1) The March 15 Date Where Daily Kos will presume that Hillary Clinton is “the Democratic Nominee.” I like many other Sanders supporters feel that this date is totally arbitrary, but intellectually I understand why those for who math and numbers crunching is their primary yardstick might feel the March 15 date is dispositive. This, however, is not exactly an election year in which I think it behooves the party to be overly focused on, or even talk too much about, math (frankly, math’s not very inspiring to the average voter and that is who, presumably, DailyKos wishes to influence). My concern, however, is that this date comes before we see some key states where Bernie is reportedly equally strong to, or even stronger than, Hillary Clinton, cast their votes.

The optics of Markos’ decision are, IMO, pretty bad in light of that. Until Hillary Clinton has 2,383 pledged delegates, she is not the actual nominee of the Democratic party no matter how many statistics wonks (accurately or not) say she will be. The distinction between “presumptive nominee” and “actual nominee” matters a great deal, to me. Because until there are 2,383 pledged delegates who we know MUST vote for Hillary Clinton at the convention on the first ballot, the Democratic primary is simply not over. Other than as a matter of presumptions.

Presumptions have not behooved our party in recent election years. I especially don’t think they will help us this cycle—and have the potential to hurt us, enthusiasm wise.

Now, I’m a realist. I do expect that eventually, Hillary will hit that target delegate number. But she has not, not yet. More importantly, she cannot hit it on March 15 unless there is a blowout of epic proportions, even greater than her wins in South Carolina and Georgia, since we are not “winner take all.” I just don’t see that happening. Indeed, even in the ‘Clinton Central’ state of Arkansas Sanders got 1/3 of the vote—in Arkansas. There are (unless I am reading this table wrong) 2,391 delegates outstanding and allocable after March 15. And for all those voters underlying those delegates who we need to not just turn out in these contests in November, but to bring some other folks with them to the polls right now (because our turnout numbers reflect a depressing level of enthusiasm for *either* candidate, including my candidate Bernie Sanders right now; I am not one fooled into believing that big rallies translate into big votes) cutting off diaries that passionately advance the idea that Bernie might win the nomination despite where Hillary Clinton’s delegate court is on March 15, when we will still have ½ the states in the union having not yet weighed in, is a serious mistake IMO.

Either philosophically Daily Kos believes in, and advocates for, a 50-state strategy (in which all states matter) or we don’t. The March 15 deadline, in light of that, IMO sends a clear and really discouraging message that says “we don’t.”

Markos’ choice of date might matter less to me, perhaps, if DailyKos was still largely operating in isolation (which even in 2012, it largely still was.) Frankly there aren’t that many of us here who are true denizens of this place and use it as their primary place for news, etc. Yet since 2012 in particular this site has set itself up to be a source of information for many people who would never otherwise read anything from DailyKos, especially post-DK5 where the mere click of a button sends diaries out into the ether (FB and Twitter.) Voters, as we know, already suffer too much from “what’s the point? My vote doesn’t matter.” Especially the young voters who rely on social media for their information who we NEED to come out for Hillary assuming that she stays on her current statistical path delegates-wise. Young people see things differently than we do—and they don’t take well to being told that their desire to believe that Bernie Sanders will get the nomination does not matter at a place this important to the dialogue.

Right now, the optics of our side’s lack of primary enthusiasm have a lot of media traction. The message that we are far less passionate than our opponents IS out there more and more each day. We can’t afford to contribute to that by telling passionate (but RATIONAL—those who have been completely irrational I just wish would Go Away and STFU because they hurt Bernie badly and I completely support Markos’ trying to, yet again, bring some order of level-headed sanity back to the diary lists!) partisans that come March 16, the primary is over as far as Daily Kos is concerned just because of math. We will not win in November if Hillary passion or the highway is the name of the game in terms of advocacy too early. IMO, we just won’t. Too many people have already made clear their resentment of that idea — and we need them to turn out in November.

So that’s a long way of saying: please reconsider the date, Markos. What date? If you don’t leave things open until the very last primary (and I assume you won’t), if I was you (and I know I’m not) I’d be pretty generous about it and assume (even if you don’t believe) that the candidates will split the remaining delegates evenly between them from here on out. Whatever date that Hillary Clinton would be guaranteed to have under that scenario 2,383 should IMO be the earliest date. That way, no matter your personal candidate, you can never be accused of not having given Bernie fair access to an advocacy platform that reaches millions of people.

This is when I say for the record that all those folks screaming about how Markos and/or “the front page” has been “in the bag” for Hillary Clinton really have no idea how this place works. Seriously — they don’t. Every time I see that accusation levied I just bust up laughing and wish that they would take some water and douse out that irrational hair on fire. I busted up laughing about it yesterday, too.]

2) What Does “No Pessimism” Actually Mean in Light of the “No Re-Litigating the Primary” Rule?

There are two edicts that Markos made yesterday that I think really need to be clarified because IMO they are too vague. The first is the “No Re-litigating the Primary” Rule. This rule should not even exist IMO because the primaries are not over yet, because of all the reasons I set forth above and so not repeat here. But it is also vague. For example, each of the candidates are currently fine tuning their message and approach still on an almost-daily basis. They are also continuing to meet with voters and have experiences that are not just fodder for their opponents to whine, but also at times lead to legitimate discussions about whether the risks/rewards for nominating either Hillary or Bernie are actually affected. Case in point: it is perfectly legitimate to continue to discuss how Hillary is using PACs that are affiliated with the alphabet groups (the CBC PAC comes most to mind) to shore up her legitimacy with the vast majority of voters of color when the membership of the actual groups themselves have made no endorsement. It’s legitimate to discuss whether Hillary’s recent handling of Black activists who got in her face at inopportune moments signal that she will have just as hard time, if not harder, than Bernie Sanders keeping young Black voters engaged (fear of the future SCOTUS Armageddon campaigning simply does not work with that group) such that we need to not move so fast in rallying behind her even though she’s blown Sanders out of the water right now with Black voters. Yet all those things are in my mind potentially ‘re-litigating the primary’. So it would be great to get some clarifying examples, or something.

But the one that gives me the most pause is “No Pessimism.” To tell folks that they cannot be pessimistic about our chances if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination short-circuits a conversation about what to do and how to the solve the potential problems that might cause her loss before that necessary conversation has been had. A conversation that we know is being watched by the candidates and their campaigns, as well as the millions that only know DailyKos through their FB and Twitter feeds.

IMO, anyone who is totally convinced at this point that Hillary will win in November should spend more time thinking about the consolidation that is occurring on the other side of the aisle, and about the fact that we are pretty much on notice that there will be a floor fight at the Republican convention to ensure that their ticket does not deliver us a candidate/slate who will go down in a TKO to either of our candidates. Hopefully even the most partisan Hillary supporters can acknowledge that she has serious weaknesses as a candidate in the general election. IMO, it’s inarguable that the reasons she lost to President Obama are not just because was a historic candidate in terms of identity and skill at electoral strategy. (Indeed, she’s already showing those weaknesses in the primary.) To me, we must also factor in that right now, the other side has not even begun to throw shade at Hillary Clinton: they’ve been largely running against President Obama and motivated by their desire to totally de-legitimize his legacy. However, once she is the nominee, all bets are off. They have had 30 years to perfect their message, and to perfect its delivery. No matter which nominee (other than Trump) they pick.

This year, on both sides of the political divide, this is an election about regular folks being sick and tired of the status quo where politicians are concerned. We laugh about what it has yielded on the Republican side of the aisle, but IMO the Democratic Party also has something to fear in that truth. Insisting that folks rally around the status quo candidate too early, when the electorate as a whole is simply not all that jazzed about Hillary Clinton (even the majority of Black folks are not “jazzed” — as Dopper’s extraordinary diary 'Why Black Voters Vote the Way They Do' noted, and as many commenters have also noted, while we are giving her the overwhelming number of our votes it is not because we’re in love with Hillary Clinton.

(This is why IMO it is important for Sanders to step his game WAY UP so that he can bring to the convention floor at least enough delegates to encourage a decent number of superdelegates to actually take Nancy Pelosi up on her having just told them that they don’t have to live with their previous, overwhelming, support for Hillary Clinton; THAT’s the situation that leads to extractions in terms of party platform, enthusiastic campaigning for Hillary if she has to make some promises that right now I know she is not willing to make on economic justice issues, etc. Shutting down discussions of this type because they might be construed as “relitigating the primary” when we know the candidates and the party leadership all follow this site is a bad idea IMO.)

Given all this I get worried that a “no pessimism” rule would shut down arguments trying to advocate that we might be making the wrong choice in picking Hillary for the general through discussion about things that someone might consider ‘pessimism’ or even a ‘right wing attack’ (i.e. the FBI e-mail investigation, which might have originated in the right-wing but which puts front and center Hillary Clinton’s greatest weakness: her judgment and trustworthiness). I worry that we will end up with bannings that are unnecessary, rather than a serious discussion about what needs to be done (which might, but does not have to include, helping Sanders be more competitive just in case.) Again, if the date were changed, the lack of clarity about what these ideas mean (as opposed to what they do not mean) might not concern me as much. Right now they do, so I am hoping that Markos will take a little more time to clarify these two ideas.

BTW, I do hope those who know me know that I would be saying this stuff even if it was Bernie Sanders, not Hillary Clinton, with the current delegate lead.