What did Democrats do wrong?

[Susheel]

The two issues most commonly cited against Biden were immigration and inflation:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1866958213809136071

How The Economy Really Fared Under Biden/Harris And Trump—From Jobs To Inflation (Final Update)

The final economic data is in ahead of the election—here's what the numbers say about the Trump and Biden/Harris economies.

www.forbes.com

A fundamental question....How is immigration a bad thing?

 

[Segnosaur]

Exactly. The Democrats were wrong for religiously engaging with bipartisanship, compromise and centrism when the republicans were not dealing in good faith.

Here is the thing though... I believe the majority of voters WANT some sort of bipartisanship.

It is probably best for the democrats to give lip service to the idea. Say they "want" bipartisanship, just don't expect to actually receive it. (I think that is where people like Schumer failed... he seemed to EXPECT that republicans would reject MAGA.)

Also, I think it is different issues whether the democrats take a centrist vs left position on issues, and whether they want bipartisanship. It is possible for a politician to both have moderate views (such as "I want expanded public health care but not full-on medicare-for-all") without actually expecting any sort of bipartisanship/buy-in from the republicans.

 

[d4m10n]

A fundamental question....How is immigration a bad thing?

Do you mean other than the usual nativist backlash?

 

[johnny karate]

Do you mean other than the usual nativist backlash?

I’m not sure pointing out that some people don’t like immigration answers the question “How is immigration a bad thing?”. Kind of begs it, actually.

 

[johnny karate]

The two issues most commonly cited against Biden were immigration and inflation:

More to the point, the right wing propaganda about immigration and inflation.

 

[theprestige]

I think you'll find that if you crack down on illegal immigration, the nativist backlash will fade quite pleasantly into the background noise of civil society.

Anyway, it's not like Trump won by some huge landslide. There's probably a reasonable case to be made, that things could have gone differently, if voter turnout in a few swing states had swung a little more in the Democrats' favor. The Democrat candidate didn't actually need to flip an impossible chunk of the committed MAGA population. So I don't think this is really a case of the Dems did everything right, but just couldn't get enough votes in a world gone so drastically wrong. I think it's much more likely a case of the Dems missing a trick or two, in terms of messaging and voter drives, in the few states where a difference could be made. I think it's going to be essentially the same kind of mistake Hillary made in 2016.

 

[ahhell]

I think you'll find that if you crack down on illegal immigration, the nativist backlash will fade quite pleasantly into the background noise of civil society.

Anyway, it's not like Trump won by some huge landslide. There's probably a reasonable case to be made, that things could have gone differently, if voter turnout in a few swing states had swung a little more in the Democrats' favor. The Democrat candidate didn't actually need to flip an impossible chunk of the committed MAGA population. So I don't think this is really a case of the Dems did everything right, but just couldn't get enough votes in a world gone so drastically wrong. I think it's much more likely a case of the Dems missing a trick or two, in terms of messaging and voter drives, in the few states where a difference could be made. I think it's going to be essentially the same kind of mistake Hillary made in 2016.

That's why I'd say its worth examining what they could have changed that would have gotten them a few more votes.

As I've said, I think the biggest mistake was Biden running. Could see that very early on he was about as unpopular as Trump and the old man thing stuck to him in ways that it wasn't sticking to Trump. The second mistake was nominating someone from the administration which meant is was basically impossible to distance them from Biden or act like they couldn't tell Biden was slipping. To be honest, not sure what anyone but Biden could have done about that until it was too late. There are some other things but mostly at the margins. But as you note, it wasn't exactly a landslide so the margins probably mattered.

 

[theprestige]

As I've said, I think the biggest mistake was Biden running. Could see that very early on he was about as unpopular as Trump and the old man thing stuck to him in ways that it wasn't sticking to Trump.

One mistake I see people in this thread constantly making is equivocating between hardcore MAGA and actual swing voters.

Yes, there is a large faction in this country that will crap on Biden for things that they forgive in Trump. Yes, those voters were never going to be swayed by the Dem's campaign. Those weren't the voters the Dems needed to successfully target. They needed to successfully target Dem-leaning voters in swing states, who might have been motivated to turn out, with the right messaging.

But I can already hear the response to this suggestion: "If those voters were too stupid to get out and vote against Trump, there was no way we could possibly get through to them."

And to that I say: If.

If it's looking tight and you're not sure of your swing states, why not go out there and actually talk to these depressingly unmotivated voters? Are they really too stupid? Or do they have some concern, foolish or otherwise, that you've somehow overlooked? Is there still a chance you can change their minds? Will you seize that chance and make the most of it? Or are you just going to keep repeating the same "obvious" message that's garnered you almost but not quite enough votes?

 

[johnny karate]

The problem with focusing on the margins is that it shifts focus away from a very big and very real problem: Millions of people in this country actively want cruelty and destruction and enthusiastically voted for it.

If fascism can only be defeated in the margins, we've got much more serious issues to tackle than what Democrats did wrong in one election cycle.

And it remains my belief that the reason people frame the 2024 election that way it is framed in this thread - whether out of willful ignorance or malicious intent - is because it's easier to pick on Democrats than it is to reconcile these terrible truths.

 

[theprestige]

The problem with focusing on the margins is that it shifts focus away from a very big and very real problem: Millions of people in this country actively want cruelty and destruction and enthusiastically voted for it.

That might be true in general, but this thread is about another very big and very real problem: The Democrats lost a presidential election to Donald Trump.

Probably because they didn't focus on the margins where the votes they needed would most likely be found.

So I guess we can add "miss the trees for the forest" to the list of things Democrats did wrong.

If fascism can only be defeated in the margins, we've got much more serious issues to tackle than what Democrats did wrong in one election cycle.

If winning the election = defeating fascism, then this is an insane take. "Fascism is too big to defeat by gaining the victory we need in the margins where it can be found."

And it remains my belief that the reason people frame the 2024 election that way it is framed in this thread - whether out of willful ignorance or malicious intent - is because it's easier to pick on Democrats than it is to reconcile these terrible truths.

How are people framing the election in this thread? You frame it as defeating fascism by electing a Democrat. So, the Democrats had a chance to defeat fascism, and failed. Why? Because they never stood a chance? I don't believe it. The election was too close for that answer to make sense. I think the right answer is that they had a chance and missed it, somehow.

"We could have won the election, but we were too busy focusing on the bigger picture to worry about losing the support we needed in the margins."

 

[Segnosaur]

That's why I'd say its worth examining what they could have changed that would have gotten them a few more votes.

As I've said, I think the biggest mistake was Biden running. Could see that very early on he was about as unpopular as Trump and the old man thing stuck to him in ways that it wasn't sticking to Trump. The second mistake was nominating someone from the administration which meant is was basically impossible to distance them from Biden or act like they couldn't tell Biden was slipping. To be honest, not sure what anyone but Biden could have done about that until it was too late. There are some other things but mostly at the margins. But as you note, it wasn't exactly a landslide so the margins probably mattered.

I don't think either of them running was necessarily "mistakes".

Biden was an incumbent in 2024, which provides an advantage. (Seeing your candidate flying around in air force 1 is more impressive than seeing them make campaign stops in chartered planes.). He had shown that he could beat trump before, and because of his association with Obama would probably be more successful in drawing in minority voters than "old generic white democrat". Plus, he was a "known quantity", and any skeletons he had in his closet were probably uncovered decades ago. So there were some advantages to having him run.

And when Biden turned in the towel, there were also some advantages to simply passing the torch to Harris. They avoided a potentially damaging primary where various candidates attack each other for weeks/months, avoided spending millions of dollars on a rushed primary, etc.

The big problem for both of them was the aftermath of the post-covid Inflation spike. But there was no guarantee that any alternative democratic candidate would have avoided the same stigma.

 

[dirtywick]

the giant propaganda apparatus masquerading as media but behind the scenes coordinating with the trump campaign really undermines quite a few arguments that the dems mistakes were in their message or positions since they weren’t really accurately represented

 

[dirtywick]

I don't think either of them running was necessarily "mistakes".

Biden was an incumbent in 2024, which provides an advantage. (Seeing your candidate flying around in air force 1 is more impressive than seeing them make campaign stops in chartered planes.). He had shown that he could beat trump before, and because of his association with Obama would probably be more successful in drawing in minority voters than "old generic white democrat". Plus, he was a "known quantity", and any skeletons he had in his closet were probably uncovered decades ago. So there were some advantages to having him run.

And when Biden turned in the towel, there were also some advantages to simply passing the torch to Harris. They avoided a potentially damaging primary where various candidates attack each other for weeks/months, avoided spending millions of dollars on a rushed primary, etc.

The big problem for both of them was the aftermath of the post-covid Inflation spike. But there was no guarantee that any alternative democratic candidate would have avoided the same stigma.

additionally biden was the de facto party leader and really it was ultimately his decision to run or not. furthermore, there was some financial law that i don’t recall exactly that let harris take the campaign money from biden where another candidate would have had to start fundraising over and returned a bunch of money

 

[johnny karate]

That might be true in general, but this thread is about another very big and very real problem: The Democrats lost a presidential election to Donald Trump.

Probably because they didn't focus on the margins where the votes they needed would most likely be found.

So I guess we can add "miss the trees for the forest" to the list of things Democrats did wrong.

No, it's because millions of people in this country actively voted for fascism.

Blaming it on the Democrats for not focusing on the margins is a means to excuse and ignore the fact that millions of people in this country are pro-fascism.

If someone burns my house down, I don't blame the fire department for not putting it out fast enough, even if they made mistakes in trying to do so. I blame the person who set it on fire.

If winning the election = defeating fascism, then this is an insane take. "Fascism is too big to defeat by gaining the victory we need in the margins where it can be found."

To accept this is to accept your claim that Democrats didn't try to reach those voters, which of course I don't.

How are people framing the election in this thread? You frame it as defeating fascism by electing a Democrat. So, the Democrats had a chance to defeat fascism, and failed. Why? Because they never stood a chance? I don't believe it. The election was too close for that answer to make sense. I think the right answer is that they had a chance and missed it, somehow.

"We could have won the election, but we were too busy focusing on the bigger picture to worry about losing the support we needed in the margins."

Democrats ultimately failed because a shocking number of people in this country actively chose chaos and destruction. That's it. That's the headline. There is no perfect campaign that can be run to convince people to vote against something they actively, enthusiatically want.

Claiming that it's the fault of Democrats for not getting enough swing votes or whatever while we collectively ignore that 800 lb fascist gorilla staring us in the face and assign zero accountability to it for being openly fascist continues to be a circle jerk.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Why did the Dems did do anything seriously wrong? If you assume there are fundamental differences between the 2 parties then why couldn't they have simply not been what the electorate wanted at that time?

That's kinda the whole point of the thread. When we ask "what did Dems do wrong" it's not actually intended to be finger-pointing blame. It's essentially a post-mortem analysis of 1) what did Dems mishandle that boosted Reps and 2) what could Dems have done differently that would plausibly have resulted in a victory?

More to the point, your question is at the heart of it: If Dems aren't what the electorate wanted at the time, what can Dems do to *become* what the electorate wants next time?

Personally, I don't think that relying on the general public to just somehow become disenamoured of conservative views is a sufficient game plan.

 

[ahhell]

I don't think either of them running was necessarily "mistakes".

Biden was an incumbent in 2024, which provides an advantage. (Seeing your candidate flying around in air force 1 is more impressive than seeing them make campaign stops in chartered planes.). He had shown that he could beat trump before, and because of his association with Obama would probably be more successful in drawing in minority voters than "old generic white democrat". Plus, he was a "known quantity", and any skeletons he had in his closet were probably uncovered decades ago. So there were some advantages to having him run.

And when Biden turned in the towel, there were also some advantages to simply passing the torch to Harris. They avoided a potentially damaging primary where various candidates attack each other for weeks/months, avoided spending millions of dollars on a rushed primary, etc.

The big problem for both of them was the aftermath of the post-covid Inflation spike. But there was no guarantee that any alternative democratic candidate would have avoided the same stigma.

Come on now. Seeing your candidate barely able to climb the stairs of Air Force one isn't exactly impressive, especially when they have to use the stairs nobody new existed because they were easier to climb. You are right about the post covid inflation bump, made worse the inflation reduction act and that the president got he blame.

Polling was pretty clear on that. Sure, usually the incumbent has the advantage but in this last election, it was pretty clear pretty early on that Biden didn't. And yes the ability to hand off money to Harris was an advantage but, she could not adequately distance herself from Biden without seeming disloyal and his biggest problem was his apparent senility. Something she either didn't notice despite being the VP or helped cover up.

As to having a convention or not, either way had pros on cons. I think they would have been better off with a rushed convention with delegates choosing a candidate. But, who knows really.

 

[theprestige]

That's kinda the whole point of the thread. When we ask "what did Dems do wrong" it's not actually intended to be finger-pointing blame. It's essentially a post-mortem analysis of 1) what did Dems mishandle that boosted Reps and 2) what could Dems have done differently that would plausibly have resulted in a victory?

More to the point, your question is at the heart of it: If Dems aren't what the electorate wanted at the time, what can Dems do to *become* what the electorate wants next time?

Personally, I don't think that relying on the general public to just somehow become disenamoured of conservative views is a sufficient game plan.

It's amazing how steadfastly the real stakeholders in this thread have refused to conduct any kind of useful post mortem.

 

[johnny karate]

That's kinda the whole point of the thread. When we ask "what did Dems do wrong" it's not actually intended to be finger-pointing blame. It's essentially a post-mortem analysis of 1) what did Dems mishandle that boosted Reps and 2) what could Dems have done differently that would plausibly have resulted in a victory?

More to the point, your question is at the heart of it: If Dems aren't what the electorate wanted at the time, what can Dems do to *become* what the electorate wants next time?

Personally, I don't think that relying on the general public to just somehow become disenamoured of conservative views is a sufficient game plan.

It's amazing how steadfastly the real stakeholders in this thread have refused to conduct any kind of useful post mortem.

The number one response in the thread poll is "too much transgender stuff".

Spare us all the laughably disingenuous claim that this was ever meant to be a serious or useful discussion.

 

[theprestige]

The number one response in the thread poll is "too much transgender stuff".

Spare us all the laughably disingenuous claim that this was ever meant to be a serious or useful discussion.

You may have noticed that there are a lot of people on the left, who think trans rights activism has gone too far, into an antisocial anti-science place they want no part of. That's as good an explanation of why so many of the voters you needed stayed home right when you needed them most.

But there's a whole thread for that, if you're ever interested in a serious and useful discussion, with other leftists who disagree with you on this one issue.

 

[d4m10n]

Biden was an incumbent in 2024, which provides an advantage.

Incumbency historically provides an advantage, but 2024 was an anti-incumbent year in almost every well-developed democracy.

Thread 'Did incumbent parties fare well in any highly developed democracies in 2024?'

Dec 18, 2024

Over in USA politics, I've seen a few posts saying basically that U.S. performance needs to be baselined against global trends, e.g. COVID-19, inflation, immigration, incumbent party vote share. This post is about whether there were any exceptions to the rule that incumbent parties fared badly this year, in the most developed nations which are globally interconnected by trade and treaty.

I've seen a few think pieces on this topic (e.g. Pew, AP, VoH) but decided to put together my own list anyhow.

1. Austria — Incumbent ÖVP tanked by insurgent FPÖ...

• d4m10n