Agree with no egos welcome here at least in theory. But the fact is that nobody would put themselves through the nomination process unless they had an ego as big as the Goodyear Blimp!
Also, Harris tried running on a "save democracy" platform. It flew as well as a lead brick. While it's worth mentioning that, focusing on Nancy Pelosi's "kitchen table" issues is probably more productive-- and Trump's mismanagement of the economy, including starting needless wars that raise fuel prices, cutting back health insurance subsidies, welfare for billionaires and grifting-- gives the Democrats plenty of material to work with.
Yes, "we" have seen the effects of destruction of democracy but the public who think constitution was written by Jesus and the earth is flat have no clue that the misery they are facing is due to the destruction of democracy.
Yes, the FIRST thing is to make it clear that we are a country of laws and not A person, or just for profit.
The BEST way to do that is to remove the DOJ from the Executive Branch and establish a completely independent DOJ. Congress has to recreate the DOJ, not the president. The next AG has to come from a nonpartisan nominating committee composed of each party as well as state AGs and constitutional scholars. The new DOJ has to be free of any outside interference, so it will be trusted by everyone ( as many people as possible). Then the new department will be free to investigate and prosecute corruption, graft, and crime, including sex trafficking past and present, wherever it occurs and whoever does it.
As an active member of my local League of Women Voters, I am continually appalled by the lack of civic knowledge in voters. I am also a poll worker. The number of voters who came to vote without knowing anything about the candidates and start googling their names when they get to the polling place is crazy. The fact the a sitting US Senator thinks the three branches of government are the president, the senate and the congress speaks poorly for those who elected him. The League is involved in partnering with schools and other organizations to inform the public regarding civic education. Our non-partisan vote411.org website posts office seekers responses to policy questions that can help voters compare candidates and select those that they would like to represent them. In my state, Democrats routinely respond to requests to answer these policy questions, while Republicans seldom do.
Thank you so much for existing and fighting. Destruction of public education system is the "wonderfully effective" thing the Republicans achieved over last 4 decades.
Irena, one way to reach out is to forward this article to people who are on the fence or are essentially uninformed. Jen can "make the point" better than anyone I know. Jennifer has superior reasoning and writing skills. There are other Substack journalists who fit that description. I suggest we use them to enlighten our frequently ignorant electorate.
I nominate Jennifer Rubin for a moderator! Be it roundtable or any other style. Norm Eisen would be a great facilitator for a focused debate or discussion. The suggestion of HCR is brilliant, too!
That is a great idea. This is such a fine article about reforming the nomination process. Jennifer, thank you so much for this article and all that you do to help us out of the miserable political mess we are in.
I won't tolerate moderates or DSA candidates attacking each other. That makes me sick to my stomach. We're all democrats, after all. And it took forever for electeds to even go on very popular podcasts (Meidas, etc.). They need to understand that corporate media is both their enemy and a dying format. Their voters aren't there.
Angie — Agree that candidates attacking each other is intolerable at this point. But a note: We’re not “all democrats.” I’m a voter with No Party Affiliation, and I’m one of the 45% of Americans (according to Gallup, link below) who are not affiliated with the 2 “major” political parties. I put “major” in quotes because the math suggests that neither the GOP nor Dems have a larger % of voters than NPA. Dems will make a big mistake if they think they’re speaking only to Dems. I can’t vote in the Dem primary, but I sure will show up to vote on the appointed day, and I expect candidates to speak to ALL of us.
Hope many involved in the process are reading/internalizing your comments. Dems have been sloppy communicators. This is the opportunity to sharpen narratives and LISTEN. Take nothing for granted. Love the option of having Heather Cox Richardson host a debate or discussion along with others. Keep it simple. Until the USA invests in education on a par with military spending we will have far too many people who lack critical thinking skills. Simple messages, simple language! What IS the vision? Think boldly and move quickly on accountability.
As an older adult I am an ardent supporter of younger, new leaders.
I have said that for years. Gopers go out with the same message every day, whether on talk shows, sound bites, podcasts, whatever; they have the same message. Yes it is scripted and may sound fake but obviously it works. maybe we could try the same thing.
Realising that there is no such thing as a perfect candidate, there are at least some guidlines that could be stressed - a return to democracy, honesty, integrity and ethical behavior. Also not to be overlooked would be empathy and a push to serve all of the people, not a cult or a cohort of the 1%.
Act. Not react. Answer criticism as Buttigieg, Osdoff, AOC do with facts. Do not let GOP set the agenda. Ask for proof when absurd allegations are made! Follow up when there is no answer. Push back!
Democrats will not be responsible for the outcome of November's elections. That outcome will be determined by voters, most of whom never learned about how the government operates, because that subject was deleted from public school curricula by the push to teach math and science by the W administration.
All of this Democratic party "Rules Committee" BS is why the party is in trouble. They have never got past 1948 was far as how they operate and select issues, and continue business as usual today. The people making the candidate decisions are so far disconnected from the party members that they will put up a candidate that the majority if the party hates. This is my prediction anyway.
Actually, taking the Iowa caucuses out of the "deciding" role--heck, it is not a representative state--was a good move by the Rules Committee. Way, way too much attention was put on Iowa, along with hype about the caucus system.
We need to learn from the Graham Platner and Eric Swallwell fiascos. I floated the idea last week of a formal, but voluntary vetting process. A panel interview with experts there to uncover skeletons in the closet. Maybe a retired US Attorney, a Neuropsychologist, An Ethicist, and an Economist, and a former Cabinet Officer. Record them and make them available on YouTube. Let people judge for themselves how the candidates hold up under expert questioning.
HCR or Paul Krugman would both be great moderators on just about any platform. The candidates should be able to talk about democracy, economics, foreign policy, domestic issues and many other topics and have broad appeal to many types of voters. Electability like Jen has mentioned here is a trap.
In addition, never allow anyone with any accusations of serious sexual assault, especially repeatedly. Stop over-looking this as something can can be explained away. Platner should NOT have been allowed to campaign after the second charges came out. If a man has it in him to be like that; he can't change without immense re-examination, which a guy like that would never do. PS-also skip the "trans" criticism as a way to get some more conventional Dems to get interested in you-at the expense of a vulnerable population. Talking' to you, Seth Moulton.
Unfortunately, skeletons in the closet like sexual assault typically aren't known until they come out during the campaign! Then there's a bloody mess to get the candidate to withdraw.
I see your point, but referring to sa actions as "unknown" is essentially saying that only the victim(s) know, and they don't count. People DO know, but whoever they told chose to dismiss it. This attitude is a lifestyle choice, and is not in the past-it is always on-going. This is why it is so infuriating that so many Americans now believe that Kamala "slept her way to the top," but men who treat females poorly while being too aggressive in getting what they want, can be repeatedly dismissed because there was "miscommunication" and he was right there, over in a flash, didn't mean anything. Clearly top manager's in Platners campaign knew, but in their zeal to win (which I also understand-but is not ok to hide transgressions from potential voters). Aren't we supposed to be taking the high road? Or should we fight and cheat like the MAGAs? What about "the appearance" of fairness to anyone taken advantage of sexually, or treated as a sex object in an inappropriate context-is it ok to keep letting men do this without repercussion? Remember how embarrassing Clinton's actions made us feel? I don't want to put my faith in a man only to find out he couldn't keep it in his pants. People always know-they choose to pretend nothing happened.
The top managers probably knew that Platner was "very rough around the edges" and might not be surprised that he treated women the way he did, but it's certainly possible that they didn't know he committed the sexual assault that forced him out of the race. It's certainly true that somebody-- the victims-- knew, but that's very different from the public at large knowing. From what the NYT reports, his top staff asked him on multiple occasions if he had any (or after some emerged, any MORE) skeletons in his closet, and he always denied them. Now I'm always amazed at candidates who even under direct questioning by their own staff answer that question in the negative and somehow think it won't come out! But I guess that's part of the ego it takes to run for office, and that's not a compliment.
Yes, but that's not the only one to ask. Anyone willing to put their lives on hold for a man deserve to know who he is. Act like a reporter would-ask people who knew him in the past. Inquire at nearby Police Depts and Sherriff's offices. Question people he hired or fired. Ask the people in the "oyster industry" what kind of rep he had as someone to work with. The answers are always there, and staff need to look harder. If someone is "rough around the edges" treat it like a red flag. The Republicans will throw millions at it, and make us look like fools - they'll show us the red flag dozens of times every day, on every media platform. NOT looking is to focus only on a "W" and seeing only that. Generally, people do lie if it makes life easier, even political candidates, members of the clergy and academia, physicians, and well-meaning parents. You can't accept people at their word-look at the candidate as the opposition would interpret the information and take off the rose-colored glasses.
You're asking the Democratic Party leadership to actually trust in democracy. If at the cost of their own influence, it's a dicey proposition. They haven't exactly modeled accountability for 2024.
One topic: Restore democracy. One people. Focus on removing this fascist regime. That's what will be heard. No egos welcome here. Democracy First!
Agree with no egos welcome here at least in theory. But the fact is that nobody would put themselves through the nomination process unless they had an ego as big as the Goodyear Blimp!
Also, Harris tried running on a "save democracy" platform. It flew as well as a lead brick. While it's worth mentioning that, focusing on Nancy Pelosi's "kitchen table" issues is probably more productive-- and Trump's mismanagement of the economy, including starting needless wars that raise fuel prices, cutting back health insurance subsidies, welfare for billionaires and grifting-- gives the Democrats plenty of material to work with.
And corruption!
"Pardons for sale! Pardons for sale! Get your pardons here! You're gonna need a pardon!"
Hahaha! Right?
A message of "Save democracy" might work a little better how that we've seen the destruction of democracy live and in color on the streets.
Yes, "we" have seen the effects of destruction of democracy but the public who think constitution was written by Jesus and the earth is flat have no clue that the misery they are facing is due to the destruction of democracy.
💯
You could be right. It was an abstraction when Harris ran on it, and now people have seen it with their own 2 eyes.
@ Ivan. In 2024 we wuz screwed. We actually won.
Did Trump admit Musk stole Pennsylvania?
Did Musk admit it?
💯🎯
Yes, the FIRST thing is to make it clear that we are a country of laws and not A person, or just for profit.
The BEST way to do that is to remove the DOJ from the Executive Branch and establish a completely independent DOJ. Congress has to recreate the DOJ, not the president. The next AG has to come from a nonpartisan nominating committee composed of each party as well as state AGs and constitutional scholars. The new DOJ has to be free of any outside interference, so it will be trusted by everyone ( as many people as possible). Then the new department will be free to investigate and prosecute corruption, graft, and crime, including sex trafficking past and present, wherever it occurs and whoever does it.
Not restore. We don't want the same system that failed under Trump rebuilt. REFORM democracy.
Substack should host a debate. That's where all the great journalists have gone!
As an active member of my local League of Women Voters, I am continually appalled by the lack of civic knowledge in voters. I am also a poll worker. The number of voters who came to vote without knowing anything about the candidates and start googling their names when they get to the polling place is crazy. The fact the a sitting US Senator thinks the three branches of government are the president, the senate and the congress speaks poorly for those who elected him. The League is involved in partnering with schools and other organizations to inform the public regarding civic education. Our non-partisan vote411.org website posts office seekers responses to policy questions that can help voters compare candidates and select those that they would like to represent them. In my state, Democrats routinely respond to requests to answer these policy questions, while Republicans seldom do.
Thank you for all you do
Thanks for the vote411.org reference thatvI will use as I seek to educate voters in my area
Thank you so much for existing and fighting. Destruction of public education system is the "wonderfully effective" thing the Republicans achieved over last 4 decades.
And this article is preaching to the choir instead of reaching out to the uninformed. I don't really know how to reach out, so this is just a comment.
Irena, one way to reach out is to forward this article to people who are on the fence or are essentially uninformed. Jen can "make the point" better than anyone I know. Jennifer has superior reasoning and writing skills. There are other Substack journalists who fit that description. I suggest we use them to enlighten our frequently ignorant electorate.
Yes to Jennifer’s clarity in thought, analysis, and writing! I sincerely hope at least some Democratic Party leaders follow her as closely as we do.
That's if you know people on the fence or uninformed. I find that generally speaking, like tends to be with like.
🎯
I nominate Jennifer Rubin for a moderator! Be it roundtable or any other style. Norm Eisen would be a great facilitator for a focused debate or discussion. The suggestion of HCR is brilliant, too!
That is a great idea. This is such a fine article about reforming the nomination process. Jennifer, thank you so much for this article and all that you do to help us out of the miserable political mess we are in.
I won't tolerate moderates or DSA candidates attacking each other. That makes me sick to my stomach. We're all democrats, after all. And it took forever for electeds to even go on very popular podcasts (Meidas, etc.). They need to understand that corporate media is both their enemy and a dying format. Their voters aren't there.
Angie — Agree that candidates attacking each other is intolerable at this point. But a note: We’re not “all democrats.” I’m a voter with No Party Affiliation, and I’m one of the 45% of Americans (according to Gallup, link below) who are not affiliated with the 2 “major” political parties. I put “major” in quotes because the math suggests that neither the GOP nor Dems have a larger % of voters than NPA. Dems will make a big mistake if they think they’re speaking only to Dems. I can’t vote in the Dem primary, but I sure will show up to vote on the appointed day, and I expect candidates to speak to ALL of us.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/700499/new-high-identify-political-independents.aspx
Hope many involved in the process are reading/internalizing your comments. Dems have been sloppy communicators. This is the opportunity to sharpen narratives and LISTEN. Take nothing for granted. Love the option of having Heather Cox Richardson host a debate or discussion along with others. Keep it simple. Until the USA invests in education on a par with military spending we will have far too many people who lack critical thinking skills. Simple messages, simple language! What IS the vision? Think boldly and move quickly on accountability.
As an older adult I am an ardent supporter of younger, new leaders.
I have said that for years. Gopers go out with the same message every day, whether on talk shows, sound bites, podcasts, whatever; they have the same message. Yes it is scripted and may sound fake but obviously it works. maybe we could try the same thing.
Realising that there is no such thing as a perfect candidate, there are at least some guidlines that could be stressed - a return to democracy, honesty, integrity and ethical behavior. Also not to be overlooked would be empathy and a push to serve all of the people, not a cult or a cohort of the 1%.
Sounds like Kamala’s mantra! Definitely the basic platform for anyone running.
At least something that Democrats might strive for. Leave Trumlicans to their own devices, which will eventually sink them.
As long as we keep Plouffe and Axelrod and Carville OUT of it, we'll do fine.
Agree-- all 3 of them have long since passed their "freshest if used by" dates ;)
Right on, Angie. Please add Rahm Emanuel to that list.
We really do need a new approach. Some excellent points here, is anyone listening!! I hope so!
Act. Not react. Answer criticism as Buttigieg, Osdoff, AOC do with facts. Do not let GOP set the agenda. Ask for proof when absurd allegations are made! Follow up when there is no answer. Push back!
Democrats will not be responsible for the outcome of November's elections. That outcome will be determined by voters, most of whom never learned about how the government operates, because that subject was deleted from public school curricula by the push to teach math and science by the W administration.
All of this Democratic party "Rules Committee" BS is why the party is in trouble. They have never got past 1948 was far as how they operate and select issues, and continue business as usual today. The people making the candidate decisions are so far disconnected from the party members that they will put up a candidate that the majority if the party hates. This is my prediction anyway.
Actually, taking the Iowa caucuses out of the "deciding" role--heck, it is not a representative state--was a good move by the Rules Committee. Way, way too much attention was put on Iowa, along with hype about the caucus system.
My issue goes way beyond that to the root cause of why our political parties keep making the same mistakes year after year.
Hear! Hear! Time for a new approach, discarding business as usual!
We need to learn from the Graham Platner and Eric Swallwell fiascos. I floated the idea last week of a formal, but voluntary vetting process. A panel interview with experts there to uncover skeletons in the closet. Maybe a retired US Attorney, a Neuropsychologist, An Ethicist, and an Economist, and a former Cabinet Officer. Record them and make them available on YouTube. Let people judge for themselves how the candidates hold up under expert questioning.
HCR or Paul Krugman would both be great moderators on just about any platform. The candidates should be able to talk about democracy, economics, foreign policy, domestic issues and many other topics and have broad appeal to many types of voters. Electability like Jen has mentioned here is a trap.
You make an excellent point about the necessity of a president being knowledgeable across a broad area of topics.
In addition, never allow anyone with any accusations of serious sexual assault, especially repeatedly. Stop over-looking this as something can can be explained away. Platner should NOT have been allowed to campaign after the second charges came out. If a man has it in him to be like that; he can't change without immense re-examination, which a guy like that would never do. PS-also skip the "trans" criticism as a way to get some more conventional Dems to get interested in you-at the expense of a vulnerable population. Talking' to you, Seth Moulton.
Unfortunately, skeletons in the closet like sexual assault typically aren't known until they come out during the campaign! Then there's a bloody mess to get the candidate to withdraw.
I see your point, but referring to sa actions as "unknown" is essentially saying that only the victim(s) know, and they don't count. People DO know, but whoever they told chose to dismiss it. This attitude is a lifestyle choice, and is not in the past-it is always on-going. This is why it is so infuriating that so many Americans now believe that Kamala "slept her way to the top," but men who treat females poorly while being too aggressive in getting what they want, can be repeatedly dismissed because there was "miscommunication" and he was right there, over in a flash, didn't mean anything. Clearly top manager's in Platners campaign knew, but in their zeal to win (which I also understand-but is not ok to hide transgressions from potential voters). Aren't we supposed to be taking the high road? Or should we fight and cheat like the MAGAs? What about "the appearance" of fairness to anyone taken advantage of sexually, or treated as a sex object in an inappropriate context-is it ok to keep letting men do this without repercussion? Remember how embarrassing Clinton's actions made us feel? I don't want to put my faith in a man only to find out he couldn't keep it in his pants. People always know-they choose to pretend nothing happened.
The top managers probably knew that Platner was "very rough around the edges" and might not be surprised that he treated women the way he did, but it's certainly possible that they didn't know he committed the sexual assault that forced him out of the race. It's certainly true that somebody-- the victims-- knew, but that's very different from the public at large knowing. From what the NYT reports, his top staff asked him on multiple occasions if he had any (or after some emerged, any MORE) skeletons in his closet, and he always denied them. Now I'm always amazed at candidates who even under direct questioning by their own staff answer that question in the negative and somehow think it won't come out! But I guess that's part of the ego it takes to run for office, and that's not a compliment.
Yes, but that's not the only one to ask. Anyone willing to put their lives on hold for a man deserve to know who he is. Act like a reporter would-ask people who knew him in the past. Inquire at nearby Police Depts and Sherriff's offices. Question people he hired or fired. Ask the people in the "oyster industry" what kind of rep he had as someone to work with. The answers are always there, and staff need to look harder. If someone is "rough around the edges" treat it like a red flag. The Republicans will throw millions at it, and make us look like fools - they'll show us the red flag dozens of times every day, on every media platform. NOT looking is to focus only on a "W" and seeing only that. Generally, people do lie if it makes life easier, even political candidates, members of the clergy and academia, physicians, and well-meaning parents. You can't accept people at their word-look at the candidate as the opposition would interpret the information and take off the rose-colored glasses.
Fortunately, there are millions of American adults who have not been accused of sexual assault.
You're asking the Democratic Party leadership to actually trust in democracy. If at the cost of their own influence, it's a dicey proposition. They haven't exactly modeled accountability for 2024.