What did Democrats do wrong?

[johnny karate]

As I recall, he was pretty clear about his intentions to go after illegal immigration, and pull back from Ukraine. He also talked a lot about tariffs during his campaign.

I haven't seen much. Almost all my Trump news comes from this forum.

From expert to pleas of ignorance in a few short hours.

And dirtywick is correct. To the degree that he talked about "policy" around tariffs and immigration (or anything else), it was just a bunch of lies, propaganda, and empty promises, all delivered incoherently. It was "I will lower prices on day one and everyone will be rich" and "They're eating the pets" not anything remotely serious or real.

And what is undeniably clear now is that he lied about his true intentions, he lied about the negative consequences, and his base doesn't give a single ◊◊◊◊ about it. They signed up for the hatred, grievance, and bigotry. Everything else was just window dressing.

 

[dirtywick]

theprestige makes a similar error in that him being super pro tariff constantly for no discernible reason other than insisting they will make us all rich and other people warning such actions would be devastating to the economy and cause a trade war as a coherent economic policy. that also, somehow, i need to find this information for him.

then he lies to my face and acts like he has no idea who trump even is and actively discussed on this forum daily for years. this is the situation i find myself in

 

[d4m10n]

Came across this paragraph in my substack reading queue this a.m.

The biggest reason Harris lost is that she was the representative of an unpopular, incumbent administration that failed to control inflation or illegal immigration and was seen as out of touch with voters’ concerns about crime. As pollster David Shor noted on Ezra Klein’s podcast last month, Biden’s job approval was 20 points underwater by the time he left office — he was a huge liability for the party and for his vice president.1 The second-biggest reason she lost is that she was seen as too liberal. This is also a topic Shor covers in his presentation: 49% of voters saw Harris as more liberal than themselves, while only 39% of voters saw Trump as more conservative. That too-liberal image was driven in large part by unwise choices she made during the campaign for the Democratic nomination in 2020, endorsing positions favored by left-wing pressure groups, like decriminalizing illegal entry and providing taxpayer-funded sex changes to imprisoned criminals and detained migrants.​

Barro actually packs several issues into his two reasons here, but you get the idea. He also goes to some trouble to deprecate sexism as an explanation, linking to studies from Tufts and Stanford on point.

 

[Donal]

Once again, this demonstrates the disconnect between what people say in polls versus how they act when it is time to vote.

 

[d4m10n]

Once again, this demonstrates the disconnect between what people say in polls versus how they act when it is time to vote.

How's that? Shor's polls make a Trump win seem fairly plausible.

 

[Donal]

In the sense that they were worried about the economy. A guy who kicked off a trade war and started a recession in 2019 in his first reign of error. Never mind what his bungling of COVID did to the economy.

The fact that the Biden admin was getting inflation under control. No, it wasn't a great situation, but if you think Captain Bankruptcy was going to fix it, you're a fool.

And thinking the people who marched around with Liz Cheney were too liberal is laughable.

People can't be honest with themselves, much less a pollster

 

[dirtywick]

i agree those are undeniably reasons why she lost.

but, did biden’s job performance warrant that disapproval rating, was kamala more liberal than the average voter, and was trump more moderate?

because if it was, to you, then fine. they have to rethink their policy positions and candidates, i can see how you got there. but if not, well then that’s a different conclusion

 

[johnny karate]

To the degree that Harris's loss had anything to do with the economy is a combination of the effectiveness of right wing propaganda and - as Donal pointed out - people essentially lying to pollsters. We have plenty of data that demonstrates the disconnect between people's perceptions of the economy vs actual economic conditions.

In short, it wasn't about the economy, no matter how much a circle-jerking pollsters and pundits insist that it was.

 

[d4m10n]

In the sense that they were worried about the economy. A guy who kicked off a trade war and started a recession in 2019 in his first reign of error. Never mind what his bungling of COVID did to the economy.

This isn't a disconnect between what "people say in polls versus how they act when it is time to vote" it is a disconnect between their perceptions of how the economy works and the reality of how it works. Alas, we've drifted off topic from what Democratic politicians did wrong to what Republican voters did wrong.

The fact that the Biden admin was getting inflation under control. No, it wasn't a great situation, but if you think Captain Bankruptcy was going to fix it, you're a fool.

Voters were indeed foolish to bet on Trump to fix the economy, but once again we've drifted off topic from what Democratic politicians did wrong to what Republican voters did wrong.

And thinking the people who marched around with Liz Cheney were too liberal is laughable.

Three for three on changing the subject from Democratic politicians to Republican voters.

 

[Donal]

Then what was the point of what you posted? Either you agree with those points, or you agree with pointing out how the voters ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up.

There's plenty to criticize about the Biden administration and Harris campaign. "Too far left" ain't part of it. And you can't complain about how they addressed inflation or immigration without comparing them to Trump's first term or his over all history.

 

[johnny karate]

Then what was the point of what you posted? Either you agree with those points, or you agree with pointing out how the voters ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up.

There's plenty to criticize about the Biden administration and Harris campaign. "Too far left" ain't part of it. And you can't complain about how they addressed inflation or immigration without comparing them to Trump's first term or his over all history.

Exactly this. Once again, no honest discussion can take place about why voters rejected Democrats (and therefore what Democrats did wrong) without an honest accounting of what voters embraced.

This whole thread has been "What did Democrat do wrong, but only from this specific list of options and no others".

 

[dirtywick]

i also think it’s important to think about whether or not there was action that could be taken that would have had a better outcome. for example, if the dems had conceded the trans litter boxes in bathrooms and that haitians were eating people, would the right wing propagandists have found some other equally ridiculous issue to amplify to hysterics?

i mean, if you don’t acknowledge that as a possibility i understand. but if you do that should maybe be a valid topic of discussion as it relates to what the dems should or should not have done.

 

[d4m10n]

Then what was the point of what you posted?

Barro makes that pretty clear in his write-up.

"The solution for Democrats next time..."

 

[Donal]

Here's the part you left out

They need to advocate for policies that are more popular,

THEY DID

and they need to implement policies that produce popular results,

THEY DID

and they need to nominate candidates who do both

THEY DID

If you want to argue that Biden and Harris should have been more aggressive and had better messaging, sure. If you want to say they should have stuck with the populist ,messaging and calling those dimwits "weird", sure. That whole post is a bunch of milquetoast, mediocre white guy, consultant drivel. Calling Tim Walz "too-unpopular" is a raging case of head-up-ass-itis.

This is my favorite part

Speaking of the future of the Democratic Party, I moderated a panel about that future earlier this week at the Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills.

Ya, those people need to ◊◊◊◊ all the way off.

 

[johnny karate]

Barro makes that pretty clear in his write-up.

"The solution for Democrats next time..."

My assertions are correct because here's a guy with a blog saying the same thing.

 

[d4m10n]

Evidently the Medicare drug price cuts and tax credits weren't nearly popular enough.

(Perhaps more to the point, they only affect a small tranche of the voting population.)

 

[johnny karate]

Evidently the Medicare drug price cuts and tax credits weren't nearly popular enough.

(Perhaps more to the point, they only affect a small tranche of the voting population.)

Yes, it's hard to compete with winning campaign messages like releasing violent criminals from prison or putting an anti-vaxxer in charge of public health or accusing immigrants of eating pets.

 

[Donal]

Evidently the Medicare drug price cuts and tax credits weren't nearly popular enough.

(Perhaps more to the point, they only affect a small tranche of the voting population.)

There are 262 million voting age Americans. There are 67 million people registered for Medicare. Almost 25% of the voting population is directly affected today. It took seconds to verify those numbers.

And that doesn't take into account their family members who should care about them or the fact that the vast majority of Americans will most likely look to Medicare when they reach eligibility.

 

[johnny karate]

There are 262 million voting age Americans. There are 67 million people registered for Medicare. Almost 25% of the voting population is directly affected today. It took seconds to verify those numbers.

And that doesn't take into account their family members who should care about them or the fact that the vast majority of Americans will most likely look to Medicare when they reach eligibility.

Perhaps in the alternate reality where voters made an informed decision about actual economic conditions, “popular” and “small tranche of the voting population” means something different than they do here.

 

[Tero]

Evidently the Medicare drug price cuts and tax credits weren't nearly popular enough.

(Perhaps more to the point, they only affect a small tranche of the voting population.)

Most of us on Medicare are not paying a lot for drugs. The monthly bill for my Rx part is about what I would pay for the two simple drugs I get now. Generic. So I could even live without the Rx part. We are paying the supplement part, because we all know the major bills will be for anyhthing requiring a hospital. My guess is that about half of Medicare people have never had a major medical incident. Excluding chilbirth for women. So the everyday of drug and other costs are the minority of people.

Added to that, statistics show that a good chunk (half?) of your lifetime medical costs are in the last mont of your life. You won't be voting much in that time. Your family will remember the cost next time they vote.