4 ms·

> As for the second term, we can’t forget that the Democrats basically threw the election. This election was a layup. An easy win. Good case for that in 2016,

> As for the second term, we can’t forget that the Democrats basically threw the election. This election was a layup. An easy win. Good case for that in 2016, sure. 2024, not at all.

platevoltage 1y ago
When you’re marching one of the most hated republicans in the country around on stage pretending like it’s going to get you more votes, while kicking one of the most popular left-wing online voices out of your convention, I understand why people would get this impression. Dems would rather lose than cede any power at all to the left flank of the party.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  The left flank of the party is the problem. Democrats would win more elections if they focused on economic issues.
  - Zigurd 1y ago
    The left of the Democrats are the people focusing on economic issues. I'm not just saying that to be contrary. The relevant economic issues are things like the decline of unionization and the divergence of wages from productivity and profit. Big money donors don't want you touching that.
    - bearl 1y ago
      If the left were really the left they wouldn’t be the left though. The NBC left is the problem, the Democracy Now left is not. The left doesn’t want Bernie, Chomsky or Amy Goodman they want The View. Turns out young men don’t want The View, so the left is stuck now much like the American right because there is no ideological coherence, just aesthetic and hatred for the other team however they are imagined (e.g. “tax and spend republicans”).
      - ethbr1 1y ago
        The path to winning elections is by appealing to voters who can be swayed while keeping the base on board. The problem with Democrats winning elections (since 2016) has been the ideological purity tests their social-left demands from candidates, rendering them toxic to independents. It'd be nice if internet SJWs grew up and realized that winning elections with "don't ask don't tell" is better than losing elections with overly socially progressive platforms. It feels like a large chunk of the party would rather lose an election smugly than win it with compromise. Republicans since 2014 have been in somewhat of the same mutually exclusive bind, which is why Trump emerged as the primary candidate. Turns out reconciling mutually exclusive promises is possible if you're willing to say things without intending to do them and bank on charisma and a cult of personality. Tl;dr - Democrats need to cure their case of SJW Tourette's. When someone asks a question about trans rights, say "I support equality for all Americans, because that's what our Constitution promises" and leave it at that.
        Zigurd 1y ago
        I'll bet you a beer that the analysis after the midterms is going to be that Republicans shouldn't have capitulated to the tech bro neoreactionaries.
        ethbr1 1y ago
        Depends which way control goes, which depends on the economy in November 2026 + redistricting outcomes. And I'd say the excesses are equal part tech bro neoreactionaries + nativist Heritage / Project 2025 folks, each of which contributed their own toxic ingredients. It's rapidly becoming apparent that Trump doesn't actually care about much ideologically and generally blows whichever way the last person in the room asked him to.
        platevoltage 1y ago
        This is basically a Bill Maher monologue. We live in a country where a pathological liar can turn less than a dozen people in the NCAA into a national issue, but you think the best way to counter that is march a robot out on to the mic to say "I believe we are all equal, vote for me". This is who those "Join the conversation" Pepsi ads that went over so well were designed for.
  - platevoltage 1y ago
    Pretty sure things like universal healthcare are economic issues.
dimal 1y ago
You think that running a candidate with dementia, then giving the nomination to the next default person in line was a good strategy? Even with those fuckups, Harris didn’t get completely trounced. If they had put up any reasonable candidate who got the nomination fair and square, they probably would have won.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
  > If they had put up any reasonable candidate who got the nomination fair and square, they probably would have won. This seems incredibly naive. Can you name any such reasonable candidate and explain why you think they would have won the election?

> As for the second term, we can’t forget that the Democrats basically threw the election. This election was a layup. An easy win. Good case for that in 2016, sure. 2024, not at all.

platevoltage 1y ago

When you’re marching one of the most hated republicans in the country around on stage pretending like it’s going to get you more votes, while kicking one of the most popular left-wing online voices out of your convention, I understand why people would get this impression. Dems would rather lose than cede any power at all to the left flank of the party.

ethbr1 1y ago
The left flank of the party is the problem. Democrats would win more elections if they focused on economic issues.
- Zigurd 1y ago
  The left of the Democrats are the people focusing on economic issues. I'm not just saying that to be contrary. The relevant economic issues are things like the decline of unionization and the divergence of wages from productivity and profit. Big money donors don't want you touching that.
  - bearl 1y ago
    If the left were really the left they wouldn’t be the left though. The NBC left is the problem, the Democracy Now left is not. The left doesn’t want Bernie, Chomsky or Amy Goodman they want The View. Turns out young men don’t want The View, so the left is stuck now much like the American right because there is no ideological coherence, just aesthetic and hatred for the other team however they are imagined (e.g. “tax and spend republicans”).
    - ethbr1 1y ago
      The path to winning elections is by appealing to voters who can be swayed while keeping the base on board. The problem with Democrats winning elections (since 2016) has been the ideological purity tests their social-left demands from candidates, rendering them toxic to independents. It'd be nice if internet SJWs grew up and realized that winning elections with "don't ask don't tell" is better than losing elections with overly socially progressive platforms. It feels like a large chunk of the party would rather lose an election smugly than win it with compromise. Republicans since 2014 have been in somewhat of the same mutually exclusive bind, which is why Trump emerged as the primary candidate. Turns out reconciling mutually exclusive promises is possible if you're willing to say things without intending to do them and bank on charisma and a cult of personality. Tl;dr - Democrats need to cure their case of SJW Tourette's. When someone asks a question about trans rights, say "I support equality for all Americans, because that's what our Constitution promises" and leave it at that.
      - Zigurd 1y ago
        I'll bet you a beer that the analysis after the midterms is going to be that Republicans shouldn't have capitulated to the tech bro neoreactionaries.
        ethbr1 1y ago
        Depends which way control goes, which depends on the economy in November 2026 + redistricting outcomes. And I'd say the excesses are equal part tech bro neoreactionaries + nativist Heritage / Project 2025 folks, each of which contributed their own toxic ingredients. It's rapidly becoming apparent that Trump doesn't actually care about much ideologically and generally blows whichever way the last person in the room asked him to.
      - platevoltage 1y ago
        This is basically a Bill Maher monologue. We live in a country where a pathological liar can turn less than a dozen people in the NCAA into a national issue, but you think the best way to counter that is march a robot out on to the mic to say "I believe we are all equal, vote for me". This is who those "Join the conversation" Pepsi ads that went over so well were designed for.
- platevoltage 1y ago
  Pretty sure things like universal healthcare are economic issues.

dimal 1y ago

You think that running a candidate with dementia, then giving the nomination to the next default person in line was a good strategy? Even with those fuckups, Harris didn’t get completely trounced. If they had put up any reasonable candidate who got the nomination fair and square, they probably would have won.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
> If they had put up any reasonable candidate who got the nomination fair and square, they probably would have won. This seems incredibly naive. Can you name any such reasonable candidate and explain why you think they would have won the election?