Democrats in 2024 -- win, lose, or draw?

[Dānu]

While in the initial aftermath of the presidential election, many are conducting their post-mortem. Some are suggesting that the Dems did as good as could be expected. Others hold that while the Harris campaign was far from perfect, it wasn't a harbinger of future disasters unless the party embraces change. Others see the election as a clarion call to reform the Democratic party from top to bottom.

Where do you stand?

[epronovost]

while the Harris campaign was far from perfect, it wasn't a harbinger of future disasters unless the party embraces change.

This would largely be my position. The Democratic party can succeed if it commits more actively to its defense and strengthening of the welfare State and it's pro working class notions. It must refrain from following down a path of stupidity of the Republicans when it comes down to immigration, "law enforcement" and the rights of minority groups. It must absolutely learn how to sell their success and make it known. They must learn to discard respectability politics and embrace anti-Republican sentiment. They must treat the Republican party like fascists and deal with them accordingly. They need to "play offense" aggressively while in the opposition and coin very early their slogan and major policy change to the public. They need to be perceived as "anti-establishment" but in a constructive way instead of a vacuous "fuck the system and fuck you!" that the Republican incarnate.

[Alan V]

I think Democrats are just about where they should be in the face of the facts, as well as our limited abilities to deal with them while working within our institutions. The one exception is our policy toward Israel.

If we lose because we are law-abiding, honest, fair, and kind, it isn't our fault.

The problem is that Trump has convinced many people that an authoritarian demagogue is better. He isn't, as I assume we will all find out (yet again).

[Alan V]

This would largely be my position. The Democratic party can succeed if it commits more actively to its defense and strengthening of the welfare State and it's pro working class notions. It must refrain from following down a path of stupidity of the Republicans when it comes down to immigration, "law enforcement" and the rights of minority groups. It must absolutely learn how to sell their success and make it known. They must learn to discard respectability politics and embrace anti-Republican sentiment. They must treat the Republican party like fascists and deal with them accordingly. They need to "play offense" aggressively while in the opposition and coin very early their slogan and major policy change to the public. They need to be perceived as "anti-establishment" but in a constructive way instead of a vacuous "fuck the system and fuck you!" that the Republican incarnate.

That's more about strategy than policy.

[pattylt]

I think the Dems need to take a good look at what the public perceives them to be for and against. They have the right social policies but there is a strong perception of elitism that they must overcome. Yeah, I know that Trump has filled his cabinet with billionaires so it’s a bit hypocritical of the public to charge Dems with the label. They need to work on what the average American Joe wants…lower taxes, affordable housing and low inflation. Why Harris didn’t push her housing more beats me…or perhaps it just wasn’t enough…well, damn it, find out!

And they need to come to some terms with Israel. Bibis Israel isn’t the Israel that most people think of when they view Israel as this island of democracy in the Middle East and the Dems need to message that issue loud and clear.

Of course, a lot of what the Dems do in the next 2-4 years also depends on what the Trump presidency does. They need to be able to react to it appropriately. And for damn sure, start grooming the younger Dems to take over…Harris had what? 100 days! That time needs to start now.

[Rhythmcs]

The housing thing is easy to explain. Down payment assistance doesn't mean shit to you if you already have a house and are having trouble with the mortgage or couldn't make the payments even if you had the down payment. There's absolutely nothing any politician can do about housing until houses aren't the sole way to build whatever meager wealth is left to we serfs below. In 1950 the average house price was two years average salary. Today it's ten years.

[Minimalist]

The Democrats need a smarter electorate....and I don't see that happening.

The country is fucked.

[Inkubus]

The Democrats need a smarter electorate....and I don't see that happening.

The country world is fucked.

FTFY.

[Rhythmcs]

They don't. Democrats could and have just as easily appealed to the dumb. Could, but won't, because it doesn't serve their owners. It's pretty clear that we the people will settle for racist fauxpulism if that's the only hope and change on offer.

[brewerb]

The dems are perceived as being to far left, that far left agenda's are all they care about. They need to move their platform back toward centrist/moderate.

[Antonio]

Dem constituents are easily conned as are most americans . We have been groomed since childhood to be cultists .

I suppose that's true in other countries as well . It's he human condition since the big con , religion

[Thumpalumpacus]

The Dems need to find a way to reach the heartland, because relying on the west coast and New York ain't cutting it. How do they speak to rural voters without talking down to them? Running on big cities has cost them the Presidency in two of the last three elections.

Putting some charisma on the ballot might help too. Not-Trump won once, but clearly you have to offer something yourself.

[Dānu]

I find all the finger-pointing and fault-attributing a bit droll. What ails democracies across the world isn't that they're all Biden-Harris clones. The problem is systemic.

Speaking of which, as a side comment referencing a comment from another thread, in France, left, right, and centrist parties are divided, threatening collapse of the government. But I'm sure each party is speshul in their own way.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I find all the finger-pointing and fault-attributing a bit droll.

Isn't that what you asked for in this thread? A "post-mortem", as your OP asked for, inherently implies finger-pointing, when analyzing a debacle, I think.

[Dānu]

I find all the finger-pointing and fault-attributing a bit droll.

Isn't that what you asked for in this thread? A "post-mortem", as your OP asked for, inherently implies finger-pointing, when analyzing a debacle, I think.

I don't get to weigh in on my own question? What kind of a rigged race are you running here?

I neither view this as a debacle, nor as something which was in any meaningful sense within one party or another's practical ability to significantly change. It was a perfect storm of the infirmities of American politics.

[SYZ]

... In 1950 the average house price was two years average salary.  Today it's ten years.

Here in Australia?

Back in the 1950s, the median Australian house cost around AU$7150, or
just over double the average income. In the 1960s, it still came in at twice
the income, at a higher AU$12,700.

Today [2022], the median Sydney home will
cost you AU$1.3 million or 17 times the
average Sydneysider’s salary of AU$76,000.

[Antonio]

[quote="Rhythmcs" pid='445853' dateline='1733443068']
... In 1950 the average house price was two years average salary.  Today it's ten years.

Here in Australia?

Back in the 1950s, the median Australian house cost around AU$7150, or
just over double the average income. In the 1960s, it still came in at twice
the income, at a higher AU$12,700.

Today [2022], the median Sydney home will
cost you AU$1.3 million or 17 times the
average Sydneysider’s salary of AU$76,000.
 
What's the cost to build a $1.3 million house             

Labor .materials. permits etc.

[Rhythmcs]

Sure, rural husks pull the averages down. If we just look at major cities the average american could never buy a home in two lifetimes of hard labor. The cost to build a 1.3 million dollar home is about the same as the cost to build a 50k dollar home of the same square footage. Site-built stick mcmansions are made out of the same materials as trailers, by the same people, and in the case of manufactured homes they are often built to a lower standard. It's not about construction. It's about real estate bubbles, exotic financial instruments, and money laundering.

If we wanted houses to cost less to construct, last longer, and be more environmentally friendly we'd be building passive solar timber frame sip clads....but we don't..because if houses cost less, are more durable, and consume less resources to operate....we all become poorer. This is what happens when we let wall street become lender, builder, and landlord.

[epronovost]

This would largely be my position. The Democratic party can succeed if it commits more actively to its defense and strengthening of the welfare State and it's pro working class notions. It must refrain from following down a path of stupidity of the Republicans when it comes down to immigration, "law enforcement" and the rights of minority groups. It must absolutely learn how to sell their success and make it known. They must learn to discard respectability politics and embrace anti-Republican sentiment. They must treat the Republican party like fascists and deal with them accordingly. They need to "play offense" aggressively while in the opposition and coin very early their slogan and major policy change to the public. They need to be perceived as "anti-establishment" but in a constructive way instead of a vacuous "fuck the system and fuck you!" that the Republican incarnate.

That's more about strategy than policy.

As far as policy goes; I think they should lean heavily towards medicare for all, higher taxes for the rich and corporation, laws strengthening unions and sanctioning union busting practices and anti-trust and anti-monopoly actions.

[Minimalist]

But rich motherfuckers don't like that and they control things here.

[Inkubus]

... In 1950 the average house price was two years average salary.  Today it's ten years.

Here in Australia?

Back in the 1950s, the median Australian house cost around AU$7150, or
just over double the average income. In the 1960s, it still came in at twice
the income, at a higher AU$12,700.

Today [2022], the median Sydney home will
cost you AU$1.3 million or 17 times the
average Sydneysider’s salary of AU$76,000.

It's a global thing. The average house price (not city price) in the UK is £298,083. Link

Net worth of worlds richest top 100: 1879 billion. The poorest of the top 100: 17 billion. Link

I'll be fucked if I'm adding them all up but that amounts to a good few trillion. So why aren't the world's poor screaming about this? And by 'world's poor' I don't mean Burkina Faso, Central African Republic or Bangladesh. I'm referring to the western poor, a family of four with two main jobs and two part time jobs just to pay the mortgage and the child minder, who probably has two other jobs to pay her mortgage. Who's  likely a YouTube influencer anyway, tipping more shite into your kids heads.

So what's wrong that these people aren't saying 'Excuse me but this doesn't seem fair'? That's because they aren't aware there's a problem. These are the Zukerburg generation.

A 2019 study by Harris Poll on behalf of Lego shows that kids in the UK and US are three times more likely to want to become YouTubers or vloggers, rather than astronauts. With the younger group it's worse:

More Than Half of Gen-Z Interested in Careers as Social Media Influencers. Link

Zukerburg et al, opened Pandora's Box and that box was a box full of stupid, but it's empty now. The stupid has now spread globally and can't be contained.



Her name is Lucy. And she's three thousand two hundred million years old. Look at her and weep at what we have become.

The closure of Canterbury Christ Church University’s course coincided with a National Literacy Trust report revealing that only 35% of 8 to 18-year-olds enjoy reading for pleasure — a drop of nearly 9 percentage points in a year. Reading rates are falling, the gender gap is widening and causes range from social media’s dominance to library closures and shrinking attention spans. (Should we read anything into the brevity of this year’s Booker Prize winner? How would Our Mutual Friend have fared?) Some school teachers suggest replacing Dickens with social media studies, but, as Evelyn Waugh’s Scoop might counter: “Up to a point, Lord Copper”. Link

Nine percentage points in a year? Our demise  is immanent.
Civilization will end in 2025. And there will be no warning. The lights will just go out. And it's just the Yanks to blame for this, It's us.

We-Are-Fucked.

[Alan V]

As far as policy goes; I think they should lean heavily towards medicare for all, higher taxes for the rich and corporations, laws strengthening unions and sanctioning union busting practices and anti-trust and anti-monopoly actions.

Perhaps after Trump is through with us, we Americans will finally be willing to support such ideas. 

I would dearly love to see a backlash against Republicans for all of their many dishonesties.

[mordant]

The dems are perceived as being to far left, that far left agenda's are all they care about. They need to move their platform back toward centrist/moderate.

They did not run any sort of far left campaign. You are faulting them for a campaign they didn't run.

[Rhythmcs]

Americans love far left ideas, as evidenced by states that voted for trump and far left referendums in this election. OFC, that's not going to work out for them because the magat governments in those states are now (and have been for some time) writing bills to nullify the referendum result.

*for values of far left that only make sense in generally right wing american politics

[mordant]

While in the initial aftermath of the presidential election, many are conducting their post-mortem.  Some are suggesting that the Dems did as good as could be expected.  Others hold that while the Harris campaign was far from perfect, it wasn't a harbinger of future disasters unless the party embraces change.  Others see the election as a clarion call to reform the Democratic party from top to bottom.

Where do you stand?

Democrats, particularly at the national leadership level, are as delusional in their own way as MAGATs. I predict that they will continue to cater to wealthy donors, lean right, complain that the problem is they didn't lean right enough.

Public perception of the Democratic Party now for the first time is no longer that they're the champion of workers, they are just about social "justice" and identity politics. They have lost the mantle of pro-labor. Reliably blue districts of white working people turned red way back when Clinton rammed NAFTA through; now reliably blue districts of latinos and blacks are turning red.

It's all over but the shouting, so far as I can see. I don't see MAGATs waking up and I don't see Democratic Party leadership waking up. Neither will make substantive changes. We will sail on past 1.5 degrees on climate, stick with a $7.50 minimum wage, probably regress back to pre-existing conditions and the primacy of the Claims Denial Department even for people like me who try to escape it via traditional Medicare, and try to keep the hoi polloi from getting restless with bread and circuses. It's oligarchy and kakistocracy all the way, baby.