"Working people are done with performative solidarity," said Rep. Delia C. Ramirez in response. "Either you stand with us against the Republican CR, or you stand with the Musk-Trump authoritarian agenda."
It’s to do with where people stand. Most people in the US, despite their rhetoric, would be more centrist than many people realize (and between both major parties). That means most aren’t in agreement with much of what Trump is doing internationally or with respect to Musk/DOGE in application, though most might support broad ideas of ‘putting the US first’, ‘reducing the size/cost of the US government’, ‘stopping illegal immigration/deporting illegal immigrants’ etc. But crucially, this also means that most eligible voters are also right of the vocal elements of the left that play up political correctness, identity politics, and social economic policy (economic policy further left-wing than what we see at the moment). So in an election, if neither side really aligns with the majority of voters, it’s easy to see how voters can be swayed by voting against the current party in power, voting due to marketing/propaganda, or voting against the party that seems most radical in ways that differ from voters’ ideas/interests. Trump didn’t campaign on annexing Canada, or invading Greenland, but he did campaign on deporting illegal immigrants and reducing the size of government. And many people saw Harris as a continuation of Biden but with a more socially liberal (or further left on this) attitude and a stronger association with identity politics. So if Trump in his first term didn’t do much that most people would consider lasting harm (despite his antics and buffoonery) and campaigned on ideas that the majority agree with, whereas Harris was a continuation of an unpopular presidency/government (at least at the end) but with a flair of things that most people don’t align with, well, the result speaks for itself: a landslide in the electoral college. The only way forward for democrats is to capitalise on the mistakes Trump is making (unpopular decisions and attitudes), to seem reasonable and grounded to the majority, and to not veer off and start pushing for social issues most of the voting center doesn’t really buy (so for example focus on creating a better immigration system and treating immigrants fairly, but not legalising illegal immigrants. Or pushing for general social protections, workers’ rights, consumer rights, better and broader healthcare coverage and business regulation without straying into a focus on minority rights, trans terminology battles, antireligious discourse or attacking tradionalists/older folks’ viewpoints.) If you can win the center you can win the election. And you do that by appealing to the traditional center (and definitely not by antagonising it).
Lemme get this straight: you say the Democratic party’s policy of espousing a conservative approach on the issues of the day (immigration needs controlling, trans kids bad, Israel a-ok, etc) to peel voters from the Republican party was not only a good plan, but the only course of action they could reasonably take to win the election?
The Democratic party doesn’t need to espouse any of that, it just needs to be less belligerent about opposing the issues since they’re issues where the party’s stance isn’t quite shared by the majority of the population. If you remove the stumbling blocks for voters, and instead focus attention on where the party shares its views with the majority of the US population, then wouldn’t it be natural that more of the center would shift your way?
It’s to do with where people stand. Most people in the US, despite their rhetoric, would be more centrist than many people realize (and between both major parties). That means most aren’t in agreement with much of what Trump is doing internationally or with respect to Musk/DOGE in application, though most might support broad ideas of ‘putting the US first’, ‘reducing the size/cost of the US government’, ‘stopping illegal immigration/deporting illegal immigrants’ etc. But crucially, this also means that most eligible voters are also right of the vocal elements of the left that play up political correctness, identity politics, and social economic policy (economic policy further left-wing than what we see at the moment). So in an election, if neither side really aligns with the majority of voters, it’s easy to see how voters can be swayed by voting against the current party in power, voting due to marketing/propaganda, or voting against the party that seems most radical in ways that differ from voters’ ideas/interests. Trump didn’t campaign on annexing Canada, or invading Greenland, but he did campaign on deporting illegal immigrants and reducing the size of government. And many people saw Harris as a continuation of Biden but with a more socially liberal (or further left on this) attitude and a stronger association with identity politics. So if Trump in his first term didn’t do much that most people would consider lasting harm (despite his antics and buffoonery) and campaigned on ideas that the majority agree with, whereas Harris was a continuation of an unpopular presidency/government (at least at the end) but with a flair of things that most people don’t align with, well, the result speaks for itself: a landslide in the electoral college. The only way forward for democrats is to capitalise on the mistakes Trump is making (unpopular decisions and attitudes), to seem reasonable and grounded to the majority, and to not veer off and start pushing for social issues most of the voting center doesn’t really buy (so for example focus on creating a better immigration system and treating immigrants fairly, but not legalising illegal immigrants. Or pushing for general social protections, workers’ rights, consumer rights, better and broader healthcare coverage and business regulation without straying into a focus on minority rights, trans terminology battles, antireligious discourse or attacking tradionalists/older folks’ viewpoints.) If you can win the center you can win the election. And you do that by appealing to the traditional center (and definitely not by antagonising it).
Lemme get this straight: you say the Democratic party’s policy of espousing a conservative approach on the issues of the day (immigration needs controlling, trans kids bad, Israel a-ok, etc) to peel voters from the Republican party was not only a good plan, but the only course of action they could reasonably take to win the election?
The Democratic party doesn’t need to espouse any of that, it just needs to be less belligerent about opposing the issues since they’re issues where the party’s stance isn’t quite shared by the majority of the population. If you remove the stumbling blocks for voters, and instead focus attention on where the party shares its views with the majority of the US population, then wouldn’t it be natural that more of the center would shift your way?