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.

  • abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    For the record, Clinton wasn’t progressive enough for me (but I would have indeed settled on her back in 2016) and I don’t watch SNL (though considering how many do, I still think it’s great outreach).

    But I’m not the only one who thinks this way. Here’s a great post - https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/18340229 - describing how much and how well Dems turned out this year (with the estimate being that Dems will have actually beat their 2020 numbers once the popular vote count is finished). It’s just that red voters turned out in even higher numbers this year.

    Since the final popular vote tally is still unknown, it is speculative, but if it’s right, then I think it’s enough to disprove your contention (that Harris lost because turnout from Dems was low because they were turned off by the lack of progressive policies and Gaza and etc - this can’t be the reason if turnout went up instead of down!).

    • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      That’s still speculation, but whether it’s more people voting Trump or fewer people voting Democrat is a moot point. If the Dems moving right led to the outcome that more people voted Trump, then it was still a losing strategy.

      • abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        On that last point - I’m moving to the view that you’re right - it is a losing strategy.

        As another commenter in this thread pointed out, https://lemmy.world/comment/13326761 , it’s the economy that was the biggest factor. That will always shift wins to the opposing party.

        This tells me that a) 2024 might have just been unwinnable, as the economy really really sucked due to factors out of the control of anyone in the USA (Ukraine war still having devastating impacts on the US economy today).

        But it also suggests that if we still have all the same elections that we expect to in 2026 and 2028, then Dems would be able to make a major comeback without changing much as this idiot trashes the economy. Alas, that feels like a really big if right now, and it shouldn’t be.