news John Oliver unloads into Democrats: "You had a centrist candidate... she lost!"

[Sheep]

The melting down 

[Bloo]

2 minutes ago, DevilsRollTheDice said:

This is just y'all playing tails I win heads you lose. @Communion really told on themselves with that phrasing because that is the constant tactic. 
 

The notion that Bernie's exact messaging and politics will save us and win elections has been disproved recently twice!

When did a Bernie-like campaign run for president? We ran centrist candidates thrice now and we only barely won once in bizarre circumstances by 44k votes across three states. 

 

Again, the data is not on your side. But, since you're so set on it, I'm gonna let you live on in delusion.

[BionicWooHoo]

26 minutes ago, DevilsRollTheDice said:

Bernie couldn't even win a Democratic primary. "But he was sabotaged!!!" The establishment Dems might not have wanted him, but they didn't rig the election. Establishment Republicans desperately wanted anyone else but Trump, but he still won his primary because he truly was popular. 

Clearly winning the Democratic primary means nothing. Clearly Democrats do not know how to pick a candidate that speaks to America at large. Kamala really thought parading Liz Cheney around would help her LMAO. 
I have no doubt that Democrats will once again pick a centrist in 2028 who, even manage to win, will continue to present watered down progressive policies that will land them in the shitter in 2032. Even If a centrist wins in 2028, they won't bring about long term positive change and thereby get abandoned by voters for Republicans and then the cycle repeats. Sad. 

[DevilsRollTheDice]

7 hours ago, Bloo said:

When did a Bernie-like campaign run for president? We ran centrist candidates thrice now and we only barely won once in bizarre circumstances by 44k votes across three states. 

 

Again, the data is not on your side. But, since you're so set on it, I'm gonna let you live on in delusion.

A Bernie-like campaign tried to win a presidential primary twice and failed, even under the unique circumstances of 2020. In your words, two centrist campaigns made it further than that (16/20) and one won. What data is on your side? That Bernie can't even win among the American political left? The way I'm saying all this is a Bernie primary voter because I recognize this isn't a discussion about my own politics   
 

Anyway, I have to go to bed. @Bloo @Communion it's been fun. Same time, same place tomorrow?

Edited yesterday at 11:33 AM by DevilsRollTheDice

[Communion]

18 minutes ago, DevilsRollTheDice said:

I don't even know what you're implying here because you've put so many words in my mouth. 

I'll ask for a fourth time. 

 

Donald Trump attacked Harris most on an issue 1) that he first implemented for federal prisons and 2) has no actual material resolution for Dems to do what you're asking.

 

The most effective anti-trans attack - if any - was that Harris supported (the already federal policy) of providing trans prisoners with healthcare and this was framed explicitly as an issue of taxpayer dollars being used on a minority most Americans don't know of versus those dollars thus not going to Americans. "Kamala isn't for you, she's for they/them".

 

So what do you actually want her and Dems at large to do? You're arguing the attack is not economic in its core and has actual issues related to support for trans people so.. what should Dems do?

 

Should Dems now argue it is fine to deny people in prison healthcare prescribed by their doctor?

 

By arguing it's "not just economic policy," you're suggesting there is missing social policy... so what social policy? 

 

The merit of your arguments - as you're presenting them - is that you don't want Dems to focus on universal healthcare but instead adopt forcefully de-transitioning trans people? (This is the natural policy conclusion of the issue you're hounding on as being evidence of meaningful anti-trans sentiment that requires policy concessions btw). 

Edited yesterday at 04:14 AM by Communion

[Cruel Summer]

3 minutes ago, DevilsRollTheDice said:

A Bernie-like campaign tried to win a presidential primary twice and failed, even under the unique circumstances of 2020. In your words, two centrist campaigns made in further than that (16/20) and one won. What data is on your side? That Bernie can't even win among the American political left? The way I'm saying all this is a Bernie primary voter because I recognize this isn't a discussion about my own politics   
 

Anyway, I have to go to bed. @Bloo @Communion it's been fun. Same time, same place tomorrow?

Winning a primary isn't actually indicative of general election success. In fact, they lose 50% of the time, that's kind of how it works! To be more serious about it: you can not draw conclusions about how Bernie would have done in a general election because he didn't win a primary against the full force of the Democratic establishment, in terms of candidates and endorsements and the entire liberal media apparatus. That's literally just not how it works. You don't know how the electorate would respond at large, in part because such a small proportion of it tends to participate in primaries, and in part because the Democratic Party actually supporting that kind of platform would send a fundamentally different message not only to its primary voters, but for low-engagement voters who don't always show up and to independents who prioritize economic issues. What we do know, however, is that leftist policies tend to poll insanely well (unlike Kamala Harris) and that Bernie Sanders managed to activate voter populations that other Democrats fail to inspire, to their active detriment in losing this very election cycle. You can combine that with the clear data that individual perceptions of the economy mattered more to voters this year that literally any other thing and get the very clear picture that an actually, meaningfully progressive platform delivered with a clear working class focus and message needs to be Democrats' path forward for 2028 and beyond - and who's the best template for that on the modern American left? Oh, that's right, Bernie Sanders. I don't know how to say it any other way: if the Democrats fail to quickly, honestly, convincingly pivot to a working class progressive platform, they will fail entirely as a party. If they keep chasing after mythical Republican switch voters and independents by parading Liz Cheney around and talking about how they wouldn't significantly change the policies of the prior administration, they will crumble. They may gain back some ground in 2026 if Trump's term is as bad as expected, since the incumbent party tends to do poorly in midterms, but following that they will be crushed, and we will all have to pay for their failures.

[Delirious]

1 hour ago, Cruel Summer said:

It's so disingenuous to attempt to characterize a 1.1% difference in a state with unique politics like Vermont as "no one wanting" a candidate that… still got over 60% lol

 

Don't worry, you'll get to see Democrats keep testing the theory that Americans don't want policies like Medicare for All or a living wage again and again and again, and we'll all get to pay the price! I wonder if Liz Cheney will be the VP choice next cycle, or if they'll just make her the nominee already like they seem to want?

If he can't even win his own state vs kamala how do you expect him or his policies to be even remotely close to being better than Kamala?

Edited yesterday at 05:56 AM by Delirious

[bad guy]

2 hours ago, DevilsRollTheDice said:

Bernie couldn't even win a Democratic primary. "But he was sabotaged!!!" The establishment Dems might not have wanted him, but they didn't rig the election

 

2 hours ago, Delirious said:

Bernie had even less vote share than Kamala in his own state lol.

Comparing presidential votes to senate votes? Of an 18 year incumbent no less 

Edited yesterday at 06:26 AM by bad guy

[simplywohoo]

Americans are ******* stupid, they voted for Trump a second time. They can't be rescued, no matter the campaign. Sorry for the normal people there, but that's just how it is. 

Edited yesterday at 06:27 AM by simplywohoo

[Delirious]

3 minutes ago, bad guy said:

 

Comparing presidential votes to senate votes? 

Yea it's easier to win more % of senate votes love.

 

Looks like his OWN state doesnt like Bernie as much as y'all keep delusionally saying. And yall think Bernie and his policies is what america wants. LOL 

[Sawk]

Bernie could've been president years ago 

[GraceRandolph]

30 minutes ago, Delirious said:

Yea it's easier to win more % of senate votes love.

 

Looks like his OWN state doesnt like Bernie as much as y'all keep delusionally saying. And yall think Bernie and his policies is what america wants. LOL 

ur right lets run Whitmer or Shapiro, they'll win

[Fitzswiftie]

5 hours ago, Cruel Summer said:

The only viable alternative is a leftist platform with a matching candidate. No more centrists!

[The7thStranger]

You're all still engaged in this cat fighting… Of course a more progressive candidate would have been desirable. But the issue isn't how left Kamala was; it's how right the rest of the country is. People voted for the rapist with severe mental problems and addiction, and you think that primarily boils down to Kamala being centrist?

 

 Girlies. Come on. 

[Princess Aurora]

Not the Katy Perry drag  well he's not wrong 

[DevilsRollTheDice]

7 hours ago, Communion said:

I'll ask for a fourth time. 

 

Donald Trump attacked Harris most on an issue 1) that he first implemented for federal prisons and 2) has no actual material resolution for Dems to do what you're asking.

 

The most effective anti-trans attack - if any - was that Harris supported (the already federal policy) of providing trans prisoners with healthcare and this was framed explicitly as an issue of taxpayer dollars being used on a minority most Americans don't know of versus those dollars thus not going to Americans. "Kamala isn't for you, she's for they/them".

 

So what do you actually want her and Dems at large to do? You're arguing the attack is not economic in its core and has actual issues related to support for trans people so.. what should Dems do?

 

Should Dems now argue it is fine to deny people in prison healthcare prescribed by their doctor?

 

By arguing it's "not just economic policy," you're suggesting there is missing social policy... so what social policy? 

 

The merit of your arguments - as you're presenting them - is that you don't want Dems to focus on universal healthcare but instead adopt forcefully de-transitioning trans people? (This is the natural policy conclusion of the issue you're hounding on as being evidence of meaningful anti-trans sentiment that requires policy concessions btw). 

This is raving. No where, NO WHERE, have I presented forcefully de-transitioning trans peoples as the "merits of my argument" . The more I engage with you the more I realize that your primary discussion tactic is making **** up and that is on clear display here. 
 

Part of winning an election is policy. Part is branding. Democrats spent years hitching their wagon to unpopular policy AND unpopular branding . If you want actionable steps for Dems, it's important that voters still see them as the party of common sense. That survey proves that voters perceive Dems to be prioritizing identity politics above economic issues. 
 

I think the actionable steps for Democrats is to stop the performative wokeness that is now so aligned with their brand. Acknowledge the grayness and complexity of issues like trans women in sports and youth gender medicine and work from there. Distance the party from widely unpopular terms like Latin-X which is detested by the group it is used to describe. Instead of opening your party's platform with a land acknowledgment, try to figure out why Indigenous Americans voted for Trump and work on policy to materially impact their lives. Stop writing off half the country as racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic when they don't share the exact views of the left.
 

Sometimes I feel crazy because it seems like we're saying the same thing. I agree with you that Dems will get mileage from focusing more on popular economic concerns and pushing free healthcare and education. I just think the left's problem is bigger than a magic bullet solution. Since 2016, culture wars have eaten up more and more of public discourse. Voters don't like what Democrats are selling there. 
 

We need a plan to fix Democratic branding, too. It will take time. The Harris campaign clearly had the internal data to know what trouble they were in regarding this. 3 months isn't enough to undo years of voter associations. You can see this clearly demonstrated in the border issue as well. We've gone back and forth on that in the past when I linked a bunch of data about legitimate American concerns and you just stopped responding. 
 

The economic messaging and plan will also be harder than you want it to be. Y'all essentially keep saying run the new Bernie and we'll win when the old Bernie couldn't win a primary. Might he have fared better in a general? Who knows! Maybe, maybe not. But in order to run in a general election you must first win a primary. @Communion you seem concerned about black voters in the Dem base and they are, in large part, who delivered Biden the nomination over Bernie Sanders. 
 

Y'all just choose to stay delusional about American voters and what they think and want. You're the same crew who was screaming how Harris' stances on the Middle East would cost her the presidency and it turns out that issue barely registered for the vast majority of voters in polling and at the ballot box. The Green Party didn't even receive enough votes to reverse the outcome in any of the rust belt states in one of the tightest elections in history. The assumptions you treat as fact about what voters want and why just don't add up because you always start with the thesis what do I want?

Edited yesterday at 11:29 AM by DevilsRollTheDice

[DevilsRollTheDice]

7 hours ago, Cruel Summer said:

Winning a primary isn't actually indicative of general election success. In fact, they lose 50% of the time, that's kind of how it works! To be more serious about it: you can not draw conclusions about how Bernie would have done in a general election because he didn't win a primary against the full force of the Democratic establishment, in terms of candidates and endorsements and the entire liberal media apparatus. That's literally just not how it works. You don't know how the electorate would respond at large, in part because such a small proportion of it tends to participate in primaries, and in part because the Democratic Party actually supporting that kind of platform would send a fundamentally different message not only to its primary voters, but for low-engagement voters who don't always show up and to independents who prioritize economic issues. What we do know, however, is that leftist policies tend to poll insanely well (unlike Kamala Harris) and that Bernie Sanders managed to activate voter populations that other Democrats fail to inspire, to their active detriment in losing this very election cycle. You can combine that with the clear data that individual perceptions of the economy mattered more to voters this year that literally any other thing and get the very clear picture that an actually, meaningfully progressive platform delivered with a clear working class focus and message needs to be Democrats' path forward for 2028 and beyond - and who's the best template for that on the modern American left? Oh, that's right, Bernie Sanders. I don't know how to say it any other way: if the Democrats fail to quickly, honestly, convincingly pivot to a working class progressive platform, they will fail entirely as a party. If they keep chasing after mythical Republican switch voters and independents by parading Liz Cheney around and talking about how they wouldn't significantly change the policies of the prior administration, they will crumble. They may gain back some ground in 2026 if Trump's term is as bad as expected, since the incumbent party tends to do poorly in midterms, but following that they will be crushed, and we will all have to pay for their failures.

But this is...meaningless. How do you not see that? In order to run in a general election you actually need to win a primary. You don't know any better than me how Bernie would've fared in a general election. All we know is that he was unable to bring it home when he was running a campaign where he was rejected by American voters who identify as the most left. Trump was detested by mainstream conservative media and the Republican political establishment but won his primary because he truly was widely popular. Sanders struggled to win major Dem groups like Black voters. 

 

This is the problem with this discourse. Y'all start with what you personally want and work backwards. A classic element of internet leftism seems to be thinking every voter secretly wants the exact same thing as y'all when that just clearly isn't true. You also have to operate within the apparatus of how we elect leaders in the United States. You can't just write off Sanders inability to win a primary when he, in fact, MUST win the primary to run for President. 

[getBusy]

8 hours ago, BionicWooHoo said:

Bernie was super popular amongst young men hence the term Bernie bros 
Another centrist woman is just not going to work. We tried w Hilary, we tried w Kamala, and you wanna tell me you wanna try a third time with the gov of Michigan?

I struggle to believe that a leftist can win, knowing how conservative this country is.

i think the problem with Kamala was that she wasn't able to communicate what she stands for successfully to the middle class.
 

 But hey, if i'm wrong i'll be happy!

[Cruel Summer]

1 hour ago, DevilsRollTheDice said:

But this is...meaningless. How do you not see that? In order to run in a general election you actually need to win a primary. You don't know any better than me how Bernie would've fared in a general election. All we know is that he was unable to bring it home when he was running a campaign where he was rejected by American voters who identify as the most left. Trump was detested by mainstream conservative media and the Republican political establishment but won his primary because he truly was widely popular. Sanders struggled to win major Dem groups like Black voters. 

 

This is the problem with this discourse. Y'all start with what you personally want and work backwards. A classic element of internet leftism seems to be thinking every voter secretly wants the exact same thing as y'all when that just clearly isn't true. You also have to operate within the apparatus of how we elect leaders in the United States. You can't just write off Sanders inability to win a primary when he, in fact, MUST win the primary to run for President. 

The only thing that is meaningless is that you're apparently refusing to engage with the fact that the process and politics of primary elections - private processes run by the parties themselves and subject to wildly different pressures than a general election - just don't match those of the general election. It is entirely possible for a strong general election candidate to be defeated in a primary because the narrow slice of the base that participates in primaries slightly prefers one candidate over another, or because its more highly engaged voters are influenced by endorsements for one candidate or media campaigns against another. You ignored my points about progressive policy polling well, about the economy being the biggest issue in this election, about demographics like young voters not turning out - all just to repeat at me, with a few extra words, "but Bernie didn't win a primary tho" like it actually means anything more than when you last said it. Why?

 

Furthermore, what on earth do you imagine is the alternative? More of the same? More rightward shifts? Liz Cheney actually on the ticket this time? A diet Hillary platform? Some sort of half-baked, flaccid, flimsy semi-progressive that carries zero conviction because they don't believe a word out of their own mouth and in reality stand with the DNC over the people? Nothing that Democrats have done while staying in the center has actually worked. They got clocked hard this year, barely scraped by against a wannabe dictator who handled a global pandemic disastrously even when turnout was at a record high four years ago, lost in a stunning upset before that - the last time a Democrat won comfortably it was a man who co-opted leftist rhetoric to inspire hope in voters and then only managed to pass healthcare legislation that was equivalent to an existing Republican plan.

 

What, exactly, is your actually viable alternative?

[DevilsRollTheDice]

19 minutes ago, Cruel Summer said:

The only thing that is meaningless is that you're apparently refusing to engage with the fact that the process and politics of primary elections - private processes run by the parties themselves and subject to wildly different pressures than a general election - just don't match those of the general election. It is entirely possible for a strong general election candidate to be defeated in a primary because the narrow slice of the base that participates in primaries slightly prefers one candidate over another, or because its more highly engaged voters are influenced by endorsements for one candidate or media campaigns against another. You ignored my points about progressive policy polling well, about the economy being the biggest issue in this election, about demographics like young voters not turning out - all just to repeat at me, with a few extra words, "but Bernie didn't win a primary tho" like it actually means anything more than when you last said it. Why?

 

Furthermore, what on earth do you imagine is the alternative? More of the same? More rightward shifts? Liz Cheney actually on the ticket this time? A diet Hillary platform? Some sort of half-baked, flaccid, flimsy semi-progressive that carries zero conviction because they don't believe a word out of their own mouth and in reality stand with the DNC over the people? Nothing that Democrats have done while staying in the center has actually worked. They got clocked hard this year, barely scraped by against a wannabe dictator who handled a global pandemic disastrously even when turnout was at a record high four years ago, lost in a stunning upset before that - the last time a Democrat won comfortably it was a man who co-opted leftist rhetoric to inspire hope in voters and then only managed to pass healthcare legislation that was equivalent to an existing Republican plan.

 

What, exactly, is your actually viable alternative?

But the pesky primary problem you're ignoring is actually bigger than anything else you listed. Bernie couldn't win the primary running on the platform you say will win us a general election (another claim we have no real evidence for, just speculation). He can't run for President if he can't win the primary. You can lay out your issues with primaries, but that doesn't erase the electoral process. What is your actionable solution there? 

 

As for what Dems should do, if you read the things I've actually said in this thread, you'll see that I agree that Dems need to return to their roots as the party of the working class. I believe that pushing issues like free healthcare and free education will help Dems win. However, issue polling clearly does not always translate to electoral success. When leftists argue that high support of universal healthcare is evidence that a Bernie-like candidate can easily win they also ignore that there is high support for border control and plenty of polling that voters are tired of identity politics which they associate strongly with Democrats. There's every chance that a Harris campaign that didn't try to appeal to moderate and independent voters might have crashed and burned more. I don't know how it's productive to acknowledge that the country clearly shifted right. It's measurable across many demographics that are traditionally Democratic strongholds.  

 

The Dem approach needs to be triple pronged. Focus hard on bread and butter economic issues, distance the party from unpopular identity politics, and figure out how to overcome the insane information environment which was probably the single biggest contributing factor to this loss. That applies to the economy AND social issues. 

 

For maybe the fourth or fifth time here, I think lots of the Bernie positions are strong for rebuilding the brand. But there is more to it. They aren't the silver bullet of victory y'all think they are. The messaging wasn't effective enough for Bernie to run on the national ticket. There will likely need to be some compromise to appeal to moderates and swing state voters who actually win elections. Another flaw of issue polling is that it ignores how Presidents are actually elected in the US. It is not merely popular vote. Harris and Trump were competing for a highly specific group of swing state voters.

Edited yesterday at 01:19 PM by DevilsRollTheDice

[Cruel Summer]

28 minutes ago, DevilsRollTheDice said:

But the pesky primary problem you're ignoring is actually bigger than anything else you listed. Bernie couldn't win the primary running on the platform you say will win us a general election (another claim we have no real evidence for, just speculation). He can't run for President if he can't win the primary. You can lay out your issues with primaries, but that doesn't erase the electoral process. What is your actionable solution there? 

 

As for what Dems should do, if you read the things I've actually said in this thread, you'll see that I agree that Dems need to return to their roots as the party of the working class. I believe that pushing issues like free healthcare and free education will help Dems win. However, issue polling clearly does not always translate to electoral success. When leftists argue that high support of universal healthcare is evidence that a Bernie-like candidate can easily win they also ignore that there is high support for border control and plenty of polling that voters are tired of identity politics which they associate strongly with Democrats. There's every chance that a Harris campaign that didn't try to appeal to moderate and independent voters might have crashed and burned more. I don't know how it's productive to acknowledge that the country clearly shifted right. It's measurable across many demographics that are traditionally Democratic strongholds.  

 

The Dem approach needs to be triple pronged. Focus hard on bread and butter economic issues, distance the party from unpopular identity politics, and figure out how to overcome the insane information environment which was probably the single biggest contributing factor to this loss. That applies to the economy AND social issues. 

 

For maybe the fourth or fifth time here, I think lots of the Bernie positions are strong for rebuilding the brand. But there is more to it. They aren't the silver bullet of victory y'all think they are. The messaging wasn't effective enough for Bernie to run on the national ticket. There will likely need to be some compromise to appeal to moderates and swing state voters who actually win elections. Another flaw of issue polling is that it ignores how Presidents are actually elected in the US. It is not merely popular vote. Harris and Trump were competing for a highly specific group of swing state voters.

The actionable solution is obviously for the primaries to be conducted differently, as the private corporation that is the DNC has jurisdiction to do, and for establishment Democrats to not put their grubby fingers on the scale??? Like, that seems extremely clear to me? Again, the "pesky primary issue" is that the primaries are not actually effective litmus tests for the general election. They literally suck balls as a process. Bernie couldn't win them because the private entity that runs them didn't want him to and told its loyal voters not to vote for him with a concentrated campaign of endorsements and media opposition, twice - not because his actual platform failed to resonate with voters or would have performed poorly in a general election.

 

And let's talk about the claim that "the country shifted right" - that's not actually what the data supports as a conclusion. The reality is that people stayed home because Democrats failed to convince them with their centrist agenda that anything material would come out of this election, or voted Trump because they thought one candidate was better for working class bread-and-butter issues. Those people didn't suddenly leap ideologically to the right, they just desperately voted to keep food on their tables. Assuming that this election was emblematic of a true fundamental ideological shift, and that we should again try and fail to court moderates because of it, fails to understand the actual issue at hand. People just want someone who they feel sees their everyday struggles and has a plan to solve them. Allowing the possibility that Harris does worse by failing to take the Liz Cheney route is based on that faulty assumption, because it didn't sway basically a single person anywhere anyway. We know this because the exist polls show that registered Republicans broke less for Kamala than they did for Biden! We know this because the margins in this election are only possible if independents said "lol nah **** that" and broke more for Trump!

 

Furthermore, that there are occasionally individual right-wing policies that poll well doesn't stand up to the sheer volume of leftist policies that have consistently polled well for decades.

 

Moderates do not win elections for Democrats - we have three full cycles of data that show us that trying to court them is a disastrously bad strategy. Swing state voters and others who voted with economic interests at the forefront would be more easily swayed by a leftist populist platform than by what essentially amounts to making parade floats out of #NeverTrump Republicans and saying "no don't worry we're not gonna actually raise the minimum wage or give poor people healthcare haha that's just something we say at the very end to try to trick dumb leftists and run up the score." We don't need to alienate people, but we certainly don't need to pander to a mythical voter type that doesn't actually exist at scale when a simple leftist populist message would sway infinitely more people than the nothingburger of things like a trillion Republican endorsements for the Democrat.

 

 

[StayFrosty]

The implication being that some democrats DIDN'T vote for her because she's a centrist? Gotta love these stupid ass hindsight 20/20 takes. 

[Ghiles]

9 hours ago, Delirious said:

Yea it's easier to win more % of senate votes love.

 

Looks like his OWN state doesnt like Bernie as much as y'all keep delusionally saying. And yall think Bernie and his policies is what america wants. LOL 

what Bernie policies are rejected by Americans? You have to be delirious to think Americans don't want things like universal healthcare, all the polling I've seen for that is overwhelmingly positive 

[Armani?]

 

[harwee]

Centrist? I thought she's too liberal?

 

Majority of GP don't care or even know what these spectrum labels mean.