Why did the democrats fall so far short of expectations this election?

[ondma]

What about getting more votes from non-rural, non-white people? In other words, stop chasing votes you haven't gotten for 2 elections now? In some sense, people of color and minorities delivered this election, so get in those communities, and continue to improve their turnout.

The two arent mutually exclusive. Problem is, the Democrats were once the party that was seen as helping middle class working people and farmers. Somehow they have let the republicans co-opt that message. Even more, a lot of the policies of Dems (health care, affordable college, higher min wage) would benefit them, but they certainly dont seem to get that message across effectively.

Edit: The non-rural, non-white vote is already strongly for the democrats, so there is much less potential for growth in those areas, in contrast the rural voters and white working class voters.

 

[Sunburn74]

DJT was such a cancer on the country that republicans came out in strong support against him. It's actually a positive sign that Trump was defeated, it's very hard to unseat an incumbent. He has name recognition, prior "successes", controls the government already, and can influence tremendously through the media. People feel comfortable with him even though he's a cancer, and look how many still voted for him.

Can you imagine if Trump actually held the same "policies and views" but didn't tweet, acted like an adult and didn't whine, and kept his mouth shut instead of putting hid foot in his mouth? He would have won a second term by a landslide. Be very glad he was such a piece of shit and couldn't help himself.

Thats one of the really sad things actually.
He's legitimately a bad person and totally incompetent at the job but he only lost because he was extremely bad and extremely incompetent. Slightly lesser shades of evil and slightly lesser shades of incompetence could have beaten him. If only trump would have listened to his own advisors on things like "hey don't insult john mccain and the military, take the coronavirus seriously, stop being so divisive, don't tweet everything etc etc" but again... incompetence.

The two arent mutually exclusive. Problem is, the Democrats were once the party that was seen as helping middle class working people and farmers. Somehow they have let the republicans co-opt that message. Even more, a lot of the policies of Dems (health care, affordable college, higher min wage) would benefit them, but they certainly don't seem to get that message across effectively.

Their messaging is horrendous. Absolutely horrendous.

 

[mikeymikec]

Can you imagine if Trump actually held the same "policies and views" but didn't tweet, acted like an adult and didn't whine, and kept his mouth shut instead of putting hid foot in his mouth? He would have won a second term by a landslide. Be very glad he was such a piece of shit and couldn't help himself.

But then he wouldn't have been Donald Trump, the "not a politician who says what he thinks".

 

[Fenixgoon]

But then he wouldn't have been Donald Trump, the "not a politician who says what he thinks".

ironically, this "non-trump" trump might not have beaten hillary in the first place. after all, this donald would not "tell it like it is" and probably wouldn't excite the base in the same way.

 

[TeeJay1952]

My opinion is that millions voted against Corona restrictions.
Man I dislike one plank voters on both sides.
Issues are complicated.
None of us want the damn virus!

 

[vi edit]

I want to temper a few things. Then senate only *really* became into play in the last few weeks as Trump was completely self immolating his own campaign. AZ and CO were really the only two seats that in August Dems felt good about. The others were icing on the cake. AL was going to be a loss. NC/SC were a reach. KY wasn't happening. Montana was a stretch. Collins was the only one really sort of in doubt. GA was an uphill battle because of their runoff rules. If a candidate did not get more than 50% it goes to a runoff. GA pushed for a runoff with both seats. While not a win, THIS IS GEORGIA. And Dems pushed to candidates to a special runoff in an election that flipped their state blue for the president. That's performing pretty well.

House wise they lost seats. In 2018 they also flipped a lot of seats by fractional margins from going red to blue. With over 400 districts, local politics are still at play. We are in a pandemic and people have not had a normal year. They gave up seats, yes. But still held the majority. I'll accept that.

All that said, I don't think polls were that off. As others have mentioned it's hard to poll new voters. And Trump pulled an additional 5 million votes out of his MAGA hat. When we had several states decided by less than 50k votes, that matters. A LOT.

I think Biden got exactly what he needed to get, if not even a boost in some places. He got the exact voters to flip that he needed in MI, WI and PA. He had moderates break hard for him in AZ. MN was a significant swing to Biden over Hillary. NC is close. GA is a gift made in part by the work of Stacey Abrams and a colossal shit show of a campaign by Trump.

Don't minimize the success Biden had.

Where the real soul searching needs to be done is that mushy middle of both parties. I deeply believe that the majority of the Democratic party is more moderate than the party wants to admit. The republican party is far more extreme than it wants to admit. Both parties have some identity issues they need to understand and deal with.

 

[mikeymikec]

My opinion is that millions voted against Corona restrictions.

I'd buy that.

 

[woolfe9998]

I want to temper a few things. Then senate only *really* became into play in the last few weeks as Trump was completely self immolating his own campaign. AZ and CO were really the only two seats that in August Dems felt good about. The others were icing on the cake. AL was going to be a loss. NC/SC were a reach. KY wasn't happening. Montana was a stretch. Collins was the only one really sort of in doubt. GA was an uphill battle because of their runoff rules. If a candidate did not get more than 50% it goes to a runoff. GA pushed for a runoff with both seats. While not a win, THIS IS GEORGIA. And Dems pushed to candidates to a special runoff in an election that flipped their state blue for the president. That's performing pretty well.

House wise they lost seats. In 2018 they also flipped a lot of seats by fractional margins from going red to blue. With over 400 districts, local politics are still at play. We are in a pandemic and people have not had a normal year. They gave up seats, yes. But still held the majority. I'll accept that.

All that said, I don't think polls were that off. As others have mentioned it's hard to poll new voters. And Trump pulled an additional 5 million votes out of his MAGA hat. When we had several states decided by less than 50k votes, that matters. A LOT.

I think Biden got exactly what he needed to get, if not even a boost in some places. He got the exact voters to flip that he needed in MI, WI and PA. He had moderates break hard for him in AZ. MN was a significant swing to Biden over Hillary. NC is close. GA is a gift made in part by the work of Stacey Abrams and a colossal shit show of a campaign by Trump.

Don't minimize the success Biden had.

Where the real soul searching needs to be done is that mushy middle of both parties. I deeply believe that the majority of the Democratic party is more moderate than the party wants to admit. The republican party is far more extreme than it wants to admit. Both parties have some identity issues they need to understand and deal with.

Polls showed modest leads for dem candidates in Maine, NC, and Iowa. Dems should have gotten 2 of those 3, but got none. In addition, polls showed them slightly behind in SC and the two Georgia races. They'll likely get none of those either. Even in Michigan where the dem won, he only barely won it in spite of polls showing a wider lead.

 

[vi edit]

Polls in KY, NC, SC, and MA were wrong. I lived in KY for 5 years and watch McGrath flop and couldn't even win with the bluest county in state in her district. I have no idea what they were measuring there. Same with Grahams lead in SC. Iowa confuses me in general with it's hard shift red in the last 5 years. I also lived there for 5 years back when they had a democratic governor. I'm not sure if polls are using historical data too much or what. I never expected Ernst to get the boot.

The thing with polls is that they have a margin for error, and we tend to focus on one side of that error and not the other. If it's +/- 3 MOE, one candidate can actually have a 6 point swing.

 

[hal2kilo]

Yeah, see, I don't think Biden's "boringness" was a problem at all. I think people actually found that comforting after 4 years of Trump. Biden is not exciting, but he is likeable, which Trump is not, at least for the majority of Americans. As such, he was a perfect foil for Trump.

I think the it was the protests in certain cities and that were exploited by Fox News to Trumps benefit. These conservatives are afraid of everything. It played well to their mentality. I really think that was the only thing that hurt down ballet turnout. I'm convinced people across Sound from Seattle (my area) voted Republican for this reason.

 

[Lucio V]

But Biden talked about policy a TON! Like, all the time!

I agree he did mention some policies and even has some online papers listing them. But he's so focused on Trump's Covid responses that I couldn't really remember much anything else on policy side. I just assumed we get more or less the same Obama era policies.

But he's running as a change candidate, you need to talk about your vision/policy more. What I felt is that he ceded the limelight to Trump and those self-destructive Covid daily reports. That's good for highlighting Trump's incompetence on covid, but definitely not enough for people to vote for Biden because of his policies.

 

[Blackjack200]

I agree he did mention some policies and even has some online papers listing them. But he's so focused on Trump's Covid responses that I couldn't really remember much anything else on policy side. I just assumed we get more or less the same Obama era policies.

But he's running as a change candidate, you need to talk about your vision/policy more. What I felt is that he ceded the limelight to Trump and those self-destructive Covid daily reports. That's good for highlighting Trump's incompetence on covid, but definitely not enough for people to vote for Biden because of his policies.

Exactly. Who cares if you talk about policy "a TON! Like, all the time!" if you fail to articulate a vision for how you're going to improve people's lives?

Biden supported $15 minimum wage but you'd never know it, he didn't make a forceful case for COVID payments, and never explained how he was going to effectively deal with the pandemic outside of meaningless sloganeering like "listen to scientists!" The thing is, it's hard to run on the COVID issue when don't have a convincing plan yourself.

He also picked a terrible VP candidate, someone who had to drop out of the primary to avoid getting embarrassed in her own state.

 

[Blackjack200]

BTW, the best election recap I've heard so far was on Doug Henwood's "Behind the News" podcast. It was less than an hour but packed with interesting stuff.

Anyone else have any suggestions on good recaps that they heard or read?

 

[fskimospy]

I agree he did mention some policies and even has some online papers listing them. But he's so focused on Trump's Covid responses that I couldn't really remember much anything else on policy side. I just assumed we get more or less the same Obama era policies.

But he's running as a change candidate, you need to talk about your vision/policy more. What I felt is that he ceded the limelight to Trump and those self-destructive Covid daily reports. That's good for highlighting Trump's incompetence on covid, but definitely not enough for people to vote for Biden because of his policies.

Considering Biden didn’t talk about Trump that much and basically talked constantly about the policies he wanted to enact what should he have done differently?

I think with Clinton it was the same thing - people complained she didn’t talk about policy when she talked about it CONSTANTLY. I think people often confuse what the media wants to cover with what the candidates do. The media doesn’t care about policy so it doesn’t report on it.

 

[dank69]

I've asked before and I'll ask again, how much of the polling error can be explained by voter suppression efforts?

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Dems need to get back to their roots: They're the party of the blue collar working class, but you wouldn't know it based on any of their messaging. Their god damn mascot is an ass, a donkey, the lowest of the low beasts of burden.

That's what the dem party is supposed to be about. But somehow, fighting for the "little guy" has gone from broad messaging on helping the working Joe or blue collar stiff to helping other marginalized communities or to "high minded" values like restoring democracy and climate change. That's not to say those are not important issues, but think of a white dude from the mid-west who hasn't seen a minority in years and is more concerned with whats going to happen tomorrow or next month than some vague threat to the process or "sea level rise" or what have you. There is no messaging there for that guy.

Democrats have been spectacularly bad at distilling why a "green new deal" would be good for rural Americans. They have been spectacularly bad at messaging why and how their healthcare plan has helped Rural and low income Americans (its amazing how few people understand how the Medicaid expansion they need worked under the ACA).

They *feel* like the party of the coastal elite, even if their general policy positions are good for working class Americans. As we've seen in the last several elections, the feels are clearly a really important component of who people vote for. So when Rural Americans vote for a guy that by policy has either done nothing for them or has actively made their lives more difficult (farmers/trade war with China for example) its because they *feel* like he is fighting for them when he really isn't.

 

[Captante]

Frankly had the Democrats nominated a man to face Dumpster in 2016 I doubt he would have been elected in the first place.

Sad commentary.

The biggest issue for the Dems (and ALL Americans) is that we need to stop being adversarial about everything and start LISTENING to the other side.

Truth is that COMPROMISE makes us stronger not weaker and the powers who want us to forget that ARE the "bad guys".

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Democrats have been spectacularly bad at distilling why a "green new deal" would be good for rural Americans. They have been spectacularly bad at messaging why and how their healthcare plan has helped Rural and low income Americans (its amazing how few people understand how the Medicaid expansion they need worked under the ACA).

They *feel* like the party of the coastal elite, even if their general policy positions are good for working class Americans. As we've seen in the last several elections, the feels are clearly a really important component of who people vote for. So when Rural Americans vote for a guy that by policy has either done nothing for them or has actively made their lives more difficult (farmers/trade war with China for example) its because they *feel* like he is fighting for them when he really isn't.

Well... to be quite frank, how is the Green New Deal going to be good for rural americans?

Were talking places that are 2-5+ hours away from urban cities. So it's not like driving into urban areas to install solar panels is within reason. What jobs will the Green New Deal bring to rural towns - just out of curiosity (not doubting you).

Outside of mining for materials for lithium-ion batteries, I can't think of much.


Were talking about towns that were built on either US Manufacturing (which isn't going to come back unless we vastly over-tariff countries with lower labor costs) - or built off stuff like O&G - extracting oil, coal mining, etc... both of those are going away.




And yes - it's not just a "feels like" thing. They are the party of coastal elites. The thing that has made them the most mad that they are pushing the most to reform is..... Getting back their $10k limitation on SALT deductions lol.

 

[hal2kilo]

My opinion is that millions voted against Corona restrictions.
Man I dislike one plank voters on both sides.
Issues are complicated.
None of us want the damn virus!

That and the protests cover most of it, along with the unending message from Fox that Democratic wins means you will be living under Socialism.

 

[fskimospy]

Have you guys considered that Trump was the guy who underperformed here, not Biden? Given the fact that Americans generally gave Trump good marks for the economy and thought they were better off today than four years ago that should generally mean the president wins. He not only didn't win, he looks to have lost by ~5 points, which is one of the largest margins in recent history and for an incumbent that's a disastrous performance.

So instead of deciding that the reason Democrats didn't do as well was because they didn't do X, X being whatever your preferred policy position/campaign tactic is, isn't it very possible that people viewed the direction of the country as being just fine (good for Republicans) but hated Trump? (bad for Trump)

 

[obidamnkenobi]

Considering Biden didn’t talk about Trump that much and basically talked constantly about the policies he wanted to enact what should he have done differently?

I think with Clinton it was the same thing - people complained she didn’t talk about policy when she talked about it CONSTANTLY. I think people often confuse what the media wants to cover with what the candidates do. The media doesn’t care about policy so it doesn’t report on it.

Republicans always on top of messaging, and of course always whining that "the media is so mean..". This seems to be the criticism of every democratic candidate. With Obama it was (twice!) that "he's just hope and change, no substance!". Biden supposedly is just anti-trump, even though he purposefully didn't get baited by trump, since he knew that would not benefit him. Hillary was accused of ignoring trump and letting him attack, then she does attack him and she's "stooping to his level", and "being mean". I'm sure Kerry and Gore had the same issues.

I think it's a fundamental difference in the messaging and policies. Democrats have to explain and defend positive policies they want to implement, often quite complex ones. Republicans are just "against stuff" (and people), and appeal to emotions (mostly fear).

 

[MrSquished]

The Republicans dumb shit down for the masses and are better at messaging, their positions aren't very nuanced - pro-life for the Evangelical crazies, build the wall and ban muslims for the racist xenophobes, cry socialism for anything else. This has been going on for decades and decades. Harry Truman said it in 1952:
Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.

Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security.

Socialism is what they called farm price supports.

Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.

Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.

Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.

When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan "Down With Socialism" on the banner of his "great crusade," that is really not what he means at all.

What he really means is "Down with Progress--down with Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal," and "down with Harry Truman's fair Deal." That's all he means.




Progressives shoot themselves in the foot with stupid slogans like Defund the Police that when you explain some of the nuances, makes sense, but you already lost the audience. Not like any major candidate ran on defunding the police but I'm sure the commercials made themselves.

 

[hal2kilo]

The Republicans dumb shit down for the masses and are better at messaging, their positions aren't very nuanced - pro-life for the Evangelical crazies, build the wall and ban muslims for the racist xenophobes, cry socialism for anything else. This has been going on for decades and decades. Harry Truman said it in 1952:
Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.

Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security.

Socialism is what they called farm price supports.

Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.

Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.

Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.

When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan "Down With Socialism" on the banner of his "great crusade," that is really not what he means at all.

What he really means is "Down with Progress--down with Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal," and "down with Harry Truman's fair Deal." That's all he means.




Progressives shoot themselves in the foot with stupid slogans like Defund the Police that when you explain some of the nuances, makes sense, but you already lost the audience. Not like any major candidate ran on defunding the police but I'm sure the commercials made themselves.

Yep. They could all still be working 6 days a week with no vacation if they stuck to their guns.

 

[fskimospy]

Republicans always on top of messaging, and of course always whining that "the media is so mean..". This seems to be the criticism of every democratic candidate. With Obama it was (twice!) that "he's just hope and change, no substance!". Biden supposedly is just anti-trump, even though he purposefully didn't get baited by trump, since he knew that would not benefit him. Hillary was accused of ignoring trump and letting him attack, then she does attack him and she's "stooping to his level", and "being mean". I'm sure Kerry and Gore had the same issues.

I think it's a fundamental difference in the messaging and policies. Democrats have to explain and defend positive policies they want to implement, often quite complex ones. Republicans are just "against stuff" (and people), and appeal to emotions (mostly fear).

I definitely agree that it's vastly easier to oppose something than to create it.

The media is lazy and likes conflict though. How many people click on 'Biden proposes new tax incentives to defray college costs'? Nobody. First, it's a speculative policy that most people don't think will actually be implemented and if IS implemented later they will have plenty of time to care about it then. Second, it's boring. 'Marco Rubio makes fun of Donald Trump's small penis'? That's getting a shitload of clicks. So I guess when people say 'this candidate didn't focus on policy' I would ask them how often they went and googled their policies or how often they clicked on stories about ACA expansion. My guess is not very often.

 

[Blackjack200]

I wonder what the narrative would be if all the candidates that had endorsed Medicare for All had lost their elections and Omar and Tlaib had performed terribly in their districts, throwing their states to Trump instead of the exact opposite of these things happening. Remember when fskimospy was saying how great it was that Kasich was at the convention? How'd Ohio turn out? lol. In the last two elections Florida has re-enfranchised it's felons and adopted a $15 dollar minimum wage. But sure, the problem is that people hate socialism.