Political theorist promotes 'Our Common Purpose' plan to reinvent American democracy A new Pew Research Center study confirmed what you might already suspect: Americans feel intense dissatisfaction with the way our government currently works and a growing distaste for both political p...

One of the reforms Danielle Allen at Harvard has proposed is increasing the number of congressional districts. Harder to gerrymander more districts.

www.pbs.org/newshour/sho...

The first thing I saw on TV this morning on my way from the bedroom to the coffee pot was some of the Texas Dems in a press conference with Governor Hochul.

Gotta admit it, I didn't think they had it in 'em. I'm encouraged.

Do you think I'm looking for a candidate who will lose?

If anyone is preaching, you are. Preaching the gospel of the perfect inhuman candidate. That's completely unrealistic. We've never had a perfect candidate for any office. Notably, you haven't named one.

I didn't say "only human," I said perfectly human as in nobody's perfect.

If you're going to dismiss a candidate for such a minor thing, you're going to vote for many candidates. Even the best aren't perfect.

Some people would have condemned her for not being embarrassed standing there with Trump

"it's a human trait to look for strength and decisiveness in their leaders. Its part of a charismatic candidate."

Trump is charismatic, bad charisma.

Not our best trait if "strength and decisiveness" leads to weakness and bad decisions. There's no worse leader than one who can't admit mistakes.

He's an anti-semenist.

Well, y'all keep setting impossible standards and keep being disappointed.

Hypothetical candidate has platform you agree with 100%, makes one gaffe, they're out.

OK, so no votes for humans. Got it.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen...from top litigator to angry old man roaming the farmer's market kvetching like a Larry David character without the satiric sense of humor.

I don't know that she "blew it." She got ambushed. No wonder she was embarrassed. Perfectly human reaction.

James Talarico, one of my Texas boys.

And lest anyone think I only vote for "left-wing radicals."

I voted for McCain in the 2000 primary. When we got the Shrub, I voted Dem in the general.

Current potential candidates I'm keeping my eye on:

Talarico
Slotkin
Kinzinger
Buttigieg
Whitmer

I try to temper my ideology with pragmatism.

No, I volunteered for Bernie in 2016, but voted for Hillary in the general. I wasn't excited about Biden, but I was about Harris.

This has never been about running Bernie again. If you read my original post, that will be clear.

I'll add that I don't think the youth vote is the magic bullet. I want broad coalitions. I like 60% as a target. FDR numbers.

But I'm surely not the only boomer who is willing to vote for *any* candidate with a real reform platform, regardless of their age. Those tend to be young candidates.

Fair point, but, as for 2024, I think those crowds didn't want to vote for either of the two dinosaurs that started the race. Not sure they wouldn't have turned out for Harris if she had more time, but that's another exercise in second-guessing history. Curious to see how Kat Abu does.

Then this entire conversation confuses me. First you bad mouth him, then you tell me you voted for him. I'm not suggesting Bernie run again...I am suggesting someone younger pick up the ball and run with it. E.g. Pete, or AOC, or anyone who has a progressive populist platform.

Fair point, but, as for 2024, I think those crowds didn't want to vote for either of the two dinosaurs that started the race. Not sure they wouldn't have turned out for Harris if she had more time, but that's another exercise in second-guessing history. Curious to see how Kat Abu does.

I agree he's part of the gerontocracy, but he motivated younger voters in a way that the rest of the gerontocracy and the establishment pols didn't...another point I made in my original comments but everyone seemed to miss while they were piling on Bernie about 2016.

You don't see the disconnect between voters flocking to rallies but not voting when the candidate whose rally they flocked to don't show up on the ballot? That was the central premise of my original comment. But you, and almost everyone else seems to have ignored that and focused on Bernie.

Notably, the guy who thinks AI is a good thing apparently doesn't bother himself with capitalization and punctuation.

Tools are to make tedious work easier, not to replace creative of intellectually challenging work.

Hard to tell if you think consistency is a good or a bad thing. Personally, I admire someone who is consistent on their policies if they're good policies.

What specific positions would you like him to change?

Because if you poll people on his specific policies, they're popular. Same for AOC.

From a governor who takes millions from wealthy donors.

I didn't expect my Texas Dems to do it, but I'm glad they did. It's time to fight fire with fire.

Weirder than you thinking the 2016 primary is in dispute here?

So many responses just like yours: "but he did lose."

He lost the primary. Hillary lost the general. We don't know, and can't know, if Bernie would have won the general, but we do know Hillary lost the general.

So, the point that a different candidate might have won seems to be lost on many.

Same winner who lost the general to Trump.

The primary. We know with absolute certainty Hillary lost the general.

Says the person who previously admitted she would have stayed home and not voted if Bernie won the primary to the guy who volunteered for Bernie but still voted for Hillary.

The all-caps is a novel touch. Really persuasive rhetorical flourish.

But she lost the general, so, it turned out not voting at all would have been just as effective as voting for Hillary.

And so much for "Bernie-bros" not voting for Hillary. I guess the people who used that excuse for her loss were just projecting. I voted for her.

I think the point is that they're not firmly in the Democratic camp. And is anyone suggesting you can win an election with just one demographic?

There's a persistent message from members of both parties: Young people don't vote.

But they are unwilling to confront why young people don't vote.

How much influence should the young activists get? Where's the Baby Bear's porridge?

And don't get me wrong, I make distinctions between young activists just like I do old activists. It's the things they're active about that matter.

Also for the record, I voted for the first time in 1980, when I turned 18.

For Reagan. What a long stranger trip it's been...