@Pricknick

68.5 percent of people with annual household incomes less than $30,000 did not vote.

Of course not. They're too busy trying to survive to bother and vote for any party that doesn't care about them.
Sanders had a chance. Now, to many of these people he's part of the party apparatus.
How do you reform the democraptic party? Forget them.

Although I definitely see your point and have often supported it, I do support this insurgency as well.

Why?

Because I really, really, really want the Clintons and their whole execrable DLC ilk booted far, far away from the levers of power.

With damn few exceptions, I look upon anybody working towards that goal as friend and ally! (And as the only genuine American patriots!)

Barring actual deliberate evil and violence, I no longer care how they work towards this goal so long as they're doing just that!

In a study of turnout in the 2014 midterm elections, 68.5 percent of people with annual household incomes less than $30,000 did not vote.

Of course not. They're too busy trying to survive to bother and vote for any party that doesn't care about them.
Sanders had a chance. Now, to many of these people he's part of the party apparatus.
How do you reform the democraptic party? Forget them.

@eltee Wow, you guys really believe this?

If he's not part of the party apparatus, what was he doing going around the country with Tom Perez? Why did he take a job from Chuck Schumer?

He goes along when the Dems do something progressive or that will inch us toward a fairer system but he is NOT a corporate Dem. Repeating that seems like something a corporate Dem operator would say if they were trying to confuse and obfuscate the very real differences between the revolution he started and the fake revolution Hillary and Kos are desperate to start.

Here's the real difference: follow the money. Bernie proved you don't have to take corporate money. I'm OK with politicians getting along with each other and I'm OK if I don't always agree with what they do. But if I can't trust them to be working for me and mine and you and yours then they are not part of this revolution. Bernie doesn't take bribes. Period. So long as that is the case he's still on our side and the inspiration for any progressive revolution.

@snoopydawg I agree. But it's been clear for at least 7 years that they aren't going to take that path. They had an easy way to do it in 2009 and 2010. What they gave us was an insurance bailout and this (from a former comment I made):

The good policies achieved under Obama's presidency:

The Lily Ledbetter Act. Yes, they rode this horse to death, and most people don't even understand that it's weak tea--all it really does is extend the amount of time a woman has to file a sexual harassment suit. Also, I believe Lily Ledbetter died in poverty. But it's good policy, as far as it goes.

Improved fuel efficiency standards for automobiles. In a correctly-run civilization, this would be simply a matter of course; we would always be trying for greater fuel efficiency at all levels. Alas, in this ridiculous excuse for a civilization, this is a political issue. It should be expected--but I'm glad it happened.

The Detroit bailout. I am torn about this one, because the fact is that the people whose jobs were saved ended up working at lower wages than they were before, which looks to me like DC was posing as a hero while driving people further into poverty. But I can't say I'd rather the Big 3 hadn't been bailed out, and that those people had in consequence lost their jobs.

And the big one...
The Iran agreement. I was sorry, when this happened, that Lavrov and Kerry had not met up before the power of law had fallen to the power of wealth (or before the sociopathic oligarchs took over, if you prefer to put it that way), because they are both skilled diplomats and the fact that the Iran agreement happened at all was a real achievement. Who knows what they could have accomplished in a better world? Of course, the CIA immediately went about sabotaging it as best they could, which is, in a way, the most enduring testimony to its worth. It wasn't the most amazing treaty in history, it wasn't everything it could or should have been, and I didn't really feel Iran needed to prove anything about its nuclear programs anyway, but given the political narrative at the time it happened, it was a positive result. To the extent that Barack Obama has a positive legacy, IMO, it will rest on this, not an insurance industry bailout with a poison pill inside.

ADDENDUM: Neither Obama Administration was responsible for the end of DOMA, though popular imagination rewrites history so; embarrassingly, it fell to the Roberts Court to undo the damage done by a former Democratic Administration. As for the end of DADT, the Obama Administration was partially responsible for that, but, again, a federal appeals court barred enforcement of the policy before they did, so...at best that seems less than stellar. Overall, the Democrats have been far less good on these policies than has been advertised.

as jim p stated, people stop listening to words and look at actions.
Obama sold us down the river before he was even in office when he voted for the FISA bill that he promised he would filibuster. After he became president, he continued to sell us out.
The democrats would rather let the republicans win elections unopposed than see anyone who was on the left win. We saw this during the primary when the numbers showed Bernie could win the general elections, but they backed Hillary. People are seeing this when they find so many open seats.

Until the DP gets back being the party of FDR, I think people will continue to demexit and either go with the Green Party or just not vote.
This article spells out the path the democrats need to take if they want to be in control of congress again.
I didn't realize that the number of foreclosed houses was this high.

Democrats can’t win until they recognize how bad Obama’s financial pol

Third, Obama enabled and encouraged roughly 9 million foreclosures. This was Geithner’s explicit policy at Treasury. The Obama administration put together a foreclosure program that it marketed as a way to help homeowners, but when Elizabeth Warren, then chairman of the Congressional Oversight Panel, grilled Geithner on why the program wasn’t stopping foreclosures, he said that really wasn’t the point. The program, in his view, was working. “We estimate that they can handle 10 million foreclosures, over time,” Geithner said — referring to the banks. “This program will help foam the runway for them.” For Geithner, the most productive economic policy was to get banks back to business as usual.

I

@Bollox Ref

This is why I don't understand the whole Macron 'phenom' in France.

He's pushing the same Turd Way, neolib bullshit as Obama/Clinton (along with a strong dose of yet more EU integration), and yet his 'party' (despite low turnout) is likely to dominate the National Assembly.

Tout simplement, mon ami: the French did not want to give any power what-so-effing-ever to their version of Donald J. Trump, i.e., anyone in France named Le Pen.

This is yet another appearance of the most ugly head of Lesser Of Two Evils voting.

It also doesn't help that there are no Bernies or Jeremy Corbins really in French politics these days. Many of the French people view their "Socialist" politicians as sell-outs, and, true to what Harry Truman said about Americans, the French chose to vote for honest Turd Wayers rather than right-wing liars claiming to be Socialists.

in France.

He's pushing the same Turd Way, neolib bullshit as Obama/Clinton (along with a strong dose of yet more EU integration), and yet his 'party' (despite low turnout) is likely to dominate the National Assembly.

You begin to wonder how his 'party' was/is funded.

Sorry, slightly OT.

@Bollox Ref @Bollox Ref I heard every French person's fear of Le Pen. Hamon would have been a more likely true 'socialist'. But truly new, with little backing. He and very left, Melanchon, did not find a way to form a coalition, so split the left.

I have Macron's platform here in French, but in Google using the translate button actually works quite well. Highly detailed and long. I am looking for the items which indicate he is going to do what Hollande and Sarkozy did, going corporate.

https://en-marche.fr/emmanuel-macron/le-programme

One piece I have liked so far, is the platform's recognition of the slide in quality education at early ages. The plan for rural areas is to allow for classes with as low as twelve students. This would prevent a current rural heartbreak: the closing of their local ecole. Signs go up whenever the national government wants to consolidate schools. This part of the platform also wants to pay a rural teacher stipend of 2600-3000 euros per year for those willing to go to the country to teach. Sounds good to me.

Looking at civil service: all I had heard was that the platform calls for getting rid of 30% of civil service workers. That sounds really bad. Then I read the details on why and how it would be handled, and came away with a better feeling. Just a bit here: more automated access for repeat activities, so a person doesn't have to go in person thirty to fifty miles away. Use displaced workers to go to people in person at their homes to help them access services that are available to help them. Simplify paperwork/forms and online access for necessary services, so that weeks and months of waiting for something that by rules people are entitled to would be slam dunk.

What I am looking for is the stuff that shows he is the Reagan of France. Which he could be.

Currently reading about farmers and agriculture. Biggest problems are that small farmers are outpriced by the big ag guys. And the use of biocides is still a big problem, even though France has fought Monsanto and Syngenta. Encouraging local, eco, well-supported local farmers will indicate a new type of politics.

Platforms in France are the agenda of the party in power. Macron's En Marche, le Republique, was just him before the election. Now it is a dominant seat holder in the National Assembly after the runoffs this coming weekend. The party, and its head, in this case, Macron, are obligated to uphold the platform/plank/agenda put forth by a party. It is not ok to discard what you the head of the party don't want. That's why Sarkozy was a lame duck after one year into a five year term. Hollande was given more time, but same result. The Parti Socialiste has almost disappeared in the last elections. It can go quickly, and a new one form quickly.

Le Pen's party lost a lot of seats. The abstention rate was over 50%: the highest ever.

Watching closely to see how banks, finance, local control over EU control, NATO, and so on get approached by this new party.

It pays to read the platform. It covers a lot of ground and looking for the gotchas.

Thanks.

in France.

He's pushing the same Turd Way, neolib bullshit as Obama/Clinton (along with a strong dose of yet more EU integration), and yet his 'party' (despite low turnout) is likely to dominate the National Assembly.

You begin to wonder how his 'party' was/is funded.

Sorry, slightly OT.

@Alligator Ed
remember that no one can get elected to congress if AIPAC says no. This has been the agenda for decades and if any congress members go against Israel while they are in office, that's the end of their term in office. I think that Durban was pulled from retirement to run against his opponent a few years ago.
When Ellison looked like he was going to be the DNC chair, Haim Saben threatened to withhold his $12 million in donations. This is why Obama and others lobbied to get Perez installed.
Until we get money out of politics, our government is going to be under control of foreign governments and corporations. Lobbying is the same thing as bribery is, and until we have public financing, congress is going to obey their masters.

Speaking of the super delegates who backed Hillary, were selected a year before she announced that she was running for the presidency. During the time in between that and when she announced, she was getting paid to give speeches. That is against the rules, but as usual, she got away with it. Rules are for little people.

The DNC must be eliminated. Whoa, there you say. Ridiculous idea. The DNC has existed since forever. The RNC exists for the Republicans. Yes, true enough. But the point is that even if individual donations to individual candidates are capped to $2700 or only $27, the DNC money laundering machine will serve as throughput for money ostensibly passed along to state parties (except in 2016 when Medusa had the money regurgitated back to Her campaign, not being in the banks long enough to earn a single cent of interest to the state parties). The DNC is like the Augean stables and will never be cleaned by ordinary mortals. It is the sine qua non of big donor monetary infusion into the corruptocrats. Does anyone realistically expect the Establishment to sit idly by and let $27 donors get in their way? The DNC will continue to funnel funds to their favored candidates. Don't look for Tom Perez to suddenly align himself with the progressive movement. He is incapable of that. In fact he incapable of saying "single-payer".

Another reason for abolition of the DNC is their odious, overtly anti-democratic (small d) system of super delegates. A progressive would have won the CA Dem party chair if not for this stacking of the deck. We all know how "super-delegates" stole the primary from Bernie. Who needs the DNC? Only the establishment.

But, it might be argued, how will money be apportioned to the various candidates throughout the land? Easy. If this corrupt and morbid party is to be resuscitated, then candidates must win funding on their own merit. If they can't raise the funds, then have insufficiently carried a winning message to the constituents. Just think how badly Medusa would have done without $1.2 billion--much of which went through the DNC.

Work the precincts, yes. Go door-to-door, yes. But get rid of the DNC.

@MsGrin radio show and get his monthly newsletter. He is a great speaker.

Good to see you back.

...and may I add that getting to hear Hightower talk several times a year is one of the bestest things for me about living in TX. He's quite an experience. Was one of the Bernie delegation heads in Philly - I wasn't there, but got to see a good bit of him throughout the primary leading up to it.

@eyo

Long live Big Al

peace

@Nastarana

Those two points I expect to see or I am voting Green. OK, maybe the Greens are a bunch of effete debaters, but they are at least not liars, thieves and cheats. Not to mention murderers. Heard of any mysterious deaths around Dr. Stein lately? No? Me neither.

"Progressives" taking over the Demonrats. I don't believe it. A few oddballs may be allowed to beat their heads against various walls as City Council persons or county dogcatchers. So what? There always have been a few such; they grow up to be crazy drama queens like Kucinich.

For the record. here is what I expect to see in a national campaign.

1. A peace policy which involves dismantling the empire, closing overseas bases--on a reasonable schedule--and bringing our young men and women back home, to be put to work in a myriad of tasks which are urgently needed here. Mind, I am NOT asking for enlisted and non-com personnel to lose their jobs, just be reassigned. We need better border security--to inspect incoming cargo, not arrest migrants-- more fire fighters, better disaster response, people to teach in inner cities and rural areas and the list goes on.

2. I expect a national candidate to be anti GMO., anti Monsanto and pro local, sustainable farming. Maybe he or she should eat the local organically raised cucumber on camera. Smart ass comics can go, well, continue on with what I gather are their usual private activities.

Those two points I expect to see or I am voting Green. OK, maybe the Greens are a bunch of effete debaters, but they are at least not liars, thieves and cheats. Not to mention murderers. Heard of any mysterious deaths around Dr. Stein lately? No? Me neither.

@Battle of Blair Mountain

Face it, the progressive movement will take off once they dump the Dem Party. All this rah, rah, change from within isn't going to work against a firmly entrenched oligarchy that has stacked the deck.

Especially since I see no signs that the "change from within" crowd understands that their primary mission is subversive in nature: to monkeywrench the fuck out of everything the Turd Way types are now doing.

If they understood that their mission was one of sabotage (or even gave the slightest hint in that direction), I'd have a lot more hope for success in their efforts. But not as things now stand. If only one side fights by "Marquis of Queensbury Rules", that side will lose. It's that simple.

What would happen if 20 million of them turn up at the polls unexpectedly?

The Dem Machine would give them all provisional ballots and not count their votes, or understaff their polling stations to dissuade them from standing in lines a mile long, or simply use Superdelegates to allow them to totally ignore the popular vote.

Face it, the progressive movement will take off once they dump the Dem Party. All this rah, rah, change from within isn't going to work against a firmly entrenched oligarchy that has stacked the deck.