Dem Post Mortem

[crazyfingers]

But speaking of getting caught: the Republicans didn't get caught in time on gutting the IRS:

Republicans Quietly Axed IRS Funding Amid Government Shutdown Chaos

As Congress fought over the spending bill, Republicans snuck in a passage to gut funding for the IRS. And Democrats didn’t catch it.

newrepublic.com

I am Shocked. Shocked I say, that the Republicans are making it easier for big business and the super rich to commit tax fraud.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm glad you think I have so much influence over others. Your thoughts will keep me warm at night.

But there are millions of people who think just like you, and you collectively have quite a bit of influence over others. If the millions of you all collectively convince others you're collectively the last people on earth they'd want ruling over them, they will vote against the person you collectively tell them they should vote for. You are all helping people like Trump get elected collectively, but if we want to prevent that sort of thing from happening again we need to persuade you all to stop helping make it happen, one at a time.

(But, then again, this is the Dem Post Mortem thread, and if there's anything the Dems are masters at it's avoiding learning anything from defeats.)

WTF is wrong with you???

You're asking exactly the right question, assuming you want to keep losing.

You act as if Trump was just another Republican candidate for president and we're just being mean.

He's ...a fascist dictator wannabe, he tried to steal national secrets, and he's the biggest criminal who's ever run for office.

It's the people that support him who have something wrong with them.

What are you yelling at me for? I didn't vote for him.

Because you are blaming us for Trump's win because we are being meanies to Trump voters.

I had no idea who you voted for. You could have voted for a third party candidate or just not voted at all. They are both still votes for trump. Just saying I didn't vote for trump is pretty much meaningless at this point.

I find it quite interesting that you snipped out this:

He's a fucking traitor, he lead a fucking rebellion against the country

When people do this sort of thing it creates doubts about a person's sincerity in their stated dislike for Trump.

 

[Jarhyn]

It stuns me that my country has elected Trump, not just once, but twice.

lol, are you for real?

If you still can’t comprehend why Trump won this election then you are the one that is in the koolaid drinking cult.

The million-dollar pundits are babbling in confusion and contradiction about WHY the electorate's collective brain turned to mush. Harris was too far left? Harris was too far right? Harris had too few penises? The Ds were too woke? Not woke enough? Nobody seems to be sure.

Put a felon in charge of the White House? Fascism? -- Good or bad? Biden's economy was booming but Trump's magic bean-stalk fantasy was sweeter? Chaos would be fun to watch? Facebook and even ChatGPT didn't know what to "think." Did the morons out-stampede the imbeciles? Or vice versa? Some say that a 49-47 split and a 47-49 are very close arithmetically: -- The election depended on the whims of just 2% of Americans, the 2% most apathetic, confused, and perhaps mentally ill. What happened? Why? Why? Why?

But TSwizzle knows! Help us comprehend why Trump won this election, dear Guru Swizz. (Complete sentences please, if you can.)

I know from my own experience hearing folks talk around me that a lot of people voted for Entertaining Chaos, a few magic bean salesmen victims, a number of misogynistic assholes who think women can't handle presidency, and a bunch of people who prefer "entertainment" over accurate information and made misinformation their main course.

 

[Elixir]

If you still can’t comprehend why Trump won this election then you are the one that is in the koolaid drinking cult.

Oh?
It’s rather obvious that Trumpsuckers swallowed the Putin propaganda mouthed by The Felon.
Trump won because people are stupid and believe lies.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It stuns me that my country has elected Trump, not just once, but twice.

lol, are you for real?

If you still can’t comprehend why Trump won this election then you are the one that is in the koolaid drinking cult.

I think we can all comprehend the GOP winning in 2024, as Biden took the bump for the inflation. The Trump part is the hard part to accept. Especially after that whole January 6th thing.

DREISBACH: Aquilino Gonell was a sergeant in the Capitol police. He had served in Iraq with the army, faced roadside bombs and mortar attacks. He later testified that the tunnel brought back memories of war.

GONELL: I could feel myself losing oxygen and recall thinking to myself, this is how I’m going to die, defending this entrance.

DREISBACH: The police eventually cleared the tunnel and the Capitol. And Gonell survived, his hands bloodied, his shoulders and feet smashed, his eyes stinging from pepper spray. He would later need two surgeries on his shoulder and foot because of the injuries he got on January 6 and the riot-inflamed PTSD for him and many of his fellow officers.

All for claims of a stolen election Trump never contested in court.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So, you did not approve of Kamala's proposed tax deductions for small businesses, either?

Harris Courts Small Businesses With New Tax Proposals

Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris unveiled a plan to expand tax deductions for small businesses and streamline their tax filing process.

Speaking in New Hampshire September 4, Harris argued that increasing the amount small businesses can deduct for start-up costs from $5,000 to $50,000 would help fuel a boom in economic activity.

“It’s essentially a tax cut for starting a small business,” Harris said, adding that the proposal is part of a wider goal to have 25 million new small business applications in her first term.

Very different thing--she's talking about startup costs. And if I understand it correctly it's something I have long supported: small businesses should in most cases not need to worry about depreciation and related matters of distributing costs to the "right" year. If you're doing a lot of accounting already the compliance cost is minimal, but for the little guy it's a lot of stuff they wouldn't otherwise be doing. I'd be fine with any business with less than $50k of stuff that would normally depreciate simply allowed to write it off in the year it was incurred.

 

[TSwizzle]

It stuns me that my country has elected Trump, not just once, but twice.

lol, are you for real?

If you still can’t comprehend why Trump won this election then you are the one that is in the koolaid drinking cult.

Sure. I'm the one who drank the Kool-Aide, because I don't understand why a convicted felon who has assaulted many women, who has a very racist past, who lies whenever his lips are moving, who is an obvious narcissist, who didn't accomplish much, other than giving tax breaks, primarily to the wealthy during his first term, who failed at many attempts to start businesses, who had a phony college, who's memory is so impaired that he sometimes forgot who is was running against, who wants to put those who criticized him on trial when no crimes were committed, who calls Jan 6, 2021, when a multitude of police officers were attacked and Pence and Pelosi were threatened with death from the crowd, a "day of love", who supports the concept of Christian Nationalism, who thinks he can change things with a wave of his hand, won a second term! Seriously! You think the orange man is worthy of a second term? Wow! Just wow! Don't forget to give us the eye rolling emoji so we won't be disappointed.

Yup

 

[Jarhyn]

If you still can’t comprehend why Trump won this election then you are the one that is in the koolaid drinking cult.

Oh?
It’s rather obvious that Trumpsuckers swallowed the Putin propaganda mouthed by The Felon.
Trump won because people are stupid and believe lies.

The worst part is... I think that the stupid lies a lot of people believed were "the consequences won't be that bad; the president doesn't really matter and nothing will really change, it's just more entertaining this way."

There are multiple layers of lies, a lie for damn near every man woman and child, at least any one that doesn't go all out on ferreting out said lies.

It's enough to make me seriously consider that whole Revelation prophecy! But then, Dune made it's point in that prophecies are easily enough the creation and tools of humans with long memories, and often enough, too, just the echos of history being pointed out.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I do understand that some people are single issue voters, and if this "pass-through business deduction" is so critical to their livelihood that they could overlook all the rest of Trump's chaos and incompetence then I guess that's fair. I'd have to look into the economics of this to really see if they're getting along better with Trump and this deduction given the potential impact on the overall economy of his policies than with the Democrats and not having this deduction (though you point out that Harris was offering small business benefits also).

The pass through is very nice but I know it's not good for the country and it's certainly not a reason to vote for him.

 

[thebeave]

So, you did not approve of Kamala's proposed tax deductions for small businesses, either?

Harris Courts Small Businesses With New Tax Proposals

Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris unveiled a plan to expand tax deductions for small businesses and streamline their tax filing process.

Speaking in New Hampshire September 4, Harris argued that increasing the amount small businesses can deduct for start-up costs from $5,000 to $50,000 would help fuel a boom in economic activity.

“It’s essentially a tax cut for starting a small business,” Harris said, adding that the proposal is part of a wider goal to have 25 million new small business applications in her first term.

Very different thing--she's talking about startup costs. And if I understand it correctly it's something I have long supported: small businesses should in most cases not need to worry about depreciation and related matters of distributing costs to the "right" year. If you're doing a lot of accounting already the compliance cost is minimal, but for the little guy it's a lot of stuff they wouldn't otherwise be doing. I'd be fine with any business with less than $50k of stuff that would normally depreciate simply allowed to write it off in the year it was incurred.

I know what she's referring to. I don't disagree myself, in general, about Kamala's proposal, though going from $5,000 to $50,000 (a 10 fold increase!), seems a little sudden and steep. I question whether that might be too drastic of a change to tax revenue. That said, I'm not sure I see the logic in being strongly in favor of tax breaks during small business startup, but being against any sort of tax breaks after the first year, like Ziprhead is. Its tough to keep a small business thriving, especially these days, with high commodity prices, interest rates, rent, gasoline, utilities, etc.

Sorta reminds me of what the Dems say about Republicans regarding abortion and childcare. That is, the Republicans insist on getting the fetus born, but lose interest in nurturing that life when it comes to supplemental aid, childcare subsidies, parental leave, etc.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It stuns me that my country has elected Trump, not just once, but twice.

lol, are you for real?

If you still can’t comprehend why Trump won this election then you are the one that is in the koolaid drinking cult.

Yeah, we understand why The Felon won: massive disinformation. And you fell for it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Very different thing--she's talking about startup costs. And if I understand it correctly it's something I have long supported: small businesses should in most cases not need to worry about depreciation and related matters of distributing costs to the "right" year. If you're doing a lot of accounting already the compliance cost is minimal, but for the little guy it's a lot of stuff they wouldn't otherwise be doing. I'd be fine with any business with less than $50k of stuff that would normally depreciate simply allowed to write it off in the year it was incurred.

I know what she's referring to. I don't disagree myself, in general, about Kamala's proposal, though going from $5,000 to $50,000 (a 10 fold increase!), seems a little sudden and steep. Five thousand isn't much of writeoff for a lot of businesses. I question whether that might be too drastic of a change to tax revenue. That said, I'm not sure I see the logic in being strongly in favor of tax breaks during small business startup, but being against any sort of tax breaks after the first year, like Ziprhead is. Its tough to keep a small business thriving, especially these days, with high commodity prices, interest rates, rent, gasoline, utilities, etc.

Sorta reminds me of what the Dems say about Republicans regarding abortion and childcare. That is, the Republicans insist on getting the fetus born, but lose interest in nurturing that life when it comes to supplemental aid, childcare subsidies, parental leave, etc.

Everything you need to know what is wrong with how some conservatives think summed up in one post. There isn't anything particularly wrong, however, the emphases are the issue.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I know what she's referring to. I don't disagree myself, in general, about Kamala's proposal, though going from $5,000 to $50,000 (a 10 fold increase!), seems a little sudden and steep. I question whether that might be too drastic of a change to tax revenue. That said, I'm not sure I see the logic in being strongly in favor of tax breaks during small business startup, but being against any sort of tax breaks after the first year, like Ziprhead is. Its tough to keep a small business thriving, especially these days, with high commodity prices, interest rates, rent, gasoline, utilities, etc.

Sorta reminds me of what the Dems say about Republicans regarding abortion and childcare. That is, the Republicans insist on getting the fetus born, but lose interest in nurturing that life when it comes to supplemental aid, childcare subsidies, parental leave, etc.

If the business succeeds the tax implications are minimal, it's just pulling deductions forward. The same amount of income will be reported, just in different years. If the business fails those deductions could have been lost.

 

[Elixir]

I question whether that might be too drastic of a change to tax revenue. That said, I'm not sure I see the logic in being strongly in favor of tax breaks during small business startup, but being against any sort of tax breaks after the first year, like Ziprhead is. Its tough to keep a small business thriving, especially these days, with high commodity prices, interest rates, rent, gasoline, utilities, etc.

It's easy to bite on these distractions and lost track of the overriding facts. In this case, it's an overriding fact that Jeff Bezos, who just donated a million$ to the pageant of Trump's coronation, DOESN'T WANT small businesses to thrive. This is about making billionaires richer and more powerful, getting rid of regulatory barriers to monopoly, predatory practices etc., and making the general business landscape non-competitive.
The handouts promised by Kami were a welcome distraction for the Trump/Putin campaign. The modern version of let them eat cake.

 

[Derec]

If you still can’t comprehend why Trump won this election then you are the one that is in the koolaid drinking cult.

Sure. I'm the one who drank the Kool-Aide, because I don't understand why a convicted felon

Even that helped him. Turning an expired misdemeanor into 34 felonies came across as a wholly political prosecution reminiscent of banana republics. Especially since the DA is a lefty Democrat known for turning clear-cut felonies (such as armed robberies) into misdemeanors instead.

In early 2023 it looked like the Republican primary could become competitive. Trump dipped below 50% in late 2022 and RdS was gaining steam. Then came April 2023 and Bragg's ill-advised indictment, and Trump's popularity rose again. Of course, correlation does not prove causation, but it is suggestive, especially when another feasible causative agent is lacking.

who has assaulted many women,

Maybe he did, but we have no evidence. Even the EJC case where there was a civil judgment says more about the poor state of our tort system than about Trump's guilt. EJC had zero evidence. She could not even remember exactly what year it happened. She revealed her accusation in a misandrist book titled "What Do We Need Men For?" where she also claimed to have been sexually assaulted several times in her life, starting in her childhood. The alleged incident itself seems improbable itself - a large department store and yet no other employees or customers within earshot, a woman who has been allegedly assaulted before casually goes into a changing room with a man she does not know well. It also bears similarities to an episode of Law and Order SVU with Kevin Pollack guest starring.
Just like the Bragg prosecution, the EJC case seemed more like a political witch hunt than genuine justice.

who has a very racist past,

Examples?

who lies whenever his lips are moving, who is an obvious narcissist, who didn't accomplish much, other than giving tax breaks, primarily to the wealthy during his first term, who failed at many attempts to start businesses, who had a phony college, who's memory is so impaired that he sometimes forgot who is was running against, who wants to put those who criticized him on trial when no crimes were committed,

True!

! Seriously! You think the orange man is worthy of a second term? Wow! Just wow! Don't forget to give us the eye rolling emoji so we won't be disappointed.

For the record, I do not think he is worthy of a second term. But, Dems really fucked up the campaign. From shady prosecution (it should have been one strong case rather than muddling the waters with Bragg's hush money) to Biden refusing to step down until it was too late to have a primary to picking the Knucklehead for running mate to turncoats like Rashida Tlaib refusing to endorse the ticket and mant other things mentioned throughout this thread. There is a lot for Dems to hash out in the post mortem. It's a messy autopsy. It's like Murder in the Orient Express where there are multiple multiple people had stabbed the victim. You can't point to any one thing as the cause of death.

 

[Derec]

It is easy to comprehend why Trump won. Because Americans are stupid (not all of them, but enough to produce a dumb outcome that astounded the world). But the real question is why are those Americans so stupid? Can you explain why you voted for Trump TSwizzle (without the use of propagandistic words)?

To single out Americans for stupidity is quite bigoted.
Other countries have plenty of stupid people too.

 

[southernhybrid]

I read an interesting article earlier about why so many Christian women supported Trump. It was studied by a woman, who was raised as a conservative Christian, then left religion behind, became involved in academia, as a professor, and decided to study Christian women in politics. It goes into a lot of detail and it doesn't matter that it came from "Mother Jones". The woman did what appears to be a good study. It's long, so I'll just post a little. It's sad, imo. Read it if you are interested in learning more about the irony of how these anti feminist women became feminists of a sort without realizing it.

https://www.motherjones.com/politic...mail&utm_campaign=daily-newsletter-01-07-2025

You probably saw the cartoon that went viral before the election: A long line of women enter the voting booth wearing handmaiden-esque robes and bonnets, only to emerge in slinky black dresses and take-no-bullshit pantsuits. Or the ads in which white women accompany their obviously GOP husbands to vote, blinking each other a silent signal of solidarity behind the men’s backs: “Actually, I’m with her.” The disobedient-trad-wives trope reflected Democrats’ conviction that Donald Trump’s misogyny and temperament—not to mention his relentless assaults on reproductive freedom and the rule of law—must be deeply, albeit secretly, alienating to many Christian women. All they needed was a Liz Cheney–size nudge to cast their ballots for Vice President Kamala Harris.

Not only did that notion turn out to be utterly deluded, it was “a profound misreading” of how Christian women view themselves and their role in American society, says sociologist Katie Gaddini—a mistake that helped cost Harris the presidency and could resonate throughout US politics and policy for years to come.

On election night, Gaddini, an associate professor at University College London who studies Christian women in US politics, was at San Francisco International Airport, boarding a red-eye to Virginia to do research for her next book, due out in 2026. “Trump had just won Georgia,” she recalls. “It was like a funeral in that airport. Faces were drawn. It was silent.” When Gaddini arrived the next morning at the far-right Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, Trump had retaken the White House, and the mood was euphoric. Decked out in MAGA gear, women students were just as thrilled as the young men—maybe more so. “They felt like this was God’s will,” Gaddini says. “He has spared the nation by giving us Trump. Even after we’ve made so many mistakes, He’s giving us one last chance to get it right.”

On election night, Gaddini, an associate professor at University College London who studies Christian women in US politics, was at San Francisco International Airport, boarding a red-eye to Virginia to do research for her next book, due out in 2026. “Trump had just won Georgia,” she recalls. “It was like a funeral in that airport. Faces were drawn. It was silent.” When Gaddini arrived the next morning at the far-right Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, Trump had retaken the White House, and the mood was euphoric. Decked out in MAGA gear, women students were just as thrilled as the young men—maybe more so. “They felt like this was God’s will,” Gaddini says. “He has spared the nation by giving us Trump. Even after we’ve made so many mistakes, He’s giving us one last chance to get it right.”

When Trump won the presidency in 2016, I wanted to understand why so many women voted for him. I’m really interested in this idea of paradox, of things that don’t make sense. It doesn’t make sense to a lot of progressives or feminists that women would vote for Trump, right? It doesn’t make sense that evangelicals would vote for him. And then you put the two together: Why would a female evangelical vote for Trump? I wanted to untangle that seeming paradox—to understand not only why do they like him, but why do they like him so overwhelmingly and so enduringly?

I’ve also been looking at Christian women more broadly—not just evangelicals, but also Catholics and mainline Protestants. Because what I’ve seen over the last few years is that those groups have come together to do politics in a new way. They’re putting aside some of their theological differences and focusing on the larger political project.

Democrats find it almost impossible to see past Trump’s failings as a leader and a human being. The 2024 campaign hammered on those failings: “He sides with fascists and dictators. He’s corrupt. He’s trying to destroy democracy. He’s misogynistic, he’s racist. Oh, and he’s incoherent and falling apart.” What are the strengths that Christian women see in Trump that others are blind to?

​

 

[Derec]

The million-dollar pundits are babbling in confusion and contradiction about WHY the electorate's collective brain turned to mush.

Sometimes pundits are in contradiction, but sometimes they are in tension because they are both partially correct.

Harris was too far left? Harris was too far right?

Case in point. I think to most Kamala Harris seemed like a chameleon, somebody who changes with prevalent winds and does not have strongly held core values. She had a reputation as a touch prosecutor, but she got elected to Senate in 2016, same year Trump won his first term and just as Dems were moving leftward - two years later there would be an electoral "night of long knives" where several moderate Democrats would be primaried out in favor of more doctrinaire leftists including the four original Squad members.
Harris went along with this shift, and she became one of the most left-wing Senators.

She continued this during her 2019 Presidential campaign where she contended the left-outside lane with Bernie and Warren.
She mostly tried to course-correct, but she did propose some lefty spending policies increasing the child tax credit to $5k for the first year, which is even more generous (and expensive) than Biden's expanded child tax credit.
So, yes, she was too left.

But why do some people say she was too right? Mostly because the far Left detests most prosecutors and she was a pretty tough prosecutor. They also made an anti-Israel attitude into a litmus test.
So I agree with those who say that she was too left, but can see why some in the electorate thought she was not too far left enough for them.

By the way, that Kamala lacked a core and shifted based on what was en vogue is the same thing that people thought of Hillary, hence this weathervane animation.

The 'H' might well have stood for "Harris" ...

Harris had too few penises?

What is the proper number of penises? Should Dems nominate a marsupial or a monotreme next time?

The Ds were too woke?

Definitely too woke. The whole "defund/abolish police/ICE/prisons" harmed the Dem Party brand. As did the absolutist attitude toward the transgender issue. I generally am supportive of people living their lives, but a small minority should not be made into a gauge for everybody else. It is one thing to respect people who are trans by using their preferred pronouns, but quite another to pressure the other 99% of people to declare their pronouns as well.

Not woke enough? Nobody seems to be sure.

There are certainly those on the fringes to whom Dems will never be woke enough. But that is a small slice compared to those who thought Dems went too far.

Put a felon in charge of the White House?

Having such a poor case result in a felony conviction helped him more than it hurt him.

Biden's economy was booming but Trump's magic bean-stalk fantasy was sweeter?

The economy was good on paper, but many people did not feel it due to things like inflation and the housing market. Not that it will not get worse if Trump implements policies like across the board tarrifs.

Chaos would be fun to watch?

Facebook and even ChatGPT didn't know what to "think." Did the morons out-stampede the imbeciles? Or vice versa? Some say that a 49-47 split and a 47-49 are very close arithmetically: -- The election depended on the whims of just 2% of Americans, the 2% most apathetic, confused, and perhaps mentally ill. What happened? Why? Why? Why?

It should not have been this close. You have a close election, you open yourself up to small shifts being decisive.
As I wrote to southernhybrid, the "Dem Post Mortem" is a messy autopsy. Many stab wounds by many different hands. I think Biden's obstinacy in not leaving the stage in 2023 was the most serious one.

 

[ZiprHead]

but being against any sort of tax breaks after the first year, like Ziprhead is.

Wrong. I'm all for allowing the government to aid business to keep employees employed and the economy humming. I'm against giving companies money for doing nothing but existing.

 

[Derec]

Because you are blaming us for Trump's win because we are being meanies to Trump voters.

When trying to convince people to vote for your candidate it usually helps not to call people racist or sexist or generally part of the "basket of deplorables".