Why do articles keep pointing the blame “at democrats” like we in the party have some kind of magical control over this?
We can only vote for the motherfuckers that run. If you run, we can vote for you. If you don’t run, we can’t vote for you. So, who are we supposed to pick?
Dean Philips, the guy that talks about appeasing republicans? No. Just, fuck no.
You, you on the other side of the screen, you should run for office. Then we might have more options.
Eh, that’s conspiracy theory nonsense. If Bernie wanted to run, he could run. He just doesn’t want to. There’s no behind-the-scenes political party machine that is forcing him not to run. Nor did they prevent him from running in the past, they just tried to hurt his chances.
My family was heavily involved with the DNC from the 60’s to the 90’s. What you’re saying is sort of true and sort of not true. They don’t force people to run or not to, but they are very adept at strongly suggesting what their people should do for the “good of the party”.
If you run when they don’t want you to, they won’t help you in your next lesser election, and then you have no power at all. Bernie was an extreme anomaly to overcome the pressure to step aside, and even then, he didn’t win. If it weren’t for his ability to motivate the far left, a skill that moderate democrats don’t have, they would have found a seemingly polite way to put him out to pasture already.
I’ve seen it and heard it from the inside, and those were descriptions of the years when things were a lot more civil. I’ve seen nothing to suggest that they control the candidates any less these days.
I agree, we generally do try to look at the bigger political picture, and especially since Citizens United, money is a very, very major consideration. Politics is an inherently ugly practice that involves a great deal of compromise, just to function in a complex world with large numbers of different interests in it.
Though I’d say the modern day is a more mixed bag, it’s easier now for a more independent politician to rise with grassroots support than it was pre-internet. This was a major factor in Bernie’s success, and we have people like Katie Porter proving it wasn’t actually just some fluke. Even Obama did well, mainly with grassroots support against Hilary.
The big conspiracy theory that these considerations amount to some shadowy suppression is bullshit though. All the interests are pretty out-in-the-open with what they want. People who did not like him were not hiding their distaste for Bernie, or reasons for not supporting him.
One thing I think gets underestimated by younger progressives is just how many educated, middle-aged soccer moms with two and a half kids that we have.
I definitely agree there. There are a hell of a lot of middle class Americans who talk the progressive talk, but when it’s time to vote, they walk a moderately conservative walk. They always have a reason like “so and so has the best chance of winning” and “the newcomer won’t be able to get anything done”, but those are self fulfilling prophecies.
Until Americans who are succeeding in the current status quo decide that change is possible and desirable, we’re going to keep getting alternations of the same old same old or alt-right dark horses.
Don’t underestimate the number of registered dems that simply aren’t very progressive, and have zero interest in talking a progressive talk. We’re a coalition party, after all. The fix for that is voting reform, ranked choice, something like that, so we don’t all have to cram into one party just to survive.
Some people are just pro-choice and want some more business regulation, but that’s it. They can be dems too. I’m personally not in favor of any kind of ideological purity, I think they should be allowed within our ranks.
edit: underestimate, not overestimate, which made no sense.
Why do articles keep pointing the blame “at democrats” like we in the party have some kind of magical control over this?
We can only vote for the motherfuckers that run. If you run, we can vote for you. If you don’t run, we can’t vote for you. So, who are we supposed to pick?
Dean Philips, the guy that talks about appeasing republicans? No. Just, fuck no.
You, you on the other side of the screen, you should run for office. Then we might have more options.
The political parties decide what the options are.
IF the political parties decide that voters have NO viable options, then … well, they don’t accept any responsibility OR any accountability, do they?
It’s everybody else’s fault.
That, right there, is why the political-party highjacking-of-countries, ought be exterminated.
Democracy meant citizens voting on the issues, not on authorities who’d, har har, “do the right thing on behalf of the citizens”.
Current technology makes that possible.
Canada can’t even get long-explicitly-promised election-reform to be enacted by the guy who promised it:
political-power IS corruption, to some fundamental extent.
That has always been the case, for millenia.
Eh, that’s conspiracy theory nonsense. If Bernie wanted to run, he could run. He just doesn’t want to. There’s no behind-the-scenes political party machine that is forcing him not to run. Nor did they prevent him from running in the past, they just tried to hurt his chances.
He still ran though, and ran strong.
My family was heavily involved with the DNC from the 60’s to the 90’s. What you’re saying is sort of true and sort of not true. They don’t force people to run or not to, but they are very adept at strongly suggesting what their people should do for the “good of the party”.
If you run when they don’t want you to, they won’t help you in your next lesser election, and then you have no power at all. Bernie was an extreme anomaly to overcome the pressure to step aside, and even then, he didn’t win. If it weren’t for his ability to motivate the far left, a skill that moderate democrats don’t have, they would have found a seemingly polite way to put him out to pasture already.
I’ve seen it and heard it from the inside, and those were descriptions of the years when things were a lot more civil. I’ve seen nothing to suggest that they control the candidates any less these days.
I agree, we generally do try to look at the bigger political picture, and especially since Citizens United, money is a very, very major consideration. Politics is an inherently ugly practice that involves a great deal of compromise, just to function in a complex world with large numbers of different interests in it.
Though I’d say the modern day is a more mixed bag, it’s easier now for a more independent politician to rise with grassroots support than it was pre-internet. This was a major factor in Bernie’s success, and we have people like Katie Porter proving it wasn’t actually just some fluke. Even Obama did well, mainly with grassroots support against Hilary.
The big conspiracy theory that these considerations amount to some shadowy suppression is bullshit though. All the interests are pretty out-in-the-open with what they want. People who did not like him were not hiding their distaste for Bernie, or reasons for not supporting him.
One thing I think gets underestimated by younger progressives is just how many educated, middle-aged soccer moms with two and a half kids that we have.
I definitely agree there. There are a hell of a lot of middle class Americans who talk the progressive talk, but when it’s time to vote, they walk a moderately conservative walk. They always have a reason like “so and so has the best chance of winning” and “the newcomer won’t be able to get anything done”, but those are self fulfilling prophecies.
Until Americans who are succeeding in the current status quo decide that change is possible and desirable, we’re going to keep getting alternations of the same old same old or alt-right dark horses.
Don’t underestimate the number of registered dems that simply aren’t very progressive, and have zero interest in talking a progressive talk. We’re a coalition party, after all. The fix for that is voting reform, ranked choice, something like that, so we don’t all have to cram into one party just to survive.
Some people are just pro-choice and want some more business regulation, but that’s it. They can be dems too. I’m personally not in favor of any kind of ideological purity, I think they should be allowed within our ranks.
edit: underestimate, not overestimate, which made no sense.