Sanders backers take over California Democratic Party

[RINO Tom]

I wonder if the moderate cubicle slaves in the silicon valley will still come out to vote if the Sanders/Warren wing takes over.

It's not like we need them. The Democratic coalition is big enough that we can afford shedding some dead weight.

Coalition building: alienating a culturally influential and decently sized part of your current coalition in an attempt to appeal to a less reliable group of rural whites that aren't even common in your state.

Apparently elitism and dismissive attacks on a group of people is okay if you don't like them.

You don't build coalitions for the sake of building coalitions. You build coalitions to gain the power to change policies. Those who aren't on board with left-wing policies have no place in a left-wing coalition: seems pretty obvious to me.

This is why it's so ridiculous when people act like White college graduates - especially in Southern suburbs - are going to become these reliably Democratic voters.  I'm not saying the folks in charge of the Democratic Party are super high on ideological conviction or anything, but they're still liberals ... they can make gains with those groups, but at a certain point they'll be actively courting voters who quite literally don't agree with the Democratic agenda at ALL.  No Democrat wants that.

[Virginiá]

It's not like we need them. The Democratic coalition is big enough that we can afford shedding some dead weight.

Aware this is probably geared towards CA, but larger ideological shifts and party strategy could have unanticipated effects, so if your view on this in CA is relevant to other states/the country at large, I will say this:

Are we, though? Even without gerrymandering, we lack the numbers and distribution to hold together a stable governing majority in the federal government. Same deal in many states. I do think long-term the "coalition of the ascendant" will probably be sufficient for presidential elections, but a coalition that delivers you the presidency will not necessarily deliver you Congress or various state legislatures. Without Congressional majorities, we won't be able to enact our agenda and our voters will become increasingly frustrated when our candidates fail to deliver. We can't just expect voters to naturally understand and accept why nothing gets done, and even if they do, I think there is an implicit agreement that party leaders find a way to get things done, even if that means broadening the tent and making trade-offs. In this respect, I would have to wonder what today's progressives would think of a modern New Deal coalition. That was full of conservatives, liberals and moderates, and yet it accomplished so much, even if some factions were a pain in the ass for years, even decades on end.

Further, no coalition is going to see eye-to-eye on everything. Many people will have a couple core issues that tether them to a party or a certain kind of candidate. Others may just vote the way they do out of habit and a basic grasp of what is going on. Others will feel the opposition party is simply too unpalatable for them. If you have a voter who supports a fair amount of your policies and always votes Democratic, doesn't it make sense to give them some of what they want if they always supports you? To say otherwise is, well, not nice or respectful imo. Democrats are supposed to be a party of tolerance, and I think that should extend to some kinds of policy as well (obv I exclude blatantly discriminatory or otherwise very harmful policy) and people with varying ideologies.

I have to admit, I am at least partially worried now that my party is going to get overrun with people who have no desire to compromise and believe that the entire country is on board with their agenda, or should otherwise be ignored. Self-identified liberals do not outnumber moderates or conservatives in the electorate, and while many left-wing policies enjoy broad support, I don't think it's fair to cast out anyone who disagrees. It doesn't mean they won't vote Democratic, but to actively turn on them instead of allowing an intra-party debate to continue - why?

[heatcharger]

It's not like we need them. The Democratic coalition is big enough that we can afford shedding some dead weight.

Aware this is probably geared towards CA, but larger ideological shifts and party strategy could have unanticipated effects, so if your view on this in CA is relevant to other states/the country at large, I will say this:

Are we, though? Even without gerrymandering, we lack the numbers and distribution to hold together a stable governing majority in the federal government. Same deal in many states. I do think long-term the "coalition of the ascendant" will probably be sufficient for presidential elections, but a coalition that delivers you the presidency will not necessarily deliver you Congress or various state legislatures. Without Congressional majorities, we won't be able to enact our agenda and our voters will become increasingly frustrated when our candidates fail to deliver. We can't just expect voters to naturally understand and accept why nothing gets done, and even if they do, I think there is an implicit agreement that party leaders find a way to get things done, even if that means broadening the tent and making trade-offs. In this respect, I would have to wonder what today's progressives would think of a modern New Deal coalition. That was full of conservatives, liberals and moderates, and yet it accomplished so much, even if some factions were a pain in the ass for years, even decades on end.

Further, no coalition is going to see eye-to-eye on everything. Many people will have a couple core issues that tether them to a party or a certain kind of candidate. Others may just vote the way they do out of habit and a basic grasp of what is going on. Others will feel the opposition party is simply too unpalatable for them. If you have a voter who supports a fair amount of your policies and always votes Democratic, doesn't it make sense to give them some of what they want if they always supports you? To say otherwise is, well, not nice or respectful imo. Democrats are supposed to be a party of tolerance, and I think that should extend to some kinds of policy as well (obv I exclude blatantly discriminatory or otherwise very harmful policy) and people with varying ideologies.

I have to admit, I am at least partially worried now that my party is going to get overrun with people who have no desire to compromise and believe that the entire country is on board with their agenda, or should otherwise be ignored. Self-identified liberals do not outnumber moderates or conservatives in the electorate, and while many left-wing policies enjoy broad support, I don't think it's fair to cast out anyone who disagrees. It doesn't mean they won't vote Democratic, but to actively turn on them instead of allowing an intra-party debate to continue - why?

Wholeheartedly agree with this, and saying we can win without people who work in cublcles (upper-middle class voters) is shockingly ignorant on Antonio's part. These are the kind of people who carry Democrats to victory in states like Colorado and Virginia (and probably even Minnesota now), which are must-win states for Democrats now on the federal and state level.

Republicans will always win when Democrats aid them in their divide and conquer strategy.

[politics_king]

I support this as a Californian, because we're such a large state with a lot of political power, we can influence how the direction of the party can go. We need to keep it pragmatic but sometimes you need to force your hand. Just don't overstep your boundaries.