Nah, she was an utterly normal Obama era democrat, which is basically it same as an Obama era republican. She offered normal and reasonable level-headed leadership. Welcome to the FAFO era.

You do realise that economic policy takes on average 2-3 years to take effect?

I don't think it would hurt their credibility if they're wrong. It's not like they created that idea, they were just pointing out Trump's words and actions.

It's not a conspiracy theory. Trump literally tried overturning the last election via fraud and violence. It's incredibly well documented.

In any case we're entering the find out phase.

It's literally a conspiracy theory, the question at hand is whether there really is a conspiracy.

My point is not that they're wrong and Trump won't successfully end democracy (I think the odds are low but non-zero), my point is that the strategy blew up in the DNC's faces and should have been identified as a terrible plan from the start.

Being a Cassandra is not a winning playbook. Being able to say "I told you so" is small comfort, and that's the package they chose when they decided to make themselves look crazy to the electorate. If they believed democracy to be in danger the correct move was to nominate an electable candidate last year, not wait until Biden turned out to be unelectable and then start screaming about the end of democracy.

Now Trump in 2024 is even older than Biden when he assumed office in 2020. I doubt Trump will be calling the shots for all four years.

Casual age discrimination.

Have you listened to Trump's recent speeches? In 2016 he was very articulate and persuasive in his own way, but in 2024 his brain is clearly on the way out.

Have you read an actual transcript of Trump's words? Not the "sanitized" summary you find in media: the actual transcript?

https://www.instagram.com/billpascrell/p/C8DljJURzmv/

Seems he took "jumping the shark" literally.

It's not, but, you have to ask a question - if democrats believe this, and this is the correct messaging, why did they do practically nothing to prevent things like this from becoming a reality? Or even propose a plan going forward as to how to prevent this again? Nothing came of Jan 6, nothing came of any of this, no matter who won, and it was very obvious that the plan was just "well as long as we're in power we won't slide into authoritarianism," but even if it wasn't Trump, eventually someone else is going to come along and beat them and begin wherever Trump left off.

It's not very good messaging at its core. You can't say something is an existential crisis, and then spend 4 years doing absolutely nothing about that crisis other than to say "vote for me again so that won't happen this time."

They impeached him. Counter to Republican's rhetoric, the Democrats can't force the DOJ to press charges in a timely manner, but the DOJ eventually also pursued charges. So they attempted to fix this with:

1. Impeachment 2. Congressional Acts 3. Independent action from the Department of Justice 4. Individual states attempted to get him off their ballots for treason

How about you describe what they should have done?

> why did they do practically nothing to prevent things like this from becoming a reality

https://www.npr.org/2022/12/22/1139951463/electoral-count-ac...

This is like using a squirt gun in a forest fire. A meaningless change to a meaningless procedural "loophole" that had no chance of working whatsoever.

> why did they do practically nothing to prevent things like this from becoming a reality?

You mean like passing "The Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022"? That was literally written to support democracy and prevent another Jan 6.

Obviously you can't write legislation to stop Trump winning democratically while still supporting democracy.

Dems have at least shown they're the party of supporting real democracy.

They have tried to do things, but they are not omnipotent and the House was under GOP majority.

> this line about democracy ending if Trump wins is about all she could offer as a reason to vote for her,

This is a lie.

> I guess now we'll all get to see if the dire warnings were at all founded in reality

So, if he was lying or telling the truth?

> If they were wrong, then they burned a whole bunch of credibility pushing what turned out to be a conspiracy theory.

No they didn't. Republicans run the same claims every election and they win off it.

> the moderate voter can't use that as a razor.

Any informed voter would now Kamala offered more then "this line about democracy ending." Anyone who thinks this was "all she could offer as a reason to vote for her," you are really just saying "I was not informed."

Compared to Trump the Democrats are amateurs at messaging who seem to have no clue how to talk to the average Joe or Jane. Instead of using the Jan 6 riot to attack Trump's "law and order" image, they choose to frame it in terms of "democracy".

Given the generally high regard that the US has for service people - military, police, emergency services etc - it always puzzled me that Trump was never held to account (in a political, rather than legal sense) for the harm caused.

Is there a reason why this has been glossed over? I thought that would surely be a red line for many of his supporters.

There were many ex-police and ex-military amongst the Jan 6th rioters.

"Law and order" was clearly a dog-whistle for 'treating suspects and minorities badly will make you feel safer' from the start . As evidenced by the blazing hypocrisy in a fucking felon running on "law and order" from a straightforward interpretation.

Given the complete discrepancy in voter turnout for dems in 2020 v 2024, I think the core claim of the J6ers, namely that there was fraud that affected the 2020 election, is becoming more and more likely. Especially since the only person to be killed on that day was a regular American (no cops were killed), I think, based on the voting, that most people see it as justified. I mean they just elected the guy who lost with huge margins in the popular vote

If you want to know what Trump really believed about the 2020 election rather than what he wanted his supporters to think, look at the allegations that he and his election lawyers were actually willing to present in court. Since there would have been legal consequences for making stuff up, the court filings were far less sensational than his public PR.

I don't know and don't really care. When I vote I don't rely only on evidence admissible in court. Most of the country does not follow politics as closely as some of the people here. We see what we see and vote on how that seems it will affect us.

I also like to keep my anti-tiger rock on me at all times. I don't really care that there's no evidence that it works. All I know is what I see, and I haven't seen any tigers.

"I don't know and don't really care"

There. All is said. No need for further debate.

Roseanne Boyland was arguably killed by the police that day as well. Her death was ruled an amphetamines overdose to cover this up, she had a prescription for ADHD.

So many reasons to vote for her and you remember only the democracy ending part? Also, the moderate voter would not take her seriously because of her saying that? Did you wipe out your memory about what happened when he lost not so very long ago?

To me this all feels like a far fetched tv drama became reality. It goes beyond any human understanding.

I want my taxes to go down, I want illegal immigration to end, and I don't give a shit about identity politics.

I didn't vote for Trump but these are the fundamental truths the democrats keep on missing. This is what Americans care about.

When you blather on about the other guy being Hitler instead of presenting real policy that people want, people are just gonna ignore you.

I want my taxes go down and want illigal migration to end as well! I want illegal drugs and illegal weapons and all wars to disappear as well. I want everything to be great and florishing for all Americans and the world. Still I would never vote for Trump because he just shouts he will 'fix' it, as if he would be some kind of Messias with some magic powers, without explaining realistically how that it can even work. A lot of people seem to believe it just because they 'want to believe' or maybe because he says it in such monotonic (hypnotising maybe?) way.

Their “Trump is a dictator, literally Hitler, who will take away womens right to vote” didn’t work the first time in 2015/2016 and it didn’t work this time either. The U.S.A knows what a Trump presidency is like and they voted to have it again: it was that good.

Democrats got their chance the last 4 years and instead of making the lives of U.S. Citizens better, they made it much worse, and shoved social justice issues down their throats that they didn’t want.

Cop on.

> Cop on.

This sounds British. Are you American or British?

I think your view is also largely hyperbole. It is a nice vote winning narrative to suggest that democrats did nothing but shove social justice issues down people's throats, but like you, I'm not American and I suspect that is just as much hyperbole as "Trump is literally Hitler".

You're part of the division of hate that you seem like you're raging against, using messaging like that.

I’m British and that phrasing jumped out at me too. Few year old account, no surprises… Probs a bot.

According to the exit polling, voters most concerned about democracy voted Trump.

My guess is that the worries on democracy have nothing to do with regular Americans getting riled up when their candidate lost (jan 6), and more to do with the entire political machine coming down on Trump after his loss in an attempt to take his wealth and imprison him in politically motivated lawsuits with made up charges.

This is fiction, and we should not persist in describing politics in this term, since it doesnt help us see whats going on.

It does sound harsh, and it is. We (people on HN), tend to talk about both candidates as if it was some equal comparison.

However, this is adamantly not the case. Trump is not like any candidate America has voted for in living memmory. He is SO outside of bounds, that frankly we collectively fail to understand him, and have to substitute some "default republican" candidate in our minds to deal with it.

Even in your comment - "it was a critical mistake to turn up the rhetoric so hot", even you will agree that Trump is incredibly toxic and out there in his comments.

Yet, you will genuinely feel that Harris/dems turned up the rhetoric. Not just this, there are a million places where blame is placed at the feet of Dems, for things that Trump or the GOP has done.

Nothing the dems can do will make a difference, because the Republicans have the superior model. Republicans can focus entirely on psychology, without having to worry about being called out on it, because Trump is simply causing an overflow whenever anyone has to deal with him.

We all just end up "ignoring" whatever new incendiary thing he has done, and instead deal with the office/position of either "candidate" or "president", because those make sense.

The dire warnings are literally founded in documents that are going to be enacted, based on what people are actively building teams for and recruiting.

However, there is no measure of evidence, including action that has happened, that will move the needle. It simply wont, because its not what people care about.

Some group will go to Reddit, to console themselves, the other group will go to Fox and the Consvervative bubble to reassure themselves. They will be given the same info that sells, and then they will learn to ignore everything that causes cognitive dissonance.

It wasnt just Harris but the entire media and entire democratic establishment fabricating claims of Trump doom.

The best thing Kamala could have done is to downplay that rhetoric and focus on issues. If she did that, I believe she wouldve won. But you can hardly blame her to go with the grain.

Those classified documents did not put themselves in the Mar a Lago bathroom. If you or I did that we would be in jail pending trial.

the reason Harris lost is because the Democrats are soft on everything. Soft on immigration, soft on crime. Even though I dislike Trump, I wouldn't vote for Democrats ever.

"The cruelty is the point"

Ironically, the Democrats had a much more comprehensive policy position of course. But what matters to voters is what they _perceive_ and "what will you do for me". It's a propaganda war, and not yet clear to me whether we should blame the party or "the media" for losing it.

The 13 Keys to the White House model finally failed. I don't think it's because of the subjective keys, but rather the objective keys don't match what people actually believe about the world. Again, Democrats lost the marketing battle somehow.

> Ironically, the Democrats had a much more comprehensive policy position of course.

Given all the buzz around Project 2025, thats certainly not perceptually true _even to democrats_.

If Trump really had less comprehensive policy positions, then why did the media go on for months about this 1000-page policy document?

You cant have your cake and eat it too.

That's a fair point. I guess Democrats should have focused more on the "real policy" aspects of Project 2025 (besides abortion?) rather than the "completely reorganize the Executive" (implement fascism) parts.

Of course, Trump did distance himself from Project 2025, right? He clearly didn't like sharing the spotlight. How do we get to a situation where a candidate disavows knowledge of their presumptive policy paper, yet all the voters still believe that's his policy? Seems like an even more absurd example having your cake and eating it too.

An underappreciated reason why Harris lost is that Democrats tried to switch candidates just a few months before the election. I'm not on one side or the other, but when I heard that Lorraine Jobs was pushing for a different candidate last July, I thought to myself, this is the dumbest idea I've ever seen. Indeed, it was.

It is not a conspiracy theory when Trump actually already tried to do a coup.