Dem Post Mortem

[Politesse]

The party can't "count" on certain others because certain voters have been told unequivocally that their concerns will not be addressed.

This is the point that these "centrists" just can't seem to understand. They seem to think that they are owed minority votes, that blacks and browns and gays and the rest all owe them fealty because they aren't Nazis. They make no effort to convince people that their lives will actually be better under Democrat rule, only that they won't get worse. Whereas Trump is, at the very least, willing to promise people things. He's lying, but he talks big. Democrats talk small and expect unswerving loyalty for it. It makes no sense, their strategy, and it obviously isn't working.

It isn't "working" (Dems just lost the popular vote for the first time since 2004) because, in part, some people aren't voting. You think the Democrats think they are owed the votes of minorities and progressives. They aren't. But minorities and progressives will see their rights rescinded with the GOP in the White House.

That happens either way, it's only a question of speed. You know, I wasn't a "Progressive" in 2006. And my views have not changed. The party just lurched so far right that I'm now supposedly a "radical" for thinking all Americans deserve equal protection under the law.

 

[Jarhyn]

The party can't "count" on certain others because certain voters have been told unequivocally that their concerns will not be addressed.

This is the point that these "centrists" just can't seem to understand. They seem to think that they are owed minority votes, that blacks and browns and gays and the rest all owe them fealty because they aren't Nazis. They make no effort to convince people that their lives will actually be better under Democrat rule, only that they won't get worse. Whereas Trump is, at the very least, willing to promise people things. He's lying, but he talks big. Democrats talk small and expect unswerving loyalty for it. It makes no sense, their strategy, and it obviously isn't working.

It isn't "working" (Dems just lost the popular vote for the first time since 2004) because, in part, some people aren't voting. You think the Democrats think they are owed the votes of minorities and progressives. They aren't. But minorities and progressives will see their rights rescinded with the GOP in the White House. Again, it is a Hobson's Choice, yet some people keep making the same error.

No, the choice is: earn their votes or go without them.

They have a voice, and we have been asking you to listen to it. You didn't.

You were told what the Nazis looked like, that they would be wrapped in a flag and carrying a Bible, and you did not call it out for what it was so that they could not wheedle away.

The reality is, the 2024 election was not going to ever be won no matter who Democrats voted for because there were fingers in the pie there.

For fuck sakes you act as if the Heritage Foundation hasn't been posting a project like this for every complicit candidate from Regan onwards, and as if Trump is the only person who can be Nero or Hitler.

This isn't news, this is literally the plan, and it has been achieved in fits and starts, and we have been pointing out various ways to dismantle it over the years, all would require long needed change, and well formed messaging, and media participation, and yes, spinal fortitude.

You have been leaning into it for decades because we lack what Germany has: an open cultural admission to the existence and pattern of Nazis.

 

[steve_bank]

Polls in the news this morning while some may disagree with Trump's methods around 70% supportt a crackdown on illegal immigration.

Biden was tone deaf on immigration and how people feel about the economy.

You can look at the democratic responses to riots in La over immigration crackdowns, apologetic for the rioters. The same as what happened in Settle during the riots. As violence, chaos, and damage grew the mayor and city council made excuses. The mayor compared it to the 60s 'summer of love' in SF.

Democrats are not living in reality.

So now you support the president commandeering the state National Guard, to use as his private army accountable to no one? Some "liberals" we have around here! Just what freedoms do you care about?

There you go again, I did not say that.

During the year of our riots,, violence, and chaos the mayor should have asked for the National Guard to take back the occupied zone and restored civil order. Instead she closed and abandoned the nearest police station.

The left is incapable of making hard decisions and saying no. The Ca governor says allowing a trans with a penis to play female sports is about fairness.. An extreme ideological view that ignores the issue of the female athletes who recently protested a male turned woman winning a comet ion.

With a god like wave of a hand the left decides that biological males are really women who can compete with women. The left can not say no to anything in the name of an ideological concept of equality.

As to La I have not watched videos of the degree of disorder. What people call protests has gotten out of hand over the last few years, someone has to draw a line in the sand and establish norms of cvil order.

Historically disorder opens the door for authoritarian leadership.
I remberr the 60s and 70s rio0ts. I lived in Hartford Ct in the 70s. North Hartford was where black riots occurred. In the late 70s the area still looked like a picture of a WWII city that had been devastated.

The democrats in Ca decided to allow illegal immigrants to settle there. Yet they call out Trump for not following rule of law. They are just as screwy and extreme as the right can bet.

Voting showed a shift to the right even inn blue states. Democrats are in serious trouble.

Our new governor ran reining in govern mt spending, but in the end the budget increases taxes to pay for increased spending.

 

[Politesse]

Democrats are in serious trouble.

On this, we agree.

 

[Elixir]

The evidence is the fact he hasn't done much in Congress his entire life

That's not evidence of "what would have happened", it's just conjecture based on one observation. His effect on Congress (if any) has not been overt, of course. that is not evidence that had he wielded the power of the presidency he "wouldn't have done much". As I am sure you have observed, the president has the power to move Congress left or right. You get a right wing extremist like Trump, you get a fascist Congress. I think the opposite would be true had Bernie ascended.

 

[Derec]

Not voting for Clinton in 2016 didn't help America. It didn't change the Democrat Party.

The first part is correct. The second part is completely wrong though. The 2016 loss and the resulting "Resistance" (including the Women's March) pulled Dems to the left. Hard. That's why we got the moderate purge and Squad ascendency in 2018. And do you remember how to the left the Dem primary debates in Summer 2019 were? I am convinced that Dems were setting themselves up for failure in 2020, and only COVID saved them. The leftward lurch of the Democratic Party meant that the Biden administration was also pulled to the left, which I think greatly contributed to Trump's reelection in 2024.

Not voting for Harris in 2024 didn't help America. It didn't change the Democrat Party.

Again, the first part is bang on. The second remains to be seen. Perhaps Jarhyn and Politesse are fine with Kamala Harris losing because they hope that the loss will pull Dems even harder to the left, and lead to somebody like AOC getting the nod in 2028.

Why is doing the same one more time going to result in something better, when in the past, they have been gargantuan mistakes?

The far left is hoping that Trump will mess up so badly and become so unpopular that people will gravitate to the other extreme of the political horseshoe.

 

[Derec]

Who the fuck cares about Gore right now? This thread isn't about Gore.

Do you really not think that we can learn from that historical lesson?

Clinton should not have run in 2016. That would have helped America.

We agree there, but for different reasons I bet. I do not think she was too moderate. I think she put too much emphasis on her being a woman (hear her roar) and was not personally likable to boot. Somebody like Biden should have ran in 2016 and he would have wiped the floor with Trump. And then we probably would have been spared the Squad, and Biden would not have been pulled to the left by them, so his term would have been more successful as well.

The fact is the failure of the Democrat party to change was caused by you, and Clinton, and Harris.

Again, elections are binary choices. The far left being butthurt and not voting for Harris even though Harris is hardly a centrist just shows how childish parts of the Dem base are.

People tried to change the Democrat party

You don't think that they managed to pull the Democratic Party quite a bit to the left?

and you and your actions and your statements in support of the actions and statements that lost the election are YOUR fault, are the fault of the people, including Clinton herself, who failed to listen to the people saying the absolute bare minimum for "good enough" required fair play during the primaries.

This is basically cutting off your nose to spite your face. Yes, DNC put their thumb on the scale for Hillary. Would she have won the primaries anyway? Most likely. So why help Trump get elected over it?

 

[Derec]

Not in evidence.
I agree with your broader point but we do not know how Sanders would have done.

We can't run the election again and see how Bernie would have fared. But I think Jimmy is right that Bernie would have lost, and much harder than Hillary.
Socialism label may play well in certain corners, but in the country at large, it would have been toxic. I think Trump would have gotten >50% of the popular vote against Bernie.

 

[Derec]

Whereas if the Dems had been a party that gave Nader a fair shake in their primary and had invited him to primary with the Dems, then he never would have been on the national ticket to spoil in the first place.

What prevented Nader from running in the Democratic primaries?

But that is not the subject of the thread and I think you know that. This is not about Gore v Nader especially since Bernie v Clinton happened in the primaries, and the damage Clinton did to herself, through her conduct in the primaries, happened as a result of that.

The 2000 election is a good historical lesson about those who demand ideological purity. And while I agree with you that Hillary was a poor candidate for DNC to back, that is not a reason to throw the election to her opponent. Same thing with Harris. She is not a centrist, but to the left, and yet the far left fringe still found her unacceptable. That tells me that the left wingnuts will never be satisfied. Even if AOC herself managed to get herself nominated, those people would still find some nits to pick.

Learn the meaning of Phyrric victory.

And your side should learn the meaning of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Dems have been snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and it's such a joke and repeat mistake now that it's a meme.

Exactly, and the fickle base is the reason for that. They'd rather vote for a hopeless third party candidate or stay home than to vote for somebody who is not sufficiently ideologically pure.

Clinton campaigned against Clinton by not campaigning fairly against Sanders.

Yes, Hillary was a flawed candidate. But in the general election ...

"our repeated betrayal of your faith should be overlooked so we can betray your faith again".
The party can't "count" on certain others because certain voters have been told unequivocally that their concerns will not be addressed.

What voters and what concerns? Please be specific.

Instead of people who would make strong, assertive positions in response, we got passive responses.

Example please.

It is exactly this passivity that caused things like the correct party not being called the "right" party, that got us branded as "the left" in the first place.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not voting for Clinton in 2016 didn't help America. It didn't change the Democrat Party.

The first part is correct. The second part is completely wrong though. The 2016 loss and the resulting "Resistance" (including the Women's March) pulled Dems to the left. Hard.

Hard? In what way? We nominated Biden in 2020, the Liberal and Moderate last pick!

That's why we got the moderate purge and Squad ascendency in 2018.

Moderate purge is a bit much there. Moderate purge, if caused by anything, was gerrymandering.

And do you remember how to the left the Dem primary debates in Summer 2019 were?

No. I don't.

I am convinced that Dems were setting themselves up for failure in 2020, and only COVID saved them. The leftward lurch of the Democratic Party meant that the Biden administration was also pulled to the left, which I think greatly contributed to Trump's reelection in 2024.

Inflation and anti-transgender ads.

Not voting for Harris in 2024 didn't help America. It didn't change the Democrat Party.

Again, the first part is bang on. The second remains to be seen. Perhaps Jarhyn and Politesse are fine with Kamala Harris losing because they hope that the loss will pull Dems even harder to the left, and lead to somebody like AOC getting the nod in 2028.

I swear, it is like you live in another dimension.

Also Ocasio-Cortez is most likely going to run for Senate. At best, maybe a VP after that. Senators don't do well running for President.

Why is doing the same one more time going to result in something better, when in the past, they have been gargantuan mistakes?

The far left is hoping that Trump will mess up so badly and become so unpopular that people will gravitate to the other extreme of the political horseshoe.

Jarhyn and Politese aren't the far left! You need to look up what these terms mean. Far left will involve government receivership of the oil companies.

 

[Derec]

What I see is that the Democrats have shifted to the right since HW Bush.

Dems moved to the center with the "Third Way" after their long wandering in the wilderness. Since 1968 really, with a brief Jimmy Carter respite in the aftermath of Watergate. A course correction was certainly necessary.
But that was in 1992. Dems have moved decidedly to the left in the 2010s. It started even in the first half of the decade, with Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter movements. But it accelerated after Trump got elected and Resistance took hold. In 2018, we got the purge of moderates and election of the OG Squad members, led by Corporal Sandy. She was later promoted to Sergeant as the Squad got bigger in 2020 with the likes of Cori Bush and "Fire Marshal" Jamaal Bowman ousting moderate Democrats in primaries. You also had fauxgressive, soft-on-crime DAs like Chesa Boudin, George Gascon, Alvin Bragg or Mary Moriarty get elected in this period. Far-left Brandon Johnson got elected mayor of Chicago and Karen "Castrojugend" Bass of LA.
The bloom is off that leftward lunge a bit. Bush and Bowman got primaried back and are out of office. So are Boudin and Gascon. Brandon Johnson has a single digit approval rating. California rejected reinstatement of race preferences in college admissions in 2020 and rolled back some crime deforms in 2024. A big test of how much power the left-wing base still wields will be the NYC mayoral primary later this month.

Gore followed suit. He was another centrist on many things, though if you talk to TN GOP'ers they'd say he lost the plot and became quite liberal.

He was more on the left, especially on climate, which makes the Green opposition to him all the more baffling. And especially in comparison with his home state.

He lost, in part due to the weaponization of attacks against Clinton. But barely. Since then, generally centrist candidates have been coming out of the primaries because the people voted for it.

I think he made a mistake of keeping Clinton at arms length. He was still very popular despite the Impeachment.
I agree that unlike in congressional primaries, Dem presidential primaries selected more centrist candidates lately. Probably because the candidates favored by the party machine happened to be more centrist.

The party, for the last several years, in part caused by the unexpected catalyst of Sander's candidacy becoming a lot more popular than most expected, the Democrats are having some push and pull with the liberals. Clinton shifted her platform notably is in a left direction because of Sanders' unexpected success. Some on the Left want more. I'm not exactly certain what though.

Jarhyn and Politesse are very vague on the details of exactly what they want too.

I want the Democrats to move further left, but understand that with the unpredictable turnout of the far left, the Democrats have to heed more to the hearts and minds of the suburbs.

I am moderate, and thus do not want for Dems to move further left (although I would like for them to be truly liberal on social issues like legalizing consensual sex work) but we can agree on this. Any candidate must strike a balance between different parts of their coalition. The fauxgressives who demand ideological purity from Dem candidates do not understand that.

Also, with the GOP being ironically a stubborn ass since 1995, the House and Senate have made passing legislation and agendas remarkably difficult. I get that some want to rid the world of the filibuster, but that is just terribly short-sighted insanity.

I agree.

 

[Derec]

Polls in the news this morning while some may disagree with Trump's methods around 70% supportt a crackdown on illegal immigration.

And all the Mexican flag waving and references to "la raza" during the LA Riots is not helping matters.

Biden was tone deaf on immigration and how people feel about the economy.

He was, and so was the rest of the field in 2019. Those debates back then were insufferable to watch, especially on the issue of immigration.

You can look at the democratic responses to riots in La over immigration crackdowns, apologetic for the rioters. The same as what happened in Settle during the riots. As violence, chaos, and damage grew the mayor and city council made excuses. The mayor compared it to the 60s 'summer of love' in SF.

There was a lot of gaslighting during the 2020 riots, with them being called "racial justice protests" and violence downplayed or outright ignored. Looks like LA Riots are getting a similar treatment.

Democrats are not living in reality.

Unfortunately not. Remember when the response by Minneapolis city council to 2020 riots was to vote to abolish their police department?

 

[Derec]

That's the thing though... Leaning into what Nazis want, to lay groundwork for building Gilead, is not a good way to actually convince anyone they aren't Nazis.

In what way were Dems leaning into building Gilead? Be specific.

 

[Derec]

That happens either way, it's only a question of speed. You know, I wasn't a "Progressive" in 2006. And my views have not changed. The party just lurched so far right that I'm now supposedly a "radical" for thinking all Americans deserve equal protection under the law.

Can you give me some examples on how Democratic Party "lurched to the right" between 2006 and now? Since 2006, gay and then trans rights became more important. As did economic populism and race issues, including more support for Reparations.
So in what possible way is this a "lurch to the right"?

 

[Derec]

No, the choice is: earn their votes or go without them.
They have a voice, and we have been asking you to listen to it. You didn't.

The far left is a small slice of the electorate. Their votes matter in a close election, but not more so than those of us closer to the center. Why do they think that the left fringe should have a control over priorities of the Democratic Party?

You were told what the Nazis looked like, that they would be wrapped in a flag and carrying a Bible, and you did not call it out for what it was so that they could not wheedle away.

What do you think should have been done? And it's not like your Ilk does not wrap yourselves in flags too. It's just different flags, is all.

The reality is, the 2024 election was not going to ever be won no matter who Democrats voted for because there were fingers in the pie there.

Bullshit! The 2024 election was close and very much winnable. Had Biden decided not to run in Summer 2023 and a proper primary was conducted, I do not think it would even have been close. But even with Kamala, the election was winnable.
First, your Ilk rejected the better running mate, Josh Shapiro, and thus we got the Knucklehead because wanted to appease y'all. Not perfect, but still not insurmountable had your Ilk not decided to either vote for Jill Stein or to stay home en masse despite Harris being on the left wing of the Democratic Party.

For fuck sakes you act as if the Heritage Foundation hasn't been posting a project like this for every complicit candidate from Regan onwards, and as if Trump is the only person who can be Nero or Hitler.

How does that justify staying home or voting for Jill Stein and thereby helping Trump get elected?

You have been leaning into it for decades because we lack what Germany has: an open cultural admission to the existence and pattern of Nazis.

If you genuinely believe that Trumpists are Nazis, that makes it even more irresponsible to not vote for the other candidate because you did not get everything you wanted from her.

 

[Derec]

Hard? In what way?

Moderates in the House getting primaried and replaced by Democratic Socialists. Left-wing DAs getting elected in places like LA, SF and Manhattan. Did you miss all that?

We nominated Biden in 2020, the Liberal and Moderate last pick!

True. There was a consolidation of moderate vote when Buttigieg and Klobuchar dropped out. And I think Warren stayed well past her sell by date to take votes from Sanders. That's because Sanders was deemed too risky to run in the general election.
But after he secured the nomination, Biden moved toward Sanders. One half of the Dem task forces were filled by Sanders people. He also adopted a lot of left-wing positions. The Biden spending plan was a slightly smaller version on the Sanders spending proposal. Biden also adopted a version of student loan cancellation pushed by AOC and others on the left.

Moderate purge is a bit much there. Moderate purge, if caused by anything, was gerrymandering.

Moderate congressmen like Joe Crowley being primaried and replaced by socialists like AOC has nothing to do with gerrymandering. Neither does takeover of county DA offices by leftists like Chesa Boudin or Alvin Bragg.

No. I don't.

Then I suggest you find one and watch it. It was wild.

Inflation and anti-transgender ads.

Inflation was exacerbated by too much spending under Biden. And Dems allowed themselves to be pulled by trans activists into supporting unpopular positions, like trans women competing against biological women in competitive sports.

I swear, it is like you live in another dimension.

How so? Do you disagree that Dems moved to the left, especially since 2016?

Also Ocasio-Cortez is most likely going to run for Senate. At best, maybe a VP after that. Senators don't do well running for President.

I do think a Senate run is most likely as of now. But plenty of Senators have become presidents, including Obama and Biden.

Jarhyn and Politese aren't the far left! You need to look up what these terms mean. Far left will involve government receivership of the oil companies.

How would you describe them?

 

[Harry Bosch]

The party can't "count" on certain others because certain voters have been told unequivocally that their concerns will not be addressed.

This is the point that these "centrists" just can't seem to understand. They seem to think that they are owed minority votes, that blacks and browns and gays and the rest all owe them fealty because they aren't Nazis. They make no effort to convince people that their lives will actually be better under Democrat rule, only that they won't get worse. Whereas Trump is, at the very least, willing to promise people things. He's lying, but he talks big. Democrats talk small and expect unswerving loyalty for it. It makes no sense, their strategy, and it obviously isn't working.

It isn't "working" (Dems just lost the popular vote for the first time since 2004) because, in part, some people aren't voting. You think the Democrats think they are owed the votes of minorities and progressives. They aren't. But minorities and progressives will see their rights rescinded with the GOP in the White House. Again, it is a Hobson's Choice, yet some people keep making the same error.

No, the choice is: earn their votes or go without them.

They have a voice, and we have been asking you to listen to it. You didn't.

Yep! This will help fight off the far right! (Dang the right comes together so much easier than the left in the US).

 

[Politesse]

The party can't "count" on certain others because certain voters have been told unequivocally that their concerns will not be addressed.

This is the point that these "centrists" just can't seem to understand. They seem to think that they are owed minority votes, that blacks and browns and gays and the rest all owe them fealty because they aren't Nazis. They make no effort to convince people that their lives will actually be better under Democrat rule, only that they won't get worse. Whereas Trump is, at the very least, willing to promise people things. He's lying, but he talks big. Democrats talk small and expect unswerving loyalty for it. It makes no sense, their strategy, and it obviously isn't working.

It isn't "working" (Dems just lost the popular vote for the first time since 2004) because, in part, some people aren't voting. You think the Democrats think they are owed the votes of minorities and progressives. They aren't. But minorities and progressives will see their rights rescinded with the GOP in the White House. Again, it is a Hobson's Choice, yet some people keep making the same error.

No, the choice is: earn their votes or go without them.

They have a voice, and we have been asking you to listen to it. You didn't.

Yep! This will help fight off the far right! (Dang the right comes together so much easier than the left in the US).

It's no secret that rightwing policies are increasingly popular in the United States, but I do not personally believe in choosing my political positions based on the ever-changing rubric of the currently popular. The public is fickle, and it can change its mind with better knowledge and good leadership.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Biden campaigned on that he was creatine jobs at a fast pace.

While reporting was saying increasing numbers of working people were complaining they can nor make ends meet.

Polls and pundits showed that knowing who Trump was they voted for Trump because they thought he would make the economy better for them.

In t\he news polls show people favor republicans for strong leadership.

The old democrat mantra of increasing social programs and government give always did not work. The old democrat paradigm of playing to nominates did not work.


Biden red t buy votes by forgiving student debts, which he had no authority to do. Like Trump does he tried to find a way around it.

That the democrats did not have candidates ready eating in the wings with a plan and supported an aging Biden was a a catastrophic mistake. They are disorganized and leaderless.

Biden clearly had diminished capacity, I saw it. I see it in people around me.

He was struggling to stay in the moment, stiff. When walking his turns were stiff not natural. I saw the body language. A lot of concentration required.

RE; The four sentences I have bolded:

Most of those who voted for Trump are those who are disassociated from reality.

Of course Biden had authority to forgive student debt.

Biden is old so his mind may not be as fast (more due to fatigue than anything else, because in many circumstances he was still capable of giving smart, snappy answers). He was and still is much more mentally cogent than Trump who does have dementia.

So, an elderly person had some difficulty with walking; that does not reflect anything about their mental state. Many disabled people of all ages have difficulty walking, but often their minds are still sharp. Biden was still capable of riding a bike, which Trump would be incapable of.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The party can't "count" on certain others because certain voters have been told unequivocally that their concerns will not be addressed.

This is the point that these "centrists" just can't seem to understand. They seem to think that they are owed minority votes, that blacks and browns and gays and the rest all owe them fealty because they aren't Nazis. They make no effort to convince people that their lives will actually be better under Democrat rule, only that they won't get worse. Whereas Trump is, at the very least, willing to promise people things. He's lying, but he talks big. Democrats talk small and expect unswerving loyalty for it. It makes no sense, their strategy, and it obviously isn't working.

It isn't "working" (Dems just lost the popular vote for the first time since 2004) because, in part, some people aren't voting. You think the Democrats think they are owed the votes of minorities and progressives. They aren't. But minorities and progressives will see their rights rescinded with the GOP in the White House. Again, it is a Hobson's Choice, yet some people keep making the same error.

No, the choice is: earn their votes or go without them.

They have a voice, and we have been asking you to listen to it. You didn't.

Yep! This will help fight off the far right! (Dang the right comes together so much easier than the left in the US).

It's no secret that rightwing policies are increasingly popular in the United States, but I do not personally believe in choosing my political positions based on the ever-changing rubric of the currently popular. The public is fickle, and it can change its mind with better knowledge and good leadership.

I think that the far right is sufficiently dangerous that I will vote for democratic candidate whomever they will be in 28. Will you? I'll fight for the democrat that best addresses my concerns and whom I think can win (Whitmer, Shapiro, Newsome). But if a progressive wins, I'll vote for that person. But the progressive has to earn it. They have to win the primary. Hell, give AOC the questions in advance of 5 town halls; and I'll vote for her and support her if she's the democratic candidate in 2028.