About the upcoming transition to general election season
This discussion thread was locked by Skinner (a host of the Announcements group).
There has been a lot of talk on DU lately about the fact that we are nearing the end of the primaries. As you probably know this issue has been raised a few times in the Ask the Administrators forum. I figure it might be helpful to re-post some of my comments out here in the Announcements forum so they get a wider audience.
Timing (link)
After the primaries on June 7 (California, New Jersey, etc.) we will announce that the primaries are nearing an end, and members will have one more week to "get it out of their systems."
The final Democratic presidential primary is Tuesday, June 14 in Washington DC. People will have one last glorious day of primary season on June 15, and then Democratic Underground general election season begins on Thursday, June 16.
What to expect (link)
I think a lot of people have the wrong idea, and are going to be disappointed.
We have no intention of purging anyone, and we have no intention of disallowing good-faith discussion of the issues. I think most people are going to be fine with that. But there are going to be a a few people (including both Hillary and Bernie supporters) who are going to be disappointed because the massive crackdown they have been hoping for does not come to pass.
Most people think the big change coming in general election season is that people on this website will need to stop bashing Hillary Clinton. Yes, that's part of it -- but it's not the only thing and it's definitely not the most important thing. The really big change coming in general election season is that people on this website will need to stop bashing each other.
Throughout this primary season we have been in a death spiral of declining standards. So we are going to institute some rules, and we will expect everyone to follow those rules, and we will expect everyone to enforce those rules when they serve on juries. The rules shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone -- they are mostly common sense, and they are basically the same rules we had for years when we had moderators: No personal attacks, no broad-brush group attacks, no bigotry, no right-wing smears or sources against Democrats, no advocating for spoilers or republicans, no meta-discussion, etc.
I am just so tired of people bashing each other and bashing Democrats on this website. I know the hardcore partisans will try to paint this whole thing through the Hillary vs Bernie lens, and drive that wedge as hard as they can, but that is just so not where I am at right now. I don't care who anyone has supported in the primaries -- I really don't. As long as you treat your fellow DU members with respect, stop tearing down Democratic public figures (including Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders and everyone else), and don't advocate for Donald Trump or some lost-cause third-party spoiler candidate, then you'll be fine.
What criticism of Hillary Clinton will be permitted? (link)
Unfortunately, there is not going to be a hard line between "fine" and "not fine."
But basically, I think it comes down to this:
If you are criticizing Hillary Clinton because you want to help her succeed, then you'll be fine. But if you are criticizing Hillary Clinton because you want to tear her down, then you won't be fine.
Now, I'm not a mind reader and I can't know for certain what everyone's intentions are. But I think that if the criticism is coming from a place of "wanting her to succeed" then that will be reflected in the tone and substance of the post. If the criticism is coming from a place of "wanting to tear her down" then that will be reflected in the tone and substance of the post. If you are here on DU then you are supposed to be supporting the Democratic nominee against the Republican nominee in the general election -- it shouldn't be very hard to write a post in a way that sounds like it.
I believe that it will be possible to discuss every substantive issue that DUers might want to discuss.
Anything else?
This should come as a surprise to exactly no one. Every four years when there is a presidential campaign Democratic Underground expects our members to support the nominee. It is written into our Terms of Service, which you agreed to when you joined:
We will be providing more details in the near future.
= new reply since forum marked as read
many voters that the next President has a majority in the House and Senate? That is what matters. It can be done. If there really is a political revolution afoot, then it will be easy.
but thanks for being part of the team.
But hey, they nominated the other demented actor, Ronnie something, the one who starred with a chimp. 
BECAUSE I acknowledge your superior intellect. BECAUSE I didn't realize you possess a crystal ball. BECAUSE it's now obvious I'm a mental lightweight - I'm bowing to you - by conceding the last word to you. Go ahead - post it. And you have my permission to wear a smug grin (for the length of time of your choosing) with the confidence that you've put me in my place. Post your last word. I promise I won't reply.
Of course you may continue to be as unclear as you want off-site. 
Response to Quackers (Reply #82)
...like to serve on a DU jury? Can't get the younger generations involved in politics, and civic duty, early enough!
much in common with my previous post beyond clicking the reply link.
Strong Bernie supporter who realizes Admin can make whatever rules they want.
You are ignoring history and want special rules just for Sanders. In every primary contest since the creation of super delegates, the winner was declared the presumptive nominee based on the inclusion of super delegates. That fact that this is not favorable to Sandes does not matter http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/5/29/1532358/-What-Does-It-Mean-to-Clinch-the-Nomination-When-Superdelegates-Are-Involved
?1464557557
The answer: history says the first person to get to the magic number is the presumptive nominee, and says it unambiguously, even if the losers often disagree.
Here’s how it has gone since the superdelegates were added to the process.....
Summary
Anyway, I started this research 12 hours ago to answer a question for myself, so that as everyone on TV is spinning things this way and that on June 7th I have some context. What, if anything, have I learned?
First, most non-incumbent candidates have needed superdelegates to win, and the history of superdelegates has been that once a Democrat hits the magic number and becomes the nominee, superdelegates are more likely to flow to the nominee than from them.
Also, in the history of the superdelegates, they have always ended up supporting the decision of the pledged delegates, and their most important contribution has been to amplify leads of the pledged delegate winner so that they can be assured success on a first ballot, and avoid the sort of messy convention that harms a general campaign.
The major thing I’ve learned is that the press declares, and has always declared, the winner after they hit the magic number, and has done so in far more nebulous circumstances than this. Even in 1984, in which Hart won by a number of other metrics, in which the delegate count was the arbiter, and Mondale announced himself as the nominee, even with 38 percent of the popular vote to Hart’s 36 percent—even then, Hart may have claimed he still had a cunning plan, but no one begrudged Mondale the fact he was, for all intents and purposes, the nominee.
When you think about it, that simply has to happen. Things need to get done, and they need the nominee to do them. Except for Reagan in 1976, who chose a running mate after Gerald Ford was made the nominee, there aren’t a whole lot of non-nominee candidates going to the convention with their own vice president picked out. You get to do that because the numbers say you’re the nominee.
Meeting this number also allows the nominee to do the work of campaigning before the convention, establishing a message, building capacity on the ground, etc.
The press, for its part, has always understood this, from 1984 onward, and has named the nominee (or the “presumptive nominee”) the minute the candidate crosses the line with their combination of pledged and supers, and usually said something to the effect that they had “clinched” the nomination. They did that when Mondale had won far fewer states than Hart. They did that when Dukakis did not have 50 percent of the pledged delegates. They did that when Obama had not won the popular vote (yes, I know, Michigan—I hope we’re still not fighting this?).
This is a well researched article and confirms that the nomination process will be over on Tuesday June 7, 2016 when the results of the New Jersey primary are announced.
June 7th - or maybe even earlier? - we have our Democratic nominee.
extremely generous to them. Yet, it's still not enough. 
This assuming that one candidate has already won is disruptive and disrespectful towards those who support the other candidate.
I'll see if I stick around.... it's been a nasty experience being a member of DU AND being a supporter of Sanders.
I simply want and desire a progressive agenda to be the party's platform. I'm not sure if it'll be there even at the convention.
We'll see.... 
alerted on, hidden.. not because most of the posts were againt TOS but because they didn't put BS in a good light.. and run off the board for an enforced time out ..
The only safe place away from that is Hillary's group.. and they lurk there, alerting on posts that aren't necessarily against TOS.. and, they're whining about how hard it's been to be a BS fan on DU?
uh huh.
Hey BlueCali~
Democratic Underground anymore where it not for those two groups. The visceral dislike for both Democrats Barack Obama and now Hillary Clinton on other forums within DU made it impossible for me to be in those forums. There were even times when I was getting the strong feeling that I'd ventured into some anti-Democratic Party site.
I've also noticed that the vast majority of those posters believed that the word "Democratic" in Democratic Underground meant the small "d" democratic, rather than the large "D" Democratic - or so they excused. Some openly admitted that they were Libertarians, Paulites, Green Partiers, Communists , etc. - all groups that pretty much loathe the Democratic Party. And their posts revealed as much.
I really miss the old Democratic Underground, Cha, where posts attacking Democrats and the Democratic Party got ZERO tolerance and the accounts and posts quickly removed - the way they do today at TPV.
Hey, Cha! Good to see you! 
not now.. That's an excellent point.
We have been so fortunate to have Barack Obama as our President.. and I'm so looking forward to Hillary building on his legacy that he worked so hard for almost 8 years now.. No way is anyone else going to get in there that does nothing but try to marginalize him.
I miss the DU when it was really Democratic Underground, too. The majority tried to turn it into something else .. but here we are with a Dem as our Nominee and in two weeks we'll all be supporting her.. because those are the rules. 
U2, BlueCali~
Cha~
I don't get it. Where did this entitlement schtick come from?
... and literally haven't thought once about you since the time you sent me a pm and I didn't know what you meant then either. Whatever it is you're going on about, it means nothing to me ... just let it go and forget about it. I have.
... the admins may question your ability to serve impartially and fairly. This is just a guess on my part, I'm not a mind reader and I can't begin to say what motivated the admins.
The owner, Skinner, has already posted a message putting people on notice what their responsibilities are AS JURORS, and what the consequences will be if he feels that someone is abusing their responsibility. He made it very clear what he expected, what he would consider to be unacceptable, and what the consequences would be.
To my knowledge, Skinner has NOT said anything about punishing people for frivolous alerts. Therefore, it's my best guess that if you have indeed been banned from jury service, it's probably not for any alert you've sent ... instead, it's likely to be because of something you did (or didn't do) when serving on a jury.
Again, you'll have to take it up with Skinner ... not with me. I'm not the one who makes those types of decisions. You're barking up the wrong tree, PufPuf23.
nor is it a discourtesy. Just realism, on a political forum.
Not to mention that it is NOT hide-worthy, not EVEN in the present climate.
You're welcome, dear cyberpj. 
How you been? Good i hope.
Been hanging out with friends and listening to some new music, its been fun!
Looking forward to moving onward.
Response to Skinner (Original post)
Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #23)
Response to Skinner (Reply #31)
No matter who we support in the primaries. Down-ticket is important.
Whatever, your site. In my considered opinion, for many reasons, you are invoking this prematurely.
I look forward to the love fest, but I swear that the next time I hear Fairy Clap it will be like NIAGRA FALLS! Slowly I turned...
No rules. All crimes are legal for 24 hours.
if it is to "help her succeed."
"Helping her succeed" and helping the public are not necessarily the same thing.
[IMG]
[/IMG]
More than a month AFTER June 15.
we'll be allowed to say earth shaking things like the colour of that pantsuit didn't really do her justice at all otherwise as we've seen bringing up her past political record is a vile rightwing smear
They have been patently dishonest since the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 which allowed for consolidation of media outlets under corporate ownership. (See what I did there? ).
Google News is our friend.
I've seen that used lately. 
Back in the old days...
Sounds like that's going to change, though.
I do it daily.
See? As a Senator Sanders supporter *all the way to the convention*, I cannot oblige info that is FIRST sourced to a RW source. I'll google the info and, if ONLY carried by RW sources, I have to discount it. 
I will probably not be here after this though. Too many Hillary supporters made it untenable for me to want to remain. There will be no GBW post, so no one needs to worry, but I won't be able to back this candidate vocally, financially, etc. So it's best to move on. If I were honest, I should have moved on long ago, when my moderate stances that got me labeled as a Freeper in 2004 started getting me labeled far left.
Same stances. 
and I think we should let them contest it until the end!!
(As my teenager would text: JK)
In any case, we shall see...
Giving time outs was one of the best things the admins have ever done.
Thank you.
Seems very fair.
I look forward to hearing more about the changes to the jury system, too!
No Kidding!You agreed to it when you joined.
You post is
Skinner needs an attorney?
Say what?
Wow! the persecution complex
I'm sure we'll all want to know how your "complaint with the FBI" turns out.
Susan is reporting Skinner to the FBI for possibly banning her. Do I have that right?
Would you give us a link to your large forum site? I would love to visit and see what ya'll say there. 
As for Skinner, ya he has that right. It is his site.
You seem to have a problem with that. Hmmm. You are going to sue him for his Democratic site and his Democratic right to ban you? Dear Goddess! Get a grip. This is the internet not the voting booth.
Again , I ask you to link to the huge site you own. I am sure many of us would be interested in what you have to say there.
I kid, I kid.
But I just want you to know, they hit me back first! 
Here's a theme song for the transition.
As great and seemingly fair that your suggestion is, I do not see that Skinner has left any doubt how he will run his site.
Yes there are many moving parts on this. No...cannot be discussed here unless it is to help the chosen person win.
Go to JPR to discuss and make friends. That is my suggestion for constructive and informative discussions on the issues that you have mentioned.
who as President would not ever do anything to start a war?
... ,to the best of my abilities and understanding, to follow the rules of DU. 
And thanks for all your hard work maintaining the board.
Are you a Clinton supporter? Do you expect Cha to react positively to your little jab about her "gleefully banning" you?
Just curious, because it kind of seems more like you just want to complain about one of the group hosts. Probably not gonna get very far.
You're totally blameless and innocent, and I was able to single-handedly get you banned from jury service... all I had to do is ask, and my request was granted. That's just how influential I am around here.
... it's best not to take chances when dealing with someone like me who has so much influence over the admin decisions. Why risk it, eh?
Thank you at least for spelling it all out. No one should be confused and I guess that's for the best.
I see some people are going to go down swinging, but I think the rest are going to try to repair this somewhat battered community. 
and kumbayah.
Reading this thread, all I have to say is Good luck Skinner. 
Herding cats.
What are you going to do about all these damn bugs crawling around everywhere?
On a serious note; I hope that those that have been holding out on donating to DU because of various reasons grow up and realize it's not DU that has caused this odd circus called the 2016 primaries.
....my cat walks across my keyboard when I'm not around and just happens to post a story from breitbart about Clinton's emails and he just happens to also post some very thoughtful commentary to go along with it and people happen to like it and it starts a political revolution that sweeps Sanders into power? Would that be ok?
It seems that a lot of people are having trouble following all 3 of the rules that will be put in place. Can we throw out 100 more unlikely scenarios and be told whether it is ok to bash Clinton in that case? Because when you say "stop bashing Hillary Clinton" its just so difficult to make heads or tails of that statement. I mean, can I bash Hillary if I really really really want to? Or if the website I am sourcing has a really nice layout? Or if its raining and i'm in a somewhat bad mood? Would that be ok?
I'll throw this in for good measure
I will be so very happy when this site goes into GE mode. 
First hand information is always the best.
Last edited Thu Jun 2, 2016, 04:37 AM - Edit history (1)
Response to Skinner (Original post)
See you at the convention
and have donated thousands to the Party. I am late to this thread because I have a sick german shepherd who goes in for surgery tomorrow for cancer stage 1 malignant sarcoma. Open wound, size larger than a freaking golf ball in less than two weeks.
Good to see you!
Just kidding, sort of.
First, here's what I think of Donald Trump.
Trump is first off an attention-starved, power-hungry egomaniac - very much like your standard Wall Street type of person who's only interested in the size of their bank accounts without caring whom their actions hurt. It goes without saying that he's racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. That is a pretty standard trait of Republicans, so I see him as normal in that regards. I think Trump knows that what's really important to the common Republican voter is the protection of the privileges they have always received from being "White". The conservative party in this country (be it yesterday's Democrats or today's Republicans) have always been about white supremacy and its maintenance - by promising to protect white skin privilege, the elite white people offer a bargain with other whites (basically "We know you're not rich, but at least you're white and that counts for something" to keep them pacified. Trump understands this very well and he used it to secure many of his primary votes. You see Democrats often arguing to Republicans that they are voting against their interests (which they really are), but their primary interest is maintaining white supremacy and there are very real benefits for them in seeing that it's maintained.
I highly doubt Trump really intends to build a wall across the US/Mexican border, or try to ban all Muslims from entering the country. I think this is just the stupid stuff he says to illiterate racists because he knows they'll believe (when he stated that he could stand in the middle of Manhattan and shoot someone dead and still get votes, he was pretty much acknowledging his strategy). He's already been trying to walk some of those comments so that he can be more acceptable to the Republican Establishment, the ones whose financial backing he'll need going forward.
Yes, if given the opportunity, he'll appoint one or more right-wing ideologues to the Supreme Court, but many Democrats act as if the Supreme Court hasn't already had a conservative majority for quite a while (and Antonin Scalia was about as hardcore right-wing as you can get) so I don't think people should vote out fear of a conservative court. It was a conservative SCOTUS that upheld the ACA, and the biggest challenges to the legality of abortion are coming at the state level (and being vigorously fought against in courts). We've survived eight years of a very right-wing, neoconservative administration and we can surely survive four years of Trump, especially if people get fired up in open opposition to him.
He, like Hillary, will be an ally to big business and their desires for more power and less regulation, so I don't really see him as any worse than she in this regards. Trump has questioned the necessity of NATO in foreign affairs (I personally think NATO should have been disbanded when the USSR dissolved) and Hillary wants to attack and threaten to attack everyone - to me, she'll be just bad in terms of foreign policy. She has a lot of experience doing very bad things internationally, and that's not experience we should tout in my opinion.
Between the three candidates still in the race, Bernie is the odd man out, offering something completely different from the other two. Things will not get any better under Trump or Hillary.
I'm down with that. I've been here through a few GEs and intend
to remain. I hope all goes well in the grand scheme of things. I
have tried to not ruffle too many feathers since I have been here
and will continue on the same path.
It's an honor to get a response from you!
Thanks for all you do!
I had sworn never to return to DU... well, that was two days ago, so I held out longer than I'd thought I could.
I'm really looking forward to the return of the warm fuzzy DU that I've been missing so much. God, it's been so unbelievably ugly here.
Thanks again!
Scenario leading up to or at the convention, I mean. I'm asking you to reconsider June 16 in certain circumstances (mainly, Sanders wins California, Clinton's numbers continue to decline), and extend open debate--support or criticism--on our two primary candidates through the convention. I quote the Robert Parry article which sums up the situation of Sanders' surge and Clinton's declining numbers (& dark cloud of pending FBI report) and credible reports of fear among some powerful Democrats that her campaign is "in freefall."
June 16 to the convention may be a period of great uncertainty about Clinton, even if she reaches pledged delegate#. We don't want a situation where Party powers are considering alternatives--Biden, Warren, Kerry or others--and we can't advocate for them, or promote Sanders, or say why we think Clinton should be dumped, or retained, because of the new rules here. DU should be part of this important debate.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512112081
Thanks for the guidance!
Peace
Response to Skinner (Original post)