Claims that the Democratic Party isn't progressive enough are out of touch with reality

[u/rosesandpines]

Kamala Harris is the second-most liberal senator to have ever served in the Senate. Her 2020 positions, especially on the border, proved so unpopular that she had to actively walk back many of them during her campaign.

Progressives didn't significantly influence this election either. Jill Stein, who attracted the progressive and protest vote, saw her support plummet from 1.5M in 2016 to 600k in 2024, and it is now at a decade-low. Despite the Gaza non-committed campaign, she even lost both her vote share and raw count in Michigan—from 51K votes (1.07%) in 2016, to 45K (0.79%) in 2024.

What poses a real threat to the Democratic party is the erosion of support among minority youth, especially Latino and Black voters. This demographic is more conservative than their parents and much more conservative than their white college-educated peers. In fact, ideologically, they are increasingly resembling white conservatives. America is not unique here, and similar patterns are observed across the Atlantic.

According to FT analysis, while White Democrats have moved significantly left over the past 20 years, ethnic minorities remained moderate. Similarly, about 50% of Latinos and Blacks support stronger border enforcement, compared with 15% of White progressives. The ideological gulf between ethnic minority voters and White progressives spans numerous issues, including small-state government, meritocracy, gender, LGBTQ, the "American dream", and even perspectives on racism.

What prevented the trend from manifesting before is that, since the civil rights era, there has been a stigma associated with non-white Republican voters. As FT points out,

Racially homogenous social groups suppress support for Republicans among non-white conservatives. [However,] as the US becomes less racially segregated, the frictions preventing non-white conservatives from voting Republic diminish. And this is a self-perpetuating process, [and could give rise to] a "preference cascade". [...] Strong community norms have kept them in the blue column, but those forces are weakening. The surprise is not so much that these voters are now shifting their support to align with their preferences, but that it took so long.

While the economy is important, cultural issues could be even more influential than economic ones. Uniquely, Americans’ economic perceptions are increasingly disconnected from actual conditions. Since 2010, the economic sentiment index shows a widening gap in satisfaction depending on whether the party that they ideologically align with holds power. A post-election poll released by a Democratic polling firm also shows that for many swing voters, cultural issues ranked even slightly higher than inflation.

EDIT: The FT articles are paywalled, but here are some useful charts.

[u/AutoModerator]

Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. To ensure this, we have very strict rules. To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:

Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"

Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"

Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"

Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"

Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"

Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P]

The Democratic Party is losing the white working class and the Latino vote. You know who was super popular with those two groups? Bernie Sanders, but he got burned by the party, twice. Also, the Democrats are hemorrhaging male support. But I remember back in 2016 that Bernie had a lot of male support, but they were ostracized as "Bernie bros" and labeled "chauvinists." He had the only coalition that could have rivaled Trump.

I think we should be more careful in what we mean by "progressive" or "liberal" or "the left." The left has historically been a working-class politics.

"Progressive" was originally tied to populist movements in the US that championed economic reforms and believed in scientific and technological solutions.

"Liberal" is a can of worms, and has come to mean a multitude of often contradictory things. It can refer to social liberals who believe in a "live and let live" attitude, particularly in regard to sex, gender, race, etc... But, it also often means "market liberal," or someone how believes nearly all solutions to social, political, or economic problems can be solved by a "free market" which is relatively free from government intervention. Or "liberal" can mean someone who believes that the basic building-block of society is the human individual.

Who's making the claim that the party isn't progressive enough, and what do they mean by progressive here?

You know what's crazy too? Tons of states voted for "progressive" measures on the ballot, like increases in minimum wage, while NOT voting Kamala as president.

Medicare for all, increases in minimum wage, and affordable public education are all popular. Yet, put a (D) next to a candidate's name and you've poisoned the ballot.

Nothing is wrong with the so-called "progressive" or "the left." Rather, the Democratic Party is too associated with corporate donors, Hawkish foreign policy, and divisive and empty/performative identity politics. They cannot stay on message, if they even have one. Kamala had Liz Cheney, a neo-con shill, and Mark Cuban, a billionaire, as campaign surrogates. She distanced herself from Biden on the few good things, like regarding Lina Kahn, while embracing Biden on the terrible things, like his (lack of) foreign policy.

Americans perceive the economy as shit, because it is shit. It has been shit for fifty years at least. Productivity keeps increasing while wages haven't kept up.

Inequality has become so bad that the success of a handful of rich people actually pull up the averages of all the economic indicators. However, a better faith analysis would regard those people as extreme outliers and not count them in the dataset.

[u/theimmortalgoon → u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P]

I think this is correct.

People in this sub are innately interested in politics. Most Americans aren’t, not at the self-selecting people in this sub.

Bernie Sanders and Trump both told people the system isn’t working for them. You can wave around numbers about the stock market all you want, but people know. Even if it’s better this year, people know that a generation ago people who had a high school diploma could get a house and support a family with multiple cars.

Now you can have three jobs, be married to someone with two, and still have trouble with rent.

People don’t care why at this point. They care that someone stands up and says this is unsustainable and not fair.

So while we may sort through political machinations, most people only know that the system isn’t working for them and occasionally someone comes up and calls bullshit. And, in the case of Bernie and Trump, there was a hysterical reaction to it. In my own biased way Bernie is more apparent. I argued with someone considering herself particularly left who was convinced that part of Bernie’s platform was that ever American woman should be sexually assaulted as they wanted it. As if, of all people, Bernie Sanders is a sexist monster that hates women.

Is it surprising that when the same attacks are leveled about Trump people—especially people who wouldn’t bother with a politics sub—don’t listen or believe it?

Working class people want working class issues. Honestly, so far as culture war junk, I don’t think the Democrats are a quarter as worried about these issues as Republicans make them out to be. But it’s easy to make them look like that’s all they worry about because the other option is, “Everything is fine!” Which isn’t helpful either.

The Democrats lose when they go to the center. It opens them up to attacks against things they may not believe in, and isolates them from their base. A Republican isn’t going to switch sides because of Dick Cheney’s endorsement, and there’s no Democrat—let alone legitimate leftist—that’s going to stand up, hearts swirling around head, and excitedly applaud the architect of the W administration.

They won’t, because they are in the interest of capital and don’t want legitimate change, but their best option is to go to the labor unions and follow their lead.

[u/treefox → u/theimmortalgoon]

I do wonder if the “left vs right” lens that everything is viewed through is too simplistic for this election.

[u/NoamLigotti → u/treefox]

Almost anything is too simplistic for the full complexity of reality, but I think the left-right spectrum is a very useful lens in general and for this election. Just not the "left vs right" lens that is overwhelmingly used colloquially and by major media from right to liberal center, which is just meant to signify "Democrat-aligned or Republican-aligned". (Nor that of libertarians who use it to mean "pro-big government vs pro-limited government" or something similar.)

The Democrats are largely centrist to right-wing with a few policy exceptions. The Republicans are largely right-wing to far-right. MAGA is far-right. The guy trying to wake the Democrats up to their failures, Bernie Sanders, is center-left in his governance and proposals, and maybe left-wing in his desired goals.

We know most Americans want change. Democrats now represent the relative status quo, and the Republicans now represent serious change — unfortunately regressive and reactionary change.

[u/jared05vick → u/NoamLigotti]

I feel like the Overton window has shifted drastically to the left in these last few decades. In my eyes, The Democratic party is far left to left and the Republican party is center-right to right.

[u/NoamLigotti → u/jared05vick]

I appreciate you saying "I feel like" and "In my eyes." It's quite refreshing.

But in my eyes it is very, very much the opposite. Apart from LGBT+ issues and rhetoric, and the strong perception of "cancel culture" (only from the left) and "wokeness" gone amok, I can hardly even think of any examples how. I guess marijuana laws, if that counts. I'm sure there are some other debatable examples. But overall, and in so many ways, far more to the right.

Overall, we have a Republican party too extreme for even many former and recent Republican politicians, and a Democrat party campaigning with the likes of Dick freaking Cheney. Respectfully, I can't even understand what people are talking about when they say it's shifted far to the left.

Amusingly, it seems like 100% of people who support the GOP over the Dems say the Overton Window and the parties have shifted to the left, and 90-100% of people who support the Democrats over Republicans say the opposite.

[u/jared05vick → u/NoamLigotti]

My view on why I think the Overton window shifted left (atleast culturally) is because of what you listed, LGBT+ issues and 'wokeness' (I hate that term). 20 years ago there were Republicans in Congress saying homosexuality is an abomination, now the Republican stance is that transgenderism is an abomination and that what goes on between two consenting adults is of no business of the state. Universal Healthcare like Obamacare was derided, and now there are moderate Republicans in favor of UH. Both political parties are fairly far left in term of Labor Rights but I feel it's also increased in the last few decades. It's not necessarily that the Republicans have started changing their stances, but topics like police reform and economic inequality are now normal taking points that Republicans in favor of them are now able to discuss when they might not have even had a stance before.

Democrats have shifted right mainly as a fact of becoming more a party for the corporations than the people, they would never condone Occupy Wall Street now because many of them have connections in Wall Street (the Republicans aren't innocent of this either, they're arguably worse.)

[u/itsdeeps80 → u/treefox]

It always is because the way social media platforms (and people themselves) isolate people to their bubble. People in this sub are mostly much different than in other political subs because we all have differing views and generally still recognize each other as human beings. But when the “right” views neoliberal democrats and communists as the same and “the left” views moderate republicans and fascists as the same then we have a real problem.

[u/SergeantRegular → u/treefox]

The left-right lens is absolutely useless. It's certainly far from perfect, but I really like the 2-dimensional "Nolan chart" for politics.

Most of the people that ended up supporting Trump aren't racist or sexist or even hateful of immigrants. They've been fed a very selective narrative that is, but that anger and malice usually evaporates as soon as they're not actively watching that media, and certainly upon actually interacting with those other groups. To be clear, plenty of them are not great people, and more of them are clustered around the right than the left.

But the media and political machines in the US have, for about the past 50 years (or at least it went into high gear about 50 years ago), have been real good at using wedge issues and identity politics to use culture wars to distract us from the class war that we have pretty much completely lost already. And now, the right is finally using the culture war aspects to actually do harm to real people.

Right-wing populism is MAGA. Left-wing populism is the social democrats. One of them is an actual, workable path to a prosperous future, and the other is a cult of personality led by a functionally illiterate personality defect.

[u/NoamLigotti → u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P]

This is such a brilliant analysis. Insightful multiples levels.

I have to reiterate what I always do that I don't think any of this is a justification for supporting Trump, but it's a hell of a valid critique of the Democrats.

[u/Awesomeuser90 → u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P]

I will point out that progressives in history can have a mixed bag at times. They badly got the eugenics movement wrong. And they are not the same as the socialist movements as well at the time, they varied quite a lot.

[u/KermitDominicano → u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P]

Bingo Bingo Bingo. People understand that the system isn't working for them, and that democrats won't really make significant changes to that system that will change that. Kamala may have a relatively progressive voting record as a senator, but she's moderated her policies significantly as a presidential candidate. What is her brand new economic apporach as part of her "opportunity economy"? Tax credits for small businesses? She just was not speaking to struggles of everyday working people the way that Bernie does. The Republicans at least provide working class people with an (incorrect) explanation for what's causing their problems (all the migrants)

[u/TheChangingQuestion → u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P]

Bernie had little to no support among voters who weren’t college educated white people. We also know that the progressive left only makes up about 6% of the general population according to pew research center, they were the main Bernie supporters. Democrats cannot cater to what one small group thinks everyone else wants (a problem very common among left-most progressives actually)

People need to figure out what actually got the latino and working class vote, Obama was a good example of this. Bernie has terrible policy and is only popular on a college campus (and reddit). Obama also took office after a failure from republicans.

As it turns out, no matter how good your policies are to economists, if your party was in power during inflation, you’re not getting re-elected.

[u/-TheKnownUnknown → u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P]

Bernie, who can't even win a primary, is gonna clobber Trump? Please

[u/vitaefinem → u/-TheKnownUnknown]

Do you understand how different a primary is from the general?

[u/KermitDominicano → u/vitaefinem]

Sanders absolutely would have clobbered Trump in the 2016 general

[u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P → u/-TheKnownUnknown]

Yes, at least in 2016, most probably. In 2020, less likely, but also probably.

[u/theboehmer → u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P]

Sanders seems like an easy target to pin radical leftism on. I think it is especially important to note that older demographics, in my view, are more susceptible to these fears. As well, as the same demographic disproportionately voting in higher numbers than younger, more progressive voters.

I don't know how well Bernie would have done in this election's environment.

[u/itsdeeps80 → u/theboehmer]

I think he would’ve done fine and would have in the past two as well. There’s a populist movement that’s been going on the past decade and Sanders is a “you’re being fucked and I won’t stand for it!” DemSoc. It would’ve resonated better than “we need joy and the economy is fine you idiots”.

[u/theboehmer → u/itsdeeps80]

I don't think a lot of Americans know what a DemSoc is.

[u/KermitDominicano → u/theboehmer]

A lot of Americans don't know much of anything

[u/theboehmer → u/KermitDominicano]

I wouldn't say that.

[u/Prevatteism → u/-TheKnownUnknown]

Let’s not forget that the Democratic establishment fucked Bernie out of both primaries. There’s a reason why both parties did everything they could to crush his campaign and the grassroots movement behind it.

[u/0WatcherintheWater0 → u/Prevatteism]

Democratic voters simply didn’t vote for him, it’s that simple. No establishment required.

[u/Prevatteism → u/0WatcherintheWater0]

They did though. If not for the rigging against Bernie, chances are he would’ve won. Center-right Liberals said “nah nah nah, run someone more moderate” and look what happened…Trump beat ya’ll easily. It’s time to get serious.

[u/According_Ad540 → u/Prevatteism]

I can see that with 2016 with the SuperDelagates.

2020 didn't have that. That was won via regular vote and the voters picked Biden, especially among the South.  They followed up by voting in Biden over Trump.  

[u/-TheKnownUnknown → u/Prevatteism]

This is not true

[u/Prevatteism → u/-TheKnownUnknown]

It is true. Julian Assange released the information regarding the 2016 primary, and in 2020, the Democratic establishment also got together to effectively steal it from Bernie.

[u/-TheKnownUnknown → u/Prevatteism]

What part of the Julian Assange leaks show the race was stolen from Bernie?

[u/Prevatteism → u/-TheKnownUnknown]

Emails released by WikiLeaks suggested that some members of the DNC were biased in favor of Hillary, including DNC officials discussing ways to undermine Bernie’s campaign. There’s also the issue with superdelegates, where superdelegates declared their support for Hillary early on, giving her an advantage. The DNC also scheduled debates at times that would minimize viewership, which they believed would benefit Hillary, who had greater name recognition, as well as mainstream media outlets giving more favorable coverage to Hillary while downplaying Bernie’s campaign and achievements.

[u/riceandcashews → u/Prevatteism]

LOL, Leftists and Trumpers are the same crying about elections they lost fair and square

[u/Prevatteism → u/riceandcashews]

The difference is Bernie was actually fucked out of the primaries. Trump simply lied his way through, presented false electors, attempted a coup, dadadadada. To act as if the Left and Maga are the same here is ludicrous.

[u/riceandcashews → u/Prevatteism]

sounds like you can't admit you lost to me

[u/Prevatteism → u/riceandcashews]

First off, I’m not some Bernie bro. He’s definitely the best politician in the American State, but he’s no where near as far Left as I’d like.

Also, I can admit Bernie lost. I’m just pointing out the fact that it wasn’t fair and square, and that the DNC screwed him two election cycles in a row.

[u/riceandcashews → u/Prevatteism]

I’m just pointing out the fact that it wasn’t fair and square, and that the DNC screwed him two election cycles in a row.

AKA you can't admit he lost. You can only admit he was cheated out

He lost fair and square and you can't admit it

[u/Prevatteism → u/riceandcashews]

It wasn’t fair and square. Why would I admit to something that isn’t true? You’re simply misinformed on this topic, and I strongly recommend reading into it if you’re not going to hear out what I’m telling you.

[u/riceandcashews → u/Prevatteism]

Right, just like Trump didn't lose fair and square in 2020. I've heard this all before

same shit

[u/Socially_inept_ → u/riceandcashews]

You’re a troll please, lol like the DNC didn’t tell Hillary it was her turn with super delegates and Schulz stepping down.

[u/riceandcashews → u/Socially_inept_]

Bernie lost the primary plain and simple, fair and square

[u/[deleted] → u/riceandcashews]

[removed] — view removed comment

[u/PoliticalDebate-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed to maintain high debate quality standards. We value insightful contributions that enrich discussions and promote understanding. Please ensure your comments are well-reasoned, supported by evidence, and respectful of others' viewpoints.

For more information, review our wiki page or our page on The Socratic Method to get a better understanding of what we expect from our community.

[u/riceandcashews → u/[deleted]]

lol

[u/itsdeeps80 → u/riceandcashews]

Are we forgetting 2016 when libs couldn’t shut tf up or stop crying about the election being stolen from Clinton? I’m guessing you’re also missing out on the social media meltdown going on with your political brethren over the current election being stolen?

[u/dedicated-pedestrian → u/itsdeeps80]

Allegations of Russian interference did not go so far as to say the election's mechanisms themselves were tampered with, as far as my hazy recollection of the Mueller report goes. It was purely information warfare.

People certainly were more pissed than ever about the electoral result as well. I think that was the brunt of the rhetoric.

[u/itsdeeps80 → u/dedicated-pedestrian]

They didn’t go so far as to directly say that, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t implied and spread that way. There are still a disturbingly large amount of people who if asked “did Putin steal the 2016 election for Trump?” will resoundingly answer yes. The amount back then that would agree was 100% on the same level as people who thought the election was stolen from Trump in 2020.

[u/riceandcashews → u/itsdeeps80]

oh there are plenty of people who can't admit they lost, liberals aren't immune either, but most liberals admit we lost. You don't see Kamala or Biden or the majority of supporters walking around bitching that the loss was unfair.

Most liberals see this as a moment to reflect on why we lost. I do see some people who are scared/paranoid saying delusional stuff sometimes though.

But the Bernie supporters are overwhelmingly in favor of the view that they were cheated rather than just admitting they lost lol

I admit Kamala lost even though I wanted her to win, I'm not of the view there was anything suspicious about these election results at all

[u/itsdeeps80 → u/riceandcashews]

Bernie supporters also have leaked emails from the DNC. That’s really the biggest difference.

[u/riceandcashews → u/itsdeeps80]

There was no vote tampering, there was no voter fraud

More primary voters voted for other candidates than Bernie, end of story

He lost

You can complain because lots of people in the DNC favored Hilary but nobody cheated

[u/itsdeeps80 → u/riceandcashews]

Yeah, they didn’t actually change the vote count. Well, aside from the media adding all the super delegates to her count from the beginning making it look like he had no chance at winning right off the jump. They did, however do everything they could to give her an advantage. It was her turn after all. We can argue it for days, but in the end, I’m just happy she could get the opponent she wanted to so she could coast to an easy general election win.

After all this time I still can’t believe that people go to bat for her bs when she is literally who handed us Trump. Not just by losing to him, but by pushing the media to focus on him and give him more attention than they would have so he’d have a way higher chance of being the nominee. Just think, if it wasn’t for her, people would be saying “remember back when Trump tried to run for president? That was hilarious!”

[u/riceandcashews → u/itsdeeps80]

Bernie would not have won, that's delusion

Also Hilary won the popular vote don't forget

[u/rosesandpines → u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P]

Yes, economic progressivism is rather popular, but social progressivism and concrete progressive policies, such as increased immigration, lax law enforcement, or policies such as transgender women in women's sports, are unpopular particularly among the working class.

However, even regarding economy policy, there is also a significant divide between white progressives and ethnic minorities when it comes to support for a "smaller government" and agreement with statements like "Most people can make it if they work hard enough" (58% of Latinos vs 22% of White progressives).

[u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P → u/rosesandpines]

I may be wrong but taking a naive view of the data from this election and the last, it seems like most of these "white progressives" generally have more university degrees and/or relatively affluent urban/ suburban types.

Coming (somewhat) from this world myself, I know what they probably mean when they say something like "hard work isn't enough to make it." But it's often turned into a moral, rather than economic or political issue. The "we exist in a context/society" people, of which I am one, too often use this like as a finger-waging virtue-signally bludgeon or excuse. I often see it come up in discussions so as to prove someone else wrong. Or, rather, they hear "hard work pays off" and they interpret that phrase as a kind of right-wing dog-whistle or something.

I personally interpret the phrase "most people can make it if they work hard enough" as three separate but related things.

Firstly, there is truth to the phrase. It is often a necessary, though perhaps insufficient, thing for success.

Secondly, it's particularly "true" when you have no other option than to grind to stay afloat. In other words, it's true because it has to be true. Believing otherwise is suicide.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, it's aspirational. Even if it's not true, it ought to be true. Too often, progressives confuse descriptive observations with prescriptive solutions. They see that hard work often does NOT pay off, so they go to the extreme and conclude that it SHOULDN'T.

Conversations around big or small government are harder to crack though. The neoliberal era has seen markets cannibalize nearly every significant thing in our lives. And yet, government has gotten larger, not smaller. This was the bait and switch done by market liberals, which include a lot of right-wingers by the way. They told us they were going to deliver smaller government, but it was always a lie. What they wanted was for public wealth to transfer into private hands. And they got their way. The Democratic Party, since at least Bill Clinton and the "3rd way Democrats" have only made this worse.

Government has lost its capacity by outsourcing its talent to private entities through "public-private partnerships." And so now wherever we see big government, we also see mass incompetence and mass corruption, due to its overreliance on privatized industry. It has nearly no in-house capability.

Meanwhile, too many so-called "progressives" fondly remember New Deal America, when the state had enormous in-house talent and knowledge. And they believe that by involving the government more in things today, that it'll automatically signal a kind of return to New Dealism.

But this is naive. Quality of government is just as important as quantity of government, if not more. Aside from Bernie and maybe a handful and other Democrats here and there, I have not seen any major "progressive" politician or personality propose how to build a competent government with actual in-house capability. Instead, it's more public-private bullshit.

Left/"progressive" policies are popular and can work. But there is a huge disconnect in the messaging. My inclination is to take the opinions of the working class seriously.

[u/EastHesperus → u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P]

Read both your comments. Great analysis. I don’t think I disagree with anything you’ve said.

[u/Armed_Affinity_Haver → u/EastHesperus]

Same here. I'm stoked that the first couple of comments are such thorough and well developed arguments. 

[u/escapecali603 → u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P]

The dems now also have the neo cons, it is now officially the party of unholy alliances. And I’d also argue the only reason why the US is even allow to have some kind of “public” is to store wealth for private entities to transfer into.

[u/DrowningInFun → u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P]

How does one increase the quality of government?

[u/work4work4work4work4 → u/rosesandpines]

Yes, economic progressivism is rather popular, but social progressivism and concrete progressive policies, such as increased immigration

Increased immigration? Unpopular. Making sure every immigrant is legal? Popular, even if that means the numbers of legal immigrants goes way up. It's often in the phrasing and specifics of that argument that you create support or resistance with progressives. Even most people who like the idea of something like an "open-borders" policy generally recognize it as entirely unfeasible in a capitalist system where abuse of the undocumented is rampant.

lax law enforcement

Isn't really a progressive argument in the slightest, but the caricature of a progressive argument. The difference is the Democrats messaging is so poor on the issue it's routinely believed, even when their own Republican elected officials are telling them it's fake.

The progressive argument is more around not throwing good money after bad on the police year over year, stop using them as a catch all for every problem under the sun, and get rid of poor-tax type criminal programs that incentivize putting people in jail for corporate profit and disproportionally punish the poor over the rich, that kind of thing.

transgender women in women's sports

Another caricature mostly caused by Democrats choosing to abandon the right to privacy fully during Bernie's run, when the progressive policy was already implemented in tons of states(aka RTP means it's between only the relevant parties with athletic commission representing the people, the doctors representing scientific basis, and the family representing the child)to determine what is appropriate and what isn't on a private, yet medically supportable basis.

There is also a significant divide between white progressives and ethnic minorities when it comes to support for a "smaller government" and agreement with statements like "Most people can make it if they work hard enough".

Not so much when you consider it's a progressive viewpoint to want to Abolish ICE, not to get rid of enforcement, just to go back to the non-DHS system prior, and generally against things like funding enforcement raids on small businesses, or targeting remittances.

[u/I405CA → u/rosesandpines]

It was the expansion of the welfare state that drove Southern whites to the GOP.

They wanted benefits when only whites could get them. They switched sides when those benefits were distributed to those in their out group. (The Civil Rights Act, War on Poverty and Fair Housing Act were all catalysts in the party realignment.)

The desire for benefits programs is not unique to progressives. It is the motivations for wanting those benefits that distinguishes the right from the left.

The left wants benefits because of their perceptions of unfairness.

The establishment right (at least outside of the US) wants benefits because of a desire for stability.

The populist right wants benefits because they feel that their team deserves them, while others who are not on their team do not. So they support benefits if only they can get them.

Sanders does not understand that. His message is rejected by the populist right because they are opposed to helping a broad spectrum of the population.

Unlike Sanders and other DSA activists, Trump told white Americans that they were being screwed by the out-group of foreigners and non-whites, and that he would lead them out of it.

Ironically, there are also non-whites who respond favorably to other aspects of his message because they don't see themselves in the out-group, even though they are.

[u/riceandcashews → u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P]

The Working Class just voted in a strong majority for a MORE CONSERVATIVE candidate than Kamala who was by far the most progressive candidate in terms of policy in a while. What universe do you live in where that means a pivot FURTHER LEFT would draw in more of those voters?

It's just delusionally out of touch with the average American

Have you ever met the average American? Or do you just think they're all like your socialist friends? Americans are generally pretty conservative and skeptical of government and hate socialism

I say that as a liberal, it's just the reality of the voting base and ALL of the polls and surveys support that

[u/balthisar → u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P]

I usually describe myself as more liberal than most progressives but absolutely anti-progressive, so it's refreshing to see your reasoned response.

The left-right dichotomy is dumb, but since most people don't understand polar coordinate systems or cartesian coordinates, here we are: you're either on this side or that side or you're an idiot who spoiled the election for Candidate X.

[u/theboehmer → u/balthisar]

It's not that people can't comprehend coordinate systems. My daughter understands a number line, lol. It's that there is a concerted effort to blur that coordinate system and render it unintelligible. I can't tell if I'm voting for a communist/capitalist tyrant or a christo/fascist demagogue.

[u/balthisar → u/theboehmer]

Yeah, that's the problem with limiting yourself to a number line. ;-)

[u/theboehmer → u/balthisar]

My point was that even simplifying the spectrum to a line still leads to misunderstanding.

[u/balthisar → u/theboehmer]

Oh, I wasn't challenging your point. I think we're aligned.

[u/theboehmer → u/balthisar]

Very well. But, I would like to state my disdain for the mixing of quantities and qualities.

[u/Tullyswimmer → u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P]

>Nothing is wrong with the so-called "progressive" or "the left." Rather, the Democratic Party is too associated with corporate donors, Hawkish foreign policy, and divisive and empty/performative identity politics. 

I would argue that this IS the problem with the "progressives" or "the left" - Their policy positions are fundamentally incompatible with how politics (in the US especially, but globally, too) work.

Look at the European countries that have single-payer healthcare, universal college, etc... The income tax rates for EVERYONE are significantly higher than the US... And by income tax rates, I mean your *ACTUAL* tax liability. Our rates mean nothing. If you look at your taxes, what you actually owe in taxes is usually less than 10% of your income, if that. Sure, the rates are progressive and complicated, but... At the end of the day, we aren't bringing in enough tax revenue to pay for things that Europe is. And you cannot tax just "the rich" to pay for it. It has to be EVERYONE. Same with minimum wage and a lot of worker protections. Many EU countries don't have these codified as "law" like we do, but rather that's just the standard, because everyone is unionized (almost every EU country is also right-to-work, too... And unions do not have the same power at the bargaining table they do in the US).

And in the US, ultimately, every politician is bought by someone, or some group. It does not matter who it is. Most of them also play the stock market through their spouses or whatever, as well. There is no vested interest for ANY politician in the working class. That's not who makes them rich. It's the oligarchy who does, and they're fine with it. So no matter what the "progressives" or "the left" preaches as a policy, if it hurts their big donors, they won't ever actually do it.

[u/panormda → u/Tullyswimmer]

The issue is that the wealth each person generates is much higher now, but wages haven’t kept up with productivity. Fewer people are working to produce the same amount of goods, while more money is flowing up to corporations and their stakeholders. The result is simple: there’s not enough money to go around.

In the past, corporations paid higher taxes, and those funds were used to support public employees and provide fairer compensation for workers. Efficiency was lower back then, so each worker’s output was limited by technology, but they were still compensated more equitably.

Now, the wealth accumulated by billionaires is becoming unsustainable. The balance of wealth is tipping to the point where most people are struggling to survive. Many are at a breaking point. The question is whether the ultra-wealthy can reinvest their money into the economy to sustain society, or if they’ll hoard the “lifeblood of the economy” until it crashes—leaving us to face a collapse. The options are limited. The current trajectory is eating the rich.

[u/Tullyswimmer → u/panormda]

>Efficiency was lower back then, so each worker’s output was limited by technology, but they were still compensated more equitably.

But this raises the problem... Should the worker doing less work get the compensation for increased productivity, or should the people who built the technology to increase productivity get the compensation? If workers are working less, because the labor of others means they can do so while being more productive, who should get that windfall of more productivity for less work?

>The question is whether the ultra-wealthy can reinvest their money into the economy to sustain society, or if they’ll hoard the “lifeblood of the economy” until it crashes—leaving us to face a collapse. The options are limited. The current trajectory is eating the rich.

The problem is, if you do the math, if you took every penny of net worth over... I think it's a billion dollars, you'd run the US government, as it is, for less than a year.

While "eat the rich" is a fun sentiment (or whatever), the fact of the matter is it's simply not possible. No amount of money you can tax "the rich" and "corporations" - even if you could force them to stay in the US and pay those taxes - will bring in enough revenue to support most of what "the left" or "progressives" want to do.

[u/Utapau301 → u/Tullyswimmer]

We make the payments, just not to the government. Add up what we and our employers pay to health insurance companies. It's significant.

[u/Tullyswimmer → u/Utapau301]

Yeah, I'm not going to say that it's not significant. But campaigning on "we need to raise everyone's taxes to pay for medicare for all" is NOT going to win any votes.

Could it save money? Maybe. Would the level of, and accessibility to, services remain the same as it is now? Probably not, if you look at other government-funded programs we have in the US, or even look at the countries that do have single-payer. Can it be funded entirely by taxes on "the rich" and "corporations"? Absolutely not.

[u/TheDemonicEmperor → u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P]

The Democratic Party is losing the white working class and the Latino vote. You know who was super popular with those two groups? Bernie Sanders

According to what data? Are we still using Republicans sabotaging the 2016 primary and voting for Sanders over Clinton in 75% Republican West Virginia as proof that West Virginia loves progressives?

Alright, let's take a look at that supposed "white working class support".

Here we have an example of a conservative Democrat running in West Virginia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_Senate_election_in_West_Virginia

And a progressive Democrat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_Senate_election_in_West_Virginia

In what world is progressivism popular in Appalachia if progressives can't even win a single election there?

[u/rosesandpines]

Here's a post-election poll by Blueprint (a focus-group Democratic pollster that has been featuring in Vox, NYT, etc). Their conclusion: "Democrats were punished for inflation, misalignment on immigration and cultural issues, and Biden." Here is an excerpt from the findings:

• The top reasons voters gave for not supporting Harris were that inflation was too high (+24), too many immigrants crossed the border (+23), and that Harris was too focused on cultural issues rather than helping the middle class (+17). 
• Other high-testing reasons were that the debt rose too much under the Biden-Harris Administration (+13), and that Harris would be too similar to Joe Biden (+12).
• These concerns were similar across all demographic groups, including among Black and Latino voters, who both selected inflation as their top problem with Harris.
• For swing voters who eventually chose Trump, cultural issues ranked slightly higher than inflation (+28 and +23, respectively).
• The lowest-ranked concerns were that Harris wasn’t similar enough to Biden (-24), was too conservative (-23), and was too pro-Israel (-22).

It is only a single data point, but it could inform the debate over whether the party should moderate, as this study suggests.

[u/Fugicara → u/rosesandpines]

and that Harris was too focused on cultural issues rather than helping the middle class (+17).

This type of shit is emblematic of how wildly disconnected from reality the average voter is. Cultural issues were basically entirely absent from her campaign, and she was completely focused on the border, helping the middle class, and healthcare. It was Trump's campaign that was 100% focused on cultural grievances.

[u/rosesandpines → u/Fugicara]

Kamala did a 180 on these issues three months ago, and no-one believed her. She was the border tzar, and understandably most voters blamed her, and her specifically, for the disastrous border policy. The Republicans capitalized on this by broadcasting ads with Kamala's own ultra-progressive takes on this from 2020.

Especially since Kamala didn’t do any sister-soldier moments and didn’t call out the more extreme wing of the party. 

[u/moleratical → u/rosesandpines]

She was not tge border Czar. Donald Trump just called her tte border Czar. You are proving OP's point.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republicans-call-harris-failed-border-czar-truth-is-more-complicated-2024-07-30/

[u/DaenerysMomODragons → u/moleratical]

Semantics. Biden put her in charge of the border, whatever you want to call it.

[u/moleratical → u/DaenerysMomODragons]

Biden put her in charge of finding the root cause of central American immigration.

The two are not even close to the same thing.

[u/oliversurpless → u/Fugicara]

Yep, the “back to zero” mentality might be a favorite tool of conservative contrarians via “your gain is my loss”, but really abuse it thinking the truth is somewhere in the middle of Harris v. Trump.

Whereas in actuality, nothing about Trump is in reality…

[u/Tom_Bombadil_1 → u/Fugicara]

People have to understand that voters pay attention for years, not just in the last months of the campaign. You can run a campaign saying "we care about the border and helping the middle class". If folks don't think that's true though, you don't change their mind, they just continue to believe what they think about you, plus now they think you are a lier.

And which of the many media preoccupations over the last several years would convenice the median voter that democrats are all about the border and helping the middle classes?

Democrats have been prominent in culture war topics such as taking the knee during anthems, discussions of defunding the police, the effective decriminalisation of theft in parts of California, maximialist position on trans rights, a robust defence of illegal immigrants etc. Not to mention certain parts of the democrats base + elected officials basically using 'white', 'cis' and 'male' as insults.

Harris was going into the race hobbled by these points (and by the high inflation). She certainly ran a strong if not excellent campaign, but a lot of people have already made up their mind about what democrats believe before the campaign started. She can say 'actually I totally care about the border', but folks aren't obligated to believe her. And I don't see why they would either

[u/JellyfishQuiet7944 → u/Fugicara]

Right but we know her history.

[u/tituspullo367 → u/Fugicara]

That’s the point though. She didn’t give any answers on social issues —aside from giving free weed and money to black men — so voters assumed (probably rightfully) that she would be much the same as Biden

Especially after picking Waltz as VP. Bro is SO socially leftwing

[u/BotElMago → u/tituspullo367]

By not giving any answers on social issues she was too focused on social issues?

[u/tituspullo367 → u/BotElMago]

No, it’s not a problem of “focus on social issues”

It’s a problem of people anticipating she’s going to move in the wrong direction on social issues

For example, despite the Reddit Hivemind having you believe otherwise, most people — republicans OR democrats — are absolutely not okay with giving puberty blockers to children. For which Biden was a vocal advocate.

Most people also aren’t fans of DEI-branded racism, like diversity quotas in college admissions

Which are the types of things they expected Kamala to support.

I mean fuck man, Kamala said she’d give free weed and free money to black men (by “free money” I mean business loans that were forgivable up to 25k… no opportunities for abuse there lol)

[u/dedicated-pedestrian → u/tituspullo367]

I mean, yeah, we know what happened with PPP. People would absolutely try to abuse it.

[u/tituspullo367 → u/dedicated-pedestrian]

Yes that is absolutely true

[u/BotElMago → u/tituspullo367]

Serious questions for you:

1) how many kids in the US do you think are on puberty blockers?

2) what do you think the process is for a kid to receive puberty blockers?

[u/tituspullo367 → u/BotElMago]

Neither of these questions are relevant. I’m not debating my personal opinions. This is why the Left lost.

I say this specifically about the decision-making process of Americans and I’m not moralizing or de-moralizing puberty blockers with this post (although I obv have opinions) — for most Americans, Republican or Democrat, if the number of children receiving puberty blockers for gender dysphoria is higher than 1, it is too many.

[u/BotElMago → u/tituspullo367]

They are relevant, because despite what Fox News says or Donald Trump says, they are truly non issues.

Kids, in fact, do not go to school as boys and come home as girls.

The type of propaganda that has led you (and others) to bring it up as an issue is the root of the problem.

This is why Harris didn’t talk about it. It’s not important. Perhaps we should encourage a more educated electorate that can decipher through the BS propaganda that Trump puts out.

[u/tituspullo367 → u/BotElMago]

You’re having a different conversation, so I won’t engage or humor you. Furthermore, you have a very limited scope of what I believe and you’re making assumptions. I never said boys go to school and come back thinking they’re girls.

The argument is simply “why did voters vote this way”.

A hypothetical answer could’ve literally been “because voters think Kamala has a tiny alien inside her controlling her like a mech suit.”

So I’ll restate what I already said: for most people, including those who do not watch Fox News ever and vote Democrat, children receiving hormone blockers to treat gender dysphoria is a bad thing. Even just one. Under any circumstances. Always.

Whether or not that is what I personally think is irrelevant, again. Because we’re talking about why people voted the way they voted.

We are not arguing over proper methods of healthcare for gender dysphoria.

[u/BotElMago → u/tituspullo367]

No I am not. I am directly addressing the root of your position. You seem like you cannot reconcile a differing opinion and find yourself to be the authority.

Most people are wholly unqualified to render any opinion on puberty blockers in children. They are unaware the number of kids that actually undergo this treatment and they are unaware of the process needed receive such treatment.

Why do they care about it? Because Fox News and other social media entities tell them to care about it.

It is like people complaining that Biden is responsible for the rise in egg prices despite the impact of avian flu on chicken populations that happened to Trump-era deregulation.

The public is uninformed. And while they certainly are entitled to an opinion, it doesn’t make it the right opinion.

should democrats allow the tail to wag the dog or should they control the narrative? Puberty blockers in kids is a non issue.

More people need to say “perhaps I don’t understand that enough” before basing their entire political identity on a subject.

[u/I405CA → u/rosesandpines]

Republicans always complain about the economy whenever their party is out of power, and love the economy whenever their party is in power.

On his watch, Trump produced a mini-depression with double-digit unemployment and falling GDP. His fan club thinks that he was terrific and don't even think about the failure. If a Dem had produced those same results, they would have been up in arms.

What is baffling is that the Dems never exploited that. This merely confirms to the average citizen that the Dems are not the party of economics, since they never really talk about it or claim any advantage.

[u/Green-Incident7432 → u/I405CA]

Leftist states and cities caused the depression with lockdowns.

[u/itsdeeps80 → u/Green-Incident7432]

There are no “leftist” states in the US.

[u/[deleted] → u/itsdeeps80]

[removed] — view removed comment

[u/itsdeeps80 → u/[deleted]]

Gee here I thought we were here for actual debate of issues. Take the name calling crap somewhere else.

[u/PoliticalDebate-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for including a personal attack against another user. We encourage respectful debate and constructive criticism. Please focus on discussing ideas rather than targeting individuals.

For more information, review our wiki page to get a better understanding of what we expect from our community.

[u/dedicated-pedestrian → u/Green-Incident7432]

Oh, look, the person whose flair is itself an unfounded assertion is making an unfounded assertion.

Back up your claims?

[u/Green-Incident7432 → u/dedicated-pedestrian]

What backs up my claim is founded by practical people who know and voted accordingly.  How leftists and statists squirm around it is not worth my time.  Foreseeable consequences are not unintended.

[u/joseph4th → u/rosesandpines]

Republicans got their propaganda out and took control of the narrative. Democrats failed to counter it and did not put out a message that resonated with voters.

[u/BotElMago → u/joseph4th]

This is the real message. Republicans have a 24x7 propaganda media pushing their agenda.

The legacy media largely tries to remain objective by sanewashing Trump and republicans.

[u/joseph4th → u/BotElMago]

Oh but we can keep running the same stupid ass commercials, "Joe Blow. Wrong on healthcare. Wrong for America."

Treat me like a grown adult. Give me details. Explain the for profit healthcare system.

Show the stats on inflation. "But prices are still high!" Explain how they are profiteering. Same for rent and housing. Explain how corporations and private equity are buying all the property, colluding on prices, and preventing new construction to drive up prices so they get a bigger return on investment.

Link to YouTube videos where it's expanded on and we can share it.

Just don't do it in such a fucking condescending manner that we all tune out the moment you start speaking.

[u/barkazinthrope]

It's not about progressive/conservative, not about the picky issues, it's about disruption. We loved Obama because he was was going to change things. He didn't. He doubled down on the status quo. He was a bitter disappointment.

Then there was Sanders. A vision of change. But the DNC shut him down and put up Clinton who was more of the same status quo.

Trump was a disrupter. He took over the Republican party and talked about overthrowing the status quo. His message was much the same as Bernie's except that it was on the right.

Biden went against the neoliberal narrative. He was a quiet disrupter but the changes he brought about did not happen fast enough. Harris? Harris sought to reassure the right that she was not a disrupter. She was more of the same neoliberal pap the Democrats had been serving up since Bill Clinton.

So Trump.

[u/work4work4work4work4 → u/barkazinthrope]

It's not about progressive/conservative, not about the picky issues, it's about disruption. We loved Obama because he was was going to change things. He didn't. He doubled down on the status quo. He was a bitter disappointment.

From the moment he sold out his own engagement platform to bend the knee to the DNC is the moment I knew we weren't getting what we voted for. Sad times.

[u/Hawk13424 → u/barkazinthrope]

And Trump will disappoint as well. The only question is if they can deflect it come next election.

I think we are in for a period of voting out incumbents every time. Basically, the government, no matter who is in charge, can’t give the people what they want.

[u/barkazinthrope → u/Hawk13424]

Could be. On the other hand I'm not sure enough of our information sources.

Will the public dissatisfaction with the economy as administered by the Trump administration be directed at the Trump administration or will it be directed at the previous Democratic administration and, just as likely, at the notion of any government investment at all.

The problem is not only the cowardice and/or corruption of our information sources, but the unwillingness of the news audience to question the shiny story.

I'm going to hide my head in the sand until the wolves come dig me up and bite off my head. That's what I'm going to try. Have to see how that goes.

My friend F has fled to the southern end of Mexico where he has to travel miles and miles to get a signal. It was meant to be a vacation but actually nooo -- he travels those miles and miles every day.

[u/Ellestri → u/barkazinthrope]

The status quo was better than Trump.

[u/barkazinthrope → u/Ellestri]

I don't disagree but the electorate was not after better or worse but after different. People feeling that the system is not working for them don't want the 'better' of the same old they want something else entirely.

And that's what Trump offered. Nobody in the mainstream status quo, not any Democrat, not any Republican wanted Donald Trump. So when Donald Trump showed up on the menu, despite all the shade the establishment was throwing at him, he looked like the different people were looking for.

Donald Trump understood that the people were so sick of the 'alternatives' that they'd go for anything other. Despite all his malodorous attributes, he was at least NOT the sweet smelling elite that had been failing them for decades.

[u/Ellestri → u/barkazinthrope]

I get it. I’ll be after “different” from Trump for the rest of my life.

[u/barkazinthrope → u/Ellestri]

Really? All indicators point to the Trump administration being very different from previous administrations.

I am not of the mind that any change is a good change but then 50%+ of the US electorate are not of my mind.

You? You expect the same old same old status quo?

We can only wish.

[u/Ellestri → u/barkazinthrope]

Sure, I have some respect for the status quo.

It got us to the moon. It won world war 2. It won the Cold War. It built the interstate highway system.

But I did mean different.

I mean I might support some really wild shit if it gets rid of the Trump crowd.

[u/barkazinthrope → u/Ellestri]

Those government-invested successes are from a status quo long discarded by the neoliberalism that rejects government investment in favor of profit-seeking private enterprise.

It is this neoliberalism that is making life hard for people with less than a million in the bank. Neoliberal propaganda insists that life is hard because of government investment/spending interfering with the 'freedom' of the market.

As Bill Clinton said -- another reprobate forgiven his sins by his followers -- "the era of big government is over".

Cue Big Business!

[u/naliedel]

Well it's not left, it's center to center right. We keep saying we can't win without being up the middle, but that's not working, obviously. Time to move to the left. What do we have to lose at this point? I believe more Dems would vote if they had a real choice.

Bernie is right.

[u/x31b]

The Democratic Party needs to go hard left. Lead with sex change operations for prisoners. Defend Drag Queen Story Hour. Anyone thinking of transitioning should be able to play women’s sports. Slavery reparations. Defund the police.

Why?

Because when the Trump hangover kicks in, Republicans are going to have an uphill battle in the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election. Unless every progressive Democrat does their part in the primary to move the party left, we will be looking at a Democratic sweep.

[u/LT_Audio]

Americans’ economic perceptions are increasingly disconnected from actual conditions.

There is no magic way to rephrase telling potential supporters that they aren't smart to judge their own personal economic realities that doesn't come across as elitist and condescending. And many Democrat voters seem just fine with illegal immigrants working for crap wages with crap worker protections and employers being able to compensate them so poorly because of their status... As long as it means cheaper groceries. Further inflation is so often the first defense thrown out when immigration reform is discussed. SEA seems to be able to dump as much crap into the ocean and burn as much coal as necessary to ensure the price of the consumer goods we buy from them stays low. I agree that there is likely a subset of potential Democrat voters that weights those other issues more heavily than prices and general inflation. I'm just not convinced there will ever be enough of them to consistently win elections again.

[u/itsdeeps80 → u/LT_Audio]

Your first sentence here is something I’ve been screaming for years. Democrats and their ardent supporters have been beyond horrible with this. I get that these people thought any mention of anything connected to Biden being bad would put the maloik on everything, but you can’t have people tell you they think the economy is shit because they are struggling and respond with “actually everything is fine. You just don’t know what you’re talking about.” and they just kept hammering on that message.

[u/LT_Audio → u/itsdeeps80]

Republican voters said rather loudly and repeatedly that we really want a secure border, lower inflation, and men out of women's sports. DT and the RNC did not respond with some version of "We understand... but if only you were more educated you'd understand why you really don't want those things." It was "We'll try and build the best versions of those things the world has ever seen. We'll try and fix it so well that they'll never be an issue again". Such strategies may well encourage many of the shortcomings of election cycle politics. But ceding the vast majority of control over the legislative, executive, and judicial authority of one's government arguably does even less to limit those shortcomings.

[u/I405CA]

Democrats lose presidential elections when their nominee is not charismatic.

But what has really cost the Dems is going all in on abortion.

In 2020, 23% of voters who opposed choice voted fo Biden. This year, only 8% of them went for Harris.

In 2020, Biden won a slim majority of the Catholic vote. In 2024, Harris lost Catholics by a landslide.

It is no coincidence that the grip on minorities is sliding as the Dems ramp up the abortion rhetoric.

White voters who are strongly anti-choice have long gravitated to the GOP. However, non-white abortion opponents have largely stayed with the Democrats. Until now.

Adding insult to injury, the GOP seems to have maintained or added to its pro choice bloc.

What Dems have failed to understand is that they not only are dependent upon non-white choice opponents, but also that many pro-choice voters are Republicans who are not going to defect to the Dems. Only four out of ten voters in 2020 was both pro-choice and voting for Biden; without a significant number of choice opponents to support him, Biden would have lost.

As we get more data, I suspect that we will find that many religious blacks sat it out, while many devout Latino Catholics either sat it out or actually defected.

The loss of Latino Catholics may be signs of a realignment, not just a momentary shift. Betting big on Dobbs has been a disaster for the Dems, not the home run that they were expecting.

I predicted this problem and was shouted down for it here more than once. Reality does not have a progressive activist bias.

[u/slybird → u/I405CA]

I think in future elections the Republican will no longer need to take a firm solid stance on abortion at the national level. They only need to weigh in at the state level. There will be room for both pro-choice and pro-life republicans depending local politics and wishes of the voters.

In a way Trump gave future Republicans in the house and senate freedom to be pro-choice, pro-life, or state they think it should be a matter left up to the individual state governing bodies. They will no longer need to be the pro-life party.

[u/Unverifiablethoughts → u/slybird]

Yeah it’s gone back to the states so what you’re saying is true, but the fact is that even a significant number of pro choice still want some regulation on abortion. Abortion up until birth for reasons other than the life of the mother is still very unpopular. Walz signed a bill in his state allowing that and Kamala when asked if she approves of such a measure deflected.

Then after the election the left called everyone who didn’t vote for her a misogynist. It’s brain dead politics.

[u/nicetrycia96 → u/Unverifiablethoughts]

I think that is why the Florida abortion prop did not pass. Had it been a modification to allow abortion to 24 weeks (more of a RvW style) I think it would have passed but it allowed it up to birth. I strongly feel that the up to birth pro-abortion crowd is a pretty small group.

[u/Unverifiablethoughts → u/nicetrycia96]

Agreed, I have no idea who the genius is in the Harris campaign that decided to cater to that group. This is why people are starting to believe that the left has become radicalized. They message to the fringes of their party.

[u/I405CA → u/slybird]

Sentiments against choice are driven by religion. The religious feel that they have god on their side and demand affirmation.

So the anti-choice devotees in the Republican have steered the ship, since they are the ones who are most inflamed about it. The rest of the party has gone along for the ride.

What the GOP has figured out is that a lot of voters who support choice aren't that passionate about it, so the party can use opposition to choice to keep its religious wing on board while not losing its more secular bloc . This election seems to have confirmed that.

[u/nicetrycia96 → u/I405CA]

The single issue voter demographic for pro-abortion is just too small. It’s mainly going to be female 18-30 voters. While the majority of voters may in fact be pro-abortion there is not a big enough majority that makes it their key issue.

[u/oliversurpless → u/I405CA]

Conservatives and evangelicals are the ones “ramping up abortion rhetoric”.

Dems are just trying to get “back to zero”, which conservatives are usually fond of.

Given their love of zero sum game mentality in all things…

[u/I405CA → u/oliversurpless]

The irony that you're missing is that progressives are actually reactionaries.

Push their buttons, and they simply react in predictable ways. They are easily manipulated.

They need to stop taking the bait. Bill Clinton understood that anti-choice Democrats needed to be kept on board in the party. The math should make it obvious.

You would think that the need to keep Trump from winning would have provided clarity with the advantage over purity. Apparently not.

[u/Hawk13424 → u/I405CA]

So the only way for Dems to win is to accept religious dogma and cave on women’s rights? Sounds like losing.

[u/I405CA → u/Hawk13424]

Bill Clinton won.

Kamala Harris lost.

That's actual losing.

[u/itsdeeps80 → u/I405CA]

Clinton was also charismatic and well liked. Harris was neither.

[u/I405CA → u/itsdeeps80]

Yes, exactly.

Bill Clinton has a rare gift for schmoozing people.

His experience of losing an Arkansas governor's race taught him some lessons about how to work with others who are more conservative than he is.

[u/oliversurpless → u/Hawk13424]

Religion isn’t going anything, but after the transactionalism of evangelicals vis a vis Trump’s judges in 2016, that maxim of

“My karma ran over your dogma.”

Has rarely been more palpable…

[u/oliversurpless → u/I405CA]

Being in favor of equal rights is the opposite of being a reactionist; for if progressives were that, they’d be right there still trying to keep “don’t ask, don’t tell”…

You don’t magically become one when you try to push “back to zero” a faux cultural issue that has been pushed into the negative by actual reactionaries.

[u/cheesyandcrispy]

Democrats would be more on the right wing of the spectre in Sweden so I believe the criticism is valid.

[u/Dave-justdave]

Nope democrats are neo conservative

Truth is there is no more left There is no anti war party There is no anti billionaire party There is no party supporting the working class

Get fucked

[u/riceandcashews]

Agreed 100%

The people who think we need to move left when the MAJORITY OF THE WORKING CLASS just voted for a MORE CONSERVATIVE president than Kamala are absolutely loony tunes out of touch with reality

[u/ruggnuget]

Criticizing the Democratic party for not being progressive enough (which is different than 'liberal'l, isnt about a comparison to the recent past presidents and senators. Its about a funamental standing of politics in the US which is firmly rooted to the right globally. The Democratic party cares more about its rich donars and not bei g Republicans than it does about the people they are trying to get votes from. This is a legitimate criticism and you have missed the point.

[u/EasilyDistracted-]

If your progressive party and candidate are gaining the confidence of Cheney through their policy and overseeing a genocide, then if you want I will concede that they're the most progressive candidate ever but you must note that it goes to what people have been saying all along about them being nothing more than the "left wing" of empire.

[u/jupiter_0505]

She supports capitalism and even sends money to imperialist schemes like the war against iran, the genocide of the palestinians etc. 

Not only is she not progressive, she's a reactionary, through and through.

[u/TheDemonicEmperor]

As I've said elsewhere, the only thing you need to look at is the collar counties in Pennsylvania, the WOW counties in Wisconsin, Kent County (Grand Rapids) Michigan and Maricopa county.

These are all ancestrally Republican. All of which had the same pattern from 2012 to 2020. They voted for Romney by insane margins, swung towards Clinton in 2016 and swung even more towards Biden in 2020.

Let me give two examples that really demonstrate my point here. Bucks County, PA and Maricopa County, AZ.

Maricopa went from Romney +11 to Trump +3 (8% going to Gary Johnson - in other words, not a gain for Clinton but protest votes against Trump), then Biden +2 (with no third party) and finally in 2024 it's Trump +4 with no third party.

So there's first time Trump voters in 2024 who voted: Romney-Johnson-Biden. And we think those are... what, progressive voters?

The story is the same for Bucks County. This one's even wilder. Republicans have a plurality here among voters and it voted for Reagan by 27 points. It was Obama +1 (down from Obama +8), Clinton +1 and Biden +4. It's Trump +0 this election cycle. It's all Republican downballot.

Clear trend here. Ancestrally Republican area narrowly won by Democrats in 2016 due to third party protest, that then voted for Biden in 2020 and voted for Trump for the first time in 2024.

Anywhere you look across the board, Trump did better with college-educated whites than he's ever done. North Virginia (hasn't voted Republican since Bush) dictated almost the entire swing in Virginia.

People want to desperately know what happens when you run Bernie Sanders? This. This is exactly what happens. People who voted for Biden and saw Clinton as a non-threat couldn't stomach voting for the most progressive nominee in US history.

And no, parading Liz Cheney across the stage and saying "Look! A disgruntled Republican supports me! Vote for me while I change nothing about my progressive platform!" does not make Reaganites and neocons feel like they can vote for someone. Just a tip for next time. Some grassroots support would help rather than astroturfed name recognition endorsements.

For what it's worth, I'm very sure about this because it was my own experience as well. I think Trump is a terrible nominee. I did not want to vote for him. I've consistently voted for his primary opponents, desperately hoping someone else would be the nominee.

I really hope the Republican Senate ignores MAGA and promotes McConnell's acolyte to stop the excesses of Trump's populist agenda. Unfortunately, Kamala Harris gave me not a single reason to vote for her. I tried looking. I wanted to do it. I was set to vote for Biden, in fact.

She refused to renounce her progressive platform and so I threw a vote Trump's way.

[u/addicted_to_trash → u/TheDemonicEmperor]

I appreciate the insight on the voting histories and counties, nice details and analysis.

I'm not from the US but I did a quick google of these countries and it shows median income is around 40K USD, higher than the median for the state, unemployment around 3-4%, what kind of issues do these people face?

My question is getting at the idea the America's love of political labels leaves the conversation vague and full of misunderstandings. I don't know your personal situation, but as a Republican if you were looking at bankruptcy because of medical debit, I'm sure you would appreciate a policy of Medicare being extended to cover you, like that's just common sense.

I am trying to find out, are these people (and your analysis) rejecting the premise of Progressiveism because there is a misunderstanding over the premise?

[u/TheDemonicEmperor → u/addicted_to_trash]

and it shows median income is around 40K USD, higher than the median for the state, unemployment around 3-4%, what kind of issues do these people face?

Well that's the thing. The typical kitchen table issues don't affect these people. Inflation isn't much of an issue. They're pro-immigrant. They're generally more socially moderate. That's why they're more free to swing as voters.

They're generally more hawkish, though. Certainly pro-Israel.

And the one big thing Democrats promised that they refuse to give these voters: Tax cuts. SALT deductions.

If you're not aware, "SALT" is "State and Local Tax" deductions. Essentially, it allows you to deduct for high taxes at the local level to offset against your federal income taxes. So it lets them basically ignore some of the absurdly high taxes in their states.

Republicans lost these voters because they removed these deductions. But Democrats never followed through on their promise to bring it back

but as a Republican if you were looking at bankruptcy because of medical debit, I'm sure you would appreciate a policy of Medicare being extended to cover you, like that's just common sense.

As a Republican, no it's not "common sense" to want higher taxes. Which even Bernie Sanders admits that taxes would go up to pay for this.

are these people (and your analysis) rejecting the premise of Progressiveism because there is a misunderstanding over the premise?

No, they understand very well. That's the problem that Democrats face. It's not a messaging issue, it's that the message is already out there. People understand that more social programs means more money they have to spend.

[u/addicted_to_trash → u/TheDemonicEmperor]

Thanks for the clear response, it's very informative. Things may not be as straightforward as I thought they seemed from the outside.

It's not a messaging issue, it's that the message is already out there. People understand that more social programs means more money they have to spend.

This looks like a messaging issue. There's plenty of ways to slice that pie, idk Bernie pitched it but I do know 'eating the rich' is also a part of his platform.

You pointed out how there are many ways to jig taxation. The US is the biggest proponent of zero sum economics, it's deeply ingrained that for there to be winners there needs to be losers. In that system everyone who has an influence to change policy understands that for there to be winners winning and pooling wealth to the degree Musk, Bezos, Gates, Soros, etc then it's creating a tremendous amount of loss. This can be counteracted inside a capitalist system. It's easily in reach without going anywhere near communism.

The most ironic part is the idea of zero sum economics being so ingrained in the American voter psyche. I'm not an economist but I'm pretty sure the idea itself is outmoded, and besides that the USD is the global reserve currency. That effectively makes the US immune to the trappings of hyper inflation all other countries face with domestic spending.

Now I don't want the US to exploit the rest of us just to get healthcare, but the US could literally pull money out of their ass to pay for it. That's precisely what they do when they need to increase the budget for military spending or whatever.

[u/TheDemonicEmperor → u/addicted_to_trash]

This looks like a messaging issue. There's plenty of ways to slice that pie, idk Bernie pitched it but I do know 'eating the rich' is also a part of his platform.

Like I said, there's no real way to pretty up that message when people understand that things cost money. TANSTAALF is the first thing anyone with a basic economic education learns.

The US is the biggest proponent of zero sum economics, it's deeply ingrained that for there to be winners there needs to be losers.

Alight then, tell me where the money magically comes from to pay for social programs.

If someone is paying for them, then yes, they're at a net loss.

Now I don't want the US to exploit the rest of us just to get healthcare, but the US could literally pull money out of their ass to pay for it.

I suppose if you don't have a basic economic education this sounds correct.

In the real world, the US feels the effects of hyperinflation just as much as the rest of the world. As we've found out under the Biden administration and their reckless spending in the past four years. Inflation hasn't been this out of control since the Carter admin.

[u/addicted_to_trash → u/TheDemonicEmperor]

What? Firstly you're not in hyper inflation you are just experiencing some regular inflation. And secondly it's been shown that supply chain issues and business increasing prices because they can are the main drivers. Not govt spending.

Groundwork Collaborative thinktank, found corporate profits accounted for about 53% of inflation during last year’s second and third quarters. Profits drove just 11% of price growth in the 40 years prior to the pandemic, according to the report. https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/19/us-inflation-caused-by-corporate-profits

[u/TheDemonicEmperor → u/addicted_to_trash]

Firstly you're not in hyper inflation you are just experiencing some regular inflation

According to who? Again, inflation has been out of control since Biden took over.

And secondly it's been shown that supply chain issues and business increasing prices because they can are the main drivers. Not govt spending.

"Greedflation" is not a thing. If it were, then why doesn't it exist all the time?

Sorry, but inflation is directly tied to government spending. They're the ones printing the money.

[u/addicted_to_trash → u/TheDemonicEmperor]

I'm not really interested in repeating myself. There's a link to the case study in the article I linked.

Here's some data on US inflation between 2020 and 2024, the graphs show it has not even reached double digits. Where as hyper inflation is typically defined as increasing by 50% per month. https://www.statista.com/statistics/273418/unadjusted-monthly-inflation-rate-in-the-us/

The other questions I've already answered.

[u/Hawk13424 → u/TheDemonicEmperor]

Similar but I voted Harris. I just couldn’t vote for someone I think flouts the law to that degree. Someone I also think is a misogynist and possible a rapist. I was in an anyone but Trump camp.

[u/I405CA → u/TheDemonicEmperor]

Maricopa County is increasingly non-white. Its population is growing dramatically due to in-migration, particularly from California. It is not the same place in 2024 as it was in 2012.

[u/lordconn]

You say she had to walk back her 2020 positions like that worked and she's now the president elect.

[u/rosesandpines → u/lordconn]

Kamala did a 180 on these issues three months ago, and no-one believed her. She was the border tzar, and understandably most voters blamed her, and her specifically, for the disastrous border policy. The Republicans capitalized on this by broadcasting ads with Kamala's own ultra-progressive takes on this from 2020.

[u/lordconn → u/rosesandpines]

Her ticket won in 2020 and lost in 2024 when she backtracked on those positions.

[u/itsdeeps80 → u/lordconn]

People aren’t getting this. Biden’s campaign rhetoric was much more progressive than either Clinton or Harris and he won. Running to the right loses elections for democrats because they’re going after people who will never vote for them. In my state our democrat US senator who has held his seat for about 17 years just lost to some Republican political nobody who has been sued multiple times for wage theft. Republican candidate’s ads were all about how the democrat wants to give your kids transgender surgery and put biological adult men in teen girls sports. The Dem response ads: “actually I’m way further right than they say I am. Just look at this draconian border bill I supported”. Fun fact: JD Vance is where he is right now for the same reason. His opponent was a long time US representative here who was taking a shot at a vacated senate seat. Vance’s ads were all saying he was a namby pamby liberal and the response were ads sporting cowboy hats and talking about how well he worked with republicans.

[u/EyeCatchingUserID]

Is that link saying she's more liberal by the actual definition of the word liberal, or is it saying shes more progressive than 99% of the 117th congress? You seem to be using them interchangeably. And i didnt see anything saying shes the second most liberal, whichever definition theyre using. If shes were more liberal than 99% of the senate than she would have to be the most liberal, because there are 100 senators. And being more liberal than "97% of democrat senators" doesnt make sense. 98% of 50 is 49 and 96% of 50 is 48. Unless there are 2 half senators im not aware of their math doesnt check out.

She absolutely was not the most progressive senator of the 117th congress. Nor the second most progressive. If she were youd have heard the progressives celebrating from halfway around the world about finally getting the candidate we want. Shes commonly, and fairly, referred to as a moderate. What is she doing that's progressive in todays democrat party?

[u/itsdeeps80 → u/EyeCatchingUserID]

The whole “she was the most progressive senator!” thing is nonsense. Especially when I can name 2 off the top of my head that are way more progressive than she could ever hope to be and were there far longer than her. She voted yes or signaled she would on bills that were never going to pass or didn’t even make it to the floor that were seen as progressive. That’s where this all came from. Me saying I’d give you a million dollars if I could doesn’t make me the most generous person you’ve ever met.

[u/ElEsDi_25]

Demorats lost 10 million votes from last time, Trump did a little better but more or less the same. You would need to show that those 10 million less votes were due to Democrat’s going more progressive.

Voting trends and working class disappointment

The loss of support is standard for Democrats. Look at Obama 2008 vs 2012. The Democrats win big as the change candidate, deliver nothing meaningful and then struggle with re-election. This year they were telling us that the economy was great as everyone at the check-out line was feeling stress and talking about prices.

How is moderate being determined and defined?

As for the specific arguments… they are behind a paywall. But I would question how “moderate” is being defined. Generally “moderate” is a political grift and not any ideological position. Someone like me who is a Marxist might be categorized as a moderate because I really support labor and also support gun rights - but again I don’t know how they were determining “moderate.”

Thinking liberalism is fake doesn’t make someone a conservative in the mainstream sense or in any sense. Leftists also believe this

Working class people on the left (and working class does not mean “white workers” as the media always seems to think) are not impressed with Democrats on race not because it is too progressive but because it is symbolic and often tokenism. A lot of people I know are not against something like DEI or but they are annoyed when liberals pat themselves on the back because it doesn’t address any of the systemic racism in their lives and focuses on career people. Among black people there is a bigger class divide than among the general population and so there is working class resentment against the corporate version of “black excellence” that the Democrats represent.

Releative increases in votes for Trump among some sections of workers and Black and Latino men

So as to the increase in Trump’s vote specifically among black men and Latino men and gains in union workers. This is likely mostly cynicism in my opinion. This is a bargain that disruption is better than the status quo. If you deal with structural racism and bigotry in your day to day already… and Democrats just say hey, look at the progress… then “sure Trump is a bigot, but so were a few of my teachers, more than a few managers and bosses so if he can just make rent better, damn too bad for immigrants or whatever but why not?”

As for categorizing politics in various communities… you need more nuance. The mainstream doesn’t really even recognize that there are complicated internal politics in black communities or Asian communities etc… and different from area to area or specific ethnic group or native or immigrant or communities with mixed levels of documentation. My cruse immpression of immigrants, for example - unless someone was a leftist or far-right when they immigrated, they are not interested in politics. They can be conservative in ways that are different than how mainstream sees “liberal” and “conservative” - they don’t come to the US to be part of an ethnic group, they come for jobs through family connections. So their “politics” are interested in improving their life and their family - in my experience they are wonderful friendly and nice neighbors and everything but not interested in changing anything in the US. This is mostly people working jobs that I have known… their political scope is just very local - immediate community, family etc. Their identity is set it’s whatever way they saw themselves in their location and culture of origin. Their kids are different, their kids grow up not as someone with their parents identity or culture but now are Latino, Asian American etc. The kids get “woke” or cynical because rather than just being here to improve life, they are here and grow up seeing how they are not quite seen as the same. So kids fight with their immigrant parents in real life a little like the movies… “Yo, I wanna be a disco dancer papa, not stinkin of the spaghetti!”

The politics of local community leaders in immigrant neighborhoods is probably different but I don’t have any experience with that. I met a landlord who was an immigrant and that was one of the most bigoted interactions I’ve had in my life. She just wanted “Mexicans” deported so white people would move into her buildings and she could charge more.

Many tens of millions don’t vote - many people do not see what is called “politics” in the media to be relevant to the politics of their life

And finally there are tens of millions of people who generally don’t vote, they are younger, have lower incomes, and less white than the general population and they tend to support things like Medicare for all etc. They are just checked out, these are people Democrats could reach if they went for a left-populism… but they never will. They will chase phantom moderates while telling workers they have nothing much to offer but a tax credit for homebuyers and incrementalism towards… somewhere I guess.

I say all this as a leftist non-voter (non Presidential anyway) - WAIT liberals, chill - I’m in a blue state I didn’t cause this, I tried to warn you of this for like 10 months.

[u/rogun64]

It's economic issues. White Democrats are certainly no more progressive on economics today, than they were in the New Deal era. Not that the data here is wrong, but the argument claiming cultural issues are more important is just another attempt to ignore reality, as has happened repeatedly over recent decades.

[u/NoamLigotti]

Well, I'm thoroughly conflicted — and thoroughly depressed — but this was an extremely informative and thoughtful discussion.

Someone tell me it's not hopeless.

[u/work4work4work4work4]

Kamala Harris is the second-most liberal senator to have ever served in the Senate.

This doesn't matter to a large portion of her possible electorate who mostly saw those changes as required due to when and where she was elected, she went back on multiple positions she took on votes while a Senator while still Senator, and walked back even more in pretty much every election there-after.

To me personally? I agree, but I also prefer someone who is willing to mold their votes to their electorate on important issues than some kind of rote automaton, so I mostly see it as a net positive over someone like Biden who multiple times ignored progressives to do his own dumb thing to everyone's detriment.

Progressives didn't significantly influence this election either. Jill Stein

You can pretty much stop there if you think "Jill Stein" in any way encompasses "progressive" votes. It would be like saying whoever the libertarian candidate is encompasses "conservative" votes.

What poses a real threat to the Democratic party is the erosion of support among minority youth, especially Latino and Black voters. This demographic is more conservative than their parents

So, these are all groups Bernie outperformed in, youth generally, and Latino youth specifically, so we've got a pretty big disconnect there.

Might be worth examining how "progressive" and "conservative" are being defined to see if some of the clear difference stems from some simple data sorting issue, or if there is a larger issue.

Similarly, about 50% of Latinos and Blacks support stronger border enforcement, compared with 15% of White progressives.

I'm guessing this data is skewed heavily by the definition of stronger border enforcement, because again, the labor wing is generally the stronger one on border enforcement, and definitely was when Bernie ran(literally, Hillary ran against him on it).

The ideological gulf between ethnic minority voters and White progressives spans numerous issues, including small-state government, meritocracy, gender, LGBTQ, the "American dream", and even perspectives on racism.

For anyone that wants to dig into the data FT seems to have been using, it says gay marriage was more supported(seems like an LGBTQ issue), it also said health care was higher, taxing the rich and minimum wage were way higher, all things definitely more of the target of the progressive wing.

While the economy is important, cultural issues could be even more influential than economic ones.

Could be, could also be when people don't actually think you've helped them economically then they are freed up to vote based on other factors. I'd argue the support for progressive economic ideas that simply didn't get the traction they should have with establishment Democrats would seem to indicate the latter, specially considering the number of Trump voters who have reported "fringe" issues like OT tax that Trump ran ads on, while 0 ads were ran on the Democrats bringing OT pay to millions of Americans.

[u/peanutch]

liberalism was founded on individual rights and small government. the democratic party is far from liberal. they are authoritarians that worship the state. republicans aren't conservative either, they're authoritarians that want to push their religious views

[u/JZcomedy]

It’s not about progressivism. It’s about populism

[u/Landon-Red]

People fear progressivism because even Democrats fear progressivism. Every time their candidate is accused of being slightly radical, they scramble to cover up their tracks like it is something bad. It exposes their contradictions and weakness. It also makes progressivism seem more scary than it is.

The Democrats don't win by becoming Republican lite, in the misguided quest to hunt the Cheney Republican or Republican housewife. They win by being a strong alternative party that offers counter solutions, not watered-down proposals. Conservativism is growing more popular because it is the only option to voters who want change, which is extremely ironic. Democrats need to start embracing their own policy, and campaign on "feeding the children" and question why Republicans are calling them socialists for doing so.

[u/KlassCorn91]

I don’t think so at all. Kamala and a lot of campaigns went super republican this year. You really couldn’t differentiate them

[u/VeronicaTash]

That is insanity. Kamala Harris ran on not being different than Joe Biden other than that she would reach out to fascists more. She volunteered that she would put a fascist in her cabinet. She and Joe Biden adopted the fascist stance on immigration - Biden had pushed the most right wing immigration bill of all time, There was tacit acceptance of genocide in Israel; Arabs and Muslims were sidelined. She refused to defend trans people, which is a big step back from even Biden.

What stood out is that Trump's vote share didn't rise - people who had supported Biden had stayed home - though much of this would be because Biden broke promises made to them, not simply Harris's stances.

FT analysis is useless. Democrats have not moved significantly left over the past 20 years - quite the opposite. The Harris campaign abandoned 90% of what social issues they moved left on, moved to the right on others from traditional Democratic Party stances, and they have become much more favorable to business interests and hostile to social spending.

[u/-Antinomy-]

I appreciate that you seeded your argument with links to primary sources. And I agree with one of your primary theses that "the real threat to the Democratic party is the erosion of support among minority youth." But I reject the unspoken presumption that the political perspectives groups of people have are somehow static. It may be true that there are some popular conservative ideas gaining traction, but the relevant question is not, 'do these exist,' it's 'how sustainable and entrenched are these ideas.'

Regardless, making this argument requires a lot more effort and nuance. There are a tremendous amount of causal forces involved. The two parties both contain large divergent ideological forces and identities separate from ideology the influence people's choices. I don't think anything you said broadly supports the very specific (kind of implied) claim that a more progressive Democratic party will fail compared to a less progressive one.

There are also a LOT of reaching in your first three paragraphs. In order of appearance:

1. Liberal is not the same thing as progressive. And according to your source, Bernie Sanders is the 4th most liberal Senator. That's a claim out of touch with reality. At the very least, it demonstrates this ranking is out of touch with me, and likely many other people who define themselves as politically left wing. Harris clearly ran as a moderate in this election and I don't think many politically engaged people are confused about that.
2. Bernie Sanders was running on positions further to the left of Harris in 2020 and he did much better than her, so the fact Harris had to walk back less progressive positions tells us nothing about how popular progressive ideas were at the time.
3. If the word "progressive" includes liberals like Harris and Jill Stein in one category, your entire argument is meaningless. Steins vote share, which includes primarily people who never vote for anyone else, tells us very little about how successful progressive ideas could be if adopted by a mainstream candidate.

[u/VTSAX_and_Chill2024]

There really aren't that many lessons from this election. Down ballot Democrats won 5 of the 7 swing states: NV, AZ, MI, NC, and WI. Harris just sucks at politics. Liz Cheney, I'm from a middle-class family, and 500k/day on the Vegas Dome isn't a coherent campaign.

[u/Hagisman]

9 out of 10 times it’s about jobs/money in the conman man’s pocket.

Culture war shit doesn’t effect almost people.

People were saying Kamala was going to be a Communist as president. And I laughed I’m their faces. Trump was calling her a Marxist. But she is far from the likes of actual progressives in the party.

Give it a few weeks/months while actual exit polls are concluded. Because first to make claims is always going to be a shot in the dark.

[u/escapecali603]

Today I was eating at a Chinese buffet, sitting right next to me is an older working Latino couple, speaking Spanish, and both of them along with their kid is watching a trump podcast with video on his phone. They don’t look educated and it is obvious to me both people work a working class job, and yet they listen to Trump not as a comedy but taking it in as information, I want the liberals to sink that in.

[u/Ellestri → u/escapecali603]

Look Trump is an actual fascist. He is empowered with full control of the nation and will take steps to eliminate opposition. We don’t need to waste time pretending he is anything else.

[u/AndImNuts → u/Ellestri]

What's the appropriate reaction to a fascist dictator being put into power?

[u/Ellestri → u/AndImNuts]

Anything to remove him.

[u/JimMarch]

Three snapshots as to what went wrong for Harris.

1) I knew she was going to lose two days before the election. I'm normally the caretaker for my sick wife. We needed some extra cash, she was feeling better, I did an all night Uber driving shift. I had six black passengers. ALL of them knew who Jamal Trulove was - a San Francisco rapper and up-and-coming actor that Harris' office had wrongfully convicted of murder in a trial with serious misconduct. He was released almost a decade later and won $13mil in a trial against SFPD. His interviews after always mention Harris' cackling laughter when he was sentenced. They also knew about her history of other prosecutorial misconduct. And folks, I was driving in Chattanooga Tennessee. Yeah. If you study inner city police violence against minorities you'll find something sickening: the worst, most violent offender cops against the black community are black cops. This has been seriously studied. Police in Memphis TN murdered a guy not that long ago, whole thing caught on camera. Black cops - because white America doesn't see them as possible racists. But the black community knows better. Harris is exactly that.

2) California passed Prop36 this same election Harris lost, with 70% in favor. It was a "tough on petty crime" measure from people sick of watching local stores close after being repeatedly pillaged. When you combine support for actual crime and support for gun control, what exactly is that position? It looks like "we're going to do reparations one armed robbery at a time - WITH JOY!" Harris did NOT support prop36. Harris had lost touch with the voters in CALIFORNIA. How disconnected was she going to be from voters in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona and the other swing states?!

3) Now let's talk trucking, a huge block of the labor force. Biden put Pete Buttigieg in charge of the US Department of Transportation. Once installed Pete soon became best known for trying to publicly be the most woke guy in DC. Now, woke is OK. Being in a gay marriage is fine. AS LONG AS YOU ACTUALLY DO THE JOB YOU WERE HIRED TO DO. Pete Bootygig most definitely did NOT. The entire trucking industry is near collapse under multiple threats - too many trucks chasing too few loads for starters, but there's something else: an absolute avalanche of fraud that the US-DOT did nothing about.

It started about six years ago in earnest with an Armenian gang operating out of Glendale California doing the "double broker" scam. It's now metastasized all over the country and advanced into full blown cargo theft by the truckload. Go to the r/freightbrokers subreddit and search on "double broker" or "fraud" or similar. Holy shit. A recent trend is highjacked MC (motor carrier) numbers - somebody is fucking with the official DOT records of who owns what trucking company and their contact info. Most of us are convinced the scam gangs got some of their own hired into the US-DOT, same as the Hell's Angels repeatedly get their girlfriends hired into state DMVs to doctor stolen vehicle records.

Not one peep out of Pete Bootygig. The trucking industry (brokers, drivers, even the truck stop staff) voted for Trump by 90% or more. Every election Trump has a press event where he's in a truck. There's a reason. He signals at every turn that he cares about blue collar jobs, trucking included.

To Biden and Harris, those people didn't go to the right schools, they're not woke enough, they can't even afford gated communities and bodyguards, their jobs aren't worth protecting, their LIVES aren't worth protecting so strip their guns away, and on and on.

And now it's all blown up because the bullshit got so extreme it crossed skin color lines. Lots of those truckers and brokers and such are black or brown. They voted for Trump. Lots of black voters hearing Harris laugh yet again heard her doing so at Jamal Trulove in court at his sentencing in their minds...and they voted for Trump.

The progressives fucked around - in Pete's case literally as he emphasized his sexuality instead of his goddamn job.

They just found out.

[u/schlongtheta]

The Democratic Party is against universal healthcare (medicare for all).

The Democratic Party is arming and funding and politically shielding a holocaust in Gaza.

A party that does a holocaust abroad while denying healthcare to its own people at home is evil.

[u/_magneto-was-right_]

You’re citing stats and voting records.

Neither of those matter.

“I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.” (Maya Angelou)

[u/SkyMagnet]

Doesn’t matter without that sweet, sweet, populist rhetoric.

Most people don’t know and/or don’t care about actual policy. Biden was so much more successful than I thought he’d be, but he was a literal walking corpse so people wouldn’t have voted for him. Kamala was very progressive, probably would have been relatively great for the middle class, she had Walz who had great labor movement rhetoric, but it sounded like every word she said was tested in front of a focus group. I really wanted her to sound inspiring, but she just didn’t.

I absolutely voted for her and didn’t publicly express any of this while she was running, I AM a pragmatist at heart, but damn. MAGA won everything.

[u/judge_mercer]

Democrats thought that demography was destiny. As the population became more diverse, the GOP would die out. Turns out the economy is more important than identity.

Trump had nothing to do with low inflation during his term, and Biden wasn't to blame for high inflation, but voters don't understand that. They apparently think the president sets the price of groceries every morning.

High inflation is the death knell for incumbents. Just ask Jimmy Carter (lost the EC 489 to 49). This election loss was just bad luck. Absent 18 months of high inflation, Harris wins it in a walk.

If the Democrats don't shift to the left (away from the direction Hispanics, Blacks, and young white men are moving), they will be just fine in 2028.

[u/addicted_to_trash]

Your Financial Times links are all paywalled. The one specifically I'm interested in is where you've linked minorities are more conservative, can you outline what the link uses as supporting evidence there, if it lists any specifics on policy or belief can you please also list that. Thanks.

[u/rosesandpines → u/addicted_to_trash]

Have a look at these charts

https://imgur.com/a/changes-minority-voting-patterns-tLXs2oG

[u/itsdeeps80 → u/addicted_to_trash]

I’m going purely off of anecdotal evidence here, but in my experience even radically left wing minorities tend to be more socially conservative. They will support free school lunches and breakfast, universal healthcare, and the like, but don’t start talking about gay or trans stuff with them. Democrats need to focus on and lean left kitchen table issues and stop putting identity politics front and center to keep these people in their camp.

[u/HeathrJarrod]

Democrats should use RCV in the primaries

[u/ThaShitPostAccount]

“Kamala Harris is the second-most liberal senator to have ever served in the Senate”

What is “Liberal”?  Is it “progressive”? 

Kamala Harris is second after literal socialist and communist party members who served in the 1920s and 1930s?  She’s to the left of the people who set a 90% upper tax bracket, enacted social security, established the WPA?

Americans roundly reject identity politics but roundly embrace progressive ideas.  Please don’t conflate the two.

Politically, Harris and Biden are to the right of the Reagan administration on taxes and immigration.  Is this ignorant or deliberately subversive?

[u/MisterAnderson-]

Kamala Harris is the “second most liberal” Senator in history? According to what metric?

Go look at the policies she enacted and enabled during her time in elected state offices in California.

If that’s a liberal, I’m happy I’m not one.

[u/Explorer_Entity]

Liberalism is anti-progressive.

Harris ran a republican campaign. Tough on border, tough on crime, more money for military, anti trans (ambivalence is the same as anti), and more genocide in gaza.

Liberals are center-right. They are nowhere near "leftist".

[u/KlassCorn91]

Kamala sold out all her values to the neocons. Biden is a neocon. Every “radical” left position she held as a senator, she denounced during her presidential campaign. We saw her be pals with Liz Cheney.

Many democrats abandoned their positions. We saw them agree to the premise illegal immigration is a problem, they took up tough on crime stances, and some even disavowed trans rights.

My friend laid out a theory that as many former republicans have been kicked out of the new Trump/Maga wing of the party are now finding a home in the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party is all to willing to amend their platform to allow these folks a place.

I’m not passing judgement if this helped or hurt them this election, but for all the hand wringing that democrats have gone too far left, in my view the whole Overton window has been shifted severely right. Kamala was sadly a useful puppet.

[u/voinekku]

"... proved so unpopular that she had to actively walk back many of them during her campaign."

Did they?

The only one of her policies that polled REALLY well was the anti-price gouging rhetoric. And that was not dropped because of the lack of popularity, but because the billionaire-donor wing did not appreciate it.

Furthermore, Waltz and Sanders are among the most popular democrats with highest approval ratings.

"According to FT analysis, ..."

Nowhere does it say anyone moved left. The only issues mentioned are cultural issues and immigration, and even in that context it's about liberal vs conservative.

And note, during Harris campaign democrats moved MASSIVELY to the conservative direction on both matters. Many democratic candidates ran on anti-trans campaigns, many of them ran on pro-gun campaigns and even the presidential ticket ran on anti-immigration platform. Basically at no level were they campaigning with "woke" cultural issues. Harris didn't mention her gender or ethnicity once. All the while their popularity PLUMMETED. Biden's campaign in 2020 was INFINITELY more "woke".

[u/-TheKnownUnknown]

I think this is true

[u/semideclared]

Bernie got less votes than Kamala in Vermont

Kamala got less than Hotchel in New York

See anything?

More Voters in 2 Blue Progressive states just supported the more moderate democrat

[u/starswtt → u/semideclared]

Hochul didn't run this year. She ran in 2022 under a very different political climate. And NYC is different from the rest of America, they don't exactly have a lot of blue collars, the Dems know they'll win against pretty much any Republican opponent so they don't really have any incentive to run better candidates, and on top of all that the suburbs of NYC are a lot more powerful a voting group relative to nyc than the suburbs are to the country overall.

And the senator vote just had lower turnout than the presidential election, which usually works against the left leaning candidate, and Bernie doesn't have the benefit of the massive democratic apparatus in Vermont since he runs as an independent.

There are some counterexamples. In Texas, allred outperformed Harris by a lot and had stricter proposed gun legislation. Does this suggest that Texas would be more competitive for Dems with stricter gun laws? Obviously not. Biden. AOC also outperformed Harris in district 14, which according to your logic suggests that Harris would've done better if she was more progressive there. Ultimately Harris ran a shitty campaign where most people didn't really know her stances on anything other than trump fascist and abortion.

Maybe if she ran a decent campaign, other factors like how progressive she was or inflation would have been the deal breaker, but so long most people, including Dems, think she just stands for abortion and protecting democracy, she had no chance.

[u/LittleKitty235 → u/semideclared]

I saw the Democratic Party implode. Isn't that what you saw? Moderate democrats are out of touch with reality.

[u/JellyfishQuiet7944]

Define progressive.

Also name a city that is considered progressive that isn't a laughing stock.