Democrats self inflicted wounds

Post Reply New Topic

Given that introspection and self-reflection seem to be seen as self-gaslighting over there I think the people who want to reflect and try to change strategy will be shut down by the people who want to call 51 or 52% of the country racist and evil because the later are morally superior and that's what matters (almost reminds me of the Republicans under the evangelical right). I think that conclusion is actually a feature not a bug and it won't go away unless either Trump surreally screws something up (Harris-style) or three or four Republican election cycles down the road when Republicans have so much power that they're getting over-eager, forgetting morals, and starting to behave in a really entitled manner people will start looking at the Democratic party again - in which case either the purity death-spiral is still going on the left and there won't be any good options or the Democratic party will have reconsidered it's identity in a way that the common person finds more relatable.

That's my big concern. A lot of the political activist stuff is being funded or encouraged by oligarchs because it distracts people from the fact that we're collectively fighting over scraps and have more in common with each other than with the people at the top.

The thing that was most disheartening for me about the election was how little traction any of the 3rd party candidates got, even in states that were reliably red or blue, where the votes for the major party candidates were essentially taken for granted by both sides.

There's a very real chance that there's going to be a very messy realignment in 4 years when the Democrats have to figure out a way of actually getting the votes they need to beat Vance or whatever candidate wins the GOP primaries.

I'd recommend having a real primary and letting whatever person wins the votes to be the nominee. The last time that happened was Obama in 2008, and as disappointing as he was in terms of accomplishments, at least the party wasn't getting wiped out.

I've heard both Nicole Shanahan (RFK Jr's VP) and Jill Stein talk about needing to fight off massive lawfare and constantly needing to deal with ballot challenges from the DNC. I get why from the DNC's perspective - ie. Jill Stein and RFK Jr / Shanahan would siphon off votes Harris needed.

I personally voted Stein because around here it would take a ton of people voting for Trump for any of the votes to really matter. But, she had the best platform of any of the folks I had available to vote for.

At the end of the day, as long as we have a two party system where it's a struggle for anybody else, the parties should not be permitted to make decisions about which candidates qualify for the general election without it being a vote of the people. The whole business that the only election that we have a real say in is the general election ignores the reality that if you're left with a bunch of garbage candidates, it doesn't much matter how you vote, you're going to be voting for a garbage candidate.

Still reeling from the shock of Donald Trump’s resounding victory on Tuesday, a number of liberals and progressives, and other Trump foes, have chosen a "blame Americans" response. To explain why voters chose Trump, a man whom even many former staffers from his first presidential term have described as unfit for office, over Vice President Kamala Harris, some journalists, activists, entertainers and others have pointed to racism and misogyny: "I hadn't grasped how deeply the US hates women until now," wrote left-wing podcast host Emma Vigeland. Others have said that people gravitated to Trump because they like the anger and grievance he peddles, using concerns about the economy as an excuse.

But such an approach is both deeply unproductive and factually wrong.

It’s unproductive because it offers no way forward, aside from Bertolt Brecht’s old joke about dissolving the people and electing a new one. Telling Americans that they’re revolting is a sure way to get them to revolt against your party.

It’s factually wrong because it vastly oversimplifies the reality of this election.

Don’t get me wrong: While we don’t know yet what a second Trump term will look like, I think his return to the White House four years after he tried to overturn the legitimate results of the previous election and either instigated or abetted a violent attack on the Capitol is a very dark chapter in America’s history. That’s not to mention the other reasons for his unfitness.

But while much of Trump’s hard core base knowingly embraced the ugliness, many others who voted for him are lower-engagement voters only vaguely aware of his scandals and outrages. In swing states during the campaign, they faced a barrage of information that often made it hard to tell facts from smears, and simply tuned it all out. They remembered things as being fine during the Trump presidency and were willing to ignore Trump’s attempted election steal, since the transfer of power ultimately happened. They are, in many cases, deeply cynical about all politicians and don’t see Trump’s flaws as qualitatively worse.

While people who blame the voters tend to see Harris as a near-perfect candidate who ran an excellent campaign, this perception overlooks Harris’ real flaws. While her candidacy caused a surge of enthusiasm after she replaced President Joe Biden on the ticket, her inability to sustain that surge was due in large part to her reluctance, until the late stages of the campaign, to give interviews or answer voter questions. When she did, she gave wordy and evasive answers to some key questions: How would she govern differently from Biden? What mistakes had she made? Why had she flip-flopped on some of the progressive positions she held in 2019?

Lastly, it’s also misguided to dismiss economic concerns as either a cover for other motives or the result of right-wing propaganda. Harvard economist Jason Furman, a Democrat, notes that despite good economic indicators, real median household income is down 0.7% from 2019 and mortgage rates are up 3 percentage points, and while the rate of inflation has fallen many families still grapple with higher prices. Inflation — primarily the result of the pandemic — has caused an anti-incumbent backlash across the world.

None of this is to say that Trump deserved to be reelected, or that right-wing populism with authoritarian tendencies is not a danger. But if Democrats want to defeat this populist tide, which won’t end with Trump, they need to learn from their mistakes.

The Democratic Party is adrift.

Its approval rating is hitting all-time lows, and it’s hemorrhaging registered voters.

Part of the problem is that the Democratic Party is beholden to its fringe base, which demands fealty to notions such as “men are women,” “no one is illegal,” and “from the river to the sea.” (The GOP has a similar issue with its fringe base; the key difference, however, is that Republican radicals don’t seem as congenitally predisposed toward staking out the losing side of 80/20 issues.)

Another problem for the Democratic Party, one more serious than fringe capture, is that it’s led by midwits who keep taking their cues from social media and failed consultant types.

As Deepthroat says in All the President’s Men, “The truth is these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.”

It’s not much more complicated than that. The Democratic Party is a silly party increasingly run by silly people, and it’s finally paying the price.

This is why, with relatively little effort, President Trump repeatedly outmaneuvers Democrats on key issues. And with every easy victory, he damages the Democratic image, advances his agenda, and makes headway with the general electorate. Trump indeed has natural talents when it comes to politicking, including his love for good old-fashioned retail politics. The man can work a room or an arena. But it also helps him tremendously that his opposition is incompetent.

Were they even a fraction cleverer, Democrats would have figured out by now that Trump, whether he’s responding impulsively to a random issue that has caught his attention or promoting his broader agenda, follows a shockingly simple formula. It’s nothing short of political malpractice that Democrats haven’t cracked the code even after ten years of opposing him.

The formula is: Trump cites an objectively true X to justify Y controversial action.

For instance: Because the crime rate in the nation’s capital is so high, I am deploying the National Guard and federalizing the D.C. police. Because unchecked illegal immigration is out of control, my administration will commence with mass deportations. Because the riots in Los Angeles (or elsewhere) are not yet contained, I am deploying federal troops to the city.

And so on. And then: All Trump has to do is wait.

The obviously prudent and politically practical response would be for Democrats to say something along the lines of “Although we agree that the crime rate in D.C. is completely unacceptable, we disagree that Trump’s response is the correct solution.” The fairly obvious play would be for Democrats to focus their efforts on selling alternative solutions and their overall vision for the country, not just raw opposition.

Yet, because of the zero-sum nature of #Resistance, Democrats aren’t interested in counterproposals. So — devastatingly for them — they won’t even concede the objectively true X. They cannot admit that Trump has a point about D.C. crime or illegal immigration or riots, etc., because any concession, even over a true statement, would be to surrender to the enemy. The Democratic Party appears to have convinced itself that it will look weak if it agrees with the president on anything, even factual statements. Amazingly, they don’t seem to have considered the long-term implications of the alternative, that is, a party that routinely denies objective, easily proven reality.

So, instead of offering voters alternatives or solutions, Democrats, egged on by their lunatic fringe and aided by journalists, instead get stuck on messages such as “lol what crime?

The result is a party that not only is bereft of ideas and answers but also looks increasingly unhinged. Voters may be leery of a federalized capital police or mass deportations, but the alternative is a party that says unchecked illegal immigration is unavoidable or “good, actually,” or that D.C.-style crime rates are normal, nothing to worry about.

What Democrats probably wouldn’t give for at least one Harry Reid somewhere in leadership. Instead, they have Senator Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), whose response to the federalization of the D.C. police has been to deny that D.C. crime is out of control and to invoke Jeffrey Epstein, the nichest of niche social media topics that don’t resonate at all with the broader electorate.

Do you know what does resonate with voters? Learning that the seat of the American republic has a murder rate that is six times that of New York City.

Democrats have no idea what they’re doing.

For a group that’s so obsessed with identity, it’s a beautiful stroke of irony that the modern Democratic Party doesn’t have one.