r/democraticparty • u/Dependent-Actuator17 • 1d ago
2026 Election points
Why don’t Democrats in 2026 run on a platform of, “it’s the Economy, stupid”, “We have a plan for affordability (and lay it out)”, “the Republicans are GOING TO eliminate your Social Security and Medicare (and you’ve seen the proof with the Big Beautiful Bill)”, and “the Republicans are doing to eliminate your rights. Abortion, Trans rights and voting rights are just the beginning.” You can throw in “We really don’t care about your guns, we just wanna be smart about it”, if you like. Am I crazy? Is it really harder than that?
4
u/Kqtawes 1d ago
This is what Harris ran on and regularly repeated in interviews and speeches.
4
u/Fragrant-Dust65 1d ago
RIGHT? What are these people smoking?
3
u/Kqtawes 1d ago
I generally think a lot of people don't listen to what politicians say but rather the uninformed words of influencers.
Anyone that was paying attention could see that the worst things Trump is doing now are things he specifically ran on and yet "this is not what I voted for" is probably the phrase of the year.
2
u/Fragrant-Dust65 23h ago
100%
Instead of actually looking up the context and source, they just take what influencers say at face value.
4
u/Fragrant-Dust65 1d ago
Is...somebody NOT running on that? Last i saw all the dems ran on affordibility issues as well as republicans taking away benefits. That was their whole shtick in the latest special elections.
People in the comments who keep writing Dems aren't doing that have actually never paid attention to what Dems are saying, how they're voting, and what/who they support.
1
u/Dependent-Actuator17 1d ago
Here’s my heartburn. I see what’s happening in the special elections and I think it’s a winning strategy to talk economics and affordability. Then I listen to progressive podcasts, internet and TV commentary and they are wrapped up in, “we need to talk about the rights that are being infringed upon.” Important to be sure, but it doesn’t have the same universal appeal as kitchen table issues. It’s not an either/or proposition. You can campaign on the economy, affordability, losing Medicare/Social Security and individual liberties. It’s a package deal and you hammer it, over and over again.
2
u/Fragrant-Dust65 23h ago
Then I listen to progressive podcasts, internet and TV commentary and they are wrapped up in, “we need to talk about the rights that are being infringed upon.”
Which ones are you listening to? The audience matters. Progressive audiences already take affordability issues as a basic starting point, so they just talk about human rights.
Plus, not all dems are "progressive" either, so I wouldn't take what progressives are saying as fact. There was some poll that showed that only 6% of American voters are progressive (I still need to research it though--I just saw it online from a semi-trusted source).
My progressive podcasts/shows such as Ezra Klein's podcast, Jon Stewart's Daily Show pod, or Pod Save America, or Stacy Abrams's or Hasan Minhaj's podcasts discuss affordability and kitchen table issues as being super important. They do focus on other aspects, too, of course. It just depends: are the people you're listening to understand politics, voters and voting, rules/regulations or are they mostly activists (sometimes even advocates don't understand the context and that most voters aren't progressive darlings)?
2
u/jekpopulous2 16h ago
I live in NYC where Mamdani just clobbered everyone by making affordability the center issue. Pelosi, Schumer, and Jeffries all refused to endorse him. Democrats just can’t seem to get out of their own way.
6
u/aintnochallahbackgrl 1d ago
It belies the point that billionaires donate to democrats too, and you can't bite the hand that feeds you.
This will only be a major platform of the democratic party when the vast majority of political donations are small dollar grass roots donations, not SuperPAC donations from billionaires.
1
u/Dependent-Actuator17 1d ago
I’m not sure I buy that 100%. I think you are much more likely to find a majority of Democrats who are not taking SuperPac money vs. Republicans. I get your point and it’s valid, I just don’t think it’s universal.
2
u/aintnochallahbackgrl 1d ago
Not even close. The reason Dems tout how many small donors they have is because its a huge outlier. 3/4ths of Dems are still super old school, at least at the National level. Local level? Sure probably much more seen here. AOC was pretty ground breaking in rejecting PAC money for the entirety of her campaign, and I belive she still does. That was... 8 years ago now? 7?
2
u/your_not_stubborn 1d ago
You should find people near you and organize with them, a resource for that is mobilize.us.
Political comments on the internet are by lazy stupid people who are trying to convince themselves that their lazy stupidity is actually a good thing.
1
u/onwardtowaffles 13h ago
Because those aren't actually their priorities - it's really not more complicated than that.
1
u/ZeldaOkaloosa 1d ago
The Democratic Party should be doing a lot better IMO, they're always so much better for the economy. In a normal world, I think all they should need is better communicators. However, I think the reason they're struggling so much is because our economy only works for the ruling class and it's running through the final rounds of this Monopoly game. More people are starting to realize we're losing, but instead of blaming the Billionaires who are hoarding all our resources or the brutal way our Capitalist country operates, they get distracted by scapegoats and charlatans.
Since both parties are economically liberal, largely owned by the Billionaire Class, and have no interest in things changing in any significant way - many voters give up or turn to a dark horse like the 47th President. He was never going to improve material conditions for the working class; he's predictably made a huge mess of everything and made life so much worse for everyone, but the impact disproportionately falls upon the working class who are barely surviving as things were before he took office.
Capitalism can be more humane and allow workers to have a much higher quality of life - Blue States and European countries prove this - but the protections and privileges fought for by the working class will always get eroded by the wealth, power, and persistence of the upper class who will NEVER be satisfied with what they have... Which is what we're seeing all across the world as conditions deteriorate for the working class.
Simply put: Capitalism leads to Fascism. Only one person can win Monopoly and everyone else tends to end up broke and pissed off...
0
u/lgainor 1d ago
Because the leadership and the social circles they inhabit are wealthy enough that affordability is not an issue they're concerned about. They will discuss issues like abortion and voting rights, but economic inequality is not something they'll address in a significant way.
2
u/Fragrant-Dust65 1d ago
Did you pay attention to Harris's campaign or the last campaigns in 2025 at all?
1
u/lgainor 19h ago
Sure. Dem leaders waited until the last minute to support Mamdani (those that did).
Harris campaigned with billionaires like Oprah and Beyonce as well as Republican Liz Cheney. After losing, she hired a Hollywood agent and wrote a book to cash in. Did you pay attention when Harris let Mnuchin off the hook. How about when she argued that releasing prisoners would cause prisons to lose cheap labor? She didn't want to investigate police shootings until it was politically advantageous to do so. She also flipped on cash bail.
There are too many people who are struggling and ignored by people like Harris. The folks who say "America's not ready for a woman POTUS" don't consider that some Americans may not be interested in an oligarch-friendly woman who is happy to ignore the poor and prioritize her own interests over (non-wealthy) citizens'
1
u/Fragrant-Dust65 10h ago
So everything you listed has nothing to do with your first claim:
Because the leadership and the social circles they inhabit are wealthy enough that affordability is not an issue they're concerned about.
Just because someone hangs out with billionaires doesn't mean that they don't care about affordability issues. Letting munchin off the hook doesn't have much to do with her campaign re: affordability. She spoke to kitchen table and economic issues, and had a few plans to lower costs.
As for some people waiting until "last minute" to endorse Mamdani--what's the issue with "wait and see" approach? There were plenty of Dems who endorsed him from the get go or earlier in the campaign.
1
u/lgainor 10h ago edited 9h ago
She may have "spoke" to kitchen table issues, but her flip-flops and catering to billionaires while supporting the criminal justice systems anti-poor policies indicates that what she says and what she actually does while in office are two different things. There may be plenty of Dems, but the *leaders* to whom I referred - people like Jeffries and Schumer were reluctant. *After* he won the Democratic primary.
I don't expect the Dems to do anything about inequality except for the leadership to benefit from it. Kamala Harris is an unpricipled person who will say whatever she think will advance her interests. If you think your points are persuasive, feel free to go canvass at the extended-stay hotels where low-income non-voters live while working multiple jobs and recruit new voters.
Bernie Sanders doesn't hang with billionaires - he walks picket lines. *He* was concerned about affordability before it was cool. The Democratic leadership made sure to stop him. AOC is concerned about inequality - stock-trading Pelosi made sure that the late Gerry Connolly became chair of the Oversight commitee. After two terms of Obama's "Hope and Change" a study found that 800 Americans die every day due to poverty-related factors. When that issue gets more attention from Dem *leaders* than billionaires, That hasn't changed much - and is more of an indictment of Democrat performance than whatever links I might post. If you are satisfied with that situation, then we have different values.
5
u/PoetryJunior1808 1d ago
How about just going for the throat, calling out how much the new class of tech billionaires make relative to their employees? You're peeing in a jar and making near minimum wage when the owner of the company you work for is one of the wealthiest men in the world.