General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow can we get a progressive presidential candidate at the top of Democratic ticket in 2016?
Obama has been good on a few issues, but for the most part, when Wall Street says, jump, Obama says how high, particularly on issues where he couldn't blame GOP coercion, like the repetitive standardized testing to prove public schools are failing as an excuse to replace them with for profit charter schools that get taxpayer money but do worse more often than better for students.
Or foreign policy that mostly differs from Bush in style rather than substance.
Or not prosecuting any of the big fish on Wall Street who broke the world economy with intentional fraud.
Or picking the same guys who deregulated banks to run his economic policy,
and so on.
Any Democrat will be better than the GOP, but the problem is, the leaders of the Democratic Party try to keep as little daylight as possible between them and Republicans on a host of issues, especially when someone is greasing their palm to do so.
How can we pull the party back toward FDR and away from Rubin/Summers?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)I really don't know--the embedded powers aren't likely to permit a truly progressive candidate. Remember what they did to Kucinich, Dean…
There is nobody they can't paint as a lunatic if they can't get them on moral turpentine.
Tippy
(4,610 posts)
dawg
(10,620 posts)No more voting for someone because they'll be more "electable" in November. The primaries are when we vote our consciences. And if we don't win, maybe we at least move the needle enough that they have to start taking us seriously.
Also, we seriously need to reform the primary system itself. We need to totally remove the undue influence granted to insiders and "super" delegates. To anyone reading this who has any influence at at, "Shame on you!", if you don't do everything within your power to make our primary process fairer and more representative of the views of the actual party members.
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)I don't think there is a possible Progressive candidate who has a chance against Hillary; but, I still think it's important to have candidates who can articulate Progressive values in debates.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)The Democratic Party is pretty moved so far right that even moderate candidates are classed as "extremists". Except in a few areas where we dragged the party kicking and screaming (like marriage equality) the party is conservative, pro-war, pro-surveillance and pro-business.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)We will hear this incessantly by the corporate shills: that traditional Democrats are too out of the mainstream for the electorate.
How ABSURD.
Every single poll last year showed that the electorate was far more on the page of traditional Democrats than the corporate candidates we were offered. Across party lines, voters favored protecting SS and Medicare and curbing military spending.
And the proof of the lie is that candidates pivot LEFTWARD every single election season to win voters. They lie and say that they will support a public option, or protect Social Security, because they know that is what voters want to hear. But as soon as the election is over, it's back to the business of the one percent.
That is what happens when corporations buy elections. And posts like the one you just made are what happens when corporations buy the media and we are propagandized day in and day out with corporate lies.
Watch the board. The posters who will be repeating this lie incessantly are the very same group who post incessantly in defense of every corporate outrage coming out of this administration and who smear and attack whistleblowers, real journalists, Occupy, and traditional Democrats.
.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)
RC
(25,592 posts)Compared to the total members posting, they are actually few, but boy are they loud and insistent.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Americans may play at being sort of moderate but if you ask them about issues individually they tend to be far more progressive than even the majority of Democratic politicians.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)They would say they will ignore the opinion of the base of the Democratic Party on every major issue from the economy to foreign policy, to war and who gets the full weight of the law thrown against them.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)I think it is the party leadership that has moved far right, not the membership.
The money primary knocks actual progressives out of the race before the voters' primary.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)I get around here for DARING to hold the president accountable for violating core liberal positions, I would say that the party membership is equally far to the right. Either that, or hypocrites.
Using the strictest definition of liberal and conservative Obama was JUST to the left of Romney on the political compass.
http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)And I personally am to the left and below Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama.
But I have sent many people to that site and after taking the test they ALL ended up in the lower left quadrant. Well, one exception: a bigoted anti-gay anti-black science-denying Randian Catholic (WTF?) guy named--I mean it--Bubba from Alabama who found himself right in the crosshairs in the middle. Was very proud of being a moderate in all things. Polls tend to bear this out: when questioned without dog whistles or labels, the public turns out to be overwhelmingly in favor of progressive policies.
So I'm going with "hypocrites" or personality cultists or ignorant, or some combination.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)
I send people to that site when we have arguments about how the word "liberal" has changed definition. I try to explain that Obama is a "neo-liberal" not a "liberal", but they want to argue with me that words change over time.
True, but there are certain words whose definition must remain static or the language ceases to have meaning. Political words such as:
liberal
conservative
racist
fascist
socialist
communist
anarchist
libertarian
etc.
They go to the site then are shocked to find themselves tracking WAY to Obama's left, and doubly shocked at how closely Obama shadows Romney.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Politicalcompass.org is an awesome tool. I only have one wish: it would be great if they could include past presidents to give us a better frame of reference. Not too far back but maybe FDR, Eisenhower, Nixon...or all the presidents from the 30s onward.
Bet that would be an eye-opener.
hlthe2b
(102,068 posts)and by that, I mean a LOT of very deep pocketed $$$$ progressives. I know they are out there. I don't know that there are enough, given Citizen's United and all the corporatocracy status quo money powering the RW and "mainstream" centrist Democrats. Certainly most with money aren't concerned about enacting policies designed to help those without...
The one thing I EVER agreed with McCain on was the absolute need to get money out of elections, but since we have failed, the only wait to fight it is with more money, I'm afraid. Depressing, isn't it?
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)force it without dividing the party. We can only let political evolution run its course and wait for a politician to come along and inspire us, like Obama did.
I think the wind bends towards justice and rightness and, when the nation is ready, a hero will always be there. They can't be forced.
Until then, it's better strategy to ride the wave you're given.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
brooklynite
(94,267 posts)Come to agreement on what kind of candidate is acceptably progressive (might not be as easy as you think)
Convince him or her to actually run, and help them raise the millions of Dollars needed (yes, it should be necessary, but this is the elctoral system you have to work with)
Convince 7 million (approx) Democrats to vote for him or her (bearing in mind that not every Democrat is as progressive as you are).
I'm not trying to be cynical, but the continual wishing for a Warren / Sanders / Grayson campaign seems completely divorced from the reality of how candidates get picked.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)brooklynite
(94,267 posts)you need the financial and organizational resources that many people seem disdainful of helping to provide, AND you need to convince votes of every ideological stripe that you agree with their positions and/or will be competitive with a national electorate of Democrats, Republicans and Independents in October. In my opinion, standing firmly for progressive positions that the electorate won't support is not an acceptable outcome if the result is a Republican victory.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)It sure seems that way to me. It seems to me you are saying it matters not what the message the candidate has as well.
There are a whole lot of people who are waiting to have someone to vote for instead of not voting or voting against the other guy.
brooklynite
(94,267 posts)If you can find a progressive candidate that's acceptable, good luck, but be realistic about who's voting and what candidates they find appealing. Iowa has some of the most progressive activist voter in the Party, and last time round (2008) they voted for...Obama, Edwards and Clinton. Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich? Virtually no support.
But, I would submit that the folks pining for a real progressive have been sitting on their hands while supporters of the "establishment" candidates, myself included, are already getting organized. My wife and I have met with "Ready for Hillary", and I've reached out to Brian Schweitzer in case Hillary doesn't run. Have you written a letter to, say, Elizabeth Warren to urge her to run? Formed a Meetup group to organize like-minded people to actually get an organized draft movement going? Started to research how much money you'll need to raise to be competitive? Or is it just easier to grumble that "TPTB" won't let your candidate compete?
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)It's the Kingmakers.
Space Brother Kucinich.
Love Canal Al.
Yeeeargh Dean.
Swiftboat Kerry
etc.
in contrast to
AWOL Arbusto
Dementia Reagan
etc.
The public has shown a depressing proclivity to believe whatever the Kingmakers want them to believe.
About the only hope I see is for some kind of Great Awakening.
brooklynite
(94,267 posts)....that Dean performed miserably in the Iowa vote, before the scream happened, and observe you've decided to reinforce my opinion by blaming something out of your control.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)The "establishment" candidate went at him full bore. It ended up killing both campaigns as Dean fought back. Ultimately it worked out for the democratic establishment because Kerry emerged as their candidate. They probably wouldn't have minded if Gebhart had won, just as long as Dean lost.
brooklynite
(94,267 posts)zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)He was the direct target of multiple entities, including one of the candidates of a particularly vicious mud slinging. It was a multi-pronged attack from the democratic establishment.
There are still "smoke filled rooms". They just don't smoke much anymore.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I agree with you.
Same folks who wanted a primary of Obama that never happened needed to spend that time, and the next several years, working on building these "better candidates".
Still don't see much of that happening.
JI7
(89,235 posts)there were a lot of complaints about Rahm emanuel but nothing about getting support for another candidate.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)if progressives don't show up to do the hard work of the party, the progressives will never ever take over the party. Doing the work of organizingand campaigning gets confused around here with sitting on your ass and complaining on the Internet.
Spike89
(1,569 posts)If Kucinich had won the presidency instead of Obama in 2008...I submit that he'd have actually gotten much less progressive legislation passed. The reality is that for a president to really be able to make progress in enacting their agenda, they must rely on either extremely active populist sentiment (we just don't riot/protest effectively) or solid support from the legislative branches.
One of the big reasons (IMO) that Kucinich did not gain much traction wasn't that people disagreed with his policies/ideology, but they didn't think he'd be effective in getting any of those things done. To take this to absurd levels to illustrate the point, who wouldn't vote for a candidate that promised to make everyone slim, always youthful, healthy, and happy? The very first question everyone is going to ask is "how?" If the candidate is somehow able to get enough people to believe she/he can deliver, they will win. Nobody really believed Kucinich could get congress to follow him--he had trouble getting anyone in the house to follow him when he was there.
To get a real progressive in the White House, we've got to rebuild the progressive base in both the Senate and the House. We don't need true majorities of progressives in both, but we do need them to expand beyond the fringe.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)... from folks who don't bother to vote because neither Party offers them squat.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Be prepared to deal with the intrenched establishment within the party that will work covertly and overtly to undermine your candidate.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)and will actively work to disenfranchise Progressive voters with ideas like "you can never win with candidate x" so that candidate doesn't even make it to the primaries.
JI7
(89,235 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)you don't go to the polls. I'm not saying it is inevitable, I'm saying it is a tool used to keep those that wish for better candidates from the polls. That's why it is critical that we all go out and vote in the primaries!
JI7
(89,235 posts)and what do you mean disenfranchised early ?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)and it is important that neither get chucked out as "unattainable". Our voting process depends on having active voters and active candidates.
Sorry if it sounds like I'm preaching, I'd just like a better choice in the primaries, since it makes for a better choice at the polls. And yes, we need to get more Democrats to the polls during the primaries, too, which is where we seem to flag in numbers.
JI7
(89,235 posts)which is more about preventing people from voting.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)If people don't turn out at the primaries locally, statewide and for the nation, we all end up with the least evil choice. We need to change that by having people show up at the polls for the primaries.
brooklynite
(94,267 posts)Welcome to politics. 31% of the voting age population is registered Democratic. They don't all think like you.
markiv
(1,489 posts)"but the problem is, the leaders of the Democratic Party try to keep as little daylight as possible between them and Republicans on a host of issues, especially when someone is greasing their palm to do so.
when Wall Street says, jump, Obama says how high, particularly on issues where he couldn't blame GOP coercion, like the repetitive standardized testing to prove public schools are failing as an excuse to replace them with for profit charter schools that get taxpayer money but do worse more often than better for students.
Or foreign policy that mostly differs from Bush in style rather than substance.
Or not prosecuting any of the big fish on Wall Street who broke the world economy with intentional fraud.
Or picking the same guys who deregulated banks to run his economic policy,
and so on.
"
just reading your own words, i have a tough time understanding the words i chose for the title
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)I for one will be donating and talking about every progressive candidate who announces.
I will continue my riff that it is way cheaper for the government to be liberal than conservative. For instance, incarcerating someone runs about $40K/year while giving them assistance which could prevent incarceration can be done for about $20K/year and would be fairly generous.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)be in through the ENTIRE primary process so New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina don't "choose" our candidate. Again. They always "choose" the most corporate-friendly candidate FOR THE REST OF US. Fuck that. If candidates are willing to go the entire primary process the REST OF THE COUNTRY will actually get a say-so as to who gets chosen.
Be aware that the biggest enemy of progressive candidates will not be the Republicans but will be the Vichy Democrats currently in power. Know that and be ready to fight back and expose their dirty tricks whenever they pull them and they WILL pull them.
Progressive candidates HAVE to have grass-roots support and that's where we come in. It will be VITAL that we get involved as early as possible and with as many feet on the ground as we can muster.
COMPLETELY reject, LOUD, CLEAR, EARLY AND OFTEN the corporate candidate the new-Dems will choose for us. Be aware that they will have several Vichy Dems running, Hillary Clinton will only be one of them.
A few suggestions off the top of my head.
brooklynite
(94,267 posts)...his/her financial backers drop their support because it doesn't look like he/she can win.
...the campaign moves on to Super Tuesday states, which require huge amounts of money for broad organization and advertising.
...the losing candidate has not financial resources to be competitive.
How is this a good idea?
villager
(26,001 posts)n/t
brooklynite
(94,267 posts)...The States who go first won't give up their prime status, and the Candidates won't challenge them. SO that's the structure your candidate will have to campaign in.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)You know you aren't terribly specific about issues, ideas, or why you seem to be supporting centrist candidates. You just seem to be shooting down any idea that people might have at getting more progressive candidates in office.
Any particular reason why that is?
brooklynite
(94,267 posts)I'm being realistic about the difficulty of getting anyone elected, progressive or centrist. It's a burden I'm prepared to work with; but I see too many people here take the easy way out by simply complaining that someone else is keeping their candidates from being successful.
As for why I'm a centrist? It's because that's where the most voters are. Given the choice between standing on principles and getting nothing (say, single-payer health care), or working for a middle of the road solution (say, the ACA), succeeding and THEN working to make further improvements, I'll go for the incremental approach.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I could point to dozens of very good government programs that actually started out as something bold and effective. Very few of them were "improved incrementally."
I could also point out that if it weren't for absurdly insane republicans President Obama would be getting very little credit for "Obama care" as it is. So strategically putting forth some bill of a hundred little begs and nudges really wouldn't ordinarily result in a PR victory either.
I could even point out how the compromise on Healthcare reform was supposed to be a damnable public option that, thanks to the Presidents former COS and the Senate chair of the fianance committee (Max Bacchus) never actually made it to the table.
The problem with starting from a compromised position to go to the Republicans hat in hand to compromise more from that point results in lousey legislation that barely solves the problem and doesn't inspire the public mind with the accomplishment of great things. They spend six months trying to woo the vote of Olympia Snowe with unending compromises and still didn't get that.
At that point they tagged it onto the budget in a way that required only a simple majority in both houses and couldn't be fillibustered. If they were going to do that anyhow why didn't they put up something that had some damned cost controls?
I am sorry, but Centrism got us the War in Iraq. Centrism got us extra tax breaks for billlionaires. Centrism gave us the Patriot act (and continues to vote for it's continuance).
brooklynite
(94,267 posts)Could you get a progressive alternative to Max Baucus elected in Montana?
Could you get a progressive alternative to Olympia Snow elected in Maine?
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Olympia Snowe is gone. I expect you probably should have known that. Angus King took her seat who is an independent that is a hell of a lot more progressive than many democrats.
Max Baucus is retiring and hopefully the next Democrat out of that state isn't in hock to the pharmaceutical and insurance industry.
brooklynite
(94,267 posts)...and I suspect most people here would accuse him of being a DLCer. As for Baucus' replacement, "hopeful" is the critical issue. Are you willing to "hope" that a progressive can win, or accept a guarantee of a Moderate Dem instead of a Tea Party Republican?
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Why don't you actually research his positions and tell me that. Again, there are democrats far to the right of Angus King. I am starting to get the feeling you might be apologizing for the conservative side of the Democratic party.
Please correct me if I am incorrect on this.
Response to brooklynite (Reply #153)
kenfrequed This message was self-deleted by its author.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)The PTB have us convinced that you can't run a candidacy and you certainly can't win an election without money. However, this has been proven wrong time and again. The most recent example that comes to mind is the Jerry Brown/Meg Whitman race for the governorship of California. Meg outspent Jerry by a 3:1 margin and she still lost her ass. Lots of examples of this.
Here's the other thing. Howard Dean never did have mega bucks -- his support was mostly from grassroots supporters. We worked the whole Central California area for Dean in 2003 and the first part of 2004 and had ENORMOUS support. We were enormously successful without the Big Boy support and that could be said throughout the country. UNFORTUNATELY, between the anti-Dean commercials put on my Kerry, Gebhardt and Edwards comparing him to Saddam Hussein and the fake "Dean scream," unfortunately, he pulled out way too early. NOW we know to ensure the candidates pledge to stay in to the end before we endorse anyone. Yes, it can be done.
The LAST thing we need to do is to continue to do the things we've always done -- thereby ending up with the 1%'s choice of a candidate. The progressives won't go along this time, I GUARANTEE that.
brooklynite
(94,267 posts)...find a candidate and show him/her how to run a nationwide campaign on a shoestring.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)That didn't even make any sense. 
brooklynite
(94,267 posts)...as opposed to grumbling (like many people here do) that THEY won't let a progressive alternative compete.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)on this site engage in. The "progressive alternative" you tout is the one that the Vichy Dems will try to shove up everyone's ass. It won't work this time.
Now, I gotta go.
Be back on a week.
LTH.
brooklynite
(94,267 posts)So far, I'm happy with the candidate choices I have to work with. The progressives who start OPs like this apparently are not. If you've got a secret strategy to spring a new choice on the voters, you're doing a lousy job of getting the word out to your prospective supporters.
RussBLib
(9,001 posts)good luck with that
madville
(7,403 posts)And what I mean by that is to get 3 or 4 people together that would normally run individually and combine their resources. One is gonna be President, one VP, one SOS, etc, etc. and they all run, fundraise and campaign together against the front runner.
riqster
(13,986 posts)brooklynite
(94,267 posts)madville
(7,403 posts)That would attract for than 3% of the vote by themselves, but if that's the case, you are right, it's pointless.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Gingrich and Santorum are both personally creepy, apart from their politics. As my mom would say, "I wouldn't pick them up if I were driving a bus."
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
And get many, many people to donate. Realistically, a million people each donating $10 to one candidate would be a start.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)party apparatus from the county level up. I've had personal dealings with them in five different states and the similarities lead me to believe that it is the same everywhere.
Turf and favors keep the machine going and while winning is always preferable, it is a distant second to gaining and/or keeping position and power. Add to this a powerful minority of people whose views are much closer to what we think of as the republican's than the Democratic party of old, and you see that it is not going to happen soon or easily.
A firewall between public service and private profit would go a long way, but would bring its own problems.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I'm familiar with one exception where a combative progressive became chair of the Pinellas Country Democratic Executive Committee. here are two stories that detail the results.
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/08/15/Southpinellas/Democrats__risky_deci.shtml
http://www.wmnf.org/news_stories/3930
---------------------------------------------
There is nothing stopping a number of determined progressives in a county from convincing precinct voters to elect them precinct chair and eventually taking over the county DEC. There is nothing stopping a number of determined progressives repeating this in counties throughout a state. There is nothing stopping a number of determined progressives doing that in enough states to take over the DNC.
Nothing that is, except a willingness to put in the time to do it.
avebury
(10,951 posts)beliefs at the ballot box. If the Democrats don't float candidates that I can, in good conscious support, I plan on staying home from now on. If the Democrats can't stand up and do right by the people, voting them into office is only going to delay the inevitable crash and burn of this country. I seriously think that there is no hope of ever turning this country around until that happens.
pnwmom
(108,950 posts)It isn't something to be desired.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)"We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."- Elie Wiesel
"Obama and I decided to write a book together, a book of two friends," said Wiesel, author of the bestselling memoir Night, in which he recounts the story of his time at Auschwitz, where his mother and sister were murdered, and of the death march which ended at Buchenwald.
avebury
(10,951 posts)unacceptable? Unless we make it clear that we want clear changes for the good of the masses and we are no longer willing to prop up the MIC, Corporations and 1%ers there is no reason for politicians to change. We are definitely on a sinking ship and there just aren't enough Democrats that I am willing to support anymore. My vote will not be given away - it must be earned.
Response to avebury (Reply #24)
Recursion This message was self-deleted by its author.
pnwmom
(108,950 posts)Who lost 49 states to Nixon.
Sometimes half a progressive is better than none. . .
villager
(26,001 posts)n/t
pnwmom
(108,950 posts)There was a huge gulf between them, and the country went for the perceived centrist, as it usually does.
villager
(26,001 posts)...in any meaningful sense. All of which gets back to the OP's point.
pnwmom
(108,950 posts)He's progressive relative to the political spectrum of TODAY, not 30 or 40 years ago. The fall of the Soviet Union and the liberalization of China caused a worldwide shift to the right that's been felt even here.
villager
(26,001 posts)...and the lack of forcefulness or foresight on those two fronts alone, will bring further ruination of the country.
I suppose the "surveillance state" is a subset of economic policy, since it's all about the 1% shoring up control over everyone else... as the environment continues to fray....
pnwmom
(108,950 posts)and those of the other party?
And he hasn't been a big supporter of clean energy?
villager
(26,001 posts)n/t
pnwmom
(108,950 posts)For example.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2013826,00.html
But the battle over the Recovery Act's short-term rescue has obscured its more enduring mission: a long-term push to change the country. It was about jobs, sure, but also about fighting oil addiction and global warming, transforming health care and education, and building a competitive 21st century economy. Some Republicans have called it an under-the-radar scramble to advance Obama's agenda — and they've got a point.
(See TIME's special report "The Green Design 100."
Yes, the stimulus has cut taxes for 95% of working Americans, bailed out every state, hustled record amounts of unemployment benefits and other aid to struggling families and funded more than 100,000 projects to upgrade roads, subways, schools, airports, military bases and much more. But in the words of Vice President Joe Biden, Obama's effusive Recovery Act point man, "Now the fun stuff starts!" The "fun stuff," about one-sixth of the total cost, is an all-out effort to exploit the crisis to make green energy, green building and green transportation real; launch green manufacturing industries; computerize a pen-and-paper health system; promote data-driven school reforms; and ramp up the research of the future. "This is a chance to do something big, man!" Biden said during a 90-minute interview with TIME.
For starters, the Recovery Act is the most ambitious energy legislation in history, converting the Energy Department into the world's largest venture-capital fund. It's pouring $90 billion into clean energy, including unprecedented investments in a smart grid; energy efficiency; electric cars; renewable power from the sun, wind and earth; cleaner coal; advanced biofuels; and factories to manufacture green stuff in the U.S. The act will also triple the number of smart electric meters in our homes, quadruple the number of hybrids in the federal auto fleet and finance far-out energy research through a new government incubator modeled after the Pentagon agency that fathered the Internet.
SNIP
villager
(26,001 posts)<snip>
"Obama's intentions on climate change are under intense international scrutiny," said Nick Mabey, founding director and chief executive of E3G, a London-based environmental organization. "Any move he makes will be carefully analyzed by the European Union and China to see what it says about his willingness to fight hard on climate change issues."
The dozen experts surveyed include climate researchers, advocates, economists, government advisers and politicians who help shape policies to manage climate change in their countries, from Mexico to South Africa to Europe. Most said they oppose the Keystone project, because of global warming concerns. If approved by the Obama administration, the Alberta-to-Texas pipeline would carry up to 830,000 barrels daily of tar sands oil—a type of heavy crude from Canada that uses more energy and releases more greenhouse gases during mining and refining than conventional oil.
The Keystone is seen as the linchpin in opening a coastal gateway for the flow of heavy tar sands crude from Canada’s landlocked oil patch to the world market—including to Europe, which will soon decide whether to label the fuel as highly polluting, a classification that could restrict its import into the region.
The pipeline would "increase climate risks for us all," said Sir Brian Hoskins, a climatologist and director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London. "The world needs to rapidly reduce the carbon intensity of its energy globally if we are collectively to limit the worst risks of climate change."
<snip>
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130815/keystone-decision-seen-climate-change-test-obama-abroad
So, we'll see if deeds -- after six years -- at last begin catching up with words.
pnwmom
(108,950 posts)While you hold your breath about what hasn't happened yet?
villager
(26,001 posts)Yes, there are also indications that Obama is intending to get better on environmental issues in his 2nd term, but you're missing the point of the sub-thread:
Nixon started the EPA and passed other laws that Obama can't / won't. Yes, we have a terrible Congress, and I hope it's just now occurring to him that the bully pulpit actually matters (which it had occurred to him earlier).
However, the de-listing of a species like the wolf, or the potential to OK Keystone shows just how easily this administration could undo what little, tepid environmental "progress" its made.
In other words, there's little difference so far between Obama's policies and those formerly associated with Republicans.
Which gets us back to the OP: If "progressives," as you aver in this thread, are now redefined (essentially embracing what used to be mainstream Republican policies), and if the only choice for actual political progressives is between former Republican policies, and current ones, what do we do as a counter-strategy?
pnwmom
(108,950 posts)But we don't falsely claim that there is no difference between the positions of the parties.
villager
(26,001 posts)So this thread is about we begin the un-skewing.
pnwmom
(108,950 posts)ended, the perception here was that socialism in general had failed. Especially because China also began to take steps toward liberalization. The fact that socialism is still doing well in Scandinavia and elsewhere is almost completely overlooked; and when it isn't, those countries are viewed as the far left now.
So without the bulwark of the Soviet Union on the left -- the bulwark that resulted in labor unions being promoted as an alternative to socialism -- the whole country has been pulled to the right. All we can do is keep pulling back, but it's much harder now.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)However imperfect and profoundly flawed their system was, if the rich put the actress to us too much, it might have begun to look more attractive to us.
So they tolerated unions, the New Deal, high taxes, and regulation of their businesses as the price of not ending up like the czar in Russia.
Once the threat was gone, they no longer felt they had to play nice.
What the wealthy have forgotten is they pissed us off enough BEFORE Soviet communism exist to inspire the union movement and progressive legislation.
They are over playing their hand, and the more they continue to do so, the bigger the smackdown they get when we get our shit together.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)You can't use the very bottom of the barrel as an analogy. The OP is talking about getting better democrats. Trying to just say "well it's better than being thrown off a building" doesn't cut it.
TheTruthBeKnown
(72 posts)Obama is surrounded by corporate parasites. And when progressives who were in his administration were targeted by Faux Obama threw them all under the bus. As an Obama delegate in 2008 I'm disgusted by the abandonment of all his campaign promises. Instead of serving the people he is serving his corporate masters. I know, readers if this will say what about DOMA and other issues. All progressive ideas that slipped thru would have done so regardless of what democrat was in the White House.
We need a person with guts, not a professorial person who has never been an advocate for others. And we need a person who isn't for sale but sadly our political process makes it virtually impossible for an honest, competent person to get elected.
Unless we get the money out of elections and government the US will continue to decline to the point where it's a serfdom.
Sadly, people won't vote for honest, poor candidates. They are conditioned out of fear to continue to vote for either a republican or a democrat.
pnwmom
(108,950 posts)It doesn't matter where he would have fit on the spectrum of 40 or 50 years ago -- though his views on pro-choice and pro-marriage equality then would have put him off the charts.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)But I submit that if progressives organize well, and find ways to be heard in a non-tainted (by corporate media) way, they can win. People are pretty fed up with both parties now, especially the Republicans as shown by the non-approval polls of the house being at record level lows.
I submit that we only consider him as "progressive" if we let the corporatist media define him that way for us. I choose not to accept that definition. And I think the more of us that see the so-called "liberal media" is in fact *corporatist media", we'll all start seeing through that myth.
Pro-choice and pro-marriage equality are stances he can take that the corporate elites don't really care about, except that they are issues they can have their controlled media focus on to divide us and distract us with. I'm not saying those issues aren't important, but in the big picture of stopping the move towards fascism, we need to look beyond those sorts of issues when we are defining where our candidates are standing in fixing this broken country.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)ran in 1972. That was a LONG time ago and many many many things have changed since then.
pnwmom
(108,950 posts)Both Carter and Clinton ran as moderates.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)electing the same corporate whores over and over and over again? No thanks. If the Democrats put up another corporate whore (they will), they'll lose in 2016. I guarantee that.
pnwmom
(108,950 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)the Vichy Dems. That's it. She has NO other support. The Republicans put up Jeb or Christie, she's toast. Obama has shit on the Democratic base too thoroughly, we'll be looking and voting and supporting other candidates. You guys don't seem to understand that and never will.
Now, I'm outta here for a week.
Everyone have a good week.
LTH
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)If the immigration bill passes with H-1B expansion in it, and more American IT workers get displaced, Hillary will be shown to be working against not only Democratic Party voter interests but many Indies and Republicans as well in the interest of serving the elites.
Folks we can do better than Hillary! No matter what the 1% controlled corporatist media tries to tell you now to keep you from looking at other choices.
pnwmom
(108,950 posts)including Republican women who would be running to the polls in support of Hillary.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)and that will not play against a woman opponent. That is something even I have to keep in mind when debating a female opponent on TV.
If you take that away from Christie there is nothing compelling about him.
pnwmom
(108,950 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 26, 2013, 04:00 PM - Edit history (1)
Has he had a debate yet against the woman he's currently running against?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Edwards was the "go to guy" last election or those of us who wanted a candidate that took more aggressive and definable stances on progressive issues than Obama or Hillary. And given his past, he seemed more "electable" than someone like Kucinich. But the PTB I think knew about his personal issues throughout the campaign and encouraged him to be the "vote sink" for us to keep those votes from going to someone like Dennis Kucinich that might have made him viable.
If we get another Edwards type of candidate that voices stronger progressive stances, who perhaps wasn't that vocal about them before, we should do our own personal vetting of that candidate to make sure we don't have another Edwards vote sink this time around. We need someone that we all feel comfortable with on the issues that we can also feel confident that will be viable come convention time as well.
We need the progressive choice to be amongst the top three if not the top two *real* candidates during primary season to have a shot.
brooklynite
(94,267 posts)I've been politically active since the 70s, and enough of my candidates have lost to teach me not to confuse my hopes and dreams with reality. Kucinich came out of a safe Democratic district that he couldn't win in a Primary when it became only slightly more moderate. He never exhibited anything but fringe appeal in 2004 or 2008.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Though he might not have won, he would have had a more powerful voice in shaping the Democratic platform if he had close to the support that Edwards had early on that might have gone to him instead. And just being a stronger voice at the convention I think might have made more of a difference in the party platform, and even Hillary's or Obama's stances as well. It would be harder for the centrists to dismiss Kucinich as a "fringe candidate" if he had the support that Edwards in effect took away from him in large part. If Edwards didn't have the personal baggage and continued to the convention, then the progressives in that instance would also be perceived as a stronger part of the party too.
It's not just about winning, it's about having a voice, and a perceived strength of constituency support in the party. Edwards' support was in effect "thrown away" and ignored when he was pushed out of the race in the middle of it. But there were many real voters that weren't being heard when that was done, and I DO believe that was done by design by the so-called "centrists" that sought to control what this party did to make them more Republican-light.
brooklynite
(94,267 posts)Can you point to any evidence that Edwards deprived Kucinich of anything approaching a sizeable vote. Or is it just a feeling?
FWIW - Edwards dropped out of the race in January, (a week before Super Tuesday). In the next five months, without anyone sapping his strength, Kucinich's best result was...1%.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... that Hillary and Obama weren't. And that IS why they were voting for him, in addition to them thinking he might be the only one that had a chance against those two. Now if he weren't in the mix, the frustration of many of those who voted for him would still be there, and I submit many of those votes would have gone to Kucinich instead.
Now is there hard data to suggest this might have happened? Do you REALLY think the corporatist controlled media and pollsters would do a study on this? Huh? REALLY? They wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole!
I still submit that progressives are a majority of the party, and when we look at many issues that are called "progressive" but that a majority of the country supports, and are dismissed as "progressive" by the corporatist controlled media since it works against the 1% corporate elite's interests, that we still haven't had a real choice yet.
I submit that it would be hard for the "Third Way" folk to put in place a white guy that supports their "centrist" agenda the way that Obama or Hillary have, as they know they'd open themselves up to a challenger like a Elizabeth Warren that would have then both those wanting more progressive issues as well as voting for identity (Warren being a woman candidate) to work against them. That is why I don't think Biden will run. First, he's getting older, and though less "third way" than some others, he still has the baggage of pushing through the bankruptcy bill that has hurt many of us to help his Delaware corporate backers then. I think Warren would beat him handily in the primaries.
brooklynite
(94,267 posts)We were a long way from having a candidate selected.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Many of us like myself still voted for him as a protest vote then, not knowing the circumstances of why he pulled out then...
After Super Tuesday, it was really too late for someone like Kucinich to be a factor then. If Edwards weren't in the race to start with because of this baggage, Kucinich would have had more time (ANY time) to make the case that he's the alternative choice to Obama or Clinton. He didn't have that opportunity because of the length of time that Edwards was in the race up until he pulled out.
As I said before, it wasn't even necessarily about winning the nomination for Kucinich. It was about a progressive voice being HEARD, and him showing that he represented a large portion of the party, who later on had to pick between the lesser of two evils between Hillary and Clinton instead of someone they felt would really represent their progressive views. As I said before, I think the top three choices were engineered by design to marginalize progressive voices, and also marginalize Kucinich as a voice that might have helped shape the party's direction more.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)contests. Many supporters, me included, wrote to him asking him to drop out because he was going to get beaten so badly it would be embarrassing for him and potentially damage him for the next time he ran (little did we know what was to come).
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)or a "distant last" behind the corporatist selections? And I would contend that he wasn't that much of a distant last then. He was in a virtual tie with Clinton for second in the Iowa caucuses earlier when primary season started and was actually a fraction ahead of her in voting percentages.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Edwards had just lost South Carolina big, a state he should have won versus Clinton and Obama, and the air was being let out of his campaign at a surprising rate.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)Edwards voted Yes on the IWR and was BOOED at the CA Democratic Convention in 2003. The only progressive candidate that has run in the last 20 years was Dennis Kucinich and, as predicted, the Democratic Party, who is SUPPOSED to stay out of the primaries until they're decided (but they won't, of course), marginalized him and starved his campaign and was some of the most vociferous AGAINST him.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)He was talking about how the middle class was getting shortchanged, while Clinton and Obama were more nebulous in banners like "Vote for Change".
Yes, Kucinich was arguably more progressive on his stances than Edwards was, but many were trying to be pragmatic in finding a candidate that might have a shot at winning (Edwards was on the ticket with Kerry the previous election), and at the same time have more commitments towards progressive stances on issues. Edwards seemed like that choice at the time. No one knew then his personal baggage would make him less "pragmatic" than Kucinich. If they had known, Edwards would have been withdrawing a lot earlier, or Kucinich would have drawn his votes when voters saw the real Edwards. I do believe that those who knew the complete story had the media push the story that Edwards was the "progressive choice" alternative to Obama and Hillary at the time.
So the corporatist PTB wanted to have the party either vote based on identity (first person of color or first woman) or on a candidate they knew they could pull the plug on and pay less attention to a candidate like Kucinich who didn't have personal baggage and could appeal to the party's constituency on his issue stances.
JI7
(89,235 posts)vote for Kucinich or Edwards.
i would vote for Sherrod Brown but he hasn't run yet.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)any meaningful leglislation in his congressional career. If he couldn't sell himself in Congress , he didn't have a nickles chance of selling himself nationwide.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)And I disagree with ALL your statements about President Obama.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... and get them past the corporate media filters so that the public can hear about them and talk about them during the campaign. Whether it is via social media, non-profits like FSTV and LINK TV, etc. we need to find a way to get the 99% issues talked about more and be less drowned out by the divisive issues that the corporate media wants to drown and distract us with...
Issues like:
- protecting our civil liberties and preventing domestic spying
- prosecuting the banksters (tea partiers have complained about Obama's ties to the banks!) and produce meaningful reforms in this industry.
- public campaign financing
- overturning Citizen's United and corporate personhood.
- less wasteful spending on the military and prison industrial complexes.
- getting student debt problems resolved so that they can become a producing part of our economy again and be well trained for our domestic economy taking more of a lead on the world stage in the future as we incentivize getting jobs moved back here.
- getting rid of the TPP BS that's going on in secret that will sacrifice our national sovereignty, and re-evaluating and perhaps pulling out of many of the other "free trade" treaties we've been a part of.
On the issues above, I think there are many ways we could persuade independents and even Republicans to side with us if we don't approach them in a partisan manner, but more on the level of preserving our middle class (and basically everyone that's not in the top fraction of 1%).
Other issue such as climate change, etc. are also important, but perhaps might be harder to get crossover voting at this time with the amount of disinformation that's currently weaved in to current discourse.
Someone like Elizabeth Warren who's taking on in effect both parties when going after the bankster criminals should be able to point to her record there on how she's trying to fight back against the elites controlling both parties on issues like these. We need to amplify the messages of efforts like these for whoever we gather around for the progressive choice we want elected.
By doing this we will also help expose the many so-called "moderates" as NOT being really moderate, but basically non-commital on many issues except for those that serve their corporate masters. I we take away their stage of "moderation" by pointing out the many issues they don't support are those that really most Americans across both parties support, we can bring forth what a true *moderate* that supports most Americans would be like to the voters.
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)Good on 'ya, mate!
We really need to focus on issues, not personalities, and I agree that most people are really with us on 'Progressive issues,' whether they are labeled 'Progressive' or not.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)And actually push for some progressives in 2014.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)When redistricting happened, in many areas the progressive votes were pushed in to one district and taken away from other districts to help Republicans get more seats. Now if we have a DINO "moderate" in that district that is more progressive now with that redistricting, those Democrats in that district should be seeing that and primary that DINO to get in a more progressive rep to take advantage of the larger progressive voter contingent they have now.
We might not take back a majority in the House with the redistricting, but in many districts, we should be able to make the reps MORE progressive to match their newer constituencies' demographics.
pediatricmedic
(397 posts)Yes, I made a sarcastic joke.
xxqqqzme
(14,887 posts)locally. National politics is a waste of time and your money. Fat monied interests has already decided who the candidate will be - and she ain't progressive!
RC
(25,592 posts)They started local with ANY elected position, no matter how lowly and worked their way up to having a presidential candidate.
That is what we have to do also, if we are to have any chance of not falling off the approaching Right hand cliff.
Focusing first on the Democrat primary for candidates is a sure fire way to lose. The "winner" may have already been determined and it sure the hell ain't us.
TheTruthBeKnown
(72 posts)We had a true progressive in 2000 and his name was Ralph Nader. The other two candidates were feeding from the same corporate trough.
It's sad but Nader can't even be mentioned without people immediately attacking. But those same people vote automatically for democrats like republicans vote for republicans. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is a sign of insanity.
Democrats say a vote for Nader was a wasted vote. Nothing could be further from the truth. Voting for Gore instead of for Nader was a wasted vote. Gore wasn't and isn't a progressive. He's a 1%er who is part of the problem. His fortune was made off of tobacco that has killed more people than Hitler, Stalin & Pol Pot combined. But Gore has never given a cent of his inherited tobacco money away to his family's victims. Gore said he stopped growing tobacco after he lost his sister to cancer but until then he didn't care a whit about the millions of others killed by his family's product of death.
Compare Gore's legacy with Nader's. Nader has spent his entire life working for people and justice. He tried to make our lives better. Virtually all of the money he makes goes to the many public service organizations. Nader lives what he preaches. He doesn't have an obsession with wealth. But regardless of his lifelong of service including product saftey laws that have saved the lives of people, many who are in this forum, Nader with be met with knee jerk reactions of condemnation for merely exercising his constitutional rights.
Lastly, Nader didn't give us Bush in 2000. Gore did. He failed to even debate Bush and while watching the debates with other progressives we all thought the same thing, was this election fixed from the start.
If you remember, the Commission on Presidential Debates CPD refused to allow Nader to debate. They were so terrified of a real progressive debating or even being close to the debates that Nader was threatened with arrest if he even tried to get close to a debate viewing room on the campus that wasn't even close to the actual debate. The CPD is a corrupt organization made up of TWO people, one democrat and one republican. The entire intent of the CPD is to exclude anyone who isn't a corporate whore.
If Nader was 'allowed' to debate he would've made Bush a national laughingstock and ironically Gore would've been the beneficiary of even more votes, enough votes to avoid a close election and have SCOTUS steal the election. But even when Florida vote was being stolen Gore made another colossal blunder by only requesting a recount of a few counties instead of the entire state. Had he done that he would've become president.
I mentioned the above because even if a REAL progressive ran in 2016 would supposed progressives vote for that person or will they merely act like sheep and vote democratic again and again and again?
polichick
(37,152 posts)The Dem party-line bullshit that a liberal can't win is all about keeping a corporate/mic tool in office, regardless of party.
Eventually, the people will lose this country completely - or we'll organize a true people's party. Our choice.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)At debates, instead of being out in the parking lot whining about his exclusion, he would have been onstage against Bradley and Gore. It would have been a great chance for him to reach millions of people and convey a progressive viewpoint.
As for November 2000, I think you're dead wrong, but those issues have been beaten to death on DU. What I think can't seriously be disputed is this: The 2000 election, including Nader's campaign, the close vote, and the resulting Bush presidency, convinced millions of people that third-party politics is a disaster for progressives. I recognize that hard-core Naderites still disagree, but you should recognize that you are the hard core. Comparing 2004 with 2000, Nader lost about five-sixths of his previous voters, dropping him from 2.74% of the popular vote to 0.38%. His own 1996 and 2000 running mate, Winona LaDuke, saw the error of her ways and endorsed Kerry against Nader in 2004. (In 2012, BTW, Jill Stein for the Green Party drew 0.36%.)
So, getting back to the subject of this thread, one essential factor for electing a progressive in 2016 will be that progressives strive to nominate a good candidate on the Democratic Party line. There is no chance that the Green Party or any other minor party on the left will get even as many votes as Nader got in 2000.
I've focused on the attention-getting race for President, but I also agree with other posters who emphasize the downticket races. Supporting progressive candidates in 2014 (and 2013, let's not forget) is an important step toward laying the groundwork for future elections. Grayson-Buono 2020!
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)brooklynite
(94,267 posts)...and since you can't be everywhere, you have to rely on TV advertising...
...which means you need more money up front.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Do the debates via public broadcasting, not a private network.
Edit - I would not oppose outlawing advertising in elections.
cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)I'm having trouble finding one based on Du's rigid definition.
polichick
(37,152 posts)because Dem voters fall for the corporate/mic party line that only "moderates" (read tools) can win.
cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)None of them were true liberals - Dem voters chicken out during the primaries.
At this point, I'll vote for the nominated Dem as the lesser of evils but I'm done working for the party.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)And didn't we just establish it's the "moderates" that put them there, not the progressives? So with your logic they should be ignoring you. They'll get your vote either way.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,386 posts) Rex
(65,616 posts)You have a better chance at getting a unicorn on the ticket.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)The extremely wealthy probably are supporting all candidates, especially the ones with the best chances to win, be they Dem or Rep. No stone uncovered, all bases covered, they can afford to pay off politicians handsomely, but they can't afford not to if they want to keep all their money and make more.
totodeinhere
(13,056 posts)There was a recent thread at DU about that. But I don't know how much we can read into that. It would be interesting to ask this question. "Would you support a Democratic candidate for president who is more liberal than President Obama?" I don't know for sure but I suspect that an overwhelming majority of liberal Democrats would answer yes to that question even though they also support the president. It might be that some of President Obama's support among liberals boils down to the alternative. How many liberals support President Obama no matter what vs how many say they approve of him because he is a much better alternative than any Republican? That is the question.
I really believe that there is strong support in the party for a candidate more progressive than President Obama to run in 2016. Yes Hillary Clinton polls very well but how much of that is a feeling of inevitability rather than strong support? If you think that she is a shoe in for the nomination you might express support for her because again she is a better alternative than any Republican.
We need to get to work now at the grassroots level much like the Obama campaign did. Of course we don't even have a candidate yet but we need to be laying the groundwork for whichever bona fide progressive decides to take on Hillary Clinton in the caucuses and primaries. And I think the odds are good that somebody will take her on. I just can't imagine her cruising to the nomination without any major opposition.
The caucuses will be very important. As the Obama campaign showed a small group of very dedicated partisans can take over a state caucus and deliver its votes. And there needs to be meticulous organizing in Iowa because if Clinton could be upset in Iowa then her aura of invincibility would be shattered and her whole campaign could very well come crashing down. This is going to be a lot of work but it's organizing that's going to be the key.
And here's one more thing. As important as this is we can't let it distract us from the 2014 midterms. If the GOP keeps control of the House and a majority of governorships then even if we do get a progressive president next time the GOP will be in a strong position to obstruct whoever that is.
Auggie
(31,125 posts)
polichick
(37,152 posts)Auggie
(31,125 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)It's amazing this charade has gone on so long.
totodeinhere
(13,056 posts)those states would destroy her aura on inevitability and we could very well have a race on our hands.
polichick
(37,152 posts)betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)Unfortunately they don't and so democratic primaries have lots of center-rightests and few progressives.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Problem is that politicians have a obvious desire to follow the serious money. And that serious money tends to come from alot of decidedly nonprogressive sources.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)office: the high paying jobs as lobbyists, CEO's, and do nothing board members.
And of course some of their family members can cash in with those while the pol is still in office.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Any Dem is better than an R. What we need is a Dem we can trust.
Spirochete
(5,264 posts)we'll have Hillary forced down our throats. They'll always have a corporatist ready to go at election time.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)My best Democrat... sorry if it doesn't fit the entire ticket.
mick063
(2,424 posts)But we can stomp on the newly crowned Queen/King relentlessly.
We can point out every single circle jerk celebrating serfdom and mediocrity for the entire term. We can point out every single one of the many flaws that will inevitably rear their ugly head. We can make the entrenched leadership and worshipping lemmings so sick of hearing us that they will require a duel set of talking points to counter both the left and right.
Hone up on your skills. Due your research.
Life will not be easy in the "center right", getting it from both sides.
I'm in.
Who else?
PD Turk
(1,289 posts)The only way I can think of that might work is to slip a shitload of LSD into the public water supplies 
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)Sucks.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)like Bloomberg in New York only more honest, make them say exactly what they want, how it will serve them, and how (and whether) it will serve the rest of us.
Run Rubin/Summers against Koch/Hunt or whoever the top oil baron of the moment is.
We would probably have the lowest turn out ever or a revolution before election day.
marsis
(301 posts)Big Brother simply won't allow it.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)the once and future 'inevitable candidate' yet again has to work like there is no mercy to try to win. It's all about the Primaries, that's why the 'Moderate Centrists' are so surly about it all. They know the Primary cycle is going to be unlike any in many cycles, even more informative and electric than the 2008 Primaries.
The other thing the 'Centrist Bipartisan' types forget is that the other Party will be there to oppose as well, and they will be full tilt bat shit out of control. At this point in every election cycle, the 'it's all about money centrists' speak as if elections happen under tightly controlled lab conditions, when the fact is each and every campaign rises and falls not just by skill but also by random and unpredictable events and moments.
Never forget that the same lot that claims to know what is possible and what is not started out in 2007 saying Hillary was 44 and that this was inevitable. They also thought she'd be running against Rudy Gulliani, which lets you know how accurate their predictions are. They predict at a Dick Morris level, nearly always wrong but always, always sounding very blustery and certain.
brooklynite
(94,267 posts)
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)1. Ditch the electoral college for the main election and only use it for primaries...Rotate the states so lily-white Iowa and New Hampshire stop monopolizing discussion with their niche issues
2. Ditch the winner-take-all system
3. Install a Euro-style democracy based on proportional representation
4. Publicly fund all election campaigns/advertising; get Citizens United overturned
5. Have debates more often with no rehearsed questions and real participation from the public
yurbud
(39,405 posts)By parties. That way, Bernie Sanders truly would be America's senator.
JI7
(89,235 posts)brooklynite
(94,267 posts)brooklynite
(94,267 posts)Once again, this thread veers into hopeful fantasy; while the process of getting someone elected generally requires an acceptance of reality.
JI7
(89,235 posts)
mike_c
(36,262 posts)Not in the Democratic Party. I don't think we will see any real liberalism from the dems in my lifetime.
