Agreed. I’m still pissed off about the DNC & Bernie in 2016. And 2020.
And let’s also look at time and money. Great Britain & France held elections in very short time frames- about what we have from Biden’s withdrawal to November. Less time, less money, less annoyance might create greater turnout. Worth a try!
Hello Quasim, appreciate the intent and clarity of this article. However, it has been pointed out elsewhere that planning for primaries are initiated soon after an election, and that if Biden had stated his intention to be a one term president at that time, he would have been somewhat of a lame duck president. (He could have however stated he would not run, say in Feb-March 2024...) So that suggests that the primary system itself needs to be overhauled. Why is it that Europeans have successful, very short primary seasons and our drags on into years???
I usually agree with you, but I am going to object. The primary systems are broken because they are too elongated and began way too soon. The president is a national office and there are no needs for states to hold primaries at all. In my state I've never been able to vote in any primary because I'mnot permitted as an independent(who tends more towards democrats).
We need to legislate one national primary after labor day that includes all of the candidates from any party and the top 3, maybe four face a run-off in November by ranked choice for electoral votes, if we keep that system.
After two or three primaries all the money coalesces on two or three candidates---that is how the primary system breaks and prevents the people from having a choice---basically New Hampshire, Iowa, and sometimes South Carolina have the only say in picking the nominee and the rest of the primaries become superfluous.
Qasim, I respect you and your opinions but you have no idea how much women love Kamala. Before you write another word - watch her speech in Wisconsin. Please. Otherwise you will embarrass yourself. Most of us did not realize how popular she was! She has shattered fund raising records! The largest one day haul ever and 68% from first time donors. First time donors! This is a newly tapped demographic. Second, abortion is THE ISSUE! Men do not get it and will never get it. Do not even try because you are not a woman and you will only sound lame. I don’t know what makes you an expert but rip up your script and sit back and simply watch until you get it! Then gather your data, your focus groups and report on Kamala’s extraordinary momentum! Please!
Hi Gale, I think you may have missed the point? Didn't see Qasim disrespecting Kamala, but advocating for a real primary season.... I am among those who were not happy with some kind of primary...
You didn’t mention the horrendous primary schedule that even with a robust slate hits Super Tuesday and’s the South guarantees any progressive candidate dies even though those EVs will not (often) be Dems. We need to establish the second Tuesday in May as national primary day so everyone has a say.
Thank you, Qasim, for this useful historical review. Choosing to become involved in issues framing, candidate assessment and questioning, and voting is choosing to be an involved American citizen in support of the Constitution and the protections and responsibilities it enables all citizens to share in.
Your comments are all worth remembering, and for me one stands out as being as important as any but often overlooked. That is observation on American youth (younger citizens) willingness to involve themselves in these political democratic processes; essential choices, essential inputs, essential perspectives and participation to vastly improve cooperation and interest-outcomes.
One of the least discussed benefits of youth participation is the advocacy they provide for supporting a genuinely plural and inclusive society and mobility within that society. They are the ones least likely to disrespect any group whose interests and participation are being marginalized or discounted. For example (just one), they are very unlikely to see their grandparents and parents' interests as less important and they advocate for better informing public opinion by being given respect for entering their own views into public debate along with and as respected views in a comprehensive effort to find better solutions and forms of cooperation.
You lost me when you say we should have had a robust primary this year. We had an incumbent president who had done an amazing job during his first term. I would bet that Biden would have bowed out after one term BUT for trump running again.
You also seemed to imply that we should be having an open convention next month…something that would have guaranteed a win by trump in November.
Your analysis of the impact of robust primaries and democratic turnout is profound. It should be the starting point for any serious discussion of democratic strategy. When the party is in thrall to the big donors, the interests of the people become subordinated, and the strategy discussion becomes more about how to pretend that's not the case.
Gaza is an ineradicable stain on Joe Biden's legacy. Netanyahu is a self-serving criminal.
See my comment to your Note on this, but also: Can we be clear who/what we are talking about when we say "DNC"? Are we talking about the DNC staff as influenced by the White House? Or are we talking about the full body, described by James Zogby in his interview with Peter Beinart, 400+ people representing all party members across the country? That's step 1 in reform, I think, reactivating the actual DNC.
I almost completely agree with you, and I have experienced much of what you point out, such as disappointment how the DNC pushed Hillary over my preferred candidate, Bernie, but also favored her over the natural choice for succeeding Obama, VP Biden, & I am sure either candidate would've beaten Trump quite handily. I think we would've been very well-served by a Biden presidency starting in 2017 & ending in 2025 (perhaps with either Hillary or Warren as his VP). I was also disappointed how the Democratic establishment weighed in in favor of Biden in the 2020 primaries over the progressives Bernie & Warren, & feel cheated in not having a real choice in this year's primaries (I wrote in Jeff Merkley's name).
The only point I disagree with, is that I don't think that anything that happened in 2019-20 showed that Kamala Harris should've necessarily been chosen as VP. Her support declined over the course of the debates, so much so she dropped out before participating in any primary, as I recall. Based on performance, I would say Elizabeth Warren (or Bernie, but Biden wanted a woman as VP) earned the spot, & would've been outstanding. I think that we should have a national primary with real choices this time, but it looks like the Democratic Party is galvanizing around Harris. I am actually warming up to her & now think she'll be a good candidate & president, even if not quite as strong as my personal favorites. At least now there's renewed excitement & optimism in the Democratic Party & momentum for Harris.
Well…..I understand your point, but Primaries have also given us Trump, as the most egregiuos example. There are no “silver bullets” - there are pros and cons and always unintended consequences when we get too rigid about process for one. The situation today calls for creativity and flexibility. Too late to do something that should have been done two years ago. Go with the flow - new energy and enthusiasm might just be the trick.
Not to disagree, but offer somewhat different perspective on the use and opportunities for better informing ourselves and citizens through the public discussions and the citizen inputs possible and necessary.
The many and unusual points of view that will be offered in public discussion about policy and needed outcomes in any year, not just preceding an election, brings information and brings interested potential candidates choices much more into the shared understanding of the people. Most often it is better accomplished in public gatherings, but it can be shared in responsible media reporting, made the more potent in that way.
Not a silver bullet, but better than working without the information or with a tightly controlled public space. It better puts into effect citizen choice and citizen involvement in constituting democratic process and policy. Not flawless, just effective as a shared endeavor and a shared responsibility.
Prof Timothy Snyder just presented an essay "Veep Stakes" on his 'Thinking about' substack. Have you read it?
By way of comment, I mentioned the campaign agendas which the pubic must now be involved in scoping and agreeing on, and this is a very potent democratic tool, i.e., public scoping and agreeing on doable programs. I offered:
" That the Kamala Harris campaign now offers Americans with a cooperative, democratic and rule of law responsible alternative vision and political goal is an important point on which to focus and coordinate public discussions and citizen effort to re-frame civil society agenda for the years ahead.
We must be specific, we must be pragmatic in regard to incremental narrations of the common interests and common outcomes needed and to the incremental partial successes we can reasonably and democratically work together toward. But set a peoples' agenda we must."
This can be and has been done, but it is not done often enough, with enough public participation and with regular and well-narrated public reporting. And for decades this has been the target of Republican and other American elitist-conservative attacks, simply because it is public process AND it does often mean that unrestrained market decision-making is curtailed by social and environmental purposes. These purposes are democratically sought work to achieve necessary human needs, that social benefits and environmental stewardship come first and that private gain come only if conditions of social and environmental responsibility are fulfilled.
thx for the convo… as the state in which i reside has late scheduled primaries, it’s already decided before we get to vote. also the Election would be more accurate with ranked choice voting.
unclear how remarks about primaries where i live being so late the winning candidate is already decided before we can vote caused you to vent about campaign funds and extortion. uncool. i am not the one you are upset about.
I generally do post with different text, at times. But, it’s usually because I only post after reading another author’s comment(s) that are applicable to the subject matter that “updates” the impact of the post.
No question #Joe was EXTORTED politically “Big Time.”
But, I’ve yet to get a reconciliation of the $90 mill USD in funds that were bantered about by the CLOONEY contingent after they basically held a “Sword of Damocles” over #Joe’s head threatening to withhold much needed funds from his campaign account … IF he didn’t step down.
And, that’s EXTORTION. Politically, maybe. But, nevertheless, they think they can buy off their needs, wants, and desires with #Kamala as President versus the “elderly” #Joe.
And, that’s how the #DEMs are rolling into their convention … With the #Trumpster now ONE “Key” away from capturing the White House for a 2nd term in November after the #DEMs just pissed away the “Incumbency” key as well as the “#I-PCK” (“eye-pick”) key representing the “Intra-party Contest Key.” C=> https://www.youtube.com/live/BxvUPI1Bph4 for a primer on the “Keys To The White House.” The “score” is now #Trump = Six (6) keys and the #DEMs = Seven (7) keys with a hundred (100) days left to go until Election Day.
Also, let's retire that turnout saying, because it's simply not true. The 2020 election had the highest turnout in modern U.S. history (62.0% of voting-age population; 66.9% of voting-eligible population), yet it was a nail-biter. If we want success, we cannot rely solely on the turnout. Persuasion is still critically important.
Turnout is probably more pressing this time because so many have expressed a reluctance to vote for various reasons (Gaza being a big one) that getting a lot of that group which voted last time is critical.
Our party has clearly lost ground with certain groups, like Latinos, especially young male Latinos. Persuasion has to be an essential part. Like that false tweet, we (myself included) deluded ourselves into thinking high turnout always benefits Dems.
Plus, robust turnout is not enough to overcome the fundamentally undemocratic institution of the electoral college, where what matters is robust turnout in swing states. As a blue voter in a (large, diverse, and very voter-suppressed) red state, I keenly feel this. I’m sure red voters in blue states feel similarly.
Appreciate the post, but strongly disagree. History has consistently shown that a contested or brokered convention usually winds up a mess and leads to the other party winning. Just look at 2016 for starters (Bernie v. Hillary, plus the R's rallying around that Orange POS even after the Access Hollywood tapes). Then go back to 1980 when Kennedy severely weakened Carter. Then to 1968 when LBJ stepped down, and the convention was a bitter, ugly fight, which led to Nixon winning. And on and on. Just Google it, folks. The history is there for all to see.
Ok, perhaps I l read too much into your 2016 section. Although the DNC did favor Hillary, it was technically open to everyone. And Bernie almost won it. I took your criticism of that 2016 process to imply that it should have been opened up somehow at the convention. If that wasn't the intent, then I clearly misread it and I apologize.
Necessary and valuable post. Thank you. Something to add to your excellent point about the Democratic Party's heavy-handed control of the 2016 process is its contrast with the Republican primaries of that year. As heinous as Donald Trump is (and was), he won the nomination fair and square through the primary process. (Yes, he self-financed, and yes, he had hundreds of millions of dollars in free media, but those are different, and more difficult, perversions of our civic life than the fixable issue of primaries you bring up.) It's hard not to believe that the contrast in two different primary processes played some role in how people felt about the candidates--and in particular, the trustworthiness of the promises they--and their Parties--made on the campaign trail. As you say, a robust and honest primary process strengthens the candidate who emerges.
Agreed. I’m still pissed off about the DNC & Bernie in 2016. And 2020.
And let’s also look at time and money. Great Britain & France held elections in very short time frames- about what we have from Biden’s withdrawal to November. Less time, less money, less annoyance might create greater turnout. Worth a try!
Hello Quasim, appreciate the intent and clarity of this article. However, it has been pointed out elsewhere that planning for primaries are initiated soon after an election, and that if Biden had stated his intention to be a one term president at that time, he would have been somewhat of a lame duck president. (He could have however stated he would not run, say in Feb-March 2024...) So that suggests that the primary system itself needs to be overhauled. Why is it that Europeans have successful, very short primary seasons and our drags on into years???
I usually agree with you, but I am going to object. The primary systems are broken because they are too elongated and began way too soon. The president is a national office and there are no needs for states to hold primaries at all. In my state I've never been able to vote in any primary because I'mnot permitted as an independent(who tends more towards democrats).
We need to legislate one national primary after labor day that includes all of the candidates from any party and the top 3, maybe four face a run-off in November by ranked choice for electoral votes, if we keep that system.
After two or three primaries all the money coalesces on two or three candidates---that is how the primary system breaks and prevents the people from having a choice---basically New Hampshire, Iowa, and sometimes South Carolina have the only say in picking the nominee and the rest of the primaries become superfluous.
Qasim, I respect you and your opinions but you have no idea how much women love Kamala. Before you write another word - watch her speech in Wisconsin. Please. Otherwise you will embarrass yourself. Most of us did not realize how popular she was! She has shattered fund raising records! The largest one day haul ever and 68% from first time donors. First time donors! This is a newly tapped demographic. Second, abortion is THE ISSUE! Men do not get it and will never get it. Do not even try because you are not a woman and you will only sound lame. I don’t know what makes you an expert but rip up your script and sit back and simply watch until you get it! Then gather your data, your focus groups and report on Kamala’s extraordinary momentum! Please!
Hi Gale, I think you may have missed the point? Didn't see Qasim disrespecting Kamala, but advocating for a real primary season.... I am among those who were not happy with some kind of primary...
You didn’t mention the horrendous primary schedule that even with a robust slate hits Super Tuesday and’s the South guarantees any progressive candidate dies even though those EVs will not (often) be Dems. We need to establish the second Tuesday in May as national primary day so everyone has a say.
Thank you, Qasim, for this useful historical review. Choosing to become involved in issues framing, candidate assessment and questioning, and voting is choosing to be an involved American citizen in support of the Constitution and the protections and responsibilities it enables all citizens to share in.
Your comments are all worth remembering, and for me one stands out as being as important as any but often overlooked. That is observation on American youth (younger citizens) willingness to involve themselves in these political democratic processes; essential choices, essential inputs, essential perspectives and participation to vastly improve cooperation and interest-outcomes.
One of the least discussed benefits of youth participation is the advocacy they provide for supporting a genuinely plural and inclusive society and mobility within that society. They are the ones least likely to disrespect any group whose interests and participation are being marginalized or discounted. For example (just one), they are very unlikely to see their grandparents and parents' interests as less important and they advocate for better informing public opinion by being given respect for entering their own views into public debate along with and as respected views in a comprehensive effort to find better solutions and forms of cooperation.
Great article but for this year this is what’s happening. You can try to change the college but until they get more
Senates seats there will be no reform.
At this point it’s beat Trump. That’s all that matters.
You lost me when you say we should have had a robust primary this year. We had an incumbent president who had done an amazing job during his first term. I would bet that Biden would have bowed out after one term BUT for trump running again.
You also seemed to imply that we should be having an open convention next month…something that would have guaranteed a win by trump in November.
Your analysis of the impact of robust primaries and democratic turnout is profound. It should be the starting point for any serious discussion of democratic strategy. When the party is in thrall to the big donors, the interests of the people become subordinated, and the strategy discussion becomes more about how to pretend that's not the case.
Gaza is an ineradicable stain on Joe Biden's legacy. Netanyahu is a self-serving criminal.
See my comment to your Note on this, but also: Can we be clear who/what we are talking about when we say "DNC"? Are we talking about the DNC staff as influenced by the White House? Or are we talking about the full body, described by James Zogby in his interview with Peter Beinart, 400+ people representing all party members across the country? That's step 1 in reform, I think, reactivating the actual DNC.
I almost completely agree with you, and I have experienced much of what you point out, such as disappointment how the DNC pushed Hillary over my preferred candidate, Bernie, but also favored her over the natural choice for succeeding Obama, VP Biden, & I am sure either candidate would've beaten Trump quite handily. I think we would've been very well-served by a Biden presidency starting in 2017 & ending in 2025 (perhaps with either Hillary or Warren as his VP). I was also disappointed how the Democratic establishment weighed in in favor of Biden in the 2020 primaries over the progressives Bernie & Warren, & feel cheated in not having a real choice in this year's primaries (I wrote in Jeff Merkley's name).
The only point I disagree with, is that I don't think that anything that happened in 2019-20 showed that Kamala Harris should've necessarily been chosen as VP. Her support declined over the course of the debates, so much so she dropped out before participating in any primary, as I recall. Based on performance, I would say Elizabeth Warren (or Bernie, but Biden wanted a woman as VP) earned the spot, & would've been outstanding. I think that we should have a national primary with real choices this time, but it looks like the Democratic Party is galvanizing around Harris. I am actually warming up to her & now think she'll be a good candidate & president, even if not quite as strong as my personal favorites. At least now there's renewed excitement & optimism in the Democratic Party & momentum for Harris.
Well…..I understand your point, but Primaries have also given us Trump, as the most egregiuos example. There are no “silver bullets” - there are pros and cons and always unintended consequences when we get too rigid about process for one. The situation today calls for creativity and flexibility. Too late to do something that should have been done two years ago. Go with the flow - new energy and enthusiasm might just be the trick.
Thank you for this comment.
Not to disagree, but offer somewhat different perspective on the use and opportunities for better informing ourselves and citizens through the public discussions and the citizen inputs possible and necessary.
The many and unusual points of view that will be offered in public discussion about policy and needed outcomes in any year, not just preceding an election, brings information and brings interested potential candidates choices much more into the shared understanding of the people. Most often it is better accomplished in public gatherings, but it can be shared in responsible media reporting, made the more potent in that way.
Not a silver bullet, but better than working without the information or with a tightly controlled public space. It better puts into effect citizen choice and citizen involvement in constituting democratic process and policy. Not flawless, just effective as a shared endeavor and a shared responsibility.
So well said. If only……
Thank you for the reply.
Prof Timothy Snyder just presented an essay "Veep Stakes" on his 'Thinking about' substack. Have you read it?
By way of comment, I mentioned the campaign agendas which the pubic must now be involved in scoping and agreeing on, and this is a very potent democratic tool, i.e., public scoping and agreeing on doable programs. I offered:
" That the Kamala Harris campaign now offers Americans with a cooperative, democratic and rule of law responsible alternative vision and political goal is an important point on which to focus and coordinate public discussions and citizen effort to re-frame civil society agenda for the years ahead.
We must be specific, we must be pragmatic in regard to incremental narrations of the common interests and common outcomes needed and to the incremental partial successes we can reasonably and democratically work together toward. But set a peoples' agenda we must."
This can be and has been done, but it is not done often enough, with enough public participation and with regular and well-narrated public reporting. And for decades this has been the target of Republican and other American elitist-conservative attacks, simply because it is public process AND it does often mean that unrestrained market decision-making is curtailed by social and environmental purposes. These purposes are democratically sought work to achieve necessary human needs, that social benefits and environmental stewardship come first and that private gain come only if conditions of social and environmental responsibility are fulfilled.
I don’t think you can compare the Republican primary to the Democratic primary. We are supposed to have standards, they have made clear they don’t.
thx for the convo… as the state in which i reside has late scheduled primaries, it’s already decided before we get to vote. also the Election would be more accurate with ranked choice voting.
#Joe was EXTORTED! … Did #Clooney and his cronies release the $90 mill USD? You could be “double counting!” #Political-Extortion
unclear how remarks about primaries where i live being so late the winning candidate is already decided before we can vote caused you to vent about campaign funds and extortion. uncool. i am not the one you are upset about.
I generally do post with different text, at times. But, it’s usually because I only post after reading another author’s comment(s) that are applicable to the subject matter that “updates” the impact of the post.
No question #Joe was EXTORTED politically “Big Time.”
But, I’ve yet to get a reconciliation of the $90 mill USD in funds that were bantered about by the CLOONEY contingent after they basically held a “Sword of Damocles” over #Joe’s head threatening to withhold much needed funds from his campaign account … IF he didn’t step down.
And, that’s EXTORTION. Politically, maybe. But, nevertheless, they think they can buy off their needs, wants, and desires with #Kamala as President versus the “elderly” #Joe.
And, that’s how the #DEMs are rolling into their convention … With the #Trumpster now ONE “Key” away from capturing the White House for a 2nd term in November after the #DEMs just pissed away the “Incumbency” key as well as the “#I-PCK” (“eye-pick”) key representing the “Intra-party Contest Key.” C=> https://www.youtube.com/live/BxvUPI1Bph4 for a primer on the “Keys To The White House.” The “score” is now #Trump = Six (6) keys and the #DEMs = Seven (7) keys with a hundred (100) days left to go until Election Day.
Also, let's retire that turnout saying, because it's simply not true. The 2020 election had the highest turnout in modern U.S. history (62.0% of voting-age population; 66.9% of voting-eligible population), yet it was a nail-biter. If we want success, we cannot rely solely on the turnout. Persuasion is still critically important.
Turnout is probably more pressing this time because so many have expressed a reluctance to vote for various reasons (Gaza being a big one) that getting a lot of that group which voted last time is critical.
Our party has clearly lost ground with certain groups, like Latinos, especially young male Latinos. Persuasion has to be an essential part. Like that false tweet, we (myself included) deluded ourselves into thinking high turnout always benefits Dems.
Completely agree. She will have to do some persuading and get over the misogyny issue as well.
Plus, robust turnout is not enough to overcome the fundamentally undemocratic institution of the electoral college, where what matters is robust turnout in swing states. As a blue voter in a (large, diverse, and very voter-suppressed) red state, I keenly feel this. I’m sure red voters in blue states feel similarly.
Agree with you on this point. We need to focus on issues and activating voters.
Appreciate the post, but strongly disagree. History has consistently shown that a contested or brokered convention usually winds up a mess and leads to the other party winning. Just look at 2016 for starters (Bernie v. Hillary, plus the R's rallying around that Orange POS even after the Access Hollywood tapes). Then go back to 1980 when Kennedy severely weakened Carter. Then to 1968 when LBJ stepped down, and the convention was a bitter, ugly fight, which led to Nixon winning. And on and on. Just Google it, folks. The history is there for all to see.
At no point in my article do I advocate for a brokered convention so I'm not sure what your point is there.
Ok, perhaps I l read too much into your 2016 section. Although the DNC did favor Hillary, it was technically open to everyone. And Bernie almost won it. I took your criticism of that 2016 process to imply that it should have been opened up somehow at the convention. If that wasn't the intent, then I clearly misread it and I apologize.
No thanks for clarifying. It was the lead up to the convention I was objecting to.
Necessary and valuable post. Thank you. Something to add to your excellent point about the Democratic Party's heavy-handed control of the 2016 process is its contrast with the Republican primaries of that year. As heinous as Donald Trump is (and was), he won the nomination fair and square through the primary process. (Yes, he self-financed, and yes, he had hundreds of millions of dollars in free media, but those are different, and more difficult, perversions of our civic life than the fixable issue of primaries you bring up.) It's hard not to believe that the contrast in two different primary processes played some role in how people felt about the candidates--and in particular, the trustworthiness of the promises they--and their Parties--made on the campaign trail. As you say, a robust and honest primary process strengthens the candidate who emerges.
Thank you so much, Daneil. Well said.