Everyone is so focused on the genocide angle, but governments left and right throughout the world who were in power during the post COVID inflation spike got the boot. Most economist with froth at the mouth about “deflationary spirals” wherein people who have been waiting 15 years to buy a new pair of pants will wait a couple more years to buy it when prices start going down and thus cause an economic downturn. However, the general public believed that “getting inflation under control” meant going back to the original prices, something the (independent of Biden) federal reserve would never let happen because deflation = bad. Once the inflation spike occurred, Biden could have had 0% inflation from Nov 2022 to the election, and people still would have voted him out due to prices being too high.
They also failed to make a compelling case about what caused this and how they planned to fix it - in part, because they weren’t willing to blame the rich, or take risks in general. Of course, inflation increased globally but as a politician you can’t just roll out a chart and say “see, it’s not actually that bad, other countries have it worse.” Even if it’s true, it doesn’t acknowledge people’s concerns or convince them you’re going to fight on their behalf. Just as Harris refused to distinguish herself from Biden’s Gaza policy, she also failed to distinguish herself from his economic policy, when asked what she’d do differently, she had no answer.
This is probably, even more than Gaza, why she lost. Because she was representing a declining status quo. It’s just human nature to roll the dice to try to turn things around rather than accepting slow decline, which is why we can’t allow fascism to be the only alternative to the status quo.
If Kamala had gone up there and given it some Bernie-style fire about how the rich had been price gouging on gas and groceries and she was gonna take the fight to 'em, she probably could’ve won. And it’s not like that narrative isn’t true. Forget technical jargon and go out there like:
“When you’re paying $10 for a dozen eggs, that money doesn’t go to the people stocking the shelves, it doesn’t go to the store manager, it doesn’t go to the government, it goes straight to the top, to billionaires just like Donald Trump! The Biden admin did the best we could, without stepping on any toes, but when I’m in charge, the gloves are coming off! We will take the fight to billionaires like Trump and I promise you, we will get those prices down! They can afford it, we can’t!”
Instead it was like:
“Um, actually, sweaty, if you look at this graph you’ll see that the stock market is actually doing great and Joe Biden did a terrific job, complaining about grocery prices is really all in your head and honestly kinda problematic.”
But they probably get more money from their donors by doing it this way and losing.
Everyone is so focused on the genocide angle, but governments left and right throughout the world who were in power during the post COVID inflation spike got the boot. Most economist with froth at the mouth about “deflationary spirals” wherein people who have been waiting 15 years to buy a new pair of pants will wait a couple more years to buy it when prices start going down and thus cause an economic downturn. However, the general public believed that “getting inflation under control” meant going back to the original prices, something the (independent of Biden) federal reserve would never let happen because deflation = bad. Once the inflation spike occurred, Biden could have had 0% inflation from Nov 2022 to the election, and people still would have voted him out due to prices being too high.
He could have tried to take action on wages though. Even Harris was relatively quiet on wages.
They also failed to make a compelling case about what caused this and how they planned to fix it - in part, because they weren’t willing to blame the rich, or take risks in general. Of course, inflation increased globally but as a politician you can’t just roll out a chart and say “see, it’s not actually that bad, other countries have it worse.” Even if it’s true, it doesn’t acknowledge people’s concerns or convince them you’re going to fight on their behalf. Just as Harris refused to distinguish herself from Biden’s Gaza policy, she also failed to distinguish herself from his economic policy, when asked what she’d do differently, she had no answer.
This is probably, even more than Gaza, why she lost. Because she was representing a declining status quo. It’s just human nature to roll the dice to try to turn things around rather than accepting slow decline, which is why we can’t allow fascism to be the only alternative to the status quo.
If Kamala had gone up there and given it some Bernie-style fire about how the rich had been price gouging on gas and groceries and she was gonna take the fight to 'em, she probably could’ve won. And it’s not like that narrative isn’t true. Forget technical jargon and go out there like:
Instead it was like:
But they probably get more money from their donors by doing it this way and losing.