Kamala Harris won politicaly engaged voters, but lost voters who don't follow politics. - eviltoast
  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    The rich 100% would.

    But it doesn’t matter, because the narrative of that happening would translate to more votes than literally any advertising all the money in the world could buy.

    Seriously, absolutely nothing could ever help a Dem become president more than all the wealthiest people in the country losing their shit over just the possiblity that a Dem becomes president.

    An alien invasion wouldn’t unite American voters as much as that would.

    The reason Dems keep losing, is we’ve lost the “anti-establishment vote”.

    The party turning their back on them would be all people would talk about, it would fill the news cycle the entire campaign.

    And even though media would present it as a terrible idea…

    That’s how they presented trump to, look at how that worked out.

    • orclev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      By “I’m not sure if that’s true” I meant the attack ads costing them the election, not that they would get attacked which I’m pretty sure they would. For what it’s worth I do agree that an actually progressive Dem running on a anti-capitalist platform would do quite well. I’m not sure it would be well enough to win, but I don’t think it would be a guaranteed loss either. The biggest counter example I can think of would be Bernie Sanders, but that has the extra complication that the DNC did everything they could to try to bury him. A progressive candidate with the backing of the DNC I suspect would do well enough to offset any possible damage done by attack ads.