Animosity between candidate camps is IDIOTIC

[Tom Rinaldo]

There's no better way to put it without resorting to obscenities. I've been on DU since 2003, long enough to have endured repeated spin cycles during primary wars, and we've had some ugly ones here in 2003-4 and 2007-8. And I was right there in the trenches both times gaining a first hand perspective.

My nominee for the stupidest sentiment frequently repeated during candidate wars goes something like this:

"The behavior of supporters of Candidate X have made it difficult if not impossible for me to even consider voting for Candidate X". That's roughly the equivalent of someone saying "Those rowdy teens who hang out in the parking lot of the Seven Eleven in my neighborhood make me very unlikely to support free community college education."

I mean really, WTF? Sure this is much to be learned about a candidate from who s/he surrounds him or her self with - as in their closest advisers, as in their major donors who they become politically indebted to. And it might even be fair to throw in the unruly behavior of some garden variety grass roots activists: if the candidates themselves are actively and openly encouraging and condoning such behavior. But I can't think of a Democrat who is.

To the best of my knowledge none of us here on DU are seriously running for President. How sane and/or likable any of us might be has no bearing on the policies that anyone who actually is running for President will seek to advance once in office. However high profile any of us may become in our online discussion board virtual universe as an advocate for someone running for President - none of us literally represent the candidates unlit their official campaigns says otherwise.

If someone who I think is an asshole says that they support a politician who otherwise seems potentially reasonable to me I would have to be an idiot to rule that candidate out because of it.

Candidate advocates are particularly helpful in pointing those who are interested toward solid information about their candidate. And lord knows I understand from experience that candidate advocates have a legitimate role to play in debunking false information and smears hurled against the candidates we support. To make it personal though is dumb, and counter productive - except for a select few. And that select and relatively rare few intentionally play the role of provocateurs. For every real one of them there probably are a dozen or more sincere impassioned advocates for a candidate being heatedly swept up by the emotions at hand.

I don't waste my time trying to decide who is and isn't sincere since almost everyone is, and simply taking part in witch hunts trying to identify the rare exceptions to that plays right into the hands of any legitimate provocateurs, whose real purpose is to sap our moral and turn us against each other until we turn away from the political process in disgust.

Can't we all save each other some grief and cut right to the chase? Les than once in a blue moon we might get the chance to support a potentially viable candidate for President who we believe in our heart of hearts is the perfect person for that job. Ages ago I felt that way about RFK, and I still believe he was. Sometimes that person ultimately lets us down, which is the experience a number of my friends went through with John Edwards. More often though it simply doesn't play out the way we hoped for. Howard Dean for example fell short in 2004, and Al Gore decided not to run again in 2008 despite the fervent pleas of his enthusiasts.

Yes there will be exceptions, but come August 2016 over 90% of us who are active on this board will ultimately throw our support behind whoever wins the Democratic nomination for President against whoever the Republicans are running. I might guess wrong about some specific individuals, but I'm confident about that figure as a whole. Knowing that is true, can't we just skip the bitter divide theatrics that dominates DU primary wars? Satan isn't running as a Democrat this time around.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. In my heart of hearts, as you put it,

I believe there is one candidate and one candidate only out there who has a chance of breaking us free from the status quo. That candidate not getting the nomination means that it's right back to the same old same old. Some policies might change a bit here or there, some 'signature legislation' will possibly arise, but by and large, the status quo will be maintained.

So no, I won't be in that 90% in August 2016, unless the right person wins the nomination.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. Well, I'm one who thinks Bernie would be a huge breakthrough

IMO he's a chance to change to the status quo in this nation in a desperately needed positive direction, whereas other potential Democrats, again in my opinion, represent varying degrees of more or less more of the same. But having said that there are potentially worse things than the status quo, there is also the potential of monumental set backs. Just because a revolution might fail to take hold when needed is no reason to be indifferent as to whether a full blown counter revolution takes hold instead.

[Armstead]

10. I see it as a counter-counter revolution

The counter revolution happened in the late 70's early 80's, when the pendulum was swung wayyyyyy too far to the right, and very quickly. And Democrats colluding with the GOP to bring that about, due to a combination of cowardice and corruption.

What Sanders represents, IMO, is a counter to that, as more people have seen -- and been hammered -- by the dominance of Corporate Politics in both parties.

I have no illusions that, if elected, Sandes would face formidable obstacles. But I think his vision is clear enough that he woul help to push the needle back towards a TRUE center, with more of a balance between led=ft and right in the national discourse/

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. I fully agree

I simply meant that the choices are not limited to Bernie's revolution (or anti-counter revolution as you describe it) and more of the current rightward drift. There is also the threat of a sudden sharp surge toward the hard right if almost any of the current crop of Republican candidates prevails.

[hueymahl]

17. Very disappointed to hear that

I generally appreciate your posts. I hope you change your mind.

[Dale Neiburg]

2. I'm definitely in your 90%

All three of our major candidates have strengths, weaknesses, and flaws. Any one of them will make an excellent president. And the best of the Repubs doesn't begin to measure up to them (not that the best Repub has any chance of getting the nomination).

[DanTex]

3. In the end, electing a Dem is far more important than which Dem gets elected.

[Armstead]

4. You've always made way too much sense Tom

I must admit, I try to behave but sometimes I do get caught up in the personal sniping.

Sometime I think such things are an honeest response to what we feel are unwarranted attacks....But I think there's also an adrenaline rush that message boards can also provoke.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. It is hard to stay on factual point during a mud fight

And it's hard to ignore a mud fight when the mud seems to be getting thrown in your direction. Hey no one ever said it was easy being a responsible grass roots activist!

[treestar]

5. It is one of those things were intellectually you are correct

people are human though, so whoever is unpleasant to us - it can sort of rankle us and get us to think their cause is not so good. It's not so simple as saying you won't vote for X because of X's supporters. It's more that X's supporters that you actually see day in and day out on DU seem to be snarky and sarcastic, respond to you with straw men and accusations, etc. You get to dislike certain posters in the process.

People on DU are more committed so likely no one was going to change their mind anyway. Convincing the other voters out there - some of the behavior we see here is not going to do that.

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. Of course you are right about human nature

It's a good reason to use an internalized "pause" feature before rising to any bait. Otherwise we keep adding fuel to each other fires, keeping the wrong fires blazing.

[HereSince1628]

8. Yes, but it's basic human nature to divide into what are perceived as opposing sides.

That basic human nature around group behavior is sometimes within the realm of idiotic, is no accident.

[rpannier]

24. For me, that's fine

But to get all hurt over some annoying supporter of a candidate and say you won't vote for that candidate because somebody who has no real affiliation with that campaign is a jackass is just foolish (IMO)

[kpete]

12. A DEMOCRAT WILL WIN!

EVERYONE VOTE

Tell everyone you know to vote

Encouragement, not Animosity

Thank you Tom Rinaldo
We Have Great Candidates!!!

peace,
kp

[Rosa Luxemburg]

26. Yes and we don't want Donald

[Blue_Adept]

13. It leaves me wanting nothing to do with democrats

Doesn't change my affiliation or voting intentions but the whole thing with the level of vitriol from both sides has left me completely disinterested in the actual voter level views at this point. And as bad as DU has been over the years this just feels like it's on a whole other level because it comes after so many other recent events that have run off so many very good members.

[emulatorloo]

20. DU just really isn't that reflective of real world Democrats

So don't let what you see here get you too disillusioned. My humble advice would be to take a break from DU and maybe go to a local meet-up with real supporters of the candidate you prefer.

[Blue_Adept]

31. Yeah, but you see it elsewhere as well online

And honestly I'm believing that what we see here is the new strain of democrats that's infecting the rest of it. Again, it doesn't change my causes or interests but it makes me very wary of association.

[mountain grammy]

14. As we have learned in election after election

people aren't voting. The numbers are abysmal. Right wing voters always vote, and they'll vote Republican every single time. Then there's us, or 90% of us, on this board and others who also vote, but our numbers are smaller than the Fox audience. I don't know about the rest of the country, but here in Colorado, we are being treated to dreamy ads pushing the Republican brand as opportunity for all and a belief in the future. Not one hateful word, proving it ok to be Republican.

I think most Americans are in a bubble and will vote for whoever the teevee ads tell them to, if they vote at all. Voters who do not vote, are actually voting Republican.

[Bubzer]

15. Another important point that has been brought up defore by a number of people is...

People who come to this site are almost guaranteed to have already decided who they're voting for. The discussions here are not likely to change that. Being hostile, derisive or dismissive just drives wedges between people... that certainly doesn't work in our favor.

To barrow a religious quote: A house divided cannot stand. Perhaps we could dial back the debate a bit...at least enough to where we're not getting ugly at each other. Or at the very least, keep discussion focused on the facts rather than attacking folks.

[Android3.14]

16. And there it is

Now can we get back to electing Bernie Sanders?

[winterwar]

18. The shit is stupid

I'm so tired of seeing it. It's like when some stupid fans do some shit and they blame the artist. "Oh another hip hop show ends in gunfire. Let's blame the artist". Fuck that. I've been to hundreds of shows and haven't seen a shootout yet. But people still cling to one incident involving a couple idiot fans and stereotype the artist's fans. Same thing with metal shows too. And sports teams fans. Guess what? The well behaved fans get blamed as well. Then they want the artist to make the fans stay in line. Dumb people do dumb things wherever they are. They don't blame McDonald's (or their garbage food) for all the fights in their "restaurants" do they?

Childish shit. The way people go back and forth on here. Every conversation is
" That reeks of desperation! "
"Stop the presses!"
Roflmao
Smh smh smh smh smh smh smh

We look like an educated bunch note don't we?

[hueymahl]

19. Thank you

You are a true voice of reason on the hurricane of the political season.

I don't begrudge people their heart-felt beliefs. That is what makes the world an interesting place. But lets keep just a *teensy* bit of perspective here.

You are so right - "I won't vote for X because some of the people who like X are mean" may be the most tribal, regressive, idiotic thing spouted on this board on a regular basis.

[longship]

21. Childish, sophomoric idiocy!

Meanwhile the theocratic GOP has control of:

* A majority of state legislatures.

* A majority of governor's mansions.

* A majority in the US House of Representatives.

* A majority in the US Senate.

* A slim plurality in the US Supreme Court.

The theocrats are one election from getting all the marbles. And the immature children here fight over who is going to get the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, and have been doing so since 2012! I remember 1968. And this seems an awful lot like those days.

If we fail to unite, we will lose. Why can't people figure this out?

Shame on us all.

[jeff47]

27. Uh, you're forgetting something rather important

We have more than one option of who to unite behind. And no, our options are not all equivalent.

[Bleacher Creature]

22. Amen

I won't have moment's hesitation pulling the lever for any of our currently viable candidates in November 2016.

[rpannier]

23. Thank You. I cannot recommend this enough

I stay away from any and all posts that appear to be nothing more than slamming another candidate
I cannot stand the 'I won't vote for another candidate because I hate their supporters.'
It makes me so frickin ill
If I went by the least civil of supporters out there, I'd never vote for anybody

[jeff47]

25. You got to cover the cognitive dissonance somehow.

"The behavior of supporters of Candidate X have made it difficult if not impossible for me to even consider voting for Candidate X". That's roughly the equivalent of someone saying "Those rowdy teens who hang out in the parking lot of the Seven Eleven in my neighborhood make me very unlikely to support free community college education."

You have to cover the cognitive dissonance somehow.

Candidate X supports everything you've always said you support. But you support Candidate Y. So you have to come up with some reason to not support Candidate X. So you scapegoat the evil supporters, or talk about being "pragmatic" or unicorns. That way you can continue to pretend you support those positions while undermining them.

[HFRN]

28. when you get labeled a 'Hillary-hater' for pointing out her track record

I have to admit that I trouble to not feel animosity - I've never been good about being smeared for telling the truth

[kenfrequed]

30. I agree with some of this.

But that does not mean I am going to pretend all of my primary options are equal.

Status quo candidates can also be damaging to progressivism as they reinvent the new "normal" and reset where the locations of liberal, moderate, and conservative are in terms of policy.

That said I will obviously support the Democratic candidate in November. I cannot control my enthusiasm or lack of it for any given candidate but I do show up and always instruct my friends and family to do likewise.

[Vattel]

32. I agree with your OP, but would add that a lot of the animosity is not a product of the primaries.

Very crudely put (precision would require various qualifications), there has for years been a war on DU between mainstream democrats and reformist democrats. (The reformists are those who seek to reform the basic political structure and so tend to be very critical of the democratic party, its leaders, and most of its officeholders for perceived failures to seek those reforms or to advance them quickly enough.) The primaries are just a new battlefield in the continuing war. Naturally the reformists mostly side with Bernie and the mainstreamers mostly side with Clinton, and there is no reason to think that the existing animosity between many reformists and many mainstreamers will stop even when the primaries are over. For my own part, I try to be polite and rarely get a post hidden (the last one was because I didn't attach the sarcasm thingy to obvious sarcasm), but when I feel someone is being dishonest, or smearing someone, or bullying someone, or being rude, or just arguing in bad faith, I will sometimes resort to snark or even personal attacks.

[Armstead]

35. That's pretty much how I see it

As one who falls into the reformist camp, I've seen the same basic patterns over and over.

You can substitute for the name "Bernie Sanders " for "Obama (2008 or particular policies as president), Nader, Moore, Edwards (ugh), Dean, Kucinich...." and any number of people or issues as the catalyst du jour.

I try to be civil, but I have to admit I've gotten snarkier over time. Don't know whether that's due to a diminished reservoir of patience, the increased bombast from the status quo defenders, or the alignment of the planets.

But I do agree with Tom's OP totally, and should try to be better behaved.

[Zorra]

33. "Not good enough, Tom..."

When they stop lying about Bernie, I'll stop telling the truth about Hillary.

[Maedhros]

34. It's very hard to be polite in the face of disingenuous smear tactics,

and calling them out is apparently "being divisive."

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. Just for the record

I specifically acknowledged that supporters of a candidate should always counter what they believe is disingenuous disinformation with factual arguments to the contrary. But in the past, even in the heat of some pretty brutal primary wars on DU when I definitely had a horse in the race, I spoke out against some smear attacks on candidates who I didn't support. I oppose smear campaigns, period.

[Maedhros]

40. I agree. [n/t]

[alcibiades_mystery]

36. Yup...great post!

[brooklynite]

38. Well, if you're going to take all the fun out of life...

...seriously, I could care less about the squabbling that goes on here (and as a mainstream 1%er I bear the brunt of a lot of it) because what goes on here has almost no bearing on politics in the real world.

[Tom Rinaldo]

39. I'm pretty immune to it also in that it doesn't rattle me

Usually I let it go by, sometimes I comment, but it almost never gets under my skin anymore after having been through this all a couple of times before. Some of us are new to it though and others are rusty, because we haven't been through a Democratic Presidential year primary war cycle here in about seven years. The thing is, it does bother plenty of people though. We've been through veritable blood baths at DU before, and often long established members of this community have either been purged from it or dropped out of it as a result. And some newbies drop in and get disgusted and never sink in roots here when it gets too ugly. As a community we can do better than that.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. Yeah, but we wont.

Stock up on the sedative of your choice, that's my advice. It will be a long year.

[Warren DeMontague]

41. A lot of people have just sort of overlaid their long-running DU grudge matches onto the primaries

I mean, whatever the fault lines- snowden, the tpp, all manner of never-resolved cultural noise, etc.

When you have DU members who, the rest of the time, like to imagine that they're the ideological offspring of che guevarra and angela davis, suddenly and un-ironically banging the drum for the middle-of-the-road status quo Democrat, the candidate supported by big corporate donors...

...it's kind of funny, but it's also not too hard to figure out that there are probably deep-seated issues going on which have very little relationship to actual reality or any real ideological positions of the candidates.

I agree with your OP, letting your lingering irritation with someone on a message board dictate your primary candidate preference, is silly.