General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTo some, acting to push the Democratic Party further to the left is "hijacking the party"
Sometimes critics of those people say, "Get your own party" because people who hijack the party have no right to do so.
But, if they then follow the advice of those critics and decide to vote Green, or start their own party, and do not vote for the Democrat....then they are evil, because they are supporting Trump and the Republicans. So, they don't really mean "get your own party"....they mean "stay out of our party's business"
And even if they merely start their own organization (like "Our Revolution" for example), not a party.....and then do not welcome Democrats into their strategy sessions.....then they are horrible, bad people who don't believe in unity, and should be spoken of with derision.
If they fall in line, and do not criticize Democrats, and accept centrist candidates....then they are good, and understand the true meaning of "unity".
NYResister
(164 posts)voting for the Democratic Candidate, you are violating the TOS of Democratic Underground.
So if that is what you are looking for, then yeah, you don't freaking belong here.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)I am pointing out what a poor strategy it is to treat people in this way who have a slightly different view of what the Democratic Party should be.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,128 posts)I think our party already has been hijacked... by "centrists" who have marginalized true progressives who are merely lookin to take BACK their party, not "hijack" it.
rainy
(6,097 posts)the money!
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,128 posts)Whenever things don't make political sense or otherwise seem a bit fishy, simply follow the money trail... and voilà!!!
lambchopp59
(2,809 posts)Blatant "We deserve more" wearing the flag and still declaring victory over the native americans with the cross,
obstructive for 8 years solidly without putting forth a single viable alternative, now ahem "trusted" to do so,
veritibly wanting to bring back coal smoke belching trains
Or
Distributive, innovative, green and more true to that than the Greens under Stein (WTF, Jill?)
Demonstrated 8 years of most altruistic attempts to reach across the isle against obstruction,
and at least tacit awareness, growing, of responsibility to the planet.
Hmm, Let me watch 4,267 hours of Fox Noise and then:
Nope, I'll still vote Democratic.
But let me watch that amount of Fox Noise at 76 years old developing Alzheimer's.
(The latter being very statistically likely for me, the former... I'd puke daily)
But for argument's sake, isolated without a younger mind there to point out, eh, that's a little skewed, Grandpa...
And I might have been convinced to go out and vote for Frump. I'm scaring myself.
Because I watched that exact thing happen to my father, who died one bitter old pill.
Hope I have the faculties to say, Oh. Okay, nurse.
Dustlawyer
(10,499 posts)Americans of both Party's are tired of the Donor class calling the shots. OWS woke up a significant number of Americans who are pissed that Wall Street was bailed out instead of thrown in jail.
That same populist sentiment is still there and if we do not embrace a great deal of it we will squander the opportunity we have coming up. We will make great gains in 2018 no matter what, and probably 2020, but to a lesser extent than we could if we don't push things like single payer.
Americans want to see politics where the Donor Class become irrelevant, not that this will happen, but some policies benefitting regular Americans better be forthcoming. It will not be enough long term to be opposed to Republicans with no ideas of our own, we shouldn't make the same mistake the Republicans have. They have nothing in terms of policy except to tear down everything Obama did and give money to rich people.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,128 posts)and most State Governments. If they upset the balance of the Supreme Court, we're seriously fucked. The question is: what the fuck are we gonna do about it? Obviously, we need a serious course correction... NOT not more of the same old, same old. The next question is: who should lead our party out of this political wasteland and back into power?
CrispyQ
(36,589 posts)delisen
(6,051 posts)talking about how "progressive" they are and no one else is, and want together back to some halcyon post World War II past as pictured in those ideal family tv shows.
Where's the "Revolution" in "Our Revolution?"
Can you give us a vision of the economic and social system you want to establish.
I keep hearing how bad the Democratic Party and how bad Democratic candidates are.
I think we need to meet the future and shape the way we meet it.
In the 1960s people who thought they were the "progressives" of that time dreamed up and promoted something called "lifeboat economics" (population growth and limited resources supposedly meant that we were on a lifeboat and would have to kick some people off to drown-this wasn't a Republican concept-it was thinking from the so-called left of the spectrum).
Maybe if you articulates a vision of the future, and paths to get there, you could start a meaningful and useful discussion, and those whom you thought "hijacked" the party would listen.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,128 posts)That doesn't make me a so-called "Sanders progressive," as you suggest, but rather, a TRUE progressive. Bernie just has our back... and he's not a "finger in the wind" Johnny- or Janey-come-lately to the political revolution we all want to see take place.
KTM
(1,823 posts)Last edited Tue Jul 4, 2017, 02:06 PM - Edit history (1)
Wow, for someone who basically just walked in the door, you sure seem to feel comfortable deciding who gets tossed out of the house. Just stroll in, grab something from the fridge, put your feet on the furniture, and switch the channel why dont ya ?
Its odd, how comfortable that is for you... most people who have the chutzpah to say who they think does and doesn't belong have spent a little time here...
NYResister
(164 posts)I read and agreed to the Terms of Service. It states pretty clearly that the site is for promoting Democrats and not advocating for the Green party.
KTM
(1,823 posts)Last edited Tue Jul 4, 2017, 02:05 PM - Edit history (1)
And have seen this site go through all of its many changes, accept many people, lose many others, voice many ideas, and most importantly be an incubator for change within and without the Democratic Party over the course of the last four presidential elections. We've seen a lot of fights, and a lot of agitators. We've watched posters come, posters go, and posters come back again (and again and again.)
For you to walk in and presume to tell us who's voice we should allow to be heard is distasteful and wrong. For you to wave around the TOS as if the rest of us were unaware they existed is BS. You stomped on in as the first reply to a thread that effectively says "We should listen to other lefties, even when we disagree" and replied with "you dont freaking belong here."
Play semantics if you want but your language and intent was clear, and familiar.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Last edited Tue Jul 4, 2017, 08:32 PM - Edit history (1)
they have been posting for one day or they have been here from day one.
This is DEMOCRATIC Underground, created to support DEMOCRATS.
NYResister
(164 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)what s/he is saying, and anyone, even someone who is "a day old" can read it.
KTM
(1,823 posts)The OP was clearly stated as well, and did not in any way advocate for voting Green or supporting their party. This familiar user was shit stirring.
NYResister
(164 posts)us "more left".
The only left party, and I'm assuming by left you mean liberal, is the Democratic Party.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)for starters.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,128 posts)JI7
(89,293 posts)they are trolling to help republicans. that's why they only get involved in close races and focus their attacks on democrats.
they want republicans to win.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)but their platform is very liberal.
JI7
(89,293 posts)they will do it claiming to be from the left. but they really have no interest in any liberal policies getting done.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)They just felt that the Democratic party wasn't liberal enough.
JI7
(89,293 posts)to pass liberal policies because they want republicans to win.
just look at the disgusting troll jill stein that was the green party presidential candidate
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)As Democrats we need to make a strong case for liberal policies, not cower in fear.
JI7
(89,293 posts)claim to want to move left.
i don't buy the bs from greens and others who continously attack democrats that they want more liberal policies. i find them mostly hostile to many liberal policies . i find them to be too similar to right wingers in who they hate also.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)and talking about her incredible leadership skills. She ruled with an iron hand.
Then compare her to Ryan or Boehner.....they had no power whatsoever. They were "Listeners of the House", not Speakers.
We must have met different Greens.
JI7
(89,293 posts)policies.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)Nancy Pelosi. He is described as a Bernie Sanders supporter.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Nancy is still light years ahead of Republicans in terms of leadership.
Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)GOP, and this is why I will never support any of those groups, any member of those groups and any candidates they run. That is not Democracy. It is stupidity.
Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)And actually Nancy Pelosi is more liberal than any of 'Our Revolution types and smarter too. I want nothing to do with groups or individuals who engage in blackmail of the Democratic Party or who criticize it publicly.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)rather than showing leadership. They had better wake up soon.
Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)Only folks who agree with you are strong leaders? I just don't think so. I think Democratic leaders have done very well dealing with Trump and fighting back. And the groups you describe are not Democrats and undermine our efforts to fight Trump as they undermine everything in the Democratic Party...it isn't about ideas but about a power play, and we just don't need that right now or maybe ever. And I find the groups like "our revolution" and the like to be spoilers not winners of anything.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)The party has, for the past few decades, poll tested ideas instead of pushing the envelope.
Fighting Trump is not an idea.
Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)wins? No thanks.
NYResister
(164 posts)Stein preferred Trump to Clinton.
Any idiot who bought into the Green message, or Stein's message is not a liberal, nor a liberal ally. And they aided and abetted trump. Fuck them.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)JI7
(89,293 posts)there are many other voters who don't vote or who have tougher time voting because of republicans who target them and make it more difficult to do so.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Last edited Tue Jul 4, 2017, 12:18 PM - Edit history (1)
Honestly all the Greens I know are never Hillary AND never Dems. They don't even like Warren or Franken- refuse to say they're good Dems out there.
They might someday fall in love with one particular candidate, but they're not worth catering to.
Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)a progressive message.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)get out of our party, we don't like your ideas......but you damn well better vote for our candidate, or you are the Devil.
Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)And yes, if a person doesn't vote for the Democrat in a general election when the only other viable alternative is a Republican, than that person is a devil and a GOP enabler. I also maintain such people are not liberal or progressive. Voting Green is the same as voting Republican...a vote for any third party candidate is a vote for the Republican...how about join the party...make your opinions know...do some heavy lifting...change happens from the bottom up...you will be welcomed as members but not dictators.
Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)They are fakes and exist only to spoil elections for the Democrats. They are our enemy as much or more than the GOP ...their so called platform is their camouflage. Screw them.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)I think that this is something that some Democrats chant to themselves.
brush
(53,985 posts)they do repugs.
And it seems only every four years.
What do they do all those other years when they're not trotting out Jill Stein types to say Dems and repugs are the same?
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)for destroying this country by asking for votes.
brush
(53,985 posts)nationally?
That is not a new party.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)which is why Bernie ran as a Democrat.
brush
(53,985 posts)party apparatus to fund-raise, volunteer, canvass for local candidates and expand it patiently over years to successfully run state-wide and national candidates?
The work has to be done to avoid the so-called crushing of 3rd party candidates.
I remember Ross Perot in the 90s. He did pretty well from out of nowhere.
The Greens have been around a long time. What's up?
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)brush
(53,985 posts)are not reasons why the Greens only seem to appear every four years.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)brush
(53,985 posts)presidential cycles, which of course your answers carefully avoided.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)the MSM supports the status quo.
Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)Trump supported pipelines and is wrecking the environment...so yeah I can say...and those Democrats chanting Greens elected Republicans who hate the environment are correct. Greens are almost as evil as the GOP...they basically are paid off to help the GOP win. They need to call themselves the 'yellow' party as they are piss poor allies of any environmentalist or progressive.
Maven
(10,533 posts)TXCritter
(344 posts)We're going to get in trouble, though, for being critical of the establishment.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)what is a minority group, and no it will never happen. Your demands of purity would cost us many elections...the GOP might even get a super majority.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)so why would it magically start working now?
brush
(53,985 posts)They have no message but fear of the other, and we know the other means POCs. They have no policies other than cutting programs that help people.
Dems are the progressive party with policies that help people.
We just have to strongly combat repug cheating and vote suppression, and nowadays their Russian help.
And we also have to stop falling for divisive dogma that we don't win because we are not far enough left.
That smacks of political naivete.
We don't win because of the very effective repug cheating apparatus.
That we have to expose and take apart. 2016 is the latest example of this. Who can deny that that was an election stolen by repug cheating?
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Democrats have done nothing to combat it and they say very little about it.
Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)from reading your posts we need to welcome into the fold(?) cost us 2000; we heard about it. Independent spoilers help the GOP steal elections...Fuck the Greens.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)It's the VOTERS fault....they didn't vote for us.
brush
(53,985 posts)We need to combat repug/Russian cheating. That's why we lost. We had/have more voters
Hillary was +3M voters.
We need a permanent, standing and well-funded committee of the DNC that employs the best private investigators, attorneys, fundraisers, publicists, media liaisons, social media experts and volunteers to combat Interstate Crosscheck and all the other repug vote suppression tactics that we know work hard to minimize our votes.
We need as concerted an effort to stop their cheating as we put into recruiting voters because the repugs work just as hard to stop our voters as we do to get our voters to the polls.
That seems to be left out of all the threads on what to do.
Hell, we never even hear this from Perez or Ellison who should be spearheading it.
Think about it, if we stop their vote-shaving by just 25%, we will win many more elections.
We know the repugs cheat yet we don't prioritize combating it and letting the public know about their cheating.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)I also think that Democrats (or Superpacs) should run ads attacking Republicans for their vote suppression tactics.
brush
(53,985 posts)Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)And we barely lost...as for those who attack the Democratic Party, screw them. They have no interest in winning ...only purity. They are not Democrats either.
KTM
(1,823 posts)From my perspective, your steadfast admonitions as to who is and isnt allowed a voice in the party sure smells like a demand for "purity."
Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)but can't dictate.
Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)It takes hard work.
emulatorloo
(44,279 posts)Koch Bros and their ilk poured billions of dollars in sewage on them. Crazed Republicans came out in droves during midterms while Democrats sat on their asses.
I am a left liberal/prog
The problem is not pushing the party left or bringing in more left voters. That's a great thing.
It is the >>false narratives<< that some loud self-described persist in pushing.
Best example: Trump won because of 'economic anxiety.'
The fact is Exit polls and further reasearch showed that people most concern about jobs and the economy voted Democratic.
Those most concerned about terrorism and immigration voted for Trump
Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)revolution do nothing worthwhile. They help the GOP.
murielm99
(30,791 posts)Planned Parenthood, for example?
emulatorloo
(44,279 posts)Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)And I have no interest in dictatorial groups like 'Our Revolution' whom I invited to go pound sand.
murielm99
(30,791 posts)And of course no one has the right to hijack the Democratic party. Working within the party is fine. We have always been a big tent, with many disagreements and quarrels. We work them out.
Start their own organization? Are you talking about Our Revolution, or something else? And who are you saying does not welcome Democrats into their sessions, Our Revolution? Are they doing that? Is that what you are saying? If they are not inviting Democrats, how is Our Revolution not a separate party? Are they something other than Democrats? If they are Democrats, why are they excluding their fellow Democrats?
Can you say straight out what you are talking about? And what is all this about accepting centrist candidates? Who decides what defines a centrist candidate? We often compromise on who becomes a candidate. I have been disappointed more than a few times over who won a primary and became a candidate. I know it is better to have a candidate I do not fully agree with than to have a republican win the election. Look at the mess we have now.
I am sick of purity tests. I am tired of the perfect being the enemy of the good. But, again, WTF are you saying?
Number one problem: some people are just politically naive.
murielm99
(30,791 posts)Central committee meetings have become nearly unbearable. Some of the politically naive have tried to bring business to a standstill. They don't understand how things work, and they don't care to learn. There is nothing revolutionary about being an asshole.
I am not against grassroots organizations that work with the Democratic Party. Indivisible is a good example. In my state, many of the local Indivisible groups are working with established organizations, like Illinois Democratic Women, to have candidate training. They are co-sponsoring events like town halls in other places. They are raising money for billboards and signs to publicize how terrible the republican votes and policies have been. They are learning from the League of Women Voters, and sometimes joining them. They are having candidate forums.
People can work together. The politically naive can be educated, if they choose. I am sorry to see how many, IRL and here, do not choose that.
betsuni
(25,853 posts)Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)single payer in 2009...they punished President Obama for something that was not possible in 2010 by giving the house to the GOP which meant, we never got any progressive legislation during the eight years of Pres Obama and were forced to play defense, and I remember reading just horrible posts even here about President Obama who I believe was a great president. Naive indeed.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)OKNancy
(41,832 posts)gerrymandering.
Naive is want to primary people like Joe Manchin or even Nancy Pelosi or following idiots like Nina Turner.
Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)They abandoned Pres. Obama because he could not get single payer in 10 and allowed the GOP to take multiple states which allowed a gerrymander...and cost us the House over and over. We take more votes in house elections almost all the time, but the gerrymander holds. We made gains in the Senate....oh and what happened to the perfect candidate in Wisconsin...Sen. Feingold whom I like very much. Why didn't he win.
Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)he supported Sen. Sanders in the primary, he supported Sec. Clinton in the election...they refused him because he voted for the Democratic nominee... this makes them something alright, but not a Democratic organization. I am now sending money to candidates they don't endorse. No Democrat should send them or their candidates a dime. They are dead to me and can fuck themselves in company of course with the most famous spoiler party of them all...the Greens.
Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)They would drive people from the party, and we would be fortunate to win dog catcher elections should we listen to them. Our Revolution gave it all way by refusing a person who voted for Sen. Clinton in the election...voting for the Democratic nominee was wrong in their eyes...yet they demand their own way in all things; they primary sitting Democrats as well. Sorry, I want nothing to do with them. I am sorry I ever voted for Nina Turner.
Consider the primarying of Joe Manchin in WVA...does anyone with a strong grasp of reality believe we can elect a liberal Democrat in WVA? And if Manchin loses because of this primary, the GOP has another seat. In order to save this country, we need the Senate. In order to get the Senate, we need a big tent party...everyone gets something...no one gets it all. And primarying a sitting Democratic senator in a red state is just plain stupid...beyond even naivete.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)I am saying that progressives who disagree with the current direction of the Democratic Party are condemned no matter what they do.
They are condemned if they want to create change withing the Party, and they are condemned if they work outside the Party.
You are tired of the perfect being the enemy of the good?
I'm tired of the imperfect being the enemy of winning elections.
I'm tired watching Democrats lose, who then tell me..."Yeah, but we would lose even more if we did it your way".
Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)to threaten and blackmail the Democratic Party. If those who disagree with the party would work to incorporate their ideas...and they won't get everything...it is a big tent, but they will get some things...They would be welcomed with open arms and hearts.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)every person that supported Bernie was condemned and Bernie supporters were accused of being white supremacists.
The Party limited the number of debates, and worked behind the scenes to defeat Bernie. The DNC head who took over after DWS denied supplying debate questions to Hillary in October 2016, admitted doing it in April 2017.
This isn't big tent behavior, this is top-down control of the party.
Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)demanding they get their way, or they take their ball and go home...blackmail. Many did take their ball and go home ...thus helping to elect Trump...none tried to work within the system. Now I say 'help' because we also had Comey, the Russians and the decades long demonetization of Hillary Clinton from the right... a perfect storm which is unlikely to be repeated. So while Jill Stein can congratulate herself on her 'effectiveness', and she certainly helped elect Trump, I doubt it will happen again. Many folks are seeing the results of what happened by abandoning the only party who can stop the GOP and won't be willing patsy's next time.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)the Democratic Party needs to stop imagining that they are the victim party.
Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)because of health care, the environment and all the other shitty Trump policies they helped enact by contributing to a Trump victory.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)We support Democrats.
NYResister
(164 posts)I don't think that Bernie supporters are white supremacists, and I don't believe I've ever seen them be accused of such.
What I did see was criticism of their dismissal of civil right issues.
As for the rest, we had a primary election. People voted.
Also, Bernie's top aides, Tad Devine and Symone Sanders dismissed that criticism of Donna Brazile.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/303868-sanders-aide-defends-donna-brazile-after-leaked-emails
Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)They can and I hope they do share ideas. However, we all have input. We need a big tent to get elected. And I would just like to say that those who would consider voting Green (fuck the greens) or starting their own party...which would enable the GOP are not Democrats but spoilers. When an organization like 'our revolution' refuses a person because they voted for the Democratic nominee, they are dead to me. I want nothing to do with them and will never support them or any of their candidates. I will purposefully vote against any candidate that they endorse. I am tired of the blackmail coming from these faux progressive groups...do what we say or we spike the elections, It is called blackmail and I find it distasteful to say the least. I would rather lose than cave to such groups who are not and should never consider themselves the base of this party because they are no such thing.We would lose anyway and I don't like blackmail. If we adopted everything they insist we must in order to gain their 'support'...chances are we would lose another bigger constituency and so it goes. Be part of the party,share your ideas, but don't ever think you can dictate or blackmail us into doing as you demand. we would lose anyway. Oh and this is obligatory. Fuck the Greens.
aikoaiko
(34,186 posts)Blackmail is when some extorts money in lieu of revealing a secret.
What are you talking about?
Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)need a better term ...doesn't get their way, they will take their ball and go home, thus we either give them what they want or they throw the election...blackmail. Now, I don't think in a normal election ...it would work (16 wasn't normal). But if we want to take the House and Senate, we need to work together...and I won't even acknowledge those who engage in blackmail.
aikoaiko
(34,186 posts)When they try to tell the Democratic Party their interests just as much.
We can do better just as much as they can.
Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)Voltaire2
(13,306 posts)The center-right Democratic establishment wants it their way or so he highway. However, quite frankly, fuck that shit. Ignore the noise. Organize. At the local level every party organization is run by the people who show up.
Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)so It would seem to me they are engaged in 'my way or the highway' behavior...or perhaps a better term is blackmail. Oh and fuck the Greens. (it is obligatory).
Tom Rinaldo
(22,919 posts)Those numbers could grow though if a purge mentality keeps gathering steam. The more that some push to define as disloyal troublemakers those who feel that the Democratic Party had been too silent for decades in the face of trends like media deregulation, banking deregulation, welfare deregulation, outsourcing, corporate written international trade deals, school privatization, prison privatization, infrastructure privatization, massive top friendly tax cuts, and a rampant culture of greed that saw average CEO pay grow by many multiples while typical worker take home pay actually shrunk, the less room there is inside the Democratic party tent for unity and common ground. I'm not leaving, but most people have a tendency to look for places where their views are more than barely tolerated in good times, and literally scapegoated in bad times.
Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)They are not Democrats and I for one will never give into what I view as their blackmail demands (we would lose anyway as they have no concept of reality)...and if they had a progressive bone in their sorry bodies, they would not help Republicans or threaten to do so.
Voltaire2
(13,306 posts)Were winning victory after victory at the state and federal level you might have a point about which faction has a better grasp of political reality. Instead they have run the party into the ground. We've lost control of all three branches of the federal government and enough states that a state initiated constitutional convention run by the Republican Party is a real possibility. It's been an unmitigated disaster. Time for new blood and fresh ideas.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,919 posts)I'll match Democratic credentials with you any time you want if that would be in any way helpful. It is best, I feel, to leave discussions of straw men behind.
KTM
(1,823 posts)"I want nothing to do with them and will never support them or any of their candidates."
"I will purposefully vote against any candidate that they endorse."
"I would rather lose than cave to such groups...."
"We would lose anyway and I don't like blackmail."
These are all things said a lot around here about a year ago.
You realize you sound JUST like the people you rail against, right ? You make the exact same arguments as those who "took their ball and went home" in the last election. You rail against "purity" but speak only in absolutes. If you feel that way now, and they felt that way then, what type of "unity" do you think is going to come about to bring us a win in '18?
Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)I hear myself. They criticize the Democrats constantly. Nina Turner is the head and she has said she will support non-Democrats and
says terrible things about Democrats so screw them...so yeah. I want nothing to do with this organization...I stopped my donations...they don't need money from a Democrat who gasp voted for Hillary proudly. This is not a Democratic organization. They primary sitting Democrats in the age of Trump...and they will get nothing from me...no votes and no money.
Squinch
(51,098 posts)saw was people saying that Our Revolution just made themselves irrelevant by giving Nina the reins. She's just a ridiculous choice and when people say that she makes Our Revolution irrelevant, they are right.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,919 posts)Bernie Sanders for example has been an independent who caucuses with Democrats for decades. He has an excellent voting record inside the Democratic caucus. Back when Obamacare was being debated, Former Party Chair Howard Dean was more of a leading dissident voice against the compromises that Obamacare embraced than was Bernie Sanders, despite the fact that he always advocated for Single Payer. Sanders sometimes criticizes the Democratic Party from the left, as is certainly his right to do, but he never attacks the Democratic Party for actively working against the interests of average Americans the way that he consistently attacks the Republicans. Yet he has been repeatedly vilified on DU by many ever since November. Sanders refused to run Third Party, he backed the Democratic nominee. When he participated in a unity tour with our new DC Chair, whose candidacy he did not initially back, he was roasted daily on DU.
Sanders does nowadays what Bill Clinton once did in his early days, back when the Democratic Leadership Council was formed. Back when Bill Clinton was a leading voice for "New Democrats". Sanders states opinions about the policies of our political parties. Except back then Bil Clinton was expressing criticism of the direction the Democratic Party was taking FROM the Right. Not from the Republican Right, but from the Democratic relative right against the Democratic Party as it had manifest in decades prior. Clinton proudly and persuasively urged Democrats to move toward the center. I don't accuse Bill Clinton of ever having abandoned Democratic Party core values, but he shuffled some priorities and made tactical adjustments. Democrats supported him at the time, that's politics, that's fair. And it would have been fair had Bernie Sanders done as poorly as Martin O'Malley did in the 2016 Democratic primaries. Democratic voters had every right to spurn him because of his history as an Independent and not a Democrat. But Sanders won over 13 million votes in those primaries while a more typical Democratic adversaries to Hillary Clinton quickly sputtered and vanished.
But there is a consistent refrain on DU that Bernie's "base" is wildly out of step with the Democratic Party, that it is sexist, that it coddles racists, that it is in cahoots with Jill Stein etc. This despite the fact that Jill Stein couldn't wave a candle at the voter base that Bernie drew - people who did not abandon the Democrats for Stein after Bernie lost the primaries. Stein did not inherit the overwhelming majority of those 13 million plus voters, Hillary Clinton did.
If you have never self identified as a Bernie Sanders supporter on DU there is a good chance that you never notice how people who made up over 40% of the Democratic Party voter base in our primaries, who went on to work for a Democratic victory in the fall (which includes of course Sanders himself) are consistently jabbed at and poked and blamed here for Trump's victory. I had a long professional work career in both mental health and community organizing, I know a little about human nature, and I can tell you this. If you were intentionally trying to raise the profile of and drive support to the most strident voices of anyone who was part of the Sanders movement - this is exactly how to go about doing so
Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)Sec. Clinton. If you voted for the Democratic nominee, you are not welcome in that organization. Who is attempting to purge whom?
Tom Rinaldo
(22,919 posts)It is not the same as Democracy for America, which grew out of the Dean campaign in 2003, but that comes to mind. It is a sub set of a sub set. Some offshoots are primarily positive, some are not. To be honest I don't know whether or not "Our Revolution" is being fairly characterized here or not. Perhaps. I have seen reporting of a single local meeting with 13 in attendance where it is alleged (probably accurately, but I don't always trust initially reporting on anything) that someone was denied participation because they voted for Hillary after supporting Bernie. If that is the case that action sucked - and I said so here at the time. I have not seen evidence that "Our Revolution", as a national policy, declines membership to those who voted for Hillary Clinton. I don't know if I "belong" to "Our Revolution" or not. I may be on their mailing list without opening their emails. I would be interested in seeing any evidence along those lines if it exists. If it does I will take the time to communicate my opposition to that directly to them.
Whereas I do not participate in "Our Revolution", I do participate at Democratic Underground, and have for 14 years. What I have seen presented about "Our Revolution" so far can more accurately be called "an incident" rather than a purge. There is no formal "purge" here at Democratic Underground against the views of those who support Bernie Sanders in general, but there have been a heck of a lot of "incidents".
Squinch
(51,098 posts)In the meantime our country has been hijacked, people are going to die, people are going to be financially ruined, women are going to be sent back to subjugation and choiceless-ness, the environment is going to explode, we're probably going to go to war with North Korea or Canada or both, and they are going to fuck with the voting system so badly that we may never get our rights back. What the fuck do I care at this point about Hillary vs. Bernie??"
I can't help but think that anyone who is still beating the dead horse of "Hillary vs. Bernie" doesn't get the battle we have ahead of us.
That is part of why these Bernie threads, and they are always about Bernie, piss me off so much.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,919 posts)It's not Hillary, Bernie, Bernie, Hillary. I essentially never see threads on DU critical of Hillary anymore, not in a very long while. They were here before the convention, and some others showed up in the forum temporarily dedicated to evaluating the election results. Then they stopped. There have continued to be some pro Hillary threads, and that is fine. They seldom get trashed and never become 125 post flame fests the way that pro Sanders threads usually become.
I make a point of making a positive post on pro Hillary threads sometimes. My feelings are genuine when I do, but mostly I make a point of expressing them to show unity. If you look at my journal you can see what I usually write about, it's certainly not about Hillary Bernie. There was one weekend that you might call an exception - though even then I never said anything negative either about Hillary or the reasons for supporting her. Bernie hate was running amuck here that weekend.
So we agree about our priorities it seems. So why on earth the incessant focus here on what someone wrote on JPR, or what happened at one local meeting of "Our Revolution"? Or on something Bernie Sanders may have said one day about his ideas for progressive agenda priorities and how to attain them? When, as you correctly note; "our country has been hijacked, people are going to die, people are going to be financially ruined, women are going to be sent back to subjugation and choiceless-ness, the environment is going to explode, we're probably going to go to war with North Korea or Canada or both, and they are going to fuck with the voting system so badly that we may never get our rights back."?
Squinch
(51,098 posts)newsworthy and fairly stunning, so yes that will be covered. Who is posting the things Bernie says? It's not people who dislike Bernie, as far as I can tell. Yes, when he disparages the Democratic party, he does get comments, but that is his aim, isn't it?
It is not incessant. It's actually pretty rare. It's also easily ignored.
I voted for Hillary. I really loved her as a candidate. There was plenty of Hillary trashing here, both during and after the election. There are still plenty of posts that blame her for pretty much everything. Sometimes I respond, sometimes I don't. I'm not demanding that those posts stop. I don't care much about those posts anymore because I have more important things to be concerned about. I got over it. I suggest everyone else do the same.
We don't have time for this shit.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,919 posts)Were Obama supporters still obsessing about P.U.M.A.s ("Party Unity My Ass" eight months after the election?
But the talking points that have emerged, instead of just going after BoBs ("Bernie or Bust" at JPR, has been a conflation whereby all support for Bernie is tagged as an obsessive wanting to win over racist Trump voters on economic grounds through a willingness to throw women and minorities under the bus to do so.
Anytime Bernie says something that can be construed as ammunition against him, yeah it gets posted multiple times by those who dislike him. He off the cuff said when asked that he wasn't sure if Ossoff was a progressive and this joint went nuts for weeks about it - even though the Republicans wanted Sanders to hug Ossoff proudly as a lefty radical. They still ran ads that attempted to tie Ossoff to Bernie in a negative way - they would have had a field day if Sanders injected himself into that race. I've already seen 4 or 5 different well rec'ed OPs about that local Our Revolution meeting. It seems there is a new one posted every day, but I still am waiting for some clarification whether those 13 people were following any national organization mandates. And no I do not think it is Bernie's aim to get trashed for making disparaging remarks about the Democratic Party. I think he wants a discussion about our political future and how to use politics to improve the lives of most Americans.
See, in all sincerity, you kind of just illustrated my point. There are two words with somewhat overlapping definitions, criticize and disparage. For this I used "Merriam Webster":
Criticize :
1) to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly : evaluate
2) to find fault with : point out the faults of
Disparage:
1) to lower in rank or reputation : degrade
2) to depreciate (see depreciate 1) by indirect means (such as invidious comparison) : speak slightingly about
Whatever Bill Clinton was doing with the Democratic Leadership Council (which he chaired in 1990 and 1991) when he either criticized or disparaged the National Democratic Party, is no different than what Bernie Sanders is doing now when he offer his views on how to achieve policies that benefit the working and middle class, aside from heir differing ideological content.
Blll Clinton was part of a movement to change the Democratic Party. He pointedly called himself a "New Democrat" to distinguish himself from the previous mainstream. When Bill Clinton said "The era of big government is over" do you think he was rejecting what Republicans under Ronald Raagan and Gorge H. W. Bush were promoting, or what Democrats under the leadership of Walter Mondale and Mike Dukakis were promoting? I would say the latter. Do you think is intent was to "degrade" the Democratic Party or to advocate for changes? I would say the latter.
Wiki says this about the DLC:
"The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was a non-profit 501(c)(4) corporation[1] founded in 1985 that, upon its formation, argued the United States Democratic Party should shift away from the leftward turn it took in the late 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. One of its main purposes was to win back white middle class voters with ideas that addressed their concerns.[2] The DLC hailed President Bill Clinton as proof of the viability of Third Way politicians and as a DLC success story."
Were they disparaging the Democratic Party through their actions and statements, or merely trying to influence it? I again say the latter although - I opposed the DLC.
There is much to admire about Hillary Clinton. I respect that you strongly supported her. Anytime a candidate loses a race that most people assumed s/he would win, there inevitably will be some criticism of the campaign - and it is not always fair. But that goes on across the full breadth of the Party - that is what party operatives and pundits always do, it's not just bitter grapes Bernie people who try to deconstruct what went wrong.
Squinch
(51,098 posts)different landscape with a different monster. And that old monster that you are continuing to fight? It's like the Cinderella mice compared to this new one. The real one.
You and others in this thread seem to be unable to see this new monster, but I can't waste any more of my energy even discussing this bullshit, because the new monster has his hands on every aspect of my life and is about to rip it apart.
Don't look now, but while you while away the sunny days talking about Bernie and the history of the not-left-enough's persecution of you, that new monster is gobbling up your life too.
We. don't. have. time. for. this. shit.
Have a nice day.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,919 posts)I circulate petitions to get our party's judicial candidates on the ballot. I canvass door to door to oust John Faso from Congress. I organize the nominating caucus for candidates for our local Town Board. I write about Trump here at DU, and about supporting Nancy Pelosi among other things. You have me all figured, but you never even opened my journal, did you?
Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)I refuse to give in to blackmail and resent like hell the notion that the Democratic Party is not a great party because it is I think back to 2009 and health care where the House sacrificed their majority in order to save lives by enacting health care. I am proud to belong to that party and to support leader Pelosi who pushed it through. I am proud to have voted for and worked tirelessly to elect Pres. Obama and Sherrod Brown.
We need to win in order to stop the GOP. Someone responded to me that it is the ' Democratic leaders job to talk about ideas not yet accepted in the mainstream'... and that would surely lead to huge losses...we can't afford that now.
Squinch
(51,098 posts)divisive posts on DU. That is telling.
There are plenty of Senators who have good voting records. Sanders is one of many in that sense. I found his support of Hillary during the general election lukewarm, especially when compared to Hillary's own support for Obama during their primary. As far as his public statements since the election, I think he is undermining the Democratic party at the moment when we most need to be seen as undivided.
Our Revolution, his baby, is kind of a mess. Its head has just declined to deal with people who vote Democratic. This is a small organization. This is where his leadership brought it. He is an idea guy. He needs to be more than that if he is going to get anything done.
Your comments about how mean people are here to the Sanders supporter are silly. If you would step back and look at the pattern, you would see that the Sanders supporters give as good as they get in a fight that should have been over long ago. Why do Sanders supporters need to be strident at all against other Democrats? What is it that they are doing right now that they need to raise their voices for that the rest of us are not doing too?
I think the average Sanders supporter understands that we have bigger fish to fry right now than this ridiculousness, and they don't feel the need to be strident against other Democrats.
Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)This should be a time for healing and actually resolving the issues between the different wings of the party, so we can go into 2018 unified and ready to kick some ass. Papering over the cracks just means they'll open up again next time we're under pressure.
As for the attacks on Sanders supporters, it's a very real phenomena here. After getting goaded into almost being banned, I put about 12 people on ignore. That's all it took to change DU from a horrible and deeply unpleasant place to visit, back into a nice place again. You talk about having bigger fish to fry, well yes, most of us would agree with you, but that doesn't make it any more acceptable to have people supposedly on the same side looking to make you unhappy and upset on a daily basis.
Squinch
(51,098 posts)change DU from a horrible place back to a nice place.
So now we have both trashed what we need to trash, and DU is back to being a nice place for both of us, and we have more important work to do.
Like, for example, preventing the implosion of our Democracy.
This isn't papering over the cracks. This is coming up against the REAL enemy and realizing how asinine it is for us to be fighting each other right now.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)But do we really need to beat them again and immediately after have another major round of infighting? There's also a good argument that if we resolve our problems we'll be a much more efficient force to beat the Republicans anyway. No more sly digs or 'nose holding' from either side would have to be a positive thing.
Squinch
(51,098 posts)agree that our Democracy is about to implode and we need to fight that." But then they always follow up with something that amounts to, "BUT I really must insist that people stop being mean to me, because you know, they really are being mean to me."
We are in a crisis. We don't have time for this bullshit. If you are saying "But..." after agreeing that we have a larger enemy that must be fought with everything we've got, you aren't understanding the danger of that larger enemy.
We. do. not. have. time. for. this.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)..you're trying to brush aside legitimate concerns from a group who have for a long time had their concerns brushed aside in exactly this way. Every time the left want to push their agenda, they're told to sit down and shut up or else the Republicans will win. This has been going on for 20 years now, and when we win we're then told that pushing our agenda is 'attacking our own' and when we lose its a huge crisis and there's no time for division.
Do you know quite how tiring that gets?
Why exactly don't we have time for this? The midterms are not until the end of next year, so I can't think of a better time to spend a few months ironing out our differences, agreeing a common platform and going into next year properly united.
Squinch
(51,098 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Have a nice day.
Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)win like the Greens and other third party riffraff...and if you want healing you don't kick someone out for voting for Hillary in the General as "our revolution" did and say you will support the GOP over Dems...and yes Nina said that...these folks are spoilers and that is the role they chose. I don't like them.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,919 posts)Some Sanders supporters certainly "give at least as good as they get", but to break it down to the most simple dynamic - they usually start out playing defense and it spirals down from there. For example, when that book was published about the Clinton campaign "problems" there were not thread after thread started by Sanders types saying "I told you so" and pulling out every possible passage for a new OP that could serve the purpose of someone who wants to press a case that Clinton was not a "good candidate". I can't count the number of threads here that continually lecture supporters of Jill Stein who exist in trace numbers only at DU as in the world actually, while including a swipe at "Bernie's base".
The new trend on DU is to go after the left in general
Squinch
(51,098 posts)Last edited Tue Jul 4, 2017, 02:18 PM - Edit history (1)
innocent bystanders who are on the defensive and their frustration at being on the defensive is what makes them lash out. And the Clinton supporters are always on hand to do many terrible things.
Fine. I hear you. I hear that you feel wronged. I hear that you feel that the left is being persecuted, and your definition of the left excludes many who post here. I hear what you are saying, and I disagree. I suspect that we could go back and forth on this for a very long time, and there would be no change in either of our opinions.
But that would be really stupid. It would be like you and me standing on the beach arguing about who is meaner to whom as a tidal wave crests above us.
We are all in danger together. We all have more important things to do.
KTM
(1,823 posts)Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)I consider that bad. I really do...I used to support them, but I wouldn't want to 'taint' their purity with my money as I voted for Hillary Clinton also. By their standards most if not all of DU would be unacceptable to them...they are not Democrats and Nina is a good leader for such...she fits well into that organization.
Squinch
(51,098 posts)stupid. It is Nina Turneresque hubris brought to its logical conclusion, and it makes Our Revolution irrelevant.
Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)whathehell
(29,115 posts)traditional democratic values, manifested most clearly in the
"New Deal" policies and the Sixties '"Great Society".
still_one
(92,562 posts)for those views to be heard.
The problem is those who subscribe to those different views who want to exclude others within the party who don't see eye to eye on those views.
This either or nonsense is what is hurting us
Howard Dean's 50 state strategy recognized those differences. You try to work through those differences, but in the end you come together for the greater good.
While it may be satisfying to some to characterize fellow Democrats with stereotypical names, it does very little to further the exchange of ideas, and to work through those differences, and that means give and take on both sides.
mcar
(42,482 posts)with fair weather friends on the left?
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)mcar
(42,482 posts)Trashing Nancy Pelosi, primarying Democrats instead of fighting against Republicans.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)Democrats...and based on their actions of refusing Democrats into their organization, it is safe to say they hate us and the Democratic Party.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)other, I have come to believe that some of those you refer to hate Democrats more than Trump...that is sad.
mcar
(42,482 posts)Trashing Democrats? Primarying Democrats? How, exactly, does that stop the horror of Republican control?
Demsrule86
(68,875 posts)cyclonefence
(4,483 posts)I think the shock of losing the 2016 election has made everyone a little crazy and over-zealous in looking for ways to "fix" our party so we can win again. Here's what happened as I see it:
We had a candidate who would have made a wonderful President but who was a terrible candidate. Many staunch deTrumocrats hated her for whatever reason and would not vote for her. The virulence of the RW hatred for her was long-standing and potent.
The Russians interfered in our election. Whatever else they did, they sponsored fake news sites that promulgated totally insane negative stories about her, which the mainline Republics, who have no souls, embraced and publicized.
The undercurrent of racism that persisted throughout President Obama's two terms played a big role--"Make America Great *again*", i.e. without that uppity negro telling us what to do--set the stage for a racist blowhard TV star to reap the rewards of his popularity among the bottom-feeders of society.
Third-party candidates were more successful than they should have been because of all the people who because they are so much more sensitive and politically pure than the rest of us couldn't "bring themselves" to vote for Hillary, despite the fact that Hillary and a true monster were our only true choices. "Ballots are bullets--don't waste them," said Malcolm, and he was right.
The media treated Donald Trump as if he were normal throughout the campaign, not calling him out on his lies and hypocrisies while never missing a chance to mention Hillary's goddam emails, making a non-issue into an enormous issue for the slower thinkers among us.
Trump's family--except for him and maybe poor Eric--are photogenic and poised in front of the camera, in a fake Hollywood kind of way that appealed to the non-political who might not otherwise have been interested in voting.
There are many other reasons we lost that I'm too lazy to think about, but none of them has anything to do with the basic foundation of our party. We are good. Our intentions are good, noble and unselfish. We care about our fellow citizens, and we base our policies on the notion that we are all in this together, and the failure of one of us is a failure for us all. We do not need to change our politics.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)In my view, I haven't really seen a push tot left, so much as an effort to de-emphasize some traditional Ddmocratic constituencies. I see a call to move away from "identitiy politics." I see outdated and unwise efforts to alienate anything associated with "corporations" (like they are just gonna disappear or something). It's not just that there is a push left, as I dont see those as a legitimate push left, but rather a propagation of unwise and unhelpful policy and stategy positions. Mix that with some straight stupid political strategy and we have a loser.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Republicans a centrists position can win elections, I seriously doubt we could get as many with a left holding platform.
George II
(67,782 posts)1. In recent elections Democrats have been losing to republicans
2. Most, if not all republicans are to the right of the Democrats they defeated
3. With this in mind, wouldn't moving further left result in even more losses to republicans?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)It's a useful simplification to say that all policy preferences can be neatly aligned on a left-right spectrum, that each voter locates himself or herself somewhere on that spectrum, and that each voter then votes for the candidate who's nearer to his or her point.
That simplification can be useful for certain purposes but it's not the be-all and end-all.
One obvious point is that DU is atypical in terms of the emphasis that DU members put on ideology. Most of us voted for Clinton over Trump but we would have voted for Sanders over Fiorina. Among 130-million+ real-world voters, some would vote for either woman, so as to break the glass ceiling, and some would vote for either man because they don't think a woman can be President. That's just one of many examples that could be adduced.
Another point that my first paragraph doesn't cover is turnout. Turnout is historically lowest among people with the lowest incomes. It's not unreasonable for progressives to hope that moving the party to the left would help it mobilize people who, in a race between two comparatively centrist candidates, don't see enough of a difference to motivate them to register and vote. (Side note: Given the current atmosphere on DU, I feel compelled to waste a few pixels to point out that I am NOT supporting the "no difference between Democrats and Republicans" point of view. I'm merely reporting it. This would be obvious to anyone with minimal reading comprehension skills but such skills have been in regrettably short supply on DU of late.)
Of course, moving to the left isn't a cure-all. The people who would benefit most from progressive policies won't just automatically turn out because of a good platform. We'll have to establish credibility with them over time. There's a chicken-and-egg problem here. If Obama had signed a single-payer health care bill into law, its evident benefits would have helped elect progressives, but not enough progressives had been elected to get it passed and sent to his desk.
Nevertheless, moving to the right is also not a cure-all. Should we try to compromise with the Republicans on health care? Maybe a bill that throws only 11 million people off their coverage, instead of 22 million? Tax cuts for the rich that are somewhat smaller than what Ted Cruz wants? Even aside from such a move to the right being horrible public policy, it would be politically harmful rather than helpful.
George II
(67,782 posts)...unless it moves further to the left.
WoonTars
(694 posts)The Republicans own both chambers in Congress, the WH, the majority of Governorships and the majority of State Houses....
What the Democrats have been doing so far clearly hasn't worked, but sure, let's keep doing the same thing and eventually it'll work, right?
George II
(67,782 posts)How'd THAT work out?
Remember, in most elections at all levels there is a Democrat and a republican running for the same office. Some people act as though the Democratic Party and candidate is operating in a vacuum all by itself, totally unaffected by the opponent.
In each of those elections, the positions of the candidates change over the course of the campaign, based partly on listening to the constituency (hopefully) and partly on the position of the opponent. That's a campaign. It's not establishing a fixed set of policies at the outset of a campaign (or for some 30-40 years earlier) and refusing to shift as the campaign progresses.
WoonTars
(694 posts)So in 2014 and 2016 the Democrats moved to the left with all of their Corporate and Wall St. money...???
Keep telling yourself that.
George II
(67,782 posts)...or "Wall Street".
treestar
(82,383 posts)You would have to convince most of the party members on the issues to be further left.
I don't see that being done. All I see is complaint or condemnation or party members for not being "left" enough.
Convince the other party members that candidates with stands farther to left can win in the House, Senate, state offices.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)But, of course, whenever progressives try to do THAT, or even contemplate it, the project draws a storm of outrage from the more establishment Democrats.
Somehow, the plea for unity always seems to mean, in practice, "Everyone should just agree with me and then we'll have unity." The corollary is, "When there's disagreement about issues within the party, it's the people who are to my left who are helping the Republicans."
treestar
(82,383 posts)would it not be up to the person who wants the other nominee to convince the voters to vote for that person. And to convince the Democrats of that district that person can win, so they pick that person in the primary? The Democrats want to win so they can get their issues voted on by a majority in the body in question.
Is there any proof that a "real progressive" could win a Senate race in say WV? The WV Democrats would have to believe that person could beat a Republican. They don't want to hand a seat to the Republicans by running someone the voters there won't go for.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)To take an example of a district more progressive than West Virginia, I've read here that Our Revolution is supporting a primary challenger to Nancy Pelosi. The tactical situation is a bit different because of California's jungle primary, but the basic point is the same. If you think that Pelosi is too conservative and that her very liberal district might well elect a more progressive representative, then you can complain about Pelosi on online message boards, or you can support a candidate who challenges her from the left.
The latter course leaves it up to the voters in that district. Nevertheless, there have been disparaging comments, right here on DU, about this candidacy. My guess is that Pelosi will be re-elected on the first round, without even a runoff against either a Republican or another Democrat. The point, however, is that people who think the district is ready for a more progressive candidate have a perfect right to run. An actual election is the best way to give the voters the choice.
In West Virginia, Joe Manchin is probably losing even less sleep over having a progressive challenger. He's likely to win the primary in a romp, partly because some voters think he'd be the stronger November candidate (as you say) and partly because, even putting aside strength versus the Republican, many of them are conservative Democrats who prefer him as the Senator. Still, there's always the chance of a stunning upset.
Longer term, a failed candidacy that's perceived as too far out there may help lay the groundwork for future success. Some people say that Barry Goldwater's 1964 run, although it ended in a landslide loss, was part of what made possible Reagan's 1980 victory.
mvd
(65,187 posts)creeksneakers2
(7,495 posts)should run candidates in primaries if they want to change the direction of the party. Then we should all support the winners. If those further left refuse to support nominees they have no business participating in the party at all.
TXCritter
(344 posts)The party faithful are unwilling to listen but happy to tell. Unwilling to persuade people to our side but ready to throw away potential allies if they appear to require any amount of work.
Left wing attempts at third parties have proven to be futile, especially at the federal level because the nature of that wing does not march together well. In order for that to happen we need a left wing equivalent of the Koch brothers who are willing to take a long term view and start by building a new left from the local level up. In the end, politics is about power and leverage. Money brings leverage. Money plus strategy = power.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)If we don't start taking a long term view soon.....there may not be anything worth viewing in the long term.
TXCritter
(344 posts)One or more of 'em need to refocus.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...but only to work together for the best possible platform, candidates, and office-holders.