Voters whose top concern was jobs/economy voted Democratic in 2016.

Voters whose top concern was terrorism/immigration voted Republican in 2016.

Additionally we need to acknowledge that "identity politics" was at the core of Trump's campaign.

He came down that escalator on day one and his first message was false allegations about Mexican "murderers" and "rapists"

You are absolutely correct that we need to focus on the future. 2018 is not that far away. IMHO we need to bring Jobs/Economy to the fore, because that is one of our strengths w voters. Additionally we aren't going to drop civil rights.

And one of the main focuses Dems need to take is making sure our voters are allowed to vote. Something has to be done about disenfranchisement and it needs to have been done yesterday.

Ken, Thanks for the thread. Really appreciate what you've written.

What has always bothered me was the idea(an idea was only invented recently) that you could be for social justice, OR you could be for economic justice, but somehow you couldn't be for both.

To me, those ideas have been distinct, yet connected.

The need is to create a message that does right by both, that centers the base AND appeals to the voters we could win but didn't manage to this time.

We talked about this some via PM. There were some RW trolls posing as progressives who promoted the idea that social justice was a "distraction". And that social justice and economic justice are "diametrically opposed". They were pot-stirrers who came here to divide us.

Mods sent them away, but the poison had already been dumped in the DU well. We wasted so much time talking past one another.

was pushing after the election. Lots of folks did.

He also said social justice was interconnected with economic justice in those same articles. Those quotes didn't get highlighted.

To tell you the truth, I don't think Bernie is always clear in expressing his thoughts. Like all of us he's human.

I paid pretty close attention to what has been said the last couple years. Sanders stays on point and says the same thing over and over. He has said it more than once during his career.

I do not really want to participate in this conversation any more. So, I am letting this one go.

And it sucks people cannot respond without being alerted on.

Some to do with bigotry and racism, but, some did let themselves fantasize about him bringing jobs.
Others did because they thought the Apprentice was real.
Some believe he is a good businessman and decent,.
Others I believe got caught up in the hype and followed their friends or family, or the circus.
And some did because they did not want a woman to be President

https://www.voterstudygroup.org/reports/2016-elections/the-five-types-trump-voters

"American Preservationists": 20%
The deplorable voters. They're the poorest, least educated, most xenophobic of his supporters who also watch the most TV. They are the most likely to believe that they're the victims of racial discrimination (as whites). This was the main group that gave Trump momentum in the GOP primaries while traditional Republican voters had their votes divided among a large number of other candidates. Interestingly, this group of Trump voters are among the most likely to want compromise with Democrats in Washington. Support no cuts to social programs with increased taxes on the wealthy.

"Anti-Elites": 19%
Thinks the system is rigged. They were essentially more liberal minded anti-Hillary voters.

"Staunch Conservatives": 31%
Traditional Republicans. Fiscally and morally conservative. Desire cuts in social programs and lower taxes. Strongly oppose any compromise with Democrats.

"Free Marketeers": 25%
The most educated and wealthy of Trump's voters. Not xenophobic. Pro economic globalism. They were the most skeptical of Trump in the primaries, but they ultimately voted for him in the general election over Hillary. Desire small government and cuts to social programs. Strongly oppose any compromise with Democrats.

"The Disengaged": 5%
The least knowledgeable about political issues among Trump's voters. Less ideological cohesion among them, although they tended to put illegal immigration and a Muslim ban as their top priorities.

I will go hunt it down.

I have no use for a person outside of the Democratic Party trashing our elected people and running the show. Putting in the time, effort, work and money. Only to get told off by someone who is suppose to want unity.

It was harsh. Let me see if I can find it.

Talk like this, people get mad.

This from a man that has lost not only his primary race, but every one he backed. I like the Democratic Party's record much better.

When comments like these are made on national TV, there are going to be issues. Is this what you are referring to?

You are desperate to re fight the primaries. I had to block you from sending me mail because you kept using that as an avenue to refight the primaries. It's not like this is your first post. The trend is well known.

You can talk about different paths forward without being so melodramatic. Earlier this week I started an op on a campaign strategy I felt we needed to change. I tied it to Clinton. No one shut me down or told me to go FO.

I never said we should have nominated anyone else.

I said, over and over again, that I accepted that Hillary as nominee, and I still do. I worked hard for her in the fall.

And I've said nothing that was in any way an attack on her as a person.

I respect her and wish the result had been different.

What is so terrible about admitting mistakes were made in the fall campaign?

Who does that harm?

And why does anything have to be "tied to Clinton"?

She's not going to run again.

Damn near every DU mail you sent me was about Sanders and void of any path forward.

This isn't new news. You are on about your fifteenth op asking this same question. What you state you want to do can be done without refighting the primaries. You can't do it because that refight is your goal. Poster after poster talk about our path forward, without the persecution complex drama. It's become clear it not something you are interested in.

I've presented a path forward...we blend a commitment to fighting social oppression with an equal commitment to economic justice-we fight institutional and grassroots racism, as all of us agree we should do, AND we fight corporate control of politics and the economy and the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, which the vast majority of us are also committed to.

And we take it out of any relationship to personalities or candidates.

It's not about who we nominate in 2020, it's about us...and about accepting that, if there was ever a conflict between social and economic justice in the past(in the Thirties, for example) we are past that conflict now and we need to work together for both justice struggles.

The only thing I've regarded persecution is when people take it past attacking one former candidate for some stupid things he said and then use that as an argument to reject everything that candidate's supporters are about, and in some cases to try to either silence all of that candidate's supporters(making their involvement in the party conditional on their doing nothing but supporting the status quo in the party and agreeing not to even try to work for their principles) or to outright drive that candidate's supporters away-which, if it was achieved, would leave us forever short of the votes we need to win any future national elections or majorities in any legislative chamber anywere.

Here's the series of understandings I believe we should work with.

1)No one person should or even COULD "take over the party".
2)It's not possible to "reshape the party" in anyone's image.
3)No one with progressive views should be made unwelcome IN the party.
4)It will be accepted, once and for all, that virtually are committed to an active fight against institutional and grassroots bigotry and that anyone not supportive of that fight represents only themselves as individuals, and should only be called out as individuals.
5)It will equally be accepted that the vast majority of people who center the fight against institutional and grassroots bigotry strongly support economic justice.
6)There can and must be continual dialog as to how to make all aspects of Democratic policy inclusive to all Democrats and to as many as possible who could be Democrats.
7)New ideas and RESPECTFUL critique and discussion of tactics, strategy, and policy should always be welcome in this party.

None of those understandings refight anything.

None insults, disrespects, or disempowers anyone in the base.

None are anything but positive.

None of those are about anything but the future.

Is there anything in what I've put in that list that you still feel you can't trust?

All I'm trying to do here is to get past this "Oh no you don't!" response I receive from you?

Just about everyone here except you are capable of discussing a path forward without refighting the primaries. It's just simple.

It didn't mention the primaries or any candidate. It was about the future.

We can't win if we make "nothing can be changed" the rule of thumb.

We will have a different nominee from a younger generation in 2020.

That candidate will need a different approach, whoever it is.

That's what I'm talking about.

It's the same pattern every time.

Primaries primaries primaries!!!! Now answer my questions!!!

African American and other key elements in the Democratic base rejected this path forward in numerous elections. So far the voters in the real world are not buying this path forward. Where and when will this platform succeed in the real world?

Thank you very much for putting this out there. It needs to be said. Your words are correct, intuitive, and truthful. You stated your objections and observations with courtesy and respect.

And are we going to get the 'we need new leadership to be part of the discussion' section soon?

Do you really believe that? Come on, now.

This is true of every in-group.

It's still not an absolute. A lot of posters are talking about strategy. These are people who supported Clinton, Sanders, or both. Most aren't refighting the primaries or starting each op highlighting their persecution complex.

Your point is very valid.

I simply critique strategy and tactics.

Funny!

When at meetings with your local Democratic Committee?

Real world feedback is very valuable, and would likely be very different from what's typically found online.

There is not much at all wrong with this side.

Yes, a segment of Bernie people and African-Americans went to Stein, a segment stayed home.

And they made the difference in 3 states, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania.

Message sent, message delivered, now we all got a pay.

Those people know they are, their choice whether they made the right choice that's up to them!

Mistakes were made, games were played,

the electoral college was designed to give places like the Midwest a stronger voice so as to not get run over by states like California and New York.

It looks like the Midwest ran over us, hopefully they learned a valuable lesson

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"It's ONLY "refighting the primaries" to say we should have had a different nominee."
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

"ONLY"??? That's the ONLY example you can possibly think of that would be prohibited by that rule? Seriously??

That's an awfully broad "safe zone" you're trying to create for yourself! It looks to me as though you're trying to re-write that particular rule with a VERY narrow definition of what YOU personally think constitutes breaking the rule.

Thus clearing the way for continued fights and re-hashing of all OTHER things regarding that subject. (ie: topics that are currently, legitimately, and for obvious reasons, are a violation of that rule.)

My suggestion to you, and I'm sincere in this... is that you just let it go. Seriously. Let it go. Quit trying to find ways to justify a continued rehashing and revisiting of a divisive topic. Please.

What you're doing is not encouraging unity. Really. It's not. I'm being honest with you here. I know it's difficult for you to hear. It's not an easy thing to accept. But this... what you're doing now... is having the very opposite effect of what you claim to desire. Can you not see that?

I'm a reasonable person, I can see it. Why can't you?

I want us to beat Trump or whoever gets nominated in his place in 2020 if he doesn't run.

And all I'm saying is that the approach used in the fall failed our nominee. It cost her the White House and she deserved better.

I want us to learn from that and to do better by whoever we nominate next time.

Why would you oppose that?

Next time, we're going to nominate someone different...someone from a different generation...someone who didn't run in 2016...so what is the harm of creating a new approach that better suits that candidate FROM that generation-an approach we all could create together from below?

And what is the harm in listening to different ideas on that?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"And all I'm saying is that the approach used in the fall failed our nominee... "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That's hysterical. (If only it were true.)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"I want us to learn from that and to do better by whoever we nominate next time."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
JESUS!!

Therefore, she wasn't served well by the campaign that was run on her behalf.

People IN that campaign have admitted as much.

Who or what is harmed by acknowledging we need to do things differently than that next time?

We can't do well in any future election if we pretend the fall campaign was flawless.

*************************
"Who or what is harmed by acknowledging we need to do things differently than that next time?"
*************************
It's ALREADY been acknowledged.

You've indicated that yourself ... you said: "people IN that campaign have admitted as much"... okay... shouldn't that be enough for you?

Seriously. Do you even READ what you write? You've just written that people IN THE CAMPAIGN have "admitted" their mistakes and it's a safe bet they've learned from them.

Shouldn't that be enough for you? What more do you need? What more do you want? What will make you happy? How often do you personally need to hear someone "acknowledge" this until you're personally satisfied?

*************************
"We can't do well in any future election if we pretend the fall campaign was flawless. "
*************************
Tell me, Ken... what purpose does it serve for such frequent and repetitive posts REMINDING everyone what you perceive to be Hillary's "flaws"? It almost sounds like there's some lingering resentment going on. Stoking resentment is NOT a good way to promote "unity".

Here's the truth of the matter, Ken. We can't begin to heal and find common ground when people keep trying to find excuses to rehash OLD NEWS and refight OLD DISAGREEMENTS (as you're doing).

I understand you're disappointed. We all are. But this line of posting needs to stop. You're not helping anything. This isn't the way to promote "unity".

It's possible a few folks know a little about the history of the anti-nuclear power movement in the late 70's early 80's. If not, here is the salient point. I was deeply involved in he Abalone Alliance in California with dozens of chapters and thousands of members. We used a modified form of consensus decision making for important state wide decisions. It included the basic premise of agreeing to disagree. That meant honoring and valuing extensive debates so that all significant disagreements could be fully aired in a respective context then, when all relevant views were vetted, uniting around whatever common ground we could forge - even where full agreement on everything couldn't be reached.

In short, yes there can be unity simultaneous with disagreements, and that should be the goal - not simply the suppression of differing view points.

It's obsessive.

Your last sentence goes right to the problem, IMO.

Nothing I'm writing is even a hint that a different person should have been chosen.

Why can you not believe that?

I respect you and I campaigned hard for our nominee.

What more do you want from me?

Nothing. You have set expectations and I expect nothing more. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. You removed all doubt with the DU mail you were sending me.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"30. Nothing I'm writing is a rejection of our last nominee."
"Nothing I'm writing is even a hint that a different person should have been chosen. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That's nice. But so-what?

Based on your VERY NARROW personal interpretation of that particular rule, it's very easy for anyone to rehash and blame and denigrate and fault-find and finger-point and hand-ring and scold WITHOUT violating your absurdly narrow variation of it. So why have rules at all if everyone gets to narrowly define them however they desire?

And that's exactly what you're doing. For someone who keeps saying he's only interested in unity, I have to tell you, the things you're doing now aren't advancing that goal. If you're being honest about how important unity is to you, then I think you need to reexamine your strategy and find a different approach that works better.

that refights the primaries! Brilliant, Ken!

I keep hearing and reading some variations on "Fuck trying to appeal to Trump voters! They are racist bigots and we don't need that."

And I agree with that. Honestly I think or biggest misconceived folly as a party has been believing the beltway cocktail party circuit myth that any of those types of folks are reachable at all and our relentless pursuit of them has been costing us dearly.

My bigger concern is the obsession over alienating anyone who might have voted for Bernie in the primary (even if in the end they voted for Hillary) or anyone who may have had some reservations about not just the candidate we ended up with, but the campaign that was run.

This dug-in insistence that the Democratic party did nothing wrong, miscalculated nothing, and just did everything right and were totally screwed over is just mind boggling to me, and more than anything else it is going to destroy our party rather than bringing it together.

The thing is that most of the stuff that happened (Comey, the DNC hack, etc.) did not actually physically change anyone's vote. It was more or less information dissemination that played into already established ideas and pre-conceived notions people had about Democrats and our candidate. All despite us being told that they "had this" or they could "handle anything that was thrown their way" or that they had "already been vetted".

Yes, there is a chance that actual votes were changed, but that is at this point just complete talk and speculation and there is zero evidence of that.

So....I don't know. I don't have the answers. But we can't say "Fuck reaching out to Trump voters!" AND at the same time say "Fuck reaching out to Bernie and his voters/liberals/lefties/whatever you want to call them!" and ever expect to win on any grand scale.

Sanders.

Forget the past. But, it is still happening today. And that makes people angry. I do not think it is that complicated. If Sanders was not continually attacking us on national TV, then we probably would no longer be having this conversation.

are threads that are doing just that, it seems to me.

DU members fell into camps and were frivously alerting on each other. Even posts in the safe groups set for each side got alerted and there were cliques of judges that were voting to ban people from DU when those people maybe should have just gotten a warning. Some of the raw emotions we are seeing now trace to that period. I was an avid Clinton supporter, but recently people that I saw being loyal on the Hillary group have attacked me for not being sufficiently differential in describing some of the mistakes that I honestly thought the Hillary campaign made in the fall. It hurts to see people that you shared a core ambition with attacking you and alerting on you instead of sending you a PM asking what in the hell you meant by your post - normally just that type of dialogue clears up issues.

It was absolutely disgraceful here from Obama supporters. They viewed anyone who backed Hillary as evil traitors. Or worse. Ignore lists were not only passed around via private message, but they were bragging about those ignore lists. I was taunted that my name was on the list.

How laughable. Ignore lists are the definition of frailty, no different than Trump refusing to allow questions from certain reporters or networks. We are scared of counter perspective so we'll pretend it doesn't exist.

Countless great DUers left this site and never returned after 2008. I eventually drifted back in small doses but it has never felt the same. Stained. I still remember those primary threads and the words of specific posters. It was beyond hilarious last fall to read some of the same posters who had ridiculed Hillary and her supporters in 2008 suddenly championing her with gushing praise.

My choice in 2008 was part strategic. We gained more by electing a woman than a black man. Any Democrat was going to win in 2008, with Bush stuck in horrendous approval range for 3+ years post-Katrina. Obama following Hillary 8 years later made exponentially more sense than trying to force the less likable candidate 8 years later in situationally more difficult terrain. But since Democrats are inept handicappers my opinion was dismissed and occasionally ridiculed.

I'm sure the 2016 primary battles here were similar. I did not participate at all, partially because I remembered 2008 and was certain it would be no different, and partially because Hillary was going to be the nominee. Yeah, it was going to be tight, but not as tight as 2008 and really never in doubt.

I don't understand why people that share very similar values and agree on 80-90% of politics have to viciously gut eachother. You were wise to sit the 2016 primary out, I lurked here, it was damned brutal, DU members hunted other DU members with alert stalking. It was disheartening, but the worst was to come with the angry protests at our convention and booing of speakers at the convention - trully disgraceful, but it got even worse as people that should have known better cast stupid votes or didn't bother to vote.

You lack the self-awareness to objectively analyze your own posts. You don't engage in real introspection because you are hung up on being "right".

What if some stealth racist said… "Hey everyone! It's not racism as long as I don't use the n-word." What if some stealth misogynist said... "Hey everyone! It's not misogyny as long as I don't use the c-word." What if some stealth homophobe said... "Hey everyone! It's not homophobia as long as I don't use the f-word."

Would their racism or misogyny or homophobia be tolerated as long as they abided by their NEW and very narrow definition of the rule they want to break?

Answer: NO! It would not be okay.

None of those things would be tolerated because someone was trying to make a "special case" or argue for a "special exemption" to whatever rule they disagreed with.

The same principle applies here as well. No exceptions!

I simply want us to do better next time.

And I don't care who we nominate, nor do I even have a guess as to who it would be...other than to believe it will be someone from a younger generation-someone representing the future

On the issues, I support us being a party that fights for social justice, economic justice, climate justice and peace-that fights against againstitutional bigotry, grassroots bigotry, concentration of wealth for the few and concentration of want for the many.

A party in the image of all of us.

A party for the American majority, and a party that stands with the global majority.

That's all I'm about.

Is there anything in that that you can't tolerate?

"I support us being a party that fights for social justice, economic justice, climate justice and peace-that fights against againstitutional bigotry, grassroots bigotry, concentration of wealth for the few and concentration of want for the many. "

If you read Clinton's policies, she advocated each and every one. The same with Obama. So, I have to ask, besides Clinton being old, which gave us massive experience, what is not already there with the Democratic Party?

======================
"I simply want us to do better next time. "
======================
LOL! Well, the only think I can tell you is that you're going about it the wrong way. Rehashing the past and picking-scabs on unhealed wounds is NOT the way to accomplish anything that you claim to want.

======================
49. The problem with that comparison is, I'm not a stealth anything.
======================
No, actually Ken, I made a very appropriate ANALOGY (not a "comparison" ... two different things. Look it up.)

Even the nitpicking with your objection to the word "stealth"... my analogy is STILL accurate. You want to CHANGE THE RULES (and VERY NARROWLY DEFINE what constitutes that rule) to suit your own purposes. It's right there for everyone to see.

======================
"A party in the image of all of us. "
======================
Oh brother! There's NO SUCH THING! Absolutely, positively, there will LITERALLY be no such thing, and you'll NEVER be satisfied if that's your goal. What you're describing is a utopian fantasy party... and that's just not going to happen. You won't get the pure party you desire.

I happen to live in the REAL WORLD. Therefore, I understand (and I'm willing to accept) that someone, somewhere is going to have to compromise. It will NEVER be a party "in the image of all" where EVERYONE gets what they want.

======================
"Is there anything in that that you can't tolerate?"
======================
Words and deeds are two different things, Ken. As soon as I see some consistency in yours, then I'll be willing to reconsider. You say you're in favor of one thing (ie: "unity&quot and then you frequently go and post messages and replies that go against that notion entirely.

So, my response to your question would be to simply say "it depends on whether you're sincere" ... and it also depends on which other rules you want to narrowly redefine to suit your purposes.



But, in the meantime ... let's just say that I remain skeptical.

We can't do any better in the future if we don't make any changes.

It's a shame, because I was thinking this was an opportunity to make a breakthrough.

Oh well. Some other time, I guess.

....vague statements like "learn from our mistakes" and "proposing alternatives".

This discussion would be a lot more substantive and useful if, when you throw stuff like that out, you accompany it with details of the mistakes and how we could have done differently, and propose alternatives that would accomplish what you/we want to accomplish.

it appears that you want to direct the campaign of whomever the Democrats nominate in the next election cycle. It's a good job if you can get it, but I doubt that you will find any candidate that is willing to hand over the reins of how to run the campaign to a campaign director. An intelligent candidate will listen to and consider the ideas of others, but once the candidate makes a decision then either join the team or be prepared to walk away--that is what "unity" is about. Consistently second-guessing the actions of a supervisor in the private sector or the actions of a candidate in an election will ultimately lead to the following: 1) discouragement among the team players and 2) termination of employment. There is no "I" in team.

The Democratic Party does not have to give up its base in order to pursue white votes who are most likely going to vote for republicans. Adopting a failed platform will not work in the real world

No matter how lofty and "pure" and "idealistic" one's goals may be... success can only be achieved through compromise and a give-and-take process. You've got to give a little to get a little. That's what REAL WORLD politics are all about.

I recently saw an interesting "meme" photo from one of those "tombstone generator" websites. I can't recall the exact wording, but it was something along the lines of: "RIP ... HERE LIES JOE ... HE STARVED TO DEATH BECAUSE HE WOULDN'T ACCEPT HALF-A-LOAF" (I'm sure that's not the exact quote, but it's close, and you get the idea.)

Amusing and morbid at the same time, no? But, in many ways it's appropriate to how many apparently feel about the Democratic Party in 2017 (and beyond). In order to prove a point... and (apparently) out of pure spite and hatred... they're unwilling to participate in the give-and-take process of compromise. Sadly, many believe the Democratic Party should play the political game exclusively with an "all or nothing" philosophy.

This appears to be the case even if it typically means getting NOTHING, and often GOING BACKWARD... and even though the most vulnerable among us will be the ones who suffer. All in the name of satisfying the VANITY and EGO of those who continue to advocate for this "all or nothing" (no negotiations, no compromise) policy.

It's just a variation of the intentional "let it burn / we'll rebuild later" philosophy. A close cousin of the "let's throw gasoline on the flame to speed the burning along" philosophy.

In any case, the extremists in our party (ie: the "no compromise" and "all or nothing" folks) are holding back and impeding progress. (Isn't that ironic? They call themselves "progressives" yet their actions end up impeding actual progress.) The self-appointed purists who publicly attack, smear and denigrate our party only weaken us.

Any one of your list could indeed, be re fighting if that is the motivation of the poster. Seems naive at best to believe that a particular premise is immune to refighting the primaries, as no premise is immune to bias and agenda.