I am seriously worried that division within the party is being caused by Not Democrats fucking . . .

[Stinky The Clown]

. . . . with our primaries, posting on social media, pitting us against each other. I am certain that most Democrats are in fact that - Democrats. But when I see hyphenated "Democrats" I worry about who they really are, how to suss out who is really on our side, and who is wearing sheep's clothing and working against us from within.

It would be really helpful if, for the next 90 days, we could all be DEMOCRATS. Not "Establishment Democrats" or Blue Dogs or Yellow Dogs. Socialist Democrats or ConservaDems.

Just 90 days.

Keep the air clear and sweet. Let's work TOGETHER for a Blue Wave, not against each other to make things close enough to steal. When there is a front runner Democrat in a primary with the wind at their back, let them be. I know people want to promote different agendas. I get that and indeed applaud it.

But right now, this election is a existential MUST WIN. We all need to sublimate our egos and work to elect DEMOCRATS up and down the ballots.

Please. Just for the next 90 days:

U N I T Y

[rzemanfl]

1. I myself am a wouldn't piss on a Republican if they were on fire Democrat. Does that work for you?

[RVN VET71]

20. Can we at least agree . . .

. . . that it's OK to piss on a Republican if they are NOT on fire?

(Unless, of course, they ask you to?)

[rzemanfl]

24. LOL. n/t

[Wounded Bear]

60. The masochist argues with the sadist ...

Hurt me!

No, I won't!

Hurt me, please.

No, I won't.

[ChiTownDenny]

73. + 1

LOL

[joshdawg]

25. You got my vote!

[stage left]

83. +1

Works for me.

[The Polack MSgt]

2. U N I T Y

[dalton99a]

3. Fuck the noise. Fuck the instigators. Focus on November 6th.

Last edited Fri Aug 3, 2018, 10:14 PM - Edit history (1)

[Heartstrings]

38. +1000

Midterms! GOTV! Vote like you life depends on it!

[lastlib]

68. --cuz it DOES!!

VOTE early and often! Take friends and neighbors (who will vote 'D'--f&ck the ones who won't, they ain't your friends)!

[Zoonart]

4. Keep Calm and

Expect Ratfucking.

[FreepFryer]

5. Agreed. They are trying to alienate us from our own values and trying to sow division...

...with racism, sexism, Islamophobia, and most of all a false fait-accompli.

Not gonna work, Trumpies.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

9. Exactly. Trying to divide us. I love all Dems.

We are a big tent party. I welcome Dems who each care about their own issues as long as they stand for American values: tolerance and a fair shake for all at the American Dream.

[FreepFryer]

12. Yes! So Much This. They are running scared, and we are not going to stop...

Until they are stuck back under their rocks so hard they can never re-emerge.

[BigmanPigman]

6. I am not even sure what

"socialist-democrat" or "progressive-democrat" mean. I am a Democrat and I voted in every, single election since I was 18 in 1980 (straight Dem, down ballot). Period. So have my dogs...their stuffed animals have the I VOTED stickers on them still!

[mjvpi]

11. So your dog's stuffed animals committed that voter fraud that Trump talks about

[BigmanPigman]

15. YEP!

I had to assist them in filling out the ballots a little though. I suppose that is another crime. Will the ASPCA haul me off now too? I even put an I VOTED sticker on my HOA sealed ballot a week ago. I get a lot of the stickers since the people at the polls always gave me sheets of them in different languages for my first graders who voted throughout the year...and loved doing it.

[paleotn]

71. hyperbole, my friend, hyperbole....

I grew up in the mid-south, where hyperbole has been finely honed to an art form. After 24 years of blissful marriage, my better half still has trouble sometimes telling if I'm joking or serious.

[ProudLib72]

31. The term "progressive Democrat" is a BS term

If you know what I mean.

[BigmanPigman]

43. It does seem redundant.

[Magoo48]

74. Wow, you're so cute with words. Not helpful, but cute.

Last edited Mon Aug 6, 2018, 04:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Talk about sowing division. I believe the plea is for unity in spite of our differences. Regardless if one is for radical progressive change or favors the corporate statis quo, now is indeed time for unity.

[KPN]

102. It's all relative ...

On some issues, we are all indeed progressive with the possible exception of a few pragmatic elected. On others? Well, why would the Congressional Progressive Caucus even exist?

We are all Democrats. And yes, as the OP states, best to be unified around that during the election and guarded about divisive forces.

[Susan Calvin]

7. Democratic values, good by me.

In light of the crisis, Democratic vote = good by me.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

8. Unify for elections. Save arguing for after (policy) and during primaries (candidates & policy). .nt

[bigtree]

37. we're always told to wait until the next election. It's always the next election

...pressing for change is more than 'arguing' to people whose lives and livelihoods depend on those changes they're pressing for.

What I find disingenuous is the argument that pressing for 'policy' changes in this *primary* election puts victory in November at risk. It's a specious argument without any actual proof to project that surrender of values, that unproven assertion on people and policies someone might oppose... It's a way, for some, to stifle real opposition in our party, and it's a strategy which risks alienating actual support we need in November.

Remember, progressives and others pressing our party for changes represent people who may be new to the process or new to considering the Democratic party. It's more important to draw those potential voters in than protecting some political turf in our Democratic primary.

Let's not become shortsighted or timid because of the challenges in November. A static party isn't going to generate the interest we need in the general election. We should embrace the dynamism of these younger, ambitious candidates and expand our party, expand our voter rolls.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

44. No. You misinterpret. I'm not saying that.

Surely about 617 days out of every two years is sufficient for fighting? Fighting (hammering out consensus on policy and candidates) is good: it strengthens the message and aligns platforms and objectives with strategy and people. But there is a time for everything.

For (these 2018 mid-term) elections, unite now behind the Democratic candidate in each House, Senate, and state races. Unite and get as many Democrats elected as possible.

For the 2020 Presidential election, there is plenty of time to fight over the candidate and policy from Nov. 7 2018 until the 2020 convention ends July 16 2020. After the convention ends, unite behind the Democratic candidate and get that person elected President.

In terms of the 2020 Presidential election, I suppose you could fight over policy and candidate now, but do you really want to divide people in the Party between now and Nov 6? Surely you can hold off for 95 days and then use the next 617 days to fight?

[bigtree]

53. people in our party are going to disagree on candidates and policy. That's normal

....what I'm more worried about are these calls for 'unity' which assumes debate about the direction of our party is automatically or necessarily divisive.

It's a self-serving argument which clearly doesn't care enough about one issue or the other to feel a need to fight for it. It's also an argument which assumes the path to victory is to stifle disagreements and stuff away ambitions to have ignored or neglected issues recognized, discussed, and addressed in this election.

It's really an artificial thing you're asking for. People bring myriad interests and concerns into the political arena from many diverse and disparate regions of the country. It's fantasy to expect people to shove all of that down in favor of someone else's notion of unity.

Elections are the time to bring all of those out into the open and challenge candidates to recognize and represent our issues and initiatives. You're not going to generate interest in voting Democratic by posturing as if you can't bear debate or dissent. That's a recipe for a static electorate.

We need dynamism and energy which comes from people demanding change. That's how our party grows, how we expand our base of voters: by remaining open and responsive to those looking to our party to represent them. Artificially stifling dissent and debate in the vain hope of holding the party together is a cynical and self-defeating strategy. I understand the fears, but the solution isn't to close ranks and act as if our party can't bear demands for change for fear of losing in November.

One thing is certain, if dissenters can't find an ear in our party, they'll look elsewhere. That's something too many calling for 'unity' can't seem to wrap their advocacy around. We need to draw these potential voters in.

'We're fine, sit down and shut up and vote,' just doesn't seem like the right message for a winning party.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

55. Yes, normal to disagree. Also normal to put aside difference for 15% of time when it really counts

It is also normal to unite for the 15% of time when it really counts.

The phrase is "agree to disagree" and return to it after the 15% of time is over.

If events turn and a NEW issue of policy comes up that needs to be discussed, then do so. The real issue is not to be divisive during the 15% of time.

Please stop throwing up rotten debating techniques such as the binary fallacy of all-or-nothing. It's a false choice. " if dissenters can't find an ear in our party, they'll look elsewhere." Of course, but yes, of course they will find an ear in the party. Nobody I know of is "artificially stifling dissent". Send me a DU mail with links if have ANY. It is possible to dissent and work together. Especially during the 15% time when it really counts to unite and work together.

Is 15% really too much to ask? No, it is not.

[bigtree]

56. I don't see any evidence that we won't unite in November

Last edited Sat Aug 4, 2018, 10:44 AM - Edit history (1)

...certainly not seeing it in the primaries, so far.

But let's not be naive about where the calls for unity are drawing their own lines of division. They're partisan, on their face (normal in an election). No one person is going to be able to speak for the entire Democratic electorate, so 'unity' is really about where one closes their own circle.

You seem to have missed the op's paranoid lede about "hyphenated "Democrats"" (love the 'Democrats' in quotes).

"I am seriously worried that division within the party is being caused by Not Democrats...when I see hyphenated "Democrats" I worry about who they really are, how to suss out who is really on our side, and who is wearing sheep's clothing and working against us from within."

That's fucking unifying as hell, doncha think? I have to laugh at this post, to keep from... I think the op knows better, but who knows?

Put aside the question of just who are these subversive forces the op has found "on social media, pitting us against each other." Ask yourself why you believe you are included in the 'us' in that sentence.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

57. November is too late. United Democrats are needed now for canvassing, GotV, etc. . . . nt

[bigtree]

64. Democrats are united

...maybe not around the candidate of one's choice, but I don't see where we aren't.

It's Democratic primary season. People are advocating for the candidates of their choice. Discussion isn't dividing. Arguing about policy or candidate in our primary isn't dividing. It's a normal part of our political process.

I really don't see any diminution in Democratic enthusiasm or participation, not from social media nonsense, or from dissenters within our party. The key thing is that these challenges are not coming from independents, but from people stepping up and seeking recognition under our Democratic banner.

To some that's something ominous or sinister. To me, that's the way we build coalitions and expand our voter base. I really don't see a threat to 'unity' among Democrats in this election season, at any stage, to match the (perhaps understandable) angst.

[LiberalLovinLug]

77. Excellent posts!

I mostly agree with everything you state. It's laughably appalling how much fingernail chewing goes on in here by a few of us if there is any talk of introducing policy tweeks or... gasp... constructive criticism. STOP ATTACKING THE PARTY! As if the party is some monolith formed and complete for all ages.

But I would only add that "there is a season" to some degree. In the few months before a midterm election, the internal battles might be put on hold until victory is won.

What is frustrating to me are those who NEVER see a time to self reflect. (Reminds me a little of Fox Noise insisting that "is not the right time" to talk of gun violence solutions right after a mass shooting.) Surely if there is any good time, that time is right AFTER an election loss such as 2016. If not then.... When? Yet some here were scolding and alerting on posts that dared to applaud someone like Sanders for daring to give his opinion on how the party could do better.

[dansolo]

108. I've never seen Bernie take time to self reflect

You act like "progressives" are pure in their deeds and motives, and all of the negativity is strictly one sided. When Bernie stops saying things like the Democratic Party is the party of the 1%, then maybe some of us will be willing to listen to what he and his followers have to say.

[LiberalLovinLug]

117. "all the negativity is strictly one sided"

That is a good one.
Unless you're talking about in here where if people said half the negative things about some prominent Democrat that they say about Bernie they'd be tombstoned. Even though Sanders is supposed to be respected by the rules as if he were a Democrat. Go figure.

Personally I think it's very helpful having an ally that can see the forest outside the trees. His warnings about chaining the party to the desires of the 1%, and that we'd do much better if we got back to our traditional roots, you have a choice to believe or not.

Shooting the messenger just because you don't like the message is up to you. Just don't disparage such an important Senator working hard to defeat Donald Trump and elect more Democrats by his resonating with younger and more independent voters and also dare I say many many Democrats with those admonishments.

[OilemFirchen]

61. Oh, the horror!

Partisanship in a Party primary?

That's simply dastardly!

[Cheviteau]

91. Pay Attention

What cave have you been living in? Jebus H. Crist in my pancake batter, did you not see what happened in the last election? Try to Keep up. This is serious shit now. The op. writer is right on target with his post. I could write a 1200 page thesis on the shit that went on in the last campaign, allowing the village idiot to be elected. Do you mock everyone who pleads for unity in our party? "I think the op knows better, but who knows?", you asked. No, he doesn't know better. And that's to his credit. bigtree. Yeah. Pffft.

[bigtree]

92. the op has his own bias

...clear as day in his op.

"What cave have I been living in?"

I'm a 40 year veteran of politics and elections.

What pocket does the op have the names of the "hypenated "Democrats""in?

This is hyperbolic fearmongering. Worse, it's a strategy by some to stifle debate and opposition in our primary, for whatever reason they use; unity, victory, whatever.

Unity is a recognition of all voices in our party, including a recognition of even those Democratic candidates we may not support. Seemingly innocuous, well-meaning (I'm supposing) posts like this, casting ambiguous aspersions and suspicions on opposition within our primaries seems to be the fashion this election season.

They are as self-defeating as anything they call divisive.

[KPN]

101. Thank you ... for your open mindedness.

[honest.abe]

13. Exactly.

[Hekate]

14. Big Tent: I have to say it works for me

[mopinko]

16. we arent divided

we are just diverse.
big tent and all that.

[mjvpi]

17. What did Russian interference look like?

I think it looked a lot like theBernie Hillary divide. These people are smart. They didn’t waste time trying to create dissent, they just amplified and exaggerated what was happening already. There was not that much difference in terms of policy. The solutions to America’s problems are what liberals and progressives are all about. Polls show that the issues are on our side. The strong tug to the left is what this country needs. Stay issue and solution orrientated.

[mythology]

50. One minor problem with that

Sanders primary voters overwhelmingly voted for Clinton. About 9 in 10. As opposed to Clinton voters in 2008 who only voted for Obama 3 in 4.

For all the complaining about Sanders voters, there isn't evidence that they voted for Trump more than any other supporters of a losing candidate.

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/545812242/1-in-10-sanders-primary-voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds

[klook]

58. Inconvenient truth.

Thanks for pointing it out.

[olegramps]

70. Quit messing up my mind with the facts. Its exhausting.

[Steven Maurer]

94. The only 3 in 4 for Obama is not true

It is the result of a poll taken just after the primary fight, but by the time November 2008 rolled around, Clinton voters actually voted for Obama at about the same rate as (actually slightly more than) Sanders supporters voted for her in 2016.

The main problem in 2016 was the narrative that she was corrupt for meeting with people that Sanders people think are the enemy of humanity - bankers.

[yellowdogintexas]

109. read "The Plot To Destroy Democracy" by Malcolm Nance

in which he talks about what was behind so much of what divided the Democratic side and caused voters who would normally support Democrats to turn against Hillary and either vote for the 3rd party or skip the top line on the ballot. In three states, that cost us the presidency.

We MUST elect as many persons designated D on our ballots as possible. From US Senate all the way down to local circuit judges if they are on the ballot.

I see what I describe as "needling" posts often and they are using the same teminology to go against these fabulous candidates as wa used in 2016. Looks like sames sources or their converts to me. We need them to settle down, buck up and vote a straight ticket.

[certainot]

18. democras need to turn on limbaugh once in a while for some perspective on why we're in this

disaster

[defacto7]

19. Agreed

Focus.

[bigtree]

21. it's primary season

...and feathers are being ruffled over candidate challenges.

There absolutely nothing to indicate Dems will be divided in November when it really counts.

My opinion is that Dems shouldn't act as if there aren't differences in our party. Just because they're highlighted in our primaries doesn't necessarily mean there's some fatal or injurious division.

What bothers me is the suggestion by some that it's unnecessarily divisive to press for a progressive agenda, for instance. I find it completely self-serving to support for incumbencies, for example, to complain there's something subversive about primary challenges, as has been argued to exhaustion here at DU.

I think using the crisis in the WH and Congress to suggest we shouldn't be pressing hard for progressive changes is a cynical and self-defeating stance which should be regarded as nothing more than crass partisanship.

[Power 2 the People]

22. 100% agree

Tired of the infighting.
[link:|]

[Stinky The Clown]

46. Heh!

Thanks! That made any day!

[BootinUp]

23. I'm a non-issue Democrat stinky. Nt

[Kaleva]

26. There's a small but very vocal group working here

[Enoki33]

27. Makes lots of sense. We also need to focus on the very real possibility - sorry

certainty - that the Russians will be doing all within their capabilities to sow dissent to help dotard. If there is a blue tsunami they will be looking to try to de legitimize it. November is going to be a bumpy month.

[Brogrizzly]

28. Agreed n/t

[NBachers]

29. I think there's more angst over contrived "divisiveness" than there is real actual divisiveness.

[Kaleva]

32. I agree. It's the same people fighting in every thread.

[LiberalLovinLug]

79. + 1000

[annabanana]

30. It's all hands on deck for the good of the Country

Vote Blue no matter Who!

[Wolf Frankula]

33. I'm not a liberal

I don't do liberal guilt, self loathing or self hatred. I don't gush over POCs or want a candidate who 'makes me feel good about myself.' But we have to put limits on that four time bankrupt shyster reality TV star that think it's our Glorious Leader. You know him, that orange haired orangutan who lives in the White House.

The way to put limits on tRump is to elect a Democratic Congress. Make him HAVE to negotiate. I'll be voting Democratic in November.

Wolf

[moriah]

40. I don't think "liberal" is the insult your post turned it into.

In fact, it reminds me of the first time I was called a "liberal" -- by some 9 year olds being sent to a private Christian school, after they asked me who I wanted for President and I said Dukakis.

They seemed shocked, and asked me if I was really a "liberal" -- like it was the worst word they could call someone/heard their parents disparage openly.

While I agree we need to get Shitstain out of office, and vote Blue in November, I find it extremely insulting that on a thread about unity you'd suggest people who identify as liberal are self-loathing, burdened with guilt, and all the other broad-brush smears you used.

I'm proud to call myself a liberal, and don't accept your definition of the concept.

[GulfCoast66]

49. You have a very right wing definition of liberal.

I am a proud liberal. I think government is our tool to make everyone’s life better by creating a more just society for all Americans.

I do not do guilt unless I have done something that deserves it. I do not even know what ‘gush over POC’ even means.

[Wounded Bear]

62. Yep, I'm a Kennedy Liberal...

[bucolic_frolic]

34. Anti-Trump Democrats are all we need

The country is at a crossroads. The battle lines are drawn. There is no compromise. It is a binary outcome. Win or lose. No in-between. It is that stark.

[catbyte]

35. No division here. I'm with all of you.

[IMG][/IMG]

[dalton99a]

48. +1

[tavernier]

36. As a great man once said, I am not a member of an organized political party.

I am a Democrat.

[SkyDancer]

39. The bigger the tent...

the bigger the WIN!

[yuiyoshida]

41. UNITE US!

[Voltaire2]

42. So you've decided to help out unifying us

by declaring all democratic socialists in our party to be the enemy?

Or am I misreading your op?

[DFW]

47. I'd say you're right

You misread the OP

[Flaleftist]

45. I have no doubt, but if you are a Democrat get your ass out and vote Democrat.

Support the candidate who gets to the general and fucking vote. There is too much at stake.

If not, you are no better than a Trump supporter.

[Beartracks]

51. BLUE WAVE: Every drop counts AND they gotta flow in the same direction. n/t

[sellitman]

52. We also need ONE or two leaders to promote.

Not those who have gone before. A new face. One we can all rally around.

We have no identity to those who are not involved politically every day like we are are on DU.

IMHO.

If it's Harris or Kennedy or Brown or Booker or whoever.

I feel the party better get it's shit together.

We have to be more than anti-shit stain and we need someone to ride the wave. The sooner the better.

[Stinky The Clown]

54. The midterms are the issue at hand, not the presidential race. "ONE" leader means little.

[sellitman]

105. Yes the Mid Terms rule.

But we have to start planning now for the Presidential. As much as I love Joe, I feel new blood will invigorate the base. It can help in the mid terms too.

[yellowdogintexas]

110. not talking about 2020 talking about some nationally known and popular Democrats

to emphasize this until Nov 6.

Here in Texas we have Congressman Beto O'Rourke with his new oldfashioned campaign.

[NoMoreRepugs]

59. Steve Schmidt on Maher summed it up perfectly....

THIS MIDTERM ELECTION IS THEE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

The fate of your children and grandchildren hang in the balance.

[honest.abe]

63. Its shocking that many on our side do not understand this.

We have to focus on winning.. period. It does not matter if the candidate is a left, center or right Democrat.. if he/she is clearly the best candidate to win.. then we all need to get behind that candidate. Winning back congress is all that matters now.

[cate94]

65. Exactly.

What’s up with Bryce and Meyers running for Ryan’s seat?

[librechik]

66. The real problem is the 3rd party: Non-Voters

It's time for the dems to go after this group, our natural consistency. We have the technology.

[yallerdawg]

67. What's the problem with Yellow Dog Democrats?

They're simply Democrats who would never ever vote for a Republican as an alternative to a Democrat.

That's too divisive?

[D23MIURG23]

69. I don't see a problem as long as dems put good of the party ahead of factional identity

Or at least that's my opinion and my read on the intent of the OP. The worry is that ratfuckers will stir up resentment between factions and use it dampen the enthusiasm of democrats to vote for their candidates.

The classic example of this was the attempts to deepen the divisions between Sanders supporters and Clinton supporters in the last election. The narratives about how Sanders was robbed and Clinton wasn't far enough left, which we know were amplified by Russian intelligence assets. Whatever the grievances of those involved, Hillary would have been much better than what we have now (I say this as a former Sanders supporter) and we are all worse off for the fact that this strategy seems to have worked.

I voted for Clinton in the last election and I hope most dems will show up and vote for dems this election, even if their favored candidate didn't come out of the primaries.

Any democrat is better than a traitor.

[LiberalLovinLug]

80. Yes... "Any Democrat is better than a traitor"

Which is why all this hand wringing about an internal push for more progressive policies is not needed not helpful. ie.... If Trump continuing to have unfettered power is not enough to galvanize Democrats to get out and vote together EVEN IF THEY ARE STILL UNDERGOING AN INTERNAL DEBATE, then there is truly no hope.

In other words IMO no amount of policy debating will, or should, ever "trump" our collective disgust with the traitor in chief where Democrat A will stay home because they have some slightly differing party view than Democrat B.

[Stinky The Clown]

84. There is nothing wrong with **any** of those named. Clearly you missed the point of the OP.

[yallerdawg]

88. See - right here.

This is why I don't participate in DU jury duty.

I very often "clearly miss the point."

[PatrickforO]

72. Indeed.

Ninety days.

Straight blue.

[DashOneBravo]

76. Agreed

Happy to K & R

[stonecutter357]

78. K&R !

[RiverStone]

81. Yes, I heard fake liberal groups already created by Russian hacks!

Working with tRump team no doubt.

Excellent OP! Agree

[PatrickforO]

82. I'm sure that there will be Russian hackers trying to divide us.

We need to take back the republic.

[Stinky The Clown]

85. They're already at it.

Some of them right here in River City.

[karin_sj]

89. Agree!

Now is not the time for us to be divisive and attacking each other. It's time to stick together and get back the House and Senate!

[pecosbob]

86. Of course it is...

That is the price of freedom of speech in the digital age. Media manipulation is the new psyops and now it isn't just bad foreign actors that employ these tools. It's a new world of corporate predators and we're the targets and the commodity. The old days when you could tell the aim of a political ad by the group that paid for it are gone. I'm old and won't be subjected to much more of this crap before I'm gone, but the young have to learn how to tell the truth from lies...and learn quickly or become enslaved for the rest of their lives. This is a sink or swim moment.

[orleans]

87. suck it up, buttercups -- just vote blue

(or what you said.

[GetRidOfThem]

90. And...

Let us not forget that foreign powers like to sow dissent between us. It is very important to keep fake news from affecting us, and for us not to react in a knee jerk fashion. There is a whole machine out there to divide us, let us not let this happen!

[warmfeet]

93. I vote for Democrats. Period.

I don't vote for third party candidates, I don't vote for repukelicans.

Democrats!

Get Out The Vote.

[Baitball Blogger]

95. Now I understand why one of my posts were removed.

Apparently this has become the unofficial, official policy on DU. We must have stealthily moved in General Election mode.

No prob. But, next time, a little warning would have been nice.

[Stinky The Clown]

96. Huh?

[Baitball Blogger]

97. I tried to bring up details on a local Dem who had backstabbed Dem

National leaders and my post was removed. I am not sure why I was targeted in that thread, when it was talking about Dem pretenders. The truth is, there is a lot of reason to be concerned about infiltration. I understand why everyone is so touchy, now.

[Stinky The Clown]

98. I have seen threads about infiltration go awry fast . . . .

. . . . including one of my own.

[Baitball Blogger]

99. .

[Baitball Blogger]

100. The Admins approved my appeal!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10962189

[Stinky The Clown]

103. Congrats!

[lapucelle]

115. When you say that the unnamed mayor "called out Pelosi & Hoyer for trying to bribe him",

do you mean "falsely accused" them? Who was the mayor? Was it a Congressional primary?

"I don't expect National level Democrats to sort these things out until they get stung, like the time that our mayor called out Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi for trying to bribe him out of running against another Democrat in a primary."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10962189

call out: to criticize someone about something they have said or done and challenge them to explain it; to challenge someone over something they have said or done.

[Baitball Blogger]

116. Your reading is way off.

First of all, the mayor is a chamber politician. I know his crowd very well. I don't think it's an accident that he used the word "bribe" because those are the kind of inducement prompting deals that they are known for. Their mistake was that they crossed private business with legal process. That eventually catches up with you. Remember, it was his words so I saw it as him, projecting is own style of operation.

When you look at it closely, however, he really stretched it. We have a serious problem here, where even lawyers who skirt the laws are explained away as being a "political lawyer." As if that explains why it's okay for them to skirt their ethical requirements. So it always puzzled me why the mayor would be offended by political horse bartering. Keep in mind that I don't even know if Steny Hoyer or Nancy Pelosi was involved with the things that he claimed. I just know it made the Democratic mayor very popular with his GOP Chamber buddies. And the topic of the original thread had to deal with pretenders. I definitely saw him as a pretender.

The way that I looked at it, is that if there is any time for acceptable political strategizing, his alleged situation would fall neatly as an example. I don't see anything wrong with it, within the context that he described.

However, what his local group was doing outside of the political arena was clearly over the line. And I would surely accept the help of National Dems who are as sick of twisted local politics as much as I am.

[lapucelle]

118. Does the mayor have a name? N/T

[Baitball Blogger]

119. This was some years ago, but he's probably still active in local politics.

I'll send you his name through PM, and you can google it along with the Dem Senators. The article is probably still around.

Is that okay?

[lapucelle]

120. I'm not understanding why the name is not for public disclosure.

But if you don't feel comfortable revealing it, that's OK.

[beachbum bob]

104. unless we are completely stupid, none of us should ever fall for anything that breeds dissention

with the democratic party. Its the russian bot attack like 2016 was and the bernie-brother movement

[KPN]

106. Unity will occur after the primaries. And it should be occurring now in States that

have already been decided.

On the other hand, we can't and shouldn't expect to eliminate debate about policies and candidates before primaries are behind us (what are there, 14 States with Democratic primaries still pending?)

As for "hyphenated-Democrats", how many official coalitions/caucuses exist in the Democratic Party? At least 3, maybe more (Congressional Progressive Caucus, Blue Dog Coalition, the new Blue Collar Coalition, and then there's the ex-DLC/Third Way/neo-lib liberals -- most of the rest). Of course members of these Democratic Party subsets are going to have differences of opinion about issues, agenda, priorities, etc. Especially when they are represented by candidates in primaries.

[yellowdogintexas]

111. sure has been declared here in Texas.

Damn! the ground game is fierce down here. Not since 1992 have we had ballots this full on the Democratic side and every single one of them has phone banks, block walkers, postcard writers, etc. These are good strong candidates, not "some body" whose name is on the ballot in a token manner. These candidates' teams blockwalk together and our focus now is on SVD voters (Seldom Voting Democrats) which have been identified in the VAN. We knock on their doors, introduce ourselves, and once we establish they are not Republicans who voted in one Dem Primary only, get their phone and email, and ask them if they will pledge to vote Democratic in Nov. If they are inexperienced in politics and ask questions, we answer them, and emphasize the importance of this election.

One postcard party I attended filled a candidate's home; we finished 800 postcards that night. Another that I dropped in on filled a room at a candidate's office. People I know who have never been involved in a campaign are so gung ho.

I am optimistic about many of our candidates.

[KPN]

121. Awesome. Good to hear and great to hear the excitement in your voice.

In the end, we all absolutely have to be yellowdogs in this year’s election. If we are, there will be a blue wave for sure!

[CentralMass]

107. There have been daily anti Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez posts here.

Yet I really don't see much in the way of attacks from these so called non-Democrats here.

When you piss in someone's cornflakes every morning they aren't going to want to eat breakfast with you anymore.

[Stinky The Clown]

112. Ask why.

Ask what an attack is.

[CentralMass]

113. I ask why people here constantly stir the pot and then call for unity.

[Stinky The Clown]

114. Really?

Who? I'll need to be sure to watch for that.