Why is so much time here spent attacking fellow Democrats?

[One of the 99]

Shouldn't that time and energy be spent attacking the Republicans. Attacking other Dems only helps the GOP in the end. We've seen this happen over and over again through the years.

I'm talking to both Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters. If you can't make a positive case for your candidate and have to resort to smears against their opponent, then you really need to question who you support and why. Let the FAUX news and their dittoheads on the right do the attacking. We should remain positive and not do their job for them.

I will be proud to support whomever the Democratic party nomine is, Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton or someone else. The worst Democrat is still better than the best Republican.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. My guess...

If you're reading this site, you're probably at least center-right to left, in which case talking about mainstream Republicans is just preaching to the choir. EVERYBODY here already thinks they're bozos.

But if you support a given candidate, you probably don't consider the negative things that come up about other candidates as 'smears' but 'legitimate criticisms', and reasons why candidates other than your own have what it takes to be President.

[One of the 99]

4. But can't those that support a given candidate

make a positive case for them without resorting to attacks? If your best argument to make is that the other person is worse, you really don't have much of an argument at all.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

5. Why does it have to be either/or?

Should we ignore what we see as flaws in other candidates simply to be 'nice'?

If we ignore such flaws, aren't we exposing ourselves to greater chances of losing the general if the flawed candidate is allowed to win the primary?

[One of the 99]

24. If you can't make the positive case for you candidate

you should really question why you're supporting that candidate.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

31. As I said, I don't see it as either/or.

You can make the positive case for your candidate AND the negative case against other candidates.

[One of the 99]

37. It is either/or.

If you can't make the case for the candidate you support with positive arguments alone, you have a very weak case.

[spqr78]

58. your logic is flawed.

When deciding between two or more people, places, things, or ideas, comparing them to each other is necessary, especially if those two or more people, places, things, or ideas are supposed to be similar.

The differences and similarities are as important as the characteristics of the individuals in question.

[One of the 99]

66. No it is not

If you support a candidate you should be able to support them, and state your case why, regardless of whom is running against them.

[Goblinmonger]

59. You and I are trying to decide where to go to eat.

I want Indian food; you want diner food. Your diner was reported as having caused a dozen cases of food poisoning yesterday. Prior to that, it earned a Michelin star. I make the positive case for my restaurant (no stars). You make the positive case for your restaurant. I am not, according to your rules, allowed to make the argument that your restaurant VERY recently caused food poisoning. You win the positive argument debate. We go to your restaurant. We both shit our pants for the next week from food poisoning.

Your reasoning is flawed.

[One of the 99]

67. This is an election, not dinner.

I think that is the problem too many think of politics as sport and not a responsibility. It's all about "I'm right and everyone else is wrong". So sad.

[brooklynite]

77. It is not either/or

You can support two or more candidates on their positions, and believe one of them is electable and the others are not.

[One of the 99]

84. That's an excuse

to smear someone with an unproven allegation.

[brooklynite]

86. Why is it a "smear"? It's an analysis based on facts and experience

[One of the 99]

87. What facts?

It is a smear.

[London Lover Man]

88. Yeah, facts please...

[jeff47]

10. What's an out-of-bounds attack?

All candidates have blemishes on their records. Discussing those is not a personal attack.

[One of the 99]

25. Can't you make the case for your candidate

without going negative on their opponent?

[jeff47]

26. Negatives are as important as positives.

What makes a candidate "bad" is as important as what makes a candidate "good". Because the "bad" will still be there if they win the election.

Also, negatives and positives intertwine. Candidate A is better on Issue X. That's inherently a negative for Candidate B.

[One of the 99]

32. No they are not.

If you can't make the positive argument for your candidate, then you have a very weak case to make.

[jeff47]

35. And if you make both a positive for yours and a negative against their opponent?

We are not talking about an either/or situation.

[One of the 99]

70. If you can make a good positive case for your candidate

You don't need to make the negative for their opponent.

[jeff47]

78. Candidate A has great economic policy.

Candidate B literally ran heroin.

You are arguing that we should only talk about Candidate A's economic policy.

(This is an intentionally extreme example to illustrate the point)

[One of the 99]

83. Depends

Is the allegation true and proven beyond a reasonable doubt? And when did it happen, last week or 30 years ago? If it is true and recent, it doesn't need to be brought up because it would be common knowledge.

[jeff47]

90. Yes, it is true. And they are not apologetic about it.

And yet you are saying discussion about it is off-limits.

"Everyone knew" that W was a drug-abusing alcoholic idiot with delusions of competence. Yet he won. "Everyone knows" means "the people I talk with about this topic know". That's a much smaller group than "everyone".

[One of the 99]

91. Sound like

you're trying to justify FAUX news type tactics.

[tazkcmo]

52. Define attack, please.

Is it an attack to say, "Candidate A voted against such and such while Candidate B has shown support for such and such."? IMO, this is why we have debates and campaigns and discussion forums. To compare and contrast the choices available.

I'd agree that the following is an attack and not helpful when comparing and contrasting the candidates vying for the nomination:
"Candidate A voted against such and such while corporate shill Candidate B has shown support for such. Stupid pancake head."

[Adrahil]

41. Not sure I agree on that point...

I'm an HRC supporter. And while I do have my criticisms of Bernie, I think most of the points brought up against him are nonsense. I do not support smearing other Democratic candidates. I like Bernie. I like Hillary. I'm not interested in portraying either as unfit for office.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

45. I have my criticisms of Bernie too.

Even though of the choices available, I support him. He really did drop the ball at NN15. He couldn't change direction quickly, but had to take time and regroup later. I don't think as quickly as I did when I was younger either, so there might be some substance to the age criticism. On the other hand, President is not a position that demands immediate reactions very often. You get that 3 am call, you probably shouldn't be on a stopwatch for your related decisions. One of the things I actually like most about Obama is that he doesn't tend to make snap decisions, but takes his time and thinks things over.

Criticism is important, of ALL candidates, and all elected officials. But it should have basis in fact, not in 'Benghazzzzzzzi! nonsense.

[Adrahil]

47. I agree.

I think Bernie would make a good President. I agree with him on the vast majority of points.

My concerns have more to do with his ability to run and win a national campaign.

[bettyellen]

81. Totally agree with this. I'm undecided and wnat info, not slime that makes it a chore to cut through

And get good information. I know a lot of people that HATE politics because of this fog created by phony scandals and inane nit picking. This kind of shit makes a lot of people prefer to be uninformed because they keep hearing "they're all the same"- and the rancor makes you want to believe exactly that- which is ridiculous- just so you don't have to hear all the negative bullshit. Of course many live for the mud slinging game. I wish they'd pipe down and let off their steam with a real game, lol. This is too important.
I disagree with Bernie showing his age, I think he's great thinking on his feet- he just allowed himself to be blind sided by not being more prepared to speak to BLM. He really should have taken to heart that pivoting to economics so quickly is offensive. When he says things like "we have overcome racism" you have to wonder if he bounced that off anyone *smart enough* in his campaign- because that was a major gaffe. He is so well versed about economics, he can go off script easily- but he has a solid one. He needs powerful scripts for racial matters, women's reproductive rights and foreign policy too- because those issues will come up, and he can't afford to stick his foot in his mouth, or always rely on a pivot to economics.
He already has the voters that connect everything to the economy.

[mmonk]

2. Primary season at DU.

The direct simplest approach tends to be the most accurate.

[TexasProgresive]

3. "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." Will Rogers

It is the beauty of our party that we are not a monolith. We don't walk in lockstep like many on the right. We don't like to take marching orders. This can make us a target of the right who can't understand our inconsistency, but I will always find more to agree with my fellow Democrats then any r'Puke ever.

[JaneyVee]

6. Nihilism.

[jeff47]

7. Because we are deciding between Democrats at this time.

Attacking the Republicans doesn't help when people are choosing between Democrats.

Also, many have defined "attack" WAAAAAAY down. "I don't like Sanders record on guns" is not an attack. Neither is "I don't like Clinton's record on wars". Yet both are routinely defined as an attack, usually by conflating thoughtful posts with "Sanders is a gun humper"/"Clinton is a warmonger" posts.

[RoccoR5955]

12. I had one where someone said

That Sanders is "crazy." And when I brought it up to a jury vote, they allowed it.
This, in my opinion is totally against the grain here.
Nothing to back it up, he's just crazy.
Sheesh, it's getting pretty bad here.

[Godhumor]

17. You thought calling a candidate crazy was alertable?

Last edited Fri Jul 24, 2015, 01:31 PM - Edit history (1)

Really glad that didn't get hid.

[RoccoR5955]

19. I have said less about Mrs. Secretary Clinton and got hidden

So why shouldn't I?

[carolinayellowdog]

8. bitter hatred and stalking between two factions that predate the Sanders/Clinton divide

The people now attacking "Sanders supporters" were attacking the same individuals on a different basis in recent years, and the same goes for those attacking Clinton supporters. It all goes back to different levels of party loyalty and divergent appraisals of the Obama presidency.

If Sanders and Clinton should both implode and O'Malley become the nominee, the same factions will still be hating and attacking one another over everything O'Malley says and does.

[jeff47]

9. There's also a gulf between policies those groups support.

It's not all about Obama.

[daybranch]

11. Please define attack ?

The positive case for Sanders is that he is against the rich class Hillary gets most of her money from, whch causes us to question her commitment to the people. That is not an attack , just pointing out the differences.
Many Hillary supporters would rather not have any conversations and certainly no visibility of her obvious flaws. We are supposed to believe it is time for a woman President and we really had no problem with that until we had Hillary shoved on us by the rich donor class. They made an investment in her and this playing her up as a continued victim of unfounded attacks is not going to work. She has my sympathy , but she chose her side.

[One of the 99]

28. Your post for one.

You have one statement of support for Sanders and then the rest was an attack on Clinton. Can you make the case for Sanders without attacking Clinton? If you can't then you really need to question why you're supporting Sanders in the first place.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

36. Good grief, you've convinced me!

There's no reason to vote for anyone!

Good job!

(That's what you're after with all these 'You should reconsider your support' statements, right?)

[One of the 99]

38. Don't put words in my mouth.

How very dishonest of you.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

43. Well I can't make good cases alone on any of the people I don't support.

So if I can't make the case alone for any one candidate, then the obvious logic under your rules is that I shouldn't support any of them.

The reality, thankfully, is that we're free to base our decisions on anything we like - we don't have to follow your wishes.

[One of the 99]

69. Again not what I'm saying.

You can base your decision on anything your like. But if you going into an open forum and can't make the argument for the candidate you support, without attacking or smearing their opponent, then you really need to question why you support your candidate.

[randome]

13. People are unhappy and they can't see beyond that.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[elana i am]

14. maybe a shakeup is needed?

i feel a sense of urgency (or maybe foreboding) this time that i have never felt before. acknowledging the fact that obama could only do so much with a repug congress, electing him was at least a small step forward and to the left. it was progress, but it barely gained a foothold. i had hoped for a lot more.

i don't have the stomach for coming here and watching the battle everyday. i did that 4 and 8 years ago, and my mental and emotional well being suffered for it and i had to back off from following politics all together. that said, i feel deep down in the deepest parts of my soul that electing clinton is a very wrong and very dangerous thing to do for progressive democrats, like it would be a big step backwards and lead to severe consequences for all things progressive.

yes, sanders calls himself a democratic socialist and he's now an actual democrat only by a technicality, but i believe him to be a democrat in the truest sense of the word, and infinitely more so than some of our party leaders today. and because i am a progressive democrat and i believe in the same things as bernie sanders i am proud to call myself a democratic socialist. i also believe that progressive democrats such as myself are staunch populists and this is the key to bernie sanders' current success. based on the positions she takes, clinton is the anti-populist, anti-progressive candidate. there's a very real and very deep rift here.

perhaps there is opportunity to be had here for progressives. sanders could be a chance to incite transformation of the democratic party into an entity that represents the broader progressive, populist base instead of being beholden to centerist (read: conservative) party line and corporate interests. i feel like sanders is our opportunity to set things right, like there's a big shining mass of hope and opportunity opening up before my eyes. (that sounds corny but i don't know another way to express it!) it may require intraparty war. it probably will require intraparty war. it may at some point in the future even spark a new 3rd party of progressives.


all i know is, i no longer feel comfortable in my democratic skin. i've been feeling marginalized and demoralized by the democratic leaders. getting obama elected the first time was also the last time i was really happy about anything in the political realm.*


* i should clarify barack obama was not entirely a disappointment, he's the best president of my lifetime and he was totally fucked by congress. i just don't agree with him on some of his presidential policies and was very disappointed by the trans-pacific partnership.

[Agschmid]

15. You'd think...

[ljm2002]

16. Primary season...

...is that time when we decide between candidates in our own party. We look at their records. We look at what we like and don't like about the candidates. IOW we take a critical look at the candidates and their stances on various issues.

Politicians need to have thick skins. Their supporters also should have thick skins, but rarely do. Hence a lot of the nastiness and vitriol we see here.

We should remember that being critical on issues is not the same as attacking a candidate. Of course it can go too far, and yes, sometimes we see distorted attacks. DUers are right to call those out. We need to try and keep one another honest.

Asking us to only talk positively about our own preferred candidate while not criticizing the other candidates is simply unrealistic. The way we come to choose one candidate involves both liking what our candidate says / does, and also not liking things that other candidates say or do. Although sometimes it is just liking one candidate more than another. In any case, if we don't like something that a candidate stands for, if we don't like what they have said or done regarding an issue -- we have every right to express that, and we should express that. What better time than the primary to bring up important issues of disagreement between candidates?

Previous primary seasons have been rough too. It will culminate in a winner, and if things go as they have in the past, the loser(s) will endorse the winner in order to try and have a Democrat in the White House.

[One of the 99]

29. Why unrealistic?

Can't you make the case for the candidate you support on a positive basis alone. If you can't then you really need to question why you support that candidate.

[ljm2002]

64. It is unrealistic because...

...we are not ever going to agree 100% with any candidate or politician. Anyone who has been in office will have taken positions or made votes that I disagree with.

For example, although I am a strong supporter of Bernie Sanders, for me there is an issue with some of his votes regarding guns. While I don't comment when others get into that area, I don't blame people who like other candidates for bringing it up.

When it comes to Hillary Clinton, one of my big problems with her is her hawkish stance. She voted for the Iraq war resolution. To me that vote illustrates something important about how she would govern. If I only point out that Bernie Sanders voted against it, I am only telling half of the story. Comparing candidates means comparing BOTH of them.

Basically I just disagree that we cannot be critical of any Democrat. To put it bluntly: screw that. We need to be more honest about our thoughts, not censor them because it's a member of our own party who is being an idiot (just speaking generally here, not directing this at any particular candidate).

[One of the 99]

65. It is not unrealistic

As your post demonstrates. You discussed issues without attacks or smears. Why can't everyone write posts like that.

[Iggo]

18. This is how primaries work. Democrats run against Democrats, not Republicans.

[One of the 99]

39. Sure but why resort to attacks?

[Lil Missy]

20. The stupid is strong sometimes n/t

[McCamy Taylor]

21. The Dem Primary is a food fight. The GOP is the party that never says a bad word about an opponent.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

51. The GOP sure isn't this season.

They're like a bagful of rabid possum.

[MH1]

72. And it sure is fun to watch, isn't it?

But I'm sure they would have just as much fun if our candidates start behaving the same way towards each other.

[AtomicKitten]

22. Because it's primary season.

Last edited Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:08 PM - Edit history (1)

The more Hillary feels threatened, the more frequent and ferocious her surrogate drone* attacks are on her closest competitor.
Bernie confines his comments to policy, not personal attacks on his opponent.
And then people here fight over it.

* Luis Gutierrez
* Claire McCaskill
* Anthony Weiner
* etc.

[olddots]

23. its like calling someone passive agressive is paasive agressive

which is so dopey I don't even understand it .

[HFRN]

27. some day, we will be above it all, like you

but for now, we're just doing the best we can

[Cosmic Kitten]

30. OLIGARCHY! If the OLIGARCHS win we all lose

This election will run in the BILLIONS.

If we don't stop this runaway buying
of Congress and the Presidency
we may never have another opportunity.

This election is about the heart and soul
of the Democratic Party and the future of our nation.

Endless wars
Wage slavery
Wealth Gap
Declining Ecosystem
Incarceration Nation
Culture of violence
and on and on and on.

[LWolf]

33. A few questions and thoughts:

1. Do you mean attacking Democratic candidates you oppose in the primaries? Because this IS a Democratic primary campaign, and part of supporting one candidate is to point out their strengths relative to their opponents'.

2. Do you mean attacking other DUers who are supporting your opposition? That, too, is part of primary campaigning, but I don't like it, and would like to see it gone.

3. This is the forum for discussing the Democratic primaries; it's a campaign-focused forum. Since we aren't campaigning against Rs in the primaries, you aren't going to see a bunch of posts attacking them. Find them in GD; I know they're there, and there will be an un-ending supply in the GE.

4. I have never been "proud" about my political choices; I don't see it as a matter of pride. I've been unhappy with the choices before me, I've been comfortable with them, and, very rarely, I've been happy about them, but pride doesn't enter into it. I have been sometimes unhappy with the choices I've made, but not often.

5. The continuous loyalty oaths throughout the primaries give me indigestion. I think they are unnecessary, and, for the most part, inappropriate.

6. I will support the best candidate on my ballot in the GE, based on issues and record. I always do. So what? Nobody has been nominated yet. I'd rather stay focused on that process until after the convention.

[One of the 99]

34. Sounds like you're trying to rationalize bad behavior.

[LWolf]

44. Now THAT's a stretch.

No rationalization at all; sounds like some serious denial about the realities of political campaigns on your part to me.

[One of the 99]

68. No it's not

You're looking for excuses to attack and smear those you don't like.

[LWolf]

79. Oh, please.

I'm not an adolescent in middle school. I don't need to "attack and smear" anyone.

Grow up.

[One of the 99]

82. Glad that you don't

Nor should you defend those that do.

[rock]

40. DU does NOT represent the average Democrat

And has thru the years drawn more and more "extremists" and, of course, more trolls.

[Purveyor]

42. Hear, hear... Eom

[Cosmic Kitten]

46. And paid operators...

Thought leaders are here
and operating by stealth.

[rock]

49. Yep

[Bobbie Jo]

48. This isn't a recent development

Democrats have been attacked here non-stop since Obama took the oath of office in 2009.

It has gotten exponentially worse as of late, but there is a faction here who do nothing but go after Democrats. In fact, there are several who never seem to have anything negative to say about any Republican. Ever. If they have, I must have been absent on that day...

As always, I will support the Democratic nominee, but some of the unabated nastiness and utter tone deafness has taken its toll on my level of enthusiasm for supporting their candidate.

Mob rule in action.

Another day in the Skinner Box....

[rock]

50. Agreed, it has gotten

progressively worse (pun intended).

[spqr78]

62. republican policy.

There are two parties (ostensibly) because they (supposedly) represent two mutually exclusive ideologies.

When someone says they're a democrat who supports privatization, globalization, deregulation (financial and environmental), the destruction of the environment, suspension of the bill of rights (except for the second amendment), the militarization of the police, and corporate controlled health care, they are either mistaken or lying. Those are the policies of the republican party.

That's not an attack against democrats. It's the simplest kind of statement of fact.

[Bobbie Jo]

63. Yeah

Welcome to DU.

[One of the 99]

89. Thanks and well said nt

[BeyondGeography]

53. Forget the candidates, what about POSUCS?

Corporatist tool of the MIC

[oasis]

54. 2004: Kerry, Dean, Edwards, Joementum. Now that was nasty

[apnu]

56. No the PUMA thing was way worse.

2004 was a cake walk compared to the bitterness that was the Hillary people in 2008.

[oasis]

61. Seems like the same torpedo crew has come aboard to broadside her

in these primaries. They don't care about damaging her candidacy for the GE.

[apnu]

55. Its like this every 4 years here.

DUers are very passionate about their people and this is the one time they can really open up about it and have a discussion/screaming match/snark fest about things in the Democratic Party.

It can get pretty bitter at times, so the thicker your skin and the greater your patience, the better off you'll be.

[Trajan]

57. It's DU ... This is what goes on here during the primaries

It's particularly nasty this season, but not really different ...

I never participate in the Hillary Hatred threads, because that isn't me ... But I do reject the 'smears' of Bernie Sanders ...

This is DU .. It gets ugly here ...

[seveneyes]

60. Lovers' quarrel

The last scene is not here yet.

[TheKentuckian]

71. We don't even make it through your 1st sentence to know you don't believe what you are pitching

Afterall, why would we need to attack the Republicans? Just talking about the positives of our candidates is enough, right?

Where and when is this model you call for actually a thing at all? Candidates logically must be compared and you have to weigh the flaws along with the strengths to do it otherwise you are being the Pollyanna version of willfully ignorant by purposefully excluding relevant and important data from the equation.

[One of the 99]

73. You're rationalizing.

Sounds like you can't make the case for the candidate you support so you need to resort to attacks and smears. So sad.

[TheKentuckian]

74. No, your premise is nonsensical and so much so that we know you don't believe it either

because you started off invalidating it before you even made your "point".

[One of the 99]

75. Only nonsensical to those who are trying to justify bad behavior.

[TheKentuckian]

76. Comparing candidates is not bad behavior and YOU know it because you say so yourself

First thing you expressed was wonderment of why Republicans aren't attacked more, why would people be attacking Republicans if only stressing the positives of our candidates is the path to "good behavior".

All you are actually saying is my candidate has a record that is dubious in areas that doesn't compare well to another's and please don't talk about it so my couple of talking points will be enough to carry the day at which point I will abandon my fake philosophy and attack the shit out of the opposition.

[One of the 99]

85. Comparing candidate's positions on issues is one thing

but attacking with an unproven allegation, such as calling Bernie Sanders unelectable is not. We shouldn't be using FAUX News tactics. We should be better than that.

[steve2470]

80. purity nt