What did Democrats do wrong?

[I Am The Scum]

Longer answer, the people we're talking about are in the charge of the country. Who are the specific groups you reference in your counter example and what power do they hold to make them comparable threats?

Or show us the Democratic politicians who have accidentally hired these types of extremists as much as Republicans have "accidentally" hired white supremacists.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Your far right republicans are far worse than our little goose steppers,

This isn't true. Assuming that your description was accurate for your own Swedish Democrats party has actually openly discussed as a platform position, nothing US Republicans have done comes anywhere close to that.

 

[johnny karate]

This isn't true. Assuming that your description was accurate for your own Swedish Democrats party has actually openly discussed as a platform position, nothing US Republicans have done comes anywhere close to that.

This might not have been quite so laughably wrong if it hadn’t come mere hours after the Republican Supreme Court just gave a Republican administration the green light to toss out the Fourth Amendment and engage in racial profiling.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Yep, Charlottesville. Absolutely atrocious that out of a country of over 300,000,000 less than 200 ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ felt the need to spout hatred. Obviously, those couple of hundred that don't hold political office are going to murder and genocide the 120,000,000 who aren't white.

Well, at least one of them did murder at least one person. As to office holders, I recall a certain officeholder saying that there were "fine people" among that lot, and trying to bothsides the nonsense that happened there.

 

[Helen]

This isn't true. Assuming that your description was accurate for your own Swedish Democrats party has actually openly discussed as a platform position, nothing US Republicans have done comes anywhere close to that.

Representatives of the party have made those statements, the party as a whole does not have that platform (not openly at least), the MAGA movement is far worse. And they are in power. The ICE raids alone by far exceed anything that is happening here. Not to mention the dusgusting attack on Washington, and the threats against several other major US cities. We are far from there, yet. Your democracy is seriously threatened by Trump, his cabinet and henchmen, especially since all those who should be the guard rails seem remarkably ready to just stand by (as in not calling it out, as in not calling a fascist spade a fascist spade).

 

[Mongrel]

Well, at least one of them did murder at least one person. As to office holders, I recall a certain officeholder saying that there were "fine people" among that lot, and trying to bothsides the nonsense that happened there.

The other thing about Charlottsville is not so much about the numbers but that they felt the political environment had changed enough that they felt comfortable to march and quote Nazi slogans

 

[Susheel]

The other thing about Charlottsville is not so much about the numbers but that
they felt the political environment had changed enough that they felt comfortable to march and quote Nazi slogans

And they seem to have been right.

 

[esquel]

Far-right. :eyeroll:

 

[Safe-Keeper]

We have government thugs illegally abducting brown-skinned people and putting them into torture prisons. They voted for that.

We have a dangerous quack in charge of public health, threatening the lives of everyone. They voted for that.

We have an economy collapsing due to unhinged incompetence. They voted for that.

Kindly spare us your dishonest bothsidesism.

Shallow, absurd, reaching whataboutisms is all they have and all they've ever had. I wish the cultists had the self-awareness to see how they come across to the rest of us.

Oh, and as horrible as just those three points are, we could've made the list much longer .

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Shallow, absurd, reaching whataboutisms is all they have and all they've ever had. I wish the cultists had the self-awareness to see how they come across to the rest of us.

Oh, and as horrible as just those three points are, we could've made the list much longer .

What's even more obnoxious is that these particular whataboutisms are being offered up by one of our resident allegedly-left-leaning-moderate totally-not-a-Trump-supporters.

 

[d4m10n]

A New Democratic Think Tank Wants to Curb the Influence of Liberal Groups​

“Right now we’re pursuing every tactic imaginable except for the obvious one, which is taking positions that are more in line with the people we are trying to win over.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/17/us/politics/democrats-liberals-jentleson-searchlight.html

 

[gabeygoat]

A New Democratic Think Tank Wants to Curb the Influence of Liberal Groups​

“Right now we’re pursuing every tactic imaginable except for the obvious one, which is taking positions that are more in line with the people we are trying to win over.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/17/us/politics/democrats-liberals-jentleson-searchlight.html

It's the same idea they've been doing for decades now.
It worked for Bill Clinton (in the 90s, long time ago), but never really after that.
My neighbors in a tiny town during 2016 election were debating whether to vote for Sanders or Trump. They didn't really consider Hilary Clinton.

 

[d4m10n]

It worked for Bill Clinton (in the 90s, long time ago), but never really after that.

I distinctly recall when Barack Obama pretended to believe marriage was between one man and one woman.

 

[gabeygoat]

I distinctly recall when Barack Obama pretended to believe marriage was between one man and one woman.

That he did, it was pretty disappointing. I also think he's probably atheist or agnostic, but that would be a bad move (that's just my guess, i have no evidence).

 

[Brainster]

I distinctly recall when Barack Obama pretended to believe marriage was between one man and one woman.

I suspect he will deny the "pretended" part. Certainly Hillary did when questioned by Terry Gross on NPR:

GROSS: Were there positions you believed in as senator but you couldn't publicly support because you felt that it wasn't time yet? That the positions would have been too unpopular? That the public wasn't ready in regards to LGBT rights? And, you know, I often think that there are politicians who, you know, in their heart really support it but don't publicly support it.

CLINTON: Well, I was fully on board with ending discrimination in the workplace on behalf of the LGBT community. I did not support gay marriage when I was in the Senate or running for president, as you know, and as President Obama and others held the same position. But it, for me, became an opportunity to do what I could as secretary of state to make the workplace fairer - something I had always supported and spoke out about. And then when I was out of the secretary of state position and once again free to comment on domestic matters, I very shortly came out in favor of fully equality, including gay marriage.

GROSS: So what's it like when you're in office and you have to do all these political calculations to not be able to support something like gay marriage that you actually believe in? And you obviously feel very committed to human rights and you obviously put gay rights as part of human rights, but in doing the calculus you decided you couldn't support it - correct me if I'm reading it wrong.

They went back and forth on the issue, to the point where Hillary got annoyed:

CLINTON: No, I don't think you are trying to clarify. I think you're trying to say that, you know, I used to be opposed and now I'm in favor and I did it for political reasons. And that's just flat wrong. So let me just state what I feel like you are implying and repudiate it. I have a strong record. I have a great commitment to this issue and I am proud of what I've done and the progress we're making.

GROSS: You know, I'm just saying - I'm sorry - I just want to clarify what I was saying - no, I was saying that you maybe really believed this all along, but - you know, believed in gay marriage all along, but felt for political reasons America wasn't ready yet and you couldn't say it. That's what I was thinking.

CLINTON: No. No, that is not true.

Of course no politician would want to admit that they had waited on the sidelines for the political winds to change, but it is certainly quite possible that she's being honest. As she pointed out, in the world she grew up in, nobody even gave gay marriage a thought.

 

[d4m10n]

I suspect he will deny the "pretended" part.

We all look forward to asking him in person, but c'mon, what are the odds that Biden really got there first?

(To be clear on my bona fides as an Obama stan, I went door-to-door stumping for Obama/Biden back in 2008 when having a database of previous door-knocks was still relatively innovative.)

As to Secretary Clinton, well, it's hard to say. I wouldn't be surprised if she really evolved on this issue, given her birth year.

 

[Brainster]

We all look forward to asking him in person, but c'mon, what are the odds that Biden really got there first?

(To be clear on my bona fides as an Obama stan, I went door-to-door stumping for Obama/Biden back in 2008 when having a database of previous door-knocks was still relatively innovative.)

As to Secretary Clinton, well, it's hard to say. I wouldn't be surprised if she really evolved on this issue, given her birth year.

You're assuming that being quietly in support, while officially not and waiting for public opinion to change is somehow positive. I get that; it's realpolitique for the 21st century. There's also the argument that's followership, not leadership.

 

[d4m10n]

I'm not sure if we're really disagreeing here. It is realpolitique and it's only really leadership relative to those people who still have to be convinced.

That said, in a democracy you have to persuade some significant portion of the people first, before embarking on a bold new agenda.

The Democratic Party lost sight of that on a few issues where the groups had the most sway.

 

[johnny karate]

Counterpoint: Republicans ran a massive propaganda and misinformation campaign and millions of gullible people fell for it.

If it was about having the pulse of America on policy issues, the Trump administration would be massively popular right now.

They’re doing everything they campaigned on but Americans generally hate it. Their polling is underwater across the board, even on immigration. Pretty weird result if they are aligned with voters on these issues.

Anyone who thinks this is about nuanced messaging and policy tweaks is an idiot.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Pretty sure most of you guys are forgetting that the party pushed someone who was clearly not healthy or cognitively fit to continue into a 2nd term.... almost to the last moment gambit... before then forcing him off the ticket and putting the VP on the ticket without any follow up primary. And the VP was herself a poor candidate.

That's all before the current ongoing vitriol members of the party are currently engaging in.

Some of you blame conservatives having for having better propaganda and fear mongering for it... I call it terrible management and planning on the part of party leadership. Half of the issues with the democratic ticket wouldn't have been so bad last cycle if they addressed Bidens health concerns early and held a proper primary with better candidates. Instead they spent all but the last 107 days of the campaign gaslighting everyone saying that everything was fine.

It's entirely possible that the democratic ticket might have WON last cycle had they not been in full denial and actually tried to primary for better candidates. But hindsight is 20/20 and I wager not everyone is keen to accept that assessment.