Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
88 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If Clinton gets the nomination, what do you think (Original Post) mmonk Mar 2016 OP
survived after 2008 - a few hurt feelings, but time heals . . . . DrDan Mar 2016 #1
In 2008, Clinton DIDN'T get the nomination... Herman4747 Mar 2016 #29
of course not - hyperbole DrDan Mar 2016 #49
.... it was thumped by the party-proper in 2004, as well ... Myrina Mar 2016 #39
Kerry was and is more liberal than Dean ever was karynnj Mar 2016 #62
If you believe it, it must be true. Myrina Mar 2016 #66
Obviously, you can't refute even one thing I said karynnj Mar 2016 #75
Politics is cyclical. auntpurl Mar 2016 #2
Yes but marions ghost Mar 2016 #8
progressives have plenty of voices bigtree Mar 2016 #25
A Bernie win would be a shock to the system. mmonk Mar 2016 #32
no question bigtree Mar 2016 #63
I would rather Bernie accomplished very little, than see Hillary accomplish her Third Way and PNAC djean111 Mar 2016 #55
the PNAC stuff is fantasy bigtree Mar 2016 #64
Well it seems we are UglyGreed Mar 2016 #73
Hillary was endorsed by the founder of PNAC, Robert Kagan. CoffeeCat Mar 2016 #79
Not sure I want to align with "progressives "- it has become a catchall term marions ghost Mar 2016 #65
1. Stein leads the Green Party to new hights; 2. Trump wins 2016; 3. Warren wins 2020 in Progressive Vote2016 Mar 2016 #3
The problem with Stein and the Greens is getting on mmonk Mar 2016 #6
Agree marions ghost Mar 2016 #10
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2016 #41
You might want to delete your post. It is probably going to get flagged. BillZBubb Mar 2016 #52
Just like * was a great deal for us. WhiteTara Mar 2016 #61
Many of us have been working for progressive solutions for decades. NCTraveler Mar 2016 #4
Oooo cutting marions ghost Mar 2016 #11
It wasn't meant to be cutting in any way. NCTraveler Mar 2016 #14
You are claiming that a person who strongly opposed the rights of some minorities for decades has Bluenorthwest Mar 2016 #21
BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! monicaangela Mar 2016 #31
what about that tax plan do you find to not be progressive? NCTraveler Mar 2016 #42
Hillary Clinton is not a progressive. She's not working for progressive solutions. BillZBubb Mar 2016 #54
Have at it. NCTraveler Mar 2016 #56
you're right. She's not a social conservative, she's a conservative. Kip Humphrey Mar 2016 #80
Brilliant. #winningmessageoftheday nt. NCTraveler Mar 2016 #83
Delusion whatchamacallit Mar 2016 #67
Since she's very popular among progressives nationally, I'd imagine the future will be good Recursion Mar 2016 #5
Those of you who are so thrilled at the idea of retaining the politicians from the anti gay past Bluenorthwest Mar 2016 #22
Great point; I agree that's something Clinton needs to address Recursion Mar 2016 #37
The most I can do for her is hold my nose and get drunk right after pulling the lever for her. VulgarPoet Mar 2016 #58
Good for you, because that's how I feel about my primary vote for Sanders Recursion Mar 2016 #59
I am fine with my . stonecutter357 Mar 2016 #7
I come from a musically inclined family myself. mmonk Mar 2016 #9
So... in effect.... you got YOURS, so who gives a fuck? Smarmie Doofus Mar 2016 #34
" this posts has been hidden by a DU Jury" DanTex. stonecutter357 Mar 2016 #47
I was wondering the same. The problem today is it's a top down movement WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2016 #12
How does one differentiate without the media? mmonk Mar 2016 #13
We have to look at individual policies WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2016 #15
I agree but the party has had success at calling us radicals mmonk Mar 2016 #17
Well, let people decide for themselves. WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2016 #18
I think Adam Green and his PCCC might be the problem WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2016 #57
If Clinton gets the nomination and the turnout is pathetic, the powers that be will "examine" Vinca Mar 2016 #16
Pathetic Turnout tazkcmo Mar 2016 #30
Downticket races, where change actually happens. JaneyVee Mar 2016 #19
There should be four parties DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #20
So with 40% what are your Conservative Democrats going to do in Congress, order lunch? Bluenorthwest Mar 2016 #26
More of the same, really. MineralMan Mar 2016 #23
And the government whatchamacallit Mar 2016 #70
If it pleases you to say so. MineralMan Mar 2016 #72
Oh no, not at all gollygee Mar 2016 #24
Exactly. And the entire conversation has changed, issues are being discussed that previously were Bluenorthwest Mar 2016 #27
So far, they appear to me to be on a counter move instead. mmonk Mar 2016 #35
Hard to switch midstream and when your candidate is campaigning against him gollygee Mar 2016 #40
Only over if we quit. n/t tazkcmo Mar 2016 #28
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2016 #33
Sure we do. Starting Day 1. nt Smarmie Doofus Mar 2016 #38
As our history shows, progressives don`t just give up democrank Mar 2016 #36
Another 4-8 years of mild, caretakerish reform while inequality grows? Orsino Mar 2016 #43
True. mmonk Mar 2016 #45
Inequality has decreased for each of the last 30 years Recursion Mar 2016 #46
I would love to have a party that reflected my values. Scruffy1 Mar 2016 #44
The Republicans were a third party. They successfully displaced the Whigs.[n/t] Maedhros Mar 2016 #81
The progressive movement isn't over. I don't think it ever will be. It's in our souls. Jarqui Mar 2016 #48
At might start a party of its own, and then throw Demos and GOP into the dustbin of history. Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #50
Donald Dick will eat it for breakfast randr Mar 2016 #51
It should move to electing US Congressmen, US Senators, Governors, State legislatures, Mayors, Agnosticsherbet Mar 2016 #53
Since a Hillary presidency will be pretty much a continuation of Obama's, Nye Bevan Mar 2016 #60
Third party. Lizzie Poppet Mar 2016 #68
The Republicans could disintegrate, leaving the Conservative field to the Democrats Maedhros Mar 2016 #82
That's a plausible scenario. Lizzie Poppet Mar 2016 #87
A unification of the entire progressive left would be necessary for Zorra Mar 2016 #85
I concur. Lizzie Poppet Mar 2016 #88
Over?? No way dana_b Mar 2016 #69
EOTEAWKI RobertEarl Mar 2016 #71
It seems to get stronger and stronger as time goes by pdsimdars Mar 2016 #74
That's an odd question. gwheezie Mar 2016 #76
progressives will do fine under a Clinton presidency 0rganism Mar 2016 #77
Frankly it depends if the Democratic Party remains rigid or reforms Armstead Mar 2016 #78
I think it matters more if she wins the GE or not. If she doesn't win Nanjeanne Mar 2016 #84
There will be a lot more Independents who will no longer fall for the "not as bad" ploy. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2016 #86
 

Herman4747

(1,825 posts)
29. In 2008, Clinton DIDN'T get the nomination...
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 10:25 AM
Mar 2016

Last edited Fri Mar 4, 2016, 11:38 AM - Edit history (1)

...the writer of the original post is asking what happens if she gets it this time.

Myrina

(12,296 posts)
39. .... it was thumped by the party-proper in 2004, as well ...
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 10:38 AM
Mar 2016

The DNC / Kerry - Edwards Machinery ground us Deaniacs into a pulp and stomped on us, then they didn't bother to contest the shady results in the General Election.

We progressives simply regroup and continue to try again. One of these years, the rest of the country will understand and appreciate that we've got EVERYONE'S best interests in mind.

karynnj

(59,625 posts)
62. Kerry was and is more liberal than Dean ever was
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 11:48 AM
Mar 2016

You forget that after Kerry lost, he sent an email to everyone on his huge list speaking of how they should stay involved and fight for everything that they had fought for in 2004. He promised to stay involved himself and he did. He also gave several million dollars to the DNC when Dean was named to head it and to the DSCC and DCCC.

Kerry actively worked to fund and support several candidates, many vets in 2006 - mostly in races that no one else supported a Democratic candidate. He also importantly, he proposed several plans to get us out of Iraq - most notably the Kerry/Feingold resolution that while it got only 13 votes in July 2006 - by early 2007, every Democrat running backed a variation of it. (Incidentally, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Reid, Schumer etc all were furious when he did this because they were against having a specific Democratic plan thinking that Iraq was not "our" issue.)

As to contesting 2004, they conceded after the Democratic lawyers, who advised Gore to contest 2000 told them that they did not have a case that could win. The problem was that the Republicans cheated in Ohio mainly through voter suppression and you can't count votes not cast.

Even on Iraq - the issue that Dean used against Kerry, it was never true that he was less hawkish than Kerry. He simply did not have to vote. He supported the first Gulf war, that Kerry opposed. IN 2006, he supported Korb, instead of Kerry/Feingold. On Iran, where Kerry put his heart, soul and gut into what were very long shot negotiations, Dean was against even talking to them - mainly because he was a paid lobbyist for the MEK.

karynnj

(59,625 posts)
75. Obviously, you can't refute even one thing I said
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:36 PM
Mar 2016

Kerry's entire career backs what I wrote -- I don't dislike Dean, who I think did a wonderful job running the DNC and before that in his first political/civic effort pushing for Burlington's wonderful bike path.

I actually think he would have done better had his campaign allowed him to run as who he was in his political career in Vermont. He was a rather conservative Democrat. In 2013, I heard him speak in Burlington - where in introducing Burlington's Democratic mayor - spoke of how progressives had controlled the town since Sanders was elected. He spoke of how his wife voted for Bernie, while he voted for the incumbent. This was before he was an elected official himself. He spoke of how the progressives eventually moved the Democratic party left in Burlington - suggesting that Weinberger might not have run as a Democrat, but as a progressive had he run in the 1990s.

You might note that Dean in 2004 and Edwards in 2008 sometimes sounded alike when attacking others -- the common thread Joe Trippi. Dean, actually backed away from some of that -- and Trippi blames him for the the failure of that run in Trippi's book. I respect Dean for wanting at that point to be who he is.

I am not the least surprised that he is supporting Clinton. He worked with her on healthcare when he was governor and - he is likely closer to her on the ideological spectrum than to Bernie -- except, where Bernie got a D- from the NRA, Dean had an A.

auntpurl

(4,311 posts)
2. Politics is cyclical.
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 07:21 AM
Mar 2016

Nothing new under the sun...there will always been far-left liberals, moderate Democrats, establishment Republicans and far-right whackjobs. Thus as it ever was...

marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
8. Yes but
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 07:53 AM
Mar 2016

Liberals do not have a voice in America. Marginalized for a long time and the country is suffering for that.

bigtree

(87,567 posts)
25. progressives have plenty of voices
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 10:18 AM
Mar 2016

...what progressives don't have is enough votes in the legislature for initiatives to prevail, in whole or even piecemeal, most of the time.

That's what makes the question of how Sanders intends to carry out his ideals and initiatives without a new influx of progressive legislators critical to the question of the future of any progressive movement in this election; not just whether he'll achieve office.

mmonk

(52,589 posts)
32. A Bernie win would be a shock to the system.
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 10:31 AM
Mar 2016

He could also do some things from the executive branch on behalf of people to relieve financial risks and on behalf of environmental regulation.

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
55. I would rather Bernie accomplished very little, than see Hillary accomplish her Third Way and PNAC
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 11:23 AM
Mar 2016

objectives with the willing help of the GOP.

That argument that Bernie wouldn't be able to get stuff done, but Hillary would is not really a good one, you know. If Bernie's supporters liked what Hillary wants to do, they would be supporting her now.

War, fracking, TPP-like trade agreements, increased H-1B visas - all shit objective, and all likely would be enabled by the GOP in a twisted display of buy-partisanship.

bigtree

(87,567 posts)
64. the PNAC stuff is fantasy
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 12:30 PM
Mar 2016

...Hillary's agenda is well in line with the mainstream of the Democratic Party.

I know well how the party is defined here, but it's actually the direct opposite of a 'PNAC agenda.'

CoffeeCat

(24,411 posts)
79. Hillary was endorsed by the founder of PNAC, Robert Kagan.
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:56 PM
Mar 2016

Last week, Robert Kagan endorsed Hillary Clinton.

Kogan founded PNAC and the entire neocon movement with Bill Kristol. On DU, Democrats were united in our disdain for all things neocon. Now, it seems that Hillary supporters enjoy it.

Kagan didn't just endorse Hillary Clinton. Clinton tapped Kagan as her Middle-East foreign-policy adviser while she was Secretary of State. The godfather of this horrendous Middle East war plan sits at the right hand of Hillary.

The neocons always wanted Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya. They stated that in their plan, Rebuilding American's Defenses.

Hillary sure gave them Libya, didn't she? Following the neocon script to the letter, she leveraged the overthrow of Gaddafi, despite the fact that he was negotiating and cooperating with the United States. Now, Libya is a failed state with no government and untold numbers of refugees fleeing into Europe.

This is by design. Exactly what they did with Iraq. Exactly what is happening in Syria.

I don't understand how any Democrat is not alarmed and against Hillary being a neocon.

marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
65. Not sure I want to align with "progressives "- it has become a catchall term
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:07 PM
Mar 2016

Applied to many of today's -- used to be liberal -- people it does not mean the same as "liberal " in the democratic socialist sense.

 

Vote2016

(1,198 posts)
3. 1. Stein leads the Green Party to new hights; 2. Trump wins 2016; 3. Warren wins 2020 in Progressive
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 07:22 AM
Mar 2016

resurgence.

Next 4 years suck, but it's roses and rainbows after that.

mmonk

(52,589 posts)
6. The problem with Stein and the Greens is getting on
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 07:40 AM
Mar 2016

ballots where Third Parties are kept off by onerous requirements.

Response to Vote2016 (Reply #3)

BillZBubb

(10,650 posts)
52. You might want to delete your post. It is probably going to get flagged.
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 11:20 AM
Mar 2016

Advocating a republican win is not allowed.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
4. Many of us have been working for progressive solutions for decades.
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 07:22 AM
Mar 2016

Clinton will continue that fight. The fight will continue on in the decades to come by the young people who have shown they are willing to drive to rallies for Sanders. In nine years they will learn a lot and take the next step and drive to the ballot box.

Progressive:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511408683


marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
11. Oooo cutting
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 08:01 AM
Mar 2016
I don't think Hillary is everybody's idea of progressive. Unless you're happy with crumbs.
 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
14. It wasn't meant to be cutting in any way.
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 08:36 AM
Mar 2016

I think it's very positive. Cutting? To claim that tax plan isn't progressive isn't even close to accurate.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
21. You are claiming that a person who strongly opposed the rights of some minorities for decades has
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 10:03 AM
Mar 2016

been seeking progressive solutions for decades. How is it not meant to be cutting? It's entirely dismissive of the facts about her long term opposition to progress, her insistence that DOMA was permanent law, her endless sermons in which she claims falsely that marriage has 'always been one man and one woman'.

When you say an anti equality activist has been seeking solutions....it suggests that opposing LGBT equality is one of the solutions you were all seeking......

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
42. what about that tax plan do you find to not be progressive?
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 10:41 AM
Mar 2016

As a supporter of grassroots movements I find it in part to be me responsibility to applaud the evolution of others. You know, one of the defining purposes of grassroots movements.

I never said Clinton was some great beacon on that issue in the past. That is once again a false assumption you place on me.

What is it about her tax plan you find to not be progressive?

Clinton is not an anti-equality activist. I have also never referred to Clinton as reminding me of another carpenter. Reality.

BillZBubb

(10,650 posts)
54. Hillary Clinton is not a progressive. She's not working for progressive solutions.
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 11:22 AM
Mar 2016

She's a Third Way social conservative. On most issues she's working for business approved "solutions".

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
5. Since she's very popular among progressives nationally, I'd imagine the future will be good
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 07:28 AM
Mar 2016

If you mean what's the future for the pinched, bitter, irredentist, unreconstructed 1960s holdouts that are the base of her opposition on some marginal political websites? They'll probably gnash their teeth for a while and secretly love the fact that they get both a Democratic President and the ability to cast themselves as martyrs against the corporatists or third way or neoliberals or whatever the shiny of this week is.

For progressives like me who think she's a marginally worse candidate in the general than Sanders, but also think she would be a marginally better President, there will be a few months of worry followed by resolution one way or the other.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
22. Those of you who are so thrilled at the idea of retaining the politicians from the anti gay past
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 10:11 AM
Mar 2016

sure can work up some frothy verbiage to cover the transparently atavistic motives of such loyalties.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
37. Great point; I agree that's something Clinton needs to address
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 10:34 AM
Mar 2016

and one of the reasons I'm not voting for her

VulgarPoet

(2,872 posts)
58. The most I can do for her is hold my nose and get drunk right after pulling the lever for her.
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 11:25 AM
Mar 2016

Because the odds are good that she'll move fast to put boots on the ground in the Middle Eastern sandfuck operation.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
59. Good for you, because that's how I feel about my primary vote for Sanders
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 11:26 AM
Mar 2016

We all make the decisions we need to make.

 

Smarmie Doofus

(14,498 posts)
34. So... in effect.... you got YOURS, so who gives a fuck?
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 10:33 AM
Mar 2016

>>>>22. Those of you who are so thrilled at the idea of retaining the politicians from the anti gay past

sure can work up some frothy verbiage to cover the transparently atavistic motives of such loyalties.
>>>>

 

WhaTHellsgoingonhere

(5,252 posts)
12. I was wondering the same. The problem today is it's a top down movement
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 08:01 AM
Mar 2016

Bernie even said we pretty much have to clean house before we can go forward. We're also up against the establishment "Progressives" like Hillary and the Democratic Progressive caucus. First, we need to know how to differentiate ourselves from Third Wayers who have all of the exposure and are confusing the electorate by claiming to be Progressives. Second, we need a bottom up movement. There are politicians in Chicago endorsing Bernie. We have to identify these people nationwide. These are our future congressmen and senators.

But seriously, the Democratic Party is a big tent. The Progressive movement is not. That whole debate about who is more Progressive is an important debate, but it's certainly expedient for Third Wayers to never once out themselves as Third Wayers and instead dress themselves up in the cloak of a Progressive. On second thought, while millions want to identify as liberal or progressive, how many people have ever heard of Third Way. So, on second thought, we have to introduce the electorate to the Third Way movement and juxtapose their ideology against the Progressive movement. Hillary and the media made a mockery of the "who's more Progressive" debate, but it's exactly the debate that should be taking place within the Democratic Party because the Progressive Movement tent isn't big enough for Third Wayers.

 

WhaTHellsgoingonhere

(5,252 posts)
15. We have to look at individual policies
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 08:44 AM
Mar 2016

Bail Out Wall Street vs Bail Out Main Street

Regime Change for Oil vs Don't "Bring Freedom" to Cultures that you don't understand and don't want your intervention

Anti-labor and bad trade policies vs Promote Organized Labor

How to deal with white collar crime and market concentration. You can go down the list. Democrats have distinct ways of responding to each. Third Wayers would align with Republicans on each issue. Progressives would be the opposition.

mmonk

(52,589 posts)
17. I agree but the party has had success at calling us radicals
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 08:50 AM
Mar 2016

or make us an issue in people's minds through false parameters.

 

WhaTHellsgoingonhere

(5,252 posts)
18. Well, let people decide for themselves.
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 09:16 AM
Mar 2016

Republicans and Third Way Democrats supported these policies

Policy #1
Policy #2
Policy #3
...

Progressive Democrats Opposed #1, #2, #3 etc. Instead, Progressive Democrats fought for

Progressive #1
Progressive #2
Progressive #3

Attach candidate's names to each policy issue will help differentiate the Third Way from the Progressives. It really blurs the line between Republicans and Democrats on all matters EXCEPT social. So people like Third Way Dems because they are right on human rights issues. That might be their only connection to the Dem Party. It's up to Progressives to help them suss it out.

In this ways, Progressives look mainstream Dems.

 

WhaTHellsgoingonhere

(5,252 posts)
57. I think Adam Green and his PCCC might be the problem
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 11:25 AM
Mar 2016

We don't have to be aggressive or wildeyed to present our case. It's pretty simple stuff. People are disenchanted and say there's no difference between the parties. Then the Third Wayers come along and say there's a huge difference but only highlight social issues. People know there's something amiss, and the argument becomes circular. There's a disconnect between the electorate, who sees the 2 parties as the same, and the Third Way, which only draws a distinction with respect to social issues.

Adam Green does come across as a radical. It shouldn't be like that anymore. There a so many examples to distinguish Progressives from Third Wayers that people will be able to figure it out themselves.

I really don't think Dems are enamored with Third Way policies. There are a bunch of Third Wayers who are more concerned about their Wall Street investments, taxes, and electing the first woman president.

Bernie and Adam Green probably shouldn't be the face of the Progressive Movement. Fortunately, it's based upon populist ideology. People will look at it and say, "Ah ha! That's me. Here I've been voting for Third Way Dems all along and never even knew what a Third Way Dem is. No wonder I've felt unsatisfied and disenchanted by the whole process. And this explains why the political center keeps moving to the right. Our leaders only campaign to the left then, in many cases, govern similar to Rs."

Vinca

(50,501 posts)
16. If Clinton gets the nomination and the turnout is pathetic, the powers that be will "examine"
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 08:47 AM
Mar 2016

the race. They'll do a GOP-like "autopsy." Then . . . also like the GOP . . . it will be yada, yada, yada business as usual. If people want a block that truly represents progressives there must be another VIABLE party.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,808 posts)
20. There should be four parties
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 09:20 AM
Mar 2016

An Obama Clinton Democratic party
A Kasich-Bush GOP party
A Trump Nationalist party
A Sanders Independent party.

The Obama-Clinton party would easily garner 40% of the vote. The other parties can scramble over the rest.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
26. So with 40% what are your Conservative Democrats going to do in Congress, order lunch?
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 10:19 AM
Mar 2016

I assume the Conservative Democrats would work with the Trump Party when doing the 'anti gay' stuff and with the Bushpublicans on economics?

MineralMan

(146,562 posts)
23. More of the same, really.
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 10:14 AM
Mar 2016

The central mass of the political bell curve will still decide who gets elected. Progressives and the far left will grumble about it. Rinse and repeat as needed.

MineralMan

(146,562 posts)
72. If it pleases you to say so.
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:25 PM
Mar 2016

Everyone gets served, in one way or another. How well they get served, of course, depends on who gets elected to a whole list of offices. I prefer Democrats in office. I expect something less than perfection, of course. If I expected a government that performed perfectly, I'd sure be disappointed.

This year, like every other election year, I'll be marking my ballot for the Democratic candidates on it. I'm always hopeful.

gollygee

(22,336 posts)
24. Oh no, not at all
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 10:15 AM
Mar 2016

I am sure no one in the higher levels of the Democratic Party expected Bernie to do as well as he's done. I think the whole party will change as a result, and I think we'll see more progressive candidates because they'll know they have a chance to be elected.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
27. Exactly. And the entire conversation has changed, issues are being discussed that previously were
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 10:20 AM
Mar 2016

not....

gollygee

(22,336 posts)
40. Hard to switch midstream and when your candidate is campaigning against him
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 10:39 AM
Mar 2016

But we're talking about the future, not the present.

Response to mmonk (Original post)

democrank

(11,125 posts)
36. As our history shows, progressives don`t just give up
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 10:33 AM
Mar 2016

and gladly vote for the next war or the next bank bailout. I truly believe this movement, led by Bernie Sanders and joined by millions, will continue. People really ARE fed up with the establishment in both parties.

Orsino

(37,428 posts)
43. Another 4-8 years of mild, caretakerish reform while inequality grows?
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 10:43 AM
Mar 2016

The progressive movement will only grow, along with its evil twin, nationalism.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
46. Inequality has decreased for each of the last 30 years
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 10:49 AM
Mar 2016

I see no sign of that stopping anytime soon.

Scruffy1

(3,327 posts)
44. I would love to have a party that reflected my values.
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 10:48 AM
Mar 2016

Unfortunately, third parties have never been successful in the United States. This is pretty much baked into the cake without proportional representation. Most third parties try for local power in order to build their base and this never works out, because they get mired in the day to day business of running local government. Sewers and roads have little to do with ideology. Also, the federal government has more control over local and state monies than ever. In my mind you can't really separate local and state taxes from federal, because federal funding is involved in most of local government.

The other massive hurdle for a third party to achieve any prominence is the media. The Sanders campaign has shown how much power they have. They can invent a Trump and give him front page coverage daily, at the same time ignoring Sanders. The "liberal" press is actually the worst. I think HP has headlined Republicans for three months solid. Of course the point of this whole election charade is to make right wingers like the Clinton's palatable. It's just like pro wrestling, with the Republicans acting the heel and the voters going "It could have been worse.

The last and biggest hurdle is the attitude of the American voters to politics in general. For many voters it is analogous to sports, where they cheer for their team no matter what. From what I've seen in this cycle many Hillary supporters fit in this mold. They never talk about specific policies, are quick to take offense, and tout "experience". Many of the Sanders voters are new voters who have never before been engaged in the political process. After they see how it works a great many will disappear and never be heard from again. The media is entirely wrong about independents being in the middle. Most I know are way to the left of center and refuse to participate in a corrupt system.

Jarqui

(10,169 posts)
48. The progressive movement isn't over. I don't think it ever will be. It's in our souls.
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 10:54 AM
Mar 2016

The Democratic Party as a standard bearer for progressives as a wing of that party is probably over because the Democratic Party is not what it's claimed to be and now, clearly, never will be.

The Democratic Party is signed, sealed and delivered to the Oligarchy of the United States of America. It has been bought and paid for. The DNC is as corrupt as the RNC - different political philosophy and allies but corrupt beyond any rational debate.

There is not legitimate room in that tent for progressives. They may try to appease progressives but they're doing so as sincerely as Hillary Clinton can be believed. There's nothing there that you can have any faith in. We could fight for it or we can start clean.

I'm for starting clean. I do think it's time progressives looked elsewhere. I'm looking.

I can never support the GOP - there's almost no policy I can find agreement with. And I cannot in principle support a dishonest politician like Hillary Clinton who is owned by a few wealthy people and a party run by a now corrupt DNC. I was hoping I could just hold my nose and look the other way but I know in my heart, I just can't do that and I won't. There's a line I just cannot cross.

Having worked for the progressive cause on so many issues for 50+ years, I am very distressed to find there is no one beyond Bernie I can stand with. I'm still fighting for Bernie but it's not a fight I think we're going to win. There's way too much against us in the corporately owned mainstream media. I do not know what I'm going to do. All I know is what I cannot do. Maybe I just have to sit this one out when Bernie is officially licked. It's a very sad and distressing time for me. Incredible that we have such a fine candidate in Bernie but the deck is stacked so heavily against him, he doesn't have much of a fair chance.

 

Betty Karlson

(7,231 posts)
50. At might start a party of its own, and then throw Demos and GOP into the dustbin of history.
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 11:15 AM
Mar 2016

The idea that it can be stopped by cheating Sanders out of the nomination is as ludicrous as the status quo Clinton is so keen to preserve.

randr

(12,426 posts)
51. Donald Dick will eat it for breakfast
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 11:20 AM
Mar 2016

Progressives will be left wishing they had a tree to hold on to.

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
53. It should move to electing US Congressmen, US Senators, Governors, State legislatures, Mayors,
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 11:22 AM
Mar 2016

City Councilmen, School Board Members, and others who want to make things better.

A movement needs to build a foundation.

Back in the 80's, Conservatives in California moved aggressively to take over School boards and lower elected offices.
By 2000, they had managed to take over many and had far right conservatives on most school boards.

It has moved back in the other direction, but man school boards are still dominated by the far right and those people were hard to get rid of.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
60. Since a Hillary presidency will be pretty much a continuation of Obama's,
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 11:29 AM
Mar 2016

with similar policies, I don't think there will be much of an effect on the "progressive movement" one way or the other.

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
68. Third party.
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:21 PM
Mar 2016

The Democratic Party will have sent (yet another) clear indication that it's happy to be a center-right party. That's a winning strategy for the party, since it takes advantage of the Republicans' absurd lurch to the far right. But it's a losing strategy for the people. A progressive party will form.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
82. The Republicans could disintegrate, leaving the Conservative field to the Democrats
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:59 PM
Mar 2016

with a Progressive party taking the abandoned left.

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
87. That's a plausible scenario.
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 03:03 PM
Mar 2016

It would also have the huge benefit of having the major conservative party be not nearly as extreme.

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
85. A unification of the entire progressive left would be necessary for
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:11 PM
Mar 2016

a progressive third party to force its way into the current two party system.

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
88. I concur.
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 03:04 PM
Mar 2016

That's something I could see happening, but the process would be neither quick nor easy.

dana_b

(11,546 posts)
69. Over?? No way
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:21 PM
Mar 2016

we will go on and hopefully push the most progressive politicians that we can find into office. People like Bernie and Tim Canova, Keith Ellison and Tulsi Gabbard. We will work to get them into office and to stay there.

It may come to developing another party or joining a current left wing party BUT I am not advocating that here.

 

pdsimdars

(6,007 posts)
74. It seems to get stronger and stronger as time goes by
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:34 PM
Mar 2016

and you know a Clinton presidency will be SSDD (more of the same).

gwheezie

(3,580 posts)
76. That's an odd question.
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:39 PM
Mar 2016

Sorry but it doesn't make sense. Why would an election of anyone end a progressive movement?

0rganism

(24,229 posts)
77. progressives will do fine under a Clinton presidency
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:47 PM
Mar 2016

and yes, i do think she'll win the general, she's an okay candidate and the GOP is in the process of cutting its own head off

she embraces incrementalism. there will be some small changes, mostly favorable to the party centrists.

she'll also inspire enough outrage with her 3rd-way triangulation and deal cutting that Bernie's movement will have plenty of fuel. once his presidential campaign is over, i'm cautiously optimistic that Sen. Sanders will focus on state legislatures.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
78. Frankly it depends if the Democratic Party remains rigid or reforms
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:49 PM
Mar 2016

1) It is quite possible that Clinton will take the nomination, and the party institutionally will decide that this means that people want to retain the mantle of Centrist Corporate Party and a center right milder version of the GOP.

2) It is also possible that a combination of truly Progressive/Liberal Democrats will actually observe that even if Bernie loses, he garnered a huge percentage of enthusiasm and votes for Progressive Reform. And add to the the Many Democrats who actually agree with Sanders' message and goals, even though they voted for Clinton for other reasons. So they might actually start to open up more to The People and start acting like the Liberal party again and stop pandering and catering to Corporate America and Wall St.

If Number One happens, America will continue its unchallenged slide into Oligarchy, and we may have a somewhat larger movement of progressives who may be larger and more vibrant, but will remain shut out of the political/governing process. And many more people will remain alienated,apathetic cynics.

If Number 2 happens, then Liberals and progressives couold feel a lot more at home in the Democratic Party, without the mixed feelings and estrangement. And the Party could be revitalized and an actual Force for Liberal/Progressive Change.



Dunno which



Nanjeanne

(5,078 posts)
84. I think it matters more if she wins the GE or not. If she doesn't win
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:05 PM
Mar 2016

then I think the progressive movement will be very strong and have many more allies and in 4 years will present a very progressive nominee to battle an incumbent Republican. If she loses, I think the standard beltway bull of electing a "pragmatic" middle of the road corporatist Democrat will be very diminished.

If she wins, I think the progressive movement will face huge challenges. The media and the establishment will point to her win as a reason to continue with politics as usual. It will be "continue as always" and not much will happen regarding getting money out of politics, cronyism or corporations and lobbyists writing our laws. She will be better on some issues than the crazy Republicans for sure. But it will be a blow, I think, to the progressive movement for moving forward.

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
86. There will be a lot more Independents who will no longer fall for the "not as bad" ploy.
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:27 PM
Mar 2016

"Independent" in the sense of registering as Independents or remaining in the party but voting independently.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»If Clinton gets the nomin...