I absolutely agree with this: the Democratic party is probably better off without a ‘leader’. Having and relying on leaders is exactly what has put the DNC in such a dire state nationally. Relying on personalities, relying on a single person or two to represent a cross section of people who don’t necessarily see eye to eye with the leader of the moment - that’s not a prescription for victory.
Going back to Bernie Sanders’ movement, while I may have disagreed with some of his voters’ attitudes and behavior in the general, I welcome the movement generally for the reasons I’ve stated. Get the party focused back on issues, not personalities. When the party has personalities that act as leaders, that makes the party vulnerable because then the opposition just focuses on the flaws of that person.
This is where Republicans, despite their obvious flaws, have beaten Democrats over the last 25 years. Don’t get me wrong: I don’t like their positions on these issues, but the party knows that their a fair chunk of these voters respond to the messages. The GOP has failed at times but they’ve done a better job of making campaigns about their issues vs. the Democrats’ leaders personalities. But, give the results of last night, it appears that the Democrats may have finally awoken and figured out how they can turn the tables. They don’t need personalities or leaders; they just need an organic ground-up movement and keep it basic at a certain level with some flexibility for differences within the party.
It helped that her opponent made a much bigger deal out of her gender than she did. She barely mentioned it (in my estimation, she focused on a congested road that creates a cluster fuck every rush hour) while her opponent was obsessed with it. Its like he was counting on being able to win based on gender issues.
I agree with Adaher that it’s too early to tell now, but I would also submit that this year’s race has a different set of dynamics than the races in 2014. In 2014, it was still the same clash that existed in 2010 and 2012, with Obama against the Tea Party. Now it’s Trump and the GOP against what seems to be a developing progressive movement. The GOP begged and screamed for power and promised the moon if they got it. Well they’ve got it and haven’t accomplished shit.
They did, but that’s also what is going to fuel the fire behind the progressive movement. It’s not just Gorsuch they’re worried about; they’re worried about loading the federal judiciary with nominees in district courts. Conservatives probably need a bigger reason to come out to the polls than nominating a justice.
I’m trying to figure out how often the political parties have clear “leaders” other than certain incumbent presidents or - less frequently - majority leaders in the House or Senate. Rather, I think it most often that there is a short list of the most vocal and influential party leaders. A “leadership committee” as it were.
And I think there is a good set of the 10 or so most prominent Dem leaders presently. I don’t keep track of such things, but in no order and not close to exhaustive I can list: Warren, Booker, Pelosi, Bernie, Franken, Durbin, Harris, Schumer… A number of others seem to arise in Presidential campaign years. I see the optimal situation expanding upon that list, and “building the bench.”
Isn’t it preferable to have a political organization with several coordinated and complimentary inputs, rather than a single leader who can spur division and provide a target?
I hear what you are saying but the senate has never really been the driving force behind rejecting the Medicaid expansion. The outgoing speaker of the house of delegates (William Howell) was the champion of rejecting Medicaid expansion. The senate is very closely split with several state senators from districts that they will struggle to win in 2 years if tonight is any indication of days to come.
I think a grand bargain can be made on Medicaid expansion coupled with tax relief.
Don’t know if it’s been mentioned but it seems that the polling was once again inaccurate at the state level. Most polls I saw did give Northam as slight edge entering the final days but they also suggested there was momentum in favor of Gillespie. As it turned out, Northam won by, what, double digits? And the House of Delegates was a disaster for the GOP, which I don’t recall being predicted. I think it’s a good thing that polls are off - it might motivate more people to show up at the polls. But if you’re running a campaign and trying to strategize those final days, it seems to be getting more difficult to do so.
I think we often obsess too much over how important it is to tune one’s tactics to the polls. One thing I loved about Obama’s 2008 campaign in the primaries was that he was Steady Eddie. He had a strategy, and he stuck to it without tacking and jibing overtime some new story cam out. He set a course, trusted his judgement and sailed to victory. Candidates who are always responding to every poll really turn me off, and I don’t think I’m the only person who reacts that way.
I would also point out that the Trump not a factor vote was strongly biased towards Gillespie voters. So they may include people who are voting for Gillespie and trying to pretend the Trump doesn’t exist.