The Democratic party needs to embrace open competition for leadership of the party.

[Yavin4]

Let Democratic party members, the rank and file, pick the new leaders, and trust their decisions. We should not be afraid of open competition for any elected office. Candidates should not be dissuaded from primary challenging current office holders. No more automatic nominations. Competition is good for building the party and attracting new voters.

Our next presidential nominee will have to undergo a trial by fire. There will be fierce competition, and we should all be okay with that. A rigorous primary season helps to build the party and prepares candidates for the general election.

[tritsofme]

1. It's not always good. Hard to find the positives in Ted Kennedy's 1980 challenge to President Carter.

It left Carter weakened, and definitely was a contributing factor to his defeat.

Competitive primaries are generally good, but we should also be strategic.

I think having some super low turnout survey of “party members” to determine congressional leadership would be a disaster.

[Yavin4]

5. Carter was at his strongest during the primaries.

He was done in by a bad economy and the hostage crisis. Ted Kennedy's challenge is a bit overblown.

Regardless, there is no incumbent, and we're in a new generation of politics where we need new leadership that can capture the attention of the voters.

[karynnj]

36. Look at past times when we went in out of power, it is an open race

Look at 1976, Carter won by winning people in the primaries. Look at 1992, there were many strong Democrats in the primaries where Clinton won all the Southern states then enough of the late states. Look at 2004, Kerry was essentially counted out by the pundits until he won Iowa against a strong field. Look at 2008, Obama was not the favorite of the party elite - Clinton was. Look at 2020, there were many potentially good nominees. before SC, Biden had Clyburn and Kerry as about the only endorsements. Obama was silent.

Even when we had the Presidency, but not an incumbent, there were strong opponents in 2000 and 2016.

[KPN]

10. My view. What we've been doing has failed pretty

badly, so … time do something different, and not just on the margins. The Democratic Party needs a shake up. The alternative looks more like going the way of the dinosaurs than getting the results that are actually needed to avoid that.

The naysaying to new energy is old — and increasingly alienating.

[msfiddlestix]

57. Right you are, and for those who are too young to remember, Carter's defeat led to the most Right Wing lurch with

Reagan followed by Poppy Bush and third way politics that set the table for furthering the right even more drifting until eventually here we are., despite the period of "moderate presidents like Clinton and Obama.

[yellow dahlia]

2. First of all - I don't blame the Dem Party

for the past election.

But I do believe they sometimes don't recognize their strengths. Some of the best are working behind the scenes, (as is true in the real world).

I am glad to see Sheldon Whitehouse getting more attention in (some of) the media.

His presentations and speeches on the floor are worthy of watching. His investigations into SCOTUS and corruption are bar none.

I don't penalize him for being smart and financially secure. I like smart. And he is a communicator, not an elite. IMHO

[BComplex]

14. I agree 100%. Just because he has gray hair and some years under his belt doesn't mean he's a dinosaur.

He's a pit bull when it comes to demanding ethics in judgeships.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. Competition opens the soft underbelly to dilution of the brand and ideology

We are strong because we have beliefs. Open it up and money will decide. We'll have a left-of-center Trump Lite candidate. Fetterman's Ascension.

Party elites decide things because they are elites. They have extensive experience and inside knowledge that lower tiers and rank and file lack.

Trial by fire destroys the whole field. We need stability and vibrant ideas, wisdom and strategy. Cleaning the table will only bring weak factions and unexpected change, the Jill Steins and Marianne Williamsons of the world.

We need a party that grows up and fights rather than one basking in self-doubt. Not everything needs disposal, and not everything is broken. Our errors were tactical, not systemic. The rot of power has to be tempered with reality.

[Yavin4]

4. "Party elites decide things because they are elites." ???

How did that work out for us in 2016 and 2024?

[Oopsie Daisy]

8. LOL! I blame the ones who wanted to "punish" the party by not voting rather than voting for the BEST candidate.

You want to blame the "party elite" but the truth is that short-sighted folks have been failing to support the BEST candidate in contests between a Democrat and a Republican or in contests where the spoiler and 3rd party candidates have ZERO chance of winning. In national and statewide races, the contest is always a binary choice. Only one of two candidates will win: the Democrat or the Republican. All the others are spoilers.

When it comes right down to it, any vote (or non-vote) that does not benefit the Democratic candidate has the net effect of benefiting the GOP candidate.

Mature and realistic voters understand and accept the reality that no candidate is perfect. They also know and understand that only ONE of the candidates is BETTER than the other. And that ONE of the candidates has values that more closely align with their own. And that ONE of the candidates will help to move the political arc closer to the goals and aspirations we seek to achieve.

However, it's sad that we must deal with impatient and angry voters who think it's better to sit-out the election (in protest) or who vote for a Green candidate (in protest) and who do nothing to help ensure the victory of the BEST of the only two candidates who will win. We have a defacto two-party system. Spoiler candidates never win national elections.

In this instance, the definition of "accepting" needs to be refined and tweaked, or a different word needs to be used entirely. For the types of impatient, immature and unrealistic voters I described above (ie: the ones who do not support Democrats) they are only benefiting the GOP with their myopic strategies. They give the GOP more power to undo progress already made and to set up roadblocks for future progress.

And then, like clockwork, these non-voters and saboteurs "blame the Democrats" because the candidate wasn't perfect or wasn't "good enough" to "earn their vote" (but in all cases the Democrat was BETTER than the Republican.)

[Yavin4]

12. Getting mad at the voters is not going to get us any where.

Name any successful enterprise that blamed the customers for poor sales. If they didn't vote, then why is that? Could it be that the party has become arrogant and condescending?

I think that the leadership of the party needs to be challenged. If they had won, you would be right, but when you lose to this clown twice, then it's long past time for new leaders.

[Oopsie Daisy]

15. I'm telling like it is. In addition to the "saboteurs" who chose self-harm to prove their piety...

... we also have folks like Nina FN Turner, Cornel FN West, Jill FN Stein, Susan FN Sarandon, and Ralph FN Nader who encourage gullible voters that a third-party candidate can win (when in reality they can't)... and that "even if we lose, it's okay because a message was sent that the party isn't pure enough". --- So, yes, in this case, I do blame those voters for believing the lies. Is it their immaturity? Is it because the live in a fantasy world of rainbows and unicorns? Were they still pouting because their most-favorite candidate didn't win the primary? The answers to those questions remain uncertain, but enough folks are asking those same questions that it certainly deserves a closer look.

Also, to further answer your question "why didn't they vote?" I'd point out that we have some elected representatives who encouraged their constituents to vote "Uncommitted" in the primary. And having convinced them to do that, they also convinced them to NOT VOTE AT ALL in the general election. Fact is, if all the "uncommitted" voters (who did take the time to vote in the primary) had actually turned out to support the party's nominee, then things would be different.

Add to that that we are dealing with extreme gerrymandering, and voter suppression games throughout many states, along with a court system that allows it. Add to that a complicit media that normalizes Trump and demonizes/nitpicks Democrats. I'm sure you know that all of these things are true, but instead, you want to lay the blame at the foot of the Democratic party by asking questions like:

>> Could it be that the party has become arrogant and condescending?
Ridiculous. This is false. The only thing "arrogant" and "condescending" is the belief that ONLY the perfect candidate deserves a vote, or that voters must "fall in love" with a candidate before they can vote for them, or that voters must feel like "here's someone I want to have a beer with", or "here's someone with the same education level as me, that I can related to" before they'll vote for them.

Anyone who actually read and understood the party platform and the qualifications of our nominee would never accuse the party of being "arrogant" and "condescending". --- Anyone who promotes lies like that about the Democratic party is guilty of their own form of voter suppression. It needs to stop.

[SocialDemocrat61]

20. Well said

The arrogant and condescending ones are those claiming to vote their conscience when in reality by voting third party they are voting their egos because they want to pretend that they are morally superior to everyone else.

[Yavin4]

23. So, annoint candidates without any competition.

And then shame and blame the voters when they don't show up and vote. Is that it?

[Oopsie Daisy]

24. It's incorrect to call it annointing. In the real world, WINNING and gaining the MAJORITY are of the utmost importance.

It's a foolish game to intentionally lose-on-principal simply because it was too painful to vote for the BEST candidate rather than needlessly kneecapping strong incumbents. These needless charades of primarying Democratic incumbents (in hopes of getting the perfect rainbows-and-unicorns candidate) typically only serve to benefit the GOP challenger.

This type of primarying is foolish and it only depletes the funds of incumbent Democrats and makes it easier for the GOP candidate to outspend. It also risks the "sore loser" phenomenon where the losing candidate claims that they were "cheated" and the system was "rigged" by "oligarchs" and "elites" ... which results in that candidate's fan-base not turning out to vote AT ALL, as a form of protest because they believed the lies of "election rigging".

For all of the effort and money spent to damage and hobble incumbent Democrats, it makes better strategic sense to target the most vulnerable Republican candidates. Why not hobble and kneecap them? Why not damage their campaigns and deplete THEIR resources so that they can be replaced with a Democratic candidate, or at the very least a Republican who doesn't want to destroy women's healthcare rights, or the rights of LGBTQ Americans.

The type of strategy that you're describing and advocating for does does not acknowledge political reality and it's one that appeals to ill-informed and emotional voters who fail to think ahead, or to think strategically, and who cannot swallow their pride and move-on to support the party's eventual nominee.

This isn't some Student Council election. The stakes are much higher. We must DEFEAT REPUBLICANS at every opportunity. Even the "worst Democrat" (ie: Manchin) is 1000-times better than having a Republican filling the seat. Even if the "worst Democrat" votes 100% with the GOP, as long as they still caucus with the Democrats, that seat is OURS and it helps us to keep (or get closer to) being the Majority.

Still there are those who deny reality and pretend like their vote is as sacred as their virginity and that it can only be given once to "the right one, the perfect one, and ONLY that one" rather than being able to see the BIG picture. That's just a nonsensical way to think of things.

[qazplm135]

27. So your entire response seems to be

The folks who didn't vote for us don't know how vote right for various reasons and your plan for getting them to do so in the future is what exactly?

Tell them to stop being stupid?

[Oopsie Daisy]

33. Correct. Educate them. Help to set realistic expectations *

* and to think strategically, and to better understand political reality and differentiate it from political fantasy, rainbows and unicorns. They need to be mature and be able to accept disappointments. Realistic and mature voters also know how to be patient and to appreciate the value of incremental progress and to be proud that incremental progress (although slow) does indeed inch us closer and closer to whatever the ultimate goal may be. They need to accept the reality that an "all or nothing" philosophy (wherein everything must be done TODAY or not-at-all) results, predictably, in having nothing and the no progress. Also, educate and teach those voters to accept that no candidate is "perfect" but in a two-party system, ONE candidate is better than the other. And ONE candidate more closely aligns with their views. And ONLY ONE of the two candidates will win the contest. And that any vote (whether third-party, or non-vote) that does not DIRECTLY benefit the Democrat has the net effect of benefiting the Republican. Of course when the Republican wins the non-voter can enjoy the smug feeling that comes with knowing they "punished" the Democratic party for not being pure enough... but that comes also with the cost of allowing the Republicans to REVERSE and UNDO the progress previously made, and allowing them to strip away the hard-earned rights of vulnerable and marginalized citizens.

So... in short... and to use YOUR words... I agree we should "Tell them to stop being stupid" absolutely. You're getting it. Even if it's a bit blunt and abrupt, it's still a nice and concise way to say it.

[Yavin4]

37. You think that's a winning strategy?

Hectoring voters because they don't vote? We've been doing that in mid term and presidential elections since 2010, and it hasn't worked. Democrats are losing power nationwide. Your strategy is failing.

[Oopsie Daisy]

40. No. The selfish "not-voting to punish the party" strategy is failing.

And you've still not addressed the other challenges I've pointed out of gerrymandering, voter suppression laws, compliant and complicit courts, as well as the media continually "normalizing" Trump and the GOP while villainizing and nitpicking Democrats (happily engaging in bothsiderisms and hypocrisy). It all comes together to work against us.

The ill-informed and unrealistic non-voters are only buoyed by claims from folks such as yourself that the party is a failure and not worthy of their votes... and that only the bloodsport of kneecapping and hobbling incumbents (in some irrational effort at perfection) while allowing GOP candidates to continue on their merry way is foolhardy.

Nobody is "hectoring" voters... but I can tell you this... coddling them and validating their pity-party tantrums is NOT the solution. These ill-informed non-voters (or 3rd party voters) need to tough-love and to be confronted with some blunt truths about the effects of their unrealistic and selfish behavior.

Folks need to learn to: Think strategically. Support Democrats. Defeat Republicans. Accept reality and disappointments. Stop pouting.

As I've said repeatedly. In our two-party system, the winner will be either the Democrat or the Republican. It's up to responsible mature adult voters to understand that reality and to choose the BEST of those two candidates. Not the "perfect" Green candidate or the "perfect" People's Party candidate. The ONE candidate who actually has a chance of winning, and whose values and agenda and platform most closely represent their own hopes and aspirations. That's all it takes.

If you what to characterize that as "bullying" then by all means, do so. I call it a dose of reality and tough love. But, as has often been said... sometimes people need to hit rock-bottom (and then some) before they will give up their self-destructive habits and learn to grow as human beings and to accept that the world does not revolve around whether the BEST candidate has done enough to "earn their vote".

[Yavin4]

41. You keep talking as if the party hasn't been doing exactly what you're saying for years now.

You keep pushing a failed strategy. Heck, President Obama did just that to Black men in the past election, and the party lost. We've been screaming at voters for years. We screamed at them that "democracy is on the ballot".

You're-Strategy-Is-Not-Working.

[Oopsie Daisy]

46. Ridiculous. Totally absurd.

>> You're-Strategy-Is-Not-Working.
LOL! Actually, the "strategy" of kneecapping Democrats and fruitless "protest votes" is what's not working. NOT voting is what's not working.

Shitting on Democrats and bad-mouthing our party and candidates and suppressing the vote (for what? vanity? perfection?) that's what's not working.

Bankrupting, kneecapping, and bloodying Democratic incumbents for the sake of harassing them with some juvenile notion of "perfection" ... only to have that "perfect" candidate lose anyway, and to give the financial advantage to the GOP (oh, and creating division and resentment among Democrats) ... THAT is what's not working.

You call it "screaming"... I call it educating. Nobody is SCREAMING at anyone. But I can see how someone might want to characterize it in such a dismissive way when their goal is to dilute the Democratic vote, weaken candidates, remove experienced candidates, and have an entire House and Senate filled with nothing except freshmen politicians who are unprepared and are being led into the wolves' den for an easy meal.

Again, this is just a fantasy. Get real and approach politics like an adult. I cannot be treated like a high-school student council election. It's time to toughen up and be willing to fight for the win without destroying our own. The idea is to DEFEAT REPUBLICANS. As I've said repeatedly: Time to stop shitting on Democrats and stop suppressing the vote.

Time to educate voters (or, as you like to call it "scream at them&quot so that they wake up to the reality of politics.

[Yavin4]

47. So, more competition in primaries is akin to "Shitting on Democrats and bad-mouthing our party"

All that I am calling for is more participation and competition in Democratic primaries throughout the country. Competition is a good thing and not something that should be avoided. Current Democratic leaders in Washington and around the country shouldn't get an automatic free pass to the nomination. If they have a good message and are good at politics, then they should win. If not then a better politician emerges.

What we want in the end are party leaders who are great at politics, great at communicating, and bring in disaffected voters.

[Oopsie Daisy]

49. No, that's not what you're calling for.

>>So, more competition in primaries is akin to "Shitting on Democrats and bad-mouthing our party"

Yes. Exactly right. What you have in mind, and what you're calling for amplification of the myth that all of our loyal and competent Democrats are somehow NOT WORTHY of being supported and that they must ALL be subject to senseless and risky primaries. That is the definition of shitting on Democrats and bad-mouthing our party.

The scenario you imagine is not based in reality. The wholesale primarying of incumbents is a fantasy version of politics that only harms stalwart and experienced Democrats, and creates unnecessary division. It perpetuates the lie that every Democrat must pass some sort of "vermont-style" purity test in order to be worthy of serving. That's just complete nonsense.

We need EXPERIENCED leaders in Washington and in our State Houses. The notion of "firing them all" and sending a fresh crop of newbies is absurd. It just doesn't work that way. Plus... on top of that... it will never happen. But in the meantime, those who call for this to take place are perpetuating the myth that all Democrats are somehow "corrupt" or "oligarchs" or "beholden to corporations" or "incompetent" or "too old".

Whenever I hear someone continually gripe about being in opposition to giving a "free pass" that is a big clue that they're an unrealistic and impatient voter, that they want instant results, that they're not willing to compromise, and that any compromise is a sign of weakness (even if it gets us closer to the goals that we seek). The "throw the bums out" philosophy denies our representatives the chance to build coalitions and partnerships, learn the ropes, and get a complete understanding of the legal, legislative, political, and interpersonal dynamics of Washington.

I call it VALUABLE EXPERIENCE, but I suspect that the most cynical and impatient ones among us will deny the importance of experience and connections... and they'll choose to denigrate the Democrat by accusing them of being a "beltway insider" and being detached from the plight of the common-man.

A smarter strategy is one that helps to DEFEAT VULNERABLE REPUBLICANS. A smarter strategy is one that helps to WEAKEN REPUBLICANS and replace them Democrats (preferably) or at the very least, replaces them with someone who's not an insane MAGA Republican. (See? I'm realistic. I see that even in areas that we cannot win, at least having a "normal" Republican can be better than a MAGA republican, and I'd consider that to be kind-of a win... or at least one where compromise and finding common ground is a possibility.)

Fortunately, I am not one of those hyper-idealistic voters who believe that all politics is like a round-robin sporting event. And, as I've mentioned before (but you fail to acknowledge) unnecessary primaries cost money (that could otherwise be used to help defeat the Republican) and they cost political capital too (when the loser or said primary, or the supporters of said loser are unable to get over their disappointment). It's NOT a unifying plan that you have in mind. It's expensive and divisive.

It's one thing to have high standards and high hopes... but those things are only meaningful when paired with a strategy that exists OUTSIDE of the world of unicorns and rainbows.

[Yavin4]

60. Any politician worth his or her salt should be able to easily defeat a primary challenger.

So, your argument that our "EXPERIENCED leaders in Washington and in our State Houses" should never be challenged doesn't make any sense. Every politician has to stand before the voters. The value of fair and open primaries encourages party participation in the process and gives Democratic voters a real voice in the process. That's how a party engages with voters. If they vote in the primaries, they're more likely to vote in the general.

AOC challenged Joe Crowley and won, and say whatever you have to say about it, her presence in the party has helped the Democrats overall. Heck, even Bernie's two campaigns greatly helped Joe Biden win in 2020, and a lot of Bernie's proposals were among the highlights of Biden's presidency. Competition is good for any organization.

Finally, the "weaken Republicans" strategy has been a colossal failure. We will never truly weaken them as a party without having a comprehensive agenda that becomes policy that helps millions of Americans. We cannot get there by being passive, by being this top down organization that dictates who should even run for office.

[Oopsie Daisy]

62. As I've said being "worth one's salt" does not mean endless supplies of cash.

An unnecessary primary depletes that cash and makes it all the more easy for the GOP challenger in the General Election to outspend and defeat the Democrat. It's just foolish to pretend otherwise.

Experience matters. We need experienced legislators. Not a house full of wet-behind-the-ears "uh, gee, what do I do next" freshmen. The ageism of what you're recommending and advocating for just reeks.

Everyone knows perfectly well that the fluke of having special and primaries NOT on the same day helped in her win. Also, his not taking her seriously contributed. But in a competitive district, she wouldn't have won. Smart candidates know to swing back to the middle in order to win general elections. In that district, there is no "middle" so it's quite safe.

While it's tempting to claim that her situation is one to follow and emulate nationwide... it's a mistake. Most districts are very competitive and the "perfect" New England-style candidates are NOT going to win in Des Moines or Peoria.

Biden won the election all on his own. Please stop trying to give Bernie credit for Biden's accomplishments. Bernie does not "own" nod did he "invent" the platform for the Democratic party. This is just another effort to shit on Biden and diminish Biden's accomplishments. Why would anyone do this? It serves no useful purpose. Please stop.

>> We cannot get there by being passive, by being this top down organization that dictates who should even run for office.
Oh good god. Again... shitting on Democrats. Democrats are NOT "passive" Just stop it. Please.

[JustAnotherGen]

73. This doesn't make sense

They aren't voters at all.

Hectoring voters because they don't vote?

If you don't register and show up - you don't get a seat at the table.

[qazplm135]

54. That's ridiculous

I hope the party doesn't think like you

[Oopsie Daisy]

66. For individuals who may find patience challenging

For individuals who may find patience challenging, who seek immediate satisfaction, who reject compromise, who adhere strictly to an 'all or nothing' doctrine, who view voting for a 'third party' candidate as a viable means to support Democrats, who advocate for non-voting as a form of protest, who promote ageist language, and and propagate unfounded criticisms and falsehoods against Democrats and the Democratic party... I can understand how such perspectives may resonate with them. I'm a loyal Democrat, not a fair-weather one. I live in the real world, not a rainbows and sparkles one. It's important to reach out and EDUCATE voters, not make excuses for them, and not blame the Democratic party.

[qazplm135]

67. Lol

If you think saying you're better and more loyal is persuasive to anyone then I don't think you understand how persuasion works

[Oopsie Daisy]

68. It's not about me. Nice try.

I'm just the one telling how it is. I understand that it can be difficult for some individuals to hear facts and criticisms that challenge preconceived notions or that do not neatly fit into a compartmentalized worldview. I cannot be held responsible for those who can't accept reality or who live in a fantasy world where they mistakenly believe continually shitting on Democrats is the way to win elections. I'm sorry... let's be honest here... that's some toxic Nina Turner BS and a complete waste of time. Support Democrats! Shit on Republicans. It's that simple.

[qazplm135]

69. Gosh

Well thank goodness we have heroic truthtellers like you to educate us poor souls.

[Oopsie Daisy]

71. Indeed. There's no excuse for not voting or for voting third-party *

* or engaging in Nina Turner BS behavior that suppresses turnout for Democrats.

>> Well thank goodness we have heroic truthtellers like you to educate us poor souls.
Awww... thank you! It's all in a day's work. It's my pleasure to contribute in meaningful ways. It's a tough job, but SOMEONE has to do it, right?

But, looking more carefully at your comment... I hope that what I'm seeing is a typo (or just awkward phrasing when you say "us poor souls'') I understand the intended snark and backhanded nature of that comment... but, when taken literally (the all-inclusive "us" part) it could leave readers with the impression that you're self-identifying as a member of the group who think that not-voting, or third-party-voting, or shitting on Democrats, or denigrating Democrats and suppressing support for Democrats is perfectly acceptable --- or that you're sympathetic with, and approving of, the "Uncommitted-movement" or the groups chanting "Genocide-Joe!"

Personally, I do not believe that's not the case. I have more faith in you... but still... the wording was ambiguous and leaves open that possibility that someone else may wrongly interpret it that way. Just so you know.

[JustAnotherGen]

72. What if I disregard

3rd Party and Non Voters?

IF there is a legitimate election in 2028 -I expect the 3rd Party and Non Voters who are going to suffer the next few years to do the hard work.

[sheshe2]

65. Preach!

[JonAndKatePlusABird]

7. Not sure I agree

Party elites decide things because they are elites. They have extensive experience and inside knowledge that lower tiers and rank and file lack

Don’t really have much to say besides, this strategy might work when we’re winning elections, but we’re not, so……

[Ars Longa]

9. "Party elites decide things because they are elites."

That's a great motto for our party!

What a great message to dis-affected voters.

[DeepWinter]

17. Don't agree

Party elites decide things because they are elites. They have extensive experience and inside knowledge that lower tiers and rank and file lack.

So we, the rank and file, need to be sheep and follow. That's what I'm hearing. Sounds like FOX news listeners.

Myself and other Dems I talk to would like to see new, younger, leadership. From where we're sitting, the old doersn't seem to be working, let's try new. It's a new world.

[bucolic_frolic]

18. You don't stand for anything by allowing the principles of the party to be destroyed.

LOOK at the Republicans. Every last loon is part of the hypocritical power grab. Bannon, Flynn, Heritage, Vance, Thiel and Eloon.

At least Mike Pence stands for something! We may think him a prude, but he remains an old time Republican Main Street Christian politician.

[qazplm135]

28. What's with the hyperbole

What younger leaders are going to destroy the principles of the party?

[Yavin4]

42. The strategy of "let's suppress younger leaders and then get mad when young people don't vote for us"

is failing.

[Oopsie Daisy]

55. Nobody is doing that. That's nobody's "strategy" and saying it is only HURTS DEMOCRATS.

Another example of "shitting on the party" because someone wants to promote the notion that experience and age are bad, and because (I'm just guessing here) that they are advocating for ONLY "young leaders" to be given head starts and short-cuts and instant promotions to positions of REAL responsibility simply (and for no other reason) because they are young?? That's irresponsible and unrealistic. Candidates must prove their mettle, and that goes far beyond saying "Heyyyy... it's MY turn!" and "Choose me because I'm younger!"

It's a conspiratorial lie that denigrates Democrats and our party. Those kinds of lies diminish and tarnish the party and which soften support for Democrats and Democratic candidates. It's just another backhanded and not-so-subtle form of voter suppression. It needs to stop.

In EVERY CASE, the Democratic office holder is BETTER than the Republican. REPLACE REPUBLICANS!! DEFEAT REPUBLICANS!!

[TheRickles]

51. What principles would be destroyed by opening the leadership competition to younger Dems?

[Oopsie Daisy]

6. Good lord. Why spend time depleting the campaign funds of incumbents so that they can be out spent by Republicans?

This plan is very unwise and myopic. Better, instead, to use the effort, money and ground-game to DEFEAT VULNERABLE REPUBLICANS and give the Democrats a majority again.

[Yavin4]

11. We cannot defeat Republicans without engaging the voters.

Shaming people who don't vote does not work. We have to be proactive with them. Challenging incumbents helps to engage the voters. AOC did this and became a star in the party.

[Oopsie Daisy]

56. Educating them DOES work. Why would anyone be opposed to educating the voting populace?

AOC was a quite the unusual situation, wasn't it? The cards were in her favor, plus it was a non-competitive and very friendly liberal district that any Democrat could win.

However, as I'm sure you're well aware... in other competitive districts, we can't successfully run "vermont-style" politicians and expect to find success beyond the primary.

I'm sure that an AOC-type of candidate may have been able to defeat a Manchin-type candidate in a WV primary... but that same candidate would fare poorly when it comes to statewide elections. Wouldn't you agree that's a fair statement?

Yet, here you are... advocating that we do exactly that, simply because the Democrat isn't "pure" and couldn't win a New England statewide election... the smart folks know when to accept (and to be happy for) having folks like Joe Manchin to caucus with our party.

He may have even won again... and caucus with the Democrats again... giving us a 2-seat advantage with his presence. But, there exists in the world and element that wanted him gone (forever!) regardless of the cost... simply because he wasn't a Warren-style Democrat.

Isn't that silly of them?

[betsuni]

13. RIGGED! ELITES!

[Oopsie Daisy]

35. I feel like I need to get out my BINGO CARD when threads and posts like this one come around.

It never fails that so many buzzwords, lies, insults, catch-phrases, boogie men, villains, heroes... frequently dominate the discourse. In the end, nothing much is accomplished. It's just a way to pick scabs, pour salt in wounds, revive distrust and resentments. These renewed feelings of animosity discourage participation of any sort (volunteering, donating, voting) and in the end, it's just another form (whether intentional or not) of voter suppression.

[Fix The Stupid]

53. Awesome...I read the OP 3X - Don't see the word "Elites" in there at all?

But "elites" was used to attack the OP by a few posters here...in defence of the status quo...

This is irony on a whole new level, right???

[taxi]

16. It may be worth considering the immediate future of the other party in the short term.

Should there be a shift or division in their support, then the democratic party as-is stands to gain. In making a change to the democratic party at this point, along with a shake up of the other party, the voters could simply make the argument that nobody knows what they're doing and stick with the other party. By staying the course we demonstrate that we are solid and our values are solid. We are the best choice - especially when it come to a three way competition.

[Yavin4]

21. So, wait for a collapse?

That's your suggestion? How can you be sure that if a collapse happens, then it will benefit the Democrats?

[taxi]

26. Not exactly

There isn't a single issue or a single answer. What I'm saying is that we need to be wary of putting ourselves in a weaker position. It's obvious that voters of the other party consider themselves to be responsible but as soon as the tides turn they distance themselves. When it comes time for them to distance themselves again their choices should not be between what they currently have, turncoats from what have, and a democratic party that doesn't stand up.

[qazplm135]

29. That sword cuts both ways

It's why we keep flipping back and forth

[taxi]

31. Exactly the point.

Are you, American voter, going to keep bending the knee? The democratic party has fought for you despite the abandonment of democracy by the powerful, fought for you through the lies and the slander, the payoffs, the corruption. And we're still here. It's time to remember that this was a free country - freedom isn't a flag or a gimmick. We're not done fighting.

[Yavin4]

44. Republicans quickly discard and forget their failures.

At one point George W. Bush was as popular with Republicans as Trump is now. You would've thought an economic collapse and two wars would've disqualified Republicans forever. Nope. They just found a new Messiah and hop right back into power. Bush is an outcast in his own party.

The strategy of waiting for a collapse is dumb because it takes a Democratic administration 2-4 years to fix things which gives Republicans time to re-group.

[Midwestern Democrat]

74. Relying on the Republican Party to screw up and consequently winning by default seems to have been the Democratic

Party's basic strategy for about 30 years now - and we're definitely coming out on the losing end of it. In 2026, we will have held the House for only 8 of the preceding 32 years; the Senate for only 12 - and let's not even talk about the state level. The presidency has sort of masked this - from 2000 through 2028, we will have held the presidency for 12 years and the GOP for 16 (I'm not including Bill Clinton's 8 years because the political map that existed in 1992 is so different from today that it's almost not relevant) - but again, Obama was a supernova political force that emerged out of nowhere (something you can't expect to count on happening with any regularity) and Biden was 78 - hardly someone who emerged from recent Democratic Party bench building.

[Yavin4]

75. Excellent point

We keep putting our trust in leadership who have lost far more than they have won, and most of those wins came during epic Republican failures. We lack a coherent vision for the future of America other than "we're not Republicans or we're not Trump". That's not enough to gain and hold onto power.

[thebigidea]

19. Eh

"Candidates should not be dissuaded from primary challenging current office holders."

If I like the existing office holder, I sure as fuck will support the existing office holder with money, online support, and constant criticism and dissuading of the challenger on social media.

we really need to flip red seats in 2026, not waste time focusing on scapegoating deep blue district office holders and calling them corporate shills or whatever. I'm not impressed with anything most of the Squad has actually accomplished. AOC may be great on twitter but i'll take a red seat being flipped over great on twitter any day.

[Yavin4]

22. She's not "great on Twitter". She has an intense following.

And gets a lot of support outside of her district. In fact, other Democrats have invited her to campaign for her. That's what you get when you have competitive primaries. You get voter engagement.

[Patton French]

25. Exactly!

NT

[Arazi]

30. Just a reminder, Pelosi and Schumer shut out any other candidates early

Very early.

In this December 2022 CNN interview, they both make it explicit that Biden is the candidate in 2024. That public proclamation shut out any other challenger from the start. Any Dem with aspirations like Whitmer, Newsom, Buttigieg- whoever! wouldn’t have dared cross that bright line.

Remember the public lashing Dean Phillips received for even trying to run a campaign? Even here he was excoriated. In fact it was so bad he resigned from Congress in a fury and he’s actually the kind of thoughtful Dem we need.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/12/15/pelosi-schumer-intv-2024-trump-biden-jan-6-gangel-lead-vpx.cnn

[W_HAMILTON]

43. The failure of your rationale here is believing that it was Schumer/Pelosi that prevented anyone else from running...

...when, in fact, the voters themselves did that. Any Democrat with national aspirations knew it would be a death sentence for them to challenge Biden, not because of scary Schumer and Pelosi -- but because of the backlash from voters. And you yourself even admit this inadvertently, by pointing out the PUBLIC backlash to Dean Phillips.

You think Whitmer, Newsom, or Buttigieg wanted that to happen to them? Because it would have and they would have inevitably lost the nomination -- although probably put up more of a fight than dregs Phillips and Williamson. So, why would any of them put themselves in such a position? Become hated by Democratic voters, lose the nomination, and probably end their hopes of higher office.

That's not Schumer and Pelosi engineering that -- that's US that did that.

[Arazi]

45. 6 of one, half a dozen of another

I’m not going to quibble as to who shares the greater burden of guilt here.

60/40 Dem powerbrokers/us?

30/70?

If you want to give Pelosi, Schumer et al a pass that’s fine. I disagree. I think they shut out competition so early it became a self-fulfilling prophecy (and that part is on us).

[karynnj]

32. The fact that Obama became the nominee in 2008 shows that the process is at least somewhat open

It will always be true that among the group of powerful Democrats, elected and behind the scenes, that there will be times when there is group think that lines them up behind a candidate. For the 2008 race, there were powerful people lined up behind Hillary Clinton as soon as Kerry lost if not before.

The design of the 2008 primaries was to have a short battle that Clinton would win on super Tuesday, when something like 23 states decided, including many large states. Obama's team needed Clinton to make mistakes, for his team to make none, and for it to become a two person race.

In 1976, 1992, and 2004, there were pretty wide open races and in all of these it was the primaries that determined the winner.

Another example is that 2020 could easily have gone to someone other than Biden. If anything the problem was there were too many competitive candidates. Until South Carolina, Biden greatly underperformed. Had there been one "not Biden" rather than many diverse possibilities, the results could have been different. Until Biden won SC, I think the only important Democrats who publicly backed him were Clyburn, who likely "gave" him SC and John Kerry. Clearly there was no coronation. President Obama was notably silent.

In the last several decades, there has never been essentially a coronation except when we had an incumbent President going into the election. In 1996, 2012 and 2020, we had a President seeking a second term. I think the fact that some blamed Kennedy's primarying Carter for the loss led to no credible challenge.

Even in 2000 and 2016, when we had the Presidency, but he was term limited, there was an open contest even though in both cases, there was a candidate the Democratic party leaders stood behind.
Gore and Clinton were clearly the party favorites, but there were still more credible challenges than Dean Phillips. Bill Bradley, was an important Senator, Rhodes Scholar and former Knick. O'Malley on paper sounded good, but it was Bernie, who even in his hometown was seen as a very long shot, who got about 40 percent of the primary v

[Yavin4]

39. The process needs to be open nationwide.

Top down leadership structure of the party has resulted in losses across the nation at every level of government.

[StevieM]

50. This is an unfair characterization of HRC's 2008 presidential campaign.

Hillary Clinton was not seen as a future president when she first went to the Senate. She did not have the poll numbers, and she did not have powerful supporters. Then she went out and built up her support among the people. Her poll numbers in early 2005 were surprising, and entirely self-earned.

If Hillary Clinton had not been the front runner by virtue of her poll numbers, she would not have had nearly as many endorsements. And if she was down in the polls, she probably wouldn't have gotten any. By contrast, lots of other candidates get party support even when they are not polling well. Hillary only gets it when she has support from the American people to begin with.

Not that any of this matters too much. There were plenty of powerful people behind Obama from the beginning. He was a heavyweight from day one. And I don't think these supporters made a bit of difference for either Obama or Clinton.

The reason people get away with belittling Hillary's efforts in that race is because she was so successful in the first 9 months of 2007. She ran an incredible campaign and built up a huge lead that she did not originally have. When she lost it, history was rewritten to claim that she had the big lead all along and that it had somehow been gifted to her by the party establishment.

[Blue_Tires]

34. All things being equal I'd agree with you

But all things are not equal... Get me people willing to do whatever it takes to fucking WIN elections and crush the GOP into oblivion... That's all I want. And even when we don't win elections, I need people willing to do ANYTHING possible at EVERY opportunity to obstruct the GOP majority, legal and illegal... Give me victory or give me death.

Inter-party warfare might be fun and idealist and interesting and dominate the news coverage, but it ultimately only feeds the lazy "DEMS IN DISARRAY" narrative which helps the Republicans...

Besides, I don't want another 2016 where 10-15 percent of the party stays home or writes in a vote for St. Bern just because their preferred primary candidate didn't win...

[Yavin4]

38. The best way to get "people willing to do whatever it takes to fucking WIN" is through competitive primaries.

Without competition, leadership gets too comfortable and atrophies. We need to engage all voters, esp. those that do not vote. The Democratic party has become too top-down which is fine when you're winning, but the party IS NOT WINNING. The party is failing across the country. A hand full of blue cities in a few blue states is not going to get any of us the "people willing to do whatever it takes to fucking WIN".

[Blue_Tires]

63. If those are the people competing, then okay

But most importantly, THE ENTIRE PARTY MUST ENTHUSIASTICALLY FALL IN LINE BEHIND THE WINNER NO MATTER WHAT... The last thing we fucking need is more factionalism in an election year... Trumpers, Russian troll farms and useful idiots absolutely live for that shit... Even this summer there was an obvious but failed effort from chaos agents to shoehorn in RFK JR as the Dem candidate after Biden got forced out...

[Fix The Stupid]

48. Why...that sounds like..GASP!! ....'Democracy!!'

We can't have any of that now....

How stupid to believe that the constituents should pick the leader...I mean...how silly.. right???

[krawhitham]

52. Old politicians never just give up the power, they have to be forced out.

Primary people like pelosi, with the main message she's way too old to be effective and the times has passed her by

[boston bean]

58. No. That has proven to be create chaos. The party duty at this time is to

remain united and get a damned majority and win the presidency.

I am sick of republicans winning god damnit.

[Yavin4]

59. So keep the same people in positions of power

who lose elections more and more as each cycle passes by?

[mdmc]

61. nah

Just give it to Hogg

[everyonematters]

64. We need a leader who will take the leadership away from the left-wing media.

The left-wing media is leading the party away from what it needs to do to be a major political party. This is happening to both of the major parties. The party needs to relate outward to a larger percentage of the electorate instead of inward. It doesn't have to be a presidential candidate at the moment.

[LeftInTX]

70. Good thought. Boots on the ground, instead of top ticket crazy top ticket obsession.

Focus more on local and down ballot. Hands on stuff. Yeah, it seemed 30 years or so, there much more emphasis on community activism as opposed to "staring at polls". Less obsessing over president. It's like a pyramid and needs a strong base.... I think the internet and cable news has contributed to myopia

[iemanja]

76. I agree with the sentiment

But the public has no basis to choose congressional leadership. That has to be left to Congress. Then there is the practical considerations of how such choices can be made. Are you suggesting elections for all positions?