Democrats only: Are there lessons to be learned for team Harris?

[F1fan]

Personally because 3 democratic governers warned Biden that the southern border was an issue I believe Harris could have had a bit more political savvy and urged Biden to clamp down on the southern border sooner. I believe that even if the US needs migration sometimes in politics you have to not be too much of a moral crusader and have more of a willingness to listen to the public's concerns even if they are unfounded.

Considering the loathworthy opponent Harris had I personally feel this shouldn't have been such a close race in my view.

Thoughts?

I think MAGA needs to run its course and America hits bottom with numerous failures. Perhaps then more citizens will take politics seriously.

 

[F1fan]

Harris was a terrible candidate.

Yet vastly better than Trump. But too many voters have poor judgment.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Yet vastly better than Trump. But too many voters have poor judgment.

Certainly better. But it is not much better than the difference between lice and bed bugs, IMO.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I was one of the only old school liberals here who correctly predicted the election.

You predicted

1. that Trump would receive 271 Electoral Votes,
2. that Harris would reveive 266 Electoral Votes,
3. that the GOP would increase its hold by 5 seats, and
4. that the Democrats would take the House.

What a joke. You couldn't even 'predict' the total number of Electoral Votes (i.e., 538).

 

[Bear Wild]

Personally because 3 democratic governers warned Biden that the southern border was an issue I believe Harris could have had a bit more political savvy and urged Biden to clamp down on the southern border sooner. I believe that even if the US needs migration sometimes in politics you have to not be too much of a moral crusader and have more of a willingness to listen to the public's concerns even if they are unfounded.

Considering the loathworthy opponent Harris had I personally feel this shouldn't have been such a close race in my view.

Thoughts?

Honestly? The democratic party comes across as too elitist and disconnected from the general public. It presents itself as the party that knows best backed by science and logic. This may work for well educated people but to most especially rural or those feeling disenfranchised it appears so out of touch. They also hear how the democratic party is providing for those in need but those working hard feel that they are forgotten. In supporting people who are more on the fringe the party sounded again as if it was forcing change which scares people who are seeing too much change in their world. Unfortunately Trump said what many wanted to hear although I am surprised by how ugly he said it and how that ugliness was accepted. There is also a section like me who usually support the democratic party who felt who keep trying to vote for Bernie. They also treated JFK badly and even if they did not agree with him they should have been more inclusive.

 

[Stevicus]

Personally because 3 democratic governers warned Biden that the southern border was an issue I believe Harris could have had a bit more political savvy and urged Biden to clamp down on the southern border sooner. I believe that even if the US needs migration sometimes in politics you have to not be too much of a moral crusader and have more of a willingness to listen to the public's concerns even if they are unfounded.

Considering the loathworthy opponent Harris had I personally feel this shouldn't have been such a close race in my view.

Thoughts?

I think the Democrats may have taken too much for granted, including their own traditional support base. The phrase "out of touch" has often been used to describe the Democratic Party leadership in recent years. They seem to have lost touch with their constituency. They tell the people that the economy has never been better while Gov. Newsome is clearing homeless encampments and local governments are so broke they can't even fix the potholes anymore.

 

[Augustus]

The democratic party comes across as too elitist and disconnected from the general public. It presents itself as the party that knows best backed by science and logic.

You mean the shrill "if you don't agree with me you are a stupid, ignorant bigot" gambit isn't in fact a shrewd rhetorical stratagem?

Shocked I tell thee

It's amazing the number of people who find this hard to comprehend and prefer to focus on things like "Russian disinformation" for narrow defeats, rather than show a modicum of self-awareness that they are a far more powerful force in promoting "populism" than the usual bogeymen.

 

[Augustus]

Considering the loathworthy opponent Harris had I personally feel this shouldn't have been such a close race in my view.

Thoughts?

Picking an unpopular candidate who runs on the "I'm not Trump" platform didn't work in 2016, so running it back was a bit of a strange move.

Especially if you are saying "if we don't win it's the end of democracy and the rise of fascism", then you need to seem like you actually believe your own schtick.

If you genuinely did believe that, then you should be above internal party politics in the face of an existential threat, and if you don't act like that, then people outside the choir you are preaching to notice the incongruity.

In general though, don't let your opponent be seen as better on the economy, law and order and immigration if you want to win an election.

 

[Watchmen]

You predicted

1. that Trump would receive 271 Electoral Votes,
2. that Harris would reveive 266 Electoral Votes,
3. that the GOP would increase its hold by 5 seats, and
4. that the Democrats would take the House.

What a joke. You couldn't even 'predict' the total number of Electoral Votes (i.e., 538).

lol. Dude, I said a lot more than that and I'm the one who was warning about a Trump win.

 

[anna.]

I consider myself an old school liberal (think Bill Maher). I don't know about Team Harris, but the Democrats need to learn that there's a reason 70+ million people have repeatedly voted for Trump and they need to learn why people did not come out for Harris. I'll provide details later.

Can you at least give us a day, for Pete's sake?

 

[anna.]

I know what I'm talking about. I was one of the only old school liberals here who correctly predicted the election.

Pat yourself on the back for us.

 

[anna.]

A good article that explains why this threat is as dire as it is and why this country is basically screwed:

Undoing the ‘deep state’ means Trump would undo over a century of progress in building a federal government for the people and not just for rich white men

Conservatives defend efforts to dismantle the federal bureaucracy as tactics against tyranny, but Americans exercise their sovereignty through these civil services.

theconversation.com

​

​

​

The long and the short of it appears to be poor voter turnout. The sociopathic narcissist didn't get any more votes than they did before. Those who didn't care enough to prevent this country's full descent into an oligarchic authoritarian state simply didn't show up to vote.

Excellent article. Mentioning Heather Cox Richardson is always a good sign, too.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

From your link:

Around 1900, America was not really democratic. The federal government did not rule by the consent of the governed. As historian Heather Cox Richardson recently argued, the American government was an oligarchy.​

​

Millions of working-class Slavs, Jews, Italians, Asians and Scotch-Irish Appalachians toiled mercilessly in death-trap sweatshops, suffocating mines and fiery steel mills. Cotton farmers in the Black Belt lived like peons.​

​

These people were America’s “other half,” as the social reformer Jacob Riis called them in 1890. And they were effectively excluded from the social contract.​

​

Meanwhile, for rich white men like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller it was, as Mark Twain quipped, a “Gilded Age.” Robber barons ran their industrial empires with impunity.​

​

When their employees tried to organize or protest, industrialists got sheriffs and police to suppress them. Or they hired private armies of “detectives,” like the Pinkertons, as Carnegie did when steelworkers struck in Homestead, Pennsylvania.​

​

Governors called in the National Guard, as Ephraim Morgan did in 1921 to suppress a labor dispute in West Virginia. Sometimes, it was the regular Army, as in 1919, when soldiers from Camp Pike propped up the peonage system of tenant farming by indiscriminately machine-gunning Black farmers hiding in the woods outside Elaine, Arkansas.​

​

‘We stand at Armageddon’​

Forced by popular clamor, Congress decided to act.​

​

It created the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887 and told its commissioners to compel railroads, which were gouging some customers and favoring others, to charge fair rates to everyone.​

​

This was the start of federal regulation.​

​

In 1895, the New York Legislature passed the Bakeshop Act, making it illegal to force an employee to work more than 10 hours a day or 60 hours a week.​

​

The Supreme Court, however, was still friendly to business. In its 1905 decision in Lochner v. New York, the court ruled against the Bakeshop Act. No one could regulate the workday or work week. The decision stripped Congress and state legislatures of their nascent regulatory powers. That enraged President Teddy Roosevelt.​

​

​

​

Well, Musk wants to implode the civil service (it'll hurt him more than it'll hurt us, of course).

RFK Jr. wants to implode the FDA - after all, Trump promised to let him "go wild" on health care.

And so it will go. They'll give the people what they voted them in for. Good luck with that.

 

[Stevicus]

I know what I'm talking about. I was one of the only old school liberals here who correctly predicted the election.

I'm an old school liberal, too, and I've incorrectly predicted every election since 1980. I didn't even bother trying to make a prediction this time. Last time, I predicted Kanye West would win, but all that got me was a job offer from the Psychic Friends Network (I turned it down).