Klinker said:

I do not know if I have it in me to vote for another Goldman Sachs centrist tool.  I guess we will find out.

Norman_Bates said:

In my opinion, there are two groups on the edges of the Democratic party.  (1) On the right are moderates who share some similarities to Trump supporters in that they are frustrated with the "business as usual" mode of Washington politics and the related party machinations but recognized the dangers of a Trump presidency and reluctantly leaned to HRC in 2016.  (2) On the left are progressives who also share a disdain for Washington politics.  They view the Democratic party as a socially moderate organization dedicated to preserving its own power rather than embracing a more aggressive social justice agenda but leaned to HRC because she was endorsed by Sanders and a more viable candidate than Stein or someone else on the left.   

This is a time that the DNC should be making moves to draw as many voices "under the tent" as possible, not marginalizing others by affirming an uninspiring agenda of past campaigns, stacking the leadership with old school party insiders such as Harold Ickes and Donna Brazile, and actively rejecting anyone who fails the purity test.  The DNC is risking the loss of many members from both of these edge groups who will feel further marginalized and look to candidates who represent their interests and validate their concerns.  The "better vote for the Dem candidate because he/she is better than Trump" argument will not overcome the feeling of being rejected by the DNC. Just my two-cents...

I get it. But there's a time for that. For the DNC it was the primaries. We had three viable candidates. That's not much to choose from. But once Clinton was nominated by the party, then it was time to suck it up and (if you must) vote for the lesser evil. There are just no reasonable arguments that equate Hillary with Trump on any level. And, sitting out or voting Jill Stein is as bad as voting for Trump. There certainly wasn't all this hand wringing on the right. They fell lock step behind their candidate - even after he insulted and humiliated 16 other establishment candidates.

Let me put this more bluntly - in today's climate of radical Republicanism, if you have liberal leanings and you don't vote for a Dem you are a ...

sorry can't bring myself to write it down. But it's not pleasant.

A vote for a 3rd party in the U.S. was rarely ever defensible - but now it borders on the willful destruction of liberalism.

Besides being extraordinarily selfish.

So, be proud of that.

Maybe 3rd party voters lack basic arithmetic skills - maybe that's their problem. Maybe they don't realize that voting 3rd party instead of for the Dem is electorally equivalent to voting for the Repub. It has the same numerical effect on the outcome. So you might as well just vote for the Republican and be honest about it, instead of trying to assuage your conscience.

Political parties are not sacrosanct. Maybe, even if it allows the election of someone unfortunate in the short run, to set in motion a dynamic to replace the current political parties with new fresher ones. Both parties might seem to reign supreme now but they both stand on rotten foundations and may be more vulnerable than it appears.

It's not a question of being sacrosanct. It's a question of living in a system that only allows a binary choice.

And I would have hoped that the election of Dubya would have disabused people of the notion that electing a disaster would wake up the electorate, but apparently it hasn't.

People might not like it, but in any given election the only thing that makes sense - ethically, morally, politically, whatever - is to vote for the lesser of two evils. Otherwise you're voting for more evil. And how is that ever justified?

ska said:

Political parties are not sacrosanct. Maybe, even if it allows the election of someone unfortunate in the short run, to set in motion a dynamic to replace the current political parties with new fresher ones. Both parties might seem to reign supreme now but they both stand on rotten foundations and may be more vulnerable than it appears.

I am going to vote for the Whig party candidate in the next election. Or maybe the Federalist party candidate.

drummerboy said:

It's not a question of being sacrosanct. It's a question of living in a system that only allows a binary choice.

And I would have hoped that the election of Dubya would have disabused people of the notion that electing a disaster would wake up the electorate, but apparently it hasn't.

People might not like it, but in any given election the only thing that makes sense - ethically, morally, politically, whatever - is to vote for the lesser of two evils. Otherwise you're voting for more evil. And how is that ever justified?

In the age of Trump this is absolutely correct. 

drummerboy said:

Maybe 3rd party voters lack basic arithmetic skills - maybe that's their problem. Maybe they don't realize that voting 3rd party instead of for the Dem is electorally equivalent to voting for the Repub. It has the same numerical effect on the outcome. So you might as well just vote for the Republican and be honest about it, instead of trying to assuage your conscience.

I don't know.  I keep voting for centrists dems year after year because I know the lesser of two evils is better than the worst of all evils but I get the 3rd partiers. I don't think calling them idiots just because they can't bring themselves to vote for the winner of the Goldman Sachs after dinner speaking award is really a productive tactic.

How about if we worked a little harder on actually appealing to the democratic wing of the Democrat Party?

Hahaha said:

Klinker said:

I do not know if I have it in me to vote for another Goldman Sachs centrist tool.  I guess we will find out.

Norman_Bates said:

In my opinion, there are two groups on the edges of the Democratic party.  (1) On the right are moderates who share some similarities to Trump supporters in that they are frustrated with the "business as usual" mode of Washington politics and the related party machinations but recognized the dangers of a Trump presidency and reluctantly leaned to HRC in 2016.  (2) On the left are progressives who also share a disdain for Washington politics.  They view the Democratic party as a socially moderate organization dedicated to preserving its own power rather than embracing a more aggressive social justice agenda but leaned to HRC because she was endorsed by Sanders and a more viable candidate than Stein or someone else on the left.   

This is a time that the DNC should be making moves to draw as many voices "under the tent" as possible, not marginalizing others by affirming an uninspiring agenda of past campaigns, stacking the leadership with old school party insiders such as Harold Ickes and Donna Brazile, and actively rejecting anyone who fails the purity test.  The DNC is risking the loss of many members from both of these edge groups who will feel further marginalized and look to candidates who represent their interests and validate their concerns.  The "better vote for the Dem candidate because he/she is better than Trump" argument will not overcome the feeling of being rejected by the DNC. Just my two-cents...

I get it. But there's a time for that. For the DNC it was the primaries. We had three viable candidates. That's not much to choose from. But once Clinton was nominated by the party, then it was time to suck it up and (if you must) vote for the lesser evil. There are just no reasonable arguments that equate Hillary with Trump on any level. And, sitting out or voting Jill Stein is as bad as voting for Trump. There certainly wasn't all this hand wringing on the right. They fell lock step behind their candidate - even after he insulted and humiliated 16 other establishment candidates.

The problem with this is we did this--voted for Hllary the lesser evil--and she lost big time and the Democrats are wiped out at every level.  NOW, as we watch them rebuilld and move forward they are doing NOTHING DiFFERENT.  They are closing ranks, dumping the progressives (with their more popular platform), bringing in the lobbyests and corporate donors and choosing HIllary 2.0 behind closed doors.  They are blaming Russia, etc. for everything and refusing to take responsiblity.  They made sure that Tom Perez was put in charge and people booed him on the unity tour (while cheering Bernie).  No one likes them and they are having big problems raising money.  SO, now the arguments against lessor evil are coming true.  If we keep giving them votes, they will never change and we will never have any kind of choice.  They count on us always having to choose between them and some monster (and they recuited Trump because they thought he would be easy to beat and scare people).  If you are a progressive, it's beyond the pale at this point. I cannot vote for them anymore.  And lots of people feel the same.  They want to lose.  

nan said:
I cannot vote for them anymore.  And lots of people feel the same.  They want to lose.  

Who wants to lose?

sac said:

nan said:
I cannot vote for them anymore.  And lots of people feel the same.  They want to lose.  

Why do they want to lose?

Because to win means adopting a progressive platform.  Given the choice, they take losing.  They only care about getting donor money.  The donor money comes if they lose or not (better if they win, but they still get it no matter what). If they adopt a progessive platform, they will not be able to take that money.  They are beholden to the donors.  It's a corrupt system.  

nan said:

sac said:

nan said:
I cannot vote for them anymore.  And lots of people feel the same.  They want to lose.  

Why do they want to lose?

Because to win means adopting a progressive platform.  Given the choice, they take losing.  They only care about getting donor money.  The donor money comes if they lose or not (better if they win, but they still get it no matter what). If they adopt a progessive platform, they will not be able to take that money.  They are beholden to the donors.  It's a corrupt system.  

So "they" is the establishment Democrats.  That wasn't clear so I edited my post, but you had already quoted ... sorry about that.

The system is the system we have.  I think it is from the top down, not just the DNC.  But, as long as we have it, I refuse to throw away my vote to the greater of evils.

Sac,  Well, you are what they are counting on so they can continue to make money at your expense while the wealth gap gets bigger and the environment disintigrates and we have more and more useless wars while our infrastructure disintigrates and the police and survaillence state grows.  And that is just the Democrats who will probably lose, anyway.  The Republicans are even worse.  

nan said:
The Republicans are even worse.  

That's why I won't throw away my vote.  There has to be a way to deal with this other than voting against our own interests, even if it isn't for our preferred way forward.

sac said:

nan said:
The Republicans are even worse.  

That's why I won't throw away my vote.  There has to be a way to deal with this other than voting against our own interests, even if it isn't for our preferred way forward.

Well, your vote will be thrown away since they will probably lose.  Here is the latest dirty DNC tactic.  

yeah - and you are who the Republicans are counting on to steal votes from their opponents.

You vote against your own interests.

eta: oops, didn't see sac's post til now. Great minds and all that....

nan said:

Sac,  Well, you are what they are counting on so they can continue to make money at your expense while the wealth gap gets bigger and the environment disintigrates and we have more and more useless wars while our infrastructure disintigrates and the police and survaillence state grows.  And that is just the Democrats who will probably lose, anyway.  The Republicans are even worse.  

Obama's platform wasn't all that progressive.

your point is?

dave23 said:

Obama's platform wasn't all that progressive.

drummerboy said:

your point is?

dave23 said:

Obama's platform wasn't all that progressive.

Nan's assertion that Dems can't win without a progressive platform.

Did you consider the 2016 platform progressive?  (Whatever you think of HRC)

oh. yes. agreed.

also, too, 3 million more votes than the other guy. not a terrifying loss if you ask me.

(do people realize that without the electoral college, we most likely would have had  Democratic Presidents from 1992 through today?)

dave23 said:

drummerboy said:

your point is?

dave23 said:

Obama's platform wasn't all that progressive.

Nan's assertion that Dems can't win without a progressive platform.

The GOP took in Trump knowing full well he wasn't a true Republican. Trump has made a mockery out of the GOP. The infighting, both public and private, is making matters worse and I'm sure the true blue Republicans are wishing for Reagan to rise from the dead. So, in seeing this disaster, I can only assume the same would happen to the Democrats if they openly accepted Bernie. Voters are always free to choose whomever they wish to vote for and their ticket of choice. 

If we can't sit through 18 minutes of video, could someone who did sum up what is being complained about, or who, or whatever it is?

nan said:

Well, your vote will be thrown away since they will probably lose.  Here is the latest dirty DNC tactic.  

sac said:

Did you consider the 2016 platform progressive?  (Whatever you think of HRC)

Bernie thought it was.  “Thanks to the millions of people across the country who got involved in the political process – many for the first time – we now have the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party.”

https://berniesanders.com/democrats-adopt-progressive-platform-party-history/

Looks like at least one donor wants them to win.  Wonder if he will keep funding them now.  

https://mic.com/articles/182238/the-democrats-biggest-donor-says-the-party-is-blowing-it-and-should-get-behind-bernies-platform#.ivAq1ScsB

So, on the one had we have the most popular politician in the country whose popularity dwarfs all other politicians:  

As Donald Trump’s Popularity Dwindles, Bernie Sanders’ Surges

http://observer.com/2017/10/sanders-is-most-popular-us-politician-and-trump-is-least-popular/?utm_campaign=social+flow&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

You would think it would be a no-brainer for the DNC in terms of trying to win elections since, depite being an Independent, the most popular politican in the world prefers to run as a Democrat.  He is on their side and willing to lead them to victory against Donald Trump and the other Republicans.

But, instead, he is hated and exiled by the supporters of the person who lost to an orange psycho:

It’s Still Their Party: What the DNC Purge Means for the Democrats’ Left Flank

http://inthesetimes.com/article/20627/dnc-purge-ellison-perez-bernie-sanders-left-center/

But instead they threw out the Sanders delegates and brought in people such as this:

". . .The new batch of superdelegates appointed to leadership positions at the DNC includes a number of lobbyists, including Joanne Dowdell, who lobbies for Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., and Manuel Ortiz, who counts Citigroup as a client."

And then they keep adopting anti-Progressive, anti-working people policies such as these:

" . . .Perez appointed Dan Halpern, an opponent of raising the minimum wage, to the DNC’s finance committee, and has resisted the push among progressives in the party to back a Medicare for All healthcare system as a flagship policy. To be sure, such impulses aren’t unique to Perez: back in June, California Democrats in the legislature blocked a single-payer healthcare bill that had been supported by grassroots advocates in the state."

This is why I keep saying they would rather lose to a Republican than win with a Progressive.  It's not about passing legislation to benefit the middle class and poor.  It's about doing the bidding of Ruper Murdoch and Citigroup. 

All I can say is, "thanks Nan"

What is that definition of insanity?  Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.   And yes thanks Nan for a contribution of clear thinking

The sad thing is they are not insane.  They are doing it deliberatly because they really don't care about anything except taking the money.   Thanks, Bet.

nan said:

The sad thing is they are not insane.  They are doing it deliberatly because they really don't care about anything except taking the money.   Thanks, Bet.

What's the money for?