> As for the second term, we can’t forget that the Democrats basically threw the election. This election was a layup. An easy win.
Good case for that in 2016, sure. 2024, not at all.
Good case for that in 2016, sure. 2024, not at all.
This seems incredibly naive. Can you name any such reasonable candidate and explain why you think they would have won the election?
The problem with Democrats winning elections (since 2016) has been the ideological purity tests their social-left demands from candidates, rendering them toxic to independents.
It'd be nice if internet SJWs grew up and realized that winning elections with "don't ask don't tell" is better than losing elections with overly socially progressive platforms.
It feels like a large chunk of the party would rather lose an election smugly than win it with compromise.
Republicans since 2014 have been in somewhat of the same mutually exclusive bind, which is why Trump emerged as the primary candidate. Turns out reconciling mutually exclusive promises is possible if you're willing to say things without intending to do them and bank on charisma and a cult of personality.
Tl;dr - Democrats need to cure their case of SJW Tourette's. When someone asks a question about trans rights, say "I support equality for all Americans, because that's what our Constitution promises" and leave it at that.
And I'd say the excesses are equal part tech bro neoreactionaries + nativist Heritage / Project 2025 folks, each of which contributed their own toxic ingredients.
It's rapidly becoming apparent that Trump doesn't actually care about much ideologically and generally blows whichever way the last person in the room asked him to.
Democrats should be diving into the details on progressive economic platforms every chance they get, as wholly, messily, and authentically as they can.
But yes, they should refuse to jump on progressive social landmines their opponents lay out.
What's your alternative and better suggestion?
Taking potshots is easy: putting down your own marker is hard.