You can't keep throwing groups of people under the bus in an attempt to woo that mythical beast, the Centrist Voter Who Nonetheless Votes Republican, and expect to build a winning coalition. Republicans have no popular policy prescriptions! Zero! But they run on them every time, and win often enough that, well, <looks around, gestures broadly>. And it works because they cater to their base and don't toss the fundies, for example, aside just to appeal to 'centrists.'
It’s never a thought among these types “what if it’s the Democratic party’s seeming willingness to compromise and sell out on every core issue that’s the reason why their approval ratings are in the toilet?”
Let’s say by some miracle the Democrats get a nationwide abortion expansion all the way to 49 (or likely 59) votes and they need just one more Democratic vote to seal the deal and it’s Senator anti-choice. Does this Senator then go against what they campaigned on directly? Or does the Democratic Party once again leave the people who voted for them jaded and defeated, feeling like nothing can ever change for the better?
Why not have a Democratic Party that holds actual values and elected representatives willing to fight for those values?
"The Democratic Party never should have closed its doors to pro-life voices, and it will never win if it doesn’t run candidates who actually have a chance to compete in red states.”
Can anyone point me to Ezra Klein - or ANYONE - saying that the Republican Party never should have closed its doors to pro-choice voices?
Yeah, I didn't think so. Once again we're reminded that only Democrats have agency.
"Fellow UGA alum Zaid Jilani at The American Saga posted, “Ezra is right. In 2010, 1/4 of the House Dem caucus was pro-life. "
I'd bet my LIFE that number is a fucking lie. Pro choice is our fucking BRAND FFS. it is MEANINGLESS to be a democrat who is anti-choice. I'd rather lose to republicans than to cede that point. Sometimes a slippery slope really IS a slippery slope
I don't question the number, considering that Democrats held seats in some pretty conservative areas. However, I dispute the term "pro-life" in this context. It's sort of like calling Susan Collins "pro-choice" -- sure, that's what she says, but she enables anti-choice leadership and consistently votes for anti-choice judges.
I think prior to 2010, some Democrats could get away with saying that didn't like abortion, didn't support federal funding for it, while supporting pro-choice Democratic presidential candidates/leadership.
Ezra Klein's privilege is showing. Women's being controlled and surveilled is not a device to win back Republicans. Why all these men support this option tells me that society's hierarchy is more important than bodily autonomy. That's the danger of embracing populism; there must always be an "othered" to push against.
There's nothing stopping "pro-life" Democrats from running. So long as they recognize that their position is personal and it is not the government's business except to provide women with the means, information, and health care access to make a decision to keep the future child a viable one and provide education to youth about how to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
And as long as they are fucking UP FRONT about it. We don't need any more AHA reveals i.e. Kirsten Sinema and Tricia Cotham...
Also too, ANY time an anti-choice democrat dares to run under our banner, there needs to be a primary candidate to run against them...People who have THIS MUCH disregard for a woman's bodily autonomy do NOT belong in our party. We have already conceded FAR too much to the right for a fucking pat on the head and a slap on the bottom
In order to buy what right wing idealogues, like Ezra Klein, are selling, you must ignore that the most high profile, popular Democrats in the country (J. B. Pritzker, Zohran Mamdani, AOC, Jasmine Crockett) all proudly speak out in support of abortion rights, immigrant rights, and civil rights for POC, LGBTQ+, and other vulnerable minorities. When Klein drags out the same tired, easily defeated claim that women's rights, and the rights of the vulnerable must be sacrificed to win over conservative voters he is merely admitting he has no idea how to win elections anywhere.
A stone cold MAGA like Thomas Massie, from a rural MAGA district in Kentucky, is perfectly comfortable demanding the full release of the Epstein/Maxwell files, while admitting he knows Trump is implicated, and knowing he won't be punished by his MAGA voters. It should be clear that politicians can speak out on subjects deemed "taboo" by pundits, and win elections. Thomas Massie isn't a gifted communicator, or talented politician. He just states the plain truth, without the usual focus grouped argle-bargle.
When asked specific questions by reputable polling firms, most Americans support human rights, civil rights, women's rights, actions to protect the climate, actions to reduce income inequality, access to high quality public schools, access to healthcare for all, legal enforcement against public corruption, gun safety laws, and many other issues coded as "liberal" or "feminine". This claim that Democrats must either run as MAGAs and betray women, and other vulnerable people to win in MAGA districts is nonsense. The other excuse is Democrats must be gifted orators, or politicians with super human charisma to win in MAGA districts. Have you seen elected MAGA politicians?!?! It would be impossible to find a more repulsive, inarticulate, charisma-free group of people. If Democrats run in MAGA districts, and speak the plain truth about the issues people care about, offering reasonable solutions, without throwing the vulnerable into the fire, they can win.
I understand and appreciate what you're saying. I agree with it in principle, especially since Rs no longer will field pro-choice candidates.
But, at the same time, I am really damn tired of Ds essentially taking a knee in my local elections. My only choices now are extremists in every way. Even though I've worked for Planned Parenthood and strongly support abortion rights, I would hold my nose to vote for someone, anyone, who isn't full MAGA. . . or some other similarly crazy extremist from a third party.
3 years ago, I had a D choice for congressman only because he ran as a write-in candidate in the primary and managed to acquire enough votes to get on the ballot for the general election. He got about 40% in the general election, which was a strong performance. Local D organizers started thinking, "Maybe this area is more liberal than we thought if this guy can improve on typical numbers with a fully grassroots campaign with few donors, certainly no major donors. . ."
Instead of throwing support to this guy two years later, they stepped on his neck. They ran a candidate who checked all their boxes. When I asked them why they were so opposed to the grassroots guy the response was, "He's a good guy, but he can't win because he doesn't have the donor connections he needs like our preferred candidate does." Mmmhmmm . . . in the end, their candidate lost about 5% of the vote, scoring only about 35% of the votes cast. And now, it seems Ds see the district as hopeless again. 🙄
The reason last year's candidate did so poorly, IMO, was because she only had support from the urban center in the district. That is where most big D donors reside. They are important. But that's not where winning candidates are found in the district. Not in 25 years has a candidate from the city won. Their candidate was completely unknown to those everywhere else in the primarily rural district. And the local Ds are so woefully unequipped to run a campaign in the district that it was the end of summer before she finally started branching out to the local events in the district's smaller towns. She missed at least three major events in the communities that actually tend to decide elections for our district. She got very few endorsements, photo ops, etc from the small pockets rurally where Ds have (finally) started winning because average people are fed up with the Christian nationals who are far too powerful and vocal. The more successful grassroots candidate was from a smaller town, seemingly recognized this, and was rewarded by being pushed aside.
So, at this point, I just want our local D organizers to pull their heads out of their asses and find any candidate who can tap support in the smaller towns. I don't care if they are opposed to abortion because I doubt they could be worse than what I have now. The sanctimonious letters I get in response to asking for an open mind on abortion rights say things like, "Restricting abortion is for your own good! I'm sorry you're unable to appreciate that. But trust that men like me know a little bit more about these things than you." (Billboards from the local "pro-life" groups have started proclaiming, "Good for the baby, and good for the mother! So the letters echo that message).
I doubt a D trying to tap into a more moderate place overall would be quite so brazen. But, again, how am I worse off if they are similarly terrible? Because I'm proudly in favor of abortion rights, I'm supposed to limit my focus to only that issue and ignore the potential for significant improvement on other issues a "pro-life" Democrat could bring? That just seems short-sighted to me. But, I will admit that it's possible my thinking has become a bit warped because I'm so starved for an actual competitive election.
"I would hold my nose to vote for someone, anyone, who isn't full MAGA. . . or some other similarly crazy extremist from a third party."
Me too. But having to hold your nose year after year, election after election voting for people who hold a view that frankly shouldn't even BE welcome in our party is demoralizing and fracturing
IMO there is a handful of positions that should be deal killers per allowing someone to run under the dem banner, and being anti-choice is one of them. It is a cornerstone of our ethos and should be utterly non negotiable.
Being PERSONALLY against it (like Carter) but vowing to never vote AGAINST is is one thing, but then again you'd be going against your principles if you did that so...
Surely since pro choice is BY FAR AND AWAY the most prevalent position within the party we can simple 'do better' and vet better candidates. If an anti-choice candidate is the BEST we can do is some random election, we really ARE fucked
I understand and appreciate what you're saying. But it's similarly demoralizing to be forced to live with representation only from far right candidates because the D party can't get off their arses to offer any alternative because they see it as a waste of resources on a presumed automatic loss.
When you see ballot after ballot in which your only options for the majority of positions are a Republican candidate, a Libertarian candidate, and maybe a wild card third party candidate from like the US Taxpayers Party, the feeling that you're well and truly fucked is already there in spades.
Do I want someone like Manchin or Sinema representing me? Ideally, no. Would a candidate like either of them have been a vast improvement over my current MAGA man congressman? Absolutely.
Do I expect candidates like this to serve the district until they retire? No. I expect them to open the door to engagement with the D party for the community in which too many have roundly dehumanized Democrats as Demoncrats and "the enemy." I expect them to help the community understand how corruption is rampant in part because there is no check on elected officials who only go through primaries with other corrupt a-holes who want the same power and privileges for themselves and have an interest in NOT checking their opponents as such. Whatever it takes to make a district competitive is what I think should be the priority. I think a lot of other problems work themselves out if our elected officials aren't allowed to get too cozy in their seats.
Oh I agree. If it's the only choice you have against the Republican then of course you are going to vote for them. As would I. I just think that we need to do better before people like that start making overtures to running for office. We need to do better earlier on in the process.
I literally don't give to Act Blue anyone because the fund anti choice Dems. And they do it just fine without me.
That said, you sound like this is very important to you, and I'd like to ask- have you considered running, yourself? I think you should. I'm not saying you have to shoot for Federal delegate level, but when AOC did that she won.
I appreciate the suggestion, but there are a lot of reasons I can't run myself. The most important is that my family is struggling right now. The last thing we need is the added pressure of scrutiny because of a campaign. I'd be a much better campaign manager than candidate ultimately. I have a real gift for saying the wrong thing to people. 🙂
So very well written and exactly what I’ve been thinking. Not just about Klein in general but all those that are more about catering to what they think is ‘electable’. Just care about humans and their well-being - (ie… be a decent human with good leadership skills)It is really that simple. If, as a leader, you stand behind what you believe and your efforts are actions to lift (all) humans up, then people will want to be led by you. They’ll be activity working to get you in power. Once you start faking your beliefs or manipulating your words to what you think someone wants to hear, you lose credibility and become less trust worthy.
That didn't work when Bernie promoted it, and it won't work now. Backing an anti-choice mayor and complaining that "talking about identity politics like abortions and women's bathrooms" won't "help our candidates running in the South," didn't work for him, the Democratic Party or anyone else.
You can't keep throwing groups of people under the bus in an attempt to woo that mythical beast, the Centrist Voter Who Nonetheless Votes Republican, and expect to build a winning coalition. Republicans have no popular policy prescriptions! Zero! But they run on them every time, and win often enough that, well, <looks around, gestures broadly>. And it works because they cater to their base and don't toss the fundies, for example, aside just to appeal to 'centrists.'
It’s never a thought among these types “what if it’s the Democratic party’s seeming willingness to compromise and sell out on every core issue that’s the reason why their approval ratings are in the toilet?”
Let’s say by some miracle the Democrats get a nationwide abortion expansion all the way to 49 (or likely 59) votes and they need just one more Democratic vote to seal the deal and it’s Senator anti-choice. Does this Senator then go against what they campaigned on directly? Or does the Democratic Party once again leave the people who voted for them jaded and defeated, feeling like nothing can ever change for the better?
Why not have a Democratic Party that holds actual values and elected representatives willing to fight for those values?
"The Democratic Party never should have closed its doors to pro-life voices, and it will never win if it doesn’t run candidates who actually have a chance to compete in red states.”
Can anyone point me to Ezra Klein - or ANYONE - saying that the Republican Party never should have closed its doors to pro-choice voices?
Yeah, I didn't think so. Once again we're reminded that only Democrats have agency.
"Fellow UGA alum Zaid Jilani at The American Saga posted, “Ezra is right. In 2010, 1/4 of the House Dem caucus was pro-life. "
I'd bet my LIFE that number is a fucking lie. Pro choice is our fucking BRAND FFS. it is MEANINGLESS to be a democrat who is anti-choice. I'd rather lose to republicans than to cede that point. Sometimes a slippery slope really IS a slippery slope
Bob Casey began life as a pro-birth Democrat
You mean anti-choice
I don't question the number, considering that Democrats held seats in some pretty conservative areas. However, I dispute the term "pro-life" in this context. It's sort of like calling Susan Collins "pro-choice" -- sure, that's what she says, but she enables anti-choice leadership and consistently votes for anti-choice judges.
I think prior to 2010, some Democrats could get away with saying that didn't like abortion, didn't support federal funding for it, while supporting pro-choice Democratic presidential candidates/leadership.
right on...I guess I was limiting my sample set to the federal level. But yeah, at the state I can see where those numbers jibe
So I guess I SHOULDN'T bet my life then...Is it too late late to cancel my FanDuel bet?
The real tragedy of people like Klein is that they REALLY don't understand that THEY are the problem
His paycheck tells him there's no problem.
No they are not.
did you mean to use that 'to be' verb?
Obviously his first mistake was talking to Douthat
Ezra Klein's privilege is showing. Women's being controlled and surveilled is not a device to win back Republicans. Why all these men support this option tells me that society's hierarchy is more important than bodily autonomy. That's the danger of embracing populism; there must always be an "othered" to push against.
Thank you for this. Ezra Klein has turned out to be a placator and an “obedience in advance” quisling. I lost all respect for him some time ago.
There's nothing stopping "pro-life" Democrats from running. So long as they recognize that their position is personal and it is not the government's business except to provide women with the means, information, and health care access to make a decision to keep the future child a viable one and provide education to youth about how to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
And as long as they are fucking UP FRONT about it. We don't need any more AHA reveals i.e. Kirsten Sinema and Tricia Cotham...
Also too, ANY time an anti-choice democrat dares to run under our banner, there needs to be a primary candidate to run against them...People who have THIS MUCH disregard for a woman's bodily autonomy do NOT belong in our party. We have already conceded FAR too much to the right for a fucking pat on the head and a slap on the bottom
That still qualifies as "pro-choice"!
In order to buy what right wing idealogues, like Ezra Klein, are selling, you must ignore that the most high profile, popular Democrats in the country (J. B. Pritzker, Zohran Mamdani, AOC, Jasmine Crockett) all proudly speak out in support of abortion rights, immigrant rights, and civil rights for POC, LGBTQ+, and other vulnerable minorities. When Klein drags out the same tired, easily defeated claim that women's rights, and the rights of the vulnerable must be sacrificed to win over conservative voters he is merely admitting he has no idea how to win elections anywhere.
A stone cold MAGA like Thomas Massie, from a rural MAGA district in Kentucky, is perfectly comfortable demanding the full release of the Epstein/Maxwell files, while admitting he knows Trump is implicated, and knowing he won't be punished by his MAGA voters. It should be clear that politicians can speak out on subjects deemed "taboo" by pundits, and win elections. Thomas Massie isn't a gifted communicator, or talented politician. He just states the plain truth, without the usual focus grouped argle-bargle.
When asked specific questions by reputable polling firms, most Americans support human rights, civil rights, women's rights, actions to protect the climate, actions to reduce income inequality, access to high quality public schools, access to healthcare for all, legal enforcement against public corruption, gun safety laws, and many other issues coded as "liberal" or "feminine". This claim that Democrats must either run as MAGAs and betray women, and other vulnerable people to win in MAGA districts is nonsense. The other excuse is Democrats must be gifted orators, or politicians with super human charisma to win in MAGA districts. Have you seen elected MAGA politicians?!?! It would be impossible to find a more repulsive, inarticulate, charisma-free group of people. If Democrats run in MAGA districts, and speak the plain truth about the issues people care about, offering reasonable solutions, without throwing the vulnerable into the fire, they can win.
THIS^^^^
"his claim that Democrats must either run as MAGAs and betray women, and other vulnerable people to win in MAGA districts is nonsense."
MAGA is ALWAYS going to do MAGA better than a MAGA Larping democrat. And why the fuck do we even WANT to compete in that space?
Like the old saw goes: Never wrestle with a pig because you'll both get dirty and the pig likes it
I understand and appreciate what you're saying. I agree with it in principle, especially since Rs no longer will field pro-choice candidates.
But, at the same time, I am really damn tired of Ds essentially taking a knee in my local elections. My only choices now are extremists in every way. Even though I've worked for Planned Parenthood and strongly support abortion rights, I would hold my nose to vote for someone, anyone, who isn't full MAGA. . . or some other similarly crazy extremist from a third party.
3 years ago, I had a D choice for congressman only because he ran as a write-in candidate in the primary and managed to acquire enough votes to get on the ballot for the general election. He got about 40% in the general election, which was a strong performance. Local D organizers started thinking, "Maybe this area is more liberal than we thought if this guy can improve on typical numbers with a fully grassroots campaign with few donors, certainly no major donors. . ."
Instead of throwing support to this guy two years later, they stepped on his neck. They ran a candidate who checked all their boxes. When I asked them why they were so opposed to the grassroots guy the response was, "He's a good guy, but he can't win because he doesn't have the donor connections he needs like our preferred candidate does." Mmmhmmm . . . in the end, their candidate lost about 5% of the vote, scoring only about 35% of the votes cast. And now, it seems Ds see the district as hopeless again. 🙄
The reason last year's candidate did so poorly, IMO, was because she only had support from the urban center in the district. That is where most big D donors reside. They are important. But that's not where winning candidates are found in the district. Not in 25 years has a candidate from the city won. Their candidate was completely unknown to those everywhere else in the primarily rural district. And the local Ds are so woefully unequipped to run a campaign in the district that it was the end of summer before she finally started branching out to the local events in the district's smaller towns. She missed at least three major events in the communities that actually tend to decide elections for our district. She got very few endorsements, photo ops, etc from the small pockets rurally where Ds have (finally) started winning because average people are fed up with the Christian nationals who are far too powerful and vocal. The more successful grassroots candidate was from a smaller town, seemingly recognized this, and was rewarded by being pushed aside.
So, at this point, I just want our local D organizers to pull their heads out of their asses and find any candidate who can tap support in the smaller towns. I don't care if they are opposed to abortion because I doubt they could be worse than what I have now. The sanctimonious letters I get in response to asking for an open mind on abortion rights say things like, "Restricting abortion is for your own good! I'm sorry you're unable to appreciate that. But trust that men like me know a little bit more about these things than you." (Billboards from the local "pro-life" groups have started proclaiming, "Good for the baby, and good for the mother! So the letters echo that message).
I doubt a D trying to tap into a more moderate place overall would be quite so brazen. But, again, how am I worse off if they are similarly terrible? Because I'm proudly in favor of abortion rights, I'm supposed to limit my focus to only that issue and ignore the potential for significant improvement on other issues a "pro-life" Democrat could bring? That just seems short-sighted to me. But, I will admit that it's possible my thinking has become a bit warped because I'm so starved for an actual competitive election.
"I would hold my nose to vote for someone, anyone, who isn't full MAGA. . . or some other similarly crazy extremist from a third party."
Me too. But having to hold your nose year after year, election after election voting for people who hold a view that frankly shouldn't even BE welcome in our party is demoralizing and fracturing
IMO there is a handful of positions that should be deal killers per allowing someone to run under the dem banner, and being anti-choice is one of them. It is a cornerstone of our ethos and should be utterly non negotiable.
Being PERSONALLY against it (like Carter) but vowing to never vote AGAINST is is one thing, but then again you'd be going against your principles if you did that so...
Surely since pro choice is BY FAR AND AWAY the most prevalent position within the party we can simple 'do better' and vet better candidates. If an anti-choice candidate is the BEST we can do is some random election, we really ARE fucked
I understand and appreciate what you're saying. But it's similarly demoralizing to be forced to live with representation only from far right candidates because the D party can't get off their arses to offer any alternative because they see it as a waste of resources on a presumed automatic loss.
When you see ballot after ballot in which your only options for the majority of positions are a Republican candidate, a Libertarian candidate, and maybe a wild card third party candidate from like the US Taxpayers Party, the feeling that you're well and truly fucked is already there in spades.
Do I want someone like Manchin or Sinema representing me? Ideally, no. Would a candidate like either of them have been a vast improvement over my current MAGA man congressman? Absolutely.
Do I expect candidates like this to serve the district until they retire? No. I expect them to open the door to engagement with the D party for the community in which too many have roundly dehumanized Democrats as Demoncrats and "the enemy." I expect them to help the community understand how corruption is rampant in part because there is no check on elected officials who only go through primaries with other corrupt a-holes who want the same power and privileges for themselves and have an interest in NOT checking their opponents as such. Whatever it takes to make a district competitive is what I think should be the priority. I think a lot of other problems work themselves out if our elected officials aren't allowed to get too cozy in their seats.
Oh I agree. If it's the only choice you have against the Republican then of course you are going to vote for them. As would I. I just think that we need to do better before people like that start making overtures to running for office. We need to do better earlier on in the process.
Well said. I agree.
I literally don't give to Act Blue anyone because the fund anti choice Dems. And they do it just fine without me.
That said, you sound like this is very important to you, and I'd like to ask- have you considered running, yourself? I think you should. I'm not saying you have to shoot for Federal delegate level, but when AOC did that she won.
Maybe it's time you took office.
I appreciate the suggestion, but there are a lot of reasons I can't run myself. The most important is that my family is struggling right now. The last thing we need is the added pressure of scrutiny because of a campaign. I'd be a much better campaign manager than candidate ultimately. I have a real gift for saying the wrong thing to people. 🙂
I too have that gift!
So very well written and exactly what I’ve been thinking. Not just about Klein in general but all those that are more about catering to what they think is ‘electable’. Just care about humans and their well-being - (ie… be a decent human with good leadership skills)It is really that simple. If, as a leader, you stand behind what you believe and your efforts are actions to lift (all) humans up, then people will want to be led by you. They’ll be activity working to get you in power. Once you start faking your beliefs or manipulating your words to what you think someone wants to hear, you lose credibility and become less trust worthy.
Thanks!
Ezra Klein is a liberal? He's doing a great job of hiding it!
Unfortunately it seems liberals are full of people with a lot of self doubt and a lack of confidence.
And a breathtaking inability to read the room
They think the only room worth reading is the Republican room.
With "friends" like these, American democracy doesn't need any more enemies.
The Do-Nothing Dem leadership continues to dither as our nation is sold into Republican dictatorship.
That didn't work when Bernie promoted it, and it won't work now. Backing an anti-choice mayor and complaining that "talking about identity politics like abortions and women's bathrooms" won't "help our candidates running in the South," didn't work for him, the Democratic Party or anyone else.
Listening to idiots like Ezra Klein and Neera Tanden has a great bearing on the state of the Democratic party.