End this fetishization of "unity."

[Jirel]

The Democratic Party is not "unified" behind a candidate after 3 state contests.
The Democratic Party has half a dozen candidates still in the race.

This is literally how it's supposed to work. Unity comes from testing candidates across all the primaries and caucuses, until the convention. If only one is left standing much earlier, fine. If not, fine.

You can not cause people to "unify" behind one candidate by begging for unity. The magic wish fairy doesn't do political races.

"Unity" is a hypocritical dog whistle.

A plea for "unity" actually means, "OMG, I can't stand candidate X, but my second and third favorites are Y and Z. But a lot of people like candidate X and **I** WON'T UNIFY BEHIND X! I'm going to try to get people to abandon X for Y or Z, asserting that, like, *EVERYONE* won't unify behind X... like me." It's childish, not to mention selfish.

If you don't like a candidate, argue about why you don't like what they stand for. Moaning about "unity" means you have nothing better to argue. Or, you don't want to reveal why you really hate candidate X. Hmm.

We unified pretty early in 2016. You know who didn't? The Republicans. A huge slate of candidates nigh unto forever, all of them hating Trump. All of their supporters hating Trump. The bloviating, demented bankruptcy-monkey reality show rapist was the most divisive they'd had in forever. Guess who won? Guess who unified themselves into insanity?

Unity is a double-edged sword. Pressure to unify on a plan leads to groupthink as the plan starts going awry but the united can't let go of the plan because... unity.

So let unity happen as it will. Stop begging for it, threatening for it, fetishizing it. It's not the end - it's a means.

In the spirit of honesty, who will YOU, PERSONALLY not unify behind if they became the nominee?

[Mr.Bill]

1. Problem is, if we do much of what's proposed in your OP,

including answering that last question, it could be construed as a violation of the rules here. For purposes of this website, I'm not complaining about that. I like this place being somewhere I can come to for positive things being said about candidates. If I want to hear negative things there are certainly many other places for that.

That being said, I do agree with much of your OP.

[Turin_C3PO]

2. I agree, the process needs to play out.

Unity will come eventually.

[HelpImSurrounded]

3. HEAR! HEAR!

I will unify ... no, that's not the right word.

I will VOTE for Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Steyer... even Biden. But NOT Bloomberg. I won't cast my vote for a trojan horse.

I will DONATE to Warren & Sanders. They need my doantions. Buttigieg has his billionaires, Steyer is a billionaire and Biden is 'electable'.

I will ADVOCATE for Warren & Sanders. I can see myself advocating for Steyer or Buttigieg, maybe even Klobuchar. Biden doesn't need my advocacy, he's 'electable.'

I will PHONE BANK & DOOR KNOCK for Warren and Sanders because they excite me enough to move into of my discomfort zone. I can't get that excited for Buttigieg, Steyer or Klobuchar. Biden doesn't need my time, he's 'electable.'

If I'm ASKED about Warren or Sanders I will go on at length about their plans and values and how they present a real path for our future. If I'm asked about Steyer, I'll talk climate change. I can probably figure something out for Buttigieg and Klobuchar. If asked about Biden, I'll say "At least he's better than Trump."

So, if you ask me to 'unify' I'll have to ask you what you mean and I bet you won't like my answer.

[Skidmore]

4. "Unity" right now is being

pushed by the Sanders camp which wants to create the illusion that he is the party head. I'm not ready to line up behind someone who I don't believe in and an ideology I think is unworkable.

[Amishman]

5. I always just see the calls for unity as code for 'Give up and let me win'

Unity in politics is a dangerous thing, the world is too complex to have only one point of view.