What did Democrats do wrong?

[ChrisBFRPKY]

You're welcome, and BTW, I'm not a democrat, so your statement doesn't concern me in the least.


-

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


-

If I'm meant to choose, I think I like the top one better.

 

[AmyStrange]

If I'm meant to choose, I think I like the top one better.

Me too and thank you.


-

 

[Ziggurat]

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

That it's an example of Democrats falling in line instead of falling in love, and that contradicts Solitaire's claim that this is the pattern for Republicans rather than Democrats.

 

[AmyStrange]

That it's an example of Democrats falling in line instead of falling in love, and that contradicts Solitaire's claim that this is the pattern for Republicans rather than Democrats.

Yeah, so what? You're just grasping at straws now... bwahahahaha


-

 

[AmyStrange]

That it's an example of Democrats falling in line instead of falling in love, and that contradicts Solitaire's claim that this is the pattern for Republicans rather than Democrats.

FYI, I didn't fall in line, because I'm not a dem. I'm a reasonable republican and a veteran who voted for Harris. I hate trump because of the stupid, nasty crap he said about my fellow vets, and as a bonus, she was a much better candidate. As a matter of fact, I actually have more respect for Vance because at least he served, but that doesn't make him any less of a maga weirdo for following the hypocritical, veteran-hating liar called trump.


-

 

[Minoosh]

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?


-

I just gave you solid numbers? Seriously, what about those numbers is not solid?

Also, please, try not to misrepresent my position.

I never said "300K couldn't have come out of" ten million.

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

You wanted "solid numbers," I gave you an example, I compiled it for my own edification because when I'm trying to tease out understanding I don't want to wait for some bloviating twat to get around to it. I have no idea why you so seem invested in this idea that I'm dismissing lower-than-hoped-for voter turnout.

I'm just trying to look at the numbers to see what hurt her most at clutch time. That's how competitions work. The failure to get out 10 million votes includes the failure to get out 338,000 votes but we remember what happened at the buzzer. Her campaign apparently didn't do a very good job following up with people who'd requested mail-in/absentee ballots. The Republicans texted me like 25 times reminding me to turn in my ballot. (I'm a registered Republican.) They threatened to shame me in front of my neighbors. I sent them highly personalized answers after which they would unsubscribe me but the various organizations kept coming.

What I've seen supports Bernie Sanders' screed about the working class feeling abandoned, and it doesn't support the idea that vocal support of abortion rights suppressed Democratic turnout.

 

[AmyStrange]

I just gave you solid numbers? Seriously, what about those numbers is not solid?

Also, please, try not to misrepresent my position.

I never said "300K couldn't have come out of" ten million.

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

You wanted "solid numbers," I gave you an example, I compiled it for my own edification because when I'm trying to tease out understanding I don't want to wait for some bloviating twat to get around to it. I have no idea why you so seem invested in this idea that I'm dismissing lower-than-hoped-for voter turnout.

I'm just trying to look at the numbers to see what hurt her most at clutch time. That's how competitions work. The failure to get out 10 million votes includes the failure to get out 338,000 votes but we remember what happened at the buzzer. Her campaign apparently didn't do a very good job following up with people who'd requested mail-in/absentee ballots. The Republicans texted me like 25 times reminding me to turn in my ballot. (I'm a registered Republican.) They threatened to shame me in front of my neighbors. I sent them highly personalized answers after which they would unsubscribe me but the various organizations kept coming.

What I've seen supports Bernie Sanders' screed about the working class feeling abandoned, and it doesn't support the idea that vocal support of abortion rights suppressed Democratic turnout

I'm not saying that I don't agree with you, but none of that disproves my belief that Harris lost because 10 million voters didn't vote.


-

 

[Minoosh]

I'm not saying I don't agree with you, but none of that disproves my belief that Harris lost because 10 million voters didn't vote.


-

Because only one thing can be true at a time ...

 

[AmyStrange]

Because only one thing can be true at a time ...

I don't even know what that means?


-

 

[AmyStrange]

Because only one thing can be true at a time ...

Are you saying positively that Harris didn't lose because 10 million voters didn't vote?

Because in that case, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I believe that's what happened, and you haven't convinced me one bit that it didn't.


-

 

[Minoosh]

I've identified one pathway to Harris getting enough votes to win. What I'm saying does not contradict what you're saying, and I think it's odd that you keep insisting it does.

She didn't need a 10-million vote margin, though; she could have won a completely legitimate victory with a fraction of that, but yes, the electorate the Democrats may have taken for granted did not quite materialize which should tell them something.

It's a tautology to say she lost because she didn't get enough votes. Yes, and? Why didn't she?

 

[Tero]

Me on another forum on the same topic:
You can try to create a general environment where there is not so much hate.
But masses of people…young men, Latinos, wannabe libertarians, incels, Joe Rogan fans…are not interested in politics. The president is just a guy that seems to lead the country but what he does is not all that clear. Something vaguely like West Wing. So these people have to make some bond with the presidential candidate on some weak evidence. Trump dancing to YMCA, AOC and her cheerful leading of progressive ideas. Left, right…not a big deal. They relate to the candidate the same as to an entertainer.

 

[Tero]

Are you saying positively that Harris didn't lose because 10 million voters didn't vote?

Because in that case, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I believe that's what happened, and you haven't convinced me one bit that it didn't.


-

Why the low numbers for Harris? I actually blame the media and polling. Poll results became such a common news item this time that many folks came to realize that Harris would win in their state. They thought she would win the election without them. Why vote? The had no interest in the congressional races, apparently.

 

[AmyStrange]

Why the low numbers for Harris? I actually blame the media and polling. Poll results became such a common news item this time that many folks came to realize that Harris would win in their state. They thought she would win the election without them. Why vote? The had no interest in the congressional races, apparently.

I don't know, but your explanation is as good as any. The problem was her numbers weren't that good nationally, at least according to 538 website anyway.


-

 

[Thermal]

Harris's numbers were not low. They were millions higher than the average American turnout, which in this century has been in the 60 millions per side.

2020 saw a blowout turnout. 2024 saw a huge turnout (by our standards) but a lot of that doorbusting 2020 bunch didn't bother this time, the same way they usually don't bother.

ETA: not only were VP Harris's numbers not low, but they would have won her any election in history except this one and the last one. This turnout was the second largest in US history.

 

[AmyStrange]

Harris's numbers were not low. They were millions higher than the average American turnout, which in this century has been in the 60 millions per side.

2020 saw a blowout turnout. 2024 saw a huge turnout (by our standards) but a lot of that doorbusting 2020 bunch didn't bother this time, the same way they usually don't bother.

True, but they were still lower than 2020 by ten million.


-

 

[Thermal]

True, but they were still lower than 2020 by ten million.

Right (or almost so- the gap continues to close as votes keep coming in).

2020 saw like 20 million additional voters more than usual (split between the two candidates) so I'm not sure it's fair to use that as a comparison. It was also during COVID, when people were watching a whole lot more TV and maybe paying attention more, and with mail-in ballots, maybe gave a ◊◊◊◊ for the first and only time in their lives about politics.

ETA: although it is a fair question to ask why they felt like it wasn't worth it to vote this time around. But a solid third of eligible voters don't do so every year. I guess the 2020 Harris voters were like swing voters, and swung back over to Team Apathetic.

 

[AmyStrange]

Right (or almost so- the gap continues to close as votes keep coming in).

2020 saw like 20 million additional voters more than usual (split between the two candidates) so I'm not sure it's fair to use that as a comparison. It was also during COVID, when people were watching a whole lot more TV and maybe paying attention more, and with mail-in ballots, maybe gave a ◊◊◊◊ for the first and only time in their lives about politics.

ETA: although it is a fair question to ask why they felt like it wasn't worth it to vote this time around. But a solid third of eligible voters don't do so every year. I guess the 2020 Harris voters were like swing voters, and swung back over to Team Apathetic.

I agree with all of that and thank you.


-

 

[Hercules56]

ALL voters should have the option of early voting by mail, for any reason.

They must request the ballot themselves.

Once we implement that in all 50 states, then we can figure out what the Dems did wrong.

 

[Brainster]

Matt Yglesias decides to pass on doing the autopsy, and instead sets forth nine principles that the Democrats should rally behind if they want to start winning more often:

1. Economic self-interest for the working class includes both robust economic growth and a robust social safety net.
2. The government should prioritize maintaining functional public systems and spaces over tolerating anti-social behavior.
3. Climate change — and pollution more broadly — is a reality to manage, not a hard limit to obey.
4. We should, in fact, judge people by the content of their character rather than by the color of their skin, rejecting discrimination and racial profiling without embracing views that elevate anyone’s identity groups over their individuality.
5. Race is a social construct, but biological sex is not. Policy must acknowledge that reality and uphold people’s basic freedom to live as they choose.
6. Academic and nonprofit work does not occupy a unique position of virtue relative to private business or any other jobs.
7. Politeness is a virtue, but obsessive language policing alienates most people and degrades the quality of thinking.
8. Public services and institutions like schools deserve adequate funding, and they must prioritize the interests of their users, not their workforce or abstract ideological projects.
9. All people have equal moral worth, but democratic self-government requires the American government to prioritize the interests of American citizens.

Pretty much agree with all of these.