What did Democrats do wrong?

[Reformed Offlian]

Even after their efforts helped elect Trump, and the mechanics of how that happened are explained, some self proclaimed progressives still want to keep helping MAGA destroy any hope of achieving progressive goals. If the goal is to prevent a total Republican stranglehold on all three branches of government, then spending every waking hour attacking the only opponents they have is obviously counterproductive. If the goal is to elect MAGA, keep doing what you're doing.

Equating criticism with thoughtcrime and betrayal is full-on dystopian ◊◊◊◊.

I liked you better when I thought you were just being evasive.

 

[wareyin]

Equating criticism with thoughtcrime and betrayal is full-on dystopian ◊◊◊◊.

I liked you better when I thought you were just being evasive.

I don't care whether or not you like me. I just want you to stop trying to get more MAGA elected.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I don't care whether or not you like me. I just want you to stop trying to get more MAGA elected.

No, but you should care whether people like the political status quo you defend. You are not going to win votes by telling people that they are not welcome to speak their mind, that you are not only uninterested in what they have to say, but of the opinion that they ought not say it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

I don't think the Dems are any less tribal. "Blue no matter who" is a pretty common refrain. At the end of the day, both parties are intensely tribal and neither of them is really focused on the well being of the country and citizens as much as they ought to be.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I mean, sure, kinda. But I also think that being opposition to the Dixiecrats was sort of a good thing.

 

[Donal]

You and I have different definitions of "opposition".

 

[wareyin]

You're not explaining anything. You're just asserting stuff in an argument with strawmen.

It's not a strawman, it's a description of how a two party system functions. At the national level, and in almost every state level elected position above mayor, there are only two parties with a viable path to being elected.

When you have a binary choice, any effort spent damaging one option inherently benefits the other. This isn't an assertion of feelings, it's an explanation of the mechanics.

By spending 24/7 amplifying DINO grievances and trashing the only party that opposes MAGA, you're actively trying to suppress voter turnout. You're creating the intellectual cover for people to stay home, which increases the odds of a MAGA victory. If the goal is to prevent a total Republican stranglehold on government, this strategy is demonstrably counterproductive. And if you dispute that, I ask you if you think the country's politically further to the left now than it was in 2023.

 

[wareyin]

No, but you should care whether people like the political status quo you defend. You are not going to win votes by telling people that they are not welcome to speak their mind, that you are not only uninterested in what they have to say, but of the opinion that they ought not say it.

By telling you to stop helping elect MAGA, I'm not defending the status quo. I'm pointing out that the specific way you've been choosing to speak your mind has had a predictable, measurable result.

Nobody's saying you aren't welcome to speak. I'm saying that when you spend all your time trashing the only alternative to a MAGA monopoly, you're doing the GOP's work for them. You're prioritizing the personal satisfaction of complaining over the actual survival of the rights you claim to care about. It's not me defending the status quo, it's me trying to prevent a country where MAGA has a total stranglehold on every branch of government.

 

[wareyin]

I don't think the Dems are any less tribal. "Blue no matter who" is a pretty common refrain. At the end of the day, both parties are intensely tribal and neither of them is really focused on the well being of the country and citizens as much as they ought to be.

Vote blue no matter who was a failed attempt at getting fickle left voters to ...vote blue, even if their unicorn candidate wasn't on the ballot. That it failed demonstrates that Dems are less tribal.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

By telling you to stop helping elect MAGA, I'm not defending the status quo. I'm pointing out that the specific way you've been choosing to speak your mind has had a predictable, measurable result.

Nobody's saying you aren't welcome to speak. I'm saying that when you spend all your time trashing the only alternative to a MAGA monopoly, you're doing the GOP's work for them. You're prioritizing the personal satisfaction of complaining over the actual survival of the rights you claim to care about. It's not me defending the status quo, it's me trying to prevent a country where MAGA has a total stranglehold on every branch of government.

The failure of the Democratic party to offer an alternative to a MAGA monopoly that people can get behind is precisely the problem.

"At least we aren't Trump" is a failed political message. It didn't win in 2016. It didn't win in 2024. It only barely worked for Biden 2020. The Democrats are never going to finger-wag their way to victory by admonishing people to stop pointing that out.

 

[Donal]

It's not a strawman, it's a description of how a two party system functions. At the national level, and in almost every state level elected position above mayor, there are only two parties with a viable path to being elected.

Its a strawman because you are attacking thigns I'm not saying

When you have a binary choice, any effort spent damaging one option inherently benefits the other. This isn't an assertion of feelings, it's an explanation of the mechanics.

So, I'm not allaowed to offer any criticism ever?

By spending 24/7 amplifying DINO grievances and trashing the only party that opposes MAGA, you're actively trying to suppress voter turnout. You're creating the intellectual cover for people to stay home, which increases the odds of a MAGA victory. If the goal is to prevent a total Republican stranglehold on government, this strategy is demonstrably counterproductive. And if you dispute that, I ask you if you think the country's politically further to the left now than it was in 2023.

I wasn't doing that in 2024, though. I actually bit my tongue and talked up Biden then Harris. Any reservation or criticism I had, I voiced once and tried to move on. I hyped up the good work by the FTC and SEC under the Biden administration. I tried to keep all the positives in the forefront. I actually got excited when Harris named Walz as her running mate. Then I watched the Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again. I watched as the Democrats ignored their people on the ground again. I watched as they went to parties with billionaire celebrities again. I watched them completely misread the room after a really promising start. And now I'm listening to the same bunch of professional LOSERS blame people who have no position whatsoever in the goddamned party.

And now, I'm telling you, a person defending the establishment Democrats, in 2026 not 2024, how the Democratic Party ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up again. Maybe, instead of shooting the messenger, you actually look at the alleged professionals who keep hiring the high priced consultants who have dropped 2 of 3 elections to an addled brain bigot whose notoriety prior to 2016 was racism, infidelity, and bankruptcy. And they only barely won that one time because of how badly he botched a global pandemic. Perhaps you ask yourself whey they are still campaigning like its the 90s. Perhaps you ask yourself why they seem to be constantly neck and neck with an opposition that is a bunch of racist clowns. Or why they keep partying with the same financial backers as those racist clowns.

Because treating fact based criticisms and information from the ground as blasphemy is not a sound strategy.

 

[Emily's Cat]

...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.

I suspect "we're not Trump" wasn't enough because Trump isn't the be-all-end-all of the entire republican party. I know Trump is awful, I don't disagree. But there are a lot of people out there who have been republicans for a long time, and who believe that the republican party better aligns with their value set than the democrats do. Trump is a temporary thing.

There are absolutely some people who revere Trump to an insane degree... just like there were people who were die-hard Bernie Bros. Those people refused to vote for Clinton when Sanders didn't make the cut... but the majority of democrats are going to vote for democrats pretty much regardless of which specific democrat we're talking about. The same is true of republicans - the majority are going to vote republican even if that means Trump.

A lot of democrats seem to think that Trump is so so so bad that republicans should vote for any democrat offered in order to avoid Trump. That's an irrational expectation - it's no more true than if republicans expected democrats to vote for any republican offered in order to avoid Harris. It's not going to happen, and it's crazy to even consider "We're not Trump" to be a compelling argument all by itself. The vast majority of partisans are going to vote for their party no matter what, even if they absolutely despise the individual candidate as a person. About 45% of voters are solid red no matter what, and 45% are solid blue no matter what. There's maybe another 3% on each side that lean heavily left or right, and are really difficult to persuade away. So realistically, there's maybe 4% or 5% of voters *total* that can be influenced toward or away from each party.

I just don't think "we're not that person" is a strong message for those 5% or so.

*** Of course, there is also the 5% to 10% on the edge of each party who are just plain zealots, and they'll opt out of voting completely if the candidate is extreme enough for them. In a very tight race, those outliers could swing the results too... but chasing them also tends to alienate the 10% in the middle, and those outliers aren't particularly well represented in swing states, so pick your battle I guess.

 

[Segnosaur]

If a person is marching under the banner of Hamas, and is actually chanting about "destroying israel", then I am willing to say they support terrorism against israel.

Do you honestly think that someone who sees someone carrying a hamas flag and chanting for global intifada and says "I will protest with them" is not a terrorist?

Ummm... go back and look at what i wrote. I admitted that someone who marches under a Hamas flag and chants "death to israel" can at least be considered a terrorist supporter. (The only reason they might not be classified a 'terrorist' is that, depending on how you define 'terrorist', a person might think it involves actually committing violent attacks. But, as I said, they are still a "terrorist supporter".)

 

[Emily's Cat]

As for the rest, this "I'm just a guy on the internet" schtick falls flat. You know perfectly well that more than just elected officials have an effect on the outcome of elections. By running all over the internet voicing these complaints, you are actively trying to influence the discourse and the results. Quit with the "you have to be an elected official to matter" defense. It is just a way to avoid accountability for the noise you are making and the influence you are trying to exert.

I agree with this sentiment completely.

 

[Emily's Cat]

To put it another way, in the USA we have a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ insane party that somehow appeals to around half of the people that vote. So the democratic party needs to pull in progressives, liberals, and sane conservatives to win.

ETA: the words censored are batguano and effing.

Have you considered that to republican voters... the democrats seem like the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ insane party?

I get that they don't seem that way to you, I fully understand that. Do you understand the the opposite is also true?

 

[Emily's Cat]

i put a large part of why that is to the extensive propaganda network conservatives have built. and they’ve since captured even more media

You're not wrong... but you might also want to consider that democrats handed them a gift-wrapped, pre-sloganed set of items to use. Bit of an own goal.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You and I have different definitions of "opposition".

What other definition do you have in mind, in the context of opposing southern democrats during the 60s?

 

[Emily's Cat]

By telling you to stop helping elect MAGA, I'm not defending the status quo. I'm pointing out that the specific way you've been choosing to speak your mind has had a predictable, measurable result.

Just going to toss out here that your arguments come across as extremely authoritarian. Whether you intend it or not, it really seems like you're telling your fellow democrats to shut up and fall in line or else they're traitors and just as bad as the enemy. Strong Torquemada vibes, you know.

 

[Segnosaur]

I suspect "we're not Trump" wasn't enough because Trump isn't the be-all-end-all of the entire republican party.]

Given the fact that the entire republican party (at least at the federal level) is composed pretty much entirely of either:
- Trump bootlickers
- cowards who will do very little to actually block Trump
then you can assume that at this point in time, Trump IS the be-all-end-all of the republican party

I know Trump is awful, I don't disagree. But there are a lot of people out there who have been republicans for a long time, and who believe that the republican party better aligns with their value set than the democrats do.

The current republican party is authoritarian/fascist in nature. (Whether it is because they believe in the MAGA agenda or whether they are too cowardly to oppose him, the result is the same.) I think it reflects badly on a republican voter if they look at the 2 main options and think "this pro-fascist republican party better represents my values than the democrats, who may want higher taxes but still respect democracy".

Trump is a temporary thing.

Ummm, so?

You think he's going to "go away" in the future? Fine. Vote for the republicans in the future, AFTER Trump has gone and republicans have gained some sort of sense of rationality. Anyone who votes for them NOW (as long as they have the stench of Trump) can be seen as a fascist-lover.

A lot of democrats seem to think that Trump is so so so bad that republicans should vote for any democrat offered in order to avoid Trump. That's an irrational expectation...

I think it is an entirely rational expectation to think republicans SHOULD vote for any democrat, because Trump is just that bad. He's a fascist. He called Nazis "fine people". He is a convicted felon who is openly taking bribes at this point. That is something that every voter (republican, democrat, or independent) should vote against, regardless of who the democrats have as the leader.

It might be irrational to think republicans WILL vote democrat. Which is unfortunate.

It's not going to happen, and it's crazy to even consider "We're not Trump" to be a compelling argument all by itself.

I could have sworn that in the last election, Harris and the Democrats actually put forward real, concrete policy positions and plans, you know, stuff that meant more than just "we're not Trump". (Yes, they do sometimes point out differences between their policies and Trump's, but most of the stuff stands alone.)

See: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2024-democratic-party-platform

Of course, since Trump is a fascist who is basically destroying democracy in America, then "we're not Trump" SHOULD be a compelling argument, at least for people who don't want to see the US become fascist. (Which I know isn't you, because you have admitted you are A-Ok with fascism in America.)

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Perhaps you ask yourself
whey they are still campaigning like its the 90s.

They have to milk it for all it's worth. Sorry, couldn't resist.