What did Democrats do wrong?

[Donal]

Which specific "bad decision" by the Dems made you believe that MAGA was better for the country?

Where did I say they were better? I voted Harris and Biden and Clinton. But, I am constantly told how my voice doesn't matter, how I am wrong for wanting better, and to "vote blue no matter who"...except when its not one of the chosen candidates.

Do you believe voters bear zero responsibility for their own choices?

Did I say that? Do you think there are no legitimate gripes about the Democratic Party? Do you believe there was no room for improvement in Harris' campaign?

If the party was "wrong" for its decisions, in what way were voters "correct" to choose the side that is currently dismantling the issues you claim to care about?

I don't have to agree with their decision to empathize with them. Or listen to them.

 

[bruto]

I agree that both-sider-ism isn't unique to the left or the right. It's the same script used for two different ends. For the right, it’s a tactic to suppress the opposition. They don't actually believe it, but they’re happy to amplify it because it helps them win.

The accelerationists on the left are a different problem because they actually believe the rhetoric. They take a bad faith argument and turn it into a "pure" moral stance, effectively doing the opposition’s work for free. You can't change the mind of a dishonest actor on the right, but the trick is to get those accelerationists to realize that they are hurting their own goals, since they obviously don't care that they are hurting other people.

No argument there. Whether or not it can be proven that the "accelerationists" were responsible for the current debacle, it's clear enough that they wanted it more than they wanted the impure alternative, and there is no need to count to the last vote to determine the exact damage their foolish idealism has wrought. Whether they voted for third parties, or joke write-ins, or just stayed home, they got what they should have expected.

 

[wareyin]

Where did I say they were better? I voted Harris and Biden and Clinton. But, I am constantly told how my voice doesn't matter, how I am wrong for wanting better, and to "vote blue no matter who"...except when its not one of the chosen candidates.

That's odd. I keep pointing out that those people saying Dems are too far to the right had voices that did matter. It is strange that you hear "your voice doesn't matter" out of that. No one said you are wrong for wanting better. People are pointing out that your voice was used to make things worse according to what you claim to want. And finally, "vote blue no matter who" is a general election slogan. It was never used in conjunction with "except when it's not one of the chosen candidates," not least of which because once the primaries are over, the voters have chosen the only blue candidate there is.

Did I say that? Do you think there are no legitimate gripes about the Democratic Party? Do you believe there was no room for improvement in Harris' campaign?

You certainly seem to think voters bear no responsibility when you ask, "So, the voters were wrong for not liking the party?" As far as "legitimate gripes," so far not one has been aired that didn't apply 100 fold more to the Republican Party. Helping to elect the Republicans tells me that the person voicing the gripe doesn't actually think it's legitimate.

I don't have to agree with their decision to empathize with them. Or listen to them.

That sounds like you think their decision was not correct.

 

[Donal]

That's odd. I keep pointing out that those people saying Dems are too far to the right had voices that did matter.

And what was the result? Going on tour with Liz Cheney? Childish name calling and shutting them out of the convention? Attacking progressives in the primaries, despite for years claiming primarying incumbents was a sin? Running around with the Israeli flag draped over your back like a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ cape?

It is strange that you hear "your voice doesn't matter" out of that.

I see it in their actions

No one said you are wrong for wanting better.

Except when they do.

People are pointing out that your voice was used to make things worse according to what you claim to want.

By stating facts? By wanting a Democratic party that actually pushes for Democratic policies? Am I wrong for saying "I don't agree with this" or "you are going about this the wrong way"?

And finally, "vote blue no matter who" is a general election slogan. It was never used in conjunction with "except when it's not one of the chosen candidates," not least of which because once the primaries are over, the voters have chosen the only blue candidate there is.

*coughMamdanicough*

You certainly seem to think voters bear no responsibility when you ask, "So, the voters were wrong for not liking the party?"

No, I point out there were legitimate criticisms

As far as "legitimate gripes," so far not one has been aired that didn't apply 100 fold more to the Republican Party.

So, the Republicans gave the Democrats an open net and they still couldn't score a goal?

Helping to elect the Republicans tells me that the person voicing the gripe doesn't actually think it's legitimate.

What's the problem? Obviously the Dems didn't think they needed those votes.

That sounds like you think their decision was not correct.

Yes, it was among many decisions I disagree with made during the last election.

 

[wareyin]

And what was the result? Going on tour with Liz Cheney? Childish name calling and shutting them out of the convention? Attacking progressives in the primaries, despite for years claiming primarying incumbents was a sin? Running around with the Israeli flag draped over your back like a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ cape?

I see it in their actions

Except when they do.

By stating facts? By wanting a Democratic party that actually pushes for Democratic policies? Am I wrong for saying "I don't agree with this" or "you are going about this the wrong way"?

*coughMamdanicough*

No, I point out there were legitimate criticisms

So, the Republicans gave the Democrats an open net and they still couldn't score a goal?

What's the problem? Obviously the Dems didn't think they needed those votes.


Yes, it was among many decisions I disagree with made during the last election.

You’re complaining that progressives were "attacked" in primaries while they were busy attacking everyone else. That’s just a primary. Once Mamdani won his primary, who told you not to vote for him? (Assuming you are even an NYC resident which I seem to recall is not the case.) Trump. Come on, man.

More importantly, you’re still trying to frame this as the party "failing" to win you over, despite claiming that you actually did vote for them. We can't see who online anonymous posters really voted for, but we can see them telling everyone that the Dems are horrible people for trying to appeal to centrists and even right leaning independents in addition to those on the left in order to prevent the guy who staged a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ coup from being handed the reigns!

Politics isn't a retail transaction where you wait for the perfect product. It is a choice between outcomes. By spending the year amplifying the idea that the party didn't "earn" your vote, that they were too nice to a larger group of voters than yours, that they were absolutely horrible people who are somehow beholden to every donor, you helped create the exact outcome we have now: a government run by the very billionaires you claim to hate. You didn't move the party to the left. You just moved the entire country to the right. Was the "moral" victory of your gripes worth the actual defeat of every policy you care about?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Did I say that? Do you think there are no legitimate gripes about the Democratic Party? Do you believe there was no room for improvement in Harris' campaign?

I can see you're doing a Socratic thing here, but I can spare you the next ten pages of dissembling responses. This is the same argument wareyin uses for every criticism of Democrats: you are allowed to have gripes, grievances and complaints about anything associated with the Democratic Party, provided that you never* voice them to others. You are allowed one (1) disappointed tsk per electoral period, to use at your discretion. Saying anything more is providing aid and comfort to the Enemies of Democracy, who rely on your keen internet insights to point out the flaws in the otherwise famously cooperative closed ranks of the Democrats.

*Exceptions can be made if your complaints are not about the centrists or moderate Democrats who fall under the big tent of the party and must be welcomed even as they torpedo Democrat-led legislation, but rather the accelerationists, purity testers and progressive Democrats who dishonestly argue with bad faith to hamstring the Dems by being super mean about them online.

I don't know how long it's been going for, but iirc I noticed the pattern back in 2020 when it was vitally important that no one point out Biden was already old as ◊◊◊◊ and shouldn't be relied on to be capable of running for reelection. Boy was that egg on my face!

 

[dirtywick]

both sides aren’t the same but the dems definitely suck, especially the corporate moderate centrists who sold out the country at a more acceptable speed than conservatives

 

[Trausti]

I don't know how long it's been going for, but iirc I noticed the pattern back in 2020 when it was vitally important that no one point out Biden was already old as ◊◊◊◊ and shouldn't be relied on to be capable of running for reelection. Boy was that egg on my face!

LOL

 

[Reformed Offlian]

You’re complaining that progressives were "attacked" in primaries while they were busy attacking everyone else. That’s just a primary. Once Mamdani won his primary, who told you not to vote for him?

Andrew Cuomo?

 

[Solitaire]

I don't know how long it's been going for, but iirc I noticed the pattern back in 2020 when it was vitally important that no one point out Biden was already old as ◊◊◊◊ and shouldn't be relied on to be capable of running for reelection. Boy was that egg on my face!

If anyone doesn't get this joke, ever since he dropped his hat in the ring back in 2019, the the posts at times would go on about his age or health issues or mental abilities for pages and pages for five freaking years. It wasn't a debate, it was a nightmare of bombardment.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

If anyone doesn't get this joke, ever since he dropped his hat in the ring back in 2019, the the posts at times would go on about his age or health issues or mental abilities for pages and pages for five freaking years. It wasn't a debate, it was a nightmare of bombardment.

And yet the joke was on us all, because denying the problem didn't make it go away. It never does.

Democratic leadership folding like moist tissues at every challenge is a problem. They've been doing it for two decades and we've run out of time for them to self-correct because now we're going to have to fight off outright fascism while we're doing it. Blubbering "butbutbut... we don't have the voootes!" about failed legislation doesn't get us those votes, especially not when every time we do have the votes, just enough Democrats vote against it anyway! Reminding people that they voted for this ◊◊◊◊ show is cathartic as all hell, but the voters are still not going to come crawling back all on their own.

The Democratic party has to stop intentionally being the least bad alternative and actually fix its issues, or they'll go the way of the Whigs.

 

[wareyin]

I can see you're doing a Socratic thing here, but I can spare you the next ten pages of dissembling responses. This is the same argument wareyin uses for every criticism of Democrats: you are allowed to have gripes, grievances and complaints about anything associated with the Democratic Party, provided that you never* voice them to others. You are allowed one (1) disappointed tsk per electoral period, to use at your discretion. Saying anything more is providing aid and comfort to the Enemies of Democracy, who rely on your keen internet insights to point out the flaws in the otherwise famously cooperative closed ranks of the Democrats.

*Exceptions can be made if your complaints are not about the centrists or moderate Democrats who fall under the big tent of the party and must be welcomed even as they torpedo Democrat-led legislation, but rather the accelerationists, purity testers and progressive Democrats who dishonestly argue with bad faith to hamstring the Dems by being super mean about them online.

I don't know how long it's been going for, but iirc I noticed the pattern back in 2020 when it was vitally important that no one point out Biden was already old as ◊◊◊◊ and shouldn't be relied on to be capable of running for reelection. Boy was that egg on my face!

Oh, feel free to attack the Dem candidates during the general election all you want, just don't go all shocked Pikachu face that this helps the Republicans win.

 

[wareyin]

Andrew Cuomo?

So...a candidate in that race who wasn't a Dem in that race told people to vote for him and not to vote for the Dem candidate, and we pretend that this is a Dem effort to suppress the progressives, right?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Oh, feel free to attack the Dem candidates during the general election all you want, just don't go all shocked Pikachu face that this helps the Republicans win.

They ran a sundowning felon who ◊◊◊◊◊ himself. And they won. We're way past the point where internet comments can be blamed for tipping anything. If Stinky winning, again, wasn't enough for a wake up call, what on earth would be?

 

[wareyin]

And yet the joke was on us all, because denying the problem didn't make it go away. It never does.

Democratic leadership folding like moist tissues at every challenge is a problem. They've been doing it for two decades and we've run out of time for them to self-correct because now we're going to have to fight off outright fascism while we're doing it. Blubbering "butbutbut... we don't have the voootes!" about failed legislation doesn't get us those votes, especially not when every time we do have the votes, just enough Democrats vote against it anyway! Reminding people that they voted for this ◊◊◊◊ show is cathartic as all hell, but the voters are still not going to come crawling back all on their own.

The Democratic party has to stop intentionally being the least bad alternative and actually fix its issues, or they'll go the way of the Whigs.

Got it—using double quotation marks for emphasis instead of single ones.

---

It is a bold strategy to spend years doing your level best to ensure the Dems don't have the votes, then turn around and call it "blubbering" when they point out the mathematical reality of not having the votes.

You can’t sabotage the headcount and then complain that the party failed because they couldn't perform miracles with the empty seats you helped create. If you want the party to stop being the "least bad alternative," try giving them enough of a majority that they aren't beholden to a few centrist holdouts. If you want a more progressive party, get off your ass and campaign for the progressive candidates and most importantly VOTE FOR THEM IN THE PRIMARY!!!

The "moist tissue" folding you’re whining about is actually just called "math." Outside of a tiny 72 day window under Obama, the Democrats haven't had a filibuster-proof majority in nearly 50 years. You’re effectively complaining about the weather while you’re out there performing a rain dance to make sure the sun never comes out.

 

[wareyin]

They ran a sundowning felon who ◊◊◊◊◊ himself. And they won. We're way past the point where internet comments can be blamed for tipping anything. If Stinky winning, again, wasn't enough for a wake up call, what on earth would be?

The margins in the swing states were thin enough that every bit of critical internet comments and turnout suppression certainly had an effect. You don’t get to spend five years trashing the only candidate standing in the way of a "sundowning felon" and then pretend your hands are clean when that felon wins.

If Trump winning was helped by you shouting from the rooftops that people shouldn't vote for Biden or Harris, and your takeaway is that you linking arms with MAGA to help Trump was the Dems' fault, I don't think there ever will be a wake up call for you.

 

[dirtywick]

i don’t really buy that criticism of the dems is having dirty hands and linking arms with maga

 

[Reformed Offlian]

So...a candidate in that race who wasn't a Dem in that race told people to vote for him and not to vote for the Dem candidate, and we pretend that this is a Dem effort to suppress the progressives, right?

Just because Cuomo ran as an independent after not getting the nomination doesn't suddenly mean he "wasn't a Dem". By that standard, Teddy Roosevelt wasn't a Republican. And Cuomo had supporters who were generally moderate Democrats for whom Mamdani was too left. Obviously, the party establishment is unlikely to undermine its own candidate once he gets the nomination, so asking for examples of that is kinda weird, and I don't understand your point. ETA, undid an earlier needless edit.

 

[wareyin]

i don’t really buy that criticism of the dems is having dirty hands and linking arms with maga

You (general you) don’t get to put out all this effort to affect the perception of the candidates and then pretend your efforts had no effect. If you didn't want to affect the results, then why have you spent years of your time and energy trying to change perceptions of the candidates?

It’s like a restaurant. If you love a place and tell everyone to go, you expect that it’ll help the business. If you hate a place and spend years leaving bad reviews everywhere and telling people not to eat there, you’re doing that with the explicit expectation that it’ll hurt the business. But unlike a restaurant, there are only two choices in a US Presidential election, and one of those candidates WILL win. Because it’s a zero sum game, hurting one candidate by definition helps the other. When you spend that much time telling people not to vote for the only party that can stop Trump, you’re trying to influence the vote. When that party loses, you’re saddled with at least partial responsibility for the person who won. That’s how you get "dirty hands."

The "linking arms" part is simple: when you use the exact same terms and the exact same strategy as MAGA to attack the only person standing in Trump's way, you’re working toward the same goal. One of you is helping Trump on purpose, and the other is, at best, a useful idiot, but you're still linking arms to achieve the same outcome.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I love this restaurant analogy. Tell us more about how the only way to get better choices is to never criticize them and hope they just improve on their own.

Obviously, the party establishment is unlikely to undermine its own candidate once he gets the nomination, so asking for examples of that is kinda weird, and I don't understand your point.

And yet somehow they managed it: https://www.politico.com/live-updat...timately-rejects-mamdani-endorsement-00636312