This is a political discussion board, nothing more. It has no influence on events in the real world.

They are looking to be included. They don't want to read all the bitterness here against people who didn't vote the way that DUers think they should have voted.

Take one day and just visit DU and read the posts as if you had voted for Trump or Stein. See whether you would feel that DUers are talking TO YOU or ABOUT YOU or AGAINST YOU.

If you think Hillary was the best choice in 2016, say it in a positive way.

Politics is persuasion.

I'm preaching to myself here also. Just this morning I posted about how much I dislike Republicans. We should all be positive and persuasive. That's the key to political success. We had too little of that in the 2016 presidential race.

People are going to tire of the insults and negativity coming from Trump. Let's offer a contrast by presenting positive ideas here.

Not on insulting them.

Democrats lose elections when people on websites like this talk down to lurkers and others.

I've done a lot of tabling and canvassing and telephoning. I've talked to a lot of voters.

We should all remember that when we post here, we are talking to voters.

We can complain about Republicans all we want. But every complaint about a potential Democratic voters is a big mistake.

We are all welcome to make mistakes if we wish, but let's be honest. We are making a mistake.

I would not knock on someone's door and then insult them for voting for Jill Stein. So I shouldn't come here an insult them for voting for Jill Stein. I should tell them why they should vote for my candidate, Hillary or Bernie or whoever is my candidate.

... are not the official position of the DNC, or of Perez or of Ellison.

If we think our posts might offend potential Democratic voters, we should not post them. Don't say anything here that you wouldn't say to a voter's face if you were tabling or canvassing or calling them on the phone.

That is a good rule.

Even though you are right that this is not a DNC website, non-Democrats, former Democrats and ABOVE ALL, POTENTIAL DEMOCRATS visit this website and will judge Democrats by what we say here.

Civility is important. Courtesy and respect are also important. Anything said here that will drive voters away from the Democratic Party is a big mistake.

Yes. In a democracy we have to respect each other and even "be nice."

I apologize because I know I don't always live up to this standard myself. But it still the goal we should all have.

We need to be on best behavior here because non-Democrats and wavering Democrats will judge Democrats by what they read here.

Just because a statement feels good doesn't mean that it should be shared on DU.

That's my opinion.

But having a discussion about how to convince Greens or non-voters to vote for Democrats seems like a good discussion to have. And it's laughably absurd for anyone to think calling Greens "GOP tools" will convince them to vote for Dems. It might make the Dem feel better, but it won't win over the Green. It will further alienate them. Some seem more interested in making themselves feel superior than actually increasing the Democratic Party voter base.

I will be damned if I worry about hurting the fee-fees of ‘lurking’ republicans.

And even less concerned about supposed ‘progressives’ who are too pure to vote for Democratic candidates. If they really exist and are not just trolling. I hate them worse than republicans and they can go straight to hell for all I am concerned. Not that I believe in hell!

I am persuasive in the real world. This is where I mix it up with like minded members of my party.

This website can be read by anyone.

warm hug.

Love conquers hate.

Remember?

That was Hillary's motto.

And she did win the popular vote. Because California is shortchanged in the electoral college, she did not enter the White House.

We are judged by what we write.

Even though this is not an official Democratic website, Democrats and the Democratic Party are judged by what we say here.

by reading this and other similar websites on their computers.

Democrats and the Democratic Party have a lot of healing to do if we are to win in 2018 and 2020.

The hate and anger I see here toward Democrats who didn't vote the way DUers think they should have is not helping to heal the rifts that will make the difference between winning and losing in the future.

One vote made the difference for Democrats in Virginia in the race for the Virginia House of Delegates.

What we say makes a difference.

We can persuade or dissuade people to vote and vote Democratic in 2018 and 2020.

It's up to us.

GMAFB!

. . .are not "the deplorables". Those are the people who still show up in that 32 to 35% approval number.

Some were duped. They bought the message of the spin machine. Can we convert them? Maybe. Maybe not.

But, having angry liberals ruminating on DU is not the difference between those people flipping or not. The 33% are a lost cause.

And, we only needed 150,000 voters to have done something other than what they did. The traffic here doesn't support that 150k of "flippables" are going to be swayed by what they read here.

And when we encourage each other to be angry and bitter and to focus on our anger and bitterness, we waste time and energy that we could use to present positive arguments that persuade voters to vote for Democrats.

We cannot afford to be a split party.

I agree that about 33% or so are a lost cause. But the split in the Democratic Party is unnecessary and will make it impossible for us to win in swing states in the coming elections.

We have lost at the state level in so many areas of the country.

We need to do everything that we can to unite Democrats, to unite liberals and progressives and win in future elections.

Lives depend on whether Democrats win in the upcoming years.

It may feel good to vent on DU and to chastise others for mistakes or disagreements, but it does not win elections. It loses them. Bitterness is for lemons, not for Democrats.

Let's unite with all liberal and progressive voters, not just superficially, but really in our feelings and actions. We cannot, as we have seen in recent elections, afford to lose or miss or anger or insult or denigrate or disrespect even one voter. Every voter is important. Every vote counts.

Think about the Virginia House of Delegates election -- decided by one vote.

I come to DU and I see anger and disrespect for many voters. That will not win elections.

So be it.

SOME posters here seem to be determined to turn voters away from the democratic party

I know i personally left du between the primary and general so I could bring myself to vote for hc

I realized if I stayed and read the hatred by SOME of her supporters day after day I might not be able to darken that d circle and that was as a life long dem that taught my kids......any democrat is better than any repub

Not totally on board, because i think getting more people to vote is far more likely to produce desired results. We need flippers less than we need greater numbers.

Part of getting people to vote is uniting against the right-wing extremists. We have to unite ourselves if we are to get others to vote.

Your arguments are wrong. They are based on a falsehood and therefore lack logic in my view. Nobody here has ever argued that we should be courting votes from racists, xenophobes, homophobes, misogynists (I.e., deplorables). To continue equating criticism of the Party's past record with that is disingenuous.

People need to stop defending the Green party or validating its candidates and representatives. Sorry... but voting Green is not a mature or responsible way to "criticize the party's past record" or to "send a message".

Your argument and tone strike me as petulant frankly.

You may have the last word as always.

Thank you!

I love you!

I keep forgetting: Halloween, Thanksgiving, Hug-a-Deplorable, THEN Christmas, THEN New Year's!

I swear tagahd, I barely have time to get my Christmas cards mailed and then it's Hug-a-Deplorable day again!

He did help us enormously by turning down Stein's offer of the Green ballot line in the fall.

He campaigned all over the country for the Clinton-Kaine ticket.

And his campaign did bring a lot of new volunteers in who have helped us at various levels.

On balance he did help.

She ended up receiving 49% at the polls in November. Hillary was nominated and Sanders people did as much to help her in the fall as anybody. Trump wasn't Bernie's fault and we can't beat him by anathemizing his supporters and what they care about.

The answer is dialog and a real effort to work for common ground, and a strategy that focuses on working together for the future rather than recriminations for the past.

It would not have helped us for the primaries to be a mere formality, OR for the attack ads against Trump to have started earlier(if none of the attack ads that were run ever worked, why would any ADDITIONAL attack ads have made any difference?), or for our platform to be any further to the right. There were no large blocs of voters who would have backed our ticket if only there were NO Sanders things in the platform.

If it's refighting to argue that HRC shouldn't have been nominated, it's equally refighting to argue that Bernie shouldn't have been in the primaries.

We need to move on from BOTH things. HRC won. Bernie's campaign was justified and legitimate. And we need people who backed BOTH of them to unite in 2018 and 2020.

We can't win with JUST people who backed HRC from the start. We also can't win with just people who backed Bernie from the start. We need BOTH groups, whether anybody likes it or not. And there's nothing to lose by acknowledging that and getting people who backed both of them to start reaching out and finding ways to work together on some level of mutual respect.

Do you think that calling out people who call out Greens is going to get people to stop calling out Greens?

really about keeping the poster in a prominent position

Instead of having the discussion we should be having, about what we need to do better and what we need to change. Why focus on attacking people rather than finding some way to persuade them?

And why obsess about another party rather than dealing with the issues in OUR party?

That's what this OP is about, you know? There's absolutely NO GOOD REASON to coddle and validate the egos of naive vanity voters. (We can learn a lot about those who do such things, however.)

Every post should represent the Democratic Party positively.

People lurk and read the DU posts. Try to post so that people will be attracted to the Democratic Party. Posts that call out others for their mistakes are not attractive. They repel potential voters.

But it's great you have finally arrived to instruct us on how to behave. It's a madhouse in here! Everyone is running with scissors!

This year my fruitcakes are extra moist & chock full of bits. *sends some to all the grumpypants* Happy Holidays! 🎄

It would be like saying The Libertarian Party or The Constitution Party is a Democratic/George Soros scam. Let's not lose our collective heads, folks.

The origins of The Green Party in the US go back nearly 35 years, and there are close to 150 Green officeholders across the US. I can certainly agree that voting Green in a swing state in a Presidential election is not a wise choice, and it's arguably unwise even if one doesn't live in a swing state (due to the message that is sent by margin of victory).

It's also not hard to understand why people get frustrated with things like so-called welfare reform, not sufficiently combating institutionalized racism and sexism, not sufficiently protecting the environment, wars, drone strikes, undue influence from Goldman Sachs and the like, not pushing for single payer, efforts to be "tough on crime," NAFTA, etc. Let me be clear, I am not advocating a vote for Greens. But can anyone here honestly say they don't ever get frustrated with the Democratic Party?

That said, what leftists frustrated with the Democratic Party ought to do is be a strong voice within the Democratic Party. We have to convince the Green voters (mostly young folks) of that. Suggesting that The Green Party is a Republican/Russian scam is probably not the best way to do that. Nor is that a sane position to take.

... it's undeniable and well documented that the GOP does financially support the Green party and Green party candidates in order to dilute and split the Democratic vote.

No, the GOP didn't start the Green party, but they certainly do benefit from it... and they make no secret about supporting it.

You, however, said you had never seen that claim made, even though it was made by multiple people in multiple threads in which you commented.

Example 1: "People can't figure out this is another Republican scam?"

Example 2 from that OP I mentioned: "Used by conservatives and Putin to weaken the Democrats."

Example 3: "There is a Green Party to help elect Republicans."

Each from a different poster. And I could give more examples.

Yes, Republicans have donated to Greens as a matter of strategy (though you overstate how much of The Green Party funding comes from The Republican Party), but that doesn't mean The Green Party (origins in the US dating back to 1984) exists to "help elect Republicans" or to be "another Republican scam" or as a tool of "conservatives and Putin to weaken the Democrats." Those are absurd notions.

I don't think anyone here but you has mentioned Sarandon. And it's not about defending anyone. It's about being rational. Reality matters. Republicans exist in an alternative reality. I'd like to think Democrats are better than that.

I provided verbatim evidence, so there isn't really much you can say.

It's certainly not substantial at the presidential level. Stein's campaign ran on peanuts. It's only in certain local races that the GOP is providing a high percentage of Green candidate funding.

Democrats are better than Republicans on environmental issues, but not nearly good enough to save our planet.

than the Green Party.

I have grandchildren. I remember the world that I grew up in during the 1950s. It was a lot greener and in most ways healthier than the world I live in today.

We Democrats should focus on the issues that attract people to the Green Party but never lose and always also focus on issues like equality, equal opportunity, a fair deal, Social Security, and I like universal healthcare for all. This last one I favor because I lived in Europe for years and loved the single payer system. We have many more issues to focus on than the Green Party does. So we should sell ourselves as offering all the Green Party does and more.

And we should pick candidates with broad and strong appeal, not just those approved by the Party bigwigs. That is where we have failed in the past. We have put up candidates who couldn't pass the personality or charisma test. That's what we need to change.

And we need to be very clearly the party that does the most to promote peace AND human rights in the world and in our own country.

I could go on, but you probably get my gist.

... that you think the Green party is better than (or preferable to) the Democratic party?

Period.

She wrote, "we (Democrats) need to be stronger in our defense of the environment." She also wrote, "We Democrats should focus on the issues that attract people to the Green Party..."

Again, how is that not clear?

... backhanded slaps smears and insults and toward the Democratic party along with (not so) veiled accusations of corruption. Surely you saw that. How could you miss it?

Yes, her post consists of more than that, but the fact remains what you say is unclear is actually quite clear.

... that confirm your own biases. Feel free to ignore or make excuses for the smears and insinuations about the Democratic party being corrupt or rigged. It won't change the facts. I prefer to look at the whole picture she has presented. It reveals much. Probably more than either of you realize.

You do realize that a lot of dark money goes to Democrats, right? Not that Sophia said that. She didn't. I'm just pointing out a fact. I'm a Democrat, but I don't kid myself into thinking there aren't terrible flaws in our political system.

The only "smear" I see in Sophia's post is the suggestion that our presidential nominees are only those supported by the party bigwigs. That's not much of a corruption charge.

That tells me a lot. It's not very flattering at all. Careful now.

The only "smear" I see in her post is the insinuation that Democratic presidential nominees are those supported by the party bigwigs, to use her phrase.

That aside, it remains clear that she is a Democrat who wants the Democratic Party to more strongly defend the environment. Why is that clear? Because it's right there in her post...twice.

... the picture I see is much different than the selective one that you're trying to create. I'm not the smartest person on this web site, but I'm much smarter than you're giving me credit for. Hyper-parsing and other word games do not impress or fool me.

... and the party's nominee. In spite of the avoidance and the distraction of a teammate running interference, it's easy to see what they're saying.

personality, makes everyone she or he meets feel accepted and loved AND is strong on social, economic and environmental issues.

I'm in California. The fires here were horrible, unbelievable, frightening and dangerous. We had three huge hurricanes this year that caused enormous suffering and physical and economic damage.

These are serious matters.

They are all tied to environmental issues.

As for the fires, here in Southern California, we have not had rain in at least six, maybe seven MONTHS. That's a serious matter, an environmental crisis. No one is even talking about it.

The Trump administration is worsening our environmental situation. Next to economic inequality and discrimination, maybe along with them, it is our worst problem. We have to get away from fossil fuels if we want to survive as a country, as a world.

So that is what I am talking about.

That's evasive and non-responsive. DO YOU or DO YOU NOT support Democrats?

It's a simple question. Why won't you answer directly?

Do you prefer the Green Party over the Democratic Party?

personality or is "lacks charisma", when she received almost four million more votes than trump, and in fact, received more votes than any other presidential candidate except for Obama...how can anyone interpret that as being "unpopular" and "lacking charisma"? It blows my mind...

Jimmy Carter had served a term as president and was qualified.

A candidate has to be able to get elected by a broad swath of Americans. And to do that, a candidate has to be loved, to have personality and charisma PLUS be qualified.

I adore Al Gore, but he was too stiff to appeal to the voter who votes based on personality and charisma.

We have to choose a really, genuinely attractive person (whatever that means for the majority of Americans) who is also qualified and who is willing to hire the most qualified Americans and appoint them to decision-making, policy-deciding positions.

That is what we have to do to get our candidate elected.

Someone ought to tell you (and, since I'm already here, it might as well be me) that it's very obvious who's being targeted with those not-so-veiled and backhanded insults. The impromptu "history lesson" does not help your case. It does not convince me, and the great lengths one goes to in order to justify their smears (or their --ahem-- "honest criticism'') only serves to reinforce my perception and validate my observation with regard to what's going on. I (and others here) are much smarter than we're given credit for.

The Green Party is a scam. They woo voters with a leftist platform, but the effects of their actions are to move the government to the right, the exact opposite of what they claim to stand for.

Also, the Green Party helps the Republicans win elections. At the national level, helping Republicans is the only thing they do.

Does that make them a "Republican Party scam"? If being a "Republican Party scam" means that the Green Party would secretly have to be organized by the GOP, then no, that's not true. But by that standard, people like Alex Jones, or the O'Keefe guy with the fake videos wouldn't qualify as a "Republican Party scam" either.

Glad that you see the same thing I do. Looks like someone is going to a great deal of trouble to split hairs, intentionally misinterpret, and knock-over a field full of strawmen in order to defend the "honor" of the Green party (including its candidates, voters, supporters and defenders... such as Stein or Sarandon)

See reply above.

And there's more to government than the executive branch. There are nearly 150 Green Party officeholders across the US, and they certainly aren't pushing the government rightward.

At the national level, I've already made it clear that I think it's unwise to vote Green. We have to convince young people of that. There's a smart way to do that. The Republican scam/tool of Russia tactic is not it.

... because doing so BENEFITS the GOP.

In certain local races, the Republican Party has, in fact, funded Green candidates as a matter of strategy. But the Stein campaign ran on less than $3.8 million, none of which came from PACs. In terms of today's presidential races, that's nothing. So, as far as convincing folks to vote Dem instead of Green in a presidential election, the funding issue probably isn't going to be very persuasive.

Also, the much bigger problem is non-voters. Not to mention voter suppression and gerrymandering.

Sure, we should try to convince Greens to vote Dem instead, but we aren't necessarily going to get a whole lot of bang for the buck.

And most who vote Green at the national level simply wouldn't vote if they couldn't vote Green. Any assumption that all Nader or Stein votes would have gone to the Democratic candidate is false.

We have much bigger fish to fry with race-based voter suppression, gerrymandering and voter apathy.

... and allows them to spend their limited budget in supporting national candidates. And at the "national level" the GOP (proper) doesn't need to get its hands dirty when folks like the Koch's and their multi-level dark-money pacs can keep the Greens sitting pretty. The Green party will never win at the national level, but in spite of that, it's a mistake to minimize the impact that they have as a spoiler.