I totally agree, broken system and all. Still a free market. The free market is inherently a broken system.

So the fact that "more stats abt people living paycheck to paycheck" would convince you strongly, strongly indicates that I'm not explaining myself well enough. I'm not under the impression that if I did communicate effectively you would magically be convinced. And that's not necessarily my goal, but I would like to be able to have a productive convo with you, so I'm gonna give it another shot.

Here's two facts that I'm convinced of:

• if a consistent set of policies/campaign promises enjoy massive popular support across the aisle, then making such positions a core part of your campaign and your efforts when elected will give you a much higher chance of getting elected
• progressive policies (i.e., paid sick leave, parental leave, union-strengthening laws, universal health care, antitrust legislation, increasing solvency of social security, and so on (note that I do not mention culture war stuff)) enjoy broad popular support, across the aisle, in all states

If you believe these facts (and you don't need to), then an unavoidable conclusion is that if Harris would've run a progressive campaign, she would've had a much higher chance of winning.

The weakness in my argument is the two facts I mentioned. They require evidence. I've given a smidge of evidence for the second fact (the smoking gun of the ballot measures in Missouri). A better way to go about it is to find some policy oriented polls targeting a good cross section of the electorate which show that people (R, D, and I) generally support progressive policies (think paid sick leave, think universal health care).

The first fact is much harder to prove, but I would argue that common sense gets you a long way here. But for a more empirical approach, look at the Sanders and Obamna campaigns and the fairly broad and enthusiastic support they enjoyed.

The reason I think I wasn't explaining myself well enough is because the stats you're asking for do almost nothing to support my argument. At best, they're indirect, weak, evidence of the second fact. It shouldn't convince you if I find you some stats about the working homeless and paycheck-to-paycheck livers.

EDIT: I feel like I understand a bit better where your response is coming from. You think that I'm arguing in favor of the effectivity of progressive policies, rather than the popularity. I happen to believe both, but we're talking about why the dems lost, and in a democracy, the popularity of policies is what matters un such discussions, not their effectivity. Again, it's a bit off topic, but for the effectivity you could look at the rate of homelessness and paycheck-to-paycheck situations in more progressively legislated and often poorer countries in western Europe. You'll find that aside from popular (which is what matters here), these policies are also crazy effective.

The point that I'm making is that across the board, progressive policies are popular. And that does win elections, just look at Obamna's and Sanders' campaigns. That one state was just one extreme example of this fact.

If only someone had warned us in 1867, 1885, and 1894!

I completely agree with you that the results (monopolies and oligopolies) are undesirable, and you're doing a great job of explaining why the results are undesirable. But you're not explaining why you think monopolies and oligopolies are not the natural outcome of a free market. The free market is not a good thing.

What are you talking about, this is the natural conclusion of a free market.

they talk, but don't act

The main messaging from the Harris campaign seemed to consist of:

• the economy is fine
• immigrants are fentanyl carrying criminals and we need to build the border wall
• fracking good
• war good (continued expansion of Israel, keep arming Ukraine instead of pushing for a diplomatic resolution, and let's invade Iran next with the most lethal fighting force in the world)
• what, do you want a DANG CHEETO in the white house?

They don't walk the walk of a pro worker party, but they sure as shit don't talk the talk either.

Crumbling empire

Unless you're a senator or a MOC, I don't think her "do something" is directed at you.

They do. However, I'm sure you can imagine an elected government acting in a way that the majority disagrees with. We're about to see it in the US (actually, we have for years if not decades). This is not just a US phenomenon, there's actual research showing that in liberal democracies, there's very little correlation between what the general public wants, and the policies instated by their elected officials. There is a strong correlation with the interests of the owning class though.

Here's a study for American politics: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B

There's a Danish study as well. I'm having terrible trouble finding it though. It's an important addition because the democrats not representing the interests of the working class could in theory be a consequence of the US's two party system. The same result holding in multi-party Denmark shows that this is not the case.

At any rate, the point is that just because these countries are liberal democracies doesn't mean their population wants a US military presence.

Not to be a china apologist, but overt military presence in the form of missiles and boots on the ground is very different from clandestine operations abroad. Basically all major powers have the latter. What do you think the CIA is?

I really fear for the family lives of folks living in liberal strongholds like Georgia.