Democrats who attack the rich do better in elections. The party should take notice

They won't. The party exists to serve the rich.

I agree. If a democrat ran up and garroted Jeff Bezos, or went all Tanya Harding on Elon Musk's knees, I would vote for them.

nah, they're gonna make fun of Trump for being broke with childish nicknames instead. sink down to his level while making him sound more relatable to all the broke people they want to vote for them. sometimes i think they're trying to lose.

I love how the post I saw immediately before this was about Biden's new Trump insult, 'Broke Don'. So insult your rivals by calling them poor, definitely a good way to relate to struggling voters.

Consume the wealthy.

Eat the rich.

I keep seeing the press wheeling out example of "the rich" like somebody on £100k who can barely afford their mortgage, like it's my fucking fault they can't live within their means.

Do what the rest of us do, tighten our belts and deal with it. Don't come to me with a sob story about your mortgage on a 4 bedroom detached Surrey house when there's people who can barely afford rent to live in what was once somebody's kitchen.

occupy-wallstreet-vs-race-war-graph.jpg

This is a composition effect. Democratic candidates who run for safer, more left-wing constituencies feel free to propose more radical left-wing policies, especially if their main threats are other democrats during primaries. They then go on to win because they're not running in competitive elections. You can use the same reasoning to conclude that Republicans who attack abortion and socialism do better in elections.

But they won’t, because once they get into Congress they get just as tied to big money as any other politician. Plus, there all too busy trying to chase after Republican voters, even though they’ll never, ever vote for a Democrat.

Doesn't matter if they don't actually do anything though...

Why multiple mics from the same station?

What's up with the thread? An I the only one seeing almost every comment at 0 net votes?

Actually it seems to be every thread on lemmy.world. Hmm.

rip mbs

Going to read the article now, but before doing so I'm wondering if they controlled for the fact that safer seats are more likely to be in a position to take stronger positions on it, or might be forced to take stronger positions on it because the primary threat is during the primary.

Hell yeah. Time to start "punching up."

Economic grievance has been embedded in Presidential elections for as long as I know. We've watched so much slip away, might be good to bring things closer to level.