What did Democrats do wrong?

[Brainster]

Some abrasive commentary from the Contrarians at Spiked...



https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/11/30/the-kamala-campaign-is-in-total-denial/

Not really surprising to hear that Kamala's "people" (who were really Biden's and Obama's people) would want to say they did nothing wrong. We see the same around here with the whole, "inflation's everywhere" and "it's just an anti-incumbency wave," or the "they just weren't evil like the GOP."

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Some abrasive commentary from the Contrarians at Spiked...

Three weeks on from Kamala Harris’s bruising defeat to Donald Trump, four of her top campaign staff appeared on the Pod Save America podcast to discuss where it all went wrong. Anyone expecting an ounce of self-reflection or contrition will be sorely disappointed. Instead, Jen O’Malley Dillon, David Plouffe, Quentin Fulks and Stephanie Cutter spend the hour-and-a-half-long episode blaming anyone and anything but themselves, the Democratic Party and their dreadful presidential candidate. The podcast is an extended exercise in gaslighting, projection and displacement.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/11/30/the-kamala-campaign-is-in-total-denial/

Well I certainly wasn't expecting anything remotely approaching self-reflection from the Kamala crowd; it's just not in their wheelhouse.

Unfortunately, despite the popular vote, and popular opinion, when you boil it down, they're still in power - and about to get even crazier.

 

[dann]

(...) It's not about keeping ordinary people and their kids safe from infectious diseases. It's about your freedom to pretend that there is no virus. The 1% have found ways to secure that they themselves and their children are protected: DavosStandard. (...)

Two (actually much longer) comprehensive threads with documentation on X:

Hugh Wouldathunkit (Sep 29, 2023 to May 17, 2024):
Blue Wave Democrats are relying on the lesser of the two evils pitch to carry them in 2024 as it did in 2020. But Biden has betrayed his promised plan to control Covid so badly (among other things), Democratic-leaning voters are losing faith in science as well as Democrats. /1
Biden originally promised a multi-layered approach to containing Covid, featuring mask mandates, free testing, and vaccinations, as well as OSHA Covid protections for frontline workers.That was a popular pitch, which he tested with polling. It differentiated him from Trump. /2
However, when OSHA released its draft of proposed Covid regulations to the White House on 4/26/21, the White House immediately announced that masking guidance would be changing. OSHA wanted masking. Corporate lobbyists did not.
Note: the change originated with Biden, not CDC. /3
(...)
US government failure to protect frontline workers from COVID led to thousands of deaths, scientists say (CIDRAP, Jan 30, 2024)
(...)

&

Hugh Wouldathunkit (July 23, 2024)
By adopting Trump's anti-mask attitude to give the illusion of "Covid no longer disrupting our lives," Democrats have forced themselves to engage in superspreader events during the current Covid wave, or risk being seen as weirdos due the stigma they created around masking. 1/18
Former CDC Director (and member of Biden's White House Covid Response Team) said the quiet part out loud when she told her friend and former Biden vaccine champion Andy Slavitt that their problem with masking is that "it reminds us that we're in the middle of a pandemic". 2/18
Biden being forced to stop appearing in public due to an acute Covid infection, following news that Kamala Harris' husband had Covid, should also remind us that we are experiencing a ninth Covid wave. Instead, Democrats force us and themselves to ignore it or be stigmatized. 3/18
(...)
In 2020, Biden had a multi-layered strategy for containing Covid with non-pharmaceutical interventions, vaccines, and ongoing development of treatments, as well as an extensive program to protect workers. Democrats could and should get back that and build upon it now. 17/18

He claims that Jill Stein's 2024 campaign actually took the pandemic (and Long Covid) seriously:

Today, the only presidential candidate who has an extensive Covid agenda in their platform is Jill Stein. Most of the public and the media are are not looking beyond the illusion of Covid being over while it saps our economy, cripples our people, and shortens our lives. 14/18

An excerpt from Stein's campaign promises enclosed in the tweet seems to prove it.
However, Biden's promises also looked good in this respect in 2020 ...

 

[Graham2001]

Some less abrasive commentary from the Libertarians (alleged) at Reason<dot>com

Few realistic political observers expected a blowout for Kamala Harris. But Donald Trump's victory in the 2024 presidential election was far from guaranteed, either. For most of Harris' relatively brief candidacy, she and Trump appeared to be locked in a very tight race. So Harris' incredibly dismal showing was also somewhat unexpected. She came up short in both the Electoral College and the 
popular vote, lost all seven swing states, and lost ground with most demographic groups. Even in reliably Democratic strongholds such as New Jersey and New York, Harris underperformed.

https://reason.com/2024/12/01/why-kamala-harris-lost/

 

[theprestige]

So, OK, I was wrong about there being national speed limits in the US. However, it looks like having them saves lives
. In other words, central decision-making trumps'muh freedumz'. Not for our resident Mad Max, though.

No. In other words, a lower speed limit saves lives. This outcome should surprise nobody.

Meanwhile, history presents us with many examples of central-decision making being a net harm to society. Both in the US and elsewhere. And in the US, there's no reason at all for the federal government to not let the states decide for themselves what speed limit best serves their citizens. There's no need for a legislator from Vermont to have an opinion on what speed limit California should adopt.

 

[Thermal]

Some less abrasive commentary from the Libertarians (alleged) at Reason<dot>com



https://reason.com/2024/12/01/why-kamala-harris-lost/

Harris had the second highest Dem popular vote in history, and by a lot (not noise range), with only 2020 being higher. She had 7 million fewer votes than Biden got, and Trump got 2 million more than in 2020. Maybe those two million switched parties, or maybe they were new voters and those who didn't vote last time, dunno. But this whole "Harris screwed up" spin is unrealistic. Her turnout was stellar. Trumps was larger. And a third of the country still thought it wasn't even worth a few minutes of their time.

 

[d4m10n]

Harris had the second highest Dem popular vote in history, and by a lot (not noise range), with only 2020 being higher. She had 7 million fewer votes than Biden got, and Trump got 2 million more than in 2020. Maybe those two million switched parties, or maybe they were new voters and those who didn't vote last time, dunno. But this whole "Harris screwed up" spin is unrealistic. Her turnout was stellar.

Also, it should be noted that the swing states targeted by the Harris campaign shifted red noticeably less than the voters shifted in bastions of Democratic support in places like CA, NY, & New England.

America’s Red Shift - Claremont Review of Books

America’s Red Shift

claremontreviewofbooks.com

Election Results Show a Red Shift Across the U.S. in 2024 (Published 2024)

A vast majority of counties shifted in favor of former President Donald J. Trump in the 2024 presidential election.

www.nytimes.com

US election results map 2024: How does it compare to 2020?

Republicans have won a bigger share of votes in every state in 2024 compared to 2020.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[Thermal]

Also, it should be noted that the swing states targeted by the Harris campaign shifted red noticeably less than the voters shifted in bastions of Democratic support in places like CA, NY, & New England.

America’s Red Shift - Claremont Review of Books

America’s Red Shift

claremontreviewofbooks.com

Election Results Show a Red Shift Across the U.S. in 2024 (Published 2024)

A vast majority of counties shifted in favor of former President Donald J. Trump in the 2024 presidential election.

www.nytimes.com

US election results map 2024: How does it compare to 2020?

Republicans have won a bigger share of votes in every state in 2024 compared to 2020.

www.aljazeera.com

I saw that al-Jazzera article earlier. Every freaking state shifted red a little.

I'm still holding out hope that American voters were strictly sour on our economic state, and they aren't slowly warming up to authoritarianism. Cuz that would suck.

 

[theprestige]

Americans have always had a secret love affair with authoritarianism. That's why the president is such a big deal. Everyone likes to think they can control the country, if they can just get their guy into the oval office.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Harris had the second highest Dem popular vote in history, and by a lot (not noise range), with only 2020 being higher. She had 7 million fewer votes than Biden got, and Trump got 2 million more than in 2020. Maybe those two million switched parties, or maybe they were new voters and those who didn't vote last time, dunno. But this whole "Harris screwed up" spin is unrealistic. Her turnout was stellar. Trumps was larger. And a third of the country still thought it wasn't even worth a few minutes of their time.

Exactly right. Harris had a tough job to do, and the realists among us knew it would be close. Several things made it much harder for Harris than for Biden 4 years earlier.

1. In 2020 the country was reeling from 4 years of Trump, especially (but not limited to) his poor handling of the pandemic. Biden represented a fresh approach with a return to normalcy. For Harris it was the opposite. She represented the status quo, and so wouldn't be attracting disaffected voters who wanted change.

2. Biden is a man. That surge in Latino votes for Trump? It was almost all male Latinos. He only got 39% of the female Latino vote. Yes, misogyny is alive and well in the US!

3. Harris was in Biden's shadow, and would find it difficult to differentiate herself and her policies from Biden's. One could ask if those polices were working then why should she need to, but this leads to...

4. Covid did what everybody with more than half a braincell knew it would - it damaged the global economy. Biden did a good job of recovering from that, but of course inflation spiked and prices went up - just like they did everywhere else in the world. That was bad enough, but Covid apparently also destroyed what few braincells many voters had, causing them to mistakenly think Biden was doing a bad job despite all the economic indicators showing otherwise.

The US wasn't the only country to suffer the same effect. It was inevitable and entirely predictable that Biden and Harris would get the blame for the effects of Covid, and obvious that the opposition would capitalize on it - despite Trump being part of the actual cause. It was also obvious that a lot of voters would fall for it. Trump had been out of power for 4 years, so memory-impaired citizens had forgotten about the mess he made last time.

If Democrats made one mistake, it was forcing Biden to step down too early. It's an understandable mistake though. Even rational people often fail to learn from the sometimes counterintuitive lessons of history. Because Biden bowed out too early, Harris peaked too early. If Democrats had waited another month it might have been better - or not. You never know what will happen in October, but the less time they gave Republicans to realaign their attacks the better.

For all those who insisted that Biden should have stepped down ASAP, you are a part of that. Of course for some of you it wasn't a mistake... you got exactly what you wanted! Or did you?

The good news is - next time it will be the other way around again. Trump's bound to screw up in the next 4 years. Democrats just need to field a fresh candidate who has populist appeal. He (yes, it has to be a man) will promise a rosy future for everyone no matter what they want (or think they want). This could mean taking contradictory positions on many issues, but if done right most voters won't notice. Democrats need to start preening that guy up now if they want to win in 4 years time.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I saw that al-Jazzera article earlier. Every freaking state shifted red a little.

I'm still holding out hope that American voters were strictly sour on our economic state, and they aren't slowly warming up to authoritarianism. Cuz that would suck.

As has been pointed out, it wasn't so much 'warming up to authoritarianism' as meraly a return to the norm. Most people don't really care about what's happening in politics so long as they themselves are doing ok. However it only takes 5% to think they are not doing ok to swing an election, and in a country full of libertarian fever it doesn't take much to convince people that the status quo isn't working.

The vast majority of 'independent' voters didn't chose Trump because thay wanted an authoritarian state. They wanted someone who would be strong enough to get important things done such as lowerig the price of gas - by cutting red tape, eliminating government waste and inefficency, repealing 'nanny-state' laws etc. This is about freedom, not authoritarianism! How could you possibly think they had anything in common? And giving the strongman absolute power doesn't make him absolutely corrupt either, you know. Oh wait...

 

[bigred]

Flawed poll; there's no "Other" vote option, or at least a "didn't come up with a viable candidate" option.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

No. In other words, a lower speed limit saves lives. This outcome should surprise nobody.

Is that the entire reason why lives were saved. Is it not also possible that confusion arising from entering a different state with different speed limits could also cause accidents?

Meanwhile, history presents us with many examples of central-decision making being a net harm to society. Both in the US and elsewhere.

Examples I'm sure you're just about to share with us.

And in the US, there's no reason at all for the federal government to not let the states decide for themselves what speed limit best serves their citizens. There's no need for a legislator from Vermont to have an opinion on what speed limit California should adopt.

If there are no national standards, then why bother having a central government? All this fuss about Trump and Harris, for nothing. If a single source of national legislation and policy is both undesirable and unnecessary (in your eyes), then why bother with one?

 

[d4m10n]

I'm still holding out hope that American voters were strictly sour on our economic state, and they aren't slowly warming up to authoritarianism.

¿Por qué no los dos?

 

[Thermal]

¿Por qué no los dos?

Porque ambos apestan.

 

[Donal]

There should be an option for "Assumed white women would do the right thing". I said relying on them was a bad idea.

 

[d4m10n]

Porque ambos apestan.

‎Allan Lichtman has an entire omelet on his face these days, but he was correct to notice that the American people always (or very nearly always) vote out the incumbent party whenever they believe themselves to be in dire economic conditions. White House flaks and campaign surrogates can continually point out that the USA fared relatively well in the face of a serious global recession, most voters just don't care, and voters younger than Gen X or so cannot even recall living through serious inflation before. All that said, turning to an authoritarian in times of economic distress is a move with more than ample historic precedent.

 

[d4m10n]

There should be an option for "Assumed white women would do the right thing". I said relying on them was a bad idea.

Did they move to the right more than other demographic groups distinguished by race and gender?

 

[ahhell]

Did they move to the right more than other demographic groups distinguished by race and gender?

As it turns out, Trump lost ground among white men and white women, the dirty racists.

 

[Thermal]

‎Allan Lichtman has an entire omelet on his face these days, but he was correct to notice that the American people always (or very nearly always) vote out the incumbent party whenever they believe themselves to be in dire economic conditions. White House flaks and campaign surrogates can continually point out that the USA fared relatively well in the face of a serious global recession, most voters just don't care, and voters younger than Gen X or so cannot even recall living through serious inflation before.

Ok, but that's why it sucks as a voting priority. We are not in dire circumstances by any rubric. We are in mildly annoying ones. And as you and others say, they are well within reason and expectation and we came through it pretty damn well. The economy shouldn't have been an issue about our change in governance, aggravating though the price of things has been.

All that said, turning to an authoritarian in times of economic distress is a move with more than ample historic precedent.

Not for Americans. It's antithetical. Sure, we might gravitate towards a strongman style leadership temporarily when, say, a 9/11 event happens, or a Great Depression. But we are nowhere near such a state in our current economic conditions. That's why both reasons suck.

ETA: I said earlier that I was holding out for one over the other, but they still both suck as reasons. One is just more damaging than the other.