Editor’s note: This column is a head-to-head with this column: Opinion: The left doesn’t want a perfect candidate, just a moral one
After this recent presidential election, the biggest question was: “How did we get here?”
We got here because the left wanted a candidate who was perfect. Because no such thing exists, the left couldn’t align with one candidate.
The U.S., though self-praising for being the land of “freedom” and “choices,” has a two-party system in elections. In the system, you are either a Democrat, typically aligned with leftist values, or a Republican, typically aligned with right-wing values, and you vote for who gets closest to your ideals.
In the 2024 presidential election, the Republican Party ran a right-wing campaign on immigration and the economy — harmful, yes, but united. Supporters of President Donald Trump said “fighting illegal immigration” and “fixing the economy” were the top reasons why they voted for him. They had a unified campaign with a central leader. Democrats, however, struggled in that regard.
The main problem this party faces is its values. Democrats were known for being advocates for economically disadvantaged Americans. Now, if you were to look at the Democratic Party’s website, it’s a laundry list of issues they advocate for: climate change, education, economy and jobs, gas prices, etc. They have no central ground, whereas Republicans knew what they were voting for and took action to make those two issues happen. They weren’t split, trying to appease every minute issue their voters had.
Democrats need to balance the views of progressives and working-class voters and work on creating concrete results instead of ideological correctness.
This was a major issue with former Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign in 2024. Democrats campaigned without a streamlined set of policies and had a loss of identity, which created holes in their messaging to their voters.
Harris’ voters supported her for three main reasons: she would “stand in the way of a national abortion ban and fight to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade,” “make the wealthy and big corporations pay their fair share in taxes” and “protect the Affordable Care Act and preserve protections for those with pre-existing conditions.”
But when she lost, there was a big debate on whether she lost because some voters believed that she hadn’t been sufficiently responsive to the ongoing war in Gaza. These voters then turned to third-party candidates like Jill Stein.
Historically, Third parties haven’t been successful. Most find voting for them to be a waste but they usually find support for their movements due to addressing progressive causes that the two major parties haven’t addressed. Voting this way may not advance your views, but it’s a way of making a statement.
Stein and the Green Party’s platform placed greater emphasis on social justice, foreign policy and “demilitarisation,” especially during the war in Gaza. She advocated for universal health care and a “Real Green New Deal” for a 100% clean energy transition. This seemingly more progressive candidate drew the votes of some voters, resulting in a loss of support for Harris, who was the only real left-leaning candidate with a chance.
Polling leading up to the election suggested a majority of voters felt the U.S. should demand a ceasefire during the war in Gaza, but the sentiment wasn’t reflected in their voting behavior. In fact, progressives expressed fears about the safety of women’s and LGBTQ+ rights under a Trump presidency, and with polls closing in, said “wasting a vote on a third party could cost them.”
Social media discourse surrounding the election placed a greater emphasis on trending issues such as: the war in Gaza, abortion, immigration and identity politics, but working and middle-class voters weren’t concerned with that.
How is a politician supposed to garner support when they don’t know the Americans voting for them?
Recent office wins have shown us that when Democrats center voters, they win. New York City Mayor and Democrat Zohran Mamdani’s campaign was successful by tying his pledges with a central issue on voters’ minds: costs. He made specific, memorable offers to voters rather than a long list of policy promises that tried to account for every specific endeavor voters wanted.
The left needs to figure out what is most important, and Democrats need to streamline and meet progressives and the working-class in the middle.
Michaiah Stephens is a 22-year-old English major from Durham, N.C.
