What did Democrats do wrong?

[Emily's Cat]

Take for example health care. Tell people "medicare for all/everyone covered" and the majority will cheer, because everyone likes the idea of everyone getting medical coverage. But, start telling people "we will get rid of all private insurers" and all of a sudden lots of people will change their minds. "I want everyone covered, but I like my own insurance plan".

This would benefit from being positioned as "Medicare Advantage and/or Medicare Supplement for All".

The vast majority of medicare is delivered via private insurers. Those private insurers package the shared costs in different ways from FFS Medicare which allows customers to pick benefits that suit their needs best. It allows for a whole lot of choice while still being government funded. Private insurers also offer benefits that are more generous than FFS Medicare, and often include services that Medicare FFS doesn't cover.

 

[Segnosaur]

"Popular issues" don't become popular in a vacuum. They become popular because politicians with conviction make them popular by staking out a position and defending it.

We've seen this play out in politics time and time again.

One of the mistakes that Democrats made - and continue to make - is abandoning this principle and following public opinion rather than shaping it, while Republicans wage endless propaganda campaigns to shape it.

Trans athletes are an excellent example off this. Trans people have been competing in sports for decades, but it suddenly became a hot button issue in the last few years because Republicans made it one, not because it happened organically.

Yes, republicans push for certain issues to become "hot button issues". There are 2 issues regarding that:

- Republicans probably have an advantage in that their message is probably simpler. "No men in women's sports" is a lot easer for someone to digest than "historically it has not been an issue and if you look at the statistics trans people have not been dominating as you think they would be".

- Republicans have been doing this for decades. Even if the democrats wanted to make up and push their own "hot button issues" it might take a long time. But they need to start winning sooner.

Look at what Mamdani did in New York. He didn't run away from or hedge on the trans issue. He got right out in front of it and took a stance. If the claims about the importance of this issue were true, that should have hurt him in the election, and it obviously didn't.

First of all, Mamdani is the mayor of a city which sits firmly on the left side of the American political spectrum. On average they will be more receptive to progressive policies. But bhat works in New York may not necessarily work in (for example) Pennsylvania or Georgia (potential swing states that a president will have to worry about), or even in some of the smaller towns and rural areas of New York state.

Secondly, It should also be noted that the turnout for the mayoral race was only ~43%. Meanwhile, the 2024 election had a turnout that was 64%. In my opinion, smaller election turnouts favor candidates who have "fringe" beliefs that cater to a more passionate base.

Lastly, there were a lot of issues that went into the 2025 New York mayoral race. His chief rival (Cuomo) had sexual harassment allegations against him. And, while he was governor his popularity was below 50% at the end of his term. That probably played as much a role in Mamdani's victory as "support for Trans".

(Please note that am not against Trans rights. They should be protected from harassment, they should be allowed to play sport and use bathrooms according to the gender they identify with. My concern is the way that the issue should be handled by the democrats should they want to get power.)

 

[Emily's Cat]

- Republicans probably have an advantage in that their message is probably simpler. "No men in women's sports" is a lot easer for someone to digest than "historically it has not been an issue and if you look at the statistics trans people have not been dominating as you think they would be".

It's not any simpler than "Transwomen ARE women". It's just far more understandable.

 

[Emily's Cat]

- Republicans have been doing this for decades. Even if the democrats wanted to make up and push their own "hot button issues" it might take a long time. But they need to start winning sooner.

Black Lives Matter
We are the 99%
All Cops Are Bastards
Existential threat to Democracy
No Kings
Trans Rights are Human Rights

Look - you're not wrong that Republicans simplify and sloganeer issues to gain an electoral advantage whenever they can. Where you're wrong is in pretending that Democrats don't do the same thing.

 

[Donal]

Ya, but none of those are wrong

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Does "backing away" from a popular issue mean doing a 180 and coming out against it, or just not making it a campaign focus? Will backing away from an issue actually cause the party to lose votes or is it an issue where people will stick with the democrats anyways? And if some people do drop their support, how many and is their a potential to make up the votes elsewhere.

The ultimate goal is for the Democrats to win election, since the losing party can't really implement ANY agenda if they are on the outside looking in. Trying to be on the "right side" of the issues, but doing so in a way that causes you to lose elections, will cause problems.

Whether you do a 180 or just pretend the issue doesn't matter, you've still allowed a hostile party to concern troll you into dropping support for a popular issue. People for whom that issue is important have seen that you do not agree with them, whatever you might say to the contrary, and that if you're willing to abandon them on the campaign trail when all you need to provide is empty words, even if you get in you're going to throw them under the bus the second there's an advantage to doing so.

The ultimate goal for Democrats is not to win. I'm so goddamn tired of hearing this. Winning is not the goal! Fixing things is the goal! Making things better is the goal! If your path to victory means abandoning everything worth striving for, well... you'd get the current Democratic party, I guess. Who can only sit and point at Trump and blame their voters for noticing what useless wastes of air they routinely turn out to be because they can't wipe their ass without considering the electoral implications.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The ultimate goal for Democrats is not to win. I'm so goddamn tired of hearing this. Winning is not the goal! Fixing things is the goal! Making things better is the goal! If your path to victory means abandoning everything worth striving for, well... you'd get the current Democratic party, I guess. Who can only sit and point at Trump and blame their voters for noticing what useless wastes of air they routinely turn out to be because they can't wipe their ass without considering the electoral implications.

At some point, not winning is rather suggestive that what you think is better is perhaps not better for a whole lot of people. And enough people don't think it's better that they're not on board with those not-better solutions being forced upon them.

At some point, BOTH PARTIES really need to pull their heads out of their asses and pay attention to what citizens actually want. And as much as it might pain you to hear it... some of what Republicans are doing better fit what the majority of citizens want: rigorous control over immigration that doesn't allow line-jumping and cheating on the way in, clear and universal rules for proof of citizenship and identification when voting, males not allowed to compete in female sports or use female intimate spaces. There are a whole, whole, whole lot of other topics that Democrats could capitalize on and make good headway... and that's where they need to focus.

 

[dann]

Whether you do a 180 or just pretend the issue doesn't matter, you've still allowed a hostile party to concern troll you into dropping support for a popular issue. People for whom that issue is important have seen that you do not agree with them, whatever you might say to the contrary, and that if you're willing to abandon them on the campaign trail when all you need to provide is empty words, even if you get in you're going to throw them under the bus the second there's an advantage to doing so.

The ultimate goal for Democrats is not to win. I'm so goddamn tired of hearing this. Winning is not the goal! Fixing things is the goal! Making things better is the goal! If your path to victory means abandoning everything worth striving for, well... you'd get the current Democratic party, I guess. Who can only sit and point at Trump and blame their voters for noticing what useless wastes of air they routinely turn out to be because they can't wipe their ass without considering the electoral implications.

That's representative democracy for ya. Breach of promise is not only allowed. The system actually encourages it. And you didn't even get to the point where they say one thing to the people they want to vote for them and another thing to the people they want to pay for their campaign. Mitt Romney's not a Democrat, but remember when he was caught on tape at a fundraiser?

 

[dann]

At some point, not winning is rather suggestive that what you think is better is perhaps not better for a whole lot of people. And enough people don't think it's better that they're not on board with those not-better solutions being forced upon them.

At some point, BOTH PARTIES really need to pull their heads out of their asses and pay attention to what citizens actually want. And as much as it might pain you to hear it... some of what Republicans are doing better fit what the majority of citizens want: rigorous control over immigration that doesn't allow line-jumping and cheating on the way in, clear and universal rules for proof of citizenship and identification when voting, males not allowed to compete in female sports or use female intimate spaces. There are a whole, whole, whole lot of other topics that Democrats could capitalize on and make good headway... and that's where they need to focus.

Rigorous control over migration is one thing, but that wasn't really the message, was it? The message was about immigrant criminals and illegal aliens eating people's pets, i.e. lies on top of lies.
Proof of citizenship and identification also isn't what people want. It's based on the GOP's attempt to steal the next election, i.e. on the Big Lie - and I think it's going to backfire since only hardcore MAGA voters believe it at this point.
Trans athletes competing in women's sports or using female bathrooms got people riled up enough for the MAGA movement to get started and win an election, but it was blown out of proportion - and is still being blown out of proportion by Emily's Cat in order to make people forget about corrupt billionaires and the miserable state of healthcare in the USA. (It's peculiar that healthcare is conspicuously absent from Emily's Cat's post. I think the principle is, the less said the beter! ) Trans Women in Sports: Facts Over Fear (SF.gov, Mar 27, 2025)

The same thing with ...
Litterboxes in schools for furry kids.
The war on Xmas.
Gendered M&Ms.
Cost-inefficient windmills causing cancer and killing birds and whales.
No more wars. (Yeah, right!)

Republicans, and even more so, MAGA Republicans, were never about what people want. They were always about creating outrage over unimportant (and non-existent) stuff to get elected.
It worked wonders, but I doubt that it will work this time again - in spite of the media corporations owned by billionaires, social media manipulated by the billionaires, and politicians bought by billionaires.
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but ...
We are showing up together again on March 28.

 

[Brainster]

Yes, republicans push for certain issues to become "hot button issues".

It's the Democrats who have changed their position on the trans issues, not the Republicans.

 

[dann]

At some point, BOTH PARTIES really need to pull their heads out of their asses and pay attention to what citizens actually want. And as much as it might pain you to hear it... some of what Republicans are doing better fit what the majority of citizens want:

I just have to follow up on this one that I already commented on in post 4,609.
Does anybody think that Stephen Miller's tweets from 2024 aged well?

Stephen Miller
Cenk: I don't know how I can be more clear. Trump will end and prevent war in the Middle East. He wants peace.
Harris and her neocon cabinet want war, war and more war.

Stephen Miller
KAMALA WILL SEND YOUR SONS TO WAR
Retweets Greg Price:
Kamala Harris is now invoking World War II and Pearl Harbor in order to justify implementation of Liz Cheney's foreign policy, which Kamala says that she completely agrees with.
A vote for Kamala is a vote for World War III.

Stephen Miller
If young men don't want to be drafted to fight in Kamala's and Cheney's 3rd World War they better get out and vote for Trump.

Stephen Miller
Kamala's top military advisor is Liz Cheney. If Kamala wins, Liz and Dick are running foreign policy, and they will invade the Middle East.
Retweets Keith Ellison:
Some of you may be considering sitting this election out, or voting for a third-party candidate, because you strongly disagree with Kamala Harris about Gaza.
This thread is for you.

By the way, Cenk (Uygur, I assume) as well as Ana Kasparian FAFO'd. They seem to have regretted their flirtation with MAGA.

 

[Tero]

Talking to MAGA in their language

martinldart
15h
Reminder that we’re in this spot because uneducated white men voted for the guy who promised to make them feel better about being underachievers by blaming nonwhites for all of their problems.

Marty Dart (@martinldart) on Threads

Reminder that we’re in this spot because uneducated white men voted for the guy who promised to make them feel better about being underachievers by blaming nonwhites for all of their problems.

www.threads.com

 

[Shrinker]

Talking to MAGA in their language

Marty Dart (@martinldart) on Threads

Reminder that we’re in this spot because uneducated white men voted for the guy who promised to make them feel better about being underachievers by blaming nonwhites for all of their problems.

www.threads.com

Ugh. Calling the white electorate uneducated underachievers seems like an excellent strategy for losing in 2028. Maybe put aside the 'reverse' racism have have some compelling policy answers for what voters are anxious about? "It's not happening" and "you're a white moron" seemed to have been ineffective on every issue from open borders to trans toilet pervs to cat-eating asylum seekers. It would have taken zero effort to stake out a really hard line on non-existent issues. It would have cost nothing, because no cats were actually being eaten, but it would have demonstrated shared values with the voters. Instead, "lol, you people are so stupid", is pretty much exactly how the Republican strategists expect the 'elite' Democrats to respond to these tests.

 

[dirtywick]

marty dart doesn't appear to be an elite dem. if the dem plan requires no one on the internet to say things like that, that's also kind of doomed.

regardless, while it's not a nice way of saying it, i think it's roughly what happened. steve bannon basically came up with this strategy to target a non-voting demographic with a bunch of lies that involved blaming societies problems on minorities to manipulate them into into voting for alt right politicians, which would later become maga. and it worked, two out of three times. which i think again brings you back to the republican propaganda machine. and after hearing emily cat's views on jan 6 and her refusal to acknowledge the evidence to the contrary, i think it worked on some women too.

 

[dann]

At some point, BOTH PARTIES really need to pull their heads out of their asses and pay attention to what citizens actually want. And as much as it might pain you to hear it... some of what Republicans are doing better fit what the majority of citizens want: rigorous control over immigration that doesn't allow line-jumping and cheating on the way in, clear and universal rules for proof of citizenship and identification when voting, males not allowed to compete in female sports or use female intimate spaces. There are a whole, whole, whole lot of other topics that Democrats could capitalize on and make good headway... and that's where they need to focus.

I may have misunderstood this part of Emily's Cat's post. I apologize if that's the case.
Could this be the kind of "line-jumping and cheating on the way in" that shouldn't be allowed?

$1M for US Citizenship? Trump’s Gold Card Program Breaks the Internet (The Financial Express on YouTube, Dec 11, 2025 - )
Trump Gold Card: US President Donald Trump has introduced a new ‘Gold Card’ visa that grants permanent residency to foreigners who donate $1 million to the U.S. Treasury. Applicants must also pay a $15,000 processing fee, with the administration promising faster security vetting.
A corporate version of the program requires companies to contribute $2 million per employee, allowing flexible transfers. The government is also preparing to launch a $5 million ‘Platinum Card’.
Trump claims the initiative will generate “many billions of dollars,” while critics argue it raises ethical concerns over a “pay-to-stay” immigration system.

 

[dann]

Ugh. Calling the white electorate uneducated underachievers seems like an excellent strategy for losing in 2028. Maybe put aside the 'reverse' racism have have some compelling policy answers for what voters are anxious about? "It's not happening" and "you're a white moron" seemed to have been ineffective on every issue from open borders to trans toilet pervs to cat-eating asylum seekers. It would have taken zero effort to stake out a really hard line on non-existent issues. It would have cost nothing, because no cats were actually being eaten, but it would have demonstrated shared values with the voters. Instead, "lol, you people are so stupid", is pretty much exactly how the Republican strategists expect the 'elite' Democrats to respond to these tests.

I agree. The point should be that the stories about pet-eating Haitians and litter-box-using furries in schools were lies and the ones about trans toilet pervs and open borders were grotesque exaggerations.

marty dart doesn't appear to be an elite dem. if the dem plan requires no one on the internet to say things like that, that's also kind of doomed.

No matter how you say it, it's an elitist thing to say. They may have been dumb, but if that's the case, tell them the truth about the lies they may
have bought into. Help them get a little smarter.

marty dart doesn't appear to be an elite dem. if the dem plan requires no one on the internet to say things like that, that's also kind of doomed.
regardless, while it's not a nice way of saying it, i think it's roughly what happened. steve bannon basically came up with this strategy to target a non-voting demographic with a bunch of lies that involved blaming societies problems on minorities to manipulate them into into voting for alt right politicians, which would later become maga. and it worked, two out of three times. which i think again brings you back to the republican propaganda machine. and after hearing emily cat's views on jan 6 and her refusal to acknowledge the evidence to the contrary, i think it worked on some women too.

I don't think Emily's Cat was convinced by the Republican propaganda machine. I think she is a contributor to it, which is the cause of "her refusal to acknowledge (!) the evidence to the contrary."
In her case, there's also no point in calling her dumb or manipulated. Point to the facts! That's what will help convince people on the sidelines.

 

[Shrinker]

marty dart doesn't appear to be an elite dem. if the dem plan requires no one on the internet to say things like that, that's also kind of doomed.

regardless, while it's not a nice way of saying it, i think it's roughly what happened. steve bannon basically came up with this strategy to target a non-voting demographic with a bunch of lies that involved blaming societies problems on minorities to manipulate them into into voting for alt right politicians, which would later become maga. and it worked, two out of three times. which i think again brings you back to the republican propaganda machine. and after hearing emily cat's views on jan 6 and her refusal to acknowledge the evidence to the contrary, i think it worked on some women too.

I've no idea who it is or whether Tero posted it positively or as an example of what Democrats did wrong. I don't normally post here but I've got a lot of procrastinating to do today so I wanted to get that gripe off my chest. The big thing I think they did wrong, is underestimate the degree to which online discourse was staking out policy position on their behalf, and they failed to lead from the front. On all kinds of policies there's messaging taking all the oxygen like Defund the Police. They can't support it, because it's dumb, they can't oppose it because it's their base so they just sit there like simps.

 

[Shrinker]

I agree. The point should be that the stories about pet-eating Haitians and litter-box-using furries in schools were lies and the ones about trans toilet pervs and open borders were grotesque exaggerations.


No matter how you say it, it's an elitist thing to say. They may have been dumb, but if that's the case, tell them the truth about the lies they may
have bought into. Help them get a little smarter.


I don't think Emily's Cat was convinced by the Republican propaganda machine. I think she is a contributor to it, which is the cause of "her refusal to acknowledge (!) the evidence to the contrary."
In her case, there's also no point in calling her dumb or manipulated. Point to the facts! That's what will help convince people on the sidelines.

There's been a lot of more subtle analysis about the cat-eating and whatnot that suggests everyone knew it was a lie. It didn't matter that it was a lie. What mattered is the Republicans got out in front of it and said this is disgusting, and the Democrats didn't, they laughed. It was a test of values, a hypothetical in disguise, and the Democrats failed it by failing to lead with the appropriate emotional response.

Had they been ready, had they had strong leadership, they'd have come out with how much they love cats, how cats are important to so many people, how such a crime is abhorrent and must be punished to the full extent of the law, how the local police must immediately report their progress in all active and closed investigations, and how perhaps, emergency bipartisan legislation was needed to protect the cats. It would have cost the same amount of energy as going on TV and laughing.

 

[dirtywick]

No matter how you say it, it's an elitist thing to say. They may have been dumb, but if that's the case, tell them the truth about the lies they may
have bought into. Help them get a little smarter.

that’s a valid approach, but it’s not realistic to expect the dems to take responsibility or hold them responsible for everyone on the internet who chooses to express themselves differently

I don't think Emily's Cat was convinced by the Republican propaganda machine. I think she is a contributor to it, which is the cause of "her refusal to acknowledge (!) the evidence to the contrary."
In her case, there's also no point in calling her dumb or manipulated. Point to the facts! That's what will help convince people on the sidelines.

for clarity, i didn’t call her dumb

 

[Tero]

I've no idea who it is or whether Tero posted it positively or as an example of what Democrats did wrong. I don't normally post here but I've got a lot of procrastinating to do today so I wanted to get that gripe off my chest. The big thing I think they did wrong, is underestimate the degree to which online discourse was staking out policy position on their behalf, and they failed to lead from the front. On all kinds of policies there's messaging taking all the oxygen like Defund the Police. They can't support it, because it's dumb, they can't oppose it because it's their base so they just sit there like simps.

It was mostly to point out how carefully you have to address our working classes. I walk through our neighborhood for exercise. They have the yard signs out permanently for "we support and pray for our police." Murdering two Americans in Munnesota won't change their mind. White worling class don't protest. They sit at Trump rallies holding Trump made signs.
I've participated in protests since 1971.

I had a draft card but they never gave me a physical. Draft number was a lotto win, except nobody got drafted my age.