What did Democrats do wrong?

[Emily's Cat]

The common clay of the new west

I don't hate anyone. I'm a Christian. I do, however, hold people accountable for their words and actions.

This isn't about being progressive. It's about being honest.

Your honest opinion about what you imagine other people think... sure. That doesn't make your imagination accurate. It certainly doesn't justify contempt toward other based on what you've imagined.

 

[The Atheist]

It certainly doesn't justify contempt toward other based on what you've imagined.

Not a lot of imagination is required when there are thousands of your own words sitting in this thread.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Not a lot of imagination is required when there are thousands of your own words sitting in this thread.

None of my words in this thread support the insinuation being made.

 

[d4m10n]

Because, while the reason they want to get rid of immigrants is racism, their stated reason to is "bring back jobs for Americans"

So what the Dems could’ve done better was…? It feels like almost everyone in this thread insists on talking about anything but the original topic, especially if they can dunk on the GOP and their supporters. Alas, if only we had other threads for that.

 

[Trausti]

Yes, people who think Biden was worse than Trump 1.0 or 2.0 are bad people - they are objectively bad for the Country.

Give me one redeeming feature of Trump or MAGA.

Just one, please.

 

[Lithrael]

I actually kind of like my government to have enough employees to perform the services I'd like them to provide.

I've seen little evidence that we didn't cut a hell of a lot of meat when we were being promised a neat trimming of fat.

 

[Trausti]

I actually kind of like my government to have enough employees to perform the services I'd like them to provide.

I've seen little evidence that we didn't cut a hell of a lot of meat when we were being promised a neat trimming of fat.

Trump cut a lot of fat and I haven't noticed any difference. Really no reason for the federal government to have so much bloat on the backs of American workers.

 

[ZiprHead]

I actually kind of like my government to have enough employees to perform the services I'd like them to provide.

I've seen little evidence that we didn't cut a hell of a lot of meat when we were being promised a neat trimming of fat.

Staffing reductions in 2025 are projected to reduce IRS revenues by almost $600 billion over the 2026-2035 budget window. The second experiment is a simple IRS budget reduction of $20 billion over the 2026-2035 window8. This experiment mirrors the reduction in funding that has occurred since the passage of the IRA.

https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/weakened-irs-has-substantial-consequences

Basically the staffing cuts are allowing the rich to steal from the nation.

 

[dann]

What did Democrats do wrong? What are most of them (allegedly) still doing wrong?

Chuck Schumer: Political positions: Israel (Wikipedia)
In March 2018, he told AIPAC's delegates that Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, have nothing to do with the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
(...)
In a March 2025 interview with Bret Stephens, Schumer said, "My job is to keep the left pro-Israel." He said that his Democratic caucus remains "overwhelmingly pro-Israel" and pointed out that during a Senate vote on the largest aid package to Israel in history in 2024, only three Democrats opposed it, including Bernie Sanders.

He should get better advisers than AIPAC and the Baileys!

Schumer has long claimed that his political decisions are guided by an imaginary middle-class couple, Joe and Eileen Bailey (initially O'Reilly), swing voters living in the Long Island suburb of Massapequa

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Trausti is of the "if we fire enough people, we can make a profit without having to sell anything" kind of business school.

 

[dirtywick]

unfortunately as well, the deficit isn't any smaller and they found no fraud and abuse. looks like a bunch of normal people providing for their families lost their jobs, the government performs worse than it did, you've actually saved no money and lost revenue. big win for the smart and good people

 

[W.D.Clinger]

So what the Dems could’ve done better was…? It feels like almost everyone in this thread insists on talking about anything but the original topic, especially if they can dunk on the GOP and their supporters. Alas, if only we had other threads for that.

We haven't had any other threads discuss therians since 2023, and even that wasn't a serious discussion, being nothing more than a throwaway mention in a rhetorical question. Until this thread came along, the most recent serious discussion of theria took place in 2022.

 

[d4m10n]

Democrats: We will treat you based on how you identify yourself, regardless of biological reality.

Therians: LFG!

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Democrats: We will treat you based on how you identify yourself, regardless of biological reality.

Therians: LFG!

The biological reality is that everyone who has contributed to this thread is a therian.

I suspect that everyone who has contributed to this thread is a eutherian as well. Most, I suspect, are placental, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if many are boreoeutherians, possibly even Euarchontoglires. Whether they're Euarchonta may be controversial, inasmuch as that grandorder was only proposed in 1999. Whether they're Primatomorpha may be just as controversial. A few may be primates. I am also willing to consider the possibility that one or more of those who have contributed to this thread are human.

 

[Donal]

Your honest opinion about what you imagine other people think... sure. That doesn't make your imagination accurate. It certainly doesn't justify contempt toward other based on what you've imagined.

My assessments are based on the words and actions within the context they are said and done. Its not my fault folks tell on themselves. I'm under no obligation to pretend otherwise.

 

[Donal]

So what the Dems could’ve done better was…?

The same thing I keep saying: stop playing into the Republicans' games. Reframe the discussion. It doesn't matter how fact based and moral your stance is. The Republicans are still running the playbook from the Iran-Contra guy. "If you're explaining, you're losing. And use lots of racism."

Stop pretending the mouthpiece on the other side of the discussion ranting about "illegals getting free healthcare!" is arguing in good faith. Immigration is an important issue that has a lot of nuance and layers. That person is either too stupid, dishonest, or both to engage in that discussion.

Go on offense. Instead of trying to rebut their points, call them out for being a fraud who is carrying water for the Epstein class.

It feels like almost everyone in this thread insists on talking about anything but the original topic, especially if they can dunk on the GOP and their supporters. Alas, if only we had other threads for that.

The original topic is being discussed. Its gotten derailed a few times, but you're no new here. That's what happens. The thread is approaching 250 pages. I'm shocked its done as well as it has.

 

[Susheel]

The original topic is being discussed. Its gotten derailed a few times, but you're no new here. That's what happens. The thread is approaching 250 pages. I'm shocked its done as well as it has.

I think the problem for this particular interlocutor is that the Dems weren't Republican enough...

 

[d4m10n]

Stop pretending the mouthpiece on the other side of the discussion ranting about "illegals getting free healthcare!" is arguing in good faith.

I don't particularly care whether a partisan mouthpiece believes what they are saying or not; I do care whether or not it is true. There are a handful of pathways by which non-legal immigrants can receive taxpayer supported healthcare, such as Medicaid reimbursements to emergency rooms and "fully state-funded coverage for income-eligible children regardless of immigration status" and "fully state-funded coverage to some income-eligible adults regardless of status" in a handful of leading blue states, according to KFF. Voters wary of Democratic Party policy on socializing healthcare to include everyone present in the nation regardless of immigration status can look to these states for that party's vision of the future—not to mention voters who are excited about the prospect of healthcare being reconceptualized as a human right.

Immigration is an important issue that has a lot of nuance and layers.

Agreed!

That person is either too stupid, dishonest, or both to engage in that discussion.

As are some posters here at ISF, but I still don't see any point in doing a Bulverism if there are serious arguments to be evaluated.

Go on offense.

Agreed once again, but choose your offensive strategies carefully. If your party has been completely failing to mitigate some particular issue then it probably isn't your best playing field.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

My assessments are based on the words and actions within the context they are said and done. Its not my fault folks tell on themselves. I'm under no obligation to pretend otherwise.

As I like to say when people complain of mind-reading after I notice a clear tell: "I'm not psychic; you're just obvious."

 

[Donal]

I don't particularly care whether a partisan mouthpiece believes what they are saying or not;

If we're discussing where Democrats went wrong, I am pointing out they make this error. So, you should care

I do care whether or not it is true.

Nifty. That's a discussion to be had with honest and knowledgeable people. That disqualifies pretty much anyone the Republicans send out to engage in this discussion.

There are a handful of pathways by which non-legal immigrants can receive taxpayer supported healthcare, such as Medicaid reimbursements to emergency rooms and "fully state-funded coverage for income-eligible children regardless of immigration status" and "fully state-funded coverage to some income-eligible adults regardless of status" in a handful of leading blue states, according to KFF. Voters wary of Democratic Party policy on socializing healthcare to include everyone present in the nation regardless of immigration status can look to these states for that party's vision of the future—not to mention voters who are excited about the prospect of healthcare being reconceptualized as a human right.

I highlighted the relevant parts of all that.

Agreed!

But you seem to miss the point.

As are some posters here at ISF, but I still don't see any point in doing a Bulverism if there are serious arguments to be evaluated.

Yes! Let's have a nuanced discussion where policy wonks weigh the pros and cons of each action with the proper historical context. That will make a great TikTok video!

Agreed once again, but choose your offensive strategies carefully. If your party has been completely failing to mitigate some particular issue then it probably isn't your best playing field.

Are they failing to mitigate the issue, or failing to mitigate the perception? Those are 2 different discussions.