Klein and Newsom are a match made in Democratic donor class heaven, and I agree that that is a recipe for being seen as elitist and out of touch by most of the places that the Dems should be on an atonement tour for having neglected for at least two decades. And hearing Shapiro's name dropped so often in these sorts of conversations, I fear that he too may be trying to astroturf his way to a populist image.
Dems - no more skipping leg day. You have to get out there and meet with people, and actually listen to them as people you are there to serve, not just as focus groups you can use to craft your marketing campaign.
3 weeks ago
To cleek's point about age, take a look at the webpages of the four biggest Democratic names amongst the current US congressional delegation from NY (Schumer, Gillibrand, Jeffries, and AOC). Schumer's website looks like crap. The photos are undynamic and low res, and there is little to draw anyone in or to reach out. It's very passive. Gillibrand's site is better, but it again looks dated, and the pics all seem aimed at an older constituency. Jeffries site is more current looking, but is a bit formal and generic. AOC's site is the most current and dynamic, with lots of pics of her actively helping out her constituents, opportunities to get involved, and ways to get help with basic needs that are presented by name.
If Schumer were to retire in the near future, then which of these sites seems like the sort that would project an image of a dynamic and people focused party that listens and cares, and that understands the needs of young voters?
And when I say "young voters," I note alarmingly that for a lot of the political discussions I read online, that translates to Millennials, and Gen Z. We have a problem when the upper end of "young voter" is in their 40s.
We are rapidly approaching a tipping point in Democratic politics. It would be best to guide that transition and start it now rather than letting it be an abrupt and seismic shift.
3 weeks ago
lj - nous, is it out of the realm of possibility to imagine Elizabeth Warren? I was looking at seniority and Patty Murray is actually the most senior, I’d like to think that a woman would send a message, though youth is also good.
I don't think Warren is out of the realm of possibility. If we look at current Democratic leadership, and we eliminate Schumer and Durbin (retiring), then we have Klobuchar (MI), Booker (NJ), Warren (MA), Warner (VA), Sanders (VT), Baldwin (WI), Cortez Masto (NV), Schatz (HI), and Murphy (CT).
If you want to elevate a woman, then I'd eliminate Cortez Masto right off the bat over the shutdown votes. Think what you will of the practicality of it, her decision is not going to help change the impression of the Dems or inspire anyone who is disillusioned. Warren is great, but her media presence reinforces the liberal wonk image. She also reinforces the elitist image a bit by virtue of her still sounding like a professor. That leaves Baldwin and Klobuchar. If Klobuchar still plans to run for President, then Baldwin would be the best choice IMO. She's a bit more vulnerable on the electoral front (WI is very purple and their GOP is deeply awful), but that also positions her as someone who has overcome a lot of prejudices and still succeeded in a rural state in the middle of the country.
Murray has served a long time, but despite this she isn't in party leadership. That makes me wonder if she would be a good choice.
Otherwise, looking at the existing leadership, I think Booker, Schatz, or Murphy. Warner isn't as reliable a D vote. Sanders is great, but older and seen as a socialist. Schatz is less well known, but is seen as a future leader. Murphy is solidly in the middle of the party and is usually supporting the party in his votes.
3 weeks ago
I saw a thread over on Bsky arguing that the job of the Dem Senate leader is not to be a popular leader, but to be the one who can talk to everyone and hold together the largest possible number of senators for a coalition. Their claim was that Schumer was the one best suited to that task and that to change now was to make someone else learn the hardest job in government on the fly. Who, they asked, would be able to replace him and do as well?
I don't know. But I also don't think that is the right question or the right way to think about this situation. It's not just about maintaining a coalition, it's about communication and leadership and moral presence as well. Schumer has never been half of what Pelosi was in the House.
I think Klobuchar could probably do at least as good a job, and has enough experience that she would not be learning from scratch. She's about the center of the Democratic spectrum. She could still hold presidential ambitions, but they aren't going to go much of anywhere. This would be her peak.
I'd prefer Booker. He'd give the Dems a younger presence with more charisma, but he's also probably a bit farther left than some of his colleagues might prefer, and he may want to take a shot at running for president himself. Still, he's been effective at working with others and has a lot of leadership experience for someone with fewer than ten years in the Senate, and I think he'd be more inspirational than either Schumer or Klobuchar.
Whatever the case, I think the Dems are about to hit a tipping point where the leadership starts to age out, and the prominent younger members are going to be trending more progressive and more willing to fight. Best to start reflecting that a bit more with the public face of the party in the Senate.
3 weeks ago
russell - if I was, say, 30 or 40 years old I’d be seriously pissed right about now.
And they are.
And it gets more dire the younger you go. My 17-25 year-olds in my class are even more cynical and pissed than I was as a young punk in the 1980s, but with more of a sense of powerlessness because they are watching all of the progress we had get taken away.
We have to give them some reason to hope or else we are ceding the most angry and nihilistic of them straight to the alt-right.
3 weeks ago
wj - I’m arguing that sometimes you have to settle for imperfect in order to get anything at all. And while there’s certainly no obligation to embrace someone like Manchin, it is a bad idea to get loudly worked up about his shortcomings. If you have a real chance to replace him with someone better, fine. But when you don’t, save your invective for the other side. Screaming “treason!” is counterproductive.
...would that the grumpy moderates and reactionary centrists could take this to heart with the progressives and social democrats in their own caucus as well, especially when those progressives and social democrats have shown more solidarity with their colleagues than the centrist border reivers.
3 weeks ago
Yup, vilified simply for being a moderate. Manchin never did anything to offend anyone who wasn't a horrible activist lost to their political delusions.
@#$%ing activists. So unfair.
3 weeks ago
Here is an antidote to the weak rhetorical sauce being offered up by Shaheen and her turtling pals. Rep. Adelita Grijalva speaks at her swearing in today, and dances all over the GOP's buttons with every one of her minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EhEeqOu8Ts
Granddaughter of a Bracero - check.
Speaks Spanish with no translation - check.
Smacks the Speaker over his partisan delays - check.
Chides congress for abandoning its oversight role - check.
Brings Epstein survivors to her swearing in - check.
Signs discharge petition as her first official act - check.
This is how it should be done.
3 weeks ago
wj - I would argue that it did work. The alternatives were never, ever, Manchin vs a more reliably more liberal Democrat. The alternative to Manchin was a very conservative Republican. Like the one now holding that seat.
From the perspective of WV electoral politics, you are correct. But there are wider ripples that are harder to measure that need to be considered. Manchin and Sinema voted against the Build Back Better deal, spiking major legislation that would have helped fight climate change. They (and Shaheen, and King, and Hassan - sound familiar?) spiked the minimum wage bill in 2021.
Now all the stories are about how Biden can't get his signature legislation passed.
It happened again going out the door with these two preventing Biden from appointing someone to the NLRB, handing Trump control of the federal arm that deals with labor bargaining.
I know that a lot of people have written about how Harris had a problem with turnout due to Israel/Palestine issues, but I also firmly believe that had Biden and Harris managed to pass Build Back Better and the increase in minimum wage, that we would not have seen turnout quite so reduced for Harris, and might have seen a few fewer votes for Trump amongst young men disillusioned with federal politics and claiming that both sides were essentially the same.
Dems need to convince younger voters that they can actually achieve something to help with climate, stagnant wages, and the possibility of ever owning a home. Manchin and Sinema did more damage to this belief than did anyone else.
It's not just about vote percentages and issues mentioned in exit polling. There's the unseen effects of turnout and the issues that fuel cynicism and disillusionment.
Guess who showed up for the most recent Blue Wave?
3 weeks ago
The Epstein Files have never been a GOP hobby horse (and we have always been at war with Eastasia).
Someone needs to update their Two Minutes of Hate.
3 weeks ago
The GOP probably thinks that their demand for abortion restrictions in return for extending the subsidies is a clever move - making it so that they can say the Dems were the ones to sink the ACA because of their refusal (and they had best refuse). I think, however, that this ploy is going to backfire. The abortion stuff will play well to their base, but there is no reason to tie these two things together other than to poison pill it for the Dems, so I don't know how this lets the GOP off the hook when people's health insurance suddenly becomes unaffordable. It just demonstrates their lack of good faith.
Let's hope the Democratic leadership have enough sense to hit back hard on this and make voters see that the GOP is treating this like a game and not taking people's healthcare access seriously. It's simple messaging, or at least it would be for anyone not allergic to confrontation and sharp elbows.
3 weeks ago
wj - I understand what you are saying about not interrupting the enemy when they are in the midst of making a mistake. What I do not understand is why you think Kaine saying something like what wonkie outlines would in any way tip off the GOP that they were being set up.
And, assuming that they did recognize the mousetrap, I really don't see how the GOP could ever avoid that trap. Even if they see it sitting there, The Ancient Orange One Who Slumbers will not let them back down from tearing down a big shiny thing with Obama's name on it.
So where is the downside for Kaine blasting the GOP?
And I really don't believe that this is all Schumer calculus, and that the drama between caucuses has been scripted. If I had to pick anyone out of that group who was doing it for cover, I'd say it was Durbin giving cover to Gillibrand, but I don't think that was engineered by Schumer.
And I think Schumer should lose his leadership spot because he is such a soft target for people like Stewart, and even his attempts at sounding feisty look and sound squishy to anyone not starting to worry about retirement. The Dems need a scrappy wartime leader, not someone who talks about the sympathetic conversations that they have with their colleagues across the aisle while working out at the Senate gym.
Pull him from his leadership position and put someone else in front of those cameras who knows how to talk a good fight.
4 weeks ago
Note that Pritzker was speaking in front of a union crowd there (my compatriots in the IFT). This is what I've been saying for well over an election cycle - there are a whole lot of reachable voters who would respond to union-style messaging: "When we fight, we win." And in the face of a (temporary) loss, shift the message to one of building strength and solidarity for the longer campaign, and get out and organize.
And when I say "organize," I don't mean "fundraise." The idea is to mobilize as many people as you can - get them coming out and doing things, and meeting others who are doing the same. Fundraising doesn't build community. Direct messaging doesn't build community. Email lists don't build community. Shared struggle builds community.
Also, I don't know how many of the people who complain about the progressives woeful messaging have taken the time to watch one of the videos that AOC puts out on her various social media platforms. She's really good, especially at speaking to voters under 45. And if you look at the demographics of the Blue Wave, those were the voters that carried the show.
Klein and Newsom are a match made in Democratic donor class heaven, and I agree that that is a recipe for being seen as elitist and out of touch by most of the places that the Dems should be on an atonement tour for having neglected for at least two decades. And hearing Shapiro's name dropped so often in these sorts of conversations, I fear that he too may be trying to astroturf his way to a populist image.
Dems - no more skipping leg day. You have to get out there and meet with people, and actually listen to them as people you are there to serve, not just as focus groups you can use to craft your marketing campaign.
To cleek's point about age, take a look at the webpages of the four biggest Democratic names amongst the current US congressional delegation from NY (Schumer, Gillibrand, Jeffries, and AOC). Schumer's website looks like crap. The photos are undynamic and low res, and there is little to draw anyone in or to reach out. It's very passive. Gillibrand's site is better, but it again looks dated, and the pics all seem aimed at an older constituency. Jeffries site is more current looking, but is a bit formal and generic. AOC's site is the most current and dynamic, with lots of pics of her actively helping out her constituents, opportunities to get involved, and ways to get help with basic needs that are presented by name.
If Schumer were to retire in the near future, then which of these sites seems like the sort that would project an image of a dynamic and people focused party that listens and cares, and that understands the needs of young voters?
And when I say "young voters," I note alarmingly that for a lot of the political discussions I read online, that translates to Millennials, and Gen Z. We have a problem when the upper end of "young voter" is in their 40s.
We are rapidly approaching a tipping point in Democratic politics. It would be best to guide that transition and start it now rather than letting it be an abrupt and seismic shift.
lj - nous, is it out of the realm of possibility to imagine Elizabeth Warren? I was looking at seniority and Patty Murray is actually the most senior, I’d like to think that a woman would send a message, though youth is also good.
I don't think Warren is out of the realm of possibility. If we look at current Democratic leadership, and we eliminate Schumer and Durbin (retiring), then we have Klobuchar (MI), Booker (NJ), Warren (MA), Warner (VA), Sanders (VT), Baldwin (WI), Cortez Masto (NV), Schatz (HI), and Murphy (CT).
If you want to elevate a woman, then I'd eliminate Cortez Masto right off the bat over the shutdown votes. Think what you will of the practicality of it, her decision is not going to help change the impression of the Dems or inspire anyone who is disillusioned. Warren is great, but her media presence reinforces the liberal wonk image. She also reinforces the elitist image a bit by virtue of her still sounding like a professor. That leaves Baldwin and Klobuchar. If Klobuchar still plans to run for President, then Baldwin would be the best choice IMO. She's a bit more vulnerable on the electoral front (WI is very purple and their GOP is deeply awful), but that also positions her as someone who has overcome a lot of prejudices and still succeeded in a rural state in the middle of the country.
Murray has served a long time, but despite this she isn't in party leadership. That makes me wonder if she would be a good choice.
Otherwise, looking at the existing leadership, I think Booker, Schatz, or Murphy. Warner isn't as reliable a D vote. Sanders is great, but older and seen as a socialist. Schatz is less well known, but is seen as a future leader. Murphy is solidly in the middle of the party and is usually supporting the party in his votes.
I saw a thread over on Bsky arguing that the job of the Dem Senate leader is not to be a popular leader, but to be the one who can talk to everyone and hold together the largest possible number of senators for a coalition. Their claim was that Schumer was the one best suited to that task and that to change now was to make someone else learn the hardest job in government on the fly. Who, they asked, would be able to replace him and do as well?
I don't know. But I also don't think that is the right question or the right way to think about this situation. It's not just about maintaining a coalition, it's about communication and leadership and moral presence as well. Schumer has never been half of what Pelosi was in the House.
I think Klobuchar could probably do at least as good a job, and has enough experience that she would not be learning from scratch. She's about the center of the Democratic spectrum. She could still hold presidential ambitions, but they aren't going to go much of anywhere. This would be her peak.
I'd prefer Booker. He'd give the Dems a younger presence with more charisma, but he's also probably a bit farther left than some of his colleagues might prefer, and he may want to take a shot at running for president himself. Still, he's been effective at working with others and has a lot of leadership experience for someone with fewer than ten years in the Senate, and I think he'd be more inspirational than either Schumer or Klobuchar.
Whatever the case, I think the Dems are about to hit a tipping point where the leadership starts to age out, and the prominent younger members are going to be trending more progressive and more willing to fight. Best to start reflecting that a bit more with the public face of the party in the Senate.
russell - if I was, say, 30 or 40 years old I’d be seriously pissed right about now.
And they are.
And it gets more dire the younger you go. My 17-25 year-olds in my class are even more cynical and pissed than I was as a young punk in the 1980s, but with more of a sense of powerlessness because they are watching all of the progress we had get taken away.
We have to give them some reason to hope or else we are ceding the most angry and nihilistic of them straight to the alt-right.
wj - I’m arguing that sometimes you have to settle for imperfect in order to get anything at all. And while there’s certainly no obligation to embrace someone like Manchin, it is a bad idea to get loudly worked up about his shortcomings. If you have a real chance to replace him with someone better, fine. But when you don’t, save your invective for the other side. Screaming “treason!” is counterproductive.
...would that the grumpy moderates and reactionary centrists could take this to heart with the progressives and social democrats in their own caucus as well, especially when those progressives and social democrats have shown more solidarity with their colleagues than the centrist border reivers.
Yup, vilified simply for being a moderate. Manchin never did anything to offend anyone who wasn't a horrible activist lost to their political delusions.
@#$%ing activists. So unfair.
Here is an antidote to the weak rhetorical sauce being offered up by Shaheen and her turtling pals. Rep. Adelita Grijalva speaks at her swearing in today, and dances all over the GOP's buttons with every one of her minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EhEeqOu8Ts
Granddaughter of a Bracero - check.
Speaks Spanish with no translation - check.
Smacks the Speaker over his partisan delays - check.
Chides congress for abandoning its oversight role - check.
Brings Epstein survivors to her swearing in - check.
Signs discharge petition as her first official act - check.
This is how it should be done.
wj - I would argue that it did work. The alternatives were never, ever, Manchin vs a more reliably more liberal Democrat. The alternative to Manchin was a very conservative Republican. Like the one now holding that seat.
From the perspective of WV electoral politics, you are correct. But there are wider ripples that are harder to measure that need to be considered. Manchin and Sinema voted against the Build Back Better deal, spiking major legislation that would have helped fight climate change. They (and Shaheen, and King, and Hassan - sound familiar?) spiked the minimum wage bill in 2021.
Now all the stories are about how Biden can't get his signature legislation passed.
It happened again going out the door with these two preventing Biden from appointing someone to the NLRB, handing Trump control of the federal arm that deals with labor bargaining.
I know that a lot of people have written about how Harris had a problem with turnout due to Israel/Palestine issues, but I also firmly believe that had Biden and Harris managed to pass Build Back Better and the increase in minimum wage, that we would not have seen turnout quite so reduced for Harris, and might have seen a few fewer votes for Trump amongst young men disillusioned with federal politics and claiming that both sides were essentially the same.
Dems need to convince younger voters that they can actually achieve something to help with climate, stagnant wages, and the possibility of ever owning a home. Manchin and Sinema did more damage to this belief than did anyone else.
It's not just about vote percentages and issues mentioned in exit polling. There's the unseen effects of turnout and the issues that fuel cynicism and disillusionment.
Guess who showed up for the most recent Blue Wave?
The Epstein Files have never been a GOP hobby horse (and we have always been at war with Eastasia).
Someone needs to update their Two Minutes of Hate.
The GOP probably thinks that their demand for abortion restrictions in return for extending the subsidies is a clever move - making it so that they can say the Dems were the ones to sink the ACA because of their refusal (and they had best refuse). I think, however, that this ploy is going to backfire. The abortion stuff will play well to their base, but there is no reason to tie these two things together other than to poison pill it for the Dems, so I don't know how this lets the GOP off the hook when people's health insurance suddenly becomes unaffordable. It just demonstrates their lack of good faith.
Let's hope the Democratic leadership have enough sense to hit back hard on this and make voters see that the GOP is treating this like a game and not taking people's healthcare access seriously. It's simple messaging, or at least it would be for anyone not allergic to confrontation and sharp elbows.
wj - I understand what you are saying about not interrupting the enemy when they are in the midst of making a mistake. What I do not understand is why you think Kaine saying something like what wonkie outlines would in any way tip off the GOP that they were being set up.
And, assuming that they did recognize the mousetrap, I really don't see how the GOP could ever avoid that trap. Even if they see it sitting there, The Ancient Orange One Who Slumbers will not let them back down from tearing down a big shiny thing with Obama's name on it.
So where is the downside for Kaine blasting the GOP?
And I really don't believe that this is all Schumer calculus, and that the drama between caucuses has been scripted. If I had to pick anyone out of that group who was doing it for cover, I'd say it was Durbin giving cover to Gillibrand, but I don't think that was engineered by Schumer.
And I think Schumer should lose his leadership spot because he is such a soft target for people like Stewart, and even his attempts at sounding feisty look and sound squishy to anyone not starting to worry about retirement. The Dems need a scrappy wartime leader, not someone who talks about the sympathetic conversations that they have with their colleagues across the aisle while working out at the Senate gym.
Pull him from his leadership position and put someone else in front of those cameras who knows how to talk a good fight.
Note that Pritzker was speaking in front of a union crowd there (my compatriots in the IFT). This is what I've been saying for well over an election cycle - there are a whole lot of reachable voters who would respond to union-style messaging: "When we fight, we win." And in the face of a (temporary) loss, shift the message to one of building strength and solidarity for the longer campaign, and get out and organize.
And when I say "organize," I don't mean "fundraise." The idea is to mobilize as many people as you can - get them coming out and doing things, and meeting others who are doing the same. Fundraising doesn't build community. Direct messaging doesn't build community. Email lists don't build community. Shared struggle builds community.
Also, I don't know how many of the people who complain about the progressives woeful messaging have taken the time to watch one of the videos that AOC puts out on her various social media platforms. She's really good, especially at speaking to voters under 45. And if you look at the demographics of the Blue Wave, those were the voters that carried the show.