2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Party loyalty is a means of control. I vote for those who will represent me, period. [View all]dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)We need a second party, not a third. If the Democratic Party won't step up and represent their constitutents, but instead represent their funders, they make their own problems.
Sanders is providing a model of how to win without being so compromised that it becomes a hollow victory.
It's a pity that Hillary won't forgo her corporate funding and SuperPac's in the primary, there is no legitimate excuse for using such tactics. I can see (but do not agree with) justifications for using all means necessary in the general since the Republicans will be taking dirty money in with both hands, but Bernie isn't and won't, so there's no acceptable reason for Hillary to do so in the primary, other than she has no principles except for power.
The candidate who could create your nightmare scenario of Greens or socialists getting their 5% (why does this bother you?) is, of course, Sanders himself, should he go 3rd party to carry on the movement he has built. He has a remarkable record of loyalty to the Democratic Party even as theey fight him, but seeing the way the DNC and Hillary's surrogates have rigged the game against him, and the overwhelming response he is getting from the people, who knows what will happen.
The triangulating corporatists have forever been telling the left that we have nowhere to go but to vote for them, with their snarky smiles as they enjoy our futility. I won't forget.
For the record I did not support the Nader movement, I thought he was an excellent consumer advocate but not a serious politician. Sanders is nothing like that. Our party needs to choose if it stands for anything or not, and this time we have a clear and viable choice.