According to the DU Terms of Service, general election season has begun. Don't expect big changes.

[Skinner]

It is clear that the 2012 presidential election is going to be President Obama vs. Mitt Romney. So, for the purposes of enforcement of the DU Terms of Service, general election season has begun. Here is the relevant section:

Vote for Democrats.
Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

So, what does this mean? In short, it means we're all expected to support President Obama for re-election in 2012. If you are going to vote for President Obama, then you'll probably be fine.

We know some members are expecting the start of election season to signal a sea change on DU, in which the hammer drops and criticism of President Obama is stopped in its tracks. But 2012 is not 2008 or 2004. At this point, we don't see any reason why that would happen. In fact, we don't think there is going to be a particularly noticeable difference between primary season and general election season here on DU, for two reasons.

There was no divisive Democratic presidential primary campaign this year
Back in 2004 and 2008 we had fiercely contested Democratic presidential primaries, in which DU members picked sides and fought like hell for their candidates. When the primaries were finally over there was lots of ill-will, and some members who supported unsuccessful candidates were not in any mood to support the nominee. Those people who insisted on continuing the primary-season fighting after primary season was over were poisoning the community and ultimately some of them needed to be removed. But this year there was no Democratic presidential primary, so we don't have any problems with primary-season sour grapes.

Barack Obama is already the President of the United States
Back in 2004 and 2008 the sitting president was a Republican, George W. Bush. In both years, our candidates -- John Kerry in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008 -- were merely aspiring to the job of President. This is an important distinction. When our candidates did not hold the office of President, there was really no compelling need to criticize them except to derail their campaigns. But this year, President Obama is already President, and he is going to continue to exercise the powers of the office of President of the United States throughout the campaign. This means he is going to make real decisions that have real-world consequences, and DU members are likely to disagree about some of those decisions. We are not going to stop people from posting good-faith criticism of the President's actions as President. We know we went through some pretty ugly periods here during the Obama presidency, but at this point it looks like almost everyone here is on-board with President Obama already, and we don't anticipate that changing. (To be clear, you don't get a green light to relentlessly trash President Obama if you claim you are going to vote for him. As the TOS say: If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.)

Having said all that, please be aware that the DU Terms of Service are pretty strict, and we don't cut a great deal of slack to people who violate them. If you are here to advocate on behalf of Mitt Romney or some lost-cause third-party spoiler, you will be banned. We're unlikely to give you a warning first because -- let's face it -- if you are supporting someone other than Barack Obama you are on the wrong website. We don't care if you live in the bluest blue state, or the reddest red state -- President Obama is our candidate.

Skinner, EarlG, Elad
DU Administrators

[Scuba]

1. Thank you Admins!!!

Now let's all pull for the Home Team!!!!

[loggerboots]

78. Possible big Elephant in room.

Supreme court Ruling.........Obamacare. I'm a democrat,don't count electorals yet.

[JNelson6563]

2. Good.

Enough bullshit.

Julie

[Number23]

42. +1

[JustAnotherGen]

3. Could you tack this

Somehow? Reason being - I'm sure there will be individuals who will be coming here for the sole intent and purpose of creating agita - or who have lurked here as members of the political right that will again - just cause agita. Even a link in TOS until after the election? This way we have a clear reference when asked to serve on a jury. I WILL remember this post but in case someone misses it - it's probably a good idea to have as a quick reference tool.

[dixiegrrrrl]

16. I second the request to pin this.

I am sure some of us will want to refer to it in posts around the site.

[Scurrilous]

4. K & R

[maddezmom]

5. thanks for this and I hope just hope all the members read the announcement forum

[Prism]

6. This is very fair and very reasonable n/t

[Skink]

7. Obamas gonna wipe the floor with Romney

Let's talk about races like the senate one in Texas where their are some good dems in the primary.

And let's start working on some drinking games for the debates.

[aquart]

20. I didn't think Bush would win.

Assume nothing.

Although I'm betting Jeb's criminal network won't lift a finger for Romney so 2016 can be Jeb's happy time.

But yeah, EVERY elected office matters.

It would be nice to remove the racist sexist homophobes from Congress.

[abelenkpe]

26. + 1000 nt

[corkhead]

8. At this point, there are much better ways to affect change than to throw your vote away

right now, only one specific person OR one specific cyborg are are going to be taking the oath of office in January. Voting for anyone else is an exercise in mental masturbation and does not "send a message" to anyone. Ask me. I still regret voting for Anderson in 1980.



It's Obama Baby!

[SidDithers]

9. K&R...

If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

Sid

[Tarheel_Dem]

31. Ditto to that!

[RC]

36. And this:

We know some members are expecting the start of election season to signal a sea change on DU, in which the hammer drops and criticism of President Obama is stopped in its tracks. But 2012 is not 2008 or 2004. At this point, we don't see any reason why that would happen. In fact, we don't think there is going to be a particularly noticeable difference between primary season and general election season here on DU, for two reasons.

[SidDithers]

39. And this:...

(To be clear, you don't get a green light to relentlessly trash President Obama if you claim you are going to vote for him. As the TOS say: If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.)

Sid

[RC]

40. I don't have to worry.

I don't RA-RA for Obama (too far Right), but is still far better than anyone else running or trying to run.

[one_voice]

10. After what happened in the 2010 mid-terms...

I'm so ready to do a little ass kicking.

Fired up and ready to go!

[TBF]

11. Fair enough. I don't see women doing well at all

under a republican and/or libertarian administration. That alone is enough reason to re-elect this president, who signed the Lilly Ledbetter act almost immediately after taking office.

I'm in.

[Whisp]

12. can the TOS option in jury duty be more apparent?

right now it is sort of hidden as a dropdown menu. I think there are still a lot of people not quite understanding how option 1 and option 2 work.

I think it should be explained a little clearer on the jury duty note itself that ToS is a Mirtable offense that can get the poster PPR'd.
and advocating third party is violation and should result in dismissal

[secondwind]

13. Amen, Skinner... It's hard enough dealing with them on other sites. This is our HOME.

[Enrique]

14. I don't believe Ron Paul has conceded yet

[ellisonz]

17. Fuck Ron Paul

[aquart]

22. Nawww. I am so looking forward to the Republican convention.

Especially since I hear they can carry guns but not water pistols?

[Crunchy Frog]

25. I'd really prefer not to.

[freshwest]

76. +1

[abelenkpe]

29. True

And Scary! I freaking hate Ron Paul and his merry band of bigoted, crazy supporters.

[gkhouston]

32. For all we know, he conceded 25 times during Newt's televised pity party.

Oy, but that was stupid.

[MineralMan]

15. Don't just vote! Get out the vote!

We need every Democratic voter to go to the polls, and there's still plenty of time to register new Democratic voters and help them cast a ballot. We can re-elect President Obama and regain control of state and federal legislatures if we commit to not only voting but bringing others with us to vote. It's all up to us.

[Dawson Leery]

18. Certainly anyone who comes here to advocate for Mitt Rmoney should be banned!

Of course, we all know the trolls will be here to tell us just what an evil man Obama is.

[gateley]

41. I doubt if they're even enthusiastically advocating Romney on THEIR sites! As someone posted,

it must suck to be a Republican.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

19. Thank you for the clarification.

Of course, what was just said will be lost on some.

There will be some, whether Democrats or Rovian dirty-tricksters, who will overlook "We are not going to stop people from posting good-faith criticism of the President's actions as President."

What we say and do sometimes affects our Senators and Representatives. Not always, but sometimes. When we criticize Administrative policies of which we, or some of us, legitimately disagree with, our legitimate criticism can sometimes influence the actions that they take. Recently, for example, 68 House Democrats sent a letter to the White House to object to the provisions being negotated in the latest free-trade agreement by which the long-standing "buy-American" preference in contracts for Federal goods and services would be eliminated (even prohibited). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/obama-trade-congress-buy-american_n_1475277.html?ref=politics#comments

It's unlikely that President Obama personally negotiated for the elimination of the "buy-American" preference, or that he personally acquiesced to it, but someone in his Administration did. The support of the actions of progessive House Democrats at the present or other times should not be misinterpreted as Obama bashing or relentless Obama bashing. None of us can directly criticize the Administration official who acquiesced to the elimination of the "buy-American" preference because we don't even know their name. But when some noise is made in opposition to policies which appear to be contrary to traditional Democratic policies, that noise may be called to President Obama's attention or at least someone higher up in the Administration that may also be opposed to the non-traditional policies. Sometimes, the references to President Obama in the DU posts are references to anonymous officials within his Administration. We know his name. We don't know theirs.

There are, of course, Rovian dirty-tricksters who post on DU who pretend to have thin skins. And, of course, there are some bona fide Democrats who genuinely have thin-skins. (I can remember my great-great uncle who would not let anyone criticize any action taken by the Roosevelt Administration including interning Americans who happened to be Japanese descendants.) But in the absence of those two extremes, the rest of us probably fall somewhere in the middle who can tolerate and sometimes even enjoy the give-and-take with others.

Skinner, you should also be thanked from time to time for adding the "ignore" button. It sometimes, but not often, makes my day.

[Jakes Progress]

59. If your post

had been shorter, I'm sure the faithful would have read it and understood what you said. They would have chewed you up already. Nice idea to hide common sense in posts more than tweet-length.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

67. Some will demand loyalty oaths.

And they will demand loyalty oaths based upon what their concept of what DU should be.

I prefer Skinner's.

[Jakes Progress]

71. And some don't mind

taking it on themselves to speak in his behalf. Didn't know he was so unable to express himself that he needed all these surrogates to explain what he means - regardless of what he says. So kind of them.

[mmonk]

21. I just hope legitimate policy criticisms aren't taken as suppressing the vote

to the point alerts come too often. I'll just announce it here that I will vote for Obama so no one gets confused.

[frazzled]

24. I think yesterday's spate of posts are a good test case

Specifically, the one that stated the person wasn't going to vote for Obama because of his administration's stances on medical marijuana ... but not to worry (wink wink) because he was in a state where Obama would get the electoral vote anyway. It was meant to suggest to people that they needn't fear failing to vote for the president or voting for some fringe third party candidate who's running on, say, a pot platform (Pol Pot, ha ha).

I think that is really tantamount to suppressing the vote and/or diverting the vote to a third-party. That shouldn't be acceptable as of today.

If you want to criticize the administration's pot policy, knock yourself out. But don't suggest that this is such an important issue that your conscience won't allow you to vote for the president. Don't mention voting, and the post should be okay.

[mmonk]

27. LOL

Pol Pot.

[FlaGatorJD]

23. Thank you admins!

It's time to circle the wagons.

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. I alerted on an OP where a poster said he was not voting for Obama

just a couple days ago. The jury voted to leave it alone.

If this is against the rules, why let that OP stay?

This needs to be straightened out.

[FredStembottom]

33. As of today, Friday

...what you alerted on will be forbidden.
2 days ago... Controversial but still allowed.

Clarification already addressed above.

[obamanut2012]

38. Third Party Advocacy has ALWAYS been against TOS

So, it was a TOS violation two days ago, too.

[quakerboy]

55. Technically only if it threatens the electability of the Democrat.

To quote TOS &quot EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative)"

Granted that's kinda nebulous. Personally, I like my Rep here in Portland. But if I were to advocate for a third party candidate, you would have to have some rather odd circumstances for a challenger to be a threat. Now, for a statewide race, it would be very different. That comes in a bit closer. But this part of Portland is so blue, the green party candidate would have had to siphon off would have to siphon off 36% of the total votes to change the result. Even if a third party split the vote, a conservative would still loose by a minimum of 15%.

Just to build a hypothetical based on what I see the rules saying.

[JTFrog]

61. You might want to check Skinner's comment here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/124086287#post2

Skinner
2. "never permitted on Democratic Underground" means never.

It's not an election-season-only rule.

[quakerboy]

66. I would take that to mean that its not a time dependant rule

The OP that skinner was responding to was about what point in time one had to stop advocating for a third party. I do not believe that he was intending to announce that the TOS had been changed.

That said, I would guess that trying to play with this technicality would backfire on the poster doing so.

[rhett o rick]

35. Clear violations of community standards or rules that are accepted by jury

should be forwarded to admin. The jury should not be allowed to allow violations of community standards.

In most cases it's subjective and the jury decision is cool. But if the post clearly violates CS it should not be allowed to stand.

[NYC_SKP]

49. That juries left it alone doesn't reflect necessarily on what the rules require.

Even trained mods didn't always get it right.

To be sure, randomly selected jurors aren't going to always accurately reflect the rules.

[secretdj]

53. When did this rule come up?

Last edited Sat May 5, 2012, 05:27 PM - Edit history (1)

While it is Presidential campaign specific I think it resonates at a deeper level and not in a good way. Back in the dark days 10 years ago I remember DU being for the lonely few who thought Democrats should act like Democrats, not Republican Lite. I nearly got my ass kicked at local establishments in Wisconsin for saying I was a Dem, or that Fox News wasn't news. Meanwhile the state and local parties lined up behind those who could raise money and appeal to soccer moms. The Repub Lite approach led to a lot of losses 10 years ago. We on DU were the only ones with the balls to say we were Democrats when mealy mouthed candidates would never speak of big "D" Democrats, and often said they were independents while gaining local party endorsements. This lead a few local DUers, myself included, to take over the local Democratic party. Its been successful ever since.

But now it's Democrats uber alles and do what you're told? Wouldn't that make this site "Democratic Overground"? "Democrats Above Ground"? Or some other word play on "under"? I feel this approach leads to local and state parties also initiating the above "don't challenge our incumbent," policies as we back slide away from where the Democratic wave crested and broke in 2008. This approach would have added to the official state party chorus that thought it was bad to primary an incumbent Democratic Wisconsin State Senator in 2010. But without one important primary victory people would never have heard of the WI 14 or its young freshman Senator Chris Larson. Instead the conservative Democrat he defeated would have sat on his ass and given Gov. Walker everything he wanted last February, choking off the bargaining rights protest movement in its first week .

I know we must consider the practice of Republicans running sock-puppet accounts. Their goal is to sew seeds of discord not by arguing to vote for Romney or Paul, but instead unendingly advocating to not vote for Obama (or the Democrat in question), usually ending with a, "that'll teach the Dems to listen to us," statement.

I've seen the conservative memos outlining this very strategy. It is a real tactic. But it is a desperate tactic of a conservative party devoid of any ideas other than to suppress our ideas and our votes. These sock puppets are easy to spot by an experienced moderator, but banning these obvious plants sometimes leads to knee-jerk banning of all dissent. I'm sure some are questioning my loyalties with this post, being singled out because of my low post total and disagreement with other commentators. As a rule over the years I didn't post on DU if I was working on a campaign. And I was always working on a campaign. The few times I wasn't I only posted when I felt I had something substantial to add (I thought this qualified) and not just my opinion on every topic du jour. If old DU moderators on the Wisconsin boards hadn't stepped to my defense, because they knew me personally, I'm quite sure the ban hammer would have come down on me.

The question comes down to not one single candidate, but rather what kind of party do we want, and this forum as a reflection of that party; free and questioning, or monitored and sycophantic? The DU label always meant swimming against the tides of big money, a resistance to the party machine and comforted insiders when that machine began going against the party's platform and liberal/progressive values.

I say all this as someone who volunteered for and worked for the Kerry campaign in Iowa and Wisconsin starting in 2003, was a organizer of "Draft Obama" starting in 2006 (if you got a call from them there's a 75% chance I talked to you), and was at the Wisconsin capital during the working class uprising last year. I've worked for and won for Dems up and down the ticket and around the country. I do it because our ideals and our values, centered around equality, are stronger than bumper-sticker conservative talking points.

Support those ideals and values and within that framework foster ideas, especially those that are counter to the opinion you hold. That is how we advance causes, beyond what we think can win, and grow fuller movements that Democrats can act boldly on. Shutting down dissent without thought will lead to stagnation in any effort to advance forward.

Thank you for your attention. Obama 2012.

Did I mention I'm from Wisconsin?

[JTFrog]

63. Pretty sure it has always been a rule.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/124086287#post2

Skinner
2. "never permitted on Democratic Underground" means never.

It's not an election-season-only rule.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

68. Well said

[classof56]

30. K&R!

And thanks especially for keeping DU what it has always been--a refuge and place of sanity for those of us who are proud to be Democrats.

[FredStembottom]

34. ...and those us who say:

Step 1: vote a straight Democratic slate.

Step 2: hand in your demands to those Dem winners.

[Javaman]

37. Let the season of banning of trolls begin! nt

[kurtzapril4]

43. I will be voting for Democrats!

Now please, please bring back Top Ten Conservative Idiots!

[tomp]

44. i do not support obama...

....but i will vote for him, or i will not vote at all. i also pledge not to try to get anyone else not to vote for him. does that pass the election season loyalty test?

[dmr]

45. If you feel that strongly, how about a vote to cancel out a Romney vote?

Think at least about the make up of the aging Supreme Court.

[tomp]

60. I live in New York

if it appears that it is even remotely close I'll vote for Obama.

there is always such a problem of perception in voting: if I add my vote and Obama wins big it is assumed that i endorse his track record and policies. if i don't vote and the vote is closer it suggests Obama should have been more conservative.

there is also election theft to consider.

but my post was really exclusively about what positions are allowable on du this election season, which has yet to receive an official response.

[Jamaal510]

46. I honestly love this rule.

It helps ensure a nice refuge of sanity for liberals and Dems who encounter wingnuts on other sites, and it feels great to be among like-minded political buffs. This site is like a breath of fresh air for me, compared to YouTube and Yahoo Answers. On Yahoo Answers, most of the liberal answers get thumbed down and there are always a ton of anti-Obama questions, and on YouTube I can hardly ever watch a single political video without seeing a bunch of Ron Paul followers spamming the comments and acting as if he's God's gift to politics.

[joshcryer]

47. As I suspected. The system is working.

As more and more old timers and Democrat supporters return (mainly lurkers or non-participants) in the "off season" the juries will start to take care of the disruptors.

[usregimechange]

48. I endorse the above message

[SunSeeker]

50. Thanks, Skinner!

If I wanted to slog through troll posts, I'd go over to HuffPo. DU is special. I'm glad you're willing to work to keep it that way.

My favorite rule: The Vulturi don't give second chances! (Picture Dakota Fanning saying that with big red eyes!)

[pacalo]

56. A refuge from all that slogging-through-crap is the way I see it, too.

[grahamhgreen]

51. Great. Let's not support ANY Republican policies like cutting SS!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

69. Whoa. Let's not go overboard.

[snot]

52. I'd appreciate more guidance.

I will almost certainly vote for Obama and do not expect to be advocating for any third party candidate, let alone any Republican.

Nonetheless, I have consistently opposed the following regardless of party or candidate, and I'd rather not have to stop now:

War.
The failure to prosecute torture and other war crimes by the Bush admin. et al.
Surveillance or any other invasions of privacy of peaceful activists and other U.S. citizens, without probable cause.
The indefinite detention of alleged terrorists, illegal immigrants, or anyone else without a trial.
Discrimination against women or LGBT people.
The bailout of AIG, Goldman, et al. and the failure to pass meaningful financial reform or prosecute financial crimes.
The failure to pursue or seriously advocate single-payer healthcare reform.
The privatization of education or other traditionally governmental functions.
The continuing expansion of already excessive copyright and patent protections.
The continuing consolidation of corporate or other control over the internet as well as other media.
Etc.

Pres. Obama and other Dems have been, in my opinion, only marginally better on these issues in some cases, and in a few cases, arguably worse than the Bush admin.

I'd appreciate any more explicit advice you can give as to whether respectfully-stated criticisms of Pres. Obama's or other Dems' actions on these or other issues during the next 6 months. will be considered "bashing" or otherwise get me banned from DU.

As always, thanks for all your good efforts and hard work.

[Lil Missy]

54. Here's your answer

".......This means he is going to make real decisions that have real-world consequences, and DU members are likely to disagree about some of those decisions. We are not going to stop people from posting good-faith criticism of the President's actions as President. ......"

[Suji to Seoul]

57. I am not happy with alot of Obama's decisions and choice

But getting 50% of what I want from him is always better than 0% from whatever clown the clown car produces, in this case, Mitten, the Wooden Underpants Firing Clown.

Gobama! Four more years!

Remember also to support REAL Democrats like Grayson, Raul and Bernie Sanders.

Let's make a filibuster proof Senate and make Nancy Pelosi the Speaker yet again!

[BlueIris]

58. I'm still expecting big changes.

[beyurslf]

64. Skinner: Could you consider adding an additional exception?

When the Dem candidate espouses truly anti-Dem beliefs? It wouldn't affect most candidates, bu for those of in center of the country, we get some pretty bad "dems" running for office. Look up Jan Pauls of Hutchinson in the KS legislature for a good example.

[proud2BlibKansan]

65. Pauls has a primary opponent!

I just got an email about it the other day from the KS Progressive Caucus.

But your question is a good one.

[beyurslf]

72. Really? Does her opponent have a website?

[proud2BlibKansan]

73. His name is Eric Bishop. He just announced this week.

Are you a member of the KS Progressive Caucus? You should join.

[beyurslf]

74. I don't usually go to Demofest or anything. I know I should go, but it always seems to fall when I

have other plans. Do they have other meetings?

[proud2BlibKansan]

75. Sometimes.

The caucus is mainly online. We send out email alerts and we have a Facebook page.

If you want to join, PM me. You don't need to go to Wash Days to be a member.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

70. Good idea!

[UnrepentantLiberal]

77. I agree with every word of that.