What the Democratic Party Definitely Doesn't Need

[MineralMan]

is an increase in attacks on presidential primary candidates by Democrats. Such internal attacks never contribute to increased turnout in elections when the nomination is actually made. Instead, they stir up FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) on the part of Democrats, just at a time when we're trying to select a nominee and generate support for the upcoming presidential election.

That is precisely why Bernie Sanders, who has joined other Democrats in running for the nomination, has refused to attack his primary opponents. Instead, he's putting his positions forward and letting the other candidates do the same. The other declared candidates are doing the same thing, frankly. They all realize that nothing is served by attacking someone who may be the nominee.

Perhaps we, as Democratic voters and activists, should take a similar position. We should, I believe, talk up the positive policy positions of the candidate we prefer as much as possible, but leave the biting attacks on the other Democratic candidates on the shelf. Of course, some of us won't do that, in the mistaken belief that attacking a primary opponent is somehow good strategy.

Once the National Convention ends next year, we'll have a nominee. Then, we'll all need to come together to support that nominee against whoever the Republicans drag out of the clown car. That's not so easy to do if we've spent months attacking the candidate who ends up as the nominee.

Disclaimer: I am caucusing for Bernie Sanders in Minnesota on March 1, the date of our precinct caucuses. I will be supporting the Democratic nominee wholeheartedly during general election campaigning, and will not attack any Democratic candidate.

[guillaumeb]

1. What an excellent idea! Actually talk positively about issues?

Next you will be demanding that people be polite with one another.

But there are two schools of thought. The first says that by exposing weaknesses the candidates will be strengthened for the campaign, or eliminated if the weaknesses are fatal.

The second says that all candidates should simply present their positions and allow the voters to decide among them.

The second position would be best, assuming an informed electorate, and the absence of the flood of negative ads that will soon start.

I like your "FUD" abbreviation.

[MineralMan]

2. Well, that's what I'm recommending.

By the time we get to the general election, the cumulative effect of a constant focus on the negative has a tendency to make people feel that the eventual nominee may not be the best choice. It can limit turnout among undecided voters, who usually are the ones who make the decisions in presidential elections.

The primary candidates recognize this, and won't be dissing each other in any purely negative way. They might say that they have a better approach to some policy issue than another candidate, but they will never use loaded negative terms to refer to the other candidates. That is an unproductive campaign strategy.

You will not hear Bernie Sanders, for example, refer to Hillary Clinton as a "tool of the corporations" or a "war-monger." He may, however say that he plans to increase regulations and try to prevent corporations from overriding the public good for profits. He will explain what he plans to do to address problems he sees, but he won't call his Democratic opponents names.

That's what candidates do. Their supporters probably should follow their lead, I think. That way, if the candidate they support doesn't prevail, they won't have to deal with their statements during the primaries, and can support the nominee without their past name-calling being brought forward yet again.

It's just good sense and sound campaign strategy. Personally, I believe that any of the current Democratic candidates would do a fine job as President. It's not an easy job, and few Presidents manage to implement all of their proposals. I will happily support anyone who gets the Democratic nomination, as I always have. No candidate has ever completely agreed with my own views, nor do I expect that any ever will.

[guillaumeb]

4. Total agreement.

Plus negativity is a difficult thing to recover from. It is not easy to go from attacking others to working with them. Far better to assume that everyone who supports a candidate does so because they truly believe that their particular candidate has the best ideas.

[morningfog]

3. It's early. The Democratic candidates will get much dirtier towards each other as this goes on.

Hillary ran one of the nastiest primaries ever against Obama in 2008. She was absolutely horrible. She'll get back to that nastiness as she feels threatened and challenged.

So, don't go patting the candidates on the back and don't try to hold them to a standard that doesn't exist. And don't act like anonymous posters on a political discussion board should be held to those fantasy standards either.

[MineralMan]

5. I'm making a recommendation, not giving an order.

I'm very aware that I cannot give orders to anyone. So, I don't try to do that.

You have just read my opinion on something. You apparently disagree with that opinion. But I'm not "acting like" anything. I'm stating my opinion on the primary campaign.

What I think would be the best practice is just what I think. You might think something else. That's fine with me, even if I disagree with it. I'm just another poster on an internet forum.

[morningfog]

24. Who said you were giving an order?

And you are certainly acting as if there is some grand effect of posters with your warning or "opinion" or whatever you want to call it.

And your premise is flawed. The candidates are only nice now because it is early.

[ananda]

6. Just so long as there is an understanding that ...

... informed criticism of a candidate is necessary for the
process to work.

[MineralMan]

9. Of course. I have no problem with criticism.

It is the name-calling and exaggeration that troubles me. Calling a candidate "Hillary Goldman-Sachs" is not a criticism. It's name-calling. Saying that she has too-close ties to banking and providing examples is a criticism. There's an easy to define difference between the two.

[whatchamacallit]

7. Define attack

Do articles spotlighting or critiquing a candidate's words, deeds, or affiliations constitute an attack? It's hard to appreciate such broad and vague advice.

[MineralMan]

8. Attacks are not simply criticism.

Criticism is fine. Name calling, as in "war-monger," "oligarch," or "tool of the corporations," is an attack. Really, it's easy to tell the difference. We're seeing both criticism and attacks here on DU and in other places. They are different things.

Thanks for your reply.

[whatchamacallit]

11. But what if those things are true?

[MineralMan]

15. What things, specifically?

I can't comment on vague statements. Show me a link, and I'll comment on that. Otherwise, this is a thread that expressed my opinion about effective and ineffective primary campaign strategies. We can discuss that, if you wish, without any other links.

[whatchamacallit]

21. The labels of oligarch, warmonger, tool of the corporations...

Sometimes people ARE those things.

[MineralMan]

22. Uh, no. None of the current Democratic candidates are any of those things.

A number of Republican candidates fit those labels, though. See, I oppose Republicans and vote for Democrats. That has been my practice since the first election I vote in, in 1966.

[whatchamacallit]

25. Like a mother's love

Blind.

[geek tragedy]

14. I would say accusing a candidate of trying to get people injured or harmed

because they're planning a large rally counts as an attack and not any kind of legitimate criticism.

To give one example.

[whatchamacallit]

17. I saw that

and agree it's wild conjecture.

[MineralMan]

23. I thought that was just kind of silly, really.

I do expect it to be pretty crowded on Roosevelt Island that day, though. Crowded with supporters of candidate Clinton. I imagine it will be a friendly crowd, though.

I'd certainly go if I were in NYC that day. Sadly, I'm not going to be.

[cali]

10. gee, you mean do as you say, not as you do.

Just last week you posted an op that could definitely be viewed as negative toward the candidate you supposedly support.

And sorry, posting nothing but pablum about dems instead of discussing the issues, is not how it should work.

[MineralMan]

12. As negative? Did I attack a candidate?

I don't think so. If I did, perhaps you'll provide a link so I can go look at that "attack."

If you meant some post where I doubted that Bernie Sanders would be the nominee, then yes, that is my opinion. I will still caucus for him, because I always support the candidate whose views match mine most closely in the primaries, or caucuses in my case.

So, link to the post to which you refer, and show me where I've attacked any Democratic candidate.

As for what I post on DU, I average about one OP per day. Some others post far more frequently than I do, and often with nothing new to say. Some of them do call Democratic candidates ugly names, as well. I do not do that, but do believe I should freely state my opinions here on this discussion forum for Democrats. I think one OP a day is not excessive. Maybe you disagree with that.

[Kingofalldems]

16. Your last sentence is totally hypocritical.

[MineralMan]

31. I'm still waiting for that link to a post where I attacked a Democratic

candidate running in the primaries. I'll check back later. You made the claim. Now, please support it.

[DanTex]

38. Yeah, there's nothing you hate more than "pablum about dems". Obviously.

[geek tragedy]

13. While most people here support Sanders for his positions, a certain

other element has latched onto his candidacy as the best platform for them to launch scorched-earth attacks on other Democrats, especially Clinton.

They could learn a whole lot about a whole host of subjects by following the example of Bernie Sanders.

[MineralMan]

20. Exactly. Senator Sanders has it right.

He will debate other Democratic candidates, but will not attack them. If he doesn't win the nomination, I have no doubt whatsoever that he will strongly endorse the nominee. As he said, "I like Hillary Clinton." And if he wins the nomination, the other candidates will endorse him and campaign on his behalf. That's how Democrats roll.

[JoePhilly]

28. +1

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Voters are supposed to scrutinize the candidates. Good and Bad.

I don't give a rip about their gender, race, ethnicity, wealth, hair style, the brand of undies they wearl, their hurt feelings, or their image.

I do care about their records, policies, stances, and principles.

Or, as another Democratic candidate once said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

[MineralMan]

26. Oh, all of the candidates can "stand the heat."

I'm not concerned about that. I'm concerned about how ugly attacks on any of them might influence turnout in September, 2016.

That's my concern. I think I made that pretty clear in my OP.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. That's the risk that candidates take when running for office.

If they have weak spots (i.e. Bernie's a Socialist/Fringe/Unelectable/etc) they will be "attacked" and some of the attacks will be ugly.

"Getting into politics is like stepping into dogshit." From the "Motorcycle Diaries".

[MineralMan]

29. I see. Well, I guess we have no choice in the matter, then.

I think I'll still not attack any Democrats.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. OK.

BTW not attacking Dems is a "choice". And, vice-versa.

[MineralMan]

32. Of course it is a choice.

I'm suggesting that it harms our chance for an unbeatable turnout in the general election if we make the choice to attack candidates who might end up as the presidential nominee. I've made my choice. I guess you've made yours, as well. So, there it is. We appear to be done here.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Probably.

[peecoolyour]

19. We need more fire-breathing mediums who channel the spirit of Huey Long. nt

[Exilednight]

34. Only two types of people come to this site. Hardcore

Democrats who like to argue, and freepers who have nothing better to do.

Both already have their minds made up, and this website is not going to change anyone's mind.

[MineralMan]

35. That's not true. There are many dedicated Democratic

election activists on DU. I'm one of them. My priorities are for Democrats to win elections. That's it, pretty much.

You might want to look at the About and TOS pages here on this website. There, you'll learn that the owners and admins of this site share those goals, too.

Don't be misled by the volume of original posts from people who meet your first description. They do not necessarily represent Democratic Underground. Not at all. They just post a lot.

[Exilednight]

37. i understand the TOS. But trust me when I say, no one of importance or

Independent, or even the majority of Democrats are reading this site.

This is primarily an echo chamber. Any outreach that is done beyond this site, is done beyond this site. I wouldn't recommend this site to anyone who is fence sitting.

I work with many people within the Democratic National Committee. Maybe 1 out of 10 have heard of this site, and one out of ten of those actually come here.

Bernie, Hillary, Obama, Feinstein, Warren, Franks - well, maybe Franks come here, he's funny like that, but the overwhelming majority wouldn't be caught dead here.

[Laser102]

36. I agree with you MineralMan. This was done the last time she ran as well. Not to worry, she'll win.

Women will see to it. Never underestimate us. Last time the chance to elect a black man was to good to pass up. This time it's her turn. Cali, give it a rest. You are only making us more determined.