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. You see it on both sides. Though no candidate will admit it (and the narcissism of small differences won't allow us to see it), but most dems running for president have very similar platforms and policy goals. Each try to distinguish themselves by presenting themselves as "The One" who can get it done. I mean even Barack Obama was dubbed "the One". Everyone criticizes Howard Shultz naivete in believing he alone can solve Washington gridlock by bringing a common sense practical aisle crossing approach to Washington. But that was Barack Obama's whole campaign appeal in 08.

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.


The problem with this approach is multifold. For one, if you set up expectations that you can fix Washington in 4 to 8 years, you are bound to dissappoint a lot of people. Though Obama is still very popular, there was a much louder grousing about what he had not been able to accomplish all the way to the moment Trump was elected.

The other big problem with this approach is what happens when the person who has convinced you that they are the one, doesn't get the nomination? At best you lose some level of interest in the process and at worst you believe the person who did win the nomination is illegitimate and you actively work against that candidate. The Bernie Bros versus the Hillary fans was bad for 2016. It's possible to be a lot worst if it's Bernie Bros vs. Kamala Harris fans vs. Corey Booker fans vs. Tulsi Fans (is that a thing?) versus Beto Fans etc.

I am all for as many Candidates throwing their hat into the ring and the best person wins, 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.

I see all the time here and on twitter people saying "X is the only candidate that I would vote for". I always ask them, so if X doesn't win the nomination, you are fine with Trump getting 4 more years? It's unfortunate people think that way but that's what happens when we have an all or nothing nomination process.


I don't think it has to be that way and I think It can be fixed without drastic changes. I think it can be fixed with framing, changing the process a little, and tinkering with the calender.

Here is my thought.

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.

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.

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.

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 also get to put all these rock stars who aren't necessarily ready to run for President to work. Get Beto, Andrew Gillum and Stacey Abrams out there to deploy their fans and groom the bench.

Now I know that this is how a Party is suppose to work but I don't think it does these days. We elect individuals. I think there is a benefit if people saw themselves electing a team.

These are just a diaherra of thoughts I've been thinking for a few days. I think I will spend more time with it and write an actually essay if I can flesh the idea out a little more.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

I haven’t. And recognizing that there’s a whole body of scientific, historical, and sociological knowledge that I only have a personal but not academic relationship with

Recognizing that fact has really ramped down the number of grand proclamations and recommendations that my brain leans toward.

unified?

Also, I would only defer so much to academics about how politics should work. They are good at describing what happened in the past but not so great at predicting what will happen next.

I say this having lightweight studied politics (I don't have a degree in politics) at a top 3 poly sci undergrad department. For what it's work I grew up in politics (both my parents, and many other family members having been elected officials) and have had a life long interest in it.


All that to say ou shouldn't be intimidated by people with degrees and scientific, historical, and sociological knowledge. I think it's okay to have an opinion without a poly sci degree.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Of people
That run the spectrum of age, gender, race, and personal wealth
Spread out across 50 states who each have their own priorities
Mixed with representing their localities
Should have a unified voice to combat an ideological dogma that appeals to white patriarchal grievances seems like a grand proclamation.

With the parties themselves running instead of the individual candidates. But I also don't know the details on how that works.

And turning it into a parliamentary system.

None of those nominees are getting confirmed. VP doesn't require confirmation.

The only difference I am suggesting is you announce the slate way in advance of the election. The confirmation process doesn't change and you run the same risk either way of the candidate you propose not passing confirmation if the opposition controls the Senate. You also have that risk if you announce your cabinet candidate after the election.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

SecTreasury nominee ensuring they won't get confirmed. They're supposed to be non-political appointees (eben though this is bullshit.)

It would be like picking judges to campaign for you on the promise that these are the people you'd put on SCOTUS.

Honestly, I don't think it's a bad idea. It would be cool to know who exactly they want to put on their cabinet before the election and we probably should get away from the idea that judges/cabinet appointees are somehow apolitical. I can just see a whole lot of hay being made over it if the Dem nominee were to actually do this in 2020.

i see you trying to stimulate actual dialog in a variety of subject areas

we got a whole lotta folk with complaints about the tone and slowness of this board, but you are actually giving input

props to you

SMH.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

switch to run off style

everyone other than GOP diehards need to unite behind whoever wins the dem nomination.

>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

>>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


Trump explicitly stated he is the only one who can do it. Obama though not explicitly stated such, did appeal to this notion that it only takes a different approach to get stuff done because we all basically are purple and have alot in common and want the same things. Schultz said something similar. That approach is kind of bullshit because if it really were so simple, how come no one else seems able to do it? It doesn't acknowledge the limitations of the office or the structural challenges in place that stop the sort of progress they were selling. Obama eventually learned that it wasn't as easy as just reaching across the ailse and when he learned that his sale was less ambitious. Then he started to talk about incremental change.



>
>>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.

I am saying Obama and Dem politicians imply it, while Trump explicitly stated that he is the only one who can fix it. Not sure how that doesn't make sense.


>
>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


That's my point. It's the same. Just one is explicit and the other is implicit.





>
>
>>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)

No but you can modulate your message the way Obama did. Here is an article that better (than me) explains Obama's shifting rhetoric.

https://www.vox.com/2015/12/18/10623470/obama-achievements-2015

Now it's hard to make campaign slogans around incremental change, but you can get people to buy into the notion that they are part of a long running movement and ongoing struggle for a better country.


>
>>....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

Yes it's cyclical but that doesn't really undermind my point. Which is there would be less of a backlash if politicians were seen as part of a team/coliation with an ongoing agenda that transcends one office and one term.


>
>>....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


Less time bloodying each other up. More time to coalease around the winner.


>
>>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?"


That's the point. You wouldn't spend a long time telling them and the public that they suck. Much shorter period of seeking the nomination. ****


Think about it. Our current process is that those seeking the nomination spend over a year seeking the nomination and only a few months running against their opponent. Doesn't that seem backwards and likely to breed internal conflict?




>
>>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?

That's how its suppose to work. I think it would work better if you can promise the rewards of loyalty sooner.
>
>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)

I mean there can be some horsetrading but some form of it goes on now to some extent.


>
>>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?

I think you kind of missed my point here. The fair and open nomination process determines who isn't ready. That is, someone isn't ready to run for president because they don't win the nomination in a fair and open (AND short and early) process. Stacey Abrams can run for the nomination, but if she doesn't get it then she falls in line and supports the nominee and the nominee incentivizes her and her people by declaring she will have such and such title.

Again, it's really NOT that different from how the process is suppose to work. Just some tweaks around timing and framing.




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

The process worked for Obama DESPITE HRC. The process didn't work in 2016 because they really did succesfully clear the field and people felt like Sanders didn't get to participate in a fair and open process.

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

I agree. but it doesn't seem to work like it is suppose to. I am not calling for a major overhaul of the system. But I do think some minor tweaks and return to basics could have a huge impact.



>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
>





*****I mean in general I think the politicking window should be much shorter. I think presidential campaigns should be only one month and during that period the campaigns should the focus and debates would happen every night and be done with. It would do so much to take money out of politics. But That's a whole nother topic.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

but i kinda feel like what you are saying is equivalent to saying "the world would be better if people were nicer"

i mean yeah. sure, but that ain't what we got

i don't know how you can tell/force people to wait to start selling themselves in what is at its basis a popularity contest

again: we, as a collective, don't vote based on policy promises except in the most vague terms (PRO-LIFE/PRO-CHOICE, progressive, big government/small government, family values, pro-education <---- a bunch of buzzwords what don't really hold any tangible meaning really)

even broken direct campaign promises aren't "punishable" (especially beforehand) - see: "the mexican financed wall" or "free healthcare for every citizen" or "no child left behind"

in a time where both sides are pretty hardline about opposing-side suggestions to most things that would substantially change anything even what you are suggesting seems to be a way for one side to get more "wins"

i don't want to be completely a naysayer, but for me ANY reform idea would have to come with genuine, tangible, measurable "HOWs" attached

with a few procedural structural changes.

It's as simple an obvious as candidates should spend more time fighting against the opposition than fighting with each other.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

alliances are for gain and gain alone

that's the NATURE of politics (the struggle for power)

i admire your optimism though

good luck with that

Most Dems fall in line once we have a nominee because they are jockeying for positions if the person wins.

even knew who it was as a party.

If the Democratic Party worked in an understood conformity (and not complacency) then I think it could be theoretically possible. But by the same logic, if we have that homogeneous perspective, then the current process would yield the same result.

What I don't appreciate is the same idea invoked in a "blue no matter who" mentality when there IS such division from a policy perspective.