What did Democrats do wrong?

[d4m10n]

None of this has anything to do with you responding with a nonsequitur in response to a specific claim I made.

Your specific claim is not on point in the context of this discussion; OP was about why voters chose to reject an incumbent party after four years of seeing what they actually did (and said) rather than campaign messaging to the exclusion of governance. This is why the OP had options like "Didn't fight inflation enough," & "Didn't fight illegal immigration enough" which are assessments of previous performance rather than prospective promises.

My "nonsequitur" is an attempt to prevent another pointless derail into campaign-only discussion when that obviously was not the original intent.

If you want to create a thread limited to campaign messaging, feel free, but do not pretend this is that thread and expect others to play along.

 

[d4m10n]

It takes less words to make the same point by just saying “Republicans ran a propaganda campaign that millions of people fell for”.

Once again you have unsubtly changed the subject from what the Dems did wrong to what the GOP did right.

Noting that "the Harris campaign did not hit back with solid counter-messaging" is the former, not the latter.

 

[shemp]

This is why the Democratic Party sucks. It sucks much less than the Republicans, but it still sucks.

Maine Gov. Janet Mills expected to jump into crucial Senate race next week, sources say

Maine Gov. Janet Mills is expected to launch a campaign for Senate on Tuesday, two Democratic sources told CBS News — vying to challenge longtime Republican Sen. Susan Collins.

www.cbsnews.com

Maine Gov. Janet Mills is expected to launch a campaign for Senate on Tuesday, two Democratic sources familiar with her plans confirmed to CBS News.

A Democrat, Mills is vying to unseat longtime Republican Sen. Susan Collins in one of the most closely watched contests of next year's midterm elections.

Mills' planned campaign launch was first reported by Axios.

Mills, who is term-limited, has served as governor of Maine since 2019, after working as the state's attorney general. She drew national attention earlier this year when she verbally argued with President Trump at a White House event after he pressed Maine to comply with his administration's push to block transgender girls and women from competing in female sports.

"See you in court," Mills said to Mr. Trump.

Nowhere in this article does it mention that Janet Mills is 77 years old. She is 5 years OLDER than Susan Collins!

We don't need more geriatric people in Congress. WE NEED YOUNGER PEOPLE! I'm 67 years old, and I want people under 55 running this country!

Ah, but there is a younger candidate in the Democratic primary for this Senate seat:

Mills was a top recruit for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. She will enter an expanding primary field that includes three other Democratic contenders — among them Graham Platner, an oyster farmer who has emerged as a rising progressive and anti-establishment voice.

Who is Graham Platner?

Graham Platner - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Graham Platner (born 1984 or 1985) is an American oyster farmer, harbormaster, and military veteran who is running in the Democratic primary in the 2026 United States Senate election in Maine, seeking to unseat Republican Susan Collins. His platform emphasizes progressive and populist policies focused on the working class, including support for affordable housing, universal healthcare through Medicare for All, expanded veterans' benefits, and higher taxes on billionaires and large corporations. His campaign has received significant national attention.

He has no serious political experience. But what does he have? He is an eight-year military veteran with three tours in Iraq. He is a 100% disabled veteran who is part-owner of an oyster farm and a harbormaster. He also just happens to have Bernie Sanders' endorsement, has raised over $1 million, and has over 6,000 volunteers working for his campaign.

Platner launched his Senate campaign on August 19, 2025, with a video produced by Morris Katz, a senior adviser and admaker for New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani In the video, Platner highlights his military and working-class credentials, while criticizing his prospective opponent in harsh terms:

I did four infantry tours in the Marine Corps and the Army. I'm not afraid to name an enemy. And the enemy is the oligarchy. It's the billionaires who pay for it, and the politicians who sell us out. And yeah, that means politicians like Susan Collins.​

This video received 2.5 million views in its first 24 hours, sparking national media attention. The campaign raised $1 million in its first nine days, and reported amassing over 2,700 volunteers.

Senator Bernie Sanders endorsed Platner on August 30, ahead of a Fighting Oligarchy Tour appearance in Portland with Platner and Maine gubernatorial candidate Troy Jackson. The event had originally been scheduled to be held in an auditorium but had to be moved to a much larger arena due to high public interest. Other endorsements include Ken Casey, frontman for the Celtic punk band Dropkick Murphys, who endorsed Platner after inviting him onstage at a music festival in Boston. Platner was also endorsed by the Maine State Nurses Association, the trade union for registered nurses in the state.

Platner's campaign reported that more than 800 people attended his first town hall meeting in Ellsworth, and that by September 2025 over 6,000 volunteers had joined since his August candidacy announcement. Platner has said the volunteer network will also canvass against Maine's Question 1, a ballot measure to restrict absentee voting and require photo identification.

This is what we need, young leaders, not old people like Janet Mills and certainly not Susan "I'm So Concerned" Collins. I hope the people of Maine will agree and elect Graham Platner to the Senate next November. If we still have elections, of course.

 

[Segnosaur]

This is why the Democratic Party sucks. It sucks much less than the Republicans, but it still sucks.

Maine Gov. Janet Mills is expected to launch a campaign for Senate on Tuesday, two Democratic sources familiar with her plans confirmed to CBS News.
A Democrat, Mills is vying to unseat longtime Republican Sen. Susan Collins in one of the most closely watched contests of next year's midterm elections.

Nowhere in this article does it mention that Janet Mills is 77 years old. She is 5 years OLDER than Susan Collins!

We don't need more geriatric people in Congress. WE NEED YOUNGER PEOPLE!

I agree that in the long term, the democratic party would benefit from having younger politicians in their caucus.

However, they also have to consider the short term: taking back as many seats in congress. This may be a case where those 2 "priorities" are in conflict.

Ah, but there is a younger candidate in the Democratic primary for this Senate seat:

Who is Graham Platner?

He has no serious political experience. But what does he have? He is an eight-year military veteran with three tours in Iraq. He is a 100% disabled veteran who is part-owner of an oyster farm and a harbormaster. He also just happens to have Bernie Sanders' endorsement, has raised over $1 million, and has over 6,000 volunteers working for his campaign.

Unfortunately, unseating an incumbent like Collins is not an easy thing to do. You point to Platner and his "qualities" that would make him a good candidate. But Mills 1) has more political experience, so she has an idea how to speak to crowds, how to debate, etc., 2) Has much better name recognition, 3) probably has all their "skeletons" exposed already. (Last thing the democrats need is to see their candidate get sunk by an October surprise; a "new" candidate has that risk.)

Would Platner be a better choice "long term"? Probably. (This is of course assuming he would be a competent congress-critter, but seeing as congress is filled with the likes of Gym Jordan and Beetlejuice Bobert, the bar is set pretty low.) But it would be a shame if the Democrats lost that seat because voters walked into the voting booth in 2026 and thought "Platner who? I'll go with the woman I know, who has been our senator for years".

So this may be a case where the short-term benefits (selecting an older candidate who possibly has a better chance of winning the seat) might rule out the long term benefits (a younger candidate who will be around longer if they win, but who's lack of experience makes their chance of winning lower.)

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

I agree that in the long term, the democratic party would benefit from having younger politicians in their caucus.

However, they also have to consider the short term: taking back as many seats in congress. This may be a case where those 2 "priorities" are in conflict.

Unfortunately, unseating an incumbent like Collins is not an easy thing to do. You point to Platner and his "qualities" that would make him a good candidate. But Mills 1) has more political experience, so she has an idea how to speak to crowds, how to debate, etc., 2) Has much better name recognition, 3) probably has all their "skeletons" exposed already. (Last thing the democrats need is to see their candidate get sunk by an October surprise; a "new" candidate has that risk.)

Would Platner be a better choice "long term"? Probably. (This is of course assuming he would be a competent congress-critter, but seeing as congress is filled with the likes of Gym Jordan and Beetlejuice Bobert, the bar is set pretty low.) But it would be a shame if the Democrats lost that seat because voters walked into the voting booth in 2026 and thought "Platner who? I'll go with the woman I know, who has been our senator for years".

So this may be a case where the short-term benefits (selecting an older candidate who possibly has a better chance of winning the seat) might rule out the long term benefits (a younger candidate who will be around longer if they win, but who's lack of experience makes their chance of winning lower.)

The thing is the Dems have been fielding plenty of Mills' over the last few decades and they either turn out to be pathetically useless (a big part of the reason Collins is a senator despite being a TACO suck up who occasionally voices "concerns") or turn out to be turncoats who actively destroy the few good policies the party champion (think Sinema and Manchin).

The simple fact of the matter is that the Democratic party's natural voter base is (at least in economic terms) significantly to the left of the party leadership, or disproprtionally benefits from such a platform. Hence why the party has been losing its core vote. Taking your core for granted and chasing after your opposition's voters by mimicking your opposition's policies is a losing strategy, yet the Dems have been doing it since at least the 90's and continue today.

 

[Tero]

We failed to convince them that education is good.

Who knew? The commies in Norway have...the same average tax?...83% home ownership? Free higher education and enough education to undertand you cannot cut drug prices 600%.

Tero Gervais (@tero55gervais) on Threads

Who knew? The commies in Norway have...the same average tax?...83% home ownership? Free higher education and enough education to undertand you cannot cut drug prices 600%.

www.threads.com

 

[johnny karate]

Once again you have unsubtly changed the subject from what the Dems did wrong to what the GOP did right.

Noting that "the Harris campaign did not hit back with solid counter-messaging" is the former, not the latter.

"Did not hit back with solid counter-messaging" against right wing propaganda is an entirely different argument from "too much transgender stuff".

I've actually pointed out in this thread that the Democrats failed to do the former but again, the argument from many people here has been the latter.

And now that you are unable to factually support it, you've pivoted to an argument that I not only agree with but made long before you did.

 

[johnny karate]

Your specific claim is not on point in the context of this discussion; OP was about why voters chose to reject an incumbent party after four years of seeing what they actually did (and said) rather than campaign messaging to the exclusion of governance. This is why the OP had options like "Didn't fight inflation enough," & "Didn't fight illegal immigration enough" which are assessments of previous performance rather than prospective promises.

My "nonsequitur" is an attempt to prevent another pointless derail into campaign-only discussion when that obviously was not the original intent.

If you want to create a thread limited to campaign messaging, feel free, but do not pretend this is that thread and expect others to play along.

I don't really care if others "play along", but obviously responses to my claims that are factually inaccurate will be called out. Your response to my specific claim was factually inaccurate. Do better next time.

As far as the "too much transgender stuff" goes, I will repeat: Democrats being openly pro-trans in 2022 did not hurt them in the 2022 midterms.

If there was an organic negative response to "too much transgender stuff" from the electorate, Democrats would have been punished at the ballot box that year. But they weren't.

They were not punished until 2024 after they had actually dialed back pro-trans rhetoric.

The only thing that accounts for this is the existence of a right wing propaganda campaign designed to manufacture outrage about an issue that most people didn't really care about before.

 

[johnny karate]

Again, these were not lies. The fear was - and is - justified. Like I just told johnny karate, men really were competing and winning in women's sports, at all levels, permitted by federal policy (and state policy, and school district policy). The medical community really was lying about the scientific basis for trans-affirming care, and really was lying about the reversibility of puberty blockers. And everyone knew which party was on the side of trans privileges in public policy. Harris couldn't hide this from voters by keeping her mouth shut, any more than John Cena can disappear from view by holding his hand in front of his face.

And it turns out there are a lot of left-leaning people in the world who draw the line at this kind of nonsense.

I guess we can add "vilify and disown any progressives who have valid concerns about trans privileges in public policy" to the list of things Democrats did wrong.

"The medical community really was lying" is usually a phrase you only hear in a YouTube ad that you skip past before someone tries to convince you to drink raw milk.

 

[Pixel42]

The only thing that accounts for this is the existence of a right wing propaganda campaign designed to manufacture outrage about an issue that most people didn't really care about before.

But that's not the only thing that accounts for it, is it? An alternative explanation - that many of those people had, in those two years, finally taken the time to think through and understand the consequences of abolishing single sex spaces, services, sports leagues etc for women - has already been offered. It was my fellow left wing women's writings which led me to do so, not "a right wing propaganda campaign".

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Still, when the choice is between a party led by a woman which is not going to actively repress the rights of one very small group versus a party led by a confirmed sexual predator, campaigning on returning women's rights to the per-suffragette levels I'd say that is an easy choice for women to make.
But somehow it was not.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Still, when the choice is between a party led by a woman which is not going to actively repress the rights of one very small group versus a party led by a confirmed sexual predator, campaigning on returning women's rights to the per-suffragette levels I'd say that is an easy choice for women to make.
But somehow it was not.

The problem is that both parties want to violate the rights of females, they just want to violate different rights. Republicans want to claw back our right to determine whether or not we wish to continue a pregnancy. Democrats want to claw back our right to consent and to define our sexual boundaries.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

The problem is that both parties want to violate the rights of females, they just want to violate different rights. Republicans want to claw back our right to determine whether or not we wish to continue a pregnancy. Democrats want to claw back our right to consent and to define our sexual boundaries.

Well, and the GOP want to remove the right to report domestic abuse. And the right to a no fault divorce. And the right to vote (the head of the household stuff). And if possible, the right to work.
Project 2025 and it's architects are not silent about what they want. Hell, saint Kirk was not silent about what he wanted.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, and the GOP want to remove the right to report domestic abuse. And the right to a no fault divorce. And the right to vote (the head of the household stuff). And if possible, the right to work.
Project 2025 and it's architects are not silent about what they want. Hell, saint Kirk was not silent about what he wanted.

According to what source where? I haven't seen any actual politicians advocating for any of those things.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Still, when the choice is between a party led by a woman which is not going to actively repress the rights of one very small group versus a party led by a confirmed sexual predator, campaigning on returning women's rights to the per-suffragette levels I'd say that is an easy choice for women to make.
But somehow it was not.

Came here to post this. "I had concerns about trans woman athletes and the nebulous threat of penises in female locker rooms (which as we know is a very real thing that happens all the time), and see, because I care about women so much I just had to vote for the misogonyst fascist regime led by a proud sex offender who bragged about grabbing vaginas and invading female minors' locker rooms! See, I just had to vote for the party that believes domestic abuse of women is OK, that they shouldn't have the right to divorce or have abortions, and use women in the workforce as scapegoats when accidents happen by calling them 'DEI hires' who are innately less qualified than men!" Heck, I could probably make this list twice as long.

Yeah, not even the people making that excuse believes that drivel.

 

[Resume]

According to what source where? I haven't seen any actual politicians advocating for any of those things.

Your President referred to domestic abuse charges as "a little fight with the wife." Your Secretary of Defense is a member of xtian nationalist church whose pastor Douglas Wilson argues against women's suffrage. Hegseth has re-posted videos in which Wilson makes those arguments.

 

[dirtywick]

Trump Touts His Administration's Ties to Project 2025 After Claiming He Had 'No Idea' Who Was Behind It on the Campaign Trail

President Donald Trump shared a post raving about Project 2025 architect Russ Vought after previously claiming that he did not know who was behind the far-right, Christian nationalist blueprint for the U.S. government

people.com

here's an article about trump's ties to project 2025. after denying and calling it extreme on the campaign trail, he appointed many of it's architects to his cabinet and began enacting that agenda. now he openly acknowledges and praises it.

https://www.project2025.observer/en

 

[Pixel42]

Still, when the choice is between a party led by a woman which is not going to actively repress the rights of one very small group versus a party led by a confirmed sexual predator, campaigning on returning women's rights to the per-suffragette levels I'd say that is an easy choice for women to make.
But somehow it was not.

I agree that this issue should not have been the deciding one for anyone. If I was a US voter I would have voted for Harris in a heartbeat, it would have been a feather weighed against an avalanche of rock. Of course the fascists tried to leverage it with their usual BS, but that shouldn't have worked either. If it really did make a significant difference then the US has far bigger problems than a few well meaning politicians on the left not fully thinking this particular issue through.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Again, these were not lies. The fear was - and is - justified. Like I just told johnny karate, men really were competing and winning in women's sports, at all levels, permitted by federal policy (and state policy, and school district policy). The medical community really was lying about the scientific basis for trans-affirming care, and really was lying about the reversibility of puberty blockers. And everyone knew which party was on the side of trans privileges in public policy. Harris couldn't hide this from voters by keeping her mouth shut, any more than John Cena can disappear from view by holding his hand in front of his face.

And it turns out there are a lot of left-leaning people in the world who draw the line at this kind of nonsense.

I guess we can add "vilify and disown any progressives who have valid concerns about trans privileges in public policy" to the list of things Democrats did wrong.

[Citation needed]

And yes I have seen the website the transphobes continuously point to and contains a tiny number of examples, the vast majority of which aren't trans athletes winning, not athletic sports events (stuff like quizzes are included) or are completely non-competetive events like school sports days. In fact the biggest example cited is cisgender woman Imame Khelif who was picked because she comprehensively beat another woman in the olympics because her opponent was only included because she was the niece of the Italian boxing federation (it was well known before the olympics that Carini was out of her depth in national competitions, never mind international ones).

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

But that's not the only thing that accounts for it, is it? An alternative explanation - that many of those people had, in those two years, finally taken the time to think through and understand the consequences of abolishing single sex spaces, services, sports leagues etc for women - has already been offered. It was my fellow left wing women's writings which led me to do so, not "a right wing propaganda campaign".

Or maybe, and far more plausibly, they fell for the lies of a bunch of bigots who are using anti-trans discrimination as a wedge strategy to allow them to achieve their goal of marginalising any group not cis-het white male.