What did Democrats do wrong?

[Brainster]

"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.

Letting the rabble make the decision turned the Republican Party over to Donald Trump. I think both parties should consider going back to the system as it existed prior to 1972, where the primaries weren't the end of the nominating contest, but the beginning. This would work to moderate the candidates.

 

[wareyin]

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.

For someone taking the rather silly stance that a lack of a primary is akin to "tyranny, dictatorship, and facism," it is a wild take to then admit you’re an independent who doesn't even participate in them (as most states have closed primaries). You’re complaining about the menu of a restaurant you refuse to step foot in.

Clinton wasn't "forced" on anyone. She won the popular vote and the pledged delegates because Democratic voters showed up and chose her. If you wanted a different candidate to represent you but didn't show up to vote for them, that’s not a failure of the establishment, that’s on you.

Democracy requires more than just sitting on the sidelines and lobbing critiques. If you want a candidate that represents you, then get off your ass, join a party, and vote in a primary. If you’re just going to sit out and let everyone else do the work of picking a candidate for you, your claims that primaries are the be all and end all of democracy ring hollow.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

it is a wild take to then admit you’re an independent who doesn't even participate in them (as most states have closed primaries).

Checking on this, I learned that 20 US states have open primaries, while 8 more have semi-open primaries, in which voters registered as independent can vote in any primary, but voters who registered by declaring a political party can vote only in that party's primaries. So, in a slight majority of states, registered independents can vote in primaries.

 

[wareyin]

Checking on this, I learned that 20 US states have open primaries, while 8 more have semi-open primaries, in which voters registered as independent can vote in any primary, but voters who registered by declaring a political party can vote only in that party's primaries. So, in a slight majority of states, registered independents can vote in primaries.

I think that by "declaring a political party" one is no longer an independent though.

 

[Segnosaur]

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.

Again, that's really dumb logic. If a person truly thinks "I don't like the fact that the Dems didn't run a full primary under questionable circumstances so I will vote for a guy who openly wants to destroy democracy", I doubt there was much chance of them voting Democrat in the first place.

However "undemocratic" someone thinks the selection of Harris was as Democratic leader, it pales in comparison with the republican candidate, who tried to overthrow the previous election and had ties to the pro-fascist Project 2025. They just want to use the lack of a full democratic primary to justify their pro-fascist vote.

(Same goes if they decided to either sit out, or vote for a 3rd party, since the threat posed by Trump was significant enough that everyone should have been behind the democrats..)

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".

You see, this is the type of crap that I was talking about.

Overall, Clinton was a good candidate. Had a background in law, served as both a senator AND in Obama's cabinet. Long time member of the Democratic party. Her chief rival was Sanders, a man who wasn't even a member of the Democratic party for most of his political life. The fact that Democratic voters might have thought "Hey, lets vote for someone who we know we can work with rather than this outsider who is trying to hijack the party" seems like a strange idea to some people.

Yet somehow this gets morphed into "She only got in because it was 'her turn'". No, she was picked because lots of people in the Democratic party liked her.

Had the Democrats held a primary and Harris won (which she likely would have), you'd have the same sort of claims of "shenanigans".

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.

Except of course prior to the election debate disaster, there wasn't really strong evidence that "biden was unfit".

Yes, Biden was old. Yes, he was not quite the candidate he had been in previous elections. But, he had also shown that he could also be a decent candidate/politician.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Again, that's really dumb logic. If a person truly thinks "I don't like the fact that the Dems didn't run a full primary under questionable circumstances so I will vote for a guy who openly wants to destroy democracy", I doubt there was much chance of them voting Democrat in the first place.

However "undemocratic" someone thinks the selection of Harris was as Democratic leader, it pales in comparison with the republican candidate, who tried to overthrow the previous election and had ties to the pro-fascist Project 2025. They just want to use the lack of a full democratic primary to justify their pro-fascist vote.

(Same goes if they decided to either sit out, or vote for a 3rd party, since the threat posed by Trump was significant enough that everyone should have been behind the democrats..)


You see, this is the type of crap that I was talking about.

Overall, Clinton was a good candidate. Had a background in law, served as both a senator AND in Obama's cabinet. Long time member of the Democratic party. Her chief rival was Sanders, a man who wasn't even a member of the Democratic party for most of his political life. The fact that Democratic voters might have thought "Hey, lets vote for someone who we know we can work with rather than this outsider who is trying to hijack the party" seems like a strange idea to some people.

Yet somehow this gets morphed into "She only got in because it was 'her turn'". No, she was picked because lots of people in the Democratic party liked her.

Had the Democrats held a primary and Harris won (which she likely would have), you'd have the same sort of claims of "shenanigans".


Except of course prior to the election debate disaster, there wasn't really strong evidence that "biden was unfit".

Yes, Biden was old. Yes, he was not quite the candidate he had been in previous elections. But, he had also shown that he could also be a decent candidate/politician.

Can't tell you how much I absolutely LOVE you giving me a load of crap about this, while completely ignoring the bottom line and pretending it doesn't exist:

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.

 

[wareyin]

Can't tell you how much I absolutely LOVE you giving me a load of crap about this, while completely ignoring the bottom line and pretending it doesn't exist:

Please reread his first 3 paragraphs that you just quoted, as that very much directly responded to your "made a whole lot of dems and independents sit out" take.

 

[Segnosaur]

Can't tell you how much I absolutely LOVE you giving me a load of crap about this, while completely ignoring the bottom line and pretending it doesn't exist:
and I think it made a whole lot of dems and a lot of independents sit out. And that resulted in Trump again.

You are right, I didn't bother responding to the last lines in your post. That's because, as wareyin pointed out, I already addressed the issue earlier in my post.

The exact comments I made were:
If a person truly thinks "I don't like the fact that the Dems didn't run a full primary under questionable circumstances so I will vote for a guy who openly wants to destroy democracy", I doubt there was much chance of them voting Democrat in the first place....They just want to use the lack of a full democratic primary to justify their pro-fascist vote. (Same goes if they decided to either sit out or vote for a third party)

You have failed to do 3 things:
- Provide any evidence that the lack of primary CAUSED people to change their voting patterns, in a way that actually impacted the election, rather than just give people an excuse for doing something they were always going to do

- If there were people who changed their vote because "no primary", it caused the democrats to lose more support than how much they would have lost through things like: less money available for ad campaigns in the general election, or damages to the eventual candidate's reputation

- Proved that all those people who criticized democrats for lack of a primary would have been satisfied with the results of an ad hoc primary arranged after Biden's withdrawal.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You are right, I didn't bother responding to the last lines in your post. That's because, as wareyin pointed out, I already addressed the issue earlier in my post.

The exact comments I made were:
If a person truly thinks "I don't like the fact that the Dems didn't run a full primary under questionable circumstances so I will vote for a guy who openly wants to destroy democracy", I doubt there was much chance of them voting Democrat in the first place....They just want to use the lack of a full democratic primary to justify their pro-fascist vote. (Same goes if they decided to either sit out or vote for a third party)

You have failed to do 3 things:
- Provide any evidence that the lack of primary CAUSED people to change their voting patterns, in a way that actually impacted the election, rather than just give people an excuse for doing something they were always going to do

- If there were people who changed their vote because "no primary", it caused the democrats to lose more support than how much they would have lost through things like: less money available for ad campaigns in the general election, or damages to the eventual candidate's reputation

- Proved that all those people who criticized democrats for lack of a primary would have been satisfied with the results of an ad hoc primary arranged after Biden's withdrawal.

I know what your comment was. That was my point - voting for trump because the dems didn't have a primary is not at all the same as sitting out the election because they didn't like Harris being shoved down their throat without any say in the matter.

I can't prove it, but given the reduction in the number of voters in 2024 was relatively close to the reduction in the number of DEM votes that Biden got in 2020, but the number of votes that Trump got in both 2020 and 2024 were about the same, it seems like a pretty reasonable assumption to say that a lot of people who voted Dem in 2020 did not vote in 2024.

 

[arthwollipot]

It really saddens me that people will make the choice to not vote, and then complain that all the other people picked someone they don't like.