So what distinguishes the two parties in that scenario? Are Democrats just supposed to be pro-choice Republicans? They can't win if they just run on a few social issues and the idea that they are better at governing.
2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
The US is a pretty masculinized country, so obviously male candidates are going to have an easier time winning. We’ve had two accomplished women lose to Trump by 75-90 electoral votes, whereas Biden, a retiree in the early stages of cognitive decline, beat Trump and shattered the popular vote record along the way. It’s not rocket science.
I described the Kamala campaign to the letter. They ran to the right. They lost big. The same thing happened in 2016.
You are also wrong about the "special interest groups" in question. Did Sunrise make her campaign on fracking? Did the ACLU make her campaign on ending asylum? The groups you mention got the opposite of what they wanted. They still stayed loyal like suckers. And she lost.
Harris ran a pretty identical platform to Biden 2020 and lost, so it’s obviously not the policies, as much as the candidate.
And the context. In 2020 Biden was linked to a very popular president with a broad coalition of voters, while Harris became linked to an extremely unpopular president that had overseen a period where people were hurt financially. That might be more important than the actual policies.
That’s true to a degree, although Obama was largely forgotten at that point in favor of the Bernie juggernaut. Interestingly, the Dems have had largely the same platform since Obama. The only thing that changed was the viability of the specific candidates.
I think Democrats best chance is to moderate their positions on social issues and on things like immigration and anti-incumbency should help them but if they move further left on those issues, I have my doubts.
Pivoting to the center a few months before the election doesn’t really mask the unpopular positions she took in the 2019 primary at the behest of these groups. Trump hammered many ads with quotes from then which really resonated with voters. One of the ads - “ Kamala is for they/them, Trump is for you” is presumed to be a game changer and moved a significant number of votes.
The other problem with her pivot was she never really disavowed her 2019 positions, she just brushed it off or diverted the topics. She also didn’t go on Rogan presumably because some of her progressive staffers would be upset at it.
She didn't go on Rogan because of her progressive staffers, who were completely on board with the Cheneys and sending Bill Clinton to tell Arabs how Palestinians deserve to be massacred.
Makes sense!
They also dropped the ball on immigration by completely underestimating the relevance of the border situation. By the time Biden concocted a solution to save his own campaign, it was too late.
I agree with the bolded, I don't buy these "the Harris campaign moderated their positions!" arguments because the baggage was there. We would also not buy it if the Republicans suddenly moderated on their pet issues before an election.
But aside from anectodal voter stories here and there, I'm not sure anti-wokeness played a significant role in the 2024 election. Inflation was an absolute killer issue and the Harris campaign didn't quite seem to know how to deal with it. And we have to explain why turnout was disappointing for Harris.
I'm aware of the transgender-focused ad that apparently did very well but I think we need more data to know how much woke issues actually played a part in this election.
Democrats should be even more like republicans... bold strategy, let's see how it works.
They were significantly more "woke". The DNC was held about a month after the George Floyd protests and had all sorts of BLM stuff. This is when AOC was crying at the border and when people were talking about defunding the police. This is when the funniest photo of all time was taken.
None of that was the case this time. Before the 2024 results, people like Matt Yglesias on twitter were celebrating the defeat of woke activists and the integration of the Republican anti-Trump wing into the Democratic party, solidified by the cabinet berth.
It is simply that the elections were fought on different things, against two unpopular incumbents. 2020 was a referendum on Trump's covid handling, up against approval of the Trump economy, 2024 was a referendum on the Biden-Harris inflation and general incompetence, and the rosy memories of the Trump economy, against personal dislike of Trump.
I'm a leftist and think a genuine lefty is doomed. There is no hope for AOC in a primary or general. I can separate my ideology from my analysis.
The centrists saying this stuff here and on twitter are cynical or willfully ignorant of the fact that they had their dream campaign, and it failed miserably. They have a genuinely good alibi with the economy and Biden disapproval, therefore this loss doesn't reflect the unpopularity of their type of campaign, but because their first most important task is to purge the left of the party, they are instead reduced to self-contradiction and arguing about strategy.
I do hope more left-wing organisations have the unity and cynicism needed to make a strong case that, actually, the loss is because she went to the centre, the next nominee needs to shift, etc.*
We can look at the conventions and the focus of each (transparently fake woke pandering in 2020, military-first strength in 2016 and 2024), which of course matter more than words on a website. And then we can see the words on the website:
https://time.com/7014604/changes-to-democrats-criminal-justice-platform/
Criminal justice:
In the 2024 party platform, there is no mention of police brutality. “We need to fund the police, not defund the police,” the text reads—a marked shift from previous progressive messaging.
Though the platform calls for things like restricting state and local practices such as solitary confinement, it simultaneously argues that there needs to be more police on the streets in order to protect communities. Democrats also do not have opposition to the death penalty on their platform for the first time since 2012.
By comparison, in the Democratic Party’s 2020 platform, they dedicated an entire section to “reforming our criminal justice system,” explicitly calling out mass incarceration, saying the criminal justice system is “failing” the nation, calling for an “overhaul [of] the criminal justice system from top to bottom” and stating that “police brutality is a stain on the soul of our nation.” It also focused heavily on community-oriented policing. There’s no mention of “mass incarceration” in the 2024 platform
https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2024...ntion-messaging-woo-independents-republicans/
Healthcare:
In 2020, the Democratic platform devoted eight pages to health care, outlining a plan for “Universal, Affordable, Quality Health Care,” with a public coverage option. The plan calls for pressuring private insurers to broaden access and lower costs, and for automatic coverage for low-income Americans even in states that refuse to participate.
Unlike the 2020 platform, the version the party adopted this week in Chicago makes no mention of universal health care – an idea that invites allegations of radicalism and wealth redistribution.
The Biden-Harris admin have "pivoted to the centre" since about mid-2022 when Ron Klain left the White House. The passage of the halfway IRA bill ended all progressive policy, with the rest of their time dedicated to supporting two wars in an incompetent way, and to the biggest right-wing shift on the border in decades, which they couldn't pass. It's been a lot longer than a few months.
For the argument of the first para, let's have a small thought experiment. In 2019, Kamala declined to endorse Medicare For All. Let's suppose she made it the centerpiece of her campaign this time, and lost. Would you blame her for
1. Running far left and turning off the subruban vote?
2. Her mistake in 2019 to not endorse M4A?
In the real world, you are choosing the 2nd option, having got the campaign you wanted and having seen it lose so horribly. And it is self-evidently the wrong conclusion, one you can reach only by motivated reasoning.
For the last line... once again, this was an anti-left, centrist platform and campaign. They snubbed these "progressive staffers" on every issue. For example, unlike in 2020, they refused to back protections for trans people, she only said she'd "follow the law" instead of making a reference to rights or saying, as Biden said in 2012, that "it's the civil rights issue of our time." They refused to even have a Palestinian at the DNC with a vetted speech. They refused to make the slightest tiniest change of policy on Israel. So, with these staffers ignored on everything, they suddenly were listened to on this one issue? It makes no sense, and indeed, the originator of that claim has now walked it back. What makes this funnier is that the only Democrat to actually go on Rogan is... Bernie, famously anti-progressive and with no progressive staffers or non-profit support.
*e - to be clear, it is quite easy to make this case:
Trump gained about a million votes while Harris lost 7, suggesting a lot of voters stayed home instead, turnout fell among young and Black voters, a campaign based on less fealty to Israel and progressive economic policy would have motivated them, reversed the popular vote loss, and provided the electoral college margins. The fact that the turnout collapse happened in blue not swing states showed that some, but not enough, of these demographics managed to hold their nose for an unappealing candidate, the better strategy would hve been to give them something positive to vote for.
I personally think it's wrong because inflation was the main driving force of this election, but it is far more valid than the "she said Latinx in 2019" rubbish.
Last edited:
Peter Thiel offers his thoughts.
That's not really what I'm talking about.
You said that the "non-profit industrial complex" bullies Democrats into taking positions that are unpopular with working-class voters.
I think the "profit industrial complex" exerts an even bigger hold on the Democratic Party and bullies them into taking positions that are unpopular with working-class voters.
As for solutions to the Democratic Party's troubles,
They were significantly more "woke". The DNC was held about a month after the George Floyd protests and had all sorts of BLM stuff. This is when AOC was crying at the border and when people were talking about defunding the police. This is when the funniest photo of all time was taken.
None of that was the case this time. Before the 2024 results, people like Matt Yglesias on twitter were celebrating the defeat of woke activists and the integration of the Republican anti-Trump wing into the Democratic party, solidified by the cabinet berth.
It is simply that the elections were fought on different things, against two unpopular incumbents. 2020 was a referendum on Trump's covid handling, up against approval of the Trump economy, 2024 was a referendum on the Biden-Harris inflation and general incompetence, and the rosy memories of the Trump economy, against personal dislike of Trump.
I'm a leftist and think a genuine lefty is doomed. There is no hope for AOC in a primary or general. I can separate my ideology from my analysis.
The centrists saying this stuff here and on twitter are cynical or willfully ignorant of the fact that they had their dream campaign, and it failed miserably. They have a genuinely good alibi with the economy and Biden disapproval, therefore this loss doesn't reflect the unpopularity of their type of campaign, but because their first most important task is to purge the left of the party, they are instead reduced to self-contradiction and arguing about strategy.
I do hope more left-wing organisations have the unity and cynicism needed to make a strong case that, actually, the loss is because she went to the centre, the next nominee needs to shift, etc.
We can look at the conventions and the focus of each (transparently fake woke pandering in 2020, military-first strength in 2016 and 2024), which of course matter more than words on a website. And then we can see the words on the website:
https://time.com/7014604/changes-to-democrats-criminal-justice-platform/
Criminal justice:
In the 2024 party platform, there is no mention of police brutality. “We need to fund the police, not defund the police,” the text reads—a marked shift from previous progressive messaging.
Though the platform calls for things like restricting state and local practices such as solitary confinement, it simultaneously argues that there needs to be more police on the streets in order to protect communities. Democrats also do not have opposition to the death penalty on their platform for the first time since 2012.
By comparison, in the Democratic Party’s 2020 platform, they dedicated an entire section to “reforming our criminal justice system,” explicitly calling out mass incarceration, saying the criminal justice system is “failing” the nation, calling for an “overhaul [of] the criminal justice system from top to bottom” and stating that “police brutality is a stain on the soul of our nation.” It also focused heavily on community-oriented policing. There’s no mention of “mass incarceration” in the 2024 platform
https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2024...ntion-messaging-woo-independents-republicans/
Healthcare:
In 2020, the Democratic platform devoted eight pages to health care, outlining a plan for “Universal, Affordable, Quality Health Care,” with a public coverage option. The plan calls for pressuring private insurers to broaden access and lower costs, and for automatic coverage for low-income Americans even in states that refuse to participate.
Unlike the 2020 platform, the version the party adopted this week in Chicago makes no mention of universal health care – an idea that invites allegations of radicalism and wealth redistribution.
The Biden-Harris admin have "pivoted to the centre" since about mid-2022 when Ron Klain left the White House. The passage of the halfway IRA bill ended all progressive policy, with the rest of their time dedicated to supporting two wars in an incompetent way, and to the biggest right-wing shift on the border in decades, which they couldn't pass. It's been a lot longer than a few months.
For the argument of the first para, let's have a small thought experiment. In 2019, Kamala declined to endorse Medicare For All. Let's suppose she made it the centerpiece of her campaign this time, and lost. Would you blame her for
1. Running far left and turning off the subruban vote?
2. Her mistake in 2019 to not endorse M4A?
In the real world, you are choosing the 2nd option, having got the campaign you wanted and having seen it lose so horribly. And it is self-evidently the wrong conclusion, one you can reach only by motivated reasoning.
For the last line... once again, this was an anti-left, centrist platform and campaign. They snubbed these "progressive staffers" on every issue. For example, unlike in 2020, they refused to back protections for trans people, she only said she'd "follow the law" instead of making a reference to rights or saying, as Biden said in 2012, that "it's the civil rights issue of our time." They refused to even have a Palestinian at the DNC with a vetted speech. They refused to make the slightest tiniest change of policy on Israel. So, with these staffers ignored on everything, they suddenly were listened to on this one issue? It makes no sense, and indeed, the originator of that claim has now walked it back. What makes this funnier is that the only Democrat to actually go on Rogan is... Bernie, famously anti-progressive and with no progressive staffers or non-profit support.
@berbatrick - Some of these were bones thrown in to court Bernie refugees. The fundamental bargain of the Dem party and its establishment however haven’t changed since Bill Clinton’s first run in the 90s. Clinton to Obama to Biden and all the losers in between have more or less advanced the same policies, as opposed to a Bernie for example, who clearly had a different set of policy prescriptions for his run.
Jesus fecking Christ. It’s funny because George Lucas modelled the Rebels on the Viet Cong and the Empire on the United States. Palpatine was specifically based on Richard Nixon.
Elon wishes he had done as much damage as Peter Thiel. That man is the gravedigger of American democracy.
It's so ridiculous. If people want Republican-lite they'll just vote for the Republican candidate not the Dem one, nationally that is. I'm sure it's worked at state and local level on the odd occasion.
A Republican party without Trump does not turn out 76 million voters - he is an anomaly. Kamala might not have been a great candidate, but 74 million voters against virtually any other candidate, wins the election handily.
There's some room to debate about 'wokeness' and whether Democrats should moderate on some issues, in both presentation and the issues themselves. I don't think that's some crazy idea.
But let's be serious here.
The broad consensus among liberal and center-left political and intellectual leadership, heading into 2024, was that: 1) Joe Biden was a very good to great president, who 2) had done a very good job at dealing with the economy, and 3) was of sound mind and could run again in 2024. Andt his had nothing to do with wokeness. The Sunrise movement didn't make Matthew Ygleasis deny that Biden was too old until July. The ACLU didn't make Jonathan Chait suggest that Biden go on the offensive about Bidenomics in February of 2024. Code Pink didn't make David Brooks claim that voters did not like Biden's economy because of "a loss of faith in ourselves as a nation."
The most unpopular position held by the Democratic party in this election was that Joe Biden should run for President again because he can continue doing a great job. And you can't really pin that on woke. No one really emerges from that one unscathed.
But let's be serious here.
The broad consensus among liberal and center-left political and intellectual leadership, heading into 2024, was that: 1) Joe Biden was a very good to great president, who 2) had done a very good job at dealing with the economy, and 3) was of sound mind and could run again in 2024. Andt his had nothing to do with wokeness. The Sunrise movement didn't make Matthew Ygleasis deny that Biden was too old until July. The ACLU didn't make Jonathan Chait suggest that Biden go on the offensive about Bidenomics in February of 2024. Code Pink didn't make David Brooks claim that voters did not like Biden's economy because of "a loss of faith in ourselves as a nation."
The most unpopular position held by the Democratic party in this election was that Joe Biden should run for President again because he can continue doing a great job. And you can't really pin that on woke. No one really emerges from that one unscathed.
Last edited:
There was a good article in NY MAG about why people in New York voted for Trump. I'll copy some quotes:
Nor would the Dems turn out the numbers they have over the past two cycles, many of which voted to keep Trump from winning the election.
Which just goes to show, Democrats don’t offer or stand for anything, they just stand against a few things.
The trouble for Dems is that most voters are independents who exist in the political center. So unless they have a candidate who can galvanize the base and get more independents than the opposition, they are going to lose. In this cycle, abortion and “democracy is on the ballot” weren’t going to get it done when the other side was pushing an economics and border security platform.
That’s true. They are both leaderless, rudderless, and ideationally fractured among three different factions.
Kloppmala Harris.