Look I know this is a political web site and as such politics will be discussed

[Arcanetrance]

But why are we dividing ourselves up for a 2016 presidential election that hasn't happened. There's a midterm coming in 2014 that's pretty important for us. If we can't pick up seats in the House and keep the senate. The next two years of the President Obama presidency won't mean a thing. Neither will the presidency of whatever democratic nominee might win the office. It concerns me that we are focusing on 2016 and not 2014 especially after what happened in 2010 where the turn out of democratic voters was down. Just my two cents on the issue.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

1. DU Rec & Kick! n/t

[2naSalit]

2. Good point! K&R

[kentuck]

3. No debate - no choice.

It's already been decided?

[Arcanetrance]

7. I'm open to debate on who will carry out banner in 2016 but I'd really like to see us focus on 2014

and making gains in that election so if we manage to get another democrat in the white house they have a friendlier congress

[kentuck]

10. I could agree to that...

But I don't think the debate about future presidential candidates will do much, if any, damage to our Party before 2015 or 2016? I don't see it.

[Arcanetrance]

12. I just seem to see more threads on the merits or lack of merits as to a 2016 candidate and none

talking about the merits of people running at the nation state and local level in 2014 and trying to put efforts to get people registered and out there.

[kentuck]

26. So, the more candidates in the discussion...?

...the less the turnout for the next election? Seems to me it would bring out more voters?

[Arcanetrance]

35. No the more we take and focus on 2016 while sleeping 2014

The bigger chance there is of our 2016 candidate looking at winning an election where they'll be doing nothing but fighting against a completely right wing controlled legislative branch

[ANOIS]

57. All politics is local!

And then some, up the chain a bit.

I'm surprised that I haven't yet seen this.

I totally agree with the original poster. He/she gets how it works.

Look at all the doofusses in Congress who were elected by their local mob of Tea Partiers. AND look at all the damage they have done.

[JaneyVee]

4. Meanwhile, exactly zero people have announced their candidacy as of yet.

I agree, it's nonsense.

[Arcanetrance]

9. Exactly but meanwhile plenty of people have announced for 2014 offices both state and nationwide

and even local. To be honest the right have been out doing us on those state and local races and managing to control the conversation on the state and local level. Yet here we are fighting who of the imaginary situations should represent us in a presidential election.

[Fumesucker]

5. Because some leftist ideologues refuse to gracefully accept the inevitable?

[L0oniX]

25. Yer bad.

[NCTraveler]

6. Real or not...

I think that many feel as though Obama hasn't been the transformative figure they were hoping for. It is giving people the need to look past the present, and hope for change in the future. The presidential election, while not the most important with respect to our individual lives, is the big enchilada.

[Arcanetrance]

8. My point is what good will any democrat in the white house be regardless of how left the lean

if they don't have a friendly congress

[NCTraveler]

11. I understand that.

But the first sentence in your op directly asks the question.

"But why are we dividing ourselves up for a 2016 presidential election that hasn't happened"

I was giving you one of many answers to that point of your op.

I agree that the congressional races are paramount.

[Arcanetrance]

13. You're right and I appreciate the answer I'm just frustrated

[Andy823]

14. Yes, but

If we can't keep control of the senate, and either take back the house, or at least increase our numbers, what difference will it make which democrat wins the nomination, and then the WH? We have seen just how low republicans are willing to go to defeat president Obama at everything he tries to do, and it won't be any different no matter which democrat wins if we have the same problem with congress not doing the will of the people.

The first priority should be voting out the republicans and tea party clowns in 2014 not only at a national level but also state and local levels. When we accomplish that goal, then worry about who gets the nomination in 2016. All the bickering now about who "should" be the nominee does nothing more than divide the people here on DU.

[NCTraveler]

16. I agree with everything you said.

Not sure why you used "but". I was directly answering the question posed in the first sentence of the op. Well, they didn't end the question with a "?", but it seems pretty obvious.

[Andy823]

15. I totally agree with you

It really won't matter who we put in the WH if we can't get rid of the tea party clowns and right wing nuts who want to destroy this country. Fighting about who should be the nominee does not help us to win that goal. We need to unite now for the 2014 elections, then worry about the nominee after thats over. There will be plenty of time later to "discuss" 2016 nominations, and we should all wait to see just who plans on running anyway. Why argue over who should win when we don't even know who will run?

[jeff47]

17. Some folks appear to be launching an "inevitability" campaign.

As in, making one candidate the "only" choice in 2016.

They're starting now, because it's much easier to say there's only one choice when no one has announced yet. No idea if they're connected to anything formal, or if they're just people who think 2008 would have been different if they started that inevitability earlier.

Anyway, if you ask them why they are already campaigning for 2016 when 2014 is far closer and far more critical, they'll claim that our candidate must "lay the groundwork" now.....yet they can't enumerate what exactly needs to be done and why all of us have to help instead of working on 2014.

When pressed to work on 2014 instead, they claim there are no significant 2014 races for them (ex. no Senators up, blue House district). When asked about providing aid for other areas for 2014, they will claim they can multitask....and then they'll go right back to 2016.

This leads to others who want an alternative to insist they also have to get started now, so that their candidate can "lay the groundwork". These people also can not enumerate what exactly needs to be done and why it must be done now. These people also don't quite seem to understand the best way to elect a liberal in 2016 is to elect liberals in 2014 - that would break the 'inevitability' campaign.

In the end, we get a bunch of people running around talking about 2016. Because shiny! 2014 is so boooooring.

[Arcanetrance]

18. I'm young a mean 2016 will only be my 4th presidential election I can vote in

But what I've gotten is nothing is inevitable no matter how often one repeats it. That's why I ignore the Hillary is inevitable posts.

[kentuck]

21. Like lemmings following the mainstream media.

If they would cease the "inevitable" insinuations, the perceived "problem" would mostly cease.

[jazzimov]

19. GOTV 2014! K&R

[Arcanetrance]

20. Seriously I'd love to see as many threads and as much energy dedicated to those running in 2014

Both on a notional and state level.

[LittleBlue]

22. Because midterms are boring

Let's be honest, the race for president is much more exciting than mostly no-name statewide or local candidates.

It's not like we're going to have a 300 reply argument about congressional district 5 in Missouri or whatever, most of us don't even know who's running in those races and can't vote for them anyway.

[Arcanetrance]

24. No they aren't as shiny but they're just as important if not more so than the presidential election

But think about this a thread where people talked not only about the candidates in their state but also voting laws in that state amd comparing notes on ways to get GOTV. Not glamorous but necessary if we ever want to move this country forward and out of the strangle hold the far right and the far far right have on it.

[Beartracks]

49. Much of democracy is boring. But if you want...

... if you want it to work properly, you -- and everyone -- need to vote. Even in the unsexy mid-terms.

--------------

[HereSince1628]

50. Well, they are certainly something that doesn't get out the dem vote

I'm not sure it's boredom.

[dreamnightwind]

23. The 2010 turnout was down why exactly?

There are a number of opinions on this matter. Mine is that the hope and change candidate we managed to elect, which was a very heavy lift to accomplish, and which was supposed to be a repudiation and complete transformation of the Bush years, turned out to be only a little different. That was incredibly deflating, and the party that was supposedly going to put this country back on its feet turned out to be largely incapable because it had morphed into Republican-lite. The banks got theirs, we got the shaft and more Goldman-Sachs people in the new administration.

I don't think people consciously sat out 2010 for this reason, I know I voted, but there just wasn't any real excitement or drive for change at that point, the general vibe was that they're all crooks, why bother? False equivalency, yeah, a little, not on my part, the Republicans, by design, are more terrorists than representatives, but in general the centrist administration just didn't drive or even attempt to drive the change they said they would, and in fact they legitimized and institutionalized many of the policies we wanted changed.

There are other explanations for 2010, it's been debated ad nauseum here. I totally understand the congressional situation that existed then, the Senate wasn't filibuster-proof, though it shouldn't have had to be. Many of our elected Dems turned out not to support actual progressive policy to put the capitalist beast back in its cage. In fact they were accepting large donations from the very institutions they needed to be putting in the cage.

2014 is very important, thanks for caring about it. It also makes a great deal of difference who we elect in 2016, good or bad congress, saying it doesn't is a false narrative. The issues I care about aren't even on the table when we elect corporate Democrats.

Your OP is an attempt to limit discussion of an important issue, and it's like the thousandth such OP on here recently. The people that are demanding an alternative candidate for 2016 are supposed to shut up about it, supposedly to help the 2014 effort. Potential alternative candidates are evaluating their support NOW, as shown in recent remarks from Sanders (directly) and Warren (less so, I think she is positioning herself though).

How about this, how about we drop the corporate direction of the party, champion real change that benefits the 99% of us who aren't wealthy, and then we'll see the country come out in droves to support our party. No exhortation will be needed, you won't be able to stop all of the people that flood the polls to support a party that truly supports them. People are desperate for someone who will actually stand up to powerful economic interests, we are in the fast lane on the road to total destruction as a country and as a planet, with 2 corporate-funded parties taking turns driving.

[Arcanetrance]

28. I assure you I'm not trying to limit discussion of any kind

In fact truth be told when 2016 comes and if Hillary and other people of the more corporate mold are running I will do everything in my power in the primaries to GOTV against that type of candidate. But as it stands now there is an election coming in 2014 that if we completely lay an egg in we have a chance of not being able to gain ground in either chamber for a very long time. That will set the terms with which the media will talk about Democrats and almost assure a more corporate friendly model. Not to even go into the types of laws a congress of that make up would pass.

[dreamnightwind]

29. So apparently we're on the same side

but disagree about the need to mobilize for 2016 now.

[Arcanetrance]

30. It would seem that way

I would like to take the Democratic party back to it being the blue collar party. Pro labor pro wage equality pro vigorous safety net. I just don't see that happening without a congress that'll vote for those things.

[dreamnightwind]

34. Well, I agree about congress

But how about a party led by Clinton, or Biden for that matter? 'Cause that's the trajectory we're on, and it won't turn overnight. We can't just flick a switch after the 2014 vote and have a Warren or Grayson or Sanders set up a campaign that has the kind of organization and infrastructure needed to seriously compete appear out of thin air. This kind of evaluation truly is happening now, it's exactly the right time to push it, if not we run great risk (I would say the likelihood) of no serious candidate to speak to the issues we care about, that's the plan and we need to change that plan.

And I do think you're trying to limit discussion, you're certainly trying to direct focus away from that by calling out DU to not waste energy on it at this time. I strongly disagree with that. Concurrent with a push for 2014 can be a progressive push for 2016 POTUS, they can feed each other.. Progressive policies kick up a lot of populist energy that gets people to the polls. For many people, why bother? It's meh, more of the same corporate crooks wanting to sell us out. I always vote, regardless, but many just stay home because there is no motivating principle that makes them think their vote matters.

[Arcanetrance]

37. If we were focusing on both I wouldn't have started this thread

But I haven't noticed much of a push for 2014 alongside the threads talking about 2016. I feel a good deal of people have completely overlooked the importance of 2014 so that they may set up for 2016.

[dreamnightwind]

40. I've seen a million threads about 2014

and half a million threads telling us to focus only to 2014 and ignore 2016 till later. Some of those people are Hillary supporters who don't want any momentum to a contested primary, viewing such as divisive.

Others, maybe you, are people who simply disagree with my opinion that if we don't work with all of our might to make it happen, we're looking at 8 more years of party leadership that passes legislation written by corporate lobbyists and shows up at election time with their hats in their hands pointing to bad Republicans as the reason to get behind them and support them. 8 more years of that and we might as well not have a party, it will stand for nothing and benefit only the wealthy.

A push for a 2016 alternative candidate is a great way to revive energy in our party and to get people to think it means something to support Democrats.

[jeff47]

31. So the problem was 30 years was not reversed in 2?

Those disillusioned-in-2010-people set us back another 10 years by insisting 30 years of politics must be reversed in 2 years.

Your OP is an attempt to limit discussion of an important issue, and it's like the thousandth such OP on here recently. The people that are demanding an alternative candidate for 2016 are supposed to shut up about it, supposedly to help the 2014 effort. Potential alternative candidates are evaluating their support NOW, as shown in recent remarks from Sanders (directly) and Warren (less so, I think she is positioning herself though).

There are zero potential 2016 candidates that need our support now to run in 2016. If they don't already want to run by now, they will not run a good 2016 campaign. It will be Fred Thompson all over again.

If they want to run, they'll be running. If they don't want to run, we can not make them run effectively.

How about this, how about we drop the corporate direction of the party, champion real change that benefits the 99% of us who aren't wealthy, and then we'll see the country come out in droves to support our party.

How 'bout we start that in 2014?

It's gonna be a slog - it took a long time to get here, and it's going to take a while to get back. But the only way to guarantee we do not get there is to give up early.

[dreamnightwind]

38. Could not disagree more

Those disillutioned are not to blame, the causes of their disillusion are to blame.

Potential candidates are out there, they need to see that there is a ground-swell of energy that could and would support them. They need to see that now. What great cost to the 2014 effort will that have? I think the two things could be mutually beneficial. Make it clear that there is a large and active faction of this party that actually cares about them rather than caring about the corporate donors, and you'll get a lot more support in 2014 as well as laying a foundation for a different candidate in 2016.

[jeff47]

41. It's not about blame. It's about fixing the problem.

And the only way to fix the problem is to stop pretending that a great liberal savior can reverse 30 years of politics in a very short time.

Potential candidates are out there, they need to see that there is a ground-swell of energy that could and would support them.

Running for President is more than ground-swells. You have to have sufficient desire to put yourself and your family through years of hell.

If you don't have that desire, no groundswell can give it to you. And if you do not have that desire, you can not win.

What great cost to the 2014 effort will that have?

Organizing for a liberal candidate to win in Iowa and New Hampshire in 3 years will not help liberals win everywhere else in 1 year.

I think the two things could be mutually beneficial. Make it clear that there is a large and active faction of this party that actually cares about them rather than caring about the corporate donors, and you'll get a lot more support in 2014 as well as laying a foundation for a different candidate in 2016.

You do that by working like hell for 2014.

If we lose 2014, we will hear constant screams of "Center-right country!!!" for 2016. It won't matter that you decided to line up behind a liberal now, because that liberal will be running into a massive headwind.

On the other hand, a win in 2014 destroys that same argument. And the liberal you want to win in 2016 will do much better because of your efforts for other candidates in 2014.

[dreamnightwind]

51. It's a false choice

since I am not arguing against efforts to win in 2014, nor will I ever.

What would drive a victory in 2014 more than anything would be to give people causes to support, rather than just Republicans to oppose. Howard Dean truly reached out to the people when he led the DNC.

What great reforms are we saying we will push if given control? Breaking up the banks, re-regulation of Wall St., slowing automated trading with a transaction tax, ending surveillance, stopping summary executions via remote control, ending the role of the U.S. as global cop and corporate empire enforcer? Reframing terrorism as blowback of U.S. foreign policy? Ending the war on some drugs? Taxing the rich at a much higher rate and returning to a strong safety net? Fighting failed education at its roots, which is poverty? Free higher education? Protecting our jobs so corporations can't just move them to the least-regulated and most desperate people on the planet? Returning the U.S. to be the land of the free instead of incarceration nation? Stoppin the TPP? Fracking? Climate change (not just mitigating the worst impacts of it, transitioning to a sustainable society). This is the right way to get people to the polls, you support their issues. Instead the party is reactive, they publicly fight against the worst aspects of the Republican policies, rather than offering an alternative vision.

By putting energy into this alternative vision, you move people. An alternative candidate for 2016 is a huge and necessary part of that. And yes, it's all connected, that drive will help 2014, even for some candidates who do not deserve it, the party brand will be enhanced.

Liberals will always be running into a massive headwind, it's called the interests of capital. Guess what, the average American family is running into this same headwind, and is pretty far down the road to a dismal future. People will recognize this when presented with an alternative. Give them Republican-lite, they won't be excited at all.

"Running for President is more than ground-swells. You have to have sufficient desire to put yourself and your family through years of hell.

If you don't have that desire, no groundswell can give it to you. And if you do not have that desire, you can not win. "

So what? You think there aren't people with that desire? Where did you come up with that? They're out there. Desire isn't enough, they need to think they have people ready and willing to support them on an incredibly difficult path. It's a two-way street, and we can do our part by screaming for an alternative.

The great liberal savior will be a manifestation of us. There are potentials saviors out there, but without much support, since such support is generally discouraged by the powers that be. One way to move towards changing that is by advocating for it in public forums such as this.

[jeff47]

52. There are and will be no saviors. There is decades of work.

"Running for President is more than ground-swells. You have to have sufficient desire to put yourself and your family through years of hell.

If you don't have that desire, no groundswell can give it to you. And if you do not have that desire, you can not win. "

So what? You think there aren't people with that desire?

Your argument is we need to line up behind a liberal now in order to get them to run.

If they have the desire, they don't need a groundswell in order to run. If they need a groundswell, they don't have the desire.

What would drive a victory in 2014 more than anything would be to give people causes to support, rather than just Republicans to oppose. Howard Dean truly reached out to the people when he led the DNC.

Which has nothing to do with a 2016 candidate.

An alternative candidate for 2016 is a huge and necessary part of that. And yes, it's all connected, that drive will help 2014, even for some candidates who do not deserve it, the party brand will be enhanced.

Except that any primary is inherently divisive. And starting the 2016 primary now will divide us right when we need to come together for 2014.

The great liberal savior will be a manifestation of us. There are potentials saviors out there, but without much support, since such support is generally discouraged by the powers that be. One way to move towards changing that is by advocating for it in public forums such as this.

There are no great liberal saviors, just like there was not a great conservative savior that brought us to this point. 30 years of effort by many different Republicans got us here. It will take decades of effort by many different liberals to undo that.

[dreamnightwind]

58. The savior meme is yours

and appears to be an attempt to discredit efforts to run a serious progressive candidate in 2016.

It's a false choice, 2014 vs. 2016, the best way to mobilize for 2014 is to give people something to feel passionate about, which applies to both elections and for the 2016 POTUS primary there needs to be energy there now, not later.

We'll just have to disagree on this.

[pinto]

27. GOTV 2014 !

[Dawgs]

32. We need to work for a Democratic majority future.

So, we need to work on both 2014 and 2016.

As intelligent adults we should be able to handle discussing both elections.

[Arcanetrance]

33. But unlike intelligent adults we aren't

We are bickering about imaginary 2016 candidates who haven't announced they're running.

[Dawgs]

36. I couldn't disagree more.

"Bickering" or constructive discussion is exactly what we need right now.

And the imaginary candidates aren't key to the discussion. They are just names.

Try focusing on what they represent - like corporatist versus progressive.

[Arcanetrance]

39. I guess that's my problem I want a progressive candidate in 2016

But I'd like to see them enter the elections with a chance of winning the white house and entering with a Congress that'll be able to forward their agenda. Furthermore I'd like to have a Congress in place that could limit the damage that could be done if a Republican was elected president.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. Good luck with that.

I mean it.

[zipplewrath]

43. Name the nationalized race you'd like to discuss

There aren't that many races that will be "nationalized". 90% of districts are "safe" anyway. So what race will be of interest to all of us in 2014? Which candidates would you like to discuss?

Like it or not, the presidential is the only "national" race. Everything else is "local" and quite honestly most people will have little knowledge or understanding of the issues in congressional and senatorial campaigns. So the discussion is going to focus on those candidates in which everyone is knowledgeable to some extent or another, which is to say, presidential contenders.

And if you think the presidential campaigns aren't up and runnning, neither are most of the state level ones. A few are going, but very slowly. Texas, Kentucky, a few others have active campaigns, but most of the rest are barely going, if at all.

[lumberjack_jeff]

44. It isn't the "dividing up" that is the problem

The problem is the litmus test 2008 redux "Hillary supporters aren't democrats"

I think there are legitimate reasons to support a variety of candidates and potential candidates.

[polichick]

45. People TALK on a message board - that's what it's for...

Has nothing to do with any activism they may be involved with.

[Autumn]

46. How are we divided on the 2016 presidential election? We

don't even know who the hell the candidate will be Talking about it is NOT going to cause anyone here to not focus on the 2014 election. It'd very easy to chew gum and walk or talk at the same time.

[SunSeeker]

47. K & R

[UCmeNdc]

48. Kick

Agree!

[Niceguy1]

53. because it's fun and it's what we do

how boring would it be if everyone came to this site and just agreed with each other all the time?

[Mira]

54. + 1000 - and well said. n/t

[Iggo]

55. I try to stay in the shallow end until after the primaries.

I don't always stay there, but I try.

[airplaneman]

56. I am with you.

I think we are reaching a pivotal junction that will determine good or bad for many years to come. 2014 is probably the most important election in our lifetime as we have to get a majority if we are going to have a chance of recapturing a government of, by, and for the people. This is war. We have to vote the Republicans out of existence. If they retain a majority in the house or increase their numbers we are SOL if a republican wins in 2016. At this point I wont believe we have a chance in my lifetime. We have to turn out in number and vote the republican out. We have to win a majority in Texas and Florida. We have to make significant progress in 2014 period. 2016 will be a moot point if we don't.
-Airplane