Next time we must all be together behind our nominee are we risk losing again

[CajunBlazer]

I am not as concerned about the tendency of those on both sides who live in the past and want to continue fight the primaries of an election that we lost to a heinous human being. If people don't understand how ridiculous that is, there is no help for them.

What I am most concerned about is the 2020 primaries where it is likely to happen all over again. I can see internal fights between those who think that potential nominee is not progressive enough and those who claim that a candidate who is too far to the left can't win a general election. If it stopped there, no harm would be done, but it won't; it will get personal and nasty. There will be complaints of foul play. People will get pissed off if their favorite doesn't win and they will sit on their hands and not volunteer or contribute during the general election. They vote Democratic if they have a brain, but no more.

I don't even know who those candidates will be, but I think it is likely to happen because we are too stupid understand that we should never put down any potential Democratic nominee under any circumstances because he/she is sure to be far superior than an candidate the GOP will nominate.

It is time to wise up folks and understand that we can't continue to undercut our cause if we want to win.

[democratisphere]

1. Agreed. It is not enough to think that 'you' are right.

[doc03]

2. I think we were going to lose no matter what last year. Trump said it himself

if I lose the election was rigged, the fix was in.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. But what are primary elections for, except to choose the best candidate

(whatever that means)? It is in the nature of campaigns to emphasize the virtues of one candidate and the shortcomings of another; how else are you going to choose? I suppose we could go back to the old days of the so-called smoke-filled rooms, where the party bosses picked the candidate and the rest of us peons had no choice in the matter. That way there would be no contentious primary elections, which are a relatively new thing. In 1968 Hubert Humphrey didn't run in any of the primaries; he relied instead on party bosses to deliver the delegates he needed to win the nomination, which they did. Some of us old folks remember what happened at that convention, and what happened afterwards.

How can a candidate be selected without opposition?

[LeftInTX]

5. Exactly

We also need to focus more on local elections to bring in new talent.

[CajunBlazer]

9. If you don't don't understand how victictive the last primaries were....

... then there truly is no hope us. If choosing our nominee in an open public election process automatically means then that a large percentage of the most active and involved Democrats are so pissed off that the candidate they backed didn't win that they essentially sit out the general election except for actually voting, then we are screwed.

First of all, I see no reason why the primary process has to be so nasty. Why can't we back our favorites without pissing everyone else off? Is that really so hard. Second, why is it the the Republicans can come together and we can't. If Republicans can rally around an mentally disturbed asshole like Trump, why in the hell can't we,the most active and involved Democrats, truely rally round our nominee and throw ourselves into the fight.

Again, if we can't, we are essentially admitting the that we are under the delusion we are so sure that we are right and everyone else is wrong that we are willing to sit on the sidelines during the general election. Again, that is just a stupid attitude.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. Every primary I remember has been nasty.

Obama vs. Clinton in 2008 had a lot of below-the-belt punching, and the 2004 primaries weren't any better - I remember some really vicious stuff being thrown around about Howard Dean and John Edwards. The 1980 primary where Ted Kennedy tried to unseat Jimmy Carter was pretty ugly, too. It just happens; people become deeply and sometimes irrationally invested in their candidates. Good luck figuring out how to keep people from being irrational about politics.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. You don't think the 2008 primaries were vindictive? The 2004 ones?

[karynnj]

18. Thank you for this

What you said is democracy. If we can have no dissent in primary campaigns, then, in fact, we will have returned to the party bosses essentially picking the two nominees.

I have heard many times that "charges made in the primaries" hurt the nominee. In fact, I challenge ANYONE to give me an example of something that the Republicans would not have found on their own. (Take 2016 - it was that she was paid to speak at GS, not that Bernie linked her to GS, it was that she did not turn over email already demanded before she left office, it was that she was on record calling TPP the gold standard - before she was against it in the election etc EVERY one of these problems would have been used by ANY Republican.)

[CajunBlazer]

24. Amazing how people find was to go back to fighting the primaries

[Hassin Bin Sober]

36. My suggestion is to not make the campaign about the other candidates supporters.

Don't hire slime bags with a history of smearing and lying to go out in the media and smear the other team's supporters.

At last don't do it and then whine when a tiny fraction refuses to vote for the nominee in the GE.

That's my suggestion.

[beam me up scottie]

47. That's a very good suggestion.

I would add to that don't tell supporters of other candidates that you don't need their votes in the general. They may just take you up on that and we need every single vote.

[demmiblue]

51. I think that is sound advice.

Might I add, disparaging and alienating young voters is especially short-sighted for the future of our party.

[Warren DeMontague]

69. BINGO!

Yes, coming up with cutesy insulting names for them and shit.. probably not a good way to win friends and influence people.

[QC]

71. Telling loyal Democrats to go pound sand

because our victory will be so stupendous that their votes aren't needed is also a lousy strategy.

We heard way too much of that around here.

[Cane4Dems]

4. democrats who have lived privileged lives

will never abide by your thinking.

In their eyes if "their" candidate doesn't win then the whole establishment must be taken down....and if rights/lives of women, minorities, disabled, LGBTQ , the poor are destroyed then so be it. that's just collateral damage for them.

but hey at least they "stuck" to their principles.

so Pathetic. I am still very bitter about democrats who did not supper Sec. Clinton and instead went to the polls and voted jill stein/others. They must be held responsible (I'm sure a ton of them now roam these boards and cry about Trump and post things about resisting him- yet they are complicit in his victory)

[Orrex]

6. +1

I have several well-heeled friends who self-identify as "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" Democrats, and I often wonder which side they prioritize. Their philosophy, in general, seems to be "don't tell me how to live and don't spend my money on entitlements."

[radius777]

42. the types that stayed home or voted 3rd party are the opposite

of what you describe, fiscally leftist and socially libertarian/conservative, i.e. the alt-left/emoprog types.

the type you describe (suburban libertarians who hate taxes/gov't) basically will still vote Republican, regardless of social views, as they know they can escape the consequences of social conservatism (e.g. if abortion is outlawed in their state they can travel to another one).

both types, while seeming different on the surface, come from an entitlement mentality.

the typical rank and file Dem voters are center left pragmatists, people who actually have to survive in the real world, and want a balance between business and gov't solutions that help the working/middle classes, and these are the voters who showed up and helped Hillary win the popular vote by millions.

If it wasn't for Comey/Rudy/FBI/Russian last minute interference in the election, she would've won easily as the polls predicted, and would've been the first female president.

[CajunBlazer]

12. Can't we have a discussion about the future without refighting the last primaries?

[karynnj]

19. Do you know any Democrats who voted for Jill Stein?

I know progressives or independents, who never identified as Democrats, who voted for Jill Stein. I think the confusion is that Sanders won over some of these progressives and independents in the primary. I also know many Democrats, who supported Bernie, who worked hard to elect Hillary or at least voted for her.

[leftstreet]

67. I seriously doubt there were many, if any at all

But this keeps coming up so no one has to talk about the nonvoters and the voters who sat out

sigh

[radius777]

43. completely agree, the alt-left has to pay.

they really aren't much different from the alt-right, imo, many of them actually frequent the same websites, hang out in the same twitter feeds, etc.

regular (Clinton/Obama style) Dems simply weren't ready to deal with them this time; next time we will.

[Tom Rinaldo]

58. There were PUMA's in 2008 who didn't vote for Obama also, remember them?

"Party Unity My Ass". Disgruntled Clinton supporters who could not let go and move on. They were real, but they were a very small minority of Democratic voters

Most of Jill Stein's votes didn't come from disgruntled Democrats angry about Secretary Clinton. They came from legitimate Green Party voters and others who for one reason or another do not support either the Democratic or Republican parties. American politics is not confined to either Republicans and Democrats, even though we do essentially have a two party system. Democrats do not start out with all leftist votes safely in hand - they have to be converted into Democratic votes

Yes some of the Stein voters at one point supported Sanders, but only because at that point Sanders was viewed as a maverick free of Democratic establishment control. Whether those perceptions were accurate or not is irrelevant, what counted was the fact that they felt that way about Sanders and Sanders only. The people I am describing now would not have voted for virtually any other possible Democratic Party nominee. Hillary couldn't have won most of them, just like there were some voters who supported Hillary in the primaries who would never have backed Bernie. We are talking very small percentages in either case. Just like true PUMA's were the exception to the rule.

It is tempting to blame people who we believe should be on our side when we lose a close election, but we don't own those votes - very few leftist Democrats defected from the Democratic ticket in 2016. Far, far more registered Democrat defected to Trump than to Stein. Call them swing voters if you will, weak Obama Democrats.

But the mother lode of votes that would have won us the election in 2016 weren't disgruntled leftists. They were apathetic and/or alienated voters who didn't bother to vote. We did not run a generally popular candidate (and yes Hillary was the victim of decades of unfair smears against her that contributed to that). We counted a little bit too much on fear of Trump to carry us to victory. Our own campaign often at it's core featured an Anti-Trump message. Turns out that wasn't enough of a reason to get enough people out to vote.

[JTFrog]

59. *cough*Bullshit*cough* nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

60. Well that's pretty persuasive

Maybe in 2020 we can do away with debates completely and just have coughing matches

[Foamfollower]

66. .

[CajunBlazer]

70. Third parties in this country are a joke and always will be

if you want to live in a country where third parties can be viable, move to country that has a parliamentary democracy because they will never be viable here. Those who vote third party in national election might as well not vote.

The old political saying in this country is, "Third parties are like bees, when they sting they die". Surely you understand the meaning behind that phrase.

And by the way, your elegant arguments collapse when you consider that in each of the three critical state which swung the election to Trump, Jill Stein got more votes than the vote difference between Clinton and Trump. So don't tell me those who voted third party are not in some way responsible. Let's just call them dumbasses and be done.

[Tom Rinaldo]

74. I didn't advocate for third parties. I said they exist and always have

Last edited Mon Apr 17, 2017, 08:32 PM - Edit history (1)

And I said that not all third party voters are disgruntled defectors from one of the major parties. Greens didn't spring up to oppose Hillary Clinton. Neither did Libertarians. Nor the others out there that always pull some votes. You can argue that they make no sense till you are blue in the face but there will still be people who choose not to vote for Republicans or Democrats, period. It has literally been that way for centuries.

I said it is false to presume that everyone who voted for Jill Stein would have voted for Hilary Clinton if Jill Stein wasn't on the ballot, and it is foolish on its face to believe otherwise. People who vote third party have something against both major party candidates, or they would not choose to vote for someone who they know damn well can't win. A lot of them would have joined the tens of millions of other non voting adult citizens in America if they didn't have the option of voting for a third party candidate. Or they would have picked a different third party candidate. Or they would have written in someone else.

I do think that had Ralph Nader not run Al Gore would have won Florida. But that's because the vote difference margin between Gore and Bush was in the low hundreds at most - not tens of thousands. And sure, I am willing to believe that at least a few hundred Nader voters would have gone with Gore if Nader hadn't run. A few thousand Stein voters would probably have voted for Clinton had Stein not run also.* But most of them wouldn't have.

A lot of young voters who had voted Democratic in the 2012 elections this time went Libertarian, you know, legalized marijuana and the like. The Libertarians got multiples of the vote total that the Greens got. So why aren't you blaming them? Me, I voted for Hillary, even in a safe Blue State, but I'm not a third party voter.

BTW, is "elegant" now a slur?
*** (I meant a few thousand more votes per state might have gone to Clinton had Stein not been on the ballot - not a few thousand as a national total. Still not enough to swing the rust belt to her)

[still_one]

7. The issue isn't fighting and debating during the primaries. The issue is after the primaries are

over to support the Democratic nominee over the republican, and not spew false equivalences that there is no difference between republicans and Democrats. Those who subscribe to that garbage are not Democrats

[CajunBlazer]

27. No, the real issue is fighting during the primaries

It is the fighting during the process that pisses off both sides, and personally know that is true.

In 2008 I was not a member of DU so I had no idea how contentious it was on this website between the Clinton and Obama supporters. I had supported Hillary with volunteering and contributions, but I was never involved in the infighting here on DU so I wasn't ticked off at Obama supporters or Obama himself.

When Hillary dropped out of the race and sent me an email asking to support Obama I did so willingly, contributing both my time and my money to his campaign. Later when I joined DU in 2015 I heard that there was a lot of hard feelings on both sides after the 2008 primaries which made it a lot more difficult for Hillary supporters to switch their support to Barack.

On the other hand during the 2016 primaries Sanders supporters got under my skin big time. And I am sure we, the Hillary supporters, pissed of a lot of Bernie's people. The result was that regardless of which candidate became the nominee, it was going to be difficult for those whose candidate loss to support the winner enthusastically

I realized in hindsight that the infighting we did on DU just plain stupid. Why should the most tuned in and enthusiastic Democrats involve themselves in anything that will ultimately make it difficult for half of them to support the nominee. Infighting just plain stupid. Anyone who thinks other wise is thinking with their emotions rather then being rational.

[still_one]

37. Difference are going to happen during the primaries, that is NOT going to change, nor should it

I was for Obama in 2008, and was very well aware of what was happening between the two groups, however, there was never a doubt in my mind that supporters of Hillary or supporters of Barrack here at DU would vote for whoever the Democratic nominee was.

If you were here during the Obama Presidency then you know of some of the worst rants against President Obama that occurred, and they weren't from Hillary supporters. It was disgusting. I believe that is when things started to get out of hand, so when 2016 came around, the stage was set for trouble.

The problem wasn't the disagreements during the primaries, it was the ugliness, and distortions, and outright falsehoods that occurred.

That was the reason great efforts were done to clearly state in order to be a member on DU you must agree to the TOS. Unfortunately, that didn't get implemented until after the primaries, and to that degree your assessment is correct.

Because of the TOS now in affect, I would like to believe that 2020 will not tolerate the garbage that occurred in 2016.

[CajunBlazer]

38. As I recall, during the primaries, the rule against saying nasty things about....

... a fellow Democrat/progressive was lifted. Hence the dirty infighting. Why wouldn't that happen again if we the posters let it.

[still_one]

44. I have to find it, but from my recall, I thought admins said what happened in 2016 will not be

tolerated.

[CajunBlazer]

50. I hope you are right...

... but even today with the rules in place, people are still finding creative ways of re-fighting the primaries that are long over. The vindictiveness continues long after it ceased to make any sense.

[Nevernose]

48. It was virtually identical in 2008

A bunch of people called themselves "PUMAs" for Party Unity My Ass, left DU to found their own site. They spent months afterwards claiming that they were the victims of sexism, all while spreading RW talking points about Obama.

Sound familiar?

At this point the blame gaming, whether anti-Hill or anti-Bern, is just more intentional bullshit out here for the sole purpose of dividing us. I guess that we all have broken hearts over this last election (even Susan Sarandon has to be feeling kinda dumb by now), and a small percentage of people need someone specific to blame for their grief.

Also, many of the posts are being written by alt-Right trolls and paid Russian agents.

[CK_John]

8. Next time it is gong to be totally different, Trump changed politics completely. Look

for billionaire media personalities running on an independent ticket.

People like Oprah and Mark Cuban.

IMO, the third party may be first time to take 35% of the vote.

[CajunBlazer]

11. I don't think that Oprah or Mark Cuban are stupid enough to run as independents

.... and split the progressive vote.

[CK_John]

35. Not sure about Cuban but Oprah would win on any ticket and sell a zillion books.

[HeartachesNhangovers]

14. Trump spent half of what Clinton did.

Interpreting that result as "Billionaires can win the presidency" is wrong.

[Orrex]

15. Of course, it helps when they get a billion $ worth of free promotion 24/7

[bettyellen]

23. It appears that many working "for free" were paid by outside PACs or other corps....

It's a bit more complicated than what's on their books-and not just in terms of money.

[JI7]

41. the media gave Trump all the airtime he wanted.

[Hoyt]

52. Which should have spurred rational people to vote against him. Unfortunately, too many like his

racism, bigotry, bullying, etc.

I think it is a mistake to blame media for Trump. People saw him for what he was/is, and too many voters liked it.

[sarah FAILIN]

16. I disagree

I don't think a 3rd party will ever get a third of the vote. It dooms everyone to try as we saw in November.

[JI7]

39. Trump didn't change anything. he lost by 3 million and won because of racists

who can't deal with the changes in demograhpics in this country.

[Ohioblue22]

17. Well we really can't have an open and Frank discussion about this

Because on this site we can't say things that might be considered by others as a bad thing about a specific group or individuals

[LostOne4Ever]

20. Good nominees always find a way to unite the party

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]A divided party is always a result of a competitive primary. Good Candidates find ways of bringing the party together. Bad ones, don't and risk defeat.

One of the Best Example of this was the Candidacy was JFK. He had a brutal Primary with LBJ, but he put his own pride aside and asked LBJ to be his VP bringing the party together.

As close as his election against Nixon was, he very well could have lost had he picked any other VP.[/font]

[center] [/center]

[beam me up scottie]

46. Well said!

[lostnfound]

21. Why does this post make me want to get out of politics entirely?

So tired of fellow democrats telling other democrats they need to be different than they supposedly are.
Sick of caring about any f'ing thing.

[CajunBlazer]

28. Ahhh, get over it.

I'm entitled to my opinion, and I truly believe it is a valid one. You are entitled not to read it.

[Warpy]

34. Take a look at what I wrote on #29

You're not the only one who's sick of all the finger pointing at Democrats. WE aren't the enemy, none of us.

[kentuck]

22. Democrats cannot force Third Party or primary opponent's supporters to their side.

It should be a two-way street.

If there is a primary race and the Democrat loses, then they should expect to support the winner of the primary. That may happen more often than we care to admit? Likewise, if the Democrat wins the primary, they should be prepared to convince their opponent's supporters to support the Democratic Party. Nobody can be forced to support anyone. They must be persuaded.

[pnwmom]

25. And meanwhile we have the Russians doing everything they can to divide progressives. n/t

[CajunBlazer]

30. It is far easier to persuade people who aren't pissed off

[radius777]

45. only Dems should be allowed to run in a Dem primary,

that was fatal mistake that was made, it signalled to outsider bullies who wanted to overttake the party that the party was weak/stupid.

it allowed non-Dem activists/writers etc to spread hatred against our candidate, raising her negatives unnecessarily even when it was clear the non-Dem candidate had no mathematical chance of winning the nomination.

[Crash2Parties]

26. This all assumes that the election was not stolen.

If we cannot reverse the use of Crosscheck, voter ID laws, voter blocking and insecure machines it won't matter what we do in 2018 or 2020. Not just leave as-is; we need to reverse them. We've had a good start in a few states, but it is nowhere near the effort needed. And I don't know what to do about Crosscheck.

[Warpy]

29. Sure is a lot of Democrat blaming going on here today

You know, it's those far lefties. No, it's those damn college kids who didn't get their pony. No, it's those mushy middle types who screwed up the message.

Whoever they're blaming, it's DEMOCRATS.

Uh, no, folks WE did our jobs. We voted and we elected our candidate by popular vote. WE weren't the problem, whether we're young, old, left, right, center, tall or short.

It's time to wake up, people, the reason we lost in a lot of places wasn't Democrats or the message or anything else we could control. We lost because of a disinformation campaign by a hostile foreign power and a corrupt and partisan mass media that played right into their hands. We lost because our candidate was only mentioned in connection to FAKE SCANDALS ginned up by that foreign power and a corrupt media that hung on Asshole's every stupid word, while muting our candidate's speeches.

We lost because an FBI director was so blinded by partisanship that he released disinformation material days before the election without examining it. By the time he did, it was too late and he'd fucked us over completely.

That's why we lost, not because of Democrats you don't like.

Now knock it off. I'm sick of this shit.

[CajunBlazer]

31. True, but it shouldn't have been that close

[Warpy]

32. Try reading the whole post.

All of it.

[CajunBlazer]

49. I read you whole post, now trying reading my original post more carefully

My post was not about "Democrats I don't like". Quite the opposite, it it was about the stupidity of all sides when we spend our time on DU taking pot shots at other candidates and their supporters instead of just supporting our favorites.

[Warpy]

55. Uh, WE did come together.

I see absolutely no reason for posts like yours that ASSume that we didn't except to encourage people to blame other Democrats who backed another candidate in the primary.

Enjoy trying to split our party. It won't work, most of our primaries are acrimonious and we always come together when they're over. I've been doing this a long time and I've seen it again and again.

[The Big Ragu]

61. It comes in waves

It's like they think people are stupid and can't see coordinated propagandizing when it's happening.

[Warpy]

62. Some posters here should know better

I keep thinking this bullshit is starting elsewhere, probably Farcebook.

In the meantime, my iggy list groweth. I can't stand trolls, even inadvertent ones.

[The Big Ragu]

63. Trolls?

I can half ass handle a run-of-the-mill troll.

Shills/Ideologues?

bonafide shitstains, each and every one of them.

[Warren DeMontague]

73. Yeah, talking points are issued on a daily or weekly basis.

"off-site coordination" is nothing new.

[QC]

72. And it always seems to happen when Trump is having an especially bad week.

Funny, that. I'm sure it's the purest coincidence, though.

[Bucky]

33. On my Facebook feed Bernie people and Hillary people are still sniping at each other

When I point out how they're wasting their time, either the Bernie people tell me I'm a Hillary chump or the Hillary people tell me I'm a Bernie chump.

I think there are important lessons to take away from all this. 1, stay off of Facebook. 2, everyone thinks I am a chump.

[stevenleser]

40. History seems to have this happen often and not just in this country

I wonder what folks like the Communists in Germany though of their 1932 & 1933 votes after a year or two of the "accommodations" in the concentration camps in the 1940s (at least for those of them still living). I wonder what the advice is they would give to Stein and Nader voters of today. Nah, I don't wonder, I know what that advice would be and so does anyone with a brain cell in their heads.

They would say vote to keep the far right lunatic out of office and work on moving the country to the left in the years between elections.

[lies]

53. Not likely

The various bits of the left/Democratic party are further away than ever I'm afraid.

So don't expect unity any time soon.

[CajunBlazer]

54. You may be right, but that's not encouraging

[lies]

56. True

But sure look on DU - endless attacks on Sanders and his supporters. Look on sites that like Sanders and it's endless attacks on the DNC.

Trump is not enough to make the 'far left' - even though they aren't far left in many cases - support another Hillary type candidate.

And Hillary's loss isn't enough to make the DNC embrace the 'far left'.

So I see no reason for optimism.

[DFW]

57. You're right, but we'll make the same mistake again, wanna bet?

Back in the fifties and sixties, there was an expression "better dead than red." The "red" in those days meant "communist" rather than "Republican." These days, it is more like "better true than blue," but the sentiment is similar: better disaster than compromise. We can only hope that the rift within the Republican camp is even deeper than our own.

[CajunBlazer]

64. I hope you are wrong, but I suspect you may be right

But I for one plan to be be the "let's get along police" during the next primary. If people can't convince others to vote for their favorite candidate without putting down other candidates, then they need to get a new favorite candidate.

[Foamfollower]

65. The only reason Bush won a second term was too many purists in Ohio refused to vote Kerry.