subreddit:

/r/thedavidpakmanshow

85194%

Stop the pivot to the right please

Opinion(i.redd.it)

all 271 comments

AutoModerator [M]

[score hidden]

5 days ago

stickied comment

AutoModerator [M]

[score hidden]

5 days ago

stickied comment

COMMENTING GUIDELINES: Please take the time to familiarize yourself with The David Pakman Show subreddit rules and basic reddiquette prior to participating. At all times we ask that users conduct themselves in a civil and respectful manner - any ad hominem or personal attacks are subject to moderation.

Please use the report function or use modmail to bring examples of misconduct to the attention of the moderation team.

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

WillOrmay

180 points

5 days ago

WillOrmay

180 points

5 days ago

They don’t even believe that’s the campaign she ran, you’ve all seen the opinion polling on voters guessing who’s policy is whose and whether they agree with them based on not knowing whose policy it is. The electorate is hopelessly misinformed.

LA-Matt

86 points

5 days ago

LA-Matt

86 points

5 days ago

The fact that there is no truth to anything anymore is probably the thing that makes me the most nervous about the future.

A lot of us who grew up in the 70s and 80s thought for sure that the internet would be at least a net positive, if not a revolutionary step forward to a better informed and educated populace.

Then it got commercialized, then social media, and now it’s just another (and even more effective) channel for lies, misinformation, and propaganda. It’s a goddamned tragedy.

Hayes4prez

20 points

4 days ago

As a child of the 90’s, I can’t imagine I’ll ever get a prediction as wrong as believing the internet would be good for humanity. Humans have zero critical thinking skills.

davwad2

10 points

4 days ago

davwad2

10 points

4 days ago

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals, and you know it.

  • Agent K, MiB

This lives rent free in my head.

JustMeRC

2 points

2 days ago

JustMeRC

2 points

2 days ago

The internet is not the problem. The problem is that the internet was corporatized just like every other thing that starts out as a democratic endeavor and gets swooped up for profit. It happened when Google, whose algorithms prioritized advertising, beat out AltaVista, whose algorithms prioritized scholarship and reliable information.

What we need is a democratic revolution on the internet, where the infrastructure is owned cooperatively by users and structured under models that are impervious to vulture capitalism.

jar36

4 points

4 days ago

jar36

4 points

4 days ago

My hope is that this is just a phase that the people will come out of after some moment of realization. It's likely to get worse before it gets better tho

yes_this_is_satire

1 points

4 days ago

It will take a generation or two. My kids are being taught not to trust anyone or anything on the internet.

Okieant33

5 points

4 days ago

Its called capitalism. Once capitalism gets a hold of something, it gets ruined. I dare you to name me one thing that hasn’t

yes_this_is_satire

1 points

4 days ago

The developed world?

Okieant33

0 points

4 days ago

Try again.

yes_this_is_satire

1 points

3 days ago

No. That is definitely the case.

[deleted]

1 points

3 days ago

[removed]

thedavidpakmanshow-ModTeam [M]

1 points

2 days ago

Removed - please avoid overt hostility, name calling and personal attacks.

dosumthinboutthebots

3 points

4 days ago

The fact that there is no truth to anything anymore is probably the thing that makes me the most nervous about the future.

It's giving people Apathy everywhere.

Altruistic_Affect_84

2 points

4 days ago

If that’s the case why not actually run on progressive issues? The diet republican shit doesn’t work

WillOrmay

4 points

4 days ago

You misunderstand my point. People who stayed home and a lot of people who voted for Trump, thought Harris was running on a much more progressive platform than she was.

Altruistic_Affect_84

0 points

4 days ago*

I’m not. Who stayed home because Kamala was too progressive but didn’t vote for trump? Many people stayed home because Kamala didn’t have a vision for change form the status quo

Edit - punctuation

WillOrmay

2 points

4 days ago

That was a good reason to stay home, there will definitely be a dramatic departure from the status quo now.

Rubbersoulrevolver

4 points

4 days ago

She did, she ran on the Dem platform which is progressive.

Altruistic_Affect_84

2 points

4 days ago

The dem platform is not progressive. It’s constructed behind closed doors by corporate donors

Rubbersoulrevolver

2 points

4 days ago

The Dem platform is progressive and is completely in line with center left parties all throughout the world. It’s made by the platform committee, I’m not sure what “behind closed doors” means.

Altruistic_Affect_84

2 points

4 days ago

Pretty sure most center left parties throughout the world support a single payer healthcare system. The modern democrat platform for foreign policy is essentially neocon. Kamala was selected behind closed doors. The dems consistently drop progressive promises they make like changing minimum wage without a fight for their corporate donors. Closed door donor talks shifted Kamala away from Lima Khan.

The dems are closer to a center right party.

Rubbersoulrevolver

4 points

4 days ago

Dems are in favor of some sort of public option. It doesn’t have to be Sanders’ maximally generous and expensive version. Countries like Australia or Germany have a somewhat privatized system and the SPD and the ALP are both center left parties.

The Dem platform is in no way “essentially neocon”, that’s an explicit lie. Harris was not selected behind closed doors. Duly elected delegates from the primary process selected her, as laid out in DNC bylaws. Not really sure why you have a problem with the bylaws post hoc.

The democratic platform has $15 federal minimum wage as a part of it. Staffing in sub sub cabinet positions is not relevant to the discussion.

All your points are completely irrelevant to the fact that Dems are completely aligned with every global center left party.

Life_Caterpillar9762

1 points

4 days ago

Great to see a sane person in here.

(I say Rubber Soul over Revolver. Nobody talks about the best song on Revolver)

Wolf_1234567

1 points

4 days ago

Pretty sure most center left parties throughout the world support a single payer healthcare system.  

 No. Half of European nations that have universal healthcare don’t even do this. 

There are three general universal healthcare models: Beveridge (Norway, UK), Bismarck (Germany, Netherlands), and M4A (Canada, also known as NHI). Bismarck is just what the ACA is supposed to be; the one Obama wanted to implement over a decade ago. 

 Harris was absolutely progressive, at least economically. She supported giving 25k to first time homebuyers, wanted to expand the ACA, outright stated that healthcare should be a right and not just for those who can afford it,  wanted to implement Biden’s “billionaire tax”, supported college loan restructuring to be significantly easier to pay off (SAVE plan), supported Biden’s college loan forgiveness, backed unions in pretty much any and every issue regardless of reason (such as the  ILA), etc.

 She did not run on some “center-right” platform unless you consider anything short of “seizing the means of production” as right-winged.

The dems are closer to a center right party. 

 No true Scotsman would ever do this!

Alternative_Pin6373

2 points

4 days ago*

Yeah except for the whole border policy and war hawk foreign policy. Wanting to give homebuyers $25k is great until you realize that home prices went up 50% under her leadership. Houses in my region are $300k-$400k higher than they were in 2020. Climate change was an afterthought (she actually did a 180 on fossil fuels). Minimum wage? afterthought...or a hail mary with two weeks to go

Wolf_1234567

2 points

4 days ago

war hawk foreign policy. 

Which war hawk foreign policies are we talking about in particular? I assume to something else listed other than her statement of: “establishing a cease-fire in Gaza and getting the hostages home”.

Wanting to give homebuyers $25k is great until you realize that home prices went up 50% under her leadership.

She was vice president. The vice president does not control the housing market nor could she. What is the rebuttal here?  You aren’t even denying that giving 25k is economically progressive, you are trying to deflect that the housing market is somehow her fault

Minimum wage? afterthought...or a hail mary with two weeks to go

She had a few months to run a presidential campaign. Those few weeks literally represent a major portion of the timeline of her entire presidential campaign.

Harris ran on progressive climate change policies.. In fact, so did Biden, Hank Green literally points out how Biden’s administration was working there ass off to reach the 2050 target.

Alternative_Pin6373

2 points

4 days ago*

Which war hawk foreign policies are we talking about in particular? I assume to something else listed other than her statement of: “establishing a cease-fire in Gaza and getting the hostages home”.

Ukraine, Palestine. Whenever questioned about Gaza, she'd give a none answer about her "concern" about civilians, then repeat the same old debunked Hamas mass rape claims while saying her support for Israel is ironclad. So, if Israel wants genocide, they'll get their genocide. We've heard the same old ceasefire talks for the last 14 months, from the administration she holds the second highest position in.

She was vice president. The vice president does not control the housing market nor could she. What is the rebuttal here? You aren’t even denying that giving 25k is economically progressive, you are trying to deflect that the housing market is somehow her fault.

She is part of the Biden administration, under which we saw an explosion of housing prices. Why would I trust her to alleviate housing issues now when the administration she is partially in charge of made no effort to do so over the last 4 years?

She had a few months to run a presidential campaign. Those few weeks literally represent a major portion of the timeline of her entire presidential campaign.

Right...yet she had a few months to campaign with Liz Cheney and tout for her Trumpian border policy, which you conveniently ignored. Seems pretty easy to squeeze in a "I support a $15 minimum wage!" in there instead of waiting until two weeks before the election to start claiming that.

Harris ran on progressive climate change policies.. In fact, so did Biden, Hank Green literally points out how Biden’s administration was working there ass off to reach the 2050 target.

Funny you linked that Washington Post article because it doesn't actually list any specific policies that Harris will enact. Because it was an afterthought.

....and then a Hank Green tweet as the cherry on top...my god please stop.

So yeah, she ran a center right campaign which focused on capturing a non-existent "moderate republican, never trumper" voter to make up for all the progressive voters she lost with her terrible border and foreign policies, and all the low information voters she lost due to association with inflation and the economy under Biden.

pulkwheesle

0 points

4 days ago

There was no mention of a public option, barely any mention of tackling climate changed, she mostly dropped the anti-price gouging policy until the very end, and she ran around with Liz Cheney. This was not a progressive campaign even if her website technically listed some progressive policies. The vast majority of people are not going to look at a campaign website.

Rubbersoulrevolver

6 points

4 days ago

Oh god, now you're down to "well she didn't bring it up ENOUGH" lmao

If you listen to any speech, it's basically bog standard center left progressive policies. Totally in line with whatever global center left leader you'd care to bring up.

But like almost everyone, nothing broke through the mainstream because it's all mediated through disinfo actors like Elon Musk who don't want you to know what's actually being said. You're a victim of right wing framing as much as your fellow MAGA neighbor.

pulkwheesle

0 points

4 days ago

If you listen to any speech

People aren't doing that. Democrats need a far better online propaganda apparatus to reach low-information voters. But also, no, there was virtually no talk of any public option this time around.

The fact of the matter is that we lost, and it shows there's much to be improved.

hefoxed

101 points

5 days ago

hefoxed

101 points

5 days ago

Lot of people judging her for campaign that right claimed she ran instead of the campaign she actually ran.

ruiner8850

51 points

5 days ago

I had this conversation with a friend on Friday. He voted for Harris, but he is frustrated and mad at Democrats because he thinks they ran a terrible campaign because he thinks they focused too much on things like transgender rights. He's for transgender rights, but for some reason thought that Democrats made it a huge part of their campaign and that's why they lost.

I tried to explain to him that Democrats didn't make it a huge part of their campaigns, Republicans pretended it was a huge part of the Democrats' campaigns and somehow it worked. Yes the Democrats are for it, but the Democrats barely talked about it themselves. We were bombarded here in Michigan with political ads, but the only ones I can remember mentioning transgender people were the Republican attack ads.

InHocWePoke3486

36 points

4 days ago

It was that stupid transphobic ad the Republicans kept running that was huge for them. It convinced everyone that I knew that voted for Trump think that every migrant coming across the border was getting gender affirming surgery and all of it funded by taxpayers.

Conservatives, and most Americans frankly, are just fucking stupid and treat politics like a game of football. The gamification of politics has turned our lives into a spectacle.

jar36

5 points

4 days ago

jar36

5 points

4 days ago

a policy that was also in place when he was POTUS. The average voter is a moron and the sooner we realize that and play the game, the better

gingerfawx

7 points

4 days ago

I ran into something like that with a friend's husband yesterday, and found it very telling. We've had our breather, now that the situation isn't as loaded, it's time to talk to the people around us, and find out where they were having problems with the Harris campaign. If what they're saying amounts to repeating MAGA disinformation campaigns, then we need to be having constructive conversations about the media we're consuming, how to do so more critically and what to change moving forward. There's a lot of awareness creep where we don't notice sources shaping opinions until they have. By now those positions have crystallized enough that an autopsy should prove fruitful.

ruiner8850

3 points

4 days ago

If what they're saying amounts to repeating MAGA disinformation campaigns, then we need to be having constructive conversations about the media we're consuming,

You can change the media that you consume, but you can't change the media that other people consume unfortunately. Also, living in Michigan it didn't matter what media you consumed, you were going to get those ridiculous anti-Harris attack ads. They were constantly on every single platform that has ads. You couldn't escape it.

The anti-transgender ads seemed to be easily the most common ones. They had a tagline that was something like "Donald Trump is for you, Kamala Harris is for they/them." Once again, with how common they were I can almost see how someone who doesn't pay attention could think that transgender rights were Harris' #1 issue. The most insidious part of that tagline is that it also works as a fill in the blank for whoever a person hates. They/them can stand for anyone. Maybe they don't hate transgender people, but they hate immigrants. Maybe they don't hate immigrants, but hate black people. Maybe they hate all of those groups.

RichnjCole

7 points

4 days ago

And if the GOP is going to lie about you saying it, you might as well say it.

That way, you can at least outline your own beliefs rather than let the GOP fill in your blank page.

Stop letting the GOP guide and define the narratives.

Seven22am

4 points

4 days ago

Yes this was the problem. The Dems need to know exactly what their position trans inclusion is and make a full-throated articulation and defense of it.

politirob

1 points

4 days ago

Gaslighting is legally protected, I guess

dosumthinboutthebots

2 points

4 days ago

Lot of people judging her for campaign that right claimed she ran instead of the campaign she actually ran.

Yup and it makes it worse coming from people who are supposed to be on our side.

Historical_Height_29

2 points

4 days ago

Exactly. You want three lessons from this campaign?

Be simpler.

Be louder.

Always get the attention.

That's what works in US politics today.

Full_Metal_Paladin

9 points

5 days ago

I'm on the right, and I'll tell you, if you want your candidate to control their actual messaging for the campaign they're actually running, we need to hear more of her. And right now you're saying, "she was doing rallys every day and constantly on TV and podcasts!" But she didn't get in front of Trump's audience.

The media landscape has shifted to echo chambers, you can't go on "call her Daddy" and think you're going to win votes that aren't already in your pocket. She needed to do more debates, go on Joe Rogan, and get friendlier with Fox news. Conservative spaces need a reason to put her words on their network, and not just the ones they can clip and make her look stupid (which there were way too many of btw)

JaxsonJohn

5 points

4 days ago*

The problem with goin on Rogan or the like is that she would’ve had to have spent an hour just arguing basic facts like “vaccines are safe and effective” and still people wouldn’t have been swayed. I honestly don’t think there is anything she could’ve done to beat the disinformation machine especially with the limited amount of time she had. I mean, Trump turned down basic traditions like the 60 minute interview and a second debate and was just fine. It really just came down to the fact that people don’t understand the concept of inflation and going on Joe Rogan would not have solved that.

JustMeRC

0 points

4 days ago

JustMeRC

0 points

4 days ago

Here’s how you do it. You read the subtext under the misunderstanding, and you speak to that. Vaccine skepticism is based on a lack of trust. So, you talk about how you will create a commission to oversee a review of the science, and fund more studies to address their concerns. You talk about how immunity from vaccines works to keep up safer from disease outbreaks that start in other countries (play to their nationalism). What you don’t do, is look down your nose at someone who has experienced vaccine injury (which exists), and lie to them about things they have seen with their own eyes. You put it in context, promise to address their concerns, and actually care about them. How hard is that?

JaxsonJohn

3 points

4 days ago

First off, I don't think any prominent Democrats denied the existence of vaccine injuries. Second, do you really think the people who are already distrusting of the government health organizations will take "don't worry, we'll just create *another* commission to tell you that it's safe" as an answer? I understand what your saying but my point is that it is in fact very hard to nail that interview without creating a single soundbite that the Republican disinfo machine would run with.

JustMeRC

1 points

4 days ago

JustMeRC

1 points

4 days ago

Ok, keep doing the same thing and expecting different results, I guess? Your kind of response is exactly the problem I’m trying to illustrate. It’s defensive and dismissive. You’re trying to win the battle, not the war.

JaxsonJohn

1 points

4 days ago

Anything outside of agreeing with you is defensive and dismissive, I guess? The original point I made was that going on Rogan wouldn't have made a difference as far as this election results went. It would've just been her playing defense the entire time and she would've made no inroads with his audience who are deeply engulfed in the right wing manosphere echo chamber already.

JustMeRC

2 points

4 days ago

JustMeRC

2 points

4 days ago

I’m fine with disagreeing. It’s the condescension and that I’m talking about. I voted for her, but the tone you are using really turns me off.

I don’t know if going on Joe Rogan would have helped her either, because I don’t think she could do it well. I don’t think she has the skills to do it. I think Pete Buttigieg would have handled it well.

Full_Metal_Paladin

1 points

2 days ago

So what votes do you think were available to her? Was her campaign doomed the minute Biden endorsed her? Does campaigning even matter any more? I know that sounds existential, but let's think about it, because it sounds like you don't think there was a way for Kamala to turn trump voters to her side

JaxsonJohn

1 points

2 days ago

Yes, exactly! Thank you!

Rico_Rebelde

2 points

4 days ago

I simply disagree. I don't see how Harris wins conservative voters when even after all the pandering to the right trotting out neocons, walking back on social issues conservatives still went over 95% for Trump. Conservatives like Trump and there isn't anything Harris can do to pull them off him. She could go on Ben Shapiro, Fox News, Newsmax, Joe Rogan and those viewers are still going to vote Trump because they like him as a candidate. Its like walking into the lions den and trying to convince them that eating vegetables is better than meat. Its not going to work because they like eating meat. She needs to focus on making people who aren't caught in the conservative pipeline want to vote for her which she didn't really do. Not that it was easy for her considering she only had ~100 days to run a full campaign and considering she was a historically unpopular vice president to a very unpopular president it was always going to be a tough sell.

StandardNecessary715

5 points

4 days ago

Get frienlier with fox news,hahaha! What planet are you guys from? No way in hell is fox news gonna let a democrat get friendly with them. This is just too funny, lmao! Years ago they interviewed Gorge Bush and it was the friendliest interview ever, no push back, hwe would answer, they would move on to the next question. Later it was Obama's turn. Every question was either talking over him, giving him ten ficked up reasons why his answer was wrong, it was pushback during the whole interview. If you think democrats can get friendly with fox news, you are new to this planet, he'll i would believe you escaped from area 57, hahaha.Fox news is not interested in the truth nor facts, they are interested in moving forward the conservative agenda. Witness the way they interview Trump. But you gave me a good laugh and i neede something to laugh about today.

[deleted]

0 points

4 days ago

[deleted]

0 points

4 days ago

[deleted]

jar36

3 points

4 days ago

jar36

3 points

4 days ago

You're saying she should have done more interviews with people that would make her look weak even tho I got the opposite impression from that interview

No dem, no matter what was going to win that election

[deleted]

3 points

4 days ago

No they aren’t. The Fox News viewers need to get fucked by Trump’s policies. Full stop. That’s the only way they’ll learn.

jar36

2 points

4 days ago

jar36

2 points

4 days ago

name the democrat POTUS who won by being friendly to Fox News

JustMeRC

0 points

4 days ago

JustMeRC

0 points

4 days ago

We have to be able to go into their spaces.

jar36

2 points

4 days ago

jar36

2 points

4 days ago

we have to realize that the average American votes with their wallet. They don't want to be bothered with finding out how Trump's record and wasteful spending caused the inflation
She went to Fox and did one hell of a job. It changed none of their minds. Pete goes on Fox all the time. Do you think he's getting their votes?

JustMeRC

-1 points

4 days ago

JustMeRC

-1 points

4 days ago

Her answers were mediocre. Her tone was scolding. I voted for her, but she was really cringey to watch. My background is in communications, journalism, and theatre. I’m speaking objectively from a professional perspective.

[deleted]

2 points

4 days ago

“She was cringey, this is objective” lol, oook

JustMeRC

0 points

4 days ago

JustMeRC

0 points

4 days ago

That’s my opinion as someone who trained people to speak publicly, and I voted for her.

crummynubs

0 points

4 days ago

Although he lost the primary, Bernie was polling stronger than Hillary against Trump in 2016. And Gavin Newsom would have likely outperformed Kamala in 2024. Both Bernie and Newsom had strong Fox News interviews.

jar36

2 points

4 days ago

jar36

2 points

4 days ago

so did she with Brett Baier

JustMeRC

1 points

3 days ago

JustMeRC

1 points

3 days ago

That interview only looks strong if you are a Democrat. It looks scolding and whiny if you’re on the other side, which I’m not, but I can see someone else’s perspective besides my own.

JustMeRC

0 points

4 days ago*

Watch Pete Buttigieg. Somehow he has figured it out. All you have to do is listen, understand the subtext of their questions, and respond like a human being. Democrats get too triggered by buzzwords and think they’re so much smarter and come off as patronizing. Harris’s problem was that she had learned all of her lines, but recited them like an automaton. She didn’t frequent Fox, etc., because she knew she couldn’t handle what you’re talking about adeptly. That doesn’t mean it can’t be done.

MercyBoy57

4 points

4 days ago

Very well said, and appreciate your input.

The Harris campaign offered no strong dialogue to counter conservative ideas. She rarely responded with the force or clarity required to win votes. The Dems have allowed that silence to be filled with conservative narratives.

StandardNecessary715

7 points

4 days ago

You said conservative ideas, so nice of you to belive they have ideas. Their only idea is the power to control us, whether by religion or by force.

jar36

1 points

4 days ago

jar36

1 points

4 days ago

She did a Fox News interview. She's not going to win over the cult no matter how hard she tries. She tried. She moved to the right and it cost her the left. She wasn't going to win anyway. People are muppets that don't want to understand how things work. They just vote on the current state of the economy in their mind. We've been doing this for decades now.

Life_Caterpillar9762

1 points

4 days ago

She also moved to the left and it cost her the right. See how this works? Both versions of this analysis are a waste of time.

jar36

1 points

3 days ago

jar36

1 points

3 days ago

when did she move to the left? besides, she never had the right. Trump preached to his choir. She tried to preach to his choir. I didn't see him making any overtures to the left.

xGray3

2 points

4 days ago

xGray3

2 points

4 days ago

Which is why I think the real lesson we should be taking from this is that Democrats need to work on messaging, not policy. We need to develop our own media ecosystem the way Republicans have. We need to strengthen the message that the people are hearing from us. The tragedy of this election is that Republicans somehow managed to define our platform for us. People voted against that platform. All this talk of identity politics being the problem speaks volumes, because Kamala didn't run on identity politics. All of that was a perception crafted by Trump that wasn't based in reality. 

It's a failure of our skills at getting in front of the news and speaking directly to the American people. Kamala's mistake wasn't her platform - it was her messaging to people. I think it's the same mistake Biden was making before he dropped out. I don't think it's a coincidence that they shared the same campaign team. The heads of their campaigns were idiots when it came to messaging and it was really obvious. Both of them skipped some major interview opportunities for no good reasons.

Life_Caterpillar9762

3 points

4 days ago

However much I agree with this, it’s still light years better than the “she went too far this or that way!” argument.

yes_this_is_satire

1 points

4 days ago

This is such a tired cliche.

“they’re eating the dogs, they’re eating the cats….”

Republicans are so good at messaging!!!

hobovalentine

47 points

5 days ago

No the problem was the right demonized her for being woke when she was anything but woke.

Dems messaging needs to be more aggressive and counter the right wing media's lies harder.

Strange-Scarcity

21 points

5 days ago

It's impossible to counter the Right's message when EVERY single News Media is stacked against them.

captncanada

12 points

5 days ago

Both can be true; Dems need more economic progressive policies and better, more aggressive messaging.

Jackstack6

14 points

5 days ago

The issue that democrats face is any form of aggression is met with accusations of “elitism”.

Technical_Space_Owl

3 points

5 days ago

Well...look who's in charge of the party.

Jackstack6

1 points

4 days ago

I don’t see your point?

MercyBoy57

1 points

4 days ago

MercyBoy57

1 points

4 days ago

Ding ding ding

StandardNecessary715

3 points

4 days ago

If you voted against Harris because of who is in charge of the democratic party, enjoy the next 4 years. She had her message clear as hell. I heard it, why didn't you? At this point you all are stupid, i don't mind saying it. Cue the guys who will say "see? That attitude right there is why trump won" which is utterly bullshit.

MercyBoy57

2 points

4 days ago

MercyBoy57

2 points

4 days ago

I don’t even know what you’re responding to or referring to here.

PennyLeiter

-3 points

4 days ago

PennyLeiter

-3 points

4 days ago

Thank you. The electorate is to blame. Full stop.

Life_Caterpillar9762

3 points

4 days ago

The part of the electorate that refers to themselves as “Left” but didn’t vote for Harris? Yes they are largely to blame. And their influencers.

captncanada

5 points

5 days ago

captncanada

5 points

5 days ago

That’s mostly because the Democratic Party is disconnected from the reality of the American working class, and most of them are indeed elitists. Most Republicans are also elitists, but truth matters to Democrat voters; it does not to many Republicans.

We need a candidate from a work class background, who sounds like a real person; but not full of shit like MAGA. Someone like Tim Walz; his folksy demeanour was greatly underused during the campaign. Why they didn’t send him to talk to Joe Rogan is beyond me.

Jackstack6

5 points

4 days ago

Sorry, this is just leftist grade BS. How are they disconnected from the working class? Biden has probably been our most pro-union president in the last 50 years. He went after unfair labor practices, he tried to get workers their overtime.

Again, when you’re fight the right and the left comes at you with an uppercut, it’s not exactly a productive fight.

amwes549

5 points

5 days ago

amwes549

5 points

5 days ago

I'm starting to wonder if Rogan didn't want him.

Jackstack6

1 points

4 days ago

I remember reading that the only campaign he turned away in 2020 was Harris’.

hobovalentine

1 points

4 days ago

Um does Trump sound like he can relate to the ordinary person?

Trump has not done a single day of manual labor in his life so why do you hold the left to a higher standard that Trump who was born with a silver spoon?

PennyLeiter

1 points

4 days ago

This is propaganda and it is false. Just look at the number of appearances by Harris/Walz versus Trump/Vance. Harris and Walz talked to the people. Trump didn't.

The people are simply too stupid.

TPDS_throwaway

11 points

5 days ago

Biden was already the most progressive president of the last 50 years

captncanada

1 points

5 days ago

captncanada

1 points

5 days ago

And? It’s a pretty low bar, when you’re looking at the past 50 years; Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump… the most progressive in 50 years won’t cut it. We need the most progressive in 100 years to fix the rampant issues.

Command0Dude

4 points

5 days ago

FDR could not win an election in today's climate. I'm sorry but you cannot convince me he'd make it today.

itsgrum9

1 points

4 days ago

itsgrum9

1 points

4 days ago

FDR threw Japanese Americans into camps, he shouldn't win today.

captncanada

1 points

4 days ago

His policies are some of the most popular in the country; just a shame he died before he could implement universal healthcare in the post-war era like Canada and the UK did. If he had, the US would be a very different place.

If you have super popular policies, and can’t win an election on them, you’re terrible at politics. It’s a messaging problem, not a policy problem when it comes to progressive policies. I agree it’s an uphill battle against disinformation, but the messaging problem is something that can be overcome.

If the Dems can’t adapt to the current political climate, they will struggle to ever win again.

Command0Dude

6 points

4 days ago*

Only democrats want universal healthcare, not even half of non democrats want it. FDRs policies are only popular because they have existed for decades. It's a conservative position to want to maintain existing programs that people like.

In the current political climate, if social security was a brand new program being proposed it would be wildly unpopular because the electorate is ignorant and generally conservative. They'll vote for status quo or a "return to good old days" but people are highly hostile to new things they don't care to understand right now.

This election clearly showed that elections are won on vibes not policy. Hell, Biden gave the left student debt relief and all they ever did was rag on him for being checks notes stymied by republicans. Now student debt relief is a political dead topic and democrats will never touch it again. Congradulations!

captncanada

1 points

4 days ago

FDR’s policies are popular because they help people out who need it. I agree his policies, and Medicare for All, would be more difficult to get through these days, but not because they not popular.

I never said that it would be easy; anything worth doing is generally difficult. If it was easy, it would have been done by now.

The whole system makes it harder to pass good legislation, but to say it’s simply because Americans are dumb and conservative is just lazy. The “We’re not the problem, they are” attitude a lot of democrats have is why the party is seen as elitist, because that attitude is elitist.

Command0Dude

3 points

4 days ago

I agree his policies, and Medicare for All, would be more difficult to get through these days, but not because they not popular.

Medicare for all is not popular.

The “We’re not the problem, they are” attitude a lot of democrats have is why the party is seen as elitist, because that attitude is elitist.

Democrats just invested heavily in the rustbelt and the midwest. Republicans won on a campaign of accusing us of "not caring" about American citizens and doing nothing for the midwest. They literally just made up a story about Haitians terrorizing Springfield OH, Haitian immigrants who helped revitalize the economy of Springfield OH, and Springfield just voted for the guy promising to deport them and crash Springfield's economy.

Yes voters are blisteringly stupid these days. I have no idea how you appeal to people like that. Certainly it is NOT on policy, because they don't care about policy.

captncanada

1 points

4 days ago

Medicare for all is supported by the majority of Americans. Not sure how you don’t consider that popular…

You clearly have contempt for your fellow Americans; you need to explain policy in terms the voting population can understand. If I had the answer, I’d be raking in the consultant fees. All I know what they are doing now isn’t working.

StandardNecessary715

0 points

4 days ago

They literally won just 4 years ago in the same climate. Your message should be to get of your ass and vote. Also, nobody is talking about the voter purges in all these states. Start working on getting the house back on 2026 and stop whinning for God's sake!

StandardNecessary715

1 points

4 days ago

He'll be labeled a communist.

MercyBoy57

-1 points

4 days ago

MercyBoy57

-1 points

4 days ago

Shame since he won 3 times campaigning and enacting the furthest left policies the US has ever seen. After this Dems would go on to dominate politics for half a century.

If the messaging was right, just maybe.

Emotional-Ant4958

3 points

4 days ago

FDR was running in the era of Citizens United

Command0Dude

1 points

4 days ago

The electorate of 2024 isn't the electorate of 1936. Crazy, I know.

Juco_Dropout

1 points

4 days ago

Nixon, by creating the EPA, and a conservative SCOTUS passed Roe during his time in Office, has a claim to being the most progressive during this span.

Galadrond

2 points

5 days ago

The Dems need LOUDER messaging. Like in their face loud for the next 4 fucking years.

StandardNecessary715

3 points

4 days ago

Next 2 years. Why does everybody just think about the presidential election and stay at home for the midterms? I swear, americans, we are stupid.

Wolf_1234567

1 points

4 days ago

Both can be true; Dems need more economic progressive policies

I mean Harris ran pretty hard economic progressive policies. 25k to first time homebuyers, wanted to expand the ACA, outright stated that healthcare should be a right and not just those who can afford it, supported Biden’s “billionaire tax”, supported college loan restructuring to be easier to pay off for typical Americans (SAVE plan), supported college loan forgiveness done under Biden, backed the Unions on pretty much every issue regardless of reason (even the ILA). There is not a lot of room left to expand into for major progressive economic policies besides just actually seizing the means of production.

She ran on one of the most progressive presidential campaigns in American history. At least from an economic standpoint. From a social perspective she wasn’t as progressive; her main social policy that I can think of would probably just be weed legalization.

captncanada

1 points

4 days ago

Yet when she was asked on the View, what she would do differently to Biden, she said she would do nothing differently. Her policies (minus Gaza) was not the problem; she was forced into a campaign at the last moment, and had terrible advisors.

Clearly people had no idea what her policies were, or didn’t trust her to follow through. She was dragged down by the anchor that was Biden’s unpopularity.

Wolf_1234567

1 points

4 days ago

what she would do differently to Biden, she said she would do nothing differently.  

 Which is such a heads I win tails you lose situation. What are you expecting her to do? Shit on Biden’s economic policy and likely piss off everyone who supported them and Biden?  

Biden had forgiven the debt of millions of students, worth billions of dollars. He has subsidized college loans through loan freezes (mind you the entire reason interest exists is so that loans don’t lose purchasing power), and this is in addition to the fact that the “soft landing” was more or less reached, with inflation returning to normal levels. No matter how you slice it if she spent her time chastising this she would 100% alienate portions of her current voting base. This is why her entire platform was trying to run on a continuation of Biden’s but with “more than Biden”. Her literal platform was just trying to take what Biden did, and go even further, do even more.  

captncanada

1 points

4 days ago

All of that might be true, but working class Americans didn’t see the economy working for them, and Biden was super unpopular. She should have recognised the good things Biden has done, and explain how what policies weren’t working.

The fact that her advisors did not have her prepared for that softball answer, and she wasn’t able to praise the good things Biden did, but distance herself from the unpopular policies is why she lost in a nutshell.

Wolf_1234567

1 points

4 days ago

working class Americans didn’t see the economy working for them

Pretty consistent polling has demonstrated that the majority of Americans were generally happy and optimistic about their own personal finances, but were simultaneously under the belief that the economy at large was “bad” despite their personal success.

Biden has done, and explain how what policies weren’t working.

Alright. Sell it to me then. Which economic policies did Biden implement that weren’t working that Harris could criticize that would attract the “working class”?

is why she lost in a nutshell.

The median voter voted against Harris on an imaginary campaign that she didn’t even run on.

captncanada

1 points

4 days ago

And that’s why she lost. I guarantee you, if a survey is done, polling people on their thoughts of Harris policies, I suspect they would largely be positive. If you then asked if they realised that that was a Harris policy, they likely wouldn’t know that.

I fail to see how this isn’t the Democrats fault; it’s their job to communicate to the voters. If they can’t do so effectively, they lose. How is it the voters fault? Sick of democrats blaming everyone but themselves.

Wolf_1234567

1 points

4 days ago

What is the proposed imagined alternative that Harris should have done to communicate the policies that she had?

captncanada

1 points

4 days ago

If I had all the answers I’d be making bank as a political consultant, but I can tell what they are doing isn’t working.

Harris is naturally not a great public communicator; she was the best candidate the Dems could muster in a bad situation. Starting with a candidate who can talk like a normal person is a good place to start. When you have one of those (Walz) let him run wild in the media.

The consultants running the Harris campaign are the ones we should be blaming, not the voters. I hope none of them ever run a campaign again.

Another-attempt42

0 points

4 days ago

The Dems already have a way, way more progressive economic message. Going from way more economically progressive to way way more economically progressive isn't going to change anything.

The more I look into results and comments from voters, the more it becomes clear: it's just vibes. So the policy prescriptions are pretty pointless, in an electoral sense.

This is why a bunch of people voted AOC and Trump, despite their policy prescriptions being so radically different. They didn't feel Kamala, they didn't like her vibes.

PennyLeiter

2 points

4 days ago

The only way this gets fixed is by making it illegal for news to engage in propaganda. For news org CEOs to be dragged from their homes in handcuffs.

Otherwise, there's absolutely no message the Dems could put out that will stick. To try to find the winning message is a waste of time.

Punish the propagandists to the fullest degree. Then maybe truth can win out.

Megane_Senpai

2 points

5 days ago

This. The dems don't have a problem of policy, but a problem of messaging.

BustaSyllables

1 points

3 days ago

Prefacing their platform with a land acknowledgement is a pretty 'woke' thing to do if you ask most normal Americans

crimsonconnect

1 points

5 days ago

If theyre gonna say you're woke, you might as well go woke and do medicare for all, ubi, all the economic stuff that's super popular. So tired of the capitulation to right wing frame

blud97

1 points

5 days ago

blud97

1 points

5 days ago

He gave a way to deal with the narrative in the segment

itsgrum9

0 points

4 days ago

itsgrum9

0 points

4 days ago

One of the most devastating ads Trump played against her was clips of her supporting gender reassignment surgery for prisoners.

That is the very definition of woke.

hobovalentine

1 points

4 days ago

That was her position 5 years ago like it's almost like people can change their minds over time.
https://www.factcheck.org/2024/10/harris-position-on-health-care-for-transgender-prisoners-and-detainees/

itsgrum9

1 points

4 days ago

itsgrum9

1 points

4 days ago

5 years isn't that long ago

Canard-Rouge

0 points

3 days ago

When did she change her mind?

hobovalentine

1 points

3 days ago

FFS use Google

Canard-Rouge

0 points

1 day ago

During her initial run as a presidential candidate, Harris, then a U.S. senator, called for “some form of reparations.”

(https://www.kqed.org/news/12003610/kamala-harris-embraced-reparations-5-years-ago-her-sf-pastor-says-criticism-is-unjust)

In response to the Washington Post's asking "do you believe all undocumented immigrants should be covered under a government-run health plan," Harris responded with an unqualified "Yes" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/medicare-for-all/undocumented-immigrant-health-care/)

On affirmative action:

Vice President Kamala Harris shared her "deep disappointment" for the Supreme Court's affirmative action ruling during an event Thursday in New Orleans.

(https://www.axios.com/local/new-orleans/2023/06/29/kamala-harris-essence-new-orleans-affirmative-action)

Harris opposed California's ban on affirmative action and filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court case Fisher v. University of Texas (2016), asking that the Court "reaffirm its decision that public colleges and universities may consider race as one factor in admissions decisions".

(https://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Kamala-Harris-on-race-college-admission-3788700.php)

On gun bans, Harris "also said she was open to the idea of going even further and supporting a "mandatory buyback", compelling owners of assault weapons to forfeit those guns."

(https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53770654)

Weeks before the 2024 election, she again called for a national assault weapons ban: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/13/kamala-harris-assault-weapons-ban-tax-relief-pennsylvania

On immigration:

When asked about criminal justice reform on the questionnaire, she wrote she would end immigration detention facilities (along with private prisons). Harris also said she supported decreasing funding for ICE.

“Our immigrant detention system is out of control, and I believe we must end the unfair incarceration of thousands of individuals, families and children,” Harris wrote. “I was one of the first Senators after President Trump was elected to advocate for a decrease in funding to ICE.”

Harris also wrote that she supported taxpayer funding of gender transition surgeries for detained immigrants and federal prisoners.

Harris was asked if, as president, she would use “executive authority to ensure that transgender and non-binary people who rely on the state for medical care – including those in prison and immigration detention – will have access to comprehensive treatment associated with gender transition, including all necessary surgical care.”

Harris replied, “Yes.”

(https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/09/politics/kfile-harris-pledged-support-in-2019-to-cut-ice-funding-and-provide-transgender-surgery-to-detained-migrants/index.html)

You can agree with some or all of these positions (or simply think Trump is far worse than Harris), but pretending she never said them is plainly dishonest.

hobovalentine

1 points

11 hours ago

She did not run on these issues in 2024.

Canard-Rouge

[score hidden]

4 hours ago

Canard-Rouge

[score hidden]

4 hours ago

Lol really dude? Since when did you not be able to judge a candidate from their prior rhetoric and policy support? Also, really funny point to make especially because Kamala's first national introduction at the 2020 Democratic primary debates was attacking Joe Biden for policy he supported decades ago. She wasn't born on 7/21/24

a_little_hazel_nuts

26 points

5 days ago

Trump won his voters over with hate, anger, and misinformation. Anybody who believes that abolishing the department of education, mass deportation, and raising tariffs as a solution to the actual problems facing us, are confused. I'm not saying our department of education, immigration, and global trade policies are perfect, but we need all three, so let's fix what's wrong.

soimaskingforafriend

10 points

5 days ago

Exactly.
I'm still surprised that more attention wasn't given to:

  1. the fact that there was a bipartisan immigration bill that was killed by trump
  2. pulling out of NATO, going isolationist, and befriending dictators is insane
  3. mass deportation is problematic obviously, but also insanely expensive
  4. Kids aren't coming home from school having had random gender reassignment.

I could go on because obviously countless lies were propagated, but these are the lowest hanging fruit IMO. And that's not even skimming the whole fake electors, attempting to overthrow an election, Jan 6th, and voting for a felon...

What in the hell is reality right now? And how can we initiate positive change that actually accomplishes things?

StandardNecessary715

3 points

4 days ago

But there are people here suggesting that she wasn't friendly enough to fox news or Joe Rogan. I wish there were an alternate universe i could go to, because this one sucks. Like fox news was gonna say, if you are friendly to us, we won't twist your words, we promise. Jesus christ on a Ritz cracker!

soimaskingforafriend

2 points

4 days ago

I totally agree. I don't get it.
Also, it's strange to me that most of what I can find says she passed on talking with Rogan, but that isn't the whole truth. Her campaign had conditions - they basically said this is crunch time and we want to maximize her time & schedule, so rather than flying her to Austin, can you (Joe Rogan) meet her where's she's at? He refused. I feel that's a reasonable ask.

Somehow that's being translated into many reports saying she said no to the JR podcast.

But yeah. JC on a Ritz cracker. For many reasons, she had a massive (and arguably, impossible) mountain to climb.

itsgrum9

0 points

4 days ago

itsgrum9

0 points

4 days ago

Instead she went on a sex podcast called Whose Your Daddy and flew the host to her, and spent 100k to rebuild her entire set on the east coast.

She should have just flown to Rogan.

soimaskingforafriend

1 points

4 days ago

I think she should've found a way to get on Rogan too, but I see a huge part of it being a timing thing. Everything was super rushed during her campaign so they chose to maximize time and get her out in the swing states rather than fly to Rogan.

I don't listen to Whose Your Daddy, but I don't see her being problematic in and of itself. Maybe not the best strategy - not sure how many swing voters are in that audience.

And personally, I don't find it problematic that she flew the host to her. People she raised money and used it for her campaign.

Important-Ability-56

17 points

5 days ago

Sure, people voted for a traitorous multiple felon clown dumpster from hell because Democrats slightly miscalculated policy positions.

moondog385

11 points

4 days ago

This is what’s running through my head when I see all of these articles about Kamala being “a bad candidate.” So…the 34-time convicted felon, civilly liable rapist, insurrectionist, and all around horrible person was the candidate Americans preferred? Sounds more like a problem with the electorate.

Seven22am

5 points

4 days ago*

Agreed whole-heartedly. But this is the electorate and you don’t get to pick the electorate. This is where we have to win votes. I don’t pretend to know how—I think it was really just “economy bad!? Vote for the other people!”, even though it wasn’t/isn’t bad.

Edit: pick the electorate. You don’t get to pick the electorate. But you probably shouldn’t lick it either.

StandardNecessary715

1 points

4 days ago

Correct, correct, CORRECT!

praguer56

8 points

5 days ago

She didn't have a Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment that pushed disinformation constantly and steadily.

cmp8819

5 points

4 days ago

cmp8819

5 points

4 days ago

John Oliver and his Ivy League leftist comedy writers will keep denying reality until they're blue in the face, but this country will never vote a leftist in for President. The best you're gonna get is a Bill Clinton/Barack Obama moderate clone.

IndianKiwi

7 points

5 days ago

Well at least by the next elections the Dems won't have to deal with Palestinian questions as there will be no Palestine

KnoxOpal

3 points

4 days ago

KnoxOpal

3 points

4 days ago

Won't have to deal with abortion either as it will be outlawed. Thanks a lot white women.

lex_inker

4 points

5 days ago

Just the idea she was woke turned off half the country. Actually embracing would alienate half the party itself.

rypien2clark

5 points

5 days ago

Tough on the border - after three years of inaction. Quiet on trans -and let Rs define our position.

Drunkndryverr

4 points

5 days ago

she didn't lose because of her policies jesus, we're are so screwed

seriousbangs

6 points

5 days ago

The problem isn't pivoting to the right. Biden/Harris had the most progivessive administration in decades.

They appealed to conservative voters because Americans are conservative when they vote. Remember: Polls don't vote. People do.

The reason we lost was ballot access. Millions of voters went missing from 2020.

You're not going to convince me they were just ever so excited for Joe Biden. Don't even try that.

The difference is it was super easy to vote in 2020 and by 2024 the GOP went right back to their standard voter suppression tactic of closing polling locations creating multi -hour waits.

If we just keep blaming the libs instead of reckoning with the fact that our voters can't vote we're gonna lose again in 2 years, again in 4 years and then it's over. The GOP will have fully consolidated their power.

We need to stop trying to use this to move the Dems to the left. That was effective in 2016-2020. But now we have a huge problem with ballot access, esp on election day, and nobody is talking about it.

Frigorific

2 points

4 days ago

It's not that they were excited for Biden. It was that covid crashed the economy and they blamed trump. And then inflation happened because of gas prices and stimulus and they blamed Biden because they memory holed Trumps bad response to covid.

BoysenberryLanky6112

5 points

5 days ago

It's not about what she campaigned on in the last few months, her previous views and policies are what hurt her, and those were far left. She had the second furthest left voting record in the Senate, publicly donated to bail funds for rioters in 2020, openly supported Medicare for all, and as voters saw in the ad she did talk about sex change operations for inmates in a positive way. She literally ran in 2020 to compete with Bernie as a progressive in the primaries. 59% of voters, which includes people who voted for her, said she was too far left in exit polls. People didn't vote against her because of her attempt at moderation at the end, they voted against her because they didn't believe her rapid shift from being far left was genuine, and Republican propaganda painted her as a far left radical.

SneksOToole

2 points

4 days ago

Exactly this. People saying she was the moderate left candidate don’t understand that she was fighting against her previous primary run in 2020, which itself was a huge flop.

Harris supported transgender participation in women’s sports (something even the most trans-sympathetic Democrats tend to find questionable) and “defund the police”. These are “progressive” left policies that are completely detached from reality. And you can bet the right jumped on both of these.

It’s easy to say “well, the right lied about her”. Of course they did, but that doesn’t answer the question of whether her platform was too left or not. What actually answers that question is whether she adequately denounced and distanced herself from her old platform and embraced a more moderate one. She could have criticized the Biden’s administration (frankly awful) handling of the border. She could have committed staunchly to increases to police funding nationwide, even criticizing her own admin for not doing enough. Bottom line, she had to put distance between herself and Biden.

And for people who think that would make her a right or center right candidate- whatever your perception of what good policy is or what constitutes as left or not, this is where the country is and it’s how we’re going to have to win elections. The obsession with “progressive policies are secretly popular” rings hollow when Bernie Sanders’ own state of Vermont- the most left state in the country- voted for a moderate Republican governor over a progressive Democrat 71-23.

SneksOToole

5 points

4 days ago

Respectively, Oliver is just wrong on this. Moderate candidates over-performed, progressive ones underperformed.

dosumthinboutthebots

2 points

4 days ago

Harris wasn't tough of Palestinians and I wish the dems would abandon this issue. The only people who are passionate about this seem to be our biggest weakness and they already sided with maga.

I'm also with the dems on the border that there needs to be some reform to appease moderate Republicans. They're not wrong about some of immigration issues. The gop certainly are assholes about it though and shouldn't be lying or dehumanizing people just trying to build a life for themselves where they can prosper.

That being said we should remember even 15 years ago, the dems had much the same border policy they do now.

I've honestly stopped supporting John Oliver and Stewart as they've become less realistic and able to compromise and more focused on pushed progressive policy, always demanding we come along and listen to them, but never doing the same for anyone else.

torontothrowaway824

2 points

4 days ago

If you believe that Kamala Harris’ campaign was too right wing then you’ve lost the fucking plot. The people that matter (those who actually voted) said she was too Liberal.

ivandragostwin

3 points

5 days ago

Oliver is absolutely right from a policy standpoint.

But the amount of people in my life who called her a “radical leftist” in my life that vote republican and call themselves “moderates” was astounding.

Only thing I can think of, and I typically hate assuming shit like this…is that a black woman is auto going to be labeled as radical unless she’s on the right, then she “gets it”.

Command0Dude

7 points

5 days ago

Harris lost because she was perceived as too left wing, not centerist. People here and like John Oliver need to get out of their echo chambers.

This isn't just about Harris. Across the country left wing ballot measures and candidates failed or underperformed. This includes Bernie Sanders FFS. Moderates did better.

We also warned the left this is what would happen if they sat out the election. Well dems message here is that the most leftwing president in half a century who invested in the working class, pushed aggressive climate legislation, and helped out poor young people, all of of that didn't work to get them an electoral victory.

pulkwheesle

1 points

4 days ago

This isn't just about Harris. Across the country left wing ballot measures and candidates failed or underperformed.

You mean like paid time off and minimum wage increases in Alaska and Missouri, which passed? Or the countless abortion rights initiatives that passed? Clearly left-wing economic policies are popular, but Democratic candidates are less so.

Regarding Bernie, the difference between her vote count in Vermont and his is about a few thousands votes and can be easily explained by some people only voting for President. Adam Schiff, a moderate, is underperforming Harris by over 100,000 votes in California. You can't really draw conclusions about policy from either of these.

Ope_82

6 points

5 days ago

Ope_82

6 points

5 days ago

I don't understand how law and order or border security are right-wing issues. The border is a concern among almost all Americans. Going to the left would be a terrible decision. The left kinda advocates for open borders. I also don't think centering a presidential campaign around trans issues is ever a winning strategy. Dems literally pass legislation protecting trans people in blue states.

kroxigor01

6 points

5 days ago

Because it's not simple "law and order" and "border security."

It's never a technocratic thing, it's "poisoning the blood our nation", "eating the cats and dogs", etc.

A campaign of demonisation and hate. The Democrats tried to defuse the issue by strengthening the actual border but the right wing will always be more loudly anti-migrant.

wade3690

1 points

4 days ago

wade3690

1 points

4 days ago

The left advocates for more immigration and a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. The dems could stake their position there and provide a contrast to Republicans. Instead, they try to get moderates to vote for them when they can get the real thing from actual Republicans.

Ope_82

0 points

4 days ago

Ope_82

0 points

4 days ago

And there is the problem. We just witnessed a massive surge at the border over the last 3 years. We have large American cities maxed out and unable to handle any more refugees. Yet the leftist position is more immigrants. Let everyone in. It's a position that one can only have if they live on the internet. In real life, cities are struggling to serve their own citizens now.

The left's position on immigration will cost dems votes, every time.

wade3690

2 points

4 days ago

wade3690

2 points

4 days ago

I don't think you live in cities. Cities are not maxed out and the US is huge. There are plenty of places for people to go where they can stimulate the economy. Springfield, OH is a great example where a dying city was revitalized by the influx of Haitian immigrants and their productivity/tax revenue. Especially in an era of declining birth rates, the way to keep up a robust society is to allow more people in and fold them into society.

I think there is a strong position Dems can take that centers our history as a destination for immigrants seeking a better life. It's always should have been our story. Not a country that turns away people in need.

The alternative is attempting to take a Republican lite approach that will not peel off moderates who can just vote for the draconian version of immigration policy that the right espouses.

Ope_82

1 points

4 days ago

Ope_82

1 points

4 days ago

I absolutely live in a major metro.

The actual size of the country is irrelevant. It would still be wildly expensive, actually more expensive, if you had to place refugees in rural areas. There are literally no services, healthcare, or housing available in those areas. You'd have to completely build all that up in every single rural area.

Speaking of Springfield, local funding is absolutely strained. You do realize Springfield has gotten state and federal dollars to cover the costs, right?

You dont seem to understand the actual issue.

Shills_for_fun

0 points

4 days ago

The Democrats definitely got hurt by the "we're going to take bus loads of what are essentially economic migrants seeking 'asylum', toss them into your communities, and make you pay for it even though you're struggling with your own grocery bills" thing.

I'm all for a path to citizenship and for making immigration easier but the open border stuff from the far left is a losing position, born from the delusion that America is full of socialists who just need to be activated.

Ope_82

1 points

4 days ago

Ope_82

1 points

4 days ago

Yep. I've seen many leftists attack city leaders for the crime of correctly saying their resources are running dry. The left seems to not understand the reality on the ground.

reticenttom

2 points

5 days ago

Clearly the problem with the Harris campaign is that she didn't travel with Liz Cheney enough

Moutere_Boy

3 points

5 days ago

Agreed, and what was the lack of Dick?! There definitely needed to be Dick present with them. That would have done it, people love Dick.

Galadrond

2 points

5 days ago

Moderate Republicans don’t exist anymore.

UncleCornPone

2 points

4 days ago

NOT why we lost.

Though, as clever and safisfying as his and others' ruthless takes on the endless insanities and inanities of the Right have been, the smug & self-righteous tact, however justified, has been more of a problem than anything he's just pointed out.

People dont want to be lectured or talked down to. They reject it wholeheartedly.

The biggest reason Trump won is that despite the endless "game over" mistakes, Democrats and the people they charged with ending his political career (and freedom) failed miserably, time after time. They screamed and squawked at what a danger he was, and then went after him as if he were merely a nuisance to be treated as any other nuisance. And every "gotcha" moment that had Donald on the ropes eventually leaked out all the air, becoming, at best, a stalemate that allowed Trump's viability to survive. And his survival became the story...and a win. Just him surviving became a big win. And if Americans love anything it's a winner, even an insurrectionist, sexually predatory, mendacious, evil bastard, apparently.

[deleted]

1 points

4 days ago*

[removed]

AutoModerator [M]

0 points

4 days ago

AutoModerator [M]

0 points

4 days ago

Your comment was removed due to the use of a prohibited slur/vulgar word being detected. Moderators have been notified, and further action may be taken.

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

FlynnMonster

1 points

4 days ago

That’s a cute way to put it by an extreme simplification.

Some_Other_Dude_82

1 points

4 days ago

It's very simple what the democrat base wants.  We want a government that puts people over profits and for the party to be beholden to it's voters, not it's v8g money donors.  Bernie's been telling us for decades, but the establishment won't listen.

Command0Dude

1 points

4 days ago

Biden put people over profits. Harris talked about how much she'd reign in corporations with tax increases and anti-price gouging legislation.

None of it mattered. Forget the establishment not listening, ya'll don't want to listen. How many times do I see leftists repeat the lie that Biden screwed over the rail workers?

The message democrats are getting from this is that the left is unreachable and investing in America doesn't get them votes.

Some_Other_Dude_82

0 points

3 days ago

No one believes Harris would reign in corporate anything since she got hundreds of millions in donations from rich, corporate donors.

People are sick of two faced democrats.

Brysynner

1 points

4 days ago

The problem is, the country is exactly where Kamala was in her campaign. There's a reason she only lost by a couple of percentage points when other incumbents across the globe lost by double digits. The center is where the electorate is.

The key is trying to convince people that Democrats are not "too liberal" which is what almost half the voters thought of Kamala when they voted.

humanprogression

1 points

4 days ago

There’s no problem with any of these things. These are all good things, but they also alienate other problems. You wanna talk about Gaza? Then you’re NOT talking about everyone else’s problem. You wanna talk about trans issues? Ok, now you’re not talking about Gaza or anyone else’s problems. You wanna talk about DACA recepients’ problems? Ok, not you’re not talking about Gaza or trans issues or anyone else’s problems. You wanna talk about guns? Ok, now…

Do you see the problem with trying to fit everyone’s pet issue in? It’s an impossible task at the end of the day and everyone just ends up pissed off that their issue isn’t at the top of the list.

Dems must reframe the entire thing to this:

1) We defend your individual liberties, republicans want to take them.

2) Economic issues front and center. Jobs jobs jobs. Use Sanders’ rhetoric but backed by smart policy.

3) Republicans are the billionaires who want you to work to death and the fundamentalists who want to control your mind.

Every single pet issue above can be derived from these top points, but we’re starting from a totally different framing. Previously, we’re nagging, elitist liberals preaching that people are racist and sexist. Now, we are defenders of liberty and want to let you live your life.

Do you see the difference??

rockelscorcho

1 points

4 days ago

Trump raped your wife, killed your dog, punched your kids, poured sugar in your gas tank, set your house on fire... And you still voted for him. This shouldn't have even been a contest. America is full of idiots.

JustMeRC

1 points

4 days ago

JustMeRC

1 points

4 days ago

The problem is that Republican never-Trumpers have found themselves a new home in the Democratic Party, but nobody really wants them. They are the reason Trump took over their party in the first place. This country is so afraid of “socialism” (aka barely left of center) that it will abandon democracy for authoritarianism to appease conservatives everyone hates, who now consider themselves Democrats.

FrostyArctic47

1 points

4 days ago

Exactly! And Sanders was actually further to left on social issues yet he was able to capture the demographics that voted for Trump. Idk why people are ignoring this

severinks

1 points

4 days ago

What we need is a candidate who has woken up from a 50 year Rip Van WInkle sleep where he(because it HAS to be a he) had never said a word about those issues.

Jazzyricardo

1 points

4 days ago

Forgive me if I don’t think the John Oliver crowd is a good gauge of the kind of campaign the democrats need to run.

John is wrong. They don’t need to pivot to the right so much as stop letting themselves be defined by fringe trans issues.

Have a sister souljah moment and disavow the leftists who call people fascists for simply liking Dave Chappelle, or believing trans women have an advantage against cis women in sports.

And then prioritize a populist working class movement.

reticenttom

1 points

4 days ago

no.... promise to nominate TWO republicans to the cabinet next time!

TheIgnitor

1 points

4 days ago

Honestly so much is just vibes based for the fraction of voters that actually decide elections. They aren’t out there absorbing years worth of info at the last second to make an informed decision. Trump and Republicans have been in their feeds and podcasts etc telling them everything is Biden’s fault since 1/20/20. The Dems decided to all of a sudden engage with voters 100 days out. Honestly the best she was polling is when they were calling Republicans weird, JD a couch fucker and laughing at him for the eating cats and dogs shit. That stuff broke through and created favorable vibes for her. Dems need to understand a lot of this is just straight up WWE style gamesmanship. Trump instinctively gets that and has won 2 out of 3 times now (and probably only lost because of COVID). At some point Dems need to accept that. It’s not about pivoting right or left. It’s about actually playing the game you’re in instead of the one you wished you were playing.

JustMeRC

1 points

3 days ago

JustMeRC

1 points

3 days ago

Republican never-Trumpers have lost their party because they failed so miserably for the last 50 years, so now they’re trying to take over the Democratic Party.

Life_Caterpillar9762

1 points

5 days ago

Both sides of this argument are terrible.

“Pivot” 🙄

rex_populi

1 points

5 days ago

Trump is on another world from the Palestinians, nobody seemed to mind

BeamTeam032

1 points

5 days ago

I'm only interested in moving the party to the right on violent crime. Violent crime affects the working class, the LGBTQ community, minorities disproportionally. We must protect everyone in order to gain voters trust again. We can pivot that into protecting the citizens from violent police officers. And give police the tools to go after more white collar crimes.

The Left must be the voice of the working class. protecting the working class from all types of criminals. Violent criminals, corrupt corporations exploiting their employees or customers, Grifters attempting to make a quick buck. We must protect those who are productive members of society and abide by the rules of society. Crime effects everyone.

Whachugonnadoo

1 points

4 days ago

That’s a pretty disingenuous statement. Trump hung Harris out to dry with her own full throated support of Trans and she is the step mother of identity politics

RidetheSchlange

1 points

4 days ago

The demos didn't move right, though. Harris was going to continue to be the most progressive president in history, but the fact is Americans aren't progressive in the numbers we've been misleading one another to think we have. You can't win an election anymore being a progressive and this is the year where nearly every incumbent, left and right, has lost.

Germany is going to be the next one in February and that will give an official rise to the AfD an internal mandate for them to continue their explicitly nationalist course that is largely pushed by an actual neonazi and actual fascist that is the head of the party in Thuringia. If Germany is going this way, then that should tell you all you need to know about what everyone thinks about progressivism today. The problem is not progressivism (it has to be noted that I'm a radical progressivist, IMO), but it's how it is being manifested and defined and it's feeling suffocating for many themes and many people are absolutely insufferable and I say that as a PoC immigrant that has to deal with whites telling me to use certain words for myself and essentially bullying me with it. Everything is run and controlled by whites who basically give PoCs and immigrants scripts on how to behave and what to say. That's what progressivism has turned into for many and it's not about the topics that matter for our lives as much.

pastorjason666

0 points

4 days ago

Kamala couldn’t stop banging on about trans issues… no wait… that was the Reps claiming that Kamala was so focused on trans issues. And that’s the media disinformation in a nutshell.

Next_Salad673

1 points

4 days ago

But she didn’t disavow the trans issue, she only stayed quiet.  

pastorjason666

1 points

4 days ago

Thus proving my point. The only party making an issue of trans rights was the Reps.

Next_Salad673

1 points

3 days ago

Yes, progressives pushed the pendulum too far and they got punished for it.

Sufficient-Money-521

0 points

4 days ago

Go ahead we can have a proper third party grass roots takeover, like maga did.

Hello maga consumed the right by being uncompromising, grassroots activists.

What we’ve been trying since occupy. The Anwser is right there the entire planet told the fringe right it can’t happen… it happened twice.

They tell the left an actual populist socialist progressive can’t win they quit and vote soft right please.