First, Don't Cut Your Own Throat.

[MineralMan]

That's a lesson we should probably learn before the 2018 elections. If there are two Democratic candidates for an elective office, for example, we should not engage in trashing either of them during the primary period. Instead, we should campaign by pointing out the strengths of the candidate we support. That applies to elections at every level.

See, the thing is that sometimes the candidate we support doesn't win in those primaries. If we've been trashing the candidate who does win in the primaries, we'll have a hard time overcoming that negative publicity before the General Election. Sometimes, the very things we've used to criticize a primary opponent get picked up by the other side and used against the Democratic nominee.

I wish that mass shooters would shoot themselves in the head first and skip the mass shooting. But they don't do that. They wait until the carnage is over before killing themselves most of the time. Along the same lines, I wish that supporters of Democratic primary candidates would campaign positively for their candidate, rather than viciously attacking other Democratic candidates during the primaries. That avoids the problem of cutting one's own throat before the general election in most cases. The candidates we support in primaries often do not become the nominee. It happens all the time.

Perhaps we'll learn that some day. Perhaps we'll realize that after the primaries, there will just be one Democratic nominee. Perhaps we'll avoid trashing primary opponents and slashing our own throats if the primary candidate we support doesn't win the primary. Perhaps we'll do that.

Perhaps.

[uponit7771]

1. +1, both candidates are 1123 times better than Benedict Donald...

[MineralMan]

2. It's not just presidential elections.

It's all elections. We do not win by trashing other Democrats who are running. In fact, that's a sure way to lose. Primary campaigns should be positive campaigns, within the Democratic Party. Always. The candidates, themselves, and their supporters should try to sell the merits of their plans, rather than attacking other Democrats. If an attack is needed, attack Republicans, not Democrats.

We lose elections far too often when we forget that basic rule. It's not always our favorite primary candidate who wins the primary. Every Democratic candidate should be ready and willing to support another Democratic candidate after the primaries. Their supporters should have the same willingness. The enemy is not another Democrat. It is the Republican candidate. We need to avoid defeating ourselves.

[hunter]

39. Had a post removed.

No comment.

Primary campaigns should be positive campaigns

Hell, yes.

[DesmondFoster]

3. Not sure who is "we"

There are many here who supported the Democratic candidate that lost the primary. But we found that the party itself had colluded in many ways to stack the deck against him in favor of another candidate.

Negative primary campaigning has been happening on both sides of the aisle forever.

Before "we" start worrying about that, maybe "we" should begin to concern ourselves with a party apparatus that openly favored one candidate over the other. Then "we" should work our way down from there.

[MineralMan]

4. We are Democrats.

That's the "we" to which I'm referring. And this is not about the past election. That's over. This is about future elections, beginning with 2018.

As for the "party apparatus," that is also made up of Democrats. "We" are the party. If you would like to be part of that apparatus, you have only to become active in Democratic Party organizations at any level you wish. I recommend starting at the precinct level and working your way up by being active in a positive way.

I believe that the goal should be to elect more Democrats to office as replacements for Republicans and Democrats who are leaving office or who should be replaced. My OP is about how we can win, rather than losing. In 2016, we lost. We should try to find ways not to do that. What I am suggesting is one of those ways.

Look forward, not backward, except when you need examples of what not to do to avoid losing. That's my suggestion.

[Raster]

6. Agreed. Let's be real....

...Candidate Clinton was considered the presumptive nominee by the DNC the moment she conceded to Obama at the 2008 convention. The path was cleared. Others who were interested in running were quietly pulled aside and "counseled" that HRC would be running with the full force of the Clinton political machine behind her --hint, hint. Instead of an honest, level playing field, we were presented with our corporate-endorsed presumptive nominee BEFORE ONE PRIMARY BALLOT WAS EVER CAST. Many in the DNC power structure were absolutely aghast when Senator Sanders threw his hat into the ring. Those tensions are still more than evident here on one of the front-line Democratic websites. There isn't a FUCKING DAY that goes by that there is not another "hit piece" on Senator Sanders. EVERY FUCKING DAY!

We members of the Democratic Party that supported Sanders were pretty much treated as outcasts, even though we had EVERY RIGHT TO SUPPORT SANDERS, and he had EVERY RIGHT TO RUN.

Once Clinton actually won the nomination, the vast majority of Sanders supporters toed the line, formed up behind our candidate and did everything we could to get her elected. NEVER MIND that we all knew the Clinton candidacy was wrought with peril for a number of reasons. Anytime any of us brought up our concerns or comments, we were told -in the snarkiest, pissiest little way- "Your concern is noted," or "thank you for your concern."

And as predicted by many, Clinton lost, and for a variety of reasons, INCLUDING naked hubris that allowed the vaunted states of "the Blue Wall" to turn fatally red, which was not even discovered until election night. Oh yes, Comey, Russian interference, and other factors contributed to the loss. But the overall reason Clinton lost was because just like the FUCKING NOMINATION, it was ASSUMED that she would win, and "was in the bag."

And now, instead of the Republican Party facing many years wandering in the political desert, we find ourselves in the worst possible political position in almost 100 years, on both statewide and national levels.

So yes, Rule number 1: Don't trash other Democrats. And to that I will also add: Rule number two: NO MORE DYNASTIES. NO ONE is entitled to the nomination, they have to fairly earn it. And three: the party apparatus MUST MAINTAIN AN ABSOLUTE NEUTRAL STANCE, until our nominee is rightfully selected in a transparent and fair nominating process. Vast numbers of new voters and young Democrats were completely turned off by the primary process they view -real or imagined- as slanted to favor one particular candidate over the other. And please, don't even try to rationalize or deny. Wasserman-Schultz was caught red-handed trying to place her thumb on the scale, and was kicked to the curb on convention eve.

[dragonlady]

8. Thank you for this

And extra points for spelling "toed the line" correctly!

[Raster]

9. Thank you!

[ismnotwasm]

11. Oh bullshit.

[Raster]

14. Back at ya....

[MineralMan]

17. That election is over.

Look forward, not backward. Depending on where you live, there will be elections in 2017 and 2018. What I'm talking about is wining in those elections. 2016 has come and gone. Forget that. That's no longer changeable.

[Raster]

18. I am looking forward...

...and I want the DNC to do the same.

[MineralMan]

19. OK. Are you currently active in the Democratic Party?

Are you an elected official of the organization? Because you'll have to be if you want to change the DNC. If that's what you want, and you are not an active party office-holder, what you want may well not happen. The Democratic Party operates from the ground up. It starts with local Democratic Party organizations which elect delegates to higher levels. It's all done through elections of delegates to higher levels in the organization.

If you're not involved in that process, your voice will not be heard. The Democratic Party is a democratic organization. Join. Get elected to be a delegate. Then, get elected again to be a delegate at the next level, until you are a delegate at the state level. Then, get elected to be a DNC committee member.

Want change? Make that change happen by becoming a party leader. It's easy at the lower levels. Becoming a leader at higher levels happens only if you work hard for years helping the party get people elected. I'm a precinct chair. That's the first level. I've been a delegate to many conventions. But, I've not been elected to be a leader at the district, state, or national level. I'm not trying to do that at this point. But, if you want to do it, the sooner you start, the sooner you'll succeed. If you do not start, you will have no influence.

That is the reality, like it or not.

[Raster]

20. Absolutely. And just joined the AZ Dems...

...my intention is to follow the path you have laid out.

[MineralMan]

21. Good. Keep us informed about your progress, OK?

If you're prepared to work hard, you'll stand out and move up in the organization.

[FarCenter]

46. My recollection in all but one case was that Democratic organization elections were pro forma

There was a single slate of candidates who won unanimously.

In one case there was a challenge for County Chairman, but that was highly unusual and unsuccessful.

It appeared that all politiking for who gets which slot happened behind the scenes. The attempted challenge had all the ear marks of a conspiracy to stage a coup.

[R B Garr]

34. Wow, what a disconnect from reality. Sanders' message lost in the primary.

It was banal, repetitive, superficial, and in the end he was unable to support a single one of his accusations with any kind of plan or factual evidence.

His only success was in dividing Democrats, and that remains his hallmark to this day. He was soundly rejected and with good reason.

[Raster]

35. You are entitled to your opinion...

...have at it.

[R B Garr]

41. I just noted the extensive twisting of facts and

reality in your presentation, all of which support the obvious conclusion that Sanders was actually a very unnecessarily divisive figure for Democrats and he remains so.

[Raster]

42. Again, you are entitled to your OPINION...

...AND AGAIN, have at it! And that's all you have is your opinion.

[R B Garr]

43. You were criticizing Democrats for not kowtowing

to Bernie. It was in your post. I just said there are good reasons for his message and divisive style being rejected; whereas, you blame Democrats.

[Raster]

44. No. I. Did. Not...

...talk about twisting facts and reality.

[truebluegreen]

45. +a brazillion

Thank you.

[elehhhhna]

15. Thank you.

Strange anomalies in voting tabulations during the democratic primaries have been ignored completely and make me wonder if that's why our dems have completely ignored obvious evoting fuckery.

[stonecutter357]

29. No Democratic candidate lost the primary !

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

5. It sounds like you think that's why

Hilary Clinton lost. And aside from the fact that she won the popular vote, it wasn't criticism of her from Democrats that lost her the election.

Heck, all the way through the primaries, even when poll after poll showed she'd lose to Trump while Bernie Sanders would beat him, we were confidently assured that she'd been vetted, she'd been through all this before so she'd be bullet-proof in the general election.

Unfortunately, the actual dynamics of the election turned out to be a bit different from what anyone thought they be, and it's pretty obvious that there was genuine fraud and manipulation of machines and ballots along the way.

Your basic point is that negative campaigning doesn't really help anyone, although over and over it is the candidate who goes most negative on the opponent who wins.

The biggest problem is our never-ending presidential campaign season. Already people are have serious discussions about which Dems should run in 2020. If it keeps up, by the end of 2017 there will be some front-runner out there that the establishment wing of the Democratic Party will get firmly behind, and woe to anyone who tries to challenge that common wisdom.

What we really need is a vastly shorter election season, which isn't going to happen without profound changes in the political landscape, possibly even a change to a Parliamentary system so that we don't always know the exact date of the next election for President. But that change isn't very likely to happen.

[MineralMan]

7. No. I know why Hillary Clinton lost.

Not enough Democrats in enough states voted for her. If about 80,000 more votes had been cast for her in three states, she would have won. Now, I do not know who did not vote for her in those states. I have no way to know that. But, that's why she lost.

Think about it. 80,000 votes. That's not really very many at all, is it?

Again, though, this post is not about the 2016 election. It is about future elections. We cannot change the results of an election that has already been held.

This post is also not about Clinton, Sanders or any other primary candidate in 2016. It is about what we will do going forward.

[JustAnotherGen]

10. Thanks for reminding everyone

Seriously - 2016 is over. Sunday is January 1st. We have a lot of work to do. I hope that Post Mortem board shuts down because it is attracting debbie downers with a lot of 'if onlys' when we aren't doing national elections in 2017.

If only's about this past election don't apply this year. This is about understanding the Congressional district, the State House Atmosphere, the town council, and protecting our school boards from Betsy Devos. Trying to apply the appeal of a Presidential Candidate to a small borough or villa that did not go for them is futile.

Onwards.

[MineralMan]

16. Yes. There will also be elections in 2017.

As Democrats, we need to be completely invested in ALL elections. We cannot establish progressivism if we only focus on presidential elections. We absolutely must become involved with every election from local races for city and county elections to state and federal legislative elections. We cannot sit at home in 2018 or even in 2017 and believe that we don't have to be active in those elections. We've done that in the past far too often, and we pay for it dearly.

Every office is important, no matter how local. It is by electing people at the local level, in county government, state legislatures and congressional races that we can move forward. It is only by doing that that we can move forward.

It's time to start thinking about the next election, not the last one, and to try to avoid internecine battles and focus, instead on defeating Republicans everywhere, in every election.

If we do not do that, we will ultimately lose the entire country to the right-wingers by insisting that only perfection is acceptable. There is no perfect candidate, and never has been.

[bekkilyn]

36. NC will be having 2017 legislature elections

because of the court requirement that gerrymandered districts must be redrawn by March and then we'll be having new elections in November (if all goes well.)

Other states may also be having elections either at the state or municipal level.

We cannot afford to wait until 2018 to get started simply because most people aren't having elections until then. We need to start taking our states back NOW.

Volunteer in the local Democratic party, or at least in some other organization that helps progressive candidates get elected. (NAACP, etc.) Donate money to candidates you support. Take part in protests. Call/write letters, etc. And don't wait. Do it now.

[libtodeath]

12. All I know is that a fucking madman is headed to the presidency and in 2018 we have a brutal

election hill to climb.
We better get something going forward or we will literally have our party eliminated from the dialog.

[MineralMan]

13. Yes. We need to focus hard on 2018.

And we need to do it while working together. Otherwise, there is no hope at all.

[mcar]

22. K&R

[lunatica]

23. Agreed, but this time we have a real enemy of all of us

It's different. We now have a common enemy so we will unite.

[MineralMan]

24. We had the same enemy on November 7.

We knew the enemy in the Summer of 2016. The danger was obvious then, too. We did not unite. What do you think is different now?

We lost by a tiny percentage of votes in just three states. But, we lost. The time for unity is before elections, not after them.

I hope we have learned a lesson, but I'm uncertain about whether or not that is the case.

We will either unite or we will disappear. I suggest we do the former to avoid the latter. We missed one chance. Let's not miss another.

[lunatica]

26. No one believed he would win

And the fighting between Sanders followers and Hillary followers was very intense. I actually left DU for a while over it. On November 7 even Trump assumed he was going to lose.

[MineralMan]

31. That's definitely true. I didn't believe it, either.

I was wrong. We were all wrong. We must not let that happen again.

[LisaM]

25. In Washington (and I think in California) they are moving to "top two" in the primary

regardless of party. This is pitting Democrats against each other in the general election. I don't like it one bit. I haven't seen it in my own county, but I imagine that there are other races where your choice is two Republicans.

I'm not sure of the impetus behind it, but it's not something I care for.

[MineralMan]

27. That's true. Fortunately, California is a solidly Democratic state.

You're right about the other thing, too. There are a number of states where Democrats don't even field candidates for Congress or state legislative districts. That must stop. We must have outstanding Democratic candidates for every office on the ballot.

[LisaM]

38. They need to be funded. ALEC does that for the Republicans.

I'd love to get the money out of politics as much as anyone, but right now it's a funding game and ALEC and the Koch brothers are winning it.

[Xipe Totec]

28. The most effective way to cut your own throat is with a sharp tongue nt

[MineralMan]

32. Indeed!

[world wide wally]

30. Words of wisdom

Remember Reagans eleventh commandment? "Speak no ill of another Republican jackoff". (Or something like that)

[aikoaiko]

33. I think not.

I know you're speaking of the general case and not just the GE, but Bernie supporters by and large voted for Hillary just fine.

The other side doesn't need a primary to determine Democratic candidate weaknesses. Sometimes they are plainly obvious.

[MineralMan]

37. The 2016 election is over. We need to learn from that example.

Here's the sad fact: In three states we needed to win, the margin of Republican victory was smaller than the number of votes for one third party candidate, Jill Stein.

By and large doesn't get it when elections are that close. It simply doesn't. We need to do better with getting Democrats out to the polling place, frankly, and convince them to vote for Democratic candidates.

Unless we do that, we will lose again in 2018.

[aikoaiko]

40. Only speaking about positives sounds like a good way to enable negatives.

I'm not convinced that a kumbaya approach to the primaries would convince Stein voters to vote for HRC

Both Johnson and Stein voters were capable of identifying negatives about the other candidates without the primary.