Democrats Did It To Themselves...and The Country

M

martin

Well-known member
Much as this will be called a great win for Trump it was a win stay at home Democrats handed to him. The party should have had an all time modern turnout given the stakes. It didn't. The turnout stank.

abcnews.go.com

How Donald Trump won the presidency

How Donald Trump won the 2024 presidential election.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com
 
When you lose an election like this, you've gotta go back to square one.

Inflation was a big factor, and there probably isn't much Dems could have done to stave that off - but they have to move back to the center. I think "woke" was the icing on the cake for them. They can support LGBTQ & the rest, and should - but they also need to realize how people feel about some of the policies & positions, and that change in some of those areas is best achieved more gradually.
 
martin said:
Much as this will be called a great win for Trump it was a win stay at home Democrats handed to him. The party should have had an all time modern turnout given the stakes. It didn't. The turnout stank.

abcnews.go.com

How Donald Trump won the presidency

How Donald Trump won the 2024 presidential election.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com
Click to expand...
Of course if Harris won we wouldn't be having this conversation but there were a couple of things people were saying all along:

Biden - he was clearly aging in front of us (along with not being all that popular) yet Democrats acted as if it wasn't the case and decided they would go the all anti-Trump all the time strategy until the debate where it couldn't be denied any further

Harris - i know there was a little debate over whether to have a quick primary after Biden dropped out - it seems to me if you want to engage voters giving them a choice (competition is usually a good thing) is the best way to do so - instead Harris was basically chosen the nominee

And Harris was both known but also unknown. Most people, prior to her becoming VP, didn't know much about her. She was DA in SF and a California Senator. That doesn't make you a household name across the country. And she dropped out of the 2020 primary so quickly voters didn't really get to 'know' her then. As VP they obviously recognize who she is but we know VP is all about supporting the President, not presenting your vision of the country to America. So people 'knew' her but to a degree also didn't 'know' her.

To some extent she told voters who she was but she also made the choice to focus on the anti-Trump strategy. After 8 plus years people know who Trump is (for better and worse). So hanging out with people like Liz Cheney and just being all anti-Trump likely isn't changing that many minds about Trump. Were there a lot of Democrats undecided on their feelings about Trump and needed Liz Cheney to make them change?

So if all the anti-Trump rhetoric didn't increase the Democratic turnout it shows Harris didn't excite them with her vision. As least as I see it.
 
cawacko said:
Of course if Harris won we wouldn't be having this conversation but there were a couple of things people were saying all along:

Biden - he was clearly aging in front of us (along with not being all that popular) yet Democrats acted as if it wasn't the case and decided they would go the all anti-Trump all the time strategy until the debate where it couldn't be denied any further

Harris - i know there was a little debate over whether to have a quick primary after Biden dropped out - it seems to me if you want to engage voters giving them a choice (competition is usually a good thing) is the best way to do so - instead Harris was basically chosen the nominee

And Harris was both known but also unknown. Most people, prior to her becoming VP, didn't know much about her. She was DA in SF and a California Senator. That doesn't make you a household name across the country. And she dropped out of the 2020 primary so quickly voters didn't really get to 'know' her then. As VP they obviously recognize who she is but we know VP is all about supporting the President, not presenting your vision of the country to America. So people 'knew' her but to a degree also didn't 'know' her.

To some extent she told voters who she was but she also made the choice to focus on the anti-Trump strategy. After 8 plus years people know who Trump is (for better and worse). So hanging out with people like Liz Cheney and just being all anti-Trump likely isn't changing that many minds about Trump. Were there a lot of Democrats undecided on their feelings about Trump and needed Liz Cheney to make them change?

So if all the anti-Trump rhetoric didn't increase the Democratic turnout it shows Harris didn't excite them with her vision. As least as I see it.
Click to expand...

I get the "primary" argument - but I think most people underestimate the timeframe on that one. Just to organize something like that would have taken way more time than they had.

There are a few reasons for this defeat on the Dem side, but in hindsight, Biden should never have been the nominee in the first place. Harris having such a short runway, and the way it was handled, created a situation that was hard to overcome.
 
BartenderElite said:
I get the "primary" argument - but I think most people underestimate the timeframe on that one. Just to organize something like that would have taken way more time than they had.

There are a few reasons for this defeat on the Dem side, but in hindsight, Biden should never have been the nominee in the first place. Harris having such a short runway, and the way it was handled, created a situation that was hard to overcome.
Click to expand...
It was definitely a tough call because it was not an ideal situation but for all the talk of democracy, democracy, democracy - the best way to exercise it would have been something giving voters a choice. And we are specifically talking about a person who never won anything in a Democratic primary.

It's easier to say this in hindsight but people were saying it at the time as well.
 
martin said:
Much as this will be called a great win for Trump it was a win stay at home Democrats handed to him. The party should have had an all time modern turnout given the stakes. It didn't. The turnout stank.

abcnews.go.com

How Donald Trump won the presidency

How Donald Trump won the 2024 presidential election.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com
Click to expand...
Delusional. Once again, for dimwits on the left who were stupid enough to vote for Kamala; it's the ECONOMY, the BORDER and the massive accumulation of debt, on top of, harsh caustic and repulsive rhetoric they used in the race.

Try to get something right in your pathetic loser existence. :palm:
 
BartenderElite said:
When you lose an election like this, you've gotta go back to square one.

Inflation was a big factor, and there probably isn't much Dems could have done to stave that off -
Click to expand...

Wrong. Democrats kicked it into high gear with all their massive Government spending giveaways.

BartenderElite said:
but they have to move back to the center.
Click to expand...

That would require honesty and intelligence, two things leftist severely lack.

BartenderElite said:
I think "woke" was the icing on the cake for them. They can support LGBTQ & the rest, and should - but they also need to realize how people feel about some of the policies & positions, and that change in some of those areas is best achieved more gradually.
Click to expand...

Yet you were all in on it, right? Who did you vote for in 2020 and this election? Telling.
 
cawacko said:
It was definitely a tough call because it was not an ideal situation but for all the talk of democracy, democracy, democracy - the best way to exercise it would have been something giving voters a choice. And we are specifically talking about a person who never won anything in a Democratic primary.

It's easier to say this in hindsight but people were saying it at the time as well.
Click to expand...
:lolup: Voted for Harris. :laugh:
 
Truth Detector said:
Delusional. Once again, for dimwits on the left who were stupid enough to vote for Kamala; it's the ECONOMY, the BORDER and the massive accumulation of debt, on top of, harsh caustic and repulsive rhetoric they used in the race.

Try to get something right in your pathetic loser existence. :palm:
Click to expand...
Isn't a pathetic loser existence a place where things can't be gotten right?

If you were worth ten cents I might point out for you that the American economy is presently the best in the Western world, that border crossings are no worse than under Trump and it was Trump himself who killed a useful border bill, that no candidate in American history has used rhetoric worse than Trump's.
 
martin said:
Isn't a pathetic loser existence a place where things can't be gotten right?
Click to expand...

Wrong. It's what is between your ears halfwit. :laugh:

martin said:
If you were worth ten cents I might point out for you that the American economy is presently the best in the Western world, that border crossings are no worse than under Trump and it was Trump himself who killed a useful border bill, that no candidate in American history has used rhetoric worse than Trump's.
Click to expand...

If you had a brain and could comprehend the ignorance and stupidity in that statement, you would be embarrassed. But stupid people really don't know they are stupid.

Here's a great way to test if you are stupid: who did you vote for? :laugh:
 
cawacko said:
It was definitely a tough call because it was not an ideal situation but for all the talk of democracy, democracy, democracy - the best way to exercise it would have been something giving voters a choice. And we are specifically talking about a person who never won anything in a Democratic primary.

It's easier to say this in hindsight but people were saying it at the time as well.
Click to expand...
Party politics have been determined by the party. They set up platforms and systems as they choose. Biden's freezing in the debate made it impossible to keep him in the race.
 
cawacko said:
Of course if Harris won we wouldn't be having this conversation but there were a couple of things people were saying all along:

Biden - he was clearly aging in front of us (along with not being all that popular) yet Democrats acted as if it wasn't the case and decided they would go the all anti-Trump all the time strategy until the debate where it couldn't be denied any further

Harris - i know there was a little debate over whether to have a quick primary after Biden dropped out - it seems to me if you want to engage voters giving them a choice (competition is usually a good thing) is the best way to do so - instead Harris was basically chosen the nominee

And Harris was both known but also unknown. Most people, prior to her becoming VP, didn't know much about her. She was DA in SF and a California Senator. That doesn't make you a household name across the country. And she dropped out of the 2020 primary so quickly voters didn't really get to 'know' her then. As VP they obviously recognize who she is but we know VP is all about supporting the President, not presenting your vision of the country to America. So people 'knew' her but to a degree also didn't 'know' her.

To some extent she told voters who she was but she also made the choice to focus on the anti-Trump strategy. After 8 plus years people know who Trump is (for better and worse). So hanging out with people like Liz Cheney and just being all anti-Trump likely isn't changing that many minds about Trump. Were there a lot of Democrats undecided on their feelings about Trump and needed Liz Cheney to make them change?

So if all the anti-Trump rhetoric didn't increase the Democratic turnout it shows Harris didn't excite them with her vision. As least as I see it.
Click to expand...
Valid, but I would also add, as I have said before, a women can not be elected President, there was a reason MaraLago went with the bromance theme, playing off the image of a women being too weak to stand up to world leaders and tough decisions, and it worked, especially among Spanish men where the families are often patriarchy.

Talking heads are now talking about about a shift in political coalitions but I think a large part of this election, as in 2016, was because the Democrats ran a women

And still haven’t heard any comments on the prior Pac12 teams in the Big whatever it is conference
 
archives said:
Valid, but I would also add, as I have said before, a women can not be elected President, there was a reason MaraLago went with the bromance theme, playing off the image of a women being too weak to stand up to world leaders and tough decisions, and it worked, especially among Spanish men where the families are often patriarchy.

Talking heads are now talking about about a shift in political coalitions but I think a large part of this election, as in 2016, was because the Democrats ran a women

And still haven’t heard any comments on the prior Pac12 teams in the Big whatever it is conference
Click to expand...
Tyler Austin Hooper is an interesting guy. Black academic (Bates College) with some Marxist leanings. But even though he's a man of the left he's pro free speech and not so tribal that he'll call out Democrats when he feels necessary.

His tweet addresses what you are saying with some validity I believe.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1854149672828362826
 
archives said:
Valid, but I would also add, as I have said before, a women can not be elected President, there was a reason MaraLago went with the bromance theme, playing off the image of a women being too weak to stand up to world leaders and tough decisions, and it worked, especially among Spanish men where the families are often patriarchy.

Talking heads are now talking about about a shift in political coalitions but I think a large part of this election, as in 2016, was because the Democrats ran a women

And still haven’t heard any comments on the prior Pac12 teams in the Big whatever it is conference
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/x/status/1854150269329674722
 
  • Like
Reactions: TOP
archives said:
Valid, but I would also add, as I have said before, a women can not be elected President, there was a reason MaraLago went with the bromance theme, playing off the image of a women being too weak to stand up to world leaders and tough decisions, and it worked, especially among Spanish men where the families are often patriarchy.

Talking heads are now talking about about a shift in political coalitions but I think a large part of this election, as in 2016, was because the Democrats ran a women

And still haven’t heard any comments on the prior Pac12 teams in the Big whatever it is conference
Click to expand...
You got that glorified junior college, Oregon, number one in the country. Their Nike money is endless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top