I PROPOSE A NEW FORUM - GD:GE

[phrigndumass]

General Discussion: General Election

I am proposing a new forum to be listed under the Big Forums on DU, and to have the same accessibility and posting options as other forums listed under the Big Forums on DU.

In such a forum, we will be able to finally begin to work together to fight the real opposition: McCain and the GOP.

GDP doesn't need to cease from existence for this new forum to happen. It will aid in the transition from Primary to General Election.

Working on a Mission Statement: To work together to organize for the Obama vs. McCain fight in 2008, and everything else down-ticket in the Democratic Party.

To see this through to fruition, we will need:
1. At least 10 donor-members need to reply in this thread with "I AGREE"
2. We will need to agree on a Mission Statement (feel free to expand on above)
3. We will need to email a link to the Admins with our request.

Let's get the ball rolling!

(Dissenters, please do not reply. You may ignore this thread.)

*****************************************

On Edit: We now have 10 donor-members agreeing. Do you 10 agree to the mission statement above?

[goldcanyonaz]

1. Too early. dont rock the boat.

[phrigndumass]

8. OP: Dissenters, please do not reply. You may ignore this thread.

[goldcanyonaz]

18. SO you only want an echo chamber? carry on!

[TechBear_Seattle]

40. You nicely sum up so much of what DU and the Democratic Party has become

"Dissenters need not reply."

[grantcart]

50. If you want to continue the Obama/bashing and Clinton/bashing go ahead

if that is what you want. We are in the rules to ask for a new forum.

If we wanted a forum that is an echo chamber we would simply go to the Obama group. The least tolerant forum in DU is the Clinton forum.

[IsItJustMe]

230. There does come a point where distraction is a henderence? At some point, you must focus.

[TBF]

2. I agree

It would be nice to focus on Obama v. McCain without the extraneous bickering. And also to leave the cesspool open for those who want to bicker, out of respect for Hillary.

[phrigndumass]

7. We have #1, thank you TBF!

:toast:

[phrigndumass]

56. TBF, PM do you agree to the Mission Statement in the OP?

I need a yes/no or suggest a change.

Thanks!

:toast:

[TBF]

187. Yes, happily.

[phrigndumass]

195. Thank you!

[AllentownJake]

3. No

Out of respect to Hillary supporters I say we leave the cesspool open till she concedes or Obama reaches 2025 delegates.

[goldcanyonaz]

4. this is why you are one of my favorite O supporters.

[phrigndumass]

5. I didn't say to close GDP, just open a new forum (read the OP)

[SoonerPride]

6. She will not concede. Then she says the number is 2210.

Then what?

[AllentownJake]

10. 2025

I don't care at that point and I'll get behind closing this place.

[DearAbby]

57. The OP says nothing about closing GD-P

Just creating a new forum

[BlooInBloo]

12. Yup.

[grantcart]

13. She could decide she wants to take it to the convention

[AllentownJake]

16. If he has 2025 delegates

than its over and she can take it to January 20 2009 for all I care.

[grantcart]

38. she can hold out for FL and MI and a credentials fight

I don't think so it simply would be nice to have a place where like minded people can discuss going forward.

GDP is filled with Obama supporters who are still obsessed with Clinton and Clinton supporters that are trying either to derail Obama's nomination, crap over the odds of winning in November, intimate that Obama won by cheating, Obama supporters are all pricks simply because a few are. If some people want to persist in that fine.

[FrenchieCat]

21. And so we should wait, while she decides?

I'm sorry, why am I waiting? For someone that I don't support, who is waiting for the campaign of the candidate that I do support to implode. Why is that? Why am I to be held captive on this? I don't get it.

[grantcart]

9. I Agree

Although steps by the moderators may make this seperate forum unnecssary

[phrigndumass]

11. We have #2, thanks grantcart!

:toast:

[phrigndumass]

58. Grantcart, do you agree with the Mission Statement in the OP?

I need a yes/no or suggest a change.

Thanks!

:toast:

[grantcart]

86. yes

[phrigndumass]

89. Thank you!

[FrenchieCat]

14. I agree.

Not need to have Obama beaten into a pulp, McCain't not getting attacked while we wait.

That would be foolish.

I'm with you. Let's get ready to rumble.

Thanks!

[phrigndumass]

15. We have #3. Thanks Frenchie!

:toast:

[phrigndumass]

60. FrenchieCat, do you agree with the Mission Statement in the OP?

I need a yes/no or suggest a change.

Thanks!

:toast:

[FrenchieCat]

78. Yes, I agree with the mission statement as is.

Thanks! :hi:

[phrigndumass]

90. Thank you!

[Kukesa]

17. Sounds like a terrific idea to me. n/t

[phrigndumass]

20. We have #4. Thanks Kukesa!

:toast:

[phrigndumass]

62. Kukesa, do you agree with the Mission Statement in the OP?

I need a yes/no or suggest a change.

Thanks!

:toast:

[Kukesa]

212. That's AFFIRMATIVE; I do indeed agree with the statement. n/t

[SoonerPride]

19. I AGREE

How could I dis Mr. Math? :)

[phrigndumass]

22. We have #5. Thanks SoonerPride! (lol)

:toast:

[SoonerPride]

67. I agree with the mission statement.

People that wan't to contnue to debate primaries can come here, those that want to mve on to McCain full time wll have a new home.

[phrigndumass]

92. Thank you!

[Name removed]

24. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[phrigndumass]

65. SoonerPride, do you agree with the Mission Statement in the OP?

I need a yes/no or suggest a change.

Thanks!

:toast:

[Marrah_G]

23. You can wait until we have a Nominee. Sorry, you don't get to say who responds.

[phrigndumass]

26. OP: Dissenters, please do not respond. You may ignore this thread.

[Marrah_G]

34. You really are a piece of work. You don't get to make the rules.

[phrigndumass]

99. I just know how to work in a shitstorm. Trust me, you want me on your side.

[Marrah_G]

144. No, not really, you are a bully and I don't like bullies.

[jefferson_dem]

172. Oh stop your nonsense.

The OP is far from a bully. The OP has offered some of the most insightful, well thought out, practical posts i've seen in GDP.

[Reterr]

141. Marrah-I remember a time when you were laying down the rules too

:shrug:
You were suggesting (before Skinner ever did) that people who support Cindy Sheehan should form their own forum etc. etc. See how nobody likes it when the shoe is on the other foot?

[Marrah_G]

143. That is entirely different then telling people they are not allowed to respond to a thread

Telling people they should post on another forum when they want to talk about a subject that is against DU rules is nothing like that.

I was advocating following the rules already set by this site. Not creating my own rules and expecting someone to follow my orders.

[Reterr]

150. I can't see the difference

In both cases it is someone who is not a mod or an admin trying to lay down rules in an authoritarian tone...well ok-that is not so true of the OP of this thread. But it was true of your posts back then. The hypocrisy is stunning-at that time that was the opinion of a minority, just as the Clinton supporters are in a minority now. Nobody likes being ganged up on-see?

[Marrah_G]

151. If you can't see the differnce I don't know what else to tell you

I stand by every word I said then and there is no hypocrisy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. GE: P will transition to GE: P... aka go back to politics

and when that happens it will be where to discuss all General Election

Patience, the transition is coming

[RoadRage]

27. I agree!!

I'm fine with keeping GD:P up.. but we need to have dual focus - and the main one should be Sen. McCain.

[phrigndumass]

31. We have #6. Thanks RoadRage!

:toast:

[phrigndumass]

66. RoadRage, do you agree with the Mission Statement in the OP?

I need a yes/no or suggest a change.

Thanks!

:toast:

[RoadRage]

112. Yup.. i totally agree with your mission statement!

[phrigndumass]

127. Thank you!

[Lone_Star_Dem]

28. No thank you.

There's no reason to be impatient. This will eventually settle itself and GDP will be sufficient. Besides. All that would happen is you'd have supporters of both Hillary and Obama in it fighting about who was going to win vs. who should have won if the other hadn't been such a racist/sexist/Republican plant, etc. Trust me. Suckiness (yes, I made that word up) would prevail and no more productive would the end result be than is the current GDP. Which is essentially zero.

[AtomicKitten]

29. Sign me up.

:D

[phrigndumass]

35. We have #7. Thanks Atomic Kitten!

:toast:

[Lone_Star_Dem]

45. I really don't expect the Admins will give this to you anyway.

Not all request are granted. And in this case it would become an obsolete group about the time Elad had it set up. Really. It's a waste of time and resources.

[RoadRage]

49. "It's a waste of time and resources"...... HUH.

Wow.. to me, that kinda sums up Hillary remaining in the race- but maybe that's just me?

[phrigndumass]

68. AtomicKitten, do you agree with the Mission Statement in the OP?

I need a yes/no or suggest a change.

Thanks!

:toast:

[AtomicKitten]

Roger that.

:D

[phrigndumass]

93. Thank you!

[irish.lambchop]

30. Now, if you were to propose a new forum

entitled 'GD:Will It Go To The Convention?' then I think GD:Primaries would naturally morph into GD:GE as most of the in-smashing and in-bashing would then be found in GD:WIGTTC :)

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

[crimsonblue]

61. I think grovelbot agrees too..

It's weird, but this freaky bot is kinda growing on me... now.. if we could just make it a crazy mike tyson bot that eats republicans....

[Road Scholar]

33. Amen!! K&R nt

[phrigndumass]

39. I'll take that as #8. Thanks In_Transit!

:toast:

[phrigndumass]

71. In_Transit, do you agree with the Mission Statement in the OP?

I need a yes/no or suggest a change.

Thanks!

:toast:

[Road Scholar]

207. We need to stop this. Game over. It has turned into a forum for

continued opposition.We need to start the healing process. Phase it out stop cold turkey, whatever, but it serves no usefull purpose. The Game is over.

[jgraz]

36. We're really going to need GD:BAHCGDPWDTP

That's "General Discussion: Bitching About How Crappy GDP Was During The Primaries".

[Radio_Lady]

37. #5 Rec is from Radio_Lady. We owe YOU the thanks.

Of course, it will have to be approved by Skinner and the other owners.

The reason I did this today is that I read the thread about Hillary supporters planning to organize and vote for McCain.

Wow, that is just about the WORST option I can possibly imagine.

Good luck, Phrigndumass.

Meanwhile, I'm out of here mostly doing many other things on a beautiful 90 degree spring day in Portland, Oregon.

Bye-bye for a while, and keep a smile!

Radio Lady Ellen Kimball

[phrigndumass]

41. Thanks Radio_Lady Ellen!!!

:loveya:

[Radio_Lady]

42. Well, clearly I didn't get that Rec number right! Whatever...

:loveya: back

That's "Love ya back!"

[backscatter712]

43. I agree...

Though it may be that GD-P gets turned into GD-GE after Obama officially becomes the presumptive nominee and Skinner makes that declaration.

[phrigndumass]

46. We have #9. Thanks backscatter712!

:toast:

[phrigndumass]

72. backscatter712, do you agree with the Mission Statement in the OP?

I need a yes/no or suggest a change.

Thanks!

:toast:

[backscatter712]

138. Yes, sounds good to me. n/t

[phrigndumass]

140. Thank you!

[goldcanyonaz]

44. while we are at it, can we have a beauty and fashion forum too?

[goldcanyonaz]

104. kick!

[newmajority]

47. I believe the plan is for this forum to become GD:Election 2008 when "the call" is made.

And if I remember correctly, "the call" means when Obama hits 2025. Not dragging this shit out until August 28.

If I remember from 2004 correctly (though I was just lurking then) it would be an overall Election 2008 forum, not just the Obama vs McLoon race. Which is a good thing, considering how the down ballot races are already working..... three formerly Repuke seats have turned to Democrats this season, thanks to the new voters our next President brought into the process.

Is that fucking cool or what?

[panAmerican]

48. I AGREE

[phrigndumass]

52. We have #10. Thanks panAmerican!

:toast:

[MonkeyFunk]

94. You seem confused

the 10-member vote is for creating a DU group. They're special-interest groups, available only to donating members.

You can't just vote on creating a new main forum. That's up the admins. That said, THIS forum will become GD-Politics again after there's a nominee, and it will be the forum for discussing the election.

[phrigndumass]

74. panAmerican, do you agree with the Mission Statement in the OP?

I need a yes/no or suggest a change.

Thanks!

:toast:

[panAmerican]

183. I agree with the mission statement as well

[phrigndumass]

196. Thank you!

[Forkboy]

51. That's what this forum will go back to being in due time.

It was originally GD-Politics, and will return to being that. Patience, young Grasshopper. :)

[DearAbby]

53. I agree

[phrigndumass]

54. We have #11. Thanks DearAbby!

:toast:

[DearAbby]

73. :-D

:toast:

[phrigndumass]

75. DearAbby, do you agree with the Mission Statement in the OP?

I need a yes/no or suggest a change.

Thanks!

:toast:

[DearAbby]

82. yes

[phrigndumass]

96. Thank you!

[DearAbby]

107. Welcome

:thumbsup: and kickin

[crimsonblue]

55. I agree.

[phrigndumass]

77. We have #12 Thanks crimsonblue!

:toast:

[phrigndumass]

79. crimsonblue, do you agree with the Mission Statement in the OP?

I need a yes/no or suggest a change.

Thanks!

:toast:

[crimsonblue]

106. Yes sir.

[phrigndumass]

119. Thank you!

[2008]

59. What do you think GDP is? It's pre-GDGE

No reason to retire GDP after the primaries when it's already in place and can be used as a base for the general election

[Doityourself]

63. I agree!

[phrigndumass]

80. We have #13. Thanks Doityourself!

:toast:

[phrigndumass]

81. Doityourself, do you agree with the Mission Statement in the OP?

I need a yes/no or suggest a change.

Thanks!

:toast:

[Doityourself]

103. Yes! FYI: I'm working on down ticket locally...

[phrigndumass]

111. Thank you!

[maddiejoan]

64. Great idea!

I'll be only too happy to talk about how nominee Hillary Clinton should take down John McCain!

count me in!

[phrigndumass]

206. Love ya! xoxo

cuz we split a milkshake! :D

[maddiejoan]

216. right back 'atcha

I like any Obama supporter who still retains their sense of humor!

[me b zola]

69. I agree!

A couple of days ago there was a fantastic policy thread, posted by DUer hope and change, that got very little attention. It is near impossible for a substantive thread to survive in GD: P

[phrigndumass]

84. We have #14. Thanks me b zola!

:toast:

[phrigndumass]

85. me b zola, do you agree with the Mission Statement in the OP?

I need a yes/no or suggest a change.

Thanks!

:toast:

[me b zola]

129. I agree with the mission statement. Short and to the point.

:toast:

[phrigndumass]

131. Thank you!

[PBS Poll-435]

70. Are we there yet?Are we there yet?Are we there yet?Are we there yet?

Are we there yet?Are we there yet?Are we there yet?Are we there yet?Are we there yet?Are we there yet?Are we there yet?

Like taking a vacation with an ambulance!

[grantcart]

83. well actually we arrived a long time ago and now its time for the children

to go and sit at the children's table while the adults want to share an adult meal

Don't worry your happy meal awaits you -

[PBS Poll-435]

101. Classy

Skinner already shared his view on this and other "petitions."

GTFU

[Doityourself]

108. Lmao..made me laugh out loud!

[redqueen]

123. !

:spray:

[shadowknows69]

76. I agree, time to forge ahead with OBAMA 08 without minor distractions

[phrigndumass]

87. We have #15. Thanks shadowknows69!

:toast:

[phrigndumass]

88. shadowknows69, do you agree with the Mission Statement in the OP?

I need a yes/no or suggest a change.

Thanks!

:toast:

[shadowknows69]

95. Yes

[phrigndumass]

97. Thank you!

[Blue-Jay]

91. Disagree. Why bother?

After a nominee is chosen, it seems to me that the entire website is expected to either leave, STFU, or do nothing to derail the nominee's GE campaign. That's been covered in the past.

[shadowknows69]

102. Some if us believe that it is Clinton's intention to hold the party hostage

And by proxy this forum. It's not our fault her supporters don't get it. We should be able to talk about the presumptive nominee without constant attacks.

[Blue-Jay]

118. Respectfully, there is nothing correct about your post.

*I'm not sure why she's still in the race either, but the Democratic party is bigger than she is, and Sen Clinton can't hold anything "hostage".

*This forum is just that. An internet forum. It's fun to come here, but ultimately DU isn't as important as many seem to believe in a large scale among Democratic voters.

*The DU rules are very clear about what is acceptable behavior when a nominee is finally chosen. That hasn't happened quite yet.

OK, so I'd like to apologize if my previous statements seem to be too abrasive, but I know that the current level of animosity will eventually pass. We all get a bit excited and angry at times, but we'll get over what all the blatant & perceived insults in due time. Just let it play out for now.

[MonkeyFunk]

155. So you have the Obama group

to talk amongst yourselves.

This OP proposes a forum, not a group. Anybody could post in it. It would be no different than this forum.

[jzodda]

98. I disagree

We are close to the end anyway with the last primary only weeks away. We can afford to wait till the last primary is over or till Obama declares his victory at the very least which is expected to come as early as next week.

[crimsonblue]

109. this doesn't erase the GDP forum...

[jzodda]

110. What did we have in 2004?

I forgot. Once Kerry was the nominee did we have a GE forum? Or was it GD and GD: Politics?

[crimsonblue]

113. I wasn't on here then... sorry.

[myrna minx]

120. Once Kerry was the nominee, GD Primaries was changed to GD Politics.

[The Doctor.]

210. Just the two IIRC.

[MonkeyFunk]

156. so you propose

a duplicate forum.

There's no way to prevent people from posting in any forum.

If you want to go after mcCain, why can't you do it in this forum?

[crimsonblue]

166. because this forum is for the primary...

[MonkeyFunk]

179. And is there some reason

you can't discuss general election issues here?

[crimsonblue]

182. it's general election issues. not primary issues.

[MonkeyFunk]

185. Again

is there something preventing you from discussing those topics here?

I've never seen a thread locked for discussing a GE issue.

[crimsonblue]

188. nor do they generally lock a primary topic posted in GD

[MonkeyFunk]

189. Yes, they regularly lock primary

threads in GD.

Perhaps if somebody responded with more than one sentence, I'd understand better. What is this meant to accomplish? The OP is following the procedure for creating a group, not a forum. But there's already a group for Obama supporters. If a new forum is set up, how would it substantially differ from this forum? There ARE general election issues discussed here all the time. It's not in any way prohibited to discuss them here.

So what would this new forum accomplish?

[crimsonblue]

190. think of it like a folder to put GE topics in.

[MonkeyFunk]

201. Try using a paragraph

to explain why such a forum wouldn't just duplicate this one.

Explain, using full sentences, why the OP is using the method for forming a GROUP to start a FORUM.

Explain, in whole sentences again, why Skinner's post on the subject isn't sufficient answer.

[kid a]

100. I agree to both: GD:GE and mission

Thanks

[phrigndumass]

114. We have #16. Thanks asSEENonTV!!!

Thanks for the reply to the Mission Statement as well.

:toast:

[ClassWarrior]

105. I agree. And DU post-primary rules should be in effect there immediately.

B-):thumbsup:

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

115. By the way, the more I think about it, the more brilliant this idea sounds.

Yes, I agree with the mission statement. If my request for post-primary rules is workable, I'd like it to be considered as an addendum.

NGU.

[phrigndumass]

117. Thanks! I'll suggest it to the petitioners!

:thumbsup:

[ClassWarrior]

130. Cheers!

:toast:

NGU.

[phrigndumass]

116. We have #17. Thanks, ClassWarrior!

ClassWarrior, do you agree with the Mission Statement in the OP?

I need a yes/no or suggest a change.

Thanks!

:toast:

[Holly_Hobby]

121. I agree n/t

[phrigndumass]

124. We have #18. Thanks Holly_Hobby!

Holly_Hobby, do you agree to the Mission Statement in the OP?

I need a yes/no, or suggest a change.

Thanks!

:toast:

[phrigndumass]

122. *** NOTICE TO AGREEING PETITIONERS. I WILL SEND YOU A PM. ***

Thanks everyone!

Wish us luck!

[IDemo]

125. I AGREE

That's assuming sour grapes don't become abundant as sniper bullets there.. :)

[phrigndumass]

126. We have #19. Thanks IDemo!

IDemo, do you agree to the Mission Statement in the OP?

I need a yes/no, or suggest a change.

Thanks!

:toast:

[IDemo]

132. I'm agreed.

It's plainly time now for GD-GE.

[phrigndumass]

197. Thank you!

[mtnsnake]

128. Am I missing something? Did Obama get named as the nominee today? This is Flame Bait!

Hey, if my honorable thread this morning could get locked for the silly reason given, then this dumbass post of yours should be locked as well.

Working on a Mission Statement: To work together to organize for the Obama vs. McCain fight in 2008, and everything else down-ticket in the Democratic Party

Aww aint that sweet, trying to make believe Obama has the nomination all wrapped up, when it's not even close to being that way yet.

The Goddess of Peace already made her statement that she's in this to win when she trounced Obama the other night. There will be no looking back now. :smoke:

[crimsonblue]

133. it's not flamebait.. it's perfectly within the rules..

anyone can petition to have a forum or group started... you just gotta follow protocol.

[grantcart]

148. we leave GDP to you

we are moving on

[MonkeyFunk]

158. moving on to what?

a duplicate forum that will be just like this one?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

134. Yo! Count me in.

[phrigndumass]

146. Thanks BushDespiser12! Do you agree with the Mission Statement in the OP?

I need a yes/no, or suggest a change.

Thanks!

:toast:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

181. Yes, I agree.

:toast:

[phrigndumass]

198. Thank you!

[OzarkDem]

135. Why do I get the feeling

that only Obama supporters will be expected to have discussions there? Just a guess....

[grantcart]

137. your free to join in

but leave the Obama/bashing and Clinton bashing at the door.

you are free of course to go to the Clinton supporters forum and carry on

[MonkeyFunk]

160. You can't set rules like that for a forum

only a group. And there's already a group for Obama supporters.

I really don't understand what this is supposed to accomplish - it'll just create a second, duplicate GDP.

[myrna minx]

152. OzarkDem, I am adding my name to this because GDP has become a horrible

epicenter for good Dems bashing each other. I want to discuss strategy to widen the Dem margin in Congress so we can overcome filibusters, and to prevail over McCain, not to marginalize Clinton supporters. I hope you believe my sincerity in that.

[mmonk]

136. I'm in and agree.

[phrigndumass]

161. Thanks mmonk!

One last thing we need to do for GD:GE ...

We have an amendment to the mission statement. Could you go to this thread and reply with a yes or no? Thanks!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=388x5182

- Phrig =)

[wildflowergardener]

139. good idea

If you still need people - or even if not, I agree, and I agree with the mission statement.

This would be a good way, I believe, to allow the discussion of the primaries to continue, and still to get around to discussing how to win the general election. Since no primary season has ever dragged on this long, I doubt you can really compare this to last year.

It would be good to have a forum to get together to fight against republicans rather than other democrats for a change - it would be a relief really.

Meg

[phrigndumass]

162. Thanks mbergen!

One last thing we need to do for GD:GE ...

We have an amendment to the mission statement. Could you go to this thread and reply with a yes or no? Thanks!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=388x5182

- Phrig =)

[Jawja]

142. I agree, too.

Time to get on with the contest against McCain. :hi: :kick:

[phrigndumass]

163. Thanks Jawja!

One last thing we need to do for GD:GE ...

We have an amendment to the mission statement. Could you go to this thread and reply with a yes or no? Thanks!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=388x5182

- Phrig =)

[bigbrother05]

145. Count me in

and I agree to the mission statement

[phrigndumass]

164. Thanks bigbrother05!

One last thing we need to do for GD:GE ...

We have an amendment to the mission statement. Could you go to this thread and reply with a yes or no? Thanks!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=388x5182

- Phrig =)

[Labors of Hercules]

147. Agreed.

I would change "the Obama vs. McCain fight" to "the General election in November" just to not be at all contentious. :shrug:

[phrigndumass]

165. Thanks Labors of Hercules!

One last thing we need to do for GD:GE ...

We have an amendment to the mission statement. Could you go to this thread and reply with a yes or no? Thanks!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=388x5182

- Phrig =)

[wildflowergardener]

174. change

I think this is a good idea (what labors of hercules said). "I would change "the Obama vs. McCain fight" to "the General election in November"

Though I would be ok with either - hope this doesn't mess up my yes vote. I have to go to dinner now but will check back after.

MB

[myrna minx]

149. I agree, as long as GE Primaries stays open for those who will still want to bash each other. .

I would like to go to a place where we can discuss GE strategy and Congressional down ticket races, rather than participate in a forum where good Dems bash other good Dems. I recently lost my temper here, and that is not my style or disposition at all, so I'm ready. I agree with your mission statement.

[phrigndumass]

167. Thanks myrna minx!

One last thing we need to do for GD:GE ...

We have an amendment to the mission statement. Could you go to this thread and reply with a yes or no? Thanks!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=388x5182

- Phrig =)

(wink)



:D

[myrna minx]

171. I'll radify with this this addendum:

myrna minx will be the official decorator. :D

[phrigndumass]

173. lol, yeah!!!

:rofl: :yourock:

[Hawkeye-X]

153. Count me in.

I'm tired of GD:P, and ready to move on. So I agree with the mission statement and ready to do battle with Grandpa.

[phrigndumass]

168. Thanks HawkeyeX!

One last thing we need to do for GD:GE ...

We have an amendment to the mission statement. Could you go to this thread and reply with a yes or no? Thanks!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=388x5182

- Phrig =)

[K Gardner]

154. I agree. GIven Bush's Bash today, it is CLEAR we MUST come together, those of us who WANT

to, to start the opposition to the Republicans. This has gone on long enough and those who wish to continue to bash Obama can stay here. We seriously cannot wait another MONTH (a lifetime in politics) and allow McCain, Bush and the Obama-haters to define him and the GE. It is time to let Democrats do what Democrats do. Enough of the infighting. PLEASE give us our own forum for those ready to UNITE.

[phrigndumass]

169. Thanks K Gardner!

One last thing we need to do for GD:GE ...

We have an amendment to the mission statement. Could you go to this thread and reply with a yes or no? Thanks!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=388x5182

- Phrig =)

[Hutzpa]

157. Agreed, Its about time for a seperate forum

:kick:

:thumbsup:

[phrigndumass]

170. Thanks spokane!

One last thing we need to do for GD:GE ...

We have an amendment to the mission statement. Could you go to this thread and reply with a yes or no? Thanks!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=388x5182

- Phrig =)

[MonkeyFunk]

159. I think you're very badly confused

You're following the process for setting up a group, not a forum. There already is a forum for political discussion - you're in it.

After there's a nominee, this forum will transition to GD-Politics. It will become what you're proposing.

[Willo]

175. I agree

I also agree with the Mission Statement

I look forward to learning more about those down ticket and to working with DUers in the GE.

[phrigndumass]

177. Thanks WIllo! please read:

One last thing we need to do for GD:GE ...

We have an amendment to the mission statement. Could you go to this thread and reply with a yes or no? Thanks!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=388x5182

- Phrig =)

[Willo]

180. I did ty and voted yes to the amendment

[phrigndumass]

199. Thank you!

[jakem]

176. I Agree!

time to move on the the GE for some of us at least!

[phrigndumass]

178. Thanks jakem! Please read:

One last thing we need to do for GD:GE ...

We have an amendment to the mission statement. Could you go to this thread and reply with a yes or no? Thanks!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=388x5182

- Phrig =)

[TheDonkey]

184. ARE YOU OUT THERE DU ADMIN!? I agree! Time to close GDP and bring back GDGE

[MonkeyFunk]

191. Skinner has already addressed this

issue.

He was pretty clear about it.

[TheDonkey]

192. Well it is time he addresses it again. We have a presumptive nominee

unless SKINNER wants to act like Bush and just bury his head in the sand and stand by something he said months ago just because he's afraid to adapt to the facts.

[MonkeyFunk]

203. He addressed it just recently

It wasn't months ago. It was just a week or so ago.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5906998

[phrigndumass]

194. We're not asking to close GDP, just to create GDGE

They can both co-exist while we transition to the general election cycle.

:hi:

[Skidmore]

186. Abbreviation for Gawd Damned General Election--sequel to

that Gawd Damned Primary. Both events would make fine zombie flicks.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

193. Another Impatient Whining Wah Wah Thread. That Forum Exists. It's Called GDP.

As soon as race is officially over, this forum will immediately become exactly what you speak of. Stop being such a whiney little thing and wait it out a little longer, since we're pretty close to the end. But these types of threads are sooooooooo friggin weak. Get a grip.

[rndmprsn]

200. K&R

[Barack_America]

202. I'm in and will donate. I'm sick of McCain threads sinking like rocks here.

I want to move on, but I don't think it's fair to just take over General Discussion.

We need somewhere to go.

[K Gardner]

204. I wish I could rec this response. This is past the point of insanity, when we are in for the1

fight of our lives and we have to sign on here to see "sweetiegate" and continued bashing of Obama. Nothing addressing the GE, which everyone is addressing, but us.

I'm starting to regret my donation.

[Willo]

208. A rec for this post

And a few McCain videos for future discussions


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ajm5JTf7jZs&feature=related (Meet the Press)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI (McCain vs McCain)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf7HYoh9YMM (50 years make it 100)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJWoGulgbec&feature=related (1,000 +)

[krawhitham]

205. I AGREE

[proud2BlibKansan]

209. I agree

Great idea. :applause:

[Khaotic]

211. I AGREE

I AGREE

[Kukesa]

213. Kick! n/t

[last1standing]

214. If I'm not too late, I agree with the mission statement.

n/t

[Imagevision]

215. Get it in gear so you can quickly put it in motion...?

[Muttocracy]

217. I suggested this a few weeks ago and got lukewarm response

basically told by some, we already have a research forum. But I'm with ya!

[Voice for Peace]

218. good proposal, I agree

good mission statement

[FatDave]

219. I agree in spirit but not in practice

And I know you don't want to hear from dissenters, but I just want you to consider how this could seem from the opposing point of view.

Skinner has made it quite clear that once the nomination is official, new rules will go into effect. And while, yes, it is now obvious that Obama will be the nominee, it is not yet official, and in some instances we need to wait for the officiality. Erm, officialness? Oficitude? Whatever...

But to create such a forum at this time, before official announcements and official concessions, could be interpreted by some Clinton supporters to mean that, yes, the DU mods really were closet Obama supporters all along and were trying to introduce the new post-primary rules before any official nomination had been made. They would essentially be calling it for Obama, and while you and I can call it for him all day, it's not a road the mods are going to go down. We really don't need any additional divisiveness at this time.

Just a little more patience. Things will be better soon. Obama vs. McCain posts can go here and Generic Dem vs. McCain (or McCain vs, McCain) posts can go in GD for a few more days.

[foo_bar]

220. I'd agree if Skinner said we were waiting for an "official nominee", but he wrote the exact opposite

When we have a presumptive nominee, the time for fighting on DU will come to an end. The squabbling will not drag on until the "official" nomination at the convention in August.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4798898 (2/27/08)

Once more for emphasis:

The squabbling will not drag on until the "official" nomination at the convention in August.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4798898

I don't know what changed between Feb 27th and the May 9th demi-retraction ("Call me old-fashioned, but I think discussions are more interesting when more than one point of view is expressed...") besides Obama becoming the presumptive nominee, even by the Clinton campaign's account. It wouldn't be the first time the bar was simultaneously raised for Obama and lowered for Hillary, but the kicker is the adminship suddenly justifying "more than one point of view" (after "presumptive nominee" didn't work out the way the admin(s) intended) on a board whose explicit raison d'etre was once being an oasis from right-wing framing, filtering out the likes of O'Reilly and the 24x7 klaxon of hate. Evil Grovelbot is cute, but El Jefe isn't being criticized for acting too Solomon-like, the problem is sitting back and watching the baby be chopped to pieces in spite of earlier assurances.

[crimsonblue]

221. seriously!

It's time for Skinner to apply his own rules... (and the ones he quoted from all the way from 2002). I hope I don't get TS for calling out the Creator, but the rules are the rules.. since when did DU start shifting the goalposts? Hillary, by any measure (other than the foreshadowed 'Clinton ex Machina') cannot win this nomination. Let's move on and gear up for McCain! :D

[FatDave]

222. We're simply disagreeing on terminology I think

When I say "official" I don't really mean "officially declared at the convention". I mean either Hillary gas conceded or Obama has 2025 delegates. But I'm misusing the term official when I use it that way, which is my bad. I believe the technical term for this is "presumptive nominee", as in McCain is currently the republicans' presumptive nominee, and won't be official until the republican convention.

So, if we use this terminology (which I believe is correct, and backed up by wikipedia, for whatever little that's worth) then Obama is still not quite presumptive. He's surely 99% there, but Hillary has not yet conceded and Obama has not quite reached 2025 delegates. So, to call him presumptive at this point is still a little, well, presumptuous.

I realize this is splitting hairs, but I'm not sure the cost of creating such a forum (more animosity among democrats on DU) is worth the benefit (having a forum specifically to discuss an Obama/McCain GE contest where other forums could fill that purpose for what will probably less than a week anyway).

[foo_bar]

227. fair enough, I'm partial to the original plan over Yet Another Forum

If there's a factual problem at the root of the semantic one, Obama can't really "have" 2025 delegates until the day they caucus for him at the convention (assuming no Michigan/Florida delegates are seated even in token fashion); no two press services project the same tally since they're only rolled up estimates of SD's intentions, while Clinton's concession would make the "presumptive nominee" an "apparent nominee" in the fourth estate's reckoning. Hillary's belief in her own candidacy doesn't seem to detract from Obama's "presumptive nominee" status any more than Ron Paul's does McCain's, at least in the media that concocted terms like "presumptive nominee" in the first place, so as a practical consequence DU's proprietors appear to be holding out hope (or the lack thereof) beyond even the Hillary campaign's or FOXnews and The Weekly Standard's grudging acknowledgments*.


*

FRED BARNES, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, THE WEEKLY STANDARD: No deal. It is a profile in caution on the part of Edwards.

But, look, it helps this way — Obama suffered a 41-point defeat in the presidential primary in West Virginia yesterday — 41 points. And the big story today is not that, it's John Edwards with his meaningless endorsement of Barack Obama who is already the presumptive nominee. But it helps on what we're talking about.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355899,00.html

Rahm: Obama Is "Presumptive Nominee." Rahm Flack: That's Not News!

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/rahm_says_obama_is_presumptive.php

[K Gardner]

229. Wow. I didn't catch that. Can you make an OP out of this... please? If not, do you mind

if someone else does? Even Hillary isn't attacking Obama any longer.

You have to go to Free Republic or DU to find that. It's seriously wrong and time to stop.

[smalll]

223. "Mission Statement"??? Can you GET more corporately lobotomized?

Well, I guess "agent of change" comes close in the contemporary newspeak sweepstakes, so it makes some sense. :shrug:

White-collar workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your cubicles!

[foo_bar]

224. you're missing your intended target

DU Groups are a special type of forum, organized by DU members, and dedicated to a particular mission. The mission statement of each DU Group is pinned to the top of that group's forum listing. Individuals who participate in a particular DU Group must do so within the limits set by that Group's mission statement. Those who fail to abide by the mission statement, or whose presence is disruptive to the other members of that Group, will be barred from posting in that Group.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[Lilith Velkor]

225. Have you heard of this forum called General Discussion?

You can, you know, discuss things there. Like, for example, the general election.

This is one of the stupidest threads ever. Epic fail. :hurts:

[dbmk]

226. I am a foreigner..

.. so I understand if my opinion on this is taken with a grain of salt.

But I agree that it would be a good idea and that the mission statement is right.

That being said, it would be somewhat of a problem for the administrators to have a GE forum dedicated to working for Obama - if you at the same time have a Primaries forum that you are not shutting down, as per your own rules, because the criteria you set for having an established nominee has not been met. The contradiction would be obvious and put them in a position of circumventing their own rules to a degree.
So I would understand why they would say no. :)

[Time for change]

228. I agree

[IsItJustMe]

231. Cannibalism and circular firing squads does seem the order of the day here anymore. For every 100

posts about Clinton/Obama or process, I see one post about McCain. It's not healthy and it damn sure won't help us win in the GE. Just saying, this place, with out focus, has became rather insane and irrelevant.

At some point, people need to concentrate on the big picture and it is not happening hear. Want proof. Just look at the posts.

Since this is going to drag out further, who knows how long, I think your suggestion has strong merit.

[MH1]

232. I AGREE

It's high time.

[Maine-ah]

233. I agree, but, we should really wait until we have an actual nominee

regardless of what the mathematics are telling us at this point. Let it play out, it's the only thing we can do at the moment.

[TheWraith]

234. I agree.

Absent shutting down GDP, this is the best thing that we can do to move on from the primary.

[democrattotheend]

235. I agree, but it should only be used for anti-McCain research

and threads that are pro-Obama or pro-Clinton until we have a nominee. And it should be a place where trashing either of the Democratic candidates is not allowed.

[thewiseguy]

236. I agree!

[mloutre]

237. Agree. Agree. Agree.

Did I happen to mention that I agree?