The Democratic Presidential Primary on DU: The Lower Your Expectations, the Happier You Will Be.

[Skinner]

It's starting again: Presidential primary season on Democratic Underground, and all the ugliness it entails.

And along with it, the moderators and I have already begun to receive plenty of correspondence expressing shock, alarm, dismay, you-name-it, about some of the things that have been posted here and/or the manner which the moderators dealt with those things or chose not to deal with those things.

My basic message to all of you is a simple one: Get used to it.

Now allow me to explain why.

Political primaries are, by their nature, extremely ugly. Negative campaigning is the norm, and has been for a long time -- long before Democratic Underground ever existed. Why? Because it works. So campaigns scrutinize their opponents' records and personal lives and anything else, and then they take whatever they find and they twist it to deliberately mislead and paint their opponents in the worst possible light. Then campaign surrogates and the media and paid advertisements and regular supporters across the country repeat the attack over and over ad nauseum, either cynically as a deliberate effort to help "catapult the propaganda," or innocently because they are too gullible or naive to realize that they have been fed half-truths and spin. Inevitably, many supporters on all sides become both assailant and victim in this process, by spreading unfair and misleading attacks against their opponents, while taking offense at the unfair and misleading attacks against their favored candidate. If you believe that Democratic Underground -- a website filled with passionate, opinionated, and highly partisan people -- would be immune to this type of thing, you need to seriously modify your expectations.

Furthermore, blaming the problem on alleged "trolls" or "disruptors" is extremely naive. Yes, there are some trolls and disruptors here; after all this is a discussion forum. But I think it is obvious to any relatively unbiased observer that the atmosphere of partisan ugliness on Democratic Underground persists because relatively-good-people-who-should-know-better-but-don't allow themselves to get caught up in the cycle of recrimination. Perhaps they believe so passionately in their candidate that they think any type of ugliness is justified. Or perhaps they give themselves permission to act in a certain way because they see others doing it. Or perhaps they are not very good at recognizing their own glaring hypocrisy. Whatever the reason, the problem is not "them," the problem is "us." I would suggest that if you honestly believe supporters of other candidates are out-of-control, while supporters of your favored candidate are generally well behaved and fair, then you have a huge blind spot.

I know what some of you are thinking. "But... But... The moderators can make it all better!" We wish. If you believe that I or the moderators can significantly change the inherent ugliness of political primaries, you need to seriously modify your expectations.

Moderators: They're great, but they can't perform miracles. As you know, we have a group of volunteer moderators who help us run this website, mostly by deleting posts, locking threads, and dealing with people who cause problems. I think they do a great job -- they strive to be fair, they deal with countless headaches, they hold you all to some minimum standards of conduct, and they make relatively few mistakes. For their effort, they get paid zero dollars, and they get blamed for all the problems on the website. Without moderators, this place would degenerate into a free-for-all of flaming and personal attacks. It is because of their hard work that Democratic Underground -- despite its many flaws -- enjoys a relatively decent level of discourse compared with other discussion forums. But you need to understand that plenty of disruptive crap is going to slip through the cracks, either because you read it before the moderators delete it, or because nobody alerts so the moderators aren't aware of it, or because your idea of what is inappropriate is different from the consensus of the moderators.

Moderators are frequently called upon to make highly subjective judgment calls where no clear lines exist. For example: Is it over the line to say that a Democratic primary candidate lied? Is it over the line to say that a Democratic primary candidate is a "LYING SCUMBAG!!!111"? What if the candidate really did lie? What if he or she told a "white lie" to avoid hurting someone's feelings? What if he or she didn't outright lie, but said something deliberately misleading? What if the candidate just omitted some relevant facts? These are the types of things that happen in political campaigns -- and on Democratic Underground -- all the time. And because we are dealing in this type of highly subjective judgment, the results will always have some inconsistency. But that won't stop highly partisan supporters of various candidates to try to spin (either deliberately or by subconsciously cherry-picking) the actions of the moderators to make them appear biased against their candidate. I get this type of complaint all the time, and usually the bias comes from the observer rather than the moderator being observed. For example, an outraged supporter of Candidate X will complain that the moderators allowed someone to call Candidate X a liar, but did not permit someone else to call Candidate Y a liar. When I ask for links to the actual posts, inevitably the reality is much more complex and nuanced than the complainer would have me believe. Something like: One post said that Candidate X "embellished his record" and provided specific factual examples, the other post said that Candidate Y was a "serial liar" and "all of his supporters are idiots."

Which brings me to the related point that basically, anything you are told by a hard-core partisan supporter of any candidate should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Yes, there are plenty of candidate supporters who are fair and scrupulously honest and ethical and capable of seeing the world in a way that is not tainted by their love of one candidate. But at the same time, there are plenty of candidate supporters who are not very good at this type of thing. I'm not saying that they are deliberately dishonest -- usually they aren't. But they have a subconscious tendency to give the benefit of the doubt to their own candidate, while accepting uncritically any smear against an opponent. They're human, and this is perfectly normal human behavior. For that reason I try not to hold it against people. But it makes it inevitable that many highly dubious and self-serving versions of reality get passed around as "fact," with uncritical partisan allies simply accepting the half-truths as fully true. Even when the claims were obviously false on their face.

My ultimate point of talking about the moderators is this: They are going to do everything they can to be fair and enforce the rules and hold supporters of all the candidates to a minimum standard of civility. They are going to delete posts, and they are going to lock flame bait, and they are going to shut down threads when they get out of hand, and they are going to sometimes ban people. But many of you are going to hate them for it, because nothing they do could possibly make everyone happy. There are too many people here with wildly varying expectations. You would be wise to accept right now that the moderators' judgment is not going to match your own.

We do have some ideas for dealing with the primaries. I've already written too much, so I'll keep this part brief. I just want you to know that we do have some new ideas this time around for dealing with the primaries. Some of them are good ideas, and should have a moderate positive impact. But I don't want to get your hopes up, because no matter what we do, it is not going to satisfy everyone. In fact, we probably won't satisfy a majority of people here. The sooner you accept that fact, the happier you will be.

And don't forget that if you ever get annoyed by this place, you are welcome to take breaks. In fact, I would encourage you to do so. I do sometimes, and I find it very helpful for my own mental well-being. It is easy to lose perspective if you spend too much time here. Remember: It's just a message board.

Skinner
DU Admin

[saltpoint]

1. Sorry, David. That's a longwinded cop-out.

It's your show. You posted the rules.

[Bucky]

165. Old Crusoe, again you're going soft on terror, like all your DINO ilk, & fluorodating our water, too

Hey, did I win the gratuitous smear-attack award? I thought that was a good one.
. :)

[Clarkie1]

166. I know feel Edwards is being unfairly picked on. He's not.

Yes, many people here have a problem voting for a man who values a $400 haircut, because that tells us something about his values.

Yes, many people here have a problem with a candidate who knew lies were being told to the American people (based on what Durbin has said) yet voted for a co-sponsored a resolutiion that was politically expedient for him.

Yes, many people here have a problem with a candidate who starts a ridiculous campaign to tell good Demcratic Senators (who are actually doing something useful for the Party) to send a bill back "again and again" when we have a bare majority and no votes to overide.

Yes, many here have a problem with a candidate that seems more interested in attacking Democrats (as evidenced in said ad) than Republicans.

Yes, many of have a problem with "I'm sorry" on issues of war and peace.



Get used to it.

[lpbk2713]

2. Thanks for the advice.

I remember it well as I'm preparing to fasten my seat belt.

[Robbien]

3. First. You guys are great

I would ask that much of the primary debate be held in GD Politics instead of GD. It gives political junkies some place to go at DU without getting hit with all the infighting.

[Skinner]

5. We are going to do that.

We are trying to resist for as long as possible, but eventually we're going to segregate it.

[sandnsea]

10. Why resist?

What's the argument for not segregating it sooner rather than later?

[Skinner]

15. It is our feeling that segregating it has a tendency to intensify it.

But we realize that we cannot put it off forever.

[sandnsea]

38. Ah, well that's possible

At some point though, I think there will be more and more people, and they will pick one forum or the other to spread their joy. I guess you'll be looking for that tipping point, from what I hear you saying. I don't think it's all that bad yet, probably around September I imagine.

[hfojvt]

91. I hope it's not put into GD:Politics

even though I know that's the origin of that forum. GDP has become it's own sub-community in the interim and probably would not like being invaded by primary wars any more than the Lounge would. This is just my feeling though, and I am a stranger in that strange land.

[saltpoint]

93. I like that suggestion, but would personally recommend that it be

put in a brand new forum altogether, hosted by and moderated by DU's administrators. Who better?

They could all be hosting it at once, or, if it's someone's bowling night or something, maybe only two would be available. Or even just one -- whatever circumstances may dictate.

It would need a name, of course. I propose SLAM AND SLIME. For me at least, it is catchy and alliterative, and prompts association with the lowered expectations DU posters are now sanctioned to have. It shouldn't be difficult to graft character assassinations of Democratic candidates into a forum with that name and intent.

Who's on board?

[cboy4]

97. I'm on board my good friend

:hi:

[saltpoint]

100. -- -- hey there. Some true blue steel and gumption from the Golden State.

:toast:

:hi:

:dem:

:hug:

[hfojvt]

98. perhaps the lower expectations should have been there from the start

My introduction to DU was replies like:

"Why use english when you can use German like a good little Nazi? 11-25-04

Shut the fuck up. You have no clue about living in poverty. I'm done. 12-29-04

I still say you're full of shit and not telling the entire truth about your economic situation. ibid"

And a fair amout of other vitriol. Curiously that seems to have dropped off after I got over a thousand posts. Perhaps the old-timers just say "oh, him again :eyes:" and newbies are loathe to attack somebody with a large post count.

Anyway, neither those posts nor those posters have been deleted.

I think he made several points in his OP

a) the moderators are unpaid and can be overwhelmed, but still do a decent job
b) not everybody who crosses the line is a troll - some are passionate and/or misinformed Democrats
c) things are going to get busier and crazier during primary season - get ready for it
d) it's not straight-forward to decide what or who should stay and what should be deleted

He has previously posted that there seems to be an optimum number of moderators, that if you go beyond that it does not work as well. Perhaps a few more moderators during primary season would help. Or raising the requirement for OPs to 500 or something. That would reduce the ability of new-Trolls to disrupt.

[saltpoint]

101. I can't make an executive decision in your behalf but I want to,

especially regarding the individual who referenced the Nazis. I would consider that an abominable affront.

I have no problem with the mods 99% of the time. Generally I find people on DU to be exceptionally bright and generally affirming, with several extraordinarily kind folks delightfully included in the mix.

I'm also a Democrat of long standing and I don't like it when Democrats -- for whom many of us have worked very hard -- are pointlessly debased.

Not disagreed with. Debased.

You didn't deserve the treatment you received in those early threads.

[chimpymustgo]

106. Old Crusoe, I hear you with the "Slam and Slime" forum. Really that crowd deserves its own space.

They've earned it, so far. And combine that with the "Lies and Innuendo About YOUR Candidate" forum, and we'll have just the place for all those "lowered expectations".

I much prefer civil, truthful discourse.

[saltpoint]

115. I had this great government teacher in high school. He asked us to

read more stuff than we'd even HEARD of, and we bellyached about THAT for awhile, until gradually we realized that the booklist and articles and so on were pretty good.

Not as good as a SpiderMan comic or some other selections, maybe, but for schoolwork -- not bad!

And we started to like a few of them, and finally we got halfway familiar with the themes. This was high school, and there were a lot of competing ideas in our heads, but this teacher put us together, so to speak.

Out of that challenge, we got to be a little better at being citizens. It was a mixed group, but after a point of the year, when someone said "Margaret Sanger" for example, everyone knew who that was. And we could kind of put together a conversation based on it.

I'd love to see that a little more on DU. You and many others can throw into a board like that, and the level shoots up, WAY higher up than when my high school class was just beginning. We've got the potential there to make it the best there is.

[chimpymustgo]

120. Funny what HIGHER expectations can evoke. Sounds like a stimulating, enlightening class

and a model for teaching and learning. Yes, I cast my ballot for a more thoughtful, more civil, more highly evolved DU. We're Democrats, and an unruly bunch, to be sure. But don't we look for the best in others - and ourselves?

[saltpoint]

124. ...and use that as a beginning point. Yes.

That instructor gave me a copy of a history book. It finally fell to bits a few years ago, but I had it on the shelf all that time.

[rosesaylavee]

107. How 'bout we call it Primary Wars?

Call it what it is. I joined after the 2004 election so I missed all that fun. If it is more intense than DU is naturally - whoa.

[SharonRB]

133. That's when I joined, too

I missed all the fun last time, but I've heard an awful lot about it. Fasten your seatbelts!

[rosesaylavee]

134. Wooo hoo.

Not.

[blondeatlast]

149. It is. That's why GD:P was broken off from GD and it actually got worse than GD.

Fasten your seat belt, wear a helmet, and some vinyl, if not fireproof, clothing. We DID call it the primary wars back in the day...

Me? I'm staying OUT!


That being said, the mods and admins did a spectacular job.

[LSK]

139. I like this idea too

[Tom Rinaldo]

157. Who decides what is character assasination and what is valid questioning?

Part of what Skinner said above should be taken to heart. They is often Us.

Oh I don't mean you or me Old Crusoe, you and I would never write in a thougtless or unfair manner. When we have a question to ask concerning a perceived inconsistency in one of the candidates that we are being asked, as good Democratic primary voters, to weigh supporting compared to someone else, you and I are always fair and reasonable, but others aren't. Isn't that the way it always is? If only OTHERS would play by the correct rules then WE could have a decent discussion here. WE know the difference between a valid argument and a slam. And of course by agreeing that you and I are among the reasonable ones who deserve to be protected from slammers and slimers who deserve to rot in their own segregated hole, I mean by extension to include all of your friends and my friends on this board, because of course you and I wouldn't have them as friends if they weren't reasonable people, unlike some others around here.

Having thought it through some more forget what I started out saying on this post. You are right of course.

[saltpoint]

159. You're allowed to miss points, but it makes your position less effective.

[sandnsea]

6. Second

I keep waiting for that rule to kick in.

[Old and In the Way]

4. It's deja vu all over again!

Never let it be said that we can't trash our own as well as the Republicans do. Luckily, we only have another 15 more months or so to put up with it.

[Adelante]

7. Well said, Skinner

This has been on my mind this week.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. The circus has come to town and "gotcha" politics is in the center ring.

IMO, it goes with the territory.

"Getting into politics is like stepping in dogshit." Line from the "Motorcycle Diaries".

Since I've been following politics (a long time) I've yet to see a "dignified" campaign and don't expect anything to change this time.

[porphyrian]

9. Heh, I'll kick that. - n/t

[Cameron27]

11. Bravo!!!

:toast:

[Kali]

12. I enjoyed that.

Don't always catch your messages because I spend too much time in the lounge, but thanks.

[IA_Seth]

13. "you need to seriously modify your expectations"

"If you believe that Democratic Underground -- a website filled with passionate, opinionated, and highly partisan people -- would be immune to this type of thing, you need to seriously modify your expectations."

Hallelujah.

Might I add that questioning stances and candidate judgment is what we should doing right now.

[saltpoint]

14. As long as you're sanctioning "ugly," then, I guess the anti-Israeli

posts are greenlighted as well?

[bonito]

22. Not the way you put it

and I know it not intentional, but i don't think anybody here wants to through Israel under the bus .

[saltpoint]

23. The admins are mighty swift when they delete an anti-Israel post, but

they leave anti-Democratic ones up for hours, then days, then more days at a time.

Seems like the rules ought to be fairly applied -- if they're to mean anything at all.

[Skinner]

27. This argument is lame.

If someone posts a Jew-baiting attack against a Democratic candidate, we'll delete that, too.

[saltpoint]

28. And a great deal more swiftly than a non-ethnic attack agains a Democrat,

isn't that so?

My argument isn't lame at all. If a post is deleted for its offensive content, its offensive quotient should not be ethnocentric.

"Offensive" and "disruptive" don't have ethnic asterisks.

[mopinko]

33. i think you need to re-read the op.

really.

[saltpoint]

35. Actually, I read OPs on the boards better than some folks read their

private emails.

[Behind the Aegis]

37. LOL!

Take a stroll to I/P land...there you can get your FILL of anti-Israeli posts! Do not confuse "anti-Israeli" with "anti-Semitic!"

[saltpoint]

39. I think the original poster knows exactly what I mean.

Thanks for your erudition, though.

[Behind the Aegis]

46. It appears, from his response, you were not clear.

Calling a candidate "stupid" or even a "traitor" may be unseemly and possibly even anti-Democratic, but calling a candidate "beholden to Israel" because the candidate is a Jew or spoke to a group of Jews crosses into bigotry. That is why those comments are more quickly deleted. While calling someone "stupid" isn't nice or productive, calling someone a "kike" is worse in my opinion, and thankfully, in the opinion of the moderators and administrators of this board.

[saltpoint]

50. The OP's ethnic heritage and mine have common crosspaths in

Europe, is my very best hunch.

I was serious in my praise of your erudition.

[Beaverhausen]

16. Thanks, as always!

:hi:

[blm]

17. Also good to remind that criticizing candidates DURING the primary is fair game, BUT,

once the nominee is chosen, any Democrat posting here has to be clear that the Democratic candidate needs the support of this forum.

Hopefully, the ENTIRE Dem party will choose to side with the nominee instead of showing support for BushInc this time around.

[IChing]

18. Are you trying to start a FLAME WAR with this thread?

:sarcasm: :rofl:

I am shocked by your usual common sense and wisdom.

[SmokingJacket]

19. And it's my least favorite kind of flame war, too.

It's hard to watch people who *basically agree* act like sworn enemies. Once the circular firing squad begins, I'm off to the craft message boards...

[Longhorn]

21. Don't forget, we have our own craft group here on DU!

No flame wars there, either! :hi:

[SmokingJacket]

25. Really??

I'll have to pay a visit. :hi:

[saltpoint]

29. Now all we need is a pro-Democratic one. That would be great.

[merh]

76. I don't understand why it bothers you that we criticize the candidates.

Our goal is common, the best person for the job. Some of the candidates don't want to be honest regarding their records and past, they'd rather put their best foot forward and be judged on their campaign slogans than their actions.

Your "don't criticize a dem" is just wrong. Until a candidate is chosen, their past and their present are to be scrutinized. I want the best, not the one with the most money.

JMHO, but "you are either with us or against us" doesn't work well here.

[saltpoint]

79. With the OP's official endorsement today of lowered expectations,

we're all free to suit up for the shitstorm.

So your ethusiasm for that stategy is today realized. Rejoice!

[merh]

103. Yeah, forgive me for not being part of the "You're eithe with us or Against us" Crowd

Funny thing about it, it's just human nature.

BTW - Fred Thompson said he was getting the flack from repugs digging into his past and trying to find dirt.

Dems aren't alone on this and to think they are or it is beneath the party is for the birds.

If the candidates can't hold up to our scrutiny then they don't belong in the race cause the repugs are far worse.

[saltpoint]

105. If it was my call, merh, you're forgiven for everything you've ever done on this

earth.

I'm concerned about Fred Thompson, truth be told. He's just not my cup of tea. I don't like Republicans generally, but I'm growing to dislike Fred Thompson much more specifically in recent weeks.

I hope he decides not to seek the presidency. For me, anyway, he would be a subtraction for essential goals of our party by attempting to dominate his own party.

And I want our party to win.

[merh]

118. I want our party to win, but I don't want someone to win that is

no better than they are. I don't want the dems to do to this nation what the repugs did, control so much that they don't care about governing, only the power for the power. And god forbide, I don't want the corporate whores to do everything they can to win, owing the corporations and forsaking the citizens.

Thompson hasn't a chance, but he can split their party. The base like faces over substance and Thompson is not about the "party power" as he is the old conservative ways.

[saltpoint]

121. Well, we're going to whomp 'em a good one in November 08.

You just watch.

[merh]

123. watch - I want a hand in the whomping

voting and helping as I can :thumbsup:

[Longhorn]

20. Good points, well written, as always. Thanks!

Every time I read something from you, Skinner, it makes me proud to be a part of this board. :yourock:

[Carolina]

24. Thank you, Skinner

for this post and all you do!

[juajen]

26. Hey, I tried taking a break

If a break is over two hours, I didn't make it. Oh, well. Guess it's much like a daily vitamin. Thank you for this forum.

[DinahMoeHum]

30. Skinner, my attitude is: the worst Democrat in the current crop. . .

of POTUS candidates is a THOUSAND TIMES BETTER than the best Republican.

That said, I just don't get involved in the numerous pissing matches going on here.

And if anyone asks which candidate I'm supporting, I tell them: NO ONE, FOR NOW, I'm saving
my campaign contributions for the Congressional and Senatorial races.

:kick:

[zanne]

34. I think we'll all vote for a Democrat, regardless.

I'm not a big Hillary fan, but if she wins the primary, I'll definitely vote for her. We have two other candidates (actually three) that have a chance in hell, too. I'm not ruling anybody out.

[saltpoint]

36. I have a neighbor who wishes Howell Heflin had lived to be president.

Life's full of setbacks, isn't it?

[Buns_of_Fire]

54. I'm still a Pat Paulsen supporter

Okay, so he's dead. Big deal. He's still a lot better than who's running things now.

[saltpoint]

55. Dead or not, Paulsen was a pretty ok guy. I met him once in Cleveland.

I watched him be extraordinarily kind to an older woman who was at that moment in clear need of rescue and help.

He left his adoring entourage and went over to help her.

He was a class act.

[Buns_of_Fire]

83. I never had the privilege, but that was my impression

Sometimes you just sense things about a person. The older I get, the more I'm learning to trust that sense.

[saltpoint]

84. Well, make sure it isn't wisdom gained for no purpose. I mean, in

this new era of lowered expectations, one can't relay on experience and insight, after all.

It's been tried on these very boards -- but too often to no satisfactory ends.

I just feel you're right-on on Mr. Paulsen. The humor was enjoyable -- but the serious person he was rates very, very high.

[zanne]

148. Dead is OK.

After all, some people are trying to amend the constitution to let Schwarzeneger run for president.

[saltpoint]

31. Your post doesn't address the fundamental unfairness exhibited almost

daily on your own boards.

I think that's the essence of my complaint.

And were they my boards, I would take a proactive course. But since they're yours, I'm confused as to why you would sanction the blatant attacks on Democrats on one hand while on the other posting your "respect" threads and purporting to support "progressives and Democrats."

Nothing in your post here today addresses that disparity in any meaningful way.

[annabanana]

62. (Why do you hang out at a "fundamentally unfair" board?)

There must be a more amenable environment for your sensibilities...

[saltpoint]

77. One registers or one does not. If the administrator is endorsing

"lowered expectations" and urging everyone to "get used to it," the environment is his creation.

If you are concerned, you might ask the question directly to the person running the show. I'm just one guy posting. The boss works upstairs.

[mzmolly]

95. I think you make a good point Old Crusoe.

Just jumping in to say I appreciate your perspective on this.

I hope some thought will be given to your post. :hi:

[saltpoint]

104. Hello, mzmolly, and thank you. I continue to read what you have

to say on DU and while you know what you're talking about on a variety of issues, I was especially impressed with your treatment of one poster in particular on a recent R/T thread -- your approach was outstanding. I wish mine had been as good.

All good wishes.

[InvisibleTouch]

153. He wasn't "sanctioning blatant attacks"...

...he was saying that they will happen, as they have in the past, and that the mods can't always keep up with them to everyone's satisfaction. And that the decisions will not always be to each person's individual taste.

Have you ever applied to be a moderator here? If not, why not give it a shot? If you feel that you can do so much better, why not put that conviction into action for the benefit of the whole site?

[saltpoint]

160. The OP offers a generic solution to a rampant problem on his own site.

It hasn't worked in the past and it isn't going to work now.

The issue isn't the difficulty presented by different intra-party viewpoints.

The issue is whether at a gathering on your own home you would permit some groups of guests to behave like jerks to other groups of guests, and if not, whether you'd invite them back for the next gathering.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

32. Lower your expectation, the happier you will be...

And let me say that it's worked for my wife...

Ba-dum-dum

Thanks! You're a great audience! I'll be here all week...

But seriously, Skinner, you need to give some extra lovin' to anybody who volunteers to be a moderator during the next year. It's going to be a long twelve months!

For the rest of DU, you need to develop a thicker hide and learn to ignore some of the worst of the attacks. In addition to having a lot of intelligent, opinionated people, we've got a few morans, and a troll or two. You'll learn soon enough that there are some people with whom you can't have an intelligent conversation. Avoid them or ignore them.

[zanne]

40. My mother used to say.....

"Expect the worst and you'll never be disappointed". Yup. That's how I happened.

[zanne]

42. My mother used to say.....

"Expect the worst and you'll never be disappointed". Yup. That's how I happened.

[Longhorn]

43. Okay, my students (who are taking a quiz right now) must be wondering why I'm grinning!

That was funny! I'll try to catch your act again! :hi:

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

49. Dripping Springs, Texas?

I don't even need a punch line!

[KG]

41. when are you going to direct candidate discussions into its own forum

so GD can get back to discussing important stuff like breast-feeding, circumcision, and tweety's man-crushes? :hi:

[madfloridian]

44. And we keep lowering expectations...until ..

we accept less than truth posted. I see your point, but the lowering of expectations is going to be hard.

[saltpoint]

47. Yes. But when it's officially sanctioned by the admins, then I guess it

must be ok.

At least that's the take I'm getting from the OP.

Puzzlin' evidence.

[Zomby Woof]

45. It's at least a week old by my estimates

Could be even older, lol.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x766336

[iamahaingttta]

48. Lower my expectations - good advice!

Just like I'll have to lower my expectations to actually vote for any of the clowns who are running.

[saltpoint]

51. Just be glad you're not a Howell Heflin Democrat.

I mean, sheesh -- the guy's dead.

[EFerrari]

59. LOL.

:rofl:

Did anyone mention we have a craft group?

[saltpoint]

61. Excellent photo. LOL!

And just wondering... is there a crossbow group?

I've always had a handkering to make a crossbow.

[EFerrari]

64. The people in that craft group can probably help you knit one

in a coupla hours. They're amazing. :)

[saltpoint]

66. LOL!. They look damned capable, at that.

We Americans are an industrious bunch, aren't we?

Do you see why I might like Petula Clark AND Lou Reed?

[EFerrari]

69. Just don't go all Barry Manilow on me.

lol

:hi:

[saltpoint]

71. Rest easy. As we speak, I've arranged for heartless thugs to

kidnap Barry and dispense with his functional citizenship.

He's threatened our republic far too long as it is.

:hi:

[Buns_of_Fire]

86. Do not trifle with the Big Barry, por favor

After all, he is a Democrat.

I hope I will not be forced to post the complete lyrics to "I Write the Songs" in the near future.

(I say this, of course, while listing to Jimi Hendrix. Where did I put that tie-dye headband, anyway?)

[saltpoint]

88. Barry Manilow and Jimi Hendrix in one post. Now dammit, that's impressive.

Speaking I believe for quite a few of us, please do not post the lyrics to "I Write the Songs." That would prompt a pukefest of biblical proportion.

But if you'd play us Jimi's version of "All Along the Watchtower," a hail of roses will blanket your path.

That songs burns into History, and stays there forever.

[Buns_of_Fire]

117. You got it.! (Although I've always preferred "Foxy Lady")

Next week, though, you may see ABBA, Charlie Parker, The Who, Eric Clapton, and Vivaldi all referenced together (I'm working on it, although it tends to make blood run out my ears).

But before I let this get too far afield, let me offer my complete support to Skinner, Elad, and Earl. Guys, this is your house. You set the rules as you see fit. I'll try not to eject any of my Precious Bodily Fluids on the carpet. We're setting into the nastiest part of the whole electoral process, and I know we're all going to be infused with extra amounts of testosterone and/or estrogen. So be it. Let the games begin.

(But are you sure you don't want to hear a few bars of "I Write The Songs"?)

[DemBones DemBones]

138. On tv the other night, I saw two guys make crossbows out of paper, which

is pretty crafty.

It was a show called "MythBusters" or something like that and the myth they were addressing was that a prison inmate allegedly killed another inmate by building a crossbow out of newspaper and homemade glue and using arrows made out of a plastic meal tray. ( I'm thinking that the guards would notice if a guy kept his meal tray, but maybe not. I'm also thinking this is not good educational TV for inmates!)

One guy made a really nice crossbow, the other guy went with a nontraditional approach and it didn't work well at all. The good one was able to fire the projectile 10 or 15 feet and it penetrated the wax model 2"

Maybe we should all make paper crossbows before the primaries really get going. . .

[saltpoint]

143. Paper crossbows? Wow. I've never heard of that.

If we decide to make some ourselves, we could use the stolen Gore ballots from 2000 in Florida.

Should be plenty for everyone.

[RiverStone]

52. When the dust settled on all our passionate bantering....

Last Fall, what did we have? We had a sweeping DEMOCRATIC VICTORY from coast to coast!

What makes DEMS different from those that frequent Freeperville? We do not march in lock-step. Our diversity is what makes us...well, BLUE!

Politics is a rough business; but when the rubber meets the road - almost all of us will unite behind the nominated DEM and pool our resources and opinions and kick rethug butt (again).

I don't mind the arguing one bit, it is - after all a Democracy! :)

Good perspective Skinner - thanks.

[TahitiNut]

53. It'd be nice if ....

:shrug:

Imagine.

[John Q. Citizen]

56. Hear hear! Well said and lots of god advice. n/t

[annabanana]

57. "probably won't satisfy a majority of people here"

I think you should check back 8 months after the General Election. I predict that "the majority of people here" will think you did pretty damn well under the circumstances.

[Cameron27]

70. I predict I'll be in that group!

Yea DU!! Yea Skinner!! Yea Mods!!

[solara]

58. Thanks, Skinner.. I appreciate everything you all do here.

Personally, I think it is WAY too early in the primary process to jump on the bash-wagon, if, indeed, there is ever a right time for that kind of 'argument'.

I believe we can support our candidates with fervor, but no need for anger. No candidate is going to be perfect. Yeah, we should focus on getting one of our candidates elected, but also it's important to just 'say no' to the "usual bash and trash" tactics that have permeated "normal politics" during the last 6 years.

It is clear to me that the climate of 'ugly' has been encouraged by the Republicon Party and that is to their advantage to poison and undermine our political system by lowering the bar to their Neo-Con standards,

"When arguing with an idiot, make sure he or she is not doing the same"..I don't know who said it, but it works for me.

INVESTIGATE IMPEACH INDICT IMPRECATE INCARCERATE :banghead:

[saltpoint]

60. I would like to see the admins extend an honorary DU registration to

Philip Roth, Elie Wiesel, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, and Maya Angelou.

Even if they feel they don't have the time to post on DU, I think the gesture would be very nice.

[in_cog_ni_to]

63. HA! I'm already a step ahead of you! Just bought my brand spankin' new SUPER INDUSTRIAL

FLAME RETARDANT PRIMARY SUIT! I'm ready! :scared:

[annabanana]

67. This?

[in_cog_ni_to]

75. YEPPERS! Sears Roebuck SPECIAL! Guaranteed for LIFE or your money back!

Except mine is Blue, of course.:)

[saltpoint]

65. Can someone please give me a hand here?

I can't remember the function key for "Lowered Expectations." F6? F11?

I'm drawin' a blank.

[annabanana]

68. here. . . .

[EFerrari]

72. And here.

[saltpoint]

73. I don't get the part about the tractor. What's the deal with that?

[Imperialism Inc.]

74. Any chance we'll be seeing any DU member vs member formal debates?

It may not help with the brawls but I am betting it would raise the quality and ease of access to quality information on the site.

Written form, potentially even team vs team, with a couple days per response for each side.

Here's an example from another site.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=17
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=4260364&postcount=13

[avrdream]

82. Nice idea, the formal debate thing.

There is a LOT of great wisdom at this board and I would love to see it put to such good use.

[IronLionZion]

78. I'm with you Skinner 100%. Best of luck nt

[madokie]

80. expect the worst and never be disappointed,

good advice from my mother to me as a child.

[saltpoint]

81. Sounds like you're covered for life, then, madokie.

No worries whatsoever.

You can't lower expectations any lower than "worst."

[Lone_Star_Dem]

85. Herding cats is never easy under the best of circumstances.

Herding a bunch of passionate, verbose, opinionated and occasionally perhaps just a tad biased cats in an essentially anonymous forum where they need never see their peers faces, is an invitation for insanity.

Oh, and saying something deliberately misleading is either a lie by confusion or omission, depending on the circumstances. But still a lie none the less. The act of lying is created when the intention is to blur or hide the truth.

Many obstinate truth-mongers indulge in this dissipation, imagining that if they speak no lie, they lie not at all. Mark Twain

[Cameron27]

87. Good links from good sources...mandatory.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

92. Oh, yes, I definitely agree.

Back up what you say with a credible source if you expect it to be taken seriously. That was the first rule I was taught on DU.

However, my impression of what Skinner was saying in his post was that he was speaking of a candidate's lies as if they were a proven point, but still subject to appraisal due to the reason behind or type of lie told. There's a great differences in lying to spare a persons feelings, the white lie as it's called, and concealing a lie in a web of misleading words, for example. Actually, what I said was mostly my dryly humorous way of pointing out an example of how opinionated people are, by offering up my own opinion on the matter.

Edit: typo's/errors

[Cameron27]

112. Gotcha

:thumbsup:

(completely lost track of this thread lol)

[Cleita]

89. I have found the ignore and hide a thread functions very

helpful during the primaries. When they are over then I can un-ignore those on my ignore list although I have found in the past that most of them have received tombstones in the interim.

[unc70]

102. I try to avoid Ignore / Hide

While Ignore and Hide may help me (or you) to avoid getting caught up in the 100th thread rehashing some RW talking point, it can cause problems for others who might be new to DU or who are seeing us through Google, et al.

My plan for surviving is to "dismiss" the repeated postings by about 15-20 posters who repeatedly post the same attack/concern/issue about how they could never support candidate X because of Y, even if the discussion is unrelated to X or Y. If someone repeatedly posts something attacking any of our candidates, even after various efforts by others to debunk the attack, then I will alert.

I think we have a great field of candidates, I find a lot to like about each of them, and for each candidate I have at least a couple of issues/positions where I disagree. I will gladly support whichever candidate we choose. And I will do my part, here and elsewhere, to help repel the ongoing RW attacks on them. I hope I can do my part to keep DU as civil as we reasonably can.

A hearty thank you for everyone's efforts that make DU such an incredible site.

[bling bling]

90. One of the things I like most about this site

is how totally unpretentious and down to earth the admins are. Most sites never let you forget who's running it. People can add their .02 but you're always aware *whose* site it is. You guys run this board in a style that makes people feel like it's our site.

That's good management and good leadership.

I see you wisely anticipated that some people wouldn't be happy with your OP but personally I enjoyed it and appreciated it and thought it was perfectly stated.

[Jersey Devil]

94. Well! I too am shocked, alarmed and dismayed, plus 'you name it'

I strenuously object to any more of it!! These 'disruptors' are making this website a travesty. It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham!!! :crazy:

[Danger Mouse]

96. I'm already getting my flame-retardant suit ready.

It will be an ugly ugly year, I think. I, for one, think you guys all do a FANTASTIC job of keeping order.

[TahitiNut]

99. Expectation = "premeditated resentment"

:evilgrin:

[H2O Man]

108. Does neatness count? n/t

[TahitiNut]

127. I hope sew.

(combing hair) :silly:

[rosesaylavee]

109. Thanks for all that you and the other admins do here!

This is overall a very wonderful place to be involved in. I have learned a lot and many times just knowing that DU is here has kept me sane and hopeful the last couple years I have been a member.

Whatever you need to do to keep the coming primary insanity contained - I am all for it and will try my best to not to contribute to it.

[pa28]

110. The mods can't police everything.

But I don't think we need to just accept it the way it is. Posters could certainly be more accountable for their own conduct and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a little more from ourselves as members.

The worst part of the 2004 primary had to be the recycling of dubiously sourced Republican talking points against individual candidates by Democrats for use against Democrats. If nothing else can we at least stop doing that?

[chimpymustgo]

122. Yes. That actually sets the bar relatively, but reasonably low. Lose the Republican hit jobs.

That shouldn't be too much to ask of Democrats.

[crispini]

111. Error: You've already recommended that thread.

:thumbsup:

[roseBudd]

113. I chill during primary season because I will vote for a slice of bologna if it's a D...

I really wanted Wes Clark in '04 because I thought he was the most viable candidate. He was Jim Webb before we knew who Jim Webb was. I had no particular reason to be disappointed when Kerry got the nom, but I was worried because I sensed that Kerry had no charisma. It sounds shallow but I couldn't warm up to his long face and hound dog look. Like it or not we will probably never have a short fat bald ugly president. That is just a fact.

My criteria is a candidate who can win because almost is only in horseshoes.

[Cleita]

114. That pretty much sums up whom I will vote for too, any Democrat on the ticket.

You said, "Like it or not we will probably never have a short fat bald ugly president." Maybe this is not a bad thing or we could have Karl Rove for President.

[BlooInBloo]

116. I find Atrios' Axioms For Primary Season sometimes useful in this context....

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_17_archive.html#116645724148144035

Some Notes on Primary Season

1) Your favorite candidate is the only one who can win.

2) Your favorite candidate is the only one who will truly get behind a progressive agenda.

3) Other candidates are part of some nefarious conspiracy to destroy your candidate.

4) Supporters of other candidates are motivated by groupthink.

5) Supporters of other candidates are operating in bad faith and arguing dishonestly.

6) "Powerful" bloggers shouldn't be "biased."

7) Primary season is the silliest season of all.

[pacalo]

119. Whew...

I was in my Emily Latella mode when I first glanced at the OP title this morning & thought it might be about dissing the Democratic candidates as a whole. I didn't notice Skinner's name as author until now.

That is all.

Never mind.

[saltpoint]

125. The late Gilda Radner will be making a cameo appearance on DU

a bit later this evening.

Well, a quote of hers will be.

[pacalo]

146. Hiya, Old Crusoe!

Hope you have a terrific day today! :hi:

[saltpoint]

161. Couldn't be better. The Wells Fargo wagon is always just around the corner!

[lonestarnot]

126. Lower expectations. Wasn't that a Sat. Night Live skit? Funny too!

[pacalo]

147. So glad there are Emily Latella fans here.

I've got so much on my plate these days, I don't know which end is up. Some days I have time only for briefly scanning through DU to read the latest news, & there have been a number of times that I've misread something -- talk about embarrassing. I really should change my user name to Emily Latella. :hi:

[Rex]

128. Your candidate needs to lose, so mine can win.

Yup, you hit the nail on the head Skinner. And to all those that have a thin skin, better not read too much GD for the next year, try the Lounge. It will be easier on your 'outrage' level. Trust me on this.

[GeorgeGist]

129. If I recall, Bush is the master of low expectations.

I don't think it's wise to emulate his success.

[saltpoint]

130. On the near-most penny there is engraved the image of the last

good Republican.

[madfloridian]

137. I have been lowering my expectations all day.

It ain't working. Must just be a very bad day.

[saltpoint]

163. It could be that there's a discipline to it, like how the Buddhists

mediate or something.

Anyway, I plan to look into it this weekend. I'm assuming that the lower the expectations the higher the happiness.

Hell of a deal.

[bvar22]

131. Our Champion will be forged in fire!

Let the games begin.
Don't bring bullshit, lies, or unsupported speculation to the contest.
Don't forget the First Rule of Fightclub.

Vote and campaign straight DEMOCRAT after the Primaries.

[Adelante]

158. There's the DU spirit!

:D

[SharonRB]

132. Thanks, Skinner

I wasn't around yet for the last primary season, but I've heard enough about it to be ready for whatever comes.

The only thing I disagree with is your last sentence -- DU is so much more than a message board. It's a community.

[Forkboy]

135. You really should make this a sticky post

For the next 16 months.

I don't know any of the real details behind the scenes but I know being a mod is one of the most thankless jobs on the internets,and they worry about a lot of things that people assume they ignore,or even worse,are biased against.

Thanks for posting this,and thanks to the mods.

[cascadiance]

136. Perhaps we can take a step back and praise our energy in this!

I think one reason why we have such heavy arguments is that we DO have a lot of passionate people here, that have issues that they care strongly about, and probably more than any other time in history feel that is ESSENTIAL they be dealt with by the person they feel best able to do so in this primary. When we have one of the worst presidents in history (make that THE worst president in history) having destroyed this country as long as he has, it isn't hard for many of us to feel passionate about wanting to make sure we put our best foot forward and find this generation's FDR for this next election.

I will say up front that I'm not completely tied to any one candidate yet. I DO have some very important issues I care about which I won't go into detail with. If someone else can show me that a different candidate than the one I feel best able to work on my important issues can do a better job than the one I'd been supporting, I'm all for that! I will take it all in and I might change my mind too.

If we all don't get overly emotional about it, or take a step back at least and realize that others here, though disagreeing with you are more passionate about their choice than they are trying to slam you, then perhaps we can all accept our emotions here without getting overly adgitated. In other words I WILL be passionate and I WILL be strong willed about certain opinions, but I don't have any ill will towards anyone here, as long as they accord me with equivalent personal respect.

We should feel good that we have a lot of people that care a great deal about their country getting together to talk. It doesn't always happen that you can talk with many such passionate people at once. That's a GOOD thing!

[Skip Intro]

140. "The Lower Your Expectations, The Happier You Will Be"

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[tavalon]

141. Wait

Are you trying to say that we should behave in an adult manner, both in our support of candidates and in not taking the bait of supporters of other candidates? That's no fun. ;)

[radfringe]

142. can't get any lower

than trying to wear a reagan suit...

[Oeditpus Rex]

144. Good advice

You don't seriously expect anyone to take it, do you? :shrug:

[RestoreGore]

145. Well, since the powerbrokers really chose the president

I won't be engaging in any ugly back and forth. But it will be interesting to see Al Gore's words about this process being toxic proven susinctly on a daily basis.

[westerebus]

150. On the firing line:

Shooters! Look down range! Ready on the right! Ready on the left!
Commence Firing!!!!

[Helga Scow Stern]

151. A good example of why We Love You....

Thanks for all that you do to make this amazing forum possible.

[InvisibleTouch]

152. That's a good reminder and a much-needed reality check.

I remember the fray of the '04 primaries. It's starting much earlier this time. While I happen to like all the candidates (though I have my favorites, of course), and I wish we could promote our favorites without attacking the others, and I sometimes just want to scream "Dammit, we're all on the same side!!" - I know that's just not going to happen. At least not until the primary madness is over.

So, my secret for staying sane: not to get too emotionally caught up in what other people are saying. It's just somebody's opinion, and it means nothing to anybody except themselves. If there are outright lies posted, they should be refuted, but I try not to get too worked up. I rely on DU as a treasure trove of information, not the source of an adrenaline rush or a barometer of public opinion.

And my sympathies to the mods. I've been a moderator (not here), and I've run online communities, and I know that it can eat you alive. Especially if, once again, you're too emotionally close to it. So my wish for the mods is that they can retain an arm's-length objectivity while doing their jobs, even over a subject matter that they surely have a lot of passion for themselves. Ultimately, they can only do as much as they can do. The alternative - total chaos and anarchy - is worse. So however "imperfectly" the mods may handle any given issue, remember that it's still better than the alternative. So don't beat yourselves up, guys. Just forge ahead and keep the place running.

[carolinayellowdog]

154. Please try to contain the ugliness at least

Hi Skinner,

I understand your frustration, but think that you are caricaturing concerned DUers in your comments underlined for emphasis. No sane person could ever believe that DU would be immune from primary season ugliness, or that the owners or moderators can fundamentally alter the nature of primaries. Hence those two suggestions that "you seriously modify your expectations" are addressed to straw men. The only expectation I have is that the owners and moderators will try to limit the damage by dealing severely with the worst abuses. Those IMO are not occasional dustups between supporters of different candidates, but serial flamewarriors who are constantly engaging in personal attacks against other DUers. I've not been moved to alert on anything more often than every six months or so, but yesterday I saw someone indulge in many, many personal attacks on several different threads and did alert on him a couple of times. Seeing your post so soon thereafter makes me wonder if you and the mods are more annoyed at us "oversensitive" alerters than at the insensitive abusers. Rather than lower all our expectations for the duration, why not contain most of the lowered expectations in a single forum that the kind and decent majority here can stay the hell away from? Who cares if segregation of the haters intensifies the hatred, as long as the rest of us can avoid them?

CYD

[Adelante]

156. I guess I just don't get it

You seem to think we need a dungeon into which those who say what you don't like may be banished. Maybe we need a sun room for the "kind and decent," so the rest of us can talk politics. Worry about the truth. If somebody lies about your candidate, alert with links proving your point, although doing that within the discussion thread is far more valuable, imo, so you can educate other DUers about your candidate. Free discussion on DU is far more important to me than my feelings being dented here and there. Most DUers value truth and seek it, even when it is uncomfortable. If you dislike someone's posting style or "personality" put them on Ignore. You will never have to see them again.

[AngryOldDem]

162. I don't get it, either.

I don't get it that some can't distinguish between criticizing opinions and personally attacking those who voice them. Pick apart the points I make, sure; that's what makes for good discourse and healthy exchange of ideas. But there's really no need to resort to name-calling and insults when it's done. If posters can't talk politics without resorting to baseness or incivility, then I really question whether they can discuss the issues at all. Emotions get overheated here at times. If they do, people should just walk away and alert the moderators, as is in the rules. But too often threads go on and on for hundreds of posts with nothing but flames (for the most part). Waste of bandwidth, IMHO.

[Adelante]

164. I agree with all of that, especially on the name-calling and flames

Not that I haven't been pissed off once enough to lower myself, I have. Still, I don't see the good of segregating DU members, or exiling DU members, except in extreme circumstances individually when the admin feels it is required. There are just too many people here of diverse philosophies and backgrounds for any of us to get the idea that we can expect an amiable atmosphere for every single one of us all the time. But relief is built into the system in the Ignore feature if only it will be used. My bigger concern is the possible restriction of free and open discussion on DU. It's something we need to be very careful about.

[carolinayellowdog]

167. Not the members but the TOPICS that cause most dissension

Caricatures and straw men abound here lately. The segregation issue as raised by Skinner was with reference to arguments about primary candidates, and having a forum for that topic will draw most of the poison into one place. Why lower our expectations across the board for everyone, when it's the primaries that have increased the levels of poisonous personal attacks to the point that the mods are overwhelmed with complaints? The result would be that personal attacks in other fora would subside to pre-primary levels and the mods and admins won't be so annoyed at the level of complaints. All I'm saying is that the lowering of expectations should be done selectively rather than indiscriminately.

[Adelante]

168. GDP was founded as the forum for the topic of primaries

Skinner said very early in this thread it is the intention is to revert to the practice established in 2004 of restricting primary discussion to GDP. It did seem to me you must have been talking about some other measures. I apologize if I misunderstood.

[Adelante]

169. I've read your original post again now

Rather than lower all our expectations for the duration, why not contain most of the lowered expectations in a single forum that the kind and decent majority here can stay the hell away from? Who cares if segregation of the haters intensifies the hatred, as long as the rest of us can avoid them?

What topics do you mean if not topics related to the primary campaigns? Who are the "kind and decent" and the "haters" if not DU members? Segregating those topics, whatever they are, would insulate the "kind and decent" DU members from the "haters" who are also DU members, exactly how? It does seem to me you are advocating a new forum that is not GDP since GDP already has its established role. Perhaps a new forum dedicated to campaign press releases and pep rallies would suit the purpose, where supporters of one candidate don't have to contend with critics of that candidate, but it would overlap, I would think, with the candidate groups we already have.

[NMDemDist2]

155. the 'alert' key is your friend

we all know that GD and GDP are large fast moving forums that need lots of eyes to keep tabs on. If you think someone/thing is out of line, alert it.

As an ex-mod I suggest you state your concerns clearly in your alert and a bit of humor goes a long way.

'Ignore' and the 'Hide thread' options are also highly recommended, especially if you have a thin skin. There will be a core of a few posters who will consistently rub you the wrong way so just don't let em.

I think it's important that concerns about our candidates stances on issues is carefully examined and a bit of flame is to be expected. Politics is a dirty business not often held to the standards of decorum expected of a Church Tea Party.

Like Skinner said, Get Over It! May the best person win and carry our banner all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue come January 2009 :bounce: