Democrats Blow Their Chance to Block Trump’s Resurgence (theintercept.com)

submitted 2 hours ago by IndustryStandard@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Unlike 2016, when his victory over Hillary Clinton came as a shock to many Americans, Trump was no surprise in 2024. The Democratic Party had the benefit of four years to ensure that this would not happen again. Yet as in 2016, Democrats appear to have failed to win over the electorate in a race against a uniquely unpopular candidate — this time one with multiple impeachments, indictments, and criminal convictions.

The short-lived Biden campaign and subsequent Harris campaign opted to try to beat Republicans at their own game, by tacking rightward on issues such as immigration, criminal justice, and climate. After President Joe Biden dropped out, the Democratic Party rejected calls to stop providing arms to Israel’s war on Gaza. Instead, Harris touted the endorsements of conservatives such as Liz Cheney. The strategy was a ploy to woo moderates and conservatives wary of a second Trump term, but it may have alienated key voting blocs.

top 21 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 38 points 2 hours ago

Honestly, I think they blew it back over the 4 years they barely did anything to lock him up. It took them the better part of 3 years to just get the freaking classified documents back. And they still don’t have them all back.

They sat around all that time because they were afraid of being political. Well guess what. Now that fascist fuck is the next POTUS and it’s bloody political.

[-] AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml 20 points 2 hours ago

Exactly. "Biggest ever threat to democracy", so big they sat on their hands for four years

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 5 points 1 hour ago

They tried to impeach him and more. They were blocked by Congress. It was pretty clear that they didn’t have enough votes to do anything.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 7 points 1 hour ago

What does congress have to do with a fucking criminal trial on violating the National Espionage Act?

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 6 points 1 hour ago

What do democrats have to do with it? I was under the impression that you were talking about Congress not taking action to hold Trump accountable.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 9 points 1 hour ago

Yes, because the DoJ are “congress”.

Biden is the head of the executive branch, and Marrick Garland's boss.

It took Garland two and a half years just to appoint Smith as special counsel. They sat around with their thumbs up their asses hoping trump would fade to obscurity because they were afraid of being “political”

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

What would have changed by doing it sooner?

And how is Merrick Garland working for democrats? I thought the FBI was non partisan?

[-] rigatti@lemmy.world 5 points 1 hour ago

I mean, Merrick Garland is literally working for Democrats. But they tried to give it the appearance that wasn't working for Democrats. That's what the other poster is complaining about. Trump cases needed to be expedited, knowing that he would piss and moan and delay as much as possible. Now it's too late because he's going to be president in a couple months, and he can just pardon himself.

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 1 points 29 minutes ago

If it were that simple why didn’t they just do it? Do you think they were conspiring to help Trump? Or do you think they were lazy?

Or is it the same situation it has been every single time Trump commits a crime and gets away with it, where he has weaponized his base to avoid consequences?

The latter is the obvious answer imo and even the FBI can’t stop the man with the Supreme Court on his side. Scapegoating the FBI seems odd here.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

Did you really just ask what getting highly classified nuclear secrets back from a broke-ass billionaire with ties to both the saudis and Putin sooner would change?

Also I already answered your second question.

Biden was his fucking boss, and not doing his job is inherently partisan when it protect a politician. Make sense?

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 1 points 35 minutes ago

If it were that simple why didn’t they do it? Do you think they were conspiring to help Trump? Do you really think they just said “I don’t want to do that today, let’s put it off for another time”?

I think if it were that simple they would’ve done it. But Trump has been able to avoid consequences for everything he has done so obviously it is not that simple to prosecute him.

I dont know why it is so hard for you to see that.

[-] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 hours ago

Locking up Trump wouldn't have kept the Republicans from winning. They'd have just found another candidate willing to say the same things.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 13 points 2 hours ago

I don't know. it would have been hard for them to change the figurehead of the cult. it also would have sent a clear "Don't do that" signal vis a vis insurrection and treason. Especially because Trump absolutely would have split the vote from jail.

fact is Trump has barely seen any consequences at all for his actions, and now he never will, and that's on democrat's and Biden's DOJ in particular. (And yes. Biden could have lit a fire under Garland if he wanted. Not doing your job is grounds for firing, even if Biden can't dictate day to day or specific courses of actions.)

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 12 points 2 hours ago

Donald Trump winning is not an indictment of the Democratic Party, or Harris for that matter. It's an indictment of the American people.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 4 points 1 hour ago

It's all three.

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

The way modern democracies die is they democratically elect authoritarian leaders who erode and dismantle that democracy. Parties don't matter. It's the people who do it to themselves. Sad but true.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 46 minutes ago

I mean yeah but that didn't need to be now. Harris basically threw the race and that's part of why this disaster came to be. Even assuming American democracy was nearing the end of its lifetime, it should've had a few more decades in it. The popular will to defeat Trump was there.

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 1 points 32 minutes ago* (last edited 31 minutes ago)

Harris didn't do anything any good pol wouldn't do. The popular will was not there, as the results displayed.

[-] Makeitstop@lemmy.world 1 points 26 seconds ago

Harris tried to run on protecting abortion rights, and saving democracy from Trump and Project 2025. Under other circumstances, that probably would have worked.

Unfortunately, she was the nominee for the incumbent party at a time when the vast majority of voters were unhappy with the economy. That's a hard position to be in, and requires a compelling answer. She had a few token items for the agenda, but nothing that would address the larger issue of people feeling squeezed by inflation. Saying things are better now or going to be better soon doesn't appease the voters who don't feel better.

The horrible truth is, a large portion of the electorate would vote for the literal devil if he was running against an incumbent during a bad economy.

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 5 points 1 hour ago

I don’t buy this. In Nebraska there was an election between an independent union leader and a career politician. The union leader lost.

The consensus seems to be that people that voted democrat in 2020 voted republican this time because they experienced inflation under Biden that think it was his fault.

[-] AmidFuror@fedia.io 3 points 58 minutes ago

All the polls suggest it was driven by the economy. Inflation is quite moderate right now, but the prices stay high, so that's got to be on everyone's mind.

People around here think it's all manner of things except what voters are actually saying.

this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024

48 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19144 readers

5069 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News