https://apps.urban.org/features/2024-candidates-tax-policy/
Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party nominee, has proposed several policies that build on President Joe Biden’s recent budget plans. These include higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations
also
Your first two cites are for executive orders by Obama and Biden raising the minimum wage for Federal contractors. Which is great, but what about everyone else? Both those guys had Congressional majorities at some point and couldn’t get it done. Which, to be clear, is the fault of the Congressional moderates, not of those Presidents, but it still proves the point that “the Democrats” collectively haven’t supported it.
Your third cite is good old Bill Clinton, who first called for raising the Federal minimum wage six years into his Presidency.
As to your fourth cite, I have no problem with that one at all and heartily agree that Bernie Sanders should be in charge of Democratic economic policy.
It’s because the party has been taken over by college educated liberals who aren’t as affected by or invested in most of these economic issues, and are far more interested in social justice. It’s not a coincidence that forgiving student debt was something the Biden admin did fight for, despite the fact it was bound to worsen inflation. It was a handout for their base.
Obama, in the first half of his term, got the ACA passed and a 10% increase in the minimum wage
The second half of his term he didn’t have a majority in the House.
Also in July 24, 2009 it went to $7.25 for all covered, nonexempt workers- under Obama.
So, yes, Obama got it done.
The so-called “majority” in the Senate Biden had in the senate was a 50/50 tie, with Harris able to break a tie. The Dem tried to raise the Minimum wage with the Democrats’ Raise the Wage Act of 2023- which died in the senate. There was also the Raise the Wage Act of 2021, which also died.
So, yes, the Dems are in favor of raising the Minimum wage.
Yep.
All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans Democrats ever done for us?
Trock’s quote removed by WE?
Harris lost as trump lied.
Right.
Not really. Yes he has a solid base, but he lied and people believed him. Same thing happened the first time he got elected- and then the lies were exposed and the voter revolted. In 2024, the voters simply forgot trump had lied, so they fell for the lies again.
True. I had forgotten that they did raise it in 2009. I stand corrected.
Democrats had a 60-seat majority in the Senate at one point in 2009. If that’s not a large enough majority for the Ds to ignore their DINO wing, then you’re asking for a majority so large that Democrats will never attain it in real life.
Republicans get more done with 54 senators than Democrats get done with 60. “Too small a majority” isn’t an excuse.
I removed 15 posts and replies to a Trock to the Cornfield.
Moderating:
For 70 days. And in that time they increased the Minimum wage.
And here is what they got done-
I think this is pretty much the answer. Its a long trend, that has accelerated in the last decade, that the Democrats are the party of the college educated, upper middle class. They still also get support from African Americans of all classes, I should add.
.
They wont say it out loud, but I’d guess a lot of Democratic pols think “why should I put time and effort into advocating for lower income voters, if they are just going to turn around and vote R because of drag queens and gun control?”
As someone who has views to the left of the Democrats on economic issues, the fact that they pass legislation that isn’t what I want doesn’t mean they don’t have the “zest” for those issues. The democrats haven’t failed to pass single payer because they spend more energy on DEI or whatever, they failed to pass it because they support a market system and believe in making slow reforms to it. And I say that as someone who doesn’t believe in that at all.
By far the biggest legislative achievements of Biden, Obama, and probably going back were about healthcare and the economy. Even their climate provisions were arguably less effective because they were structured as jobs programs. The last time we had a president clearly prioritize something else over the economy it was George W. Bush who made his presidency about the War on Terror and evangelical identity politics. You could even argue Trump prioritizes identity politics over the economy too (although Trump is nihilistic enough that its tough to figure out what issue is really central).
It isn’t, though.
This common conservative talking point doesn’t line up with actual demographics.
Voters in the “lower income” category tilt Democratic over Republican by 58% to 36%, and those percentages for “lower middle income” are 50% D vs. 46% R.
Middle and upper middle income voters are actually more likely to lean R than D, by 51% to 48% and 52% to 46% respectively.
Only in the “upper income” bracket do we see a Dem advantage (53% to 46%) outside the working-class income levels.
The idea of Democrats being primarily comfortable “college educated, upper middle class” voters out of touch with the realities of working-class lives is not accurate, although Republicans assiduously push that narrative.
I mean, it’s also an important idea.
According to exit polls, there’s actually rather little income polarisation:
Dems won the poorest 11% and the richest 41%, by a rather small margin. Because the real polarisation is on education, which doesn’t correlate perfectly with income, and because higher support for Democrats from minorities, especially black Americans, cuts in the opposite direction. However, this is a big change from 20 years ago, when Kerry won the poorest 8% by 63% to 36%, and Bush won the richest 32% by 57% to 43%. Back then the Republican vote increased monotonically with income in all brackets.
This realignment is an ongoing process: all the sources that I have seen agree Trump made his biggest gains among working class and Latino voters, while Kamala’s biggest gains were in college educated whites.
And even though college educated liberals do not dominate the Democratic coalition numerically, they are far more ideological and interested in politics on average, and do dominate among elected politicians, party activists, and government workers. They are the ones with ‘being in the room privilege’, who determine the direction and image of the party. And the views and priorities of this group are on full display here at the Dope: raising the minimum wage is a ‘nice to have’, a political question on which it is possible to compromise. Letting trans people choose which sporting category to compete in, however, is seen as a right, something on which compromise would be unacceptable - even to save democracy itself.
If potential Democratic voters are not in favour of single payer health care, then it’s fine for politicians not to pursue it. However, if the same voters want to deport illegal immigrants, that is unacceptable and the only option is to educate them on why they are wrong. In general, this group see fiscal policies as a political issue, but social policies as a question of morality, of being a good person - so they are considerably more zealous in pursuing the latter.
In other words women should be persecuted in the name of pandering to bigots. Because it’s not just transgender women who are persecuted in the process of gender policing.
And of course, when that backstab fails to improve support for the Democrats, it’ll be time to find another group of their supporters to feed to the bigots. And another, and another. Which only ends when the Democrats run out of supporters to backstab, and never improves their support in the slightest. Why vote for a backstabber?
You just can’t let it go.
I’m really confused how this is a “bread-and-butter economic issue”, but I’m not surprised to see you drop it in here.
I agree with this. I hate to fight the hypothetical, but the OP is simply not accurate. While it’s possible to argue that the loudest members of the Democratic base spend more energy on culture issues, the Democratic Party itself is constantly advocating for and legislating for “bread and butter” economic issues.
Looking back at the most recent Democratic administration, the biggest deal was probably the American Rescue Plan Act, which was focused both on the economy and also on healthcare (COVID-19 recovery); then you have the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (economy); Inflation Reduction Act (mostly climate-focused); Chips and Science Act (economy/jobs/manufacturing); Prescription drug price negotiating (health-care, but really about lowering prices for drugs, a bread and butter economic issue).
These were all big legislative/policy victories that had huge impacts on the economy and people’s lives. It’s clear where the priorities of the last Dem administration were, despite the OP’s perceptions of “energy.”
It’s not. I was contrasting it with increasing the minimum wage, which was suggested earlier in the thread as a bread-and-butter economic issue. The fact I got two replies on this and none on the economic issues kind of proves the point that there is less interest and a lack of strong feelings about them.