Not much changes on either side until the like of McCain, Hatch, Feinstein, Pelosi, etc. retire or assume room temperature. Political power is the ultimate narcotic. Due to the behind the scenes work of Tom DeLay, the Republican hold on the House is fairly secure. The Senate will probably end up 51 Rep. - 49 Dems. I don't see the American people being able to withstand the gridlock and continued division that the election of Granny Pants will ensure. Just be ready for some excitment if Trump manages to pull this off and be out next POTUS.
5
"The Democrats’ problem stems from a depletion of their ranks in state legislatures and governors’ mansions over recent years and a lack of institutional support for grass-roots-level politicians who represent a changing base."
Quite a few of us have been saying precisely that for the past several years. The most important thing progressives of any hue need to focus on this year are the state legislative races. (The "establishment" will take care of the presidential campaign.) Those are the people who, after the 2020 census, will get to gerrymander the state legislative and Congressional districts. That will determine much of American politics and policy for the following decade.
The Republicans figured this out quite awhile ago, which is why, after the 2010 census, they were in a position to take over Congressional delegations and state legislatures far in excess of their proportion of a state's voters.
Quite a few of us have been saying precisely that for the past several years. The most important thing progressives of any hue need to focus on this year are the state legislative races. (The "establishment" will take care of the presidential campaign.) Those are the people who, after the 2020 census, will get to gerrymander the state legislative and Congressional districts. That will determine much of American politics and policy for the following decade.
The Republicans figured this out quite awhile ago, which is why, after the 2010 census, they were in a position to take over Congressional delegations and state legislatures far in excess of their proportion of a state's voters.
4
"The Democrats’ problem stems from a depletion of their ranks in state legislatures and governors’ mansions over recent years and a lack of institutional support for grass-roots-level politicians who represent a changing base."
A number of us commenters have been saying precisely that for the past several years. The most important thing progressives of any hue need to focus on this year are the state legislative races. (The "establishment" will take care of the presidential campaign.) Those are the people who, after the 2020 census, will get to gerrymander the state legislative and Congressional districts. That will determine much of American politics and policy for the following decade.
The Republicans figured this out quite awhile ago, which is why, after the 2010 census, they were in a position to take over Congressional delegations and state legislatures far in excess of their proportion of a state's voters.
A number of us commenters have been saying precisely that for the past several years. The most important thing progressives of any hue need to focus on this year are the state legislative races. (The "establishment" will take care of the presidential campaign.) Those are the people who, after the 2020 census, will get to gerrymander the state legislative and Congressional districts. That will determine much of American politics and policy for the following decade.
The Republicans figured this out quite awhile ago, which is why, after the 2010 census, they were in a position to take over Congressional delegations and state legislatures far in excess of their proportion of a state's voters.
2
The weakness of the Democratic Party lies in its organization, both locally and at the state level. I have lived in seven cities in my adult life. Only one city (Phoenix) had precinct meetings where registered Democrats met on a regular basis, organized around issues, debated issues, voted on issues. In Baltimore, (an indisputable Democratic city) the only way to become involved in local Democratic politics is to be invited to join one of the various Clubs. The Democratic party is not democratic. The party is made up of insiders who look outward only when looking for money. Those same insiders hang onto office into their graves. Throughout the country, a growing number of people are independent of party identification and find the parties irrelevant to their lives.
5
This is a very good piece which surprisingly did not address the recent turmoil in the fortunes of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz,and overlooked a potential rock star in Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who supported Bernie Sanders over the disapproval of DWS.
12
I attended for the first time last night a meeting of local Democrats in the county seat near Myrtle Beach, SC. I was pleased to meet a very small but very energetic and enthusiastic group. Unfortunately, SC is so red that no one believes a Democrat can be elected in our county (Horry). But when we check the state's voting record, it turns out that over 44% of the state voted Democratic in 2012, despite districts widely believed to be gerrymandered to keep them Republican. So we end up with candidates who run weak campaigns. I had to ask for a handout to know who is running on the down ticket at all levels. If Democrats want to change the House and Senate, have experienced candidates rise from state and local levels and be competitive, this must change. Real money with real candidates who get their messages out can make a difference, but only if we make the effort.
1
I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat. So true, so true.
if this election is about immigration and the economy she loses! as for the senate with the court the way it is is now! no way they take the senate or the house. though we live with the illusion of a two party system they are just the same globalists who follow the 1%'s not their voters! i think the reason trump won is because of last years two paty vote on tpp and it's unlimited foreign work visas and no tariffs for asia in a jobless recovery! both parties including hillary who championed it have remained quite silent on this including the msm! why is that i wonder? lol
3
Yes, the Republicans have a great "bench." Anyone who watched the GOP's presidential primaries knows that.
Not.
Not.
1
I'm convinced that whoever wins this years election will only be a one term President. If its Clinton we can look forward to a two term Republican following her. Pick your poison. Trump for one term and a democrat for two or Clinton for one term and Ted Cruz or somebody worse than him for two. Our future is not bright.
4
The FDR Democratic Party is dead. As the recent EpiPen and Clinton Foundation scandals are showing, the 1%er Democrats are everything FDR Democrats used to hate about Republicans; maybe even worse. The 1%er Democrats are all about greed without a shred of patriotism. And they justify their selfishness by dismissing anyone who disagrees as a bigot or some other canned, dismissive smear.
6
As befits its view of itself as the national newspaper, the Times emphasized building a "bench" for future national officeholders (including Congress). But left out was the equally -- if not more -- important need to control governorships and state legislatures, for those determine reapportionment.
An important part of the GOP's hold on the House of Representatives has been the result of Republicans drawing legislative District boundaries to create safe districts for their officeholders and candidates. This isn't glamorous, but it's effective. Democrats need to pay more attention to nuts and bolts in order to govern effectively -- or govern at all!
An important part of the GOP's hold on the House of Representatives has been the result of Republicans drawing legislative District boundaries to create safe districts for their officeholders and candidates. This isn't glamorous, but it's effective. Democrats need to pay more attention to nuts and bolts in order to govern effectively -- or govern at all!
5
This cycle should have been a no brainer - the Democrats should pick up 6-7 seats, and the majority. Why? Because the Senate seats up this cycle are seats won in 2010, the Republican wave, where they picked up seats they never should have won.
So - why aren't they? Because the Democratic party leadership has been completely taken over by the far left, and has ostracized a significant part of it's base.
For the last eight years the Democratic party has focused on social issues that many of it's base either do not care about, or actually disagree with. In particular, blue collar, white, males, have been called 'privileged', and 'racists', for the last eight years, and are not to happy about it. THAT is why the Democrats are not going to retake the Senate, and even if they do, it will be by a very small margin that will be completely wiped out in 2018 (check out who's up for reelection that year!).
Case in point, in Ohio Portman has been endorsed by a number of major unions who have in the past, solidly supported Democrats. Why? Because had they not, the union members would have revolted.
It gets much worse. People like to think that Trump's base is conservative Republicans, but it really isn't. A large portion of Trump's base are blue collar Democrats. For now, they still consider themselves Democrats, and will support Democrats locally, but not at the state, and national level. They feel abandoned by the party.
So - why aren't they? Because the Democratic party leadership has been completely taken over by the far left, and has ostracized a significant part of it's base.
For the last eight years the Democratic party has focused on social issues that many of it's base either do not care about, or actually disagree with. In particular, blue collar, white, males, have been called 'privileged', and 'racists', for the last eight years, and are not to happy about it. THAT is why the Democrats are not going to retake the Senate, and even if they do, it will be by a very small margin that will be completely wiped out in 2018 (check out who's up for reelection that year!).
Case in point, in Ohio Portman has been endorsed by a number of major unions who have in the past, solidly supported Democrats. Why? Because had they not, the union members would have revolted.
It gets much worse. People like to think that Trump's base is conservative Republicans, but it really isn't. A large portion of Trump's base are blue collar Democrats. For now, they still consider themselves Democrats, and will support Democrats locally, but not at the state, and national level. They feel abandoned by the party.
6
"Democratic ranks have also been decimated in state governments across the nation, where new leaders tend to plant roots for future higher office."
This is important and another Rove Kochs etc scummy move. Read the New Yorker article "Drawing the Line" about the 2010 gerrymandering that accomplished this. Clever...but not workable without vast amounts of money pouring in. Thus clever and disgusting.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/06/27/ratfcked-the-influence-of-r...
This is important and another Rove Kochs etc scummy move. Read the New Yorker article "Drawing the Line" about the 2010 gerrymandering that accomplished this. Clever...but not workable without vast amounts of money pouring in. Thus clever and disgusting.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/06/27/ratfcked-the-influence-of-r...
3
>>“Here and in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and North Carolina are states that should have Democratic state-controlled legislatures, and the fact that they don’t not only marginalizes Democrats, but also makes it increasingly hard to build a farm team.”<<
This is yet another consequence of losing the 2010 election. The Republicans very effectively gerrymandered districts and made gains in state legislatures and the House of Representatives an uphill climb for Democrats.
This is yet another consequence of losing the 2010 election. The Republicans very effectively gerrymandered districts and made gains in state legislatures and the House of Representatives an uphill climb for Democrats.
4
The odds of dem senate are ridiculously low.
3
This is the perfect opportunity for Bernie's young supporters to begin working their way into the system. Change promoted from inside and outside--what could be better.
3
Thank goodness. The last time we gave Democrats the keys to both the WH and Congress they gave us the ACA.
4
In Florida and North Carolina, this is what 8 years of #DNC Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (aka Hillary's right-arm) looks like. The Democratic Party has lost a lot of members, not eager to vote for #CorporateDemocrats, and willing to change their party to Republican, and go with Trump, who has successfully lured working class and middle class voters, who no longer feel represented by the "New Democrats" of Bill and Hillary Clinton. ... Some of that uptick in Florida came from Democrats who switched their registration to Republican, said Karen Giorno, campaign manager in Florida for Donald J. Trump. The state, which has a closed primary, required people who wanted to vote in the Republican primary in March to register as Republican.
The increase in registered Republicans was pronounced in Florida counties that Mitt Romney won in 2012. Four years ago, registered Democrats slightly outnumbered Republicans in Baker County, but Romney won 79 percent of the vote there. The number of registered Republicans has increased by 17 percent since then, while the number of Democrats decreased by 16 percent. This is only predicted to get worse, not better in Florida where many registered Democrats voted for Alan Grayson for US Senate, and for a handful of #Berniecrats, delaying their #DemExit until Sept. 1, 2016.
The increase in registered Republicans was pronounced in Florida counties that Mitt Romney won in 2012. Four years ago, registered Democrats slightly outnumbered Republicans in Baker County, but Romney won 79 percent of the vote there. The number of registered Republicans has increased by 17 percent since then, while the number of Democrats decreased by 16 percent. This is only predicted to get worse, not better in Florida where many registered Democrats voted for Alan Grayson for US Senate, and for a handful of #Berniecrats, delaying their #DemExit until Sept. 1, 2016.
4
New Jersey Democrats have the opportunity to elect a Democrat, Josh Gottheimer, to congress in northern Bergen County, and defeat Republican Congressman Scott Garrett, a Trump-esq Tea Party echo. Representative Garrett's positions have been notable for their lack of being notable. Now, Josh Gottheimer has the opportunity to serve Northerm New Jersey and the country. Northern New Jersey contributed Senator Corey Booker to national service. Now there is an opportunity to put Josh Gottheimer in Congress. He has served in government and the Democratic administration, has been an executive in private industry, and has the right answers to be in the has been an executive in private industry, and has the right answers to be in question important questions. A Democratic Congress won't be the same stone wall the Republicans have been, blocking everything and proposing nothing except going backward.
1
The one race that shouldn't be a race is the Portman race in Ohio. It's just amazing to me how anyone would vote for Strickland, the previous Ohio governor who was a disaster for the state. It just proves that todays democrats are a bizarre and uninformed bunch of lemmings. The same group that supports Hillary, yikes.
6
Look at what the Republicans dragged out of the woodwork in the 2010 general election; candidates not only unknown, but selfish and ignorant as a bonus.
So Obama's eradication of the Democrat farm system is beginning to bite. How long will the democrat party take to recover from Obama?
I remember when the Democrats had a lock on Congress until Hillary launched the Republican revolution of 1994. The fact that she is "last man standing" is kind of funny.
I remember when the Democrats had a lock on Congress until Hillary launched the Republican revolution of 1994. The fact that she is "last man standing" is kind of funny.
1
It's amazing how the Democrats have ignored the demographics of the last 8 years, refusing to face the fact that 910 formerly Democrat seats are now held by Republicans. Thirty one states now have Republican governors while just 18 states have Democrat governors and Republicans control 23 state legislatures while Democrats have seven.
Democrats still fail to understand that their recent success has been due to nothing but skin color preference. Democrats will not have another big election turn out until they find another candidate with a skin color that gets their constituents excited. Skin color is the single biggest factor affecting democrat votes. As long as the racists are too bored to vote, republicans will win.
3
Democrats are Progressives. We've been out-voted by Republicans and done the noble thing, seeking bi-partisan compromises, unlike the GOP that just can't stand losing and wants us all to fail. Older "white" democrats are the lucky recipients of New Deal programs and we mourn their loss. When I was young the minimum wage was livable. Public universities were free. Health insurance was inexpensive. Infrastructure projects were booming. Unions were strong. People working in trades could send their kids to college and count on a good pension for their retirements. Bring back the New Deal. Down with the GOP. It is time to pick up where we left off when we so mistakenly elected Nixon/Reagan/Bushes.
4
Is it a surprise that Republicans made gains in the "Checks and Balances" offices?
It's possible to like the President, but not his Presidency - or his colleagues-in-arms.
It's possible to like the President, but not his Presidency - or his colleagues-in-arms.
2
How about bringing back Howard Deans 50 state strategy? Despite the groans of anguish from party leaders it got the Dems control of all three branches of government. Needless to say Howlin' Howard was promptly ousted and replaced by establishment loyalist (now vice presidential candidates) Tim Kaine and later the much reviled and rewarded Debbie Wasseeman Schultz. It makes you think they like losing.
4
The GOP success at the local and state level has certainly contributed to the Dems weak bench. Another factor, I believe, is that politics has become so toxic and politicians so cynical that the "best and brightest" are taking a pass. What intelligent, well informed, sincere and well-meaning young person would want these jobs? The hate speech, personal attacks and partisan gridlock would turn anyone off. That's why we end up with career politicians who have no other skills than to run for office (see McConnell, Mitch) and love to listen to their own voices (see Ryan, Paul). I think term limits are actually a good thing, certainly at the national level where folks like McConnell, Pelosi and Reid have held sway for way too long to the detriment of both their parties and the country.
1
This article is case A for classic inoculation communication.
Inoculation theory states that to prevent persuasion it is necessary to strengthen preexisting attitudes, beliefs, or opinions. First, the receiver must be made aware of the potential vulnerability of an existing position (e.g., attitude, belief). This establishes a threat and initiates defenses to future attacks. The idea is that when a weak argument is presented in the inoculation message, processes of refutation or other means of protection will prepare for stronger arguments later. It is critical that the attack is strong enough to keep the receiver defensive, but weak enough to not actually change those preexisting ideas. This will hopefully make the receiver actively defensive and allow them to create arguments in favor of their preexisting thoughts. The more active the receiver becomes in his or her defense the more it will strengthen their own attitudes, beliefs, or opinions (McGuire, 1964).
i.e. it has the effect of preparing the receiver for more adverse future cases.
Well done.
Inoculation theory states that to prevent persuasion it is necessary to strengthen preexisting attitudes, beliefs, or opinions. First, the receiver must be made aware of the potential vulnerability of an existing position (e.g., attitude, belief). This establishes a threat and initiates defenses to future attacks. The idea is that when a weak argument is presented in the inoculation message, processes of refutation or other means of protection will prepare for stronger arguments later. It is critical that the attack is strong enough to keep the receiver defensive, but weak enough to not actually change those preexisting ideas. This will hopefully make the receiver actively defensive and allow them to create arguments in favor of their preexisting thoughts. The more active the receiver becomes in his or her defense the more it will strengthen their own attitudes, beliefs, or opinions (McGuire, 1964).
i.e. it has the effect of preparing the receiver for more adverse future cases.
Well done.
2
I read the first sentence and think, this is what passes for objective journalism?
"Senate Democrats, aware of the dead weight that Donald J. Trump has placed on their vulnerable Republican colleagues, can taste a reclaimed majority."
Dead weight? The candidates haven't even had their first debate. Clinton has far outspent Trump to this point and yet the race remains close.
Hillary Clinton is the dead weight. She's an awful candidate, boring, elusive and arguably corrupt to the core.
"Senate Democrats, aware of the dead weight that Donald J. Trump has placed on their vulnerable Republican colleagues, can taste a reclaimed majority."
Dead weight? The candidates haven't even had their first debate. Clinton has far outspent Trump to this point and yet the race remains close.
Hillary Clinton is the dead weight. She's an awful candidate, boring, elusive and arguably corrupt to the core.
8
I remember a chair of the DNC who had a plan to make the Democratic Party competitive in all 50 states. He called it a "50 state strategy." It included plans to build a deep bench for Democrats all over the country. After Howard Dean angered the Clinton's during the primaries in 2007, Obama replaced Dean with a Clinton flunky-and guess who is now Clinton's pick for VP? Tim Kaine immediately canceled Dean's 50 state strategy, and turned the DNC into the national Clinton campaign for president.
This is why so many people on the left see the Democratic Party as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Clinton family. And its why Democrats don't have a many viable candidates for any down ticket offices.
This is why so many people on the left see the Democratic Party as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Clinton family. And its why Democrats don't have a many viable candidates for any down ticket offices.
7
What smart, charismatic person would want to go into politics today? The 24-hour news cycle, starving for something to talk about, looks for every tiny issue it can turn into a "scandal." You're living under a microscope, along with your family -- if you can make a living doing something else, you'll do it, and we get the rejects.
3
The Big Wigs controlling the Democratic Senate races didn't support the strongest candidate in the primary against McGinty because of a vendetta. Ignorant outside $$ based on McGintys gender overwhelmed the local support $ for Sestak. Shame on them and heaven help us. Joe Sestak would have represented the state and our country better than the light weight McGinty.
2
There's an old line; "If the gods had wanted us to vote, they would have given us candidates."
Both the Republican and Democratic parties are still tied to an elite establishment (different segments, to be sure, but elites non the less). The Republicans got it together in the off-year 2010 election and brought in a bunch of fresh faces with the short-lived Tea Party wave. Most of them are now gone - several who had achieved power were toppled by even further right extreme primary opponents, funded by billionaires who believed even some of their own Tea Party wasn't really right-wing enough.
The Democratic leadership clique is desperately protecting its own jobs and its own elite base by undermining any candidates that endanger them - from Bernie Sanders all the way down-ballot. One problem is that the core of the Democratic leadership is aging and they have been systematically ignoring the younger generation of more progressive Democrats - even as their base is showing itself to be more and more progressive.
Actually, the progressives have always been there, but are systematically ignored by the leadership who blindly try to triangulate the mythical middle-of-the-road voters and disaffected "moderate Republicans" while they trusted fear of Republican victories to bring the liberals and progressives to the polls. Hence the Blue Dog DINOs.
Also, note how many Dem candidates are so old that, if elected, they will be lucky to serve out one six-year term in the Senate.
Both the Republican and Democratic parties are still tied to an elite establishment (different segments, to be sure, but elites non the less). The Republicans got it together in the off-year 2010 election and brought in a bunch of fresh faces with the short-lived Tea Party wave. Most of them are now gone - several who had achieved power were toppled by even further right extreme primary opponents, funded by billionaires who believed even some of their own Tea Party wasn't really right-wing enough.
The Democratic leadership clique is desperately protecting its own jobs and its own elite base by undermining any candidates that endanger them - from Bernie Sanders all the way down-ballot. One problem is that the core of the Democratic leadership is aging and they have been systematically ignoring the younger generation of more progressive Democrats - even as their base is showing itself to be more and more progressive.
Actually, the progressives have always been there, but are systematically ignored by the leadership who blindly try to triangulate the mythical middle-of-the-road voters and disaffected "moderate Republicans" while they trusted fear of Republican victories to bring the liberals and progressives to the polls. Hence the Blue Dog DINOs.
Also, note how many Dem candidates are so old that, if elected, they will be lucky to serve out one six-year term in the Senate.
2
Patrick Murphy, Far From Bombastic. Grayson a suit. RuBio a pawn for everything wrong with Government: anti-everything; hates science and clean air; promotes water pollution; not a fan of the Everglades. He even hates the job of Senator!
An additional problem is pay and obscene cost of elections. The $174,000 salary is not attractive to the best a brightest possible candidates. Then throw in time spent raising campaign funds rather than working on important policy. Neither party is regularly attacing the best candidates.
1
Weak bench + HRC's rather short coattails.
6
Weak, meaning they don't have great poll standings, but strong as titanium when it comes to being the better pick in every contest.
The GOP Senate has given us NOTHING in the way of leadership for years. Who can forget McConnell's call to defeat Obama at any cost?
The GOP Senate has given us NOTHING in the way of leadership for years. Who can forget McConnell's call to defeat Obama at any cost?
1
Sorry, but where is the evidence that Patrick Murphy is a "flawed candidate??" Yes, Alan Grayson's issues are well known (but also not documented here). But Murphy? This is not an opinion column. It's supposed to have facts, not smears.
1
Citizens of The United States of America are fed up and sick and tired of the same old, same old, two party system. Having only a "choice" -- a realistic choice between only a Democrat and a Republican-- is now no choice at all.
America needs to move to a government of Parliamentary constituencies in which there are several parties and government is so much more closer to the local citizens who truly know what is happening in their neighbourhoods, on their block, in their community, etc.
In Great Britain in 1935 a General Election was called that was not even supposed to take place until 1936. This is flexibility in and of government. In this British Election of 1935 there were Conservatives, Socialists, National Liberals, Opposition Liberals, National Labour and Opposition Labour; and all of these parties held seats in Parliament.
America is gridlocked and hamstrung now by its own form of government, its own form of elections, it's own form of governance and by campaign finance which is run by American business. The old maxim about what used to be good for General Motors. . .is coming back to haunt us in a very BAD way. This is a system which has proven NOT to work. This particular experiment in democracy has failed -- badly.
This article very well points out the lack of American leadership and the lack of American desire to lead. This business of who is red and who is blue has us colourblind to a greater spectrum of possible potential leadership talent.
America needs to move to a government of Parliamentary constituencies in which there are several parties and government is so much more closer to the local citizens who truly know what is happening in their neighbourhoods, on their block, in their community, etc.
In Great Britain in 1935 a General Election was called that was not even supposed to take place until 1936. This is flexibility in and of government. In this British Election of 1935 there were Conservatives, Socialists, National Liberals, Opposition Liberals, National Labour and Opposition Labour; and all of these parties held seats in Parliament.
America is gridlocked and hamstrung now by its own form of government, its own form of elections, it's own form of governance and by campaign finance which is run by American business. The old maxim about what used to be good for General Motors. . .is coming back to haunt us in a very BAD way. This is a system which has proven NOT to work. This particular experiment in democracy has failed -- badly.
This article very well points out the lack of American leadership and the lack of American desire to lead. This business of who is red and who is blue has us colourblind to a greater spectrum of possible potential leadership talent.
4
Those crazy Founding Fathers. If only they knew that brilliant folks like Grayson and Obama would come along, they would have made it easy for them to rule by fiat. (sic)
# # #
Reggie wrote:
"America is gridlocked and hamstrung now by its own form of government, its own form of elections..."
# # #
Reggie wrote:
"America is gridlocked and hamstrung now by its own form of government, its own form of elections..."
1
The Democratic Party's oligarchy is choosing right to center candidates and throwing aggressive progressive candidates aside. Grayson may be bombastic, but he pushes a strong liberal agenda and gets results. Patrick Murphy didn't even support Obama in the last Presidential election. Talk about income inequality and the Democratic leadership will freeze you out.
5
It is certainly true that voters must kick out the Pelosi's, the Wasserman Schultz's, and their aging and old cronies and colleagues and ilk. This applies to both sides of the aisle. The McConnell's need a good swift especially hard kick out the door, too.
2016 may just be the Election year that voters go to the polls, throw up the sash and yell out the window: "I'm mad as Hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" -- a la "Network." Americans no longer want a central government ruling out of Washington, D. C. Washington, D.C. is literally and figuratively out of touch with most of the nation. The House may still be of some benefit to the States. They Senate is an anachronism that is just a time and money waster. The Presidency is just a celebrity figure head position now held by the puppet strings of Hollywood.
Our entire government is a weak bench including the Bench of SCOTUS. We must ask ourselves why it takes The United States billions of dollars and two years to conduct a national Federal leadership election that takes Canada and most other nations only from six weeks to eleven in some instances. Is it any wonder that U.S. Voter lists are filled with the names of the deceased and that people who are no longer alive are counted as voters!?
Our entire system is not only undermined; it should be taken to the undertaker and buried.
2016 may just be the Election year that voters go to the polls, throw up the sash and yell out the window: "I'm mad as Hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" -- a la "Network." Americans no longer want a central government ruling out of Washington, D. C. Washington, D.C. is literally and figuratively out of touch with most of the nation. The House may still be of some benefit to the States. They Senate is an anachronism that is just a time and money waster. The Presidency is just a celebrity figure head position now held by the puppet strings of Hollywood.
Our entire government is a weak bench including the Bench of SCOTUS. We must ask ourselves why it takes The United States billions of dollars and two years to conduct a national Federal leadership election that takes Canada and most other nations only from six weeks to eleven in some instances. Is it any wonder that U.S. Voter lists are filled with the names of the deceased and that people who are no longer alive are counted as voters!?
Our entire system is not only undermined; it should be taken to the undertaker and buried.
5
Who really cares? Nothing is going to change in Washington anyway. Same old, same old. More obstructionism. More nothing gets done.
3
Not much about Sanders inspired grass roots including Brand New Congress from the campaign staff and local initiatives like @DemandDemocracyNY. Where is the bench for progressive journalists?
2
No mention of Debby Wasserman-Shultz? She is far from irrelevant in this conversation, as her myopic focus on Hillary for President is now rearing its ugly head.
7
In Pennsylvania, gerrymandering has thwarted both demographics and competent government. There are plenty of Democratic Party voters but the state is run by Tea Party idealouges so there's very little opportunity for local Democratic talent to grow. Thus was Katie McGinty plucked from obscurity by party bosses to oppose Toomey. She barely survived a three-way primary and may still squeak by Toomey as he cannot escape Trump's stink. Money is pouring in to finance an ad war that's truely stupifying. I guess we're better off if she wins but it will be on the job training.
5
Here in Georgia, the problem is that the Democratic Party has remained under the control of white-shoe, white-skin party leaders 13 years after Tom Murphy was driven out of the Speaker's chair. Although the majority of Georgia Democrats are black, we get retreads like Sam Nunn's daughter or Jimmy Carter's grandson. This year, the Democratic candidate for Senate is a Republican. All they look for is a candidate who can self-fund because they have zero connection with the grassroots. Then they have the nerve to send canvassers seeking money for locating candidates for down-ballot posts after the primary has already chosen those candidates. So we get Koch Brothers-funded candidates running against progressive incumbents in the legislature in the Democratic primary. The national party ought to have performance standards for state parties remaining active and connected in local communities.
3
Exactly. Democrats require a candidate like Obama with a skin color they like to get them excited enough to vote. All those boring old pasty white candidates don't excite democrats enough for them to bother getting out to vote. Want more democrats in office? Then your most important candidate characteristics should be their race. Candidate A may be experienced, intelligent, economically sound, and a foreign policy expert, but candidate B is black. Democrats must go with candidate B, the major racists of the 21st century.
3
Sounds like more disarray and lack of leadership in the Democratic Party.
1
Funny, the contrast between this article and a lead article in the Guardian, the same day:
"Women poised to lead Democratic return to power in the Senate"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/25/senate-women-democrats-m... Today USA - morning briefing 2016&utm_term=187714&subid=9842662&CMP=ema_a-morning-briefing_b-morning-briefing_c-US_d-1
"Women poised to lead Democratic return to power in the Senate"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/25/senate-women-democrats-m... Today USA - morning briefing 2016&utm_term=187714&subid=9842662&CMP=ema_a-morning-briefing_b-morning-briefing_c-US_d-1
1
Despite Trump muscling his way to top this primary, the GOP bench is the 1927 Yankees compared to the Democrat Party.
Young politicians don't like abortion on deman, tyranny, statism and insane progressivism.
Young politicians don't like abortion on deman, tyranny, statism and insane progressivism.
6
What have they done for you lately?
I will vote D straight across
I want action, change and progress
Obstruction should have a stiff price
I will vote D straight across
I want action, change and progress
Obstruction should have a stiff price
4
You have had "action change and progress" for eight years.
You don't like it?
You don't like it?
1
Unfortunately the PC culture has convinced many Americans that only Democrats can be crooked, surly, disparaging and character assassins. Republicans must endure acting like door mats and duck for cover like a herd of sheep. Mitt Romney was a nice gut, but the liberal media still destroyed him and the same is happening to the Donald. Republican's can make very few mistakes in their run for the national office and it seems the Donald just can't stop his rants, sad really as I think he may have been able to clean up Washington D.C.
3
As Will Rogers once quipped, "I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat." That was in 1935; unfortunately, little has changed since then.
4
Here in south central Pennsylvania, the Democratic candidate for the 9th congressional district is a tea party Republican who is running to the right of the Republican nominee. We lonely Democrats are tired of being ignored by the national and state committees who do nothing to recruit and support real Democratic candidates in these red districts.
4
Look to Montana's current Governor, Steve Bullock. If he can win his re-election race this year against a newly minted billionaire trying to buy his way into the office, his next step should be the Senate or higher office yet nationally. He has been very effective these past four years in keeping the crazies at bay in the Montana legislature. Smart, competent and a genuine leader.
2
Reading this article I would be left with the impression that Deborah Ross had never served in political office, which is not the case. She served in the NC State Assembly. In the context of the article that fact would seem at least important as her having been a civil rights lawyer. I am a NC resident and will vote for her any day over the incumbent.
4
Just like Hillary Clinton, any Democrat will look good compared to the ignorance and hate associated with the (R) next to their opponent. This election shouldn't be a tough choice for any decent person.
3
The Democratic Party has no bench because the party establishment, led by the Clintons (and their hand-picked operative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz), have spent the last two decades systematically using the party resources to stamp out any trace of dissent from their corporate driven agenda. The problem that is now coming home to roost is that the dissenters represented the future of the party, while the Clintons represent the past.
2016 has been a year in which both parties have been racing to see which would implode first. Thanks to Donald Trump, the GOP has "won" that race, and as a result, it appears pretty certain that Hillary will be the next President. But I think the Democrats' turn will come in 2020.
2016 has been a year in which both parties have been racing to see which would implode first. Thanks to Donald Trump, the GOP has "won" that race, and as a result, it appears pretty certain that Hillary will be the next President. But I think the Democrats' turn will come in 2020.
9
Young "progressives" and Bernie and other elders who egg them on are grossly unrealistic in their goals and prescriptions for federal governance. They fail to reckon with severe defectiveness of implementation and terminal bureaucratic paralysis of many Federal programs, including the ACA, the 'new" Center for Medicare services, VA services, the FAA, the FDA, Federal prisons, support of native American communities... and on and on. In addition, they fail to come to grips with the actual distributions of beliefs and opinions in the nation, which make it unlikely they will ever prevail in national elections.
4
"Democrats have also complained that the party has not worked hard enough to promote an agenda that is appealing to the party’s growing base of progressive whites, nonwhites and millennials, fearing that such policies could turn off older, more traditional Democratic voters."
Tell the truth. The DNC fears turning off their donors. The DNC has turned the Democratic party into the new Wall Street party. That growing base is the future, but the DNC will go down kicking and screaming. And losing in the process.
Tell the truth. The DNC fears turning off their donors. The DNC has turned the Democratic party into the new Wall Street party. That growing base is the future, but the DNC will go down kicking and screaming. And losing in the process.
11
Pennsylvania had a strong candidate in Sestak, but the dmocratic machine threw its weight and money behind McGlinty, a candidate compromised by fracking money. If Toomey can carry the state in this election, it will be their fault.
7
There are not 99 state legislatures! Chambers is the word.
2
Recruiting viable candidates for Senate and Congressional seats is one of the primary duties of the DNC.
Yet again, in her ham-handed efforts to promote herself and aid Hillary Clinton, Debbie Wasserman Schultz was a catastrophe as the DNC Chair. She should have been replaced after the 2014 debacle that had both Allison Grimes and Susan Nunn running as (losing) "Republicans-Lite", but, no, she was left in place. I put the blame evenly on President Obama and Sec. Clinton for that colossal blunder. And the resulting poor candidates in an opportune moment. Only if Clinton can maintain the landslide the polls currently show will Democrats reclaim the Senate.
And what about the House?
Yet again, in her ham-handed efforts to promote herself and aid Hillary Clinton, Debbie Wasserman Schultz was a catastrophe as the DNC Chair. She should have been replaced after the 2014 debacle that had both Allison Grimes and Susan Nunn running as (losing) "Republicans-Lite", but, no, she was left in place. I put the blame evenly on President Obama and Sec. Clinton for that colossal blunder. And the resulting poor candidates in an opportune moment. Only if Clinton can maintain the landslide the polls currently show will Democrats reclaim the Senate.
And what about the House?
7
Get those minds (and as many as you can) so Socialism can proliferate.
There is something to be said when old politicians fail to exercise wisdom. This article says it. Anyone with half a brain knows that during an extensive time in a position of power, it is incumbent upon a person to groom as many people as possible to succeed to the position and then to leave the position before one becomes a dinosaur. In spite of the lack of such wisdom among some Democratic politicians, it is my fervent hope, nonetheless, that the electorate will see the wisdom of electing a Democratic Senate, even with the inexperienced, to insure legislative progress in the nation. The stunning recalcitrance of the Republican Senate over the past eight years must be repudiated.
5
"After the 2008 elections, Democrats controlled 62 of the 99 state legislatures; today, Republicans control 68 chambers, according to Governing magazine. Over the same time period, the number of Democrats in governor’s mansions fell from 28 to 18. In both cases, Republican control is now at or near historic highs."
Thank you for quantifying the extent of control that the Republican party has over American affairs. Toss in control of the House and the Senate and it seems clear to me that, if America is really in the fix that some candidates say it is, Republicans should step up and take their fair share of responsibility for the situation. They're running the company. I've been waiting at least 35 years for them to get it running right.
Thank you for quantifying the extent of control that the Republican party has over American affairs. Toss in control of the House and the Senate and it seems clear to me that, if America is really in the fix that some candidates say it is, Republicans should step up and take their fair share of responsibility for the situation. They're running the company. I've been waiting at least 35 years for them to get it running right.
6
Since you decided to illustrate your article with Katie McGinty, I feel that I, as a Pennsylvanian, should comment. Her qualifications are better than Pat Toomey's when he last ran. Furthermore, McGinty is progressive, which is consistent with the majority in this state. Toomey is decidedly not. She would also be Pennsylvania's first woman senator -- long overdue. McGinty offers Pennsylvanians a welcome alternative.
9
Gov. Wolf unloaded McGinty, John Hanger and John Quigley, psychotic darlings of the progressive left, and Wolf has been doing very well ever since.
1
If Clinton has to face a Republican House and Senate, the end result will be nothing less than what America has suffered through for the last eight years: a "We'll stop you at every turn." mindset enforced by Republicans angered at Trump's rejection by the voters.
This coming election is not even remotely just about the President. All aspects of the vote results are vital.
This coming election is not even remotely just about the President. All aspects of the vote results are vital.
5
One thing that the Democrats have excelled at is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, over and over and over again. That's what terrifies me come November.
9
The Democrats are the party of static obsequence to never changing power groups; groups such as the teacher unions which refuse to compromise on rules, pay and benefits for the betterment of the students and the community. Locally, where Democrats lead, voters are disgusted with the inability to affect reform in the most vital of services local governments are supposed to provide. And so schools are run to the benefit of the union while education levels show no improvement despite ever increasing allocation of funds.
The Republicans are supporters of charter schools, ending tenure, and serious grading of educator's performance - all things opposed by Democrats. Then there are the public workers' budget busting pensions and benefits. Witness too many Democrat run cities and states - need I list them? - teetering on the verge of financial collapse thanks to past and current Democrat giveaways.
In states and cities across the nation Democrat rule equals high taxes, crummy services, and broken budgets. Democrats have lost locally because they refuse to listen to the will of the people - so they get thrown out.
The Republicans are supporters of charter schools, ending tenure, and serious grading of educator's performance - all things opposed by Democrats. Then there are the public workers' budget busting pensions and benefits. Witness too many Democrat run cities and states - need I list them? - teetering on the verge of financial collapse thanks to past and current Democrat giveaways.
In states and cities across the nation Democrat rule equals high taxes, crummy services, and broken budgets. Democrats have lost locally because they refuse to listen to the will of the people - so they get thrown out.
7
This country has never, in my lifetime, been so racially divided as it has been under Obama's rule. I didn't support him but I thought he would do us good. I was wrong, sadly wrong. Now we are being subjected to another liar and a cheat. Just say no to Hillary.
10
It's racially divided because of the racists who have emerged out of the closet in the wake of Obama coming into power. It's not his fault. Blame racial animosity on the racists!
3
Even in my home state of California our 'realistic' choices for senator this year are both centrist, establishment, bought-and-paid-for Democrats. Kamala easily won the primary because the Democratic Party told its members to vote for her, but she is deeply uninspiring to say the least. Why? Because the Democratic Party has long had a way of anointing people they can control and shutting anyone else out of the process. It's the old Clinton-style patronage and loyalty network. Just look at the recent presidential primary!
Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats in power cannot stand their base. This has been true since the first Clinton presidency, and will carry through ever more strongly under the second Clinton presidency. A small group at the top have grabbed all of the power and oxygen, suffocating those beneath them. For actual progressives (you know, people who are active and interested and may actually consider running!) there's no hope. Why bother running within a party that will do everything it can to hinder your campaign and nothing to help it?
Until the Democratic Party starts reflecting its voters rather than its largely old, monied, conservative elected officials it will continue to be irrelevant at the state level.
Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats in power cannot stand their base. This has been true since the first Clinton presidency, and will carry through ever more strongly under the second Clinton presidency. A small group at the top have grabbed all of the power and oxygen, suffocating those beneath them. For actual progressives (you know, people who are active and interested and may actually consider running!) there's no hope. Why bother running within a party that will do everything it can to hinder your campaign and nothing to help it?
Until the Democratic Party starts reflecting its voters rather than its largely old, monied, conservative elected officials it will continue to be irrelevant at the state level.
12
I do not believe my eyes, I thought congress has some how managed to move into a new age bracket instead of moving into an older age bracket. It's time that the average congressional demographic (age group) should be much, much younger. Now I'm not saying that they should be denied the right to run for office, though I do believe that as times, change candidates that are 76 to 82 their ideas are no longer relative. They have outlived their usefulness as an effective Senator or a Representative.
This country needs younger blood people who's ideas are relative to the mainstream pubic. I think we all can agree at 74 to 82 it's time to retire and move on. That's the key that both parties seem to miss.
This country needs younger blood people who's ideas are relative to the mainstream pubic. I think we all can agree at 74 to 82 it's time to retire and move on. That's the key that both parties seem to miss.
2
If Democrats want to build a strong bench, then Bernie Sanders would not have been the leader to do that. He spent his career as an independent. He's an ideas guy, not a build-the-party kind of guy. It's politicians like Clinton and Pelosi who have done fund-raising to build the party.
4
Sanders is the 25-years-in-Congress-and-didn't-accomplish-anything kind of guy.
2
Its shameful to think the Dems only have to defend 10 seats and the GOP 24 and still the Democrats cant take back the Senate. The old cliché applies to the Democrats: They always manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
1
Democrats with a weak bench? How could that be possible when democrats have that cornerstone of democracy, the super-delegates? Or when the DNC puts fingers on the scale to advantage one candidate over the other? Or when the DNC rams one of the most disliked candidates of the last ten presidential cycles down our throats (t's not just me, that's according to Five-Thirty-Eight)?
It's not a weak bench, it's a corrupt, moribund political party.
It's not a weak bench, it's a corrupt, moribund political party.
8
This is where Bernie's disappointed followers could best serve the country. Go local and state; elect the people you want in the White House in the coming years. I completely agree that the Democratic leadership could be in serious trouble in the very near future. Now is the time to act.
7
You're right Mr. Axelrod that you had a part in this. It's called OFA. What's OFA doing now and what did it accomplish, other than gutting local parties and depriving them of volunteers?
3
Let's be honest. The lack of strong Democratic candidates has nothing to do with those "in the bench". When those who hold state office are mostly Republicans it's because the voters favor Republicans. Leave it to the Times to attribute Republican dominance to scheming on the part of the Republican party. Somebody should tell them that voters vote for who they want in office and it's quote apparent that they want Republicans. Any other explanation is poppycock.
4
"a base increasingly insistent on a progressive agenda." The pure progressive agenda does not have majority support outside a few places like Berkeley. So trashing anyone who does not reliably jerk their knee at this or that element of the progressive agenda doesn't work out well.
5
Ah. Exactly what yesterday's comment was referring too. I will state it again-i am still baffled to why democrats went with Patty Judge in Iowa. Her time as Secretary of Agriculture has not exactly endeared her to the people of Iowa.
Furthermore, people like Chuck-even though he chooses to march behind McConnell's obstructionist beat. The reasonings I hear are,"well he used to work with both sides of the aisle." Key words, "used to."
With that said, I am independent. However, after writing my senator (Chuck) and getting a generic email back-pointing towards a right wing rag for proof of not having a hearing-I will not for him. In addition to this, I called one of his field offices and his assistant spoke to me with disgust; like I should bother Chuck with such a miniscule thing, but she did say she would "put a tally down and send word to D.C." Give me a break lady, they were on a recess!
Furthermore, people like Chuck-even though he chooses to march behind McConnell's obstructionist beat. The reasonings I hear are,"well he used to work with both sides of the aisle." Key words, "used to."
With that said, I am independent. However, after writing my senator (Chuck) and getting a generic email back-pointing towards a right wing rag for proof of not having a hearing-I will not for him. In addition to this, I called one of his field offices and his assistant spoke to me with disgust; like I should bother Chuck with such a miniscule thing, but she did say she would "put a tally down and send word to D.C." Give me a break lady, they were on a recess!
5
Weak, yet still 60% likely to retake the Senate according the the NY Times own Upshot column. Look at how weak Clinton is, since the invention of modern polling, a candidate in her position has not lost. But then, it's gonna tighten up its gonna be close, because the NYTimes wants it to be to sell Ads, and because they hate Clinton and the party She represents...
Everyone should ask themselves how the Times would be covering this election if Mr Trump were up by the same margins- I'm betting it would all be about how Hillary lost her chance, how weak the Democrats are to not have a shot at taking the Senate...
Up or Down, it really would be the same Times story...
Everyone should ask themselves how the Times would be covering this election if Mr Trump were up by the same margins- I'm betting it would all be about how Hillary lost her chance, how weak the Democrats are to not have a shot at taking the Senate...
Up or Down, it really would be the same Times story...
The fallacy in this article's assumption that Democrats must be "progressives" to be winners is shown by the success of conservative Democrat Evan Bayh in Indiana. Since Bayh has entered the Senate race, the Democrats have gone from ten points down, to ten points ahead in the polls.
7
Corporate Democrats will always have difficulty unseating the more local Republicans.
While winning their state's national offices should be easy for Democrats, Republicans, conservatives and a large swath of moderates generally view Democrats as 'way to the left' liberals as opposed to moderate liberals with a radical agenda financed by big time Hollywood or New York money. As a consequence, when you are talking about various degrees of stigmatized money in politics, the Democrats have managed to steal the mantel of 'dirtier money' from the shady traditional Republican financial networks such as the Koch brothers and their use of Citizens United.
In other words, it's currently more acceptable to take money from Sheldon Adelson than from Barbara Streisand ( Striezand ) because the mainstream American voter in Iowa or Florida sees the later coming with social liberal 'strings' that force 'too much' social change.
And to the mainstream demographic, resisting change is as normal as drinking your morning coffee.
While winning their state's national offices should be easy for Democrats, Republicans, conservatives and a large swath of moderates generally view Democrats as 'way to the left' liberals as opposed to moderate liberals with a radical agenda financed by big time Hollywood or New York money. As a consequence, when you are talking about various degrees of stigmatized money in politics, the Democrats have managed to steal the mantel of 'dirtier money' from the shady traditional Republican financial networks such as the Koch brothers and their use of Citizens United.
In other words, it's currently more acceptable to take money from Sheldon Adelson than from Barbara Streisand ( Striezand ) because the mainstream American voter in Iowa or Florida sees the later coming with social liberal 'strings' that force 'too much' social change.
And to the mainstream demographic, resisting change is as normal as drinking your morning coffee.
2
There is only one issue in this election that will matter.
[Maybe other issue should.]
Many in the 99% have lost economic status over the past 30 years.
They will vote for the party candidates whom they believe will improve their status.
The blue collar worker who once worked at a job paying $30 /hr and now [if employed] is earning $10 /hr will vote for the candidate who promises to restore his job.
Whether Trump's "solutions' will accomplish this is irrelevant.
If these voters believe Trump they will vote for him.
At least Trump is speaking to their issues.
Clinton is not.
Equal pay for equal work while desireable will not get the worker back his $30 /hr job.
Paying both the male and female worker the same low $10/her wage [while "fair"] does not help either sex.
[Maybe other issue should.]
Many in the 99% have lost economic status over the past 30 years.
They will vote for the party candidates whom they believe will improve their status.
The blue collar worker who once worked at a job paying $30 /hr and now [if employed] is earning $10 /hr will vote for the candidate who promises to restore his job.
Whether Trump's "solutions' will accomplish this is irrelevant.
If these voters believe Trump they will vote for him.
At least Trump is speaking to their issues.
Clinton is not.
Equal pay for equal work while desireable will not get the worker back his $30 /hr job.
Paying both the male and female worker the same low $10/her wage [while "fair"] does not help either sex.
17
"Equal pay for equal work while desirable will not get the worker back his $30/hr job. Paying both the male and female worker the same low $10/hr wage, while "fair", does not help either sex."
Got it. As a woman, I'm supposed to be content with my inferior pay, but outraged on behalf of the men now forced to share it with me. Good luck with THAT argument, especially as white blue collar men no longer dominate the electorate. They need the rest of us now. Which means there is NOT "only one issue that matters" in this election. If they want prosperity back, they'd better figure out quickly that granting everyone an equal opportunity in it is the only way they'll achieve a voting majority.
Got it. As a woman, I'm supposed to be content with my inferior pay, but outraged on behalf of the men now forced to share it with me. Good luck with THAT argument, especially as white blue collar men no longer dominate the electorate. They need the rest of us now. Which means there is NOT "only one issue that matters" in this election. If they want prosperity back, they'd better figure out quickly that granting everyone an equal opportunity in it is the only way they'll achieve a voting majority.
You have misunderstood my post or maybe I didn't express myself well.
I meant to say [and I hoped people understo od] that for the blue collar worker who has lost his OR her $30/hr job the only issue that matters to them is getting their job back.
There are of course other important issues but for the person [male or female] who [if even employed] is struggling in a
$10 /hr job his or her economic well being is all that matters.
Hillary should be saying more how she would restore good paying blue collar jobs for BOTH men and women.
Just talking about equal pay for equal work does not address the issue of restoring good playing blue collar jobs.
I meant to say [and I hoped people understo od] that for the blue collar worker who has lost his OR her $30/hr job the only issue that matters to them is getting their job back.
There are of course other important issues but for the person [male or female] who [if even employed] is struggling in a
$10 /hr job his or her economic well being is all that matters.
Hillary should be saying more how she would restore good paying blue collar jobs for BOTH men and women.
Just talking about equal pay for equal work does not address the issue of restoring good playing blue collar jobs.
1
It is not only men who want to underpay women.
http://wamc.org/post/dr-vanessa-may-seton-hall-university-labor-law-and-...
Domestics represented the largest category of women workers before 1940 but were excluded from wage and hour legislation until 1974. In contrast, many women industrial workers were covered by labor laws as early as 1908. By 1938, New Deal labor legislation covered both men and women. How had domestics been left out of these reforms?
In 1938, reformers launched a nationwide campaign to pass state labor laws for workers not covered by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, including domestics. In New York, two bills proposed a minimum wage and maximum hours for domestics. Surprisingly, prominent WOMEN'S organizations, including the YWCA, the Consumers' League, the League of Women Voters, and the Women's City Club, refused to fully support the bills. These groups had lobbied hard for the Fair Labor Standards Act. They had written, campaigned for, and championed much of the progressive legislation that made the New Deal transformative. A bill for domestic labor standards could not pass without their support.
Why were they so reluctant? First, the members of these organizations were middle and upper-class women worried about maintaining access to CHEAP household help. They, like professionals today, depended on domestics to do the housework while they pursued other interests.
http://wamc.org/post/dr-vanessa-may-seton-hall-university-labor-law-and-...
Domestics represented the largest category of women workers before 1940 but were excluded from wage and hour legislation until 1974. In contrast, many women industrial workers were covered by labor laws as early as 1908. By 1938, New Deal labor legislation covered both men and women. How had domestics been left out of these reforms?
In 1938, reformers launched a nationwide campaign to pass state labor laws for workers not covered by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, including domestics. In New York, two bills proposed a minimum wage and maximum hours for domestics. Surprisingly, prominent WOMEN'S organizations, including the YWCA, the Consumers' League, the League of Women Voters, and the Women's City Club, refused to fully support the bills. These groups had lobbied hard for the Fair Labor Standards Act. They had written, campaigned for, and championed much of the progressive legislation that made the New Deal transformative. A bill for domestic labor standards could not pass without their support.
Why were they so reluctant? First, the members of these organizations were middle and upper-class women worried about maintaining access to CHEAP household help. They, like professionals today, depended on domestics to do the housework while they pursued other interests.
The biggest problem is that anyone who's ever had a taste of politics knows that it is a viscous arena where candidates are raked across the coals. Nobody who values his or her sanity would voluntarily go into that ring unless they had immense amounts of money and serious backing. And those backers don't want antthing to change. So we wind up over and over with the same kind of candidate. No new ideas are propounded or have a chance to take root. Nothing will change until we get rid of these years-long campaigns that eat up millions of dollars. Citizens United has to be overturned and campaign reform instituted. Until these things happen, we'll keep seeing the same old type of candidates on both sides of the aisle.
19
"The Democrats’ problem stems from a depletion of their ranks in state legislatures and governors’ mansions over recent years and a lack of institutional support for grass-roots-level politicians who represent a changing base."
A number of us commenters have been saying precisely that for the past several years. The most important thing progressives of any hue need to focus on this year are the state legislative races. (The "establishment" will take care of the presidential campaign.) Those are the people who, after the 2020 census, will get to gerrymander the state legislative and Congressional districts. That will determine much of American politics and policy for the following decade.
The Republicans figured this out quite awhile ago, which is why, after the 2010 census, they were in a position to take over Congressional delegations and state legislatures far in excess of their proportion of a state's voters.
A number of us commenters have been saying precisely that for the past several years. The most important thing progressives of any hue need to focus on this year are the state legislative races. (The "establishment" will take care of the presidential campaign.) Those are the people who, after the 2020 census, will get to gerrymander the state legislative and Congressional districts. That will determine much of American politics and policy for the following decade.
The Republicans figured this out quite awhile ago, which is why, after the 2010 census, they were in a position to take over Congressional delegations and state legislatures far in excess of their proportion of a state's voters.
10
Boo hoo, all our candidates are corrupt free-traders.
6
Can't speak for other states but here in CA we'll be electing Kamala Harris, a forty-something, progressive, woman of color to succeed Barbara Boxer so the bench will certainly be filling up in the future.
14
The Koch brothers wisely put their and their associates money into state legislative, gubernatorial and judicial races. The GOP in general successfully channeled their efforts into gerrymandering and voter suppression.
The Democrats continue to fumble the ball.
The Democratic establishment has to wise up to the fact that it's neoliberal, Clintonian-Republican-lite strategy has lived well beyond its shelf life and has served the party exceedingly ill.
Although the majority of American voters are becoming increasingly aware that both the Democratic and GOP establishments have long heeded the bidding of their donors--sadly to the detriment of the nation's welfare--I fear neither party fully comprehends the lessons to be learned from the Sanders insurgency or from the Trump fiasco.
The Democrats still have some hope of returning to their F.D.R. New Deal roots.
The hopelessly fragmented GOP, severely fragmented with all fragments ever swirling far-rightward, is beyond all possibility of redemption.
The Democrats continue to fumble the ball.
The Democratic establishment has to wise up to the fact that it's neoliberal, Clintonian-Republican-lite strategy has lived well beyond its shelf life and has served the party exceedingly ill.
Although the majority of American voters are becoming increasingly aware that both the Democratic and GOP establishments have long heeded the bidding of their donors--sadly to the detriment of the nation's welfare--I fear neither party fully comprehends the lessons to be learned from the Sanders insurgency or from the Trump fiasco.
The Democrats still have some hope of returning to their F.D.R. New Deal roots.
The hopelessly fragmented GOP, severely fragmented with all fragments ever swirling far-rightward, is beyond all possibility of redemption.
12
Andrew, what held FDR's coalition together was racism -- the price of passing the New Deal was giving southern states the practical authority to exclude black citizens from the programs.
As a white person, I look around and doubt that we've changed much. You may despise pragmatic (aka neo-) liberals, but the truth is, they understand this fact while most progressives ignore it. You can pretend that tribal biases don't exist or don't matter, but they do. And they are more powerful, in most cases, than rational ideas for economic improvement.
As a white person, I look around and doubt that we've changed much. You may despise pragmatic (aka neo-) liberals, but the truth is, they understand this fact while most progressives ignore it. You can pretend that tribal biases don't exist or don't matter, but they do. And they are more powerful, in most cases, than rational ideas for economic improvement.
My adoptive state seems not to exist in democratic politics, although we have a democratic governor, who guided the state to a 2 billion dollar surplus, two democratic senators, both witty and smart (Klobuchar and Franken) and two very bright representatives, one a Muslim, representing the Twin Cities in Congress. Why not pay some attention to what goes on in a state that really works, at least more often than the Federal government does? Oh yes, we also have a healthy grass roots politics with high voter turn out. Maybe we should secede and join Canada.
32
Don't forget that dog there that's been elected mayor there three times now.
1
There's no "weak" candidate that isn't better than anything the party of Trump could come up with.
14
Who, of sound intellect, spirit, mind and body, would want in 2016 to be a US politician – Democrat or Republican?
Notice how many US Nobel Laureates, well-known writers, directors and successful business owners – no, that doesn't include you Donald – are putting up their hand for the honour.
Demagogues, shysters and, of course, 'losers' – as Mr Trumpkin would bellow. We get the politicians and the leaders we deserve.
Notice how many US Nobel Laureates, well-known writers, directors and successful business owners – no, that doesn't include you Donald – are putting up their hand for the honour.
Demagogues, shysters and, of course, 'losers' – as Mr Trumpkin would bellow. We get the politicians and the leaders we deserve.
9
The Democrats have decided that weakness is better than strength. I think it might be because they are weak people with weak ideology.
13
Right and Trump is the only one with a sound plan.
1
That was definitely not what I was trying to say with that. I don't even know what a Republican is anymore. I think we need real political change in America, I don't think Trump offers it, maybe he offers some kind of change, but change for its own sake is not only ineffective, it's potentially dangerous. I find myself with what I believe is the majority of Americans, we are disgusted by the lack of real political representation for the common man, we are frustrated by seeing our values trampled by politicians who don't care about our needs, we're sick and tired of having to vote for the lesser of two evils. The mainstream media has become a mouthpiece for the mainstream political parties, the non-mainstream media pretty much seems to just be a lot of conspiracy theories and ranting. It feels more and more like a hopeless situation where we who truly desire to participate as citizens are systematically marginalized and replaced by shouting mouths and soundbites. That was me trying my hand at a soundbite and I just came off as a disgruntled bigot. So there ya go.
2
I do agree that Democrats lack of success at the state level will hurt us long term and we need to think more about local politics and state government. However, this article cherrypicks and provides very little evidence.
Why no mention of the following races that would have made for a vey different article: Ann Kirkpatrick in AZ, Maggie Hassan in NH, Duckworth in IL, Portman in OH and Feingold in WI.
Here is a strong bench (to name a few that come to mind):
Kamala Harris
Gavin Newsom
Joseph P Kennedy
Kirsten Gillibrand
Tammy Duckworth
Cory Booker
Julian and Joaquin Castro
Eric Garcetii
Why no mention of the following races that would have made for a vey different article: Ann Kirkpatrick in AZ, Maggie Hassan in NH, Duckworth in IL, Portman in OH and Feingold in WI.
Here is a strong bench (to name a few that come to mind):
Kamala Harris
Gavin Newsom
Joseph P Kennedy
Kirsten Gillibrand
Tammy Duckworth
Cory Booker
Julian and Joaquin Castro
Eric Garcetii
11
The reason this article is so simple-minded and relatively free from facts- like showing a chart of the states ( at least on the mobile version) and mentioning only a few candidates is because the progressives are working to gain ground in all states and this media outlet's owners do not want to publicize that too too much. Just a little, in order to say they do report that news! But not too much!
The "weak" candidates are Republi-Trumps, but if you ignore that, then the second best target is a Democrat.
So, why ignore the Republi-Trumps? (This is a message to the Dems who worry about how to apologize instead of going for the throat of a weak opponent.)
So, why ignore the Republi-Trumps? (This is a message to the Dems who worry about how to apologize instead of going for the throat of a weak opponent.)
5
In these days of media-crazy, it doe NOT matter who the candidates are, as much as having highly EFFECTIVE MEDIA publicists and strategy, and the money to use it. Even if the candidate is a ham sandwich!
7
The GOP hit on this idea a few years ago, realizing that a million bucks (or even a measly few hundred thousand) can easily swing a state or local race. That's how they turned the tide. The phenomenon is well documented. They opened this Pandora's box and Dems are only recently really understanding what happened and how.
There are two ways this can play out. The first is the lost unlikely: sweeping campaign finance reform at the state level to limit outside money. Most likely, Dems learn the game and figure out how to play better in the coming years. With option 2, we'll have a power shift eventually, but of course it'll only lead to a spiraling effect that guarantees eventually it'll cost $1M to run for county dog catcher and $200m to run for senate...
There are two ways this can play out. The first is the lost unlikely: sweeping campaign finance reform at the state level to limit outside money. Most likely, Dems learn the game and figure out how to play better in the coming years. With option 2, we'll have a power shift eventually, but of course it'll only lead to a spiraling effect that guarantees eventually it'll cost $1M to run for county dog catcher and $200m to run for senate...
13
The reason Republicans did so well at state and local levels is because of Obama! He's the best thing to happen to the Republican party since Jimmy Carter. Both mid-terms elections were deep repudiations of Obama and all his divisive progressive policies.
1
NP is brilliant, one of the most effective speakers in our history. Just look at her accomplishments in 2008-10, and continued as minority leader. She must stay.
10
As usual the Democrats aren't doing long term planning and developing their organization to build talent or work for the future. They do the same thing with their policies, go borrow like mad while in office and then kick the can down the road. At least they are consistent with their flawed debt ideology.
5
I see no reason for the Democrats to worry about a "weak" bench in the senate elections especially since the Republicans have been so weak they are the epitome of a do-nothing group of NRA paid hucksters. Republican legislatures across the state have gerrymandered the legislative districts to ensure a republican majority. Hopefully the independents and democrats will turn out in force to defeat 6 or so on the national front. Maybe then, we will have some that care about this country and pass legislation that will help cure out ills.
9
You can talk about "weak" candidates all you want NYT but it obscures the Dems real problems which are demographic, financial and to an extent self-inflicted.
Decades ago, the Republicans set out with a well financed, well organized effort at the grass roots to elect city, county and school board positions. They then built upon that success aided by right wing entertainers on radio and Fox News to elect state legislators who then gerrymandered their own seats and those of the congressional delegation. Dems became a party of Presidential elections with only a vestigial organization in many places when it came to lesser offices.
Then add in the loss of most straight white males, most white elderly (the most consistent voters) and a heavy dependence on black and brown voters who either don't vote their numbers ever (Hispanics) or don't vote off-year (black voters). Until Sanders came along Dems were too much into culture war arguments and not enough into financial, economic and tax justice issues.
Decades ago, the Republicans set out with a well financed, well organized effort at the grass roots to elect city, county and school board positions. They then built upon that success aided by right wing entertainers on radio and Fox News to elect state legislators who then gerrymandered their own seats and those of the congressional delegation. Dems became a party of Presidential elections with only a vestigial organization in many places when it came to lesser offices.
Then add in the loss of most straight white males, most white elderly (the most consistent voters) and a heavy dependence on black and brown voters who either don't vote their numbers ever (Hispanics) or don't vote off-year (black voters). Until Sanders came along Dems were too much into culture war arguments and not enough into financial, economic and tax justice issues.
16
Dem's need to inform their supporters that by only showing up at the polls for presidential elections, if they really want a "revolution" they should never miss a local or state election or referrendum. Until that happens don't expect to see an end to gridlock.
8
Gwen Graham left the House (primarily) not because of frustration of House leadership but her district's redrawn boundaries. Her district's new boundaries guarantee a Republican victory and there is no point of running (and spending political capital) for reelection.
3
Hillary seems to lack the willingness to link the Republicans to Trump. Treating him as an outlier is a mistake.
4
Democrats bed get off their duffs to rally and pursue seats in the Congressional election! Up and at 'em! !
5
The problem with running Ted Strickland against Rob Portman is that he was governor of Ohio during the Great Recession. That means that our state, just like every other state, lost jobs and had to dip into our savings to balance the budget without cutting vital public services, making whoever was governor at the time an easy target for attack ads.
1
Yes, but Strickland's campaign should have run ads which placed the blame for that recession squarely where it belonged -- with G.W. Bush and the Republican Party. If reminded, people would remember how that financial collapse came about, that it affected the entire country, and who was in charge at the time. The Strickland campaign apparently decided not to run such ads. I have no clue as to their rationale, but I think it was a big mistake. Is there still time???
7
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee put their thumb on the scale in Iowa by endorsing late-comer Patty Judge in the Senate primary race. That provided national publicity and fund-raising for her over other younger and more progressive Democratic primary Senatorial candidates who had been running grass root campaigns in Iowa for months. Consequently, Judge was able to buy much more campaign publicity, even though the others had more major Iowa endorsements. The DSCC should have stayed out of the way so that everyone could have competed on an even playing field in the primary. It's another example of the national Democratic Party's lack of attention to building their bench and preference for veteran politicians over newcomers.
9
This and other comments relating to the DSCC point out the problem is that the party no longer runs candidates, the candidates run themselves. This started at the presidential level, perhaps as a result of the need to win primaries -- the presidential campaign organization is more important the party. Donald and Hillary run only for Donald and Hillary, not for a ticket. Hillary should be spending some of her hundreds of millions on congressional candidates who can make or break her ability to govern. At the congressional level, the search for self-funding candidates has also reduced the influence of the party. The Republicans have mastered the art of getting their incumbents to give to leadership PACs and House/Senate Campaign Committees in return for plum appointments, and the Democrats are adopting the same bad practices. In the absence of a party united in ideology, more personal bonds of ambition and power will triumph over principle.
The premise of the article is that Democrats have a weak bench. But the piece cites the decisions of Democratic US Representatives Gwen Graham and Chris Van Hollen to run for higher office as evidence of "frustration." Sounds more like reasonable ambition to me.
And it dispenses with the strong Democratic candidates in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin in a single sentence.
Late August is replete with lazy, hazy days. But the Times can do better than lazy, hazy, quote-the-usual-subjects articles that struggle to advance a premise unsupported by facts.
And it dispenses with the strong Democratic candidates in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin in a single sentence.
Late August is replete with lazy, hazy days. But the Times can do better than lazy, hazy, quote-the-usual-subjects articles that struggle to advance a premise unsupported by facts.
5
"less than stellar candidates with various flaws"
You must mean Hillary!
How did we get into such a jam? One terrible crazy man, reckless, might provoke wars
One of dubious judgement, honesty, etc.
disaster. How will we survive this?
Can't we have a do-over of the primaries?
You must mean Hillary!
How did we get into such a jam? One terrible crazy man, reckless, might provoke wars
One of dubious judgement, honesty, etc.
disaster. How will we survive this?
Can't we have a do-over of the primaries?
13
The mocking isn't new or enlightening. Enough already.
5
One wonders if Joe Biden didn't sabotage the viable candidate, a retired admiral and former congressman in PA on a grudge carried from the admiral's defeat of Arlen Specter in Arlen's last primary attempt as a Democrat.
5
I'm a loyal Democrat and will vote for Katie McGinty, but what happened in the Pennsylvania primary was absurd. Pretty much every engaged Democrat enthusiastically supported Joe Sestak, progressives and moderates alike. But Charles Schumer had it in his head that the admiral had to be punished for not taking marching orders. Schumer asked about six people before he landed on McGinty. Then, they had to dump money into her campaign because no one wanted her. Despite being behind in the polls for the entire season, she turned it around the last weekend when several million dollars of ads came out on TV, including one from President Obama. She ended up winning and now no one wants to work for her. We'll cast our ballot for her, but Joe had support of the masses. What a mess, thanks to Sen. Schumer's ego.
19
Joe Sestak had the support of the masses? Then how come he was trounced in the Primary? Go Katie!
2
Maybe he was "trounced" because of the lies in McGinty's barrage of ads (funded by outside money). WaPo and Pittsburgh Gazette fact-checkers consistently found that McGinty's ads lied about Sestak, but he couldn't beat the millions that Schumer deployed for McGinty. Sestak was ahead in every poll until Schumer poured money into her campaign and bought expensive advertising in the waning days of the primary. They bought that campaign for her and she is weak candidate.
6
There's an odd and strange reality that I've observed in Democratic Party politics in State and Federal offices, which the headline writer accurately and succinctly describes as the "weak bench". Certain people get elected to office, and their egos keep convincing them that there is never a good time to leave office. It's a real problem if you want to field good candidates.
They refuse to leave office, by convincing themselves, and then trying to convince the rest of us, that they are indispensable with such self-serving statements as they are the "institutional memory", or their many years of service eclipse the idea that anyone else could be as effective on this committee or that, or that their many years of seniority mean that their influence is greater (in whatever election year they are running). It's all bull--they are as dispensable as any politician elected to office is dispensable. And there probably is little need of "institutional memory" anyway since archivists, librarians, academics who want to help, and staff, can find whatever "memory" needs to be found.
Potential candidates possessing stellar political skills and credentials, drive, and energy can resist only so long, and ultimately slip away with the realization that an officeholder with the chutzpah to justify holding office with that kind of malarkey will occupy the space beyond any ability to last it out. They find other ambitions with timely opportunities trying to resist "institutional memory."
They refuse to leave office, by convincing themselves, and then trying to convince the rest of us, that they are indispensable with such self-serving statements as they are the "institutional memory", or their many years of service eclipse the idea that anyone else could be as effective on this committee or that, or that their many years of seniority mean that their influence is greater (in whatever election year they are running). It's all bull--they are as dispensable as any politician elected to office is dispensable. And there probably is little need of "institutional memory" anyway since archivists, librarians, academics who want to help, and staff, can find whatever "memory" needs to be found.
Potential candidates possessing stellar political skills and credentials, drive, and energy can resist only so long, and ultimately slip away with the realization that an officeholder with the chutzpah to justify holding office with that kind of malarkey will occupy the space beyond any ability to last it out. They find other ambitions with timely opportunities trying to resist "institutional memory."
7
What do you mean weak bench? To me the Republicans have the weak bench. Republican know nothing tea party advocates, fringe right wing racists, are they a strong bench? All the Republicans vote as a block and they only know how to support the one percent at the expense of the rest of America. I'd rather have any Democrat any day.
7
I love and depend on the NYT. But your casual and under-explained bear-swipe at Deborah Ross is disappointing. If you came down to North Carolina and saw her campaigning, you would realize what an extraordinary candidate she is. I've known her for years, and I have been surprised at how good she is at this. To say that she is not a good fit for suburban voters sounds like you're harboring a stereotype of who lives in NC today. Come on, NYT, you're from the South - specifically Chattanooga, my hometown. You should know better.
6
"The Democrats’ problem stems from a depletion of their ranks in state legislatures and governors’ mansions over recent years and a lack of institutional support for grass-roots-level politicians who represent a changing base."
A number of us commenters have been saying precisely that for the past several years. The most important thing progressives of any hue need to focus on this year are the state legislative races. (The "establishment" will take care of the presidential campaign.) Those are the people who, after the 2020 census, will get to gerrymander the state legislative and Congressional districts. That will determine much of American politics and policy for the following decade.
The Republicans figured this out quite awhile ago, which is why, after the 2010 census, they were in a position to take over Congressional delegations and state legislatures far in excess of their proportion of a state's voters.
A number of us commenters have been saying precisely that for the past several years. The most important thing progressives of any hue need to focus on this year are the state legislative races. (The "establishment" will take care of the presidential campaign.) Those are the people who, after the 2020 census, will get to gerrymander the state legislative and Congressional districts. That will determine much of American politics and policy for the following decade.
The Republicans figured this out quite awhile ago, which is why, after the 2010 census, they were in a position to take over Congressional delegations and state legislatures far in excess of their proportion of a state's voters.
11
I can't be the only one who saw the word "flaws" and expected to see criticism of females candidates. Throughout this campaign, I've heard "Clinton has flaws" or "Clinton isn't perfect", as if there ever were a perfect candidate. Sure enough, this story goes on to describe a disproportionate # of women as being "flawed". NYTimes should take care to ensure that subtle sexism is checked.
4
I'm sorry to hear that Gwen Graham of Florida is retiring after just one term. She was one of only 2 Democrats to defeat a sitting Republican in 2014. That seat will certainly return to the GOP.
But this is what democrats get for rejecting former chairman Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy and instead hanging their hat on the motto
"But we won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections."
But this is what democrats get for rejecting former chairman Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy and instead hanging their hat on the motto
"But we won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections."
7
Considering the House and Senate has a 9% approval rating- I don't expect there are many [young] people eagerly enthusiastic to pursue a life of politics on the national level. Which leaves us with the same group of +60 somethings either waiting to be re-elected or ones who have "politic-ed" their entire lives for a chance to jump into the big tent. We stack the deck with 60 YO politicians who chase outdated "Leave it to Beaver- Andy Griffith" nostalgic policy. Sooner or later- we will have no choice but to hand over the reins to a younger, smarter and tech savvy generation who won't be so vastly concerned about abortion, gun rights and same sex marriage- Hopefully the millennials will have a better grasp of the constitution and the role of government than their geriatric predecessors who are currently in office. Until then- "Get off my lawn whippersnappers- when I was your age I used to walk to school in the snow!"
7
I'm not so sure it's a weak bench, it's their inability to tie the anvil of Trump to their opponents.
2
Maybe the bench is it as strong as we would like however the policies of the Democratic Party are far stronger and more visionary than the Republicans which should appeal to common sense voters.
Our nominees must get behind at least the following
Infrastructure program
Renewable energy investment
Minimum wage increase
Equal pay irrespective of gender.
A progressive movement towards universal health care starting with reducing prescription drug prices.
Corporate and personal tax reform getting rid of special tax concessions for rich individuals and multi nationals.all must pay their fair share.
Immigration reform.
Penal reform
Making college more accessible and affordable.
Hopefully our great leaders President Obama, Joe Biden , Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders get out there to get the economic agenda across and support our nominees.
We can do this
Our nominees must get behind at least the following
Infrastructure program
Renewable energy investment
Minimum wage increase
Equal pay irrespective of gender.
A progressive movement towards universal health care starting with reducing prescription drug prices.
Corporate and personal tax reform getting rid of special tax concessions for rich individuals and multi nationals.all must pay their fair share.
Immigration reform.
Penal reform
Making college more accessible and affordable.
Hopefully our great leaders President Obama, Joe Biden , Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders get out there to get the economic agenda across and support our nominees.
We can do this
3
the "bench" may be "weak" in the view of some, but it's almost a guaranteed five (5) seat pickup no matter what happens. now all we have to do is have a little luck here or there.
1
You are going to need more than luck.
"The Democrats’ problem stems from a depletion of their ranks in state legislatures and governors’ mansions over recent years and a lack of institutional support for grass-roots-level politicians who represent a changing base."
A number of us commenters have been saying precisely that for the past several years. The most important thing progressives of any hue need to focus on this year are the state legislative races. Those are the people who, after the 2020 census, will get to gerrymander the state legislative and Congressional districts. That will determine much of American politics and policy for the following decade.
The Republicans figured this out quite awhile ago, which is why, after the 2010 census, they were in a position to take over Congressional delegations and state legislatures far in excess of their proportion of a state's voters.
A number of us commenters have been saying precisely that for the past several years. The most important thing progressives of any hue need to focus on this year are the state legislative races. Those are the people who, after the 2020 census, will get to gerrymander the state legislative and Congressional districts. That will determine much of American politics and policy for the following decade.
The Republicans figured this out quite awhile ago, which is why, after the 2010 census, they were in a position to take over Congressional delegations and state legislatures far in excess of their proportion of a state's voters.
4
Regardless, I am voting straight Democratic and fighting the Koch and Rove and Teapublican apparatus (not to mention Trump), and hoping somebody will hold Hillary's toes to the fire of reality and make her realize that true pragmatism means moving the goals back for the future of our planet.
That said, I am deeply disturbed by another data point in this DNC nonsense. Tom Wakely is trying to unseat the horrible Rep. Lamar Smith; he's a bit of a Bernie style fighter, and unlikely to succeed, but he's been cut off by the authorities.
Democrats need to expand their "tent" to include the millions of Bernie supporters, and cutting off people like Tom Wakely is not the way to do it!
And I have been extremely loyal to Hillary recently.
That said, I am deeply disturbed by another data point in this DNC nonsense. Tom Wakely is trying to unseat the horrible Rep. Lamar Smith; he's a bit of a Bernie style fighter, and unlikely to succeed, but he's been cut off by the authorities.
Democrats need to expand their "tent" to include the millions of Bernie supporters, and cutting off people like Tom Wakely is not the way to do it!
And I have been extremely loyal to Hillary recently.
18
First, the Democrats are certainly more competent that the Republicans when governing, but they are lousy at campaigning, both in tactics and in propagating core beliefs.
Secondly, they don’t understand, or act as if they don’t understand, that off-year/down-ticket elections are of more consequence than the Presidency. Grover Norquist has said that it doesn’t matter if Democrats win the White House as long as the President can be prevented from governing as a Democrat.
The Dems have a weak bench because they have simply ignored the party’s housekeeping at least since they deliberately abandoned Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy. It took the independent Senator Bernie Sanders primary run to bring that idea back to the fore, and the Dems will ignore it at their peril.
Their casual approach to organizing at the grass roots has just showed up in my NY State Senate district, when the young Democratic candidate was ruled ineligible because he did not satisfy residency requirements. Carelessness by a would-be candidate is one thing, but there’s no excuse for carelessness by the party at any level giving away perfectly winnable seat.
Secondly, they don’t understand, or act as if they don’t understand, that off-year/down-ticket elections are of more consequence than the Presidency. Grover Norquist has said that it doesn’t matter if Democrats win the White House as long as the President can be prevented from governing as a Democrat.
The Dems have a weak bench because they have simply ignored the party’s housekeeping at least since they deliberately abandoned Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy. It took the independent Senator Bernie Sanders primary run to bring that idea back to the fore, and the Dems will ignore it at their peril.
Their casual approach to organizing at the grass roots has just showed up in my NY State Senate district, when the young Democratic candidate was ruled ineligible because he did not satisfy residency requirements. Carelessness by a would-be candidate is one thing, but there’s no excuse for carelessness by the party at any level giving away perfectly winnable seat.
26
>>> The Dems have a weak bench because they have simply ignored the party’s housekeeping at least since they deliberately abandoned Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy
The Democrats abandoned Howard Deans "50 states strategy" because it made the Far-Left people who now call for the "50 states strategy" very angry because it resulted in the elections of moderates like Landrieu, etc, who kill off Liberals priorities like the public option.
The Democrats abandoned Howard Deans "50 states strategy" because it made the Far-Left people who now call for the "50 states strategy" very angry because it resulted in the elections of moderates like Landrieu, etc, who kill off Liberals priorities like the public option.
Pennsylvania had a top-tier, first-rate Democratic Senate candidate in Admiral Joe Sestak, who, when he had been a freshman Congressman, was rated highly effective. Unfortunately, the Democratic Senatorial,Campaign Committee wasted millions of dollars in ads against him in the primary, knocking him out at the last minute, as a grudge match because he would not drop out of the race 6 years ago in favor of party- switcher Arlen Spector. In fact, many Democrats would not run against Sestak in the primary but McGinty was willing to do it.
If the Democrats don't take this seat from Toomey, they have Chuck Schumer's attack on Sestak to blame.
If the Democrats don't take this seat from Toomey, they have Chuck Schumer's attack on Sestak to blame.
46
Democrats can also thank Hillary's friend and DNC speaker Mike Bloomberg who is spending dollops of cash to get Toomey elected !
Why would any sensible, even-minded person enter Congressional politics these days? Frankly, the "quality" of a wide array of candidates has never been worse. One must spend up to 75% of his/her time raising campaign funds, kowtowing and groveling for cash, then be besieged by hordes of lobbyists who essentially write the legislation (assuming there is any these days) that gets voted on without much input or debate. The gridlock, animosity and downright hatefulness that permeates Washington has surely resulted in a significant lack of qualified Democratic candidates. Why would any sensible person put him/herself through that?
12
That's why the electoral system must change.
1
Republicans stand for bigotry, homophobia, misogyny, racism and xenophobia.
Democrats stand for...not being Republicans.
I.e., most Democrats, with the exception of Bernie Sanders, stand for nothing...except for "How can I keep my seat in Congress?"
Thus, we have an election in which Donald Trump is Hillary Clinton's best weapon, and Hillary Clinton is Donald Trump's best weapon, and each candidate would be best off saying NOTHING.
Democrats stand for...not being Republicans.
I.e., most Democrats, with the exception of Bernie Sanders, stand for nothing...except for "How can I keep my seat in Congress?"
Thus, we have an election in which Donald Trump is Hillary Clinton's best weapon, and Hillary Clinton is Donald Trump's best weapon, and each candidate would be best off saying NOTHING.
18
The Dems are weak because they've betrayed their original, FDR, base. It's fine to nominate/support women, etc., and continue with Emily List identity politics but being corporate; taking corporate money, perpetuates the problem. This is why Bernie Sanders was so appealing and why the DNC/
Clinton schemes against him have left such a bad taste in many mouths.
Clinton schemes against him have left such a bad taste in many mouths.
27
>> The Dems are weak because they've betrayed their original, FDR, base
Ah, yes, all those woke Southern racists who liked FDR talking about the horrors of reconstruction and cheered on the internment of Japanese-Americans.
Ah, yes, all those woke Southern racists who liked FDR talking about the horrors of reconstruction and cheered on the internment of Japanese-Americans.
Campaign finance reform was scuttled by the republicans and then used McCain's bipartisan bill with Russ Feingold against him. They encouraged all or nothing obstructionist politics. Now it's biting everyone in the a$$. This special interest influence must stop and I think we have a better chance with Hillary, Bernie, Warren and the democrats, along with any remaining moderate republicans to move this along. Hillary is encouraging and supporting profit sharing with the workers, a great idea. Some progressive companies do it and it's a win win for all.
Weak bench(?)....I live in New Orleans, Louisiana....and while former US senator Mary Landreu....wasn't perfect ..she was everything and effective...
Now....I have Bill Cassidy.....Who is nobody....and will be...forever.
....I can live in a world selling milkshakes......I can't live in a world selling milkshakes.......made of poo.
Now....I have Bill Cassidy.....Who is nobody....and will be...forever.
....I can live in a world selling milkshakes......I can't live in a world selling milkshakes.......made of poo.
2
Another problem for Democratic Senate candidates is Hillary Clinton's extraordinarily high unfavorability rating, coupled with the near certainty that she will comfortably beat Donald Trump. The Establishment Democrats have gone all out in this election cycle to ensure the continuity of the Clinton-Obama-Clinton "corporations + liberal social policy" model. Clinton will win with votes from people who disagree with her on both principles and key issues. But the Dem Senate candidates won't have the advantage of running against Donald Trump, nor the advantage of having Presidential candidate and party leadership that stands for putting the "Demos" (= "the people") back into the word "Democrat."
9
Hey Bernie supporters! This is why you need to get out and run for an office. The progressives that were formed in the 60s are oldsters now. If we want to continue a progressive march you have to be the ones with the boots on the ground. The conservatives figured this out long ago. Note the school boards and state houses controlled by Republicans. The world is soon going to be your problem so please get in there and start taking your place so we have a solid bench heading into the 20s 30s and beyond.
7
Who you callin' "weak"?
1
It's all Bernie's fault isn't it NY Times?
16
A mess for sure. I want Trump to lose. He is an incoherent bully. However, I also feel that "sanctuary cities" are a betrayal of our values. Do we really want to replicate the corruption and violence of central America here? Is it worth those votes? What a mess.
12
All speculation all the time. Anyone else look around the front page of the Times and see nothing but rank speculation? Most of this stuff would have been on the opinion pages 20 years ago and is now on the front page presented as "news." It's not.
14
ohhh ! Now you need a safe space from polls ! You sounds like a reality challenged Trump supporter.
30% of the electorate is Democrats; 30% is Republican. 40% don't care.
3
It's pretty disappointing when the democrats can't find winning candidates to run for the senate or governorships given the very low bar set by the republicans. Have our politics become so toxic that the best people won't even bother?
5
Something like 5 of 7 of the key races have women running on the Democratic side. All the more reason for everyone to think of the 2016 elections as a referendum on rights of women, immigrants, laborers etc. - not as separate Pres and Senatorial elections.
Democrats, Republicans, oh my, no difference. This why the midterms set historical precedents of low voter turnout. Look at the big race now, do you really have a choice? Politics is about the rich screwing the poor. Shame on you NYTimes for playing along.,
9
Now this is a long shot, but I'm trying to understand why the Democrats have chosen to be the party of women. The population is comprised of two percent more women than men and the women are more physically able to go vote while the majority of men are busy working. Are you following me?
The reality in decades of appealing to women is that those advantages did not pan out. Instead, the stronger male candidates have monopolized positions of power simply because they are stronger and more forceful speakers. Many women prefer to vote for men over women. It's a cat fight you know.
So the solution is for the Democrat party to draft strong male intellectual leaders of the community in and out of government. For example, a good strong and talented defense attorney could do much more good for defendants as a member of Congress making his arguments at the front of the chamber. A doctor could promote greater health in Americans by doing the same. An architect could promote housing and urban development projects. An engineer could promote the rebuilding of infrastructure.
We need pillars of the communities who are do-gooders to run the gauntlet of public scorn and ridicule to do great things. After all, Soldiers die for us. I would think running for political office is safer.
The reality in decades of appealing to women is that those advantages did not pan out. Instead, the stronger male candidates have monopolized positions of power simply because they are stronger and more forceful speakers. Many women prefer to vote for men over women. It's a cat fight you know.
So the solution is for the Democrat party to draft strong male intellectual leaders of the community in and out of government. For example, a good strong and talented defense attorney could do much more good for defendants as a member of Congress making his arguments at the front of the chamber. A doctor could promote greater health in Americans by doing the same. An architect could promote housing and urban development projects. An engineer could promote the rebuilding of infrastructure.
We need pillars of the communities who are do-gooders to run the gauntlet of public scorn and ridicule to do great things. After all, Soldiers die for us. I would think running for political office is safer.
1
100 % of Republican incumbents have voted repeatedly to privatize Medicare and most want to cut Social Security benefits. 90% of Americans over age 65 oppose those votes and oppose cuts.
8
Hillary Clinton must vigorously and full-time campaign now for all Democratic Congressional candidates in order to make her Presidential administration successful.
2
Laughable. Hillary is too busy putting put fires about her private server, hidden incriminating emails, the Clinton Crime Foundation with it's questionable contributions, expenditures from the foundation, her $265,000 speeches to the bankers, Her ability to meet only with those who contributed to the foundation, etc.
She's the ultimate flawed candidate. The DNC deserves her because they crowned her years ago without one iota of investigation to see how clean she was. As bad as Trump is the spread between should be much wider than it is which only proves how the public perceives her. It's difficult for me to think of a presidential character as scheming and mendacious as she is.
She's the ultimate flawed candidate. The DNC deserves her because they crowned her years ago without one iota of investigation to see how clean she was. As bad as Trump is the spread between should be much wider than it is which only proves how the public perceives her. It's difficult for me to think of a presidential character as scheming and mendacious as she is.
4
Who should be the hero? How about Tulsi Gabbard who stepped off the train wreck which is the DNC? Where is the mention of her? Same old, same old. Shame on you NYTimes, the people know! If you want a business model, how about reporting what is going on? People would pay for insight, but alas you believe the big bucks come from your corporate shills. If you want advice, give me a call.
19
Yes, the Dems totally need an outsider hero in the famous swing state of Hawaii !
Here is an example to learn from for the Democrats................
Men's football is exceedingly popular here in America.
Women's sports.............not so much.
Get more men into the Democrat party because politics is a spectator sport.
Men's football is exceedingly popular here in America.
Women's sports.............not so much.
Get more men into the Democrat party because politics is a spectator sport.
1
Do you think the gerrymandering might be playing a large part in the Republican stranglehold on the house and the senate?
3
Not the Senate.
The primary contest between aging Hillary Clinton and even older Bernie Sanders symbolized the scarcity of young(er) talent in the Democratic Party.
11
What about Hillary's coattails? Oh yeah, people can't stand her. The Democrats' weak bench starts at the top of the ticket. The only reason she might win is because she is running against the most incompetent candidate ever. And that's if another round of "pay-to-play" Clinton e-mails don't totally derail her campaign. At least she's exhibited the ability and desire to work with Republicans in the Senate. Plus, she doesn't spend all her time on the golf course.
12
It is not true.
Most Democrats are not as liberal as you think.
The people who supported Sanders are not true Democrats.
They only registered that way to vote for Sanders in the primaries.
The Democrats will be shooting themselves in the foot if they become more liberal than they are no.
They will not lose the very liberal if they stay where they are now but théy will
lose a lot of people like me if they become more liberal.
They will lose much more than they could gain.
I will not vote for a Republican but I will not vote for anyone like Sanders.
I know many who will vote Republican.
What the Democrats need is to get people to run for office who do not do it as a way to run for higher office.
They can't all win.
To tell you the truth I would even vote Republican for a local office if I thought
that person would acceptable and I believed the Democrat had no real desire to take the office they were running for.
Most Democrats are not as liberal as you think.
The people who supported Sanders are not true Democrats.
They only registered that way to vote for Sanders in the primaries.
The Democrats will be shooting themselves in the foot if they become more liberal than they are no.
They will not lose the very liberal if they stay where they are now but théy will
lose a lot of people like me if they become more liberal.
They will lose much more than they could gain.
I will not vote for a Republican but I will not vote for anyone like Sanders.
I know many who will vote Republican.
What the Democrats need is to get people to run for office who do not do it as a way to run for higher office.
They can't all win.
To tell you the truth I would even vote Republican for a local office if I thought
that person would acceptable and I believed the Democrat had no real desire to take the office they were running for.
5
The Dems can't have it both ways. If they move to the right, we Sanders supporters will vote third party.
17
There are very few of you.
You weren't going to vote Democrat anyway.
I did not say they should move to the right.
They should stay where they are now.
We need a Democratic Senate and Congress.
If we can have that a lot of liberal legislation would get passed.
You see you cannot have it both ways.
You can not get any liberal legislation passed and vote for a third party candidate.
You can not vote third party and stop Trump .
A vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the other side.
You weren't going to vote Democrat anyway.
I did not say they should move to the right.
They should stay where they are now.
We need a Democratic Senate and Congress.
If we can have that a lot of liberal legislation would get passed.
You see you cannot have it both ways.
You can not get any liberal legislation passed and vote for a third party candidate.
You can not vote third party and stop Trump .
A vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the other side.
2
The Democratic Party puts all its chips on the Presidential Electoral politics game. It's a losing proposition. Win the Presidency and lose the Congress.
Lots of congressional races with no opposition. The democrats concede.
Lots of congressional races with no opposition. The democrats concede.
20
At least one part of the Democrat's "strategy" is working; that Clinton is less dangerous than Trump. between teh media, the talking points, speeches and Trump himself, has pushed a lot of people to vote fro Clinton; "as the better of two evils".
What does that say about the down ballot? The other Democrat strategy is that people who vote fro Clinton, will vote Democrat on the entire ballot. Thus, they believe, that more votes fro Clinton means more Democrats getting in more offices.
Well, if Ms. Clinton was someone like FDR, in popular perception the strategy would work. But, Ms. Clinton is perceived worse than Nixon or Hoover. Trump even worse. Also, the "strategy" also fails because of the sheer number of unaffiliated voters. People who don't vote for someone because a D or R is next to their name. This should scare both parties.
In the end, as unpopular Hillary Clinton is, it would be sheer luck that she gets a Democrat dominated Senate. Also,, fro the GOP, they will be lucky if they retain the number of seats they have in all levels of government, at the advantage of Democrats.
Neither party is addressing the deep seeded anger in this country. Both parties are way out of touch with the existing reality. As others have mentioned, only Bernie Sanders was willing to address these kind of issues. The GOP candidates were, Clinton, and both sets of party leaders were too busy attacking each other. That still continues.
Election Day will be an eye opener for both parties.
What does that say about the down ballot? The other Democrat strategy is that people who vote fro Clinton, will vote Democrat on the entire ballot. Thus, they believe, that more votes fro Clinton means more Democrats getting in more offices.
Well, if Ms. Clinton was someone like FDR, in popular perception the strategy would work. But, Ms. Clinton is perceived worse than Nixon or Hoover. Trump even worse. Also, the "strategy" also fails because of the sheer number of unaffiliated voters. People who don't vote for someone because a D or R is next to their name. This should scare both parties.
In the end, as unpopular Hillary Clinton is, it would be sheer luck that she gets a Democrat dominated Senate. Also,, fro the GOP, they will be lucky if they retain the number of seats they have in all levels of government, at the advantage of Democrats.
Neither party is addressing the deep seeded anger in this country. Both parties are way out of touch with the existing reality. As others have mentioned, only Bernie Sanders was willing to address these kind of issues. The GOP candidates were, Clinton, and both sets of party leaders were too busy attacking each other. That still continues.
Election Day will be an eye opener for both parties.
17
It is hard to imagine at this stage in the election how Trump could so reinvent himself that he would convincingly appear less dangerous than Clinton to a majority of American voters. Since it is also hard to imagine Congressional gridlock would lesson with a GOP Senate, which I imagine would relish being even more intransigent with Clinton as president and McConnell as Majority Leader, those seeking some sort of change need to focus their resources on at least a tied Senate.
1
Well, Ms. Clinton is running on "status quo"; that is exactly what she is going to get. If anything, she will have a more tough time than President Obama.
Ms. Clinton's first test, appointing a Supreme Court justice. If Mr. Obama can't do it with a centrist; Clinton will have even a more tougher time of it. As she had a limited and safe agenda, she still may have trouble with Congress even on that.
By the way, it will not be any better fro Trump.
What America is about to do, is elect a care taker, figure head president for the next four years, and we have to hope that nothing of any consequence occurs. This is the reality. And that president, will be under such a microscope that one wrong step will lead to impeachment.
Ms. Clinton's first test, appointing a Supreme Court justice. If Mr. Obama can't do it with a centrist; Clinton will have even a more tougher time of it. As she had a limited and safe agenda, she still may have trouble with Congress even on that.
By the way, it will not be any better fro Trump.
What America is about to do, is elect a care taker, figure head president for the next four years, and we have to hope that nothing of any consequence occurs. This is the reality. And that president, will be under such a microscope that one wrong step will lead to impeachment.
9
Totally agree. And I refuse to cast a vote for president in this election.
5
Who in their right mind would want to be involved in politics in this climate?
You would have to be an aspiring crook getting in to it for the payout down the road or full on naive and probably not too bright to become involved.
5
Allan Grayson isn't so much flawed as dogged by a Republican turned Democrat who is supported by a rich father and a Democratic establishment. Murphy supports a roll back of social support and he's otherwise unsupportive of progressive efforts except perhaps for arms control. Now is that his doing or his father's, and specifically what does he support about arms control beyond perhaps the Iran Deal? Grayson has tread where the Democratic party does not want him and they are working hard to push him out.
3
Starting at the top of the ticket with one of the weakest candidates in decades. Under deep suspicion on many fronts, having won what appears to many a semi-rigged primary/superdelegates convention and having virtually no charisma and a ton of Clinton baggage, the Demos may have nominated the only candidate that the troll Trump has a chance to beat. What a horrible election.
24
The Democrats need to recruit and financially support young, smart, tough, vibrant women and men for the Senate and House. I am tired of looking at poor old Harry Reid and the rest of the pack totter around. The times are changing and the Democratic Party needs to change with it. Look to the north -- how did Trudeau oust that hack of a gas bag Harper?
26
Trudeau's dad was Prime Minister of Canada 20 years ago. You want Senator Chelsea Clinton ?
1
I can't speak to what's going on in other states, but I feel this describes what's been happening in my state. The grassroots have withered; there's nobody who's built up experience at the local level to move onto the national stage.
There's a tendency for the old-timers (and donors) in my state to be more comfortable with an approach that we call "conserva-Dem." This absolutely does not appeal to younger voters, who feel they are not being spoken to or their needs addressed. So they turn away from both parties. And then the Republicans of the most extremist sort (who are most motivated) win in low-turnout elections. It's a downward spiral.
However there are some folks working very hard to turn this around, and it's a good time for the uninvolved to get involved.
There's a tendency for the old-timers (and donors) in my state to be more comfortable with an approach that we call "conserva-Dem." This absolutely does not appeal to younger voters, who feel they are not being spoken to or their needs addressed. So they turn away from both parties. And then the Republicans of the most extremist sort (who are most motivated) win in low-turnout elections. It's a downward spiral.
However there are some folks working very hard to turn this around, and it's a good time for the uninvolved to get involved.
18
Party leaders are part of the problem. Led by former Governor Ed Rendell the party establishment prevailed on the President and, of all people, Joe Biden to weigh in against former Vice-Admiral and former Congressman Joe Sestak, a maverick who wouldn't kiss the rings of the bishops of the party in favor of Katie McGinty, who gets along well with the establishment.
She may win, but on the record, Sestak was the hard charger, a guy who gave them useful national security experience and was more likely to bring out the blue collar vote against a vulnerable Senator Toomey. If Democrats lose their chance at the Senate because of Pennsylvania, thank Rendell and the DNC.
In Florida, Murphy, a far better fit, philosophically, for the state who, unlike a number of its Democrats, had the guts to support President Obama on the Iran nuclear deal, has been found to have a resume of clay. It will be his fault, not the establishment's, if the ever slippery Marco Rubio retains his seat, notwithstanding that Rubio was against Trump before he was for him.
She may win, but on the record, Sestak was the hard charger, a guy who gave them useful national security experience and was more likely to bring out the blue collar vote against a vulnerable Senator Toomey. If Democrats lose their chance at the Senate because of Pennsylvania, thank Rendell and the DNC.
In Florida, Murphy, a far better fit, philosophically, for the state who, unlike a number of its Democrats, had the guts to support President Obama on the Iran nuclear deal, has been found to have a resume of clay. It will be his fault, not the establishment's, if the ever slippery Marco Rubio retains his seat, notwithstanding that Rubio was against Trump before he was for him.
2
Sorry, for most of these races, I think NYT is completely wrong. I, and my fellow Trump, McCain, Rubio, Ryan, etc., HATERS will vote a straight ticket. We're going to shove the hateful, bigoted, tight wad obstructionists OUT of Congress. VOTE DEMOCRATIC!
7
When Clinton wins, with what I hope is a resounding victory, all is for nought if the Democrats can't capture the Senate!!..We will have four more years of republican gridlock and rancor.......We need a sweep in this election to even have a chance of going forward!!!!!...So hopefully, Dems get out and pull the votes...Don't sit home!!!...
5
This problem has nothing to do with the Democratic establishment in Washington. It has everything to do with the crucial weakness of the Democratic party at the state level, and it's a weakness I fear will persist for a long time.
8
Republicans donors, like the Koch Brothers, have made a very well-funded effort to control state and local offices. It is hard for Democrats to match that funding.
Now that is a story worth pursuing.
Blaming the weakness on neoliberalism, old guard, Clintonism, etc. is just a convenient distraction from the real issue: follow the money.
Now that is a story worth pursuing.
Blaming the weakness on neoliberalism, old guard, Clintonism, etc. is just a convenient distraction from the real issue: follow the money.
25
No, follow the excuses. Money? come on, it can only do so much. Get yourself out of denial.
4
I agree entirely. But living in an completely secure district, there's not much incentive to contribute nearer to home (Wilton Manors is situated in Broward County). However, senatorial and statewide races for state government are worthy of some cash.
Here we have the usual "horse race" election analysis that does little to inform state voters or citizens at large who are concerned about the make-up of the Senate should HRC win the presidency. This handicapper's main consideration appears to be "track record" (always a difficult standard when you are putting forward women candidates as the Dems are this election) and the inside game. Nothing on where these Dems stand on, say, future Supreme Court nominations. Do they have a philosophy of government that supports government playing a role in our nation's collective life or do they, as with Repubs, merely want to obstruct, limit, destroy government initiatives constructed to solve national problems? We don't know because this kind of coverage of the elections fails to inform readers on philosophy and policies. Who's winning, who's losing, what do polls say--that's it. Thanks for next to nothing.
15
Hint: at best the median voter cares about whether its an R or a D beside the name, nobody cares what your "Supreme court nominations" will be.
I worry that the Democratic and Republican parties are merely doubling down on their more extreme elements as they seek votes. If this analysis is correct about Democrats, and Republicans continue their ungodly undemocratic course, I fear there will be not place for moderates, such as myself, at either table. I think of a moderate as someone who wants to "change what needs to be changed and preserve that which should be preserved". Both parties, it seems to me, are headed toward paths that want to change everything -- but in opposite directions.
6
"Democrats have also complained that the party has not worked hard enough to promote an agenda that is appealing to the party’s growing base of progressive whites, nonwhites and millennials, fearing that such policies could turn off older, more traditional Democratic voters."
Gee sounds just like the Republicans whining that they lose the Presidential race because they are not conservative enough.
In 2014, my Congressional district was the hottest race in the US for the Dems to retake the seat. The incumbent had a 30% approval rating. The D candidate was a retired General and had been sheriff in one of the counties for over 16 years. Odds were way way high that the Dem should win.
Polling was showing he would win until Obama came out for gay marriage and the Dem party was pushing it - polls dropped.
When it was announced that Obama would do something after the election to help illegal migrants, polls tanked -with the election only days away.
The highly favorite Democratic candidate lost WORSE than the last D candidate did.
The Democrats rely upon the large cities in a state to swing the presidential vote - and lose the rest of a state who utterly dislike the "let the illegals stay" "allow guys in the women's locker room if they claim they are really female" & the nonstop race baiting whining etc.
Ergo the D's take the state for the POTUS and get clobbered at the local level & in the state legislatures.
Until the Ds go back to the middle they will lose.
Gee sounds just like the Republicans whining that they lose the Presidential race because they are not conservative enough.
In 2014, my Congressional district was the hottest race in the US for the Dems to retake the seat. The incumbent had a 30% approval rating. The D candidate was a retired General and had been sheriff in one of the counties for over 16 years. Odds were way way high that the Dem should win.
Polling was showing he would win until Obama came out for gay marriage and the Dem party was pushing it - polls dropped.
When it was announced that Obama would do something after the election to help illegal migrants, polls tanked -with the election only days away.
The highly favorite Democratic candidate lost WORSE than the last D candidate did.
The Democrats rely upon the large cities in a state to swing the presidential vote - and lose the rest of a state who utterly dislike the "let the illegals stay" "allow guys in the women's locker room if they claim they are really female" & the nonstop race baiting whining etc.
Ergo the D's take the state for the POTUS and get clobbered at the local level & in the state legislatures.
Until the Ds go back to the middle they will lose.
11
Let me be frank because I have always voted Democrat and always supported their positions.................
The Bench is weak because the party leaders have become weaklings who are shell shocked by the manly and vigorous speakers of the Republican party.
Here is a very basic fact of life; Men are strong and women are mostly weak, at least relative to men. The Democrats decided to become the weak party.
While all you democrats are out there being women, the Republicans are being strong men.
Think about it.
The Bench is weak because the party leaders have become weaklings who are shell shocked by the manly and vigorous speakers of the Republican party.
Here is a very basic fact of life; Men are strong and women are mostly weak, at least relative to men. The Democrats decided to become the weak party.
While all you democrats are out there being women, the Republicans are being strong men.
Think about it.
2
If Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC had not spent all their time shilling for Hillary and putting down Bernie, we would have had a better chance of taking back the Senate. Clinton is a flawed candidate and continues to shoot herself in the foot. I am worried about her losing to that buffoon and bringing in another Republican Senate.
25
Bernie and his supporters' legacy will be determined by how well they are able to influence down-ballot races. They need to replicate the success of the Tea Party (hopefully without the ideologically pure, all-or-nothing mentality).
As far as I know, this has yet to happen, though it's probably too late for this election cycle; primaries were months ago. (Still, they can help support existing Dem candidates even if they're not as progressive as they like; should she win, Hillary's hands will be tied if there's a Republican majority in both houses of Congress.)
It'll be interesting to see if they remain engaged or, as I suspect, if their "movement" is just a flash in the pan. Ditto Black Lives Matter. Protests, rallies, and manifestos will only take you so far.
As far as I know, this has yet to happen, though it's probably too late for this election cycle; primaries were months ago. (Still, they can help support existing Dem candidates even if they're not as progressive as they like; should she win, Hillary's hands will be tied if there's a Republican majority in both houses of Congress.)
It'll be interesting to see if they remain engaged or, as I suspect, if their "movement" is just a flash in the pan. Ditto Black Lives Matter. Protests, rallies, and manifestos will only take you so far.
6
Clinton, Kaine, Biden, Obama et al refuse to talk about political issues. Clinton is running as the anti-Trump, while Obama foists TPP on us, making progressives believe that Clinton is really for it but can say she is not, because she expects it to pass before the election.
I am sick of getting inane and vacuous emails from the DNC and the Hillary Victory Fund, about what great people their candidates are, as if they were running for Hollywood.
Meanwhile, Bernie gave a speech last night about the issues that made me both clap and cry, while the Times ran another Bernie bashing article with no comments.
Whoever is elected, Bernie Sanders will be my president. I will support progressive candidates.
I am sick of getting inane and vacuous emails from the DNC and the Hillary Victory Fund, about what great people their candidates are, as if they were running for Hollywood.
Meanwhile, Bernie gave a speech last night about the issues that made me both clap and cry, while the Times ran another Bernie bashing article with no comments.
Whoever is elected, Bernie Sanders will be my president. I will support progressive candidates.
42
So C.C......What are YOU going to do??? Sit home or vote for HRC?...
2
C.C. Kegel,
There's a reason Bernie spoke to crowds that packed football stadiums, while Mrs. Clinton is struggling to fill small high school gyms. Your post said it all.
There's a reason Bernie spoke to crowds that packed football stadiums, while Mrs. Clinton is struggling to fill small high school gyms. Your post said it all.
4
We had a solid candidate in PA - that is, until Chuck Schumer decided that he only wanted someone who would bow and scrape before him, which Admiral Joe Sestak would never have done. After Schumer et al. poured millions of dollars into primary ads against Sestak, Katie McGinty won the primary - she is not as strong a candidate, unfortunately, against Toomey. Toomey was definitely vulnerable, but I am not confident that McGinty can beat him. Sestak's credentials would have been a much better bet. Typical Dems - snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory over and over!
32
So, what will you do??
1
Eh, be thankful to the Democratic party machine. It breaks radicals and protects it from nominating unelectable (though admirable) politicians like Senator Sanders.
Perhaps some of these hopeful Democrat leaders of tomorrow need to make "donations" to the Clinton Foundation so they can bask in the glow of Lady Macbeth.
14
It's true that Republicans made maximum use of the anti-Obama backlash in the 2010 and 2014 mid-term elections, taking control of lots of state legislatures and governorships. But 2016 is the year that the Democrats begin to roll back those gains.
Today, Republicans control 69 of 99 state legislative houses. But 23 of those 69 houses are in states that voted for Obama both times and will almost certainly vote for Clinton this year. Ten of those houses would flip from Republican to Democratic control with a change in just four seats.
Republicans who gloried in being the party of Reagan will have to live for a generation with being the party of Trump. Every Republican who did not speak out publicly against Trump will be saddled with Trump's confused bigotry and policy vacuousness.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
Today, Republicans control 69 of 99 state legislative houses. But 23 of those 69 houses are in states that voted for Obama both times and will almost certainly vote for Clinton this year. Ten of those houses would flip from Republican to Democratic control with a change in just four seats.
Republicans who gloried in being the party of Reagan will have to live for a generation with being the party of Trump. Every Republican who did not speak out publicly against Trump will be saddled with Trump's confused bigotry and policy vacuousness.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
5
And as the country turns left, the country disintegrates into a banana republic.
4
My thoughts, too. For example, Julio Castro, former mayor of San Antonio, Democrat, became Director of HUD in Washington D.C. That's a dead end job. He was on his way to being Governor of Texas. or Senator from Texas. Now he's out of the loop. Alan Grayson would have defeated Marco Rubio in FL but the Democratic leaders wanted someone they could deal with, so in the end they are helping re-elect Marco Rubio. Ditto the situation in Pennsylvania when they could have had Joe Sestak, Retired Admiral and former representative.
It is a mess.
Emily's List is supporting.
It is a mess.
Emily's List is supporting.
91
Steve, this is weird. Julio Castro was a figurehead mayor who had no chance of statewide for many years. Fairly or not,.Grayson is tainted by his ex-wife's accusations. Know little about Sestak other than that he lost the last time.
1
Alan Grayson is literally a wife beater who also unethically ran a Cayman Islands based hedge fund while in Congress. The idea that he would beat Rubio is ... laughable. Reid denounced him for a reason.
Have you ever seen Texas? Castro had no shot to win either of those seats. A Democrat hasn't won a statewide Texas election in over twenty years. HUD was as good as anything he could have hoped for except maybe a House seat.
1
Schumer, Pelosi and the DNC are doing the vetting. Why would these dutiful corporate drones ever want to back someone who might show them for what they are? Though he put up an admirable fight, they went after Sanders like a pack of starving piranhas, so imagine what they would do to a fledgling morsel in a backwaters congressional district. For the Democrats, this isn't about choosing good candidates, it's about choosing people who know how to take orders and shut up.
38
This is no longer 1996, and this is no longer Bill Clinton's America. The ancient, lily white rump of the republican party may be "angry". Their anger is a mile wide and three inches deep. It's real tough to sit back and collect social security disability, watch FOX news and spew nonsense.
The Millenials, on the other hand, have no safety net. They have massive college debt and jobs that pay a pittance. They will never enjoy the benefits that their parents generation did. Their standard of living has already been decreased significantly, and there is no end of down, here. They won't buy houses, many of them won't have children-- because they can't afford to. And the press will call them slackers. Their very real and very justifiable anger is rising. The powers that be make fun of struggling millenials at the risk of making themselves irrelevant.
The Millenials, on the other hand, have no safety net. They have massive college debt and jobs that pay a pittance. They will never enjoy the benefits that their parents generation did. Their standard of living has already been decreased significantly, and there is no end of down, here. They won't buy houses, many of them won't have children-- because they can't afford to. And the press will call them slackers. Their very real and very justifiable anger is rising. The powers that be make fun of struggling millenials at the risk of making themselves irrelevant.
44
Having served as executive director of the 1985-86 Republican Senate campaign committee, the same statement was made about the Republicans that were elected in 1980 on the coat tails of President Reagan. Lyn Nofziger, who had a long relationship with President Reagan, said that if Republicans had known that would take over the Senate in 1980, we would have run better candidates. It may be worth looking at the issues in 1980 and the GOP candidates that PResident Reagan carried over the finish line. Sometimes, history may repeat and a quick look into the archives might help those who have come along some 30+ years later.
17
This is exactly where Bernie Shanders should have gone - all the down ticket races. But he's selfishly retreated into his own world, gnashing his teeth as the lone Independent who will tilt at his "Our Revolution" windmill.
Hillary Clinton has never played well with others, and she sure isn't helping down ticket races. And this is why I loathe both parties, Citizens United and it's dark money, and Congress in it's current iteration as corporate and lobbyist fool.
Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign is feeding the troll that is Trump, and the more the campaign and media feed that beast, the fatter, louder and more dangerous he and his ilk become.
Hillary Clinton has never played well with others, and she sure isn't helping down ticket races. And this is why I loathe both parties, Citizens United and it's dark money, and Congress in it's current iteration as corporate and lobbyist fool.
Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign is feeding the troll that is Trump, and the more the campaign and media feed that beast, the fatter, louder and more dangerous he and his ilk become.
7
Blame Senator Sanders, again, wont you.
So what exactly have you done to help him in the struggle with those nasty Democratic leaders and their condescending and dishonest manipulation of our party.
So what exactly have you done to help him in the struggle with those nasty Democratic leaders and their condescending and dishonest manipulation of our party.
2
Part of the problem is that the democratic establishment has been so hopelessly in thrall to the Clintons, they have failed to manufacture any new top level talent.
When the Super Delegates have been in the bag for Clinton for the last 12 years, that discourages others to build a public service record in hope of running for president. If you don't see a viable opportunity for the presidency, maybe you elect the private sector over staying in the minority of congress for the last 6, 8, or 12 years.
The Clinton family has had a strangle hold on the Democratic party for the last quarter century, and only the interloper Barack Obama had the tools to step in the way of the juggernaut. Little wonder the democrat's stars are almost all incredibly old. They have been around since I was a child.
When the Super Delegates have been in the bag for Clinton for the last 12 years, that discourages others to build a public service record in hope of running for president. If you don't see a viable opportunity for the presidency, maybe you elect the private sector over staying in the minority of congress for the last 6, 8, or 12 years.
The Clinton family has had a strangle hold on the Democratic party for the last quarter century, and only the interloper Barack Obama had the tools to step in the way of the juggernaut. Little wonder the democrat's stars are almost all incredibly old. They have been around since I was a child.
105
The outrage that happened in the PA senate race had NOTHING to do with the Clintons.
It was ALL NY Senator Schumer, with help from his buddies Biden, and it sickens me to say as I was a huge Obama supporter in 08 and 12, Obama, who somehow was able to stay out of the race between Clinton and Sanders, which was the right thing to do, but had to come here to PA and help saddle us with this horrible candidate, and that is only if we are lucky enought to defeat Toomey. Lose Lose for PA Democrats
It was they who killed Sestak's candidacy by running dishonest ads that he had no time to respond to.
Sestak had campaigned extensively for Dem candidates of all stripes since he wa defeated (barely) by Toomey in a year Dems were wiped out. He was a reliable Dem vote and a superb representative. Unlike their preferred candidate, an anti-environmental lobbyist, Sestak spent his time teaching at a black college, and hired a black vet who had served time to be his campaign manager, and give the man an opportunity for a fresh start.
Not all the ugliness in politics is due to the Clintons. It was payback time for Sestak defeating Arlen Specter, the Republican who knew he was going to lose his seat and so flipped to Democrat "to get re-elected," but was despised by PA Dems for flipping years ago to Republican. PA Dems wanted a real Democrat, so Sestak won the primary fight against Specter, despite every establishment Dem being against him, and they never forgave him.
It was ALL NY Senator Schumer, with help from his buddies Biden, and it sickens me to say as I was a huge Obama supporter in 08 and 12, Obama, who somehow was able to stay out of the race between Clinton and Sanders, which was the right thing to do, but had to come here to PA and help saddle us with this horrible candidate, and that is only if we are lucky enought to defeat Toomey. Lose Lose for PA Democrats
It was they who killed Sestak's candidacy by running dishonest ads that he had no time to respond to.
Sestak had campaigned extensively for Dem candidates of all stripes since he wa defeated (barely) by Toomey in a year Dems were wiped out. He was a reliable Dem vote and a superb representative. Unlike their preferred candidate, an anti-environmental lobbyist, Sestak spent his time teaching at a black college, and hired a black vet who had served time to be his campaign manager, and give the man an opportunity for a fresh start.
Not all the ugliness in politics is due to the Clintons. It was payback time for Sestak defeating Arlen Specter, the Republican who knew he was going to lose his seat and so flipped to Democrat "to get re-elected," but was despised by PA Dems for flipping years ago to Republican. PA Dems wanted a real Democrat, so Sestak won the primary fight against Specter, despite every establishment Dem being against him, and they never forgave him.
1
Nathaniel, your dislike of the Clintons is clouding your vision. Most people don't go into politics to be President. They do it because it's what interests them or because they want to fix problems through better government.
The real obstacle to entering Democratic politics these days is NOT Clinton ntons, but lack of money. The Koch donor networks pour astounding funds onto Republicans in even minor local races, which the Democratic Party can't hope to match. Budding Democrats simply can't run a competitive campaign against a bottomless purse.
The real obstacle to entering Democratic politics these days is NOT Clinton ntons, but lack of money. The Koch donor networks pour astounding funds onto Republicans in even minor local races, which the Democratic Party can't hope to match. Budding Democrats simply can't run a competitive campaign against a bottomless purse.
It is not as narrow as just the Clintons. They were founders of the Democratic Leadership Council when Bill first ran, but there were many other founders alongside them. There are still a large portion of sitting Democrats who are DLC members.
The DLC or "New Democrats" basically changed their strategy of appealing to the working people and the trade unions (learning the wrong lesson from the feared "Reagan Democrats" of the previous decade). They switched their campaign strategy to match the GOP by courting big corporate and financial donors. To please the corporations, they had to take "business-friendly" positions that disenfranchised the traditional grassroots. They threw unions under the bus to satisfy the corporate donors, for example, and now are mystified why so many working class people are supporting the GOP, and billionaire worker-hostile (at least on his own projects) Trump in particular.
They also developed the low art of "triangulation," trying to find policies carefully tailored to appeal to different segments, even slivers, of the electorate. They concentrated on the more conservative Dems who sometimes voted GOP and tried to pick off "independents" and moderate Republicans.
They thought they didn't have to pay attention to the liberal and progressive grass roots who, they thought, had to vote for them as the lesser of two evils. Bernie's success despite all of their stumbling blocks showed we will not be taken for granted - even by Hillary.
The DLC or "New Democrats" basically changed their strategy of appealing to the working people and the trade unions (learning the wrong lesson from the feared "Reagan Democrats" of the previous decade). They switched their campaign strategy to match the GOP by courting big corporate and financial donors. To please the corporations, they had to take "business-friendly" positions that disenfranchised the traditional grassroots. They threw unions under the bus to satisfy the corporate donors, for example, and now are mystified why so many working class people are supporting the GOP, and billionaire worker-hostile (at least on his own projects) Trump in particular.
They also developed the low art of "triangulation," trying to find policies carefully tailored to appeal to different segments, even slivers, of the electorate. They concentrated on the more conservative Dems who sometimes voted GOP and tried to pick off "independents" and moderate Republicans.
They thought they didn't have to pay attention to the liberal and progressive grass roots who, they thought, had to vote for them as the lesser of two evils. Bernie's success despite all of their stumbling blocks showed we will not be taken for granted - even by Hillary.
Please. This: "the sort of incremental liberalism of President Obama and Mrs. Clinton." That isn't the trouble. The trouble is they are both Neoliberals, not progressives. They care about the wealthy at the expense, always of the rest of us. That's what Democrats, some Democrats, especially younger ones, are fighting against.
42
The Dems have put all their eggs into the anti-Trump basket, and that doesn't bode well for the 34 of them up for a senate seat whose opponent is not the Donald. Projecting the "alt-right is coming" narrative onto those down ballot races, as the Clinton camp is trying, will not work so long as they're also simultaneously pushing the idea that Trump is so uniquely dangerous that we should be seeking the money and endorsement of every willing Republican to stop him.
9
Weak? No way. That's only the NYT's myopia showing through.
We are going to win the Presidency and take back the Senate. Inroads in the house will soften the right wing majority. That opens up possibilities. I agree that Leader Pelosi and Co. need to step aside in the next four years. But we will need her knowledge and clout to get through the next session.
Most of all the 2018 cycle has to start on November 9th. No more wishy washy. The country is moving left and we Democrats need to lead. We have to take it to the bankrupt Republicans. It can happen. So as the President says: " Don't boo. Vote!"
We are going to win the Presidency and take back the Senate. Inroads in the house will soften the right wing majority. That opens up possibilities. I agree that Leader Pelosi and Co. need to step aside in the next four years. But we will need her knowledge and clout to get through the next session.
Most of all the 2018 cycle has to start on November 9th. No more wishy washy. The country is moving left and we Democrats need to lead. We have to take it to the bankrupt Republicans. It can happen. So as the President says: " Don't boo. Vote!"
7
"Several high-profile Democrats turned down the chance to challenge North Carolina Senator Richard Burr before they settled on a civil liberties lawyer, Deborah Ross, not necessarily a good fit for suburban voters there."
___________________________________________________
Dear Ms. Steinhauer, I realize that you need to wrote some stuff to justify your being paid, but you really should do some homework before you submit your copy. Deborah Ross has served as a 5-term legislator and was one of the Democratic Party whips in our state General Assembly. She has practiced law in a number of areas and taught law at Duke. She is really, really smart and has an engaging personality to go along with unimpeachable character. AND, she is currently tied in the polls with incumbent Burr. She is not weak in any sense of the word and enjoys widespread support from the many honorable groups that have endorsed her.
___________________________________________________
Dear Ms. Steinhauer, I realize that you need to wrote some stuff to justify your being paid, but you really should do some homework before you submit your copy. Deborah Ross has served as a 5-term legislator and was one of the Democratic Party whips in our state General Assembly. She has practiced law in a number of areas and taught law at Duke. She is really, really smart and has an engaging personality to go along with unimpeachable character. AND, she is currently tied in the polls with incumbent Burr. She is not weak in any sense of the word and enjoys widespread support from the many honorable groups that have endorsed her.
35
I made this point in a comment a few weeks ago following an article about Rubio jumping back into the Florida Senate race, in large part due to the weakness of his potential Democratic opponent. Little Marco will likely win simply due to name recognition. Grampa Grassley will be re-elected in Iowa because most Democrats can't identify Patty Judge by name or face. It's sad, the opportunity the Democrats are blowing in 2016. When Bernie Sanders is the face of fresh new leadership, progressives need to admit that we have really big problem.
15
What a load of mularkey.
The true difference between democrats and republicans is that democrats vote to espouse policy and the benefits to all while republicans elect cult(s) of personality and symbolism for a a particular wedge issue. (We) Democrats generally vote for that policy and the stewards\representatives of government to enact it out once elected. Republicans will vote against something instead of for someone. Not only will we take back the senate , but the house as well.
Love will trump hate in a Democratic landslide in November.
The true difference between democrats and republicans is that democrats vote to espouse policy and the benefits to all while republicans elect cult(s) of personality and symbolism for a a particular wedge issue. (We) Democrats generally vote for that policy and the stewards\representatives of government to enact it out once elected. Republicans will vote against something instead of for someone. Not only will we take back the senate , but the house as well.
Love will trump hate in a Democratic landslide in November.
15
I have never seen a Republican slate of candidates for any office broad-brushed and dismissed as as "less than stellar" and "flawed" in the NYT. In all fairness, shouldn't this piece be in the Opinion section?
34
Maybe because the polls don't show them lagging 5-10 points behind Senators who have tied themseleves to Donald Trump !
oh please, where are his tax releases? All repungant character assination and no platform to date mention. Doesnt anyone see what's missing here from he who's name shall not be mentioned?
4
This article has nothing to do with Trump. It focuses on potential candidates for the Senate. And yes, while I would like to see Trump's tax releases, I would also like to see Clinton's release of her speeches to the big banks during pay for play. Just what did she promise them?
9
Trump has no reason to release the tax returns as Hillary gets further exposed as a fraud
8
"Mrs. Clinton, some Democrats argue, is trying to make bench-building more of a priority..."
With Clinton's close ties to Deborah "payday loan lobbyist" Wasserman-Schultz, one can only be wary of Clinton's "bench". The Democrats are losing ground because they relinquished their tradition of defending working people back in the 1990s, and as a result, they have nothing but promises with which to appeal to working class voters.
In 2014, they were clobbered in the midterms for many reasons, but consider this: very few Dems were supporting a meaningful increase in the minimum wage, yet voter referenda for a $15 minimum wage passed in many areas of the country, including Republican strongholds.
The DNC's anti-New Deal agenda is killing the party, but like a monkey with a handful of food, too big to allow it to escape the trap, the Dems keep grabbing those corporate bucks - and wondering why they're stuck in the trap.
With Clinton's close ties to Deborah "payday loan lobbyist" Wasserman-Schultz, one can only be wary of Clinton's "bench". The Democrats are losing ground because they relinquished their tradition of defending working people back in the 1990s, and as a result, they have nothing but promises with which to appeal to working class voters.
In 2014, they were clobbered in the midterms for many reasons, but consider this: very few Dems were supporting a meaningful increase in the minimum wage, yet voter referenda for a $15 minimum wage passed in many areas of the country, including Republican strongholds.
The DNC's anti-New Deal agenda is killing the party, but like a monkey with a handful of food, too big to allow it to escape the trap, the Dems keep grabbing those corporate bucks - and wondering why they're stuck in the trap.
41
Here in Indiana, the state Democratic Party leaders don't seem to think it's important to work hard to elect Democrats at any level. Many sincere, hard-working candidates have received no support whatsoever. I'm trying to figure out what it is the party does other than hold nominating conventions every two years. It's very frustrating. The Bernie supporters are trying to shake things up.
142
As a Hoosier (I say that without a quiver of pride), I agree with ch's assessment. At the local level of politics it's "get along, go along" with a vengeance. Low voter turnout keeps this system of office rotation and indifference to the people and the state's needs in place. I'm afraid the utopian solution is for the national Dem Party to enter the local fray (Obama did it to a degree in 2008) with massive voter registration and get out the vote drives. Without this, Indiana will remain Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum--I mean dumb.
3
The democrats don't know how to run an organization, just look at the federal government.
1
The Democratic leadership focus on retaining their own seats and the party at large focuses on electing a Democratic president. But, they are too stupid or shortsighted to pay attention to anything but a presidential election. The Democratic voter turnout in off-year elections is much smaller than in presidential elections and the party basically sits on its collective butts. Meanwhile the GOP billionaires pour many millions of dollars into off-year candidates and a much higher percentage of the GOP base comes out to vote. We can see this in 2010, when the Republicans, with a smaller base of registered voters, made an all-out effort to win seats in the House. They succeeded in taking control of the House in a census year, recognizing that redistricting is done after each 10-year census. So, with their brand new majority, they simply gerrymandered the entire country to favor Republican House candidates, winning the majority of seats in more recent even in states where a lot more Democrats voted than Republicans. The national Democratic leaders didn't even realize the importance of retaining their majority in 2010, the census year - and put almost no effort into their House campaigns or get-out-the-vote efforts.
Voila! A minority lock-in in the House. If the Dems don't get control of the House by 2020 and start undoing GOP mischief, the GOP is going to make their lock-in even more solid - and no Democratic president will be able to get anything done.
Voila! A minority lock-in in the House. If the Dems don't get control of the House by 2020 and start undoing GOP mischief, the GOP is going to make their lock-in even more solid - and no Democratic president will be able to get anything done.
Funny how the US were the number one in the world in the past. Blacks had real jobs. Chicago and Detroit offered real jobs. Then big government arrived.
7
New flash!! government was bigger back then, whenever then was.
2
Oh, and BTW, the government pretty much saved the auto industry, in case you weren't paying attention to recent history.
5
If your local pizza place offers nasty pizzas, supported by the union, no customers, should the government save it? Want nasty pizza? I didn't think so.
5
"Democrats’ Weak Bench Undermines Hope of Taking Back Senate"/
"Weak bench"? Hey Times, its a presidential and congressional election, not a sports event! Perhaps a little fewer gratuitous cutsie comments and a little more real analysis would be an idea, IF you want to fulfill the press's traditional duty to inform, not merely entertain?
And once again, the Times parrots Republican attacks and this gives currency to them, as in:
"Democratic challenger in Ohio, former Gov. Ted Strickland, is 75, an easy target for Mr. Portman’s taunting nickname, “Retread Ted.”"
So it's also BAD if a Senate candidate is a former governor and has some experience?
How about reporting on these candidates' actual positions and contrasting them with the right-wing extremist of their opponents?
"Weak bench"? Hey Times, its a presidential and congressional election, not a sports event! Perhaps a little fewer gratuitous cutsie comments and a little more real analysis would be an idea, IF you want to fulfill the press's traditional duty to inform, not merely entertain?
And once again, the Times parrots Republican attacks and this gives currency to them, as in:
"Democratic challenger in Ohio, former Gov. Ted Strickland, is 75, an easy target for Mr. Portman’s taunting nickname, “Retread Ted.”"
So it's also BAD if a Senate candidate is a former governor and has some experience?
How about reporting on these candidates' actual positions and contrasting them with the right-wing extremist of their opponents?
140
Its bad to be a former governor if your administration was not remembered, to say the least. Keep in mind, Portman is an incumbent Senator, so both candidates are experienced, meaning that other factors come into play.
1
>> So it's also BAD if a Senate candidate is a former governor and has some experience?
Its bad if he was an unpopular governor. (Somewhat unfairly, but politics isn't fair)
Its bad if he was an unpopular governor. (Somewhat unfairly, but politics isn't fair)
Being a Democrat is a lot like being a Met's fan. Hope springs eternal.
7
In Ohio, the problem is not just that Ted Strickland is "retread Ted." Strickland came very close to retaining the governorship in 2010 against John Kasich, in a year when the Republicans swept every state office in Ohio. I think that Strickland was seen as an effective and competent governor at that time, but he was overwhelmed in the Republican onslaught that year. What has happened in 2016 is that Portman and groups which support him have been running TV ad for months which blame Stickland for the crash of the economy in Ohio beginning in 2008. We know who was in charge in Washington D.C. when that crash began, and that it was a national phenomenon, but to see these Portman ads you would think that Ted Strickland was solely responsible for what happened in Ohio. Portman's campaign (and other groups with deep pockets) had already defined Strickland as financially irresponsible well before Strickland ran his first TV ad. Portman was vulnerable -- he was little known and little liked by the people of Ohio, but, as far as I'm concerned, the Strickland team has done a poor job of bringing home his deficiencies. Nor has it fought back directly against the charges of financial irresponsibility. If Portman wins in November, it will be more a victory for the Koch brothers and an overwhelming TV advertising campaign than for anything Rob Portman has said or achieved.
21
I have been noticing the onslaught of Portman advertising for some time and not so much from Strickland. Portman's ads were running constantly during the Democratic convention and am I crazy, or did a see some on PBS?? An uninformed voter, and there are many of them, might even think he's a Democrat! It's very sneaky.
2
I agree with you and I don't know the specifics as to the campaign being run in Ohio. The Democrats failed to stick the label of "Worst President this Country Ever Had" on George W. Bush's back. When President Barack Obama and former President Bill Clinton are seen with George W. Bush, Americans are confused. We should be busy throwing mud on Dubya.
I recommend that Ted Strickland all the rest of the Democrats invite George W. Bush to come out from his condo in Dallas and campaign for their Republican competitors so they can point out the Iraq/Afghanistan disaster, the economic meltdown under Bush, etc.
I recommend that Ted Strickland all the rest of the Democrats invite George W. Bush to come out from his condo in Dallas and campaign for their Republican competitors so they can point out the Iraq/Afghanistan disaster, the economic meltdown under Bush, etc.
1
>>> Strickland came very close to retaining the governorship in 2010 against John Kasich
That's mostly because he got the NRA vote. It wouldn't have been close otherwise. The NRA endorsed Strickland over Kasich because in the 90s in Congress Kasich voted for the assault weapons ban. Now, Strickland has done complete volte-face on guns, so he can't count on that block any longer.
That's mostly because he got the NRA vote. It wouldn't have been close otherwise. The NRA endorsed Strickland over Kasich because in the 90s in Congress Kasich voted for the assault weapons ban. Now, Strickland has done complete volte-face on guns, so he can't count on that block any longer.
The democrats are apparently blind to the movement of the young within their party. In Vermont my son, a Proigressive Democrat got absolutely no help in the Democratic Primary for Lt. Gov. August 9. The party favored a long time "regular" Democrat.
My son won the Primary by 7 percentage points and still the party is giving him next to no help in his campaign against the Republican candidate. This is Sanders home state folks. I can only imagine the problems younger more progressive Democrats are having in other states.
I have a bumper sticker on my refrigerator: "Republicans have no hearts, Democrats have no brains".
Enough said.
Natalie zuckerman
Natalie Zuckerman
My son won the Primary by 7 percentage points and still the party is giving him next to no help in his campaign against the Republican candidate. This is Sanders home state folks. I can only imagine the problems younger more progressive Democrats are having in other states.
I have a bumper sticker on my refrigerator: "Republicans have no hearts, Democrats have no brains".
Enough said.
Natalie zuckerman
Natalie Zuckerman
224
Perhaps they think he is a poor candidate. They do have that right, to choose who to support. You can't have it both ways--if you trash the party, it's not likely to be there for you. Reality check.
4
Sorry, Natalie,
Your son is not a "progressive Democrat". He's a Progressive, which is a major party in Vermont, with it's own line on the ballot, not a Democrat. He chose to run in the Democratic primary because his own party, the Progressives, do not have nearly the infrastructure and resources that the Democratic Party has been able to muster through a lot of very hard work over a long period of time. Your son David did not put any effort into building up the infrastructure he so blithely now wishes to utilize. If he wanted to be a Democratic, he easily could become one. But he wants it both ways. He wants access to Democratic Party resources without actually making a commitment to the Democratic Party and is, in fact, a proud member of another political party, the Progressives. That's a whole different kettle of fish from the one you described in your post.
Your son is not a "progressive Democrat". He's a Progressive, which is a major party in Vermont, with it's own line on the ballot, not a Democrat. He chose to run in the Democratic primary because his own party, the Progressives, do not have nearly the infrastructure and resources that the Democratic Party has been able to muster through a lot of very hard work over a long period of time. Your son David did not put any effort into building up the infrastructure he so blithely now wishes to utilize. If he wanted to be a Democratic, he easily could become one. But he wants it both ways. He wants access to Democratic Party resources without actually making a commitment to the Democratic Party and is, in fact, a proud member of another political party, the Progressives. That's a whole different kettle of fish from the one you described in your post.
4
Totally agree! Someone said, "The Democratic Party is where Progressive policy goes to die." The party has lost 8% of it's member in the past 8 years under the (lack of) leadership of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, AKA Hillary's right-arm. I can not stand that woman, and what she has done in Florida... which is ALWAYS recruit, campaign for and support Corporate-Democrats. She (and Hillary) are the epitome of pay-to-play self-enrichment filthy dirty politics and 70% of Democratic voters under age 50 are AGAINST ALL THIS!
7
I think what you are ignoring here is that the center is either being driven out of, or quitting the two major parties.
13
Indeed. It is obvious to everyone except the people in the Washington bubble that they are far behind the electorate; the vast majority needs change. The Washingtonites believe that their job is to make sure that things don't change, so as to benefit their real constituents, the very very wealthy.
13
My thoughts exactly.
Right now about 40% of voters are independents, I think -- making the "nonaligned" a bigger group than the two major parties are on an individual basis.
But together, the two big parties still think they can run our country's political show. My prediction is that they will cling to their big donors and special interest groups. They won't think about how many people would desert them in an instant if there were viable third parties and if going Independent wouldn't keep most American voters unable to vote in their state's primaries.
While I am a registered Democrat, I am disgusted and dismayed all the time because the Democratic Party no longer wants to represent American working people across the board. Instead the party is splinting and realigning into a collection of fiefdoms, largely based on ethnicity for nonwhites and the open borders, globalist fantasies of the well off whites.
When is a realistic view of America -- its capacities, its problems, its limitations -- going to return to American politics? I don't know. But both parties will continue to alienate overwhelmed and struggling voters while they keep chasing rainbows and putting the interests of everybody else ahead of the most Americans' interests.
Right now about 40% of voters are independents, I think -- making the "nonaligned" a bigger group than the two major parties are on an individual basis.
But together, the two big parties still think they can run our country's political show. My prediction is that they will cling to their big donors and special interest groups. They won't think about how many people would desert them in an instant if there were viable third parties and if going Independent wouldn't keep most American voters unable to vote in their state's primaries.
While I am a registered Democrat, I am disgusted and dismayed all the time because the Democratic Party no longer wants to represent American working people across the board. Instead the party is splinting and realigning into a collection of fiefdoms, largely based on ethnicity for nonwhites and the open borders, globalist fantasies of the well off whites.
When is a realistic view of America -- its capacities, its problems, its limitations -- going to return to American politics? I don't know. But both parties will continue to alienate overwhelmed and struggling voters while they keep chasing rainbows and putting the interests of everybody else ahead of the most Americans' interests.
6
Two words, Bernie Sanders.
Two more words, scandal free.
Establishment Democrats just don't get it and it's pretty obvious to all of us in the real world.
Two more words, scandal free.
Establishment Democrats just don't get it and it's pretty obvious to all of us in the real world.
70
Socialism in itself is a scandal. No, you don't live in the real world.
Where are Bernie's tax returns. I'm pretty sure that represents a serious scandal-in-hiding. How hard would it have been for Jane Sanders to stop by the house at some point and pick up a few files from the family filing cabinet. I know I could release 20 years of tax returns in about 20 minutes if there was a reason. And Bernie and Jane had a reason.
4
Bernie is not scandal free and he has't achieved anything. He represents one of the tiniest whitest states in the US. Establishment Dems do all the work and spend all the money. When you decide to do that too and your candidates can actually back up their desires with skills and experience, then they will get a closer look. Populist rhetoric does not make a candidate qualified.
4
Here in PA, the Democratic party overlooked an excellent and proven candidate to favor one with little experience and no proven track record. Why? Few people had ever heard of Katie McGinty, while Joe Sestak has a broad base of admirers. I'm all for women in office, but lets find one who (a) knows how to get elected, and (b) has some experience if she is. Failing that, let's go with a man who can get elected, because another 6 years of the extremely conservative Pat Toomey is not better than electing someone the party bosses don't like.
109
"I'm all for women in office, but lets find one who (a) knows how to get elected, and (b) has some experience if she is."
Well there's a tried and true method for keeping women out of high office.
Well there's a tried and true method for keeping women out of high office.
3
Let's start with the fact that Toomey actually had been elected because your preferred candidate Sestak had successfully primaried late Sen. Arlen Specter. With his narrow partisan focus, Sestak couldn't win in 2010 wave election - so you have Toomey representing you for 6 years now. Specter with his years of Senate tenure and bipartisan appeal would have easily rolled over the Club for Growth candidate.
2
TOO RIGHT!
Not only was Joe Sestak a far superior candidate, "Crooked" Katie McGinty only won by a flood of ads lying about Sestak's record on Social Security (stellar, BTW) right before the vote, funded by the DSCC (she could not raise her own money, and the DSCC blew their money defeating Sestak instead of taking on Toomey) and pushed by Mr. "carried interest" Chuck Sestak, (who basically blackmailed organizations to cut off Joe's funding) because he did not want a senator who would think for himself. McGinty has proven she can't. Was dead last out of 7 candidates in state wide primary for governor. Failed to show up at the primary foreign policy debate, was found to have engaged in ethical violations while at her administrative post by the PA Supreme Court, and spent her time between administrative appointments making millions as an anti-environmental lobbyist fighting Maryland's attempt to protect the environment for its citizens. Ushered in PA's unregulated fracking nightmare while serving under Rendell. They asked 5 other people to run against Sestak, all refused but finally found someone unprincipled enough to run, and run dirty, in Katie McGinty. Horrid candidate -- and all the dirty tricks alienated Del Cty Dems -- Del Cty is where PA is won or lost in presidential elections.
We need to defeat Toomey because of the Supreme Court, otherwise a lot of us would be voting Sestak. Probably should do what they did in LA and have a bumper sticker "VOTE for THE LIAR."
Not only was Joe Sestak a far superior candidate, "Crooked" Katie McGinty only won by a flood of ads lying about Sestak's record on Social Security (stellar, BTW) right before the vote, funded by the DSCC (she could not raise her own money, and the DSCC blew their money defeating Sestak instead of taking on Toomey) and pushed by Mr. "carried interest" Chuck Sestak, (who basically blackmailed organizations to cut off Joe's funding) because he did not want a senator who would think for himself. McGinty has proven she can't. Was dead last out of 7 candidates in state wide primary for governor. Failed to show up at the primary foreign policy debate, was found to have engaged in ethical violations while at her administrative post by the PA Supreme Court, and spent her time between administrative appointments making millions as an anti-environmental lobbyist fighting Maryland's attempt to protect the environment for its citizens. Ushered in PA's unregulated fracking nightmare while serving under Rendell. They asked 5 other people to run against Sestak, all refused but finally found someone unprincipled enough to run, and run dirty, in Katie McGinty. Horrid candidate -- and all the dirty tricks alienated Del Cty Dems -- Del Cty is where PA is won or lost in presidential elections.
We need to defeat Toomey because of the Supreme Court, otherwise a lot of us would be voting Sestak. Probably should do what they did in LA and have a bumper sticker "VOTE for THE LIAR."
2
The Democratic Party establishment and the NY Times for the last year have claimed that Hillary Clinton is the best the party has to offer. Considering how bad she is, one can only imagine how bad the Democratic candidates for the Senate are. The country deserves better.
42
Physicist, Hillary Clinton is the Democratic presidential nominee by virtue of winning overwhelmingly the popular votes and the delegate count in the just recently completed party primaries over a stiff opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders. That is the process, so what do you mean by "the country deserves better"? You may, however, bash the Republicans for nominating a lunatic' but here again, they followed a particular process.
6
you, nor anyone else, has any idea what sort of president Hillary will be. We need to quit electing those who are good at campaigning, and go for those who will govern well. Hillary is the best choice here, clearly.
5
Hillary Clinton won because of the super-delegates who were predetermined to vote for her.Removing the super-delegates would have made the race for the nomination much closer. Then we had the biased leanings from the DNC for Hillary Clinton, and against Bernie Sanders.
As for Hillary Clinton, the e-mails that were released show the Clinton Foundation and her position of Secretary-of-State were not so separate. People asked and sometimes met with government people if they donated enough to the Clinton Foundation. Of course, there was nothing wrong with this, compared to a president if he/she did the same thing. Then there was Benghazi, her private server, deleted e-mails, and a few other issues.
This year, I found that there were few candidates running for the Presidency from the Democrats. Had there been more, perhaps there would have been someone better.I'm also tired of reading Trump-bashing (though deservedly so) from Hillary Clinton.
And I would like to hear from Hillary Clinton on her points-of-view on the issues, and her policies if she gets elected.
I think that Physicist meant "the country deserves better" with some of the "issues" that I brought up.
As for Hillary Clinton, the e-mails that were released show the Clinton Foundation and her position of Secretary-of-State were not so separate. People asked and sometimes met with government people if they donated enough to the Clinton Foundation. Of course, there was nothing wrong with this, compared to a president if he/she did the same thing. Then there was Benghazi, her private server, deleted e-mails, and a few other issues.
This year, I found that there were few candidates running for the Presidency from the Democrats. Had there been more, perhaps there would have been someone better.I'm also tired of reading Trump-bashing (though deservedly so) from Hillary Clinton.
And I would like to hear from Hillary Clinton on her points-of-view on the issues, and her policies if she gets elected.
I think that Physicist meant "the country deserves better" with some of the "issues" that I brought up.
2
The problem with being a party which is a coalition of people who are not white and not conservative is that parts of the coalition don't actually like each other very much. Blacks, Hispanics, Millenials, and aging Boomer liberals dislike Republicans more than they like members of the Democratic coalition outside of their own segment. This is particularly a problem as the aging Boomer liberals die off. To rise within each of the coalition's segments, a politician has to move far from the center. But a black civil rights lawyer, a Hispanic union organizer, or a 25-year-old former president of the campus Socialist club are all unelectable, in part because the other two thirds of the coalition are lukewarm about what the candidate is most passionate about, and in part because general election voters find all three too extreme. While the coalition may have the demographic numbers to elect candidates in theory, it does not generate electable candidates, who need to be middle-aged middle class Americans who are progressive but pragmatic. Democrats nominate passionate activists; Americans want to elect their neighbors.
12
I'll take a Democratic "Retread Ted" over ANYTHING Republican these days. That's not something I would have said ten years ago. But the R party has gone so far right that this independent voter sees nothing in that direction but fear and hate. A weak Democrat can learn on the job and still represent me 10 times better than a hate filled Republican.
11
If you want to talk weak, start with the very flawed Presidential candidate. She'll only get my vote because of the alternative. Down ticket I'll always vote D, as we need to get control of the Senate away from the party of No.
9
Do you have children?
If so, you know that sometimes "no" is the best response.
If so, you know that sometimes "no" is the best response.
4
With a "weak" article like this It seems like the Times is trying to undermine the effort by Democrats to retake the Senate. In my mind, any Democrat would be an improvement over a Republican.
11
The Democrats under the leadership of elitist upper middle class technocrats (Debbie Wasserman Schultz, etc.) have focused almost entirely on older political pros, most especially Clinton for President, and have squandered opportunities to build support in cities and states across the country. It appears to me that the Dems are lagging a bit in the timeline but are headed for the same self-destruction that the Republican party is experiencing now. In fact, the Repubs have more potential national candidates in the pipeline than the Dems have. Dems who hope the Trump disaster will save them after 2016 are badly misleading themselves, I think.
12
Another article where the NYT sticks to its cardinal principle of False Equivalence. Here, the Dems are "weak." Their opponents, all with long, public records, are pathetic. Elsewhere, covering the HRC speech in Nevada, the reporter says that the Clinton campaign "strains" to keep the Trump primary statements in public awareness. STRAIN? It's pretty easy, as they get repeated all the time. But False Equivalence demands a lot of negative words for both candidates. Perhaps there is also a touch of a nod in favor of the sufferers from Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
8
Weak or not, thee ONLY way out is to vote ONLY Democrat 2016, up and down ticket, and shove the Republican'ts and the corporations and their ilk so far down that they will never recover and end up in the trash heap of history where they belong. Otherwise we will ruin, intentionally, the progress that the adult in the room, President Obama has made the last eight years for this country.
Tell all you know to vote ONLY Democrat 2016. Minimum 65 seats US Senate Democrats, minimum 250 seats US House of Reps Dems and take back all State legislatures Dems and at least 30 Dems Governors. Then no more obstructionism, filibusters, bigotry, racism, misogyny, corporate lackeys, wars, guns, lesd welfare, etc. YES, we can! Not easy but it can and must be done! More government not less. More regulations not fewer. Then increase social security, living wage jobs, single payer, free college, higher taxes on the rich and corporations, no more tax evasion or inversions, etc. All a good thing just like Australia, Europe, Japan and Canada. We will be joining the civilized world and the 21st century. Not a bad thing. More socialism not less. More unions not fewer.
Tell all you know to vote ONLY Democrat 2016. Minimum 65 seats US Senate Democrats, minimum 250 seats US House of Reps Dems and take back all State legislatures Dems and at least 30 Dems Governors. Then no more obstructionism, filibusters, bigotry, racism, misogyny, corporate lackeys, wars, guns, lesd welfare, etc. YES, we can! Not easy but it can and must be done! More government not less. More regulations not fewer. Then increase social security, living wage jobs, single payer, free college, higher taxes on the rich and corporations, no more tax evasion or inversions, etc. All a good thing just like Australia, Europe, Japan and Canada. We will be joining the civilized world and the 21st century. Not a bad thing. More socialism not less. More unions not fewer.
61
If you knew how wrong you are you would book a time slot with the local lobotomist this very instant.
8
More socialism. Just like Venezuela. Great Idea.
And, by the way, our single payer system is larger than Canada and Australia's...combined. Larger than Japan's as well. 100 million get either medicare or medicaid benefits.
And, by the way, our single payer system is larger than Canada and Australia's...combined. Larger than Japan's as well. 100 million get either medicare or medicaid benefits.
7
Yes I agree so I am voting for Crooked Katie McGinty vs Toomey although it will be the first vote in my life I will be ashamed of. Bringing gloves, a nosepin and a vomit bag into the voting booth, Sometimes one must sacrifice for ones's country.
The Republicans did not gain control of so many state and local governments because they had a better message or worked harder than Democrats at that level. They displaced Democrats in many state and local offices simply because the super PACs funded by the Koch brothers and their rightwing allies poured money into candidate development of their allies and character assassination of potential enemies all the way down to local school boards and city councils.
The Republican money machine simply invested huge sums in party infrastructure while the Democratic Party did little or nothing at the local level in state after state. Until people in flyover country see a stronger Democratic presence at the local level, the Republicans are going to stymie any progressive movement in this country.
The Republican money machine simply invested huge sums in party infrastructure while the Democratic Party did little or nothing at the local level in state after state. Until people in flyover country see a stronger Democratic presence at the local level, the Republicans are going to stymie any progressive movement in this country.
260
And don't forget that ever popular Gerrymander.
2
You mean the Democrats have to campaign among hick rednecks and try to get their votes? They wouldn't be caught dead out there.
4
"By George, s/he's got it!" from "My Fair Lady".
Yesterday the NYT was bragging about how the Democrats had a 60% chance of retaking the Senate.
Today? The balloon returns to Earth.
Today? The balloon returns to Earth.
17
60% is not a strong likelihood.
4
In this election year, how many voters are swayed by the :"under card"? All of the focus is on the top. My "guesstimate" is that voters will vote more along party lines, and those lines will be defined by who is thought to be the lesser of the un-worthies.
So while "none of the above" suits me quite well, being forced to vote for someone lest the other win, I will support that vote underneath.
And just as an aside, a weak bench means a non-careen politician and that may sway some to go that way. Certainly the career guys/gals (i hate PC) certainly have botched things up to now.
So while "none of the above" suits me quite well, being forced to vote for someone lest the other win, I will support that vote underneath.
And just as an aside, a weak bench means a non-careen politician and that may sway some to go that way. Certainly the career guys/gals (i hate PC) certainly have botched things up to now.
2
The author does not understand that Democrats are not looking for people of character, achievement or intellect. The analogy should not be made to baseball -- a good bench. Instead, the democrats should rely on analogies to criminal enterprises. As Hillary Clinton famously said when interviewing staff: "I don't care about what you can do for your county. I care about what you can do for me."
18
She never said that, stop lying.
1
One important issues has been left out of this article. The DNC has been sending me emails asking me to contribute and I don't. I am sickened by the way Democrats treated Bernie, see unending scandals unfolding around Clinton, and have no love for the New Jersey Democratic Party, which is a machine like the national one. I wonder fulsome the response has been to their fund raising.
33
Don't like then try to fix it. If not then stop complaining. People like you are why it doesn't work well in some states.
2
annabellina, I agree with you. That's why I am not giving another dime to the DNC. I will give to individual candidates. And Hillary gets so much money from Wall Street and foreign governments that she doesn't need any of our dimes. What has she promised them?
3
You call the Democrats "weak," but look at some of the GOP candidates for really weak. Take Marco Rubio - he had the Senate's worst attendance record, was obliterated by Trump and then spent a long time licking his wounds and claiming not to want his Senate seat again. Hardly formidable.
75
And yet Rubio is beating the guy endorsed by Obama and Reid by 5+ points. What does that tell you about how weak the Dem candidates are ?
Weak Bench?!?!?
Compare any breathing human being to Tom Cotton and any of his ilk and you've got a better senator, automatic.
Compare any breathing human being to Tom Cotton and any of his ilk and you've got a better senator, automatic.
166
The Dems have less than stellar candidates for the Senate? Have you checked out the do-nothing, know nothing Republicans currently flopping in those seats?
And that's supposed to be good for our nation? Somewhere James Madison is rolling over in disbelief. The core of his philosophy was an educated public voting for well reasoned and thoughtful politicians.
How far we have fallen.
And that's supposed to be good for our nation? Somewhere James Madison is rolling over in disbelief. The core of his philosophy was an educated public voting for well reasoned and thoughtful politicians.
How far we have fallen.
133
Maybe the Hillary strategy of being a congenital liar who is a woman and who is not named Donald Trump won't work so well in races in which the Democrat is a man or the Republican is not Donald Trump. What is the saying, all politics are local?
16
Maybe the strategy of naming someone who is largely truthful a congenital liar in the face of the biggest liar everyone can see might be getting a little tired and old?
2
I think the major problem facing Democrats for the next six years or so is the gerrymandering the Republicans did in 2010. That has made it difficult for a Democrat to establish himself or herself as a capable legislator at the state level and as the article so aptly states, left the Democrats politically weak.
96
You do know that Senate seats can't be gerrymandered, don't you?
6
Gerrymadering does not directly affect Senate elections, but it limits opportunities lower down -- the "bench" that produces future Senators.
The bench is weak for many of the reasons the author mentioned, but one was left out. The inevitability of a Clinton candidacy has thwarted the development of a cadre of potential presidential candidates who would have stood out as the leaders of a younger generation of Democratic politics. True, Jerry Brown has enjoyed a very distinguishable and praiseworthy "second life" as governor, and I commend him. It is ridiculous, though, that the Democrats are counting on Ted Strickland to win the key state of Ohio -- if elected, he'd celebrate his 80th birthday during his first term, and he is proving to be a weak and lackluster candidate. This will be a historic missed opportunity if (assuming a victory by Hillary Clinton!) the Democrats fail to make substantial gains in Congress and in state legislatures. Having demography on their side is not enough: they need a coherent program, and core principles. Progressives do provide that, and it's hardly "out of the mainstream" if you look at Democratic successes from FDR to LBJ, and their enormous legacy in our social fabric. Finally, Democrats need to attack aggressively the prejudices and not-so-subtle biases that undercut women and minorities as candidates.
11
Why no mention of Ann Kirkpatrick? She seems to have a very good shot at defeating McCain. I hope so; I've lost most of the respect I used to have for him.
8
"Democrats are hobbled by less-than-stellar candidates with various flaws...."
The same could be said for 95% of the Congress: a pack of self-dealing, mediocre, second-rate minds.
No wonder the best people, and best minds in America want to have nothing to do with elected office. Who are the "stars"? Schumer, Collins, McConnell, McCain, Feinstein. The clowns in the House spend most of their two year stints having fundraiser to get re-elected. The clowns in the Senate are in the pockets of every major corporation in the country.
The same could be said for 95% of the Congress: a pack of self-dealing, mediocre, second-rate minds.
No wonder the best people, and best minds in America want to have nothing to do with elected office. Who are the "stars"? Schumer, Collins, McConnell, McCain, Feinstein. The clowns in the House spend most of their two year stints having fundraiser to get re-elected. The clowns in the Senate are in the pockets of every major corporation in the country.
15
We get second rate minds because the job pays 180K. I made that before I was thirty...without having to campaign, without having to fill out disclosure forms, without having to spend months up in Washington, without having to see my name dragged through the mud for something that some $30K per year reporter thinks I may have done.
First year lawyers at big firms make $180K. It's a complete joke and I appreciate those willing to take the pay cut and serve on my behalf - but they invariably suffer fools better than I do.
First year lawyers at big firms make $180K. It's a complete joke and I appreciate those willing to take the pay cut and serve on my behalf - but they invariably suffer fools better than I do.
1
"The clowns in the Senate are in the pockets of every major corporation in the country."
In contrast, the pantsuited clownette running for President is in the pocket of both corporations and foreign countries.
In contrast, the pantsuited clownette running for President is in the pocket of both corporations and foreign countries.
4
The Democratic Party's farm system is weak for a number of reasons. First the leadership is old, very old......Harry Reid should have stepped aside some time ago and allowed a younger senator to take the helm. Nancy Pelosi is also old and more importantly was never a good choice for the Speaker of the House. She was too much a lightening rod and I my opinion a lightweight political leader. This being said another reason for the weak farm system is the fact that the Democrats have time and time again allowed the Republicans to define them and their message thus leading voters to believe that the Republican Party will fill their needs. This needs to be a lesson to the Democratic Party they need to focus on lower level races in state campaigns.
91
@General Noriega, while I agree with much of what you say, you're wrong about Pelosi. She was a good leader, a strong leader and she didn't let the Republicans walk all over her. I suspect you're a man; for some reason, men in this country just can't stand the thought of women in leadership roles.
2
The Democrat message is flawed, that is why their candidates are flawed. 19.4T in debt and counting. What that means is that you, as a democrat, are destroying a future for this country like it's past, unless you favor Greece and Argentina.
Sadly so true, the Dems have too much of a history of letting the old horses stay in the lead far too long. Harry and Nancy should have been put to pasture over 10 years ago. Now, with a Hillary win in the air, all the old horses are feeling that they are safe for 10 more years. That is just about my #1 complaint against the Dems. With the track record of the GOP Congress, every GOTP person should be in jeopardy but they are not.
"Democrats find themselves hobbled by less-than-stellar candidates in races that could make the difference in winning a majority." This is both self-evident as well as true for all of the Democrats running. With luck, the Republican's will retain the Senate notwithstanding the disaster of a candidate leading the ticket. It will provide a necessary check on a President Clinton and ensure that the Supreme Court will not turn into a wholly-paid subsidiary of the "progressive" left segment of the Democratic party.
5
A weak bench comes from returning the same white male pol back to the House over and over and over, like Ed Markey in MA. It secures power of incumbency, but does not give anyone else a chance to try out in the lower offices. It lends itself to calls for term limits, which I don't think I really believe in, but would solve this grasping on hanging on to power for years and years. The House and the Senate could end practices based on seniority, for the most part and make a first year house member equal to one who has been there since the 1970's like Ed Markey. No one in the 5th district was allowed to run, while he held office, and he could not run for senate until Ted Kennedy died. And now, how do we get him to go and give someone else a chance? you can't because there is no stable of candidates, because they never let anyone else have a chance.
7
S, that's right, just like John Kerry, lifetime political hack who won't get out of the way for younger people. As if, it is someone else's fault? What an utter load of horse apples.
I read this article TWICE looking for the word "gerrymander," to no avail.
Yes, the Democrats have made mistakes, but another huge part of the story is the well-documented and egregious Republican use of gerrymandering, voter-ID laws, and other techniques to deny the will of what you rightly call the "new American majority."
How many talented Democrats who would now be part of the Party's bench fell victim to this? Your story says not a word.
This omission is shameful in an otherwise well-written and researched piece.
Yes, the Democrats have made mistakes, but another huge part of the story is the well-documented and egregious Republican use of gerrymandering, voter-ID laws, and other techniques to deny the will of what you rightly call the "new American majority."
How many talented Democrats who would now be part of the Party's bench fell victim to this? Your story says not a word.
This omission is shameful in an otherwise well-written and researched piece.
216
Senate races are statewide. Gerrymandering applies to house races.
All you needed to do was read the title of the article. The part that says "Senate".
All you needed to do was read the title of the article. The part that says "Senate".
3
You're absolutely right. Republicans were in control of many state legislatures when the Census figures were released (swept into office by the wave of Tea Party support), and were able to recreate new districts to maximize their chances of winning for the next ten years. Gerrymandering is a real problem; I wish there were a movement for reform. In any case, let's hope Democrats are in power after 2020.
2
Yes, Senate races are statewide, but the "bench" of individuals who might run for the Senate usually comes from current members of the U.S. House of Representatives and holders of statewide offices, while the holders of statewide offices come from state legislatures, etc.
4
I'm confused. Yesterday you ran an article trumpeting the fact that the Democrats have a 60% chance to retake the Senate. Today they have a weak bench. Make up your mind.
12
I do not understand how Portman, a free trader, can be in the same party as Trump, a convinced protectionist.
1
Because not everyone in the same political party marches in lockstep.
Democrats weak bench is why Hilary R Clinton the the party nominee for President. The Times' is just figuring it out now!
11
Who cares as long as the're not Republicans. The GOP mucks up everything regardless of who is elected or not. The party of no: no abortion: no Presidental power of judicial appointments. Again, who cares...
7
The Democrats -- the party of no jobs and welfare, no growth, nobody doing anything productive, nobody cares .. Detroit, Chicago, State of Illinois, New York State, Youngstown, low-tech California .. OweBama (D) leading the "race to the bottom" ..
3
Looked at in a harsh light, the Democrats are a dying party. They've lost state legislatures, have gone to minority status of governorships and are fielding a presidential candidate who is disliked, personally, by many and who appears to be afraid, or in deep hatred, toward the national media. It is even worse than that, but there isn't space.
Could this be because they have refused to stand up for much of anything? Could it be because they have been deeply intimidated by the Republican chants of the last 40 to 50 yrs. about the evils of liberalism and too much govt. spending? While the Republicans have been building a mighty propaganda arm in Fox Faked News (FFN), Rush Limbaugh and rightwing talk radio from coast to coast, plus websites with vampire like taste for blood, the Democrats have been...what? On the defensive in many zones of politics, to be certain.
All the while, the right wing in America never rests. They've got rabid billionaires backing them and they will stop at nothing. They are fighting total war while the Democrats sit around debating tactics and, to some degree, living in the past. What is the Democrats program, anyway? Please, find it and name it.
Maybe the idea of working your way up in politics needs to be thrown over or at least modified. What's so awful about really good candidates starting in politics running for the US Senate? People who want to be CEOs of their own companies most often start young. Maybe there's too much ladder climbing.
Could this be because they have refused to stand up for much of anything? Could it be because they have been deeply intimidated by the Republican chants of the last 40 to 50 yrs. about the evils of liberalism and too much govt. spending? While the Republicans have been building a mighty propaganda arm in Fox Faked News (FFN), Rush Limbaugh and rightwing talk radio from coast to coast, plus websites with vampire like taste for blood, the Democrats have been...what? On the defensive in many zones of politics, to be certain.
All the while, the right wing in America never rests. They've got rabid billionaires backing them and they will stop at nothing. They are fighting total war while the Democrats sit around debating tactics and, to some degree, living in the past. What is the Democrats program, anyway? Please, find it and name it.
Maybe the idea of working your way up in politics needs to be thrown over or at least modified. What's so awful about really good candidates starting in politics running for the US Senate? People who want to be CEOs of their own companies most often start young. Maybe there's too much ladder climbing.
17
MSNBC is a propaganda arm of the democrat party. The fact that no one watches it should tell you something.
7
There are many left-leaning cable news stations like CNN and MSNBC that are available to everyone. The New York Times, the Washington Post, the SF Chronicle are all cheerleaders for the Democratic Party.
It's just that many listeners and readers reject them.
It's just that many listeners and readers reject them.
6
"Left-leaning" is what a political ignoramus would write.
4
Headline is as weak as the story.
Isn't one of Trump's selling points that he is not a career politician? Tea Party candidates run on the same basis. But for Democrats this is a weakness?
How about covering the differences in the opposing candidates' positions on issues and their backgrounds instead of what amounts to repeating memes floating around in the political media? Why not talk about where the money is coming from to support Republicans and Democrats?
.
Isn't one of Trump's selling points that he is not a career politician? Tea Party candidates run on the same basis. But for Democrats this is a weakness?
How about covering the differences in the opposing candidates' positions on issues and their backgrounds instead of what amounts to repeating memes floating around in the political media? Why not talk about where the money is coming from to support Republicans and Democrats?
.
212
Sanders is as career politician as they come.
I don't think that was the point of the article. The point is that the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot by pushing unethical and unqualified candidates like Katie McGinty, who also never got elected dog catcher, and doing their level best to defeat much better candidates like Joe Sestak, who was, BTW, polling a lot stronger than McGinty against Toomey, because of rediculous party grudges.
Yes, someone without any experience might prove to be a wonderful legislator. By why not back someone who has already proven that they can win races against great odds (Sestak took back a House seat that had been Republican for decades, and be a successful legislator over someone that even Democrats did not like that much (last in a crowded field for governor).
I don't think that was the point of the article. The point is that the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot by pushing unethical and unqualified candidates like Katie McGinty, who also never got elected dog catcher, and doing their level best to defeat much better candidates like Joe Sestak, who was, BTW, polling a lot stronger than McGinty against Toomey, because of rediculous party grudges.
Yes, someone without any experience might prove to be a wonderful legislator. By why not back someone who has already proven that they can win races against great odds (Sestak took back a House seat that had been Republican for decades, and be a successful legislator over someone that even Democrats did not like that much (last in a crowded field for governor).
This is where Bernie Sanders and his political movement need to focus - developing the Democratic bench.
284
Bernie is returning to being an independent. But wants his movement - which started with the resignation of over half the staff? - to remain in the Democratic Party.
Somehow that does not seem calculated to get very far. Despite initial enthusiasm.
Somehow that does not seem calculated to get very far. Despite initial enthusiasm.
5
After all, he owes so much to the Democratic Party....
1
Any sports fan knows, to "develop a bench," you have to thin the herd, starting with the old-timers who don't produce .. like Reid, Pelosi, DWS, Schumer, Durbin, John Conyers, the Dingell family ..
When's that going to happen?
When's that going to happen?
3
Putting aside hot button issues like abortion, gay rights etc., the two main issues now are farming out good paying jobs to slave labor countries over the past decades in a suicidal/genocidal way like lemming jumping off the cliff and the debacle with the admitted war criminal Bush 2 with the Iraq War that has spawned a horror story in the middle east.
The problem that the electorate is facing is that the old line both republican and democrats are on the wrong side of the above issues.
That gives rise to the bigoted, demagogue Trump and the flawed Hillary who was on the wrong side of the two issues in the beginning.
That is what the electorate is trying to figure out.
For the first time in a long time, the electorate is actually ahead of the pols in knowing what the right thing to do is...
The problem that the electorate is facing is that the old line both republican and democrats are on the wrong side of the above issues.
That gives rise to the bigoted, demagogue Trump and the flawed Hillary who was on the wrong side of the two issues in the beginning.
That is what the electorate is trying to figure out.
For the first time in a long time, the electorate is actually ahead of the pols in knowing what the right thing to do is...
117
It's always satisfying to know the future, isn't it? HRC is ready, HRC is intelligent, HRC has demonstrated her concern for Americans of all classes throughout her long life serving the public. In this she is like many women; in this she is different because this time a woman will have the power to act through the highest office in the land.
3
When I was in grade school in the 1950s the nuns made us diagram sentences. It is obvious that you never diagrammed a sentence as your opening sentence is a stream of consciousness screed.
2
The makeover of the US government -- from protecting the people to representing the wealthiest people in the USA and the world was a bi-partisan effort that involved Republicans and the "New Democrats" ... The Clinton's ushered in these Corporate-Democrats that are all about giving 100% attention to the 1% ceo/ global investor crowd that profits from endless wars and uses wars as a way to protect and secure more world power. "The working man's party" that once represented working families and middle class families was sold-out to the highest bidders, and is still generating money for both establishment Democrats and Republicans. You should watch "Heist" Who Killed the American Dream --- Who Killed FDR's New Deal in favor of US-Global Government? I would NEVER vote for Clinton. Trump is a big mouth and may only be in the race to help shove Hillary down our throats... at any rate - #NeverHillary. Currently, my vote is for Jill Stein 2016 or Trump if it looks like Hillary could win.
1
The only "weak" candidates are the ones who will follow Hillary Clinton's strategy of trying to appeal to everybody by appealing to nobody.
Democrats are tired of this weak, "don't step on republicans' toes" platform. Is it too much to ask to want a Democrat who is more like FDR and less like Nixon? Bernie clearly showed that's where the party is headed.
Democrats are tired of this weak, "don't step on republicans' toes" platform. Is it too much to ask to want a Democrat who is more like FDR and less like Nixon? Bernie clearly showed that's where the party is headed.
333
The Democrats only have a majority if they can hold together the blacks, the Hispanics, the unmarried women, idealistic young socialists, and aging Boomer liberals. Bernie only appealed to half of those groups. Any candidate (like HRC) whose first priority is to keep all parts of the coalition together will appear weak, because each part of the coalition doesn't like some of the things that the rest of the coalition wants. So winners will appear weak. Passionate idealogs will lose.
7
Really? Because he got creamed in the primary, despite what the media suggests and his followers think. Let's hope he is NOT the future and instead we have progressives who know how to accomplish something at the local and state level.
5
The party might be headed that direction, but if it is, it's headed in the direction of further losses in local, state and federal elections.
Bernie Sanders does not and did not represent a majority of Democrats. He represented a small group of very loud people who in the end couldn't convince people to vote from their candidate. Turns out most people don't like being shouted at and told they are wrong.
Bernie Sanders does not and did not represent a majority of Democrats. He represented a small group of very loud people who in the end couldn't convince people to vote from their candidate. Turns out most people don't like being shouted at and told they are wrong.
4
Democrats are all weak in the sense they are afraid to strongly make the case on specific issues, letting Repubs off the hook for the truly horrible rhetoric they spew. Too much reaction and not enough offense.
236
Yes, the GOP was all over local elections for 2010, with gerrymandering in mind. And they succeeded wildly. Where was the Democratic plan? where is it for 2020? It was as if Obama - and now Hillary - is all the Democratic establishment is concerned about.
11
Ed, did you hear or read Hillary's speech yesterday?!
She must have heard what you were going to post!
She must have heard what you were going to post!
I thought you said yesterday that the Dems had this in the pocket?
With stellar examples of ethical behavior like poster child DWS, it's not hard for any one but the political annalists at the NYT to see how the Dems are in real bad shape here.
With stellar examples of ethical behavior like poster child DWS, it's not hard for any one but the political annalists at the NYT to see how the Dems are in real bad shape here.
30
Think Brexit .. Jeb! .. Eric Cantor ..
So much for "Citizens United" as "proof" that TV advertising always wins ..
So much for "Citizens United" as "proof" that TV advertising always wins ..
The weak bench is understandable if you think that they scouted the whole country for presidential candidates and ended up with one old white woman and one older white man whom they count as only half a Democrat at the most.
This news confirms my decade all theory that the Clintons sucked all the life out of the Democratic Party and that Republicans only win because Democrats don't have candidates. This is painfully true in the Presidential election in progress.
75
"the Clintons sucked all the life out of the Democratic Party and that Republicans only win because Democrats don't have candidates"?
I guess you missed the part of US history when the Republicans won the presidency from Reagan to Bush and then again with Bush 2 after Clinton, following 2 terms of Nixon, with a one-term break of Carter? (That's 7 terms of Republican presidencies, as opposed to 1 Democratic presidency, if you don't could Clinton's 2 terms)
Like Clinton or not, he INJECTED LIFE into a moribund party that before couldn't win the presidency no matter what! And generally does its best to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!
I guess you missed the part of US history when the Republicans won the presidency from Reagan to Bush and then again with Bush 2 after Clinton, following 2 terms of Nixon, with a one-term break of Carter? (That's 7 terms of Republican presidencies, as opposed to 1 Democratic presidency, if you don't could Clinton's 2 terms)
Like Clinton or not, he INJECTED LIFE into a moribund party that before couldn't win the presidency no matter what! And generally does its best to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!
6
According to the article, the Democrats controlled 62 of 99 state legislatures in 2008, but by 2016, the Republicans controlled 68 out of 99. Clinton wasn't president during that period - it was someone else! That's why the Democrats are in such trouble.
4
Spend much time working with the Dem party? Don't think so. The article is an opinion piece. I'm not sure NYT can actually conduct journalism any longer.
1
ANY Democrat is preferable to ANY Republican in this situation.
Vote straight (D) !!!
Vote straight (D) !!!
333
When the party platform is "We're not the Republicans" you have become the party of protest, not the party of government. A black civil rights lawyer passionate about civil rights does not resonate with 90% of voters, including most Democrats. Neither does a union organizer passionate about unions, or a young socialist passionate about Denmark's welfare and health care programs. Since the Democrats lost the white working class voter, there is a hole in the middle of the coalition. The Democratic agenda is a grab-bag of handouts to various interest groups, rather than a plan for America. A candidate who is closely identified with any one of the coalition's interest groups lacks appeal outside that interest group, even to other Democrats. Hence the lack of candidates with broad appeal. The Democratic party can't win most elections by only being 'Not the Republicans'.
10
Rod Blagojevich, Jessie Jackson Jr., Ray Nagin, Kwame Kilpatrick, Chaka Fatah, Sheldon Silver and Lady Macbeth herself.
A whole cellblock of Democrats to choose from!
A whole cellblock of Democrats to choose from!
6
LOL! This is basic math!
When you've got (D) yahoos like John Conyers (52 year incumbent) and the Dingell family (75+ years of control), blocking upward movement of "new blood" -- what do you think happens? A succession mess!
Democrats have no one to blame but themselves. Old, stale thinking.
When you've got (D) yahoos like John Conyers (52 year incumbent) and the Dingell family (75+ years of control), blocking upward movement of "new blood" -- what do you think happens? A succession mess!
Democrats have no one to blame but themselves. Old, stale thinking.
1
how about open primaries like they have in California, We need a workable alternative to the old guard in both parties.
104
"Weak" is a pejorative term. Just because someone is not well known does not make them weak. The article explicitly mentions Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, who was virtually unknown at the time she was first appointed to the Senate. These people may prove to be excellent legislators. The only real issue is party affiliation. A well known Republican who is involved in gridlock and a scorched earth strategy is truly weak.
274
Agreed, and Gillibrand is a perfect example.
This is simply another xample of the Times inserting a reporter's opinion into what purports to be a news article.
This is simply another xample of the Times inserting a reporter's opinion into what purports to be a news article.
162
NOT virtually unknown, maybe to YOU in Virginia, but she is the grandaughter of an old democrat Machine first lady, Polly Noonan. Well known in NY, and with full political privilege.
9
Yes, but not having candidates with a record and name recognition is a problem. That is the case here in Georgia, where the candidate is completely unknown to the electorate. He has a real uphill battle
4
So see you tomorrow, in the morning around 8:30 or so, no later than 9:00am