I didn't say that. I said you're previewing the sixth cycle of believing that "Trump was giving us the artillery we needed" to beat the GOP by default. I'm saying that the party's standing after five cycles of that bargain is emaciated to the point of paralysis.
It's worked better when he was in office (2018, 2020), when the damage he was/is doing was not merely abstract or theoretical, than when he wasn't (2016, 2024).
So it might work better in 2026/28. But after that we're going to need a new strategy. And offering voters something to positively vote for and not just "we're not them" would be nice, especially in the presidential race.
I would argue in 2028, the Democratic Party should try to move away from depending on Trump and focus more on the true reasons why Democrats should be voted for.
Trump, frankly, has taken the oxygen out of the debate too much to the degree where it's been about Trump this, Trump that and not enough discussion about income inequality, housing costs, complicated job markets for centennials and millennials, etc.
you are trying to rebut an argument I never made; and you were the one who talked about the 6 election cycles, not me; but you make a statement at the end of your post that I think is simply wrong; I think it's almost a given that the Democratic party wins back the House in 2026(and I won't argue any farther than that for now)
-2018 had good results (even if we did still lose Senate seats in very red states).
-2020 had good results.
-2022 had at worst neutral results, which I'd call a win in a midterm of an unpopular Democratic President.
-2024 had bad results.
Granted, I do think the Democratic Party should cultivate a positive message and not only rely on being "not Trump", but to point to the aftermath of the latest election and imply that it shows that the strategy has consistently failed is grossly misleading.
Quibbling modestly with your numbers, I wouldn't say 2020 had "good results" with Democrats losing 15 House seats. Certainly compared to the expectations going into election night 2020--where we were confident that Dems would be positioned to dominate redistricting after our high-single-digit national landslide--I'd say it fell far short of "good results".
The strategy has failed in two ways. First, we continually overestimate voters' judgment on rejecting a monster if he's pointed out to them. Over and over and over, we convince ourselves that people are decent enough to first recognize and then censure one of the worst human beings to ever aspire to the Presidency.....or that maybe they haven't recognized it so far but they will starting....now! Counting on this to happen for the sixth consecutive time sets us up for the sixth consecutive disappointment.
And with Trump and Musk taking a wrecking ball to civilization in real time as we have this debate, the Democrats track record of winning some races that never mattered in the Trump era is completely irrelevant. Sure, Democrats had a good generic ballot in 2018, but since it wasn't enough to stop Trump from expanding the Supreme Court supermajority, it was a net loss that led us to the armageddon we're living through today. And sure, backlash to the Dobbs ruling helped Democrats win some races they expected to lose in the 2022 midterms, but since they couldn't translate that momentum into a win in the cycle that counted two years later, 2022 was nothing more than a short-term dopamine hit on the road to perdition.
With that in mind, I stand by my position. Counting on the electorate to punish Trump in a meaningful way for the sixth consecutive cycle will almost certainly be too little too late just as it was in 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2024. Democrats haven't made this sale yet and I have no reason to believe that they'll be any better at it next time.
2026 will be the sixth consecutive election cycle where that's been the Democratic strategy.
And the Democratic party won more than they lost
They did? Based on where the Democratic Party sits on February 6, 2025, I'm not seeing much evidence of a lot of winning that's been going on.
you said 6 cycles; not 1
I didn't say that. I said you're previewing the sixth cycle of believing that "Trump was giving us the artillery we needed" to beat the GOP by default. I'm saying that the party's standing after five cycles of that bargain is emaciated to the point of paralysis.
It's worked better when he was in office (2018, 2020), when the damage he was/is doing was not merely abstract or theoretical, than when he wasn't (2016, 2024).
So it might work better in 2026/28. But after that we're going to need a new strategy. And offering voters something to positively vote for and not just "we're not them" would be nice, especially in the presidential race.
I think the strategy will work perfectly for 2026; agree with you about 2028
I would argue in 2028, the Democratic Party should try to move away from depending on Trump and focus more on the true reasons why Democrats should be voted for.
Trump, frankly, has taken the oxygen out of the debate too much to the degree where it's been about Trump this, Trump that and not enough discussion about income inequality, housing costs, complicated job markets for centennials and millennials, etc.
you are trying to rebut an argument I never made; and you were the one who talked about the 6 election cycles, not me; but you make a statement at the end of your post that I think is simply wrong; I think it's almost a given that the Democratic party wins back the House in 2026(and I won't argue any farther than that for now)
And of those previous five cycles-
-2016 had bad results.
-2018 had good results (even if we did still lose Senate seats in very red states).
-2020 had good results.
-2022 had at worst neutral results, which I'd call a win in a midterm of an unpopular Democratic President.
-2024 had bad results.
Granted, I do think the Democratic Party should cultivate a positive message and not only rely on being "not Trump", but to point to the aftermath of the latest election and imply that it shows that the strategy has consistently failed is grossly misleading.
Quibbling modestly with your numbers, I wouldn't say 2020 had "good results" with Democrats losing 15 House seats. Certainly compared to the expectations going into election night 2020--where we were confident that Dems would be positioned to dominate redistricting after our high-single-digit national landslide--I'd say it fell far short of "good results".
The strategy has failed in two ways. First, we continually overestimate voters' judgment on rejecting a monster if he's pointed out to them. Over and over and over, we convince ourselves that people are decent enough to first recognize and then censure one of the worst human beings to ever aspire to the Presidency.....or that maybe they haven't recognized it so far but they will starting....now! Counting on this to happen for the sixth consecutive time sets us up for the sixth consecutive disappointment.
And with Trump and Musk taking a wrecking ball to civilization in real time as we have this debate, the Democrats track record of winning some races that never mattered in the Trump era is completely irrelevant. Sure, Democrats had a good generic ballot in 2018, but since it wasn't enough to stop Trump from expanding the Supreme Court supermajority, it was a net loss that led us to the armageddon we're living through today. And sure, backlash to the Dobbs ruling helped Democrats win some races they expected to lose in the 2022 midterms, but since they couldn't translate that momentum into a win in the cycle that counted two years later, 2022 was nothing more than a short-term dopamine hit on the road to perdition.
With that in mind, I stand by my position. Counting on the electorate to punish Trump in a meaningful way for the sixth consecutive cycle will almost certainly be too little too late just as it was in 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2024. Democrats haven't made this sale yet and I have no reason to believe that they'll be any better at it next time.