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.

  • m-p{3}@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    82
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    4 days ago

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

    • Tyfud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      4 days ago

      We all did, you’re not wrong.

      It’s a sad reality we all woke up to on Wednesday.

      • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        4 days ago

        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.

      • Resonosity@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 days ago

        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.

    • krashmo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      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.

      • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        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

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          4 days ago

          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.

    • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 days ago

      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.

        • cmbabul@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 days ago

          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

      • Microw
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 days ago

        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.

    • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      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.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        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.