What did Democrats do wrong?

[d4m10n]

why do you think that seems fair to say?

I hope you don't mind if I let Perplexity sum this up.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/which-u-s-political-party-had-xM3T1ynISCms35t.6N1ucw

 

[wareyin]

Just to be clear, I linked to both sets of primaries, wrote that one of them was "more open and competitive" than the other one, and am now beginning to question whether you actually read through an entire post before responding.

I see. So when you said the Democrats faced a cost due to forgoing a primary, you weren't claiming that they forwent a primary? Don't blame me for responding to what you actually wrote.

 

[dirtywick]

I hope you don't mind if I let Perplexity sum this up.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/which-u-s-political-party-had-xM3T1ynISCms35t.6N1ucw

i don’t mind

 

[dirtywick]

Democrats' secret report: Biden admin Israel-Hamas war stance cost Ha…

archived 23 Feb 2026 14:44:31 UTC

archive.ph

axios reports on the contents of the secret 2024 dem autopsy of the election failure, says israel/gaza stance cost a significant amount of votes. pro israel, of course, being the centrist/moderate position and gaza being the progressive one. thought some may find that interesting

 

[theprestige]

Democrats' secret report: Biden admin Israel-Hamas war stance cost Ha…

archived 23 Feb 2026 14:44:31 UTC

archive.ph

axios reports on the contents of the secret 2024 dem autopsy of the election failure, says israel/gaza stance cost a significant amount of votes. pro israel, of course, being the centrist/moderate position and gaza being the progressive one. thought some may find that interesting

The only thing interesting about it is that the Dems needed a secret autopsy to figure out what everyone else knew back when the victim was still full of life.

 

[dirtywick]

were you were recommending the dems lean into gaza at the time?

 

[Brainster]

The only thing interesting about it is that the Dems needed a secret autopsy to figure out what everyone else knew back when the victim was still full of life.

I'm more than a little skeptical of that article; note that the source appears to be IMEU, which is an unabashed pro-Palestinian lobbying group:

Activists from the IMEU Policy Project told the DNC that the Biden-Harris administration's support for Israel was a factor in the party's losses because it drained support from some young people and progressives.

And the DNC supposedly confirmed it:

Hamid Bendaas, a spokesperson for the IMEU Policy Project, said that during the meeting "the DNC shared with us that their own data also found that policy was, in their words, a 'net-negative' in the 2024 election." Two other senior aides at the pro-Palestinian organization also said the DNC had drawn that conclusion.

They do seem to have some backup sources there. But suppose we take it as given that it cost them some votes from progressives. If Harris had taken the "Gaza is a genocide," tack, how many votes would she have lost in the center? Because the inevitable arithmetic of the two-party system is that every vote lost in the middle is worth two votes lost on the wings. Progressives didn't switch their votes from Harris to Trump on Gaza, instead they voted for Jill Stein. Centrists are going to vote for one of the two major parties.

 

[dirtywick]

i'm sure there's an argument to be made that single issue pro israel voters skew pretty heavily trump regardless of what kamala did. the single issue pro gaza voters didn't have a home in either of the two parties

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

A whole lot of people don't care about trans... but they do care about males. That's a distinction that many dems and progs insist on conflating.

 

[dirtywick]

A whole lot of people don't care about trans... but they do care about males. That's a distinction that many dems and progs insist on conflating.

i leave it to the leagues to figure out

 

[Emily's Cat]

The US Capitol belongs to the people of the United States. Some of those people are rich. Most are not.

Pretending damage done to the US Capitol on 6 January 2021 is no big deal was not one of the things Democrats did wrong. Pretending that it was no big deal to injure more than 100 defenders of the US Capitol was also not one of the things Democrats did wrong.

Those are, however, two of the things you are still doing wrong.

For ◊◊◊◊'s sake, I didn't say it was no big deal! I said it wasn't a lot of damage, that it was relatively small damage. I've since then repeatedly expanded on that - the actual physical volume of damage was small, despite it costing a lot to repair! At the end of the day it was actually a fairly small amount of actual damage done. That's in contrast to the enormous amounts of property damage and injuries cause to innocent bystanders in "mostly peaceful" protests that people like you keep making excuses for.

Right now, you're absolutely hung the ◊◊◊◊ up on a small volume of high-cost property damage because it allows you to point the finger at "those evil guys" and feel justified about it... while simultaneously pretending like the significantly higher amount of damage done by people you like is hand-waved away.

Holy ◊◊◊◊, you people. I'm not arguing that no damage was done. I'm not arguing that it was a good thing, or excusable or justifiable. I'm not trying to convince you that any of the capital riot was acceptable. All I'm trying to do is get you to ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ acknowledge that your own cohort is *also* bad and dangerous and harmful.

 

[Emily's Cat]

To what end? How many people are you comfortable selling out?

Depends. Do you want to lose with the reassurance that you haven't been tainted by association with "those guys" and hand the country over to republicans for yet another four years? Or do you want to hold your nose and win?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm genuinely astonished that anyone could believe the current Democrat party leans to the right.

Communists and die-hard socialists do. Of course.

 

[dirtywick]

For ◊◊◊◊'s sake, I didn't say it was no big deal! I said it wasn't a lot of damage, that it was relatively small damage. I've since then repeatedly expanded on that - the actual physical volume of damage was small, despite it costing a lot to repair! At the end of the day it was actually a fairly small amount of actual damage done. That's in contrast to the enormous amounts of property damage and injuries cause to innocent bystanders in "mostly peaceful" protests that people like you keep making excuses for.

Right now, you're absolutely hung the ◊◊◊◊ up on a small volume of high-cost property damage because it allows you to point the finger at "those evil guys" and feel justified about it... while simultaneously pretending like the significantly higher amount of damage done by people you like is hand-waved away.

Holy ◊◊◊◊, you people. I'm not arguing that no damage was done. I'm not arguing that it was a good thing, or excusable or justifiable. I'm not trying to convince you that any of the capital riot was acceptable. All I'm trying to do is get you to ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ acknowledge that your own cohort is *also* bad and dangerous and harmful.

do you acknowledge the harm of the broader election fraud scheme it was a part of?

 

[Emily's Cat]

do you acknowledge the harm of the broader election fraud scheme it was a part of?

I am skeptical regarding the degree of actual planning and intention involved in it. I understand the dynamics, I understand how it played out, and I understand that interpretation of it... but the assignment of intentional attempt to overthrow the government as a planned "scheme" is something about which I remain unconvinced.

There is a LOT of sensationalism, exaggeration, and narrative framing involved in all forms of media. Some of it is, to me, transparent propaganda and manipulation. That propaganda is NOT single-sided.

I honestly don't trust a goddamned thing that is reported by any legacy news agency, and I trust almost nothing reported by independent journalist. I pretty much dismiss 5-second snippets on social media accompanied by inflammatory rhetoric and selective framing to be lies. That includes ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ that republicans and their reporters say, as well as ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ that democrats and their reporters say.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

(Edited to add highlighting.)

That's in contrast to the enormous amounts of property damage and injuries cause to innocent bystanders in "mostly peaceful" protests that people like you keep making excuses for.

You cannot point to any property damage or injuries to innocent bystanders that I have caused.

You, I presume, are a person rather than a cat, which means you qualify as one of those people like me. Which means you are saying I am making excuses for people like you and me. No, I am not making excuses for you, and I am not making excuses for me.

If you had a leg to stand on, you would be able to explain what "people like you" means with sufficient specificity for an objective observer to determine whether individuals such as you or me are members of that putative class. You have not done so.

Right now, you're absolutely hung the ◊◊◊◊ up on a small volume of high-cost property damage because it allows you to point the finger at "those evil guys" and feel justified about it... while simultaneously pretending like the significantly higher amount of damage done by people you like is hand-waved away.

I feel justified in pointing a finger at the 1000+ individuals who were convicted of causing the 100+ personal injuries and the property damage we're discussing here. They had their day in court, and their guilt is a matter of record.

You are the person who is trying to minimize their crimes by imagining there is some class of people I like that have caused significantly greater damage. It is telling that you are unable to identify any individuals I actually like who have caused such damage.

Which is a polite way of saying you are lying about me.

All I'm trying to do is get you to ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ acknowledge that your own cohort is *also* bad and dangerous and harmful.

I am not going to acknowledge that, because you are unable to define a cohort whose members are all "bad and dangerous and harmful" in a way that would include me within your definition of that cohort.

When you pretend I belong to a cohort whose members are all "bad and dangerous and harmful", then you are making a false claim about me.

If I were to acknowledge a false claim about me, I would be lying.

In short, you are upset that I am refusing to tell the lies you want me to tell.

 

[dirtywick]

I am skeptical regarding the degree of actual planning and intention involved in it. I understand the dynamics, I understand how it played out, and I understand that interpretation of it... but the assignment of intentional attempt to overthrow the government as a planned "scheme" is something about which I remain unconvinced.

There is a LOT of sensationalism, exaggeration, and narrative framing involved in all forms of media. Some of it is, to me, transparent propaganda and manipulation. That propaganda is NOT single-sided.

I honestly don't trust a goddamned thing that is reported by any legacy news agency, and I trust almost nothing reported by independent journalist. I pretty much dismiss 5-second snippets on social media accompanied by inflammatory rhetoric and selective framing to be lies. That includes ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ that republicans and their reporters say, as well as ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ that democrats and their reporters say.

jack smith testified to it in his late 2025 in a deposition and again publicly in front of congress extensively just over a month ago. were you aware of that?

 

[Donal]

Depends. Do you want to lose with the reassurance that you haven't been tainted by association with "those guys"

Who are "those guys"? The rich white guys who currently have the money and power? Or the marginalized groups who always get sold out in these deals? You know, like women.

and hand the country over to republicans for yet another four years? Or do you want to hold your nose and win?

Can you hold your nose and vote for someone who doesn't share your hatred of trans people and the homeless?

 

[Brainster]

I think you missed "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.

Sure, if we're playing a game of tit for tat. If we're trying to understand why the Democrats lost in 2024, it's a distraction.

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."

Address the argument, not the arguer. As a relatively new member of Team Blue, I'll admit that the things that bother me about the Democrats tend to be the things that bug moderate conservatives and independents.

 

[d4m10n]

If we're trying to understand why the Democrats lost in 2024, it's a distraction.

Also if we're trying to understand which 2024 mistakes not to repeat in 2028.