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.
Democrats should learn from Peter Magyar in Hungary. He tied Orban's authoritarian actions to the suffering of the people. Connect the kitchen table to the corruption and authoritarianism of Trump and his party.
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.
However, the Supreme Court is allowing Trump to remove "independent" commissions at will. Some changes will need to happen there! Would also LOVE to Ser Heather Vox Richardson lead a roundtable with candidates!
That’s exactly why the DOJ needs to be clearly placed out of the president’s jurisdiction. SCOTUS gave the Fed a special status, the DOJ needs to have even more independence. Otherwise, no matter who is president, it will be seen as partisan.
We will need really good legislation that will override SCOTUS’ rulings on Executive Power and the independence of agencies. DOJ and the Fed are most crucial, but health and science and environmental protection and corporate regulation and others need to able to operate free from presidential whim. At the same time, it is reasonable to expect some broad policy direction from the Executive Branch.
Perhaps the unasked question is how we prevent the crushing influence of a president over the elected representatives of her/his own party.
Democrats need to start researching the constitutional issues around this. Everything in the federal government is under one of three branches by the Constitution. I think it would require a constitutional amendment to put the DOJ separate. On the other hand, it could be split between the three, perhaps.
Congress created the DOJ after the Civil War to help with reconstruction. They can recreate it to be accountable to Congress and not overseen by the Executive. Trump has destroyed the trust in any DOJ. Congress has the power to legislate its independence.
"I would love to hear Heather Cox Richardson ask candidates about their vision of American democracy or Paul Krugman discuss economic inequality with candidates in a small roundtable setting." A great idea. I suggest DEMs begin with candidates facing open questions from these two national experts. Make it MSNOW program. Voters will have time to understand issues and candidates best.
The average person wants to know how they can have affordable healthcare, a job that pays a living wage, housing that is affordable, education that will help their children have a place in the society of the future that doesn’t include indentured servitude, and fair laws that are enforced impartially. And they want to know that their taxpayer money is being used to benefit them and society and not pocketed by corrupt people/entities domestic and foreign who think ordinary people are beneath them.
As much as the thought of losing democracy (and it is not lost yet) catches in my throat, I don’t think that people want to hear politicians telling THEM how important democracy is. THEY want the politicians to hear them about real world problems. And that is the practice of democracy.
Thanks for these important observations. As much as I dislike the man in the White House, he was put there in a democratic election. Democracy is not lost. It just gave us a result we don't like, and for demonstrable reasons. The other guys who we believe lie, cheat, and steal think democracy is working as intended. Our job is to demonstrate how our candidates will create policies that will accomplish what you outline in your first paragraph. That will not be accomplished via the media, but by working like Mamdani did to bring his election to the people. He didn't let the Media Industrial Complex define him or limit him.
The sad paradox of all this is that in order to do that eventually, in the short term we may need to stretch the boundaries even further. Winning elections is not the same thing as defeating the authoritarians. It’s necessary, but not sufficient to achieve that goal. The really interesting stuff will be what happens after a new Administration takes office. In Hungary, Peter Magyar has had to resort to constitutional amendments to root out just two of Orban’s chief henchmen left behind after the recent election there. Needless to say, that’s not a pathway that would be available to any American President, and there will be lots and lots of authoritarian henchmen who will still be in place here after the 2028 election.
Thinking about it a bit one could well argue that the Slaughter decision, however ill-conceived and wrong-headed it is, could ease this process as a Democratic President could just adopt the trumpian ethos and fire these people.
The folks in the Executive Branch will lose their jobs (but not necessarily their influence) with a change of Presidents. Sadly Presidents can’t fire Members of Congress or SCOTUS justices—and they’re probably even greater threats.
In normal times, that’s absolutely correct—it’s what separation of powers is supposed to be about. However, the situation we’re in not certainly isn’t normal. Most of the Constitutional scholars whose work I’ve read don’t seem to think that where we are at present has any connection at all to what the Founders intended. So that raises the question of how do we fix those institutions without completely destroying them in the process? I don’t think most people appreciate the magnitude of the challenges the next Administration will face when it comes into office.
Everyone is focused on the elections, and they are an obviously a crucial first step to saving the country. However, while I’ve heard lots of interesting ideas for long term systemic reforms, I’ve not heard anyone talk about the process by which they could be achieved given the obstacles the Republicans have created.
But not a debate, a panel / roundtable discussion with experts. HCR, Krugman, Eisen on ethics, Weissmann on DOJ, Kinzinger on national defense, Substackers all.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The problem with Platner reportedly was that the independent recruiter didn't vet him -- simply did not vet him. He got into the race via the recruiter and not via the Maine Democratic Party. The latter didn't think he had a chance compared to their chosen candidate Mills, so I guess they didn't pay much attention to him at the beginning.
In the case of Swalwell, he'd been in politics in California for a long time. It seems that his abuse of women was during the years he held office. Already in office. That's typical, actually. Psychologists say that being in a position of power causes some men to think they are entitled to abuse or are even secretly desired by women. They don't see their actions objectively. The sad thing was, his staff knew. They knew. Or at least they suspected. But there wasn't a safe way for them to report what they suspected. Their jobs were on the line. There's been some movement in CA recently to make it easier and far less risky for staff to report the people they work for. We will see how well it works out. It's a chronic problem everywhere -- trying to protect whistleblowers -- and you notice that the protections are seldom adequate.
I think we also need to be careful about rushing to judgment. I’m neither an attorney, nor a judge. I am a fan of “innocent until proven guilty.” Otherwise, there will be many, many accusations of sexual assault against every single candidate for office. Just the suggestion of impropriety will sink a Dem candidate. Obviously in the GOP fascist party, sexual assault is perfectly ok.
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.
The less the Washington establishment crowd has to do with choosing candidates the better. The Democrats have to get out of the marketing consulting -building a brand mentality. They should stop spending so much time messaging political nerds ( like me) and get down in the trenches.
The candidate or party that will win is unknown at this point . It needs to be someone who is in the trenches.Look at people who are winning or won- Talarico, Mandami, some of the governors. Common denominator, they’re going to the people by bus- train,walking whatever and just engaging and haven’t stooped to Trump’s level engaging in verbal tennis game AND everything they say doesn’t sound like it’s been focus group
tested ad nauseam .
Finally, the progressives need to grow up- that opinion from someone who, among other things, swept the floor of one of Elizabeth Warren’s storefront headquarters in her first run for senate.
The country is in ICU. It needs a 101 fix; stop yakking about Medicare for all; maybe just put the wheels back on the ACA.
The progressives never read the room. In my state,when Warren and Markey were front row cheerleaders for Platner, they lost my vote forever. Imagine the message the Democratic Party could have sent to women across the country, if they bailed on this guy.PTSD not withstanding, wrong time for him.
The party has to back-burner all their cultural causes and concentrate on righting the ship of state including:
recommending term limits, a retirement age ( like every corporation(65)
start looking at establishing a reasonable election time period and, God forbid, modernize the way Congress works.
Finally, start talking in sentences that everyone understands- ditch “inflection point”and affordability - take your cues from people like Roy Cooper for example- think his slogan is “ cost too much”
Sorry for rant; you get the drift I’m disenchanted but the only thing Democrats are good at right now is asking for money, Because Harris sold her donor list to the DNC, people like me get 20-25 texts a day asking for money from every candidate across the country.
Fun fact: First time ever,got a postcard from Talarico thanking me for my $5 a month. Keep an eye on him.
P.S.: skip the damn debates- average voter not interested
I know just suggesting he has a good campaign style to follow and keeps doing brilliant things like cheap tickets to the WC, going to a watch party in a prison , setting up babysitters etc
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?
Democrats should learn from Peter Magyar in Hungary. He tied Orban's authoritarian actions to the suffering of the people. Connect the kitchen table to the corruption and authoritarianism of Trump and his party.
💯🎯
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.
However, the Supreme Court is allowing Trump to remove "independent" commissions at will. Some changes will need to happen there! Would also LOVE to Ser Heather Vox Richardson lead a roundtable with candidates!
That’s exactly why the DOJ needs to be clearly placed out of the president’s jurisdiction. SCOTUS gave the Fed a special status, the DOJ needs to have even more independence. Otherwise, no matter who is president, it will be seen as partisan.
We will need really good legislation that will override SCOTUS’ rulings on Executive Power and the independence of agencies. DOJ and the Fed are most crucial, but health and science and environmental protection and corporate regulation and others need to able to operate free from presidential whim. At the same time, it is reasonable to expect some broad policy direction from the Executive Branch.
Perhaps the unasked question is how we prevent the crushing influence of a president over the elected representatives of her/his own party.
Democrats need to start researching the constitutional issues around this. Everything in the federal government is under one of three branches by the Constitution. I think it would require a constitutional amendment to put the DOJ separate. On the other hand, it could be split between the three, perhaps.
Congress created the DOJ after the Civil War to help with reconstruction. They can recreate it to be accountable to Congress and not overseen by the Executive. Trump has destroyed the trust in any DOJ. Congress has the power to legislate its independence.
There's an idea worth looking into!!!
Very important...right after health care, education, housing and jobs!
Not restore. We don't want the same system that failed under Trump rebuilt. REFORM democracy.
"I would love to hear Heather Cox Richardson ask candidates about their vision of American democracy or Paul Krugman discuss economic inequality with candidates in a small roundtable setting." A great idea. I suggest DEMs begin with candidates facing open questions from these two national experts. Make it MSNOW program. Voters will have time to understand issues and candidates best.
The average person wants to know how they can have affordable healthcare, a job that pays a living wage, housing that is affordable, education that will help their children have a place in the society of the future that doesn’t include indentured servitude, and fair laws that are enforced impartially. And they want to know that their taxpayer money is being used to benefit them and society and not pocketed by corrupt people/entities domestic and foreign who think ordinary people are beneath them.
As much as the thought of losing democracy (and it is not lost yet) catches in my throat, I don’t think that people want to hear politicians telling THEM how important democracy is. THEY want the politicians to hear them about real world problems. And that is the practice of democracy.
Thanks for these important observations. As much as I dislike the man in the White House, he was put there in a democratic election. Democracy is not lost. It just gave us a result we don't like, and for demonstrable reasons. The other guys who we believe lie, cheat, and steal think democracy is working as intended. Our job is to demonstrate how our candidates will create policies that will accomplish what you outline in your first paragraph. That will not be accomplished via the media, but by working like Mamdani did to bring his election to the people. He didn't let the Media Industrial Complex define him or limit him.
The sad paradox of all this is that in order to do that eventually, in the short term we may need to stretch the boundaries even further. Winning elections is not the same thing as defeating the authoritarians. It’s necessary, but not sufficient to achieve that goal. The really interesting stuff will be what happens after a new Administration takes office. In Hungary, Peter Magyar has had to resort to constitutional amendments to root out just two of Orban’s chief henchmen left behind after the recent election there. Needless to say, that’s not a pathway that would be available to any American President, and there will be lots and lots of authoritarian henchmen who will still be in place here after the 2028 election.
Thinking about it a bit one could well argue that the Slaughter decision, however ill-conceived and wrong-headed it is, could ease this process as a Democratic President could just adopt the trumpian ethos and fire these people.
The folks in the Executive Branch will lose their jobs (but not necessarily their influence) with a change of Presidents. Sadly Presidents can’t fire Members of Congress or SCOTUS justices—and they’re probably even greater threats.
And They should be. The president needs to have clear limits— so does the Supreme Court.
In normal times, that’s absolutely correct—it’s what separation of powers is supposed to be about. However, the situation we’re in not certainly isn’t normal. Most of the Constitutional scholars whose work I’ve read don’t seem to think that where we are at present has any connection at all to what the Founders intended. So that raises the question of how do we fix those institutions without completely destroying them in the process? I don’t think most people appreciate the magnitude of the challenges the next Administration will face when it comes into office.
Everyone is focused on the elections, and they are an obviously a crucial first step to saving the country. However, while I’ve heard lots of interesting ideas for long term systemic reforms, I’ve not heard anyone talk about the process by which they could be achieved given the obstacles the Republicans have created.
Substack should host a debate. That's where all the great journalists have gone!
But not a debate, a panel / roundtable discussion with experts. HCR, Krugman, Eisen on ethics, Weissmann on DOJ, Kinzinger on national defense, Substackers all.
Yes, educate the public!
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
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.
Thanks for the vote411.org reference thatvI will use as I seek to educate voters in my area
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.
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!
We really do need a new approach. Some excellent points here, is anyone listening!! I hope so!
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.
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.
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.
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.
The problem with Platner reportedly was that the independent recruiter didn't vet him -- simply did not vet him. He got into the race via the recruiter and not via the Maine Democratic Party. The latter didn't think he had a chance compared to their chosen candidate Mills, so I guess they didn't pay much attention to him at the beginning.
In the case of Swalwell, he'd been in politics in California for a long time. It seems that his abuse of women was during the years he held office. Already in office. That's typical, actually. Psychologists say that being in a position of power causes some men to think they are entitled to abuse or are even secretly desired by women. They don't see their actions objectively. The sad thing was, his staff knew. They knew. Or at least they suspected. But there wasn't a safe way for them to report what they suspected. Their jobs were on the line. There's been some movement in CA recently to make it easier and far less risky for staff to report the people they work for. We will see how well it works out. It's a chronic problem everywhere -- trying to protect whistleblowers -- and you notice that the protections are seldom adequate.
I think we also need to be careful about rushing to judgment. I’m neither an attorney, nor a judge. I am a fan of “innocent until proven guilty.” Otherwise, there will be many, many accusations of sexual assault against every single candidate for office. Just the suggestion of impropriety will sink a Dem candidate. Obviously in the GOP fascist party, sexual assault is perfectly ok.
Fortunately, there are millions of American adults who have not been accused of sexual assault.
YET.
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.
Great premise. And maybe explore the political haymakers backing the candidate. Platner’s seem to have hit the lottery.
The less the Washington establishment crowd has to do with choosing candidates the better. The Democrats have to get out of the marketing consulting -building a brand mentality. They should stop spending so much time messaging political nerds ( like me) and get down in the trenches.
The candidate or party that will win is unknown at this point . It needs to be someone who is in the trenches.Look at people who are winning or won- Talarico, Mandami, some of the governors. Common denominator, they’re going to the people by bus- train,walking whatever and just engaging and haven’t stooped to Trump’s level engaging in verbal tennis game AND everything they say doesn’t sound like it’s been focus group
tested ad nauseam .
Finally, the progressives need to grow up- that opinion from someone who, among other things, swept the floor of one of Elizabeth Warren’s storefront headquarters in her first run for senate.
The country is in ICU. It needs a 101 fix; stop yakking about Medicare for all; maybe just put the wheels back on the ACA.
The progressives never read the room. In my state,when Warren and Markey were front row cheerleaders for Platner, they lost my vote forever. Imagine the message the Democratic Party could have sent to women across the country, if they bailed on this guy.PTSD not withstanding, wrong time for him.
The party has to back-burner all their cultural causes and concentrate on righting the ship of state including:
recommending term limits, a retirement age ( like every corporation(65)
start looking at establishing a reasonable election time period and, God forbid, modernize the way Congress works.
Finally, start talking in sentences that everyone understands- ditch “inflection point”and affordability - take your cues from people like Roy Cooper for example- think his slogan is “ cost too much”
Sorry for rant; you get the drift I’m disenchanted but the only thing Democrats are good at right now is asking for money, Because Harris sold her donor list to the DNC, people like me get 20-25 texts a day asking for money from every candidate across the country.
Fun fact: First time ever,got a postcard from Talarico thanking me for my $5 a month. Keep an eye on him.
P.S.: skip the damn debates- average voter not interested
Mandami is not eligible to run for president, as he was not born in the United States.
I know just suggesting he has a good campaign style to follow and keeps doing brilliant things like cheap tickets to the WC, going to a watch party in a prison , setting up babysitters etc
I agree with you on his campaign style. He also has authenticity, which many candidates lack. He clearly is what New York City needs.