• 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
Here's a video of Bernie Sanders 21 years ago explaining how the Republicans win even though no one likes their actual policies:
- And now I'm going to tell you something that very few people in Congress would tell you.
If you are the Republican leadership, this is what your goals are:
Your goals are to get huge tax breaks to the very richest people in this country.
Your goals are ultimately to privatize social security so that Wall Street can make money from that, privatize Medicare so the insurance companies can make more money, privatize education, do away with public schools.
If those are your goals and you said that to the American people, do you think you'd get a lot of votes?
There are many members of the Congress today, Republicans, who not only will not raise the minimum wage, which is 5.15 an hour.

Do you know what they will tell you, honestly?
They believe in abolishing the minimum wage! Did you know that? Check it out! I'm telling you the truth.
So that if Americans can work for three bucks an hour or two bucks an hour: Not a problem!
Now, if you had an agenda like that and you went before the American people: tax breaks for the rich, destruction of Medicaid, destruction of social security as we know it, lowering the minimum wage or abolishing it.
How many votes do you think you'd get? Not a whole lot. Maybe the richest 1% would vote for you, but that's not a lot of votes.
So what do I do? I got a problem.

You package it! How do you package it? And here's I want you to pay attention to. This this is bad stuff.
What you do is: Divide people up! Divide people up by races. Affirmative action becomes one issue: 'All them black people getting the jobs that we white people used to have'.

Split people: working class white against black, instead of working together to create decent jobs for all.
'Those uppity women now they want the right to choose. We'll split people on the abortion issue'.

'We'll split people up on the gun issue, we'll split people up on religious issues'.
You follow what I'm saying?
So you split people up, and then they end up, if you're a middle class person, voting against your own interests. and the rich go laughing all the way to the bank.
Bernie Made an INSANE Prediction, Then It Came True (RebelHQ on YouTube, Nov 29, 2024)
Click to expand...

Some things have changed since then, 21 years ago. There's the level of global warming, there's a pandemic, and soon probably one more, but the principle remains the same:
Make the working class (for some reason, Americans call it the middle class) think that you're on their side and present them with a scapegoat to blame for their problems:
It's not about making sure that the planet remains somewhat hospitable to human life. It's about your competitors wanting to take away your car and your stove.
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. When it's irrefutable that there is a virus, blame the Chinese. It's possible to do both: denial and the blame game.

Instead of criticizing this, i.e. explaining to people how it actually works, the Democrats present themselves at being better at drilling, drilling, drilling - We can do both! - and at pretending that the pandemic has gone while the climate is deteriorating rapidly and ordinary people are getting sicker with every new infection - and soon with every glass of milk.

Black and brown people remain the preferred boogeymen as do uppity women: Your body my choice. Meanwhile, the Democrats present themselves as being better at preventing illegal immigration as if immigrants constitute a crime wave and as if if immigrants (and not billionaires) take away people's jobs and make working conditions intolerable.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Think of how much time we could save if only we didn't have to deal with strawmen like this, eh?
Click to expand...
It's not a strawman, it's an offer to realize that we really do have to trade off values like longevity against other values like freedom of movement. Among the things Democrats get wrong is the conviction that only one set of values should matter.
 
I still insist Democrats were not at fault. We cannot run with hate as our platform. But I have some recommedations.
esapolitics.blogspot.com

A message to Democrats

Number one: Voters somehow create a personal buddy out of presidential candidates. They know how they sound and how they act. It's almost l...
esapolitics.blogspot.com esapolitics.blogspot.com
 
"Get some undereducated and inexperienced unknown to deliver a dumbed-down Bernie Sanders message" is absolutely not going to accomplish anything, except less votes in the D column by losing some regular blue voters.

I mean, you're not going to sway Trump supporters in great numbers. They voted for one of the dumbest people ever to disgrace the national stage. It's their core identity. It's who they are. You won't change them.

The Dems target should be that big ol' third of eligible voters that usually don't even bother. Yet a bunch did in 2020, but not in the elections before or after. Nothing else. Just them. Motivate like 5% of them and you have a solid Dem victory.
 
Thermal said:
The Dems target should be that big ol' third of eligible voters that usually don't even bother. Yet a bunch did in 2020, but not in the elections before or after. Nothing else. Just them. Motivate like 5% of them and you have a solid Dem victory.
Click to expand...

Perhaps what that third want isn't compatible with the goals of the political elite* and their paymasters?


*The makority of whom, I understand, are independantly very wealthy
 
Lol,I don't know what you think of the majority of Americans, but a third are nowhere near "independently very wealthy", and of those that are, you'll find the Rs already have a sizable share of them.

Most are, as you say, apathetic to politics for one reason or another. It's only 5% of them that have to get mildly riled up, as they did in 2020.

I'm warming back up to the "it's the economy, stupid" school of thought on elections. 2020 saw the lockdowns and economic upheaval, so the voters wanted a change in leadership. 2024 was still in the throes the inevitable fallout from the same upheaval, so a change is demanded again. So what do Dems need to do if that take is right? Make sure the economy tanks across the next four (Trump is fortunately helping out with that with his stellar tariff plans and plans to have millions lose health coverage and work force being deported). Pretty sure that will bag the 2028 race with no other effort needed. If the economy gets stronger, we'll be staring at the likelihood of a President Vance.
 
Thermal said:
Lol,I don't know what you think of the majority of Americans, but a third are nowhere near "independently very wealthy", and of those that are, you'll find the Rs already have a sizable share of them.

Most are, as you say, apathetic to politics for one reason or another. It's only 5% of them that have to get mildly riled up, as they did in 2020.

I'm warming back up to the "it's the economy, stupid" school of thought on elections. 2020 saw the lockdowns and economic upheaval, so the voters wanted a change in leadership. 2024 was still in the throes the inevitable fallout from the same upheaval, so a change is demanded again. So what do Dems need to do if that take is right? Make sure the economy tanks across the next four (Trump is fortunately helping out with that with his stellar tariff plans and plans to have millions lose health coverage and work force being deported). Pretty sure that will bag the 2028 race with no other effort needed. If the economy gets stronger, we'll be staring at the likelihood of a President Vance.
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstood. 3point14 was saying that the missing third don't want to hear a message from the political elite who are independently wealthy, not that the missing third are independently wealthy.

It's true that neither of the two major US parties is a centreist (much less a left wing) party by global standards and both promote a neo liberal position.

Of course whether there is enough demand for a left wing party is IMO a good question.
 
The Don said:
I think you misunderstood. 3point14 was saying that the missing third don't want to hear a message from the political elite who are independently wealthy, not that the missing third are independently wealthy.
Click to expand...
Catch-22 though: even just getting elected as a freshman representative puts you in the elite category, in terms of power and money making ability if not the straight $174k they pull for the part time job (no, running for reelection and yap yap gigs are not working).
 
I think the disappointing, but correct, answer is that Harris had basically zero name recognition compared to Trump.

The obvious conclusion should be for Dems to aspiring Dems to make themselves into Rock Stars long before they ever throw their hat in the ring.
 
If a voter is voting because they heard the name on TV or something, they should have their voting rights suspended till they pass a "this ◊◊◊◊ is serious dude" test.
 
it's a psychological thing: what you hear a lot is normalized by repetition : if Trump was so bad, why was he not yet in jail? Why could he run for the office again? If he's still around he must be okay.
There is a cognitive calm that comes from choosing the devil you know; an unknown quantity on the other hand triggers anxiety.
 
That's fine for the sub 70 IQ voter. Doesn't apply to those above it, I don't think.

"Looks like Charles Manson is running against an establishment politician with a detailed decades-long track record whose career I haven't personally been following, so I guess I'll vote for Chucky" is not really a thing, I don't think.
 
Thermal said:
That's fine for the sub 70 IQ voter. Doesn't apply to those above it, I don't think.

"Looks like Charles Manson is running against an establishment politician with a detailed decades-long track record whose career I haven't personally been following, so I guess I'll vote for Chucky" is not really a thing, I don't think.
Click to expand...
an ex-con can't run for office?
He paid his debt to society, after all.
Who knows how many of us this highly educated women will kill ?
 
arthwollipot said:
I've said it before. Libertarianism is premised on the demonstrably false idea that when left to their own devices, people will generally act in ways that benefit society as a whole.
Click to expand...
Yep. It assumes that the competition of selfish people drives society to become better. It ignores historical evidence that shows otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

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