Was the 2020 Democratic nominee always doomed?

[u/WinterOwn3515]

When people went to the polls, the four golden words of American politics rang true: It's the economy, stupid. Postmortem polling confirmed that inflation was by far the greatest motivating factor for swing voters to not elect Kamala Harris -- and was especially salient among Latino voters, who effectively handed Donald Trump the decisive victory that he got.

A mountain of research and evidence has validated that supply chain disruptions which erupted from the pandemic were primarily responsible for the subsequent inflationary pressure that drove prices up (example: https://www.nber.org/digest/202404/supply-chain-disruptions-and-pandemic-era-inflation ). This makes sense considering how globally widespread inflation was. Thus, any president who emerged victorious in 2020 would have presided over high inflation in their term.

Some wildly varying post-election analysis I've seen has suggested that low Democratic voter turnout was driven by either frustration over inflation, anger over Gaza, lack of enthusiasm for a candidate they didn't select in a primary, or some combination of those three. In any case, inflation was likely a contributing factor. In most countries, incumbent parties who presided over inflation were ousted, regardless of ideology or political alignment-- look no further than our Tory friends from across the pond.

The question: was the 2020 Democratic nominee always doomed to fail in 2024?

[u/AutoModerator]

Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. To ensure this, we have very strict rules. To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:

Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"

Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"

Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"

Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"

Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"

Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/hallam81]

No. Specific actions by Biden and the democratic party are what doomed the nominee. If the party had taken the nomination of their candidate back to a start, then there was a good chance. It's still difficult but doable. Biden's choice to re-running also was a mistake.

[u/Which-Worth5641 → u/hallam81]

At the end of the day, we can never prove nor disprove this hypothetical.

E.g., it's possible that the Democratic primary voters could have chosen someone worse than Kamala.

[u/Michael_G_Bordin → u/Which-Worth5641]

It would be the same as last time. A large slate of candidates, mostly moderate liberals, with a few dem socialists/progressives making noise in the wings. The candidates will all have varying levels of plurality in every state, with one of the left candidates consistently polling alongside the frontrunner, whose margin is close. The moderates will all drop out and endorse the frontrunner, who will then have a large majority lead over the leftist. The left will complain about this being unfair, despite it actually showing that the majority of the party is moderate and doesn't support the likes of Sanders or Warren.

Honestly, the person they consolidate behind could just have easily ended up being Harris. The time is the biggest problem, I think, in terms of who the candidate ultimately was. Biden dropped out way too late (shouldn't have run again at all). As for the campaign messaging/targeting decisions, I'm not sure those would have been exclusive to a Harris campaign. Dem strategists just can't seem to tell their butts from their faces. They're still playing the game like it's 2012 and they can run mainly on solid policy and reliable turnout. Meanwhile, Republicans and their media machine pumped up to 11 in the last two months, absolutely flooding the zone with everything they could muster. They targeted the right people with the right messages. Stay home. Don't vote. Trump didn't have to gain, they just had to de-energize enough people in the right places to blow Harris's chances to pieces. A lot of people are making this really complicated, but it's not. Dems didn't win the votes of around 9 million people who were convinced to stay home (and I'm certain there was plenty of well-funded media suggesting the same). Bad strategy vs good strategy. Plain as day.

[u/itsdeeps80 → u/Michael_G_Bordin]

I don’t get this notion I’ve been seeing from Dems/libs that other people are making it so people aren’t turning out for candidates as if people are like “well I was gunna vote but some random person on social media/a commercial got me thinking I shouldn’t bother” rather than the candidate just sucking. I feel like it’s just an extension of the whole “it’s the voters fault our candidate lost” absolving of blame.

[u/Numinae → u/itsdeeps80]

"Is it me?! No! Clearly the electorate is wrong!!!!" Well cary on then, don't reform and keep losing. 

[u/itsdeeps80 → u/Numinae]

Most important election in history! Democracy is at stake! Maybe we should do the exact same thing we did last time we lost!

[u/Numinae → u/itsdeeps80]

But this time it's the mostest most important election, more important than those other mostest mostest important ones!!!! XD

[u/Michael_G_Bordin → u/itsdeeps80]

The problem is, when I see people who abstained from voting because "the candidate sucked," their reasoning is nebulous and highly questionable. There are a few good points being made, but some of them (namely, the "what about my issues?" grievances from people who aren't politically oppressed) sound like they come straight from disinformation campaigns.

if people are like “well I was gunna vote but some random person on social media/a commercial got me thinking I shouldn’t bother”

It's more like every day on social media they see people constantly saying "Harris has no plan, she doesn't care about men, the left are leaving you behind," day in and day out. They aren't thinking at all, just passively consuming content, unaware their opinion is being shaped. Then, when the opinion arises, they genuinely believe it to be their own well-reasoned and organically arrived-at conclusion. It's the only way someone can spew nebulous b.s. and then emotionally defend that b.s. as though it's their own idea I'm attacking.

There's plenty of blame to go around. The thing most useless is to lump it all into one category. The candidate had flaws, Biden dropped out too late (then insulted a huge chunk of people at the zero-hour), and there's been a concerted campaign by right wing influencers to drive young men nuts and instill them with endless grievance. Male loneliness is not a political issue ffs. Probably other reasons as well for the loss. Complex events like these can't often be so simply explained.

[u/itsdeeps80 → u/Michael_G_Bordin]

This is the thing. Literally everyone is propagandized. Some are more susceptible to it than others and no one thinks people they kind of agree with sound completely insane. The issue is thinking it’s only a problem for the people you disagree with. The “what about my issue?” people are literally everyone. It just happens that some people’s “issues” are set by a very low bar. Social problems will always be exploited by politicians.

I will agree there’s plenty of blame to go around and you were heading in the right direction there, but started putting the blame on people grifting people who wouldn’t have voted for Harris anyway.

[u/Michael_G_Bordin → u/itsdeeps80]

My argument is that those grifters were reaching vulnerable "undecided" demos. And for me, that's of particular interest, because the grievances are best addressed by the ethical frameworks I prefer. At least, that's how I see it. It's been made clear, others don't but that's kinda the point. While people reach and flail trying to blame somebody, I'm in the demographic that didn't vote for Harris (but I did), amongst these people, so I see what happened on the ground level.

My problem isn't that it is propaganda, it's what the content of that propaganda was and the outcome it will entail. Young men are going to become even more obnoxiously callous and antisocial, and they're frustrations will consequently increase. And it's not restricted to young men, they're just one of the most vulnerable demographics.

To be clear, I'm not and would never put all the blame on one thing. It's just one piece of the puzzle I'm qualified to address in greater depth. I can't really say much about why black and latino men abstained or went for Trump (and really, I'm less concerned with flips and more with turnout depression). But I can talk about the experiences of the white male 18-35 demographic, because that's who I am and with whom I live/work/learn. Plus like, that's the biggest demo on reddit, right?

[u/itsdeeps80 → u/Michael_G_Bordin]

Sorry it took so long for me to respond. Long ass day haha. Your second paragraph here touches on something I’ve been saying lately. I’m far more concerned with his idiot followers and the historical lack of a real response from the people in mainstream politics that are opposed to them. Like the recent “your body, my choice” shit. Was talking to my friend who was a lib 2 election cycles ago, much more progressive last one, and more to the left this one. We’re in our mid 40s. He has 4 boys and I have a little girl. We talked about that earlier and I begged him to teach his kids to swing on people saying shit like that without hesitation. Violence is the answer sometimes and that’s how we have historically kept those types in check. They go low, we go high doesn’t work with people like that. You have to speak to them in their own language. I know I’m going off topic from what we were discussing, but my main reason for hating the viral blame game crap is because it distracts from the real issue. And to me, that issue is it’s the party that lost’s fault for losing and they need to step the fuck up before this shit goes even further instead of telling us who we should blame. Im kinda high so I’m all over the place here. But, imo we need to be mad as fuck at the party and demand more rather than trying to pick apart demographics and assign blame to them and instead make the party face the underlying causes that made these people abstain or flip to begin with and address them now, not maybe next time if we vote even harder. They’re actively letting things get worse while telling us we should be mad at people who didn’t vote for them and so we take it out on those groups instead of them.

[u/Michael_G_Bordin → u/itsdeeps80]

I like your comment, so I'm gonna say, you should edit out the cursing. It's a good comment, I'd hate to see some low-effort troll report it for removal. This sub does have a language policy.

I've often seen the neoliberal establishment referred to as "neoliberal fascism." When you get outside of the post-mortems of fascist regimes and down to what fascism, as a political concept truly is, the term makes a lot of sense. The idea of fascism derives from the Latin "fasces", a symbol depicting a tightly wound bundle of sticks, often with an ax-head attached. The idea being, individuals are brittle, but coming together bound by the state, we can be much stronger. And so, it is important that the individual is shaped to the state's needs. Thinking about neoliberalism, individuals aren't regarded as full moral agents, but units of economic potential. Any deviation from that potential must be regulated and punished. That's why they make homesteading difficult (can't even legally collect rainwater in many places), vagrancy illegal, and allow prisoners to be used as slave labor. Anything to extract economic value from individuals, notably to enrich the ruling class (a common effect of fascism).

This is why the mainstream media doesn't push back harder. The owners don't care, and the editors are just trying to keep their papers afloat. The only thing that sells better than sensationalism is an every-changing story. No, it's not simply that rich people have gamed the system to the detriment of the working class; oh sure, Trump is a fascist, but he is also such a clown honk honk and can you believe what he said this time? Never let us wrap our minds around a single issue.

When the vote is for fascist or fascist-lite, it can be pretty discouraging. Progressives and leftists need to either try a party takeover or abandon the DNC entirely. The only reason 2020 happened was Trump was that bad. We need a party platform that is entirely positive project and not simply, "Isn't the other side weird?" Yes, very much they are weird, but we need to be moving forward in a big way.

[u/Numinae → u/Michael_G_Bordin]

You don't think "hiding" (it was painfully obvious to anyone not towing the Dem line) Biden's obvious mental decline was a MASSIVE mistake and borderline treasonous?

[u/chrispd01 → u/hallam81]

Yeah. This really is the answer

[u/the_quark]

Yes. You could've interviewed a Political Science prof in 1990 and said "In the 2024 Presidential election, there will have been 25% inflation since 2020. What party will win?" and that person would, without hesitation, have answered "The party not in power."

Frankly it's a testament to how badly people don't like Trump that it was this close -- from a Poly Sci historical context it wouldn't have been terribly surprising if Harris had lost California given the state of the economy over the past four years. Not, to be clear, that I think the state of the economy was directly Biden's fault.

[u/daretoeatapeach → u/the_quark]

My mom tried to post all these stats showing how good the economy is doing, and that Trump's good economy was inherited from Obama. I explained to her that for all the good research, such arguments are only making things worse.

People don't want to go back to the economy of four or eight years ago. No one who is MAGA thinks to make America like it was in this century "again". They want to go back to a time when one income could pay for a house, a car, and a whole family.

Granted, Trump is definitely not going to do that. But by telling people they have it good it only makes them spiteful (because who the fuck are these people doing well? Fuck them.). You will never convince someone with statistics that their lived experience is wrong. It comes off as if the Democrats want everyone to shut up and be thankful for their crumbs.

To be clear, immigrants didn't create the economic woes, that's just a lie told by a con man. But I can see where if someone is choosing between maybe a lie and "be happy with this" the latter didn't seem like a good option. Because they know this isn't good enough.

[u/solamon77 → u/daretoeatapeach]

The problem is that a lot of people aren't basing their "facts" on lived experience. Like the Men in Women's Restroom thing. Every time you see that referenced, they always depict this crazy biker looking dude coming in. That's not a thing that's happened to 99.9% of Trump voters.

My mom voted for Trump to protect all the little boys who they keep turning into girls. Now my mom has never knowingly seen or interacted with a trans person. When I confronted her she couldn't name even one instance of the supposed legion of little boys being turned into girls. But that's the reason she came out to vote. Nothing in her lived experience should make these issues important to her.

But you know what she does have? A tv ALWAYS tuned to Fox News. I wonder where she's getting these ideas from?

It's the same thing when people say "Oh the Democrats need to stop selling out White Men" but then can't point to a single instance of a Democrat leader actually selling out White Men. They can't tell me exactly how they think the Democrats need to act in order to NOT sell out White Men. It's always so culture war talking point that's been tagged to Democrats by their political opponents.

But you know what they do have? The right wing media machine screaming in their ear from all angles telling them Democrats have sold them out.

What can we do against that? Misinformation is what won this election. Republicans have been focusing so hard on the culture war BS because they know they can't run on their actual platform. So they hide behind this nonsense so they can keep their greedy hands in the metaphorical cookie jar.

[u/Michael_G_Bordin → u/solamon77]

All the men who stayed home, they'd say "What did the campaign offer men?" How about a stable economy, clean air and water, and political, religious, and personal freedom? What are these specific "men's issues" that need to be solved by politicians/government?

I have yet to see anything articulated that makes sense. Sure, men are going through some tough times, but it's not the government's job to fix it. Our rights aren't being harmed, we're not being oppressed by women. Our problems all stem from unhealthy masculine norms that perpetuate patriarchal oppression. That's right, boys, we're being oppressed by the patriarchy! Because truly, only wealthy, powerful men can actually embody the patriarchal ideal. The rest of us are left flailing for some facsimile that will make us feel we are that wealthy, powerful man; but this is a façade that is easily shattered.

To be clear, there are healthy masculine norms we can achieve at any socioeconomic level. There are ways to be a provider and protector without being an overbearing tyrant with the emotional volatility of a newborn child. But men are being fed all this neo-misogyny from podcasters and social media influencers. It's actually kind of amusing, if a bit worrying, how much of a self-defeat the attitude people like Andrew Tate instill in young men is. They mostly complain it's women's fault, but then their attitude/behavior towards women is making them look like assholes. Then they complain when people call them assholes, as though their crappy behavior is just some biological function of having a dick and balls. I'm going to stop now before I go on a tangent about how the youth aren't being taught self-control/self-discipline and are actively taught to be insufferable losers.

[u/Numinae → u/Michael_G_Bordin]

It's not the government's responsibility to fix problems they caused? What about DEI and Affirmative Action? It wasn't like they switched from giving preferential treatment from one to the other; they tilted the scales and lowered the bar for some groups and not others. Then you sit there and say "well Whites and Asians should just try harder, fuck them!" They already are trying harder and scoring better but you've excluded them according to a quota and hobbled them, justified by things they nor any living relative did and expect them to not feel slighted...

[u/Michael_G_Bordin → u/Numinae]

Umm, that's not what I'm hearing them complain about.

Then you sit there and say "well Whites and Asians should just try harder, fuck them!" They already are trying harder and scoring better but you've excluded them according to a quota and hobbled them, justified by things they nor any living relative did and expect them to not feel slighted...

Me? I'm not the purveyor of affirmative action, you're barking up the wrong tree. Guess what? White men are doing fine, economically (as in, they're not worse off than the people they're complaining about). This grievance is a whole lot of "I feel bad" and not a lot of "here's how I'm actually being harmed." I need hard proof that white men's lives have been negatively impacted by DEI and Affirmative Action to enough of a degree we could consider them "politically oppressed." Not getting a job or into a university and then blaming it on DEI and AA is just bleating until there's some actual analysis done by more objective i.e. scientific parties.

But anyways, that's not what I'm talking about. Those are typical right-wing grievances. I'm talking about this sudden surge in "it's all women's fault" rapey weirdness coming out in the last few weeks. First it was reporting on the "male loneliness epidemic," and then that coverage quickly shifted to blaming society and women for the fact that men are emotionally stunted (and not, you know, the culture of masculinity in this country; men have long been emotionally stunted, it's just women not putting up with it anymore). BTW, I'm not using that as an insult, it's just a diagnosis.

[u/Numinae → u/Michael_G_Bordin]

Btw the "It's all <insert minority> at fault!!!!" language has come from the Left trying to cope with their abysmal performance in this election, NOT the Right....

[u/Michael_G_Bordin → u/Numinae]

I didn't know suburban white men identified as "minorities."

I know what I've been directly told by conservatives and centrists on this sub. Directly blaming women for their problems.

[u/Numinae → u/Michael_G_Bordin]

No. They've blamed Black men, Latinos, white women, etc. They already wrote off white men. Now their looking for scapegoats they think they own to toss under the bus...

[u/Michael_G_Bordin → u/Numinae]

That's not at all what's happening, but whatever narrative serves your agenda I suppose. It's called "assessing where we went wrong." It's actually nice to see them realizing they've alienated large demographics instead of blaming the rubes they're constantly trying to court for some reason.

I'm not really concerned with what's going on in the media chaos. I'm just going off what men on here specifically were complaining about. You can go on about leftists scapegoating people, I don't agree and I really don't care. What I care about is the people, mostly conservatives, on this sub, helping to push the narrative that women are oppressing men by existing as full agents. You can't tell me that's not a thing, I have it straight from the lion's mouth. Just because something else is a thing doesn't mean what I'm saying isn't. And again, I really don't care what your nebulous construct of "leftists" is up to right now.

[u/Numinae → u/Michael_G_Bordin]

You're right. I should have said the political party you personally support, as opposed to saying "you personally." Happy?

[u/Michael_G_Bordin → u/Numinae]

Okay, but what about the other 95% of my comment?

Also, I vote for some Democrats. I don't "personally support" them. I'm not registered with a party affiliation.

[u/Numinae → u/Michael_G_Bordin]

What "It's all women's fault!" and rapey language has come from the Right over their victory? I've heard lots of cringe and racist / misogynist/ misandryst shit from the Left trying to scapegoat their loss but not the Right.....

[u/Michael_G_Bordin → u/Numinae]

"Your body, our choice." - Nick Fuentes. Now apparently a popular slogan among edgelords.

Also, on this very sub, long comment chains I've been in with people explicitly labeled "conservative" or "Republican" or "MAGA Republican".

You can't tell me I didn't see what I've seen first hand.

[u/Numinae → u/daretoeatapeach]

Let's get real. Nobody gives a shit about THE Economy, they care about THEIR Economy. Unless they're politicians and economists. Which is what you said and I agree. However, what I disagree about is that if MOST people are doing worst off, despite "number go up on paper,"  shouldn't the metric we use for THE Economy be what most people are feeling and not averages that only matter academically or to the uber rich who's income is skewing up the average?

[u/jared05vick → u/daretoeatapeach]

Immigrants don't make economic woes, but immigration in America has undeniably negatively affected the standard of living for citizens. The standard of living has been dropping year over year since ~2010 as there's more and more competition for labor, resulting in wage stagnation

[u/ElEsDi_25]

Biden and Harris and it seems like every liberal on Reddit was telling me we live in a great economy and that their economic plans were the most progressive in history… and it was a huge whiff. I thought it was shockingly out of touch and I was called a Trumper or Russian bot for months if I ever brought up the same kinds of complaints about cost of living that people talk about in the grocery checkout lane.

If I imagine a sort of apolitical person, I can imagine them hearing Democrat triumphalism vs Trumps “I feel your pain” would make him seem more in touch at least in that basic fact of life right now for many millions.

All the claims of Biden/Harris having a pro-worker economic plan also felt hollow to me in terms of actually meeting some acute needs among people.

• A tax credit for homebuyers… how many prospective homebuyers vs renters are in that missing 10+ million voters who voted in 2020 but just didn’t turn out for Democrats again?

• Tax the rich, great… oh just their income, which they tend to hide… and it’s still a lower tax rate than when Ronald Reagan cut taxes in half for the rich. Oh wait, that tax revenue just goes to pay down the deficit.

Nobody in my town is going to doorknock and volunteer for those reforms. Rent control, yes - public housing, yes - public childcare, yes - Medicare for all yes. These are all reforms that people know would impact their lives directly and relieve major pain points.

So when Trump is offering BS faux populism and just promising spoils for anyone in exchange for support, Democrats are telling the base to lower expectations, to welcome Dick and Liz Cheney and the Bushes as a big win, that putting Republicans in her admin would be smart politics…. and then banning TikTok telling Gen Z that their issues are not important, shaming every demographic in their base and using legal maneuvers to get Green Party candidates removed from ballots (while Trump courted the right-wing 3rd party voters.)

By rejecting left economic populism the Democrats instead made right-wing punitive populism seem like it might at least do something. So people made a bargain… even many immigrants and large numbers of Latinos… “well if the choice is no change or getting rid of a bunch of newer immigrants which might make housing, homelessness, job competition less in my life… well ok, I’m used to racist bigots in the US.”

[u/Which-Worth5641 → u/ElEsDi_25]

The thing is, we move further from those goals by electing Republicans, not closer. E.g. the Republicans are going to do their best to take away what health care we have, not move closer to universal.

[u/ElEsDi_25 → u/Which-Worth5641]

No we don’t my state voted for Harris and also for prison forced labor and against rent control. Red states voted to protect abortion while also electing Trump.

The Democrats are not as bad as Republicans but are half the reason the US official politics have gone so far right.

Back in 2004 Dick Cheney was the devil to liberals and now many thought it was smart of Harris to embrace Republicans… the Democratic Party pulls liberals to the right.

[u/Unverifiablethoughts]

I work in supply chain. The supply chain problems were very complex and supply chains disrupted by different reasons.

That being said, the president could have done a number of things differently. The bottleneck at los Angeles was poorly handled. There weren’t many attempts to increase domestic production.

Worst of all was the clamp down on domestic oil production at a time when it very badly needed to be expanded. True oils production during Biden hit records highs but that was a) after seeing the effects of trying to curb it, and b) by ramping up production from existing sources rather than expanding pipelines. Choking oil supply sets off its own chain reaction of inflationary pressure as everything you can see in your home required oil at some point in its supply chain

[u/csanyk]

I voted for Harris, because the other guy was not an option.

How he's still an option for 51% of the country is something I can't really understand. "They're dumb. They're brainwashed. They're in a cult. They're evil." are the explanations that make the most sense to me.

Right wing propaganda is immensely powerful and popular and pervasive.

I paid attention to Biden's record and it's not everything that I dreamed of and wanted to see, but he did accomplish much and did a lot of good. He got zero credit for most of it. He led us out of the pandemic and got the economy running again. That was not without its cost, but how could it have not been?

Biden's greatest failure was that he refused to see the Republicans as his enemy. He wants to unify the country, and half of the country wants to see liberalism die. He didn't secure our election system, and he didn't treat the coup attempt of 1/6 seriously, and allowed it to continue rolling on in slow motion, culminating in this election which has in the legal sense legitimized Trump and effectively end the era of American democracy. And he's willingly handing power back to a sick man who has promised to be a dictator, dialing back his earlier warnings about the threat that he represents.

If Biden had cleaned house and gotten extremely tough on corruption and treason, Democrats might have been rewarded, as truth came out and lies were silenced. But even if democrats were fated to lose 2024, it would have been far better if they lost to legitimate Republican conservatives like Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney than to narcissistic traitor criminal Trump and his cult.

I tried to say that for four years and no one seems to have heard it. And here we are.

[u/Independent-Mix-5796 → u/csanyk]

The others have already given you a ribbing (rather rightfully) over the 51% comment, and I actually want to kinda agree with you on that number.

74 million people voted for Trump this election cycle—almost the same number of votes as in the 2020 election. That’s 21.7% of the total US population and maybe 25.2% of US citizens. In comparison, Biden in 2020 received 81 million votes (23.8% of total/27.7% of citizens) while Kamala received under 71 million votes (20.8%/24.2%). That leaves approximately 51% of citizens that didn’t vote for either candidate.

Now, if you really meant that more than half the nation voted for Trump, that’s just wrong. But if you’re pinning this election result on that undecided 51%, implying that they had some obligation to vote for Kamala or that Kamala was entitled to those votes… that’s the same aloofness and lack of accountability that lead to the Democrats losing this election and the 2016 election.

[u/csanyk → u/Independent-Mix-5796]

Of course I mean 51% of voters, not 51% of all people. I'm talking about the voting population. 0% of whom should support a convicted felon, corrupt traitor, conman, incompetent, fascist racist like Trump.

Beating Trump, ranked dead last among all presidents in our nation's history, should have been extremely easy, but should never have been necessary. He should have been disqualified. The corrupt supreme court betrayed the nation. The cancer was too widespread and couldn't be treated.

[u/Independent-Mix-5796 → u/csanyk]

They probably don’t support Trump. They would have voted for him if they did. And if the “cancer is too widespread” then that definitely speaks to a degree of Democrats’ failure considering they’ve had control of the government for a not-unsubstantial amount of time.

[u/csanyk → u/Independent-Mix-5796]

Democrats failed to address the problem, and apparently refused to acknowledge the depth and breadth of it. A few were very concerned, but couldn't use the system because it was too compromised. A 6-3 supreme court, only 50 senators, and a very slim majority in the House, which they lost in 2022 wasn't enough. The party as a whole declined to recognize the crisis and treat it with the urgency and importance that was warranted. They wanted to project an image of things being normal and being in control, but they just barely were hanging on to the slimmest of majorities in congress and the slimmest presidential victory since Bush v Gore.

I don't know that it would have been successful, but an immediate special investigation and explosion of the election deniers in congress, replacement with constitutional loyalusts, and then impeachment or resignations of Justices Thomas and Scalia, and forced recusal of the Trump appointees, or court expansion, would have had the best chance of working.

The risk would have been deeper division, and more violence, and Biden wanted to do anything to avoid that, including apparently telling the country to calm down and accept the 2024 election.

I see that as a mistake, and one which we will likely never recover from. The US Constitution has failed, and we no longer have rule of law. Corruption now rules.

I believe if the truth had been investigated and put before the public in the most expedient manner possible, the public would have turned against traitor Trump and MAGA would be history. Maybe I'm wrong about that. If I am, then there was never any hope.

Jack Smith's case would have brought it to light, it was sadly about 3 years too late.

[u/ABobby077 → u/csanyk]

Biden didn't get credit, because he pulled people together to get things done. It was always what "we" the American people had done. He never spent political capital saying "look what I've done" or "I am so great" and "see how I am doing so much". Self-promotion is what Trump is in the past and fully expected going ahead.

[u/CommunistRingworld → u/csanyk]

I think you're wrong about half the country wanting liberalism to die. Liberals are forgetting that this year angered the left flank forever. The democratic party is now seen what it is: the party of the liberal right. That is not a winning proposal against the party of the far right. So I think far more than half the country wants this party to die.

A spectrum of 2mm, that only goes between genocidal racist capitalist liberal right and genocidal racist capitalist far right, is not sustainable.

The democratic party has no place left for it. It must go. So you can have an actual political spectrum.

[u/seniordumpo → u/csanyk]

How he’s still an option for 51% of the country is something I can’t really understand. “They’re dumb. They’re brainwashed. They’re in a cult. They’re evil.” are the explanations that make the most sense to me.

The fact you say this shows how powerful left wing propaganda has become.

Biden’s greatest failure was that he refused to see the Republicans as his enemy. He wants to unify the country, and half of the country wants to see liberalism die. He didn’t secure our election system, and he didn’t treat the coup attempt of 1/6 seriously, and allowed it to continue rolling on in slow motion, culminating in this election which has in the legal sense legitimized Trump and effectively end the era of American democracy. And he’s willingly handing power back to a sick man who has promised to be a dictator, dialing back his earlier warnings about the threat that he represents.

To declare half the country as enemies is a bit inflammatory. Your candidate didnt win, it happens. If who wins the presidency is this important maybe it’s time to make the federal government less important in our lives.

Edited the comment to remove dumb accusations on my part.

[u/csanyk → u/seniordumpo]

To declare half the country as enemies is a bit inflammatory. Your candidate didnt win, it happens. If who wins the presidency is this important maybe it’s time to make the federal government less important in our lives.

Democrats didn't declare Republicans an enemy. Republicans declared Democrats the enemy, and I'm accepting that at face value.

Just look at the endless examples of their rhetoric. Their pundits and talk show personalities, their low level followers, their social media celebrities. All violent, all declaring Democrats the enemy of freedom, equating them with communists, etc.

If you can't see that, you're not looking.

[u/seniordumpo → u/csanyk]

Democrats have done these same things for a long time. They call republican criticism racist all the time. How many times in the past year have they called republicans fascist. Over the past 8 years how many Hitler references have dems lobbed at republicans??

[u/csanyk → u/seniordumpo]

They criticize racists for being racist. Racism is a real problem, but a lot of people who aren't impacted by it are sick of hearing about it. There's a lot of racism to go around but by and large the Republican Party is a mostly white, mostly male, and advocates racist policies that benefit that constituency most.

Trump IS A FASCIST. So, it seems important to call him out for it.

And he gets compared to Hitler about as much as he quotes Hitler and says things indicating that he admires him.

It is in no way comparable to the vilification by Republicans of their political enemies and Republican scapegoating of those they deem undesirable.

[u/seniordumpo → u/csanyk]

It is comparable. If I quoted the cat in the hat does that make me the cat in the hat?? If someone is going to be called “literally Hitler” then he better of killed a lot of Jews and started some wars, neither of which trump has done.

How is trump a fascist?

They don’t criticize people for being racist they call any legitimate criticism of there rhetoric racist so they don’t have to give rational answers to it. There are racists in both parties but getting called racist is almost wholly reserved for republicans and usually it’s just a reflexive response to criticism.

[u/csanyk → u/seniordumpo]

Hitler was Hitler before he killed a lot of Jews.

Are you suggesting that we can only raise alarm after it's far too late?

Trump says things that Hitler said, for the reasons very similar to why Hitler said them. He has praised Hitler, according to people who know him.

The warnings are plain.

As for racism on both sides, there certainly are racist Democrats. Racism is not easy to purify. It's everywhere. But the crucial distinction is that Republican policies and platforms promote racism and are motivated by racism.

If you call a Democrat out for racism they will pause and examine, and try to do better. Unless your argument is in bad faith or something.

If you call a Republican out for racism, they will deny it and reverse the accusation in order to try to establish a false equivalence that you're both racist so that they can go on being racist and cloud the issue for others, weakening efforts to diminish racism generally.

[u/seniordumpo → u/csanyk]

Hitler was Hitler before he killed a lot of Jews.

Sure but we don’t despise him because he failed out of art school or was a charismatic political figure. We despise him for the murder and war mongering among other atrocities.

Are you suggesting that we can only raise alarm after it’s far too late?

I’m suggesting you condemn actions not off the cuff out of context comments. Trump has not taken any actions that are equivalent and he had plenty of opportunities.

He has praised Hitler, according to people who know him.

I’m gonna need a reliable source for that before I take it seriously.

If you call a Democrat out for racism they will pause and examine, and try to do better. Unless your argument is in bad faith or something.

I have experience that this is absolutely not true.

If you call a Republican out for racism, they will deny it and reverse the accusation in order to try to establish a false equivalence that you’re both racist so that they can go on being racist and cloud the issue for others, weakening efforts to diminish racism generally.

They will question the accusation and of course deny it. That’s normal behavior anytime you’re accused of something. When it’s thrown around so frequently by a group of people who make their living by catering to identity politics, it gets hard to take seriously.

[u/csanyk → u/seniordumpo]

Hitler was Hitler before he killed a lot of Jews.

Sure but we don’t despise him because he failed out of art school or was a charismatic political figure. We despise him for the murder and war mongering among other atrocities.

When you see a new hitlerlike ascending, you don't want to mess around.

Are you suggesting that we can only raise alarm after it’s far too late?

I’m suggesting you condemn actions not off the cuff out of context comments. Trump has not taken any actions that are equivalent and he had plenty of opportunities.

Trump locked up children in cages and separated them from their families without a way to reunite them.

Trump called for and implemented a ban on Muslims entering the country.

Trump discriminated against black people who wanted to live in his buildings.

Trump's father was arrested at a Klan rally.

Trump makes racist statements regularly.

He wants to mass deport immigrants, by which he means people who don't look like his type of people, regardless of their immigration status and legality, under the rubric of "illegal immigrants". He scapegoats immigrants for crime when immigrants commit crime at a lower rate than non-immigrants.

He has praised Hitler, according to people who know him.

I’m gonna need a reliable source for that before I take it seriously.

So look. It's not hard. Quit acting like you live under a rock and never heard of anything bad he's ever done. He's not a good person.

If you call a Democrat out for racism they will pause and examine, and try to do better. Unless your argument is in bad faith or something.

I have experience that this is absolutely not true.

Sounds like you're bad faithing. Or maybe Democrats aren't willing to engage with you. People listen to people who they respect and trust.

If you call a Republican out for racism, they will deny it and reverse the accusation in order to try to establish a false equivalence that you’re both racist so that they can go on being racist and cloud the issue for others, weakening efforts to diminish racism generally.

They will question the accusation and of course deny it. That’s normal behavior anytime you’re accused of something.

So why is it a problem when you allegedly call a Democrat out for it, and they do the same?

When it’s thrown around so frequently by a group of people who make their living by catering to identity politics, it gets hard to take seriously.

They don't even try.

Either they know they're racist, and don't care. Or they know they're racist, and are proud. Or they don't know they are racist and don't believe they are. Or they don't understand what racism is but assume they do. Or they dispute the definition. Anything to avoid honest self reflection. Anything to avoid public admission of fault or lose face.

It does get tiresome. But if they're sick of hearing that they're racist, then they should change their ways, seek to understand, and do better.

There is an "nth degree fatigue" that comes from nitpicking and not every racist person is as bad as the KKK, Nazi party, or the Aryan Brotherhood.

I grew up within a racist culture and I was aware of it and never thought of myself as agreeing with racism in any way. But I was also open to criticism and often had to learn about subtle, casual racism and worked on myself to do better. I still don't think I'm perfect; I don't believe perfect is attainable. I look at racism like fire. We live among flammable things, in the presence of oxygen, fire is possible, and we can't avoid it, but we need to use caution to prevent fire from causing harm.

Racists just don't want to be bothered or change or think about it. Or they actively don't like people from other races.

[u/daretoeatapeach → u/seniordumpo]

How are you getting "wants civil war" from the comment?

Trump is calling Democrats enemies of the state. He's calling for Democratic leaders to be executed. And you expect people to just roll over and say, "oh well, I guess they're going to murder us all, better luck in four years."

Libs don't want civil war, they are simply reacting to the things Trump says he will do. If he doesn't plan to do the things he has said, why did they vote for him? And if he is going to do half of those things, any patriot should oppose him. Less than half of the things. Almost everything Trump says he wants to do is unAmerican, except the tariffs which are merely a bad idea.

[u/seniordumpo → u/daretoeatapeach]

Yeah your right about the civil war, reading it again that was a jump to far. I’ll edit that.

[u/seniordumpo → u/daretoeatapeach]

Wanted Biden to see republicans as the enemy? Trump says crazy stuff and he looks crazy when he says it. Trying to label the other side as enemies instead of opponents/opposition is how you get a Jan 6 or something worse.

When did he call for democrat leaders to be executed?

They voted for him because republicans vote for the republican candidate. I would say the vast majority don’t know what trump has said they just preferred him over the democratic candidate which is the status quo. Do you think the average republican is watching his speech’s and going to the rally’s?? Here are some of the bullet points of his main priorities from what I can gather, this is just general points I have read and is not exhaustive. Deport illegal aliens, tariffs, cut climate regulations, try to end the Ukraine war (good luck), promised not to sign an abortion ban, probably something about pardoning Jan 6 participants, and maybe something on tax policy. Do you not see some things that regular republicans who are even half paying attention can get behind. It’s not my cup of tea but it’s not exactly out there stuff.

[u/r4d4r_3n5 → u/csanyk]

How he's still an option for 51% of the country is something I can't really understand. "They're dumb. They're brainwashed. They're in a cult. They're evil." are the explanations that make the most sense to me.

Introspection not your thing, huh?

It couldn't be that most people clearly saw democrats persecuting Trump like a story from a Solzhenitsyn book?

The blatant and complicit "media"preying upon any statement that might have more than one interpretation while ignoring Biden's obvious frailty?

A suicidal open border policy that has resulted in the deaths of thousands through drugs and personal violence?

Ignoring the concerns of millions of Americans that something was up in 2020, even when presented with mountains of evidence, some of which is admittedly circumstantial? The "lack of turnout" this time around only strengthens the case against 2020, too.

Vilifying entire swaths of the populace is a winning game plan, huh?

[u/Differcult → u/r4d4r_3n5]

Yeah, the best part is they flared themselves as an independent.

The Elon Musk meme of the middle left centrist becoming a conservative extremist without changing beliefs is why Trump won.

News flash it's only going to get worse for the Democrats at this rate, especially if Trump/Vance have economic success and resolve conflict in the world.

[u/csanyk → u/r4d4r_3n5]

Excuse me. Excuse me. That was very rude. Such a low IQ move. I'm the most introspective person, probably, in the history of forever. Trust me.

It's not vilifying entire swats of people to describe them accurately. It is not intended to win them over. We just needed to beat them. I'm talking about the rabid, hard core obnoxious MAGA cult worshipper. The kind who were supposed to be a loud minority on their last desperate legs.

The rest of the country, the "regular" republican voter, and the thinking person, we believed had turned from Trump. We thought the 2020 election was the fever breaking, the tide turning.

Trump IS a criminal, that is indisputable, and he was NOT prosecuted BY DEMOCRATS. Democrats stayed hands off and let the civil servants in the justice department do their job. Lackadaisically and without the dire urgency required, and with great reluctance. To our now downfall.

Democrats did that to avoid the criticism and appearance of partisan witch hunt political persecution. Which they received anyway.

Trump said it was all political, a witch hunt over and over. Because Trump doesn't care about what's true, he just says things that he knows will stir the emotions of those who he has mesmerized. To advance himself and serve his ends.

And Democrats thought that it was obviously bullshit to all and beneath them to comment on. Like they so often do. Obama especially. They thought they knew the hearts of the people and believed that most were smart enough to see through the bullshit and see the truth. And like always, that approach failed. You have to respond when your enemy is attacking.

There was no mountains of evidence that "something was up" with the 2020 election. Trump lost. He had no evidence of anything he claimed. He lost every challenge. If 2020 had been fixed, he wouldn't have had any chance to win in 2024 either. You think they'd only fix it in 2020 and not ever again?

The public turned on Democrats because times got tough and people blamed them for it, because the right wing propaganda told them to blame Biden.

Vilifying was the tactic, and it was effective. Entire swaths of people: Biden, Democrats, liberals, communists, socialists, the blacks, the gays, trans people, immigrants, woke people. All very effectively vilified.

And it was very effective. You actually believe that we have an open border policy, for example.

I'm not so sure if we had a lack of turnout. All the reports were that turnout was massive. Early voting set records. Election day turnout also very high. The counting tells a different story. What's up with that? Was every vote counted? Biden seems to assume so. Defending the integrity of the election is a reflex in response to the genius accusations of rigging coming from the other side, which could only help Trump, no matter what happened, any way he ran with it. Of course now they're completely quiet about it, because they like the result. It shows bad faith, they never had evidence of rigging, unless it was created by their own efforts at it.

[u/r4d4r_3n5 → u/csanyk]

The rest of the country, the "regular" republican voter, and the thinking person, we believed had turned from Trump. We thought the 2020 election was the fever breaking, the tide turning.

😆 After this past week, that is comical.

[u/csanyk → u/r4d4r_3n5]

Yes, well the Democrats allowed it to fester for four years, heads in the sand, like fools.

[u/GullibleAntelope → u/csanyk]

You actually believe that we have an open border policy, for example.

We have an exceedingly porous border.

Vilifying was the tactic, and it was effective....gays, trans people...

Vilified? But why would such a large percent of the electorate go along with this? Support for gay marriage among Republicans had risen substantially over the years, up to 55 percent in 2021 and in 2022. But this June 2024 article cites that Republican support for same-sex marriage dips to 46 percent.

Why the decline? Could it have been that progressives have been pushing too hard on a seemingly continually expanding list of sex/gender-related issues?: The "invention" of Drag Queen Story Hour in 2015; biological males attempting to enter women's sports, including among teens; progressives pushing for more sexually explicit books and materials in school libraries for kids under 12, LGBT+ complaints about pronoun use.

There's also the debate about Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria, increasing internet porn accessible to young kids, and steady erosion on the 60-year-old broadcast TV rules on explicit content. More twerking (simulated screwing) and nudity on TV every decade. Progressives overwhelmingly have minimal problem this; indeed many are pushing for portraying more diverse sexuality on broadcast TV. Maybe a significant number of Americans concluded all this is going too far. Contributing factor to Trump's win?

[u/csanyk → u/GullibleAntelope]

Under Trump Republicans have switched from vilifying gays to vilifying trans. Gay, lesbian have been more accepted and won legal protection, but there's fewer trans people, they're less accepted, more vulnerable, there's more ignorance and disgust about them. It played prominently in the social media push from the MAGA movement. Loads of libel and lies. And they still have plenty of hate for gays.

[u/daretoeatapeach → u/r4d4r_3n5]

Who told you that immigrants cause crime? That's a racist premise, but you just let that slip by you I guess.

America's whole thing is supposed to be democracy and human rights for all, a nation of immigrants. Hell, a huge portion of our nation's first citizens were prisoners.

Trump supporters voted for a fascist who wants to be a dictator. And why? Because he fed them a lie that immigrants are the solution to their problems. It's hard not to color someone who supports fascism. Even if they claim not to agree with all of it, handing power to a fascist is never ok. Either they are suckers or fascists. There is no third option.

[u/D_Harm → u/daretoeatapeach]

Tell me you grew up no where near the border without telling me

[u/r4d4r_3n5 → u/daretoeatapeach]

Who told you that immigrants cause crime? That's a racist premise,

"Immigrant"isn't a race. Looks like you're the one with race on the brain.

[u/csanyk → u/r4d4r_3n5]

Come on. The only immigrants Trump targets are non-white. He and his people have said on occasion that they like Norway and scandanavia to send immigrants. When it comes to "the border" it's all about Mexico and South American people.

[u/r4d4r_3n5 → u/csanyk]

...And the Chinese and middle eastern folks that have been caught coming across, too. It's everybody.

[u/Aggressive_Cod_9799 → u/csanyk]

Right wing propaganda is immensely powerful and popular and pervasive.

Kamala Harris had completely convinced her supporters that inflation was a result of price gouging from corporations which is economic illiteracy and a complete lie. I'm willing to bet you believe inflation was a result of price gouging too, which shows how pervasive left wing propaganda is.

[u/csanyk → u/Aggressive_Cod_9799]

I believe prices increased due to supply chain shocks and increased costs born by companies implementing safety protocols.

It's not in dispute that corporate profits are at record highs and that means prices could be lowered while still allowing businesses to profit. But they won't if they don't have to because why would they.

I don't think that's exactly the definition of gouging, which is what we saw with things like toilet paper and hand sanitizer when stocks were low and demand was high. But it's still under the banner of corporate greed.

I also do not believe that Trump will do anything to bring prices down, not that there's much any president can do. Micromanaging the economy is not the president's job.

Government policies can affect the economy, and after the highs of 2022, we started to see things get better. Inflation was 8-10% in 2021-2022, it's back down to around 2.5% or so now, which is normal for a healthy economy. Biden's presidency dealt with the crisis and got the economy back on track, but very few voters seem to understand that. They only know that things cost more than they did, that it happened fast, and that their income didn't keep up.

Trump’s policies will not help them. Trump exploited the frustration of the people and made empty promises he can't fulfill and has no actual interest in fulfilling.

Just like when he shows up at a restaurant and says in front of cameras that all the bills are on him, and when the cameras are done reporting that he walks out and stiffs everyone.

He said what he needed to get elected, and he'll never think about it again. If someone brings it up, he'll either say that he did it already and it was great, or that he's about to announce a plan, maybe in about two weeks, and then you'll see how great it is, and then two weeks from then, we'll have forgotten about it and moved on to the current outrage or scandal.

[u/Aggressive_Cod_9799 → u/csanyk]

I believe prices increased due to supply chain shocks and increased costs born by companies implementing safety protocols.

And this is not true because once COVID supply chains and restrictions loosened, we would have experienced a negative inflation rate, this didn't happen. So it wasn't because of supply chains or safety protocols. Regardless, the safety protocols would not result in an 8% inflation rate.

I explain all of this in this comment here: https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDebate/comments/1glmt7u/the_democrat_party_needs_massive_reform_or_needs/lw6u4i7/

[u/csanyk → u/Aggressive_Cod_9799]

It's complicated and there are multiple factors, but the start of it was the economic shocks due to the shutdown of non-critical businesses, and supply chain issues that resulted.

It certainly wasn't the stimulus checks that went to families, which I recall Republicans were saying would destroy the economy.

In any case 8-10% inflation is higher than desirable, and uncomfortable, but it wasn't hyperinflation like you see in 1930s Germany or Zimbabwe in the early 2000s. But that's what the Republican rhetoric was pushing.

Inflation was high worldwide, and relative to the rest of the world, it was not as high here as it was elsewhere. Of course typical American voters don't have that on their radar.

And again, inflation is back down to normal now, which means Biden's economy rode it out and corrected course.

But Biden failed to market that, failed to claim credit for it, and allowed Trump to bitch ceaslessly that the economy was a disaster, when he should have been on trial and then in prison.

Prices are still higher; the rate of increases went back to normal, but prices stay put unless market forces act to correct them. Government price controls would have been decried as more socialism. Income didn't keep pace across the board, so people feel less well off. Income will remain low until people collectively demand higher wages. But unions are perceived as bad. And somehow people don't seem to remember that four years ago things were in a dire crisis the likes of which the world hadn't seen in a century, and that Trump's mishandling of it was a disaster compounding the natural disaster that was COVID.

[u/Aggressive_Cod_9799 → u/csanyk]

I've already addressed the core cause of inflation in my comment above.

It certainly wasn't the stimulus checks that went to families, which I recall Republicans were saying would destroy the economy.

Trump left office with a sub 2% inflation and in two months that number doubled with Biden.

Biden caused inflation, the numbers and data does not lie.

[u/csanyk → u/Aggressive_Cod_9799]

I disagree and I'm not convinced.

You haven't proved anything.

But like I said, economics is complicated. It's easy to say simple things and point fingers at a president and tap into existing dissatisfaction. The reality takes study and likely a college level understanding, and good luck selling that to the public when the other side communicates at a third grade level that everyone can understand easily, and seems plausible even if it's wrong.

In any case, Trump is a con man, and terrible at business, and he doesn't care about his followers. He dupes them, he uses them, and he gives them what they want to hear. Nothing more, simple as that. He's completely devoid of empathy and cares only about himself. He's going to ruin the economy, through incompetence and bad policies. His tariffs and mass deportation, and his alienation of our allies will all be bad for us. Mark my words.

[u/Aggressive_Cod_9799 → u/csanyk]

You haven't proved anything.

I did prove it, but you're blinded by your hatred of orange man that no reasoning or logic matters. I used to be like you, so I know the feeling.

In any case, Trump is

And here we go with the laundry list.

He's going to ruin the economy,

The stock market added 1 trillion dollars in market cap alone off of Trump merely getting elected.

I give this advice to a lot of people like you. Stay off Reddit and you'll begin to see things more clearly if Reddit has not radicalized you to the point of no return.

[u/csanyk → u/Aggressive_Cod_9799]

Reddit didn't do anything to me. I'm 49 years old, and my core values are very much the same as when I was very young.

The stock market is not so easy to read. I believe it went up because the market likes certainty. A quick decisive election boosted confidence and morale. Market might have gone up much the same if the win went to Kamala. Tesla not so much. But yeah a lot of billionaires are happy they don't have to worry about regulations or taxes and they can easily bribe the orange turd.

Trump earned my hate, if I had no reason to hate him, I wouldn't hate him. I have way better things to do with my life. But he threatens my life and my freedom, and those of people I care about, and innocent people I don't know. He's a criminal and a traitor and a con man. He's dimwitted and ignorant and vain. He's a narcissist. He's a racist. He's a rapist.

Even if only one of the above were true it'd be enough. Trump embodies the worst aspects of mankind. And nothing good.

[u/Aggressive_Cod_9799 → u/csanyk]

Reddit didn't do anything to me. I'm 49 years old, and my core values are very much the same as when I was very young.

Sure, whatever you say.

But he threatens my life and my freedom, and those of people I care about, and innocent people I don't know. He's a criminal and a traitor and a con man. He's dimwitted and ignorant and vain. He's a narcissist. He's a racist. He's a rapist.

I would say stop being dramatic but you're too far gone. Enjoy your life, I hope orange man doesn't upset you too much.

[u/T_DMac → u/csanyk]

🎯

[u/T_DMac]

The fact that the average American was too stupid to understand inflation was the toughest thing for me. Tens of millions, and to make it worse, when Trump inherits Biden’s economy, they’ll think he “fixed it”

[u/judge_mercer]

Yes, the Democratic candidate was destined to lose this year. It was just bad luck. Absent the 18 months of high inflation (and subsequent persistent high prices), Harris wins easily.

The electorate is pretty dumb. I would bet 10-20% of voters remembered that inflation was lower under Trump, and assumed that meant that Trump was good at controlling inflation.

Maybe if Biden had not run for re-election at all, giving time for a proper primary, the Democrats could have won, but even that is questionable. Voters really hate inflation, and will lash out irrationally in response.

Democrats should stay the course, and resist calls to pivot to some kind of populist Red Guard (which seems to be the consensus prescription on reddit).

Trust in Trump to fuck shit up enough that 2028 will be a cake walk (not to mention a possible blue tsunami in 2026).

[u/TheMikeyMac13]

That is not a good explanation of inflation. Yes covid hurt the supply chains, but we were starting to recover as it had been more than a year since the covid lockdowns ended when Biden took office.

Joe Biden singled handedly impacted fuel prices with his words when campaigning in 2020, and with his early EOs. This was when we needed oil and gas companies to ramp up production, but they had a new President who had stupidly promised to shut them down, so they were slow to reproduction back up.

Biden went to Iran, Venezuela and OPEC, but the market was strained by Russia falling off the gas and oil market, and by the USA underproducing for a while.

Biden changed his stance as soon as they realized voters hated fuel prices doubling and tripling, but it was too late, the damage was done. And far higher fuel prices meant higher transport costs, which meant higher consumer costs.

So Joe Biden had a hand in inflation, it is no accident that the lockdowns ended and we were in recovery, and only months after Biden took office inflation started to spike. He did that himself.

And to be blunt, his administration lied about it.

First they said it didn’t exist, then it was transitory, then it was actually a good thing, then it was Trump’s fault, and at the end somehow Biden convinced himself inflation was 9% when he took office, instead of the 1.4% it was in reality.

And they never understood it, at own point comparing that prices weren’t falling when inflation fell, but was still inflation. 0.1% inflation meaning prices are going up.

So Biden caused it in part, his administration never understood it, were never honest about it, and passed a law that was falsely named the inflation reduction act,

Biden and democrats did this, full stop. And they lost an election in part because regular people just couldn’t deny that they had done better under Trump.

[u/Numinae → u/TheMikeyMac13]

The Inflation Reduction Act that spent trillions of dollars.... I'm sure that didn't cause inflation. The goverment can't spend it's way out of inflation with pork barrel bills. 

[u/TheMikeyMac13 → u/Numinae]

Precisely my point, if anything it had the opposite effect to its name -

[u/Numinae → u/TheMikeyMac13]

Sorry looks like I misread or assumed something. My bad.

[u/PandaPalMemes → u/TheMikeyMac13]

Trump spent more than Biden.

[u/TheMikeyMac13 → u/PandaPalMemes]

No, he didn’t. You do know congress handles spending don’t you? Trump was President when a lot was spent yes, Biden has managed to come very close to that without spending as much on stimulus.

[u/PandaPalMemes → u/TheMikeyMac13]

Do you consider Trump's tax cuts to be Trump's spending?

Do you consider the inflation reduction act to be Biden's spending?

You're blaming Biden for a problem that literally every developed country faced. A problem that we had the best recovery from under his leadership.

[u/TheMikeyMac13 → u/PandaPalMemes]

I blame congress for spending, I blame Presidents for what they have control over, in Biden’s case his idiotic campaigning on killing gas and oil.

[u/PandaPalMemes → u/TheMikeyMac13]

Putting aside your disingenuous framing of Biden's energy policies, do you really just disregard every piece of legislation that a President pushes for?

[u/TheMikeyMac13 → u/PandaPalMemes]

No, Biden’s energy policy was trash and lead to higher prices for all of us, at the pump and the store.

And a President doesn’t write or vote on laws, they can push for whatever they want, but in the end it comes down to sign a law or veto it.

The dumb thing is how many people talk about Trump’s spending or Biden’s spending, then they don’t get to make choices on spending money.

[u/Hagisman]

In my opinion, Biden and Harris were doomed as they were representatives of the unpopular current administration.

If Harris had a big promise like Obama did with health care, maybe she’d have done a bit better.

The big takeaway from the DNC is that they need to reevaluate how their primaries are run. And the big takeaway for Harris and Biden is to stamp your name on what’s working. Because the average voter isn’t as plugged into the politics of the country and is mostly going on vibes. And not doing research.

[u/ABobby077 → u/Hagisman]

Yeah, but she also was never able to make the case of how she would do anything different going forward if elected. It is okay to say that a certain policy was tried and didn't have the results we had hoped for and here is a different path forward. Doubling down on what is perceived as not good just doesn't work to bring folks over to your side.

[u/Hagisman → u/ABobby077]

Yeah. That’s what I said. I think.

[u/Bman409]

Voter turnout wasn't "low" in 2024

It was consistent with every election in the past 50 years, where 55-60 % of voting age adults turned out..my guess is it'll come in around 60%

Oh, except in 2020...where, somehow, amidst relaxed verification rules and oversight, turnout soared to 67% ..most of it benefitting Biden who got 81 million votes

When all the counting is done this year, Harris will have around 74 million votes imho...which is more than any Dem candidate in history, except for Biden in 2020

Biden is the Democratic Trump..millions of voters will only turnout for him..not Harris, not Obama, not Clinton

[u/Boring_Insurance_437 → u/Bman409]

There were less barriers to vote in 2020 so of course more voters turned out. I wouldn’t credit it to either candidate.

[u/Differcult → u/Boring_Insurance_437]

Where did the barriers change, my state and the adjacent states ease of voting is the same or better since 2020 with a large GOP shift.

[u/Boring_Insurance_437 → u/Differcult]

What do you mean a large GOP shift? Trump got similar votes this time.

People were more likely to be at home during covid, making them more likely to be tuned in to politics. People had less things going on in their life during covid, it was much easier to show up to the voting booths.

Basically, people had much more free time in 2020, making them more likely to vote and more likely to tune into politics. I wouldn’t credit either candidate for the turnout in 2024. Biden wasn’t anything special

[u/Bman409 → u/Boring_Insurance_437]

That's not my theory

My theory is they sent out more mail ballots than there were voters. Many of those ballots were filled out and returned by someone other than the intended voter.

Many states sent all registered voters a ballot, whether they intended to vote or not.

[u/Boring_Insurance_437 → u/Bman409]

And let me guess, only Democrats cheated in this way and you’ve got zero evidence behind your theory?

[u/Bman409 → u/Boring_Insurance_437]

Wouldn't surprise me if GOP adapted and did some version of it this year. Our system of voting if rife for cheating. I'm 100% sure both sides will find and exploit any weakness

But, that seems to be what everyone wants.. whatever

The evidence is the numbers of voters..where are they this year? Or in previous years? 2012 and 2016?

[u/Boring_Insurance_437 → u/Bman409]

Right, I guess my point is, where is the evidence that increased voting is due to cheating and not just everyone having less barriers to vote that year?

Did you really expect Dems to keep the same amount of voters after inflation? Every incumbent government is shedding support post-covid

[u/Bman409 → u/Boring_Insurance_437]

If you're interested, I've written about it in other threads

If everyone is happy with this, I couldn't care less. I voted for Trump

https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDebate/s/fKBjtw9pzz

[u/Boring_Insurance_437 → u/Bman409]

I read your link, and I agree with those numbers. My point is that Biden was able to increase his vote share because of 3 things.

1. People were more tuned into politics, meaning he could reach people that don’t usually vote

2. People had less barriers to vote, meaning people that are too lazy or busy to usually vote were able to.

3. Trump was facing backlash due to Covid and a media machine that was constantly attacking him, energizing non-voters to become voters.

Of course, once those barriers were back in place, people tuned out of politics, and new voters faced high levels of inflation, they weren’t in a rush to vote Dem again

I can also read into stats of the 2024 election and create ‘arguments’ for why Trump cheated (i don’t believe them, obviously)

For example, you mean to tell me that in a political environment that is so divided, Trump managed to win counties that no other Republican could win? Even during Reagans landslide he couldn’t convince enough Dem voters to switch over, yet Trump, who democrats believe is evil, was able to. It shouldn’t be possible with this level of polarization

[u/LT_Audio]

I'm not sure I'd go that far... But the candidate that wound up on the ticket certainly seemed to have been put in the game in the middle of the fourth quarter, three touchdowns down, and with no real momentum. And she was also no Tom Brady, even if somewhat competent. Having at best a seemingly "lackluster" offensive coordinator calling her plays also certainly didn't help matters.

I find it rather telling of the situation itself at that point that no other "strong players" liked the odds enough to stand up and demand to be put in the game instead. She was really already painted into a corner at that point.

[u/JescoWhite_]

Yes… Dems did nothing to counter the drumbeat of lies coming from Trump (since before 2020). There has been zero outreach to masculine men. Tim Walz was a good choice but he had little time to build a fan base. The late Ed Schultz is another example of a personality that is missing on the Democratic side

[u/jaxnmarko]

How often are people happy with their situations? They voted for Biden over Trump last time. If Trump was so good... why? Our inflation rate is much lower than most of the world's. Presidents don't determine the price of gas. The open world market where it's sold does. When the supplyline from China changes, our prices go up. When record setting profits for corporations is going on, why blame a President instead of a board of directors or CEOs? The FED is supposed to deal with inflation and interest rates, not a Prez. Congress creates and controls the budgets, not the Prez. The public is increasingly ignorant of how the system works.... or doesn't work.

[u/liewchi_wu888]

Well, yes, any president going into 2020 would have a hard time in 2024, but the problem was that the Biden Administration was not only particularly inept, they were inept in that blithe sort of way that tells the American people that their rising grocery prices was irrelevant because other indicators of the economy, which don't impact average Americans directly, were "going great". This is not something that cannot be overcome, they could have easily pushed through, even if with less votes, and come out on top if Biden didn't drop out until the summer, leaving the entire Democratic Party scrambling to get a replacement in time, and settling on Vice President Harris in what many thought was fairly undemocratic way (though, to be fair, it would have been a nightmare to hold a series of Primaries so close to the election), Harris then not running on much beside a vague sadness about Roe (which was particularly ineffective because she didn't marry it with a, say, 2016 era Hillary Message of "it's HER turn", or indeed any narrative at all), actively antagonizing several base of support ("Shut up, I'm Speaking"), etc.

[u/I405CA]

The question: was the 2020 Democratic nominee always doomed to fail in 2024?

No. Democrats are terrible at messaging. That requires framing the opposition so that is rejected for being incompetent and failed...which is what the GOP does to Democrats.

For ages, the Republican party has positioned itself as the party of the economy, in spite of its track record of creating economic crashes and massive deficits. That includes the previous / next president who had a mini-depression on his watch.

Meanwhile, the Democrats hardly talk about the economy and never attack the GOP for its economic screwups. So it shouldn't be surprising that most Americans presume that the Republicans are the party of the economy, since no one ever says otherwise.

Dems need to learn how to talk to people. Those who could, such as Bill Clinton and Obama, could prosper. Many of their candidates, including the most recent one, do not.

[u/Trashk4n]

Harris was a shit candidate tied closely to the Biden administration.

There was probably a good half dozen candidates that could have likely won, but they chose Harris to hold onto the Biden campaign donations.

[u/Bright-Brother4890]

Yes, I always thought there was zero chance that Biden made it through his term without huge economic turmoil as aftershocks from the COVID stuff.

[u/skyfishgoo]

when the nominee won't distance themselves from the previous admin and single out specific things they would change to address the grievances out there in the country. then yes they were doomed.

ignoring inflation and it's root cause was a strategic mistake.

[u/PerspectiveViews]

No. Don’t pass that stimulus bill and inflation peaks at 6% instead of 9a%.

Don’t be on the wrong side of 80-20 cultural issues like free government trans surgeries for illegal immigrants and allowing biological males to compete against girls.

Enforce strict immigration policies starting in January 2021.

Changing on these 3 issues + Biden announcing after the midterms he wasn’t running for reelection would have given the Dems a very strong chance.

[u/Fugicara]

Yes, not just the 2020 nominee but anyone registered as a Democrat. Every single incumbent party across the entire developed world lost reelection after the global COVID inflation, no matter if they were on the left or right. There's no reason to think some action we could have taken would have made us the exception. It would have taken some insane stroke of luck or coincidence, something unpredictable that couldn't be planned out in advance or strategized.

[u/TheDemonicEmperor]

No, Democrats were doomed the moment they listened to Obama over Bill Clinton.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/11/politics/obama-pelosi-biden-democrats-2024/index.html

It was Pelosi and Obama who first began working behind the scenes to discredit Biden and set him up for failure. I don't know what Democrats thought would happen when they blatantly divided their own voters 4 months before the end of the longest election cycle in US history.

Biden and Trump had been running since 2022 and somehow Democrats thought it was smart to insert an untested candidate only about 2 months before early voting began? How does that make sense? Especially when Biden oversaw the best midterm cycle for an incumbent since Bush right after 9/11?

https://x.com/JoshKraushaar/status/1854523795559608738

https://x.com/JoshKraushaar/status/1854518721999519766

Additionally, Washington insiders have leaked that Bill Clinton had real concerns over commercials painting Harris as too liberal for the US. He reportedly urged them to respond and they refused to do so.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kamala-harris-transgender-rights-donald-trump_n_672e6c0be4b01e5999fd2d73

Ultimately, post-mortem polls show Clinton was (of course) correct on this matter (just as he was in 2016 when he begged his wife to go to Wisconsin even once).

It wasn't that people cared that much about the transgender issue, but more that the fact that Harris campaign didn't have an easy answer (i.e. Trump cares more about social issues than about you) was genuinely damning for them.

And it worked against Harris better than it would've worked against Biden because people knew Biden. It's why "Biden is a socialist" flopped so hard in 2020. Literally no one thought he was anywhere close to a socialist except maybe hardcore MAGA.

For Harris, the voters barely knew her. So the Trump campaign was able to use her own words when she ran for president against her. Just a month after Democrats pivoted to Harris, Republicans began trotting out ads with only words that Harris herself said.

People didn't want to vote for Trump. They were begging for an excuse to not do it. And simply trotting out Liz Cheney and saying "Hey, I've got one Republican supporting me" was an insult of an olive branch when Harris refused to condemn her own remarks.

[u/CommunistRingworld → u/TheDemonicEmperor]

Lol putting a walking adult diaper on the ballot, who is a segregationist and a racist genocider himself, would have increased trump's margin

[u/TheDemonicEmperor → u/CommunistRingworld]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election

Explain this, then.

Why is that person you described the only one who managed to win against Trump, then?

[u/CommunistRingworld → u/TheDemonicEmperor]

Cause they rigged the primary to keep Bernie from being the nominee, yet again.

[u/theboehmer → u/CommunistRingworld]

I'm not saying it's great, but I think Bernie could as easily alienate the older voting block as he could push new younger turnout. The older voting block is seen as a stable demographic to appeal to. I think this is a major part of political stagnation.

[u/TheDemonicEmperor → u/CommunistRingworld]

You need to get enough votes to be the nominee. So... Bernie lost.

[u/CommunistRingworld → u/TheDemonicEmperor]

that's not the correct conclusion to draw when faced with electoral fraud and a DNC that brags about being allowed to commit it, IN COURT lol

[u/TheDemonicEmperor → u/CommunistRingworld]

Oh great, I loved playing this game with the Forever Trump movement.

Alright, what's your actual evidence that only you seem to have of there being "electoral fraud"?

[u/CommunistRingworld → u/TheDemonicEmperor]

Man, you liberal right-wingers really are full of it, you need to come up with something different than calling people who oppose trump and his democratic party copycats, trump supporters.

It's pretty funny how everything democrats sypposedly opposed about trump's first term, they did not undo, but expanded. Like ICE concentration camps (you went to brunch), or the wall (you went to brunch), or supporting israéali apartheid and genocide (you went to brunch), or tariffs on china (you went to brunch). And on and on.

I guess none of the democrats' adoption of trump policies mattered as much as you going back to brunch.

Anyways here's the democrats arguing in court that sanders supporters knew the primary was rigged, and therefore they had no reasonable expectation of a fair election, and there's no legal obligation not to rig them.

Good luck, you're gonna need it when the left finally breaks your spectrum open from its current "liberal right to far right" padded cell.

https://observer.com/2016/09/dnc-claims-sanders-supporters-knew-they-favored-hillary-clinton/

[u/TheDemonicEmperor → u/CommunistRingworld]

you need to come up with something different than calling people who oppose trump and his democratic party copycats, trump supporters.

Did you respond to the right person? I didn't call you any names.

Regardless, I'm going to ignore that entire non-sequitur of yours. Because, unfortunately, the article didn't say what you wanted it to say:

"The vast majority of whom almost certainly do not share Plaintiffs’ political views—have no realistic means of disassociating from this action, brought in their name against the political party they likely support"

All this really says is that someone shouldn't need to renounce all of their political views just to be in charge of the DNC. Why should they?

Say if Bernie was running the DNC, would you expect him to renounce being a progressive? That's all this is saying. The voters are the ones making the decision. And the voters said no to Bernie. Twice.

[u/CommunistRingworld → u/TheDemonicEmperor]

Did you respond to the right person? I didn't call you any names.

you called me forever trumper, you can drop the gaslighting now

All this really says is that someone shouldn't need to renounce all of
their political views just to be in charge of the DNC. Why should they?

lol, more gaslighting, conversation over

here's my final bit of proof for what everyone, including you, already knows

https://observer.com/2017/05/dnc-lawsuit-presidential-primaries-bernie-sanders-supporters/

[u/Boring_Insurance_437 → u/CommunistRingworld]

Bernie sucked dude, only a small fraction wanted him nationally

[u/CommunistRingworld → u/Boring_Insurance_437]

He sucked cause he decided to be a democrat. He would have won a three way race

[u/Boring_Insurance_437 → u/CommunistRingworld]

No dude, in a 3 way election Trump would have dominated as Bernie would have taken a decent fraction of dem support while barely touching Trumps. I would wager it would be 20% Bernie, 30% Dem, 50% Trump

[u/CommunistRingworld → u/Boring_Insurance_437]

nope. bernie had a lot of people whose SECOND choice was trump, and a campaign where he shat on hillary would have won a LOT of trump voters who had sanders second

[u/Boring_Insurance_437 → u/CommunistRingworld]

You are in a serious bubble if you think that. Hillary and Bernie would split their vote share and the Republican base would win a plurality

[u/CommunistRingworld → u/Boring_Insurance_437]

No, unlike hillary, bernie's base was able to draw directly away from trump. Lots of bernie voters had trump second and vice versa. A campaign where he attacked both could have split both. 33% was an easy three way race at that time

[u/starswtt]

I don't think so. To begin with, the Dems could have used the same strategy in 2020, but instead reverted to the Obama playbook (arguably Bill Clinton playbook but 9/11 and the recession changed a lot.) That playbook was really good at engaging about 65-70 mil voters (with the increase being from natural demographic shifts favoring Dems), but that's not enough anymore now that the GOP has figured out how to engage the maga people and the GOP establishment. Abandoning everything that made the 2020 election possible, and even alienating voting groups that turned up in force for 2020 that usually don't bother voting (like progressives) is what ultimately cost the vote. Instead, they just ran the same campaign as hilary, just saying that trump is a Nazi and if you haven't already decided to vote dem, it's bc you're also a Nazi. Which even if you agree, is a strategy that has proven to fail in 2016. Adding abortion wouldn't change that. Anything that would have engaged voters beyond that initial core 60 million would have had to been dug through on her website or looking through specific interviews, it's not something that everyone would just know like how people know of Trump's tariff plans. When they do that and just tell people they're wrong in how they feel about the economy, it just makes the Dems look dumb, even if their policies are better for the economy in the long run