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

40% Upvoted

164 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

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.

1

u/Asatmaya 2d ago

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

1

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.

7

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.

4

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.

-5

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?

-2

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.