Primaries

[realisticphish]

this isn't really a skeptical thing, but I know I can speak with you guys without starting a flame war.

Is anyone else REALLY creeped out by the primary rhetoric going on here on DU? People have attached themselves to candidates as if they were military or religious leaders. I just don't understand how someone can have deep, almost spiritual attachments to politicians that they've never met, and effectively know nothing about. I wasn't around for most of the 04 primaries, so maybe it's always like this. But it's kind of scary to see such blind devotion, and vicious aggression, in my fellow liberals.

[trotsky]

1. Yep, same here. Very creeped out.

Now granted I'm not thrilled about Clinton OR Obama, but I just don't see myself getting so blindly devoted to ANY candidate. It's insane. Maybe it's a product of how bad things are right now, and people want a "messiah" figure to perform the miracle of cleaning it all up. Of course the thing with having a messiah is that anyone who ISN'T the messiah, but says they are, is the devil.

Again, I'm not a fan of either Dem. BUT on that Tuesday in November, I will vote for WHICHEVER one is on the ballot. No question. That's what disturbs me greatly about a lot of these folks - they've sworn they won't vote if their candidate doesn't win the nomination. Or worse, will vote for McCain. That's just so fucking wrong.

I was around for '04 and it just wasn't like this. I avoid GD:P like the plague.

[realisticphish]

3. more like

GD :grr:

I don't get the "perfect candidate, or I don't vote" mentality. Seriously, even if they aren't perfect, at least they're not right-wingers. Right now, "not a fascist" is our goal

[lizerdbits]

31. Our system would never support a great candidate

You can't win unless you pander, especially to religious groups and say warm mushy stuff all the time. Even if a great candidate was elected (s)he would have to deal with congress and lobby groups halting things like a better health care system. So it's not likely that great person could accomplish much once in office anyway when up against that much money from lobbies who keep the status quo by 'generously donating' to campaigns of congress members who coincidentally vote in the group's financial interests.

Like you, I'll be voting for whatever Dem is on the ballot. Once I disliked the Dem candidate for...I think the house of rep...that I almost voted for the nut case whose entire platform was to expose the government UFO cover up. It wouldn't have mattered since I lived in Gaithersburg which is pretty blue but I just couldn't bring myself to do it out of self respect.

[TZ]

2. I agree although some of this is of course

trolls and troublemakers. Damn, there are multiple tombstonings a day often.
But yes. Whats sad to me, is the amount of people in GDP who I have seen elsewhere and talked to who seemed like reasonable rational people. but now.they've completely lost their minds.
I go in GDP often now, just to see what Skinner is up to..my admiration for his logic and intelligence grows everyday. He's been trying his best to keep a lid on things..He had an awesome post the other day about how to be a good DU citizen that pretty much reoeated a lot of the things I have posted (and have largely been ignored). Whats truly weird to me is that I thought with the amount of Kucinich and Edwards supporters here we wouldn't have so much passion on both sides with this nomination. However that might be the first time that DU reflects on the the real world somewhat..Its certainly been just as nasty between the Obama and Clinton campaigns for real...

[realisticphish]

4. Skinner has indeed done a great job

i honestly don't know how he does it. Sometimes, I think these people hate the other primary side more than they do the 'pubs. I mean... voting for McCain if Obama doesn't get it? Yeah, that makes fucking sense

[salvorhardin]

5. "I'm going to vote Repub because..."

"I'm going to vote Repub because the only way we'll get real change is if people know what it's like to truly suffer."

That was a common sentiment among far-leftists that I've heard many times over the past twenty odd years. Are the "If Candidate X isn't chosen, then I'm voting McCain" people expressing something similar?

[realisticphish]

8. it's almost a primal vindictiveness

cutting off the nose to spite the face, if you will.

They see that the "other" wants x to happen. Thus, they want y to happen, or at least for x to not happen. Thus, they benefit. Except that's not how it works in human society.

And the statement you have there sounds a LOT like the dance that far lefties do in regards to Che Guevara, Hugo Chavez, and even Stalin. "To make an omelet you have to break a few eggs," "the blood of patriots," blah, blah, blah. They will bend over backwards to justify the antisocial policies of extreme leftists. This is like the polar opposite of that. Someone deviates from their perfect path a little bit, and they are willing to pull all of society down with them, just to prove a point. Not to bring religion into it again, but they seem to have the view that the population will just spontaneously see the light and be reborn as their chosen political orientation.

[Pale Blue Dot]

6. I think it IS a skeptical thing. I've read a great book that I think explains it.

Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me) by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson. It explains cognitive dissonance theory, which says that human beings are hard-wired to not second guess ourselves or admit that we were wrong. I'm thinking about doing a series of threads about it, because it explains so much about what is going on here at DU (and in the world today). For instance, I've been wondering why the fighting between proponents of the two candidates has gotten so vicious, considering that there really is not that much difference between them (the candidates). Dissonance theory predicts this reaction perfectly.

Hopefully I'll get motivated enough to go into GDP and explain the theory. In the meantime, here's a link to the book:

http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0151010986/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208038943&sr=8-1

[realisticphish]

7. that looks interesting

I'll have to put it on my list to read.

And it seems like it would fit well with this phenomenon

[Orrex]

9. Maybe if Clinton weren't such a shrill, cackling harpy, we wouldn't have this problem.

At least, I've heard that she's a shrill, cackling harpy.

As far as I can tell, she's a powerful political figure unfortunate enough to have some questionable associations and a couple of tons of baggage.

Obama, on the other hand, is unfortunate enough to be a charismatic speaker and not to have been in politics for 30 years.

:shrug:


I agree--there's a nearly insane level of hostility about the whole thing, rivaling the worst wars over religion or sports teams.

It's positively nutty. If you really want to drive yourself mad, reply innocuously to some random post in GD;P, and watch the feeding frenzy begin!

:crazy:

[realisticphish]

11. I mean, I'm an Ohio State guy

and I hate The Team Up North, but I still RESPECT them. I respect the rivalry. Here, there's no respect, no pleasure in the rivalry, it's war.

A couple times, I almost responded in GD;P, but realized where I was. You can't even read a post and understand it now; there are too many back stories, and smoldering flame wars that drip into every single post in there. You could post "I'm hungry," and they would say, "YOU WOULD BE HUNGRY, YOU FASCIST," because one time last week you said you liked Obama's tie.

[TZ]

16. I don't like HRC much but when I'm in GDP I spend more time

defending her than posting anything else. Its ridiculous!

[realisticphish]

21. i agree

I prefer Obama, but I hear absolutely retarded, and often downright sexist, stuff said about HRC, and I feel as if I should step into it. Then I catch myself, and realize what I was about to do ;)

[TZ]

26. Now it is leaking into other forums

I found a thread in the lounge where someone posted a picture that had HRC's face photoshopped onto the Borg queen...:puke:

[realisticphish]

27. who has the time to do that

and why would they? Is this fifth grade?

[varkam]

10. Oy. Tell me about it.

I can't tell you how many posts I've deleted, threads I've locked, trolls I've nuked :crazy: I'll be a lot happier once this is all done with.

[realisticphish]

12. I have nothing but respect

for you guys, having to deal with that. I think you should take everyone who posts in there regularly, permaban them, delete the forum, and start over ;)

[varkam]

13. Late at night, when I'm the only mod here and getting drunk on my power...

I won't say it never crossed my mind :evilgrin:

[realisticphish]

15. let's just say

should it happen, there's a certain secret society that has your back

[varkam]

17. Yeah, well if Skinner isn't a member of that certain secret society...

then it's all going to be back to normal by morning (minus one certain moderator, of course) :D

[realisticphish]

22. elad's more important

he runs the hardware, thus runs the accounts :evilgrin:

[varkam]

23. Lol!

:spank:

(You know, that spank smiley really is kind of disturbing - the smiley on the left really seems to be enjoying him/herself)

[realisticphish]

24. that's true

the dude with the paddle looks far more angry. Maybe there's a whole different level to this smiley...

[varkam]

25. Sorry, I'm tired

:D I get like this after I've been reading "Ur teh troll!!1!" all day. :crazy:

[TZ]

14. You have to mod that madhouse?

You poor guy!:hug:

[varkam]

18. I know! I've had to infect an additional 15 children with autism this month...

...just to cope!

[onager]

19. This attitude bought us a lot of Bad History

I'm glad somebody else noticed. The hardcore partisans this year seem a lot more strident than in 2004.

Rphish wrote: Someone deviates from their perfect path a little bit, and they are willing to pull all of society down with them, just to prove a point.

Heh! And in an echo from 1968, I hear: This is the dawning of the Age Of Aquarius...

No, dope. That was the dawning of the Age Of Nixon. Thanks partly to uncompromising purist Dems who refused to support one of the most liberal Democrats in history, Vice-President Hubert Humphrey.

Humphrey almost pulled it off anyway. Nixon won in 1968 by the smallest margin in history up to that time. Now maybe if all those Summer of '68 protesters hadn't pissed off Mayor Daley in Chicago, he might have worked a little harder on the Cemetery Vote...

Of course, history and American politics are both funny things, and I try not to get taken in even by my own BS. A Humphrey win in 1968 might have solidified a liberal consensus in American politics for decades to come. Or it just might have led to President Reagan taking office in 1972 instead of 1980. Or, given the angry temper of the times, President George Wallace.

[realisticphish]

20. Instant gratification

politically, that is. No one is willing to wait 10 years, or 20. The president must take action NOW, must change everything NOW. They refuse to accept that it might be, in the long run, better to slowly make tiny changes, rather than run into a brick wall over and over. But of course, that would "betraying our ideals."

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. It's built up, over time, compared with 2004

I pretty much ignored GDP (if that was its name then) in 2004 - not being American, I don't get to vote in the primaries or election, so it just got into too much petty detail for me. But the members (and mods) who participated in that forum in 2004 and now were, at first, saying things were more civilised this time - it's worth remembering we had groups go off in a huff in 2004 to set up anti-DU forums, because they felt DU was biased against their candidate. And while there were several primary candidates, people didn't seem to have so much invested in the race. But as it got down to just 2, it got worse - and the possibility of accusations of racism and sexism has made the whole thing a potential minefield that wasn't there for the major candidates in 2004.

I think if the primary had been over in the time that 2004 was, this year would have been better. But there are open wounds on both sides that get worse and worse, the longer they're exposed (am I overdoing the metaphor?). Inevitably, a few of those that really stir GDP up must be trolls, come here to cause splits and demoralise some Democrats who might otherwise volunteer for either candidate if they won the nomination. But some of it comes from long term members who were either expertly placed sleepers (and you know I don't want to get paranoid about things), or have just lost all sense of proportion - and they help, unwittingly, mask the true trolls.

The weird thing is that Obama and Clinton are both fairly mainstream Democrats, really. You wouldn't expect a 'purity test' from their supporters. We just have to hope that Skinner's position (that the "I won't vote for the other one if they're the nominee" claims are just bluffs or bravado) is right.

[LeftishBrit]

29. I remember it being a bit bad in 2004 too...

especially between the supporters of Dean and Clark IIRC. I wasn't much involved, as at that time I posted almost exclusively on the UK forum. But I do remember choosing my username in part to give a clear indication of 'hi! I'm not directly involved in your primaries so don't try to drag me in'.

The difference now (and as I didn't follow it much in 04, I may be wrong) is that more people are willing to go to blatantly RW sources to find ammunition against the rival candidates.

The weird thing is that I don't see much of a difference from here between the candidates (both extreme moderates by Europaean standards) - the main difference is between McLoony and the Dems.

[TZ]

30. True but nothing gets me angrier

than when some bloviating idiot in GDP claims there is NO difference between Bush/McCain and HRC/Obama....Good thing I'm not a mod, I regard that as instant TS material...:banghead:

[semillama]

32. I think one difference between now and 2004

is the mounting pile of crap that the second term Bush administration has put upon us, already struggling under the crap from Term 1, and people are so anxious to get a dem in the white house that the impatience to start fighting the republican candidate has been too much for people to handle, so the venom that should rightly be hurled McCain's way instead gets stuck to a person who is going to be our candidate. We can't afford to lose this one, and all the lunacy and wrong-thinking on display in GDP is very detrimental to the process.

[realisticphish]

33. exactly

I wonder how many people will step back after the convention and say, wtf? Why was I THAT pissed about this?

[PVnRT]

34. There are times that the anger takes hold

I try not to, but then the trollsnark just gets to me around there.

What angers me more than anything is the use of Limbaughisms over there, especially the "latte liberal" horseshit.

[Evoman]

35. I wrote about this on GD once. I can't understand how people can follow leaders so blindly.

Honestly, I find it impossible to follow leaders or get enthusiastic about someone who wants power over me. It's like most people like being a bunch of fucking sheep, bahing the right slogans when their leader prompts them. Call me a cynic, but I pretty much think every politician is a opportunistic asshole who isn't going to do shit for me.

I'll walk beside a leader if I have to, but I'll be damned if I follow behind them like a fucking puppy dog, lapping up his fucking shit. Everytime a hillbot or obamaniac raises their head to tell us why their candidate IS THE ONLY HOPE FOR CHANGE (tm), I feel like roundhousing them in the neck.

Maybe I'm too proud or something, but I'm basically immune to charisma. I automatically hate and distrust people who are too smooth and want power.

[lizerdbits]

36. We must have been in the same vaccine trial for that anti charisma vaccine

Sorry I'm waiting on an incubation at work, saw the word immune and had to make a shitty joke. :P

I'm just very distrustful/cynical in general and I've never understood how people can get so enthusiastic about any candidate. I liked Clinton when I was 18, but I was fresh out of a rural high school and didn't know much politically other than I didn't like Republicans because they didn't like sex. Each election I hold my nose harder and harder when voting and I'll only be 34 for this time around.

[lazarus]

37. That's why I rarely visit any more

I just can't stand the fighting, and it's driven me away. I'm going to make an effort to come back to the good forums, here and over in Atheism.

[realisticphish]

38. that's what I did

I left for a LONG time. But I really wanted to come back in here. It's like a treehouse for sane people.