>RE: I feel like it could transformative if the Dem Party ran as >a....Party.
>I've been thinking a lot lately that the way we frame
>presidential elections is wrong.
>
>We more or less have individuals running with the implicit
>promise that they alone can make change happen.

the very nature of any electoral process is someone declaring themselves as the best LEADER, not necessarily as the singular person who can do it all

>Republicans are different only in that Trump didn't make an
>implicit promise that he is the one, he literally said that he
>is the only one who can fix Washington.

that sentence doesn't make sense.

if he said he is the only one, how is that not implicit?

likewise, it's not different at all. As you (sorta) stated this is no different than Obama promising to be the face of change and presenting himself as the one in whom to put your hope


>if you set up expectations that you can fix Washington in 4 to 8
>years, you are bound to dissappoint a lot of people.


right. but you ALSO can't say "i will kick the can for 8 years and nothing major will have changed" (even if its true)

>....there was a much louder grousing
>about what he had not been able to accomplish all the way to
>the moment Trump was elected.

louder than what? again, this happens EVERY TIME
for example....
- Carter got in on his common-man, simple dignity after the abreviated Ford years and the Nixon resignation

- Reagan got in because people was "the common man" as weak, uncarismatic, horrible with economics and felt we needed a stronger leader who would "restore out stature"

- bush 1 rode those coat-tails and because his competition was alfred e newman (dukakis)

- clinton got in because we were tired of that and enough young folks who wanted someone young in to reject "the old ways"

- Bush 2 got in off of how morally bankrupt Clinton was and how he had messed everything up

- Obama got in off how bad everything was because of bush and how he was just a puppet for super-corrupt evil figureheads

- trump comes in to "make things great again"

it's all very cyclical

>....but I worry a fall out would be
>a bloody nomination process and lot of sore losers who become
>disengaged with the process after their candidate does not
>win.

so now we have folks who are on some "if I don't get mmy way I'll take my vote and stay home...that'll learn 'em"

and thats how we end up with Trump

I legit believe that is a more youthful (immature or naive perhaps?) approach because a good number of republicans didn't like Trump but once he got the nom they held their nose and voted for him just so sold girl wouldn't/couldn't win

>Change the Nomination process so that it is shorter and ends a
>lot earlier. Let's have a fair and open process but get to
>the outcome waaay sooner.

That's not gonna change anything, or more like I don;'t see how it will

>Then when you have your nominee picked, that Nominee declares
>their VP and Cabinet Picks Waaay early. Then when you have
>your squad all lined up, you formalize your platform and
>campaign like a team like the Avengers.

okay...

>This would have so many benefits I think. If your candidate
>loses, you can bear the loss better when you know their role
>before the election and that losing candidate can campaign
>aggressively for the nominee with their fans for the November
>election.

why would this suddenly be a thing?

you go from fighting tooth-and-nail with someone then the next day you're like "ah well, the best person won. All you people who supported me, now go support the person I just spent however long telling you why they suck?"

>If Elizabeth Warren doesn't win the nomination, that's an
>easier pill to swallow for her fans if they know she will be
>head of Treasury and she is active on the trail for whoever is
>the nominee (though she should stay in the Senate but yeah).

You just injected the idea that the loser would get a "lesser" position in the cabinet of the person that beat then and both they(the losing candidate, and this supporters) would be OK and just kumbiya the rest of the way?

i can't see that being as easy as you said without some political give-back (see: hillary as Sec of State, then getting Obama support the next go round)

>You also get to put all these rock stars who aren't
>necessarily ready to run for President to work.

This is where you mess up. Who gets to determine when someone isn't ready? Are we going back to the "wait your turn" model? Doesn't that contradict your whole "let everybody try" thing?

Do realize that mentality and your whole plan would have killed Obama, at least for 4 years

to the bigger point - what you are describing IS how the party-system is (on paper) supposed to work

BUT we don't vote for ideas/ideologies as much as personalities and who catches our attention more

perhaps there is something I'm missing in your plan