Where do you think the Democratic Party needs to go ideologically?

[Nilly]

It's far worse than that. If they lose one more state government branch (Note even both houses of congress, just one in the right state), then the Republicans can start arbitrarily amending the Constitution.

[...]

If the Republicans win because incumbents like Joe Manchin were weakened by a primary run, then good. We're cleaning house one way or the other.

This is what I don't understand about the 'Bernie or bust' style of politics.

You think a bunch of the right like Trump? You think that right wing libertarians, and christian conservatives etc etc wanted to vote Trump? No. They didn't. But that's who got put forward, and Republicans got in line.

I'm a hardcore progressive from Europe. I want the democratic party to move left as much as anyone, and I voted as much in the poll. But the difference between the republican party and the democratic party is that the repubs are happy to flush their principles down the toilet to vote for a candidate they don't like to prevent the dems from getting in. They'll swallow their pride because they know that a small step is better than a backwards one. And look where it's got them. 2 branches of govt, on their way to a 3rd. An upcoming midterm where even though we have to win, we have the most vulnerable seats. A slow march towards regressive policy, barriers to healthcare and abortion, a larger military complex, tax cuts for the rich, voter suppression and gerrymandering.

Yeah, the dems suck, but unless you're planning on revamping American politics, they're your realistic alternative to the right wing march. Sure, voting Hillary might not have got us single payer or wall street reform, she might have been a corporate crony, but it sure as hell would have been a step in a better direction than where we're heading now. And that all applies to Perez too (who I think is more liberal than Hillary anyway).

 

[Nilly]

....

...

To add to my above post. I would also say how telling it is that most Bernie or busters are fairly well to do white dudes, often techies, who don't actually stand to lose much personally from a republican presidency.

Again, I'm coming to you here from a progressive perspective, but whilst you throw the toys out of the pram complaining that Perez (who again, I don't think is really a bad choice) got picked over Ellison, there are women out there who are unable to get a safe abortion. There are minorities that face voter suppression tactics. There are low income people losing their healthcare.

Wanting to move the party left is fine. I do too. Doing it at the expense of the people who genuinely need some of the protections that only the democratic party seem to care about, is not.

 

[SDET]

It's no secret that the Democratic Party is in bad shape these days. The Republicans control all of Washington, the majority of the governorship's, and the majority of the state legislators.

There are basically two different schools of thought as to where the Democrats should go ideologically to start winning again.

1. They should move solidly to the left and the kind of liberal populism ideas that Bernie Saunders advocated. This is the big progressive ideas model of promoting things like single payer healthcare, debt free college tuition, a living wage, and so on.

Or

2. They should move back to the old Third Way - New Democrats Centrist / Center - Left ideology championed by groups like the DLC and the Progressive Policy Institute in the nineties. Basically, the Bill Clinton model (absent the womanizing of course). This the progressive incrementalism model of promoting things like SCHIP (the State Children's Health Insurance Program), Welfare Reform, Moving to Opportunity, and so on.

So basically do you think the Democrats should move further to the left or closer to the center? This isn't a question of candidates but rather of ideas / ideology.

No matter how loyal one may be to the GOP, there must be a sane alternative when a corrupt or incompetent Republican is in office. There needs to be two (or maybe three) viable parties to promote good government.

 

[Nilly]

No matter how loyal one may be to the GOP, there must be a sane alternative when a corrupt or incompetent Republican is in office. There needs to be two (or maybe three) viable parties to promote good government.

Same should be said for the Dems.

If the dems split into a progressive and centrist branch, and the repubs split maybe by social/fiscal conservative lines, or maybe libertarian, I think we'd have a healthy race on our hands. Particularly with a runoff voting system.

Of course, one of these splits can't happen without the other also happening.

 

[FieldTheorist]

You think a bunch of the right like Trump?

No, I've consistently said the opposite.

You think that right wing libertarians, and christian conservatives etc etc wanted to vote Trump? No. They didn't. But that's who got put forward, and Republicans got in line.

I agree, and that's why Hillary doing everything she could to snag these people while snubbing the Left was a terrible tactic.

They'll swallow their pride because they know that a small step is better than a backwards one. And look where it's got them. [...] A slow march towards regressive policy, barriers to healthcare and abortion, a larger military complex, tax cuts for the rich, voter suppression and gerrymandering.

You're very misinformed if you think these are the parts of Trump's agenda that blue collar people were signing onto.

Yeah, the dems suck, but unless you're planning on revamping American politics, they're your realistic alternative to the right wing march.

That's exactly what Justice Democrats and Our Revolution aim to do; so yes, that is my plan. My primary point is that I'm not even going to attempt to be friendly with the DNC and the official party apparatus. It's a hostile take-over.

And that all applies to Perez too (who I think is more liberal than Hillary anyway).

Perez's position on the TPP makes him a terrible person to lead the DNC for anyone who is genuinely concerned about taking back the Rust Belt, but my main issue with Perez isn't his history or ideology. It's that he was installed by the oligarchs who run the DNC party to to make sure that the Left is kept out of power within the DNC. So sure, Perez will do some progressive things, but Perez's #1 goal is to stop the Left.

To add to my above post. I would also say how telling it is that most Bernie or busters are fairly well to do white dudes, often techies, who don't actually stand to lose much personally from a republican presidency.

1.) "Bernie-or-Bust" isn't the correct term here. I stuck it out with the Democratic party, gave money to some Democrats, and voted for Hillary in November. It made little-to-no difference, because the Democratic party is hell-bent on choosing corporations over people. Remember, it's okay to throw racial and religious minorities, young people, LGBT persons, and the working class under the bus, as long as you're doing it to further corporate power. When that happens, I don't hear a peep from people like you. Did you use this argument against the corporate class of the Democratic party when they purposefully brought a fight to the Left after Trump was elected, and threatened unity?

Yeah, I bet the problem is angry, white members of the progressive Left. The problem certainly doesn't have anything to do with the Democratic party's move away from unions and the poor.

2.) This would be a much more powerful talking point if it were actually true (It wouldn't make it valid, but it would make it more emotionally compelling). The closest thing that you'll find to true "Bernie-or-Bust" was people who voted for Stein. And they were not typically "techy white men"; Stein voters were in fact populated by a very diverse group of people.

whilst you throw the toys out of the pram complaining [...] there are women out there who are unable to get a safe abortion. There are minorities that face voter suppression tactics. There are low income people losing their healthcare.

Women haven't been able to get safe abortions in Texas and the South for a generation now, including Obama's tenure as president and when Obama held the presidency and Democrats held the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court. Were you just as angry when Democrats did nothing in 2013, when they controlled the Senate, and the Democratic moderates didn't lift a finger to restore the Voting Rights Act like the SCOTUS told them to? And were you s***-talking the DNC when they instructed politicians to not agree to any of BLM's requests, because they viewed them as radicals? Were you just as angry when Democratic politicians allowed Republicans to gerrymander their districts so they could keep their place, which is what has led to all of these voter ID and anti-abortion laws? Were you angry at Hillary for taking 99% of the co-raised money from the DNC/State party funds to finance her campaign at the expense of the campaigns for local, state, and congressional seats?

No? Well then you'll have to forgive me for not caring about your selective outrage.

 

[Vox]

It's no secret that the Democratic Party is in bad shape these days. The Republicans control all of Washington, the majority of the governorship's, and the majority of the state legislators.

There are basically two different schools of thought as to where the Democrats should go ideologically to start winning again.

1. They should move solidly to the left and the kind of liberal populism ideas that Bernie Saunders advocated. This is the big progressive ideas model of promoting things like single payer healthcare, debt free college tuition, a living wage, and so on.

Or

2. They should move back to the old Third Way - New Democrats Centrist / Center - Left ideology championed by groups like the DLC and the Progressive Policy Institute in the nineties. Basically, the Bill Clinton model (absent the womanizing of course). This the progressive incrementalism model of promoting things like SCHIP (the State Children's Health Insurance Program), Welfare Reform, Moving to Opportunity, and so on.

So basically do you think the Democrats should move further to the left or closer to the center? This isn't a question of candidates but rather of ideas / ideology.

Actually, they don't need either........they need both.

Or at least a combination.

The only way for Dems to win in 2018 and 2020 is to field fiscally cautious populist candidates who are strong on America First--PRO-Labor, PRO-Health Care, ANTI-Immigrant, PRO-Gun rights, PRO-Law Enforcement and willing to back off sending American troops all over the world to fight wars nobody wants.

If Dems fail to do this they will continue to fade away and the Trump factions will continue to gain strength.

What is needed is common sense.........and I've seen little of that thus far in 2017.......and 2018 will be a difficult year for Dems to make gains anyway because there are not enough vulnerable Republican seats up for election.

 

[Master PO]

 

[Nilly]

Some of your quotes snipped for brevity.

No, I've consistently said the opposite.

I agree, and that's why Hillary doing everything she could to snag these people while snubbing the Left was a terrible tactic.

It was a terrible tactic, especially going further center with Kaine. I think a progressive VP would have helped her chances immensely.

You're very misinformed if you think these are the parts of Trump's agenda that blue collar people were signing onto.

Irrelevant. They're the parts of Trump's agenda that they're going to get.

That's exactly what Justice Democrats and Our Revolution aim to do; so yes, that is my plan. My primary point is that I'm not even going to attempt to be friendly with the DNC and the official party apparatus. It's a hostile take-over.

I applaud that. I genuinely hope it succeeds. The more progressives we can get in at every level of the democratic party the better.

Perez's position on the TPP makes him a terrible person to lead the DNC...

You'll have to further substantiate this smear campaign against Ellison before I go and run with that. I also disagree with the assessment that Perez is anywhere near as centrist as Obama/Clinton. He's not perfect, nor is he as progressive as Ellison, but the platform that he ran on was almost identical to Ellison.

When it comes down to it, as noble as it is to not utilize it/them, money and corporations in politics are an unfortunate reality. Bernie ran a great show but was ultimately outvoted as the dem candidate. Sure, the DNC head honchos had a preferred candidate there's no problem with that. You can bet that the RNC weren't happy about Trump when he was ****ting all over Bush/Rubio etc. When it came down to it, Clinton handily beat Sanders by popular vote. Democrats will not win a general election without the centrist side of the party having some say, and Perez is a compromise there. I would much rather that we move the democratic party to the left from a position of power, rather than when we trail Repubs in the house and senate, and whilst a republican is also in the white house. The time for the progressive wing of the party to make their move was in the 2010/14 midterms and we royally ****ed it.

Note: this does not mean we should reach out to disenfranchised republicans. Hillary tried that and got her face scratched off. I'm not about trying to convert people from conservatives to liberal. That's a fools battle. Instead, every single person who is even at all liberal should be getting out there and voting D down the entire ****ing ballot.

1.) "Bernie-or-Bust" isn't the correct term here....

No. The closest thing you'll find to the Bernie or Bust bros were not Stein voters. The closest you'll find are the people who turned out for Obama, but switched to Trump or did not vote at all. The places where Hillary lost were the places where Bernie did best. The places where Hillary lost are where there were a higher percentage of white voters. i.e. People with a lot less to fear from a republican presidency (before an R chimes in here, why do you think the black/latino vote is so homogenized). Hillary was wrong to ignore them, and she did ignore them. But Bernie voters were primarily dudes. They were primarily white, and that's the exact demographic that Hillary lost to Trump.

Also I don't know what you mean about not hearing a peep for me. I've been pretty vocal in anti corporatist sentiments, especially when we're in charge. But I do recognize that the time to make change is not to do it when liberals have zero power whatsoever.

Women haven't been able to get safe abortions in Texas and the South for a generation now, including Obama's tenure as president and when Obama held the presidency and Democrats held the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court. Were you just as angry when Democrats did nothing in 2013, when they controlled the Senate, and the Democratic moderates didn't lift a finger to restore the Voting Rights Act like the SCOTUS told them to? And were you s***-talking the DNC when they instructed politicians to not agree to any of BLM's requests, because they viewed them as radicals? Were you just as angry when Democratic politicians allowed Republicans to gerrymander their districts so they could keep their place, which is what has led to all of these voter ID and anti-abortion laws? Were you angry at Hillary for taking 99% of the co-raised money from the DNC/State party funds to finance her campaign at the expense of the campaigns for local, state, and congressional seats?

No? Well then you'll have to forgive me for not caring about your selective outrage.

Yes.

 

[Surrealistik]

To add to my above post. I would also say how telling it is that most Bernie or busters are fairly well to do white dudes, often techies, who don't actually stand to lose much personally from a republican presidency.

Again, I'm coming to you here from a progressive perspective, but whilst you throw the toys out of the pram complaining that Perez (who again, I don't think is really a bad choice) got picked over Ellison, there are women out there who are unable to get a safe abortion. There are minorities that face voter suppression tactics. There are low income people losing their healthcare.

Wanting to move the party left is fine. I do too. Doing it at the expense of the people who genuinely need some of the protections that only the democratic party seem to care about, is not.

FieldTheorist articulated a lot of my thoughts on the matter, but to provide my own views:

There is no such trade off, and furthermore the best time to primary the corporatists and Clintonites, and engage in large scale reformation of the party is now after those same incompetent corporatists have been routed wholesale and the political dust has settled. There is plenty of time for such reformation and upheaval to occur before the next major political contest so I feel any such concerns are overblown.

Furthermore, I am not a 'Bernie or buster' (also they weren't nearly the decisive reason for Clinton's loss) and resent the implication of such as what seems to be an attempt to delegitimatize my positions and arguments; I held my nose, downed the less virulent poison and voted for the lesser evil; Clinton got my vote. That said, I'm not just going to stand by as these proven corporatist failures continue to circle the wagons and fend off the progressives at any cost and by any means in order to remain in power and appease their donors and retain unpopular neoliberal/Republican lite stances; I'm going to call them out every step of the way. It is unforgivable and repugnant that the establishment Dems constantly call for 'unity' while not voting a single progressive into senior leadership positions despite Bernie's wing representing nearly half the party (with that proportion growing), and despite Perez repeatedly talking all kinds of nonsense, empty conciliatory sunshine about 'transparency', even as the DNC changes the rules on subsequent voting rounds an hour before they occurred to make them completely opaque and prevent us from knowing who gave Perez their support and got him into power in order to ward off accountability from the progressives. It is ultimately and painfully clear the Dem establishment wants Bernie's votation without representation, and this is plainly unacceptable.

At the end of the day, I will do what it takes to keep the Republicans out of power, but I will not refrain from leveling deserved criticisms against the extensive internal corruption, establishment nepotism and self-dealing in the Democratic party, and I will support any progressive initiative to take power back from these incompetents that stole it away in the 90s and are largely responsible for the party's current dismal state and scathing losses even as they desperately attempt to cling to power, using this nonsense refrain of party unity to deflect or shoot down any criticism of its failed practices and leadership while refusing to share any substantial power whatsoever with the people whom they apparently want to unify with.

If the establishment was serious about wanting unity as it claims, it would extend olive branches to the progressives and stop self-dealing leadership positions wholesale. What it actually wants is _power_; a wholesale and complete retention of power that is as choking and complete as it is undeserved.


Furthermore, what the DNC did to Bernie was unforgivable. Yes, it's okay to internally have a preference; what's not okay is translating your preference/bias into actioned policy that materially benefits one campaign/candidate over another in direct contravention of your own damn rules, while systemically denying that this was ever happening in the first place.

 

[Phys251]

You want to know a great way to get Donald Trump into office? Do what the Democratic party leadership and apparatus did in 2016. This is where we're headed again in 2020 based on the party's current political decisions.

The Democratic party leadership isn't willing to make concessions that are needed to bring people back into the party and do the very thing needed to remove Trump from office. Under these circumstances, you're asking me to be concerned about Trump winning? I am, but here's the thing: The Democratic party is willfully walking into a meat-grinder, and I'm not marching behind them a second time.

If the party leadership were actually concerned at any level about Donald Trump, rather than securing their own political careers, they'd agree to making reforms within the party, and they'd get serious about being a grassroots party. But they haven't, and they won't. So the only power that I personally have to stop Donald Trump is break the Democratic party's obstinate, "status quo" agenda. Because if we don't, and the Democratic party does something monumentally stupid like have another election coronation for Cory Booker or, god help us all, Hillary Clinton, then Trump will get a second term. And maybe Pence will get a first one.

In other words, it's your way or the highway.

Maybe the "progressives" are going to need eight years of Trump's boosting the ultrarich at the expense of the middle class, trashing the environment, destroying the modest healthcare protection that Obamacare gives, etc.

What you're preaching is obstinance, not progressivism. It's toxic to the Democratic party and needs to go. Now if you want to make your case that the Democrats need to take a hard turn left, then by all means make your case, but you had damn well be ready to have your case scrutinized. This is where the Bernie-or-Busters choose to fail.

 

[Surrealistik]

In other words, it's your way or the highway.

Actually if the leadership outcomes, party platform and direction are any indication, that would be much more so the mantra of the Dem establishment.

It's not so much that the progressives demanded everything as that the establishment won't give us anything. A bull**** ornamental post per Ellison and Bernie's nonsense, literally invented 'Chair of Outreach' position aren't anything more than a slap in the face.

 

[Phys251]

This is what I don't understand about the 'Bernie or bust' style of politics.

You think a bunch of the right like Trump? You think that right wing libertarians, and christian conservatives etc etc wanted to vote Trump? No. They didn't. But that's who got put forward, and Republicans got in line.

I'm a hardcore progressive from Europe. I want the democratic party to move left as much as anyone, and I voted as much in the poll. But the difference between the republican party and the democratic party is that the repubs are happy to flush their principles down the toilet to vote for a candidate they don't like to prevent the dems from getting in. They'll swallow their pride because they know that a small step is better than a backwards one. And look where it's got them. 2 branches of govt, on their way to a 3rd. An upcoming midterm where even though we have to win, we have the most vulnerable seats. A slow march towards regressive policy, barriers to healthcare and abortion, a larger military complex, tax cuts for the rich, voter suppression and gerrymandering.

Yeah, the dems suck, but unless you're planning on revamping American politics, they're your realistic alternative to the right wing march. Sure, voting Hillary might not have got us single payer or wall street reform, she might have been a corporate crony, but it sure as hell would have been a step in a better direction than where we're heading now. And that all applies to Perez too (who I think is more liberal than Hillary anyway).

If you had asked me two years ago if there would have emerged a loud minority of voters who thought that Hillary Clinton was too conservative, I would have laughed it off. We've gotten to a point in our society where a candidate is exactly one of two things: Perfect in every way, or rotten to the core. Without that black-or-white, all-or-nothing mentality, the campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump would have never gotten off the ground, and we'd probably be dealing with the far saner President John Kasich. But no no no, HILLRY'S A CORP'RATIST, DURRRRR!!

You think it was any coincidence that during the summer of 2016, Donald Trump--who by then had had direct ties to the Kremlin--was talking so deferentially about Bernie Sanders? Furthermore, I'll go out on a limb and offer the following question: You think Donald came up with that idea to treat Bernie that way on his own?

 

[Phys251]

Actually if the leadership outcomes, party platform and direction are any indication, that would be much more so the mantra of the Dem establishment.

It's not so much that the progressives demanded everything as that the establishment won't give us anything. A bull**** ornamental post per Ellison and Bernie's nonsense, literally invented 'Chair of Outreach' position aren't anything more than a slap in the face.

See, there we go, folks. Right there. All-or-nothing, my-way-or-the-highway.

To be honest I'm not even sure if the Bernie-or-Busters wanted to do anything more than just blow up the whole political system and start from scratch. It is very clear to me that to some of them, whether or not said starting from scratch would have taken this country to the left was a VERY distantly second. Destruction for destruction's sake, and let the chips fall where they may, damn the people who get hurt in the process.

 

[matchlight]

I would like to see it move as far left as possible. It already has the support of quite a few commies, but let it become the new Communist Party USA, and I would rejoice.

 

[Surrealistik]

If you had asked me two years ago if there would have emerged a loud minority of voters who thought that Hillary Clinton was too conservative, I would have laughed it off. We've gotten to a point in our society where a candidate is exactly one of two things: Perfect in every way, or rotten to the core. Without that black-or-white, all-or-nothing mentality, the campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump would have never gotten off the ground, and we'd probably be dealing with the far saner President John Kasich. But no no no, HILLRY'S A CORP'RATIST, DURRRRR!!

Which she certainly is. Also that Sanders did as well as he had, even without major corporate backers, less money and far less recognition than Clinton, and that in the end someone like Trump one against someone who outraised and outspent him so dramatically, should tell you about the level of disgust, contempt and impatience with the status quo politics which erroneously passes for the political center in the United States and how that sort of approach is doomed to utter failure, nevermind the legitimate and many reasons for its lack of popularity.

You think it was any coincidence that during the summer of 2016, Donald Trump--who by then had had direct ties to the Kremlin--was talking so deferentially about Bernie Sanders? Furthermore, I'll go out on a limb and offer the following question: You think Donald came up with that idea to treat Bernie that way on his own?

Divide and conquer is certainly the political strategy he was entertaining; ultimately it wasn't all that effective though; the vast majority of Bernie supporters voted Clinton in the end. Deflecting blame from her failings, and the failings of her campaign where it largely belongs onto the progressive wing doesn't do you any favours, particularly if one of your goals is unity going forward.

See, there we go, folks. Right there. All-or-nothing, my-way-or-the-highway.

To be honest I'm not even sure if the Bernie-or-Busters wanted to do anything more than just blow up the whole political system and start from scratch. It is very clear to me that to some of them, whether or not said starting from scratch would have taken this country to the left was a VERY distantly second. Destruction for destruction's sake, and let the chips fall where they may, damn the people who get hurt in the process.

How on earth is wanting substantive leadership positions (not all of them, a share of them at least remotely proportionate to the size of the Bernie's wing) that have real power 'all or nothing my way or the highway'? This is a completely ridiculous inversion and pure projection. Again, it's the corporatist 'centrists' that foster this absolutest attitude. Number of DNC leadership spots the progressives got? 0. Number the establishment wing got? All of them. Get real.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Actually if the leadership outcomes, party platform and direction are any indication, that would be much more so the mantra of the Dem establishment.

It's not so much that the progressives demanded everything as that the establishment won't give us anything. A bull**** ornamental post per Ellison and Bernie's nonsense, literally invented 'Chair of Outreach' position aren't anything more than a slap in the face.

Perez barely won the dnc chair position by 30 votes.

Why should progressives be angry that they were able to get within 30 votes of electing Ellison?

 

[zimmer]

...

Demokrats should go further Left... they should go right off the cliff. They're close... don't be timid!!!

If they're seeking to have as many seats in Congress as a Corvette, they're well on their way.

Sanders.
Schumer.
Pelosi.
The nutjob faces of the Demokrat Party... too bad they can't live forever.

 

[Surrealistik]

Perez barely won the dnc chair position by 30 votes.

Why should progressives be angry that they were able to get within 30 votes of electing Ellison?

#1: Obama threw Perez into the ring when it was clear that Ellison was going to be the winner otherwise, and a clear representative of the Bernie wing.

#2: Again in contrast to Perez's calls for heightened transparency the Dems changed the electoral rules an hour before subsequent voting rounds so we couldn't know who awarded Perez the win and hold them to account.

#3: The lessons of 2016 are clear to everyone but the establishment wing; status quo politics and those that represent it like Perez are doomed to failure; the zeitgeist is with reformists and populists.

Personally though, I'm not as angry about the chair result as I am about progressives not getting a single leadership position despite making up around half of the party; meanwhile partisan apologists of the establishment like Phys go on with projecting, backwards nonsense about how we 'want it all' (not at all like the Clintonites/Obamaboys who actually did get it all, right?). Absolutely ludicrous.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

#1: Obama threw Perez into the ring when it was clear that Ellison was going to be the winner otherwise, and a clear representative of the Bernie wing.

#2: Again in contrast to Perez's calls for heightened transparency the Dems changed the electoral rules an hour before subsequent voting rounds so we couldn't know who awarded Perez the win and hold them to account.

#3: The lessons of 2016 are clear to everyone but the establishment wing; status quo politics and those that represent it like Perez are doomed to failure; the zeitgeist is with reformists and populists.

Personally though, I'm not as angry about the chair result as I am about progressives not getting a single leadership position despite making up around half of the party; meanwhile partisan apologists of the establishment like Phys go on with projecting, backwards nonsense about how we 'want it all' (not at all like the Clintonites/Obamaboys who actually did get it all, right?). Absolutely ludicrous.

You want progressives in leadership positions? Push more progressives politicians into office and keep pushing for progressive issues.

If the establishment won't lead, it is up to progressives to drag the establishment toward them

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Demokrats should go further Left... they should go right off the cliff. They're close... don't be timid!!!

If they're seeking to have as many seats in Congress as a Corvette, they're well on their way.

Sanders.
Schumer.
Pelosi.
The nutjob faces of the Demokrat Party... too bad they can't live forever.

Who is this "Demokrat Party", and why do you chose to have as an avatar a two men engaging in sodomy?

 

[Surrealistik]

You want progressives in leadership positions? Push more progressives politicians into office and keep pushing for progressive issues.

If the establishment won't lead, it is up to progressives to drag the establishment toward them

Justice Democrats are a thing; we're working on it.

That said, the lessons of 2016 should have been by themselves instructive enough without having to primary every last damned establishment candidate. Unfortunately per its constant, shameless self-dealing and wagon circling, it is evident that the establishment wing refuses to listen to reason and is far more concerned with retention and hegemony of power than it is about the future of the party and the unity they constantly profess to value. Consequently, they will indeed have to be forced out of leadership the hard way.

 

[zimmer]

Who is this "Demokrat Party", and why do you chose to have as an avatar a two men engaging in sodomy?

Demokrat is the current state of the party formerly known in America as the Democratic Party.

Obama told Medvedev to tell Putin he would have more "flexibility" after the election.

How do you know it's sodomy? You have photographs? Nudge, nudge... wink, wink?

 

[Phys251]

Which she certainly is. Also that Sanders did as well as he had, even without major corporate backers, less money and far less recognition than Clinton, and that in the end someone like Trump one against someone who outraised and outspent him so dramatically, should tell you about the level of disgust, contempt and impatience with the status quo politics which erroneously passes for the political center in the United States and how that sort of approach is doomed to utter failure, nevermind the legitimate and many reasons for its lack of popularity.

You do what way too many Bernie-or-Busters do here: You start with some decent points. Bernie struck a nerve, I will readily concede that, and I don't think even he expected his campaign to garner as much support as it did. But then you quickly pivot to this dramatic, we're-gonna-die-because-we're-too-moderate hysteria. Even if we suppose for the sake of argument that the Democrats need to go hard left, you think that that kind of change is gonna happen overnight? And furthermore, where is the grunt work, the getting in the trenches, to shore up support for progressive candidates in time for the next election? Despite what you may have heard to the contrary, nobody within the party is stopping you guys from doing this!

Divide and conquer is certainly the political strategy he was entertaining; ultimately it wasn't all that effective though; the vast majority of Bernie supporters voted Clinton in the end. Deflecting blame from her failings, and the failings of her campaign where it largely belongs onto the progressive wing doesn't do you any favours, particularly if one of your goals is unity going forward.

Donald Trump's percentage of the popular vote received was lower than that of Mitt Romney in 2012. Yet because of a lack of support for less-than-100%-perfect Hillary, combined with the rigged system known as the electoral college, she lost.

How on earth is wanting substantive leadership positions (not all of them, a share of them at least remotely proportionate to the size of the Bernie's wing) that have real power 'all or nothing my way or the highway'? This is a completely ridiculous inversion and pure projection. Again, it's the corporatist 'centrists' that foster this absolutest attitude. Number of DNC leadership spots the progressives got? 0. Number the establishment wing got? All of them. Get real.

Would y'all just stop for a minute and try to listen to how you sound here? What y'all don't understand is that even under the absolute best of circumstances, you are not going to get everything you want. It is simply unrealistic unless you happen to have a dictator in power who shares all of your views, and I hope that's not what y'all really want. (Incidentally, Hillary was a master at understanding the fact that there was no sensible way for her to get anywhere near everything she wanted, one of like a thousand things I liked about her.)

 

[rocket88]

Demokrat is the current state of the party formerly known in America as the Democratic Party.

Obama told Medvedev to tell Putin he would have more "flexibility" after the election.

How do you know it's sodomy? You have photographs? Nudge, nudge... wink, wink?

And with those sanctions, it sure worked out in Putin's favor.

 

[rocket88]

I find it most interesting that the conservatives in this thread are saying the same thing Democrats were saying about "the death of the Republican party" just a few short years ago. Will they believe their own hype like Democrats did?