What did Democrats do wrong?

[d4m10n]

Perhaps there could be a grassroots movement but I fear that, like the occupy movement, after an initial burst of activity it will simply fizzle out without major channels behind it.

Occupy was an almost perfect model of righteous anger with zero solutions. All heart, no head.

Democrats would do well to avoid this mode of activism whenever possible.

 

[dirtywick]

that daily show style comedy news format is pretty stale imo. read headline, one line zinger, mug at the camera while the studio audience laughs. repeat.

 

[theprestige]

that daily show style comedy news format is pretty stale imo. read headline, one line zinger, mug at the camera while the studio audience laughs. repeat.

Like Weekend Update, but political.

 

[Olmstead]

The base claim is that, globally, right-wing populist movements are in ascendance.

But maybe it's just populist movements? Maybe a left-wing movement, centered on reduce wealth inequality, strengthening workers rights and establishing universal healthcare would be just as capable of gaining widespread support. But unlike the right-wingers, centrists are not willing to dramatically change the system they are currently comfortable with.

Populism needs simple solutions (i.e. stupid ones) and someone to hate.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Populism needs simple solutions (i.e. stupid ones) and someone to hate.

Billionaires - perfect target, clearly defined, not one of the People, and hardly unable to defend themselves.
Taking away 99.9% of their wealth and distribute it would not solve all problems, but it would be something a majority would easily get behind.

 

[The Don]

Billionaires - perfect target, clearly defined, not one of the People, and hardly unable to defend themselves.
Taking away 99.9% of their wealth and distribute it would not solve all problems, but it would be something a majority would easily get behind.

You'd imagine so but the billionaires have managed to persuade people that the economy would collapse without them and too many people don't identify as poor, they identify as temporarily inconvenienced billionaires.

In developed economies, national happiness correlates well with comparatively low levels of wealth and income inequality.

Of course correlation isn't necessarily causation and if there is causation, which way round it is.

How you spread the message to "eat the rich" is a major challenge IMO because the billionaires own the mass media and social media and have spent decades demonising the kinds of organisations that could help spread the message.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

From Oxfam:

Billionaire wealth surges by $2 trillion in 2024, three times faster than the year before, while the number of people living in poverty has barely changed since 1990​

Published: 20th January 2025

• Oxfam predicts there will be at least five trillionaires a decade from now.
• 204 new billionaires were minted in 2024, nearly four every week.
• Sixty percent of billionaire wealth is now derived from inheritance, monopoly power or crony connections, as Oxfam argues that “extreme billionaire wealth is largely unmerited.”
• Richest 1 percent in the Global North extracted $30 million an hour from the Global South through the financial system in 2023.

Eat the Rich sounds good to me.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If voters did not actually expect Trump to keep his campaign promises, nor show any evidence of being upset upon learning that he won't, then it is reasonable to conclude that the content of those promises had little or nothing to do with why they voted for Trump.

On the other hand, such behavior remains consistent with the notion that they voted for him because they liked his "racist transphobic evil poopyhead" talking points, and/or his overall RTEP vibe.

Alternatively, it's entirely consistent with "Trump isn't a Democrat" during a period of economic and social upheaval where a fairly large number of people are dissatisfied with progressive policies, international affairs, and being told that the economy is the best it's ever been and their inability to afford their bills is just because the republicans have lied to them...

When things are going poorly economically and socially, people change horses. It doesn't really matter which horse is in office - they're going to switch to the other one.

 

[Donal]

Still waiting for someone to explain that "progressive policies" caused people to turn. Most of the evidence suggests it was the continued doubling down on neoliberalism, which every president since Carter has been, has turned more people away from the Democrats. That's where the "best economy ever" comes from. They aren't wrong, its just that working folks don't get the benefit of it the way we used to. Granted, Republicans and the media make it seem worse.

What amazes me is they were so dumb, they went back the historic failure that came before.

 

[d4m10n]

Still waiting for someone to explain that "progressive policies" caused people to turn.

Post #803.

 

[johnny karate]

Post #803.

No policies referenced. Just vibes.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Alternatively, it's entirely consistent with "Trump isn't a Democrat" during a period of economic and social upheaval where a fairly large number of people are dissatisfied with progressive policies, international affairs, and being told that the economy is the best it's ever been and their inability to afford their bills is just because the republicans have lied to them...

When things are going poorly economically and socially, people change horses. It doesn't really matter which horse is in office - they're going to switch to the other one.

This hypothesis does not explain why these supposedly economy-based voters aren't more upset upon discovering that Trump isn't actually going to do anything to fix prices. Instead, his first actions in office have emphasized things like getting rid of DEI and Equal Opportunity Initiatives, tossing out complaints about anti-LGBT book bans in schools, and revoking birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants.

Funny how he prioritized keeping the campaign promises meant to appeal to the "racist transphobic evil poopyheads", and yet I don't hear a chorus of protests from his "other" supporters about how this isn't what they wanted, but rather for him to fix the economy. It's almost as if they at least tacitly approve of his actual (and fairly obvious) priorities.

 

[Tero]

What disarray? It was completely unfied. Every democrat other than manchin was determined to get rid of Trump once and for all. Who wants him in their morning news? Only the 20% MAGA base. It was in fact the coalition of voters that keeps Democrats at near 50% that Trump captured a few percent from (young males? GAZA enraged Muslims) in some manner. Or we failed to convince the voters that 2024 was as bad as 2020. Show up and vote!

Trump’s win was not a landslide, however. He gained less than half the national popular vote and only beat Kamala Harris by 1.5 percentage points. Republicans lost some key races in the Senate and only retained the House of Representatives by a wafer-thin margin. Opinion polls show that three in four Americans opposed pardoning the January 6 insurrectionists.

Some question whether the realignment is permanent. John Zogby, an author and pollster, said: “It’s certainly an effort at a rightwing revolution, politically consolidating his base, taking advantage of disarray on the other side, putting points on the board and clearly changing the direction and tone. Now, is this a revolution or is it a Thermidor [the short-lived reactionary coup during the French Revolution]? We’ll have to wait and see.”

For all his early momentum, commentators argue, Trump’s political revolution cannot last. He faces splits within the Republican party in Congress and the Maga movement and an electorate demanding quick results. He sabotaged his own first term with his notoriously short attention span, unwillingness to read policy documents, and fostering of chaos and dysfunction.

Revolution is in the air as Trump arrives with a bang – but can he follow through?

The president has wasted little time in pushing a radical rightwing agenda at the start of his second term

www.theguardian.com

 

[The Don]

No policies referenced. Just vibes.

Most people don't have the time and/or cannot be bothered to read and try to understand policies. If they're carefully thought through then they're likely to be complicated and a bit dry. Heck, I'm really into this kind of thing and I generally rely on summaries of most policies.

Because of this, most voters rely on soundbites gleaned from somewhere and the associated vibes.

They were told that they were much worse off than they were when Biden took office. Unless they were considerably richer (and millions were) then even if they were marginally better off, the vibe would have been that they were worse off.

They've been told that all of their problems are down to immigrants and "woke". Taking that at face value is much easier than closely examining their personal situation and determining why it's not what they would have wished.

 

[Tero]

Not just soundbites. Social Media clips. The policy has to have entertainment value. It has to fight for clicks against "they are eating our cats and dogs."

 

[The Don]

Not just soundbites. Social Media clips. The policy has to have entertainment value. It has to fight for clicks against "they are eating our cats and dogs."

If it has entertainment value, it has to have a gimmick IMO and that likely compromises its status as a serious policy.

 

[johnny karate]

This hypothesis does not explain why these supposedly economy-based voters aren't more upset upon discovering that Trump isn't actually going to do anything to fix prices. Instead, his first actions in office have emphasized things like getting rid of DEI and Equal Opportunity Initiatives, tossing out complaints about anti-LGBT book bans in schools, and revoking birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants.

Funny how he prioritized keeping the campaign promises meant to appeal to the "racist transphobic evil poopyheads", and yet I don't hear a chorus of protests from his "other" supporters about how this isn't what they wanted, but rather for him to fix the economy. It's almost as if they at least tacitly approve of his actual (and fairly obvious) priorities.

It’s almost as if all these “economic concerns” were just a smokescreen. You know, just like when Trump ran this exact same playbook in 2016.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

It’s almost as if all these “economic concerns” were just a smokescreen. You know, just like when Trump ran this exact same playbook in 2016.

Another thought, too. If simply "not being a Democrat" was enough for Republicans to win, why go with Trump at all? Republican voters have more to answer for than just voting Republican.

 

[Tero]

We thought they were bad. They were bad. But we did not do enough to destroy them on social media. Too many cat video instead.

Why Do Liberals Think All Trump Supporters are Stupid? - The Progressive Populist

An anguished question from a Trump supporter: “Why do liberals think all Trump supporters are stupid?” The serious answer: Here’s what we really think about Trump supporters — the rich, …

www.populist.com

 

[Donal]

Post #803.

No, I was told it was the progressive/far left Democratic policies. I'm looking for the ones that turned people away.