I agree, we can’t just blame her. To be clear, the entire platform is why she lost. A candidate is only good as the machine and the message propelling her. In this case, a white, upper middle class, corporate-planned platform that would cater to people with degrees (student loan forgiveness) and enough money to afford a mortgage (first time homeowner credit).
The campaign also leaned so far right, it read like a George W Bush playbook — running on gun ownership (despite saying she would pursue a ban on assault style weapons), increased deportations, the celebration of a lethal military, expanding “energy sources” to include fracking and oil drilling, and the further funding of a genocidal Israel. All of which appeals not to the left, but the right—voters who already had a war mongering, climate destroying, genocidal, gun rights advocate they liked much more in Trump
It’s also what the platform didn’t advocate for that would have expanded the voter pool: making more of a point about her plan to raise taxes on the wealthy, expanding healthcare access and lowering costs of said healthcare (being principled enough to advocate for universal health care), pursuing aggressive climate action and punishing the oil industry for destroying our planet.
She wanted to give tax breaks to builders who build homes for first time home owners. Give tax breaks to people with children only. Wonderful pro business, pro family ideas that continue to separate voters into who seem to matter most to both parties: entrepreneurs, homeowners, and families.
A platform is a promise. And hers was a promise to the voters she already had: white, upper middle class democrats.
So, I agree. We can’t blame Harris. It was a systemic failure from the party UP. That she didn’t advocate for different positions is systemic, not just personal.
I agree, we can’t just blame her. To be clear, the entire platform is why she lost. A candidate is only good as the machine and the message propelling her. In this case, a white, upper middle class, corporate-planned platform that would cater to people with degrees (student loan forgiveness) and enough money to afford a mortgage (first time homeowner credit).
The campaign also leaned so far right, it read like a George W Bush playbook — running on gun ownership (despite saying she would pursue a ban on assault style weapons), increased deportations, the celebration of a lethal military, expanding “energy sources” to include fracking and oil drilling, and the further funding of a genocidal Israel. All of which appeals not to the left, but the right—voters who already had a war mongering, climate destroying, genocidal, gun rights advocate they liked much more in Trump
It’s also what the platform didn’t advocate for that would have expanded the voter pool: making more of a point about her plan to raise taxes on the wealthy, expanding healthcare access and lowering costs of said healthcare (being principled enough to advocate for universal health care), pursuing aggressive climate action and punishing the oil industry for destroying our planet.
She wanted to give tax breaks to builders who build homes for first time home owners. Give tax breaks to people with children only. Wonderful pro business, pro family ideas that continue to separate voters into who seem to matter most to both parties: entrepreneurs, homeowners, and families.
A platform is a promise. And hers was a promise to the voters she already had: white, upper middle class democrats.
So, I agree. We can’t blame Harris. It was a systemic failure from the party UP. That she didn’t advocate for different positions is systemic, not just personal.
Subscribed.
(Free for the moment.)
Would appreciate same.
Value your work.
Thank you.