At the moment, I'm not much interested in the million and one liberal narratives floating around online explaining "why she lost"—all with remarkable certitude. Emotions are too raw and people are mostly just relitigating all their old grievances. But when a party suffers a six-point swing against it in every single state, the problem is something big and fundamental, not whether Kamala was chosen too quickly (please) or the press didn't tell people how bad Trump is (they did). A biggish slice of Americans just don't like the dog food Democrats are selling.
At the moment, I'd say the single most widespread self-critique is that Dems have abandoned the working class, so it should be no surprise that the working class abandoned Dems. The assumption generally is that we abandoned them economically, with no willingness to consider the possibility that liberals need to reconsider their cultural values. I suspect that's a serious mistake, but for now let's go with the economic argument.
Here's my question: What, exactly, can liberals do for the working class? The Trump answer, aside from rhetorical support, is basically (a) small tax cuts and (b) revenge against China for taking away our manufacturing jobs.¹ In other words, it's all vibes, since neither of those things will make the working class noticeably better off.
Kamala Harris's answer was a few small bore things like help with down payments. "Retraining" has historically been a popular suggestion, which wildly misreads what displaced working class folks want. Safety net programs? Liberals have long been hellbent on phasing them out at low income levels that bypass the working class. "Buy American" is popular with both parties, but it rarely gets enforced seriously and people are rightfully cynical about it. This kind of stuff just won't do the job.
I honestly don't know the answer. The problem is that Democrats have been remarkably successful over the years, leaving very few big-ticket social welfare items undone that might genuinely make a difference. Universal healthcare is the obvious exception, and putting long-term senior care under Medicare might be another. But they're both expensive and extremely difficult to pull off politically.
So if we confine ourselves to economic answers, there's not much available. Inflation was supposedly a huge issue this year, but if so it just means Democrats were doomed. Inflation was caused by the pandemic and ended by the pandemic. There was nothing anyone could do about it.
What's the answer? If we refuse to discuss culture-war moderation because, by God, those are moral issues and you don't compromise on morality, we're stuck with purely economic appeals to the working class. But what?
¹Some might add immigration hawkery, but I wouldn't. I feel pretty strongly that when you dig down, anti-immigrant sentiment is far more cultural than economic. "Oprima dos para español" pisses them off way more than the jobs virtually no white people ever lose to illegal immigrants.
I would put Kevin's opening point even more strongly: Can you name a single proposal to help the working class economically that the Democrats *haven't* signed on to?
For better or worse, it's the cultural stuff.
Yeah. Doesn't stop people from lying about Democratic policies, tho.
'They're for open borders' no they're not, but does the media stop this?
'They're for tampons in the boy's room' no, they're not, they're just for them to be available in a neutral space. Besides, why do you care tampons are in the first aid kit? They don't have cooties,
It's just a bunch of ridiculous stuff that the media allows to be parroted endlessly. Garbage? Trump said it multiple times and it wasn't reported on. Biden misstates once and it's allover the news.
+1
Immigration is not a cultural issue, it's an economic one.
It's both. Many people I know couldn't begin to discuss economic impacts of immigration. But, like Kevin said, they get pretty pissed when they call a company and are asked to press 1 for English. Or they go to Walmart and have to go through two or three employees before they find one that speaks English.
Maybe people pretend they don't speak English because they don't want to talk to an asshole.
+1
The ironic thing is that Hispanics are Republicans natural constituents.Mostly practicing Catholics. Hard working, like to get ahead by starting small businesses and think Republicans are strong on the economy. Conservative on cultural issues. I actually thought someone like Jeb Bush could win by making major inroads in the Hispanic vote. I thought that if Republicans didn’t demonize them they could turn that vote around. The weird thing to me is that Hispanics have turned to Republicans anyway. For some reason, particularly with Hispanic men, the transgender issue was more important than Trump saying Hispanics are “poisoning our blood.”
Totally agree with you regarding Jeb. He was my choice in 2016. (Although he had already dropped out when my state had out primary.)
In the age of trump you don't have to avoid demonizing them, as he's shown us; in fact it's a big feature if you *do* demonize because it brings out the "pull up the ladder, Jack, I've got mine" reflex.
"The ironic thing is that Hispanics are Republicans natural constituents.Mostly practicing Catholics. Hard working, like to get ahead by starting small businesses and think Republicans are strong on the economy."
Probably why Hispanic men voted +12 for Trump. And because they are apparently now part of the Republican coalition, they will be unironically embraced by the Republicans. For exactly the reasons you listed.
When they go to WalMart they can play the WalMart game.
Try and fill a cart to the top with American-made dry goods.
Can't be done.
+1
No, it isn't.
Yes. I am reminded of Hilbert's observation that physics has become too hard for physicists. It seems that democracy has become too bland for the demos. They miss the spice of racism and misogyny, the bracing touch of fascism. David Brooks has an op-ed in NYT crowing "Voters to Elites: Do You See Me Now?" I didn't have the stomach to read it.
As if Ivy League multimillionaires like Trump and Vance aren’t “elite.”
Brooks is a stupid, sick joke.
Always remember that Brooks just makes up whatever he wants:
“On my journeys to Franklin County, I set a goal: I was going to spend $20 on a restaurant meal. But although I ordered the most expensive thing on the menu [...] I always failed.”
Taking Brooks’s cue, I lunched at the Chambersburg Red Lobster and quickly realized that he could not have waded through much surf-and-turf at all. [...] It costs $28.75. “Most of our checks are over $20,” said Becka, my waitress. “There are a lot of ways to spend over $20.”
https://www.phillymag.com/news/2004/04/01/david-brooks-booboos-in-paradise/
I agree it has nothing to do with economics, but neither is it entirely cultural. It's because the working-class nation is swimming in Steve Bannon's Shit-Flooded Zone. Most non-college Americans are oblivious to the reality-based information ecosystem (yes, I know this is "elite talk"). They are swimming in bullshit specifically because they have been TARGETED by the Bannonite bullshit producers (and Russia). It doesn't matter if NPR and the New York Times float above the bullshit ocean if those who consult those sources are fewer in number when election time comes. The stats are all that matters, as we now see.
And I will add another thing about economics -- inflation, to be specific. This would be worthy of a Monty Python sketch if it weren't so tragic:
- We live in an economic system that is mostly lightly regulated capitalism, so when the markets are disrupted by, say, a pandemic, they will respond accordingly. Sometimes that response produces a spike in consumer prices. It's capitalism, and there is virtually nothing the government can do about it.
- In a centrally planned socialist system, prices ARE controlled by the government. When an exogenous event disrupts the supply/demand equilibrium, the government can just lower prices until equilibrium is restored. This is nice to keep the leadership from being thrown out, but in the long run it is bad, as we've seen throughout history, due to inefficient allocation of resources that always seem to get worse and worse.
- In this country, everyone sings the praises of capitalism, but when prices spike, we behave as if we live in a socialist system. The leadership has no way to fix the problem, but the public behaves as if they do. So we all want capitalism, but when things go south, we all want socialism.
+1
+1
+1
I've seen tweets saying if Dems don't nominate a Bernie Sanders type in '28, we're doomed. Sanders himself was claiming Dems abandoned working class people despite working the legislative end of making Biden the best president for the working class in generations. Jesus H. Christ. If you don't get the diagnosis right, yes we are doomed.
Elsewhere, Hannah Jones et al. see the election as a rejection of multiracial democracy. Which may be true, but I think that's too narrow a lens.
First of all, nobody knows what "type" we need in '28 bc nobody knows what the country looks like next cycle. Is the economy healthy and humming, or in recession, or totally crashed. All possibilities, and each requires a different response.
Likewise, are we at war? Are our allies safe and free, or have the authoritarians taken over? All possibilities. Have we sent millions to concentration camps? More possibilities.
Nobody knows the future, and nobody knows yet what lessons to take from Tuesday.
I think one problem was the switch of candidates. Even if you believe it was necessary, it did create a challenge for Harris, even though she ran as flawless of a campaign as anyone could expect. She, like HRC in '16, was forced to be the "change candidate" while running in some ways against the administration she was a part of. That's tricky. Ideally, a younger and healthier Biden, with better communications skills, could have rebutted much of the b.s., sold the country on his successes, and addressed the concerns of those still struggling with new proposals. That might have worked. The incumbency advantage was his (not hers), and it's real (voters are usually reluctant to replace presidents barring disaster). Harris had experience but was not the incumbent. She was the one asked to introduce herself, not her opponent.
I sense the economy was strong enough for a more vigorous, better communicating incumbent. In fact, it was probably good enough in recent months to alleviate many voter anxieties so that other factors were more at play. That's how elections often run. Despite whatever polls show, voters have rewarded Democrats in times of economic unease. Need a fix, hire the Dem. It's how the last three Dem presidents (Biden, Obama, Clinton) were elected. It's at times when the economy is OK and not a front-burner issue that Republicans thrive. It's how the last four GOP presidents (Trump x2, both Bushes) were elected.
I wouldn't go so far as to say all non-economic issues are "culture war issues." They're not. And my list and Kevin's list of where Dems should moderate probably wouldn't agree. But I think Dems (politicians here; the activists are beyond anyone's control) should think about winning voters and elections, avoid being easily mocked, and understand the limits of what's possible in one election cycle.
Democrats have a couple of challenges that need to be considered:
1. GOP has a built-in electoral advantage for gaining power and effecting change
2. GOP has a massive advantage in the Information System that informs voters
Example re #2: A single anonymous protester at at pro-Palestine rally engaged in questionable language or behavior will be how much of the country views Democrats overall. The most vicious threats and attacks by the president-elect will get a collective shrug and pushback if anyone tries to besmirch the salt-of-the-earth middle America "Good Republican" voter (who just this week voted for the fascist for the third time).
Elections ain't fair, but that's how it works.
I'm sure most of us remember the Dean Scream.
"....we're stuck with purely economic appeals to the working class. But what?"
Common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange,
Outlawing billionaires and capping maximum wealth.
'A second Trump administration represents the violent realignment of the American political superstructure to correspond with the real social relations that exist in the United States.' Relations that prevent providing policies to alleviate inequality because they are "expensive and extremely difficult to pull off politically." Difficult to pull off politically because of Democrats submissive relations with Wall St. and the war complex. Relations they have been subjected to believe are natural and necessary for American success. A success that includes world dominance, which Democrats act upon aggressively rather than oppose the dominance of wealth. Social relations between the plutocracy and the rest of America are now exposed without the obfuscation of liberal identity politics. The path has been cleared for a unification of the working class.
The problem with culture war issues is that people want the restrictions for other people, not themselves. Other people get divorced too easily, but there was no way to save my marriage. Other people who get abortions are sluts, but I really needed mine. Gay people are hedonistic and immoral, except for my gay child. People who commit crimes should all go to prison, but my DUI was an honest mistake. Immigrants who can't speak English shouldnt be allowed in, but it was fine that my grandparents only spoke German like everyone else in their small midwestern town. On and on.
The Democratic Party can't abandon the people who refuse to sign on for the culture war hypocrisy, so they're pretty much stuck.
As I keep saying, it's not that the Republicans lack empathy, your gay son example, for example. What they lack is imagination. The Divine Spark, if you will.
OK, so now we've pivoted to AGREEING WITH THE FSCKING POINT I WAS MAKING SIX MONTHS AGO -- that the current GOP voter base is not what it was 20 years ago. The same point that was criticized every time I made it, with me being called the usual fascist racist crap...
And of course, rather than look into WHY this happened, we get the same old "It's not me, it's the voters with their stupid false consciousness". Now it's time to trot out the old What's The Matter with Kansas story. Wasn't a useful analysis in 2004, won't be a useful analysis in 2024.
If your starting point is "the voters are idiots because they don't agree with the way I think" so let's figure out EXACTLY how are they are idiots, well, it's kinda a mystery why you're losing them...
At some point a political scientist will write "Manufacturing Contempt: How the Democrats lost America in 2024" and maybe then it will be clear to you?
PREACH.
You being another.
"If your starting point is "the voters are idiots because they don't agree with the way I think" They are idiots because they don't agree with objective reality. You being a prime example.
Dude. Politics as practiced by your ilk is just 7-year-olds (the Democrats) patronizing 6-year-olds (the Republicans). Yes, you are less full of shit than them, but the difference is at best marginal.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you must be libertarian. Only a libertarian would have the audacity to call anyone else juvenile. The difference between Libertarians and conservatives is minimal. As to which one of you is less juvenile I don't think it matters much. Oh and libertarians love to patronize. It usually goes hand in hand with their arrogance. Dude! Oh and libertarians are completely full of shit.
What the Hell are you talking about? With supplementary documentation. This sounds like your usual troll BS and you want to be vague in the hope that we'll obligingly fill out the blanks for you. Not. Gonna. Happen.
What am I talking about?
This diagram is what I am talking about:
https://x.com/patrickjfl/status/1854645395856482568
But when a party suffers a six-point swing against it in every single state, . . .
Seems implausible, doesn't it?
"....we're stuck with purely economic appeals to the working class. But what?"
Living Wage. It must be phased in gradually, to avoid excessive disruption. (Disruption of an economic regime which has funneled nearly all the gains due to improved productivity to the wealthy is necessary.) As it is phased in, all wages will rise.
The best argument against that old BS that '47% don't pay taxes' is', Pay them what they should be paid, and they'll bump up a couple of brackets.
As I've said a number of times here, honest economists would agree that FTEs paid less than a living wage are an economic externality, an economic inefficiency, as someone other than the employer and the employer's customers -- relatives, friend, government -- is bearing some of the cost of their support.
We've been fed the lie for far too long, that the reason working people feel that they're not getting ahead is the tax burden, so the answer is tax cuts -- which somehow go mostly to people who are already ahead. No, the reason is that your employers and owners are taking the whole damn pie.
"I honestly don't know the answer.
That's because there is no answer. The question itself is a trick that unfortunatley has been going on for eight years now and one I myself will cease to try and answer from now on.
Because it is useless to do so. Those from the right-center to the left need to divorce themselves from any romantic notions about politics (Tammy Baldwin has. Her operatives helped get a perennial candidate on the ballot who campaigned as a right-winger and helped her pull out a narrow win in Wisconsin.) The bottom line is that no speeches, no policies and no manifestos or anything about economics, class or culture whatever are going to beat the Republicans in 2026 or 2028. They will lose if, as we all believe, Trump's disasterous policies push the electorate to push the Republicans out. And, as someone on this website who posted on another topic wrote, the public also has to "want a liberal regime" to take over just like it did in 2008 and it can only do so if the reactionaries who have control over the whole government make such a mess of things that people will have no choice but to support the opposition party just to kick them out. Because they can't blame anyone else. They're in charge, let them prove their policies work. As I said before, people vote out governments, not vote them in. And party as diverse as the Dems are can only function effectively if united by an unpopular Republican President.
One can argue that Trump was on his way to winning in 2020 against any Dem (Biden included) if it wasn't for COVID. Not only because of his mishandeling of it but the disorder that followed from it tainted his regime and this led to his ouster. So Trump won in 2024 the victory he probably would have won in 2020 all things being equal. Wonderful! He's gets that second term and all the bad things that I and many other believe will result from it will stain him and everyone else involved and his party as well.
I don't know if you put this on your list of why Harris lost but one unfortunate problem the Democrats cannot shed is that they are the establishment party. That's because they actually care about governance so its easy for the GOP to act the class clowns. In that regard, it was easy for Harris to try and make cause with Liz Cheney and others anti-Trumpers in the GOP to form a broad part of the center to try and beat Trump. Unfortunately, like Hilary Clinton, Harris got burned because there just isn't the voting base or the population of these kinds of Republicans to stop Trump. If there were, Trump wouldn't have took control of the GOP in the first place. The "uniparty" moniker no doubt attracted a big anti-establishment vote to Trump. That's why they have to be the "establishment" or be perceived as such in order to fail because the voting populace hates, dislikes or is indifferent to government or public policy of any kind.
Sorry. Any explanation tied to the US is wrong. Any correct explanation has to explain the fact that this is a global swing. Britain, France, Germany, Hungary, Poland and India all right wing surges driven by a fear of others, either ethnic or religious. Looking only at the American working class is not going to yield a legitimate answer.
Good point, and the common factor is immigration, especially of persons of very different ethnicity or religion, which brought out tribalisms that were always there, and just needed an object on which to be focused. Note that a large proportion of undocumented persons in the US came with visas which they overstayed or violated, and absolutely nothing was said about them. One hundred percent of the 'immigrant invasion' rhetoric was about the southern border. I suppose that the expansion of communications has had a great deal to do with increased migration, and climate change has also played a role.
All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.
Guess what. People prefer not to be confronted with their real conditions of life, or their relations with their kind. Event though neurodivergent materialists may thrill at the obliteration of all social relationships and all comforting illusions...
Quoting the communist manifesto now? When in doubt call em a commie! You are mildly entertaining in a bizarre crackpot sort of way.
You accused me of being a libertarian, but there is no mainstream political philosophy that I despise more.
Kevin. You wrote a great list of pro-worker Biden victories last April:
https://jabberwocking.com/heres-an-update-on-joe-bidens-small-ball-politics/
You also explained (part of) the answer to why he didn’t get credit:
Too many of these things are invisible (who notices when you don't get a surprise bill from your hospital or you don't get a spam call?) and the others don't get enough promotion for anyone to credit Biden. The hearing aid thing, for example, ought to be a pretty big deal for a lot of people, but who even remembers it? If you buy a great hearing aid for $500 at Costco, does anyone think about Biden when they pay the bill?