What did Democrats do wrong?

[Emily's Cat]

i think that it was a bad assumption that the progressive votes are safely secured if we shift more right on some of these social issues to attempt to appeal to moderate conservatives as the least bad choice was a bad argument when conservatives were suggesting it throughout this thread. that hasn't changed, for two reasons. one, they were already pretty moderate on these social issues, the right wing propaganda machine painted them as left wing extremists. two, the progressive left vote wasn't safely secured, they do actually want some candidates that represent them and aren't an auto vote. just bad assumptions

I think progressives could gain a lot of ground if their grand plans for forced social experiments came with some clearly outlined risk mitigation strategies.

 

[lobosrul5]

Vote for me, I only kill random pets and the elderly - the other guy kills babies!

Hey, now. Kristi Noem wasn't elected per se.

 

[wareyin]

i'm claiming your description of an understandable response as a fickle response is inaccurate

Ah, so you agree that they are not a reliable voting block, then? And that they're small potatoes compared to moderates and centrists?

 

[dirtywick]

I think progressives could gain a lot of ground if their grand plans for forced social experiments came with some clearly outlined risk mitigation strategies.

maybe, what did you have in mind?

 

[wareyin]

NYC has kind of a lot of influence on the country as a whole though. At a minimum, the NYSE is kind of a big ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ deal, NYC has the largest regional economy in the world - larger than most other whole countries, and the UN is headquartered there. While mayor may not be the single most important role in the US, it's not like it's insignificant to the health and welfare of the city.

I'll make you a deal: You agree that nobody outside of the US should give a crap about who the US president is, and should just shut up about it, and I'll agree that NCY Mayor is totally a non-issue that nobody outside of the city should care about.

Does the Mayor of New York City affect the stock exchange and the UN? I hadn't realized.

 

[dirtywick]

Ah, so you agree that they are not a reliable voting block, then? And that they're small potatoes compared to moderates and centrists?

it's not because they're fickle people, but rather because the dems consistently offer them very little. you can't really fairly criticize them for not showing out for a party that doesn't seem to take their views seriously imo

 

[wareyin]

Bernie Sanders?

What of him? That he was not a Democrat until he tried to run for President at which he joined the party and then famously quit the party when he couldn't win the primary? Both times?

 

[Emily's Cat]

In a presidential election, there is exactly one seat. There is no "partial power" for having high turnout but losing. Whether the winner gets 50.1% or 90%, they get 100% of the executive power. That is a zero-sum outcome.

You're right that only one person can win. You're wrong that it's zero-sum. Specifically, you're wrong in your understanding of what zero-sum means.

When you're playing a poker game where the pot is the totality of the antes and the bets, that's zero-sum. What goes in is exactly what goes out - there's no leakage, no loss of function, no gain. Conservation of energy is zero-sum.

US elections are NOT zero-sum, specifically because there is loss or gain involved. There aren't only two parties, even if only two are big. Reps and Dems can lose position to third party candidates, as well as to people not voting and choosing "none of the above". A successful voting strategy needs to include both convincing people to vote for the desired candidate and convincing them to vote in the first place.

Trump's margin of victory in the popular vote was significantly less than the number of people who sat out the election compared the total voter turnout in 2020. Granted, some of those are going to be people who sat out in safe states where there was no question whether the electoral vote would go red or blue... but I would bet that the turnout in swing states was lower in 2024 than in 2020 as well.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

All of this is a good reason to change from first-past-the-post to a variation of ranked voting. Also good arguments for mandatory voting.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

What of him? That he was not a Democrat until he tried to run for President at which he joined the party and then famously quit the party when he couldn't win the primary? Both times?

One can be a Democrat in spite of not being the candidate. One can be the candidate in spite of not being a Democrat. The distinction seems to escape you.

 

[wareyin]

it's not because they're fickle people, but rather because the dems consistently offer them very little. you can't really fairly criticize them for not showing out for a party that doesn't seem to take their views seriously imo

As voters, they are fickle. As voters, they are the block most prone to staying home unless they get everything they want, but importantly as voters they are not that large a group. They have an outsized prominence because they are so vocal.

 

[dirtywick]

As voters, they are fickle. As voters, they are the block most prone to staying home unless they get everything they want, but importantly as voters they are not that large a group. They have an outsized prominence because they are so vocal.

again, that's your assertation and again i'll ask what harris offered to progressives that wasn't enough that causes you to call them fickle?

also kind of think there's a conflict there with saying they're so small in number that it's not significant enough to try and court to your side, but also to blame for the loss.

 

[wareyin]

One can be a Democrat in spite of not being the candidate. One can be the candidate in spite of not being a Democrat. The distinction seems to escape you.

Bernie quit the Democratic party when he lost the primaries. He is not a Democrat is spite of not being the candidate. He also joined the Democratic party in his attempt to become the candidate at which point he WAS a Democrat. These points of fact seem to have escaped you.

Further, when Mamdani won the Democratic candidacy, he WAS the Democratic candidate, while Cuomo ran as an independent candidate, not as a Democratic candidate. Two more facts which you seem not to understand.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, every analogy breaks down if you get granular enough.

We don't get to choose not to have a President. We don't get to choose to have a President who is not a member of one of 2 parties. Our next President will be either a Republican or a Democrat. So yeah, there's always more than 2 restaurants and you don't even need to go out to eat anyway so that part doesn't fit. But those people who spent years leaving "bad yelp reviews" for the Dem party know damn well that leaving a bad review for a restaurant is not how you improve the menu at that restaurant, it's how you shut that restaurant down.

Sort of, but your statement is kind of misleading.

FPTP nearly always devolves to two parties, it's a function of the voting process itself. But the parties aren't static. We didn't start out with Democrats and Republicans, and parties can be - and have been - replaced when they no longer satisfy the citizens they're supposed to represent. States with FPTP systems in place for house and senate, as well as governor, have ended up with third party candidates winning those seats.

We're stuck with D & R right now, in large part because the parties have invested in strangleholds on local elections and state-level rules, as well as having immense power over who even gets to be considered in the first place.

 

[dirtywick]

probably also notable that what worked for the republicans was trying less to appease moderates and centrists and catering to the right and finding new voters in the alt right. you might think the dems were logical to try and grab the moderates and centrists the right stopped pandering to, but it didn't work. so obviously i question the logic of leaning even harder into doing that and just expected the increasingly marginalized parts of the left to continue to vote for them anyway and then blaming them when they don't

 

[Emily's Cat]

no. Harris tried the logical move to court the centrists and the moderate right.
"If it’s a numbers game, the logical move is to attract that larger, more reliable block of voters" rather than chasing a small group that is notoriously fickle and prone to throwing the baby out with the bathwater unless they get everything they want.

Harris tried that"

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you here. Harris tried to court both moderates and progressives at the same time, without really understanding that the objectives of progressives are usually a significant turn-off to moderates.

Are you under the impression that Harris only lost because progressives didn't turn out to vote? I think it's because moderates didn't turn out.

 

[wareyin]

again, that's your assertation and again i'll ask what harris offered to progressives that wasn't enough that causes you to call them fickle?

also kind of think there's a conflict there with saying they're so small in number that it's not significant enough to try and court to your side, but also to blame for the loss.

No, it is not my assertion. It is a demonstrable fact that core progressive demographics stayed home in 2024 after coming out and voting in 2020.

And your reading comprehension seems off today. Did you miss my point about their outsize reach because they are so vocal?

 

[dirtywick]

No, it is not my assertion. It is a demonstrable fact that core progressive demographics stayed home in 2024 after coming out and voting in 2020.

And your reading comprehension seems off today. Did you miss my point about their outsize reach because they are so vocal?

well, no i didn't miss it and my reading comprehension is fine, you're just not answering the questions i'm asking. i'm asking you why you think these things, you're not explaining it you're just restating your claim.

i mean, if you don't want to explain it that's fine, just say that and i'll stop asking. i have an opinion that's different than yours and i'm just asking what you think.

for example, what was harris offering progressives as a candidate in 2024 as a reason for them to show up and vote? if there's not a good answer to that question, then you can't really call them fickle imo

 

[Emily's Cat]

Donal, you’re trying to have it both ways. You claim the establishment "burns it all down" to stop progressives, but when a progressive like Zohran Mamdani wins his primary, he is the Democratic nominee. Schumer not endorsing him is a far cry from party leadership "targeting" him.

To be fair, I think progressives have a massively higher likelihood of getting support in local positions than in national ones. Birds of a feather and all that. You end up with some cities attracting very progressive people overall, which would support progressive local politicians. But that doesn't scale to the size needed for most federal positions. Maybe house seats for progressive districts, potentially a senate seat for small states. But extremely unlikely to gain enough traction to win presidency.

When progressive policies have been tried and actually work, and become the status-quo, then they'll be in a position to win the presidency. Of course, when those policies are the status-quo, those become conservative policies .

 

[wareyin]

You're right that only one person can win. You're wrong that it's zero-sum. Specifically, you're wrong in your understanding of what zero-sum means.

When you're playing a poker game where the pot is the totality of the antes and the bets, that's zero-sum. What goes in is exactly what goes out - there's no leakage, no loss of function, no gain. Conservation of energy is zero-sum.

US elections are NOT zero-sum, specifically because there is loss or gain involved. There aren't only two parties, even if only two are big. Reps and Dems can lose position to third party candidates, as well as to people not voting and choosing "none of the above". A successful voting strategy needs to include both convincing people to vote for the desired candidate and convincing them to vote in the first place.

Trump's margin of victory in the popular vote was significantly less than the number of people who sat out the election compared the total voter turnout in 2020. Granted, some of those are going to be people who sat out in safe states where there was no question whether the electoral vote would go red or blue... but I would bet that the turnout in swing states was lower in 2024 than in 2020 as well.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

All of this is a good reason to change from first-past-the-post to a variation of ranked voting. Also good arguments for mandatory voting.

This damn thread is really moving today, and I am absolutely not going to waste my weekend reading or responding to anything here, so this will be my final post today.

In our current Presidential system, power is a binary. There are only 2 parties who can possibly win. On January 20th, one of those parties gets 100% of the power and the other gets 0%. There is no partial credit for third party percentages or high nonvoter numbers. There is no possibility of a third party winning. When you help one side lose, the other side wins the whole pot. That is a zero sum game.

As for ranked choice voting, I agree it's a better system, but the Republicans are actively moving to ban it nationwide. Seventeen states have already outlawed it, and the "Make Elections Great Again Act" in Congress literally seeks to proscribe it in federal elections.

 

[dirtywick]

lol ok then