Who picks the party leaders? Rather than democracy, we get the Boss system.
Not in most states, usually you have to be a registered member of that party.
Obama? Clinton?
Depending on the type of stock, every stockholder gets to have a say.
I think both Republicans and Democrats are needed to defeat the next fascist.
Democrats need to convince the average middle class voters that they are on their side. Focus on things they can do to improve their lot: rescind the tax cuts for the elite. Remove the insane tariffs that are driving up prices. Come up with a plan to address the funding gap in Social Security. Address the closing of rural hospitals. Emphasize that they are working for all of us and not just minorities.
Republicans I believe shoulder the greater burden. They have shown that they are fine with fascism as long as the fascist has an R next to his name. They need to show commitment to democracy (and spare me the "we’re a republic, not a democracy pedantry). They need to reject bigotry rather than exploit it for easy votes. And if perchance another Republican is elected president, Republican congressmen need to act like they’re an independent branch of government and not subservient to a fascist regime.
Perhaps the greatest burden is on the electorate itself. They need to be better informed and more capable of critical thinking. They need to stop thinking that all of their problems can be blamed on people who aren’t just like them. They need to stop thinking that the president has magical powers to protect them from inflation or “the other”. In short, they need to grow up.
I’m not optimistic. As long as people live in their disinformation bubbles and reject science and truth and as long as one party is more than willing to sell out democracy by exploiting fear and bigotry, the threat of fascism will be ever with us and will ultimately prevail.
Since we havent had one yet, how can it be next? I will concede “fascist wannabe” maybe. We really should stop throwing around words like Fascist. trump is a Right Wing Populist.
Well, pretty much that is impossible. But the Dems need to call out the MAGAs on their lies. Explain that the President CAN NOT fix inflation overnight- then add in trump lied when he claims he could fix inflation- in fact it was worse, 4.2% in May. The average for the last 12 months was 3.5%, much higher than 2.9 % (Last year of Bidens term).
Mostly this, though I think it is much the bad party leadership as much as mediocre candidates. Trump is not popular. Trump was never particularly popular. Fascists generally aren’t. Trump won because people dislikes the Democrats even more. You want to beat the next Trump? Stop obsessing over Trump, or the media, or Facebook and get your own house in order. Find a way to represent the progressive and centric wings of the party. Get things done that matter to people. Talk like real people. Put up a fight when you need to.
Honestly, the best way to defeat the next Trump is to control Congress, even at the expense of the Presidency.
While the Executive branch and the Presidency, in particular, are by far the most powerful branch of government, the only way to constrain a President that defies norms is with Congress.
In 2026, people will by fed up with the Pubs and pivot to the Dems. In 2028, one of two things will happen:
- People will be fed up with the Dems and pivot back to the Pubs
- Or things will be so bad, they will stick with the Dems, elect a Dem President, and then proceed to blame them for Trump’s mess.
We saw it when Obama inherited the financial crisis and Iraq. We saw it when Biden inherited the pandemic and Afghanistan. We’ll see it when the next person inherits a recession and Iran.
In hindsight, the county would have been better off if Trump won his second term against Biden. He would have had to own his inflation and wouldn’t have had a four years to rest and find more effective handlers.
Carter was not a result of “smoke filled rooms” picking the nominee. He won most of the primaries and caucuses in 1976 and had more than enough delegates to secure the nomination on the first ballot.
Primaries weren’t really a decisive thing when Humphrey and Stevenson were nominated but to suggest they were chosen in “smoke filled rooms” isn’t really accurate. They were popular leaders in the party so their nominations were logical.
Oops, missed it- the death of FDR gave us Truman. He was a shoe in for his second-sorta- term nominations. No smoke filled rooms needed.
Yep, I blew that one.
How about FDR and JFK, as claimed above?
Truman’s career was a result of loyalty to party boss Tom Pendergast in KC. He was a result of machine politics but rather clean in that regard.
JFK owed a lot to strings pulled by his father. Not really sure about FDR though he had been governor of NY and a previous VP nominee. So he had some genuine experience.
The smoke filled room of history is considered to be the one that got Harding the GOP nomination in 1920. But there was a lot of deal making done by party power brokers going back to the late 1800’s. Garfield is a classic example of someone who wasn’t considered a serious option initially but after a ridiculous number of ballots got the nomination as a compromise candidate.
Which is a better system than the mob rule primary system.
I was responding to a post about getting better candidates. Eliminating the primary election cycle is a better idea than anything you have offered.
Also, Truman’s vice-presidency was a result of the Democrats’ “smoke filled room” - party leaders decided that Wallace was not the person to take over the Presidency if FDR died (and he was looking mighty frail in the summer of '44).
Of course, the vice-presidency was regarded very differently then, and the selection wasn’t left up to the President as it is done these days.
For very large values of “handled poorly”.
Most of the world’s better democracies eschew primaries and instead have candidates selected by party leaders. That may be a contributing factor to those countries being ranked higher on the lists of democratic representation.
That’s great information…if you are counting the number of outlets as equal to each other, which they most definitely are not. What about the amount of actual influence each has?
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’
Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947
I like Democracy, not party bosses making the decisions for us.
Interesting question, Maybe you could reseach that?
Not an “interesting” question, but the actual question when it comes to who is influencing the American public the most.
Sounds great, I await your research.
According to Pew Research, it isn’t the number of media outlets on your side of the aisle-it is what type of media outlet your side trusts. The right tend to ignore the “mass media” (although the fact that Breitbart and Fox ARE “mass media” is almost totally ignored) in favor of loud and boisterous smaller outlets that confirm already held beliefs. Which News Sources Republicans and Democrats Use and Trust: Report | Pew Research Center
Factually are most media outlets in USA left leaning says pretty much the same thing. There may be more left-leaning outlets by count, but their actual influence (or lack thereof) is what actually counts.
I had a teacher in High School who would respond with that if he knew he would lose the debate.
Now, he said that it was an interesting question, so I am sure he will respond to the answer I provided.
They should make the decision of who best represents their party position and platforms, then you decide which candidate best represents your positions during the general election. Least you forget, we are not, and are not supposed to be a pure democracy. The primary system is pure mob rule and does not produce the best candidates.
Now I await you to post the same old tired quote.