As the debate about the primary continues apace on DU,

[MineralMan]

Most Democratic voters out there are thinking about other things. They're not following the day to day minutiae and candidate statements, really. Most people aren't watching MSNBC around the clock, either, nor visiting political websites to see if anything has happened in the past half-hour. We watch. They don't.

We are. They're not. For most Democratic voters, decisions about voting for a candidate have not yet been made, nor do we know on what basis they will be made by individuals.

There are debates coming up soon. A few million Democrats will watch them. The rest will see blivets from them on the evening news, if they're looking up at the TV at that moment. We'll watch the debates. They won't.

Why people decide to vote for one primary candidate or another varies widely. Everyone has an issue or two that is crucially important to them. Or, they might like someone's presentation in a debate. Or they might just like one of the candidates better for other reasons. What most people don't do, though, is think about it every day and focus their attention on that choice until their primary date approaches. We do. They don't.

We're not typical of the average Democratic voter. Not at all. We fret. They don't. They just vote for the candidate they select for reasons that might seem foolish to us. But, that's how they decide. They decide. We don't.

[uawchild]

1. I have faith in the Democratic Voters

I think the record shows that voters in the democratic primaries vote intelligently on the issues.

Being a big tent party, democrats might have slightly different priorities when ranking those issues, but none of them ever seem silly, at least that's my observation.

[MineralMan]

2. Well, faithful primary voters pay more attention to

issues than voters who skip the primaries, so there is that.

Even so, however, most primary voters do not pay as much attention to the details as we on DU do. We are a very small segment of Democratic voters. It's important to remember that, I think.

In all my years of canvassing voters around election times, I learned that I could expect that issues I thought were trivial to be the main issue an individual voter considered. That meant I had to have something to offer, no matter what issue was brought up by someone I talked to.

[PatSeg]

3. This is very true

There was a time when I was not involved in politics and the type of issues we discuss daily at DU. I watched the debates and got a very general feel of the candidates. My interest in politics came around the same time as Democratic Underground was created, because of the 2000 election. I have to remind myself that not everyone is as obsessed or informed as I am. Many are as I once was.

I am pacing myself during this primary season and not letting myself get hung up on every outrage or accusation, knowing that next week it will be something different. Trump is enough of an emotional roller coaster ride for me. I am selectively tuning out on many primary issues.

[MineralMan]

4. I think that's true for a lot of people.

I have one overriding issue for the 2020 elections. I want Democrats to win. So, I'm going to be voting for, and supporting the candidate I think has the best chance of doing that.

Beyond that, they're all Democrats. So, if my primary favorite doesn't get the nomination, that's OK with me, too. Other people have different criteria than I do. Generally, I trust Democratic voters to make the best available choice when it comes to a presidential candidate.

Frankly, I know that I spend more time than I should on DU. Since my workload is sporadic, I tend to participate on DU because politics interests me. It also keeps me writing, which is good, because writing is how I make my living. Oddly, though, I've never made a penny from writing about politics. Still, it keeps my skills polished.

Besides, DU is entertaining, always. I won't say why, though. As Poppy Bush said, "Wouldn't be prudent at this juncture."

[PatSeg]

5. My memories of 2015-16 are still pretty vivid

I saw people I knew well get manipulated and bent out of shape throughout the primaries. They are just now finally recovering, though the shock of Trump in the White House probably has contributed. Having been through some nasty primaries on DU before, I spent little time on the "Primaries" forum in 2016 and mostly came to DU for general news and commentary.

So far things are not as contentious this time. DU members seem to be more unified against Trump and republicans, though I think stricter enforcement of the rules certainly helps. I don't mind healthy informed debate, but it needs to be carried out with civility. I got my head bit off numerous times when I suggested that in 2016!

[MineralMan]

6. It's still very early days for the 2020 election cycle.

Who can say where it will go?

[PatSeg]

7. I know

I was thinking the same thing. I will be taking a lot of breaks from politics! I have loaded my Kindle with a lot of nonpolitical books and I'll be binge-watching a lot of British period pieces on television.

[MineralMan]

8. Good solution, I think.

[emmaverybo]

9. So true. It's in the course of their daily activities that they encounter "news," which is

why social media is so important. Also, buzz that stays alive, as they flip stations, make the bed with tv in background. This or that sticks.
“Well, this is why Biden is the Democratic Party of the past,” an analyst pronounces on MSNBC today.
I flick it off. Come here. I follow the debate between people with info, skepticism about media, and
I have context. You have context. We know how news works.
The Dem you are talking about files the snippet away, but encountering several more times,
decides she likes the guy in the past or she doesn’t.
Then a friend asks have you seen the creepy Joe YouTube.
She views the mash-up, catches a tabloid headline.
Voila, Joe is gone, on to the next. No source vetting, no context, no real attention.
Not because she’s lazy or stupid. Because she’s busy and beset and politics is not her favorite form of relaxation.
Anyway, she’ll find out who won the debates tomorrow morning by asking Alexa while she fixes her coffee.
You are right. She’s the decider. Not me and not you.

[MineralMan]

10. Well, here's the thing: It is a self-balancing thing, overall.

In 2008, those people chose Barack Obama to be the nominee. In 2016, they chose Hillary Clinton. Hillary won the popular vote, but lost the election due to variations in small numbers that affected the Electoral College. But, both won the popular vote.

We have a very sloppy way of choosing candidates for office, but it end up selecting the people who can win most of the time. That's because, in November, an even less well-informed constituency turns out and votes. In the end, it is that general election voting public who should be the target of our campaign efforts.

That is what the Russians knew, and they acted on it. They just managed to flip three states to Trump. We missed that. I hope we learned from it, because similar efforts will be underway in 2020, although social media companies understand it better now.

[emmaverybo]

11. I sure do hope. But fear Russians can get into the voting machines as they also on a learning curve.

As I understand it, the Senate allocates voting funds, to improve the process, and they slashed so we are stuck with antiquated machines, little resources on the protection front due to politics.
I learn from your comment that the general is what counts, and yes, Obama twice, and almost Hilary. We must have a candidate then who has the best chance to win the electoral college votes.

[Gothmog]

12. Also remember that DU does not reflect the demographics of the party

The demographics of DU do not reflect the demographics of the party as a whole and positions that are popular on DU will not necessarily be popular with the base

[MineralMan]

13. Yup.