'Third Way,' 'corporate,' 'DLC,' Oh, my!

[MineralMan]

Out come the shibboleths to attack incumbent Democrats running for re-election. It's 2016 all over again. Already with the name-calling and defeatism.

Enough! Those terms were worn-out long ago as attack words against Democrats.

Please, let's not bring them back to depress voter turnout in 2018. OK? Please!

Voices we haven't heard from much since Election Day, 2016, are being heard again, but they're singing the same sad, sorry, losing song they were singing back then.

We need to win back control of Congress, folks. Period. Let's not fuck that up, shall we?

[Squinch]

1. Kick. I propose we ignore those "returning" posters, not

join the clearly divisive threads, and hope the nonsense whithers away.

We have more important things to do than feed the trollery.

[peggysue2]

7. This!

I know it's hard but ignoring the clearly divisive OP's is definitely the best road to trek. We need to save our energy for the important stuff, as in winning massively in November.

There's just too much to lose by playing these endless games. And if people didn't learn how damaging this nonsense is after the 2016 debacle?

Then they're willfully blind.

Eyes on the Prize!

[olegramps]

36. Its the same old problem. Trying to herd Democrats is like herding cats. Its the nature of the beast

[Squinch]

38. I don't believe they're Democrats, though.

[3Hotdogs]

51. Which ones are divisive? The ones supporting moderate, win at all costs? Or the ones,

elect candidates who might do something if elected?

There is merit for both arguments.

[dansolo]

66. And what exactly will these candidates do if elected?

The plan seems to be to hold legislation hostage if it doesn't meet their exacting standards. Do that and nothing will get done.

[DemocracyMouse]

87. I don't think most progressives are that perfectionist.

This whole thread was divisive and I'm disappointed that DU's editors lifted it into general discussion.

There are great people in both the centrist and progressive zones of the Democratic Party. We need everybody, not one group or the other. We should learn feom each other.

If DU is genuinely interested in thinking through some positions that will inspire BOTH centrist and progressives, then consider this DU link:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210913910

[TomCADem]

177. Once Again, They Are Popping Up Again.

Like clockwork, with attacks on Democrats. Now it is Beto O'Rourke.

[manor321]

2. We're stuck with them for now

Assuming you don't mean primaries, since that is what primaries are for.

Then, yes, there's no way we're getting rid of all anti-progressive Dems in one shot. They should always be voted for over the Republican. We need control of Congress.

[kcr]

15. Primaries are not for dishonest smears that depress turnout

That does not serve democracy, particularly in the age of Trump. And smearing those of us who have a problem with this as simply having a problem with primaries and democracy is especially maddening.

[JustAnotherGen]

3. You know - Tom Malinowski NJ - 7th Candidate

Is an Obama Alumni who has spent a lot of time with the 'old guard' - yet just got an endorsement from Elizabeth Warren.

Third Way Corporate shill is in the eye of the beholder.

And thank you for this post!

[shanny]

4. not just a river in Egypt

[Tommy_Carcetti]

5. You just gave me some flashbacks about former DUers....

...who thought they were way more clever and funny than they actually were.

[3Hotdogs]

53. I will practice some more. I'm the funniest guy I know.

[True Dough]

109. I, for one

relish your humor. You really know how to cut the mustard with your brand of comedy. You're so far ahead of the pack, no one will ever ketchup to you, 3Hotdogs!

[3Hotdogs]

124. Thanx

Every once in a while, someone gets it.

Other times, the post gets flagged.

[Trust Buster]

6. You are correct Mineral Man. THEY ARE BACAAAACK and none the wiser IMO.

[ProfessorPlum]

8. Some Democrats (describe them as you wish) are meeting together to foment fear in the face of

progressive candidates. I find their fear misplaced and laughable.

your mileage may vary.

And I would vote for any one of them over a Republican, any day of the week.

[Squinch]

11. Why don't I ever have a candlestick in the library when I need it?

[murielm99]

17. You posted this:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210913193

Just so there is no confusion.

[bigtree]

30. read the article

...just so there's no confusion.

This effort of theirs to 'counteract' progressives as they work to attract republican voters. That's one cynical strategy.

I like this quote:

"The only narrative that has been articulated in the Democratic Party over the past two years is the one from the left," former Delaware Gov. Jack Markell told NBC News.

and this one:

"You're not going to make me hate somebody just because they're rich. I want to be rich!" Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, a potential presidential candidate, said Friday to laughs.

this one gets me all tingly:

Rep. Cheri Bustos, D-Ill., a member of the House Democratic leadership who represents a district Trump won, invoked Richard Nixon's "silent majority." "If you look throughout the heartland, there's a silent majority who just wants normalcy. Who wants to see that people are going out to Washington to fight for them in a civil way and get something done," she told reporters.

...but hey, 'boo' on the op mentioning the name of the think tank that's referenced in the article. Boo! Hiss!

[3Hotdogs]

55. I see the silent majority every day. I live two blocks from a cemetery.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

86. That reminded me to tell you, "Welcome to DU",...

... I am sorry if I didn't previously.

[murielm99]

56. I stand by what I said.

And I did read the fucking article.

Cheri Bustos is a damn effective legislator. She is beginning to fill leadership positions. She runs training programs to build the bench with new Democrats. And she does the very thing BS and all the so-called progressives whine about us not doing: She gets white working class males to vote for her. Dick Durbin mentored her and that is good enough for me.

There are many of the left who would like to divide our party. You seem to be one of them.

I know what it takes to get votes in this very red, rural area. It takes a Democrat like Cheri.

[Squinch]

58. Boom!

[bigtree]

60. I love the way you feel secure here telling people who disagree with your politics

...that they're 'trying to divide the party.'

There really isn't anything more divisive on this sham of a thread than what you said there.

[murielm99]

64. Incumbent Democrats are being primaried

for no reason. So-called progressives and a non-Democrat are behind it. That is the point of the thread. Sorry you missed that.

[bigtree]

72. best get busy drawing in these challengers' supporters

...all of this scolding and demeaning isn't going to do it.

Incumbents should be prepared to defend their seats at primary time. There's no special refuge in our primary for legislators in power.

[murielm99]

75. I so far more than "scold," as you term it.

I canvas, work as a precinct committeeman, register voters, and GOTV in general. Even in this red area, I have been able to turn voters. It is a team effort. My husband does at least as much as I do.

Calling me a scold is insulting and uncalled for. You are wrong in just about every way. And expressing my opinion here is not scolding. That is a very sexist thing to say.

[bigtree]

89. I told Mineral Man the same thing

...we're restricted on our language here, so I chose a really mild word. I didn't want anyone claiming I was attacking anyone.

I'm sorry that offended you.

Funny, I don't feel any respect at all from someone who just told me I'm 'trying to divide the party.'

Silly of me for feeling like I'm the one being shown the door. Look at this thread. It's a free-for-all on progressive candidates in our primaries; partisan attacks on behalf of whoever these folks support in these Democratic contests.

The author of the thread making accusations against nameless DUers, even threatening on this thread to 'jury' DUers "who have been here for some time." People I presume who don't fit his notion of party. People who use words he disagrees with.

No one has said they'd refuse to vote in November, but you'll not get many new voters with the type of animus directed at progressives that I've witnessed the past week. You need to expand your base, and it makes perfect sense to spend more time working to attract these Democratic-directed voters, than it does to spend time and political capital on appeasing 'republican voters.'

That's what the 'moderate' Democrats in the article are doing. Plotting to undermine what portends to be a sizable number of progressive voters, while, the same time, massaging republican voters.

That's just wrong on its face. It's also blatantly self-defeating. Who thought this up? This can't be something that's being practiced on the ground. Right?

I'll say it again, without any regard to who you are, or what you do (not a wit afforded me), you'd better get busy drawing these disaffected voters in. You'll play hell getting any positive results from demonizing their candidates.

[mcar]

106. Odd the definitions of divisive here

Applauding the primarying of solid Democrats, name calling solid Democrats (Third Way, corporatist, establishment), ominous threats that "progressives" won't vote in primaries unless Democrats do what they want, exactly - not divisive
Criticizing primarying solid Democrats, and said name calling and threats - divisive

[bigtree]

110. I'm not going to respond to your biased characterizations of what I wrote

...and what I defended.

Do something more constructive than bait me. What as joke this effort is. Badgering progressives in the name of unity, then badgering the people who rise to defend them.

I don't know how you believe this is some productive political exercise to run me into the ground for disagreeing with you, but you're on the right track to alienating progressive supporters here.

Kindly point me to somewhere someone has said they would not vote in the general. Clean up that red herring.

So much innuendo. So many smears. This is a despicable effort.

[mcar]

113. Are you serious?

I see that "threat" here on a daily basis - and I'm quite sure you do too.

It goes something like this: A poster will say "if we don't listen to what X, Y or Z is saying and learn from it, then why should X, Y or Z vote with us in November?"

In other words, the right and privilege of voting is reduced to "be nice to me or I might withhold my vote."

That line of reasoning is used on this board all the time. Even now, in the face of the corruption of our government, the erosion of our rights and the destruction of our environment, posters insist that they must be wooed in order to condescend to vote Democratic.

[bigtree]

118. apply that to whoever says it

...throwing it around like it's some progressive initiative is slippery politics.

It's always interesting to me to see the myopia of some candidate supporters. Their choice is inviolable and the opponent subversive.

What I don't see as often is this "Your candidate is hurting me" line that folks here think passes for a strategy. Incumbents should be prepared to defend their seats. I can't think of much more anti-democratic than legislators in power assuming their seats are inviolable.

[mcar]

126. On this we agree...

Incumbents should be prepared to defend their seats. That is what elections are for. Doesn't mean they must be primaried, though, especially this year.

Calling incumbent Democrats "Third Way, corporate shills" as some do, is not asking them to defend their seats. It is simply smearing them. I am seeing that over and over again on this board - a tired old refrain that I wish would go away.

Campaigning against good, solid Democratic incumbents in purple districts because they are not pure enough is ill advised at best, but just not very intelligent this cycle in particular.

Using one's new found fame to campaign against Democrats, instead of against Republicans, is short sighted and feeds into the Republican playbook.

I want to elect Democrats. I am working to that end. I get weary of purists and "conscience" voters, who I suspect don't really want Democrats to win, nit picking, denigrating and name calling our candidates.

[bigtree]

139. lots of invective in there

...you're a partisan, making a partisan argument.

You're generalizing against progressive candidates and their supporters to make this dubious case of your choices' superiority.

It's silliness to make it a grudge match, especially those worried about losing votes.

[mcar]

170. Invective?

Well OK, then.

[Cha]

164. Your post is dead on, mcar.. I'm sure you're not anyway..

but, pay no attention to the "lots of invective" poster who needs to look in the mirror stat.

[mcar]

171. Just got back from a candidate forum to see that one

[MineralMan]

92. See, you're actually doing the work. Most of those doing all the writing

are not doing the work. They don't live in that district. They won't be there. They live somewhere else. Maybe they work in their own districts, but I never hear about that from them.

Thank you for your hard work to get out the vote locally. If every Democrat on DU did that, the elections would go much better. But, there are people to complain about, you know...people running far from where those posters live. That's what they prefer doing: complaining about candidates in someone else's district.

Thanks again for doing the job that needs to be done!

[Cha]

156. Yeah, look who was talking about "scolding and demeaning"..

All he ever has are insults and personal attacks.

Thank You for all your activism, Muriel!

[bigtree]

172. all I ever have? really cha?

...this effort is disgusting.

I was told by the poster that I'm trying to 'divide the party' by defending these candidates' right to run in our primary.

I've been a solid Democrat and I've been here since 2003. I've contributed reams of writing in support and defense of the Democratic party, even supporting a major candidate you trashed for one election, and praised like that same candidate could do no wrong the next time she ran.

I've been here for the party, Cha. I've been here for the party through dark days here, I'm solidly behind the Democratic party today, and I'll be solidly behind the party tomorrow.

One more thing.

I've never made personal attacks against you.


Don't think you're replying to me. I've already gone ahead and blocked you. Have a nice life.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

68. Once again bigtree, you nailed it! It never fuckin' ends... but thanks for calling it out!

[PurgedVoter]

93. Don't you love these divisive attacks disguised as a call to unity?

The OP makes a lot of posts that I agree with. Then he makes these divisive posts disguised as encouraging a united party. This double twisted call to exclude progressive candidates and hang tight with the corporate serving blue dogs is not the strategy for success that he tries to make it sound.

[mountain grammy]

155. +1 and thank you!

for this post and the others following.

[DemocracyMouse]

91. Stop it! Everybody!

We have too much in commin to quibble like this. This whole post and its "discussion" is a sulking rhetoric jacuzzi we don't have time for.

Just sayin'

[mcar]

100. Brava!

[NurseJackie]

115. And... boom!

There are many of the left who would like to divide our party. You seem to be one of them.

I know what it takes to get votes in this very red, rural area. It takes a Democrat like Cheri.

Preach!

[Hekate]

141. Amen, Muriel99

Spot on. Even eloquent.

[Trumpocalypse]

9. Tired old terms

that have no place anymore. The Dems have always been a big tent party. No place for name calling, litmus test or purity. We need to hang together or surely we will hang separately!

[ProfessorPlum]

13. please notify Third Way (which is a real organization)

of your opinion.

[Squinch]

73. They were influential 20 years ago. Why not just call us Whigs and Tories?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

74. Yup, the Clintons made it famous (and the DLC)... but now it's like Krypnonite to some around here

if you dare mention it by name, along with its policies that were promoted to attract Independents back in the day... and even some Rethuglican voters. I don't get it. Some continue to argue some of those same policies, just without the old labels.

[Trumpocalypse]

163. Yes and on FOX they still complain about Acorn

Just as relevant.

[MineralMan]

16. It takes different candidates to win in different districts.

It always has. If they vote with the Democratic Caucuses in Congress, then, they're on our side. I can only vote in my own district. I can try to help in nearby districts. But, out of state, I'm useless. So, I leave those districts to the voters in them. What I hate to see is this sort of nasty name-calling of Democrats who actually can win.

That sucks! It always sucks! It's a strategy some use to divide us up. I reject that sort of divisiveness.

My House representative is a progressive. In a neighboring district, the representative is a Republican. I'd give a lot to see that district flip in 2018, with any Democrat winning. I will work to elect a moderate in that district, because that's the only kind of Democrat who would even have a chance.

District by district. That's how this all works.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

77. Very true MM...at the same time, there's something to be said for tryin to change hearts and minds.

[MineralMan]

81. Of course. We're always doing that.

Again, though, changing hearts and minds is best done locally, just like elections are.

Attempts to force one model on every district in the nation will always fail.

[Willie Pep]

148. Yeah it depends on the district and the state.

One candidate that could win in one district might lose if he/she were running in another district. The thing to remember is that nowadays the most conservative Democrat is more liberal than the most liberal Republican. So yes, even Blue Dogs are worth electing especially since in red states and red districts that might be the best we can do.

[Trumpocalypse]

160. That's the way it should be

Too bad some don't get it.

[infinite_wisdom]

84. Never undertood

why the Republicans can have a Tea Party and a freedom caucus and libertarians but somehow it's a terrible thing for D's to have that kind of backbone to their party. D's have to remain center-left or all manner of fire and brimstone will rain down on us.

It's time to put that thinking on the shelf.

[Trumpocalypse]

161. Depends on the district

Demanding ideological purity of all Dems regardless of the state or district they come from is a path to irrelevance.

[NCTraveler]

10. I saw one recently call a one term house member an "entrenched establishment candidate."

Transparent.

[MineralMan]

12. Transparent as a broken out window.

I'm very sad to see the same old crap being brought back into this election year. It almost seems like some folks don't really want Democrats to regain a majority in the House, somehow. But, hey, that can't be, right?

[JCanete]

14. We can vote for the dem candidate in the GE. We can be civil about our disagreements. Highlighting

a difference of visions isn't a problem. DLC was certainly not a dirty word for those who created the DLC. Corporate-friendly is entirely fair game, which totally fits people like say, Tim Ryan who thought it important to say that he doesn't "hate rich people", entirely mischaracterizing the left's intentions.

Please, lets quit pretending without evidence that more spirited debate in the primary is akin to depressing votter turnout. Unless you have evidence that that is the result, I'd suggest you quit repeating it as if its fact.

[MineralMan]

18. Guess what? All three branches of federal government are now in

the hands of Republicans. How did that happen, do you think?

Don't talk nonsense and I won't call it out as nonsense.

[JCanete]

21. Prove with any evidence, your claim that challenges in the primary from the left depress turnout. We

both might have very different ideas about why we've purged 1000 seats over the years, but I've gotta tell you, the "democratic socialist" brand hasn't exactly been flying a high flag through most of these last few decades...so kind of hard to pin it on them.

[rgbecker]

28. If you think having a primary results in the Republicans winning, then why don't you just say that.

We could easily just cut the primaries out and choose the candidates in the back room.

Are you suggesting with this OP that progressives shouldn't bother voting in the primary and supporting candidates that they agree with? Are you asking them to instead start a third party? What is it you want from Progressive left wingers???

Everyone I've heard from on DU say they vote the Democratic Ticket in the General election.

[MineralMan]

29. Just wait until all the primaries are over.

You'll see. People will still be trashing Democratic candidates for one reason or another. Watch.

[theaocp]

43. Bookmarked. n/t

[Bettie]

80. Well, there is one young woman who won her primary

who is trashed all day long around here.

But, I'm guessing that's not what you're talking about.

[MineralMan]

83. She's not being trashed by me. She will be the candidate in her

district. I hope she wins handily. I don't live in that district, though, so it's not up to me.

The voters in each district decide who the Democratic candidate in that district will be. Nobody else does. I hope every Democratic candidate wins.

So, you're right. That's not what I'm talking about. Not at all.

[Hekate]

146. Oh, you mean the one who is now attending rallies all over the country when she has yet to win...

...her own district in November? She's only half-way done with her own campaign, and I wonder how much time she is spending in her home district persuading all the rest of the voters there that they should send her to Congress instead of the Repub on the ballot, because she is now running against a Repub and not primarying a Dem.

And that is the first and only time I have mentioned that campaign and that candidate.

[mcar]

19. The entire purpose is depressing turnout

Same tired old "Dems are bad" song.

While the rest of us are working so hard to get Democrats elected, here come the so-called progressives with their tired old smears.

One suspects they never did want Democrats to win.

[MineralMan]

20. When they do it, call them out on it.

Get into those threads and point out what is obvious. Some folks who have barely posted at all in 2018 are jumping in right now, reliving their posts from 2016. They stayed away, but they're back.

Just point out what's going on when you see it. We don't have to just sit back and wait to lose again.

[JCanete]

26. bullshit lacking evidence that it does depress turnout, but you don't seem to give a shit about

evidence or ascribing intent, again without evidence.

[MineralMan]

31. Testy, are we?

[JCanete]

32. why are you spreading unverifiable claims here on DU? Yes, that bothers me. Call me crazy. nt

[MineralMan]

34. I'm not going to call you anything.

I can see what you post.

[JCanete]

35. why dodge the question? nt

[MineralMan]

40. You're free to ask any question you wish.

I'm free to answer or not answer, as it suits me.

I started a thread. Now, it's trending. That was my goal. Your question is irrelevant.

[JCanete]

42. thats your goal? Well shit, that clears it all up. It isn't about presenting an honest position you

hold to explore and evolve from? Well, I'm glad for you that your thread is successful.

[MineralMan]

47. ..

Those two dots mean that I will no longer reply to you in this subthread. I do not engage in lengthy subthread arguments.

[JCanete]

49. That's fair. nt

[bettyellen]

39. So you too dispute that the GOP used some "progressives" to depress Dem turnout?

You must have missed all the links to Wikileaks and RT that trolls and bots (and then some well intentioned suckers that followed them) posted here all of 2016?
Well they switched up their script a bit, but have found more useful idiots to read from it.

[JCanete]

44. i dispute that that is the goal of progressives, and that that has had a measurable effect taht you

can claim. Sanders voters didn't stay home. They voted for Clinton. Primaries don't suppress turnout as far as any evidence produced has ever shown me, and on the face of it, the premise makes no sense.

[bettyellen]

54. Well okay, you don't believe our intelligence community any more than Trump does...

I think the part about some being trolls might be difficult to accept- but to me it’s cruicial. If you think Wikileaks and RT lies were most often spread in good faith, I gotta bridge for you. And if you think massive advertising has no effect on voters, I don’t know what to say.
Awfully defensive on this point... I’m guessing RT might have fooled you too. Your good intentions can’t be extrapolated onto every poster. We now know many were trolls who went on to support Trump.

[JCanete]

76. What? How did you get that from what I said. I said primaries don't depress the vote, and that

those people who went for Sanders in the primary voted for Clinton. That isn't at all the same thing as what you are accusing me of saying.

Massive advertising has an effect. Of course it does. But if it isn't the people who are most receptive to these challengers messaging(and again, Sanders voters went FOR Clinton) then how is it left-wing democrats who you can blame for suppressing the vote? I don't see a demonstrable connection.

[bettyellen]

111. You know we're talking about progressives smearing Dems during and after the primaries? Let's not

pretend that didn’t happen- and that many weren’t trolls. Witting or unwitting and we’ll intentioned- it’s not about whether or not to have primaries- it’s about how unwise these broad based anti-Dem campaigns are, and how they are weaponized. THAT is what you studiously ignore.

[JCanete]

128. We are talking about democrats in primaries using language about "corporate" dems etc. If you want

to extend the arguement to JPR and Sarandon etc. I think you are going outside the bounds of the accusation. When dems do not ultimately back their rival candidate and instead continue to campaign against them, then I will be with you, frustrated at their actions even if I believe in their ideology. The only case I know such a thing to have happened though comes instead from the center, not the left. I hope we don't see a repeat of that with Crowley, but no surprises about who has recently resurfaced to support such a move.

Note: Colonel West is harder to pin down, since he was appointed to a role, he wasn't campaigning on the democratic ticket, using the democratic election process, so I think he's within legitimate rights to be disillusioned and to not support the dem candidate, even if I think that was horribly misguided in the wake of the convention. That said, I think a legitimate case could be made against my perspective here. Maybe if you are going to accept a role in the democratic election process you should ultimately stand with the candidate that gets the nod, I just don't think it quite rates as the same thing, but I'm not digging my heels in on that one.

[bettyellen]

136. And calling Emily's list establishment, and using broad based attacks in Dems to be weaponized...

As we have seen before. I have no problems attacking candidates on their policies, not at all. But I’m not seeing that much. I am seeing all this vague crap about corruption and it smells a lot like how people deliberately kneecapped the DNC- and did it at a time when they were broke and needed help.

[progressoid]

138. So WHO was smearing Dems during and after the primaries?

You've already mentioned the Russians. Let's add to that some of their vehicles for smearing; Facebook, Twitter, Drudge etc. Then there is AM radio with 24/7 negative stories about us. Of course, FOX. Even our supposed liberal media has joined in the fun.

Yes, there are some progressives who love to hate Democrats. But it's a mistake to waste so much energy bitching about them, when the bigger problem is right in front of us.

Donald Trump succeeded in shaping the election agenda. Coverage of Trump overwhelmingly outperformed coverage of Clinton. Clinton’s coverage was focused on scandals, while Trump’s coverage focused on his core issues.



Attempts by the Clinton campaign to define her campaign on competence, experience, and policy positions were drowned out by coverage of alleged improprieties associated with the Clinton Foundation and emails. Coverage of Trump associated with immigration, jobs, and trade was greater than that on his personal scandals.



...https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud

[bettyellen]

143. It's difficult to believe these people targeting HRC did not suppress the vote- the both sides BS

was huge and all over the place. I know that if you didn’t know any of these people you’d not see much of it because of the micro-targeting.

If you disliked Stein or later, Sanders- you probably didn’t see much of it. I saw tons of it spread by just three of my friends. They were all prone to conspiracy theories and the idea that “they’re all corrupt” and encouraged people to write in even though they knew it would spoil ballots in their particular states.

We lost because of low turnout, and people’s lack of enthusiasm for a candidate who was pilloried by “both sides”. Of course it mattered.

[Squinch]

61. How about constant trolling by some (not you) in which Democrats are derided as "third way"

and "corporatists" who never do anything useful.

Do you think that suppresses turnout?

[JCanete]

78. I think it, like a lot of things here, like this thread, sucks up our energy, that could be spent

better. In that way, I'd say you have a case. Does it change people's minds here? Unlikely.

[kcr]

85. Deliberate party spoiling is an important topic that is worth "wasting energy" on.

So it's a topic people are going to want to talk about, especially now. Not sure how you think you'd change anyone's minds on that, either.

[JCanete]

88. If it it were making a case that this is what it does, I think it would have merit. Because there

would be evidence being laid out that could be debated. This is a baseless claim, on which the rest of the op's proposition rests.

If you have a case for deliberate party spoiling, lay it out.

[Squinch]

116. We do have the word of our intelligence agencies that it happened. I see no reason to

believe it stopped happening.

[JCanete]

117. No, we have the word of our intelligence agencies that Russia has attempted to use these

organizations to this effect. That is entirely different than saying that left-wing factions of the democratic party, by virtue of their messaging and existence, actually suppress the vote. You want to make that case? Have at it.

[Squinch]

119. See my previous post about how each of us does affect the people around us.

[JCanete]

120. That is not a case for deliberate party spoiling from within. nt

[Squinch]

122. The intelligence agency reports are the case for that. The effect it has on each of us is the case

for whether it suppresses the vote.

[JCanete]

130. Wait what are you refering to in agency reports? That there are dems who were trying to throw the

GE to the repubs? Can you link that?

[Squinch]

132. Forget it, JCanete. This is the kind of nonsense we don't have time for.

[JCanete]

134. But its your claim. I'm not the one taking us there. We can agree to drop it though. nt

[Squinch]

90. In the wider world, it might not have taken many votes at all to have changed the outcome of the

last election. Of course, I might be naive to say that. It might have been that if we got a few more votes, they would have flipped a few more results.

But assuming that is not the case, the way we talk to each other and think about things here DOES have an effect. I grant you that there is no way to quantify that effect, but I am sure it is there.

With the woman who gets a "third way" talking point here and then goes to her break room and speaks in an authoritative manner about how "establishment Democrats" don't really get anything done. With the man who sits in a bar and says, "Identity politics are killing us!" They have an effect.

We're all versed in the issues. I don't know about you but because I read DU, people know I know stuff. I have some statistics and arguments at my fingertips, so they discuss things with me. There is a very tiny ambassadorship working here.

Once upon a time, a long long time ago, I worked in sales. The best salespeople were NOT the ones who went after the huge fish. The most successful salespeople were the ones who made the decent sales and then added value onto the sale. 10% here, 20% there. An add on, a second product.

That's what we need to do. Each of us needs to influence 10% more people to vote than we used to do. We have to be ambassadors. We have to embody the reasons why it is important to vote for the Democrat.

As you say, these divisions suck up our energy. They make us less convincing. They lose us those extra voters. We need every bit of that energy to get that added 10 or 15%. And if we drop all this divisive nonsense and ancient arguments, and we stick together, we will win.

[JCanete]

98. I mostly agree with you, except that disctinctons have to be drawn in the primary, and I'm sorry,

but that is going to be inconvenient for candidates at times. I do think there's a way to talk about money in politics that doesn't debase candidates as bought and paid for, since that doesn't have to be the case at all for money to impact a race in their favor.

I expect candidates who run as democrats to support the democratic nominee at the end of the day. Anything else and it does undermine their alignment with the democratic party and its values. Sanders did so. I would expect other candidates in his mold to do so, and when they do, they are endorsing for their voters who may not otherwise have been energized to pay attention to this primary or the ensuing race, the candidate who will move on to the GE.

But I refuse to say their hands should be tied in the primaries. They are making a case they have every right to make, that our current approach has not necessarily been effective(1000 seats lost in a few decades) and that there is an alternative to it. I agree with you that FOX News and Russia, et al will and do attempt to exploit democratic divisions, and I"ll agree with you that this probably has an effect on convincing some independents who have not made up their mind that nobody is worth voting for in the GE, but what is far from certain is whether or not these progressives have a net-negative impact on voters for democrats, and I think it is entirely possible and more likely that the opposite is true...that we get more voters in the GE because of primaries, since primaries gin up excitement early.

[Squinch]

102. In any other year I would agree with you. But this year there is no goal that can supercede

the goal of getting back Congress, getting back the committees and saving the Republic from this man who is handing us over like a carcass to be picked over by Russian hyenas.

Perhaps that is our difference. I really do foresee the end of the Republic if we don't win this year. The Republican gerrymandering will be upheld by courts that are corrupt from bottom to top, and we will never again have any possibility of defeating them. I believe that there should be no other issue taking up our time, effort or money this year. If I had my way, if a Dem seat is safe, we would move on to one that is flippable and pour money and time into it.

To me the rest, the infighting about "third way" or "establishment" vs "non-establishment" and anything those words stand for, is complete idiocy.

[JCanete]

140. Oh so do I, but I just see that end forestalled by a few years if we don't drastically

change how government works and is funded. We got to this point because of that, not because of liberals at the fringes of our party.

What we don't agree on so far is whether or not progressives in primaries negatively impact our chances in the GE, and nothing has been demonstrated that makes a solid case for that.

[mcar]

108. I've been here since 2002

I've seen it every election season. Not only here. Take a look back at 2010 and the post ACA midterms. There was a concerted effort by people who said they were on the left to depress Democratic turnout to "punish" President Obama and Democrats in Congress for passing the ACA.

It happened then; it's happened every election cycle since - especially midterms.

[bigtree]

22. Socialist!

..saw that bandied around here first.

Missed you on those threads. Just this outburst after reacting to a thread about conservative Democrats plotting to "counteract progressives."

here's the article: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/sanders-wing-party-terrifies-moderate-dems-here-s-how-they-n893381

All of this hysterical nonsense could have been avoided if you just addressed the fact of these conservative Democrats plotting to suppress the efforts of progressives instead of diverting to this nonsense.

"Counteract progressives." Sounds real productive. A real vote-getter.

Instead of scolding about the name of the think tank these conservative Dems were meeting at, mentioned in the op, why not defend these actual voters who are being plotted against. Where is the defense of progressive votes? They have every potential to broaden our voter base and compete.

Why don't you condemn the effort of these Democrats to depress or limit the impact of the progressive votes in our primary? Those are voters we need for the general election.

Why focus on this canard you've invented out of reading a few DU posts?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

82. Good question...

"Why don't you condemn the effort of these Democrats to depress or limit the impact of the progressive votes in our primary? Those are voters we need for the general election."

You hear crickets?... chirp, chirp

[ismnotwasm]

23. K&R

[riversedge]

24. Great post and hope that, for the sake of America, everyone heeds your advice.

[MineralMan]

25. Apparently, not everyone thinks it's a great post.

That's interesting in itself.

Thanks!

[JCanete]

27. ...yeah, weird that.

[Squinch]

46. But most do. The few who don't are loud, but not numerous. And they do seem to be swarming you

right now.

[MineralMan]

50. I have my full bug-netting suit on.

Swarms do not affect me at all.

[Squinch]

52. They're no match for you!

[FakeNoose]

33. Agreed - it all comes down to this!

[MineralMan]

37. Exactly. If Democrats win enough elections, we'll get back some control

over our future. If they do not, we're screwed.

Guess what? I'm supporting every Democrat on the ballot in every damned district and state, as best I can.

I'm not really going to inquire into their positions on every issue. If they'll vote with the Democratic Caucuses, they're my friend.

We do not have the luxury of being perfectionists in 2018. Nope.

Thanks for your sign!

[DesertRat]

144. +1000 nt

[EllieBC]

41. I'll bet MIRT will be very busy between now and November

and let's give them an early thank you!

[MineralMan]

45. MIRT only deals with people who have recently signed up on DU.

It has nothing to do with people who have been here for some time. It can't act in any way on those members.

It does a great job of catching new trolls who have just signed up. An outstanding job, actually.

For the others, it's up to juries.

[elmac]

48. In the end, its not up to us to motivate voters

the DNC, Congressional Dems and Democratic candidates must be fully committed to giving the fascists all kinds of hell, be very aggressive, play as dirty as the trumpsters. Being Democratic lite will not get people to the polls. The message must also be what they are going to do to destroy the fascist agenda, improve our lives, really make America great again.

[MineralMan]

57. You're wrong. It IS up to all of us to encourage people

to get out and vote. I've been involved in GOTV efforts since 1960, when I was just a sophomore in high school. It is up to each of us to convince people to take part in elections.

I'll be 73 years old in a few days. I will still be out working on GOTV efforts this year, as I have done in every election since that first one.

Maybe that's why Democrats have won consistently in districts where I have lived. Or part of the reason, anyhow.

It is up to us. It's up to you, too. What will you do to help?

[mcar]

112. That is simply not true

It is up to all of us to motivate and encourage voters.

Example: I live in a very red FL county. Last Saturday, the Democratic Women's Club of my county (of which I am proud to be president), the Democratic Black Caucus and another Democratic club held a joint meeting to host a state Attorney General candidate. We promoted it heavily in the local paper, on Facebook and elsewhere.

We had a standing room only crowd, more than 100 - phenomenal for our area. Many of the new faces in attendance were thrilled to find that there are "other Democrats" in the county. They met candidates for local office.

Do you really think that's not going to motivate them to vote in November?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

157. No question... keep up the good work!!

[bettyellen]

145. Most of us disagree- we must GOTV if we live our values.

[haele]

59. All politics is local. Always has been.

Problem is that we have to remember that as a party, the Democrats have always governed as a coalition - not as some sort of lockstep "us against them team" political party. Our tent is wide, which means politically Democrats accept not only the shiny and optimistic, but the odd and grungy.

We shouldn't really be looking as much for "leaders" - who are too often mouthpieces of the corporations and think tanks - or of populist celebrity egos - but we should be looking for people who are experienced in governance and actually have as much of a track record of attempts to improve and progress the country as can be expected for their regions and constituency.

We don't win unless we get enough votes all across the country - not just in the cities and the "cool" areas of the country.

Haele

[MineralMan]

62. Exactly. People are most effective in supporting candidates

who are running in the districts where they live. They are least effective in districts far from where they live. That's because they have no idea what a candidate needs to win in those unfamiliar districts.

That's why I encourage individuals to work as hard as they can on GOTV in their own districts, neighboring districts, and in their state and local areas. that works.

Sending money to some candidate far away is pretty much useless. Working for your local candidates as a volunteer helps those candidates actually win.

[Willie Pep]

150. I think people lose track of how local conditions decide who wins elections.

The Democrats tried mightily to unseat my Republican state rep with a young progressive woman who had a lot of help from activists. I voted for her but she went down in defeat. In hindsight a more experienced "establishment" type Democrat might have won. The Republican in my district has a strong local machine and he is good at constituency service so people like him.

I am not trying to hippie punch here but my point is that you need different strategies for different districts and states. What might work in one district might not work in another.

Your point about experience is also important. There is too much anti-politician rhetoric these days. Yes, many politicians stink and some are outright corrupt but you need to have people who know how to govern and that means someone who has experience and can move the agenda forward. LBJ was very much a politician's politician yet he managed to get a lot of progressive legislation passed due to his experience working within the legislative process.

[stonecutter357]

63. K&R !

[MineralMan]

65. Thanks!

[George II]

67. The funniest of all is the resurrection of "DLC", which ceased to exist about 8 years ago!

[MineralMan]

70. Yes. Whenever I have pointed that out, I get the

"well, it became the 'Third Way," so it still exists" nonsense.

Shibboleths.

[Squinch]

176. They're really pissed at the Whigs, too, I hear. Bastards were all corporatists, doncha know.

[SunSeeker]

69. Thank you, MineralMan!

[MineralMan]

71. You're more than welcome!

[gollygee]

79. I vote the most left candidate in the primaries

but I vote straight D in the general election. No way am I giving the other side an easier time.

[MineralMan]

96. Of course. That's how it works.

Been doing it for decades, now.

[emulatorloo]

149. Same here. Always have always will. And enthusiastically do GOTV in the general n/t

[ehrnst]

94. Thank you. (nt)

[MineralMan]

95. My pleasure!

[Gore1FL]

97. It's OK to have primaries. It's OK to change representation.

It's the other side that hates elections.

[MineralMan]

99. Of course. Primaries are almost over now, though.

They've already happened in most places. The problem is that some folks are unhappy with how they turned out, see. They're bitter because they don't think the winner is "something" enough. So, they're whining about that and complaining that things aren't like they want them to be in some district far from where they live and vote.

That's the problem. Same thing happened in 2016, even after all the primaries were over with. And here we are again.

[BeyondGeography]

101. The Party changed under Obama

It got younger, more diverse, more progressive.

Very good article on all that here:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/barack-obama-won-the-white-house-but-democrats-lost-the-country/

It's about matching candidates to where our voters are at right now, if you want to "fuck that up," and keep "singing the same sad, sorry, losing song," pretend nothing has changed. Most incumbents get it; they have moved left on health care, economic policy and on taking corporate money. If they haven't, they'll probably get called out.

[MineralMan]

103. Just as always.

I know the voters in my district. I don't know the voters in yours, though. That's the problem. Too many people think they know the voters in someone else's district and they want to have their way there, too.

My district will, once again, re-elect Betty McCollum to the House, and re-elect our progressive state legislators, too. The governor's race is still up for grabs, though. They'll vote for the Democrat who survives the primary, though.

The next district over, though, will vote for a Republican. Not the same mix of voters.

I work in my district, not that other one. Every district has its own voters with their own preferences. That's how this all works.

[CentralMass]

104. There have been daily negative posts on Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez .

While I don't support the posting of divisive articles meant to stir the pot, this is a matter of "Don't start nothing and there won't be nothing".

There is one side making all the noise on this.

[MineralMan]

105. Not by me. She won her primary. Now, I hope she wins in November.

Sanders? He's even farther away from me.

[CentralMass]

107. +1

[emulatorloo]

151. +1

[NurseJackie]

114. Don't forget "Wall Street".

'Third Way,' 'corporate,' 'DLC,' Oh, my!

Don't forget "Wall Street".

[Cha]

173. "Elite"! Remember when BS called us the "liberal elite"? Right after trump got Rigged in..

Giving trump all the credit.. turns out trump had some help from fucking Russia.

Bernie Sanders 'deeply humiliated' Democrats lost white working-class voters

snip//

Washington (CNN) — Sen. Bernie Sanders expressed his disappointment Monday with Hillary Clinton's failure to secure the support of white working-class voters in last week's presidential election.

Donald Trump "very effectively" tapped into "the anger and angst and pain that many working class people are feeling," the Vermont independent senator who challenged Clinton in the Democratic primary said on "CBS This Morning."

snip//

"I think that there needs to be a profound change in the way the Democratic Party does business," Sanders said. "It is not good enough to have a liberal elite. I come from the white working class, and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to where I came from."

www.cnn.com/2016/11/14/politics/bernie-sanders-humiliated-democrats-loss-working-class-voters/index.html

And, "Established"! Which really means Experienced and Successful!

Jackie

[R B Garr]

121. Yup, one returnee is openly threatening third party

destruction if they don’t get control of the party.

[MineralMan]

127. I missed that one, I guess.

[nvme]

123. I would love to reclaim LIBERAL

I also would like to say i will push hard to the left until the general, then I vote for the D or d thats on the ballot. Until then, "Let the games begin"

[zentrum]

125. They weren't listened to before

...at our peril.

We need new faces and bolder policies in these desperate times.

[MineralMan]

129. So, who is your House representative?

Do tell...

[zentrum]

147. Don't feel like announcing

….on DU the exact district I live in, if you don't mind.

But my Rep is not a DLC-er, not a 3rd-wayer, not a centrist. Very progressive. If we had more like this Rep we'd be in good shape.

Not suggesting a blunt purge. But NPR or perhaps it was the BBC did an investigation across the country, and discovered that most people didn't know what the Dems stand for except for opposing Trump. This included Dems. Big problem. The vast middle doesn't know our policies. But they sure as hell knew what Repugs stood for.

Don't just blame the media. The Dems need to have figured out by now how to seize more of the narrative. Think Cortez.

[Hekate]

131. Amusingly, a newbie's very first post today was to warn of of the dreaded DCCC

With friends like these...

As for what you spotted -- it begs the question of whether Manny has been resurrected.

[MineralMan]

135. Manny? Manny Who?

I forget. It took me some time to forget, but I forget.

[Hekate]

142. Manny are called, but few are chosen

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

133. These Buster types had no problem electing coprporate Republicans in 2016

It's what they flat out said they wanted.

And they try to claim they're more "progressive" than everyone else.

[Cha]

165. Like jill Fucking stein and Fucking susan sarandon.

A$$holes.

[AtomicKitten]

137. The progressive movement wants money out of politics.

The unifying message of Our Revolution, Brand New Congress, and Justice Democrats is the pledge to not accept corporate PAC money. The progressive platform includes such things as a living wage tied to inflation, Medicare4All, tuition free state college, federal jobs guarantee, Justice system reform, action on climate change, etc.

Whether some here admit it or not, politicians that take corporate money do their bidding. It can be tracked in their voting record. Those beholden to their corporate donors vote to stop or slow down legislation. I will not name names here so as not to incite an inevitable argument.

It's all about policy. Policy over politics. Policy over politicians. That is what progressives believe. It is what they fight for. And those fights are appropriately taking place in the primaries where they belong.

Marginalizing and demonizing progressives here is the antithesis of unity. The centrists and liberals here need to muster some respect for progressives, and continuing to not do so is what is causing and perpetuating division.

[theaocp]

152. Spoken better than I could.

I'm more emotional, lol. I agree 110%.

[AtomicKitten]

169. .

thanks

[emulatorloo]

153. Our Revolution is a 501c4, so they aren't required to disclose their big donors.

https://vtdigger.org/2016/08/22/sanders-new-group-exempt-campaign-finance-rules/

Sen. Bernie Sanders is building a political organization that will be able to avoid financial disclosure and influence policy from the shadows, a “dark money” strategy he has railed against for years, including on the presidential campaign trail.

The organization, called Our Revolution, will operate as a nonprofit 501(c)(4) — a designation that does not require disclosure of donors or spending because of its status as a social welfare organization. Political action committees, on the other hand, are under the authority and disclosure requirements of the Federal Election Commission rather than the Internal Revenue Service, which oversees nonprofits.

————-

I don’t have a problem with that. These groups need money to compete with Republican funding, until Citizens United is overturned.

But let’s be accurate and note that Our Revolution is set up under rules that doesn’t require them to be transparent about who their big donors are.

[Cha]

159. But, isn't that "our revolution's" so-called Big Thing.. "money out

of politics? And, they're set up so they don't have to disclose where the fucking money comes from?

Good to know, emulatorloo! Thank You!

Sen. Bernie Sanders is building a political organization that will be able to avoid financial disclosure and influence policy from the shadows, a “dark money” strategy he has railed against for years, including on the presidential campaign trail.

The organization, called Our Revolution, will operate as a nonprofit 501(c)(4) — a designation that does not require disclosure of donors or spending because of its status as a social welfare organization. Political action committees, on the other hand, are under the authority and disclosure requirements of the Federal Election Commission rather than the Internal Revenue Service, which oversees nonprofits.

https://vtdigger.org/2016/08/22/sanders-new-group-exempt-campaign-finance-rules/

[AtomicKitten]

167. The defining specific is not taking corporate PAC money.

That's money from Wall Street, healthcare conglomerates, pharmaceutical companies, the military industrial complex, etc. Money intended to influence votes on policy favorable to corporations, not people.

I do, however, believe in transparency and so-called "dark money" regardless of where it comes from and resides is not obligated to disclose and should be. I am less worried, however, as money donated to this Sanders' organization is to field and support progressive candidates who support people-centric policy as opposed to policy favorable to corporations.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

158. +1,000,000... dead on as usual AK!!

[AtomicKitten]

168. hey

[Fresh_Start]

154. The people who want to blow up the system are back

because it worked so well in 2016.

Yes, electing the most disgusting human being I've ever had the misfortunate of suffering through...has done great things for all of us...if you are not female, minority, muslim, immigrant, GLBT, non-American, or an ethical government employee.

Not only have the jackasses caused great harm in the USA already...they are also causing great harm in the world. Their self-righteous stupidity means that attempts to solve problems facing the entire globe have taken a giant step backward.

[Hekate]

174. Yes, and it is really making me angry

My general feeling is they have learned nothing and they can go to -- ahem -- they can go pound sand.

[CousinIT]

162. AGREE. n/t

[Adrahil]

166. The useful idiots are back. NT

[Progressive dog]

175. Ha-Now that is unexpected

Those voices have spent years finding names to call the Democratic party base, they're not going to give them up.