What did Democrats do wrong?

[AmyStrange]

Thank you for acknowledging there can be no factual rebuttal of my prior statement on democratic subversion and voter disenfranchisement. You'd be hard pressed to find personal insult in any of my posts on the forum. I tend to communicate with facts rather than insult and emotion.

See, I was right. You are good at it. Unfortunately, that doesn't make any of it true, but nice try anyway.


-

 

[theprestige]

I agree with most of what you say, but don't you think 10 million voters not showing up had something to with it too?


-

The question is what the Democrats may have done to motivate them to stay home.

 

[AmyStrange]

The question is what the Democrats may have done to motivate them to stay home.

Now that's a good question, and one I don't have an answer to, except maybe it's because Harris is a woman, or maybe no one liked her policies, or maybe trump to them was the better choice of the two, or maybe they just thought she would win anyway, or maybe they believed the crap that the economy was bad, or maybe they were just plain lazy and didn't care.

I just don't know.


-

 

[Thermal]

I agree with most of what you say, but don't you think 10 million voters not showing up had something to with it too?

I'm more pissed at the other 70 million eligable voters who stayed home.

The 10 mil missing from the 2020 election (who never showed up for any prior election either) might have just said "you ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ let him on the ballot again??? ◊◊◊◊ you all, you're on your own ow"

 

[Hercules56]

The question is what the Democrats may have done to motivate them to stay home.

How many Democrats stayed home?

 

[theprestige]

How many Democrats stayed home?

About ten million, apparently. Why do you ask?

 

[Minoosh]

I agree with most of what you say, but don't you think 10 million voters not showing up had something to with it too?


-

Losing 10M votes matters - but *where* you lose them matters more than the raw number.

 

[Solitaire]

Well then, if the 10 million weren't dems, then wouldn't that mean they were all republicans who stayed home and decided not to vote?

2020 Early Vote By Party Registration
2024 Early Vote By Party Registration

As you can see, the early registered Republican Party members votes stayed the same, the early Non-affiliated stayed the same, but the early registered Democratic Party members votes went down about six million votes from 2020. I suspect a similar numbers for the late votes as well.


PS: Someone suggested that Biden step down from his presidency so Harris could become the first woman president. Well, I think that might be a bit presumptuous. Since the next guy to hold the office might try to get fake electors in and throw the vote to the other party on January 6.

 

[AmyStrange]

Losing 10M votes matters - but *where* you lose them matters more than the raw number.

I'm not saying you're wrong, Minoosh (I like that name), but until you can give me some solid numbers, you're not really saying anything. One thing that is obvious, is the numbers weren't enough to swing the swing states.


-

 

[AmyStrange]

2020 Early Vote By Party Registration
2024 Early Vote By Party Registration

As you can see, the early registered Republican Party members votes stayed the same, the early Non-affiliated stayed the same, but the early registered Democratic Party members votes went down about six million votes from 2020. I suspect a similar numbers for the late votes as well.


PS: Someone suggested that Biden step down from his presidency so Harris could become the first woman president. Well, I think that might be a bit presumptuous. Since the next guy to hold the office might try to get fake electors in and throw the vote to the other party on January 6.

Thanks Solitaire, and yes, I agree with your PS, and I also can't help but chuckle a little either.


-

 

[Tero]

They need focus groups. Of course we will have primaries next time. The problem is that undecideds decide elections, not primary voters. My new observation: voters do not want someone who looks and sounds 100% like a politician. They would prefer a conman.

 

[mumblethrax]

They need focus groups. Of course we will have primaries next time. The problem is that undecideds decide elections, not primary voters. My new observation: voters do not want someone who looks and sounds 100% like a politician. They would prefer a conman.

Maybe John Edwards can come out of retirement. All he needs is a bad comb-over.

 

[AmyStrange]

They need focus groups. Of course we will have primaries next time. The problem is that undecideds decide elections, not primary voters. My new observation: voters do not want someone who looks and sounds 100% like a politician. They would prefer a conman.

Maybe John Edwards can come out of retirement. All he needs is a bad comb-over.

I'm kind of partial to Al Franken myself. I mean, at least the debates would be hilarious, but what do I know?


-

 

[Solitaire]

Aside from inconvenient children, wokeness and all that, I'm getting the same from several message boards: the democrats have not helped us much for 30 years (Biden gave them cheap insulin) so we must punish them now by voting for Trump. Because they don't lose anything, they think? Or is just punishing Democrats enough for them? Why vote at all if there is nothing to gain? Just the vengeance? I really can't believe they thought Trump would bring prices down. They are that dumb?

The best way I have heard it put is, "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line." It's a different mentality.

 

[mumblethrax]

I'm kind of partial to Al Franken myself. I mean, at least the debates would be hilarious, but what do I know?

Yeah, but that's probably a good choice, rather than an extremely bad choice that would render the election not worth winning.

 

[AmyStrange]

Yeah, but that's probably a good choice, rather than an extremely bad choice that would render the election not worth winning.

Well, my fellow repubs can't attack him for what he did, because... well, because the maga weirdoes picked trump this time around, and he's definitely no shining example of the squeaky-clean politician, but like I said, what do I know?


-

 

[Minoosh]

I'm not saying you're wrong, Minoosh (I like that name), but until you can give me some solid numbers, you're not really saying anything. One thing that is obvious, is the numbers weren't enough to swing the swing states.


-

I'm not sure what you're asking for.

Assuming Trump keeps his popular vote totals in Pennsylvania, Georgia and Michigan, Kamala would need roughly 141,000 more votes in Pennsylvania, 117,000 more votes in Georgia and 80,000 more in Michigan to secure a 277-261 Electoral College win.

That's 338,000 more votes total.

If you're talking about getting the people who DID show up to change their votes, it's half that.

There are a lot of different ways to get there, this is a thumbnail sketch of one way, and if I've screwed up the math I'm sure someone will correct me.

The 10 million fewer votes she got than Biden is ... relevant, but not directly, mathematically, relevant in a 1:1 sort of way.

 

[AmyStrange]

I'm not sure what you're asking for.

Assuming Trump keeps his popular vote totals in Pennsylvania, Georgia and Michigan, Kamala would need roughly 141,000 more votes in Pennsylvania, 117,000 more votes in Georgia and 80,000 more in Michigan to secure a 277-261 Electoral College win.

That's 338,000 more votes total.

If you're talking about getting the people who DID show up to change their votes, it's half that.

There are a lot of different ways to get there, this is a thumbnail sketch of one way, and if I've screwed up the math I'm sure someone will correct me.

The 10 million fewer votes she got than Biden is ... relevant, but not directly, mathematically, relevant in a 1:1 sort of way.

Maybe, but come on, unless you can give me some solid numbers, 338,000 votes is a fraction of ten million, and are you telling me there is no way 300K couldn't come out of that?


-

 

[Ziggurat]

The best way I have heard it put is, "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line." It's a different mentality.

Nobody fell in love with Harris. She was appointed to the position of candidate, not selected by voters. And voters were just supposed to fall in line and vote for her anyways.

 

[AmyStrange]

Nobody fell in love with Harris. She was appointed to the position of candidate, not selected by voters. And voters were just supposed to fall in line and vote for her anyways.

Well, a lot of them did so what's your point?


-