Just vote for Bernie.

If he's the nominee. I'd like to see the same pledge from Bernie supporters for Hillary.

campaign hard for him. Same for Clinton. Why would you suppose otherwise?

DULink: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251954155

Non-incumbent year of course. Interestingly enough, we have seen the party even more divided in past incumbent years.

I see no metric at all that says anything other than the party is extremely united.

Will there be some minor wounds to heal? Of course, this is very personal. But united we are.

then party leadership should act like membership mattered.

Start actually advocating things that HELP us as opposed to just being a kinder, gentler corporate party.

Realize, and WORK HARD to make the American public realize that helping people IS NOT an extreme political position.

Yep.

Oh, and GET RID of the Third Way - put those neoliberal corporatists on their butts out in the parking lot.

The Republican base has been shrinking for decades and the Democratic base has been growing, but we're the minority party? And watching leadership farther weaken our voice just to improve the chances of a single candidate is beyond nauseating.

district level, planning is already beginning for November. It takes time to build a solid campaign effort. We do vote for more than just a President, and high turnout is crucial. The President is just one of the elected offices that matter. In many ways, party unity affects those offices more than the presidency.

We should have learned that in 2010 and 2014, I think. Apparently, though, we have not.

Voting out of fear of the other has made America the mess it is.

I refuse to play that game any more.

I don't recollect any primary where there wasn't disputes, even pre internet. That's just how it works. If this is just a warm up for the usual "blame everybody else posts" for low voter turn out in the GE, I gotta say it's a wee bit early for that crap.

besides controlling the majority of state governments.

What we need is real change, not status quo.

You try to present the horrible future of the Republicans gaining majorities when the truth is they already hold them.


There are a lot of different reasons why they have majorities. The House, and many state governments, are due directly to gerrymandering. This was because of our losses in 2010 which allowed them to abuse their authority when redrawing districts.

This could happen again if we have an unpopular President running for reelection in 2020. With Hilary's numbers already being horribly upside down in many categories, including honesty, I am worried that we could suffer the same kind of losses in 2020 if she is on the ticket. History shows that popularity goes us when someone is out of office and back down when he/she are in. If she is President, she could seriously damage all down ticked Democrats in 2020.

I know that your three top "issues" are beating Republicans. beating Republicans and beating Republicans so maybe you should try looking beyond 2016 and see if Hillary is really the one you want to support.

party unity is what got us into this fucking mess in the first place. if it turns out hillary is the best we can do it really really doesn't matter any more.

We have our work cut out for us, it seems to me, if we're going to have progressive change. We can't do it with just a President, as we have seen for 7 years.

2010 and 2014. We need to educate voters about the importance of legislative elections.

Sound like anyone you know?




P.S. This is a terrible oversimplification, but I will play along.

something to believe in, get them excited and create a unifying message.

Bernie does that better than any other Presidential candidate, just being a less corporate loving version of a Republican won't get it and the Democratic Party will continue to lose critical seats at the state and federal level.

It's way past time for the Democratic Party to retake its' higher moral calling.

.... for your continuing noble attempts using common sense logic, but as you can see, there are those who will ride their runaway train right off the rails. That's conviction, but at what cost to us, our children, grandchildren, and our country. They are who will suffer for misguided screw-ples. It is a simple truth, and no amount of crying "lesser of two evils", "corporatist", "warmonger", and "feel the bern" will change that. A republican president will be disastrous for America, and when these "progressives" regale the young with their tales of bravery against the insidious "third way", the response they are likely to recieve is, "That's great Mom/Dad, but what about us?"
For one moment, think about who has sat in the oval office for the last eight years, then ask yourself this question. Do you honestly believe that a republican administration would be better than the "status quo" of the last eight years that so many believe will happen under a Clinton administration? If the answer is yes, then it would be my opinion that you are not only in the wrong political forum, but in the wrong party as well. I will vote for, and support the Democratic nominee.

...until after the primaries.

Right now you seem to be admonishing people for taking sides during the primaries. But that is exactly what primaries are for, to choose between candidates within the party. So naturally there will be strife, and naturally that will make us all uncomfortable for one reason or another.

If the Democratic Party cannot handle its internal issues that is another matter. The Party either accepts all of its members, or it does not. If the Party is not interested in the issues that a good percentage of its members are interested in, then the question becomes: did those members desert the Party, or did the Party desert them?

Perhaps the Party and its movers and shakers ought to be thinking about the issue of being a minority party -- maybe that would motivate SMART party leaders to look around and see just what the majority thinking in this country really is. Hint: it's progressive, not center-right.

It's not the time to push for party unity.

Taking sides during the primary is the whole point to small d democracy - to hash out what exactly evolving parties will evolve into.

The republican party controls most of the states as well as the Congress.

But hey, do continue with your repetitive, ceaseless, morally superior preaching. What would DUers do without you lecturing us?

Mine is to carry out a massive GOTV strategy for November, whoever the Democratic presidential nominee may be. Lets hear yours.

the more I get the impression of a defeatist attitude. I've never met you personally so I could be wrong, I'm just saying what I see here. No offense intended, but do you realize this basic truth:

We can have the country we want. America can and will be whatever we want it to be.

I think of the lesson of the adult elephant tied by a simple rope. When you ask Americans their positions, candidates and parties aside, they align overwhelmingly with the left side of the spectrum. Partisanship, tribalism, identity and other obstacles prevent the outcomes we collectively agree should occur. There are disagreements about how we get there, but to suggest we can't be idealistic and that we have to stick to a specific (and largely failed) prescription is self defeating.

Yes, there are two parties but we control what they represent.

The Dems are already the minority party. On one side, there are progressives, democratic socialists. On the other, there are Tea Partiers, Third Wayers, moderate republicans, hard core conservatives and the crazies like Louis Gohmert.

Rahm or DWS?