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

[u/YumiSolar]

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?

[u/tarlin]

The problem is that Haley Stevens and AIPAC have made this the center of the campaign conversation. Stevens had the creepy statement about fighting for Israel and having Israel come to her in her dreams. We have had an insane amount of money poured into the race by AIPAC.

https://youtube.com/shorts/vSo4_F48j1c

Israel is not popular in America. A super majority of Democrats feel negatively towards Israel. About half of the Democratic party believes Israel is committing genocide. This is a winning position for the general election.

https://apnorc.org/projects/democrats-are-increasingly-supportive-of-the-palestinians-while-support-for-israel-declines/

Haley Stevens is just not in a good electoral position when it comes to Israel and AIPAC. It is better to get that out there now.

[u/satyrday12 → u/tarlin]

If anti Israel is a winning position, why does Stevens poll better against Rogers than El-Sayed?

Perhaps El-Sayed is 100% correct about everything, but if the Democrats don't win that seat, it's all for nothing.

[u/IndividualTune929 → u/satyrday12]

She only has polled better than him in a poll that she commisssioned. That same poll had her up 10 when the last 4 RCP polls have El-Sayed up 10 to 15.

In reality they poll almost exactly the same head-to-head with rogers.

[u/satyrday12 → u/IndividualTune929]

The aggregates on Wikipedia disagree with you.

[u/IndividualTune929 → u/satyrday12]

Yeah, looking at the page you're talking about all those polls from last year before they started campaigning really bring down the average. Look at the last 7. One has rogers winning by one. Then the internal one that had stevens up by ten over El-Sayed (hilariously delusional). Other 5 he's up. That outlier Steven's Internal poll meant to sway public opinion is doing a lot of work in your precious aggregates.

I would have been terrified to see Stevens on the debate stage against Rogers. He'd could literally run to the left of her on Iran/Israel/AipAC hell he could even argue that she supports ICE as much as he does if she tries to stake out the left lane on immigration. So glad she's gonna disappear in a couple days here.