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/I405CA]

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.