Once we have a nominee, are we going to be able to get behind that candidate?

[pnwmom]

I'm worried that no matter who is picked, we could end up with a bunch of "sore losers."

Any thoughts on how to avoid that?

[Milo_Bloom]

1. Pick a good candidate

Sorry, but if it is a "sore loser" thing, then people are just being stupid.

However, if you truly believe that not only one candidate is better than the other, BUT certain candidates are dangerous to put in the white house because of the long term damage they would do to the party and ultimately the country, why should you suddenly jump on board and ride the slow train to hell?

[pnwmom]

32. Because the Rethug candidate would be taking us on a fast ride to hell.

At least on a slow ride, there's more of a chance you'll be able to stop the train or jump off.

[Milo_Bloom]

64. Not exactly.

The problem is that the wrong candidate will allow the GOP to move even FURTHER to the right than bush and still look normal by comparrison.

A rethug winner will ensure a democratic majority in the Senate and Congress and allow the wheels to stop.

A compromise candidate will allow for 4 years of weak capitulation and ultimately a retake of the white house and probably congress by an even more radical right wing in 2012.

[William769]

2. I know I will be able to.

Of course there will be those that want to take their ball and go home. As some here have already stated.

[liberal N proud]

3. Do not fear, It will happen

Everyone for the most part will support whoever is nominated. This is the process, we are just experiencing electronically and it makes it that much more in our faces.
Just remember if you candidate is not the nomination that it is our goal to elect the Democratic candidate to the office. House, Senate or White House. No matter we will support them in the end.

[SoFlaJet]

4. we're guaranteed

to have the few who are going to post how disgusted with the party they are and will threaten to vote for Nader or Bloomberg-but for the most part we'll all pretty much get behind whoever the nominee is, because the alternative is going to be much much worse...think Joe Lieberman bad

[redqueen]

5. Nice.

Sore losers... Hillary haters...

the framing around here is fucking GREAT!

[peace13]

12. Why do Hillary lovers swear at those who are not like minded?

We each make a choice. Too bad that when she is selected we will all pay the price.

[redqueen]

15. Oh, they don't always swear... sometimes it's derisive laughter...

sometimes it's ugly nicknames for other candidates... sometimes it's nasty personal attacks aimed at others.

One thing's for sure, though... they're PROUD of acting that way.

I'm always ashamed when I act like a spiteful little shit. Apparently it's part of their stock and trade, and there's no shame at all.
:shrug:

[peace13]

18. I feel your pain! n/t

[madfloridian]

6. Here's the problem we are facing.

Our party just voted to censure its activists. Our leading nominee just blasted Columbia for having a guest speaker she says she does not like.

My state is lying and being a bully.

That is Republican behavior.

That is what we are facing. If it doesn't appear to matter, many will not bother.

[ChiciB1]

14. Ding, Ding, Ding!! And In This State... Votes Don't Necessarily Count

ANYWAY! I'm really VERY frustrated!

[Thickasabrick]

59. Well said. I'll still vote for her but it will be like voting for the

lesser of two evils - her being the lesser only because she doesn't "go" by the name of republican.

[applegrove]

7. We get behind our "guy" every 4 years. Except that time with Nader. But

people have learnt from that. I hope.

[rinsd]

8. It is going to be ugly once the nominee is chosen.

I saw in in 2004.

Its the Hatfields and McCoys.

Kerry people who ate shit from Deaniacs were merciless. Deaniacs continued to attack Kerry to the point of quite a few of them getting TS'ed and starting their own website.

That's why I encourage the regulars here in GD-P. The people that post often and should by now recognize your fellow candidate supporters and opponents alike do their best to achieve some semblance of civility with at least a couple of people not on your side.

[madfloridian]

17. "Kerry people who ate shit from Deaniacs were merciless"

Most of us worked hard for Kerry. That is not true.

[rinsd]

28. C'mon MF while I generalizined a bit you can't deny the level of acrimony

I was but a lurker then but people were tearing each other to shreds post IA/scream.

[madfloridian]

37. Not because of Kerry

not most of the time.

Let's not rewrite history. I had too many friends gone from here than and never allowed back...but you are not getting it right.

I rather resent that statement. There were just a few of us left by then and we had everybody on our butts. Yet most of us got right on board with Kerry. I remember one of our Dean supporters taking up contributions online and handing it to Kerry when Dean endorsed him. It was our first donation to Kerry and it was $200.

Our family gave much more than that to Kerry.

I don't like this.

[blm]

78. That's not true - Most Kerry and Dean people worked well together after the primaries.

Many of us did stay substantive in our earlier battles which helped keep things positive afterwards.

Plus, alot of us were NOT going to jump on a media-driven bandwagon and buy into their spin against Dean - we saw the media's complicity in every stage of the primary and general election.

Some of my favorite longtime posters were also Dean's staunchest supporters.

[jgraz]

9. Let's try nominating a Democrat

I'll definitely get behind that.

[pnwmom]

36. Every candidate is a Democrat.

And they're all progressive, too.

www.progressivepunch.com

[jgraz]

49. Hokay, if you say so

Others may disagree



http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2007

[pnwmom]

56. What a crock! Obama, Edwards, Biden, Richardson, Dodd and Clinton ALL

right wing and authoritarian.

"Political Compass" doesn't show its methods or its sources. Garbage in, garbage out.

[jgraz]

57. And your methods and sources supporting your statements would be...??

Garbage in, garbage out? :shrug:

[pnwmom]

60. I gave you my source and it clearly explains its methods and

sets out the voting records of all the candidates. From there, anyone can draw their own conclusions, based on the issues of most importance to them.

Your source refers to unnamed documents and "manifestos," among other things -- and the little chart can't make up for the fact that the data points are just that -- made up.

www.progressivepunch.com

[jgraz]

61. I meant your source that voting records are the best indicator of political philosophy

You continually cite voting records as if they provide some irrefutable mathematical formula that determines political leanings. They are, in fact, the grossest, most approximate indicator of where a poltician stands.

Where in those voting statistics will we find evidence of Hillary's close ties to the insurance industry, her shmoozing with Rupert Murdoch or her friendliness with Indian outsourcing companies? Where do we find her cowardly approach to her "progressive" voting on things like the Gonzales nomination, the Military Commissions Act, the Iraq War Supplemental and the recent expansion of FISA? In all of these cases, she played the triangulation game right up to the last possible moment before casting a vote against an already determined outcome.

I submit that the data points from my chart are of equal or better value to yours, in that they contain some indication of what the candidates actually believe, rather than how they manage to "pump their stats" during roll call votes.

[Cameron27]

62. That's ridiculous,

no one knows what the candidates "really" think, but we get the best estimate by charts based on their voting record.

[jgraz]

63. Of course it seems ridiculous, because you haven't thought about it very deeply

Why is a voting record the best estimate? Have any of the candidates voted on universal health care? What about anti-poverty, environmental or fair trade legislation? How are votes affected by the knowledge that an outcome is already assured, or that a passed bill has a guaranteed veto waiting?

Also, none of these votes have any weight attached to them. Hillary's vote to go to war with Iraq carries the same Yes/No value as her vote on an amendment to "Clarify Means Test For Active Duty and Reservist Military Personnel and Veterans". That may be important, but why should a "progressive" vote on that cancel out her support for the invasion of Iraq?

Even worse, voting records contain NO indication of leadership, which is really what we should be looking for in a presidential candidate. How many of those bills were introduced or sponsored by a particular candidate? How many did the candidate actually fight for? How many were decided on core principles as opposed to craven traingulation?

My point in this discussion is that lots of pretty charts and statistics have no more value than other more subjective methods, especially if those statistics are based on faulty assumptions and poor methodology.

[pnwmom]

71. You're just spewing out propoganda

and it doesn't reflect well on Kucinich if you're typical of his devotees.

[jgraz]

72. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize we'd abandoned the fact-based portion of our program.

If you want to just cast asparagus, knock yourself out. But you seem to be unable to address a single one of the actual arguments I've raised.

[pnwmom]

74. You were the one who abandoned it when you decided that subjective

measures were more important than actual voting records.

[jgraz]

75. And still you don't address a single substantive argument

You really seem to like those unsupported, axiomatic statements. Your premise is that voting records are an accurate measure of a candidate's political beliefs. What support do you have to back that up? I've given you plenty of counter-arguments, but you don't seem able to do anything other than repeat your talking point.

[pnwmom]

76. There's no logical way to argue with someone who is promoting subjectivity.n/t

[jgraz]

77. Of course, your belief that voting records are the best metric isn't subjective at all

:eyes:

Is it just that there are numbers associated with it? Is that what grabs your attention? Well, why not go by shoe size, or weight? Maybe we should count how many times a candidate blinks and multiply it by their star sign.

You are right about one thing: you have no logical way to argue with me. Run along, now.

[peace13]

10. It would be nice if we could 'pick' our candidate

by exploring all of the Democratic choices. It is very frustrating that Kucinich does not get much of a look in the media and is discounted here at DU. I would love for my choice for President to be someone who says what he/she believes without strings being pulled and dollars falling into pockets. Our popular choices are very like minded with the current regime in terms of Iraq and Universal Health care. It is very frustrating to be sure. Peace, Kim

[pnwmom]

38. Our leading candidates disagree completely with the current regime

in terms of both Iraq and Universal Health Care.

How can you make such a statement, when Bush is about to veto the continuation of the children's health care program -- on the grounds that it is an incremental step toward universal health care? All of our candidates support universal health care.

And none of our candidates supports Bush's plan for unending war in the middle east. HRC has voted against continued funding for the war and has said she'll continue to vote against it until there is a plan and a timeline for withdrawing from Iraq. None of the other candidates support Bush's continuation of the war, either.

It bothers me when supporters of Kucinich (or of any other candidate), rather than promoting their candidate, want to twist the records of his opponents. It doesn't help his candidacy, IMO.

[peace13]

70. All 'major ' Dem Candidates will keep troops in Iraq and

many of these folks voted for war. IMO the health care issue has only come up because Kucinich has been talking about it. I am sorry but I feel that the huge corporate donations and one candidates connection to FOX makes many of our candidates unsavory. It is my opinion. Don't worry, because Kucinich is being whitewashed from debates and deleted from polls. Now, doesn't that make you wonder?

'And none of our candidates supports Bush's plan for unending war in the middle east. HRC has voted against continued funding for the war and has said she'll continue to vote against it until there is a plan and a time line for withdrawing from Iraq. None of the other candidates support Bush's continuation of the war, either.' You may want to fact check this. I don't think that it is true for Hillary.

Sorry to disagree but hey, it's still a free country. Peace, Kim

[gateley]

11. I understand voting for whomever you might feel would do the best for

the country if that person isn't the nominee. It's an admirable gesture. But after the past two elections it's really hit home with me that every vote DOES count -- hell, if only the sheer volume would make it more difficult for the R's to fuck with the results.

Regardless of the sentiments toward some of our candidates, I can't think of one who is as "dangerous" to the country as a Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, et al would be.

So I think the best thing I can do for my country is vote to get the Dem nominee into office, regardless of whom that might be and regardless of my assessment of him or her.

[peace13]

13. Gore and Kerry won remember!

I would think that we could remember that here!

[gateley]

29. I know, but I'm thinking that if they had more votes (including mine in the

Kerry instance), it would have been more difficult for the R's to do their dastardly deeds -- the size of the job may have been overwhelming... Just a thought. I'm thinking it would be more difficult to mess with tens of thousands of votes than with thousands, but maybe I'm underestimating those vile creatures.

[peace13]

46. I know how you feel.

It's hard to know how far they could go and still have the sheeple believe it.

[pnwmom]

39. That's how I feel, too. Every vote will be critical. n/t

[superkia]

16. Our focus shouldnt be on what happens when? We need more...

topics presenting facts from each candidate so we can all make the right decision for who should lead our country out of the direction its heading. Instead I see allot of posts about the candidate thats ahead in the polls or what is wrong with each others candidates. The only posts that don't end up being like that are the ones with Dennis Kucincih involved, the only negatives that are thrown around about him are the "hes unelectable" ones. Theres never substance behind his trash talking, if everyone could state why it is their candidate is better instead of just stating that their candidate IS better, we may get somewhere. I think if everyone took the put up or shut up mentality with their candidates, we would get more useful information and we wouldn't be discussing whether or not everyone will support the nominee.

I will vote for whoever I feel will do the best for the country, not who sounds like they will. So please help me make the right decision, get off the high horse and inform us on your own candidates so we can pick the best possible candidate.

[antigop]

47. Exactly, superkia. n/t

[flpoljunkie]

19. It would perhaps help if we had these kind of discussions AFTER we have a nominee.

[pnwmom]

40. I think it's better now. It might make people think twice

about flaming each other.

It seems to me that things are getting awfully heated around here, with true believers backing their one-and-only candidates.

We have a great field, but only one can win. I hope we're ready to come together when that happens.

[illinoisprogressive]

20. I think most everyone can get behind any of the candidates but, Clinton

there are alot of people here who just will not support her at all.
I am one.
but, I don't see that with any of the other candidates.

[William769]

25. And that speaks volumes. NT

[Cameron27]

33. I can't understand that kind of thinking.

My feelings towards Edwards are probably as negative as yours are for Clinton, but I will support him. I won't like it, I'll have to hold my nose, but I will support him or any other Democrat who makes it to the general.

[emilyg]

34. Stuff it.

[pnwmom]

41. How would you be reacting if I said the same thing about Obama?

What if lots of people around here were saying -- hey, I'll back any Dem, but not Obama. I just won't support him at all.

Wouldn't you find that attitude offensive?

[ronnykmarshall]

43. Well I think Jasmine Guy might dissagree.

[jcrew2001]

21. Only if its "Sure Thing" John Edwards according to Rassmussen

polls he is the only candidate who handily beats all GOP.

[illinoisprogressive]

22. Actually both Edwards and Obama. but, I can easily live with Edwards as nominee

[illinoisprogressive]

23. maybe he could run with Obama. make a good ticket.

[oasis]

54. Get ready to live "uneasily" for the next eight years because Obama/Edwards ain't happening.

:nopity:

[Sparkly]

24. Could you provide a link for that, please? nt

[William769]

26. Don't hold your breath. NT

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[William769]

31. To begin with I like Edwards also.

And if you look at the numbers that are almost the same.

ON EDIT; Also if you only knew what you looked like here posting false information about who gets paid. I can't call you a liar outright, So i will just say you are a very untruthful person.

[Cameron27]

35. Stop accusing others of being paid to post here,

it's against the rules, and it's an ugly cheap shot. If you make a statment, expect to be asked for a link. Where are the polls that back up your post.

[Sparkly]

27. Nevermind, I found one... But I'm not seeing what you're seeing.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election

He's not the only one. :shrug:

[Olney Blue]

42. I will support the Democratic nominee.

:dem:

[bvar22]

44. My vote for President will go to whomever:

*Pledges complete withdrawal of all US Military troops from Iraq within the first year.

*Places Single Payer Universal HealthCare as top priority.

*Pledges to REDUCE Military Spending

*Actively supports the banning of Privatized Electronic Voting.

*Actively supports Publicly Financed Elections

*Actively supports withdrawal from "Free Trade" Treaties and a bi-lateral renegotiation of trade treaties with a priority to Human Rights, Worker Rights, Environmental Rights, and Corporate Accountability.

I hope I can vote for a DEMOCRAT in 2008.

[pnwmom]

45. Are you saying you'll sit out the election or vote 3rd party

if the Dem fails to satisfy you on every count?

[Township75]

48. Yes. Let some of the losers feel important for a while....

by telling everyone how they are only going to vote for their candidate...then when the nominee is not the one they wished for, watch them whine and cry and tell everyone how they won't vote for the nominee...then watch em get behind the candidate 100%. I don't understand why people have to make threats of leaving the party that they should know by now they won't back-up...it's pretty common place and at this point trite.

I guess a good portion of them are also the ones who said they were leaving the US if the Dems didn't take control in 2k2, and 2004...and how they wouldn't vote for Kerry.

[oasis]

55. I've had it with the snot noses that don't give a shit about the Dem Party, or SCOTUS

or global warming under a GOP presidency.

They're self centered, short sighted, whiney, drags on the party. What it boils down to is this:it's all about (1)their candidate and (2) them.(not necessarily in that order).

[LWolf]

50. Here are a couple of my suggestions:

1. Don't vote for Clobama. They pose the highest risk.

2. The nominee, whoever that turns out to be, should endorse/support HR 676, H Res 333, and HR 808. A pledge to refuse to sign any education-related legislation until the high-stakes testing and recruiting are removed from NCLB would help, too, as would a pledge to immediately end the war, bring the troops home, and stay out of other countries.

[pnwmom]

52. So we're not supposed to vote for Clinton or Obama because their

opponents pose the highest risk of being sore losers?

That sounds like bullying to me.

[LWolf]

68. That's your spin, not mine, lol.

You can vote for whomever you want, of course. You are the one who expressed "concern." If your "concern" is real, then you might not want to work or vote to nominate a candidate who is more likely to divide the party.

I think that's a simple, logical concept.

I've never pretended anything at all about my take on the nominees. I flat out stated, in my sig line, for several months before and after all the declarations of candidacy, that there were some people who would never get my vote.

You don't have to value that vote, and you don't have to agree with my well-founded reasons. You can write off the vote, you can be concerned about the loss and ask for suggestions to prevent that loss, you can play the blame game when necessary, or you can do all 3.

You asked. I answered. It doesn't sound like you wanted real answers. Based on your response, it seems as though you were looking for reassurance that everyone would jump into line to vote for a candidate that doesn't represent them, that has a bad record and platform on issues, that they believe will allow the corruption crippling our nation to continue. Or you were looking for some people to gather for a nice little gang turf war over the direction of the party, and wanted to make sure there were more people in your "posse" before the metaphorical bullets started flying.

Or you just enjoy the use of orwellian propaganda.

If playing the "attack/blame/deride/smear those who don't get in YOUR line and vote YOUR way" game is not bullying, what is?

[LoZoccolo]

51. How to avoid that? Instantly and very publicly tombstone them on the first offense.

The rest will realize that they'll lose their whining privileges for the next cycle, and will self-deport until the election is over.

[pnwmom]

53. Just wanted to mention

that I appreciate the anti-Nader work you're still doing. I had noticed that Huffington column too, but you beat me to it.

[NaturalHigh]

58. Depends on who wins the nomination.

[OneBlueSky]

65. exactly . . . there are candidates who I cannot and will not support . . .

I understand the DU rules, however, and will keep my opinions to myself . . . just know that I (and possibly many others) cannot in good conscience vote for certain candidates in the current crop . . . just can't do it . . .

[ProudDad]

66. Depends

If it's republican-lite again...probably not... :shrug:

[ProudDad]

67. My snarky response is

don't nominate hillary :evilgrin:

[Alamom]

69. One thought.......ABAR.

[Dr Fate]

73. Are you talking about DLCers who supported Lieberman (I-3rd Party)?

Or is party loyalty to the nomination process only demanded of Liberals?

It's the DLCers & "centrsits" of the party who have a record of being traitors to the Democrats- the anti-war partisan Democrats never went over to a 3rd party and abandoned the DEM nominee like the DLCers did.

With the DLC & their ilk- we had Harold Ford, leader of the DLC openly endorsing Lieberman (I-3rd Party)

Could you imagine a Dean, Conyers or a Kusinich doing that? Of course not.

The "sore losers" of the party have been the DLCers who supported Lieberman (I-3rd Party)- This thread makes more sense if you are refering to them- a group of "sore losers" that actually went 3rd party against a legit DEM nominee.

[Catchawave]

79. I think so. The dust will settle as the 2% that post

80% of the negative posts will leave.

I hope.