What did Democrats do wrong?

[d4m10n]

if you have another choice i'd consider it. what do you think?

There is a whole range of options at the top of the OP, but I'd have trouble finding one with as much electoral leverage for social conservatives.

 

[dirtywick]

Assuming Democrats win in 2028, it won't be by winning over self-identified conservatives but by somehow capturing undecideds without losing too much of the bloc who voted for Biden and Harris. That said, many here have an unfortunate tendency of turning the discussion here back to conservatives and their motives. I assume this is just out of habit rather than malice.

i think it's a useful mechanism for comparison. if a self id conservative comes into the thread to identify all the problems with the dems platform, it's natural to want to know why they would suggest some of them when it appears the alternative candidate is even worse on the same issue. for example, if you were to say the dems were weak on the economy and that hurt them, it would be natural to point out that trump's economic views are insane and nonsensical and why wasn't that a problem. so how can that be the big issue for the dems only? why is the suggestion to have more trump like views on the economy? that doesn't make sense, but you'll still get a tut and the left just doesn't get it as an answer.

to to have that discussion just makes you mad and you say it's off topic. i don't agree, i think it's fine.

beyond that, i think it's fair to question whether or not being a conservative gives you some kind of special perspective into what went wrong for the dems. like, you're more objective because you picked the winning candidate? you thought the dems would lose and trump would win and you were right on this razor thin margin election. ok. so, if we're going to present a more conservative world view is some kind of credential i think it's fair to challenge the validity of that. but if you do, well the left just doesn't get it again. ok, sure.

regardless of that, once one of them starts opening up i think it's a good time to ask a few questions i have. i'm not even being rude while i'm doing it either, just asking a question with a question mark at the end.

i mean, the president is becoming increasingly outwardly demented, he's an accomplice in a child sex trafficking ring, and he tried to overthrow the election and now he's just stealing billions and billions of dollars. that's what's happening, guess the left was actually right about that important stuff. isn't that a problem? in your opinion, did this stuff happen? is it offensive to ask that? it's weird that i can't get an answer, people just stop responding all the sudden, it's a weird thing. we just don't want to talk about it, i get it. no problem. off topic.

 

[dirtywick]

There is a whole range of options at the top of the OP, but I'd have trouble finding one with as much electoral leverage for social conservatives.

a lot of people are weirded out by the trans, i think that's just a fact unfortunately.

 

[Brainster]

Ugggh, Newsom continues to show he's not ready for primetime.

Gavin Newsom Told a Predominantly Black Crowd He's ‘Just Like Them’ Because He ‘Can’t Read’ — While Promoting His Memoir.​

Can't read the room, more like.

 

[theprestige]

Ugggh, Newsom continues to show he's not ready for primetime.


Can't read the room, more like.

I enjoy an off color joke as much as the next guy, but it boggles the mind, that nobody in his entourage thought to tell him he can't be talking that way even in jest.

Some days, I see this thread title in my feed, and I think, "what didn't the Democrats do wrong?"

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Save your concern trolling for when he mocks a disabled reporter on live tv.

 

[theprestige]

I'll add "it's no big deal, telling black people they can't read because they're black" to the list of things Democrats are doing wrong.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

The actual quote in the article is - "You've never seen me read a speech, because I cannot read a speech. Maybe the wrong business to be in."

'Cannot read a speech' conveys a different meaning to 'Cannot read'

 

[Susheel]

Ugggh, Newsom continues to show he's not ready for primetime.


Can't read the room, more like.

Not what he said...

 

[wareyin]

Derail aside, I'm glad this trolling came back around, because you didn't properly answer me last time. Maybe the second time's the charm.

It's worth noting that unlike some other topics, you and I are on exactly the same page here. I'm hoping I can use this common ground to approach the areas where we differ. With the following, I'm not trying to sway you or convince you of anything, I'm asking why you're taking the stance you are. Your argument here, and in other posts to Emily's Cat, is purely ideological. You aren't reading any tea leaves in your defense of trans people. You aren't consulting polls or counting votes. You aren't doing it to get Dems in power or for some other kind of political capital. You're defending trans individuals because it's the right thing to do. It's good to have moral principles.

Yet such an ideological stance is somewhat unlike you. More than anyone else in the thread you've argued for ditching principles when they become electorally disadvantageous. Strictly put, the second they become disadvantageous, which is what a lesser evil always gets you. But here, I'm assuming that even if a majority of voters favored trans discrimination, you'd still oppose Dems doing that, even if it'd be to their advantage to get on the bigotry bandwagon, right? I'm curious to know how far that would extend. Is there a poll number beyond which you'd advocate for Dems to support repressive laws just to get into power, or is that your hill to die on? Are there moral stances which you could never actively vote for, in any circumstance, even if the alternative is worse?

I highly doubt we differ on as many topics as you seem to think.

Further, I have not advocated for "ditching principles" at all. What I have advocated for is to stop shooting ourselves in the foot by taking a "principled stand" that will be predictably worse for whatever principle we are advocating for. If you think that a progressive standing on their principles and convincing people in the general election not to vote for Harris because of her stance on Gaza, or trans people, or what have you, that Trump will be an improvement, then they aren't defending a principle. They're just indulging in a moral vanity project while the people they pretend to care about get crushed.

There is no "poll number" where I would advocate for repressive laws, but there is a reality where I recognize that if you don't win the election, you don't get to protect anyone. Using trans people as a sacrificial lamb for a "principled" protest vote that installs a regime dedicated to their erasure isn't moral, right, or pure. It's arrogant, short sighted, and harmful in both the short and long term. My hill to die on is preventing the worst possible outcome for the most vulnerable people, even if the path to get there isn't as pure as you'd like it to be.

 

[wareyin]

Not ignoring Republicans, but it is counterfactual to characterize those Harris voters as part of the Republican base.

Nonsense. If you can't understand that this is overwhelmingly an issue that Republicans are passionately in favor of while almost no Democrats are, then that's on you.

Whereas you are using higher quality polling from...?

Your use of a suspect poll from a biased magazine doesn't create a burden for me to provide a counter-poll.

You are wrong about at least three things here:

1. It is not my law, I've already stated my opposition to federalizing this issue
2. More females supported the proposed law than opposed it, with nearly 1 in 5 abstaining
3. Taking away single-sex spaces is a factual matter, rather than a claim about popular support among service users

See #1 above.

ETA: Speaking of weirdos, I don't really know who brought "inspecting people's genitals" into play in this discussion but I'm fairly sure it wasn't @Emily's Cat. Whoever did that seems a bit out of pocket, in the Gen Z sense.

Your points about support and "factual matters" belie your claim that you don't support the law. "Bothsides" folks tend to do that. You claim to oppose it while using the loaded and misleading language of its advocates to explain why it should happen.

I'm pretty sure you were the one this time around talking about a law that would require genital inspection to actually accomplish. Unless you have some other way of ensuring that the person with the shorter hair and square jaw isn't a male sneaking in? If you're demanding a biological gatekeeper, you're demanding an inspector.

 

[wareyin]

Assuming Democrats win in 2028, it won't be by winning over self-identified conservatives but by somehow capturing undecideds without losing too much of the bloc who voted for Biden and Harris. That said, many here have an unfortunate tendency of turning the discussion here back to conservatives and their motives. I assume this is just out of habit rather than malice.

For Democrats to win in 2028 (assuming we even have free and fair elections), they need a way to reach the millions of people who didn't vote at all this time. Winning isn't some delicate chemical experiment of courting "middle of the road" voters without offending the base. It's about actually giving your own voters a reason to show up. Republicans didn't win by being "moderate" or winning over undecideds. They won by being loud and aggressive about a platform of bigotry and fear, which successfully mobilized their base.

As for bringing up conservatives, when your suggestions for what the Democrats did "wrong" are things the Republicans did significantly worse, it's valid to compare them. Despite your inability to understand this, it was a binary choice. Plus, more than half of the "suggestions" here are coming from either open conservatives like theprestige and Emily's Cat, or from "independents" who spout conservative propaganda like jasonkilanski and... well, Emily's Cat again.

 

[wareyin]

The actual quote in the article is - "You've never seen me read a speech, because I cannot read a speech. Maybe the wrong business to be in."

'Cannot read a speech' conveys a different meaning to 'Cannot read'

Please be fair to the conservatives who didn't read what he actually said. Perhaps they simply aren't able to read either? Newsom has been public about his severe dyslexia for decades; he was clearly saying he can't read a speech from a script or teleprompter, which is why he memorizes them. We wouldn't want to think they were dishonestly altering a quote about a learning disability just to sow division, now would we?

 

[bruto]

The actual quote in the article is - "You've never seen me read a speech, because I cannot read a speech. Maybe the wrong business to be in."

'Cannot read a speech' conveys a different meaning to 'Cannot read'

But the lie makes a snappier headline.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I highly doubt we differ on as many topics as you seem to think.

Well, I don't know. I don't seem to be able to pass the time of day without being accused of knowingly undermining the foundations of democracy and abetting a fascist takeover. I'd have thought you had better taste than to associate with someone like that.

Further, I have not advocated for "ditching principles" at all. What I have advocated for is to stop shooting ourselves in the foot by taking a "principled stand" that will be predictably worse for whatever principle we are advocating for.

Those are the same things. If you don't hold onto a principle even when it's disadvantageous to do so, it's not a principle, it's a preference. Vichy France was better for the French people than a direct Nazi rule would have been, but they don't get to claim they didn't ditch any principles to stay in power.

There is no "poll number" where I would advocate for repressive laws, but there is a reality where I recognize that if you don't win the election, you don't get to protect anyone.

Again, those are the same things. Doing what it takes to win implies it will take something unpleasant. Refusing to do that unpleasant thing, even at the cost of losing, is what makes it a principle.

If the Democratic candidate for president (duly nominated in the primary) was virulently anti-trans, like Emily's Cat level of unreasonable bigotry, would you still vote for them? I'll admit, I don't think I would. Even though whatever pile of lice-infested corruption the GOP ◊◊◊◊ out that cycle would certainly be worse, there's still a limit. Nor would there be any virtue in remaining silent and not pointing out the candidate's moral repugnance.

Knowing that I have my own limits, and while grateful I haven't had to put them to the test myself, I find I'm sympathetic to people who have. I don't necessarily agree with their principled stances, but I understand, and I think Dems need to do more to live up to their own ideals rather than telling their constituents to get over themselves. I think that's the main difference between our political approaches.

Not what he said...

Well, of course not. Consider the people complaining. If he'd said what they want us to think he'd said, do you think those people would leave a single garment unrended or tooth ungnashed? They'd be wailing about it for the rest of the decade.

Which is almost a shame, because Newsom is a putz. He's an awful, awful candidate, but not because of any of this. He just has phenomenal social media staff.

 

[wareyin]

Well, I don't know. I don't seem to be able to pass the time of day without being accused of knowingly undermining the foundations of democracy and abetting a fascist takeover. I'd have thought you had better taste than to associate with someone like that.

Those are the same things. If you don't hold onto a principle even when it's disadvantageous to do so, it's not a principle, it's a preference. Vichy France was better for the French people than a direct Nazi rule would have been, but they don't get to claim they didn't ditch any principles to stay in power.

Again, those are the same things. Doing what it takes to win implies it will take something unpleasant. Refusing to do that unpleasant thing, even at the cost of losing, is what makes it a principle.

If the Democratic candidate for president (duly nominated in the primary) was virulently anti-trans, like Emily's Cat level of unreasonable bigotry, would you still vote for them? I'll admit, I don't think I would. Even though whatever pile of lice-infested corruption the GOP ◊◊◊◊ out that cycle would certainly be worse, there's still a limit. Nor would there be any virtue in remaining silent and not pointing out the candidate's moral repugnance.

Knowing that I have my own limits, and while grateful I haven't had to put them to the test myself, I find I'm sympathetic to people who have. I don't necessarily agree with their principled stances, but I understand, and I think Dems need to do more to live up to their own ideals rather than telling their constituents to get over themselves. I think that's the main difference between our political stances.


Well, of course not. Consider the people complaining. If he'd said what they want us to think he'd said, do you think those people would leave a single garment unrended or tooth ungnashed? They'd be wailing about it for the rest of the decade.

Which is almost a shame, because Newsom is a putz. He's an awful, awful candidate, but not because of any of this. He just has phenomenal social media staff.

Your principles don't mean a thing if they result in the people you claim to care about being stripped of their rights because you refuse to help them. If you let the worse option win because you think it keeps your hands clean, that's not principle, it's vanity.

As for your whine about being accused of undermining democracy and abetting a takeover, when you spend your time amplifying every real or imagined fault of the Democrats while staying silent on the Republicans doing things ten times worse, what do you expect? You know exactly what that behavior accomplishes.

 

[ahhell]

Blaming voters for not being smart enough or good enough to vote for Democrats is on the list for sure. But that's not why I came here. I am encouraged that Trump is doing something the Dems did wrong in the last election. When folks are worried about the economy, just telling them they are wrong doesn't get them to vote for you. In Trumps case, flat out lying rather than pointing to indicators that most folks don't care about. The GOP is going to take a pounding in the midterms; it will be so bad that even if they cheat it won't help. The only question is will it be historically bad or just normally bad; I'm betting on historically.

 

[Donal]

I'm all for dunking on Newsom, but the "I'm just like you" and "I can't read a speech" comments were not concurrent. He was trying to say, in an awkward and clunky way, that he's just a regular guy, despite growing up rich.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Your principles don't mean a thing if they result in the people you claim to care about being stripped of their rights because you refuse to help them. If you let the worse option win because you think it keeps your hands clean, that's not principle, it's vanity.

Sure they do. You're attributing the 2024 loss directly to those voters, are you not? As in, if the Democratic party had not caused those voters to need to choose between their party and their principles, they would have won? If the Dems agree with your conclusion, it would strongly behoove them to understand why those voters abstained and to take steps in the future to consider their principles more seriously.

Doing so would not only bring those voters back on board, but probably attract a whole new cohort motivated by seeing candidates taking a stand and doing the right thing for a change. It's difficult to properly describe how demotivating spineless centrism is, the notion that your best option is to elect a cowardly lump who can only ever provide a least worst alternative while trying to pass that off as some kind of virtue.

Before knee jerking, consider it in the context of the anti-trans candidate hypothetical. You get where I'm coming from, I know you do, you just don't like that it applies to more issues than those you're directly invested in.

 

[d4m10n]

Your points about support and "factual matters" belie your claim that you don't support the law.

Your attempt at mindreading here is shameful and embarrassing. In all the years the trans thread has existed, I've never once argued in favor of a state-level bathroom law, much less a federal one. Now that the search function is working, you are free to verify this for yourself.

If you're demanding a biological gatekeeper, you're demanding an inspector.

Consider asking someone who is actually making that demand how they would hope to implement it—in the correct thread.