Let’s abandon the Democrats: Stop blaming Fox News and stop hoping Elizabeth Warren will save us

[Autumn]

The Democrats’ conduct since the midterm debacle is as sad and sorry as the campaign that caused it. The party’s leaders are a big problem. A bigger one is the closed system of high-dollar fundraising, reductionist polling and vapid messaging in which it is seemingly trapped. Some say a more populist Democratic Party will soon emerge. It won’t happen as long as these leaders and this system are in place.

Nancy Pelosi says it wasn’t a wave election. She’s right. It was the Johnstown Flood; as catastrophic and just as preventable. One year after the shutdown Republicans scored their biggest Senate win since 1980 and their biggest House win since 1928. Turnout was the lowest since 1942, when millions of GIs had the excellent excuse of being overseas fighting for their country.

Every Democratic alibi — midterm lull, sixth-year curse, red Senate map, vote suppression, gerrymandering, money — rings true, but all of them together can’t explain being swept by the most extreme major party in American history. Citing other statistics — demography, presidential turnout, Hillary’s polls — they assure us that in 2016 happy days will be here again. Don’t bet on it.

Our problem isn’t partisan gridlock but the stagnation of a political ecosystem imbalanced by the slow extinction of liberalism. In the shutdown Ted Cruz bestrode the world like a colossus till the Kochs, of all people, rode to the rescue. Wall Street was a major player but labor was invisible and progressives said barely a word. Their silence didn’t strengthen Obama, it weakened him. It was a perfect tableau of politics in our time. When the left goes AWOL, the right goes crazy.

http://www.salon.com/2014/12/23/lets_abandon_loser_democrats_stop_blaming_fox_news_and_hoping_elizabeth_warren_saves_us/

[upaloopa]

1. We already did. It gave us the election

results of 2014.
Let's all just fucking give up because things aren't liberal enough.

[Autumn]

3. Did you read the article?

I think it pretty well explains what happened and how the Democrats can avoid that happening again in the future.

[upaloopa]

15. Sure the way to avoid what happened

is to run liberal candidates.
That isn't going to happen.

[Maedhros]

30. If the Democrats don't run Liberal candidates, then Liberals won't vote Democratic.

It's that simple. Democrats need to learn that.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

31. They have a cognitive disconnect.

They simply can't process that sentence. They really believe that voters should simply vote for the candidate who is 'less evil', without actually demanding that those candidates adhere to any particular principles at all, or act or vote in any particular fashion once elected. Our job is simply to elect them, not to require them to actually serve us once in office.

[upaloopa]

86. You don't offer any ideas of how that is going

to happen. Who are the candidates? Where are they today? Who is going to fund their campaigns?

[Maedhros]

99. How is it going to happen?

It is happening. Democrats keep shoving crap candidates (like Blanche Lincoln) down our throats, hoping that people like you will shame Liberals into voting for them, then blaming Liberals when they don't win.

The answer is not to whine louder about how Liberals aren't doing what you want. The answer is to field good, Liberal candidates.

What do I do? I vote for candidates whose policy positions are closest to what I want. If those candidates are Democrats, so be it. It's not my fault that the Democrats keep staking their platforms farther and farther to the Right, and away from me. It's their job as candidates to appeal to me, not my job as a citizen to pledge my vote to use how they wish.

[upaloopa]

106. I think we have a victim mentality which

prevents us from getting to where we want to go. "If THEY don't give me what I want to vote for I won't vote."
They they they if they do this if they don 't do that
I ask again.
Who are the candidates? Where are they going to come from? Who is going to fund their campaigns?
Crickets

[Maedhros]

108. I think you, and those who push your ideas, have a defeatist mentality.

"Well, we can't find good candidates and we can't advance Liberal policies, so I guess we'll have do what the Democratic Party leadership wants."

We've been trying that for a while now, and it hasn't worked. And frankly, I'm tired of hearing that excuse.

Who are the candidates? Bernie Sanders is one. I don't know who else there might be - we'll need to go find them, rather than let Party hacks tell us who they will be.

Where are they going to come from? The United States is a nation of 317 million people. We'll find our leaders, despite the chorus of mewling defeatists who tell us not to look.

Who is going to fund their campaigns? We will.

Crickets? That's what I want to hear from defeatists like you. /ignore list.

[VanillaRhapsody]

110. Bernie is not one....still not a Democrat...

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

163. Bernie is actually what Democrats should be like.

But what do we get? Corporate suits that appoint more corporate suits, bailouts of Wall Street without meaningful reform, crappy trade deal after trade deal, financial support for abusive governments abroad, crumbling infrastructure, crappy economy and the foot soldiers of the Third Way that tell us to shut up and vote or we're not good Dems.

We need an army if people like Warren and Sanders not a parade of comfortable shoes filled with corporatists.

[VanillaRhapsody]

217. and still not one...if he is such a perfect hero why does he need our party at all?j

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

225. Nobody is perfect, and you have it wrong.

The parry actually needs more people of his character and less of corporate buddies.

[VanillaRhapsody]

231. then why doeshe need to be a Democrat to win? hmmmmmm?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

233. Party myopia I guess.

[VanillaRhapsody]

247. whateverthefuck that means

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

248. Think harder then. It's not a very complex thing to understand...for most.

[VanillaRhapsody]

249. or some think being unnecessarily cryptic makes them

Appear bright..

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

250. Like I wrote. Try to think harder. It'll come to you if you have an open mind.

[VanillaRhapsody]

251. like I said whateverthefuck

I am not going to go out of my way to decypher your insults....if you have something to say spit it out....don't be a chicken

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

252. "I am not going to go out of my way to decypher your insults..."

They weren't insults, and I answered you upthread. If you can't handle them it really is not my problem.

[VanillaRhapsody]

254. whats to handle?

Oh yeah....i forgot....you think it makes you seem mysterious and sly....whateverthefuck...

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

256. I mentioned that I answered you upthread. No mystery there.

If you can't handle it then, again, it is not my problem.

But it seems that you have a problem handling it...

[The Shredder]

266. Hey! While we're disagreeing over there

I happen to agree with you here about Bernie.

I think Bernie is exactly the kind of Democratic President we ought to have, and wish the Third Wayers would stop shoving Hillary down to our throats. Bernie said he will announce in March, and hopefully he will decide wisely to join the Democratic Party to pull the platform and policies to the LEFT.

[NewDeal_Dem]

142. what is wrong with you? "where are they going to come from?" wtf? the party could find

and develop such candidates if they chose to. if they don't choose to and choose rather to keep on with hacks, too bad for them.

[upaloopa]

161. Them?

Like it won't effect you in any way.
Wake up. It isn't them it's all if us in this game. What ever happens or doesn't happen effects you. You are not on the outside looking in.

[NewDeal_Dem]

162. Of course it will affect me. I can't even find out where the local Democratic party MEETS, let

alone have any sway over who is fielded for offices.

No joke. The local party is run by well-off people and they won't tell you where their meetings are. They don't want newcomers.

[JDPriestly]

257. Don't they have a website?

Find a different Democratic club. Start one yourself and link up with the state party.

Call your state headquarters and tell them you want to know how to start a Democratic Club. Put an ad up in the supermarket if they will let you. Advertise if need be.

[NewDeal_Dem]

144. the victim mentality is with the party. "if they (the voters) don't give us what we want we'll just

keep doing more of the same"

because in truth, more of the same failure is what they want.

[merrily]

170. The candidates are who the DCCC and DSCC want them to be.

The campaigns will get funded the same way all campaigns get funded.

[Phlem]

200. False.

I still voted Democrat and everything got worse.

[upaloopa]

205. Well did you think life was a bed of roses

Welcome to the real world.

[NewDeal_Dem]

207. The real world is one in which we vote for democrats & things will get worse. Good to know.

If we want things to get better who do we vote for?

[upaloopa]

208. Things do not remain the same. I believe if

people have a vision of what they wanted this country to be they will set in motion the things that will make it happen.
I think that negetive thinking and energy will prevent change for the better.
I know those thoughts are not popular here on this board.
Take the movements in the sixties. The civil rights and women's movements. They start small and grow as more and more people get the vision of what life could be. They said "keep your eyes on the prize" all of us need to do that
That is the opposite to expecting them to give you something to vote for.

[NewDeal_Dem]

220. Now you're saying something different than you were.

[Phlem]

211. I have PTSD from early childhood abuse.

No I don't think life is a bed of roses.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

160. Why do you hate centrist Democratic virtues??!!

[merrily]

168. It's also how Democrats run and what they deliver or fail to deliver if elected.

[jwirr]

186. I have watched this happen since I voted for JFK. Why do we always have to learn the

hard way? As a liberal if I stay home I am giving the victory to the Rs. It has happened over and over again in history - the last being 2014. It also happens to the Rs when they stay home and do not vote.

If those of you who want to stay home have not noticed this nation is in real trouble. Yes, I would like to have a choice of a really liberal candidate but if I do not I still want to hold the line instead of go backwards. Today if we do not hold the line we may never get another chance to fix what is wrong.

Our SCOTUS is about to be turned over to the conservatives for the next 20 years if we let them win. It may be too late for this already.

Our economy is just taking baby steps to recovery and now we are going to see what losing will do to that.

Climate change needs our attention and the Rs don't even think it is happening.

The safety net and ACA are under real threat from the Rs but who cares - I go mine is the attitude.

The Rs are doing everything in their power to obstruct the voting rights of many of us. If you stay home you may find that you do not have a right to vote the next time.

Education is rapidly becoming a voucher private system that leaves out many people.

Immigration is vital to a lot of people today and even if the Rs move on it they do not want to make citizenship easy to get.

I am not saying that I am happy with the way that these issues are being handled now but believe me it can get worse. It is easy in states like mine to run a liberal and have him/her win but I have lived in Iowa (check out how many times this state has voted D in the general election) and Nebraska where it may not work the way you hope. And that does not even mention the southern states. When most of the people in the state are conservatives running a liberal (except in a real crisis) does not work.

One of the best things we can do is attend our caucus (if our state has one) and join with the other liberals to find and support our candidates. Many states do not have a caucus but have a primary election instead. That is another place where we can win the fight for liberal candidates. My state of MN has both. In the caucus we have a chance to have our say on not only the candidate but also the platform. In the primary we get to vote again on the candidate.

[Maedhros]

213. I don't "stay home" on election day.

I always vote.

But I will not vote for bad candidates just because the Party tells me I have to. The Party needs to run GOOD candidates. This is the message they need to hear and understand, if they want my vote.

[jwirr]

219. Fine I hear you but do you hear me? There are people who need the protection of those safety net

programs and all the things I have mentioned. They need help tomorrow and they cannot wait until the perfect candidate comes along. What about those people?

Is the fact that you did not vote for a lesser candidate you do not like so important that those people can all go to hell? They can go hungry - they can go without health care - they can become homeless. What happened to all of us standing together?

The party is not telling you - those of us who need help are and we have even less power to find good candidates than you do.

If you mean by "telling you" that they think they are going to ram Hillary down our throats without any competition then make sure that you attend your caucus or primary and help the rest of us kick her out. I hear that the Union is not coming down on her which is good. Join us in letting her know that she is going to have to change her direction if she wants to have our help.

[Maedhros]

224. I do hear you.

For my part, I see the Party holding Liberals hostage with the threat to the working class. While the Party chases Wall Street money, appoints Wall Street cabinet members and crafts Wall Street-friendly trade agreements in secret, they tell us to vote for them or else.

The TPP, all by itself, will do more damage to the working class than electing token erstwhile "Liberal" Democrats can fix. Liberals have been playing this game for 30 years now, with no appreciable improvement in our position. The first step is to stop letting the Party take our support for granted. By making them earn our votes, and by holding them accountable for following through on their promises, we will begin to fix our problems. If we buy the same old "hope" schtick that we've been sold for so long, we ensure the continuance of the status quo.

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/23/the_hope_diet_would_the_tea_party_fall_for_this/

“Hope” also sets an extremely low standard for judging Democratic politicians. Hope is, by their definition, something they bring with them, or a place they come from, or a poster they are (literally!) the illustration for; ensuring that this fanciful substance flows our way doesn’t require them actually to, you know, enact anything we’re hoping for. On the contrary, they can do things (like Clinton’s deregulations or Obama’s spying program) that actually harm their constituents, and then tell us, as Barack Obama tweeted after the 2012 election, “The definition of hope is you still believe, even when it’s hard.”

This is the opposite of accountability. It means, just keep waiting, and just keep voting. If you think good thoughts long enough, maybe someday you’ll get that million bucks, or that single-payer healthcare system.

[Phlem]

230. It's a slow frog march to the right.

"Is the fact that you did not vote for a lesser candidate you do not like so important that those people can all go to hell? They can go hungry - they can go without health care - they can become homeless. What happened to all of us standing together? "

If you think things are going to get better if we continue voting for the 3rd way your kidding yourself.

When is it not OK anymore?

Don't hammer on the DU crowd because I can tell you 99 % every one who is a Democrat on DU voted.

you need to focus on the non voting segment of the population if you want things to change because berating DU members is not going to change tides.

Especially the left whom have had no representation for 40 + years.

-p

[jwirr]

234. Then maybe Duers who are saying they will not vote should find a way to assure the people who

cannot afford to lose that they are not threatening them. If you think I am 3rd way because I have advocated for the poor and working poor, disabled and elderly for the last 50+ years then I question what kind of Democrat you are. Who is it that you are working for?

I in no way said that voting for the lesser of two evils is going to make things better. I am talking about knowing you are going to lose in the general election no matter who you vote for because one is a R, another is a good candidate in a party that is not going to win and the other might as well be an R but might hold the line. THEN and only then, you vote for the candidate that will be the most likely to hold the line where it is so that you can fight again in the next election and not have to start over from scratch.

[Phlem]

242. All-righty then

"If you think I am 3rd way because I have advocated for the poor and working poor, disabled and elderly for the last 50+ years then I question what kind of Democrat you are."

Are you fucking kidding me with that?

"I have advocated for the poor and working poor, disabled and elderly for the last 50+ years"

And your the only one?
You've got it all figured out and no else has.
So you think voting for Hillary is the best option we have?

So what your saying is let's stick another band aid on that amputated leg, hopefully the patient get's better before he/she dies?

Well I disagree. Oh and about the poor, I was born on a dirt floor in the Philippines, you don't know the poor.

Thanks for ringing in my new year with your silliness. It was a good laugh.

[jwirr]

243. Hell no I am not the only one and I am damned glad of that but you just watch what happens

in the next two years. Sure our President has a veto pen. But they are not going to put their shit in a bill that can be vetoed. There is a lot of things we are going to go backward on and it is going to hurt people who cannot help themselves.

I do not think we should try to elect Hillary Clinton. But if I have only the choice between someone who is not going to win, her and Jeb Bush I sure as hell am going to vote for her. But in the meantime as you can see from Bernie's pic I am going to work my ass off trying to stop her in the primary and our state caucus.

As to my ruining your new year - that is exactly what is going to happen to those people you think are not worth fighting for because they are poor in the USA instead of the Philippines.

Is hunger in the USA that different from hunger in the rest of the world? How about homelessness? How about the need for health care? So the only way one can experience the pain of poverty is by being born on a dirt floor in another country. How about a one room shack? That is what I was born in here in the USA. In a rich state in a rich country.

You have called me a fool. Apparently you think that you are not?

[Phlem]

244. OMG

A LOT assumptions and carefully placed words in my mouth.

"You have called me a fool."

Show where in my post I called you a fool exactly.

"As to my ruining your new year - that is exactly what is going to happen to those people you think are not worth fighting for because they are poor in the USA instead of the Philippines."

You did not ruin my new year and also don't talk about things you have no clue about, like the Philippines and my life there, you know what that really makes you look like. You have never been there and have absolutely no fucking idea what that's like but go on and compare that armpit to the poor in the US. There are no soup kitchens, hand outs, or begging. You no why there's no begging, because 98 % of the country are beggars desperately trying to make ends meet. No just one or 2 guys on the corner, EVERYONE is in the same boat. Have you ever been swarmed by bodies 3 to 4 people deep surrounded around you in 360 degrees all with their hands out? I have yet to witness that in the US.

There is no distinction in whatever place there is the very needy and the very wealthy which is what is slowly happening here. This used to be the land of opportunity and I've voted Democrat since I could vote, so the current political climate in the US is not my fault. You were here before me. Talk to your Republican friends if you want change and stop taking your shit out on everyone else, especially the folks on DU, because they are already Democrats. We need MORE Democrats and we don't need to shit on current Democrats. It's not our fault the institution is run by the 3rd way, and it's also not our fault that the institution
keeps giving us shit candidates. The people you speak of have voted D for a long time are currently frustrated with the situation because we've done what you espousing yet here we are.

Jeezuz!

Your so fucking full of your self that the worst part of this discussion is that we both want the same thing, but I'm going to have to set you on ignore because I'm not going to listen to your anger filled diatribe directed at me.

Yes I want a Warren / Bernie ticket but after talking to you I'm left with a nasty taste in my mouth.

Why would I put myself through this bullshit just to make you, no one I know, happy when all your spewing is hate.

Happy New Year Chief.


PS. to show you we agree, here is a post that shows exactly what I'm talking about.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12772162

[JDPriestly]

258. You are right. If our current Democrats were winning elections and protecting the safety

net programs and all the things you admit that they and we need, then we on DU would not be complaining about the state of our Party.

The problem is that a loudmouth lunatic like Ted Cruz (and I could name a lot more just like him) gets elected, attracts his voters and motivates his voters to go to the polls while our milktoast, neither/nor Third Way Democratic candidates do not stir the hearts of voters, especially not the less committed voters who aren't on DU, enough to get out and vote for them.

That is not the fault of the left.

Who won in the last election? Franken for one. Other progressives won with him. Who lost? The more conservative candidates. True, the liberal candidates won in more liberal areas. But the job of the Democratic Party should be to build a liberal, progressive if you will, constituency.

We cannot, as a party, build a liberal, progressive constituency if our leadership is playing footsie with Wall Street cheats and gamblers and ignoring the daily struggles of small businesses and the Americans who work and make sure our country functions.

We Democrats do not have the option of just picking the least objectionable leaning rightward candidates. The voters who want right-wing or leaning right candidates get out and vote for Republicans.

The point we are trying to get across is that if you want to encourage Republicans to get out and vote for Republican candidates, you voice or agree with or acquiesce to the Republicans' arguments and viewpoints.

If you want to motivate Democrats to get out and vote, if you want to motivate the traditional Democratic constituency to get out and vote, you send messages that appeal to the beliefs and interests and ideals of Democratic voters. And Democrats believe and are interested in and want to hear about liberal, progressive, I suppose some establishment Democrats would say -- leftist (although there are very few DUers who would qualify as leftist by European or international standards) ideas.

That's just the way it is. Don't berate Democrats for not voting for candidates that lean toward and agree with the Republicans. Find candidates who are Democrats and who believe in the ideas that the Democratic rank and file believe in -- like taking care of the environment, like single-payer health insurance or at least a public option for those who want it, like strong public schools that educate each child according to that child's talents, needs and aspirations, etc.

I hope this will help you understand why we are unhappy with the way the Democratic Party funds and pushes mediocre, Republican-lite candidates who seem to be chosen because they appeal to the big, fat-cat donors. Democratic candidates get elected when they appeal to the middle class and poor Democratic voters.

Hey! Some people prefer ham to caviar. Personally, I've never even tasted caviar. And I bet most Democratic voters haven't.

[SomethingFishy]

38. So we shouldn't give up and we shouldn't run liberal candidates...

which means your plan is to keep doing the same thing over and over...


Good luck with that one

[VanillaRhapsody]

111. who have we run that is NOT a Liberal?

Proof please.....because I CAN prove that wrong absolutely!

[brooklynite]

70. When we won in 2006 and 2008, it was with Liberal and non-Liberal candidates...

When we won the Presidency in 2008 and 2012, it was with a candidate that plenty of people here like to call a Republican.

[Autumn]

80. The democratic party could have put up anyone and would still have won. Democrats and a lot

of Independents were just that sick of republicans. Hell I know republicans who voted for Obama in 2008.

[VanillaRhapsody]

113. and I happen to know Republican women who WILL vote for Hillary Clinton. ....yet you still oppose he

So your theory is rather flimsy...

[CrispyQ]

127. The fact that republicans will vote for Clinton is part of the democrats problem.

I don't want a candidate that repubs will vote for. Why do you?

[VanillaRhapsody]

129. they will vote for her BECAUSE she is a woman.....duh!

Me and consistently 60% of the party support her...why dont YOU?

[GummyBearz]

141. Question...

You say "they will vote for her BECAUSE she is a woman.....duh!"

By that logic you should have voted for Palin.... did you?

[NewDeal_Dem]

146. +100.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

166. No fair. You're using logic.

[VanillaRhapsody]

218. did I say all Republican women?

No I didnt did I? I said SOME will...


Now where is this logic you seem to think you possess?

[JDPriestly]

259. Those who would be likely to vote for Hillary because she is a woman will be even more likely

to vote for Elizabeth Warren.

I have told you why I don't support Hillary. I don't think she can win. I know she is polling high now but that is because she has name recognition. She is just not a strong candidate in my opinion.

I want a candidate who will speak forcefully. who knows what she is talking about, doesn't owe her soul to Wall Street and Pete Perterson and who will win. That's Elizabeth Warren.

If Bernie Sanders runs and Warren does not, I will vote for Sanders.

If Hillary runs, I will vote for all other Democrats but not for her. I'm in California. If Hillary can't win California without my vote, she cannot win anywhere.

[RiverLover]

130. Bingo! nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

132. not Bingo because that is NOT what I said.....I didn't once say they support her politics...

Just that the R's won't give them a woman to vote for......but SOME will cross over because of that....

Or do you suggest that EVERY Black voter who voted for Obama.....always voted prior to that?

See how silly your premise sounds? Flimsy just like I said....




Or should we ONLY put up White males because that is what you seem to be supporting if you believe what I said is that R women will support her because of politics alone?

[NewDeal_Dem]

147. palin palin palin she's a woman too, did you vote for her?

[VanillaRhapsody]

131. and I didn't say ALL republican women....I said I know SOME!

Because of her gender!

[Ink Man]

197. HRC

will be running as a pro-choice/pro-GLBT republacrat. As the GOP keeps moving to the right so will Hillary. She's close to Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church in OC Calif. She goes to a Georgetown woman's bible study with the wives of Brit Hume and Fred Barnes from FOX news.

IMO. The Clintons have no political roots. They move to win, and they win all the time. If it works why change.

So, for you HRC fans. How far to the right are you willing to go?

[AtomicKitten]

209. They didn't win in 2008

and displayed a shocking level of poor sportsmanship and an utter lack of grace.

The rest of your post is spot on.

[Ink Man]

210. Oh boy

I guess I forgot about that one.

[AtomicKitten]

212. "slipped my mind"

[Autumn]

135. And I happen to know Democratic women who WON'T vote for her

So your little theory is rather see through...

[VanillaRhapsody]

137. then they are no longer Democrats....just like those R women will no longer be Republicans

See how that works?

[Autumn]

138. Ya know

it's really rather sad.

[VanillaRhapsody]

140. No its not....its elementary my dear!

We are a collective.....we are Democratic and WE vote! We support US!!!

[NewDeal_Dem]

148. oh bull.

[VanillaRhapsody]

216. Independent means "not dependable" and thats a fact!

its about supporting OUR decision...decided by a Democratic Primary election...that is how Democracy works. What do you have against Democracy?

[NewDeal_Dem]

221. Voting for a democrat doesn't make one a democrat, nor does voting for a republican make one a

republican. And neither makes one an independent.

Who is this "Our" you speak of? People like yourself, who believe what you do?

[merrily]

173. Exactly.

[merrily]

171. Who ran on change from George Bush, among other things.

He sure didn't run as a Republican, or even as a New Democrat.

BTW, as you well know, Obama himself said that his politics were those of a moderate
Republican in the 1980s. And, he put Reagan among his top 10 US Presidents ever (as did Hillary). Calling him a Republican, while not anything I have done, is not a far leap from the things he himself has said about himself.

[sabrina 1]

59. How about let's figure out finally why voters will no longer accept Republican Lite candidates

from their Democratic Party? Bush helped enormously with getting Dem voters to go along with voting for the 'lesser evil'. 'Anyone but Bush'.

How about let's not 'all fucking give up'. How about the party leadership starts listening to the voters rather than their Corporate Sponsors.

How defeatist to say 'let's all just give up'.

No, what voters are saying is, 'we want candidates we can vote FOR'. They are not going along with the 'just vote AGAINST this jerk' tactic anymore.

So, voters are not giving up. They are focusing their energies where they know they have a chance of being heard. See the midterms where they got Progressive Issues on ballots and WON.

So, what is the party leadership going to do about this new trend where voters are taking matters into their own hands?

[cascadiance]

75. You are so right... People voted FOR many liberal candidates and issues they believed in...

... even if in the same state two corporate funding obsessed candidates in races usually had the Republicans winning.

The problems are that we ALLOW ourselves to be divided by the corporate media and the rest of the corporate 1% message machine to focus on just looking at divisive social issues. The right wingers focus more on and are motivated more by these social issues (gay marriage, women's rights, etc.) which motivates them to vote for the right wing candidates championing them.

But many of these same voters are also anti-bankster, and believe the false narrative that the corporate and bankster takeover of our government is all Obama's and the Democrats fault, because that is what the right wing spin machine feeds them. They don't like getting pushed out of their jobs by outsourcing from free trade deals or "guest worker" programs any more than we do, but are lead to believe that it is Democrats and "government" (rather than those that fund the corporate corruption of our government) that is at fault, and fault Democrats for wanting to expand the size of this government that they blame for everything. Yes, the DINO DLC/Third Way elements that have welcomed corporate cash and have lead Obama's administration to push free trade deals and not prosecuting bankster criminals have fed this narrative, even if many of the Democratic constituency is frankly getting damn fed up with this kind of policies that many in our leadership are engaged in that fuel this narrative.

What this tells me is that if we can find a way around the corporate message machine and fuel a true progressive movement lead by progressive candidates that won't accept money for government influence, and make it very public that they are against those elements in both parties and champion the issues that the corporate media avoids where even the right shows that they are fed up with too, we'll have a big winner, and we can take the first steps towards throwing out the corporate corruption that has been almost a terminal cancer in our government.

Now, many of these social issues that we're divided on are still very important for us to stand strong on, but I think we need to take a step back and say that the fundamental issues that affect the way our democracy functions systemically are the issues we need to prioritize this coming election, because I think if we can do it the right way, I think we can get bipartisan support to throw the corporate BUMS out of office and work towards restoring a government that our founders wanted and wouldn't hate like they probably would our current government if they were still alive.

If we can have a non-corrupted government, I think we can have a more honest and perhaps civil discussion on what kind of rules we should have on social issues, and maybe not be as far apart on many of them as we are today in a way that still protects the rights and well being of all americans, and even those in the rest of the world too that are affected by our global interference policies with faulty trade agreements and military industrial complex pushed wars.

[Thinkingabout]

81. What candidate are you planning to run which has not or will not accept corporate

Money for influence? I see you have a Warren sticker in your post, she has readily admitted she took campaign funds from corporations. Bernie Sanders attended a meeting which was put on by lobbyists from the banking and energy interests. In order for a candidate to get the needed funds for a campaign someone has to have very deep pockets and donate lots of money. Warren spent $42m on her run for senator in one state. From what is the funds going to come?

[cascadiance]

83. I want a candidate that "won't accept funds for government influence"...

The problem we have in our system today is that it almost requires that people have money in their campaigns to win. And that was done by design by those that want to institutionalize bribery that once was called a CRIMINAL ACT and now seems to be brushed under the table as the "normal way of doing business".

Now, recognizing that candidates need money, and many who want money out of the system like Elizabeth Warren understand that, they need to fight the battle in the world we live in now. Now, that being said, there are many wealthy people and well funded organizations that want to take money out of the political system as well. So, perhaps you can call them wanting to give money to candidates as wanting to have "government influence" to get money out of the system, but arguably, one could also say that they just want to facilitate money taken out of the system, so that no longer do we have a system that almost requires candidates to do favors to those who give them money to be elected. I think many of those who would donate to Warren's campaign either want just her to be herself and do the right things based on her own ethics and morals, or they are falsely believing that they can influence her to do the wrong things if they give her money. I think that she's made it pretty clear on how she feels about companies like CitiGroup wanting to "buy" our government, where other politicians avoid any stances like that.

Do you yourself want public campaign financing or not? Some argue that it would be too expensive. I would argue that it has been shown to be far more expensive to have what we have now, where the hidden costs are far greater in the favors that are returned for what money is spent from private sector sources.

[Thinkingabout]

90. I do not see this happening in tge coming few years. DNC is in the minority on Congress

And the SC is stacked against this, we will need to get both the House and Senate along with a Democrat president. This is why it was important for Democrats to turn out for elections, the Senate confirms the SC judges. It is a slippery slope and money will continue to the candidates.

[cascadiance]

93. It won't happen as long as we continue to elect compromised candidates that do "pay to play"...

... and they continue to play out the favors that the corruptive money influences want them to.

That is why we need more of a movement to say that we aren't voting for compromised candidates and campaign for those that push the envelope in challenging these favors that have been bought. That's why we need someone like Elizabeth Warren to help us fight this not only with court selections, but who administers our agencies, etc.

I really do believe if these questions are posed in a proper way, this is an issue that we will find far more than "far left" support for that some try to characterize working on this as, and that it will reach across the aisle to some Republicans and to independents who also are fed up with corrupt politicians!

Unless we can get rid of systemic corruption, nothing else much matters. All other issues will be compromised that we want to work through the system if we allow money to pollute it continually. Other issues also matter, and trying to win also matters, but putting in place a group of people and a supporting organization to remove the corruption that is the nerve center of the cancer in Washington has to be our top priority. If we can fix that system, the party that does so will be in power many years afterwards, as America will reward them for doing that.

[Thinkingabout]

94. Did you realize the Democrats are in the minority in both the House and Senate?

The GOP will be in the majority in January. I do not know of any member of Congress which does not take campaign contributions or lobby money. I don't know if it is possible to elect far left candidates either and some which score left is still taking money. This reality, if the candidates do not take "money" when elected soon starts.

[cascadiance]

98. I do! And do you realize that this is why money needs to be taken out of politics?

It is because we have this system of money as I said, that we have to play by its rules and still raise money to be heard in the present time we live in. I'm not disagreeing with you there. But those that do run need to indicate that even if they are taking money as the necessary poison to be a part of the political system that they speak to all Americans and say this is why they want it removed. There's a reason why Elizabeth Warren felt she said what she did about Citigroup and still feel comfortable about having the support to win another election. It is because it is what the voter really want to have happen, but feel like their hands are tied. Many stay home if they feel that they aren't being heard by those they elect if those who they elect don't speak out against the money influence that so many take to get elected on both sides. Democrats care more about this, and this is so many of them (especially those so-called "centrists&quot lost, just like just about all of those that lost in congress in 2010 were also the blue dogs. If you have an electorate that wants a Republican, they are going to vote for the real thing, and not one that acts like one.

Many democrats that lost campaigned without championing raising the minimum wage, when propositions in the same states passed that raised the minimum wage. Those "Democrats" are MISSING OUT with a big part of the electorate that wants progressive legislation and not corrupt corporate legislation but who stayed home and didn't vote for a choice between two evils. We need to give someone to vote for.

Ultimately even some of the big money people will understand that if they continue this money game, and we get some real progressive candidates, and we build an internet infrastructure that helps them get their word out throughout communities, money won't make a difference down the road when Americans get more and more fed up with the corruption that is going on.

We need to be that party that gives them that choice. And we need to do it soon before things like climate change and other things destroy us all as a people.

In short, fund raising is important, and is discussed at all levels of how to do so to win elections in the short term. But all Democrats should be challenged on how they are going to take money out of politics. I did precisely that when we had PCP elections for new leadership a few weeks ago. Many not have answers on how they'll do it, but I measure them more on whether they feel that is an important priority for them to work on in the coming years. It needs to happen at all levels!

[Thinkingabout]

101. Warren also took campaign funds from corporations, she understands campaigns needs big bucks

To run. I do not know of ANY Congressional members who does not take money from corporations, etc. The money talks in their ears but it is every ear. We might like the fact this is happening but it would take year to overcome Roberts and friends, this is what I am saying. The 2014 election lost the Senate and yes I am mad because of lack of concern, boycotting or just too lazy two thirds of eligible voters did not turn out and even here on DU there was cheering because Landrieu lost her seat and it was to the sponsor of the House KXL bill, what is wrong with Democrats?

[cascadiance]

102. I think I've said multiple times I GET that just about all politicians take money...

I get that it is almost a requirement with the current CORRUPT system forces so many to play by these rules that they themselves didn't put in place.

But what I and many here don't accept is that these rules can't be changed or shouldn't be changed, which seems to be what so many corporate sympathetic Democrats want to push on to us here. And I do believe that there are many with money that are decent people that if they see enough of a group of people that would work to take money out of politics, then they would be the ones that might replace the corrupt corporate dollars lost to certain politicians that stand up to say they want to fix the system. Because if these candidates' words will get out, that message WILL be well received by all segments of the population except the very wealthy that will understand that their power will be challenged then.

Fortunately, we don't yet have the rules where our government is run like a business where people get more votes with more monetary assets that they own (the way stock works), and we still have the potential for the masses, if we can find ways to get the word out, to vote more for their interests instead of the rich in control of the system of corruption we have now.

What is wrong with Democrats is that too many that have seized control of the party from the right fail to understand that it isn't just about "winning" to get people to vote for them and to work for them to "win", but that they need to have a message and commitment to work for those that are voting for and working for them, not for those that buy the politicians.

The bottom line is that for people to get motivated to take part in the political process again, they want to hear from those candidates from one of the two major parties how we are going to throw out the corruption we have in our system now, not how the lesser of evils MIGHT help them if they win. Voters have gotten tired of those lines that has not gained them anything in substance of what is done for them, and many have just given up until someone finally says that they will work for them, and not pretend to work for them but really work for the rich and powerful.

[Thinkingabout]

103. I think it is more than corporate sympathic Democrats, the votes are not there, we have to change

The numbers. You see members railing against corporations while taking, who do you believe?

[cascadiance]

104. At least speaking against money in politics is a first step...

... that can be used to screen out those that aren't willing to even speak out against money at all. The latter either is corrupt or has no guts to do the right thing when elected to help us effect change. Those that speak out and hopefully get elected will be subsequently measured on whether they deliver on what they promise. And if they want to get reelected, then they need to help build the movement to put legislation together to get rid of money in politics, or if they are on the justice committee in the Senate and they are asking questions on any future justices to the Supreme Court, or for that matter on any other major court appointments, they should ask such candidates whether they would want to ensure that money doesn't get confused with free speech the way the Roberts crowd seems to want to institute in their corrupt fashion.

I think we need to push candidates to define in more detail what campaign slogans like "Hope and Change" mean in details of what they would do if getting elected. That way we won't just vote "hoping" that someone's going to change things for better, but get substantive promises that we can use to measure them on whether they deliver on promises that the public wants to hear.

[merrily]

174. Please see my reply 172 to Thinking About's claim that Warren

took money from corporations.

[merrily]

172. You are mistaken.

Warren:


Top 5 Contributors, 2011 - 2014, Campaign Cmte

EMILY's List $507,095 $507,095 $0
Moveon.org $453,517 $129,540 $323,977
Harvard University $312,550 $312,550 $0
Massachusetts Institute of Technology $76,200 $76,200 $0
Boston University $73,700 $73,700 $0
.
Top 5 Industries, 2011 - 2014, Campaign Cmte
Industry Total Indivs PACs
Retired $3,444,624 $3,444,624 $0
Lawyers/Law Firms $2,215,072 $2,188,572 $26,500
Women's Issues $1,598,383 $1,577,911 $20,472
Education $1,359,408 $1,359,408 $0
Democratic/Liberal $1,318,367 $961,834 $356,533


https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00033492#cont

[Thinkingabout]

176. Are you calling Warren a liar? She admitted she had donors from Wall Street.

http://www.americancrossroads.org/2012/01/elizabeth-warren-i-do-have-donors-on-wall-street/

[merrily]

177. Are you calling opensecrets.com a liar?

Corporations donate to everyone, but her big donors were not corporations. That is significant.

[Thinkingabout]

180. Go back and add up the amounts opensecrets.com listed, does it add up to

$42m, this is the amount Warren said she spent on the campaign. These are her facts.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/12/05/elizabeth-warren-ended-senate-campaign-debt-despite-record-fund-raising/ShWe5K7KzUiVnFHiIxkX5H/story.html

they may not be lying but they did not list $42 million.

[merrily]

181. Show me where her biggest donors were corporations and you may have a point.

Obama claimed most of the 3/4 billion he raised in 2008 were small donations from individuals. So, it's more than possible to raise millions with small donations.

[Thinkingabout]

182. Maybe you could find out from opensecrets.com, they apparently missed lots

of donations and Warren is truthful in admitting she got contributions from Wall Street.

[merrily]

187. You're going in circles. I have already replied to everything in your

reply 182.

[RiverLover]

190. AmericanCrossroads? Karl Rove? Wow.

Warren isn't a liar but they sure are.

[Thinkingabout]

199. Then believe what she says, she said she has Wall Street donors and she spent

$42 million on her campaign, I think she is being honest.

[RiverLover]

201. Other than American Crossroads, do you have another source?

Because I believe open secrets.

[Thinkingabout]

204. The information opensecrets.com perhaps gave correct information but they did

not give all of the information, add up the amounts they gave and see if it amounts to the $42 million she said she spent. Why would you not believe what Warren states, I think she just might be honest.

this site states how much she spent:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/12/05/elizabeth-warren-ended-senate-campaign-debt-despite-record-fund-raising/ShWe5K7KzUiVnFHiIxkX5H/story.html

[VanillaRhapsody]

123. who would THAT be? Anyone YOU don't like....

Proof of all these "Republican Lites" we DEMOCRATS keep voting for....

If you have better candidates.....please present them.....and show how they can beat ALL real Republicans to boot!

[Scuba]

69. Incredibly wrong.

[merrily]

167. The way Democratic politicians governed and campaigned gave us

the election results of 2010 and 2014.

[1StrongBlackMan]

2. Is this an original writing, or a segment of another piece?

I seems to be lacking something ... context? ... more after:

Our problem isn’t partisan gridlock but the stagnation of a political ecosystem imbalanced by the slow extinction of liberalism. In the shutdown Ted Cruz bestrode the world like a colossus till the Kochs, of all people, rode to the rescue. Wall Street was a major player but labor was invisible and progressives said barely a word. Their silence didn’t strengthen Obama, it weakened him. It was a perfect tableau of politics in our time. When the left goes AWOL, the right goes crazy.

I don't know?

[Autumn]

5. I forgot the link but I have edited the OP to add it

But I do think that little snippet is pretty much what happened. The Democratic party has a problem and that problem needs to be fixed.
.

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. Thanks. n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

4. you do know this is DemocratcUnderground....

not BashDemocratsUnderground right? Wirh some posters one begins to wonder...

[Autumn]

6. You are aware that it is a discussion board. Right?

And this is an article about the Democratic party and their recent losses? Do you have a comment on the article?

[VanillaRhapsody]

8. you are aware there is this thing called the Internet

With lots of sites designed specifically to bash Democrats....this is a site to SUPPORT them....it says so in the TOS

[Autumn]

9. You have no interest in discussion, so there is

no reason to respond to you again. If you think this article is a TOS violation then do alert on it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

11. no I have no interest in discussing Democrats

With those who do not support them....If I did want to, I could easily find a site for that discussion....which is my point..

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

169. Weak.

To be a Democrat is to actually stand for something more than just crappy Blue Dogs and corporate influence.

Todays Dems seem to be more comfortable with Wall Street than Main Street.

But if the party is infallible to you and not to be challenged then we'll continue to get crappy results.

[davidpdx]

228. Autumn, she and the rest of her fellow Clintonites are pulling their own purity test

It's the old get behind Hillary or you are not a Democrat routine. They seem to have been doing it in several different variations, but all of them are simply bullying techniques recycled and refined from the last time. I frankly am sick of it and I know you are too.

[Autumn]

235. They can play their games. But they are right, I am no longer a Democrat.

After over 40 years as a registered Democrat I went to the DMV after the omnibus was passed and changed my party affiliation.

[RiverLover]

239. Whaaa??

You're joking right? Independent? But we need you for the primaries.

You're joking.

[Autumn]

240. No I'm not joking. I went with unaffiliated

I had enough.

[RiverLover]

241. Well there's plenty of time for you to cool off and change it back to help us

nominate a real Dem in the primary.

I don't blame you. But change has to come from within the party, not by dumping it.

[davidpdx]

253. I think by early summer we'll have a good idea how the field is going to shape

and then possibly Summer will change her mind. I have a pretty similar feeling, though for now I'm keeping my party affiliation. I wouldn't rule out doing the same thing. It depends on how things turn out here in the near future.

At one point I was convinced Clinton wasn't going to run, but now I think she will run. If she does, I'd bet Sanders will throw his hat in and run as a Democrat. While I like Sanders and his idea, I'm not so sure how he'd do against Clinton. We are going to need several good candidates in the primary.

[WhiteTara]

255. well, bye bye

you just joined my ignore list. You don't want to be a democrat? Bye bye.

[Autumn]

261. well, bye bye to you too.

My heart is not broken.

[djean111]

12. If you read - or understood - the entire article, this is about why the Democrats lost

so much in the last elections. If you do not think that is worthy of discussion, then, just skip the thread. Or ask the moderators or something.

If you HAD read or understood the article, you might have noticed that the reason for the losses is now the fault of progressives - for not making the rest of the Dems Progressive, too. So hard to do, though, sitting down and shutting up except for bleating mindless praise, while getting the Democratic Party back to what it once stood for.

Or are you thinking the elections went rather well this time.

[VanillaRhapsody]

14. no it isn't

its what Left Leaning Independents tell themselves to make themselves think they are not a minority....as if you can claim that all those that didnt vote in the Midterms are also LLI's

[djean111]

18. Well, then, you disagree with the article. Noted! But - others of us will be reading it

and discussing it, nevertheless. Have a really nice day!
Aaaand - that's the last reply from me, that thread jack shit got really really old.

[VanillaRhapsody]

21. only those that want to see Republicans

Have power while we wait years for this magical perfect party to emerge....

To us Democrats...thats a horrible to even contemplate scenario...NO Thanks!

[BlueCaliDem]

67. VR, they don't get it, they'll never get it, and there's not a sliver of difference between

those who would rather kill the Democratic Party until it "purifies" itself in the image of some non-existent perfect Liberal candidate than vote for any candidate that doesn't conform to their way of thinking, and the extreme RWers when it comes to political purity. Well, there's that tiny difference...the RWers at least vote even if they don't like the "establishment Republican". We can't say that of the Left (who are not Democrats, although there are exceptions).

Big picture thinking, as in, we can't get any liberal policies through if we don't win elections and the majorities in the U.S. House and Senate, just isn't their thing. No. Purity is their pet peeve and until their Liberal Messiah arises (or is born) they'll continue to knock down everyone and everything like petulant, spoiled-brat children prone to temper tantrums.

[VanillaRhapsody]

74. + Infinity

[NewDeal_Dem]

152. because the main reason the republicans have power today is that the democrats have been just

way too liberal, they haven't compromised enough.

lol. like selling ice in anarctica.

[appalachiablue]

84. I'm no left leaning independent but a 3rd gen Dem. I think the post has a lot of value.

This last election and the way the party has been operating and performing shows it's not meeting the needs of the constituents.

[VanillaRhapsody]

85. so you will vote for HRC if she wins the nomination?

Because THAT is what I am talking about...thete ARE alot that self profess that they won't....not many call themselves "thirdway".around here....

[appalachiablue]

89. If HRC is the nominee I will vote for her absolutely. No no way for Jeb, Rand Paul et al.

I enjoyed meeting her a couple times, an Arlington house event c. 2006, and in 2001 for a holiday event at the Kalorama home. My niece remembers it well, Hilary was delightful to our group of 8.

[ellenrr]

114. gee that's really nice she was delightful. Because that is what we want in a president. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

117. apparently it IS

She consistently polls almost 2/3rds of us!

[appalachiablue]

124. I described her behavior at social event that's all. Voting is a different matter, when the brain

is used to analyze a candidate's record and positions. Actually I wanted to have a policy debate with her on the sidewalk but she wasn't available. Next time. JK.

[appalachiablue]

126. Yes I will vote for her if she is the nominee.

[VanillaRhapsody]

133. then you are not LLI!

Thanks!

[appalachiablue]

150. Ok.

[VanillaRhapsody]

109. proof please..

63% consistently support HRC.....only those on DU seem to have a problem.....

[VanillaRhapsody]

115. baloney.....we lost because WE DON'T show up in the midterms....this is nothing new

And it is not proof of your theory.....we never HAVE turned out in the midterms.....there is a Black President.....the racist R's showed up to oppose him....THAT is what we lost....nothing more nothing less....

[djean111]

125. Maybe YOU did not show up, but I did. At least, this time, you did not blame the "LLI"s.......

it is the message, really. And these are ALL theories, you have no more of a definitive answer than anyone else. Just repeating the same stuff ad infinitum does not make it true. That only works on GOPers, actually.

"we never HAVE turned out in the midterms" - then why keep bleating that it is the "LLIs"? You need to keep on whatever your message du jour is. And if racists showed up to oppose a black president, then, again, not the dreaded LLIs. Unless you are saying that the Left wing of what used to be the Party of the Left is racist. Not going to say what I think about that, but use your imagination.
Plus, if you thing GOPers made a point of voting against a black man, what do you think they will do about Hillary? They HATE her. They already hate her, they have hated her for a while.
Some campaign strategy.
Have a nice day, over and out of this pointless exchange. Your repetitive stuff accomplishes nothing, changes no minds, drives people away. You cannot ensure that anyone will vote for Hillary unless they let you fill out their ballot. Bottom line.

[VanillaRhapsody]

128. Yes I did.....but this is a collective not just about you....we are called a "Party" for a reason...

......ppssssssttttttt......Black people turned out in droves to vote FOR that Black President.....and many Republican women WILL vote for Hillary Clinton too...

Are you saying we should ONLY select White males?

[djean111]

149. I am saying that I would not vote for a GOP woman no matter who she is.

Do you really think Dem woman voters voted for Sarah Palin?
No, I am not saying we should only select White males. I am saying it is stupid to count on a candidate's race or gender and not see the other side of the coin. I think hoping GOP women vote for Hillary is naive. But we will see, won't we.

[Caretha]

100. What are you suggesting?

That all are to bow down to politicians with the D after their name? There is to be no discussion on the discussion board? That Sabrina is bashing Democrats and not discussing ways to forward the Democratic cause & platform?

Spell it out! Quit beating around the Bush...or are you one of those embarrassed Republicans that voted for him the first time and then became a Democrat? You sure sound like one. A Republican that is. I have no truck with reformed centrists Republicans. They are like a reformed whore in church.

[VanillaRhapsody]

134. its not about THEM.....its about supporting US.....we are a collective...we elect candidates....

We vote for a candidate in the Primary election. if YOU don't support that decision....you are officially an LLI! Its just that simple

[kentuck]

48. Perhaps we should change it to DemocraticPartyUnderground...

So there is no confusion?

People may start to think Democratic means "democratic"?

[TBF]

73. And it's NOT 3rd way underground -

although some days one wonders.

[VanillaRhapsody]

77. the real Democrats here don't...

Because we know its a bullshit meme perptrated by LLI's. If there are any here that are they are damn few and far between..not an issue....

[TBF]

95. What is "LLI"?

I haven't lived in the beltway for more than 10 years & many here have never even been to Washington. You're going to have to elaborate for those of us not "in the know".

[VanillaRhapsody]

120. Left Leaning Independent...

[NewDeal_Dem]

153. "the real democrats" lol

[Logical]

159. Whining again about a "discussion"??? nt

[Man from Pickens]

260. Any party that loses the ability to process constructive criticism...

... is on its way to the dustbin of history.

If the Democratic Party has a future, it is a populist future that puts the working American first, with persistence and conviction that even a cynic like myself would find convincing.

The Democratic Party that drives the same old war-and-oligarchy policies while occasionally throwing the grassroots a bit of social-issue red meat is a failed, obsolete organization. What is in question is whether we allow that party to continue to take the rest of us down with it.

[riqster]

10. Yeah, because ceding the field to the Repubs would be good for the country? Really?

Christ on a trampoline. No, what we need to do is TAKE OVER the party, not give up on it.

[Comrade Grumpy]

13. Actually, that's pretty much what the author of the piece calls for.

Except that he wants to do it by building a strong, independent progressive movement to hold the party to its values.

"The vital task for progressives isn’t reelecting Democrats but rebuilding a strong, independent progressive movement. Our history makes clear that without one, social progress in America is next to impossible. For 100 years progressive social change movements transformed relations between labor and capital, buyers and sellers, blacks and whites, men and women, our species and our planet. But in the 1970s progressives began to be coopted and progress ceased. Their virtual disappearance into the Democratic Party led to political stultification and a rollback of many of their greatest achievements."

[VanillaRhapsody]

17. so now we are to discuss taking over the Republican Party?

What a load of hogwash

[Autumn]

20. Obama was right. We are the change we need but the Democratic party

will have to be dragged there. We can not continue to reelect the same old democrats. 2016 is going to be a hard ride.

[VanillaRhapsody]

22. not for Hillary Clinton....

But YOU support abandoning Democrats if you are following THIS premise....No thanks...I am on Democratic Underground because I SUPPORT Democrats....that is why I post here....

[Vincardog]

76. Supporting "Party" over "Policy" is how the Corporatists seized control of OUR party.

The OP's point imo is that until we demand candidates who will Govern as they campaign nothing will change.

[VanillaRhapsody]

78. bullsit its about supporting your fellow Democrats

And who THEY select.....got a problem with that? That is what Democracy means.....you dont always get what YOU want...

[Vincardog]

79. Bullshit it is about holding elected officials accountable to the people who voted for the.

...got a problem with that?

[Autumn]

92. When you reward bad behavior one thing happens,

you get more bad behavior. It's a vicious circle.

[VanillaRhapsody]

118. and they are not? Please do go on....love to hear this one!

[Vincardog]

229. Please inform me, if we elect someone and they act against our interests Why should

We elect them again?

[VanillaRhapsody]

232. who are you saying did this?

please continue.....

[Vincardog]

245. I think it is time for you to elaborate why it is better to support Party over Policy.

I can wait.

But please hold all petty snark in abeyance

[VanillaRhapsody]

246. because WE are the Party and I trust us..

Wwhy dont you trust your fellow Democrats if you truly are one?

[Vincardog]

262. There is that snark. Give me a reason to support "democrats" who voted to guarantee all the

Fiscal Toxic Trash again.

[VanillaRhapsody]

263. not at all snark...

Please explain why YOU dont trust your fellow Democrats.. (that is if you truly are one)

Thats what Democracy is all about you dont always get what you want.

[Vincardog]

264. Ok you aren't willing to offer anything except DS Talking points and refuse every request

welcome to ignore

[VanillaRhapsody]

265. what talking points would that be?

I trust my fellow Democrats and apparently you don't. Its elementary....

[NewDeal_Dem]

154. my fellow democrats don't support me; and as you concede, they select whom they like, without

regard for me or my interests or the interests of the majority of democrats.

but I'm supposed to support them because maybe they won't throw me onto the street or into prison or something like the republicans want (I can't be sure though, maybe they will, and they won't fight for me if it happens)

democracy my ass

[ellenrr]

116. you are 100% correct, but I do not expect the stoners in this thread to ever see that. nt

[riqster]

23. Agreed. We MUST get involved earlier in the process.

Too often have we waited for the party to give us progressive candidates. No longer. We have to help pick 'em.

[ellenrr]

119. curious: how many people here have anything to do with picking candidates? nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

121. there are no polls?

Hmmmmmmm.....nope 63% in favor of Hillary Clinton consistently means we PICK HER!

[riqster]

145. And other races?

There will be many other contests in 2016.

If we learn nothing else from the past 6 years, it is this: the Presidency is crucial. But it's not enough. We need to win up and down and across the ballots.

[NewDeal_Dem]

184. sure nilla

[VanillaRhapsody]

214. of course Deal!

[riqster]

143. For state and local races, we can have an impact.

[NewDeal_Dem]

155. lol. the rank & file doesn't pick candidates.

[merrily]

183. For some months now, it's been the fashion on DU to pretend we do.

Anything to avoid truly representing the 99%.

[VanillaRhapsody]

215. the rank and file support HRC by 63%!

Its the LLI'S not the rank and file that don't

[NewDeal_Dem]

222. They may 'support' her in a poll, but they didn't pick her as a candidate. That was rigged, as it

always is.

[merrily]

175. The Kochs conceived and funded the Teabaggers and still fund them.

I don't know who is going to do that for the left wing of the Democratic Party unless and until the Party itself moves left. If it does move left, its donors will follow. If not, not.

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. But that would take more than criticizing the field ...

it would mean organizing a political campaign that is appealing, and believable, to those in the Party.

Won't happen.

[VanillaRhapsody]

24. some must believe elections are run with pixie dust...

[riqster]

25. If we can get involved in primary candidate selection, we can move the needle.

In Ohio, the departure of Redfern might mean we'll finally have a chance to do just that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

26. But that's not the OP's "abandon electoral politics" prescription.

BTW, I completely agree.

[riqster]

32. Thanks, 1SBM. Here's wishing you and yours a great 2015.

[hfojvt]

63. In one sense it is

Consider one very powerful political group, although one that curiously does not seem quite as powerful as it did - the AARP. The AARP was NOT a branch of either political party, but NEITHER political party wanted to mess with it in the 1970s.

So if you look at the "progressive wing" of the Democratic Party. Okay that's fine, maybe we have some candidates who can win some primary elections, but once the primary is over, we are water-carriers for the Democratic Party.

I, for one, would certainly LOVE to see the Democratic Party be a party for the bottom 60%, for the working people of America. But why stop there? In theory, BOTH parties should be supporting the bottom 80%. That's a huge majority, but for some reason, NEITHER party is doing so. Instead Republicans blatantly represent the top 5% and Democrats the next 15% and BOTH are right there BS-ing the bottom 80%.

If there was an AAWP that was strong enough, in theory, we could get BOTH parties to represent the WORKING people of America.

[RiverLover]

27. Totally agree. I moved to Ohio just after the last Primary. Chris Redfern was so bad

it was almost as if he was trying to tank the party here.

[riqster]

35. That bastard fucker of syphillitic, scrofulus ocelots totally screwed the state.

Pepper and Turner are good people. Especially Turner. Here's hope.

[Autumn]

28. If we can't move that needle then we will never have social progress

there is a lot of anger out there that the party can build on. The democratic politicians just have to be willing to go back to their roots and if they aren't then they need to be gone.

[riqster]

40. I would change only one word from your post:

"There is a lot of anger out there that WE can build on."

[Autumn]

45. Yes we can build on it. Because it's OUR Democratic party

And we need to reclaim it.

[840high]

49. ...

[riqster]

53. +1

[merrily]

185. The people did not move FDR to do things that had never

been done in the entire history of the nation before FDR. They were things the people of that time could not even have conceived of when they elected him. People who want to live as leaders because they claim to represent the 99% need to lead and represent the 99% and stop blaming voters.

[sadoldgirl]

50. That sounds pretty easy,

but is not so easy. We would have to do the same thing as
the tea baggers did for years, namely start at the local level.
The problem is finding those progressives, who are willing to
make the effort to run, especially without a lot of money.

It also takes time, I am afraid.

[riqster]

54. Quite true. But when second prize is a hellish Randian dystopic existence,

...It's worth the effort.

[merrily]

179. The Kochs conceived and funded the teabaggers. The teabaggers were not out there

planting rice before they burst on the scene, nor were they a grass roots movement. Pure astroturf.

[1StrongBlackMan]

16. So the crux of the OP ...

for progressives to abandon the Democratic Party (i.e., electoral politics) and create a groundswell of grassroot support, focusing on "those issues that everyone cares about (except those progressives that care about LGBT issues, gender and racial equality ... because, I guess, it's better to be treated like crap, so long as you have money in your pocket) and once this groundswell occurs, the electoral politics will follow ... in what ... a decade or so?

Thanks; but ... uhh, no thanks.

[Exultant Democracy]

157. 10 years? Tea Party managed to do it in less then an election cycle...

[NewDeal_Dem]

158. money has always been a good insulator from "being treated like crap".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Carstairs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_E._Johnson,_Sr.



it's because so many people have so little money that power is able to treat them like crap.

[1StrongBlackMan]

164. It's all relative ...

Oprah, with all her wealth, is still treated like crap. While she doesn't have to worry about her next meal or the comfort of where she will lay her head, she still is not afforded the "respect"/"benefits" that her wealth would insulate her from; but for, her race.

[NewDeal_Dem]

165. I don't believe oprah is treated like crap.

[1StrongBlackMan]

195. As I've said, it's all relative ...

being denied membership into the country club where one's house is located or being told by a clerk that a purchase is beyond you in a store, seems to us without wealth, small potatoes because it is not a survival issue; however, to the wealthy, it is a humiliating reminder that no amount of wealth insulates PoC from being treated like crap.

[elleng]

29. Thanks. Interesting.

'Some say the Democratic Party is beyond saving. Others say it’s our last hope. I see progressives taking leave of Democrats not as abandonment but more like tough love. In the end it may be the only thing that can save Democrats or for that matter progressives, whose reputation has been tarnished by the party that betrayed them. In any event it’s better for both parties for all future business to be conducted on an arms’ length, cash-for-carry basis.

My guess is that if you can’t take over the Democratic Party, you can’t take over the country — and that a declaration of independence should be followed by an actual rebellion. The Tea Party has shown you can work within a party and yet be highly independent. But whether to work within, against or apart from the Democrats is a call for later. Building a strong progressive movement is work we must do now. Obama had this right in 2008. We are the change we’ve been waiting for.

Progressives once provided Democrats with policies. Now Democrats provide them with slogans. Progressives say Democrats lack backbone and a bottom line, but progressives used to provide those too. Want politicians to get the courage of their convictions? It’s simple. First, get some convictions. Courage will follow.'

Bill Curry was White House counselor to President Clinton and a two-time Democratic nominee for governor of Connecticut. He is at work on a book on President Obama and the politics of populism.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

33. In re your guess.

'Can't'? Or 'Don't want to'?

I think progressives have the ability to take over the party, but that they may not actually be interested in doing so. Both major parties have been hemorrhaging registered voters for years as their respective reputation with Americans slump.

Progressives might simply think they have a better shot at attracting new voters by working outside the party than by trying to appeal to the people who presumably actually are still 'fine' with the party as it acts now.

[elleng]

42. Not my guess, that of the author Bill Curry.

As to MY thinking on the subject, I suspect there's not enough energy among progressives to take over a party, as you state, but then what? What do we do, persuade 'new voters' to vote D, or R, according to our inclination?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

47. I hate to sound 'old fogeyish', but I think we need to 'go back'.

To get back to actually setting up organization at the neighbourhood level, to meet with our neighbours and talk with them (not lecture them) and help them with their problems and find candidates who will promise to work to help with those same problems in concrete ways. To take 'all politics is local' as a guide to how we should actually be 'doing' politics, rather than just another trite old saying.

[elleng]

52. I have not problem, if your thoughts are 'old fogeyish,'

and I suspect they're a major part of Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy. Works for me.

[appalachiablue]

87. To put it another way and bluntly, this makes me think of what Redskins John Riggins used to say:

GET YOUR MIND RIGHT, AND YOUR A*S WILL FOLLOW

[elleng]

88. and 'Loosen Up, Sandy'

!!!

Right.

[appalachiablue]

91. Hilarious, memorable and only he could pull it off. Friends saw him at Nathan's twice on

Sundays, called to come down but I wasn't home. Riggo definitely provided a lot of color to DC, heaven knows. Also a lot of talent and pride. Those were good times-

[Autumn]

37. Why should the thread be closed? It's within the SOP for GD

Discuss politics, issues, and current events. Posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports are restricted in this forum. Conspiracy theories and disruptive meta-discussion are forbidden. For more information

[elleng]

44. For NO reason, as you say.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

39. Is Salon not an acceptable source on DU these days?

After all, the title is Salon's title, not the OP author's.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

36. Hmm, I wonder.

I see you've got 33 replies already but I only see 11. Gotta wonder which trollish posters I've got on ignore are spamming up your comments, or if it's all just one poster.

[Autumn]

41. Seriously you should rethink ignore.

Manual ignore works great.

[riqster]

43. Agreed. I have nobody on ignore. DU is more interesting this way.

I DO use the jury blacklist, tho'.

[Autumn]

71. So do I, I stay on top of that jury black list

I tried using ignore but I just find it too interesting to see what people say. I might miss something.

[riqster]

72. Just so.

[merrily]

191. They both have their virtues.

I used to pride myself on never having put anyone on ignore in ten years of posting on political boards. Then I put someone here who had been following me from thread to thread on ignore and had a much better time posting. So, I added a few more. "Everything in moderation."

[Dragonfli]

57. Mostly the VR troll /nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

122. Calling me a troll?

That consistently supports the Democratic Party on Democratic Underground makes one a troll?

[Bobbie Jo]

136. Well you do know

The Heathers have deemed you unacceptable.

[VanillaRhapsody]

139. ooooooh I am deemed unacceptable by the Left Leaning Independents!

I will now have a sad....

[PowerToThePeople]

151. troll

[RiverLover]

46. This. From the OP~

The left’s fall is as much a cause as an effect of what ails us. Middle-class anger isn’t about race, taxes, social services or social change. It’s mainly about middle-class decline and public corruption. Democrats talk a lot about both problems — but if they were really trying to solve either one, we’d all know it.

I still can't stop blaming Fox to a VERY large degree, though. Probably because I'm around so many who are taken in by their batshit crazy propaganda.

But the blame to me lies in the pervasive overtake of the govt by moneyed interests. Our electoral process by its very nature is rigged.

And while I don't think Liz Warren can "save" us, I agree with this article that says she could rewrite American politics~

http://www.theday.com/article/20141219/OP03/312199978

[Autumn]

51. That is why voters stay home. People who lean Democratic are not stupid and they know

when someone is fighting for them and when they are being played. Elizabeth is right the game is rigged. Great article

[SidDithers]

55. Kick...nt

Sid

[JI7]

56. is this an excuse not to support somEone other than hillary clinton

In a primary.

[Autumn]

61. The article is very clear.

[merrily]

188. No one needs an "excuse" for a primary vote.

Even staying home in a primary does not do much harm, though I don't recommend that in the least.

[Blanks]

58. Here's the thing...

Those that complain about how there's no difference between the two parties get closer to being right each election cycle.

Here in Arkansas, Mark Pryor complained that Tom Cotton had billionaire donors and was spending 5 times as much on the campaign as he was. We had the DCCC sending out those idiotic 'pack it in' emails. If we expect democrats to govern in our best interest, we have to get to a point where they can win elections without wealthy donors. They're gonna work for the folks who make sure they get elected. Of course Cotton won by a whole bunch.

If we want democrats to act like democrats, they have to start winning without spending as much money. We have to make people understand that the candidate who runs the most commercials is the candidate that is the most beholden to the wealthy donors. It is one of the reasons that they've (Koch Brothers etc) worked so hard in Wisconsin to strangle the public employee unions. Knock off an established democratic candidate donor and you can count on winning from that point on, or the democrats will come to you for contributions and you control both parties.

I still think Ross Perot had the right idea. If you want to get the word out about what you stand for, you run a paid advertisement, you show charts and graphs. It is cheaper to have a half hour program than it is to run a half hour worth of advertising. They asked him why he did it that way - he said it was cost effective. He said people were hungry for them, I think he was right. We complain that the press is too right leaning, let's have a paid advertisements that straighten out the right wing lies and deceit.

They can't be very expensive. We have a clothing store and a used car dealer running ads just before the Sunday morning talk shows. I'd bet it costs less for that half hour slot than 30 seconds during prime time.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. "Not as bad" is a piss poor way of campaigning and a piss poor way of governing.

Result: No Sale in 2014.

[Autumn]

62. And if the democrats don't turn it around the result in 2016

will be a No Sale.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

65. I have little hope of that seeing as how candidates are determined by

how much money they can collect and that both parties rely on their corporate masters for it.

But, of course, I'm considered a "purist" by the party loyalty purists who willingly turn a blind eye, or rationalize, when our party collaborates with the Republicans.

[merrily]

189. FDR: At least I'm not as bad as Hoover on cultural issues!

That won him four elections and would have won him more, if he hadn't dropped dead.

[still_one]

64. Not sure what to make out of a former Bill Clinton counselor writing this piece. It goes counter

to what the administration he worked for pushed.

He is simply saying that the Democrats have to stand for something. Of course that is a valid criticism, but rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, instead of marching off to a different drummer, it would be far more prudent to start to elect progressives within the Democratic party, not outside of it. This must start at the local and state level, and move up to the federal level, and it will take years.

The irony of this former Bill Clinton counselor is it was because of Bill Clinton why deregulation became the accepted policy, and why 90% of talk radio is right wing. In other words this leadership problem actually started with his boss Bill Clinton. Where was he then?

[merrily]

192. Every President, Rep and Dem, since Nixon "deregulated"

and/or "reformed," both of which seem to be code for "dismantled the New Deal and the Great Society as much as he dared."

Carter did a lot of de-regulating and is still proud of it. Clinton was, however, our first DLC President and the only Dem President to brag about ending "welfare as we know it" and to lobby for repeal of Glass Steagall.

Clinton had a variety of advisors, representing a range of views, including Dick Morris. Would you say it was odd for Morris to be a POS RWer because Clinton paid him?

Besides, now that we've all had a chance to see what "New Democrats" have wrought with the Democratic Party, I think we all have a right to conclude Third Way is the wrong way.

[SixString]

68. DU Rec.

[Initech]

82. Oh yeah? Well I'll form my own political party! With blackjack and hookers!

On second thought forget about the political party!

[Autumn]

97. What's a party without blackjack.. or roulette ?

Love those slots

[merrily]

193. Maybe just forget the "political" bit. Sounds like a party!

[DCBob]

96. Fox news is to blame for brainwashing America.

We need to find a way to reduce their impact or we are screwed no matter who our candidates are.

[merrily]

194. We had ways, like the Fairness Doctrine. We discontinued them.

ETA: Also, FOX News did not force Clinton to lobby for repeal of Glass Steagall or Obama to appoint Geithner, Summer, Gates, et al.

As Curry says, we need to stop blaming Fox and hoping Warren will save us.

[Autumn]

226. It is just so much easier to blame Fox news and the republicans.

Who wants to admit they have been played like a cheap fiddle?

[merrily]

267. Some have some kind of economic interest in doing that.

I am not referring only to people who get paid so much per post or whose job description consists of, or includes, posting, though some of those may well post here. There are all kinds of other economic interests, though. For some posts, I can think of no other plausible explanation.

For some, though, it's at least partly brainwashing.

And for some, it's not wanting or being able to see that the guy who was your favorite uncle when you were a toddler turned into something else entirely while you were growing up. And even if you do see it, he'll just always be your favorite uncle anyway and you'll defend him as vigorously as you can against all comers, no matter what.

[Doctor_J]

105. The dc dems already abandoned many of their voters

The dc repukes actually give their voters what they want. That's why the republican voters show up. The dc dems give us TPP, corporate healthcare, corporate schools, wheeler, Weiss, bank-friendly budget "compromises", etc. The only use the current party has for liberals is as scapegoats when their incompetence results in electoral disaster.

[sendero]

107. Exactly..

.... I have a rather cynical viewpoint in that I see no feasible, viable solution to this problem any time soon. As hard as it is to accept for many, "liberals" have been utterly defeated politically. There are about 3 of us in the whole of DC and that is not going to change any time soon.

The grass roots "start over" route is probably the best we can do, but it will take a decade and I doubt that there are enough of us left with the motivation to actually make it happen.

The entire process has been co-opted, via campaign finance, the media, hate radio, etc, etc and the folks that did the co-opting are not going to roll over if challenged. Get used to it, because until the next major catastrophe (coming sooner than most think unfortunately) in the economy, one that causes unbearable pain to a majority of the country, nothing is going to change. Then at least change in the political system will be a consolation prize.

[PowerToThePeople]

156. i did not leave the party

The party left me.

I am not a right winger. If I wish to claim to be a member of the democratic party as described by some posters in this thread, I must become a right winger.

I am not a right winger.

[merrily]

198. For at least the better part of a century, Republicans were up

front about their constituency being the rich and the employers, not the poor or labor. So, they don't really need to bait and switch. Democrats, on the other hand, did almost a 180 away from their traditional constituencies after formation of the DLC in the mid 1980s.

Increasingly, both of the two largest political parties emphasize cultural issues, which works well for the rich.

[Doctor_J]

202. Cogent observations

Increasingly, both of the two largest political parties emphasize cultural issues, which works well for the rich

R: They'll take away your guns!!11!
D: They'll ban abortion!!!

Working poor: I don't need a gun or an abortion. What about the minimum wage and healthcare?

R: Guns!
D: Birth Control!

[merrily]

203. Thanks--and yours always are .

[WillyT]

112. K & R !!!

[0rganism]

178. "The young now trend Republican"

is this even true? if so we have failed beyond our wildest dreams and it doesn't even matter whether we stick with Democrats or not. demographics were going our way, it seemed like all we had to do was wait out the aging Foxnews bigots and we could break free of rightwing idiocy. if young people, our last holdout for idealism and hope in the face of insufferable stupidity, are taken in by the greedheads, racists, and religious fanatics of the GOP then things will remain just as fucked up as they are now.

or it might be a fear-mongering cherry-pick of a few disheartening poll results.

[onecaliberal]

196. As a lifelong Democratic voter, I will NEVER EVER vote for another corporate dem as long as I live.

You can act like an insane person who keeps voting for these people to go to Washington to screw you over, or you can join those of us who are willing to stand up and fight for ALL people. The corporate dems are NOT there for the people, and they never will be. And spare me your dem bashing meme, the corporate hacks are the problem not me or my fellows who want a better country for the 99%.

[Doctor_J]

206. 1978. My first vote ever, for whoever was running against Jim Thompson. Don't even

remember who it was. And right on through to 2014. And I'll vote for HRC 16 if it comes to that, even though I know it's not helping with the real problems. She's already promised no SP, no increased oversight of banksters, and more cooperation with the teabaggers. Voting mostly out of habit at this point.

[Corey_Baker08]

223. That Would Be Like Abandoning Your Child Bcuz They Made Mistakes Or Didn't Live Up 2 All expectation

Count me out, I am A Democrat & I will vote for the Democratic Candidates...

[pansypoo53219]

227. the gnewz media is STILL in thrall of reaganism + the GOP. democrats need to stop being afraid.

[ucrdem]

236. Yes let's, and let's privatize Social Security while we're at it.

And maybe do a lease-back on the White house and Capitol too.


Sheesh.

[Autumn]

237. Hows about a chained CPI? Sheesh

Explain that.

[ucrdem]

238. Hows about privatized interstates and the return of "peak" oil?

Hows about another S&L meltdown and subprime mortgage bubble?