The list of reasons is long in examining Trump win/Harris loss
Re: “Trump’s landslide win was made possible by Democrats ignoring the people,” Nov. 10 commentary
Doug Friednash is right that the Dems abandoned the working class and, therefore, lost. He is wrong to urge the party to move to the center. The Harris/Walz campaign was centrist. The other guy’s campaign was extreme and radical. Recall who won?
Most families in this country live precarious and difficult lives. Jobs are unstable. Incomes are inadequate. Benefits are rare, pensions rarer. Housing is unavailable and unaffordable. Child care is unavailable, unaffordable, and low quality. And when one applies for the paltry social safety programs that still exist, like SNAP or TANF, one gets denied for making too much money or not meeting some other arbitrary eligibility requirement.
The people want extreme and radical solutions to their problems. The loser ignored that; the winner did not. Millions of Kamala Harris voters know that Donald Trump’s flavor of extreme and radical will worsen, in some cases even end people’s lives. But here are some extreme and radical solutions that would improve people’s lives quickly: the government distributing public wealth back to the workers who generate it. Government programs that benefit all people. A living wage. Housing. A living wage. Health care and long-term care. A living wage. Childcare. A living wage. Pensions. A living wage. Unions. If the Democrats had offered this variety of radicalism and extremism, they would have won. And if they deliver, they will win again.
Here is the proof. New York Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez asked split-voting constituents why they voted both for her and Trump. The answers all boiled down to this: they believe Trump and Ocasio-Cortex care for the working class.
Floy Jeffares, Lakewood
I’ve just read Doug Friednash’s column about the reasons for Harris’ defeat. While I agree with most of his conclusions, I’m dismayed that he made no mention at all of the sexism and racism that was also at play. Twice now Americans have rejected supremely qualified women in favor of the same seriously unqualified man. Anyone who does not acknowledge that sexism played a significant role in Trump’s win over both Clinton and Harris is simply not recognizing the sexism baked into our society.
Lois Court, Denver
Editor’s note: Court is a former state senator from District 31.
In the first place, Donald Trump did not win by a landslide. Nixon and Reagan won by landslides.
The circular firing squad tactics currently being employed by the Democrats and pundits are unproductive and just another form of fiddling while Rome burns. Your blaming of “the left” without citing a single policy difference with them/us other than you don’t like protests on college campuses is disingenuous scapegoating, although to a lesser degree than JD Vance knowingly lying about hard-working, law-abiding legal Haitian migrants, just to score political points.
Kamala Harris ran as a centrist and won the debate hands down. She answered policy questions while Trump blathered his usual nonsense (although I concede it is dangerous nonsense). While people may say their votes were influenced by economic issues (although wages are up, and inflation is down) the truth is more likely that willful stupidity and misogyny (along with greed, bullying, and corruption) are alive and well in America. We are headed off a fiscal and environmental cliff, which only the left ever dares to acknowledge and try to prevent.
Nicolett Darling, Kersey
Friednash’s excellent article is one of many addressing Donald Trump’s victory. Blame is placed on a number of factors laid out in this and other articles and newscasts. For me, it came down to the simple notion Vice President Kamala Harris was just plain not qualified for the job, or so it appeared.
I point to several factors here:
• Shortly after the Ukraine war started, she visited Eastern Europe. In a presser with the Polish leader, she flummoxed questions and was an embarrassment to herself, her host, and the country.
• She was assigned to “manage” the border and failed miserably, largely ignoring the issue.
• Her public appearances were well rehearsed and provided no useful information. For example, the debate. That was not the Kamala Harris we have seen over the past four years. We never got a chance to she who she really is.
• When pressed for answers she launched into confusing word salad or anti-Trump rhetoric. Being a state’s attorney general, a U.S. senator and vice president who was raised middle class does not qualify one for the presidency.
Steven R Turner, Aurora
I grew up in a working-class neighborhood. Everyone was a Democrat. We subscribed to an evening newspaper (morning papers were for Republicans) and watched Walter Cronkite for our news. Today, these people are Republicans who read social media and watch Fox News for their news. Although the news source and the political party have changed, the primary issues for working-class people haven’t changed: economic and personal security (e.g., crime).
Today’s Democrats have totally missed the boat. Liberalism, political correctness, and social justice issues are not the driving force for working-class voters — even those of non-white heritage, as Doug Friednash’s column pointed out.
As a lifelong Democrat, it’s time we leave the Boulder Democrats behind and focus on the needs that are driving working and middle-class Americans today.
Curt Anderson, Broomfield
Questioning Post’s endorsement and non-endorsement
Re: “On land or pond, herding device redirects geese,” Nov. 10 news story and “How voters parsed a tough ballot,” Nov. 10 editorial
Thank you for the story about a clever geese management device in Broomfield. That sounds like a great idea that Denver could use.
Considering your endorsements in opposition to animal welfare measures on the ballot, can we expect your editorial against it? What the heck’s going on? You made your arguments clear on these measures before the election, and on Sunday you felt the need to double down on them.
Denver residents passed the ban on mountain lion hunting, even though it failed statewide. Don’t most of your subscribers live in Denver? I don’t understand why newspapers continue to alienate their most reliable readers and why it was necessary to be so emphatically opposed.
If you wanted to make an emphatic point, why didn’t you endorse Kamala Harris for president? That would have been a much more flattering reflection of your values. You sat it out. The animal rights issues really bothered you. I have lost respect for The Post.
Beverly Bennett, Aurora
Malpractice coverage won’t help doctors in criminal abortion cases
Re: “A message for the doctors in states with strict abortion laws,” Nov. 10 letter to the editor
Malpractice insurance does not cover the cost of defending against criminal charges. Doctors face criminal charges in abortion ban states. The cost to defend these cases is many thousands of dollars. That cost is the responsibility of the defendant doctor unless lucky enough to get support from a public defender, abortion rights group, or crowdfunding. And those costs exist whether they win or lose at trial.
Barbara Redmond, Denver
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.