In light of the recent election, it’s clear that the Democratic Party needs a significant leftward shift to better address the needs and concerns of the American people. The party’s centrist approach is increasingly out of touch, limiting its ability to appeal to a broader base and especially to young voters, who are looking for bold and transformative policies. The fact that young men became a substantial part of the conservative voting bloc should be a wake-up call—it’s essential that the Democratic Party broadens its appeal by offering real solutions that resonate with this demographic.

Furthermore, one major missed opportunity was the decision to forgo primaries, which could have brought new energy and ideas to the ticket. Joe Biden’s choice to run for a second term, despite earlier implications of a one-term presidency, may have ultimately contributed to the loss by undermining trust in his promises. Had the party explored alternative candidates in a primary process, the outcome could have been vastly different. It is now imperative for the Working Families Party and the Progressive Caucus to push for a stronger, unapologetically progressive agenda within the Democratic Party. The time for centrist compromises has passed, as evidenced by setbacks dating back to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss, the persistently low approval ratings for Biden since 2022, and Kamala Harris’s recent campaign, which left many progressives feeling alienated. To regain momentum and genuinely connect with the electorate, a clear departure from moderate politics is essential.

  • OBJECTION!English
    1·
    3 hours ago

    Yes, Clinton got fewer total votes in a lower turnout election, but by every other metric the election was less bad than this one was for Harris, whether we look at the EC or votes compared to the other side.

    As for Gaza, there is one very simple and straightforward action that Biden could have taken (or still could actually) or that Harris could have said she’ll do: place conditions on arms shipments to Israel (or even just stop them entirely). Refusing to do that is a complete endorsement of Israel’s actions. Like I said, it’s like saying that you disapprove of a mass shooter’s actions while handing him another clip. Words and speeches are completely meaningless unless that is addressed, all she ever said was essentially, “Wouldn’t it be nice if they could resolve their differences without fighting? But of course I fully support Israel’s right to defend itself and will keep arming them unconditionally.” There is no indication that she would’ve been at all willing to take meaningful action.

    It used to be the case that politicians would promise to do good things, and then maybe sometimes they’d actually keep their promises. Nowadays they don’t even promise anything and people just convince themselves they’ll do what they want regardless. Like, even if she had said that she’d stop shipments, sure I would support her, but it would not be entirely unreasonable to question whether she’d follow through. But in the case where she couldn’t even say it, the chances of her doing it are basically zero.

    • abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us
      1·
      2 hours ago

      Yes, Clinton got fewer total votes in a lower turnout election, but by every other metric the election was less bad than this one was for Harris, whether we look at the EC or votes compared to the other side.

      No need to rehash what I said above, beyond that I’m still waiting for the data.

      As for Gaza, there is one very simple and straightforward action that Biden could have taken (or still could actually) or that Harris could have said she’ll do: place conditions on arms shipments

      Agreed. Now, my understanding is that Harris as VP can’t actually do this, that authority runs from Biden down to his cabinet secretaries. But she could have made that promise. It’s still not taking action, but maybe it would have been enough.

      Refusing to do that is a complete endorsement of Israel’s actions.

      So minor disagreement here. You say complete, or 100%, while I’d say like 95% or 97%. Perhaps an immaterial difference.

      Words and speeches are completely meaningless unless that is addressed

      But your proposal above, for Harris, is just more mere words: “Harris could have said”

      all she ever said was essentially, “Wouldn’t it be nice if they could resolve their differences without fighting?"

      I think calling for a cease-fire is a mite bit stronger than that, but again perhaps the difference between us is so small as to be immaterial.

      "and will keep arming them unconditionally.”

      Agreed, definitely a problem. No need to rehash about the Jewish voting bloc stuff - we understand why this was done and we saw first hand that it didn’t work out. So with 20/20 hindsight…

      “But of course I fully support Israel’s right to defend itself”

      After Oct 7, 2024, I would too. To say otherwise is an insult to the families of the hostages - telling them that they aren’t important enough to protect, that it’s okay for this to happen to them again.

      There is no indication that she would’ve been at all willing to take meaningful action.

      On here we completely disagree. “I will stop the Gaza war by any means necessary.” seems like a pretty big indication.

      Meanwhile,

      Trump says he’s about to speak to Netanyahu and says, "Biden is trying to hold him back … he probably should be doing the opposite, actually.

      Source: https://www.commondreams.org/news/netanyahu-trump-cease-fire (link to quote in the “free rein” link on that page)

      To be fair, the above is also a really big indication.

      • OBJECTION!English
        1·
        2 hours ago

        Words and speeches are completely meaningless unless that is addressed

        But your proposal above, for Harris, is just more mere words: “Harris could have said”

        That’s why I used the word, “unless.” If the words are addressing that point, then they’re meaningful, but as long as they aren’t, they are not.

        On here we completely disagree. “I will stop the Gaza war by any means necessary.” seems like a pretty big indication.

        Does it now? There are lots of ways to stop a war, for example, by destroying the other side’s willingness or capability to keep fighting. You know, like Trump said, “finish the job,” and then there won’t be any more fighting because one side would all be dead. You’re choosing to interpret it to mean what you want it to mean, and a supporter of Israel would interpret it to mean what they want it to mean, typical equivocation with no indication of what it actually means in practical terms.

        What you don’t understand is that politicians are most responsive to voters in the lead-up to an election. After they get elected, then they’ve already gotten the votes they needed, so they can focus more on lobbyists and corporate donors. That’s why there is zero chance that she would’ve become more pro-Palestinian when in office, because the voters are far more favorable to Palestine than the donors and lobbyists are.

        • abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us
          1·
          1 hour ago

          That’s why I used the word, “unless.” If the words are addressing that point, then they’re meaningful, but as long as they aren’t, they are not.

          Ah I think I got your meaning now.

          Does it now?

          Yes.

          There are lots of ways to stop a war, for example, by destroying the other side’s willingness or capability to keep fighting. You know, like Trump said, “finish the job,”

          I assume this is just an example and you aren’t seriously suggesting this is what Harris means. Harris has been very clear on the need for an immediate ceasefire.

          You’re choosing to interpret it to mean what you want it to mean,

          Well, the alternative meaning doesn’t fit with what Harris has said about getting to an immediate ceasefire - you can’t have a ceasefire if you’re trying to kill every last person on the enemy side. That contradiction makes me think I’ve interpreted it correctly.

          What you don’t understand is that politicians are most responsive to voters in the lead-up to an election.

          I got that. I figured this was an important constraint on Harris being able to speak in support on Gaza in fact - AIPAC withdrawing their support of her.

          After they get elected, then they’ve already gotten the votes they needed, so they can focus more on lobbyists and corporate donors.

          This is a good point, AIPAC would still be around after the election.

          That’s why there is zero chance that she would’ve become more pro-Palestinian when in office, because the voters are far more favorable to Palestine than the donors and lobbyists are.

          I think zero chance is too extreme. Consider this,

          Obama said in late 2010 that his views on gay marriage were “evolving,” and since then administration officials have pointed to those comments, stressing that Obama is a supporter

          Source: https://www.politico.com/story/2012/05/obama-expected-to-speak-on-gay-marriage-076103

          Also, the goal wasn’t necessarily to make Harris pro-Palestine, but simply more anti-genocide. As the situation in Gaza worsens, I could see a possibility where from the grassroots a movement of change, going thru e.g. Sanders and AOC, would eventually convince Harris to evolve her position here as well.

          Now, as you point out there are powerful forces that would resist that, but the outcome of that battle would not have been a foregone conclusion.