What did Democrats do wrong?

[wareyin]

The party can never fail, only be failed.

View attachment 68767

If you ever want things to get better, you need to understand how things got this bad in the first place. It wasn't this single election that broke everything.

[ETA] Here, I'll start. Rep Henry Cuellar, D, TX. This MFer is a pile of red flags stuffed into a business suit. Everything about him is something Democrats needed to stop doing about two decades ago. He's anti-abortion. He's pro-ICE. He was convicted of money laundering and bribery, and then pardoned by Trump.

Yet, despite all that, the day after the SCOTUS overturned Roe v Wade, Nancy Pelosi flew out to campaign for him against his primary opponent. Who lost by a few hundred votes. After that he sailed into office because he's in a gerrymandered blue district, he's no Manchin where anything of value might have been lost.

This is what people see their Democrat leadership actively protecting. Hopefully I don't have to go into detail about how astoundingly goddamn stupid optics like that are.

In your picture, the children are the ones who elected Trump. Yes, they are wrong to have done that, and it's frankly amazing to me that some folks STILL, as ICE is murdering US citizens in the streets, are saying it's the Democrats fault that voters couldn't be convinced to prevent that.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

In your picture, the children are the ones who elected Trump. Yes, they are wrong to have done that, and it's frankly amazing to me that some folks STILL, as ICE is murdering US citizens in the streets, are saying it's the Democrats fault that voters couldn't be convinced to prevent that.

Losing to Mango Mussolini a second time, is their fault, yes. As for ICE murdering US citizens, seven Democrats recently voted with their Republican colleagues across the aisle to ensure it continued. They aren't willing to stand up for their constituents even now, when it costs them almost nothing, why should voters expect that will change?

Here. Let's have a positive take. Assume this next election goes however you'd like. Dems get whatever majority you feel they need. Realistically, what will happen? What specific legislation do you think they will propose? What's the blue Project 2025? Do they already have those bills written out and ready to go? Because they really should. With an issue like codifying abortion rights, what kind of majority do we need? How many turncoats are there? "Vote harder" doesn't work when just enough of the people you voted harder for decide to trollface and kill your motivating legislation. Fool me... I've honestly lost count at this point.

 

[Tero]

We made fun of them. They were offended. Still are.

 

[johnny karate]

Losing to Mango Mussolini a second time, is their fault, yes. As for ICE murdering US citizens, seven Democrats recently voted with their Republican colleagues across the aisle to ensure it continued. They aren't willing to stand up for their constituents even now, when it costs them almost nothing, why should voters expect that will change?

Democrats not doing enough now to stop Trump and Democrats not sufficiently convincing voters to not vote for Trump are two very different things.

Feckless establishment Democrats are absolutely failing to meet this moment.

But millions of voters actively chose this last year. That’s on them.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Feckless establishment Democrats are absolutely failing to meet this moment.

But millions of voters actively chose this last year. That’s on them.

Agreed on both points, there's enough blame to go around.

If Americans weren't so stupid the Democrats being the least bad option wouldn't be a problem. But they genuinely are, and it genuinely is.

 

[wareyin]

Losing to Mango Mussolini a second time, is their fault, yes.

No, that one is 100% on the voters. If you needed to be convinced to prevent Trump 2.0 after not being able to buy toilet paper and the insurrection attempt and the felonies and him flat out telling you he would be a dictator if he got in again, that is a "you" problem, not the fault of the people who tried to convince you.

As for ICE murdering US citizens, seven Democrats recently voted with their Republican colleagues across the aisle to ensure it continued. They aren't willing to stand up for their constituents even now, when it costs them almost nothing, why should voters expect that will change?

Here. Let's have a positive take. Assume this next election goes however you'd like. Dems get whatever majority you feel they need. Realistically, what will happen? What specific legislation do you think they will propose? What's the blue Project 2025? Do they already have those bills written out and ready to go? Because they really should. With an issue like codifying abortion rights, what kind of majority do we need? How many turncoats are there? "Vote harder" doesn't work when just enough of the people you voted harder for decide to trollface and kill your motivating legislation. Fool me... I've honestly lost count at this point.

I’ve been active in the US Politics section here for over a decade and I can't recall you ever saying one positive thing about a Democrat. If you have spent years calling them failures, how can you claim you were "fooled"? You didn't believe in them to begin with.

As for the ICE vote, you are damning a caucus of over 200 because of the actions of 7 centrists. Most of the party is fighting for the Women’s Health Protection Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. These aren't just ideas. The bills are already written and sitting in committee. They don't have the numbers to pass them because they are in the minority.

The reason there is no "blue Project 2025" is simple. It is easy to make a plan to break everything, but much harder to fix it. Democrats are a big tent with a lot of voices, but they have a clear platform: codifying Roe, protecting Social Security, and raising the minimum wage. The reason those aren't law isn't "trolling," it is the math. Blaming the people who actually tried to stop the current situation while you heckled them from the sidelines is not a winning strategy, unless your strategy is to burn it all down and damn the consequences.

 

[TomB]

I get where you're coming from... but I'm not sure I agree. Bear in mind that immigration violations ARE crimes, and that's already documented. If someone is in your house without your permission, why should you have to wait until they punch you before you evict them? While it's certainly *nice* of us to grant those illegal aliens all the same privileges of a citizen, in truth they aren't required to go through the entirety of the criminal courts before they can be detained and/or deported. The reality is that a nice hard-working visa overstay who has never even received a parking ticket can be deported because they are present in the country illegally.

Sure. but on the basis of the visa overstay, not the parking ticket.

You are kind of mixing two concepts here.
Illegal aliens with criminal offenses (other than immigration) does not include those "suspected" or "charged" with an offense. If you are splitting the detained into those with offenses and those without, the correct number is 74%.

It speaks not to the deportability, but to enforcement priority.

My objective in referencing the 47% is that those are people for whom no criminal activity is known or suspected - for all intents those are your 'honest' illegals. And I'm curious how many of those were tantamount to visa overstays as I mentioned above, as opposed to the immediate family of someone in the 53% convicted or charged.

Don't think "charged" to be the same as convicted, so I don't sort them into the same data bin.

The "immediate family," may be an explanation as to how they came into contact with authorities who were prioritizing people with convictions, under the idea of: "We weren't targeting them but came across them during another operation" type of thing. So I'll give you that.

Imagine a scenario where one member of a 5 person family is a convicted criminal, but all 5 of them are here illegally. The one, Alex, gets picked up based on their criminal past. Which do you prefer: 1) Alex gets deported, but the other 4 members of Alex's family get to stay here even though they're here illegally, thus separating families? Or 2) Alex and their whole family get deported together.

This gets a bit fuzzy because the definition of "here illegally" seems to have changed to include people who came here via legal means who are going through procedures to determine their status. (Or who have come forward and entered a process to legitimize their status.) The administration has effectively redefined some people's status from legal to illegal.

If Alex gets deported, but other family members are in a process, leaving or not should be a family choice. If, say, a child is a citizen, they should not be automatically deported with the parents. Rather, the parents should be given time and resources to make arrangements is so desired. (I would also be sympathetic to an expedited process to allow family members to return legally.)

Now, I have a little bit of a different perspective. My wife's ex-husband came here illegally in the 1970s. After they got married, they drove to Canada and re-entered the country legally. He's now a citizen (law abiding, to my knowledge). I don't particularly like the guy, but that has nothing to do with immigration. Anyway, my (non-hispanic) wife has first-hand knowledge of the Hispanic community in Chicago. When she tells me the administration is full of ◊◊◊◊, I believe her.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

No, that one is 100% on the voters. If you needed to be convinced to prevent Trump 2.0 after not being able to buy toilet paper and the insurrection attempt and the felonies and him flat out telling you he would be a dictator if he got in again, that is a "you" problem, not the fault of the people who tried to convince you.

The same voters who are going to be voting next election. That's the issue. You might say it's their fault, but it's still your problem. Democrats still have to get elected. They have to get those same people to change their minds. If they don't know why the non-fascist voters are disengaged to the point where even a dictator as ◊◊◊◊ as this one can seize power, that's something that is their fault, because successfully convincing voters that they are worthy of support is literally their job.

I’ve been active in the US Politics section here for over a decade and I can't recall you ever saying one positive thing about a Democrat. If you have spent years calling them failures, how can you claim you were "fooled"? You didn't believe in them to begin with.

Your recall is crap. Democratic representatives as a whole are good people. It's the leadership who have their heads up their asses.

 

[wareyin]

The same voters who are going to be voting next election. That's the issue. You might say it's their fault, but it's still your problem. Democrats still have to get elected. They have to get those same people to change their minds. If they don't know why the non-fascist voters are disengaged to the point where even a dictator as ◊◊◊◊ as this one can seize power, that's something that is their fault, because successfully convincing voters that they are worthy of support is literally their job.


Your recall is crap. Democratic representatives as a whole are good people. It's the leadership who have their heads up their asses.

My recall of this page has you condemning the entire party based on 7 centrists, but now you've swapped to "as a whole are good people" after being called out. Ok.

As for it being their "job" to convince people, Democrats are currently forced to fight a two front war: one against a dictator and one against accelerationists and purity testers on the left who either want it all to burn down or don't care if it all burns down as long as they get to pretend to be morally superior. It's easy to sit back and play critic, but unless you are actually happy with the ◊◊◊◊ dictator we have now, this is your problem too. It won't be solved by hamstringing the Dems. Voters aren't customers who can sit back and wait for a better sales pitch or return their purchase for a full refund if not 100% satisfied. They have to live with the results of their choice. We ALL have to live with the results of their choice, so we can damn well give them the agency to own their choice.

 

[Donal]

Wait...who are the accelerationists? What influence do thy actually have? Is it more or less than the donors running the centrists?

 

[wareyin]

Wait...who are the accelerationists? What influence do thy actually have? Is it more or less than the donors running the centrists?

The accelerationists are the folks lobbing molotovs from the left because the Dems aren't pure enough or left enough. These short sighted children are happy to help MAGA win because they can't understand that hurting the party closest to their ideal only helps the party furthest from it. Hope that helps.

 

[Donal]

Yes, but who are they? Can you give an example? What influence do they hold?

 

[wareyin]

Yes, but who are they? Can you give an example? What influence do they hold?

"They" are the social media agitators and influencers who spam "Dems must earn my vote" or "both sides are the same" while a dictator is in office. You don't need a single leader’s name to see their influence. In the key swing states that decided the election, the number of people who stayed home or voted for third party spoilers was larger than the margin of victory. The "name" and the influence are the same: the Margin of Defeat.

Just because these people are anonymous on TikTok or Reddit doesn't mean their impact isn't real. They are doing the work of hostile foreign bot farms for free by convincing voters not to vote for the only party that could have defeated the dictator. If you're waiting for a signed confession before you acknowledge that this "purity or bust" theater helped MAGA win, you aren't looking for an answer. You're just trying to pretend that people who couldn't stop themselves from telling everyone why they shouldn't vote for Dems had no effect on the number of people who chose not to vote for Dems.

 

[Donal]

So, do they have more influence than the donors and consultants who tell the Democrats not to move forward on issues that the majority support? Do you think they did more damage to Harris in 2024 than AIPAC or the consultants who told her to move right?

 

[bruto]

"They" are the social media agitators and influencers who spam "Dems must earn my vote" or "both sides are the same" while a dictator is in office. You don't need a single leader’s name to see their influence. In the key swing states that decided the election, the number of people who stayed home or voted for third party spoilers was larger than the margin of victory. The "name" and the influence are the same: the Margin of Defeat.

Just because these people are anonymous on TikTok or Reddit doesn't mean their impact isn't real. They are doing the work of hostile foreign bot farms for free by convincing voters not to vote for the only party that could have defeated the dictator. If you're waiting for a signed confession before you acknowledge that this "purity or bust" theater helped MAGA win, you aren't looking for an answer. You're just trying to pretend that people who couldn't stop themselves from telling everyone why they shouldn't vote for Dems had no effect on the number of people who chose not to vote for Dems.

I almost agree. Certainly a lot of the fault goes to those who are so far from the center, or so set on their beliefs, that they perceive no useful difference between sides, and it may well be their fault for lost elections. It's a hard attitude to change, too, if you believe it is true. I do not think it is true, because pure ideals and doctrines rarely, if ever, correspond to practical reality. And I certainly condemn people whose purity of ideals makes them agents of accelerated defeat. Martyrdom can be an admirable trait, but only when it's not imposed on others.

But here in these forums we see a great deal of "both-side-ism" coming not from the left but from the right. I think at least some of the blame should go to those who, in their "both sides are the same" delusion, vote for the worse, whether as a gesture, for some issues they consider worth any price, or simply to get on the bandwagon.

So yes, I think much of the blame goes where you assign it, perhaps enough to tip the balance, but there's plenty more blame to be had!

 

[wareyin]

So, do they have more influence than the donors and consultants who tell the Democrats not to move forward on issues that the majority support? Do you think they did more damage to Harris in 2024 than AIPAC or the consultants who told her to move right?

Whatever influence donors or consultants had is irrelevant now. The Democratic Party is out of power. By helping the Democrats lose, accelerationists didn't defeat the consultants, they helped MAGA move us backward on every issue those accelerationists pretend to care about. It is absurd to complain about a lack of progress while you were busy making sure the party had no power to do anything at all.

 

[Donal]

So, the voters were wrong for not liking the party? The party doesn't bare any responsibility for maybe its own bad decisions? I'm not sure how the continuing influence of donors and consultants is irrelevant. You're parroting their talking points.

Also, a lot of those donors also donate to the Republicans. Do you think maybe that's a bigger problem than people complaining on TikTok?

 

[wareyin]

I almost agree. Certainly a lot of the fault goes to those who are so far from the center, or so set on their beliefs, that they perceive no useful difference between sides, and it may well be their fault for lost elections. It's a hard attitude to change, too, if you believe it is true. I do not think it is true, because pure ideals and doctrines rarely, if ever, correspond to practical reality. And I certainly condemn people whose purity of ideals makes them agents of accelerated defeat. Martyrdom can be an admirable trait, but only when it's not imposed on others.

But here in these forums we see a great deal of "both-side-ism" coming not from the left but from the right. I think at least some of the blame should go to those who, in their "both sides are the same" delusion, vote for the worse, whether as a gesture, for some issues they consider worth any price, or simply to get on the bandwagon.

So yes, I think much of the blame goes where you assign it, perhaps enough to tip the balance, but there's plenty more blame to be had!

I agree that both-sider-ism isn't unique to the left or the right. It's the same script used for two different ends. For the right, it’s a tactic to suppress the opposition. They don't actually believe it, but they’re happy to amplify it because it helps them win.

The accelerationists on the left are a different problem because they actually believe the rhetoric. They take a bad faith argument and turn it into a "pure" moral stance, effectively doing the opposition’s work for free. You can't change the mind of a dishonest actor on the right, but the trick is to get those accelerationists to realize that they are hurting their own goals, since they obviously don't care that they are hurting other people.

 

[wareyin]

So, the voters were wrong for not liking the party? The party doesn't bare any responsibility for maybe its own bad decisions? I'm not sure how the continuing influence of donors and consultants is irrelevant. You're parroting their talking points.

Also, a lot of those donors also donate to the Republicans. Do you think maybe that's a bigger problem than people complaining on TikTok?

Which specific "bad decision" by the Dems made you believe that MAGA was better for the country? Do you believe voters bear zero responsibility for their own choices? If the party was "wrong" for its decisions, in what way were voters "correct" to choose the side that is currently dismantling the issues you claim to care about?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

One more bad decision was probably assuming that there were a few Republicans with a conscience and who actually believe in their purported support of the constitution and democracy who they could work with to stop obvious excesses by a senile dictator wannabe.
Clearly that was a stupid thing to assume.