Why did we win?

[OrphanSlug]

Neither 'Democratic Socialism' or 'Defund the Police' were anywhere close to Biden's advertising and platform; he ran on the same terrible 'Orange Man Bad' messaging Hillary failed with, so it shouldn't surprise that he underperformed with pretty much the exact same shit approach in 2020, especially when there were initiatives and policies with 60-70% support ( including bipartisan support ) or greater he could have campaigned on, such as marijuana legalization, a federal jobs guarantee, an infrastructure spend, a wealth tax on the uber rich, his own public option, free public college/skilled trades education, campaign finance reform and so on.

Valid comments of course, but I think we need to look a little deeper at what Democrats really did this time.

To be blunt, Biden won but Democrats did not. Biden made the election a referendum on Trump or calm and Biden took home a record number of votes for a Presidential election. But the issue is Trump losing this time around took home the #2 spot on the record number of votes list. 73.6 million something people still looked at Trump and voted for him. There are not 73.6 million white nationalists and racists out there, nor are there that many people watching FoxNews in the evening then flooding AmericanThinker and HotAir the next morning. But they voted for Trump anyway, including a slightly larger number of minorities.

If Democrats are so right how did they lose a few House seats, not solidly flip the Senate, and not change a single State government? If Democrats are unwilling or that arrogant as to not ask themselves this then 2022 and 2024 could be brutal.

2020 was not great for them and speaks greatly to the underline problem. Not only are we ultra divided as a nation but the far left has *played the same game* just as much if not more than the far right. More importantly the splinters of far left authoritarian modern liberalism have become the very anchor to these issues that liberalism used to be concerned about moving on but no longer can. That is really what I am getting at.

We do not get to talk about the widening wealth gap or decreasing middle class because of "democratic socialism" and "be bold" (or whatever the hell Warren and Sanders were going on about.) We do not get to talk about police militarization and brutality because of "defund the police" and the takeaway notion from the left that silence is violence but a riot is not. We do not get to talk about the doctor patient relationship and overall health of this nation because of "government ran healthcare" even though we kinda already have that. And we do not get to talk about dealing with our social faults because of social justice warriors, the political correctness police, and the cancel culture modern liberalism embraced like a security blanket that made it impossible to discuss these issues without the very labels they embrace so long as they came up with the accepted label to use.

For the far left it is no longer about the issues themselves, the position gets a seat at the table of discussion, but ultimately the discussion ends up about marginalization of opposition to the point of protection bubbles and litmus tests for inclusion that makes them more oppressive oriented today than the KKK was back in middle part of the last century.

It is easy to brand modern liberalism with anything used to scare a voter, because they are those labels.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Valid comments of course, but I think we need to look a little deeper at what Democrats really did this time.

To be blunt, Biden won but Democrats did not. Biden made the election a referendum on Trump or calm and Biden took home a record number of votes for a Presidential election. But the issue is Trump losing this time around took home the #2 spot on the record number of votes list. 73.6 million something people still looked at Trump and voted for him. There are not 73.6 million white nationalists and racists out there, nor are there that many people watching FoxNews in the evening then flooding AmericanThinker and HotAir the next morning. But they voted for Trump anyway, including a slightly larger number of minorities.

If Democrats are so right how did they lose a few House seats, not solidly flip the Senate, and not change a single State government? If Democrats are unwilling or that arrogant as to not ask themselves this then 2022 and 2024 could be brutal.

2020 was not great for them and speaks greatly to the underline problem. Not only are we ultra divided as a nation but the far left has *played the same game* just as much if not more than the far right. More importantly the splinters of far left authoritarian modern liberalism have become the very anchor to these issues that liberalism used to be concerned about moving on but no longer can. That is really what I am getting at.

We do not get to talk about the widening wealth gap or decreasing middle class because of "democratic socialism" and "be bold" (or whatever the hell Warren and Sanders were going on about.) We do not get to talk about police militarization and brutality because of "defund the police" and the takeaway notion from the left that silence is violence but a riot is not. We do not get to talk about the doctor patient relationship and overall health of this nation because of "government ran healthcare" even though we kinda already have that. And we do not get to talk about dealing with our social faults because of social justice warriors, the political correctness police, and the cancel culture modern liberalism embraced like a security blanket that made it impossible to discuss these issues without the very labels they embrace so long as they came up with the accepted label to use.

For the far left it is no longer about the issues themselves, the position gets a seat at the table of discussion, but ultimately the discussion ends up about marginalization of opposition to the point of protection bubbles and litmus tests for inclusion that makes them more oppressive oriented today than the KKK was back in middle part of the last century.

It is easy to brand modern liberalism with anything used to scare a voter, because they are those labels.

Sorry, this post is pure absurdity and why issue-based politics are broken and driven entirely by the right-wing. Why should the right be in the driver's seat of a policy discussion, and not setting up pins in a bowling alley?

We can't talk about holding police accountable, universal healthcare, 'social justice', etc. because of labels the right-wing will ALWAYS use to scare the voters? Bernie Sanders and AOC are brilliant for embracing socialism. It removes a useless point of discussion from the table so that the issues can be discussed, rather than the label. Watch Biden defend himself from socialism while Bernie is giving a master class on the policy.

History lesson: Dems were scared away from talk of universal healthcare because of 'Red Scare' socialism labels from Republicans. As a result, Dems move to the right and implemented Obamacare. Republicans call it socialism and universally rejected it.

And the 'far left' is no longer about the issues? Are you seriously saying these things? The so-called far left are the only people who seem to care about the issues.

Labels. Pfft. Biden will spend the next YEARS dodging socialism allegations, and as such, knee-cap his own policy agenda.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Sorry, this post is pure absurdity and why issue-based politics are broken and driven entirely by the right-wing. Why should the right be in the driver's seat of a policy discussion, and not setting up pins in a bowling alley?

We can't talk about holding police accountable, universal healthcare, 'social justice', etc. because of labels the right-wing will ALWAYS use to scare the voters? Bernie Sanders and AOC are brilliant for embracing socialism. It removes a useless point of discussion from the table so that the issues can be discussed, rather than the label. Watch Biden defend himself from socialism while Bernie is giving a master class on the policy.

History lesson: Dems were scared away from talk of universal healthcare because of 'Red Scare' socialism labels from Republicans. As a result, Dems move to the right and implemented Obamacare. Republicans call it socialism and universally rejected it.

And the 'far left' is no longer about the issues? Are you seriously saying these things? The so-called far left are the only people who seem to care about the issues.

Labels. Pfft. Biden will spend the next YEARS dodging socialism allegations, and as such, knee-cap his own policy agenda.

And yet, you lost. All you did was get President OrangeGlow out of office.

You being so dismissive of all these things proves my point.

 

[Dans La Lune]

And yet, you lost. All you did was get President OrangeGlow out of office.

Which candidates lost?

 

[Greenbeard]

fair number? Trump won in 2016 by ~60k votes and lost in 2020 by ~40k votes

I would say it shows that only a small number of people were swayed by Trumps poor performance

~81 million Americans came out to toss him.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

I like oatmeal - especially with raisin and blueberries. But not enough to vote for Biden who is not strong enough to resist all of the Progressive forces already in his party.

My figure of speech was, "Dems are foolish enough to vote for a ham sandwich instead of Trump".

What "progressive forces?" There are few to any progressives in the Democratic party. It's ran by and for corporatists. AOC has allies that are few and far between and she has no serious influence on actual policy.

 

[TheParser]

Now, why did Biden win?

Because the media convinced enough Euro Americans that they should feel "guilt."

 

[Dans La Lune]

Because the media convinced enough Euro Americans that they should feel "guilt."

Guilt for what?

 

[Surrealistik]

Valid comments of course, but I think we need to look a little deeper at what Democrats really did this time.

To be blunt, Biden won but Democrats did not. Biden made the election a referendum on Trump or calm and Biden took home a record number of votes for a Presidential election. But the issue is Trump losing this time around took home the #2 spot on the record number of votes list. 73.6 million something people still looked at Trump and voted for him. There are not 73.6 million white nationalists and racists out there, nor are there that many people watching FoxNews in the evening then flooding AmericanThinker and HotAir the next morning. But they voted for Trump anyway, including a slightly larger number of minorities.

If Democrats are so right how did they lose a few House seats, not solidly flip the Senate, and not change a single State government? If Democrats are unwilling or that arrogant as to not ask themselves this then 2022 and 2024 could be brutal.

2020 was not great for them and speaks greatly to the underline problem. Not only are we ultra divided as a nation but the far left has *played the same game* just as much if not more than the far right. More importantly the splinters of far left authoritarian modern liberalism have become the very anchor to these issues that liberalism used to be concerned about moving on but no longer can. That is really what I am getting at.

We do not get to talk about the widening wealth gap or decreasing middle class because of "democratic socialism" and "be bold" (or whatever the hell Warren and Sanders were going on about.) We do not get to talk about police militarization and brutality because of "defund the police" and the takeaway notion from the left that silence is violence but a riot is not. We do not get to talk about the doctor patient relationship and overall health of this nation because of "government ran healthcare" even though we kinda already have that. And we do not get to talk about dealing with our social faults because of social justice warriors, the political correctness police, and the cancel culture modern liberalism embraced like a security blanket that made it impossible to discuss these issues without the very labels they embrace so long as they came up with the accepted label to use.

For the far left it is no longer about the issues themselves, the position gets a seat at the table of discussion, but ultimately the discussion ends up about marginalization of opposition to the point of protection bubbles and litmus tests for inclusion that makes them more oppressive oriented today than the KKK was back in middle part of the last century.

It is easy to brand modern liberalism with anything used to scare a voter, because they are those labels.

First off, the majority of this, particularly your description of the left or 'far left' is utter and ridiculous hyperbole.

Second, we didn't talk about issues because Biden consciously chose not to talk about those issues; it has exactly diddly and squat to do with the left, and democratic socialism and whatever the ****. Instead of telling the American people what he could do for them, Joe chose to talk about what Trump was doing to them; instead of adding a second dimension to his campaign and appealing to overwhelmingly popular policies, including low hanging fruit, and bipartisan no-brainers, he ended up rehashing Hillary's greatest misses as stated. Yes, Democrats underperformed, I agree, and they underperformed in large part because so many literally campaigned on nothing but how bad Orange Man was, as if everyone didn't already know, and that there were any undecideds left to convince so late into Trump's term; meanwhile, of the vulnerable ridings, more conservative Dems did worse on average. The introspection you're talking about and that you insist is necessary to avert disaster is literally what you're responding to.

 

[Dans La Lune]

First off, the majority of this, particularly your description of the left or 'far left' is utter and ridiculous hyperbole.

Second, we didn't talk about issues because Biden consciously chose not to talk about those issues; it has exactly diddly and squat to do with the left, and democratic socialism and whatever the ****. Instead of telling the American people what he could do for them, Joe chose to talk about what Trump was doing to them; instead of adding a second dimension to his campaign and appealing to overwhelmingly popular policies, including low hanging fruit, and bipartisan no-brainers, he ended up rehashing Hillary's greatest misses as stated. Yes, Democrats underperformed, I agree, and they underperformed in large part because so many literally campaigned on nothing but how bad Orange Man was, as if everyone didn't already know, and that there were any undecideds left to convince so late into Trump's second term; meanwhile, of the vulnerable ridings, more conservative Dems did worse on average. The introspection you're talking about and that you insist is necessary to avert disaster is literally what you're responding to.

Great post. I'm definitely curious what winning strategy is according to OrphanSlug. If the lesson learned from the losses of the moderate Dems is that progressives should be more like them or STFU, I'm out. And I suspect that the progressives who carried Biden to victory would be similarly 'out'.

 

[OrphanSlug]

First off, the majority of this, particularly your description of the left or 'far left' is utter and ridiculous hyperbole.

Second, we didn't talk about issues because Biden consciously chose not to talk about those issues; it has exactly diddly and squat to do with the left, and democratic socialism and whatever the ****. Instead of telling the American people what he could do for them, Joe chose to talk about what Trump was doing to them; instead of adding a second dimension to his campaign and appealing to overwhelmingly popular policies, including low hanging fruit, and bipartisan no-brainers, he ended up rehashing Hillary's greatest misses as stated. Yes, Democrats underperformed, I agree, and they underperformed in large part because so many literally campaigned on nothing but how bad Orange Man was, as if everyone didn't already know, and that there were any undecideds left to convince so late into Trump's term; meanwhile, of the vulnerable ridings, more conservative Dems did worse on average. The introspection you're talking about and that you insist is necessary to avert disaster is literally what you're responding to.

It is not hyperbole at all, but rather what modern liberalism faces.

President CheetoVonTweeto was not our only problem, we saw in the last 2 Congresses a slew of enablers and supporters who further entrenched themselves in the age old rhetoric of what Democrats today stand for and by in large they kept their seats.

Any conclusion of underperformance against that lot of relics from the right means questioning not just a campaign strategy of showcasing Trump did but also what they as candidates said *and* did not say. Plenty of members of Congress with a (D) behind their names questioned both the rhetoric being used but also the issues that seemingly went on the backburner.

The numbers are clear on the national stage at least, Trump losing in 2020 still took home the 2nd largest vote count in US history and with some segments of voters did better than he did in 2016. The monolithic attitude of Democrats assuming who would vote for them turned out to be inaccurate, not just on the national level for President but also State to State with what this next Congress will look like (the Georgia seats notwithstanding.)

Hillary was an awful candidate, no real reason to revisit that. But if we should be revisiting Democratic strategy in today's political climate someone should be considering common sense. If that is too much to ask from today's modern liberalism threatening being "out" if they do not get their litmus test way then you guys are literally arguing for your own demise.

Again, if you guys were so right and so just on all these things 2020 results would be different.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Hillary was an awful candidate, no real reason to revisit that.

Why? She followed your prescription, just like the moderate Dems who lost in 2020.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Why? She followed your prescription, just like the moderate Dems who lost in 2020.

No, she did not at all.

Hillary was nowhere close as pragmatic and common sense on the issues of importance. She was yet another aristocratic relic of the party, only became liberal when it was 'cool to do so,' needed insider party shenanigans to gain the nomination, with way too much baggage going back to the Arkansas days, and who considered herself unbeatable head-to-head with Trump yet lost in one of the worst Presidential failures of the modern era.

She literally handed key districts and states to Trump because she considered the voter as monolithic and behind her to the point that she nor the party took much interest in campaigning there.

Hillary was so arrogant she thought everyone in world would be behind her, then she lost, and responded with a tour blaming the everyone in the world for her loss.

 

[911Sparky]

I think you'd have to add the media's (social and otherwise) pushing down on the scales with both hands and both feet, and everything including the kitchen sink.
Protecting Biden while at the same time continuing their full scale assault on Trump which started prior to 2016 election.

If you consider reporting what Trump did, and what he said, as a full scale assault you are absolutely correct. Many of us however think reporting on the presidents daily tweets and statements are news worthy of reporting. What do you suggest we do, rely on Fox, Breitbart, Limbaugh, etc. for all of our daily news?

 

[911Sparky]

Essentially all of the elite interests Trump spat upon in 2015 and 2016 banded together and ran a dedicated, four year long, multi-trillion dollar, disruption and PSY-OPS campaign against him. A lot of people - in the American underclass, and more affluent sections of the middle class, especially - were, apparently, receptive to that message.

Trump's a jackass, and, in combination with the constant stream of negative messaging above, that didn't endear him to the low information "But could I have a beer with him?" crowd.

COVID-19 came out of nowhere and wrecked the global economy in an election year. It also scared a whoooole bunch of finicky Boomers half to death. Again, in combination with the constant stream of negative messaging mentioned above, this hurt Trump badly. He became a lot of people's scapegoat for the crisis.

*Possible mail-in voting fraud. (C'mon, you knew that was going in there lol)

Isn't Trump one of the elite?

 

[Phys251]

One thing is for certain. Trump has ruined it for any narcissistic, pedophilic, racist sociopaths who might want to run for President in the future.

This is why we HAD to vote him out. It sends a message to both parties that the people will not tolerate this shit from their President.

 

[Surrealistik]

It is not hyperbole at all, but rather what modern liberalism faces.

President CheetoVonTweeto was not our only problem, we saw in the last 2 Congresses a slew of enablers and supporters who further entrenched themselves in the age old rhetoric of what Democrats today stand for and by in large they kept their seats.

Any conclusion of underperformance against that lot of relics from the right means questioning not just a campaign strategy of showcasing Trump did but also what they as candidates said *and* did not say. Plenty of members of Congress with a (D) behind their names questioned both the rhetoric being used but also the issues that seemingly went on the backburner.

The numbers are clear on the national stage at least, Trump losing in 2020 still took home the 2nd largest vote count in US history and with some segments of voters did better than he did in 2016. The monolithic attitude of Democrats assuming who would vote for them turned out to be inaccurate, not just on the national level for President but also State to State with what this next Congress will look like (the Georgia seats notwithstanding.)

Hillary was an awful candidate, no real reason to revisit that. But if we should be revisiting Democratic strategy in today's political climate someone should be considering common sense. If that is too much to ask from today's modern liberalism threatening being "out" if they do not get their litmus test way then you guys are literally arguing for your own demise.

Again, if you guys were so right and so just on all these things 2020 results would be different.

Asserting that discussion of the issues was effectively shut down by the left, or far left, or whatever you want to call it is indeed ridiculous hyperbole; it was the choice of Biden and his campaign,and their choice alone, not to push policy (despite in fact, protestations from the left), even wildly popular policy with bipartisan support.

As stated, the underperformance was due to Biden having the exact same strategy that cost Hillary in 2016, even if he was more vigorous about campaigning. While I don't disagree there was a degree of presumption and arrogance among Democrats in 2020, I don't think it was nearly as replete as in 2016, and it certainly didn't filter through to the Biden campaign; they just had the wrong messaging in that they had no messaging outside of Orange Man Bad, which as stated, is not liable to change many minds this far out; that is common sense. It wasn't about far left litmus tests or exclusion, or anything of the sort; these are all non-factors. Quite simply the more conservative Dems tended to lose more in the competitive ridings this cycle, and Biden adopted a strategy that was a proven failure. Literally the only reason he won is because COVID and Trump's incompetent handling of it saved him from his own poor decisions in deciding how to prosecute his run for president.

 

[911Sparky]

Neither 'Democratic Socialism' or 'Defund the Police' were anywhere close to Biden's advertising and platform; he ran on the same terrible 'Orange Man Bad' messaging Hillary failed with, so it shouldn't surprise that he underperformed with pretty much the exact same shit approach in 2020, especially when there were initiatives and policies with 60-70% support ( including bipartisan support ) or greater he could have campaigned on, such as marijuana legalization, a federal jobs guarantee, an infrastructure spend, a wealth tax on the uber rich, his own public option, free public college/skilled trades education, campaign finance reform and so on.

Biden won because the alternative, a 2nd Trump term was unthinkable for the majority of voters. The down ballot losses however, I believe can be attributed to the progressive wing of the party talking about defunding the police, eliminating the filibuster, and packing the supreme court. That was scary to a large percentage of the populace. Add to that the fact that Pelosi overplayed her hand with covid relief, refusing Trumps last offer of 1.8 trillion, a number she will never see from McConnell, now that Trump is a lame duck, and you have the recipe for disaster that we created for ourselves, and if we don't get it together by 2022 the republicans will take back the house with a fair chance to win the white house in 2024, if they run a sane candidate.

 

[911Sparky]

I can do all three very easily because I actually understand how shit works:

1) Economically: He inherited a good economy and ever lowering unemployment rates. His 2017 Tax-Cut and Jobs Act significantly reduced government revenue and his 2018 budget significantly increased government spending, which produced massive debt. Aside from handing his own kind permanent cuts, he created a barn door that allowed over 90 billion-dollar corporations on the Fortune 500 to escape paying 0% on almost a trillion dollars in 2018. Your temporary cuts have already been expiring. The Treasury has had to issue ever more bonds to China to keep up. Trump began his presidency with $19.85 trillion in debt, and is ending it with $27.00 trillion in debt. And what American project explains this? Why was the 2019 GDP only 2.3%? That's lower than five prior years, and before COVID, by the way. But.....the country was doing "real well" up until March 2020? Oh, and he walked away from a billion-dollar deal in TPP, which hemmed up China's geopolitics, and made a million-dollar deal with Japan.

2) Socially: The man exacerbated bad immigration laws and made no attempt to reform anything. He emboldened alt-Right extremist groups while promoting their role as society's guardians against an exaggerated Antifa. He consistently played on people's racial instincts and championed their irrational defenses. He is documented as being the most divisive President since Andrew Johnson. He has exacerbated the consequences of COVID, making America either a total joke or a source for great pity to the world. He has reduced the morality and standards of a great number of Americans, because he knows that people of integrity are a threat to him.

3) Militarily: Aside from this draft-dodger's routine denigration towards the military as "cowards, losers, American frauds, and overrated," he viciously defaulted to attacking the military careers of his critics and downplayed true sacrifice for nation. He betrayed the Kurds, who had been fighting along side American troops since 2003. He took credit for the destruction of ISIS, which began in 2014. He walked away from the Iran deal, obliterating a decade worth of time in which our diplomats could have worked on Iranian foreign policy, which is a threat to our troops. He honored war criminals who had betrayed their uniforms, military codes, and country's trust. He ignored Putin's bounties on American troops in Afghanistan. He insulted the entire point of the American military man's existence by asking a foreign government to interfere in an American election. The fact that he lost the support of the majority of the military, along with almost 500 Generals, Admirals, and national security officers publicly endorsing Biden, should be enough to tell people something. The man called Mattis, one of America's most professional, experienced, and accomplished Generals, "overrated"; and just fired Esper for not agreeing that he should send the Marines in to crack American civilian heads. He clearly has no respect for the military, what it stands for, or the nation's defense.


There should be no question as to why Trump has earned his humiliation and disgrace. The history books will present him for what he is. The question is why, after all of this, do his followers support him? Oh, I know...because Democrats are communists and socialists! The history books will be sure to include this ignorant lot as well. Idiots.

Great post.

 

[Perotista]

We won the election. Now, why did Biden win? Thoughts?

Independents, swing voters, they deserted Trump for Biden then turned around and voted Republican down ballot. In 2016 Trump won the independent vote 46-42 over Hillary with 12% voting third party, against both major party candidates. Biden wasn't even close to being as disliked by independents as Hillary was. Their dislike of Trump remained steady. In 2020 Biden won independents 54-41 with 5% voting third party. Why, mostly because independents grew sick and tired of Trump's obnoxious, uncouth personality. Tired of his childish antics of name calling and throwing temper tantrums, tired of his schoolyard bullying tactics. After all of these grating on them for four years, enough was enough.

Interestingly, this election was all about getting rid of Trump. No so much about Biden and the Democrats. This can be seen in the Republicans holding their own in the senate, gaining seats in the house, gaining state legislature and gaining a governorship. Biden had no coat tails, none, zero, nadda. This was the first election since 1884 where a party's candidate won the popular vote on his way to the presidency and lost seats in the house. A truly mixed bag election. One moderately for Republicans down ballot, but against Trump fairly big at the presidential level.

In my opinion, this election was about as far from an mandate or an endorsement, acceptance of the Democratic Party's ideals, agenda and policies. It was about only one thing, getting rid of Trump and in the process ensuring the democrats didn't get the big head going around claiming a mandate. All you have to do is look at what happen down ballot to prove that.

 

[Dans La Lune]

No, she did not at all.

Hillary was nowhere close as pragmatic and common sense on the issues of importance. She was yet another aristocratic relic of the party, only became liberal when it was 'cool to do so,' needed insider party shenanigans to gain the nomination, with way too much baggage going back to the Arkansas days, and who considered herself unbeatable head-to-head with Trump yet lost in one of the worst Presidential failures of the modern era.

Hillary was a center or center-right moderate. She didn't lose because she didn't campaign in a couple states. She lost because -- and I cannot stress this enough -- she offered no change whatsoever.

Obama lost over a 1000 seats in 2010.

Why?

Describe your ideal Democratic candidate. Do they have to be somewhere in between Biden and Trump in ideology? You're very vague in what you're asking of Democrats.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Independents, swing voters, they deserted Trump for Biden then turned around and voted Republican down ballot. In 2016 Trump won the independent vote 46-42 over Hillary with 12% voting third party, against both major party candidates. Biden wasn't even close to being as disliked by independents as Hillary was.

Yet when Hillary was Secretary of State her popularity rivaled Michelle Obama's. Hillary and Biden are virtually identical in ideology. The difference is that Republicans' bogus Benghazi and Email investigations stuck, and by the time Biden came into the picture the Republicans efforts were not as effective or as concentrated. There's also the fact that centrists ARE NOT POPULAR. No one looks at Joe Manchin and says, 'Gee, I'd vote for him if only he were more of a corporate shill'. Joe Manchin is supported because he is of a certain cultural lean. And that's the problem; when you cede ground on policy, the only thing left to fight over is culture. Manchin's policy positions suck ass. Bernie Sanders would steam roll him in a policy vote in West Virginia.

Republicans are great at one thing, and it's propaganda. Labeling. Some (in this very thread) suggest that we let Republicans' efforts drive the conversation and run like cowards away from their efforts. How has that worked out for Democrats so far? Hillary, Obama and Biden (all centrists or even center-right Democrats) are called far-left socialist extremists.

 

[CimpleMan]

Independents, swing voters, they deserted Trump for Biden then turned around and voted Republican down ballot. In 2016 Trump won the independent vote 46-42 over Hillary with 12% voting third party, against both major party candidates. Biden wasn't even close to being as disliked by independents as Hillary was. Their dislike of Trump remained steady. In 2020 Biden won independents 54-41 with 5% voting third party. Why, mostly because independents grew sick and tired of Trump's obnoxious, uncouth personality. Tired of his childish antics of name calling and throwing temper tantrums, tired of his schoolyard bullying tactics. After all of these grating on them for four years, enough was enough.

Interestingly, this election was all about getting rid of Trump. No so much about Biden and the Democrats. This can be seen in the Republicans holding their own in the senate, gaining seats in the house, gaining state legislature and gaining a governorship. Biden had no coat tails, none, zero, nadda. This was the first election since 1884 where a party's candidate won the popular vote on his way to the presidency and lost seats in the house. A truly mixed bag election. One moderately for Republicans down ballot, but against Trump fairly big at the presidential level.

In my opinion, this election was about as far from an mandate or an endorsement, acceptance of the Democratic Party's ideals, agenda and policies. It was about only one thing, getting rid of Trump and in the process ensuring the democrats didn't get the big head going around claiming a mandate. All you have to do is look at what happen down ballot to prove that.

Congratulations on your win. You'll most likely get the divided government you prefer, but doubt we'll return to a Bipartisan approach to governing. Nothing what is currently happening points to it, but I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Perotista]

Yet when Hillary was Secretary of State her popularity rivaled Michelle Obama's. Hillary and Biden are virtually identical in ideology. The difference is that Republicans' bogus Benghazi and Email investigations stuck, and by the time Biden came into the picture the Republicans efforts were not as effective or as concentrated. There's also the fact that centrists ARE NOT POPULAR. No one looks at Joe Manchin and says, 'Gee, I'd vote for him if only he were more of a corporate shill'. Joe Manchin is supported because he is of a certain cultural lean. And that's the problem; when you cede ground on policy, the only thing left to fight over is culture. Manchin's policy positions suck ass. Bernie Sanders would steam roll him in a policy vote in West Virginia.

Republicans are great at one thing, and it's propaganda. Labeling. Some (in this very thread) suggest that we let Republicans' efforts drive the conversation and run like cowards away from their efforts. How has that worked out for Democrats so far? Hillary, Obama and Biden (all centrists or even center-right Democrats) are called far-left socialist extremists.

I think what most who take your line fail to understand is that Hillary as Secretary of state wasn't in charge, Obama was. It was Obama telling her what to do. There have been many folks who were popular as a subordinate, but not wanted as the leader. You can trace her approval record here.

https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/18233NBCWSJApril2018Poll.pdf

Yet as for Manchin, he wins elections easily in West Virginia, about the reddest state in the nation as a Democrat. Sanders would be lucky to get 25% of the vote there.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Hillary was a center or center-right moderate. She didn't lose because she didn't campaign in a couple states. She lost because -- and I cannot stress this enough -- she offered no change whatsoever.

No, that is what Sanders supporters said once the DNC ensured he lost in the primary. How the DNC handled 2016 allowed for someone like President OrangeGlow to win, and it shows what a spectacular failure Hillary was as a candidate (and in that climate the DNC created for themselves.)

Obama lost over a 1000 seats in 2010.

Why?

The DNC did not bother enough with State races where Republicans made them a priority, and as such Republicans convinced their base that Democrats were going to marginalize them and march them towards government over healthcare.

And it worked.

Describe your ideal Democratic candidate. Do they have to be somewhere in between Biden and Trump in ideology? You're very vague in what you're asking of Democrats.

Someone with a common sense approach, it cannot be that vague. Democrats had a method to a national election which worked for Clinton and Obama both, relative outsiders who arguably were neither extreme or insider. But for whatever reason discarded the method and ultimately allowed the party to fall to faction fighting resulting in questionable results.