He says, after the Dems just had a presidential candidate that did not even run in the primaries.
No, a new party is 100% the way to go, though it shouldn’t be hostile to the dems, e.g. not running for president until they have more congressman and senators then the Dems to avoid splitting the vote.
I would straight up call it “the New Democratic Party” or similar. I wouldn’t even necessarily try to make a massive shift towards the progressive direction. Instead, design it so that it would be very easy for existing Democratic politicians to jump ship to the new party. Make it an equally large tent, and just serve as a one-to-one replacement of the existing party. Once the Old Democratic Party is dead and buried, then debates can be had about what direction to move the party politically. Instead, the main change would be structural reforms, reforms that would serve to allow the party to move in new ideological directions in the future.
I would make the New Democratic Party like the old one, except with a few key structural reforms that will prevent the dysfunction of the Old Democratic Party. Some possible reforms I can think of:
No politician may run under the New Democratic Party banner while accepting corporate campaign dollars.
Every nominee must have a full and competitive primary every single cycle, regardless of incumbency.
Any party leader that holds a leadership role during a losing election will be ineligible to serve in party leadership for the next ten years. (True electoral accountability among leadership.)
No system of committee appointments or positions within the party may be assigned based on seniority. Every position from top to bottom must be competitive. This is the DEMOCRATIC party. We don’t do inherited royalty here.
Various reforms to greatly diminish the power of political consultants.
A vice president is ineligible to be the party’s presidential nominee for at least 8 years after the end of their VP term. (Kill off the “it’s their turn” idea once and for all.)
In other words, in software terms, this would be a hard fork of the Democratic Party. It wouldn’t be an entirely new party that has to build a completely new base and tradition from scratch. It would simply be a new version of the existing party built with a few crucial reforms that will prevent the kind of sicknesses that currently plague the existing Old Democratic Party. The actual formal legal structure of the party would be entirely new, but it would be designed so that any existing Democratic politician could easily jump ship to the new version as long as they’re willing to agree with these few crucial structural reforms. It would essentially be stealing the party right out from under the existing DNC.
The importance of money is greatly exaggerated. I think it’s clear by now that there is such a thing as saturation when it comes to political ad spending. By the time you’ve already spent $500 million to bombard the eyeballs in everyone in the country, what good does the next $500 million really do? Democrats managed to outspend Republicans in both 2024 and 2016. Dems collect way more money than they need and then waste most of it.
Ahhh, never mind. I had a strange idea that clinging to the carcass of the democratic party failed. No idea where I got that from. Looking forward to all the improvements the next 4 years will bring the US, since DNC money made life easier.
He says, after the Dems just had a presidential candidate that did not even run in the primaries.
No, a new party is 100% the way to go, though it shouldn’t be hostile to the dems, e.g. not running for president until they have more congressman and senators then the Dems to avoid splitting the vote.
I would straight up call it “the New Democratic Party” or similar. I wouldn’t even necessarily try to make a massive shift towards the progressive direction. Instead, design it so that it would be very easy for existing Democratic politicians to jump ship to the new party. Make it an equally large tent, and just serve as a one-to-one replacement of the existing party. Once the Old Democratic Party is dead and buried, then debates can be had about what direction to move the party politically. Instead, the main change would be structural reforms, reforms that would serve to allow the party to move in new ideological directions in the future.
I would make the New Democratic Party like the old one, except with a few key structural reforms that will prevent the dysfunction of the Old Democratic Party. Some possible reforms I can think of:
No politician may run under the New Democratic Party banner while accepting corporate campaign dollars.
Every nominee must have a full and competitive primary every single cycle, regardless of incumbency.
Any party leader that holds a leadership role during a losing election will be ineligible to serve in party leadership for the next ten years. (True electoral accountability among leadership.)
No system of committee appointments or positions within the party may be assigned based on seniority. Every position from top to bottom must be competitive. This is the DEMOCRATIC party. We don’t do inherited royalty here.
Various reforms to greatly diminish the power of political consultants.
A vice president is ineligible to be the party’s presidential nominee for at least 8 years after the end of their VP term. (Kill off the “it’s their turn” idea once and for all.)
In other words, in software terms, this would be a hard fork of the Democratic Party. It wouldn’t be an entirely new party that has to build a completely new base and tradition from scratch. It would simply be a new version of the existing party built with a few crucial reforms that will prevent the kind of sicknesses that currently plague the existing Old Democratic Party. The actual formal legal structure of the party would be entirely new, but it would be designed so that any existing Democratic politician could easily jump ship to the new version as long as they’re willing to agree with these few crucial structural reforms. It would essentially be stealing the party right out from under the existing DNC.
What happens if a given seat doesn’t actually have primary competitors? Do we just assign someone by lottery?
Money. You need the DNC money. It’s easier than more fundraising. Like activating voters instead of switching them. Make your life easier.
The importance of money is greatly exaggerated. I think it’s clear by now that there is such a thing as saturation when it comes to political ad spending. By the time you’ve already spent $500 million to bombard the eyeballs in everyone in the country, what good does the next $500 million really do? Democrats managed to outspend Republicans in both 2024 and 2016. Dems collect way more money than they need and then waste most of it.
Ahhh, never mind. I had a strange idea that clinging to the carcass of the democratic party failed. No idea where I got that from. Looking forward to all the improvements the next 4 years will bring the US, since DNC money made life easier.