What did Democrats do wrong?

[johnny karate]

The Liberal Patriot (Ruy Texiera) says the Democrats are not learning their lesson on cultural matters. I particularly liked this passage:



He also points out Gavin Newsom's inability to come up with a coherent answer to the question, "Can a boy become a girl?" Newsom's response (on his own podcast, note): "Yeah, I just, well, I think, uh, for the grace of God." Which is not only non-responsive, it's arguably insulting, since people usually use that expression when talking about some unfortunate individual.

Oof... where to begin.

For starters, Mamdani and Spanberger and other Democrats who won decisive victories last year openly advocated for trans and LGBTQ rights. This doddering old buffoon saying they didn't "aggressively push [their] cultural positions" is completely divorced from reality.

And what he said about immigration is somehow even more insane. Americans hate what Republicans are doing on "immigration reform". Their polling on the issue is underwater and approval for immigration is at record highs. The administration's policies are unpopular and a plurality of Americans want the agency tasked with enforcing their polices abolished. Meanwhile, Democrats like Mamdani are running explicitly pro-immigration campaigns and winning elections.

And Grandpa Simpson's takeaway from all of that is it's Democrats who are out of touch on immigration.

This is the kind of political analysis one would expect to get in a nursing home that has Fox News on all its TVs 24 hours a day. Just absolute red-pilled, pudding-brained nonsense.

Very enlightening to see where forum conservatives go to get their biases confirmed.

 

[Brainster]

Oof... where to begin.

For starters, Mamdani and Spanberger and other Democrats who won decisive victories last year openly advocated for trans and LGBTQ rights.

In a particularly good year for Democrats. And I would point out that the unpopular positions are really only about trans "rights."

And what he said about immigration is somehow even more insane. Americans hate what Republicans are doing on "immigration reform". Their polling on the issue is underwater and approval for immigration is at record highs. The administration's policies are unpopular and a plurality of Americans want the agency tasked with enforcing their polices abolished. Meanwhile, Democrats like Mamdani are running explicitly pro-immigration campaigns and winning elections.

The current ICE operations are clearly unpopular (and should be). That doesn't make open borders popular. "Abolish ice" is very similar to "defund the police;" a catchy slogan that may backfire on the Democrats.

 

[Segnosaur]

The current ICE operations are clearly unpopular (and should be). That doesn't make open borders popular. "Abolish ice" is very similar to "defund the police;" a catchy slogan that may backfire on the Democrats.

I don't think "abolish ICE" will have the same negative impact/blowback that "defund the police" did.

I think, rightly or wrongly, most people see the "bad cops" just a small number of the entire force, and they do not like the idea of going without the protection they get from the "good cops" if they "defunded the police". On the other hand, I think ICE is seen as bad all the way through at this point, given how common abuse is

(I should also point out that "defund the police" was a HORRIBLE slogan, which misrepresented what the ultimate goals were. A diversion of part of police budgets to alternative solutions (such as mental health professionals) made sense and I think most people would have agreed had it been explained to them, but "defunding the police" sounds like you want to eliminate all law enforcement and go to a wild-west solution.)

 

[Emily's Cat]

You want to stop worrying about the right trying to steal elections? Push for a strong, independent, nonpartisan body to fairly set electoral boundaries and oversee elections. Take the elections out of the hands of the political parties. Hold elections on weekends. Do not penalise people for taking time off work to vote. Make polling places more available and accessible. Actively encourage people to take part in the electoral process and start framing voting as an honourable civic duty and not an onerous burden.

Love it, and I'm 100% on board.

Also, strengthen proof of citizenship for registration, and require proof of ID at the time the vote is cast in a way that can efficiently be compared to registration data.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

you can do what you think is necessary, as long as you give everyone, everyone, the time and means to obtain whatever proof of identity required, and keep all reference data under neutral control.
What is being proposed here is just more means to disenfranchise voters selectively.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I don't think "abolish ICE" will have the same negative impact/blowback that "defund the police" did.

I think, rightly or wrongly, most people see the "bad cops" just a small number of the entire force, and they do not like the idea of going without the protection they get from the "good cops" if they "defunded the police". On the other hand, I think ICE is seen as bad all the way through at this point, given how common abuse is

(I should also point out that "defund the police" was a HORRIBLE slogan, which misrepresented what the ultimate goals were. A diversion of part of police budgets to alternative solutions (such as mental health professionals) made sense and I think most people would have agreed had it been explained to them, but "defunding the police" sounds like you want to eliminate all law enforcement and go to a wild-west solution.)

Also, the fact that ICE's leadership is pushing for irresponsible, illegal, and violent action needs taken into account. The whole organization is poisoned with immorality, at this point. Defund ICE is a popular sentiment among everyone who isn't MAGA.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, in this somewhat rare instance I agree with you, almost. I don't really think, though, that this is a "both sides" issue. One side rather more than the other is attacking the system and eroding trust with dubious regard for truth. The only way for "both sides" to stop blathering would be either for the attackers to relent or the defenders to give in. One of those alternatives seems a better one than the other.

It *is* a both sides issue, but the sides are taking extremely different approaches. One side says "oh no, there's massive fraud" and the other side says "Nothing could possibly go wrong". The reality is that the US has a fragmented voting system, with rules that vary by state, and some of those states have pretty lax citizenship verification processes. So even though provable voting by non-citizens is rare, it *can* happen, and it *could* become an issue. So it's in the interests of the country as a whole to strengthen those processes so that both sides can shut up and this is no longer something that anyone can narratize for political points.

 

[johnny karate]

In a particularly good year for Democrats. And I would point out that the unpopular positions are really only about trans "rights."

Democratic candidates like Mamdani explicitly ran on supporting trans rights. He even made a campaign video about it.

The confused elderly person you cited lied when he said Democrats didn't "aggressively push [their] cultural positions" in 2025. They absolutely did and they won elections doing it.

And yes, it was a good year for Democrats because they won elections. And they won elections by aggressively pushing their cultural positions, which includes support for trans rights.

The current ICE operations are clearly unpopular (and should be). That doesn't make open borders popular. "Abolish ice" is very similar to "defund the police;" a catchy slogan that may backfire on the Democrats.

"Open borders" is a right wing fever dream much like "too much transgenders stuff". Now that I have insight into the sources from where you draw your political opinions, I understand why you believe it.

And "Abolish ICE" was already popular before another protestor was murdered this weekend. There is zero indication it will backfire.

Seriously, stop pushing these ridiculous lies and delusions from some old, out of touch crank. It's embarrassing to watch.

 

[johnny karate]

It *is* a both sides issue, but the sides are taking extremely different approaches. One side says "oh no, there's massive fraud" and the other side says "Nothing could possibly go wrong". The reality is that the US has a fragmented voting system, with rules that vary by state, and some of those states have pretty lax citizenship verification processes. So even though provable voting by non-citizens is rare, it *can* happen, and it *could* become an issue. So it's in the interests of the country as a whole to strengthen those processes so that both sides can shut up and this is no longer something that anyone can narratize for political points.

Yes, if only we would give in to the demands of delusional people surely they will be satisfied and no longer bother us with their delusions.

Real galaxy-brained take.

 

[bruto]

It *is* a both sides issue, but the sides are taking extremely different approaches. One side says "oh no, there's massive fraud" and the other side says "Nothing could possibly go wrong". The reality is that the US has a fragmented voting system, with rules that vary by state, and some of those states have pretty lax citizenship verification processes. So even though provable voting by non-citizens is rare, it *can* happen, and it *could* become an issue. So it's in the interests of the country as a whole to strengthen those processes so that both sides can shut up and this is no longer something that anyone can narratize for political points.

If what you said were the case, I'd agree but I have not heard anyone say nothing could possibly go wrong. Rather that what has gone wrong was not what current movements for barriers to registration and voting address. I have heard that the accusation of fraud is bogus, and that the solutions proposed are worse than what has actually gone wrong, which is different. It may indeed be true that neither side is entirely correct or entirely blameless, but it really is only one party which has attempted to overthrow an election by invading the capitol and threatening violence to congress, attempted to mount false electors, has continued without evidence to assert that they cannot lose a fair election while in some instances admitting that they could not win a fair election.

That said, I agree in principle, along with arthwollipot, that it would be best for all if a truly secure process were found which is not only immune to fraud but immune to spurious claims of it, as long as it does not result in disenfranchisement of minorities and poorer voters. So far I have seen little evidence that efforts in that direction have been in good faith, and public statements by some have made it unhappily clear that the motivation is not fairness but its opposite.