The only weakness in this important article is the absence of examples beyond Cuomo. There are more scrupulous and less power-mad Democratic leaders who are guilty of the tepid moderation that Michael Franklin decries. Charles Schumer leaps to mind. The party leadership that kicked David Hogg our of his position also missed the point, a point Hogg had come to fight for. Still, the overall point is solid, and we must pay attention to it. I hate MAGA, but I can't rouse myself to respond to the onslaught of Democratic Party requests for money. I need them to have more fire in their bellies for a real fight. More Newsom, less Schumer.
Dead right. It's discouraging to see very senior leaders and their celebrity consultants with excellent records, clearly past their expiration dates, saying things that are sensible and right, but so weakly delivered that watching their performance is painful. It's time for better spokesmen. Both parties have this problem, but the GOP is in power and their kowtowing to Der Trump hides their weakness, or worse yet, reveals it.
Well, there’s one more. Where do we find and/or recruit people like what he describes? We have a few, but far too few to do any good. We even need a few old White guys who sound like Bernie and AOC. They’re out there, we just need to find them and convince them to run.
We need to critique outlandish ideas as being outlandish. For example, the whole pronoun thing got out of hand. Instead of coming down hard on people for refusing to use them, a repo se along the lines of “You don’t use your given name, yet we respect your wishes to use the name you chose. Can you show the same respect? That’s all they want.” would have made a lot more sense.
I don't recall the Democrats being charge of pronouns. While many embraced the option, it doesn't define the party. It may be that identity politics is in the eye of the beholder. Do we really need to go to the mat on this stuff?
yes. Keep in mind that the Harris campaign did NOT make an issue of transgender questions or pronouns. The MAGAs spent many millions on ads to rub people's faces in phony questions.
So a simple point about treating everyone with respect should be enough, even in the face of outrageous lies - though one could point out the lying - then move on to the reality. Harris had lots of good constructive things to say about the economy, borders etc, but Trump was more interesting to the media with his craziness and insults - so they forgave him his obvious dementia and cruelty and incompetence.
Got it. But they are going to twist anything Dems say or do, so trying to combat that is not as effective as of being proactive with our own voting base. I think that's our whole problem right now: playing whack-a-mole with every bit of vitriol they send our way. It's useless. Thanks for the clarity, though, and best wishes, friend.
I will probably be skewered because of what I say here. Democrats cannot win if they do not stay focused on the big issues, living wages, prices at the grocery store, the rights of ALL Americans, etc. Every time I read comments in a substack, whether on topic or not, someone brings up Transgender issues. Could they be trolls, to keep,us focused on the wrong things?
If Democrats continue to focus on what affects a small constituency, they will never get elected. I agree the issue needs to be”fixing,” but it won’t be if we don’t get elected.
There are plenty of issues to be resolved that affect a greater population and we need to win the big things first. If we don’t get elected, there will be no democracy and a fascist state will not be sympathetic to anyone who doesn’t fit.
COFFEE. An acronym hides. It does not clarify. Six parts is way too long for people to remember. It is also redundant. Opportunity and Empowerment say much the same thing. Community and Engagement are similar. It needs to be quick and blunt. Limit it to three. For instance, Freedom-Opportunity-and Fairness. The 'f's click because of alliteration. The bisyllabic surrounding words create balance. The trochaic meter keeps it together. The slogan doesn't need to spell a word. Be serious, not cute.
"That means boldness, clarity, and consistency in showing up for the people who’ve been waiting far too long to be heard."
Fair enough. At the same time we don't have much time (if any) to stave off the current fascist regime. So I think we will all have to find some middle group between supporting more ideal Democratic candidates and holding our noses on established candidates. The challenge of unilaterally running campaigns that aren't focused on special interest money is daunting. Of course we would all like to see broad campaign finance reform, but how on earth can you do that under the current circumstances. I don't have answers, but I know the imperative is regaining control of Congress and statehouses. In some cases we'll be able to support progressive Democrats , in some cases that won't be an option. Regardless of how progressive a candidate may be, you can't show up for the people if you are not in power.
We'd all like to see broad campaign finance reform, starting with a law overturning the odious Citizens United decision; we'd like to see independent redistricting in all 50 states that would finally end partisan and racial gerrymandering; and on and on. But you're absolutely right, none of that can happen if you're not in power. People need to stop thinking democracy is sturdy enough for them to be spectators, not participants; or that their pet purity issues are more important than the good of the country. Before we can do anything, our primary task is stomping out the rise of fascism which has already consumed one of our political parties. We first have to save the country before we can fix it.
I especially agree that we need to "find some middle group between supporting more ideal Democratic candidates and holding our noses on established candidates."
Exactly. Hopefully we will,find a candidate than can beat trump, but whoever it is that runs, we must all coalesce around them, as getting rid of trump and the maga rot is key to our survival. And to realize that candidates must be elected based on their constituents preferences, not some ideal candidate. Many needles to thread.
You nailed it, Mary! We must coalesce around the Democratic nominee, imperfect as that person may be. We don't need perfection. We need good. And decent. And law upholding. And we need to WIN!
2) Community, Opportunity, Freedom, Fairness, Engagement, Empowerment? No no no. Those words mean nothing to the voters we need, and even gets an eyeroll from highly-engaged me. Way too theoretical. That's where we get into trouble. We need to focus on housing, wages, health care, groceries. Real things to regular humans.
>>>The real problem is the circle of legacy consultants and political operatives who orchestrated Cuomo’s run, convinced they still had the juice.<<<
>>>They don’t deliver. And they don’t evolve. They cling to outdated talking points about “messaging to the center,” but they can’t explain what that ideology is. They’re appealing to a constituency that doesn’t exist except in their echo chambers.<<<
These statements could easily have been written about Joe Biden and the very senior Democratic leadership that promoted him instead of holding him to his original one-term campaign promise. We on the Left might well be in a different position today had there been enough time to properly vet the nomination process and pursue a full-length campaign, all due respect to Harris' valiant efforts.
The Democratic Party has used memes and threats and smear campaigns against its own reformers to push back against legitimate criticisms of its gerontocratic leadership, its coziness with Wall Street and Silicon Valley, and its massive policy failures.
Joe Biden in his awful decline was kept out of sight in the White House while consultants attacked his critics (or even those who merely expressed concern about his growing fragility) as traitors or shills for the GOP: meanwhile social media were flooded with images of a brisk looking hero with gleaming white teeth, shades and a 'Vette. Old Handsome Joe. How dare you criticize him!
The octogenarian Nancy Pelosi, with her estimated quarter-to-half billion dollar fortune, has fended off numerous challenges to her own power and that of her fellow Democratic elders who occupy leadership roles in Congress by smearing and undermining younger colleagues and flooding the zone with memes: Ginger Rogers "dancing backwards in heels."
The Party's premier strategists, pollsters and consultants don't only represent the Democratic leadership that has consistently lost seats and influence over the last quarter century.
They also represent multi-billion-dollar corporate interests with a massive stake in what happens on the floor of the House and the Senate and who gets confirmed to the federal bench, and in making sure no "mavericks" (whether left-leaning or moderate) get elected. New York Democratic Senators Kristen Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer, both with intense Wall Street connections, led the obscene attack that forced the mildly-progressive reformer Democrat Al Franken out of the US Senate.
The system is corrupt: rotten through and through. Democrats are so accustomed to saying "at least we're better than they are" that they can't hear the sound of Republicans saying "at least we're better than they are."
Broadly speaking, the policies the Democratic Party claims to embrace are better for ordinary working people than those the Republican Party visibly embraces: but only just.
You have to speak broadly indeed to suggest that the compromises and negotiations the Democrats have been churning out since Bill Clinton brought Carville and Third Way politics to town in 1992 have been in any meaningful sense good for working people whose income, access, and ability to live ordinary middle class lives has steadily eroded since the 1980s, and not just when Republicans are in control.
This Republican putsch gives every appearance of being a fait accompli. I hope to hell not, but as our blue cities are occupied and Republicans lay track for the 2026 elections, it's not looking good. The Democrats needed to start fighting back long ago. Instead, they played on polarization, persuading voters that "we're better than they are" was enough. It wasn't.
Wonderful article and echoes the well-earned criticism many of us have been using since the day Obama was elected and showed up on day one with absolutely no agenda! That after 8 years of Bush, the guy who tested the water for The Heritage Manifesto! The Democrats at the time of Obama had those 8 years to prepare, and a two-year window to show American voters that they counted! We did think we were ready, and Obama was the guy, plus we elected a black man!
But it became clear in the early days when Obama wanted to play nice with Republicans, by inviting them to the WH for parties and the Super Bowl! He and the Democratic Party found out fast that life was not going to be friendly! More importantly, the democrats did nothing in those two years! Yes, there was Obamacare, but they had control of the government for 2 years! By the way, they never raised the minimum wage during that time.
So, now, we inherit A Schumer, Pelosi, (whose legacy is established, along with her stomping on the Squad because they were to active and upsetting the older order! We have Jeffries, her appointee, who only recently began to even yell a bit and who remains incapable of putting together a committee to create a plan of attack that every Democrat will follow, or yes, their seat will be contested!
As Mr.Franklin suggests, it is more than time for change, and we old activists from the 60's and 70's understand what to do, and how you must operate to deal with despots, segregationists, and traitors! We need to find young people, the Squad for one, Murphy in the Senate, the other, and get them together under someone who they can respect and who would work with them! They also need fundraising, since they essentially have no money because they don't have anyone to deal with major donors!
The problem appears to be that there is no one powerful enough who cares and is willing to grab the torch and make the changes necessary! There is only a year plus before the midterms, we should be highlighting all of Trump's actions today, and not be waiting until the formal cycle arrives!
From a lifelong Democrat, whose parents were Democrats, I'm sorry to say that ideological purity and/or donor funding promoting "Trans rights" will doom the Democrats in the coming elections. As a party, the Democrats cling to positions that are, and are perceived to be, extremist; that are misogynist and homophobic; and that seem oblivious to the findings of two new systematic reviews pointing to the weak evidence regarding positive outcomes for "gender affirming care" (The Cass and the HHS Reports). They do not appear to understand the evidence underlying the recent Skrmetti SCOTUS decision (A broken clock is right at least twice a day). They also do not seem to take the testimony of detransitioners seriously. Worse yet, the Democratic Party has allowed the GOP to defend women's and girls' rights to fairness in female sports, and to adolescents' rights to a normal puberty. This has alienated women and increasingly, the LGBs who are beginning to distance themselves from the "T." And these are (erstwhile) motivated voters for the Democrats. For those who want to learn more, please check out Helen Joyce on YouTube; or the LGB Courage Coalition, Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender (DIAG), GENSPECT, Lisa Simeone, Mariah Burton Nelson, Kara Dansky and others on Substack.
Wow, a rationale for your own bigotry. Reducing an entire political party and all of its support or shortcomings to one issue that you fail to recognize as inclusiveness, not promotion. You're the biggest jerk today. Applause.
Thr GOP exploits ignorance about transgender to pretend it's interested in women in sports. Meanwhile the GOP is far more interested in attacking reproductive rights and policing pregnant women and their ability to get Healthcare.
The GOP will also go after contraception and sane sex marriage.
I love you Michael Franklin, but... Suppose Democratic Party committees ask voters who should run instead of consultants? Give us prospects, their résumés, their track records, and gee, a sweet introductory video, and let us vet them side by side. The problem when we vote is that it DOES become a popularity contest because we have no uniform scale on which to assess individuals. It's who we "like" best. Sure, I do my research. That often means voter's organizations and multiple candidate websites that have no interest in being objective.
And don't force-feed us a few months before elections. Make this perpetual. I have long advocated a DNC streaming platform and interactive website that everyone can know about and consult anytime to stay engaged with our politics and find actual facts without sifting through dubious news broadcasts. Make it easy for us to compare candidates at all levels of government. Sure, this works against the big donors, who love their advantage of little transparency and little means for voters to vet candidates. How many George Santoses and Andrew Cuomos are we supposed to stand in order to get at the Pete Buttigieges and the names I do not know right now who might best serve us?
I agree that there are too many old white men who are complacent, like Cuomo and Schumer, but you also forgot that the "Center" for which you seem to have such disdain is the majority.
You also neglected to mention that the last two Presidential candidates who did offer a clear and concise message were women who were beaten by Trump of all people, which is difficult for me to wrap my head around. You forgot to mention the sane-washing the press did and still does for Trump at every opportunity. I personally am stunned that two brilliant and accomplished women were beaten by TRUMP? A little misogyny going on there? Shall we discuss the effect of that on American politics? In their debates with Trump, both Clinton and Harris told us what was going to happen and it did.
Absent in your criticism of Democrats is the mention of the very brave 51 in Texas who are refusing to cooperate with Trump, at the risk of arrest and personal safety, to redistrict at the command of Abbott - Trump's go-to boy, And what about Beto O'Rourke who had a restraining order issued against him raising funds for those 51 Democrats, which was expanded to ActBlue to prevent funds for those 51 Democrats to go through that fundraising organization.
You didn't bring up Gavin Newsom who is actively fighting Trump and allowing the people of California to decide whether or not they'll redistrict (they will) California to help eliminate authoritarianism, or Governors Hochul and Pritzker who are fighting alongside Newsom.
Oh, and yes, we have Bernie Sanders, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jasmine Crockett, Cory Booker, all of whom are speaking out with clarity, strength and courage.
And lastly, you forgot to mention that the far-left purity candidate you want splits the ticket at exactly the wrong moment in our political history when, well, look what happened. We got Trump.
Harris told you so. Clinton told us so. I blame old white men and "candidate purity pests".
I agree that the Dems. need new leaders. However, I didn't hear any specifics on what the new leaders should be for. I just heard bland rhetoric involving a lot of words that essentially said; "The Democratic Party needs to change it's leadership". Just shouting WE NEED CHANGE in not enough.
We need some calm, collected people who look at ideas from the right and say “Yeah, that ain’t gonna work and here’s why.” I’ve had surprisingly good success with that approach. Reality had a decided liberal bent to it, and we need to highlight that. Taking care of people will solve most of the issues the right fears, but need to be able to explain how.
As for what the article asks for, where do we think these people are and how do we convince them to run against the likes of Cuomo?
It's time for new blood. The first step after you win is to start grooming your replacement. I don't think Dems have done that. There are new ideas out there that should not be dismissed out of hand. The world is constantly changing. Dems need to be looking to the next good ideas to support and the next new leaders to add to the stable.
Right; you don't wait till campaign season to let whoever's next in line hog the mike. A baseball team has a continual farm system, and that would give us the advantage over the Party of No Ideas.
The only weakness in this important article is the absence of examples beyond Cuomo. There are more scrupulous and less power-mad Democratic leaders who are guilty of the tepid moderation that Michael Franklin decries. Charles Schumer leaps to mind. The party leadership that kicked David Hogg our of his position also missed the point, a point Hogg had come to fight for. Still, the overall point is solid, and we must pay attention to it. I hate MAGA, but I can't rouse myself to respond to the onslaught of Democratic Party requests for money. I need them to have more fire in their bellies for a real fight. More Newsom, less Schumer.
Eggs-actly. Show me some backbone before you ask for more money.
Dead right. It's discouraging to see very senior leaders and their celebrity consultants with excellent records, clearly past their expiration dates, saying things that are sensible and right, but so weakly delivered that watching their performance is painful. It's time for better spokesmen. Both parties have this problem, but the GOP is in power and their kowtowing to Der Trump hides their weakness, or worse yet, reveals it.
Well, there’s one more. Where do we find and/or recruit people like what he describes? We have a few, but far too few to do any good. We even need a few old White guys who sound like Bernie and AOC. They’re out there, we just need to find them and convince them to run.
We need to critique outlandish ideas as being outlandish. For example, the whole pronoun thing got out of hand. Instead of coming down hard on people for refusing to use them, a repo se along the lines of “You don’t use your given name, yet we respect your wishes to use the name you chose. Can you show the same respect? That’s all they want.” would have made a lot more sense.
I don't recall the Democrats being charge of pronouns. While many embraced the option, it doesn't define the party. It may be that identity politics is in the eye of the beholder. Do we really need to go to the mat on this stuff?
No, it didn’t define the party, but the right defined it that way. Quite successfully.
yes. Keep in mind that the Harris campaign did NOT make an issue of transgender questions or pronouns. The MAGAs spent many millions on ads to rub people's faces in phony questions.
So a simple point about treating everyone with respect should be enough, even in the face of outrageous lies - though one could point out the lying - then move on to the reality. Harris had lots of good constructive things to say about the economy, borders etc, but Trump was more interesting to the media with his craziness and insults - so they forgave him his obvious dementia and cruelty and incompetence.
Got it. But they are going to twist anything Dems say or do, so trying to combat that is not as effective as of being proactive with our own voting base. I think that's our whole problem right now: playing whack-a-mole with every bit of vitriol they send our way. It's useless. Thanks for the clarity, though, and best wishes, friend.
No, we don’t. That was my point.
I will probably be skewered because of what I say here. Democrats cannot win if they do not stay focused on the big issues, living wages, prices at the grocery store, the rights of ALL Americans, etc. Every time I read comments in a substack, whether on topic or not, someone brings up Transgender issues. Could they be trolls, to keep,us focused on the wrong things?
If Democrats continue to focus on what affects a small constituency, they will never get elected. I agree the issue needs to be”fixing,” but it won’t be if we don’t get elected.
There are plenty of issues to be resolved that affect a greater population and we need to win the big things first. If we don’t get elected, there will be no democracy and a fascist state will not be sympathetic to anyone who doesn’t fit.
COFFEE. An acronym hides. It does not clarify. Six parts is way too long for people to remember. It is also redundant. Opportunity and Empowerment say much the same thing. Community and Engagement are similar. It needs to be quick and blunt. Limit it to three. For instance, Freedom-Opportunity-and Fairness. The 'f's click because of alliteration. The bisyllabic surrounding words create balance. The trochaic meter keeps it together. The slogan doesn't need to spell a word. Be serious, not cute.
How about just Freedom and Fairness. COFFEE - yuk!
Different locales call for different types of candidates. We need to contest every seat, there is no one size fits all.
I very much agree with you, Margaret. The Party as a whole needs to be resilient and welcome a diversity of candidate styles and types.
"That means boldness, clarity, and consistency in showing up for the people who’ve been waiting far too long to be heard."
Fair enough. At the same time we don't have much time (if any) to stave off the current fascist regime. So I think we will all have to find some middle group between supporting more ideal Democratic candidates and holding our noses on established candidates. The challenge of unilaterally running campaigns that aren't focused on special interest money is daunting. Of course we would all like to see broad campaign finance reform, but how on earth can you do that under the current circumstances. I don't have answers, but I know the imperative is regaining control of Congress and statehouses. In some cases we'll be able to support progressive Democrats , in some cases that won't be an option. Regardless of how progressive a candidate may be, you can't show up for the people if you are not in power.
We'd all like to see broad campaign finance reform, starting with a law overturning the odious Citizens United decision; we'd like to see independent redistricting in all 50 states that would finally end partisan and racial gerrymandering; and on and on. But you're absolutely right, none of that can happen if you're not in power. People need to stop thinking democracy is sturdy enough for them to be spectators, not participants; or that their pet purity issues are more important than the good of the country. Before we can do anything, our primary task is stomping out the rise of fascism which has already consumed one of our political parties. We first have to save the country before we can fix it.
Very well said.
I especially agree that we need to "find some middle group between supporting more ideal Democratic candidates and holding our noses on established candidates."
Exactly. Hopefully we will,find a candidate than can beat trump, but whoever it is that runs, we must all coalesce around them, as getting rid of trump and the maga rot is key to our survival. And to realize that candidates must be elected based on their constituents preferences, not some ideal candidate. Many needles to thread.
You nailed it, Mary! We must coalesce around the Democratic nominee, imperfect as that person may be. We don't need perfection. We need good. And decent. And law upholding. And we need to WIN!
Agree, and:
1) call them out by name.
2) Community, Opportunity, Freedom, Fairness, Engagement, Empowerment? No no no. Those words mean nothing to the voters we need, and even gets an eyeroll from highly-engaged me. Way too theoretical. That's where we get into trouble. We need to focus on housing, wages, health care, groceries. Real things to regular humans.
Yes!
>>>The real problem is the circle of legacy consultants and political operatives who orchestrated Cuomo’s run, convinced they still had the juice.<<<
>>>They don’t deliver. And they don’t evolve. They cling to outdated talking points about “messaging to the center,” but they can’t explain what that ideology is. They’re appealing to a constituency that doesn’t exist except in their echo chambers.<<<
These statements could easily have been written about Joe Biden and the very senior Democratic leadership that promoted him instead of holding him to his original one-term campaign promise. We on the Left might well be in a different position today had there been enough time to properly vet the nomination process and pursue a full-length campaign, all due respect to Harris' valiant efforts.
The Democratic Party has used memes and threats and smear campaigns against its own reformers to push back against legitimate criticisms of its gerontocratic leadership, its coziness with Wall Street and Silicon Valley, and its massive policy failures.
Joe Biden in his awful decline was kept out of sight in the White House while consultants attacked his critics (or even those who merely expressed concern about his growing fragility) as traitors or shills for the GOP: meanwhile social media were flooded with images of a brisk looking hero with gleaming white teeth, shades and a 'Vette. Old Handsome Joe. How dare you criticize him!
The octogenarian Nancy Pelosi, with her estimated quarter-to-half billion dollar fortune, has fended off numerous challenges to her own power and that of her fellow Democratic elders who occupy leadership roles in Congress by smearing and undermining younger colleagues and flooding the zone with memes: Ginger Rogers "dancing backwards in heels."
The Party's premier strategists, pollsters and consultants don't only represent the Democratic leadership that has consistently lost seats and influence over the last quarter century.
They also represent multi-billion-dollar corporate interests with a massive stake in what happens on the floor of the House and the Senate and who gets confirmed to the federal bench, and in making sure no "mavericks" (whether left-leaning or moderate) get elected. New York Democratic Senators Kristen Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer, both with intense Wall Street connections, led the obscene attack that forced the mildly-progressive reformer Democrat Al Franken out of the US Senate.
The system is corrupt: rotten through and through. Democrats are so accustomed to saying "at least we're better than they are" that they can't hear the sound of Republicans saying "at least we're better than they are."
Broadly speaking, the policies the Democratic Party claims to embrace are better for ordinary working people than those the Republican Party visibly embraces: but only just.
You have to speak broadly indeed to suggest that the compromises and negotiations the Democrats have been churning out since Bill Clinton brought Carville and Third Way politics to town in 1992 have been in any meaningful sense good for working people whose income, access, and ability to live ordinary middle class lives has steadily eroded since the 1980s, and not just when Republicans are in control.
This Republican putsch gives every appearance of being a fait accompli. I hope to hell not, but as our blue cities are occupied and Republicans lay track for the 2026 elections, it's not looking good. The Democrats needed to start fighting back long ago. Instead, they played on polarization, persuading voters that "we're better than they are" was enough. It wasn't.
Wonderful article and echoes the well-earned criticism many of us have been using since the day Obama was elected and showed up on day one with absolutely no agenda! That after 8 years of Bush, the guy who tested the water for The Heritage Manifesto! The Democrats at the time of Obama had those 8 years to prepare, and a two-year window to show American voters that they counted! We did think we were ready, and Obama was the guy, plus we elected a black man!
But it became clear in the early days when Obama wanted to play nice with Republicans, by inviting them to the WH for parties and the Super Bowl! He and the Democratic Party found out fast that life was not going to be friendly! More importantly, the democrats did nothing in those two years! Yes, there was Obamacare, but they had control of the government for 2 years! By the way, they never raised the minimum wage during that time.
So, now, we inherit A Schumer, Pelosi, (whose legacy is established, along with her stomping on the Squad because they were to active and upsetting the older order! We have Jeffries, her appointee, who only recently began to even yell a bit and who remains incapable of putting together a committee to create a plan of attack that every Democrat will follow, or yes, their seat will be contested!
As Mr.Franklin suggests, it is more than time for change, and we old activists from the 60's and 70's understand what to do, and how you must operate to deal with despots, segregationists, and traitors! We need to find young people, the Squad for one, Murphy in the Senate, the other, and get them together under someone who they can respect and who would work with them! They also need fundraising, since they essentially have no money because they don't have anyone to deal with major donors!
The problem appears to be that there is no one powerful enough who cares and is willing to grab the torch and make the changes necessary! There is only a year plus before the midterms, we should be highlighting all of Trump's actions today, and not be waiting until the formal cycle arrives!
From a lifelong Democrat, whose parents were Democrats, I'm sorry to say that ideological purity and/or donor funding promoting "Trans rights" will doom the Democrats in the coming elections. As a party, the Democrats cling to positions that are, and are perceived to be, extremist; that are misogynist and homophobic; and that seem oblivious to the findings of two new systematic reviews pointing to the weak evidence regarding positive outcomes for "gender affirming care" (The Cass and the HHS Reports). They do not appear to understand the evidence underlying the recent Skrmetti SCOTUS decision (A broken clock is right at least twice a day). They also do not seem to take the testimony of detransitioners seriously. Worse yet, the Democratic Party has allowed the GOP to defend women's and girls' rights to fairness in female sports, and to adolescents' rights to a normal puberty. This has alienated women and increasingly, the LGBs who are beginning to distance themselves from the "T." And these are (erstwhile) motivated voters for the Democrats. For those who want to learn more, please check out Helen Joyce on YouTube; or the LGB Courage Coalition, Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender (DIAG), GENSPECT, Lisa Simeone, Mariah Burton Nelson, Kara Dansky and others on Substack.
This is an issue that applies to 0.000 1% of the population. Let's move on to things that affect 90% of us.
Wow, a rationale for your own bigotry. Reducing an entire political party and all of its support or shortcomings to one issue that you fail to recognize as inclusiveness, not promotion. You're the biggest jerk today. Applause.
Thr GOP exploits ignorance about transgender to pretend it's interested in women in sports. Meanwhile the GOP is far more interested in attacking reproductive rights and policing pregnant women and their ability to get Healthcare.
The GOP will also go after contraception and sane sex marriage.
I love you Michael Franklin, but... Suppose Democratic Party committees ask voters who should run instead of consultants? Give us prospects, their résumés, their track records, and gee, a sweet introductory video, and let us vet them side by side. The problem when we vote is that it DOES become a popularity contest because we have no uniform scale on which to assess individuals. It's who we "like" best. Sure, I do my research. That often means voter's organizations and multiple candidate websites that have no interest in being objective.
And don't force-feed us a few months before elections. Make this perpetual. I have long advocated a DNC streaming platform and interactive website that everyone can know about and consult anytime to stay engaged with our politics and find actual facts without sifting through dubious news broadcasts. Make it easy for us to compare candidates at all levels of government. Sure, this works against the big donors, who love their advantage of little transparency and little means for voters to vet candidates. How many George Santoses and Andrew Cuomos are we supposed to stand in order to get at the Pete Buttigieges and the names I do not know right now who might best serve us?
I agree that there are too many old white men who are complacent, like Cuomo and Schumer, but you also forgot that the "Center" for which you seem to have such disdain is the majority.
You also neglected to mention that the last two Presidential candidates who did offer a clear and concise message were women who were beaten by Trump of all people, which is difficult for me to wrap my head around. You forgot to mention the sane-washing the press did and still does for Trump at every opportunity. I personally am stunned that two brilliant and accomplished women were beaten by TRUMP? A little misogyny going on there? Shall we discuss the effect of that on American politics? In their debates with Trump, both Clinton and Harris told us what was going to happen and it did.
Absent in your criticism of Democrats is the mention of the very brave 51 in Texas who are refusing to cooperate with Trump, at the risk of arrest and personal safety, to redistrict at the command of Abbott - Trump's go-to boy, And what about Beto O'Rourke who had a restraining order issued against him raising funds for those 51 Democrats, which was expanded to ActBlue to prevent funds for those 51 Democrats to go through that fundraising organization.
You didn't bring up Gavin Newsom who is actively fighting Trump and allowing the people of California to decide whether or not they'll redistrict (they will) California to help eliminate authoritarianism, or Governors Hochul and Pritzker who are fighting alongside Newsom.
Oh, and yes, we have Bernie Sanders, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jasmine Crockett, Cory Booker, all of whom are speaking out with clarity, strength and courage.
And lastly, you forgot to mention that the far-left purity candidate you want splits the ticket at exactly the wrong moment in our political history when, well, look what happened. We got Trump.
Harris told you so. Clinton told us so. I blame old white men and "candidate purity pests".
I agree that the Dems. need new leaders. However, I didn't hear any specifics on what the new leaders should be for. I just heard bland rhetoric involving a lot of words that essentially said; "The Democratic Party needs to change it's leadership". Just shouting WE NEED CHANGE in not enough.
Well, when you have a column written by a "thought leadership" guy, do you honesty expect substance?
Inject this into my veins!
We need some calm, collected people who look at ideas from the right and say “Yeah, that ain’t gonna work and here’s why.” I’ve had surprisingly good success with that approach. Reality had a decided liberal bent to it, and we need to highlight that. Taking care of people will solve most of the issues the right fears, but need to be able to explain how.
As for what the article asks for, where do we think these people are and how do we convince them to run against the likes of Cuomo?
It's time for new blood. The first step after you win is to start grooming your replacement. I don't think Dems have done that. There are new ideas out there that should not be dismissed out of hand. The world is constantly changing. Dems need to be looking to the next good ideas to support and the next new leaders to add to the stable.
Right; you don't wait till campaign season to let whoever's next in line hog the mike. A baseball team has a continual farm system, and that would give us the advantage over the Party of No Ideas.
This should begin with "Dear Congressional Minority Leaders." Actually, "Minority Leaders" is an oxymoron.