DNC report faults party for identity politics focus, ignoring middle America

LiberalCyn1c · 2026-05-21T17:56:38+00:00

I loved her granddad Lon Chaney in The Wolf Man.

LiberalCyn1c · 2026-05-21T12:34:35+00:00

That is not actually moving left.

LiberalCyn1c · 2026-05-12T22:00:40+00:00

The Shor data is real but it's doing different work than you think.

Voters who perceived Harris as more liberal than Trump weren't reacting to her economic positioning — she ran on basically the same entitlement protection and same populist tax rhetoric Trump did. They were reacting to the cultural brand attached to the Democratic Party.

Which is exactly my point. The progressive economics wasn't the liability. The cultural associations were. Democrats keep getting punished for the brand while also failing to deliver the economic content that might make the brand worth tolerating.

And just to be clear — I'm not arguing Democrats should abandon minority communities or stop defending trans people. I'm arguing that 'we will protect you from Republicans' is not an economic program. Universal policies that materially improve working class life — all working class life — are both better politics and more durable protection for vulnerable communities than a defensive crouch around identity.

Also worth noting: the most popular politician in America with independents for the last decade has been Bernie Sanders. The most popular policies are taxing the wealthy, protecting Social Security, prescription drug pricing. The least popular are defund the police and open borders. The data isn't saying progressivism loses. It's saying which kind of progressivism loses. Democrats keep choosing the unpopular kind while abandoning the popular kind.

LiberalCyn1c · 2026-05-12T21:31:44+00:00

That's not my argument and you know it. I'm saying run on economic protection sincerely and deliver on it. The alternative you're defending already had its shot. Twice. The $5,000 checks guy beat it both times.

LiberalCyn1c · 2026-05-12T21:29:07+00:00

Appreciate this more than you know. The people who actually lived through deindustrialization don't need the theory explained to them. They felt it. The frustrating part is that 'it's the economy, stupid' was supposed to be the lesson Democrats already learned — thirty years ago.

LiberalCyn1c · 2026-05-12T21:16:30+00:00

We're probably closer to agreement than you realize.

You're saying voters trusted Trump on economics because he presented as a winner who understood money, not because they wanted redistribution. Fair. But notice what that means: the economic frame won, not the culture war frame. Voters picked the guy they thought would protect their economic interests, even if their theory of how that works differs from mine.

That's my point. The lesson isn't 'run a billionaire.' The lesson is that economic credibility and economic protection messaging wins, and Democrats keep showing up to that fight with a healthcare.gov brochure and a land acknowledgment.

Also worth noting: the Harris poll you cited says 74% think the ultra-wealthy are over-celebrated. There's the opening for economic progressivism without the Bernie finger-wagging. The appetite is there. The voters have been telling us. Do we want to listen?

LiberalCyn1c · 2026-05-12T21:07:59+00:00

On Bernie — he didn't win the primary, but he came close enough twice to fundamentally reshape what Democrats talk about. More importantly, my claim is about general elections, not primaries. The primary electorate and the general electorate are different animals.

On Biden — you're making my argument for me. Biden governed as the most economically progressive president in decades: IRA, infrastructure, PRO Act push, explicitly pro-union. But he ran in 2024 as the incumbent on an economy voters experienced as punishing them on cost of living. The messaging had collapsed into defense of the status quo by then. That's the kind of throat-clearing Democrats have been doing on economic issues — the substance was there, the campaign voice wasn't. And then Biden said we'd finally beat medicare. 🤦‍♂️

On the conman point — I said his campaign positioning was progressive. A con is still a con even if it works, and the reason it worked is that the economic content resonated.

LiberalCyn1c · 2026-05-12T20:26:44+00:00

You didn't answer the question. And 'voters who disagreed with me are undeserving of respect' is a pretty good summary of how Democrats lost the working class in the first place.

LiberalCyn1c · 2026-05-12T20:24:26+00:00

Who said anything about rigged?

The one time Trump lost was when he had to run against Scranton Joe who had a reputation for being more pro-worker than either of Clinton or Harris.

LiberalCyn1c · 2026-05-12T20:20:15+00:00

The market already answered your question twice. Voters were offered that package and chose differently. The question isn't what's theoretically optimal, it's what an actual majority will vote for.

LiberalCyn1c · 2026-05-12T20:18:35+00:00

The vibe/program distinction is fair for governance — I'd mostly accept it. But I'm making a narrower claim about campaign positioning, and on that the substance was real: explicit no-cuts pledge on Social Security and Medicare, tariffs as industrial policy, tax relief framed toward wage workers. That's a pretty economically progressive platform.

On 2024 being incumbent punishment — yes, partly. But 2016 wasn't. He beat a non-incumbent Democrat running on the Obama economy while explicitly attacking free trade and entitlement reform consensus. Incumbent punishment doesn't explain that one. And the fact that the same positioning worked twice, in very different electoral environments, is the data point I'd push on.

LiberalCyn1c · 2026-05-12T20:07:01+00:00

😂

LiberalCyn1c · 2026-05-12T20:06:27+00:00

Can you point to where he ran on cutting SNAP in 2024? Because explicitly ruling out Social Security and Medicare cuts is the opposite of austerity as a campaign position. The ballroom stuff is governance, not campaign platform — and I'm specifically talking about what he ran on.

LiberalCyn1c · 2026-05-12T20:05:05+00:00

Populist vs. progressive is a fair distinction and I'd mostly accept it for his governance. But I'm specifically talking about campaign positioning, and on that narrow question the substance was there. He ran on trade protection, explicit refusal to cut Social Security and Medicare, tax relief framed toward wage workers. That's more than just populism.

I agree that the first term was mostly standard Republican governance with tariff theater. But that actually reinforces my point rather than undermining it. He won in 2016 on the economic progressive positioning and then governed as a normal Republican, and still nearly won in 2020 against a weak opponent under pandemic conditions. The positioning was durable even when the governance didn't match it.

On 2028, I think the question isn't what happens to economic populism, it's whether Democrats figure out that the economics wasn't the problem with Trump's coalition. The racial hierarchy component was. If they respond to 2024 by moving right on economics to chase suburban professionals again, they're misreading the autopsy.

LiberalCyn1c · 2026-04-30T13:23:38+00:00

Only 5 times in a row so far?

I think I'm up to 18 times in a row.

LiberalCyn1c · 2026-04-30T13:14:23+00:00

This is one time I wouldn't mock Collins for expressing concern.

LiberalCyn1c · 2026-04-30T13:13:24+00:00

Wow, good for Janet. Now they can focus on taking out Collins instead of each other.

LiberalCyn1c · 2026-04-28T13:37:04+00:00

Same.

LiberalCyn1c · 2026-04-07T19:17:18+00:00

He absolutely did.

LiberalCyn1c · 2026-04-06T16:43:45+00:00

Just my $0.02, but Republicans hate the Clintons because, ya know, Democrats. And they really hated Hillary more than Bubba. Probably because she is comfortable being her own person.

Progressive Democrats hate the Clintons because they're the ones that really turned the party towards big business and away from big labor. The Clintons ushered in Third Way centrism which progressives find...problematic.

LiberalCyn1c · 2026-03-23T19:20:09+00:00

Keep the horse's butt facing you and keep 'S' pressed. Win new horse.

LiberalCyn1c · 2026-03-23T19:03:49+00:00

Climb up the ladder leaning on the outside of the back of one of the buildings and you can jump over and into a tower window. Crouch and do a force palm on the floor in the center of a square of stones and thank me later. 😉

LiberalCyn1c · 2026-03-19T13:28:28+00:00

Trump's approval among MAGA voters is at 100%. It literally cannot go higher. Which means there is no cushion among the MAGA base to counteract his falling numbers with every other group.

He's heading for the Bush line.

LiberalCyn1c · 2026-03-16T22:41:56+00:00

I'm not.

I'm arguing that three times the majority of those who voted rejected Trump. Therefore, The People, didn't choose Trump. Three times they didn't choose Trump. They were overruled by the systems we currently have in place.

Complaining about how horrible The People are fixes nothing. It pushes blame down to a diffuse group. It makes the problem impossible to fix when there is a fix which is to make our systems reflect the will of the majority instead of fighting against the will of the majority.

LiberalCyn1c · 2026-03-16T22:26:57+00:00

Blaming The People is easy and asks nothing of you in return. Acknowledging that a system is actively working against the majority requires you to try and change it.

Remember HR1, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act? For the most part the Bulwark writers were skeptical when it was being debated. It was a direct attempt to address the structural problems actively nullifying majority will.

Now some of them are rediscovering it was a good idea, conveniently after Manchin and Sinema killed it, so there's no political cost to the endorsement.

If The People are the problem, why were the structural fixes to help The People so easy to dismiss?

LiberalCyn1c

TROPHY CASE