Trump does not offer real solutions, except as a sound bite in passing (to be later ignored). But in the absence of pragmatic policies that voters can get behind, the winner will always be the candidate who offers to tear down the system that has failed the people. Mark my words.

The reality is that sound bites have an intrinsic advantage over real solutions. Real solutions to complex problems are by their nature complex and uncertain (else the problem would've been solved already).

"Immigrants are the problem" or "I will bring prices down on day one" have a fundamental memetic advantage that, in a lazy and unengaged populace, will win in 100% of scenarios.

The real issue here is the GOP not holding themselves accountable to something better than suicidal demagoguery. The opposing party cannot prevent this from being successful. That's why it's a known, fundamental flaw of democracy.

Again: you haven't actually provided any evidence of what the 2016/2024 strategy was, why 2020 was different, etc.

You're doing the far lazier, "ascribe all failures to the thing I do not like, and all successes to the thing I do like." Evidence should be trivial to produce but you cannot.

And yes, a major faction electing a demagogue is a real spot of trouble. It has been known as such literally since the invention of democracy.

It wouldn't be considered a known vulnerability because it's solved by "well just talk about a pragmatic, positive vision for the future!" lmao

The Atlantic summarizes the situation somewhat but with perhaps too much brevity: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/10/democra...

Evidence: I was there, do your own research if you care so much. This isn’t a formal debate, and anyone who has eyes, ears, and a brain can figure it out.

You keep shouting demagogue, demagogue! As if anyone outside of the political class cares. Solve the people’s problems or there will be more (and worse) demagogues. It’s your only option.

We don't disagree that that's my (as someone on the anti-Trump side) only reasonable option.

Where we disagree is your assertion that that is the necessary and sufficient solution.

Those are entirely distinct claims.

People have won elections for a long long time without pragmatic solutions to real problems (case in point: 2024). You have basically zero evidence this is even a relevant point in elections whatsoever.

The actual necessary solution is entirely on the GOP's side. So long as they're in the throes of a cult of personality, then a sufficiently large part of the electorate will be immune to logic.

And yes: this is very bad. It is a deeply inconvenient fact, but the inconvenience of it does not render it less factual.

I don’t know what to tell you if you require research to explain that the intended function of the government is to serve the needs of the people, that this is the right thing to do, and that voters will respond positively if it looks like you will make an honest effort to do this.

It sounds like you would rather claim a lack of agency (it’s all up to the big bad Republicans) rather than even attempt to implement a pragmatic, common sense strategy. And this is why the Democratic Party finds itself rudderless.

I don't know what to tell you if you don't think there's a divergence between what gets people put into power and what role they're supposed to play with that power. Again: we are currently living a live, empirical disproof of your position, as you have already acknowledged.

> It sounds like you would rather claim a lack of agency (it’s all up to the big bad Republicans) rather than even attempt to implement a pragmatic, common sense strategy. And this is why the Democratic Party finds itself rudderless.

Huh? No. It sounds like instead of reading the words in front of you, you're just arguing against the claims you want me to be making.

Harris was a terrible candidate, we don't disagree there.

Again: We disagree in your assertion that pragmatic policies on the oppositional side are all that's required to win against a demagogue.

If that's true, please tell me why demagogues have long been known to be a real vulnerability in democracies?

Answer directly: If that's all that's necessary, then why did the Founding Fathers even bother to write extensively on this problem?

> Again: We disagree in your assertion that pragmatic policies on the oppositional side are all that's required to win against a demagogue.

I never said that this is the only thing you need. You need other things as well, including a modicum of charisma, a good network on the ground, and solid fundraising to support the efforts. And a party that won’t fight its own candidate after the primaries (oh, and you should actually hold a primary).

Demagogues are a problem in every kind of government when the quality of governance declines. You just don’t often hear about it in dictatorships because the demagogues are either killed or they flee to another country. But demagogues are a sort of release valve for public frustration that’s grounded in material reality, and if you suppress their rise long enough then you eventually get a civil war, collapse, or revolution. The only solution is to fix the problems that lead people to seek out radical change.

Anyway, it’s clear we’re talking past each other, I have no desire to continue this thread further.