What did Democrats do wrong?

[The Atheist]

Haha oh wow.

At this stage you cannot be surprised at people who actually give a ◊◊◊◊ being unimpressed with Democrats who are still clamouring to be Republican-Lite.

 

[Brainster]

Frank is just lying because he has to keep his donors happy and doesn't want to get burned in effigy along with the rest.

Errr, what donors? Frank retired from elective office in 2012 and is currently in hospice care.

You should never take anyone seriously who pretends to agree with you in principle, but can't support you because you didn't ask nicely enough.
Obviously he was never going to support you no matter what, and you have to be an idiot to think otherwise.

Who are you talking about?

 

[Susheel]

Haha oh wow.

You should laugh. A lot of that story was basically hyperbole and gaslighting by the repugs and you just fell for it because that is what you wanted to be the truth.

 

[Donal]

Errr, what donors? Frank retired from elective office in 2012 and is currently in hospice care.

The ones keeping his family like, his sister, employed? I mean, if a Supreme Court Justice in his 80s can still take bribes, why can't a retired Senator? The machine never really lets you go.

Who are you talking about?

Moderate whites

 

[ZiprHead]

Democrats release contentious autopsy of 2024 presidential race but disavow its contents

The Democratic National Committee released a long-awaited autopsy of the party’s failed 2024 presidential campaign on Thursday, but party leaders took the awkward position of asserting that the report itself “does not meet our standards.”

The report was released “for full transparency,” according to DNC Chair Ken Martin, who has faced months of anger over his earlier decision to withhold it. But the document opens with the DNC disavowing its contents and stating it “cannot independently verify the claims presented.”

The draft report says that while it might be tempting for Democrats to point to narrow margins of defeat for Kamala Harris and downballot candidates and argue they need to tweak rather than overhaul their approach, this “denialist” thinking “prevents the Party from seeking real accountability” and making necessary changes.

The draft report, which was prepared by Democratic strategist Paul Rivera, argues that the White House, under President Joe Biden, did not do enough to set Harris up for political success.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

we all know what Harris did wrong.

 

[Helen]

we all know what Harris did wrong.

Women, eh? We can't help ourselves. And sometimes we even laugh. We're really hopeless.

 

[theprestige]

we all know what Harris did wrong.

We do? A lot of democrats seem to be confused on this point, given their complaints about this autopsy report.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/21/democratic-party-2024-autopsy-00931754

 

[Brainster]

Well the DNC finally bowed to reality and released the internal post-mortem. It's embarrassing in terms of quality, and littered with annotations that basically say "pay no attention to this part." Here's an example, from the second paragraph:

Effective parties, understanding history rarely repeats itself, it does often rhyme, make it a point
to study electoral outcomes after each cycle to identify potential improvements to every aspect
of their campaigns. John Adams argued “Liberty cannot be preserved without a general
knowledge among the people, who have a right…and a desire to know.”

The first part is is inept; what was meant was something like "understanding that while history rarely repeats itself, it does often rhyme..." And the John Adams quote doesn't have anything to do with understanding past mistakes and learning from them.

Here's another silly mistake. Discussing Herschel Walker's ill-fated 2022 campaign for the Senate from Georgia:

This was a blatant attempt by the Republican power base to take advantage of name recognition
and tough economic conditions to push through an unqualified candidate whose job would have
been little more than rubber stamping the president’s agenda.

As the annotation notes, Joe Biden was the president in 2022, so presumably Walker would not have been a rubber stamp. However the annotations aren't always useful. Consider this example:

In the fall of 2024, the campaign approached the New Hampshire
gubernatorial campaign and the Democratic Governor Association for an update because the
campaign had not polled there since June.

An annotation notes that no evidence was provided for this claim. But this is surely something that could be quickly checked; the claim is either true or false, it's not something indeterminate (like many of the other assertions made in the document).

 

[dirtywick]

it's funny, they also happen to collect a lot of money from the same people who have essentially turned the gop into a bunch of traitors. stuff like that doesn't make you feel like they're going to get their acts together anytime soon. but, that's probably your best hope. that they do.

 

[Emily's Cat]

At a minimum, you'd think they could at least refer to it as an "after-action review" rather than an autopsy or post-mortem. It's hard to improve when you've already framed yourself as dead...

 

[The Atheist]

Women, eh? We can't help ourselves. And sometimes we even laugh. We're really hopeless.

It's one of the worst traits of mankind: to act against one's own interests.

I usually quote Muhammad Ali, but the censor won't allow it, so I'll paraphrase it.

Nothing the white man likes better than women voting for the patriarchy.

There's even more of you! You'd never have to have another male leader. You are bloody hopeless! Why did you bother getting the vote?

 

[Brainster]

At a minimum, you'd think they could at least refer to it as an "after-action review" rather than an autopsy or post-mortem. It's hard to improve when you've already framed yourself as dead...

In fairness I'm sure the Democrats had a different name, but every pundit has been referring to it with those terminal allusions. On the Democrats website it's referred to as "Annotated Report."

 

[Tero]

Guardian:
“Harris wrote off rural America, assuming urban/suburban margins would compensate,” the report says. “The math doesn’t work.” The autopsy concludes that Stein’s success in the state that Harris lost provided a clear lesson for Democrats: focus less on “abstract issues and identity politics”.

Democrats belatedly publish 2024 election autopsy report: ‘It won’t meet your standards’

DNC chair Ken Martin apologizes for initial bid to block release of report on party’s disastrous election defeat

www.theguardian.com

But the committee is wrong. It would not have made any difference. Rural America is not going to vote for a black woman. The 2% she lost by that were available were mostly erhnic groups.

 

[theprestige]

Democrats belatedly publish 2024 election autopsy report: ‘It won’t meet your standards’

DNC chair Ken Martin apologizes for initial bid to block release of report on party’s disastrous election defeat

www.theguardian.com

But the committee is wrong. It would not have made any difference. Rural America is not going to vote for a black woman.

That's just a marketing fail. Harris should have presented as a Jamaican-Indian-Canadian-American.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

But the committee is wrong. It would not have made any difference. Rural America is not going to vote for a black woman. The 2% she lost by that were available were mostly erhnic groups.

This is not the full story.

The truth is, rural America is not going to vote for a Democrat.

Rural America in the 2024 Election: Key Races and Ballot Measures

According to AP VoteCast, 62% of rural voters voted for Trump and 36% for Kamala Harris, about a 4% rightward shift compared to 2020. Harris underperformed Biden’s 2020 numbers in many rural counties across the nation, especially in swing states, and lost ground in Black rural counties in Georgia and North Carolina.

Harris had no chance of getting Rural America's vote while she was a Democrat, and trying to do so would have been a waste of time.

If she was a white man she might have picked up enough votes in key districts to beat Trump, but that was also unlikely. Why? Because people were voting mostly on issues where Republican policies were more attractive. You just have to look at the things Trump promised to see why so many voted for him over any Democrat. Rural America is not going to vote Democrat because they are America's real enemy. The list of disgusting crimes they will commit if they ever get into power is long, but we can start with murdering babies in the womb, giving your job to a DEI hire, and genociding your race by opening the borders to illegal immigrants.

IOW, Democrats are screwed. There is a way out though, they just have to let Trump eat everyone's face off. This is a bit tricky because they also have to appear to be strongly apposing him - a fine line to walk without losing progressives.

What Democrats need is dog whistles that their base understand while fooling swing voters into thinking they mean something else. For example they should frame killing babaies as being an issue of individual freedoms and healthy births. DEI hiring should be defended as a business's right to hire who they think is best. Harris should also have pushed Biden's excellent record on deporting illegals, and how Democrats were setting right the economy (as they always do) after the 6 times bankrupt Trump screwed it up. She also should have read the room and realised that everyone is an antisemite when it comes to America vs Israel, and noboday cares about anyone but themselves.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Women, eh? We can't help ourselves. And sometimes we even laugh. We're really hopeless.

Nothing of the sort.
1. Like all Dems, she pandered to the people who would never vote for her
2. She alienated the people desperate for a reason to vote for her
3. She listened to consultants instead of the Base

The Dem strategy of "we are not Trump" is not enough to actually win.

 

[Helen]

It's one of the worst traits of mankind: to act against one's own interests.

I usually quote Muhammad Ali, but the censor won't allow it, so I'll paraphrase it.

Nothing the white man likes better than women voting for the patriarchy.

There's even more of you! You'd never have to have another male leader. You are bloody hopeless! Why did you bother getting the vote?

We really shouldn't be allowed to vote, we're too emotional. Unlike men, who are never emotional about such things.

And anger is, apparently, not an emotion. Or so they angrily tell me when I try to say that it is...

 

[Helen]

Nothing of the sort.
1. Like all Dems, she pandered to the people who would never vote for her
2. She alienated the people desperate for a reason to vote for her
3. She listened to consultants instead of the Base

The Dem strategy of "we are not Trump" is not enough to actually win.

I agree, but I certainly think it was also about misogyny for many of the men, who would otherwise have voted for the democrats.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Sure, the first female President is going to be a MAGA Barbie type