Dems failed to sweep in 2020 because we brought daisies to a gunfight

[wellst0nev0ter]

Last edited Fri Jun 11, 2021, 05:48 PM - Edit history (2)

Say a political party was given, on a silver platter, a failing economy, an out-of-control pandemic, and political disfunction during an election year, what would be your campaign advice to them?

What if that same political party spent most of their campaign resources on ads that basically said "The other party isn't so bad, vote for me!" Would you fire those campaign managers for being monumental idiots today or yesterday?

Guess what the Democrats did.

As you know, Democrats lost a dozen House seats and lost what were supposed to be slam-dunk Senate elections in Maine and North Carolina. The only reason why we won both seats in Georgia, and the slim majority in the Senate, is because we promised voters $2,000 checks.

Link to tweet

Yet during the 2020 elections, Democrats spent six times as much on positive television ads compared to the goops, according to an analysis by the progressive donor and strategy group Way to Win. Democrats spent three times as much as the goops on ads featuring "bipartisanship" and "reaching across the aisle."

What deranged morons would rehabilitate their political enemies in this way during the middle of an economic disaster? Meanwhile, the goops spent almost all their energies demonizing Democrats as extremists and radicals -- something WE should have done to them. As a result, the goops either made gains or limited the fallout of what could have been another Blue Wave election.

Democrats need to stop treating elections like a game. Take the advice from James Carville and learn how to throw anvils to drowning opponents.

[Dan]

1. No worries, for 2020 and 2024 we plan to bring Roses.

[Initech]

27. At least roses have thorns on them...

[soothsayer]

2. Probably didn't sweep because GQP was cheating

You know it’s all projection, and they sing loudly on this one.

[wellst0nev0ter]

11. Yes, also this

And people say we have a good chance of keeping the house in 2022 even if we leave the goops alone to rig the game

[Initech]

23. Yeah the only reason Marjorie Taylor Greene won...

Is because her opponent dropped out of the race after getting death threats. She shouldn't be allowed anywhere near Congress, but because the GQP pulls shit like that, we're stuck with cretins like her, and Cawthorn, and Boebert. And it will probably get worse.

[Crunchy Frog]

45. Her opponent was young, naive, and tried to run as Jimmy Stewart.

It's no wonder she squashed him weeks before the election was even held.

Our side needs to work much harder on selecting candidates.

[Initech]

55. Also too, combatting death threats would help.

[Crunchy Frog]

57. Death threats are completely unacceptable, but he would have lost anyway.

[CrackityJones75]

3. Ya know....

We keep reading about ALLL the underhanded bullshit the repubs do. ALLLLL the borderline illegal shit they do. And yet I get to come on this site daily and read people shitting all over democrats. How long has Collins been a senator in Maine? And you categorize that seat as a supposed slam dunk? It is time to face facts that there is a very latge portion of the country that is completely comfortable with authoritarianism. Democrats worked their asses off to get what we do have and it was worth it. But every damn day I get to read on this forum how weak democrats are. How they are doing it wrong. How we have to be more like the GOP. So…. What? We need to forget our political norma? Operate close to the legal lines? Dismiss democracy to what? Preserve democracy?

What exactly are we supposed to do differently that keeps us tethered to the foundations of our country? Becaise telling me we have to throw anvils to sinking republicans is a great sound byte but without specifics thats all it is. What would you have democrats do?

We don’t have a majority in the senate. At least not on some issues we don’t. What in the last election should we have done differently to gain more seats? Because as I remember it was a herculean effort and still there were enough people that just could mot be woken up to see the light.

FFS if people couldn’t see the hypocrisy, and the bullshit from Collins last go around just what the hell were we going to do to change their votes?

[wellst0nev0ter]

4. "Democrats worked their asses off to get what we do have and it was worth it."

And look where that got us. We need to do better.

[CrackityJones75]

6. The self flagellation doesn't help. At all.

“We need to do better” Isn’t very descriptive. Given how hard we worked last election and given the bullshit that goes on and the thick headedness of the voters, what exactly does “We need to do better” mean? What do you suggest?

[wellst0nev0ter]

9. And being cavalier about not needing to improve actually harms us

Yes you worked hard, but you failed.

Do you shrug your shoulders and repeat the same mistakes again?

No, you find out what mistakes you do and don't repeat the mistakes.

Some say don't campaign on "defund the police," others say don't burn money on positive ads on "bipartisanship" when actual demons are demonizing you.

But the least you can do is NOT play interference against people who are pushing for change.

[CrackityJones75]

13. What needs to improve???

What????

[wellst0nev0ter]

14. You should read my OP n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

15. And, ya also know, the strategy of emphasizing the positive over blind attacks did land...

us the Presidency with the highest number of votes in history. Senate and other downballot votes are a completely different story.

There are vast numbers of ways to interpret all this, but it could probably be argued that we could have gone more for the throat of the asshole in the WH, but everyone is rightfully hesitant to call that asshole an asshole. You just don't admit that the country managed to elect the dumbest, meanest, most inept asshole in the country to that job.

Besides, the dumbest of the believers will be simply reinforced in their idiotic cult beliefs that you are the problem, not their crowned leader.

Now, if I were the despotic leader of all the Democrats, I might lean toward vicious attacks from the ground up. School boards are one place to start, as the R's have discovered, and rephrasing some arguments toward basic human rights most of us agree with, and basic biology and human relationships most of us agree with would be a good start. No quarter for those arguing against basic human decency.

Then, we can start on those clowns in state government that regularly make fools of themselves in public. Really, just asking if it's possible to adjust the Moon's orbit just shows you're a fucking asshole. And suggesting a woman already grieving over a miscarriage should have to prove she didn't have an abortion takes you out of the human race entirely.

And Congress-- after all that practice, we should be able to properly target and annihilate the fools and tools there.

[UTUSN]

5. It's what we do.

[Beastly Boy]

7. Dems control the House, the Senate and the Presidency. And we have another "Dems failed" post.

And why did Dems fail? They failed to sweep! When was the last time Dems didn't fail to sweep? 1979.

I wonder if there is anything Dems can do that does not constitute failure.

[wellst0nev0ter]

10. Dems can only pass three spending legislation this fiscal year

And MAYBE some corporate welfare bills, because we can't pass critical legislation over the goop veto.

Democrats lost about a dozen seats in the House.

Biden won, but only by 44,000 votes in the context of the electoral college. If the goops had disenfranchised those votes, say hello to second term president 45.

Enough with sitting on nonexistent laurels and enough being cavalier about the pressures the Dems face in future elections. We didn't take the goops seriously in 2009-10, and we are still paying for it now.

[Beastly Boy]

26. What you are describing are hardly failures. I wonder what your definition of failure is.

Three spending legislations this year are three more than the Dems were able to pass for the past four years; losing about a dozen seats in the House and still maintaining the majority says a lot about the fundamental strength of the Dems; winning the presidency by 7 million votes (not sure what "in the context of electoral college means) is the second largest in 20 years. With "failures" like these, who needs sweeping victories?

These are very real laurels I am sitting on, and this seating arrangement makes me comfortable enough to reject cries of wolf and predictions of falling sky I keep hearing on a regular basis. While I don't intend to occupy my comfy laurel seat forever, I am not quite ready to clutch pearls and spread panic over aforementioned "failures". Perhaps at some time in the future, when I have more compelling reasons for doing so.

[wellst0nev0ter]

32. Yes, very successful in 2009-10

Remember those years? Dems passed... some bills and were rewarded for it in the election.

[dalton99a]

8. And spend less time shopping for the finest, purest fabric

when you know you have to wrestle with pigs

[BGBD]

12. "daisies to a gunfight"

Happens to be the progressives approach to crime and law enforcement....which happens to be the main reason Democrats don't have larger majorities in both chambers right now.

[wellst0nev0ter]

18. Krasner won in Philly and Stansbury in New Mexico

Despite the firestorm of goop talking points over crime and "defunding muh police."

And being tough on black crime doesn't work because the homicide clearance rate declined dramatically over several decades

[BGBD]

38. Cherry picking

[wellst0nev0ter]

39. Then pick some cherries

[Initech]

34. "Defund the police" was seriously terrible messaging.

And I'm still pissed about that one because I believe it cost us some house and senate races.

As a democrat, I don't want to defund the police. I want to reform the police. Take away their tanks and rocket launchers. Make them wear body cameras AT ALL TIMES, NO EXCEPTIONS. And hold them accountable in the event that their weapons are discharged. While those things wouldn't solve all our problems, they would at least be a step in the right direction. "De-militarizing the police" would be much better messaging, IMO.

[betsuni]

48. +1

[sarisataka]

16. Some of us were not surprised by the election

While many predicted landslide victories and checked what were the largest victory margins, some "Debbie downers" were willing to look at the less comfortable news and polls. The sounded alarms mostly went unheeded

[wellst0nev0ter]

19. Doesn't matter how many times the Debby Downers are right

We've already committed the cardinal offense of criticizing the Dem leadership.

[Bettie]

17. I agree with you, but I also have one thing

that we need to remember.

2020 also brought out every MAGAT from under their holes. They registered a whole pile of first time voters and our registration lagged behind our usual (and this is 100% due to the pandemic and us being responsible and them not).

We lost at least some seats because every breathing MAGAT came out to vote for their orange overlord.

It wasn't enough overall, but it was enough in districts that were relatively closely divided to turn it over.

[wellst0nev0ter]

20. Yes, indeed. That factor alone was more fatal than "defund the police"

In one of three very competitive Iowa races, a final poll predicted that Democrats who were not frequent voters would make up 5 percent of the total electorate, while similarly low-turnout Republicans would account for just 4 percent of voters.

In reality, 5.9 percent of voters were low-propensity Republicans and just 4.7 percent were infrequent Democratic voters, providing the narrow margin of victory for the GOP candidate.

Before a narrow loss in South Florida, the final Democratic poll predicted a six-point victory based on a voter makeup that included 38 percent who were registered Democrats and 33 percent Republicans, when in reality it was just 34 percent Democrats and 36 percent Republicans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/democrats-2020-autopsy-midterms/2021/05/18/6114af82-b80d-11eb-a5fe-bb49dc89a248_story.html

Meanwhile, that same DCCC study found that the smear campaign over socialism and defund was only responsible for 30% of the fallout, while trumpanzee turnout was responsible for the other 70%.

[Bettie]

21. I'm in IA 1

and this is exactly what happened.

The right wing ads here were mostly focused on Trump and Nancy Pelosi.

The pandemic was the biggest problem here, I believe. We normally have canvassing operations. We couldn't do that and leaving literature on doorknobs isn't the same as having conversations. Even if you only talk to a couple of people in a neighborhood, they talk to others.

[wellst0nev0ter]

22. Also the trumpanzees did the face-to-face canvassing

Because they didn't care about infecting people, and that probably turned out more trumpanzees too.

[brush]

37. There was also the fact that two hi-profile Dems were loudly...

calling themselves democratic socialists despite it being well known that the word "socialism" is toxic to not just many greatest generationers, boomers, and older GenXers, but also to many Latinx voters.

Thank God those two have toned down their self-avowed socialism as its pretty obvious it cost us seats in the House and possibly the Senate as well.

And of course as you've said, "defund the police" cost us dearly too.

[wellst0nev0ter]

40. "Nancy Pelosi" also costed us seats

if we follow your logic. Is it time to replace the Speaker?

[betsuni]

42. What did Nancy Pelosi say that cost us seats?

Specifically.

[wellst0nev0ter]

46. Was talking about the negative ads that mention "Nancy Pelosi"

Sorry for the apparent confusion.

[betsuni]

50. You were replying to a comment about what people actually said.

Negative Pelosi ads were fiction. She never said she was a socialist or that "Defunding police means defunding police."

[wellst0nev0ter]

53. Goops ad starred Nancy Pelosi

Alongside all the other socialists boogiepeople.

The goops will always lie about the Dems, and it doesn't help if you propagate their message.

[brush]

44. IMO Pelosi has done a great job. What's your logic?

She had to corral the self-avowed democratic socialist and her squad while also containing some centrist/right-leaning Dems in order to keep her caucus together. She also never called herself a socialist so what's your logic again for replacing her?

[wellst0nev0ter]

47. Not talking about Pelosi's job, talking about negative ads about her

Since she's a source of negative ads, should we get rid of her?

[brush]

51. Come on, if you favor dumping her you have to do better than that please.

That's weak. Every Dem, especially prominent ones, get negative attacks from republicans. That's how politics works.

[wellst0nev0ter]

54. Seriously, what?

I was asking if Pelosi is a liability to the Dems since the goops feature negative ads about her. I did not explicitly call for her replacement.

[brush]

56. Could've fooled me. Do a poll here to see if other Dems favor dumping her.

[betsuni]

41. +1

[betsuni]

24. When Democrats did negative ads it was: Democrats can't just be the "I'm not Trump" party or

the "We're better than Republicans" party, they have to stand for something.

Democratic voters are nothing like Republicans. Americans say they want bipartisanship.

[lagomorph777]

28. Which Americans say they want bipartisanship?

Correct. The party that became a minority party by obstructing every positive thing the Dems put forth.

McConnell himself has admitted that bipartisanship is dead. We do not have a valid negotiating partner. We have to push forward without the assholes.

[betsuni]

30. Polls show the majority of Americans say they want bipartisanship.

Not like the majority of Americans follow politics, they don't know Republicans are 100% obstructionist. At least mainstream media mentions this occasionally now.

[lagomorph777]

31. Link please?

[betsuni]

35. This is common knowledge. Polls show Americans want bipartisanship.

First link after Googling:

http://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/29/politics/cnn-poll-bipartisanship

[lagomorph777]

36. Well, we can keep pretending that would actually happen,

or we can get useful things done.

[wellst0nev0ter]

43. From the very same article:

But 60% say they see bipartisanship as unlikely on upcoming legislation, including 50% of Democrats, 60% of independents and 76% of Republicans. And although Democrats are more optimistic about the success of bipartisanship, they aren't particularly confident it will happen: Just 6% see it as very likely to happen, about the same as among independents (7%) and Republicans (4%).

So voters are more realistic than certain Democrats.

[wellst0nev0ter]

33. Yes, please give the evidence backing this up

And whether this translated into any significant electoral dividends.

On edit: It has been clear for years that voters do NOT value bipartisanship. If they did, the goops would have been gone a long time ago.

Goops get rewarded for being obstructionists, Dems get blamed for stagnation. That's how it works now.

[lagomorph777]

25. Yes, please. Use every legal weapon at our disposal.

This is no time for nice-nice.

Sledgehammer to the balls. (Figuratively)

[JHB]

29. Nothing comes on a silver platter when set against 30 years of unopposed propaganda

Democrats spent x-times the goops on this or that but it wasn't good enough?

Well, when every goop ad rides piggyback on a 24/7 stream of rants and lies, that's an apples and oranges situation. Actually, it's probably closer to apples and orangutans.

[wellst0nev0ter]

49. Yes, goops are more organized in their messaging

Meanwhile, we got fellow Democrats doing the goops job for them and shit-talking about AOC and the squad, right in this thread even

[StarfishSaver]

52. Not more organized. Just willing to lie

Messaging is much easier when you're not constrained by truth or accuracy

[ChrisF1961]

58. But, but, but

I thought it was all because of defund the police

[leftstreet]

59. Democrats rehabilitated the GOP after Bush, too

It's not a slam, just a statement

GWB and the GOPers were despised, and the antiwar movement was huge

Everyone said the Republican party was dead

Yet, here we are...