What happens to the Democratic Party now? (2 Viewers)

[Heathen]

I’m sure much of us are having 2016 flashbacks this morning with a sick feeling to our stomachs..

2 of the last 3 elections Democrats have lost to a far right demagogue

Harris didn’t get close in many states to even Biden’s performance. We could very well lose the Presidency, Senate AND House depending on results the next few days…..

What went wrong?
What could’ve been done better?
What can we change in the future to ensure voters are motivated like they were when Obama was elected?

Democrats have no choice but to admit there’s a huge problem with some aspect of their platform— and to do a deep introspection of what’s going wrong..

 

[Scoutster]

There is zero reason for Kinzinger to be investigated beyond the bruised ego of Trump.

I was referring to NYC Mayor Adams.

 

[bird]

I was referring to NYC Mayor Adams.

Ah, my mistake. Mayor Adams is a hack.

 

[Optimus Prime]

FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) — Looking to strengthen his foothold in national politics, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear is taking on a lead role for Democratic efforts to win governorships in the 2026 midterm election — when a majority of states will be electing governors, including a crucial set of presidential swing states.

Democratic governors on Saturday picked Beshear as chair-elect of the Democratic Governors Association for 2026. He will serve as vice chair in 2025, when Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly will continue serving as the group’s chair. Voters in Virginia and New Jersey will elect governors next year.

His selection sets up Beshear to play a lead role in candidate recruitment, messaging and fundraising for 2026, when the DGA says governorships are up for grabs in 36 states, including the presidential battlegrounds of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.……

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear picked to lead Democratic efforts to win governorships in 2026 midterms

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear is taking on a lead role for Democratic efforts to win governorships in the 2026 midterm elections.

apnews.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

When Mitt Romney lost his 2012 presidential race, he bought several properties in Utah and spent time with his growing brood of grandchildren before seeking — and winning — one of the state’s U.S. Senate seats.

When Hillary Clinton lost her 2016 bid for the White House, she retreated to the woods of Chappaqua, New York, before embarking on various projects, including a political action committee and several books.

Both enjoyed fleeting boomlets suggesting they make another run, but they ultimately followed the path of most losing major-party candidates in modern history by declining to seek the presidency again.

Their parties, in essence, had rendered a stark verdict: They had blown winnable races and did not deserve another chance.

In the wake of her own 2024 loss, Vice President Kamala Harris and her allies are grappling with what her political future holds and debating whether the unofficial rule still applies —specifically, whether her first shot at the White House as the Democratic nominee should also be her only one, given the extraordinarycircumstances of Harris’s 107-day sprint to Election Day.

They point not just to President-elect Donald Trump’s own unusual trajectory — he won the presidency in 2016, lost in 2020, and ran again in 2024 — but to the hand Harris was dealt.

After President Joe Biden’s devastating performance in a presidential debate in late June, Harris — a woman of color — inherited a campaign built for a White man two decades her senior who had hemorrhaged support from nearly every major demographic group required to win.

In just over three months, Harris had to vet a running-mate, stand up a convention, introduce herself to voters, reframe Democrats’ message toAmericans angry about inflation and prosecute the case against Trump, among other campaign requisites.

Despite losing decisively — Trump swept her in all seven battleground states — she emerged with a higher approval rating than when she launched her bid, according to the political website 538, and she has largely escaped blame amid the seething recrimination and finger-pointing within the Democratic Party.

Rather than blaming her, in fact, many Democrats believe she ran an impressive campaign against insurmountable odds and anti-incumbent global headwinds.

“The rules potentially don’t apply this time, and she still absolutely could have a mulligan because of the unique circumstances of this race and the candidate switch,” said Molly Murphy, a pollster who worked on the both the Biden and Harris campaigns. “But I don’t think it will be a given.”……..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/12/16/kamala-harris-future-governor-president/

 

[bird]

When Mitt Romney lost his 2012 presidential race, he bought several properties in Utah and spent time with his growing brood of grandchildren before seeking — and winning — one of the state’s U.S. Senate seats.

When Hillary Clinton lost her 2016 bid for the White House, she retreated to the woods of Chappaqua, New York, before embarking on various projects, including a political action committee and several books.

Both enjoyed fleeting boomlets suggesting they make another run, but they ultimately followed the path of most losing major-party candidates in modern history by declining to seek the presidency again.

Their parties, in essence, had rendered a stark verdict: They had blown winnable races and did not deserve another chance.

In the wake of her own 2024 loss, Vice President Kamala Harris and her allies are grappling with what her political future holds and debating whether the unofficial rule still applies —specifically, whether her first shot at the White House as the Democratic nominee should also be her only one, given the extraordinarycircumstances of Harris’s 107-day sprint to Election Day.

They point not just to President-elect Donald Trump’s own unusual trajectory — he won the presidency in 2016, lost in 2020, and ran again in 2024 — but to the hand Harris was dealt.

After President Joe Biden’s devastating performance in a presidential debate in late June, Harris — a woman of color — inherited a campaign built for a White man two decades her senior who had hemorrhaged support from nearly every major demographic group required to win.

In just over three months, Harris had to vet a running-mate, stand up a convention, introduce herself to voters, reframe Democrats’ message toAmericans angry about inflation and prosecute the case against Trump, among other campaign requisites.

Despite losing decisively — Trump swept her in all seven battleground states — she emerged with a higher approval rating than when she launched her bid, according to the political website 538, and she has largely escaped blame amid the seething recrimination and finger-pointing within the Democratic Party.

Rather than blaming her, in fact, many Democrats believe she ran an impressive campaign against insurmountable odds and anti-incumbent global headwinds.

“The rules potentially don’t apply this time, and she still absolutely could have a mulligan because of the unique circumstances of this race and the candidate switch,” said Molly Murphy, a pollster who worked on the both the Biden and Harris campaigns. “But I don’t think it will be a given.”……..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/12/16/kamala-harris-future-governor-president/

I don’t know. I liked what she said and the campaign she ran. That being said the technology of mass communication has shifted in an absolutely astounding manner. There is no longer “the media” as in large networks and newspapers. The fracturing of media has resulted in 1000’s of quasi-media and media outlets. From podcasts to influencers (a symptom of decline if there ever was one) to traditional sources to covert/overt propaganda organizations a true fog of war has descended upon the world in general and this country in particular. Conducting a campaign now requires a in depth analysis of how to proceed in such an environment. The impact of truly asymmetrical media cannot be overstated.

So, regarding Harris this hyper accelerated media means that political shelf lifes are decreasing. She may be successful in California but I think a presidential campaign is no longer viable.

 

[Texan1211]

Democrats have no choice but to admit there’s a huge problem with some aspect of their platform— and to do a deep introspection of what’s going wrong..

I don't think much actual introspection will occur. Lots of time spent bashing voters who didn't vote for Harris, though.
Really the only question to ask is how much further left will they go?

 

[Booker]

When Mitt Romney lost his 2012 presidential race, he bought several properties in Utah and spent time with his growing brood of grandchildren before seeking — and winning — one of the state’s U.S. Senate seats.

When Hillary Clinton lost her 2016 bid for the White House, she retreated to the woods of Chappaqua, New York, before embarking on various projects, including a political action committee and several books.

Both enjoyed fleeting boomlets suggesting they make another run, but they ultimately followed the path of most losing major-party candidates in modern history by declining to seek the presidency again.

Their parties, in essence, had rendered a stark verdict: They had blown winnable races and did not deserve another chance.

In the wake of her own 2024 loss, Vice President Kamala Harris and her allies are grappling with what her political future holds and debating whether the unofficial rule still applies —specifically, whether her first shot at the White House as the Democratic nominee should also be her only one, given the extraordinarycircumstances of Harris’s 107-day sprint to Election Day.

They point not just to President-elect Donald Trump’s own unusual trajectory — he won the presidency in 2016, lost in 2020, and ran again in 2024 — but to the hand Harris was dealt.

After President Joe Biden’s devastating performance in a presidential debate in late June, Harris — a woman of color — inherited a campaign built for a White man two decades her senior who had hemorrhaged support from nearly every major demographic group required to win.

In just over three months, Harris had to vet a running-mate, stand up a convention, introduce herself to voters, reframe Democrats’ message toAmericans angry about inflation and prosecute the case against Trump, among other campaign requisites.

Despite losing decisively — Trump swept her in all seven battleground states — she emerged with a higher approval rating than when she launched her bid, according to the political website 538, and she has largely escaped blame amid the seething recrimination and finger-pointing within the Democratic Party.

Rather than blaming her, in fact, many Democrats believe she ran an impressive campaign against insurmountable odds and anti-incumbent global headwinds.

“The rules potentially don’t apply this time, and she still absolutely could have a mulligan because of the unique circumstances of this race and the candidate switch,” said Molly Murphy, a pollster who worked on the both the Biden and Harris campaigns. “But I don’t think it will be a given.”……..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/12/16/kamala-harris-future-governor-president/

It's sad to say, but if the Democrats run anything other than a CIS white male in 2028 then they will likely lose again. Regarding Harris in particular, it was a unique and perhaps an unwinnable situation, but I question whether she actually could improve upon her performance. I think it's quite possible the circumstances pushed her higher than she would have gotten otherwise.

 

[Texan1211]

Regarding Harris in particular, it was a unique and perhaps an unwinnable situation,

It was winnable for Democrats, but they shot themselves in the foot by standing by Biden for so long, then, kicking him out. They lost a lot of credibility with voters by covering for Biden when it was obvious to many they were lying all along. Harris was one of them doing it and lost credibility with voters.
Had Biden done what he originally said he was going to do (not run again) and Democrats had a regular nominating process with primaries, perhaps a better Democratic candidate than Harris would have emerged. We can tell from her poor performance in 2016 that she was far from being a Dem favorite. But the money people decided she was the best they could do.

 

[Optimus Prime]

It's sad to say, but if the Democrats run anything other than a CIS white male in 2028 then they will likely lose again. Regarding Harris in particular, it was a unique and perhaps an unwinnable situation, but I question whether she actually could improve upon her performance. I think it's quite possible the circumstances pushed her higher than she would have gotten otherwise.

I'm honestly torn

I thought Harris did the best she could with the bad hand she was dealt and I'm still surprised she didn't win,

There was genuine excitement surrounding her campaign, raised a ton of money, a great convention, people seemed to love Walz, she had massive crowds with massive enthusiasm ending with that huge rally in DC a few days before the election

On the one hand she deserves the chance to run a full primary campaign, be the front runner from day one, see if she can become the nominee and run as the people's choice and not the backup

On the other hand, she lost, and usually losers go away

I do you think you may be right about CIS white male, Dems and businesses seem to be retreating from support for DEI and trans issues

Whoever the nominee is in 2028, whether it's Harris, white male or anyone else, will have a gigantic advantage: Donald Trump will not be running again

I've always said it will be interesting to see what Trumpism looks like without Trump and we will find out

 

[Texan1211]

Do you think you may be right about CIS white male, Dems and businesses seem to be retreating from support for DEI and trans issues

That wasn't my comment, but someone else's. It may be right, it may be wrong.
I don't tend to look at everything through race or social issues like DEI and trans issues, which are greatly debated here.
I think ANY good candidate appealing to voters is capable of winning, no matter their race or gender.
Harris was dealt a bad hand, some of which was her own fault. She has never owned that part that I have seen. I won't attribute her defeat to racism or misogyny.
I don't think she would have fared any better than her last attempt had she been involved in the primaries as the Presidential candidate. I think it would be a real stretch to assume Dems would flock to her after so soundly rejecting her.
Also, I don't think the electorate really wanted a "Biden" second term even with Harris at the helm.

 

[Booker]

I do you think you may be right about CIS white male, Dems and businesses seem to be retreating from support for DEI and trans issues

It's not even so much the DEI stuff as it is I think there are voters who just won't vote for a woman at the top of the ticket. And the margins are so close in the swing states, which the Democrats almost need to sweep due to how the electoral college is stacked, that they just can't afford to lose any votes. They're 0-2 in the last three elections running a woman, do they really want to test the electorate on this again?

And, as far as notable women in the party, I think Harris probably did about as well as could have been hoped. I think one could argue that Gretchen Whitmer might have been able to do a little better with the midwestern swing states, but running someone like AOC or Stacey Abrams, or forking Elizabeth Warren, and it would have been shellacking akin to 1984.

Honestly (and sadly), policy doesn't even matter, it comes down to running someone with charisma that the electorate looks at and says, "this guy forks!"

 

[Texan1211]

It's not even so much the DEI stuff as it is I think there are voters who just won't vote for a woman at the top of the ticket. And the margins are so close in the swing states, which the Democrats almost need to sweep due to how the electoral college is stacked, that they just can't afford to lose any votes. They're 0-2 in the last three elections running a woman, do they really want to test the electorate on this again?

And, as far as notable women in the party, I think Harris probably did about as well as could have been hoped. I think one could argue that Gretchen Whitmer might have been able to do a little better with the midwestern swing states, but running someone like AOC or Stacey Abrams, or forking Elizabeth Warren, and it would have been shellacking akin to 1984.

Honestly (and sadly), policy doesn't even matter, it comes down to running someone with charisma that the electorate looks at and says, "this guy forks!"

Perhaps it is more of a reflection on the candidates than it is an electorate who allegedly refuses to vote for a woman.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Perhaps it is more of a reflection on the candidates than it is an electorate who allegedly refuses to vote for a woman.

I think in a close election (which all elections are going to be for the foreseeable future)... it's a fair question to ask. Anecdotally, I've talked to a few people who said they couldn't vote for a woman. I have no idea what that percentage is -- and the vast majority of people I've talked to, are fine voting for a woman.... however, when the difference in votes is less than 1%... that could be the deciding factor.

The larger issue is that candidates ought to have policies they really believe in (instead of trying to triangulate a position), and then advocate for those positions fiercely and skillfully.

I actually think the Democrats ought to go on the offense with the Republican obsession with trans issues. Stick with a long standing American tradition of "mind your own damn business". Remind Americans that they really don't care what people are doing with their private lives, and they don't want to monitor the bathrooms at all. Point out that they are working to raise the living standards of all Americans while Republicans are obsessed with people's genitals.

 

[Texan1211]

The larger issue is that candidates ought to have policies they really believe in (instead of trying to triangulate a position), and then advocate for those positions fiercely and skillfully.

Harris articulated she wouldn't do anything different than Biden, which was a monumental mistake, easily avoided by simply analyzing polls where the electorate wanted change

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Harris articulated she wouldn't do anything different than Biden, which was a monumental mistake, easily avoided by simply analyzing polls where the electorate wanted change

That is certainly possible. I think the issue is mostly that they were slow to address inflation and get out ahead of it from a talking point perspective. And they misplayed immigration from the get go, and took too long to take it seriously.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Harris articulated she wouldn't do anything different than Biden, which was a monumental mistake, easily avoided by simply analyzing polls where the electorate wanted change

I’ve said before, I think history is going to look back on Joe Biden and his administration’s accomplishments a lot more fondly than recent polls indicate

 

[Texan1211]

I’ve said before, I think history is going to look back on Joe Biden and his administration’s accomplishments a lot more fondly than recent polls indicate

That is quite possible, but it doesn't invalidate the way many voters felt about the direction the country was going in. I don't think the next candidate should run on Joe Biden's legacy and expect to win.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Kamala Harris challenged young people to “stay in the fight” during a speech in Maryland on Tuesday, her first major address since conceding the presidential election to Donald Trump last month.

In her remarks, Harris expressed optimism in a future led by many of the young leaders in the room, praising their “passion” and “resolve” in spite of an electoral setback that threatens many of the causes they care deeply about.

“I ask you to remember that this struggle is not new. It goes back nearly 250 years to Lexington and Concord,” Harris told a group of students, recent graduates, volunteers and apprentices at Prince George’s Community College.

“Generation after generation, it has been driven by those who love our country, cherish its ideals and refuse to sit passive while our ideals are under assault.

“This fight now, it continues with you. You are its heirs,” the vice-president said.

Since the November election, Harris has maintained a relatively low profile. Next month, the vice-president, in her ceremonial role as president of the Senate, will certify Trump’s victory and participate in the transfer of power.

What she has planned next is unclear – but her punchy, optimistic speech made clear she had no plans to remain on the sidelines.…….

Harris urges young Americans to ‘stay in the fight’ in post-election speech

US vice-president reminds Democrats that ‘this struggle is not new’ in Maryland after losing presidency to Trump

www.theguardian.com