What did Democrats do wrong?

[bruto]

I think the idea that parties should only run candidates in districts they can expect to win is the prelude to single party government. The willingness to support a party depends not solely on whether you vote for every candidate. Some of it depends on what you think the party stands for, and for whom you think it stands. Almost every election, certainly every biennial election, includes not only local but national offices. A party which ignores local races does not recommend itself for the wider ones. I think voters have a right to be disenchanted with a party that ignores them where they live, and that disenchantment is likely to creep up the line. I think that may already be the case in some places, and I applaud the effort in Texas to make the Democratic party more familiar, more relevant, and more visible. I imagine it's a pretty long game out there, but it's something that ought to be done.

 

[dirtywick]

i think rural people might find that they like some not hard line conservative policy at the local level if they were offered some

 

[Tero]

I think the idea that parties should only run candidates in districts they can expect to win is the prelude to single party government. The willingness to support a party depends not solely on whether you vote for every candidate. Some of it depends on what you think the party stands for, and for whom you think it stands. Almost every election, certainly every biennial election, includes not only local but national offices. A party which ignores local races does not recommend itself for the wider ones. I think voters have a right to be disenchanted with a party that ignores them where they live, and that disenchantment is likely to creep up the line. I think that may already be the case in some places, and I applaud the effort in Texas to make the Democratic party more familiar, more relevant, and more visible. I imagine it's a pretty long game out there, but it's something that ought to be done.

It's not that democrats would not run candidates in red states. They just do not have the money to run modern campaign with media spending. Not when they ar polling at 40%. National democrat party funds are not coming. One thing Trump was good at was fund raising. The local campaigns also depend on door knocking. Obama campaign did that. But you can't go knocking on every farm door. Rural campaigns are pancake breakfasts and hanging out with small town business leaders.

 

[bruto]

It's not that democrats would not run candidates in red states. They just do not have the money to run modern campaign with media spending. Not when they ar polling at 40%. National democrat party funds are not coming. One thing Trump was good at was fund raising. The local campaigns also depend on door knocking. Obama campaign did that. But you can't go knocking on every farm door. Rural campaigns are pancake breakfasts and hanging out with small town business leaders.

I get that. But I think that right down to the local level, it's necessary to keep that alternative party active. The excuse that if you can't afford to do it "right" so we won't do it at all is a poor strategy that is destined to expand as the party and its perceived relevance shrink. Pancake breakfasts and hanging out with small town leaders and door knocking are things volunteers can do.

 

[esquel]

I was appalled to find that 31% of voters in our very liberal state still went for Trump/Republicans. While it's just the baseline for either side, it means that 40% of the people needed swaying. Our state did go Democrat, but if Republicans are that entrenched here, it was a very hard sell for more ambivalent areas.

 

[Resume]

I was appalled to find that 31% of voters in our very liberal state still went for Trump/Republicans. While it's just the baseline for either side, it means that 40% of the people needed swaying. Our state did go Democrat, but if Republicans are that entrenched here, it was a very hard sell for more ambivalent areas.

I just saw a poll in which the majority of those polled held Trump responsible for the current economy, but that pesky 40% held him not responsible at all. If those numbers hold up, along with the usual number of low information independents, I fear for the mid-terms.

 

[theprestige]

I think the idea that parties should only run candidates in districts they can expect to win

There's a bit of ambiguity here. In the US, anyone can register themselves as a candidate for any party they wish, whether the party likes it or not. If they register as a Dem candidate, and nobody else contests, then they're the Dem candidate regardless of what the party thinks or wants.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's not that democrats would not run candidates in red states. They just do not have the money to run modern campaign with media spending. Not when they ar polling at 40%. National democrat party funds are not coming. One thing Trump was good at was fund raising. The local campaigns also depend on door knocking. Obama campaign did that. But you can't go knocking on every farm door. Rural campaigns are pancake breakfasts and hanging out with small town business leaders.

I kind of think that all of them are good at fundraising. That said... Harris, Biden, and Clinton all had larger campaign funds than Trump did in the last three elections.

https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presidential-race

https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16

I wasn't expecting that.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I was appalled to find that 31% of voters in our very liberal state still went for Trump/Republicans. While it's just the baseline for either side, it means that 40% of the people needed swaying. Our state did go Democrat, but if Republicans are that entrenched here, it was a very hard sell for more ambivalent areas.

I'm curious - why would you think that any party should ever have 100% of the votes in any state? Why would you think it was a good idea to be a single-party area?

 

[bruto]

There's a bit of ambiguity here. In the US, anyone can register themselves as a candidate for any party they wish, whether the party likes it or not. If they register as a Dem candidate, and nobody else contests, then they're the Dem candidate regardless of what the party thinks or wants.

I do not believe that is true everywhere. At least in Connecticut where I was involved in local level politics for many years, the party committee nominated the candidates for that party, and the voting machines had a party line for each party. Offices not contested by the party were left blank. Perhaps you could call yourself what you liked but you certainly would not be on the party's ballot line. You'd be listed as an independent and not on a party line. I suppose that could have changed in the years since I left but I doubt it. There certainly have been some mechanical changes, as I'm pretty sure they don't use mechanical voting machines any more, and I think they have eliminated the party lever, but I'd be surprised if a person not endorsed by a party could appear on that party's ballot.

I don't know just how it's done at a wider level these days in Vermont. It may be that at the town office level one can do that, but at any level, including state legislature, where party organizations select candidates and when necessary run primaries, I doubt it's the case either.

Of course it might be the case in some places, and since the only possible reason for doing this would be dishonest, I expect certain opponents of the actual Democratic party might well be doing it somewhere. Thankfully not here. I'm in a red town in a blue state, and the candidates here run as what they are. In small town politics, where there are usually fewer willing candidates than positions to fill, things are, of course, a little different anyway. If a person not technically a Democrat in my old Connecticut town had wanted to fill a position not contested by a party member, they could likely have simply announced their candidacy, and depending on how they argued their case, might well have been endorsed. And of course if a person who actually disagreed with Democratic policies were running, there would be little if any reason to pretend to belong to the minority that traditionally loses.

 

[Tero]

I kind of think that all of them are good at fundraising. That said... Harris, Biden, and Clinton all had larger campaign funds than Trump did in the last three elections.

https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presidential-race

https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16

I wasn't expecting that.

That funding is for the top posts like president. A congressman gets very little whereas Republican big shots in a state just buy the seats they want (inside state and congress) by flooding local media with ads.

 

[esquel]

I'm curious - why would you think that any party should ever have 100% of the votes in any state? Why would you think it was a good idea to be a single-party area?

Please don't attribute things to me I never said.
I was surprised to learn that the percentage of devout (literally) Republicans in our state was that high, as liberal as we appear to be in other cases.

 

[bruto]

Please don't attribute things to me I never said.
I was surprised to learn that the percentage of devout (literally) Republicans in our state was that high, as liberal as we appear to be in other cases.

I think that's true in many places, and it's one reason why Democrats need to get their message and their presence out into the boonies.

Not all people think well, and some don't think at all, but some do, some of the time. We have to get out of that sour grapes mentality and keep jumping.

 

[theprestige]

I think that's true in many places, and it's one reason why Democrats need to get their message and their presence out into the boonies.

If today's Democrats had a message for "the boonies", they'd be out there already, pitching it right and left.

Also I think it's kind of bigoted, to say that those living in "the boonies" haven't heard of the Democrats and their message already.

 

[bruto]

If today's Democrats had a message for "the boonies", they'd be out there already, pitching it right and left.

Also I think it's kind of bigoted, to say that those living in "the boonies" haven't heard of the Democrats and their message already.

You've just finished telling us the Democrats should not bother to get on the ticket because they will be ignored and invisible unless they spend a bunch of money they don't have, and now you're saying they're already visible and not ignored but rejected. I realize of course that your point of view has always been that the Democratic Party has nothing useful to offer, but those who differ on that front might also differ on your logic there.

I actually live, and have lived all my life, in rural areas which were dominated by the Republican party, and where a majority of voters have generally voted the party line, in part because of tradition and what they perceived as either a lack of difference or a lack of concern. But I've also seen that on specific issues, often important social issues, many are ready to think outside of party lines and listen to other points of view when the connection is made to their own community, and when enough effort is made by those doing so to distinguish truth from lies.

e.t.a. for example, although my quite red town votes regularly for Republican candidates, as do many rural areas in Vermont, whose status as a blue state depends on the urban vote, when it came to the Constitutional amendment asserting womens' rights, and despite a concentrated and expensive campaign by religious and political conservatives to narrow the argument down to the horror of elective abortion, complete with the usual lies that people like Trump repeat about killing babies at birth, our town was among the 100 percent of Vermont towns that voted in favor of the amendment.

 

[d4m10n]

Which is why they campaign for a minimum wage and more worker beneficial labour laws...

People working without work visas (or any other legitimating documentation) aren't likely to file claims in the courts.

NYT dropped some reporting this month about how exactly the Biden administration fumbled the immigration issue.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/07/us/politics/biden-immigration-trump.html

 

[johnny karate]

People working without work visas (or any other legitimating documentation) aren't likely to file claims in the courts.

NYT dropped some reporting this month about how exactly the Biden administration fumbled the immigration issue.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/07/us/politics/biden-immigration-trump.html

*jerk-off motion*

That Trump is underwater on immigration and approval for immigration has reached record highs after the Trump administration has done exactly what they said they would do on the issue is conclusive evidence that this was never about policy or real-world concerns, and was always about media-fueled propaganda.

 

[d4m10n]

That Trump is underwater on immigration and approval for immigration has reached record highs after the Trump administration has done exactly what they said they would do on the issue is conclusive evidence that this was never about policy or real-world concerns, and was always about media-fueled propaganda.

Your conclusion doesn't remotely follow from your premises here; both parties can fumble the same issue in different ways.

"Let's talk Trump instead!" is such a tired non-sequitur in this thread.

 

[wareyin]

Your conclusion doesn't remotely follow from your premises here; both parties can fumble the same issue in different ways.

"Let's talk Trump instead!" is such a tired non-sequitur in this thread.

Calling it a non sequitur ignores how elections work. An election is a binary choice. If a customer switches from Product A to Product B, but dislikes Product B’s main feature even more, then that feature clearly wasn't the reason for the switch. Pointing out the winner's numbers isn't changing the subject, it’s testing whether your premise holds up to the actual results. It doesn't.

 

[Brainster]

Looks like we are not going to find out what the Democrats did wrong, according to the Democrats:

The Democratic National Committee is refusing to release its autopsy of the party’s major 2024 losses it announced on Wednesday, breaking Chair Ken Martin’s public pledge to do so. The decision underscores the party’s challenges in grappling with its electoral setbacks as it heads into what is expected to be a stronger midterm year.

It does look like it was going to be a whitewash anyway:

This fall, the DNC held briefings with donors and other Democratic stakeholders on its initial findings. At the time, one Democrat who attended an October donor event confirmed that Biden’s initial decision to run in spite of his advanced age was not mentioned by DNC officials as a part of the review. It’s not clear whether his decision to run for reelection is discussed in the private review.

Biden’s age was not mentioned in the excerpts of the review shared with POLITICO on Thursday, nor was it raised in other briefings on the report’s initial findings. Most Democrats cite the last-minute candidate switch as a core reason for the party’s sweeping losses.

Not sure what they mean by sweeping losses; the Democrats actually picked up two seats in the House, although the GOP picked up 4 seats in the Senate.