It's all I can do to discipline myself not to leave Dem party tonight

My plan is to remain in Dem party if Bernie is nominee (I still have hope!). But if he isn't this lifetime Democrat will leave the party.

I've been waiting for the convention to see what happens but tonight after this bullshit fake coronation from the MSM it's all I can do to keep from changing my party id online right this minute.

Okay, I've calmed down a bit (Thanks for listening to this rant!)

I will wait for convention. I think a mass deregistration from the Dem party would be more effective on day after convention, if it comes to that.

Are you with me?

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

BernieOrBust's picture

It is very liberating to tell people, No, I will not be voting for HRC, I'm not a Dem!!!!!! The party rolls keep shrinking, eventually they'll get a clue.

up
0 users have voted.

1968, 1980 and 2000.

People said the same bullcrap after each -- after Humphrey was nominated, after Carter was re-nominated and after Al Gore was nominated. Did the Democratic Party get more liberal? I keep reading that it's been steadily movng. right. I mean, that's the source of your frustration with the party, no? In fact, when Democrats lose the Presidency, the Party gets nervous and goes where the votes are -- to the right. If the right had the majority, it only makes sense to peel off some of their voters....and that's what happens.

Chris Hayes made a really smart contrast between 1992, 2004 and 2016. In 1992, after losing 3 straight elections, Democrats turned to the DLC candidate who promised to win, regardless of his rejection of liberalism. In 2004, Democrats were desperate to run anyone in a uniform, regardless of their politics. In 2016, after 2 straight wins by Pres. Obama, we have younger people who don't remeber the desperation Democrats felt in '92 or in '04 -- and those young people weren't worried about choosing a centrist to win the election. They were confident in electing a progressive, and they've supported Sanders by huge majorities. If we can keep those young people in the fold -- and add in the next group of young people, progressives will be the majority in the Democratic Party. But telling them to leave the party is exactly the wrong message. We should be fighting to change the party -- not just with one candidate at the top of the ticket but with progressives up and down the ballot -- and in the party organization, too, with central committees or precinct organizations. Our moment is coming. Fight for it. Don't quit on it.

up
0 users have voted.

Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.

dance you monster's picture

. . . to see merit in what you say about the downticket if in my state the DNC had not poured in millions of dollars to help the local Dem machine get the weak-ass pro-fracking corporate candidate to a win in our Senate primary, in no small part because another primary candidate had not genuflected deeply enough to Schumer and a third had endorsed Sanders. Say "Can I have another" to Senator Toomey. The party gave up that race, and with it quite likely control of the Senate. That's not how MY party would work. And MY moment will be something I find on another path. I will fight for that, thank you.

up
0 users have voted.

Sestak and Fetterman had more votes then McGinty. So, maybe you shouldn't blame the machine. Maybe, the problem is what it usually is - the left can't get its shit together and unite. Which is why it would never work to work outside the Democratic party. We just need to do a better job of working inside it.

up
0 users have voted.

Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.

dance you monster's picture

. . . because the Left did not overwhelm the DNC's choice. The DNC is the Democratic Party. If you're saying we lost because we didn't deny the party its choice, why are you claiming we shouldn't find another way to deny the party its choice? Confining ourselves to staying within the Democratic Party is not some magic solution to unify the Left, or McGinty would have lost. If the Left can unify, it can do so on its own terms, under any banner.

up
0 users have voted.

You're saying the left lost because McGinty won. I'm just saying why that happened. You can't deny the DNC its preferred candidates if you don't play. We need more people like Fetterman, except maybe we'd want them to have broader appeal, rather being a curiosity -- which isn't impossible. The problem with a bunch of people on the left leaving the left-leaning coalition party is a simple one. You can't and won't win. Ever. Anything. Well, maybe that's a slight exaggeration. You might win a few seats or offices somewhere, but you'll succeed in marginalizing the left even more. There are already plenty of left parties -- the Greens, the Socialist Party, the Socialist Workers party, etc. People who participate in and vote for those parties are arrogant fools playing at political games rather than serious politics, which requires either winning elections or influencing policy, or preferably both. I was a pretend communist when I was in middle school. Some people don't stop pretending.

up
0 users have voted.

Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

Tricky Dick, Nader, SCOTUS, down-ticket. You must not leave the Democrats because.
And by the way, our moment is coming.

It's a corrupt organization, not in the sense of imperfect, but in the sense of a deliberately malicious entity screwing with us. The people in control of it will use all their resources to continue to screw with us.

People talk rather lightly and easily about "taking over" the Democratic party. Well, I want a game plan, one that relies on a real strategic analysis of the Democratic party and its resources, including the power of the wealthy who are funding it and who usually go to bat for it. "More and better" does not constitute a game plan. "Just keep voting and working harder for your candidates!" is absurd in light of the AP announcement and the myriad "irregularities" of this election cycle.

Anybody who tries to convince me that Leaving Would Be Bad without such a plan ready for analysis will receive one of these:

[Video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08jyOwx96Ig]

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

stay inside the Democratic party" is also not a plan.

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

BernieOrBust's picture

I'll be voting for Bernie tomorrow. Not sure what I'll do in the general. Jill Stein??? Or sit it out and let y'all fight over the two most corrupt, despised and distrusted candidates to have ever run for president.

I have no intentions of going back to being a Dem until they clean the sewer of every turd floating around in it. I will vote for Kamela Harris to replace Barbara Boxer in the senate, and Dems down ballot for other statewide races.

HRC is a whole other kettle of fish. She, Slick Willy, and their gang of 1%ers, criminals, and oligarchs just stole an election. NO, I WILL NOT BE VOTING FOR THAT WRETCH IN NOVEMBER. Not contributing to voter fraud. It's illegal, you know.

up
0 users have voted.
Cha Cha DiGregorio's picture

Please consider voting for Steve Stokes, who's endorsed Bernie, instead!

up
0 users have voted.

It's a big club...and you ain't in it!

BernieOrBust's picture

things as AG in Cali. I have never heard of Steve Stokes, and I just got this message. Humpf.... I already for Kamela.

With that said it is nice that we are assured a Dem Senator, and a woman, and of color... Would be better if they were in the guise of Sanders, but.....

up
0 users have voted.

when nobody is watching them anymore.

up
0 users have voted.

Beware the bullshit factories.

TrueBlueinWDC's picture

up
0 users have voted.

"Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change." Stephen Hawking

NEW: http://www.twitter.com/trueblueinwdc

Alphalop's picture

if that is the effect. Smile

But then again they are spoiled and can just go out back whenever they want.

up
0 users have voted.

"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me

TheOtherMaven's picture

ever since I figured out that Virginia has open primaries and party membership is not a requirement.

up
0 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

I could never vote for HRC. Nobody scares me as much as she does.

up
0 users have voted.
Alphalop's picture

I know a few dems that will vote for her out of fear of Trump, but even they may end up sitting it out if it is at all inconvenient, the support seems that lackluster.

up
0 users have voted.

"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me

This is really going to hurt our prime chance of taking back the senate and the SCOTUS.

up
0 users have voted.
Alphalop's picture

down ballot foot..

But just wait for the spin, it will be all the BernieBro's fault that they lost. (which they will if Clinton is our nominee)

up
0 users have voted.

"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

We should have a FL meet-up. Maybe halfway down the state, in the St Pete Beach area. My old stomping grounds. Great food!

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Alphalop's picture

and mellow people, way more of a relaxed feeling than I get from the Eastern coast. (Most of it reminds me of NYC but with Palm trees, lol!)

up
0 users have voted.

"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me

blazinAZ's picture

"New York with palm trees" is exactly what I call South Florida. I have family members in the Coral Spgs area and every time I go to visit, that's what it seems like to me.

up
0 users have voted.

There is no justice in America, but it is the fight for justice that sustains you.
--Amiri Baraka

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

stomping grounds--St Pete Beach

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

orlbucfan's picture

I am in O-ville. I already changed my affiliation to Indie. Had to go back to Dem. cos of the August primary--ugh! We have got to get rid of closed primaries!! Recd!

up
0 users have voted.

Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.

I was going to change my registration here in Oregon to Independent - or something other than Dem. When he announced that stopped my plans LOL. You can sign me up for that mass exodus :).

I never knew I was a democratic socialist until Bernie ran. I believe in the programs set up by the New Deal many years ago. I grew up watching unions getting stronger, hell, my father was a union member for many, many years. I fought for the ERA many years ago, and so many other things.

I can honestly say the democratic party left me long ago. And I am one of those 'onery' ones who will not vote for Clinton at all - and I won't accept any guilt about it either. I didn't support her in 2008 - there are too many things about her that will keep me from casting a vote for her. I can't even hold my nose LOL.

I'm getting up there in age, and while I wanted to see a woman president before I leave this earth - it wasn't Clinton, that's for damn sure.

up
0 users have voted.
yellopig's picture

I've got a Berniecrat and a CorpoDem running here. I'll wait until right after the primary, but after that, if the Dem party has nothing for me, then I have nothing for them, either.

up
0 users have voted.

“We may not be able to change the system, but we can make the system irrelevant in our lives and in the lives of those around us.”—John Beckett

well Ive been an indy for a long time no chance of that changing-- and no- im not voting Hillary I just don't trust her at all

up
0 users have voted.

well Ive been an indy for a long time no chance of that changing-- and no- im not voting Hillary I just don't trust her at all

up
0 users have voted.

If you want the Democratic Party to hear your voice, you won't do it by leaving the Party. This premise is totally flawed. If you want change --- and if you want the process to be opened up to people outside the Party, you can't do that from the outside. You have to be in the Party. If you show your vote can't be counted on, then it will be ignored. Really. If the left wing peels away form the Democratic Party, it's not going to move left. It's going to move right, to attreact new voters.

If the idea is to create a viable 3rd party -- perhaps the Green Party - that's equally misguided. It can't happen here. Frankly, it can't happen anywher. The Green Party is not a winning party anywhere in the world. They've managed to get into some coalitions, but we don't do coalition governments We do coalition parties.

Really, I'm perplexed that all these Democrats want to leave the Party after the most successful progressive candidacy since George McGovern. The future of the party belongs to progressives, so long as they continue the effort.

up
0 users have voted.

Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.

I just know I can never vote for another neo lib/ neo con.

up
0 users have voted.
detroitmechworks's picture

Of them using Bernie's candidacy as a reason we must NEVER EVER vote Progressive, because he cost us the election?

I know the game, we all know the game by now. It's a STUPID game played by rich people to try to pretend that if we do everything we are told, maybe, just MAYBE we won't lose social progress made outside the party to political games between the parties.

up
0 users have voted.

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

Blasphemy101's picture

The Democratic Party has treated the Left Wing of the party as lepers since the 70s. Sorry, Not Sorry, I am not going back into what is an abusive relationship anymore. They haven't been listening and have been willing to rig the system when we start making our voices heard. Screw the party. They want us back, they can earn it.

up
0 users have voted.

War, War Never Changes - Fallout Series

Steven D's picture

Vote for Jill Stein or whomever, but register as Republicans.

Even if for only this election that would send a powerful message to the DNC.

Just spit balling here.

up
0 users have voted.

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

detroitmechworks's picture

No, I do not advocate for it.

I only observe their behavior.

up
0 users have voted.

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

I'm either leaving on Wednesday or after the convention.

up
0 users have voted.

If we took over the GOP, do you think the existing members would mind if we renamed it the Eugene Debs Party? Or do you think that would be too much for them once they learn that they can't even be homophobic in their own party any more?

up
0 users have voted.
JayRaye's picture

Register as Republicans but vote for Jill Stein.

Now that's what I call an original idea. That would send a very powerful message to the DNC. Now I can't do that in Texas but for those who can it's something to consider.

As a long range strategy- probably not the best. But to make a statement this year, something to consider.

Sometimes the best ideas come from spit balling.

up
0 users have voted.

Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons

Cosmic's picture

The future of the Democratic party is diminishing. It is corrupt as hell and is un-supportable at this point, for me. I am ideological, but this isn't even about ideology. It is about depravity and corruption. It is about kleptocracy.

Something else will rise in its place. There is not enough time for the long game and the Democratic party. It took the Republicans nearly 50 years to get what they wanted in their twisted fucked up way. They got it. They rule the roost from most dog catchers, school boards on up. We Don't Have 50 More Years.

Until the $$$ ceases to be the central factor, the central focus, of running for office as a Democratic Mayor, Governor, Representative, Senator, President then the Democratic Party is as much as the problem as the Republican. It's the corruption, man.... the cronyism, the greed.

up
0 users have voted.

THAT'S my voice.

up
0 users have voted.
WindDancer13's picture

it cannot be done is a challenge, right? It is like we have heard for this entire primary season: be pragmatic, be realistic, don't look for pie-in-the-sky alternatives. If the Founding Fathers had been pragmatic, realistic, and turned their backs on drastic, radical changes, we would all be speaking with British accents and saluting the queen. Then again, we would have a parliament made up of many different parties, wouldn't we?

up
0 users have voted.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass

...Is that too many Berniecrats are giving up. Lose one election and it's too hard to change the Democratic Party? So, we should walk away and try to start our own Party which will be a fraction of the size of the Democratic Party? That's not a challenge. It's peevishness.

You didn't win a primary? So, you give up and start your own club? Why not try to organize a junta/coup to take over the government instead? Here's why -- you respect the vote when you lose and you go back and do the hard work of preparing for the next election,

Politics is a process -- it doesn't end with any one election, win or lose. I used to be an independent, until I figured out there wasn't any point in it. And, in this election, I've figured out that my distance is pretty useless too. If I want to see change, I've got to get off my ass and not just vote Democratic, but participate...in the Party. Don't leave it to the apparatchiks. I grew up in one of the most Democratic states, in New York. The last 2 decades, I've been in one of hte other most Democratic states, in Maryland. But, neither state is particularly progressive. Here's the thing though -- progressives are pushing their way in, in both states, ignoring the old machines, sometimes even challenging them. That's what we need to be doing. If we're too old to do it ourselves, find someone younger who can run and win, and work for them.

up
0 users have voted.

Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.

WindDancer13's picture

become the Republican Party. I don't think it will take nearly as long to form a new viable party. In fact, after about a year of HRC (maybe a bit less under Trump), I would suggest that there will be a lot more recruits. Any progressives that we can get into the various political arenas now will eventually shift to the new party as the old ones will not support their/our agenda.

The current far-right wing of the Republican party will fall off a cliff at some point (if not already) and the moderate Republicans will join with the DINOs. A new progressive party may not be suited to all, so hopefully, we can form two new left leaning parties from those looking to point the country in a healthier direction. A tri-party system would help with not allowing this to happen again.

You might want to consider that Sanders has taken about half of the states and almost 50 percent of the delegates (it would probably be over 50% if not for all the irregularities and disenfranchisement) which means that we will be starting with a pretty decent level of involvement.

You are more than welcome to what will be left of the Democratic party, and I wish you luck.

And please do not talk to me and/or others as if we were children. This is not peevishness. This is survival.

up
0 users have voted.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass

darkmatter's picture

up
0 users have voted.

Here's a comment I saw posted in response to the sharing of hte Sanders campaign statement about pushing ot hte convention because the count includes over 400 who were counted before Bernie entered the race.

"TRUE ON HILLARY SHE'S LOSING GROUND & WE KNOW WE CAN NOT TRUST WHAT the MEDIA PUTS OUT - ck OpenSecrets.org on HILLARY & SEE WHO SHE REALLY WORKS FOR & HER VOTING RECORD & U WILL SEE IT'S NOT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE - FACTS R FACTS - U JUDGE - PLUS BERNIES for PEACE & I DO NOT SEE THAT with TRUMP or HILLARY CLINTON"

This is not from the reality based community. Clinton isn't "losing ground." Obviously, the person prefers Sanders because he's working harder for the American people and he's less of a hawk -- though, the person probably couldn't frame it in a relative and nuanced way, as I've tried to do.

What I'm concerned with is that this is typical of so many Busters' reactions. It's not based in reality -- and the idea of challenging the Democratic Party from the outside is not a realistic strategy either.

"You might want to consider that Sanders has taken about half of the states and almost 50 percent of the delegates (it would probably be over 50% if not for all the irregularities and disenfranchisement) which means that we will be starting with a pretty decent level of involvement."

Yes. That's obvious. I'm actually one of those delegates. We are all of us Democrats, even if we have varying levels of anger and ideas about how to conduct ourselves. But -- there are 2 things wrong with your statement:

1) You're making an outlandish and fallacious assumption that all those Democratic voters will leave the Democratic Party. Some % may -- but probably not more than 20%. 75% of those who voted -- or more will remain in the Party...and there are many more Democrats who didn't vote for either candidate for whatever reason..

2) Yes -- Sanders came awfully close to winning this race, despite being a relative unknown in many states to most Democratic voters at the start of the process and unknown to some even at the time they were voting. Also, he was seen by many as "not a real Democrat." Imagine if we actually had a candidate who had cred like Sanders with the progressive wing, but also had allies in the Party (super-delegates and such) and was welcomed and taken seriously by all Democratic voters!!

Think of this like football. You have a weak team so you hire a new coach. He drafts new players, maybe signs some free agents. Eventually, if he know what he's doing, the team gets into the playoffs, and maybe the make the conference finals or even the Super Bowl, where they get beat by a team that was farther along the previous year and was more ready to win the big game. Do you take your franchise and start playing in the Canadian Football League because winning their title will be easy-peazy, or do you continue to build the team, add new players, and work to win the Super Bowl next time around?

up
0 users have voted.

Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.

detroitmechworks's picture

We'd have teams that cheated Censured.
We'd have more than 2 teams that were shown on television.
We'd have the people who pay for the teams featured PROMINENTLY as the sponsors.
We wouldn't have half our team stabbing the best Quarterback in the back during tryouts in order to get the crappy guy who's dad played for the team in that slot.

up
0 users have voted.

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

lotlizard's picture

squad for one side.

up
0 users have voted.
orlbucfan's picture

There is PLENTY of corruption in the NFL! They do not call Bill Beli-cheat cos it sounds cute. Take it from a life-long fan.

up
0 users have voted.

Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.

WindDancer13's picture

Okay. when a race horse is no longer a viable contestant, it is either put out to pasture or if severally damaged shot.

I must say that I am not particularity interested in cherry-picked comments. I am pretty sure if I took a few minutes, I could find a comment that says all Democrats are hell spawn.

1. I never said that the new parties would be made up of all Democrats leaving the party. Democrats currently make up about 29% of registered voters. Let us say rather than your possible 20% that only 15% left the party.

That would leave the Democrats with a party of 14% of registered voters. Currently Independents make up 43% of the electorate. Add that 15%, and we now have 58%. As I said before, when the current Democrats take their rightful place as Republicans (which currently consist of about 23% of the electorate) that would make a party of about 37% of voters vs the Independents which including the 15% of former Democrats would be 57% of the electorate.

Now not all Independents are left leaning, so let's subtract 9% (studies show that there is a 9% advantage of left leaning vs right leaning Independents). That gives the the Republicans (reconstituted Democrats) 46% of the electorate with the new party having 54% of the voters. (Yes, I know that they have to actually vote.)

Trends show that the number of liberal voters are increasing, so in two years with a whole new group of additional voters the progressive wing could be even larger. (The preceding are all common statistics and can be easily verified.)

2. The current party that you refer to as Democrats has proven time and again in just this primary season alone that it has no use for someone who is not going to play their game. Sanders was not seen as a "real Democrat" in the same way that HRC inferred that Obama was not a real Christian in 2008. It depends on if people are swayed by what they want to believe or by the facts. No Sanders is not of the Democratic Party (he has never, even now, registered as one), but his platform is by far the most democratic one and by FDR terms the most Democratic one.

You seem to think that the establishment is going to give up their cushy system because the majority of people want them to. Statistics show otherwise. (Cf Gilens and Page Princeton University study). Again, I wish you luck.

I remember, only too well, when in the 1970s the Equal Rights Amendment was defeated that we were told that change would come with laws being changed incrementally. Here it is over 40 years later, and I am still waiting.

up
0 users have voted.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

"And please do not talk to me and/or others as if we were children. This is not peevishness. This is survival."

To me, it looks like the opposite of survival. I'd call it suicide, but it's more of a murder-suicide, because you'll take everybody with you.

The ridiculousness of this is that we HAVE been down this road before. Where are the Naderites now? What did they achieve...I mean what positive achievement? Whose survival? We're all just marking time here. What we do while we're here matters only insofar as what we leave for those who follow us. If you want to fight climate change, you're not going to do it by giving the Democratic Party the finger. We have very limited time to do something. Building a party takes decades. We don't have that time. We need to take the Democratic Party where we want it to go.

Humphrey was rejected because he wasn't anti-war enough. Guess what we got? Secret bombing of Cambodia and Laos, and another 5 years of war, wildly escalated, and a million or more dead (not to mention those in Southeast Asia who are still being killed or maimed each year by leftover unexploded ordinance). Carter was rejected because he wasn't strong enough on labor and didn't propose much of anything on health care. What did Reagan or Bush I do on those points, while they were conducting dirty wars in Central America and cutting funding for mental health treatment, turning the mentally ill into the homeless? Gore was rejected because -- someone is going to have to tell me what purity/litmus test Gore failed -- but instead we got war and chaos in the Middle East, an economic meltdown, and 8-12 years of inaction on climate change.

Survival. Really? You're going to talk about "survival"? Whose "survival" are you talking about?

up
0 users have voted.

Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.

up
0 users have voted.

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

chuckvw's picture

for 35 years. Obviously a failed effort. We need to face some hard facts. The national/village party is lost to us and has been for a very long time... They hold all the levers--state parties, the media, the money, the plum sinecures, etc. They are ruthless and without principle. Reality sucks.

up
0 users have voted.

You should only listen to both sides when one side isn't totally full of shit. -Jim Jefferies

Without access to any of the levers of power, Sanders came damn close to winning. He's been more successful than any progressive in those 35 years. Why would you give up when you're so close to grabbing the brass ring? If he was 60, none of you would acting this way. You'd be saying we'll get it done in 2020 or 2024. It's still true, except it won't be Sanders.

up
0 users have voted.

Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.

Haikukitty's picture

If the Democratic Party chooses to become uncorrupt and actually represent the people again, then I'll come back.

I have given them over 30 years of my voting life. That's enough. They've shown with their corrupt primaries and their super-delegates that they don't care about my vote or my membership. Therefore, they shall not have it.

Sorry, I'm not interested in DNC apologists telling me to just stick it out for another 30 years, someday we'll address your concerns over the concerns of the corporations.

Nope.

up
0 users have voted.

no, its that even when we win, we discover that the lies and manipulations to get elected render our votes meaningless. This is killing any interest in voting period. This is the first time in years I've been excited to pull the lever.

And the disregard the party has for us: many of whom have pounded pavement, canvassed, donated, phonebanked: and the way the DNC now treats us is just chilling.

They now attack VOTERs: the folks in NV were subjected to massive disenfranchisement, voter surpression, and complete arbitrary tactics for sixteen hours, then photographed as a well known Senator further abused and dis respected them.

The Party is no longer anything worth belonging to. I will work for local candidates and pay close attention to these races, but I am done participating in this Kabuki theatre. The U.S. is a hollow state.

up
0 users have voted.

"They now attack VOTERs: the folks in NV were subjected to massive disenfranchisement, voter surpression, and complete arbitrary tactics for sixteen hours, then photographed as a well known Senator further abused and dis respected them."

That shit is great to get people worked up on Facebook. None of it's true, though -- and it was a small segment of the crowd that disrespected the Senator (who happens to be one of the most liberal). Booing Barbara Boxer is embarrassing. I was at the Nevada caucuses. Clinton won. And, at the state convention, she had a majority again. Everything else that happened at the convention was inconsequential and most of those sixteen hours was down to the actions of those who'd been inflamed by the conspiratorial nonsense they see on Facebook by people sharing factless meritless opinions that are actually being peddled by right-wing faux news sites.

up
0 users have voted.

Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.

by now you've been here long enough to grok the general attitude of the majority of the members here. You should expect pushback when you posit viewpoints such as yours, most folks here don't agree with you and they'll tell you so. This is a good thing as we do not wish to be a echo chamber and this is a debate we need to have.

But what we do ask of all of our members is to treat each other with respect, so again, please be less contentious in your replies to folks here. See our DBAA FAQ for further clarification.

up
0 users have voted.

First off, I haven't even been here a week, and the site was unusable for half the time I've been here. So, maybe I don't know what to expect here. I know you're fellow traffickers in the Sanders gospel, but that's all I know.

I have been thoroughly dispirited by the moronic and rapidly multiplying conspiracy postings I've seen in the past couple of months on Facebook from people I worked closely with over the better of a year. I even saw one there this morning, about the AP announcement someonhow being in cahoots with the Clinton campaign, even though anyone with any sense understands that the Clinton campaign is really unhappy about the timing and the lost opportunity to get a big audience tonight. I had really hoped that the Sanders campaign represented better than that. True, I think most of my fellow Marylanders working for Sanders have simply dropped off, but the ones left posting have lost their freaking minds.

Meanwhile DailyKos has been taken over by similarly bizarre rants by Clintonites. I had hoped for more rational, thoughtful perspective here. Obviously, the slant is pretty uniform here and different than the majoritarian view there now, but this is looking as irrational as Facebook. It's pretty despressing that I can't tell the difference between this site and all the facebook shares of conspiratiorial posts sharing memes from a thousand 'news' sites no one has ever heard of (and are all right-wing sites created to do just this kind of rat-fucking). Jeezus -- did you see the stuff about Kentucky? I bet there was plenty of that crazy shit here, though I hadn't come here yet to check it out.

If we want to be the caucus of the 99 percent, then pretending it's OK or the least bit constructive to be the 5% that are the left-wing conspiracy-mongers isn't going to get you there. I've seen that shit before -- 16 years ago...and it led to the worst 8 years in this country's history, save for the Civil War (maybe). I can call out that foolishness, or I can walk away. Would you like to vote?

up
0 users have voted.

Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.

that's your decision.

This site has been live for a year and a half. We are officially unaffiliated with any political party and we will remain that way. There wasn't much love for the Democratic Party long before so many folks migrated here, but we keep the door open for everyone, as long as they are civil and respectful. I seriously doubt that browbeating, insulting, and condescending will change many minds, but I do thank you for showing us what you really feel about us here.

I'll ask you one more time, in case you decide to stay, to tone it down and be respectful to the members here.

up
0 users have voted.

Love for Democratic party has nothing do with it. Love for a political party sounds otherworldly, like something you accuse people of to caricature and dismiss them. Some people might be be more vocal in attacking their party, but they're fooling themselves with unwarranted grandeur and delusions of greater understanding if they think they're above a party that others supposedly "love." A party is what is -- a loose connection of people that find common cause on a range of issues that makes them nore natural allies than others would be. The point of politics being to actually make a difference, we choose to organize these loose connections into parties that can unite people in a larger effort, both geographically, temporally and philosophically across that range of issues, or parts of it, anyway, since in even a party of two people, there will be considerable difference of opinions.

Which brings it back around to the lessons of history. Liberals only shoot themselves in the foot when they consciously try to undermine the Democratic Party. Worse, those wounds are superficial compared to the wounds inflicted up on those who truly suffer the consequences. There was a DK diary the other day that argued that Busters are all people who are so privileged they can afford to be, because they'll have a soft landing if the Democrats lose. I think that's an ignorant view of who is in the Sanders coalition, based on the idea that Susan Sarandon represents all Busters. I know the truth is otherwise. There are folks who have little and who are driving cars that others would have replaced long ago, because they have little choice. There are plenty of people of color -- minorities who don't have the white privilege that the DK author supposes all Busters have. But, it's also true, just as it was in 2000, that the people who are checking out hoping that it will send some kind of message when Democrats lose, the most of the ones who suffer the most serious consequences will not be those leaving the Party and who claim to be doing it for "the people."

If we're true to the ethic of trying to effect progressive change, that's only going to happen by electing leaders sympathetic to that agenda -- and, except in the rarest cases, that will require working within the organization that most left-leaning people look to when they go into the voting booth and which has the resources to run thousands of candidates nationwide. I love the friends I've made in the Sanders campaign who are going off to Brand New Congress, but there's almost no way that can succeed. It will require even more money than Sanders' Presidential bid just to run candidates in each Congressional district -- and it will be far harder to raise even a fraction of the money Sanders got because he was running for President. That's without looking to state and local races, which shouldn't be ignored, either. The way to succeed in politics is to make common cause with the most allies, not to try to align yourself only with those who see the world exactly as you do. The latter tactic is guaranteed to fail because it's inimical to whole purpose of politics and political organizing. I don't love the Democratic Party, but I understand that his is hte city architecture we have to work with. It'll be far easier to simply get the votes of most Democrats than it would be to try to build an entirely new city alongside it and invite everyone to just leave their homes and start from scratch in the new city -- having to clear and pave the new roads, instead of just driving on the ones there and paying a little to help fix the potholes.

If you love your political party, it must be a very small group indeed.

up
0 users have voted.

Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.

TheOtherMaven's picture

The more you talk about "history", the more you prove that you don't know what you're talking about.

Fact: This country started out with NO political parties.
Fact: By 1796 we had a Federalist Party and a disorganized opposition calling themselves "Anti-Federalists".
Fact: By 1800 we had a Federalist and a Democratic-Republican party (and hoo boy was the 1800 election a mess!).
Fact: By 1820 the Federalist Party was a spent force - they didn't even put up a Presidential candidate.
Fact: By 1824 the Democratic-Republican party was ripping apart at the seams.
Fact: By 1828 we had a Democratic Party and several splinter parties.
Fact: By 1833 we had a Democratic party and a Whig Party (plus splinter parties).
Fact: By 1854 the Whig Party was kaput, replaced by a new party calling itself the "Republican Party".

Anyone who thinks that the current two parties are immortal, inevitable, and irreplaceable needs to read some more history. That situation can change, and it can do so very fast indeed. All it needs are the right conditions - and it looks like those conditions are developing right now.

up
0 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

First, your history ended 160 years ago -- and you're ignoring the context. This is very different world -- a much, much bigger country. Even a local state senate race probably costs more than a Presidential campaign did then, and it costs more to win one Congressional race than it would have to elect the entire Congress then. Parties have solidified for a reason, because they're far more necessary now.

up
0 users have voted.

Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

before Hillary and her buddies steamrollered back and forth over the party's credibility for the past 6 months.

"Don't invent your own new kind of soda and try to get people to buy it; sell New Coke!"

That's what you're saying.

If you want to convince me, come up with a plan. A real plan, with stated goals, objectives, well-defined notions of success and failure, definition of who the enemy is/what the obstacles are, analysis of said enemy's strengths and weaknesses, definition of who *you* and your people are, analysis of your own strengths and weaknesses, and preferably a timeline. Get together with others of like mind and create a plan. I'm guessing that's what people on my side of this issue will be doing in Chicago and Philly, and might be doing here too, if we decide we'd like to.

Until then, I'll be listening to some music:

[Video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW8ZpPUyumw]

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

the party won't miss me. Among them, I am a nuisance. I have no interest in reforming the party that best exemplified my wishes and dreams.

up
0 users have voted.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

darkmatter's picture

The progressives HAVE been ignored because they DID stay in the party. For decades the Democratic party elite have shifted away from the worker-friendly, environment-friendly, public-sector-friendly base. The idea that they are going to pay attention now and stick it to the very same monied interests that are funding them requires a leap a faith beyond all reason and evidence.

So it is, sadly, exactly the other way around. Clinton (Bill) himself said of progressives a while back, "they've got nowhere else to go." And what do lefties have to show for that loyalty to the Dem brand for years now? Shall we look at the standard of living? Education/health costs? Militarism? Environmental stewardship? It's been a goddam clusterfuck. The New Deal has been killed off, and this sleazy primary is every sign that the party elite have no intention of altering course more than a degree or two, just for plausible deniability.

There is NO indication that progressives have any future in the Democratic party, unless they want to, as you say, "muzzle themselves." Giving our energy to propping up another lying Clinton? You absolutely are out of your mind.

You write: "The Green Party is not a winning party anywhere in the world." In Austria, the Green candidate just won a national election.

up
0 users have voted.
lotlizard's picture

Baden-Württemberg has had a Green, Winfried Kretschmann, as governor since 2011.

Often, the more assertive and authoritative-sounding a U.S. political comment is, the more ignorance it betrays of what is actually going on outside U.S. borders.

up
0 users have voted.

"The progressives HAVE been ignored because they DID stay in the party. "

"There is NO indication that progressives have any future in the Democratic party,"

Bernie Sanders -- a candidate who wasn't even a Democrat a year ago -- a candidate who was unknown to the vast majority of Democratic voters a year ago -- a candidate who had few allies in the Party hierarchy -- a candidate whose campaign was put together on a state-by-state basis on the fly, is about 300 pledged delegates (less than 5%) behind the candidate who has had more name recognition, more allies in the Party hierarchy, more money, more years to prepare and build a campaign organization than any previous candidate for President, ever.

Not to mention that Sanders easily won among voters under 45.

No indication that progressives have no future in the Democratic Party? Have you not been paying attention to any of this these last 6 months? There's EVERY indication that progressive ARE the future of the Democratic Party. Unless some boneheaded, self-righteous nudnicks ruin what we're building.

up
0 users have voted.

Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.

lotlizard's picture

boneheaded, self-righteous nudnicks

up
0 users have voted.

the name calling.

up
0 users have voted.

But, if anyone does act to ruin the chances of building a progressive Democratic majority, they will deserve a lot stronger than "bone-headed nudnik."

up
0 users have voted.

Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.

please proceed, let it rip, because it's quickly becoming tiring.

up
0 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

And the response of the Democratic party and its friends in the press is to use any and all corrupt means short of beating and killing people to suppress a Sanders win. To the point that they've fraudulently declared the race over and the nomination clinched, when mathematically, according to the rules, it is not.

[Video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhfygIZSr5M]

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

The superdelegates will decide the future of the party, and that is the point we are all making!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If these people care about this nation and the future of the party then Bernie has made an excellent case, and Clinton is looking more and more like something from a sordid past.

If the superdelegates are indeed functioning on behalf of the party: then we stand an excellent chance; If they are corporate hacks then we will know and make our decisions accorddingly. Bernie IS the future of the party, and the best candidate of our lifetimes: He is doing something incredibly important: and if the DNC is so willing to forclose the party's future for the corruption of the Clintons then they can stew in their own juices and watch the Green party get the energy and devotion a lot of us have given over our lifetimes. Believe me: a lot of young people are watching the MSM and the Clintons and will NEVER be back if she is the nominee: and WJC saying "they've got noplace else to go" is consistent with his cynical and manipulative nature: kind of makes all the allegations seem plausible.

up
0 users have voted.
Haikukitty's picture

Your beloved Democratic establishment.

The fact that he did so well when he's far left of the Party simply shows that there is plenty of support and room for a true Progressive party.

You are for some reason stuck thinking you have to stay within one of the two parties - as if they've existed since the beginning of time. Tell that to the Whigs.

Parties die. This one is working very hard to ensure that it chases away its entire base, I guess they think they can survive by sucking off the Corporate teat. We'll see if that's true. But they'll do it without my support.

I have this annoying thing called morality. I am simply unable to continue to be aligned with a completely corrupt institution. Sure, I'll still vote for progressives if they are registered Democrat. I'd vote for a true progressive if they were for some reason registered Republican. But I will not be affiliated with a Party that is actively undermining the democratic process. That implies consent, and I do not consent to it.

I think your lecturing is misdirected. It is not we who are leaving the party. The party has left us. If you want to lecture, go lecture the party bigwigs about their lack of accountability to their constituents. I am in no way obligated to be party to corruption.

up
0 users have voted.

We've had these two parties for 150 years now. That's longer than the time we didn't have these two parties. Politics in this country has centered aound two poles -- one on the left and one on the right. The Democratic Party is now the one on the left -- more firmly so than at any time in its history. The party's establishment isn't there by 'divine right'. If we get enough votes, porogressives will become the establishment -- but trying to go our own way would just marginalize the left.

up
0 users have voted.

Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.

Haikukitty's picture

I'm not trying to be rude, but what evidence is there for this statement?

The Democratic Party is now the one on the left -- more firmly so than at any time in its history.

Show me the policies implemented by this party of the Left that could be considered progressive. The corporate-handout of the ACA? The drone bombings? All the regime-change wars? The NSA spying on us - Obama continued the Patriot Act.

I honestly don't even know what you mean. Your party of the left is and has been pushing a corrupt Wall Street lawyer for President, and the chair of that party has supported Republicans over Democrats running for office. I haven't seen one truly progressive legislation come out of the Democratic Party.

up
0 users have voted.

Clean Power Plan and Paris agreement. Suspending new resource extraction leases on public lands, while simultaneously adding more new public lands than all prior Presidents combined.

Raising the top marginal interest rate, and raising cap gain rate.

Auto industry bail-out.

Stimulus bill -- not to mention 70 months of continuous job growth.

DACA and DAPA provided legalized status for many undocumented immigrants (even if Republican judges are circling like vultures, trying to kill these programs)

Eliminated Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- and changed tax rules to recognize gay marriage -- also on gay marriage, 6 state legislatures voted to legalize it. Not Obama, but, yes, Democrats.

Reformed mandatory minimums and established program for early release to victims of those laws.

Ended torture.

Restricted warrantless wiretaps.

Iran nuclear deal

Normalized relations with Cuba and seriously eased the rules on travel and commerce.

Here's how Politico summarizes it -- and I think they've left out the most significant, most long-lasting accomplishments:

"What he’s done is changing the way we produce and consume energy, the way doctors and hospitals treat us, the academic standards in our schools and the long-term fiscal trajectory of the nation. Gays can now serve openly in the military, insurers can no longer deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions, credit card companies can no longer impose hidden fees and markets no longer believe the biggest banks are too big to fail. Solar energy installations are up nearly 2,000 percent, and carbon emissions have dropped even though the economy is growing. "

Perfect? Not even close to what I would have hoped for, and my hopes for Obama were less than they might have been for, say Edwards. But, compared to what we'd have gotten over the last 8 years with a Republican in the White House? Massively different -- and that's with being limited to executive actions for the last 6 of his 8 years.

If we can get and hold a congressional majority? Massively different than a GOP-led government would probably be an understatement.

To use the President's favorite term -- "Look," I've been guilty of saying his first term was pretty similar to what a 3rd Bush term would have been. It was very glib and provocative. And it was bullshit. Time to get real.

up
0 users have voted.

Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.

Haikukitty's picture

Yes, the Iran deal and ending the ridiculous Cuba embargo are good things.

They are hardly cornerstones of a progressive platform and do nothing for Americans here at home.

Who has benefited from the stimulus? Oh yeah, the top 1% - the only sector who has seen any income growth.

The Paris deal is lovely talk until something concrete is actually done to meet it's goals, of which I have seen very little.

"DACA and DAPA provided legalized status for many undocumented immigrants" - meanwhile Obama has deported more undocumented immigrants than Bush.

Whistleblowers have been prosecuted under Obama, after all his inspiring talk about transparency and the importance of whistleblowers.

This is not what I mean when I say progressive - those are center-left policies at best. I'm glad you are happy to continue begging for incremental improvements, but I'm not. Actually, for the first time in my life, I am getting real about the Democratic party, instead of pretending that they are somehow on the side of good.

up
0 users have voted.
Unabashed Liberal's picture

up
0 users have voted.

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

Haikukitty's picture

Honestly, if FF wants to work within the party and feels comfortable doing so, that's great and I wish them all the luck in the world.

I just can't do it anymore, for my own peace of mind. As I said earlier, I will still support progressive candidates wherever I find them, but I can't be affiliated with an institution that doesn't respect me and that I don't respect.

up
0 users have voted.
darkmatter's picture

and I bought what you were selling in 1992 and in every year since. What you are saying rings hollow and false and phony. We already have a party of big business and Wall Street. We don't need two. This lie that progressive reform is right around the corner if we stay true to the Democrats has been trotted out every 4 years for ages now. I don't believe it anymore. Guilting people into voting for Hillary gets you nowhere.

up
0 users have voted.

I don't have my comment in front of me, but I'm pretty sure I didn't even mention Clinton. I"m talking about giving up on American politics and the very real prospect of creating a winning Progressive majority within the Democratic Party to go play pretend revolutionary and blog about it for 20 years, instead of doing the hard work of American politics.

up
0 users have voted.

Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.

JayRaye's picture

giving up on American politics

-"you either do it my way or you're giving up...you're a quitter"

real prospect of creating a winning Progressive majority within the Democratic Party

-been hearing that one for at least the 47 years that I've been active in the Democratic Party...we're always just on the verge of winning, yet lo and behold the party keeps right on moving to the right, not to mention getting more and more corrupt.

go play pretend revolutionary and blog about it for 20 years,

-this one never gets old: GROW UP and stop bucking the Status Quo!

instead of doing the hard work of American politics

-this one never gets old either: Lazy DFH!!!

up
0 users have voted.

Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons

Despite your efforts to characterize it differently, nothing I've said is about maintaining a status quo. You should do more than just buck the status quo.

The question is whether there's a rational and plausible and an irrational and self-defeating way to go about that, and which is which.

Deliberately marginalizing yourself and cutting off yourself from the allies you'll need is the political equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

up
0 users have voted.

Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.

Shahryar's picture

so we can't say what will happen if we do x or y.

if Hillary wins does it set the Dem Party back? I'd say yes.

If Trump wins is it going to be 4 year nightmare? I'd say yes.

And 2020....well, we just don't know. If Hillary wins this election there will be absolute resistance to any push from the left. If Hillary wins in '16 she'll be the nominee in '20. Is that debatable? A Hillary win means no change until 2024/5.

The only way to create a better Democratic Party is for Hillary to lose now. The money people have to be made to see the connection between the Clinton values and a lack of power.

That's the only way the Dem Party will change...if it seems unprofitable to run certain types. But I don't think I trust those people to get any message, thus the exploration of 3rd parties.

up
0 users have voted.

But, within some margins, politics is reasonably predictable. Of course, outcomes often flip based on those margins, but not in this case. People talking about creating a rump party -- one that will be 5% or 10% of the vote. I wish I thought there was a snowball's chance in hell of doing better than that, but I don't.

And, I believe it will set back the progressive cause by decades. Maybe a century.

up
0 users have voted.

Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.

I also don't think you understand what is happening with the electorate.

Many of the progressives you claim will/can/should flow into the Democratic party are there because of Bernie - Independents who registered Dem to vote for him and who will unregister if he doesn't get the nomination.

Right now both parties are a small percentage of the electorate. I believe 28% Repub, 29% Dem. Independents are gaining the majority and that may well continue seeing as more and more both on the left and the right see the rigged system we're in. As Dallasdoc has said over and over again, it's no longer a matter of left v. right but of up v. down.

Right now we are in an oligarchy, not a democracy, that's just a fact. There have even been august scholarly studies showing this to be true, but I don't need a study to believe it - this political season has truly exposed the powers that be for who they are.

The only person I've heard who deals directly with this is Bernie, period. I haven't heard anything from anyone else, including Elizabeth Warren and other establishment Progressives, that get to the heart of what is going on.

I've heard variations on your argument for decades and have seen no changes as result of that argument.

If I see leadership among any Dem politicians on the level of Bernie, I may change my mind about leaving the party. Right now I have zero "allies" in the party and frankly I don't even know what you mean when you use the word.

Your persuasive skills are lagging here - this isn't Daily Kos where you can either bully or scare or shame people into giving credence to your point of view. Your employing certainty as a writing style just isn't working and I don't see it gaining you any "allies."

Having said that, I'm glad you're here as there've been many times I've enjoyed your take on things. This time ... not so much.

up
0 users have voted.

Beat in the USA.

I get that the society is more fragmented than ever, in so many ways, culturally and politically, we're aligning ourselves with ever smaller circles. But, I think you're missing the two most salient points of this race.

First, you wrote this:

I also don't think you understand what is happening with the electorate....

Right now both parties are a small percentage of the electorate. I believe 28% Repub, 29% Dem. Independents are gaining the majority and that may well continue seeing as more and more both on the left and the right see the rigged system we're in. As Dallasdoc has said over and over again, it's no longer a matter of left v. right but of up v. down.

Sure. And yet, Hillary Clinton will have over 3 million more votes that Sanders. That's a healthy margin in a Presidential general election. In a party primary contest? It's considerable. Given the fraction that votes in a party's primary -- about 25% of the total number of votes in the the general election, it would translate into a landslide in the general. So -- if you are liberal -- what would be the point of taking the smaller slice of the liberal electorate and carve it away, to try and challenge both the other half of the liberal coalition and the conservative? Even if every state had had a semi-open primary, Clinton would still have won.

In other words, regardless of what those registration numbers tell you, the party still matters. That's still the center of gravity of the liberal coalition -- though I think the demographics of the vote suggest that in a decade or so, that may no longer be true.

In fact, if we stay within the Party, we can move that date up. A candidate who had more credibility with the Democratic base could have done even better than Sanders. And there will be pportunites to produce more candidates like that...if we stay within the coalition that exists, rather than trying to fracture it... and that's the other salient point. To wit:

Sanders came incredibly close to succeeding. If we take the longer view, this race should give progressives lots of reason to hope, rather than reason to despair. This was the best performance by a real progressive since McGovern won the nomination -- and Sanders was up against an opponent whose personal weaknesses definitely left some openings but whose starting point and whose campaign organization was more formidable than any other candidate began with. Given wehre he started and his own inherent linitations, Sanders did incredibly well. More to the point, as I argued vehemently on that other site, he's changed the discourse by reintroducing liberal ideas to the leadership. Nothing he said was a new idea, but it was never really acknowledged at that level.

In my congressional district, we elected a real progressive who will almost instantly be the most progressive member of the House. There will be more like him in years to come, as his state seat will go to another progressive, and so on and so on. The future is ours, if we embrace it. Do we need a more progressive party? Of course. But, if you're looking to create it outside of the Democratic Party, you're doing it exactly wrong.

You don't appreciate my writing with certainty? OK. I THINK you're doing it exactly wrong.

up
0 users have voted.

Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.

Haikukitty's picture

where all of the independents couldn't vote.

There will be plenty more like him in years to come, huh? Can you remember the last time we had an honest, progressive candidate for President?

up
0 users have voted.

No, I didn't. You didn't read what I wrote very closely.

"Even if every state had had a semi-open primary, Clinton would still have won."

It's not even questionable. The only states he might have won with a more open process would have been Nevada and Kentucky. Connecticut might have been a close call. Throw in a few odd delegates here and there, and it would have been closer, for sure. Not a lot closer, but closer. Maybe, with huge independent turnouts, he'd be down 200+ delegates instead of 300+

up
0 users have voted.

Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.

Pages