You're doing it again, DU....

[ChisolmTrailDem]

You are breaking yourself up into primary groups, each supporting your favorite presidential candidate a full three years before the next presidential election - and in the process ignoring that we have a mid-term election to win just one year from now.

This place SUCKED the last time this happened and those for Hillary were fighting with those for Obama. Now it's those for Hillary vs. those for Warren and everyone else who are the object of presidential fantasies.

Are we really going to split 2016 like you did leading up to 2008? I certainly hope not or I'm going to have to take the next 3 years off from DU.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Yes, it's stupid and annoying, but

it's going to happen. Ignore those threads and carry on.

[BlueCaliDem]

7. ^^^This!^^^

I don't mind honest debate, but I don't approve of personal attacks and name-calling during those honest debates, so people can either just bow out of a discussion when it gets too heated or ignore those Clinton vs Warren threads.

As a Democrat, I pledge to support whoever wins the Democratic primary, and I will do it with all my heart and all my soul, because I desperately want another Democrat in the WH until Scalia and Kennedy finally leave. We know they won't just as long as a Democrat is in the WH.

So it's up to us - if we want to keep women's rights, voter's rights, equal rights for ALL Americans, and curtail billionaires' opportunities to buy our government - to ensure that a Democrat remains in the WH until either these two right-wingers retire out of their own, or keel over in their posh seats.

We need to neuter Roberts' and multinational corporations' power that's beginning to push average Americans under a new kind of slavery.

[BainsBane]

36. Can we at least wait until there are actual candidates

Christ this 2016 shit is stupid.

[Le Taz Hot]

2. I know this may be hard to grasp but here it is:

We're different. We have different opinions, we have different backgrounds, we have different perspectives. We're capable of independent thought and we don't always agree. Trying to swim against that tide is, well, pretty useless, don't you think?

People will be interested in what they're interested in. They'll talk about what they want to talk about. You can either roll with the flow or kick up a fuss, it's up to you but ultimately, it has no affect.

[wickerwoman]

19. For the most part that's true,

but what gets annoying is when there are obvious paid staffers shilling for one candidate or the other or right-wingers looking to stir shit.

There was a guy on here literally the day after Obama was re-elected in 2011 posting threads about how inevitable Hillary was as the candidate in 2016. People can be interested in what they're interested in but I think it's fair to ask people to STFU in certain circumstances such as describing your candidate as the "inevitable" choice four years before the damn election. That poster was later exposed and banned as a right-wing troll BTW but not before amassing more than 10,000 posts.

So yes, people want to talk about what they want to talk about but I think that's missing the fact that quite a few very vocal people here are not "talking about" future candidates in the spirit of full disclosure and intellectual honesty.

[uponit7771]

3. Looks like FUD to me, a lot of HRC downers are giving moving goal post litmus's for her. I dont see

... too many supporters with near flame bait post in regards to people who don't support her

[cali]

4. Hillary is being shoved down our throats again as inevitable

and it's happening before she's even announced- a full three years before the election.

[bhikkhu]

9. The point of the OP is that trashing a candidate isn't a good response

...and all the "shoving down our throats I see on the main page at the moment are your various "trashing Hillary" OP's. Ease up, maybe?

I don't have a favorite for 2016 myself; its too early. But I don't want to spend the next three years watching a civil war here of candidates (who aren't even candidates yet) getting trashed back and forth.

[Cali_Democrat]

17. Who is shoving Hillary down your throat?

You're creating a fictitious scenario that is only occurring in your head. She hasn't even declared her candidacy yet, but that's not stopping you from trashing her.

Also, in terms of DU I see much more Warren 2016 support. Perhaps she's actually the one being shoved down our throat? Ever think of it that way?

The OP is also discussing the fact that one side is trashing the other. You just created many posts trashing Hillary.

Perhaps you should create posts that support your potential candidate instead of creating posts that trash others.

Just my 2 cents.

[cali]

22. C'mon. Start with Schumer

in fact, the entire power structure of the dem party

The institutional apparatus of the Democratic coalition is shifting gears as party strategists, outside groups and the people who finance campaigns prepare for what they believe is an inevitable 2016 presidential bid by Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As President Obama struggles with the debacle of his Affordable Care Act rollout and fights to regain his political standing, his party’s machinery is pivoting to the next White House campaign. Concrete steps are being taken to wage a general-election contest with Clinton as the presumed nominee.

<snip>

Still, the signs of activity, and the implications of those efforts, speak to Clinton’s unique position in the Democratic Party and to the understanding that the sophistication of modern politics — especially on the scale of a presidential campaign — requires far more lead time and preparation than it did a generation ago.

<snip>

“There’s an amazing amount of outside activity, but more important, structural formation,” said one prominent Democratic strategist with a long history in presidential campaigns, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid . “There’s a real apparatus out there.”

The latest evidence came last week when BuzzFeed and, later, other news organizations reported that Jim Messina, Obama’s 2012 campaign manager, was nearing agreement to join the super PAC Priorities USA. Priorities was formed to back Obama in 2012 and is now becoming the pro-Clinton super PAC for 2016.

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-lay-groundwork-for-clinton-2016/2013/11/16/8b919fa6-4ed2-11e3-be6b-d3d28122e6d4_story.html

[seabeyond]

5. ya. i am not playing. i hear ya. nt

[Chan790]

6. Yup. We're doing that. n/t

[hfojvt]

8. sorta funny how politics works

Humans often pride themselves on being rational, but there seems to be nothing rational about politics.

Some people support Hillary and there is nothing you can say to them which will convince them to stop supporting her.

Other people are against Hillary and there is nothing you can say to them which will convince them to support her.

And yes, for some reason, the Presidential race captures all the attention. As if a President Kucinich or a President Warren could save this country all by themselves once they became President.

But as for 2014, WHAT exactly are we supposed to do about that? Talk about how much better Democrats are than Republicans? Well, repukes are trashed here all the time, probably much more than 2016 is talked about, or at least a close 2nd.

Although, I might note that it is almost all negative, negative, negative. That is, Republicans are trashed more than Democrats are supported.

[woo me with science]

10. Candidates become viable through momentum and recognition.

The time to recruit, plan, talk about, and publicize real alternatives to the status quo is now.

The corporatists have succeeded by spreading the lie that liberal candidates, and liberal ideas, are "fringe" and unelectable. The ONLY way they can sustain this lie is by narrowing the debate and discouraging talk of those alternatives.

Real change is never considered a serious option until people begin talking about it as a serious option.

The DLC/Third Way will whine and complain that it's too early to talk about 2016, but their MO is always to try to get everybody to shut up until it's too late.

The time to recruit candidates who will REALLY represent the 99 percent -candidates like Grayson, Warren, Sanders, and ????? - and the time to spread the word about what is REALLY possible in terms of policy change for the 99 percent, must begin RIGHT NOW.

[el_bryanto]

14. That may be so - but the trial run for that strategy is 2014

If you can't get candidates of that caliber elected in 2014, than it will be harder to push things further in 2016. Focusing on 2014 also has the benefit of finding candidates more of us agree on, so that we don't fight each other but instead focus on fighting to get progressives elected.

Bryant

[woo me with science]

20. Nonsense. We can do both. nt

[el_bryanto]

23. Can we do both without fighting internally at DU?

Or - to put it another way - should people who want Hillary Clinton or Bernie Saunders to be our next presidential candidate continue to post or will that create hard feelings that distract from our over arching goals?

Bryant

[woo me with science]

31. Why on earth would you "fight" anyone trying to promote progressive candidates at DU?

And why are you so upset about people posting passionately and frankly about which candidates and policies they seek to promote?

Prior to elections is EXACTLY the time when ALL citizens should be working excitedly and publicly to find and promote the very best candidates they can. This is how the electorate learns what the possibilities are. This is how better candidates are drafted. And exposure and recognition are how momentum happens.

I think it's time to repost this OP. The DLC/Third Way appears to be gearing up to promote their "shut up during election season" strategy again:

It's time for this destructive meme about shutting up during elections to stop. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021488072

It was despicable the first time around, and it will not succeed this time.

[el_bryanto]

37. I'm not particularly upset about anything actually

But my question is, when people promote progressive candidates and others promote Hillary Clinton or other mainstream democrats, does that create friction? I mean I have certainly seen posts promoting Bernie Saunders get attacked, and I have seen posts promoting Hillary Clinton get attacked.

Bryant

[woo me with science]

38. Please define "friction,"

because you seem awfully concerned about it.

Is asking for a candidate's policy agenda and comparing it to that of another candidate considered "friction"?

Is expressing a strong conclusion of preferring one candidate over another based on these differences, "friction"?

Is passionately and publicly advocating one candidate over another, pointing out how each does or does not represent the interests of the public in order to inform the public, draw new supporters, and build momentum for the very best candidate possible, "friction"?

Because if you consider this sort of "friction" malignant, then you have a very disturbing conception of how the political process is supposed to work in a democratic representative system.

It's time for this destructive meme about shutting up during elections to stop. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021488072

[el_bryanto]

42. The simplest description of what I consider malignant friction

Is the kind where you believe a fellow DUer not to be someone who disagrees with you or some one to discuss with but when you assume they are dishonest or disturbed or somehow "the enemy."

Can you disagree with someone without thinking they are a bastard? History shows that we have a problem with that on occasion.

Bryant

[woo me with science]

46. How on earth did you get from,

Or - to put it another way - should people who want Hillary Clinton or Bernie Saunders (sic...It's spelled "Sanders&quot to be our next presidential candidate continue to post or will that create hard feelings that distract from our over arching goals?

to

Can you disagree with someone without thinking they are a bastard? History shows that we have a problem with that on occasion.

To even suggest that supporters of Clinton or Sanders should not "continue to post" is perhaps the most absurd suggestion I have ever seen on a political discussion board. It goes against everything our democratic political process, not to mention *a discussion board,* is supposed to be about.

To then attempt to justify it by arguing that some DUers might be "thinking" nasty things about other DUers is the icing on the absurdity cake.

Can you disagree with someone without thinking they are a bastard? History shows that we have a problem with that on occasion.

"We" have a problem with that? I would gently suggest that you speak for yourself, and perhaps avoid DU if it is causing thoughts or feelings you find uncomfortable. You are entitled to your feelings, because people's *feelings* are their own business. What people *write* at DU, however, we have juries to moderate. I expect that posts calling others here "bastards" will be quickly juried and removed, don't you?

I *expect* to see blatantly dishonest statements called out, and I am grateful when that occurs. The best antidote to dishonesty is sunshine, just as the best antidote to malignant policies and politicians beholden to corporate money is awakening the public to the fact that other, better policies and politicians are possible.

It's time for this destructive meme about shutting up during elections to stop. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021488072

[el_bryanto]

47. How do you anticipate supporters of more centrist candidates to respond to

their candidates being called out?

Or how do you anticipate you might respond if someone suggests that a presidential candidate you suggest is not likely to win?

Bryant

[msongs]

11. actually it is possible to do both at the same time - deal w/2014 & promote a 2016 candidate nt

[el_bryanto]

12. What's really annoying is that everybody is ignoring the obvious candidate - me!

I'd be a great president. I very rarely cut myself with those big oversized novelty scissors you use to cut ribbons with and I've memorized what 3 of the 19 different dinner utensils are - I'm sure that if elected I could figure out what the other 16 are for.

I understand that the President has other duties, but really I'm going to focus on ribbon cutting and appropriate utensil usage - I think that's what America needs.

Bryant

[JoePhilly]

13. "Trashing" one candidate is not the same as "supporting" the alternative candidate.

Although some on DU do tend to think that is how it works.

[polichick]

15. See ya!

[Cali_Democrat]

16. Well I haven't backed a potential candidate yet

and don't intend to until late 2015.

[Nine]

18. Show me the threads trashing Warren or any other candidate.

For the most part it doesn't happen. Hillary is the only one who gets bashed on DU constantly. I've said it before but I'd be thrilled to have a rule right now that says no bashing any potential 2016 candidates.

It's not always true that it takes two to make an argument. Sometimes it's just one side relentlessly taking potshots at the other side.

[quinnox]

28. lol, that would be an interesting rule

I would be interested to see you run that by Skinner in ask the admin forum and see his reaction. I'm not sure it would be greeted with enthusiasm.
It certainly would make Du a lot less lively and interesting in the run up to 2016.

[SomethingFishy]

21. +1 And it's not just the election...

DU lately has become one division after the next. I can't spend more than 10 minutes here before I leave in frustration.

Last week it seemed it was the "rare" abortion debate. I couldn't believe it. Someone actually came up with a way to split the pro-choice people into those who want abortion to be "rare" and those who want to , and this is a quote I read "give out abortion coupons at the mall".

We keep fighting amongst ourselves while the 1% steals us blind and laughs at our idiocy.

[quinnox]

24. Exactly, we all must be united around one candidate now

No fighting allowed! And I get the feeling the candidate has been determined, namely, Hillary C.

Sorry, but I have a gag reflex when I see "the united talk", it is a flaw I have had for a long time, as an individualist. I have never been a good little sheep type.

[Nye Bevan]

25. The Hillary-haters are getting a bit tedious.

There are some DUers who criticize Hillary more than any Republican.

[JaneyVee]

26. Meanwhile, zero people have announced their candidacy.

[OregonBlue]

27. Agreed. We need to be concentrating on 2014 not tearing each other apart over who the nominee will

be for 2016. Trolls must be very happy though.

[NuclearDem]

29. With the TPP leak, there's no better time to hammer Hillary for her complicity in the matter.

All of the other primary threads just bleed from HRC supporters declaring that she's inevitable and there are no alternatives.

Plus, if we start up the populist fury early by going after Third Way corporatists, that just ends up fueling the fire for getting populists and progressives elected in 2014.

[woo me with science]

32. +100000 We need fully vetted candidates. We need a vigorous national debate on ISSUES.

And we need to DEMAND that candidates are clear about where they stand on EVERY SINGLE IMPORTANT ISSUE. No more of THIS type of garbage we saw during the last election:

Obama campaign REFUSES to disclose plans on Social Security, says discussion belongs with senators
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021483594

]

The DLC/Third Way worked hard last election to spread a DISGUSTING meme that the people should shut up during election season so as not to disturb the delicate plans of the candidates. This sort of garbage cannot be accepted. Election season is the time for every citizen to participate STRONGLY and VOCALLY, so that we are clear about what kind of candidates we want, and what kind of policies those candidates promise to work for, for us.

It's time for this destructive meme about shutting up during elections to stop. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021488072

Now is the time to fire the country up for 2014 AND 2016. Now is the time to be finding and PROMOTING candidates who actually represent the people rather than corporations.

[brooklynite]

30. I recall that we did pretty well in 2006...

Maybe we can handle dealing with two things at once.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

35. Keyword there is "maybe". I believe we should be concentrating on 2014 so that

we can kill off the Tea Party and other dead weight and move this country back to the left as much as possible.

Two-thirds of my life has been spent as a supporter of the Clintons and I am a big Hillary fan from way back before her time as First Lady. But I am not ready to take for granted that she will be the nominee, neither am I ready to discuss or concentrate energy on 2016 ( three years from now, mind you ) when so much is riding on 2014. just one year from now.

[Aerows]

33. I don't hate Hillary

She can win. I wish someone instead of her is offered up. The truth of the matter is, however, that no matter who is offered up on the Democratic side will be bashed endlessly by Republicans. They won't tolerate anyone but a Republican being President.

In my opinion, that means that we should pursue having candidates with a more leftist agenda than pursuing one that Republicans find palatable - because there is no such thing as a Democratic candidate that will be palatable to Republicans. Jesus could run with a (D) behind his name against Hitler with an (R) behind his name, and even the religious right wing would reject Jesus.

[MineralMan]

34. It's inevitable. Just shine it on until after the 2014 elections.

Until then, it's meaningless.

[hrmjustin]

40. I agree. I support Hillary but I like Warren as well and would be happy to support her in the

general.

[Kingofalldems]

41. I like all Democrats.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. Tsk. Tsk. People talking politics on a political discussion board.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

48. The vapors! LOL! n/t

[ieoeja]

44. Why was there so little acrimony between supporters of Edward, Biden and Obama?

Claiming "Obama" supporters were the same as Hillary supporters is no different than claiming Democrats are the same as Republicans.

I had to put "Obama" in quotes because most eventual Obama supporters were not Obama supporters at the beginning of the primary. So what you should have written was:

"This place SUCKED the last time this happend and those for Hillary were fighting those for somebody else. Now it's those for somebody else vs. that object of presidential fantasies: Hillary."

[bvar22]

45. Most of the debate I have seen isn't really about Hillary vs <whoever>.

The debate is much more about the DIRECTION of the Democratic Party,
and it is not too early to be having this debate.

As a loyal Democrat and supporter of the Democratic Party for near 50 years,
I am entitled to express my displeasure over the conservative direction of MY Party,
and will continue to do so.

My dissatisfaction with the current conservative direction of the Democratic Party will manifest itself in many ways,
including my opposition to Anti-LABOR, Free Trading, Privatizing, War supporting conservative Democrats today,
and in coming elections.


[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center] [center] [/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]


You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]