Who are we? Who are the Democrats?

[TXCritter]

I've seen a few threads now revealing a divide in the "party" that should not be ignored. It manifests most clearly as a divide between those who want closed primaries and those who oppose such devices.

Structurally, I see the Democratic Party as follows;

1) Elected Government officials who identify as Democrats
2) The DNC - the formal non-profit corporation that governs the national democratic party organization. It has 50 state affiliates and these organizations work together to manage the DP between elections, organize state and national conventions, etc. It is made up of paid staff and governed by a board or committee of over 200 delegates.
3) National delegates. National delegates are most obvious at the national convention but they have roles to play for the years between the conventions. I'm not certain what role that is, having never been a delegate.
4) The "Rank & File" membership. These are the millions of DP activists of varying levels of activity - some may do no more than attend their precinct caucuses while others are precinct chairs, fundraisers, activists or just very loyal supporters. Let's call this group Core Democrats. (Some may be inclined to call them "Real" Democrats, I'm avoiding that nomenclature.)
5) The Left. Liberals, Progressives, activists who pursue Democratic ideas, ideals, goals and platform issues. Generally thought to be likely, if not actual DP voters. I'm going to refer to these as "Penumbra Democrats". Penumbra Democrats are likely to move in and out of the party but they lean left and vote left. The Left and DP are allied by ideals but often divided on practical approaches to achieving those ideals.

Right now I see a massive rift between Core Democrats and Penumbra Democrats. I think Core Democrats is the best group to describe the majority of DU. I think in its early days a fair number of Penumbra Democrats came here looking for alliances and coalition but I think they have been driven out.

So, within the Core Democrats I see two factions forming. One group wants to close the process and close the primaries. They want to ensure that nominees are chosen "by democrats". The other faction wants to keep the process open and open it further. They want the Penumbra to guide the DP and, ultimately, guide the choice of nominees.

I see this split as a choice between a 'party of people' and a 'party of ideas.'

The 'party of people' wants to ensure the integrity of the party. That only those who have 'proven themselves' should have a voice in the process of nomination and platform building. The downside of this approach is that the party can become too insular and spiral down into its own echo chamber until it is "out of touch" and shrinking to nothingness. Truly third parties would love this.

The 'party of ideas' wants to keep the party open so that new people, new ideas and new energy drive the party forward. This, however, can lead to a party of pandering. As Obama once quipped "They say Democrats don't stand for anything. That's patently untrue. We do stand for anything." This can also lead to populist uprisings and party takeovers. Some may think that is perfectly fine.

A big factor in this problem is that the US system is a duopoly. The last time the two main parties changed was with Lincoln. That duopoly is not merely a factor of circumstances, it has been engineered by law to persist. The electoral college, the way states assign electors, ballot access laws, congressional apportionment, redistricting and more - all of these things are designed to maintain the two party structure and prevent realistic challenges from new parties.

The two-party duopoly necessitates constant attacks from outside allies. In other systems the 'party of people' would be fine. It would be left alone to represent itself and its supporters. Other people with different agendas can form other parties for election and then those parties can form governing alliances.

That's not an option here. In our system the party must fight off challengers that would alter the nature of the party while simultaneously trying to win their support. That's why, in this election, you have people criticizing Sanders supporters for trying to take over the party and then blaming them for HRC's loss because they didn't vote for her in the end.

Since 1980, at least, I have heard Core democrats excoriating challenger groups from within and without for losses by the nominee. In 1980 it was Kennedy supporters. In 2000, Greens. In 2016 its Bernie Bros with a side order of Greens.

Yet, in every election 49% or more of the electorate simply didn't vote. Core Dems attack the activists while ignoring the apathetics. You can not close the party, simply produce a nominee and then expect everyone outside the party to be excited about it.

The people here, reading this - we are the activists. We are also the advocates. We are a big part of forming *perception* about the party and about the candidates. When we spend our energy blaming everyone and everything outside of our control we abdicate responsibility for our role as advocates and molders of perception.

HRC was simultaneously the most qualified *person* to ever(?) seek the presidency and one of the most damaged *candidates* ever. By "damaged" I don't mean her as a person, I mean the image that was created around her by 20+ years of opposition attack. YET, she won... at least she won the popular vote.

But for an antiquated system designed to support a racist patriarchy HRC would now be president elect. But for a razor thin margin of votes in a small number of states she would soon be president.

The DEMOCRATS chose their candidate. The majority of voters elected that candidate but 51% of the popular vote wasn't enough. That extra 1-2% that was needed. That's on us. What did we do to advocate? What did we do persuade? Or did we contribute to an image of party elitism? Did we fail when we allowed the conversation to turn to "both candidates suck"? Did we fail when we took a stand that "it's not our job to educate you". Did we fail when we kept silent because we didn't want our facebook pages troll bombed? And, if so, why do we feel so under siege?

Why are so many Americans apathetic, disenfranchised or feeling hopeless about participating? The 25% who voted FOR Trump - what portion of those voters voted against their own self interest and what are WE doing to change their views?

Who are they? We ask. Why are they so angry? How do we reach them? Well, first we need to ask Who are WE? What do we stand for? Are the Penumbra our allies or our enemies? Right now, I'm not sure I know the answer to these questions.

[BobbyDrake]

1. 80,000 "Penumbra Democrats" flushed their votes down a toilet called Jill Stein across 4 states.

Four very important, elect-deciding states. The idea that my party should adjust itself to cater to such self-righteous shitbags is offensive to me.

[guillaumeb]

3. But is it remotely possible that these "self-righteous shitbags", your words,

could have been won over by the Democrats? Democrats are not going to win by endless factionalizing and division, part of the point of the post.

[BobbyDrake]

4. Folks who started the Dem primary by calling their opponent and her supporters "neoliberals"

don't get to whine about "factionalizing and division." They started it! Don't blame anyone else that they can dish it but not take it.

[guillaumeb]

2. Well said, and recommended.

And yes, the conflict is quite evident here and has been since last year. I am a socialist, putting me in your "penumbra" classification. But in national elections I have voted Democratic since my first election in 1972. None of the Democrats I voted for were socialist, or even close, but they all represented a far better alternative in the actual elections.

And that extra 1 or 2% can be explained by a lack of enthusiasm, or Green voters, but voter suppression also weighed heavily. There was deliberate voter suppression in Michigan, Wisconsin, and N. Carolina, and the corporate media refuses to even consider this as being a factor.

[PotatoChip]

5. I'm both a Penumbra & Core Democrat

Right now I see a massive rift between Core Democrats and Penumbra Democrats

So should I be fighting with myself?

[TXCritter]

6. I am

My internal conflict is eternal. I'm an idealist and a pragmatist.

[PotatoChip]

7. Me too, my friend!

[gator108]

8. Folks who bring up Jill Stein

need to remember that Gary Johnson took many more votes from Trump than Stein did Clinton

take the both away, and Trump wins those needed states by a larger margin