Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

[Zarathud]

Or if they don’t, they fail to fill Trump’s “Greatness.” He’s the most Face-Eating Leopard of them all.

[Grifman]

The question that needs to be figured out is what was the driving force behind this election debacle? Was it inflation primarily? If so, then the Dems just got hit by bad luck/timing, and the drifts in certain groups of voters we are seeing are just temporary and nothing has fundamentally changed, and the Democrats could have defeated Trump (though just barely) if not for inflation. Or has something fundamentally changed, and the Democrats need to step back and reassess? I'm not sure which it is, and maybe it is some of both.

[Blackhawk]

One thing that I think needs to be considered (and I hate even saying it) is to slow down social change. We have a lot of things that need to change, but we tried to change them all at once, to go from zero to ideal overnight. A lot of people never had time to adjust to one change in how they thought, spoke, and acted before twenty more changes knocked on the door. I think that is partially responsible for some of the backlash - basically anything that includes the word 'woke' in it would be an example - and some of the anti-______ sentiment.

I hate saying that we need to slow down and let some injustices ride (we'd have to prioritize), but the left received plenty of warnings (including by others on this forum whom we blew off) that we were pushing society too hard.

[msduncan]

Cortez seeks feedback

[Victoria Raverna]

The question that needs to be figured out is what was the driving force behind this election debacle? Was it inflation primarily? If so, then the Dems just got hit by bad luck/timing, and the drifts in certain groups of voters we are seeing are just temporary and nothing has fundamentally changed, and the Democrats could have defeated Trump (though just barely) if not for inflation. Or has something fundamentally changed, and the Democrats need to step back and reassess? I'm not sure which it is, and maybe it is some of both.

I think you're right about that. While US's economy is good compare to other countries, some of the voters don't believe that. They can only see that it is harder for them to afford things and telling them US's economy is good or great is not going to change their mind since they can see and feel that their lives are not better than what they remembered.

[Skinypupy]

From MSD’s infographic: “Trump is going to get us the money and lets men have a voice”

I would love to hear that person’s thought process.

[Smoove_B]

I would love to hear that person’s thought process.

No, you really wouldn't. I'm beginning to think there's something we need to label "contact stupid".

I have a local that is currently blathering on social media that Trump's election means DEI is dead - and rightfully so as it's a "failed experiment" with a 60 year legacy. Now, according to him, we can return to a time when white men can lead exceptional lives in the workplace and in government, unburdened by the oppressive policies that Kennedy initiated in the 1960s.

I wish I was making this up.

[Punisher]

From MSD’s infographic: “Trump is going to get us the money and lets men have a voice”

I would love to hear that person’s thought process.

Have you been living in a cave?
It's obvious that men, especially straight white men are a minority who have had no say or power for centuries now.
I mean the facts are all there!

[msduncan]

From MSD’s infographic: “Trump is going to get us the money and lets men have a voice”

I would love to hear that person’s thought process.

Have you been living in a cave?
It's obvious that men, especially straight white men are a minority who have had no say or power for centuries now.
I mean the facts are all there!

Except what really moved the needle county by county was minority men. So it wasn't just white men.

[Punisher]

From MSD’s infographic: “Trump is going to get us the money and lets men have a voice”

I would love to hear that person’s thought process.

Have you been living in a cave?
It's obvious that men, especially straight white men are a minority who have had no say or power for centuries now.
I mean the facts are all there!

Except what really moved the needle county by county was minority men. So it wasn't just white men.

That's why I said especially. Yes, all men have been oppressed for centuries but straight white men the most...

[Zarathud]

These men are insecure little whiny crybabies who can’t take criticism.

Or who didn’t succeed so they can’t be privileged since the good life was “stolen” from them.

Or who are just assholes who learned they have power from inflicting cruelty.

Still, they vote. Democrats need someone who won’t trigger their feelings, or MAGA will continue beyond Trump.

[LawBeefaroni]

From MSD’s infographic: “Trump is going to get us the money and lets men have a voice”

I would love to hear that person’s thought process.

"...let's men have a voice."

[Skinypupy]

These men are insecure little whiny crybabies who can’t take criticism.

Or who didn’t succeed so they can’t be privileged since the good life was “stolen” from them.

Or who are just assholes who learned they have power from inflicting cruelty.

Still, they vote. Democrats need someone who won’t trigger their feelings, or MAGA will continue beyond Trump.

Every. Damn. Time.

When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

Had a long talk with the Wonder Twins 11.4 over the weekend about how them being white and/or male does NOT make them inherently better than anyone else. Apparently the 6th grade playground last week was awash in white kids of MAGA parents telling the girls and minorities that they now “own” them and they all have to do what the white kids say because Trump won the election.

I don’t lay blame with these MAGA kids (they’re just repeating what their MAGA parents are telling them) but my boys will damn sure know that what they’re spewing is pure bullshit.

[RunningMn9]

I hate saying that we need to slow down and let some injustices ride (we'd have to prioritize), but the left received plenty of warnings (including by others on this forum whom we blew off) that we were pushing society too hard.

In a word, no.

I'm not telling a group that they are being abandoned because some ignorant assholes in a swing state can't handle change THAT DOESN'T EVEN IMPACT THEM. If running on your principles causes you to lose, you don't abandon those principles. What worth do they have if so easily discarded?

[Zarathud]

You don't give in, but you can change approach. And call them out because schoolyard bullies will back down when punched in the face.

My wife tells the story how while in crutches in Catholic high school, the cold cocked a kid in the face in Health Class after he said that gay people deserved to get AIDS and die. The teacher basically said "Well, that's what you deserve for saying something that stupid." No one was going to the Principal after getting knocked down by the girl in crutches.

[RunningMn9]

You don't give in, but you can change approach. And call them out because schoolyard bullies will back down when punched in the face.

I'm all for trying a different approach, as long as it's not "sorry, no equal rights for you".

[Alefroth]

I hate saying that we need to slow down and let some injustices ride (we'd have to prioritize),

That sounds pretty damned dystopian. Who decides which marginalized groups get higher priority? Sounds like a great way to tear the Democratic party apart.

[Blackhawk]

What if the alternative is getting a Trump elected and ensuring that none of them get their rights, along with making changes to the system to make it harder to restore them in the future?

Do we choose achieving nothing because it's not a perfect solution, or do we see the ideal as the end goal rather than the starting point?

That's not giving up your principles, it's trying to achieve them with a strategy that's more likely to succeed.

[Smoove_B]

That's not giving up your principles, it's trying to achieve them with a strategy that's more likely to succeed.

So just to give you a single example, LGBTQ+ rights have been part of modern political fabric since the 1950s here in the United States - with most of the big changes happening over the last 15 or so years.

In terms of saying that people have been pushing for things "too quickly", recognize that for certain groups they've been looking for equality (formally) for over 70 years. Obviously there are groups that have been looking for much, much longer.

We all just happen to be alive during the Stonewall Riots. During the discriminatory practice of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. During the AIDS crisis in the 1980s where both Democrats and Republicans actively ignored what was happening. Federal protections from workplace discrimination have only existed for about 13 years.

In short, it's been a battle of inches that has taken generations to finally move the needle. That one side is putting up significant resistance over whatever it is they imagine is unjust now (sports? bathrooms? gender affirming care?) is part of a long history.

I guess what I'm trying to re-state is that you achieve some of these things through any number of avenues. I'm going to shorthand it (it's late and I'm tired) and just refer to it as the social ecological model (SEM); you can read more here. The main point I'm trying to make is that it requires action at all levels - individual, institutional, community and political. Backing down and accepting the reversal of hard-fought victories isn't part of that. Capitulating isn't part of it.

If 60+ years of theory is wrong - and the assumptions made in this model aren't actually correct in 2024 - then adjusting to a different strategy isn't going to work because our techniques and historical precedents no longer apply.

[Victoria Raverna]

I think Blackhawk just meant you should not push too hard for the thing you want. Do it in steps to avoid the pushback.

[Smoove_B]

I think Blackhawk just meant you should not push too hard for the thing you want. Do it in steps to avoid the pushback.

And I'm going to argue that it's been a slow, incremental process over the last 70+ years (in my example). Not pushing as hard would literally mean to stop pushing at all (which some on the Left are currently suggesting).

[Victoria Raverna]

I think it depends what is the major parts that caused Democrats to lose the election. If it is because the pushback from the racists, anti-LGBTQ, etc. Then maybe to do what Blackhawk suggested, can help Democrats win in the future.

But if the main cause was inflation, then no good reason to stop pushing or to slow down.

[Zarathud]

It may be changing the talking points to emphasize economic issues and Trump's corruption.

As usual, Victoria Raverna is completely wrong.

Once in power, Democrats can promote GLBTQ rights. But right now they're trapped trying to increase the engagement of the base. But they're minorities, so you need a LOT of engagement to offset the backlash. There's a reason Trump put out more ads about transgender surgeries than actually occurred in America last year. It drove conservative votes more than liberal votes. Nancy Pelosi is particularly bad about getting deep into talking points that are easily dismissed by non-converts and just make MAGAs froth with madness.

Trump has brought the Chewbacca Defense into politics with crap like "Trans teens are having surgery in schools! And using litter boxes. It doesn't make sense! Vote for us!" It's a negative cycle for Democrats where arguing the point only entrenches people in stupidity and OUTRAGE! against perceived extremists. It's a lie, but it builds off Liberal talking points.

Trump is an opportunity for Democrats to go talk about being about anti-corruption, fixing government broken by Republicans, standing against abuses of government, leaving people alone to live their life, and supporting people in their communities. Fighting for the little guy, and against business abuses. Those are all areas where an economy voter would find welcome with the Democratic Party again.

Talking about ever-shrinking unions isn't going to reach those people. They're not in a union, and resent those in a union who were blamed for high prices and taxes. it's stupid, because an increased minimum wage helps everyone -- a rising tide lifts all boats. But the MAGA megaphone connected Democrats to inflation, which found resonance in a nation primed decades ago by the Reagan Administration to blame Democrats for inflation. Nevermind that it was an expected economic outcome -- and no doubt fueled by Trump handing out checks during COVID before he lost.

This time, Trump is likely to take actions with more a immediate negative economic impact. Trump will turn on his initial advisors when that happens, trying to escape the blame. The Democrats have to get ahead to make it stick and sink the MAGA Trump brand.

[Victoria Raverna]

Sanders' opinion about why Democrats lost:

[Kraken]

I think Blackhawk just meant you should not push too hard for the thing you want. Do it in steps to avoid the pushback.

And I'm going to argue that it's been a slow, incremental process over the last 70+ years (in my example). Not pushing as hard would literally mean to stop pushing at all (which some on the Left are currently suggesting).

When I married Wife we put all of the bills in her name so that she could establish credit. Women had only won the right to get credit cards without a male cosigner 10 years earlier (not that credit cards were common then). And in her first job as a girl reporter she was expected to get coffee for the men. She refused on the grounds that she doesn't drink coffee and was deemed uppity.

This was just 40-45 years ago. People lose sight of how far we've come. One micro-battle at a time. We press on all fronts so that we can win on some.

[LordMortis]

You don't give in, but you can change approach. And call them out because schoolyard bullies will back down when punched in the face.

Ever since Jan 6th, this has no longer been schoolyard bullies. This has been growing mob justice. We're well into conch shell and two legs bad territory.

[LawBeefaroni]

I hate saying that we need to slow down and let some injustices ride (we'd have to prioritize), but the left received plenty of warnings (including by others on this forum whom we blew off) that we were pushing society too hard.

In a word, no.

I'm not telling a group that they are being abandoned because some ignorant assholes in a swing state can't handle change THAT DOESN'T EVEN IMPACT THEM. If running on your principles causes you to lose, you don't abandon those principles. What worth do they have if so easily discarded?

The stakes are too high to try to fix everything at once. The single most important goal is to save our constitutional government. Without it, all the other goals are lost. When someone is bleeding out, you don't try to cure their cancer.

Trying to resolve the Palestinian problem or women's equal pay when facing an existential crisis is falling right into the GOP trap. They're shotgunning bait and the left is taking it hook, line, and sinker.

The GOP is trying to gain total control at all cost. You can't fight that by dividing focus among hundreds, or even dozens, of social injustices.

Notice how many Trump PAC ads were just spewing hate to keep Dems distracted? Trump may be a bufoon but the Heritage Foundation are no dummies and they've been planning this for decades. They've found a winning formula and all the left can do is say, "at least we have our ptlrinciples?"

It's not abandoning principles to prioritize them. Number one should be to protect our constitutional form of government from all threats. In fact, our elected representatives swore an oath to that effect.

[Smoove_B]

I think it depends what is the major parts that caused Democrats to lose the election.

There isn't a message I can spin or a plan I can offer when ~50% of the voting public decided they wanted a felon for President. I can't come up with a catchy slogan that is going to help convince people to vote for [X] when they're ok with supporting a guy that had government secrets in bankers boxes in his bathroom.

That is why the current (understandable, to a degree) obsession with fixing blame is wasted time, imho. I don't know how you reach a population that is ok with electing any number of things Trump has done or said - if it even matters anymore.

[El Guapo]

I think it depends what is the major parts that caused Democrats to lose the election.

There isn't a message I can spin or a plan I can offer when ~50% of the voting public decided they wanted a felon for President. I can't come up with a catchy slogan that is going to help convince people to vote for [X] when they're ok with supporting a guy that had government secrets in bankers boxes in his bathroom.

That is why the current (understandable, to a degree) obsession with fixing blame is wasted time, imho. I don't know how you reach a population that is ok with electing any number of things Trump has done or said - if it even matters anymore.

I mostly agree and find the "here's why the Democratic Party would have won if they'd only done everything that I already told them to do" columns to be generally tedious. That said, they obviously have some kind of an issue with less educated voters, and people need to figure out how to improve that going forward. Some of that may be improving engagement via non-traditional media more. But who knows.

[msduncan]

I think it depends what is the major parts that caused Democrats to lose the election.

There isn't a message I can spin or a plan I can offer when ~50% of the voting public decided they wanted a felon for President. I can't come up with a catchy slogan that is going to help convince people to vote for [X] when they're ok with supporting a guy that had government secrets in bankers boxes in his bathroom.

That is why the current (understandable, to a degree) obsession with fixing blame is wasted time, imho. I don't know how you reach a population that is ok with electing any number of things Trump has done or said - if it even matters anymore.

I think a lot of people find appeal in voting for what they perceive as 'just a regular joe' (ie - not a politician and not part of the party establishments). However and unfortunately, the candidate that fits that description most closely in their minds happens to be Trump.

Also, I do think there is merit to the thought about backlash on labels. Call people something like Nazis or fascists and they are likely to double down on their decisions. I think it's pretty clear the vast majority of the 50ish percent that voted for him aren't fascists or nazis. Uninformed? Yes. Unwise? Yes. Fascists or Nazis? No.

[El Guapo]

I think it depends what is the major parts that caused Democrats to lose the election.

There isn't a message I can spin or a plan I can offer when ~50% of the voting public decided they wanted a felon for President. I can't come up with a catchy slogan that is going to help convince people to vote for [X] when they're ok with supporting a guy that had government secrets in bankers boxes in his bathroom.

That is why the current (understandable, to a degree) obsession with fixing blame is wasted time, imho. I don't know how you reach a population that is ok with electing any number of things Trump has done or said - if it even matters anymore.

I think a lot of people find appeal in voting for what they perceive as 'just a regular joe' (ie - not a politician and not part of the party establishments). However and unfortunately, the candidate that fits that description most closely in their minds happens to be Trump.

Also, I do think there is merit to the thought about backlash on labels. Call people something like Nazis or fascists and they are likely to double down on their decisions. I think it's pretty clear the vast majority of the 50ish percent that voted for him aren't fascists or nazis. Uninformed? Yes. Unwise? Yes. Fascists or Nazis? No.

Almost no one is calling Trump voters fascists. They're calling Trump fascist.

[LawBeefaroni]

I think it depends what is the major parts that caused Democrats to lose the election.

There isn't a message I can spin or a plan I can offer when ~50% of the voting public decided they wanted a felon for President.

Trump got around 50.5% of the popular vote in an election with 63% turnout.

Which means that ~32% of the voting public affirmed that they wanted a felon for president. 32% affirmed that they didn't (if you're doing the math, that's Harris at 30.5% plus all other candidates at 1.5%). 36% cast no vote. The plurality winner was "can't be bothered."

[WYBaugh]

I think it depends what is the major parts that caused Democrats to lose the election.

There isn't a message I can spin or a plan I can offer when ~50% of the voting public decided they wanted a felon for President. I can't come up with a catchy slogan that is going to help convince people to vote for [X] when they're ok with supporting a guy that had government secrets in bankers boxes in his bathroom.

That is why the current (understandable, to a degree) obsession with fixing blame is wasted time, imho. I don't know how you reach a population that is ok with electing any number of things Trump has done or said - if it even matters anymore.

I think a lot of people find appeal in voting for what they perceive as 'just a regular joe' (ie - not a politician and not part of the party establishments). However and unfortunately, the candidate that fits that description most closely in their minds happens to be Trump.

Also, I do think there is merit to the thought about backlash on labels. Call people something like Nazis or fascists and they are likely to double down on their decisions. I think it's pretty clear the vast majority of the 50ish percent that voted for him aren't fascists or nazis. Uninformed? Yes. Unwise? Yes. Fascists or Nazis? No.

Almost no one is calling Trump voters fascists. They're calling Trump fascist.

Fascist enablers

[RunningMn9]

The stakes are too high to try to fix everything at once. The single most important goal is to save our constitutional government. Without it, all the other goals are lost. When someone is bleeding out, you don't try to cure their cancer.

Easy for you to say when you aren't the limb being amputated.

[Zarathud]

Amputation wasn’t necessary until talking about getting a brand new limb attracted Doctor Sawbones. And his solution is to cut it off.

Save what you can, and reattach the limbs as soon as possible. But first stop the bleeding.

And do your best to save the limb. Put it on ice, and don’t let them throw it away.

[hepcat]

I think it depends what is the major parts that caused Democrats to lose the election.

There isn't a message I can spin or a plan I can offer when ~50% of the voting public decided they wanted a felon for President. I can't come up with a catchy slogan that is going to help convince people to vote for [X] when they're ok with supporting a guy that had government secrets in bankers boxes in his bathroom.

That is why the current (understandable, to a degree) obsession with fixing blame is wasted time, imho. I don't know how you reach a population that is ok with electing any number of things Trump has done or said - if it even matters anymore.

I think a lot of people find appeal in voting for what they perceive as 'just a regular joe' (ie - not a politician and not part of the party establishments). However and unfortunately, the candidate that fits that description most closely in their minds happens to be Trump.

Also, I do think there is merit to the thought about backlash on labels. Call people something like Nazis or fascists and they are likely to double down on their decisions. I think it's pretty clear the vast majority of the 50ish percent that voted for him aren't fascists or nazis. Uninformed? Yes. Unwise? Yes. Fascists or Nazis? No.

Almost no one is calling Trump voters fascists. They're calling Trump fascist.

Fascist enablers

Fascist adjacent.

[Unagi]

Concepts of fascists.

[Unagi]

I think it depends what is the major parts that caused Democrats to lose the election.

There isn't a message I can spin or a plan I can offer when ~50% of the voting public decided they wanted a felon for President. I can't come up with a catchy slogan that is going to help convince people to vote for [X] when they're ok with supporting a guy that had government secrets in bankers boxes in his bathroom.

That is why the current (understandable, to a degree) obsession with fixing blame is wasted time, imho. I don't know how you reach a population that is ok with electing any number of things Trump has done or said - if it even matters anymore.

I think a lot of people find appeal in voting for what they perceive as 'just a regular joe' (ie - not a politician and not part of the party establishments). However and unfortunately, the candidate that fits that description most closely in their minds happens to be Trump.

Also, I do think there is merit to the thought about backlash on labels. Call people something like Nazis or fascists and they are likely to double down on their decisions. I think it's pretty clear the vast majority of the 50ish percent that voted for him aren't fascists or nazis. Uninformed? Yes. Unwise? Yes. Fascists or Nazis? No.

Almost no one is calling Trump voters fascists. They're calling Trump fascist.

We don't even need to use the word Nazi or fascist. They are MAGA, and MAGA is truly the new ~horrible~. Full stop.

[LordMortis]

Concepts of fascists.

[Grifman]

Another piece to the puzzle. It looks like Harris overall matched Biden in the battleground states, but Republican turnout swamped the Democrats:





And to win the popular vote, Trumped increased his share in all the other states.