The progressive folk hero's mantra has always been: "Fix the economy, and magically racism goes away!" Except it doesn’t, and Black voters know better.
This is so true! We need White people, prominent White people, to step up and openly confront and debunk the racism at the foundation of Trumpism. There is a reason that the Confederate flag was a big part of the Trump attack on the Congress.
John, appreciate this. You’re right: confronting the racism at the core of Trumpism can’t be outsourced to Black and brown folks alone. White messengers—especially prominent ones—have to say it plainly in the rooms where it still goes unsaid. That doesn’t mean sidelining anyone; it means using every credible voice to break the spell where it’s strongest.
And yes, the Confederate flag at the Capitol wasn’t an accident—it was a thesis statement. This isn’t just “economic anxiety”; it’s a hierarchy project dressed up as patriotism.
What helps in practice:
• Name it directly—not euphemisms. Call the con what it is.
• Use trusted validators (veterans, clergy, union leaders, small-biz owners) to carry the message into white communities.
• Pair truth with receipts—show how racial grievance is used to block wage power, unions, health care, and fair courts.
• Organize, not just opine—school boards, county parties, local press letters, and workplace meetings; repetition beats nostalgia.
Thank you for stepping up and saying it out loud. That’s exactly the work.
This has been an enlightening debate, but here is my bottom line. Kamala Harris isn't a perfect candidate. She was in a difficult position. Stuart Stevens has pointed out that historically, when an incumbent administration is underwater in the polls, people vote for a change in leadership. So she was fighting uphill against all of these realities of race, gender, social media propaganda, and economic headwinds (perceived inflation, disparate wage gains across different industries) and Trump won by less the 2 percentage points.
If she decides to run in 2028, she will have my vote. I do hope she will ditch the corporate consultants and run a true populist campaign with an emphasis on significant structural changes in the government to protect democracy and individual rights such as due process. If we can give her the house and senate, she can pass meaningful laws to make this country better. But the real battle will be in changing the makeup of the Supreme Court. We have to return to a more balanced court with a temperament of actually interpreting the constitution in a manner that allows the country to evolve and not follow some "fake" originalist doctrine that twists itself into knots to facilitate a conservative doctrine that rewards religious ideologues and wealthy donors.
Can Kamala Harris be that type of leader? She said she is going to travel and talk to voters without asking for their vote. I think this is a smart move and shows she wants to understand what the country needs and wants. When she is ready, I think she will know who she is and what she stands for. She will face a lot of pushback from the RW propaganda machine and the true democratic voters will have to unite behind her or any other democratic nominee. My money is on Kamala Harris if she decides to run.
Donald, I appreciate you taking the time to lay this out so fully. I agree with you—no candidate is perfect, and Harris was facing enormous headwinds. Incumbent fatigue, inflation perceptions, disinformation, and the constant grind of race and gender bias all made her path steeper than it should have been. That’s the reality, not a reflection of her competence.
You’re right that if she runs in 2028, she’ll need to strip away some of the consultant-driven polish and lean into a message that feels rooted in structural change: democracy protection, due process, economic fairness, and a court that reflects balance rather than ideology. The Supreme Court fight is exactly as you describe: it’s about restoring interpretation that keeps pace with a living democracy rather than one frozen in a 19th-century snapshot.
I also think you’re spot on about what’s required from Harris herself. The travel, the direct conversations, the ability to show people she’s listening—that matters. When she is relaxed and in her own skin, she comes across as strong and authentic. The challenge, as you noted, is how to withstand the right-wing propaganda machine. That requires both her presence and a unified party willing to push back instead of second-guessing their own nominee.
For me, the purpose of writing pieces like this isn’t to get agreement, but to put my perspective out there so that people who are thinking the same things know they’re not alone. You captured that spirit in your comment, and I appreciate it.
Thanks for engaging with this so thoughtfully. I agree—if she runs, my money is on Harris too.
LBJ had it right! and to paraphrase James Carville “it was the racism and sexism stupid”.
I am a white woman and an airline pilot and union member working for decades at a major US airline. It is a white male dominated field, and these men are not stupid or poor, however most of them are racist and sexist. I can say this with certainty because my white husband, also a line pilot and instructor pilot is in the spaces where he hears the things that would never be said in front of me or people of color.
He knew that a large majority of white male pilots he worked with were for voting for Trump.
These men are college educated union workers and an example of why the rank and file of other organized labor groups voted for DT.
We didn’t understand why people would “vote against their own interests”.
You cannot poll for racism and sexism. If you ask those questions, you would only get lies for answers. Many white and Latino working class insist they are not racist or sexist they just want everything to be “fair”. “Fair” meaning blaming marginalized people for their lack of economic advancement rather than the oligarchs who are using them. Speaking to them about voting against their own interests goes nowhere because their main self interest IS racism and sexism full stop! DT has given free rein to racist and sexist organizations and people whose main self interest is not a paycheck or healthcare but wanting to feel superior to others. I have spoken to middle class white and Latino workers who will insist they are not racist or sexist, “but for some reason”, they just couldn’t vote for Kamala Harris.
RG, thank you for reading and for bringing such a grounded perspective from your own experience. I think you nailed something that too many political analyses try to dance around: racism and sexism weren’t side issues—they were central. LBJ was right, and Carville’s update on “it’s the racism and sexism, stupid” captures what the numbers and anecdotes both show.
Your example from the airline industry makes the point powerfully. These aren’t uneducated or economically “left behind” men—they’re college-educated union workers with stable careers. The idea that they’re voting against their economic self-interest only makes sense if we pretend racism and sexism aren’t also self-interest for them. As you put it, their “main self-interest IS racism and sexism full stop.”
And you’re absolutely right that you can’t reliably poll for this. Ask someone if they’re racist or sexist, and most will say no. Ask them why they couldn’t vote for Kamala Harris, and you’ll get vague “for some reason” answers that never mention bias directly. But when your husband is in those closed-door spaces, the mask comes off, and the reality is laid bare. That disconnect is why so many still cling to “fairness” rhetoric that blames marginalized groups instead of oligarchs.
This is exactly why the “voting against their own interests” frame is incomplete. Racism and sexism are their interests—because they reinforce a sense of superiority that outweighs concerns about paychecks, healthcare, or labor solidarity. Trump didn’t invent this; he gave it full permission.
Thank you again for laying this out with such clarity. It takes both lived experience and willingness to name hard truths to cut through the polite fictions. Your comment adds real weight to this discussion.
I am not sure, while democracy is going down the pie hole, people that understand we have to stand together, how bitching about each other helps at this moment. I wonder who has to gain with all this in-fighting. We are each a products of who we are. We can't be exactly alike, and what we care about is not exactly alike. Bernie is good at some stuff, maybe not as good at other things. Who the hell is perfect in this world? All I know we are about to lose our country. And don't come at me about race. I'm Asian American. I don't pretend to know anything special. But I know how Nazi Germany happened, and it's happening.
Susan, thanks for reading and saying this out loud. I hear you on the urgency and the fear that “bickering” helps the wrong side. Two things can be true at once: (1) authoritarians gain from division, and (2) a coalition only stays strong if we’re honest about what’s not working. What I’m doing here isn’t dunking for sport; it’s accountability so our message lands with the voters we keep losing.
I agree no one is perfect. Bernie is good at some things and weaker at others—same with every politician. My argument is that one specific weakness (how his message interacts with race and with white grievance politics) matters because it shapes wins and losses. Naming that isn’t circular firing-squad; it’s course correction.
On “who benefits from infighting?”—the right does when we ignore problems to preserve a vibe of unity. But they also benefit when we refuse to confront how racism/sexism are used to fracture the working class. That’s why I talk about race. Not as a gotcha, and not to come at you; it’s because scapegoating is the core tool of every authoritarian movement. Your reference to Nazi Germany underscores the point: the pattern starts with grievance, then blame, then permission. If we won’t name the mechanism, we can’t stop it.
I share your urgency about saving the country. The fastest way to real unity is honest clarity—about what worked, what didn’t, and how we close the gaps without erasing the people who’ve carried the costs. That’s the spirit of the piece.
Appreciate you engaging. We can hold the line against authoritarianism and still demand better from our own side—that’s how we get stronger, not weaker.
So much this!!! I am a glow in the dark GenX white woman in ruby red Indiana. I was all in for Harris. But everyone around me, in a very blue collar area, was for Trump. He definitely spoke to the people in this area, who are mostly factory workers living paycheck to paycheck, one check away from being homeless. Harris's message just didn't break through.
Pamela, thank you for this. You’re describing what I keep hearing from blue-collar counties across the Midwest: Trump’s pitch felt immediate to people living paycheck-to-paycheck, one bad week from crisis. Harris had policies that would’ve helped those exact families—child-care cost caps, wage enforcement, anti-price-gouging, housing/down-payment assistance—but the packaging never cut through the grievance noise.
A few things are going on where you are:
1. Messenger effect. In communities primed by right-wing media, a Black woman Democrat starts with a trust deficit. The same message delivered by a familiar white, union-linked local can get a hearing. That’s not fair—but it’s real.
2. Scapegoat vs. solution. Trump names villains (immigrants, “elites”) and promises relief now. Harris offered systems fixes that build stability. One scratches an itch; the other builds a ladder.
3. Proximity and story. People in “one-check-from-homelessness” mode respond to concrete stories—your rent would drop by X, your insulin costs Y less, this program gets you Z at tax time—repeated by trusted neighbors, pastors, shop stewards.
What breaks through where you live is fusion populism: call out corporate power and name the con that turns folks against their own coalition. That means more union-hall and shift-change organizing, more local validators, and fewer white papers. Harris’s agenda was built for your area; the delivery system wasn’t.
I appreciate you being “all in” for her and still telling the truth about what you saw. That’s exactly the feedback Democrats need to fix the gap between policy and persuasion. Thanks for reading and for putting it plainly.
Kristoffer, I hope we all learned from the Harris campaign how to message better and, if given the chance, will get it right next time. At this point, I'm very concerned we won't get that chance. You have quickly become a voice that speaks truth in a way I understand. I appreciate you.
Pamela, I’m with you. We can learn from the Harris run and tighten the messaging—clear benefits, local validators, fewer white papers, more straight talk. But it’s also on the Democratic Party apparatus to stop the self-sabotage we saw in 2024: late money, mixed signals, second-guessing the nominee in public, and letting “electability” myths write the story. Give the candidate a real runway, back the message with discipline, and we’ll get it right next time. I truly appreciate your note and your trust.
This article is why I decided to make a paid subscription to Lincoln Square. This is the 1st comprehensive article I've read about Sanders. I'm tired of the oohs and aahs about his so-called progressiveness -- and I will go further that an assessment of Sen E Warren needs to be done as well. They shout and shout and turn most people off because they offer little substance and concrete building blocks to change the greater issues. I've been waiting since 2015, no actually since 2009 when the Tea Party was formed, for the democratic party to put their collective heads and BE THE PARTY FOR THE PEOPLE. Sadly, the democratic party thought trump and maga were silly jokes that would go away especially after taking back the house in 2018. Well, it is now Sept 2025 and they still haven't a clue as to how restore the balance of powers as proscribed in the Constitution.
To the Democratic Party and the progressives, READ THIS ARTICLE. STOP BICKERING! and turn to the energetic younger members of your party to MOVE FORWARD before it is REALLY TOO LATE.
Christine, thank you for reading—and for putting your money where your mouth is. 🙏 I’m going to remember this comment when it’s time to ask Rick and Susan for that raise 😂.
On your points: I hear you on the Sanders “oohs and aahs.” Personality-only politics wears thin when there aren’t concrete building blocks attached. Same goes for Warren—smart ideas need translation into coalition math and durable organizing or they become seminar talk. What wins is a program + delivery system: wage power (unions, sectoral bargaining), antitrust and anti–price gouging, childcare cost caps, housing supply + down-payment help, and real health-care savings—repeated locally by trusted validators.
You’re right that Democrats treated Trump/MAGA like a joke in 2016—and even after 2018—while the right built media, courts, and state power. “Restore the balance of powers” isn’t a slogan; it’s a plan: win state legislatures/governors, defend courts with turnout in judicial races, pass ethics/antimonopoly reforms, and re-invest in local party infrastructure so we’re not rebuilding every cycle.
On “stop bickering”: amen—accountability isn’t infighting if it sharpens message and discipline. And yes to elevating energetic younger members (alongside experienced hands) who can actually sell the program where it’s toughest.
I appreciate the subscription and the nudge. The goal of the piece was exactly what you’re asking for: fewer vibes, more facts, and a path from analysis to power. Thanks for backing that.
I'm not a Sanders fan. He's a rabblerouser ... a sincere one to be sure but a rabblerouser nonetheless. He definitely has a legitimate place in the political ecosystem but is not what is needed at the top. I'm sorry he has ended up having as much influence within the Democratic Party as he has. Due to his rigid beliefs he is also one of the last people who should be passing judgment on Kamala Harris or her campaign in 2024.
Harris had a lot of things working against her in 2024. There was little sincere unity around her candidacy and it showed. It was fairly obvious that many political pundits (?) while paying lip service to her candidacy were actually wishing that it was their favorite who should have gotten their shot at the top job. In most cases that favorite would have been at least male.
We also had the upheaval surrounding Israel's war on the Palestinians which ended up with quite a few voters demanding that she take a hard and fast stand one way or the other. That was nuts.
And last but not least the fact that she was not only the wrong gender for a lot of voters but was also the wrong color. That caused a lot of more moderate voters to hesitate and too often look for another candidate to vote for or else not vote at all.
Harris clearly deserved to get a true opportunity to present herself to the electorate and be judged not the frantic scramble that she was given when Biden abruptly pulled out so late in the game.
Diana, thank you for reading and laying this out so clearly. Let me take your points in turn.
• On Bernie: I’m with you. He’s been a useful rabble-rouser with a lane in the ecosystem, but that doesn’t automatically translate to presidential leadership—or to being the arbiter of everyone else’s credibility. The outsized sway he wields inside the party, paired with rigid priors that don’t evolve on race/gender dynamics, is exactly why his judgment on Harris lands poorly.
• Unity around Harris: Agreed—there was far too much performative “unity” and not enough real buy-in. A lot of pundits and power players said the right words while quietly wishing their preferred (often male) favorite had been at the top of the ticket. That vibe bled into coverage and donor behavior.
• The Gaza/Israel upheaval: Totally. That moment produced purity-test politics on a hair trigger. Demanding a rapid, absolutist position in an evolving crisis pushed some voters into symbolic gestures rather than governing reality. It also handed the right a wedge they were thrilled to use.
• Gender and race headwinds: Yes. Harris wasn’t just the “wrong gender” for some voters—she was the “wrong gender and the wrong color.” That combination amplified the messenger penalty, especially among moderates who default to “safe” (read: male) choices or simply sat out.
• The late-breaking scramble: 100%. She did not get a normal runway. Compressing a national introduction into 107 days is not a campaign; it’s a crisis response. Under those conditions, she still over-performed with nearly every poor demographic except poor white men—proof the message connected when people were willing to hear it.
• What follows from this: If we want a party that wins, we have to stop confusing lip-service unity with coalition discipline, stop letting purity tests eat persuasion, and name the bias penalty that women—especially Black women—pay at the checkout counter of “electability.”
Appreciate you calling all of this plainly. Harris deserved a real shot; she got a sprint. The lesson isn’t to retreat—it’s to build the runway and infrastructure that should have been there from day one. Thanks for engaging.
I'm glad you brought up unity. I've been thinking a lot about how the Democratic Party has for too long pushed for one-size fits all when deciding on people to support at the state level. I think we'd all be much better off if the Democrats would get behind a wide variety of candidates/positions (with well-defined outer limits because some things are beyond the pale) to provide material support at the local and state level and let the national filter up.
One example of someone like that is Marie Gluesenkamp Perez. I can't say I share her positions on everything but she is representing people in her district and it's important to accept that reality. Another example is Mamdani in NYC. They represent the differences that occur naturally depending on culture, geography etc and the Democratic Party should be enough of a big tent party to handle it. The need to find a way to remind people that having a diversity of views makes us stronger and more representative of all the people in this country.
There may be some additional guidelines necessary for national candidates since those candidates would need to be able to work within the environment of Federal level realities. Life in Congress is not for the naive or hard line ideologues.
I've let my frustration overflow here. I'm not sure if I'll feel better after I post it or will wish I'd kept my mouth shut. Only one way to find out. Thank you for engaging.
Sharon, thank you for reading and saying it plainly. You’re right—if folks won’t acknowledge how white privilege shapes what gets heard as “authentic,” we end up misdiagnosing the problem and repeating it. That’s the whole point of the piece: Harris connected across poor demographics, and the one group that tuned her out did so because identity filtered the message. Naming that isn’t “bickering”; it’s strategy. Appreciate you backing the clarity
Remember the day Rev. Jesse Jackson referred to NYC as "Hymie-town" on a hot mic? Can't help but see elements of that in this piece. In fact it reads like a hit piece on one of our most recognizable pro-democracy warriors. Let's be clear - Bernie is after truth and younger working class voters of all stripes for his brand of Democrat. At this stage in his life, for anyone to attribute personal presidential ambitions that put him into the delusional territory we've seen in our last two presidents is clearly wrong-headed. Let's face it - by and large, this country has been crying out for a White male presidential candidate with a military background at the top of the Democratic ticket. For all she did right, Kamala did not fit that bill. The Democrats need to start grooming this type of candidate soonest. Less analysis like this, more action toward a winning strategy.
Sara, thanks for reading and laying this out. Let me take your points head-on.
1. “Hit piece” vs. critique. I’m not questioning Bernie’s pro-democracy credentials or pretending he hasn’t done real good. I’m pointing to a specific blind spot in his messaging that intersects with race and grievance politics. That’s analysis, not character assassination.
2. On attributing personal ambition. Every successful politician has ambition—Obama, Biden, Harris, Sanders. My argument isn’t “Bernie wants it too much”; it’s that his theory of the electorate leaves out how racism/sexism filter economic appeals. When that gap isn’t addressed, the coalition underperforms in predictable places.
3. “This country wants a white male with a military background.” I get that this tests well with certain voters, but we should be honest about what that is: an electability norm built on identity gatekeeping. If we center the solution around satisfying that bias, we cement the hierarchy that keeps shutting out women and people of color—even when their programs fit the moment. Harris didn’t “fail to fit the bill”; the bill is written by bias. The answer isn’t to conform to the bias; it’s to confront it while delivering materially.
4. Less analysis, more action. Fully agree we need action: antitrust with teeth, wage and union power, price-gouging enforcement, housing supply + down-payment help, childcare cost caps, health-care savings—and a delivery system (local validators, labor, faith, vets, small-biz messengers) that sells it where it’s hardest. But strategy without diagnosis is just vibes. Good analysis is action’s blueprint.
5. Bench building. I’m all for grooming candidates with service backgrounds (including veterans)—just not as a euphemism for “make him white and male.” Let’s build a deep bench that looks like the coalition and can speak credibly across communities: veterans, labor organizers, mayors, prosecutors, teachers—women and men, Black, Latino, Asian, Native, and white.
Bottom line: I respect Bernie’s contributions. What I won’t do is ignore the messaging gaps that keep costing us. Naming them isn’t bickering; it’s how we win. Appreciate you engaging.
Even though your critque of Bernie's language and ideas has a lot of truth to it, I think that your finger-pointing at him is either just plain vanilla unkind, or manages to overlook the facts of his age (shown by his use of outmoded socialist language rather than the updated language and concepts espoused by politicians on the left in the social democracies--who hate the word socialism like poison, even as they implement many 'socialist' reforms), and his history in Vermont, which, last time I checked it out, has a vanishingly small percentage of black people among its citizens. So, he doesn't entirely get it. Would you expect a cotton farmer from the deep south to appreciate the intricacies of maple syrup making? Or a salmon fisher from Alaska to appreciate how to grow grapefruit and lemons? Frankly, I appreciate the attention Bernie has consistently shown toward helping us to see how utterly skewed our economy (and in particular tax policies) are in favor of the wealthy, and super-wealthy. I am a staunch anti-racist and have been so since the age of 15 (I'm now 76.) I also recognize that while black peoples now comprise something like 14+% of our population, working people of all colors and persuasions are the majority of us, live everywhere, and share many of the same concerns. It is those concerns that Bernie addresses, and which have been his life work. Does he have to be 'perfect' to be good?
Leigh, so do you think Bernie is above reproach? Because that’s what your comment sounds like. Let me go point by point.
1. “Vanilla unkind” / finger-pointing. Critique is not cruelty. Pointing out a blind spot is not the same as bashing. Every politician—Bernie included—needs to be analyzed honestly. If we can’t do that, then we’re not practicing politics; we’re practicing fandom.
2. “Outmoded socialist language.” Exactly my point. Bernie still frames things in Cold War–era terms that don’t connect with today’s electorate. The “socialist” label is toxic in U.S. politics—even as policies like minimum-wage hikes, child tax credits, and healthcare expansions poll well. Other left parties abroad adapt their rhetoric. Bernie rarely has. That’s not age—it’s rigidity.
3. His base in Vermont. Yes, Vermont has very few Black voters. That’s why it matters when he struggles to connect beyond younger Black voters nationally. You can’t explain that away by geography. National candidates have to scale, and the data show his message didn’t resonate as broadly in Black communities as it did in white progressive circles.
4. “Would you expect a cotton farmer or salmon fisher…” False comparison. We’re not asking Bernie to know agriculture trivia. We’re asking him to confront how race and identity intersect with economic life in America. That’s not a detail—it’s the playing field. If he won’t address it directly, his message can’t win nationally.
5. “He’s shown concern for skewed economy and tax policy.” Yes, and I credit him for it. But here’s the thing: plenty of politicians on the left have addressed wealth inequality and integrated race and gender analysis into it. Bernie didn’t. He defaulted to billionaires as the villain and left space for Trump to fill the cultural blame vacuum. That overlap is why 1 in 6 of his 2016 primary voters went for Trump in the general.
6. “Does he have to be perfect to be good?” Of course not. No politician is perfect. But “good” isn’t enough when the blind spot costs elections. Pointing out that blind spot is not denying his contributions; it’s saying those contributions are incomplete. And incomplete strategies lose.
So no, Bernie isn’t above critique, and he doesn’t need to be perfect—but he does need to be held accountable for what his message misses. Otherwise we keep learning the wrong lessons.
Thanks for engaging. I’ll always back my analysis with facts, not vibes.
If you had written a more nuanced post like this one initially I would have stood up to salute it. Language and nuance are critically important to our understanding at all times, and especially in a crisis. I suppose you could say I'm a fan of sorts, but not an uncritical one, of Bernie Sanders, mostly not as much for his as you note frequently dated language and blinkered ideas as for the man's courage to stand up to those agents of greed who've been hollowing out our institutions and understandings for decades. I am a patriot of these United States, although I've felt like Cassandra on the walls of Troy most of my life, because I can put two and two together, so have felt like a victim of rape more often than not. The other reason I admire Bernie is that as I see it, social democracies (so rare) are proving that the best of entrepreneurial capitalism (IKEA, VOLVO, others) can successfully co-exist with labor unions, educators, doctors more interested in health than wealth, housing developers and mental health professions in mutually beneficial ways with demonstrable successes in the status and sense of satisfaction of the citizens of those countries. Facts are facts and I'm so sick of distortions, lies and deliberate sowing of confusion I could puke. I am a clinical social worker and former teacher, so it's not like I haven't been witness to the lost opportunities we've endured for too long under our present system of government grift. I won't apologize for my convictions, but I will apologize if I misread you, in whole or in part.
Leigh, no apology necessary—I appreciate you staying in the conversation. And for the record: my critiques of politicians (including the ones I support) are about substance. I push back on blanket claims with no context—like “Kamala didn’t speak to the working class”—when she clearly did, repeatedly and in detail.
On your points:
• Nuance & language: Agreed. Words shape coalitions. My argument isn’t that Bernie is “bad,” it’s that his class-only framing leaves out how race and gender filter economic appeals. When that layer is skipped, the message underperforms where we need it most.
• Admiring Bernie vs. critiquing him: Totally fair to admire his courage calling out concentrated wealth. I’ve said the same. The critique is about rigidity—recycling language that doesn’t meet today’s electorate where it is, and leaving a cultural vacuum the right fills with grievance.
• “Agents of greed” hollowing institutions: Yes. That’s why I keep calling for antitrust with teeth, wage/union power, price-gouging enforcement, and clean-governance reforms. We agree on the villains; I’m pressing for a fusion frame that can actually beat them.
• Social democracies & mixed economies (IKEA/VOLVO, etc.): Exactly—public goods plus innovative firms can coexist with strong labor and broad dignity. In the U.S., the barrier isn’t just policy; it’s the identity politics that fracture the very coalition required to pass those policies.
• Facts vs. distortion: With you. That’s why I anchor my claims in crosstabs and turnout patterns, not vibes. Harris’s support among most poor demographics is a fact; the drop-off with poor white men is a fact. We can fix problems only if we name them precisely.
• Your “Cassandra” note & public service: I hear the fatigue. Clinicians and teachers have been living the cost of bad policy and bad faith for years. My aim is not to dunk—it’s to diagnose clearly enough that strategy follows.
We end up in the same place: protect democracy, confront concentrated power, and use language that tells the truth and builds a coalition big enough to govern. I respect your convictions and I’m glad you pushed for nuance—iron sharpens iron. Thanks for engaging.
Loved this. Thanks so much for clarifying your understanding for me and others who might read this post. It is good to know that a person of your knowledge and understanding is fighting the good fight. And yes, we 'fighters' get tired sometimes. Sick and tired. And then, because we are not sunshine soldiers, we get up and fight some more. I am old now, and have been at this as best I could for decades--since I was old enough to see how things were for myself. Why? Because I care for the people and the others of this earth. (Which is a blessing, and in some wise a curse, seen from a narrower POV.) My honest belief is that we must move with the times and stand with those who believe not only that we can, but that we must, do better. That we have some examples, now, of systems that work better than the ones we've put up with, is bracing.
A huge breath of fresh air, a waterfall of cleaning off the delusional layers that have accrued since the election about our Democratic Party and Kamala’s humiliating scapegoating by the same Party! Your analysis is spot on. Thank you.
I remember my brilliant UC Political Science professor in the 1960s, John Stanley, who looked at the white college kids role-playing how “radical” they were and how the protests and rallies etc were in solidarity with the “working class”; and I remember Professor Stanley drolly saying, “You have a lot to learn if you think George Meaney and thousands of Union guys are going to join the love fest of your 60s flower-power “revolution.” They’d sooner bash your heads in; they’d have you for lunch.”
Nothing has changed in this regard.
And it is not only racism, but absolutist thinking, the admiration of violence, and not so much “women need to be taken care of” as “women need to be owned and do what they are told by men.” So putting Kamala up for President was serving her up for lunch; and then her own Party is denigrating her and one another because she got “eaten.”
Deanne, thank you for this—both the kind words and the history. You’re naming a pattern that keeps replaying.
Your professor’s warning about white college radicals romanticizing “the working class” while misreading union culture still tracks. George Meany’s AFL-CIO wasn’t joining a flower-power revolution in the ’60s, and in too many places today that same culture war lens still overrides material self-interest. The twist, as you know, is that today’s labor looks far more diverse—teachers, nurses, service workers, logistics—yet a chunk of the old culture still gatekeeps who’s “authentic.”
You’re also right that it isn’t only racism; it’s absolutism and an admiration for “toughness” that treats violence as virtue. And on gender: it’s not merely “women need to be taken care of,” it’s the darker rule—“women must be controlled.” That’s why a capable Black woman gets coded as “uppity” or “inauthentic,” and why the bar keeps moving no matter how strong the résumé.
Your line about serving Kamala up “for lunch” lands. She was given a sprint instead of a runway, then second-guessed by her own party while the other side attacked relentlessly. That’s not strategy; that’s self-sabotage. If a coalition wants to win, it can’t scapegoat the person carrying the coalition’s actual demographics.
Where we go from here is the part we can fix:
• Fuse class and race—stop pretending one can be “set aside.”
• Pair policy with power—unions, faith, veterans, and local validators who can sell the program where it’s hardest.
• Protect our candidates—no more intraparty undercutting to appease electability myths written by bias.
• Discipline over vibes—less performance, more organizing; less purity testing, more persuasion.
“Shame on all of us” is fair if it motivates discipline. I appreciate you pushing the conversation toward clarity instead of nostalgia. Thank you for reading and for bringing the historical receipts.
Cheeto’s Slight of Hand Trick: Passing Extra Taxes Onto States and Americans
The Orange Cheeto and his Nazi allies in the Executive Branch are freezing federal funds to local, state, and federal agencies on the pretense of cost cutting That is now becoming obviously ludicrous that it’s about making government frugal and streamlined The Nazi party has long contended there is government waste, fraud and abuse but the cutting of civil service jobs is to facilitate privatization of government services which in effect gives his cronies opportunities to grift on Americans
Passing taxes onto states? Case in point…Cheeto cuts funding for the Revolution Wind Project begun off shore by Connecticut and Rhode Island that created 1000+ jobs and was to make Rhode Island 100% renewable energy by 2033 The most reckless of the Cheeto decision was that that funding was cut when the project was 80% completed
Or was it reckless? Or was it just Cheeto passing the federal support onto the consumers of Connecticut and Rhode Island? Just another tax that Cheeto has passed onto the states First it was tariffs adding to an already inflated economy due to the loss of the purchasing power of the dollar Then government programs like FEMA get cut so that Go Fund Me pages cover the expenses of natural disasters supported by the American people Then states will have to pick up the medical expenses in every state where people lose health care coverage and try to keep rural hospitals open Then the taxpayers of Connecticut and Rhode Island have to pick up the last 20% to complete the project
Cheeto is on the way to illegally cut passed federal subsidies to the states so he can claim that he is cutting waste fraud and abuse while he passes tax cuts for the ultrawealthy VOTE these Nazi bums out of office and start taxing the shit out of billionaires
Mr, Ealy, I agree with your analysis so beautifully expressed by Lyndon Johnson who knew this problem well. Of course, today's white guy has to fend off demeaning charges of "privileged white male!" which is one reason liberals are even more despised today.
I too felt that Kamala ran an excellent campaign, and all that with no time to prepare. A single weak answer (What would you do different from the Biden administration?) was blown up into the sin of the century while Trump could proclaim a "they're eating the dogs, they're eating the cats!" daily and crickets.
Why was that? Hmmmm...who was determinative in her 1.5% loss? The white racists predictably in the Trump column for reasons you stated or the black men and Latinos who stayed home or voted for Trump? And why did they do that? Why did black men and Latinos vote against their own interests? Well, look no further than Kamala's gender. They simply don't want a woman to be President; the men because they need to feel superior to women, the Latina women because too many enjoy feeling inferior to men.
Changing white bigotry is a worthy goal. But black men and Latinos had their peers telling them to vote for Kamala and yet their bigotry was tragically decisive. "Unlikeable" qualified Hillary lost; very likeable qualified Kamala lost, both times to a traitorous male moron. Let's tell the whole story here. Don't forget to tend your own garden of minority "progressives" too.
Barbara, thank you for reading and for putting this all so directly. Let me work through your points.
LBJ and the present: You’re right—Johnson named the dynamic decades ago. Calling out privilege today isn’t why “liberals are despised;” the backlash comes from exposure of a hierarchy that many people are invested in keeping invisible. Naming it is accountability, not a smear.
Harris’s run + the “Biden difference” question: Agreed—she ran an excellent campaign on a brutally short runway. Compressing a national introduction into 107 days meant one imperfect answer (“what would you do different from Biden?”) got magnified way out of proportion while Trump’s daily outrage machine (“they’re eating the dogs… the cats…”) consumed airtime. That’s an asymmetrical media environment, not a lack of substance from Harris.
Who was determinative in the narrow loss?
• White voters steeped in grievance behaved as expected—that’s the core argument of my piece.
• On Black and Latino voters: two things can be true at once. Harris still won solid majorities in those communities, and in a few key places we saw turnout softening and a small but meaningful drift among some men. Misogyny crosses lines—yes—but so do disinformation, economic fatigue, and targeted persuasion operations. We should analyze that without pathologizing whole groups. The decisive falloff, though, remained poor white men, where identity gatekeeping fully overrode policy.
Gender dynamics across groups: I agree misogyny isn’t confined to one community. Some men—of every background—need women “beneath” them to feel “above” someone. That said, I’d frame it as learned dominance rather than “Latina women enjoy feeling inferior”—because a lot of that behavior is reinforced by culture, church, and media, not chosen.
“Tell the whole story”: Absolutely. And here’s the part too many skip: the donor class and party establishment keep passing the blame. Media buys were late or misallocated, message discipline fractured, validators weren’t mobilized fast enough, and there was obvious intraparty second-guessing. Everyone’s pointing at voters; almost no one is owning the 2024 sabotage by omission—the failure to build Harris the runway she earned.
Where that leaves us: Change white bigotry? Yes. Also harden our side: invest earlier, deploy local validators (labor, faith, veterans, small business), fight disinfo in-language, and stop treating bias as an “electability” law we must obey. Own the institutional mistakes, fix the infrastructure, and refuse to scapegoat the coalition that actually showed up.
Thank you again for engaging and insisting we tell the whole story—including the part our own gatekeepers would rather not discuss.
Prof. Ealy, it is a pleasure to discuss these sticky points with you. I say discuss, rather than debate, because I'm sure we're on the same side of most issues and, where we differ, it's probably just a question of degree.
As to the idea of eschewing seeing members of our coalition as "scapegoats", I do confess that I am very, very angry at my fellow Americans who returned the malignancy that is Trump to the White House. We had all seen this movie before, so whether you are a political junky or a "low info" voter, I don't see why you would need the most elegant infrastructure, validators or messaging to get your tired hindquarters to the polls and make sure you vote Democrat down the line. Even if you loathe the idea of voting for a girl or you are concerned about higher prices, this was a no-brainer threat to democracy and the wellbeing of every woman and minority person. While winning over the white Christian racists is a worthy long term goal, I don't see how offering our strayers and couch sitters understanding is beneficial in the short or long term. They need to be hit upside the head and never do what they did AGAIN. They ARE the margin that brought this plague to all of us and they have no more of a "cultural" excuse than the other side does to vote Republican. (Okay, I feel better now).
As to the "white male privilege" verbiage, it's important to see how counterproductive it is, to put it politely, to demean those whose support and ultimately votes you are trying to win to advance your agenda. I understand that it is shorthand for discrimination POC feel on a daily basis. But while flipping the verbiage to the privilege of being male and white may feel good, it implies that what Texas Governor Richards said about GW Bush ("he was born on third base and thought he hit a triple") applies to everyone in the category rather than a very small, truly elite ca$te in our country.
Just an example: My brother and I were born into a striving, middle class family. My father worked 6 days a week in his father's plumbing supply business and my mother worked as a public health nurse. When I was 11, my brother 14, my father died of cancer at just 44 (I think because of his exposure to chemical warfare development in WWII) and he was replaced by 3 men at the business. My mother then supported us on her county salary of $10,000/year. We had no connections to getting into college or employment at any business other than the plumbing store. My brother went on to graduate from a state college and Columbia law school (admittedly college was more economically attainable back in the day). Through a lot of hard work and sacrifice, he ultimately became a successful lawyer. (And a great supporter of Democrats).
To dismiss his hard won success as just "white male privilege", or that of the vast majority of struggling white men, as merely a layup because of the color of their skin is as offensive an idea as white racists calling people of color "shiftless." It is cringeworthy, demeaning and off-putting stereotyping, not least to say, a completely inaccurate description of their lived experience. If we want to win the persuadable white males back, and there are plenty of them in the traditionally Democratic and Independent ranks, we had best ditch the pejorative and come up with a better way to discuss this issue. You may be just the man to do it. :)
This is so true! We need White people, prominent White people, to step up and openly confront and debunk the racism at the foundation of Trumpism. There is a reason that the Confederate flag was a big part of the Trump attack on the Congress.
John, appreciate this. You’re right: confronting the racism at the core of Trumpism can’t be outsourced to Black and brown folks alone. White messengers—especially prominent ones—have to say it plainly in the rooms where it still goes unsaid. That doesn’t mean sidelining anyone; it means using every credible voice to break the spell where it’s strongest.
And yes, the Confederate flag at the Capitol wasn’t an accident—it was a thesis statement. This isn’t just “economic anxiety”; it’s a hierarchy project dressed up as patriotism.
What helps in practice:
• Name it directly—not euphemisms. Call the con what it is.
• Use trusted validators (veterans, clergy, union leaders, small-biz owners) to carry the message into white communities.
• Pair truth with receipts—show how racial grievance is used to block wage power, unions, health care, and fair courts.
• Organize, not just opine—school boards, county parties, local press letters, and workplace meetings; repetition beats nostalgia.
Thank you for stepping up and saying it out loud. That’s exactly the work.
How many times can I like this post? Will share far and wide. Thank you as always for the clarity, humor and facts.
Thank you! I try to be eloquent with my perspectives.
This has been an enlightening debate, but here is my bottom line. Kamala Harris isn't a perfect candidate. She was in a difficult position. Stuart Stevens has pointed out that historically, when an incumbent administration is underwater in the polls, people vote for a change in leadership. So she was fighting uphill against all of these realities of race, gender, social media propaganda, and economic headwinds (perceived inflation, disparate wage gains across different industries) and Trump won by less the 2 percentage points.
If she decides to run in 2028, she will have my vote. I do hope she will ditch the corporate consultants and run a true populist campaign with an emphasis on significant structural changes in the government to protect democracy and individual rights such as due process. If we can give her the house and senate, she can pass meaningful laws to make this country better. But the real battle will be in changing the makeup of the Supreme Court. We have to return to a more balanced court with a temperament of actually interpreting the constitution in a manner that allows the country to evolve and not follow some "fake" originalist doctrine that twists itself into knots to facilitate a conservative doctrine that rewards religious ideologues and wealthy donors.
Can Kamala Harris be that type of leader? She said she is going to travel and talk to voters without asking for their vote. I think this is a smart move and shows she wants to understand what the country needs and wants. When she is ready, I think she will know who she is and what she stands for. She will face a lot of pushback from the RW propaganda machine and the true democratic voters will have to unite behind her or any other democratic nominee. My money is on Kamala Harris if she decides to run.
Donald, I appreciate you taking the time to lay this out so fully. I agree with you—no candidate is perfect, and Harris was facing enormous headwinds. Incumbent fatigue, inflation perceptions, disinformation, and the constant grind of race and gender bias all made her path steeper than it should have been. That’s the reality, not a reflection of her competence.
You’re right that if she runs in 2028, she’ll need to strip away some of the consultant-driven polish and lean into a message that feels rooted in structural change: democracy protection, due process, economic fairness, and a court that reflects balance rather than ideology. The Supreme Court fight is exactly as you describe: it’s about restoring interpretation that keeps pace with a living democracy rather than one frozen in a 19th-century snapshot.
I also think you’re spot on about what’s required from Harris herself. The travel, the direct conversations, the ability to show people she’s listening—that matters. When she is relaxed and in her own skin, she comes across as strong and authentic. The challenge, as you noted, is how to withstand the right-wing propaganda machine. That requires both her presence and a unified party willing to push back instead of second-guessing their own nominee.
For me, the purpose of writing pieces like this isn’t to get agreement, but to put my perspective out there so that people who are thinking the same things know they’re not alone. You captured that spirit in your comment, and I appreciate it.
Thanks for engaging with this so thoughtfully. I agree—if she runs, my money is on Harris too.
LBJ had it right! and to paraphrase James Carville “it was the racism and sexism stupid”.
I am a white woman and an airline pilot and union member working for decades at a major US airline. It is a white male dominated field, and these men are not stupid or poor, however most of them are racist and sexist. I can say this with certainty because my white husband, also a line pilot and instructor pilot is in the spaces where he hears the things that would never be said in front of me or people of color.
He knew that a large majority of white male pilots he worked with were for voting for Trump.
These men are college educated union workers and an example of why the rank and file of other organized labor groups voted for DT.
We didn’t understand why people would “vote against their own interests”.
You cannot poll for racism and sexism. If you ask those questions, you would only get lies for answers. Many white and Latino working class insist they are not racist or sexist they just want everything to be “fair”. “Fair” meaning blaming marginalized people for their lack of economic advancement rather than the oligarchs who are using them. Speaking to them about voting against their own interests goes nowhere because their main self interest IS racism and sexism full stop! DT has given free rein to racist and sexist organizations and people whose main self interest is not a paycheck or healthcare but wanting to feel superior to others. I have spoken to middle class white and Latino workers who will insist they are not racist or sexist, “but for some reason”, they just couldn’t vote for Kamala Harris.
RG, thank you for reading and for bringing such a grounded perspective from your own experience. I think you nailed something that too many political analyses try to dance around: racism and sexism weren’t side issues—they were central. LBJ was right, and Carville’s update on “it’s the racism and sexism, stupid” captures what the numbers and anecdotes both show.
Your example from the airline industry makes the point powerfully. These aren’t uneducated or economically “left behind” men—they’re college-educated union workers with stable careers. The idea that they’re voting against their economic self-interest only makes sense if we pretend racism and sexism aren’t also self-interest for them. As you put it, their “main self-interest IS racism and sexism full stop.”
And you’re absolutely right that you can’t reliably poll for this. Ask someone if they’re racist or sexist, and most will say no. Ask them why they couldn’t vote for Kamala Harris, and you’ll get vague “for some reason” answers that never mention bias directly. But when your husband is in those closed-door spaces, the mask comes off, and the reality is laid bare. That disconnect is why so many still cling to “fairness” rhetoric that blames marginalized groups instead of oligarchs.
This is exactly why the “voting against their own interests” frame is incomplete. Racism and sexism are their interests—because they reinforce a sense of superiority that outweighs concerns about paychecks, healthcare, or labor solidarity. Trump didn’t invent this; he gave it full permission.
Thank you again for laying this out with such clarity. It takes both lived experience and willingness to name hard truths to cut through the polite fictions. Your comment adds real weight to this discussion.
I am not sure, while democracy is going down the pie hole, people that understand we have to stand together, how bitching about each other helps at this moment. I wonder who has to gain with all this in-fighting. We are each a products of who we are. We can't be exactly alike, and what we care about is not exactly alike. Bernie is good at some stuff, maybe not as good at other things. Who the hell is perfect in this world? All I know we are about to lose our country. And don't come at me about race. I'm Asian American. I don't pretend to know anything special. But I know how Nazi Germany happened, and it's happening.
Susan, thanks for reading and saying this out loud. I hear you on the urgency and the fear that “bickering” helps the wrong side. Two things can be true at once: (1) authoritarians gain from division, and (2) a coalition only stays strong if we’re honest about what’s not working. What I’m doing here isn’t dunking for sport; it’s accountability so our message lands with the voters we keep losing.
I agree no one is perfect. Bernie is good at some things and weaker at others—same with every politician. My argument is that one specific weakness (how his message interacts with race and with white grievance politics) matters because it shapes wins and losses. Naming that isn’t circular firing-squad; it’s course correction.
On “who benefits from infighting?”—the right does when we ignore problems to preserve a vibe of unity. But they also benefit when we refuse to confront how racism/sexism are used to fracture the working class. That’s why I talk about race. Not as a gotcha, and not to come at you; it’s because scapegoating is the core tool of every authoritarian movement. Your reference to Nazi Germany underscores the point: the pattern starts with grievance, then blame, then permission. If we won’t name the mechanism, we can’t stop it.
I share your urgency about saving the country. The fastest way to real unity is honest clarity—about what worked, what didn’t, and how we close the gaps without erasing the people who’ve carried the costs. That’s the spirit of the piece.
Appreciate you engaging. We can hold the line against authoritarianism and still demand better from our own side—that’s how we get stronger, not weaker.
So much this!!! I am a glow in the dark GenX white woman in ruby red Indiana. I was all in for Harris. But everyone around me, in a very blue collar area, was for Trump. He definitely spoke to the people in this area, who are mostly factory workers living paycheck to paycheck, one check away from being homeless. Harris's message just didn't break through.
Pamela, thank you for this. You’re describing what I keep hearing from blue-collar counties across the Midwest: Trump’s pitch felt immediate to people living paycheck-to-paycheck, one bad week from crisis. Harris had policies that would’ve helped those exact families—child-care cost caps, wage enforcement, anti-price-gouging, housing/down-payment assistance—but the packaging never cut through the grievance noise.
A few things are going on where you are:
1. Messenger effect. In communities primed by right-wing media, a Black woman Democrat starts with a trust deficit. The same message delivered by a familiar white, union-linked local can get a hearing. That’s not fair—but it’s real.
2. Scapegoat vs. solution. Trump names villains (immigrants, “elites”) and promises relief now. Harris offered systems fixes that build stability. One scratches an itch; the other builds a ladder.
3. Proximity and story. People in “one-check-from-homelessness” mode respond to concrete stories—your rent would drop by X, your insulin costs Y less, this program gets you Z at tax time—repeated by trusted neighbors, pastors, shop stewards.
What breaks through where you live is fusion populism: call out corporate power and name the con that turns folks against their own coalition. That means more union-hall and shift-change organizing, more local validators, and fewer white papers. Harris’s agenda was built for your area; the delivery system wasn’t.
I appreciate you being “all in” for her and still telling the truth about what you saw. That’s exactly the feedback Democrats need to fix the gap between policy and persuasion. Thanks for reading and for putting it plainly.
Kristoffer, I hope we all learned from the Harris campaign how to message better and, if given the chance, will get it right next time. At this point, I'm very concerned we won't get that chance. You have quickly become a voice that speaks truth in a way I understand. I appreciate you.
Pamela, I’m with you. We can learn from the Harris run and tighten the messaging—clear benefits, local validators, fewer white papers, more straight talk. But it’s also on the Democratic Party apparatus to stop the self-sabotage we saw in 2024: late money, mixed signals, second-guessing the nominee in public, and letting “electability” myths write the story. Give the candidate a real runway, back the message with discipline, and we’ll get it right next time. I truly appreciate your note and your trust.
This article is why I decided to make a paid subscription to Lincoln Square. This is the 1st comprehensive article I've read about Sanders. I'm tired of the oohs and aahs about his so-called progressiveness -- and I will go further that an assessment of Sen E Warren needs to be done as well. They shout and shout and turn most people off because they offer little substance and concrete building blocks to change the greater issues. I've been waiting since 2015, no actually since 2009 when the Tea Party was formed, for the democratic party to put their collective heads and BE THE PARTY FOR THE PEOPLE. Sadly, the democratic party thought trump and maga were silly jokes that would go away especially after taking back the house in 2018. Well, it is now Sept 2025 and they still haven't a clue as to how restore the balance of powers as proscribed in the Constitution.
To the Democratic Party and the progressives, READ THIS ARTICLE. STOP BICKERING! and turn to the energetic younger members of your party to MOVE FORWARD before it is REALLY TOO LATE.
Christine, thank you for reading—and for putting your money where your mouth is. 🙏 I’m going to remember this comment when it’s time to ask Rick and Susan for that raise 😂.
On your points: I hear you on the Sanders “oohs and aahs.” Personality-only politics wears thin when there aren’t concrete building blocks attached. Same goes for Warren—smart ideas need translation into coalition math and durable organizing or they become seminar talk. What wins is a program + delivery system: wage power (unions, sectoral bargaining), antitrust and anti–price gouging, childcare cost caps, housing supply + down-payment help, and real health-care savings—repeated locally by trusted validators.
You’re right that Democrats treated Trump/MAGA like a joke in 2016—and even after 2018—while the right built media, courts, and state power. “Restore the balance of powers” isn’t a slogan; it’s a plan: win state legislatures/governors, defend courts with turnout in judicial races, pass ethics/antimonopoly reforms, and re-invest in local party infrastructure so we’re not rebuilding every cycle.
On “stop bickering”: amen—accountability isn’t infighting if it sharpens message and discipline. And yes to elevating energetic younger members (alongside experienced hands) who can actually sell the program where it’s toughest.
I appreciate the subscription and the nudge. The goal of the piece was exactly what you’re asking for: fewer vibes, more facts, and a path from analysis to power. Thanks for backing that.
Bullseye!!
Right on!
I'm not a Sanders fan. He's a rabblerouser ... a sincere one to be sure but a rabblerouser nonetheless. He definitely has a legitimate place in the political ecosystem but is not what is needed at the top. I'm sorry he has ended up having as much influence within the Democratic Party as he has. Due to his rigid beliefs he is also one of the last people who should be passing judgment on Kamala Harris or her campaign in 2024.
Harris had a lot of things working against her in 2024. There was little sincere unity around her candidacy and it showed. It was fairly obvious that many political pundits (?) while paying lip service to her candidacy were actually wishing that it was their favorite who should have gotten their shot at the top job. In most cases that favorite would have been at least male.
We also had the upheaval surrounding Israel's war on the Palestinians which ended up with quite a few voters demanding that she take a hard and fast stand one way or the other. That was nuts.
And last but not least the fact that she was not only the wrong gender for a lot of voters but was also the wrong color. That caused a lot of more moderate voters to hesitate and too often look for another candidate to vote for or else not vote at all.
Harris clearly deserved to get a true opportunity to present herself to the electorate and be judged not the frantic scramble that she was given when Biden abruptly pulled out so late in the game.
Diana, thank you for reading and laying this out so clearly. Let me take your points in turn.
• On Bernie: I’m with you. He’s been a useful rabble-rouser with a lane in the ecosystem, but that doesn’t automatically translate to presidential leadership—or to being the arbiter of everyone else’s credibility. The outsized sway he wields inside the party, paired with rigid priors that don’t evolve on race/gender dynamics, is exactly why his judgment on Harris lands poorly.
• Unity around Harris: Agreed—there was far too much performative “unity” and not enough real buy-in. A lot of pundits and power players said the right words while quietly wishing their preferred (often male) favorite had been at the top of the ticket. That vibe bled into coverage and donor behavior.
• The Gaza/Israel upheaval: Totally. That moment produced purity-test politics on a hair trigger. Demanding a rapid, absolutist position in an evolving crisis pushed some voters into symbolic gestures rather than governing reality. It also handed the right a wedge they were thrilled to use.
• Gender and race headwinds: Yes. Harris wasn’t just the “wrong gender” for some voters—she was the “wrong gender and the wrong color.” That combination amplified the messenger penalty, especially among moderates who default to “safe” (read: male) choices or simply sat out.
• The late-breaking scramble: 100%. She did not get a normal runway. Compressing a national introduction into 107 days is not a campaign; it’s a crisis response. Under those conditions, she still over-performed with nearly every poor demographic except poor white men—proof the message connected when people were willing to hear it.
• What follows from this: If we want a party that wins, we have to stop confusing lip-service unity with coalition discipline, stop letting purity tests eat persuasion, and name the bias penalty that women—especially Black women—pay at the checkout counter of “electability.”
Appreciate you calling all of this plainly. Harris deserved a real shot; she got a sprint. The lesson isn’t to retreat—it’s to build the runway and infrastructure that should have been there from day one. Thanks for engaging.
I'm glad you brought up unity. I've been thinking a lot about how the Democratic Party has for too long pushed for one-size fits all when deciding on people to support at the state level. I think we'd all be much better off if the Democrats would get behind a wide variety of candidates/positions (with well-defined outer limits because some things are beyond the pale) to provide material support at the local and state level and let the national filter up.
One example of someone like that is Marie Gluesenkamp Perez. I can't say I share her positions on everything but she is representing people in her district and it's important to accept that reality. Another example is Mamdani in NYC. They represent the differences that occur naturally depending on culture, geography etc and the Democratic Party should be enough of a big tent party to handle it. The need to find a way to remind people that having a diversity of views makes us stronger and more representative of all the people in this country.
There may be some additional guidelines necessary for national candidates since those candidates would need to be able to work within the environment of Federal level realities. Life in Congress is not for the naive or hard line ideologues.
I've let my frustration overflow here. I'm not sure if I'll feel better after I post it or will wish I'd kept my mouth shut. Only one way to find out. Thank you for engaging.
I have said this for years. Thank you for this coherent presentation on Bernie and others. They will not acknowledge their own white privilege.
Sharon, thank you for reading and saying it plainly. You’re right—if folks won’t acknowledge how white privilege shapes what gets heard as “authentic,” we end up misdiagnosing the problem and repeating it. That’s the whole point of the piece: Harris connected across poor demographics, and the one group that tuned her out did so because identity filtered the message. Naming that isn’t “bickering”; it’s strategy. Appreciate you backing the clarity
Remember the day Rev. Jesse Jackson referred to NYC as "Hymie-town" on a hot mic? Can't help but see elements of that in this piece. In fact it reads like a hit piece on one of our most recognizable pro-democracy warriors. Let's be clear - Bernie is after truth and younger working class voters of all stripes for his brand of Democrat. At this stage in his life, for anyone to attribute personal presidential ambitions that put him into the delusional territory we've seen in our last two presidents is clearly wrong-headed. Let's face it - by and large, this country has been crying out for a White male presidential candidate with a military background at the top of the Democratic ticket. For all she did right, Kamala did not fit that bill. The Democrats need to start grooming this type of candidate soonest. Less analysis like this, more action toward a winning strategy.
Sara, thanks for reading and laying this out. Let me take your points head-on.
1. “Hit piece” vs. critique. I’m not questioning Bernie’s pro-democracy credentials or pretending he hasn’t done real good. I’m pointing to a specific blind spot in his messaging that intersects with race and grievance politics. That’s analysis, not character assassination.
2. On attributing personal ambition. Every successful politician has ambition—Obama, Biden, Harris, Sanders. My argument isn’t “Bernie wants it too much”; it’s that his theory of the electorate leaves out how racism/sexism filter economic appeals. When that gap isn’t addressed, the coalition underperforms in predictable places.
3. “This country wants a white male with a military background.” I get that this tests well with certain voters, but we should be honest about what that is: an electability norm built on identity gatekeeping. If we center the solution around satisfying that bias, we cement the hierarchy that keeps shutting out women and people of color—even when their programs fit the moment. Harris didn’t “fail to fit the bill”; the bill is written by bias. The answer isn’t to conform to the bias; it’s to confront it while delivering materially.
4. Less analysis, more action. Fully agree we need action: antitrust with teeth, wage and union power, price-gouging enforcement, housing supply + down-payment help, childcare cost caps, health-care savings—and a delivery system (local validators, labor, faith, vets, small-biz messengers) that sells it where it’s hardest. But strategy without diagnosis is just vibes. Good analysis is action’s blueprint.
5. Bench building. I’m all for grooming candidates with service backgrounds (including veterans)—just not as a euphemism for “make him white and male.” Let’s build a deep bench that looks like the coalition and can speak credibly across communities: veterans, labor organizers, mayors, prosecutors, teachers—women and men, Black, Latino, Asian, Native, and white.
Bottom line: I respect Bernie’s contributions. What I won’t do is ignore the messaging gaps that keep costing us. Naming them isn’t bickering; it’s how we win. Appreciate you engaging.
Even though your critque of Bernie's language and ideas has a lot of truth to it, I think that your finger-pointing at him is either just plain vanilla unkind, or manages to overlook the facts of his age (shown by his use of outmoded socialist language rather than the updated language and concepts espoused by politicians on the left in the social democracies--who hate the word socialism like poison, even as they implement many 'socialist' reforms), and his history in Vermont, which, last time I checked it out, has a vanishingly small percentage of black people among its citizens. So, he doesn't entirely get it. Would you expect a cotton farmer from the deep south to appreciate the intricacies of maple syrup making? Or a salmon fisher from Alaska to appreciate how to grow grapefruit and lemons? Frankly, I appreciate the attention Bernie has consistently shown toward helping us to see how utterly skewed our economy (and in particular tax policies) are in favor of the wealthy, and super-wealthy. I am a staunch anti-racist and have been so since the age of 15 (I'm now 76.) I also recognize that while black peoples now comprise something like 14+% of our population, working people of all colors and persuasions are the majority of us, live everywhere, and share many of the same concerns. It is those concerns that Bernie addresses, and which have been his life work. Does he have to be 'perfect' to be good?
Leigh, so do you think Bernie is above reproach? Because that’s what your comment sounds like. Let me go point by point.
1. “Vanilla unkind” / finger-pointing. Critique is not cruelty. Pointing out a blind spot is not the same as bashing. Every politician—Bernie included—needs to be analyzed honestly. If we can’t do that, then we’re not practicing politics; we’re practicing fandom.
2. “Outmoded socialist language.” Exactly my point. Bernie still frames things in Cold War–era terms that don’t connect with today’s electorate. The “socialist” label is toxic in U.S. politics—even as policies like minimum-wage hikes, child tax credits, and healthcare expansions poll well. Other left parties abroad adapt their rhetoric. Bernie rarely has. That’s not age—it’s rigidity.
3. His base in Vermont. Yes, Vermont has very few Black voters. That’s why it matters when he struggles to connect beyond younger Black voters nationally. You can’t explain that away by geography. National candidates have to scale, and the data show his message didn’t resonate as broadly in Black communities as it did in white progressive circles.
4. “Would you expect a cotton farmer or salmon fisher…” False comparison. We’re not asking Bernie to know agriculture trivia. We’re asking him to confront how race and identity intersect with economic life in America. That’s not a detail—it’s the playing field. If he won’t address it directly, his message can’t win nationally.
5. “He’s shown concern for skewed economy and tax policy.” Yes, and I credit him for it. But here’s the thing: plenty of politicians on the left have addressed wealth inequality and integrated race and gender analysis into it. Bernie didn’t. He defaulted to billionaires as the villain and left space for Trump to fill the cultural blame vacuum. That overlap is why 1 in 6 of his 2016 primary voters went for Trump in the general.
6. “Does he have to be perfect to be good?” Of course not. No politician is perfect. But “good” isn’t enough when the blind spot costs elections. Pointing out that blind spot is not denying his contributions; it’s saying those contributions are incomplete. And incomplete strategies lose.
So no, Bernie isn’t above critique, and he doesn’t need to be perfect—but he does need to be held accountable for what his message misses. Otherwise we keep learning the wrong lessons.
Thanks for engaging. I’ll always back my analysis with facts, not vibes.
If you had written a more nuanced post like this one initially I would have stood up to salute it. Language and nuance are critically important to our understanding at all times, and especially in a crisis. I suppose you could say I'm a fan of sorts, but not an uncritical one, of Bernie Sanders, mostly not as much for his as you note frequently dated language and blinkered ideas as for the man's courage to stand up to those agents of greed who've been hollowing out our institutions and understandings for decades. I am a patriot of these United States, although I've felt like Cassandra on the walls of Troy most of my life, because I can put two and two together, so have felt like a victim of rape more often than not. The other reason I admire Bernie is that as I see it, social democracies (so rare) are proving that the best of entrepreneurial capitalism (IKEA, VOLVO, others) can successfully co-exist with labor unions, educators, doctors more interested in health than wealth, housing developers and mental health professions in mutually beneficial ways with demonstrable successes in the status and sense of satisfaction of the citizens of those countries. Facts are facts and I'm so sick of distortions, lies and deliberate sowing of confusion I could puke. I am a clinical social worker and former teacher, so it's not like I haven't been witness to the lost opportunities we've endured for too long under our present system of government grift. I won't apologize for my convictions, but I will apologize if I misread you, in whole or in part.
Leigh, no apology necessary—I appreciate you staying in the conversation. And for the record: my critiques of politicians (including the ones I support) are about substance. I push back on blanket claims with no context—like “Kamala didn’t speak to the working class”—when she clearly did, repeatedly and in detail.
On your points:
• Nuance & language: Agreed. Words shape coalitions. My argument isn’t that Bernie is “bad,” it’s that his class-only framing leaves out how race and gender filter economic appeals. When that layer is skipped, the message underperforms where we need it most.
• Admiring Bernie vs. critiquing him: Totally fair to admire his courage calling out concentrated wealth. I’ve said the same. The critique is about rigidity—recycling language that doesn’t meet today’s electorate where it is, and leaving a cultural vacuum the right fills with grievance.
• “Agents of greed” hollowing institutions: Yes. That’s why I keep calling for antitrust with teeth, wage/union power, price-gouging enforcement, and clean-governance reforms. We agree on the villains; I’m pressing for a fusion frame that can actually beat them.
• Social democracies & mixed economies (IKEA/VOLVO, etc.): Exactly—public goods plus innovative firms can coexist with strong labor and broad dignity. In the U.S., the barrier isn’t just policy; it’s the identity politics that fracture the very coalition required to pass those policies.
• Facts vs. distortion: With you. That’s why I anchor my claims in crosstabs and turnout patterns, not vibes. Harris’s support among most poor demographics is a fact; the drop-off with poor white men is a fact. We can fix problems only if we name them precisely.
• Your “Cassandra” note & public service: I hear the fatigue. Clinicians and teachers have been living the cost of bad policy and bad faith for years. My aim is not to dunk—it’s to diagnose clearly enough that strategy follows.
We end up in the same place: protect democracy, confront concentrated power, and use language that tells the truth and builds a coalition big enough to govern. I respect your convictions and I’m glad you pushed for nuance—iron sharpens iron. Thanks for engaging.
Loved this. Thanks so much for clarifying your understanding for me and others who might read this post. It is good to know that a person of your knowledge and understanding is fighting the good fight. And yes, we 'fighters' get tired sometimes. Sick and tired. And then, because we are not sunshine soldiers, we get up and fight some more. I am old now, and have been at this as best I could for decades--since I was old enough to see how things were for myself. Why? Because I care for the people and the others of this earth. (Which is a blessing, and in some wise a curse, seen from a narrower POV.) My honest belief is that we must move with the times and stand with those who believe not only that we can, but that we must, do better. That we have some examples, now, of systems that work better than the ones we've put up with, is bracing.
A huge breath of fresh air, a waterfall of cleaning off the delusional layers that have accrued since the election about our Democratic Party and Kamala’s humiliating scapegoating by the same Party! Your analysis is spot on. Thank you.
I remember my brilliant UC Political Science professor in the 1960s, John Stanley, who looked at the white college kids role-playing how “radical” they were and how the protests and rallies etc were in solidarity with the “working class”; and I remember Professor Stanley drolly saying, “You have a lot to learn if you think George Meaney and thousands of Union guys are going to join the love fest of your 60s flower-power “revolution.” They’d sooner bash your heads in; they’d have you for lunch.”
Nothing has changed in this regard.
And it is not only racism, but absolutist thinking, the admiration of violence, and not so much “women need to be taken care of” as “women need to be owned and do what they are told by men.” So putting Kamala up for President was serving her up for lunch; and then her own Party is denigrating her and one another because she got “eaten.”
Shame on all of us.
Deanne, thank you for this—both the kind words and the history. You’re naming a pattern that keeps replaying.
Your professor’s warning about white college radicals romanticizing “the working class” while misreading union culture still tracks. George Meany’s AFL-CIO wasn’t joining a flower-power revolution in the ’60s, and in too many places today that same culture war lens still overrides material self-interest. The twist, as you know, is that today’s labor looks far more diverse—teachers, nurses, service workers, logistics—yet a chunk of the old culture still gatekeeps who’s “authentic.”
You’re also right that it isn’t only racism; it’s absolutism and an admiration for “toughness” that treats violence as virtue. And on gender: it’s not merely “women need to be taken care of,” it’s the darker rule—“women must be controlled.” That’s why a capable Black woman gets coded as “uppity” or “inauthentic,” and why the bar keeps moving no matter how strong the résumé.
Your line about serving Kamala up “for lunch” lands. She was given a sprint instead of a runway, then second-guessed by her own party while the other side attacked relentlessly. That’s not strategy; that’s self-sabotage. If a coalition wants to win, it can’t scapegoat the person carrying the coalition’s actual demographics.
Where we go from here is the part we can fix:
• Fuse class and race—stop pretending one can be “set aside.”
• Pair policy with power—unions, faith, veterans, and local validators who can sell the program where it’s hardest.
• Protect our candidates—no more intraparty undercutting to appease electability myths written by bias.
• Discipline over vibes—less performance, more organizing; less purity testing, more persuasion.
“Shame on all of us” is fair if it motivates discipline. I appreciate you pushing the conversation toward clarity instead of nostalgia. Thank you for reading and for bringing the historical receipts.
"Working class" is code for wealth gap which is ever widening and is creating an oligarchic group of political mafeasance
Cheeto’s Slight of Hand Trick: Passing Extra Taxes Onto States and Americans
The Orange Cheeto and his Nazi allies in the Executive Branch are freezing federal funds to local, state, and federal agencies on the pretense of cost cutting That is now becoming obviously ludicrous that it’s about making government frugal and streamlined The Nazi party has long contended there is government waste, fraud and abuse but the cutting of civil service jobs is to facilitate privatization of government services which in effect gives his cronies opportunities to grift on Americans
Passing taxes onto states? Case in point…Cheeto cuts funding for the Revolution Wind Project begun off shore by Connecticut and Rhode Island that created 1000+ jobs and was to make Rhode Island 100% renewable energy by 2033 The most reckless of the Cheeto decision was that that funding was cut when the project was 80% completed
Or was it reckless? Or was it just Cheeto passing the federal support onto the consumers of Connecticut and Rhode Island? Just another tax that Cheeto has passed onto the states First it was tariffs adding to an already inflated economy due to the loss of the purchasing power of the dollar Then government programs like FEMA get cut so that Go Fund Me pages cover the expenses of natural disasters supported by the American people Then states will have to pick up the medical expenses in every state where people lose health care coverage and try to keep rural hospitals open Then the taxpayers of Connecticut and Rhode Island have to pick up the last 20% to complete the project
Cheeto is on the way to illegally cut passed federal subsidies to the states so he can claim that he is cutting waste fraud and abuse while he passes tax cuts for the ultrawealthy VOTE these Nazi bums out of office and start taxing the shit out of billionaires
Mr, Ealy, I agree with your analysis so beautifully expressed by Lyndon Johnson who knew this problem well. Of course, today's white guy has to fend off demeaning charges of "privileged white male!" which is one reason liberals are even more despised today.
I too felt that Kamala ran an excellent campaign, and all that with no time to prepare. A single weak answer (What would you do different from the Biden administration?) was blown up into the sin of the century while Trump could proclaim a "they're eating the dogs, they're eating the cats!" daily and crickets.
Why was that? Hmmmm...who was determinative in her 1.5% loss? The white racists predictably in the Trump column for reasons you stated or the black men and Latinos who stayed home or voted for Trump? And why did they do that? Why did black men and Latinos vote against their own interests? Well, look no further than Kamala's gender. They simply don't want a woman to be President; the men because they need to feel superior to women, the Latina women because too many enjoy feeling inferior to men.
Changing white bigotry is a worthy goal. But black men and Latinos had their peers telling them to vote for Kamala and yet their bigotry was tragically decisive. "Unlikeable" qualified Hillary lost; very likeable qualified Kamala lost, both times to a traitorous male moron. Let's tell the whole story here. Don't forget to tend your own garden of minority "progressives" too.
Barbara, thank you for reading and for putting this all so directly. Let me work through your points.
LBJ and the present: You’re right—Johnson named the dynamic decades ago. Calling out privilege today isn’t why “liberals are despised;” the backlash comes from exposure of a hierarchy that many people are invested in keeping invisible. Naming it is accountability, not a smear.
Harris’s run + the “Biden difference” question: Agreed—she ran an excellent campaign on a brutally short runway. Compressing a national introduction into 107 days meant one imperfect answer (“what would you do different from Biden?”) got magnified way out of proportion while Trump’s daily outrage machine (“they’re eating the dogs… the cats…”) consumed airtime. That’s an asymmetrical media environment, not a lack of substance from Harris.
Who was determinative in the narrow loss?
• White voters steeped in grievance behaved as expected—that’s the core argument of my piece.
• On Black and Latino voters: two things can be true at once. Harris still won solid majorities in those communities, and in a few key places we saw turnout softening and a small but meaningful drift among some men. Misogyny crosses lines—yes—but so do disinformation, economic fatigue, and targeted persuasion operations. We should analyze that without pathologizing whole groups. The decisive falloff, though, remained poor white men, where identity gatekeeping fully overrode policy.
Gender dynamics across groups: I agree misogyny isn’t confined to one community. Some men—of every background—need women “beneath” them to feel “above” someone. That said, I’d frame it as learned dominance rather than “Latina women enjoy feeling inferior”—because a lot of that behavior is reinforced by culture, church, and media, not chosen.
“Tell the whole story”: Absolutely. And here’s the part too many skip: the donor class and party establishment keep passing the blame. Media buys were late or misallocated, message discipline fractured, validators weren’t mobilized fast enough, and there was obvious intraparty second-guessing. Everyone’s pointing at voters; almost no one is owning the 2024 sabotage by omission—the failure to build Harris the runway she earned.
Where that leaves us: Change white bigotry? Yes. Also harden our side: invest earlier, deploy local validators (labor, faith, veterans, small business), fight disinfo in-language, and stop treating bias as an “electability” law we must obey. Own the institutional mistakes, fix the infrastructure, and refuse to scapegoat the coalition that actually showed up.
Thank you again for engaging and insisting we tell the whole story—including the part our own gatekeepers would rather not discuss.
Prof. Ealy, it is a pleasure to discuss these sticky points with you. I say discuss, rather than debate, because I'm sure we're on the same side of most issues and, where we differ, it's probably just a question of degree.
As to the idea of eschewing seeing members of our coalition as "scapegoats", I do confess that I am very, very angry at my fellow Americans who returned the malignancy that is Trump to the White House. We had all seen this movie before, so whether you are a political junky or a "low info" voter, I don't see why you would need the most elegant infrastructure, validators or messaging to get your tired hindquarters to the polls and make sure you vote Democrat down the line. Even if you loathe the idea of voting for a girl or you are concerned about higher prices, this was a no-brainer threat to democracy and the wellbeing of every woman and minority person. While winning over the white Christian racists is a worthy long term goal, I don't see how offering our strayers and couch sitters understanding is beneficial in the short or long term. They need to be hit upside the head and never do what they did AGAIN. They ARE the margin that brought this plague to all of us and they have no more of a "cultural" excuse than the other side does to vote Republican. (Okay, I feel better now).
As to the "white male privilege" verbiage, it's important to see how counterproductive it is, to put it politely, to demean those whose support and ultimately votes you are trying to win to advance your agenda. I understand that it is shorthand for discrimination POC feel on a daily basis. But while flipping the verbiage to the privilege of being male and white may feel good, it implies that what Texas Governor Richards said about GW Bush ("he was born on third base and thought he hit a triple") applies to everyone in the category rather than a very small, truly elite ca$te in our country.
Just an example: My brother and I were born into a striving, middle class family. My father worked 6 days a week in his father's plumbing supply business and my mother worked as a public health nurse. When I was 11, my brother 14, my father died of cancer at just 44 (I think because of his exposure to chemical warfare development in WWII) and he was replaced by 3 men at the business. My mother then supported us on her county salary of $10,000/year. We had no connections to getting into college or employment at any business other than the plumbing store. My brother went on to graduate from a state college and Columbia law school (admittedly college was more economically attainable back in the day). Through a lot of hard work and sacrifice, he ultimately became a successful lawyer. (And a great supporter of Democrats).
To dismiss his hard won success as just "white male privilege", or that of the vast majority of struggling white men, as merely a layup because of the color of their skin is as offensive an idea as white racists calling people of color "shiftless." It is cringeworthy, demeaning and off-putting stereotyping, not least to say, a completely inaccurate description of their lived experience. If we want to win the persuadable white males back, and there are plenty of them in the traditionally Democratic and Independent ranks, we had best ditch the pejorative and come up with a better way to discuss this issue. You may be just the man to do it. :)