Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
The problem with the left is they're now completely out of touch with the bottom 75%, which is what the massive Hispanic vote swing should be throwing alarms for.

The left is filled with richer, coastal elites (top 25%); and impoverished minorities in blue cities that vote overwhelmingly left traditionally. On what planet does that recipe work out over time?

The left became a gross contradiction. It should be for the masses, it should be primarily focused on the working class. All those elitist Hollywood endorsements are just a big obnoxious joke, they repel the average person and amplify the point that the left is out of touch.

The Democratic Party keeps moving left on cultural issues and right on economic issues, when the world (not just the US) is starting to move in the opposite direction.

These things aren’t actually either/or, but when you pontificate on gender-affirming care in a country where half the population can’t afford just regular healthcare because of high deductibles… the feeling people get is exactly what you expressed.

In what world is the Democratic party moving to the right on economic issues?

1. Tax breaks for first time home buyers 2. Tax breaks for families with a new born 3. Pondering an unrealized capital gains tax

> pontificate on gender-affirming care This is such a hackneyed point and it surprises me that this is something anyone considers. We should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Trans issues should not be difficult to 'pontificate' on. There is gender affirming health care for trans individuals, Democrats broadly support those individuals having access to that care. Democrats are also the party that is aggressive on healthcare and supporting government programs for reducing healthcare costs.

In all seriousness, do trans issues actually impact your day to day in any way? Trans people seem to live rent free in people's minds and I only ever hear about it in a political scenario. It seems like the most manufactured issue aside from immigration in recent memory.

Im pretty left, I just also recognize demand-side provisions (tax breaks) dont work when the enemy is asset inflation (housing costs). In reality, that extra capital would just flow into the hands of people already holding the assets, and the now financially stretched buyer has to hope housing price growth continues (making the situation even more dire for future buyers), or the bet they've made doesn't make sense.

The reality with housing is: someone has to take the loss, but we keep choosing to double it and give it to the next generation.

I think a lot of people are probably not exactly thrilled about the 'extra' provisions for "first generation home buyers" (meaning the parents didn't own one).

In the current political climate, with the current border policy, that sounds an awful lot like a two-tier entitlements system where the more significant help will go to 'illegal immigrants', 'asylum seekers' etc.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/harris-propose-25k-payment-s...

Also $25,000 really doesn't mean much when the entire housing market is set to double or even triple when you look at the last 5 years and project into the future. If your mortgage is still going to be $2,500 for a run-down house that would have cost $40,000 25-30 years ago but it's more like $400,000 and rising now... it's not exactly the 'lift' I think most people want.

Honestly as someone who has been scrimping and saving to try to buy a home for the last 6 years, I would be somewhat annoyed if suddenly every broke first generation person is thrust to first in line for the limited housing supply we have, driving prices up further. The fact that it is specifically structured to exclude people with roots here is kind of a slap in the face -- there is no reason it shouldn't just be tied to income, so suddenly it is needlessly political.

My point isn't really to argue the merits of either approach though - just wanted to give you some insight into why as a 'first time' but not 'first generation' potential home buyer I find her plan to be a short-sighted attempt at grabbing votes. Not that it matters now - clearly there is a mandate to swing the opposite direction we have been going.

I'll also add this though: Under the last Trump presidency, I made literally 50% less than I do now (thankfully got a solid 50% bump right before covid happened) and I had MUCH more disposable income. It's crazy that I am longing for the days and economy where I made $60k and could go out AND save money regularly. Now I have to plan any extra expenses, I have moved back in with family to be able to save, and even without the $1,800 rent payment I am still behind where I was in the last Trump economy.

I can't be the only one.

>Honestly as someone who has been scrimping and saving to try to buy a home for the last 6 years, I would be somewhat annoyed if suddenly every broke first generation person is thrust to first in line for the limited housing supply we have, driving prices up further. The fact that it is specifically structured to exclude people with roots here is kind of a slap in the face -- there is no reason it shouldn't just be tied to income, so suddenly it is needlessly political

Yeah, this was my reaction to it as well. The only real way to bring down housing prices is to drastically increase the housing supply and find a way to prevent companies like Blackrock from snapping them up and leaving them empty to keep rental prices high. The "enemy within" is actually PE firms...

"The only real way to bring down housing prices is to drastically increase the housing supply and find a way to prevent companies like Blackrock from snapping them up and leaving them empty to keep rental prices high"

This is exactly the change that needs to happen - the fact that entire subdivisions of housing are being built specifically so these multi-national conglomerates can use them as an investment vehicle, AND all the existing homes are being snatched up by them is criminal in my eyes.

The most impactful thing anyone could do to improve the housing situation in this country is to prevent these operations from using single family homes as investment vehicles. I don't know the 'exact right' way to achieve this - but I'm certain the exact legislative language could be hammered out to make things better for EVERYBODY except the bottom feeders.

Things are 20% more expensive now. How do you have less disposable income with 50% more money?
The economy is approaching great depression levels of 'bad' - and plenty of things have inflated 100% or more, 20% is more like the general 'average'. And plenty of those things are critical items, like laundry detergent, gas, and insurance.

I'll put it this way: When I was making $60k 5 years ago, a night out for two in my preferred 'fun time out' would be: $35 concert ticket x 2, $20 ride x 2(to and from show to avoid dangerous driving), $6 drink x 6/2 -- so a complete fun time out was roughly $140

Now the same concert venue and ticket is $85 x 2, the ride is $40 x2, the drinks (if you don't abstain due to the previous costs) are $14 x 6 and suddenly $140 turned into $354 (more than double). And honestly depending on the day or event that could be more.

This is just one example of how 'going out and enjoying life outside your cubicle' has easily doubled in cost.

You can zoom in on any portion of the economy and find similar. Laundry detergent isn't only up 20%. Gas isn't only up 20%. Insurance isn't up 20%. Groceries have easily doubled, regardless of which basket item you decide to focus in on to obscure that.

Great question though - How have they managed to crash the 'living wage' economy so badly that I either have to live like a broke college student with six figures, when I used to be able to go out weekly.

Averaging out the inflation across the economy doesn't really work for those of us 'making it' -- but if you already made it and the increase in price for laundry detergent, gas, food, or whatever else doesn't actually impact you I'm sure it's difficult to see how bad things have got.

I think you'd have to ask Biden or Yellen or someone in the outgoing administration exactly how they pulled it off though.

EDIT: This graph actually does a decent job of demonstrating that exactly what I experience was happening nationally: https://media.gettr.com/group28/getter/2021/12/14/02/c8e93c4...

The inversion happened in April of 2021 per the graph, and per my memory.

loading story #42069750
Yea, inflation sucks. But it's not like Trump can fix the fact way too much money was printed during COVID crisis. The crisis should have resulted in a major economic depression, but instead we got a big party through stimulus. Now we're suffering from a hangover, and Trump can't change that.
Trump can absolutely reign things in, I don't think anyone thinks he can snap his fingers and 'fix' something broken this badly.

But yeah, he 100% can take a different direction than the administration that printed more USD than had previously existed in the entirety of the countries history.

'Trump can't wave a magic wand and un-do what the current admin did, so it doesn't make sense to change directions best to stick with the current administration that doesn't think there is anything they could or should have done different' is not the rationale for my position.

Just look at how the stock market responded today - clearly I'm not the only person who thinks 'this will position our economy much better than it is today'.

25,000 for first time homebuyers will just raise prices on homes by 25,000.

This is simple economics.

Not sure why you're being downvoted, as this is spot on.

The Democratic part has completely lost touch with the working class. Harris struggled to articulate any sort of economic policy other than "we're going to ban price gouging, give money to people to start businesses, and help people make down payments on houses" with no details. Meanwhile, they latched onto some of the most fringe culture war issues like making sure that trans men can compete in women's sports.

I voted for her because another Trump presidency is literally an existential threat to the country, but I saw this coming from a mile away.

I believe the Dem plan contributed to the massive apathy or large cohorts voting for the GOP candidate. People that have houses, school age kids and aren't planning on starting businesses see nothing valuable with those plans.

The Democrats are ignorant that their open arms (accepting everyone, working for everyone) policies and rhetoric will sway minorities when culturally there are strong christian and catholic populations amongst demographic minorities that have firm beliefs that are conservative.

{"deleted":true,"id":42069719,"parent":42066691,"time":1730928559,"type":"comment"}
> pontificate on gender-affirming care

Dems have not pontificated on gender-affirming care. It is an insignificant issue that affects a minuscule amount of the electorate. There would be minimal discussion on it if it wasn't for the incessant harping from the right to rile up their base.

It is so simple and effective to weaponize social issues. This is easy to see when you read right-wing discussion: they believe that the left is absolutely obsessed with gender-affirming care, because that is the reality they are fed.

I have a conservative relative who talks about 'wokeness' and gender-affirming care almost non-stop, because he believes that it's being 'shoved down his throat', when in reality, it is right-wing media that is doing the shoving.

Both things can be true. Conservative media outlets know that these issues evoke visceral reactions from the base and therefore they can sell more ads.

But I’ve also encountered teachers who confided that they teach gender fluidity to their 1st grade class without parental consent. Teaching trans ideology to children has become a humanitarian cause for many on the left and there’s a strong desire among parents for public school systems to take an aggressive stance against the handful of bad actors doing this.

loading story #42072900
The #1 takeaway should be tell people whatever they want to hear. Factual basis and consistency count for nothing.
I agree. It actually looks quite similar to the situation here in EU, with traditional leftist parties losing popularity to right-wing populists. Leftist parties should focus first and foremost on protecting worker's rights, anything else should come second. Supporting open migration policy in particular is problematic, as it drives down wages to the very workers who might want to vote leftist parties. People who are struggling financially also don't particularly enjoy hearing how they are privileged because of their gender/skin color or whatever.

The left should simply recognize that distribution of wealth and means of production is the number one factor affecting equality. It's their job to lobby for things like progressive taxation and social safety nets.

There's a common theme here.

People in general are feeling less secure. The rise of the 'precariat' class is a good example of this.

This gives rise to legitimate concerns about immigration. But the left and centrist parties fail to address these concerns - instead blaming people for having them.

I don't subscribe to the idea that everyone voting for right wing parties is a racist xenophobic. Unfortunately the only parties that address the concerns people have are often led by racist xenophobics.

I am definitely left wing, but I blame the left for the rise of the right. They abrogated their responsible to represent people by failing to address their most pressing concerns.

loading story #42072920
> Leftist parties should focus first and foremost on protecting worker's rights

They should focus first and foremost on improving the economic condition of the average American. The low income, as well as the middle class slipping into poverty. Worker's rights is a major part of that, but only one part of it. Watching the prices of basic necessities like housing, food, and healthcare while billionaires and corporations are making record profits is bound to piss off the people.

That said, Trump certainly isn't going to make any of that better. In fact, it'll all get much worse, but on the slim chance democrats actually try to win voters back vs just counting on America to come crawling back to save the US from the four year shit show we've just started and if our new dictator allows us to have fair elections in the future, I think you've got the right idea for where they can start.

Then why do republicans call them communists because they want to provide (free) services to ... who exactly ?
You're thinking of liberals, not the left.
At least in my country it's hard to find prominent leftist politicians who aren't also liberal.