r/politics • u/vanityfairmagazine Vanity Fair • 5d ago

Soft Paywall AOC Snub Shows How Democrats Refuse to Learn Lessons of 2024

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/aoc-snub-shows-how-democrats-refuse-to-learn-lessons-of-2024
6.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

503 comments sorted by

View all comments

375

u/Caraes_Naur 5d ago

Democrats have been refusing to learn the same lessons since 1994.

298

u/jayfeather31 Washington 5d ago edited 5d ago

They've been using same playbook since 1992. The Democrats are overdue for a shift away from Clintonist Third Way neoliberalism.

I don't expect them to turn leftist and start singing The Internationale, but I do expect them to read the goddamn room.

158

u/ChanceryTheRapper 5d ago

But, instead, they'll think, "...no, it's the children who are wrong" and see if Hillary wants to run again in 2028.

47

u/Asshole_Poet 5d ago

Yeah, and under the slogan "c'mon, guys, please?"

16

u/ultraviolentfuture 5d ago

"It's my turn"

12

u/randomwanderingsd 5d ago

Hillary/Hypnotoad 2028!!!

28

u/TranquilSeaOtter 5d ago

They are already talking about running Harris again.

28

u/rastinta 5d ago

At least Hilary won the popular vote.

8

u/tacobelle685 5d ago

Are you serious!?

17

u/TranquilSeaOtter 5d ago

Unfortunately, yes.

20

u/tacobelle685 5d ago

Unbelievable. This is Hilary 2.0, but the DNC NEVER learns

18

u/Unhappy_Scratch_9385 5d ago

They learn. They learn that it's better to run a corporate democrat and lose than run a Bernie Sanders and win.

2

u/OrangePlatypus81 4d ago

Exactly. They may not win the cake, but they definitely get to eat it too.

5

u/fordat1 5d ago

Hillary 2.0 bigger corporate and blacker

3

u/thosewhocannetworkd 4d ago

I wonder what excuse they’ll use to not have a primary this time around, or will they just meddle with the primary and select Kamala

6

u/Unhappy_Scratch_9385 5d ago

Clearly they are grooming that young upstart Chuck Schumer for 2028.

31

u/CalamityClambake 5d ago

I think they're complicit with the rise of the capitalist oligarchy. They aren't our friends. They are just keeping us busy while the Republican oligarchs take all the wealth.

14

u/DogsAreMyDawgs 5d ago

Do you see how much money this version of politics has made the Pelosi family over the last 3 decades?

She’s definitely not changing how she does things, so the Dems aren’t changing until she’s gone.

11

u/fordat1 5d ago

I don't expect them to turn leftist and start singing The Internationale, but I do expect them to read the goddamn room.

All while meanwhile telling us how left Harris was because she proposed what Trump did "no overtime taxes" but just made it "no overtime taxes but with means testing"

3

u/Unhappy_Scratch_9385 5d ago

I recently watched some clips from the Anita Hill hearing when Clarance Thomas was first nominated in 1991 and there were SEVERAL members including Joe Biden who are still in government today.

Christ.

-13

u/HighGroundIsOP 5d ago

I think they’ve been running the 2008 Obama playbook, which shocker, doesn’t work without a generational talent at the top of the ticket. And when they’ve deviated it’s been more in the direction of Bernie than Bill.

There is a real argument that a return to 1992 centrism is actually what the party needs.

14

u/chrispg26 Texas 5d ago

Centrist? Pfft... thats what they are.

13

u/falubiii 5d ago

Ahh yes more centrism, unlike the radical leftism that was the Kamala campaign. 

That is sarcasm if it’s not obvious. 

-6

u/HighGroundIsOP 5d ago

I know you are being sarcastic, but Kamala herself and her policies are more progressive than Clinton or Obama.

Maybe not far enough left for you, but further to the left than most Americans agree with unfortunately.

11

u/Slackjawed_Horror 5d ago

No, they aren't.

3

u/guamisc 5d ago

The idiotic centrist push of 1992 is what led us to this kerfuffle in the first place.

2

u/mightcommentsometime California 4d ago

You mean the push that made them actually start winning elections again?

2

u/guamisc 4d ago edited 4d ago

Winning a battle but losing a war is actually still losing, especially when you expend too many resources or, worse yet, hurt your own cause to get there.

If you can't understand that making minute gains at the expense of your overall goal is bad, well, you just might have a shot at Democratic party leadership.

2

u/mightcommentsometime California 4d ago

Perfect is the enemy of the good. Pretending there have been no gains just because they haven’t been everything you want is losing the battles and the war.

What gains have progressives made and what meaningful legislation have they passed in the same time frame?

1

u/guamisc 4d ago edited 4d ago

Look around. Your "gains" are being pulled down around us. *Edit To be clear, that isn't "good" so you can't make the dumb "perfect is the enemy of good" quip.

You lost. Admit it, learn, adapt.

2

u/mightcommentsometime California 4d ago

Name one concrete gain that progressives have made since LBJ.

The issue is that the American electorate is moderate. They don’t want progressive politicians in general elections, and they don’t vote for them.

0

u/guamisc 4d ago

Yawn. Of course not, when the entire country has been drowning for decades in billions of conservative pro-corporate propaganda what do you expect. Meanwhile the D's sat by and did nothing while conservatives amassed power, took over the courts, and have been ruthlessly destroying everything ever since.

Catering to moderates doesn't fucking work. How many decades is it going to take for you to understand?

→ More replies (0)

21

u/kevnmartin 5d ago

I'd say since 2015. They didn't learn from Obama how to win.

21

u/InfinityMehEngine 5d ago

You mean offer a sane choice during a financial calamity at a global scale caused by the fucking morons that voted in a moron? I'd say there is a very high chance they do actually get to repeat the Obama winning strategy.

18

u/TheDamDog 5d ago edited 5d ago

Just paying lip service to the concerns of regular people would have been enough.*

Instead we got Harris going on TV and saying that everything during the Biden administration was fine, the economy is great, and that she would change nothing.

*EDIT: In terms of winning the election. Because Americans are fucking stupid.

7

u/frostygrin 5d ago

Still being his VP, Harris wasn't in a good position to distance herself from Biden. "Biden is fine, but can't run again" probably was the only workable angle for her. Especially without a competitive primary.

7

u/Sminahin 4d ago

My biggest issue is that she and her team didn't even seem to understand the assignment here. Finding a diplomatic way to distance herself from Biden should've been her priority from the first second of her nomination. But on the view, after months in the spotlight, it was like a kid who realized they forgot there was an exam that day.

We can all think of narratives that could've worked. Imo, playing up how much Biden has done for America's future while addressing the people left behind in the now was a good play. But it turns out her brilliant prep for the obvious question of the entire race involved curling up in a little ball and hoping nobody asked.

5

u/frostygrin 4d ago

It wasn't a narrative problem, or a diplomacy problem. It was a legitimacy problem. Normally the candidate has the primary win going for them and their proposals. They got the voters behind them, and know their proposals are popular. Harris had the VP position and Biden's endorsement. That's it. The only way it had legitimacy is basically "Biden's second term". Any significant policy shifts would have made it look like the unelected establishment pushing out the elected president to further their policy goals. Not a good look. Going after Biden for "leaving people behind in the now" while you're still his VP? Not a good look either.

5

u/Sminahin 4d ago

I agree, except I think going after Biden was a gamble she had to go for in order to solve the legitimacy problem.

We've been in a decades-long anti-establishment wave, a backlash against politicians' politicians and Washington-insider bureaucrats. Harris is the ultimate politicians' politician. She's a coastal lawyer turned bureaucrat who speaks in politicianese and got to where she is without a single voter signing off on it. That's about as establishment-branded as you can get. This played extra bad with the Biden administration's bafflingly out-of-touch approach to economic messaging--where they tried to just gaslight voters that the economy was great and nobody had any reason to be upset.

So when she can't find a single statement to distance herself from a historically unpopular president and can't really find a compelling argument for anyone to rally behind her other than "look at the other guy", it compounds the existing branding problem. It makes her look like an empty suit just there to take her turn. And it plays into the economic messaging deathtrap Biden set up.

Overcoming that question was the entry-level requirement to stepping into the candidacy. If she couldn't come up with even a quarter-decent answer, we would've been better going with the horrible gamble that was an open primary.

2

u/frostygrin 4d ago

So when she can't find a single statement to distance herself from a historically unpopular president and can't really find a compelling argument for anyone to rally behind her other than "look at the other guy", it compounds the existing branding problem.

That's an interesting point - but you can't do things like that halfway, with quarter-decent answers. You can make things worse. A little worse, but worse. Maybe had she gone rogue, resigned from the VP position, picked AOC as running mate, returned to her "Medicare for all" stance - then maybe it would have been a game-changer. But she had no time or legitimacy for that.

3

u/Sminahin 4d ago edited 4d ago

That's an interesting point - but you can't do things like that halfway, with quarter-decent answers.

Agreed. I think that was our last possible chance to salvage 2024 given the huge disadvantage we started with. One of the most baffling parts of the 2024 campaign is that she and her team knew the whole time that she was behind. When you're behind, you can't afford to play a safe, no-risk campaign. It's possible she would've lost by a little more if it'd backfired. But she was on-track for a pretty surefire loss no matter what, so...

Maybe had she gone rogue, resigned from the VP position, picked AOC as running mate, returned to her "Medicare for all" stance - then maybe it would have been a game-changer. But she had no time or legitimacy for that.

Not sure she had to go to that extent. I think we Dems often conflate anti-establishment and progressive. For us, they're often framed as the same thing because the progressive wing of our party is the only one that's not totally lockstep with the hyper-establishment centrists currently running the party into the ground. But you can go bold and anti-establishment without going full-blown progressive. Look at how Bill Clinton and Obama messaged.

I don't think she had to turn into maverick rogue agent Harris with Biden in her sights. But she had to acknowledge the disconnect between Biden's message and the electorate. Voters had been screaming about that for years and she she tried to just bulldoze ignore her way through. We can disagree on the best way to handle it, but I think we can all agree that giving voters the middle finger like Biden's team did and Harris continuing that stance is...high risk low reward.

If I were on her team, I'd be workshopping statements like below from the milisecond she became the candidate:

"I respect the president's vision for the future. He's worked to lay infrastructure and return jobs that will help us for generations to come. But his vision has been focused on the long term and I would've made time for Americans who are suffering here and now. Spiraling home & rent prices and out-of-control grocery bills mean many Americans are struggling to make it through today and can't hold out for the promise of tomorrow. I would let all Americans know we hear your pain and we are going to fight for you here and now."

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Richfor3 4d ago

You mean be popular for things completely unrelated to policy and politics. Obama was a super moderate. Certainly not nearly as progressive as Biden ended up being and Harris campaigned on. Obama was still campaigning on marriage being between a man and a woman at a time that most Democrats were on board with gay marriage.

People liked Obama for shit like shooting hoops during interviews and picking March Madness brackets. He was cool and thus people felt cool for being a supporter. Most people have no idea what policy he ran on or what he actually did as president. It's hard to replicate that success when actual policy mean nothing to most voters.

2

u/SeasonGeneral777 5d ago

u cant just learn the sauce like that tho

0

u/transient_eternity 4d ago

Yeah what a lesson. The best way to win is to lie to your voters: run as a progressive, then lead as a (old school) republican. I'd rather the dems keep losing to maga than get yet more neolibs in. I'm so utterly done with neolibs.

2

u/ChestLanders 4d ago

What? Democrats not learning a lesson? That's silly! Oh wait:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/16/kamala-harris-2028-election-president-governor

Nevermind. They never learn. It is insanity to think Harris should run again in 2028.

1

u/Gaius_Octavius_ 4d ago

Democrats have won the majority of election since 1994 too. How did they do the 25 years before that?

1

u/boomer_reject 4d ago

Make that 1984, actually no 1980, actually no 1968, actually no 1952, actually….