Asking as someone from the other side of the planet.
From the things I saw about the US election, the Dems were the side with plans for the economy - minimum wage adjustments, unions, taxing the rich, etc. The Republicans didn’t seem to have any concrete plans. At least, this is what I saw.
I don’t doubt Bernie Sanders though - he seems like a straight truth teller. But what am I missing?
How is this true?
No, it’s not true. The liberals never had the working class’ backs.
Liberalism fetishizes capitalism, remember?
I don’t doubt Bernie Sanders though - he seems like a straight truth teller.
He’s not consciously lying - Bernie, like all liberals, actually believes you can (somehow) represent both the interests of the working class while also representing the interests of the capitalist class that is parasitizing off their labor. As any leftist will tell you, this is pure delusion.
I’m very intrigued by your definition of Liberalism. It doesn’t correlate with liberalism across the world.
It doesn’t correlate with liberalism across the world.
Really? Find me an anti-capitalist liberal. that should be very easy if this…
It doesn’t correlate with liberalism across the world.
…was the truth.
deleted by creator
I understood him to mean that Democrats were more interested in appealing to Liz Cheney as Republican lite, rather than advocating vigorously for the working class. They take money from corporate interests, and then pretend they don’t protect them. They didn’t do enough to address the problem of inflation, and American workers were angry.
I see this claim so much, and it’s bullshit. Harris didn’t make a single policy concession to get Cheney on board. And why would she? The entire point of having her endorse was to send the message of “Trump is so dangerous that even people who disagree with me are choosing to support me.”
Harris needed to get progressives and instead they put their efforts into winning over moderate conservatives. Even if she didn’t make concessions, putting time and effort into promoting that meant she didn’t have time or effort to put into the progressive voter base
Building a broad coalition without policy concessions was a waste of time? You’re going to have a tough time convincing me of that point.
I don’t think he needs to convince you of that. The results of your election are plain for all to see.
What broad coalition?
There was no coalition. It was a campaign by and for white college educated professional women in the suburbs.
That’s not a coalition, that’s a book club.
Look at the numbers please:
In 2020 Biden had 81,284,666 votes.
In 2024 Kamala had 69,218,912 votes.That is a difference of around 12 Million votes or nearly 15%. Trump at the same time gained only like 750k votes. I mean yes, he somehow GAINED votes, but still…
What is your supposed reason for those numbers?
