What did Democrats do wrong?

[Brainster]

"Shoosh you serfs, we will tell you who your leader will be. It's not up to you rabble to have a say in who makes decisions on your behalf"

Not quite as freedom-loving and democracy-valuing as I would hope.

Letting the rabble make the decision turned the Republican Party over to Donald Trump. I think both parties should consider going back to the system as it existed prior to 1972, where the primaries weren't the end of the nominating contest, but the beginning. This would work to moderate the candidates.

 

[wareyin]

I dunno. I suppose registered Dems can decided to do whatever the hell they want. But for a party that is supposedly taking a stance against tyranny, dictators, and fascism and says that they value democracy, this seems kind of like going in the wrong direction.

I'll also say that from the perspective of a registered independent with no party loyalty... It really seems like the Dems forced Clinton on voters because it was "her turn". Biden was actually the front-runner in a real primary without a lot of shenanigans, and won. Prior to 2024, the dems really should have just had a candid sit-down with Biden and refused to back them, because he was unfit. The "Oh he's smart as a tack, don't look behind the curtain" paired with the last-minute drop out and "Oh, here you can have Harris!" despite Harris not having been a strong candidate in the prior run was just bad strategy all around - and I think it made a whole lot of dems and a lot of independents sit out. And that resulted in Trump again.

Don't do that ◊◊◊◊ to us again, please.

For someone taking the rather silly stance that a lack of a primary is akin to "tyranny, dictatorship, and facism," it is a wild take to then admit you’re an independent who doesn't even participate in them (as most states have closed primaries). You’re complaining about the menu of a restaurant you refuse to step foot in.

Clinton wasn't "forced" on anyone. She won the popular vote and the pledged delegates because Democratic voters showed up and chose her. If you wanted a different candidate to represent you but didn't show up to vote for them, that’s not a failure of the establishment, that’s on you.

Democracy requires more than just sitting on the sidelines and lobbing critiques. If you want a candidate that represents you, then get off your ass, join a party, and vote in a primary. If you’re just going to sit out and let everyone else do the work of picking a candidate for you, your claims that primaries are the be all and end all of democracy ring hollow.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

it is a wild take to then admit you’re an independent who doesn't even participate in them (as most states have closed primaries).

Checking on this, I learned that 20 US states have open primaries, while 8 more have semi-open primaries, in which voters registered as independent can vote in any primary, but voters who registered by declaring a political party can vote only in that party's primaries. So, in a slight majority of states, registered independents can vote in primaries.

 

[wareyin]

Checking on this, I learned that 20 US states have open primaries, while 8 more have semi-open primaries, in which voters registered as independent can vote in any primary, but voters who registered by declaring a political party can vote only in that party's primaries. So, in a slight majority of states, registered independents can vote in primaries.

I think that by "declaring a political party" one is no longer an independent though.

 

[Segnosaur]

I dunno. I suppose registered Dems can decided to do whatever the hell they want. But for a party that is supposedly taking a stance against tyranny, dictators, and fascism and says that they value democracy, this seems kind of like going in the wrong direction.

Again, that's really dumb logic. If a person truly thinks "I don't like the fact that the Dems didn't run a full primary under questionable circumstances so I will vote for a guy who openly wants to destroy democracy", I doubt there was much chance of them voting Democrat in the first place.

However "undemocratic" someone thinks the selection of Harris was as Democratic leader, it pales in comparison with the republican candidate, who tried to overthrow the previous election and had ties to the pro-fascist Project 2025. They just want to use the lack of a full democratic primary to justify their pro-fascist vote.

(Same goes if they decided to either sit out, or vote for a 3rd party, since the threat posed by Trump was significant enough that everyone should have been behind the democrats..)

I'll also say that from the perspective of a registered independent with no party loyalty... It really seems like the Dems forced Clinton on voters because it was "her turn".

You see, this is the type of crap that I was talking about.

Overall, Clinton was a good candidate. Had a background in law, served as both a senator AND in Obama's cabinet. Long time member of the Democratic party. Her chief rival was Sanders, a man who wasn't even a member of the Democratic party for most of his political life. The fact that Democratic voters might have thought "Hey, lets vote for someone who we know we can work with rather than this outsider who is trying to hijack the party" seems like a strange idea to some people.

Yet somehow this gets morphed into "She only got in because it was 'her turn'". No, she was picked because lots of people in the Democratic party liked her.

Had the Democrats held a primary and Harris won (which she likely would have), you'd have the same sort of claims of "shenanigans".

Prior to 2024, the dems really should have just had a candid sit-down with Biden and refused to back them, because he was unfit.

Except of course prior to the election debate disaster, there wasn't really strong evidence that "biden was unfit".

Yes, Biden was old. Yes, he was not quite the candidate he had been in previous elections. But, he had also shown that he could also be a decent candidate/politician.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Again, that's really dumb logic. If a person truly thinks "I don't like the fact that the Dems didn't run a full primary under questionable circumstances so I will vote for a guy who openly wants to destroy democracy", I doubt there was much chance of them voting Democrat in the first place.

However "undemocratic" someone thinks the selection of Harris was as Democratic leader, it pales in comparison with the republican candidate, who tried to overthrow the previous election and had ties to the pro-fascist Project 2025. They just want to use the lack of a full democratic primary to justify their pro-fascist vote.

(Same goes if they decided to either sit out, or vote for a 3rd party, since the threat posed by Trump was significant enough that everyone should have been behind the democrats..)


You see, this is the type of crap that I was talking about.

Overall, Clinton was a good candidate. Had a background in law, served as both a senator AND in Obama's cabinet. Long time member of the Democratic party. Her chief rival was Sanders, a man who wasn't even a member of the Democratic party for most of his political life. The fact that Democratic voters might have thought "Hey, lets vote for someone who we know we can work with rather than this outsider who is trying to hijack the party" seems like a strange idea to some people.

Yet somehow this gets morphed into "She only got in because it was 'her turn'". No, she was picked because lots of people in the Democratic party liked her.

Had the Democrats held a primary and Harris won (which she likely would have), you'd have the same sort of claims of "shenanigans".


Except of course prior to the election debate disaster, there wasn't really strong evidence that "biden was unfit".

Yes, Biden was old. Yes, he was not quite the candidate he had been in previous elections. But, he had also shown that he could also be a decent candidate/politician.

Can't tell you how much I absolutely LOVE you giving me a load of crap about this, while completely ignoring the bottom line and pretending it doesn't exist:

and I think it made a whole lot of dems and a lot of independents sit out. And that resulted in Trump again.

Don't do that ◊◊◊◊ to us again, please.

 

[wareyin]

Can't tell you how much I absolutely LOVE you giving me a load of crap about this, while completely ignoring the bottom line and pretending it doesn't exist:

Please reread his first 3 paragraphs that you just quoted, as that very much directly responded to your "made a whole lot of dems and independents sit out" take.

 

[Segnosaur]

Can't tell you how much I absolutely LOVE you giving me a load of crap about this, while completely ignoring the bottom line and pretending it doesn't exist:
and I think it made a whole lot of dems and a lot of independents sit out. And that resulted in Trump again.

You are right, I didn't bother responding to the last lines in your post. That's because, as wareyin pointed out, I already addressed the issue earlier in my post.

The exact comments I made were:
If a person truly thinks "I don't like the fact that the Dems didn't run a full primary under questionable circumstances so I will vote for a guy who openly wants to destroy democracy", I doubt there was much chance of them voting Democrat in the first place....They just want to use the lack of a full democratic primary to justify their pro-fascist vote. (Same goes if they decided to either sit out or vote for a third party)

You have failed to do 3 things:
- Provide any evidence that the lack of primary CAUSED people to change their voting patterns, in a way that actually impacted the election, rather than just give people an excuse for doing something they were always going to do

- If there were people who changed their vote because "no primary", it caused the democrats to lose more support than how much they would have lost through things like: less money available for ad campaigns in the general election, or damages to the eventual candidate's reputation

- Proved that all those people who criticized democrats for lack of a primary would have been satisfied with the results of an ad hoc primary arranged after Biden's withdrawal.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You are right, I didn't bother responding to the last lines in your post. That's because, as wareyin pointed out, I already addressed the issue earlier in my post.

The exact comments I made were:
If a person truly thinks "I don't like the fact that the Dems didn't run a full primary under questionable circumstances so I will vote for a guy who openly wants to destroy democracy", I doubt there was much chance of them voting Democrat in the first place....They just want to use the lack of a full democratic primary to justify their pro-fascist vote. (Same goes if they decided to either sit out or vote for a third party)

You have failed to do 3 things:
- Provide any evidence that the lack of primary CAUSED people to change their voting patterns, in a way that actually impacted the election, rather than just give people an excuse for doing something they were always going to do

- If there were people who changed their vote because "no primary", it caused the democrats to lose more support than how much they would have lost through things like: less money available for ad campaigns in the general election, or damages to the eventual candidate's reputation

- Proved that all those people who criticized democrats for lack of a primary would have been satisfied with the results of an ad hoc primary arranged after Biden's withdrawal.

I know what your comment was. That was my point - voting for trump because the dems didn't have a primary is not at all the same as sitting out the election because they didn't like Harris being shoved down their throat without any say in the matter.

I can't prove it, but given the reduction in the number of voters in 2024 was relatively close to the reduction in the number of DEM votes that Biden got in 2020, but the number of votes that Trump got in both 2020 and 2024 were about the same, it seems like a pretty reasonable assumption to say that a lot of people who voted Dem in 2020 did not vote in 2024.

 

[arthwollipot]

It really saddens me that people will make the choice to not vote, and then complain that all the other people picked someone they don't like.

 

[johnny karate]

It really saddens me that people will make the choice to not vote, and then complain that all the other people picked someone they don't like.

And then blame other people for their own laziness and complacency.

 

[johnny karate]

I know what your comment was. That was my point - voting for trump because the dems didn't have a primary is not at all the same as sitting out the election because they didn't like Harris being shoved down their throat without any say in the matter.

I can't prove it, but given the reduction in the number of voters in 2024 was relatively close to the reduction in the number of DEM votes that Biden got in 2020, but the number of votes that Trump got in both 2020 and 2024 were about the same, it seems like a pretty reasonable assumption to say that a lot of people who voted Dem in 2020 did not vote in 2024.

And every single one of those people is an infantile subnormal who bears responsibility for where we are today.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

If anyone is to blame.

1. Maybe Biden should not have run for a second term to begin with.
2. Maybe Democrats should have acted sooner to persuade him to drop out (a good 8 to 10 months sooner at that).
3. Maybe having a better Vice President would have softened the blow of him being forced out later.
4. Maybe the Democrats should have been less hesitant to choose a better pair of candidates.

Once it got to July 2024, it's quite possible Harris was the only logical choice given the circumstances. But it's still the fault of the Party at large for not identifying or resolving these issues when they had ample time to work things out.

People that only blame voters - calling them lazy, infantile, sub-normal - for not turning out to vote when the party and the candidates had a cascade of screw ups, IMO are just looking for a scapegoat rather than a solution. Maybe a little more focus on solutions would help the party regain its credibility and motivate the base to turn out in higher numbers. If you want the turnout, you need voter enthusiasm and you need to have them believe your party stands for them.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The buck stops with the voters

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Sure, but it's also on the political parties to motivate that turn out. Run a weak enough candidate, and pair it with the USA's defacto two-party system where a percentage of ones' base view neither choice as anything other than rubbish.... and this is one of the potential outcomes you can expect. The Republican Party was in a very similar situation 14 years ago, and arguably again 6 years ago.

Conversely, if they can resolve those issues sufficiently there's no reason to think future elections can't improve on the previous one.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

those are some fundamental misconception that people desperately need to unlearn:

- if I need to buy one of two products on offer, I should, as an initial instinct, reject the one with the better advertising and presentation: if they spend so much effort on presentation, they probably don't put enough work into actually making a good product. And to you have to pay extra for the ads without getting something better. It is up to you as a rational consumer to find out what the two products actually do before making a buying decision.

- if you have one weak candidate trying to make things better, and a strong candidate trying to make things worse, the decision should not hinge on who's the Stronger Candidate: it's what they want to do with their respective strength.
Harris being seen as weak is actually another argument against voting for Trump, since she probably wouldn't have been able to push the country very far into a direction you don't want. Whereas Trump said what he was going to do, and we had every reason to assume that he would do it, legal or not.

It is always the voters' fault, and you should distrust anyone who tells you any different.

 

[johnny karate]

If anyone is to blame.

1. Maybe Biden should not have run for a second term to begin with.
2. Maybe Democrats should have acted sooner to persuade him to drop out (a good 8 to 10 months sooner at that).
3. Maybe having a better Vice President would have softened the blow of him being forced out later.
4. Maybe the Democrats should have been less hesitant to choose a better pair of candidates.

Once it got to July 2024, it's quite possible Harris was the only logical choice given the circumstances. But it's still the fault of the Party at large for not identifying or resolving these issues when they had ample time to work things out.

People that only blame voters - calling them lazy, infantile, sub-normal - for not turning out to vote when the party and the candidates had a cascade of screw ups, IMO are just looking for a scapegoat rather than a solution. Maybe a little more focus on solutions would help the party regain its credibility and motivate the base to turn out in higher numbers. If you want the turnout, you need voter enthusiasm and you need to have them believe your party stands for them.

Yes, the problem with Democratic Party is that it needs to “regain its credibility” with voters people who didn’t feel properly enthused to vote against conspiracy theories, anti-vaxxerism, and gutter racism.

Re-upping my claim that anyone who couldn’t be bothered to do their civic duty because they didn’t have sufficient “enthusiasm” is an infantile subnormal.

Let’s see if anyone can refute it with something other than indignation.

 

[johnny karate]

Sure, but it's also on the political parties to motivate that turn out. Run a weak enough candidate, and pair it with the USA's defacto two-party system where a percentage of ones' base view neither choice as anything other than rubbish.... and this is one of the potential outcomes you can expect. The Republican Party was in a very similar situation 14 years ago, and arguably again 6 years ago.

Conversely, if they can resolve those issues sufficiently there's no reason to think future elections can't improve on the previous one.

The Republican Party was never in this situation because they weren’t running against unhinged lunatics with policies explicitly designed to make America worse off.

That you keep want to wedge the 2024 election within the parameters of normal politics is insane.

 

[Segnosaur]

You are right, I didn't bother responding to the last lines in your post. That's because, as wareyin pointed out, I already addressed the issue earlier in my post.

The exact comments I made were:
If a person truly thinks "I don't like the fact that the Dems didn't run a full primary under questionable circumstances so I will vote for a guy who openly wants to destroy democracy", I doubt there was much chance of them voting Democrat in the first place....They just want to use the lack of a full democratic primary to justify their pro-fascist vote. (Same goes if they decided to either sit out or vote for a third party)

You have failed to do 3 things:
- Provide any evidence that the lack of primary CAUSED people to change their voting patterns, in a way that actually impacted the election, rather than just give people an excuse for doing something they were always going to do

- If there were people who changed their vote because "no primary", it caused the democrats to lose more support than how much they would have lost through things like: less money available for ad campaigns in the general election, or damages to the eventual candidate's reputation

- Proved that all those people who criticized democrats for lack of a primary would have been satisfied with the results of an ad hoc primary arranged after Biden's withdrawal.

I know what your comment was. That was my point - voting for trump because the dems didn't have a primary is not at all the same as sitting out the election because they didn't like Harris being shoved down their throat without any say in the matter.

First of all, the US is (functionally) a 2 party system. Not voting for Harris shows either support for Trump, or at least apathy to his racist/fascist tendencies if they didn't vote..

And a person who claims "I didn't vote at all because "no primary" then they are likely politically detached and likely would not have voted in the first place, and just wanted to use the primaries issue as a post-hoc justification for letting a fascist into power.

I can't prove it...

That's an understatement.

I have seen the result of various opinion polls and focus groups. Lots of people voted against the democrats (or didn't vote at all) based on the Democrat's support of Israel, or because the electoral college made some think their 'vote didn't matter'. What I haven't seen is is any polls or focus group with anyone saying "i would have voted democrat but they didn't have a primary".

For example: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/13/why-eligible-voters-did-not-vote

...but given the reduction in the number of voters in 2024 was relatively close to the reduction in the number of DEM votes that Biden got in 2020, but the number of votes that Trump got in both 2020 and 2024 were about the same, it seems like a pretty reasonable assumption to say that a lot of people who voted Dem in 2020 did not vote in 2024.

Umm... no.

There were several things that happened before and during the 2024 election... the spike in inflation, the Israel/Gaza conflict. Those reasons seem more than reasonable enough to have caused the Democrat's support to drop.

 

[d4m10n]

since Biden withdrew rather late into the election cycle, the Democrats would have had to alter the primary process

IIRC, OP poll didn't have an option which included this as a strategic political mistake, i.e. Biden should have withdrawn much earlier to make room for a traditional competitive selection process.

And I am sure that whatever they did, the MAGAchud would still find a reason to complain.

This thread isn't about them, or at least it wasn't intended to be, despite nearly constant efforts to redirect the discussion.

Any mistakes made by the Democratic Party were about either failing to win over swing voters or failing to activate their own base.

Hardcore MAGA folks already knew for whom they'd be pulling the lever.