Is it really "refighting the primaries" just to post the NAMES of last year's Dem candidates?

[Ken Burch]

Even if you mention those names with totally innocent intent, simply as a reference point?

If so...why?

What harm does it do simply to mention people?

Why is THAT taken to be part of some hidden agenda or something?

What, exactly, are people here trying to prevent other people from saying?

I agree that we should treat all public figures in this party respect...but does that have to mean not even mentioning them?

What purpose is served by that?

[elleng]

1. No it's not, of course not.

'What, exactly, are people here trying to prevent other people from saying?' Reminding us of OPTIONS? SHOCKING!

[True Dough]

2. Bookmarking this thread

Just for the LOLs.

[msongs]

3. "in this party" nt

[Ken Burch]

5. My interest is in THIS party.

I want it to learn from 2016 and to win in 2018 and 2020. It's my belief that we need to blend the IDEAS of both 2016 primary campaigns and get people from both campaigns working together in a spirit of mutual trust.

And I speak out for that without showing any disrespect for anybody, or without working for anything other than what I listed in the second sentence of that first graph.

[Demsrule86]

10. No we don't. We had the platform we had an election. It is over. Time to look to the future. And

to do as you suggest would violate TOS...re- fighting the primary. We had months of that afterwards...time to move on...leave the bitterness behind.

[Ken Burch]

67. Are you saying it's "refighting" to suggest doing anything differently at all?

n/t.

[Demsrule86]

86. Yes, such discussions are used to re-fight the primary...move on and work for 18 and 20.

[Ken Burch]

92. We can't win any future elections running exactly the way we ran this one.

If you run two campaigns in a row the exact same way, you can only get the exact same result.

We can't win anyone over whose votes we didn't win this time by "staying the course".

And nobody is talking about taking anything away that you support.

[NurseJackie]

20. Why "blend" bad ideas that were rejected by primary voters?

[Gothmog]

27. The voters in Virginia just rejected these concepts in the recent primary

[NurseJackie]

47. Virginia voters are smart voters.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. Because those "bad" ideas where supported by 45% of those primary voters

and a lot of others liked those ideas just fine but were uncertain if someone who could be called a "socialist" by Republicans had a chance of winning in the General.

But I suppose some might argue that ignoring the input of 45% of your base is the best way to strengthen the party going forward - especially when the younger voters who represent our future are disproportionately among that 45%.

[NurseJackie]

33. There are always going to be winners and losers in ANY election...

... the candidates and their supporters need to learn to accept it like adults and move on. I think we can all agree on that, can't we. What purpose does it serve to continue on with hard feelings and unreasonable demands that the loser (and his/her ideas) be treated with some sort of "parity". If that's what it's come down to (a participation trophy for everyone) then WHY BOTHER having elections at all?

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. Hillary had the upper hand on the platform committee, as was appropriate under the circumstances

I support the platform that emerged at the convention. I applaud the extent to which Hillary was inclusive, while remaining a strong negotiator for her positions. I applaud Bernie for urging his supporters to unite behind that platform for the 2016 General Election. I think it was handled correctly. Do you fault Hillary for the platform that emerged? Did you oppose it?

[pirateshipdude]

36. The platform was almost exclusively Clintons. She is a terrific negotiator, hence what made her an

excellent candidate. Clinton shows her ability to bring people over, allowing them to feel it is theirs, even though it is exactly what she wants, or close enough. Clinton does not have the ego that has to own a policy. Clinton simply wanted what was good for the people and if it is allowing Sanders and his supporters to believe he got one on her, she is cool with that.

A great statesman.

[Eliot Rosewater]

51. I hope I dont get in trouble for saying I not only agree with you but Hillary Rodham Clinton

was the single most qualified candidate for president in history and was more liberal than both her husband and Barack Obama.

Not saying Barack was not liberal, but am making a point about Hillary.

She would have made one of the 5 best prez's of all time along side Barack, FDR, Kennedy and Lincoln.

But, alas, we know she just wasnt quite good enough for some.

[Ken Burch]

74. What is the harm in admitting that the platform had both their ideas?

HRC won...we all accept that.

If anything, it's "refighting the primaries" to minimize the level of support there was for a lot of Sanders' ideas OR to act as though his campaign didn't have real support and wasn't legitimate.

Both campaigns made strong, respectable showings and all I've said is that we need to work together FOR THE FUTURE now.

That's about winning the future...not disputing the past.

That's all we're talking about...the future.

[pirateshipdude]

35. It's easy to read into statistics, numbers. Without factoring in that Sanders won almost exclusively

the caucus states and open primary states only, cannot be defined as the Democrat base 45%. When I see the research done taking into account many that voted for Sanders are not the Democratic base, the number will not be valid or make sense to me.

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. Those who are active in the primary process, caucuses included, are typically called "the base"

In some ways those who go to the extra trouble of caucusing are the hard core base. In the sense of the voters Democrats need to win the presidency, since we represent a distinct minority among registered voters, those who pay attention and participate in our primaries prior to the general election are the most motivated voters.

But the principle is true regardless even if you wanted to peg Bernie's 2016 support at 40% or whatever.

[pirateshipdude]

39. Your post is not factually correct. Open primary allows anyone to vote. In rural red open areas,

Sanders got the vote. That was not the base. That was Republicans, Libertarians and for caucus, a handful of youth spending all day in a crowd, that many older people cannot/will not do.

Seeing that his votes were exclusively in red rural, I would suggest it is significantly lower than the 45%, even your suggested 40%. To use these fabricated numbers in an argument, is a fail in my mind.

Until this is taken into account, we have absolutely no idea the percentage of the base Sanders had agreeing with his policies.

[Tom Rinaldo]

54. You are making counter assumptions, such as "exclusively in red rural"

And you refuse to even acknowledge that thee are more registered Independents in the United Sates than there are registered Democrats when you tick off only "Republicans and Libertarians" as Sanders voters in open primaries. No evidence supports that.

I know quite a few Democrats who preferred the ideas Sanders ran on to those that Clinton ran on, but they voted for her either because they thought she would make a better President given her experience, or a better presidential candidate, since she couldn't be labeled as a "Socialist".

And that is what the sub thread is all about, not if Hillary or Bernie was the better person to vote for, just whether the ideas he ran on should be thrown out the window because "he lost", or instead be incorporated in part for party unity.

[emulatorloo]

58. You seem to make the assumption registered Independents are all to the left.

A good many of them lean to the right.

As to your point about Dems in the primary, people whose first choice was Bernie were happy w Hillary too, and people whose first choice was Hillary were happy w Bernie as an option as well.

They also knew that Bernie and Hillary's positions on issues are very similar.

So there is really no chance that Sanders ideas will be "thrown out the window" as they fit well with the message and goals of the Democratic Party.

At some point IMHO internet discourse went completely off the rails. That there was little daylight between the candidates positions got lost in some hellstorm of dishonest rhetoric, false memes, revival of discredited right-wing conspiracy theories by folk who either intentionally wanted to divide Democrats or naively believed every piece of anti-Democratic propaganda put out there. Mountains were made out of molehills.

[Tom Rinaldo]

63. I once again agree with you

I only talked about Independents because the post I responded to omitted any mention of them at all. I know that some lean right also

I appreciate your post. Well stated, and important for us all to keep in mind.

[emulatorloo]

75. Tom, I always enjoy your posts

I learn from them. Glad we can talk and sometimes disagree with each other.

[NurseJackie]

46. Wrong. That's not what the "base" is.

=======================
"... those who go to the extra trouble of caucusing are the hard core base."
=======================
LOL! OMG! No they're not. WTF does that even mean? "hard core base" LOL!

"Base" does not mean "most liberal wing". People who try to redefine "base" to mean something other than what it is are only trying to exaggerate their importance. It has nothing to do with reality, and I'm not falling for it.

One's ability (or inability) to participate in the unfair caucus process can not be used as an indicator of how dedicated to the party or the process one might be. It does not indicate how liberal or centrist one might be. Just because it's an unfair and inequitable process does not mean that those who ARE able to attend are "better" Democrats or "more informed" or "more liberal" or "more intelligent".

It's insulting for anyone to insinuate that caucus participants are in ANY way better than others who are excluded from the unfair process. They're not.

=======================
"...participate in our primaries prior to the general election are the most motivated voters"
=======================
That makes them involved citizens (good for them!) but they're still not "the base" or the "hard core base".

[Tom Rinaldo]

50. "It's insulting for anyone to insinuate that caucus participants are in ANY way better..."

Over react much? Who said anything about "better"? And I didn't say a word about relative ideology, being more or less liberal, more or less intelligent, or informed, or any of that. I don't mind you disagreeing with me but don't put words in my mouth. I was only talking about the fact that caucus goers, like primary voters as well, make the time to participate in the preliminary rounds rather than waiting for the party to chose a candidate for them to vote for in November. Caucus goers need to devote more time to that act typically than a primary voter. It's not worth it to me to debate a common definition of "base" - define it however you want. I am not saying that caucus goers are better than others; maybe they have move free time on their hand than others, or maybe they are just rabid, every person is his or her own story.

I can say from working inside the Democratic Party though that we do look closely at who votes and who doesn't, who only votes in major year elections, who votes in all elections, and then who also votes in primaries o top of that (we don't have caucuses here). We consider the latter as the best indicator of turn out reliability.

I am not pro-caucus, but they are a part of our current system, part of the ground rules everyone knows in advance. Obama out organized Clinton in caucus states in 2008, without that he would not have become President. Hillary put much more energy into them this last time around.

[Gothmog]

55. Caucuses are not democratic and are easy to game

In 2008, Texas had the Texas two step where two-thirds of the delegates were selected by primary and one-third by caucuses. I worked on the Obama campaign in the voter protection operations in 2008. The Obama team were brilliant on game theory and how to maximize results in caucuses. Hillary Clinton won the Texas primary portion of the Texas two step but President Obama got more delegates in Texas due to the caucuses. Caucuses are not democratic and can be manipulated. For some reason the Clinton campaign never fully understood how to play in caucuses other than in Iowa and Nevada.

The DNC made Texas got to primaries only in 2016 and I hope that the DNC eliminates caucuses for 2020. The games that can be played in caucus states are amazing.

[NurseJackie]

57. That's okay. Your meaning was clear. I get exactly what you were saying...

... that the caucus goers were the "hard core" base and therefore to be valued more because they went to "extra trouble". Of course you're too smart to be that blunt about it, but it's obvious what you meant, and it's still offensive.

And now that I've challenged you on it, you're accusing me of putting words in your mouth or "overreacting". LOL!

I understood exactly what you were saying and the arguments you were making in defense of the "40%" and trying to convince me that they are "the base" and trying exaggerate their importance or influence.

========================
"I am not pro-caucus,"
========================
Good to know. My opinion of you has been raised a notch.

[Expecting Rain]

70. I believe he was called a "socialist" by himself

He would have been called far worse by the Republicans.

[Demsrule86]

87. That is not a majority, and I do think your number are a bit high.

Let me give you and example. I support 'free' college tuition but not for all income levels. We need caps. So, I don't see the point in keeping a platform as if it is a holy grail...it can be amended to suit the party.

[cwydro]

30. Thank you . nt

[Demsrule86]

41. Exactly right nurse...for all bitterness still...Hillary Clinton ran as president.

[Ken Burch]

94. The candidate was rejected, agreed...most of the ideas remain popular.

The candidate most of the party felt was most qualified and most electable, and that most of those who felt placed a greater priority on the issues they cared about was chosen.

And I'm one of the people who accepts that. Always have and always were.

I proved I accepted it by campaigning hard for the nominee in the fall.

Accepting the result between candidates, however, doesn't mean that every IDEA associated with the other campaign must be personally abandoned, or that the discussion on issues is over in this party for all eternity.

We need to put short-term concerns(fighting voter suppression, defending the ACA) first. I think we're all agreed on that.

That doesn't mean everything else must be declared permanently null and void.

It's about ideas, not candidates.

The future, not the past.

The renunciation of ideals is NOT required.

[Corvo Bianco]

4. Because we don't talk about alternate Bernalities here

No seriously, it's to keep us from killing each other I Think

[leftstreet]

6. Clinton, Sanders, O'Malley, Chafee, Webb

[Control-Z]

8. There are not.

Unless you would? Why would you, though? Your OP is not honest, imo.

"Even if you mention those names with totally innocent intent, simply as a reference point?"

If you can point me to an example OP I might understand. I haven't seen one. Honestly.

[NCTraveler]

15. They often try to interject them out of the blue.

Start an op with a flawed premise in order to bring it back to the primaries.

This op should have just been a reply. That wouldn't have been meta enough.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029294727#post18

[NCTraveler]

14. You really talk disparagingly about the membership here.

Last edited Fri Jul 7, 2017, 08:29 AM - Edit history (1)

I don't think said poster has the same concerns as you. Since you made the outlandish claim why don't you back it up with something factual. Who alerted on that post? Meta at best.

[NurseJackie]

21. You're exactly right about that.

It's sad, too.

[Ken Burch]

49. That isn't true. I don't say anything about the membership here at all.

All I've done is respectfully suggest changes for the future.

None of which would do any harm to the membership here.

You accused me of refighting the primaries just because I posted two names.

I only posted those names to prove I WASN'T refighting them.

I have no hidden agenda...what you see is what you get.

I want a party that blends the best of what we all believe in, and which brings in the additional voters we could but currently don't have, and does so without taking anything away from anybody.

That is it.

I insult no one. I disrespect no one. I simply make suggestions for the greater good.

[NCTraveler]

56. Who are you talking about? You sure didn't address it.

"There are people who would alert on you for posting that." KB

[Blue_Tires]

48. Sometimes people with grudges alert on anything you say

I've been dealing with this almost daily ever since the Zimmerman case...

[Demsrule86]

9. What is the point of mentioning them. Neither are running for anything and the primary is over...it

was a divisive primary and a bitter election...let it go.

[monmouth4]

11. I still like Bernie...nt

[murielm99]

12. And I still like Dean.

I really like Democrats who do things to help the party and get fellow Democrats elected.

I really like Democrats who understand that our party is a big tent, so that regional differences apply. Some Democrats may be more conservative than others. People like Dean understand that purity tests are wrong, wrong, wrong.

I really like Democrats who understand that while those differences are all right, that does not mean that we sacrifice members of our base or our core principles to attract more voters.

I really like Democrats who do not single each other out or criticize each other publicly.

I really like Democrats who work together and give each other credit, who do not try to hijack each others ideas or hog the spotlight. They understand what the phrase "team effort" means.

I really like Democrats.

[betsuni]

17. +1

[pirateshipdude]

43. Not only do I still like Dean, I think the loss of Kerry was a huge loss for all of us.

I would have loved having Teresa as First Lady. Bummer, that.

[Demsrule86]

88. Me too. I was a Deniac but strongly supported Kerry because ...listen up folks...he

was the Democratic nominee...Kerry was attacked from the right and the left.

[sprinkleeninow]

78. And I really like you! Very nice expressions you put forth.

I adored Barack.
I was enamoured of Hillary.
I had a fondness for Bernie.

Hillary became our nominee and our household gave her our votes.
She was expected to win until that dread-filled moment in time when those states 'flipped' not in her favor.

Now what.

[Demsrule86]

42. SO? We can like whom we choose.

[emulatorloo]

59. I like Bernie too.

Not always on board with his post-election rhetoric but that doesn't mean I like him. Nobody explains income inequality better IMHO.

[NCTraveler]

13. O'Malley/Clinton

Boo!!!!!



META

[Buns_of_Fire]

16. Vermin Supreme. (You had your chance, America!) nt

[mythology]

18. You are incredibly dedicated to the gimmick I suppose

If people keep telling you that you are refighting the primary, perhaps you should consider if you are. I don't know if it's because you have a need to see yourself as a victim, or if it's because you honestly believe you're the hero, but pretty much every thread you start is about the primaries even if you won't or can't admit that.

[NurseJackie]

22. Jesusgod! Amen! Hallelujah! (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Thank you!

[Gothmog]

29. Great post

[pirateshipdude]

31. It feels like a demand that we adopt Sanders positions as superior to Clinton positions,

regardless of fact pointing Clinton was far superior in policies and ability, follow thru. A refusal to accept that the majority, and strong majority of the base rebuffed what was being offered us.

There is no argument here. It is done and over, people made their opinions clear.

I think they made the right choice, personally.

[Gothmog]

53. The OP has been pushing this concept on a number of threads

The fact that this platform is not popular in the real world and the fact that every Sanders endorsed candidate has lost pushing this platform does not matter.

[Ken Burch]

52. The people who say that simply don't want me to post here.

How is it about the primaries to say mistakes were made in the fall?

I say that because I wanted our nominee(the person we DID nominate)to become president.

I proved I supported her wholeheartedly by campaigning for her all fall.

I mourned the result as much as anyone else here.

I've even started threads saying the guy who ran against her SHOULDN'T run again.

Why aren't those taken as proof that I'm not refighting?

[NurseJackie]

60. LOL!

[Ken Burch]

64. What is it that you want?

What is it going to take to get you to stop following me through thread after thread, endlessly disrupting and heckling?

I've done nothing, at any point, that could possibly justify any of this.

[NurseJackie]

65. Often, the things you say amuse me.

If you post OP's in the General Forum (as you do)... they're going to be SEEN by me and many others. If you say things that warrant my comments or refutation or agreement or laughter, then I'll surely do so. Just because you post a lot, and I reply to some of the things you say doesn't mean that I'm "following you". Puh-leeze!

[Ken Burch]

66. refutation is fine. If you were just saying"here's where I disagree with you"

That would be fine. I'd welcome that. Everyone on DU owes everyone else on DU that basic level of respect.

But in my experience with you, you almost never work on the level of actual discussion and argument.

You virtually never make an actual case against any argument I(or anyone else you disagree with here) make about anything.

You virtually never address any positive suggestions I(or anyone else) make as to whatever it might be that you disagreed with in those suggestons

Instead, you keep posting "LOL!"s and making false insinuations and unjustified accusations about me and my intentions.

I never have any hidden intent.

Nor any intent that goes against site rules.

All I ever do is call for unity based on inclusion, partnership, dialog and mutual respect.

That's all I'm about...nothing else at all.

OK?

[NurseJackie]

71. Looking around, I can see that my opinion is not unique.

====================
"... mutual respect...."
====================
Oh brother! GMAB! Does that "respect" include making false accusations of "stalking"? When someone does that, how is that being respectful? What good purpose does that serve? Nobody deserves to be treated like that.

[Ken Burch]

76. Also, it's not true to claim that I don't accept the result of the primaries.

I have proved I accepted that again and again and again.

Accepting that result doesn't mean that everyone who backed the runner-up is obligated to never ever work for what that he and they supported. It doesn't mean giving up ever working for what that campaign was about.

It means working all out for the election of the nominee and not speaking disrespectfully of the nominee or the nominee's supporters.

I did all that.

Now that the election is over, we're allowed to have an open, respectful discussion of where we go from here, for God's sakes.

All I've done is to try and have that discussion.

[NurseJackie]

79. LOL!

======================
"... it's not true to claim that I don't accept the result of the primaries. I have proved I accepted that again and again and again. "
======================
LOL! Actually, I never said you didn't "accept the results". I've never seen ANYONE claim that you didn't. You're defending yourself against accusations never made, and things that have never happened. (What good purpose does that serve?)

"Accepting the results" is not the same as continuing to rehash and refight divisive topics. There's a difference.

And still, after all this.. you refuse to apologize for making false accusations about me "stalking" you. I don't deserve to be treated that way by you or anyone.

You made an untrue accusation against me. I deserve an apology from you. Do the decent thing and apologize so that we can move on and put this behind us.

[Ken Burch]

96. Almost every time I start posting anywhere in GD, you show up and start derailing the thread

You did that in a thread I did about creating an checklist for victory, which had nothing to do with 2016 at all, but was only about the future.

You've done that in dozens of threads, to me and to a lot of others.

It comes off as though you believe anyone who doesn't share your view of how limited the possibilities for political change are isn't simply a person you disagree with, but a spoiled delusional child unworthy of any human respect.

Why is that? Why is it not enough for you to engage and discuss? To make a case against posts you disagree with?

Why do you so often have this "go away, little boy" tone in your responses to people?

If you just don't want to see any views you disagree with, why don't you just put everybody to your left on "Ignore!"?

GD belongs to all of is, Jackie. it's just as much my place to post here as it is yours.

And I'm sorry, but you've got me wrong.

My purpose is constructive.

All I'm doing is talking about blending our ideas for the future and going forward as a true coalition for change.

That isn't negative and it isn't an attack on anyone.

How do we ever win another election if we can't even discuss ideas in GD?

If we can't discuss tactics and strategy?

Why do you participate in a discussion board if-as appears to be the case-you're against the very idea of discussion?

It's not possible to take Congress in '18 or the White House in '20 simply by sitting back and waiting for the Right to implode.

We can't win any future elections by reducing everything to "cheating, Comey, The Russians".

We need to be FOR, as well as against.

The only reason for the Democratic Party to even exist is to be the party of change.

[NurseJackie]

109. "GD belongs to all of is...it's just as much my place to post here as it is yours." Glad to hear it!

========================
"GD belongs to all of is ... it's just as much my place to post here as it is yours. "
========================
Every time you post something here, I think it would be a good idea for you to mentally prepare yourself for a reply or two that you're not going to like. If you can just do that... I believe you'll be much happier. I hope so anyway.

========================
"It comes off as though you believe anyone who doesn't share your view of how limited the possibilities for political change are isn't simply a person you disagree with, but a spoiled delusional child unworthy of any human respect. "
========================
Here's the thing... if you don't like the things I say or how I say them, I can deal with that. As an adult, I understand that you don't hate ME as a person! And even IF you did come right out and say that you DO hate me (as a person) I wouldn't care. I wouldn't dwell on that fact, and I wouldn't be upset about it at all.

My life goes on perfectly fine whether you like me or not, or whether you hate me or not. My sense of worth or well-being is not dependent on whether a stranger online "hates" me or "likes" me. I'm an adult with a real life outside of this very entertaining website. As interesting as it is, it's just a website. It's not real-life, it's not my ENTIRE reason for existing. (Does that make sense? Do you get what I'm saying?)

I think it's fair to say that some highly sensitive people here are prone to over-reactions. Those people take things far too personally. In contracts, I've noticed that people are generally happier when they are able to to separate their sense of *worthiness* from their *ideas*. When others ridicule someone's *ideas* that come across as being "silly" or "unrealistic" or "out of touch" or "naive" etc, they're not rejecting the *actual person* who wrote them... they're simply just rejecting the idea. (See the difference? Think about it.)

========================
"All I'm doing is talking about blending our ideas for the future and going forward as a true coalition for change."
========================
No, you're talking about giving instant "parity" (across-the-board) to ideas that have already been REJECTED. If someone else runs on those previously rejected ideas... and if they're embraced by the party... then GREAT! Let the voters decide.

In the real world, the party is not going to automatically adopted the failed and rejected by default, simply because you wish it were true. (Sorry, that's not how it works.)

========================
"Why do you participate in a discussion board if-as appears to be the case-you're against the very idea of discussion?"
========================
OMG! LOL!

========================
"We can't win any future elections by reducing everything to "cheating, Comey, The Russians".
========================
WTF? I have no idea what you're talking about, or who this may have been intended for. When have I EVER said anything like that to you? It certainly wasn't an argument you've been having with me. You must be confused and think that I'm someone else perhaps?

But let me just add: We can't win any future elections by denying and IGNORING "cheating, Comey, The Russians".

========================
"We need to be FOR, as well as against. "
========================
Yawn. Absolute nonsense. Get real, because we already are.

========================
"The only reason for the Democratic Party to even exist is to be the party of change."
========================
LOL! The "only reason" huh? Seriously?? Get real and GMAFB!

[KTM]

68. Dont let it bug you so much...

Its only the same 10 people who fill your threads that argue with you that way, they are just disproportionately prolific here. Scan through *any* of the heated, 100+ post threads in GD that deal in any way about the split in the Democratic party or lessons to learn from the last ass kicking, and you will see that maybe haf a dozen people make up half or more of all the posts.

Ignore them - they are a just a tiny group with an oversized voice in this small pond.

[Demsrule86]

89. Here is the thing. We lost the election, and I accept that. I don't want to rehash the loss...I

don't want to have the party pushed to the left because I think we will surely lose in a center left country. Some on the alt-left are already primarying moderate Democrats like Manchin...I think this is insane...'Our Revolution' is doing this. Let's look to the future and find new strategies. And for God's sake let's stop forcing our candidates to stave off attacks from the right and the alt-left. It is a lose -lose situation. There is nothing in the 16 election that can help Democrats win in terms of the campaigns or the primary for that matter. In terms of cheating and the Russian attacks...yeah we need to address that as much as possible. Also, We need Dems to work to elect Democrats at the state level in order to stop the attack on voting rights and to end the cripping gerrymanders...all else is smoke and mirrors. Greens and 'Our Revolution' hate the Democratic Party and will never be our allies...thus we need to try to marginalize them whenever possible...they are no different then the GOP whom they help elect.

[Ken Burch]

95. I'm with you on electing Dems at the state level.

I helped a Dem beat a multi-term GOP state rep in Juneau last fall in what was a safe GOP seat.

I worked in many other campaigns before that.

We can only beat GOP incumbents in state legislature by massively bringing up turnout.

Compelling ideas and a vision of a different future are the only way to do that.


And I'm not rehashing the past...simply establishing a starting point for future.

We had two good possibilities...we can only enhance ourselves by combining the best of them with the best of the future.

We can't win by saying "don't worry...you won't NOTICE that I'm a Democrat"-or by leaving the right-wing narrative on politics unchallenged.

[Demsrule86]

100. That is awesome! Congratulations. We need to consider new ideas that were not even

part of 16 though...the threat of the GOP taking health care at any time is a good issue.

[Ken Burch]

103. I agree. We need post '16 ideas as well.

I was never, at any point, meaning to say we shouldn't incorporate any ideas AFTER last year.

And I think we're united on fighting the GOP on the healthcare issue.

[Ken Burch]

77. What the people who accuse me of that want is for nobody here to talk about ideas.

Or strategy. Or tactics.

They appear to think all we need to do is end voter suppression and we will automatically win again.

We need to end voter suppression, but by itself that isn't enough.

We also need ideas that will bring those and other voters to the polls.

We will never win as the lesser-evil or by default.

[betsuni]

80. "We will never win as the lesser-evil"

OMG LOL

[NurseJackie]

81. I know! Right?

OMG! LOL!

That's just another way of saying "both parties are the same". Phrases like that are what I'd expect to hear from Susan Sarandon.

[betsuni]

82. There can never be too many OMG LOLs when it comes to these things.

[NurseJackie]

83. OMG! It's like you're reading my mind... inside my head! LOL!

[betsuni]

85. It's a small OMG LOL world after all!

[Ken Burch]

97. Why is that silly?

I'm just saying we need to be for, rather than simply against.

that "Stop(fill in the blank)!" never works for us.

[betsuni]

104. The idea that a Democrat over a Repulbican is a lesser-evil choice is silly.

The idiom "the lesser of two evils" means a choice between two bad things. Calling Democrats a bad choice on Democratic Underground isn't very nice. A liberal-hating Republican deciding to vote for the Democratic candidate over Trump could say that it was the lesser of two evils -- that's the only time it makes sense.

The idea that Dems are only against things and not for anything is also silly.

"That 'stop (fill in the blank)' never works for us." I don't know what that means. In the last election the media showed Trump speaking for minutes at a time and a clip of one sentence Clinton said about Trump. An hour talking about the economy and jobs and all the issues and that one sentence was what they showed. I watched the news every day, that's what they did. And that's why people who mindlessly believe anything they hear thought Clinton didn't talk about the economy. It would be nice if there wasn't a constant parade of posts accusing Dems of not stopping things: "Why didn't the Democrats stop (fill in the blank)?" and "Why aren't the Democrats doing anything about (fill in the blank)?" Boring.

[Ken Burch]

105. All that I'm saying is that we need to spend much more time being "for" than "against"

We should focus in '18 and '20 on what WE have to offer, since we have eternal proof that going negative doesn't work against Trump.

And if the MSM blocks our message, we need to massively up our social media game to get around that.

Social media(including Twitter)is where WE can actually shape the message and take ownership of the narrative.

[NurseJackie]

116. LOL! Nobody is doing that.

===================
"105. All that I'm saying is that we need to spend much more time being "for" than "against"
===================
LOL! And all I'm saying is that anyone who's been paying attention already knows what Democrats and the Democratic party are for. Do you honestly believe that Democrats aren't doing that? It's not a big secret what Democrats are "for" and I'm surprised that you're not already aware. It's been in all the papers.

What good purpose does it serve to pretend that the Democrats are incompetent. Why go through so much effort to make it appear that Democrats don't know what they're doing?

===================
"We should focus in '18 and '20 on what WE have to offer, "
===================
Wow! Gee! It's so simple!!! I wonder why nobody ever thought of that before. Someone should send an email to Perez.

===================
"...since we have eternal proof that going negative doesn't work against Trump. "
===================
LOL! She got millions more votes than Trump. Also... don't forget: cheating, Comey, Russians.

In an earlier message you've rejected those three things and indicated your belief that they didn't play a part in Trump's electoral victory... but it's important to be realistic about things.

It serves no good purpose to deny that there was cheating and that Comey and the Russians manipulated our election process.

[Ken Burch]

117. She didn't beat Trump by going negative...she did so in spite of that.

And I never denied that there was cheating, nor did I say that those things played NO role. They played a role.

What I'm saying is that we can't put the whole thing down to that, and we can't gain votes in the next elections by assuming it was just that and that we don't need to change anything.

It's that mindset...change nothing, rethink nothing, offer no positive message and hope to win by default-that beat us in 1980, 1984, 1988, 2004, and 2016.

It was an absolute disgrace that the elections were hacked in 2016. But ordinary voters don't care about it and their votes won't be swayed by it. Ordinary voters don't see election hacking, in isolation, as something that affects them directly. They care about which party will offer something that will make a perceptible difference in THEIR lives.

A combination of a strong commitment to fighting social injustice, combined with a stronger commitment to economic policies that reset the balance between the few and the many, can return us to power and actually give this party a mandate to change things.

[FSogol]

19. Oh great, another Lincoln Chafee post from Ken. Give it a rest, Chafee will never

be President no matter how much you passive-aggressively refight the primaries.

[Sunlei]

23. no, I've posted plenty of times I wish Sanders & Clinton had teamed up Pres & VP. But election is

over. Get over it!

Lets go after those Republicans who colluded with Russia and attacked OUR democracy!! Republicans who did the dossier on trump, KNEW HE WAS A SICK CRAZY and backed his ass anyway.

[Ken Burch]

98. We need to go after the GOP...but we can't win JUST by going after them.

We also need to talk about what we will do that's different from them-and to make THAT the centerpiece of all Democratic campaigns.

"Stop(fill in the blank)!" doesn't get us elected.

[NurseJackie]

110. LOL! If you believe that's the ONLY thing Dems do, then you're not paying attention.

[Ken Burch]

111. I didn't say it's the only thing ANY Dem does(I'm as much a Dem as you are, btw)

I was talking about the messaging from above.

[NurseJackie]

113. Give it a rest! The "messaging from above" is fine.

===================
"I'm as much a Dem as you are, btw"
===================
LOL! Who said you weren't?

[Ken Burch]

114. You talk about "what Dems do". I know what rank-and-file Dems do.

I'm not outside of this party.

[NurseJackie]

115. I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

[Ken Burch]

99. I agree that the election is over.

But we can't win JUST by going after the GOP. JUST attacking them and just saying they have to be beaten can't gain us votes.

We need to lead with what we are FOR, not just what we're against.

We don't need to run campaigns based on the assumption that we can't set the narrative.

[Sunlei]

107. good to agree and I agree with you. I don't think the campaign, including the debates should have

been the constant attacking of whatever ridiculous words came out of trumps Bigot Republican mouth. Campaign (future) should use the word "Republican" a hell of a lot more then trump. I agree with you, the campaign any campaign should push the differences between R & D. not Trump and D.

Last campaign it wasn't trumps anti-muslim "pogrom" and anti- Mexican border "pogrom"- those are Republican issues. Republicans wanted to deport millions of undocumented good people, Republicans are anti immigrant.

[Ken Burch]

108. We had a great platform and a LOT to offer.

The only things I'd have changed would have been these:

1) I'd have had the tv ads focus mainly on the platform and what we were proposing to do. The attack ads gave people the false impression that we had nothing positive to offer. What I kept hearing was "we know he's a douchenozzle-but what are you folks proposing that will help ME?" If the media wouldn't report things, I'd have used social media to get around it...even Twitter, which, as we've all had occasion to learn, can be very effective-even if sometimes in terrifying ways.

2) In the states where Sanders did well, especially the Upper Midwest, I'd have run ads targeting the Sanders voters to make sure they showed up-and those ads would have been based on reminding them that what they did made a difference-that they didn't get their candidate nominated, but they changed the debate and brought a lot of things in to the platform and the debate, and that they had a place in this party-rather than the "what you all did was a total failure and a waste of time-none of it deserves any respect" message they WERE sent. This would not have meant "coddling" those voters-just engaging them in a positive way.


3) I'd have had our nominee go to the Upper Midwest states when our lead their started narrowing. In those states, I'd have had her reiterate that TPP would be a dead letter if she was elected. She had nothing to lose in that and it might have made the kind of difference Hubert Humphrey's Salt Lake City speech on Vietnam, in late September of '68, made in that campaign. Before that speech, HHH was thirteen points behind Nixon and stuck at 30% support in the polls. Afterwards, he closed to essentially a dead heat with Nixon in popular support by Election Day and the general historical consensus is that, had Humphrey given that speech a week earlier, he'd have beaten Nixon. In this case, a specific message on trade directed to those states might have solidified her lead and elected Russ Feingold in Wisconsin and the Dem candidate in PA.

I'd have done ALL of that because I truly, honestly, deeply wanted Hillary to win and to get a progressive Congress to work with.

And the only reason I've mentioned those things now is as way to help us do better IN THE FUTURE.

That is all it has ever been about with me.

[NurseJackie]

112. LOL! Don't worry, Ken. Democrats aren't doing that.

[MineralMan]

24. It's not just mentioning them, Ken.

They get mentioned all the time on DU. What's the reason for this thread, though? I have no reference for what you're talking about. Still, threads talking about "refighting the primaries" are about refighting the primaries, by definition. It's six months into Fake Trump's administration. Can we focus on the next election, please?

[Iggo]

25. Of course not. Why? Did that happen to you?

[NastyRiffraff]

26. Good grief, give it a rest

Your OP makes no sense. You've posted, YET AGAIN, an OP about not refighting the primary that....refights the primary. Please. Stop.

[rock]

32. The people that "won" the election are extremely thin-skinned about it

With a really good reason, I might add.

[H2O Man]

37. Interesting.

The Jim Webb vs Lincoln Chafee war remains on-going, and threatens to destroy party unity among the seven people involved. It's not a fight we should participate in on DU.

On a more serious note, I would suspect that making positive comments about finding common ground is generally viewed as okay, versus picking a scab of an unhealed wound.

[BannonsLiver]

44. Elsa sez...

[SecularMotion]

45. You're creating flamebait by just mentioning "the primaries" in your title

[Sissyk]

61. Okay.

I never post on these stupid threads (from either side) but you need to stop it.

Just stop!

Lately, every post I read from you IS ABOUT the primary! We are way past that.

[NurseJackie]

62. +1

[KTM]

69. Maybe, maybe not

I see evidence all the time that makes me personally feel like we (lefties/Dems) are once again failing to learn from our mistakes. I see TONS of posts that seek to blame our loss exclusively on outside factors, or at least present factors outside of our control as being the primary reason we continue to lose.

There is that whole "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" notion, and IMHO, a lot of our electorate are MUCH more comfortable avoiding any party introspection at all. Doing so in most cases requires people to admit that on some level they were wrong, and there are a lot of people here who cannot handle that. I feel that is the reason people "refight the primary" instead of "learn from the past." One is bad, the other not so much.

[Iggo]

91. One of our biggest mistakes is refighting this past primary.

In 2008 we had our guy in the White House which helped to dampen and eventually assuage the hurt feelings from the recent primary.

This time we ain't got that. There's a vacuum that the PUMAs from both sides are exceedingly eager to fill.

We fight each other? We lose.

That needs to stop.

[betsuni]

72. These posts are always like: I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST FALL CAMPAIGN

I also think about that line from a Stephen King movie: "Give me what I want and I'll go away."

[NurseJackie]

84. Jesusmercy! Daaaaamn! ("Give me what I want...")

[Ken Burch]

73. All of my posts are about the future and ideas for the future. Nothing else.

It's appropriate to the future to discuss ideas.

That's all I'm doing.

[Demsrule86]

90. You want to discuss ideas from the primary and past election then implore people not to 'ignore or

kick out the left', as if that ever happened. It does not look to the future but endlessly examines what 'Democrats' did wrong in the past,while ignoring cheating, Comey and the Russians.

[Ken Burch]

93. i agree that cheating, Comey and the Russians made at least part of the difference.

But why make the conversation solely about those things when there is nothing we can DO about any of those things? When those things are outside of our control?

We're in the minority in Congress and most state legislatures, after all.

It's not as though we could still get the 2016 results thrown out or something.

We need ideas, strategy, and tactics, too.

And we need dialog between the factions in this party, dialog that brings us to and of the artificially created division between the social justice and economic justice movements. It's enough to say that they are distinct, yet connected. In the real world, the actual activists in both movements agree on the agenda 98% of the time.

And we need to find a way to connect with the voters we could have taken, that were basically with us, but that we aren't at present connecting with. Those are the only voters we have any real chance of adding to our totals in '18 or '20. I agree with you fully that we need to fight voter suppression, but it's not anything close to a sure thing that we can get rid of it by '18 or '20.

I'm not attacking anybody here and I supported the nominee.

I just want us to do win in '18 and '20.

We can't do that if we don't have a compelling positive message, if we don't inspire and mobilize, in addition to working on the mechanics of the process.

[Demsrule86]

101. I am very concerned that Trump has basically given Putin the go ahead to keep it up at the

his meeting with Putin. We have no way to stop Putin if the Republicans collude.

[Ken Burch]

102. I totally agree with you on that. It's scary as hell.

We need to keep raising the issue...but again, is that something we, as a powerless minority party, can actually do anything about?

Part of our response will need to be massively upping our social media game.

And if there's anywhere that is looking for volunteers for voter registration(or re-registration and re-credentialing), I will volunteer for that.

[Demsrule86]

106. It really is. And now we know that his kid, Jared and Paul Manafort were discussing sanctions,

I believe the Russians hacked the DNC because they made a deal with Trump...to elect him and then he lifts the sanctions...I have no doubt there is an oil deal involved too...Tillerson is as slimy as an eel.