What if There Were Pretenders Working to Harm Democrats' Chances?

[MineralMan]

What if? What if they wanted to damage the reputations of leading primary candidates in various races? How would they do that, and why? And who would such people be? Where might such a thing be tried?

How is easy. They'd just do some opposition research, find something that sounds a little off, and sort of leak it out. They might also pass that information on to one of the primary opponents of the target and encourage that opponent to feature that adverse information in the campaign.

Why isn't so difficult to figure out, either. The goal is to harm the chances that a strong candidate might have in the General Election. For whatever reason, such pretenders wouldn't have the goal of getting Democrats elected at all, really. Some other goal would lie behind their strategies. It could be any of several other goals, really.

Who? Well, that's more difficult, sometimes, to ascertain. Pulling such trickery off isn't easy. You'd have to appear to be a Democrat yourself, perhaps even an Uber-Democrat. You'd have to, you know, pretend something. Hence Pretenders. It's hard to pin such things down, and only vague evidence is often available.

Where could this be happening? Well, one potential race is in California, where a very powerful and productive former Speaker of the House is running again. Then, there's a Governor's race in Michigan, where one candidate in the primary has had a strong lead. There are other similar situations, where a trusted Democratic candidate is facing odd challenges, not from the Republican opponent, but seemingly from opponents from the same party.

Pretenders. It's good to be watchful, I think.

[empedocles]

1. Absolutely

[MineralMan]

2. Yeah, that's what I'm thinking, too.

Maybe we should pay attention to this a little more...

[brush]

77. The Michigan gov. race stands out. The 3rd place...

Dem. earlier this week accused the leading primary Dem candidate of money laundering but then had to walk it back by saying it was "legal" money laundering.

AOC is backing the 3rd place candidate, along with of course her mentor Bernie Sanders and the Our Revolution group of alleged Dems.

Hmmmmm?

[at140]

3. The most dangerous person is someone you know

I say that based on most murders are committed by someone who knows the victim.

[MineralMan]

4. That can be true, for sure.

Sometimes, we have confidence in someone that is based on a deliberate effort to get that confidence. There's a name for people who work that way, you know: They're called con-men. Some are very, very good at it, and fool more people than they should.

[Mike Rows His Boat]

5. Watch the Fl. Dem gubernatorial debates. There are some there. eom

[Roland99]

6. ??

[MineralMan]

8. Tell us more. I don't follow Florida state politics, either.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

7. My question isn't "What if"...

It’s who are the pretenders?

I’m in Michigan and really wonder about the other Democrats running for governor.

Whitmer is my choice and the same party oppo is getting nasty. Not going to name names but a couple have no chance in rural counties.

And I have to profoundly apologize for what I say next, it’s just an ugly truth. They have no chance because of their name. Live here and hear it everyday.

We need to expose them and that’s not easy.

[LAS14]

81. Why won't you say their names? It's politics. People are SUPPOSED to talk...

...about the pros and cons of different candidates.

[Voltaire2]

86. Perhaps because we are supposed to support

Democrats here and being explicit would break the rules?

My opinion is that ops like this are exactly the sort of shit that divide us and take our focus off of the real enemies- those being the fascists in power, not Democrats You Disagree With.

[StuckInTexas]

91. Absolutely

Primaries are for fighting it out in house, before rallying together and taking on the actual threat. Do they get ugly sometimes? Absolutely. However, outside of extremely high profile primaries like those during presidential elections, the overwhelming vast majority of voters (let alone Americans as a whole) do not pay attention to them.

I really do understand the concerns about harming a candidate for the general, but they are extremely overstated. Far too often, that worry is used as an excuse to remove dissent. Dissent is VERY important. It's how we sharpen our views and adapt to the ever changing political landscape. Our absolute worst mistake of the last decade has been the ostrich like burying of our head in the sand and ignoring real concerns and dissent in our party.

Finally, I get it that this particular board is still haunted by 2016. We all are. However, I have never seen the various wings of the party this united in the idea that no matter who wins those primaries, we need to not just vote for them, but enthusiastically do everything we can to turn out the vote of others for them. The politically active Democrats know the stakes in this country.

[LAS14]

105. Well stated!

Far too often, that worry is used as an excuse to remove dissent. Dissent is VERY important. It's how we sharpen our views and adapt to the ever changing political landscape.

[LAS14]

106. I don't understand how "being explicit would break the rules?" Could you elaborate? nt

[Squinch]

111. LAS14, a number of us have been alerted on for naming names. The alert squads are back.

It is frustrating. There is at least one example that is very obvious. He's a candidate with no hope of winning, and he is speciously smearing the front running Democrat, thereby weakening her for the general. I'd name him, but I'm not willing to risk it.

[LAS14]

112. Weird. If the content is OK as long as identity is unknown it seems strange not to be able to name

the person. Oh, well. Thanks for the warning.

[SWBTATTReg]

9. I think that these kind of doings do happen a lot more often than one would think...

the election cycle pits opponents together who rough and tumble w/ all of the ammunition that they can come up w/, and use against each other. Now, and in the past. Nothing different.

I don't see any difference in this normal process vs. the theory you're advocating...a hidden entity spreading crap around...

[MineralMan]

10. Look for patterns. Really.

Find the common denominator and you can do anything with fractions.

[StuckInTexas]

11. Or more likely

there are genuine, real differences in opinions on how best to tackle the overwhelming problems we are facing due to the republican fascists. You know what I am not seeing from these "pretenders" you speak of? A call for division after the primary. As a matter of fact, the only common theme I am finding with, well lets call this what it is, concern trolling, is the platform and ideological positions of those that you are inferring to be nefarious agents.

As my user name suggests, I'm currently stuck in Texas. I volunteer. A lot. It hit 115 a few weeks ago and I was still knocking on doors. Not in blue areas, like most here do. No sir, I've heard calls for my death for knocking at a door. I've heard enough racial slurs to last a lifetime. This is just in a week. As a result, I'm pretty god damned cranky at the moment. But this BULLSHIT, and it is BULLSHIT, that those whose policies are you may not agree with, with tactics you may not agree with, are secret enemies has got to stop. Because right now, there is unity in the idea that you vote blue no matter what after the primaries. No wing of the party, no individual in the party (or associated with it) has even remotely suggested otherwise. You and others, constantly questioning the motives of anybody who would DARE to question the conventional wisdom of the party, which has gotten its collective ass handed to it the last decade, is a laughable claim that is so transparent in its root cause, that I really shouldn't be posting this rant. But fuck it, I''m hot, I'm angry and I'm tired of reading this BULLSHIT.

Now go ahead and report this post, I really don't care. This "Pretender" will just go back to pretending to do everything they can to fight the real enemy. The fucking fascists of the GOP.

[MineralMan]

13. I never alert on posts that are replies to my posts.

So, if your post goes away, it has nothing to do with me.

[rawtribe]

33. +1000

[nini]

46. It's not a 'difference of opinion'

It's the 'bashing' of the Democratic party in general when those in question try and get their message (Propaganda) out there. That disrupts and splits the party. Denying those type exists is ridiculous and swinging that broad brush that it's anyone who is running is ridiculous.

The people in question claim to have the same ideas the Democratic platform does yet claim it as their own and equate the party as no better than republicans. They trash the one party you are working for - they are disrupters pure and simple.

[Squinch]

48. OK, a couple of things: First, you're not seeing calls for division after the primary, so you don't

believe there are any spoilers out there? Seriously? THIS YEAR, people are using our resources to fight Democrats in areas where a challenger might split the vote (and before you decide to instruct me all about my life and my beliefs, that obviously does not include OC.), and you wonder why we get our asses handed to us? Intelligent people look at what others do, not what they say, to determine their true motives.

Then, I just love the fact that you have decided that the rest of us knocking on doors are somehow just not as good as you are. Because you have decided that "most here" only knock on doors in blue areas. What you base that on is anyone's guess, because it's, to use your word BULLSHIT, but I doubt that will penetrate your tantrum. I doubt anyone will convince you that "most here" could possibly live up to your oh-so-virtuous standards.

Lastly, welcome to DU. You sure do have a lot of dislike for us after a real short time.

[StuckInTexas]

54. Name them please.

The real issue here is the ambiguity of it all. Name these nefarious actors, these pretenders who are only running to ensure ratfucking GOP victory. No more vague inferences. My knock on blue doors was in response to the OP's own statements in other threads.

As far as you're most sincere welcome, thanks, I've lurked here for over a decade, and only recently reached the point of feeling the urge to post. I only dislike this cowardly bullshit of rendering all dissent and opposition to the same ideas that have cost us the House, Senate, White House and over 1k seats at state levels in the last decade as some means of GOP or foreign operation. Let the primaries play out as they should. Then rally behind the dems who come out of them.

[Squinch]

60. Oh, no. Nothing a lowly person like me could ever say would ever rise to the

lofty level of your superiority.

I'll just worship at your feet and marvel at your daffy claims that there are no spoilers at work in this election.

[StuckInTexas]

66. Stop being petulant and name these

pretenders. Who is currently running for office that is doing so in bad faith?

[Squinch]

67. Lol! That's so slick. You seem to be very well versed in how things work

around here. You know if I name one I will be alerted on.

I'm sure you wouldn't want that to happen, now would you? Even if I am just one of those DU posters to whom you feel so superior.

[brush]

78. Look at who is backing the alleged Dems attacking...

the leading, strongest Democratic candidate.

Look at the Michigan gov. race in particular. The 3rd place candidate is backed by a new and current party darling from another state and an office holder from another state, a small state. who I dare not mention least I get alerted on again.

[choie]

80. I'm with you StuckinTexas

There seems to be a pattern: if somebody challenges the mainstream Democratic contender in a primary, they are now accused of being either so far to the left that they resemble Che Guevara or of being a "pretender" or both!

[dansolo]

84. Is isn't the challege that is the issue

It is the way that the challenge is conducted that pisses people off.

[BeyondGeography]

57. Superb

[bigtree]

58. amen

...+1000

[nini]

12. If?

This has been in place for some time - right along with the Russian stuff. - I believe it's all related.

[MineralMan]

14. You're probably right. There are some tenuous connections, for sure.

Some less tenuous, too.

[nini]

15. I've suspected it for years. now I'm convinced

The more recent history has proven it to me.

And it's scary how many still aren't putting the pieces together.

[Hortensis]

16. Watch actions, evaluate their expected effects.

If those conflict with the rhetoric, ignore the rhetoric. Actions will be speaking far truer.

Btw, although MM is saying watch for pretenders, some who run but can't win sincerely believe in the virtue of running against "unworthy" Democrats anyway. Their beliefs don't allow them to question the morality of helping Democrats lose to Republicans.

Of course, whether perversely blind to the strong dissonance between their words and their actions or completely, subversively aware, the results are the same.

[MineralMan]

18. The problem, though, begins when they accept help

from others in their zeal to defeat Democrats they feel aren't sufficiently "something." And it appears that such is happening, actually.

[Hortensis]

22. Yes, I'm sure there are fifth-column candidacies

intended to keep Democrats from taking office.

The struggle for power to determine the future of our nation this election is enormous, and enormously funded. And the enemies of liberal democracy are completely ruthless and without scruples.

[CentralMass]

17. I see. Only insiders are legitimate. Those other candidates are just pretenders.

[MineralMan]

19. Read more closely, please.

It's not the candidates, really. I celebrate people running in primaries, regardless of the exact flavor of their politics. I'm not attacking any candidates. It's others who are the pretenders. Not the candidates.

[CentralMass]

23. Can you name names?

[MineralMan]

24. I can't, because I'm not following that race closely.

I'm sure others are, so maybe others can name some names. I'm talking about the phenomenon, though, not individuals.

[ucrdem]

49. Names:

Richard Nixon, Donald Segretti. Here's Segretti in the flesh and a link to a scene with his character from All the President's Men:

http://www.criticalcommons.org/Members/ccManager/clips/donald-segretti-scene-from-all-the-presidents-men/view

Interesting sidenote: These are tricks the Romans used to play on each other. In fact Caesar's assassination was basically an effort to remove what seemed to the conspirators to be a pretender using fake populism to undermine the republic. Or anyway that's what they said they were doing. They had lots of other familiar tricks too like false-flag catastrophes (fires in Roman districts ripe for purchase by wealthy politicians) etc etc.

[Generic Brad]

109. We're not supposed to name the Voldemort's among us

If we do, it is speculation without proof. That puts us in tinfoil hat territory which is frowned upon here. And it is not a good idea in general to do that because we could be wrong.

That said - the Russians are attacking America - not a particular party. We would be foolish to think that all Democrats and those upholding Democratic values are immune to Russian ratfuckery. Watch what they do, not what they say.

[Autumn]

28. I'm confused. Is a Pretender Dem the same as a hyphenated Dem?

[bettyellen]

30. They are if they're hyped by the Intercept and similar rags that are

always hyping the spoilers and trashing the front runners w propaganda. It’s not that hard to notice, if you read enough.

We had people here saying Joe Lieberman and some other republican spoke for Dems! Can you imagine the foolishness?

[Autumn]

36. Did you know hyped and hyphenated are different words?

You can google a dictionary when you aren't sure of the meaning of a word.

[bettyellen]

39. Yes, I do. Perhaps you should read again as my hyped has no connection to your hyphenated.

I said “they are” which referred to both, obviously.
So you’ve avoided learning or discussing anything, and reached for a nonsensical insult. True to form.
I’d not be surprised if you took Lieberman advice to heart too!

[Autumn]

51. Is a Pretender Dem the same as a hyphenated Dem?

That was my question. Here's whats true to form I see what you are going on about though, in some other thread I said that I do not consider Lieberman and asshole Comey to be Dems and their opinion of who should be run by Democarts are worthless to me. You seem to have a problem with that. Let it go or go fight it in that thread.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10939557

[bettyellen]

62. Again, if either is hyped by the Intercept or TYT and their cohorts - that's a good reason to think

The candidate is being promoted as a spoiler. That’s what they’re done in the past, it’s what they’re still doing.
(People here agreeing with GOPers that Dems have lost their way is germane to this discussion- that’s another facet of anti-Dem propaganda we see here.)

It’s not that hard to understand- not sure what so confusing for you.

[Autumn]

65. I asked the OP if a Pretender Dem is the same as a hyphenated Dem

Hyped does not mean hyphenated. What confuses you about that?

hyphenated
[hahy-fuh-ney-tid]
ExamplesWord Origin
adjective Informal.
of, relating to, or designating a person, group, or organization of mixed origin or identity:

hype. hyped; hyping. transitive verb. 1 : put on, deceive. 2 : to promote or publicize extravagantly

from the OP

Pretend
pre·tend
prəˈtend/Submit
verb
1.
speak and act so as to make it appear that something is the case when in fact it is not.
"I closed my eyes and pretended I was asleep"
synonyms: make as if, profess, affect;

Again my question was to the OP Is a Pretender Dem the same as a hyphenated Dem? Yes or no question.
hyped and hyphenated have different meanings. What the Intercept or TYT hypes is of no concern to me, I don't go look for their article to see what they hype.

[lapucelle]

69. Actually, your question was to CentralMass, not the OP.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10962146

[bettyellen]

70. LOL. I told you twice the label literally doesn't matter. You seem confused about the usage of two

different words that are spelled similarly but have different meanings. You’re mixing them up in your mind, no one else is.

[Voltaire2]

72. This is now the most off the rails subthread I've

read here in a while.

Hype == hyphenated == hypocrisy == hypnotized

[bettyellen]

73. I don't see how anyone confuses the two, but they claim to. I don't know why.

Hyped was properly used in the sentence and yet.... lOL

[heaven05]

93. why try to distract and divert

from original OP? Is this a game to you? These are very dangerous times. Distraction from truth is not needed. Okay. Slick? No. Obvious? Yes. We have enemies and it's not whether English grammar or punctuation is correct. Sad the lengths some people go to......

[Autumn]

94. Wow. Asking a question is distraction from truth?

Agree it really is sad the lengths some people go to. I figured out what Hyphenated Dems and Pretender Dems are so I'm gonna step out of this game. Very revealing.

[heaven05]

95. about hyphens or no hyphens?

it is...whether you can admit it or not, which doesn't seem you can. Pretty obvious, the intent. Distraction and diversion is not so innocent as you try to make it seem. Bye bye now. PEEPED is this response.... no more time for distraction, diversion from dangerous times.

[Autumn]

97. One thing for sure, I know the differnce between hyped and hyphenated.

There was nothing in my posts about about hyphens or no hyphens. Take care.

[heaven05]

98. only because you say so

no one else is saying so. That means hyphenated-non-hyphenated doesn't mean a thing. Diversion-distraction technique understood by many because it is used by many. Bye Bye...

[bettyellen]

101. Always some little word game, some feigned confusion to divert.

Its interesting when tou see who plays dumb, and why.

[heaven05]

103. exactly nt

[MineralMan]

102. Actually, you didn't ask the OP that question.

You asked someone else. Did you have a question for me? I'll be happy to answer it.

[George II]

85. You did here what you complained about in your post #71.

[Autumn]

87. George, two of what are considered elders of DU are using

two odd new terms to describe Democrats Is it that hard to get an answer to the question? Pretender Dem and hyphenated Dem? Are they the same? Different? I know the terms Blue Dogs and Yellow dogs. I've never heard these before.

[Autumn]

89. How so?

[betsuni]

88. Well, "Everyone needs their little dreams to keep themselves going. Good luck with yours!"

"Democarts"

[NurseJackie]

108. You rock!

[lapucelle]

68. Well...they do both start with "hyp"...

I decided to look up "hyphenated Democrat". This is the first thing I found:

Hyphenation of "Democrat"

Wondering how to hyphenate the English word Democrat? This word can be hyphenated and contains 4 syllables as shown below.

De-mo-c-rat

This came later in the google search:
https://books.google.com/books?id=UOpUDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=hyphenated+democrats&source=bl&ots=juMl3aVN5H&sig=hR5B7GMt6xRQlnQ1lTdj59tRG_c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZ8q2AyNTcAhUFw1kKHW9FCFgQ6AEwB3oECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=hyphenated%20democrats&f=false

And I also found a NYT blog entry on the over-hyping of hyphens.

After Deadline
New York Times Blog

Too Many Hyphens
By Philip B. Corbett June 19, 2012 8:00 am

Notes from the newsroom on grammar, usage and style. (Some frequently asked questions are here.)

Hyphens can clarify a phrase and are sometimes crucial to the meaning. But if we sprinkle them heedlessly where they’re not called for, the effect is distracting at best and can be confusing.

https://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/19/too-many-hyphens/

[bettyellen]

74. HA! Thank you. I guess no matter how many times you try to explain something....

Some people get stuck and just won’t get it. I mean, they’re obviously trying so hard, it’s shame.

[Squinch]

45. WTF? Did you read what she said? If so, what the hell are you talking about?

[Autumn]

52. Yeah I read it and she going on about something from another thread.

Last edited Sat Aug 4, 2018, 04:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Did that not get mentioned to you? This sub thread will clue you in Some people can't let things go if one does not acquiesce to their view.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10939557

[betsuni]

55. Acquiesce, not acquiesces.

[Autumn]

56. Spell check without glasses strikes again. Thanks.

Had my eyes done and have yet to find readers that are worth a crap .

[Squinch]

61. You don't like people bringing things over from another thread?

You know "irony" and "projection" are two different words with different meanings.

You can google a dictionary when you aren't sure of the meaning of a word.

[bettyellen]

63. Oh I'm sure they do.

[Autumn]

71. I don't mind it at all. I asked a question. Poster responds with

no answer to the question, just a call back to another disagreement on another day. No matter, I figured out what hyphenated Dem and Pretender Dems are.

[bettyellen]

75. I said your question misses the point. Anyone can use any label they want to. Doesn't mean they are

who or what they say they are. That’s the point of the OP.
Whoosh.

[Squinch]

79. You are calling back to another disagreement on another day.

[emulatorloo]

107. Sorry, no one on DU is required to answer your weird questions or play word games with you.

[Voltaire2]

20. What if the pretenders all got together?

That would a fucking kick ass reunion!


It’s primary season. The rat fuckery, as always, is the attempt to get us to carry the primary battles into the general election. A great way to do that is to declare one faction (or even better all factions) illegitimate.

[MineralMan]

29. I don't know. I vote in primaries for candidates I prefer.

Sometimes they end up on the General Election ballot and sometimes they don't. In November, I vote for the Democrats on the ballot. Always. Every one of them. That's why I call myself a Democrat.

Not everyone votes that way, unfortunately. Some carry their voting only for people they like the best into the general election. I don't call people like that Democrats. It's their right to do that, but it often benefits the other major party. So, I never do that.

Party unity is my thing, come November.

[FreepFryer]

21. When it comes to ostensible Democrats who attack us, one strike and they are out.

An educated electorate can tell the difference between healthy competition and treasonous scumfuckery.

No backsies, no do-overs, no forgiveness. If you stood with the enemies of freedom, you are going down.

[MineralMan]

26. I wish that were true. Clearly, though, it's not.

[FreepFryer]

27. Aspirational thinking is incredibly powerful if you don't let people fuck it up

Be the ass kicking Yoda you want to see In the world.

[rusty fender]

25. Yes!

Another “tell” in these pretenders’ oeuvre is who supports them, i.e., publications that hate Democrats.

[Baitball Blogger]

31. It's what I have been trying to tell everyone,

yes, you have Democrats who play both sides. We had a "Liberal" mayor who was surrounded by Republican friends. He was tight with the chamber crowd. They fix things their way, pulling in leaders even from minority communities and buy believers by giving them economic opportunities. You win over the leader and you win over their cause.

It's a field full of landmines. I don't expect National level Democrats to sort these things out until they get stung, like the time that our mayor called out Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi for trying to bribe him out of running against another Democrat in a primary. I would like to think that Hoyer and Pelosi are smart enough to know our mayor was a political chameleon. I just don't know if they are committed enough to fight against people like that, instead of working with them because the whole local system is corrupted by economic incentives.

[Baitball Blogger]

96. Thank you, Admin!

My appeal was approved. I wasn't targeting our fine Dem Senators. I was trying to point out that we have chameleon Dems in local areas that spend more time with their GOP chamber friends than they do following government process that will protect us all. And this is going to stifle Democratic success on the ground floor.

[NCTraveler]

32. I think some long-shot candidates are simply willing to be useful tools...

In hopes that it pays off with a win. They are a bit jacked up after seeing a couple of upsets. They allow themselves to get caught up in the hype and often act like the political neophytes that some of them are.

The more nefarious actors are are those often generating and maintaining the narratives like the Intercept, numerous authors at Slate, Our Revolution, TYT, etc.

I think some of the candidates are all worked up and flustered thinking they will be the next Cortez.

[msongs]

34. perhaps a potential 2020 pres candidate benefits from stirring muck? nt

[George II]

35. What if? The question should be "how many?"

[ucrdem]

37. Yep. When the only conceivable reason for doing something that is clearly wrong but not illegal

-- and that includes damaging Democratic office-holders and candidates by mounting wholly unwarranted primary challenges against them -- is to give voters a "choice" it's good to remember that "choice" is how the RW defeated many Democratic attempts to establish some kind off nationalized health care system' including Hillary's in the 90s.

And it would not surprise me one bit if it turns out that the entire alternate reality that seems to have sprung into national view in 2016 is all about Obamacare and will vanish like the wind the minute Congress finally succeeds in killing it.

And I hope to heaven I never get the chance to say I told you so.

[bucolic_frolic]

38. Actually

I suspect it's happening here all the time. New(er) members, with less than 1,000 or 300 or so posts, who seed the conversation by sewing doubts about a Democrat. They post something positive or lukewarm, and end it with a mild zinger, or vice versa. The key is half of it's true and/or positive, the other half negative. We tend not to notice or report due to the positive half, and the positive half is taken as inocculation against sanction or comment.

It's happening beneath our noses and we barely notice. This is how they weaken our minds, have us doubting ourselves, soften us up for some heavy mind control later this fall.

If you see such, don't stand by and take it. Do something about it. Here and on other websites. Alternet is just bombarded with the tactic.

[bettyellen]

40. Sorry to do this- but....

It’s sowing doubts- like in reap what you sow.
I’m both a seamstress and a gardener, so it drives me nuts. Agree with you totally though- LOL, carry on!

[bucolic_frolic]

53. Well I never

have examined that phrase for that grammatical issue. I have probably used it 2 dozen times just like I did there. Or maybe it was my typing, I really have no idea. And it took me 12 minutes and several re-readings to have the slightest idea what you were talking about.

I must be slow. Or having a bad day. Thanks for the awakening.

Maybe I should just call it 50% gaslighting to melt our minds to putty.

[Perseus]

41. Blue-Dog Democrats???

I have always suspected those.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

83. I'd suspect Our Revolution before Blue Dogs.

Blue Dogs are generally Dems working in red states or districts.

Our Revolution seems to back some useful idiots, with unknown funding. The leftist positions can cost seats (while keeping the moral high ground, whatever that's worth).

[heaven05]

104. well blue-dog democrats have

always had divided loyalties ever since the Dixiecrat days and before. They DID NOT help President Obama that much during his 8 years. But this 'our revolution' bunch leaves no doubt as to where their complete loyalty lies.....I've made my conclusion and so far I have been right. Destroy, then makeover the Democratic Party in our Socialist image. Won't work of course. They are too much of a minor faction with a very minor leader and photogenic acolyte. Yet we must always be aware, not complacent and marginalize where appropriate those who would burn down our big tent Party.

I've been voting since the Atwater-Nixon 'southern strategy' days. I am always watching for any sign of their return.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

42. I don't think it's helpful to assume that anyone who criticizes a front-running Dem

in a primary is up to no good. Primaries serve a useful purpose, which is to allow people to choose their candidates in the general election instead of leaving those decisions to well-connected party insiders (and donors) - a situation that has its own problems because those insiders often have their own agendas, which may or may not be helpful to the party or the people. "Outsider" candidates may have perfectly sincere and legitimate reasons for a challenge, and sometimes primaries can become very contentious. But that doesn't mean the challenger is a bad actor intent on sabotaging the party. It is, of course, essential to pay close attention to all of the candidates, including the established front-runners. Who is funding them? Who is supporting them? What kind of comments are appearing on social media, and do those comments seem repetitive and does their appearance seem coordinated? Google supporting PACs and other organizations; find out, to the extent possible, where donations are coming from. Do your research on all candidates, not just the previously-unknown ones; but don't assume all newcomers are bad.

[jalan48]

43. This isn't part of that whole Q thing is it?

[Jim Lane]

44. I can think of something else they might do

Under a pretext of party unity, they might say that all primary challenges to incumbents, or to non-incumbents who are the clear choice of party leaders, must be put on hold, because the immediate menace is Trump and the GOP. The theme would be that all money, energy, etc. must be devoted to winning the general election. Only for now, you understand. Once this crisis is over, people will be allowed to go back to contesting primaries.

Most of this year’s primary challenges have come from candidates to the left of their opponents. Therefore, as a practical matter, the effect of this “temporary” moratorium is to disproportionately stifle the more progressive Democrats.

Most of those so targeted would vote Democratic anyway. Some, however, will feel unwelcome in the party, will believe that their candidates didn’t have a level playing field, will conclude that the party is hopeless for progressives, and will overreact. They will side with those who say that the Democratic Party is irredeemably corporate and a captive of its big donors. In November, they’ll vote Green or stay home.

I stress that I personally reject these views and that most of the people who want the party to move to the left also reject them. Nevertheless, some people will react this way. Alienating them from the party could make the difference in some close general-election races.

People who want to harm Democrats' chances, therefore, stand to gain by telling progressives to STFU.

[PassingFair]

59. My feelings

... exactly.

[dansolo]

90. Nobody is telling progressives to STFU

I have no problem with progressives running in the primaries. I welcome new ideas to solve the problems that this country faces. The problem is that all we are getting are slogans and attacks. I want to see people elected who act like they are serious about really getting things accomplished, which means forming coalitions and working with other people who may not view things the same way as they do. This is why I would trust someone like Elizabeth Warren or Corey Booker to be able to get us closer to medicare for All solution than Bernie Sanders and his followers. Sanders doesn't work well with people who don't think exactly like he does.

And don't even get me started with the attacks on the Democratic Party as a whole. Anyone who does that is DINO in my mind.

[Jim Lane]

99. I appreciate your attitude but not everyone shares it.

You write, "I have no problem with progressives running in the primaries." Thank you! That's as it should be.

If you read DU, however, you'll see that some people do have a problem with it. There have definitely been posts pointing out that Trump is a horrible menace (certainly true); that it's important to elect Senators and Representatives who will make the Democratic caucus the majority in either or, ideally, both chambers (also true); and concluding that all money and energy should be devoted to that goal, rather than being "wasted" in intra-party struggles.

This doesn't usually take the form of expressly stifling progressives. It's a little more insidious than that. The argument is that, in the current crisis, when we must prioritize November wins, we should leave our incumbents alone. As I pointed out, however, this has the practical effect of disproportionately condemning Democrats who, in the intra-party disagreements, are more to the left. For example, there are incumbents who oppose single payer, who've been challenged by progressives supporting it. Off the top of my head I don't know of any pro-single-payer incumbents who've been challenged by more conservative Democrats who oppose it.

I'm sorry to see you repeat the common canard that "Sanders doesn't work well with people who don't think exactly like he does." Bernie, in his political positions and public statements, is more forthrightly progressive than most politicians. In that respect, he's an outlier. Nevertheless, you can't conclude from that he disdains those who disagree with him. An obvious example is that, for much of his career, he's been in a Republican-majority chamber (House and then Senate). He's had no chance of obtaining passage of major bills that he'd like. Instead of completely blowing off "people who don't think exactly like he does," however, he worked with others to get what he could. He achieved some victories -- comparatively small victories, admittedly, but the best he could do -- by crafting amendments that could garner enough support from those "people who don't think exactly like he does." PolitiFact analyzed a Sanders ad that focused on his tenure in the House -- see "Bernie Sanders was the roll call amendment king from 1995 to 2007". PolitiFact rated his claim as True.

[pecosbob]

47. This is the price of free speech in the digital age

If you're not questioning everything then you're asleep at the wheel. You used to be able to determine a lot about the intent of a political ad, for example, by the group that paid for it. Citizens United for the most part eliminated that indicator. As to the message conveyed by the OP, by all means it is good to be watchful. To be well informed in this day and age is quite a task. Working the line of legality is standard business practice for corporations and political activists these days. To the CEO of today, if you're not breaking the rules or writing new ones through your lobbyists, then you're malfeasant and should be discharged by the shareholders. Social media manipulation is the new psyops.

[EX500rider]

50. I don't know about the rest of the band but Chrissie Hynde in pretty progressive I believe..

[bettyellen]

64. She is..... Except when it comes to sexual assault.

[SkyDancer]

76. What a thought provoking post

It's very late and I probably should be in bed asleep, well I know I should be,m so excuse me here if I ramble in my reply to you.

I am torn by all this. I completely understand what you're saying & I fully agree. I also think that there is a lot going on right now within our party. There is a seismic shift which is taking place and you have 2 very different liberal ideologies which are clashing. I expect things to be dirty and in primaries they often are. You are 100% correct that it helps the GOP because you know some of this stuff is going to be used against our candidates but hasn't that always been the case too? The level of viciousness though has stepped up and we are seeing this in races such as MI and NY. In fact what just happened in NY is very bad and nobody here on this website has reported on it, maybe due to being scared of getting in trouble (that is my apprehension with it at least.)

Pretenders I have never given thought of and you raise a very valid point. My question is what qualifies someone as a "pretender" exactly? What I would like to see is a breakdown of the political ads that are running in midterms this election season and see who exactly running them- the organization and money behind them. I think that would reveal a lot.

You hit a bullseye. It's very good to be watchful. Caution is perhaps best.

[LAS14]

82. Isn't it sufficient to look at their history? Do they have...

... a history of being involved in the Democratic party, doing more than just running in a primary? Go to one of their Q and A's and ask questions about when they first got involved in politics, etc. Then spread the word if they just appeared out of the blue to run in the primary.

[heaven05]

92. What if????????

They are and have been for a couple of years now. And now after Putin gave this POS potus a 2 hour class on how to be a dictator, he wants to start killing journalists. Putin does that regularly, it's the fascist playbook being set in motion by putin's stooge. NO IF. IS and ARE.

[mia]

100. Not exactly pretenders, but Ralph Northam's race made me wonder.

Progressive Group Calls Ralph Northam ‘Racist,’ Sparking Intra-Party Feud Ahead Of Big Election

The Democratic candidate for Virginia governor said he would ban so-called “sanctuary cities” if one arose in the state.

...Northam’s opponent, Republican Ed Gillespie, has run a series of misleading ads attacking Northam for a vote as lieutenant governor blocking a bill that would have preemptively banned municipalities from adopting these limits ― though Gillespie himself has acknowledged that no sanctuary cities exist in Virginia as of yet.

Speaking to reporters Wednesday night after an event with Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), deputy chair of the Democratic National Committee, Northam claimed that he simply opposed preemptively banning sanctuary cities, and that his comments to WAVY were “what I’ve been saying all along.”

The explanation was not enough, however, to assuage Democracy For America, a left-leaning online activism organization based in Burlington, Vermont. In response to what DFA called Northam’s “backtrack on his commitment to standing up for immigrant families,” the group declared that it would end “any work to directly aid” his campaign....

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dfa-ralph-northam-virginia-governors-race_us_59fc9562e4b0415a420b7623

[LeftInTX]

110. We caught someone yesterday.

I think it happens alot.

A local, long-time precinct chair is volunteering for a Republican candidate.