The ideological spectrum as we analyze it is less consequential than candidate charisma and messaging that transcends left vs. center and connects with people the way Clinton, Obama, and Bernie, among others have in the past. And maybe have the instincts to recognize that de facto open borders is the biggest imaginable electoral loser be…
The ideological spectrum as we analyze it is less consequential than candidate charisma and messaging that transcends left vs. center and connects with people the way Clinton, Obama, and Bernie, among others have in the past. And maybe have the instincts to recognize that de facto open borders is the biggest imaginable electoral loser before attaching yourself to that policy for more than three years.
I submit that it wasn't carved in stone that Harris was destined to get plastered because of a multiracial working-class Trump coalition this year. The closer we got to the election, the less she had to say that tickled downscale voters' erogenous zones. She couldn't have possibly read the room more poorly than her closing message of doubling down on preserving democracy with Liz Cheney at her side. It just wasn't salient.
Gretchen Whitmer and others pleaded with her campaign to change the subject to economic concerns but they were convinced that reproductive rights was voters' top priority and that their path to victory was through the microscopic cohort of college-educated moderate Republicans who hadn't already flipped to Biden four years ago. That kind of messaging isn't gonna win the Presidency.
The problem with this argument is "Union Guy" Joe Biden was running on a more populist economic message pre-debate and was set to lose worse than she did.
I do agree the "vibes" and charisma often matter more than strict ideological lines, but I think it's clear the American public isn't juiced by class war rhetoric-they want fairness. I'm not saying pivot to Jeff Summers-esque bullshit, but I keep coming back to this . . . Biden ran the most economically left/progressive administration since the 60s, and voters responded with "screw him!"
That all said, when I say "moderate" I'm referring moreso to culture war, criminal justice and immigration issues. Personally I think Biden hit near a perfect mark re: economics but it's clear I'm in a minority there.
As I said, messaging and candidate charisma is the primary driver. Biden was always a mediocre communicator. The octogenarian version of Biden was a uniquely dreadful communicator, incapable of articulating the kind of message that would move votes. Harris had a double challenge of digging out of the hole Biden left her and the party in....and the miserable identity crisis the Democrats have found themselves in during the Trump era where they had to be instructed by Gretchen Whitmer to talk about the economy in Michigan against their instincts of avoiding conflict with the managerial class who they felt dependent upon for victory.
The ideological spectrum as we analyze it is less consequential than candidate charisma and messaging that transcends left vs. center and connects with people the way Clinton, Obama, and Bernie, among others have in the past. And maybe have the instincts to recognize that de facto open borders is the biggest imaginable electoral loser before attaching yourself to that policy for more than three years.
I submit that it wasn't carved in stone that Harris was destined to get plastered because of a multiracial working-class Trump coalition this year. The closer we got to the election, the less she had to say that tickled downscale voters' erogenous zones. She couldn't have possibly read the room more poorly than her closing message of doubling down on preserving democracy with Liz Cheney at her side. It just wasn't salient.
Gretchen Whitmer and others pleaded with her campaign to change the subject to economic concerns but they were convinced that reproductive rights was voters' top priority and that their path to victory was through the microscopic cohort of college-educated moderate Republicans who hadn't already flipped to Biden four years ago. That kind of messaging isn't gonna win the Presidency.
The problem with this argument is "Union Guy" Joe Biden was running on a more populist economic message pre-debate and was set to lose worse than she did.
I do agree the "vibes" and charisma often matter more than strict ideological lines, but I think it's clear the American public isn't juiced by class war rhetoric-they want fairness. I'm not saying pivot to Jeff Summers-esque bullshit, but I keep coming back to this . . . Biden ran the most economically left/progressive administration since the 60s, and voters responded with "screw him!"
That all said, when I say "moderate" I'm referring moreso to culture war, criminal justice and immigration issues. Personally I think Biden hit near a perfect mark re: economics but it's clear I'm in a minority there.
As I said, messaging and candidate charisma is the primary driver. Biden was always a mediocre communicator. The octogenarian version of Biden was a uniquely dreadful communicator, incapable of articulating the kind of message that would move votes. Harris had a double challenge of digging out of the hole Biden left her and the party in....and the miserable identity crisis the Democrats have found themselves in during the Trump era where they had to be instructed by Gretchen Whitmer to talk about the economy in Michigan against their instincts of avoiding conflict with the managerial class who they felt dependent upon for victory.