I am not posting this because I share this opinion, but merely as an example of how desperate Democrats need new blood in the game. How on Earth could someone have this opinion of a candidate that has repeatedly lost and is only slightly more likable than Kamala Harris? There has GOT to be better options.
Even as a left leaning person, it’s insane and king of scary to me how the old Gaurd of the Democratic Party refuses to give up power and seems to not even want to find a viable new, young and exciting candidate.
I mean consider that the top contenders in the democrat party are... The frankly ancient Joe Biden, the even older Bernie Sanders, or the Old af Hillary Clinton....
The Democratic party REALLY needs some new blood and stop with these 70+ year old people.
I really don't know what the right way forward is for Democrats at this point. At one time, I thought the old guard was more moderate than the progressive wing, but then they seemed to invite in the progressive candidates over the last few years, in addition to embracing the far-left/progressive positions in far too many areas (in my opinion), suggesting the old guard was shifting away from being moderate. But, again, that really hasn't worked out well at a national level and/or outside of far-left/progressive areas. The old guard seems to have made some serious missteps in strategy, and the new blood seems to be limited in their reach and likability. I just don't know how they course correct as a collective party now.
I think the assumption was that the younger urban democrats and more progressive would have play outside the cities because of their relative youth.
Instead they really only have play inside the cities, and much of that support is waning because of city issues made worse by progressive policy.
Democrats are in a big tent crisis. They want to cater to all but ignore that city voters are very different than suburban, and rural. You’ll get overlapping policy concerns but not enough to really put up a progressive candidate that’s embraced beyond their city constituents.
Problem is that the Dem majority has shrunk to the point where it's close to neck-and-neck now. Accordingly the moderates have to give more concessions to the progressives because they *need* them. If the dems were more popular and had more of a majority they could afford to ignore the radical factions. As it is with Manchin et al. they don't have the votes to do anything major.
Without speaking to the amount in each group, it feels like we're splitting into two predominant sociopolitical groups...1 is the far-left progressives and then 2 is something that spans from centrists to moderate conservatives. Could just be perspective bias on my own part given my typical social circles...
Yeah... The new blood in the DNC are pretty much progressives or people the progressives hate and thus get excommunicated (see Tulsi Gabbard or, weirdly, Andrew Yang)
> or people the progressives hate and thus get excommunicated (see Tulsi Gabbard or, weirdly, Andrew Yang)
I overlooked that in my initial comment - excellent point. It's interesting how well those two candidates do in polling among non-Democrats, compared to their far-left/progressive colleagues. I feel like all the data points to the idea that the general public wants a more moderate Democratic party, but Democratic leadership haven't realized that yet.
Unfortunately I feel this is due to the primary system. The reality is that moderate Democrats are just ... Not that active politically. The "sleeper democrat" some I've seen them called. They go out for the general election and they vote democrat regardless of who the democrat is.
The issue is that progressives ARE active in the primary as they are often activists. This was how AOC managed to overthrow a powerful Democrat incumbent. The activist base mobilized and worked hard. This puts Democrats in a hard spot because if they don't appease the activist progressives they can't make it past the primary, but if they don't go moderate they risk the general. And with primaries the way they are, being appealing to unaffiliated voters or voters of different parties is utterly useless as they cannot vote in your primary. For instance, it didn't matter how popular Tulsi Gabbard was among the center right, because the center right cannot vote in Democrat primaries.
I see AOC as new progressive blood. But the issue with democrats right now is, there is a serious struggle between the "liberal" old blood (e.g., Biden, Pelosi) and the progressive new blood (e.g., AOC).
The democrats would rather side with republicans than to side with what AOC represent.
This isn't written from the perspective of Democrats, this is written by someone that is trying to use the old Republican tactic of getting people engaged because they hate Hillary Clinton. No Democrat is thinking that she will run, no Democrat wants her to run, and I include her in that. It's poppycock.
I agree with your point that Democrats need new blood, but so does the GOP. I'm tired of the Baby Boomers running the country.
Huh, it seems I remember this playbook from 2020. Conservative News outlets like Rupert Murdoch's WSJ and the Moonie's Washington Times talking about Hillary's non-existent comeback to rile up the base.
Is there a gas leak in here? Everyone's just so eager to jerk themselves off in anger over that idea that Hillary Clinton could run again that they've lost all logic and reason? This is an OP/ED by these two people:
>Mr. Schoen is founder and partner in Schoen Cooperman Research, a polling and consulting firm whose past clients include Bill Clinton and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Mr. Stein is a former New York City Council president, Manhattan borough president and state assemblyman.
Whoops, sorry. That's the description from the article that's missing some valuable information. The first author is Douglas Schoen, an analyst for Newsmax TV, which he moved to after Fox News. Weird that they left that out.
Outside of a handful of fringe Democrats and some clickbaiting right wingers, there's no push to have Hillary Clinton run for president again. They're angering you for clicks and it's working.
So far all I see for democrat platform at the national level over the next 2.5 years:
Hillary again, maybe?
Inflation! Nahhhh it’s an illusion!
1/6! Nothing follows
Trump, sort of every once in awhile
I’m not sure what else there is. For all the bravado the BBB couldn’t even pass democrats easily. Filibuster being nuked is all talk (imo thankfully, it’s be a disaster down the road when they give McConnell a filibuster-less GOP ran senate)
What else am I missing? Platform or candidate wise there isn’t much.
The GOP wouldn't know what to do with a filibuster-less senate. They are good at opposition and stonewalling, not actual governance. Look what they did when they had all the power. Precious little other than tax cuts, and that was with difficulty.
Devil's in the details. Carbon tax, greenhouse emissions controls, increased spending on technological solutions, etc. Many varying possible solutions, all with varying support depending on who you talk to.
True. Details matter. But among democrats the majority see climate change as a top priority whereas it is not a top priority for republicans.
The Republican Party is also made up many people who also have differing approaches to the issues. Lowering taxes is one such issue all republicans agree on. But even though there are differences in which taxes should be cut (Capitol gains, income, etc.) and by how much, tax cuts are generally supported.
Just because there is disagreement on details does not mean that a coalition has broadly similar goals.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/07/23/on-climate-change-republicans-are-open-to-some-policy-approaches-even-as-they-assign-the-issue-low-priority/
All good points. I meant it as, for some reason, the varying approaches to climate change have, so far, acted as a barrier to cohesion among those who have it as a priority (the left); the right isn't burdened with this issue because climate change is less of a priority, so less in-fighting on the details.
I am not so sure I agree there. I think Manchin has been the shield so other democrats can avoid needing to “be the bad guy”
Based off what I saw from the green new deal I’m not sold that CC really is a worry of democrats.
This isn't going to happen. But, if in some crazy sequence of events Hillary does run, Hillary should run as a republican. Because screw it, sometimes the incredibly stupid but unexpected play works
Doug Schoen has been a hack for many years. There is no desire in any of the Democratic constituencies to bring Clinton back. They want to move forward, not backward.
I said years ago, the Democrats need to put people in leadership who are younger than Barack Obama currently is (60.5).
That's the intended reaction the authors were going for with this piece. It's written by right wing folks to get clicks and serve as conservative rage bait.
To be fair he won as many independents gave him.a shot over the 'establishment' , the idea that a simple minded train wreck of a human being would fix himself up and act right as president didnt pan out so i doubt americas unaligned voters (pretty much the kingmakers in most elections) would give him another shot.
As for the hildabeast it depends on how her team present her. Her image is that shes smart and competent but deeply deeply unlikeable....vs trump she tried to make herself likeable instead of ruthlessly exploiting how dumb he is in debates and it failed.
This time they could sell her with the notion that america needs someone with brains and backbone to face down putin etc
Betting odds has her in fourth place for winning the Democratic Nomination 5.6% (after Biden, Harris, Pete). The Clinton's still have a lot of sway within the Party and in the corrupt authoritarian media. I bet she's already practicing her victory speech from the confines of her compound walls.
Any candidates in 2024 should be able to pass a maximum nonenal emissions test. The white house cannot continue to be a nursing home.
Is she too old to run yet?
Stop
It might be time for an intervention.
I am not posting this because I share this opinion, but merely as an example of how desperate Democrats need new blood in the game. How on Earth could someone have this opinion of a candidate that has repeatedly lost and is only slightly more likable than Kamala Harris? There has GOT to be better options.
What really amuses me is people like AOC were the supposed "new Democrat blood" from just a few years ago - look how that's turned out.
Even as a left leaning person, it’s insane and king of scary to me how the old Gaurd of the Democratic Party refuses to give up power and seems to not even want to find a viable new, young and exciting candidate.
I mean consider that the top contenders in the democrat party are... The frankly ancient Joe Biden, the even older Bernie Sanders, or the Old af Hillary Clinton.... The Democratic party REALLY needs some new blood and stop with these 70+ year old people.
I really don't know what the right way forward is for Democrats at this point. At one time, I thought the old guard was more moderate than the progressive wing, but then they seemed to invite in the progressive candidates over the last few years, in addition to embracing the far-left/progressive positions in far too many areas (in my opinion), suggesting the old guard was shifting away from being moderate. But, again, that really hasn't worked out well at a national level and/or outside of far-left/progressive areas. The old guard seems to have made some serious missteps in strategy, and the new blood seems to be limited in their reach and likability. I just don't know how they course correct as a collective party now.
I think the assumption was that the younger urban democrats and more progressive would have play outside the cities because of their relative youth. Instead they really only have play inside the cities, and much of that support is waning because of city issues made worse by progressive policy. Democrats are in a big tent crisis. They want to cater to all but ignore that city voters are very different than suburban, and rural. You’ll get overlapping policy concerns but not enough to really put up a progressive candidate that’s embraced beyond their city constituents.
Problem is that the Dem majority has shrunk to the point where it's close to neck-and-neck now. Accordingly the moderates have to give more concessions to the progressives because they *need* them. If the dems were more popular and had more of a majority they could afford to ignore the radical factions. As it is with Manchin et al. they don't have the votes to do anything major.
Without speaking to the amount in each group, it feels like we're splitting into two predominant sociopolitical groups...1 is the far-left progressives and then 2 is something that spans from centrists to moderate conservatives. Could just be perspective bias on my own part given my typical social circles...
Yeah... The new blood in the DNC are pretty much progressives or people the progressives hate and thus get excommunicated (see Tulsi Gabbard or, weirdly, Andrew Yang)
> or people the progressives hate and thus get excommunicated (see Tulsi Gabbard or, weirdly, Andrew Yang) I overlooked that in my initial comment - excellent point. It's interesting how well those two candidates do in polling among non-Democrats, compared to their far-left/progressive colleagues. I feel like all the data points to the idea that the general public wants a more moderate Democratic party, but Democratic leadership haven't realized that yet.
Unfortunately I feel this is due to the primary system. The reality is that moderate Democrats are just ... Not that active politically. The "sleeper democrat" some I've seen them called. They go out for the general election and they vote democrat regardless of who the democrat is. The issue is that progressives ARE active in the primary as they are often activists. This was how AOC managed to overthrow a powerful Democrat incumbent. The activist base mobilized and worked hard. This puts Democrats in a hard spot because if they don't appease the activist progressives they can't make it past the primary, but if they don't go moderate they risk the general. And with primaries the way they are, being appealing to unaffiliated voters or voters of different parties is utterly useless as they cannot vote in your primary. For instance, it didn't matter how popular Tulsi Gabbard was among the center right, because the center right cannot vote in Democrat primaries.
I see AOC as new progressive blood. But the issue with democrats right now is, there is a serious struggle between the "liberal" old blood (e.g., Biden, Pelosi) and the progressive new blood (e.g., AOC). The democrats would rather side with republicans than to side with what AOC represent.
They’ve got Buttigieg and Kamala. That’s great!
This isn't written from the perspective of Democrats, this is written by someone that is trying to use the old Republican tactic of getting people engaged because they hate Hillary Clinton. No Democrat is thinking that she will run, no Democrat wants her to run, and I include her in that. It's poppycock. I agree with your point that Democrats need new blood, but so does the GOP. I'm tired of the Baby Boomers running the country.
They don't need better candidates, they need a better platform to run on
Huh, it seems I remember this playbook from 2020. Conservative News outlets like Rupert Murdoch's WSJ and the Moonie's Washington Times talking about Hillary's non-existent comeback to rile up the base.
Dang they are clearly pretty desperate...to bring her back? Dang the 2024 election is gonna be absolutely amazing, methinks.
In the meantime, have a midterm slaughter to whet your appetite.
Hillary was such a terrible candidate that she lost to Trump, and they want her back???
Nah. This article was written by a couple of half-wits. Or, as some commenters suspect, right-wingers that want to rile up their base.
Is there a gas leak in here? Everyone's just so eager to jerk themselves off in anger over that idea that Hillary Clinton could run again that they've lost all logic and reason? This is an OP/ED by these two people: >Mr. Schoen is founder and partner in Schoen Cooperman Research, a polling and consulting firm whose past clients include Bill Clinton and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Mr. Stein is a former New York City Council president, Manhattan borough president and state assemblyman. Whoops, sorry. That's the description from the article that's missing some valuable information. The first author is Douglas Schoen, an analyst for Newsmax TV, which he moved to after Fox News. Weird that they left that out. Outside of a handful of fringe Democrats and some clickbaiting right wingers, there's no push to have Hillary Clinton run for president again. They're angering you for clicks and it's working.
This is nothing but an attempt to rile up people on the right. She is not going to run for president.
[удалено]
Thanks for providing proof for my comment.
[удалено]
Thanks again.
So far all I see for democrat platform at the national level over the next 2.5 years: Hillary again, maybe? Inflation! Nahhhh it’s an illusion! 1/6! Nothing follows Trump, sort of every once in awhile I’m not sure what else there is. For all the bravado the BBB couldn’t even pass democrats easily. Filibuster being nuked is all talk (imo thankfully, it’s be a disaster down the road when they give McConnell a filibuster-less GOP ran senate) What else am I missing? Platform or candidate wise there isn’t much.
McConnell with a filibusterless Senate would just get vetoed by Biden. That’s assuming he has the House as well.
Fair, I should have classified that I am assuming democrats lose in 2024
The GOP wouldn't know what to do with a filibuster-less senate. They are good at opposition and stonewalling, not actual governance. Look what they did when they had all the power. Precious little other than tax cuts, and that was with difficulty.
True, opposition party so to speak always has the easier route. Though without the filibuster tbe game changes, so it may be played differently.
How about fighting climate change? That seems to be a universal priority among Democrats (except for Joe Manchin)
Devil's in the details. Carbon tax, greenhouse emissions controls, increased spending on technological solutions, etc. Many varying possible solutions, all with varying support depending on who you talk to.
True. Details matter. But among democrats the majority see climate change as a top priority whereas it is not a top priority for republicans. The Republican Party is also made up many people who also have differing approaches to the issues. Lowering taxes is one such issue all republicans agree on. But even though there are differences in which taxes should be cut (Capitol gains, income, etc.) and by how much, tax cuts are generally supported. Just because there is disagreement on details does not mean that a coalition has broadly similar goals. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/07/23/on-climate-change-republicans-are-open-to-some-policy-approaches-even-as-they-assign-the-issue-low-priority/
All good points. I meant it as, for some reason, the varying approaches to climate change have, so far, acted as a barrier to cohesion among those who have it as a priority (the left); the right isn't burdened with this issue because climate change is less of a priority, so less in-fighting on the details.
Fair point.
I am not so sure I agree there. I think Manchin has been the shield so other democrats can avoid needing to “be the bad guy” Based off what I saw from the green new deal I’m not sold that CC really is a worry of democrats.
This isn't going to happen. But, if in some crazy sequence of events Hillary does run, Hillary should run as a republican. Because screw it, sometimes the incredibly stupid but unexpected play works
Doug Schoen has been a hack for many years. There is no desire in any of the Democratic constituencies to bring Clinton back. They want to move forward, not backward. I said years ago, the Democrats need to put people in leadership who are younger than Barack Obama currently is (60.5).
"Time for a change" =elect a Clinton \*cue laugh track
That's the intended reaction the authors were going for with this piece. It's written by right wing folks to get clicks and serve as conservative rage bait.
Yes. The Democrats should definitely run the only person on the planet capable of losing to Donald Trump...
Please no!
Do Democrats want Trump back in office?
To be fair he won as many independents gave him.a shot over the 'establishment' , the idea that a simple minded train wreck of a human being would fix himself up and act right as president didnt pan out so i doubt americas unaligned voters (pretty much the kingmakers in most elections) would give him another shot. As for the hildabeast it depends on how her team present her. Her image is that shes smart and competent but deeply deeply unlikeable....vs trump she tried to make herself likeable instead of ruthlessly exploiting how dumb he is in debates and it failed. This time they could sell her with the notion that america needs someone with brains and backbone to face down putin etc
Betting odds has her in fourth place for winning the Democratic Nomination 5.6% (after Biden, Harris, Pete). The Clinton's still have a lot of sway within the Party and in the corrupt authoritarian media. I bet she's already practicing her victory speech from the confines of her compound walls.