The dividing of Democrats is underway. The latest I've noticed is "Establishment Democrats" . . . .

[Stinky The Clown]

. . . . being spit out as if the term were a phrase of disgust.

Apparently we don't all agree that we need to WIN THE HOUSE before we start rebuilding our party from the bottom up. Can the party be improved? Of course it can. But maybe that is step two, with winning in the midterms being step one. Ya think?

Where does this shit come from?

[ck4829]

1. Where does it come from? The same people who boosted #Walkaway

[sellitman]

2. Russian Bots are good.

We must be smarter this time.

[Arkansas Granny]

3. For a fact. They know the best way to beat us is to divide us.

We can't let that happen.

[still_one]

8. "true progressive people"? You mean like those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for

the Democratic nominee in 2016 by either voting third party or not voting?

[tomp]

11. I mean people with true progressive, ie, anti-corporate ideas, NOT influenced by Russian bots.

your idea seems to be that every progressive voter should kow-tow to the increasingly corporate wing of the democratic party because we have no other choice. That is an very old strategy of the democratic "establishment, and an extremely tiresome one at that. Therefore, I don't blame people for exercising their conscience in voting. Would I prefer a different outcome? Sure.

But the democratic "establishment" sooner or later has to reap what it sows. There is no way the democratic party will move left without a fight, probably even with one. What goes unacknowledged by people making arguments such as yours, is that the u.s. was well and truly fucked up prior to trump. Some of us have longer memories, and more principle.

[still_one]

17. Because of divisive bullshit like that we lost two SC nominations, and a racist, sexist, bigot got

elected.

You work within the Democratic party, you don't go to Madison Square Garden in 2000 and say "a vote for Gore is a vote for bush"

or in 2016 say that "the Democratic nominee is worse than trump"

Because those are LIES, whose only purpose IS to divide Democrats

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/15/us/the-2000-campaign-the-green-party-in-nader-supporters-math-gore-equals-bush.html


Every Democratic running for Senate in those critical swing states in 2016 lost to the incumbent, establishment, republican, and by any standard those Democrats were progressive


The Democratic party has NEVER been a monolitic party. The populous in West Virginia is not the same as the populous in California. That was the whole idea behind Howard Dean's successful 50 state strategy.


You don't say because my candidate didn't get the nomination I am going to take my marbles and go home.

[paleotn]

40. And how was it stolen? A significant part of stealing the election....

was extensive Russian psyops focused on diminishing Dem engagement and turnout through divisive memes. Divide and conquer is as old as our species, but still very effective, since for the most part, critical thinking isn't a human strong suit on the right or left. So, the poster you're responding to is correct. It's not always about following news. It's also about digesting it and understand what's going on.

[still_one]

55. There is no doubt the Russian government was involved in undermining our election infrastructure,

and focused on encouraging people either not to vote or vote third party through social media outlets, but as far as I am aware there has been no determination of actual voting machines were infiltrated, and votes got changed.

The DNC hacking, emails, etc. were all part of that campaign to spread disinformation and division among Democrats, but to ignore the contribution of the Comey release of the letter to the republicans in Congress, the media's characterization of it as "the email investigation was being reopened", (which was a lie), just enough self-identified progressives refusing to vote for the Democratic nominee by either voting third party or not voting, and simply the fact that 47% of the populous refused to even vote, leaves quite a lot out of the picture.

In those critical swing states, the Democratic nominee lost by less than 1%, and in those states Jill Stein received about 1% of the votes. In those same states the Democratic candidates running for Senate lost to the incumbent, establishment, republican, by a greater percentage than the Democratic nominee in those respective states.

[still_one]

43. There were a lot of contributing factors, and to ignore the contribution of those

self-identified progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee by either voting for third party or not voting, or ignoring Comey sending a letter to the republicans in Congress 11 days before the election against the orders of the AG, or the media characterizing it as the "email investigation was reopened", which was a LIE, and parading every right wing politician across the television screen propagating that lie, along with the fact that 47% didn't even bother to vote, is willful ignorance.

While there is no doubt that the Russian government were involved in undermining our election infrastructure, including voter processes, as far as I am aware it has not been determined if the actual voting machines were infiltrated, and votes got changed.

[LBM20]

46. Russia and the Comey were definitely PART of it, but there were other reasons too.

[still_one]

57. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[lapucelle]

119. Paul Krugman sounded the warning in September 2016.

Hillary Clinton Gets Gored

Americans of a certain age who follow politics and policy closely still have vivid memories of the 2000 election — bad memories, and not just because the man who lost the popular vote somehow ended up in office. For the campaign leading up to that end game was nightmarish too.

You see, one candidate, George W. Bush, was dishonest in a way that was unprecedented in U.S. politics. Most notably, he proposed big tax cuts for the rich while insisting, in raw denial of arithmetic, that they were targeted for the middle class. These campaign lies presaged what would happen during his administration — an administration that, let us not forget, took America to war on false pretenses.

Yet throughout the campaign most media coverage gave the impression that Mr. Bush was a bluff, straightforward guy, while portraying Al Gore — whose policy proposals added up, and whose critiques of the Bush plan were completely accurate — as slippery and dishonest. Mr. Gore’s mendacity was supposedly demonstrated by trivial anecdotes, none significant, some of them simply false. No, he never claimed to have invented the internet. But the image stuck.

And right now I and many others have the sick, sinking feeling that it’s happening again...

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/opinion/hillary-clinton-gets-gored.html

[rockfordfile]

120. I agree

[Bamahombre]

124. The Midterms are paramount

The country is divided. This we know. Trump is being called by the media, “Teflon Don” because no matter what he does or how bad it is, nothing seems to stick. The Democrats MUST take back either the House, The Senate or both. Or America will continue to slide into a dark abyss. Fight hard my friends for everything we hold dear, as Americans, is at stake!

[fleabiscuit]

154. Would you kindly show me where the media is calling tRump "Teflon Don?" Thanks. nt

[LBM20]

45. NO EXCUSE for not voting or voting 3rd party when the stakes were so high. NONE!

I agree that we want to take corporate influence out of the Dem Party, but in 2016 the stakes were SO high that NO ONE can excuse the mega-stupidity of not voting for Clinton however they chose to not to vote for her. Look at where we are now!! Absolutely ZERO excuse. And as "corporate" as SOME in the Dem Party may have become, the Dems have NEVER been nearly as bad as the R's, and YES, there are DEGREES of things and that matters, BIGTIME.

[WinstonSmith4740]

76. I tend to agree.

But I also think a big part of the problem was complacency. I heard the "I have to vote my ideals" argument in 2016 enough to make me want to puke. In any other year, I could have understood. But we all know that 2016 was very, very different, and as far as I was concerned, it was time to put your vaunted "ideals" aside and do what's best for your country. Exactly what we expect rethugs to do now.

But an awful lot of people stayed home in 2016, because Hillary was supposed to win, right? If my Republican sister could "hold her nose and vote for Hillary", there was no excuse for any Democrat to stay home.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

164. Absolutely, the corporations own both parties, but voting Democratic is absolutely essential

if we ever hope to invoke change. Anyone who voted third party in the last election, as a protest to our candidate, is an absolute fool and ruined any chance of getting corporate cash out of politics... at least in the near term.

[olegramps]

58. You want a party the reflects the GOP lock-step brain dead who just mumble Democrat bad.

Sorry but the very definition of a liberal is the diversity of thought and its tolerance. The exact opposite of the philosophy of the Republican Party that cultivates non-critical adherence. They are a party of robots being manipulated by the extreme wealthy. A major portion of their base consists of undereducated who can be duped to believe anything. I don't see anything that I would care to imitate. I will stay with the free thinkers regardless of their resistance to be led by the nose. As JFK remarked that he had read the definition of "liberal" and said I am proud to be called a liberal. The choice is clear. Read the definition of "conservative" and "liberal" and make the choice.

[lapucelle]

79. Nothing says "cultivating non-critical adherence"

quite like requiring candidates to sign a pledge promising both to adhere to the policy positions of one single long-established politician AND to relinquish autonomy over their campaigns to the control of the organization. Sounds like lockstep to me.

How much say in the campaign will candidates have?

BNC candidates will make remarkably few unilateral decisions about how to staff or run their campaign. In fact, they will make almost no decisions about their campaign. The one exception is their own personal stump speech and the way that they communicate the BNC platform to their district, which they will work on personally with BNC staff.

To be a BNC candidate, they have to believe that being a team player is their best chance of winning, and that their team is the BNC, not their own collection of friends, family and other advisors.

Bingo indeed.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180131081034/http://brandnewcongress.org/faqs/

[olegramps]

91. That is a remarkable mistaken conclusion of the party and its candidates.

The Democratic party has a platform that is drawn up and published. If a candidate wishes to be a member of the party they have an opportunity to express their acceptance of rejection of any issue. This was amply demonstrated by Sanders, who joined and ran as a Democrat. He objected to super delegates, which I also have opposed at the state and national conventions. Thankfully this has been corrected very recently. Candidates running under the Democratic banner are often, an understatement, at odds with the party platform. Compare this to the actual terms of the Republilcan Party that demands acceptance on a number key issues and will withdrawn their national support if the candidate publically rejects them. Republicans have demonstated that they put party loyality above the welfare of the nation on literally hundreds of votes. I challenge anyone to make a similar charge against Democrats.

[lapucelle]

96. It is an entirely accurate statement concerning all Brand New Congress candidates.

Whether they are running as Democrats, Republicans, or Independents, Brand New Congress candidates must sign a pledge and relinquish control of their campaigns. And yes, in some states they are seeking to run against Democrats in general election races. I have no respect for this group and question the judgment of any candidate who runs under their banner.

I would trust the sincerity of the "principled stand" concerning super delegates more if BS had refused to accept his own super delegate status when it was proffered and if he had more forcefully condemned his faction's attempt to undo the will of the voters via the super delegates when he was running as a member of the Democratic party.

[AtomicKitten]

138. Some are confusing an endorsement with "relinquishing control of their campaigns.'

Most progressives have been endorsed by Our Revolution, Justice Democrats, and Brand New Congress. What they have in common is getting money out of politics. The only pledge they've made is to not take corporate PAC money. The rest of the progressive platform includes a $15 minimum wage tied to inflation, Medicare4All, fully funded public schools and universities, federal jobs guarantee, housing and healthcare as a human right, justice system and immigration reform, action on climate change, and campaign finance reform. Some candidates embrace all these endeavors, others don't. These are the decisions they make in their own campaigns.

[George II]

99. So BNC candidates have little to no say in their campaigns?

[lapucelle]

109. They can write their own stump speech,

but it's subject to oversight, revision, and approval by the BNC staff.

I wonder why BNC scrubbed their website to remove access to information that pesky voters or hoodwinked donors might find illuminating. Thank goodness for archives and screenshots, or you'd only see pages like this:

https://brandnewcongress.org/faqs/

instead of information like this:

https://web.archive.org/web/20171217034358/http://brandnewcongress.org:80/faqs/

https://web.archive.org/web/20180131081034/http://brandnewcongress.org/faqs/

[George II]

112. Well, that coupled with their lack of success so far this year, if I were a candidate....

....I certainly wouldn't want their support.

They've endorsed 26 candidates this year, 14 of which have been through their primary already.

12 have lost with an average of 21% of the vote, only 3 have won.

[lapucelle]

113. They're also running a Republican-turned-Independent against the Democrat

and the Republican in an open seat race in Tennessee.

[George II]

118. They supported a republican in Arkansas earlier in the year, too, who lost.

[suprcali]

101. idealistic

After the DNC was hacked, trump's side made a big move into suppressing Clinton's votes.

Their major voter suppression targeted: idealistic white liberals, young women, and African Americans.

HRC lost in a smaller margin of key states.

[Hortensis]

123. Tomp, imo, your view of Democrats is badly warped.

There is no "corporate wing" as you imagine it and all Democrats but some (only some) of the blue dogs are progressives. We do believe in working with conservatives to arrive at common agreements -- because our representative democratic republic form of government must represent the people or fall, and quickly.

Progressivism is belief in using the power of government to advance society and solve problems too large or unprofitable for individuals and private organizations to take on.

Our Declaration of Independence's definition of the nation to be formed that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights is intrinsically progressive.

The government our nation was founded with is, as Abraham Lincoln summarized it, "government of, by and for the people," also intrinsically progressive by its representative structure. Critically, it cannot be of just one faction imposing its views on all others, but "of the people." Our democracy.

President Lincoln had his problems with corporate issues back then also, btw, but he wasn't a great president because he didn't know who his fellow progressives were. That peculiar dysfunction is for dissenting zealots; and, yes, those were there causing Lincoln trouble in those days also.

[Cha]

141. Oh BULL, tomp. "establishment" is just a broad brush

insult gratuitously hurled at every Democrat who is not on the OR list.

glenn fucking greenwald tries to paint Sharice Davids as "establishment" because Emily's List Endorsed her. But it's NOT working.

Link to tweet

That's so nice that you can tout your "principles" as being more than our principles. But, I disagree.. I don't think so. Not at all.

[sheshe2]

142. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Brava Cha!

[Cha]

143. Gracias, she!

[sheshe2]

144. Welcome...

[fleabiscuit]

160. Yup.

[sheshe2]

161. Hey, flea.

I am not chatty tonight, tired.

Luv ya~

[fleabiscuit]

159. +1

[Cha]

163. Aloha, flea!

Mahalo

[betsuni]

145. Republicans are the corporate party.

Old tiresome talking points: that Democrats are not progressive, would be just like Republicans unless pushed kicking and screaming toward the Left by the True Progressives. Everybody knows the last Democratic Party platform was the most progressive in history. What are you even talking about? Does anyone actually fall for this crap?

[tonyt53]

52. BINGO!!!

[wasupaloopa]

9. It is one party with various points of view.

We don’t need some “more progressive than thou” saints dividing us.

We all need to vote Dem in November to regain power before we can do anything.

None of us stands a chance in our self described factions.

[tomp]

12. That's the problem.

It's a group of such varied and counterposed opinion that is divided inherently, but the corporate wing of it always leads and ultimately gets its corporate way. You can't blame the left wing of it for being royally pissed off at being underrepresented.

And y'all are only talking about November 2018. Assume for a moment we win the House and/or Senate in November. What does the Democratic party do then? I'll bet a significant amount of cash that it goes back to conciliation with the repubs as it historically has, leaving true progressive action "off the table." What do you advise the left wing do about that?

[paleotn]

48. Horseshit!

This is the same horse shit spewed throughout the 2016 cycle. Dear freaking god, there's inches of difference within the Democratic party on the vast majority of issues. Yards in some cases. But compared to the modern right, there's light years between all Dems and the Rethugs. Perspective folks. Keep things in damn perspective.

[LBM20]

51. Please stop it. Most Dems are very close on most issues. A national party needs to be a big

tent party. California is not the same as West Virginia which is not the same as Massachusetts. Please, enough of the divisiveness.

[kcr]

54. I blame the "left wing" being discussed

because it whips up a frenzy of anger against all the other factions, but it isn't actually much different. It's bullshit and I wish more lefties who actually know what real leftism is would speak out against this fraud. The people behind this movement are often ex-Republicans. One of them is even still being backed by a Republican. That tells me the real intent behind most of this movement. Bernie Sanders should feel ashamed of himself.

[wasupaloopa]

84. We have a whole list of issues brought up

in 2016 such as free tuition, universal health care, $15 minimum wage, income inequality and tons more we can work on.

We won’t get them passed trump but we can get a lot of the work done for 2020.

[Sophia4]

131. We don't need "more conservative or more anything than thou" saints dividing us either.

We need more talk about the issues we all agree on and less talk about those we don't agree on.

[Snotcicles]

13. Isn't it odd how "for the sake of party unity" always favor's the calcified old guard?

If you aren't willing to support a successful change candidate that is issue aligned, you have no business talking about division or unity. IMO

[still_one]

23. Funny about that, the DNC platform committee which included voices different voices, incorporated

raising the minimum wage, climate change, healthcare reform, more strict regulation of wall street, etc.

When Sanders endorsed the Democratic nominee on July 12, 2016, he PERSONALLY indicated his approval of the platform saying, that it was a significant coming together, and how we must all work together to see that it is implemented.


Shortly after that, Cornell West who was part of that Committee in the interest of unity said that he would NOT support the Democratic nominee, and would instead vote for Jill Stein. (sarcasm)


Other so-called self-identified progressives expressed the same sentiment, by either voting third party or not voting.

You didn't have to have many who shared that view point contribute to what happened in 2016 either.


Every Democrat running for Senate in the critical swing states lost to the establishment, incumbent, republicans, and most of those Democrats by any standard were progressive.

[CentralMass]

64. The 2016 election was compared against recent elections and it was found

that voters who voted for Bernie in the primary voted for Hillary in the general by a 2:1 margin over Hillary voters in 2008 who voted for Senator Obama in the general when she lost. They voted for John McCain. This study also indicated these Bernie voters who did not voter for Hillary did not identify as Dem voters to begin with. Meaning they were never going to vote for her to begin with.

[still_one]

75. I didn't say that those who supported Bernie in the primary didn't vote for the Democratic nominee.

The vast majority of Sanders supporters did vote for the Democratic nominee in 2016.

What I did say was that there were just enough "self-identified progressives" who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee by either voting third party or not voting.

Within that group of those who supported Bernie there were some who were registsered as Democrats, and who did not vote for the Democratic nominee. The majority of Sanders supporters did vote for the Democratic nominee, but it didn't take very many not to vote for the Democratic nominee to influenece the results.

The data I am presenting are based on the actual final results in those critical swing states. Those that voted for Jill Stein in those states amounted to about 1%, while the Democratic nominee lost by less than 1% in each of those swing states. That doesn't even factor in those that didn't bother to vote.

In those same swing states every Democrat running for Senate lost to the incumbent republican, by a larger percentage than the Democratic nominee lost, and those Democrats by any standard were progressive.

[appalachiablue]

105. Democrats must be united now, more than ever. No division!

[still_one]

114. I agree

[Cheviteau]

65. Wow !

I'm as progressive as they come. I'm not ready to tell anyone who finds a different candidate to vote for to STFU. Each voter gets to make his/her own choice. What you have posted reads like a missive straight from the GRU. It is you sowing discord. I will vote in this next election for the democrat who I believe has the best chance to win. The importance of that cannot be overstated. If that candidate is from the "Calcified Old Guard", so be it. Once in office, I will make my voice heard on issues that I think are important to we progressives out here.

[joshcryer]

77. This ageist shit needs to stop.

[Voltaire2]

81. 43,567 posts about how young and inexperienced Ocasio-Cortez

is on this board, but “old guard” is too ageist.

No, I made that number up.

[Qutzupalotl]

88. "Old guard" IS ageist because it ignores the value of experience.

“Young” is not a slur and in this case “inexperienced” is just a fact.

[joshcryer]

92. I want new faces, that's without a doubt.

I just don't want to throw career politicians under the fucking bus because of some mythological reason that they're somehow bad. It's narrative building and ratfucking.

[pazzyanne]

31. Sorry, I find this post offensive!

Talk about divisiveness. You do realize that there are many points of view and yours is not the "right" view, just one of the many. When you narrowly define what being a Democrat is, you lose Democrats and fall into the republican plan to split the party IMHO.

[Magoo48]

36. Thank you, tomp....

I’ve developed my opinions about establishment democrats over many, many years of watching them miss opportunities, side with the opposition, stall, wait, and procrastinate. I vote Democratic, but my progressive views are stronger as time and chances for real progress pass us by. I’ve been a Democrat all my life, and I’m 70 now. In the working class, union strong, neighborhoods I came from we seemed to be more progressive and I like it. That doesn’t make me less of a Democrat.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

63. No Magoo, it doesn't make you LESS of a Democrat... maybe MORE of one!!

[Voltaire2]

82. Our pleas fall on deaf ears.

The long decline of the Democratic Party is now all blamed on the Russians.

[yardwork]

44. With all respect, I doubt any of us recognize the propaganda we're reading.

We are all being influenced in many insidious ways to believe negative things about Democrats. If you are walking around preoccupied with negative thoughts about Democrats, do frequent reality checks for yourself and give your sources of information some healthy skepticism.

Also, be sure you understand how the lawmaking process works in Congress.

[Cha]

4. Those spitting out "establishment"

are tired and stale. That's all they have is a so-called slur..

These are Democratic candidates, leaders, and organizations who have experience and are well regarded.. greenwald and his RF bunch have been calling Sharice Davids "establishment" because Emily's List has endorsed her.

They think it's going to work because they spew it.. newsFLASH! It's NOT.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. This is pretty much normal. It's really best to ignore what "Democrats" are doing and...

just concentrate on your local races.

I've got 2 Democratic Senators and one Republican House member to worry about, along with a bundle of town and county people. I don't have the time, money, or connections to worry about much more.

Quite frankly, our "heroes of the left" are just not as sellable in vast parts of the country as Republican rightwingers. But we keep trying.

[bigtree]

33. that's what the GOP has been doing

...I saw yesterday that Dem party leaders are also promoting a 'local' strategy focusing on bread and butter issues like healthcare.

I think this is absolutely going to be what we face in the fall. We can't assume these races are nationalized, even though there is a good bit of advantage in having such an ominous threat from the WH.

[YOHABLO]

7. We're not that divided: We agree on many things. We can join together to win.

[betsuni]

10. I've asked for years what "Establishment" means.

Status-quo-corruption-corporatist-DNC-rigging nonsense is the answer. They need new propaganda words. Just because there are a few conservative Democrats doesn't mean all are. Ridiculous.

Also too, getting tired of pseudo anti-capitalism. The United States is capitalist through and through. Know your own country. Unregulated capitalism is the problem and that's obviously a Republican thing.

[lapucelle]

14. It's not just Russian bots.

"Establishment" is an invective of choice (along with "corporatist" and "centrist" ) of Brand New Congress and Justice Democrats.

While there was an early course correction concerning Planned Parenthood constituting part of the "the political establishment", the irony of painting some long term legislators as "establishment" while celebrating others who have been in Congress for decades (voting with the "establishment" 95-99 percent of the time) as "fiery independents" is lost on certain rebels without a clue.

[Cha]

15. "Rebels without a clue"..

Good description, lapucelle.

[lapucelle]

21. ...

Voters who take advice from Cenk Uygur, Nina Turner and Susan Sarandon, et alia.

Mahalo!

[Stinky The Clown]

103. This!!!

[aikoaiko]

20. Right, because there is no difference between...

...those who have worked there way into and have now existed within the inner circle of power of the party and someone who has intentionally existed outside that circle while serving their constituency and impacting the political conversation in the Senate.

Without a clue indeed.

[George II]

50. And Our Revolution, too.

[lapucelle]

73. It's hard to take Our Revolution seriously.

They jumped on the Stacey Abrams bandwagon after "centrist organization"* Emily's List endorsed in the hope of grabbing some of the credit.

* Someone on this board dismissed Emily's List as a "centrist organization" just a few days ago.

[George II]

86. I've noticed that they've endorsed some sure winners just days before the primary....

....or special election. I suspect that's so they can get their success rate up and look more "credible.

[betsuni]

146. Rebels without a clue!

[dalton99a]

16. Fuck that noise. A Democrat is a Democrat. GOTV

Every Democrat counts. The worst Democrat is infinitely better than the best Republican.

[NCTraveler]

29. +1 nt

[paleotn]

53. Bingo!

[True_Blue]

108. +1000

[Voltaire2]

18. There are plenty here attacking the left wing of the party

do you not see that? Or does that somehow not matter?

[lapucelle]

25. I don't think Brand New Congress is necessarily

the left wing of the Democratic party. If it were, they wouldn't run Republican candidates and former Republicans turned newly-minted independents with the goal of defeating Democrats in the general election in November. Brand New Congress has done and is currently doing just that.

I don't think it's untoward to question the judgement of candidates affiliated with that organization.

[George II]

87. Nor is Our Revolution. Their president, Nina Turner, has said more than once that they're open....

....to endorsing republicans. Here's one example in The Nation:

https://www.thenation.com/article/nina-turner-it-is-not-our-job-to-fit-into-the-democratic-establishment/

[lapucelle]

98. I'm going to take advantage of one of Nina's recent attempts to fit in

here on LI as I canvass for Liuba. If I meet up with any fiery warriors who are suspicious of Liuba because of endorsements from local, NYS, and national "establishment" Democrats , the "calcified old guard" at NOW and Planned Parenthood , the "corporatists" at the UAW , and the "centrist organization" Emily's List , I'm going to pull out that late-breaking Our Revolution endorsement to set

their simple minds at ease and hopefully get them to help flip Peter King's seat blue.

[BeyondGeography]

30. +1...The "spitting out" of "AOC," e.g.

Pot, kettle, etc.

[Duppers]

32. True. NT

[aikoaiko]

19. Wow. Let's include all the hate for Bernie Sanders and his supporters in this discussion.

Since we're getting on the soapbox.

We need the whole spectrum of people from the left to the moderate middle to vote for Democrats.

"Establishment" has been used as a pejorative for a while. Weird that you haven't noticed.

[DemocracyMouse]

24. Cut it out you silly dividers!

All Democrats have ESTABLISHED that they are PROGRESSIVE.

Now get back to work promoting the raising of minimum wage, protecting our air and water, promoting humane immigration bills, etc.

Don't fall for divisive talk! We're the best party out there because all sides listen to each other's IDEAS and fold them into a continuously evolving party.

[pazzyanne]

41. Agree, DemocracyMouse.

We need to keep our eyes on the prize and not be criticizing those who are marching with us.

[NCTraveler]

28. I'm hoping that Sanders isn't the next entrenched establishment candidate they set their eyes on. nt

[aikoaiko]

34. By definition he can't be an example of Democratic party establishment.

[NCTraveler]

37. I didn't use the word Democratic.

This does clear up why the op thinks this is necessary. There is a group that really just wants to define Democrats and Democrats only as established and entrenched. My comment above stands accurate with respect do its defining aspects.

[aikoaiko]

49. It was always about the Democrat inner power circle...

...and their resistance to change. It was not about time in public office.

[betsuni]

56. "inner power circle"

Is that like "deep state"?

[OilemFirchen]

60. Of course.

In much the same way that "Democrat" is an adjective.

[betsuni]

62. Heh.

[aikoaiko]

61. No. Of course not.

The Deep State accusation has little to do with elected officials.

[betsuni]

67. Oh. Does Teh Deep State mean Obamas and Clintons?

But ... I thought one of the big objections to Democrats like Obama and Hillary was that they "evolved" on issues. Why claim Democrats have a problem with "resistance to change" then?

[aikoaiko]

70. No, the Deep State doesn't involve retired elected officials either.

Here's a wiki link so that you can begin your education. I advise digging through the references, too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_state_in_the_United_States

[betsuni]

74. "so that you can begin your education"

[aikoaiko]

80. I know, educating yourself on a topic is funny, right?

[betsuni]

83. Hey, love child.

Hey, nonny no!
Men are fools that wish to die!
Is't not fine to dance and sing
When the bells of death do ring?
Is't not fine to swim in wine,
And turn upon the toe,
And sing, Hey, nonny no!
When the winds blow and the seas flow?
Hey, nonny no!

[MrsCoffee]

132. But he sure has benefited from his definition of Democratic Party establishment.

As long as "the fix" is in for him, it's quite alright.

He is the epitome of hypocrisy.

[aikoaiko]

133. What's his definition of Democratic party establishment?

What fix are you talking about?

[karin_sj]

93. That's for damn sure

Every time I see a Bernie bashing thread (and there have been MANY!), I am reminded of the months building up to the election where there was an all out war being fought online (on Facebook, Twitter, and yes, HERE) between the Hillary supporters and the Sanders supporters. I am convinced that this all out war was primarily being pushed/encouraged/inflamed by those who wanted to divide our party and push Bernie supporters into not voting or voting for Jill Stein.

Now, it's a war between the "progressive Democrat" vs. the "establishment Democrat." We desperately need to flip the House and the Senate this November. There WILL be voter suppression, election machine tampering, and other shenanigans. To counter this, we need to stay united and turn out in such great numbers that they cannot steal this election from us like they have so many others.

We need to vote for the Democrat on the ballot and if there is more than one, we need to vote for the one with the best chance of beating the Republican candidate.

We cannot let this happen again!

[Power 2 the People]

100. YES YES YES

Agree 100%

[True_Blue]

110. +1000! We absolutely must keep our eye on the ball this time

There's always been hard feelings after a primary, but this time the Russians were there to use and exploit it to their advantage. We simply can't let them manipulate us like that again. America is in danger of becoming a sattelite state of Russia. Our only focus right now should be voting these Republican Russian traitors out of office.

[MrsCoffee]

173. Who the hell do you think is waging the "progressive Democrat" vs. the "establishment Democrat" war?

Bernie is the last person I would ever look to for unity. Period. He and his revengelution are the most divisive thing to happen to the Democratic Party in ages.

[NCTraveler]

26. Most of it that I see....

Comes from supporters of one of the most entrenched and establishment Senators there is.

Pretty obvious.

[bigtree]

35. yeah, who needs those guys, anyway?

...

[NCTraveler]

39. What guys?

And why are you referencing the needs of some "guys"? I can't make the attachment as a reply to what I actually posted.

[Farmer-Rick]

27. You can hav all the unity in the world but unless you have a plan to overcome the Russian/Republicon

Cheat machine, it means nothing.

[yardwork]

38. It's clear to me that Putin is funding this divisiveness, whether folks realize it or not.

It's been happening for a long time. In 2000 I heard that "there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats." We see where that got us, but some people never learn.

[EffieBlack]

42. The Establishment smear is pure bull

Why is "establishment" a bad thing? Aren't we supposed to be trying to ESTABLISH ourselves into positions of power so that we can affect change and make a difference?

But for some reason, we've allowed ourselves to be convinced that the minute a progressive gets to a place where they can actually accomplish something, we must taint them with the "Establishment" smear and then demand they be booted out and replaced with a "non-establishment" outsider.

[JCanete]

107. There are all kinds of reasons why establishment can be a problem because often it

comes with a regressive element of liking the status quo...of benefitting from it. I agree, that you need to actually have power to effect change. But if the power you are drawing on to get elected gets in the way of you effecting change, then who actually is in power? Money in politics is a HUGE problem and its not just a sickness that effects politics on the right.

And the less viable republicans become in any given season, the more money will go to likely winners with D's behind their names, and that money will be intended to drown out candidates who are more "hostile" to these special interests. You will not ever see money from big business go to candidates who are the least favorable to those businesses. That will never happen. And yet tons of money comes in, so what does that say to you?

I'm not sure why you are so dismissive of this issue. I do think there's a worthy debate to be had, that we should continue to have as to whether or not the democratic establishment approach to holding onto power has been our only salvation or whether it has undermined our ability to fight the forces that are eroding our democracy. In fact, I'm somewhat conflicted on the answer, and the truth of the matter is probably more nuanced.

[xmas74]

166. We both know "establishment" is the perfect

Smear to use when your organization is supporting an inexperienced candidate against a candidate whose record is more liberal than Sanders.

*cough*Cori Bush

[DemocracyMouse]

47. We shall overcome.... together

All Democrats have ESTABLISHED that they are PROGRESSIVE.

Now get back to work promoting the raising of minimum wage, protecting our air and water, promoting humane immigration bills, etc.

Don't fall for divisive talk! We're the best party out there because all sides listen to each other's IDEAS and fold them into a continuously evolving party.

[spooky3]

59. Can someone please define "corporate Democrats" and

“Establishment Democrats”?

[betsuni]

72. Imaginary creatures.

Like on medieval maps.

[George II]

90. I've been waiting for those definitions for about a decade. None forthcoming.

[BannonsLiver]

115. Those who can actually win general elections.

[docgee]

68. Think about it this way...

If a more progressive Dem wins a primary, all the 'establishment' Dems will absolutely vote for the progressive candidate. Can't progressive voters do the same? Protest voting is bullshit. If a progressive candidate can't win a primary or get on the ballot, they sure as hell will lose to the Repug. We need to push our progressive ideas within the party by campaigning for them. Not protesting the party.

[G_j]

69. "The dividing of Democrats is underway"

as evidenced by this thread, just another vehicle for infighting.

[Kaleva]

78. There is division only for those who want division within the party

I see the primaries as something akin to pro football summer camp. The primary elections are the final cut and while one may be disappointed that their favorite player(s) didn't make the roster, we still go out and root for the team and players when the regular season begins.

[beachbum bob]

85. The correct heading is ATTEMPTS to divide democrats

all we do is to ignore and continue the push for a November blue tidal wave

[elmac]

89. No matter what label Democrats are given

there needs to be an organized front, movement to attack the fascist's every day. Demonstrating on the House floor is a good example. Labels don't matter if the base isn't energized enough to vote. Something like 3 million progressives who voted for Obama didn't bother voting in the last election. When the fascists are removing millions of people from voting polls we need all the votes we can get.

[MaryMagdaline]

94. I am an older Dem, age 59

I laughed at Bernie voters who did not register as Dems and found out that in my state, they could not vote in the Democratic Primary. By “laugh,” I mean bitter laughter. I knew their rage against the establishment would hurt us in the general if they felt a cold shoulder from the party (as if the DNC, rather than the states, made the rules to purposely prevent them from voting for Bernie)

I think Progressives, who are just liberals who hate old liberals, need to entice people to register as Dems, show them that they can participate in the primaries, cause more progressives to win the primaries, and grow the base by gathering up non-voters into the party.

Old liberals should tell young prigressives that we are here to help transfer power to the new generation. Whatever it takes.

The key is to get NON-VOTERS to vote. Give them something to be excited about. Unfortunately, our voters will not accept voting for sake of civic duty. They have to be excited. Just a realty I’ve come to accept. Fighting fascism is just not enough to get them to vote.

[RandomAccess]

95. Oh, please

The term has been around for at least several election cycles, and it's NOT an effort to "divide Democrats," altho the way you're using it helps accomplish that.

If you want to call for unity, best not to start by dividing people and pointing fingers.

Where indeed does this shit come from?

[gulliver]

97. Yep, it's divisive BS.

[JCanete]

102. It comes from a sense that a whole systematic issue has led us to where we are, and that is money

in politics, and the fact that money doesn't give a shit whether you have an r or a d behind your name, nor how principled the candidate taking the funding is. It simply goes to the candidates most aligned with those special interests and helps them bury potential opposition in their dust, particularly left-wing opposition. So I see the place where that disdain comes from, even if I think that our democrats, moderate(establishment) and otherwise, are typically attempting to work towards the same things, but with very different tactics. Ultimately though, the question is, what tactic is effective? Here we have a serious ideological divide.

Some of us think we've lost too much playing nice with big money...that we are where we are because of it.

Others think we would be far worse off had we attempted to shirk what is effectively the tool required to get elected and effect any kind of change whatsoever.

I certainly agree that we don't need to be nasty about one another when it comes to hashing out our disagreements. We don't need to accuse more corporate friendly dems of being bought, nor more progressive dems of trying to get democrats to lose come the GE. But there's a shitload of bitterness on both sides so...

[True_Blue]

104. At minimum we need the House

We absolutely must remove the Russian spy we currently have occupying our WH and we need the House at minimum to do that. It's also blatantly obvious that the majority of Republicans have been compromised by Putin as well. If we don't clear out this treasonous rot in the midterms, then we might not have an America left by 2020. We are in the epic battle of our lives for the very soul of our Country! I can't remember a more critical midterm election than this one and I'm pretty old.

[Initech]

106. There's also been an attempt to divide the LGBT community.

One of the recent Pride events got interrupted with a group of lesbian women protesting against trans women. I tell you, Putin's got his tentacles everywhere, and it's going to get worse before it gets.

[Hekate]

111. I just exited a thread that started out excitedly quoting Cenk Uighur on Bernie's 2020 chances...

Apparently he is absolutely going to walk away with the presidential election.

Yippee.

Even more exciting was the presence of a newbie and a bunch of old DUers who enthusiastically agreed with that assessment.

So, Stinky, it has already begun on DU.

[mcar]

116. The same people who call Planned Parenthood "establishment"

[tammywammy]

117. +1

[OilemFirchen]

121. Yes, you see a lot of it upthread.

"Monied special interests" and the horrible politicians who are their beneficiaries. Money from, for example, Planned Parenthood. Money from NARAL. Money from the AFL-CIO. For special interests like womens' health and workers' rights.

Here, for example, is a list of endorsements for Joe Crowley:

https://crowleyforcongress.com/?page_id=467

Just look at the corruption! The SEIU! The CWA! Steamfitters Union! Working Families! NARAL! Planned Parenthood! The Sierra Club! New York State Immigration Action! Muslim Democratic Club of New York! Stonewall Democrats of NYC! The Human Rights Campaign!

That's just a sampling of The Establishment ™ which AOC had to fight against.

Thank dog we have her darting about the country protecting us from The MAN.

[mcar]

122. The Steamfitters Union?

Well, that's it then. Hopelessly establishment.

[OilemFirchen]

125. I know. It's sad.

When I see these guys in their three-piece suits, driving their Humvess to Ruth's Chris, it makes me cry.

That's why I do my own boiler work these days. I ain't gonna live on Maggie's Rich Uncle's farm no more.

[mcar]

126. ...

[Stinky The Clown]

128. Yours should be its own OP

And I would give it the first Rec.

[Sophia4]

127. We need reform in our party and we also need to win this Fall.

If we work together and stop the backbiting and circular gun squad, we can do both.

We should all support the Democratic candidates who win in a fair primary. We don't need to divide our Party into incumbents and challengers. The candidate who wins the primary gets our support.

[Stinky The Clown]

129. Would that it were so simple

[Sophia4]

130. If Democrats want to win in November, our leadership needs to make an effort to insure

that all Democrats feel that the primaries and campaigns are run fairly and that all Democrats are welcome to help get out the vote.

It is very simple.

We accept each other. We are all in this together.

It is very, very simple.

[Adrahil]

165. I'm Good with that... how about we start by...

Not vilifying "establishment" Democrats?

[Sophia4]

171. How about not vilifying any Democrats?

How about being the Party of good ideas and not vilifying anyone.

We can disagree without vilifying.

[Adrahil]

174. Like I said, I'm good with that. But I will call out those who....

...can't seem to do that.

It' is one thing, for example, to primary an incumbent in your own district.

But IMO, such a candidate supporting primaries in OTHER districts is going too far, except under extraordinary circumstances.

[Sophia4]

175. Am I reading you right? Are you saying that all Democratic incumbents deserve our support

no matter whether we agree with them on issues and ethics or not?

Are you saying that we should never support change outside our own district?

So if I live in California and support Elizabeth Warren or someone who runs against her, I would be wrong? Is that what you are saying?

What if someone from Massachusetts supported Kevin de Leon against Dianne Feinstein (I haven't decided yet who I will vote for in that race), that would be wrong? But if they supported Feinstein against de Leon, it would be all right?

Status quo all the way around in every district other than your own?

Never support change anywhere outside your own bailiwick?

Is that what you are saying?

[Eko]

134. When someone uses establishment democrats in a negative way

I know exactly who I am dealing with, and they aren't a friend of the Democratic party.

[LAS14]

135. Yup, hardly anything more important than winning the mid-terms.

Put other stuff on the back burner, please. The competitor in importance is winning state-house seats in gerrymandered states. Please support the National Democratic Redistricting Committe - started by Barack Obama and Eric Holder.

https://democraticredistricting.com/

[Algernon Moncrieff]

136. Congressional and Senate elections involve primaries. Primaries are necessarily divisive.

Primaries, by definition, pit party members against one another.

Midterm primaries in the election in which the opposition party occupies the White House tend to move the party away from the center. We saw this with the Newt Gingrich "Contract with America" election in '94 and the "Tea Party Express" election in '10. In both instances, the Republicans moved further right. 2002 was an exception for our side because of 9-11.

Most members here agree broadly on probably 80-90% of issues. The debate over primaries and (secondarily) who should be the standard bearer in 2020 make us seem more divided than we are.

[elleng]

137. From many places, it appears, including russians, divide and conquer, of course.

Iit seems many Dems and progressives and independents (and reps) can't handle the broad base of a real Democratic party, can't handle fact that we ALL need ALL of us, so many pick fights.

[DeminPennswoods]

139. Tune it out

The media wants a story line for the mid-terms, so it's the old standby "Dems are divided". Look around you and look at the election results. Dems aren't divided. We are focused on electing candidates up and down the ballot. For ex, when Conor Lamb ended up as the "incumbent" in the new PA-17, ALL the candidates who had filed and were running against Rothfus in the old PA-12 withdrew and backed Lamb. This is happening all over the country.

Voters will decide contested primaries, then Dems will get behind whoever the candidate is.

[jimlup]

140. That shit comes from the evil brains

the moron rank and file don't know such sophisticate terms as "establishment dems"

[betsuni]

148. Somebody accusing you of "hippie-punching" in 3...2...1

[brush]

150. That's okay. It's history and it's true. It's also an effective tool to divide...

Democrats.

[betsuni]

153. I thank everyone who pushes back against this tired "establishment" propaganda.

Hoping it doesn't work so well this time because everyone's getting sick of it.

[JI7]

155. especially when it's pushed by and in support of

someone who has been in DC for decades .

[betsuni]

157. Too much irony. Need a new word for this much irony.

[BlueWI]

149. What a tired topic

at a pivotal time. Why stir the pot over this non-issue?

[Cha]

151. Because.. it's Not an non-issue. It's reality.

[BlueWI]

158. We'll, it is a primary season. That's reality.

There is competition for nominations and more candidates than ever who are speaking up for long-marginalized Democratic constituencies.

There's a president mired in scandal and corruption and this has heightened the importance of the midterms for Democrats.

And there's lots of anti-incumbency. Thus the familiar and common phrase establishment Democrat is used sometimes to distinguish between candidates.

At the end of the day, debate the issues and win. If you're an incumbent, run on your record and show clearly why experience has a payoff.

If you're a new candidate, explain your qualifications and why a change is warranted.

Welcome the debate, keep it fair, work together after primary season and win in November.

Meanwhile, establishment Democrats is a common phrase. It's not going away, and it's not going to decide this election unless dissenting viewpoints about incumbents are shamed into silence. Embrace the big tent, expand the base, and win!

[Cha]

162. Yeah, they use that tired, stale word "establishment"

to broad brush and gratuitously slur anyone who isn't in their select OR group.. like glenn greenwald tries to slur Sharice Davids with "establishment".. Not Working.

Link to tweet

[BlueWI]

167. Too much scapegoating, Cha.

If this discussion is strictly to vent about OR, I am out.

I just don't see establishment Democrat as a phrase with the potency as you perceive it.

[Cha]

169. Yeah, Goodbye! I can speak out about

what I want to.

[BlueWI]

170. No doubt.

[kimbutgar]

152. Only ones using that phase are trying to divide us

[fleabiscuit]

156. +1

[AlexSFCA]

168. urgent need for public education campaign on ongoing exteral efforts to divide us

[pnwmom]

172. It's no accident that Tad Devine and Paul Manafort had both their candidates

rail against the "establishment" (after working together on a campaign for a pro-Putin Ukrainian). That when Bernie got done railing against Hillary and the establishment, that Trump picked up the call.

And its no coincidence, in my opinion, that Tad Devine was emailing requests in June 2014 to Konstantin Kilminik for "talking points." And that Bernie announced his hiring in November.

I don't think that Bernie was complicit. But I don't see how Devine wouldn't have understood who he was dealing with in KK.

[brooklynite]

176. How is this different from disdain of "corportate Democrats" or "DINO's"

Both phrases have been in fashion around here.

[underthematrix]

177. I think this upcoming election is pretty siimple

You're either with America which means you vote for every DEMOCRAT on the ballot or you're Putin and vote Republican.