I hear a lot of people talking about Boycotting the General. Lets talk.
I want to approach this from multiple angles, and I do tend to blather on and sometimes bounce around a wee bit but a free form rant style so please try bear with me. (Also, grammar and punctuation Nazi's, I know, I do indeed suck. 
apologies in advance for any migraines I may cause.)
Ok, as to the subject at hand. I think this is an overall self defeating idea and would not get us any kind of result we are hoping for in the time frames necessary.
This course of action would be A-OK with the Oligarchs. They don't want us pesky progressives gumming up the works. What do you think all those voter disenfranchisement laws are there for in the first place?
We would be better off voting Green or for ANYONE else but Clinton over not voting at all if we wanted to send a loud message. Voter turnout is already at terrible levels, the fact that it got a little more terrible? That's not gonna make people take notice in numbers big enough to matter. The fact that more people voted for neither of the mainstream candidates even if the candidates themselves that they voted for didn't win? That might get some attention.
Unfortunately, as much as we may not like it, short of armed insurrection the only thing we can do now is work with what we have, take over the system via the rules currently in place, and then change the fucking rules. I just don't see any other way around this. (That is, barring us pulling a Soviet Union style collapse and fragmenting apart into about 7-9 different 'ally' nations similar to the EU, but that is another topic in and of itself that I intend to explore deeper in a later article.)
Once we have enough elected officials in power and a solid third party, we can call for a constitutional convention and address a lot of stuff that should have been addressed decades ago. Our nations founders for the most part thought that this was something that would happen at least every generation from what I have read in many of their letters and writings, and was why they put the provision in for them in the first place.
But realistically, what other choice do we have if we are going to get things done in a time frame that would make a difference? I don't think things are near bad enough for popular support for insurrection at this time, and I would prefer to avoid that route if at all possible. (Not that I would be totally against it if there was no other option and things were bad enough that the lives lost would outweigh the lives saved over the long term.)
I am willing to see if we can build a New Progressive Party by 2018, take a bunch of down ballot seats and build a machine that works for US to challenge their Machine in 2020.
Think about it. Is it really that much harder to accomplish than what we already have achieved with the Sanders campaign in under a year? I mean REALLY think about it.
What we have pulled off? Well, to be blunt, was FUCKING AMAZING!
I am not losing spirit, I am gaining it. I never thought we would even make it anywhere close to this far into the primary, let alone laid the foundation for a real chance at a viable 3rd party. One that actually could stand up against those that have corrupted the process so thoroughly.
So, when you think about it from that perspective does it really sound so impossible?
I don't believe so.
I think we can, and must, make this happen.
This time however, we have WAY more time to get it done than we had to get to where we are now, and as long as we don't let them undermine our will to do so we absoultely pull off "Operation Bernie". (We really should call it something like that, he did help get this ball moving at the pace it currently is.)
The people behind DNC/3rd way type bullshit have completely compromised this party to the point where it would take more time, time that we don't have, to take it back than to build a viable new party.
It's like an old, wood frame house that is completely infested with termites. It would take more work to fix than it would to build a new one, and even if you did fix it, it would still contain flaws that you could avoid with good design in the new one.
One major hurdle is we need some seriously experienced progressive organizers, activists and community leaders that we can tap to help form the core of this new party and help keep the momentum going and help recruit people willing to run.
I hope we can get Sanders to be our "Rally Point" for the building of this new party, at least for now, but we need to look for a LOT more Bernie's for our future. If not, we can look for another standard bearer There are many worthy choices out there that with solid grass roots support could help pull together a core team to build it.
I am willing to bet there are a lot more out there than we think, they just never bothered to run because they figured they wouldn't stand a chance.
Bernie has broken that wall down. We now know with 100% certainty, not just theory, that it can be done because we just ran one hell of a test and the results were, lets just say a tad impressive.
If Tim Can take DWS seat down here in Florida (A fellow Berniecrat) that is gonna send some shock-waves through the system as well, and I fully see our new party working with the Democratic Party and the Greens on issues that we share agreement on.
Hell, I may even decide to try to run for some low level position myself at some point just to have our party showing up on ballots down here in Florida if for no other reason.
We need to fertilize, water and tend lovingly to the seeds we have planted this year, because to watch them sprout only to wither and die due to apathy would be a horrible thing to witness.
Anyway, that's just my own two cents on it but as I am fond of saying, WTF do I know, I am just another asshole with a keyboard.
Comments
Here's the thing
Unless Sanders registers to be a write-in candidate here in Minnesota, any Bernie write-in won't count.
I refuse to vote for Clinton, so without a viable write-in, Jill Stein is my only choice.
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
I agree, Stein will get my vote but the overall
point I was trying to make with my article is what we should do afterwards as well.
Maybe I should change the name?
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
No worries...
If Clinton or Trump are elected, we'll be in great vast void of nothingness.
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
Soul and maybe body-sucking
nothingness as the globe starts to cook. Yay. ;-(
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
I may end up leaving the Presidential line blank
and simply vote down-ticket plus propositions (I've heard California's trying again for legalized recreational cannabis now that Colorado, Washington and Oregon have shown that it can work). Left Senate blank in 2012 because I couldn't vote for DiFi again; we've got an open Senate seat with Boxer's retirement and while I'm not thrilled with any of the Dem possibilities they'll all be better than a random Republican. If Hillary Clinton can't win cerulean blue California without my puny little vote (and even punier little donation) she's in deeper shit than I can help dig her out of.
Please vote and against the Turd Way. Vote Green, Workers,
Socialist, The Rent Is Too Damn High, write in...whatever just show you will won't tolerate right wingery or corporate domination and most importantly you ain't no ways tired (even if you are soul thin and exhausted) and won't be dismissed.
Yep, nothing would make the ruling class happier than to
see us truly progressive peons boycott elections.
Saves them the trouble of taking away voting rights, purging voter roles, passing severe voting ID laws.
I am not in the habit of making choices that correlate with the interest of the ruling class.
What would really make the ruling class shit bricks would be if we tell them to take their two party system and shove it.
First step there is to tell our side of that two party bullshit system to stuff their fear-mongering "lesserevilism." We have been voting for the lesser evil for many many years and the result is that the nation moves further and further to the right and the "lesserevil" keeps on getting more and more evil with each passing year.
Enuf is enuf. We need to start voting for the what we actually believe in. There is no time to loose. The situation is critical.
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
I've come to agree with you
Gotta start with an historical reference in replying to you, JayRaye. Lesser evilism is basically electoral extortion. The Democrats can be as bad as they want to be, as long as they have the Republicans to point to and they're the only other choice. Same in reverse.
Voting Green in November seems like the only logical choice. Relatively few of us live in contested states in presidential elections. Here in NM, if Hillary needs my vote she's already fucked. I don't know if the Green Party is the right vessel for the social democratic movement currently propelling the Sanders campaign going forward, though. It would provide a structure for people to coalesce around, and a good starting place. But I don't know enough about the internal pathologies of the Green Party to know if it's a good choice to build around. The amazing energy of young people networking in ways that a geezer like me doesn't begin to understand could find avenues outside normal party politics to forward organizing. It won't happen in the Democratic party -- that's clear. It can't diffuse its efforts like Occupy (version 1.0). I don't know what the right answer is going forward, but I have some trust that Millennials can figure it out, if the energy is kept up and together. Any generation putting together movements like Fight for 15 and BLM has a lot of potential to change politics. And with the lack of jobs for educated young people in the economy, they have a lot of time too.
Please help support caucus99percent!
Good to see you doc!
I was originally thinking I would be writing in Bernie in Florida, but more and more, I think that voting Green might be a better message to send, only because Green is ON the BALLOT.
Regardless, I refuse to not vote. I had this argument many times here with one proponent of not voting as a protest. To me, that is exactly what the oligarchs want and I refuse to give them what they want. So I vote, not for the lesser of two evils, but for a real alternative.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
I think the Greens are the port we need in the storm
A protest vote has to register to count. If enough of us vote Green that they get an appreciable share of the vote, even a few percent, the Clinton Democrats will be on notice. The falling Democratic registration of the electorate has to worry the pros, who have lazily leaned on the "demographic shift" promise that Democrats have done fuck-all to earn. If they see any sizable fraction of the electorate moving to the Greens, or the WFP, they'll have to stop taking the left for granted. It's not like they have vast quantities of votes they can throw away. Imagine a 5% Green vote in November. That would scare the shit out of the Clintonites and their owners.
Please help support caucus99percent!
If Bernie can go from nothing to tied with Clinton
Then, with an effort by us worthy of the stakes at play, Jill Stein can do the same thing. I believe Jill Stein could actually be President if Trump causes the Republicans to run somebody else making it a 4 way race. "Jill Bros" won't work.
Beware the bullshit factories.
I was thinking that very thing myself yesterday
when reading these comments here (and probably elsewhere, this stupid meme in the subject line is getting....a lot of "play" here all of a sudden...anyway....):
Is there a percentage threshold that any candidate in our general elections has to cross, in order to "win"? I don't think we've ever had a real race with more than two people in the last 150 years, so who knows?
She really needs to get on the ballot in all
50 states to make that happen. 20, so far! That's a long way to go. It takes signatures on petitions, to get on the ballots. I just re-registered back to Green, and contacted the party to let them know I want to gather signatures...and, as an airline pilot, I could go to just about any state. But I would encourage anyone here, especially those in the Midwest, to contact the party and see what they can do to get Jill Stein and the Green Party on their state's ballot.
P.S. Love ya, Bernie, but I'm a Jill Bro, now
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Oh, and to answer your question
It's all a matter of Electoral Votes. As far as I can tell, the candidate that gets the most votes in a state, gets the electoral votes...except the few that proportion them. There is a minimum number of electoral votes to be President...but I don't think there is a minimum number of votes to 'win' the states.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
A question just popped into my head (too warm outside)
for NY voters: WFP endorsed Bernie in Dec 2015. Will he be on the NY ballot for WFP in November? Historically, WFP aligns with Dem candidates, but I make sure to vote on the WFP line. Could this carry forward, in NY? How do I check this?
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
I have a call in to "director" Jesse, WFP
to see if in NY Bernie supporters could vote on the November ballot for President.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
20 min phone call with Jesse, his driving from Cortland
to Syracuse NY (50 mi). The NY WFP is unhappy with the NY primary results, and connected to WFP folks in PA and CT to encourage Sanders support. They are operating at state level, encouraging people to primary challenge "residential" (my new adjective) Dems and go after any R-unchallenged seats.
Apparently on Tuesday, WFP won a primary election on Long Island, I am nowhere near, but good for the effort. They are primarily (haha) working (haha) to get challengers in primary elections in every state where WFP exists.
I have contact, phone and email, and for me this seems like a good cause as another Party alternative. Just putting it out there, 10 min after the conversation, wheel noise for background music.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
A Poster here stated that once upon a speculation
he and others had determined that it would take about 211 individual voters to win the electoral college 270 threshold.
I never verified this but their logic looked sound to me.
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
Exactly this ^^^^^
What we're "hearing a lot of" is a craven Establishment Meme
being spread--I am glad to read here that most of us see it for exactly what it is: a propaganda psych-out.
They still think we're really, really stupid. They're in for a big damn surprise...
Greens have done a lot of the grunt work already to get on many
ballots-more than any other "left" leaning party. It's true that they could use not only a big infusion of members and support, but also possibly a revamping of the way they are organized. The state-centered organization leaves a very weak federal core, one i personally had trouble with getting support and/or information from. but these are issues that can more easily be addressed, I think, inside a framework of a party that is, after all. very inclusive.
I am open to all options.
My personal preference is for a new party, but you do make some very valid points that are indeed crucial.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
The Greens would be a lot easier to remold
If the Green party and the Sanders campaign could come together and help each other, a fairly powerful alliance could come about fairly quickly. If Jill Stein were to pick a young leader from the Sanders movement, say a Deray McKesson or Nina Turner, as a running mate, that would make a strong statement.
The Democratic party takes its base for granted. Another party making a serious play for big chunks of that base, particularly Millennials who haven't even joined it yet, could upend our politics and set the stage for the demise of the Clinton Democratic party.
Please help support caucus99percent!
It certainly would be the end of the Clinton/DLC era
The Democrats would be forced to remove their toxicity for survival. Then maybe the New Greens and the New Democrats can form a progressive coalition with an all out effort against climate change being the first order of business.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Stein has reached out to Bernie, and has yet to get ONE reply
from him, however, I'm sure his supporters would fit very well in the Green Party. Be careful, however, with DeRay-he is turning into a machine D-he is, after all, a "graduate" of Teach for America, and a big proponent of charter schools and is funded very heavily by tech invested in online education (locals are not happy with him, for sure):
https://www.popularresistance.org/teach-for-americas-embedded-in-black-l...
http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2015/10/disaster-capitalism-and-teach-for....
How do we know there's been no reply from Sanders?
Just curious....???
Because Stein has addressed the Green outreach to him more than
once, with the same answer (and I can find many more examples):
"“Many of my supporters are also his supporters. I’m asked all the time if there could be a Bernie Sanders collaboration and my answer to that has always been yes. The Green Party has long sought to establish a collaboration with Bernie Sanders,” she said.
However, she told NBC News in an interview published Saturday, “That phone call has not been returned, and I don’t expect that this will happen.”"https://www.rt.com/usa/336047-jill-stein-bernie-sanders/
http://truthinmedia.com/green-partys-stein-seeks-collaboration-sanders-c...
"Dr. Jill Stein @DrJillStein
A Stein/Sanders collaboration has always been on the table. We've just never gotten a response to Green Party efforts to open a dialogue."
https://www.rt.com/usa/336047-jill-stein-bernie-sanders/
A citation since yesterday's contact?
We don't know if he's responded to that, near as I can see. And--particularly if he's responded this time--you're damn sure not going to hear about it until after the convention--if need be. Remember, Sanders isn't even out of the Dem race yet.
Tuesday's election in NY could very well have been a game-changer for this situation So anything said in "media", particularly where it paints some kind of "feud" or "bad feeling"--or even insinuates it--should essentially be set aside for now, IMO.
Agree 100%
This is the key point here
"Remember, Sanders isn't even out of the Dem race yet"
and ginning up a fued is not helpful. It could be argued that the Greens shouldn't have put Sanders in that awkward spot.
I write as someone who sees a mass movement from the Dems to the Greens as having no downside.
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” -Voltaire
Since the Green Party could not get on the primary ballot
In Oklahoma, the party urged its members to vote for Bernie in the Primary. Hardly a feud. But, I wish he would answer her.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Greens in Mi have been known to share our ballot access with
socialists (after a good vetting at the convention) when we don't have candidates for those offices. I've found Greens tremendously welcoming to a like-minded left movement, at least in my state (and you can make them that way in yours, if you join them)
For all we know, he may have
At this particular point in time, though, we can't be hearing about it. No, really! Why would that be made public before the primary is over?
I'm sure all in good time, we'll know what we need to know.
Interesting point about the Greens in OK. Is it just coincidental that Sanders won there, do you think? Or was there a huge helping of Greens pushing him over the top, too?
Fair point
I suspect there will be a big movement from Dems to Greens regardless so not too worried by this. (if HRC wins nom.)
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” -Voltaire
You nailed it right here.
This sums it up perfectly.
Bernie is a smart campaigner. If he made such overatures to a 3rd party right now it would most likely hurt him in the remaining states.
Now, AFTER the Convention, if Sanders doesn't prevail, it will absolutely be time.
However, it is a good thing that the greens, and many of his supporters are talking about this and we should continue to do so.
Maybe we can wake up the SD's to the fact that their "Big Tent" is shrinking every day and a bunch of the people in it are considering this shiny new tent with better construction to move into rather than the ratty, patchwork and Big Money Moth infested sheet of fabric we are trying to huddle under.....
I doubt anything will work tbh, simply because I believe at this point it is much more important to the party's power players that the 3rd way brigade remains in charge, winning elections is a secondary consideration to them.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
Bernie is still a senator.
He remains a member of the Democratic caucus. As long as he holds that position, I doubt he has any interest in joining the Green Party, or any other party. He has shared his vision with millions of like-minded people. Most are much younger than he. So we have two choices. Either change the Dem Party from within, or form (or become a part of) another party. I will vote in all the down-ballot races. I will NOT vote for president if Hillary is the Dem nominee. The Clintons have done enough damage to my country. If there are X number of votes for all the other candidates, but only Y number of votes for Hillary, I think the PTB will figure it out.
Another plus for the Greens
is that young people have already heard of them and have a positive opinion of them.
It may be true that the youngsters can't succeed in a revolution without experienced people mixed in with them but it is also true that we can't do it without the young adults.
Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.
thx for your response Doc.
yep agree, I'm also not sure that the Greens are the answer in the long run. I think we need a broad-based coalition to form a viable 3rd party, but I do think a 3rd party is the answer. And the sooner the better. The Dems have passed the point of no return and cannot be reformed. The dems are a lost cause, they have been for a long time, but we have been blinded by the gas of lesserevilism and couldn't see it.
But for right now, this year, the Greens get my vote if Hillary gets the nomination. This mouse is no longer voting for Fat Cats so that they can turn around and eat me and everyone dear to me.
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
Looking at their platform
(aka the Ten Key Values) they match up pretty well with what a lot of us were looking at in a Sanders candidacy, without the specifics of how things would get done.
http://www.gp.org/four_pillars_10_kv
Jill Stein is supporting both a Medicare for All system plus free education through university -- similar to Sanders' ideas it sounds like. She's also calling for abolishing all student debt -- not sure if she means a national debt forgiveness or some other plan. She might be worth a closer look for those of us who need an alternative to the status quo candidate that's been forced upon us. At the very least, this might be the time to start fighting to make sure she has a place in the debates this fall.
Very valid points.... I think you guys convinced me. :)
If the Greens are indeed down with a merger, and we don't have to play "Power Games" with them over us "Co-Opting" their party (As some will inevitably see it) too hard, it would indeed be easier to join with them than to create a brand new infrastructure.
One of my biggest reasons for wanting to create a new party over "Re-branding" an existing 3rd party is the lack of preconceived notions and "fringe" label that is applied to it, but there have been many comments made in this thread that absolutely have convinced me that if we can indeed pull off a merger it would probably be the better option considering the time frames we, and the planet, have to work with right now...
This is why the civilized debate here is so much better than TOP, Rather than flame me for disagreeing initially, we discussed the pro's and con's in a rational, logical and friendly way and are coming to a consensus....
You don't make progress and sway people to your side hurling rocks at those on "Your Side" over minor disagreements.
Love you guys and C99P.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
Ultimately
I think greens/progressives coming together and leaving the 3rd way out in the cold will happen. It makes much more sense than the current arrangement that much is for sure.
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” -Voltaire
None of us were alive for past duopoly reorganizations.
Given that the Green Party has made inroads in the US, yes, a lateral move to a party better representing our ideals might be a smart strategic move, if the Greens are welcoming to large numbers of refugees, somewhat like c99p has been.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
No downside
for the Greens that I can see - instant leverage with zero compromise or cost. All the good people win.
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” -Voltaire
Good to be Green
If the Greens are not the longterm solution and the Dems are dead to the left, where do we go? I went Green to (unintentionally) defeat Gore and will happily go back. The time is now if ever.
Amazing start
I would agree that what was started this year has surpassed everyone's expectations. It is not over, let's not believe the Clinton/MSM meme that is is wrapped up. NY was more critical for Hillary than Bernie, a loss in there would have destroyed her creditability, for Bernie it postponed his catching up in delegates.
The bigger issue is how to maintain the momentum, Sanders winning or losing the WH does not end the drive to change the political direction of the country. Becoming members of the Green Party will marginalized the movement. We need to continue to raise money and primary Neoliberal Clinton supporters, have rallys at their events and in Washington. A base driven challenge to the party each and every year will achieve more results in my opinion.
Agreed. That is probably the most important issue
we need to tackle going forward...
Hopefully Sanders will take the helm for now, but there are lots of progressives that are probably willing to take the plunge that have enough credibility to do so. (Not so much talking from a presidential ballot candidate perspective, more from a party building angle.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
If you see Andrew Basiago
If Andrew Basiago is listed as a presidential candidate and Bernie Sanders is not, vote for Basiago.
I think I will stick with Stein.... ;)
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
Not that there's any real way to organize the movement exactly
But to the extent we all shift in the same direction... or as many of us that can given Green isn't on the Ballot in all states... the clearer message we send. And, in Green's case, it goes beyond simply sending a message because they are already "half viable".
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
time travel on Earth?
Andrew Basiago: "...one who served bravely in the two secret U.S. defense projects in which time travel on Earth and voyages to Mars were first undertaken."
Um, seems as if I missed the expose on both of those items.
⍢
You should read his 100 items... Totally hilarious!
I was smoking at the time though so you have to take that into consideration.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
I'd be verry careful promoting a Constitutional convention
at least in the political climate we have now. Until we've opened up a fair voting system, gotten money out of politics, and most importantly educated the working class, we may be in for a very bad outcome. As it stands now, the oligarch-funded Tea Party, various Trumpers and the like are still able to put a yuuuge monkey wrench into any kind of reasonable overview and change to our Constitution-just think of the Tenthers, and weep.
Agree 100%
Which was why I included the "After we have a strong party" caveat.
Having one right now?
Don't think that would end well at all...
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
No, absolutely, no...not a constitutional convention
The idea of a CC came up around the time the ERA died. It was pointed out to us what the pitfalls were, and there were many, but here is why it should not happen at this time. I had planned an essay on this (and may still do one), but people need to realize why not now. Unfortunately, a call for one is already underway in several red states. It needs to be stopped.
Currently most governorships (34)and state legislatures are controlled by Republicans. 23 states have all three branches, governors and both state and house, in the hands of Republicans. It takes 38 states to ratify amendments.
Once a convention is called, there is NOTHING to stop them from addressing any issues they want:
See Permissible scope of proposed amendments for more.
From the same source:
Do we really want to take a chance that a couple of Democrats will not join Republicans in ratifying any number of amendments that will certainly not be progressive in nature, e.g., declaring a fetus a person with constitutional rights, codifying Citizens United, etc?
Does anyone think it is an accident that Republicans have been concentrating their power in state legislatures?
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
I quit the democratic party today
Just my personal protest as I re-registered as "no party preference" in California. I can still vote for Bernie in the primary so I am good to go. It felt so good to tell the Dems to eff-off. I had been a democrat since I first voted in 1980. Like most progressives I am repelled by the lies and unfairness. It is such a betrayal.
Do I see the Chiricahuas
In your avatar?
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Yes. We went last summer.
Yes. We went last summer. Beautiful place.
I am cheering you on
A statement from the west coast would certainly be great. I believe Oregon will go Bernie pretty heavily. There appears to be a rare alignment between Portland and rural oregon.
I've yet to see it explained by anyone...
how a boycott gets us where we need to be in the time frame we have left. How exactly will not voting cause the MIC to stop warring, the banksters to stop pillaging the 99percent and how does it stops the oligarchs from lording over us all. How exactly does a election boycott cause the PTB to just give it all up? And then who takes over if no one votes?
How does one discern the difference between a boycotted non-vote and an apathetic non-vote? Will there have to be a boycotter's pledge that we have to sign and then hope the MSM tells the truth for once?
Maybe I'm just a dumbass but I don't get it. An election boycott seems like an oligarch's wet dream to me.
Amen! (n/t)
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
I've yet to see it explained how voting for Stein is
going to cause the MIC to stop warring, the banksters from pillaging and the oligarchs lording over us.
So whatever, we're all dumbasses.
Saying it's an oligarch's wet dream to not vote assumes the oligarchs would rather we vote. And I've stated time and again that it won't work unless it was organized, publicized and vociferous. I'm not sure why you keep skipping by that part. You and gulfgal can keep shooting the idea down, but I'll keep bringing it up.
Agree, a vote for Stein is probably a vote wasted
I voted for Anderson for president instead of Carter, the one vote in my life I regret.
We do these things either out of gut-level emotional revolt and/or in the hopes to "send a message." That kind of message never gets remembered, or in most cases, even read. While a purely emotional choice is apt to shoot us collectively in the foot, or some even more important piece of anatomy.
Go for the #@!!!%#!k%^!!! lesser evil. Send a message by protesting in other ways, by down-ticket electioneering, and boycotting ANYTHING BUT the elections.
Yes, it's true that elections often amount to a form of engineered consent, yet boycotting in practice cannot be distinguished from the already-too-widespread indifference that makes an easy target for blame.
Euterpe2
Nope, I won't.
Precisely because I cannot identify the lesser evil anymore.
And also because the time for that BS is over.
A vote for Jill Stein is not pointless. It can get the Greens federal funding and get them more traction. It can show the Democratic Party establishment that their actions do have consequences and there is a limit to what their constituents will put up with.
I think its funny that people say they want change, but are afraid to risk the consequences. No one said it would be painless or easy. Personally, I think a Clinton presidency will be worse than a Trump one. The TPP is a nightmare. Wall Street is a nightmare. Clinton has no center, no actual values, only the desire to be and stay in power so she will capitulate to the corporate desires.
And really, no one remembers Nadar?
Its unfortunate that he chose that election to run in, as Al Gore was far from the worst Establishment candidate and we would probably be in a far better place re: the environment if he'd won, so Nadar's campaign ended up being remembered less than fondly. But it is certainly remembered.
And Hillary Clinton is no Al Gore.
I agree Haikukitty.
My state does not allow POTUS write-ins, so I will vote Green if Bernie is not the nominee. I believe it will send a message.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
No Green Party in my state; how to make my withheld vote count?
Had been thinking I'd vote Green in Nov if HRC is the candidate. However, just learned that The Green Party closed up shop in my state in 2013. The only parties that will be on the IN ballot in the Fall are GOP and Dem. (And a quick read of the steps its takes to get a new party on the ballot looks like it would take about two years to accomplish.)
Of course, I can withhold my vote -- but that will only show up as 'decreased Dem turnout'. I would prefer to use my vote so it shows up as a vote *somewhere* -- as it would if I could vote Green.
Can we -- the Sanders' 'WE' -- come up with a way of corralling all the 'can't vote for neo-liberal Dem Party' votes in one place, so that WE show up as a solid contingent of actual votes lost by DNC/HRC? Ideally, this would include being able to track votes (and voters? or numbers only?) to their state/counties, with top Dem Party members (at Fed, State, County levels) being emailed with details saying 'Here are the numbers of votes/voters who refused to support the current incarnation of the Dem Party. If Sanders had been the Dem candidate, all these numbers would have been yours.'
I may not have articulated this well. I first had that thought in a comment here a couple of days ago, and it continues to feel like a good idea to me. So let me try to develop it a little.
Imagine that (say) MoveOn starts a campaign to collect all the voters (or potential voters) who would vote (and/or have voted) for Sanders, along with some of their demographic data -- State, County, age, gender (widely defined), current Party registration (if any), usual voting history, areas of particular political concerns (these last as lists with 'pick all that apply'). Also include (for GE) a question(s?) like, 'If you cannot vote for Sanders in the GE, how will you spend your vote?' with answers like '(a) Dem nominee, (b) Greens, (c) Other, (d) Withhold.
These entries cold be stripped of personal identifiers and compiled into aggregate numbers at national, State, County levels. These numbers could be given to the media as well as sent to Dem Party/DNC leaders with the message that 'These are the voters you will lose/have lost by your treatment of enthusiastic progressive Americans.'
Such a database could be an important organizing tool, as well. It could serve to connect people at the local levels (Counties and States).
(I thought of using Move On for this because they're well-established enough to manage such a large-scale operation, I think. It appears to me that, using Reddit and other social media, an idea like this could be made operational before the Dem Convention. Even if it didn't come together that quickly, I think it would still be a valuable tool moving forward, whatever happens with the nominations/elections.)
I should mention that, in imagining the generation of this tool, I've been calling it the 'Independent Democrat(s) Party'. Why this, instead of 'Progressive' or something else? To me, 'WE' *are* the 'real Democrats' -- the others are usurpers who have stolen our name and have replaced our values with theirs. Our battle, imo, is to introduce our (modernized) traditional values to enough of The People to create a solid, organized base of voters who will bring a renewed political reality into being over time. (And I would see, at least in the beginning, that developing that organized base should take place both within the Dem Party while at the same time developing it *outside* the Party, independently. For example, if we partner with the Greens, we could spend the next two years helping them get on ballots nation-wide, while we concurrently use what we are learning through that process to work out our own platform and work toward getting our own party on the ballot (if the existing Dem Party refuses to change) That would meant that, by the mid-term, 'WE' (the 'Independent Democrats') would be recognized as an organized bloc of voters, and we would have (in the Greens) a viable place to put our votes if the existing Dem Party remains intractable.)
One more note on 'Independent Democrats': Why 'Democrat(s)' instead of 'Democratic'? First, because (to me) it shows a myriad gathering of individuals coming together in support of (modernized) traditional Democratic values. Second, because of the fun we could have contrasting ourselves with the 'Democrat-ICK!' Party.
Just my thoughts.
I feel your pain, I am an Indiana ex-pat
but I have family (vague, most dead) and school (IU-Bloomington, also my birthplace). I will be calling Indiana voters on the List, because I think I can still say that I am a Hoosier. 40 years in Upstate NY, but still a Hoosier.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
I haven't seen or read
anything about a boycott here or on social media. I am Bernie or bust, which to me means anyone but Hillary. The rest of what you wrote sounds like the old orange "more and better". I watched that slip slide back and forth and turn into nothing over a wasted 12 years. I'm not up to that again. I'm also tired of the liberal intellectual NS. We need to take a page out of the Norquist playbook and make the Clintons and Dem party pay. The left won't do it of course for a myriad of reasons, and it will do nothing again like it always does. For me, rhe question is what CAN we do to make them pay?
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Exactly!
They must be made to pay, and it must be made clear that the payback is coming from the left. Massive re-registration to Green and/or Socialist at this point in time, along with a complete refusal to vote FOR any D that is NOT progressive, but voting is a requirement to make them actually see where the support is going, IMO.
I've been thinking about this question
If Clinton gets the nomination, I think the least worst course would be to join the investigations after she's elected. Aggregating and spreading any good reporting about Clinton lawbreaking would help. Especially around stories that show them in a bad light to Democrats: pay-to-play connections between donors and presidential appointments, executive decisions or legislation her administration proposed. Jumping on her with both feet around any betrayal of working people by favoring the wealthy. Any lawbreaking around national security or Clinton Foundation influence peddling.
If the inevitable Republican witch hunts are diverted to more solid ground that makes Hillary and Republicans look bad (corruption, voting irregularities, etc.) these stories would be a win-win for us. A Clinton impeachment would uncover enough crap that she might well be removed from office. If it's done in a way that discredits all the Clinton Democrats and their methods, while simultaneously putting the Republicans in an equally bad light, this might be the best way to propel the social democratic movement forward. The country was ready for some real housecleaning and ethics in government after Nixon resigned. We should try to duplicate that by working to kick Hillary out of office.
Please help support caucus99percent!
With one caveat
What if she names the Dem equivalent of Dick Cheney as her running mate?
I read two comments on here suggesting or contemplating it
today alone.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
Where do you get More and better?
from my advocating for the creation of a new third party? lol!
Sorry, not to be mean, but you may want to reread what I posted.
I am pretty sure that it would get me BOJO'ed quick as hell over there...
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
Easy
I just wrote this on GOS.
Politicians care about exactly two things; money and votes. So that's how I talk to them... with my money and my vote.
That's the only language they speak so those are your options for making them pay. I personally favor Green because I feel a write-in vote is almost certainly not going to be counted or reported. But if a party is actually on the ballot then they at least have to count the votes and at least the Green party itself will report the results.
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'll be voting Stein (Green)
for President if Bernie isn't on the ballot. I've been registered as a Green for about a decade now. So that's kind of a no-brainer for me.
I'm not a Democrat. I've never been a Democrat. I've usually (not always) voted 3rd party, and won exactly nothing.
There's one thing the two major parties agree on - there won't be any other viable parties.
David Koch ran as VP on the Libertarian ticket in 1980. He probably had dreams of building it into a viable 3rd party. Even with all the money there is, the Kochs couldn't do it. They ended up doing a hostile takeover of the Republican party instead.
The Tea Party is the blueprint for how this is done.
Bernie's campaign has demonstrated two things:
1) that there are a LOT of people (40% or so of likely Democratic primary voters) who want Democratic Socialism or a reasonable facsimile thereof.
2) that you can raise a staggering amount of money $27 at a time if you don't take money from the wealthy.
The funding from the Tea Party comes from a handful of wacko billionaires. They run as Republicans, say the things that likely Republican primary voters want to hear, and successfully (in enough cases) primary the establishment candidates from the right. With enough victories they accomplish two things:
1) every establishment Republican is afraid of losing their job if they don't go all the way right
2) enough true believers got elected that they formed an unbeatable caucus. The Republicans in Congress can't do anything without their OK. All they had to do was stick together. Without controlling the campaign money, the party has no hold on them. They are RINOs indeed.
This is the only thing anyone has found that works. Breaking the back of the two party system is an overwhelming task. Doing a hostile takeover is not.
This new movement needs a brand, a label like "organic" ("public funding" would be great but it already means something else, maybe "Greater Good") that can be claimed by a candidate meaning that they will not do fundraisers with big money donors, will not accept aggregate contributions over $1000 from any single source, will not have a SuperPac. Then they can appeal to voters to fund their campaign. If they lose their credibility regarding their "Greater Good" label, their small dollar funding and grassroots support dry up.
Run in Democratic primaries against establishment candidates wherever possible. Establish an alternate voter database, since the DNC seems to use theirs as a club against outsiders. Defeat establishment candidates in primaries, force the party to support them in the general, then caucus together to deny the establishment a majority unless they deal in good faith. Put fear into the hearts of establishment Democrats that putting big business, the wealthy, and Empire ahead of the People will be a career ending move.
We know this is possible, the Tea Party did it. We know it works. The only question is how fast it can be implemented. It took the Kochs and their ilk 35 years. We can do it on Internet time.
This election, vote Green or wherever your heart leads you. Let the Clinton supporters row their Queen's barge into the White House if they want. Never again vote for the lesser evil.
And get ready for a fight.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Albert Bartlett
"A species that is hurtling toward extinction has no business promoting slow incremental change." -- Caitlin Johnstone
I have no objections
to helping the Green Party reach the coveted 5% level. I think they benefit the world by just existing.
But by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I wish that we could bring Bernie with us.
[Edited because apparently I can't type!]
Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.
A revolution is a change of power in a short period of time.
We need a global people's revolution against the plutocrats of the world. People are dying as we speak, people are starving, genocides are occurring, crimes of humanity are being committed. We have wars that need to be stopped now.
The climate is going to hell in a hand basket.
We don't have decades to try to play in this system imo. We have outright criminals in charge that need to be held accountable. The tea party didn't do shit, it's all a farce. So is this representative system.
Boycott it, refuse to give consent to be governed by the criminals.
I'm coming at this as a sixty year old hippie that has seen a lot, thought a lot and researched a lot.
People need to ask themselves how much longer we can put up with this. If the answer is not long, then it's time to do something now. Trump vs. Clinton is a perfect storm of an opportunity. It is completely unacceptable and we need to make that crystal clear.
Those on this blog and most political blogs will not be for a boycott, I've already gathered that. They are the ones who are and have long been involved in this political system. There will be a boycott, how successful remains to be seen. I don't expect it to catch on here. But it won't stop me from advocating for it and bringing it up. People on here can ridicule it all they want.
Big Al, you say boycott but what I really think you mean is....
Which I would agree with.
I can't agree with a boycott
A boycott only means, hey look a bunch of people didn't vote again.
Voting and voting against Hillary by way of Jill sends a message.
I'll be voting against Hillary, one way or another (If Bernie is not on the ballot).
I'll also be voting Dem deep down ticket.
I have to protect my state and local government from the republicans as much as I can.
Let's give Trump a Dem Congress and Senate to minimize the damage until 2020.
Though, personally, I'd prefer we get the
stuff out of the way and move forward.
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
OK, when I get this I have to remind that first of all
this is not democracy we're talking about. Whether people vote democrat or third party they are not participating in democracy. What I'd like to see is a discussion in this country as to whether people want a democracy or not. That certainly won't happen by continually participating in an oligarchic system. If people really want democracy, then we have to change the system. So it's kind of put up or shut up, Americans you talk a big game but you ain't got shit. People want to keep voting in this system then let's get it our front and center, it's not democracy.
Relative to voting for Stein, I did in 2012. I feel differently now, but I didn't then so I understand where people are coming from saying that's what they're going to do now. I'm in a different place and it's purposefully radical because if we don't stretch it out we're all just preaching to the choir in a giant echo chamber.
I don't see where voting for Stein does anything but register a very small percentage of people as supporting the Green party. It's not an action that is trying to overturn the power, it's more of a protest vote because she has no chance. And a large percentage of the 99% are not going to be interested in the Green party anyway. A boycott on the other hand can include anyone from any political point. It can highlight the fact that we don't have democracy, that this system is a farce and we want it changed. A boycott in my opinion has more potential if done right.
Boycotts work in the real world. It's a natural action. I boycott shit all the time. It's done to change things. I don't see that potential with the Green party or any third party in an oligarchic system. I think there's a big mental block when it comes to something that's been ingrained in our fucking heads since we could talk, the great American illusion of democracy.
It may appear to be an illusion of Democracy
It may actually be an illusion of Democracy.
But there is also a framework and deep desire for rule and law, by consent. For Democracy.
It requires effort. Non-participation does nothing.
What's the percentage of citizens who could vote that do vote? It's not even 50% is it? Having that percentage drop will help how? Do you think they will say oh boo hoo no one wants to play?
Or do you think the 211 individuals or so it would take to elect a president wouldn't just smile on the way to the bank?
(there's a very small number of votes needed to be cast to win the electoral college vote for president)
Who is going to care AL? If huge numbers voted none of the above you think they would redo the election?
Non-participation does no good and will do no good.
Change happens when people get out into the streets
Sitting at home saying 'Screw those bastards I'm NOT voting!' is sure to get their attention by god! NOT.
Come on AL get serious please. Real solutions are needed. We could use your help.
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
Get serious?
All right dennis, whatever you say. I'm hearing you and others loud and clear. Good luck with your third parties.
Please remember that just because we disagree
does not mean the we don't also value your presence and input.
I believe we do.
I know I do.
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
If I'm going to be ridiculed for bringing up ideas,
then I don't think that value goes very far. There are already a number of things I don't feel I can talk about on here without being attacked or ridiculed, so to me it's no different than the Daily Kos. Free expression of ideas? Ya, if you want some heat for it.
I know people won't like that either, so ridicule away. Makes no difference now.
Civility
Is what I am seeing in this discussion. Thank goodness there is a variety of viewpoints and, really, that's all any of us amateur political strategists have. Just because there are disagreements does not mean that any viewpoints are being ridiculed.
If you feel ridiculed then I have failed to communicate.
I apologize, I did not intend to ridicule you Big AL.
Rather I strive to encourage you to share your thoughts even if I disagree with them.
I'm not a writer ( though one may think I think I am with how long winded I tended to get lol).
I do not agree a boycott would be a good idea and I wanted to say why I felt that way, so we could talk more about it.
But looking back at my post I can see that I was being dismissive in my wording in a manner that could be perceived as ridicule.
I'm sorry Big AL.
I'll try to do better in how I disagree with you when I do.
Peace love joy friend!
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
I get that you are farther "Left"
than some of us. I am persuaded to be braver by you, and that is an uncomfortable position for me, and maybe many others here.
I am 63, Millennial children, I am comfortable with Change is Good. Currently I am trying to be strategic, working (breaking) the system that we are presented with.
A hard turn Left is what I think we need and want, but I think the most strategic way is to blow up the current system by infiltration. No doubt NSA is getting all tingly with the last sentence.
Keep shoving towards our concept of Left, Big Al. All good.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
I don't know whether boycotting elections would work towards
A worthy goal, but it would be nice to see people able to discuss the possibility without panicking. Thanks, Al.
Stay on track. Stay in lane. Don't throw rocks.
Thanks Miep,
I think we can safely say it's a non option on this political blog. Panicking? It actually seems to get people pissed. Interesting.
Because it seems like giving what they are fighting to take away
If the PTB want to disenfranchise you, want to take away your voice, then by taking away your voice, how are you hurting them? They do not care. There will always be a minimum number of people who vote, and they are fine with that.
What would scare them is a non-establishment person or party getting traction - as we've seen with Sanders campaign.
But us shutting up and sitting on our hands, they are fine with that.
I think that's why people get angry, because it feels like giving them just exactly what they want.
Now, if it could honestly be done where 90% of the electorate loudly boycotted - sure, that would be effective. But since thats unlikely, going from 37% voting to 30% voting will only give the MSM the narrative that the public doesn't care.
Its not that its a bad idea in and of itself, its that it doesn't feel effective in this particular climate.
Lenin had some good points to make on participating in politics
(Read the whole thing, it's good)
"The German “Lefts” complain of bad “leaders” in their party, give way to despair, and even arrive at a ridiculous “negation” of “leaders”. But in conditions in which it is often necessary to hide “leaders” underground, the evolution of good “leaders”, reliable, tested and authoritative, is a very difficult matter; these difficulties cannot be successfully overcome without combining legal and illegal work, and without testing the “leaders”, among other ways, in parliaments. Criticism—the most keen, ruthless and uncompromising criticism—should be directed, not against parliamentarianism or parliamentary activities, but against those leaders who are unable—and still more against those who are unwilling—to utilise parliamentary elections and the parliamentary rostrum in a revolutionary and communist manner. Only such criticism—combined, of course, with the dismissal of incapable leaders and their replacement by capable ones—will constitute useful and fruitful revolutionary work that will simultaneously train the “leaders” to be worthy of the working class and of all working people, and train the masses to be able properly to understand the political situation and the often very complicated and intricate tasks that spring from that situation. *5"
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch07.htm
"Lenin outlines the nature of his position extremely well in the afore-quoted passage; despite the fact that parliamentary democracy is clearly historically obsolete, it may still be necessary in a practical political framework to struggle “on the soil” of parliament."
https://sorev.wordpress.com/2010/01/03/a-communist-position-on-bourgeois...
Moar:
"In addition to arming themselves and organizing centralized and independent clubs, the workers’ party should put candidates up for elections in Germany in the event of the creation of a national assembly as a result of revolutionary upheaval:
Even when there is no prospect whatsoever of their being elected, the workers must put up their own candidates in order to preserve their independence, to count their forces, and to bring before the public their revolutionary attitude and party standpoint. In this connection they must not allow themselves to be seduced by such arguments of the democrats as, for example, that by so doing they are splitting the democratic party and making it possible for the reactionaries to win. The ultimate intention of all such phrases is to dupe the proletariat. The advance which the proletarian party is bound to make by such independent action is indefinitely more important than the disadvantage that might be incurred by the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body.6
The argument for voting against left-wing or socialist candidates on the grounds that they can’t win and are therefore helping the right wing into power has, of course, been a time-worn argument in the U.S. against bucking the two-party system. Engels, in an 1893 letter to an American colleague, pointed out that in the U.S., the formation of a workers’ party is hindered by the "Constitution…which makes it appear as though every vote were lost that is cast for a candidate not put up by one of the two governing parties."7"
http://www.isreview.org/issues/13/marxists_elections.shtml
How do they know who is boycotting and
who simply didn't vote? How is that sending a message? The action has to be able to be loud and claimed. A vote for Stein is at least counted. Staying home who knows? I still say to vote for her opponent whoever it is. I say that with pain, deep pain, particularly when I think about Cruz and what a red takeover from top to bottom has done to blue states. I'm willing to suffer, if it makes a point. If not, then voting for the opposition is of no help either.
I like DallasDocs suggestion. I'd totally enjoy helping her to swing.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
No answer is functional in every situation.
On this one I think the data is shockingly clear.
We have witnessed the most hard core, sustained, and tirelessly boycott in maybe the history of the world. The boycott of our electoral process. What other boycott can say it has had near 50% national penetration for years and decades?
The dynamics aren't the same as market boycotts (which also are no magical panacea), here it is almost like it works in reverse. The fewer participate and the more easily led by the nose and duped the dwindling participants the more power the few have.
More heading to the couches is cause for cheer among those running the scam.
I just don't see the downside for the powerful if the good people drop out. It is background noise that actually expands the corporate echo chamber.
Pages