Dem Leadership needs to be replaced?

[aociswundumho]

None of them would like to see their kids and grandkids have access to the same health insurance that they have? I find that difficult to believe.

The AARP does not support medicare for all. My guess is they would say you should just reform the ACA to cover kids better, but leave medicare for seniors, as it was intended.

 

[Gatsby]

Speaking of the utter fecklessness of the Democratic leadership right now, I saw two incredible examples of this today. First, there was this:



Donald Trump did something genuinely outrageous which threatens the stability of America's monetary system. This should be an easy lay-up for the Democrats to criticize him. And instead, Hakeem Jeffries can't help but trip over his own dick in his criticism, by focusing on Lisa Cook being a black woman who is a "distinguished public servant" instead of on how Donald Trump's actions are bad for America. Just a terrible response from the Democratic leadership.

And here's example #2:



The DNC kicks off its summer meeting with a land acknowledgement. They are still doing this toxic shit, after all these years. Ken Martin, the sitting DNC chair, personally introduced the speaker.
I realize that there's less pageantry in the off-off-year DNC meetings than there is in the presidential-year conventions, but in some ways that makes this worse, because it's a more genuine reflection of how these people actually view the world.

 

[ashton]

Yes, Democratic leadership is horribly out of touch and a major reason the party is in rough shape. That being said, the Democratic base has its own set of problems and they shouldn't exactly get free reign over the party either. Or maybe they should and just learn some lessons the hard way.

 

[Parker_Chess]

The old guard of the Democratic Party needs to retire already.

 

[jaypatriot]

It wasn't always like that. Well into the 1990s (and even later, if you count the hangers-on who were already in office by then) it was possible for Democrats to win in conservative areas and Republicans to win in liberal areas. Parties just had to find the right candidate, by nominating someone near the ideological median of each state/district instead of the ideological median of their national parties. As a result, it was easier to get things done in Congress because there wasn't as much partisan or ideological polarization.


Yes. Democrats (or for that matter, Republicans) could unilaterally break this pattern by nominating people who can actually win in districts/states where they don't normally win. If Democrats want to win in the Deep South, they should find some anti-abortion Democrats. If they want to win out in the rural West, they should find some pro-gun and pro-fossil fuel Democrats. If they want to win in Appalachia, they should find someone who is practically a Republican but would also like to expand Medicaid and raise the minimum wage.

Republicans could do this too. If they want to win in big cities, they should find someone who agrees with Democrats on a lot of social and economic issues, but will also crack down on crime.

When one party starts doing this, one of two things will happen: 1) The other party will catch on and calibrate themselves accordingly to stay competitive, and we'll go back to much less ideologically polarized elections, 2) The other party will not catch on and we'll have a few election cycles where the party that represents the voters better will dominate the political system. Either outcome is better than what we currently have.

Aren't you talking about some of the more polarized Dems or Republicans becoming more Moderate on important issues?

 

[Gatsby]

Aren't you talking about some of the more polarized Dems or Republicans becoming more Moderate on important issues?

Some of them might benefit from that, particularly the ones in swing districts.

Most incumbent congressional Democrats represent blue districts (D+5 or more) and most incumbent Republicans represent red districts (R+5 or more), where the in-party probably doesn't need to change much to keep winning there. But if they want to expand their reach into districts that currently view them with suspicion or hostility, yes, they should moderate on important issues.

 

[Gatsby]

Here is my preferred approach to improving candidate quality and running a viable 50-state strategy:


DEMOCRATIC RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE:

• For each of the 50 Governor races, 100 Senate seats, and 435 House seats, find the 10 gubernatorial candidates and 20 Senate candidates and 80 House candidates who most outperformed the fundamentals of their state or district in the last election (i.e. which candidates ran ahead of the PVI of their state/district). These might be blue state candidates who won in epic blowouts, swing state candidates who won by a respectable amount, or red state candidates who lost but came close.
• These former candidates (or a delegate of their choosing) are the new Democratic Recruitment Committee, because they have proven that they can do better than the national party. This also avoids messy fights over the party's ideological direction: Let the objective data speak for itself and let the chips fall where they may.

PRIMARIES AND SMOKE-FILLED ROOMS, FOR CONGRESSIONAL AND GUBERNATORIAL RACES:

• For blue states and districts (D+5 or more) which are currently represented by a Democrat: Continue having primaries like before. No changes are needed.
• For red states and districts (R+5 or more): "Smoke-filled room." The Democratic Recruitment Committee will find a viable Democratic nominee and tell the voters who their candidate is. There will be no primary, since Democratic voters have proven incapable of picking electable candidates on their own.
• For swing states and districts (R+5 to D+5), or blue states/districts held by a Republican: Hybrid approach. The Democratic Recruitment Committee will find a viable candidate and strongly support them in the primary as the party's official preferred nominee, but also allow primary opposition and ultimately leave it up to the voters.

PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY:

• The Democratic Recruitment Committee shall vet all presidential candidates who want to run in a Democratic primary. In addition to the normal constitutional requirements, each candidate must:
  • Be under 70 on Inauguration Day. (If it's a president seeking reelection, under 74 on Inauguration Day.)
  • Have won a statewide general election as Senator, Governor, or President in the last 10 years. (Or in the last 20 years, if they've served as VP since then.)
  • Outperformed the PVI fundamentals of their state/district in their last election, if they were a Senator or Governor.
  • Not previously lost a general presidential election.
  • Have been elected as a Democrat and currently identify as a Democrat.
• If there are more than 6 presidential candidates who meet these criteria, only the 6 who outperformed the PVI fundamentals of their state/district by the biggest margin will be considered primary candidates.
• Let the Democratic primary voters pick from among those 6 presidential candidates.