I have always thought the progressives confuse uneducated with stupid/easily fooled when referring to the public who voted for Trump. When they use uneducated it really means NOT indoctrinated. These are very different attributes and at the heart of the progressives inability to see clearly the forces that won this election
The fundamental issue is that "progressives" should not think of other people in either way. Both violate my wife's and my principles of being a Democrat.
My maternal side of my family were lifelong Democrats with my great grandfather being a union organizer. Indoctrination or “ the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically” would have violated their principles too. It violates mine as an independent. It is actually more then just violates my principles it is abhorrent to me.
They should have added to the ad that after surgery, of the sex offending prisoners or murderers of women, they get to transfer to the female prison. Also, no surgery is required. They can just self ID. This is legal in CA.
I know, but had they mentioned it, that percentage would be higher. It's why I voted Trump. Nothing he did or said is worse than a policy of allowing fully, intact, violent male felons in female prisons and calling, "equality."
Agreed but if you look at the first part of the aid, its main point was to reach minority voters open to the message so that took a lot of time. I am not sure why 30 seconds is the standard for political ads. Probably someone calculated that is all that you can hold attention for.
When confronted about how Harris was actually still a "progressive," the response from commenters was often "people can evolve in their thinking."
Then we would point out that all of her "evolving" was in the direction of what was popular for her to say now. She never "evolved" to a position that was not in her immediate self-interest.
Thanks for this, love your work. So glad I've subscribed and have a place to feel sane. I remain eternally livid with the Ds for going left in all the wrong places. Decades of this and they seem unable to learn.
The problem is that the democratic party, no longer supports democracy. Look at how liberal governors are threatening to defy the federal government with withholding immigrant criminals from being deported. This is after the American people gave the Trump admin a mandate to go forward with this. Again, this is about immigrant convicted, criminals, with records of rape and murder. Liberal governors do not respect the people. We kicked the tyrants out, and they're still clinging to power. They're pathetic. I hope Trump throws all of them in jail. Newsom first. Such Imperialists!
However, I'll repeat my past point that once Biden chose two years ago to run again, the race would always have been hard for any D to win (and Harris wasn't the best D). Not impossible, but uphill.
I think I just would have liked a two year long, open process where anyone interested could have campaigned and sought support. Just a normal primary season. Like "show us what you got" and we'll see if we like it.
I'm glad that approach makes sense. I wish it had gone that way. Maybe (?) we'd have gotten a result more to my liking than what we got. I do lay heavy blame on Pres. Biden (and his tiny inner circle), which probably won't surprise you.
If Democrats really, truly want to know why they lost, all they have to do is read all Liberal Patriot reporting for the past few years. You all seemed to be begging them to see it. I don't know how but you saw it clearly. It's that simple.
Caught in one Big Lie, the radical Democratic Left and its media comrades simply deflect to its next Big Lie, proving that it has learned nothing from the election and is proud in its smug arrogance.
Harris attempted to play the part of a moderate, and failed. She not only had her previous Presidential campaign insanity to overcome, Kamala had a 20 year CA track record.
The Press hid it well, treating Harris, as if she walked off a spaceship, rather than reporting her actual past deeds. Reps failing to convey her epic mistakes, was also helpful. However, when push came to shove, most Americans knew, something was off.
Kamala was a career Prosecutor, without one clip of herself in Court. That is because, she treated her roles as SF DA and CA AG, as mostly ceremonial. Reps did not even inform voters, of her biggest blunders. In the mid 2000s, an illegal violent gang banger, executed a poor SF Hispanic father, his 2 sons, critically wounding another, after Harris allowed the shooter to walk, numerous times . She refused to prosecute, most illegal migrants, to avoid their deportation. For most DAs, such a mistake , is a career ender.
Only in CA, does it buy you a promotion to AG. There, Harris helped draft and name literally, of the worst pieces of theft legislation, in all of US history. The law removed jail time, as a possible punishment for stealing $950 or less, per instance. Nearly 40 million people now must ask for aid
to purchase toothpaste, shampoo and a Snickers Bar, thanks to Harris . Smash and grabs became regular entertainment for mall goers, and thousands of retail workers lost their jobs, as stores fled, all because Harris does not believe in law and order..
Dems lost because they allowed, wildly out of touch, celebs, pundits , and pols , to pick a candidate they liked, while sitting in gated mansions, surrounded by private security and more money, than they can spend in 10 lifetimes. The rest of us, live in the real world, where quacks like Kamala just make life, more dangerous and difficult.
Harris did not run as a moderate. She took care to run like she wasn't a Left Progressive, except that she never came out and said, "You know what? I was a Left Progressive in 2019, but I changed my positions and here is why." That's why no one believed she was a moderate or saw her as anything other than a Left Progressive.
All this strategic and demographic analysis is all well and good, but I find it a little strange that a publication that calls itself the *liberal* patriot, which implies a concern with *liberalism*, has yet to publish an article that even tangentially touches on the most important aspect of this election, which is its relation to liberalism and liberal principles–because it is *not* just another, everyday election in this sense. Whether Harris ran as a centrist is an inquiry of rather miniscule significance by comparison.
Consider the following: that the country has just democratically re-elected a man who attempted to directly overturn one of the most important cornerstones of a liberal democratic system, which is the acceptance of the outcome of elections and the peaceful transfer of power. This is no longer conjecture–we have direct evidence of it from the information in the Smith indictment.
What does this reinstalling of an illiberal leader who does *not* respect the rule of law and the peaceful of transfer of power say about the state of liberal democracy in the United States? Much less the fact that he was reinstalled by a broad-based, racially diverse coalition of voters constituting over half the country, whose choice we are duty-bound–as liberals–to honor?
At the very least you should have *one* piece probing this question, and the most important inquiries that naturally follow from it, namely “Is it now true that people are either A.) unable to inform themselves about the illiberalism of certain political leaders, or B.) now prioritizing direct material concerns–like the price of groceries–over liberal principles?”, and “Does this open up the possibility that liberal institutions–the courts, the legislature, the press–may in turn be corrupted and overturned, without the public objecting?”
Yes, how the Democrats lost and why the Republicans won is an important topic to probe, but given that we are now seeing the usurpation of established liberal democracies by illiberal, autocratic strongmen all over the world–Orban in Hungary, Erdogan in Turkey, (formerly) Bolsonaro in Brazil–it is surely far, far more important to probe the question of what is driving the acceptance of an illiberal strongman in the United States, one of the oldest and most powerful liberal democracies in the world, especially if one is, as a patriot, dedicated to the well-being of that democracy and the upholding of its principles?
Turkey has never been a liberal democracy. Hungary is not a significant concern. The US is actually trying to avoid "Brazilification". (See Michael Lind on that topic.)
The Liberal Patriot has been addressing your question: namely that wack-a-doodle liberals actually make Trump seem reasonable by comparison.
Turkey has certainly never been as sturdy a liberal democracy as the U.S., but it was moving broadly (if imperfectly) in that direction after the 1980s, up until Erdogan and the AKP began to reverse course after rising to power.
Hungary is absolutely a political concern, as perhaps the most successful implementation of the new model of strongman rule being echoed in other states, and a model Trump has openly said he wishes to emulate. (the new model involving a 'softer' fascism than that which marked the fascist states of the interwar period, which uses new methods of controlling media and suppressing the fairness of elections that are, of course, 'legal', but not democratic--gerrymandering, the handing of media organs over to government-friendly oligarchs and suppression of the capacity of opposition parties to compete, etc.)
And, of course, you (and I in my initial post) failed to mention Russia, where Putin initially used similar methods to gain control of institutions that had been trending towards liberalization since the 1990s, and has now de facto dissolved them completely to return to the old-school direct repression of the Soviet regime.
One does not need to exclude 'whack-a-doodle' liberals from any analysis of this liberal-democratic back-sliding. Indeed, any honest appraisal would note that they surely played a part in it. And there is a formidable argument to be made that 'woke-ism' is as illiberal as Trumpism.
A good question. Looking at myself I guess I'm guilty of voting in authoritarianism over liberal Democracy, and I've always called myself a liberal.
I guess I hope our laws and institutions are strong enough to keep us from a breakdown of the laws and norms of government and I thought the situation dire enough to chance it. My party is simply too extreme on every issue. We have been for a long time. I hope we put up better candidates next time.
I couldn’t stand either Trump or Harris—a main reason being their support for rioters supporting their respective extreme ideologies. I took the long term view of changing the voting process to give centrists a better chance of being elected. I voted for the candidate of the Approval Voting Party. The reluctance of voters to support centrist candidates who are not Rs or Ds is a self fulfilling prophecy that they won’t be elected.
If you were genuine in your concern for democracy, you would acknowledge that Trump voters believe democracy was thwarted and corrupted in 2020 by massive voter fraud. You would acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons for their suspicion, you would support radical transparency to prove them wrong and assuage their concerns, and you would support reforms to improve election security and prevent fraud. You would condemn the Democrats' vehement opposition to voter ID, which the overwhelming majority of Americans (almost 80%), including the majority of Democrats, black, Hispanic and Asian voters support, and you would acknowledge that the only conceivable reason for Democrats to oppose voter ID in the face of such overwhelming public support is to enable fraud. You would support a return to paper ballots and election day voting, except in special cases with permission.
You would also support full investigation and transparency about the actions of law enforcement on 1/6/21, and condemn any cases of law enforcement acting as agent provocateurs on that day. You would acknowledge that Trump called for peaceful protest, and you would acknowledge that he left office peacefully after contesting the results. You would acknowledge the fact that Al Gore dragged out the 2000 election for over a month, and that Democrats declared every Republican president illegitimate and every election stolen in 2000, 2004 and 2016.
You would also condemn Democrats (including Kamala Harris) who supported the months of rioting, vandalism, looting and murder conducted throughout the summer of 2020.
The proper place to present the case for that 'suspicion of massive voter fraud' was in court, and Trump had a fair chance to do so. He was unable, in every instance in which a judge reviewed the presented evidence, to supply sufficient evidence to prove it.
Anyone with respect for the liberal-democratic process would, at that point, properly concede power, in the manner that all their presidential forebears did.
Trump did *not* do this. When he ran out of legal means to hold onto power, he resorted to extra-legal means--most damningly the engineering of the fake electors scheme, but also in his actions during the breach of the capitol, where he tried to pressure Mike Pence to stop the count of the electoral votes that transfer power from the outgoing administration to the incoming one.
He left office, yes, but only after his attempt to forcefully disrupt the transfer of power by these extralegal means failed. And he continued to claim, as he still does today, that *he* was the legitimate president and Biden was an *illegitimate* president. He did not attend the inauguration of the incoming president, as all his predecessors had, and encouraged those in his party to claim likewise that Biden was an illegitimate president. No other president has ever done such a thing.
That is *not* the acceptance of the rule of law or the verdict rendered by the democratic process; it is the upholding, instead, of the quintessential strongman view of the world, in which the law is subject to the will of the strongman. We fought a revolution to get rid of that.
All of that is on an entirely different level than debates over the best methods to improve election security. The latter debate is about the best methods for carrying out the liberal democratic process; it accepts the authority of that process as a starting point. Trump has made it clear he does *not* accept that authority.
It is true, Democrats did a lot of whining in 2000, 2004 and 2016. But Gore stepped down when the Supreme Court asked him to, never went beyond the law, and attended George W. Bush's inauguration; Kerry conceded, as did Hillary Clinton. None of them made an attempt to unilaterally overturn the verdict of the liberal-democratic system--since the civil war, Trump is still the only president to attempt to do so.
Yet, despite his attack on this system, he was also re-elected by it, and anyone who is faithful to it is duty-bound to accept the fact that he is now the president-elect, and will soon be the president. (I am glad to see the Democratic leadership has done so) And what such a situation says about the state of that system and the people it is meant to serve is perhaps the most important question to reckon with now, more than any technical policy debate or strategic postmortem.
The reason the results were not trusted was last minute rule changes to facilitate massive mail-in voting, which overwhelmingly favored Biden. The excuse of Covid was used to change election rules, in ways that clearly advantaged Biden, who won millions more votes than Harris, without even campaigning. Once again, if you were actually concerned about democracy, you would acknowledge the legitimate concerns about what happened in 2020, and want to prove to everyone that it was an honest election.
I am perfectly fine acknowledging the concerns that come with every presidential election, because in every election of such a scale there are irregularities. That's why, even though it was wrong for Trump to claim that he definitively won the election even after the votes had been counted, he had every right to press his case in court.
How else, other than through the courts, do you propose to 'prove that it was an honest election', one way or the other?
Numerous cases regarding the legality of the changes made to election law by various states during the pandemic were brought to the courts, and ruled on. And indeed, in some cases the courts did not uphold these changes, and 'siloed' said votes. But no court that made such a ruling, anywhere, found that that there were enough votes cast irregularly to change the outcome.
I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with the article you posted. It doesn't mention anything about the leaders of the Democratic party saying the election was stolen, nor any large-scale attempts to throw out the results. It points to protests by Democratic voters and polls of public opinion, and a fringe movement by six 'faithless' electors; these trends are certainly worrying, but none of them is comparable to the large-scale assault on the rule of law Trump undertook.
But let's say in some alternative timeline, Hillary refused to concede to Trump in 2016 and claimed she actually won the election, then (with mass support from Democrats) coordinated a mass movement to overturn the election results, and, after exhausting any legal means to do so, turned to illegal means. Then let's suppose Hillary spent four more years *still* claiming she was the rightful victor, that Trump was an illegitimate president, and polls found 70% of Democrats agreed. Let's say state Democratic Party organizations even wrote it into their platforms, the way the Texas GOP wrote into their party platform that Biden was an illegitimate president.
If Hillary were then re-elected in 2020, would it not pose huge questions about the state of liberal democratic norms and ideals in the country? I suppose you may think it wouldn't--but I say it most certainly would, and that any *liberal patriot* ought to agree, and try to answer those questions before turning to anything concerning electoral strategy.
I’m a center right Democrat which probably means I don’t have a political home anymore. However I consider this piece as pointless. With virtually no exceptions the post election stuff that’s been written has fallen into one 2 baskets (1) I was right all along or (2) I know who to blame. This is basket 2
Essentially the piece asserts that Harris was shackled permanently to dumb positions she took 5 years ago. Maybe, but that’s a dour view of the capacity of humans to grow or change
I was never confident but I did think she had grown over the last 5 years and grew as a candidate. But I guess in modern politics you are tied forever to past actions unless of course you’ve tried to mount an insurrection
I agree with you, Bowman, that people can change and that change for the better should be welcomed. I think the problem Harris faced is that because she never actively disavowed many of her past positions or said much beyond "my values haven't changed" -- and instead tried to just pivot and move on -- people were left thinking that her new attitudes were borne out of political expediency rather than a sincere evolution. (She had multiple opportunities, for example, to set the record straight about the 2019 ACLU survey, but she could never answer that question directly and people noticed.) And in the face of that uncertainty, many may have reasonably wondered whether she actually did still hold some of those old positions.
“Similarly, in a post-election survey, Blueprint tested several reasons why voters may not have chosen to support Harris, including the claim that she was “focused more on cultural issues like transgender issues than helping the middle class.” Among all voters, this was the third-most-cited reason for not voting for her, but even more telling: it was the top reason cited by swing voters who broke for Trump. (Meanwhile, among the least compelling claims in the survey? “Kamala Harris is too conservative.”)”
I agree with most of your points, but you miss an obvious reason Trump was able to misdiagnose Harris to the public. And I agree, Harris did herself no favors for sticking to Biden’s side, and not taking a stand on Trans athletes, which is an big issue for lots of girls dependent on scholarships for college; not to mention the safety issues as well.
However, these are identity political issues that affect a small segment of the population. I believe the real culprit was social engineering. The conservative groups suing social media companies to allow conservative free speech, which is code for disinformation and propaganda campaigns. Or Musk using his algorithms to push positive Trump stories, and burying positive Harris stories, while pushing malicious narratives about Harris.
One thing the focus groups always get wrong is the amount of confusing and contradictory information voters were constantly inundated with throughout the campaign. Not to mention, the Musk spectacle and fake lottery.
There are lots of reason Harris lost, but you offered nothing useful that could help explain all the people who think democrats failed them except excuses. Let’s not forget, Trump left this country in a recession due to his incompetence. And evidently, he has learned from his first failed attempt at governing.
That said, we lived through one Trump administration, and he almost destroyed the country the first time; now they came back for seconds.
Therefore, America will get the government they deserve: good and hard. We have two years before Trump will completely destroy the US economy, and global capital starts fleeing America for better pastures in Asia, and Europe! IMHO!
Confusing and contradictory misinformation? Like Biden was sharp as a tack? Like the border was secure? Like inflation was transitory? Like Russia Russia Russia? Like Trump is Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc? Like Trump was going to put journalists in internment camps?
Clearly you haven’t learned a thing. He hasn’t taken office yet, and he’s already taking a sledgehammer to the Constitution.
And the Steele Dossier was mostly confirmed. You say Russian Hoax, how funny and ignorant you truly are. Remember it was Sessions, Trump’s AG that assigned Mueller as the special prosecutor.
Mueller indicted, convicted or gotten guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies, including top advisers to President Trump, Russian spies and hackers with ties to the Kremlin. This doesn’t include the six initial cabinet members who resigned before they could be prosecuted for crimes committed in office.
When you hire a clown, you get the clown car, and when you hire the anointed clown, you get a freak show. I give Trump two years before we experience a recession worse than 2008, while our influence around the globe wanes, and capital around the world flee for safer havens. Just remember, you were warned!
Mueller did not charge or suggest charges against Trump or his campaign with working with the Russians to influence the election. He did charge Trump supporters with crimes unrelated to the investigation. Let's be honest here. Charging a Russian company and some low level actors was what Mueller came up with. And congratulations for being the last person in a sane world who believes the Steele Dossier was mostly confirmed.
"He hasn't taken office yet, and he's already taking a sledgehammer to the Constitution" -- like what?
OOOH FEAR FEAR FEAR BOOGYMAN!!!!! Sorry I'm not a democrat anymore. I'm an independent. I'm not ruled by fear. Please elaborate how Trump has already brought a Sledgehammer to the constitution. I'll wait.
I’m an independent who has equal disdain for both parties. That said, he already has taken a sledgehammer from 2020!
He sent fake electors to Congress. He tried to overthrow the government. He tried to get Secretary of States to find imaginary votes. This isn’t enough for you? When one has no respect for the Constitution the first time around, what makes you think he will respect it this time?
It's 2024. And you think Democrats will respect the constitution?! Democratic governors have already declared that they will not respect the orders of the federal government regardless of receiving a mandate from the people. Biden took rights away from women. They censored speech and Newsom applied U.N. human rights violations to policy. You're in denial of how authoritarian democrats are.
Huh? Biden took rights away from women? I think you’re confused. Trump appointed the judges who overturned Roe! If you’re talking about Trans athletes, then I agree they should be banned, but Biden didn’t take women’s rights away. They’re still playing sports. Trans athletes make up less than .000000001 percent of student athletes; however, that said, they should be banned from competing in women’s athletics.
And Biden didn’t ban free speech. If lies and misinformation is what you seek, feel free to watch Fox News. Misinformation and disinformation campaigns were running rampant this election cycle which is what Biden was trying to prevent. However, thanks to lawsuits by conservative groups, the social media platforms allowed BS to be disseminated throughout the internet and social media.
Additionally, Trump didn’t get a mandate. He won 49.8% of the popular vote; hardly a mandate! And what Trump is proposing is still illegal. There will be legal challenges to his policies, and Democratic governors aren’t breaking the law, they’re protecting their citizens from an authoritarian kleptocrat; there’s a difference!
Mueller didn’t charge Trump because he couldn’t. The DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a memorandum concluding after Watergate, that it is unconstitutional to prosecute a sitting president. So Mueller just laid out the case for the world to see, without charging the president.
Hence, why Barr wrote the Mueller Summary that distorted Mueller’s actual report. I guess you never saw Mueller’s response to Barr’s summary, in which he chastised Barr for its misleading conclusions.
Mueller Letter Expressed Frustration With Barr Summary Of Russia Probe Findings:
And I’m not the only one who knows the Steele Dossier was mostly correct. Like Trump Jr., Kushner and Manafort didn’t meet with Russian assets to discuss releasing dirt on Hillary? Or Flynn having discussions with Russian diplomats before the election and then lying about the meetings to the FBI!
And Mueller didn’t just charge low level actors. Manafort was CEO of Trump’s campaign and was found to have passed vital information to a Ukrainian oligarch who had Ben a FSB agent with close ties with Putin.
That said, based on the unqualified freak show Trump is about to take the levers of power, I wish you luck. I have no stake in this game. I’m divorced, no kids, and retired at 45, and after 20 plus years on Wall Street, I earned more than enough to survive Trump; most of America, and the world will not.
Trump is giving America the middle finger, and soon we will be isolated because our allies crave stability, as do the capital markets. Bottom line, our allies do not trust Trump, nor has he given them any reason to. They are already moving towards China as an alternative to Trump.
That said. Initially it’s a wait and see game. Once he extends the tax cuts, implements his mass deportation plans, and enacts tariffs, that will double our deficit and increase our debt, I give it a year before he destroys the economy for good!
Trump is like playing Russian roulette; it never ends well for most of us!…:)
I have always thought the progressives confuse uneducated with stupid/easily fooled when referring to the public who voted for Trump. When they use uneducated it really means NOT indoctrinated. These are very different attributes and at the heart of the progressives inability to see clearly the forces that won this election
Great observation! The progressives equate education to indoctrination, so your analysis makes perfect sense!
BINGO!
The fundamental issue is that "progressives" should not think of other people in either way. Both violate my wife's and my principles of being a Democrat.
My maternal side of my family were lifelong Democrats with my great grandfather being a union organizer. Indoctrination or “ the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically” would have violated their principles too. It violates mine as an independent. It is actually more then just violates my principles it is abhorrent to me.
In truth, Harris had only one issue. She wasn't Trump. However, she trapped herself into being a slightly less addled version of Biden.
If that they/them ad moved 2.7% in the last days of locked down election, it was probably the most effective political add of all time.
They should have added to the ad that after surgery, of the sex offending prisoners or murderers of women, they get to transfer to the female prison. Also, no surgery is required. They can just self ID. This is legal in CA.
There is only so much you can pack into a 30 sec ad. What you mention is not limited to CA.
I know, but had they mentioned it, that percentage would be higher. It's why I voted Trump. Nothing he did or said is worse than a policy of allowing fully, intact, violent male felons in female prisons and calling, "equality."
Agreed but if you look at the first part of the aid, its main point was to reach minority voters open to the message so that took a lot of time. I am not sure why 30 seconds is the standard for political ads. Probably someone calculated that is all that you can hold attention for.
Absolutely true. You have to grab someone’s attention within about 10 seconds or you lost them. Scroll onto the next.
When confronted about how Harris was actually still a "progressive," the response from commenters was often "people can evolve in their thinking."
Then we would point out that all of her "evolving" was in the direction of what was popular for her to say now. She never "evolved" to a position that was not in her immediate self-interest.
Thanks for this, love your work. So glad I've subscribed and have a place to feel sane. I remain eternally livid with the Ds for going left in all the wrong places. Decades of this and they seem unable to learn.
The problem is that the democratic party, no longer supports democracy. Look at how liberal governors are threatening to defy the federal government with withholding immigrant criminals from being deported. This is after the American people gave the Trump admin a mandate to go forward with this. Again, this is about immigrant convicted, criminals, with records of rape and murder. Liberal governors do not respect the people. We kicked the tyrants out, and they're still clinging to power. They're pathetic. I hope Trump throws all of them in jail. Newsom first. Such Imperialists!
this mod Dem thinks this post is fair enough.
However, I'll repeat my past point that once Biden chose two years ago to run again, the race would always have been hard for any D to win (and Harris wasn't the best D). Not impossible, but uphill.
Who would you have liked to see run in Biden's place?
I think I just would have liked a two year long, open process where anyone interested could have campaigned and sought support. Just a normal primary season. Like "show us what you got" and we'll see if we like it.
Your approach makes too much sense, Paul. I would have liked that as well.
thanks, Neil.
I'm glad that approach makes sense. I wish it had gone that way. Maybe (?) we'd have gotten a result more to my liking than what we got. I do lay heavy blame on Pres. Biden (and his tiny inner circle), which probably won't surprise you.
If Democrats really, truly want to know why they lost, all they have to do is read all Liberal Patriot reporting for the past few years. You all seemed to be begging them to see it. I don't know how but you saw it clearly. It's that simple.
Caught in one Big Lie, the radical Democratic Left and its media comrades simply deflect to its next Big Lie, proving that it has learned nothing from the election and is proud in its smug arrogance.
Harris attempted to play the part of a moderate, and failed. She not only had her previous Presidential campaign insanity to overcome, Kamala had a 20 year CA track record.
The Press hid it well, treating Harris, as if she walked off a spaceship, rather than reporting her actual past deeds. Reps failing to convey her epic mistakes, was also helpful. However, when push came to shove, most Americans knew, something was off.
Kamala was a career Prosecutor, without one clip of herself in Court. That is because, she treated her roles as SF DA and CA AG, as mostly ceremonial. Reps did not even inform voters, of her biggest blunders. In the mid 2000s, an illegal violent gang banger, executed a poor SF Hispanic father, his 2 sons, critically wounding another, after Harris allowed the shooter to walk, numerous times . She refused to prosecute, most illegal migrants, to avoid their deportation. For most DAs, such a mistake , is a career ender.
Only in CA, does it buy you a promotion to AG. There, Harris helped draft and name literally, of the worst pieces of theft legislation, in all of US history. The law removed jail time, as a possible punishment for stealing $950 or less, per instance. Nearly 40 million people now must ask for aid
to purchase toothpaste, shampoo and a Snickers Bar, thanks to Harris . Smash and grabs became regular entertainment for mall goers, and thousands of retail workers lost their jobs, as stores fled, all because Harris does not believe in law and order..
Dems lost because they allowed, wildly out of touch, celebs, pundits , and pols , to pick a candidate they liked, while sitting in gated mansions, surrounded by private security and more money, than they can spend in 10 lifetimes. The rest of us, live in the real world, where quacks like Kamala just make life, more dangerous and difficult.
Harris did not run as a moderate. She took care to run like she wasn't a Left Progressive, except that she never came out and said, "You know what? I was a Left Progressive in 2019, but I changed my positions and here is why." That's why no one believed she was a moderate or saw her as anything other than a Left Progressive.
All this strategic and demographic analysis is all well and good, but I find it a little strange that a publication that calls itself the *liberal* patriot, which implies a concern with *liberalism*, has yet to publish an article that even tangentially touches on the most important aspect of this election, which is its relation to liberalism and liberal principles–because it is *not* just another, everyday election in this sense. Whether Harris ran as a centrist is an inquiry of rather miniscule significance by comparison.
Consider the following: that the country has just democratically re-elected a man who attempted to directly overturn one of the most important cornerstones of a liberal democratic system, which is the acceptance of the outcome of elections and the peaceful transfer of power. This is no longer conjecture–we have direct evidence of it from the information in the Smith indictment.
What does this reinstalling of an illiberal leader who does *not* respect the rule of law and the peaceful of transfer of power say about the state of liberal democracy in the United States? Much less the fact that he was reinstalled by a broad-based, racially diverse coalition of voters constituting over half the country, whose choice we are duty-bound–as liberals–to honor?
At the very least you should have *one* piece probing this question, and the most important inquiries that naturally follow from it, namely “Is it now true that people are either A.) unable to inform themselves about the illiberalism of certain political leaders, or B.) now prioritizing direct material concerns–like the price of groceries–over liberal principles?”, and “Does this open up the possibility that liberal institutions–the courts, the legislature, the press–may in turn be corrupted and overturned, without the public objecting?”
Yes, how the Democrats lost and why the Republicans won is an important topic to probe, but given that we are now seeing the usurpation of established liberal democracies by illiberal, autocratic strongmen all over the world–Orban in Hungary, Erdogan in Turkey, (formerly) Bolsonaro in Brazil–it is surely far, far more important to probe the question of what is driving the acceptance of an illiberal strongman in the United States, one of the oldest and most powerful liberal democracies in the world, especially if one is, as a patriot, dedicated to the well-being of that democracy and the upholding of its principles?
Turkey has never been a liberal democracy. Hungary is not a significant concern. The US is actually trying to avoid "Brazilification". (See Michael Lind on that topic.)
The Liberal Patriot has been addressing your question: namely that wack-a-doodle liberals actually make Trump seem reasonable by comparison.
Turkey has certainly never been as sturdy a liberal democracy as the U.S., but it was moving broadly (if imperfectly) in that direction after the 1980s, up until Erdogan and the AKP began to reverse course after rising to power.
Hungary is absolutely a political concern, as perhaps the most successful implementation of the new model of strongman rule being echoed in other states, and a model Trump has openly said he wishes to emulate. (the new model involving a 'softer' fascism than that which marked the fascist states of the interwar period, which uses new methods of controlling media and suppressing the fairness of elections that are, of course, 'legal', but not democratic--gerrymandering, the handing of media organs over to government-friendly oligarchs and suppression of the capacity of opposition parties to compete, etc.)
And, of course, you (and I in my initial post) failed to mention Russia, where Putin initially used similar methods to gain control of institutions that had been trending towards liberalization since the 1990s, and has now de facto dissolved them completely to return to the old-school direct repression of the Soviet regime.
One does not need to exclude 'whack-a-doodle' liberals from any analysis of this liberal-democratic back-sliding. Indeed, any honest appraisal would note that they surely played a part in it. And there is a formidable argument to be made that 'woke-ism' is as illiberal as Trumpism.
A good question. Looking at myself I guess I'm guilty of voting in authoritarianism over liberal Democracy, and I've always called myself a liberal.
I guess I hope our laws and institutions are strong enough to keep us from a breakdown of the laws and norms of government and I thought the situation dire enough to chance it. My party is simply too extreme on every issue. We have been for a long time. I hope we put up better candidates next time.
I couldn’t stand either Trump or Harris—a main reason being their support for rioters supporting their respective extreme ideologies. I took the long term view of changing the voting process to give centrists a better chance of being elected. I voted for the candidate of the Approval Voting Party. The reluctance of voters to support centrist candidates who are not Rs or Ds is a self fulfilling prophecy that they won’t be elected.
If you were genuine in your concern for democracy, you would acknowledge that Trump voters believe democracy was thwarted and corrupted in 2020 by massive voter fraud. You would acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons for their suspicion, you would support radical transparency to prove them wrong and assuage their concerns, and you would support reforms to improve election security and prevent fraud. You would condemn the Democrats' vehement opposition to voter ID, which the overwhelming majority of Americans (almost 80%), including the majority of Democrats, black, Hispanic and Asian voters support, and you would acknowledge that the only conceivable reason for Democrats to oppose voter ID in the face of such overwhelming public support is to enable fraud. You would support a return to paper ballots and election day voting, except in special cases with permission.
You would also support full investigation and transparency about the actions of law enforcement on 1/6/21, and condemn any cases of law enforcement acting as agent provocateurs on that day. You would acknowledge that Trump called for peaceful protest, and you would acknowledge that he left office peacefully after contesting the results. You would acknowledge the fact that Al Gore dragged out the 2000 election for over a month, and that Democrats declared every Republican president illegitimate and every election stolen in 2000, 2004 and 2016.
You would also condemn Democrats (including Kamala Harris) who supported the months of rioting, vandalism, looting and murder conducted throughout the summer of 2020.
If you were genuine. Which you aren't.
The proper place to present the case for that 'suspicion of massive voter fraud' was in court, and Trump had a fair chance to do so. He was unable, in every instance in which a judge reviewed the presented evidence, to supply sufficient evidence to prove it.
Anyone with respect for the liberal-democratic process would, at that point, properly concede power, in the manner that all their presidential forebears did.
Trump did *not* do this. When he ran out of legal means to hold onto power, he resorted to extra-legal means--most damningly the engineering of the fake electors scheme, but also in his actions during the breach of the capitol, where he tried to pressure Mike Pence to stop the count of the electoral votes that transfer power from the outgoing administration to the incoming one.
He left office, yes, but only after his attempt to forcefully disrupt the transfer of power by these extralegal means failed. And he continued to claim, as he still does today, that *he* was the legitimate president and Biden was an *illegitimate* president. He did not attend the inauguration of the incoming president, as all his predecessors had, and encouraged those in his party to claim likewise that Biden was an illegitimate president. No other president has ever done such a thing.
That is *not* the acceptance of the rule of law or the verdict rendered by the democratic process; it is the upholding, instead, of the quintessential strongman view of the world, in which the law is subject to the will of the strongman. We fought a revolution to get rid of that.
All of that is on an entirely different level than debates over the best methods to improve election security. The latter debate is about the best methods for carrying out the liberal democratic process; it accepts the authority of that process as a starting point. Trump has made it clear he does *not* accept that authority.
It is true, Democrats did a lot of whining in 2000, 2004 and 2016. But Gore stepped down when the Supreme Court asked him to, never went beyond the law, and attended George W. Bush's inauguration; Kerry conceded, as did Hillary Clinton. None of them made an attempt to unilaterally overturn the verdict of the liberal-democratic system--since the civil war, Trump is still the only president to attempt to do so.
Yet, despite his attack on this system, he was also re-elected by it, and anyone who is faithful to it is duty-bound to accept the fact that he is now the president-elect, and will soon be the president. (I am glad to see the Democratic leadership has done so) And what such a situation says about the state of that system and the people it is meant to serve is perhaps the most important question to reckon with now, more than any technical policy debate or strategic postmortem.
The reason the results were not trusted was last minute rule changes to facilitate massive mail-in voting, which overwhelmingly favored Biden. The excuse of Covid was used to change election rules, in ways that clearly advantaged Biden, who won millions more votes than Harris, without even campaigning. Once again, if you were actually concerned about democracy, you would acknowledge the legitimate concerns about what happened in 2020, and want to prove to everyone that it was an honest election.
Furthermore, even CNN can acknowledge the things I said previously: https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/20/politics/2024-results-legitimate-analysis/index.html
You have a very selective memory.
I am perfectly fine acknowledging the concerns that come with every presidential election, because in every election of such a scale there are irregularities. That's why, even though it was wrong for Trump to claim that he definitively won the election even after the votes had been counted, he had every right to press his case in court.
How else, other than through the courts, do you propose to 'prove that it was an honest election', one way or the other?
Numerous cases regarding the legality of the changes made to election law by various states during the pandemic were brought to the courts, and ruled on. And indeed, in some cases the courts did not uphold these changes, and 'siloed' said votes. But no court that made such a ruling, anywhere, found that that there were enough votes cast irregularly to change the outcome.
I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with the article you posted. It doesn't mention anything about the leaders of the Democratic party saying the election was stolen, nor any large-scale attempts to throw out the results. It points to protests by Democratic voters and polls of public opinion, and a fringe movement by six 'faithless' electors; these trends are certainly worrying, but none of them is comparable to the large-scale assault on the rule of law Trump undertook.
But let's say in some alternative timeline, Hillary refused to concede to Trump in 2016 and claimed she actually won the election, then (with mass support from Democrats) coordinated a mass movement to overturn the election results, and, after exhausting any legal means to do so, turned to illegal means. Then let's suppose Hillary spent four more years *still* claiming she was the rightful victor, that Trump was an illegitimate president, and polls found 70% of Democrats agreed. Let's say state Democratic Party organizations even wrote it into their platforms, the way the Texas GOP wrote into their party platform that Biden was an illegitimate president.
If Hillary were then re-elected in 2020, would it not pose huge questions about the state of liberal democratic norms and ideals in the country? I suppose you may think it wouldn't--but I say it most certainly would, and that any *liberal patriot* ought to agree, and try to answer those questions before turning to anything concerning electoral strategy.
I’m a center right Democrat which probably means I don’t have a political home anymore. However I consider this piece as pointless. With virtually no exceptions the post election stuff that’s been written has fallen into one 2 baskets (1) I was right all along or (2) I know who to blame. This is basket 2
Essentially the piece asserts that Harris was shackled permanently to dumb positions she took 5 years ago. Maybe, but that’s a dour view of the capacity of humans to grow or change
I was never confident but I did think she had grown over the last 5 years and grew as a candidate. But I guess in modern politics you are tied forever to past actions unless of course you’ve tried to mount an insurrection
I agree with you, Bowman, that people can change and that change for the better should be welcomed. I think the problem Harris faced is that because she never actively disavowed many of her past positions or said much beyond "my values haven't changed" -- and instead tried to just pivot and move on -- people were left thinking that her new attitudes were borne out of political expediency rather than a sincere evolution. (She had multiple opportunities, for example, to set the record straight about the 2019 ACLU survey, but she could never answer that question directly and people noticed.) And in the face of that uncertainty, many may have reasonably wondered whether she actually did still hold some of those old positions.
Biden told us he was moderate and then he absolutely wasn’t. I don’t think voters were ready for another liar.
Hit the crooked nail right on the head and drove it home.
“Similarly, in a post-election survey, Blueprint tested several reasons why voters may not have chosen to support Harris, including the claim that she was “focused more on cultural issues like transgender issues than helping the middle class.” Among all voters, this was the third-most-cited reason for not voting for her, but even more telling: it was the top reason cited by swing voters who broke for Trump. (Meanwhile, among the least compelling claims in the survey? “Kamala Harris is too conservative.”)”
I agree with most of your points, but you miss an obvious reason Trump was able to misdiagnose Harris to the public. And I agree, Harris did herself no favors for sticking to Biden’s side, and not taking a stand on Trans athletes, which is an big issue for lots of girls dependent on scholarships for college; not to mention the safety issues as well.
However, these are identity political issues that affect a small segment of the population. I believe the real culprit was social engineering. The conservative groups suing social media companies to allow conservative free speech, which is code for disinformation and propaganda campaigns. Or Musk using his algorithms to push positive Trump stories, and burying positive Harris stories, while pushing malicious narratives about Harris.
One thing the focus groups always get wrong is the amount of confusing and contradictory information voters were constantly inundated with throughout the campaign. Not to mention, the Musk spectacle and fake lottery.
There are lots of reason Harris lost, but you offered nothing useful that could help explain all the people who think democrats failed them except excuses. Let’s not forget, Trump left this country in a recession due to his incompetence. And evidently, he has learned from his first failed attempt at governing.
That said, we lived through one Trump administration, and he almost destroyed the country the first time; now they came back for seconds.
Therefore, America will get the government they deserve: good and hard. We have two years before Trump will completely destroy the US economy, and global capital starts fleeing America for better pastures in Asia, and Europe! IMHO!
Confusing and contradictory misinformation? Like Biden was sharp as a tack? Like the border was secure? Like inflation was transitory? Like Russia Russia Russia? Like Trump is Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc? Like Trump was going to put journalists in internment camps?
I see you haven't learned anything.
Clearly you haven’t learned a thing. He hasn’t taken office yet, and he’s already taking a sledgehammer to the Constitution.
And the Steele Dossier was mostly confirmed. You say Russian Hoax, how funny and ignorant you truly are. Remember it was Sessions, Trump’s AG that assigned Mueller as the special prosecutor.
Mueller indicted, convicted or gotten guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies, including top advisers to President Trump, Russian spies and hackers with ties to the Kremlin. This doesn’t include the six initial cabinet members who resigned before they could be prosecuted for crimes committed in office.
When you hire a clown, you get the clown car, and when you hire the anointed clown, you get a freak show. I give Trump two years before we experience a recession worse than 2008, while our influence around the globe wanes, and capital around the world flee for safer havens. Just remember, you were warned!
Mueller did not charge or suggest charges against Trump or his campaign with working with the Russians to influence the election. He did charge Trump supporters with crimes unrelated to the investigation. Let's be honest here. Charging a Russian company and some low level actors was what Mueller came up with. And congratulations for being the last person in a sane world who believes the Steele Dossier was mostly confirmed.
"He hasn't taken office yet, and he's already taking a sledgehammer to the Constitution" -- like what?
OOOH FEAR FEAR FEAR BOOGYMAN!!!!! Sorry I'm not a democrat anymore. I'm an independent. I'm not ruled by fear. Please elaborate how Trump has already brought a Sledgehammer to the constitution. I'll wait.
I’m an independent who has equal disdain for both parties. That said, he already has taken a sledgehammer from 2020!
He sent fake electors to Congress. He tried to overthrow the government. He tried to get Secretary of States to find imaginary votes. This isn’t enough for you? When one has no respect for the Constitution the first time around, what makes you think he will respect it this time?
Not to worry, I’m sure you’ll be fine!
It's 2024. And you think Democrats will respect the constitution?! Democratic governors have already declared that they will not respect the orders of the federal government regardless of receiving a mandate from the people. Biden took rights away from women. They censored speech and Newsom applied U.N. human rights violations to policy. You're in denial of how authoritarian democrats are.
Huh? Biden took rights away from women? I think you’re confused. Trump appointed the judges who overturned Roe! If you’re talking about Trans athletes, then I agree they should be banned, but Biden didn’t take women’s rights away. They’re still playing sports. Trans athletes make up less than .000000001 percent of student athletes; however, that said, they should be banned from competing in women’s athletics.
And Biden didn’t ban free speech. If lies and misinformation is what you seek, feel free to watch Fox News. Misinformation and disinformation campaigns were running rampant this election cycle which is what Biden was trying to prevent. However, thanks to lawsuits by conservative groups, the social media platforms allowed BS to be disseminated throughout the internet and social media.
Additionally, Trump didn’t get a mandate. He won 49.8% of the popular vote; hardly a mandate! And what Trump is proposing is still illegal. There will be legal challenges to his policies, and Democratic governors aren’t breaking the law, they’re protecting their citizens from an authoritarian kleptocrat; there’s a difference!
Mueller didn’t charge Trump because he couldn’t. The DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a memorandum concluding after Watergate, that it is unconstitutional to prosecute a sitting president. So Mueller just laid out the case for the world to see, without charging the president.
Hence, why Barr wrote the Mueller Summary that distorted Mueller’s actual report. I guess you never saw Mueller’s response to Barr’s summary, in which he chastised Barr for its misleading conclusions.
Mueller Letter Expressed Frustration With Barr Summary Of Russia Probe Findings:
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/30/718883130/mueller-complained-that-barr-summary-of-trump-russia-probe-lacked-context
And I’m not the only one who knows the Steele Dossier was mostly correct. Like Trump Jr., Kushner and Manafort didn’t meet with Russian assets to discuss releasing dirt on Hillary? Or Flynn having discussions with Russian diplomats before the election and then lying about the meetings to the FBI!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39435786
And Mueller didn’t just charge low level actors. Manafort was CEO of Trump’s campaign and was found to have passed vital information to a Ukrainian oligarch who had Ben a FSB agent with close ties with Putin.
That said, based on the unqualified freak show Trump is about to take the levers of power, I wish you luck. I have no stake in this game. I’m divorced, no kids, and retired at 45, and after 20 plus years on Wall Street, I earned more than enough to survive Trump; most of America, and the world will not.
Trump is giving America the middle finger, and soon we will be isolated because our allies crave stability, as do the capital markets. Bottom line, our allies do not trust Trump, nor has he given them any reason to. They are already moving towards China as an alternative to Trump.
That said. Initially it’s a wait and see game. Once he extends the tax cuts, implements his mass deportation plans, and enacts tariffs, that will double our deficit and increase our debt, I give it a year before he destroys the economy for good!
Trump is like playing Russian roulette; it never ends well for most of us!…:)