@gjohnsit until the last 90 seconds. Then, despite his denials, he adopts the Clintonite -snowflake line that establishment Dems can still find common ground with Progressives (which in reality amounts to being willingly coopted into that corrupt world view). Total, utter, all-encompassing, complete horse excrement. Sam Seder has gone the way of David Packman which is the way of Cenk Uyghur: drifting, willingly or not, to the detested Clinton "center".

@Dr. John Carpenter . Starting a second one would be fine with me.

Is that people accept the narrative that a third party can't succeed. Personally, I think the only reason this would be true is the circular logic that keeps people voting for the duolopy because they don't want to "throw away" their vote on a third party. I agree, there's a lot of work to go with a third party, any third party being successful, but I think all the reasons you mentioned, and more, should be adequate for anyone paying attention to realize the Dems have no interest of doing anything other than being the Junior Varsity Republicans.

I also think they're trying to play cool, but the Democrats are pretty afraid of the idea of a credible left third party. For instance, they have to know if they didn't have Sanders out there trying to "unify", or what the hell ever he's supposed to be doing, and he was actually pushing an independent party, they'd be completely screwed. As intentionally thick as they can be about so much else, they begrudgingly act like they realize this.

when Ross Perot stole too many votes from Clinton and Bush and made the possible outcome more uncertain. This was the last time that the league of women voters were in charge of the debates.
They didn't want to accept the new rules that 3rd party candidates couldn't participate in the debates unless they had a certain percentage of votes during the primaries.
Jill Stein and her VP choice were arrested when they tried to be involved in the debates between Obama and McCain.
(Off topic, but McCain is returning to congress tomorrow to vote on the health care bill. The vote tomorrow is for moving the legislation forward. What is wrong with this picture? A person who recently found out that he has brain cancer and limited time to live is going to vote on the possibility of revoking people's health insurance, while this person has the opportunity to afford any health care treatment, but wants to take it away from the 400,000 people in his state? This is wrong on so many levels!)
If Bernie had gone to the Green Party to run for president, he had a great chance of winning. The missed opportunity for Bernie becoming president is something that is going to haunt America for years and years if not many decades

How big a chance would he have had to stop and try to fix the effects of climate change? Or income inequality? Or one of the many issues that he ran on?
Would he have turned out to be another Obama type president? We will never know. We do know what would have happened if Hillary had won. I think that one of the few things she wouldn't have done is appoint the type of people to her cabinet positions like the ones who Trump appointed.
Ole Warren wouldn't have had to make the decision to vote to appoint Carson as head of HUD because Trump might have appointed some one who would've been worse than Carson. This is a pretty stupid reason for voting for ole Ben who has no experience on running a billion dollar agency that helps poor, elderly and disabled people find affordable housing.
The reason why this issue is so important to me is because I'm in all 3 of those groups. Okay, I might not be very elderly, but I'm working towards it:)
The republicans and Trump want to gut those programs in order for rich people to be able to keep more of their money. Just how many millions does it take to live comfortably? Hell, I would settle for one million. Or half a million, or............
The one thing I would do if I had that type of money would be to share it with people who are less fortunate than I am.

@Dr. John Carpenter

Is that people accept the narrative that a third party can't succeed. Personally, I think the only reason this would be true is the circular logic that keeps people voting for the duolopy because they don't want to "throw away" their vote on a third party. I agree, there's a lot of work to go with a third party, any third party being successful, but I think all the reasons you mentioned, and more, should be adequate for anyone paying attention to realize the Dems have no interest of doing anything other than being the Junior Varsity Republicans.

I also think they're trying to play cool, but the Democrats are pretty afraid of the idea of a credible left third party. For instance, they have to know if they didn't have Sanders out there trying to "unify", or what the hell ever he's supposed to be doing, and he was actually pushing an independent party, they'd be completely screwed. As intentionally thick as they can be about so much else, they begrudgingly act like they realize this.

@SparkyGump

Parties. The Green Party is a third party. So is the Justice Party. Etc.

a fourth would be even better. This corporate duopoly on perpetuates the suck. America can do much better than this.

@GusBecause in the pews. Which makes sense, political parties are kind of like religion.

I'd never heard of Chapo Whatever. So I listened to parts of several segments. My old fart take: very smart, funny and well educated guys and lady talking about some politics and a lot of stuff, most of which (movies, net shows) are of zero interest to me. What is interesting is the support they've garnered and the vicious backlash which tells me they far more influential (dangerous to the establishment) than I'd ever expect. So good on them!

@Big Al They want donations and lobbyist jobs for their nephews and they are not afraid to give insider trade info to get them.
Or something like that.
I hope every one of the fuckers have to stand in line at a food bank one day and see what poor people have to eat, and the humiliation they go through to just fucking EAT.

I guess than I'd decide whether they could be worked with, whoever they are. Those willing to vote for Clinton or support Clinton, that's like working with warmongers idiots. As for Bernie supporters, that's like working with the democratic party.
This is all getting weird now. Maybe it's the time period, the situation, I don't know. But few from the political system left seems to have any idea what they really want other than more and better politicians.

@Not Henry Kissinger
Gephart's (political) dead body is as good a place to start as any.

Thus, my real problem with Chapo Trap House and its co-host's "bend the knee" statement is that I don't see why we should bother even having the discussion he's having. Why is he talking to those people? What is the point of talking to them? The leaders are beyond corrupt--irredeemably corrupt--and as for the rank-and-file, while it includes some people I hold dear and even love, it's an inescapable fact that these are people who believe the Russia narrative, with all that implies. It's also quite clear that they aren't going to create anything worth our time, because their assumptions are those of the establishment.

Now that they are out of power, all Dem-enders can offer their rich patrons is a stifling of Progressive candidates and policies.

It's truly the only reason they exist right now, which is why since the Bernie uprising they've acted like prison guards on lock-down.

There's no talking to people with this mentality. There's no finding common ground with those whose only agenda is to cage you.

Hillary says single payer will 'never happen'. Gephart says 'over my dead body'.

OK then. So what's there to talk about?