RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Galindez writes: "Donald Trump's victory has left the Democratic Party open to redefining itself. They understand that both candidates got fewer votes than Mitt Romney and John McCain. They understand that working people in the rust belt voting for Trump cost them the election. On a conference call Thursday night sponsored by Democracy for America, former Labor secretary Robert Reich weighed in, as reported by The Hill."

Presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont talks to supporters during a rally at the University of Washington, in Seattle. (photo: Joshua Trujillo/Seattlepi.com)
Presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont talks to supporters during a rally at the University of Washington, in Seattle. (photo: Joshua Trujillo/Seattlepi.com)


It's Time for Progressives to Seize Control of the Democratic Party

By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News

12 November 16

 

onald Trump’s victory has left the Democratic Party open to redefining itself. They understand that both candidates got fewer votes than Mitt Romney and John McCain. They understand that working people in the rust belt voting for Trump cost them the election. On a conference call Thursday night sponsored by Democracy for America, former Labor secretary Robert Reich weighed in, as reported by The Hill.

“The Democratic Party can no longer be the same. It has been repudiated,” Reich said.

“This has been a huge refutation of establishment politics and the political organization has got to be changed ... if the Democratic Party can’t do it, we’ll do it through a third party.”

Reich is not the only Democrat who feels that way. When incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer endorsed Minnesota congressman Keith Ellison for party chair, he said that we need leadership that puts grassroots organizing ahead of fundraising.

Ellison, on the same conference call with Reich, said it’s “not about money first, not about polls first, it’s about voters first.” That is the leadership we need at the top of the Democratic Party.

Despite Schumer’s admission, we should not expect the establishment to give up power without a fight.

“They’ll hold on to the party mechanisms until you rip it out of their dying hands,” said Jonathan Tasini, a Sanders surrogate. “It’s all about power and money and influence for them.”

The time to rip it out of their hands is now. The momentum from Bernie’s campaign along with the repudiation of the Clinton wing by the voters has put us in a position of strength.

Remember what happened eight years ago? A black man was elected President. It sent shockwaves through the right wing of this country. The response was the Tea Party.

“We have to install the playbook of the Tea Party,” said Ohio state lawmaker Nina Turner, a Sanders surrogate. “The Tea Party had mainstream Republicans shaking in their boots. Even the ones who hung on knew they had to listen to what the grassroots was saying.”

We have to be careful to not fall for half measures. Establishment Democrats like Schumer may throw us some bones, like shuffling the chairs in Washington while leaving the same players in place to run the machine.

Cenk Uygur, the host of the progressive political commentary show The Young Turks, said, “Everybody in the building needs to be fired immediately.”

That probably won’t happen right away, but we have to push for wholesale change. In 2018, we have to be depending on real progressives with a progressive agenda to take back Congress, not Republican-lite candidates like Evan Bayh. In 2020, we need a progressive candidate at the top of the ticket so Americans can choose between our vision for America and the conservatives’. We will win if we stop trying to moderate our positions for big money.

As Bernie would say, “our job” is to make the Democratic Party the people’s party. Before Tony Cohelo shifted the party focus to raising corporate cash, Labor unions, women groups, civil rights groups, anti-poverty organizations, peace groups, environmental groups, and others controlled the direction of the party. We have let corporate money have too much influence. It’s time get the money out and put the people back in.

To my friends in the Green Party and other left party efforts: We need you in this fight. Our system is rigged in favor of the two major parties. The fastest path to power is taking control of one of those vehicles. When we get there, we can un-rig the system so everyone can have a voice. Without those reforms, let’s put aside our differences and seize the day.



Scott Galindez attended Syracuse University, where he first became politically active. The writings of El Salvador's slain archbishop Oscar Romero and the on-campus South Africa divestment movement converted him from a Reagan supporter to an activist for Peace and Justice. Over the years he has been influenced by the likes of Philip Berrigan, William Thomas, Mitch Snyder, Don White, Lisa Fithian, and Paul Wellstone. Scott met Marc Ash while organizing counterinaugural events after George W. Bush's first stolen election. Scott will be spending a year covering the presidential election from Iowa.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+18 # DogSoldier 2016-11-12 12:37
I hope they have a ton of money, because it's going to very expensive, if it's even possible, to buy it back from the lobbyists, and the super rich, like George Soros who own it. Rather you should let it die, and turn your attention to making the Green party viable.
 
 
+90 # grandlakeguy 2016-11-12 14:06
Why did the Democratic Party leadership NOT UNDERSTAND that stealing the nomination from Bernie Sanders and alienating millions of excited young voters was political suicide?

Why did all of the so called progressive journalists line up and shill for a dishonest and illegitimate "nominee" instead of screaming bloody murder about the despicable theft of the Democratic Party primaries?

If there had been an enormous and never ending outcry that properly befitted the betrayal of the very concept of democracy by the "Democratic" Party perhaps their exercise in election theft might have been reversed by the stepping aside of Clinton in favor of the legitimate nominee Bernie Sanders.

If that had happened then today we would be looking forward to a much better future!

The DNC and all journalists who shilled for Hillary OWN the results of this election.

Turning a blind eye towards the theft of elections is turning a blind eye to the concept of freedom which is only derived by our right and ability to choose our leaders!
 
 
+45 # Scott Galindez 2016-11-12 14:08
I agree, but no need to keep looking back...Lets move forward and take advantage of the opening...
 
 
+33 # PaineRad 2016-11-12 14:41
It's essential that we think strategically for the long haul. We must change the informational landscape. We must end the monopoly enjoyed by liars and demagogues. We must join forces with the many others who want a better future for their children, their communities, their country and the environment in which they live just as do we. We must break out of our silos or they will collapse on us all because we are easy to pick off when fragmented and disorganized.

I'm talking about radio stations, not networks. Radio stations are relatively inexpensive. With enough wattage, they can reach great distances. We need to bring reality to millions who have only myth and dishonesty available. A people that are lied to daily cannot effectively govern themselves, no matter the source of the misinformation. This must change. If we work together, this will change.

This country, this planet needs you, needs us more than ever. We need each other. Together we can make history. Separately we are easy targets for the oligarchs.

We can do this. We must do this.

Citizenship, People! Citizenship for all Americans!
 
 
-7 # Patriot 2016-11-12 18:17
How about if you stop trying to herd us? Who died and appointed YOU Dem Party spokesman, anyway? How about if you and Marc Ash and Robert Reich and Paul Krugman apologize for the snow job you tried to pull on all of us? How about if you admit that WE were right, and all of YOU were wrong?
 
 
+1 # Skyelav 2016-11-12 18:34
Patriot is right. I was just about to say the same thing. These pundits we listen to and have been for the past zillion years are the reason we are ignorant voters.
 
 
+5 # lorenbliss 2016-11-12 21:41
@Skyelav: I agree. As I look back, defying Mr. Galindez's repetition of the Obama-ism by which the Betrayer justified his de facto pardon of the Bush Regime war criminals, what I see bolsters the suspicion I voiced on this site several weeks ago -- that the One Percenters had concluded Trump was the more direct path to the Nazi Nation they've sought since the Bankers' Plot of 1934.

Indeed the mysterious failure of the Democratic (sic) Party's election-fraud apparatus seems to eliminate any other conclusion.

Moreover, Trump's appointees, apart from obvious Teabagger consolation prizes like Sarah Palin, are ideological twins of the neo-libs and neo-cons Hillary would have appointed to ensure our neo-subjugation .

Alas, the RSN posts in which I suggested the One Percent was secretly abandoning Hillary have seemingly been disappeared, though Radscal cited my suspicion: 'But Loren Bliss has gotten me thinking that the 0.01%... may actually hope they could install Drumpf...for a more conventional fascist regime.'

Meanwhile let us not forget the support given Hillary by Messrs. Galindez, Ashe, Reich and Krugman fails the "which-side-are -you-on" test so vital in times of intensified class-struggle and identifies them all as willing members of the One Percent's Ruling Class vassalage -- a fact we dare not forget, particularly now that with the impending resurrection of HUAC we have to be McCarthy-era careful what we say or write in public.
 
 
+2 # lorenbliss 2016-11-12 21:49
Oops, left off the link to the piece in which Radscal's corroborating comment appeared: http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/39464-pentagon-paid-millions-to-create-fake-terrorist-videos
 
 
+2 # grandlakeguy 2016-11-14 17:19
lorenbliss: I believe that the "mysterious failure of the Democratic (sic) Party's election-fraud apparatus " is due to the following reason:
While the DNC, with the complicity of their thoroughly dishonest candidate, did indeed pull out all stops in their successful crusade to derail Bernie's ascendency they never actually had any control over the manipulation of the voting machine counting as that mechanism has always belonged to the Republican loving Diebolds of the world.
The counts were rigged against Bernie BY THOSE REPUBLICANS since the Republicans knew that he would be impossible to beat in November without the public finally seeing that our elections are fraudulent.
With Bernie out of the way it was an easy task to achieve whatever "adjustments" were needed for them to hand the "win " to Trump.
 
 
-5 # Henry 2016-11-13 12:10
Quoting Patriot:
How about if you stop trying to herd us? Who died and appointed YOU Dem Party spokesman, anyway? How about if you and Marc Ash and Robert Reich and Paul Krugman apologize for the snow job you tried to pull on all of us? How about if you admit that WE were right, and all of YOU were wrong?


Patriot Against the World
 
 
+3 # chicagoflygirls 2016-11-13 10:45
Quoting PaineRad:
It's essential that we think strategically for the long haul. We must change the informational landscape. We must end the monopoly enjoyed by liars and demagogues.

I'm talking about radio stations, not networks. Radio stations are relatively inexpensive. With enough wattage, they can reach great distances. We need to bring reality to millions who have only myth and dishonesty available. A people that are lied to daily cannot effectively govern themselves, no matter the source of the misinformation. This must change.

Citizenship, People! Citizenship for all Americans!


Hear! Hear! Yes, the Click Bait story alone is appalling. Millions and millions of false stores ginning up fear and hatred. If you need to get up to date on the click-bait story it is here . 140+ click bait sites in one Macedonian town alone. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/24/facebook-clickbait-political-news-sites-us-election-trump
 
 
+59 # grandlakeguy 2016-11-12 14:52
Sorry Scott but I cannot help "looking back" at the shilling that was thrown at us in favor of a dishonest and illegitimate "nominee" who owed her status to the betrayal of the electorate.
You were very much a part of that.
Her complicity in stealing the nomination from the best candidate we have seen in our lifetimes is precisely why Democratic party voters stayed away from the polls.
It was disgust for the illegitimate candidate and the party that betrayed our right to choose!
Even worse, the hatred of Clinton among the Republicans drove them to the polls in radically increased numbers...did the DNC not understand this would occur?

From the day that it was obvious that election rigging was occurring by the DNC you, and every journalist of conscience, should have been screaming bloody murder from the rooftops about the strangulation of our freedom that was occurring.

Instead you all swept it under the rug and shilled for Hillary once Bernie was disposed of.
Had there been a deafening roar of outrage and disapproval there was a possibility that Clinton would have been forced to step aside as she should have.
As a journalist that is what you are supposed to do.

The American people would not accept cheating in the Super Bowl or the World Series, how can any American accept the treason that is election theft?
And yet we do.
 
 
+6 # Saberoff 2016-11-12 17:25
Ya.. Hey Scott: There's some good looking-back for ya!
 
 
+43 # Ruth1940 2016-11-12 14:56
Quoting Scott Galindez:
I agree, but no need to keep looking back...Lets move forward and take advantage of the opening...


People who don't remember the past are destined to repeat it.
 
 
+20 # Anonymot 2016-11-12 16:02
Read THE DEVIL'S CHESSBOARD by Talbot.

Here's the Party in context:

By all indication, the CIA/MIC/DOD/Wal l St cabal use the CIA as their action committee and have for 25 years, at least. They choose not only who the nominees are, but our foreign policy. Their choice this time around was clearly Clinton, a decision made back in 2008 when they realized that Iraq would lose the election for ANY Republican (I'll not go into Afghanistan, clearly another, worse, story.) To stay in power they had to propose an electable, controllable Democrat. Both Hillary and Obama were easily controllable, but Obama won out and Hillary was promised to be the follow-on President. She was given the Secretary post to shine up her credentials.

But, as usual, her wars were another piece of CIA disastrous misjudgement.

Then Deep State cum Clinton took control of the DNC and its mechanisms by getting Kaine to resign (with a VP promise) and putting Debbie Schultz in the robber's seat. Now that that has proven to be another piece of bad judgment, do you see any route to: root DS out of power; put the positives into action without the negatives or form a really Progressive 3rd Party with a serious chance of electability?

So Clinton's unpredictable, almost unimaginable loss to a Republican wild card renegade is a major defeat for Deep State.
That is what's most important about this election result!

So what can best tackle Deep State/CIA and Trump. Not a facile choice, Scott.
 
 
+4 # Cassandra2012 2016-11-12 18:20
Yes, like the millennials who seem to have never learned what WWII was all about, or why Trump was not a very good substitute for Bernie! And why what he kept saying was so reminiscent of A guy named Adolf and why his pugnacious antics were so reminiscent of a dangerous buffoon named Mussolini!
 
 
+20 # gumby 2016-11-12 15:35
Quoting Scott Galindez:
I agree, but no need to keep looking back...Lets move forward and take advantage of the opening...

The ending of a great quote from Arundhati Roy says "To never look away and never never to forget."
 
 
+40 # grandlakeguy 2016-11-12 16:13
The concept of not "looking back" stated by President Obama is precisely why war criminals G W Bush and Dick Cheney are not rotting in prison.
Hillary Clinton and the DNC leadership deserve to be punished for their actions in the primaries.

Instead, we the people, are being punished.

Until we learn to look back and deal with the past we can never move forward.

Imagine a murder trial where the killer's lawyer says: "Lets not look back, there is no need." Would the judge agree and dismiss the charges?
Clearly not!
 
 
-11 # Cassandra2012 2016-11-12 18:21
But you're ok with Comey getting away with violating the Natch Act?
 
 
+4 # Skyelav 2016-11-12 18:47
Cassandra, That's questionable. Research it again.Of course I loved the result.
 
 
+5 # Patriot 2016-11-12 18:49
Cassandra, either contribute to the discussion, which is about how to deal with the PARTY's errors before proceeding, or be quiet, won't you, please?
 
 
-7 # Henry 2016-11-12 20:47
Quoting Patriot:
Cassandra, either contribute to the discussion, which is about how to deal with the PARTY's errors before proceeding, or be quiet, won't you, please?


Big man on campus.
 
 
+2 # Patriot 2016-11-12 23:19
Nope, Henry. Woman, without campus.
 
 
+21 # Merlin 2016-11-12 16:34
Scott Galindez 2016-11-12 14:08
“I agree, but no need to keep looking back...Lets move forward…”

What is this, Scott? Your version of the “47%” remark that sunk Romney? You agree with Obama on not prosecuting Bush? You want to do the same for the corrupt DNC and Clinton machine. (“Hey, they cheated us and lied to us and gave us Trump instead of Bernie. But that’s OK! Its just politics. Forget about all that! Lets move on!”) Where is your sense of conscience, Scott. Tell me about it because I can’t see it in your actions. You spout only pretty words!
 
 
+12 # CTPatriot 2016-11-12 17:04
I'm willing to move forward with you, Scott, but first I want an apology from you and RSN for the relentless shilling you did for HRC after Bernie conceded, and your deliberate choice at RSN to ignore or demean Jill Stein and the Green Party (of which I am not a member). I #DemExited because of that kind of crap and I'm not rejoining the party unless and until progressives take it back. But I'm more than willing to do my part from the outside.
 
 
+1 # Skyelav 2016-11-12 18:49
Patriot, how about this: Conservatism is really good for some people (places and things.) Progressivism is really good for some people (places and things.) How do we find the great middle ground?
 
 
+8 # anthraxripple 2016-11-12 21:35
By fighting for the left. There is no middle ground unless one side stops being dominated by the other.
 
 
+7 # Capn Canard 2016-11-13 07:57
Skyelav, I would suggest that we avoid the middle ground. I've heard this said of the Democrat party, but I believe it is true of the moderate/middle ground as well: the "middle-ground" is where all good policy ideas go to die.
 
 
+4 # CTPatriot 2016-11-14 05:48
We had the option of electing a middle ground. His name is Bernie Sanders. Polling shows that his progressive policies are supported by a majority of Americans, sometimes even a majority of Republicans as well as Democrats.

As contrasted with Hillary Clinton who people fancy a moderate because she sits between the far Right Republican Party and the less far right Democratic Party.

So I guess it depends on your definition of middle ground. My preferred definition is "what the majority of American's want" rather than someone who lies in between the two corrupt corporate parties.
 
 
+12 # CTPatriot 2016-11-12 17:06
PS. I agree with everyone about the folly of failing to look back. One who ignores history is doomed to repeat it.
 
 
+16 # Saberoff 2016-11-12 17:22
No need looking back???
Where have I heard that before???
Oh ya: Obama's accountability plans: '08.
Right! No need looking back.
 
 
-10 # ericlipps 2016-11-12 20:37
Quoting Saberoff:
No need looking back???
Where have I heard that before???
Oh ya: Obama's accountability plans: '08.
Right! No need looking back.

Looking back while moving forward is guarantee of falling flat.
 
 
+18 # Patriot 2016-11-12 18:17
NO, Scott. Before I'd rejoin the DP, I'd have to see a little evidence that it plans to BE democratic. First, how about UNrigging the system? How about

open primaries in every state?
NO MORE caucuses?
NO MORE superdelegates?
being able to register to vote WITHOUT having to identify with a party?
a party rule that ALL candidates who run under the DP banner WILL receive equal, impartial assistance from the party?
passinf a law in each state that electoral votes will be allotted to WHICHEVER candidate wins the national popular vote?

How about some backbone in elected Democrats, like...
NOT voting to prohibit GMO laws at the state or local level?
NOT voting to fast-track trade deals?
NOT voting to kill posse comitatus?

How about dismantling the fraudulent Presidential Debate Commission and asking--begging --the League of Women Voters to resume conducting election debates?

Having terribly defrauded us of the only decent candidate to run in many decades, how about if the DP expresses some remorse, admits its many errors, begs us to come back?

When those things have been done, Scott, come back and tell us that the Dems are serious about reforming the party, and have made a good start on unrigging the system.
 
 
+5 # Patriot 2016-11-12 18:18
How about if you stop trying to herd us? Who died and appointed YOU Dem Party spokesman, anyway? How about if you and Marc Ash and Robert Reich and Paul Krugman apologize for the snow job you tried to pull on all of us? How about if you admit that WE were right, and all of YOU were wrong?
 
 
+8 # lorenbliss 2016-11-12 22:26
I frankly don't believe the Democratic (sic) Party CAN be reformed. Not now, not ever. Like the Republican Party, the Democratic (sic) Party is in fact the party of capitalism and capitalist governance, i.e., fascism.

Nor, given the realities of late-stage capitalism, can either party EVER be anything but a betrayer of the 99 Percent. Indeed, if we have not learned that lesson from the 2016 presidential campaign, we are clearly incapable of learning anything at all.

What we need is a genuine Democratic Socialist Labor Party, sworn from the moment of its formation to fight the class war on behalf the entire 99 Percent.

Won't happen, of course -- the Moron Nation pseudo-Left is too invested in its self-destructiv e identity politics, too moronated-stupi d to ever give them up, too bourgeois-hatef ul of blue-collar workers and too damn cowardly to ever embrace the hard and sometimes deadly work of revolution.

But it is nice to think about...
 
 
+6 # Capn Canard 2016-11-13 08:03
lorenbliss, you nailed it. The Democrats are addicted to the wealth that slimy Clintonism has encouraged, so much so it has grown wildly out of control.

I believe that direct control of value via banking/money is the very reason America will collapse.

Hold on tight. It's gonna be a freak show.

.
 
 
+2 # Patriot 2016-11-14 02:33
Neither do I, Loren!
 
 
+18 # librarian1984 2016-11-12 19:42
I'm okay with taking a few days to look over our mistakes .. so we don't repeat them. Surely THAT's worthwhile?

Let's see .. who was right about Clinton being a piss-poor candidate?

Who was right about not running an establishment candidate?

Who was right about the effects of all the Clinton baggage?

Who was right about HRC motivating the right but depressing the left turnout, thus affecting downticket races?

Who was right about the nomination theft?

I'm not quite ready to 'move on' until we get a few of these problems straightened out.
 
 
+9 # Macserp 2016-11-12 20:10
Ultimately I think you're right Scott but grandlakeguy has a point worth hammering since a lot of so-called liberal democrats I know are still scratching their heads and wondering how this could've happened. We need to avoid these mistakes in the future and pull our (neo)liberal friends into the light.
 
 
+11 # anthraxripple 2016-11-12 22:03
SCOTT,

We need to "look back", and repeat the lessons LOUDLY. The talking heads are already spinning all of this dishonestly. We need to remind people of what actually occurred.

Grandlakeguy is 100% correct.
 
 
+7 # lfeuille 2016-11-12 22:52
Quoting Scott Galindez:
I agree, but no need to keep looking back...Lets move forward and take advantage of the opening...


A couple of points about not looking back:

First, it is not possible to correct the errors that lead to this disaster without examining them. What's the point of seizing control if we are not clear on the changes that have to be made. It is impossible to ignore the last year and the decades of drift into neoliberalism that proceeded it.

Secondly, we still have Hillbots trying to blame Hillary's lose on Putin, Comey, Assange, Stein and all those who declined to vote for her. Anything but neoliberalism and Hillary herself. I know you are not in that group, but if you've been reading the comments in the last few days you know what I mean. This is very annoying and very hard to resist answering even though it is futile.

But anyway, WELCOME BACK SCOTT! I know you didn't desert Bernie. You were with him until he pulled out. So I don't have any hard feelings.
 
 
+3 # chicagoflygirls 2016-11-13 10:41
Quoting Scott Galindez:
I agree, but no need to keep looking back...Lets move forward and take advantage of the opening...

Please get a call to action going... because I still want to know where all the NEW Democrats are, and are they registered, and will they vote? We must find them. Years ago in Chicago Harold Washington, our first black mayor, told his south side neighbors " I will not run unless you register to vote." In 1983, the League of Negro Voters were instrumental in Washington's run for mayor by having a massive voter registration and education drive. And 250,000 voters signed his nomination to get on the ballot, even though only 650 names were required. That it leadership.
 
 
+16 # LionMousePudding 2016-11-12 18:06
They absolutely understood that he might beat her. As I've been saying, it was not Democrat vs Republican; it was Populist vs Corporatist. Establishment Dems simply wanted a corporatist to win. Sure, they thought they could beat Trump. But they knew no matter what, they and their friends would be still sitting pretty with any corporatist.

Bernie was the people's candidate. The Establishment Democrats stopped being the people's party in the 80s when they decided money was more important than values. That divide-- between Democratic attention to money and their attention to values-- has slowly widened into a canyon. With us on one side and the 1% on the other.

Politicians are all in the 1%. It would be a joke not to expect them to throw everything and the kitchen sink (porcelain-cove red iron) at him to make sure he lost.
 
 
-3 # Skyelav 2016-11-12 18:33
GLG surely you jest? Put down the French water and turn to issues important to the electorate?
 
 
+12 # GoGreen! 2016-11-12 18:37
Not only did the Democratic leadeship steal the election from Bernie---they haven't done a damn thing for the working people of this nation since slick Willie passed NAFTA, that and the banking deregulation and the consolidation of the media into just a few corporate hands as we rent them the public airwaves for NOTHING! The Democrats deserve to die and I will be very happy to dance on their rotting corpse.
 
 
+12 # Scott Galindez 2016-11-12 14:14
You just don't get it...the system is rigged against third parties...heres an analogy...there are three boats...one of them is weighted down and can barely move...the other two are way out in front, the motor stalls on one...Do you have a better chance of winning the race on the one that is carrying the extra weight or the one that is stalled if you fix the motor?

We can win with the Democrats...If we take over the party...We cant win with the Greens until we change the rules...We need power to change the rules...
 
 
+39 # grandlakeguy 2016-11-12 14:40
No Scott...YOU just don't get it!
We can NEVER win as long as we have a system of elections that can so easily be cheated in the ways that the Republican Party has utilized since the G W Bush years and the stunning array of dishonesty and thievery that the Democratic Party deployed to steal the nomination for Hillary Clinton.

THAT IS THE NUMBER ONE BATTLE THAT WE MUST FIGHT AND WIN IF WE EVER EXPECT TO DEFEAT THE RIGHTWING AND INSTALL REPRESENTATIVES THAT THE VOTERS CHOOSE!

Here is an analogy for you... you are playing poker against someone who is using a marked deck and you know that he is cheating but you keep playing and losing while saying to yourself: "My luck is bound to change!" Guess what...it will never change and we will never win until we have real elections instead of "election theater".
 
 
+22 # Ted 2016-11-12 14:56
So which is best Scott, replacing the cards in the marked deck a bit at a time or scrapping that deck for a brand new unmarked deck as soon as possible?
 
 
+2 # Scott Galindez 2016-11-12 15:13
Right but you scrap the deck unless you become the dealer...You need power before you can change the rules...
 
 
+17 # Ted 2016-11-12 15:21
We ARE the dealers, Scott. Remember? WE are the American public.
 
 
-3 # anthraxripple 2016-11-12 22:01
Based on your logic, Ted. Trump just won, because he's so well loved. Obviously Stein must be hated, because she had just as much of a chance to win as anybody, and she still only got 1% of the vote.
 
 
+25 # grandlakeguy 2016-11-12 15:45
Wrong again Scott... we cannot "change the rules" until the American people understand what has been happening and continues to be happening in our elections.
We can never expect Progressives to "become the dealer" as long as this treasonous subversion of democracy is allowed to continue!

The media continues to parrot the myth that our elections are the most secure and honest in the world.
That is ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT!

It is the responsibility of every journalist to work tirelessly to expose this truth and only then will there be so much outrage that the correction of our election system can have a chance of occurring!
 
 
+8 # Matt_OccupyEarth 2016-11-12 16:30
Do you understand that the elections for the leadership of the Democratic Party are not done on machines? They're done by a bunch of people in a room writing names on scraps of paper. If waves of progressives all joined their local DEC's, then progressives would take over the party machinery. We can also run candidates in local primaries. If the Tea Party can take over the Republican Party, why can't progressives take over the Democrats? Galindez is right that the game is rigged against third parties, and there's no reason to think that will change - if there was no hope of taking over the Democratic Party, then a third party would be the only option, but if it's possible, why not try?
 
 
+11 # Ted 2016-11-12 17:02
Be realistic, the true power force behind the dem party is NOT the talking heads they parade in front of the media, it IS the media, it IS the silent money of major coroporations that need to rig our legislation for them to profit.

It's naive to think the democratic party can be "cleaned up" by a bunch of idealistic do-gooders. There's way to much corporate money involved for the true party controllers to give up that control.

Walk away quietly and slowly and hope they don't shoot you in the back on your way out. I'm not kidding.
 
 
-4 # anthraxripple 2016-11-12 21:59
EXACTLY! That's why we need the Green Party to continue playing the spoiler, until the Democratic Party finally gets sick enough of losing, to start paying attention to us.

Then, we can let the Greens go back to getting even LESS than 1% of the vote.
 
 
+4 # lfeuille 2016-11-12 23:06
It is even more naïve to believe that the very same media will suddenly decide to start taking the Green Party or any new party seriously.
 
 
+11 # librarian1984 2016-11-12 19:58
If we could it would make more sense to take over the DP but this year showed us it's highly unlikely to work. We saw how they treated us and the many techniques used to sideline us. Some people are staying in the party to try. Good luck to them.

But people on rsn have recounted their experiences trying to enact change at the local and state level. Invariably they put in a lot of work, make progress -- and then are stopped cold by the establishment types at a higher level.

Let's see some progress first. Convince us some action is already happening. Otherwise there is no choice but third party.
 
 
+3 # lfeuille 2016-11-12 23:09
It is more likely to work than any other strategy. People are not going to flock to a third party they maybe vaguely heard of. The media is not about to start paying attention to parties it has ignored for decades.
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-11-13 12:47
I think Sanders and Trump showed us the media are not the gatekeepers anymore.

We need charismatic leaders in a third party, for sure, and I think it makes sense to work inside AND outside the party. (Count me out!) The DP showed itself incredibly resistant to change and we can't assume that will work.

The Green Party has some infrastructure in place but a clean start has its appeal too.

Good conversation to have.

****

Hey, I just saw that Oprah is being attacked by Hillary supporters because she dared to say that Obama and Trump's meeting gave her hope. Even Oprah! hahaha

Trump = chaos -> new alliances!
 
 
-7 # Skyelav 2016-11-12 18:55
Let's start with George Soros who wants to take over the world. The only thing stopping him is he knows one can't take over an armed citizenry
 
 
+7 # JCM 2016-11-12 15:53
grandlakeguy: Great analogy!
 
 
-2 # LionMousePudding 2016-11-12 18:08
He lost.
 
 
+1 # Skyelav 2016-11-12 18:54
GLG I dont know. Trump didn't seem to have to cheat to win. There was only one suspicious incident in PA with voter machines... That could be where we start, those damned machines. But Im not for wasting time to go after the electoral college. Not that anyone just mentioned it.
 
 
+9 # grandlakeguy 2016-11-12 19:33
Skyelav, there are many forms of cheating in our election system outside of manipulating the votes inside the black box machines which we can never really know about due to the secret software.
The Republicans "won" again using other methods that we certainly know about.
Visit:
Bradblog.com
gregpalast.com
blackboxvoting.org
freepress.org

as a starter.
Research and learn, the more that you learn the more outraged you will become.
 
 
+8 # librarian1984 2016-11-12 20:08
There are many of us. Everyone should pick something they care about to work on.

Ralph Nader says that groups of 100-200 can observe and pressure each member of Congress effectively. I think that's an idea worth exploring.
 
 
-1 # lfeuille 2016-11-12 23:03
Chicken or egg. You can't fix the electoral system without power. Scott is right.
 
 
+10 # Ted 2016-11-12 14:41
There's more than one way to skin a cat.
 
 
+26 # fsboos 2016-11-12 14:49
I believe that Maine just instituted instant run-off voting. With instant run-off voting, third parties would suddenly become more viable. I'm hoping for a voter run-off measure in Iowa and elsewhere.
It's chicken and egg problem--the two major parties have always combined to prevent third parties from achieving viability. Even a revitalized Democratic Party won't want competition on any terms.
 
 
+22 # tedrey 2016-11-12 15:11
If you want us to sail with you, then first kick out the officers who ran the ship onto the rocks and put sailors we can trust in charge.
 
 
+5 # grandlakeguy 2016-11-12 15:49
Better yet tedrey lets keelhaul them.
They certainly deserve it!
 
 
+19 # djnova50 2016-11-12 15:13
Scott, try to understand that the system is rigged against alternative parties because that is exactly how the Democrats and Republicans want it to be. It will take a while; but, there is already a national progressive party called the Green Party. In 2012, Jill Stein got over 400,000 votes. This year she nearly tripled her vote count.

If the media, including RSN, would go back to what it used to do and inform the people about all the candidates and where they stand on the issues, then more people would learn there are better options, or at least different options other than the corporate parties.

I prefer to let the Democratic Party crumble apart and follow the Whigs into history. The Democrats used to be the party for the people; now, it seems that the Green Party is that party. Only thing, most people don't know about it.

Historically, parties do come and go. In fact, the Republican Party used to be an alternative party which elected its first President 6 years after it was created.

I have voted for Democrats in the past; but, I'm done with the Democrats. They are as much a corporate party as the Republican Party.

Instead of telling people, "You just don't get it...", try and see what you can do to help increase awareness of third parties. Jill Stein would have been a great President, a real People's President.
 
 
+11 # grandlakeguy 2016-11-12 15:50
Voting will never work as long as the opposition controls the counting of those votes.
It is an exercise in futility.
 
 
+1 # LionMousePudding 2016-11-12 18:09
The Tea Party did it.
 
 
-3 # ericlipps 2016-11-12 20:42
Well, gorsh. Jill Stein got, what, a whole 2 percent of the vote? Surely she was a hair's breadth from winning; wait'll 2020 and she'll win in a landslide!

Seriously, if any party is going to "follow the Whigs into history," it's likely to be the Greens, although a better comparison would be to the Greenback Party instead.

The what party? Exactly my point.
 
 
-1 # anthraxripple 2016-11-12 21:57
No. Actually, she still got 1%. Apparently she got even less last time?

Think of it this way: If she gets 100 new votes each time she runs, in a few hundred million years, she could be president!
 
 
+3 # Scott Galindez 2016-11-13 09:19
What I have been trying to say isw after we take over the Democratic Party we can change the rules so the Green Party has a level playing field. I was involved in the formation of the Green Party...I was at the first Green Party Congress in West Virginia. We did not endorse or let ron Daniels be our first Presidential candidate because we wanted to build on the grass roots level first...first focus on local elections...the n a month later Nader announces and the leadership endorses ignoring what the Congress decided a month earlier. ( I may be wrong on the timing but not on the process)

Progressives need to band together,,,The Democratic Party is in disarray...The time is now to take it over and then use it to reform the system...
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-11-13 12:52
I'd say it's a good time for progressives to gain influence. The DP hasn't convinced anyone they're willing to be the vehicle for that. THEY need to convince US.

If they don't, third party it is.
 
 
+9 # Anonymot 2016-11-12 15:52
Scott, the definition of "we" is what's needed. For whatever reason, those who abandoned the front runner are those who you refer to as "we": Sanders, Warren, yourself, Ash, Reich was one of the first, Weaver, etc. Is that your "we"? All of those who sold out to the Deep State machine?

It is 4 years to the next Presidential election, 2 to midterm. We, meaning all of us not just the sellouts don't have to make a decision in the next 30 minutes. The "we" you seem to be talking about are already fighting for power in the old shell. Perhaps that's a great idea, perhaps it is the only realistic possibility, but already Clinton and her "we" are stirring the Party pot.

Neither your "we" nor the rest of us know the financial condition of the Party. If there are $50M surplus will it be donated so somebody's Foundation? If there's a $50M hole which "we" will fill it. Only the Clintons and "their" CPAs know the answers. The Party shell is their "we"'s property. The carcas may be fresh meat, ripe for a new chef or it may just be ripe and fit for the garbage can.

Some of those who sold to Hillary's "we" should have access. You're an investigator. Who's going to find out before a lot of shuffling around gets done?

After that, we all can decide. Get us the answer by tomorrow noon. Someone has it and it should be public knowledge to Party members.
 
 
+5 # Saberoff 2016-11-12 17:33
EXCELLENT!
Media Journalists: Get up off your lazy asses!
 
 
+10 # Merlin 2016-11-12 15:52
Scott Galindez 2016-11-12 14:14
“You just don't get it...the system is rigged against third parties...heres an analogy...there are three boats...one of them is weighted down and can barely move...the other two are way out in front, the motor stalls on one...Do you have a better chance of winning the race on the one that is carrying the extra weight or the one that is stalled if you fix the motor?”

Good grief, Scott!

Scott, your analogy completely fails because the non working motor is hopelessly broken and is not fixable. Better to unload the good boat of the weight holding it back. Your choice is to row the broken motor boat by hand rather than recognize that it can’t be fixed.

In my view, one other problem with your whole approach is that you and Marc Ash totally supported the obviously crooked DNC and its candidate HRC. Now you expect us to believe what you propose is “the” answer? Continue supporting the crooked DINO party while “tweaking” it slowly… Taking it over??? To me this is either political naivety or more of the same Clinton machine enabling.
 
 
+14 # hipocampelo 2016-11-12 17:24
Merlin: I fully agree with you. Everyone
presently in the Democratic hierarchy must
be summarily removed from office. Even if
they did nothing wrong themselves, they
certainly knew something was going on and
were quiet about it.
 
 
-9 # ericlipps 2016-11-12 20:49
You think the DNC is crooked because it didn't throw itself at the feet of Ber-nie! Ber-nie! BER-NIE!

Try looking at it this way: the DNC wanted a candidate who wouldn't be trampled in the general election. The last thing it wanted was a repeat of 1972, when the party nominated a decent progressive and saw him and the party humiliated at the polls.

And while Hillary may have lost the election, she WON the popular vote (by a sliver). If Bernie Sanders had been the nominee and that had happened to him, you'd be bouncing off the walls screaming "FRAUD! FRAUD!" But because it's Clinton, you think she had it coming.
 
 
+5 # anthraxripple 2016-11-12 21:56
Too bad the DNC listened to you and totally ignored the polls.

President Trump may offer you a job with his re-election bid.
 
 
+4 # Patriot 2016-11-12 23:29
Ah, but eric, she DID.
 
 
+1 # anthraxripple 2016-11-12 16:55
PERFECT COMMENT, SCOTT.

For me, 3rd parties DO serve a purpose.

The Green Party is LEVERAGE - AGAINST the Democrats. The Greens represent a threat, if Democrats refuse to listen.

Unless the Democrats go back to their liberal roots NOW, they can expect me to vote Green next time too.

And, I DON'T believe in the Green Party for any other reason. If the Democrats do what we need them to do, the Greens serve no purpose.
 
 
+4 # Ted 2016-11-12 17:09
No purpose?

You believe we can break the two-party stranglehold by SUPPORTING IT?

You should read this;

Jill2016.com/greennewdeal
 
 
0 # anthraxripple 2016-11-12 18:24
You can break the "stranglehold" by first admitting what's required - a Constitutional amendment to change the electoral process.

Read what Scott already said. He worded it perfectly.

The Green Party does serve a purpose - don't worry.

They're our version of the Tea Party.

The Tea Party is smart enough to operate from within the Republican Party. Liberals are too dumb for that, so we must deal with the Green Party, rather than just primarying Blue Dogs.
 
 
0 # anthraxripple 2016-11-12 18:28
By the way, I voted GREEN in this election. Isn't that what you wanted? Are you trying to turn away the few votes you already have?

I think Don Quixote should be the Green Party candidate next time.

And if it's a choice between him and Alfred E. Newman, I'll have a tough decision.

LOL!
 
 
+7 # hipocampelo 2016-11-12 17:36
anthrax: Under the present leadership, there is no way that the Democrats will
"do what we need them to do".
 
 
-2 # anthraxripple 2016-11-12 18:22
Then they'll keep losing. It's as simple as that. If they're voted out of office, the "present leadership" will be gone.
 
 
+4 # Patriot 2016-11-12 18:53
And, as long as there are only TWO parties, we'll have the Repubs!
 
 
0 # anthraxripple 2016-11-12 21:39
Of course. The Repugs will always be there. They're not going away. As long as we split our vote, you can also count on them continuing to dominate us.

If the Democratic Party were ever to start paying attention and offering a viable alternative, and you STILL refused to join them, then the accusations of collusion with Republicans would start to stick.
 
 
-5 # ericlipps 2016-11-12 20:51
In other words, let's blackmail the Democratic Party into doing our bidding by threatening to throw future elections to the Republicans if they don't.

Sounds like a plan--straight from the Republican National Committee.
 
 
+2 # anthraxripple 2016-11-12 21:44
Yep.

It's called politics.

No different than the blackmail of forcing us to vote for a corporate shill warmonger, to avoid allowing the Republican corporate shill warmonger.

What's your plan? To cower?

Donald Trump and the RNC thank you.
 
 
+3 # economagic 2016-11-12 17:24
FWIW -- probably not very much from the tenor of most of the discussions in these pages over the last several months -- most of this thread, at least the top half, seems to me to be a heated debate regarding the answer to the wrong question, which appears to be, "Should 'progressives' (I have several problems with that term) attempt to gain leverage in government by taking over the Democratic Party or by building a viable third party?"

Perhaps a better question would be something on the order of, "What possible paths exist for 'progressives' to gain enough political leverage to break the current and long-establishe d duopoly and act as a countervailing power to the vandals who have been running the country for virtually all of the last half-century?"

I for one am not likely to be part of any movement that is content to take permanent duopoly in US politics as a given, because there are more than two sides to every question and many questions. Ending it will take time, but in the meantime -- at least the next few months -- why must we agree in advance to choose a single strategy? Yes, the duopoly has not been kind to third parties. Yes, there are signs that progressives, many of them former Democrats, might actually be able to throw the DLC bums in the DNC out. On the other hand, there are plenty reasons to doubt such an effort will succeed. All you people in positions to lead such a movement (Sanders, Warren, Ellison, Galindez), by all means go for it.

(continued)
 
 
+3 # economagic 2016-11-12 17:38
(continued)

Meanwhile the rest of us peons who are or wish to be active in party politics have at least four choices: We can seek county committee positions in the Democratic, Green, or "Libertarian" (ptui!) party, or we can try to whip up enthusiasm among our friends and neighbors for a brand new party. You can't get much more democratic than that.

Then we can meet back here in 3-6 months and compare notes to see who if anyone is gaining traction. And thanks to electronic media we don't even have to wait that long, but can share stories of successes and failures daily and hourly.

Because frankly I don't think an insurgent group attempting to steer the Democratic Party in a new direction can take for granted the financial or media support that said party has enjoyed in the DLC era.

And if I knew in, say, early 2018 that there were two active parties with solidly progressive people and credibility and some modest financial backing, I would have no qualms about ditching one for the other or recommending a merger. After all, we're not in it for the money and power -- or are we?
 
 
+9 # Saberoff 2016-11-12 17:28
I'm rather sure, regarding "third parties," that had Bernie joined Jill when she offered they would have won the office of POTUS.
 
 
+7 # GoGreen! 2016-11-12 18:46
Yes, but I think Bernie was worried about some lone crazed gunman or that ice would form on a sunny day and cause a plane he was on to crash and kill everyone aboard.
 
 
-6 # ericlipps 2016-11-12 20:57
Quoting GoGreen!:
Yes, but I think Bernie was worried about some lone crazed gunman or that ice would form on a sunny day and cause a plane he was on to crash and kill everyone aboard.

Oh, please. I doubt Bernie Sanders was, or is, paranoid enough to have any such worries. He probably was more concerned with how tying himself to a no-chancer like Stein would damage his credibility. I'm sure he didn't believe that joining up with Jill would sweep him to victory; he's got more brains than that.
 
 
-3 # ericlipps 2016-11-12 20:53
Quoting Saberoff:
I'm rather sure, regarding "third parties," that had Bernie joined Jill when she offered they would have won the office of POTUS.

What are you smoking? Had Bernie joined Jill, his movement would have become completely irrelevant.
 
 
+6 # librarian1984 2016-11-12 20:02
What's weighting down the third party boat? It seems like it's the party boats that are weighed down by corruption. They may be farther ahead because they have money, but they make no progress forward.

The third party boat is farther back but NOT weighted down. It will take us a while .. but we WILL catch up .. and surpass. Then, even if we are a small party, if we are big enough to swing election results we will be in a position to make deals.

Maybe starting or adapting a new party seems like a longshot, but think of the MILLIONS of young people and Independents the DP turned away. That's a good seed crop and hey, the DP didn't want them.
 
 
+29 # jimmyjames 2016-11-12 14:30
The Democratic ticket was doomed this year as soon as the DNC chose Hillary over Bernie and then conspired to make it happen. The elite politicians running the Democratic Party just could not stomach being out of power. Well guess what, they dug their own grave. Anyone could see it, except the DNC and MSM.

Can the Democratic Party be saved? Possibly. But they surely need to reconnect with their past supporters and try and gain back all that they have lost. Only a clean sweep of the power elite who currently rule the Party will do that. Until that happens, millions will be waiting on the sidelines, ready to vote Green again when necessary. I count myself among them....
 
 
+18 # Ted 2016-11-12 14:38
"...to my friends in the Green Party and other left party efforts: We need you in this fight. Our system is rigged in favor of the two major parties. The fastest path to power is taking control of one of those vehicles. When we get there, we can un-rig the system so everyone can have a voice. Without those reforms, let’s put aside our differences and seize the day...."

As Bernie said (when he told us we should not listen if he tells us who to vote for) "it is incumbent upon the candidate to convince you to vote for her" (or something like that).

So, I'll be watching and cheering you on (if you deserve it). I sincerely wish the "new" dem party effort the best of luck though I think you'll understand why I have such severe reservations about your chances for success in actually disinfecting such a deeply corrupt and corporatist infected party.

In the meantime, as a true Progressive, I will be dedicating my own efforts to strengthening the third party that doesn't carry the festering corrupt baggage you will have to shed, that already has policies and ideology in place and in practice that I can completely agree with and support, and that has nothing less than a proven track record of integrity and honesty behind it since 1984.

Investing in a "fixer-upper" can be fun but it's a luxury we can't afford right now and besides, sometimes it really is best to knock it down and build something new.

Come join the movement toward a clean, Green future.

GP.ORG
 
 
+3 # Scott Galindez 2016-11-12 15:18
Ted and Jimmy...you dont have to be on the sidelines...go to your local central committee meeting...fill an empty seat...When I decided to stay in Des Moines...I went to a polk county central committee meeting and got a seat right away...the establishment dems count on us sitting on the sidelines...
 
 
+3 # Ted 2016-11-12 15:22
Sorry, busy with Green Party work but thanks anyway.
 
 
-4 # anthraxripple 2016-11-12 18:30
The DNC thanks you.

I'm sure they'd be glad if you'd lead more people out of their way to give them free reign.
 
 
+2 # Patriot 2016-11-14 03:04
I've been involved with 2 local Dem parties & was unimpressed. I'll work with the Greens, who have some problems that need addressing, but already have in place a platform & party policies with which I'm comfortable. The DP has no interest in the government I want; if they did, they'd have embraced Sanders with open arms.

Himself & I (ourselves, not via contractor) have both built a house from scratch & torn apart & rebuilt another; I can state without a qualm that I'd much rather work on a new, young party than try to rehabilitate an old one.

You, Reich, & Ash are exemplars of the problem: You're NOW ready to rebuild the DP--since your candidate has cost the party seats all the way up & down the ticket. When we told you we weren't buying, that we couldn't & wouldn't endorse campaign sabotage, election fraud, warmongering, & incremental change etc., you threatened us with the spectre of Trump.

Well, so far, he seems to be able to think & act for himself. Should be interesting to see what happens. Am I worried? Sure! But Clinton's plans to demolish Syria, then pick fights with Iran & Russia had me terrified. We don't know WHAT Trump will do--but Clinton wasn't going to be our savior!

NOW you all say what we said months ago, but it's too little, & too late. All of you were wrong, yet you continue to insult our intelligence & our opinions, to admit you were wrong, & to sweep the deliberate demolition of the best hope we had under the rug.

Bye, DP!
 
 
+6 # Eljefe 2016-11-12 14:38
Scott, the "MacDonald strategy" is what doomed this election. That said, Trump is not a stupid man. But the smug DNC tried to frame it in a way that no real choice was offered. It was to be Hillary vs. Ronald MacDonald the clown, albeit sleazy and intolerant. So it came as no surprise that he fired back by framing her as "The crafty old Hamburglar," devious, selfish, and untrustworthy. If you leaned toward a third party, you were shamed by the partisans of the DNC (someone once likened the two-party election to a kind of "Sophie's Choice.") I believe that had Bernie defected to the Green Party, the donors would have followed him and he might have attracted some really serious money. Bernie captured the hearts and minds of many for whom Trump was the default second choice. It may require a splitting of the DNC to overcome this institutional rot and now is the time to start rebuilding. Meanwhile, we survived Nixon and Reagan surprised some of us. With the Donald, maybe we will get those potholes on the interstate fixed, put some money into real jobs, and be less inclined to war. But we also need to fix our broken political system.
 
 
+7 # NAVYVET 2016-11-12 14:47
NOT the Green Party! I'm an old time environmentalis t, worked in it for 14 years. If your name turns me off, can't you guess it brands you as a 1-issue party & tunes others out? That's one criticism. Please take it & these others as meaning to be helpful:

--Failure to do grassroots work & elect regional candidates. Your controlling oligopoly was so dim as to again nominate Stein, a bright woman but who can't win any office beyond school board.

--A suspicious history of running against liberals, losing but splitting the vote to elect Repubs. (NATION ran an expose on it long ago.) In 2004 your party took money from the Repubs to get petitions signed to qualify for the local ballot. I was with the team who showed up in court day after day & was appalled. You lost.

--When I've gone to hear Green speakers I've encountered nothing but an academic, paternalistic attitude toward ordinary folk that makes Hillary look like sweet Aunt Sadie. You act like suburbanites & you're all white, not green, certainly not black!

--You're the Fundamentalists of the Left, letting New Agers have too much say. The only arguments that should influence anyone are the ones based on reason, using the scientific method of evidence-based probability, not gooey feel-good "centering", fad quack medicine, and the rest of the New Age handbook.

When the Greens can change their name & mend their ways, then far more of us who are lifelong leftists will be interested. Not till then.
 
 
+12 # Ruth1940 2016-11-12 14:59
Come on. Trump never won ANY elected office before. I met someone recently who upon hearing that I'm a Democrat, but voted for Stein, gained new respect for Democrats. He thought we were all simply sheep.
 
 
0 # lfeuille 2016-11-12 23:16
There is an exception for TV stars. People feel they already know them.
 
 
+11 # Ted 2016-11-12 15:02
NAVYVET,

You're reading from a very old book.

Read; jill2016.com/greennewdeal

and then see if your obviously outdated opinions of the Green Party still hold for you.
 
 
-8 # anthraxripple 2016-11-12 18:31
If Jill gets off her high horse and runs to win in the next election (as a Democrat), I'm sure she'll win.

Otherwise, she can still be counted on to get my "punish the Democrats" vote, unless I choose to write in "Alfred E. Newman".
 
 
+4 # Ted 2016-11-12 18:41
But she isn't a democrat.
 
 
0 # anthraxripple 2016-11-12 21:46
And that's why she got 1% of the vote.
 
 
+2 # Patriot 2016-11-12 23:36
1) We dont know for certain that she didn't get much more, and Johnson, too--just as we don't know for certain how mny votes were actually cast for each candidate--and probably never will. The last several DECADES of elections have been fraudulent; what make anyone think this one wasn't? We'll never know.

2) Stein got 1% of the vote, Johnson little more, because the duopoly and the oligarchs did everything they could to see to it that nobody knew anything about them. No debates. Little news coverage. Those of us who did know got the word from others who knew. That's EXACTLY how the Demopublicans wanted it, and they made it happen.
 
 
-1 # anthraxripple 2016-11-13 10:37
I'm only relying on what's been reported. I can't make numbers up.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-11-13 12:54
Others, on both sides of the aisle, don't have that problem.
 
 
+12 # citizenpaine 2016-11-12 15:13
DogSoldier is right. The Dem. Party is owned lock, stock and barrel by the establishment, the lobbyists and military complex. They will stop anyone at all costs that tries to horn in on their game of sharing the "ownership" of the country with the Repubs--even if it kills them (which it kinda just did). A new party, with new people, a new charter, and a new mandate is what is needed. It will be an expensive mistake to try to reform such an established dinosaur of an institution. It will not save energy; it will throw energy away. Like trying to reform the KKK and turn it into a service organization to benifit poor immigrant families. Be serious. Be imaginative---n ew people, new mandate, new Party.
 
 
+1 # lfeuille 2016-11-12 23:17
As were both parties in the gilded age before the depression. They changed.
 
 
+8 # LionMousePudding 2016-11-12 18:21
What is this whole "Jill can't win; she's never been elected to anything" when TRUMP just won?

And where the Hell do you get off saying she could only be elected to school boards? You sexist a$$. State legislators are often people who have never held any office before. And she's a doctor. Elizabeth Warren was touted as a housewife. How do you get to decide Jill is so unelectable? She just won the Presidential nomination of the party which won 1.5% of the US vote. That's a lot of people. You do that.

Maybe people don't want the Green party, but dissing its presidential runner as unqualified in most of the many ways that people have been doing this entire election season, is just sexist bullcrap.

I am sure she is more intelligent and qualified for public position than most people who have been dissing her here.

It's over, OK? You don't have to bully people to vote for Hillary anymore. Jill was not a spoiler. Get her off of your self-indulgent disdain list.

And at least she does not want to wage war. That is smarter or stupider than Hillary, Trump, and Obama?
 
 
0 # Skyelav 2016-11-12 19:04
She ran a couple of times I guess. Of course so did Bernie.
 
 
-4 # ericlipps 2016-11-12 21:05
There are about a billion reasons why Trump was different from Stein, and not quite all of them are money.

The egotistical Trump has spent decades building not just a fortune but a brand. Everybody knows his name and his trademark smirk. By contrast, how many have heard of Jill Stein? (Everyone here--it's inescapable--bu t not that many elsewhere.) How many, even among those who've heard of her, would recognize her face without Googling her first?
 
 
0 # LionMousePudding 2016-11-15 11:48
I know it's a long way up there to find :) I was responding to NavyVet up there who called Jill "a bright woman who can't win any office besides school board."

I was so mad at the 'school board's part I didn't even notice the 'bright woman's part. 'Bright' ... One of those words we use for women (and children) but not men.

'Johnson, a bright man who...' No, only for women. It's a paternalistic, condescending way of indicating that women aren't expected to be very smart but this one kind of is.

NavyVet is in my opinion not a very bright man if he hasn't figured out that part of the idea of being a Progressive is not being mired in the past. Part of it is respecting all kinds of people. That's a little weak when you don't respect 54% of the adult population as human adult beings.
 
 
-1 # Skyelav 2016-11-12 19:03
Navy Vet: How about convincing strong candidates to run Inde? Trump proved he could win on half what Hillary spent. I wonder if without the two parties we could even get to first base? I agree about the Greenies and they are horribly disorganized as well. Wondering if we should start by getting the likes of George (pay them to protest) Soros out of the picture first.
 
 
-5 # ericlipps 2016-11-12 21:06
How do you know Trump spent only half of what Hillary did? What's your source? Do you have one?
 
 
+1 # lfeuille 2016-11-12 23:20
He didn't have to spend much. The press gave him free coverage because he's a celebrity. You have to be already famous to get away with that.
 
 
+7 # dotlady 2016-11-12 15:11
It's going to take a new generation to see other possibilities and possibly have ethics without becoming a Red Guard - that means every parent must work to instill some values beyond "money" and "success in the fast lane" - such as respect for every person, civility and a love for nature that includes protecting the sanity of soil, waterways, wildlife.
 
 
+1 # Femihumanist 2016-11-12 15:27
Thinking totally out of the box here:

Trump is a total unknown. We didn't like Hillary no matter how hard Bernie worked for her. Don't let the public know (the Government is good at that), while Bernie should be doing his best to give Trump advice, even if secretly. Point out to the Repubs that their best days were eliminating slavery and passing women's suffrage. They can do great things again--which would include Statehood for CC and a great (instead of mediocre) health care plan, and equality, and equitable taxes, and ending corps buying the government and on and on and on.

Maybe we can get them to stop the wars if we convince them that that's a Democrat activity (below the level of great guys in the Repubs). Meanwhile the demonstrations and everything can continue but enough of us should act respectful instead of hostile.

Who knows what might work? What we've been doing hasn't worked, any more than the wars have. We all know what continuing to do the same thing means.
In addition to objecting, help them make the Republicans "Great Again". It's worth a try. Why stay tied, if even loosely, to that scum political party?
 
 
+5 # JCM 2016-11-12 15:39
I believe a big problem with Democrats is that if they are not excited about anyone or it's a midterm they stay at home. The consequence of that is that the Democrats lose and the politicians still left over see that the voting Democrats don't vote so they change course and pander more to the right to get those people who do vote. So the vicious circle is Democratic voters don't vote, the Democratic politicians move to the right to try to get votes which in turn demoralizes the Democratic voters and they don’t vote or vote third party. What’s the answer? For me it has always been that Democratic Politicians should never try to be Republican lite. They must lead us to the left to energize the Democrats and demand that voters get out and vote. They need to shout out on every network they can about every lie the republicans come up with and show the country what a bunch of hypocrites they are. For example, despite the fact that most Americans want to keep their Medicare benefits, Ryan wants to privatize Medicare with vouchers. Where is the outrage? Where are the Democrats pounding Ryan day in, day out. Take some lessons from the republicans’ always bad mouthing democratic legislation. Tell the people outright if it is a lie. If not, get out and let someone else do it. I hope that’s where we are now and I hope it’s not too late. If everyone who voted for Obama voted for Hilary we could have won, maybe everything.
 
 
+9 # JCM 2016-11-12 15:42
The flip side to this is about money. The Democratic Party has also moved further right because they need corporate money to compete. Bernie showed that we can get money from small donors, but is it enough?
 
 
+20 # Ted 2016-11-12 16:41
It certainly was for Bernie right up until the primary debacle.
 
 
+7 # anthraxripple 2016-11-12 21:46
Not "debacle" - THEFT.
 
 
+3 # Ted 2016-11-12 22:46
We finally found something we can agree on, it WAS theft.
 
 
-2 # anthraxripple 2016-11-13 00:27
We agree exactly 50% of the time. That's not enough for you, so you're angry.
 
 
+7 # GoGreen! 2016-11-12 18:54
How about public funding for political elections? All qualified candidates get the same money and the same time on the major media. There would be no limit on the time volunteers could work for their candidate.
 
 
+2 # lfeuille 2016-11-12 23:26
Yes, that would be great. No fundraising at all except of a limited amount of locally raised money for ballot access petitions.

But again we need power to get it done. I think it may require a constitutional amendment because of earlier SCOTUS decision about "corporate personhood" and "money as speech".
 
 
+4 # lorenbliss 2016-11-13 14:57
@JCM: Think logically. What are we told by the fact the Democratic (sic) Party is submissively silent on the Republicans' genocidal plans to destroy Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security?

What we are told is that the Democrats' private position is the same as the Republicans' public position.

In other words, had Hillary been elected, the same thing would now be happening.

Which vividly illustrates why the Democratic (sic) Party is infinitely worse than the Republican Party. Both are parties of capitalist governance -- i.e., fascism. The Republicans admit it -- even boast about it. By contrast, the Democrats hide their fascism behind a smokescreen of Big Lies -- again Hillary's "public" versus "private" positions.

Moreover, these deliberately malicious lies totally nullify the principle of free elections. How can the voters make a knowledgeable choice if one of the parties always lies about what it is?

All of which has two points: one is the overwhelming probability that with Trump we are neither worse off nor better off than with Hillary; two is that our ONLY hope is the creation of an independent, truthfully informed, ideologically disciplined Democratic Socialist Labor Party.
 
 
+4 # Donna Fritz 2016-11-12 15:40
I agree with Scott Galindez.

Jill Stein, who I voted for this election as well as 2012, got exactly 1% of the vote.

On that, I've decided to register Democrat for the first time in my life. I'm 60.

Now couldn't be a more opportune time to take over the Democratic Party, as Bernie Sanders recommended.

It's clear to me after this election that the Green Party has no future in American politics. They just don't have the infrastructure or the money needed to compete nationally or rarely even locally.

If the Green Party couldn't make a decent showing this election where we had the two most hated presidential candidates in American history facing each other, then when do the die-hard Green Party loyalists see this happening? If not this election, when?

Bernie gave the Democratic Party establishment a scare. Donald Trump gave them and their supporters a wake-up call.

If Bernie decides to run in 2020 which he already announced he hasn't ruled out, the party establishment won't be able to afford to ignore him.

We're almost there. Don't blow it. Follow my lead and register Democrat and work to overthrow the party from within.
 
 
+13 # Ted 2016-11-12 16:38
Jill Stein and the Green Party TRIPLED the amount of votes they recieved in 2012.

Tripled.

I'd say thats a sign of a pretty strong future.

Besides, your vote shouldn't be just for whoever is most likely to win, that's dumb. This isn't just some game of chance we play for fun.

Your vote should be for whoever is your choice as the best candidate to lead the country. And your choice of party should be a party whose ideals, integrity, and policies and agenda (stated or ulterior) are those you can agree with.

(that being said, if Bernie DOES run in 2020 I will absolutely support and vote for him no matter what ticket he's on)
 
 
-6 # anthraxripple 2016-11-12 18:33
"Jill Stein and the Green Party TRIPLED the amount of votes they recieved in 2012.

Tripled."

===========

WOW!

3-PERCENT!
 
 
+4 # Ted 2016-11-12 18:39
Oh, you're one of those who need to be with the "in-crowd". nevermind.
 
 
-5 # ericlipps 2016-11-12 21:08
Quoting Ted:
Oh, you're one of those who need to be with the "in-crowd". nevermind.

No, I suspect anthraxripple is one of those benighted souls who prefer to vote for candidates who just might actually win.
 
 
+2 # anthraxripple 2016-11-12 21:53
I voted for Stein too.

It's possible to understand complex logic.
 
 
+1 # Ted 2016-11-12 22:48
Instead of voting for what is right?

No wonder we're in this mess.
 
 
+1 # anthraxripple 2016-11-12 21:48
I'm sorry. I just looked it up. Jill got 1% this time. Did she only get 1/3 of a percent last time?

I guess I'm NOT in the "in" crowd huh? Since I VOTED FOR HER.
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-11-12 20:27
They tripled their vote despite being shut out of the debates and ignored by the msm. But instead of getting angry at the media, you do their work for them.

"Oh! Please let's have as little choice as possible! And please dumb down our schools too and stagnate my wages. I don't think I can be trusted with a real democracy! Waaa!"
 
 
-1 # lfeuille 2016-11-12 23:37
"Jill Stein, who I voted for this election as well as 2012, got exactly 1% of the vote."

The Greens actually seem to be losing ground. Didn't she get 2% last time?

"If Bernie decides to run in 2020 which he already announced he hasn't ruled out, the party establishment won't be able to afford to ignore him."

I hadn't heard that. That's really encouraging. I can't think of anyone else on the scene right now who have both a progressive agenda and the ability to communicate with the disaffected blue collar workers who we need to get back. Of course, someone may appear on the scene in the meantime, but I feel better knowing that Bernie hasn't decided against it.
 
 
+2 # Patriot 2016-11-14 03:13
There is a limit to what we can expect of anyone! Sanders asked us to get busy and start behaving like responsible citizens, to run for office ourselves, and to supervise what our government does--at every level. He's not a Savior, just a determined, dedicated, principled guy who lit a fire under lots and lots of us. It's hardly fair to expect him to keep pulling our irons out of the fire. we need to do that OURSELVES.

Start now, by writing every elected official who is SUPPOSED to represent you, and telling them EXACTLY what you waant them to do. then pick a FEW specific issues or policies, and cling to them like a limpet, firing off a steady stream of comments. Do it by snail mail AND e-mail or fax, just KEEP doing it!
 
 
-1 # christianadvocate 2016-11-12 17:10
I cannot imagine that putting a sitting congressman in charge is a wise move, but is more of the same. He may be a great guy, but this is a full-time job.
 
 
+2 # lfeuille 2016-11-12 23:42
That's Dean's argument, but it may be self serving. He want's the job himself.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-11-13 12:58
I just heard recently Dean and Sanders don't get along. I want progressives and Sanders people in leadership roles. DNC is too important for Dean. I saw Ellison on a couple of shows today and liked what he had to say.

I know I've advocated for Schumer to vacate the leadership position but have heard that he is probably the closest Dem to Trump (NY connection). If he's endorsing Ellison that's good.

If Schumer and Sanders play Trump right that would be great. But will Schumer adopt a progressive agenda?
 
 
0 # Patriot 2016-11-14 03:14
Dean WAS DNC chair, wasn't he? Is he what needs to take over now?
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-11-14 08:36
He was and did a decent job. I saw Ellison and Dean on various shows this weekend. Ellison is saying the party needs door-to-door politics and vision, while Dean said vision should come from Congress while the DNC is all about mechanics.

I thought that was an interesting distinction.

I like Ellison but the fact Reid and Schumer endorse him has me puzzled.
 
 
-1 # Patriot 2016-11-14 11:57
Take a look at Ellison's voting record before you fall into his lap.
 
 
+4 # Ted 2016-11-12 17:17
One thing that is extremely obvious because of it's absence is any attempt at all from the "new, progressive" wing of the dem party to reach out to the Green Party itself for support.
 
 
+1 # mavrant 2016-11-12 17:20
Regarding 3rd party stuff.

Bernie didn't do it in order to prevent Trump becoming president. We trusted him, so why didn't we unite behind the second worse choice, as he asked us to, to save the Country. Yes guys. Save the country from the bums that want to keep stealing it from we the People. I feel those of you that voted "your consciousness", or abstained, not only helped put Trump in office, but may have also adversely affected the Senate and possibly some House seats.

If you want to see who writes the scripts for the Tea Party and other far right stooges, see the documentary movie on Netflix called "13TH". It's true and it will shock, and sicken you when you find out how a small group of well funded like minded people manipulated so many of us for such a long time.

Please, lets go to our local central committee and listen, watch then take the initiative to change it so it serves "We The People". All of us. My father, like many others, didn't come to America, and sleep on benches covered with newspapers freezing his buns off to hand our country over to those bums.

Worthy, 3rd party folks like the Jill Stein, I feel, would be better served by helping incorporate her values within a united democratic party that is operated in an honest, truthful and transparent manner. There's too much at stake to let those that cheated and lied continue the current loosing path.


Just the thoughts of another Monday morning quarterback.
 
 
+9 # Ted 2016-11-12 18:20
Please stop over-simplifyin g the choice of those who decided not to vote for clinton.

There were and are a LOT of factors involved in why we did not "unite" within a party that we could no longer trust with our support.

The least of which could be that there are those of us who believe that the blatant and obvious negatives of trump, as horrific as they are, may not be as dangerous in the long-run as the deceitful and hidden dangers of a clinton presidency and all that would go along with that.

Supporting the actions of the dem party and clinton's own past official activities were, for me, not an option.

The true identity of clinton and the dem party are what took the option of voting for her off the table.

And I'm curious, why aren't you suggesting that the "worthy" democrats incorporate THEIR values into a party that is ALREADY "operated in a honest, truthful, and transparent manner"?

There's plenty of room in the Green Party for all true Progressives.
 
 
-2 # anthraxripple 2016-11-12 18:34
Why stop at the Green Party?

What about the Socialist Party? Who says the left should only split its vote between 2 losing parties? Why not 8 or 9 losing parties to compete against the unified Republicans?

And, I DID vote for Jill this year - along with DOZENS of other people!
 
 
+5 # Ted 2016-11-12 19:06
I agree, in an actual democracy there would be a lot more party options for us to choose which we agree the most with and then the majority choice would become dominant.

The current two-party stranglehold you now support doesn't allow for that.

That's why the Green Party is putting effort into educating about and advocating for ranked choice voting.
 
 
0 # anthraxripple 2016-11-12 21:50
Ranked choice voting sounds great.

Until we get it, get used to 2 parties winning, and 3rd parties playing the spoiler.

Maybe a liberal Democrat will have the political courage to push for it, in the future.

Of course, you'll vote against them anyway. so they might not ever get a chance.
 
 
+6 # Patriot 2016-11-12 18:41
What is the matter with all of you who do not get the point that having only TWO parties--ANY two parties, leads very quickly to a struggle for total and permanent control of government--whi ch is EXACTLY where we have now arrived?

I'm not nearly as interested in propping uo the corrupt DP and nibbling away at its rotten core as I am in building a strong Green Party, because we MUST not be a duopoly any longer.

The Green and, to a lesser extent, Libertarian parties were shut out of this election by the Dems, Repubs, and the money-controlle d media--even by RSN, which Marc keeps saying we control with our contributions, even though we have yet to see much evidence of that control. They were sut out because both parties believe they Control us, and they intend to keep it that way.

If there are three or four or more viable parties, ALL of them will have to EARN the support of the voters. EACH party will have to develop a platform--and credibility--th at will apppeal to a majority of voters.

The election system now is so bolloxed up--red states, blue state, swing states, safe states, free states, two-year campaigns, super-Tuesdays, etc.--that we've all failed to notice that WHAT WE WANT no longer matters a hill of beans. And it will stay that way as long as we continue to support a two-party system.
 
 
+9 # Patriot 2016-11-12 18:46
THE most critical reform is a system of collecting and counting our votes that we can count on. I told you before the election that we would never know for certain who REALLY received how many votes, because we could not be sure of an accurate count.

Voter turn-out will not improve until the system can be trusted to be accurate, and parties actually DO, or at least TRY to do what they promise. And that does not mean submitting a bill that goes to committee and NEVER comes out--that everyone KNOWS will never come out--then running to the electorate and claiming, I submitted a bill to...

We must have candidates of a decent caliber, which means honest and trustworthy.
 
 
-4 # ericlipps 2016-11-12 21:11
Then again, a multi-party system often ends up with parties forming hostile coalitions, and sometimes allows extremists to exploit the weaknesses of the system at least as much as a two-party system does. Read the history of the Weimar Republic.
 
 
+2 # anthraxripple 2016-11-12 22:16
Partly true.

Of course, if we had ranked voting, and an automatic runoff, problem solved!
 
 
0 # lfeuille 2016-11-12 23:48
Countries who have multiple parties do not fare any better than we do. Most of the western world does but have recently been even more into austerity and just as neoliberal.
 
 
+4 # lfeuille 2016-11-12 23:44
Well, some of us were trying to save the world from Hillary's wars. It was not that clear cut and many of us just didn't agree with Bernie about who was the greatest danger.

But this time the spoilers weren't progressives but disaffected working class voters, so uniting wouldn't have saved her anyway.
 
 
+6 # sharag 2016-11-13 00:22
I don't believe, as the article states, that the Democratic Party leadership understands why they lost. The leadership should have been sent packing after the 2014 midterm losses. The neoliberals who dominate the part leadership have to be replaced with progressives who understand what just happened on the ground. Not a progressive wing, but a fully progressive party top to bottom. Only in this way will the DP rise from its ashes.
 
 
+2 # anthraxripple 2016-11-13 00:31
You're right. They still don't get it. We can shout, but we can't force them to listen. They ignore us at their own peril, as the elections results can attest.
 
 
+7 # Jaax88 2016-11-13 01:23
For a long time I have thought that the GOP/conservativ es have declared war on progressive and liberal values. They have approach this in an all inclusive way. Starting some 30 years ago, the business/corpor ate world started manipulating the laws to give preference to corporate/busin ess/conservativ e needs and preferences by getting laws changed or enacted and the Supreme Court to decide critical cases in favor of the those interests. They started to scape-goat the media when it did not report views favorable to those business/conser vative interests, they created and supported the hard right talk radio shows to propagandize the public in favor of the conservative and fundamental Christian values and making progressives and liberals the enemies of those values. Trump is riding the waves of those efforts.

To combat the conservative/fu ndamental religious attacks a third party or a New Democrat party will be need to break that mold. There is a need to start educating the public about the benefits and goodness of progressive and liberal values with a methodical effort. That is we as individuals, but grouped together in a common purpose, do not want the conservative/re ligious to tell us through laws and government actions how to live our lives and what our freedoms and values should be.
 
 
+4 # treerapper 2016-11-13 03:44
Actually, you have to evaluate the system WE have first - "winner take all". In a "winner take all" scenario, you will never get the representation of all possible voices. You only get that if you have a Parliamentarian form of government, which is much more democratic.

With "winner take all", 3rd parties suffer extraordinarily and that's the quandary we are in. In addition, the Greens in the US have never done due diligence. Building a party is like building a movement - it needs to begin with the people at the local level and move it's way up the feeding chain. Any attempt to do this top down will be an absolute failure.

Given that the possibility of re-writing the Constitutional aspect of our government structure is not within the realm of possibilities, we have to maneuver within what is possible. Therefore, the DNC needs to be brought to its knees - the power mongers and those that play the insider's game need to be expunged and the damned place scrubbed so there is no trace whatsoever of the black mold that has formed over these 3+ decades.

Ellison is a good beginning but you also can't forget the nature of these beasts - Ellison voted for the DARK Act and so he too has loyalties that need to be questioned and contained.

At the end of the day, whatever the DNC becomes, it needs to understand it is answerable to the people and backdoor deals with lobbyist and corporate trash just won't work any more.
 
 
+7 # geohorse 2016-11-13 07:39
Hate media, "alt right" etc. began after Reagan eliminated the Fairness Doctrine when the democrats didn't have enough sense to filibuster it. We need it back so lies cannot be spread with no consequences and truth be told.
 
 
+2 # chicagoflygirls 2016-11-13 11:15
"

“The Democratic Party can no longer be the same. It has been repudiated,” Reich said.

“This has been a huge refutation of establishment politics and the political organization has got to be changed ... if the Democratic Party can’t do it, we’ll do it through a third party.” _____________


Hillary got the popular vote, Red state voters would have likely repudiated ANY of the viable Democrat candidates offered this year. The confusion and misinformation campaign on social media was a shit storm of millions of unanswered attacks on Hillary and the Democrats. There is NO REASON to burn down the house, we just need more Red State non-voters to be found, registered, protected, energized and educated in the truth of the Progressive positions...whi ch are what the majority of American want but have not been willing to try to get at the polls... where other barriers have been raised as well. We will not be attracting a Red State voter who wants to believe that babies are being aborted and "torn apart" at 9 months. Don't even try to fix that idiocy. Find the non-voters and see what they want and see if they can feel welcome on the Progressive team.
 
 
+1 # Patriot 2016-11-14 03:25
Actually, if you read these comments top to bottom, the solutions are ALL there, and we need to start immediately to work on ALL of them, ESPECIALLY building a third party that can win several seats in the House and Senate, and many, many seats at state and local levels. the Greens have a start, having more than 200 elected officials in place, but there need to be many, many more. We must not keep buying into the two-party-only system; it is doomed to failure, and we'll be right back where we are now before two decades have passed.

Meanwhile, PLEASE don't forget: Our most pressing, urgent, immediate, and critical problem is COMBATING CLIMATE CHANGE so we'll all still BE here in a couple more decades!
 
 
0 # Cybele-couragenow 2016-11-15 00:26
The lie that really galls me is: 53% of white women supposedly voted for Trump, just not possible. Grassroots organizing,cour age to uphold to our values, and unity are our only hope now. If we allow this fragmentation to hold, there will not be any hope to TURN IT AROUND.
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-11-15 07:36
Even if the percentages are off we have to admit that many women voted for Trump, as did some blacks (8%) and Hispanics, union workers and college educated.

Not ALL those people are self loathing. Therefore they voted out of desperation. Many saw Trump as the upright middle finger aimed at the establishment.

There was no viable Dem alternative so they voted to send a bomb to DC.
 
 
0 # LionMousePudding 2016-11-21 02:54
I don't get the impression that people on the whole voted FOR anyone.

This election was about voting AGAINST the worse candidate.

The mystery of how so many people supposedly voted against their self interest can be explained in how dreadful the other candidate was.

Can Democracy get any lower? This is the depths of muck into which this co-operation or co-optation of the Republican and Democratic parties has dragged us.

Can we stop calling them parties now? I'm not having fun.
 
 
0 # nohalfsteppers 2017-02-05 13:19
All this talk of looking back, not looking back, and so forth is rather tiresome. I would prefer a new party myself, but the Dem Party right now sure looks like low hanging fruit. There is no reason that we should not try to both take control of the party >and< use the tactics of the tea party to push some responsiveness from our MoCs. Surely the Rs realize what a deep pile they are in right now. That's why they are dodging voters at every opportunity. The TPers did nothing immoral,or illegal. We have to strike now! The iron has just been pulled from the fire, and parts of it at least, are malleable. We cannot afford to give an inch or a second. I suggest we get to work right now. It's a lot of work, probably well suited to a division of labor within small groups. I heard what Nader had to say and believe his plans(I heard him call for 1000 in each district!)are overkill. Smaller groups, liaising with one another would seem more flexible, and it is astonishing what 3 or 6 or 20 people can do working together. Contact your local party, find out when and where they meet, and go. Keep your ears open and your mouth shut! Try to remember everyone's name! If you want to open your mouth, if you have two or three friends get together and split up to find out when confrontation with your MoCs is possible, and when folks are going to be out there! Around here it's Rev. Barber and Moral Mondays.There is way too much flagellation of self and others going on here, imho
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN