I don’t think it’s that difficult. Trump had a rather focused message: anti-immigration and pro-tariffs. He hammered just two issues and it brought out his biggest demographics, uneducated whites and business owners. The big surprise to Democrats is that this also won over many Latino voters.
Democrats need to be similarly focused on their biggest demographics, with two or three major initiatives to differentiate them from the GOP.
Codifying Roe worked to bring out college educated voters. They should probably keep that.
Now add a major new program aimed at blue collar voters (Harris lacked this) and a major new program aimed at Latino and/or Black voters (Harris lacked this too).
Harris won 47% of white women, that is absolutely HUGE in today’s political climate.
The big surprise to Democrats is that this also won over many Latino voters.
It blows my mind that anyone continues to be surprised by this. Republicans have been gaining ground with Latino voters since Bush. How much longer do we have to wait before the DNC stops scratching their heads and actually tries to do something about it?
Bush was popular among Latinos, and got 40% of their vote in 2004. But that’s not true of all Republicans since then. McCain got 31% in 2008, and Romney got 27% in 2012.
Trump himself only got 29% in 2016 (much less than this year).
Definitely. Democrats were too slow to realize how big the problem at the border was and just how much they were getting punished for it.
When idiots are shouting about a “problem” that isn’t a problem the solution is to yell about a real problem louder. The economy would have been a good place for Harris to start.
Look here now, we can’t say there are any issues at the border! It’s all just GOP talking points, nothing to see here. And for god’s sake, don’t point out the humanitarian issues. Liberals (rightly) hate humanitarian issues, but they can’t talk about this one because they would have to admit there’s a problem to begin with.
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters
Yes, crossing are clearly down this year! But we’re looking at a major city worth of people, even for a “slow” year. The logistics of absorbing that many people are staggering. We would have to build my entire metro area 4 times over just to cover 2024.
Should probably point out that Congress, under Biden, tried to pass bills relating to border control. But republicans tanked it because there being a problem is good for their election chances (and it worked)
Dems under Biden tried to pass an immigration reform bill that Republicans wrote under Trump and Republicans shot it down so they could run on an immigration reform platform and pass it themselves
And I’d bet money that they still don’t pass anything so they can continue to use it as a platform in the future
Now add a major new program aimed at blue collar voters (Harris lacked this) and a major new program aimed at Latino and/or Black voters (Harris lacked this too).
This is it right here, Dems didn’t have a big economic plan to get folks back to where they were before the pandemic and so blue collar voters just didn’t turn out for them.
We’ve had 32y of the neoliberal Democrat party and the bulk of the wealth created during that time has funnelled to the top 10%. Voters want to hear about the plan to give them a share of prosperity too and until that’s on the menu they’re not going to show up unless a previous Republican administration makes some sort of catastrophic fuck up.
Bush walked into the 2008 crash with his face and Obama ran on change and opportunity for all. He won, then passed healthcare reform and won again. Hillary pushed neoliberal business as usual and her foreign policy expertise and failed. Biden won because Trump catastrophically fucked up the government’s COVID response and voters didn’t trust him to steer the country out of it. Harris ran on neoliberal business as usual at a time shortly after record setting inflation (and corporate profits) without spending any time talking about how she’d address these things or how they were going to make new opportunity for the working class. It shouldn’t be a surprise that her campaign failed, neoliberalism isn’t particularly popular with anyone except the wealthy and the educated who see the long term benefit of democrats other policies.
It’s pretty easy to see the pattern, Democrats don’t represent the change voters want to see unless we’re coming out of a catastrophic economic fuck-up during the prior administration.
What does that buy you, an unpredictable win every 8-12y followed by 4 more years of business as usual?
That’s hard to disagree with. Kerry couldn’t beat Bush even though he was a respectable Senator who also was a drafted Purple Heart war hero in Vietnam. A “Standard Democrat” can’t win in a time of aggravation. You need someone on the verge of Fire Brand to rally the troops.
You need someone who’s very obviously pushing a “change and prosperity for all” message at this point. A standard neoliberal has very little chance of winning at a time when we’ve suffered 2? 3? once in a lifetime economic crises in the last 25y.
There needs to be some plan to include everyone in the economic prosperity that we’ve funnelled to the top 10% and the candidate needs to beat that drum over and over until there’s no space left to talk about anything else. We already know Democrats are for women’s issues, we already know Democrats are for equal racial opportunity, we already know Democrats are (generally) more sane than the other guy - now we need to tell folks that we’ve got the better plan to uplift everyone that’s fallen behind over the last 30y.
When the other side has candidates willing to say “I’ll break the law to change things” you really have to step up your game beyond “we’re better for long term growth and stability, and by the way we’re not the other guy and we ❤️ PoC.”
(Honestly it’s exhausting that this needs to be spelled out, it’s like national Democrats don’t know a single person who’s been left behind over the last 30y.)
When the other side has candidates willing to say “I’ll break the law to change things” you really have to step up your game beyond “we’re better for long term growth and stability, and by the way we’re not the other guy and we ❤️ PoC.”
(Honestly it’s exhausting that this needs to be spelled out, it’s like national Democrats don’t know a single person who’s been left behind over the last 30y.)
Well put.
Bullshit news. If you look at the boring stats, trumps vote is up a bit on 2020 but the dems vote is down massively.
This was not a big breakthrough for Trump, he made small gains in lots of countues and some groups. But the main issue was a bad Democrat campaign which failed to get people out to vote.
In 2020: Dems 81m votes Rep 74m
In 2024 (95%+ count) Dems 70m Rep 74m
The dems lost 11m votes in 2024! The reps so far have gained none, but probably will be up 1-2m in the end.
So this idea of some great Republican breakthrough is rubbish. The real story is the Dems lost a lot of votes.
If they’d had an open primary and a fresh candidate, or if Biden stepped down sooner and they had an actual contest to pick a successor, or even if Harris had been able to run her own campaign from scratch, they may have had a chance.
The dems lost this election because the DNC backed Biden against all voices who raised concerns about his fitness. When they finally relented it was too late. Then they ran a campaign around abortion and democracy, rather than the number 1 concern of those who did vote: the economy.
The lesson of this election is NOT that Trump has the answers or has made some breakthrough. The lesson is the dems ran a bad campaign and did not offer the voters something good to vote for - 11m voters disappeared - that’s who the dems should have been targeting, not the “never trumps” and going more right wing.
The polls said the country was tied 50:50. This is bullshit - polls only showed “likely voters”. The raw numbers actually showed 1/3 support dems, 1/3 support reps and 1/3 weren’t going to vote. The none voters are who the dems should have been targetting - they’re not never voters because 11m went missing from the election!
The dems lesson is very simple: target the disenfranchised voters with positive Democrat policies. Don’t try to be more Republican to beat the republicans, it doesn’t work and will never work.
They won in 2020 because those 11m came out to vote angry about Trump. The dems didn’t give them a reason to vote for them this time.
They must learn this lesson as they seemingly did not understand what happened in 2016, nor even 2020.
Id argue people might need to be punched in the face like they are going to be the next four years then realize not voting isn’t in their interest.
They should be voting regardless. If they don’t, fuck em. They chose poorly.
Oh, calm the fuck down NBC. A lot of these dopes probably voted for “but my cheap bacon and eggzzz!” and almost nothing else. If the donvict has no magic wand to lower their prices some radical amount, he and his party will be as fucked as ever.
Their owners will be telling them Dems need to shift right, this is another Reagan style “crisis” because their job is to create that crisis.
No he fucking didn’t. People voted for Trump specifically. If Trump isn’t running, the political map will be quite different.
Yeah, like a lot of politicians endorsed by Trump have difficulty of winning ballots. Once Trump is gone, the Republicans are going to have a hard time filling his spot.
Removed by mod
Yep. Democrats need to get the fuck out of the way.
The Democratic National Committee needs to get the fuck out of the way. Democratic leadership needs to get the fuck out of the way. The Democratic electorate needs to throw them the fuck out, and start making a shopping list.
-
Universal Health Care. True universal healthcare; none of this ACA bullshit.
-
Securities tax. Own more than $10 million in stocks and bonds, we’re taking 1% of those shares every year, and slowly liquidating them at auction. Auctioned shares will comprise no more than 1% of total traded volume. You don’t get to just sit on those assets any more. You have to put them to work, where they will generate taxable income, or they will be taken from you.
If any member of the second estate has a problem with universal healthcare or a wealth tax, 18th century France came up with the solution.
If they’re holding us back, why do we need them. How are they in our way? Why don’t we just take the party from them or make our own with blackjack, hookers, and abortion if it’s so easy to win?
First off, Some mod is reading “Guillotine Party” and thinking I’m advocating violence. I’m not. I’m advocating a French Revolution, where the third estate takes their nation back from the oligarchs of the second estate.
Just as the modern Tea Party adopted historical symbolism to identify and rally people to their cause of action, we should use the most visible symbol of the French Revolution to focus our own efforts against wealth disparity: the guillotine.
Why don’t we just take the party from them or make our own with blackjack, hookers, and abortion
That is exactly what the Tea Party did to the GOP, and that is exactly what we need to be doing to the Democratic Party. We need to destroy billionaires, not by removing their heads, but by removing their billions. Every cent they aren’t spending is a loss of income to a worker, and a loss of income tax to the government. We are all paying a higher portion of our earnings to give them the privilege of extracting wealth from the economy.
First off, Some mod is reading “Guillotine Party” and thinking I’m advocating violence. I’m not. I’m advocating a French Revolution, where the third estate takes their nation back from the oligarchs of the second estate.
Is, is this satire? I can’t even tell anymore.
Now, not that I disagree with what I think you’re saying over all. But… How did the French do that, and maybe that association could give someone reasonable suspicion.
We need to rebuild the solidarity of labor. As well as educating many that they are also part of labor. Talk about taxing the 1%, some Brain Trust somewhere will think your targeting him. Hell they’ll do that even if you talk about taxing the 0.1%. IT workers are some of the worst. It’s like brother they won’t let you do the same job from home. They’re demanding that you be there so they can stand and look over your shoulder and justify office space. On call 24/7 with no dedicated off time. Have to keep limping along with completely inadequate resources. While CEOs and other c-suite officers take home pay raises. F****** unionize Brothers.
But yeah the French Revolution was very violent. And the guillotine is a singular symbol of that violence.
The French had no other means of achieving their objectives in 1789. They didn’t have a democracy. They didn’t have the ability to eliminate their “billionaires” by taking their billions. They could only get rid of their “billionaires” by taking their heads.
Unlike the French Revolutionaries, we have the framework of a functioning democracy already established. It’s currently broken and non-functional, but it exists.
We don’t need the guillotine, but we do need the mindset, the attitude, the commitment that the revolutionaries had when they decided to use the only tool they had available to them.
-
For me it feels like the only thing your Dems have is that they’re not the others which is not enough
The democrat answer is always to blame & shame the voters, leftists & progressives for their losses.
But what democrats won’t ever do is represent the interests of the people, they can’t. Democrats take bribes from rich donors who have interests that conflict with the voters.
Voters want universal healthcare, rich donors do not. Voters want free college, rich donors do not. Voters want the genocide in Gaza to end, rich donors do not. There’s many more examples, but democrats have to walk a tight rope.
If the democrats cater to the voters, they lose the rich donors. If they cater to the rich donors, they lose the voters. So democrats have been pandering to their rich donors while pushing optics as if they support the voters. But it’s always a lie.
When democrats take power, they implement miniscule change that expires or is easily reversed to appease the voters while still doing the bidding of the donors. But as the voter’s need for change grows, the less that democrats want to win.
Winning means being in charge, which means pressure to implement change. Rich donors don’t want that change, so democrats deliberately lose.
Democrats would rather be a minority party that soaks up donations rather than be the majority party and have to actually govern and fix things.
This entire comment is just pure delusional? You’re claiming Dems never want to fix anything?
Tell me, who the last Republican to leave office with a good economy according to the general public? And we’ll start there.
This entire comment is just pure delusional? You’re claiming Dems never want to fix anything?
No. Please work on your reading comprehension skills.
I wish more people understood this fact, especially when it comes to voting.
The only way to truly fix this is to change campaign finance laws, Citizens United, and all the other supporting cases that led to the situation we are in.
They have no easy path to fix it because they take billionaire and corporate money. If they stopped doing that, the path would’ve been obvious this entire time.
You’ll have to provide them with an alternate source of funding. I’m glad this will be easy for you to figure out. I look forward to this simple solution of yours. Because entire generations have tried to solve this for 40+ years. Since Reagan broke the unions. Who used to provide most of the Democrats funding. You might check into that. There could be a correlation.
It wasn’t Reagan that sent those union jobs overseas though. But Biden and Reagan did share the fact they busted up union strikes.
What’s with the straw man? Clinton did that because Reagan broke the unions. They no longer were the source of the parties funding or power. Instead going after funding from wealthy corporations and businesses who wanted those jobs outsourced. Is this really that hard to understand? Both things were bad one is in effect the other was the cause. You are not rebuting what I said. You’re just playing a game of whataboutism.
Just replace the word easy with profitable and it makes most articles more true in general
The US political system has been destroyed by money. Many other western democracies are so much healthier than in the US because there’s very little money in politics.
Unfortunately, I’m not sure how folks in the US pull it back. The weight of money draws in so much disinformation and outright media complicity that even grassroots movements (eg. Bernie, RCV) have been safely tampered out.
They better keep it that way.
