What did Democrats do wrong?

[wareyin]

Well that's just odd, because I could swear I remember there being Democratic primaries last year 2 years ago (damn new years still messing with me), with Dean Phillips and Marianne Williamson and RFK Jr. initially running against Biden. But, d4m10n says they didn't happen, so who am I to judge?

 

[Puppycow]

Dean Phillips could have credibly run as a Democratic Party change candidate, but this is probably true of anyone other than the president, veep, and party operators already working within the incumbent administration. It would have been nice if one of the OP poll options was "Didn't hold competitive primaries to choose a new slate of candidates."

I think that technically most Democratic Party primary voters could have voted for Dean Phillips if they had wanted to. They didn't because voters tend to automatically vote for the sitting president.

 

[Puppycow]

Well that's just odd, because I could swear I remember there being Democratic primaries last year, with Dean Phillips and Marianne Williamson and RFK Jr. initially running against Biden. But, d4m10n says they didn't happen, so who am I to judge?

Not last year. Two years ago.

 

[Segnosaur]

It would have been nice if one of the OP poll options was "Didn't hold competitive primaries to choose a new slate of candidates."

I think the whole "lack of a primary" was really a non issue for a number of reasons.

First of all, the only people who think its a problem were MAGAchud who weren't going to vote for the democrats anyways. (I doubt very much whether there were a significant number of voters in 2024 who thought "I really dislike Trump because he is a racist felon, but I'll vote for him anyways because the Democrats didn't have a proper primary".)

Secondly, primaries themselves are a problem. They cost money to run (cash that could be better spent on the general election), and the infighting amongst candidates might leave the eventual winner damaged going into the general election.

Plus, since Biden withdrew rather late into the election cycle, the Democrats would have had to alter the primary process (restart things/condense the process and alter the schedule/etc.) And I am sure that whatever they did, the MAGAchud would still find a reason to complain. "Even though I was always going to vote for a racist con artist, I will pretend like I care about how the Democrats chose their leader and complain because the state primaries were too close together/didn't have enough time for candidates to plan/etc."

 

[Segnosaur]

Well that's just odd, because I could swear I remember there being Democratic primaries last year, with Dean Phillips and Marianne Williamson and RFK Jr. initially running against Biden. But, d4m10n says they didn't happen, so who am I to judge?

There were primaries of a sort. But, I think when people claim "no primaries", they are referring to the way Harris was selected as the nominee after Biden's withdrawal. (I have no problem with the way the Democrats handled the switch from Biden to Harris. But, I do recognize that it wasn't "standard" procedure.)

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think the whole "lack of a primary" was really a non issue for a number of reasons.

First of all, the only people who think its a problem were MAGAchud who weren't going to vote for the democrats anyways. (I doubt very much whether there were a significant number of voters in 2024 who thought "I really dislike Trump because he is a racist felon, but I'll vote for him anyways because the Democrats didn't have a proper primary".)

Secondly, primaries themselves are a problem. They cost money to run (cash that could be better spent on the general election), and the infighting amongst candidates might leave the eventual winner damaged going into the general election.

Plus, since Biden withdrew rather late into the election cycle, the Democrats would have had to alter the primary process (restart things/condense the process and alter the schedule/etc.) And I am sure that whatever they did, the MAGAchud would still find a reason to complain. "Even though I was always going to vote for a racist con artist, I will pretend like I care about how the Democrats chose their leader and complain because the state primaries were too close together/didn't have enough time for candidates to plan/etc."

Can you elaborate here?

This is pretty much coming across as you saying that primaries aren't perfect... so people should just suck it up and get used to not having any say in who represents their party. Which seems... kind of the opposite of the entire concept of democracy and representation.

 

[Brainster]

I think the whole "lack of a primary" was really a non issue for a number of reasons.

First of all, the only people who think its a problem were MAGAchud who weren't going to vote for the democrats anyways. (I doubt very much whether there were a significant number of voters in 2024 who thought "I really dislike Trump because he is a racist felon, but I'll vote for him anyways because the Democrats didn't have a proper primary".)

Secondly, primaries themselves are a problem. They cost money to run (cash that could be better spent on the general election), and the infighting amongst candidates might leave the eventual winner damaged going into the general election.

Plus, since Biden withdrew rather late into the election cycle, the Democrats would have had to alter the primary process (restart things/condense the process and alter the schedule/etc.) And I am sure that whatever they did, the MAGAchud would still find a reason to complain. "Even though I was always going to vote for a racist con artist, I will pretend like I care about how the Democrats chose their leader and complain because the state primaries were too close together/didn't have enough time for candidates to plan/etc."

I agree with you on the last point; I was one of the posters who insisted the Democrats had to go with Harris after the debate debacle. Given the timing of Biden's withdrawal there was no way the Democrats could hold some sort of mini-primary. And the optics would have been terrible, since the only reason for having it would have been to get rid of Harris.

Of course, if Biden had announced he was not running for re-election in mid-2023, the Democrats would have held their primaries, with all their top candidates running. I tend to think that would have resulted in a stronger candidate, one that had been battle-tested. Yes, primaries cost money and result in infighting, but what do you suggest otherwise? That we go back to the days where the candidate was largely selected by party elders, with the primaries mostly being trial heats to see if the nominee could get people to actually vote for them? I don't mind saying that might be preferable to leaving it up to the rabble.

 

[ahhell]

I think the whole "lack of a primary" was really a non issue for a number of reasons.

First of all, the only people who think its a problem were MAGAchud who weren't going to vote for the democrats anyways. (I doubt very much whether there were a significant number of voters in 2024 who thought "I really dislike Trump because he is a racist felon, but I'll vote for him anyways because the Democrats didn't have a proper primary".)

Secondly, primaries themselves are a problem. They cost money to run (cash that could be better spent on the general election), and the infighting amongst candidates might leave the eventual winner damaged going into the general election.

Plus, since Biden withdrew rather late into the election cycle, the Democrats would have had to alter the primary process (restart things/condense the process and alter the schedule/etc.) And I am sure that whatever they did, the MAGAchud would still find a reason to complain. "Even though I was always going to vote for a racist con artist, I will pretend like I care about how the Democrats chose their leader and complain because the state primaries were too close together/didn't have enough time for candidates to plan/etc."

I think the lack of primary was a problem. For two reasons. 1. There were probably some folks that just didn't vote or voted green on account of feeling disenfranchised. I don't think that was a big factor but it was a close election so almost everything mattered. 2. If they'd had a primary they would have had a candidate who was better at running for office and getting folks out to vote for them. Without a primary they ended up with a nominee that was one of the least popular candidates from the previous elections.

Primaries are a problem though. We should scrap the whole system and go back to smoke filled rooms like every other democracy in the world.

 

[dirtywick]

i agree with brainster that the primaries would have to be predicated on biden not running or dropping out earlier and would add it's also due to the way the finances work. from what i understand harris was able to use the funds he had amassed and another candidate would have to start from scratch.

in any case, literally any other likely dem candidate was also unpopular and had a list of weaknesses. none of them poll well.

but seeing what newsome has been up to lately, i think he would have done well if biden had dropped and he had been the nominee. i think he had the right idea on how to handle trump.

 

[ahhell]

i agree with brainster that the primaries would have to be predicated on biden not running or dropping out earlier and would add it's also due to the way the finances work. from what i understand harris was able to use the funds he had amassed and another candidate would have to start from scratch.

in any case, literally any other likely dem candidate was also unpopular and had a list of weaknesses. none of them poll well.

but seeing what newsome has been up to lately, i think he would have done well if biden had dropped and he had been the nominee. i think he had the right idea on how to handle trump.

I agree with most of that, but I don't think a CA dem will perform well nationwide as rule. The are easy to paint as to lefty for America and more importantly haven't experience competitive general elections, for the most part. Newsom would have done better than Harris though so might have one.

As I've said, the most important thing the Dems did wrong was having Biden run but that was Bidens fault not the Dems generally. Once he decided to run, they were pretty screwed.

 

[dirtywick]

I agree with most of that, but I don't think a CA dem will perform well nationwide as rule. The are easy to paint as to lefty for America and more importantly haven't experience competitive general elections, for the most part. Newsom would have done better than Harris though so might have one.

As I've said, the most important thing the Dems did wrong was having Biden run but that was Bidens fault not the Dems generally. Once he decided to run, they were pretty screwed.

i just think newsome specifically has done what i think is the best way to handle trump, which is mockery on social media, turn it against him. i think trump can't handle being mocked, and newsome starting doing it and a lot of people really resonated with that. trump is ridiculous, so ridicule him. he's a bully, so bully him.

at the time of course, newsome was very unpopular and probably wouldn't have won the primary, and no guarantee he would have done that had he won.

 

[Segnosaur]

Can you elaborate here?

This is pretty much coming across as you saying that primaries aren't perfect... so people should just suck it up and get used to not having any say in who represents their party. Which seems... kind of the opposite of the entire concept of democracy and representation.

Primaries are a necessary evil in the U.S. political system. Yes, under most years they serve the required function (even with their problems... the money spent, the eventual damage to the winning candidate, etc.).

But, the 2024 election was abnormal. Biden dropping out (and at such a late stage) threw everything into chaos. Yes, they COULD have held primaries after Biden dropped out, but it would have been a huge mess.

Which seems... kind of the opposite of the entire concept of democracy and representation.

Well, given the fact that eventually there was going to be a general election, the lack of a full Democratic primary does not mean that democracy had "failed" in any way.

 

[Segnosaur]

I agree with you on the last point; I was one of the posters who insisted the Democrats had to go with Harris after the debate debacle. Given the timing of Biden's withdrawal there was no way the Democrats could hold some sort of mini-primary. And the optics would have been terrible, since the only reason for having it would have been to get rid of Harris.

Of course, if Biden had announced he was not running for re-election in mid-2023, the Democrats would have held their primaries, with all their top candidates running. I tend to think that would have resulted in a stronger candidate, one that had been battle-tested. Yes, primaries cost money and result in infighting, but what do you suggest otherwise? That we go back to the days where the candidate was largely selected by party elders, with the primaries mostly being trial heats to see if the nominee could get people to actually vote for them? I don't mind saying that might be preferable to leaving it up to the rabble.

I don't think the Democrats should scrap the concept of primaries (although with the possibility of minor improvements.). Just that the circumstances for 2024 made the problems of holding them worse.

 

[dirtywick]

i mean, the republican primaries were kind of a joke too so it's not like the concept of having a proper primary is the reason for anything. a primary may have resulted in a better candidate is fair. that the people were pissed they didn't hold a primary at all and that they didn't respect the ritual of the primary process, i don't buy that for that reason.

 

[Segnosaur]

As I've said, the most important thing the Dems did wrong was having Biden run but that was Bidens fault not the Dems generally. Once he decided to run, they were pretty screwed.

I think this has been discussed before...

Yes, ultimately biden deciding to run in 2024 ultimately was a problem. But, it didn't seem as hair-brained as it seems.

There is usually an advantage to having an incumbent run for re-election.... most of the skeletons in his closet would have probably been exposed, and having the candidate wandering around the globe on air force one leads to some prestiege. (His poor debate performance that triggered his withdrawal might have been unexpected.)

 

[Segnosaur]

I think the whole "lack of a primary" was really a non issue for a number of reasons.

First of all, the only people who think its a problem were MAGAchud who weren't going to vote for the democrats anyways. (I doubt very much whether there were a significant number of voters in 2024 who thought "I really dislike Trump because he is a racist felon, but I'll vote for him anyways because the Democrats didn't have a proper primary".)

I think the lack of primary was a problem. For two reasons. 1. There were probably some folks that just didn't vote or voted green on account of feeling disenfranchised. I don't think that was a big factor but it was a close election so almost everything mattered.

If they felt that way, then they are complete and total idiots. Almost as brain damaged as the MAGAchud who voted for a convicted felon and wannabe fascist.

Also, i suspect that had they had a quick-and-dirty ad-hoc primary, people still would have sat out or not voted for the eventual candidate if "Their guy" lost. (Let the 2016 election be your guide. Despite it being an overall fair primary, there were plenty of bernie Bros who decided not to vote for Clinton. Plus, look at all the accusations that were tossed around... "Hillary rigged the primaries", etc.. Of course things would have been so much worse in 2024 given how they'd be arranging things pretty quickly.)

2. If they'd had a primary they would have had a candidate who was better at running for office and getting folks out to vote for them. Without a primary they ended up with a nominee that was one of the least popular candidates from the previous elections.

There is no guarantee they would have picked a "better candidate".

Harris being a former VP probably would have given her an edge had they had an open primary. Plus, the reduced timeframe might have limited the number of potential candidates.

So the most likely scenario if they did hold an "open primary" is that Harris still becomes the eventual candidate, which might (in theory) make those "disenfranchised voters" you think exist happy, but with Harris more damaged politically, and now they have less money to spend on the general election campaign.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That we go back to the days where the candidate was largely selected by party elders, with the primaries mostly being trial heats to see if the nominee could get people to actually vote for them? I don't mind saying that might be preferable to leaving it up to the rabble.

Primaries are a problem though. We should scrap the whole system and go back to smoke filled rooms like every other democracy in the world.

"Shoosh you serfs, we will tell you who your leader will be. It's not up to you rabble to have a say in who makes decisions on your behalf"

Not quite as freedom-loving and democracy-valuing as I would hope.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't think the Democrats should scrap the concept of primaries (although with the possibility of minor improvements.). Just that the circumstances for 2024 made the problems of holding them worse.

I dunno. I suppose registered Dems can decided to do whatever the hell they want. But for a party that is supposedly taking a stance against tyranny, dictators, and fascism and says that they value democracy, this seems kind of like going in the wrong direction.

I'll also say that from the perspective of a registered independent with no party loyalty... It really seems like the Dems forced Clinton on voters because it was "her turn". Biden was actually the front-runner in a real primary without a lot of shenanigans, and won. Prior to 2024, the dems really should have just had a candid sit-down with Biden and refused to back them, because he was unfit. The "Oh he's smart as a tack, don't look behind the curtain" paired with the last-minute drop out and "Oh, here you can have Harris!" despite Harris not having been a strong candidate in the prior run was just bad strategy all around - and I think it made a whole lot of dems and a lot of independents sit out. And that resulted in Trump again.

Don't do that ◊◊◊◊ to us again, please.

 

[johnny karate]

I dunno. I suppose registered Dems can decided to do whatever the hell they want. But for a party that is supposedly taking a stance against tyranny, dictators, and fascism and says that they value democracy, this seems kind of like going in the wrong direction.

I'll also say that from the perspective of a registered independent with no party loyalty... It really seems like the Dems forced Clinton on voters because it was "her turn". Biden was actually the front-runner in a real primary without a lot of shenanigans, and won. Prior to 2024, the dems really should have just had a candid sit-down with Biden and refused to back them, because he was unfit. The "Oh he's smart as a tack, don't look behind the curtain" paired with the last-minute drop out and "Oh, here you can have Harris!" despite Harris not having been a strong candidate in the prior run was just bad strategy all around - and I think it made a whole lot of dems and a lot of independents sit out. And that resulted in Trump again.

Don't do that ◊◊◊◊ to us again, please.

If you chose to sit out the last election, that's on you.

Be an adult and take responsibility for yourself.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I agree with you on the last point; I was one of the posters who insisted the Democrats had to go with Harris after the debate debacle. Given the timing of Biden's withdrawal there was no way the Democrats could hold some sort of mini-primary. And the optics would have been terrible, since the only reason for having it would have been to get rid of Harris.

Of course, if Biden had announced he was not running for re-election in mid-2023, the Democrats would have held their primaries, with all their top candidates running. I tend to think that would have resulted in a stronger candidate, one that had been battle-tested. Yes, primaries cost money and result in infighting, but what do you suggest otherwise? That we go back to the days where the candidate was largely selected by party elders, with the primaries mostly being trial heats to see if the nominee could get people to actually vote for them? I don't mind saying that might be preferable to leaving it up to the rabble.

Largely reflective of my take on this. The media coverage just didn't.... help the situation. The situation of them pretty much being forced to run Harris came about from them not recognizing Biden's weakened position until it was utterly too late to find anyone better. Effectively high stakes procrastination.