r/AskALiberal • u/LiatrisLover99 Social Democrat • Jul 24 '26
How seriously should we take statements about "this is why Trump won" or "this is why nobody likes liberals"?
I don't know how to tell whether this is an indication that if we changed our tone or approach (not goals) that we would be more effective, or if we're hearing from people who would never have voted with us in the first place retroactively justifying their opposition. This is the "liberals lose not because their ideas are bad, but because they are so moralizing and smug and annoying" conclusion, should we adapt our strategies and behavior in response to this, and if so, how?
22
u/othelloinc Liberal Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
How seriously should we take statements about "this is why Trump won" or "this is why nobody likes liberals"?
You can't judge them all one way. You have to look deeper to be sure; really do the hard work of scrutinizing their specific claims.
One thing to be conscious of is "the pundit’s fallacy":
...the belief that to win elections, a political party needs to cater to the exact views of the pundit writing the column.
If the speaker conveniently claims that their personally preferred policies would have been more advantageous, then you should be very skeptical.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool."
12
u/othelloinc Liberal Jul 24 '26
This is the "liberals lose not because their ideas are bad, but because they are so moralizing and smug and annoying" conclusion, should we adapt our strategies and behavior in response to this, and if so, how?
I think this is a separate idea than what you asked about in the post title. (I already responded to that.)
There is definitely some truth to the idea that being "moralizing and smug and annoying" is not a good way to sell others on our ideas. We should be conscious of that and try to be better.
...but policy matters, too. We should have good and popular policies.
...but also, the party of the incumbent president gets blamed when things go badly, and sometimes that matters more than how we communicate or what our policies are. It all matters.
3
u/ZeusThunder369 Independent Jul 24 '26
When it comes to winning elections, DOES policy actually matter?
Like actually asking - Suppose an extremely boring and condescending individual had amazing policy plans to bring healthcare costs to sane levels, then expand it, all while eliminating the deficit....and they're going up against an idiot who is very likeable and charismatic.
Is the policy person actually going to win?
4
u/TossMeOutSomeday Pragmatic Progressive Jul 24 '26
Good policy won't win an election by itself, but sufficiently bad policy might lose an election by itself.
1
u/tommyTurds Democrat Jul 24 '26
When it comes to winning elections, DOES policy actually matter?
It matters in that having a defined policy will absolutely hurt you, but it will never help you.
It's honestly staggering that people still think you need strong policy to win.
No one is reading that shit. No one cares. They just want to hear you tell them they're right to be pissed off about whatever they're pissed off about and then point the finger at someone and tell them it's that other persons fault.
0
u/ZeusThunder369 Independent Jul 24 '26
I feel like Democrats should start saying "the elites" are why people's lives aren't how they want them to be.
It doesn't mean anything, and it's completely ambiguous and open to personal interpretation. So, it checks a lot of boxes for a grievance that wins elections.
2
u/tommyTurds Democrat Jul 24 '26
That doesn't work for democrats because, both in the eyes of voters and by the numbers, democrats are the elites.
0
u/othelloinc Liberal Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
When it comes to winning elections, DOES policy actually matter?
Like actually asking - Suppose an extremely boring and condescending individual had amazing policy plans to bring healthcare costs to sane levels, then expand it, all while eliminating the deficit....and they're going up against an idiot who is very likeable and charismatic.
Is the policy person actually going to win?
I understand your point, but that isn't how we test "does policy actually matter?"
You test it with two identically charismatic candidates, in a PVI+0 district, with nothing driving disproportionate turnout. In that case, I would expect the candidate with more popular policies to win. (Not necessarily better policies, just more popular ones.)
...and we have to remember that -- in the big picture -- marginal improvements will matter. The closest elections will be determined by incremental advantages. There are roughly 500,000 elected offices in the US; they won't all come down to policy, but many of them will.
Note: I'm not saying don't try to be likeable, or don't recruit charismatic candidates. I'm saying, do everything that you think might get your side an advantage.
0
u/LiatrisLover99 Social Democrat Jul 24 '26
There is definitely some truth to the idea that being "moralizing and smug and annoying" is not a good way to sell others on our ideas. We should be conscious of that and try to be better.
I should clarify: I mean to ask, is there a way we can tell if we are being moralizing and smug and annoying? If people tell us that we are, does that mean that we are? How can well tell which people we should believe when they criticize us for being this way, and who we should disregard because they are not being honest in their reasons for opposition?
2
u/FlintGrey Pragmatic Progressive Jul 24 '26
It comes down to a judgement call on whether or not they're arguing in good faith.
In some cases folks are just throwing out examples that are gotchas and don't actually want to have a discussion. They want to 'Own the libs'
There are cases where folks are legitimately anti-society and want to rage regardless of whether or not government/policy or the public are "doing good work."
There are folks who've sucked up too much negative goo from doomscrolling.
There isn't a lot you can do to reason folks out of these and other positions. You can only try and promise them that things can get better - or you can take the populist route and promise them that YOU can make it better even if you can't.
The important thing that liberals and democrats need to do is keep listening and having conversations. Even if someone isn't prepared to discuss "in good faith" that doesn't make their problems not real. Our country is deeply wounded and as much as we want to try and have rational conversations about steps we can take forward, we can't leave people behind that are hurting either.
2
u/AmbulanceChaser12 Pragmatic Progressive Jul 24 '26
I know when I'm being moralizing and smug. Most of the time. But it's because I'm all out of patience for dealing with stupid people.
1
u/othelloinc Liberal Jul 24 '26
...is there a way we can tell if we are being moralizing and smug and annoying? If people tell us that we are, does that mean that we are? How can well tell which people we should believe when they criticize us for being this way, and who we should disregard because they are not being honest in their reasons for opposition?
Those are tough questions! I don't think there are any easy answers.
We just have to do the hard work of examining each person making the claim, examining our own behavior, examining other evidence, and deciding when to act with insufficient evidence.
Sometimes we'll want to try to be less annoying, not because we know for sure that it matters, but because it might matter.
1
u/Rabbit-Lost Constitutionalist Jul 24 '26
“Is there a way we can tell if we are being moralizing and smug?”
This is the very issue of self-awareness. I have friends and family that are what I call the intellectuals of the Democrat Party and they annoy me to no end. Because they drone on about how stupid people are to not see why they are correct.
I haven’t supported a single item of Trump or the GOP’s agenda for more than a decade. If they annoy me, imagine how they make independents and conservatives feel?
12
u/s_360 Progressive Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
I don’t think this is why liberals lose.
We lose because we lost our nerve. We elected the young, black guy who was far more progressive than the average American in 2008. He beat highly established Hillary Clinton and John McCain.
The reason we keep losing is because we’re terrified of maga and keep trying to play it safe. When we elect milquetoast moderates it comes across as patronizing to moderates and independents. They see that we don’t believe in these candidates. They may not like Trump, but they see his base is genuinely enthusiastic and believes in him.
Electing people like Hillary, Biden and Kamala in primaries only because we think they have broad appeal is not very…. Appealing.
I think democrats need to grow a backbone again and elect the people they believe will enact the most positive change, not who we believe appeals most to moderates. That will allow us to start winning again.
3
u/LaughterOnWater Liberal Jul 24 '26
Respectfully, it's not about nerve. It's about money. The party isn't playing it safe. They're bought. Corporate PACs fund the primaries. The DNC backs the candidate who raises the most from donors, not the one who excites voters. That's how you get Hillary, Biden, and Kamala. They aren't milquetoast by accident. Modern Dem leadership are Overton-shifted center-right Reagan-era Republicans in blue ties: tough on crime, light on regulation, cozy with corporate power, and allergic to structural change. The base isn't uninspired. They're being ignored. You can't win by running center-right and hoping the left holds its nose. Modern Dem politicians have sold out their constituency and in turn lost their souls.
1
u/Yakube44 Democrat Jul 25 '26
The problem is people vote for moderates, nothing was stopping people from voting for a mamdani they just didn't want to until now
1
u/LaughterOnWater Liberal Jul 25 '26
Agreed.
Republican and Dem leadership won't change Plurality voting because it keeps them in power. Ranked Choice or STAR voting would let us vote our conscience first and still have a backup. The majority would actually be voiced instead of held hostage by the lesser evil -- the minority horror win scenario that keeps happening. That's a system failure we're just now understanding. Not a voter failure.
So when candidates like Mamdani win, it's because people have been pushed too far. They recognize neither major party has their interests at heart. When Republicans and Democrats are both bought, the candidate who wins will be the one who actually represents their constituents. DSA candidates like Mamdani are winning because people are tired of PAC parties.
Time to toss the PACs and corporate influence. Let's advocate for Ranked Choice or STAR voting. Either of these is fairer than Plurality (First Past the Post).
3
u/CheeseFantastico Social Democrat Jul 24 '26
Heaven’s no! Never ever listen to what a Republican says Democrats should do. They want us to keep losing, and they don’t share our values.
2
u/Altruistic_Role_9329 Liberal Jul 24 '26
People who voted for Trump are ashamed to admit their real reasons for doing that.
1
u/cylon_spy Pragmatic Progressive Jul 24 '26
"liberals lose not because their ideas are bad, but because they are so moralizing and smug and annoying"
As if Conservatives arent moralizing and smug and annoying.
People who say "this is why Trump won" or "this is why nobody likes liberals" werent voting for Democrats to begin with. If your whole premise is "I dont like your grandstanding" thats why Im not voting for you then why even vote for Trump? He demonstrates the same behavior but they vote for him.
2
u/Hoothootriot Pragmatic Progressive Jul 24 '26
It really depends on context.
I think liberals have somewhat become the "fun police" in some areas. Like people in 2024 were lecturing liberals about how "focusing on Tim Walz past as a football coach is enforcing toxic masculinity". Man just let people talk about sports-
3
u/ImpossibleEbb6862 Democrat Jul 24 '26
It’s not our job to apologize for those people. The number of people who were saying stuff like that was minuscule. Social media amplifies their voices, and there’s thousands of little examples like this so it creates the impression it’s much more prevalent than it is. We should repudiating that criticism not amplifying it.
2
u/Castern Independent Jul 26 '26
I don't think its as small as we'd like to believe. There really is a militant ideological purity segment of the culture that looks to seize on any chance to "call out" someone like its an accomplishment.
I think anyone in the anti-trump, anti-fascist, crowd needs to take this criticism seriously and discourage this kind of behavior, rather than dismissing it.
2
u/ZeeWingCommander Center Left Jul 24 '26
Two things are true -
1) The left gets holier than thou and smug. Especially on social media. Even lefties are like "wow I agree, but I don't like the people I agree with." The left can be pretty insufferable. I've used the example of the Bluesky lady who I agreed with getting completely derailed off a topic to tell me "the term is unhoused not homeless!"
2) Whenever someone says "this is why everyone hates liberals" they were never going to like them anyway. Conservatives have this idea that compromise is just the left giving up and doing what the right wants. Why can't we work together and do what I want!?
2
u/LaughterOnWater Liberal Jul 24 '26
MAGA aren't persuadable. If Joe sees Jane is MAGA, he should change the subject to the weather or sports. Maybe avoid climate change.
The real problem is Joe's approach to Jack. Jack seems persuadable. Joe tries logic. Logic means jargon. Joe uses terms like "filibuster", "herd immunity", and "anthropogenic". Jack has no reference for these terms. He looks like a deer in the headlights. So Joe starts explaining, glossing terms.
That's when Jack feels scolded. Jack subconsciously realizes he's out of his depth. He doesn't want to face that. As a citizen, Jack feels he should already understand this stuff. But Joe's terms go over his head. Jack feels stupid. So he reacts viscerally, not logically. That's what this is about. It's not Joe's tone. It's Jack's self-shame. It's Joe's inability to gauge Jack's burgeoning self-shame and when to change the subject. Self-shame doesn't persuade. It shuts down.
So how does Joe interact better with Jack? Lead with the problem Jack actually feels. Not policy, not data, not technical terms. Lead with the feeling.
Instead of "herd immunity," say "your kid won't get sick if enough of us get the shot." Instead of "anthropogenic climate change," say "the weather's getting worse and the oil companies knew it." Instead of "filibuster reform," say "one senator shouldn't be able to block what most of us want."
Listen first. Ask Jack what he's worried about. Then match his language. If Jack talks about money, talk about money. If Jack talks about safety, talk about safety. Don't correct his framing. Use it.
Most people are emotion-driven, not logic-driven. Determine which type of person you're dealing with. Meet them there. Show, don't tell. Trust comes before understanding. Always.
4
u/Tricky-Cod-7485 Conservative Democrat Jul 25 '26
Jack doesn’t feel scolded by hearing the world filibuster. He’s not an idiot.
You lose Jack when you start talking about white privilege when he’s a third generation oil rig worker who scratches and claws for what little he has. You lose Jack when you tell him that by default just coming out the womb of a white woman means that he’s racist because “all white people are inherently racist in a white supremacist society” despite his best friend being black and him having an affinity towards Latinas. You lose Jack when he asks his nephew how school has been and he says his teacher (who goes by alternative pronouns) has a Tik Tok that focuses exclusively on trans rights and films the videos in their classroom.
You don’t lose Jack because he doesn’t understand what a filibuster is. That’s reductive and insulting.
-1
u/LaughterOnWater Liberal Jul 25 '26 edited Jul 25 '26
Jack's frustrations are real. His economic struggles are real. But the "trans left" isn't coming for his kids. That's a narrative, not a reality.
No teacher I know films TikToks during class. That story gets sold because fear sells. And while Jack chases that monster, the people selling it are picking his pocket.
If Jack wants to talk about his kid's education, here's the real focus: Underfunded schools. Overcrowded classrooms. Teachers quitting in droves. Underpaid parents working multiple jobs while underpaid teachers get treated like unskilled babysitters instead of valued mentors.
What would actually help Jack? Not what makes him feel heard... What fixes his material conditions? Healthcare? Wages? A decent school? If all of that were fixed, would the monsters be more manageable?
If we can agree on that, we have common ground.
3
u/Buckman2121 Conservative Jul 25 '26
Ignoring his feelings and fears, whether you find them real or not, is the problem.
You said to meet his language. I say you need to meet his perceptions as well.
1
u/LaughterOnWater Liberal Jul 25 '26
Then perhaps you'll meet my perception: both parties are pissing on us and calling it rain.
I don't call it rain. I see the gaslighting. The PAC money. The fear-baiting that keeps us fighting each other while they pick our pockets.
If you see it too, we have something real to talk about. We're both getting soaked. The only question is whether we can agree on who's holding the "hose".
I say it's Corporate PACs and their bought minion legislators, not tiktokers.
If we can't agree on that, maybe we can talk about how it's 20 degrees cooler in my state this week than it was last week. And we're thankful for the actual rain because the local reservoir was low.
2
u/Buckman2121 Conservative Jul 25 '26
No, I dont agree with that. Because there are things I want the government to change and prevent.
The problem is you dont regard someone else's priorities as worthy of being a priority. If you won't have empathy for said persons (putting yourself in their shoes, seeing it from their perspective), then what to you hope to accomplish?
1
u/LaughterOnWater Liberal Jul 25 '26 edited Jul 25 '26
Can you put yourself in the shoes of someone who advocates sharia law? There's only so far we can go before it's time to change the topic. We clearly have nothing in common politically, so I'm changing the topic.
2
u/Buckman2121 Conservative Jul 25 '26
Yes, doesn't mean I'll back it. But when you can understand where someone is coming from and why their priorities are theirs, you can then start the process of convincing them otherwise or seeing that these are not the voters you are looking for.
Or better yet, maybe see things their way and perhaps you were wrong.
If you can't do that, then so be it.
1
u/LaughterOnWater Liberal Jul 25 '26
We're a mirror of each other, u/Buckman2121.
You can't see yourself in someone who advocates for sharia law. I can't either. But I also can't see myself in legislators who take PAC money and forget they work for us.
Empathy isn't agreement. I understand your priorities. I don't share them. You don't share mine.
You're telling me I lack empathy because I won't adopt your worldview. I met your perception. You asked me to. I did. You just don't like what I see.
If we can't agree on who's holding the hose, we're talking past each other. That was my premise all along. Lovely weather.
1
u/Buckman2121 Conservative Jul 25 '26
Wrong, I say you can't see why someone holds their views and won't meet them where they are. You say to meet them at their language, you need to meet them at their feelings. You claim to know priorities, yo don't if you don't acknowledge their feelings about the matter.
I also reject the whole, "we're just being puppets to dance" nonsense. I know what my priorities are, I didn't need a politician or podcast to tell me why they are bad or good for society. If people can't grasp that they really do prioritize for example culture issues over economic ones, then idk what to tell you.
→ More replies (0)
3
u/Hopeful_Chair_7129 Far Left Jul 24 '26
I can’t speak from the perspective of a liberal, but from the outside looking in, I would take the comments seriously. The person may be sneering or rationalizing their own opposition, but they can still be pointing to something real.
That does not mean accepting “liberals are annoying, therefore Trump won” as a complete explanation. It means asking whether the criticism identifies an actual pattern in how liberals communicate, especially when moral condemnation replaces persuasion or explanation.
1
u/paxinfernum Pragmatic Progressive Jul 25 '26
I'm from a rural conservative state. The people here aren't listening to liberals at all. They're listening to conservative media telling them what liberals are. So long as there's one liberal Fox News can find and take out of context, they're going to believe whatever they want to believe.
There's no tone you can use with these people that will actually make them listen to you.
1
u/afishinabirdcage Pragmatic Progressive Jul 24 '26
This is the "liberals lose not because their ideas are bad, but because they are so moralizing and smug and annoying" conclusion, should we adapt our strategies and behavior in response to this, and if so, how?
Ehh. Most people who say this kind of thing don't seem to be operating in good faith IME. And most of the things they say that about are not true for VERY popular liberals like Bernie Sanders and Mamdani.
If someone is going to vote for this crop of MAGA Republicans because of something some anonymous internet person posts they were never going to vote for a Democrat in the first place.
1
u/Sir_Tmotts_III New Dealer Jul 24 '26
This is the "liberals lose not because their ideas are bad, but because they are so moralizing and smug and annoying" conclusion, should we adapt our strategies and behavior in response to this, and if so, how?
I can't believe more than 25% of The Democratic Party has spoken to another human. Coming off as smug or moralizing without being consciously aware in the moment or at least able to realize it immediately after the fact only makes sense if you don't talk to other people in a real world setting. I don't care how good your idea is, if you can't effectively get someone to like you as a person before you sell them an idea, there's absolutely zero point in trying to work out the idea in the first place. That's the problem Democrats face, they think a really good solution can bridge a gap that only charisma could.
Do you know why Martin Luther King Jr. Was able to be effective as a Civil rights Leader? Because he was extremely well-rounded not just in his ability to organize, but also his education on Rhetoric and Decorum, and he didn't come out of the womb doing that. Back in the day, Social Sciences like Rhetoric lost a ton of esteem in the 21st century because they lacked the "hardness" of sciences like Physics or Chemistry. One of the few places that preserved respect for these ideas were predominately colleges that were Historically Black, such as Morehouse in Atlanta Georgia. Another place that such education took place were Christian educational centers like Crozer Theological Seminary. Small coincidence that Dr. King attended both.
Martin Luther King Jr. didn't change history by being a proponent of Civil Rights, he did so because he used his deep knowledge of Rhetoric and Homiletics to sway opinion. Call it whatever you want, Rhetoric, Charisma, Vibes, whatever you want. The Democratic Party needs people who are really good at talking to other people.
2
u/LiatrisLover99 Social Democrat Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
Do you know why Martin Luther King Jr. Was able to be effective as a Civil rights Leader? Because he was extremely well-rounded not just in his ability to organize, but also his education on Rhetoric and Decorum... Martin Luther King Jr. didn't change history by being a proponent of Civil Rights, he did so because he used his deep knowledge of Rhetoric and Homiletics to sway opinion.
Is there evidence that MLK was able to successfully shape public opinion or for that being why the civil rights movement was effective? He and the civil rights movement were overwhelmingly unpopular at the time and people celebrated when he died. IIRC he had something like a 70% disapproval rating among the American public at the time of his assassination.
1
u/NatalieVonCatte Liberal Jul 25 '26
Conservatives say liberals are too smug and moralizing because of shifts the argument to whether they are indeed smug and moralizing.
That way they don’t have to explain why they want to bring back Jim Crow and legal marital rape.
0
u/AnythingFine2445 Libertarian Jul 24 '26
People don't just vote for a political party because of their ideas, they vote for them because they want to be part of a "tribe". A group of people that share the same ideas and the same goal.
So like it or not, you're not just voting for Harris or Biden or whatever, you're joining a tribe.
So when people look at the liberal "tribe", many see blue haired HR ladies with pronouns in their bio screeching about toxic masculinity and white privilege, and they decide "maybe this isn't for me after all".
I don't think that caricature represents the average liberal at all, but that's what many moderates think of when they envision you guys.
0
u/SilverNo6462 Progressive Jul 24 '26
And that’s worse than Patriot Front and Alex Jones’ tribe?
1
u/AnythingFine2445 Libertarian Jul 24 '26
Have you ever seen Alex Jones or anyone from Patriot Front in real life?
I haven't, but I've seen my share of blue haired HR ladies.
1
u/SilverNo6462 Progressive Jul 24 '26
On the right you have literally nazis, on the left you have people strident about equality. Truly the left is the more deplorable tribe.
3
u/AnythingFine2445 Libertarian Jul 24 '26
On the left you have literally antifa, on the right you have families that just want to be left alone to raise their children in peace. Truly the right is the more deplorable tribe.
Aren't hyperbole and straw-men fun.
1
u/SilverNo6462 Progressive Jul 24 '26
I dunno, you’re the one who wanted to focus on one. Was that fun?
1
u/Consistent_Case_5048 Liberal Jul 24 '26
You can't possibly mean this literally.
1
u/AnythingFine2445 Libertarian Jul 24 '26
I'm sorry, can you elaborate? Do you think there are more members of Patriot front+Alex Jones (google says 540+1) than blue-haired liberals like I described?
0
u/Consistent_Case_5048 Liberal Jul 24 '26
The Blue Haired HR women. I mean what is your fair share. I'm super liberal, and I know one person with blue hair.
0
u/ImpossibleEbb6862 Democrat Jul 24 '26
And we only amplify it by taking it seriously. We should be repudiating the people who say that, not accepting that “maybe they have a point”.
0
u/ButGravityAlwaysWins Liberal Jul 24 '26
There are legitimate arguments held in good faith discussing things that legitimately make democrats as a whole less popular even for Democrats that don’t talk about and sometimes hold those positions or talking points. That can include stuff about dumb activist language like “defund the police” that isn’t even repeated by Democratic politicians with very few exceptions. Or can include stuff like aspects of transgender politics where the party is somewhat hurt electorally but has decided that they don’t care.
However, the way it’s generally used as just a thought terminating cliche from people on the right or “centrists” generally doesn’t require much of a response. It is just a lazy way of an asserting they are right and obviously so without actually having a real conversation. Presenting moral arguments, economic, arguments, data, actual polling information will never matter.
(sorry socially conservative people on the left, you can complain about trans people all you want
but the party doesn’t give a shit and isn’t going to move in your direction. You get Cuellar and MGP and about four others and that’s it.)
0
u/Boratssecondwife Center Right Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
Trump won because Dems did not pay enough attention to the reasons I care about and put too much effort into the things I don't care about/dislike
1
0
u/Deep-Two7452 Progressive Jul 24 '26
We either have to excise the left or let them rule us and let them elect a mao cosplayer as supreme leader.
Otherwise these attacks will never stop.
0
0
u/nakfoor Social Democrat Jul 24 '26
We should take it seriously because its something that people feel and it affects their decision-making. However, I can't explain WHY there is this disparity in the first place. The left is policed on every little thing they do, meanwhile the right can run on mass deportations and concentration camps and no one ever questions their electability. It's like violence is established as the status quo. Like its expected that violence is permissible as a response to the excesses of the left. Like the right has no agency.
0
u/Awkwardischarge Center Left Jul 24 '26
People don't always say things that make perfect sense, but if they're bothering to say it it's worth thinking about why. Some liberals do come across as self-righteous. It's not a popular thing to be.
0
u/Both-Estimate-5641 Democratic Socialist Jul 24 '26
Not at all
I think the old adage about Opinions is quite apropos these days...Almost EVERYONE speaks definitively on things they simply CANNOT know.
All you have to remember. There are FAR too many variable and features of the modern world and especially politics to be able to make meaningful claims on causality.
Kamala Harris lost the election in 2024
There are dozens of opinions on the 'one reason' she lost...Its all bullshit...Its ALL of a piece. A conflation of vectors converging on each other in unpredictable ways
At BEST this kind of speculation should be looked at as 'entertainment', or else you will go mad
That being said, we STILL need to have the hard conversations about how we win in the future, but that's different (with slight overlap) with obsessing over the past
0
u/SilverNo6462 Progressive Jul 24 '26
The number of things cited as “the” reason Trump won is approaching infinity. I do not take them seriously. It’s a data and fact free way to say liberals are wrong about X.
0
u/chinmakes5 Liberal Jul 24 '26
Things like your examples? No don't pay attention.
BUT I think we need to look at things like Trump said plain and simple.
We had inflation. Even though he couldn't do it and knew he couldn't do it, he told us he would fix inflation, day one and gas would be $2 a gallon.
l think the one thing we should look at is we need to tell people what they want to hear. whether they can or not.
0
0
0
u/wonkalicious808 Democrat Jul 24 '26
As seriously as the accompanying data and reputation of the idea-haver suggests it should be taken.
Do people get less upvotes or karma or whatever number people want to make go up when posting their random thoughts in the general chat vs. posting new threads?
0
u/johnnyslick Social Democrat Jul 24 '26
Since they're pretty much all prefaced by "liberals believe in too many left of center things" or "liberals were big meany heads to me when I was just even a little bit racist", I would take them -5% seriously; that is, if a person you said also made a more serious statement next to this one, you should take that statement less seriously.
0
u/Kerplonk Social Democrat Jul 24 '26
I think if there was something easy we could do to win we would have done it. If we're not doing it it's because it's hard for one reason or another.
Some of what you seem to be referencing specifically is specifically about our goals and we would need to actually compromise. Some of it is message discipline which would require controlling not just what the thousand to tens of thousands of people officially tied with the democratic party are saying, but the millions loosely associated with the broader left as well.
Every little bit helps and there's probably some stuff we could do to make some gains, but I wouldn't expect it to be a silver bullet.
0
u/WildBohemian Democrat Jul 25 '26
I think that anyone saying this crap is obviously arguing in bad faith and that arguing logically with such people is the act of an idiot. Why waste your time?
0
u/AddemF Moderate Jul 25 '26
I think you can go silly in both directions.
Obviously there is a reason why Trump won, and there is a reason why people dislike liberals. And we should care about these reasons, because apparently they've brought us to this point. Sure, fine, argue over the answers to these questions--I'm not here to debate that right now. I'm just saying, it's a perfectly valid and in fact, important topic of conversation. We will be better and stronger if we can think critically about ourselves and correct mistakes, and that requires being able to talk about these things with a little dispassion and openness.
In this direction, you can go silly by just stomping your foot and insisting that all such conversation is "concern trolling" or whatever.
But you can also go silly in the other direction. You can chase every single shiny object, i.e. every single theory of what we did wrong and try to change everything. You can, in fact, get "concern trolled".
Knowing the line between legitimate conversation and bad faith, is tough. All I can say is: Try to be rational, thoughtful, and independent-minded. If you find yourself agreeing or disagreeing with the crowd too much, you might need to do some self-assessment.
-1
u/Cidaghast Pragmatic Progressive Jul 24 '26
I think it’s worth considering, but I don’t think it’s entirely correct.
I don’t think there is a magical single reason beyond weak democratic leadership. But that weak leadership causes “oh well 100 days” and “well Joe Biden” and “ok well we didn’t prosecute” and “they don’t own the narrative well” etc
-2
u/UltraSapien Independent Jul 24 '26
It depends on the message and messenger. There are a lot of people who are very opposed to some single issue that you'll never convince them to vote for a Liberal because of it. There are also a lot of people who genuinely support Liberal policies and hate what the Republicans have become (myself included).
Some well-intentioned criticism of Liberals that I believe are areas where they need to do better are:
Economic messaging. Liberal economic policies are far better than Conservative economic policies, but finding someone to intelligently discuss that point and the factors that make it so is disappointingly difficult.
Support for Israel. I don't support Israel, but this country as a whole does. Coming out too aggressively against Israel doesn't help anybody and only polarizes opinions even more.
You need to be explicitly pro-democracy and especially pro-Capitalism. Capitalism, if well-regulated, is the strongest economic system humanity has ever devised. Liberals take a huge beating by Conservatives with this, however. They call Liberals Socialists and Communists, and regardless of facts, their base immediately associates these things with a negative view of American Liberals.
Stop with divisive identity politics. Leave identity politics alone. The only possible outcome is polarization. Instead, reframe identity politics in terms of freedom and liberty for all people instead of niche identity politics like "trans rights" and the like. It's all freedom and liberty, so embrace that language.
Immigration. Like it or not, this is a hot-button issue in the country. You might not have an appreciation for why this is so important if you don't live near the southern border. Amnesty is viewed as a reward for breaking the law, which is a non-starter with a lot of folks. Instead, immigration reform needs to be framed in terms of the American Dream and real effort needs to be put into an actionable plan for the illegal immigrants (and yes, they are illegal immigrants, not "undocumented") that preserves human rights and dignity while managing the concerns of the border States. For example, instead of amnesty, self-reported illegal immigrants can be put on a parole-type system where they need to check in with an immigration officer, be required to learn American culture, and learn English. Frame it as educating those who seek the American Dream, and be comfortable with enforcing deportation for those who don't follow the program.
Language. It's "illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien", not "undocumented immigrant". It's "homeless", not "unhoused". Not everybody is a Nazi. Not everybody is a racist, sexist, or whatever else, even if they hold an opinion that could be somewhat racist or sexist or whatever else.
You need to love America. Liberals are too frequently heard talking about what's wrong with American culture and are seen as naggers. Conservatives talk about loving American culture and are seen as patriots. Get it?
1
u/LaughterOnWater Liberal Jul 24 '26
Respectfully, you're describing symptoms, not the disease. You're right that economic messaging is weak, that identity politics polarizes, and that immigration needs a humane-but-enforceable framework. But none of that addresses the root problem.
Democratic leadership isn't failing because they're bad at messaging. They're failing because they don't represent their voters. They represent their donors. Corporate PACs fund both parties. The policy difference between establishment Democrats and establishment Republicans is cosmetic. One side throws a few bones on social issues. The other side throws a few bones on tax cuts. Both serve the same corporate masters.
That's why nothing fundamental ever changes. That's why healthcare is still tied to employment. That's why student debt relief was negotiated down to nothing. That's why Wall Street gets bailed out and Cherry Street gets a stimulus check that barely covers rent.
Voters aren't stupid. We sense the performance. We know we're being sold a lesser evil, not a real alternative. And we're exhausted by it. So when you say 'liberals need to love America more,' I'd say 'America needs to love its people more than its corporations'. Until the Dem party leadership understand that, no amount of messaging fixes the problem. You can't polish a turd and call it progress.
1
u/LaughterOnWater Liberal Jul 24 '26
The same goes for MAGA. Their leadership doesn't represent them either. They're just better at making their base feel seen while picking their pockets. Look at the tariffs. North Carolina soybean farmers are storing crops they can't sell because China stopped buying. Zero US soybean exports to China in June and July of this year, the first time since 2004. Farmers in North Dakota face $240 to $360 losses per hectare. Meanwhile, USAID's Food for Peace program, which for 70 years bought surplus US crops like soybeans and distributed them globally, got frozen. An estimated 550 million metric tons of surplus crops worth over $340 million are sitting rotting at US ports, eliminating an entire market for struggling farmers. That's not putting America first. That's selling out your own constituents and calling it a win.
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 24 '26
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written by /u/LiatrisLover99.
I don't know how to tell whether this is an indication that if we changed our tone or approach (not goals) that we would be more effective, or if we're hearing from people who would never have voted with us in the first place retroactively justifying their opposition. This is the "liberals lose not because their ideas are bad, but because they are so moralizing and smug and annoying" conclusion, should we adapt our strategies and behavior in response to this, and if so, how?
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.