I don’t know, at this point I’m starting to ask myself if it’s the Democrats fault if the majority of the people agree with the opposition? If she had won the popular vote and lost the electoral college I might have believed that it was simply appealing more to the Democratic base or appealing to less enfranchised liberals, but she lost the popular vote by a long shot. Not only did she lose, but she lost after the other guy has had 4 years of public attack, federal crimes, rape convictions, Project 2025, and basically promising that Palestinians and Ukrainians will get fucked. Hell, the percentage of women that voted for Trump went up in this election.
If people didn’t turn out because Democrats aren’t appealing to leftist ideals enough I fear the message heard by the DNC isn’t to appeal to even more progressive or socialist ideals, but to adopt even more moderate policies. Just facing the facts, but the political left is an unreliable voter group and it’s extremely entitled. Instead of trying to be a foil to Republican ideals Democrats are more likely to try more moderate options. Think of it as creating an alternative instead of being an opposite, Coke and Pepsi instead of Coke and Sprite. It feels like the needle of America’s social equilibrium has permanently moved to be more conservative.
I think the problem is that Harris was barely appealing to any ideals. If she had run hard on medicare for all and raising the minimum wage, I think she might have gotten the popular vote. Instead, she promised more of the same that we’ve had for the last 4 years.
Eh, I’ll concede that she wasn’t screaming her ideals as loud as possible, but that goes back to my original point. The political left is a fickle voter base. Kamala had good ideas, she had policies, she had been part of the successes made under Biden, but she put most of her focus into attacking Trump. It sounds like the argument being made is that uninformed voters weren’t encouraged enough to vote and more liberal disenfranchised voters didn’t turn out because they didn’t like her policies. If this is the case which makes more sense:
1.) Making some policy changes so they can get people who don’t historically come out to vote to do so or,
2.) Making some policy changes so that people who historically come out to vote will vote for them.
Someone threatening not to vote, when they historically don’t anyways, isn’t much of a threat or motivation.
I don’t know, at this point I’m starting to ask myself if it’s the Democrats fault if the majority of the people agree with the opposition? If she had won the popular vote and lost the electoral college I might have believed that it was simply appealing more to the Democratic base or appealing to less enfranchised liberals, but she lost the popular vote by a long shot. Not only did she lose, but she lost after the other guy has had 4 years of public attack, federal crimes, rape convictions, Project 2025, and basically promising that Palestinians and Ukrainians will get fucked. Hell, the percentage of women that voted for Trump went up in this election.
If people didn’t turn out because Democrats aren’t appealing to leftist ideals enough I fear the message heard by the DNC isn’t to appeal to even more progressive or socialist ideals, but to adopt even more moderate policies. Just facing the facts, but the political left is an unreliable voter group and it’s extremely entitled. Instead of trying to be a foil to Republican ideals Democrats are more likely to try more moderate options. Think of it as creating an alternative instead of being an opposite, Coke and Pepsi instead of Coke and Sprite. It feels like the needle of America’s social equilibrium has permanently moved to be more conservative.
I think the problem is that Harris was barely appealing to any ideals. If she had run hard on medicare for all and raising the minimum wage, I think she might have gotten the popular vote. Instead, she promised more of the same that we’ve had for the last 4 years.
Eh, I’ll concede that she wasn’t screaming her ideals as loud as possible, but that goes back to my original point. The political left is a fickle voter base. Kamala had good ideas, she had policies, she had been part of the successes made under Biden, but she put most of her focus into attacking Trump. It sounds like the argument being made is that uninformed voters weren’t encouraged enough to vote and more liberal disenfranchised voters didn’t turn out because they didn’t like her policies. If this is the case which makes more sense:
1.) Making some policy changes so they can get people who don’t historically come out to vote to do so or,
2.) Making some policy changes so that people who historically come out to vote will vote for them.
Someone threatening not to vote, when they historically don’t anyways, isn’t much of a threat or motivation.
You simply can’t predict who will vote and who wont. If Obama went off of previous voter history he wouldnt have ran for president.
Removed by mod