I have never posted on here hoping that a Democrat loses a general election. Ever.

[LoZoccolo]

I don't think you'll find any moderates here who ever said as much. Not Kucinich, not anybody. Moderates have always respected the choice of the primary, yes, even Lamont.

Now who's pissing on who? Who's disrespecting who? Who has contempt for who? Who's trying to punish who?

[Smarmie Doofus]

1. Lot's of "moderate" DEMs including ( arguably) Obama,,,,,,

... supported Bloomberg for NYC mayor over the DEM nominees in both 2005 and 2009.

Many said so here.

So......?

[sandnsea]

3. True, but I sure didn't

And I bet not too many true blue Democrats did either. Probably the same marginally connected party voters that are mocking Coakley.

[Rhiannon12866]

2. Me, neither.

That's against DU rules. I remember in 2004 when Skinner said that after the primaries were over we had to get behind the choice, whomever that was, and the bickering had to stop. Easier said than done, though... ;)

I remember that somebody asked if this still applied if it was Lieberman, LOL, and Skinner said "even if it's Lieberman..." :rofl:

[JanusAscending]

4. LIEberman is no longer a Democrat.

That would, I think, make this a moot point????

[Rhiannon12866]

6. This was during the 2004 primaries.

Things got particularly nasty between supporters of different candidates, so Skinner felt obliged to step in...

[Ter]

16. But is it really?

If there are 20 races in a four year span, and you vote for every Democrat, except in NYC you vote for Bloomberg. Can you be banned?

[Rhiannon12866]

29. You can vote for whomever you want to...

It's a secret ballot. It's just that DU rules prohibit someone from promoting Condoleezza Rice, for example, on this board, or insisting that they would vote for George Bush*, if their favorite candidate lost in the 2004 primary. It happened... x(

on edit: Welcome to DU, Ter! It's great to have you with us! :hi:

[WeDidIt]

5. I'd put my liberal credentials up against any DUer

but I'm not so stupid as to shoot myself in the foot by not voting for any Dem in the general election.

I fall in love in the primaries.

I fall in line in the GE.

[apocalypsehow]

7. All good questions, but I'm afraid you're not going to get much in way of substantive replies.

Just UnReccs.

[LoZoccolo]

8. It's like, yes, if someones splinters/stays home, I'll put them down for it.

If they lie to justify it ("what do we do when there's no difference baaaaaaaaw"), I'll excoriate them as well.

But if I don't go along with them, they effectively threaten to kill me and large numbers of others.

Now that's a big difference.

[Hekate]

9. KnR, LoZ.

[TexasObserver]

10. Barrel of gas...check; matches...check. More flamebait.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[hileeopnyn8d]

20. I think calling out DUers

is also against the rules, as is publicly questioning the mods/policies of DU. You didn't really think people wouldn't know you were calling out a mod, did you eating utensil consisting of a small shallow bowl with a handle?

[spoony]

22. I give a fuck.

It's not just me who sees a pattern in some of the things going on, and if I want to say it I will. What's it to you?

[LoZoccolo]

17. All I do is point out something that can easily be refuted if false...

...and ask a few questions that no one really wants to answer. The truth is that a segment of scorched-Earth progressives have repeatedly broken the rules of this forum, consistently used irrational threats as a way of gaining power, and then complain about their treatment by the larger party (which is another tactic to try to gain more influence). The abusiveness of these tactics is notable. If you don't want to know about that or question them, fine, but don't complain about how Rahm Emanuel or whoever doesn't want to listen to you when you've made yourself a rude and abusive ally.

[TexasObserver]

18. If that were true, you'd alert on the offending posts, and let the admins deal with it.

No, you like to complain about those who disagree with you on policy, and you like to characterize those who disagree with you as disloyal Democrats.

It's unusual if you start a thread that isn't inflammatory, and intentionally so.

[LoZoccolo]

19. If the rules were enforced consistently.

Recently, however, several splinterist posts have made it to the front page. The administrators aren't stupid; they're not going to spark a riot by tombstoning someone who made the front page, especially of DU is dependant on donations to survive.

Besides, I'd rather people think about this themselves.

[TexasObserver]

32. Now you're calling out mods and admins?!

That's against pretty much THE MAIN RULE here. Don't call out mods and admins. If you think they're not enforcing the rules, you're to email or PM them, not call them out in threads.

People are thinking for themselves. That's why there is lively disagreement and discussion.

If you cannot stand to see such discussions, the site admins have given you a number of features to help you, if you simply cannot accept seeing opinions other than your own. You can HIDE THREADs. You can IGNORE posters.

[LoZoccolo]

33. I wouldn't call it a "call-out".

I basically said that there's some realities to keeping a message board like this up which may feed into the lenience we've seen. I doubt the admins like what's happened lately, but they probably have to tread gingerly to avoid a huge meltdown. As you might have gleaned from my posts, I analyze these sorts of strategic issues pretty amorally, so I'm not judging them too much. They set the rules and decide when they'll let things slide. I'm actually affirming their authority. And you'll note that I characterized them as "not stupid".

It's like when I went to march against the Iraq war down Lake Shore Drive in 2003. It was illegal for us to be there, and the police could have arrested every last one of us, but enforcing that law strictly would have led to a bigger conflict with greater consequences, possibly a riot that would have caused violence and/or property damage. The same thing applies here; a thread with as many recommendations as to make it to the front page will not likely get locked.

[IndianaGreen]

11. unrec

because it's you!

[Aramchek]

12. this post isn't Socialist enough, eh?

[dionysus]

15. nornally i'd agree but not this time. i'm going to unrec it too because it's loz ;)

[Adelante]

13. There used to be DU Rules about that

I don't know what happened to them.

[mkultra]

21. the mods here have problems.

some of them at least

[Bluenorthwest]

23. Well I vote for the Democrat, but 'moderates' often do not

They voted for Arnold in CA, two times. They called themselves 'Reagan Democrats' when voting for a raft of Reagan Republicans all the way through the 80's. It was the votes of 'moderate' Democrats that allowed Prop 8 to pass in CA. Too 'liberal' for them, they like discrimination, and Arnold.
Moderates are people who are half way Republican, Democrats when trying to score pot or sex, and in the ballot box, they are all about trying to protect what pennies they might have.
I've known liberals who skipped elections in disgust, but I've known dozens of 'moderates' and 'centrists' who actually vote for Republicans much of the time. I've never done such a thing, but 'moderates' and 'indies' spend cycle after cycle voting on the GOP side.
Here on DU, who knows, who cares? In the ballot box, we know what moderates do. We have seen their form of loyalty. Trickle down loyalty.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. How far to the right would be too far for you?

At what point would the 'D' not matter?

[LoZoccolo]

25. To the right of the Republicans would be too far.

You and I both know we're nowhere near that.

[Warren Stupidity]

27. The current Democratic leadership is to the right of Nixon.

The R side of the duopoly just keeps moving the flag right.

[LoZoccolo]

28. And? n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

30. So your answer is 'there is no too far to the right' for you.

I disagree.

[JI7]

26. there are a lot of fake liberals

just look at the ones upset Obama asked Bush to raise money for Haiti .

[Jackpine Radical]

31. I certainly hope Coakley wins. As I said elsewhere,

The symbolic value of this particular election is too great to do anything but support her. For one thing, a loss here would be spun as due to a rightward shift in the electorate rather due to than anger on the left.

My view of the proper strategy in the face of the New Dem DLC Neoliberal bullshit is to always vote for the most leftward-positioned candidate. But always vote. Vote green in protest if you have to, but never stay home and never vote for a conservative. Let it always be seen that there are voters on the left who cannot be taken for granted.

I find it interesting, though, that when one tries to warn people about what might happen if certain trends continue, the warning often gets construed as a wish.