Support NeoGAF

[Deadbeat]

The Tea Party was also heavily armed.

Because one side believes in the 2nd ammendment and the other doesn't.

 

[TurnipFritters]

"Start" talking about racism? He's been talking about racism for decades. Some might interpret that moment instead as him giving up his own time for his own self promotion to instead cede the spotlight to two black women to have their voices heard publically, instead of quietly shooing them offstage and telling them that we'll talk about it later in private.

Yes, that was when he started talking about racism in this campaign cycle. Not talking about racial injustice was very much a problem with the messaging of his primary campaign, particularly the earlier parts of it.

*yawn*

https://youtu.be/v9hogCZKTi8

Which BTW he did improve his campaigning around racial justice issues after that incident. He frequently said the names of Sandra Bland, Tamir Rice, Mike Brown, and so on afterward. He hired Simone Sanders, a young black woman as his press secretary. I was happy those women took the mic, and Bernie's response stands in contrast to Clinton's condescending interactions with BLM that would happen later.

Yes, you can see the criticisms here are about her comments from the 90s rather than her messaging during this campaign.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Because one side believes in the 2nd ammendment and the other doesn't.

Well one side believes in a made up view of the 2nd Amendment created by the NRA and the Federalist Society in the 80s.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

Wait I'd been told Bernie is the one true hero to minorities ever since he matched with MLK. Especially ially much more than a neoliberal sellout like John Lewis.

Bernie's history of supporting black liberation is well-documented from his early 20s on. The Clinton campaign smeared Bernie both as a radical communist supporter of the Zapatisas and an out of touch white racist. It was shameful. Not as shameful as the time they leaked a photo of Obama in Muslim garb while casting doubt on his Christian faith, but pretty bad.

And sure I have respect for John Lewis' career, but how can you defend his behavior in the primary? There's literally photos of Bernie and Lewis a few feet from each other in the same 60s march. At the same time in history, his favored candidate was supporting essentially the Trump of her day in the Barry Goldwater. This isn't even an argument. Lewis himself had to walk the statements back. The whole ordeal was depressing.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...k-caucus-bernie-sanders-civil-rights-movement

 

[TurnipFritters]

Bernie's history of supporting black liberation is well-documented from his early 20s on.

I like the part where he voted "Yes" on the much maligned 1994 Crime Bill.

 

[Big Baybee]

Can anyone point me to the photo of Lewis and Sanders marching feet from each other in the 60s?

 

[JesseEwiak]

Bernie's history of supporting black liberation is well-documented from his early 20s on. The Clinton campaign smeared Bernie both as a radical communist supporter of the Zapatisas and an out of touch white racist. It was shameful. Not as shameful as the time they leaked a photo of Obama in Muslim garb while casting doubt on his Christian faith, but pretty bad.

And sure I have respect for John Lewis' career, but how can you defend his behavior in the primary? There's literally photos of Bernie and Lewis a few feet from each other in the same 60s march. At the same time in history, his favored candidate was supporting essentially the Trump of her day in the Barry Goldwater. This isn't even an argument. Lewis himself had to walk the statements back. The whole ordeal was depressing.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...k-caucus-bernie-sanders-civil-rights-movement

Yes lets hate on a high schooler who supported the same person as her parents. The horror.

But I agree. It was depressing watching thousands of BernieBrats of all ages and genders attacking a civil rights her for the crime of not remembering one of the likely hundreds of white folk who stood close to him that day and for not endorsing Saint Bernard of Burlington.

 

[celljean89]

Well I support this group, I think this group might do a better job at reaching out to minorities, than some democrats now. Also I think Bernie and Hilary were terrible with handling BLM. I don't think most democrats gave a damn about BLM, until BLM started to protest democrats. I'm a black dude that supported Bernie during the primaries, and voted for Clinton during the general election.


Why is it bad to push some democrats to the left? And why is it bad to remove democrats in safe districts that don't do shit?

 

[eBay Huckster]

Why is it bad to push some democrats to the left? And why is it bad to remove democrats in safe districts that don't do shit?

1) it's not necessarily bad, it can just be counterproductive to actually attaining your policy goals
2) removing the ones that don't do shit in safe districts is the exact opposite of bad

 

[Coriolanus]

Yes lets hate on a high schooler who supported the same person as her parents. The horror.

You're obviously aware that neither candidate is perfect, and yet you're willing to fight condescension with more condescension. Nothing positive will come of such behavior.

If you wonder why i'd rib on you for such a behavior, it is because, as a hillary supporter, you're supposed to be above shit like this. Bernie folk, they cray. Hills folk, they should know better.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Bingo, on both accounts: we can frame our campaigns on intersectional injustices without abandoning those that are less so, and taking the party in a slightly different direction shouldn't be instantly seen (as it seems to be, by many of my fellow ex-Clinton supporters) as a guarantee that those injustices will be abandoned.

That having been said, I want that giant shitbaby Cenk nowhere goddamn near this.

This actually represents my total views on the matter.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

Can anyone point me to the photo of Lewis and Sanders marching feet from each other in the 60s?

EDIT: Snopes says its not him:

http://www.snopes.com/sanders-mlk-selma-march/


Here's some other stuff you might read though:
Even if this almost ridiculously convenient photo didnt exist, Bernie's history of activism in the civil rights struggle from a young age is beyond dispute. He chaired his campus' chapter of CORE, which later merged with SNCC. If you aren't familiar with those organizations, you should read some history. Bernie was a radical activist in support of civil rights. One of the reasons "BernieBrats" aren't so quick to forgive the liberal establishment is the disgusting way they attempted to discredit this surprisingly well documented evidence.

http://www.snopes.com/sanders-civil-rights-photos/

http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/02/bernie-sanders-core-university-chicago

If I were involved with the Clinton campaign, I'd be doing everything I can to avoid the comparison with Sanders on racial justice. It's night and day.

 

[Big Baybee]

That's not Bernie in that picture, though.

 

[Valhelm]

Disappointed to see Sanders allying himself so closely with Cenk, but this may be the best chance to save the Democratic party from being pulled even further to the right.

 

[Dopus]

That's not Bernie in that picture, though.

His point still stands.

 

[celljean89]

1) it's not necessarily bad, it can just be counterproductive to actually attaining your policy goals
2) removing the ones that don't do shit in safe districts is the exact opposite of bad

I agree with you on #2, I think this group should start in safe districts, in local levels, in state levels, and the House.

There should be some pressure on certain democrats like Cory Booker (my senator), to stay left on voting on bills. I kinda like him, but I can't turn a blind eye on bad votes. I think we all should make democrats sweat during elections, even in safe districts.

 

[Valhelm]

I hope most of this energy is directed at local races.

A shift to the left needs to be bottom-up. A cadre of young social democrats in the state houses not only saves many people from the horrors of local Republican policy, but also creates a base of candidates who can rise to higher office.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

I hope most of this energy is directed at local races.

A shift to the left needs to be bottom-up. A cadre of young social democrats in the state houses not only saves many people from the horrors of local Republican policy, but also creates a base of candidates who can rise to higher office.

100% agree, and I would encourage those people not to run as Democrats.

 

[Big Baybee]

I hope most of this energy is directed at local races.

A shift to the left needs to be bottom-up. A cadre of young social democrats in the state houses not only saves many people from the horrors of local Republican policy, but also creates a base of candidates who can rise to higher office.

I actually like the idea, but Cenk and Bernie use decisive, toxic messaging/rhetoric that can't be simply walked backed if the candidate they are trying to prop up loses. Shits going to get ugly.

 

[reggieandTFE]

I still don't understand why people keep saying the Tea Party was some raving success. It held the Republicans back from easily regaining the Senate for 4-6 years. It was bankrolled by the Kock brothers and used by shills like Marco Rubio to win elections.

What awesome accomplishment have they given the world that should be replicated? Winning as the out party in midterms? That has been happening for a LONG time. You could just as easily credit whatever it was that caused the 2006 midterm wave for Democrats.

You have to look at the bigger picture. A great example of the success of the Tea Party is the wave of "Right to Work" bills passing in the Midwest and elsewhere in the last couple of years. Back during the 1994 Republican wave, no states went RTW. All Republicans didn't just turn over one morning in the 2000s and decide that they all hate unions. In fact, a ton of moderate Rs had generally sought and accepted union endorsements and money, especially in the Midwest.

'Purity' tests and anti-worker propaganda to eliminate pro-labor Rs will now culminate in national RTW from congress or Trump's Supreme Court ending dues deduction by 2018 and the destruction of the largest base of volunteers and political money in the Democratic coalition.

 

[Valhelm]

I actually like the idea, but Cenk and Bernie use decisive, toxic messaging/rhetoric that can't be simply walked backed if the candidate they are trying to prop up loses. Shits going to get ugly.

I agree that Bernie and especially Cenk could stand to be more gracious, but being a bad loser is an unfortunately effective tactic of keeping ideas alive. The GOP does this and can keep interest in policies we that were overturned 30 years ago.

 

[Abelard]

I actually like the idea, but Cenk and Bernie use decisive, toxic messaging/rhetoric that can't be simply walked backed if the candidate they are trying to prop up loses. Shits going to get ugly.

I'm sorry, but what toxic messaging is Bernie espousing? Every time I hear him talk he always does the "most of the people who voted for Trump are hurting etc. etc." thing. He's the last person I would call divisive.

 

[JustenP88]

IIRC, only he and Clinton got confronted by people representing BLM.



Bingo, on both accounts: we can frame our campaigns on intersectional injustices without abandoning those that are less so, and taking the party in a slightly different direction shouldn't be instantly seen (as it seems to be, by many of my fellow ex-Clinton supporters) as a guarantee that those injustices will be abandoned.

That having been said, I want that giant shitbaby Cenk nowhere goddamn near this.

Fair enough on that. I don't care/know enough about him to defend him. I would say that, from my limited knowledge, he doesn't seem to have the temperament required to mend any bridges with anyone.

On a note that's probably not really related to the topic (or anything) but I found interesting... I was doing some random googling to try and gain some perspective on the history of leftist economic policies and race-relations in America. I stumbled upon the realization that like half of the 6-8ish people credited with founding the NAACP were 'card-carrying' socialists at one point or another, including Du Bois. Given the checkered history of the Socialist Party (not like it was more/less checkered than any other American political ideology at the time...) re: race relations in the early 1900s, this surprised me a bit.

 

[Chichikov]

Bernie's history of supporting black liberation is well-documented from his early 20s on. The Clinton campaign smeared Bernie both as a radical communist supporter of the Zapatisas and an out of touch white racist. It was shameful. Not as shameful as the time they leaked a photo of Obama in Muslim garb while casting doubt on his Christian faith, but pretty bad.

And sure I have respect for John Lewis' career, but how can you defend his behavior in the primary? There's literally photos of Bernie and Lewis a few feet from each other in the same 60s march. At the same time in history, his favored candidate was supporting essentially the Trump of her day in the Barry Goldwater. This isn't even an argument. Lewis himself had to walk the statements back. The whole ordeal was depressing.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...k-caucus-bernie-sanders-civil-rights-movement

Okay real talk, John Lewis is an american legend and a civil rights hero. I'm not saying that makes him immune to criticism, but I think then when he talks about civil rights, your first instinct should be to shut the fuck up and listen, especially if you're white.
The way he was attacked and the way was made to apologize for that remark was disgusting as fuck if you ask me.
He really didn't do anything wrong, if anything, he (like Clinton) treated Bernie Sanders waaaaaaaaaaaaay more gently than what you usually see in a primary.

 

[S1lent]

People more concerned about protecting the short-term prospects of the Democratic Party than working to address the most fundamental and far-reaching problem with our democracy ($$$ in politics) should seriously reconsider their priorities.

And that's assuming it has to be an either/or, which I don't believe it does.

 

[Father_Brain]

Reminder that Bernie Sanders is actually incredibly popular with the Democratic rank and file - his favorables with Democrats are 80-13 nationally, putting him behind only Obama and Biden, slightly ahead of Clinton (and her unfavorables are significantly higher at 76-22), and far ahead of Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, and even Warren. (Source: pages 65-76).

If you only read this forum or follow most mainstream or left-of-center political news media, you'd think he was some incredibly polarizing, divisive figure, but that's the exact opposite of true. There's just a small, disproportionately powerful and influential minority that irrationally despises him.

 

[Valhelm]

An influx of young leftists into the political arena is the only way to ensure that American politics are ethical and intersectional.

 

[pompidu]

I hope most of this energy is directed at local races.

A shift to the left needs to be bottom-up. A cadre of young social democrats in the state houses not only saves many people from the horrors of local Republican policy, but also creates a base of candidates who can rise to higher office.

You expect voting to even happen? Congress will be dismantled and will be appointees only, and the presidential term limit will be removed. If you don't think this dude won't do it, he will.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

Fair enough on that. I don't care/know enough about him to defend him. I would say that, from my limited knowledge, he doesn't seem to have the temperament required to mend any bridges with anyone.

On a note that's probably not really related to the topic (or anything) but I found interesting... I was doing some random googling to try and gain some perspective on the history of leftist economic policies and race-relations in America. I stumbled upon the realization that like half of the 6-8ish people credited with founding the NAACP were 'card-carrying' socialists at one point or another, including Du Bois. Given the checkered history of the Socialist Party (not like it was more/less checkered than any other American political ideology at the time...) re: race relations in the early 1900s, this surprised me a bit.

Powerful quote from Assata Shakur:

I wasn’t against communism, but i can’t say i was for it either. At first, i viewed it suspiciously, as some kind of white man’s concoction, until i read works by African revolutionaries and studied the African liberation movements.

Revolutionaries in Africa understood that the question of African liberation was not just a question of race, that even if they managed to get rid of the white colonialists, if they didn’t rid themselves of the capitalistic economic structure, the white colonialists would simply be replaced by Black neocolonialists. There was not a single liberation movement in Africa that was not fighting for socialism. In fact, there was not a single liberation movement in the whole world that was fighting for capitalism.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

Okay real talk, John Lewis is an american legend and a civil rights hero. I'm not saying that makes him immune to criticism, but I think then when he talks about civil rights, your first instinct should be to shut the fuck up and listen, especially if you're white.
The way he was attacked and the way was made to apologize for that remark was disgusting as fuck if you ask me.
He really didn't do anything wrong, if anything, he (like Clinton) treated Bernie Sanders waaaaaaaaaaaaay more gently than what you usually see in a primary.

I feel like we're pretty much in agreement here.

 

[Valhelm]

You expect voting to even happen? Congress will be dismantled and will be appointees only, and the presidential term limit will be removed. If you don't think this dude won't do it, he will.

ok

 

[KRod-57]

I hope most of this energy is directed at local races.

A shift to the left needs to be bottom-up. A cadre of young social democrats in the state houses not only saves many people from the horrors of local Republican policy, but also creates a base of candidates who can rise to higher office.

I would like a viable option to vote for someone other than Dianne Feinstein in the California primaries. In the case of Boxer's seat we actually got two Democrats running against one another in the general election (no third candidates). That's what we get when a Democrat seat is retiring, but I would appreciate if he had that kind of option when we're talking about replacing a senator like Feinstein.

The party ought to open up to allowing a candidate to run against Feinstein in the primary elections, and they ought to support and fund that candidate if their policies are truly better. The worse case scenario is the candidate fails and we get a Republican run against Fienstein in the general election.. which is what we get anyway when the party outcasts all candidates who want to run against their sitting senator.

 

[petethepanda]

There's no way to get around the fact that the party desperately needs to evolve, but it's kind of horrifying to think about the potential situation that we wind up splitting the vote on the left and getting Trump into the back four.

 

[JesseEwiak]

I would like a viable option to vote for someone other than Dianne Feinstein in the California primaries. In the case of Boxer's seat we actually got two Democrats running against one another in the general election (no third candidates). That's what we get when a Democrat seat is retiring, but I would appreciate if he had that kind of option when we're talking about replacing a senator like Feinstein.

The party ought to open up to allowing a candidate to run against Feinstein in the primary elections, and they ought to support and fund that candidate if their policies are truly better. The worse case scenario is the candidate fails and we get a Republican run against Fienstein in the general election.. which is what we get anyway when the party outcasts all candidates who want to run against their sitting senator.

Um you're aware California has a Top 2 jungle style primary, right? Any Democrat that wants too can run and possibly get 1st or 2nd place. It's how the Senate race this year ended up Democrat on Democrat.

 

[KRod-57]

Um you're aware California has a Top 2 jungle style primary, right? Any Democrat that wants too can run and possibly get 1st or 2nd place. It's how the Senate race this year ended up Democrat on Democrat.

yes I'm aware, that's what I was addressing when I said the general was two Democrats and no third candidates.. what on earth did you think I meant?

Anyway, the point I was making is we never get that kind of option when it is a Democrat running for reelection because the party outright refuses to support any other Democrat candidate in the primary elections.. so the end result is Dianne Feinstein vs the Republican

We get one crap candidate and one crappier candidate. I would appreciate it if the party would support someone else in the primary elections

 

[JesseEwiak]

yes I'm aware, that's what I was addressing when I said the general was two Democrats and no third candidates.. what on earth did you think I meant?

Anyway, the point I was making is we never get that kind of option when it is a Democrat running for reelection because the party outright refuses to support any other Democrat candidate in the primary elections.. so the end result is Dianne Feinstein vs the Republican

We get one crap candidate and one crappier candidate. I would appreciate it if the party would support someone else in the primary elections

So you want people to support people they agree with less in a primary to make you happy? I mean you can run as a Democrat even if theres an incumbent. That person just has to have a good reason why the state should give up the power that seniority gives you in the Senate when the voting record won't be that much different outside of specific issues.

 

[KRod-57]

There's no way to get around the fact that the party desperately needs to evolve, but it's kind of horrifying to think about the potential situation that we wind up splitting the vote on the left and getting Trump into the back four.

That's the risk you run when you run two liberal candidates in the general elections. The focus of replacing bad Democrats should be the primary elections. Another thing we could do is popularize the ranked voting system that was passed in Maine. Then you can vote for the candidate of your choice without the risk of the "spoiler" scenario

So you want people to support people they agree with less in a primary to make you happy? I mean you can run as a Democrat even if theres an incumbent. That person just has to have a good reason why the state should give up the power that seniority gives you in the Senate when the voting record won't be that much different outside of specific issues.

People can vote for whoever they want, all I'm suggesting is the Democrats don't outcast other Democrats who run against people like Dianne Feinstein in the primary elections. It is NOT giving up a sitting seat, it is the primary elections we're talking about.

 

[ForsakenLotus]

I get the impracticalaliyy argument and how it could potentially hurt the Democratic Party when running against the Republicans, but dammit if there weren't so many democrats who were beholden to corporate donors it wouldn't be necessary. Get real progressives with a spine and let them run against Republicans, if it takes running against more established figures in the party so be it - at some point it needs to change.

Not just to defeat Republicans in elections, but to actually be able to put progressive legislation and ideas forward. What's the point of four to eight years of a very safe president who doesn't do much because he doesn't want to upset the donors or make it more difficult for other corporate democrats going forward?

The American political system is completely broken, IF this is a step towards fixing it then honestly I don't care what happens to the dregs of the Democratic Party.

 

[Air]

So 4 more years of Trump than?

 

[KRod-57]

So here's a scenario for you all


It's the California primaries for the senate, and there's a Democrat running in the mix against Dianne Feinstein.. but instead of being completely outcasted by the Democratic party, the candidate is endorsed and supported by other progressive Democrats like Bernie Sanders, while the corporate Democrats maintain their support for Dianne Feinstein.

If the other Democrat fails to get nominated, then the progressive Democrats support Feinstein in the general election. There's nothing wrong with this political method, it will improve the party and improve the country as a whole. We shouldn't support people like Dianne Feinstein simply because she is a sitting Democrat. We should open up to replacing people like her with better candidates, but only during the primary elections. We're not talking about running spoiler candidates

 

[Valhelm]

So 4 more years of Trump than?

Really good post

 

[Air]

It's basically "this person does not vote the way I want them to on certain issues and therefore they're not Real True (whatever)." It's used derisively because people can get really silly with that sort of thing (like calling Paul Ryan a RINO or labeling Elizabeth Warren as a neoliberal because she endorsed Clinton in the primary)

It's the idea that if someone isn't 100% on my side, I'll try to defeat them in favor of a perceived superior candidate. Think tea party Republicans going after moderates, or the progressive wing of the Democrats going after their moderates. Critics of these approaches would say that it's better to have power by including moderates, than having a more ideologically pure minority.

Very similar concept, yes--that even if a candidate is otherwise neatly oerfect, if they CE down on the wrong side of particular issues we should nonetheless fight against them anyway for not being the best in these arbitrarily picked issues, even if fighting against them because of those issues means someone even worse sneaks in because we were too busy fighting among ourselves to unite against a common, truly disputable enemy.

..So yeah, pretty much no true Scotsman: "you're not a TRUE member of the party unless you do X, Y, and Z, even if you've done a billion amazing things that prove you're good for it."

The idea might be well-intentioned in theory, but in practice just leafs to terribly weak oppositions more obsessed with maintaining those stances than actually functioning as opposition or actually fighting the majority party, such a the current state of the Labour party in the U.K. which followed exactly this trajectory and are entirely irrelevant because of it.

Similarly, looking to Canada, the only way Harper got defeated was win the opposition parties stopped fighting among themselves and people strategically voted to make sure that Harper was given the boot and Trudeau became Prime Minister. Would have never happened without the strategic voting. Unless we do the same and stop this in-fighting, things ain't going to be pretty.

Cooperation and working together >>>>>>>>>>> in-fighting, competing against each other and ridiculous purity test nonsense.

Maybe it has an actual meaning. But I take it as a derogatory term from establishment democrats to other democrats that are disappointed with the establishment. The establishment democrats think these others are too idealized and unwilling to compromise (and continue to think this despite that Donald out lefted Hillary on multiple issues, and that Hillary lost hardcore).

Forgot I posted this here, but thanks. I figured as much, but it's nice to be clearer on this.

Really good post

I have my moments

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

So here's a scenario for you all


It's the California primaries for the senate, and there's a Democrat running in the mix against Dianne Feinstein.. but instead of being completely outcasted by the Democratic party, the candidate is endorsed and supported by other progressive Democrats like Bernie Sanders, while the corporate Democrats maintain their support for Dianne Feinstein.

If the other Democrat fails to get nominated, then the progressive Democrats support Feinstein in the general election. There's nothing wrong with this political method, it will improve the party and improve the country as a whole. We shouldn't support people like Dianne Feinstein simply because she is a sitting Democrat. We should open up to replacing people like her with better candidates, but only during the primary elections. We're not talking about running spoiler candidates

Sure, California is going to elect a Democratic no matter what (especially with the runoff rules).

Things change with other states and that's where I largely take issue. The "Justice Democrats" first list I saw took aim at Senators in red states where they have no business doing so.

 

[KRod-57]

Sure, California is going to elect a Democratic no matter what (especially with the runoff rules).

Things change with other states and that's where I largely take issue. The "Justice Democrats" first list I saw took aim at Senators in red states where they have no business doing so.

Not nessisarily, in California the primaries are not party based, everyone runs against one another in the primaries. In states where primaries are party based you can still run alternative Democrat options in primary elections, and so long as it is a primary election there is no spoiler scenario where the losing progressive results in the Republican candidate winning. Again, it must be the primary elections and not general elections (at least until we can install a ranked voting system in the respective states)

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Not nessisarily, in California the primaries are not party based, everyone runs against one another in the primaries. In states where primaries are party based you can still run alternative Democrat options in primary elections, and so long as it is a primary election there is no spoiler scenario where the losing progressive results in the Republican candidate winning. Again, it must be the primary elections and not general elections (at least until we can install a ranked voting system in the respective states)

If a significantly more liberal Democrat beats McCasmill, Donnelly, Heitkamp, etc in a primary in 2018, that Democrat will lose in the general election when the person they beat had a chance.

You seem to think that primary and general elections have no effect on each other, unless I'm misunderstanding you?

 

[JesseEwiak]

So here's a scenario for you all


It's the California primaries for the senate, and there's a Democrat running in the mix against Dianne Feinstein.. but instead of being completely outcasted by the Democratic party, the candidate is endorsed and supported by other progressive Democrats like Bernie Sanders, while the corporate Democrats maintain their support for Dianne Feinstein.

If the other Democrat fails to get nominated, then the progressive Democrats support Feinstein in the general election. There's nothing wrong with this political method, it will improve the party and improve the country as a whole. We shouldn't support people like Dianne Feinstein simply because she is a sitting Democrat. We should open up to replacing people like her with better candidates, but only during the primary elections. We're not talking about running spoiler candidates

I guess it depends on your definition of being "outcast."

After all, what you just described is what happens most of the time. I mean, Democrat's who supported Ned Lamont in 2006 didn't lose committee seats or anything. It's just that incumbency is very very very powerful.

In many ways, Bernie Sanders got far more from the Clinton campaign than most primary losers do. Bill Bradley, John McCain, Rick Santorum, and Gary Hart all didn't get input into the platforms of the campaigns that beat them.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

I get the impracticalaliyy argument and how it could potentially hurt the Democratic Party when running against the Republicans, but dammit if there weren't so many democrats who were beholden to corporate donors it wouldn't be necessary. Get real progressives with a spine and let them run against Republicans, if it takes running against more established figures in the party so be it - at some point it needs to change.

Not just to defeat Republicans in elections, but to actually be able to put progressive legislation and ideas forward. What's the point of four to eight years of a very safe president who doesn't do much because he doesn't want to upset the donors or make it more difficult for other corporate democrats going forward?

The American political system is completely broken, IF this is a step towards fixing it then honestly I don't care what happens to the dregs of the Democratic Party.

Yeah, they're just not going to change without a challenge. And also, we have to do it regardless of GOP/DEM politics. We can't just abandon any notion of forward progress every time a Republican is in office. This country is in bad shape. Our infrastructure is like a mid-tier european country in the 70s. You get laughed off the planet if you talk about maglev trains, which Japan and China have had for over 10 years. The US is still the richest country in the world. Why do we put up with this?

We need a real organized, independent left that can put forward concrete, working class demands and let whoever happens to be in power address themselves to it. No more of this waiting around for Democrats to tell us what's politically possible. It took an independent Socialist city councilor to kick off the $15 minimum wage movement in Seattle. 5 years ago, the Serious people treated it like a fairy tale. Now it's sweeping the country.

 

[KRod-57]

If a significantly more liberal Democrat beats McCasmill, Donnelly, Heitkamp, etc in a primary in 2018, that Democrat will lose in the general election when the person they beat had a chance.

You seem to think that primary and general elections have no effect on each other, unless I'm misunderstanding you?

Ah, so now the truth comes out. You would actually prefer the party nominate the corporate Democrat over the progressive Democrat. Here's the thing, most of the Democrats are not corporatists, but they do represent a significant enough margin of the party to prevent public option healthcare, and to block affordable medicines from coming in from Canada.

These corporate Democrats hurt Americans, and they hurt the Democratic party's popularity a significant amount. When push comes to shove, the party would be better off without them. There's a reason why the majority of Americans now identity as independent, people care more about issues than they do about parties.. when they see Democrats put the party first and issues second, it turns them off to them entirely

 

[Suikoguy]

Ah, so now the truth comes out. You would actually prefer the party nominate the corporate Democrat over the progressive Democrat. Here's the thing, most of the Democrats are not corporatists, but they do represent a significant enough margin of the party to prevent public option healthcare, and to block affordable medicines from coming in from Canada.

These corporate Democrats hurt Americans, and they hurt the Democratic party's popularity a significant amount. When push comes to shove, the party would be better off without them. There's a reason why the majority of Americans now identity as independent, people care more about issues than they do about parties.. when they see Democrats put the party first and issues second, it turns them off to them entirely

How did you get that from that post?
Unless you responded to the wrong post...

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Ah, so now the truth comes out. You would actually prefer the party nominate the corporate Democrat over the progressive Democrat. Here's the thing, most of the Democrats are not corporatists, but they do represent a significant enough margin of the party to prevent public option healthcare, and to block affordable medicines from coming in from Canada.

These corporate Democrats hurt Americans, and they hurt the Democratic party's popularity a significant amount. When push comes to shove, the party would be better off without them. There's a reason why the majority of Americans now identity as independent, people care more about issues than they do about parties.. when they see Democrats put the party first, it turns them off to them entirely

Yes, I want a Democrat who can win an election in a state where Democrats typically do not perform well (I don't especially care if they're "corporatist," and I wouldn't classify any of the Democrats I mentioned earlier as that). Because at the end of the day, a centrist Democrat is preferable to a Republican. I don't really care what happens in blue states - they should elect progressive candidates since that's what the people in those states want.

If you think the party would be better off without them... well, you'd be looking at the Republicans having possibly 60 seats in the Senate right now - a filibuster proof majority.