In particular, that applies to the following excerpts...
Last year’s election was close, despite President Trump’s hyperbolic claims about his margin of victory. Still, the Democratic Party clearly lost — and not only the presidential race. It also lost control of the Senate and failed to recapture the House of Representatives. Of the 11 governor’s races held last year, Democrats won three. In state legislature races, they won fewer than 45 percent of the seats.I don’t have an issue with these facts since, as far as I can tell, they’re not in dispute. However, I would add the following from here...
The Republicans, led by incumbent Speaker Mike Johnson, narrowly maintained control of the House with a small majority of 220 seats (the narrowest since 1930), despite winning the House popular vote by 4 million votes and a margin of 2.6%.[5][6] Democrats made a net gain of 1 seat from the Republicans, which represents the smallest net change in US history in the House of Representatives. The majority was decided by just over 7,000 votes across three congressional districts (Iowa's 1st, Colorado's 8th, and Pennsylvania's 7th) out of nearly 148 million cast in this election;[7] this was a roughly 2-point bias in favor of Democrats, resulting from Democratic outperformance in swing districts. Despite the Democratic overperformance, the results gave Republicans a government trifecta for the first time since the 2018 midterms.Am I arguing that Dems don’t have work to do? Of course not. In my beloved commonwealth of PA, Repugs out-registered new voters by a sizeable margin. I’m not exactly sure what the answer is to that since we can’t outspend the other side. However, there’s more work for sure that we can do when it comes to organizing and keeping the issues that matter front and center to drive turnout (and we’re going to be helped indirectly by all of the Trumpist insanity raging out of control, but we can’t rely on that without doing our own homework, you might say).
With that in mind, I’d like to present this item once more (I know I pointed this out already - sorry to be a bit repetitive, but I think it matters). Dem James Andrew Malone ran on issues that his constituents cared about, Repug Josh Parsons ran on the typical Trumpist playbook, and as a result, Malone won the state senate seat, which hadn’t gone to a Dem in 42 years, which is the length of time that that seat has even existed. So as far as I’m concerned, this doesn’t indicate that MAGA has some magical hold on the voters of this country regardless of their party affiliation.
Oh, and as far as the U.S. Senate is concerned, that indeed will be a tougher nut to crack, you might say, for Dems. A factor in losing the Senate last year was the ridiculous over-spend by the crypto industry to take out primarily Dem Sherrod Brown in Ohio ($40 million in that race alone as noted here), as well as Bob Casey in PA and Jon Tester in Montana as noted here (once more, love and kisses to the High Court of Hangin’ Judge JR for Citizens United).
Returning to the Times Op-Ed, I give you this...
A key part of this argument involves voter turnout. Party leaders claim that most Americans still prefer Democrats but that voter apathy allowed Mr. Trump to win. According to this logic, Democrats do not need to worry about winning back Trump voters and should instead try to animate the country’s natural liberal majority. “I don’t think we’re going to win over those 77 million that voted for Donald Trump,” Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, the party’s 2024 vice-presidential nominee, said this month. “I’m concerned with the 90 million who stayed home.” It was an unfortunate echo of Hillary Clinton saying that millions of Trump voters were “deplorables” and “irredeemable.”Did you catch that? According to the Times, Tim Walz’s acknowledgement of numerical political reality smacks of “elitism” somehow. It should be noted from here, however, that the popular vote margin of victory for Generalissimo Trump was about 2.5 million nationwide, so I don’t see where Walz’s comment was off the mark (if, say, two-thirds of those 90 million turn out between both candidates, I have a felling we’d be in a very different – and much better - circumstance with President Harris and Vice President Walz). Oh, and failing to acknowledge those who didn’t vote absolves the Times of its role in DOING EVERYTHING IN ITS POWER TO DUMP ON BIDEN AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY, WHICH DEFINITELY PLAYED A ROLE IN DEPRESSING TURNOUT LAST YEAR ALSO.
And with that in mind, given last year’s results, guess what the number one takeaway is for the Dems according to the Times?
To regain voters’ trust, Democrats should take at least three steps. ... First, they should admit that their party mishandled Mr. Biden’s age.Oh, go f*ck all the way off!
This is an absolutely typical response from the Times, which, as noted here, fixated on Biden’s age versus Trump’s even though only 3 years separated the two of them (and call me crazy, but I don’t recall any stories about #47’s age after Kamala Harris took over for Biden). I’ve read that the Times went out of its way to pick fights with Biden on this because his administration didn’t give them the “access” they wanted to people in Biden’s administration, which is a typically jaded and shortsighted attitude (here).
Were the optics terrible for Biden in that debate last year? Yes. Did he need to drop out? Probably.
However, what do you think would have happened if the roles were reversed (Biden came out firing on all cylinders and Trump had stumbled around looking confused)? I’ll tell you – Trump and his lackeys would have screamed about “liberal bias” for-freaking-ever and defended their guy, that’s what! And the Times would have acted like it was another day with a “y” in it.
The editorial also chides the Democrats on the issue of “gender-affirming care for prisoners.” What a shame that the editorial board didn’t follow reporting of their own newspaper; if they had, they would have learned that such care took place under Trump’s first term as noted here. There’s also some noise in today’s Op-Ed about Dems “(remaining) too focused on personal identity and on Americans’ differences — by race, gender, sexuality and religion — rather than our shared values.” If that’s indeed true, it’s only to defend individuals who are under attack from the “party of Lincoln” on the basis of those characteristics (and God only knows what the paper means by the Dems not recognizing “shared values,” though I’m sure the Times will have no trouble getting a quote from Jared Golden or Marie Gluesenkamp Perez complaining about “coastal elites” again to buttress such an idiotic claim).
Again, do the Dems have a lot of work to do with policy and messaging? Yes (and based on some quotes I’m hearing from new DNC head Ken Martin, I think he realizes that – I hope so anyway). But paying heed to the opining from a bunch of well-heeled media types as opposed to gathering the data on key issues and crafting messaging and policy to drive turnout is definitely not the way forward.
Basically, with “friends” like the New York Times editorial board, the Democrats definitely don’t need enemies.