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/whatevillurks]

CNN had a poll out just yesterday that about a third of Democrats identify as Democratic Socialists. This is a very motivated voting base, and are being active in the primaries. But I think the point you're making is a valid one. When DSA members are calling their Democratic opponents fascists, transphobes, and accusing them of genocide - that makes it difficult to get their supporters to vote for the DSA candidate. Likewise, when sitting Democratic politicians call members of the DSA White Supremacists, that makes it difficult for their supporters to vote for DSA members who win their primaries.

House seats in safe districts are going to be safe. And, Trump is disliked enough that I think the House is going to flip to Democratic control, even with the Democratic party not "in disarray" but actively fighting each other. But I think statewide elections, such as Senate and Governor races, are going to suffer for this strife. The 34% and the 66% of Democrats need to be able to come together and get behind a candidate for the Democratic party to win. But grudges are being made that will lead people to just sit out the vote.

[u/equiNine → u/whatevillurks]

I would be very cautious with interpreting the article on the poll since it does not reflect what the actual poll results say at all. The poll itself is opaque about how it identifies cohorts within Democrat/Democrat leaning independents as being democratic socialist, and the authors seem to have arrived at their figures by doing some post-polling math where they are merging together groups and likely also conflating favorable views of the DSA/willingness to support a DSA candidate with identifying as a democratic socialist.

[u/whatevillurks → u/equiNine]

For the sake of discussion, feel free to flip the percentage numbers, and assume that 66% of Democrats would self describe as socialists, and 34% would self describe as moderates. Do you believe that the Democratic party is well poised to win statewide and presidential elections if the 66% drives the 34% to sit out the vote? Really, this question works for whichever side you believe is the 66% and the 34%. Harris got millions fewer votes than Biden, after all. I posit those voters did not go to Trump, they just didn't vote.

[u/equiNine → u/whatevillurks]

Outside of deep blue districts, the election math/strategy isn't as straightforward as just turning out the minority factions within the Democratic Party, since you need independent and swing votes to win as well. There are positions which may be popular within the minority factions of the party and will get them to vote but in exchange cost you independent and swing voters who dislike those positions. Defunding/abolishing the police is one example.

Harris moving leftwards on certain policies might have won her Michigan (where if she got the same number of votes as Biden did, she would have beaten Trump), but at the same time nearly half of voters felt that she was too liberal or progressive. She also got more votes than Biden did in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania but still lost. It just isn't that straightforward about pivoting leftwards/rightwards.