Anyone else tired of the constant Democratic bickering over the 2016 primary?

[Beet]

It's over guys, OVER! So is the 2016 general election, by the way. They ended on July 12 and November 9, last year, respectively. I'm sick of the constant bickering among Democrats of the "Bernie camp" and "Hillary camp." It's time to get over yourselves. If you have a substantive issue, that's one thing, but if it's related to the Bernie vs. Hillary contest, I don't really give a crap.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Yes, but this board is the forum-equivalent of cable news, where people have far too much time to discuss a narrow topic. As a result, the primaries comes up over and over again even though there is almost never any new discussion.

yes I am guilty of bringing it up in an unrelated thread on at least one occasion, mainly for lulz

[Frodo]

I am beyond tired of both sides (Clinton and Sanders supporters alike) constantly demanding the other pack their bags and leave, and fantasizing over purges of the other.  We just went through the demise of the Blue Dogs throughout the Obama presidency -how did that turn out?  

Like it or not, we need each other.  Otherwise, our tent is going to be even smaller than it is already.  

[Cactus Jack]

Stupid bickering like this is why I haven't been a registered Democrat in seven years.

[KingSweden]

I am beyond tired of both sides (Clinton and Sanders supporters alike) constantly demanding the other pack their bags and leave, and fantasizing over purges of the other.  We just went through the demise of the Blue Dogs throughout the Obama presidency -how did that turn out?  

Like it or not, we need each other.  Otherwise, our tent is going to be even smaller than it is already.  

Yes thank you! Plenty of space for both.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You mean should progressives continue to have no power and blindly vote for their political enemies?

[Rookie Yinzer]

I would like some of the more "progressive" posters on this forum to realize that criticizing Bernie Sanders does not make one a brainless Hillary bot.

Also labeling anyone who disagrees with you on giving away everything for free as a right-wing Wall Street shill is not going to win you a nationwide election.

[BudgieForce]

Lets just forget 2016 ever happend, shall we?

[IceSpear]

You mean should progressives continue to have no power and blindly vote for their political enemies?

And this is how you catch a jfern. lol

But really, obviously yes. It boggles my mind that people are still obsessed with it to this day.

[Mr. Reactionary]

No (not a Dem)

[Pyro]

Looking at it today, it appears to be clear that there is no, and there has been no semblance of, real "unification" in sight for the Democratic Party. Clinton and Sanders offered two totally conflicting political and economic perspectives - and it manifested in an astounding, generational line in the sand. Those who may have been first politicized from this most recent election have had a brush with a divisive, antiquated and corrupt system and since walked away with permanent scarring, for better or worse. With the established wing of the party repeatedly proving itself unwilling to come to terms with the rise of the further left, there will be no meaningful unity.

The damage of the primary has been done and there is no going back, so I certainly believe it makes sense to debate the direction of the Democratic Party with this defining primary in the background.

[BudgieForce]

Looking at it today, it appears to be clear that there is no, and there has been no semblance of, real "unification" in sight for the Democratic Party. Clinton and Sanders offered two totally conflicting political and economic perspectives - and it manifested in an astounding, generational line in the sand. Those who may have been first politicized from this most recent election have had a brush with a divisive, antiquated and corrupt system and since walked away with permanent scarring, for better or worse. With the established wing of the party repeatedly proving itself unwilling to come to terms with the rise of the further left, there will be no meaningful unity.

The damage of the primary has been done and there is no going back, so I certainly believe it makes sense to debate the direction of the Democratic Party with this defining primary in the background.

You make it sound so dramatic.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

I would like some of the more "progressive" posters on this forum to realize that criticizing Bernie Sanders does not make one a brainless Hillary bot.

Also labeling anyone who disagrees with you on giving away everything for free as a right-wing Wall Street shill is not going to win you a nationwide election.

This is one of the major complaints I had with a lot of the Bernie supporters I knew, and a little bit with Bernie himself. I agreed with some (but certainly not all) of parts of his platform, and thought seriously about voting for him on Super Tuesday, but I decided at the end of the day that he wouldn't be an effective force for enacting well thought-out policy. I have some progressive tendencies but I also really value pragmatism. The thing that bothered me about die-hard Bernie supporters was they equated people who valued pragmatism, the rigorous critique of policy and appreciation of nuance with being ideologically opposed to them. Combine this antagonism with the incredible sense of self-righteous moral superiority that a lot of liberals have and it makes them really unpleasant to talk with sometimes (yes, I recognize that there are a lot of Clinton supporters who are also self-righteous and combative so spare me your "both sides do it!"). I would have much more faith in a Liz Warren-type Democrat as President than Bernie, but because I criticized Bernie for being really unrealistic, I got labelled by a lot of Bernie supporters I knew (including good friends) as a DINO, enemy of the working class, neoliberal shill, etc. And by the tenth time I got one of those comments it really got to me I started to get combative.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I am beyond tired of both sides (Clinton and Sanders supporters alike) constantly demanding the other pack their bags and leave, and fantasizing over purges of the other.  We just went through the demise of the Blue Dogs throughout the Obama presidency -how did that turn out?  

Like it or not, we need each other.  Otherwise, our tent is going to be even smaller than it is already.  

Objectively I agree. However... I can't help but feeling that there's a controlling faction within the party that doesn't care how small the tent is, as long as they're free to sell space for corporate logos on it. (And pocket the money.)

[Crumpets]

Yes (Clinton supporter)

[Pyro]

Looking at it today, it appears to be clear that there is no, and there has been no semblance of, real "unification" in sight for the Democratic Party. Clinton and Sanders offered two totally conflicting political and economic perspectives - and it manifested in an astounding, generational line in the sand. Those who may have been first politicized from this most recent election have had a brush with a divisive, antiquated and corrupt system and since walked away with permanent scarring, for better or worse. With the established wing of the party repeatedly proving itself unwilling to come to terms with the rise of the further left, there will be no meaningful unity.

The damage of the primary has been done and there is no going back, so I certainly believe it makes sense to debate the direction of the Democratic Party with this defining primary in the background.

You make it sound so dramatic.

I mean, it is. There's a lot at stake, here.

[Mr. Smith]

Yes.

[dw93]

As someone who voted for Bernie in the primary and Clinton in the general, it does need to stop so we can win next year and in 2020. We need to build a platform that appeals to both wings of the party.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The third way establishment has made it clear that they will fight progressives tooth and nail and continue to stand for corrupt neoliberal hawkish principles. There is a large ideological difference between the establishment and progressives. The establishment has been cleansing progressives from the DNC, rigged the California Democratic chair race, and goes after Bernie like no tomorrow.

This isn't a fight that progressives wanted to fight, they'd rather the supposedly left of center party in this country be acceptably left (obviously it would never be perfect), but that's definitely not happening on its own. The choice is whether to fight the establishment tooth and nail for control of the Democratic party, or start an actually progressive 3rd party.

[7,052,770]

Looking at it today, it appears to be clear that there is no, and there has been no semblance of, real "unification" in sight for the Democratic Party. Clinton and Sanders offered two totally conflicting political and economic perspectives - and it manifested in an astounding, generational line in the sand. Those who may have been first politicized from this most recent election have had a brush with a divisive, antiquated and corrupt system and since walked away with permanent scarring, for better or worse. With the established wing of the party repeatedly proving itself unwilling to come to terms with the rise of the further left, there will be no meaningful unity.

The damage of the primary has been done and there is no going back, so I certainly believe it makes sense to debate the direction of the Democratic Party with this defining primary in the background.

No they didn't, they were very similar, and I'm quoting Bernie Sanders here. As he said, anyone who didn't vote for Hillary in November never really believed in his Revolution.

And as to the OP's question, yes, I'm very tired of a few fringers on both sides keeping this battle going when it never really was much of a battle to most Democrats in the first place.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Looking at it today, it appears to be clear that there is no, and there has been no semblance of, real "unification" in sight for the Democratic Party. Clinton and Sanders offered two totally conflicting political and economic perspectives - and it manifested in an astounding, generational line in the sand. Those who may have been first politicized from this most recent election have had a brush with a divisive, antiquated and corrupt system and since walked away with permanent scarring, for better or worse. With the established wing of the party repeatedly proving itself unwilling to come to terms with the rise of the further left, there will be no meaningful unity.

The damage of the primary has been done and there is no going back, so I certainly believe it makes sense to debate the direction of the Democratic Party with this defining primary in the background.

No they didn't, they were very similar, and I'm quoting Bernie Sanders here. As he said, anyone who didn't vote for Hillary in November never really believed in his Revolution.

Bullsh**t, he never said that, and there was a vast ideological difference. This wasn't like 2008, where it turned out that Obama was a neoliberal fraud.

[KingSweden]

I would like some of the more "progressive" posters on this forum to realize that criticizing Bernie Sanders does not make one a brainless Hillary bot.

Also labeling anyone who disagrees with you on giving away everything for free as a right-wing Wall Street shill is not going to win you a nationwide election.

This is one of the major complaints I had with a lot of the Bernie supporters I knew, and a little bit with Bernie himself. I agreed with some (but certainly not all) of parts of his platform, and thought seriously about voting for him on Super Tuesday, but I decided at the end of the day that he wouldn't be an effective force for enacting well thought-out policy. I have some progressive tendencies but I also really value pragmatism. The thing that bothered me about die-hard Bernie supporters was they equated people who valued pragmatism, the rigorous critique of policy and appreciation of nuance with being ideologically opposed to them. Combine this antagonism with the incredible sense of self-righteous moral superiority that a lot of liberals have and it makes them really unpleasant to talk with sometimes (yes, I recognize that there are a lot of Clinton supporters who are also self-righteous and combative so spare me your "both sides do it!"). I would have much more faith in a Liz Warren-type Democrat as President than Bernie, but because I criticized Bernie for being really unrealistic, I got labelled by a lot of Bernie supporters I knew (including good friends) as a DINO, enemy of the working class, neoliberal shill, etc. And by the tenth time I got one of those comments it really got to me I started to get combative.

Liz Warren would definitely be able to thread the needle better than Bernie, I agree.

[TheSaint250]

What’s more annoying are threads like this that create a new place for the complaining mentioned in the original post.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Also labeling anyone who disagrees with you on giving away everything for free as a right-wing Wall Street shill is not going to win you a nationwide election.

Labelling modest social-democratic proposals as "giving away everything for free!" absolutely makes you a right-winger, yes.

Lol

[°Leprechaun]

There is also the question of whether Democrats should be running more progressive candidates in strongly progressive states. It isn't just about the POTUS election, Congress and states legislatures are important as well.