There's a faction of DU that seems to delight in pointing and laughing at those of us who believed. . .

[UniqueUserName]

. . .the campaign message that democracy was on the line.

Whenever anyone here expresses confusion over the Democratic leadership messaging post-election, some prolific posters here intimate that those of who believed the campaign are/were hopeless rubes. Also, we have to stop crying and prepare for the next election.

My brother-in-law pointed out that in a conversation, there are often two things that can happen to a participant's psyche. You risk being called/seen a fool or you risk being thought of as an asshole (a person who comes into a conversation not with the intent of exchanging ideas, but intends on using the person, or otherwise making the other person feel stupid).

I don't mind if any of you think I'm a fool. (I don't know you enough to care of your opinion of me.)

I freely admit that I believed the campaign message. Democracy is on the line. It may be our last honestly counted vote. The incoming administration will not only make life difficult for minorities but will probably do heinous acts against minorities to include: internment, deportation --which might include legal immigrants, torture. All social programs are on the line and will probably be scaled back or cut completely. Corporations will be able to pollute at will. ---Well, you get the picture.

They presented actual statements from the opposition to support these positions. Even now, I am not entirely convinced that it was all a con. Some DUers are certainly implying it was a con and that there is no reason to believe that free elections are over. The observations supporting the campaign rhetoric include actual opposition statements, and the choices of who would be key players in the incoming administration (Stephen Miller, aka The Child Seperator, the other guy intent on rounding up migrants, etc.).

My post is one of many that have danced around this. Most other posts have had more focused messages about one or two of the issues. Ultimately, my displeasure is being played by my leaders in the same way a confidence man plays his marks. That is what I haven't heard addressed by the ones pointing and laughing.

If you think that conning people into voting for Democrats via fear was an effective strategy this election, I would beg to differ. You were able to get me to invest more than I would have this time, but what about next? That is what those of us who are confused are saying. Yes, I believed you. Shame on you for lying. No, I won't believe you next time, Shame on me if I'm conned again.

[Lunabell]

1. Will there even be a next election?

I'm not sure of it now.

[onecaliberal]

2. Yup. And their silence now, tells me it's spot on.

They know democracy is over but they are doing NOTHING. Including allowing clowns who can’t pass background checks to run government agencies.

[sop]

3. Well said.

[Orrex]

4. The most important thing is that no one disparage Garland

He’ll sort this out any day now.


Any day.

[Think. Again.]

10. It's true, he's working on it very secretly.

The doj doesn't leak, ya know.

[BootinUp]

13. I just came across a thread you might

Find useful?

It’s in in several parts and still a work in progress. There is a factual account of the DOJ investigation.

If you can use the embedded link to get to original page you can read the whole thread in your browser. Any Problems, let me know. You could also try to find the original material he referenced from Mueller She Wrote.

[Orrex]

14. Yeah, I've seen that and others just like it.

Still working on a more in-depth response, but a few quick notes:

1. Republicans seem miraculously able to get this shit done when Democrats are in power, so notwithstanding the defensive maneuvers by Trump's lackeys, it would have been refreshing to see Democrats get this shit done while they were in power, especially given the literally unprecedented stakes and the very real possibility that this was the literal last chance to save the nation

2. There's no way that Garland didn't know that this was the field he was playing on, so you'd think that the Attorney General of the United States of America would have some resources at his disposal to deal with people bent on obstructing justice

3. It's amazing that the whole thing proceeded at glacial pace, culminating just in time for Smith to pull the plug shortly before Trump is sworn in. I'm not suggested that Garland et al delayed the process with this in mind, but if they had delayed it with this in mind, what would be different?

4. My criticism of Garland, along with the criticism by every frustrated member of DU, has absolutely nothing to do with the GOP sweeping the Congress and White House. If I had that kind of power to effect change, you can be damn sure that I'd use it

5. The day to day issue is less that I've been frustrated with Garland's seeming lethargy than that his cheerleaders have been relentless in their smug, sanctimonious attacks upon fellow DUers. I'm sorry that they found such complaints tiresome, and I truly wish that some mechanism existed whereby they could, oh I don't know, Ignore threads and topics that they don't want to see

[BootinUp]

16. Just a couple of quick thoughts

I think after seeing the election results along with all the other data now, and factoring in everything we know, that this year we were facing a huge and perhaps insurmountable obstacle.

On the other hand, I have also learned / decided that we are, our own worst enemy.

As for Garland and the DOJ, the criticism you and others employ is so weakly based in nothing but your gut. Truly worthless imho. Now if someone with justice department experience lays out a stronger based criticism it would be worth a read, but it still would not makes sense to attack the Biden admin with it when they were running for reelection!

[Orrex]

19. And the cheerleaders' faith was/is based on nothing but sycophancy. Less than worthless.

But they imagine that it gives them standing to mock others, when by all available evidence they have no greater wisdom or insight.

And, for the record, I've seen vanishingly few posts attacking the Biden administration as a whole for Garland's failure, no matter how you want to rationalize that failure.

What's even more curious is that the cheerleaders have been remarkably silent when prominent figures with access to inside information echo the doubts expressed here. That is, when a DUer voiced disappointment in Garland, the cheerleaders pounced. But when Biden, for instance, revealed that same disappointment for the same reason, not a peep from the cheerleaders. It's almost as if their whole purpose is to mock DUers rather than addressing the actual issue.

By the way, that "own worst enemy" shtick is gaslighting bullshit, and it's adorably naive that you imagine it to be anything else.

And as for my gut? My criticism is based on the result of a four year slog, and that result is a big stinking zero. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. But a bunch of anonymous cultists receiving generally minor sentences for which they'll soon be pardoned anyway? Zero.


When the country is in flames, metaphorical or otherwise, the excuses for Garland's failure will offer little consolation.

But I'm sure that they'll keep the cheerleaders feeling righteous about themselves.

[BootinUp]

20. That was Biden being forced to defend himself from his own party's criticism! Enuf Cya lol.

[Ilikepurple]

27. " On the other hand, I have also learned / decided that we are, our own worst enemy." Which is it?

Learned or decided? At least we know who to attack before the next election cycle. Does this sort of argumentation actually serve a truth seek8ng rather than rhetorical function? “ As for Garland and the DOJ, the criticism you and others employ is so weakly based in nothing but your gut. Truly worthless imho.” This a weird way to say not only is the DOJ and a garland beyond reproach, but also the burden of proof lies with those who recognize a failure, not those who have failed. I’m not saying it’s Garland's fault but like almost any situation where one comes up short of one’s goals, revisiting why may be of service. This is a complex issue and to treat it otherwise only makes sense if you’re omniscient or have insider knowledge. I never thought I’d see such a large contingent emotionally set on defending an AG, whether effective or not. I’m guessing it’s institutionalism that you and others feel is more at stake. If so, maybe that should be your focus.

[BootinUp]

29. I plainly called for a knowledge based criticism, the only part you ignored. SIGH!! nt

[Ilikepurple]

33. That's one loud sigh. I just be really thick.

You missed the point. You have not argued that your position is the default position that is unassailable without insider knowledge. I didn’t ignore it as you have demanded nothing of the sort to establish your position. We can speculate without our opinions being worthless and our ideas being the biggest enemies our party faces. If you want people to take account of your entire argument, try to be more coherent and less hyperbolic. There are experts all over the place on this and many issues. I for one like to see people to continue to discuss this and other matters even if the discussions are largely fruitless. I guess I might be missing the point in most of these posts. Perhaps we’re just arguing for our points like adversarial family members at a holiday dinner where the most important point is who wins. I was hoping it was more about getting closer to the truth. I’m mainly a proponent of dialing back the hidden personal attacks disguised as criticism. We don’t have to be enemies, let alone worst ones, if we disagree. Our opinions aren’t worthless even if incorrect. Big tent doesn’t make sense if we fill it full of small tents.
That being said, I liked your holiday humor posts, so I’m guessing we have common ground more places than we know.

[BootinUp]

34. Yes, yes, but about your's and everyone's desire to get closer to the truth

what if that is neither possible (due to the fact we are not in the DOJ) nor helpful to keep bringing up? (like in the middle of a campaign).

[Ilikepurple]

36. I wasn't aware the campaign was still going.

Also, I really don’t think Garland’s present approval rating will be all that important to future elections. We can keep pressing and may get more info. I’m okay even if that info shows that to a great degree Garland’s hands were tied.

[BootinUp]

38. Obtuse silliness instead of discussing the Point I was making. Whatever. I'll leave you with this article

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-situation--in-defense-of-merrick-garland

[Ilikepurple]

41. Obtuse? Silliness? "(like in the middle of a campaign)"

This article isn’t the Mike drop you think it is.
“Like Comey, Garland is a longtime personal friend—so maybe I’m just being defensive. But as with Comey, I find myself dissenting from what is fast becoming conventional wisdom.” “ It’s not that I think Garland’s caution was the correct posture.” “ But color me highly skeptical that this would have made any difference.”

First of all the author even states he dissents from what is fast becoming conventional wisdom. I’m not saying that those opinions are correct either, but they aren’t worthless.
What I get out of the article is that DOJ couldn’t have gotten Trump to trial before the election even if it acted with less caution. This may be true, but is ultimately not really a defense of DOJ’s choice of action rather its culpability in Trump’s subsequent election. The article does not attempt to analyze what may have happened if they went from the middle up rather than bottom up or top down. A few flips, or convictions of Trump’s “lieutenants” might have swung a few percentage points or at least served as a cautionary tale amongst his enablers. The problem with strongly held positions in absence of much fact is that we can conveniently ignore alternate scenarios to make our arguments strongest. We don’t really know now and it’s kinda pointless to talk about except we might find ourselves in this position again.
Also, I did discuss the point you made by saying continued pressure may get more info and that it’s not really unhelpful because I believe discussing Garland’s possible failings will not negatively impact future elections. I may have been wrong on both accounts, but I did discuss your points in a manner that I don’t think was obtuse or silly, although I’ve been known to be both.

[BootinUp]

5. Is there? Or, maybe is it just possible

that there could be a misunderstanding.

My suggestion to anyone right now is before you lash out, be sure you understand what it is you feel is offensive. Consider asking again for the poster to explain the post.

[Solly Mack]

6. I firmly believe our democracy is on the line.

I also think the erosion of our democracy began before Trump. Trump has presented those who have long attacked our democracy with an opportunity for rapid change.

[EarnestPutz]

7. When the repubs complained about the campaign messaging that spoke to "democracy is on the line" that told me.....

......that it was true, and had struck a nerve.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

26. THIS!! 👆

[EarnestPutz]

42. Thanks. I'm surprised they didn't "demand an apology".

[RussBLib]

8. If I could ask...

...what IS the Democratic leadership messaging post-election you reference as you believe it to be?

I admit I have been largely tuned out since the election, and I honestly could not tell you what I believe the post-election messaging to be.

Lastly, who are you including in the Democratic leadership? Harris? Jeffries? Schumer? Others?

[UniqueUserName]

21. The President has agreed to a peaceful transfer of power while the campaign messaged. . .

. . ."THIS IS IT! Democracy or dictatorship? Choose wisely!" Even as he grudgingly agreed to peaceful transfer, I think at least the level of snubbing that Trump did toward change is warranted.

So where is the disconnect? Do you disagree with my characterization of the campaign message?

If you agree that what I've posited is indeed the thrust of the campaign message, then the tone I would expect Biden to take would be much more defiant. I would expect him to accept the count as it is given if he believed it to be accurate. But I would expect him to use his bully pit to at least put a poison pill in gutting SS or Medicare. I mean even a strongly worded, "MARK MY WORDS! The Republicans are coming after YOUR Social Security--the one that YOU have paid in your entire working life."

I would expect to hear a speech that Trump won through lies and deceit, that the public needed to be hypervigilant to protect their rights from the implementation of P2025. I would expect an angry message directed toward Rs given to the public which might even include clips of R Scott saying that all laws and expenditures should have to be re-authorized every 5 years. I'd expect a good common-sense explanation as to why that suggestion is a terrible idea. (I assume you know why it' a terrible idea).

I'd expect a hard warning about what the Rs intend to do to include/ echo the vilant rhetoric that Trump used. Yes, something along the line of P. Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death. . ." -----Was it all just a ballgame? Gee.

What we've got is "No, please don't put Fox in charge. . ." (That's hyperbole. But not by much).

[Prairie Gates]

9. There's a faction that delights in pointing and laughing, period

When 75%+ of a poster's production is about DU itself, that's a massive red flag.

[mzmolly]

11. I haven't witnessed what you claim?

Do you have examples?

I think democratic leadership is regrouping. Trump was willing to lie and cheat his way into office in 2020. So yes, democracy remains in peril. That doesn't mean we're done fighting.

[DavidDvorkin]

15. Same here

Where are those posts?

[UniqueUserName]

22. I believe that would be against DU TOS

I'll give you a "sort of" example.

"I'll be glad when all of these defeatist quit posting."

"It happens every time there's a bad election. I expect this isn't the last time."

I'm not sure how you've missed them unless you've not been following election analysis threads.

[mzmolly]

23. I've not been following the election analysis

threads, admittedly.

[Scrivener7]

28. I haven't seen them either.

[Scubamatt]

12. I for one

believe that democracy was/is on the line. However, the sad reality - which our side seems unable to recognize - is that a large segment of our country is not moved by this message, either because they don't care or because topics about the intricacies of geo-politicial systems make their eyes glaze over. They care about simple things like: the price of eggs; or whehter their kid has to compete against someone of a different gender. We really didn't have any sub or secondary messaging directed to those issues. I say "messaging" because even though the Biden/Harris administration did many great things on these fronts, they didn't trumpet them in a way that got through to the average person who doesn't marinate in politics. Unfortunately, in our system, the side with the better messaging almost always wins and the Cons were ore effective. And please, when I say "better messaging" I do not mean the message itself, I mean how effectively one delivers the message in simple terms that resonate with an audience. I know some on this Board disagree, but I think Harris/Walz should have stuck with "weird" because it was really an effective message characterizing/encapsulating/framing the dude who talked about sharks and Hannibal Lecter and did strange things to microphones.

[Emile]

17. We lost justice this week and losing our democracy

as we speak.

[BootinUp]

24. You have to see this over a broader space of time

the story is not over.

There are people who will join our side as a result.

jmho.

[taxi]

18. This is my belief

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=19759812

A problem with that is the willfully ignorant are willfully ignorant and refuse to learn. Instead, they will think the lesson is that a crooked politician slipped through the cracks and took all of their money and they will be foolish to contribute again. That is, don't contribute again until the R's get their shit together. Then they'll be all in again.

[Crunchy Frog]

25. They'll find out soon enough.

[lees1975]

30. I believed it, and I still believe it. I just wonder how many of those in Congress, or even in the Biden Administration

believed it.

I think we've seen enough to convince us that we very well may have cast our last ballot in a Presidential election. Government will retain most of its structure, and it will go through the motions, but when that man directly incited that insurrection, it made a lot of people take the threat to Democracy seriously.

There are very few people in the Democratic party who seem to, even at this point, be taking that threat seriously. And I find that both disappointing and infuriating, because I put several thousand dollars into this campaign, and over a hundred hours knocking on doors and making phone calls, and I feel cheated, at this point, that Democrats aren't at least looking like they're not lying down and just taking it.

[doc03]

31. The Republicans had the same message, if Democrats won the

Communists would take over. Both parties use the same tired argument every election.. This time
maybe the wolf finally came.

[Blue Full Moon]

37. It's a moot point. They are going to say that

Anyway. So go with universal health care. FDR's 2nd Bill of Rights. Giving the republicans everything they wanted even when they did not bargain in good faith isn't the spirit of bipartisanship. Call them out for actually being socialists. They have socialism for the likes of Musk and cut throat capitalism for families.

[kelly1mm]

32. Nov 4 'He's a FASCIST that will END DEMOCRACY!!' Nov 6 'well guys we gave it the old college try. Got to smooth the

transition ......."

[B.See]

35. Throughout the course of this campaign and way before then

I've been posting articles and op-eds from not only Democrats and factions of the left who supposedly have been 'deliberately misleading people' re the imminent demise of democracy as we know (correction) KNEW it, and 'conning people into voting for Democrats via fear' (allegedly),

but from experts, historians, journalists, and political analysts, both right and left of the spectrum, who've sounded repeated and urgent WARNINGS of how the proposals under Trump's MAGA party, including Project 2025, and their actions with regard to voter suppression, stacking the courts with far right justices, judge shopping, and multi-front so-called "culture wars" against anti MAGA ideology (aka ANYTHING considered "woke" ) have and WILL all contribute to the unraveling and demise of the checks and balances that once gauranteed our democracy.

Hell, one would think, just the notion of a trifecta right winged control of all branches - completely beholden to Trump, including a SCOTUS willing to render him above the law, and a government filled with LOYALISTS, should be alarm enough.

One would think....

NEWSFLASH: The threat is REAL, it has long been planned, it is in the works, and has been. It is NOT a hoax, nor a con job. And I consider it an insult to our intelligence to suggest it as such, given the wealth of evidence to the contrary.

I think those who dismiss (or perhaps refuse to believe) the threat, are just as foolish as those who argued what the Supreme Court wouldn't do (surprise surprise), what Trump's prosecutors and the courts wouldn't do, what cannot happen, etc. etc.

[Cirsium]

39. k and r

You got right to the heart of the matter. Straightforward and honest. Well done.

[lees1975]

40. Trump is an existential threat to democracy because most Americans, and I mean MOST, don't know what Democracy looks

like. Can't explain it, take it for granted, think that institutions in place will always be there and couldn't name a single issue in this election. They have no idea what the legislature does, what's in or not in the Constitution, and how the government operates. Many of those in the government have little clue.

The media never portrayed Trump as such. They sanewashed him, made him look like just a blustery spoiled billionare, not a demented raving lunatic, and so that's what people saw. And he's good at the smooth talk. He sounds patriotic. I'm looking at multiple sources, and I can see it. Most people are inside a media bubble and can't.

It still disturbs me that the power to make sure he never got back to the White House was in the grasp of the Democrats during the first two years of Biden's term. I'm thinking, if they really believed he was an existential threat to Democracy, they would have made Garland move his tail and get those cases into court, to have Trump adjudicated as an insurrectionist to disqualify him. With the evidence Congress presented, it would have been a slam dunk. The other precaution would have been to break the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court. We could have done that too. And that would have said, loud and clear, Donald Trump is an existential threat to democracy and it's worth doing this to make sure we stop him. There'd be no immunity ruling. If they believed he was the threat they said he was, that should have been the first thing they got out of the way.

And I also think they'd be doing more, now, than they are, puttering around, enjoying the last few weeks of the perks of office, accomplishing very little in the way of stopping him.

I sacrificed to give over $2,000 to this campaign, most of it to Harris-Walz. That's a huge amount of money for me, and I did it because I believed Trump was, and is, an existential threat to Democracy.

Maybe that makes me a sucker.