Why does unconditional support of the D party bother some?

[Eliot Rosewater]

I wonder if they understand math.

There are how many political parties in America? (please dont waste my time with saying more than 2)

So you either are on board to support the D party unconditionally or you are not. If you are not then that ends up helping the other party.

period.

Now if in 10 years the Democrats control the entire government and they appoint justices that overturn Roe or shit like that, then said unconditional support ends.

NOT before that.

Unless some are confused that TODAY's D party is not on the right side of the issues? If you think that, you either are a republican or should be.

Let me try it this way.

Do you understand my statement has NOTHING to do with blind allegiance to a political party? NOTHING?

If you dont see that yet, you either dont want to or your agenda doesnt allow it. M A T H

[mcar]

1. Vote for Democrats!

[Eliot Rosewater]

2. Yes. If people would just stop and think MATH

And when you see something like this

Lamb, who is Catholic, ran as a moderate Democrat, saying that he personally opposes abortion but supports the right to choose

Makes even more sense. Anybody think the GOP party supports choice?

Cuz you see it is ONE or the OTHER

[ollie10]

3. Unconditionally? You mean if Trump changed parties I have to support him?

[haele]

24. Drumpf is his own party. The GOP picked him up from Vlad's 5 and dime bin...

and brought him "home", because they're true believers who love shiny things that glitter.
If he had run as a Democrat, he would never have made it out of the primaries.
Even if he were intellectually capable of changing parties mid-stream, it still won't garner him any more respect because he's a liar and a cheat and would keep on doing things for Drumpf.

Haele

[treestar]

87. I suppose so, but if he changed parties

he would be changing attitude.

And it would depend on where he was running too.

[ollie10]

91. more likely, since he has no core values, he would just be trying to play us

[treestar]

93. We would be smart enough not to nominate him

as our candidate for the position in question.

[brush]

140. Why this straw man argument? That will never happen and that is not what the OP is about.

[ollie10]

144. Ivanka and Jared call themselves Democrats I believe.....

So we are on their side now?

[brush]

153. Again with more distraction? Don't waste our time talking about those two repugs working for that...

orange pustule.

If they were Democrats they would not be working for him.

[Snotcicles]

90. +1... I support nothing, unconditionally. nt

[Cary]

187. So you're saying that both sides do it

[mahatmakanejeeves]

4. Because I have a brain, and I don't blindly accept what I'm told by anybody. NT

[Bonx]

10. traitor!

[mahatmakanejeeves]

13. Thanks. I'll wear it with honor. NT

[Eliot Rosewater]

15. More like bad at math.

Last edited Thu Mar 15, 2018, 01:54 PM - Edit history (1)

I should change my RULE

to

I dont reply to people I think have Putin's agenda ahead of mine.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

174. Being able to do simple arithmetic doesn't make you good at math either.

Jethro Bodine could do simple cipherin'. That didn't make him a graduate of The Harvard Kennedy School.

[meadowlander]

66. +1000

The whole reason I am a democrat is because I was raised to run 1000 miles away from any organisation that asks for unconditional loyalty. If you have to check your rational thought process at the door you shouldn’t be going through it in the first place.

[brush]

141. Math is not irrational. The premise of the OP is not rocket science. Vote Democratic and we are...

on our way to neutralizing trump in 2018 and dumping him in 2020—that is if Mueller doesn't get him first.

It's not that complicated.

[KPN]

161. True. So the one-step forward two-steps back repitition should make sense to math people as well.

1 - 2 = -1 +1 -2 = -2 + 1 -2 = -3 +1 -2 = -4 .... and so on. That's rational.

The problem is really, how do we get those people who view this representation as being the result of status quo to vote. That's why they don't vote; they don't want to support status quo.

[brush]

162. It's not that complicated. Vote Democratic and we get control of at least one house of Congress...

in 2018 and parlay that to getting rid of trump in 2020 if, as I said, Mueller doesn't get him first.

[KPN]

164. True. It isn't that complicated. And I don't believe it will be

in the short term -- 2018 or 2020. Anti-Trumpism may well be sufficiently strong to win one house and the WH in 18 and 20.

I believe it (anti-Trumpism) will be. But after that? I really believe we as a party need to show real progress in reversing the 1 forward 2 back cycle on the economic front relative to middle class. It needs to be 2 forward, 1 back. Will the party successfully do that if and when it regains control? That's the key in my mind. There is quite a struggle going on within the party about economic policy/regulation.

[meadowlander]

175. And voting based on math isn't "unconditional" support.

I would look at any candidate on their merits and balance that against the consequences of not voting for them. There is a lot I would be willing to overlook in this particular set of midterms because of the very grave threat that Trump poses but I would not be willing to overlook absolutely anything in a candidate just to get a Democrat. That is not "unconditional" support.

I hope you're not saying that you would happily support a pedophile candidate or an anti-Semite or someone with a rape conviction or someone with Mafia connections and a history of corruption just so that we can get Dem backsides on seats in one election cycle.

[brush]

179. Come on. Get serious. Pedophiles, anti-Semites and racists would be weeded out by the primary...

process. No wait, I take that back. They wouldn't even get that far.

We're talking the Democratic Party, not that repug, Roy Moore/trump outfit which does run pedophiles, anti-Semites and racists.

[meadowlander]

193. You're talking about unconditional support for anyone with a D after their name.

So presumably you would support a comeback effort by:

Rod Blagojevich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich - Corruption
Chaka Fattah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaka_Fattah - Corruption
William J. Jefferson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Jefferson - Corruption
Jim Traficant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Traficant - Corruption
Wade Sanders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade_Sanders - Child porn possession
Mel Reynolds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Reynolds - Statutory rape and child porn
Dan Rostenkowski https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Rostenkowski - Embezzlement
Albert Bustamante https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Bustamante - Accepting bribes

I think you're being extremely naive if you think that the Republicans are the only party that ends up with terrible candidates/politicians.

And what you are advocating for (support for any D who can win no matter what) is undermining those primary protections that would weed out those kinds of candidates.

[brush]

207. Give it up. I'm not biting on divisiveness. It's a simple concept. Vote Democratic to take back...

at least one house of Congress in '18 and to get rid of trump in 2020 if Mueller doesn't get him first.

Do the math. If our candidates get at least one more vote than the repug candidates, we win.

Of course our candidates should be thoroughly vetted so as not to run pedophiles, anti-Semites and racists. Does that even need to be said? We're grown-up, intelligent adults who won't be supporting sketchy candidates.

[meadowlander]

209. As long as we can agree that words actually mean things

and that "of course we will vet candidates" doesn't actually mean the same thing as "we will unconditionally support anyone with a D after their name" and that therefore the wording of the OP should have been more carefully selected if that is what was intended. This is the only thing that I and a number of other people in this thread have been saying.

[Ferrets are Cool]

78. This!!

[PubliusEnigma]

85. Then why can't you figure it out for yourself. It's not that hard. Third Parties are for Chumps.

[treestar]

88. Do you think about anything

or just blindly go the opposite because someone suggested something?

[Demsrule86]

96. Right...well since you have a brain...looking at the situation of the Democrats having no control,

it would seem voting for the Democrat in all cases would be if you pardon the pun...a 'no brainer'.

[KPN]

163. Personally, I think it is a no brainer. But I also understand the view of people who don't vote

because they no longer want to enable what they see as status quo. When it comes to economic policy and the slow but sure erosion of middle class America, I understand the concern about "status quo". The key to my way of thinking is how are we going to get those people to no longer feel that a vote for Dems is no longer a vote for status quo, particularly post-Trump. I do believe the anti-Trump vote will be sufficient to inspire some otherwise non-voters to vote in 2018 and 20. The question is really: what happens after that.

[Demsrule86]

170. Status quo? Hell I would give my left arm for a 'status quo'.

We are dealing with a dangerous maniac...the likes we have never seen...I hope our Republic holds...if they won't vote for us..then we win without them...we came damn close in 16 which I call the perfect storm election...unlikely to be repeated.

[KPN]

178. I agree. It was a perfect storm election.

I think we will beat Trump in 2020 (if he isn't already gone by then) because of anti-Trumpism, that is, because people prefer status quo over him (too bad some made a wrong judgement in that regard in 2016).

Nevertheless, some thought HRC was a status quo candidate in 2016 -- and chose not to vote. That's a reality we must deal with long term.

[Demsrule86]

186. God I hope that he is gone.

And some were tricked into believing that too...and this is where the recent OP's about how you vote for the nominee regardless or there will be consequences come in...I still think this is once in a lifetime as far as elections go.

We vote in the primary ...everyone has an opinion and a say...if they don't get the candidate they want as I didn't with Dean ...then you move on and support the nominee anyway...and if they can't do that ...there really is little we can do. If these folks think a Republican is just as good...they are not progressive. That being said, I would like to see a balanced ticket in 20.

[KPN]

196. I'm with you as far as voting. After 2020

the anti-status quo non-voter (both candidates/parties suck) will re-appear I believe if we don't do something tangible to improve the economic livelihood of a dwindling middle class -- and show clearly that we stand for people before corporations.

But yeah, first things first.

[Demsrule86]

199. First of all what you talk about won't come fast...we need to fix the ACA first and offer

a public option for people who's murderous governors won't expand medicaid. Repeal tax cuts. Save DACA...get rid of everyone of Trump EA's ...burn sage in a all rooms of the White house to cleanse his evil (kind of kidding but it won't hurt). We need to work on a manufacturing plan and raise the minimum wage...Hillary had a pretty good manufacturing plan and fix trade so we are keep jobs...it will be a monumental task...and people need patience. This is a hurry up society...but it took thirty years or so to get Medicare after Social Security. We need to put back the inheritance tax...retroactive would be good...and yeah if could be done...give back the middle class deductions Trump stole...It is a beginning.

[KPN]

203. No doubt. It won't be easy. But voters have a short attention span.

Each party loses control over one house or the WH almost every two years over the past, what, 20 or 24 for a reason. We need to do something tangible that affects most middle class Americans in a positive way. The ACA didn't quite do that.

[Exotica]

5. literal unconditional support of anything is madness

[Eliot Rosewater]

17. My comment has NOTHING to do with that.

[Exotica]

44. Lol. Try reading it again.

You made an absolutist statement then downthread you hedge and infer.

[melman]

201. Has nothing to do with what?

Unconditional support? Then why does it say 'unconditional support' in the title?

[treestar]

89. It is madness to lose a seat in a red state

because the candidate is to your right.

[Exotica]

146. I stand by my post 100%

here is why

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210357845#post136

[Demsrule86]

97. Nope...not in this case...it is our only way to stop the GOP.

[Exotica]

136. Unconditional means Stalin or Hitler etc could run as a Democrat

and you pull the lever anyway simply because of the D. Sorry but that is madness in my book. Words come with meanings and unconditional is an absolute term. The OP later on, downthread hedges and infers things to the statement that were not present or not stated as qualifiers originally, when I replied.

I utterly stand by by post.

[Demsrule86]

173. That is a pretty far fetched hypothetical.

Madness is not voting for Democrats and allowing someone like Trump to win...he is Hitler and Stalin. But hey we have supers to stop any such scenario so we are good.

[Exotica]

181. Of course it is far fetched, I was using absurdity to show the absurdity

of the original, non-qualified statement. I obviously support all the current Democrats against ANY Republican or Green. I am a person who doesn't use purity tests when voting. I wholeheartedly agree with district and state-tailored candidates.

I was only replying to what the poster originally wrote. I have no issues with having a philosophical debate over words and their meaning. The OP later on tried to reframe the entire thread, long after I posted my first response to what was an absolutist positing.

[Demsrule86]

183. Some believe you shouldn't vote for a Democrat unless he is some sort of pure entity...this is what

the OP is arguing against.

[Exotica]

185. I do not agree with the people that apply purity tests, I was

simply arguing against the exact initial wording. The OP used very poor phraseology to make what should have been a clear point, that is all. Many other replies on this thread echo my point. I can only work with what is posted initially, not with hedging, inferences and reworkings after the fact.

[Demsrule86]

188. Sounds reasonable...I want to run candidates that fit the district. or state.

If we do that we win.

[Exotica]

189. here is an example of me defending exactly that tailoring (Kyrsten Sinema for Senate in Arizona)

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10339713

follow the comment chain

btw, I just noticed the first post I replied to in that thread (from another poster who praised Sinema as I was typing the same thing) was removed. I have NO idea why it was removed, it was so so non controversial. It was just a post saying they supported her in the primary. I cannot think of any reason why it was removed at all. Very strange.

[Demsrule86]

195. It could be the person was known as an infiltrator...it happens.

[Exotica]

197. No. They were a 15 year poster with 30K posts

[Demsrule86]

200. I have no idea...was it post removed?

[Exotica]

204. Yes it was. Someone alerted on a pro Sinema post. That is crazy as she

is the guaranteed Deocratic nominee and will be running against either a monster racist criminal (Arpaio), a Teabagger lunatic CT nutter (Kelli Ward) or a far right moving corporate Rethug (McSally).

Cannot believe there are so-called Democrats who hate Sinema so much they would prefer one of those 3 fuckers to win There is no other remotely viable Democrat in the primary, so to bash Sinema is to be pro Republican in true outcome.

[LanternWaste]

6. I vote for Democrats only

Though I vote for Democrats only, you're simply re-phrasing Bush's infamous, "you're either with us or against us" nonsense. Reality is not binary, and attesting that it is illustrates a lack of personal growth.

I'm beginning to guess you're simply rather young, and have not had to deal with the complexities of context, nuance, conditions and frames of reference that render your absolutes and totalities anachronistic (at best).

[Eliot Rosewater]

11. LOL

Oh god, what I would give

Look, if you dont understand there are two parties ONLY and you have to support ANY Democrat ANYWHERE otherwise that helps the other party, then nothing I say will convince you of basic MATH.

The POINT of comments like this is to try and convince a certain group of people that they CANT

a. sit out elections
b. whine about our candidate'
c. vote for our candidate but tell everybody they are gonna HOLD THEIR NOSE while they do it
d. or vote 3rd party


Basic MATH

Your attempt to slide an insult in here works the opposite with me, I would give ANYTHING to be the person you describe. The age part at least. Oh, if only.

[CentralMass]

52. I only vote for Democrats, don't miss an election, and I am critical of the the party and candiates

when it is justified, I voted for Bernie sanders in the last primary and I would do it again if we could repeat the election.

I am not unpatriotic or a traitor,

[Demsrule86]

98. This sort of 'complexity' has caused multiple losses to the point we are on the cusp of an outcome

we can't recover from with gerrymandering and the courts.

[Glassunion]

160. "you're either with us or against us"

"Only the Sith deal in absolutes. - Obi Wan"

- Michael Scott

[Egnever]

7. Sounds like you have your own line

but don't respect others.

[Eliot Rosewater]

19. MATH

that is all I am about

MATH

My comment has nothing to do with blind allegiance or anything like that.

The party with one more seat decides everything.

Why is this so complicated?

[Egnever]

20. it became complicated when you put your own line in the sand

Now if in 10 years the Democrats control the entire government and they appoint justices that overturn Roe or shit like that, then said unconditional support ends.

Your line is different than others it seems to me but still exists.

I agree right now that voting D is extremely important that said I find it pretty silly to call others out for having a line they wont cross while staking out your own line.

[Lars39]

8. Because it does not take into account

the Republicans that run as Democrats.

[Eliot Rosewater]

12. YES it DOES...

MATH

MATH

Any seat with a D gives the D party the POWER

MATH

[Lars39]

16. Not locally.

It usually gives them a chance to move up the food chain. And then we are at the mercy of these idiots to vote with the Democrats.

[Eliot Rosewater]

18. I am talking about State and Federal. In both cases, the party with ONE more seat than

the other decides


what?



E V E R Y T H I N G

therefore it does NOT MATTER if one or two of them are assholes

MATH

[Lars39]

21. Really?

I can think of one or two that screwed us over royally.

[Demsrule86]

99. Name one please.

I know of moderate Dems who run. But they are vastly preferable to Republicans and our only path to a majority.

[Lars39]

127. Lieberman

[Demsrule86]

129. He was not a Republican...that is your answer?

Even though he was pissed as hell, he still caucused with us. And probably would have voted for single payer if we had not primaried him... a bit of revenge there. I like never liked Lieberman..but that is an example of how the primaries hurt us when we pick a candidate who cannot win. Obviously since Lieberman won the General it was a rookie move to primary him. We were lucky the GOP didn't win as Lieberman caucused with us and voted with us more often then any GOP type would have.

[Eliot Rosewater]

14. Then my math class didnt work ...

This is EXACTLY what I am talking about.

I am the LAST Person here who has an ALLEGIANCE to a political party, that is not what this is about

But if people cant figure it out...oh well

I am not talking about allegiance, blind or otherwise.

I am talking about MATH

[peggysue2]

38. You're right; it's all about the numbers at this point in time

We do not--hear me, do not--have the luxury of refusing to vote and/or reject Democratic candidates in November. We can fight like cats during the primaries but once our Dem candidates are ready to go, we need to support them across the board.

Everyone's excited about Lamb's win in the 18th. Lamb is not a purity candidate. He's pro-gun, anti-choice and has said he will not support Pelosi as speaker. However, he is pro-Union, pro-healthcare and supports Medicare and Medicaid. Saccone by his own words (though LaPage said it first) was Trump before Trump and supports all the Trumpster's odious policies.

The 18th is a conservative district and has been Red Hot for decades. Lamb won in no small measure because he fit the profile of that district, winning back a portion of the working class that had voted Trump.

If we're going to flip the House and maybe the Senate, effectively neutering the Trumpsters, we absolutely need to vote for our Democratic candidates. Across the political spectrum.

We're fighting not only for Democratic policies and principles this time out, as important as they are to many of us. We're fighting for the country, its soul, its essence. If we truly wish to protect and preserve the best of this country, we need to put down the purity swords.

It's about the numbers, how many seats we gain. As Eliot has clearly stated: it's about the Math, period.

[Eliot Rosewater]

39. And he is not actually anti choice, he is personally but supports Roe.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210358180

Thanks for your post. Help others understand please, the ones who make ME the enemy, hmmmm...

[peggysue2]

43. You've never been the enemy, Eliot.

I sense some people simply do not understand the true danger we're in as a Nation. November is critical for us as a people. The Trumpster and his acolytes are a hideous wrecking crew. The GOP refuses to stand up and do the right thing.

That leaves us, Democrats, regardless of where we fall on the political spectrum. That includes Never-Trumpers as well. The treacherous weasels need to go--all of them. And Republicans need to be served the harshest of messages--clean house or go extinct.

We can win this thing if we stand together. And that means voting Democratic everywhere.

[Demsrule86]

100. I second that Peggsue...you would think people would see the danger...ah...I think some are part of

the blow it up crowed...the revolution and all.

[ehrnst]

61. No, he's not anti-choice. His voting record is pro-choice. That makes him pro-choice.

Last edited Wed Mar 14, 2018, 07:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Like Tim Kaine. Pro-choice is defined by actions, not beliefs.

"Democrats" who vote against choice are voting against a major plank in the Democratic platform. It's not just "identity politics" or a "social issue" it supports what health policy analysts and the medical profession say is best for public health.

[peggysue2]

64. I stand corrected.

Good to hear, btw.

[ehrnst]

69. Common error even by Dems.

As we saw a lot here on DU with Tim Kaine.

I had to explain this to my Catholic MIL that she was indeed, pro-choice, since she thought it should stay legal.

[NurseJackie]

60. Lord!

i will not vote for a republican but there is a dem or 2 that i will never vote for either

If you don't vote for the Democrat, then it ALWAYS benefits the Republican. (But, at least people who do such things still have their pride, and I guess that's what's most important, huh?)

[billh58]

157. The trolls and bots

are comical to observe in a thread such as this one.

Voting Democratic is the ONLY answer to the current political danger our country faces.

[tonedevil]

22. I will no doubt be voting...

Democratic in this election cycle much as I have for 40+ years so I'm pretty well on board, but this is the least helpful way of expressing the idea I can possibly imagine. There was once this guy who said that Republicans fall in line and Democrats fall in love. You should listen to him and quit trying to make Democrats fall in line.

[Eliot Rosewater]

23. Unfortunately given the number of people who constantly BASH our candidates who claim

to be progressives or liberal, it is necessary they be educated how the system works.

Otherwise I would agree, the bad part is that I need to explain this to people. I should not have to.

[tonedevil]

25. Nothing you are doing here...

is educating anyone. What you are doing is alienating people who might be persuaded, but will not be bullied.

[Eliot Rosewater]

26. Persuaded? No, this site is for DEMOCRATS, there should not be a SINGLE person

on this board who would NOT vote for a democrat because of ANYTHING I would say.

Got it?

[tonedevil]

28. Then your bullying...

is even more out of place here.

[Egnever]

30. agreed

[RandomAccess]

57. AMEN #2

[Trumpocalypse]

65. How is he bullying?

Is he threatening you in any way?

[tonedevil]

67. I don't do unconditional anything...

and the continued hectoring about it to me is bullying.

[Trumpocalypse]

74. Bullying implies being threatened.

How were you threatened?

[melman]

202. Agreed

This act is really tired.

[Trumpocalypse]

29. No one is bullying anyone

And it is dishonest to suggest that the OP is.

[tonedevil]

31. I reject...

the need to be an uncritical automaton even for the Democratic party.

[Trumpocalypse]

62. What does that have to do with

someone making an untrue allegation of bullying?

[Eliot Rosewater]

35. Thanks , and it is of course not bullying unless your position is you dont really

support the party and have to be convinced to do so.

Good catch!

[RandomAccess]

58. I think it's dishonest to tell people that what they're perceiving

isn't what they're perceiving.

[Trumpocalypse]

63. Not when what they are "perceiving", or more accurately spinning,

is completely untrue.

[RandomAccess]

72. Sorry, you don't get to tell people what they are experiencing

If they're feeling bullied, they ARE being bullied.

Otherwise, your'e interpreting their reality for them, and that's not your right.

Of course, there are plenty of people who, like you, do that. And worse: claim they have the RIGHT to do that. But that doesn't make it right.

[Trumpocalypse]

73. No I get to point out when they are spinning.

Bullying implies being threatened. The OP didn't threaten in any way. Alleging bullying is just trying to shut down a discussion.

BTW Feeling threatened is the same excuse that cops give for shooting unarmed people of color. So I guess you're saying that those actions were totally justified.

[RandomAccess]

125. No, plenty of bullying goes on that has very little if any

implied threat. Actually, just badgering carries a subtle implied threat.

[Trumpocalypse]

148. Which never happened in this case.

There was no badgering or bullying. It was a discussion that one party tried to shut down by making an accusation of bullying.

And you never answered by question, so are white cops justified in shooting unarmed people of color because they perceive a threat?

[RandomAccess]

154. YOUR vote on that just doesn't count. Sorry.

[Trumpocalypse]

165. Every vote counts

That's is the essence of democracy.

[RandomAccess]

191. But we're not talking about democracy in this sub-discussion

we're talking about personal human dynamics, feelings, etc. Not democracy.

[Trumpocalypse]

194. Don't forget that we're also talking about

an unsubstantiated allegation designed to shut down a discussion. Unless you believe in guilty until proven innocent.

[RandomAccess]

205. No, that's even more sh*t from

your imagination.

Look, I'm not going to play any more of your silly games. So goodbye.

[Trumpocalypse]

206. Sounds like you're the one bullying now.

And it is not a silly game to point out that someone is making an unsubstantiated allegation designed to shut down a discussion.

[Demsrule86]

101. Really...so because someone says we need to support Democrats...you perceive bullying?

Hard to understand that.

[RandomAccess]

128. Of course it's hard to understand that --

it's not what I said, or believe.

However, there's plenty of "discussion" that goes on here that goes quite a bit farther than saying "we need to support Democrats." It's usually some form of: you're not WELCOME here unless you _____ fill in the blank of what KIND of support you need to give to whom, when, etc. ________ .

Plenty of discussions take a very ugly even authoritarian turn, especially anything to do with Bernie Sanders. If you're not aware of this, you probably ought to dip into some of those threads and imagine if the subject were someone YOU supported and admired.

[Demsrule86]

172. Who cares about Bernie Sanders? He is in the Senate...not my Senator...and I don't always like his

comments...but he has nothing to do with supporting Democrats...he isn't one. I am sick of hearing about him honestly. Can we move on? I am telling people who think they are supporting him for another run... I doubt it will happen but even if it did, I don't think he will win. Time for fresh faces. He caucuses with us, that is good. He is not the future people...but the past.

[RandomAccess]

190. Thank you for illustrating my point

[Demsrule86]

192. What is the point? My point is some like him, some don't and others (like) me are indifferent and

want to move on. He will not win a primary. I wish he could do outreach...but are you really impressed with his efforts? Let's just head into the future and win in 18 and 20...Sen Sanders has a role to play in the Senate...an important roll.

[Trumpocalypse]

149. It is an accusation that some pull out

to shut down a discussion when they can't make a factual or logical argument.

[Decoy of Fenris]

110. It's called "Gaslighting". Russians and Republicans are masters of it. n/t

[RandomAccess]

56. AMEN

[Demsrule86]

95. He is advocating voting for Democrats...on a Democratic site that should be a given...we support

Democrats.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. A few thoughts in return

First I simply do not do unconditional, not now, not ever. To cite some extreme cases David Duke was once seriously contesting for office as a Democrat. Had he won the nomination I would never have supported him. Same with Lyndon LaRouche. In the latter case he never got close, but there is no fail proof magic in the Democratic Party that can guarantee no demagogue types can ever rise in it. I don't know enough about him to say with full confidence, but Huey Long might have been a good example - and he was rising in the national Democratic Party before he was shot.

Second, I am far more in agreement with you than I think you suspect. I have staunchly been a long time open advocate for the left wing of American politics to work through the Democratic Party, and certainly for it not to get in the way of Democratic Party victories when the results are in any way in doubt against Republicans as we now know them.

On fundamental principle I defend the rights of any American to affiliate with any party of their choice or none at all - and that can't be mere words and us still have a democracy that I am proud of. Further, by now I know far too many people who view politics in an essentially different way from me for me to feel comfortable simply writing them all off as fools of some sort. I tend to profoundly differ with them on tactics, including how to work inside of a two party system, but I will not be demeaning toward tens of millions of people of underlying good will who disagree with me on that. Instead I will argue with them respectfully. And when I am unable to do so effectively I try to lead by example. By that I mean that I openly find common ground on social economic and political issues where that exists with other people who sincerely care about our nation, and I do that openly as a Democrat. In that way I show them that they have allies among Democrats which I sincerely believe makes it easier for many of them to cast their vote for a Democrat in a race that really matters.

Because we functionally have a two party system, and because I feel it essential that we be offered more than one choice (since the Republican option is no sane option at all) I strongly support robust primary challenges when real interest exists in more than one candidate for the Democratic Party line. That can get messy, yes. Sometimes it is not even productive, but to me it is the same as free speech. Either you encourage it or you don't. Use it or lose it.

I argued for Hillary against Trump with some BoB's during the 2016 general election for as long as I felt free to make my points and have them at least listened to. When I felt that was no longer the case I moved on, but I hope I made some difference with at least some of them in the process. I know some hardcore skeptics of Hillary did end up voting for Hillary when push came to shove. If our dialog helped them reach that point I am glad.

This year in particular it is clearer than fresh washed glass that essentially all Democrats must be fervently backed against all Republicans, at least at the State and National levels. I am the immediate past Chair of our Town's Democratic Committee and remain a member of that committee. Our Democratic Committee, and those of the Towns that neighbor ours, often works closely with Indivisible Chapters in our area. I know that the members of those Indivisible chapters are not all registered Democrats and a few are registered to third parties. And they know I am a part of the official Democratic Party. We've gotten some to come over to the Democrats by working shoulder to shoulder with them, rather than attacking them for being a part of the problem. The better known we are in those circles, the more leverage we have to argue for voting Democratic in the fall.

[Gothmog]

37. My Congressional district has not been competitive for some time

I live in Tom DeLay's old district and it is gerrymandered like crazy. In 2010 and 2012, a LaRouchie won the primary. The Democrats candidates were so weak that it was sad. The state party and our local county party amended the rules so that we could exclude the LaRouchie from party functions and deny her access to the VAN (the voter database). The state party Democratic Convention and I remember calling security on this lady once when the LaRouchiewas trying to get into a meeting. She evidently got in more than once.

In both elections she got under 35% of the vote in party because we had people not vote straight tickets which may have hurt some down ballot candidates. In 2014, she ran for the Senate nomination and got into the runoff. After the LaRouchie made the runoff, the party amended the rules to endorse a candidate in a run off primary and that kept her off the ballot for the general election. We later found out that she was partially funded by the local GOP (who is surprised by this?)

Absent a situation with that type of candidate I support the party. In 2016, a fairly weak candidate won the primary. This candidate raised less than $20,000 but still managed to get 43% of the vote. This year we had five decent candidates run in the primary and we have a run off for this nomination between two decent candidates.

One candidate has raised a good deal of money and I actually had a block walker come to my house for him during the primary.

[Tom Rinaldo]

41. That's really interesting. Thanks for sharing your experience

You can be proud of how the Democrats in your area responded to that challenge. In practice I behave exactly as you do. Being Frank, it is easier to get motivated to walk over broken glass for a Democrat who I really believe in than it is for one I don't. But I always support the Democrat and attempt to push myself to do all I can for them, it is just easier to overcome depression and inertia when your emotions are also fully engaged. That is simply human nature. This year with all that Republicans have done already we could nominate a toad for office and my emotions will still be blazing - it is a sign of a Blue wave approaching.

You live in a really difficult district. I am glad that you found some good candidates to run.

[Gothmog]

45. I have also been trying to help recruit candidates

A good friend is on the Texas state party SDEC or executive committee. He has recruited some good candidate and I try to help.

My hobby is election law and I was in the Harris County Party voter protection war room on primary day and will be involved in helping to plan the voter protection efforts for November.

I have been drafted to be on one of the committees for the Senate District/County conventions that occur on March 24 and plan to go to the state convention in Fort Worth.

Getting a candidate to run is not easy. We have recruited candidate to run in all congressional districts in Texas

As for my congressional district, the GOP won this congressional district in 2016 by less that 19 points. This congressional district is one of the districts that are less red than PA 18. In addition, our local congresscritter is an idiot.

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

32. I am also curious about this

In Texas, the GOP is so backward and full of bigots/racists that this is an easy choice for me. I and a large number of Texas Democrats are working hard to turn Texas blue.

[Eliot Rosewater]

34. And if you have to get one here and there who is personally against abortion but for the right of

choice, or is pro gun, you do it, right?

Because you understand that you cant be a blue state if the red guys have more seats!

[Gothmog]

40. I look at issues such as do they think that brown people should vote

I was in a meeting with the county GOP chair a couple of years ago when he took the position that brown people who were too lazy to get a drivers license should not vote. The local GOP really is against rights for non-whites and is against the LGBT community. The bathroom bills was supported by a number of local republicans in my area.

Texas is red and I am happy to get a strong candidate to run. I heard Tom Perez on MSNBC state that his mentor, Ted Kennedy was in favor of the Democratic Party being a big tent party.

[Basic LA]

33. I'm with you!

Vote the party (political philosophy), and there are two choices. If you're not for one, you're aiding the other. (Maybe I'm just old.)

[Motley13]

36. How about unconditional support of a treasonous president, repugs?

[Hortensis]

42. Even this year I won't give "unconditional" support.

Last edited Wed Mar 14, 2018, 06:21 PM - Edit history (1)

Unfortunate term because Republicans do that, not good Democrats. But I know what you mean.

Our Democratic Party candidates are almost all vetted, mentally competent and will vote to promote our values and goals, or at least not actual criminals, or they don't get our party's support in the first place. If we support a conservative who only partly shares our values, it's because he or she is believed to be electable and decent and shares the values of the constituency we are asking to elect him.

Sure, some fringe Democrat candidates may not be to electable or meet our party standards, but as we've seen not endorsing them
can be problematic and we need to trust our voters' judgement.

[Demsrule86]

104. I would merely point out that party loyalty has lead to important wins by Republicans and if we

don't start winning...we will have an outcome that will likely take decades to recover from. A 50 state solution is the only chance we have. If you look at the electoral map...there is no other way. We need to take electability into account during primaries. This is a center left country at best. I say that with deep regret, but we must face the truth...and pursue such policy as we can achieve...and elect candidates rather than merely field the pure primary candidates who will surely lose the general. The primary against Manchin is a perfect example. If by some chance , his opponent wins, the seat is lost. We could end up with the GOP winning enough Senate seats to have a working majority in the Senate. And God help us if that happens.

[Hortensis]

118. Agree with all but the first sentence. Lack of party

loyalty, vicious dishonest attacks by unprincipled factions have contributed to or caused outright almost all "important" Republican wins (surely a tremendous understatement for most recently losing the presidency, congress, and many state governments to the right in 2016?).

Party loyalty is one of the two great factors that elect Republicans over a huge pile of negatives. The other, of course, is the immensely greater influence of lies than truth on the electorate.

But yes to the rest, and I don't bother seeing having to compromise as regrettable. After all, democracy is designed to bring together people of different needs and ideologies to agree on solutions they can all live with.

[Demsrule86]

133. I think we are on the same page...and I absolutely think the lack of party loyalty led to the

16 defeat.

[DrDan]

46. it's really not that black-n-white

the point should be - vote for candidates that vote with the Dems.

BS votes with the Dems. Angus King votes with the Dems.

In Florida a few years back, Charlie Crist ran as an independent against a very flawed Dem - Kendrick Meek. Electing Crist would have kept Rubio out of the senate.

and yes, I do understand the math.

[Demsrule86]

105. It really is.

Crist would have been better.

[Voltaire2]

47. Joe Lieberman.

[Eliot Rosewater]

48. Will break my rule a 2nd time today...

So you didnt vote for Al Gore? Because of Lieberman?

[Lars39]

49. Yeah, thats who I had in mind.

[treestar]

92. They tried, but when it didn't work

yes, I would have voted for Lieberman rather than sat home and let a Republican win.

In that state, insurance is a big issue, provides a lot of employment.

You've got to think in terms of the state.

[LiberalBrooke]

50. Just read both party platforms.

All post their platforms online. Read them and vote for the party that most closely matches your ideals. Even beyond that, get involved with your party and help set the platform.

Stop whining about individual candidate’s weak points and work to make your party stronger and better.

[Hayduke Bomgarte]

51. It doesn't bother me one bit

Given the horrible alternatives, I have no sane option to do anything BUT support the D's, unconditionally.

[left-of-center2012]

53. Can Democrats still have primaries?

[NurseJackie]

59. Awwww...

[Demsrule86]

108. Sure, but let's avoid a primary like we see in WV...which serves no purpose

and risk the seat. I would say that to primary a sitting Democrat in the age of Trump is a waste of time and money which could be better utilized to take a Republican seat.

[left-of-center2012]

126. So, go with the flow and don't make waves

Stay with the "in crowd" until they die in office,

Got it!

[Demsrule86]

130. And win...what do you think will happen if we keep arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic

(Democratic Party) while we are sinking into the abyss...a place where we will not recover for years and years. We must vote Democratic...make waves when we have some power. Without a majority, we can only desperately tread water ...not make waves. Do you think a GOP type would be better than Manchin...who votes with us most of the time? Without Manchin, the ACA would be gone.

[left-of-center2012]

166. My post referenced Democratic primaries

[Demsrule86]

168. Primaries often influence if we win or not...everything we do should be calculated to win...I

shudder to think what will happen if pugs keep the House.

[left-of-center2012]

169. okie dokie smokie

or ---> whatever

[Demsrule86]

177. Let's part friends...we both want the same thing to get rid of GOP types ...and fascist Trump.

[aikoaiko]

54. Your love us or leave us posts are off-putting to those who like to think we make the best choices

For each election and that happens to be for Democrats.

Off-putting as you are I don’t think you’ll scare away many people who dont feel as you do.


But maybe your rhetoric does push Away those not as loyal.

[RandomAccess]

55. I think the word "unconditional" is entirely inappropriate

Based on my 50+ years of experience at it, I am going to have a LOT of criticisms about my party -- that totally screws up anything remotely reminiscent of "unconditional support."

But it doesn't screw up the "support" part (as a rule -- tho there have been a few times . . . )

There have been times when I absolutely would NOT donate a dime to the DNC or any of its election committees because they were so off the mark (IMO) -- choosing instead to back individual candidates.

Jettison the word unconditional -- it's just a wee bit too authoritarian for most Dems to stomach.

[Bettie]

68. Here is my issue

So, we say "if they have a D after their name, so I 100% support them!".

OK, so, what do we do when we get a person who is anti-lgbt, anti-choice, anti-immigrant, pro-gun, for gutting social security, in favor of destroying medicaid and medicare, against SNAP and so on.

Is there a line? Is there a point where that D doesn't matter? If Ted Cruz changed his party affiliation tomorrow without changing anything but the letter after his name on the news, would we all be encouraged (directed) to vote for him?

I'm told recently that not only are we to support Dems, but we are not to vote for challengers in primaries, that if a seat is held by a Dem we're not supposed to even THINK of voting for a primary challenger.

So, is it loyalty you want or is it unthinking compliance?

[ehrnst]

75. OK... so you understand that someone who is anti-lgbt, anti-choice, anti-immigrant,

for gutting social security, in favor of destroying medicaid and medicare, AND against SNAP, would NOT be a Democrat, let alone run as one.

Anyone who attacks the basic planks of the party is not going to run as a Democrat. Yes, there will be differences in the strategy and tactics that various Democrats propose in getting to those goals, and that's where primaries come in.

That's where the line is: do they align with the platform in their goals?

If yes, then they are 100% Democrat. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking that a difference in strategy is a difference in goals.

[Demsrule86]

176. And if one snuck in ...why we have Supers to save the day!

[ehrnst]

180. Indeed. Samantha Bee posited that the GOP would give their right nut

for Superdelegates when Trump got nominated.

[Demsrule86]

184. They will feel even more so...when they lose the House...yep...I think they will lose it!

[Demsrule86]

111. yes you support them if they are running against a GOP ...we still get the majority

with such candidates... any GOP can be expected to be worse....but I know of no candidate who fits your description.

[muriel_volestrangler]

70. What the difference between "unconditional support" and "blind allegiance"?

And please don't say "math" again. That would be a meaningless, even insulting, non-answer.

[ehrnst]

76. One can support a candidate 100% without agreeing 100% with their strategy.

If their goals align with the Democratic platform, they have my "unconditional" support, and because I have checked to see if they have aligned with the platform, it's not a "blind allegiance" especially in terms of their strategy proposals. That will be an area where I will support one candidate over another in the primaries.

I don't unconditionally support those who don't feel an obligation to adhere to the Democratic platform goals.

[muriel_volestrangler]

122. "If" is a conditional word. So, no, that's not "unconditional". (nt)

[ehrnst]

131. My defintion of Democrat the Democratic platform

I suppose my condition is that they are Democratic.

Non-democrats aren't someone I can guarantee that I would support.

[treestar]

94. Once the nominee is decided and depending on the state/district

unless you really have a district where the Green can win, what is the point of sitting home and letting the Republican win? The Republican will not vote for any of the stated goals.

[muriel_volestrangler]

123. I don't know. Why, what has that to do with "blind allegiance" or "unconditional support"? (nt)

[Demsrule86]

112. We can and should support Democratic candidates we don't agree with 100%

in a general. Electing a Republican is never an option...and third party voting or staying home is supporting the Republican.

[Demsrule86]

113. We can and should support Democratic candidates we don't agree with 100%

in a general. Electing a Republican is never an option...and third party voting or staying home is supporting the Republican.

[muriel_volestrangler]

124. How is that related to any difference between "unconditional support" and "blind allegiance"? (nt)

[Demsrule86]

132. I don't get your point.

I would say support is support is support...we need it to save this country from fascists. You do understand that from what I see there is an attempted coup underway involving the president of the US , Russia as well as other countries ...lets parse words after we stop them.

[muriel_volestrangler]

134. The point is the OP says "unconditional support" and "blind allegiance" are completely unrelated

so I asked them to explain how that can be. You have replied to me, but without, it seems to me, trying to explain what the difference might be.

If you think "support is support is support", then you seem to be saying the OP doesn't make sense (and that's the position I currently take, until they can explain).

[Demsrule86]

138. Ah...I see. Well just my two cents...I unconditionally (always) vote for the Democrat in the

general. But I recognize flaws in candidates...so it is not blind allegiance...I will give you example. Tim Ryan was 'pro-life' for quite a while, I still voted for him unconditionally (even though I hated his views)...I was not blind to his faults thus it was not blind allegiance. I chose to vote for him with my eyes wide open. He has since changed his views thankfully. Does this make sense?

[muriel_volestrangler]

139. I can see your personal position, though I'm not sure it is what the OP is about

For you, "support" means "voting", while "allegiance" means "falling in line with what a Democratic candidate says", or at least "not criticising them in public". Your distinction between voting and agreement/criticism makes sense, but the OP said nothing at all about voting, and "support" and "allegiance" mean the same thing: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/allegiance

[Demsrule86]

143. I can't speak to the views of the OP...just my two cents.

[MaryMagdaline]

71. I am presumptively for the Democratic Candidate

The presumption can be overcome if the Democrat has no Democratic values. That is rare, however.

[NCTraveler]

77. Power in numbers.

Thanks for the op.

The Democratic Party is far enough to the left that no one has been able to mount a third party charge from the left.

[alarimer]

79. It is the "unconditional" part that bothers me.

Only fools and morons accept anything unconditionally. Constructive criticism is important. This party has drifted rightwards in recent decades and it's time to put a stop to that.

This kind of "with us or against us" mentality is the same mentality Bush used post-911. It was fascistic then and it is now.

Why do you not get how cringe-inducing, how off-putting that kind of rhetoric is?

And it is hypocritical to call for people to support all Democrats no matter what when you have such characters as Dan Lipinski around (who pretty much defines DINO) or the weirdos you sometimes get running as Democrats in places like Texas, as someone mentioned above.

[Demsrule86]

115. Unconditional support of Democrats means a majority.

[Soxfan58]

80. One reason I'm a Democrat

Is my party accepts different idea's and can take constructive criticism. If you can't listen to and debate all sides than you're a Republican.

[Demsrule86]

117. One helps GOP types get elected by criticizing and demanding

Last edited Thu Mar 15, 2018, 11:45 AM - Edit history (1)

perfection (purity) from the Democratic Party and their candidates. We need to support Democrats and leave off the nitpicking.

[TheSmarterDog]

81. We're facing real & true fascists bent on destroying our cities, our country, and our world.

Having one faction supposedly on our side take their ball & go home b/c they don't get their way every time, all the time does not help defeat fascism.

[hueymahl]

82. There is a difference

At least to me, between always voting the Democratic ticket, and having an internal discussion about who is best to run and is most likely to defeat Republicans. I consider this board part of the internal discussion.

Blindly following and failing to have these discussions is part of the reason we are where we are.

[zipplewrath]

83. No

Do you understand my statement has NOTHING to do with blind allegiance to a political party? NOTHING?

I'm looking for the difference. If I can't advocate for change, then what can I do but follow?

[democrank]

84. I just reread reply #79

"Unconditional support" for a political party goes against my principles, just as it did during the Bush administration, just as it does now with Trump and his enablers. My vote, which is based on issues, is earned, not guaranteed.

I've been a Democrat for over five decades, but during that time I've supported at least three Independents: Bernie Sanders, Jim Jeffords, and Angus King. As I understand it, Independents make up over 40% of the electorate, so I'd rather they were with us not against us.So, I try to listen and learn.

A command to unconditionally support Democrats seems far less preferable than offering constructive reasons which end with willing, eager support.That's what we should work on....bringing people to us, not giving them reasons to go elsewhere.

[Demsrule86]

119. Sure...and when we lose and can't recover because we are on the cusp of doing so...maybe you will

think that is an acceptable outcome. I don't.

[treestar]

86. Amen. Sick of it being called blind allegiance.

It is being realistic and the fact that you can't expect agreement on all things and that being one issue is unreasonable.

[Orsino]

102. Because a party that gets nothing but unconditional support never gets any better.

We need our party focused more on our neediest, and on ridding the political system of the money that corrupts us. We should do this via constructive criticism, ideally, but unconditional support only helps the party in the short run.

[Demsrule86]

120. Sure supporting Democrats will of course never never get those things that you advocate (sarcasm).

I mean the GOP is so great on helping folks and all (more sarcasm). Your post shows why we are on the cusp of losing every piece of progressive policy we have attained since Roosevelt.

[CrispyQ]

103. If unconditional support means I can't bitch about the party then count me out.

I vote & I always vote dem. But there is a lot I'm not happy about with the party & I'm vocal about it. I think democratic timidity is partly why we're in the spot we're in. If someone interprets that to mean I'm really a repub or that I'm advocating for repubs, fuck that. I can support the party & still see its flaws & I have the right to call out said flaws.

[Demsrule86]

121. Yeah because telling others how awful the Democratic party is attracts new Democratic voters

like flies to honey (sarcasm). I hate the bitching but the point is even if you bitch (which I think helps no one but the GOP) always vote Democratic.

[Beearewhyain]

106. Are you familiar with the term "Mindguard"? n/t

[Freethinker65]

107. Because I am a critical thinker, unlike many R voters that give unconditional support to their party

Lucky for me, there are enough members of the Democratic Party that welcome me and my very consistent voting for Democratic candidates. I have always voted Democratic for President and national Senate. I NEVER voted for Dan Lipinski when I was in his district (I did a write in). There have been a few other times where lesser office Democratic Candidates have not gotten my vote. I have no regrets.

[Decoy of Fenris]

109. Unconditional support of any political party is morally and intellectually reprehensible.

One of the great freedoms of America is the ability and freedom to actively question and engage in dialogue with our representatives, who we may or may not reject on the basis of their views.

Do you understand my statement has NOTHING to do with blind allegiance to a political party? NOTHING?

That's not unconditional support. That's conditional support, a direct antithesis to the premise of your OP. If you "unconditionally support" the party, you are by extension offering blind allegiance.


Unconditional support is a willingness, perhaps even a doublethinking eagerness, to vote for:

A pedophile
A racist
A murderer
A serial-rapist
A drug-lord
A school shooter
A necrophiliac
A neo-Nazi
An actual Nazi
Actual, real life, living-and-breathing Hitler


so long as they have the magical "D" next to their name. That level of support, "unconditional" support, is indeed blind, for no matter what your imaginary candidate has done, all that matters is that they're a Democrat; the details are irrelevant. Anything else, any metric or standard by which to reject a candidate like that, defaults to "Conditional support", rendering your OP moot.


Your premise is wrong and your opinion is objectionable to the very party you so eagerly support. Even the Republicans, corrupt as they are, would publicly reject this level of Crusade-level zealotry. Your views have no place in the democratic (or Democratic) process if you truly espouse these views, and you do the Democratic party a great disservice by continuing to hammer the "Lockstep or else" line of dialogue.

[louis c]

114. That's why there are primaries

Let me give you an example. You can support the Democrat of your choosing in any primary, at any level. After the primary, we all need to support that nominee. In nearly every race, the Democrat is far more preferable than any Republican.

Not every Democrat thinks alike, and a Democratic candidate, for any office, has to reflect his or her constituents, to some extent.

Is Conner Lamb closer to my beliefs than my Congresswoman, Katherine Clark (D-Mass.)? Of course not. Is Conner Lamb's beliefs closer to my beliefs than Rick Sacconne. Absolutely.

Is Doug Jones closer to my beliefs than my Senators, Elizabeth Warren or Ed Markey. Of course not. Is Doug Jones beliefs closer to my beliefs than Roy Moore. Absolutely.

Every district is different. A moderate Democrat beating a Republican is better than a progressive Democrat losing to a Republican.

I was taught early on that politics is more about math than philosophy. Although both are important, if you don't have the math, you can't implement your philosophy.

[Eliot Rosewater]

137. And if there are two dems running in my district and MY choice is far less likely to win than

the moderate dem she or he is running against, I vote for the moderate dem even though I am so far to the left, so liberal that it would make you scratch your head if you knew what I would do if I was in charge.

But I would vote for that moderate because this is about ONLY one thing

M A T H

The party with ONE more seat than the other not only decides everything, they even decide if a bill is voted on AT ALL.

[louis c]

210. You're Speaking My Language

[Aristus]

116. Are you kidding? Political orthodoxy is like crack to some people.

People who, when this country finally swirls down the drain, will cackle madly to themselves, and congratulate themselves on not having voted for Hillary because of Wall Street, speeches, shrill voice, she's a Clinton, 'not-a-real-Democrat', etc, etc, etc.

[Eliot Rosewater]

135. Yeah, they congratulate themselves for not voting for this imperfect candidate or that imperfect

candidate while the country is literally handed over to Putin.

[muriel_volestrangler]

142. Surely "unconditional support for a political party" is "political orthodoxy"?

the generally accepted beliefs of society at a particular time:

The current economic orthodoxy is of a free market and unregulated trade.
​
the traditional beliefs of a religious group or political party:

She is a strict defender of Catholic orthodoxy.
​
the degree to which someone believes in traditional religious or political ideas:

His orthodoxy began to be seriously questioned by his parish priest.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/orthodoxy
You appear to be confusing 'orthodoxy' and 'heterodoxy'.

[Aristus]

145. I'll accept the lesson in terminology.

If it can be acknowledged that making perfect the enemy of good is causing tremendous deterioration in the powers of citizens to stand up for their rights, and to select representatives who will do the same.

A perfect candidate who has no chance of winning an election is less useful than a flawed candidate who can win, and who endorses a majority of the issues of his/her potential constituents.

[muriel_volestrangler]

151. Making perfect the enemy of good *can* cause huge problems

Whether it currently is is arguable. Have there been many instances where there's been a Democrat in a general election who was too far left to be electable, after defeating a more moderate person in primaries/caucuses?

The extent to which voters have refused to vote for someone because they're too moderate would be more of a problem, I think. Stein did increase her vote from 2012 to 2016, and that might be voters thinking that way. It's hard to quantify voters who decide not to vote.

[Aristus]

155. I was thinking less of Jill Stein, and more of Bernie Sanders.

Sanders was the closest to me in ideology of all the primary candidates in 2016. When Hillary received the nomination, I switched my support to her without hesitation, and with not a single qualm.

But there's no getting around the fact that a number of voters out there, upset that she is not a perfect person, stayed home on Election Day, or peevishly wrote in Sanders' name on the ballot.

A pissy insistence on perfection gave us instead squalor, fecklessness, and incompetence.

[LAS14]

147. What is your distinction between "blind" and "unconditional?" nt

[aidbo]

150. Hint: it probably has something to do with the word unconditional. Nt

[Eliot Rosewater]

156. Yep, some wish to reserve their right to HOLD their NOSES or WHINE about

our candidate.

Which ALWAYS has the effect of reducing voter turnout.

[NurseJackie]

159. I believe that VANITY and EGO are big motivators also. People like Sarandon (and others)...

... are often obnoxiously loud about how they "need to be courted" and "need a reason" to vote for the Democrat. People like Sarandon (among others) like to boast about how their independent-streak is a sign of their "intelligence" and that "sending-a-message-to-Democrats" is more important that actually defeating the Republican.

Many agree, however, that even though folks like Sarandon are pretentiously bragging about their intelligence, they're actually revealing themselves to be arrogant fools. Here she is all giddy and excited about the horrors that await us under a Trump administration. She honestly believes that there's going to be a "revolution" and has so little regard for the most vulnerable among us. (I guess it's a good thing, for her, that she can actually AFFORD the luxury of surviving comfortably in her penthouse without having to worry about healthcare, retirement, housing, employment, safety, etc.)

[Marengo]

167. Heaven forbid some wish to reserve the right not to pretend every candidate with a following D...

Is perfection personified.

[Eliot Rosewater]

171. Still dont get the math, eh.

[Lint Head]

152. I agree. I don't get it. The GOP is nothing but a group of

legally organized criminals. I mean that from a Washington politician standpoint. The average mom and pop who become Republican are the victims of propaganda.

[choie]

158. So if Democrats

for example, were for the Iraq War we're supposed to vote for them? Bullshit! I'm not a damn lemming!

[ehrnst]

182. You mean like Joe Biden did? How about if they voted to continue funding the Iraq War?

Or if they supported the GOP on these positions?

Voting for:

Removing the santions on Russia

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

Protecting 'The Minuteman Project'

gutting oversight for agricultural marketing practices

1.5 trillion dollars worth of military spending on F-35 fighter jets, because it benefits their home state

Military interventions in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq twice along with voting repeatedly for budgets that included funding for the 2003 war, Somalia, and Libya

Voting against:

The Brady Bill

The Victims of Rape Health Protection Act

increased education funding

increased funding for poor students

legislation increasing financial aid

legislation requiring federal agencies to create and enforce anti-sex discrimination policies

legislation banning imports from forced child labor

funding going towards investigations of unfair trade practices

funding for assisting prospective homeowners with AIDS

[Demsrule86]

198. I am assuming you probably voted for Kerry who voted for the Iraq war. And yes, you need to vote

the Democrat.

[choie]

208. so it doesn't matter how

immoral the policy is? Sorry, I have a moral compass - you may think that's being a unicorn snowflake..I couldn't care less.

[Demsrule86]

211. No it doesn't...if kerry is candidate for example which he was you vote for him in the

general...tired of hearing about this really- it was a different time right after 911- because the other choice is a Republican. It is entirely immoral to vote for a Republican,stay home or vote Green (any third party) in a general.