Strong And Wrong
Today I read the first of what will likely be a number of Democratic post-election analyses, in an effort to identify what went wrong for the party in 2024 and what should be done to fix it going forward. And I've certainly thought about the subject myself in the past few months, so I thought I'd offer up a rather different take.
The analysis in question does not come from the Democratic Party itself, but from two senior fellows from the Brookings Institution who published their paper on the website of Third Way, which is a so-called "centrist" organization. That's how many describe it, but it's really more of a "corporatist" organization devoted to making sure the Democrats stay in lockstep with big business and Wall Street more than anything else. If Bernie Sanders-style socialism is at one end of an ideological spectrum of Democrats, Third Way would be at the opposite end. Here's one line from their conclusion, in case you have any doubts:
Party reformers should begin discussions designed to produce a declaration of the party's fundamental beliefs and aims, along the lines of -- but differing in content from -- the Democratic Leadership Council's 1991 New Orleans Declaration.
They don't specify in any way what "differing in content from" means, and the fact that they're encouraging party leaders to go back to the old D.L.C. days is pretty striking. In any case, they wrote out their analysis and a few suggestions for change, which you can read in full, or read a shorter overview of in the Washington Post if you prefer.
I'm not writing today to quibble with their conclusions, or argue specifics with Third Way. They've always been corporate-friendly, and they're not going to change any time soon. Their prescription for Democrats is always some flavor of: "Hey, whoa... let's not get all crazy raising taxes on businesses, folks!" or perhaps: "Those progressives are going to make your life a living Hell!" So it'd be pretty pointless to argue with them, since my own ideological views are substantially different.
Instead, I'd like to head off in a completely different direction than a grand policy debate. Because the more I think about it, the more I conclude that there's an element to Democrats' 2024 loss that has long haunted the party. To be fair, it has occasionally haunted the Republican Party as well, but more so for Democrats.
One quote from the Bill Clinton era (since we're talking about the D.L.C. and all...) was repeated a lot during the 2024 election (and afterward): "It's the economy, stupid." But there's a different Clintonian quote that doesn't get nearly the attention it deserves, especially in the age of Donald Trump: "When people are feeling insecure, they'd rather have someone who is strong and wrong than somebody who is weak and right." Or a shortened version of it: "Strong and wrong beats weak and right every time."
Like it or not, Americans want their presidents to be strong. Now, what each person means by the concept of "strong" differs, of course, but this somewhat-ineffable question can be the core to who wins. After all, who was stronger: Mike Dukakis or Ronald Reagan? George H.W. Bush or Bill Clinton? Al Gore or George W. Bush? Mitt Romney or Barack Obama?
Of course, sometimes there are differing strengths to each candidate, and it's not quite as obvious. John McCain was seen as a pretty strong guy, but Obama managed to project both strength and competence and enthusiasm in a way that McCain didn't. Joe Biden is not the strongest-seeming guy around, but when he won Trump had been weakened in the eyes of the public with his disastrous COVID response and the collapse of the economy, while Biden had a strong message of competence and saving democracy to run on.
Being strong doesn't equate to being macho, either. If it did, then McCain might have won. Being strong can mean just having the strength of your convictions and defending them strongly when challenged (Bill Clinton excelled at this). It's the quality of not backing down in the face of political attacks, and having a good response to them that is relatable and understandable to most people. The opposite of being strong is being wishy-washy, to put this another way. Being weak means floundering while trying to explain your own position. Being weak means not pushing back when attacked, or getting so far into the weeds that people stop listening. That is different than measuring candidates on a scale of just how macho they are (or pretend to be). It's not a male/female thing either -- Hillary Clinton was a very strong candidate, by just about any measure. Her loss can't really be chalked up to Democratic weakness.
Just being strong doesn't always equate to victory, of course, especially in Democratic primaries. Joe Biden simply wasn't the strongest candidate in the 2020 primaries, and yet he won. This was a reaction by the party establishment to the prospect of seeing Bernie Sanders win the nomination, which would have produced a very strong candidate in regards to having a political vision and defending it to the hilt -- but one who supported ideas that the party leaders considered too extreme. Perhaps this is my own personal bias speaking, because in both 2016 and 2020 I really wanted to see Sanders take on Trump -- mostly because it would have been a fascinating showdown between Trump's fake populism of the right and Bernie's authentic economic populism from the left. But it was not to be, alas.
Trump, of course, is the ultimate "strong man" in American politics. He's convinced he's right about everything, and he will never concede either defeat or that he was wrong on anything. He is not actually a macho guy, but he plays one on television. And his fans eat it up. Those looking to understand why Democrats lost a whole lot of male voters this time around (young men, Black men, Hispanic men, etc.) need look no further than this. Democrats, in this new political environment, have to either put up someone with the personal strength to compete in such an arena or they might as well just pack it up and go home.
Kamala Harris did show a decent amount of strength during her short 2024 campaign. She wiped the floor with Trump at their one debate. But she showed a lot of weakness too, in the issues she chose to champion -- and she also (to be fair) had to deal with the headwinds of inherent misogyny/sexism in a country that has yet to elect a woman president. Harris was strong on abortion rights, strong on protecting democracy... but rather weak on the economy. What was her one center-ring economic issue or proposal? Your guess is as good as mine. To be fair, she did actually have a number of them -- but a lot of them were just as vague as the "opportunity economy" label she tried to package them all together under. Was she out there telling working-class voters: "Vote for me and I will make child care affordable for all of you!"? Not that I noticed, and that's choosing just one issue she could have highlighted (there were plenty of others that could have worked too). Harris wasn't as weak as some previous Democratic presidential candidates have been, but she also wasn't as strong as some of the ones who won, either. So the party would probably do best to select someone else next time around.
So who would that be, considering the emerging field of Democratic presidential hopefuls? It's tough to say, this far out. Bill Clinton wasn't on anyone's radar this early, and some similar dark horse candidate might emerge before the 2028 contest really gets rolling. But from the pack so far, four possible candidates stand out: Pete Buttigieg, Gavin Newsom, J.B. Pritzker, and Gretchen Whitmer. That isn't a comprehensive list, I should mention (there are likely many others who deserve to be on it), but it was just the names that came immediately to my own mind. All four of these Democrats have shown the ability to strongly defend the party's priorities while pushing back hard on Trump and Trumpism on the other side of the aisle. All four have their own built-in flaws as well, but standing up to Trump isn't one of them.
Of course, I'd love to see Bernie run again, but the reality is that he'll be too old. I'd also love to see Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez eventually run, but she'll likely still be seen as too young in 2028. There are other considerations than just being strong, in other words.
But make no mistake about it, a Democrat who is seen as strong is what is going to be necessary. Donald Trump is already a lame-duck president, since he cannot run again. But Democrats are still going to have to run against some flavor of Trumpism, since Trump is obviously going to dominate the Republican Party for the rest of his life (unless at some point he screws up to such a degree that he loses the support of his base -- which doesn't seem likely so far). The Republicans are going to be trying to bottle that Trump magic in some other candidate in 2028, so Democrats are going to have to put up someone strong enough to take that on or they don't stand a chance. Rather than the Clintonian quote, Democrats need to have a contest between "strong and wrong" and "strong and right" to have a decent shot at winning the White House back in 2028.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
What will the top three issues be in 2028 that voters will be focused on? Name the Democrat who will be able to address all three and you've got your candidate!
Doesn't "Strong but wrong beats weak but right" mean that the Dems can only win in 2028 by nominating a straight male candidate? You say Hillary was "strong" in her campaign, but she actually lost.
"Strong" is an intrisically male quality, no matter what one might like it to be. Will the Dems follow this advice/strategy, no matter who they might like to run such as [woman] Whitmer or [gay male] Buttigieg?
- and she also (to be fair) had to deal with the headwinds of inherent misogyny/sexism in a country that has yet to elect a woman president.
Any facts to prove there is inherent misogyny/sexism in this country??
Any facts at all??
Nope.. Not a single one..
You really don't have to bother with all the various 2024 autopsies...
It's very simple why Democrats lost..
Because the ONLY thing they stood for was their Trump/America hate and their PTDS..
I thought the commentary today would be about how PRESIDENT Trump is kick Canada's and Mexico's ass all over the place... :D
Who knew that threatening to impose tariff's would bring recalcitrant countries to heel!!!???
Oh.. Wait.. It was me!! :D
Apparently, President Trump knows what he is doing when it comes to tariffs, eh people?? :D
Ya'all ready to give credit where credit is due???
No?? Not yet??
'S OK.. I am patient guy.. :D
I can't believe you actually want to see Occasional Cortex run for POTUS!!???
I mean, the girl's a bartender for christ's sake!!
Ya'all go on and on about how Hegseth is not qualified for SecDef and then turn around and want a BARTENDER for your POTUS???
There is that Democrat "logic" again... Even MORE ridiculous then Democrat "science"... :eyeroll:
I mean, have you people SEEN Occasional Cortex's district??
It's a 3rd world banana republic hellhole with hookers and open air drug markets rule the neighborhood..
And THAT is what you want to happen with all of America???
Don't expect to win any elections for at least the rest of my lifetime, eh?? :eyeroll:
oh come on, i used to work in that district, and it is not bad at all. michale, your imagination is running wilder than usual.
AOC was a part time bartender five years ago, and even then she had garnered significant political experience working for local politicians. now she's got five years of experience in Congress. hegseth had zero experience in government or politics, and military experience only at his rank of major in the army national guard.
that doesn't mean he'll be unsuccessful, any more than the sworn testimony that he was a mean drunk means he'll be unsuccessful. but AOC is not a favorable comparison for him.
Any facts to prove there is inherent misogyny/sexism in this country??
See your dumb slurs. Misogyny/sexism concentrated...
And you insulting other's cities just shows how much of the Trump kool-aid you have drunk.
Is it all just performative bullshit to appease the rubes?
2.2 billion gallons of water flowed out of California reservoirs because of Trump’s order to open dams
Trump celebrated the move in posts to Truth Social post on Friday and Sunday, declaring, “the water is flowing in California,” and adding the water was “heading to farmers throughout the State, and to Los Angeles.”
There are two major problems, water experts said: The newly released water will not flow to Los Angeles, and it is being wasted by being released during the wet winter season.
I also read this release almost flooded a bunch of farms and officials had to plead with the US Army Corps of Engineers to stop the release. That's what happens when you hire an incompetent felon...
JL,
oh come on, i used to work in that district, and it is not bad at all. michale, your imagination is running wilder than usual.
How long ago did you work in that district...
And I am willing to bet that YOUR idea of "not bad at all" and MY idea (plus the residents who live there in the here and now) idea of "not bad at all" are quite different..
http://mfccfl.us/HookerAlley.jpg
Would you want to raise your child in Hooker Alley???
AOC was a part time bartender five years ago, and even then she had garnered significant political experience working for local politicians. now she's got five years of experience in Congress. hegseth had zero experience in government or politics, and military experience only at his rank of major in the army national guard.
Which means that Hegseth is 100 times more qualified for his job than Occasional Cortex is for hers..
but AOC is not a favorable comparison for him.
In your opinion...
:D
OK.. I have a network mystery...
My lovely wife works from home...
We have a STARLINK connection and an AT&T DSL connection..
Under normal conditions, STARLINK gives us about 80-100 Mbps and AT&T gives us about 17 Mbps...
My wife has the STARLINK all to herself on an Ethernet Hardwire..
My computer, plus 2 or 3 other workstations are hooked up to a dumb hub which is, in turn, hooked up to the AT&T DSL modem..
In other words, my computer is air-gapped to STARLINK and has no physical/wifi way to connect to STARLINK..
My wife's work involves transferring a lot of files back and forth.. Mostly text files and excel spreadsheets etc etc..
When my computer is off, my wife can upload and download her work files with no problem..
The second I boot up my computer, her ability to xfer files is nearly non-existent. When she IS able to actually initiate a transfer, it is as slow as mole's asses in January...
She connects to her work via a VPN and, as I said, is hardwired via Cat5 to the STARLINK router..
My computer has absolutely ZERO wifi adapters installed..
What could possibly be happening that my computer would interfere with her connection??
Any assistance would be most appreciated... :D
And let's not forget that Occasional Cortex is the Queen of the DEFUND THE POLICE movement..
Which explains why her district is a 3rd world banana republic shithole..
That alone disqualifies her from being POTUS..
So says any sane patriotic American..
every city has a block somewhere within its boundaries that most people would prefer not to go. that block is rarely if ever representative of the city as a whole.
there is plenty about AOC and the rest of the squad that i find objectionable, but don't try to make that a reason to come after my city.
When the Central Valley farmers, who tend to vote R and have Republican reps in Congress, run short of irrigation water this summer, Democratic candidates need to be knocking on doors and visiting cafes, agricultural suppliers and packing plants, not forgetting the executive suites. A huge number of people make their livelihoods from agriculture in California, not just the field hands. The tariffs and and deportations aren't going to help either.
every city has a block somewhere within its boundaries that most people would prefer not to go. that block is rarely if ever representative of the city as a whole.
We're not talking about an entire city.. We're talking about a district which is more analogous to a city block than it is to an entire city
In other words, Occasional Cortex's entire district is a 3rd world shithole..
there is plenty about AOC and the rest of the squad that i find objectionable, but don't try to make that a reason to come after my city.
I am not coming after your city.. I am pointing out how Occasional Cortex doesn't care about her constituents.. I am talking about how her district is a 3rd world shithole because of her hatred of cops.. Her hatred of jews...
She's a person who WALLOWS in her hate and bigotry and anti-semitism...
Supporting her is even LESS understandable than supporting Headboard Harris..
Mezzo,
When the Central Valley farmers, who tend to vote R and have Republican reps in Congress, run short of irrigation water this summer,
*IF*.... IF the Central Valley farmers blaa blaa blaa...
Let's face the reality sunshine... Ya'all's predictions the last year have been completely and utterly wrong...
This is the Objective Reality...
The tariffs and and deportations aren't going to help either.
The THREAT of tariffs seem to be doing a bang-up job so far...
And how ANYONE can be against these deportations of scumbag criminals simply boggles the mind..
You WANT these scumbags rapists and murderers and druggies to REMAIN in this country???
For christ's sake, why!!???? Just because they vote Democrat???
:eyeroll:
You WANT these scumbags rapists and murderers and druggies to REMAIN in this country???
No. Please remove the current administration. I hear they have negotiated housing in El Salvador...
Claiming PRESIDENT Trump is "wrong" is just like the time ya'all claimed PRESIDENT Trump was racist..
You didn't have any FACTS that proved ya'all's claim back then either.. :D
Considering all of the WINS that PRESIDENT Trump has amassed in the last year puts lie to ya'all's claim that PRESIDENT Trump is "wrong" about ANYTHING..
I mean, if PRESIDENT Trump is sooooo wrong, why do Democrats always LOSE on everything???
The FACTS clearly show that it's DEMOCRATS who are WRONG here...
Over and over and over and over again, it's DEMOCRATS who are wrong... :D
Funny how that is, eh?? :D
And PRESIDENT Trump's pick to lead the VA sails thru Senate confirmation.. :D
PRESIDENT Trump WINS again...
And VETERANS win as well!!!
Isn't PRESIDENT Trump just SOOO AWESOME!!!??? :D
DEI is anathema to what America is all about...
A Secret Service agent is for the first time publicly speaking out against the agency’s diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, which he says contributed to the first assassination attempt against President Trump last summer.
A 13-year veteran of the agency who has served in an elite unit and top protective assignments, Rashid Ellis sat down for an interview with the Independent Women’s Forum, a Virginia-based conservative nonprofit.
IWF is in the process of making a documentary, titled “Qualifications, Not Quotas,” about Ellis’s experience and released an explanation of the documentary and a trailer Thursday providing a snapshot of his experience and concerns.
“My initial thoughts when seeing the Butler assassination attempt was dread,” Ellis states solemnly in the trailer. “My stomach was in knots watching it because we had known for years that this was coming.”
“I believe agendas have taken priority at the United States Secret Service for a long time, which is why Butler and July 13 happened and why we got a president get shot,” he adds.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2025/02/03/secret_service_agent_dei_contributed_to_near-killing_of_trump__152297.html
DEI gets people killed..
Democrat "science" gets people killed..
What's it going to take to make you people wake up and realize that your ideology is literally KILLING people??
KILLING Americans??
Pretty hilarious take on Schumer.. :D
Jon Stewart asks Dems to stop 'trotting Schumer out' to counter Trump after avocado, beer response to tariffs
'It’s going to affect your guac, because what is guacamole made of? Avocados,' Chuck Schumer said during a press conference about Trump tariff threats
Comedian Jon Stewart took aim at Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on Monday after the Democratic Senate Minority Leader responded to President Donald Trump's tariffs by telling Americans it would impact beer and guacamole costs.
"Your response to the trade war is to fucking tell us guacamole is made of avocados?" Stewart said.
Stewart played a clip of Schumer arguing that Trump's proposed tariffs would affect beer and avocados, while holding up a can of Corona and an avocado. Trump threatened tariffs on Canada and Mexico over the weekend, but has since agreed to pause them after conversations with both countries' leaders.
"Democrats, can you please stop fucking trotting Schumer out there every time Trump traverses into the unreal? He’s not good at this," Stewart said.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/jon-stewart-asks-dems-stop-trotting-schumer-out-counter-trump-avocado-beer-response-tariffs
Seriously, guys... You simply CAN'T be happy with the direction of ya'all's Democrat Party...
Can you???
New York 14 has over 740,000 people, which would qualify it to be a large-ish city in its own right.
nypoet22
22
New York 14 has over 740,000 people, which would qualify it to be a large-ish city in its own right.
There are more people in that NY-14 congressional district than the population of which state?
A. Wyoming
B. Vermont
C. Alaska
D. All of the above
Puts that in perspective. :)