Newsom and Emanuel: both unpalatable, insufferably conceited and clearly unelectable on a national level, however they attempt to tack to the middle. And you are 100% correct about the groups dems must win- Southern blacks, educated white professionals and union labor. The problem in this moment remains the typical democratic identity cr…
Newsom and Emanuel: both unpalatable, insufferably conceited and clearly unelectable on a national level, however they attempt to tack to the middle. And you are 100% correct about the groups dems must win- Southern blacks, educated white professionals and union labor. The problem in this moment remains the typical democratic identity crisis, but also a shattering, PTSD level of loss to Trump, plus a complete leadership vacuum. The Democratic Big Tent feels impossibly large to try to fill with allies able to row together towards any wins.
How well do you know his record? I live in CA, and while he is pugnacious towards Trump when he is trying to advance his career, he doesn't really seem to believe in anything, and has decided that his time as governor is well spend hosting podcasts featuring conversations with far right personalities.
Yes, I HATED that!!!! It might have worked if he’d been confrontational with them, debated them; but the chumminess was a dealbreaker for me. Newsom is too obviously ambitious & “slick.” He doesn’t come across as genuine, he’s playing to the camera.
Elisa Slotkin makes me sick with her constant references to Reagan, holding him up as some kind of saint. That MFer gave the Heritage Foundation at least 40% of their wish list & began the destruction of the middle class & the working poor.
Some of you pundits keep telling the Democrats to tack to the center to try & win over that ephemeral soft Republican & that has not worked; you’re chasing a ghost.
We want BIG BOLD policies promised, & then we want to see them actually work their asses off to get them done. Do they need to make transgender kids the front & center issue? No, but you cannot abandon them either.
They need to stop kowtowing to big money interests & accepting their massive donations; that crap makes them untrustworthy & just adds to the voters feelings that it doesn’t really matter who we vote for because both sides are equally corrupt. The Democrats must regain our trust. The have to actually get shit done, that internet they promised?? Still not even started because of all of the technical “rules” they built into it. The base unwavering Dem voter like myself are still really angry. We want CHANGE. Kamala lost because Joe shackled her to his policies & she refused to break from him on the economy, the border, & Gaza.
It's not so much an identity crisis as it is a changing in dynamics and demographics. The reality is that the Democrats have always been a 'not GOP' party since around Nixon. The reality was that for a long time, the GOP vote was concentrated in a way that it is not now. Which means that it's monolith approach is far more effective than the big tent Democratic approach.
The thing was, and people don't want to talk about this, this goes back decades. Clinton was a candidate who won because people were exhausted of 12 years of the GOP. Obama was a candidate who was elected because of the twin crisis of wars and financial crisis. Biden got elected because of the crisis of covid.
Ultimately, no one in the Democratic party has managed to actually pull together a coalition of Democrats in a NOT disaster setting since Carter, and even then he only lasted one term.
Outside of a crisis, no one thing is capable of uniting the party.
****[N]o one in the Democratic party has actually managed to pull together a coalition of Democrats in a not disaster setting since Carter, and even then he only lasted one term.*****
.
Seems to me Obama did exactly what you say no Democrat has done.
By your own reckoning, Obama and Biden both won on account of the crisis that prevailed when they first ran. You seem to suggest that Biden-then-Harris lost because the 2024 Democratic standard bearer was not rising to save the country from a crisis.
That is also true of Obama in 2012, and he won.
Perhaps you mean your analysis to apply in the scenario of non-incumbency and you reached back to Carter in 1976 as the only Democratic candidate to accomplish the feat of prevailing as a first-timet in a non-disaster scenario.
How then do we explain Clinton in 1992? Oh, I know -- Ross Perot.
Seems to me there is little utility in the kind of pattern or rule you suggest. Each race has its own peculiarities and dynamics.
Seems to me Dems have had the crises handed to them on a silver (gold?) platter. The plundering of our democracy to line the pockets of the corporate and techno wealthy.
Newsom and Emanuel: both unpalatable, insufferably conceited and clearly unelectable on a national level, however they attempt to tack to the middle. And you are 100% correct about the groups dems must win- Southern blacks, educated white professionals and union labor. The problem in this moment remains the typical democratic identity crisis, but also a shattering, PTSD level of loss to Trump, plus a complete leadership vacuum. The Democratic Big Tent feels impossibly large to try to fill with allies able to row together towards any wins.
I like Newsome
How well do you know his record? I live in CA, and while he is pugnacious towards Trump when he is trying to advance his career, he doesn't really seem to believe in anything, and has decided that his time as governor is well spend hosting podcasts featuring conversations with far right personalities.
The Clintons certainly didn't believe in anything, and Democrats voted for them, as did enough other Americans to win elections.
Yes, I HATED that!!!! It might have worked if he’d been confrontational with them, debated them; but the chumminess was a dealbreaker for me. Newsom is too obviously ambitious & “slick.” He doesn’t come across as genuine, he’s playing to the camera.
Elisa Slotkin makes me sick with her constant references to Reagan, holding him up as some kind of saint. That MFer gave the Heritage Foundation at least 40% of their wish list & began the destruction of the middle class & the working poor.
Some of you pundits keep telling the Democrats to tack to the center to try & win over that ephemeral soft Republican & that has not worked; you’re chasing a ghost.
We want BIG BOLD policies promised, & then we want to see them actually work their asses off to get them done. Do they need to make transgender kids the front & center issue? No, but you cannot abandon them either.
They need to stop kowtowing to big money interests & accepting their massive donations; that crap makes them untrustworthy & just adds to the voters feelings that it doesn’t really matter who we vote for because both sides are equally corrupt. The Democrats must regain our trust. The have to actually get shit done, that internet they promised?? Still not even started because of all of the technical “rules” they built into it. The base unwavering Dem voter like myself are still really angry. We want CHANGE. Kamala lost because Joe shackled her to his policies & she refused to break from him on the economy, the border, & Gaza.
I totally agree.
It's not so much an identity crisis as it is a changing in dynamics and demographics. The reality is that the Democrats have always been a 'not GOP' party since around Nixon. The reality was that for a long time, the GOP vote was concentrated in a way that it is not now. Which means that it's monolith approach is far more effective than the big tent Democratic approach.
The thing was, and people don't want to talk about this, this goes back decades. Clinton was a candidate who won because people were exhausted of 12 years of the GOP. Obama was a candidate who was elected because of the twin crisis of wars and financial crisis. Biden got elected because of the crisis of covid.
Ultimately, no one in the Democratic party has managed to actually pull together a coalition of Democrats in a NOT disaster setting since Carter, and even then he only lasted one term.
Outside of a crisis, no one thing is capable of uniting the party.
This is right, except for the last sentence- Carter was elected in the wake of Watergate.
Yes—exactly! The last time was LBJ … and you could even argue that JFK’s assassination was the “crisis” that he benefitted from.
And since the Republicans can always be counted upon to tank the economy and/or mismanage a crisis, the formula has worked rather well, hasn't it? /s
Silver Symposium, you said:
****[N]o one in the Democratic party has actually managed to pull together a coalition of Democrats in a not disaster setting since Carter, and even then he only lasted one term.*****
.
Seems to me Obama did exactly what you say no Democrat has done.
By your own reckoning, Obama and Biden both won on account of the crisis that prevailed when they first ran. You seem to suggest that Biden-then-Harris lost because the 2024 Democratic standard bearer was not rising to save the country from a crisis.
That is also true of Obama in 2012, and he won.
Perhaps you mean your analysis to apply in the scenario of non-incumbency and you reached back to Carter in 1976 as the only Democratic candidate to accomplish the feat of prevailing as a first-timet in a non-disaster scenario.
How then do we explain Clinton in 1992? Oh, I know -- Ross Perot.
Seems to me there is little utility in the kind of pattern or rule you suggest. Each race has its own peculiarities and dynamics.
And your solution is?
Seems to me Dems have had the crises handed to them on a silver (gold?) platter. The plundering of our democracy to line the pockets of the corporate and techno wealthy.