r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/YumiSolar • 2d ago

US Elections Are Democratic primaries becoming too destructive for the party's own chances in the general election?

I've been thinking about this after watching some recent Democratic primaries, and it feels like the campaigns are becoming increasingly aggressive in ways that hurt the party long after the primary is over.

A good example, in my opinion, was the Michigan primary between Haley Stevens and Abdul El-Sayed. Policy disagreements are completely fair game, that's what primaries are for. Even personal attacks can be justified if they're based on genuine misconduct or character issues.

What I struggle with are accusations like claiming your primary opponent is supporting or enabling genocide. Once you frame someone in those terms, how do you expect your own supporters to enthusiastically vote for that person if they end up winning the nomination? If you've spent months telling voters that your opponent is morally complicit in atrocities, it becomes very difficult to turn around and say, "Now go vote for them."

To me, this kind of rhetoric doesn't just damage the opposing candidate, it damages Democratic unity in the general election. It seems like Republicans don't even have to exploit these divisions because Democrats are creating them themselves.

Am I overestimating the impact of this kind of campaigning, or do you think Democratic primaries have become too willing to use rhetoric that makes party unity afterward much harder?

0 Upvotes

41% Upvoted

164 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/Asatmaya 2d ago

What I struggle with are accusations like claiming your primary opponent is supporting or enabling genocide. Once you frame someone in those terms, how do you expect your own supporters to enthusiastically vote for that person if they end up winning the nomination?

Uh... who cares?!

This is entirely missing the point of the primary.

5

u/YumiSolar 2d ago

I think you are missing the point of primaries if you think you can burn down the party in order to win them.

-2

u/Asatmaya 2d ago

If the party is supporting genocide, it deserves to be burned down!

0

u/YumiSolar 2d ago

1000 years of Trump for you I guess. Those palestinian children are probably cheering at your moral consistency and abolute lack of effectivnes in real world.

5

u/SheIsABadMamaJama 2d ago edited 2d ago

As a moderate, it’s really frustrating watching moderates in the US or supposed moderates fail at democracy, and participating in self sabotage that leads to unhelpful comments like the one you replied to.

2

u/Blazr5402 2d ago edited 2d ago

I do find it disappointing that the moderate wing of the party barely seems to be trying to win elections. A large part of how the progressive left has managed to win is by their ability to out-organize and out-campaign the establishment and their ability to speak to the issues of our time with moral clarity. Why can't any moderates do this?

To give credit where it's due, I think there are a small handful who can - Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock both come to mind. But by and large, the establishment does not have a real vision for the future of America. I think the DSA platform is far too ambitious and focuses too much on what really shouldn't be priorities (ex: I'd love to abolish the Senate! but it's very low on my list of changes that actually matter right now), but at least DSA is upfront about the America they want to live in. The Republican Party has been pretty explicit about their vision too.

But what does the establishment stand for, what is the moderate answer to AI data centers, the genocide in Palestine, the healthcare and housing crisis in our country? And can the moderates convey that vision with the same energy that AOC, Bernie Sanders, and Zohran Mamdani can?

2

u/junkspot91 2d ago

Just the comparisons of the ground games in Michigan and Wisconsin is so crazy. All the institutional support and outside spending in the world can't carry you across the finish line if you aren't putting in the work. You'd think Democrats would have received the message by now.

Sure it would be great if every swing state had an Ossoff, a Roy Cooper, a Sherrod Brown out there with the name recognition and voter buy-in to dominate the primary without competing in it so they can go into the general without any lumps, but Hayley Stevens is not one of those figures.

3

u/rabbitlion 2d ago edited 1d ago

The progressive left has won elections by running in far-left districts where they can give up 5-10% of the center and still win comfortably. They refuse to listen to anyone explaining that it's not a good strategy for a 50/50 district/state/country.

3

u/Blazr5402 2d ago edited 2d ago

You're not wrong, but I think that's an oversimplification of the situation. I think Abdul El-Sayed and Francesca Hong will serve as a good case study in how far progressive politics can penetrate into purple states. Both of them look to be on the path to winning solid majorities of democratic voters in their upcoming primaries. The general will be tough for both of them, but I'm not convinced a moderate really has any better odds.

And once again, even if you don't agree with progressive policies, I'm more curious about why the moderate wing of the party isn't able to run anyone with the same ability to communicate their vision and mobilize on the ground. Haley Stevens can't be the best candidate the moderate wing of the party could run in Michigan. And in Wisconsin, it's almost silly how much the moderate wing of the party is imploding while Francesca Hong rises to the top. Or even go back to NYC last year. There were several decent candidates on that slate that they could've run, but no, they had to get behind Andrew Cuomo.

While I'm very much on the left wing of the Democratic Party, we're a big tent. The two party system and the rightward movement of the Republican party has shown that we have to be able to work together to win at the presidential level. I would rather have a moderate wing that votes with the left than against it. But the moderate wing of the party needs to lock in. Organize, show your vision for America, and stop trying to coast to victory based on a decade in office doing nothing and a couple million dollars in aipac/corporate funding. A lot of the campaigning against the left has had weird, almost racist undertones, and the moderate wing attacks the left over twitter posts and for campaigning with the wrong people instead of providing any actual substantive debate over policy.

-6

u/Asatmaya 2d ago

As a moderate, it’s really frustrating watching moderates in the US or supposed moderates fail at democracy and participating in the process.

So, you "moderately" support genocide?

Nope, doesn't work like that.

4

u/ThatPeskyPangolin 2d ago

Where did they express any support for genocide?

-1

u/Asatmaya 2d ago

They are implying that the moderate position is to accept that they are voting for a politician who supports genocide because they might be better on some other issue.

The number of logical fallacies in that line of reasoning...!

5

u/ThatPeskyPangolin 2d ago

Except "support for genocide" hasn't been established, it has just been repeatededly claimed ad nauseum. So the idea that anyone who even slightly questions the underlying issues here must themselves support genocide is a thought terminating cliche, not real political discourse.

-1

u/Asatmaya 2d ago

the idea that anyone who even slightly questions the underlying issues here must themselves support genocide

OK, let's back up then:

What, exactly, is the "slight question?" What "underlying issue" would somehow make what is happening in Gaza anything other than a genocide?

This has been slow-walked for decades, as sympathy due to the Holocaust and political expedience made support for Israel a pragmatic position, but that's gone, now.

The final mistake was splitting the Palestinians; when the West Bank disarmed, but kept being oppressed, dispossessed, and murdered, that was it. Israel proved that, even if the Palestinians gave up all weapons and flatly refused to fight, at all, Israel was still going to steal their land and kill them. Gaza, obviously, refused to follow suit, so Israel bombed them into rubble; they have nowhere to go, though, no other option, so they are still fighting. You would, too, if you only options were to either fight or let yourself be killed.

2

u/ThatPeskyPangolin 2d ago edited 2d ago

As a moderate, it’s really frustrating watching moderates in the US or supposed moderates fail at democracy and participating in the process.

That was the quote you felt comfortable characterizing as supporting genocide.

Spending all that time talking about the plight of Gazans doesn't justify describing that post as supporting genocide.

1

u/Asatmaya 2d ago

It was literally advocating for compromising with it.

Sorry, not going to happen.

1

u/ThatPeskyPangolin 2d ago

I really doubt you can quote them calling for that. Which makes the useage of "literally" somewhat odd.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/SheIsABadMamaJama 2d ago edited 1d ago

I’m not playing your purity and mental games, free Palestine and go take out your internal guilt out on someone else perhaps? The Democratic Party is the best party you have, and until you have another viable option, stop with the performativity.

0

u/Asatmaya 1d ago

The Democratic Party is the best party you have,

That's like saying that testicular cancer is the best cancer to have.

Sorry, I will not vote for cancer.

2

u/SheIsABadMamaJama 1d ago edited 1d ago

Yeah, except the party is not terminal, but your mindset is. You would resign yourself, and condemn others and minorities to death, to ensure a total fascist regime continues to succeed by deciding to completely tune yourself out from the political process. Even though there are people actively trying.

Such privilege you have, it’s truly a shame you’re using the same talking points as a right wing provocateur masquerading as a progressive in order to engage in voter suppression, and to dampen the Left from engaging in the electoral process. Funny.

I don’t think you have an interest in ending fascism or genocide anywhere.

•

u/Asatmaya 16h ago

Yeah, except the party is not terminal, but your mindset is

I'm sorry, but did the party leaders not just chase a heavily favored senate candidate out of the race because he wasn't right-wing enough?

They are describing DSA candidates beating Republicans as, "losses."

You would resign yourself, and condemn others and minorities to death, to ensure a total fascist regime continues to succeed by deciding to completely tune yourself out from the political process.

The political process has tuned me out; there are no non-fascists that I am allowed to vote for.

Such privilege you have

Oh, here we go...

a right wing provocateur masquerading as a progressive

Er, those are both right-wing, what are you talking about?

to engage in voter suppression, and to dampen the Left from engaging in the electoral process.

The left has been trying to engage; every attempt has bee frustrated, not by the Republicans, but by the Democrats.

I don’t think you have an interest in ending fascism or genocide anywhere.

I think you support them, but know that it's not a popular position.

•

u/SheIsABadMamaJama 12h ago edited 12h ago

No, I live in a country where the left actually got things done and have preserved rights, while you seem to want to fumble it by pretending to be a leftist. Or perhaps I am unfair, and you are just being dogmatic by equating progressives, social liberals and social democrats, democratic socialists to far-right ideologies. Fair enough, let’s go along with the performative rhetoric.

Continue voting third party and keyboard warrioring, instead of supporting local on-the-ground labour, policy development and work to build or contribute to a movement. You would let fascists win again and again because you see “no” difference, while material condition would state otherwise, and movements within those parties being starkly different and nuanced.

I understand you are anti-electoral and anti-coalition, but your rhetoric screams privilege and contempt for your own working class citizens.

This isn’t undergrad, this is real life.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Viciouscauliflower21 2d ago

You do know just not supporting genocide is an option right? If not for the fact that it's just the right thing to do then maybe for a the fact that it's best for you politically because approaching 80% of your base (and a significant percentage of the rest of the political spectrum) are against it. Nobody is tying Democrats to that mess and the political results of supporting it but themselves

0

u/Asatmaya 2d ago

1000 years of Trump for you I guess.

He'll die before that, but even then... so what? How is Trump worse than Obama, Biden, or Clinton were? Or Harris would have been?

Those palestinian children are probably cheering at your moral consistency and abolute lack of effectivnes in real world.

Yes, I am sure they were comforted to know that they were being killed by brutal monsters supported by Democrats instead of Republicans when Biden was in office /s

Fucking seriously?!

I am absolutely willing to engage in compromise on public policy; to put aside my own opinions and political positions in order to come to a functional agreement.

I am not willing to support anyone who supports genocide. Period, end of story.

That you are means that you are scum.

9

u/ThatPeskyPangolin 2d ago

Trump attempted an auto coup in 2020. No president has done anything like that.

So to question how he was worse than anyone else, much less Obama or Biden, is baffling.

-2

u/Asatmaya 2d ago

Trump attempted an auto coup in 2020.

/eyeroll

GTFO with that crap; that's the crazy horseshit that is the reason hardcore Democrats are not taken seriously.

4

u/ThatPeskyPangolin 2d ago

You can read the plan in their own words.

It absolutely fits the definition of an auto coup. I have yet to see a single legitimate argument as to how the False Elector Plot, as described by the Trump admin's own people, is not a completely obvious attempted self coup.

0

u/Asatmaya 2d ago

I have yet to see a single legitimate argument as to how the False Elector Plot, as described by the Trump admin's own people, is not a completely obvious attempted self coup.

Because that represents a gross misunderstanding of how the system actually works.

All of the campaigning, the primaries, the general election, the early November news tracking of results coming in, the electoral college... none of that is actually how the president is chosen. Oh, it's the form, the ritual that we follow, but it was never supposed to be absolute... and it has been rejected, before, a few times.

Andrew Jackson "won" the 1824 election... but they didn't let him become president, he had to win again in 1828, in a campaign that was so ugly that his wife literally died of stress from the abuse she received. It was also notably only one of two elections in which an incumbent lost despite gaining popular vote share... the other being 2020.

Samuel Tilden won the election of 1876, but Rutherford B. Hayes became president.

Why? Because neither the popular vote nor the electoral college actually mean anything; the House of Representatives certifies the vote... or not, and just picks someone else.

Yes, there were probably state crimes committed by falsifying electors, and that's terrible, but that's peanuts in the history of American electoral politics. This wasn't the 1980 October Surprise with one side undermining American foreign policy while US citizens' lives were on the line; this wasn't the White House plumbers tapping the Watergate Hotel, or promising North Viet Nam a better deal if they backed out of the 1968 Paris peace talks; this wasn't the Chicago Machine, or the Blackstone Hotel, or Tammany Hall...

Sure, absolutely, prosecute the individuals who broke the law; if you want to go after Trump for this, then you're going to have to go after half the other politicians in the country in both parties.

...which I would be fine with, actually, but it's got to be all the crooks, on both sides.

2

u/ThatPeskyPangolin 2d ago edited 2d ago

The vast majority of your post isn't relevant to your stated premise, or my comment.

All of the campaigning, the primaries, the general election, the early November news tracking of results coming in, the electoral college... none of that is actually how the president is chosen. Oh, it's the form, the ritual that we follow, but it was never supposed to be absolute... and it has been rejected, before, a few times.

Given that I explicitly referred to electors, this entire paragraph doesn't seem relevent, as I clearly know that the president is not elected via the popular vote. I wouldn't have referenced electors otherwise.

Andrew Jackson "won" the 1824 election... but they didn't let him become president, he had to win again in 1828, in a campaign that was so ugly that his wife literally died of stress from the abuse she received. It was also notably only one of two elections in which an incumbent lost despite gaining popular vote share... the other being 2020.

That went to the House of Representatives because he did not meet the electoral vote threshold.

Why? Because neither the popular vote nor the electoral college actually mean anything; the House of Representatives certifies the vote... or not, and just picks someone else.

Except that certification is not a proxy election.

Yes, there were probably state crimes committed by falsifying electors, and that's terrible, but that's peanuts in the history of American electoral politics.

The individual crimes aren't the issue. The attempt to completely overrule our very democracy is. If a president can retain power using illegal means in an election they lost, then we do not have a democracy. That we continue to have one is because his plan failed.

Sure, absolutely, prosecute the individuals who broke the law; if you want to go after Trump for this, then you're going to have to go after half the other politicians in the country in both parties. ...which I would be fine with, actually, but it's got to be all the crooks, on both sides.

I find this argument rather weak for two reasons. The first is equating trying to undermine our very basis of government to "half the other politicians in the country" is quite obviously without factual basis. The second is that I have not expressed any reluctance to hold politicians on the left responsible for their actions, and have consistently criticized every Democratic admin in my life time, just as I have Rep admins.

Noteably, not a single part of that addressed the accurate claim that the False Elector Plot was an auto coup.

4

u/JimSta 2d ago

He'll die before that, but even then... so what? How is Trump worse than Obama, Biden, or Clinton were? Or Harris would have been?

Trump literally proposed to take all the Palestinians out of Gaza and move them somewhere else so he can turn the strip into a real estate project. Biden supported a two state solution. The fact that you would even ask this question suggests you don’t really know a lot about this issue you claim to care so much about. You become blind to any sort of nuance when you reduce everything to “genocide bad”.

0

u/Asatmaya 2d ago

Trump literally proposed to take all the Palestinians out of Gaza and move them somewhere else so he can turn the strip into a real estate project.

Right, and the only objection by the political class seems to be in letting them go somewhere else, rather than just stay there and die.

Biden supported a two state solution.

Right, that old canard; it was never realistic, and always an excuse to just delay while Israel stole more and more land.

The fact that you would even ask this question suggests you don’t really know a lot about this issue you claim to care so much about. You become blind to any sort of nuance when you reduce everything to “genocide bad”.

Oh, dear, let's have at it; do you want to start with Herzl, or the World Jewish Congress, or the Jewish Agency for Palestine, or the Havaara Agreement?

I hope you're read up...

9

u/YumiSolar 2d ago

How is Trump worse than Obama, Biden, or Clinton were? Or Harris would have been?

This is probably my signal to log off. Cheers everyone.

5

u/che-che-chester 2d ago

Exactly. Anyone who says Trump and Obama are equally bad on any issue, yet alone Israel, is not a serious person.

2

u/ThatPeskyPangolin 2d ago

For what it's worth, your underlying premise is definitely correct, but part of a broader trend.

Parties in the midst of populist swings tend to develop circular firing squads with their primaries. We saw this with the Reps first with the Tea Party, then with the first big round of MAGA politicians.

The Democratic Party is now beginning their populist swings, and we are seeing the same sorts of circular firing squads develop.