Yeah, but read the article, look at the policies those people campaigned on, and google whether or not Harris also backed those economic policies. She did. She supported and ran on most of those policies.
IMHO, this was probably more of an issue around how effective the candidates, and their opponents, were at getting the policies or “vibes” in voter’s minds.
She legitimately didn’t run on any of those policies. Two weeks before the election she told everyone that she would do nothing different from Biden. She ran on the platform that Biden was a good president and nothing would change when the entire country was screaming for cha.ge
This was my perception as well - I live in a deeply red state and what local coverage and ads I saw didn’t mention any of these policies.
They kept the good stuff under wraps and tried to play it safe but not spooking anyone with “communism.”
If I was an average American (obese, uneducated, easily frightened, provincial, and racist), I would not have been swayed to vote for Harris. Actually, the average American didn’t vote at all.
T**** did a better job of giving the impression that he was going to do something to help the everyday American. It’s a total lie but one that’s hard to see through - if you’re an average American.
Tobias described a dynamic where campaign staff and candidates are hesitant to publicly push back on the assertions of billionaire donors like Hoffman, even if the campaign doesn’t intend to let them direct policy.
Tobias indicated that the apparent influence of the super-wealthy has a dual effect. It undermines the Democratic Party’s support from its traditional base by steering policy discussions away from economically populist ideas that go against the interest of the wealthy, while simultaneously helping support candidates who are charismatic but don’t come into politics with a consistent ideological framework.
The influence of billionaires was directly early in Harris’ bid for the presidency when moguls like Mark Cuban warned the Harris campaign that a billionaire tax, for example, would be too aggressive, according to the Washington Post. Other business executives, like Tony West, the chief legal officer at Uber and Harris’ brother-in-law, also served as advisors and, according to the Atlantic, helped steer the campaign away from criticism of corporate power.
Yeah, just saying that the policies mentioned in the article were not what made those people win or made Harris lose. They basically had the same policies.
I disagree, from the article those candidates had more anti-corporate policies that addressed the issue of cost of living. The closest thing Harris ran on was to crack down on Price gouging, which was/is one of her most popular positions, yet she also did not campaign enough on that front and contrasted it with housing deregulation
Or course, being moderates, they didn’t mean a word of it.
But it does show that even feigned progressive populism brings out the voters that running to the right alienates.
Oh for fuck’s sake. Attitudes like that are why candidates don’t bother going for the left’s votes.
You can’t meet half way between “a fair world where human life has value” and "complete corporate monopolization of everything. "
The Dems made the choice to continue bending the knee to the rich instead of representing the people who elected them
Wanting leftists to support leftist policies instead of the rich is totally reasonable
I voted for Kamala who was the only correct choice but can’tblame othersfor being apathetic.
You will accept any excuse to move to the right and only the right. You already got genocide support and loved every last second of it.
Yeah, but read the article, look at the policies those people campaigned on, and google whether or not Harris also backed those economic policies. She did. She supported and ran on most of those policies.
IMHO, this was probably more of an issue around how effective the candidates, and their opponents, were at getting the policies or “vibes” in voter’s minds.
She legitimately didn’t run on any of those policies. Two weeks before the election she told everyone that she would do nothing different from Biden. She ran on the platform that Biden was a good president and nothing would change when the entire country was screaming for cha.ge
She ran on “don’t do anything different from Biden” and “Look! We got Cheney’s endorsement!” and “shut up, the economy’s fine!”
This was my perception as well - I live in a deeply red state and what local coverage and ads I saw didn’t mention any of these policies.
They kept the good stuff under wraps and tried to play it safe but not spooking anyone with “communism.”
If I was an average American (obese, uneducated, easily frightened, provincial, and racist), I would not have been swayed to vote for Harris. Actually, the average American didn’t vote at all.
T**** did a better job of giving the impression that he was going to do something to help the everyday American. It’s a total lie but one that’s hard to see through - if you’re an average American.
This is it exactly, and I feel like this bit of this Salon article (arc’d) perfectly captures why this happened
It’s both a policy and messaging issue. On both fronts the campaign did not take either seriously enough
Of course they were taking it seriously. You can criticise the strategy, but clearly they took it very seriously.
Yeah, just saying that the policies mentioned in the article were not what made those people win or made Harris lose. They basically had the same policies.
I disagree, from the article those candidates had more anti-corporate policies that addressed the issue of cost of living. The closest thing Harris ran on was to crack down on Price gouging, which was/is one of her most popular positions, yet she also did not campaign enough on that front and contrasted it with housing deregulation