Summary

Historians suggest Democrats might have fared better against Donald Trump by embracing the economic issues championed by Senator Bernie Sanders, who has long pushed for a focus on “bread-and-butter” concerns for working-class voters.

Despite Kamala Harris’s progressive policies, polls showed Trump was favored on economic issues, particularly among working-class and Hispanic voters.

Historian Leah Wright Rigueur argued that Sanders’ messaging on economic struggles could be key for future Democratic strategies.

Sanders himself criticized the party for “abandoning” the working class, which he said has led to a loss of support across racial lines.

179 points

More voters should have listened to Bernie.

He told people what to do.

permalink
report
reply
26 points

Yes, but people forgot that his real message was to get out there an be the change. Bernie’s message was never about relying on or believing in the Democrats, it was that change only happens when we mobilize.

He told us to get out there and run ourselves and get personally involved and invested in our local politics so we can be the revolution… We just chose not to listen to him.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

People talk about “the Dems” like they are a monolith.

AOC unseated a long term Congress member who was tightly connected to the New York power structure. She did it by hitting the streets and talking to the locals. She built up voter support and won her primary.

I know it’s an uphill battle, but it is possible to change things.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Yes, this is what I’m saying. I’m not saying take up pitchforks and bring the fight to the democrats like they’re the villain, I’m just saying not to blindly trust them either. They are a part of the system; even if not in permanent institution certainly in effect. Bernie didn’t say go fight the Dems, in fact he proved that you can strategically use them. But don’t think that D = good or D = hero automatically either.

It’s not about fighting the dems, it’s about trusting in ourselves instead of others. It’s about autonomy and the fact that nobody is going to fight the fight for you, you’ve gotta get your knuckles dirty. Don’t trust anyone to do the work for you, red or blue; get out and do the fucking work yourself.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-11 points

He told everyone to vote for Dems, instead of make a legitimate opposition to the right

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points
*

God i’ll never forget where i was when he dropped out. I had phone banked and donated and I was watching his concession speech just…wrecked maaan, wrecked at how the DNC et al had ratfucked him and how tilted the game was… and while I’m saltin my booze with tears someone in the group asks him “What do we do now?” and he says something like

“Vote Dem, vote in your primaries”

and my heart fell in that shitty whiskey with the rest. Maaaan, i never knew i still had faith to lose until that moment.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Haha, I feel similar, I was really mad for a while that he just gave in, but at the same time, I think he did what he thought was best for the country at the time, Trump was and will be terrible for the country, and if the DNC was going to fuck over Bernie and he thought he couldn’t possibly win third party and if he DID fight that fight, Trump would assuredly have won.

Of course in hindsight, he won anyway so it would have been better to take the fight to the DNC then.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Then did nothing but carry water for them for the last 4 years.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-46 points
*

It is not the voters job to embrace a progressive modern platform nor is it their job to get themselves energized over said policies

But both parties have shoved that false belief down voters throats that is the voters’ faults when they fail to deliver

permalink
report
parent
reply
58 points

Not sure exactly the point you’re trying to make, but you’re half right. It is a politicians job to convince voters to support their policies, that’s true, but it’s also equally true that voters should support good policies. While it’s not their “job” to do so, they still suffer the consequences for failing to do so all the same. No matter how you slice it, people were stupid to not listen to Bernie all this time.

permalink
report
parent
reply
46 points

In a democracy, it sure as Hell is the voters’ job to do all that. And more, for that matter.

In fact, the voters should be controlling the parties (if not abolishing them entirely), not the other way around!

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

No no no, the Democratic Party is some magical uncontrollable entity, we must abandon it, making progressive change infinitely more difficult.

/s if it wasn’t obvious. Banana is a bad faith agitator. They desired a GOP victory.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

It was the DNC’s job to be clear about Bernie’s message. I voted for him in the 2016 primary even though I was bombarded with “radical socialist regressive left” Bernie articles in my social media feeds at the time.

Unfortunately, most Americans don’t actively seek out information and just accept the picture painted by the news that’s fed to them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

It was the DNC’s job to be clear about Bernie’s message.

LOL the DNC has actively fought against Bernie’s message.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*

This is a systematic failure. Non-Harris voters are definitely at fault, but so is the DNC for moving further right and abandoning progressives and for sitting on their ass for 4 years.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Democracy is participatory. If it isn’t your job, you can’t complain when it isn’t done to your liking.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

Enjoy having Trump. I really don’t have any more words for people like you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

You lot gave everyone Trump by refusing to listen to voters concerns.

You apparently have still not learnt.

permalink
report
parent
reply
146 points

It is absolutely clear now. The DNC is a private company whose main function is to fund raise, period. If they also win an election then that’s great, but if it comes to a choice between winning and raising money, they will choose raising money. They will never move to the left to win voters if it will cost them fund raising opportunities from the center and right.

permalink
report
reply
30 points

This honestly makes so much more sense than anything else. I think you nailed it. Republicans are motivated by money and exerting social control so they write up manifestos (p2025), take over the courts, work hard to disenfranchise voters, lie, cheat, anything is on the table. The DNC does indeed seem fairly comfortable with losing by comparison, despite the fact that the leftist ideals they supposedly dabble in create a moral imperative to never lose. I wonder if Republicans fucking pay the DNC money to run these candidates we all know aren’t the best. They’re just good enough to get votes against mother fucking Trump. But not always good enough to win, barely good enough when they are, typically.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Republicans don’t need to pay the DNC, both are funded by the same billionaires most of the time.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

“Nah guys, we’re good on money, thanks. Got enough.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

The democrats represent the group of americans that think money and “american ingenuity” can solve all problems. No problem is a real problem because we can always solve it if we just try real hard to make the current thing better.

Thats why they are the status quo party, its literally their whole founding belief.

The republicans are a party of changing backwards, which only works sometimes, usually when people are upset: “remember when things weren’t awful…?”

The rest of the parties are thinking long term and are true parties of change but you need money to make it in politics, or else not enough people even know you exist at the higher political levels. There were I think five “third” parties on my ballot but I only ever heard people talk about one or two of them.

I’m not sure if its more likely the democrat party collapses out of disinterest and a third party replaces them, or if the democrat party will become a true party of change for the future.

It could just continue on as the party of “America is amazing and will always be amazing so vote for us for more amazing.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

It’s downright sad that I can’t think of any argument against this.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

That never stopped you before. Just scream that they’re a trumper like you did when you were wrong about genocide and didn’t want to admit it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

And the rich.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Imo, you’ve got all the prices. However, I would put them in a different order.

Short answer: Republican or Democrat, the candidate that spends the most wins. Therefore, fund raising is winning.

There’s a small group of king-makers in the US and the candidate who offers them the most becomes president. Recently, the people who decide who gets to be president has started to include social media companies and amazon, who hosts half the Internet. Trump also cozied up to the American owner of the company the owns tiktok. Thats how he won. Trumps also great for social media engagement and news channel views.

Even candidates who happen to be better than the republican candidate, no democratic hopeful worth being of “the left” will ever be given enough money to become the president of America. Even if they started from a position that would appeal to them, they would have to compromise on everything that made them that in order to be allowed anywhere near the Whitehouse by the American ultra wealthy.

What you’re seeing isn’t the failure of the Democrats to correctly triangulate but the strength of the American ultra wealthy consent manufacturing machine.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

I don’t disagree those factors are at play, but they’re not as important as you seem to think in this day and age.

Bernie had real grassroots support and the dems stomped it out. The key is populist rhetoric and speaking about change, the DNC has basically been running on “not Trump” and “well things are bad but they would be worse under Trump.” while that is true, that’s not a winning message, give people something real to fight for and you’ll win support.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

On the contrary, they’re more important now than they’ve ever been. There also hasn’t been an election where the highest spender didn’t win. Its THE determining factor.

The same people who fund presidential campaigns for Republicans also spend lots of money on influencing democratic nominee choices. The whole things been captured.

Its like you all can’t see the woods for the trees, in the politest way possible. You see the state of trump and all the things that make him an aweful candidate and you say “how could the dems not beat that” instead of “what on earth could exert so much influence that even being that terrible couldn’t stop him?”

There’s no amount of “the dems not having a strong enough message” that overcomes the divide in the candidates, without huge influence. Their campaign wasn’t great but no where close enough to lose to someone like trump, in a fair fight. It would’ve had to have been utterly shocking from start to finish and, as bad as it was, it wasn’t that bad.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Republican or Democrat, the candidate that spends the most wins. Therefore, fund raising is winning.

you do know that in all last 3 elections dnc outspent gop by more than 50% ? last time we raised less than gop was with bush in 2004. harris raised more than 1.6 billion while trump raised about a billion. 600 million extra money they get is for not having a candidate with anti-rich anti-establishment anti-israel policies. hillary was similar story yet we barely saw her campaigning compared to trump. where does all this money go ?

compare that to jill stein who raised 2 million. dnc probably spent 10 times that money on just smearing her.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

I’m not thrilled with the DNC either, but I’m not buying this whole idea that they are shooting themselves in the foot on purpose. The DNC does better when they win elections.

In previous elections, the candidate that raised the most money was more likely to win. Also, a moderate Democrat won the last election. They made the decisions they made in this election cycle because they thought it was their best chance of winning.

I don’t have access to the data that they have to determine whether the leftist that Lemmy wants on the ticket could actually win the general.

I’d certainly like to believe that it’s just that simple and all the DNC needs to do is put up a pro-Palestine Democratic Socialist and the election is in the bag… I just don’t know if that’s the reality on the ground. If that is not the reality on the ground, are the leftists that stayed home still committed to their protest? Or is there a point at which they would admit that we haven’t had a true leftist on the ticket because a true leftist is not viable?

I hope someone can put together some clear data to answer that question soon… I’m afraid that a pro-Palestine Socialist will get crushed by AIPAC funded attack ads about Marxism and supporting terrorism that will really stick with moderates, and that no matter how energized the base is it wouldn’t be enough to win the general.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

I am not saying that they are losing on purpose. I’m saying that they are making decisions about policies and candidates based on fund raising rather than on attracting voters. On purpose or not, they did shoot themselves in the foot by courting disaffected Republican voters. Everyone knew they were not going to win a lot of those voters, but they sure did rake in a lot of dough. I believe that is their primary motivation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I mean the Republicans are doing the same. Lining their pockets as they make decisions. Why is it so foreign to do with one costume rather than the other?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

I’m not thrilled with the DNC either, but I’m not buying this whole idea that they are shooting themselves in the foot on purpose. The DNC does better when they win elections.

Grey’s Law applies here.

permalink
report
parent
reply
97 points

I’ve been saying that since the DNC fucked him over in the 2016 election. I voted for Biden, then Harris, but I never fucking forgot who’s to blame for the state of things now.

permalink
report
reply
72 points

Berine had the biggest grassroots campaign I’ve seen in my time alive, bigger than Obama, more individual donations than any candidate ever.

But the DNC knew if they ran a real progressive it would threaten their corrupt racket

permalink
report
parent
reply
37 points

I never gave to a politician before Bernie Sanders. I wanted to see him win so bad.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

I will never forget or forgive the DNC for 2016. I worked on his campaign. I went to the primary, in my state at the time a caucus, and felt the energy and excitement of everyone. He was the real deal. Unfortunately, he’s a little too old now.

Other Dem campaigns often don’t invite their voters to help out like Bernie or Stacey Abrams - instead they ask for money repeatedly. I got a million texts for money this year. It’s giving “Election Christmas” in a capitalist way.

permalink
report
parent
reply
77 points

If we had run Bernie in 2016, Trump would still be nothing but a punchline.

permalink
report
reply
-55 points

Yes, because Trump’s second term would now be over.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

Lol at this delusional lib rewriting history that somehow Clinton won over trump 😂

permalink
report
parent
reply
-24 points

It’s one think to think that Sanders is correct, but to think that the American people would have voted for him in 2016 is just extremely delusional.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Clinton lost. Sanders couldn’t possibly do worse than her lmao

permalink
report
parent
reply
73 points

In hindsight it seems obvious, but to be honest I really thought Kamala would have fared better.

permalink
report
reply
40 points
*

We all did, you’re not wrong.

It’s a sad reality we all woke up to on Wednesday. Learning that the majority of Americans are ignorant, racist, misogynistic, selfish assholes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

We all did

No, we did not “all” think so, a lot of us have been saying this for quite a while. In fact since at least the 2016 election cycle started in 2015.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

When you mean “all”, I wonder who you group in that conception.

Not all of us believed Kamala would win. A good group of people were calling out Kamala’s shit since the DNC, and everything since. With the direction of the campaign, you had a good chance to predict Kamala’s underperformance.

Let’s not kid ourselves here.

permalink
report
parent
reply
37 points

This is what many said in 2016 after Clinton lost but we still did it again in 2020 and yet again in 2024. If I were a betting man I’d say that if there’s sill an election worth having in 2028 we’ll see another, even further right leaning, centrist Democrat win the nomination.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points
*

Yoyo look, this guy’s fucking nostradamus up in here, right? It’s gonna happen just like this.

I’m thinking newsome is the “perfect” candidate for 28.

Whoever it is, I bet you, just like me can’t wait to be told how stupid i am and actually great they are by credulous online political minds who call parroting the pundits talking points word-for-word fucking theory

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Progressives need to start picking a single nominee to get behind right now. Or we’re getting whichever candidate the establishment wing of the party has already selected. Maybe they’ll run Liz Cheney.

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points

To me the main takeaway is that I live in a completely separate reality from most voters. I would have voted on a dead dog over Trump. He is mean, narcissistic and never shows any empathy. On top of that he is clearly losing his wits. If a majority of voters prefers a candidate like this, is even enthusiastic to vote for him, what can you do?

I also know that Lemmy skews left, but I think we have to face the fact that most voters have no ability to empathise with those worse off. There is no left wing politics without empathy and solidarity. What most of us here want is dead.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I think social media has put everyone in their own eco chamber.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

This is true to an extent. Social media made it much easier to spread misinformation that allowed for the total shattering of consensus reality. Which had been under intense duress for the better part of a century anyways

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Is the majority enthusiastic to vote for him? His own campaigning rallies were a snorefest, as far as we saw.

For me the main “a-ha” here is that so many people apparently still believe his stupid story that he is a guy who makes deals to fix the economy. Instead of a con-man. I have no idea why democrats were not able to destroy this “economic leader” image that he has built. Or why Harris and Walz did not focus on the issue every poll in the last month did say was the most important one: the economic situation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

It was also copium. After the infamous debate we all knew Biden wouldn’t win and had made a mistake.

The fact that he actually backed down just gave a lot of enthusiasm to what could come next. It was historic and made us all stop focusing on the fact that he should have never ran for 2024 in the first place.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

The fact that he actually backed down just gave a lot of enthusiasm to what could come next.

The fact that the party listened just fucking once was what generated the enthusiasm. That died when it became crystal clear that no further listening would happen.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 189K

    Comments