What did Democrats do wrong?

[Grizzly Bear]

A) I'm not a a candidate trying to win an election.

B) Make an argument that voting to put an anti-vaxxer in charge of public health doesn't suck. I dare you.

Campaigning is essentially just glorified marketing. If you run on one criteria and garner on all the focus on it... that can swing voters into caring little about their individual components. I remember seeing somewhere an argument that made sense to compare this to... people care about the basics first... food on the table, paying the bills... if they have those concerns prioritized, then they move onto their secondary and tertiary priorities... thats an appropriate description albeit highly simplified of ahhells' point.

 

[johnny karate]

Campaigning is essentially just glorified marketing. If you run on one criteria and garner on all the focus on it... that can swing voters into caring little about their individual components. I remember seeing somewhere an argument that made sense to compare this to... people care about the basics first... food on the table, paying the bills... if they have those concerns prioritized, then they move onto their secondary and tertiary priorities...

I agree. Trump ran on spite and grievance. That's what people prioritized and that's why he won.

 

[Ziggurat]

Fair point. But the crux of my point is that if we're discussing what Democrats did wrong, the perceptions people have of them that are not rooted in reality do not belong in that discussion.

That's rather obviously wrong. If there is a widespread view of your candidate that is wrong and detrimental, and you don't act to dispel that view, then you're making an error. Complaining that the view is wrong and people shouldn't have that view doesn't make up for the mistake of not actually countering it.

But of course, you haven't even established that the view of Harris being in favor of gender ideology is wrong.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm not a democrat, I don't message for them. The American people are ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ dumb, and getting dumber. We're getting what we want, and what we deserve. A nation run by morons and klepto's who literally tell us thats who they are.

Serious question here: Would you accept this type of hasty generalization of such a negative sort toward the citizens of any other country?

Would you feel it acceptable to say "The Afghani people are ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ dumb and getting dumber, they're getting what they want and what they deserve"? Or "The Greek people are ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ dumb and getting dumber, and they're getting what they deserve"?

For which countries do you think it's acceptable to make such a broadly contemptuous statement?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I agree. Trump ran on spite and grievance. That's what people prioritized and that's why he won.

It stands to reason that losing against him was also preventable if the party had addressed issues in both the quality of its own candidates and its messaging of how they would proceed differently to address voters.

It very well maybe you can blame voters for sitting things out. But at the same time ignoring why they sat it out would be ignoring the issues that demotivated them in the first place.

 

[d4m10n]

Dems did not campaign on trans issues.

OP doesn't limit itself to campaigning.

Several of the options in the poll are matters of policy which have to be accomplished (if at all) via the political process during the four year span of the Biden/Harris administration.

Voters are allowed (and perhaps should be encouraged) to judge candidates based on what they actually got done rather than what they said they'd do during the campaign.

 

[johnny karate]

That's rather obviously wrong. If there is a widespread view of your candidate that is wrong and detrimental, and you don't act to dispel that view, then you're making an error. Complaining that the view is wrong and people shouldn't have that view doesn't make up for the mistake of not actually countering it.

But of course, you haven't even established that the view of Harris being in favor of gender ideology is wrong.

What’s factually wrong is how the Republicans presented the issue: with lies and conspiracy theories.

Framing this as a Democrat problem is a red herring because Harris, once again for the cheap seats, did not run this issue.

 

[johnny karate]

Serious question here: Would you accept this type of hasty generalization of such a negative sort toward the citizens of any other country?

Would you feel it acceptable to say "The Afghani people are ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ dumb and getting dumber, they're getting what they want and what they deserve"? Or "The Greek people are ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ dumb and getting dumber, and they're getting what they deserve"?

For which countries do you think it's acceptable to make such a broadly contemptuous statement?

The one that just voted for putting an anti-vaxxer in charge of public health is pretty high on my list.

 

[d4m10n]

Framing this as a Democrat problem is a red herring because Harris, once again for the cheap seats, did not run this issue.

Once again, for those in the cheap seats, the OP doesn't limit discussion to the campaign itself.

Voters are allowed to consider whether, for example, whether the Biden/Harris administration made huge strides towards allowing males into female spaces on day one of his administration: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...sis-of-gender-identity-or-sexual-orientation/

 

[johnny karate]

It stands to reason that losing against him was also preventable if the party had addressed issues in both the quality of its own candidates and its messaging of how they would proceed differently to address voters.

It very well maybe you can blame voters for sitting things out. But at the same time ignoring why they sat it out would be ignoring the issues that demotivated them in the first place.

If preventing polio from making a comeback isn't enough to get someone off their ass and participate in the election process, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe a couple more interviews of disaffected people in a rust-belt diner will finally unravel this mystery.

 

[johnny karate]

Once again, for those in the cheap seats, the OP doesn't limit discussion to the campaign itself.

Voters are allowed to consider whether, for example, whether the Biden/Harris administration made huge strides towards allowing males into female spaces on day one of his administration: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...sis-of-gender-identity-or-sexual-orientation/

Yes, I'm sure the voters who supported election denial conspiracy theories and anti-vaxxersim did a real deep dive on this issue past "Schools are secretly performing gender reassignment surgeries on children!". It's clearly a demographic that exhibits a penchant for intellectualism and data-driven research.

 

[Emily's Cat]

there's too many times where a harris mistake that cost her the election is something trump is doing but cranked up to 11. i can think of a few reasons why there's a double standard and you could have that debate, but does anyone not think the double standard exists?

I get where you're coming from, but I think you're making a mistake in your assumptions - specifically, you're assuming that supporters hold the same views for both candidates.

Consider... some people like hot dogs and some people like tuna fish sandwiches. I know, weird starting point, but bear with me.

If a hot dog company starts making bigger hot dogs, that's not a turn off to people who like hot dogs. And it has not particular impact on people who like tuna sandwiches - they already dislike hot dogs, why do they care if the hot dogs they're already not eating get bigger?

On the other hand, if tuna fish companies start making hot dog flavored tuna it's probably not going to be attractive to tuna fans. Even if they make hot dog shaped tuna fish, it could still turn off tuna supporters. Not all of them, because it's still tuna, and some people really love tuna fish.

Now here's the kicker: Some people like hot dogs sometimes and tuna sandwiches other times. If tuna fish companies start making hot dog flavored tuna too much, it's going to have an effect on those sometimes people. If it gets to a point where the shelves are full of hot dog flavored cans of tuna, and it's difficult to find regular old tuna flavored tuna... those sometimes people are likely to just stop buying tuna altogether. If they're in the mood for hot dogs, they're just going to buy hot dogs.

All that is to say that I don't think it's actually a double standard. It can only be a double standard if the standard itself is consistent. But it's not - Democrats and Republicans aren't apples to apples. They're not even apples to grapefruit most of the time, and over the past few years they're much more like apples and hyenas.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Campaigning is essentially just glorified marketing. If you run on one criteria and garner on all the focus on it... that can swing voters into caring little about their individual components. I remember seeing somewhere an argument that made sense to compare this to... people care about the basics first... food on the table, paying the bills... if they have those concerns prioritized, then they move onto their secondary and tertiary priorities... thats an appropriate description albeit highly simplified of ahhells' point.

Maslow's heirarchy

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Framing this as a Democrat problem is a red herring because Harris, once again for the cheap seats, did not run this isissue.

It's not a red herring. Democrats ran a guy that was in serious decline. And didn't run any preparations or primary to find a better candidate. Then they hastily forced him to drop out and appointed his VP who struggled to communicate on a basic level. I'm not saying this to bash them... its one of numerous issues that faltered the party. Playing ignorant to the issues got them caught with their pants down and reeling from it. I ln fact there was a point in which Kamala had good momentum on her side. But she lost steam through further unforced errors after she took over the nomination.

Trump was not a great candidate. He was a bad candidate pitted against another bad candidate and an opposition that was caught with its pants down.

One does not need to be a Trump thumper to point this out

 

[johnny karate]

It's not a red herring. Democrats ran a guy that was in serious decline. And didn't run any preparations or primary to find a better candidate. Then they hastily forced him to drop out and appointed his VP who struggled to communicate on a basic level. I'm not saying this to bash them... its one of numerous issues that faltered the party. Playing ignorant to the issues got them caught with their pants down and reeling from it. I ln fact there was a point in which Kamala had good momentum on her side. But she lost steam through further unforced errors after she took over the nomination.

Trump was not a great candidate. He was a bad candidate pitted against another bad candidate and an opposition that was caught with its pants down.

One does not need to be a Trump thumper to point this out

Trump is a convicted felon who did nothing but spout lies and conspiracy theories to appeal to the base instincts of people who have been programmed for decades to believe that Democrats are blood-drinking pedophiles who steal elections and hide tracking microchips in vaccines. Presenting Trump as just a "bad candidate" who ran a better campaign has taken an already dishonest framing and made it more dishonest.

The simple fact is: People wanted what Trump was selling, and they were going to vote for him no matter what he did, no matter what he said, and no matter who was running against him. They voted for the ugliness and the hatred because that's what they wanted.

 

[Donal]

OP doesn't limit itself to campaigning.

Several of the options in the poll are matters of policy which have to be accomplished (if at all) via the political process during the four year span of the Biden/Harris administration.

Voters are allowed (and perhaps should be encouraged) to judge candidates based on what they actually got done rather than what they said they'd do during the campaign.

Except voters didn't do that. They lost their ◊◊◊◊ about inflation and the price of eggs, despite the US having lower inflation and gas prices than the rest of the developed world, the Biden administration going after corporations for price gouging, and the previous adminsitration's blown COVID response adding to the inflation in the first place.

Plus, voters can vote however the hell they want. I'm also allowed to point out how their reasoning is dumb.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Trump is a convicted felon who did nothing but spout lies and conspiracy theories to appeal to the base instincts of people who have been programmed for decades to believe that Democrats are blood-drinking pedophiles who steal elections and hide tracking microchips in vaccines. Presenting Trump as just a "bad candidate" who ran a better campaign has taken an already dishonest framing and made it more dishonest.

The simple fact is: People wanted what Trump was selling, and they were going to vote for him no matter what he did, no matter what he said, and no matter who was running against him. They voted for the ugliness and the hatred because that's what they wanted.

Trump would have lost with or without those charges if the democratic candidates and messaging were even marginally better.

You seem adamant it's all the voters stupidity and has nothing to do with the party's candidate or their many choices in the election cycle despite it being documented.... no matter what...

I'm not the only one observing that your reasoning is flawed. But as long as you're unwilling to get into that there's not much point running around in circles.

 

[d4m10n]

Except voters didn't do that. They lost their ◊◊◊◊ about inflation and the price of eggs...

Voters who voted on inflation were not voting on campaign messaging but on incumbent performance; you are literally making my point for me here.

 

[d4m10n]

Yes, I'm sure the voters who supported election denial conspiracy theories and anti-vaxxersim did a real deep dive on this issue past "Schools are secretly performing gender reassignment surgeries on children!". It's clearly a demographic that exhibits a penchant for intellectualism and data-driven research.

You are free to claim swing voters were thinking more about conspiracy theories and anti-vax than, say, inflation and immigration. As a fellow skeptic, though, you shouldn't expect us to just believe you. If you want to make claims about what actually swung the election, you need to give us data rather than snark.

"Schools are secretly performing gender reassignment surgeries on children!" - A. Straw Mann

 

[johnny karate]

Trump would have lost with or without those charges if the democratic candidates and messaging were even marginally better.

You seem adamant it's all the voters stupidity and has nothing to do with the party's candidate or their many choices in the election cycle despite it being documented.... no matter what...

I'm not the only one observing that your reasoning is flawed. But as long as you're unwilling to get into that there's not much point running around in circles.

No, you're not the only one claiming my reasoning is flawed, along with also not being the only one unable to explain how my reasoning is flawed in a way that doesn't deny reality and observable fact.