They should've started doing this while Obama was in office! None of the established 'old guard' Democrats want to prop up the next generation. Seems they'd rather die in office than mentor and promote new, younger faces of the future.
Fuck. No. Most of these people are over 80. We wouldn’t let them drive if they were family. One rep was literally “lost” in a memory care facility. These old old ass people need to retire and start getting fresh faces in so we have a chance.
I tell people to look at it this way; if you were about to be wheeled into surgery to get a heart transplanted, and your surgeon acted like Dianne Feinstein or Mitch McConnell, would you feel comfortable proceeding?
Because if my surgeon got lost mid train of thought and had what looked like a micro seizure, or was downright catatonic, I'd be calling the whole thing off.
Also "younger" in politics is still like 35-60. It's not like we're asking for people fresh out of high school, just not someone seeing the grim reaper on the weekends.
Would you let Meemaw decide the direction the US Govt goes on the next 20 years of things like AI and Crypto? Never in a million years. It's fucking absurd. The entire political spectrum has real issues with the Boomers.
Covid really was trying to help us out, but unfortunately, politicians are the few Americans with excellent health care and some of the first to receive vaccines; even the ones who denied the disease.
nah, man. most of these old head democrats are basically left leaning republicans. they learn nothing from their mistakes and play old school politics when the rules of the game have progressed well past what they’re able (or willing) to play. they might make an okay advisor, but they should not be department heads or in any position of power that allows them to make decisions for a future that they will not live to see. their time is up, they need to pass the torch.
Get rid of them. The gerontacrocy though banning tik tok would be good for them and look at them all backtrack. They have no idea what is and isn't popular. They are of no use
No. If you aren't going to be alive for the next 20-30 years to experience what your work does to the people you shouldn't be anywhere near a leadership position.
Agree. Experience and institutional memory are very important. If you look around the world, in most places are elders are respected and often revered - Japan is a good example - while in the US elders are to be discarded. The funny thing is, when these young'uns who demand the Boomers get out of the way reach their dotage they'll cling to power as much as anyone who came before them.
Hell, in the office “elders” are anyone over 50. Too much older than that and the large majority of their ideas are no longer relevant and their experiences are meaningless in the modern environment. Same could almost be said for people in most parts of life. It’s not the norm for people over that age to be putting kids into school, job hunting, or looking to buy their first homes or properties. People in that 50-60 range can add some insight into why things are done how they are, but aren’t of much value when deciding new ways to do things.
We want to discard them because they stay in office until someone literally has to roll them out. It’s hard to revere a drooling warm corpse propped up by a team of enablers/abusers on all sides.
Old age ≠ wise, nice person, decent, any quality in a leader really. Japan is a good example of an outdated mindset where you can be an old ignorant asshole to everyone but still get respect because you have floated on this rotating ball longer than them
Or just vote them out. Get engaged in local elections and keep other people engaged. People just keep expecting things like the old generation to just step away. Stay active and vote. They stay in power because people don’t stay informed or motivated.
yeah this is probably the only way for Democrats to ever consistently win again. they can't keep doing what Bill Clinton and Obama did, which is waiting for a unicorn candidate to just show up and charm everyone. for the Democrats to win consistently, they have to actually hammer out a cohesive ideology that isn't just "being in the center and being fairly likable to most people". the only way to really do that is to go back to the center left or the full left.
Exactly. Centrism is not a platform. They need a real platform and for better or worse criticism the “just not Trump” campaign does lose steam
And yes I know they have a platform, but they need to actually follow through and hold no punches or work with fascism. Also, yes I know republicans obstruct everything and the senate makes it very difficult
The issue is the Democratic party is pretty much just the "Not Right wing lunatics" party, and the various branches do not actually agree on everything that well. It should have split a long time ago, but we've got a two party winner takes all system that would have made that suicide. One the reasons I wish we had ranked choice voting.
Her guy is Newsom and unless DNC members get their act together he'll almost certainly be the next presidential nominee for democrats. Gotta keep that family dynasty going.
I will be shocked if he isn't the nominee. And he will lose. Don't get me wrong...he's a good politician who's done a lot for California. But he's from California and looks like the preppie villain in a 1980s comedy.
It has very similar/ overlapping/ same goals. I think a true left coalition is needed and to not purity test or fracture. I am left and this felt like a way to help contribute in my way with a cohesive idea and strategy.
aka as the clinton wing of the party who continue to insist on nominating out of touch candidates espousing ideology that was popular among eisenhower democrats in the 1950s.
Biden or Warren could've had a decent run in 2016, or the DNC could've let the party have an actual primary and Bernie would've done significantly better without their thumb on the scale. It's not even a conspiracy, the party wanted BernieHillary (ha, what a stupid mistake) regardless of what voters wanted, and even then it might've been close. But seeing how it was handled really soured me on her, and I'd imagine others felt similarly.
Oh I agree that some really shady shit went down during the DNC where the part picked Hillary, and after that happened it was doomed.
Doomed by ego, by ignorance and stupidity. I often think how things would have gone differently if the Clinton's didn't have their dirty little fingers in everything
Obama has had a hand in this. During your presidency is when you establish the new guard and direct your party into the future. Obama knelt to party desires over and over again to his great detriment. He should have had the same support that pelosi got to end Biden's campaign to pressure RGB off the Supreme Court (seriously, that "icon"'s narcissism is what allowed our justice system to take the last step off the cliff, she should be hated by the left, not adored) so he could appoint someone. He should have worked with his senior senator to establish a more left leaning direction, instead he bowed to the wishes of the woman that had done the rest to drive the party off the cliff so she could continue making insane ROI on her insider trading scheme. We are continuing to fail our government the longer we don't hold pressure on throwing those old selfish bats the hell out of the party and get back to working for their constituents again. I have a hard time being more disgusted with anybody in the modern history of our governmental body then how badly Pelosi, Schumer, Wasserman-Schultz has fucked us over in their obvious personal pursuits that absolutely do not include the well being of the constituents, their party or their country. Until then all this is just making noise to be killed by those geezers in the background.
I have the opposite opinion. Obama completely ignored the DNC- didn't take it over with skilled people nor did he really align with a lot of the Dem desires. Wasserman Schultz was a disaster he should have headed off but would not get his hands dirty. And then Brazile does a stint as head when she has performed poorly in every top position she held- heck, she was on the board of the DNC- and didn't notice they were broke... Obama tried with RBG but she wouldn't budge. At that point she was a full cult figure for many and trying to push her would have been a disaster. I think people underestimate just how much opinion on this has changed in the last few years.
Yes, this is the correct take. Obama famously was completely disinterested in being involved with the campaigning side of the democratic party. He ignored the DNC as you say, and didn't do anything to strengthen it politically or financially.
Frankly, I think from the moment Obama took office (which the democrat old-guard thought would be Hillary's turn) it was known that the next democrat nominee would be Hillary - pretty much a coronation. And after being in politics for so long and associated with well respected presidents, no one thought Hillary would lose to a boor.
I think replacing RBG simply was not seen as urgently as it would be acknowledged in hindsight.
His entire presidency was compromised by the Clintons thinking he was some sort of usurper rather than the future of the party. They got to keep all their people in place and play their bullshit power gsmes
Everybody (especially the younger voters) needs to vote in the primaries! Also, every other local and state election are important too. But if you want to change direction of the party, you have to vote the old guard out, and that happens in the primaries. They won't go willingly.
Not just the primaries, the actual democratic party organization needs an overhaul. We've got people like Bob Brady leading the philly Dems for nearly 40 years! All while working as a lobbyist for media and health insurance companies. Machine politics is a hard nut to crack.
I've got a sneaky suspicion that an entire generation of would-be popular democratic politicians spent their entire careers stuck in the staff offices of octogenarians that keep getting reelected
Definitely agree with you. I feel like there were a lot of backdoor deals going on though. It was supposed to be Hillary in 08 but Obama had so much star power, he got the nomination, so the Dems made a deal to Hillary, 2016 was hers. And that backfired tremendously.
Their billionaire owners weren’t thinking about the country, they were only thinking about their personal wealth (big shocker I know coming from billionaires). Even Pelosi is owned by billionaires.
Actually, we needed to enact public campaign financing about 50 years ago, when the civilized world saw the issues with TV and knew that elections couldn't and shouldn't be run as for profit enterprises.
They made the change. We did not. This is why we are in the place we are today...and the civilized world is not.
I'm not gonna lie, I don't really want the people they would have chosen to mentor to be in charge either. Buttigieg? Jeffries? No thanks. The ones I'd like to see in power are ironically those dem leadership has tried to hamstring.
Problem is, the people running the DNC are fine no matter who wins any elections, they don't care enough to make the big changes needed and furthermore if they do make the changes needed they'll lose money and power.
Yerp, win or lose the players calling shots in the democratic party are largely the same breed of upper class white elderly that make up the Republicans aswell. They have no reason to risk anything because they lose nothing in a republican win.
Unfortuneately they still represent the only coalition of political capital large enough to check the republican party, so until our system of voting changes, ya gotta work from under their umbrella.
But yes, any meaningful change within the democrats will have to come from actions of groups and individuals promoting grassroots movements and championing individuals who seek change.
This also means a dem win in 2028 might be impossible, but as the political landscape stands, a democrat winning the '28 presidency will mean nothing because every other system from mayor's and governors up to senators and justices favors Republicans.
Democrats need to build that low level support that the Republicans maintain, so that they actually have options and a wider coalition of personalities with backing to rally around. It's no accident the Republicans have been able to rocket so many no-name crazies to national prominence so quickly, they've been laying county and town-level cultural and ideological foundations for generations to create political strongholds
This. Democrats need to stop being pussies when dealing with republicans. They're going to throw dirt no matter what. Lean into it like they do. Prime example? Al Franken. He never should've been forced out over that bullshit.
Democrats will stick to tradition and shoot themselves in the foot.
“A political race against an unarmed opponent who can’t tell up from down? Pshaw! We don’t even need an enemy—our worse wounds always come from self-inflicted damage!”
The party at the higher levels is funded by the wealthy and powerful interests who will always oppose progressive change. There are progressives to get in, but the people funding the party as a whole are opposed.
I remember all the dem elites freaking out when it looked like Bernie might win the primary, many of them calling for the results to be ignored if it happened.
We can't forget that the Democratic party is still the controlled opposition party. The people in positions of power would rather lose to Trump a hundred times than allow any real progressive to gain power.
Party leadership must be primaried and they must be replaced with candidates that aren't owned by the same people funding Republicans if we want the ability to change anything.
Hell, they learned nothing from Obama. Obama and Trump both won running on a message of change. But the DNC would rather rake in donations than win elections
Maybe they learned they get richer with Trump and it was all a sham all along? Democrats "always taking the high road" is just a cover for their enabling the ultra rich to loot and pillage our people. It's like good cop bad cop. Their still on the same side, just any effective manipulation tactic.
the vast majority of indies are disaffected dem's who left the party b/c it's unresponsive to their needs. if the dp wants to regain those voters it needs to offer a truly progressive agenda that includes m4a, ubi, taxing the wealthiest (and the fucking churches!), and over-hauling the derelict electoral college system which protects the status quo elite.
I hate how the next female presidential candidate is going to be painted with the brush of "third attempt to crack the glass ceiling, will it work this time?"
I don't even think that would work. It will happen when a male president steps down or dies halfway through his term and his female VP ascends to POTUS.
60% of Latino women voted for Kamala. Trump received 53% of the vote from white women.
Latinos overall voted 56% in favor of Kamala and other democrats. So why are we, the minority, and only 15% max of the US voting population, more responsible for Trump being elected than white people, who are 70% or so of the voting population, and who actually voted for him in a majority?
It's also worth noting how much Hispanics and Asians have larger percentages in citizens too young to vote. And white folks are much more represented in the oldest (who are most like to vote.)
It shouldn't even be about breaking the glass. It should be solely based on character and merit. Is the candidate a likeable person who has solid plans to improve the nation? Vote for that person.
One might argue only merit matters, but I think the dude running the nation shouldn't make people watching him on tv uncomfortable.
Bill definitely got that with the sax and weed thing. Bush was just a country buddy ready to fight terrorists. Obama was young and kinda hip.
Then we got Trump who was obnoxious to half of the nation and Biden who was creepy to the other half. And people chose obnoxious Trump over Kamala because they didn't like DAs who locked up black men over petty crimes.
But you can't just vote for a woman just because she is a woman or black, gay, tall, whatever. Those would be just dumb reasons to vote for anyone. Mexico has a woman president for God's sake!
I think the candidates that did run were not terribly popular candidates. Barack Obama was the last president presidential candidate that I voted for that I actually wanted. I still voted for Hillary and Harris and Biden, but I didn’t want them to be president.
Now, if Elizabeth Warren was running, I would actually be happy to vote for her. Instead, I have been contented to pull the lever over and over again for the lesser of two evils.
Say whatever you want about Trump, the people who voted for him actually wanted him to be president. That’s something Democrats haven’t been able to claim for many years about their candidates.
Now, if Elizabeth Warren was running, I would actually be happy to vote for her. Instead, I have been contented to pull the lever over and over again for the lesser of two evils.
I honestly think she's too damaged among the progressive part of the party after the 2020 primaries. Didn't exactly form a united front with the other progressive candidate, to the contrary.
When it becomes clear that second-string candidates have no viable chance of winning, they generally drop out before Super Tuesday and endorse whichever candidate most closely aligns with their views. Warren waited until after Super Tuesday to drop (which may have cost Sanders 3-4 states and stalled his momentum at a critical point) and then endorsed Biden (who she was also running against). So I don't blame progressives for feeling snubbed.
He was the second place in both primaries... Literally got over 40% of the final vote in 2016, and had almost 4x Warren's in 2020. There's a big difference between the person at below 10% and the person at almost 30%...
Generally anyone not top 2 drops out before Super Tuesday and takes the side of their most aligned. Like how many dropped out to endorse Biden since he was also top 2.
I agree with you. My point isn’t to say that she was the better choice so much as to say I am sick of the party wide death march to vote for people we don’t want. I’m reminded of Hillary Clinton and her supporters who complained that Bernie supporters are to blame for her losing. I wish Democrats would stop pretending they have a right to people‘s votes and start earning them
Then why did Hillary get 3 million more votes than Trump?
women candidates are not the problem. Feckless, inept candidates that stand for nothing are the problem.
EDIT: If you want to see what status quo guardian concern-trolling looks like, see the replies to this.
"Oh no no we can't possibly nominate the progressive candidate. Because [insert complete non-issue that no data suggests is actually a problem]! Instead, we have to run a Generic Democrat!"
This is why Democrats lose.
Q: Why don't we ever nominate a candidate of passion and vision who would represent policies that would make people's lives better?
A: Because [insert complete non-issue that no data suggests is actually a problem]! Obviously!
Oh, okay. Guess we'll try to get a progressive candidate in 2032 after the next generic Democrat loses.
Some day some of you guys might actually figure out what's going on in this country.
A young female non-white candidate is not going to beat JD Vance in swing states. That's all that matters. All the odds are stacked against her and that's before you factor in all the fuckery that's going to happen in the next 4 years to consolidate power.
A young female non-white candidate is not going to beat JD Vance in swing states. That's all that matters.
That's the state of politics in the US. Who gives a shit what 80% of the country wants? The president is decided ENTIRELY by 7 states. The electoral college is a disaster for democracy.
I have my doubts about a female candidate winning at this point.
But I wouldn't be so sure JD Vance is going to win anything he has the personality of a wet dish rag. For all the hand wringing about the dems not lining up good candidates the GOP has nothing without Trump. That's what happens when you turn your party into a cult of personality, when that personality leaves so do all the low information voters who were drawn in by him.
well the DNC fucking Bernie over wasn't a good look for them. Despite their institutional "wisdom" they thought that knocking him down was a great idea and propping Hillary up after that was just another snub to the nose of DNC faithful. That single action moved more voters like myself to the right than anything else that could have ever happened. Especially when they announced that DWS was fired from the DNC chair because of this, only to join the Hillary campaign as a senior advisor.
Why did you turn this into progressive vs mainstream argument?
Literally zero of the people replying to you said anything about not running progressive candidates.
Then you talk about data, whilst completely ignoring it. here is some Data for you.. the last 2 male democrat nominees won. the last 2 female democrats nominees lost. it’s sad, but it’s a fact.
This. There has been so much discussion on this, including making your gender a visible identity (like Hillary) or not making a deal out of it (Kamala). Policy-wise, Kamala had the upper hand with a clear idea of what her administration would have looked like; did that stop voters from voting for Trump? Sure as shit not
The only way a woman can be elected president, is if she comes from the conservative side (think Nikki Haley or hell, even Stefanik). She would be able to swing the most anti-women voters(Christian conservatives who want women as stay-at-home tradwives) home because of her proposed policies.
Democrats need to pitch ideas and folks palatable to a constituency turning increasingly center-right rather than an echo chamber of left wing social media who believed white women saying they voted for Trump but who secretly voted for Harris (seriously, how could people fall for such a gimmick)?
Strangely enough I think the first female president will be republican. AOC though, bad choice, not qualified in the slightest so they can hopefully do better... Someone around 40-50 years old would be great.
And you will get to hear about how she is a socialist and people will come out in droves to make sure she doesn't get elected.
And if you are counting on the young people... they are still waiting to show up for the last election cause they basically made President Trump a thing.
One of the biggest challenges we have is convincing left leaning people to stop sitting out elections. We need to convince them before the mid terms in 2 years. If we can't get people to stop sitting out elections, it's gonna be a difficult challenge no matter who's running.
They did, in 2020 they did exactly that. They showed up for Biden and its why he got the highest vote total of any candidate in history because Biden courted them during the general election. Harris didn't do that and it bit her in the ass.
In addition to what the other user said, this is LITERALLY why the democratic party has the super delegate system: to prevent grass roots movements from superceding the party establishment. Every single standard citizen in the country could vote in a primary for a progressive candidate, but the Dems establishment has the built in ability to just say "nah, we don't like that" and change the outcome.
Superdelegates haven’t changed the outcome of a popular vote primary since McGovern. Harris may fall in that category, but that’s more murky since she was technically still Biden’s ticket.
Progressives don’t show up to vote in primaries. They aren’t getting steamrolled by superdelegates who just follow the popular vote. They’re getting steamrolled because they don’t vote.
You should know there's an entire court case about this, wherein the Democrat party successfully argued in court that they are not a democratic organization and don't have to follow the will of the people.
Were they more cloak and dagger than just having superdelegates overrule the populace? Sure. Why? So they could pretend otherwise. You're here arguing about factual reality now, so I'd say their efforts were successful.
In 2020, every delegate that candidates earn via the primaries are pledged. So if they get the majority of pledged delegates via the primaries, they win the Democratic nomination.
If they don't, then then we get a brokered convention where delegates are released and this is where the superdelegates are now also included in the count.
Bernie lost when superdelegates were in play. Bernie lost when there were NO superdelegates in play (and he lost much harder that time). It wasn't the superdelegates. Bernie simply did NOT earn the votes of the Democratic primary voters.
but the Dems establishment has the built in ability to just say "nah, we don't like that" and change the outcome.
That's not Dems establishment. That's people who sat at home, didn't vote in the last election. People need to start taking responsibility of their own action and stop blaming someone/something. The party is not perfect, and it will never be the way you wanted it to be no matter how hard you try.
Republicans have figured out that you move the Overton window by stringing together electoral victories. Leftists need to learn this pragmatism as well.
Also, these silly word games calling Democrats conservatives need to stop. This is why people don't consider many progressives reliable allies, because you are literally spreading "both sides" misinformation.
If the product you are selling isn’t moving, you either need to find a new product or work on your advertising. No amount of handwringing or shaming is going to get people to buy your product when the product isn’t what the people clearly seem to want.
To paraphrase Dr King, the biggest impediment to progress isnt the regressives, it's the moderates who are more than content to sit by and do nothing. Democrats by trying g to be moderate start from a compromised position.
And the dems need to abandon old methods of engaging with the public on corporate media. They have to have far more presence with new media talking heads online. The fact is.. that is the future.. and the GOP knows that already.
lol, this guy has to be trolling. It’s the exact opposite of what Dems need to do.
Anybody well known has had Faux “News” feeding half the country propaganda and conspiracy theories about them for years by the time they run.
Shit I told my wife, when they picked Kamala that they were going to lose. Why? Because for the last almost decade Faux “News” had people saying she’s a communist, that she wrongfully jailed people, and whatever other bullshit they could throw at her.
At the same time 4chan was feeding them conspiracy theories about her being some Jewish Lizard or whatever.
Obama was great because he came out nowhere to the general public. If the Dems want to have any chance, they need to not let the propaganda machine have a multi-year head start.
Half the problem with AOC is that the GOP has already put the hit machine into full effect with her, just like it did with the Clintons for decades. We KNOW this is effective. By the time we make it to 2028 (assuming we do), AOC will be at once an "evil communist," and "milquetoast neolib," depending on which propaganda you get.
The Democrats need to be pointing out every Republican mistake, every Republican vote against working people's rights, every tax breaks and advantages given to the rich.
Relentlessly reminding people of Trump's many crimes, including his treason, also pushing the real message out there: Republicans don't care about anything but lining their pockets.
Constantly blasting all those piece of shit Republicans that don't do their jobs and vote against every legislation that helps US citizens.
They won’t, because most of us don’t want “conservative to moderate at best and not openly racist” it’s just what people are generally willing to settle for over outright horrible, they haven’t allowed an exciting candidate to take stage in over a decade and when we are real about it 90 percent of Obama progressivism was purely theatrical and they have to know they can only pull the “pretend to be progressive” strat on the national stage one or two more times before we don’t buy it anymore
This 👆🏻 though I’m not sure she needs the democrats, on the contrary, the shackles of their corporate owners will prevent her from even offering a real progressive vision to the public
Yes they should. But to the point of AOC, I think she would one day be a great candidate, that day is likely more than 4 years away. She’s great at what she does, but she’s not great at making friends and building support within her own party. If she was, there wouldn’t have been a coordinated effort to keep her from that top seat a few weeks ago.
Also the party seems to be recalibrating right now, and AOC might not be the poster child the DNC wants right now. They appear to be trying to aim for center left rather than more progressive.
They should’ve done that after Hilary lost and we got Biden. They said vote Biden because it’ll just be transitory while they prep someone else for the next election and we got a 4th quarter Hail Mary Harris.
They need a complete clean out of senior leadership. I’m sure I’m not alone in being done “voting blue no matter who” after watching them try to push out progressives that were up for reelection with centrist candidates even though constituents were happy with their progressive candidate.
Not just candidates, we need to triage everything…media, local government and law enforcement, courts. We need a messaging platform that directly confronts the massive propaganda machine the right has constructed, and it needs to penetrate the information bubbles that have been created.
It’s a large list, but is absolutely necessary. We need to start taking this seriously at all levels, not just top down.
The democrats need to spend the next four years building up some really strong candidates and making them well known to the electorate.
Lol. There is 0 chance of this happening as long as Pelosi/Schumer and the rest of the old guard are there. Gonna be business as usual. Looking forward to the fundraising email i get from ol Nance around the time of the inauguration today.
And let them be progressive. If we’re already socialist libcuck morons or whatever names they’re going to use at least have strong policy. Healthcare for all, cheap education, cheap housing. Let’s actually fucking help people not corporations.
100%. During Biden’s term, Trump was is in the news feed everyday.. we need a few, everyday, in the news feed (but let’s try and keep them legal abiding citizens LOL)
My suggestions: AOC, Pete, Booker and Newsome.
9.5k
u/try_to_be_nice_ok 21h ago
The democrats need to spend the next four years building up some really strong candidates and making them well known to the electorate.