What did Democrats do wrong?

[johnny karate]

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.

I agree with most of what you're saying, and I think it's tangential to the point I'm making.

I don't deny that trans issues and immigration were animating factors in the 2024 election.

But the question is question is why.

The dramatic shifts we've seen in polling and election results clearly indicate that it wasn't organic vote concerns, because if it was, they would still be voter concerns.

And I don't think Democrats winning in Democrat-leaning areas explains it. These issues weren't presented as the reason that people voted against Democrats, but rather as the reason that people who would otherwise vote Democrat stayed home. Furthermore, Democrats saw gains across the board, even in deep red areas.

If, for instance, Harris was punished for "too much transgender stuff" nationwide despite not actually running on any transgender issues, then it doesn't make sense that, just a year later, Democrats would make gains everywhere with multiple high-profile candidates openly taking pro-transgender stances.

The only thing that tracks is this: Instead of responding to real-world issues, voters were responding to the propaganda created about those issues.

And now just over a year later, actual real-world issues are taking precedence because everything has been made so much worse with Republicans in power, and people stopped caring about the made-up issues that propaganda told them to be angry about in 2024.

 

[Solitaire]

It really saddens me that people will make the choice to not vote, and then complain that all the other people picked someone they don't like.

Think of it as a fun little hobby, like building a ship in a bottle.

Come to think of it, there would be more than a few who wouldn't have a reason to live if they couldn't complain.

If anyone is to blame.

1. Maybe Biden should not have run for a second term to begin with.
2. Maybe Democrats should have acted sooner to persuade him to drop out (a good 8 to 10 months sooner at that).
3. Maybe having a better Vice President would have softened the blow of him being forced out later.
4. Maybe the Democrats should have been less hesitant to choose a better pair of candidates.

Once it got to July 2024, it's quite possible Harris was the only logical choice given the circumstances. But it's still the fault of the Party at large for not identifying or resolving these issues when they had ample time to work things out.

First point, Biden shouldn't have run for a first term.
Second point, no amount of persuasion works. Often an external event forces them out; otherwise, till death or term limits.
Third, maybe. Too small of a sample size to say.
Fourth, tricky. Familiarity goes a long way in this business.

Yes, Harris was the only logical choice. They did have infrastructure for anything else.

People that only blame voters - calling them lazy, infantile, sub-normal - for not turning out to vote when the party and the candidates had a cascade of screw ups, IMO are just looking for a scapegoat rather than a solution. Maybe a little more focus on solutions would help the party regain its credibility and motivate the base to turn out in higher numbers. If you want the turnout, you need voter enthusiasm and you need to have them believe your party stands for them.

No candidate drop by at the airport, no advertising, no signs, no calls, no mailings, no meet ups. Essentially, nothing that happened in 2020. Yeah, they've got a lot of problems to work on.

The buck stops with the voters.

Thank God for inflation.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

there is no such thing as diffusion of responsibility.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

If they felt that way, then they are complete and total idiots. Almost as brain damaged as the MAGAchud who voted for a convicted felon and wannabe fascist.

Also, i suspect that had they had a quick-and-dirty ad-hoc primary, people still would have sat out or not voted for the eventual candidate if "Their guy" lost. (Let the 2016 election be your guide. Despite it being an overall fair primary, there were plenty of bernie Bros who decided not to vote for Clinton. Plus, look at all the accusations that were tossed around... "Hillary rigged the primaries", etc.. Of course things would have been so much worse in 2024 given how they'd be arranging things pretty quickly.)


There is no guarantee they would have picked a "better candidate".

Harris being a former VP probably would have given her an edge had they had an open primary. Plus, the reduced timeframe might have limited the number of potential candidates.

So the most likely scenario if they did hold an "open primary" is that Harris still becomes the eventual candidate, which might (in theory) make those "disenfranchised voters" you think exist happy, but with Harris more damaged politically, and now they have less money to spend on the general election campaign.

To be fair the number of Clinton voters who went republican in 2008 was much higher than the number of Bernie voters who stayed at home. The highlighted was largely a fiction bandied about by the DNC leadership as a scapegoat.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

It really saddens me that people will make the choice to not vote, and then complain that all the other people picked someone they don't like.

I would be more sympathetic about non-voters in the US than I am with their comrades in, say, Ireland for two reasons: 1) there's a good ten percent of the citizenry or more illegally denied their right to vote and if your skin colour is wrong it's very hard to vote in most states and 2) on too many issues, especially on economics, there isn't a choice between the two parties, both work for big business.

 

[wareyin]

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.

Calling objective falsehoods "things I qualify as lies" is certainly an interesting thing to say when you are complaining about being gaslit. If you apply a standard of honesty to the media but not to yourself or Trump, that standard is lopsided.

Further, the claim that the media gaslit the public about Biden's condition is just false. Again, Biden was great in the live State of the Union address and even then, much of the media was already harping on about him being old and questioning his fitness. If a candidate's mental condition is the primary concern, it is logically inconsistent to ignore that Trump is objectively more incoherent and less stable than both Biden and the person who replaced Biden. If the goal was to avoid an incapacitated leader, the solution was right in front of the voters in Harris.

As for turnout, the massive drop-off in Democratic votes was almost entirely concentrated in safe states where the outcome was already decided. In the battleground states where the choice was most direct, the race remained incredibly close. The idea that millions of voters stayed home in mass protest of the Biden situation doesn't hold up in the places where the campaign was actually fought. Think about it: if voters were truly motivated by a desire to punish "gaslighting" or dishonesty, they would not have turned to a candidate whose entire record is built on it.

 

[wareyin]

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.

"Chained themselves to Biden-Harris"? What, people were so unenthusiastic about Harris that they "chained themselves" into breaking fundraising records for Harris?
Oh no, she dropped out in the 2020 primaries! Let's focus on that instead of her being the VP of the ticket that actually won the general election and having a 94% favorability amongst Dems. That's not dishonest framing at all!

 

[Segnosaur]

Also, i suspect that had they had a quick-and-dirty ad-hoc primary, people still would have sat out or not voted for the eventual candidate if "Their guy" lost. (Let the 2016 election be your guide. Despite it being an overall fair primary, there were plenty of bernie Bros who decided not to vote for Clinton.

To be fair the number of Clinton voters who went republican in 2008 was much higher than the number of Bernie voters who stayed at home. The highlighted was largely a fiction bandied about by the DNC leadership as a scapegoat.

First of all, I never claimed that there weren't also former Clinton supporters who voted republican in 2008, only that there were some Berniebros who either voted Trump, or abstained/voted 3rd party, and it might have had an impact in some pretty tight state-wide elections. In other words, its not a "fiction" to point out that it happened, even if it also happened in previous election cycles.

Secondly, even if there were former Clinton supporters who supported the republicans when Obama eventually won the nomination, it was far less of an issue back then. Yes, McCain and Obama had a lot of policy differences, and you the country would look a lot different had McCain won in 2008. But, McCain would have at least been a competent leader. (Yeah, you probably wouldn't have anything like the Affordable care act, and there would be more republican judges on the bench, but you wouldn't be worried about hi blowing up NATO, or starting a civil war.) So an early clinton supporter who later voted for McCain (or sat out of the general election) was... understandable? Justifiable?

This is not the case in either the 2016 or 2024 elections. Trump was CLEARLY incapable of doing the job in 2016, and by the time 2024 came around, it was obvious that he was going to be a complete and total disaster. So a Clinton->Trump or Harris->Trump switch (or non-vote) is a lot more idiotic.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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.

Calling objective falsehoods "things I qualify as lies" is certainly an interesting thing to say when you are complaining about being gaslit. If you apply a standard of honesty to the media but not to yourself or Trump, that standard is lopsided.

Referring to obvious lies as "things that you qualify as lies" is the sort of thing gaslighters do when they want to excuse obvious lies, but cannot address the obvious fact that the obvious lies are obvious lies.

 

[Emily's Cat]

1) there's a good ten percent of the citizenry or more illegally denied their right to vote and if your skin colour is wrong it's very hard to vote in most states

Why do you believe this to be true?

Don't get me wrong, it was certainly true about 50 years ago. I'm just not convinced that it's true now.

 

[ahhell]

To not vote is a legitimate choice. The funny thing about it, folks are far more likely to vote when ◊◊◊◊ is hitting the fan. When things are good and mellow is when folks start checking out.

Not sure if that holds up now. Everything is so toxic, checking out makes sense.

 

[Segnosaur]

1) there's a good ten percent of the citizenry or more illegally denied their right to vote and if your skin colour is wrong it's very hard to vote in most states

Why do you believe this to be true?

Don't get me wrong, it was certainly true about 50 years ago. I'm just not convinced that it's true now.

Not sure if its as high as 10%, but you have the following groups of (potential) voters who will have trouble casing their ballots:

- Those with felony convictions in states that bar felons from voting. (~2% of american Citizens)
- People who's names were "purged" from voter roles for various reasons (for example, name matches that of convicted felon even if the person is not related)
- People who lack proper photo ID in states that require it for voting (There are over 1 million Americans without valid government photo id in states with strict ID laws)

These types of restrictions tend to have a bigger impact people more likely to vote Democrat. (For example, minority groups are more likely to get purged from voter roles and/or have felony convictions. And people like students who have travelled for school but don't have a need for a driver's license.)

Now technically these people weren't "illegally" denied their right to vote, its just that the laws were written to be unfair to them.

‘The chilling effect’: behind GOP-led states’ efforts to purge some voters from the rolls

Texas, Tennessee, Virginia, Alabama and Ohio want to scare off voters of color and naturalized citizens, activists say

www.theguardian.com

Voter suppression in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

‘The chilling effect’: behind GOP-led states’ efforts to purge some voters from the rolls

Texas, Tennessee, Virginia, Alabama and Ohio want to scare off voters of color and naturalized citizens, activists say

www.theguardian.com

https://cdce.umd.edu/news/news-umd-analysis-millions-americans-don%E2%80%99t-have-id-required-vote

 

[Trausti]

- People who lack proper photo ID in states that require it for voting (There are over 1 million Americans without valid government photo id in states with strict ID laws)

Given how necessary I.D. is to participate in everyday life, you'd think that those claiming people are denied voting rights due to lack of I.D. would seek ways to make it easier to get I.D. (And it is already pretty easy.) But you'd be wrong.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Not sure if its as high as 10%, but you have the following groups of (potential) voters who will have trouble casing their ballots:

- Those with felony convictions in states that bar felons from voting. (~2% of american Citizens)

Disagreeing with state-level laws that disallow incarcerated felons from voting, or impose a waiting period before their right to vote is reinstated is a worthwhile discussion. But that's not illegally preventing them from voting, it's legally preventing them from voting. Personally, I think it's a pointless and dumb idea to not let them vote, but it's not illegal. Nor is it preventing them from voting based on their skin color.

- People who's names were "purged" from voter roles for various reasons (for example, name matches that of convicted felon even if the person is not related)

That would be a mistake, and I agree that mistakes should be fixed. This doesn't seem to meet Gulliver's description though.

- People who lack proper photo ID in states that require it for voting (There are over 1 million Americans without valid government photo id in states with strict ID laws)

You know that the vast majority of democratic countries on the planet require voter ids, don't you?

(Aside: I'm constantly baffled by this weird expectation that the US should adopt extraordinarily permissive attitudes toward things that other developed countries are much more strict about. Voting rights and the requirement to provide identification is one of those, immigration is another, and abortion is yet a third. The US is in general much less strict than our near/peer countries, but we're constantly harangued about it. It's a very strange thing.)

These types of restrictions tend to have a bigger impact people more likely to vote Democrat. (For example, minority groups are more likely to get purged from voter roles and/or have felony convictions. And people like students who have travelled for school but don't have a need for a driver's license.)

Now technically these people weren't "illegally" denied their right to vote, its just that the laws were written to be unfair to them.

I don't think current laws are intended to be unfair to them. Requiring ID to vote isn't unfair, it's the standard in most democratic countries - you can only vote once, and you have to be a citizen to vote... and you have to demonstrate that those two things are true. Additionally, almost all citizens who are of voting age have IDs. DL is the most common, but it's not the only form of ID that is acceptable. You know that black people in the US drive cars and buy houses and travel, don't you? Like pretty regularly. And those all require IDs.

I think there's a reasonable discussion to be had about whether or not incarcerated people should still be allowed to vote. I think every effort should be made to avoid errors that prevent legitimate citizens from voting. I also think that some means of identity and citizenship verification is rational and appropriate.

So yeah... still not seeing that Gulliver's point is supported by anything other than "lots of people say so".

 

[ahhell]

I have to say the furor over id laws is baffling. Even among the folks allegedly disenchanted by these laws suggest they are unclear on the matter.
Number one, how do you participate in society without an ID? Isn't that much more of a concern, maybe spend some effort on getting these folks IDs. Number 2, racist!. Why do think some folks don't have ID's? Oh yeah, they go to the DMV with there birth certificate and the DMV employee, obviously a racist white person, says, no way ◊◊◊◊◊◊!. Or, black people aren't smart enough to get a copy of the birth certificate? No, its the racist nurse at the hospital that says, now way ◊◊◊◊◊◊, I aint given you a birth certificate!

Seriously, ask a black person in the US if they have an ID or are capable of getting an ID and see what they say.

 

[Segnosaur]

Given how necessary I.D. is to participate in everyday life...

Perhaps not as necessary as you might think (at least for some people).

If you are (relatively) poor, you won't have a car. So no need for a driver's license. You won't be travelling internationally, so no need for a passport. If you're old enough you wont be 'carded' when you try to buy booze. And if you are (for example) a student or married, you will have family who might do the things that "require" a photo ID.

Or you may have had a valid ID in the past, but it may have expired. (For example a senior citizen who can no longer drive due to age will let their driver's license lapse.)

The fact is, there are roughly 7 million Americans of voting age who do not have current "valid" government issued photo ID. If all those Americans can survive without it, then it might not necessarily be THAT necessary. (You might need valid photo ID at some time in time, but not necessarily all the time.)

https://cdce.umd.edu/news/news-umd-analysis-millions-americans-don%E2%80%99t-have-id-required-vote

you'd think that those claiming people are denied voting rights due to lack of I.D. would seek ways to make it easier to get I.D. (And it is already pretty easy.) But you'd be wrong.

Actually for some people its not as easy as you might think. Even if the photo ID is "free", there are secondary costs/problems involved.

For example, you might need a birth certificate. You probably already have one if you are (relatively) young, but there are elderly people who were born at home who never had a birth certificate issued. And that birth certificate might come with a cost. Or you might be a student who has travelled to go to school and might have troubles with out-of-state documentation.

And even if you already have the supporting documentation (like a birth certificate), you still might need to take time out of your day to go to whatever government office issues the photo ID. Easy if you have a flexible schedule, but if you're some minimum wage worker stuck in a 9/5 job, you might have to take time off work to go to some government office (which itself may have limited hours when they are open), all of which will cost you money.

 

[Trausti]

Perhaps not as necessary as you might think (at least for some people).

If you are (relatively) poor, you won't have a car. So no need for a driver's license. You won't be travelling internationally, so no need for a passport. If you're old enough you wont be 'carded' when you try to buy booze. And if you are (for example) a student or married, you will have family who might do the things that "require" a photo ID.

Or you may have had a valid ID in the past, but it may have expired. (For example a senior citizen who can no longer drive due to age will let their driver's license lapse.)

The fact is, there are roughly 7 million Americans of voting age who do not have current "valid" government issued photo ID. If all those Americans can survive without it, then it might not necessarily be THAT necessary. (You might need valid photo ID at some time in time, but not necessarily all the time.)

https://cdce.umd.edu/news/news-umd-analysis-millions-americans-don%E2%80%99t-have-id-required-vote

Actually for some people its not as easy as you might think. Even if the photo ID is "free", there are secondary costs/problems involved.

For example, you might need a birth certificate. You probably already have one if you are (relatively) young, but there are elderly people who were born at home who never had a birth certificate issued. And that birth certificate might come with a cost. Or you might be a student who has travelled to go to school and might have troubles with out-of-state documentation.

And even if you already have the supporting documentation (like a birth certificate), you still might need to take time out of your day to go to whatever government office issues the photo ID. Easy if you have a flexible schedule, but if you're some minimum wage worker stuck in a 9/5 job, you might have to take time off work to go to some government office (which itself may have limited hours when they are open), all of which will cost you money.

You can always imagine some extreme scenario where a hypothetical person lives on an isolated island, never learned to read, and earns only a few dollars a day selling trinkets by the side of the road. That doesn't change the fact that I.D. is easy to get.

 

[Segnosaur]

I have to say the furor over id laws is baffling. Even among the folks allegedly disenchanted by these laws suggest they are unclear on the matter.
Number one, how do you participate in society without an ID?

Depends on your circumstances. What do you think you need an ID for?

If you don't drive or travel internationally you won't need a driver's license or passport. If you're old enough you won't have to need it to buy alcohol. I do most of my banking on-line so its not like I need it to verify myself at the bank.

The fact is there are MILLIONS of Americans of voting age who live normal productive lives without having a "proper" valid government issued photo id.

Isn't that much more of a concern, maybe spend some effort on getting these folks IDs.

Again, as I stated in other posts, its not as easy as you might think. Government offices where you can get photo ID often have limited hours, and you might work at a job that does not give you the flexibility to take a day off just to get a license.

Number 2, racist!. Why do think some folks don't have ID's?

Ummm, because they don't need it in their day-to-day lives and don't want to go through the hassle of getting something that doesn't impact them in a significant way?

Oh yeah, they go to the DMV with there birth certificate and the DMV employee, obviously a racist white person, says, no way ◊◊◊◊◊◊!. Or, black people aren't smart enough to get a copy of the birth certificate?

Many places charge to get a birth certificate. If you are an elderly person who was born at home (as was more common early last century) you may not have had a birth certificate issued, and if you are retired you might not have the extra cash to spend to get a new certificate issued.

And even if you had a birth certificate, most people won't want to go and take a day out of their schedule just to go to the DMV, stand in line for hours to get your photo ID done, just to exercise your "right" to vote.

 

[Segnosaur]

You can always imagine some extreme scenario where a hypothetical person lives on an isolated island, never learned to read, and earns only a few dollars a day selling trinkets by the side of the road. That doesn't change the fact that I.D. is easy to get.

Wow, amazing. Just take pretty much everything I wrote and dismiss it with a giant wave of your hand.

Glad you think ID is "easy to get". I am sure whatever experience YOU had getting whatever photo ID you use will be completely identical to everybody elses situation.

 

[Trausti]

Depends on your circumstances. What do you think you need an ID for?

If you don't drive or travel internationally you won't need a driver's license or passport. If you're old enough you won't have to need it to buy alcohol. I do most of my banking on-line so its not like I need it to verify myself at the bank.

The fact is there are MILLIONS of Americans of voting age who live normal productive lives without having a "proper" valid government issued photo id.

Again, as I stated in other posts, its not as easy as you might think. Government offices where you can get photo ID often have limited hours, and you might work at a job that does not give you the flexibility to take a day off just to get a license.

Ummm, because they don't need it in their day-to-day lives and don't want to go through the hassle of getting something that doesn't impact them in a significant way?

Many places charge to get a birth certificate. If you are an elderly person who was born at home (as was more common early last century) you may not have had a birth certificate issued, and if you are retired you might not have the extra cash to spend to get a new certificate issued.

And even if you had a birth certificate, most people won't want to go and take a day out of their schedule just to go to the DMV, stand in line for hours to get your photo ID done, just to exercise your "right" to vote.