What did Democrats do wrong?

[thaiboxerken]

What channel were you watching?

Kamala Harris calls Trump a 'fascist' as she argues he's 'dangerous' and unfit for office

At a town hall with undecided voters, the vice president said she agrees with Donald Trump's former chief of staff's claim that Trump is a fascist.

www.nbcnews.com

Is it extreme to call it like it is? Trump is a fascist and unfit for office, he proved it in his first term, he'll make it undeniable in his second term.

 

[theprestige]

No, I said they were expected to be perfect. Not that they were alleged to be.

Nobody was talking about perfection until you brought it up.

Are you suggesting they don't play? A one party state? Cracking idea...

I'm suggesting they play to win. Especially since it's a game they've been happy to help rig, and happy to play rigged, for generations.

Not sure there's a viable alternative to playing the rigged game.

Then you damn well better rig it in your favor, and play to win. Which is exactly what the Democrats have been doing, for generations. The game being rigged isn't why they lost this round.

I didn't do anything. This is not my fight. I'm just observing from the sidelines. And at no point did I claim they needed to win for the good of mankind. Not sure where you got that from.

It's the rhetorical you. Democrats sure have been talking and behaving as if the election of Donald Trump is an existential crisis for humanity.

In my opinion, any contest that ends with Donald J Trump in the winning position is definitely bent somehow. You seriously think that DJ Trump becoming the president of the USA, Leader of the free world and the most powerful man on the planet (maybe) is a viable, honest and well constructed system? That's a laughable position.

Blame Joe Biden. He's a career politician. He was a US Senator for 36 years, starting in 1973. He and his ilk created and perpetuated the system that put Donald Trump in the presidency.

I congratulate you on your miraculous hindsight. I wonder if, before the election, you were particularly vocal about how the system was rigged and how the Democrats couldn't win even if they did everything right.

 

[3point14]

I congratulate you on your miraculous hindsight. I wonder if, before the election, you were particularly vocal about how the system was rigged and how the Democrats couldn't win even if they did everything right.

That US democracy is broken has been apparent since sometime around 1980. I have said so frequently. There have even been studies. I must admit though, I didn't realise in 1980 as I was seven.

I think you're missing my point, however, which is that the question should not be 'what did the democratic party do wrong' but rather, how do you amend the system so it works for everyone.' Currenlty it doesnt.

And, my usual caveat, we're ◊◊◊◊◊◊ over here too. Just not quite so far down the path. I believe Musk has plans to accelerate the process, however.

 

[theprestige]

foo

That US democracy is broken has been apparent since sometime around 1980. I have said so frequently. There have even been studies. I must admit though, I didn't realise in 1980 as I was seven.

I think you're missing my point, however, which is that the question should not be 'what did the democratic party do wrong' but rather, how do you amend the system so it works for everyone.' Currenlty it doesnt.

And, my usual caveat, we're ◊◊◊◊◊◊ over here too. Just not quite so far down the path. I believe Musk has plans to accelerate the process, however.

it worked just fine for the Democrats in 2020. And in 2012. And 2008. And for most of the 90s.

You're missing my point. The Democrats aren't some scrappy underdog that tried to break into a fixed game this year, for a fixed fight they had no chance of winning. They've been fixing these fights, rigging this game all along.

 

[3point14]

foo

it worked just fine for the Democrats in 2020. And in 2012. And 2008. And for most of the 90s.

No, it didn't. They just managed to get a result. Within a broken system.

You're missing my point. The Democrats aren't some scrappy underdog that tried to break into a fixed game this year, for a fixed fight they had no chance of winning. They've been fixing these fights, rigging this game all along.

And you're missing mine. Mine is not a party political point. When playing a broken game, trying to work out how you lost is pointless. You seem to think I'm some sort of cheerleader for the Democratic Party. I'm not. Neither party represents my views even a little bit. (mostly because I'm not in the US).

I'm not trying to have the party political debate with you that you seem to want. I'm pointing out the pointlesness of the question, not trying to answer the question.

If you think the US democratic system is a solid one that delivers good results* then go have the 'what did they do wrong' conversation with someone else. I think that conversation is pointless. It's like asking how you win at carnival sideshow games. You don't. That's the point.



(*And again, this is the system that delivered Donald J Trump as the president. In my view, any system that does that is definitely, utterly broken. The man is maggot. And a rapist.)

 

[d4m10n]

her commentary. pretty out of control stuff

"the most mild of criticisms of trump" LOL

 

[d4m10n]

Is it extreme to call it like it is?

Is it "most mild" to call someone a fascist?

 

[Tero]

They ran a VP canidate who was a nice guy.
Job requirements are:
1 billionaire or
2 villain or misogynist or both

 

[thaiboxerken]

Is it "most mild" to call someone a fascist?

Yes, when it is an accurate description.

 

[d4m10n]

Yes, when it is an accurate description.

Criticism can be both accurate and sharp, or accurate and mild. The "most mild of criticisms of [T]rump" would be criticisms of things he does which aren't far outside of the current norms, such as "Trump indulges in too much unhealthy fast food, which sets a bad example for a nation struggling with diabetes" or "Trump has lost money even when implementing a business model where 'The house always wins.'" To accuse someone of fascism is a sharp accusation by any historical measure, and I'm saying this as someone who has publicly accused Trump of fascism.

To get back to the OP for a moment, should Kamala Harris have engaged in sharper criticism? If so, what might that have looked like?

 

[rdwight]

Not acknowledging the problems with inflation, immigration and trans issues. Harris didnt distance herself from past positions that are electoral losers, explain them or provide reasoning for any changes she came to since.

Being VP simply hurt her outside of any one thing. There are enough independent voters that just vote for a change, and she was too closely tied to Biden. A Democrat outside the immediate administration probably would have been enough to overcome the main issues I mentioned.

 

[dirtywick]

"the most mild of criticisms of trump" LOL

i stand by calling it mild.

 

[d4m10n]

i stand by calling it mild.

Should Kamala Harris have engaged in sharper criticism? If so, what might that have looked like?

 

[d4m10n]

Not acknowledging the problems with inflation, immigration and trans issues.

On immigration the Democratic Party position is basically more is good, less is racist. On trans rights: more is good, less is transphobic. They've gotten so used to framing everything in terms of oppressed and oppressor groups that they cannot even admit there are tradeoffs to be had against other values worth considering.

 

[Trausti]

Not acknowledging the problems with inflation, immigration and trans issues. Harris didnt distance herself from past positions that are electoral losers, explain them or provide reasoning for any changes she came to since.

Being VP simply hurt her outside of any one thing. There are enough independent voters that just vote for a change, and she was too closely tied to Biden. A Democrat outside the immediate administration probably would have been enough to overcome the main issues I mentioned.

Isn't the answer to all of this just that she was a terrible candidate? Up to mid-2024 the media called her the worst VP in history. The sudden psyops by the media transforming her to a saintly genius was never going to work.

 

[rdwight]

On immigration the Democratic Party position is basically more is good, less is racist. On trans rights: more is good, less is transphobic. They've gotten so used to framing everything in terms of oppressed and oppressor groups that they cannot even admit there are tradeoffs to be had against other values worth considering.

Had to read this twice to get what you meant. Pretty much the case if im understanding ur position. They painted themselves into a corner where moderation hurt them vs their own past messaging. I don't think they could do much to help their image on immigration but walking back the extremes on trans policy could have been doable.

Isn't the answer to all of this just that she was a terrible candidate? Up to mid-2024 the media called her the worst VP in history. The sudden psyops by the media transforming her to a saintly genius was never going to work.

She was not a good candidate but her ties to Biden and her 2000 campaign left her incredibly vulnerable. She couldn't distance without admitting she had no real power over policy, so she had to 'stay loyal' as if the option to ◊◊◊◊ on all policies the administration she was a part of was actually an option. Being an unpopular VP to and unpopular president and not being able to give examples on what you would do differently was not a winning formula.

 

[dirtywick]

Should Kamala Harris have engaged in sharper criticism? If so, what might that have looked like?

it should have been well beyond sharper criticism. he should have been prosecuted for his crimes and they should have been clearly laid out to the american people. short of that, i felt as though they were afraid to publicly discuss any of it. i think they were on the back foot too often trying to defend themselves on unimportant culture war issues in the years leading up to the election

i think that he ran on being strong on immigration and the economy despite having killed his own immigration bill and having nonsensical economic policies and that he prevailed in the culture war by attributing every crazy woke thing on earth to the dems shows that trump's aggressive and relentless method of messaging worked a lot better than the dems mild mannered business as usual style campaign. not something harris fixes in 6 weeks either, if she could at all, they should have been thinking winning this long before that.

that's my opinion.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

On immigration the Democratic Party position is basically more is good, less is racist. On trans rights: more is good, less is transphobic. They've gotten so used to framing everything in terms of oppressed and oppressor groups that they cannot even admit there are tradeoffs to be had against other values worth considering.

This. On the example on trans people, I've got friends who are trans and I'm horrified by how American LGBTQ+ people are treated, but... I also wish they wouldn't be so polarized. 'Transphobe' should be a powerful word like 'homophobe', but a many of them they tend to use it to mean something more like 'someone who said something about trans people that I don't agree with'. Which, I mean, I don't blame them, but it's needlessly polarizing so I wish they wouldn't do it.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Is it extreme to call it like it is?

This. Let's say Harris' opponent was a cannibal. Would it be extreme to point out that he was a cannibal?

Making up blood libel about how black people eat cats and dogs is extreme. Fantasizing about putting your political opponent in front of a firing squad is extreme, or any of the other times Dump showed he wished violence or death on his political opponents, starting with when he egged his supporters to beat up people who disagreed with him at his rallies, or when he hinted that there could be a '2nd amendment solution' to Hillary Clinton's run for president.

Calling a spade a spade? I wish they would do it more.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

i stand by calling it mild.

Fair enough. Trump himself has publicly expressed admiration of fascists and indicated a desire to be like them. So calling him a fascist shouldn't even be criticism to anyone who approves (ie. 50% of voters). It's simply the most accurate (and therefore least critical) word to describe it - with no indication as to whether you think it's good or bad. After all, Mussolini did improve the country's railways, as well as reducing unemployment and investing in other infrastructure. If it wasn't for siding with Hitler he might have been seen as a good guy!