I agree about Fetterman; he seemed able to appeal to the working class more than most Democrats.
Absolutely. Which circles back to the original sin of this cycle, and the one that doomed the Democrats before it began. Joe Biden deciding against all reason that he should run for reelection, and hanging on until it was too late to have a primary.
The interesting thing about Fetterman is he has gone way off the Democratic party line reservation multiple times over the last two years. He seems to fully understand how unpopular some of the core Democratic principles are right now.
I know I already replied once, but I just saw this from Bernie Sanders. I think it sums it up pretty well, and he echoes my comment about running a “status quo” campaign.
Bernie Sanders is well-known for his histrionical “I told you so!” after the fact. It only points to his ego, not the Democratic positions.
Fair enough, and I am far from a Bernie Bro. But I find very little to disagree with in his statement.
I’m glad he mentioned guaranteed paid leave - that was another idea I had for my “Big Democratic Ideas” thread. Copy Australia’s policy and see how popular it is here.
Because he tells you what you already believe, not what the Democrats actually ran on.
Some 15 million Democratic voters from 2020 stayed home in this election. Trump lost only 3 million. (Numbers will change as late results come in.) That’s insane when both sides were calling this the most important election of peoples’ lifetimes and desperately urging their followers to get out and vote. Harris would have won if she had only lost half that number.
The question becomes who would have gotten possibly ten million Americans out the door when Harris’ campaign with its thousands of hepped up workers spent every minute of the past few months engaged in every known form of reaching out to women and energizing many men.
Simple charges of racism and sexism won’t do. I said here a long time ago - meaning earlier this extremely long year - that I was dubious that America was ready to elect a woman PoC as President. Never did I imagine that 15 million Democrats would use that as an excuse in their heads. I can’t imagine it now. Wouldn’t many of them have gone over to Trump if that were true? Yet, Trump lost votes.
Answering that question is top priority. No use speculating on another candidate when the party itself is the most likely answer.
Almost certainly not. Speculation is that among the liabilities Harris had among misogynists and racists was that she was a woman and she was Black. Michelle has those same liabilities and additionally tends to be despised by conservatives, probably because of her intellectualism and strong association with Barack Obama.
Yeah, the only former First Lady conservatives/MAGAs hate more than Michelle is Hillary.
Plus, despite the never ending fantasies, she has said it won’t ever happen.
Fetterman is unfathomably based, as the kids say these days. One of the greatest democratic politicians around today. But even before his stroke, I don’t know if he could win the presidency in sweatpants.
“Unfathomably based”? What does that even mean? Is it a good thing or a bad thing?
If Americans wanted a slimy corrupt President, the Dems should have run Gavin Newsom.
Is Americans want a misogynistic woman-harassing President, the Dems should have run Michael Hancock.
I don’t see how anyone could’ve defeated the false projection of a terrible economy. It’s literally better than it’s ever been. Of course there were snags - inflation was high for a while. It’s now under control, though that doesn’t mean prices will ever return to the previous status quo.
I found myself gobsmacked wading through one online discussion after another where people insisted the economy was awful. You show them some data on how that’s actually not true, and they scoff saying it doesn’t match “lived experience”. You dig into their “lived experience” and it turns out they’re doing just fine, but they’re worried about other people’s “lived experience.”
So that’s a nice little ontological closed circle. The only way we can quantify the experience of people who aren’t named or in the conversation is looking at aggregate metrics. But aggregate metrics are scoffed as insensitive, impersonal, out-of-touch egghead bullshit.
So in effect we just threw this whole election because the imaginary economic “ghost man on first” is unhappy, you can’t reason with him because he’s imaginary, yet you can’t be rude to him by pulling stats to prove why he shouldn’t be happy. The good old “Joe The Plumber” gimmick has been perfected by subtracting Joe himself.
I think we also need to update the whole “it’s the economy, stupid” trope as well. It is not enough for everyone to have good economic conditions. I demand that my economic conditions not only be good, but bettter than the average person, and certainly better than people who I think ought to be serving me. Economic conditions are not good if I don’t have better status symbols than Those People.
A very good thing.
As being discussed in another thread, you cannot argue macroeconomics since the people have to deal with microeconomics. GNP means nothing when eggs are superexpensive, assuming you can find them. You can’t explain 2% inflation and how recessions are bad when people wonder why prices always go up at a rate greater than their pay. You can’t explain how we are at the lowest reasonable unemployment rate while people apply for a dozen jobs a week and can’t get an interview.
Can we stick to grown-up English, please?
Well, when asked if there was any policy she differed with from Biden, or what she would do differently, and she couldn’t name a single thing; that’s pretty much a de facto “everything’s fine.”
Really, asking her that is a trap; she can’t win either way. Either she’s criticizing the administration she’s still a part of or she’s not breaking out on her own.
In retrospect the correct option would be to criticize away, given this very difficult position. What’s Biden going to do, fire her? That actually might have helped her campaign…