Hillary to run again in 2020 (Op-ED)

[His Divine Shadow]

There are a lot of ways to do that. But one of the ways to avoid doing that (and therefore lose) is by imposing purity tests, by demanding that we stick to policies that are divisive and extremely unpopular and are not core values of the party.

Gun control is not a core value of the Democratic Party. Free trade is not a core value of the Democratic Party, and secret corporate-dominated courts that let private corporations sue the US government for lost future profits certainly aren't.

Yet the two last ones seem to be completely impossible to get rid of. But the corporate shills are still in power, just voted in another shill (Perez) instead of Keith Ellison.

I think it's time to wake up and smell the flowers, the people don't want politics where their sole pro is that they are a little better than what the republicans offer. Obamacare is a great example, an republican idea originally, that was actually pretty shitty when you get down to it, rather than just expanding medicare for all with a true public option, the democrats need to start talking about doing that, as one example. The issue here is not that people protest vote for trump, trump didn't have that many voters, the real problem is all the people who stayed home and they are gonna keep staying home because everything from the DNC screams "fuck youuuuu guys we aren't going anywhere, the future is a corporate boot in your face".

What is needed is not more explanations to the people on how they are fucking themselves by voting trump (when the real problem is the people that are staying home) and how they should be happy with that they can get from the democrats because hey at least we're not republicans. What is needed is change, an open and visible break with the past of the party, a new FDR, a new New Deal, public health care, free college. All else is just seen as trying to explain away and maintain the status quo. And that's the thing, when people are defending these policies and the democrats as they are, it doesn't help, it doesn't help how much you keep explaining it, just makes people angrier the more you talk, the more you try to reason the angrier they grow. We're past reasoning now.

Like say some democrats are probably gonna to try to spin this perez guy being elected in a good light, it's only gonna make the stay at home people you want to vote for you even angrier. The establishment dems are at the point when it's better to say nothing, just look guilty like a dog that took a shit on the carpet. At least that'd signal there's some kind of morals at work behind the facades.

[The Romulan Republic]

It doesn't require Red states.

Its currently been signed onto by nine states, total 165 EC votes, all solid blue, according to Wikipedia.

However, it is pending legislative approval in 16 more states, total 205 EC votes. At eight of those by my count, totalling 100 EC votes, are either blue or solidly swing.

So on just blue and swing states where its currently pending, you could get it to 265, just five short.

Its a long-term project, but its a hell of a lot less of a long shot than a Constitutional Amendment, particularly after Trump's "win", and particularly if their's a lot of swing state buyers' remorse.

Edit: And if progressives and liberals want to rally around electoral reform, I cannot think of a single more worthy cause. Not even overturning Citizens United would rate higher for me than sending the EC into the graveyard of history.

[The Vortex Empire]

It doesn't require Red states.

Its currently been signed onto by nine states, total 165 EC votes, all solid blue, according to Wikipedia.

However, it is pending legislative approval in 16 more states, total 205 EC votes. At eight of those by my count, totalling 100 EC votes, are either blue or solidly swing.

So on just blue and swing states where its currently pending, you could get it to 265, just five short.

Its a long-term project, but its a hell of a lot less of a long shot than a Constitutional Amendment, particularly after Trump's "win", and particularly if their's a lot of swing state buyers' remorse.

Watch and see, the swing states will not approve it, since they lose their disproportionate control over who wins elections.

[Imperial528]

It doesn't require Red states.

Its currently been signed onto by nine states, total 165 EC votes, all solid blue, according to Wikipedia.

However, it is pending legislative approval in 16 more states, total 205 EC votes. At eight of those by my count, totalling 100 EC votes, are either blue or solidly swing.

So on just blue and swing states where its currently pending, you could get it to 265, just five short.

Its a long-term project, but its a hell of a lot less of a long shot than a Constitutional Amendment, particularly after Trump's "win", and particularly if their's a lot of swing state buyers' remorse.

Edit: And if progressives and liberals want to rally around electoral reform, I cannot think of a single more worthy cause. Not even overturning Citizens United would rate higher for me than sending the EC into the graveyard of history.

As a treaty between states it would require congressional approval before it could actually work, otherwise the court will just throw it out as unconstitutional.

[The Romulan Republic]

Even if the courts ruled accordingly (which I would not take as guaranteed), it would put pressure on Congress to approve it, and a future blue Congress very well might do so. It might still be a more viable path than a Constitutional Amendment.

As to the prediction above that swing states will not go for it... I expect that some likely will and some likely won't. I don't expect it to take effect this legislative session, and probably not before the next Presidential election. But I could see it taking effect before much longer, if only because of the catastrophe of Trump and the circumstances of his victory.

And I must say that I find it frustrating to see people willing to dismiss the most viable path to such reform as impossible without even putting up a fight. More difficult reforms have been accomplished in the past. Yet it seems that many on the Left are content to accept defeat before we've begun, on this and many other issues.

[Flagg]

Just my opinion on the interstate vote act, it's a great way to give conservatives a permanent majority. All the states signed on are blue or swing that way, so you get a state like California divvying up its electors, but Texas doing winner takes all and checkmate, fucked for a century.

[Flagg]

There are a lot of ways to do that. But one of the ways to avoid doing that (and therefore lose) is by imposing purity tests, by demanding that we stick to policies that are divisive and extremely unpopular and are not core values of the party.

Gun control is not a core value of the Democratic Party. Free trade is not a core value of the Democratic Party, and secret corporate-dominated courts that let private corporations sue the US government for lost future profits certainly aren't.

Yet the two last ones seem to be completely impossible to get rid of. But the corporate shills are still in power, just voted in another shill (Perez) instead of Keith Ellison.

I think it's time to wake up and smell the flowers, the people don't want politics where their sole pro is that they are a little better than what the republicans offer. Obamacare is a great example, an republican idea originally, that was actually pretty shitty when you get down to it, rather than just expanding medicare for all with a true public option, the democrats need to start talking about doing that, as one example. The issue here is not that people protest vote for trump, trump didn't have that many voters, the real problem is all the people who stayed home and they are gonna keep staying home because everything from the DNC screams "fuck youuuuu guys we aren't going anywhere, the future is a corporate boot in your face".

What is needed is not more explanations to the people on how they are fucking themselves by voting trump (when the real problem is the people that are staying home) and how they should be happy with that they can get from the democrats because hey at least we're not republicans. What is needed is change, an open and visible break with the past of the party, a new FDR, a new New Deal, public health care, free college. All else is just seen as trying to explain away and maintain the status quo. And that's the thing, when people are defending these policies and the democrats as they are, it doesn't help, it doesn't help how much you keep explaining it, just makes people angrier the more you talk, the more you try to reason the angrier they grow. We're past reasoning now.

Like say some democrats are probably gonna to try to spin this perez guy being elected in a good light, it's only gonna make the stay at home people you want to vote for you even angrier. The establishment dems are at the point when it's better to say nothing, just look guilty like a dog that took a shit on the carpet. At least that'd signal there's some kind of morals at work behind the facades.

You run a general election campaign with even one of those and it will end up like so much Walter Mondale. It's a joke that's become a truism, "Republicans know how to win an election, Democrats know how to govern."
And now it's even easier for the ReChucklefucks to win elections since they even need to get more votes. :guninmouth:

[His Divine Shadow]

I disagee, 2016 was the year of old truths dying off. A campaign run on those would IMO be like a new Obama hope & change campaign that would energize millions if the democrats new to take advantage of it. Obamas campaign did exactly that, but the DNC shelved the system because it was a threat to their power over the party.

Regardless a campaign needs big boisterous statements, a promise for hope and change basically.

[Flagg]

I disagee, 2016 was the year of old truths dying off. A campaign run on those would IMO be like a new Obama hope & change campaign that would energize millions if the democrats new to take advantage of it. Obamas campaign did exactly that, but the DNC shelved the system because it was a threat to their power over the party.

Regardless a campaign needs big boisterous statements, a promise for hope and change basically.

Yeah, apparently pointing out that the other guy is an unbalanced rapist who views and treats half of the population as objects and oozes megalomania just isn't enough because "emails".

The sad thing is that you're 100% correct. The Trump Campaign was nosediving faster than the ratings of his fake reality show even with Reince Priebus apparently colluding with Benedict Comey to sabotage Clinton with a fake scandal and then suddenly it started airing commercials with a very positive "change" message while Clinton was airing commercials depicting Trump making fun of the mentally disabled and showing him being his lovely self.

I think the results speak for themselves.

[His Divine Shadow]

I dunno how the election looked from your perspective but from my POV it was a trumpfest. Trump this, trump that quite early on, the medias were all about trump and with all the negative stuff (which slid off him like he was teflon) his promises like manufacturing jobs, tariffs and ending TTP, NAFTA, etc, also got coverage.

In comparison, hillary who? Something something email server.

[The Vortex Empire]

Just my opinion on the interstate vote act, it's a great way to give conservatives a permanent majority. All the states signed on are blue or swing that way, so you get a state like California divvying up its electors, but Texas doing winner takes all and checkmate, fucked for a century.

Eh? The compact has all the states giving all of their EVs to the winner of the popular vote, not splitting them up proportionally. If it gained enough states and passed legal challenges, Republicans could only win if they won the popular vote.

[Flagg]

I dunno how the election looked from your perspective but from my POV it was a trumpfest. Trump this, trump that quite early on, the medias were all about trump and with all the negative stuff (which slid off him like he was teflon) his promises like manufacturing jobs, tariffs and ending TTP, NAFTA, etc, also got coverage.

In comparison, hillary who? Something something email server.

I've been so goddamned sick over the last 2 years that I've been kind of only paying loose attention to the basics because I don't need the added stress. I did notice that the media was reporting on the Trump Box O' Horrible but treating him with kids gloves (so while I'm pissed every time he tells them to "sit down and shut up", it's more being pissed at the undemocratic and despotic nature of the way he treats our news media as a whole, rather than having a sad at the mealy mouthed cunts who only care about "access" and played a very large part in getting President Pussygrabber elected) while shitting all over Clinton with the ridiculous email non-scandal to "prove" they aren't biased.

Plus the entity wearing the "person suit" known as Trump is so obviously unqualified in demeanor alone that I didn't think he'd actually win. I kind of want to believe we G0T H4XX0R3D by the Ivans, but it's just because I don't want to believe I underestimated the sheer stupidity, gullibility, and apathetic fucknuttery of the American people. I mean I have a really low opinion of my country and the termites who occupy it, but god damn, Donald Trump? Really? Now I feel bad about comparing the termites to us.

[Flagg]

Just my opinion on the interstate vote act, it's a great way to give conservatives a permanent majority. All the states signed on are blue or swing that way, so you get a state like California divvying up its electors, but Texas doing winner takes all and checkmate, fucked for a century.

Eh? The compact has all the states giving all of their EVs to the winner of the popular vote, not splitting them up proportionally. If it gained enough states and passed legal challenges, Republicans could only win if they won the popular vote.

Ahh, Ok. Because there are a few floating around out there.

[The Vortex Empire]

Just my opinion on the interstate vote act, it's a great way to give conservatives a permanent majority. All the states signed on are blue or swing that way, so you get a state like California divvying up its electors, but Texas doing winner takes all and checkmate, fucked for a century.

Eh? The compact has all the states giving all of their EVs to the winner of the popular vote, not splitting them up proportionally. If it gained enough states and passed legal challenges, Republicans could only win if they won the popular vote.

Ahh, Ok. Because there are a few floating around out there.

I've seen one nightmarish Republican proposal to split them up along the lines of Congressional districts, which would allow the Electoral College to be gerrymandered.

[Flagg]

Eh? The compact has all the states giving all of their EVs to the winner of the popular vote, not splitting them up proportionally. If it gained enough states and passed legal challenges, Republicans could only win if they won the popular vote.

Ahh, Ok. Because there are a few floating around out there.

I've seen one nightmarish Republican proposal to split them up along the lines of Congressional districts, which would allow the Electoral College to be gerrymandered.

Yeah there's that one, and then there's one where the states would split electors roughly at each candidates percentage of the vote in that state. Of course the obvious problem with that is that only one medium-largely populated state like Texas, Ohio, or Illinois can keep a winner-take-all system and the majority party in that state pretty much gives that parties candidate an automatic win.

[TheFeniX]

Because contrary to the narrative you seem determined to peddle, Democrats do at least offer something for the non-wealthy. Under the Democrats their are actually things like food stamps, and Obamacare, and Social Security, and public education. All of which are in jeopardy under the new regime.

Those are laudable programs and should definitely exist in a first-world country, but how do any of those current systems bolster the middle-class or even parts of the working class? Insurance doesn't keep me from going bankrupt from medical bills. Why am I even paying for health insurance? The government has a vested interest in having me healthy, working, and paying taxes. Public education is in the shitter, a diploma is worth about as much as TP, and Obama passed the buck up until the twilight of his presidency when he finally killed NCLB and transferred power back to educators.

And secondary education? This country is drowning in student loans to get degrees for jobs Democrats (and Republicans) are willing to ship out or import workers to do. I mean, God fucking damn it, Rick Perry (and this hurts to type) has done more for me personally for education since I'm paying $6,000 a year to finally finish out my degree with all online classes. Meanwhile, my wife has thousands of dollar in debt we're paying off because she went to UH to become a school-teacher. And UH has been firing staff and hiking up tuition (like many other schools) under Bush and Obama.

The thing about all the programs you listed, besides what I just spoke about, is that they are betting trying to get in (education), on losing (welfare), being weak (health care), or cashing out (SS). They aren't about a strong America. They aren't about a working America. They are about helping when we're "weak." People don't want to be weak. They want to work. They want to earn. Trump talked about jobs and taking America back. About kicking out illegals "taking" our jobs. About reigning in foreign powers. And that resonated with more than a few people and the ones that couldn't bring themselves to vote for him just stayed home because 4 more years of programs that don't benefit them and stuff like NAFTA just wasn't worth it.

EDIT: Let me say here in case it wasn't implied, I don't AGREE with this mentality (well, at least: Diving into Trumps billionaire arms and his shit messages). I merely noticed it and am doing my best to understand it.

Unless you're a rich sociopath,

Those types do well under any U.S. elected official. They just do better under guys like Trump. The American populace has done poorly under Democrats, they just do worse under guys like Trump. This is why it doesn't confuse me when voters just stay home. Why waste a work-day voting for the lesser-evil? Meanwhile, the promises and Charisma Obama brought in 2008 got a whole lot of people off their asses.

I also semi-object to you describing Clinton as "my candidate". Yes, I voted for her to stop Trump, and have zero regrets about that, but she was never my first choice.

"Your candidate" was a reference to the DNC.

And also because it falsely portrays Trump's victory as the result of a popular backlash against Clinton and this nebulous "establishment" (which somehow doesn't include hereditary rich white male oligarch who used to be buddies with the Clintons Trump), when in fact Clinton won the popular vote by nearly three million and lost only because of the Electoral College.

Bush also successfully portrayed himself as a working class "good 'ole boy" when he was anything but. I never said people weren't stupid. Even still, she won by 3 million votes, but also gave up 4 million compared to Obama in 2008.

Obama is specifically the reason I put so much blame on Clinton and the DNC. Clinton slandered the shit out of him for months in the primaries. Reps did the same in the general election, trying desperately to tie him to muslims and terrorists. Making fun of his HUSSEIN name, the birther bullshit. God damn, they tried "no-experience" then they tried a "Chicago politics scum" angle. Over and Over I remember the boob-tube and Internet spewed this shit.

And he won, handily. Hillary Clinton was derailed by a toupee and fucking e-mails.

And progressivism is only going to become a stronger force in the party as the generational shift continues. Unless, for example, all the young progressives take your approach of regarding the Democrats as no different than the Republicans, quit the party, and squander their potential influence by not voting or casting votes based on spite (i.e. Trump) or fringe ideological purity (i.e. the Greens).

God forbid they actually try and find a progressive party. Either way, you say Democrats aren't a cohesive block. True, but maybe it's about fucking time they become one and they seem keen now that they are fighting against the result of their apathy. Maybe they'll field an actual progressive at some point.

You yourself said that you felt that you wouldn't be that badly off under Trump, because of your position as a Middle class white man. I responded to your own choice of words on the subject, and I stand by my view that that attitude is both selfish and arguably discriminatory (this, I suppose, is what people mean by "white/male privilege"), and that it is a short-sighted one.

That was meant to say "it would be easy for me to rationalize voting for Trump." Upon re-reading it was implied but still vague. I'll try and do better. That said, your opinion of how shitty that attitude is doesn't change that it exists. And you (not you specifically) don't change it by continuing to attack/ignore that base. I think (Hell, I know, look at the numbers) a whole lot of white people want to be progressives. But they also want to do better in their own life. So, they moved away from who wasn't helping them, threw in with the wildcard (or stayed home), and now we all get a healthy serving of "fuck you."

[Flagg]

Because contrary to the narrative you seem determined to peddle, Democrats do at least offer something for the non-wealthy. Under the Democrats their are actually things like food stamps, and Obamacare, and Social Security, and public education. All of which are in jeopardy under the new regime.

Those are laudable programs and should definitely exist in a first-world country, but how do any of those current systems bolster the middle-class or even parts of the working class? Insurance doesn't keep me from going bankrupt from medical bills. Why am I even paying for health insurance? The government has a vested interest in having me healthy, working, and paying taxes. Public education is in the shitter, a diploma is worth about as much as TP, and Obama passed the buck up until the twilight of his presidency when he finally killed NCLB and transferred power back to educators.

And secondary education? This country is drowning in student loans to get degrees for jobs Democrats (and Republicans) are willing to ship out or import workers to do. I mean, God fucking damn it, Rick Perry (and this hurts to type) has done more for me personally for education since I'm paying $6,000 a year to finally finish out my degree with all online classes. Meanwhile, my wife has thousands of dollar in debt we're paying off because she went to UH to become a school-teacher. And UH has been firing staff and hiking up tuition (like many other schools) under Bush and Obama.

The thing about all the programs you listed, besides what I just spoke about, is that they are betting trying to get in (education), on losing (welfare), being weak (health care), or cashing out (SS). They aren't about a strong America. They aren't about a working America. They are about helping when we're "weak." People don't want to be weak. They want to work. They want to earn. Trump talked about jobs and taking America back. About kicking out illegals "taking" our jobs. About reigning in foreign powers. And that resonated with more than a few people and the ones that couldn't bring themselves to vote for him just stayed home because 4 more years of programs that don't benefit them and stuff like NAFTA just wasn't worth it.

EDIT: Let me say here in case it wasn't implied, I don't AGREE with this mentality (well, at least: Diving into Trumps billionaire arms and his shit messages). I merely noticed it and am doing my best to understand it.

Unless you're a rich sociopath,

Those types do well under any U.S. elected official. They just do better under guys like Trump. The American populace has done poorly under Democrats, they just do worse under guys like Trump. This is why it doesn't confuse me when voters just stay home. Why waste a work-day voting for the lesser-evil? Meanwhile, the promises and Charisma Obama brought in 2008 got a whole lot of people off their asses.

I also semi-object to you describing Clinton as "my candidate". Yes, I voted for her to stop Trump, and have zero regrets about that, but she was never my first choice.

"Your candidate" was a reference to the DNC.

And also because it falsely portrays Trump's victory as the result of a popular backlash against Clinton and this nebulous "establishment" (which somehow doesn't include hereditary rich white male oligarch who used to be buddies with the Clintons Trump), when in fact Clinton won the popular vote by nearly three million and lost only because of the Electoral College.

Bush also successfully portrayed himself as a working class "good 'ole boy" when he was anything but. I never said people weren't stupid. Even still, she won by 3 million votes, but also gave up 4 million compared to Obama in 2008.

Obama is specifically the reason I put so much blame on Clinton and the DNC. Clinton slandered the shit out of him for months in the primaries. Reps did the same in the general election, trying desperately to tie him to muslims and terrorists. Making fun of his HUSSEIN name, the birther bullshit. God damn, they tried "no-experience" then they tried a "Chicago politics scum" angle. Over and Over I remember the boob-tube and Internet spewed this shit.

And he won, handily. Hillary Clinton was derailed by a toupee and fucking e-mails.

And progressivism is only going to become a stronger force in the party as the generational shift continues. Unless, for example, all the young progressives take your approach of regarding the Democrats as no different than the Republicans, quit the party, and squander their potential influence by not voting or casting votes based on spite (i.e. Trump) or fringe ideological purity (i.e. the Greens).

God forbid they actually try and find a progressive party. Either way, you say Democrats aren't a cohesive block. True, but maybe it's about fucking time they become one and they seem keen now that they are fighting against the result of their apathy. Maybe they'll field an actual progressive at some point.

You yourself said that you felt that you wouldn't be that badly off under Trump, because of your position as a Middle class white man. I responded to your own choice of words on the subject, and I stand by my view that that attitude is both selfish and arguably discriminatory (this, I suppose, is what people mean by "white/male privilege"), and that it is a short-sighted one.

That was meant to say "it would be easy for me to rationalize voting for Trump." Upon re-reading it was implied but still vague. I'll try and do better. That said, your opinion of how shitty that attitude is doesn't change that it exists. And you (not you specifically) don't change it by continuing to attack/ignore that base. I think (Hell, I know, look at the numbers) a whole lot of white people want to be progressives. But they also want to do better in their own life. So, they moved away from who wasn't helping them, threw in with the wildcard (or stayed home), and now we all get a healthy serving of "fuck you."

All of your complaints would be valid if every single thing you are wanting are things most Democrats want, yet Republicans oppose to the point of telling ridiculus, bald faced lies like saying the ACA had fucking death panels that would send grandma to the gas chambers. And the ACA is a far fucking cry from a single payer, let alone an outright socialized healthcare system. Your problem seems to be more that the Democrats can't make the Republicans do what they want. Hell, Republicans can't make the Republicans do what they want.

[TheFeniX]

All of your complaints would be valid if every single thing you are wanting are things most Democrats want, yet Republicans oppose to the point of telling ridiculus, bald faced lies like saying the ACA had fucking death panels that would send grandma to the gas chambers. And the ACA is a far fucking cry from a single payer, let alone an outright socialized healthcare system. Your problem seems to be more that the Democrats can't make the Republicans do what they want. Hell, Republicans can't make the Republicans do what they want.

Politicians lie their asses off, that's no surprise. Republicans just have a serious edge in flinging the most vile shit, or shit they THINK should be vile (OBAMA'S A MUSLIM! ZOMG!).

But I don't really understand your point about Republicans fighting and lieing. Honestly, I would expect (and so should everyone else)them to do that because they've been doing it forever. They could fight all they wanted back in 2008 and Obama (and Democrats) really could have pushed them into a corner, much like here in 2016 but reversed. But Democrats were going through a shitload of infighting, much of it IIRC from the Blue-Dogs. I only see growing support for something single-payer in the US. This is going to be a big problem for Republicans if they tear down the ACA and do nothing to replace it.

I really don't see why Democrats (or anyone) don't throw more at the floor and force Republicans to fight them. Or force their own party to fight them and drag THEM through the mud to get actual progressive candidates. Instead, I'm recalling 8 years of mostly backing down at the thought of a fight and giving multiple concessions to still have the Republicans vote en masse against any Democrat initiatives.... you know, besides Patriot Act extensions and Drone Striking brown people. But to say "we'd do more, but the opposing party is opposing us," I'm honestly confused on how that's a rebuttal. And even then, it's not just Republicans fighting progress: Obama faced enough opposition from them, but damned if Democrats (Clinton included) weren't ready to fight him on any level in his efforts to close Gitmo.

If Democrats can't fight or only fight to maintain the status quo, what fucking good are they? When the only bipartisan support in Congress can be found when they want to take another dump on human rights, what good are any of them? To exist solely as a "well, if we weren't here THOSE guys would totally fuck things up." That ideology is why were in the current shit storm. At the least, get better Democrats.

Because someone like HRC labelling herself as a progressive? That's a bad joke. Yes, she's more progressive than a monster like Trump, but that's a really low bar to set.

[The Romulan Republic]

Democrats do need better candidates, and I fully intend to vote progressive in the primaries if their is a single half-decent, electable progressive running, but at the same time, the progressive and anti-establishment wings need to realize, just as much as the Centrists, that they are not entitled to get everything they want in the nominees. And that ranting about how "They're just the same as the Republicans" and either not voting or spite voting when they don't get everything they want not only accomplishes nothing, but actively damages the country, the world, and our own cause.

First priority: Stop Trump and the Republicans. Adopting more progressive positions may help to do that, but that has to be the first priority.

After that we can hash out where exactly we stand on every little issue (which to some extent will depend on the circumstances at the time).

[His Divine Shadow]

You know... that kind of talk only pisses off the people you want on your side, you think you are reaching out a hand or something, but you're really just driving the wedge in deeper.

[Flagg]

All of your complaints would be valid if every single thing you are wanting are things most Democrats want, yet Republicans oppose to the point of telling ridiculus, bald faced lies like saying the ACA had fucking death panels that would send grandma to the gas chambers. And the ACA is a far fucking cry from a single payer, let alone an outright socialized healthcare system. Your problem seems to be more that the Democrats can't make the Republicans do what they want. Hell, Republicans can't make the Republicans do what they want.

Politicians lie their asses off, that's no surprise. Republicans just have a serious edge in flinging the most vile shit, or shit they THINK should be vile (OBAMA'S A MUSLIM! ZOMG!).

But I don't really understand your point about Republicans fighting and lieing. Honestly, I would expect (and so should everyone else)them to do that because they've been doing it forever. They could fight all they wanted back in 2008 and Obama (and Democrats) really could have pushed them into a corner, much like here in 2016 but reversed. But Democrats were going through a shitload of infighting, much of it IIRC from the Blue-Dogs. I only see growing support for something single-payer in the US. This is going to be a big problem for Republicans if they tear down the ACA and do nothing to replace it.

I really don't see why Democrats (or anyone) don't throw more at the floor and force Republicans to fight them. Or force their own party to fight them and drag THEM through the mud to get actual progressive candidates. Instead, I'm recalling 8 years of mostly backing down at the thought of a fight and giving multiple concessions to still have the Republicans vote en masse against any Democrat initiatives.... you know, besides Patriot Act extensions and Drone Striking brown people. But to say "we'd do more, but the opposing party is opposing us," I'm honestly confused on how that's a rebuttal. And even then, it's not just Republicans fighting progress: Obama faced enough opposition from them, but damned if Democrats (Clinton included) weren't ready to fight him on any level in his efforts to close Gitmo.

If Democrats can't fight or only fight to maintain the status quo, what fucking good are they? When the only bipartisan support in Congress can be found when they want to take another dump on human rights, what good are any of them? To exist solely as a "well, if we weren't here THOSE guys would totally fuck things up." That ideology is why were in the current shit storm. At the least, get better Democrats.

Because someone like HRC labelling herself as a progressive? That's a bad joke. Yes, she's more progressive than a monster like Trump, but that's a really low bar to set.

Yes, so tomorrow we wake up with President Purely Progressive who wants to do everything you described. How does he do it?
Take single payer healthcare. Aside from the blue dog drug-co dickrider brigade who will almost certainly help the GlOP kill any bill in committee. So if the stuff that's a no-go with shitstains in the "progressive Democratic Party" how the hell does it get past the Republicans?

[TheFeniX]

Democrats do need better candidates, and I fully intend to vote progressive in the primaries if their is a single half-decent, electable progressive running, but at the same time, the progressive and anti-establishment wings need to realize, just as much as the Centrists, that they are not entitled to get everything they want in the nominees. And that ranting about how "They're just the same as the Republicans" and either not voting or spite voting when they don't get everything they want not only accomplishes nothing, but actively damages the country, the world, and our own cause.

Trust in government is at like.... 20% right now? I think Democrats are a bit more forgiving, like 30%. Hmmm, this isn't the link I originally found. Either way, Democrats are not pleased with the party they cast votes for. So yes, saying "they're both just as bad" is dumb and doesn't help, but that (in general) is what the people who are legally allowed to vote are saying. And when you keep repeating this and saying they need to vote for the status quo because the other guy is even shittier. Oh yea, totally gets people RILED UP FOR THE POLITICAL PROCESS!

You aren't going to change their mind by yelling at them "Stop, STOP DOING THAT!." You get them to change their mind by fielding candidates who are not only "less bad" but actually "good" for them, or at least seem to be. This is the reality of politics and it annoys me people constantly ignore this when Obama was like the text book example of how well it works.

And a really really REALLY shitty version of this is what let Trump scrape by with a W in a year with abysmal voter turn-out.

First priority: Stop Trump and the Republicans. Adopting more progressive positions may help to do that, but that has to be the first priority.

How? By sticking with the same mentality that cost Democrats their ability to do so (losing loads of Congressional seat and the White House)? It's not even about the mentality really. I posted it in another thread and of course can't find it, but exit polling had faith in either parties ability to get things "done" at record lows. Faith in politics is abysmal right now. And rightfully so.

After that we can hash out where exactly we stand on every little issue (which to some extent will depend on the circumstances at the time).

Healthcare, bankruptcy, and blatant fraud by financial institutions (among others) are not "little issues." There is actually wide-spread support for liberal stances on these particular issues and yet they get kicked under the bed so politicians can sell out the American worker more and more every day. THAT'S why voters are apathetic. That's why Democrats are at their weakest now. And Clinton is the poster-child for this mentality:

"Hillary Clinton. She’ll say anything, and change nothing."

Truer fucking words. But you seem to want to build up more politicians like her to "fight" Trump when their whole shtick was not fighting or just voting along with whatever was safe. Your post is like a summary of why 2016 happened in the first place. And you want more?

[The Romulan Republic]

I do not "want to build up more politicians like" Clinton. Nothing that I have posted, if read honestly and with an open mind, would lead naturally to that conclusion.

What I am saying is that we should try to get strong progressive candidates in the primaries, but that victory may ultimately depend on making some compromises and working with people who are not die-hard progressives. That's all.

If you disagree, that is your prerogative. But representing me as a Clinton establishment loyalist would be more insulting if it were not so laughable.

[The Romulan Republic]

You know... that kind of talk only pisses off the people you want on your side, you think you are reaching out a hand or something, but you're really just driving the wedge in deeper.

Its the truth.

I apologize if it came off as poorly worded or tactless, but what else am I supposed to say? Any cooperation requires some common ground, and if someone's starting position is that the Democrats are the enemy, and that compromise with anyone who's not a die-hard progressive is unacceptable... where do you go from that?

Again, The FeniX just accused me of trying to promote Hillary-type candidates simply because I argued that it might be necessary to sometimes compromise with and work with that part of the party in order to stop Trump. If someone like me, who supported Bernie Sanders until June, is accused of backing the establishment against progressives because I suggest that beating Trump is more important than spiting the Centre, in what way am I the one who is being divisive here?

Edit: The simple truth is that the no-compromise progressives are not a large enough block at present (even were they not internally divided) to win the White House on their own. Maybe they will be in a generation, if they don't walk away from the political process now, but they are not at present.

That leaves essentially two options in an election: Find some common ground with other factions who, even if they do not agree with you on everything, at least agree with you on basic things like legal equality, democracy, due process, and the existence of taxation and a social safety net; or wage an endless series of futile crusades as the world sinks further into fascism and the Left sinks further into political irrelevancy.

[TheFeniX]

I do not "want to build up more politicians like" Clinton. Nothing that I have posted, if read honestly and with an open mind, would lead naturally to that conclusion.

Fair enough.

What I am saying is that we should try to get strong progressive candidates in the primaries, but that victory may ultimately depend on making some compromises and working with people who are not die-hard progressives. That's all.

Obama's platform (maybe not the reality) was pretty damned liberal compared to HRC. Even Sanders gave Clinton way more trouble than he should have. The Democratic electorate seems more than willing to stack behind more liberal candidates.

Yes, so tomorrow we wake up with President Purely Progressive who wants to do everything you described. How does he do it?
Take single payer healthcare. Aside from the blue dog drug-co dickrider brigade who will almost certainly help the GlOP kill any bill in committee. So if the stuff that's a no-go with shitstains in the "progressive Democratic Party" how the hell does it get past the Republicans?

Good thing FDR never had to fight partisan battles during his push for the New Deal.

How is "they'd have to fight tooth and nail to represent the will of their electorate and possibly lose even if they gave it everything" somehow this huge mountain not even worth attempting to climb? You fight. Win or lose. You fight. Republicans have never stopped fighting as far as I've seen and they've lost big and they've won big. That's admirable on a certain level.

EDIT: I'd also love to see this and then the Democrats have the balls to drag the opposition through the mug and finally label them as the "fuck the people" portion of the government I know they are.