An appeal to the administrators: set up the hardcore partisan forum now for the 2010 elections.

[LoZoccolo]

This was an idea floated by Skinner in the "let's talk" thread earlier. I know, I was supposed to send an email, but I think a lot of us would like this in time for the 2010 elections. K&R if you would like to see it as well.

[Dinger]

1. What?

How about the 2012 elections?

[LoZoccolo]

2. That too. n/t

[OmahaBlueDog]

3. Define "hardcore partisan group" please

What would be allowed, and what would not? How would it be moderated?

[LoZoccolo]

4. No criticism of Democrats piggedy-period.

You could do it all over the rest of the board if you want, just give us a place for people who are dedicated partisans working to elect more Democrats in 2010.

[OmahaBlueDog]

7. Obviously, primaries would need to be an exception

[LoZoccolo]

11. This wouldn't really be for those kind of discussions, I imagine. n/t

[daleanime]

9. So stance on issues wouldn't mean anything?

As long as there's a 'd' in front of their name?:eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

12. You could talk about those all you want in GD and GD:P. n/t

[OmahaBlueDog]

13. I don't want to put words in the OPs mouth, but yes, I believe so.

D's over R's. Blue over Red.

[daleanime]

15. Cool, cool....

I don't mind at all, but why is that a good thing?O8)

[OmahaBlueDog]

16. OK, some people want a site about progressive ideals

...while others want a site that advances candidates of the Democratic party. The two, as you know, are not always one and the same. Still others want to support candidates like Charlie Crist, arguing that Meek can't win, and defeating Rubio is more important than being partisan. What the OP wants is a place where hard core partisans can go to discuss getting Democratic candidates elected/re-elected, without being flamed if those candidates don't happen to be progressives.

[daleanime]

18. But isn't the reason we band together as a party....

to work toward certain goals that we all hold? If support is given without regard to the candidates position, why have a 'democratic' party? Just to give people the same choice, twice?




Or have I answered my own question?:scared:

[LoZoccolo]

19. The purpose of a party, the way I see it

is to gain power in numbers to support certain goals, with the understanding that you may have to compromise to gain that power. I think some people who actually do understand that like to try to nudge the party toward their interests by acting like they are questioning why they are part of a party, or why they should support a party at all, or like the party is steering them 100% in a direction they don't agree with, but I take that as so much street theater. You really can't get something for nothing; you can have the numbers if you are willing to forego some things to get the support on other things. And you are not foregoing those things forever; you can always gain consensus on them later. I think that people don't want to do the work of gaining that consensus though.

[daleanime]

38. Consensus.....

without dialog? If you can't talk now, it seems unlikely to me that discussion will be welcome later.:-(

[LoZoccolo]

39. Who's preventing dialog?

There would be plenty of it on General Discussion and General Discussion: Presidential.

[daleanime]

41. O.K., now I'm completely lost...

isn't the OP about the need for separation? And if that's not to avoid listening to people then I have to admit that I just don't understand.

[LoZoccolo]

42. It is to avoid listening to people, just not all the time.

I don't think it's important to reiterate the same irreconcilable differences every single day. Maybe occasionally, but not during a critical election season. I don't feel like explaining the differences between Democrats and Republicans to people who, when you give them a list of them, just go "oh, that list again". I don't feel like explaining the consequences of losing an election to people who will say "so the only reason is to keep the Republicans from winning?" Does it sound like I'm ignoring other people's concerns? Did you notice in both of my examples, they are ignoring mine?

[OmahaBlueDog]

37. No, some members of the party embrace some or most of the goals...

Others will have a notable non-embrasure on an issue like abortion or marriage equality. Also, even among a group that can agree broadly on a set of principles, there can be vehement disagreement over which issues should take priority.

Some DUers set paramount importance on embracing a set of ideals, in its entirety.

Other DUers feel that it is always better to support a Democrat, however imperfect, over a Republican.

[daleanime]

40. Maybe this is where I get lose...

without a guiding principle(ideas?) to back it up, doesn't Democrat just become a label? And what good is a label?

[LoZoccolo]

44. That is a purely academic concern at this point.

[daleanime]

47. I like academic concerns...

it's church and state that we're suppose to keep separate, more people need to realize that school and life are not exclusive. I really believe that many of the problems we have in this nation would be fixed if education become a life long pursue. :bounce:

[LoZoccolo]

48. I didn't criticize it for being academic, but purely academic. n/t

[KansasVoter]

20. What if the candidate was Ben Nelson?? Still can't complain about him?

[LoZoccolo]

21. You could complain about him

on every other political board on DU as well as lots of other political boards. He actually does still have a significant partisan voting record, by the way, and the percentage of his votes along party line is not too hard to find online.

[KansasVoter]

22. Then I veto your idea. Just having a D by your name does not mean you are one!

[LoZoccolo]

25. How about this: why don't you just stay out and leave us alone?

[KansasVoter]

26. Why don't you stop thinking like a freeper? Bush was perfect is no worse than Obama is perfect!

[LoZoccolo]

29. Why don't you tell that to someone who thinks Obama is perfect?

[sabrina 1]

31. Having read your comments, I don't really care whether you get

your way or not, but I doubt such a forum will hold much interest for most American citizens, who tend to care about important issues. Good luck, I doubt would bother with such a forum.

Otoh, maybe we should have a separate forum for those who are looking to elect real Progressive Democrats. I don't see the point of electing someone who is basically a Republican with a D after their name. We already have that problem. Elections are supposed to be about fixing thos problems. How long do you think it will take to get a real Democratic Party btw? I mean there are people dying in this country and in the wars that are ongoing. I don't think they have much time to spare while we 'compromise' away their concerns.

[whatchamacallit]

45. Yep. (nt)

[LoZoccolo]

5. P.S. That's just a guess; it was Skinner's idea. n/t

[OmahaBlueDog]

10. So would there be a corresponding hardcore progressives forum

A forum for posters wedded to specific ideas, not candidates or parties?

[LoZoccolo]

14. That could be your project to lobby for; I see no need when there is

GD, GD: P, and even DU-splinter boards.

[stray cat]

6. Those who call themselves the only real progressives and other opinions trolls?

Bound by self-righteousness but differing in opinions

[msongs]

8. professional leftist types keep out lol nt

[rucky]

17. Separate corners is not a bad idea.

[ibegurpard]

23. I'm all for it if you stay in it

[KansasVoter]

24. + 1

[whatchamacallit]

46. lol (nt)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

27. Who's that in your avatar?

[LoZoccolo]

30. Dick Clark n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

28. I thought that place was called the BOG.

:shrug:

[pecwae]

32. Great idea if

once someone posts in such a forum they would be prohibited from posting elsewhere.

[rug]

33. OK, let's start. How much are you giving Stupak?

http://www.house.gov/stupak/

You'll get a free T shirt.

[Shrek]

34. k & r

:thumbsup:

[Fumesucker]

35. Do you have to be drug tested to post in this forum you propose?

You know, to keep out the professional leftists?

[LoZoccolo]

36. No.

[JustAnotherGen]

43. I see what you are saying here

I’m a person who can’t understand (with the exception of Alvin G. who I truly believes is a patsy) that we should not be supporting/speaking about anyone but a Democratic candidate in these elections. I can see where the Crist supporters will be hopping mad if we are talking about making calls from other states into Florida on Meeks’ behalf. They already seem po’d that Registered Dems want as many Dems in Congress as we can possible get. :wtf:

Call me naïve – but I’d appreciated a place where I can throw my support behind Dems without hearing ‘butt out of Florida’ or ‘your opinion is not appreciated unless you are for Crist’. Or being shot down for reminding them that Crist will do anything to win, including throwing the wool over their eyes – and then jumping right in with Lieberman if he wins.

Uh – Scuuuuuuuuuze me. Thought this was Democratic Underground.