"Progressives" don't hold primaries...
Wed Nov 7, 2018 2:35pm

Therefore it IS about what the DNC does. Because it is the PARTY that holds the primaries. And until there is a VIABLE party known as the "Progressive Party" it will remain the DNC that matters.

The DNC was very happy with the essential PRESUMPTION that Hillary Clinton was the nominee and that they wouldn't have to deal with any negative things said about her during the primaries. And then Bernie kind of peed in their Wheaties. They pulled out all of the stops to make sure he lost the nomination, but the damage was done. As close as the general election was, had Bernie not run in the primary, Hillary probably WOULD have gotten the electoral votes she need to win I think.

The Democrat party HAD a (theoretically) strong candidate emerge right at the start last time. Hillary Clinton was essentially the heir apparent to Obama. Virtually no one even QUESTIONED that she should be nominated... Until Bernie...

And there were plenty who were deeply upset with Bernie for doing that. Just as there were Bernie voters upset when he didn't win.

My point is that an essentially uncontested primary gives a significant advantage in the general election.

The broadly contested Republican primary was a pretty good example. It good pretty rough and once the general election started, democrats were quick to point out all of the mean things that the losing primary candidates had said about Trump during the primaries. The hotly contested Republican primary gave Democrats ammunition during the general election. And Bernie contesting the Democrat primary gave ammunition to Republicans during the general election.

And as close as our elections tend to be these days, it doesn't take a whole lot to sway an outcome.

If I were running one of the two political parties today, I would be looking hard to try and find a new face type candidate who we could get the establishment behind with essentially no conflict during the primaries.

IMO the DNC should have learned the value of the new face from Obama. I thought they had, but then they ran Hillary.

IMO the RNC should be learning the cost of contentious primaries, but I'm not seeing it yet.

  • It's Not The DNC...Amadeus, Wed Nov 7 2:21pm
    This is about the progressives recognizing that the DNC is not their friend. We know that if there are two really good progressive candidates out there, they'll split progressive votes. If the... more
    • "Progressives" don't hold primaries... — Sprout, Wed Nov 7 2:35pm
      • No, It Isn't About What The DNC Does...Amadeus, Wed Nov 7 4:43pm
        They got slapped hard for what they did last time. Changes were implemented. The field is much wider this time. Many names are already out there. And my point was that progressives don't have their... more
        • I don't think so...Sprout, Thu Nov 8 9:09am
          They got yelled at. But the "progressives" can't run a candidate without the establishment. Yes, they made some changes, but do you REALLY think they are going to give up control? The REAL heart of... more