Just when you think the Democrats are actually beginning to understand how they lost the 2024 election, they show you how clueless they are. There were some brief signs of awakening:

‘No doubt there'll be a lot of post-mortem discussion, an autopsy of the results and the campaign if you will,’ Filippo Trevisan, an associate professor at American University's School of Communication, told DW. ‘Did the party do enough to give their base good reason to go out and vote for Kamala Harris? I don’t think they did.’

Trevisan says that Harris tried so hard to win over moderate Republicans or undecided centrist voters that she didn't address core Democratic voter groups enough. As a result, large numbers of young voters, African American men and Latino men shifted over to Donald Trump.

Another Democrat was even more specific:

‘There is a cohort of Americans frustrated at feeling like the middle class is out of reach,’ he said. ‘People vote on feelings, not facts. Geopolitical issues, existential questions about democracy, or identity politics don’t resonate with this cohort. And last night, demonstrated that this is more than half of the country. My recommendation would be to speak less and listen more.’

T. J. Rooney, a former Pennsylvania Democratic Party chairman, said he was feeling that disconnect personally.

‘I’m not sure what it will take to win back working-class voters, but I’m sure it is not to move our party more to the left,’ he said. ‘If that’s the direction the party takes, I will likely find it impossible to identify with.’

Yet Sasha Tirador, a Florida-based progressive consultant took a firm stance on the Democrats’ next steps:

Sasha Tirador, a Florida-based Democratic strategist, said the party needs to take a more hard-line stance on what it believes in. She cited Trump’s unwillingness to back down from his most controversial policies as one of his strengths.

‘Democrats, unfortunately, continue to show weakness time and time again, election cycle after election cycle,’ she said. ‘Democrats don’t understand that a campaign is a knife fight — you don’t show up unarmed. They don’t realize that, and it’s sad.’ 

She would have, for example, had the Department of Justice go after Trump over Jan. 6 much earlier in President Joe Biden’s term, saying its failure to do so undercut the Democratic Party’s message.

‘You can’t tell the American people that this man is a danger to our Democracy, and also sit on your butt for three years and not file charges,’ she said.

Seriously? She wants to cite January 6, which almost no one cares about, as an example for fighting the Republicans? I think Tirador stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the many deluded Democrats.

So, what should the Dems seriously consider?

How about something akin to the Blue Dog Democrats? Where have they gone? And who are they? They still—barely—exist:

The Blue Dog Coalition is an official caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives comprised of fiscally-responsible Democrats, who are leading the way to find commonsense solutions. They are pragmatic Democrats, appealing to the mainstream values of the American public. The Blue Dogs are dedicated to pursuing fiscally-responsible policies, ensuring a strong national defense for our country, and transcending party lines to get things done for the American people.

There are several explanations for the origins of the Blue Dogs:

One is that founding members of the congressional caucus in the mid-1990s claimed to have felt ‘choked blue by the extremes in both parties.’ Another explanation for the term Blue Dog Democrat is that the group initially held its meetings in an office that had a painting of a blue dog on the wall.

Other causes have been given:

The name ‘Blue Dog’ was inspired by the famous Blue Dog paintings by Cajun artist George Rodrigue. The term is also based on the long-time tradition of referring to a strong Democratic Party supporter as being a ‘Yellow Dog Democrat,’ who would have ‘sooner voted for a yellow dog than a Republican.’

By 2010, there were over 50 members of the caucus. But as some members drifted away, and others lost elections, the group membership decreased.

Recently some members recommended changing the name of the group, because they thought “blue dogs” had a negative connotation; when the rest of the coalition disagreed, even more members left. It seems to me that their mission should be more important than their title:

Currently, the Blue Dog Coalition is comprised of moderate, fiscally-responsible Democrats who represent every corner of the country and continue to work to end the divisive and toxic nature of politics today. They have a long history of working with members of both parties to find areas of compromise and to advance public policies that benefit the entire nation.

You might be wondering why I even care about the “blue dogs.” First, I want to see some effort to lessen the polarization in this country; the consequences of the strife increasing are ominous. Second, something needs to be done to move the Democrats back to sanity and away from the radical left. Calling oneself a progressive should be seen as an insult to the Democrat party. Third, even if the Republicans have majorities in both the House and Senate, work will get done in a more productive and efficient way if both sides are working with each other with honesty, fairness, and trust.

I don’t know at this point if the Dems remember the meaning of those words, but I’m holding out hope.

Image generated by AI.