Dem Post Mortem

[GenesisNemesis]

*Sees a new right-wing member spouting the same braindead shit. Immediately puts them on ignore.*

 

[Emily Lake]

Did he call people whose votes he sought names? No, he blows smoke up their asses.
He does call people names, but not when he is courting their votes.

That's a distinction that seems to have missed a number of people out in the world.

Trump and other Rep politicians have called Dem politicians insulting names.
Harris and other Dem politicians have called Rep politicians and Rep voters insulting names.

 

[Emily Lake]

If they had not ousted Tulsi

I really like Tulsi Gabbard. I liked her last time around, I still like her.

 

[abaddon]

I found this interesting. I've been ranting about it, so I figured I should post some sources. So here ya' go.

Ignore and insult one of the largest voting demographics, and well, this is what you get.

Ignore and insult? Government is built around people like, white men. I still haven't endured this "insulting". I think what is meant is some white people are insulted when they aren't the only people considered when developing policy.

Consider that Gen Z males voted for Trump in much larger numbers than for Harris.

Why do you think that is?

They find the strongman "alpha male" image appeals to them, probably? Also they think of Trump as a business man and stupidly imagine that'll help them economically... this hooked a LOT of men.

 

[Emily Lake]

so, you’re saying it is not possible that the second sentence explains the first?

That assumes that she was a bad candidate because of her race and gender. Not because of her bad judgment or poor campaigning or because she came across as inauthentic.

I’m not assuming it but I am contemplating it as it could be true.

Trump has bad judgment, poor campaigning and is inauthentic yet he still won.

You don't like Trump's judgement, which is perfectly fine. But a lot of people are on the fence about his judgement. I think it resonates with a lot of people, in a way that is reasonable even if you dislike it.

You may not like how he campaigned, but it was very effective. It was effective in 2016 too - that was one of the errors that Clinton made, she spent a lot of time courting states that she already had in the bag, and not enough courting swing states. Whether you like him or not, tactically Trump has done a good job of focusing on states that will have a really big ROI from an electoral perspective, and to speaking to the concerns of the citizens in those states while he's there. I get that a lot of people don't like it. It's a very business-driven approach, and it's effective.

Only a very small handful of idiots think Trump is authentic. He's a slimy used car salesman through and through. But we all know he's a windbag, and we can all adapt to what we know.

 

[Emily Lake]

You could also mention the 3 MILLION backlogged immigration court cases. And Congress failing to act to fund more border enforcement and personnel and yes, court personnel, which Biden repeatedly asked for. And of course Trump killing the border bill, in which Biden was willing to cave to most GOP demands. Who is it that wanted the border to remain in chaos?

You're not wrong, and it's infuriating. There was a lot in that bill that wasn't related to the border... but that's true of pretty much any bill these days. I'm fed up of packaging completely unrelated things in that way.

That said, even though I dislike it, I can recognize and understand the tactics involved in blocking a multi-topic bill during an election cycle. It's distasteful... but a lot of effective tactics are.

 

[Emily Lake]

Nobody supports surgery for minors (except, ironically, republicans).

You mean other than WPATH, ACLU, and Rachel Levine?

 

[Emily Lake]

Toeing.

Correct.

"Toeing" is to pick up and carry.

That would be "towing".

 

[Emily Lake]

Consider that Gen Z males voted for Trump in much larger numbers than for Harris.

Why do you think that is?

Because males in general tend to vote republican more often than they vote democrat. That males continued to vote in the same way that they've historically voted shouldn't be a surprise.

On the other hand... Trump picked up votes among women and minorities. Why do you think that is?

 

[Gospel]

A great opinion piece over on NY Times. I do not think many will want to hear it though, as it offers some tough-to-swallow pills.

A Party of Prigs and Pontificators Suffers a Humiliating Defeat

Why did Harris lose? There were many tactical missteps: her choice of a progressive running mate who would not help deliver a must-win state like Pennsylvania or Michigan; her inability to separate herself from President Biden; her foolish designation of Trump as a fascist, which, by implication, suggested his supporters were themselves quasi-fascist; her overreliance on celebrity surrogates as she struggled to articulate a compelling rationale for her candidacy; her failure to forthrightly repudiate some of the more radical positions she took as a candidate in 2019, other than by relying on stock expressions like “My values haven’t changed.”
There was also the larger error of anointing Harris without political competition — an insult to the democratic process that handed the nomination to a candidate who, as some of us warned at the time, was exceptionally weak. That, in turn, came about because Democrats failed to take Biden’s obvious mental decline seriously until June’s debate debacle (and then allowed him to cling to the nomination for a few weeks more), making it difficult to hold even a truncated mini-primary.
[...]
The dismissiveness with which liberals treated these concerns was part of something else: dismissiveness toward the moral objections many Americans have to various progressive causes. Concerned about gender transitions for children or about biological males playing on girls’ sports teams? You’re a transphobe. Dismayed by tedious, mandatory and frequently counterproductive D.E.I. seminars that treat white skin as almost inherently problematic? You’re racist. Irritated by new terminology that is supposed to be more inclusive but feels as if it’s borrowing a page from “1984”? That’s doubleplusungood.
The Democratic Party at its best stands for fairness and freedom. But the politics of today’s left is heavy on social engineering according to group identity. It also, increasingly, stands for the forcible imposition of bizarre cultural norms on hundreds of millions of Americans who want to live and let live but don’t like being told how to speak or what to think. Too many liberals forgot this, which explains how a figure like Trump, with his boisterous and transgressive disdain for liberal pieties, could be re-elected to the presidency.

He concludes with:

Today, the Democrats have become the party of priggishness, pontification and pomposity. It may make them feel righteous, but how’s that ever going to be a winning electoral look?
I voted reluctantly for Harris because of my fears for what a second Trump term might bring — in Ukraine, our trade policy, civic life, the moral health of the conservative movement writ large. Right now, my larger fear is that liberals lack the introspection to see where they went wrong, the discipline to do better next time and the humility to change.

Blaming this loss on "sexism" is exactly the wrong approach.

I always love taking campaign advice from conservatives. I'm sure they are just trying to be helpful, like when they do it on Morning Joe.

They should, though. After all, Republicans successfully took control of all three branches of the U.S. government, positioning themselves as representatives of the American public's desires. Their success demonstrates their understanding of what resonates with the electorate. Ignoring this fact, however unpleasant, would be the Democrats' downfall.

It's time to face reality and address it directly, rather than seeking scapegoats to justify staying on an ineffective path.

 

[thebeave]

I mean, WTF? Does she not even know that pork is a big no-no in Islam? Or is she deliberately trying to antagonize him? What is going on here?

I can’t even imagine what would happen if Trump said something nearly as silly as this. Surely he would have lost the election.

Whataboutism is whining.

Thanks for not addressing the content

Sorry about that. It was kind of a joke. I got the idea from a response I received recently. I thought it was ridiculous, and am pleased to see you think the same way.

Yeah, I can easily picture Trump saying something similar. Based on his past history, its to be expected. Biden too, with his numerous gaffes. But part of the appeal of Kamala was that she wouldn't be prone to saying boneheaded and insensitive things the way Trump does (e.g. eating the cats and dogs). There is also the issue of how she refused to discuss the war in Gaza, and agreed alternatively to talk about taking shoes off before a plane flight. But she showed up to talk about something else entirely, against the prior agreement about shoes on planes. She does seem to have a troubling history of demanding that things be done her way when dealing with the press and interviews. Which is not how it is really supposed to work.

 

[ZiprHead]

Interesting thread, wondering why someone as wonderful as Kamala Harris lost. So ponder.

If she is so awesome, why'd she lose the 2020 primary even before voting started?

Could it be she actually lacked appeal within her own party?

Could it possibly be she did not address the concerns that the majority of the people have?

Trump flipped blue states, that should tell us something. Lkee maybe the democrats are out of touch with the people, certainty true of Biden who continues to speak his tired old democrat cliche;'s.

When he spoke to a blck college audience he pleaded for blacks to vote for hm. Some in the audience turned their chairs around showing him their backs.

In response to being asked why she voted for Trump and not Harris a woman said 'Beyonce does not pay my bills; referring to Harris trotting out all those entertainment figures.

How do you know she did not address those concerns? Her platform was bring back American jobs, lift up the middle class with several concrete programs to do that. Address price gouging.

Did you attend her rallies or listen to her speeches? Or did you make your conclusion based on the tiny snippets of her speeches shown on the news?

How can you rationalize a person out of a position they didn't rationalize themselves into? "Bacon is a buck more at the grocery store so I vote to destroy democracy."

Harris ran a very good standard campaign. Trump ran a shit show. People preferred the shit show. They liked the insults and the hate. They liked and believed the lies. They liked the rejection of science and facts.

So please. Do tell us all how you counter that sort of attitude? How do you tell someone they are stupid and believe in bullshit without insulting them? I'm all ears.

 

[TSwizzle]

It is irrelevant what the Democrats did or did not do. Trump won because the American people have lost their way.

Trump won because Harris offered nothing other than the same ruinous policies of the Brandon administration.

This was helped along by most of the mainstream media helping Trump,

lol, this is just not true. Harris had the full weight of the MSM behind her and she still couldn't win. Not only did she not win, she was crushed.

 

[TomC]

Harris had the full weight of the MSM behind her and she still couldn't win.

Nonsense.
We could start with the fact that Fox and X are now mainstream media.
Then there's the fact that most of the media regularly critiqued Harris, but rarely Trump.

No, one reason she lost is because modern media is no longer much about facts and reality as click bait and selling advertising.
Tom

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Then there are people who take him both seriously and literally... and those are the ones I worry about.

That's probably 99.99% of those who voted for him.

 

[Shadowy Man]

so, you’re saying it is not possible that the second sentence explains the first?

That assumes that she was a bad candidate because of her race and gender. Not because of her bad judgment or poor campaigning or because she came across as inauthentic.

I’m not assuming it but I am contemplating it as it could be true.

Trump has bad judgment, poor campaigning and is inauthentic yet he still won.

You don't like Trump's judgement, …

You need to look at my comments in the context of what I was replying to.

My basic point is that Harris had to push the ball uphill to get votes and Trump could push the ball downhill to get votes.

Derec was claiming she lost because she was a bad candidate, when all the characteristics he attributed to her were demonstrably worse with Trump. the standards are unequal.

 

[laughing dog]

Calling people names is not a good way to get them to vote for you.

It worked for Trump.

What worked for Trump was calling the opposition names.

And, of course, running against a woman. Trump won two elections for President against women, but lost against a man. That is something to think about.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Harris ran a very good standard campaign. Trump ran a shit show. People preferred the shit show. They liked the insults and the hate. They liked and believed the lies. They liked the rejection of science and facts.

A-fucking-men. And lets also remember that millions who voted for him receive medicaid, medicare, social security, etc. Lots of voters are just dumb fucks pure and simple. When people vote this way it's a sign of liberal, progressive, democratic success. But don't tell the sycophants that.

 

[SLD]

Consider that Gen Z males voted for Trump in much larger numbers than for Harris.

Why do you think that is?

Because males in general tend to vote republican more often than they vote democrat. That males continued to vote in the same way that they've historically voted shouldn't be a surprise.

On the other hand... Trump picked up votes among women and minorities. Why do you think that is?

Trump didn’t pick up any votes. He had 2 million or more less than 2020

 

[Shadowy Man]

I mean, WTF? Does she not even know that pork is a big no-no in Islam? Or is she deliberately trying to antagonize him? What is going on here?

I can’t even imagine what would happen if Trump said something nearly as silly as this. Surely he would have lost the election.

Whataboutism is whining.

Thanks for not addressing the content

Sorry about that. It was kind of a joke. I got the idea from a response I received recently. I thought it was ridiculous, and am pleased to see you think the same way.

Yeah, I can easily picture Trump saying something similar. Based on his past history, its to be expected. Biden too, with his numerous gaffes. But part of the appeal of Kamala was that she wouldn't be prone to saying boneheaded and insensitive things the way Trump does (e.g. eating the cats and dogs). There is also the issue of how she refused to discuss the war in Gaza, and agreed alternatively to talk about taking shoes off before a plane flight. But she showed up to talk about something else entirely, against the prior agreement about shoes on planes. She does seem to have a troubling history of demanding that things be done her way when dealing with the press and interviews. Which is not how it is really supposed to work.

So, you agree that the standards were unequal? did Trump follow “how it is really supposed to work”?