I think this page says it all
http://www.gp.org/120591/the_real_difference

Nothing will change as long as Dems/Repubs hold the people in their vice grips.

have values that I reject. It's been that way for decades.

It was a Democrat, Humphrey, who hung the "Acid, Amnesty, and Abortion" tag on McGovern & the Republicans gleefully picked it up and ran with it. (One of the three was the law of the land and amnesty for Viet Nam war resisters came to pass.) HRC was a Carter operative against the progressive wing under the aegis of Harrington's Democratic Socialist organization.

Jesse Jackson formed a vibrant organization, The Rainbow Coalition, which he let wither on the vine.

I think the Greens are where to go and I think the Greens will benefit from the infusion of people and enthusiasm from those who reject the neoliberalism of the current Dems. Apparently neoliberalism is incurable and can only be isolated. I am hoping the Greens can do that after they get a good dose of class consciousness.

as an idea whose time has come. The Green Party has been pretty consistent in its message over the years - what's different this time is the number of people in America who are now receptive to it. I don't think people should be unduly discouraged or put off by past failures. It's a cliche, but nonetheless apt to remind ourselves that the mightiest oak tree starts out as a mere acorn. What the Green Party has been up to now does not necessarily foretell what it might someday be.

Just imagine if the energy and enthusiasm elicited by the Sanders campaign, or even a sizeable chunk of it, was redirected towards Jill Stein and the Green Party. Though I don't think Stein has a realistic chance of being elected president, I do think the Greens have a good chance this year of putting themselves on the electoral map. And that itself would be a huge step forward.

Here's Paul Wellstone 'splainin that opinion for me @3m53s

Wellstone believed the Progressive movement has three parts; Grassroots organizing, good public policy, and electoral politics. He was a great example of how to do all three.

Wellstone: "I think they all go together. I think electoral politics without grassroots organizing is a politics without a base. I think grassroots organizing without electoral politics can be a marginal politics. And I think electoral politics and grassroots organizing without policy and program is a movement without a direction."

Wow Bernie was my perfect candidate drinking the Progressive kool-aid, I thought he had all three. Rats!

I've been thinking the same.

The fundamental progressive ideas Bernie masterfully hammered home, i.e. free college tuition, healthcare for all, $15 hr min wage, getting money out of politics, the business model of Wall St is fraud, combined to create a snapshot most Americans had never heard from a presidential candidate - and they were very receptive, enthusiastically filling big stadiums for it.

It was the Occupy message writ large in the Democratic Party primaries, and it painted the consummate insider establishment candidate as completely out of touch. For the first time perhaps people across the country were having national conversations about how beholden politicians are to Wall St money and starting to understand why there's such dysfunction in DC. Also, the big key, which is "if I have to pay taxes why then shouldn't it go toward free healthcare and college tuition, etc, instead of tax breaks to corporations/Wall St and a bloated military budget?" Revolutionary, for a country that's perpetually duped into asking the wrong questions i.e. (the RW "Don't rise my taxes" mantra which has infected the entire populace).

All of that awakening and support engendered by Bernie's laser-focused messaging can be re-focused onto the only candidate that lines up with his views, and has a long record of being that.

The hurdle is and remains reminding people they have another choice than the corporate duopoly candidates, whose faces they'll see plastered everywhere they look for months on end (in this case this could be yet another factor that helps the Greens, with the extraordinarily high disapproval numbers for both). Question is, are the Greens going to be able to harness this energy into getting on the ballot in all or most states?

At my favorite local falafel shop I overheard a guy I know and another speaking Arabic and something about "Dearborn" and asked about if it was Dearborn, MI. They said the community there is mostly Lebanese, which I didn't know. I said it was also the place that went 70% for Bernie. I told them that if Bernie doesn't make it I'm voting for Jill Stein in the Green Party, and reminded them they didn't have to vote for just those two vile candidates. One guy's eyes lit up and he looked up Jill Stein, and of course there she was, running for President.

It seems to me a perfect storm of events for a third party, specifically the Greens, to get some real traction, put a hole in the duopoly ship by giving people a good resistance vote against the fraud that's been exposed by Bernie.

Can someone summarize their differences? Is Peace and Freedom strictly a socialist party where Green simply wants to rein in capitalism and more in the Democratic Socialism mold of Bernie? Green does seem to have the advantage in name and numbers but Peace and Freedom is also a party option in CA.