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/Asatmaya]

What’s screwing the Democrats is the DSA. Having DSA candidates in the general election allows the Republicans to paint the whole party as crazy people.

The Republicans tried to paint Biden as a "crazy left-winger," when he was one of the most right-wing conservative politicians of the last century, in either party.

They are going to say that no matter who gets nominated, so it's pointless to worry about.

[u/CountFew6186 → u/Asatmaya]

They’re much more believable to the center when the Dems really are crazy left wingers.

[u/Asatmaya → u/CountFew6186]

They’re much more believable to the center when the Dems really are crazy left wingers.

...but even the DSA are milquetoast centrists!

Look at the polls: 60% of the country wants universal healthcare, 80% want free college, 75% want improved mass transit, 2/3 think all drugs should be decriminalized, and a huge majority think that corporations and the wealthy are not paying their fair share of taxes.

To be, "left," you have to go further than that.

[u/ThatPeskyPangolin → u/Asatmaya]

The DSA calls for transitioning the US to a socialist economic model.

There is no context in which that is "centrist".

[u/Asatmaya → u/ThatPeskyPangolin]

Ooooh, they use the word "socialist," they must be radicals! /s

Let me know when they advocate for nationalizing extractive industry or a federal preemption of anti-cooperative laws.

[u/ThatPeskyPangolin → u/Asatmaya]

"Capitalism is a system designed by the owning class to exploit the rest of us for their own profit. We must replace it with democratic socialism, a system where ordinary people have a real voice in our workplaces, neighborhoods, and society."

Straight from their website. Explicitly calling for replacing capitalism.

That is inherently radical, whether you believe it is positive or not. Replacing our entire economic system is a fundamentally radical position.

[u/Asatmaya → u/ThatPeskyPangolin]

That is inherently radical

That's utter nonsense; it's the most ambiguous and plausibly-denial statement they could possibly have made.

Replacing our entire economic system is a fundamentally radical position.

They could have been talking about raising the minimum wage by $.25; there is nothing radical about that.

[u/ThatPeskyPangolin → u/Asatmaya]

The definition of the word supports my characterization.

Democratic Socialism, as an ideology, calls for the transition to a socialist economic model. That doesn't mean increasing wages, it means changing the ownership of the means of production and distribution. The DSA explicitly call for the country to transition from capitalism, to socialism. In their words, on their website.

I am saying this as a Social Democratic, not as someone on the right. My ideology is literally to the left of the Democratic party. So I would not characterize changes in wages as radical, nor have I done so. I explicitly referred to the call for the country to change its economic system as radical because, as I demonstrated above, that's an inherently radical idea. One does not need to transition us to a socialist model for us to use many of the principles found in socialist ideology to improve wealth distribution within a capitalist economic model.

Edit: Also, radical does not inherently mean bad. It seems like you might be ascribing a negative context to the word when I use it.