What did Democrats do wrong?

[wareyin]

You may want to recheck the polling data on this claim.

That doesn't seem to contradict my claim. Did your infographic have any examples of people actually forcing that to happen that I missed? Or is it your contention that 39% of people is somehow "most"?

 

[wareyin]

Again, are we allowed to criticize the Democratic candidate?

It seems a little silly to snip out the part where I already answered that just to pretend the question is still open, especially when you quote my answer right after.

So, we're allowed but are completely responsible, even when the results were due to the campaign continuing to do the thing we are warning about?

You aren't blameless when you choose a course of action that has a predictable result, regardless of whether you want to accept responsibility for it.

And how can you say it was the fault of people like me offering the mildest of critiques when the party itself won't even release the findings of the post-mortem (if they even did a comprehensive post-mortem)? If they actually had data to back up the "blame twitter lefties" theory, you would be linking to it every day. All the centrist\moderate\establishment\conservative\blue MAGA democrats would be airdropping copies over every place 2 or more progressives can be found.

"mildest of critiques"?

 

[Donal]

The only "predictable results" were being ignored and then blamed. Without any actual proof, mind you. Where's the post-mortem that was promised? Do you think that would shed some light on disputes like this?

 

[Segnosaur]

Given the fact that the entire republican party (at least at the federal level) is composed pretty much entirely of either:
- Trump bootlickers
- cowards who will do very little to actually block Trump
then you can assume that at this point in time, Trump IS the be-all-end-all of the republican party

Given that the entire democratic party seemed to back Biden even when it was patently obvious that they were no longer cognitively capable of leading the country, I'm not sure your argument is as solid as you think it is.

Actually quite solid.

Whatever failings Biden had due to his age, Trump's mental decline is much much worse. Biden on his worst day was better than Trump on his best day.

And that is JUST regarding the issues surrounding age. It ignores the fact that Trump is racist (something biden is not), is a convicted felon (something biden is not), drove several businesses into bankruptcy (something biden did not).

Partisanship works that way. Why would you expect partisan republicans to actively block a republican president?

You're right, I don't expect republicans to block a republican president. Because they are corrupt themselves.

They SHOULD block a corrupt/inept president. But they won't.

The current republican party is authoritarian/fascist in nature. (Whether it is because they believe in the MAGA agenda or whether they are too cowardly to oppose him, the result is the same.) I think it reflects badly on a republican voter if they look at the 2 main options and think "this pro-fascist republican party better represents my values than the democrats, who may want higher taxes but still respect democracy".

I disagree. I don't think they're authoritarian fascists in nature...

Well, of course you wouldn't think that. Because you're OK with fascism in American and don't want to make yourself look bad.

But, consider:
- Trump tried to over throw the 2020 election. Hmm... overriding democracy... one of the expected actions of an authoritarian government
- Ignoring the courts (as the trump administration as repeatedly done, in particular over immigration issues) and the legislature (as they are doing with the epstein files). Another sign of an authoritarian government
- bigotry (such as trump having lunch with a white nationalist, or claiming immigrants are "eating dogs'

So yeah, pretty much fills the checklist of "authoritarian".

Seriously, you people keep treating me like I'm a die-hard republican and it's annoying. It leads you to make comments like this.

You had the chance to try to block a fascist leader, and instead threw away your vote. Then try to justify it by minimizing/ignoring the actions of the fascist.

You might not be a 'die-hard republican', but you are definitely a-OK with fascism.

I think it's insane of you to expect partisan republicans to vote for democrats based on narrative rhetoric that democrats have pushed to enrage a democratic base.

I would hope that republicans would vote for democrats because they see the damage Trump is causing to the country.

Of course, since Trump is a fascist who is basically destroying democracy in America, then "we're not Trump" SHOULD be a compelling argument, at least for people who don't want to see the US become fascist. (Which I know isn't you, because you have admitted you are A-Ok with fascism in America.)

This kind of ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ is not going to win democrats votes. How hard is it to just not lie about people that you need to convince to vote for your preferred candidate? Are you just incapable of biting your tongue and treating people with basic decency, or are you actually convinced that name calling and shaming and bullying is a winning tactic?

I am not trying to 'win votes'. I am not a democratic politician, i am not setting policy. This forum is basically an isolated environment which, rightly or wrongly, is for a debate among a small group of self-selected individuals.

I am pointing out that you are A-Ok with fascism not because I think its going to help bring the democrats to power, but because I like to debate on line, and I have no qualms about pointing out someone is A-Ok with fascism when, in effect, they ARE ok with fascism.

Trump checks all the check boxes you would expect with a fascist/authoritarian dictator... tried to overthrow democracy, ignores judiciary/legislature, engages in bigotry. We knew what he was going to be like before the 2024 election. You looked at that and said "I don't think that sort of fascist behavior is worth voting against." and spoiled your ballot.

So yeah, you are A-Ok with fascism.

 

[d4m10n]

Did your infographic have any examples of people actually forcing that to happen that I missed?

Not sure what you missed, but a majority of respondents either strongly or somewhat support the hypothetical law which you require sorting based on birth sex; a minority of respondents strongly or somewhat oppose the hypothetical law. I'm firmly in the opposition camp but I'm about to pretend that we remain in the majority nationwide.

 

[wareyin]

Not sure what you missed, but a majority of respondents either strongly or somewhat support the hypothetical law which you require sorting based on birth sex; a minority of respondents strongly or somewhat oppose the hypothetical law. I'm firmly in the opposition camp but I'm about to pretend that we remain in the majority nationwide.

Support of a hypothetical law about something does not equal trying to force that thing to happen, so that's what I am still missing.

 

[wareyin]

The only "predictable results" were being ignored and then blamed. Without any actual proof, mind you. Where's the post-mortem that was promised? Do you think that would shed some light on disputes like this?

Seriously? We're back to pretending that attacking the Democratic candidate from the left during the general election wouldn't depress left leaning votes? You don't need a formal post mortem to understand that if you spend months telling people the candidate is a "billionaire shill" who hasn't "earned" their vote, some of them are actually going to listen to you and stay home. It's what you wanted them to do!

 

[Donal]

What does your intellect have to be to spend months ignoring and insulting people within your own party telling you where you have a massive hole that is costing you important votes?

You can go and claim that all you want, but it's nothing more than an argument from incredulity. Don't you want the actual data? Don't you want to see what could have been done to prevent that? Who knows, maybe we're both wrong and there is that secret trove of "reasonable Republicans" ready to vote Democrat. Wouldn't you want to know where they are and how to get them out to vote?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

And now we've fringe reset to 'wut? how can being hyper critical of the Dems from and among the left depress voter turnout for the Dems'? Sigh.

Voter turnout in 2024 was almost 64%. That's less than 2020, but 2020 was a record-breaker. 64% is well above average for recent US Presidential elections. And most of the shortfall compared to 2020 was in non-competitive states, like Texas, California, and New York. Turnout across the so-called "battleground states" was roughly the same both years. Depressed voter turnout is not the culprit you think it is.

 

[Segnosaur]

Voter turnout in 2024 was almost 64%. That's less than 2020, but 2020 was a record-breaker. 64% is well above average for US Presidential elections. And most of the shortfall compared to 2020 was in non-competitive states, like Texas, California, and New York. Turnout across the so-called "battleground states" was roughly the same both years. Depressed voter turnout is not the culprit you think it is.

On the other hand...

These sort of "attacks of the democrats from the left" may be happening every year. Its possibly an endemic problem, where democratic turnout gets depressed every election.

So people may be right to be concerned about how such attacks affect democrats not just for the impact on the 2024 election, but on the 2020 election, 2016 election, etc.

 

[wareyin]

What does your intellect have to be to spend months ignoring and insulting people within your own party telling you where you have a massive hole that is costing you important votes?

You can go and claim that all you want, but it's nothing more than an argument from incredulity. Don't you want the actual data? Don't you want to see what could have been done to prevent that? Who knows, maybe we're both wrong and there is that secret trove of "reasonable Republicans" ready to vote Democrat. Wouldn't you want to know where they are and how to get them out to vote?

According to Axios reporting, that report leaked today. Guess what? Far left attacks about Gaza cost Harris critical support among young and progressive voters. In further shocking news, water is reported to be wet.

Yeah, obviously the intellectual move was to spend the entire general election attacking Harris from the left, predicably causing support amongst progressive voters to not materialize, and hand that Gaza response to Trump because he is better for your goals. Right?

 

[wareyin]

Voter turnout in 2024 was almost 64%. That's less than 2020, but 2020 was a record-breaker. 64% is well above average for recent US Presidential elections. And most of the shortfall compared to 2020 was in non-competitive states, like Texas, California, and New York. Turnout across the so-called "battleground states" was roughly the same both years. Depressed voter turnout is not the culprit you think it is.

"Roughly the same" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. When there is a up to an 8% drop in progressive votes (youth vote was over 50% in 2020 down to 42-47% in 2024), razor thin margins in battleground states really does matter.

 

[Donal]

Oh, a "top Democrat" gave their analysis? Not the actual report? One anonymous source's claims about it?

Even if this turns out to be true, are you OK that they knew where they were weak and didn't address it?

 

[wareyin]

Oh, a "top Democrat" gave their analysis? Not the actual report? One anonymous source's claims about it?

Even if this turns out to be true, are you OK that they knew where they were weak and didn't address it?

Axios says they independently verified the analysis, but sure, maybe attacks from the left about Gaza didn't actually have any effect on how the left viewed Harris. Maybe that drop in progressive support was caused by... Harris having the most progressive candidacy in modern history? Or maybe it was the astute political savvy that let them think the guy who wanted to nuke it all and build a resort would be better for Gaza?

 

[d4m10n]

Support of a hypothetical law about something does not equal trying to force that thing to happen, so that's what I am still missing.

"Law" is what we call it when force is formalized and tempered by due process. In the general run of things, people sort themselves into bathrooms and other sensitive spaces based on social norms, almost always without any need to resort to anything resembling force. Once those social norms break down, people resort to applying old laws or else passing new ones and backing up those laws in the usual forceful ways.

 

[Donal]

Axios says they independently verified the analysis, but sure, maybe attacks from the left about Gaza didn't actually have any effect on how the left viewed Harris. Maybe that drop in progressive support was caused by... Harris having the most progressive candidacy in modern history? Or maybe it was the astute political savvy that let them think the guy who wanted to nuke it all and build a resort would be better for Gaza?

Can we talk about how insanely low that bar is? Like, the fact that it is notable the Democratic presidential candidate is still to the right of LBJ is kind of a problem.

Also, again, if we take this at face value, shouldn't the party itself be taken to task for the strategic (and we'll ignore the morality of this stance for now) blunder?

 

[wareyin]

"Law" is what we call it when force is formalized and tempered by due process. In the general run of things, people sort themselves into bathrooms and other sensitive spaces based on social norms, almost always without any need to resort to anything resembling force. Once those social norms break down, people resort to applying old laws or else passing new ones and backing up those laws in the usual forceful ways.

Telling a pollster you may somewhat support a hypothetical law is a far cry from such a law being enacted, in effect, or being enforced. Hope this helps!

 

[wareyin]

Can we talk about how insanely low that bar is? Like, the fact that it is notable the Democratic presidential candidate is still to the right of LBJ is kind of a problem.

Also, again, if we take this at face value, shouldn't the party itself be taken to task for the strategic (and we'll ignore the morality of this stance for now) blunder?

Sure, let's go with it being a low bar. And in response to that low bar, we worked to amplify and keep left-wing focus on any Harris flaws, real or perceived, thus helping to elect an authoritarian fascist instead. Now we've got the country on a MUCH more progressive track!

 

[plague311]

Can we talk about how insanely low that bar is? Like, the fact that it is notable the Democratic presidential candidate is still to the right of LBJ is kind of a problem.

Also, again, if we take this at face value, shouldn't the party itself be taken to task for the strategic (and we'll ignore the morality of this stance for now) blunder?

The entire globe is shifting to the right, not just the US. We can complain and accuse the Dem party from morning until night that they aren't left wing enough but the fact is that we're going to see a MASSIVE shift to the right over the next year or two. Look at every European nation. None of them are moving to the left, all to the right.

I get your point that even their right is to the left of our left, but that's just the way it is and we can't expect the Dems to do a Herculean pull to the left. Bernie is considered extremely left and if the Dems even tried to run someone to the left of him they'd be laughed out of the primaries. Whether I like it, whether you like it, whether anyone likes it or not it would be a stupid move and losing strategy.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

"Roughly the same" is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

I think 70% and 70.7% can reasonably be called "roughly the same".

https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2024:_Analysis_of_voter_turnout_in_the_2024_general_election