Republicans believe in most or all of them. And people trust Republicans to adhere to them.
Plus, they miss something that's critical: "Progressives" now own the Democratic Party and they are folks who enjoy their special status and who are convinced they are "right" (which is more important to them psychologically than is winning).
I honestly believe any politician who accepted -- and believed in -- Ruy's bullet points at the end of the article would be elected president in a landslide. He wrote them down as a liberal and, I presume, a Democrat. I, a rockribbed Republican and a conservative, can put my hand on my heart and pledge to vote for anyone, even a green alien -- well, a naturalized green alien -- who tells me those are his (or her) standards.
Do you think any "progressives" would vote for such a candidate?
We would....voters for Democrats for 50 years until this election.
....one quibble: I believe he is inaccurate about the need for changing policing. A lot (A LOT) of the issues some people have about policing are based on anecdotes, not data.
Agree. We evolved as a species to respond to anecdotes. We did not evolve to react emotionally to the law of large numbers (i.e., statistics). That is something that has to be trained into us.
Rather than dissecting ad nauseum every aspect of Election 2024, let's reach for some larger and more lasting truths that can advance national interest above a multitude of more parochial interests.
Election 2024 may have witnessed the rebirth and infancy of a more more mobile, moderate American middle that belongs to neither political party, but by its independence can hold sway over the direction of either party. The very suggestion of such a middle ground will of course have the political far Left and Right seething, and we are already witnessing them trying to exploit difference rather than resolve them.
Trump's greatest success was to present a vision for America that saw him make large gains with minorities, youth, blue collar workers and others historically aligned with the Democratic Party.
Unless Democrats grasp the lessons of Trump's success, they will become a permanent minority party of angry, embittered know-nothings.
Great points, but until Dems purge the term "uneducated" from their vernacular, they will never again be a coalition of much, but college graduates. Many, way too impressed with their C averages, in Gender Studies. Everyone is educated in something. Even a medical degree is of limited use , when your car breaks down or the heating system bites the dust, during a blizzard. If Dems cannot manage to respect everyone, who makes the US economy possible, Reps are going to have a good run.
The outright distain, many Dems have for the people, lacking sheepskins,, can no longer be denied, and it begins at the top. Listening to the Obamas, with their $75 million dollar real estate portfolio, label, lower and middle class voters, racist or misogynistic, if they refuse to support the person that made voter's lives, $13K a year, more expensive, was a new low in US politics. 1/2 of US families live on $75K, or less a year. Of that group, 40% live on, less than $45K a year. They are irredeemable, If they refuse to ask for more inflation, and millions more unvetted migrants, to flood their already failing schools?
Along with losing the phrase "uneducated", the party must stop, actively making the lives of middle and lower earners worse. Dem policies did not just fail to improve the lives of lower and middle earning Americans, Dem polices made their living standards worse. They are poorer, less safe, and already failing schools, are now overflowing with new students, in need of special assistance. Imagine how the parents at the most exclusive US private schools would react, if suddenly, student numbers increased by 25%, and new students were unable to speak English, or lacked any previous formal education.
Dems, literally, removed even the little luxuries, lower earners enjoy. It might be a monthly trip to a McDonalds, a long drive to visit Grandma, summer day camp, or a very modest vacation. Dems took all that away, without a thought, and expected voters to say thank you, and ask for more? Along with a change in language, Dems need to acquire humility and empathy or be prepared, for a very long political winter.
That is true when leftist activists down to the local level are considered to be included in the party "leadership." That is why the remaining centrist Democrats should be looking to join other centrists like me to form a centrist third major party. Perhaps it should be called the "Liberal Patriot Party."
The dictionary definition of fascism (Mussolini's version) is the fusion of the state and business interests. As you have amply demonstrated in your essays, this is today's Democrats. Meanwhile, the Republicans are moving away from this point of view, though not without dissention. To get to Nazism, you add anti-Semitism. Where is that to be found today? Both versions were war mongers. There is some justice in tarring the Bushies with that brush (and now the Democrats have embraced the Cheneys) but it is certainly not true of Trump, Vance, Gabbard etc. Vance and Gabbard have seen the horrors up close and personal.
I actually agree with your principles. So do a majority of Republicans and only a minority of Democrats. Perhaps there is a silent majority of Democrats that agree but most of those seem to have signed on with Trump. Equality of outcome is baked into Democratic messaging. I think there may be a majority of Democrats that are patriots but the party is also home to all the anti-patriots. I know no Republican who would disagree with your points about racism but lots of Democrats would. No one wants immigrants mistreated. Many Republicans would disagree that they are a net plus but seemingly all Democrats agree with open borders. I remind you that Trump is married to one. A more nuanced view held by some Republicans but no Democrats that I can identify is that immigrants are a plus in the long term but we need a pause to let the ones already here assimilate. Most Republicans would agree about police misconduct (Justice for Peanut) but would add the media/activist behavior is inflaming the situation. Democrats seem to to be moving away from "defund" which is good since POCs are the most heavily victimized population. Agree on gender but other than the TERFs few Democrats would. And the TERFs are subject to threats and actual violence. No one has done more to restore free speech than Elon Musk and see what side he is on. I could argue about climate change being serious but agree with your policy position. The Democratic position seems to be EVs without electricity. Again, that is the policy pursued by Republicans not Democrats. Agree on wealth and degrowth but again it is the Republicans who are pushing that position, not Democrats. Degrowth actually precedes communism. See Malthus. Regulatory reform is a Republican priority. The last Democrat to be interested was Jimmy Carter. There seems to be interest in both parties about industrial policy. The CHIPS Act stripped of all the billions in grift is a good example of Democratic interest but on the other side of the coin are J. D. Vance and Owen Cass. Bottom line is Republicans need to get rid of McConnell and his corporate sponsors and Democrats need to dump the tech oligarchs and banksters. The former seems much more likely.
I know you are now affiliated with AEI and find it to be a more congenial home. I think you would find the new version of the Republican party to be the same and someone of your talents would be a great help in helping us finish the job of remaking the Republicans. There is a lot of talk about realignment but a really important part of that is internal to the Republican party.
If you go talk to tuned in liberals, people who listen to Pod Save America and watch Rachel Maddow, try even lightly suggesting that maaaybe some of their conspiracy theories about Trump and Republicans aren't true. You'll get blown out of the conversation. People don't change the way they think, or what they feel just because they lost an election, not even to a small degree. Not even the stuff that's very apparently crazy.
The core of the Democratic Party thinks the situation is very different than it actually is, they think their position in society, philosophically and politically, is very different than it actually is. I'm pretty sure this marks the moment when it became clear to history this version of liberalism, American liberalism in the first half of the 21st century, is a minority movement that does not perform well politically at the national level for its entire run. Dems right now think their messaging was bad, they'll blame inflation and the economy, they'll just throw their hands up in the air and say they don't understand how anyone voted for him... because the last thing they're going to do is change. They're going to stick with the radicalism, they're going to stick with the racial zero sum game, they're going to stick with men vs. women, they're going to stick with this weird hodgepodge of unintelligent ideas derived from failed Marxist professors whose names they don't even know, despite them living rent free in their heads. And Americans just aren't going to have any of it. One by one legacy media outlets will die off, legacy entertainment companies will die off, the college loan scam for junk degrees will become less popular or even face governmental reform, and this iteration of liberalism will increasingly lose its share of the mainstream public forum. Until in 2052 we get another Bill Clinton, who doesn't represent any of it.
You are describing where the modern Republican party is going, or has been for a while now, and more importantly, where the middle voters are who delivered the presidency to Trump. The elitist progressives who dominate the Democratic party might lie that they believe these things in an effort to deceive the voters into voting for them but they do not actually believe any of it and will not implement these policies. Everyone knows that Democrats lie about being more centrist to get elected, and then vote for the most extreme leftist policies when they get into office. The voters have fallen for it many times and I wonder why. I think that con is beginning to fall apart along with the rest of the party, and should have happened long ago! I do greatly appreciate your insights and analysis and read every one of your columns. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life, and likely never will, but we do need to understand where our opposition is coming from and I have learned a lot from you. Thank you.
It's funny, and ironic, that all this says is that voters want common sense, American values and principles reinstated, the folks who do the work and foot the bill honored, and the country considered first. Hmmm. Where have we heard this?
Extremist ideology based on overthrowing tradition, history and evidence, is not welcome, and will not be supported. Welcome to reality.
Well, to quote Randy Quaid as Russel Case in "Independence Day," "I been sayin' it and sayin' it. Ain't I been sayin' it? I've said since June Trump had 312 EVs and the popular vote locked up. This is all evident in voter registrations. ZERO to do with poll.
So what am I seeing now? Democrats were just 4 points from losing NJ and NM. The GOP will turn loose the human voter registration machine Scott Presler in the mid Atlantic and by 2028, just as he did in PA, he will have VA and NJ---at minimum---voting for J. D. Vance. Then it really is all over. If Ds haven't recovered by then, in 2030 there is a new reapportionment/census. Last time red states got screwed by the Census Bureau. One of Trump's early, key appointees will be the head of the Census Bureau. If it corrects even HALF that error in 2030 (i.e., 8-15 EVs added back to the red states) on TOP of the 6 new EVs the population changes are bringing to the red states, the electoral college will be almost impossible for Democrats after 204.
Mostly agree with Ruy. Agree that D's (my party) have some re-thinking to do. However, a few complementary points.
1. Probably a good idea to not generalize overly from one election. 2024 is somewhat similar to 2016, but not to 2018, 2020, 2022.
2. There were many 2024-cycle-specific MAJOR factors in 2024 election result: Above all, Biden's disastrous decision to run for re-election. Also, Biden's disastrous permitting of illegal immigration from 2021 until 6 months ago. The worst inflation since the 1980s. Biden's awful approval numbers and poor ability to communicate with the public.
3. OK, this one is not 2024-cycle-specific: Harris's bad choice 5 years ago to raise her hand for the progressive wish-list, a legacy she struggled to explain or escape from.
Richard, I'll say that Democrats come in various flavors, such as progressive, mainstream liberal, moderate, and even moderately conservative. I'd say "moderate" fits me best. I dislike progressivism and I dislike MAGA even more.
Thank you for your always insightful comments on the Democratic party. Having never been on that side of things, I am interested in learning more. You lay out an excellent set of principles for a reasonable approach to governing this country, but the Republicans already endorse many of these ideas. The modern Democrats are captured by the hard Left and hate all of them. They don't listen to any dissent and drive out anyone who disagrees. Truly, I believe that the Democratic party is beyond reform, and should be abandoned to the Left. While I prefer where the Republicans are going right now with their America-first focus, we do need a reasonable opposition party also because one-party rule is never good. So the center-left classical liberals should start to think about building a new party, and the principles you have laid out are a good place to start.
At a high level (subject to some quibbles), I agree with the entire analysis. However, there are some basic, irrational, anthropological issues to deal with as well: as some commentator said, "it's easier to be angry than to be informed." How to deal with people who think that the S&P 500 is down when it has had the three best years ever, to take a very simple example. Trump's fascist-adjacent perception that emotion trumps facts was extremely powerful. The other thing is that the Democrats failed to learn the lessons of Brexit: "Project Fear" didn't work. "Project Fear" was lining up all the (mostly correct as it turned out) rational economic analysis against the emotional Brexit ("take back control") arguments, but that turned people off more than convinced them. Same thing here with the constant harping (mostly correctly) on how bad he is, how fascist he is, how the Republicans threaten democracy. it was not necessary to vilify Trump, but just pointing out his villainy had some of the same effect: it probably ratified his "victim" claims and made his supporters feel that they were being attacked through him. Again, I don't know how to overcome this, but I think it is too clear that ways too much faith was put in our US version of "Project Fear".
Dems still do get it . Harris and Biden were a boon to the wealthy. The asset laden class has never had administration, so solely devoted to increasing their wealth. People are not miss informed. 2/3rds of the country does not have a 401K, so they do not care if the S&P 500 is up, down or sideways. They want to afford summer camp for their kids, and few Christmas gifts.
The S&P comment was only an exceptionally egregious example of denial of reality (probably induced by Fox, et al) by people who think that the economy is in some kind of downturn when in fact it is going very well. The Fed has managed a soft landing. The US has done vastly better at recovery from Covid than any other country. Unemployment remains very low. Yet people are fixated on the fact that prices were lower four years ago (Trump sign: "Trump low prices/Harris high prices"). As if Trump could bring them down. The Democrats' failure is to communicate a realistic picture of the economic reality. Perhaps it's too complicated, but if it is, then Trump is right to exploit the emotions born of ignorance and right-wing deceit. And the Biden Administration has taken a much more demandidng approach to the wealthy than Trump ever would: he's already planning to roll back antitrust, refocus the tax code on the corporations and the wealthy, and cut spending. "The asset laden class [will never have an] administratio so devoted to increasing their wealth" as with Trump.
Good luck getting that Democratic Party without another disaster going further into red territory than this one. Since the House did not change enough to cause concern, am fairly convinced the Democrats will continue to bury themselves in the sand as they also bury their party, perhaps creating a Republican Party with little or no resistance in either chamber, while holding on to the Presidency.
These are good principles.
Republicans believe in most or all of them. And people trust Republicans to adhere to them.
Plus, they miss something that's critical: "Progressives" now own the Democratic Party and they are folks who enjoy their special status and who are convinced they are "right" (which is more important to them psychologically than is winning).
I honestly believe any politician who accepted -- and believed in -- Ruy's bullet points at the end of the article would be elected president in a landslide. He wrote them down as a liberal and, I presume, a Democrat. I, a rockribbed Republican and a conservative, can put my hand on my heart and pledge to vote for anyone, even a green alien -- well, a naturalized green alien -- who tells me those are his (or her) standards.
Do you think any "progressives" would vote for such a candidate?
We would....voters for Democrats for 50 years until this election.
....one quibble: I believe he is inaccurate about the need for changing policing. A lot (A LOT) of the issues some people have about policing are based on anecdotes, not data.
The problem is, anecdotes are more powerful than data to a lot of voters.
Agree. We evolved as a species to respond to anecdotes. We did not evolve to react emotionally to the law of large numbers (i.e., statistics). That is something that has to be trained into us.
Rather than dissecting ad nauseum every aspect of Election 2024, let's reach for some larger and more lasting truths that can advance national interest above a multitude of more parochial interests.
Election 2024 may have witnessed the rebirth and infancy of a more more mobile, moderate American middle that belongs to neither political party, but by its independence can hold sway over the direction of either party. The very suggestion of such a middle ground will of course have the political far Left and Right seething, and we are already witnessing them trying to exploit difference rather than resolve them.
Trump's greatest success was to present a vision for America that saw him make large gains with minorities, youth, blue collar workers and others historically aligned with the Democratic Party.
Unless Democrats grasp the lessons of Trump's success, they will become a permanent minority party of angry, embittered know-nothings.
Great points, but until Dems purge the term "uneducated" from their vernacular, they will never again be a coalition of much, but college graduates. Many, way too impressed with their C averages, in Gender Studies. Everyone is educated in something. Even a medical degree is of limited use , when your car breaks down or the heating system bites the dust, during a blizzard. If Dems cannot manage to respect everyone, who makes the US economy possible, Reps are going to have a good run.
The outright distain, many Dems have for the people, lacking sheepskins,, can no longer be denied, and it begins at the top. Listening to the Obamas, with their $75 million dollar real estate portfolio, label, lower and middle class voters, racist or misogynistic, if they refuse to support the person that made voter's lives, $13K a year, more expensive, was a new low in US politics. 1/2 of US families live on $75K, or less a year. Of that group, 40% live on, less than $45K a year. They are irredeemable, If they refuse to ask for more inflation, and millions more unvetted migrants, to flood their already failing schools?
Along with losing the phrase "uneducated", the party must stop, actively making the lives of middle and lower earners worse. Dem policies did not just fail to improve the lives of lower and middle earning Americans, Dem polices made their living standards worse. They are poorer, less safe, and already failing schools, are now overflowing with new students, in need of special assistance. Imagine how the parents at the most exclusive US private schools would react, if suddenly, student numbers increased by 25%, and new students were unable to speak English, or lacked any previous formal education.
Dems, literally, removed even the little luxuries, lower earners enjoy. It might be a monthly trip to a McDonalds, a long drive to visit Grandma, summer day camp, or a very modest vacation. Dems took all that away, without a thought, and expected voters to say thank you, and ask for more? Along with a change in language, Dems need to acquire humility and empathy or be prepared, for a very long political winter.
Amen to all your points
But the listed principles have zero chance of being adopted with the current Democratic leadership. ZERO
That is true when leftist activists down to the local level are considered to be included in the party "leadership." That is why the remaining centrist Democrats should be looking to join other centrists like me to form a centrist third major party. Perhaps it should be called the "Liberal Patriot Party."
The dictionary definition of fascism (Mussolini's version) is the fusion of the state and business interests. As you have amply demonstrated in your essays, this is today's Democrats. Meanwhile, the Republicans are moving away from this point of view, though not without dissention. To get to Nazism, you add anti-Semitism. Where is that to be found today? Both versions were war mongers. There is some justice in tarring the Bushies with that brush (and now the Democrats have embraced the Cheneys) but it is certainly not true of Trump, Vance, Gabbard etc. Vance and Gabbard have seen the horrors up close and personal.
I actually agree with your principles. So do a majority of Republicans and only a minority of Democrats. Perhaps there is a silent majority of Democrats that agree but most of those seem to have signed on with Trump. Equality of outcome is baked into Democratic messaging. I think there may be a majority of Democrats that are patriots but the party is also home to all the anti-patriots. I know no Republican who would disagree with your points about racism but lots of Democrats would. No one wants immigrants mistreated. Many Republicans would disagree that they are a net plus but seemingly all Democrats agree with open borders. I remind you that Trump is married to one. A more nuanced view held by some Republicans but no Democrats that I can identify is that immigrants are a plus in the long term but we need a pause to let the ones already here assimilate. Most Republicans would agree about police misconduct (Justice for Peanut) but would add the media/activist behavior is inflaming the situation. Democrats seem to to be moving away from "defund" which is good since POCs are the most heavily victimized population. Agree on gender but other than the TERFs few Democrats would. And the TERFs are subject to threats and actual violence. No one has done more to restore free speech than Elon Musk and see what side he is on. I could argue about climate change being serious but agree with your policy position. The Democratic position seems to be EVs without electricity. Again, that is the policy pursued by Republicans not Democrats. Agree on wealth and degrowth but again it is the Republicans who are pushing that position, not Democrats. Degrowth actually precedes communism. See Malthus. Regulatory reform is a Republican priority. The last Democrat to be interested was Jimmy Carter. There seems to be interest in both parties about industrial policy. The CHIPS Act stripped of all the billions in grift is a good example of Democratic interest but on the other side of the coin are J. D. Vance and Owen Cass. Bottom line is Republicans need to get rid of McConnell and his corporate sponsors and Democrats need to dump the tech oligarchs and banksters. The former seems much more likely.
I know you are now affiliated with AEI and find it to be a more congenial home. I think you would find the new version of the Republican party to be the same and someone of your talents would be a great help in helping us finish the job of remaking the Republicans. There is a lot of talk about realignment but a really important part of that is internal to the Republican party.
I apologize for the lack of paragraphs. I put the breaks in but substack ran it all together.
Great article and I hope the Democratic party considers these principals. I am going to save your article for future reference. Thank you.
Ruy wrote pretty much this identical article ages ago. You can see how much the Democrats listened.
If you go talk to tuned in liberals, people who listen to Pod Save America and watch Rachel Maddow, try even lightly suggesting that maaaybe some of their conspiracy theories about Trump and Republicans aren't true. You'll get blown out of the conversation. People don't change the way they think, or what they feel just because they lost an election, not even to a small degree. Not even the stuff that's very apparently crazy.
The core of the Democratic Party thinks the situation is very different than it actually is, they think their position in society, philosophically and politically, is very different than it actually is. I'm pretty sure this marks the moment when it became clear to history this version of liberalism, American liberalism in the first half of the 21st century, is a minority movement that does not perform well politically at the national level for its entire run. Dems right now think their messaging was bad, they'll blame inflation and the economy, they'll just throw their hands up in the air and say they don't understand how anyone voted for him... because the last thing they're going to do is change. They're going to stick with the radicalism, they're going to stick with the racial zero sum game, they're going to stick with men vs. women, they're going to stick with this weird hodgepodge of unintelligent ideas derived from failed Marxist professors whose names they don't even know, despite them living rent free in their heads. And Americans just aren't going to have any of it. One by one legacy media outlets will die off, legacy entertainment companies will die off, the college loan scam for junk degrees will become less popular or even face governmental reform, and this iteration of liberalism will increasingly lose its share of the mainstream public forum. Until in 2052 we get another Bill Clinton, who doesn't represent any of it.
You are describing where the modern Republican party is going, or has been for a while now, and more importantly, where the middle voters are who delivered the presidency to Trump. The elitist progressives who dominate the Democratic party might lie that they believe these things in an effort to deceive the voters into voting for them but they do not actually believe any of it and will not implement these policies. Everyone knows that Democrats lie about being more centrist to get elected, and then vote for the most extreme leftist policies when they get into office. The voters have fallen for it many times and I wonder why. I think that con is beginning to fall apart along with the rest of the party, and should have happened long ago! I do greatly appreciate your insights and analysis and read every one of your columns. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life, and likely never will, but we do need to understand where our opposition is coming from and I have learned a lot from you. Thank you.
It's funny, and ironic, that all this says is that voters want common sense, American values and principles reinstated, the folks who do the work and foot the bill honored, and the country considered first. Hmmm. Where have we heard this?
Extremist ideology based on overthrowing tradition, history and evidence, is not welcome, and will not be supported. Welcome to reality.
Well, to quote Randy Quaid as Russel Case in "Independence Day," "I been sayin' it and sayin' it. Ain't I been sayin' it? I've said since June Trump had 312 EVs and the popular vote locked up. This is all evident in voter registrations. ZERO to do with poll.
So what am I seeing now? Democrats were just 4 points from losing NJ and NM. The GOP will turn loose the human voter registration machine Scott Presler in the mid Atlantic and by 2028, just as he did in PA, he will have VA and NJ---at minimum---voting for J. D. Vance. Then it really is all over. If Ds haven't recovered by then, in 2030 there is a new reapportionment/census. Last time red states got screwed by the Census Bureau. One of Trump's early, key appointees will be the head of the Census Bureau. If it corrects even HALF that error in 2030 (i.e., 8-15 EVs added back to the red states) on TOP of the 6 new EVs the population changes are bringing to the red states, the electoral college will be almost impossible for Democrats after 204.
Mostly agree with Ruy. Agree that D's (my party) have some re-thinking to do. However, a few complementary points.
1. Probably a good idea to not generalize overly from one election. 2024 is somewhat similar to 2016, but not to 2018, 2020, 2022.
2. There were many 2024-cycle-specific MAJOR factors in 2024 election result: Above all, Biden's disastrous decision to run for re-election. Also, Biden's disastrous permitting of illegal immigration from 2021 until 6 months ago. The worst inflation since the 1980s. Biden's awful approval numbers and poor ability to communicate with the public.
3. OK, this one is not 2024-cycle-specific: Harris's bad choice 5 years ago to raise her hand for the progressive wish-list, a legacy she struggled to explain or escape from.
So why are the Democrats "your party"? The principles seem much more Republican.
Richard, I'll say that Democrats come in various flavors, such as progressive, mainstream liberal, moderate, and even moderately conservative. I'd say "moderate" fits me best. I dislike progressivism and I dislike MAGA even more.
Thank you for your always insightful comments on the Democratic party. Having never been on that side of things, I am interested in learning more. You lay out an excellent set of principles for a reasonable approach to governing this country, but the Republicans already endorse many of these ideas. The modern Democrats are captured by the hard Left and hate all of them. They don't listen to any dissent and drive out anyone who disagrees. Truly, I believe that the Democratic party is beyond reform, and should be abandoned to the Left. While I prefer where the Republicans are going right now with their America-first focus, we do need a reasonable opposition party also because one-party rule is never good. So the center-left classical liberals should start to think about building a new party, and the principles you have laid out are a good place to start.
At a high level (subject to some quibbles), I agree with the entire analysis. However, there are some basic, irrational, anthropological issues to deal with as well: as some commentator said, "it's easier to be angry than to be informed." How to deal with people who think that the S&P 500 is down when it has had the three best years ever, to take a very simple example. Trump's fascist-adjacent perception that emotion trumps facts was extremely powerful. The other thing is that the Democrats failed to learn the lessons of Brexit: "Project Fear" didn't work. "Project Fear" was lining up all the (mostly correct as it turned out) rational economic analysis against the emotional Brexit ("take back control") arguments, but that turned people off more than convinced them. Same thing here with the constant harping (mostly correctly) on how bad he is, how fascist he is, how the Republicans threaten democracy. it was not necessary to vilify Trump, but just pointing out his villainy had some of the same effect: it probably ratified his "victim" claims and made his supporters feel that they were being attacked through him. Again, I don't know how to overcome this, but I think it is too clear that ways too much faith was put in our US version of "Project Fear".
Dems still do get it . Harris and Biden were a boon to the wealthy. The asset laden class has never had administration, so solely devoted to increasing their wealth. People are not miss informed. 2/3rds of the country does not have a 401K, so they do not care if the S&P 500 is up, down or sideways. They want to afford summer camp for their kids, and few Christmas gifts.
The S&P comment was only an exceptionally egregious example of denial of reality (probably induced by Fox, et al) by people who think that the economy is in some kind of downturn when in fact it is going very well. The Fed has managed a soft landing. The US has done vastly better at recovery from Covid than any other country. Unemployment remains very low. Yet people are fixated on the fact that prices were lower four years ago (Trump sign: "Trump low prices/Harris high prices"). As if Trump could bring them down. The Democrats' failure is to communicate a realistic picture of the economic reality. Perhaps it's too complicated, but if it is, then Trump is right to exploit the emotions born of ignorance and right-wing deceit. And the Biden Administration has taken a much more demandidng approach to the wealthy than Trump ever would: he's already planning to roll back antitrust, refocus the tax code on the corporations and the wealthy, and cut spending. "The asset laden class [will never have an] administratio so devoted to increasing their wealth" as with Trump.
You hit the nail on the head. Candidates should consider running as independent and adopting this platform.
This is just the discussion we had at the dinner table last night. Amen.
Good luck getting that Democratic Party without another disaster going further into red territory than this one. Since the House did not change enough to cause concern, am fairly convinced the Democrats will continue to bury themselves in the sand as they also bury their party, perhaps creating a Republican Party with little or no resistance in either chamber, while holding on to the Presidency.