Party unity is important in only a handful of states - we should still work harder on shared goals

[Attorney in Texas]

I am not a "Bernie-or-Bust" Democrat, but I have reservations about Hillary that I have not had about any past front runner for the nomination. I have never failed to vote for the Democratic nominee, but I'm on the fence this year.

Let's get this out of the way at the front: This is not a loyalty pledge request. I would encourage party unity in Ohio, Florida, and possibly a few other battleground states, but I think that the party unity arguments ring hollow in the vast majority of states that are immovably blue or immovably red.

This is -- instead -- a suggestion that Hillary and Sanders should work harder on shared goals.

1. Winning Back the Senate

Winning back the Senate has got to be our top goal (of such significance that neither candidate should even consider any VP candidate who would hamstring the efforts to take back the Senate). There are a number of key Senate races:

Kelly Ayotte vs. Maggie Hassan in New Hampshire,
Ron Johnson vs. Russ Feingold in Wisconsin, and
Michael Bennet vs. Darryl Glenn in Colorado.

Sanders and his supporters proved to be much stronger in New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Colorado than Hillary's network. It would be foolish not to facilitate Sanders' efforts to bring his supporters and their enthusiasm to the Hassan, Feingold, and Bennet campaigns. But when the Democratic Party seems to be perpetually picking fights with Sanders supporters, this frustrates the process of cooperation on a shared goal. The Party should -- instead -- be above picking sides in the primary and should be coordinating with the Sanders campaign infrastructures in New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Colorado. We also have key battles in Nevada (Catherine Cortez Masto vs. Joe Heck), Illinois (Mark Kirk vs. Tammy Duckworth), Missouri (Roy Blunt vs. Jason Kander), and Ohio (Rob Portman vs. Ted Strickland), and Sanders tapped into strong communities in these states -- different communities than Hillary appealed to -- and it is counterproductive in our struggle to win back the Senate to go to war with Sanders supporters in Nevada and elsewhere. All Democrats should do what they can with the party rules and platform to make it easy for Sanders to motivate his supporters in these key Senate races to "feel the Bern" for our Democratic Senate candidates. From what I have seen in the past week, the Democratic Party seems bug-eyed with glee as the prospect of writing off Sanders supporters in Nevada and -- in effect -- handing that seat to Joe Heck. This stupidity should stop immediately.

2. A Progressive Platform

If Hillary holds onto her lead and wins the nomination, she will need help with young Democrats and populist/independent Democratic-leaning voters. One way to help with these voters would be to ensure that Hillary and Sanders supporters are proportionately represented on the party platform committee. In fact, it would probably buy Hillary more credit that it would cost her to go out of her way to propose a 50%-50% split between Hillary supporters and Sanders supporters. A progressive aspirational platform would help with the lack of enthusiasm, and getting buy-in from Sanders supporters would be wise. Shutting Sanders out or minimizing his in-put in the platform will only result is party division and a widespread complaint that the platform was shoved down the throats of the grassroots progressive party base. Avoiding this problem is virtually cost-free.

3. Party Rules

I have met Sanders supporters, O'Malley supporters, Hillary supporters, and even a Lessig supporter, but I have still never met a single Democrat who said "I love the super delegate process for installing a wall of lobbyists to keep grassroots Democrats from having their voices heard fully in the nomination process," and I have not heard anyone say, "wow, if I didn't already love Debbie Wasserman Schultz for her passionate support of America's vital payday-loan industry, I'd still want her running the show because a smaller Democratic party with fewer elected officials is so much easier to manage!" Let's reform the Democratic Party (and the DNC while we are at it) to do away with the super delegates, to take the lobbyists out of the DNC and out of the nomination process, and to revitalize the democratic nature of the Democratic Party. This should be something we can all agree upon. Hillary and Sanders should work together on these goals. Seeing Hillary work with her rival would do massive good for her image, for party unity, and for the next generation of our party.

[ViseGrip]

1. Those goals won't be met without party unity everywhere.

With states remembering this treatment this cycle, they will sit out.
You won't get the congress and senate you want.

Your OP ....only unity is necessary in a few states....is breathtaking!


STUPID

[villager]

4. Thoughtful, well-considered answer.

Thanks.

[Attorney in Texas]

11. You put the cart before the horse. There won't be unity until there is first a focus on shared goals

The demand that there must be unity first and a focus on shared goals second seems unlikely to win much support, but you are free to run that flag up the pole and see how many salute.

Getting Sanders supporters and Hillary supporters working on shared goals seems like a good step forward, and it seems like a process that can start while the primary is ongoing. Demanding a loyalty oath might work, I suppose, but it is pointless while the campaign is ongoing and I'll let you push the the cart down the loyalty other track.

[villager]

2. If this were still a "discussion" board -- it isn't -- you might get some thoughtful replies...

...to this thoughtful post.

Instead of the "gotcha" headers meant for those scanning threads.

Still, a number of good points here. And yes, those in deep blue or red states already have their votes "obviated," as it were. Assuming Hillary is indeed the nominee, she's already won my state, for example.

But "down ballot" is indeed where the drop-off occurs - and where so much damage is done...

[senz]

8. She doesn't appear to have thought about "damage"

to anyone or anything but her single, overriding ambition.

[villager]

9. There is even more heedlessness than usual this election year, yes.

But again, that's to be expected in a country that will be breaking up into smaller, constituent pieces in the next few decades....

[Skinner]

3. Electing a Democratic President is also a shared goal.

Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have said repeatedly that any Democrat would be preferable to Trump.

[villager]

5. Misses the point about unity at the Federal ballot level in battleground states. nt

[Attorney in Texas]

14. It is. That is not a goal that we can progress toward this afternoon, though. We could begin working

on the other shared goals right now. Perhaps working on the other shared goals will heal a rift that will make the broader goals more easily achieved.

Or perhaps not.

I know plenty of Hillary supporters, but I don't know anyone who adores her or is bristling with excitement about her candidacy. Almost half the Sanders supporters I know are "Bernie or Bust." Either we open a dialog with the Bernie or Bust crew, or we write them off. I think a dialog is the better path, and I think shared goals is a good thing to discuss.

Or not.

I have never been less invested, and that -- in itself -- sets off a warning bell for me.

[WhiteTara]

6. That handful of state includes 50 of them.

[senz]

7. Laudable goals, but I don't think they're shared by corporatists.

Progressive goals do not appeal to them except when they're trying to put one over on progressives.

But you are always great.

[Vote2016]

12. I'm not sure Hillary cares as mych about party rules and platforms as long as she can implement a

neoliberal domestic agenda and a neocon foreign policy.

I could see her compromising on these issues by get buy-in from the FDR wing of FDR's party.

[Attorney in Texas]

15. You would think there was a path forward, but it does not look good.

[1StrongBlackMan]

10. I kind of agree ...

Number One is an important one, without reservation or condition.

However, Number 2, for me, would require that Bernie act in good faith by abandoning his attacks on HRC and the Democratic Party, and promote Party unity; rather than, telling folks "she'll have to earn my supporters."

And, for Number 3, this would take folks (i.e., Bernie supporters) to actually join the Democratic Party.

[Attorney in Texas]

13. If we only agree on no. 1, then we should focus on no. 1.

Regarding no. 2, when Sanders tells Hillary that she will have to earn support from Sanders voters, he is warning her that they are not a group that would follow a hollow endorsement. If you think about every perception you have about Sanders supporters (whether they are accurate perceptions or biased perceptions), you will have to agree that this is correct. When Sanders speaks of earning support, he is giving her a candid clue in how to win over his supporters, which is a pretty generous thing to offer your opponent.

Regarding no. 3, lots of Sanders supporters are Democrats and lots are independents and lots are Greens, etc. Sanders has won closed primaries like Oregon, etc. and closed caucuses like Colorado, etc. Just because Sanders does much, much better than Hillary among independents does not mean that he doesn't beat her among Democrats, too, in many regions. Hillary is actually in danger of shrinking the party.