Ive been thinking for a while that perhaps the reason they don’t act like they’re opposed to Trump is because they aren’t. But thats just me being deeply hurt that they did nothing to protect...
Ive been thinking for a while that perhaps the reason they don’t act like they’re opposed to Trump is because they aren’t.
But thats just me being deeply hurt that they did nothing to protect women’s rights when they knew Trump might win the next election and take away more of them.
I still voted for Kamala of course because the alternative is voting for the people who actually did take away my rights, but I’m pretty disappointed in them.
Take a stand on something: healthcare, Palestine, corporate greed, anything really. Position themselves as the only thing standing in the way of the Republican hate machine. Kamala didn't do...
Take a stand on something: healthcare, Palestine, corporate greed, anything really. Position themselves as the only thing standing in the way of the Republican hate machine. Kamala didn't do anything at all to really differentiate herself from Biden or speak to people's fears and concerns. She basically just mocked Trump and campaigned on "business as usual".
Well, the campaign basically was “I am the only thing standing in the way of the Republican hate machine”. People didn’t seem to care all that much. They probably do need a central message other...
Well, the campaign basically was “I am the only thing standing in the way of the Republican hate machine”. People didn’t seem to care all that much.
They probably do need a central message other than abortion, which I guess it turns out people didn’t care all that much about. That being said, it’s hard because the left coalition is much broader. Even just in the party, no one agrees on a direction for any of the issues you brought up.
Take Palestine, for instance. It’s easy to get lost in the sauce on the internet, but even amongst democrats, a majority support Israel. A large portion don’t, sure, but this is the way to Democratic Party civil war, not a unifying message.
I want Biden to solidify women’s right to abortion like he literally said he would during the congressional election. Declare the ruling in bad faith because thats what it was. I don’t care how...
I want Biden to solidify women’s right to abortion like he literally said he would during the congressional election.
Declare the ruling in bad faith because thats what it was. I don’t care how they do it.
Why is it suddenly when its something I care about, theres rules?
There’s always rules. Trump only passed one major piece of legislation in 2016 despite a trifecta (with a supermajority in the senate too) because of that. Democrats did not have the votes to pass...
There’s always rules. Trump only passed one major piece of legislation in 2016 despite a trifecta (with a supermajority in the senate too) because of that. Democrats did not have the votes to pass legislation through the senate for anything except budget reconciliation without some Republican votes. “Declaring a ruling in bad faith” is not a power of the US president.
Democrats, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, made a major misstep in Obama’s administration for her not to retire. Dobbs was the price to pay.
I'm kind of wondering why the onus should be on people like snake_case to figure out what the Democrats could be doing to at least look like they oppose Trump and the Republican party, or want to...
I'm kind of wondering why the onus should be on people like snake_case to figure out what the Democrats could be doing to at least look like they oppose Trump and the Republican party, or want to protect their ostensible base, instead of on the party itself.
Do you feel like they did the most they could, either with the power they undeniably did wield, or towards winning the election, to vindicate people's rights?
Because it’s otherwise not productive. It’s not productive or helpful to be angry about things that democrats can’t and couldn’t have done. It is productive to argue for things that can be done....
Because it’s otherwise not productive. It’s not productive or helpful to be angry about things that democrats can’t and couldn’t have done. It is productive to argue for things that can be done.
For example, I have a concrete example. I think democrats should have been CLAMORING at Sotomayor to force her to retire. They still should be. GTFO already. That’s a concrete suggestion - bully Sotomayor into retiring. Republican voters are very good at bullying their officials, elected or not. Just look at the Hegseth situation.
Do you feel like they did the most they could, either with the power they undeniably did wield, or towards winning the election, to vindicate people's rights?
More or less. There’s strategic missteps, but I don’t think there was any holding back.
That's the thing, isn't it? They're only concerned with what "can be done" - aka what the rules that no longer apply say they can do. The rules have not applied for a while, and we are no longer...
could have been done?
That's the thing, isn't it? They're only concerned with what "can be done" - aka what the rules that no longer apply say they can do. The rules have not applied for a while, and we are no longer playing that game. They need to start fighting dirty, like republicans did 15+ years ago. Do literally anything that will work to stop republicans, regardless of the "rules".
But even within the rules, there are lots of examples of things they didn't do. They had ample time to prosecute and stop Trump, but they chose not to. Biden intentionally chose Garland, knowing he's a Republican who would never do anything. Biden intentionally chose not to replace him during his entire term.
Like I said, take a page out of the Republican playbook. Become obstinate. Become publicly opposed, at the very least. Don't just roll over and pose for a photo op with the person who just said...
Like I said, take a page out of the Republican playbook. Become obstinate. Become publicly opposed, at the very least. Don't just roll over and pose for a photo op with the person who just said he's going to overthrow the government and have you executed. This "oh but what can we do" attitude is pathetic and going to get people killed. Trump is a convicted felon and a traitor, and they should've been treating him and his government buddies appropriately, not like their friends who disagree on what to eat for dinner.
What’s a concrete example where you think they should have been more “obstinate” and how would it have helped women’s rights? Is this just about Biden meeting with Trump for the transition? Do you...
What’s a concrete example where you think they should have been more “obstinate” and how would it have helped women’s rights? Is this just about Biden meeting with Trump for the transition?
Do you think if Biden refused to meet Trump it would help women’s rights? Can the party even tell Biden what to do anymore given he’s in full idgaf mode?
For that, the one key thing is that they should have bullied RBG way more in the Obama presidency to retire. But that was both a while ago, and ironically it was not a very popular thing to do with feminists in the party.
Well, they don’t have the votes for it. Manchin is an unshakeable man - he wasn’t running for re-election, and even if he was, no one else can win in WV (as we saw), so he’s untouchable. I know OP...
Exemplary
Well, they don’t have the votes for it. Manchin is an unshakeable man - he wasn’t running for re-election, and even if he was, no one else can win in WV (as we saw), so he’s untouchable.
I know OP said to ignore the rules, but if a minority of Congress just declared that there are more justices, a) the other branches of government would ignore them, so it wouldn’t do anything b) this would cause all of them to lose their seats in the next election.
It seems to me like you're saying there's nothing we could do and a fascist takeover was inevitable. If we just can't win while the others cheat, we should just give up? This is what I mean,...
It seems to me like you're saying there's nothing we could do and a fascist takeover was inevitable. If we just can't win while the others cheat, we should just give up?
This is what I mean, though. You're talking about reelection and votes. Republicans are talking about forcibly doing things and imprisoning and executing their political opponents. They are not in the same league at all.
I think you have to do what you can. You can’t pretend like the Democratic Party, a vast coalition, can be shepherded like units like a video game. Sometimes, people just don’t do what you want....
I think you have to do what you can. You can’t pretend like the Democratic Party, a vast coalition, can be shepherded like units like a video game. Sometimes, people just don’t do what you want. RBG didn’t retire, letting Dobbs be overruled. Sotomayor still refuses to retire. Whaddya going to do about it? Have to deal with the cards you have.
And this exact attitude is why the fascists are winning. And I'm sorry, but this comment is extremely privileged and out of touch. My wife and other women dying of being thrown into concentration...
And this exact attitude is why the fascists are winning. And I'm sorry, but this comment is extremely privileged and out of touch. My wife and other women dying of being thrown into concentration camps isn't "people just not doing what you want". LGBT people being hunted down or thrown in concentration camps isn't just "dealing with the cards you have". You're treating this like it's an inconsequential game. If it doesn't affect you, count your blessings, but as it is, this is just contributing to giving the republicans more power, and real, living and breathing people will suffer and die as a direct result. This exact attitude is why the democrats lost, and why myself and so many others have been so upset with them for the past 10 years.
Again, what is an actual concrete action you want Democrats to take in the future, or would have wanted to take in the past, taking into account the laws of physics, and what do you think the...
Again, what is an actual concrete action you want Democrats to take in the future, or would have wanted to take in the past, taking into account the laws of physics, and what do you think the change in outcome would have been?
Again, the condescending, completely unempathetic response ignoring everything I said is not helpful, and at this point is just coming off as intentionally rude. Unfortunately, after dealing with...
Again, the condescending, completely unempathetic response ignoring everything I said is not helpful, and at this point is just coming off as intentionally rude. Unfortunately, after dealing with wealthy people, it seems that's what happens when you're completely insulated from the consequences of this election.
Well, if you want to circle back to that, I think being vague about “they have to fight!” is ultimately even less helpful, and more contributory to Republican success than trying to be pragmatic...
Well, if you want to circle back to that, I think being vague about “they have to fight!” is ultimately even less helpful, and more contributory to Republican success than trying to be pragmatic and make concrete, viable plans for what democrats should do as a minority party and how they can achieve success later. It creates inner-party strife without channeling it into anything productive.
In hindsight, honestly, probably not much Democrats could have done to win this election. Every incumbent party of a democracy who held power at least lost power, and most outright flipping. Even Modi, with a pseudo-authoritarian grip on India, got creamed.
As a minority party, they mainly need to do two things: force Republicans to make as many awkward votes as possible, and find a new heir to rally behind for ‘28. I think they’re doing fine on the former, the Gaetz file votes are great for this.
I say this as an exceedingly frustrated liberal myself: My problem with the American Left is the problem I've had with the Democrat establishment for decades- they're very, very good at moralizing...
I say this as an exceedingly frustrated liberal myself: My problem with the American Left is the problem I've had with the Democrat establishment for decades- they're very, very good at moralizing about how others are fucking up, and absolutely allergic to taking a stand on anything, out of fear of getting called out for not being ideologically perfect themselves. Meanwhile the Right, whatever their manifold faults, know exactly how to work together as a team to push things through.
I'm posting a few Slate Star Codex essays below. I think they are very relevant if we're going to find a way forward past what currently isn't working at all. Not because I agree with them 100%, but because they provide think-grist for the mill.
Excellent point. We have to be pragmatic and do whatever it takes. Ideological and moral purity means nothing when we're in line for the gas chamber. It doesn't matter if someone accidentally uses...
Excellent point. We have to be pragmatic and do whatever it takes. Ideological and moral purity means nothing when we're in line for the gas chamber. It doesn't matter if someone accidentally uses the wrong phrase to refer to something, or is slightly uncouth - the intention is what matters.
Interestingly enough, my friends who grew up in more conservative areas tend to hold viewpoints more like this than the ones who grew up in more liberal areas, despite being further left wing. I think seeing how effectively republicans band together and how much damage they do together can really serve to wake people up.
Regarding your first paragraph, I will continue to beat my drum on how I find primary elections to be corrosive. The attributes voters in primary elections want have no correlation one way or the...
Regarding your first paragraph, I will continue to beat my drum on how I find primary elections to be corrosive. The attributes voters in primary elections want have no correlation one way or the other with the kinds of candidates capable of winning over the normies in the real election. Obviously, someone has to win each general election, so the faction backing the winner uses it to crow to their own party about how they are the adults in the room capable of winning elections. Factions who lost in the losing party’s primaries point out how Bernie would have won very doubleplus bigly.
Corrupt dealmakers in smoky rooms analyzing goat entrails would have more pragmatism about building winning coalitions and having the fighting after the election.
There’s some truth to this. If nothing else, you can see just how much Harris 2020 primary run killed her presidential one. In that 2020 primary, there was an insane mania that led to everyone...
There’s some truth to this. If nothing else, you can see just how much Harris 2020 primary run killed her presidential one. In that 2020 primary, there was an insane mania that led to everyone except for Biden committing to insane, unpopular rhetoric like open borders to appeal to a much farther left primary demographic.
There was also an insane amount of footgunning. Why on earth did the goddamn ACLU force every candidate to respond to “do you support gender reassignment surgery for detained migrants”? No, really, they did that.
That’s like a question Fox News would ask democratic candidates in bad faith to get soundbites. Democrats handed that to them on a silver platter.
I'm tempted to go another direction from @public, that Democrats are too controlling during the primary process and are mortified of no longer having their candidates in mint condition. Hillary...
I'm tempted to go another direction from @public, that Democrats are too controlling during the primary process and are mortified of no longer having their candidates in mint condition. Hillary Clinton was the result of the primaries being as close as possible, and Bernie Sanders became a superstar because he was genuine and showed concerns compared to the focus tested and presumptive tenor of the Clinton campaign. Biden had elements of it too, where the powers that be let the progressives get their yuks out on the field until it was Biden and then everyone fell into line behind him.
Whether or not the Democrats need to better control their left flank or have them become it inside and outside is a question that we can go back and forth on, and until there is a clear answer on it, I think that the Dems are going to come across as disingenuous to voters compared to the fully converted MAGA Party.
The author seems to take the view that Trump's success derives from being obstinate and that Democrats need to be the same, but I'm not so sure that's the winning move. Trump spoke to what...
The author seems to take the view that Trump's success derives from being obstinate and that Democrats need to be the same, but I'm not so sure that's the winning move. Trump spoke to what Americans felt AND was loud and persistent about it regardless of the truth. The reasons I feel the message was just as important as the stubbornness are that Bernie received a lot of support despite being a socialist and, well, I just didn't see much success when Dems were shouting from 2016-2020 about Trump. The message didn't resonate. Yea, Biden won 2020, but Trump kept basically the same amount of support.
I don't think Democrats have figured out yet what Americans really want. I hope they don't start adopting opposition tactics until after they've figured out a platform to rally around, else they'll think they're making more progress than they really are and be disappointed again in '28.
More personal views are that much of their '24 platform needs to be looked over because it clearly didn't work.
IMO, the Democrats are kind of stuck as a oppositional party and have been for years. They're kind of stuck to be the moderating force for the Republicans and a centrist party with some liberal...
IMO, the Democrats are kind of stuck as a oppositional party and have been for years. They're kind of stuck to be the moderating force for the Republicans and a centrist party with some liberal ideas that don't step on their donors toes. A lot of their marketing this past election cycles weren't based on what the Democrats can do for you, versus the consequences of what happens if they lose. Vote us in, we can enshrine Roe as law after campaigning on doing it for the past 20 years, but something always conveniently gets in the way of it and we are in a position now we can't do jack about it, but we can fight the good fight, and please just donate some money please. If the Dems aren't going to be upfront with the base about their abilities to act and their will to do so, than I could see why their voters aren't turning up.
It's a difficult problem to square. The reality is that it's very hard to do anything in the US political system without a broad mandate - at least a supermajority in the senate and full control....
If the Dems aren't going to be upfront with the base about their abilities to act and their will to do so, than I could see why their voters aren't turning up.
It's a difficult problem to square. The reality is that it's very hard to do anything in the US political system without a broad mandate - at least a supermajority in the senate and full control.
Republicans also can't do all that much. But they managed the problem by NOT promising policy goals at all, and instead making it all about social issues.
Vote Trump, and he'll make it socially accepted to be racist, to be misogynistic, to be homophobic, to beat your wife, etc. And he can do that, that's not law, that's about being a celebrity and have a loud voice and shaping culture.
Can democrats repeat that? Would you WANT them to?
I dunno. Bernie Sanders also had a lot of that celebrity star power and ability to change the conversation that the bully pulpit allows, but the Democratic Party would rather eat a rusty bag of...
Can democrats repeat that? Would you WANT them to?
I dunno. Bernie Sanders also had a lot of that celebrity star power and ability to change the conversation that the bully pulpit allows, but the Democratic Party would rather eat a rusty bag of nails than let the populist takeover happen to them like what happened to the Republicans, and if that means their on the opposition for a while, so be it. Fundraising is a piece of cake when you're opposition.
But Bernie promises policy changes. That’s his brand. In hindsight, if Bernie was both the candidate and elected president, we know that not a single piece of his platform would have been passed...
But Bernie promises policy changes. That’s his brand. In hindsight, if Bernie was both the candidate and elected president, we know that not a single piece of his platform would have been passed into law. Would voters not simply consider him a fraud as well?
But Bernie articulates an anger and a critical need for reform. You say his policy wouldn’t have been implemented. But we don’t know that, because we don’t know what the mid term looks like with a...
But Bernie articulates an anger and a critical need for reform. You say his policy wouldn’t have been implemented. But we don’t know that, because we don’t know what the mid term looks like with a Bernie as the executive.
The problem is the senate. Democrats had a 1 seat majority, Sinema basically defected… for some reason. Manchin goes along but has lines he won’t cross, and he is untouchable.
The problem is the senate. Democrats had a 1 seat majority, Sinema basically defected… for some reason. Manchin goes along but has lines he won’t cross, and he is untouchable.
It would depend on two main factors: His ability to shift blame to Congress, where it rightfully belongs Is his median supporter a true believer? The reason Trump’s base doesn’t see him as a fraud...
It would depend on two main factors:
His ability to shift blame to Congress, where it rightfully belongs
Is his median supporter a true believer?
The reason Trump’s base doesn’t see him as a fraud for warmed-over Bush policies from his first term is due to point 2.
Ive been thinking for a while that perhaps the reason they don’t act like they’re opposed to Trump is because they aren’t.
But thats just me being deeply hurt that they did nothing to protect women’s rights when they knew Trump might win the next election and take away more of them.
I still voted for Kamala of course because the alternative is voting for the people who actually did take away my rights, but I’m pretty disappointed in them.
BINGO! It's all billionaires on the back end.
What did you want them to do that could have been done?
Take a stand on something: healthcare, Palestine, corporate greed, anything really. Position themselves as the only thing standing in the way of the Republican hate machine. Kamala didn't do anything at all to really differentiate herself from Biden or speak to people's fears and concerns. She basically just mocked Trump and campaigned on "business as usual".
Well, the campaign basically was “I am the only thing standing in the way of the Republican hate machine”. People didn’t seem to care all that much.
They probably do need a central message other than abortion, which I guess it turns out people didn’t care all that much about. That being said, it’s hard because the left coalition is much broader. Even just in the party, no one agrees on a direction for any of the issues you brought up.
Take Palestine, for instance. It’s easy to get lost in the sauce on the internet, but even amongst democrats, a majority support Israel. A large portion don’t, sure, but this is the way to Democratic Party civil war, not a unifying message.
Exactly. Frankly, it comes off like they don't care at all, which just confirms what a lot of people think of the Democratic Party anyway.
I want Biden to solidify women’s right to abortion like he literally said he would during the congressional election.
Declare the ruling in bad faith because thats what it was. I don’t care how they do it.
Why is it suddenly when its something I care about, theres rules?
There’s always rules. Trump only passed one major piece of legislation in 2016 despite a trifecta (with a supermajority in the senate too) because of that. Democrats did not have the votes to pass legislation through the senate for anything except budget reconciliation without some Republican votes. “Declaring a ruling in bad faith” is not a power of the US president.
Democrats, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, made a major misstep in Obama’s administration for her not to retire. Dobbs was the price to pay.
Idk dude that sounds like defeatist bullshit.
The least he could have done was pardon doctors caught up in the Texas legislation.
The president can’t pardon state crimes.
I'm kind of wondering why the onus should be on people like snake_case to figure out what the Democrats could be doing to at least look like they oppose Trump and the Republican party, or want to protect their ostensible base, instead of on the party itself.
Do you feel like they did the most they could, either with the power they undeniably did wield, or towards winning the election, to vindicate people's rights?
Because it’s otherwise not productive. It’s not productive or helpful to be angry about things that democrats can’t and couldn’t have done. It is productive to argue for things that can be done.
For example, I have a concrete example. I think democrats should have been CLAMORING at Sotomayor to force her to retire. They still should be. GTFO already. That’s a concrete suggestion - bully Sotomayor into retiring. Republican voters are very good at bullying their officials, elected or not. Just look at the Hegseth situation.
More or less. There’s strategic missteps, but I don’t think there was any holding back.
That's the thing, isn't it? They're only concerned with what "can be done" - aka what the rules that no longer apply say they can do. The rules have not applied for a while, and we are no longer playing that game. They need to start fighting dirty, like republicans did 15+ years ago. Do literally anything that will work to stop republicans, regardless of the "rules".
But even within the rules, there are lots of examples of things they didn't do. They had ample time to prosecute and stop Trump, but they chose not to. Biden intentionally chose Garland, knowing he's a Republican who would never do anything. Biden intentionally chose not to replace him during his entire term.
Well, what kind of “playing dirty” did you want them to do?
Like I said, take a page out of the Republican playbook. Become obstinate. Become publicly opposed, at the very least. Don't just roll over and pose for a photo op with the person who just said he's going to overthrow the government and have you executed. This "oh but what can we do" attitude is pathetic and going to get people killed. Trump is a convicted felon and a traitor, and they should've been treating him and his government buddies appropriately, not like their friends who disagree on what to eat for dinner.
What’s a concrete example where you think they should have been more “obstinate” and how would it have helped women’s rights? Is this just about Biden meeting with Trump for the transition?
Do you think if Biden refused to meet Trump it would help women’s rights? Can the party even tell Biden what to do anymore given he’s in full idgaf mode?
For that, the one key thing is that they should have bullied RBG way more in the Obama presidency to retire. But that was both a while ago, and ironically it was not a very popular thing to do with feminists in the party.
If we're talking about "playing dirty" you could stack the courts.
Well, they don’t have the votes for it. Manchin is an unshakeable man - he wasn’t running for re-election, and even if he was, no one else can win in WV (as we saw), so he’s untouchable.
I know OP said to ignore the rules, but if a minority of Congress just declared that there are more justices, a) the other branches of government would ignore them, so it wouldn’t do anything b) this would cause all of them to lose their seats in the next election.
It seems to me like you're saying there's nothing we could do and a fascist takeover was inevitable. If we just can't win while the others cheat, we should just give up?
This is what I mean, though. You're talking about reelection and votes. Republicans are talking about forcibly doing things and imprisoning and executing their political opponents. They are not in the same league at all.
I think you have to do what you can. You can’t pretend like the Democratic Party, a vast coalition, can be shepherded like units like a video game. Sometimes, people just don’t do what you want. RBG didn’t retire, letting Dobbs be overruled. Sotomayor still refuses to retire. Whaddya going to do about it? Have to deal with the cards you have.
And this exact attitude is why the fascists are winning. And I'm sorry, but this comment is extremely privileged and out of touch. My wife and other women dying of being thrown into concentration camps isn't "people just not doing what you want". LGBT people being hunted down or thrown in concentration camps isn't just "dealing with the cards you have". You're treating this like it's an inconsequential game. If it doesn't affect you, count your blessings, but as it is, this is just contributing to giving the republicans more power, and real, living and breathing people will suffer and die as a direct result. This exact attitude is why the democrats lost, and why myself and so many others have been so upset with them for the past 10 years.
Again, what is an actual concrete action you want Democrats to take in the future, or would have wanted to take in the past, taking into account the laws of physics, and what do you think the change in outcome would have been?
Again, the condescending, completely unempathetic response ignoring everything I said is not helpful, and at this point is just coming off as intentionally rude. Unfortunately, after dealing with wealthy people, it seems that's what happens when you're completely insulated from the consequences of this election.
Well, if you want to circle back to that, I think being vague about “they have to fight!” is ultimately even less helpful, and more contributory to Republican success than trying to be pragmatic and make concrete, viable plans for what democrats should do as a minority party and how they can achieve success later. It creates inner-party strife without channeling it into anything productive.
In hindsight, honestly, probably not much Democrats could have done to win this election. Every incumbent party of a democracy who held power at least lost power, and most outright flipping. Even Modi, with a pseudo-authoritarian grip on India, got creamed.
As a minority party, they mainly need to do two things: force Republicans to make as many awkward votes as possible, and find a new heir to rally behind for ‘28. I think they’re doing fine on the former, the Gaetz file votes are great for this.
As for the latter, well, it’s early days.
I say this as an exceedingly frustrated liberal myself: My problem with the American Left is the problem I've had with the Democrat establishment for decades- they're very, very good at moralizing about how others are fucking up, and absolutely allergic to taking a stand on anything, out of fear of getting called out for not being ideologically perfect themselves. Meanwhile the Right, whatever their manifold faults, know exactly how to work together as a team to push things through.
I'm posting a few Slate Star Codex essays below. I think they are very relevant if we're going to find a way forward past what currently isn't working at all. Not because I agree with them 100%, but because they provide think-grist for the mill.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
Excellent point. We have to be pragmatic and do whatever it takes. Ideological and moral purity means nothing when we're in line for the gas chamber. It doesn't matter if someone accidentally uses the wrong phrase to refer to something, or is slightly uncouth - the intention is what matters.
Interestingly enough, my friends who grew up in more conservative areas tend to hold viewpoints more like this than the ones who grew up in more liberal areas, despite being further left wing. I think seeing how effectively republicans band together and how much damage they do together can really serve to wake people up.
Regarding your first paragraph, I will continue to beat my drum on how I find primary elections to be corrosive. The attributes voters in primary elections want have no correlation one way or the other with the kinds of candidates capable of winning over the normies in the real election. Obviously, someone has to win each general election, so the faction backing the winner uses it to crow to their own party about how they are the adults in the room capable of winning elections. Factions who lost in the losing party’s primaries point out how Bernie would have won very doubleplus bigly.
Corrupt dealmakers in smoky rooms analyzing goat entrails would have more pragmatism about building winning coalitions and having the fighting after the election.
There’s some truth to this. If nothing else, you can see just how much Harris 2020 primary run killed her presidential one. In that 2020 primary, there was an insane mania that led to everyone except for Biden committing to insane, unpopular rhetoric like open borders to appeal to a much farther left primary demographic.
There was also an insane amount of footgunning. Why on earth did the goddamn ACLU force every candidate to respond to “do you support gender reassignment surgery for detained migrants”? No, really, they did that.
That’s like a question Fox News would ask democratic candidates in bad faith to get soundbites. Democrats handed that to them on a silver platter.
I'm tempted to go another direction from @public, that Democrats are too controlling during the primary process and are mortified of no longer having their candidates in mint condition. Hillary Clinton was the result of the primaries being as close as possible, and Bernie Sanders became a superstar because he was genuine and showed concerns compared to the focus tested and presumptive tenor of the Clinton campaign. Biden had elements of it too, where the powers that be let the progressives get their yuks out on the field until it was Biden and then everyone fell into line behind him.
Whether or not the Democrats need to better control their left flank or have them become it inside and outside is a question that we can go back and forth on, and until there is a clear answer on it, I think that the Dems are going to come across as disingenuous to voters compared to the fully converted MAGA Party.
The author seems to take the view that Trump's success derives from being obstinate and that Democrats need to be the same, but I'm not so sure that's the winning move. Trump spoke to what Americans felt AND was loud and persistent about it regardless of the truth. The reasons I feel the message was just as important as the stubbornness are that Bernie received a lot of support despite being a socialist and, well, I just didn't see much success when Dems were shouting from 2016-2020 about Trump. The message didn't resonate. Yea, Biden won 2020, but Trump kept basically the same amount of support.
I don't think Democrats have figured out yet what Americans really want. I hope they don't start adopting opposition tactics until after they've figured out a platform to rally around, else they'll think they're making more progress than they really are and be disappointed again in '28.
More personal views are that much of their '24 platform needs to be looked over because it clearly didn't work.
IMO, the Democrats are kind of stuck as a oppositional party and have been for years. They're kind of stuck to be the moderating force for the Republicans and a centrist party with some liberal ideas that don't step on their donors toes. A lot of their marketing this past election cycles weren't based on what the Democrats can do for you, versus the consequences of what happens if they lose. Vote us in, we can enshrine Roe as law after campaigning on doing it for the past 20 years, but something always conveniently gets in the way of it and we are in a position now we can't do jack about it, but we can fight the good fight, and please just donate some money please. If the Dems aren't going to be upfront with the base about their abilities to act and their will to do so, than I could see why their voters aren't turning up.
It's a difficult problem to square. The reality is that it's very hard to do anything in the US political system without a broad mandate - at least a supermajority in the senate and full control.
Republicans also can't do all that much. But they managed the problem by NOT promising policy goals at all, and instead making it all about social issues.
Vote Trump, and he'll make it socially accepted to be racist, to be misogynistic, to be homophobic, to beat your wife, etc. And he can do that, that's not law, that's about being a celebrity and have a loud voice and shaping culture.
Can democrats repeat that? Would you WANT them to?
I dunno. Bernie Sanders also had a lot of that celebrity star power and ability to change the conversation that the bully pulpit allows, but the Democratic Party would rather eat a rusty bag of nails than let the populist takeover happen to them like what happened to the Republicans, and if that means their on the opposition for a while, so be it. Fundraising is a piece of cake when you're opposition.
But Bernie promises policy changes. That’s his brand. In hindsight, if Bernie was both the candidate and elected president, we know that not a single piece of his platform would have been passed into law. Would voters not simply consider him a fraud as well?
But Bernie articulates an anger and a critical need for reform. You say his policy wouldn’t have been implemented. But we don’t know that, because we don’t know what the mid term looks like with a Bernie as the executive.
The problem is the senate. Democrats had a 1 seat majority, Sinema basically defected… for some reason. Manchin goes along but has lines he won’t cross, and he is untouchable.
It would depend on two main factors:
The reason Trump’s base doesn’t see him as a fraud for warmed-over Bush policies from his first term is due to point 2.