EXCLUSIVE: Dems ''Learned Nothing'' By Nominating ''Comrade Mamdani,'' Mike Johnson Says

Published in Politics and Government on Thursday, July 17th 2025 at 20:43 GMT by The Daily Caller
^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

House Speaker Mike Johnson blasted socialist Democratic New York City mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani as "radical" and a "big-government Marxist" on Monday. Johnson told the Daily Caller News Foundation in an exclusive statement that Mamdani''s agenda is "extreme" and "bad news for New York City.

The article titled "Exclusive: Dems Learned Nothing from Nominating Kamala Harris, Critics Say" published on AOL News delves into the growing discontent among some Democratic Party insiders, activists, and political analysts regarding the nomination of Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic presidential candidate following President Joe Biden's decision to step aside from the 2024 presidential race. The piece argues that the Democratic Party has failed to learn from past mistakes, particularly in how it handled the nomination process, and suggests that the decision to elevate Harris without a competitive primary or robust internal debate may have squandered an opportunity to energize the base and address critical voter concerns.

The central thesis of the article is that the Democratic leadership's swift endorsement of Harris reflects a lack of introspection after the 2016 election loss of Hillary Clinton, where the party was criticized for appearing to "coronate" a candidate without sufficient grassroots input. Critics cited in the article argue that the party has once again prioritized establishment loyalty and optics over substantive policy discussions or a genuine contest of ideas. They contend that this approach risks alienating progressive voters, independents, and disillusioned Democrats who were hoping for a more open and democratic process to select the nominee. One unnamed Democratic strategist quoted in the piece expressed frustration, stating that the party "handed the nomination to Harris without a fight, without a debate, without even a whisper of dissent," suggesting that this move could be perceived as tone-deaf in an era where voters are increasingly skeptical of political elites.

The article explores the context of Harris's nomination, noting that after Biden announced he would not seek re-election, there was a brief window of opportunity for the Democratic Party to hold a mini-primary or a series of debates to showcase a range of potential candidates. However, party leaders, including influential figures in Congress and key donors, quickly coalesced around Harris, citing her historic role as the first woman, Black, and South Asian vice president as a unifying factor. While acknowledging the symbolic importance of her candidacy, the article highlights concerns that this rapid consolidation may have overlooked deeper issues within the party, such as the need to address economic inequality, healthcare reform, and climate change with bold, new ideas that could have emerged from a competitive nomination process.

Several critics interviewed for the piece argue that Harris, while a capable politician, carries significant political baggage that could hinder her electability in a general election. They point to her 2020 presidential campaign, which failed to gain traction and ended before the first primary votes were cast, as evidence of her struggles to connect with a broad coalition of voters. Some progressive activists expressed disappointment that the party did not consider other candidates who might have better represented the left wing of the party, such as Senator Bernie Sanders or Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or even more moderate figures like Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer or Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, who have strong records in battleground states. The article suggests that by bypassing a competitive process, the Democrats may have missed a chance to test Harris's strengths and weaknesses in a public forum, leaving her vulnerable to attacks from Republican opponents who are already framing her as a product of "woke" politics and San Francisco liberalism.

The piece also examines the broader implications of the Democratic Party's decision-making process, framing it as part of a larger pattern of risk-aversion and reliance on familiar faces rather than embracing transformative change. One political analyst quoted in the article argues that the party is "playing it safe in a moment that demands boldness," pointing to the rise of populist movements on both the left and right as evidence that voters are hungry for outsiders and anti-establishment figures. The analyst suggests that by rallying behind Harris without a genuine contest, the Democrats risk appearing out of touch with the electorate's desire for authenticity and disruption, especially in an era marked by economic uncertainty and cultural polarization.

Furthermore, the article touches on the potential impact of Harris's nomination on key demographic groups. While her candidacy is seen as a potential boon for mobilizing Black and women voters, some activists worry that her record as a prosecutor and attorney general in California could alienate younger, more progressive voters who are critical of the criminal justice system. Others express concern that her tenure as vice president, during which she faced criticism for her handling of border security issues, might provide fodder for Republican attacks in a general election. The article notes that these concerns could have been addressed or mitigated through a primary process, where Harris would have had the opportunity to defend her record and articulate a clear vision for the future.

The piece also contrasts the Democratic approach with the Republican Party's strategy, noting that the GOP, despite its own internal divisions, has often been more willing to embrace contentious primaries that allow candidates to battle it out publicly, as seen in the 2016 election with Donald Trump's rise. While acknowledging that such processes can be messy, the article suggests that they can also serve to strengthen a candidate by forcing them to refine their message and build a coalition of supporters. In contrast, the Democrats' decision to avoid such a contest with Harris is portrayed as a missed opportunity to galvanize the party and generate excitement among voters who might otherwise feel disengaged from the political process.

In addition to internal party dynamics, the article considers the broader electoral landscape, arguing that the Democratic Party's failure to hold a competitive nomination process could have consequences in a tightly contested election. With issues like inflation, immigration, and abortion rights dominating the national conversation, critics worry that Harris may struggle to present herself as a fresh face capable of addressing these challenges, especially if she is perceived as a continuation of the Biden administration rather than a distinct leader with her own agenda. The piece suggests that a more open nomination process could have allowed the party to identify a candidate with a stronger connection to working-class voters or those in swing states, potentially improving their chances against a Republican opponent.

Towards the end, the article acknowledges that not all Democrats share these concerns. Some party loyalists and strategists defend the decision to back Harris, arguing that unity is paramount in the face of a formidable Republican challenge and that a divisive primary could have weakened the eventual nominee. They also point to Harris's experience and name recognition as assets that make her a strong contender. However, the article counters that this perspective underestimates the importance of voter enthusiasm and the need for a candidate who can inspire rather than simply consolidate support.

In conclusion, the article paints a picture of a Democratic Party at a crossroads, grappling with the tension between stability and innovation. It argues that by nominating Kamala Harris without a competitive process, the party may have repeated the mistakes of the past, prioritizing short-term unity over long-term vitality. While Harris's candidacy carries historic significance and undeniable strengths, the piece suggests that the lack of a robust nomination contest could leave her—and the party—vulnerable in an election that demands bold ideas and broad appeal. The critique ultimately serves as a call for the Democrats to embrace greater openness and risk-taking in the future, lest they continue to alienate voters who are yearning for change.

Read the Full The Daily Caller Article at:
[ https://www.aol.com/news/exclusive-dems-learned-nothing-nominating-115138126.html ]

Similar Politics and Government Publications

[ Tue, Dec 03rd 2024 ]: Brian Stokes

Harris Officials Shot Themselves in Foot 'Propping Biden Up': Nate Silver

N※N

EXCLUSIVE: Dems ''Learned Nothing'' By Nominating ''Comrade Mamdani,'' Mike Johnson Says