As my colleague Erik wrote yesterday:
"And to talk about Chris Cillizza's broader point about who won and lost that night and what that means going forward, I have 2 points here:
1. As the late, great former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives (Thomas Tip O'Neill) so famously and accurately said: all politics is local. So what does that mean? Of course Republicans are going to try to tie the broader Democratic Party, including the real Liberals and Progressives, with the Socialists, now that NYC is going to have a Socialist Mayor and that 1 of their U.S. Reps. (Alexandria O. Cortez) is a strong, potential, contender for the Democratic nomination for President in 28. But they were going to do that anyway. And they have nothing else going for them right now, anyway. They're completely in charge in Washington and their leader has a 37-40% job approval, depending on what polls you look at.
2. But as DNC Chairman Ken Martin told CNN last night, the Democratic Party is a big tent party. So that means Liberals (like The New Democrat) and most mainstream Democrats. But it also means a party that has Socialists, as we saw last night in New York. And since neither faction is big enough to govern this country by themselves, they need their center-right, their center-left, and their left-wing, working and getting elected together. Instead of 1 faction of the party trying to wipe out the other faction, before they try to defeat the Republicans."
From The New Democrat
I think Adam Kinzinger's key point is this:
"1 of the things that Rahm Emanuel (Democratic House Campaign Committee Chairman - 2005-06) did very well in 06, is that he recruited Democratic candidates who looked like the district that they were running in.
You couldn't run a Zohran Mamdani or another Socialist, in a conservative district in Texas. Just like you couldn't run a "Conservative Democrat" in New York City. Maybe you could, but that Democrat wouldn't win the Democratic primary in New York." (Not Adam Kinzinger's worst closely, but very close)
I know the far-left hates Rahm Emanuel for multiple reasons, but 1 in particular is ideology. And this is at his playbook from 05-06 and how Democrats won back the House in 2006 and I'm sure the Senate as well that year:
Geographic Reach: As Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) in the 2006 election cycle, Emanuel championed a strategy of recruiting candidates who could win in historically Republican-leaning "red" districts. This meant supporting candidates who were often more moderate on social issues or fiscally conservative.
Candidate Diversity: He supported a wide array of candidates, including those who held different views from the party consensus on issues like abortion (pro-life Democrats) or gun control, to ensure the party could compete in diverse districts and build a larger governing majority.
Focus on Common-Sense Issues: In recent comments, Emanuel has suggested Democrats should "stop talking about bathrooms and locker rooms and start talking about the classroom," advocating for a shift in focus to kitchen-table issues and concerns that resonate with a broader swath of the electorate.
Pragmatism over Ideology: His approach is often described as pragmatic and "cold" in its analysis, prioritizing electability and legislative majorities over ideological purity.
Winning First: The core of the strategy is that a party must win elections to govern and implement any part of its agenda. Expanding the tent is seen as a necessary step to achieve that goal.
You can find this on Google
Look, I'm not a centrist/moderate. (Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore) I'm a JFK Democrat, just like the rest of The New Democrat. We're all JFK Liberals. So this is not about arguing for a "centrist/moderate" Democratic Party, to try to take down Donald Trump and MAGA. But at the end of the day, political parties are only in the business to win. The more they win, the more they are able to govern, the more money they're able to raise, the more voters they bring in... assuming that they govern well. The latter is obviously always the hardest part
A big reason why Abigail Spanberger won in Virginia on Tuesday and Mikki Sherrill won in New Jersey on Tuesday, (along with who they ran against and President Trump) is because they're both center-right, fiscally responsible, national security hawks, who will protect the streets in their states. Who also connected very well with ordinary voters in their states and addressed the economic concerns of the voters in their states. But neither of them would've even won the Democratic primary in New York, or San Francisco... or any other big city in America with a large Socialist faction in it.
The reason why New York City will have a Socialist Mayor next year and the next 4 years, is because the economy is bad up there, a lot of people are struggling and Zohran Mamdani spoke to the concerns of those voters and made his whole campaign about affordability. And the fact that NYC has a large Socialist bloc (at least compared with other big cities) didn't hurt the Mamdani campaign either. But Mamdani probably couldn't win statewide in New Jersey, definitely not in Virginia... perhaps not even in New York State.
The Left is already talking about socialism is the way to go and that they've finally taken over the Democratic Party, or are about too. They're obviously entitled to believe that. The problem is most of the country still doesn't want a socialist government, they sure as hell don't want a socialist party. But for the Democratic Party to be successful next year and going forward, they are going need Socialists to run and win where they can. And for the real Liberals to run and win in the rest of the country, especially where Republicans currently hold those seats.
You can also see this post on WordPress.

No comments:
Post a Comment
All relevant comments about the posts you are commenting on are welcome but spam and personal comments are not.