A half a loaf is better than none. The House must be flipped.
2
Message to Democrats - count your chickens AFTER they hatch. Elect your Speaker AFTER winning the election and gaining a majority. Given your track record there is a lot of work to be done before we get there. You can fantasize about what it feels like to be a winner and rent the Jacob Javits Center and a million dollar's worth of fireworks, or you could stop answering every media question and focus on getting elected with a decent majority.
21
Political power transitions should not be a contest of guessing who will die suddenly with no solid replacement in the wings.
Rather, those transitions should be happen as a natural change that is made necessary by the very fact that nobody can serve forever. Plan ahead or life (death in this case) will plan for you!
Nancy Pelosi has done a great job over the years for us Dems. But the time has come for a new generation, not an almost octogenarian. I say that as a senior myself, not a 20-, 30-, or 40-something.
Let's win in November! VOTE
18
The Democrats have tried and failed with this approach before. In the 2000s the Democrats recruited moderates to run, but those that were elected soon clashed with the radical extremists and nothing got done. Face facts, the Democrat Party simply isn’t big enough and intolerant of anyone who isn’t a far-left radical extremist socialist
4
The only way democrats can win is to lie about who they are, what they believe and what they plan to do.
6
The Democrats need to adithe misogyny that rules their party. Hillary got more votes than Obama in 2008 but has the nomination stolen from her. Now Nancy Pelosi has to go. Democrats, it’s ok for women to work outside the house
3
I would bet that Nancy Pelosi would approve of and embrace this strategy. It removes a GOP dog whistle attack strategy, one they are counting on. If Democrats win the House, it is almost certain that Pelosi will be Speaker. The Democrats who renounce her can even vote against her once elected and it will change nothing.
Pelosi is smart. She knows that the main goal is winning the House. If she has to tolerate a few Democrats denouncing her as a campaign strategy to win, so be it. Smart lady!
8
If the answer is to have a choice between extreme right-wing Republican and a Republican-lite who blows with the wind, you've just made a case against the DNC and for a third party.
2
Don't be vexed, liberals, by this focus on issues that are important for local voters. This is American pragmatism at its best. I am a liberal. I live in the most liberal zip code in the US. In 2016 for the first time in my life I was a liberal precinct captain. My motivation was the bipartisan unfitness of Mr. Trump. And I endorse this strategy of independence vis-à-vis Rep. Pelosi and silence vis-à-vis Trump. Pelosi knows better than to mind. And silence vis-à-vis Trump is, in and of itself, a victory over his incessant effort to fill our every waking hour with lies and lunacy. I am also, as we all are, a regular American. The hard work has only just begun.
18
The only pleasure greater than knowing how painful the Trump Presidency is for progressives is how much more pain they'll feel after the Republicans keep control of the Congress in 2018 and Trump is reelected in 2020. As Trump says, just too much winning.
7
If the Democrats field a hard-core Progressive message they will win every state, but a few. Even the Trumpsters will vote for them.
The winning message is: Take Back America, Get Money Out of Politics, Tax the Rich, Destroy Corporate Rule, Affordable Healthcare for All, and No More Forever Wars. These comprise a single interrelated message - All of Us (the 99%) against Them (the 1%) or "Us Against Them."
That message will get every one of the 99% down to the polling stations a day early. It will be like the 4th of July.
But it will not happen. Because the Democrats and the Republicans are in the pockets of their corporate donors. They are jointly and severally complicit in legalized corruption that monetizes everything it can - they even monetize the future with debt-funded tax giveaways.
Both Bernie (sincerely) and Trump (cynically) won big with the Us vs. Them message. It's what the People want and it works regardless of ideology.
The Democrats need to represent all the People. They need to purge the entitled oldsters, transcend identity groups, refuse corporate money, assume the mantle of the 99%, and co-opt and improve Trump's and Bernie's appeal.
At the same time the Voters, both Democrat and Republican, need to break out of their Democrat vs. Republican programming pushed by the media. That thinking is obsolete.
The only fight now is the 99% against the 1% - it's Us vs. Them.
8
Don’t forget high taxes, an orgy of mindless regulations, economic stagnation, abolition of the Bill of Rights, high taxes. nationalization of businesses, division, high taxes, turning our healthcare system into the DMV and Post Office and high taxes
2
Strategy to take back power: zero immigration talk. Democrats --somehow -- managed to keep (relatively) quiet about the immigrant caravan last week. Good start.
3
In other words, the Democrats need to lie about immigration
6
Pelosi is a major player of a party that continually loses. Even though I like what she says, she has got to go. Like Hillary, she is a target of the deplorables who salivate at voting against her and her party.
4
I suspect that Dan McCready can win his district with these views. And as a life-long Democrat, I am hungry for more Democratic wins and a Democratic House and Senate, and in 2020 a Democratic President. But the significant question is, a win for what? If the Democrats flip the House, Senate and Presidency over the next 2-1/2 years, what will they do with their win? The progressive in me would like to see a national health system with controls over drug pricing and a severely limited role for private health insurers; a much more progressive tax structure that restores the obligation of successful (ie rich) Americans to support the nation; a reinvestment in infrastructure; a serious emphasis on carbon reduction and recommitment to environmental wholeness; and rededication to economic, social and racial justice. But with majorities in the House and Senate composed of every view from Sanders/Warren to Lamb/McCready, I just don’t see that happening, because I recall the last Democratic majority and the genesis of the ACA: largely because of DINOs like Max Baucus and Joe Lieberman, any consideration of even a public option (let alone a national health, single-payer system) was off the table. Hence my question: are we winning just to win, or are we winning to make a breakthrough to a better America?
12
The approach by the PACs supporting McCready and Lamb seem to be about the "big tent" that both parties claim to espouse. Now let's see whether the rank-and-file actually follow suit or let purity tests determine support.
2
As a veteran, and a constituent of Nancy Pelosi's district, I just finished my mail-in ballot. I did not vote for her, and also wish she'd step aside as Minority Speaker and allow for a fresh face / voice to lead the Democratic minority in Congress. There's plenty of issues that require her attention here in her home district of San Francisco that are urgent and require her focused attention.
5
I very much have mixed feelings about Nancy Pelosi. She is one of the best political people in the country and in the Congress and I admire her as a politician. She has been in her job for a long time so the republicans have had a long time to run the smear machine against her. The republicans are good at propaganda and they have their own news organization (Fox) to run propaganda for them. Many republican voters don't know anything about Nancy Pelosi; they just know that Fox News is constantly saying that she is bad. And, when someday she retires, whoever takes her place will face the same negative publicity campaign.
The republican smear campaign is something that democrats just have to get use to and factor in their campaigns. Hillary Clinton is not a natural politician and had some problems of her own making. But she also suffered from about 30 years of negative publicity by the republicans. She was under almost constant investigation (White Water, bengahzi, emails. etc,) But nothing was found.
Ms. Pelosi is elected as leader of the Democratic Caucus in the House by the democratic members of the House. We have to assume that they understand their political situation and are picking the best person for the job.
5
I agree with you 100%. We need someone who is energetic, who doesn't see business as an evil. I'm grateful to Nancy Pelosi for her service but it's time for a change. This has nothing to do with age or being a woman.
6
Of course the usual anti Bernie comments.The DNC helped put trump in.Find a man or woman who is not beholden to Wall St, the Military Complex, Big Pharm ,have them be honest. Have them only take donations from the people.6 figure payments for "speeches" to bankers, probably not a good idea.What a concept.Maybe a winning candidate,maybe our democracy can have a chance.
9
Alas, there are still many Democrats who cannot tolerate the idea of a "big tent." They still believe the answer to the Democrats’ electability problems is for the party to move further left.
They will see all the Democratic activism this cycle, and hear all the talk about a blue wave, and may decide once again that it's "safe" for them to stay home—to send a message. That is dangerous thinking.
Heavy turnout in reliably blue districts will not win the House for the Democrats. But these Democrats pooh-pooh that logic. They believe, and argue fiercely, that a fired-up base will turn out in huge numbers to save the day. They are in complete denial of reality.
A democratic victory in November is not assured. The outcome will be determined in swing districts, among swing voters, such as Clinton Republican women in affluent California suburbs, or white workers in the battleground states who voted for Obama before turning to Trump.
To these "purist" Democrats, I say: If you truly care about saving Democracy in your country, then you will vote, and vote Democratic in November.
Another thing: All democrats, of whatever persuasion, must stop the name-calling directed at working-class whites. And the invidious comparisons between them and us. Such verbal abuse is infantile, and politically counter-productive. Let’s all smarten up.
12
Ron, did you miss 2016? You know, that election where the center-right Democrat lost crucial swing states, in large part because former Obama voters were disgusted with the party's failure to live up to its populist promises? The mortgage relief which never came? The repeal of billionaire tax loopholes which was never even attempted? The vanishing "public option"? The disappearing union "check-off"?
What's odd is that the centrist Democrats never cease lecturing the base, no matter how badly they flop.
How many more chances will you demand? At what point does failure become instructive? Never? So it would seem, listening to the party establishment and its apologists.
5
Democrats need to do whatever it takes to win.
That means voting for Republican-lites where necessary (but nowhere else) and getting rid of Pelosi, Schumer, Feingold, and every other entitled oldster who takes money from corporate donors.
And get rid of every Democrat who thought "A Better Way" is a winning message.
5
The headline is a way to gain clicks.
I prefer to work for candidates that have their own voice . What the RW will attempt to do is tie and DEM to Pelosi if they receive any money from a national PAC. And simultaneously ignore all the money that their candidate is receiving from GOP "value" pacs.
Sadly the RW voters are blind to their own hypocrisy.
1
There is no doubt that the results of the 2016 election were intended to trip up the resented libruls. We naturally want to regain all the lost ground and then some, but to be pragmatic, there's still a lot of resentment of identity politics out there--never mind that they practice their own form of identity politics. We have to sidestep the steaming heaps that have been left on the road for us to step in and focus on the road ahead: publicly funded infrastructure projects that would provide training and jobs at a livable wage, strong support of public education at every level, no-wall immigration reform and border security. The overwhelming majority want Citizens United gone and gerrymandering fixed. Ignore the Current Occupant and put forth thoroughly decent, honorable, reassuring candidates with a history of public service like Dan McCready, and vote! The immediate mile marker is a Congressional majority. We are in a marathon, not a sprint.
10
I count this as the THIRD piece in the Times today encouraging "moderate" - read conservative - Democratic candidates to be elected; including a relatively straight news article and another opinion piece with the delightful title, "Liberals, You're Not as Smart as You Think."
It's official: it's a trend.
8
If he wants to run a lukewarm campaign...well then, good luck.
3
Sick of the Pelosi bashing. Sick of the demonization of competent experienced female leaders. Sick of the ageism displayed toward her. Will continue to vote for “divisive” candidates like her.
8
So, Mr. Bruni, you object to homophobia, but you're fine with ageism? Here's what Democrats need to understand: Republicans don't chooese the weakest Democratic politicians to demonize. Their targets are our most experienced, able and powerful, especially outspoken older women. If we oust Pelosi, they will go after her successor with the exact same frenzy.
Why do so many Democrats accept Republican narratives about strong older Democratic women being "terrible" candidates? If they were so terrible, why would Republicans need to attack them with such force? I think too many younger men like Bruni still look on men as leaders, but on older women as controlling matriarchs. Lots of unconscious bias.
10
"When in Rome..." Well, we all know the rest of this well-used and sometimes over-used adage. However, it is apt to put ourselves in this mind frame when we are aspiring to regain the House. North Carolina is tricky, and who knows better than a Democratic candidate. It is not California or New York. Far from it. And moderation with an inch to the right is okay with me if it means correcting a very wayward and questionably ethical Republican Congress. This coming November is too important for us Dems to split hairs. We have got to join together and support our Party's hopefuls. To dwell on Pelosi's leadership blurs our vision and focus. We will cross that bridge when we hopefully come to it. Right now I think there are thousands in our electorate who will agree when I say that the corruption and amorality rampant in politics, starting with this most disgraceful president, absolutely must end.
4
Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have become irrelevant stuck in old ideology and claiming moral high ground. But what have they delivered - losses! They have become the Party of losers under their leadership. They don't realize a Win, a Majority is absolutely necessary to accomplish anything.Change should be the operative word for Democrat. The Republicans are winning only because they constantly change even if it is into darkness with Darth Vader as it's leader. Pelosi and Schumer should be stepping down for the McCreads and Lambs who are bringing that change, a change without darkness, without archaic ideology. Their only ideology is serving the communities they come from and the determination to Win. They know that unless there is a win they cannot accomplish anything and they will only end up being white noise. It is time for Pelosi and Schumer let go of their vanity. They've had enough facetime before the media. They should gracefully go and make way for young blood who are really attuned to people's pulse and not be jaded like Washington insiders, Pelosi and Schumer. We thank them for their services but they have to go.
4
This is wonderful. Democrats need to win in more areas of the country if we're ever to be a viable, national party again--that includes winning in places that are predominantly white and moderate. We can have a big tent party, as the Republicans have shrunken to a bivouac.
If we "win" by going further to the right, then they win. If we won't stand for true liberal values now, when will we?
8
I have no campaign funds or votes for any Democratic candidates aligned with Nancy Pelosi. Ms. Pelosi spoke on the House floor for eight hours. She didn’t speak about jobs, healthcare, climate change, trade, the deficit, foreign military engagement, or the opioid crisis. Instead, she chose to use this time to support illegal immigrants.
Ms. Pelosi has shown us what is important to her, and it’s not American citizens and the challenges we face. I was deeply offended by her speech, and believe she has no business with any leadership role representing Americans or our party. I will look for candidates that do align themselves with her, or support her current role.
9
This comment is silly. Pelosi's priorities are not what is asserted here. If you do not know what her priorities are, go to "https://pelosi.house.gov/" and click on "Issues." It is not unreasonable to assume that for this commenter immigration means "brown immigrants."
MyjobisinIndianow wrote:
"I have no campaign funds or votes for any Democratic candidates aligned with Nancy Pelosi. Ms. Pelosi spoke on the House floor for eight hours. She didn’t speak about jobs, healthcare, climate change, trade, the deficit, foreign military engagement, or the opioid crisis. Instead, she chose to use this time to support illegal immigrants.
Ms. Pelosi has shown us what is important to her, and it’s not American citizens and the challenges we face. I was deeply offended by her speech, and believe she has no business with any leadership role representing Americans or our party. I will look for candidates that do align themselves with her, or support her current role."
1
Without Pelosi there would have been no first step for the silly USA in providing universal health care to its citizens.
Chew on that.
I've noticed several people expressing uneasiness about veterans status being regarded as a plus for Democratic candidates. I hope to calm your concerns a bit by telling a quick story. I'm a Viet Nam veteran. During the Iraq invasion, there were only a few of us Viet Nam veterans in my workplace. There was a woman friend who worked there who came from a military family, and her husband was a retired military person. We Viet Nam veterans all spoke against Bush invading Iraq. It was the non-veterans who were in favor. Then, after the invasion, my woman friend and her husband had 5 nieces and nephews in Iraq at the same time. And, their son-in-law, a member of the Minnesota National Guard, was in Iraq for two tours. She asked me once, "How come you're the only one who asks how they are doing?" So, I heard first-hand about what was going on at the grunt level during that war, and what they all thought. It was this: her husband was rabidly anti-Bush. The nieces and nephews and son-in-law turned against the war. I recall conversations with my Viet Nam veteran friends, and this family that we expected--and with firm convictions--that there were Iraq/Afghanistan veterans who would be future political leaders, and that these leaders would be the right kind, ones concerned about entering wars. It is now happening. (By the way, notice I use Viet Nam as two words: this is the proper way to spell that word; it was wrongly used during the War. I've been back there.........)
113
Wonderful and important comment
15
Respect.
10
As a former naval officer and current leftist Democrat, I regard Democratic candidates with a record of military service very positively. I assume they share the ethos I learned in the Navy: loyalty up (to the constitution and the national interest) and loyalty down (to the voters and to the less fortunate).
23
“If I speak the talking points at the edges of our party but have not love for all the constituents in my district, I am become as sounding brass. If I do not show charity towards all in need, it profiteth me nothing. And if I am adept at persuasive speeches, and am on top of all the current polling data, but have not love for everyone I am nothing. Love is patient and kind, love does not boast of what it will do, it does not angrily point out an opponents’ transgressions, but rather rejoices in shared truths. When I first ran for office I exhibited childish behaviors. Then I looked through the dark glass of the 2016 election and grew up. The clanging noise of both parties is not joyful. It is irritable and resentful. If I am to gather hearts and votes unto me this coming November, it is because my ears are open. I will not allow myself to be provoked. I will abjure evil. I hope that my message will abide. Because of all my campaign promises, the greatest is love.” (Somehow this candidate/message was omitted from my voter info guide…)
4
There's an article in your paper called, 'Liberals; You're not as Smart as You Think'. What a stupid title.
I'm not into 'calculating' and being 'cunning' in order to win elections. That's what the vile Republicans and Russians do. Is getting into the gutter the only way for this democracy to thrive? God, I hope not.
Your paper is printing more conservative writers, so the 'message' of the Times is changing - toward the right. That is sad and detrimental to this world.
Yes, Pelosi should resign as leader for the good of the Party and the country (I guess power is quite the intoxicant). But Trump is the President, I'm not sure how or why to 'avoid' him.
Someday historians will write how truly immoral America became with the election of Trump and his supporters. It will be apparent what kind of narcissistic, bully-child this man was.
We are fake to act otherwise. We are fake to not tell the truth always, whatever the costs.
Tax cuts help a bit, but they really help the rich, and the rich own this country and most every other country. Our bad.
The hedge funds, private equity funds, largest stockholders, board members, billionaires, etc. run this ragged little world. They're destroying it, and we're just watching, acting dumb.
Someday, Trump will fall. His sinking ship will produce countless rats running for cover & survival. The next leader of the rich will rise. They will probably quote Jesus & talk about gun rights & abortion. Then they will cut taxes for the rich.
20
ttrumbo, I for one am glad the the NYT is finally becoming a little more objective--what is wrong with that?
1
An odd article. So the way to win as a Democrat in a Republican district is to run on Republican issues. Makes sense. But then why be a Democrat?
Shows how messed up our party politics is. And our politics in general. We fool ourselves by thinking that a democracy is a rational way to run a country. Elections are a popularity contest and who wins hardly matters. The elites rule anyway.
5
@ John Smithson California posted "Elections are a popularity contest and who wins hardly matters. The elites rule anyway. "
The nation needs to oust the vile Republicans. CA has Nunes , K. McCarthy , Duncan & 10 other traitors running (Isaac chickened out) in Nov. Do your duty and work to make the nation better by turning CA 100% Blue.
There is a reason the right despises Nancy Pelosi so much: they fear her. She is exceedingly effective in her role, and they know that.
28
When GOP renounces McConnell and Ryan, then I’ll renounce Pelosi. But not until then.
13
McReady will say whatever helps get him elected. He's still a politician.
Having said that, he would have a stellar political career if he's half as effective as Nancy Pelosi. She gets re-elected and voted Speaker for the same reason: she's effective. Pelosi is smart: if she needs to take a back seat during the November campaign season, she will.
Trump is a real threat to civilized societies. Pelosi knows this and will do what's necessary to neutralize the existential threat that is Donald Trump.
13
Pelosi is a smart politician and effective. The problem is she is past her ‘use by’ date. She is the well kept car that you have had for more years than you would have liked. Pelosi is the latest ‘Hillary doll’. She has been around too long. The Democrats need different viewpoint. We cannot maintain a ‘business as usual’ position. Hit the road for the benefit of your party Nancy.
3
I'm sure I will be perceived as a greedy simpleton, but I think the democrats need to do something for regular people. I don't want to pay for sex reassignment while I can't get cancer treatment. I don't care about DACA kids while my kid can't find a job that pays a living wage after getting a physics scholarship, degree, and then a second bachelors in computer science. I don't care to pay disability for my annoying, crazy neighbors psych issues (so they can live as freely as tbey can) when my social security isn't secure.
Justice will never be blind when the first question asked after a crime is "what race and sex were the involved parties?"
I've voted a straight dem ticket my whole life and I tend to side with an underdog. I'm not willing to commit hare-kare because I'm white and married with children.The needs of the many, guys. That's the key.
10
So in other words, you only want the government to focus on problems that affect you and people close to you. Other people's problems aren’t “real” problems. Especially if they’re LGBT, have dark skin, or have “psych” problems.
You say you’ve voted “straight dem” all your life, but your comment is straight out of the Trump voter booklet of simplistic talking points.
This attitude is exactly what’s dragging us down into the abyss. It's about all of us together guy, not just me and my friends and family.
3
I don't know one person who see it as either/or. My guess is those who wield the power see it as neither/nor. And to divide people all of whom have serious concerns is always their goal to help keep it that way
1
What a unique concept - a candidate who talks about issues for his district more than the big ticket talking points. We need more of these, from both parties.
12
It is important for new faces. The need to recognize the others and be able to talk to them about issues they have strong opinions on. This means crossing over sometimes and recognizing that you may have to be more loose on your views. Yes, Trump speaks for himself and the Trump haters and the supporters are well fixed and no new talk will, change them. The old Dems are poor brands and need to be replaced. But most of all energize your base to VOTE. I suggest a campaign to enroll as many as possible into early voting mailing . This avoids the many roadblocks the Repubs try to use.
4
We no longer have a military that represents the country as we no longer have the draft. We have a mercenary military. Having served in the Vietnam era and having several good friends injured or killed, creates a different perspective. We are on a path to glamorizing this military; video games anyone; and suggest we should be careful as we seem to be creating false images.
11
For the Democrats to take the house the strategy in theory is very simple. They must specifically appeal to the voters of their districts. I really don't think at the personal voter level the politics of this country is as polarized as has been represented in the media. The Democrats must specifically appeal to individual voters instead of pushing some sort of superficial ideology in the abstract. If that means criticizing (scapegoating in my view) Nancy Pelosi by Democrats running campaigns in their local districts in order to win, so be it. If the Democrats don't take the House, they don't govern. Democratic impotence at the moment is too dire to stick to principle: They have to win the House or we are all in allot of trouble
10
Finally, when they are completely out of power in Washington DC and badly behind in state houses and legislatures, Democrats are realizing that they must contest races everywhere. This means dropping the litmus tests for hot-button national issues and appealing to local needs and politics. The 2018 elections are ripe for Democrats to recapture the center, but they will fail if they try to push candidates towards the far left. There is a reason Republicans are seeking to tie every Congressional Democrat to Nancy Pelosi. Nationalizing races or making them anti-Trump will not work in red and purple districts. Democrats must also ignore all the happy talk about a "blue wave" and polls suggesting big Democratic gains. They need to keep fighting like they are losing otherwise they probably will.
18
I think that Mr.Bruni's analysis makes sense , but I think what will be increasingly important to Americans in the months ahead is whether a candidate is credible or not. Truth, and the ability to tell it has now become a commodity in a way that it never has before in American politics. If one is a student of history ,knowing something about Nixon and the Watergate era, for example ,will tell us that Americans do not like to be lied to, regardless of what their economic status may be, and regardless of whether they have one or more college degrees or not.
In the final analysis, honesty is what we will soon be in pursuit of more than anything else, because being lied to by a president and his administration for what will be nearly two years at the mid term, will be more than any American on the right or the left will be able to swallow. And when the truth comes out about the president's lies, regardless of how much apathy we may think there is in this country, there will be a commensurate reaction .
5
I think Nancy Pelosi is too far to the left on many issues. I think that she and her leadership team should step aside for some new blood. The are many young democrats that seem so promising that never get to rise to the top because of the failure of Pelosi and her team to see what a wonderful thing it would be if we gave a new generation the ability to at least attempt to stop the polarization of our government. I fully support a new leader and leadership team. All that being said, I truly hope all the vitriol is not gender based. That would make me sad.
6
The center is now the old right. Pelosi is a moderate by any standards. Just like Hillary the republicans have been demonizing her for many years. Unfortunately, in this country it is easy to vilify strong, intelligent women.
8
All this demonizing of Nancy Pelosi is directly out of the Fox News playbook. When will the Dems learn to not play by those rules? Pelosi was a very effective law maker and you can bet that Fox News and the be rest of the right wing disinformation factory will go after her successor with the same level of ferocity as they did with her. May be the Dems should just nominate Newt Gingrich as their leader and be done with it...
Bah. Humbug.
104
Furthermore, Leader Pelosi has been an effective Member of Congress for her district in the San Francisco Bay Area. Just like center to center-right Members can be effective in their own districts, Ms Pelosi represents a left-leaning constituency and we are all glad for her well deserved ascendancy in the Democratic Party. By all means consider new leadership when the next Congress convenes, but not by demonizing the current leadership based on their age and gender (which, along with the right wing trading, is probably what this is all about). Ditto for Senator Feinstein, by the way
23
Despite the Fox rhetoric, Pelosi is no flaming liberal. She is a classic 20th century Obama/ Clinton era Democrat - in other words really Republican light. The reason she should go is because she ( and Shumer and most of the DNC) is an anachronistic 20th century politician totally out of touch with the country's mood.
Whether rightly or wrongly the campaign against her has been terrifically successful and she is so damaged that she will hurt the party. Hillary was also wrongfully demonized in a highly successful long term campaign, but, because of her ego , pressed on for the disastrous result of being the only Democrat who could possibly lost to the idiot Trump.
It may not be fair, but the truth is that such people become a real drag on their party and for the good of their party should just get out of the way.
25
Pelosi is part of the Democratic establishment that elected Donald Trump. She only cares about Nancy Pelosi and is universally disliked because of her abrasive personality. Republicans successfully campaign on the slogan that a vote for their opponent is a vote for Nancy Pelosi. She's been there long enough. Time for some new blood. Let her keep her seat but quit as majority leader. It would be a huge plus for other Democratic candidates.
9
On both sides, conservative and liberal, the issue of purity has driven politics into the garbage-filled ditch. The reality of the Trump presidency should make it clear to all on the left that seeking purity has a very real consequence. Since we live in a world where we all must compromise to survive, politics should be the exception. America cannot survive 6 more years of Trump and a congress that will rubber stamp ANYTHING he says or wants.
7
I don't understand the Liberal thinking on th eNYT op ed pages. You forget: we are outspent, out lobbied, out legislated, and the propaganda machine we are leaning against is huge. Pelosi AND, not , bail on Pelosi and get someone else. Pelosi AND the Bernie types. We need a constellation not a one hit wonder.
3
Nancy Pelosi's only one of 'em. The Roberto Duran of politics. Old Hands of Stone shoulda quit right after the first Leonard fight, but there he was 20 years later, fighting bums for bums' pay in bum clubs.
None of them has the slightest idea when to get the blue blazes out of the way. Pelosi. Sanders. Warren. And the next in line to the House throne? Stenny Hoyer? Is that some kind of bad joke?
And this is the crew who's going to win the millennials over?
Those are the c current roster of Democratic, um, "players". I haven't even brought up HRC. Then there's the "message". Free this. Free that. When the dairy farmer from Vermont started promising "free" college last election, did HRC or anyone else in her campaign bring up the obvious fact that absolutely nothing is free? That absolutely everything has to be paid for at some point, by somebody?
Absolutely not. HRC dug in, showed her courage in the face of fire, and......promised twice the free college tuitions that Sanders did.
So that's what the "message" from the Democratic "players" (e.k.e., "leadership") has been. Pure, unadulterated socialism in it's most virulently brainless accounting-free form, dished out to the faithful by washed up octogenarians.
Is it time for Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to exit stage left and make room for young folks like Connor Lamb and Dan McReady?
Not if you want to sell more Poligrip. Otherwise, you have to be some kind of fool not to agree.
5
A big part of Conor Lamb's victory was due to staying away from Nancy Pelosi. I also believe Elizabeth Warren has become too shrill. At times I can't even listen. And Bernie blew it by not supporting Hillary quickly enough, and some recent statements he's made. It would appear he has issues the GOP can jump onto.
I like Kamala Harris of California. Young, dynamic, measured.
1
I agree Nancy Pelosi is a lightening rod for conservatives. Certainly it helped Conor Lamb in Pennsylvania to distance himself.
I timed out on article here that slammed liberals. "Reality has a well-known liberal bias," as comedian Stephen Colbert observed so wisely. He roasted President George W. Bush far more devastatingly in 2006 than Michele Wolf did Mr. Trump.
Colbert was savage---and yes we liberals loved it.
Bush sat a couple seats away, Colbert was relentless.
Any opinion that liberals will be destroyed by Michelle Wolf's performance this year is unfounded.
But I agree that Nancy Pelosi should take a less prominent role or we will pay the price. She shouldn't be fearless.
As for Colbert---he *was* fearless and guess what:
Democratic President Barack Obama was elected two years later.
Here's Colbert at the dinner:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWqzLgDc030
3
All politics are local. You have to appeal to local values. The Democratic Party can't run a Nancy Pelosi in the south and you can't run a McCready in the Bay Area. McCready would be a republican in the Bay Area. The Democratic Party line works where it can and it should adapted to local issues but never to the hateful right wing policies of the Republican Party that has a 38 year history (Ronald Reagan) of hatefulness. Drain the swamp in November.
14
Fair or not, the right wing propaganda machine has effectively branded Nancy Pelosi as radioactive. She needs to check her ego at the door, and ride off into the sunset. If we want a blue wave in November, we need more fresh young candidates like Mr. McCready.
4
Let the Democrats run against Nancy Pelosi as long as they elect her leader when they take back the house. Pelosi got the Affordable Care Act passed. The only piece of legislation in the past fifty years that benefits anyone other than the top 1%.
7
Why should any Democratic Congressional candidate give aid and comfort to Republicans by "renouncing" Pelosi--as if she were the devil Republicans paint her as?
Everything is different now. For many of us women, Pelosi is a heroine, a leader standing up for our values, tough has nails. We won't take kindly to what looks like woman-bashing.
And besides that, Pelosi's not top-of-mind for most voters around here.
It would be far better for Democratic candidates, when goaded, to take no position on Pelosi but pledge tosupport the Dem congressional leader who can win the support of an energized and motivated majority to get things done.
5
I have nothing again center-left or right-in-the-middle centrist Democrats. I understand that such a candidate likely has the best chance in red parts of the country.
I am increasing dismayed, however, when supposed Democrats declare this the "right" way - even the "only way" - for Democrats to win, at all.
Strategic issues aside, Democrats have drifted right for decades. When the GOTP introduced "identity politics" and focused on wedge issues and "messaging," Democrats didn't choose to mimic the GOTP's TACTICS, but thought embracing their ISSUES would preserve their viability.
That means today we have the GOTP practically weaponizing their tactics so that an essentially conservative proposal like the Affordable Care Act became a wedge issue with their utterly unfounded and fallacious warnings of it being "socialism" and a death knell for American health care as we know it. NONE of what they presaged came true, not even close, but they continue to fire up rallies with the same fabricated lines. Meanwhile, the majority of Democrats ran by minimizing - or outright ignoring - the significance of its passage and advocating for continued improvement until the goal of coverage for all citizens was achieved.
I would be perfectly happy with center/center-left Democrats taking big bites out of red districts if we had actual left/far left Democrats elsewhere. Perhaps then we would then again average out to having an actual liberal alternative to the GOTP.
3
Trump won North Carolina’s 15 electoral votes with 173,315 more votes than Hillary. Maybe the Democrats could have bridged the gap with "No Shows" like me, minorities, millennials, Bernie supporters, LGBT voters and independents through grassroots efforts to get out the vote.
3
I am, personally, a radical progressive, assuming the over-simplified categories that pass for beliefs about governance have any meaning. Regardless, if we don't stop the destruction of our democratic republic first, we will have lost our last best hope of ever actually progressing.
8
I agree with Bruni's final analysis. The containment of Trump by a majority of Democrats is a necessity. But something that bothers me a great deal is the emphasis on McCready's (and Lamb's) military experience. Is being a vet going to be a new litmus test for serving in Congress? I sure hope not.
10
A litmus test, no. BUT, it does show that an individual is willing to put his life on the line in defense of his beliefs, and that makes a powerful statement as to his character, as opposed to someone who uses any phony excuse to avoid service.
3
I agree that I don't like the prescient of military experience being a litmus, but I think it neutralizes the tendency of the opposition to brand opponents as disloyal wantabe socialists.
2
This country should have mandatory military service. Large segments of the population esp. the kids of "single" e.g. unwed mothers would benefit from the discipline of basic training.
A moderate Democrat is still a Democrat. The conservative Republicans in North Carolina will not let the Democrats forget this very important fact. They deserted the Democrat party in the early 1960s and are unlikely to return.
A Democrat politician will still vote with their party a majority of the time which will not serve the Republican interest in this still conservative state. They still support Republican values which are very important to them. I predict that Mark Harris will win but the election will be close.
3
Political intransigence: when one chooses the Fox News epithet over the proper name of the Democratic Party.
2
I am getting a tad uncomfortable with this constant touting of military service as necessarily being an asset to a candidacy.
On the one hand, there are those who, having served in combat, understand the gravity of entering wars, and the consequences, intentional or unintended, of ill-thought out incursions. One hopes that they would be extremely judicious in matters of potential conflict, far more than the armchair generals such as Trump and Bush would be.
On the other hand, we are becoming far too enamored of those with military experience, touting soldiers as heroes at every turn, even putting them on the White House staff as major advisors.
We seem to forget that the power to make war rests with the citizens of our country, not with those in uniform, and that is for a reason. We must be vigilant in working for peace, at a time in which the United States is participating in war in 7 countries, with a credible threat of more to come.
This is not to demean those who have fought in our nation's wars. It is simply to recall that most people cherish peace and see war as a last resort. That is a value we should aspire to when selecting our candidates, whether or not they have military experience.
10
"We seem to forget that the power to make war rests with the citizens of our country, not with those in uniform, and that is for a reason."
I completely agree, and that is why I will allow prior military service influence my vote, especially on a national level. Only those who have been to war really understand it, and that makes them, in my viewpoint, uniquely qualified to debate and vote on its prosecution in the future.
2
You are right. Being a vet sure didn’t help John Kerry, and Trump consistently disparages John McCain’s military service.
1
It started with the glorification of "first responders" of 9/11 to the broader deification of "law and order" professionals by the current Administration ( with the exception of the "Nazis" in our intelligence agencies and "the disgraceful liars" at DOJ) . Look how this Administration responds to mass shootings: the victims are the supporting cast for the first responders .
(Trump skirted the draft with his debilitating bone spurs so his own personal cowardice is no secret. )
My father won the Bronze Star in WWII but never did he believe it elevated him above his fellow citizens , or better qualified him while disqualifying others for public office.
Consider John Kelly. He is inexperienced with the legislative process, bigoted, a stranger to social policy debates and an awful chief of staff . His protection of Rob Porter should have ended his time in the WH once and for all especially after his extraordinary attack on the Florida Congresswoman. But somehow we are led to believe that Kelly was imbued with the relevant skills because he was a general.
You can get away with a lot if you wrap yourself in the flag.
2
McCready and Lamb have run campaigns that all democratic candidates should run. They are talking to voters about issues that matter and staying away from issues that will bring out Republican voters - impeachment, abortion, guns. People want to hear about what candidates will do for voters lives-education, jobs, job training, social security, medicare and medicaid. Most voters care about climate change.
The Democratic party should put forth a platform of programs that it supports so that candidates can have guidelines that make sense. Above all else Democrats should stay away from talking about Trump.
9
The Upshot hit on this earlier this week - it's hard to win when your positions brings out the opposition.
We need to remember that while the House results will inevitably be discussed in national terms, and will have national implications, we choose Representatives in 435 separate local elections (and, Senators in 50 separate state elections). Yes, there are national trends and, occasionally, waves, but the political effects of federalism cannot be overlooked --
5
The economy was the number one reason I voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Too many Republican administrations set the tone for greed and corruption by loosening regulations and creating tax policies that only benefit the very wealthy. They handed the Democrats the largest economic disaster since the depression. They haven't governed responsibly since I have been old enough to vote.
At the local level, Democratic politicians will represent their constituents more closely, and may not be onboard with everything on the Democratic platform, especially in red red states. That's just the reality.
If we can get more people on board as Democrats because we do a better job with the economy, we can win over more hearts and minds on other issues.
11
More importantly, What are Democrats for? This must be articulated consistently well. We know that the GOP wants to deregulate everything ostensibly to ‘eliminate big Government’. They also cut taxes to no ones benefit other than big business and the wealthy. What do the Democrats support? They better firm up their plans or get prepared for another round of the Trump Adventure.
3
Please, please, please let this work in November. For some reason, I think the Art Popes of NC and the Koch-to-pi of the USofA are planning something in November. Did you read the piece by Frank of the conversation he had with Correy Bliss?
All politics is local, and McCready certainly fits the right profile where he is running - for a very moderate Republican.
I agree that any mention of impeachment is a mistake. Anyone who can accept Trump's lies and distortions, incompetence and divisive posturing will not be persuaded to support impeachment. He will destroy himself in time, with Mueller's assistance.
I also agree that thanks to the years-long efforts of Faux News and the rest of the GOP propaganda apparatus to demonize her, Nancy Pelosi should be replaced by a younger, as yet not so negatively profiled Democrat.
I can only hope that centrists like McCready can be moved to support more progressive objectives, like single-payer healthcare, national support for quality public education, infrastructure spending, etc.
6
If your candidate can't win in a hostile district why waste the money? Spend it where it will do some good. If you've got a candidate who stands a chance don't complain - just vote for them. That's how Republicans got in the position they're in (apart from vote rigging) - vote to win, not to feel good about it.
4
Mr. McCready sounds like an accomplished, worldly, mature adult with a steady focus on how best to serve the interests of his district on a chaotic national scene. Something Washington could use a lot more of.
6
There is an upside and downside to
more conservative Democratic candidates/legislators. The upside is a Democratic majority and a release from the jaws of the Republican “crazy”. The downside is when Democrats have a majority position nothing resembling progressive legislation can get past them. I’ll settle for release from crazy. Every so often we just have to beat back the Birchers and flat-earthers. And let’s face it, the US is a right-of-center country, there is just so much you can expect. Sorry Nancy.
5
According to the National Center for Science Education, there are still 3,500 flat earthers in the USA. Guess you just can't believe those moon shots.
Sounds like a slightly smarter, less racist Trump who still doesn't want to do progressive things since it will upset the apple cart. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
3
The trouble with electing right-wing Democrats like this one is that they vote against the interests of the base and policies popular with the rank and file of both parties (you know, increasing the minimum wage, taxing the wealthy, reduced military spending, free tuition, medicare for all, etc.?).
Their votes gives Republican with slight majorities the power to cudgel 50% of the country and impede Democratic majorities from doing what the base demands and what's good for the country.
Then, after failing to deliver anything but piety ("we're so virtuous"!) the party loses to the likes of GWB or Donald Trump.....
See a pattern here?
4
Mr. Bruni, I rather suspect you did not have much to do with the title of this piece. In any case it is an egregious and gratuitous attack on a person, Nancy Pelosi, who has been one of the most effective lawmakers in our history. You are here lending--by default--the prestige of your column to the cheap slurs that have been Republican mantra for a decade and more. Conservative America has always had a woman to excoriate in order to pose as defenders against the threat of Gorgons. Call it the Medusa ritual.
Democrats now are in the odd position of endorsing the image that Republicans have painted of their most effective nemesis in Congress. It's a sad--very sad--case of the deliberate unwarranted sullying of a reputation infecting popular lore to the extent that only quarantine seems possible.
Is there no one willing to stand up and defend this maligned public servant? No one to say, this hatred of her is wrong headed? Is it simply enough to mention the name Nancy Pelosi and thereby excite spontaneous opprobrium from millions who do not even know who she is or what position she holds in our government?
8
I agree with your assessment of Ms. Pelosi’s accomplishments and capabilities. Nevertheless she has been a divisive figure. And she should put country before party and personal ambition. The Democratic Party needs new blood and new leadership every bit as much as the Republican Party. At 63 I am no Spring chicken. It is time to move on.
3
It's not just Pelosi herself but also her city, which is widely envied for its wealth and derided for its leftism and large gay community. It's actually accurate to say that SF is unlike the rest of America.
I love both SF and NYC, but middle and rural America view them as alien. It undercuts Democratic success that their leadership comes from these two least-typical American cities.
Up until about 30 years ago both parties used to contain elected officials across the entire ideological spectrum. Here in New York Nelson Rockefeller was more liberal than many of his Democratic rivals. And McCready sounds a lot like former Democratic Senator Sam Nunn.
If the Democrats get back to that type of party they can win back Congress, and perhaps bring compromise and effective legislating back to Washington.
3
What Americans need to get through their heads is that the GOP has moved so far right that the Dems then moved so far left that neither party represents desirable and reasonable policies or values to safeguard America's democracy.
Add Trump's isolationism, xenophobia, and bigotry, and we have a choice between chaotic, irresponsible and reckless Congressional representatives and leaders or thoughtful, pragmatic and proven patriots with all Americans in mind and heart.
Just say no.....to Pelosi.....
It is time to take away the Republicans strongest argument against a democratic house
If Pelosi put Country first over her personal power she would resign
4
Let's hope we get more candidates who want to prioritize and allocate our scare resources while balancing our growth and tax policy. Until we replace the ugly partisan legislative faces on TV we won't solve the fiscal problems our kids will face.
2
Winning is critical. As a lib and democrat even I am sick about all the hand wringing about PC and a focus on small issues instead of the big ones: jobs, healthcare, education, and senseless violence. If we get these right then we are 98% of the way there. With fake 45, McConnell and Ryan we'll get nothing right. Wake up Dems!
12
Nancy Pelosi has been the coach of a losing team for some time now, with her greatest accomplishment over the past few years being her ability to keep her job as minority leader. If she had any sense of honor and dignity she would have made way for the next generation of Democratic leaders.
Running as a Trump acolyte carries its own risks these days, too many to mention. (1,500 words is not long enough.)
So it is surprising to me that people would be shocked that guys like Lamb and McCready would chart their own course. They fought for our country and watched their brothers die in combat. They understand sacrifice, honor and duty. So why after those experiences would they want to come home and run for office by becoming a sycophant to the likes of Pelosi or Trump?
These are good, honorable, decent people. They have chosen to wade into the swamp created and perpetuated by Pelosi and Trump. That is what is shocking, not that they are running away from those two.
5
What works in NC and even PA ain't going to work in CT. Those CT clowns can't even acknowledge that Trump just saved their state from a colossal deficit as a result of the tax reform windfall; let alone that Pelosi is the pits.
4
I wish the rhetoric about Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi didn't smack of sexism. But the clear message here is, find a young handsome qualified white man and we'll support him.
I hope McCready wins, too. But let's not mistake the hate and scorn heaped on Hillary and Nancy as anything but chauvinism.
9
Hillary Clinton got free ride after free ride for decades for being female and the wife of. Then she and her equally delusional groupies complain about misogyny. What irony.
2
Victories by these wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing “Democrats” are nothing to cheer about, if you care about the progressive, liberal values.
Is he going to push for gun reform? Gay rights? Fight against income inequality? He will not. Forgive me if I don’t celebrate his possible victory, just because there is a ‘D’ next to his name.
3
Gun reform? Talk about it as soon as a gun is indicted or convicted of a crime.
He doesn’t have to push for them- let his fellow Dems in NYC and CA do that. He just had to vote for them. There’s a difference. Perfect is the enemy of good.
1
yay for him. He's actually a republican. Too many children, irresponsible. Won't seriously talk about guns or LGBTQ rights. Won't discuss a fair wage for a fair days work. Did I miss the part about women's rights? I might have and no more talk about religion for the love of heaven. It's against the constitution.
I'm happy this guy can win but he's no more a democrat than Mitch McConnell.
2
This is clearly a formula for success on a regional level. Nevertheless, Hillary Clinton ran as a center left candidate on a national level and received more popular votes than Obama and Sanders in primaries and Trump in a general election. The Democrats have to come clean with misogyny and gender culture wars that exist in our country. Would Pelosi be so vilified if she were male?
3
I would describe my political position as a bit left of President Obama --as such, in current terms, "Progressive." But we are dealing with an administration and a Republican-controlled Congress that are systematically rolling back and eliminating any protections in the social safety net enacting since the New Deal. Their goal is transparent --to solidify control of the mechanisms of government and so ensure that control remains in the hands of corporate America. And they have been very successful in that regard. The cynical operatives and big-money supporters understand full-well the winning strategy of divide-and-conquer.
In fact, don't be too surprised to learn these same strategists are encouraging and even supporting leftist 3rd-party candidates in coming elections (2018, 2020).
It is critical, given the current political landscape, that progressives like myself be willing to respond strategically in 2018 and support certain Democratic candidates who may not align fully with our own long-term vision. We must-must-must return control of the House, at least, if not the Senate, to Democratic control. If we fail in this, the wolves are out of the walls for two more years, and heaven help us. Can we agree that some considered compromise is crucial in 2018 to avert this catastrophe. Can we find ways to come together in this collective effort? I pray so.
10
Excellent comment Jim. I am very 'left' but absolutely endorse your views expressed here. Now is hardly the time for political purity. What I like about so many of the candidates on the list:https://redtoblue.dccc.org/ is deep involvement in local community, public service experience, lots of small business/real work experience and - via military careers - a clear ability to be focused and disciplined. I would hope that these military careers, all below the rank of General/Admiral, will bring practical insight into defense spending and veterans care policy making. It will take decades to recover from Trump and - yes - GWB/Cheney - .but this may mark a start. One slightly unrelated comment, the life experiences of many of these candidates may make them pragmatic and even tough foreign policy advocates and supporters. The battles with China and Russia and the Middle East situation will not be solved with Kumbaya !
4
That won't work. The reason Trump was elected was because registered voters of color and young people stayed home in droves, which wasn't the case when Obama was elected. The key here is getting progressive voters to actually get to the polls to vote, not win over moderate Republicans which, for some unknown reason, is and has been the Democrats' losing strategy for decades.
How about we actually have candidates people can get excited about instead of these milquetoast quasi-conservatives who stand for nothing?
What a great blueprint for a Democratic sweep.
It is time for Democrats to stop fighting each other over micro-aggressions and just vote for the D and win elections.
Oh and it is time to thank Nancy Pelosi for her service and DEMAND she step aside, she has had MORE than her share of the spotlight, and allow the next generation - the future - to take over.
9
Ms.Pelosi will step aside when she drops dead, or when she doesn't have the votes to remain at the top. When new leadership is ready she will be gone.
1
The leadership of the Democrat Party has been there too long. For a political party that claims to want change so much, perhaps it is time to lead the way by doing instead of talking a d delivering speeches about it.
7
"He's a bit of a blur for my tastes, but so what? He can win."
And that about sums up the state of our politics: safe, boxes checked, military-friendly, white, and mostly male." Perfect candidate? Sounds like more of the same to me. A Democratic middle-of-the-road hugger with no real convictions or aspirations for this country. I think we can do a lot better.
8
Yes we can "do a lot better", AND by doing "a lot better" we can continue to hand this country to full control of the Republicans and their anti people agenda.
This comment is exactly why we continue to lose winnable races and piss off middle America.
2
Michael, I wholeheartedly disagree. The biggest factor of the last major election was turnout among progressives. People of color stayed home. Young people stayed home. Just because this man is in his 30s doesn't mean he appeals to young people. Just because he calls himself a Democrat doesn't mean he's a progressive. We keep pandering to the GOP's definition of what is acceptable in a candidate instead of defining it for ourselves. I hope this guy wins just to have another "D" in the Congress. But if that means more center-hugging, "art of the possible" nonsense rather than fighting for working people, then we might as well have elected a Republican.
The last thing Democrats need is to allow unelectable progressive purists to destroy all hope of taking back the Senate and the House.
The problem, of course, is that it is easier for Republicans to run for office.
First, Republicans are not expected to have any plan or interest in actually governing.
Second, on the campaign trail the only thing they need to do is memorize the Republican script, including the various party-approved lies about what they believe.
Third, Republicans merely have to sprinkle their remarks with a few code words for being against people of color and immigrants -- particularly Muslim immigrants.
Democrats should cut Democrats running for Congress in a blue district a little slack. It’s okay to be in the center.
Declining to take a hard swing at a hanging curveball down the middle of the plate by a reporter, instead of using the opportunity to nail Donald Trump, is acceptable.
As far as saying that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer should be replaced with younger leaders, that’s also fine.
Although Nancy and Chuck have no intention of going quietly into that good night, they are the first ones to recognize privately that a candidate has to do what he or she has to do.
The whole idea is to win. Swamp draining can begin an hour after being sworn into office.
42
Pelosi IS the problem. She's dry and uninspiring to this generation. We need to fight fire with fire and she is simply not up to slamming it back when we Dems get slammed. Like DNC Chairman Tom Perez says, it's time to hit back with a 2x4. It's a new generation of politics and politicians.
Thank you, Ms. Pelosi for your years of service. Please stay close and participate where you wish but I trust you'll want to sit this one out.
4
Politics is about who GOVERNS you, not who "inspires" you. I want someone known to produce results and Pelosi always has. That's why Republicans demonize her. I find Pelosi's achievements and strength inspiring. I never heard so many people so glibly belittle the life work of older, powerful women like Pelosi and Clinton. Ageism and sexism tell us we should be invisible.
So where are Pelosi and Perez this election season? Where is the Dem platform? Are Pelosi and Perez content to hide in the shadows thinking they can come out of the closet after Dems take control and then lead the House?
Ain’t gonna happen, pack it in Nancy.
6
Yes! What are the key issues and plans that Dems will rally around? I hear nothing but crickets. Will they get behind medicare for all? Will they get behind education (including vocations) for all? Will they get behind a $15 minimum wage? Will they get behind campaign finance reform? Will they get behind real tax reform? What are they for? We all hate Trump, but what is the platform? This is why the leadership has to go. They cannot or maybe do not want to get a clear message out and hammer it home.
2
Yes, it's the conomy stupid, and the local economy at that. But how come Republicans keep winning on social issues such as the evangelical obsession with appointng conservative judges, abortion, religion in schools, gay rights?
5
"It's about the issues, stupid!" Democrats have to campaign relentlessly on the issues that actually affect people's lives: jobs, reasonable pay for work, tax fairness, support for education, preserving clean air and clean water, infrastructure repair. Republicans have perfected distracting cultural gongs and whistles over the past 4 decades to hide their disdain for anyone with a less than 6-figure income. We need candidates who will not get drawn into the culture wars and will focus on what needs to get done to make people's lives better. The current GOP can't tolerate people looking at what they actually stand for, since their "solutions" are based on fictions.
18
Just think what Trump has accomplished in less than two years: he has turned a Democracy into a Dictatorship, and rules it with Twitter. I am a longtime Liberal, and I cannot understand how he did it. The Supreme Court has almost entirely given up it Constitutionally required one-third rule of America. The Congress has given up its one third rule share which is laid out in our Constitution. Once Trump builds his Wall - and he WILL build it - he will have the largest Concentration Camp ever. No, no, no - NORTH of the Mexican border. Destruction of a Democracy right under the noses of the people. Imagine that. He will easily win another term. Maybe even more.........Trump and Pence and maybe the Sec State may end up wearing fancy khaki uniforms and medals and shiny knee-boots during his Big Parade. Just you watch. It is very good to be very old........
8
The Democrats threw out all the Blue Dogs. Now they want them back?
I suspect that this won't end happily.
7
Stay focused on the Lamb's and the McCready's and while you're at it, let us see potential women leaders too. Offer your readers the whole spectrum.
And pass this message on to your cohorts.
5
If the Progressives want to be more than a minority of a minority party, they need to understand the need for allies … and moderate/conservative Democrats are what they need.
We should, and must, be united in doing what is needed to take the House back. And if that means backing a candidate who does not "check all the boxes" on the Progressive agenda but who is not a Trump supporter, and who can get elected, that is what must be done.
When Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, Churchill proposed in the House of Commons to send Stalin military assistance. When he was criticized for this, and his prior comments on the evils of Russia cited back, he had a simple response: "If Hitler invaded Hell itself, I would at least make a favorable comment on the Devil in this House."
Take the House in November and block any further legislative advancement of the GOP program. Then work on getting the Senate and the Presidency in 2020. And do not sit this out or vote for a third party because the Democratic nominee is "not pure enough!"
6
Republicans hate Nancy Pelosi because she is so effective. They fear her. Are Democrats supposed to ditch their leadership because Republicans complain? Dems don't be stupid!
10
News flash! If D's want to win in some districts they have to reflect the district.
Who da thunk it?
10
Let's face it, Democrats will screw this up. Plus, the selfish, insincere bottom feeding Bernard Sanders will pull the same stunt as before. When will they ever learn? 75 million NEW voters who want gun control, what a gift. Women' rights, do-able. Living wage, do-able. Corporate taxes- do-able. Regulate banks and Wall Street, do-able. Public sector jobs targeting the infrastructure, environment, and tech, do-able. Restructuring the educational system to meet this century and beyond, do-able. Remove tax exempt status for all religious institutions, do-able. Eliminate Corporations are People, do-able. Shed light on Campaign Finance, do-able. Install Single Payer Healthcare, do-able. Immigration, needs structure and organization, do-able. Find the courage and conviction? Not so much it seems.
3
With everything that is doable, getting Trump voters to vote Dem, fugeddabowdit.
There are always men in the democratic party that are never satisfied with female leadership. I can't stand Hillary or Nancy is a loser. What a bunch of hypocrites. The party will sideline there best and most effective players and forget we are playing to win. I expect that democrats will find a way to lose in November.
2
What would happen if those at Stonewall did not fight back. Or Rosa Parks just went straight to the back of the bus. Or Chelsea Manning was a good soldier who did what was expected of her.
Where would Frank Bruni or Gail Collins or Charles Blow be?
Certainly not writing columns that beseech more than challenge.
4
Guess you didn't bring up reproductive rights? Not an issue for you, Frank?
4
Look, we have to have candidates that represent the people who will vote for them. In a relatively conservative area, relatively conservative people are the best candidates.
Litmus tests - the need for all in a party to act completely in line with party platform - are killing us. A Democrat who doesn't drink the Kool-Aid, but will force us to middle ground on environment, social issues, economic development, wages, benefits, safety nets, military action, is a better bet than a liberal who loses or a conservative who acts on views just to the right of Ghengis Khan.
We need to have people who will form coalitions, reach compromises, and serve the nation as a whole. If getting Nancy Pelosi out while jettisoning Trump will do that, then go for it. We need representatives, not ideologues and parasites who suck the life out of the people, and leave only dried husks behind, in an all effort at self enrichment.
Viva la common sense.
5
Bruni has a now proven affinity for conservatism, and racism. When he talks race its to criticize blacks. When he talks to politicos they are rethuglicans and southerners. He should have stuck to judging risotto.
2
Where else in the working world can someone demand the top position at age 78? That's nothing specific to Pelosi; there are some current senators who sound like they've rounded the bend, too. She earned the speakership fair and square once; she's not _entitled_ to it now.
3
Gawd, what evil...
Dems fielding reasonable and centrist young faces - many with military experience...Might as well just gerrymander the Pentagon into five congressional districts right now...
.....
So - from which of their seniors in the Senate should they seek political counsel...
Certainly not the one with the screaming baby - no way someone on the Mommy Track could be any kind of mentor...
Next thing we know - folks'll be asking for some sort of special bathroom...
It's amazing to me that anyone holds up "military service" as being a tribute to a candidate's fitness for office. Gen. Michael Flynn is treasonous criminal. Gen. John Kelly is a flat out embarrassment willing to lie for pond scum like Trump and attack a female congresswoman (Frederica Wilson) when she told the truth about Trump's clueless interaction with a veteran's widow on the day of his funeral. Gen. Mattis and McMaster are willing to through away any integrity they may have possessed to serve Trump and his half-witted "deals." Rep. Duncan Hunter of CA a Marine vet. is a loutish thug who can't bring himself to condemn a nitwit in the WH or Trump for their cruel remarks about John McCain's being a POW and now slow death from a brain tumor. Meanwhile a retired AF general has been "banned" from Fox for making a hateful comment about John McCain's time as a POW.
It's time we recognize that there are dirtbags who served in the military just as there are dirtbags in every other profession and organization including the clergy and stop focusing on "military service" as some wonderful credential that makes someone fit to serve as a representative of the people in our government.
9
We got repulsive, repugnant, bigotry and lying in the last election. Surely we can do better than that the next time around. Stupidity is one thing. Ignorance is all together different.
1
Bruni and other NYT columnists are stuck in their echo chambers, and talking to each other. I like how no one in the NYT writes about FISA court abuses, or Comey's transgressions at the FBI or many other things that bother many of us who are paying attention.
Journalism used to be about ferreting out the truth, wherever it may lead. Not so anymore. Here at NYT and CNN and MSNBC, it's about ignoring many things and just writing anti-Trump articles.
You are all irrelevant!
From a former Democrat
6
Have you noticed the 4,000 documented lies Trump has told since becoming President? Thought not. The Trump administration has flooded the swamp with “alligators “.
2
In this climate, I would say that perhaps all politics is "local" may not be completely true: it really doesn't matter if Dan McCready does not support a ban on assault weapons right now. Sure, it would be nice, but the big issue is that all of the committees in the House will flip - and we will finally get to some true investigating of the egregiousness going on in the White House. Without some transparency and truth, nothing will be accomplished. This administration needs to be shown for what it is: utterly corrupt. We have to start from the ground up. This year, everything else is secondary.
5
Dump Pelosi
Win
Be unable to govern.
As Republicans (Gingrich, Boehnor, Ryan) have found out.
Rep. Pelosi must renounce her ambition to become Speaker a second time. As painful as that would be personally — wound her pride and grate on her nerves — she’s actually giving up nothing because, if she won’t, her enemies retain control of the House. Given the fractured state of the union it’s a bridge too far.
If she doesn’t bow out soon — publicly and with humility — she risks handing her enemies the very weapon they need to prevail in what should otherwise be an unequal, near-hopeless contest: something the French call a “cause célèbre”, a rallying point, a reason to vote despite disillusionment, discouragement, despair.
Trump betrayed them, and most know it. Many also understand he’s a disaster. But they loathe and despise Nancy Pelosi as much as they did “Hillary”. And Trump knows exactly how to drive that harpoon home with such searing brutality that it kills whales.
3
The only thing more addictive than opiods, is political power. There are no 12 step programs for politicians. Elections are interventions. If the addict can't recognize their own problem, they can't save themselves nor be saved by someone else.
.
There is John McCain, Nancy Pelosi, Mitt Romney, the whole Dingle family, both Clintons, most of the Bush's, Joe Biden, Liz Warren, most of the Kennedy's, to name a few.
1
Republican strategists, led by billionaire donors, could make anyone, even Jesus, seem bad. (Look the Mueller investigation!) Democrats must win at all costs understanding the power of right wing media, and win both Houses of Congress. Now. Not Later. A Republican win will cement a take over of voting rights, personal rights, the Supreme Court and further embolden media outlets like Fox, FB and Breitbart. Marching in the streets to protest later doesn't impress any elected Republicans. Get it. Too little, pink hats, too late. Sadly, a better Democratic leader is needed to sway the Trump crowd: white, male, Protestant, happily married and telegenic. Dems need to field candidates that meet the needs of Trump voters where voters live. A younger, angry Bernie type could do this, but where is he? Sadly, there are hardly enough Democratic legislative wins to impress even liberal voters, let alone the skittish Trump Crowd. Children are killed by speeding drivers in Park Slope but liberal NYC can't enact any sort of traffic control. Leadership? Liberal New York is gridlocked in more places than the streets. Staten Island votes Republican because they pay a hefty toll to cross the bridge, while Queens residents drive free. Not fair? Imagine this kind of leadership in conservative South Carolina. Then imagine Trump replacing a few Supreme Court Justices next fall, and women loosing their reproductive rights.
1
Character counts. In addition to his commitment to honor, Mr. McCready can be counted upon to bring his Marine ethos to that which Democrats can rally around" "We are all in this together." That can be the basis of a great platform.
1
Republican-lite candidates like McCready and Lamb are the reason Democrats continue to lose elections -- because they stand for nothing and don't offer voters any reason to vote for them.
1
We are living in a horror show. Existentially our great Nation is at grave risk.
We must stop petty bickering and join forces at the ballot box. All of us patriots from non-authoritarian intellectually honest "Conservative" through to hard core "Liberal" !
If we don't generations of people - not just us but all of humankind - will suffer dire perhaps irreparable consequences.
Some say it is just the Trump horror show. Nope! his reign is just a metaphor.
It is the GOP horror show and it has a been running in theaters all over the Nation for about 50 years.
Trump is just the "charismatic" buffoon the GOP hoped for - a President who will cement their base and sign whatever mess they give him to sign.
The GOP rampage against "We the People" will not stop just because DJT leaves office.
Its Mission is Plutocracy. Its baggage is social demagoguery.
It will decimate the rights of the People - as Workers, as free People, as free-thinkers.
It will dismantle institutions "for the general welfare".
It will trample our "Blue Marble" - the only home for humans!
It will short change posterity for immediate greed.
It will install its vile corrupted fantasy version of "survival of the fittest" where the game is rigged in favor of existing wealth and privilege.
It will trample philosophical honesty, ethics, truth, and contract integrity.
As a war Veteran, senior citizen, Eisenhower R I beg you to vote D. Save the Nation - remove GOP - recast 2 honest Parties later!
Regular Republicans are a lot less popular and a lot more vulnerable than Trump, and everyone knows that we'll have to deal with Trump until 2025 no matter who wins the house or the senate. Ignoring Trump is the smart thing to do. Lesser Republicans can pledge allegiance to Trump, imitate Trump, try to out-Trump Trump but in the end it doesn't matter. None of them have his ability to speak to the masses, and none of them are invincible.
1
Nancy Pelosi has been made the bogey(wo)man by Republicans because as majority leader, she is an easy target to wave at their base. Do you honestly think that her replacement will be more beloved by the goppers? Is Chuck Schumer less reviled than Harry Reid was?
This is a false argument meant to rile up their supporters and throw our team into disarray. I am sorry to say it seems to be working, but I truly hope we will not have to toss her to the dogs to win. Sometimes it seems that we have become a really disgusting people.
The experiences of Dan McCready serving in Iraq would undoubtedly have shown him what a failed state with politics riven by tribal hatreds, religious extremism and a complete inability to find rational consensus looks like.
Good luck to him helping to protect his homeland from similar insanity, insecurity, instability and decay.
1
A pragmatic approach is smart, particularly in districts like this. The rumbling anti-Trump fervor is out there, waiting eagerly for November.
1
Frank, can we stop pretending that attending an Ivy League school gives one an "elite" education?
Trump attended one. George W Bush attended two. Neither struck me as geniuses.
I would say that the what the Ivy brand stands for is not an elite education, but mere elitism.
2
I suppose I am naive, but I think that politics in a democracy should be about leadership, not about pandering. About stating your values with force & integrity, without apology. Not about changing the subject quickly to avoid offending people's prejudices or challenging their assumptions.
Isn't this why so many people think, with some justification, that the Democrats are triangulating, calculating, sell-outs? I think a lot of Republicans & swing voters vote for con-artists like Trump not because they particularly agree with him, but because he's unapologetic & forceful. He may be lying, but he lies with more conviction than the McCreadys & Hillary Clintons tell the truth.
A sober, factual, informative, objective-seeming article: good, plain vanilla. However, I can galvanize my gastrointestinal system by imagining how Donald Trump would find it "fake news."
Yep, those Rs hate Nancy all right. Almost as much as they hate Hillary, a bit more than they hate Elizabeth. Probably more than they hate Kamala, or Tammy, or Heidi, or Barbara, or Dianne, or Patty; and Michelle is in the mix too...
So the way to win is (a) run as a man, and denounce them all, or (b) just denounce them all. That last one is more difficult, of course.
Why must we repeat what never worked before? Blue dogs are worse than Republicans if that is possible. Why was there no Public option in Romneycare? Blue dogs. Why was there not public investment in infrastructure during the 2008 depression? Blue dogs.Why were no bankers indicted for fraud after the crash? Blue dogs.Why could no emission control laws pass Congress in the first Obama term. Blue dogs. etc, etc etc.
3
"...not a career..."
This sounds great for a politician to say. And he may actually mean it, but there are probably a hundred people (career politicians) waiting in the wings that do view government as a career. Vultures. Government service has lost its glory. True change has been transferred to private corporations.
On the issue of gay marriage: So what! On the issue of abortion: Republicans will cry and weep and call it murder. They will never vote to overturn Roe v Wade. "It's the economy, stupid." If people think you can improve their financial positions they will run over anyone who stands between them and the voting booth.
On the money as usual Frank. The old guard must go.
1
So, what makes this man a Democrat?
3
"Renounce Nancy Pelosi". Beating down on Pelosi will work as well as the Obama feascal a few elections ago. How about just avoiding the subject and if asked say you are in favor of new blood. Frankly I'm getting tired of the ignorati beating down on Pelosi, Bruni, are you aware of her record of success?
Ignoring Trump is the key, Dems! Ignoring him takes back the space and opens it to allow all voters to hear what the candidates are saying. Demonizing Trump only reminds voters, especially those who voted for him, to go into Trump protection mindset. Not mentioning Trump sends a subtle message: Dems are here to focus on what's important to bettering voters' lives (i.e., those bread and butter issues -- there is nothing more important than work, security, education, and a path forward for economic well being. Then they can lead voters to look at longer range issues, such as how a healthy environment relates to those bread and butter issues; how energy issues relate to bread andn butter issues; how tax policy relates to true long-term economic health that will help voters and their children and grandchildren, how shoring up Social Security will shore up their own well being, how uniting all Americans preserves the values the government is based on: equality, freedom, security, happiness. Clearly Lamb and MacCready are worried about the shenanigans in the WH, but they know that to put the kabosh on them, they have to focus on the health and happiness of the voters. So Ignore Trump, don't respond to his taunts, don't report on his Twitters, don't condemn his corruption/lying/colluding/conspiring. Just imagine he doesn't exist Pretend he doesn't exist.
2
Many Democrats still have not absorbed the lessons of Nov 2016. That election was not a fluke win by Trump - it was a rejection of the Democratic party by people that used to be in their camp. The Democrats won't recover by putting a bandaid on a gut shot. They need to come to terms with the everyday issues. Trump rage is not enough. Many of the people that voted for Trump did so precisely *because* Democrats found him outrageous.
Within days of the election, at an appointment with my eye doctor, the election results came up obliquely. Sensing this highly educated doctor was pro-Trump I tested the waters: "People were finally fed up with political correctness, I guess". He practically jumped out of his chair: "Yes!!" I didn't tell him I contributed to Hillary's campaign, or went door-to-door for her. But I had my glimpse into what was driving at least one Trump voter.
As for Pelosi, a recent opinion piece, “And Now, the Nancy Pelosi Drama“ NYT 3/16/2018, generated many letters supporting her. But check the locations of those letter writers - primarily east and west coast locations. Ego triumphs over strategy. Lessons not learned.
I am exhausted by Trump news. But I am also exhausted by the perpetual outrage machine of the left. The issues are Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid (you KNOW they are coming after them to pay for the tax cuts), health care, voting rights. If we take care of those issues, the rest will follow.
So Mr McCready, good luck to you. I hope you succeed.
3
Let's read the chicken entrails as they lay. In order for Democrats to surf on the big blue wave, one of two things must happen. Get all Democrats and some Trump voters to vote D or every Democrat votes and all Rs stay home.
.
Resistance and impeachment are not strategies. They're sour grapes. Cheerfully calling for corporations to start paying their fair share, after many of them gave employees bonuses and raises, ain't a vote getter. "Sensible gun laws" aren't sensible. That just adds one more line to the gun confiscation plan. A twisted definition of "a woman's right" to kill or keep her child, can quickly be parsed to, pro-life or not pro-life. And a man that has four children and confers with his pastor before running, doesn't sound like he's going to be in the front row of any abortion rally.
.
To be clear, Mr. McCready sounds like a good man. He may well be a good representative for his district. If he wins, he sounds like the kind of Democrat that can work in a bipartisan fashion. Mr. Lamb and Mr. McCready might the first, of a wave of new Democrats that actually like America and Americans. And American values.
"He's a bit of a blur...". He sounds like a Bill Clinton, and that makes me ill. Frank may be right that he's "better" than a republican, but I'm tired of this half-loaf approach. The half-loaf approach turns a blind eye to the nastiness of republicans, like racism, misogyny, LGBT inequality, allowing weapons of war, undermining workers rights, anti-universal health care, etc..
1
Nancy Pelosi is republicans biggest ally. They demonize her, get their based pumped up and completely ignored their own track record. Its right out of BAnnons playbook. Pelosi needs to resign for the good of her party
Great strategy! Nominate liars. If Republicans were nominating former members of the weather underground, promising to put unionization, me too and income inequality at the top of their agenda, progressives would be screaming bloody murder. Why? Because you know that those stances are simply about winning elections, and the real policies will emerge once the candidate is seated and ensconced.
Wouldn't the electorate be better off if candidates portrayed themselves honestly, clearly advocating their policy intentions and preferences? The strange part of progressivism is that it only sells if you lie about it.
McCready is doing it right. Oher comments here are right.
Not only is it about local issues and needs, but McCready understands the business model of getting elected and staying in office. Note: I did NOT say government is a business. McCready has taken in the right information about what what local voters think they need and want. That is market research. He has crafted a plan to communicate with those voters. He has a sales message to sell himself to the voters and position himself as the one to meet their needs.
Republicans have done this effectively for 50 years. Their inate understanding of what motivates people, including fear and in the case of Reagan, fear combined with hope, has served to erode the core base of the Democratic Party to a much smaller voter mass.
Many, many office seekers and the old guard remaining leadership of the Democratic Party just do not get it. They are not concerned about figuring out what a majority-winning combination of voters need to hear in order for Democrats to regain power. No one has even CONSIDERED an overall direction of the Party and marketing theme that is common to the expressed local needs across the country. Bickering over "progressive" vs "conventional middle of the road" positions is stupid and a loser.
In Maine's Second Congressional District we have a Democrat running, Jared Golden, who is former military service member, seeing active duty in the Middle East. He is running against Lucas St. Clair, whose family (Burt's Bees) donated the Katahdin Woods Monument. I am voting for Jared because Lucas St. Clair is absolutely hated by the right wingers who voted in Paul LePage for two terms and I absolutely want to see Bruce Poliquin - a Republican whose only talent is hiding - defeated.
Maine is using ranked choice voting for the first time, so the Golden Boy is #1 and Lucas #2 for me. And I pray Brucie goes down in flames. He's a swamp creature who never even surfaces.
It seems a little craven to renounce Nancy Pelosi, since she's not exactly out on the Bernie Sanders limb of the party, and since on a hot-button issue (for NC, anyway!) like gay marriage McCready is willing to accept the Pelosi position, but it's true that the party needs to be seen as hugging the center, so if that's what it takes, I guess we have toss long-suffering Nancy overboard. Might be time for a fresh face no matter what happens in November?
We have two parties, Republicans and Republican-lites. The goal is to replace them with Democrats and Democrat-lites.
1
Military service puts country ahead of party? Waging illegal wars and losing them puts foolishness and arrogance ahead of country. I will never vote for an Iraq war veteran for any office. For me, this is disqualifying.
1
If you think you can win using a morality based agenda - and make no mistake, litmus tests on issues like race, gender, abortion, guns, the usually framed in moral terms - then you'd better understand that you're drawing a line in the sand, and those that agree with you are "moral", and those that don't are not. And when you make that judgment, you all but eliminate any chance of winning converts to your cause. Avoiding that quagmire is the strategy used by Lamb, and now McCready, to get people who might've not listened before to listen now. Is that an abandonment of principles? That's just another form of moral judgment. What the Dems need to remember is that before you can legislate change, you first need to get elected.
Do we really need more Blue Dog Democrats? This guy sounds more like the Democrats that threw power to the Republicans in the New York Senate. Can't we run candidates that are liberal Democrats and just be willing to lose? He'll be as useless as Senator Joe Manchin, "D" WVa.
(As a funny aside... Auto-correct entered "Manchurian" for "Manchin"! Too true!)
1
What, will anyone tell me, is wrong with Nancy Pelosi? Yes the right has demonized her. But is that not be because she is super at what she does? She raises a lot of money and she holds her caucus together better than any of the recent Republican speakers. So maybe they are jealous of her talents. Maybe it's because she is a woman with those talents. And maybe Mr. McCready, like Mr. Lamb, is too unschooled in the rules of the house to appreciate her talents. For the life of me, I can't find anything wrong with her, but it sure looks like the right wing has successfully scared a lot of the rookies looking for a seat in the house. Democrats have a tendency to run scared.
2
Maybe because she dies an 8 hour filibuster in support of illegal immigrants?
2
No. Ignore Pelosi, Renounce Trump. Never get in the way, when HE is self imploding. Use facts, not bluster. When gas hits five dollars per gallon, people will gain some self interest, and listen. Seriously.
1
Two thoughts. Neither of them original.
(1) I think Jon Meacham's observation has, by now, become pretty well-known.
Americans--generally, most of the time--tilt a little right of center. Seems reasonable. I do.
Does that make me a CONSERVATIVE? No. I reject that label. A LIBERAL? No. By the same token. I would call myself a MODERATE. I do believe there'ls lots of us MODERATES floating around. More than people realize.
But we don't shout. Or scream. Or wave angry placards.
And, of course, I'm rooting for Mr. McCready. Right now, I absolutely decline to vote for ANY Republican. You come back to your senses, GOP--and I'll come back to mine!
(2) It's time Ms. Pelosi took a break. Bowed out. Retired.
She is (among other things) kind of old. So am I, New York Times--but I'm not running for anything. Goodness, Democrats! you got any YOUNG people floating around?
AND. . .
. ..like Hillary, like Ted Kennedy way back when--she is the Democrat Republicans love to hate. They're good at that. Erecting painted devils for people to throw eggs at.
Why help 'em out? Why bustle around the country setting up (free of charge) LIGHTNING RODS--upon which angry conservatives (in one bright flash) can discharge years of anger, resentment, frustration? Let 'em go elsewhere.
They could try Mr. Newt Gingrich for one! I sure would.
Good luck, Mr. McCready!
Good luck, Democrats!
1
The column is timely. As a liberal and probably mainly a democrat, the disappearance of Brazile, Pelosi, and Pocahontas would help causes and candidates (like McCready) that I support. It would also help if Hillary could suppress her urge to give lectures ... (maybe for 2.5 more years and then she can go for broke!).
There is a real problem with intra-Dem party politics, it is this weakness that Trump exploits. Brazile, Pelosi, Warren, and Hillary are his allies, in effect.
Good Luck Mr McCready. Center leading candidates are what we need. The polarizing far right and far left candidates have sowed enough hate in this country. The arrogance and unforgiving nature of both extremes has driven this country as far away from American values as the secession of states to defend the right to slaves did in the 1860s. Time for the center to take back this land. Too many issues confront us to keep up this hatefest for much longer.
“I’m not running against President Trump.”
The guy's clearly disingenuous, but this IS Carolina, and we'll take 'im.
1
The Democrat Party is in disarray. Its members are confused, angry, disorganized, nervous, afraid, and quite frankly, their feelings have been hurt. After all, how could Hillary have lost to "that guy"? And how could their well-meaning philosophy have been so soundly rejected by so many? In the absence of any thoughtful response, they have settled on obstruction as their strategy.
Liberals have been systematically booted from power, except for the left and right coasts and a few isolated enclaves. They have lost governorships, state legislatures--in addition to the presidency, Supreme Court, and the U.S. Senate and House.
The Democrat Party is floundering, trying to understand what happened. One might think their current predicament would engender some heart-felt soul searching--about the future of the party-and its philosophy. One might think party leadership would understand the country is center-right and try to move its policies accordingly. But you'd be wrong.
Democrats have no intention of truly abandoning their far left philosophy, of actually disavowing Pelosi, Sanders, Schumer, & Warren. After all, the party believes in Socialism. Worse, they are elitists who look down on their own constituents--those they claim to care most about.
So get ready--not for any authentic philosophical shift--but for the "Great Democrat Fake-Out", as liberals pretend not to be liberals. Americans beware--of liberals in moderate clothing. It's all a ruse.
2
I am grateful to any veteran who runs for office this Fall.They have already taken time out of their lives to serve their country and signing up for a stint in politics is heroic and beyond the call of duty.The only way to mitigate the tribalism in politics is to support moderate, thoughtful candidates.Good for McCready!
Politics is all on a micro level. My neighbor just got gutted by cancer surgery, they took out a half gallon of his insides. This is after chemo. And other surgerys.
A dead tree in the county right of way (36'' dia. red oak, a big tree) is threatening his house.
Things were proceeding at a glacial pace, if at all.
I contacted the office of Montgomery County Council Member Tom Hucker's office.
His staff got the county to reevaluate the tree, declare it dead, and move it up in the que for removal.
The other neighbors I spoke to thought quite well of his actions concerning one of the vulnerable of the population, and he will surely get our votes.
He and his staff quickly addressed the issues of his constituency, and that's all that matters
The best thing that could happen for Democrats is for Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to resign their positions as Speaker and Majority leader. Their main roles seem to be as fund-raisers anyway. I suspect that each one has a number of big fish donors—why can’t they just spend their time continuing to maintain those relationships and allow a couple of frankly younger and fresher voices to step up.?
Amy Klobachar, Patty Murray, Kristen Gillibrand, Adam Schiff, Seth Moulton, Joe Kennedy, Jaoquin Castro, Beto O’Rourke—to name a few. And let there be term limits for these positions and throw out seniority as a requirement.
1
Bruni hits it on the nose when he argues that " no objective matters more than containing Trump by controlling the House, the Senate or both." It is emotionally gratifying to progressives, liberals, and even some rational conservatives to focus on demonizing Trump, but the crux of the matter is attracting the folks who put Obama in office. Trump-bashing and hardline identity politics won't do it. A mire measured approach, a la McCready, might be just the thing for quite a few areas of the country.
2
Mr McCready is just what the Democratic Party needs someone new with no ties to Ms Pelosi who is a polarizing figure within the Party deserving or not. The time has come for the Dems to shed leaders who many members distrust after they forced Ms Clinton down everyone throat. Mr McCready appears to be such a candidate young, moderate, who addresses peoples everyday problems and not just trash Trump. The Democratic Party and the people of North Carolina will be well served by Mr McCready.
The best thing I can say about Nancy Pelosi is that I have not heard her accused of corruption. That is a pretty low bar, but, after all, this is the Era of Trump. Time for a true third party.
A well funded candidate focusing on local issues with strong grass roots support can carry the day
There is no need to talk about the fool in the white household . He is the 800 lb gorilla on the ballot. There is no need to mention him
The more the gop focuses on Pelosi and Clinton the more help they will give the Dems running in the purple districts.
There is only one thing to say, Mr. Bruni: Big tent now, big tent forever. But in these dangerous times, one or two additional thoughts must be added.
Consider the Republican candidate as described in the article. If the description is accurate he sounds like our own version of the Taliban. "Nuff," said on that score. Then consider who sits in the White House and whose power needs to be checked. Different horses for different courses in NC, and elsewhere.
Not to be a Dougie or Debbie Downer, but fasten your seatbelts because the Russian election hackers do not sleep.
The Donald, unwittingly, has caused the viability of a third party for the first time in our long history. Evidence of Democrats running as conservative should tell us that both parties are in their swoon. The new party should be a combo of No More Trump and The Dems are too wishy washy.
Liberal? Progressive? Conservative? Racist? Gunzie? Feminist?
How about one party to include all but the racists and the gunzies - the party of people who just want a government that is on their side, and not out to enrich themselves at our expense?
Let's call it We The People.
"North Carolina’s Ninth District, ... has been represented by Republicans for the last 55 years."
Hmm. 2018 - 55 = 1963*
*when civil rights workers were actively demanding racial, political, social and economic justice throughout the south. *when thousands marched on Washington to voice those demands
*When President John F. Kennedy was murdered in broad daylight
Any correlation?
1
This is one of two columns today where writers who do not wish the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates well presume to advise the party and those candidates on the views they should hold and the demeanor they should exhibit.
It is fun to confront people who insult Nancy Pelosi on the origins of their hatred for her. I ask them, "What has she ever done or said that has offended you so?" They can NEVER, EVER come up with any answer more cogent than, "She's a BABY KILLER!" because of her pro-choice stance.
The fact is, they hate her because, as a Democratic Party leader for many years, Republicans have slandered her for many years. Anyone holding her leadership position would be similarly slandered -- it is not dependent on her views or behavior even to the slightest extent.
And as to ignoring Donald Trump, well, good luck with that! He is not easy to ignore.
1
I despise her because she places illegal immigrants ahead of American citizens. There you go, a reason and a fact as her filibuster was televised.
1
In the 1960s, Republican Leader Everett Dirksen and most Reublicans supported LBJ’s goal of Civil Rights and the elimination of Jim Crow segregation. Today’s republican leaders are those that supported Jim Crow. If a vote were held today to approve Civil Rights, would Republicans support it. I think chinless Mitch would work to prevent it from reaching a vote, and would successfully filibuster it reached the floor of the Senate. Dixie is still fighting the Civil War. Which explains why Dixie is still a third world region, aided and abetted by fundamentalist religion that hates science and education.
Of course we want the Dems to take over the House and Senate but what keeps the GOP in power is they know half the electorate displays an IQ of around 95 on a good day and less when it's partly cloudy. Folks like McCready have to come forth with simple, hard-hitting facts free of coloration and intellectualizing. You have seen how Trump manipulates the mob. We have to find a way to change their minds. It isn't going to be easy but isn't it worth a try?
You can summarize the main point of this column this way: for Democrats, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
3
The driver for Trump voters was their fear of losing their place in the status quo that they've watched slip away for decades now. While it's great that Democrats have pushed for economic and social rights for various minorities, Trump voters generally feel they've been left behind. The blame has been placed on Washington and these perceived beneficiaries.
Worse, many of these programs failed to get at the root of these problems because they were stopgap measures. The result was often a reinforcement of a lot of misunderstandings, not to mention a reversion to racism, sexism, etc. Small wonder then that these programs are now being rolled back.
Today we're left with a society whose social norms are fraying. Likewise, the infrastructure that is required to support our social norms has decayed dangerously.
This cannot continue if we are to remain the country we imagined we were. Simply attacking Trumpism will only widen the gulf that prohibits progress. The Democrats need a truly inclusive platform, based on the harsh realities we now face. At the moment, I see no platform at all except those few that have popped up on the local level. That alone ought to be evidence that Democratic leadership can trust the American people to buy into the kind of platform and programs we are in desperate need of.
Yes, Frank it is called using your head.
Unless the dems are running in a safe, extreme liberal district, if they want to win you have to run candidates like Lamb etc., ie 80% on the progressive litmus test.
If you run an identity obsessed, never met a war, trade agreement, Wall Street banker I did not like campaign like Hillary, you will help give the ego maniac demagogue Trump a second term. and lose the congress in 2018.
1
I'd vote for this guy no matter what party he was a member of. Smart, military background, stands close to center on the issues.
1
Sure, Democrats running as moderate Repubs can win in places like North Carolina. But when they get to Washington and face institutional liberal/left demands for ideological conformity, what will happen? McCready may be ready to tactically attack Pelosi but the wealthy San Franciscan is wily and ruthless: what happens when she calls for impeachment a week after she is sworn in as Speaker? What will McCready and Lamb do? I predict the 2018 liberal wave survives one term as Maxine Walters & Co. drive the party into an anti-Trump fever swamp that POTUS will turn into an attack on the "deplorables" who elected him. Which it would be, of course. McCready may be a nice guy who wins in November, and is back at his solar farm two years later.
I do hate to say it, but you're right. Hate it because people who can't get behind gun control, marriage equality, a sane tax code, and, yes, removing Trump, are flat-out wrong. People who will reliably vote against their own interests if you just feed 'em some hate are... well, they are what they are. Don't get me wrong, I agree that Democrats need to keep their fingers to the wind in purple territory. I agree that they gotta do what they gotta do. I *always* pull every blue lever in sight. But it's just sad, is all. Because if Trump has "accomplished" one thing, it's the laying-bare of all that Jesus, 'Murca and apple pie drivel. And it turns out that those people are just not very nice. Besides which they're all armed to the teeth. So, yes, let's do whatever it takes, but I really hope we won't get too comfortable with bending in that direction. Because, oh, about fifteen years ago, most of us probably thought they couldn't do much worse than that. And here we are. You can see where I'm going here...
So Democrats' best chance of winning is to reject politics of the left.
In the words of Lennon and McCartney:
You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
The country has had enough of extremists.
Rejecting Pelosi may or may not be a symbolic gesture, but, like Hillary and unfairly or not, has been turned into a guaranteed voter mobilizer across the country.
Every election cycle, PACs across the country fire up their Photoshop machines to layer photos of opposition candidates arm in arm with Pelosi. Which is good since it lets them ignore the blandness or criminality of their own candidates. We need young blood.
Nancy Pelosi, you're standing in the way of history.
1
As an "old-time" liberal Democrat, I have become utterly disgusted with the venality and corruption of my once-proud party. When I think of Democrats, I think of those presidents who led the nation through tough times and put liberal policies in place that benefited the American people. I think of FDR, Truman, and LBJ - all flawed, but all head and shoulders above the likes of the Clintons and Obama.
Perhaps the candidates in this column can bring new life to my Democrats. God knows, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and the rest of the bunch that are hanging on for dear life have almost destroyed it.
Good luck, guys!
1
Democrats must, unqualifiedly, locally play to win in the midterms. Amongst other potential nightmares looming on the horizon would be the decades-old destructive effects of the Fake President appointing one or, horror of horrors, possibly two or more Supreme Court Justices. Then there is the disturbing continuation of his packing the lower federal courts with right wing extremists and incompetents. His little hands need to be well tied and firmly bound by Democratic victories in both Houses of Congress.
There is nothing wrong with having a range of views within the Democratic Party. Members can argue out their differences after they are in office and reach a compromise. That is how our country is supposed to work.
The one issue that democrats should be able to agree on is keeping social security strong. That plays well everywhere. And it is undoubtedly true that republicans have wanted to privatize it since at least the 80s.
2
Whether they run against Trump or not, Democrats need to remember that, long after his presidency, the issues that propelled Trump to the Presidency will remain. Democrats need to do more than just win one or two elections every decade. They need to understand that, to govern effectively, they need to build a broad based and durable majority.
2
All polítics are local. Dems cannot have purity tests for their candidates. Each Congressional District is different, the candidates must reflect their Districts.
7
There is one purity test. Don't vote for anyone who takes corporate money. Even if you lose.
1
This article is confirming what many democrats, (I won't call us all liberals), who want to win in November and in 2020 know: MODERATION wins, extremism does not. Don't fight one extreme-TRUMP, with another- Sanders or Warren, for example. Every successful administration in recent memory, whether democratic or republican, has been successful because they were able to concede something to get something. They were willing to work both sides of the aisle, not sling aspersions and ugly rhetoric toward their colleagues.
5
I commend your moderation, but would offer a correction. Trump has an extreme personality but I don't think his positions are extreme. President Clinton wasn't extreme but his personality was polarizing. Just my thoughts.
Moderation may win in Maine but North Carolina still is Bible Belt conservative Republican country. How did the race in Georgia last year between the moderate Democrat Jon Ossoff and conservative Republican Karen Handel turn out? I will refresh your memory. Ms. Handel won when many did not think she had a chance.
I am very confident that the Republican conservative candidate Mark Harris will win the election. He has name recognition and is the sort of candidate that wins in socially conservative North Carolina. Mr. Harris talks the language they know and admire and they know where he stands on the issues. Pro life and traditional values still matter to many in the south. Not so much in Maine.
The challenge is that the Democratic base is increasingly activist and ideological. Hardcore ideology and extremism have an ugly face to most people, whether coming from the right...or left.
Sounds like Frank is a bit disappointed that rabble rousing issues weren’t the basis for the winning campaigns. Instead the idea is to solve real problems and be serious about it. My, my!!
1
Really? That's what you heard? I didn't sense any disappointment from Frank. Guess you hear what you want to hear.
Dan McCready has a D after his name (Democrat) and North Carolina is still overwhelming Republican and conservative with the exceptions of the college towns with some liberal students residing in them. The residents hold strong religious beliefs and are pro life and for traditional marriage. This is Bible Belt country and the people still attend Church on Sunday.
Social issues still play a major role in their lives and is as important as a strong economy and nation.
Mark Harris has a good chance of keeping the office Republican and he just needs to keep campaigning and speak about the issues that matter to the voters such as jobs, legal immigration and low taxes. The candidates must encourage the people to go to the polls and get out and vote. Hopefully they will vote Republican and keep congress in the Republican category. There is too much at stake to let the Democrats win such as higher taxes and progressive social issues. I shudder when I think of this but perish the thought immediately.
2
They go to church on Sunday, hold strong religious beliefs, and are for traditional marriage...Like TRUMP? And for those without the means to support themselves, who provides the safety net? The billionaire tax cuts? Will they use this windfall to take care of each other, as Christians are mandated to do?
9
The Democrats should also run on legalizing marijuana. They will win bigly.
3
McCready sounds like a moderate Republican with a social conscience. If that's what it takes to win severely red districts, I'm fine with North Carolina electing Dan McCready. It's their district after all. Both Lamb and McCready symbolize something about American politics the parties have yet to recognize. Party orthodoxy isn't necessarily a good thing.
People's opinions don't fit nicely into two little boxes. You can be a faith driven, pro-environment, fiscal conservative, gun owner that supports federal social programs. There's quite a few contradictions in there if party orthodoxy is your benchmark. Democrats and Republicans try to flatten out the differences and treat everyone the same. That's a problem.
Rejecting Nancy Pelosi, or any House majority leader for that matter, is largely a symbolic gesture. Voters are demonstrating their frustration at their lack of political choices. For a country that prides itself on free market competition, our primary national institution is a rigidly entrenched duoploy. Voters aren't too happy about it.
To that point, if we could end gerrymandering nationally, districts would be free to elect representatives that actually represent their values and positions. Wouldn't it be nice if the House were a representative democracy again? If it takes throwing Pelosi under the bus, that's okay with me. Ryan is out so we're getting a new speaker regardless. Hopefully the speaker understands the parties are the swamp everyone is talking about.
17
The economic issues on which Bernie Sanders ran cut across demographics. I don't agree with my wife on everything. So I can't expect a political candidate to agree with me on everything. Those -- in both parties -- which insist on 1000% fealty to ALL their political beliefs are usually defeated. A candidate who is defeated has no influence. A lesson for Democrats. Let the other party cannibalize itself.
8
The Democrats should not count their chickens before they are hatched. Remember the congressional race last year between Republican Karen Handel and Democrat Jon Ossoff in Georgia? He outspent her considerably and was the favored candidate to win but Ms. Handel surprised everyone and won by a small minority.
Like sports, anything can happen and there is no guarantee that one party will win over another until the actual day of the election.. Dan McCready, the Democrat, is popular but so is Republican, Mark Harris. North Carolina still has pockets of conservatism and this area is quite Republican. There will be lots of money spent and there will be much campaigning from both sides.
The Republicans need to get out there and go door to door and speak to the people if they want to win. They must be relentless and not give up the fight. It will probably be a neck to neck race and a very close one indeed. The Republicans need to stay on course and really fight to win if they want to keep congress in Republican hands. They have done it before and they can do it again if they give it their all.
President Trump was not supposed to win the presidency and he surprised everyone and did. Mr. Harris can do the same thing if he works really hard between now and the election. He has a booming economy and other positive factors on his side like a popular president.
McCready is also following Tip O'Neill's mantra that "all politics is local." As many analysis have shown, criticizing trump just invigorates his fans and motivates them to go to the polls and vote for the most extreme candidate. Sticking to what matters locally and avoiding extreme positions on social issues will appeal to swing voters who, I believe, are tiring of trump, including some who voted for him. Who knows how McCready will vote once he gets to Congress? My guess is a lot more progressive than Mark Harris.
14
ACJ's comment "assault on middle America" says it all. We'll be in a better position to support the social justice causes we favor if we're actually in office and drop some of the silly season campus extremism.
I don't agree with all of McCready's positions but it's a darn site better than shutting down the government over DACA when working class Americans are falling out of the middle class. This gives the voters that we care about illegal immigrants more than we care about them, and, as a lifelong liberal Democrat, I don't see how I can disagree.
We'll be in a far better position to further minority rights and help the poor if we're actually in office, and being in office requires that we stop ignoring or even attacking people because they're rural, uneducated, male, or white.
12
Winning local elections is about addressing local issues: jobs, wages, healthcare, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid.
It's not about identity politics and it's not about Trump. It's not about Nancy Pelosi or Mitch McConnell. It's not about gender and it's not about race.
What people care about (and worry about) is economic stability and keeping a roof over your head and food in the pantry.
Democratic candidates who focus, genuinely and sincerely, on these concerns can win. And their voters will benefit.
132
Problem for you is that your party only cares about gender, race, support of illegal immigration and Trump hatred. They don't have any other policies. They may win on anti-Trump concerns now, but have no leg to stand on once they take the House. With radicals in charge I doubt your majority there lasts more than one term.
5
The big question is how, in arguably the wealthiest nation ever to exist, we have so many who are struggling economically, infrastructure that is crumbling, school teachers who are using 50 year old textbooks and buying supplies from their dwindling incomes, and health care is only available to the elite.
I'm deeply ashamed of the country I love.
17
Not really true, what you're saying. Might be true for some, but not for all Dems. I get tired of these ignorant, false generalizations. When I'm am8ng friends and family, I ask them to chill the ant-Trump outrage and to consider what we can do to move toward good governance for the good if all of us
The Democrats need to follow the advice William F. Buckley gave the Republicans years ago: Nominate the most conservative candidate that can get elected. Just insert progressive.
5
As a Republican, I fully agree with you. The farther left, the better. Go for it!
Yes, he appears to be a "bit of a blur" but is preferable to the alternative.
3
Finally, liberal candidates who enter races with the Republican strategy of winning. That winning formula is so simple---avoid becoming embroiled in social issues and be relentless in pursuing policies that bring more money into the pockets of the middle class---which means, exposing the GOP's decades long agenda of enriching the 1% and stripping the middle class have any form of safety net programs. And, bury talk of impeaching Trump---that is a side stream eddy issue that diverts attention from the continued assault on middle America.
75
But the preeminent part of that "winning formula" has got to be pushing for higher, livable wages and the right to collectively bargain. This guy says he has "reservations" about a $15 minimum wage which, unless one lives under a bridge, is just barely a survival wage even in areas with the lowest cost of living. McCready was endorsed by the NC AFL-CIO but I wonder if that was a "lesser of evils" endorsement or if he really does support workers rights.
I agree with burying talk about impeaching Trump. A., it just makes his base happy. B., it won't work given the predilections of Congress. And C., we would be left with Pence, who is just Trump with a thin veneer of civility but also with the same malicious policy desires topped off with a dangerous dose of religious fanaticism.
19
The principle being embraced is a living wage. One policy is a 15 dollar an hour minimum wage. Another approach would be to change the payroll tax structure, exempting the first 10 or 15K and raising the upper limit or doing away with the upper limit all together. We should not confuse principle for policy. That has led to the place we are now with republicans.
1
I firmly believe kids are better off getting experience in the world of work sooner rather than later. And I'm a pretty far left liberal. But I don't think a $15 /hr. minimum wage is helpful to putting kids to work. Nor is it helpful to struggling "mom and pop" businesses trying to stay afloat and battle the big box stores and internet sales. Perhaps we need a two-tier minimum wage system. One for adult breadwinners and one for other workers. Or perhaps we need to retool the employment arena. Minimum wage jobs should be a stepping stone to something better, not a career.
1
Pragmatism, a responsive and thoughtful non-ideological embrace of issues in local Congressional Districts, is key to Democrats countering the destructiveness of Trump. Gaining control of the House must be our most important goal. We need local political solutions to our enormous national political problem, particularly when the economy is showing strength as we head to mid-terms. It doesn't matter at all if a candidate is 'a bit of a blur for my taste.' Frank, since neither you nor I live in McCready's district, our personal views are irrelevant. Let's be very grateful that we have talented candidates like Lamb and McCready leading the Democratic Party forward in their local districts at such a perilous time for our country.
20
Frankly, at this point, I am willing to vote for any candidate who has shown a willingness, capacity and commitment to allow facts and evidence to dominate their worldview. I am confident that, should we elect a collection of people (no matter what their political leanings) who are strongly connected to reality, we will do orders of magnitude better than electing ideologues.
102
The revelations are instructive and, as a Southerner with liberal credentials, I remind my friends in other parts of America that when we are presented with viable candidates like Dan McCready, they need to be judged along the lines of the good neighbor test: Would you want them to live next door? Would you want them to join your dinner party?
The early interviews with Democrats like Jimmy Carter while he was running as a dark horse candidate for president are replete with measured, calm positions, avoiding divisiveness while invoking strong religious beliefs and a love of the military.
Wise candidates know that winning politics is home based.
22
"The early interviews with Democrats like Jimmy Carter while he was running as a dark horse candidate..."
Carter is a reminder/warning that people and personalities matter too. Carter was elected in an anti-Watergate backlash. Yet, even during the campaign, the more people saw of him, the less they liked him, a process that continued during his presidency. His tin ear, holier than thou attitude and inability to convey either a sense of inspiration or confidence to much of the country insured his early retirement.
Nancy Pelosi has already declared she wants the Speaker position after this year's election and she is confident she will get it. I hope, long before the election, she decides what is more important; her personal goals or her party's election results. The projected sense of entitlement isn't working too well in this era of anti-elitism.
If anyone doubts that, they should check in with Tom Price, Travis Kalanick, Scott Pruitt, Matt Lauer etc.
14
Lamb and McCready are pragmatists with integrity and their focus is on problem-solving to improve lives for their constituents. They have grasped that making Trump the issue is a recipe for disaster. They have chosen a path that will not alienate voters, especially those who voted for Trump.
Democrats need to take notice. A third or more of this country is frightened to death of liberal and progressive policies. Dems need to speak softly but carry a stick that addresses needs of their voters in the strongest of ways.
Keep Trump out of it. Have a vision of moving forward to improve all lives. To many, liberals are associated with boogeymen out to ruin this country. Dems need to make it crystal clear we have no such intention and that we are all in this together. Focus on what needs to be done to solve issues of downward mobility and roads that need to be repaired and schools that need textbooks - issues that unite us rather than divide us.
I wish Mr. McCready luck - I am counting on him and others like him to move us into a better future - for all of us - red and blue.
63
Mr. McCready is a fine young man and I hope that he does well. Others in the democratic party, who I hope to see more of, are Connor Lamb, Steve Bullock (Governor of Montana), Mr. Cooper (Governor of NC.) and Mr. Edwards (Governor of Louisiana). I don't know if many democrats realize the situation the democratic party is in. 2/3 of the state governments (legislatures and governorships) are controlled by republicans and the entire federal government is controlled by the republicans (that is House, Senate, Presidency, and Supreme Court.) The democrats have complete control of only about six state governments. The democratic party desperately needs to win some elections. To me that means picking candidates who have broad enough appeal to win.
In my opinion, too many democrats like to have marches, protests, and watch comedians who make fun of trump and Sarah Sanders, but what counts in politics is what happens on election day. The democrats need to pick good candidates and support them in their campaign and on election day.
95
The national media likes conflict and shows. In Virginia, on Nov 6th, every panelist on Morning Joe, predicted that Ed Gillespie's racist, xenophobic campaign had succeeded, and he would be Gov. Ralph Northam crushed him, and we had an historic swing in the House of Delegates, by a slate of candidates who looked like the rest of us, and worked hard to impress on the local voters that they would be concerned about them, and less concerned with ideological litmus tests. But, it is not just candidates, it is the activists on the ground, who knocked on millions of doors across the commonwealth, who created a coalition of the decent to turn out and vote. That is how we win.
15
Oh please. I don't "like to have marches" and make fun of people. Lord knows I wish I didn't have to.
14
Actually, I like to watch Colbert and others make fun of trump and sanders. And if people want to march or protest, that is fine. But if you can't win an election you are pretty much irrelevant in politics. I don't like Mitch McConnell either politically or personally but he said "The People who win elections make government policy; the people who don't win elections go home."
Unfortunately that is true.
Obviously McCreedy is not an ideologue and that is the only way he is going to win. In the end, the only issues that are important to voters are bread and butter issues. If these are not taken care of first, the voter cannot focus on other important issues.
It is survival first, then policies that affect other parts of the country and the world.
As Tip O'Neill once said "All politics is local."
And if Democrats want to take back the House and Senate, they need to campaign that way.
McCreedy is right on target.
34
A few things to consider:
Republicans didn't come out in force to vote since the only thing on the Republican ballot was the 9th District primary. Most were sure Pittenger would win or Harris would. Pittenger isn't liked very much and the odds favored Harris who lost by only 134 votes in the last election. Pittenger isn't seen as totally honest thanks to some questionable real estate deals. Harris comes across as squeaky clean as a minister in the oldest Baptist Church in Charlotte. His quitting his pulpit to run this time is a meaningful gesture as in he's all out to win.
Democrats I believe are putting too much stock in the turn out numbers.
2
The basest part of the Republican base did turn out to vote for arch-conservative CHRINO Mark Harris. His social stances may be a bit too much for more traditional Republicans, so the question is whether they will turn out to vote for him in November. If I were a Pittenger supporter, after observing the way Harris slimed my candidate this spring, I’d vote for McCready or simply stay at home.
There was a republican primary as well, in the NC 9th.
1
To be sure, it's interesting that McCready is running as a Democrat, and interesting that he is not taking traditional litmus test positions on every issue that comes down the pike.
The real message, however, is the increasing irrelevance of the traditional two-party system as the sole determinant of success and mind control of political candidates.
A candidate who actually thinks for himself and resists positional discipline that would be imposed by a political party...now that's original. At least it was until Donald Trump was elected.
6
Encouraging to see a candidate like McCready in such a district. Even more encouraging to reflect on Democrats winning back the House. And it is one thing to win, another to be able to govern effectively in this tribal political environment. To have a sustainable impact, Democrats must find the national candidate and the local discipline to do two things. First to hold what has always been a fragile coalition together and not turn on each other once an election is won. A partial loaf is far better than the current GOP alternatives. This involves recognizing that this is a very diverse (Democrat value) country economically, socially, religiously, and geographically, requiring a deft government touch. Second to patiently engage with the Right with conviction but absent the morally shrill tone. We have to be present to one another's thoughts, fears, hopes and concerns before we can come together. While there are certainly unmovable elements of the Trump coalition, the goal is win over a substantial percentage of his supporters who in fact open to other possibilities.
4
I believe people like him and Mr. Lamb are perfect for the country. At the top both parties seem to want to send cookie cutter candidates to all parts of the country. Both parties seem to want to focus on trump, the GOP to be just like him while the DEMs against him. Years ago I used to vote for the person, not the party. After Bush and Iraqi all I do is vote straight DEM. I would love to go back to the old way with more people like this from both parties.
13
I also used to vote the person. Until the Republican party went crazy and started nominating people like Christine (I am not a witch) O'Donnell and Sarah Palin. I decided I would vote straight Democratic party line until the Republicans cut the crazy.
I would like to go back to the old way. Some day maybe.
Our media pundits/commentators all have excellent salaries, and health care coverage, while they compare the power plays of the parties who control access to these necessities for most citizens.
Instead of the political personality horse race, and election predictions, we need columns on actual, factual policies, pro/con, so we have a standard to use in judging political parties and candidates.
That's what voters in any democracy deserve.
In the 2016 campaign the media didn't fulfill it's important role, while it's so proud of its 1st amendment protections.
We don't need more People Magazine political reporting. We need facts, data and real--people examples of how both parties pass laws affecting all our lives.
26
Let me support this. Certainly it´s about the right candidate. If you pick to wrong one(s) you will get 2016 again immediately.
But that´s not the point. 2016 was lost because the "Bernie wing" was disintegrated deliberately who had adressed some of those domestic "factual policy" issues. They couldn´t get through because the focus was set on the much cheaper and comfortable moderate topics so many of his supporters were lost without any compensation. So a critical mass of crucial votes of the Dem´s camp was missed in the end. Even a HRC could have won saving this potential of voters. Because she throw their social issues expensive to fix away she throw their votes away. It had not only been a matter of picking the wrong candidate. The result was terribly clear to the benefit of Mr. "Tell it like it is, I´m the one who´s gonna help you" Trump. (Please don´t tell me anything about "Electoral college" "Popular Vote" and "Russians" any more. One ear in and out the other.)
Because Mr. Trump is Mr. Trump - nuff said - and he is driven by his "FOXed" voter´s base due to some of their social issues recklessly neglected by many of the others before we all are suffering from a beginning worldwide implosion of foreign relations of USA with the rest of the world. It´s home made in US.
The only way to get out of this mess is that US will get their homework done. Badly required factual policies have to take destructive the domestic pressure out. Nice candidates are not sufficient.
1
A Republican in conservative Democratic clothing will still vote for a Democrat to replace whoever Republicans choose to replace Ryan, and for Democrats to lead Congressional committees. Most of these Democrats will be to the left of conservative Democrats, but Republican chairmen would be to the right of them.
7
Candidates like Mr. Lamb and Mr. McCready beg the question (to me) then what does it mean to be a Democrat? I do think there have to be a few core issues that distinguish Democrats from Republicans and define us. For me - the biggest litmus test is i) Reproductive rights (access to services and abortions) ii) Universal Health Care and iii) Reinstate the Voting Rights Act - and work to get rid of gerrymandering. I don't think unqualified support of those three things are too much to ask. Otherwise - aren't we just talking to a Republican in sheep's clothing. And if so - what good are they? And for those in the Bernie canp who are willing to sell out abortion rights for a higher minimum wage - you either don't have a uterus or fail to see how intertwined control of fertility is to income.
22
Dana - What good are they? If it takes conservative Democrats to win in formerly republican districts, I say they're good for switching the House to Democratic control. That's what good they are!
14
Democrats playing Republican-Lite put themselves in a precarious position. If they don't continue the charade that they're Conservatives it will be one term and out. Too many votes against the party line and the party will not support them. The party wants dependable votes not iffy ones.
Dana,
North Carolina is Bible Belt country and the people are still conservative and hold firm to traditional values. They are pro life and are against abortion accept for the most extreme cases such as rape and to save the life of the mother. How do I know this? I have visited friends and they have told me so.
This is not a coastal elite liberal state where anything goes. These are family people who vote for conservative policies and not for progressive ones. There are many Republicans who still want to keep the state Republican. I think they will be able to do so and am keeping my fingers crossed that Mark Harris wins. The Republicans just need to get out and vote in droves. If they do, they have a very good chance of winning and keeping the house Republican.
2
The background in military or other national service is an important factor in setting candidates apart from mere political actors. This is especially crucial to Democrats, ironic though that may be.
In America today, Republican plutocrats can be thoroughly isolated from the workaday world and yet win acceptance there by contrasting themselves with condescending eggheads and fragile bleeding hearts. To thwart that ploy, liberals need to be recognizable as sturdy souls. They need to be critical thinkers, not didactic obsessives; frank speakers, not canting or calculating ones. They also need to be good listeners.
The main electoral appeal should be made to core interests that unite the parts of the local or national community and sustain the vitality of the whole. The messengers delivering the appeal — both candidates and activists — should make confidence-inspiring partners: vigorous, competent, fair-minded, and warm-blooded.
Democrats should not try to draw people into a grand ideological parade. They should individually walk with their neighbors as reliable friends to all men and women of good will.
40
Longestaffe, timely on your part, because there is a magnificent splendor of 'Bleeding Hearts' in the cold Spring garden here. An informal politician showed up unannounced earlier running for the position of guardian of our Town's interests - He has his work cut out for him and knows the benefit and wisdom of listening to Our Elders, the Old-Timers.
'Change' is met with resistance. Industrial works situated near our water-system are hazardous and yet this is dismissed. This is just one example among others. A peer of mine whom I respect, an officer and a gentleman, gave a tour of infrastructure and is operating on the policy of what is not broken should not be fixed. Our Town looks bankrupt to this eye, and we are far from experiencing a Renaissance.
The Republican Party, as this voter remembers it twenty years ago, was once strong. A power to be reckoned with, it was not fragmented, diluted and lamentable in shreds.
Keep language that we are familiar with: The Weather, Mother Nature, as opposed to Climate Change or anything that sounds like a liberal fabrication.
But what about the visiting politician in informal wear? He won because he meets the criteria of what you have described, and another new guardian is aligned with him; a Republican, she knows that change is needed to enhance the well-being of our Community.
Rooting for weeds, and supporting Dan McCready, while thanking Mr. Bruni for keeping his readership in the loop.
3
Miss Ley, thanks for your reply.
That alliance, if I understand correctly, between a Democrat and a Republican who are both committed to serving the community is welcome indeed. Such a thing may be too much to hope for in many places this year, but it's an example to keep before us.
Our democratic norms have been lowered, our standards compromised. If we just adapt to this, while Dems compete with rw extremists, then maybe the Gop wins in the end. They don't lose much.
Average citizens have to compromise too much, as elected officials are connected to big money donors. Whose interests win? Could this be America in the 21st Century?
The GOP divides & conquers as a technique, enflaming resentments while various groups fight over whatever they can get from our economy.
And the big donors who fund our elections make both parties compete for their financial favors.
So how can we achieve an operating democracy, for the majority, in line with standards of other advanced nations? Our columnists avoid these contrasts--re health care, family benefits, worker rights, and elections not turned over to rich donors. This keeps power entrenched. The Dems just have to be less bad.
Our standards are lower than our own past generations, when jobs were here, pay rising, unions strong, education well funded, infrastructure maintained, so Americans had upward mobility. Columnists don't make the contrasts.
Instead of the political power play/horse race, we need columns on policies, pro/con, so we have a standard to use in judging political parties.
Our pundits/commentators all have excellent health care coverage and salaries, while they compare the power plays of the parties who control these necessities for most citizens.
4
Why do you keep banging on about the salary/health insurance of commentators? It isn't relevant to the article, so please, give it a miss.
As for your complaint about the alleged lack of policy-articles, it is misplaced; there are plenty of articles, both on this site and others, that cover such topics. But the politics of an issue are sometimes as important/interesting as the actual policy under discussion. In this article, politics were the main focus, not policy, but that doesn't make it useless.
The Dems have to be MUCH less bad. I’m a Trump voter but I don’t hate gays or Mexicans or black people...I just hate being told I do by liberals who don’t know me but put me in a stereotype.
I would vote for Connor Lamb before I’d vote for a hard right winger because he’s talking about the real issues I agree should be addressed.
Here's a question for candidates of both parties. It strikes at the heart of our national productivity and prosperity, the future ahead.
US political economy separates narratives from numbers, but narratives often influence politics more than numbers do. To political ends, numbers often enable myths of blame. If a narrative says inflation is bad or tax cuts are good, it is politically useful as a tool of fear or praise. But the numbers also miss internal changes, statistical thresholds. When these thresholds are reached, they change the character of institutions and markets, social values.
US political economy seldom explores racism, but its economics reveals racial thresholds. As inflation, employment, GDP, national debt rise and fall, the black income gap (70%, 80%; M, F) and the black employment gap (2X, twice the white rate) have remained constant or increased for five decades!
The question for candidates, others: is the income gap constrained by racial narratives and identity politics? Is the employment gap lost productivity? Are they the fixed costs of racism? The cost of white privilege?
Trump's lower unemployment numbers didn't change the disparity. Black workers remain unemployed at twice the white rate. Their wages are lower. Structural racism remains, a contradiction in the face of so many singular exceptions, who collectively have not added up to a threshold of change. The gap persists in the face of black success.
Add this issue to candidate's list.
9
this sounds like a job for...drumroll... freakonomics!
In case we needed a reminder, Bruni repeatedly tells us how Dems who want to win must put country over party - or at least appear to so do. Funny, that, when you consider that Repubs win handily, time and again, by doing just the reverse.
9
I wonder if anyone has done a study about the language used by candidates of the two parties, particularly House candidates. How often do Republicans promise to do something _for you_, as in "I will make sure that you get to keep more of your hard-earned money" or prevent Democrats from doing something _to you_, as in "I will never let them take your guns away from you." On the other hand, how often do Democrats promise to do something _for the country_ rather than the individual? "We will reduce income inequality," instead of "If you are making $16,000 in a full-time job now, you will be making $30,000 when we institute a minimum wage of $15 an hour. You will be able to keep most of that increase and spend it as you wish because your federal tax obligation will still be very low at $30,000. How often does "Make America Great Again" actually mean "Make You Great Again"? If there is some truth to this anecdotal observation admittedly made from far across the ocean, it seems that it is not in "Democratic genes" to appeal to individual self-interest, as that hardly unites us as a nation; it divides us further. What it does is make the election personal, engage the voter more deeply than lofty ideals do. To do this, the message must be tailored to the district. In a district where it's hard to find anyone making as little as $15 per hour, you don't emphasize increasing the minimum wage to $15 per hour.
6
You don’t get it. It’s not that we don’t want everybody to prosper, it’s that we don’t believe government intervention will result in prosperity. You simply can not engineer a great economy or a productive capitalist country...it must happen organically which is more likely to happen through deregulation at many levels.
All well and good.
But you are begging the question, i.e., basing your argument on an unproven proposition, which is that unbridled capitalism is the best form of economy/government .
1
Word to the wise. The blowback in the presidential election was caused by an explosive cocktail of race, culture war, open border, globalism, etc. The trap for the Democratic is not to swing to the extreme of sanctuary cities, bathroom wars if they are to win in November and beyond.
64
Democrats did not campaign on any of that, Republicans did. Danica Roem never talks about gender identity in her campaign, or in her many town halls since being elected. She talks about making sure Route 28 gets fixed, and expanding Medicaid, so that we can use the tax money we send to Indiana here in VA, to both meet healthcare needs, and free up money in our budget to raise pay for First Responders and teachers, improve mental health, etc.
1
Another Blue Dog Democrat being pushed by the Corporate Democrats. Also they are pushing veterans because now Democrats are the party of war. Bernie Sanders Sanders message drew massive audiences even in NC. But the Party Leaders like Pelosi have made sure they only elect candidates serving the corporate interests.
We got Trump because the Democrats became Republican-lite
15
The DNCC can push who they like. At the end of the day , it’s the primary voters who decide on who runs. Influence stops at the ballot box no matter how loud Sanders screams or how many people show up at his rallies
9
You got Trump because Hillary Clinton stole your party.
1
Sipa111 - Steney Hoyer and Pelosi say differently:
““Yeah, I’m for Crow,” Hoyer explained. “I am for Crow because a judgment was made very early on. I didn’t know Crow. I didn’t participate in the decision. But a decision was made early on by the Colorado delegation,” he said, referencing the three House Democrats elected from Colorado.
“So your position is, a decision was made very early on before voters had a say, and that’s fine because the DCCC knows better than the voters of the 6th Congressional District, and we should line up behind that candidate,” asked Tillemann during the conversation.”
https://theintercept.com/2018/04/26/steny-hoyer-audio-levi-tillemann/
Great advice for democrats/ I have been saying the same as what Frank Bruni is saying but with a different wording. The torch has to be passed to a new generation of democrat leaders (which is the same as Druni bluntly says renounce Nancy Pelosi). Trump cannot be ignored after spending a year and a half demonizing Trump and brutally criticizing Trump, the democrats have to strategically contrast their agenda and policies (assuming they have some) and how that will be better. Win is not going to come soon for the democrats if Republicans choose their candidates carefully and defend the gains made by the Trump Republicans and the economy remains stable and unemployment remains low. But one sure magic for the Dems will be to renounce Pelosi and replace her with a dynamic leader like Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard.
3
People may not have cared for Mrs. Clinton and voted for Trump or not voted at all, but I suspect that more and more of them now see Trump as an embarrassment, not to mention a petulant demagogue. The fact that the Republican establishment who initially snubbed him is now unwilling to stand up against him may have more to do the eletorate's willingness to give the Democrats chance.
13
I hope you are right about more and more of them seeing Trump as an embarrassment -- simply because he IS!! Are you seeing this out on the Long Island voters?
1
Yes, Lois, even before the Nov. 2016 election. Those of us in New York know Trump better than the rest of the country. He did not win NY, of course. That a national party put him up as their nominee was embarrassing.
In the Nov 2016 election, the GOP was trounced at the county executive election as well as the Hempstead Town supervisor election. GOP generally does well in Nassau County, but not in the last election.
If you are running for office regardless of party affiliation be true and authentic to one's self. And tailor your message to the district your running in.
8
Pelosi is a lightning rod for Rs to campaign against. We cannot have another election that runs on personal destruction without any issues discussions. The welfare of our entire Country is at stake in the next election. Pelosi must retire for the sake of the Country, it is the patriot thing to do.
11
It is so interesting that for all my fellow liberals and Democrats who insist that gender played no role in Ms. Clinton's loss - they then demand that Pelosi retires, that Wasserman Schultz gets ousted, etc. So very odd that with all the incompetent and flawed men around - the women are the sacrificial party lambs.
1
That’s because she flys around on a broomstick.
Pelosi is 78 years old. Hoyer is 78 years old. Both should retire from leadership. We must defeat the old white men in the Republican party. We must energize the youth and raise the D flag in the middle states of MI, WI, PA, OH and others.
The Congress is loaded with young energetic rising stars in the D party.
It is time to get the Un-American Russian stooge Republican party out of office.
By the way, please tell me what is supposed to be so horrible about Nancy Pelosi, other than the fact that she has been villanized by the GOP. She is surely far more rational, and trying to help more people than Paul Ryan could ever be.
25
Hi, Larry -
As a California Democrat, here is what I have against Mrs. Pelosi.
First, she has been in Congress long enough to have helped create the problem that resulted in the party being decimated at the state and local levels across the country.
Second, as a San Francisco multimillionaire, she arouses more passion among the Republicans than the Democrats. Her being a woman does the same thing, because - let's face it - Republicans are terrified of powerful women. She will bring more Republicans to the polls than Democrats.
Third - She's too old to be the standard-bearer of a forward-looking party. She's part of the old Democratic machine that deliberately turned its back on working people. That, to me, was unforgivable.
75
Your second point is well taken, and pretty much what I meant about being "villainized". I frankly don't believe that she is responsible for all the Democrat losses that occurred ~ 2010, unless you want to blame her support for shepherding Obamacare through congress (which most dems now agree was a good program). The main backlash was against Obama, for obvious reasons. And lastly, its not so clear to me that the speaker and/or minority leader is the standard bearer for the party; she/he is more the one who organizes the legislative strategy than the vision per-se.
So Pelosi -- who has done outstanding work shepherding difficult legislation through her caucus -- by hanging around helped create "the problem" that led to the Democrats' local losses (by the way, what is "the problem"?).
And of course we must be cognizant of her unpopularity among Republicans, because God forbid DEMOCRATS decide who should lead the Democratic Party. At least now that we're letting Republicans call the shots we need no longer consider another woman for this position. What a relief!
Representative Pelosi is a puzzle. The misogynists demonize her, of course. Her manner of speaking is, frankly, old fashioned, which is in and of itself neither good nor bad. She is old, after all.
It is odd. Conservatives demonize Pelosi but Sanders progressives are equally unhappy. She has been too pragmatic and centrist for them.
Because of his bipartisan indecency and unsuitability, I am a vociferous resistor of Mr. Trump, but do not see anything wrong with letting Mr. Mueller take the lead on impeachment so long as we continue to call a spade a spade.
The fact that veterans can cut through the Fox demonization of Democrats is both good and bad. The Fox stuff is just silly. People should be able to see through it. Veterans can apparently be as whacky and treasonous as anybody else, e.g., Mr. Flynn.
Nobody has to explicitly run against Mr. Trump. His manifest unfitness looms over everything. Not mentioning him is the same as running against him--since he incessantly demands and needs our constant undivided attention.
14
This shows what’s so abnormal about our politics and democracy now.
This is the harm from Trump and what led to him taking power---our lowered standards of what elected govt owes its citizens. Even mediocre Dems will look great by contrast with Trump/GOP. Then who wins? Not the citizens.
We need a column on how our definitions of ‘liberal’ have warped over decades.
An assault weapons ban? A natl min wage of $15? These shouldn’t be dear just to ‘many Democrats… especially liberal ones”…but should be dear to ALL Democrats and relentlessly pushed. Such policies and more are centrist, not left, in other democracies. As are employee unions enabling higher pay. Here they’re so ‘left’, that our media is careful on how it refers to them.
Also 'left' is Medicare for all--- off the table for ‘reality politics’ in the US, as was even a public option. Our candidates can't run on it. Abroad it’s been basically centrist policy for all parties for generations. Any idea of ‘privatization’ US style is strongly criticized.
Even our liberal columnists, don’t expose this striking contrast---they avoid looking too liberal. And who is defining what’s too ‘liberal’? The GOP, their Fox State Media, and election megadonors.
Our columnists are humanitarian & regretful that we can’t live up to late 20th century standards of human rights in a democracy. They don’t mention we rank lower than many countries in the GINI Index of economic equality. Stay centrist and keep that dark.
13
So true; the Democrats are considered on the Canadian political landscape to the right of the Canadian Conservative party...as for the GOP, well it would be rated as "facist" in most modern industrialized countries!
If the Democrats cannot win with a minimum level of universal health care, education and social welfare it just means that youdon't need a center-left party...stay with the GOP and spent your tax money on war.
On the other hand, if you want to get a life, don't make the mistake to have the Democratic party becoming the safe harbour for the anti-Trump conservatives!
Best,
Very well put!
Imagine a Congressperson who's actually representative of his whole district's population? I'm all for that, no matter where, without a checklist of inviolable, dogmatic beliefs. Senators who have to represent a whole state can handle the two-party partisan bluster as long as the 60-vote rule stays in place. Let's put the House back to work to pass bipartisan spending bills, draft realistic budgets, and work toward more sensible government oversight.
3
I have no problem with a few centrist Democrats with workable solutions to our big problems -- healthcare, immigration, climate change, student debt, low wages -- as long as Republicans elect some centrist candidates as well. But where are they? I
4
A couple of things in Frank's column stood out. First, the emphasis on McCready's military service. It wasn't a career. Nor was it done on a lark. It was a matter of conscience and (sotto voce) patriotism, patriotism of the most unimpeachable sort.
We are in at least the third, if not the fourth, generation now since last we had so many veterans vying for elected office, and in the 50's you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting a vet. Today, it's a different story. A tiny fraction of Americans are veterans, or even closely related to one. When I was a kid, if your dad wasn't a vet, THAT was weird.
The second thing is Frank's embrace, tentative as it may be, of a small sliver of the "center right," as embodied in the candidacy of Dan McCready. The decades of the 50's, 60's and 70's weren't Utopian. They had their flaws. But because so many of our legislators had served first served their country in the company of others they likely would never have had any contact with, and for ridiculously low wages, and with a common goal of just getting home, they were able to look past their own petty and selfish desires and accomplish time and again legislative feats that have escaped the Congress and Senate for the past generation.
And a third thing. Dan McCready has said he has no intention making a career of politics. But there are things political that demand his full attention now. Is there a better prepared person in North Carolina now to take on those tasks?
9
Even our presidents were all veterans. Nixon, Ford, Johnson, Kennedy and Carter were all Naval Officers.
Truman was an Army enlisted man and Eisenhower General of the Army. Both Roosevelt cousins had been Assistant Secretaries of the Navy.
Clinton was our first to avoid the draft. Trump didn't avoid it he dodged it. Obama was the first to have had no contact with the military or the Draft.
3
NYHUGUENOT- Truman was a Captain in the artillery.
Thanks,NYHuguenot (sorry, but all caps in the body of the text was a bit overwhelming), for pointing this out. True about Clinton and Obama. But remember, Gore enlisted in the Army and Biden was medically deferred, but for a genuine ailment, asthma, as opposed to a concocted one that was never medically documented beyond a physician's note, sort of like the one I once begged my mom for because I wasn't prepared for a big test and I didn't want to jeapordize my "A" in that class. Additionally, Biden's son was a military officer while he was in office. Mike Pence's son being a military officer is Trump's closest thing to a personal tie to the armed services. Trump's dad forced him to go to a military academy. Whoopee.
I'm reading a later Agatha Christie "Passenger from Frankfurt" about the machinations behind a cult of personality for evil. The setting is post-WWII and the parallels to the current political situation makes it almost a horror story; how a small wealthy group can break down the norms of decency of the masses. Donald Trump was a gift to those forces.
Right now many are writing books about the problem and few about the solution. There is an activism now that brings hope but It takes strength to stand up to dark forces, more than just renouncing Nancy Pelosi.
14
I am hard pressed to use the word "win" in connection to any political office today because no matter who winds up with the red check next to their name on the ballot tally, they are in a no-win situation. We applaud their civility now, but expect them to be ruthless in the Capitol. We monitor or leak out their every waking moment waiting for a misstep, an offense, however muttered, and then pounce. We separate them from their families and demand they keep their hometown virtues, knowing they must compromise in ways that shock the conscience to get anything done in Washington, to raise money, to get reelected, to win. These veterans may think they are battle-hardened patriots. But my sense is that they will be broken by their political battles and as a matter of survival will become just like those we elected them to replace.
4
In February 2016 a Federal Court overturned existing North Carolina districts because of racial discriminatory gerrymandering. New boundaries were drawn up for North Carolina's 9th District. This past January another Federal panel ruled that all North Carolina congressional maps, including the one revised under court order in 2016, were unconstitutional gerrymanders. The Chief North Carolina "Map Maker," State Rep. David Lewis, isn't going to give up Republican gerrymandering. He stated: "I propose that we draw the maps to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and three Democrats because I do not believe it's possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats." What does this have to do with Dan McCready? Everything. It's why McCready sounds like a Republican on almost every issue. Solar power only seems to be an exception. Many Republican oligarchs don't need much convincing from the likes of McCready that investments in solar energy yield great returns, even such investments have the unfortunate downside of also being good for the environment. It is good thing for McCready that he has refused to let Republicans nationalize his campaign and make it a referendum on a congresswoman from San Francisco. Further, if McCready wins I hope he votes with Democrats on some issues. However, for now McCready makes Connor Lamb, who repeatedly and correctly attacked the Republican tax cuts for the wealthiest as undermining Social Security and Medicare, look like a liberal.
2
I visited Waxhaw many years ago. I was attending a medical expert deposition and flew down to Charlotte with my opposing counsel, a Jewish lawyer from D.C. We rented a car together and drove south until we reached the town. The road crossed the N.C./S.C. border many times and we wern't sure if we were nearing the destination. Joel stopped at a filling station and went inside to ask how far away the witness's office was.
"It's a lot closer than the nearest synagogue," said the storekeeper.
A very creepy memory. I have not been back since.
9
Mr. Connor, a cold chill down one's spine on hearing of these anecdotes. Earlier friend 'Austria' forwarded a trenchant article by George Will, profiling Pence, as being even less popular than the President in Office.
Mr. Will rarely sugar-coats his opinion and when he bowed out of this Republican Party, bells, sirens and alarms went off, because our Country is in trouble.
That must've been a very long time ago. Waxhaw and Union County have increased populations by about 30 times since I got to Charlotte in 1979.
There were three synagogues then all in Charlotte, one Conservative and two Reform an another in Gastonia 25 miles away.
Today there are about 10 and they're scattered all over in Charlotte, Union County and all the towns in the county. They represent all the major denominations, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, etc. For about 30 years now there has been a Lubavitch Chabad here which is the central headquarters for Chabad all over North and South Carolina. Chabad and its functionaries have been well received by Jews and non-Jews alike. They've built an Orthodox Shul and daily you can see men carrying their Tallis and T'fillin and wearing their Tallis on the Sabbath.
Years ago I had a customer that ran a small chain of discount stores. I sent an employee to the warehouse one day. When he returned he wanted to know who the bearded, tobacco chewing, wallet on a chain cowboy hat wearing guy was running the warehouse. And the Leann Rimes posters. I told him it was the owner's son and he was shocked. He'd said he'd never seen a Jew like that. To him a Jew ran the clothing store. He didn't work in the warehouse driving the forklift. Funny, Lee didn't look much different than the warehouse guy and he thought HE was a Redneck. I'd lived in NYC and Miami where Jews worked in everything so no surprise.
Things have changed here.
2
I understand her reluctance, but Pelosi could greatly help her party and the causes she supports by announcing that she will not stand for Speaker in 2019. If she doesn't, what happens is on her - at some point the party and goals have to be more important than the person. It really is time for a generational change in the Democratic leadership in both houses of Congress.
12
I think it's great that someone like him can run as a Democrat and have a chance to win in this very Republican district. Nonetheless, I wouldn't put him on a pedestal as a "better kind of Democrat". The situation is simple - due to highly partisan gerrymandering after the 2010 election as well as a concentration of Democratic voters in urban districts, Democrats will have to win with an excess of 7% of the popular vote for congress to come close to winning a majority in congress. McCready may be necessary and may even become a great congressman, but his approaches are not central to the Democratic party.
4
I have met a lot of reasonable center right people. Among republicans I can mention McCain and Romney. However, they fail to convince the Republican voters. If democratic voting precesses select the best (and brightest) we would be better off, independently of which party they come from.
3
Lamb and McCready both embody the strategy I think the national DEM leadership needs to follow for 2018. Find candidates with strong roots in their communities, who understand the needs and values of those communities, and respect that.
Both the abortion and the marriage equality issues can be framed in terms of personal freedom and a reduction in government interference in our lives, a somewhat Libertarian framing. I believe this approach will ring true to many people in certain parts of the country.
5
On all the hot-button issues, Democrats of any stripe can frame them in ways that stay true to Democratic positions but de-weaponize the Republican attacks. Say gun control. It's not just about rights infringed, but benefits gained. Talk about the rights we all are willing give up to obtain something important to our well-being. Marriage, you give up your "right" to flirt and bed any man or woman that attracts your eye, to make major life decisions alone. Parenthood. You give up your fundamental freedom of movement, to walk out the door when you have small children in the hometo protect, your right to spend all your money how you want to. Jobs. You give up your freedom of speech, your freedom of association, and the right to practice your religion in specific ways, places and times.
1
Dear Frank Bruni,
As much as I love all all of your columns, and agree with all, I do wish you would write once again about education and college.
Politics is fine, but.......
Or a nice column on meatloaf----I could use a new recipe!
3
I really fear that the Democrats will continue their reign as the Gang that can't shoot straight. The party can't shake Identity Politics even with the overwhelming evidence that it only appeals to those who feel aggrieved. They are shifting hard left, despite the need to swing the middle. They continue to back Nancy Pelosi whose battle cry is to raise taxes. They have no vision for the country other than a litany of complaints. As supporter of HRC and not supporter of Barrack Obama, I stand in the middle ground between parties occupied historically by Blue Dogs and centrist R's. No one like the DMZ voters, but I believe that the extreme's of the two parties can see beyond horizon in the middle. The only difference is that the Republicans know exactly what they want and have made a faustian deal that has enough pocketbook issues to carry many in the middle
2
If Pelosi and McCready were running against each other in San Francisco, I would vote for Pelosi. But if Pelosi and McCready were running against each other in North Carolina's Ninth District, I would vote for McCready. In other words, Democrats have to win and break the stranglehold that the GOP has on Congress. That's what this country needs.
15
First of all, why not consider having "the right messenger and a message" with a candidate for minority speaker like Tim Ryan, instead of Perez? Secondly, why can't the Democratic pollsters and the politicians themselves feel out what sells and develop their platfoms accordingly? Third, maybe Pelosi is a master legislator behind the scences, and she certainly does not deserve to be pummeled in the polls, but is it possible she has been successfully tarred and feathered by the hateful but effective opposition and has to go? Fourth, LGBT rights, universal health care, and minority rights are the right thing to do, but are they winning political stances? What amazes this voter is how Democratic politicians or pollsters cannot be keeping tabs of all the garbage this administration has pulled - from the lack of appointees, to the divisive actions, to the meaningless and destructive tax cuts - and develop a strategy to expose and depose the current regime. It should be easy to run against Trump if he's really as bad as Democrats think.
4
What gives me hope for this November is, there are many candidates just like Dan McCready. Here in the 54th district of GA we have another Dan running on the Democratic ticket. Dan Berschinski is an Army veteran from Iraq, double amputee, small business owner, with a wonderful supportive family.
These individuals and thousands like them, women and men, are running for office. I see light at the end of the tunnel and hopefully the torch will burn bright again for the Democrats in November.
5
Absolutely, avoid the ideologues, tell truth to bipartisan power and, win!
7
As a moderate democrat by today's standards who appreciates the passion of the progressive wing of the party as well as the ability of the conservative wing to attract voters I do not understand, policy positions are secondary to me. The truth is that the democrats do not have to work for my vote, they already have it; I'm just looking to alleviate the symptoms of my Stage 4 Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Lamb and McCready in the House to Sanders and Warren in the Senate covers a lot of distance in one party. I can easily live with that. What I can't live with is an unconstrained ignorant, raciest, authoritarian president with a cabinet of 3rd rate grifters.
Just win.
416
Just win! That's what Nancy Pelosi said in the face of all the negativity around her in some circles.
5
Can we please please please stop fighting and discussing what we *should* do and just do it? Republicans will oppose every dam' thing if it's good for everyone, and their dupes will go on blaming victims instead of perps. Nancy Pelosi is not the problem, we are, if we talk and talk and talk. She's just doing her job, and a dam' good effort it is. If you don't believe me, check *readers' picks* here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/16/opinion/nancy-pelosi-conor-lamb.html#...
Time to do and do and do. By the way, this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/12/opinion/mccready-north-carolina-lamb.... Jena NC 1h ago
"This is real easy Mr. Bruni. For more than 25 years NC had a Republican Congressman who would fly out of DC on one of the few flights to NC and politely greet everyone on the plane as he went to his seat in coach. A Congressman who did not care about your party affiliation, race, creed, color, partner persuasion. As far as this Congressman was concerned you were on your way to NC and he represented everyone. He retired and was replaced by a NC Freedom Caucus member who spends all his time hiding from his constituents. Been in airports and on plane with this Congressman and he behaves as if everyone was his enemy while sitting in first class. Dan McCready is the former not the later and that will get him elected no matter what party he belongs to because he understands he represents all the voters of NC."
37
To run as a Liberal in a supposed ( I mean supposed because every single Liberal policy polls decisively in the majority ), one must act as a Supreme Court justice nominee.
They must give a non answer answer to any and all questions. ( whether they be pointed or not and especially if the questioner is trying to pigeon hole the respondent ) Once elected to office, then the Liberal candidate can do like all republicans do now.
That is to vote in lock step with the party on every single issue ( especially if the vote is presented in the actual light of day and having not be predetermined behind closed doors )
If they are to deviate, then they can do so for an even more Liberal position. Pull the spectrum to the left so far that republicans will not know where they stand any longer and will vote for the lesser ''extreme'' for the next Liberal candidate.
Oh wait ...
7
Nice sarc. all best ...
3
At some point, Congresswoman Pelosi needs to look in the mirror and come to know that it's no longer about her and being the first woman Speaker. Winning the House is critical to the country, absolutely critical. And, if by stepping aside and taking herself out of the equation, she makes winning the House one percent more probable than it would otherwise be... she's got to do the right thing for the country.
44
She was already speaker for the house, if she gets the speakership again it’ll be the second time and a gift to republicans in 2020. Much of the ire against her is based on misrepresentations and slander, but that doesn’t much matter because the ire is real and it energizes far too many voters for her to be the right choice for leadership.
127
Interesting and sad that the Republican Party is so good at demonizing strong Democratic women.
Have we all forgotten the opposing consequences of GOP gerrymandering?
3
Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Leadership, your average age is 71. That doesn’t mean you aren’t valuable as fund raisers and leadership, but we need a succession plan, ASAP.
You are used in negative campaign material about 60% of the time now. In fact the Republicans are even using H. Clinton in campaign material still. These young people need an opportunity, and it’s time for all of you to give it to them. Pelosi had to fight and struggle for every bit of power she has in the House but now is the time we must win this next election and 2020. Our country depends on it.
202
I agree. The worst thing that happened under Obama's watch is that a whole cohort of Democratic politicians got evicerated. I have enormous respect for the older generation, but their job now is to prepare their succession, as strong and vigorous and appealing as humanly possible, and assume the mantle of elder states(wo)man that is their due.
5
I would rather have a candidate that placed the needs of his constituents in the front of his lectern than in the rear view mirror. As to working with colleagues to put his country first, how to navigate such a dialectical view is the issue for those who are fresh to the political world. May we have more individuals banning together to review the facts and then making decisions based upon a vision that is modifable in a reasonable manner not because they want to get elected again. Is there a reason for a 2 party system anymore ?
3
This is real easy Mr. Bruni. For more than 25 years NC had a Republican Congressman who would fly out of DC on one of the few flights to NC and politely greet everyone on the plane as he went to his seat in coach. A Congressman who did not care about your party affiliation, race, creed, color, partner persuasion. As far as this Congressman was concerned you were on your way to NC and he represented everyone. He retired and was replaced by a NC Freedom Caucus member who spends all his time hiding from his constituents. Been in airports and on plane with this Congressman and he behaves as if everyone was his enemy while sitting in first class. Dan McCready is the former not the later and that will get him elected no matter what party he belongs to because he understands he represents all the voters of NC.
368
One of the best comments ever. An object lesson in humanity. Republicans should remember that their current crop of preferred authorities are very hot on first class and protection details so they don't have to talk to you or meet you. Time to unthrone the Republican snowflakes!
127
I like this comment 100 times.
59
That was one of Hillary's many flaws. She hid from the media for weeks at a time.
Frank, once again you've articulated my thoughts succinctly and elegantly. You really can't outcrazy the GOP, no use in trying. Running a Qualified Veteran in a Red or even Red-ish district is an incredibly effective way to fight against insinuating ones' lack of patriotism and duty. Especially with the leader of the GOP, with his FIVE deferments, is installed in the Oval Office, in between Golfing trips and Loyalty Rallies. But forget renouncing Pelosi, let them do it. WE ignore Her, but certainly take Money from National donors. When they go low, We go SMART.
20
All politics is local, personal and “ tailor made”. It is young people like Mr. McCready who have the maturity and smarts to recognize this. If this is the strategy by the Dems nationally, then the Blue Wave will prevail in November!
42
Put out the Trump fire to save the place but the Dems better figure out what they stand For and articulate an agenda in simple clear language if we want to save this country from more than Trump.
Campaign finance reform is not a hot issue at this moment but it is really the only issue that ties all the rest together, and no matter how hard it may be and how long it may take, I want my party to stand as clearly for this as they are now standing against sexual harassment and abuse.
Isolate the GOP as the clear House of Lords by focusing on reducing the corruptive influence of special interests that are the key reason money is being funneled from salaried workers right into the pockets of the investment class.
H. Clinton should never have accepted those high paying corporate speaking engagements before running for president- appearances matter, no matter the legislative record.
Even Trump voters are tired of lobbyists having more influence than voters and they have no idea about the actual level of corruption that doubles our costs for health care, probably influences our incarceration rates being 5X the global average and who knows how many wasted billions in military expenditures, where the only actual concern about bang for the buck is the bucks going into military related stocks.
28
Even though former senator’s and secretary of states made sometimes triple what she did on corporate speaking engagements, the Republicans very effectively simply drilled down on her.
Just look at the excess, greed, and graft that is going on now. Can you imagine if Hillary Clinton was in office doing the same and her cabinet doing the same? You are holding her to a totally different standard.
25
I appreciate that you recognize Campaign Finance reform as the "ring that rules them all". Sadly, the party itself is corrupt. It relies on corporate money and is in thrall to corporate interests and only supports pre-corrupted candidates. That is precisely why we have gotten such uninspiring candidates and lackluster turnout.
It is not sufficient to renounce Pelosi. Renouncing party corruption could not but add to voter popularity. It might dry up campaign money but that can be made a case in point to MacCready's or any candidate's advantage with rank and file voters.
And that IS putting country first. Would that all candidates put country first.
5
"Sadly, the party itself is corrupt. It relies on corporate money and is in thrall to corporate interests and only supports pre-corrupted candidates"
I don't want martyrs who lose but take the moral high-ground. I want strategists that maneuver through the corruption and trick the system.
Unilateral refusal to accept money from corporations is not the only strategy to gradually eliminate the ever increasing role of money in American politics and you don't have to conquer Mt. Everest to assume the higher ground.
Let Democrats call for a campaign finance reform constitutional amendment as a stated goal and begin the state by state process- even if it is a 100 year plan.
In the meantime they can pledge the refusal of campaign funds from corporations related to health care, and the prison and military defense industries, given that these are life and death based industries.
The huge negative effect of lobbyists in these areas are pretty easy to demonstrate based on costs compared to relative expenditures of other nations that don't allow money to buy so much political influence.
Whatever version of whatever god exists in one's heart has no place in politics which seeks or at least claims to represent all the people.
I am not a NC resident but I am an American citizen who does not believe in any god and every member in Congress must of necessity represent all the citizenry.
Keep church and the ship of state separate or we will continue to sink.
31
It’s emblematic of the left’s desperation that they highlight the few “tossup” elections around the country when the vast majority of incumbents will be re-elected, and most of them are Republicans. But, hey, I don’t want any MORE desperation that leads to opioid addiction, so have at it. But you might on occasionally highlight a REPUBLICAN candidacy that could have legs in a DEMOCRATIC district.
But, what the hey, it’s not as if Frank is an unregistered stealth lobbyist for the left: he DOES work for the New York Times.
A candidate’s chances in any particular district have a lot to do with public persona, youth, likeability, appearance and the money others expend on him or her. To suggest that ONE Democrat’s chances in ONE Republican district in North Carolina are somehow emblematic of the chances of ALL Democrats in November is … smokin’ something.
You folks crowned Hillary months before the 2016 election, and look at how devastating THAT turned out to be for you.
McReady seems to be pretty politically adept and cautious – even pretty moderate. That’s good news, and pretty sensible for a Democrat running for Congress in most parts of North Carolina. If he DOES win, and votes as he talks, he might sensibly start calling himself a moderate Republican, and I for one would be relieved: maybe successful Democrats BECOME the new Republicans and, together, we can ALL marginalize the bible-thumpers.
6
Well, Clinton was our nominee and won the primaries by 3,000,000 actual votes. We should "anoint" the losing candidate? And it seems that it's Republicans who are desperate, implementing voter suppression, gerrymandering and the "politics of personal destruction" when their policies are far too unpopular to win fairly.
4
He sounds like a Republican running as a Democrat. For majority purposes, he'll count as a Democrat. That's good. But what agenda will he vote for? It sounds like there's an alternate Democratic Party forming that's made up of outliers, each with their own agenda and no core. Is that winning or just displacing the GOP?
11
On what particular issue do you think he sounds like a Republican? He is a Democrat running as a Democrat. He is not an outlier from alternate Democratic Party. If you want a purity test for candidates you are like to alienate good candidates and lose more elections.
5
He has to reflect his district and be his own person.
3
I'll take displacing the GOP over cutting my nose off.
2
This kind of sounds like the (Bill) Clintonian prescription for "A New Kind of Democrat." Yeah, Clinton won and he was a reasonably effective president in most respects. Even so, principles matter, and when candidates feel compelled to conceal or obfuscate their principles one might find it difficult to feel passionate about voting for them. Not everything is black or white but it's hard to get worked up about plaid.
10
After Trump, people want change. But to paraphrase Obama, they want "change they can believe in." These new Democrats are following the adage of Speaker Tip O'Neill that "All politics is local." Center-right may be the way to win; it may be the only way to win in states like North Carolina where "liberal" is still a dirty word. So, they are smart in not nationalizing the election by claiming they will not support Nancy Pelosi, who in this liberal's view (and I'm her age, 77) has reached her "expiration date;"and they are not running on an "impeach Trump" platform either. This is how the blue wave will retake the House and hopefully the Senate as well this November. It's critical they succeed for our Constitutional democracy based on "checks and balances" to work as is not currently the case under the McConnell-Ryan Republicans.
41
" But to paraphrase Obama, they want "change they can believe in."
Perhaps if Obama had been able to better fulfill that inspiring and aspirational message, we would not be saddled with the onerous and odious trump.
I have complicated thoughts. I admire and respect Obama's dignity and grace. He was trtuly Presidential in the best sense of the word. But at one point he was ready to diminish Social Security by changing how the COLA was calculated.
This indicates to me that his focus was not directed enough at the economic circumstances of those left behind. How long has it been for an increase in the Federal minimum wage? Obama displayed great dignity but too often he was above the fray.
And I write this as a life long Democrat.
11
Exactly my thoughts Mary Ann.
Obama promised change and he didn't deliver.
He offered to cut Social Security, froze federal workers pay, failed to prosecute a single bankster after the crash, and on and on. He was neoliberalism with a classy face.
And then Clinton promised more of the same, only without charisma and charm. And somehow she lost.
4
Perhaps if Democrats and progressives bothered to vote in mid-term elections...
Whatever it takes. Run decent, intelligen, people; not ideologues afraid to compromise.
273
Pragmatism at its best. Issues, not attitudes. Serving the needs of locals not nationals. Rationality, not litmus tests.
On the other hand, my number one concern right now is all this claiming a wave when the sea looks routinely dull and our current divisive politics is holding so many of us under water.
Please stop counting victories which only gives rise to hubris and complacency. It's never over till its over so the most important thing now is to keep head low, work to register nonvoters, listen to Moulton, don't engage in internecine party factional squabbles.
I haven't been a registered Democrat as long as some of you, but I've been watching the party shoot itself in the foot forever.
Every election is important, but the next one is critical for the simple reason it actually could be our last.
345
"Every election is important, but the next one is critical for the simple reason it actually could be our last."
Frightening thought ChristineMcM, but also a sobering one about how important Nov. 2018 is.
54
The seniority biased system for leadership positions has not always served the Congress well. Lifers like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Wilbur Mills, Mitch McConnell, James Inhofe and others, secure in their district or state, ruled the most powerful committees and positions like personal empires. This is not a good model of democracy.
Nancy Pelosi belongs in an entirely different category and has been an effective leader in the House but has been around CA and US politics for nearly 4 decades. I don't have a problem with long Congressional careers but leadership is a different story. The Democrats might benefit from a change of leadership, home district perspective and world experience.
The United States looks at leadership change in other countries as a sign their democracy is working. This same idea could be considered for our own Congressional leadership.
The same goes for lifetime Supreme Court appointments, but that would require a change to the Constitution.
65
More than trying to mimic an old-line Republican and in the process genuflect to tax cuts, former military officers and get tough on immigration try a different approach:
Health care as a right; not a privilege, raise the minimum wage, a new racial justice model, pre-K education, protection for worker rights and upholding rule of law would be a good start.
Don’t pretend Trump doesn’t exist. He is a big part of the problem and he needs to be held accountable.
36
Trying to use Trump like was tried in 2016 won't work. We need to show what little has been accomplished by the GOP federal government - tax cuts for the rich, middle class taxes going up, the continued assault on Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, affordable housing, well paying jobs that blue collar workers can affordably live on as well as better pay for those with college degrees and no more temp workers from other countries, shoring up the ACA so we can move towards universal single payer, lowering drug costs - use these topics to compare what the Dems offer and what the GOP has already done to screw us, then ask - who do you think is working for you?
If Americans were actually interested in policy rather than party and personalities Clinton would be president today. And you underestimate the deep strain of racism that runs through the American psyche. You know how FDR passed the New Deal? By allowing black citizens to be left out of it. There are just too many Americans who fear and resent "those people" and prefer to be told they're superior than that that we can all be prosperous and equal. I'm 57 and white, and I now see it plain as day. All our politics are "identity politics" -- white identity politics.
2
Hoping your prognostication about North Carolina's 9th Congressional race in November will be correct, Frank Bruni. That the race will be a tossup between the Republican candidate and Democrat Dan McCready, 34 years old, Iraq War veteran, survivor of an elite education and an American in full who is worried about this "really dark chapter of America today."
McCready's opponent in this one for the books is Mark Harris, 52, former President of the Baptist Convention of N.C., former pastor, also a veteran and an extremely conservative man endorsed by Speaker Paul Ryan and the Tea Party, on the same page as Mike Pence.
Though most of us reading your words today, Frank, are not of the extremely conservative suasion of American politics, we are riveted by the possibilities that a district which has been red for 55 years, has the chance of turning blue in November. The mid-term elections are shaping up today as being a dainty dish fit to set before our unfit president.
23
“But if we actually want to be a majority party, then we better embrace more Americans.” Divisive, hot button issues are the bread and butter of the Republican Party. Steering away from those issues in Republican strongholds is proving to be a good strategy, (seemingly), and some Republicans are actually listening as a result. Given the current toxic political atmosphere, this is a major achievement.
President Obama brought renewed vigor to the Democratic Party in 2008 as a young politician, and that kind of dynamism is needed now, if we want progressivism to continue in this country. Democrats like McCready and Lamb just may be showing us the way forward.
14
Be careful asking God for the perfect candidate. If you read your Bible, you’ll find that God votes Republican.
But that said, any shade of blue is better than the alternative. At least it would break the Republican stranglehold on key districts, and once the spell is broken future Democratic candidates might be easier to install.
Republican voters can be swayed by dog whistles of a certain pitch. They move in lockstep, and they don’t respond to nuance. They’ll vote against their own interests to support conservatives, while not getting anything in return except some fevered rhetoric about how evil Democrats are. Sneer at Nancy Pelosi once and they’re yours forever.
Democrats are smart in a thousand different ways, and are as hard to herd as cats. Vegan bunny-huggers may not vote for a Democrat who eats a ham sandwich. As a result, Democrats may stay at home if the vibe isn’t right or the candidate’s aura is too mauve.
But Democrats need to play the long game. We can’t wait for the perfect candidate if real human ones don’t meet a thousand individual standards.
Getting Republicans out of the White House and Congress is the only goal. We’ve seen the damage that a sweep of the executive and legislative branches can do. There will be time for nuance later, but for now we’re in a war for our survival.
524
"There will be time for nuance later, but for now we're in a war for our survival." And that, gemli, is not 'truthful hyperbole' but the absolute truth. If we do not stop/stymie the Republicans in November, America is lost. At least to those of us who do not have a lifetime left to turn the ship of state around. It's now or.....the end.
225
"Republican voters can be swayed..."
What we need to recognize is that there are "swing" voters, people who are not die-hard Republicans, who don't self-identify as Republican. These are the people we need to be identifying, speaking to, and above all, listening to.
DEMs are not the only party suffering from "identity politics". There is a sector of the American populace that views voting Republican as a matter of identity. The more entrenched they become, the more extreme their views become, and the more uncomfortable the scene becomes for the more thoughtful voters who think rationally about issues and who have voted GOP at times in the past.
These are the voters DEMs have a chance of reaching if DEMs don't get caught up in their own identity politics.
59
"Democrats need to play the long game...." Excellent!
33
North Carolina has seen the effects of a far-right, conservative Christian agenda as businesses and events left the state in droves following the absurdly unenforceable bathroom laws.
The ideas coming from that side of the political spectrum are just extremist - they're platforms include destroying necessities like health insurance, realities like gay marriage, and waging costly wars that can't be won. Republicans think they can say "Pelosi" and win votes, when all they are doing is pandering to the lowest common denominator types who respond to dog whistles above reason.
Democratic candidates need to illustrate clearly the different between building and destroying. They do not need to demonize those who succeed in painting themselves in the worst possible light. We need candidates who will pivot away from the toxicity we shouldn't be getting used to.
153
Hope :)
29
I live in the NY 19th district, where Republican John Faso is beatable, I hope. But I'm not feeling the blue wave! Around here, when old-timer Democratic pols retire, they tend to be replaced by Republicans. For the past two elections, the Democrat running for this seat was a carpetbagger (most recently, Zephyr Teachout), and the current group running in the Democratic primary is mostly carpetbaggers. That's a tough sell.
It's wonderful when you can vote FOR someone instead of just voting against the other candidate. Someone who "gets" you, and who doesn't seem to filter everything they say. Obama had that appeal, and Trump does too (I hate to say) but it's a pretty rare talent, at least nowadays.
Tip O'Neil described in his memoir going around to districts in Massachusetts in the 1940s and 50s, trying to identify the most prominent Democrats in each district (lawyers, judges, businessmen, etc.) and asking them to run for office. I kinda wish we still had that.
109
"Tip O'Neil described in his memoir going around to districts in Massachusetts in the 1940s and 50s, trying to identify the most prominent Democrats in each district (lawyers, judges, businessmen, etc.) and asking them to run for office. I kinda wish we still had that." Just LBJ did in TX when he was first getting into politics. I think he covered every county he could to reach as many constituents as possible. FDR did the same thing in NY when he was running for state rep as well. This is going on now all over the country as Dems like me get off our butts and get involved in every way possible to engage people door-to-door, phone calls, transportation volunteers, rallies in own cities and towns, anything to get the Dem platform across by deflecting from Trump and those hot button, never-ending scandals and instead focus on what we can do better for the working and middle classes, town by town, city by city, county by county, and state by state. If the old blood corporatist Dems don't want to make room for the up and comers, we'll make room for the up and comers. Time for new blood to re-energize our core values: fair pay for all jobs, shoring up the ACA to make room for universal healthcare, paid family leave, child care centers offered by companies and corporations on-site, reign in out of control drug prices, and most importantly - REFORM CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS.
24
Ker, if you want someone you can believe in, consider stepping up yourself, and stop waiting for someone who "gets" you. 22,000 new candidates have already done it, and there has never been more support and 'how-to' assistance available to people new to the process. Indivisble and Emily's List both run workshops.
6
Sheila, the "old guard corporatists" actually support the same things you do. It was that old lady NANCY PELOSI who pushed the ACA through! They are out there living the current reality of Washington politics. You want Dems to unilaterally disarm on financial support, or jettison those most familiar with obscure legislative rules and their strategic use? It's easy to snipe from the bleachers. Let's see YOU step forward and show us how to do it.
North Carolina is one of the most closely divided states. It has fluctuated between blue and red in the last few presidential elections. The last gubernatorial contest was won by a hair - and in contrast to the state legislature's composition. Not surprisingly, North Carolina has also been ground zero for voter disenfranchisement. Every last ballot is crucial.
This is also demonstrates that ideological extremity is a losing formula for North Carolina. A state so decidedly purple, where no one can take political fortune for granted, is ripe for candidates who speak to immediate voter concerns, not for a party. Mr. McCready can be an effective competitor, but he should run speaking for his state's interests, which may not align with the platform of a larger national Democratic party. So be it.
46
@NM -- steering clear of Nancy Pelosi for today’s young crop of Democratic hopefuls is like avoiding the Queen of Spades in a game of Hearts. Conor Lamb’s winning template in Pennsylvania could be what will help Dan McCready this fall, despite the state’s segregationist voter ID law that was struck down by the Supreme Court because of its aim to disenfranchise black voters. And McCready doesn’t need to state the obvious about the president’s unsuitability.
8
I agree, it's time for the old timers to move into mentoring roles and step down from leadership positions so we can nurture the current generation waiting in the wings (who have experience but are being blocked from moving up, at the same time, the newer, younger faces can get a chance to show their stuff.
4
"been blocked"? Any evidence of that? Obama wasn't "blocked." The Republicans nominated a bunch of young guys to positions of power -- Cantor, Ryan, Nunes......how's that working out?