General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Progressives storm Democratic primaries [View all]Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)People supported different candidates in the 2016 cycle. Why is it so hard for some zealots to recognize honest disagreement? There's absolutely no call for translating support or endorsement for any candidate into "bowing to kiss the candidate's ring". It's the same mindset that led some of Bernie's more unhinged supporters to use the term "Hillbot". It's the idea that my position is so obviously right that no sensible person could be on the other side.
In 2016, Tulsi Gabbard, one of the few members of Congress who endorsed Bernie, was targeted for a primary challenge. There were threads on DU celebrating this challenge, posting links for donating to the challenger, and generally slagging Tulsi. Was that because she didn't "bow to kiss Hillary's ring"?
Incidentally, here are some words of wisdom from Gabbard's challenger, Shay Chan Hodges:
My contest is a perfect example. The current office-holder ran uncontested in the last primary election. Without opposition in this years primary, she would have been up against one of two unknown Republicans and a nonpartisan candidate in the general in a district that has always elected Democrats. Thus, had I not filed as a candidate, she would already be our de facto congresswoman-elect. (Source)
Finally, as to your bogus "100%" statistic: The overwhelming majority of the superdelegates supported Clinton. Anyone who wants to challenge an incumbent Senator, Congressmember, or Governor in a Democratic primary is pretty much bound to be challenging a Clinton supporter. My guess is that there are plenty of progressive Democrats who disappointed many of their admirers by endorsing Clinton, but who won't be primaried.