Sanders and Warren, in particular, were the only incumbents to underperform Harris. Warren did so by around 5 points, off the top of my head. I think that is significant. Why were the two most visibly left wing members of the Senate the worst performers?
Sanders and Warren, in particular, were the only incumbents to underperform Harris. Warren did so by around 5 points, off the top of my head. I think that is significant. Why were the two most visibly left wing members of the Senate the worst performers?
Warren is weak by mass dem standards. Coming in third in your home state presidential primary was not pretty. Right wing populism is a bigger sale these days than left wing populism
Because populism at its heart is about exclusion. Going against a central tenet of the Democratic Party. For populism to be successful regardless of ideology, it requires тАЬpunching down.тАЭ People donтАЩt want to be at the bottom, they want someone below them.
The New Deal did almost nothing for nonwhites and FDR ordered Japanese people to be locked up. Truman dropped the atomic bomb on Japan and the GI Bill did almost nothing for nonwhites. Humphrey was anti LGBTQ and anti choice. They all тАЬpunched down.тАЭ
No he didnтАЩt. Roe v Wade became law in 1973 and he was a candidate for President in 1976 (he died in 1978). It had absolutely become a major issue by then. Also while in the Senate he proposed a law making it a felony to be a member of the Communist Party. So yes, he absolutely DID тАЬpunch down.тАЭ
Abortion had been an issue in Presidential Elections as early as 1972. Lest we forget George McGovern was trashed as the candidate of the тАЬthree As, тАЬacid, amnesty, and abortion.тАЭ Yes Humphrey was always very good on civil rights - his advocacy for a strong civil rights platform at the Democratic National Convention in 1948 speaks for itself - but sadly not on womenтАЩs rights. His widow Muriel Humphrey was pro choice though.
You're saying because they weren't progressive on those issues by today's standards or as progressive as a highly moral presidential candidate who was utterly drubbed in 1972, that's how they were able to be popular, and it had nothing to do with their standing up economically for the average Joes?
The point is that for Democrats to be seen as "standing up economically for the average Joes" most of them will have to take positions, particularly on social issues that base Democratic Party voters hate. Howell Heflin today could NEVER win a Democratic Party nomination, even in Alabama because he was VERY anti choice, anti LGBTQ, and anti gun control. Yes he was left on most economic issues, pro civil rights, and pro affirmative action, but on most social issues, THE antithesis of base Democratic Party voters. Left populism alone stopped winning national elections in this country after WWII. The growth and prosperity of American suburbs, plus the nationalization of American politics, plus the fact that Americans are naturally aspirational people killed that sentiment. The Democratic Party only did well down ballot precisely because most of those Democrats were to the RIGHT of the national party.
I'm not sold on your argument. The way I've assessed things, Warren suffered in the presidential primary race because Sanders entered the race and took away all the energy from her campaign.
Also, Warren had similar appeal as Sanders did towards Trump supporters during early stages of the primaries. Even Tucker Carlson of all people at one point was considering voting for Warren because of her economic agenda and even referenced her Two-Income Trap book.
Far more interesting to watch would have been a Warren presidency. With backing from a Democratically-controlled Congress, or even just with the inherent powers of the Executive, President Elizabeth Warren would have done wonderful things for our country!
In all fairness to Biden, he had decades of experience in the Senate working with the GOP and knowing the system. That helped him a lot as POTUS.
Warren however would have been more aggressive in pushing a 21st century Glass Steagal Act law to get a vote in Congress. Whether it would have passed or not under her presidency would have been a question.
Perhaps although it's possible Senator Josh Hawley might have signed on. He's one GOP Senator who has been supportive of a return for Glass Steagall.
The GOP platform in 2016 also called for reinstating Glass Steagall although with Trump being in office as POTUS, he didn't exactly push for the act to be reintroduced.
Warren underperformed Harris by 1.4% points, which is slightly worse than how Sanders did his Senate Race. However, Warren's percentage of victory in 2024 is actually .6% points lower than her re-election victory back in 2018.
In other words, not really much difference for Warren.
I think someone in a previous thread pointed out that Warren did worse in upscale communities vs. Harris and better in "working class" areas but I don't think Warren is all that problematic in terms of throwing unnecessary rock throwing and i'm glad she is in the Senate.
Warren didn't have a real race..this is such a simplistic thread that has no real way of examination.. Massachusetts wasn't competitive at all in basically every race
I don't disagree. I do think for all the talk of understanding the working class though the people making the claim they understand it better should have an explanation for why they did worse against third tier opponents in their super blue states. She has been much more of a team player though Google each of them and Democratic party and it's different to say the least.
"Many political experts and D.C. insiders are already blaming President Joe BidenтАЩs economic agenda for Vice President Kamala HarrisтАЩ loss. This does not stand up to scrutiny. Even though the Biden economy produced strong economic growth while reining in inflation, incumbent parties across the globe have been tossed out by voters after the pandemic. American voters also showed support for Democratic economic policies, for example, approving ballot initiatives to raise the minimum wage in Alaska and to guarantee paid sick leave in Missouri.
But good economic policies do not erase painful underlying truths about our country. For my entire career, IтАЩve studied how the system is rigged against working-class families. On paper, the U.S. economy is the strongest in the world. But working families are struggling with big expenses like the cost of housing, health care, and childcare. Giant corporations get tax breaks and favorable rules while workers are gouged by higher prices. Billionaires pay paltry taxes on their wealth while families canтАЩt afford to buy their first homes.
Americans do not want a country where political parties each field their own team of billionaires who then squabble over how to divvy up the spoils of government. Vice President Harris deserves credit for running an inspiring campaign under unprecedented circumstances. But if Democrats want to earn back the trust of working people and govern again, we need to convince voters we canтАФand willтАФunrig the economy."
Sanders and Warren, in particular, were the only incumbents to underperform Harris. Warren did so by around 5 points, off the top of my head. I think that is significant. Why were the two most visibly left wing members of the Senate the worst performers?
Warren is weak by mass dem standards. Coming in third in your home state presidential primary was not pretty. Right wing populism is a bigger sale these days than left wing populism
Because populism at its heart is about exclusion. Going against a central tenet of the Democratic Party. For populism to be successful regardless of ideology, it requires тАЬpunching down.тАЭ People donтАЩt want to be at the bottom, they want someone below them.
Yeah, the likes of FDR, Truman, Hubert Humphrey sure did a lot of punching down.
One of the central tenets of the Democratic Party stretching back to Jackson and Jefferson was economic populism.
The New Deal did almost nothing for nonwhites and FDR ordered Japanese people to be locked up. Truman dropped the atomic bomb on Japan and the GI Bill did almost nothing for nonwhites. Humphrey was anti LGBTQ and anti choice. They all тАЬpunched down.тАЭ
Oh FFS. Talk about changing the subject. And Humphrey died before gay rights and abortion became big issues.
No he didnтАЩt. Roe v Wade became law in 1973 and he was a candidate for President in 1976 (he died in 1978). It had absolutely become a major issue by then. Also while in the Senate he proposed a law making it a felony to be a member of the Communist Party. So yes, he absolutely DID тАЬpunch down.тАЭ
He didnтАЩt run in тАШ76. It was not a major issue until Republicans injected it into some of the senate races in the тАШ78 midterm.
Abortion had been an issue in Presidential Elections as early as 1972. Lest we forget George McGovern was trashed as the candidate of the тАЬthree As, тАЬacid, amnesty, and abortion.тАЭ Yes Humphrey was always very good on civil rights - his advocacy for a strong civil rights platform at the Democratic National Convention in 1948 speaks for itself - but sadly not on womenтАЩs rights. His widow Muriel Humphrey was pro choice though.
You're saying because they weren't progressive on those issues by today's standards or as progressive as a highly moral presidential candidate who was utterly drubbed in 1972, that's how they were able to be popular, and it had nothing to do with their standing up economically for the average Joes?
The point is that for Democrats to be seen as "standing up economically for the average Joes" most of them will have to take positions, particularly on social issues that base Democratic Party voters hate. Howell Heflin today could NEVER win a Democratic Party nomination, even in Alabama because he was VERY anti choice, anti LGBTQ, and anti gun control. Yes he was left on most economic issues, pro civil rights, and pro affirmative action, but on most social issues, THE antithesis of base Democratic Party voters. Left populism alone stopped winning national elections in this country after WWII. The growth and prosperity of American suburbs, plus the nationalization of American politics, plus the fact that Americans are naturally aspirational people killed that sentiment. The Democratic Party only did well down ballot precisely because most of those Democrats were to the RIGHT of the national party.
Simply wrong.. The New Deal helped all races
Not equally. I'm not going to pretend it did. Deal with it.
No-one pretends that it did.
Still wrong and creating straw men to boot
I'm not sold on your argument. The way I've assessed things, Warren suffered in the presidential primary race because Sanders entered the race and took away all the energy from her campaign.
Also, Warren had similar appeal as Sanders did towards Trump supporters during early stages of the primaries. Even Tucker Carlson of all people at one point was considering voting for Warren because of her economic agenda and even referenced her Two-Income Trap book.
https://www.salon.com/2019/01/26/salon-interview-tucker-carlson-bashes-capitalism-says-he-might-vote-for-elizabeth-warren/
Sanders did steal a lot of her thunder.
Yeah. And a Biden vs. Warren race would have been interesting to watch if Sanders didn't jump in as a candidate.
Far more interesting to watch would have been a Warren presidency. With backing from a Democratically-controlled Congress, or even just with the inherent powers of the Executive, President Elizabeth Warren would have done wonderful things for our country!
I don't think there's much chance she could have gotten the highly substantive types of bipartisan legislation through that Biden did, though.
I agree.
In all fairness to Biden, he had decades of experience in the Senate working with the GOP and knowing the system. That helped him a lot as POTUS.
Warren however would have been more aggressive in pushing a 21st century Glass Steagal Act law to get a vote in Congress. Whether it would have passed or not under her presidency would have been a question.
I suspect it would not have. It would have needed the support of Manchin and Sinema.
Perhaps although it's possible Senator Josh Hawley might have signed on. He's one GOP Senator who has been supportive of a return for Glass Steagall.
The GOP platform in 2016 also called for reinstating Glass Steagall although with Trump being in office as POTUS, he didn't exactly push for the act to be reintroduced.
https://x.com/HawleyMO/status/1635639100815319042?mx=2
https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-platform-calls-for-revival-of-glass-steagall-1468876558
Warren underperformed Harris by 1.4% points, which is slightly worse than how Sanders did his Senate Race. However, Warren's percentage of victory in 2024 is actually .6% points lower than her re-election victory back in 2018.
In other words, not really much difference for Warren.
2024 US Presidency in Massachusetts
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/massachusetts-senate-results
2024 U.S. Senate Race in Massachusetts
https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_election_in_Massachusetts,_2024
2018 U.S. Senate Race in Massachusetts
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2018-election/midterms/ma/
I think someone in a previous thread pointed out that Warren did worse in upscale communities vs. Harris and better in "working class" areas but I don't think Warren is all that problematic in terms of throwing unnecessary rock throwing and i'm glad she is in the Senate.
Warren didn't have a real race..this is such a simplistic thread that has no real way of examination.. Massachusetts wasn't competitive at all in basically every race
I don't disagree. I do think for all the talk of understanding the working class though the people making the claim they understand it better should have an explanation for why they did worse against third tier opponents in their super blue states. She has been much more of a team player though Google each of them and Democratic party and it's different to say the least.
"Many political experts and D.C. insiders are already blaming President Joe BidenтАЩs economic agenda for Vice President Kamala HarrisтАЩ loss. This does not stand up to scrutiny. Even though the Biden economy produced strong economic growth while reining in inflation, incumbent parties across the globe have been tossed out by voters after the pandemic. American voters also showed support for Democratic economic policies, for example, approving ballot initiatives to raise the minimum wage in Alaska and to guarantee paid sick leave in Missouri.
But good economic policies do not erase painful underlying truths about our country. For my entire career, IтАЩve studied how the system is rigged against working-class families. On paper, the U.S. economy is the strongest in the world. But working families are struggling with big expenses like the cost of housing, health care, and childcare. Giant corporations get tax breaks and favorable rules while workers are gouged by higher prices. Billionaires pay paltry taxes on their wealth while families canтАЩt afford to buy their first homes.
Americans do not want a country where political parties each field their own team of billionaires who then squabble over how to divvy up the spoils of government. Vice President Harris deserves credit for running an inspiring campaign under unprecedented circumstances. But if Democrats want to earn back the trust of working people and govern again, we need to convince voters we canтАФand willтАФunrig the economy."
https://time.com/collection/time100-voices/7173801/elizabeth-warren-democrats-plan-after-2024-election/
I'd like to think her prescription is right, but I'm very skeptical.
I love Warren, but election results are what they are.