One Key Way Democrats Can Start to Get Their Act Together

The Democrats are suffering from a leadership void. I wrote an op-ed for Newsweek that the Democrats should accelerate their nomination process. It follows below.

One Key Way Democrats Can Start to Get Their Act Together

Who leads the Democratic Party? No one knows, and that void is forestalling any attempt to have a meaningful conversation about the future of the party.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) are drawing huge crowds, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) are staking out a moderate message, Gov. Gavin Newsom, Democrat of California is podcasting, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is staving off a mutiny. Former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg is doing press. The chorus of voices is making the party seem more like a chicken strolling around a barnyard pecking at random than a party striving to take back power.

To be clear, I'm not a Democrat—I'm an Independent who co-founded a new party. I happen to think that the Democrats with their 29 percent approval rating and inability to win the Senate are a structural minority party for the foreseeable future. Do you see them winning Senate races in Texas or Florida anytime soon? Me neither. Folks like The New York Times' Ezra Klein and podcast host Lee Drutman agree that a new political force is necessary to create meaningful competition in places like Kansas or Nebraska, and I'd add California and Massachusetts to that list. That's what I'm working on.

That said, watching the Democrats flail around gives me no pleasure. A dysfunctional party is bad for the country. And one could argue, with the Republicans' blind obeisance to Trump, we are down to zero functional major parties.

So, let's say I want to help the Democrats out. How to fix it?

The problem is this—the first votes for the Democratic presidential primary aren't cast until the beginning of 2028 and most candidates won't declare until after the midterms in 2026. That leaves about 20 months of rudderlessness and lack of definition before a real race begins and a conversation can be had.

Quick refresher—the Dem primary debates are likely to begin in summer of 2027 with candidates declaring a few months prior. Who is going to run?

Everyone.

Among the most likely are: Newsom; Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker; Maryland's Gov. Wes Moore; Michigan's Gov. Gretchen Whitmer; Buttigieg; Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro; Colorado Gov. Jared Polis; Rep. Ro Khanna of California; Minnesota's Sen. Amy Klobuchar; Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz; Former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel; Murphy; Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego; AOC; and probably a dozen more we haven't heard of. The field was about 23 the last time there was an open nomination process in 2020, which I was a part of, and this one will be at least as big.

So, how do you make this mess any better?

Start now. In 2025. Pull the whole process forward.

There are two main ways to do this. The first is easy. The second is tougher but manageable.

First, the DNC announces presidential forums on the future of the party to take place in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Georgia this Summer. Only people who are seriously preparing presidential bids may participate. This will start to suss out some of the early contenders. The forums are obvious media events; CNN or MSNBC would televise them. Candidates would campaign and meet with folks around the state. And then you would hold a non-binding vote in each of these states on who they would like to see as the nominee.

If you are lazy, you could limit this to party activists at a state convention. It would be more compelling to have the public involved in the vote; you could even have people in that state vote on their smartphones using mobilevoting.org. You could build out a calendar giving candidates valuable exposure to important states and constituencies as well as shift the media narrative.

Second, you could pull up the primary process a year earlier. For places like New Hampshire, they just want to go first; does it matter if it's in '27 or '28? You could hold your primaries in '27 and then still have the national convention in Summer '28. That way, the big primary debates would be in '26. You get the country's attention a full year earlier.

What are the problems with these suggestions?

First, they extend the presidential campaign. You'd be making the campaign 12 to 18 months longer for some candidates. As someone who ran myself for years, that's a long time. Some of these folks are current officeholders with lots of obligations. The time to pick apart candidates is longer.

On the other hand, many campaigns might end a little bit earlier too. Some of these folks don't currently have jobs. A lot of the people who are planning to run are stealth campaigning right now anyway. And you have time for a more thorough vetting and getting people in front of the public.

Second, there are costs and practicalities. Running events and forums in various states would require resources and planning. And any adjustment to the primary calendar would require buy-in from multiple stakeholders.

The costs aren't a real issue though—if anything, you would energize donors and the grassroots and this would be generative. You think people in New Hampshire wouldn't be pumped to get an early look at the field?

The real impediment to these suggestions is that they would require the Democratic Party to be nimble. Agile. Adaptive. Do things a little bit differently and more aggressively rather than wait for '28.

You guys are underwater with your own voters. I'd suggest that if there was a time to do something different, it would be now.

To the Dems, feel free to ignore this. Who am I after all? I'm just a concerned citizen who stood up and said you should hold a competitive primary in '24 for Joe Biden . . . oh wait, that aged rather well.

Try to do better this time. An early start could help.