I guess one has to start somewhere. But it seems like the Democratic Party has been running candidates with this exact same profile for years- former military members who are supposed to be different somehow. Yet when they arrive in Washington, their "bipartisanship" lasts a few weeks and then they join the mob. Ruben Gallejo and Mark Kelly come immediately to mind. Sorry for being a pessimist, but I feel like we've heard this song before. If changing the "face" of the Democratic Party does not also translate into changing the substance of the Democratic Party, then this is nothing more than a diversionary tactic which will lead to the same end-- exactly where we are now.
It’s the party platform. Until that changes I suspect new leaders will get chewed up as you imply. I suspect there needs to be some critical level of change in the leaders before this will get changed
It's a great idea, and one might emerge to do great things, and I'd love to have an option in the primaries which I never do. I don't think however that a great candidate by themselves will be the change our party needs. Candidates often go to where the voters are on the issues. Candidates adapt themselves to fit the times and get the votes.
It's us and our policies that need to change. Why are we losing the votes of minorities and the working class? When we gain the levers of power we seemingly do nothing other than shovel money towards our favorite constituencies.
> “When we gain the levers of power we seemingly do nothing other than shovel money towards our favorite constituencies.”
The graft in the modern Democratic Party would make Tammany Hall insiders blush. Between the Learing centers and activists with $200k salaries in NGOs (whose money trails ultimately trace back to the government) is shocking. OTOH, never let anyone tell you that a degree in decolonizing gender isn’t lucrative.
As an advocate of ranked choice voting to enhance the representation of centrist voters at all levels of government, I would be more inclined to support the nominees of any party nominated by ranked choice voting — especially if I had the chance to participate in it without declaring loyalty to any one party.
Ranked choice voting seems like it would be a good idea, but has not worked well just about everywhere it’s been tried. I’m a much bigger fan of top 2 “jungle” primaries. Same ability to participate across the board without having to declare party loyalty and much easier to understand.
Excellent analysis. Understand entirely the cheering of non lawyer legislators, but it is a sad sign of our times.
For much of US history, the main function of lawyers in government was to repeatedly say "Government can't do that in the US".
In a nation, literally, founded upon the notion restricting Government is always Job #1, lawyers from all political parties, were once indispensable in reining in Government overreach.
Then the well trained protection dogs, turned on their Masters.
During Covid, when US freedoms were being unnecessarily shredded, few lawyers attempted to curtail Government's romp over citizen rights. Inexplicably, most lawyers cheered the loss of liberty.
How many lawyers have watched the Minnesota mess and attempted to explain the Supremacy Clause and/ or the in and outs of a Federal Republic?
Where are the lawyers demanding any new US arrivals adhere to our unique laws that protect women and children from all abuse, or be immediately removed?
We have a friend who jokes anytime married lawyers produce non attorney offspring, it is a step in the right direction for humanity. Sadly, it would appear he is correct.
For a highly intelligent and balanced analysis of issues like the current one involving ICE practices in Minnesota, see Michael Smerconish on CNN and his own website. He is a former lawyer and former Republican with an apparent following of perhaps 40,000 people who tend to be center left but not nutty left. An understanding of law should be recognized as a good thing in American politics when it is being applied in balanced analysis rather than advocacy (which is better practiced in courtrooms).
Once elected, party discipline lines everyone up and they vote the way they are told. The alternative is diversity of thought as Republicans herd their cats. The Democrats need more cats like Senator Fedderman.
It sounds great in theory, however, I believe the Dem party itself is not moderate. Moderate candidates may run, however they don’t govern that way, in my opinion. We got the bait and switch with Joe Biden, so it’s really hard to trust.
And this Abigail Spanberger is supposedly a moderate? What do I know as I’m not a Democrat, maybe this is the Dem version of moderate? If she is the example, no thank you.
I am center right and I like this site as it speaks to the center both right and left, and there is so much common ground.
I, though, am hopeful that more common sense moderate candidates may run
Two things that would actually “make the D brand more palatable”:
1) Democrats who campaign as centrists and win actually governing as centrists
2) Cities and states that are entirely run by Democrats being models of effective competent government where everyone rich or poor can thrive.
Until I start seeing a lot more of that this old school “Bill Clinton liberal”* will remain a former Democrat
*Hat tip to Dana Carvey who recently said on Bill Mahr’s YouTube show “I’m and old school Bill Clinton liberal, which these days basically makes me a Nazi”.
This scattering of people whose main thing in common seems to be (a) relatively young, and (b) attempting to advance their candidacy via the Democratic Party, seems a lot like the Forward Party. Although — as a centrist — I have reservations about the candidates of all parties — at least the Forward Party seems to reject the de facto requirement of “party loyalty” imposed by the leftist dominated Democrats or the MAGA dominated Republicans.
I guess one has to start somewhere. But it seems like the Democratic Party has been running candidates with this exact same profile for years- former military members who are supposed to be different somehow. Yet when they arrive in Washington, their "bipartisanship" lasts a few weeks and then they join the mob. Ruben Gallejo and Mark Kelly come immediately to mind. Sorry for being a pessimist, but I feel like we've heard this song before. If changing the "face" of the Democratic Party does not also translate into changing the substance of the Democratic Party, then this is nothing more than a diversionary tactic which will lead to the same end-- exactly where we are now.
My frustration has been that party members talk about changing the messaging without ever talking about changing substance.
It’s the party platform. Until that changes I suspect new leaders will get chewed up as you imply. I suspect there needs to be some critical level of change in the leaders before this will get changed
It's a great idea, and one might emerge to do great things, and I'd love to have an option in the primaries which I never do. I don't think however that a great candidate by themselves will be the change our party needs. Candidates often go to where the voters are on the issues. Candidates adapt themselves to fit the times and get the votes.
It's us and our policies that need to change. Why are we losing the votes of minorities and the working class? When we gain the levers of power we seemingly do nothing other than shovel money towards our favorite constituencies.
> “When we gain the levers of power we seemingly do nothing other than shovel money towards our favorite constituencies.”
The graft in the modern Democratic Party would make Tammany Hall insiders blush. Between the Learing centers and activists with $200k salaries in NGOs (whose money trails ultimately trace back to the government) is shocking. OTOH, never let anyone tell you that a degree in decolonizing gender isn’t lucrative.
As an advocate of ranked choice voting to enhance the representation of centrist voters at all levels of government, I would be more inclined to support the nominees of any party nominated by ranked choice voting — especially if I had the chance to participate in it without declaring loyalty to any one party.
Ranked choice voting seems like it would be a good idea, but has not worked well just about everywhere it’s been tried. I’m a much bigger fan of top 2 “jungle” primaries. Same ability to participate across the board without having to declare party loyalty and much easier to understand.
As a Republican, I would say to the DNC, "Don't listen to this man." But I don't have to worry. They won't.
Excellent analysis. Understand entirely the cheering of non lawyer legislators, but it is a sad sign of our times.
For much of US history, the main function of lawyers in government was to repeatedly say "Government can't do that in the US".
In a nation, literally, founded upon the notion restricting Government is always Job #1, lawyers from all political parties, were once indispensable in reining in Government overreach.
Then the well trained protection dogs, turned on their Masters.
During Covid, when US freedoms were being unnecessarily shredded, few lawyers attempted to curtail Government's romp over citizen rights. Inexplicably, most lawyers cheered the loss of liberty.
How many lawyers have watched the Minnesota mess and attempted to explain the Supremacy Clause and/ or the in and outs of a Federal Republic?
Where are the lawyers demanding any new US arrivals adhere to our unique laws that protect women and children from all abuse, or be immediately removed?
We have a friend who jokes anytime married lawyers produce non attorney offspring, it is a step in the right direction for humanity. Sadly, it would appear he is correct.
Never forget the old joke about the tragedy of a busload of lawyers going off a cliff is that there was an empty seat... :-)
Q: What do you call fifty lawyers at the bottom of a lake?
A: A good start.
The jokes just write themselves.
For a highly intelligent and balanced analysis of issues like the current one involving ICE practices in Minnesota, see Michael Smerconish on CNN and his own website. He is a former lawyer and former Republican with an apparent following of perhaps 40,000 people who tend to be center left but not nutty left. An understanding of law should be recognized as a good thing in American politics when it is being applied in balanced analysis rather than advocacy (which is better practiced in courtrooms).
Once elected, party discipline lines everyone up and they vote the way they are told. The alternative is diversity of thought as Republicans herd their cats. The Democrats need more cats like Senator Fedderman.
This is a good idea which the Democrats should adopt.
How long has it been since the Democratic Presidential nominee was not a lawyer? Fifty years.
I checked out a couple of these "new" candidates on X. They are no different than the old candidates.
Wow, great post and thanks! I will follow this group in the future!
It sounds great in theory, however, I believe the Dem party itself is not moderate. Moderate candidates may run, however they don’t govern that way, in my opinion. We got the bait and switch with Joe Biden, so it’s really hard to trust.
And this Abigail Spanberger is supposedly a moderate? What do I know as I’m not a Democrat, maybe this is the Dem version of moderate? If she is the example, no thank you.
I am center right and I like this site as it speaks to the center both right and left, and there is so much common ground.
I, though, am hopeful that more common sense moderate candidates may run
Two things that would actually “make the D brand more palatable”:
1) Democrats who campaign as centrists and win actually governing as centrists
2) Cities and states that are entirely run by Democrats being models of effective competent government where everyone rich or poor can thrive.
Until I start seeing a lot more of that this old school “Bill Clinton liberal”* will remain a former Democrat
*Hat tip to Dana Carvey who recently said on Bill Mahr’s YouTube show “I’m and old school Bill Clinton liberal, which these days basically makes me a Nazi”.
This scattering of people whose main thing in common seems to be (a) relatively young, and (b) attempting to advance their candidacy via the Democratic Party, seems a lot like the Forward Party. Although — as a centrist — I have reservations about the candidates of all parties — at least the Forward Party seems to reject the de facto requirement of “party loyalty” imposed by the leftist dominated Democrats or the MAGA dominated Republicans.