What did Democrats do wrong?

[Donal]

What other definition do you have in mind, in the context of opposing southern democrats during the 60s?

Restating the root doesn't really clarify. I believe "oppose" means to go against. You seem to believe it means "welcome with open arms"

 

[wareyin]

Just going to toss out here that your arguments come across as extremely authoritarian. Whether you intend it or not, it really seems like you're telling your fellow democrats to shut up and fall in line or else they're traitors and just as bad as the enemy. Strong Torquemada vibes, you know.

Similarly, telling someone to stop hitting themselves in the head with a hammer because they are hurting themselves is very authoritarian.

 

[wareyin]

Its a strawman because you are attacking thigns I'm not saying

So, I'm not allaowed to offer any criticism ever?

I wasn't doing that in 2024, though. I actually bit my tongue and talked up Biden then Harris. Any reservation or criticism I had, I voiced once and tried to move on. I hyped up the good work by the FTC and SEC under the Biden administration. I tried to keep all the positives in the forefront. I actually got excited when Harris named Walz as her running mate. Then I watched the Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again. I watched as the Democrats ignored their people on the ground again. I watched as they went to parties with billionaire celebrities again. I watched them completely misread the room after a really promising start. And now I'm listening to the same bunch of professional LOSERS blame people who have no position whatsoever in the goddamned party.

And now, I'm telling you, a person defending the establishment Democrats, in 2026 not 2024, how the Democratic Party ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up again. Maybe, instead of shooting the messenger, you actually look at the alleged professionals who keep hiring the high priced consultants who have dropped 2 of 3 elections to an addled brain bigot whose notoriety prior to 2016 was racism, infidelity, and bankruptcy. And they only barely won that one time because of how badly he botched a global pandemic. Perhaps you ask yourself whey they are still campaigning like its the 90s. Perhaps you ask yourself why they seem to be constantly neck and neck with an opposition that is a bunch of racist clowns. Or why they keep partying with the same financial backers as those racist clowns.

Because treating fact based criticisms and information from the ground as blasphemy is not a sound strategy.

The fact that you bit your tongue and "tried" to limit your criticisms in 2024 is the whole point. You clearly understood then that constant negativity helps the other side, or you wouldn't have made the effort to hold back. You didn't do that because you're a fan of "blasphemy," you did it because you knew the math. You seem to feel your voice is powerful enough to help when you're "hyping them up," but then say I'm attacking a strawman when I point out that tearing them down has the opposite effect.

As for why the Democrats are constantly neck and neck with racist clowns, I think we have to acknowledge that the atmosphere on the left plays a role in that. When the narrative from our own side is constantly focused on "professional losers" and "billionaire partying hacks," it's hard to build the kind of momentum needed to actually win. It creates the exact thin margins you're frustrated by. I'm not shooting the messenger, I'm just pointing out that the message we choose to amplify has real world consequences for the GOP's chances. Which is something your tongue biting says you understood 2 years ago, despite calling it a strawman now.

 

[wareyin]

The failure of the Democratic party to offer an alternative to a MAGA monopoly that people can get behind is precisely the problem.

"At least we aren't Trump" is a failed political message. It didn't win in 2016. It didn't win in 2024. It only barely worked for Biden 2020. The Democrats are never going to finger-wag their way to victory by admonishing people to stop pointing that out.

I certainly agree that too many people on the left were fine with MAGA if they didn't get their perfect unicorn candidate. I've already said we need someone with charisma to get the voters to come out, because despite having the most progressive platform in modern history, Harris couldn't even convince most progressives that she wasn't ignoring them.

The problem is that while they were waiting for that perfect messenger to show up, they let the government be handed over to people who want to dismantle everything we've fought for and built. I don't give a ◊◊◊◊ about the Democratic establishment, but this damn circular firing squad is only helping MAGA.

 

[Donal]

I held back because I gave the moderates the benefit of the doubt. I did it your way. I won't make that mistake again. You can blame yourself and all the other moderates and centrists looking to blame everyone but their own ◊◊◊◊◊◊ ideas.

Maybe stop being professional losers and billionaire partying hacks and folks won't say it. You're more offended by the people pointing out very real problems than you are at the people perpetuating the problems. Maybe Chuck Schumer can skip Charles Koch's 4th of July party in the Hamptons this year. Better yet, maybe Senate Democrats can pick a leader who doesn't listen to the imaginary Republicans in his head over his constituents.

 

[bruto]

I didn't dismiss it as not happening.

Yes you did. You asserted that there was no appreciable damage done, and when it was pointed out you met it with the usual tu quoque.

 

[wareyin]

I held back because I gave the moderates the benefit of the doubt. I did it your way. I won't make that mistake again. You can blame yourself and all the other moderates and centrists looking to blame everyone but their own ◊◊◊◊◊◊ ideas.

Maybe stop being professional losers and billionaire partying hacks and folks won't say it. You're more offended by the people pointing out very real problems than you are at the people perpetuating the problems. Maybe Chuck Schumer can skip Charles Koch's 4th of July party in the Hamptons this year. Better yet, maybe Senate Democrats can pick a leader who doesn't listen to the imaginary Republicans in his head over his constituents.

Just so we're clear, even in your own claim you admit that after the primaries were over you were still vocal about your criticisms. You just "tried" to do it less. Now that trashing the Dem candidate in the general resulted in a loss, you're blaming it on the moderates who actually voted for Harris, rather than the people who told everyone she wasn't worth the effort.

You can call it a "mistake" to hold back, but you weren't even really doing that. You were doing exactly what you're doing now: giving people reasons to stay home and then acting surprised when the other side wins.

 

[Donal]

Yes, the further they went, I mentioned their response to the Gaza situation was not good enough for a lot of people. But here's the thing, there was already a lot of pissed off people being very vocal. The fact that the Democrats had no response to that was a problem. I also wished she had taken a stronger stance defending folks like Lena Kahn. Did I harp on it? No, but I brought it up because I thought it was a way Harris' campaign could have improved her chances.

If you expect either complete silence or abject fealty, then you're in the wrong goddamned place. There is a significant difference between attacking and critiquing. And its pretty damn hypocritical accusing other people helping Trump win when you're on some Blue MAGA ◊◊◊◊.

 

[wareyin]

Yes, the further they went, I mentioned their response to the Gaza situation was not good enough for a lot of people. But here's the thing, there was already a lot of pissed off people being very vocal. The fact that the Democrats had no response to that was a problem. I also wished she had taken a stronger stance defending folks like Lena Kahn. Did I harp on it? No, but I brought it up because I thought it was a way Harris' campaign could have improved her chances.

If you expect either complete silence or abject fealty, then you're in the wrong goddamned place. There is a significant difference between attacking and critiquing. And its pretty damn hypocritical accusing other people helping Trump win when you're on some Blue MAGA ◊◊◊◊.

Uh huh. So 'everyone else was doing it, and you just joined in'? This loud and pissed off group that you heard from so much and joined, are we still pretending that it's a strawman to claim they encouraged voters to not vote for the only candidate who could have beaten Trump, during the damn general election when there was no alternative?

There's a world of difference between "abject fealty" and "not actively sabotaging the only viable alternative to the GOP during a general election." By the way, that "Blue MAGA" jab is cute. I see it repeated from a lot of "I'm just a guy on the internet" folks. It’s clearly easier to pretend "Blue MAGA" is a thing than to admit you prioritized ideological purity over actually winning the election, thus ensuring that Gaza responses got handed over to the guy who wants to turn it into a Trump resort. How'd your "critiquing" work out for keeping Lina Khan as the head of the FTC, anyway?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Refusing to recognize trans people as trans is bigoted.

Most people recognize transpeople as *trans*. Which is entirely different from recognizing them as being *the opposite sex of what they actually are*.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes you did. You asserted that there was no appreciable damage done, and when it was pointed out you met it with the usual tu quoque.

Noting that it wasn't much in terms of actual real damage is not dismissing it as not having happened.

 

[Donal]

Uh huh. So 'everyone else was doing it, and you just joined in'?

No, I didn't join in. I pointed out it was happening. Anything I have said is because its true and improtant.

This loud and pissed off group that you heard from so much and joined, are we still pretending that it's a strawman to claim they encouraged voters to not vote for the only candidate who could have beaten Trump, during the damn general election when there was no alternative?

better keep that strawman away from open flames.

There's a world of difference between "abject fealty" and "not actively sabotaging the only viable alternative to the GOP during a general election."

Yes, but you keep pushing the former.

By the way, that "Blue MAGA" jab is cute. I see it repeated from a lot of "I'm just a guy on the internet" folks. It’s clearly easier to pretend "Blue MAGA" is a thing than to admit you prioritized ideological purity over actually winning the election, thus ensuring that Gaza responses got handed over to the guy who wants to turn it into a Trump resort. How'd your "critiquing" work out for keeping Lina Khan as the head of the FTC, anyway?

Literally did everything that was asked this past election and you people are still attacking. If that's not Blue MAGA, I don't know what is.

Obviously, informing people didn't work. I can lead a horse to water but I can't make him not be deaf dumb and blind to obvious problems.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I certainly agree that too many people on the left were fine with MAGA if they didn't get their perfect unicorn candidate. I've already said we need someone with charisma to get the voters to come out, because despite having the most progressive platform in modern history, Harris couldn't even convince most progressives that she wasn't ignoring them.

The problem is that while they were waiting for that perfect messenger to show up, they let the government be handed over to people who want to dismantle everything we've fought for and built. I don't give a ◊◊◊◊ about the Democratic establishment, but this damn circular firing squad is only helping MAGA.

Keep up the "if you're not with us, you're against us" rhetoric. Keep mocking people's desire for officeholders who actually listen to them as a foolish wish for a "perfect unicorn candidate". It's just what minority voters already frustrated by their lack of representation need to hear from white moderates pretending to care about them. That's sure to win more votes.

It's convenient that you don't give any diamonds about the Democratic establishment; it spares you the trouble of criticizing the people most deserving of criticism, and from whom it is most appropriate and reasonable to expect remedy.

 

[bruto]

Noting that it wasn't much in terms of actual real damage is not dismissing it as not having happened.

It is dismissal if it was, as it was in my case, the damage that was the issue. Of course everyone knows that the event happened. Nobody ever disputed that that happened. What you asserted was that there was no substantial damage. There was. Millions of dollars' worth. You can deny it if you want, but you can't then say you didn't deny it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It is dismissal if it was, as it was in my case, the damage that was the issue. Of course everyone knows that the event happened. Nobody ever disputed that that happened. What you asserted was that there was no substantial damage. There was. Millions of dollars' worth. You can deny it if you want, but you can't then say you didn't deny it.

I have said multiple times that the dollar value of the damage is not the same as the scope of damage. A single art piece could be damaged to the tune of $1M in repair costs, but it is still *less actual damage* than if $1M of damage was done to an apartment building that was set on fire.

Do you disagree with that evaluation of scope of damage as opposed to price to repair?

 

[d4m10n]

What say you?

I'd say that among the major unforced errors of 2024 was failing to ask the electability question.

Which 2028 Democrats have the best electoral track record?

Hint: Not Gavin Newsom.

www.natesilver.net

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Noting that it wasn't much in terms of actual real damage is not dismissing it as not having happened.

That's like saying crazy is not the same thing as idiotic.

I have said multiple times that the dollar value of the damage is not the same as the scope of damage. A single art piece could be damaged to the tune of $1M in repair costs, but it is still *less actual damage* than if $1M of damage was done to an apartment building that was set on fire.

Do you disagree with that evaluation of scope of damage as opposed to price to repair?

On such matters, I'm inclined to pay more attention to damage estimates that have been accepted by courts or estimated by the General Accounting Office than to opinions expressed by some pseudonymous cat.

Prosecutors, using an early calculation provided by the Architect of the Capitol, told courts the direct damage was $1,495,326.55. (Ya gotta love the 55 cents.) Courts accepted that figure as a basis for restitution imposed during sentencing. Rounded to $1.5 million , that is the number most often used by those who wish to downplay the damage.

Near the beginning of a 122-page report responding to a request from Congress, the General Accounting Office wrote:

The attack resulted in assaults on at least 174 police officers, including 114 Capitol Police and 60 D.C. Metropolitan Police Department officers. These events led to at least seven deaths and caused about $2.7 billion in estimated costs.

That's "billion" with a B, not an M.

 

[bruto]

I have said multiple times that the dollar value of the damage is not the same as the scope of damage. A single art piece could be damaged to the tune of $1M in repair costs, but it is still *less actual damage* than if $1M of damage was done to an apartment building that was set on fire.

Do you disagree with that evaluation of scope of damage as opposed to price to repair?

I don''t see where I have to agree or disagree with that analogy to point out that you were dismissive of the damage done to the Capitol and later denied that you had been so. Comparing it to other damage, real or abstract, is irrelevant, as is a discussion of how we should evaluate the damage done.

 

[dirtywick]

scope of damage should also include the part about the plot to steal the election

 

[jasonkilanski]

I'm somewhat new here. I made an account to respond to something else a few months ago, and decided today to see what this site is all about.

For this topic, I'll start by giving context about me. I've never voted until 2020. I've never registered with either Party and think Independent voter is an accurate description for me. My first time voting was in local elections, I voted for the Democrat for our Mayor (Tecklenburg). In the next and latest election, I voted for Shahid, who is also a Democrat; but he lost and there was a second runoff vote between Tecklenburg and Cogswell (Republican), and I voted for Cogswell. I've voted based on issues, not Party. For the POTUS, I voted for Trump over Kamala.

To the question of why I didn't vote for Kamala, I'm personally tired of hearing Trump did something, looking it up, and finding out it wasn't true. I've lost all trust in the media on anything Trump related. I'm tired of the double standards and chaos, and the constant "If I don't get what I want, I'll hurt myself or someone else, and it's your fault" arguments that for some reason are being treated like legitimate arguments or reasons to shift blame.

Looking up Kamala, she has zero accomplishments. Even then, the few they try to list as an accomplishment, like her being "black" (not an accomplishment) is questionable. Both Candidates had comparable experience, with Trump as 45 and Kamala as former VP, so it left very little question for me on what we could expect to see from them; and I don't see how anyone can say another 4 years of autopen leadership controlled by ?? would have been the best choice.

I'm not sure which boxes that explanation would check. If anyone has questions, feel free to ask, but "don't troll me bro."