What did Democrats do wrong?

[wareyin]

TIL Mike Bloomberg has no influence in the Democratic Party, along with other former mayors and governors.

I'm old enough to remember centrists busting a blood vessel because Sanders didn't publicly kneel before Clinton and kiss her ring. He instead selfishly...traveled to the Midwest states she ignored until the end and held rallies for her.

TIL people who are registered Republicans or Independents, or have been out of politics for decades, or are minor city councilors, are heavy hitters within the Democratic Party.

And I'm old enough to remember Sanders depressing voter turnout in 2016 to give us Trump the first time. A lesson his fanboys still haven't learned from.

 

[Donal]

Your claim to have voted for Harris doesn't matter, no.

So, i guess i can assume you're a Trump supporter since I see your efforts as sabotaging the Democratic Party, despite what you claim you support.

Not when it is not verifiable, nor when you spend all of your energy telling people why they should not vote for the Democrats.

When did I tell anyone they shouldn't vote for Democrats? I'm relaying to you, a centrist supporter, why people were unhappy with the party. I am pointing out their hypocrisy and tone deafness. I am pointing out they still campaign like its the 90s.

Were I to have this same discussion with someone who withheld their vote because they didn't think Harris was far enough from Trump, I would be discussing the flaws in that reasoning with them.

Frankly, if every online progressive who spends all of their energy attacking the Dems but claims to have voted for Harris anyway actually had, she'd be President right now.

More progressive came out for Harris than "reasonable Republicans". Trump actually gained among "moderates" and first time voters. But, you'll never admit the wasted effort on Liz Cheney's vote. Not the vote of Liz Cheney's supporters. Just Liz Cheney's vote.

 

[Donal]

TIL people who are registered Republicans or Independents, or have been out of politics for decades, or are minor city councilors, are heavy hitters within the Democratic Party.

You would be surprised. Apparently, billionaires hold sway.

And I'm old enough to remember Sanders depressing voter turnout in 2016 to give us Trump the first time. A lesson his fanboys still haven't learned from.

Oh, when did that happen? When he chastised the media at a primary debate over their obsession with her emails? When he campaigned for her in the states she ignored because she assumed she had locked down but had a huge deficit in?

Did he put a gun to her head and make her talk about "public positions and private positions"? Did Bernie Bros form a human chain to prevent her from entering "The Blue Wall"? Did Sanders intercept the messages from local party officials in Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan screaming to her about behind in those states actually was? Did he tell her to ignore Obama, Biden, and her own husband when they warned her about relying too heavily on consultants who preached a top down strategy?

Or is it because he had the audacity to put up a real challenge during a primary that was supposed to be her coronation?

 

[wareyin]

So, i guess i can assume you're a Trump supporter since I see your efforts as sabotaging the Democratic Party, despite what you claim you support.

When did I tell anyone they shouldn't vote for Democrats? I'm relaying to you, a centrist supporter, why people were unhappy with the party. I am pointing out their hypocrisy and tone deafness. I am pointing out they still campaign like its the 90s.

Were I to have this same discussion with someone who withheld their vote because they didn't think Harris was far enough from Trump, I would be discussing the flaws in that reasoning with them.

More progressive came out for Harris than "reasonable Republicans". Trump actually gained among "moderates" and first time voters. But, you'll never admit the wasted effort on Liz Cheney's vote. Not the vote of Liz Cheney's supporters. Just Liz Cheney's vote.

You claim you’d "discuss the flaws" with someone withholding their vote, yet you’re still on here validating every one of their reasons for doing so. In 2024 and still today, many on the left hear a "principled" explanation of why the party is failing as an active call to stay home. I still see many online progressives actually telling people not to vote for the Dems in 2026 to "send a message."

I agree that the strategy of courting "reasonable Republicans" was a failure, even though numerically it made sense. It ended up alienating the far left, and those "reasonable" Republicans weren't actually reasonable. I've pointed out before that assuming the far left would rather have almost everything they want instead of actually going backwards was a strategic mistake.

 

[Donal]

You claim you’d "discuss the flaws" with someone withholding their vote, yet you’re still on here validating every one of their reasons for doing so.

Because I believe in many cases, the reasons are valid. I just disagree with their methods for addressing them.

In 2024 and still today, many on the left hear a "principled" explanation of why the party is failing as an active call to stay home.

As proven by the massive turnout in the 2025 elections?

I still see many online progressives actually telling people not to vote for the Dems in 2026 to "send a message."

I'm sure you do. Somehow, they hold more sway than billionaires who get invited to give prime time speeches at the DNC.

I agree that the strategy of courting "reasonable Republicans" was a failure, even though numerically it made sense. It ended up alienating the far left, and those "reasonable" Republicans weren't actually reasonable. I've pointed out before that assuming the far left would rather have almost everything they want instead of actually going backwards was a strategic mistake.

So, you helped Trump win.

 

[wareyin]

You would be surprised. Apparently, billionaires hold sway.

Oh, when did that happen? When he chastised the media at a primary debate over their obsession with her emails? When he campaigned for her in the states she ignored because she assumed she had locked down but had a huge deficit in?

Did he put a gun to her head and make her talk about "public positions and private positions"? Did Bernie Bros form a human chain to prevent her from entering "The Blue Wall"? Did Sanders intercept the messages from local party officials in Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan screaming to her about behind in those states actually was? Did he tell her to ignore Obama, Biden, and her own husband when they warned her about relying too heavily on consultants who preached a top down strategy?

Or is it because he had the audacity to put up a real challenge during a primary that was supposed to be her coronation?

Sanders refused to concede for weeks after it was mathmatically impossible for him to have won the nomination. He drug the process out unnecessarily, attacking Clinton from the left while Trump was already allowed to focus on the general and able to use Sanders' own "corrupt establishment" talking points to peel off the very voters who stayed home and lost Michigan and Wisoncin for Clinton.

No, Sanders didn't form a human chain, his rhetoric provided the bricks for a wall. Trump literally quoted Sanders on the campaign trail to depress Dem turnout. When Sanders spends months telling his supporters that the system is rigged, he doens't get to act surprised because his supporters took him at his word and stayed home for switched to Trump.

Bloomberg held so much sway that he left the Dem party, and then "helped" Cuomo loose by large margins. Makes sense.

 

[wareyin]

Because I believe in many cases, the reasons are valid. I just disagree with their methods for addressing them.

As proven by the massive turnout in the 2025 elections?

I'm sure you do. Somehow, they hold more sway than billionaires who get invited to give prime time speeches at the DNC.

So, you helped Trump win.

The irony of you saying I helped Trump win while in the same post validating every excuse to withhold votes from MAGA opponents is quite thick.

The results in 2024 demonstrate that the prime time speeches at the DNC by these people you think are so influential were actually less influential than the people (like yourself) who told everyone why they shouldn't vote Dem. Bloomberg spent over $13 million to prop up Cuomo. You'd think that if Bloomberg were so influential, Cuomo would be Mayor right now. How'd that end up again?

 

[Donal]

Sanders refused to concede for weeks after it was mathmatically impossible for him to have won the nomination. He drug the process out unnecessarily, attacking Clinton from the left while Trump was already allowed to focus on the general and able to use Sanders' own "corrupt establishment" talking points to peel off the very voters who stayed home and lost Michigan and Wisoncin for Clinton.

Do you think she did a lot to dispel the notions of a corrupt establishment?

And Trump quoting Sanders was just meat for his base. We're both above pretending anything from the grifter or his minions is anything close to a good faith argument. The media did almost all of that heavy lifting.

No, Sanders didn't form a human chain, his rhetoric provided the bricks for a wall.

So, was he inaccurate?

Trump literally quoted Sanders on the campaign trail to depress Dem turnout. When Sanders spends months telling his supporters that the system is rigged, he doens't get to act surprised because his supporters took him at his word and stayed home for switched to Trump.

Ya, they didn't. Exit polling shows they showed up at a slightly higher rate than Clinton supporters came out for Obama. Clinton treating the whole thing like a victory lap did way more to depress the vote. Comey did infinitely more damage than anyone not named Clinton or Trump.

Bloomberg held so much sway that he left the Dem party, and then "helped" Cuomo loose by large margins. Makes sense.

I said with the party, not the voters. As you and I can agree, the party leaders have a large disconnect with the voters.

 

[Donal]

The irony of you saying I helped Trump win while in the same post validating every excuse to withhold votes from MAGA opponents is quite thick.

I was just using your own reasoning. Criticizing the Democratic Party in anywhere but the smallest, most silent bubbles is helping MAGA.

The results in 2024 demonstrate that the prime time speeches at the DNC by these people you think are so influential were actually less influential than the people (like yourself) who told everyone why they shouldn't vote Dem.

Again, telling you why people don't like the Democrats isn't telling people not to vote Democratic. This isn't some CNN half wit going to a diner in West Fumblebuck Ohio asking why they voted Trump and getting a never ending string of broken talking points as answers. This is actual direct, fact based criticism.

Bloomberg spent over $13 million to prop up Cuomo. You'd think that if Bloomberg were so influential, Cuomo would be Mayor right now. How'd that end up again?

Yes, we agree that the current party leadership, who keep giving billionaires like Bloomberg a ton of importance, are hopelessly out of touch with their actual voters.

 

[wareyin]

Do you think she did a lot to dispel the notions of a corrupt establishment?

And Trump quoting Sanders was just meat for his base. We're both above pretending anything from the grifter or his minions is anything close to a good faith argument. The media did almost all of that heavy lifting.

So, was he inaccurate?

Ya, they didn't. Exit polling shows they showed up at a slightly higher rate than Clinton supporters came out for Obama. Clinton treating the whole thing like a victory lap did way more to depress the vote. Comey did infinitely more damage than anyone not named Clinton or Trump.

I said with the party, not the voters. As you and I can agree, the party leaders have a large disconnect with the voters.

If "party leaders" are so disconnected that their chosen billionaires and "heavy hitters" keep getting crushed in high-turnout elections like NYC 2025, then your argument about their "sway" is a ghost story. You’re telling people to stay home because of the "influence" of people who can’t even win a primary anymore, and you and online progressives like you are having a greater effect on the election, to the delight of MAGA.

It is honestly impressive how you can call the party corrupt and disconnected in one breath, and then in the next, pretend you aren’t actively recruiting people to stay home. You are essentially saying the party is too broken to be worth a vote, but then acting shocked when someone points out that this exact rhetoric is what hands the keys to the GOP.

As for 2016, you can blame Comey or the media all you want, but Trump didn’t need a good faith argument, he just needed a weapon. Sanders spent five weeks after the math was settled giving Trump that weapon. It doesn't matter if Sanders’ supporters showed up at a "higher rate" than 2008. In 2016 those "principled" abstainers and the "rigged" narrative were the margin of error.

I was just using your own reasoning. Criticizing the Democratic Party in anywhere but the smallest, most silent bubbles is helping MAGA.

Again, telling you why people don't like the Democrats isn't telling people not to vote Democratic. This isn't some CNN half wit going to a diner in West Fumblebuck Ohio asking why they voted Trump and getting a never ending string of broken talking points as answers. This is actual direct, fact based criticism.

Yes, we agree that the current party leadership, who keep giving billionaires like Bloomberg a ton of importance, are hopelessly out of touch with their actual voters.

You aren't being critical of Democrats in only the smallest, most silent bubbles, you're shouting it from the rooftops in every medium you participate in. You aren't reporting the news like a neutral observer, either. You are acting as a recruitment officer for apathy, which does nothing but help MAGA win and gets the country as a whole further right than what you claim are your ideals.

 

[Donal]

If "party leaders" are so disconnected that their chosen billionaires and "heavy hitters" keep getting crushed in high-turnout elections like NYC 2025, then your argument about their "sway" is a ghost story.

Not really when entrenched power is still changing the rules and putting their thumbs on the scale.

You’re telling people to stay home because of the "influence" of people who can’t even win a primary anymore, and you and online progressives like you are having a greater effect on the election, to the delight of MAGA.

You have it backwards. Those people can't win anymore because they are out of touch but won't go away. If "online progressives" have so much influence...shouldn't Democrats be a lot friendlier to them?

It is honestly impressive how you can call the party corrupt and disconnected in one breath, and then in the next, pretend you aren’t actively recruiting people to stay home.

Not really impressive when the former is true and the latter is false.

You are essentially saying the party is too broken to be worth a vote, but then acting shocked when someone points out that this exact rhetoric is what hands the keys to the GOP.

You don't think actually being broken does more damage?

As for 2016, you can blame Comey or the media all you want,

Because, ya? Far more than 5 bros in a basement in Minnesota who probably weren't going to vote anyway.

but Trump didn’t need a good faith argument, he just needed a weapon. Sanders spent five weeks after the math was settled giving Trump that weapon. It doesn't matter if Sanders’ supporters showed up at a "higher rate" than 2008. In 2016 those "principled" abstainers and the "rigged" narrative were the margin of error.

You haven't said whether or not the story is false.

You aren't being critical of Democrats in only the smallest, most silent bubbles,

...ya?...that's why you're mad.

you're shouting it from the rooftops in every medium you participate in.

Are you stalking me on social media?

You aren't reporting the news like a neutral observer, either.

Certainly not. We see what "neutral" gets us.

You are acting as a recruitment officer for apathy, which does nothing but help MAGA win and gets the country as a whole further right than what you claim are your ideals.

This is like if I saw a raging fire and pulled the alarm, you blame me for the fire.

 

[dirtywick]

Are we perhaps using different definitions of "fickle"? I am calling them fickle because they stay home if they do not get 100% of what they want on a single issue, like Gaza. This effectively allows the candidate who wants to do the exact opposite of what they claim to want to win.

If a voter says "Harris is only giving me 60% of what I want so instead I will let the person who gives me 0% take power," that is the definition of a fickle voter. It is not about Harris being a perfect candidate. It is about the fact that many other voting blocs (like the GOP base) show up even when they dislike their candidate because they understand that power is about direction rather than perfection. When progressives treat voting like a Valentine they have to be romanced into instead of a strategic chess move, they become an unreliable and therefore fickle part of a winning coalition.

To answer what Harris offered progressives, how about restoring Roe v Wade, expanding Child Tax Credits, a federal ban on corporate price gouging, and a down payment assistance program for first time homebuyers? She was also part of the administration that passed the largest climate change investment in history. If those are not enough of a reason to show up and prevent the opposition from taking power, then fickle is a very polite way to describe that strategy.

do you consider moderates or independents fickle?

i don’t think it’s very reasonable to call them that is all. the dems ditched them to pursue the center, so they didn’t show out. it’s a bad strategy

 

[wareyin]

do you consider moderates or independents fickle?

i don’t think it’s very reasonable to call them that is all. the dems ditched them to pursue the center, so they didn’t show out. it’s a bad strategy

Why did you quote my response that included things Harris was promising progressives and then claim she "ditched" them?

Independents are certainly fickle in the sense that as independents, they "could" go either way, although evidence shows that most people that call themselves independent are almost always going to vote for the same party.

 

[dirtywick]

Why did you quote my response that included things Harris was promising progressives and then claim she "ditched" them?

were those items she promised to progressives? seems like dem priorities that progressives may have also liked, which i don’t think is the same thing

Independents are certainly fickle in the sense that as independents, they "could" go either way, although evidence shows that most people that call themselves independent are almost always going to vote for the same party.

i think the dems represent progressives in the same way they represent independents, and if the dems don’t want to pursue progressives then they shouldn’t be mad when they don’t vote their way. should be treated the same as independents in that sense imo

 

[wareyin]

Not really when entrenched power is still changing the rules and putting their thumbs on the scale.

You have it backwards. Those people can't win anymore because they are out of touch but won't go away. If "online progressives" have so much influence...shouldn't Democrats be a lot friendlier to them?

Not really impressive when the former is true and the latter is false.

You don't think actually being broken does more damage?

Because, ya? Far more than 5 bros in a basement in Minnesota who probably weren't going to vote anyway.

You haven't said whether or not the story is false.

...ya?...that's why you're mad.

Are you stalking me on social media?

Certainly not. We see what "neutral" gets us.

This is like if I saw a raging fire and pulled the alarm, you blame me for the fire.

"Entrenched power" is not putting their thumbs on the scale. Using people who actually left the Democratic Party and ran as independents against the Democratic candidate as evidence that "entrenched power" put their thumb on the scale is frankly delusional. Further, you keep on pretending that "convincing just enough people to stay home" somehow requires massive influence, when we both know you know better. Does bad faith argumentation usually convince all those people you are pretending you had that "you better go vote unless you want Trump to win" conversation (that we both TOTALLY believe you had) with?

Yes, I am mad that online progressives worked hard to give Trump the dictatorship he told them he wanted. Yes, I know some of these online progressives are almost certainly bots, which infuriates me even more as I watch the ones I think are real people amplify that message enough to give Trump total control. Watching people tell everyone how bad and corrupt the fire department is as MAGA actively starts fires, and then pretend they were only sounding the alarm, is exhausting.

 

[wareyin]

were those items she promised to progressives? seems like dem priorities that progressives may have also liked, which i don’t think is the same thing


i think the dems represent progressives in the same way they represent independents, and if the dems don’t want to pursue progressives then they shouldn’t be mad when they don’t vote their way. should be treated the same as independents in that sense imo

So...giving progressives things that they "may like" is "ditching" those progressives? That doesn't seem accurate.

If the progressives have the choice between getting some things they want (Harris) and having everything they want taken away (Trump), it's entirely reasonable to be mad that those progressives said ◊◊◊◊ it, gimme Trump.

 

[Donal]

weird, it doesn't look like progressives are the ones going after candidates for failing purity tests.

 

[wareyin]

AIPAC, an outside lobby funded largely by Republican doors that is currently dumping millions into primaries to unseat Democrats, attacked a moderate Dem for not supporting unconditional aid to Israel. Dems are pissed. Yeah, this is totally evidence that entrenched Dems are putting their thumb on the scale.

 

[Donal]

Its a good thing no Democrats take money from APAIC, right? Its not like they spent a record amount to unseat a couple of black progressives and a Jewish community leader who criticized Israel. and that's just the money they give directly, never mind their bundling efforts and funneling money through other groups.

Also, my comment was about the accusations of "purity tests" against progressives. The reality is, there seems to be a much bigger and stricter purity test for Democrats and it isn't coming from progressives.

 

[dirtywick]

So...giving progressives things that they "may like" is "ditching" those progressives? That doesn't seem accurate.

i think they felt that way yes. they had priorities and dems expected them to settle for that while they ditched them to pursue moderate centrists. seems accurate to me

If the progressives have the choice between getting some things they want (Harris) and having everything they want taken away (Trump), it's entirely reasonable to be mad that those progressives said ◊◊◊◊ it, gimme Trump.

i think you’re misattributing the blame there. progressives are more similar to independents imo, and you aren’t calling them out for doing the same thing. actually, conservative leaning independents probably actually voted for trump.