What did Democrats do wrong?

[Donal]

So...we're still at "It's good when Donal does it, but bad when he imagines that someone else did it to him"?

Do what? Present legitimate criticisms of the establishment Democrats to someone defending establishment Democrats? That's wrong?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Actually, I discussed some of it in the first two paragraphs of the post you just quoted. I pointed out that your strategy is to repeat a "shared chorus" of MAGA talking points to convince progressives not to vote, which results in giving power to the far right.

Just because I am pointing out that your strategy is self-defeating and logically broken does not mean I am "not discussing" it. It just means you do not like my assessment of it. I am interested in the actual results of the choices you are making, not in playing make-believe.

Nope, that great to hear it is gone now. Too bad.

 

[wareyin]

That has no bearing on the content of the request, nor does it excuse your feigned confusion about the object of that request.

That's quite rich. The beginning of the conversation had no bearing on what was being discussed?

Donal is whining about people "taking right-wing bait" and attacking their own party while he has spent years here doing that exact thing. When I pointed out that he is a living example of the behavior he claims to despise, he demanded I go on a scavenger hunt for an extremely small scope of left wing candidates on a Democratic ticket acting like him.

Calling it "feigned confusion" is a convenient way to ignore that Donal's request is a total non-sequitur. I am not "ignoring the object of the request." I am rejecting the idea that Donal's request was anything but a disingenuous attempt to pretend he should not be held to the standards he wants others held to. His actions are the "origination" of this conversation, and pointing out that he is doing the very thing he is criticizing is the definition of "bearing on the conversation." He does not get to move the goalposts to a "purity test" for the Democratic ticket just to avoid looking in the mirror.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

That's quite rich. The beginning of the conversation had no bearing on what was being discussed?

Donal is whining about people "taking right-wing bait" and attacking their own party while he has spent years here doing that exact thing. When I pointed out that he is a living example of the behavior he claims to despise, he demanded I go on a scavenger hunt for an extremely small scope of left wing candidates on a Democratic ticket acting like him.

Calling it "feigned confusion" is a convenient way to ignore that Donal's request is a total non-sequitur. I am not "ignoring the object of the request." I am rejecting the idea that Donal's request was anything but a disingenuous attempt to pretend he should not be held to the standards he wants others held to. His actions are the "origination" of this conversation, and pointing out that he is doing the very thing he is criticizing is the definition of "bearing on the conversation." He does not get to move the goalposts to a "purity test" for the Democratic ticket just to avoid looking in the mirror.

Since your ongoing beef with Donal seems to be impeding your ability to address the question, I'll ask it on my own, so we can hopefully disentangle the issues:

Do you have any examples of left-wing candidates or elected officials on the Democratic ticket who attack other Democratic factions the way moderate/centrist/conservative Democratic candidates and officials do?

 

[Donal]

You're building multiple strawmen. I'm telling you why certain people didn't come out for the Democrats in 2024 and then you're accusing me of causing it. You're shooting the messenger.

And no, I personally should not be held to the same standards as Nancy Pelosi, or Chuck Schumer, or Hakeem Jeffries, or Seth Moulton, or Tom Suozzi, or Kirsten Gillibrand, or John Fetterman, or Jay Jacobs, or anyone who has any actual position or power in the Democratic Party.

 

[wareyin]

You have to show me when I said that.

It's implicit in your entire argument. You are railing against "DINOs" for "throwing people under the bus" and "trashing the progressive wing," yet you are currently trashing the party and using Republican-lite rhetoric to do it. You are doing the exact thing you are highlighting as a failure in others. Unless you're also agreeing that you doing this is bad?

really? You want an example of the DCCC creating a rule to blacklist any vendor who works with a challenger in a primary after 2018? You need an example of Nancy Pelosi breaking her own rule to use caucus resources, like the House Majority PAC, and campaign in primaries? With the likes of Sam Bankman-Fried and Mark Andreesen? (I keep bringing that up as an example of how hilariously out of touch she is and how easy it was to see that backfiring.)

Here's DINO Representative Tom Suozzi using Republican talking points and throwing LGBTQ+ people under the bus and trashing the progressive wing. Here's DINO Representative Seth Moulton doing the same.

You're more upset with random people on Twitter than the folks who have the actual power.

I can't vote for Tom Suozzi or Seth Moulton. ◊◊◊◊ em and their anti-LGBTQ+ attitudes. I can't call up Nancy Pelosi and tell her to go back in time and be more welcoming to people challenging incumbents almost a decade ago. I can point out to you that you random people on the internet can and do have power. Honestly, if you think "random people" have no power, then why are you so vocal about your grievances with the Dems? Either your voice matters, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

 

[dirtywick]

you did

good catch i guess i did, thanks for pointing that out. i suppose your tiny insults went a little further back in the discussion than i thought.

No, that was not the discussion at all. I honestly can't fathom how you got so turned around. At no point anywhere in this thread was there any suggestion that Dems should not bother pursuing progressive voters. And outside of the progressive "if you won't give me everything then you're giving me nothing" attitude, there is no belief that the Dems did not pursue them.

One of us is certainly having trouble keeping track of the conversation, I see.

my understanding of it is breaking away from the left to pursue moderate right necessitates alienating progressives, who understandably reacted negatively to that. you call them fickle for doing so and i disagreed and thought it was pretty natural and predictable reaction.

 

[wareyin]

Since your ongoing beef with Donal seems to be impeding your ability to address the question, I'll ask it on my own, so we can hopefully disentangle the issues:

Do you have any examples of left-wing candidates or elected officials on the Democratic ticket who attack other Democratic factions the way moderate/centrist/conservative Democratic candidates and officials do?

Nice try on the "disentangling," but I am not interested in being your research assistant. I am refusing the premise of the question because it is a pivot designed to move the goalposts. Whether or not I provide a list of names that meets your criteria has no bearing on the actual point. You have constructed an absurdly narrow set of qualities where a person must be "left-wing" and must be an "elected official" and must be on the "Democratic ticket" all to avoid the reality of what is happening in this thread. Donal is currently doing the exact thing he claims is a strategy for failure. He is attacking a Democratic faction and repeating right-wing talking points while claiming to be "just a guy" with no impact.

If your argument is that this behavior is destructive when a "moderate" does it, then you have to explain why it is not destructive when you do it. Demanding I find examples that fit into your specific, tiny box is just a way to avoid answering for your own actions. I am interested in the actual results of the choices being made here, not in going on a wild goose chase to satisfy a distraction.

 

[Donal]

It's implicit in your entire argument.

Except I'm saying it to someone defending the establishment Dems. I'm not going to a bunch of fence sitters and doing this. where else should this discussion happen?

You are railing against "DINOs" for "throwing people under the bus" and "trashing the progressive wing," yet you are currently trashing the party and using Republican-lite rhetoric to do it.

where? Where did I use Republican-lite rhetoric?

You are doing the exact thing you are highlighting as a failure in others. Unless you're also agreeing that you doing this is bad?

I'm not doing it. I'm relaying information and you're having a tantrum.

I can't vote for Tom Suozzi or Seth Moulton. ◊◊◊◊ em and their anti-LGBTQ+ attitudes.

You can't vote for me either. And yet, you hold me to a higher standard.

I can't call up Nancy Pelosi and tell her to go back in time and be more welcoming to people challenging incumbents almost a decade ago.

You can at least acknowledge I'm right about all this. Even if you don't agree with the conclusion, the facts presented are pretty clear.

I can point out to you that you random people on the internet can and do have power.

More than elected officials? More than people who hold actual jobs in the party?

Honestly, if you think "random people" have no power, then why are you so vocal about your grievances with the Dems? Either your voice matters, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

But you can?

Also, if these "Random people" are so damn powerful, why don't you get on the Dems to do more to court them?

 

[wareyin]

good catch i guess i did, thanks for pointing that out. i suppose your tiny insults went a little further back in the discussion than i thought.

Or, and try to stay with me here, you've "misunderstood" a point a lot more in this discussion than you thought.

my understanding of it is breaking away from the left to pursue moderate right necessitates alienating progressives, who understandably reacted negatively to that. you call them fickle for doing so and i disagreed and thought it was pretty natural and predictable reaction.

Well, it's clear that this is your assumption. It's not so clear that it actually happened. It's also clear that you still don't quite understand what the word "fickle" means in the context of voters, and are disagreeing because of that confusion.


eta: let me point out that Donal, long time vocal critic of the Dems on this very thread, even admits in his most recent post that the Dems did court progressives, but complains about their lack of doing MORE to court them.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I can't vote for Tom Suozzi or Seth Moulton. ◊◊◊◊ em and their anti-LGBTQ+ attitudes.

Apparently, then, you understand and even approve of the notion that there can be deal-breakers for voters that can override any sort of party loyalty. You are sooo close to getting it.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Nice try on the "disentangling," but I am not interested in being your research assistant. I am refusing the premise of the question because it is a pivot designed to move the goalposts. Whether or not I provide a list of names that meets your criteria has no bearing on the actual point. You have constructed an absurdly narrow set of qualities where a person must be "left-wing" and must be an "elected official" and must be on the "Democratic ticket" all to avoid the reality of what is happening in this thread. Donal is currently doing the exact thing he claims is a strategy for failure. He is attacking a Democratic faction and repeating right-wing talking points while claiming to be "just a guy" with no impact.

If your argument is that this behavior is destructive when a "moderate" does it, then you have to explain why it is not destructive when you do it. Demanding I find examples that fit into your specific, tiny box is just a way to avoid answering for your own actions. I am interested in the actual results of the choices being made here, not in going on a wild goose chase to satisfy a distraction.

You could have just said: "No, I don't have any examples".

 

[lobosrul5]

I think the last couple of pages of this thread has allowed me to figure out "What did Democrats do wrong".

The GOP has become tribal: "The worst Republican is better than the best Democrat" is something I've heard from them many times.

The "democrats" are not this way. In order for the Democratic Party to defeat the GOP they need to appeal to almost everyone else. Clearly thats impossible. The candidates that would appeal to me, (several members) here would turn their noses up at. TBF the opposite is also, quite true. I despise Trump/Vance so much that I'd vote for a ham sandwich over them. But, thats clearly not the case for millions of people.

 

[wareyin]

Except I'm saying it to someone defending the establishment Dems. I'm not going to a bunch of fence sitters and doing this. where else should this discussion happen?


where? Where did I use Republican-lite rhetoric?

I'm not doing it. I'm relaying information and you're having a tantrum.

You can't vote for me either. And yet, you hold me to a higher standard.

You can at least acknowledge I'm right about all this. Even if you don't agree with the conclusion, the facts presented are pretty clear.

More than elected officials? More than people who hold actual jobs in the party?

But you can?

Also, if these "Random people" are so damn powerful, why don't you get on the Dems to do more to court them?

I'm not playing this death by a thousand cuts thing where you ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ break up a post to reply to each individual word and hide behind line breaks to avoid the central contradiction of your position.

You claim you aren't using "Republican-lite" rhetoric, but you are literally repeating their favorite "DINO" and "establishment" smears while claiming the party is "hilariously out of touch." That is the bait. You are taking it and then wondering why anyone would call you on it.

The idea that I am holding you to a "higher standard" than Nancy Pelosi is a joke. I am holding you to the standard you set. If trashing a wing of the party is bad, it is bad whether a Dem does it or you do it. You don't get a pass just because you aren't on a ballot.

As for "power," you are the one claiming your voice is important enough to be "vocal about grievances," yet you play the "I'm just a random person" card the moment you're called out for being destructive. You want your voice to matter when you're complaining, but you want it to be invisible when you're being held accountable for the noise you're making. Do you want to be a vocal critic or do you want to be too insignificant to be heard?

 

[dirtywick]

Or, and try to stay with me here, you've "misunderstood" a point a lot more in this discussion than you thought.

oh another tiny insult, great way to start.

Well, it's clear that this is your assumption. It's not so clear that it actually happened. It's also clear that you still don't quite understand what the word "fickle" means in the context of voters, and are disagreeing because of that confusion.

it’s my impression of how progressives feel about it and i think they have a point. how can you shift right to attract socially liberal fiscal conservative moderates without alienating progressives? kind of mutually exclusive on some things and i think that’s fair to say that

eta: let me point out that Donal, long time vocal critic of the Dems on this very thread, even admits in his most recent post that the Dems did court progressives, but complains about their lack of doing MORE to court them.

oh donal said that? well that changes everything

 

[plague311]

The "democrats" are not this way. In order for the Democratic Party to defeat the GOP they need to appeal to almost everyone else. Clearly thats impossible. The candidates that would appeal to me, (several members) here would turn their noses up at. TBF the opposite is also, quite true. I despise Trump/Vance so much that I'd vote for a ham sandwich over them. But, thats clearly not the case for millions of people.

That's the gist of what I was trying to say, but you said it better.

 

[Donal]

Eh, the Democrats have always been a circus. they are big tent after all.

Seriously, this sort of quarrelling isn't new at all. Go back and loo kat what FDR had to do. History professor Kevin Kruse describes the history of American politics in the 20th Century really about the evolution of the Democratic Party. By the time WWI ended, the Republicans were just there to be opposition.

 

[wareyin]

Apparently, then, you understand and even approve of the notion that there can be deal-breakers for voters that can override any sort of party loyalty. You are sooo close to getting it.

Ok, I am so close, so help me get there. What exactly did Harris do that was such a deal-breaker that you preferred Trump? How exactly did Tom Suozzi or Seth Moulton make you think Trump would be better for the country? Was Trump better for LGBTQ+ rights?

You could have just said: "No, I don't have any examples".

Actually, I could have said what I actually said.

The fact that I am not interested in your curated scavenger hunt does not mean your point is proven. It means your request is a distraction. Even if I posted hundreds of examples that fit your ridiculously tiny qualifications, it would not change the fact that Donal is currently doing the exact thing he claims is a strategy for failure. You are so focused on winning a trivia contest about left-wing officials that you are completely ignoring the hypocrisy happening right in front of you.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Ok, I am so close, so help me get there. What exactly did Harris do that was such a deal-breaker that you preferred Trump? How exactly did Tom Suozzi or Seth Moulton make you think Trump would be better for the country? Was Trump better for LGBTQ+ rights?

...aaaaand it's gone. To answer your questions: I have no idea why "We're not Trump" isn't enough to get 80% of the vote, but I'm at least smart enough to recognize after all this time that it isn't. You, like the Democratic leadership, apparently aren't.

 

[Donal]

I'm not playing this death by a thousand cuts thing where you ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ break up a post to reply to each individual word and hide behind line breaks to avoid the central contradiction of your position.

I'm giving each of your fallacies the individual attention it deserves

You claim you aren't using "Republican-lite" rhetoric, but you are literally repeating their favorite "DINO" and "establishment" smears while claiming the party is "hilariously out of touch." That is the bait. You are taking it and then wondering why anyone would call you on it.

That's not "Republican-lite" rhetoric. You have it backwards. Do Republicans appropriate language and talking points of their opposition? Yes. of course. But it doesn't invalidate the points originally raised.

The idea that I am holding you to a "higher standard" than Nancy Pelosi is a joke. I am holding you to the standard you set. If trashing a wing of the party is bad, it is bad whether a Dem does it or you do it. You don't get a pass just because you aren't on a ballot.

Can I get a pass because I'm not doing what you're claiming I am?

As for "power," you are the one claiming your voice is important enough to be "vocal about grievances," yet you play the "I'm just a random person" card the moment you're called out for being destructive. You want your voice to matter when you're complaining, but you want it to be invisible when you're being held accountable for the noise you're making. Do you want to be a vocal critic or do you want to be too insignificant to be heard?

Can we at least agree that the people in leadership positions within the Democratic Party have more influence on the actions of the Democratic Party than random people on social media?