DNC Announces Plans to Learn Nothing from This
DNC Announces Plans to Learn Nothing from This
The leaders of the Democratic National Committee announced they plan to learn absolutely nothing from their embarrassing loss to President-elect Donald Trump.
You're viewing part of a thread.
You're getting into conspiracy theory here. Trump did better than expected everywhere. Blue states. Red States. Blue cities. Red cities. Didn't matter. There was a shift almost everywhere. And this is across a nation that uses radically different voting machines, forms of voting, voting machine providers, etc. It doesn't make sense that the could all be rigged so perfectly. It's insanity.
Yes, you can count "just in case," but that way lies madness.
Why does this remind me of the whole 2016 election when it was obvious there was Russian collusion, amd people demanded we wait for the Mueller report and other things to decide. Bruh look at their rally sizes. Record numbers of voter enrollment. It's weird.
It's not weird if you realize that we're no longer in the era of big turnout being synonymous with Democratic win. And rallies are a poor indicator of voter sentiment. How many rallies for Kamala did you personally go to? Rallies are a vestigial remnant from another political era, when people primarily heard about candidates from local in-person gatherings. Yes, Kamala was able to get better rally turnout this time around than Trump, but rally-goers are a weird political rounding error. It just turns out that Kamala's weirdos were a bit more fired up this time around than Trump's weirdos.
We just came out of an era of inflation that America hasn't seen in decades. More people are rent-burdened than ever before, and the amount of people accessing foodbanks is higher than it has been in generations. Liberals papered over this harsh reality with wonky discussions of median inflation-adjusted wages, and they shouted down any critique of how limited main inflation figures actually are at measuring economic well-being. Or worse, they pointed at the stock market. Democrats have also held the White House for 12 of the last 16 years.
Globally, centrist neoliberal parties like the Democrats have been eviscerated in nation after nation, election after election. The neoliberal economic model has failed to deliver the widespread prosperity it promised, and the inequality it has enabled has reached crushing levels. People are demanding change, and currently, they can only find that change, any change really, on the part of right-wing populists like Trump. Neoliberals are genetically incapable of standing up to the wealthy and powerful corporate interests.
Finally, while Trump is a fascist, it was incredibly difficult for voters to take that claim seriously. You can point out that he tried to overthrow the government. But then the average voter will just ask you, "well why isn't he in prison?" Biden put a Republican, Merrick Garland, in charge of his DOJ. And Garland sat on any investigation or indictment of Trump for two years, allowing Trump to run out the clock. Garland made it impossible for Democrats to effectively run on the "Trump is a fascist" line, simply because the Biden administration didn't treat him as a threat to democracy. He should have been arrested and sent off to face a military tribunal the day Biden was sworn in. But because Biden didn't treat him as a serious threat, the voters didn't consider him a serious threat either.
In short, there are plenty of reasons why Trump won and Kamala lost, and they have nothing to do with voter fraud. Kamala offered no real solutions to struggling Americans. Trump has a simple, if monstrous, solution that actually WILL help people with rental costs. He's promising to deport 20 million people and thus free up housing supply. It's a monstrous and cruel solution, but it is at least a short-term solution. Yes, Trump absolutely meets any standard textbook definition of a fascist, but Kamala was not able to win on that. If your party is in power, you cannot run arguing your opponent is a threat to democracy. As if they are, the voters will ask why you haven't put them behind bars already.
No, big turnout is still synonymous with a progressive candidate win. Bernie Sanders, AOC, Stacy Abrams. It's just that Democrats are now so right wing they no longer appeal to the people.
However, that being said, there's literally a laundry list of election interference issues that should trigger a recount. And that includes speech by Trump himself that is suspect. Like he's literally working with Elon Musk and Putin and you don't think they may have done some bullshit? Lol. How gullible. You realize Putin has decades of experience rigging elections and using propaganda, and Musk owns Twitter?
No, big turnout is still synonymous with a progressive candidate win.
Again, you're living in the past. Back during the era of Obama, it was Democrats who were drawing out the infrequent voters. When turnout was high, Democrats did well. Now, it's Republicans who are relying on the infrequent voters. The modern Democrats are very dependent on college-educated voters and other groups that turn out more reliably than Trump's base.
And how Bernie or some other progressive would win is completely irrelevant here. We're talking about how Kamala, a centrist Democrat, performed in an election. What happened 20 years ago is irrelevant. In the recent Trump elections - 2016, 2020, 2024, it is centrist Democrats like her who were hurt by higher turnout.
However, that being said, there’s literally a laundry list of election interference issues that should trigger a recount. And that includes speech by Trump himself that is suspect. Like he’s literally working with Elon Musk and Putin and you don’t think they may have done some bullshit? Lol. How gullible. You realize Putin has decades of experience rigging elections and using propaganda, and Musk owns Twitter?
Trump made a vague remark about having some plan in the House, a plan that they'll never need. Do I doubt that Trump would willingly steal an election? No. But the point is that, as everyone has been trying to tell you, there is no reasonable way to pull off what you're suggesting.
You are naive and clearly trapped in an info bubble. The simple fact is that far more people voted for Trump than did Harris. And this result isn't in any way surprising. It's the kind of scenario any Poli Sci 101 text would tell you could easily lose an incumbent an election.
If it were a close race at all, you would have a point. But we don't do big national recounts just for shits and giggles. We don't do them because you think someone's vibe makes them a cheater. We do it when a plot is actually plausible. And the advantage Trump received is completely consistent with national polling, general economic sentiments, and Trump's own past poll performance. There is simply no reason other than cope to hang onto the idea that Trump cheated his way to this win.
Look, you seem to think I'm making an argument for how things definitely were. I'm not. I'm making an argument for why we should do a recount, and if the recount is accurate, why I think Dems lost.
You, on the other hand, have written a host of assumptions and attempts to convince me of some story. You won't. I demand a recount, it's only fair. Things have been suspicious enough that I want a recount. I will advocate for this. That's my right while I still have freedom of speech. So suck an egg, we recounters aren't going to shut up.
Well, feel free to keep calling for a recount. And I'm free to tell you why there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of it happening.
Wow, you should be really proud of yourself here, so brave and amazing of you to dismiss other's legitimate concerns