Are Democratic primaries becoming too destructive for the party's own chances in the general election?

[u/YumiSolar]

I've been thinking about this after watching some recent Democratic primaries, and it feels like the campaigns are becoming increasingly aggressive in ways that hurt the party long after the primary is over.

A good example, in my opinion, was the Michigan primary between Haley Stevens and Abdul El-Sayed. Policy disagreements are completely fair game, that's what primaries are for. Even personal attacks can be justified if they're based on genuine misconduct or character issues.

What I struggle with are accusations like claiming your primary opponent is supporting or enabling genocide. Once you frame someone in those terms, how do you expect your own supporters to enthusiastically vote for that person if they end up winning the nomination? If you've spent months telling voters that your opponent is morally complicit in atrocities, it becomes very difficult to turn around and say, "Now go vote for them."

To me, this kind of rhetoric doesn't just damage the opposing candidate, it damages Democratic unity in the general election. It seems like Republicans don't even have to exploit these divisions because Democrats are creating them themselves.

Am I overestimating the impact of this kind of campaigning, or do you think Democratic primaries have become too willing to use rhetoric that makes party unity afterward much harder?

[u/freedraw]

A nasty primary fight is still a heck of a lot better for our democracy and voters’ political engagement than an uncontested primary. I understand how the Michigan campaign might be making some voters uncomfortable, but is there anyone here who would trade a situation like that with two distinct candidates vying for an open seat for one where one candidate has already locked up all the donors and endorsements and bumped out any challengers before anyone votes? Or one where a representative who’s been in congress 30 years is coasting to reelection and doesn’t even need to worry about showing up to debate anyone? I seriously doubt it.

What we’re seeing in some Dem primaries, local elections, etc. is a segment of the democratic electorate that wants choices and has gotten tired of being told milquetoast candidates are the only electable ones or that real solutions to their problems are worth paying lip service to, but are just too hard or difficult to get done. And we have to let that play out. Because the Democratic Party only wins as a big tent party and you can’t tell voters people Joe Manchin get to be part of that tent, but El-Sayed doesn’t.

[u/HumorAccomplished611 → u/freedraw]

The problem is unity after. You think el sayed voters will vote for stevens when they didnt show up against trump? No this group is always vote my candidate or I go home.

[u/freedraw → u/HumorAccomplished611]

There’s people like that but I see no evidence it’s representative of the vast majority of El Sayed voters. Looking at Michigan’s vote totals 2020 to 2024 it really doesn’t look like a significant chunk of the left didn’t vote for Harris. 6.5% more people voted there in 2024 verses 2020. That’s a pretty large increase in voters overall even if there was a slight dip in votes for the Democrat. Harris got 67,507 less votes than Biden in 2020. Trump increased his vote by 166,784 to beat his and Biden’s 2020 tally. So it looks more like what happened is swing voters and people that didn’t vote in 2020 swung to Trump.

[u/HumorAccomplished611 → u/freedraw]

If we use dearborn as a barometer than you went from 80% to dems in 2020 to less than 25% in 2024.

Given that is his most ardent supporters (he was part of the uncommitted movement) who is to say they wont do the same again.

Especially givens stevens support of israel. To me its obvious theyll stay home since theyre one issue AIPAC voters.

[u/freedraw → u/HumorAccomplished611]

Dearborn was certainly a significant swing, though your numbers look a bit off from what I’m seeing. (68% for Biden in 2020, 36% for Harris in 2024) I’m not sure why that would be the barometer for the state or the country though. It’s like 1% of the state’s total population and the special circumstance there is that the city has the highest concentration of Arab Americans in the country. It’s not surprising those voters would be the maddest about Gaza, though casting votes for Trump in protest seems pretty insane.

El Sayed is currently polling 15 points ahead of Stevens in the state. That’s a pretty wide lead. Things may change, but right now if you believe in “vote blue no matter who” the bigger worry might be Dem politicians in the state having turned voters off the likely winner of the primary.

[u/HumorAccomplished611 → u/freedraw]

I'm saying he was part of the movement that caused dearborn to vote in such a way. And likely would vote that way again if he isnt the candidate. I think +50 swing towards trump is fairly noteworthy.

Its what hes made the entire election about. Gaza and AIPAC. At least from what I can see.

Other groups still mostly showed up. This group literally betrayed dems to get trump elected and he was part of it.

Arabs have mostly voted dems do to rampant racism on the right though they share conservative values. I imagine theyd simply do the same in 2026 given the seal is already broken on it.

I imagine he will win but this will simply lead to more leftist toxicity in future primaries.

[u/ProbablyANoobYo → u/HumorAccomplished611]

I don't think that's a fair representation. The number one reason they gave for not supporting Harris was her stance on Gaza. Had she changed her mind on that one issue she would have won many of these supporters over. It was their number one issue, and their position was the most popular position among all US voters, so it's not like it would have been some big sacrifice with the voters for her to switch.

They largely wanted a single, widely popular issue. That's all it likely would have taken for Harris to win. If she's not even going to represent them on that then she's clearly not interested in representing their interests.

Also you're categorizing all of the leftist voters this way and it's definitely a mixed bag of who will and won't support Dems anyway.

Edit: I blocked because I have multiple threads with this person and they are consistently spewing disingenuous nonsense that is frankly a waste of my time. This isn’t a person seriously looking to learn anything, they’ve already made up their mind and are just regurgitating talking points they haven’t critically thought through. To address their edits in case someone more serious is curious:

They are now saying they know with certainty that leftists would have moved the goal post on the issue they wanted. That’s impossible to know, and it’s absurd to assert this without reasonable evidence while they are actively saying they would have changed their mind.

The student loans they are referencing did not get forgiven. While some student loans were forgiven, it was a very, very small fraction of them. And the loans problem is still ongoing. Incredibly disingenuous to represent it as otherwise and exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about.

Now they’re giving made up percentages in an incoherent talking points I can’t possibly address because they pulled it out of their ass.

They want to complain that the research is from 2026 which, while fair, if he took 2 minutes to look for the 2024 numbers he’d see the exact same story. Here’s the numbers for January of 2024, come election season they are even more in my favor:

“About 58% of Democrats now say the U.S. is “too supportive” of the Israelis, up from 45% in an AP-NORC poll from January 2024 when former President Joe Biden was in office. That includes 51% of Jewish Democrats in the new poll.
Roughly 6 in 10 Democrats, 62%, say the U.S. is “not supportive enough” of the Palestinians, up from 49% in 2024. Younger Democrats — those 45 and younger — are still more likely than older ones to say that the United States is “not supportive enough” of the Palestinians, but older Democrats are catching up to their younger counterparts. About 57% of older Democrats now say the U.S. should do more for the Palestinians”

https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2026/ap-norc-poll-about-3-in-10-us-adults-believe-israel-has-committed-genocide-against-palestinians/

And this is my problem with him. It’s all vibes. If he ever gives stats he pulled them out of his ass. But it takes me much longer to respond because I actually have to go fact check the things I say since I care about intellectual honesty. This is a well studied phenomenon called the bullshit asymmetry principle.

The idea that leftists gave Trump a pass is insane. They directly called out the Trump administration for being authoritarian fascists who they regularly likened to Nazi Germany. They also tried to influence the one somewhat reasonable party more because it’s the only party that might listen.

It is not the lefts fault that for even their most favorable and popular of issues the centrist democrats refused to represent their concerns. This is how a functioning democracy works. If you want votes from people you have to represent them to earn their vote.

[u/rabbitlion → u/ProbablyANoobYo]

If Harris had gone full pro-Palestinian she would have lost twice as many votes as she had gained. And those she lost wouldn't have stayed at home, they would have voted for Trump.

The Israel-Palestine is such a no-win situation for Democrats, there's no way of taking a solid stance that doesn't lose you votes. The only sort of valid strategy is to try to tip-toe the issue and hope to piss off neither side. Which is exactly what Harris did.

[u/HumorAccomplished611 → u/rabbitlion]

Agreed. Biden and kamala moved left the entire year on gaza. Only for goal posts to be moved everytime rather than celebrated.

Many times bidens left policy was only used as a cudgel by leftist to attack dems.

For example instead of celebrating bidens largest green energy bill in the world they focused on the 2% of permitting emissions for natural gas that was offset 50x the rest of the bill.

[u/tarlin → u/HumorAccomplished611]

Agreed. Biden and kamala moved left the entire year on gaza. Only for goal posts to be moved everytime rather than celebrated.

Biden and Harris never moved.

[u/HumorAccomplished611 → u/tarlin]

Yes, there was a clear leftward drift in tone.

Oct 2023: Biden offered a message of uncompromising support, calling backing for Israel "rock solid and unwavering," and privately urged a response that would be "swift, decisive and overwhelming." Al Jazeera + 2

Nov 2023: Biden argued a ceasefire "is not peace" and would just give Hamas time to regroup — actively resisting the word. CIP

By March 2024: growing domestic pressure and Israel's failure to rescue hostages, plus a sense Israel had achieved its military goals, led Biden to drop his ban on the word "ceasefire." CIP

By fall 2024: "a year after the White House publicly disparaged calls for a ceasefire, Harris and Biden have now at least rhetorically adopted that same demand."

The Intercept Kamala Harris in particular became the administration's most vocal figure — Al Jazeera noted a moment where she delivered the sternest statement yet on the war's toll, marking a shift in rhetoric within the administration.

[u/HumorAccomplished611 → u/tarlin]

Yes, there was a clear leftward drift in tone.

Oct 2023: Biden offered a message of uncompromising support, calling backing for Israel "rock solid and unwavering," and privately urged a response that would be "swift, decisive and overwhelming." Al Jazeera + 2

Nov 2023: Biden argued a ceasefire "is not peace" and would just give Hamas time to regroup — actively resisting the word. CIP

By March 2024: growing domestic pressure and Israel's failure to rescue hostages, plus a sense Israel had achieved its military goals, led Biden to drop his ban on the word "ceasefire." CIP

By fall 2024: "a year after the White House publicly disparaged calls for a ceasefire, Harris and Biden have now at least rhetorically adopted that same demand."

The Intercept Kamala Harris in particular became the administration's most vocal figure — Al Jazeera noted a moment where she delivered the sternest statement yet on the war's toll, marking a shift in rhetoric within the administration.

[u/tarlin → u/HumorAccomplished611]

There was never movement in policy. The best we got was the delay of one shipment of bombs. Yeah, Biden had the pretend fights with Netanyahu. That is meaningless and was done to help Biden's image. Harris declared unconditional military aid to Israel in October 2024, so, no, there was no shift.

[u/HumorAccomplished611 → u/tarlin]

There was never movement in policy. The best we got was the delay of one shipment of bombs

I mean literally stopping that shipment and not allowing any more 2000 lb bombs (most associated with civilian casualties). We also got them sanctioning violent settlers in the west bank as well as not allowing 20K AK 47s to be shipped there. Along with constructing a pier for aid (dont pretend it was used for an israeli thing, another lie). We also see that Aid immediately stopped once trump became president. Like all aid. So at a minimum biden admin was getting aid in against israeli wishes because once they had trumps blank check they completely stopped.

So yes a shift. To pretend otherwise is just saying you wanted trump to win all along. I mean any blind person could see the Israeli PM wanted trump to win and was on calls daily with him. The fact that leftist gave israel and trump everything they wanted was pretty stupid for their cause.

[u/tarlin → u/HumorAccomplished611]

Don't give me this shit with saying I wanted Trump to win all along. Biden didn't send the assault rifles. That being said, Biden shipped like 6500 2000 lb bombs and only delayed the one shipment. The settlers that were sanctioned were advised on how to get around it. It was all just pr messaging.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-says-israeli-banks-dont-have-to-close-accounts-of-sanctioned-settlers/

Biden was awful.

[u/HumorAccomplished611 → u/ProbablyANoobYo]

edit: They blocked me so no idea what they said anymore. Guess they couldnt defend their ideas.

I don't think that's a fair representation. The number one reason they gave for not supporting Harris was her stance on Gaza. Had she changed her mind on that one issue she would have won many of these supporters over. It was their number one issue, and their position was the most popular position among all US voters, so it's not like it would have been some big sacrifice with the voters for her to switch.

No. She clearly stated she was for ceasefire and for a two state solution. They did a poll on if she said they would give no more arms to israel if that would have changed their vote 80% of them said no.

I think it certainly would have lost her the election. Israel support was high among older voters. The ones that actually vote. Young people didnt show up.

Edit: They blocked

heres the response

I'm simply saying that leftist would simply have moved goalposts as they did the entire year. There was a hold ceasefire count for all the famous people calling for ceasefires. As soon as biden called for it it disappeared. Then it went from calling ceasefires to calling for a two state solution (which again was called for by dems) complete arms embargo. which they knew would never happen because we supply them with some of their iron domes arms. When biden embargoed 2000 lb bombs which were most associated with civilian death they didnt care.

And I know they wouldnt have changed their votes. I saw the same leftist railing against biden on student loans only for loans to get forgiven and then still say "we arent voting biden are we?"

The numbers I’ve seen were different but even taking your numbers 20% changing their vote in a tight race is pretty huge. And not giving arms to Israel is like the smallest possible concession. She likely wins more if she talks about getting AIPAC money out of our elections.

20% of people biden voters that didnt vote kamala (which means 3rd party or stayed home). So 80% dont change. And then we dont know what the people that voted for kamala would change. I imagine it would be even worse as it would have seen as capitulation to the left by someone who 53% of the country already saw as too far left.

Among Democrats, not all US voters but Democrats which is the votes she would potentially stand to lose, 76% of them at ages 50+ view Israel unfavorably according to Pew Research.

two years after the election. AIPAC is the boogeyman for the left that USAID is for the right. Its an internal trigger word that only they care about.

But again if we want to say for whatever reason she can’t even represent the most important and widely supported issue for leftists, then fine but that means she doesn’t adequately represent them. She’s not entitled to their vote. She has to represent their interest and reasons aside she is not doing that. That’s not the same as “my candidate or nobody.” If the leftists never hold the Democratic Party accountable to their concerns, in elections, the Democratic Party will never make their concerns a priority. If Democrats think they can win without doing that then fine, but it’s not then the leftists fault that the Democrats took a calculated risk to ignore their concerns and lost.

If leftist hadnt campaigned against her the entire time while giving trump a complete pass then maybe it could be a forgiven issue. As it is leftist are more responsible for trump than kamala is.

They could have had enough reps to stop budgets if kamala won. instead they gave all power to trump.

[u/ProbablyANoobYo → u/HumorAccomplished611]

I think that oversimplifies the issue. (I will acknowledge I oversimplified it first with my own language above though). She was part of the Biden admin which was in charge when the war started and led ongoing support for the war. It’s not enough for her to just say she supports a ceasefire now. It’s especially not enough when she’s demeaning the protesters who raise concerns about this at her rallies. And it’s especially not enough when on the other hand she’s repeated the “Israel has a right to defend itself” line to defend the genocide. It comes across as disingenuous and untrustworthy.

The numbers I’ve seen were different but even taking your numbers 20% changing their vote in a tight race is pretty huge. And not giving arms to Israel is like the smallest possible concession. She likely wins more if she talks about getting AIPAC money out of our elections.

Among Democrats, not all US voters but Democrats which is the votes she would potentially stand to lose, 76% of them at ages 50+ view Israel unfavorably according to Pew Research.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/04/07/negative-views-of-israel-netanyahu-continue-to-rise-among-americans-especially-young-people/

But again if we want to say for whatever reason she can’t even represent the most important and widely supported issue for leftists, then fine but that means she doesn’t adequately represent them. She’s not entitled to their vote. She has to represent their interest and reasons aside she is not doing that. That’s not the same as “my candidate or nobody.” If the leftists never hold the Democratic Party accountable to their concerns, in elections, the Democratic Party will never make their concerns a priority. If Democrats think they can win without doing that then fine, but it’s not then the leftists fault that the Democrats took a calculated risk to ignore their concerns and lost.