A word of advice about controlling the Democratic Party message

[BainsBane]

22. I understand there are all kinds of obstacles to running

but it's not necessarily the party apparatus. For many local races, the key contest is within Democrats or Republicans. For example, in a state senate district near me, Ilhan Omar won the primary against a very long-serving Democratic State House member. While the national media didn't pay attention until the GE, it was that primary that determined her election.

Many other local offices are unaffiliated: School board, water commission, etc... Party has nothing to do with those races. While Trump's first foray into politics was the presidency, most people start at the local level.

Part of what bugs me is that people imagine that compelling DUers to adopt their assessment of the election or their particular messaging is that it is based on the absurdity that doing so actually matters. This is a website, not the Democratic Party. As much as some are determined to get, for example, Clinton supporters to pronounce their own primary candidate superior, it is absolutely irrelevant to anything. "We" are not the party. "The Party" doesn't look to DU to decide what to run on. Moreover, if the party is to be competitive nationally it cannot be the monolith that the demands for agreement on messaging seek to enforce. Politicians need to be able to respond to the concerns of their local constituents. What that means in my city of Minneapolis is quite different from a community in rural Texas or Georgia, for example. I have seen Democrats in such districts maligned and, in the case of Mary Landrieu, their loss celebrated. That celebration, as should have been obvious to anyone with the slightest understanding of politics, was really for the GOP picking up a Senate seat and increasing their overall control over government. But the fact is some will always see the Democratic Party as the enemy. One quite wealthy former DUer celebrated Landrieu's defeat and swore he would never vote for Clinton. He preferred Republicans gain control, and he got his wish.

So it's not that I think the current Democratic Party is ideal. Rather, I don't see it as the enemy. For those who reap advantages under GOP rule, they can afford to look down on Democrats that don't meet their standards. Then they can sit back while their taxes go down and enjoy seeing the women, or others, they so resent have their rights stripped away. I have seen people justify any number of right-wing positions under the guise of progressivism.

The election defeat hasn't changed anyone's views. It's simply served as an opportunity to advance their preexisting agenda. That is why we see the ones who insist the party isn't "progressive" enough for them refuse to engage with questions about exit poll data or the defeat of politicians they do approve of (Feingold and Teachout, for example). Part of what is so frustrating is that the proclamation of being sufficiently "progressive" appears to have no ideological consistency and relates more to the long-decided primary fight than any set of policies. It is far too much about the politics of personality. The admiration of Tulsi Gabbard is a key example. Some don't even want to know her position on issues. That she picked the right guy in the primary is all they care about. I find that very difficult to respect.

"We" decide what we want through our votes. And as much as people here resent the fact that others exercise their right to vote in ways that differ from their own, they can damn well deal with it. They get one vote, just like everyone else, regardless of how superior they may feel.