primaries on our side to resemble what goes on in the Republican primaries.

If the general election is likely to be close, I think it best for us to close ranks and not beat ourselves up too much. If we're likely to win, however, I'd like to see vigorous competition and some semblance of choice. Take the 2016 Presidential contest, for example. Demographics say the Democrat will win no matter whom we run. As such, I'd like to see a healthy and hotly-contested primary race for that office.

-Laelth

I tend to believe the opposite. However, the Party must unite once the primaries are over.

A good primary gets more people talking about and thinking about both the nation and the Party. I think having a locked-in candidate with no primary competition depresses turn-out.

But, it will be what it will be.



-Laelth

The problem is in the off years.

I mean it's possible to disagree about just how much worse Republicans are than Democrats.

really healthy for the Party and for the candidates involved.

When Ted Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter, it divided the Party. They were not able to unite the factions.

I'd rather go into 2016 as a united front, not all torn up with half our forces dispirited because their primary champion didn't go the distance. I remember when Ted Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter. It left us broken, in disarray, discouraged, confused, and for many, feeling short-changed and resolved not to go vote in November.

And we got that fucking reagan.

I know what people say about Hillary. I don't care. I want to keep the White House in Democratic hands. Much as I love the alternatives being advanced and discussed here, we can't afford to be disunited. Especially when the money is running against us. We just can't, guys. Who do YOU want choosing the next Supreme Court justices? The bad guys' standard-bearer, or OURS?

It seems to me that if there are a lot of people opposed to any one candidate, then they would be more likely to support him/her if their guy was beaten fair and square in a primary, rather than by fiat. It is illogical to expect anyone to automatically get behind "your" candidate without a battle.

There was enough of a tide of mutiny and disillusionment and disappointment that remained after Kennedy conceded to Carter that a few too many people went home in a huff and stayed there, refusing to vote for the guy who did finally beat theirs fair and square at the convention. There were those in Carter's camp who felt Kennedy held out too long and just solidified the schism so there were also hard feelings on that side. I remember it as being rather awful and frustrating because I felt so ardently that we needed to be a united front against reagan. I watched him and listened to him and was utterly terrified. I saw how smoothly he operated and how convincing his presentation was and how he just fired 'em up like some Merlin with a magic wand on the other side - and we didn't have that. And so we needed numbers. NUMBERS OF VOTERS. And after the schism at the convention, it just wasn't there. I WISH TO DEAR SWEET GOD that this is how it went, that we all came back together to work toward a common goal. But that's not what happened, kentuck.

Nobody just decided to "come together" and unite against a common enemy. They just stayed home and sulked because their man didn't win, so they were NOT inclined to help Carter reach the finish line. It was really sad. I remember feeling so fearful that reagan would win because I had this sense that he would be utterly MONSTROUS for everything our side believed in and worked so hard for and the forward progress we'd won through so many struggles. We were changing the national mindset and then reagan came to the forefront, riding this Proposition 13 cut-property-taxes mood that started souring the nation against the loftier goals progressives were pushing us all toward. And after that it became all about the money-grubbing and IGMFU and the madness began in earnest. reagan brought all that in, and made it sound soooooooo good and SO "American" and even godly. It was like a non-stop punch in the gut.

I felt then as I still do now - he was the absolute most dangerous man in America - because of the way he could sweet-talk and sugar-coat all this Dr. Feelgood snake oil shit and make the gullible masses just want it SOOOOOOOOOOO badly. And worse - they had a fucking Hollywood "matinee idol" leading the charge. Doesn't get any better than that. The whole subtle notion of "just keep voting for us and YOU'LL be RICH someday TOO!!!!" That "someday" was NEVER part of the deal. But the gullible masses didn't understand that. It's like they were all issued the special rose-colored glasses that would only allow them to see what the republi-CON CON-jobbers wanted them to see. And reagan sold that cock-eyed, wrong-headed, mean-spirited, short-sighted cheapskate pennywise/pound-foolish quick-fix and the whole trickle-down bad joke. He sold it and they bought it, paid in full, ran home with it and swallowed it whole, without even chewing a little bit. Served with the pretty shiny spoons that were thoughtfully provided by the "Christian" fundamentalists - who were anything BUT true Christians. It was horror time. Nightmare time. And all brought about because the critical mass of people on our side just didn't want to get behind President Carter. They were refuseniks. And they surrendered early before the game was even finished. And Carter was doomed. And at that point - so were we all.

What you describe, kentuck, is what SHOULD have happened. That is the ideal scenario - where those whose chosen man at the Democratic convention did not prevail. One would expect, and hope, that the Kennedy supporters would all reunite with the Carter crowd and together we would march to victory that would keep the goals of BOTH our champions in focus. But it didn't happen that way. The disgruntled ones didn't want to play, didn't want to help, didn't want to join in and support the guy who beat their guy. So enough of them stayed home and pouted and said "well, screw you then" to the rest of us, and the rest of us got screwed, alright. ALL the rest of us got screwed.

for a number of reasons, none of which had to do with Ted Kennedy. The most prominent reason besides the Hostage Crisis and gas lines? The DEMOCRATIC PARTY REFUSED to get behind him for a second term. They couldn't run away fast enough. People blame the Boomers, they blame the hostage crisis, they blame gas lines when the reality is, his own party sabotaged him with their lack of support.

in Iran, and the gas lines, and all of that - which made some people want to look for a new champion because they figured Carter just wasn't cutting it. And when he wound up being what we had, going into the fall campaign, they stayed home. So I have to ask - was it worth it? The decades that the reagan plague unfurled - and all the damage and reversals and upheavals and runaway selfishness that was elevated to the level of a sacrament that took over across our land? Was it worth it? Seriously?

I KNOW Carter wasn't perfect. I KNOW!!!! I felt that way, too! But he was what we HAD. And we all needed to get behind him, gritted teeth and all. Disappointment and all. Disgruntlement and all! Because there was a BIGGER enemy to fight than what some weirdly and wrongly perceived Carter to be. This was what I think is spoken about now as the "nothing but the perfect will do" type of thing. So you turn your back on the "good enough" because you can't have the "perfect," and the result you get suck with is not only NOT the "perfect" or even the "good enough" - you get Beelzebub rising outta the depths of Hell. Which is precisely what we wound up with when reagan won. And the damage that was wrought during those awful years, and the demon seeds that were successfully planted and nurtured and allowed to take root, have led to the wreckage we have to climb over and cope with and try to clear away now - in a climate that's harder to work in, or work around, than ever before.

I ask again - WAS IT WORTH IT???????

And I think the answer is a resounding HELL NO!!!!!!!!

I campaigned for him. I enthusiastically voted for him. I was NEVER disappointed in him. I thought, and still think, he was the best president in my lifetime. The Democratic Party couldn't run from him far enough or fast enough away from him because they thought he was a liability. It was that entity who "stayed home," metaphorically speaking.

Calimary, we'll have to continue this discussion a little later -- I'm late for my sewing class.

I did, too. I was so disappointed watching the devolution at the convention. I was so disappointed in my fellow Dems. They just totally lost sight of the greater war and obsessed on one battle in it. They wound up losing that battle - AND the war, too. The damage they did was to their/our own side.

I guess I'm asking the question aloud so that others here at DU might hear it or at least be aware of it. I love Bernie Sanders. I agree with him on multitudes of issues. But I don't think he's got the winning hand here. He's the perfect. Hillary Clinton is the good. But I believe objectively and strategically that she's got the winning hand this time. And believe me, I go into that with eyes wide open. When it came down to a choice between her and Barack Obama, the tipping point for me came with the Iraq War. He was against it, she was for it, and that was that, for me. THAT was "the decider." As much as I wanted a woman president and thought she had the best shot at it (and would be fabulous overall), I went with the war opponent. All other things being equal, I thought he had the best hand. Especially since I admire her brains and her towering intellect so much that I felt she should have been smart enough to see through the bush/cheney lies and manipulations and bullshit. For whatever reason, she went along with the support for the war. BIG mistake. 'Cause otherwise, I think she WOULD have gone all the way in 2008. I think she will in 2016 if she decides to run. And I fear that too much effort on behalf of Bernie Sanders will lead us to another Carter versus Kennedy debacle, OR bush versus Gore - 'cause that's the same thing I think happened when ralph nader got in and wouldn't get out.

If the bad guys can get close enough to steal it, they WILL. Take that one to the bank. So I don't want to give the bad guys any opportunity to get NEAR the bank, much less go cash the check (OUR check).

We simply HAVE TO keep the White House. We HAVE TO. If we do or gain or keep nothing else. We HAVE TO keep the White House. It MUST be kept out of enemy hands. At least long enough so that we can rehabilitate the Supreme Court and use the time to undo at least some of the longterm damage that's been done by the other side. That's gonna take time on our side, because that damage runs really deep and our team has been asleep at the wheel for way too long and the enemy has at least a 30-year head start.

I apologize for making like such a hard-ass, Le Taz Hot. I didn't mean to make you feel as though it were directed at you personally. But I've just seen too much on DU that worries me about the upcoming campaigns. There are still far too many people who lead with their idealism and don't want to compromise. And that's admirable in a utopian world but in THIS one, I think one has to be more practical. I say again, Bernie Sanders is a dream candidate for a lot of us, but I think he would be as off-putting to much of the general electorate as the dingdongs and baggers and extremists and "christianists" on the far-wrong are. And with their side enjoying the money advantage, I think we have to play our strongest hand. And from what I can see, it's Hillary. It's not even Biden. It's Hillary.

BESIDES - we have one other thing working for us in her case, if she decides to run, and it lets us tilt the playing field in OUR direction a second time. There is too much of America that is now yearning for a woman president. I think it's just somehow worked its way into the national zeitgeist by now. Especially since Hillary Clinton's presence on the national scene AT THIS CRUCIAL TIME, and how presidential she comes across, I think that's invited many many Americans at least to consider the possibility - as they did not do before (mainly because there was no comparable woman on the scene who seemed as though she might actually have what it takes). It's more of a front-of-the-mind possibility now simply BECAUSE there's an eligible, and highly-qualified woman in the picture at that level. Who'd we have before? Margaret Chase Smith? Seriously? She was female too but she just wasn't looked upon as a realistic, practicable contender. America just wasn't ready back then. Hell, she was the single female in the Senate back then. There just weren't women commonly seen in that environment. It's a lot different now. If Sink wins in Florida tonight she'll be the ONE HUNDREDTH woman in Congress! There'll be 100 women in the House of Reps! We'll have finally hit that milestone as women and as Americans!

Barack Obama broke the biggest glass ceiling regarding the all (white) male club. I can feel it strongly out there - now that a non-white has made it over the finish line, it's time to make sure that that OTHER minority (women) do so, too. The social/political mindset that supports such a view is on the rise, not on the decline. That's gotten people shaken out of the knee-jerk, non-reasoning assumption that the President of the United States is just always a man. Well, we know now that the POTUS is NOT always just a WHITE man. And I think that has now opened up the feasibility of WHAT ELSE the POTUS is NOT, anymore.

That particular xerox machine has been disconnected and thrown out. It's changed the stereotype that we automatically go to, the default if you will, that the President is just always a white guy. Just as people like John F Kennedy and Bill Clinton reinforced the change away from the previously long-established stereotype that the President was always your grandfather's age. I'm old enough to remember how much was made of the fact that John F. Kennedy brought youth and vigor into the White House after years of older generation examples being in charge. There were little kids in the White House now and they weren't visiting grandchildren. Now, it's no longer automatically assumed that the President is or is always going to be an old guy.

We also now no longer have to automatically assume the president is a white guy. I think Barack Obama knocked that one down on behalf of ALL the racial "minorities" because, in his wake, it's no longer going to be unthinkable that a Latino or Asian American or another black could go all the way. It's just not unthinkable anymore. And NOW - there's really only one more step to take before we clean out the last of the old stereotypes - the one involving gender. We're gonna get republi-CON women crossing over and voting for Hillary. Simply BECAUSE she's female. Because they want one, too (and who've they got, anyway?)! And that'll keep the White House in OUR hands for at least another four-to-eight years. Hopefully to allow us generationally to ride the slow wave of change overtaking this country that's sending it, in general, returning farther to the left. By then the millennials would be taking over completely, and then maybe our nation can finish some of the unfinished reforms we launched in the '60s.

which is a whole different animal than what will happen for 2016.

Sid

What is you decision? Do you plan o staying in the party and developing candidates that share you views, or do you plan on jumping ship?

I don't plan on jumping ship - I plan on throwing some bluedogs overboard and taking the ship over. Do you want to surrender or would you prefer a fight?

are all strong progressives. At this year's DFL conventions on the district level, they don't have competitors for an endorsement. That was the subject of a lot of speakers at the conventions, urging us to conduct very strong GOTV efforts in our heavily Democratic districts to make sure that statewide candidates like Al Franken and Governor Dayton can count on a high vote count in our districts.

That is true everywhere where a strong Democratic incumbent is unopposed. The need for heavy turnout still exists for other elections, and that's the message election activists have to take to their efforts.

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!