What did Democrats do wrong?

[Segnosaur]

"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

First of all, keep in mind that that 70 vs. 70.5% seems to be just an average.

The referenced article breaks things down into separate battleground states, and the change in Arizona and North Carolina were 5 and 2.5% respectively.

Secondly, looking at total voter turnout may be a little misleading. After all, some former democratic supporters might go to the polls and vote republican, or 3rd party. Or drop in democratic support might be combined with an increase in republican support for unrelated reasons, leaving the total number who voted roughly the same.

 

[Donal]

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'd say it's more faux-populist, anti-neoliberal shift than straight up to the right. The right has a very well-organized, well-funded, and focused machine that is spreading its message. A lot of that is coming from the very financial backers and institutions that were propping up neoliberalism. When you take Orban's losses in Hungary into consideration, it seems 2024 was an anti-incumbency backlash. Something the Democrats should have been aware of.

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.

I'm not asking for an October revolution. Maybe admit the stock market isn't an accurate representation of the economic conditions of most Americans? Maybe instead of telling us why we can't have things like MediCare for All, you tell us how we can get it? How about using our leverage over Israel to slow down the IDF the way Reagan did? Maybe don't concede to right-wing talking points about topics that don't drive elections?

 

[wareyin]

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

You're using total turnout to mask a specific partisan collapse. Your link shows that in Harris led states, turnout dropped by 3.7% compared to Biden's states in 2020. In contrast, the drop in Trump's states was less than half that.

The math is simple. If total turnout is "roughly the same" but Harris lost while Biden won, it means the Democratic base shrunk while the opposition stayed steady or grew. Millions of Democratic votes simply vanished from the total. You’re pointing at a 0.7% aggregate drop to hide the fact that the specific coalition needed to stop a fascist stayed home in the margins that mattered.

 

[d4m10n]

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.

If you meant to claim Americans are not trying to enforce a law that doesn't yet exist, well, that certainly does turn out to be true. Given that you were replying to a claim that "most females don't want males in our showers or gyms or prisons or sports" I had thought you were talking about where voters' heads are actually at on these issues—in a thread at least partially about whether a specific political party has drifted too far away from its traditional working class supporters in favor of the views promulgated by highly educated elites.

 

[wareyin]

Yep! Another "independent" spouting off right wing disinformation and uniformed defenses of Trump and/or MAGA!

I just noticed my "uniformed" rather than "uninformed" typo! Well, they all do march in lock-step to repeat the official talking points, and a not insignificant number are at the very least funded by hostile military powers, so maybe they're in uniform too?

 

[wareyin]

If you meant to claim Americans are not trying to enforce a law that doesn't yet exist, well, that certainly does turn out to be true. Given that you were replying to a claim that "most females don't want males in our showers or gyms or prisons or sports" I had thought you were talking about where voters' heads are actually at on these issues—in a thread at least partially about whether a specific political party has drifted too far away from its traditional working class supporters in favor of the views promulgated by highly-educated elites.

Yes, I mean to claim exactly what I did claim, namely that "Most people aren't trying to force trans men to use the women’s room or trans women to use the men’s." And had you not immediately jumped in with a "well akshuuually" poll about a hypothetical law, you may have noticed that this was a direct push back to the claim that Emily's Cat's anti-trans views aren't bigoted because she thinks most people agree with her.

That claim is false, not leastwise because the number of people who hold a bigoted view has no bearing on whether that view is bigoted. Popularity doesn't negate prejudice, no matter how much you or she try to frame it as a "working class" concern.

 

[d4m10n]

push back to the claim that Emily's Cat's anti-trans views aren't bigoted because she thinks most people agree with her.

Most Americans do agree with her on the bathroom issue unless that poll accidentally captured a biased sample, which is always a possibility.

Your attempt to reframe the issue in terms of using force on the spot is misleading at best; EC never made any claims about that.

That claim is false, not leastwise because the number of people who hold a bigoted view has no bearing on whether that view is bigoted.

It was bigoted (and likely untruthful) for candidate Obama to say he believed marriage is between one man and one woman, but political candidates and the national parties they represent generally try not to get too far out in front of the masses even whilst attempting to drag them along to a more enlightened viewpoint.

 

[plague311]

I'd say it's more faux-populist, anti-neoliberal shift than straight up to the right. The right has a very well-organized, well-funded, and focused machine that is spreading its message. A lot of that is coming from the very financial backers and institutions that were propping up neoliberalism. When you take Orban's losses in Hungary into consideration, it seems 2024 was an anti-incumbency backlash. Something the Democrats should have been aware of.

I guess we can kind of call it whatever, but every poll and international article I read that relates to the direction of their political leanings is saying it's going to the right. I guess they don't qualify it as anti-neoliberal but I won't argue with you. I don't get into the term details as much as others but either way the politicians running under the right wing banner are going to be running the bulk of the European countries. I haven't read many that say that Europe is moving left.

I'm not asking for an October revolution. Maybe admit the stock market isn't an accurate representation of the economic conditions of most Americans? Maybe instead of telling us why we can't have things like MediCare for All, you tell us how we can get it? How about using our leverage over Israel to slow down the IDF the way Reagan did? Maybe don't concede to right-wing talking points about topics that don't drive elections?

Sure, I won't argue with much there.

 

[wareyin]

Most Americans do agree with her on the bathroom issue unless that poll accidentally captured a biased sample, which is always a possibility.

Your attempt to reframe the issue in terms of using force on the spot is misleading at best; EC never made any claims about that.


It was bigoted (and likely untruthful) for candidate Obama to say he believed marriage is between one man and one woman, but political candidates and the national parties they represent generally try not to get too far out in front of the masses even whilst attempting to drag them along to a more enlightened viewpoint.

You're still trying to use popularity as a shield for prejudice. The number of people who agree with a bigoted view has zero bearing on whether that view is bigoted. If you need a historical reminder, the masses have been on the wrong side of almost every civil rights struggle in this country’s history.

As for Obama, whataboutisms won't get you anywhere. The fact that a politician made a bigoted, politically motivated calculation two decades ago doesn't make Emily's Cat's current views any less bigoted. It just means politicians are often the last ones to find a moral compass. Further, it's absurd that you're using a politician's past failure to find a moral compass as a way to complain that the Democratic party finally found one. You're essentially arguing that because being bigoted used to be the safe bet to get more votes, the party is now "elitist" for deciding that civil rights shouldn't be up for a popularity contest.

 

[arthwollipot]

Most Americans do agree with her on the bathroom issue unless that poll accidentally captured a biased sample, which is always a possibility.

That doesn't mean they're right.

 

[dirtywick]

Rank-and-File Dems to Leaders: It’s Time to Take the Gloves Off

In TNR’s exclusive new poll, loyal Democratic voters make it plain: They want a party that goes after the people making their lives harder.

newrepublic.com

article about some insights from a recent dem voter poll of which 94% of respondents voted karmella

And if the system is rigged, as so many of these committed Democrats believe, it stands to reason that they would want their leaders to take bolder, more decisive action to stand up for them. In what seems like a striking repudiation of the rhetoric employed by Democratic presidents and presidential candidates over the years about working across the aisle, a clear majority—75 percent—would prefer that Democrats “be more aggressive in calling out Republicans,” while just 25 percent chose “focus more on working with Republicans.” Likewise, 62 percent said they want to see the party call out “corporate wrongdoing,” while only 38 percent said the party should “focus more on supporting businesses.”

But although the poll shows strong agreement among Democrats about who their enemies are and how they want to see their party go after them, it also implies real disappointment in their elected representatives’ actions on that front. Respondents overwhelmingly attested to frustration with what they see as their party’s timidity: A whopping 69 percent agree that it would be somewhat to extremely appropriate to describe Democrats as “weak.”

most notably as it pertains to this thread

Perhaps even more surprisingly, a plurality of poll respondents—46 percent—want to see a progressive represent the party in 2028, as opposed to a liberal or a moderate. This proportion is higher than the percentage self-identifying as progressive, which clocked in at 32 percent.

even a thing about the trans

For the moderates reading these results in alarm, take heart: There is still an identifiable pragmatic strain among loyal Democrats. Whereas 80 percent believe it’s important to protect transgender Americans from discrimination, they were more ambivalent about allowing trans teen athletes to compete in their gender identity, which just 39 percent think it’s important to do.

 

[d4m10n]

That doesn't mean they're right.

Pretty sure OP wasn't using "wrong" in the moral sense.

 

[d4m10n]

The number of people who agree with a bigoted view has zero bearing on whether that view is bigoted.

See above.

You're essentially arguing that because being bigoted used to be the safe bet to get more votes, the party is now "elitist" for deciding that civil rights shouldn't be up for a popularity contest.

Let me just go double check the OP to see if it's literally about a popularity contest.

 

[arthwollipot]

Pretty sure OP wasn't using "wrong" in the moral sense.

Pretty sure I am.

 

[theprestige]

Pretty sure I am.

Then you're missing the point, and jamming the thread with noise.

Politicians who get too far ahead of public sentiment lose elections, even if the politician wants good things and public sentiment is heading in the right direction.

 

[arthwollipot]

Then you're missing the point, and jamming the thread with noise.

Pretty sure words can sometimes be used in different ways.

 

[theprestige]

Pretty sure words can sometimes be used in different ways.

Yes, and you're using this one in a way that misses the point and jams the thread with noise.

Given the setbacks this cause has endured following the Democrat's losses in 2024, I'd even argue that they weren't even morally correct, to stake out the unelectable position they did.

I'd add this to the list of things Democrats did wrong, but it's been on the list since the inception of the thread.

 

[arthwollipot]

Yes, and you're using this one in a way that misses the point and jams the thread with noise.

Am I not permitted to use the word "wrong" in the thread unless it conforms precisely with the specific meaning that has in the thread title?

I think your Rules of English won't get very far.

 

[wareyin]

Yes, and you're using this one in a way that misses the point and jams the thread with noise.

Given the setbacks this cause has endured following the Democrat's losses in 2024, I'd even argue that they weren't even morally correct, to stake out the unelectable position they did.

I'd add this to the list of things Democrats did wrong, but it's been on the list since the inception of the thread.

From dirtywick's link, 80% of Dem voters want a politician who will protect trans people from discrimination. That alone tells you that a politician who adopts the conservative anti-trans stance would be unelectable as a Democrat. But d4m10n has this X tweet saying 39% of Americans want that discrimination, as if that's a majority or a consensus.

Newsflash: that 39% is just the Republican base. It's not a national shift in opinion, it's just the official GOP platform of bigotry. The Dems couldn't peel off Republican voters when those guys were considering electing a convicted felon who openly said he'd be a dictator, so the idea that Democrats should have thrown trans rights under the bus and alienated 80% of their own base to chase that sweet, sweet bigot vote is political nonsense.

 

[Donal]

Then you're missing the point, and jamming the thread with noise.

Politicians who get too far ahead of public sentiment lose elections, even if the politician wants good things and public sentiment is heading in the right direction.

As demonstrated by how Goldwater trounced LBJ after he passed the unpopular Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.