@dance you monster Where someone noted they only listen to make their messaging better, not to make the policies better. (Apologies for forgetting the author of that comment.)

Democratic Party: Same shit, better branding!

. . . of Democrats say they'd like a better alternative. Ouch.

Meanwhile, 52 percent of Democrats and 49 percent of Republicans say a competitive third party is needed.

Sounds like those "listening tours" by Dem leaders didn't result in much listening.

@gulfgal98 they need some tough love, and they need to hit bottom, or else they'll never kick this corporate cash habit.

The Democrats must stand FOR something. It is very difficult for the addicts to big donor bucks to understand, but the people will not support a group that stands FOR nothing.

@gulfgal98 , the demonrats DO stand for something --

... every few years they stand for re-election --

The Democrats must stand FOR something. It is very difficult for the addicts to big donor bucks to understand, but the people will not support a group that stands FOR nothing.

@gulfgal98

Standing up to do their jobs in serving the public interest and protecting the country from the sort of ruthless, predatory monsters they serve and are will never be done by the corporate Dems or Repubs. If that massive-enough replacement by actual progressives could be achieved, at least for the Dems...

The Democrats must stand FOR something. It is very difficult for the addicts to big donor bucks to understand, but the people will not support a group that stands FOR nothing.

@MrWebster

"Trump is bad. Democrats are the solution."

People already know the first one. But have rejected the second one.

@Iogrey (Best I can guess anyway.)

who are the 45% who think the party cares about people like them?? Have they not been paying attention?

@Pluto's Republic
to good government -- I agree, that is true. Neither of the current Parties can afford to give up the legalized corporate money pump -- that is also true.

But it is not necessary to "rebuild a political Party" in order to break the stranglehold that the current Duopoly maintains. We don't need a "Party" to do this thing, since the whole idea of USA "Political Parties" is becoming somewhat obsolete anyway. Bernie Sanders' primary campaign proved that Party infrastructure is not necessary to effectively champion radical political movement and re-orientation. Trump's campaign strongly indicated more or less the same thing. We can do without a Party, but what we do need is a Candidate.

The "system' as it stands today, is highly unstable, and is likely to collapse under its own momentum, regardless of what the two official Parties do or do not do. Msm and all their talking heads, long stalwart defenders of the status quo, are no longer able to maintain their standing as authoritative arbitors of public opinion, even though they continue to pretend that's what they are.

Sanders ran, and almost won, but no thanks to the Democratic Party. He ran in spite of the Party. The very same was true for Trump. His "Coalition of the Rednecks" beat the pants off the entire Republican Party machinery. What we've got here and now, is a Duopoly that looks to be on its very last legs. There is no point whatsoever in trying to revive either half of it.

…off this trend for a very long time. When the demand is loud and clear but the Board still thinks a kabuki confab and a new slogan will bamboozle the customers once more — you've got a fatal crack in the foundation. The Party is frozen stiff.

Much of the problem is addiction to the legal money pump. They can't give up corporatism, why should they? It was working fine before…. They can multitask both people and corporations, they say. Political life has no meaning without big money donors. What's the point, they ask?

I think it is senility. It creeps up on you. You just don't feel like changing. And, why should you? You know what works, you built this Party for godsake. People are being stupid, they say. They've been brainwashed by Russia to sabotage the Party so that Moscow can win the Cold War. Or something. That's calcified brain tissue talking.

The truth is, the people aren't really 100 percent into the work of rebuilding a political Party. Plus they don't know what they want and what they deserve. They rush from one emergency to another, and witness the overwhelming failure of the system. They forgot what the purpose of society is, what the goal of government is. Government exists to make it possible for people live a happy and secure life; to help them pursue their personal ambitions and achieve their dreams. Really. That's the entire purpose of government. That was always the purpose. Furthermore, when government is great, it is completely invisible. The people believe that they are the ones making the magic happen. That's what Lao Tzu said 2,500 years ago in his analysis of good government and he is still right. We've always known this. It's encoded in our DNA.

The Democratic Party is desperately trying to make FDR seem old fashioned and irrelevant, but he's the closest that the US has ever come to good government. It's not designed to make anyone fabulously rich. But it will give everyone a good life. And if someone has an excellent idea or an inspiring dream, there will be ample money to make it happen through private capitalism or government endowments. Good government is going to happen no matter what the Parties do. It's closer than you can possibly imagine. The millennials are ushering in Universal Basic Income right now, and it is so good for the economy, that it is irresistible. Universal Basic Income is being tested all over the world. From India to Canada, and in California and Hawaii, people are receiving a basic income whether they need it or not. The world is in a race to get UBI established before automation and artificial intelligence fully arrive. That leaves us little more than a decade. Universal Basic Income will solve the majority of problems plaguing humans. In the US, the people will finally achieve basic human rights (freedom from hunger, adequate shelter, health care, and the education necessary to be at one's best). It will rapidly evolve the species into a new age.

So, the problems of the Democratic Party are simple. The Board invested in the status quo needs to die off quickly. The people who want change sooner need to step up the game. They need to organize to destroy the Democratic Party. They need to weaponize their commitment to a happy, secure life. Prepare to deliver defeat to the Democrats in 2018 — plan it and mean it. If the Party Bosses do not resign, deploy. If the Party Platform is not good government for all the people, deploy. Deliver defeat every two years until they move on or are shown the door. Straighten them the fuck out. This is the power available to humane people. They have nothing to lose and they could turn the country kind.

The Empire and the Dollar are still going down, but it won't hurt as much.

@k9disc THEY DON'T CARE IF THEY LOSE! This is all about the illusion of democracy. All they care about is their cash cows.

They only need the "appearance" of legitimacy to do that. Actual legitimacy is not necessary.

And the greatest thing of all is the "Plan B". When the government fails and loses the veneer of legitimacy, then corporate can step right in as the only institution with the money and organization to make the trains run on time. Mission Accomplished.

Drumpf as President only speeds up the timetable, it doesn't change the calculus.

@snoopydawg

"Well, to me that just says you don't like your voice. You like the thing you're told to like."

Really? Because I was told I had to like Her Royal Highness.

I'm sure the irony is lost on her.

that women owed Hillary their vote. She said that the women who voted for Trump was voting against their own voices. She is totally amazed that so many women voted for him instead of Her.

Michelle Obama: 'Any woman who voted against Hillary Clinton voted against their own voice'

"What does it mean for us as women that we look at those two candidates, as women, and many of us said, that guy, he's better for me, his voice is more true to me," Obama said. "Well, to me that just says you don't like your voice. You like the thing you're told to like."

Sorry Michelle. I didn't feel that Hillary was trustworthy in any way. She said that she was fighting for women and children, yet she helped welfare reform get passed, she never spoke out against the Iraqi sanctions that killed over 500,000 children and a total of 1 million people including women, she never spoke out against way they were treated in Saudi Arabia, and because of her warmongering ways, there are millions of women and children who were killed by our military.
During her entire political career, can anyone tell me what Hillary did that actually helped people? In this or any other country? One damn thing?

How many people does this make that think that Hillary didn't even need to bother with her campaign. That she should have just been selected as the democratic candidate who was running for president.
Too many people believe that if the democrats get back in power, they will pass legislation that will help them. Sorry. I played that game in 2006. Have they ever used the powder they were keeping dry?

I still believe that Obama bears the most responsiblilty for why Trump won. We watched as income inequality rose to the rate it was in 1928.
Look at how much it climbed in 2015.

'What a Rigged Economy Looks Like': Top 10% Now Own 77% of American Wealth

@snoopydawg that are trotted out every single time this issue is raised.

You know, funny thing. Arguing with a Hillary voter these days reminds me of trying to be reasonable with the RKBA crowd. They won't listen and redefine the terms until the entire point of the conversation was lost.

So, in the spirit of how I used to just tell them to fuck off on TOP: (It was a reference to how they liked to show up in my diaries QUITE late...)
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR7D_FMrBOk]

"We want the sitting President to be successful because we live in this country. He is our commander in chief, he was voted in," she said, adding that she knows from experience that "it is very difficult to lead when you have a peanut gallery of people who don't know what they're talking about second-guessing what you do."
"When you've been in that position, you see that most formers do take a step back, they do let the current holder of the office lead. You do step up when you're asked, and you do try to make sure what you say is constructive," she continued. "Now, like I said, there was a whole party that didn't do that for my husband, a whole political party that did not, but what we've learned is part of our legacy is leading with grace."

We weren't asking for you to lead with grace. We were asking for Barry to uphold his campaign promises not to hide behind the republicans being mean to him and not letting him pass his legislation.
There were numerous ways to get around them. He just didn't try.

@Azazello "we stand, er sit, er kneel with Colon Pumpernickel!"

What about our values ?
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HjXFh0qBCw&t=95s width:400 height:240]

@WoodsDweller

I couldn't agree more! All reasonable options have to be tried. Remembering that this corrupt and ruthless mob group has everything (not just the electoral system) rigged to at least a large extent and that such rigging has never been adequately protested, even where documented/proven well enough for a court case in a more reasonable system. (Which reasonable system would have dealt with such rigging attempts itself at the time, anyway.)

I've been thinking about him the last couple of days.
He's not a Republican, he's a straight up theocrat. I don't think the theocrats have a political party as such, but he isn't a Republican.
In a parlimentary democracy the ruling coalition is formed after the election, with the plurality party shopping around among the minor parties to get a majority that they can work with.
In our two party system we have two persistent, named coalitions - Democratic and Republican. Of course, there are parties associated with them as well.
The minor factions gain power during primaries, and this has been more obvious among Republicans. Tea Party, Libertarians, theocrats, neo-cons, and the Establishment (call them centrists). They don't hide their positions, they rely on the voters to say "yes, I want a theocrat", and announce during the primary which coalition they will caucus with if they win.
Bernie is an Independent Democratic Socialist who ran as a Democrat. "But he's not a real Democrat!!!" True, he's a DSoc who ran in the primary, stating that as the Democratic candidate he would be part of the Democratic coalition.
And the party stole the primary.
I've looked at the changes on the Republican side and thought that is the model we need to adopt. Run progressives/socialists/greens/what have you in primaries, make sure every corporate Democrat is scared of a primary from his/her left, and then caucus with the Democrats.
But if they are going to steal the primaries, aren't we better off just starting a third party? Then forming a coalition once they make it to Congress?
I'm starting to think the only workable solution is "all of the above".
This requires recruiting two candidates for each office (hard to do) and adequately funding them (also hard to do).
Give primary voters a choice between a socialist and a corporatist. If the socialist wins, the third party candidate drops out, then endorses and campaigns for the socialist on the Democratic ticket.
If the corporatist wins the primary (legitimately or otherwise), the socialist endorses and campaigns for the third party candidate. General election voters still have a choice. It will split the vote and hand the general to the Republican, but it keeps the corporate Democrat from winning.
If a corporatist Democrat can't win, the corporate money will dry up. Voters will have to pick a side - would they rather have a socialist or a Republican?
It's hard, but it's all hard. Maybe this would have a chance to work.