Where do Democrats go from here?

[Tunasai]

I'm not a Democrat, but did vote for them. I'm actually far more neo-liberal and aligned with the former Romney/Ryan wing of the Republican Party. That all being said, the US election made one thing clear: Trump has captured the voice of a majority of voting Americans. His brand of right wing populism worked in some way. Democrats are left with maybe hard choices: where do you go from here? They lost the popular vote, lost more edges among minorities, and although captured the college educated vote, they've given up the blue collar and working class vote.

It also seems exit polls show most Americans believe Harris was too liberal for them.

So do Democrats embrace more moderate stances? Do they move further to the left themselves and assume their base stayed home?

Personally it feels like Democrats are going to have to shift more towards the center because the general population seems to be moving towards more conservative policies, more towards populism. However I'm curious on other opinions and what others believe the data actually says.

[Floofybit]

Try again next time

[Tunasai]

Try again next time

Does trying again next time, without making any policy or ideological shifts, get them any different results? The only hope for that strategy I'd say is Trump causes a recession, which is possible, but not a guaranteed strategy when the majority of the country just rejected Democrats across the board for Donald Trump

[Ostroeuropa]

Democrats have made too many enemies.

Gun users.

Men.

Whites.

The wealthy.

The religious.

Heterodox leftists.

Cops and their supporters.

And on. And on. And on.

Despite it being pointed out to them by each of these groups, the response is always academic jargon, assertions of ideology, and dismissal of the group as fringe and non-explanatory of democrat lack of popularity. But repeat it enough times and you've lost the popular vote, not just the EC.

The problem is that they have adopted an omni-cause that is interconnected and built a coalition of puritans. They will continue to shrink into irrelevance until they learn how to make less enemies, which means abandoning some of their causes. But because they've turned it into an omni-cause and spent so much time whipping themselves into a moralizing frenzy, this simply isn't possible without severe blowback from the few who remain in their coalition.

As a consequence, they will purity spiral down the drain entirely, or learn to drop some of these causes.

Ask a democrat if they're willing to abandon feminism.

Ask them if they're willing to abandon their current lens of race relations.

Ask them if they're willing to abandon being pro-LGBT.

Go down the line. Every single time, it's a no, we can't, it's a moral imperative we stick to our guns, and whats more, that we view those opposed to us on these issues as our enemies and remain eternally vigilant for heretics. That's why they lost. There is an utter unwillingness to prioritize because every single issue has become a battle for their soul, no matter how optically damaging, no matter how many enemies it makes, and so on.

[Liberal Malaysia]

They could try moving back to the center and not being so extreme next time. They've learned absolutely nothing over the past eight years except how to double down on their extremism and alienate everyone around them. Harris' constant denigration of men was particularly egregious this election cycle. Massive turn-off.

Democrats have made too many enemies.

Gun users.

Men.

Whites.

The wealthy.

The religious.

Heterodox leftists.

Cops and their supporters.

And on. And on. And on.

Despite it being pointed out to them by each of these groups, the response is always academic jargon, assertions of ideology, and dismissal of the group as fringe and non-explanatory of democrat lack of popularity. But repeat it enough times and you've lost the popular vote, not just the EC.

The problem is that they have adopted an omni-cause that is interconnected and built a coalition of puritans. They will continue to shrink into irrelevance until they learn how to make less enemies, which means abandoning some of their causes. But because they've turned it into an omni-cause and spent so much time whipping themselves into a moralizing frenzy, this simply isn't possible without severe blowback from the few who remain in their coalition.

As a consequence, they will purity spiral down the drain entirely, or learn to drop some of these causes.

They could easily go the same way as the woke, pro-Muslim Indian National Congress in India.

[Pale Dawn]

Listen to the constituents instead of telling them who and what they should care about would be a start. The dem party leaders were astounded how unpopular biden was long before the election and forced it as the only option. Harris was also completely unpopular but was forced by party elite to maintain the war chest. Stop telling voters who should be running and start asking.

[Ostroeuropa]

They could try moving back to the center and not being so extreme next time. They've learned absolutely nothing over the past eight years except how to double down on their extremism and alienate everyone around them. Harris' constant denigration of men was particularly egregious this election cycle. Massive turn-off.

Democrats have made too many enemies.

Gun users.

Men.

Whites.

The wealthy.

The religious.

Heterodox leftists.

Cops and their supporters.

And on. And on. And on.

Despite it being pointed out to them by each of these groups, the response is always academic jargon, assertions of ideology, and dismissal of the group as fringe and non-explanatory of democrat lack of popularity. But repeat it enough times and you've lost the popular vote, not just the EC.

The problem is that they have adopted an omni-cause that is interconnected and built a coalition of puritans. They will continue to shrink into irrelevance until they learn how to make less enemies, which means abandoning some of their causes. But because they've turned it into an omni-cause and spent so much time whipping themselves into a moralizing frenzy, this simply isn't possible without severe blowback from the few who remain in their coalition.

As a consequence, they will purity spiral down the drain entirely, or learn to drop some of these causes.

They could easily go the same way as the woke, pro-Muslim Indian National Congress in India.

You're an example of what I talked about. You honed in on the anti-male shit and they've made you an enemy. That's also why I hate them. Not everyone cares about mens issues. But a sizeable portion do, and the democrats have consistently alienated them. Rinse repeat for every enemy the democrats have made. "It's only 5%, we can fuck them off" x 20 = 100%.

[Liberal Malaysia]

Full disclaimer: I used to support the Dems until they show-trialed Brett Kavanaugh in 2018.

Their entire political outlook has turned into a cult. The names change (MeToo in 2017, BLM in 2020, From the River to the Sea in 2023), but the cult remains. As an atheist, this turns me off bigly.

[Stellar Colonies]

Opinion | Democrats’ Problem With Male Voters Isn’t Complicated (Politico)
Male grievances can be harnessed by reactionary forces. But there’s a simple way to prevent that.

Opinion by Richard V. Reeves

With the election just a few weeks away, the contest for the votes of men is heating up. Young women’s support is effectively locked up for the Democrats, but young men still seem up for grabs and the Trump-Vance ticket is making inroads, with some polls showing a double-digit advantage.

Ironically, an election that was supposed to be about women because of the issue of abortion rights may in the end be decided by the votes of young men.

The Republicans have been aggressively competing for the male vote from the get-go. Donald Trump was introduced to the RNC convention by Dana White, head of the UFC. Hulk Hogan tore off his shirt. The GOP messaging wasn’t subtle: We like the stuff most men like, and we like men. Trump and JD Vance have appeared on multiple podcasts popular among young men. A Republican voter turnout effort aimed at young men is being promoted at college football games.

The Democrats are now playing catch-up. Kamala Harris has launched an “opportunity agenda” for Black men, promising action to support entrepreneurs, regulate crypto and recruit more male teachers. She is reported to be considering an appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast, which has an enormous audience of mostly men. Democratic strategists seem to have realized belatedly that it will be hard to win without male votes. The question is whether this is too little, too late.

There is, though, a policy paradox here that Democrats could take advantage of. The Republicans are signaling a pro-male stance, but without any policy substance. The Democrats have existing initiatives that are a good starting point for a strong pro-male policy platform. But they have been reluctant to package them as such and could do much more.

There is a real political opportunity right now for a party to craft an agenda that speaks to men — and addresses their real problems.

Contrary to progressive belief, young men are not turning into a generation of misogynists. Support for gender equality continues to rise, including among men under 30. The problem seems more to be that many men simply don’t see much recognition of their issues, or even of their identity, on the political left.

If the Democrats are the “women’s party,” as one party strategist claimed, it might not be surprising that men are looking in another direction. The official party platform lists the groups it is proud to serve; women are listed but men are not. There is a new Gender Policy Council in the White House, but it has not addressed a single issue facing boys or men.

The failure to engage with men’s issues is proving to be a costly mistake, particularly in our politics and culture. The challenges facing many men, especially working-class men and men of color, are not the confections of the online “manosphere.” They are real. But they have not been sufficiently addressed, or sometimes even acknowledged. This has left a vacuum, which has been filled, in many cases, by more reactionary voices from the manosphere.

When problems are neglected, they metastasize into grievances. And grievances can be weaponized in service of reactionary goals. The solution, then, is almost comically simple: Don’t neglect the problems.

The mistake being made on both sides is to see gender equality as a zero-sum game; that to do more for boys and men means doing less on behalf of girls and women. There is so much more to do for girls and women, and not just on the health care front: investing in the care economy to help working mothers especially; increasing the share of women in critical occupations, not least the worlds of tech and politics; modernizing career ladders to reduce the “parenting penalty”; reducing barriers to accessing capital for women entrepreneurs and much more.

But working on behalf of women doesn’t require politicians to turn their backs on men. In the real world, the interests of men and women are not pitted against each other, however much our culture warriors tell us otherwise. There are plenty of progressive young women out there worried about their brother’s mental health, plenty of working-class women concerned about their husband’s job prospects. It is hard to create a society of flourishing women if men are floundering.

It is not too late to set out an explicit policy agenda for boys and men, in the key areas of health, education and family life. Whoever did so would send a powerful signal to male voters: We see you. We acknowledge your challenges, and we have positive ideas about how to help.

As Harris said recently, she has to earn every vote, including from men. Better rhetoric and broader outreach are good. But some policy substance would be even better.

Here’s where to start.

Education

Boys and men are falling behind in education. In the average school district, boys are almost a grade level behind in literacy. (There’s no gap in math.) The most common high school grade for girls is now an A; for boys, it is a B. College enrollment rates from high school for men have not risen since 1984. Men are outnumbered three to two on college campuses. Boys and men from lower-income families, as well as Black boys and men, face the sharpest educational challenges.

There is much that can and should be done to create a more male-friendly education system. In 2024, no education policy agenda is complete without some gender-sensitive elements, including:

- Recruit More Male Teachers: The share of K-12 teachers who are male has fallen from 33 percent when Ronald Reagan was president to 23 percent today. There are now fewer men in teaching than women in STEM; fewer men in elementary schools than women flying for the Air Force. Male teachers provide important male models for boys, and seem to lift their academic outcomes. The Harris campaign just promised to do more to increase the share of Black male teachers, which is necessary but not sufficient. Just as women are offered scholarships and other incentives to enter STEM fields, men should be offered similar inducements to get into teaching, including as second or even third careers.

- Flexible School Starting Ages: Offer parents the option to “redshirt” their sons by enrolling them in an additional year of pre-kindergarten or delaying kindergarten entry. This flexibility could help close the developmental gap between male and female students that eventually turns into an achievement gap.

- Expand Career and Technical Education: Increase investment in vocational schools and CTE programs that provide hands-on learning and practical skills. Studies show that boys who attend technical high schools can see earnings up to a third higher. These programs prepare students for high-demand careers in trades like electrical work, plumbing and carpentry.

- Promote Apprenticeships: The U.S. is at the bottom of the international league table of advanced economies for apprenticeships. It’s vital to increase investment here, combining on-the-job training with classroom instruction and offering a pathway to stable, well-paying jobs without the need for a four-year college degree.

- Support Community Colleges: For men especially, two-year colleges can provide a solid foundation for a career, offering a better return on investment in many cases than a bachelor’s degree. Stronger investments in these institutions, tied to performance as in recent reforms in Texas and elsewhere, would boost male outcomes especially.

Health

Life expectancy between men and women has widened from five to six years. Men have a higher mortality rate than women in 13 of the 15 leading causes of death. The largest gaps are found in the two most common causes of death: heart disease and cancer.

The mental health crisis is also impacting boys and men differently from women and girls. Suicide rates among men under 30 have risen by more than a third since 2010 and are now higher than among middle-aged men. The annual death toll from suicide among men has reached 40,000, four times the number among women.

Rates of substance use disorder and deaths from accidental drug overdoses are much higher among men and have risen significantly in recent years. But men’s health is badly neglected in policymaking. The federal government has 29 public health goals for women and 18 for LGBTQ+ people. There are 4 for men.

There is plenty that could be done here. Imagine a speech from one of the candidates promising to:

- Establish a Male Suicide Prevention Task Force: There needs to be a national recognition of the male suicide crisis. (Right now, CDC does not even acknowledge the gender gap). A first step could be a dedicated White House task force to research and implement strategies aimed at reducing suicide rates among men. This could involve public awareness campaigns, mental health screenings and targeted support services.

- Create an Office of Men’s Health: There is a Democrat-sponsored bill already in Congress which would create a specific agency within the Department of Health and Human Services focused on men’s health issues, mirroring the existing Office on Women’s Health. This office would coordinate research, policy development and programs to address health disparities affecting men.

- Cover Male Contraception: For all the discussion of reproductive rights, there has been no discussion of the fact that male contraception is not covered by the Affordable Care Act. This creates unbalanced incentives for a couple to choose female sterilization over the much safer and more effective male vasectomy. It also sends a regressive message that contraception is only women’s concern. If the ACA cannot be amended, a future administration could work with states and private insurers to widen coverage.

- Set Public Health Targets for Men: Include specific objectives for improving men’s health outcomes in national public health agendas, such as reducing rates of heart disease, cancer and mental health issues among men.

Increase the Share of Male Mental Health Professionals: The share of men in mental health fields has plummeted, halving among social workers and psychologists for example. Representation matters because many male patients want the option of working with a male therapist. Policymakers should encourage men to consider mental health careers by offering scholarships, loan forgiveness and awareness campaigns.

Family

Many men are struggling to retain a strong connection to family life. Again, the challenges are especially acute for working class and Black men. The share of men without a college degree with children at home has dropped from 67 percent in 1980 to 51 percent in 2022, making them the least likely group to live with children. In part this is because one in four have never been married by the time they turn 40. Among women without a college degree, most children are now born outside marriage.

As former president Barack Obama has said: “Too many fathers are missing from too many lives and too many homes, and the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.” But it is no good simply pointing the finger at men or shaming them as “deadbeat dads.” There is an urgent need for “pro-dad” public policies including:

- Equal, Independent Paid Parental Leave: The case for a federal paid leave policy is strong. But it is important that both mothers and fathers have access to their own leave, on an equal basis. This “use it or lose it” approach to leave for fathers has a significant impact on take-up rates, and ongoing engagement between fathers and children. It also sends a strong signal: Dads are as important as Moms.

- Reform Family Law for Unmarried Fathers: Family courts are mostly doing a good job of creating what legal scholars call “postdivorce” families, supported shared custody arrangements and ongoing relationships between both parents and their children. Not so for unmarried fathers, who in most states face a complex and difficult legal terrain in terms of ensuring custody rights. Research by scholars like Kathryn Edin shows that many unmarried fathers want to be involved but face legal and systemic barriers. Reforms could include simplifying paternity establishment and ensuring fair access to custody and visitation.

Introduce a Nonresident Parent Tax Credit: Tax credits to help lower-income parents are a good idea. But they should include nonresident parents too, most of whom are fathers, as proposed by scholars like Ronald Mincy. This would incentivize responsible, engaged fatherhood and support the economic well-being of children.

The overall point is that fathers matter whether or not they are married to or living with the mother. It is time for family policy to catch up with the reality of modern family life, and especially the changing shape of fatherhood.

Many of these policies will take time to enact. But simply setting them out would end the zero-sum stalemate on gender issues.

Can either party show that it cares equally about the flourishing of men and women, girls and boys? There is still time.

[Ostroeuropa]

Full disclaimer: I used to support the Dems until they show-trialed Brett Kavanaugh in 2018.

Their entire political outlook has turned into a cult. The names change (MeToo in 2017, BLM in 2020, From the River to the Sea in 2023), but the cult remains. As an atheist, this turns me off bigly.

I also was left wing before the progressives took over the cultural narrative. I'm still in the Labour party in the UK, but there's more of a battle there for control over the party.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

Nowhere.

I doubt the next elections will be free and fair and we will transition into an outright authoritarian regime.

[Major-Tom]

I'm not a Democrat, but did vote for them. I'm actually far more neo-liberal and aligned with the former .

Stop. Just stop right here. "I'm actually far more neoliberal" is a losing brand, it's a losing strategy. People are economically desperate and don't want anything to do with neoliberal bullshit.

Wanna win in the future? Stop running as the center-right neoliberal party of Romney and Cheney.

[Futurist State of Flassau]

Full disclaimer: I used to support the Dems until they show-trialed Brett Kavanaugh in 2018.

Their entire political outlook has turned into a cult. The names change (MeToo in 2017, BLM in 2020, From the River to the Sea in 2023), but the cult remains. As an atheist, this turns me off bigly.

The only cult i khow is Trump's.

[Galmat]

I'm not a Democrat, but did vote for them. I'm actually far more neo-liberal and aligned with the former Romney/Ryan wing of the Republican Party. That all being said, the US election made one thing clear: Trump has captured the voice of a majority of voting Americans. His brand of right wing populism worked in some way. Democrats are left with maybe hard choices: where do you go from here? They lost the popular vote, lost more edges among minorities, and although captured the college educated vote, they've given up the blue collar and working class vote.

It also seems exit polls show most Americans believe Harris was too liberal for them.

So do Democrats embrace more moderate stances? Do they move further to the left themselves and assume their base stayed home?

Personally it feels like Democrats are going to have to shift more towards the center because the general population seems to be moving towards more conservative policies, more towards populism. However I'm curious on other opinions and what others believe the data actually says.

Honestly if the democrats positioned themselves as more Libertarian and less imperialistic, they would do wayyy better. The solution isn’t to move further right (at least socially. Economic centrism may work best), that just worsens the problem.

Through I will say identity politics in general is so annoying, I really wish both parties especially democrats drop it, and focus on the battles they can win.

[The Wooden Empire]

It's actually quite simple. Wait, it's been a rollercoaster of cycles in where most decided to vote trump because the Democrats coulden't control the economy which is still mainly in order from Trump's policies. Most people voted him in because they believe America will go back to the stability of the 2016-2020 period despite the fact that Trump basically rode off Obama's sucess. Once they realize that Trump's plan to fix the economy is extending the tax plan that has been in place since 2018, and then also put a 10% tarrif on any importing goods, most people will begin to think twice about Trump's policies and his support will dimmer. While I do believe we need to work on corrdinating and trying to actually work on a plan of progress that is capable within 4 years. So not trying to go for policies that are too absurd and too far-reaching, We just need to work on the economy first. social policies next

[Liberal Malaysia]

Full disclaimer: I used to support the Dems until they show-trialed Brett Kavanaugh in 2018.

Their entire political outlook has turned into a cult. The names change (MeToo in 2017, BLM in 2020, From the River to the Sea in 2023), but the cult remains. As an atheist, this turns me off bigly.

I also was left wing before the progressives took over the cultural narrative. I'm still in the Labour party in the UK, but there's more of a battle there for control over the party.

Have you ever considered formally switching parties? Maybe joining the Tories or Reform UK? You know, just switch out your entire wardrobe wholesale? I've abandoned the Left entirely. I've stopped calling myself a liberal very recently and now identify as a right-wing atheist.

They could try moving back to the center and not being so extreme next time. They've learned absolutely nothing over the past eight years except how to double down on their extremism and alienate everyone around them. Harris' constant denigration of men was particularly egregious this election cycle. Massive turn-off.



They could easily go the same way as the woke, pro-Muslim Indian National Congress in India.

You're an example of what I talked about. You honed in on the anti-male shit and they've made you an enemy. That's also why I hate them. Not everyone cares about mens issues. But a sizeable portion do, and the democrats have consistently alienated them. Rinse repeat for every enemy the democrats have made. "It's only 5%, we can fuck them off" x 20 = 100%.

They tried to get me banned from these forums for voicing my thoughts about male-female relations. They spun the most uncharitable yarn out of what I wrote. Like Scamala and the media have done constantly with Donald Trump.

[Tunasai]

I'm not a Democrat, but did vote for them. I'm actually far more neo-liberal and aligned with the former .

Stop. Just stop right here. "I'm actually far more neoliberal" is a losing brand, it's a losing strategy. People are economically desperate and don't want anything to do with neoliberal bullshit.

Wanna win in the future? Stop running as the center-right neoliberal party of Romney and Cheney.

I'm not running a political party and won't change my views to help a party I'm not a part of win. This is just for general discourse. I'm under no illusions that democrats embracing neoliberalism will solve the voter issue. But I also know doing nothing or moving further left likely doesn't fix their issue

I also don't think Democrats spent much time running in the Cheney sphere of politics. Foreign policy, poll wise, wasn't the voters biggest concern. It was economics and immigration, those are areas I think Democrats need to be more centrist on and spend more time on. They've horribly neglected those positions

[Ostroeuropa]

I also was left wing before the progressives took over the cultural narrative. I'm still in the Labour party in the UK, but there's more of a battle there for control over the party.

Have you ever considered formally switching parties? Maybe joining the Tories or Reform UK? You know, just switch out your entire wardrobe wholesale? I've abandoned the Left entirely. I've stopped calling myself a liberal very recently and now identify as a right-wing atheist.

You're an example of what I talked about. You honed in on the anti-male shit and they've made you an enemy. That's also why I hate them. Not everyone cares about mens issues. But a sizeable portion do, and the democrats have consistently alienated them. Rinse repeat for every enemy the democrats have made. "It's only 5%, we can fuck them off" x 20 = 100%.

They tried to get me banned from these forums for voicing my thoughts about male-female relations. They spun the most uncharitable yarn out of what I wrote. Like Scamala and the media have done constantly with Donald Trump.

I've considered switching but ultimately i'm too committed to left wing ideas and solutions to these issues, just not misandrist and anti-white ones. I wouldn't mind joining the SDP if they ran around my area.

[Galmat]

It's actually quite simple. Wait, it's been a rollercoaster of cycles in where most decided to vote trump because the Democrats coulden't control the economy which is still mainly in order from Trump's policies. Most people voted him in because they believe America will go back to the stability of the 2016-2020 period despite the fact that Trump basically rode off Obama's sucess. Once they realize that Trump's plan to fix the economy is extending the tax plan that has been in place since 2018, and then also put a 10% tarrif on any importing goods, most people will begin to think twice about Trump's policies and his support will dimmer. While I do believe we need to work on corrdinating and trying to actually work on a plan of progress that is capable within 4 years. So not trying to go for policies that are too absurd and too far-reaching, We just need to work on the economy first. social policies next

^This 100%
If the democratic leadership is smart, and things don’t go too well for Trump, the democrats can bounce back from this.

Nowhere.

I doubt the next elections will be free and fair and we will transition into an outright authoritarian regime.

Maybe I’m an optimist, but I think at most there’s only a quarter of a chance we become an outright dictatorship. I am concerned still, even if we don’t become a dictatorship, especially for myself and my fellow queer Americans. I can realistically see same sex marriage get overturned in the supreme Court under Trump, and at least some of the policy from Project 2025 get put into place.

[Jewish Partisan Division]

Personally it feels like Democrats are going to have to shift more towards the center because the general population seems to be moving towards more conservative policies, more towards populism. However I'm curious on other opinions and what others believe the data actually says.

Being moderates is what caused them to lose in the first place. Nobody wants to "slightly alter" the status quo when that same quo is causing bridges to remain broken. If anything, they should attempt to move further to left and engage with new demographics.

[Picairn]

It's the economy.

When Trump's tariffs crash the economy, the map will look like Obama 2008. It's always the economy.

[Existential Cats]

They should probably drop idpol and return to the laborism of the New Deal coalition.

[Picairn]

It's the economy.

When Trump's tariffs crash the economy, the map will look like Obama 2008. It's always the economy.

When this happens our favourite right-wing interlocutors will simply switch their tune to lamenting that the American public has bought into woke messaging. Prepare yourselves for the 2026 midterms folks, it's going to be a bloodbath.

[Nensha]

Two observations about the silver lining for progressives here:
(1) During the Biden administration, there has been a decline in interest in progressive organizations. Under the Biden administration, progressive groups have seen significant declines in fundraising and membership, proving that it’s much harder to energize people when we have somebody who’s willing to work with us in office. With Trump back in office, progressive groups like Our Revolution and the Working Families Party will see a notable increase in membership and cash.
(2) The centrist argument in the Democratic party is totally defeated. The Atlantic’s Yair Rosenberg observes in an August 2024 article that the Harris campaign is rerunning Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. While Harris initially seemed more progressive than Biden, she quickly moved to the right on several major issues, ranging from healthcare and the environment to immigration. Harris refuses to even tie herself to “Bidenomics,” the big government investment programs characteristic of the Biden administration that were lauded by many progressives such as Bernie Sanders.

These two considerations give me hope for a progressive Democratic nominee in 2028. And that’s exactly what the Democratic party needs now, but centrists in the party may run further to the right instead of learning the true lesson here: Democrats must now advocate for Bernie Sanders-style populism to remain relevant. The centrism and moderation of Obama, Clinton, Biden and Harris is now a relic of the past with centrist Democrats having lost 2 out of 3 elections against Trump.

In order to appeal to Never Trump Republicans, the kind of Republican who voted for Nikki Haley, Harris moved to the right compared to her left-wing days as a Senator or even her more moderate days as VP. Harris ran away from her support for Medicare for All. Harris sat in the center in an attempt to appeal to the left and the right, but in the process, she appealed to fewer people than Biden did in 2020.

Harris’ lurch to the right severely harmed Democratic turnout. Harris could have driven turnout in Michigan, the state with America’s largest concentration of American Muslims, from the energized and engaged Pro-Palestine movement, but instead these voters stayed home because Harris refused to more stridently criticize Netanyahu. This was also a missed opportunity for Harris to distinguish herself from an unpopular Biden on foreign policy and attract more young voters.
On domestic policy, Harris failed to distinguish herself from Biden. She could have done so by supporting Medicare for All. She could have argued that in a time of increased inflation, Medicare for All would reduce healthcare costs, increasing her support from young people, progressives, and voters concerned about inflation. Instead, she stated that she couldn’t find a single way she would be different from Biden, helping to ensure she would be brought down in the anti-establishment wave taking over countries across the world.

Progressive policy ideas such as infrastructure spending, healthcare, and expanding the earned income tax credit are popular and Democrats should run to them, not from them.

To help move the Democratic party in a more progressive direction, Democrats need to cull any leaders who were responsible for shielding Biden and Harris from healthy opposition within the party. Biden refused to debate Marianne Williamson and Dean Phillips in the 2024 primary, a debate that would have exposed his cognitive failings much earlier, possibly giving Democrats enough time to hold an open primary instead of anointing Harris in an election season fraught with concerns about democracy. If Democrats had held an open primary, Harris’ failings would have been more evident to the party, and perhaps they would have chosen a different nominee. At the very least, progressives could have cast votes for more leftist candidates in an open primary, increasing Harris’ chances by pushing her to the left of Biden and giving progressives a way to express their voices so they would be less likely to stay home or vote for third party candidates such as Jill Stein or Cornel West.

With Republicans likely taking a governing trifecta (control of the House, Senate, and Presidency), Democrats will need to evaluate their goals and values and realize they need to move to the left and not the right. Then, they will be able to take back the House in 2026 and the Presidency in 2028. As sad as it is that Harris lost, her defeat is ultimately healthy for the Democratic Party as it will move the party closer to where it needs to be.

[The Wooden Empire]

Snip

This is a pretty good arguement, The main reason the Democrats aren't popular with suprisingly alot of more left-leaning or minorities is that they fear conservetive pushback if they try to focus on more on these overlooked minorities and simply stay in their isle. I see a reason to break the chain of being worried about what the other party thinks and the need to work more on pushing a slow but a effective slew of social and economic policies (and perhaps on the line of political changes as well) to slowly show Democrats are willing to make the changes they promise, and get the vote by promising more of what they already have given by asking these minorities or satified progressives by going and voting them in again. This is the best way Democrats can re-gain American trust. Actually doing what they promise, but like every meddling politican and as such a political party. I doubt they will actually try to work more on doing what the people want instead of what the other party wants (To be honest the Republicans do fill bust every law they don't like so it's hard to get these in anyways)