• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What did Democrats do wrong?

What did Democrats do wrong?

  • Didn't fight inflation enough.

    Votes: 12 15.6%

  • Didn't fight illegal immigration enough.

    Votes: 22 28.6%

  • Too much focus on abortion.

    Votes: 1 1.3%

  • Too much transgender stuff.

    Votes: 28 36.4%

  • America not ready for Progressive women leader.

    Votes: 26 33.8%

  • Should have kept Joe.

    Votes: 2 2.6%

  • Not enough focus on new jobs.

    Votes: 2 2.6%

  • Nothing, Trump cheated & played dirty!

    Votes: 14 18.2%

  • Didn't stop Gaza War.

    Votes: 8 10.4%

  • I can be Agent M.

    Votes: 6 7.8%
  • Total voters
    77

related to project 2025, trump eo on election reform, dominion, the voting machine company falsely accused by trump of rigging the election and famously won over a billion dollars in lawsuits resulting from false claims by conservative news outlets pushing that propaganda, is sold to republicans promising to follow trump eos on election reform
 
theprestige said:
It isn't propaganda if it's true. Men really were competing and winning in women's sports, at all levels, permitted by federal policy (and state policy, and school district policy). The medical community really was lying about the scientific basis for trans-affirming care, and really was lying about the reversibility of puberty blockers. And everyone knew which party was on the side of trans privileges in public policy. Harris couldn't hide this from voters by keeping her mouth shut, any more than John Cena can disappear from view by holding his hand in front of his face.
Click to expand...
I don't believe there was any massive trans woman sports stealing. At the higher levels of all sports it was limited.

But as for Democrats getting things wrong, the masses were not ready for trans people. The democrats should have focused on this being a right for an individual. To be what they wanted to be. Nothing to do with sports.

The Trump thing about teens going to school as bou and coming home as a girl was the perfect summation of "all things woke." The MAGA people immediately got it. Trump did not need to talk about DEI, racism etc since many voters are of mixed race and still support Trump. In fact race is not really a biology term. But anyway, pointing out very obvious woke things was Trump's skill. people who do not normally vote showed up to "keep men out of my bathroom."
 
Hercules56 said:
Allowing everyone and their nephew to come into the USA and seek asylum was not helpful.
Click to expand...

You are bound to allow individuals to seek asylum by the Refugee Convention (1951). You do not have to grant asylum, but you must allow people to apply, and go through a fair an thorough process. You may not return them to countries where they may be threatened, or treated violenly or killed and you must ensure their safety during the process, and treat them with dignity.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
Allowing everyone and their nephew to come into the USA and seek asylum was not helpful.
Click to expand...

Helen said:
You are bound to allow individuals to seek asylum by the Refugee Convention (1951). You do not have to grant asylum, but you must allow people to apply, and go through a fair an thorough process. You may not return them to countries that may be threatened, or treated violenly or killed and you myst assure their safety during the process, and treat them with dignity.
Click to expand...

The way I see it, it's one thing to allow people to apply for asylum status and grant them entry to the country once status is granted. But it's another thing entirely to grant asylum-seeker status toanyone who enters the country illegally, rather than illegal entrant status. I don't think the Convention requires parties to grant asylum-seeker status to illegal entrants. I think it does allow parties to deport illegal entrants, and require them to follow the lawful asylum-seeker process.

Some idiots don't want any immigration at all, which is stupid and wrong. I think most people, right and left, are fine with lawful immigration, but would like to see all the illegal entrants kicked back across the border and told to do it right or not at all.

So I think it would be more accurate to say "allowing every illegal entrant and their nephew to stay in the USA while they seek asylum was not helpful." Or, more generally, "appearing soft on illegal immigration was not helpful."
 
Last edited:
Helen said:
If you seek asylum, you are not illegal. That's not the way the convenrion signers see it, at least. How you see it really has no bearing on it.
Click to expand...
Can you cite the passage(s) in the convention that specify that you can evade border control to enter a country, and then establish legal presence simply by claiming to be an asylum-seeker?
 
theprestige said:
Can you cite the passage(s) in the convention that specify that you can evade border control to enter a country, and then establish legal presence simply by claiming to be an asylum-seeker?
Click to expand...

Article 31 - Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge​

1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

2. The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country.
 
Isn't there a requirement that they ask for asylum in the first safe country the get to?
 
theprestige said:
The way I see it, it's one thing to allow people to apply for asylum status and grant them entry to the country once status is granted. But it's another thing entirely to grant asylum-seeker status toanyone who enters the country illegally, rather than illegal entrant status. I don't think the Convention requires parties to grant asylum-seeker status to illegal entrants. I think it does allow parties to deport illegal entrants, and require them to follow the lawful asylum-seeker process.

Some idiots don't want any immigration at all, which is stupid and wrong.
I think most people, right and left, are fine with lawful immigration, but would like to see all the illegal entrants kicked back across the border and told to do it right or not at all.

So I think it would be more accurate to say "allowing every illegal entrant and their nephew to stay in the USA while they seek asylum was not helpful." Or, more generally, "appearing soft on illegal immigration was not helpful."
Click to expand...
While I think that is mostly true there are enough folks who say that who are lying to poison the well for the rest that actually mean it.

Its also true that pretty much everyone that crossed illegally in the last 6 years was saying the magic words to get them the asylum seeker label. Its someone what naive to the think that means they were all legitimate asylum seekers. I do think the Bidens handling of immigration was less than helpful if for no other reason than it helped get Trump elected.
 
ahhell said:
Isn't there a requirement that they ask for asylum in the first safe country the get to?
Click to expand...
Per Disbelief's citation above, they seem to be required to present themselves to our authorities, even if entering illegally. Like, they don't have to ask for refuge in the first country that might still be dicey.

What I think many people viscerally object to is sneaking under the wire and just laying low as long as possible instead of at least making the attempt to do things on the up-and-up.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
I agree that in the long term, the democratic party would benefit from having younger politicians in their caucus.

However, they also have to consider the short term: taking back as many seats in congress. This may be a case where those 2 "priorities" are in conflict.

Unfortunately, unseating an incumbent like Collins is not an easy thing to do. You point to Platner and his "qualities" that would make him a good candidate. But Mills 1) has more political experience, so she has an idea how to speak to crowds, how to debate, etc., 2) Has much better name recognition, 3) probably has all their "skeletons" exposed already.
Click to expand...
The thing is the Dems have been fielding plenty of Mills' over the last few decades and they either turn out to be pathetically useless (a big part of the reason Collins is a senator despite being a TACO suck up who occasionally voices "concerns") or turn out to be turncoats who actively destroy the few good policies the party champion (think Sinema and Manchin).
Click to expand...
Before you criticize Manchin, keep in mind that he is a senator representing a deep-red state, that he probably only won because of his history in the state. I suspect that any other democrat (regardless of how young and dynamic they are) probably would have lost the state. Yeah, it sucks that he's not pushing back harder against republicans, but its the nature of the voting base in the state. And even though he's not as "left wing" as most people like, he is still closer to the average democrat's sensibility than any potential republican replacement. He voted to confirm Jackson on the supreme court, and he voted for the Inflation reduction act. (Given the widespread opposition within the GOP, it is likely that had the republicans held his seat, they would have voted against it.)

As for Sinema... you cannot claim she is some sort of "old centrist installed by leadership against the wishes of a left wing electorate" because 1) she was under 50, 2) she had the markings of a more "left wing" democrat (including spending part of her earlier career associated with the green party, and 3) said she would not support Schumer in a vote for party leadership. In other words, she checked all the boxes of what you seem to want in a party candidate. The fact that she ended up being an obstructionist seemed to come out of left field.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Democratic party's natural voter base is (at least in economic terms) significantly to the left of the party leadership
Click to expand...
Is the base really "to the left"?

People vote for a lot of reasons... some economic, some on social issues, some even on "fake" issues (i.e. not so much on reality but on what they are convinced is true.) Unlike the cult of the GOP, to me it seems like the Democrats have to manage a much wider group of voters...the "leftists" who want social programs, the environmentalists, minority and LGBTQ groups wanting better social justice in society, women wanting reproductive rights. Its like herding cats. And there is no guarantee that trying to appease voters who want one thing is not going to negatively affect voters who want OTHER things.

Hence why the party has been losing its core vote. Taking your core for granted and chasing after your opposition's voters by mimicking your opposition's policies is a losing strategy, yet the Dems have been doing it since at least the 90's and continue today.
Click to expand...
That's the claim... "centrism is driving extreme people away". But I think the reality is a lot more nuanced.

At least some of the "far left" are going to hopefully be smart enough to recognize that, despite the democratic leadership being more moderate than they want, voting for them is still better than the republican alternative. Plus, in any election, not only do you need to get people to vote for YOUR party, you also need to prevent people from voting for the other party. Catering to only those on the far left will not only lose the centrist votes (something you seem to be willing to do), but will also cause republicans to become more energized because they will see the need to stop "the radicals".

Oh, and by the way, remember this: From the 2000 presidential election and beyond, Republicans have only won a solid majority the popular vote once (that was under Bush.) Other times, Democrats have either won the election outright (Obama and Biden), won the popular vote but lost the electoral college (Gore and Clinton), or at least kept the republican from winning a majority of the popular vote (Harris). Pretty good for a "losing strategy".

The biggest problem for the Democrats is that politics are rigged against them... the electoral college favors idiots in largely rural (red) states, a lack of ethics on the part of republicans leads to gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the current supreme court (the best that money can buy), and pro-fascist news outlets like Fox News and Sinclair broadcasting do not have a left-wing equivalent.
 
Last edited:
Gaza significantly dampened the enthusiasm of youth and left. Inflation was blamed on the admin. that's pretty much it.
No one is as obsessed with trans people as the 5 or 6 people on this forum are, as it's not an issue that comes up much in day to day life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom