General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I've, and most of us who have been here for quite sometime realize one thing........ [View all]KPN
(17,377 posts)She talked about specific goals/issues (Medicare for All, Citizens United -- getting big money out) relative to candidates (regardless of party affiliation) and their positions. This is about issues, not the label Democrat. The Democrat brand has been a loser in the recent past -- at every level.
Personally, I feel like some here are taking dissent, differences in views about positions and priorities (though I would argue it's not really a priorities question) well ... personally, and/or getting hung up by the fact that someone might feel a particular candidate (who may not always be an establishment Democrat or even a Democrat) better represents their views. Having a problem with that is fine unless you want those people to actually vote for the Democratic Party candidate.
In the end, it will be a about voters' perceptions. Is the candidate someone who genuinely is committed to leveling the playing field and improving the lives of the working poor and middle class (and this crosses all groups -- race, gender, religion, ethnicity, sexual preference, etc.)? It's about enthusiasm for candidates. Having the letter D next to the name on the ballot hasn't been enough in the recent past. Why would it be in the future?
Appeals to vote for the D because it isn't the R, because it will be even worse under the Rs, haven't been enough. Yet that's the basic argument being made in threads like this one; essentially, the same thing it complains about -- threats. It's not an effective argument.