Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jane in NC's avatar

I'm struggling to understand the logic behind 'the Democrats need a Latino vote autopsy' when the republicans' 2012 autopsy was done but never implemented. I'm not against doing a thorough autopsy of what went wrong in this election. That's useful information the Democrats can use to do better next time. I also can't overlook the fact that when Democrats talk about doing anything for Latino voters, or Black voters or women voters, they get accused of playing 'identity politics.'

I'm also struggling with the claim that republicans have focused on economic issues and not immigration when all the republicans , especially Trump, and right-leaning media have been talking about every election cycle are 'the caravans!' and 'illegals invading our country through the southern border.' Mass deportations and import tariffs have been Trump's two major issues this cycle. His tax plan is based on giving billionaires and big corporations tax cuts. The Harris campaign focused on working and middle-class tax cuts, child tax credits, child care tax credits, new homeowners' tax credits, and going after price gouging on groceries.

Clearly, I'm missing something.

Expand full comment
Julianne's avatar

Hi Mike, a couple of things I would like to ask and have you consider in upcoming posts.

1. Is this really a problem with Dems losing Latinos or is this really just a Dems losing voters to Trump? I mean, considering he had a big win, Dems have done pretty good. They held 3 and possibly 4 senate seats in swing states that Trump won. That is pretty amazing and indicates split ticket. That tells me that there wasn’t an embrace of republicans but an embrace of Trump. Also, the house isn’t shifting overwhelming to to the right. Everyone said during the Obama years that there was going to be this new realignment and Democratic coalition, but Dems could never recapture it with Obama off the ticket. Can the republicans really hold union and Latino voters without Trump at the top? There is a huge number of voters in Nevada who appear to have not ever voted for a senate candidate, which makes me think they just came out to vote for Trump.

2. Is this more of the same economic divide rather than a racial one? I’m seeing some articles saying that Harris gained with higher incomes and lost all around with voters under 100k. Is this just more populism message? This would explain her losing minorities and whites in greater numbers all around. Her messaging was way too policy driven and she cited economists that none of this people care about. She appealed to logic rather than emotion and never challenged him when he claimed his economy was better.

Expand full comment
41 more comments...

No posts