the mythical “moderate republican swing voter,”
As part of a broader coalition. Not after them solely.
in the meantime she neglected her actual base which meant less enthusiasm and mobilization.
I disagree. She was on places like "Call Me Daddy" and SNL - the outreach was there.
How many times does this strategy have to result in abject failure before you start to question it?
Well, it worked in 2020, but not in 2024. Meanwhile, Clinton did not purse this in 2016 - instead calling the worst of these folks "deplorables" - and still lost.
So the answer is - certainly more than just the one time.
Sorry, you are saying that folks joined the GOP and voted for orange voldemort because … he was to the left of Dems?
Trump got 72 million votes in 2024, compared to 74 million votes in 2020, so I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that Dem voters moved to Trump. Trump just successfully turned out the same base of supporters that he had before, while Harris didn't. But even if your claim were true, it would still indicate that moving to the right is ineffective, because in that case it failed to stop them from leaving. It's just utter nonsense no matter how you try to look at it.
I disagree. She was on places like “Call Me Daddy” and SNL - the outreach was there.
I cannot possibly emphasize enough how much I do not mean "going on SNL" when I talk about mobilizing and energizing the base.
Well, it worked in 2020, but not in 2024. Meanwhile, Clinton did not purse this in 2016 - instead calling the worst of these folks “deplorables” - and still lost.
So that one comment outweighs the entire rest of the campaign where she moved to the right to try to appeal to moderate republicans?
Hey, you know what, Harris called republicans "weird." So I guess we can't count this either as an example of your ideology being proven decisively wrong for the upteenth time. And the next time that the democrats try this and it blows up in their face yet again, there will be some random comment that means you can exclude that data point too.
so I’m not sure where you’re getting this idea that Dem voters moved to Trump.
This makes me think you're replying without reading. I'll make it easy for you though and quote my earlier comment,
Consider that he's gained in previously blue strongholds, like in Beverly Hills as per https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-07/trump-victory-by-the-numbers/104573034 and even in Brooklyn as per https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/06/trump-voter-gains-new-york-00188078
Moving on,
But even if your claim were true, it would still indicate that moving to the right is ineffective, because in that case it failed to stop them from leaving.
This is a good point. Agreed.
Trump got 72 million votes in 2024, compared to 74 million votes in 2020,
Citation needed.
What I'm aware of (e.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/11/07/uncalled-house-senate-races-popular-vote-2024-election/ - https://archive.is/W93jB) says we don't have the final popular vote counts yet.
It’s just utter nonsense no matter how you try to look at it.
No, nonsense doesn't make sense. But this does make sense. The issue is - if I'm right and the whole country is moving rightward, then Dems can only survive by also moving to the right.
In other words, one interpretation is that Dems and Harris didn't go far right enough.
I hope that's wrong though, since it suggests lefties like myself are an endangered breed.
how much I do not mean
That's fair - would be helpful then if you state what you do mean. Or in other words, what you think would be effective in "mobilizing and energizing the base."
So that one comment outweighs the entire rest of the campaign where she moved to the right to try to appeal to moderate republicans?
It wouldn't - if that had happened. But - while it is true Clinton tried to get moderate Republicans on board back in 2016, she really didn't shift at all for them. Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/while-wooing-republicans-clinton-sticks-progressive-policy-n628501
And the next time that the democrats try this and it blows up in their face yet again, there will be some random comment that means you can exclude that data point too.
Again, it's more than just a random comment.
Hey, you know what, Harris called republicans “weird.”
Hmm.. I don't recall this actually. Citation needed.
So I guess we can’t count this either as an example of your ideology being proven decisively wrong for the upteenth time.
Well, you can't count it as that, but for a different reason - you've failed to prove anything wrong, let alone decisively.
Citation needed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election
The final vote totals are not in yet, true, but I'm going off what information we have now.
No, nonsense doesn’t make sense. But this does make sense. The issue is - if I’m right and the whole country is moving rightward, then Dems can only survive by also moving to the right.
In other words, one interpretation is that Dems and Harris didn’t go far right enough.
I hope that’s wrong though, since it suggests lefties like myself are an endangered breed.
Well, the good news is that you are completely wrong.
Harris lost for two very simple reasons. First, because she attached herself to a status quo that many people were dissatisfied with. Second, because she attempted your shitty strategy of shifting right to win over republicans, when republicans are perfectly satisfied with the party they've got.
You're operating on lots of false assumptions, like this idea that who people vote for just comes down to who's closer to them on the political compass or something. Honestly, Harris could've run to the right of Trump on every issue and Trump supporters still wouldn't vote for her. That's just how reality is, and your ideology is out of line with it.
That’s fair - would be helpful then if you state what you do mean. Or in other words, what you think would be effective in “mobilizing and energizing the base.”
Running a progressive campaign with progressive policy. Not punching left. Not supporting genocide. Not bragging about Dick Cheney being on your side.
Even just calling Republicans weird was actually working but she couldn't even stick with that because she was too concerned with winning over the mythical moderate republican vote.
Hmm… I don’t recall this actually. Citation needed.
Really?
Yep. So that happened very close to Biden dropping out, hence I think I missed it in all the noise about the change.
It's good to have source though. In this case it provided additional context - the comments were limited to the top two, unlike Clinton who insulted potential voters. (Actually let's not kid ourselves - these folks almost certainly voted against her in the end.)
The final vote totals are not in yet, true, but I’m going off what information we have now.
That's not unreasonable, but I'd argue it's premature. If the results change, that could invalidate the conclusion.
The sources I referenced seem to disagree with you, but after all they may yet be proven to have jumped to conclusions too soon as well.
Well, the good news is that you are completely wrong.
Like I said, it's premature to conclude this.
I'll grant you this - if the final numbers show that the GOP didn't get more than 2020, and Harris ended up getting a lot less than Biden did (on the order of tens of millions), then I'll concede and agree.
Though I'll through in an additional wrench - I'd want to see what happens with the popular vote in California specifically. To rule out things like Dem voters in Republican or battleground states getting their votes suppressed as being the cause of the GOP win.
But if the numbers say differently - that more people voted this year overall, for example, then I'd argue that supports my original (and deeply disappointing) case. (I'm not sure year if 2020 is the right comparison either due to the effects of the pandemic - that might have been an unrepeatable one off. I'd also want to compare to 2008 or 2012 after adjusting the numbers for population changes.
Honestly, Harris could’ve run to the right of Trump on every issue and Trump supporters still wouldn’t vote for her.
Agreed. I confess that why his core voters like him so much remains a bit of mystery to me - even the most extreme on the right haven't been able to displace this guy, a new york liberal who basically stole their playbook and used the bits he liked.
But this puzzles me less than a Clinton and Biden supporting Dem turning red this year.
Running a progressive campaign with progressive policy.
Like Clinton did in 2016, as per the NBC source I referenced earlier? We know how that turned out.
Not punching left. Not supporting genocide. Not bragging about Dick Cheney being on your side.
Yup, agreed. I can see Palestine/Gaza indeed being a sticking point. I still will never understand those folks who voted GOP because they didn't like Biden/Harris on Gaza - which many claimed to do as per https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/14/hamtramck-donald-trump-arab-american-muslim - but I could easily understand them sitting out or voting third party. And with Dick Cheney's history, that might influence single issue voters negatively who might otherwise be primed to want to believe in the best of intentions from Harris.
Of course, Harris was between a rock and a hard place on this issue - but we don't need to rehash all of that. From what's coming out now, it's clear that Harris wasn't able to strike the necessary balance and win over this important voting bloc - such as https://www.voanews.com/a/in-historic-shift-american-muslim-and-arab-voters-desert-democrats/7854995.html and https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/11/7/dont-dare-blame-arab-and-muslim-americans-for-trumps-victory - and I certainly can't rule out the possibility that your suggestion here might have been enough to swing things the other way.
That’s just how reality is, and your ideology is out of line with it.
You’re operating on lots of false assumptions, like this idea that who people vote for just comes down to who’s closer to them on the political compass or somethingIf that's false - then how do people choose who to vote for? What else would be the measure that they use?
like this idea that who people vote for just comes down to who’s closer to them on the political compass or something
Well, they also tend to follow endorsements (hence why AOC and Sanders endorsed Harris), and do things like punish the incumbent if the economy feels really bad, etc. I'd agree that closeness isn't the sole thing.
Even just calling Republicans weird was actually working
Per your citation it was just the two folks who are heading to the White House, not Republicans generally.
but she couldn’t even stick with that because she was too concerned with winning over the mythical moderate republican vote.
Actually, she did - see https://www.npr.org/2024/10/30/nx-s1-5170908/harris-argues-that-trump-poses-a-threat-to-democracy-in-the-final-days-of-the-race & https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/15/harris-slams-trump-in-pennsylvania-as-us-election-race-heats-up
Christ. If Hilary Clinton is your idea of a progressive candidate and going on SNL is your idea of mobilizing the base, then you are just on a wavelength that is so far removed from mine that frankly I don't think there's any real possibility of a productive conversation.
this idea that who people vote for just comes down to who’s closer to them on the political compass
If that’s false - then how do people choose who to vote for? What else would be the measure that they use?
Seriously, come on. People have all sorts of reasons for chosing a candidate. This is so obvious that I shouldn't have to explain it.
Seriously, come on. People have all sorts of reasons for chosing a candidate. This is so obvious that I shouldn’t have to explain it.
Funny where you cut off the part where I list some of the other reasons. I'd agree that it's obvious that people have all sorts of reasons for choosing a candidate, but what didn't compute for me is why someone who would be more progressive - or even just pro-Gaza - would support the anti-progressive who wanted to let Israel's prime minister "finish the job", so to speak.
This is so obvious that I shouldn’t have to explain it.
Well, it can be worthwhile explaining it anyways sometimes. Often I've seen two people who actually agree but keep arguing because of semantics or the like, but if it's all laid out plainly then these tend to quickly come to an agreement. Other times, it's useful just to see how far the "wavelengths" are apart, as you put it.
Very few people supported Trump because they thought he'd be better on Gaza. Some may have chosen to take a gamble on literally anyone because the Dems are so bad on it, but I doubt that represents a major bloc.
On the other hand, I think it does represent a major factor when it comes to the economy. People are dissatisfied with the status quo and Kamala ran on the status quo. Trump was able to present himself as an alternative, and he was the only other choice.
I honestly think she could have not just mobilized more democrats, but also peeled off more republicans by seperaring from Biden's economic policies and presenting a further left alternative. Not everyone who votes republican is ideologically committed.
For the record, Clinton wasn't progressive enough for me (but I would have indeed settled on her back in 2016) and I don't watch SNL (though considering how many do, I still think it's great outreach).
But I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Here's a great post - https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/18340229 - describing how much and how well Dems turned out this year (with the estimate being that Dems will have actually beat their 2020 numbers once the popular vote count is finished). It's just that red voters turned out in even higher numbers this year.
Since the final popular vote tally is still unknown, it is speculative, but if it's right, then I think it's enough to disprove your contention (that Harris lost because turnout from Dems was low because they were turned off by the lack of progressive policies and Gaza and etc - this can't be the reason if turnout went up instead of down!).
Could be that they were shut out of the primary process, and wouldn't have chosen Harris.
This would make more sense if they just sat it out and didn't vote (or say voted third party).
But this doesn't make sense if they switched parties and voted for orange voldemort. All the reasons not to choose Harris (such as not being strong enough on Gaza) would apply even more strongly to that guy..
That's exactly what happened. Trump's turnout was about the same, but Dems turnout was 15 million less than 2020. That shows not that people are going more right ward and voting for Trump, but that Dems turnout was depressed due to apathy or something else.
Oh, interesting. Do you have a source regarding the turnout? What I've been reading elsewhere suggests that turnout wasn't depressed except compared to 2020 - which may have been a fluke due to the pandemic - but the sources I have (such as https://dailyiowan.com/2024/11/06/2024-election-reaches-second-highest-voter-turnout-in-the-past-century/ ) aren't clear on hard numbers or stats.
A different commenter on this thread (see https://lemmy.world/comment/13325248 ) claims that orange voldemort actually got fewer votes in this election than in 2020. No source was provided and I'm a bit skeptical, but if you both are right (contradicting the sources I have pointed to in my other comments) then it suggests a) that there was no such shift and it was merely a turnout issue and b) that more leftist or progressive policies might do the trick!
Which are much easier problems to solve than to deal with folks actually moving their beliefs and votes to the right.
I think you're right that turnout in 2020 was kind of an anomaly from being higher than normal. The stats I found, and this is just what I am seeing referenced so I'll keep trying to find a source, is that Trump had 4 million less than 2020 but Democrats had 15 million less. So a general depression of turnout but way more from the Democrat's camp than Trump's.
But either way, if people are moving right, I think they can also be moved to the left, too. I tend to think that it happens when current times are bad, than they stop wanting to move forward and they look for scapegoats. We just need a more equitable economy that works for everyone, and not just the rich.
There's a really good repost at https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/18340229 which shows that actually turnout was higher where it mattered almost across the board, though alas it also doesn't cite a reference or source for the numbers. (Remember though that even an extra 81 million votes for Harris in California wouldn't have made a difference in the EC, but split 15 million Dem votes evenly across the seven swing states, and Harris would have won.)
This suggests that there wasn't much of a depression of turnout - perhaps only in the safe blue states, which wouldn't have been impactful.
Of course that's based on an estimate, or guess, on how the total popular vote count will turn out, which is still unknown. We'll see, I guess.
You're right about being able to get voters to switch back to blue. But that's what puzzles me - why did they switch from blue to red in the first place?
But actually you answered this already - it's the age old "it's the economy, stupid." Maybe this was unavoidable then? Biden and his Dem replacement would have always taken the hit on the economy no matter what. The only one eligible to run who might have been able to avoid that stain would have been Sanders.
Oh, right I forgot that the presidential race was the only thing on the ballot in the generals, and that there weren't primary elections for every position, including president, in multiple parties.
Except of course that's not true, and they didn't participate in any of that, and thus no one cares what they say. If they cared, they would have voted for someone else in the primaries. They didn't so that means one of two things. They assumed Biden would win and were happy about it. Or they assumed he would win and couldn't be bothered to do anything about it. So if they don't like it, who cares what they think? They're not going to do anything about it, so why appease them?
Instead, they're going to whine on the Internet about how they were "shut out" of something that was completely open to them, and pretend like it's the world's fault, and can safely be ignored.
I've read that comment a few tims now. I genuinely can't follow what you're talking about.
Calm down. Come back, and try again.
I am registered unaffiliated because I'm left of our Democratic party, not right of it. I can't be the only one. So some of those independents are progressive.
So I think being a more-left independent is fine (though I'd personally want to stay registered as a Dem just so I would have a chance at voting for the most left Dem candidate in primaries).
But could any of these folks such as yourself have voted Red on the big day? And if so, why??
I totally understand Harris not being the ideal candidate for such voters, but to vote Red instead? How is that an improvement?
I cannot imagine that. The people I know who voted for Trump are either victims of the right wing media bubble, or worried about very specific individual issues - one about guns, one about gas prices, plus I think low information voters who have short memories, I heard a lady on the radio saying "he's a businessman and I am an entrepreneur, I think he will be more friendly to business".
Here, the leftmost are mostly better informed, I think.
Actually I'm starting to move against this view as well. https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/18340229 shows that turnout was even higher than in 2020 (though still waiting on sources for those numbers, which in any case are estimates and not the final count)
Rather than Dems majorly sitting it out or switching sides, it is actually starting to look like all the GOP folks who sat home in 2016 and 2020 finally decided to turn out for orange voldemort. I wonder why though... I guess, they finally thought the economy had become bad enough to punish the status quo leaders.
Yeah, I agree. People think of parties as these static things, but parties are made of people, and the people in the parties change all the time. Republicans freed the slaves and gave women the right to vote. Those aren't the people in the party today.
The Democratic party is going to take on the former GOP people. It won't be a huge shift, but it will shift. The people that voted for people like Cheney are going to become Democrats. The people that were in the Democratic party are going to get pushed to the edges. Because no one votes for them. These petulent children complain that the candidates are not perfect, and didn't "earn it", and "if they're not perfect, then I'm just not going to play the game at all".
It's a lot of talk, and zero action with these people: all excuses - money influences politicians, we don't have a choice.... Two of the questions on my ballot were initiatives, just straight up votes that would directly change how the government is run here - no politicians, no money trail, you just vote on it and the law changes. It's utter bullshit pretending this is a waste of time, and it's everyone else's fault. They sound like a bunch of little piss babies crying in their milk.
In any sane system without FPTP and with RCV or similar, though, those who got pushed out could easily form a new party. I could easily see one lead by Sanders and AOC.
But under the system we've currently got, they're both pushing voters for Harris instead. Because there's not really any other choice. They're right, but so are you. There's no place left for folks like us - we'll hold our noses and stick with the Dems because they're the least bad option, but so many transformative ideas are going to languish.
I was hoping that this was just because of the EC and gerrymandering - that the issue was structural and thus the votes that counted didn't accurately reflect what the country as a whole wanted. Meaning we could fix this by fixing the structure (e.g. abolishing the EC). New data however, suggests there is a real rightward and rightwing shift in this country, which is really painful to process.
I agree. This is eye opening, not just the support for a felon, but also the huge number of people who do nothing when given multiple opportunities to do something. I don't want to help people whose idea of action is complaining on the Internet about how they can't do anything, and sitting at home during primaries and general elections.