The DNC Is Considering The Idea of a Fair and Neutral Primary

[Fawlty]

Could you expound please? What's going to make things crazier?

The desired result is a party that cleans up its act, reforms under new leadership, and then gives all candidates a fair shot, even if those candidates are populist insurgents like Sanders and Trump. I have some respect for that, and it's even appealing to a degree. But the thing driving the insurgent popularity is the long-term weakening of the parties. What that creates is a charisma vacuum, and I think we'll be lucky if we get another principled candidate like Sanders next time. It's cult of personality from here until whatever's next. Unless something drastic happens before 2018, democratic candidates are only going to become less moderate. It's why people are whispering about a leftist Tea Party.

 

[HomerThompson]

The desired result is a party that cleans up its act, reforms under new leadership, and then gives all candidates a fair shot, even if those candidates are populist insurgents like Sanders and Trump. I have some respect for that, and it's even appealing to a degree. But the thing driving the insurgent popularity is the long-term weakening of the parties. What that creates is a charisma vacuum, and I think we'll be lucky if we get another principled candidate like Sanders next time. It's cult of personality from here until whatever's next. Unless something drastic happens before 2018, democratic candidates are only going to become less moderate. It's why people are whispering about a leftist Tea Party.

Presidential politics has been cult of personality for quite some time. I'd like to see principled consistent leadership at the DNC. They need to be less moderate in the current environment. The DNC has lurched to the right since the early 90's.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

The desired result is a party that cleans up its act, reforms under new leadership, and then gives all candidates a fair shot, even if those candidates are populist insurgents like Sanders and Trump. I have some respect for that, and it's even appealing to a degree. But the thing driving the insurgent popularity is the long-term weakening of the parties. What that creates is a charisma vacuum, and I think we'll be lucky if we get another principled candidate like Sanders next time. It's cult of personality from here until whatever's next. Unless something drastic happens before 2018, democratic candidates are only going to become less moderate. It's why people are whispering about a leftist Tea Party.

Why do you think the the weakening of the parties is whats driving the "insurgency" and not the desired result of cleaning up its act? And how does that cause a charisma vacuum?

I agree that we'll be lucky to see another candidate like Sanders, maybe ever.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Like I said, not a member of a club, don't expect club privileges.

Either become a member of the party you wish to affect, or sit on the sidelines until the general election. Republicans should nominate the Republican nominee, and Democrats should nominate the Democratic nominee. What is wrong with that logic?

What wrong with that logic is somewhere are 40% of Americans identify as independent and the DNC and RNC have a monopoly on American politics.

 

[Fawlty]

Presidential politics has been cult of personality for quite some time. I'd like to see principled consistent leadership at the DNC. They need to be less moderate in the current environment. The DNC has lurched to the right since the early 90's.

I agree the party (and the whole country) has moved to the right, though you'll hear a nonstop stream about the leftification of America because some college kids are acting up. Charisma has been very important since Kennedy-Nixon, but we've also had the duds of Bush Sr-Jr/Nixon/Carter alongside the stars of Reagan/Clinton/Obama/Trump across those years. We're turning a corner where the value of charisma has increased a lot. People who complained about Obama having a personality cult look foolish comparing him to Trump or Sanders, who are on another level entirely.

If you want a more radical party though, this is definitely a change that is good for you.

 

[Fawlty]

Why do you think the the weakening of the parties is whats driving the "insurgency" and not the desired result of cleaning up its act? And how does that cause a charisma vacuum?

I agree that we'll be lucky to see another candidate like Sanders, maybe ever.

It creates a charisma vacuum because candidates have to hook ~40% of the public who are undecided, a number which is only growing. If we had a lot of successful political parties this wouldn't be as much of a concern. But since we have a de facto two party system, what this does is put the party platform at the mercy of the person who can hook the 40%.

 

[Rod1]

Like I said, not a member of a club, don't expect club privileges.

Either become a member of the party you wish to affect, or sit on the sidelines until the general election. Republicans should nominate the Republican nominee, and Democrats should nominate the Democratic nominee. What is wrong with that logic?

The point where 2 political parties dominate all political discourse of a 320 million people nation.

His point is that bipartisanship is tearing the country apart.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

It creates a charisma vacuum because candidates have to hook ~40% of the public who are undecided, a number which is only growing. If we had a lot of successful political parties this wouldn't be as much of a concern. But since we have a de facto two party system, what this does is put the party platform at the mercy of the person who can hook the 40%.

So... no different than we have it now, right?

 

[Arkain2K]

If you were a democrat, wouldn't you want, oh, say, DEMOCRATS to decide who the democratic nominee is?

Open primaries seem peculiar to me. If you're not a member of a club, don't expect club privileges.

Like I said, not a member of a club, don't expect club privileges.

Either become a member of the party you wish to affect, or sit on the sidelines until the general election. Republicans should nominate the Republican nominee, and Democrats should nominate the Democratic nominee. What is wrong with that logic?

You're talking about an entire different topic of non-Democratic voters being allowed by the DNC to vote in the Democratic Primaries, when this thread is about whether the Democratic party's leadership should be playing favorites with their nominees on the ballot.

Let's see if we can talk about this without derailing the main topic.

As of now, the DNC's formerly-invisible hands play a huge role in deciding who the official Democratic nominee will be, through sheer manipulation and blatant collusion with the media.

If the DNC's leadership officially allows Independent candidates to caucus with them, they should be an objective referee who treat everyone on their ballot the same, instead of secretly working behind the scene to railroad the candidates that they don't like.

If the next batch of leadership can't change that, they should drop all pretenses and just announce the candidate chosen by the establishment for the General Election from the start. It would save a lot of time now that people knows the Primaries are all smokes and mirrors.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I would have rather kept a strong party, but it's becoming unavoidable that parties will now mold themselves around charismatic people, and lose their platforms. This isn't going to have the effect you desire, imo. But best of luck.

You could be right, but I can promise it won't have the result anyone else likes either.

 

[Fawlty]

So... no different than we have it now, right?

It's different in that personality is going to be weighed more heavily, and parties will be more vulnerable to individuals. More entertainment-based, less policy-based. We already have enough of a problem with that, but now we're heading toward a leftist Tea Party- we're likely to start primary-ing our moderates with extremists like the right has been doing. That would also move the two parties apart, giving them even less ability to compromise with each other.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.

If my choice is the status quo, or anarchy, I choose anarchy. Hopefully there is a third option.

WTF? We live in the greatest country in the world in the best time to live here ever. It's insane how whiny and entitled people are to look at 2017 America and think that the status quo is unbearable.

It creates a charisma vacuum because candidates have to hook ~40% of the public who are undecided, a number which is only growing. If we had a lot of successful political parties this wouldn't be as much of a concern. But since we have a de facto two party system, what this does is put the party platform at the mercy of the person who can hook the 40%.

It's more like 3% that is truly undecided and maybe another 5% or so that could be called "leaning one way but persuadable." Parties are weak, but partisanship is strong. That's how we end up with someone like Trump as president--the GOP can't do any quality control, but any major party nominee has a good chance because people aren't going to vote the other way.

 

[Higus]

I can see fears of losing filibuster numbers in 2018 would make the DNC very paranoid, but for the long term health of the party (and society), they can't put their fingers on the scales. The best candidates should rise to the top they need to trust the voters to select their representatives.
In the long run, it might be good to let the GOP have a filibuster proof majority and let them drive the country to the ground. People need to participate in democracy, and a crisis might stir them into paying attention.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

It's different in that personality is going to be weighed more heavily, and parties will be more vulnerable to individuals. More entertainment-based, less policy-based. We already have enough of a problem with that, but now we're heading toward a leftist Tea Party- we're likely to start primary-ing our moderates with extremists like the right has been doing. That would also move the two parties apart, giving them even less ability to compromise with each other.

I don't see how personality could be weighed any more heavily than Trump. Even Obama was a personality president. If anything, the compulsion to get "my team" in the WH will be what pushes personality over policy, not the recent rejection of corrupt politicians. I don't see much of a change occurring.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I can see fears of losing filibuster numbers in 2018 would make the DNC very paranoid, but for the long term health of the party (and society), they can't put their fingers on the scales. The best candidates should rise to the top they need to trust the voters to select their representatives.

Parties have a moral responsibility to put their fingers on the scales and vet candidates, as most people don't follow politics that closely and trust people who they perceive as thinking like them and knowing what's going on. The problem is that they really don't have much power in that regard these days. Neither party is able to prevent a popular but bad candidate from winning their nomination at almost any level.

In the long run, it might be good to let the GOP have a filibuster proof majority and let them drive the country to the ground. People need to participate in democracy, and a crisis might stir them into paying attention.

Good for whom, exactly? An ACA repeal will literally cause thousands of people to die. Childhood poverty fucks with brain development. Every delay on reducing carbon emissions has real, long-term consequences. Etc. I get thinking strategically and long-term, but don't disregard a lot of permanent damage to vulnerable people.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

People who complained about Obama having a personality cult look foolish comparing him to Trump or Sanders, who are on another level entirely.

This isn't that important, BUT- I think it's worth noting that both Obama and Trump had manufactured cults of personality. I mean, Obama's 2008 campaign actually won an advertising award! He got treated like a commodity to be sold on the market and consumed by the public. And the results were fantastic.

And I don't think I need to explain Trump's cult.

But Bernie developed a cult almost organically. He's not particularly charismatic, not good-looking, not a great speaker, no good one-liners, no money. He got his support strictly on his stances.

Cults of personality aren't good but if you HAVE to have them, it's better if they're of the Bernie variety.

 

[Teppodama]

Not going to happen. Young Democrats, True Progessives and Honest Moderates will have to form their own party. The established heads of the DNC and their connections with Washington and Wall Street simply won't allow power to slip out of their hands.

 

[Dark One]

I thought this was going to be about super-delegates

 

[Fedorable]

Let's call it what it is- a concession to populism. Parties have never been this weak. This is only going to make things crazier. Don't say I didn't warn you.

I am warned, it is on record. No going back on my word now.

 

[The Sausage King]

I love how the Dems have cornered themselves to the point where they can't have a straight white male as the DNC leader. What a racist, sexist party the Dems have become under progressive rule.