The party may sort of not be able to impose message discipline, granted (this would require major changes in party governance -legally mostly at the state level- and philosophy -which would be possible at national level as the DNC is basically a corporation-).
Also granted that until the presidential primaries national leadership is sort of absent.
But this completely dismisses the role of messaging leadership from congressional leaders.
How is it that minor politicians are assuming such a big role?
On nearly every single question of national political importance the House and Senate leadership have been followers instead of leaders.
They have also adopted the messaging style of the most histrionic advocacy groups.
There is a huge problem with having both congressional leaders come from a single state and the one with probably the most parochial political culture.
When Jeffries becomes Speaker and maybe Schumer again becomes Majority this will continue hurting the brand long term.
Moderates' failure at governance and politics is just as bad as leftists'.
Moderates have not proven any ability to govern inside the party, not even crafting compromise proposals on any of the issues of the day. How can people who don't exercise real leadership inside a party be expected to lead the country? If you can't manage factions inside your party how are you going to manage Congress?
A key difference in the presidential primaries will be the filibuster. The one leftists were attacking for the last two decades but have now hypocritically embraced.
If moderates decide to defend the filibuster but then continue on their leftward drift, they will essentially be promising the country more deadlock. Deadlock favors the right structurally (given the current neoliberal status quo) and politically (given that further deterioration of the economy favors the far right -as is being seen in every single Western country-).
A moderate with actual leadership would call on a repeat of the Biden-Sanders negotiations and try to unite the party behind something that can lead to actual policy progress for the whole party and country.
Instead not a single one of the so called moderate potential presidential candidates is calling for any sort of moderation on absolutely a single one of the issues that contributed to costing the party elections in 2016 and 2024.
Due to short term polling, moderates have basically conceded that the left is right on immigration, tariffs, Gaza, Venezuela and Iran (and implicitly on transgender issues).
The main difference between moderates and the left nowadays is on issues that are not in the public eye as much anymore like climate change/energy and crypto/AI and that are unlikely to be major differentiators in the primaries.
The 2028 election will again be about affordability and the primaries will again be about electability.
Democrats can easily win unless there is some sort of economic miracle before then.
But the political environment and philosophy they will have continued nurturing until then is simply bad for democracy.
You say this after hit pieces on David Hogg and Heather Cox Richardson? I’d’ve thought the Welcome party would be better active listeners. Progressives are more about economic populism than the internet would have you believe. And it’s not populism, but the only thing that’ll save the vast majority of us.
This is so good, so important, thank you.
appreciate you saying that!
This sounds like a pretty tempting “break” from my statewide campaign as a Democratic candidate in the only statewide race in a ruby-red Missouri.
The party may sort of not be able to impose message discipline, granted (this would require major changes in party governance -legally mostly at the state level- and philosophy -which would be possible at national level as the DNC is basically a corporation-).
Also granted that until the presidential primaries national leadership is sort of absent.
But this completely dismisses the role of messaging leadership from congressional leaders.
How is it that minor politicians are assuming such a big role?
On nearly every single question of national political importance the House and Senate leadership have been followers instead of leaders.
They have also adopted the messaging style of the most histrionic advocacy groups.
There is a huge problem with having both congressional leaders come from a single state and the one with probably the most parochial political culture.
When Jeffries becomes Speaker and maybe Schumer again becomes Majority this will continue hurting the brand long term.
Moderates' failure at governance and politics is just as bad as leftists'.
Moderates have not proven any ability to govern inside the party, not even crafting compromise proposals on any of the issues of the day. How can people who don't exercise real leadership inside a party be expected to lead the country? If you can't manage factions inside your party how are you going to manage Congress?
A key difference in the presidential primaries will be the filibuster. The one leftists were attacking for the last two decades but have now hypocritically embraced.
If moderates decide to defend the filibuster but then continue on their leftward drift, they will essentially be promising the country more deadlock. Deadlock favors the right structurally (given the current neoliberal status quo) and politically (given that further deterioration of the economy favors the far right -as is being seen in every single Western country-).
A moderate with actual leadership would call on a repeat of the Biden-Sanders negotiations and try to unite the party behind something that can lead to actual policy progress for the whole party and country.
Instead not a single one of the so called moderate potential presidential candidates is calling for any sort of moderation on absolutely a single one of the issues that contributed to costing the party elections in 2016 and 2024.
Due to short term polling, moderates have basically conceded that the left is right on immigration, tariffs, Gaza, Venezuela and Iran (and implicitly on transgender issues).
The main difference between moderates and the left nowadays is on issues that are not in the public eye as much anymore like climate change/energy and crypto/AI and that are unlikely to be major differentiators in the primaries.
The 2028 election will again be about affordability and the primaries will again be about electability.
Democrats can easily win unless there is some sort of economic miracle before then.
But the political environment and philosophy they will have continued nurturing until then is simply bad for democracy.
You say this after hit pieces on David Hogg and Heather Cox Richardson? I’d’ve thought the Welcome party would be better active listeners. Progressives are more about economic populism than the internet would have you believe. And it’s not populism, but the only thing that’ll save the vast majority of us.
We wrote about David Hogg when he became DNC Vice Chair - did that work out well for Democrats? What did we write about Heather Cox Richardson?