Democratic Party being Transformed Because of Bernie Sanders
This is good news for the United States of America:
"The Democrats are not just gaining voters. They are gaining activists determined to transform the party."
Although I don't follow what's happening in the democratic party very closely, I had a feeling this was happening. The lack of talk about an independent movement or third party advancement indicate little interest and the never ending lure of the duopoly political game seems to have kept it's hold on much of the left.
"A striking feature of the current political moment is that many activists on the left are flocking to the Democratic Party. At first glance, this makes sense simply as a reaction to the narrow and disputed electoral victory of the bizarre and dangerous Donald Trump.
But the Democrats are not merely gaining voters. They are gaining activists, people who are committing not only to pull the party lever in the voting booth, but who are determined to rejuvenate and transform the party, beginning at the local level. This development is encouraging, and not only because it could make a difference in the 2018 midterms and the next presidential election."
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/10/20/why-democrats-and-movement...
They've largely succeeded in heading off any independent movements outside the system of electing politicians and can now lay claim to being the movement.
"Until the shock and fear of a Trump-led government took center stage, some on the left viewed elections and movement building as separate, even irreconcilable, paths to reform. While their skepticism about the Democratic Party was not misplaced, we argue that movements also depend on electoral politics. The growth, morale and effectiveness of today’s movements will depend on the success of the current surge of enthusiasm for Democratic Party activism."
This is incredibly exciting news. Bernie Sanders has succeeded in setting the foundation to literally transform the democratic party. There will be no need for an independent movement or a third party effort, let alone a revolution (ha!), just to build on the incredible enthusiasm forming for the new and improved Democratic party.
"The path toward this new electoral activism was paved by the Bernie Sanders campaign, which made credible the prospect of engaging in a fight within the Democratic Party for a more radical and democratic economic program, for racial and social justice and for peace. As historian Max Elbaum has observed, the polarization of the country grew during the 2016 election. But the sectors of the left that grew the most were those energized by the Sanders campaign. Our Revolution, an organization inspired by that campaign, now claims some 400 local chapters that are trying to shift the Democratic Party to the left, in part by backing progressive local and state candidates."
Only a year until the next election. Don't you just love the smell of democracy in the morning?
Comments
Hi ba. How about some news on a revolution? Can’t find any? Oh.
For me, those people described in the common dreams article who can’t see brandishing pitchforks against the deep state are taking action , however hopeless it might seem to some.
Others believe that Action toward a revolution is needed, but what action is being discussed besides coming out and saying the word ‘revolution’ ?
In other news....
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
Don't know d.o.
A lot of people working on things individually or with separate organizations but nothing organized that I know of.
Personally I've been researching and drafting a document on referendums and the possibility of a national referendum in this country. It's either that or Article V under the Constitution and an Article V approach doesn't look possible at this time.
Thanks
National Ref info
http://www.evanravitz.com/vote/
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
When your only options are...
Whether you'd prefer to be Shot in the head or shot in the chest, many people will choose the chest wound and pray that the bullet misses every vital organ.
Of course the odds of a fatal shot on the body runs about 80%. Head wounds are around 99% fatal.
I'm more of the mind to run and shoot back.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Joining the party
only to be purged by the corporate powers-that-be.
@Dark Knight That's the most hilarious
That's the most hilarious part of this situation.
Sanders proved we can work within the Democratic party to effect positive reform...like this:
"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
When you see stories about leftists "dividing the party"
translated it means "democracy in action" and "activists fighting corruption."
I haven't read the article yet.
Usually I trust Common Dreams.
But something about this smacks of MSM talking points (aka bullshit).
I quit looking at them some
time ago.
dfarrah
I agree with your assessment entirely.
After all, the title of the essay is: Why the Democrats and Movements Need Each Other.
We know that the "movements" have no use for the democrats, so it must be that it is the democrats that are in need. Loose translation: "AHHH!!! Please HELP me! I'm melting! I'm MELTING!"
When free people are not allowed to vote with their hands, they vote with their feet.
I started reading the linked article
but my eyes crossed.
I will just take your word that it suggests revolution equates to reforming the Democratic party from the inside, and that the inspiration is from an Independent.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
I think the gist
of it was Millenials (and others) are interested more in organizing at the local level, running for local office, rebuilding the party from the bottom up rather than throwing the party under the bus, throw the baby out with the bath water.
It's a more sensible if not more glamorous approach. Third parties have failed - miserably - in this country, and that failure keeps many like me from jumping in to start yet another third party, or joining the horrendous Green party. Been there, got the tee shirt, and 4% of the vote.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
More sensilble in one sense Wink.
There is the issue of consorting with the enemy, i.e., supporting the democratic party also supports what it does and what it stands for, the oligarchy, the ruling class, enabling Wall Street gangster capitalism, imperialism, etc.
Some of us feel supporting the democratic party is no different than supporting the republican party. How do you feel about those who support the republican party?
Certainly the easier way to attempt to impact the political scene is by latching on to the two major political parties. But it's not necessarily a pragmatic approach, it can be viewed as a conciliatory approach to the ruling class (by some people).
Teddy Roosevelt & Bob Lafollette
were progressive Republicans. Giving them support did not place a voter on the side of the trusts and banks. There is too much generalization about Democrats as a monolith. If I were in a district that had elected a blue dog I'd vote Republican in the hope of getting rid of him/her so a better candidate might emerge in 2 years. But there are Democrats in both chambers of congress with whom I have policy values in common. Their work is hard. They need to balance getting as much as they can against the danger of alienating members they need. Often discretion is the better part of valor. They achieve very little when Democrats are in the majority and will achieve still less with Republicans in charge.
But what at a systemic level seems very little can mean a great deal. They were instrumental in extending unemployment benefits in Obama' first 2 years. It didn't last when Republicans took over. But the extended unemployment insurance in those few years saved my brother-in-law's home from foreclosure. It wasn't very little for him.
@FuturePassed
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article...
When was the last time you got a policy result that changed the status quo significantly in favor of the masses?
"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
Too much generalization.
There is too much generalization about Democrats as a monolith.
Who is in charge of the Democratic Party?
Has that changed in the past 30 years?
If not, then electoral movements have little or no effect on changing the power structure, because we've had multiple electoral movements that tried, or claimed to try, to do just that.
Further, if power does not change hands, it's unlikely that the policies will change much, if for no other reason than that those in power have no motivation to change if it looks like they're going to get to keep their power indefinitely.
So then, it becomes a question of whether you can live with the status quo Democratic Party and their policies or not. If you can live with the Democratic status quo because occasionally they extend unemployment insurance or the amount of time women have to file a sexual harassment lawsuit or occasionally they increase fuel efficiency standards or they create a healthcare policy that subsidizes overpriced insurance with crappy results to a larger group of people than previously had it, or because they cut food stamps by 13 billion during a time of recession rather than 60 billion, or because they say shitty things about Black people, Muslims, and immigrants less frequently on TV than Republicans do, then you will accept that status quo and continue to work within the Democratic party, hoping for better results than you've consistently gotten over the last 30 years. If you can't live with that status quo, then you can't.
Of course, then there's the question of whether you notice that the goalposts have been consistently moving rightward for 30 years, so that now, cutting 13 billion from food stamps during a recession rather than 60 billion is considered a victory. What will a victory consist of two years from now? Five? Ten?
"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
@Big Al No, Al, the sensible
No, Al, the sensible way to impact the political situation (for someone who isn't wealthy) is NOT latching on to one of the two parties. In fact, it's been more or less proven that someone who isn't rich can't impact the political situation by latching on to one of the two parties. It's not a question of whether it's moral for us to do so; it's basically like me saying I can fly to Toledo by flapping my arms.
"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
All that is left of the dems
is the bathwater.
People need to understand the numbers. 3rd parties failed when most people were registered as dem or repub. Now, both parties are losing membership. The time has never been more ripe for a 3rd party.
Oh, and the article cited in this post? I'll believe it when I see voter registrations increase, for either party.
dfarrah
I understand the numbers.
Now form a third party and watch the flood of independents signing up and writing small checks.
We seem to be at the perfect moment for a third party every four years about this time.
I emphasize that I am happy to work with anyone who is taking the inside route or the outside route. Let's keep mutual respect high. It may be the most valuable thing we have.
I am of like mind with you
While I think the outside route is the stronger, in my estimation both routes reinforce each other. I don't honestly care who change happens, inside or outside. But I know that there's no hope of internal reform without external pressure being applied. I am that pressure... myself and others like me. While I have my goals and those goals are currently 3rd party, I recognize that each success of mine also puts a bullet in the gun of a Democratic reformer.
I see no reason for the two groups to fight with each other.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
I'm perfectly happy to see
improvements with either party.
We haven't seen the chances so good for a third party, at least for my lifetime, even if you hear 3rd party rumblings every four years. There is historically low registration for both parties, people are leaving them behind, and voting is at a historic low.
Dems also had the chance of a generation to re-align people back to the dem party during BO, like Reagan did in the '80s. BO blew it though.
dfarrah
@Wink There's nothing
There's nothing sensible about it, Wink.
Unless you have an answer to this:
"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
@Wink Third parties have
Third parties have failed - miserably - in this country, and that failure keeps many like me from jumping in to start yet another third party, or joining the horrendous Green party. Been there, got the tee shirt, and 4% of the vote.
But when they fail, it's acknowledged.
When the major parties fail, it's excused.
"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
I'd like to see some stats:
In an article rife with statistical analysis, factual support for this central claim is glaringly absent. I guess Demexit never happened?
Democratic Socialists of America are not affiliated with the Democratic Party. Movement for Black Lives is just rebranded BLM.
Emily's List is a full-on Hillbot operation.
The whole Common Dreams article sounds straight out of the Markos School of Progressive Co-opting: appeal to the angers and frustrations of activists and herd them into the Democratic Party policy meat grinder.
Heck, she even resorts to the old Obama canard of 'make me do it."
If the Democrats were truly 'friendly' to Progressives there would be no need for the Dems to concede anything. They would want to support Progressive causes, not reluctantly fail to implement unfriendly policies.
Talk about a low bar.
The title is "Why the Democrats and Movements Need Each Other", when it really should be, "Why Movements Need the Democrats to Get Out of the Way."
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Thank you
You said what I was trying to express much better:
Agree. The article sounded
more like Hope & Change that something's in the air rather than any real evidence of anything really happening. Still, there's no question that things are happening at the local level. As for DemExit... I guess they're still exited. One thing DemExit has Not Done is anything beyond leaving.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
One thing the Demexiters did that should impact
2018 and beyond...they took their money once earmarked for the Democratic Party with them when they left.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Demexit already had an impact.
The DNC fundraising has been garbage.
dfarrah
not a penny more to Dems
And they wouldn't be
kicking out the progressives at the DNC.
dfarrah
Obama's legacy
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Obama Wan
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
lol
"Never mind then. Can I please use the restroom?"
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
The fact that I was thoroughly bamboozled by this guy
Still makes me want to puke.
Then again, it's motivating ...
looking down his nose at us.
the great man.
he can "fucking blow me".
Don't tell that to Barry--he just might do it.
I do. Although I
wouldn't yet claim victory for Berniecrats. 2018 results remain to be seen, but the future indeed looks bright.
The question is... well, first, there is Zero question that the current party has Zero plans other than to stay the 2016 course. Just needs a tweak. And... And, they want nothing to do with Bernie. Instead want him dead and gone. Him AND his Bros.
So, the question is how does Bernie and his Berniecrats operate under those conditions? How does Bernie and the New Dems take the party back from DLC Turd Way hacks? That is the challenge. Same as it's always been.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
I’ll believe it when someone is forcing
My grandchildren to take a two year fully paid maternity leave, or Obama, Mahlia, and both of the Clintons drop dead.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Only thing that needs to
Only thing that needs to happen to the Democratic (and Republican) party is the need for them to be completely and utterly destroyed, along with our monstrous political and economic system.
Read this one SD
https://www.paulstreet.org/impeach-the-u-s-constitution/
That is a very enlightening and depressing article
This sums up how effective our voting is
What happens if no one voted? According to the article, it seems like it doesn't matter if we vote or not. Besides, congress doesn't give two shits what we want anyway. This video, Corruption is legal shows that if 90% of us wants something, it has the same effect as when 10% of us does.
History has shown how much campaign promises means to the people who make them.
I'm taking my sanity back.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
If you get time, this one is excellent also.
We need a new political system but to do that we probably need a new constitution. I'm going to try to post an essay on this one, but if you or someone beats me to it, have at it.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/01/constitution-trump-democracy-electora...
Yep. Good article
This is no democracy. And from what the other stated, we've never had one
Instead of? We have never had this. But we have been duped into believing that we did. I stopped voting after 2008, but should have stopped after 2006. Obama was a repeat of the same promises that democrats made in 2006.
I probably only became interested and involved with politics when Bush was running against Gore because he was appeared so stupid and I liked Gore even though I knew nothing about him. How many others voted on personality only instead of their policies? And I probably only started paying attention to Clinton because of how Reagan treated the AIDS epidemic. I was angry at him because of what he did, but mostly didn't do while thousands were dying and being ignored and ostracized by Falwell and the unreligious right.
I didn't really pay much attention to Clinton's policies during his tenure and only became aware of them when I joined ToP and others told me about them. And the reason I joined it was because of the Iraq war, not because of politics.
People should be upset about how much power corporations, think tanks and Israel have over our government, but are they even aware of that? Again, I wasn't until I learned about it atToP.
Has everything been rigged so that a constitutional convention could be formed? It looks like it to me, because have over a party ever lost over 1,000 seats at the federal and state levels as well as state governorships? In less than 8 years? I would think that the losing party would do anything to stop the losses, but the democrats were so unconcerned about it.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Plus there's this
Was there really nothing that Obama could have done about Garland's confirmation hearing being blocked? I read numerous articles that stated he did have options on this, not that he was anywhere near the type of candidate we needed on the Supreme Court. (which is another issue in itself)
Again, this was one more thing that he let republicans get away with without any pushback.
Did he just think that Hillary was going to win and he wanted her to pick her own candidate?
But as the article states, republicans hold all branches of government, almost 2/3rds of state governorships and will be able to set the right wing agendas for decades. Now add in a constitutional convention and bam, the right wing has their coup. And democrats will play their game of saying that they don't have the ability to stop the republican agenda.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Not just Obama.
Short of him not doing a fucking thing to push that nominee thru, not one Beltway Dem said, "wait a second, futhermuckers... just becuz our sorry fuck for prez Obama won't do a damn thing to stop you shameless Repubs don't mean I won't."
Not a one.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
Of course not. That would destroy his and their cover
of making us believe that for some unknown reason, republicans had all the power. Remember that after he was elected, they said that they were going to make him a one term president? How did he respond to that? He kept 'trying' for bipartisanship. (see my cartoon above)
He totally let them set his agenda making him look weak. This stupid meme of republicans blocking his agenda is still being repeated to this day. Are we really supposed to believe that they had that much power? Hell no. It was his cover for not bothering to pass his legislation.
And if some rogue democrat tried to go around him, that would have given away the game.
When democrats had the house, Bush was still able to pass what he wanted and when we complained and told democrats to grow a spine, they said that they tried, but just didn't have the votes. Sorry. But we will keep trying. Gack!
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
One last thing
Has anyone heard anything about Scalia's death? Has an autopsy report been released or any other details about his death? I have been able to find anything about it.
This seems suspicious.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Specifically, what Gilens & Page demonstrated
Was that if you are in the lower 80% of income earners, your opinion has no statistically significant bearing on enacted policy. In less mathy terms, "Politicians do not represent the interests of anyone but the upper 20%".
My own suspicion is that the only reason it extends down to 20% is that the interests of the lower 19.5% of those coincide enough with the interest of the top 0.5% that it seems more like the politicians care about those 19.5%. They don't... as those 19.5% will find out the moment their interests diverge from the those of the plutocrats.
In point of fact, if you're not wealthy enough to buy a politician, then you don't matter to the politician.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
Exactly, Snapple
as the first link that BA posted, we do not have a government of the people, 'by the people or for the people' and we never had. The founding fathers made sure of this.
The only difference between now and the robber baron days is that bribery is now illegal.
How lobbying can be considered different from that is beyond my understanding.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Heh! Love your sigline
.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
My signature came from song lyrics
And just because everyone should know this song...
[video:https://youtu.be/yWUCgYRzleQ]
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
Thanks, Snapple
My own suspicion is that the only reason it extends down to 20% is that the interests of the lower 19.5% of those coincide enough with the interest of the top 0.5% that it seems more like the politicians care about those 19.5%. They don't... as those 19.5% will find out the moment their interests diverge from the those of the plutocrats. That's the part not talked about often enough.
Most of those in the 20% or 10% or however you want to figure it are going to get a rude surprise one of these days. I hope my house is furnished, garden put in, and solar panels installed before it happens.
Maybe I should buy gold bars and bury them in the backyard.
"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
I suspect ALL of them will get a rude surprise
The extraction economy is extracting from the bottom up but their rung on the ladder is no more sacrosanct than anyone else's. You're either on the top rung or you are screwed. I see no particular reason why the process would stop before then other than insurrection.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
@SnappleBC That's what I
That's what I mean!
"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
Anyone read Executive Order
by Tom Clancy? The ending of the book was the perfect way to get new people in congress. A plane was deliberately crashed into the capital during the swearing in of the new Vice President and everyone was there just like at the state of the union address. Great book
The new president made a ruling that said no one who was currently involved in politics could run for the new congress.
The tv show Designated Survivor shows why that was the right decision.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
I've already done more than enough
common dreaming with the likes of Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein & their assorted cronies. They can all go ahead and do their own dreaming from now on -- but please leave me out of it.
native
Just like this
Ran into this somewhere a few days ago. Says a lot...
Heh, nails it.
Perfect!
This is exactly what we would be up against if we try to change the DP. From the inside or from the bottom. Not sure if the body count would be any different.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Ditto - Perfect.
And, my new sig line. Thank you.
I've done this before.
back around the turn of the century the "neighborhoods" "gained control" of San Francisco's Democratic Party. That lasted less than a news cycle. The party insiders shut us out so fast our necks still hurt from the spin. All these activists (if they really exist and aren't just propaganda) will find out around next June. If the Party hasn't purged them by then. Corruptocrats will keep most of their safe seats and the bleeding will continue until the pack of corrupt, megalomaniacal septuagenarians die. There will not be a third party, but the Democratic Party will disintegrate and America will be forced to form a new second party.
On to Biden since 1973
I'll believe it when all the
I'll believe it when all the corporate demtards are out on their asses so we can see real resistance to Donny and his gang of Republicant's tearing up our potential lives. like that they went along with the 1.5trillion FU to those like me on medicare/Disability to shift money for their parasite pals.
So long, and thanks for all the fish
Never forget the 2006 democrat's' message to us
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
What happens when activist/reformers fail?
So just now at least at a national level, reformers are absolutely failing against the current DNC power structure. Purges, Brazille on rules committee, and lobbyists looking to become superdelegates.
And then look at local state level. Iam getting this through Jimmy Dore as I don't live in CA. A health industry lobbyist was elected to state party chairman even though the popular vote was against him. According to Dore, CA has some super delegate system which put the lobbyist in power. And who stopped single payer in CA--a democrat.
I read on TOP a diary which clearly outlined what is happening in the democratic party trenches was from a person on the ground who attended a FL county democratic meeting ready to get involved and lay some pipe against Trump--apparently a shitload of people showed up. It was a bureaucratic nightmare with the chair scolding the gather masses from messing with the system. Strangely enough, maybe not strangely enough, many people in TOP comments supported the party establishment and dullards who were clueless about the gift put into their hands. And dang, I did not bookmark the diary and cannot find it.
The point is that the reformists within the party will essentially fail because of leadership and that a good part of the party will support any neoliberal policy pushed by their leaders. So what then? Not a third party movement as the legal barriers are huge--instead political apathy or retreat into movement work.
politics
The solution is to vote for candidates that are not supported by the DNC in the primaries. Not just vote, but also campaign against their candidates.
It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back. Carl Sagan
I attended a local Democrats Abroad meeting
I was willing to roll up my shirt sleeves if they had some sort of useful agenda. They didn't. There were exactly two topics of interest to them.
The McResistance
Nobody ever said what they were resisting or what they planned to do about it. It was just the same old vapid "resistance" talk.
Get Out The Vote
Like idiots everywhere, they persist in the delusion that "Democratic voters are lazy" and we could surely win this thing if only we could motivate them to get off their lazy asses and vote. They had no clear idea of who those people are who don't vote for Democrats but are considered "Democratic voters". I suspect people like me. They seemed incapable of taking away any lesson from flagging support other than the supporters are bad.
At the end of the meeting, I was happy to leave and I have no intention of going back.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
Two connected issues and they can’t see the thread
no surprise that would be the agenda. That seems to be all the Dems are interested in across the board. It’s painfully obvious to me there’s a connection there. The Democrats give people nothing to vote for! Sure, Obama’s hope and change was smoke and mirrors, but there’s a reason he won and the Dems had those coattails to ride on, at least first time around. Hillary couldn’t even be bothered to fake it (“America is great already!”) and the rest of the party followed her lead.
This is why I don’t think the Dems can be changed from the bottom up. TPTB in the party are willfully clueless and will always believe in the power of branding over convictions.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
The funny thing was...
Sitting right there in the room with them was one of the votes they wanted to "get out". They knew that. But nobody, either privately or in an open question inquired what they might do to court my vote. They never discussed that about anyone else's vote either. The attitude was plain. They felt those votes were already theirs, but just too damned lazy to actually cast the vote. So the entire strategy was around reminders and whatnot.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
end of message
Lobbyists have been superdelegates for some time
As well as other monied interests. Again, they show us that we don't have a representative democracy or government. The lobbyists are the ones that do.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
But the Democrats are not
But the Democrats are not merely gaining voters. They are gaining activists, people who are committing not only to pull the party lever in the voting booth, but who are determined to rejuvenate and transform the party, beginning at the local level.
For those of us with a memory, this happened, most recently, in 2003, and continued till about 2010. It will last till the Democrats take power again and fuck people over again hard enough that they get disgusted for a while.
"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 phrase "Democrats take power"
is a meaningless phrase to me at this point. So what? THey're not going to help me as a party. They've made that abundantly plain over many years. Now... some specific people getting elected under any party banner matters to me. I hope for a virtual coalition spanning politics and identities. Show me a populist candidate and I'm rooting for them. If enough happen to get elected that they can reform the Democratic party, so much the better.
In the mean time, I'm more focused on 3rd party efforts.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
Yep, and since then
we've seen nothing but sellout after sellout after sellout.
I was happy with Dean's performance as DNC lead, but that ultimately led nowhere.
dfarrah
@dfarrah I'm so happy you
I'm so happy you remember those years. Most people seem to have them erased permanently from their memories. When Bernie and Our Revolution and Brand New Congress came along, I was like, "Yeah. The same strategy we used from 2003-2010, the exact same movement of citizen engagement, tens of millions strong, the exact same pushing of "progressive" candidates against "establishment" Democrats, everything the same except that this time we start with less power: no DNC chair on our side, a media that has degraded itself with factional subservience, a Democratic party rife with people who actually have committed election fraud and voter suppression (apparently it's not just for Bushes anymore)." People act like the years 2003-2010 never happened and it drives me fucking crazy.
"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
I'm glad you recall
too.
They are even using the term 'new democrats' again (I saw it somewhere)--ugh.
dfarrah
"A democratic party rife..."
and the corrupt just consolidated their power at the DNC.
I'm glad that Bernie has had some success in getting some people elected here and there - I would bet that that fact was the catalyst for the purge.
dfarrah
"Until the shock and fear of
"Until the shock and fear of a Trump-led government took center stage, some on the left viewed elections and movement building as separate, even irreconcilable, paths to reform."
But even though we didn't want Trump in there originally, we're delighted to find that we can use this ugly lemon to make the most delicious lemonade! Our credibility goes up every day he says something shitty and we say "My stars! Can you believe the gall of that man!" We've saved the two-party system again by having a particularly shitty person in office.
We don't even have to do anything. Just look shocked.
"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
"Until the shock and fear of
"Until the shock and fear of a Trump-led government took center stage, some on the left viewed elections and movement building as separate, even irreconcilable, paths to reform. While their skepticism about the Democratic Party was not misplaced, we argue that movements also depend on electoral politics."
It actually depends on what your movement is for. If your movement is designed to prop up the sagging reputations of a bunch of well-heeled sociopaths and their political system, this symbiosis between electoral and movement politics should work out well. But the word "reform" indicates that that's not what the authors are after.
"Reform" is an interesting word at this point; I'm inclined to believe there is no path to reform. But if there were, let me just say that the word "skepticism" is itself misplaced when used to describe my opinion of the Democratic party.
"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
Wait a minute.
"The path toward this new electoral activism was paved by the Bernie Sanders campaign, which made credible the prospect of engaging in a fight within the Democratic Party for a more radical and democratic economic program, for racial and social justice and for peace. "
How the hell do you figure that?
"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
Well, keep in mind
that these people are the ones who still think the dem party matters.
dfarrah
Get Rid of Super Delegates
Unfortunately, nothing will ever change here unless you first get rid of the whole Super Delegate structure that was put into place to deny the will of all the activists and the voters -- and assure that the Establishment, status-quo candidates would always win.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1CICGZLpww]