What did Democrats do wrong?

[dirtywick]

This thread isn't about them, or at least it wasn't intended to be, despite nearly constant efforts to redirect the discussion.

it’s the 3rd to last option on the poll

 

[wareyin]

This thread isn't about them, or at least it wasn't intended to be, despite nearly constant efforts to redirect the discussion.

Any mistakes made by the Democratic Party were about either failing to win over swing voters or failing to activate their own base.

Hardcore MAGA folks already knew for whom they'd be pulling the lever.

Any attempt to restrict a discussion of a binary choice to only one of the two options is a dishonest framing. The OP who created this thread was a dishonest, bad-faith actor, which is why he was banned. This restrictive framing was part of that manipulation. Please stop trying to enforce his rules now that he is gone.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I tend to agree that voters share some blame for the outcome by not participating at all. But IMO people placing the blame exclusive on them have missed the boat completely. People did not take kindly to being gaslit into thinking their favored candidate was sharp as a tack before cratering in the first debate against his opponent. Gaslit by party establishment that denied it was happening... and gaslit by a supportive media discrediting remarks about it as cheap fakes.

For that matter.... some people that sat out the elections were not necessarily seeing Trump as the better option in the slightest. It's reasonable to extrapolate that some chose not to vote in protest.

2024 is one of those years where that was exasperated much more than usual I'm sure. It's not common for the nominee of one major party to be nearly assassinated and the other nominee to be mentally incapacitated and subsequently sidelined in the same cycle. This is the first time in my lifetime having that alignment of circumstances.

But it also exemplifies how party enthusiasm is so important to getting turnout because last year was so unusual.

 

[Emily's Cat]

those are some fundamental misconception that people desperately need to unlearn:

- if I need to buy one of two products on offer, I should, as an initial instinct, reject the one with the better advertising and presentation: if they spend so much effort on presentation, they probably don't put enough work into actually making a good product. And to you have to pay extra for the ads without getting something better. It is up to you as a rational consumer to find out what the two products actually do before making a buying decision.

- if you have one weak candidate trying to make things better, and a strong candidate trying to make things worse, the decision should not hinge on who's the Stronger Candidate: it's what they want to do with their respective strength.
Harris being seen as weak is actually another argument against voting for Trump, since she probably wouldn't have been able to push the country very far into a direction you don't want. Whereas Trump said what he was going to do, and we had every reason to assume that he would do it, legal or not.

It is always the voters' fault, and you should distrust anyone who tells you any different.

If one party platforms Mussolini and the other party platforms Stalin, it's totally the voter's fault that we end up with a dictator...

 

[Emily's Cat]

There were several things that happened before and during the 2024 election... the spike in inflation, the Israel/Gaza conflict. Those reasons seem more than reasonable enough to have caused the Democrat's support to drop.

Okay. Dems did nothing wrong, and couldn't possibly have done anything better. Voters are just idiots.

 

[wareyin]

I tend to agree that voters share some blame for the outcome by not participating at all. But IMO people placing the blame exclusive on them have missed the boat completely. People did not take kindly to being gaslit into thinking their favored candidate was sharp as a tack before cratering in the first debate against his opponent. Gaslit by party establishment that denied it was happening... and gaslit by a supportive media discrediting remarks about it as cheap fakes.

For that matter.... some people that sat out the elections were not necessarily seeing Trump as the better option in the slightest. It's reasonable to extrapolate that some chose not to vote in protest.

2024 is one of those years where that was exasperated much more than usual I'm sure. It's not common for the nominee of one major party to be nearly assassinated and the other nominee to be mentally incapacitated and subsequently sidelined in the same cycle. This is the first time in my lifetime having that alignment of circumstances.

But it also exemplifies how party enthusiasm is so important to getting turnout because last year was so unusual.

Let's not forget that if one is worried about mental fitness, Biden was and still remains sharper than Trump. More importantly, the Democrats actually addressed the incapacitation concern by replacing him with Harris, who then wiped the floor with "concepts of a plan" Trump and his racist "they're eating the cats and dogs" idiocy in the debate. If the theory is that voters were driven by a desire for mental fitness or competence, that move should have settled the issue. The fact that it didn't suggests that the mental fitness narrative was just a convenient excuse for a decision made on other grounds.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

If one party platforms Mussolini and the other party platforms Stalin, it's totally the voter's fault that we end up with a dictator...

it's very obvious who would have been the lesser evil, just as it was in the last election.

 

[wareyin]

If one party platforms Mussolini and the other party platforms Stalin, it's totally the voter's fault that we end up with a dictator...

This attempt to make a Mussolini vs. Stalin comparison is a massive false equivalence that falls apart if given any thought at all. Both-sidesing the two parties this way is a lazy way to ignore the vast differences in their actual policies and records. On one side, you had Harris, who focused on standard policy and legal norms within a party that has always respected the peaceful transfer of power. On the other side, you had the candidate talking about being a dictator on day one and suggesting the termination of parts of the Constitution who also literally attempted a coup last time he lost. This cynical framing treats the election like a hypothetical moral exercise rather than a choice between two very different realities. If the solution to not having a perfect candidate is staying home and letting the more extreme option win, then the policy concerns were never the priority.

 

[Emily's Cat]

it's very obvious who would have been the lesser evil, just as it was in the last election.

It's not obvious to me. Who do you think is the lesser evil in a choice between Mussolini and Stalin?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Let's not forget that if one is worried about mental fitness, Biden was and still remains sharper than Trump. More importantly, the Democrats actually addressed the incapacitation concern by replacing him with Harris, who then wiped the floor with "concepts of a plan" Trump and his racist "they're eating the cats and dogs" idiocy in the debate. If the theory is that voters were driven by a desire for mental fitness or competence, that move should have settled the issue. The fact that it didn't suggests that the mental fitness narrative was just a convenient excuse for a decision made on other grounds.

Harris was even less popular than Biden and ONLY got her nomination because the party leadership forced him out. And your emphasis here is too narrow. It was never ONLY about Bidens' mental fitness. It was also about the media and party leadership outright denying it was ever an issue until it was absolutely un-ignorable.

And you think Trumps lies about eating cats was horrible and stupid, yet think it's OK that the leadership for your own nominee spend great effort to gaslight you into thinking he was perfectly fine? Somehow that doesn't seem to be significant enough to draw any comments from you. Or was Trump so bad from your perspective that it mattered almost not at all by comparison?

 

[Random]

Harris was even less popular than Biden and ONLY got her nomination because the party leadership forced him out. And your emphasis here is too narrow. It was never ONLY about Bidens' mental fitness. It was also about the media and party leadership outright denying it was ever an issue until it was absolutely un-ignorable.

And you think Trumps lies about eating cats was horrible and stupid, yet think it's OK that the leadership for your own nominee spend great effort to gaslight you into thinking he was perfectly fine?

I can't speak for everyone else, but what I found objectionable about the whole "Biden has dementia/Biden is fine" thing was the fact that it was perfectly clear to anyone that Trump had cognitive issues as well. But we all got was a whole bunch of "Biden has dementia! Biden should step down!" with only a couple "Biden and Trump have dementia! Biden should step down!" stories to "balance" them.

 

[wareyin]

Harris was even less popular than Biden and ONLY got her nomination because the party leadership forced him out. And your emphasis here is too narrow. It was never ONLY about Bidens' mental fitness. It was also about the media and party leadership outright denying it was ever an issue until it was absolutely un-ignorable.

And you think Trumps lies about eating cats was horrible and stupid, yet think it's OK that the leadership for your own nominee spend great effort to gaslight you into thinking he was perfectly fine? Somehow that doesn't seem to be significant enough to draw any comments from you. Or was Trump so bad from your perspective that it mattered almost not at all by comparison?

It's just factually incorrect to say Harris was less popular than Biden. After the switch, her favorability surged and voter enthusiasm among Democrats doubled. In fact, her entry into the race was the only reason the party became competitive again.

As for your claim about gaslighting, I watched Biden's State of the Union address, and he was perfectly fine. There is a world of difference between a party being slow to acknowledge a leader aging and a candidate who fabricates racist attacks against Haitians by claiming they are eating pets. That was not just a lie, it was a targeted, bigoted smear that led to bomb threats and closed schools in Springfield.

Trying to equate these two things is a massive false equivalence. One is a standard political internal struggle over a nominee, the other is a direct, racist assault on a community and on democratic stability. If you are more outraged by a party defending an incumbent's sharpness than you are by a candidate attempting a coup and spreading racist conspiracy theories, then your concern isn't actually about honesty or fitness.

 

[Segnosaur]

I tend to agree that voters share some blame for the outcome by not participating at all. But IMO people placing the blame exclusive on them have missed the boat completely. People did not take kindly to being gaslit into thinking their favored candidate was sharp as a tack before cratering in the first debate against his opponent. Gaslit by party establishment that denied it was happening... and gaslit by a supportive media discrediting remarks about it as cheap fakes.

I have no interest in absolving non-voters who were complaining about being "gaslit" and not voting as a result.

I don't think anyone is denying Biden wasn't as sharp as he was a decade or 2 ago. Did he reach a point where he was incapable of being president again? Its... unknown. (Biden claims his poor debate performance was due in part to suffering from a cold, which may or may not be true.)

But even if Biden and the Democrats were lying about how bad his condition was, the amount of deception and gaslighting pales in comparison to what Trump and the republican party have been pushing for the last decade. And Biden at his worse is probably better than Trump on an average day (given his rambling, incoherent speeches.)

So "I don't like the fact that the Democrats aren't perfect so I will let a fascist take over (one who is so much worse)" is not a mentality I can support.

For that matter.... some people that sat out the elections were not necessarily seeing Trump as the better option in the slightest. It's reasonable to extrapolate that some chose not to vote in protest.

Again, the US is (more or less) a 2 party system. While abstaining may not be AS bad as voting for Trump, it is still of benefit to him to have voters sitting out rather than voting for a democratic party that would try blocking his fascism.

Their "protest vote" is basically them saying "Meh, I don't care if fascists win".

 

[theprestige]

It's just factually incorrect to say Harris was less popular than Biden. After the switch, her favorability surged and voter enthusiasm among Democrats doubled. In fact, her entry into the race was the only reason the party became competitive again.

I think that was more relief than popularity. It certainly didn't get out the swing vote. And let's not forget that the Harris campaign was the first to withdraw, even before Iowa. Last-minute enthusiasm from people who'd already chained themselves to Biden-Harris isn't what I'd call true popularity. I think that's reflected in the actual outcome of the popular vote.

 

[dirtywick]

I can't speak for everyone else, but what I found objectionable about the whole "Biden has dementia/Biden is fine" thing was the fact that it was perfectly clear to anyone that Trump had cognitive issues as well. But we all got was a whole bunch of "Biden has dementia! Biden should step down!" with only a couple "Biden and Trump have dementia! Biden should step down!" stories to "balance" them.

and today trump is much worse than he was and it’s a non issue. for me that’s where a lot of these arguments in the thread fall short. applied to the republicans they become non issues and off topic. well if they’re important they’d apply to both candidates imo

 

[johnny karate]

If one party platforms Mussolini and the other party platforms Stalin, it's totally the voter's fault that we end up with a dictator...

It's really telling on yourself to frame a choice between a rejection of the Constitutional order and Democratic norms, between virulent racism and an inclusive society, between anti-vaxxerism and medical science is a "lesser of two evils" choice.

 

[Segnosaur]

I can't speak for everyone else, but what I found objectionable about the whole "Biden has dementia/Biden is fine" thing was the fact that it was perfectly clear to anyone that Trump had cognitive issues as well. But we all got was a whole bunch of "Biden has dementia! Biden should step down!" with only a couple "Biden and Trump have dementia! Biden should step down!" stories to "balance" them.

Heck, I'd go even further than that and say whatever mental decline Biden had, Trump's was far, far worse.

Biden might stumble a bit (and his debate in the general election was a disaster, which may or may not have been exacerbated by having a cold), but much/most of the time he was able to put on a decent performance (such as his state of the union address). Meanwhile, Trump seemed to be pretty much out of it 24/7, and pretty much any time he speaks, it results in a rambling stream of gobbleygook, much of which makes no sense.

Yet like you said, often it seemed to be ONLY biden that seemed to be accused of dementia.

 

[johnny karate]

IIRC, OP poll didn't have an option which included this as a strategic political mistake, i.e. Biden should have withdrawn much earlier to make room for a traditional competitive selection process.

This thread isn't about them, or at least it wasn't intended to be, despite nearly constant efforts to redirect the discussion.

Any mistakes made by the Democratic Party were about either failing to win over swing voters or failing to activate their own base.

Hardcore MAGA folks already knew for whom they'd be pulling the lever.

The number one reason Democrats failed to "win over swing voters or failing to activate their own base", according to the thread poll, was "Too much transgender stuff".

A year later, multiple Democrats who were vocally supportive of the trans community won decisive elections against anti-trans Republicans.

There's one theory down in flames.

The number three reason Democrats failed to "win over swing voters or failing to activate their own base", according to the thread poll, was "Didn't fight illegal immigration enough".

A year later, Republicans are underwater on immigration, despite following through on their campaign promises, and approval for immigration is at record highs.

Another theory down in flames.

But by all means, keep ignoring reality and flogging these same, tired talking points. You're doing great.

 

[Segnosaur]

The number one reason Democrats failed to "win over swing voters or failing to activate their own base", according to the thread poll, was "Too much transgender stuff".

A year later, multiple Democrats who were vocally supportive of the trans community won decisive elections against anti-trans Republicans.

There's one theory down in flames.

The number three reason Democrats failed to "win over swing voters or failing to activate their own base", according to the thread poll, was "Didn't fight illegal immigration enough".

A year later, Republicans are underwater on immigration, despite following through on their campaign promises, and approval for immigration is at record highs.

Another theory down in flames.

But by all means, keep ignoring reality and flogging these same, tired talking points. You're doing great.

Well, to play devil's advocate, the fact that democrats are "winning" on trans and immigration issues doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't issues during the 2024 election itself.

People's attitudes on the issues might have shifted in the year since the last election, or they still might dislike the democrats on certain issues but other factors now play a bigger role. And the pro-Trans politicians who won might be in areas that traditionally lean democrat.

The thing I find most problematic is how these became issues/excuses when they were really irrelevant. Harris did not make "trans rights" a central focus of her campaign, if she mentioned it at all, yet Stubby McBonespurs and his Klan were able to turn it into an election issue with claims of "sex changes being done by a school nurse". Or on immigration, the Democrats get accused of having "open borders", when in fact they were deporting 10s of thousands of immigrants a year.

And its hard to fight against accusations over things you never really have done. Sort of like the whole "when did you stop beating your wife" sort of thing.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

As for your claim about gaslighting, I watched Biden's State of the Union address, and he was perfectly fine. There is a world of difference between a party being slow to acknowledge a leader aging and a candidate who fabricates racist attacks against Haitians by claiming they are eating pets. That was not just a lie, it was a targeted, bigoted smear that led to bomb threats and closed schools in Springfield.

Trying to equate these two things is a massive false equivalence. One is a standard political internal struggle over a nominee, the other is a direct, racist assault on a community and on democratic stability. If you are more outraged by a party defending an incumbent's sharpness than you are by a candidate attempting a coup and spreading racist conspiracy theories, then your concern isn't actually about honesty or fitness.

My question to wasn't to compare Trump's lies to Bidens mental state so much as it was pointing out that you're objecting to what Trump has said in the past (things that you qualify as lies) and applying a standard that does not extend to members of the media or the party who in my opinion obfuscated Bidens' condition.

I'm of the position that the obfuscation created additional disparity in the voter turnout (not singularly, but in conjunction with other factors not exclusive to Biden the candidate, or specific media coverage issues). But that what you've stated here adds some context as to why maybe some people believe the blame rests more on voters.