That was a thing of beauty! I love to listen to him speak... so calm and measured. He's focused and on-point.

He's friendly and disarming... but you know he means business. He doesn't need to SHOUT to be heard. His demeanor and sincerity are what command attention. He doesn't need to rely on distracting gimmicks.

Man, oh man! That was great!

We need more TRUE DEMOCRATS like Al Franken!

Honest tagod... he makes me PROUD to be a Democrat!

... than there are of the middle-of-the-road and first-time voters, this might be a good plan. But there aren't. People who say such things are flattering themselves and inflating their numbers or sense of importance. Don't get me wrong... I'm not suggesting that subset of people aren't important at all (of course they are! Everyone is important, right?) Instead, I'm pointing out that they aren't more important and their lower numbers do not justify alienating a larger pool of potential members.

I guess it all depends on whether someone is going after a very small and special audience or if they're pursuing a much larger one. Yeah, "I'll grant you" that pursuing the small group is indeed "not traditional".

You were going to "leave the party", huh? I'm very glad you decided not to be fickle "me-first" crowd.

But it's clear for me to see that there are some here who are among that subset who remain disenchanted with the Democratic Party and derive a great deal of DELIGHT whenever Bernie slams and smears the party with his public declarations (such as how the party is "intellectually bankrupt", or some such.)

That subset ENJOYS hearing it and that's why they defend Bernie's "methods". His negative comments about the party is a continual validation of the things they still believe and it fans the flames of whatever inconsolable dissatisfaction they still have with the party. But, as happy as it makes them... and as satisfying as it may be to continually hear... it interferes and prevents him from fulfilling his mission of "Outreach". It continues to emphasize the division, in my opinion. Bernie's negativity does nothing to console or build bridges or to find common ground, it seems to me.

Base on my observations, his "target" audience loves it. For that specific groups, his negative words are a public "justification" and "validation" of all their unexpressed anger and pent-up outrage. It's a continual thorn in the side of the party. I imagine for them it's something to be viewed as great entertainment, and every sour word spoken about the party makes those guys grin and pump their fists in the air.

But, at some point, calmer heads will hopefully prevail. Eventually, I hope, they'll set aside whatever pleasure and enjoyment they're getting from this and do something ELSE that's better for the party. (Assuming that they're actually willing to give up their selfish pursuits and made rational decisions that benefit the party... and therefore put the party in a better position to defeat the GOP.)

I don't see the long-term benefit of continually needling the party and it's loyal members in that way. In my opinion, it's a flawed strategy (assuming that an actual forward-looking strategy is in the mix at all). Basically, it's just not a good return on investment. Sure, that are some malcontents to appease and coddle, but there are fewer of them, and they're fickle and unreliable. On the optimistic side, there are more MOTR and LOC voters to gain by taking a positive approach ... and this is a much more realistic way to pursue long-term growth and stability.

I guess everyone has different priorities. Personally, I believe the Party's interests are more important than my own "needs" or "vanities". I'll always put the Democratic Party first. I'm a LOYAL Democrat who has NEVER entertained the possibility of leaving the party to "send a message".

Any message that I have for our party can be best heard when calmly spoken from inside, not angrily shouted from outside.




----
Hello, Alerter! This post contains my opinions about the best way to attract large amounts of NEW members to the Democratic party compared to continuing to soothe the hurt feelings of a small number of disaffected people. It doesn't smear anyone, it expresses my belief that Bernie is making a mistake and that our party needs someone in that "Outreach" role who has a better attitude about the party. No politician or group is being smeared. This concerns the activities in 2017, and has nothing to do with the primary.

I get the feeling that we're seeing just one side of a conversation gone bad (perhaps a hidden thread or deleted post?)

Is this a cryptic and detail-free question just a way of seeking approval and agreement by overly simplifying things and removing all context? Something's not right.

It sounds to me like someone is trying to have the "last word", and to get others to agree, (strength in numbers perhaps?) to an hypothetical point that lacks the details of what's actually being argued as well as lacking any points that may have been made by some other party (parties?)

Or was some other public argument abruptly ended before you had a chance to land your "knock-out blow" or to make your final "winning" argument?

Ken... sometimes, the person who manages to get in the "last word" isn't always the winner of an argument. There aren't "bonus points" for obsessively getting-in the last word. (But, in some cases, hasty attempts to get the all-important all-powerful last-word actually end up looking pretty lame and probably deserve to be assessed a penalty and a "loss of points".)

Carrying-on lost arguments by proxy (under the guise of the theoretical) is a sign of weakness. It's not a very mature way to handle disagreements. Those who do such things aren't doing themselves, or their pet-causes, any favors.

Sometimes, Ken, it's best to just let things go and move on.


#BeLikeKeith