• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

What did Democrats do wrong?

What did Democrats do wrong?

  • Didn't fight inflation enough.

    Votes: 13 14.9%
  • Didn't fight illegal immigration enough.

    Votes: 24 27.6%
  • Too much focus on abortion.

    Votes: 2 2.3%
  • Too much transgender stuff.

    Votes: 31 35.6%
  • America not ready for Progressive women leader.

    Votes: 31 35.6%
  • Should have kept Joe.

    Votes: 3 3.4%
  • Not enough focus on new jobs.

    Votes: 2 2.3%
  • Nothing, Trump cheated & played dirty!

    Votes: 16 18.4%
  • Didn't stop Gaza War.

    Votes: 9 10.3%
  • I can be Agent M.

    Votes: 6 6.9%

  • Total voters
    87
You'll stop helping MAGA if I stop pointing out that you're helping MAGA? That is a mighty fair offer!

they’re spending time chasing the vote of the emily’s cats of the world and eschewing the vote of the beezlebuddy’s

seem they’d have more success the other way around but ymmv
 
By your logic, there is no such thing as a "fine person" who sees someone carrying a Hamas flag, wearing Hamas headbands and attire, chanting in islamic "from the river to the sea" and then decides to march with them.

Everyone who did such a thing, or was seen in the vicinity of such a thing, is clearly an anti-semitic jihadist, right?
Anyone who sees swastikas and klan hoods and decides to join in is ipso facto aligning themselves with white supremacists, and it would be a reasonable inference that such people are likely white supremacists themselves. Perhaps some aren't, but why should I assume that?

Beyond that, it remains that they have done a bad thing (we *do* agree that willingly marching with nazis and klansmen, regardless of personal motivation, is generally a bad thing, right?), and have some explaining to do before it would be appropriate to go ahead and label them as"fine people".
 
Last edited:
as i recall the fine people remark was to deflect criticism away from the white supremacist rally that ended when a guy ran people over with a car
 
Like a Josh Shapiro or Mark Kelly? There's you're best two options to not have Trump part 3 or Vance.
Josh Shapiro is the Democrats' version of Ron DeSantis, Scott Walker, and Jeb Bush. Popular in his own state, media loves him, insiders love him, falls flat when out on his own. He sounds like a smarmy East Coast liberal elite trying to play tough guy. Because he is.

The democrats aren't beat the Republicans with another anointed one. Not someone who runs all the media talking points and tries to appeal to the middle by telling you how much he hates a certain part of his party. Someone who will take right-wing bait every. damn. time.

While I don't like several of Spanberger's positions, at least she doesn't apologize for being a Democrat or spend more time attacking progressives than actually passing Democratic measures.

She also illustrates a point I make about the futility of running to the middle to appease Republicans. She's fairly moderate policy wise, but the Federalist Society has declared her a radical leftist. (I would link their article, but their site keeps crashing Chrome for me).
 
they’re spending time chasing the vote of the emily’s cats of the world and eschewing the vote of the beezlebuddy’s

seem they’d have more success the other way around but ymmv
1: They're not "eschewing" the votes of the Beelzebuddies of America. They literally offered things that progressives said they wanted! The problem is that the fickle far left are still struggling with the concept that getting some of what you want is better than having everything you want (and everything you already have) taken away. They weren't ignored, they chose to opt out.
2: Beelzebuddy and friends are also telling everyone why they should not vote for the Dems at every opportunity. That strategy seems to be giving far more success to MAGA than to any of the goals Beelzebuddy claims to be pursuing.
 
Josh Shapiro is the Democrats' version of Ron DeSantis, Scott Walker, and Jeb Bush. Popular in his own state, media loves him, insiders love him, falls flat when out on his own. He sounds like a smarmy East Coast liberal elite trying to play tough guy. Because he is.

The democrats aren't beat the Republicans with another anointed one. Not someone who runs all the media talking points and tries to appeal to the middle by
telling you how much he hates a certain part of his party. Someone who will take right-wing bait every. damn. time.
While I don't like several of Spanberger's positions, at least she doesn't apologize for being a Democrat or spend more time attacking progressives than actually passing Democratic measures.

She also illustrates a point I make about the futility of running to the middle to appease Republicans. She's fairly moderate policy wise, but the Federalist Society has declared her a radical leftist. (I would link their article, but their site keeps crashing Chrome for me).
That is definitely a bad plan for winning elections. It would be great if the far left listened to your advice that this is a bad strategy.
 
1: They're not "eschewing" the votes of the Beelzebuddies of America. They literally offered things that progressives said they wanted! The problem is that the fickle far left are still struggling with the concept that getting some of what you want is better than having everything you want (and everything you already have) taken away. They weren't ignored, they chose to opt out.
2: Beelzebuddy and friends are also telling everyone why they should not vote for the Dems at every opportunity. That strategy seems to be giving far more success to MAGA than to any of the goals Beelzebuddy claims to be pursuing.

the dems offer them no seat at the table and they should be happy with the scraps they get. and when that’s not good enough, no fault to the dems for that being their best offer.

obviously i think you’re pretty dug in on that being a smart move on the dems. but i can see why that’s pretty unappealing to what ended being an actually pretty important voter block they told to ◊◊◊◊ off and chased a voter block that was never going to buy what they’re selling.

personally i’m not too keen on being happy with scraps
 
the dems are essentially fiscal conservatives that box out progressive economic policy as much as the republicans do. offering some lukewarm social liberalism, that they’ll do nothing to stand up for at the end of the day anyway, while being in the pockets of the donor class just isn’t a great pitch

the dems have a ton of problems. i will say they’re not monstrous nazis. but i voted for biden because he was supposed to secure some of our most important rights and institutions, he passed an infrastructure bill. that’s it.
 
the dems offer them no seat at the table and they should be happy with the scraps they get. and when that’s not good enough, no fault to the dems for that being their best offer.

obviously i think you’re pretty dug in on that being a smart move on the dems. but i can see why that’s pretty unappealing to what ended being an actually pretty important voter block they told to ◊◊◊◊ off and chased a voter block that was never going to buy what they’re selling.

personally i’m not too keen on being happy with scraps
Oh, I get that you are also one that struggles with the concept that getting some of what you want is better than getting nothing. But are you really happy now that not only are you not getting "the scraps":rolleyes:, but MAGA is removing what little you thought you already had?

The claim that the Dems told that block to "◊◊◊◊ off" is complete nonsense. They built the most progressive platform in modern history to include most of what those people asked for. In a democracy, politics is a compromise because no one group ever gets 100% of what they want unless they are an authoritarian dictatorship. Ironically, progressives were so offended by democratic compromise that they helped an actual dictatorship into power.

Personally, I still think giving power to MAGA because Dems didn't promise you a pretty pink pony with a cherry on top was at best short sighted. Just because I think progressives shot themselves (and us) in the foot doesn't mean I think the Dems played it perfectly. In hindsight, it was a failure to expect "reasonable" Republicans to be reasonable, and a failure to expect the fickle far left to rationally pick the option that got them most of what they wanted. I can't tell the next nominee to just lie to progressives because they'd rather burn it all down than not get everything they want, especially when they can't even agree on what they want. I can, however, point out that helping MAGA is not getting the far left what they say they want. Then again, if they're so motivated to ignore the obvious, at some point it’s just trying to take the matches away from an arsonist who lives in a cardboard house.
 
1: They're not "eschewing" the votes of the Beelzebuddies of America. They literally offered things that progressives said they wanted! The problem is that the fickle far left are still struggling with the concept that getting some of what you want is better than having everything you want (and everything you already have) taken away. They weren't ignored, they chose to opt out.
2:
Beelzebuddy and friends are also telling everyone why they should not vote for the Dems at every opportunity. That strategy seems to be giving far more success to MAGA than to any of the goals Beelzebuddy claims to be pursuing.
Regarding the highlighted, please stop accusing me of doing things I am not. Pointing out that Democrats are stepping on their own dicks and alienating voters does not itself alienate those voters, as desperate as you are to find someone else, anyone else, to blame for their leadership's terrific ◊◊◊◊ ups and why those voters mysteriously don't turn out.

Refusing to admit out loud that Democrats are losing will not make them win. And they are losing. Hard. Not since the Weimar Republic has a single political party failed this catastrophically and unilaterally. Of all the possible answers to "What did Democrats do wrong," the wrongest by far is "Nothing! Nothing! Look away! Stop asking! The only failure is discussing our failures!" Whole generations of historians will have their careers set picking apart this dog's breakfast of a political establishment.

That said, we can nearly agree with the rest of the post. The problem isn't that the Democrats are eschewing the votes of progressives within their party. That's just political calculation. The big tent can only get so big. You can't appeal to everyone.

But once you eschew those votes, you are no longer entitled to those votes. It's not the fault of those voters that your maneuvering fails to win enough new supporters to pay off. Chuck Schumer's statement, that for every blue collar worker the Democrats lose, they'd get two Republican suburbanites, was a mistake. It was Chuck's mistake. It wasn't the fault of the blue collar worker that the two ex-Republicans failed to materialize.
 
So, you can't provide an example?
What, of a left handed far left candidate doing it on a Tuesday after Lent while wearing white? It being what you're doing right now? My brother in Christ, if you think it's a bad strategy then why the ◊◊◊◊ can't you stop doing it?
 
Oh, I get that you are also one that struggles with the concept that getting some of what you want is better than getting nothing. But are you really happy now that not only are you not getting "the scraps":rolleyes:, but MAGA is removing what little you thought you already had?

The claim that the Dems told that block to "◊◊◊◊ off" is complete nonsense. They built the most progressive platform in modern history to include most of what those people asked for. In a democracy, politics is a compromise because no one group ever gets 100% of what they want unless they are an authoritarian dictatorship. Ironically, progressives were so offended by democratic compromise that they helped an actual dictatorship into power.

Personally, I still think giving power to MAGA because Dems didn't promise you a pretty pink pony with a cherry on top was at best short sighted. Just because I think progressives shot themselves (and us) in the foot doesn't mean I think the Dems played it perfectly. In hindsight, it was a failure to expect "reasonable" Republicans to be reasonable, and a failure to expect the fickle far left to rationally pick the option that got them most of what they wanted. I can't tell the next nominee to just lie to progressives because they'd rather burn it all down than not get everything they want, especially when they can't even agree on what they want. I can, however, point out that helping MAGA is not getting the far left what they say they want. Then again, if they're so motivated to ignore the obvious, at some point it’s just trying to take the matches away from an arsonist who lives in a cardboard house.

your complete inability to see something from a different perspective is the source of your confusion. no need to be a jerk about it though. if anyone is struggling here it’s you
 
What, of a left handed far left candidate doing it on a Tuesday after Lent while wearing white? It being what you're doing right now? My brother in Christ, if you think it's a bad strategy then why the ◊◊◊◊ can't you stop doing it?
The fact that you need to use argument ad absurdum says a lot. I asked for any left-wing candidate or elected official on the Democratic ticket who attacks other Democratic factions the way moderate/centrist/conservative Democratic candidates and officials do
 
Regarding the highlighted, please stop accusing me of doing things I am not. Pointing out that Democrats are stepping on their own dicks and alienating voters does not itself alienate those voters, as desperate as you are to find someone else, anyone else, to blame for their leadership's terrific ◊◊◊◊ ups and why those voters mysteriously don't turn out.

Refusing to admit out loud that Democrats are losing will not make them win. And they are losing. Hard. Not since the Weimar Republic has a single political party failed this catastrophically and unilaterally. Of all the possible answers to "What did Democrats do wrong," the wrongest by far is "Nothing! Nothing! Look away! Stop asking! The only failure is discussing our failures!" Whole generations of historians will have their careers set picking apart this dog's breakfast of a political establishment.

That said, we can nearly agree with the rest of the post. The problem isn't that the Democrats are eschewing the votes of progressives within their party. That's just political calculation. The big tent can only get so big. You can't appeal to everyone.

But once you eschew those votes, you are no longer entitled to those votes. It's not the fault of those voters that your maneuvering fails to win enough new supporters to pay off. Chuck Schumer's statement, that for every blue collar worker the Democrats lose, they'd get two Republican suburbanites, was a mistake. It was Chuck's mistake. It wasn't the fault of the blue collar worker that the two ex-Republicans failed to materialize.
I am accusing you of doing things that you do in the very post I am quoting. By claiming the party "eschewed" progressives when they demonstrably did not, you are telling progressives why they should not vote for the Dems, which gives power to MAGA. You guys all love to scream from the rooftops how all the Dems are to blame for 7 centrist votes, or how the Dems told you to ◊◊◊◊ off, and you keep on pretending that repeating claims over and over has no effect on the number of people who believe those claims.

I've admitted that assuming "reasonable" Republicans could be convinced to not vote for authoritarianism was a mistake, so this whole strawman of "Nothing! Nothing!" is just wrong. I agree that the 2016 Schumer calculation was a failure, but you're ignoring that the 2024 platform was the most progressive in history precisely because the party tried to fix that mistake. You're trying to have it both ways: blaming the party for "eschewing" you while you actively work to alienate the very voters you claim to represent. If you think "stepping on your own dick" is a bad strategy for Dems, why is it a brilliant strategy for the far left?
 
your complete inability to see something from a different perspective is the source of your confusion. no need to be a jerk about it though. if anyone is struggling here it’s you
I know yu r but wut am i? Well, that sure won the argument.

eta: further, no amount of "seeing something from a different perspective" will change the fact that a bad decision is still a bad decision. When a choice has predictable and predicted outcomes that are disastrous for progressives, it doesn't become "good" just because progressives didn't want to consider the results. Results matter more than your perspective, and we are all living with the results of that strategy right now.
 
Last edited:
The fact that you need to use argument ad absurdum says a lot. I asked for any left-wing candidate or elected official on the Democratic ticket who attacks other Democratic factions the way moderate/centrist/conservative Democratic candidates and officials do
You have yet to explain why it is good when you do it but bad when they do it, not to mention a failure to provide any examples of elected Democrats or official Democratic candidates doing it at all.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom