• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

What did Democrats do wrong?

What did Democrats do wrong?

  • Didn't fight inflation enough.

    Votes: 12 20.7%
  • Didn't fight illegal immigration enough.

    Votes: 17 29.3%
  • Too much focus on abortion.

    Votes: 1 1.7%
  • Too much transgender stuff.

    Votes: 24 41.4%
  • America not ready for Progressive women leader.

    Votes: 21 36.2%
  • Should have kept Joe.

    Votes: 1 1.7%
  • Not enough focus on new jobs.

    Votes: 2 3.4%
  • Nothing, Trump cheated & played dirty!

    Votes: 5 8.6%
  • Didn't stop Gaza War.

    Votes: 5 8.6%
  • I can be Agent M.

    Votes: 4 6.9%

  • Total voters
    58
Maybe, but do you acknowledge that they were held to different standards?
By whom?

If you're talking about media, I've seen enough double standards to agree without asking for more evidence.

If you're talking about swing voters, I suspect you are correct but have no evidence either way.
 
Nothing in this post indicates that Democrats did something wrong, or even pursued suboptimal policies/messaging regarding the economy.

Seems to me that you insist on changing the subject from one party's mistakes to another's mendacity.

Do you sincerely believe you are not deliberately derailing this topic?

What my post indicates is that the approach taken in this thread to understanding "what Democrats did wrong" is not rooted in reality. The only thing I'm "derailing" is the obstinacy of people in this thread who refuse to engage honestly.

For example, leading the thread poll currently is "too much transgender stuff". There was zero "transgender stuff" in the Harris campaign. If you answer the question "What did Democrats do wrong?" by saying they did too much of a thing that they didn't do at all, you're not engaging the question honestly.

So if me pointing out the level of dishonest engagement there is in this thread is "derailing", then I guess report me, because I'm gong to keep doing it.
 
Last edited:
and i think that goes hand in hand with examining the more successful campaign of their opponents, which was obsession over identity politics like trans rapists and mexican rapists, and policy positions that ranged from working through magical thinking to being nonexistent.
 
The only honest answer to the question "What did Democrats do wrong?" is "Not peddle lies and conspiracy theories to assuage the irrational fears and outrages of a credulous electorate awash in right wing propaganda".
 
For example, leading the thread poll currently is "too much transgender stuff". There was zero "transgender stuff" in the Harris campaign. If you answer the question "What did Democrats do wrong?" by saying they did too much of a thing that they didn't do at all, you're not engaging the question honestly.
Does the OP limit our consideration to the campaign, leaving out four years of governance?

I'd say obviously not since "fight illegal immigration" is something you can do with policy, but not with messaging.

Once again you have failed to come up with anything Democrats did wrong in the past four years.
 
Last edited:
Democrats were absolutely out of touch with voters on the Gaza conflict, and they knew it. With open eyes they decided they would rather lose than appear to be anything but 100% pro whatever the Israeli government wanted.
 
Last edited:
Does the OP limit our consideration to the campaign, leaving out four years of governance?

I'd say obviously not since "fight illegal immigration" is something you can do with policy, but not with messaging.

Yes, it was just four years of nonstop “transgender stuff”. You couldn’t get away from it. 😏

It’s embarrassingly stupid to think Democrats doing too much “transgender stuff” was the number one reason they lost they election and even more embarrassingly stupid to double down on it.
Once again you have failed to come up with anything Democrats did wrong in the past four years.

I literally did just that in the post just before yours. And here, I’ll do it again: Insofar as the “transgender stuff” goes, what Democrats did fail to do was adequately demonize a marginalized group to the satisfaction of incoherent bigots.
 
Democrats were absolutely out of touch with voters on the Gaza conflict, and they knew it. With open eyes they decided they would rather lose than appear to be anything but 100% pro whatever the Israeli government wanted.
So the voters showed them by voting Republican. What is the Republican stance on Gaza and Israel?
 
So the voters showed them by voting Republican. What is the Republican stance on Gaza and Israel?
Republicans didn't pretend that they cared.

And polls suggest that people who would have voted for Democrats if it wasn't for their failure on Gaza just didn't vote at all.
These were voters who would have supported Harris if she had just given a little indication that she wouldn't continue send weapons to Israel if the killing continued.
The OP was about what they did wrong: not bringing easy to persuade single issue voters onboard, but very visibly distancing themselves from them is what they did wrong.
 
Last edited:
Republicans didn't pretend that they cared.

And polls suggest that people who would have voted for Democrats if it wasn't for their failure on Gaza just didn't vote at all.
These were voters who would have supported Harris if she had just given a little indication that she wouldn't continue send weapons to Israel if the killing continued.
The OP was about what they did wrong: not bringing easy to persuade single issue voters onboard, but very visibly distancing themselves from them is what they did wrong.

Anyone who abstained from voting for Democrats because they didn’t like their position on Gaza, thereby opening the door for Republicans to win and implement even worse policies for Gaza, isn’t a serious person and doesn’t really care about Gaza beyond the performative.
 
Anyone who abstained from voting for Democrats because they didn’t like their position on Gaza, thereby opening the door for Republicans to win and implement even worse policies for Gaza, isn’t a serious person and doesn’t really care about Gaza beyond the performative.
"As a vegetarian, I can't eat this chicken so instead I'll order the veal!"
 
Democrats were absolutely out of touch with voters on the Gaza conflict, and they knew it. With open eyes they decided they would rather lose than appear to be anything but 100% pro whatever the Israeli government wanted.
I thought they did that because there was no way they are winning if they aren't 100% pro Israel, but maybe I misread the electorate.
 
Anyone who abstained from voting for Democrats because they didn’t like their position on Gaza, thereby opening the door for Republicans to win and implement even worse policies for Gaza, isn’t a serious person and doesn’t really care about Gaza beyond the performative.
Nifty. Still doesn't address the Democrats' failure in this area.
 
Nifty. Still doesn't address the Democrats' failure in this area.

No it doesn’t, but within the context of examining why they lost the election, it makes zero sense to attribute it to their Gaza policy.

If Democrats have a bad policy and they lose to someone with an even worse policy, Democrats didn’t lose because their policy wasn’t good enough. They lost because the electorate is politically illiterate.
 
Yes, it was just four years of nonstop “transgender stuff”. You couldn’t get away from it. 😏
Nothing here about anything Democrats did wrong.
It’s embarrassingly stupid to think Democrats doing too much “transgender stuff” was the number one reason they lost they election and even more embarrassingly stupid to double down on it.
Nothing here about anything Democrats did wrong.
I’ll do it again: Insofar as the “transgender stuff” goes, what Democrats did fail to do was adequately demonize a marginalized group to the satisfaction of incoherent bigots.
You do not seriously believe that was a "wrong" move, obviously. Again, nothing here about anything Democrats did wrong.

If Democratic strategists came to you asking how to improve, you'd have nothing helpful to say.

Once again (again, again) you have failed to say anything remotely on topic.

I'm not getting the sense that you understand the assignment.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
No it doesn’t, but within the context of examining why they lost the election, it makes zero sense to attribute it to their Gaza policy.

If Democrats have a bad policy and they lose to someone with an even worse policy, Democrats didn’t lose because their policy wasn’t good enough. They lost because the electorate is politically illiterate.
It goes to the idea that people don 't want diet Republicans when super concentrated unfiltered Republicans are right there. That the party that really does represent the policies that are not only better for but also more popular among the American public is somehow so disconnected from that public.
 
Nothing here about anything Democrats did wrong.

Nothing here about anything Democrats did wrong.

You do not seriously believe that was a "wrong" move.

Again, nothing here about anything Democrats did wrong.

Once again (again, again) you have failed to say anything on topic.
I’ve twice provided reasons why I think Democrats lost the election in recent posts. Just because you don’t approve of them doesn’t make them off-topic. Feel free to engage me on those points.

I’ve also directly engaged with the topic by arguing why I think other reasons provided are wrong (the economy, “transgender stuff”, Gaza). Feel free to engage me on those points.

The only off-topic posts I’m seeing now are coming from you. Your constant hall monitoring is tedious and adds nothing to the discussion. Please get back to the topic of the thread.
 
For the sake of all those who don't understand what this thread is about, here are some various examples of writers criticizing the Democratic Party on points where they would actually suggest improvement:

When Will Democrats Learn to Say No

The End of the Obama Coalition

From the Veal Pen to The Groups
I think that author means "Say No to Those Other People". They seem pretty happy to say yes to corporate donors and right-wingers.
 
It goes to the idea that people don 't want diet Republicans when super concentrated unfiltered Republicans are right there. That the party that really does represent the policies that are not only better for but also more popular among the American public is somehow so disconnected from that public.

Rejecting “diet Republicans” only to end up with “Republicans” is self-defeating. It puts you farther away from your stated goal.

That so many people voted against their own interests is a testament to the power of propaganda.

I suppose their is an argument be made that Democrats didn’t do a good enough job combatting this propaganda, but believing propaganda is a choice and talking people out of something their identity demands they believe is pretty much impossible.
 
Last edited:
Rejecting “diet Republicans” only to end up with “Republicans” is self-defeating. It puts you farther away from your stated goal.
Doesn't *running* diet Republicans do the same thing?
That so many people voted against their own interests is a testament to the power of propaganda.
That the Democrats were so out of tune with the interests of their base is a testament to their ineptitude.
I suppose their is an argument be made that Democrats didn’t do a good enough job combatting this propaganda, but believing propaganda is a choice and talking people out of something their identity demands they believe is pretty much impossible.
They didn't do enough with the power they had. They weren't stopped by Sinema and Manchin. Sinema and Manchin just played their parts. If not them, it would have been Tester and Durbin. The fact is, these aren't the Democrats of FDR, JFK, or LBJ. These are the Democrats of Goldman Sachs and Citi.
 
I’ve twice provided reasons why I think Democrats lost the election in recent posts.
Did you ever—at any point in this thread—tell us what you would actually like them to get right instead of wrong?
Your constant hall monitoring is tedious and adds nothing to the discussion.
Looking forward to the part where you actually say something Democrats need to do better.
Please get back to the topic of the thread.
LOL.
 
Last edited:
You want an example of one of John Fetterman's lackeys being pro corporate donors and appeasing right-wingers?
 
Rejecting “diet Republicans” only to end up with “Republicans” is self-defeating. It puts you farther away from your stated goal.

That so many people voted against their own interests is a testament to the power of propaganda.

I suppose their is an argument be made that Democrats didn’t do a good enough job combatting this propaganda, but believing propaganda is a choice and talking people out of something their identity demands they believe is pretty much impossible.

i agree and i think the two big obvious mistakes are not stopping political propaganda and not prosecuting republican officials for their crimes against the constitution.

on the other hand, to suggest taking concrete steps against lies and propaganda beyond polite disagreement is often framed as a free speech issue. personally i think there’s been a pretty major shift in blurring the lines between legitimate political speech and cons and scams, and i think well meaning people warning about the potential dangers of abuse of having some kind of standard of ethical conduct have missed the very real dangers of leaving everyone to figure it out in their own. the deck is really stacked against the average person
 
Again, you need to look at the voters to understand why the Democrats lost the election. And pointing out that the voters don't seem to care that Trump is backing away from his campaign promises seems to be an important point in studying the voters.
EVERY president in my memory has backed away from their campaign promises. At this point, it's a given. So I'm not sure why you think this is worth pointing out, or what relevance it has to Dem campaign strategy.
I am not sure how you could even say the Democrats did anything wrong without looking at how the voters voted, or why they voted Trump. Even if we were to assume a complete separation of Politics and Policy (as terrifying as that is), you still would have to examine why the voters preferred Republican Politics.
Sure, absolutely - understanding why voters voted the way they did is important. But it also really helps if we actually do understand those reasons as opposed to simply assuming that Trump voters voted for Trump because they're all racist transphobic evil poopyheads. Just sayin'.
 
Fareed Zakaria wrote a column for the Washington Post in which he claimed that the Democrats made a mistake by thinking that they could win back the white working class vote by enacting programs that had large benefits for the working class. These included the Inflation Reduction Act, the Chips and Science Act, and the infrastructure spending, all of which were designed in part to create manufacturing jobs (and more than 3/4 of the spending under the Inflation Reduction Act was in congressional districts that had Republican congresspeople). Yet they lost ground among working class voters.

This is probably behind a paywall:
 
EVERY president in my memory has backed away from their campaign promises. At this point, it's a given. So I'm not sure why you think this is worth pointing out, or what relevance it has to Dem campaign strategy.

Sure, absolutely - understanding why voters voted the way they did is important. But it also really helps if we actually do understand those reasons as opposed to simply assuming that Trump voters voted for Trump because they're all racist transphobic evil poopyheads. Just sayin'.
I personally can't remember a president who made such explicit promises during the campaign who after winning the election openly admitted that he actually has little chance of fulfilling those promises before even getting into office and attempting to fulfil them.
 
i agree and i think the two big obvious mistakes are not stopping political propaganda and not prosecuting republican officials for their crimes against the constitution.
The biggest and most obvious mistake was choosing the oldest conceivable candidate to run once again, during an anti-incumbent election cycle.

Nothing says "hope and change" quite like an octogenarian with several decades of institutional service.
 
Last edited:
EVERY president in my memory has backed away from their campaign promises. At this point, it's a given. So I'm not sure why you think this is worth pointing out, or what relevance it has to Dem campaign strategy.

Sure, absolutely - understanding why voters voted the way they did is important. But it also really helps if we actually do understand those reasons as opposed to simply assuming that Trump voters voted for Trump because they're all racist transphobic evil poopyheads. Just sayin'.
If voters did not actually expect Trump to keep his campaign promises, nor show any evidence of being upset upon learning that he won't, then it is reasonable to conclude that the content of those promises had little or nothing to do with why they voted for Trump.

On the other hand, such behavior remains consistent with the notion that they voted for him because they liked his "racist transphobic evil poopyhead" talking points, and/or his overall RTEP vibe.
 
Last edited:
The biggest and most obvious mistake was choosing the oldest conceivable candidate to run once again, during an anti-incumbent election cycle.

Nothing says "hope and change" quite like an octogenarian with several decades of institutional service.
So instead we got an octogenarian without several decades of institutional service. Then when the Democrats switched to a much younger candidate she still lost. I'm comfortable with ruling out age-of-candidate as a decisive factor in this election. (Unless people actually wanted an old candidate, and switched to Trump in anger after Biden was replaced with that young kid.)
 
Anyone who abstained from voting for Democrats because they didn’t like their position on Gaza, thereby opening the door for Republicans to win and implement even worse policies for Gaza, isn’t a serious person and doesn’t really care about Gaza beyond the performative.
Arab Americans didn't abstain: they shifted from voting Democrat to voting Republican or a third party, specifically due to Biden's piss-poor handling of the Gaza situation.
 
Arab Americans didn't abstain: they shifted from voting Democrat to voting Republican or a third party, specifically due to Biden's piss-poor handling of the Gaza situation.
Which makes the situation even more puzzling.

Voting for a third party candidate kinda makes sense but given US politics, that's functionally equivalent to abstaining.

Voting Republican, the party which is vehemently pro-Israel and is actively working towards conflict in the Middle East as a means to bring about the second coming, because the Democrats aren't sufficiently pro-Palestinian doesn't sound that sensible to me.
 
Which makes the situation even more puzzling.

Voting for a third party candidate kinda makes sense but given US politics, that's functionally equivalent to abstaining.

Voting Republican, the party which is vehemently pro-Israel and is actively working towards conflict in the Middle East as a means to bring about the second coming, because the Democrats aren't sufficiently pro-Palestinian doesn't sound that sensible to me.
Biden is massively unpopular with Muslims, because of his handling of the Gaza conflict. That is apparent here in Saudi Arabia as well. Here, too, they seem to gloss over or ignore Trump's anti-Muslim and pro-Israel stance. This is indeed curious.
If you read to the end of that article I linked to, it mentions other reasons for the switch among US Muslim/Arab voters. It appears that Gaza was the proverbial, and apt, straw that broke the camel's back.
 
Biden is massively unpopular with Muslims, because of his handling of the Gaza conflict. That is apparent here in Saudi Arabia as well. Here, too, they seem to gloss over or ignore Trump's anti-Muslim and pro-Israel stance. This is indeed curious.
If you read to the end of that article I linked to, it mentions other reasons for the switch among US Muslim/Arab voters. It appears that Gaza was the proverbial, and apt, straw that broke the camel's back.
And rather like switching to Trump and the Republicans because Biden and the Democrats are too pro-Israel, their other reasons for switching to the Republicans - handling of the economy, immigration and drugs - demonstrates that they have heard the MAGA slogans but don't understand the impact of the actual policies (if there are any).

Republican policies will likely damage the economy and will concentrate wealth in the hands of an ever smaller group of billionaires. Immigration will always be a "problem" for MAGA unless all brown people are removed from the US and they have no incentive to "fix" immigration because it's one of their key ways of scaring voters. Muslim citizens and residents will likely get swept up in immigration dragnets and anti-Muslim propaganda will continue to get worse. The war on drugs is pointless and lost, particularly because the biggest problem is legally obtainable opioids, the GOP are going to do nothing about legal or illegal drugs apart from jailing more brown people, Muslims among them.
 
Doesn't *running* diet Republicans do the same thing?

That the Democrats were so out of tune with the interests of their base is a testament to their ineptitude.

They didn't do enough with the power they had. They weren't stopped by Sinema and Manchin. Sinema and Manchin just played their parts. If not them, it would have been Tester and Durbin. The fact is, these aren't the Democrats of FDR, JFK, or LBJ. These are the Democrats of Goldman Sachs and Citi.

I don't disagree with any of this, but in general, the proposition that Democrats lost to hard right Republicans because they didn't go far enough to the left doesn't track.

Furthermore, I think there's too much focus on what Democrats lost in the margins. A better Gaza policy might have gained them voters from the left, but also might have lost them voters in the center.

The bigger and more important question is why huge swaths of voters chose fascism and conspiracy theories over what Democrats were offering. The efforts in this thread to force that answer into the realm of traditional politics by saying things like "Democrats didn't focus enough on the economy" might as well be taking place on another plane of reality.
 
I personally can't remember a president who made such explicit promises during the campaign who after winning the election openly admitted that he actually has little chance of fulfilling those promises before even getting into office and attempting to fulfil them.

Yes, it's almost as if what Emily's Cat said was just a big lie in service of excusing Trump and his voters. What a shocker.
 
Biden is massively unpopular with Muslims, because of his handling of the Gaza conflict. That is apparent here in Saudi Arabia as well. Here, too, they seem to gloss over or ignore Trump's anti-Muslim and pro-Israel stance. This is indeed curious.
If you read to the end of that article I linked to, it mentions other reasons for the switch among US Muslim/Arab voters. It appears that Gaza was the proverbial, and apt, straw that broke the camel's back.
That won't be an issue with the next election, as by then there won't be a Gaza and the number of US Muslims/Arabs will be a lot lower.
 
The biggest and most obvious mistake was choosing the oldest conceivable candidate to run once again, during an anti-incumbent election cycle.

Nothing says "hope and change" quite like an octogenarian with several decades of institutional service.

As already pointed out, Democrats switched to a significantly younger candidate who still lost to someone who is effectively an octogenarian.

I honestly thought that anyone who wanted to be taken seriously wouldn't bring up the age thing again after it was shown to be mostly media-driven the moment Biden dropped out. Once Trump became the oldest candidate in history with obvious signs of cognitive decline, approximately zero people that claimed this was an Important Issue maintained that position. It was never about Biden's age.
 
Back
Top Bottom