Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
On one hand, Democratic younger governors and congresspeople not being hyped to death probably prevents some of the flame outs that have been endemic with Republican governors who seem for about 5 seconds like they can be a political force and then screw up massively and make themselves a punchline before their career ever properly gets started. So up and comers like Kristen Gillibrand or Cory Bpooker do get a chance to get their sea legs under them.
On the other hand, the Democratic party's insistence on being the party of strict seniority rules, where plum assignments and leadership are always given to party elders means that those up and comers don't get much chance to distinguish themselves unless they either go out of their way to seize it, or come into congress with a buzz already behind them. It also means leadership is always behind the curve a bit and has to catch up with the times. Lastly, I think the fact that so much of the Democrat's leadership came of age during the Reagan or the Clinton triangulation years, (see Harry Reid, Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, etc.) means they're very much of the (at best) centrist neoliberals who are forever paranoid that actually proposing liberal or progressive policies will bring about another Reagan revolution, and they spend their entire times in office playing defense against that possibility rather than trying to actually push for anything like an actually liberal/progressive agenda.
And DWS has pretty much proven that her main, if not only talent is in raising money. Democrats simply cannot go forever not doing enough to develop talent in local races, or hoping that simply playing defense long enough will let gains just drop into their lap. They have to be willing to fight in state races, they have to drag the argument back their way, they have to be willing to stand up for themselves instead of just spending forever being "not that Republican nutcase that's running against me".
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |I'm more talking about the party establishment (the big power players/donors, the DNC).
To be honest, a lot of the current economic conditions lay at the Neoliberal Establishment's feet (not the moderates but the party power structure and party bosses) and fault along with the Republicans. And I think the Democratic Establishment needs a pretty hard spanking and wake up call to reality, as the last decade or two, they've been kind of swaddled in a blanket of reality-proof luxury.
It's nothing against moderation, but more the DNC/Clinton/MSM are getting awfully Tammany Hall/Boss Tweed in terms of questionable behavior, and I think they need to be shaken and scared straight. Especially if we're increasingly looking at the early quakes of another recession/depression.
I have nothing against moderation or compromise, but I personally think compromise anymore has been dragged WAY too far to the right than it should be.
edited 12th Feb '16 4:37:23 PM by PotatoesRock
If memory serves, Carson's whole Super PAC system backing him is pretty much a giant embezzling system. They're more running him for the sake of running him rather than the concept of actual presidency. They skim a couple million dollars of money and likely take it and run, and Carson gets probably more book deals and TV spots.
Reminder, half the guys running aren't running for President.
They're running for book deals, show deals, and media deals.
Carson's is, without a doubt, intelligent in the field of neurosurgery (though not in politics).
Leviticus 19:34Carson is a perfect example of how being a genius in one field doesn't guarantee competence in another.
@Token minority appeal: I suppose that has some appeal but I seriously doubt that will help much. Black voters aren't stupid. They're not going to suddenly switch parties just because the Republican candidate looks like them.
edited 12th Feb '16 6:35:34 PM by Kostya

It's harder to see for the Democrats' side because of the paucity of governors and their weakness in congress.