For reasons such as Dan has discussed here, I have totally stopped contributing to any of the Democratic campaign committees and now donate my pittances directly to the candidates. The level of tone deafness is truly remarkable, and the playing not to lose does not meet the moment or what voters (and disgruntled non-voters) are demanding. I hope that if the Ds can manage to take back the House they will not retain Jeffries as their leader, and put Schumer on notice that he's next. (I know, I know....unlikely)
I too have stopped donating to Democratic campaign committees in order to support individual candidates. Mills v Platner is a no-brainer in my opinion. McMorrow is incredible. I don’t have much to donate financially and I’m older than the boomers, but I feel strongly that we need to support these younger firebrands to bring on the fight before it’s too late.
Same here. I refuse to give to the DNC or any committees. I go directly to candidates. I’m beyond done with institutional Democrats. I’m a lifelong Dem considering switching party affiliation to Independent.
Well, I think Mikie Sherrill’s obvious struggles in NJ are a cautionary tale for AOC. AOC is smart and a great communicator but she has only succeeded in a Biden +22 district. She has never demonstrated any understanding of what it takes to run in a less then bright blue district, and has seemed almost contemptuous of those who have learned to succeed in such districts. 50-50 proposition if she’s lucky enough to draw a shitty opponent.
All I can say is F*** Chuck Schumer. Hopefully there are enough Mainers who feel the same way. The man has become so out of touch that he is largely ignored. Hopefully this will continue. Plantner may be inexperienced, but he has great messaging and represents big change, which is obviously what we need. Schumer needs to get with the program or get out of the way.
The Democratic leadership is about to make the same mistake in Maine that’s being made in New York. The failure of Schumer and Jeffries to endorse Mamdani will certainly lead to skepticism if not hostility toward the Party by young left leaning New Yorkers.
Alas, the future of progressive government does not lie with 70 and 80 year olds, Bernie excepted. I’m 77 and understand this. Why can’t my peers in leadership get it.
My son (21) has never been interested in politics. (He does remember voting for Obama with me when he was 5 though…) But he has seen a LOT of Mamdani in his social media feeds and is completely drawn in. And equally as irritated that the “old dudes” are trying to stymie the campaign.
Your son was 11 when Trump had his first public escalator event. All he knows is the obscene politics of MAGAdom. Fortunately for him he has a reasonable father. Imagine what 18 yearolds who will vote for the first time in 2026 know about American politics. They were 7 when Trump came down tat escalator.
I have apologized to him SO many times that this is the only political landscape he has ever known. That conversation usually goes to the normalcy of school shootings and the destruction of the environment.
Anyone that disregards the younger generations as lazy or entitled really needs to get into their world. I think a lot of the apathy and disengagement is earned.
(I’m actually the Mom, but I appreciate the compliment 😊)
The younger generation effectively put Trump in the White House this time. Dems need to continue to reflect on that fact and not make the same mistake they made in 2024-we’re not Trump so vote for us
Yes the dem establishment need to take the hint— what about 47 drew those youngins in? Change, supposed outsider status. It's so frustrating to watch the dems' preventable train crash.
Actually, you should except Biden, too. He was without question in the Bernie, rather than the Hillary, wing of the party. Which is why Bernie stuck with him to the end, along with AOC.
Recall Bernie witheld formal endorsement of Harris. He clearly suspected a neoluberal coup (Trump even alluded to this).
Go to You Tube, search “NABTU Biden Endorsement”. Watch that, and then you’ll know why he stuck with Biden. Then watch “Joe Biden’s Radical Legacy” from More Perfect Union, for the history.
In 2020, Amalgamated Transit Union swiched their 2016 endorsement from Bernie to Biden. ‘We love Bernie, but we trust Biden, and he’s more electable’. They weren’t alone, Biden won the upper mid-west primaries that Bernie won in 2016. And they were right. I watched Liz Schuler of the AFL-CIO fighting back tears as she greeted him at an event the morning of the last NATO summit.
I still have my “Abdul for Governor” sticker as a bookmark from 2018. I’m happy with whitmer for the most part.
Now the MI legislature is trying to change the primary schedule to April, which cuts off months of campaigning. I think he has a chance, but it’s going to be a busy few months ahead.
It’s almost as if Schumer benefits from maintaining the status quo while also pretending to care about Dems and the Dem party. He’s an old white man complaining about the whippersnappers just like so many old white men before him. But the republicans aren’t the only ones who can gaslight and Schumer has, over the past several years, proven himself to be a master of it. Please see how he pretended to be strong against trump the first time around while actually cowering behind Pelosi, who did all the hard work.
PS - Dems aren’t down on the party. We’re disheartened by leadership that is languishing in the rear. My local progressive groups are DESPERATELY trying to save Mikie Sherrill from herself and she is doing exactly zero to make that easier or help them or herself. In fact, it’s like she’s holding on to the anchor while all these common folk are trying to swim her safely to shore. Mikie and Chuck are calling from the same playbook.
This supports my worry when people tout successful progressives like AOC as the magic candidate for every troubled office. She is smart, a great communicator, a font of progressive ideas. But could she win in a purple district? Only if she got very lucky as to whom she ran against. Could she win statewide in New York? Maybe. She’s an effective campaigner in her Biden +22 district, but unproven in other venues.
Sherrill is a poor campaigner who may serve as a cautionary tale to AOC.
Difference is that AOC is actually an effective, unapologetic communicator with a clear point of view and the courage of her convictions and would, if running statewide, I think have a realistic understanding of her challenges. Sherrill has been crucified by her own words over and over, she can’t unapologetically defend her choices or her convictions, so she comes across as shady, and she started this general with, it appears, the certainty that she already had the race in the bag. Add to that a senior campaign staff who has seemed to be asleep at the wheel (multiple reports from progressive orgs of begging for signs, messaging, directives, visits, anything and hearing crickets) and I think the great state of New Jersey is about to get a taste of banned books, school vouchers, and millionaire tax breaks.
I still think people over-estimate AOC. Yes, a great communicator. Extremely smart and a font of ideas. But she has also demonstrated a complete lack of understating of the compromises that are necessary to win and succeed in a purple district.
Could she win or succeed in Jared Golden or Marcy Kaptur’s district? An opinion either way is just a guess. She certainly enjoys little sympathy from office holders in many such districts.
I don’t disagree. And I hope she stays put for a while and continues to occupy exactly the space she is because she’s very good and effective at it. I would take issue with the fact that this political climate requires compromise. At the moment, compromise = Dems moving toward conservatives while the conservatives hold still at best and move the goalposts back at worst. Until some sort of equilibrium or sanity can be restored, I don’t think compromise is the way Dems should be thinking. But I take your point that the messaging needs to be different in purple districts. Lots I don’t love about this guy, but Josh Gottheimer seems to have figured it out in his district. Too bad we blew it in the primary. Would’ve been interested to see him go toe to toe with the MAGA in NJ.
I agree with what you say here, and I enjoy your comments when I see them.
I have been thinking recently about winning Senate seats in red states. That’s something we used to do. And something we need to do again if we want a healthy majority. That means Dems who may not share all our values. Do we have the capacity to work with a true coalition majority? I am not sure we do.
Agree 100%. She knew how to win in her true blue district but she is floundering HARD statewide. BUT it sure would be nice if her primary opponents were out stumping for her hard. They all had unique supporters who could be helpful here.
My first thought when I read about Mills getting into the race was 77 years old, no way. She has been a good Governor and has stood up to Trump but in this climate that you so accurately describe, Dan, she is the wrong choice. This is typical Chuck Schumer. He is, once again, defending a system that even Dem voters view as broken. Schumer backing her makes me wonder if he’s just looking for another geezer colleague. The DSCC can now count on me marking their relentless texts as spam
In the overall scheme of things, this is something that I really don't care much about.
War in Ukraine, war in Gaza, total corruption in the White House, unaffordable for-profit health care, escalating routine cost of living expenses, federal agencies invading cities that our so-called "president" doesn't like, ordering the U.S. Navy to murder fishermen . . . these things concern me a lot more than who does or doesn't play high school sports.
I agree with your analysis. Given how much attention Platner has gotten (which is money in the bank in the current environment) I don't know why you'd throw Mills in the mix. I hope Platner wins that primary and still could, but I was pretty disappointed to hear Mills was getting in the race.
Also, anecdotally, my 76-year-old dad lives in Maine and told me he didn't want Mills to run because, while she was a good governor, he thinks she's too old! Which really begs the question of how Dems keep making this mistake.
I could not agree more with Dan's assessment here. It feels like Schumer and OLD guard ant to shoehorn a one size-fits-all candidate into every race rather than let the candidates that understand their constituents run campaigns. Mamdani in New York is a prime example, Platner here is another one. Neither fits the "leadership's" mold of what a candidate should look like, because it's not the 1970s anymore, so heaven's to Murgatroyd, how can they support them. It's a fucking nightmare.
Thanks Dan for giving an honest opinion and not just following the party line! Honest question - does the John Fetterman and Kristen Synema experience make going with newer, younger folks scare them? I was a Fetterman supporter but am disappointed how he has decided on things.
Fetterman is an outlier. Google the comments of every staffer who left his employ about severe personality changes post stroke. Sinema, on the other hand,is the poster child for the Dems broken vision of politics
I am not a Sinema fan by any means. But I think it’s more that she was a shitty politician with poor political skills. And not at all that she aligned herself with some core of the party.
She originally presented as a somewhat quirky progressive politician in the Arizona House, with lefty ideas, green hair and Doc Marten boots. Clearly, somewhere along the way she heard the call of corporate board memberships and aligned herself with center-right politics. When she left office she had three Board of Director memberships. And no doubt a lucrative career in consulting planned.
So let’s not blame the Democratic party for her own change of attitude and mindset. She was an outlier in her attitude and voting record, not at all a typical Dem senator.
We need to quit criticizing the party for the failings of individual politicians.
True enough. Anything can happen. I remember when John Fetterman was a darling of the future Democratic Party--and so--not like Sinema, but it is a mistake to read too much into quirky--or even grassroots, populist, etc. Sinema turns out to be all that you say, and also not forthright or empathetic. Sinema's ability to refuse support for important public goods was more than unnerving. It was heart breaking, as she did anything she damn well pleased. I think narcissistic? Wine tasting? Or just a wino?
ISTM the party imposed no price for her selling out, it was all too easy for her. And the consequnces for us have been deadly serious. It is not too much to say that she and Joe Manchin bear more responsibilty for 2024 than anyone else. Biden wanted to put money directly into people's pockets. They stopped him.
I would love to know exactly what folks think “the party” is. In reality, for the last 40+ years, the party maintains the democratic voter file, schedules presidential primaries, seeks donations, and schedules presidential debates. And not much else. The days of strategy, messaging, and ability to put pressure on elected officials are the stuff of black and white movies.
Biden lost because of Biden. Blaming maverick senators is a reach.
Consider this: if we don’t find a way to win some red state senate seats, we are doomed to minority status. If we do win a few of those seats, we may have to accept pro-life or pro-gun senators into the caucus.
Or do Democrats value diversity only outside the Senate?
Real question; what are the shared political values of an anti-choice, pro-gun Democrat? Sounds like a Republican. Are you talking fiscally liberal but socially restrictive/conservative? I don't see how that tracks. The current anti-choice political posture is not pro-life or anti-abortion, it's anti-women, so to me and most women that's a hard no. What else have you got?
If someone offered you a majority Democratic senate, able to confirm decent judges, pass tax reform (that makes good headway in undoing the Republican grab of wealth), passed statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, expanded and reformed SCOTUS, re-passed the children's tax credit, ended the filibuster, and passed meaningful border reform / path to citizenship, but had 2 members who resisted gun safety, and another who wanted abortion rights decided at the state level, would you say no?
While I understand the emotion and indignity of having a woman’s bodily autonomy decided by others, I believe there sre a few genuine people for whom it’s about life. I personally believe they are wrong and are merely valuing potential life over a woman’s real life. But I believe that if we’re successful in electing a few red state senators, it’s an issue we will have to grapple with.
In another venue, I have argued strongly for women’s rights to control their own bodies. I have pointed out that the only time a state can “seize the person” of a citizen is when they commit a crime—or when pregnant if a woman. Horribly unfair and unjust.
I don’t have the answer (and I’m a guy so not sure I should even get a vote). I am asking the question. Because we will be faced with it.
We lost, consensus now is, because large % didn't experience a real improvement in their economic circumstances, the so-called "K-shaped" recovery (now more K-shaped than ever). There was a period in which wages were growing more rapidly at the bottom of the distribution, but that money was sucked up by "inflation", the lion's share of which was price gouging. Profits rose with prices, CEOs bragged about their "pricing operations" to investors.
So Manchinema's preventing the passage of the "human infrastructure" provisions in Biden's original Build Back Better bill was very likely decisive. Letting the Child Care Tax Credit lapse was particularly damaging.
The measures they did allow all had a delayed and diffuse pay off for most people. Not for the NABTU, who benefited enormously from the near doubling of manufacturing construction. Check out their endorsement of Biden on You Tube.
It's not the culture, it's the economic power issue that offers the Democrats a governing majoriity, because people in red states are being immiserated at least as much.
Manchinema are now being rewarded for their keeping Biden from having a decisive win in that struggle. Too bad about taking bread from the mouths of children in West Virginia
Biden (Harris) lost, according to all analysis I have read, because Biden presented as feeble and rhetorically helpless in his one debate, ignored three years of polling that said that 75% of the electorate thought he was too old to run, mismanaged the border (actually seemed helpless to exert control until s few months before the election), and waving away any complaint of inflation (not sure why you put the word in quotes. The voting public experiences rising prices as inflation, regardless of cause). Such nitpicking excuses as to CEOs triggering inflation is the same sort of desperate excuse making as blaming the defeat on Manchin or Sinema.
Dems have had to deal with center-right (or worse) senators in years past, and will again if we are successful in electing a few red state senators. In the past, presidents were astute enough not to hinge their electoral success on a particular vote. The thought of Clinton, as an example, blaming Ben Nighthorse Campbell for threatening his re-election (when he was a Dem) is pretty laughable.
Fetterman was supposed to be the kind of Senator progressive Dems could embrace whereas Lamb was seen as a milquetoast moderate. Fetterman has now thrown in with Trump, possibly because of the well documented personality changes after his stroke
Not a Fetterman fan either, but his voting record is 85% aligned with Dems. So he is obviously not thrown in with Trump.
Not all Dem pols can be as publicly lefty as AOC. A ham sandwich who identified as a lefty Dem could get elected in her district. It remains to be seen if AOC could win or survive as a PA senator, or even get elected in districts which have elected the likes of Jared Golden, Don Davis, or Marcy Kaptur.
The important part of being a successful politician is getting elected. From the district or state you’re in.
This is why the DCCC and the DSCC will get nothing from me. This is why the Democratic party is so poorly viewed—by Democrats like me. Totally out of touch.
For the love of God Chuck, hang it up please - you and Joey B are 2 birds of a feather - just could not be more out of touch - you need to go - please make it a more graceful/less disgraceful one the other guy
Apparently the party leaders have not learned their lesson. Backing a geriatric insider who will be older than Biden — is complete dereliction of understanding the current political environment.
I’ll take a quote from the movie The Rock that sums up this leadership - “Great, we’re not gutless, we’re incompetent.”
I am leaving the Democratic Party to register as an independent. I am so totally fed up with the feckless leadership of the Democrats who do not listen to their constituents. The leadership is completely weak and I honestly have no idea what they stand for anymore other than some vague sense of not losing. What are their actual priorities, principles and things worth fighting for? AOC can articulate it, but Schumer? I truly have no idea what he actually cares about and I am no longer willing to be a part of a party that is so disconnected and unable to communicate as to be unbearable.
The word you’re looking for is synecdoche or possibly metonymic framing. Where one takes an isolated incident (even several isolated incidents) and applies these to describe the party as a whole. There are many honorable, vigorous, center-left to progressive senators, representatives and governors who are happy to call themselves Dems. I’m sure all of them want the party to move forward with more vibrant leadership.
In 1970, all but two Dem Senators supported the Vietnam war. In 1964, 40% of Dem senators resisted a Civil Rights bill. The party and its elected officials moved on these things due to pressure from Democrats.
Colorado has open primaries and registered independents are allowed to vote in the primary of their choice. And I want the party to know I will no longer blindly follow their lead. I have knocked on doors, I volunteer every election to get out the vote and I am poll worker. I donate money and time and lead education campaigns and I am tired to death of leadership ignoring the things we are telling them. I am furious that Schumer and Jeffries have not endorsed Mamdani. I am furious that they are inserting themselves into Michigan and Maine. I am furious that they didn’t have a fight in March with the first round of government funding. And I am furious about Biden and his decision to run again even when voters when the people were saying he is too old. It is years of them not listening to their own base.
When I voted for Biden in 2020 it was with the understanding that he would be a bridge president. I thought he was an excellent president for the first two years of his presidency, but then his age started to show. There is no shame in that, that is just the reality of being 80. But then he broke his promise and announced he would run again. And yes, I know that he technically never said the words I promise not to run, but it was heavily implied to the point that many people believed it was a promise. And so he broke faith with people, including me, who supported him. And all the good work that was done under Biden is being undone and it is heartbreaking. If Biden really believed Trump was an existential threat to the country then he should have acted like it. That is why I am furious at him.
Whenever I read stories like this, I can’t help but compare the Democratic party to the GOP. The GOP is so afraid to turn against their own misinformed, but highly pugilistic, voters that we effectively have MAGA and Project 2025 destroying the country as we speak.
Whereas on our side of the aisle, it’s the opposite - civically engaged, highly informed and/or educated grassroots voters who donate to the party regularly, but who are mostly ignored by senior Democratic leadership and the party apparatus who appear to focus on wishes of their elite, wealthy donors instead.
Then I turn to considering the general demographic makeup of each party… and get angry all over again.
Very on point. Why is the party even getting involved? Let the voters decide and then help the chosen candidate (ahem, Mamdani). I have lost all faith in the party leadership and think Ken Martin was a bad choice. The party is too risk averse to meet the politics of today.
Is he? I heard an interview he did with Jon Stewart and it was truly awful. An hour of equivocating and non-answers. The conviction of a wet noodle. There were better options to lead the party and they chose the most generic white guy they could find. Was a sign where this was headed and it's a direct line to supporting Mills over Platner.
Oh, I agree in general re: the milquetoastiness. But I did read a recent news article where he again officially endorsed Mamdani and encouraged New Yorkers to get out and support him. Which I took as an oblique swipe at the non-endorsers. So, credit where it's due.
For reasons such as Dan has discussed here, I have totally stopped contributing to any of the Democratic campaign committees and now donate my pittances directly to the candidates. The level of tone deafness is truly remarkable, and the playing not to lose does not meet the moment or what voters (and disgruntled non-voters) are demanding. I hope that if the Ds can manage to take back the House they will not retain Jeffries as their leader, and put Schumer on notice that he's next. (I know, I know....unlikely)
I too have stopped donating to Democratic campaign committees in order to support individual candidates. Mills v Platner is a no-brainer in my opinion. McMorrow is incredible. I don’t have much to donate financially and I’m older than the boomers, but I feel strongly that we need to support these younger firebrands to bring on the fight before it’s too late.
Same here. I refuse to give to the DNC or any committees. I go directly to candidates. I’m beyond done with institutional Democrats. I’m a lifelong Dem considering switching party affiliation to Independent.
If AOC runs against Schumer, he is as good as gone
Have there been any credible polls on such a matchup?
Schumer doesn’t run again until 2028.
Yeah, but even early polling could give a wee bit of a reality hit to those who think that AOC would be a slam dunk against Schumer.
Well, I think Mikie Sherrill’s obvious struggles in NJ are a cautionary tale for AOC. AOC is smart and a great communicator but she has only succeeded in a Biden +22 district. She has never demonstrated any understanding of what it takes to run in a less then bright blue district, and has seemed almost contemptuous of those who have learned to succeed in such districts. 50-50 proposition if she’s lucky enough to draw a shitty opponent.
I have done the same thing, and every time I get an email I hit "unsubscribe". I'm done with "the committee".
Same. Is there any way out of this while Schumer is still minority leader and Gillibrand is still head of the DSCC? It feels hopeless.
Chuck has got to go. Period.
All I can say is F*** Chuck Schumer. Hopefully there are enough Mainers who feel the same way. The man has become so out of touch that he is largely ignored. Hopefully this will continue. Plantner may be inexperienced, but he has great messaging and represents big change, which is obviously what we need. Schumer needs to get with the program or get out of the way.
The Democratic leadership is about to make the same mistake in Maine that’s being made in New York. The failure of Schumer and Jeffries to endorse Mamdani will certainly lead to skepticism if not hostility toward the Party by young left leaning New Yorkers.
Alas, the future of progressive government does not lie with 70 and 80 year olds, Bernie excepted. I’m 77 and understand this. Why can’t my peers in leadership get it.
My son (21) has never been interested in politics. (He does remember voting for Obama with me when he was 5 though…) But he has seen a LOT of Mamdani in his social media feeds and is completely drawn in. And equally as irritated that the “old dudes” are trying to stymie the campaign.
The future needs fresh energy now.
Your son was 11 when Trump had his first public escalator event. All he knows is the obscene politics of MAGAdom. Fortunately for him he has a reasonable father. Imagine what 18 yearolds who will vote for the first time in 2026 know about American politics. They were 7 when Trump came down tat escalator.
I have apologized to him SO many times that this is the only political landscape he has ever known. That conversation usually goes to the normalcy of school shootings and the destruction of the environment.
Anyone that disregards the younger generations as lazy or entitled really needs to get into their world. I think a lot of the apathy and disengagement is earned.
(I’m actually the Mom, but I appreciate the compliment 😊)
The younger generation effectively put Trump in the White House this time. Dems need to continue to reflect on that fact and not make the same mistake they made in 2024-we’re not Trump so vote for us
Absolutely. Deep reflection is imperative
Yes the dem establishment need to take the hint— what about 47 drew those youngins in? Change, supposed outsider status. It's so frustrating to watch the dems' preventable train crash.
Yes - we need to make sure this political atmosphere doesn't become normalized!
The reply about male bias was meant for you.
Sorry, just typical male bias.
Actually, you should except Biden, too. He was without question in the Bernie, rather than the Hillary, wing of the party. Which is why Bernie stuck with him to the end, along with AOC.
Bernie stuck with Biden because - 1-he and Biden both learned from the Hillary debacle and allied early, 2-Biden was a man.
Recall Bernie witheld formal endorsement of Harris. He clearly suspected a neoluberal coup (Trump even alluded to this).
Go to You Tube, search “NABTU Biden Endorsement”. Watch that, and then you’ll know why he stuck with Biden. Then watch “Joe Biden’s Radical Legacy” from More Perfect Union, for the history.
In 2020, Amalgamated Transit Union swiched their 2016 endorsement from Bernie to Biden. ‘We love Bernie, but we trust Biden, and he’s more electable’. They weren’t alone, Biden won the upper mid-west primaries that Bernie won in 2016. And they were right. I watched Liz Schuler of the AFL-CIO fighting back tears as she greeted him at an event the morning of the last NATO summit.
Look at the bigger picture, the history.
This primary could help wake up the party leaders to the reality that we don’t want the same old centrists playing the safe game.
You’d think Momdani would be that wake-up call, but they will shrug off NYC. They cannot do that in Maine.
So, it’s time for the Mainers to show the establishment Dems that their day is done.
I was flat out wrong. This is why we have a primary process.
As someone who volunteers with Abdul’s campaign in Michigan, the whole situation is entirely frustrating and frequently maddening.
I deeply respect Abdul and his vision for the future. He is a leader I would follow. I live in Colorado, but I send my support.
I still have my “Abdul for Governor” sticker as a bookmark from 2018. I’m happy with whitmer for the most part.
Now the MI legislature is trying to change the primary schedule to April, which cuts off months of campaigning. I think he has a chance, but it’s going to be a busy few months ahead.
And thank you for the support!
It’s almost as if Schumer benefits from maintaining the status quo while also pretending to care about Dems and the Dem party. He’s an old white man complaining about the whippersnappers just like so many old white men before him. But the republicans aren’t the only ones who can gaslight and Schumer has, over the past several years, proven himself to be a master of it. Please see how he pretended to be strong against trump the first time around while actually cowering behind Pelosi, who did all the hard work.
PS - Dems aren’t down on the party. We’re disheartened by leadership that is languishing in the rear. My local progressive groups are DESPERATELY trying to save Mikie Sherrill from herself and she is doing exactly zero to make that easier or help them or herself. In fact, it’s like she’s holding on to the anchor while all these common folk are trying to swim her safely to shore. Mikie and Chuck are calling from the same playbook.
This supports my worry when people tout successful progressives like AOC as the magic candidate for every troubled office. She is smart, a great communicator, a font of progressive ideas. But could she win in a purple district? Only if she got very lucky as to whom she ran against. Could she win statewide in New York? Maybe. She’s an effective campaigner in her Biden +22 district, but unproven in other venues.
Sherrill is a poor campaigner who may serve as a cautionary tale to AOC.
Difference is that AOC is actually an effective, unapologetic communicator with a clear point of view and the courage of her convictions and would, if running statewide, I think have a realistic understanding of her challenges. Sherrill has been crucified by her own words over and over, she can’t unapologetically defend her choices or her convictions, so she comes across as shady, and she started this general with, it appears, the certainty that she already had the race in the bag. Add to that a senior campaign staff who has seemed to be asleep at the wheel (multiple reports from progressive orgs of begging for signs, messaging, directives, visits, anything and hearing crickets) and I think the great state of New Jersey is about to get a taste of banned books, school vouchers, and millionaire tax breaks.
I still think people over-estimate AOC. Yes, a great communicator. Extremely smart and a font of ideas. But she has also demonstrated a complete lack of understating of the compromises that are necessary to win and succeed in a purple district.
Could she win or succeed in Jared Golden or Marcy Kaptur’s district? An opinion either way is just a guess. She certainly enjoys little sympathy from office holders in many such districts.
I don’t disagree. And I hope she stays put for a while and continues to occupy exactly the space she is because she’s very good and effective at it. I would take issue with the fact that this political climate requires compromise. At the moment, compromise = Dems moving toward conservatives while the conservatives hold still at best and move the goalposts back at worst. Until some sort of equilibrium or sanity can be restored, I don’t think compromise is the way Dems should be thinking. But I take your point that the messaging needs to be different in purple districts. Lots I don’t love about this guy, but Josh Gottheimer seems to have figured it out in his district. Too bad we blew it in the primary. Would’ve been interested to see him go toe to toe with the MAGA in NJ.
I agree with what you say here, and I enjoy your comments when I see them.
I have been thinking recently about winning Senate seats in red states. That’s something we used to do. And something we need to do again if we want a healthy majority. That means Dems who may not share all our values. Do we have the capacity to work with a true coalition majority? I am not sure we do.
She’s another one who never should’ve won the primary or run at all
Agree 100%. She knew how to win in her true blue district but she is floundering HARD statewide. BUT it sure would be nice if her primary opponents were out stumping for her hard. They all had unique supporters who could be helpful here.
Good point about Sherrill.
My first thought when I read about Mills getting into the race was 77 years old, no way. She has been a good Governor and has stood up to Trump but in this climate that you so accurately describe, Dan, she is the wrong choice. This is typical Chuck Schumer. He is, once again, defending a system that even Dem voters view as broken. Schumer backing her makes me wonder if he’s just looking for another geezer colleague. The DSCC can now count on me marking their relentless texts as spam
The only thing she stood up to Trump on was having men play women’s sports. This is not a popular position and one that frankly makes no sense.
In the overall scheme of things, this is something that I really don't care much about.
War in Ukraine, war in Gaza, total corruption in the White House, unaffordable for-profit health care, escalating routine cost of living expenses, federal agencies invading cities that our so-called "president" doesn't like, ordering the U.S. Navy to murder fishermen . . . these things concern me a lot more than who does or doesn't play high school sports.
I agree with your analysis. Given how much attention Platner has gotten (which is money in the bank in the current environment) I don't know why you'd throw Mills in the mix. I hope Platner wins that primary and still could, but I was pretty disappointed to hear Mills was getting in the race.
Also, anecdotally, my 76-year-old dad lives in Maine and told me he didn't want Mills to run because, while she was a good governor, he thinks she's too old! Which really begs the question of how Dems keep making this mistake.
I could not agree more with Dan's assessment here. It feels like Schumer and OLD guard ant to shoehorn a one size-fits-all candidate into every race rather than let the candidates that understand their constituents run campaigns. Mamdani in New York is a prime example, Platner here is another one. Neither fits the "leadership's" mold of what a candidate should look like, because it's not the 1970s anymore, so heaven's to Murgatroyd, how can they support them. It's a fucking nightmare.
Thanks Dan for giving an honest opinion and not just following the party line! Honest question - does the John Fetterman and Kristen Synema experience make going with newer, younger folks scare them? I was a Fetterman supporter but am disappointed how he has decided on things.
Fetterman is an outlier. Google the comments of every staffer who left his employ about severe personality changes post stroke. Sinema, on the other hand,is the poster child for the Dems broken vision of politics
I am not a Sinema fan by any means. But I think it’s more that she was a shitty politician with poor political skills. And not at all that she aligned herself with some core of the party.
She originally presented as a somewhat quirky progressive politician in the Arizona House, with lefty ideas, green hair and Doc Marten boots. Clearly, somewhere along the way she heard the call of corporate board memberships and aligned herself with center-right politics. When she left office she had three Board of Director memberships. And no doubt a lucrative career in consulting planned.
So let’s not blame the Democratic party for her own change of attitude and mindset. She was an outlier in her attitude and voting record, not at all a typical Dem senator.
We need to quit criticizing the party for the failings of individual politicians.
True enough. Anything can happen. I remember when John Fetterman was a darling of the future Democratic Party--and so--not like Sinema, but it is a mistake to read too much into quirky--or even grassroots, populist, etc. Sinema turns out to be all that you say, and also not forthright or empathetic. Sinema's ability to refuse support for important public goods was more than unnerving. It was heart breaking, as she did anything she damn well pleased. I think narcissistic? Wine tasting? Or just a wino?
ISTM the party imposed no price for her selling out, it was all too easy for her. And the consequnces for us have been deadly serious. It is not too much to say that she and Joe Manchin bear more responsibilty for 2024 than anyone else. Biden wanted to put money directly into people's pockets. They stopped him.
I would love to know exactly what folks think “the party” is. In reality, for the last 40+ years, the party maintains the democratic voter file, schedules presidential primaries, seeks donations, and schedules presidential debates. And not much else. The days of strategy, messaging, and ability to put pressure on elected officials are the stuff of black and white movies.
Biden lost because of Biden. Blaming maverick senators is a reach.
Consider this: if we don’t find a way to win some red state senate seats, we are doomed to minority status. If we do win a few of those seats, we may have to accept pro-life or pro-gun senators into the caucus.
Or do Democrats value diversity only outside the Senate?
Real question; what are the shared political values of an anti-choice, pro-gun Democrat? Sounds like a Republican. Are you talking fiscally liberal but socially restrictive/conservative? I don't see how that tracks. The current anti-choice political posture is not pro-life or anti-abortion, it's anti-women, so to me and most women that's a hard no. What else have you got?
If someone offered you a majority Democratic senate, able to confirm decent judges, pass tax reform (that makes good headway in undoing the Republican grab of wealth), passed statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, expanded and reformed SCOTUS, re-passed the children's tax credit, ended the filibuster, and passed meaningful border reform / path to citizenship, but had 2 members who resisted gun safety, and another who wanted abortion rights decided at the state level, would you say no?
While I understand the emotion and indignity of having a woman’s bodily autonomy decided by others, I believe there sre a few genuine people for whom it’s about life. I personally believe they are wrong and are merely valuing potential life over a woman’s real life. But I believe that if we’re successful in electing a few red state senators, it’s an issue we will have to grapple with.
In another venue, I have argued strongly for women’s rights to control their own bodies. I have pointed out that the only time a state can “seize the person” of a citizen is when they commit a crime—or when pregnant if a woman. Horribly unfair and unjust.
I don’t have the answer (and I’m a guy so not sure I should even get a vote). I am asking the question. Because we will be faced with it.
We lost, consensus now is, because large % didn't experience a real improvement in their economic circumstances, the so-called "K-shaped" recovery (now more K-shaped than ever). There was a period in which wages were growing more rapidly at the bottom of the distribution, but that money was sucked up by "inflation", the lion's share of which was price gouging. Profits rose with prices, CEOs bragged about their "pricing operations" to investors.
So Manchinema's preventing the passage of the "human infrastructure" provisions in Biden's original Build Back Better bill was very likely decisive. Letting the Child Care Tax Credit lapse was particularly damaging.
The measures they did allow all had a delayed and diffuse pay off for most people. Not for the NABTU, who benefited enormously from the near doubling of manufacturing construction. Check out their endorsement of Biden on You Tube.
It's not the culture, it's the economic power issue that offers the Democrats a governing majoriity, because people in red states are being immiserated at least as much.
Manchinema are now being rewarded for their keeping Biden from having a decisive win in that struggle. Too bad about taking bread from the mouths of children in West Virginia
Biden (Harris) lost, according to all analysis I have read, because Biden presented as feeble and rhetorically helpless in his one debate, ignored three years of polling that said that 75% of the electorate thought he was too old to run, mismanaged the border (actually seemed helpless to exert control until s few months before the election), and waving away any complaint of inflation (not sure why you put the word in quotes. The voting public experiences rising prices as inflation, regardless of cause). Such nitpicking excuses as to CEOs triggering inflation is the same sort of desperate excuse making as blaming the defeat on Manchin or Sinema.
Dems have had to deal with center-right (or worse) senators in years past, and will again if we are successful in electing a few red state senators. In the past, presidents were astute enough not to hinge their electoral success on a particular vote. The thought of Clinton, as an example, blaming Ben Nighthorse Campbell for threatening his re-election (when he was a Dem) is pretty laughable.
It’s a shame because Connor Lamb is fantastic, and has proven he can win in tough terrain.
Fetterman was supposed to be the kind of Senator progressive Dems could embrace whereas Lamb was seen as a milquetoast moderate. Fetterman has now thrown in with Trump, possibly because of the well documented personality changes after his stroke
Not a Fetterman fan either, but his voting record is 85% aligned with Dems. So he is obviously not thrown in with Trump.
Not all Dem pols can be as publicly lefty as AOC. A ham sandwich who identified as a lefty Dem could get elected in her district. It remains to be seen if AOC could win or survive as a PA senator, or even get elected in districts which have elected the likes of Jared Golden, Don Davis, or Marcy Kaptur.
The important part of being a successful politician is getting elected. From the district or state you’re in.
This is why the DCCC and the DSCC will get nothing from me. This is why the Democratic party is so poorly viewed—by Democrats like me. Totally out of touch.
For the love of God Chuck, hang it up please - you and Joey B are 2 birds of a feather - just could not be more out of touch - you need to go - please make it a more graceful/less disgraceful one the other guy
Apparently the party leaders have not learned their lesson. Backing a geriatric insider who will be older than Biden — is complete dereliction of understanding the current political environment.
I’ll take a quote from the movie The Rock that sums up this leadership - “Great, we’re not gutless, we’re incompetent.”
I am leaving the Democratic Party to register as an independent. I am so totally fed up with the feckless leadership of the Democrats who do not listen to their constituents. The leadership is completely weak and I honestly have no idea what they stand for anymore other than some vague sense of not losing. What are their actual priorities, principles and things worth fighting for? AOC can articulate it, but Schumer? I truly have no idea what he actually cares about and I am no longer willing to be a part of a party that is so disconnected and unable to communicate as to be unbearable.
The word you’re looking for is synecdoche or possibly metonymic framing. Where one takes an isolated incident (even several isolated incidents) and applies these to describe the party as a whole. There are many honorable, vigorous, center-left to progressive senators, representatives and governors who are happy to call themselves Dems. I’m sure all of them want the party to move forward with more vibrant leadership.
In 1970, all but two Dem Senators supported the Vietnam war. In 1964, 40% of Dem senators resisted a Civil Rights bill. The party and its elected officials moved on these things due to pressure from Democrats.
Why not stay and fight? That’s how things change.
Depending on which state you’re in, you miss the primary then. But I understand why with this stagnation at the top.
Colorado has open primaries and registered independents are allowed to vote in the primary of their choice. And I want the party to know I will no longer blindly follow their lead. I have knocked on doors, I volunteer every election to get out the vote and I am poll worker. I donate money and time and lead education campaigns and I am tired to death of leadership ignoring the things we are telling them. I am furious that Schumer and Jeffries have not endorsed Mamdani. I am furious that they are inserting themselves into Michigan and Maine. I am furious that they didn’t have a fight in March with the first round of government funding. And I am furious about Biden and his decision to run again even when voters when the people were saying he is too old. It is years of them not listening to their own base.
Totally with you.
When I voted for Biden in 2020 it was with the understanding that he would be a bridge president. I thought he was an excellent president for the first two years of his presidency, but then his age started to show. There is no shame in that, that is just the reality of being 80. But then he broke his promise and announced he would run again. And yes, I know that he technically never said the words I promise not to run, but it was heavily implied to the point that many people believed it was a promise. And so he broke faith with people, including me, who supported him. And all the good work that was done under Biden is being undone and it is heartbreaking. If Biden really believed Trump was an existential threat to the country then he should have acted like it. That is why I am furious at him.
You're lumping Biden in with Schumer et al. He actually belongs with Bernie. Ask Bernie, who supported him to the end.
Whenever I read stories like this, I can’t help but compare the Democratic party to the GOP. The GOP is so afraid to turn against their own misinformed, but highly pugilistic, voters that we effectively have MAGA and Project 2025 destroying the country as we speak.
Whereas on our side of the aisle, it’s the opposite - civically engaged, highly informed and/or educated grassroots voters who donate to the party regularly, but who are mostly ignored by senior Democratic leadership and the party apparatus who appear to focus on wishes of their elite, wealthy donors instead.
Then I turn to considering the general demographic makeup of each party… and get angry all over again.
It’s a real slap in the face.
Very on point. Why is the party even getting involved? Let the voters decide and then help the chosen candidate (ahem, Mamdani). I have lost all faith in the party leadership and think Ken Martin was a bad choice. The party is too risk averse to meet the politics of today.
They take money from people who love the status quo.
At least Ken Martin is encouraging support for Mamdani.
Is he? I heard an interview he did with Jon Stewart and it was truly awful. An hour of equivocating and non-answers. The conviction of a wet noodle. There were better options to lead the party and they chose the most generic white guy they could find. Was a sign where this was headed and it's a direct line to supporting Mills over Platner.
Oh, I agree in general re: the milquetoastiness. But I did read a recent news article where he again officially endorsed Mamdani and encouraged New Yorkers to get out and support him. Which I took as an oblique swipe at the non-endorsers. So, credit where it's due.
thanks, that’s great to hear.