Yes yes, this is the answer for sure! The reason they lost last time was that too many progressives decided that Democrats weren't far enough left for them.
Uhm, yeah that was definitely part of it. There were a lot of complaints of Kamala taking the stage with Liz Cheney, and trying extremely hard to appeal to the "disenfranchised right-wing voter". Plenty of news stories that covered it if you cared to look them up. The voter turn out on the left was extremely low.
But if you got it wrong and there just aren't enough progressives to carry it by themselves, then ignoring moderate voters is a recipe for defeat.
When did I say anything about the moderate vote? I said conservative. Conservative != moderate. Chasing the moderate or independent vote is perfectly fine and something I encourage the left to do, especially on topics like the economy. That only makes sense.
In the last election there was a significant shift towards the right as certain voters found Trump's policies more appealing, especially those related to the economy.
Which is ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ dumb as hell since he doesn't have any policies. He didn't then and he doesn't now. He never actually voiced any pen to paper policies.
Progressives won't woo these voters back with 'progressive' policies, they will do it by showing that they have better economic policies. This won't be easy because Republicans will pile on lies about how they improved the economy with their bold measures, while Democrats would destroy it. So Democrats have to get strong on the economy. It may be sad to think that most voters care more about their own pockets than anything else, but that's just reality.
Right, which is easy for the Democrats to do if they just show the facts. The economy performs better under Democratic administrations and that's just reality.
Or perhaps I am wrong and deepening the divide is the best strategy.
Why is my suggestion of coalescing behind progressive policies rather than trying to appeal to conservative voters "deepening the divide", exactly? I'm genuinely curious about that? Further more, why the ◊◊◊◊ is it always the Dems job to bridge the divide? It never ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ works for them but they always seem to get the blame no matter how hard they try, so why ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ try anymore? They're going to get ◊◊◊◊ on for it anyway. We know that because they do right now. Who ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ cares? This is the dumbest argument that comes up during this conversation. The Dems have to be the perfect party or else everything they do is the problem.
If so that's very sad, because the governing party should have the support of a wide range of voters.
Yet we've got an administration that controls all 3 branches of the government that repeatedly says most democrats should be hung, or shot, or deported, or their vote should be suppressed or they should be in jail, or any other myriad of ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up punishments yet here you are in the "what did democrats do wrong" thread acting like the Dems are the ones excluding voters.
It's not a true democracy if only 33% wanted it.
Lol
And if 'chasing conservative votes' loses votes then what does that say about those on the left?
Chasing conservative votes did lose votes. That's why Kamala lost the last election, if you ask me. What it says about those on the left is that they don't like conservative policies. I mean, ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ duh.
Not voting Democrat because the party isn't progressive enough for them is even sadder.
Sure it is Roger, sure it is. This sentence doesn't even make any ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ sense.
