The Super Tuesday results, and DU policy going forward

[EarlG]

Hi everyone,

This is really a pro forma announcement, because we have an uncontested presidential primary this year, and so we have not had to make a big deal about DU's election year policies. Many of you already know what these are, but for those who don't, allow me to quickly recap.

DU has two different policies for what we consider "Primary Season" and what we consider "General Election Season." During Primary Season members are permitted significant leeway to criticize Democrats that are running for president, whereas during General Election Season members must support the Democratic presidential nominee.

We do this because we feel strongly that during years with competitive presidential primaries, once a nominee is decided upon, continuing to re-hash the primary campaign is pointless, and a potential entry point for trolls to sow unnecessary discord.

There is no fixed date when DU switches from Primary Season to General Election Season -- it very much depends on the state of the race, and whether the primaries are competitive or not.

Technically, DU has been recently operating under Primary Season policies, although since Joe Biden has no serious opposition, it has of course not been necessary for us to fire up a special primaries forum and go through that whole process. However, following yesterday's results, and the fact that Joe Biden will obviously be the Democratic nominee, General Election Season is essentially already in effect, so we might as well make the official call now.

To be clear, it's not against the rules to provide constructive criticism of the Biden campaign going forward, it just can't be done from the perspective of "my candidate is/would have been a better choice." So ultimately what I'm telling you right now is really going to change very little, since pretty much everyone here is already on board with Joe. It's mostly about semantics this year -- for example, Omaha Steve can now switch his fundraising thread titles from "unofficial" to "official" now that a number of primaries have been decided, and as far as I'm concerned that goes for the presidential primaries too.

That's why this isn't exactly a major announcement -- I just wanted to bring it up in case anyone was wondering how we were going to handle it this year. Next time around, we will of course have a competitive presidential primary, so we'll be bringing back the special primaries forum setup that we ran in 2020. But this year there's no need, since it's a foregone conclusion.

(FWIW, Democrats other than President Biden who are still running in competitive primaries are not yet considered "official" candidates until they win their elections.)

Thanks for reading!

EarlG

[multigraincracker]

1. Thank you for the info....

Now go and sin no more.

[TygrBright]

2. What?!? No paeans of love and regret for Jason whatsisname in American Samoa?

Damn', dude... that's harsh. But... I'll manage, somehow...

resignedly,
Bright

[erronis]

3. Can I ask for another policy going forward? No (or minimal) shots of tfg mug, please.

He gets plenty of exposure in the M$M and I hope we don't need to allow over-exposure here at DU.

[PatSeg]

4. Oh, it will be so nice

to not have a DU primary season. That is the one time when I often avoid DU. These can get really contentious, but everything eventually returns to normal once we have a nominee.

[MontanaMama]

5. I am thrilled to fall in line

behind the honorable President Joseph R. Biden!!

[lark]

6. Thank you for the reminder.

It can get pretty hairy here during a competitive Democratic primary season, glad Biden isn't getting significant opposition from within the party!

[markodochartaigh]

7. No matter what you want from politics

the best way to get it is to fight for the policies and politicians that you want between elections and then when the election comes to fight for the candidate that you have been able to achieve.

[ShazzieB]

8. Thanks for this announcement.

Last edited Wed Mar 6, 2024, 06:10 PM - Edit history (1)

It's good to have this clarity going forward. I do have one question, though. You said the following:

To be clear, it's not against the rules to provide constructive criticism of the Biden campaign going forward, it just can't be done from the perspective of "my candidate is/would have been a better choice."

What if someone posts to express general dissatisfaction with Biden being the candidate without arguing for another specific candidate?

The reason I ask is that I've seen a few posts (not many, but a few) along the lines of "Biden shouldn't be the candidate, it should be someone younger." In your view, would it be appropriate to alert on something like that?

I would be interested in your input. I don't want to ignore something problematic, but I also don't want to waste everyone's time sending unnecessary alerts. Thanks!

[EarlG]

11. My answer may not be very helpful I'm afraid :)

I can't really give you specifics because the Jury system is not set up to enforce bright, clear lines. The Jury system does an excellent job quickly removing objectionable material that everyone can agree is objectionable, but it also works very well to handle situations which fall within the "grey area," by allowing a ton of flexibility.

What this means in practice is that if someone said today that Biden should step down in favor of a younger candidate, then depending on how it's worded, Jurors might look at it and think, "Meh, I'll allow it for now." And a lot of people might be pissed about that, but it wouldn't be the end of the world. On the other hand, if it's much later in the year and someone argues that Biden should step down in favor of a younger candidate, they will likely find a Jury to be far less tolerant. In this way, the Jury system broadly reflects the views of the community at large.

As an example, when Joe Biden first became president, Juries were much more likely to enforce the "Don't bash" or "Support Democrats" rules again Joe Manchin. At that time, Manchin was a crucial deciding vote in the Senate and he did stand up for Democrats on some important votes, so while there were still plenty of comments bashing him, Juries were less tolerant of those attacks, and tended to remove more of them. But as Biden's term went on, Manchin became more and more of a thorn in the side of Democrats, until eventually he started publicly toying with the idea of a third party run. By then, Juries were much more tolerant of posts bashing him, and more were allowed to stay. So the rule didn't change, but the context did, and the community's perception of Manchin did, and so they enforced the rule accordingly.

Overall, this is how I prefer things to run. While Juries may occasionally misfire -- which is why we have an appeals process -- rarely do we find that Juries systematically and consistently get things wrong. The last time we did a rule update was to provide additional information about how we define transphobia, because we felt that too many people did not have enough of awareness of that issue, and it was leading to poor outcomes in Jury results. But that was the first time we'd updated the rules since 2016.

The bottom line is that every individual on DU, whether alerting or serving on a Jury, is empowered to use their own best judgment to make a call. If you see something which you think violates a rule, you are absolutely welcome to alert on it. You will not be wasting anybody's time -- the system is there for you to use as you see fit (within reason of course -- we do keep an eye out for potential abuse). So as long as you are acting in good faith, there is not really any such thing as an "unnecessary alert."

I know that doesn't exactly answer the question, but I hope it gives you some more insight into our thinking on this.

[ShazzieB]

12. This gives me a lot more insught, thanks!

I figured there wouldn't be a cut snd dried answer, but this is quite helpful.

[SergeStorms]

9. So it is written. So it shall be done.

I'm on board with that. No complaints here.

There's too much to complain about on the republican side of the equation anyway. They have a monopoly on all of my "bitching and moaning" time.

I don't have time to complain about Joe Biden, even on the outside chance he did something I don't agree with, which he hasn't.

[calimary]

10. Thanks, EarlG!

I love what you’ve done with the place. And in this case, it’s got nothing to do with redecorating.

[flying-skeleton]

13. Thank you. 100% on point.

Vote Blue. Tell anyone & everyone with a brain to vote Blue. Magats don't have brains so don't even bother to try.
#Biden2024