General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShould the DNC now hire Steve Schmidt?
Now that hes a Democrat, can we use his help?
Hes smart and very well spoken.
Knows where GOP bodies are buried and how they think.
Maybe he could run focus groups and help with messaging.
Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)We don't need the Democratic party to shift to the right.
Fuck Steve Schmidt. He thinks Bush and McCain are good ideas.
JI7
(89,247 posts)Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)I was there.
The Democratic Party has moved so far to the right it looks like the 1970s GOP.
JI7
(89,247 posts)Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)JI7
(89,247 posts)Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)I would measure it by it's policies however.
On the world stage the Democrats are Center right.
Let's invite former Republicans to run the show. That will make it even more left! Yeah, right.
JI7
(89,247 posts)Policy issues actually contain policy issues.
You are confusing execution with policy.
JI7
(89,247 posts)Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)She is a woman.
Maybe we should support women like Kamala Harris instead? Do you not see the distinction?
JI7
(89,247 posts)There are none .
You are arguing what Right Wingers always do when we talk about equality they start saying how people need to be qualified as if we don't think qualifications matter.
Civil rights , equality etc is about people who ahve always been qualified but never had the opportunity being able to get those opportunities now .
Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)JI7
(89,247 posts)Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)But you put whatever spin you want on it if it makes you happy.
JI7
(89,247 posts)who pushed right wing conspiracy theories claiming the DNC Rigged shit against Sanders . We can't have people pushing Right Wing conspiracies like that.
Steve is open about where he was an where he is now. He isn't a fraud like Tulsi Gabbard. He actually supported Democrats instead of defending Republicans like Tuli Gabbard did with Trump.
Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)We don't need the likes of Steve Schmidt. There are credible liberals to take those positions. He doesn't deserve fanfare for being right a couple of times.
JI7
(89,247 posts)and what she did in moving the country to the right with her bs .
OnDoutside
(19,954 posts)almost immediately, and there was even a movie about it ?
Aside from that, I've posted on another thread here in the last couple of weeks that many DUers don't realize that there's a shift going on in American politics, which the far left does see as a clear threat to their attempted takeover of the Democratic Party. There's a move back to the center, which is why they are so negative about moderate Republicans like Schmidt
Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)i don't want them running the Democratic party unless there is a viable left alternative.
OnDoutside
(19,954 posts)When was there ever a viable left alternative in the United States ? Ideological Purity isn't an inclusive proposition, which is why the far left has never succeeded as a viable alternative, especially in a big tent Democratic Party.
Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)That's a bad thing.
betsuni
(25,472 posts)That's a good thing. He's just one guy.
OnDoutside
(19,954 posts)Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)On the world stage we are center-right.
OnDoutside
(19,954 posts)beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)being more liberal doesn;t help anywhere except coastal areas
betsuni
(25,472 posts)Specifically.
Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)It is center right on the world stage. Let's not move goal posts.
JI7
(89,247 posts)and was all about promoting white men .
Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)It's not just one issue.
In the 1970's the GOP weren't fascists.
JI7
(89,247 posts)He didn't just talk. He actually got something done .
Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)It wasn't enough, but it was a big gain. We need to fight for much more than Nixon proposed in the 1970s.
JI7
(89,247 posts)Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)betsuni
(25,472 posts)How?
Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)In 1988 we had to have Lloyd Bentsen as VP, because he was conservative and the only way to win was to go to the center.
In 1992 we had to have two southern Democrats because the only way to win was to go to the center.
In 2000 Gore picked Joe Lieberman as VP, because the only way to win was to go to the center.
In 2004 We Picked Kerry over Dean, because the only way to win was to go to the center.
In 2016 we picked hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine, because the only way to win was to go to the center.
In 2020 we cheer a person who worked for George W. Bush and John McCain because he is going to join us and move us to the right.
This is bullshit.
JI7
(89,247 posts)Hillary are all liberals. Tim Kaine and Bill Clinton are also liberals.
Kerry was more liberal than Dean .
Gore picked lieberman because he criticized Clinton on the lewisnky crap and that was the issue in those days .
Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)But you are right. We totally won those elections.
JI7
(89,247 posts)more liberal .
Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)Perhaps being center-right isn't all it is cracked up to be.
JI7
(89,247 posts)well, i guess they would consider their racism to be a value .
Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)If you have links, please provide them.
JI7
(89,247 posts)I believe there were maybe 1-3 elections where white women voted democratic slightly more (i believe those are for Bill Clinton and Joe Biden) .
But White men have voted majority Republican.
This is well known . Google election year and poll and race.
Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)but OK.
JI7
(89,247 posts)have voted Republican in every election since Civil Rights Passed ?
Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)But you are the one making the claim unsupported by statistical data. Looking it up should be your job.
JI7
(89,247 posts)and poll .
kcr
(15,315 posts)showing that Repubs vote the way they do because they're racist?
Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)betsuni
(25,472 posts)Otherwise, specific examples of policy would be given as examples, not vague insinuations about personalities, "centrists" and other countries.
Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)When has there been a proposed top tier tax rate proposed by the Democrats that reached pre-Reagan levels?
JI7
(89,247 posts)I didn't realize...
JI7
(89,247 posts)But Clinton and Obama still raised taxes on the wealthy .
I think the top tier should be at least that. it was 90% under that socialist Eisenhower.
but thanks for proving my point that Democrats support Reaganomics.
JI7
(89,247 posts)Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)JI7
(89,247 posts)Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)Democrats have bought into Reaganomics.
JI7
(89,247 posts)a specific percentage doesn't make it reaganomics.
Democrats support higher taxes on wealthy .
betsuni
(25,472 posts)There were zero Democratic votes for the last Republican tax cuts for the 1% bill. So how have Democrats "bought into Reaganomics" and shifted to the right?
Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)I'll wait.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)It's just that no one is buying it.
Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)Moving the Democrats to the right is a bad idea.
betsuni
(25,472 posts)Democrats raise taxes on the 1% and regulate industry. Everybody knows.
Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)betsuni
(25,472 posts)People voted for Reagan because they wanted lower taxes. Republicans convinced them that Democrats raise their taxes to give free stuff to the lazy poor. Everybody knows this, it's very famous.
Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)Why does the GOP get to decide what our values are? Why must we conform to their failed economics?
Buckeye_Democrat
(14,853 posts)He speaks up to the GOP goons, not using kid gloves like so many Democratic leaders.
BeyondGeography
(39,369 posts)Because nobody does it better.
LeftInTX
(25,259 posts)He's got goods..
JI7
(89,247 posts)What do you want DNC to hire him for ?
Funtatlaguy
(10,870 posts)He knows things that might help us reach others like him that got embarrassed by Trump and those who kissed Trumps arse.
OnDoutside
(19,954 posts)I'd be fairly certain that Plouffe will be giving him advice. Let's give it time to see him settled in.
quickesst
(6,280 posts)Why not let Steve Schmidt and the DNC find their own way to come together or not? Not that's my opinion counts for anyting, but I would welcome him into whatever role he chooses to take. He said it himself. There is only one legitimate party left in this country, and that is the Democratic Party.
Hamlette
(15,411 posts)My dad was a Republican until Reagan who he hated. He became radically liberal after that. And yes, he knew where the bodies were buried.
Sewa
(1,255 posts)Hes nothing but a glorified carnival barker. He cant be trusted.
Roy Rolling
(6,915 posts)If the Democratic Party has an ideological purity test Im out.
Thats what Schmidt and others are trying to run away fromrigid, ideological zealots in political parties. It is the opposite of freedom.
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)join the democrats. Its not enough to just quit but actually join and work with democrats. If "we" can snag 5-10% of the GOP base AND politicians, this will be a serious antidote for the 2022 and 2024 elections where MORE batshit crazies run AND a known charismatic presidential batshit candidate We have to dig into the GOP base.
Germans failed to act in 1930 which subsequently gave power to Hitler a couple years later
betsuni
(25,472 posts)I'm sure there'll be conspiracy theories about Schmidt taking over the Democratic Party.
JHB
(37,158 posts)His observation of how things work and what the DNC can and can't do.
Unspooled for DU convenience
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1338951001726808064.html
So...as a newly elected DNC member, I'd like to provide some insight on "the DNC" to folks who like to complain about "the DNC" and such.
Because "the DNC" doesn't work how most folks who talk about it think it does. It's both better--and far worse--than you think.
First off, "the DNC" doesn't work like a major corporation or government apparatus. It doesn't have branches or committees or sprawling structures of employees who answer to higher-ups. It doesn't have a board of directors making decisions every month. None of that. /2
The Democratic Party is made up of thousands of loosely affiliated groups connected by charters. To simplify, it mostly works like this: local clubs > county committees > state parties > national orgs.
These are all legally separate entities with wildly separate cultures. /3
To add to that, there are multiple national orgs! The DNC is the *weakest* of those orgs. It pales in comparison to the much more powerful and influential DCCC (elects House members) and DSCC (elects Senators), plus the DGA (governors) and DLCC (legislatures.) /4
In reality, the DNC doesn't actually *do* much of anything in most non-presidential years! It meets once a year. It has some window dressing councils and caucuses. It passes a few resolutions.
And the elected membership has basically NO REAL ROLE OR DIRECT INPUT. /5
Elected DNC members don't even have each other's contact info! There are few mechanisms to even provide input or request changes. Everything is opaque. And even if you could, there's not much the DNC actually *does*. The biggest change would be making the DNC *do* things. /6
Far from being this super powerful organization controlling everything, the DNC actually does very little and controls nothing outside of presidential years, at which point it serves as a locus for consultants to direct state primary structures and help the nominee. /7
The *real* power in the Democratic Party lies in the DCCC and DSCC, which work w/ State Party chairs to help with congressional races.
Some states are more democratic & open than others (CA is pretty good!), but even in CA most actual power is wielded unitarily by the Chair. /8
The most truly small-D "democratic" work happens at the County Committee level, where club presidents and local elected committee members recruit, endorse and organize for local "non-partisan" races. Above that? It's almost *entirely* consultant driven in a tight circle. /9
The sad reality is that it would be *better* if the DNC actually ran like its critics think it did: a big mega-conglomerate machine. It's not.
It's actually a money firehose run by shoestring staff, run entirely a handful of consultants and appointed fundraising honchos. /10
Most "DNC members" have no capacity to organize either within the DNC, and have no serious directives. We are supposed to help raise money and amplify the messaging from on high--which, again, is directed by a tiny crew of unelected consultants and appointeds. /11
The DCCC and DSCC are even more inaccessible. The DNC at least has the window dressing of high-level activists. The DCCC and DSCC are directly run by the Congressional Members themselves. There is no pathway to involvement.
And they functionally dictate to state parties. /12
The problems with doing things this way are obvious:
1) self-dealing by consultants
2) unwillingness to change
3) lack of personnel capacity to change!
4) fear of losing a tightly held circle of power
5) groupthink and path dependency
6) inability to confront new ideas
/13
The biggest issue is that assumption that the best primary candidate is the one who can raise the most money. We know this isn't true! We outraise GOPs 3-1 but lose.
But it's hard to teach old dogs new tricks--especially when they're paid consultants who like the money! /14
There is no ability for activists closer to the ground to tell DCCC, DSCC or DNC when they're being tone-deaf to local concerns. No ability to influence decisions. And DCCC/DSCC/DNC continue to meddle in primaries.
In part because there's no organizational structure for it! /15
It would ironically be better if the Dem Party *did* run like a big corporation. Big corporations get input from local division leaders who report up the chain and influence decision-making! Successful local leaders get promoted!
No such organizational capacity exists. /16
So you get a bunch of extremely talented local activists who help win elections, promote progressive values, and get elected to positions that functionally serve as window dressing for the real power players--and get paid nothing!!
Those folks usually burn out. /17
Occasionally they get connected and get a plum gig, in exchange for playing the game and staying quiet. But then the only people who can make a living in the game are the careerists and brown-nosers.
Everyone else burns out or works doing what they can unpaid for decades./18
For instance, in California in the entire Dem Party structure the only people who get paid are the State Chair and staff. Plus consultants and whatever affiliate orgs do.
No one else makes a dime. Not the state Exec Board. Not the Regional Directors. Not the County Chairs. /19
So you have national orgs raking in literally billions of dollars, working with shoestring staff most of the time, ramping up armies of part-time and mostly volunteer workers in election season, directed by unelected consultants making big bank. That's it. /20
For everyone with a conspiracy theory about "the DNC" this or that, please note that these organizations can barely manage a meeting--if they keep a lid on all the members. They couldn't organize a conspiracy if their lives depended on it. /21
And there are legions of talented activists with nowhere to go and nothing to do but organize however they can in their free time, unpaid, usually at the local level.
If they want to work in politics they have to pay the toll. And usually OUTSIDE of the party apparatus! /22
In short, if you want this to improve, ironically the political parties need to actually be bigger, more consolidated, more powerful, have more permanent employees and be more directly accountable.
Right now it's the worst of both worlds: too much $, too little structure. /23
And that doesn't even get into culture. For instance, both Biden and Obama have brands that are broadly "anti-partisan." Work with anything, "one america" and such.
But they also appoint and control the DNC, an explicitly partisan organization! This leads to problems. /24
The DNC needs to be bigger, more powerful, more active year-round, and much more explicitly partisan and strategic. It needs to meddle less in primaries. And it needs to have much more opportunity for talented activists to help make decisions.
Same goes for DCCC/DSCC. /end
Oh...and I should mention: doing things this way incentivizes pure careerism, which in turn incentivizes gerontocracy.
It is not accident the average age of a dem party leader is over 70 years old--20 years older than for the GOP.
Even though we're the party favored by youth.
Original beginning tweet:
Link to tweet
leftyladyfrommo
(18,868 posts)commentator.
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)He is the guy that thought that earning a buck pushing the likes of Sarah Palin and Dubya on us was ok.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Schmidt
"Schmidt joined the Bush administration as a Deputy Assistant to the President and Counselor to Vice President Dick Cheney. In 2004, he was a member of the senior strategic planning group, led by White House adviser Karl Rove, that ran President George W. Bush's re-election campaign; Schmidt oversaw the reelection "war room".[19] In 2005 and 2006, he was the White House strategist responsible for the U.S. Supreme Court nominations of Samuel Alito[25] and Chief Justice John Roberts.[19]"
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)At the very least, we should support and encourage him to continue his messaging with "The Lincoln Project" ... or perhaps a re-imagined TLP named in honor of any number Democratic patriots and respected Democratic heroes.
katmondoo
(6,455 posts)Hotler
(11,420 posts)I don't just any of the used to be repugs yet.
Gothmog
(145,130 posts)Funtatlaguy
(10,870 posts)Michael Steele too