It would be nice if the far left, for once, did some introspection.

[DanTex]

For the last 20 years or so, the far left has been lecturing the Democratic party. Embrace socialism! Kick out the blue dogs!

And then they complain. By their own words, they are utterly dissatisfied with everything that has happened policy-wise in this country since at least 1980, and probably earlier. Even Obama's historic progressive accomplishments, if you read about them on CounterPunch or CommonDreams or many other lefty outlets, are just corporate sellouts.

They are gleeful about the Dems' loss in 2016, arguing that we should turn hard left and abandon electoral losers like Joe Manchin in favor of electoral winners like Zephyr Teachout.

And, sure, after a disaster like 2016, I agree that the Dems should do some introspection. After all, we did get crushed. It was indeed a disaster. Despite running the most progressive campaign in recent memory, we lost to an idiot with historically low poll numbers.

But why doesn't the same standard apply to the lefties? Because, truthfully, the far left in this country has accomplished absolutely nothing for many decades. The Green party hasn't gotten anywhere close to 5% nationally, despite many attempts. Their crowning achievement was throwing the presidency to W in 2000. Nader predicted that a W presidency would usher in an era of progressivism, a prediction that rivaled Cheney's "they will meet us as liberators" in terms of being hopelessly wrong.

Does the far left ever look in the mirror and think, hey, maybe our strategy of helping elect Republicans in order to punish the Dems for not being pure enough, maybe that's not such a good idea? Do they ever think, hey, writing a bunch of articles falsely claiming that there's no difference between Dems and Reps, maybe that doesn't actually help forward any progressive policy goals?

The far left constantly complain. They are constantly dissatisfied. They never accomplish anything. Maybe it's time for them to try a different route. Maybe look at their past strategies and see where they have gone wrong, and change course. Like, you know, working with the Democratic Party instead of against it.

[Warren DeMontague]

1. Yes, no one likes people who lecture, constantly complain, and are constantly dissatisfied.

Aint that the truth!

[DanTex]

2. Except when it comes to weed. Then we all love complainers...

[Warren DeMontague]

5. What?

The complainers vis a vis marijuana are the dwindling minority who still cling to prohibition. Maybe you didn't get the memo! Have you listened to Jeff Sessions, lately? He sounds positively wounded that his reefer madness shtick isn't getting rave reviews.


But, yes, the people who have nothing better to do than wag their craggly moralizing fingers at folks who are having a good time... nah, not real popular either.

[DanTex]

8. So you're satisfied with the weed laws in this country? News to me!

[Warren DeMontague]

11. I'm satisfied with the weed laws in my state.

Eventually, one way or another, the Feds will catch up.

The weed war will end up being exactly as successful as the porn war was, and the booze war before that. Welcome to the 21st century.

[DanTex]

15. I guess that's why you've never complained about it before...

[Warren DeMontague]

19. Like I said

the people who waste their time wagging their craggly little fingers at folks who are having a good time... really, I do feel sorry for them.

I do often wonder what sorts of internal turmoil produces that kind of puritan, moralizing behavior.


I'm not sure what point you're making, here, though. Is being supportive of marijuana legalization supposed to be a mark of this "far left" you're exhorting to introspection, here?

Because if that's what you think you haven't been reading the polls.

[DanTex]

24. I don't think weed should be illegal, but the fact of the matter is...

it's illegal in most of the country, and even in the parts where it isn't, it's not exactly "legal" because of the federal/state thing. And honestly, since I don't smoke (much) weed, I really don't care very much. And even the people I know who do smoke don't really care whether it's legal. I mean, it's easy enough to get, legal or not. In fact, it's curious to me that this is your big issue.

Still, the point I'm making is that the Nader/CounterPunch left has accomplished pretty much 0% of what they wanted to accomplish, and yet they keep going with their strategy of attacking Democrats and helping Republicans get elected. Pretty stupid.

[Warren DeMontague]

35. It's an issue. People have been trying to blow it off or treat it like a joke for too fucking long.

Why do I care? Want the whole fucking laundry list of reasons? Because personal freedom. Because the drug war is a fucking failure. Because there is no legitimate medical or scientific rationale to have cannabis illegal, when even a DEA administrative law judge called it the "most therapeutically benign pharmaceutically active agent known to man"

I barely smoke it at all, anymore, although I smoked the crap out of it in my youth. No, it was never "hard to get", that's part of the fucking POINT as to why prohibition is such a giant joke. I hardly ever get high, anymore. But you know what I do do frequently? I drive on the roads, I use the public services, I pay the taxes in a state that is raking in large amounts of revenue from a policy of having cannabis legal, regulated, and taxed. Yeah, it's not hard for twenty or thirtysomethings who are full of themselves and in love with the sound of their own voices to find, but I have an 80something year old mother who uses the stuff for pain and relaxation when she can. She needs to find a dealer? Why the fuck should she have to? Why shouldn't she be able to walk into a clean, well lighted, government regulated establishment and buy a cannabis based product that has been tested for pesticides and is clearly labeled for THC and CBD content (because sometimes people want more of one, and less of the other) and in the process pay taxes on the transaction that go toward funding government services?

You're "curious" why I care? Really??? I CAN DO THIS ALL FUCKING DAY, JACK.

I'm on about an actual issue of actual policy that has actual, real-world consequences for actual people. You've got a yellowjacket in your shorts because you're mad about something you read on counterpunch. Whatever.

[DanTex]

46. I agree with a lot of that. I don't know why you treat me like an enemy.

But, yeah, I don't think it's such a big deal, because I think we have a lot of bigger problems to deal with.

One of them, like I pointed out in the OP, is that the far left has consistently worked against the center-left and in so doing helped right-wingers like W and Trump get into power.

By the way, do you know what Jeff Sessions, our current AG, thinks about pot? These are the consequences of the far left's Dems-and-Reps-are-the-same purism.

[Warren DeMontague]

48. No.... I have no idea what Jeff Sessions has said on the matter.

You're not talking about issues. You're playing "my team rules your team drools" All this thread needs is a two minute hate over Susan Sarandon.

Sorry, but you're not accomplishing anything. Drama on DU doesn't even generate wind power.

[DanTex]

50. Google it. I'm surprised you don't know. Hmmm.

And, yeah, my team (the Dems) does rule, and the other team (the GOP) does drool. So to speak. Do you really disagree?

[Warren DeMontague]

59. That was sarcasm.

Of course I know what Jeff Sessions has said on the matter.

Unfortunately we have people in our party who say similar gibberish, things like "we shouldn't legalize marijuana because we have a heroin problem in this country"- a conflation that is totally contra-indicated by both scientific fact and on the ground reality.

Part of my endless harping on this issue is to make sure that our party nationally aligns with the direction of the electorate, the direction that many of the good Democrats on OUR team, especially (but not exclusively) on the West Coast have already embraced. The direction my state Democratic Party has embraced.

Because it is an important issue and -aha!- it also will help us win elections.

But you said "there are more important issues" - great. So what are they?

Because "Susan Sarandon made me SO mad on Colbert" is not an issue. "Those dickheads at JPR said the parties are the same" --- stupid opinion, one I disagree with (hence, my voter registration) but again, not an actual policy issue.

I brought up a policy issue, keep bringing it up, because it's something that is driving people to the polls and like I said, it has real-world implications.

"The Far Left needs to do some introspection" isn't a piece of policy or an "issue".

[DanTex]

159. An issue more important than weed? Gee, let's see.

How about climate change. Income inequality. Education. It's actually hard to think of any major issue that is less important than pot legalization.

Yeah, I think pot should be legal. I also think that I should be able to by wine and liquor at grocery stores here in NYC. Blue laws are a stupid vestige of puritanism. But it's not a big deal, I just go to the liquor store after the grocery store, and that pretty much takes care of it.

The far left is not a piece of policy, but they are a certainly a destructive force in American politics. They have now delivered between one and two presidential elections to the GOP: 2016 is arguable but 2000 is not. And even with that catastrophic track record, they are sticking to their same strategy of drawing false equivalences and helping Republicans win elections. So, yeah, I think they should reconsider that.

[Warren DeMontague]

162. Okay, but these "far left" people you seem to think you're battling

tend to be at least as committed on questions like climate change, income inequality and education.

Actually, it probably varies, because there isn't a monolithic "far left". Jill Stein's numbers in the previous election were fucking negligible.

But those are issues- real, actual issues and points of policy. This endless re-fighting of primary battles and fulminating over Susan Sarandon is just fucking silly. Jr. High School Shit.

[DanTex]

174. Well, they claim to be committed to those issues.

But their actions move the country in the opposite direction. The far left could have demonstrated that they actually cared about issues like that by wholeheartedly supporting Hillary Clinton, who was obviously far better than Trump on all of those. But instead they did everything they could to help Trump get elected.

This has nothing to do with re-fighting primaries. I haven't mentioned primaries at all. This is about supporting Democrats in elections against Republicans.

And, no, it's not over. You'd think that after the far lefties helped throw the election to Trump, they would wake up the next day and think, oh crap, look what we just facilitated, let's not play around with the "no difference between Dems and GOP" nonsense anymore. But go read CounterPunch or Intercept or whatever, and you'll find that the far left has done no introspection whatsoever, and plans to continue drawing false equivalences and advocating for third parties. Hence my OP.

[Warren DeMontague]

178. Why are you wasting time obsessing over what the people at counterpunch think?

Serious question. And why do you think an OP on DU is going to change it?

But you know what? Answer it, don't answer it, I don't care.

You're almost 40, huh? Well, you hit milestones like that and you tend to realize that we all have a finite amount of time on this ball.

It is up to each of us to determine how best to use that limited, precious resource.

So. with that.

...

[DanTex]

180. Probably the same reason you obsess over weed laws that you can't do anything to change.

I read stuff, and I have opinions about it, and I like to discuss those opinions with others. And this being a political message board seems like a good place to discuss political opinions.

[Hortensis]

242. I think you allowed yourself to be distracted

from a critical point, DanTex. Win to the opponent, no matter who made what points.

It's tremendously important for Americans to realize that more and more people are adopting extremist positions that cannot come together to make democracy work. This began on the right but is happening now on the left also. The Democratic Party, now the nation's ONLY functional mainstream party, is being attacked from both extremes, left and right.

[Warren DeMontague]

281. Oh, the weed laws are changing. Believe me.

I'll give you one little example. A few years back, here in Oregon, there was a contest for state Attorney General. The "establishment" (as it was back then) candidate was a dude named Dwight Holton. He was a Democrat, at least in party affiliation, but he HATED pot. Hated medical pot, hated recreational pot. Pot, pot, pot.

So the good people of our state decided we'd had enough, and we elected a far superior candidate for Atty. General, Ellen Rosenblum, who didn't have such a hard-on, excuse the phrase, to bust pot smokers.

That election reverberated and our state Democratic party got the message. The days of putting forth these jackwits on the wrong side of the legalization question are over.

This is playing out and will play out on a National level over time.

But like I said up there, it's an actual issue- and I certainly would agree that climate change and income inequality, etc. are more important issues- but I asked you for issues not because I think "nothing is more important than pot", but because I don't think you're actually doing issue or policy or persuasion or any of it, here-- you're just railing against people you don't like.

And if that's what does it for you, hey, whatever. But it's not exactly substantive political discussion, now, is it.

[DanTex]

286. Good to hear. Soon you will be in heaven then.

Yeah, I'm railing against people I don't like. More precisely, I'm railing against actions I don't like, because those actions help the cause of the GOP, actions which among other things, make the legalization of weed less likely.

And, yes, I think it is substantive political discussion to talk about those actions.

[Warren DeMontague]

287. I live in Oregon, I don't need "heaven".

You're in Manhattan, I don't expect you'd understand.

Or was it Minnesota?

[DanTex]

292. LOL. Yeah, Manhattan.

Yeah, I love NYC, but sure, I understand the draw of an idyllic rural lifestyle. Big skies, quiet, nature, lots of square feet without paying (tens of) millions of dollars. But, you live here for a bit, and you just get used to the sounds of honking taxis and ambulance sirens. Goes with the territory.

Have you been? You should come check it out. We could have this argument in person over a few beers. I bet you'd find me not nearly as objectionable as you currently do...

[Warren DeMontague]

296. I have. The East Coast is not for me, although I know plenty of people who thrive on it.

My wife loves NYC, at least to visit.

I spent a good chunk of my 20s living in downtown Chicago, so I'm not exactly unfamiliar with the appeal of urban excitement. When I still drank (maybe that's why I never shut up about weed- it's pretty much the only vice I still have, and an infrequent one at that) I certainly liked the idea of bars open until 5 am on the weekends.

But we're not exactly wood shacks and half-moon outhouses here, either. Probably the biggest infrastructure disappointment we had locally was when Google Fiber declined to start offering gigabit internet services here a couple years ago. That, and eventually we're gonna need that new I-5 bridge.

...having lived several different places including up and down some of the most beautiful parts of California, this spot beats them all, in my humble opinion.

For what it's worth, I don't "find you objectionable". I do think the energies expressed in this thread would probably be more effective directed elsewhere, but even that may be me chastising my younger self for all the "fuck Ralph Nader" threads I participated in 13 years ago, that didn't accomplish anything except bringing my own blood pressure up.

I get it, but ... well, we're all gonna do what we're gonna do, I guess.

[DanTex]

297. Well, then maybe it's on me to visit Oregon.

Never been, even though I've been to all the states it borders. The picture I have in my mind is of Northern California. One thing I can't deny is that the natural beauty out West is significantly greater. I mean, rich folk in NYC haven't found anywhere better than the Hamptons to go for their summers. Big Sur, Yosemite, Malibu, Napa, etc., really pretty much anywhere along the Pacific Coast is nicer.

[fun n serious]

143. I do not smoke at all and really never have

BUT... I enjoy the decriminalization of weed among our youth and I also enjoy that the cartel is wounded. It's a big deal to me.

[JI7]

23. That's because there isn't a real war on those issues. but there is on abortion rights

Which is where actual restrctions happen. But many people don't care about these things .

[Warren DeMontague]

27. You need to be more specific with these elaborate straw creatures you are constructing

so I know what conversation I'm supposed to be having, here.

One- there isn't a war on marijuana? Great! I guess we can let all the pot smokers out of prison. I guess the cops in Florida can stop following little old ladies home from the hydroponics store and raiding their houses to find the pot plants in their basement, because there's not a "real war" on marijuana. I guess that 20 billion dollars or whatnot the DEA gets- can we give it to NASA?

But, yes, straw caricatures, like all these "far left" baddies who don't give a shit about abortion rights. They're probably hiding with the heteronormative patriarchy-defending progressive dudebros who got angry over the picture of the showering country music singer with the banana sling undies, right?

[JI7]

36. you are the one who compared it to porn

[Warren DeMontague]

40. I also compared it to booze.

Point is, the prohibitionists are fighting a losing battle, I think.

[NurseJackie]

39. Damn!

[Warren DeMontague]

140. "Dan" himself said we should do some introspection, too.

I guess suggesting our leaders adopt a policy position supported by a fast-growing majority of Americans is just a kooky bridge too far.

[NurseJackie]

151. Oh my! :-D

[Warren DeMontague]

154. clever

[NurseJackie]

166. I know.

[Warren DeMontague]

169. dont forget the helmet!

[NurseJackie]

173. .

[HoneyBadger]

231. There is no reason to stand in the way of Big Weed

Unless you are in a competing industry. It lowers suicide and therefore gun violence. It lowers DUI related death. Basically it is the answer to every question.

[Warren DeMontague]

322. "big weed" is a bs term kevin sabet came up with to rebrand failed prohibition arguments.

There is no "big weed". There are a lot of smaller businesses and jobs created, though.

I think I initially misunderstood the intent of your post, though. Snark is hard to discern on the intertubes, sometimes.

[Warpy]

4. ....

Well done.

[George II]

86. So why does it persist?

[Warren DeMontague]

133. because energy cannot be created or destroyed?

[pangaia]

3. Glad you got that off your chest, Dan.

[monmouth4]

12. Yeah, me too....Geez..n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. Sure, as long as you are not including folks like Keith Ellison in your description of the Far Left

The Progressive Caucus in Congress plays a positive role in the Democratic Party. I have some patience for Blue Dogs in red and reddish purple states, but a lot less so in solid blue states.

[DanTex]

10. I absolutely do not include folks like Keith Ellison. I admire him.

And I also appreciate the Progressive Caucus, they do great work and indeed play a positive role.

But if you read CounterPunch or CommonDreams of follow other lefty alternative media, you know what I am talking about.

[LisaM]

285. Fifteen years ago both those publications were somewhat readable.

Now, they are exactly as you describe. I know a couple of people who pretty much forward articles from only those two publications (not DUers) and they have gone off the rails as far as reality is concerned.

[msongs]

7. during obama's yrs the party did little locally, regionally, or state legislatures and got clobbered

as a result. a bit of introspection and a TON of action are required on that account. I think there are some positive actions on that issue these days

[Lint Head]

9. It would be nice if the far left pick the traitorous pig up by the

seat of his XXXL pants and threw him out of our precious White House. This SOB ain't going quietly.

[Cartoonist]

13. My introspection

We tried to nominate a progressive but the centrists won. You were one of the loudest supporters of that losing cause. You've got it wrong about who needs introspection.

[opiate69]

16. ...

[DanTex]

17. We nominated the most progressive candidate in decades.

We won two presidential elections in a row with a less progressive platform than we had in 2016.

If going hard left would win the Dems some elections, I'd be all for it. Frankly, I don't care very much about the difference between "left left" and "moderate left", I just want the Dems to win elections. But I see no evidence that the hard left is useful in that regard.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. The platform was progressive, yes.

you are right on that point.

[DanTex]

26. Indeed, as was the candidate. And the candidate lost.

[Warren DeMontague]

30. it was a progressive platform!

I was impressed with how progressive the platform was.

People should read our platform, and the 2016 GOP platform, and ask themselves which side of many issues they are on. If they find themselves disagreeing with the Democratic Platform and even agreeing with points in the Republican Platform, THEY should do some introspection!

Wouldn't you agree, there, Dan?

[DanTex]

34. I agree that people should read the Dem and GOP platform and compare them.

If they agree with the GOP platform more than the Dem platform, they should vote GOP.

Not sure what your point is, but yes, I agree.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. I think if people agree with the GOP platform at all, there's a problem.

Yes.

[DanTex]

47. Agreed, for sure.

[zentrum]

367. Bernie pushed her left.

On minimum wage, student debt---she waffled until he had real momentum. Then she took her stand for these things too.

Same for marriage equality. She was late.

She was a hawk until the Iraq war failed. I'm not sure where the platform was on this.

We of the "far left," whatever the hell that is in the 21st century, always push the center Dems back into classic Democratic, FDR-style, territory. And we're often the foot soldiers getting out the vote.

The coasts for sure, which is what gave her her majority, are usually to the left of the mainstream Dems. Abolish the Electoral College (created to protect slave owners) and the Dems will surge even more in a progressive direction because they'll be free of domination by smaller, more conservative populations. A real Democracy. Imagine that.

[Warren DeMontague]

368. I, too, am strongly of the opinion that Bernie Sanders caused HRC to be a better candidate.

An opinion shared by Barack Obama.

[zentrum]

371. Yeah, you and I need to

...introspect lots and lots more.

[Cartoonist]

89. Most progressive?

I don't agree. I didn't hesitate to vote for her, but she had serious flaws.

I haven't followed the post-mortem, but I think something needs to be said. Hillary is hated by many Americans. She doesn't deserve it, but it's there. Sometimes issues and platforms don't matter. Personality does. Bill and Barack had personality to spare. AL and John didn't.

I think Elizabeth Warren has a winning personality.

[DanTex]

92. Of course she had flaws. But she was more progressive than Obama, Kerry, Gore, or Bill.

Yeah, a lot of people hated her. I don't think she was our best choice. But it had nothing to do with her policies. You are right, it was her personality, she didn't have Obama's charisma.

[Cha]

137. No one has President Obama's "charisma" but he most

certainly knew Hillary would make an excellent President.

I bet he liked her "personality" just fine.. and so did I.

[FDRsGhost]

161. How is Hillary more progressive than POTUS Obama?

Explain please.

[DanTex]

165. Look at the campaign that she ran.

She had a more ambitious economic agenda. She went farther than Obama on financing college. She pushed farther on minimum wage. She was more aggressive on green energy. And so on down. Her platform was the most progressive the Dems have run in a long time.

[FDRsGhost]

170. I agree and also disagree

I don't think she was more progressive on green energy or health care. Obama wanted a public option and green energy has gotten a huge boost under Obama. In 2005, Hillary voted against the 2005 energy bill which was a huge boom to renewable energy, Obama voted for it. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jan/16/hillary-clinton/no-it-was-a-boon-to-renewable-fuel-industry/ If you look back to the 2008 race, POTUS was far more aggressive with progressive ideals. As far as 2016 goes, Hillary was building on what POTUS had already accomplished.

Financing college....I really wish someone would talk about student loan debt forgiveness. So many of us are swimming in debt....

[karynnj]

261. Hillary was not more progressive than Obama, her immediate predecessor as nominee

The PLATFORM in 2016 was more progressive because the country shifted under Obama -- and Clinton was moved to the left by Sanders.

[athena]

277. As always, let's give all the credit to the male candidate.

I'm sorry, but it is common knowledge (among everyone except those on the left who hate Hillary's guts) that HRC also ran a more progressive campaign than BHO did in 2008. The only way in which HRC is not 100% progressive is that she's a hawk. In every other way, she's a progressive. She may not have screamed it the way Bernie did, but claiming that Bernie is what made her progressive displays a breathtaking lack of knowledge of HRC's history as a person and as a politician.

[QC]

20. Bingo. n/t

[SixString]

31. ...

[SMC22307]

73. Exactly. (n/t)

[NanceGreggs]

77. Yet another great fallacy ...

... that came out of the last primary, and the last election.

Hillary won the nomination because more Democrats wanted her as their nominee. Those primary votes came from far leftists, the left-leaning, centrists - and people who don't self-identify as being part of a category, but simply vote on the basis of who is running at any given time, what he/she stands for, his/her chances of winning the GE, and a myriad of other reasons.

This neat little packaging of Democrats into categories is beyond political naivete, and to assume that individuals always vote according to what category people like you place them in is downright ludicrous.

"We tried to nominate a progressive but the centrists won."

Uh, no. Some people tried to nominate who they decided was a "progressive", and were out-voted by Democrats - of all stripes - who didn't want that "progressive" representing them in the general election. And for many of us who didn't want that particular person to be our nominee, we made that decision based on reasons that have nothing to do with what category you've decided we neatly fall into.

This "the centrists won" meme is already an old, worn-out cliche that simply ignores reality - that reality being that the vast majority of Democrats saw your "progressive" candidate as falling far short of what was needed and wanted in a nominee.

To declare that Hillary only won the nomination due to "centrists" is not only ridiculous on its face, it absolutely reeks of an attempt to divide Democrats by categorizing them into those who were allegedly against your "progressive" candidate as opposed to being FOR the candidate they ultimately chose based on HER credentials.

As for that "losing cause", HRC won the popular vote by three million votes - votes cast by actual citizens, not EC votes that were awarded based on an arcane "winner take all" state-by-state count - and that was despite Russian interference, Wikileaks bullshit, fake news, Comey's "announcement", gerrymandering, and voter suppression in Democratic strongholds.

[Cartoonist]

99. I disagree with your analysis.

Trump is Prez. Hillary lost. Alternate facts are pointless.

[stevenleser]

109. Everything Nance wrote is factually correct. There are no alternative facts there. nt

[NanceGreggs]

116. Your disagreement ...

... doesn't change the facts. You are pigeon-holing Democrats in order to make the case that "centrists won" by not nominating your candidate-of-choice - which ignores the fact that the majority of Democrats didn't want him as their nominee.

Your would-be candidate lost - and those Democrats who chose HRC instead of him are not all centrists, nor do they belong in whatever cutesy little categories you've created in your own mind.

Yes, Hillary lost - and why she lost is becoming abundantly clear.

You can blame your "progressive candidate's" loss of the nomination on centrists - or whatever other category you think some Dems fall into. That doesn't change the fact that such categorization is ridiculous, and your preferred candidate lost by virtue of NOT being the choice of the vast majority of the Party, regardless of which "category" you've personally decided they belong in.

"Blame the centrists!" is blatantly divisive. It assumes that your "progressive candidate" would have won the GE (he wouldn't have), and seeks to place the blame for his alleged GE loss (which never happened) on Democrats.

Your candidate-of-choice LOST the primary - isn't it time to accept that fact and stop pretending that he would have won the GE?

[Cartoonist]

177. The wrong choice

Ok, it wasn't the centrists that nominated Hillary, iit was the Democratic party. Time for some introspection tnen. Why did the Dems pick a loser? I wasn't part of that crowd. My conscience is clear.

[Chevy]

379. But alas if Bernie was nominee Bloomberg would of run

and won... As centrists Dems, Reps and Indys would of gone for the non yelling candidates with funny hair and various other issues to many to list.

[lunamagica]

120. Sanders lost to Hillary. That's a fact

[comradebillyboy]

132. Thank you Nance...nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

196. This is plain wrong:

"Uh, no. Some people tried to nominate who they decided was a "progressive", and were out-voted by Democrats - of all stripes - who didn't want that "progressive" representing them in the general election."

Neither you nor I know what "people" didn't want in that regard. At best we can posit what they preferred. So one could say with some justification that the majority of Democrats preferred having Hillary Clinton represent them in the Fall election. But a good deal of those voters would have been happy having Bernie Sanders representing them in the fall had he won the primaries instead. And vice versa.

I know quite a few Democrats who voted for Hillary in the primaries even though they believed that Bernie Sanders would represent their views better in the general election. Those voters chose Hillary (who they were certainly OK with) over Bernie because at the point when they voted they believed that America would never elect "a Jewish Socialist" President. Maybe they were right, maybe they were wrong.

[Kentonio]

212. Hmm..

based on an arcane "winner take all" state-by-state count

Yeah, it's a shame we didn't know about and couldn't be prepared for this arcane and little known way of counting votes..

[NanceGreggs]

268. Sooooo NOT the point.

The point IS that the majority of voters chose HRC as the next president.

[William769]

103. Not losing, stolen. nt

[Cha]

121. Hillary had the most Progressive Platform of any Democratic

Presidential Nominee.. she won the Popular vote by 3 Million VOTES.. the most of any Democratic Candidate in history except for Barack Obama.

The fucking LES out there spread around are what has contributed to this Planetary Crises we're in NOW.

These Lying smug assholes need to do some introspection..

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Yeah, and there will always be LYING A$$ Privilege ELITE..

Who sucker in the LOW INFORMATION voter with LIES like these..

"The prominent Sanders backer also predicted that a Hillary Clinton indictment was "inevitable"

Susan Sarandon: Hillary Clinton more dangerous than Donald Trump

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/03/susan_sarandon_hillary_clinton_more_dangerous_than_donald_trump/

poor ssarandon "had to change her phone number.." while the rest of the country that isn't so well off have to worry about this among other trumpshite..

Link to tweet

Jill Stein spoiled the 2016 election for Hillary Clinton

http://www.salon.com/2016/12/02/jill-stein-spoiled-the-2016-election-for-hillary-clinton/

[Dammit Jim]

156. Ah, Yes, the Ideologically Pure

Though I firmly believe the glavnyi vrag of democracy last fall was James Comey, there's no doubt that fools like Stein and Sarandon contributed to the debacle.

[riversedge]

187. Agree on both statements...and

welcome to DU

[Dammit Jim]

194. Thank You Muchly

And now, as it's way past my bedtime, have a good day in your timezone!

[Cha]

288. Most definitely stein and sarandon own

a chunk of trump.

[lapucelle]

404. Did Susan change her phone number?

Why didn't she just move into one of her other apartments in Manhattan. She owns five.

And remember this?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/12512178481

[Cha]

405. No I had forgotten that pos Hypocrisy from sarandon..

https://www.democraticunderground.com/12512178481

Thank you, lapucelle

[StubbornThings]

216. Couldn't have said it better.

[dchill]

14. If YOU are satisfied, then you're not doing it right!

[DanTex]

18. That depends what you are talking about LOL.

[JI7]

21. there is no far left that wants socialism

The greens are mostly career types that profit from republicans in office . And that's what many of the so called leftists actually are.

Most of them are also hostile to women and minorities.

[cheapdate]

38. Can't dispute what you've seen,

but around here there's a real presence of actual leftist socialists. They read Jacobin, quote Zizek, join socialist organizations. For fun they bash "liberals" and drink beer outside at The Boro Bar and Grill.

[forjusticethunders]

185. reads jacobin and quotes Zizek

That's basically the same thing.

Zizek actually SUPPORTED TRUMP.

[cheapdate]

264. Those were just some illustrative examples.

I'm not a fan of Zizek. I don't really know his work and what little of it I have read seemed to be sloppy, rambling, and unconvincing. He did proclaim his support for Trump, but his reason was based on the idea that only by electing someone as wretched and awful as Trump could Americans be shaken into truly recognizing the awfulness of capitalism and the falsity of centrist politics.

Note: again, I'm not a fan of Zizek and I completely reject the notion that electing leaders who will do the most harm and damage to the country is a wise or sensible strategy.

[forjusticethunders]

311. My point is that "actual leftist socialists" are frauds too

For those types it's the same kind of vanity project supporting, say, Ron Paul was for internet libertarians.

[cheapdate]

313. Okay. You know my friends then?

Head of the philosophy department at the local college, Michael P. ? State facilities maintenance worker, Scott M.? Stay at home dad, Joshua L.? Middle Tennessee organizer, Mike C.?

You're saying they're of weak or bad character -- i.e. "frauds" -- and their opinions and outlooks are insincere or poorly conceived?

Is that what you're telling me?

[JI7]

318. these types have always been out there. it's more like a cool kids club than actual political

movement.

[cheapdate]

326. I see. I'll bet I could guess your "type" too.

[JI7]

319. exactly, the lack of involvement in lower level office pretty much shows this

[DemocraticWing]

329. Zizek is an idiot, but everybody should subscribe to Jacobin.

They publish many views on the Left, not always those which ageee with each other. I have a few friends and acquaintances who have been published in Jacobin.

[cheapdate]

340. No argument there.

What little of Zizek's work I've read was sloppy, rambling, and borderline incoherent.

On the other hand, I've read some excellent analysis and reporting in Jacobin.

Another very good magazine that I've run across lately is this one, Current Affairs.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/

[DemocraticWing]

328. I want socialism!

And my socialist friends are diverse in background, work together on local issues, and even engage with local moderates when we have common goals. None of us are members of the Green Party.

Don't believe what you hear from right-wingers who want to demonize our movement.

[Cha]

25. Introspection is for others.. 3rd party voters are smugly

satisfied.. they aren't called emoprogs for nothing.

..they need to add a paragraph on Russia, though..

snip//

"Emoprogs dislike Republicans but reserve their greatest disdain for Democratic presidents, whom they relentlessly attack for not meeting a set of ideological goal posts that are constantly adjusted to ensure that the president will be deemed a disappointment, "not progressive enough" or "just like a Republican" no matter what policy achievements are made.

Emoprogs routinely dismiss or ignore congress' role in making or impeding policy, believing presidents can simply "use the bully pulpit" and "fight" in order to overcome constitutional or legislative obstacles.

Emoprogs have a strong affinity for 3rd party politics as a way to punish Democratic presidents. They are especially hostile to President Obama and deem anyone who expresses a lack of ill will toward him to be "Obamabots" and enemies of liberalism.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Emo%20Progressive

[CajunBlazer]

233. Hey Cha, what's happening with you?

[Cha]

291. Not much.. just

hangin' in there, Cajun.

How are you?

[CajunBlazer]

293. Nothing much

Working, for now, planting my vegetable garden, taking care of my Bonsai, reading, writing in my blog, etc.

My new mission impossible - get all Democrats and independent progressives to pull together without reservations for whomever is chosen as our nominee in 2020, regardless of who it is. That starts by encouraging everyone on DU and elsewhere not to demean each other or candidates of other people during the primary process. Fights among ourselves are just plain stupid. Like I said - mission impossible.

Also to get as many Democrats elected as possible in state legislatures and the US Congress in 2018 and special elections between now and then.
















for who ever is chosen as our nom

[Cha]

294. You're productive.. Mahalo

and Good Luck!

[CajunBlazer]

295. Thanks, I need all of the luck I can get

[JEFF9K]

28. We need to be as progressive as possible while being electable. . . . nt

[JHan]

29. I see only truths. K & R

[Glitterati]

32. So let me see.......

When it was the OFFICIAL strategy of the Democratic party to run away from their own party President........

When Debbie Wasserman Schultz told folks like Allison Grimes to run AGAINST Obama.....

When Democrats like Joe Lieberman ran opposed to EVERYTHING Democratic Party.......

That was all OK, because it was the LEFT that lost us all these elections.

Right?

Is that what you want people to swallow?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

[DanTex]

37. Seriously, tell me what the hard left has accomplished. Ever. I rest my case.

[Warren DeMontague]

41. There's a case here?

A case of what?

[opiate69]

45. ...

[DanTex]

49. Indeed, the far left are losers, who have failed in every possible way.

[DanTex]

54. That was very original. How did you think of that?

[DanTex]

58. So witty! No wonder the far left has made so much progress!

This kind of rhetorical genius is rare! lol

[Glitterati]

60. And if you stomp your feet a few more times

you might even manage to grow up past 2.

[DanTex]

61. And meanwhile, the clueless far left will still accomplish nothing. Seriously, wake up.

[DanTex]

66. As long as you don't name one accomplishment of the far left, you prove my point.

Thank you, you are too kind.

[Cha]

111. All you have are personal attacks and insults.. when someone

does this.. it says everything about them and absolutely nothing about their target.

[Kentonio]

215. This is very true.

That's exactly what I was thinking when Dan used terms like 'losers' and 'clueless'.

[Cha]

290. 3rd party voters are Losers and Clueless.. that's being kind

These Lying smug assholes need to do some introspection..

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Yeah, and there will always be LYING A$$ Privilege ELITE..

Who sucker in the LOW INFORMATION voter with LIES like these..

"The prominent Sanders backer also predicted that a Hillary Clinton indictment was "inevitable"

Susan Sarandon: Hillary Clinton more dangerous than Donald Trump

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/03/susan_sarandon_hillary_clinton_more_dangerous_than_donald_trump/

poor ssarandon "had to change her phone number.." while the rest of the country that isn't so well off have to worry about this among other trumpshite..

Link to tweet

Jill Stein spoiled the 2016 election for Hillary Clinton

http://www.salon.com/2016/12/02/jill-stein-spoiled-the-2016-election-for-hillary-clinton/

[Kentonio]

321. Dan didn't direct his insults at 3rd party voters

He directed them at the 'far left'. A term frequently used to describe the progressives inside the Democratic Party.

[Cha]

106. There's a meltdown going on but you need to

look in the mirror Stat

[Glitterati]

44. People in glass houses

shouldn't throw stones.

[askyagerz]

125. The left pushed the social issues and won

It created social change. The center didn't get gay rights and marijuana reform done. These started with the most progressive states and then led the country. I think the question is what has the center done in the last 50 years? Looking at the biggest wealth gap in history and the death of the american dream. The far left arent the ones who worked with the right to help destroy the economy

[seaglass]

147. MA is a progressive state which was the first to legalize gay marriage. We voted for Hillary. n/t

[elehhhhna]

53. Thank you from the bottom of my fucking heart

for this post

[FDRsGhost]

163. +1

[frazzled]

33. I think that living to be constantly oppositional is often

a sign of one of two things:

1) the (mostly unrecognized) desire not to be responsible for anything that actually happpens. Setting improbable goals--such as eradicating poverty altogether--allows you not only to be critical of any party/politician/group that, although working to alleviate poverty wherever possible, fails to achieve that goal, but also to not have to do the hard work of policy making and legislation yourself. It's kind of Trumpish: who knew it would be so hard?

2) I forget the second thing after writing that. Will try to remember it when my Ronald Reagan senior moment passes.

[nikibatts]

51. And it is easy to dupe them with fake news as the past election shows. All you have to do is

say dumb shit the fits their preconceived notions and sing in harmony with the RW talking points.

[mahannah]

55. "Like, you know, "

[DanTex]

63. Tell me one thing the far left has accomplished. Ever. I rest my case.

[frazzled]

98. Oh wait ... winning

What has the non-centrist left of the party won? Oh wait ... nothing, not even a presidential primary.

I think the "winning" argument is, shall we say, not a winning one.

[elehhhhna]

157. Fine. Run Hillary again. Put Debbie in charge . Winning.

[stevenleser]

112. Losing centrists? You mean like the ones who turned around the massive losses

Last edited Mon Apr 17, 2017, 11:28 PM - Edit history (1)

that Democrats were having in the race for the White House from 1968-1988 with only a momentary respite due to Nixons resignation on threat of impeachment? The same Centrist Democrats who have been in every race and won the popular vote in all but one of the last seven Presidential elections in the last 24 years and won the electoral vote in four of the seven elections? Whereas liberal candidates got blown out in the three elections before than and got blown out in five of six total elections from 1968-1988 and managed to barely win the one?

Nice revisionist history you are trying to apply here.

[Cha]

124. There are no "Losing Centrists that run the party".. you

need to keep up.

[hatrack]

62. Another mighty wall of straw, which will defend from the invisible enemy . . .

BlahblahblahblahBLAH

[DanTex]

65. You could defeat the "wall of straw" by naming one thing the far left has accomplished.

Seriously, just one. Any takers?

[CajunBlazer]

280. So let me get this straight -

If the choice for President is between a moderate Democrat and a Republican, who are you going to vote for - the moderate Democrat, the Republican, or will you vote third party?

If, as I hope your choice would be the moderate Democrat, would you volunteer and contribute as much to the campaign of that moderate Democrat as you would if very progressive Democrat were the Democratic nominee?

The answers to these simple questions, should you decide to answer them, will indicate whether you will do what whatever it takes to further your progressive ideas.

[ProfessorPlum]

302. I certainly don't have to answer to you

[CajunBlazer]

314. Hmmm.... I think you have answers

They are just answers that you would not want to publish here.

If you can't answer those simple questions honestly in this environment, I'm glad I don't think like you do.

It must be tough going through life thinking that you know what's best, but as a member of a small minority of voters who will never alone have the power to make your dreams reality. Because your group lacks the flexibility to settle for a few slices of your dreams if you can't have the entire loaf, you are totally at the mercy of other groups of voters as they decide how this country will be governed.

That must be a hell of a way to go through life, but hey, you can still dream, right?

[ProfessorPlum]

315. Yeah, good luck with that

[CajunBlazer]

316. My suspicions are confirmed

And you are the one that needs luck, not me.

You see I will be more than satisfied with any nominee the Democratic party will pick to be our nominee in 2020. You, not so much.

I am a member of the largest voting group in this country, even if the far left decides to get on board. You, not so much.

How does it feel to be in a group of voters totally at the mercy of others who actually have the power to determine how this country will be governed? That's not a position I would want to be in year, after year, after year.

[ProfessorPlum]

325. So, your suspicions are that I have to vote for my best option

Instead of the leaders I would pick in some ideal fantasy? Congratulations, Sherlock. You totally blew that mystery wide open.

[CajunBlazer]

363. My suspicions are that you aren't practical enough....

Last edited Tue Apr 18, 2017, 11:00 PM - Edit history (1)

.... to enthusiastically support the Democratic nominee in 2020 if that person doesn't live up to you high progressive standards. And in my humble opinion, that kind pf attitude is just plain stupid.

[George II]

309. You really said this???????

"I vote against Republicans and for Democrats first, and then for candidates who aren't sucking corporate cock. If you have a problem with that, go fuck yourself."

Unbelievable! What a classy guy.

[betsuni]

317. I can't believe that's still there.

[betsuni]

330. LOL!

LOL: "To the extent that the Democrats destroy our civil and social safely net and leave us vulnerable to rapacious corporations, they are dangerous as Republicans. See Obamas (sic) Grand Bargain which he was eager to make, but from which we were saved by the rabid Tea Partiers. ... I want to encourage the Democratic party to stop letting Goldman Sachs make all the decisions. ... for candidates who aren't sucking corporate cock. If you have a problem with that, go fuck yourself."

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL. DEMOCRATS DESTROY OUR CIVIL AND SOCIAL SAFETY NET (sic) (THANKS, OBAMA), RAPACIOUS CORPORATIONS, GOLDMAN SACHS, SUCKING DANGLING PRIVATE PARTS, GO DO TO YOURSELF THAT WHICH IS ANATOMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

Why is that comment still here?

[ProfessorPlum]

331. Your concern is noted

Was anything untrue? Obama did want to make a grand bargain which would have really hurt the safety net. And there are politicians, from both parties, who are on their knees to corporations.

[betsuni]

332. Nope. Obama did not want to make a grand bargain.

Why do you think so? Any proof? Don't think so. Corporations depend on customers. If they can't sell things they'll go out of business. Politicians can't make customers buy things. Politicians can get on their knees, but they can't assure corporations stay in business.

[ProfessorPlum]

333. Your understanding of why regulations are needed

is childish. Are you saying that corporations don't have a fiduciary obligation to maximize returns for their shareholders? And that poisoning us and cheating their customers isn't a great way to maximize returns?

I'll let you do your own research on Obama's grand bargain. It was in all the papers.

[betsuni]

337. Oh dear, you've called me both childish and a naive child in two posts.

Am I supposed to get mad? Heh.

[ProfessorPlum]

341. No, I want you to stop being naive and childish

Grand bargain (United States, 2011)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Grand Bargain was an attempted political compromise between the Democratic and Republican Parties in the United States during the 2011 budget debates, in which the Democrats would have agreed to historic cuts in the federal government and the social safety net, in exchange for an increase in federal taxation.[1] However, due to the rise of the so-called Tea Party, any increase in taxation was unpalatable to the Republican base, while President Obama's caucus panicked over the possibility of cuts, and as such the compromise failed.[2][3][4]

[betsuni]

344. Ah, ohhh, I love it when you insult me, big grand bargain turn-on!

[Cha]

126. All you have are vapid insults.. "BlahblahblahblahBLAH"

[hatrack]

181. How many more years of "Bernie SUX!" do you want?

How many more years of rolling around in the shit, re-fighting the 2016 primaries and whining about "The Radical Left"? How many more Rahm-channeling posts about the "fucking retards" of the liberal side of the party?

Meanwhile, Trump stumbles on, leaving economic, social and environmental devastation in his wake on a daily basis. You could, perhaps, pay attention to that, instead of the past.

But hey, it's your party. By all means, unleash your Spitwads of Doom against the real enemy - the Radical Left, lurking behind every tree and corner.

[NurseJackie]

189. Oh, brother.

[hatrack]

192. Whatever . . .

bye

[QC]

284. Thank you! n/t

[Cha]

289. Yes, it's my Democratic Party and I don't want BS

insulting it all the time like he did on Rachel Maddow's show with "feeble" and "can't fight back"..

BS on Rachel's"the Democratic Party is feeble" and "cannot fight back"..

He's Wrong and Divisive.. only helping trump, the gop, and the m$m.

Dems have our BACKs and I have theirs.

Truth.. Our Dems ARE Fighting for us..

Democratic Congressman Calls for 'Total and Complete Shutdown' of Trump Agenda in Congress

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028837680

Maxine Waters‏ Tweets: Meet Donald Trump's Kremlin Klan

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028839413

Top Dem calls for investigation into House Intelligence chairman

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141736108

Schumer: Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch nomination

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141736192

Al Franken: What was Merrick Garland about?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028836324

Woah. Rep Schiff: New evidence of Trump/Russia collusion "would merit a grand jury investigation"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028840444

Thanks to Franken and Klobuchar for helping Dems understand why Gorsuch must be filibustered

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028838216

[hatrack]

306. Well, you can worry about what Sanders says, or what everyone else DOES . . .

I'd recommend the latter.

[Cha]

310. BS isn't helping with misrepresentaion of the Democratic Party.

[rpannier]

67. I vaguely remember last spring and summer how we were told here at DU and other

places in the media, etc how the party didn't need those leftists. That she was going to destroy Hair Douchengroper so badly that they had only two choices, get on board or be left behind
Now that the biggest Douchebag is president, it's the fault of the left she didn't win?
What happened to, "We don't need you?"
Maybe there should be some introspection on saying stupid sh!ㅣ that comes back and bites you in the @$$

[JHan]

68. it's biting us all collectively in the ass.

You talk as if you are not being affected by this administration.. which "you" - we all stand to suffer.

And the offhand comments of some people on a message board is not supposed to be the defining thing that motivates someone to vote for goodness sake.

[Warren DeMontague]

69. No, but given the amout of energy some people put into the drama here

(...I mean, just ask MIRT- look at all the people who field sockpuppets or come back under an endless series of different names, because it's that important to them that they "win" DU)

you would think that comments on a message board are the most importantest thing ever.

[DanTex]

70. Tell me one thing the far left has accomplished. I rest my case.

[rpannier]

83. Define far left and the period in which you speak

History is full of far left movements that have had a lot of significant success
Labor Unions were considered far left... they were considered anarchist in many quarters
The Progressive Movement of the late 19th and early 20th century was considered far left
FDR's programs were considered far left
The reform of the National Health Care system in the UK was done by people who were accused of being far left

You need to identify your terms and periods.
Your case is hardly rested... unless you are living in the Hannity answer yes or no world where no explanations are needed

[DanTex]

87. The period is the last 30 years.

The far left are people who insist there is no difference between the Dems and the Reps. Nader, Stein, etc.

One of their accomplishments is electing W in 2000. Anything else?

[rpannier]

97. Wow! Such a short period. But since you're asking for anything

15 dollar an hour minimum wage in Seattle

[DanTex]

105. You know, my lifetime. The 1800s is great and all.

Sure, $15 in Seattle, good for them. On the flip side, they brought W into the white house. Not much of a comparison.

[rpannier]

110. That wasn't what you asked for

You asked for anything and then (originally) answered your own question with nothing
You didn't ask for comparisons or the like

Now, I'm off to eat
Have a nice evening

[Gore1FL]

71. What DU doesn't have enough of is "Let's take a shit on the left" threads.

Thanks for filling that vacuum.

[DanTex]

72. I was hoping someone could tell me one thing the far left has accomplished.

Could you be that person? Anyone?

[Gore1FL]

75. Your question is rhetorically vague.

Do you mean like winning the Revolutionary War or Freeing the slaves, or are you looking for something more recent, like Social Security or the Civil Rights Movement?

Now it's your turn; what has the Middle of the Road accomplished?

[DanTex]

79. I was talking the last three or four decades. My lifetime. And the answer is nothing.

Social Security, Civil Rights Act, Obamacare, were all passed by Democrats.

Since I've been alive, the far left has done nothing but help Republicans. Correct me if I a wrong. But I struggle to find anything good that the Nader/Stein/CounterPunch crew has accomplished. A lot of sound and fury, sure. Helping Republicans get elected, totally.

But anything productive? Not a thing.

[Gore1FL]

84. The Democrats include the far left in their coalition

Those are all leftward positions.

Gay rights is in your lifetime and also is a value the far left has held and fought for longer than anyone else

What does the middle of the road get us? Come on, meet your own litmus test.

[DanTex]

90. The "middle of the road" got us Obamacare and gay rights, for starters.

If we hadn't elected people that the far left objected to, neither of those would have happened.

On the other hand, the far left brought us W, his wars and his tax cuts, and his attempt to privatize social security, which was blocked by those "middle of the road" Dems that the far left loves to hate.

[Gore1FL]

94. Nope. The middle of the road hindered those efforts. Pressure from the left brought it home.

You might want to revisit recent history.

Take a look at how hard it was to get Obamacare through a 60-seat majority in the Senate. We could have had better. But we couldn't get it because of the middle of the road.

Obama wasn't for gay rights at first. Pressure from the left caused him to "evolve" on the issue.

Look it up.

[DanTex]

102. That's a joke.

The far left wanted single payer, which would have failed, and we would have had nothing. The far left wanted to primary Obama.

[Gore1FL]

129. It must get tiring moving those goalposts. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

145. Dan, you've been here since 2002?

Funny, maybe you're older than I thought I remembered you saying you are.

Anyway, since you've been here so long, surely you remember the arguments - and boy, were there arguments - over the topic of marriage equality.

The "sensible", "centrist", "middle of the road" people were in perpetual terror of 2004's mythical "values voters"- who weren't even that powerful in 2004, but certainly didn't hold as much sway a few years later (shit, even today you have self-assured overpaid beltway hair-sultants telling us our candidates need to appeal more to "megachurch moms&quot anyway, those folks were in CONSTANT battle with the "kooky, crazy, fringey, wacky, weirdo, pony-wanting extremists" who thought everyone should have the right to get married.

Eventually, the "fringe" people won.

Obama, to his credit, acknowledged that Joe Biden pushed him to evolve.

So maybe instead of insulting the people who prod us toward the more forward-thinking angels of our nature, we should occasionally thank them.

[DanTex]

155. Yup, on and off. Almost my entire adult life.

In fact, it was the 2000 election that woke my young naive self up to politics and in particular to the stupidity of the Green Party and the far left.

I don't remember the marriage equality arguments here on DU, probably was during a period that I didn't post much. But I do remember the arguments in the country as a whole, and you are right. The activists played that one correctly. Instead of trying to sabotage the Democratic Party for not unanimously supporting it, they kept making a moral and logical issue-based argument which they eventually won.

Maybe the far left should take a note from the LGBT rights activists, and try to use persuasion rather than sabotage as their central strategy. If they had done that in 2000 and 2016, we might never have had W or Trump. Because, while I do remember LGBT rights activists passionately making their case during the early 2000s, I don't remember them arguing that there is no difference between the Dems and the GOP as a whole (or even, like Nader, Stein, and various other far lefties have, that it is actually better for the country to have Republicans win).

The other irony, of course, is that the far left generally considers social issues like gay marriage to be unimportant. They consider them wedges that the "oligarchy" uses to keep the electorate divided, preventing the glorious socialist revolution from coming. Good luck explaining to far lefties the importance of electing Dems in order to preserve the social gains we have made, and avoid supreme court justices that would roll back the clock on things like gay rights and abortion.

[Warren DeMontague]

160. I think you've created a "far left" straw creature for your own purposes, here.

I'm familiar with the basic arguments. I, too, had them with Nader people in 2000.

I love Al Gore. I wish he had become President in 2000. He should have become president in 2000. But Ralph Nader alone didn't hand Dubya that election. Gore made mistakes. Joe Leiberman was a crapulastic pick for vice president. He didn't belong on the ticket. And he was put there because the same geniuses who lived in fear of the "values voters" thought he needed to be there as a wrinkly, scowling sigil of rectitude to neutralize the damage of the dread Clenis, nevermind that the 1998 elections had shown decisively that American voters were more than capable of being grownups around that shit.

But 2000 is over. So is 2016.

(You must have been really young when you started posting at DU, seriously. Wow....)

I remember that we lost in 2004 when we ran the more "electable" candidate, the one whose history as a war hero would make him immune to personal attacks (whoops) and whose vote for the IWR would neutralize "soft on terror" 9-11 votes.

Whoops.

What ended up happening was, the fact that we ran someone who couldn't formulate a morally consistent argument against a war he himself had voted for, hurt us. And Karl Rove swiftboated the crap out of the war hero thing.

I know, I remember, because I was one of the "sensible" people saying we needed to run John Kerry.

We won in 2008 with a guy that the "sensible" people said we would be insane to put on the ticket. African American one term senator with a funny name. CRAZY!

And we won because that guy persuaded a lot of people to vote for him, he persuaded them that he represented real change and real hope. And some of those people had probably voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, even, the fiends!

But lets be honest, here. This isn't about difference of opinion on actual points of policy like marriage equality (I won't say pot legalization, because apparently the political experts in Manhattan have decided it's not a "serious issue&quot .... this is about lingering grudge matches and bullshit around re-fighting the damn primaries.

Come on. You know it is.

So someone, somewhere, said "both parties are the same"? Okay, they're wrong. Done now?

Feuding with enemies, real or imagined, on DU isn't going to accomplish anything.

How many people do you think these OP's "persuade"?

[DanTex]

168. No. Unfortunately, the far left and the Green Party are very real.

And I didn't say that Nader alone handed the presidency to W. Of course there are other factors, there always are. But Nader was a decisive factor. That can't be denied: without Nader, there is no W.

In 2016, it is arguable whether Trump would have won without the corrosive influence of the far left. Again there were many factors.

So let's call it one and a half presidencies thrown to the GOP in 16 years. You are seriously arguing that's not a big deal?


Also you are conflating two questions. The first is what kind of candidates we should nominate. The second is whether, once we have candidates, progressives should support that candidate rather than trying to help the GOP by siphoning off voters to write-ins or third parties. I really don't care who people support in primaries as long as they come around to supporting the Dem in general elections versus the Rep.

PS, yeah I was in my early 20s when I started posting on DU. Now I'm heading towards 40. Not sure what's surprising about that or what age you thought I was.

[Warren DeMontague]

171. Well, good luck.

I wish you success with whatever it is you think you're accomplishing, here.

[sheshe2]

276. Well...

About that majority.

What this shows is is that there were only two time periods during the 111th Congress when the Democrats had a 60 seat majority:
◾From July 7. 2009 (when Al Franken was officially seated as the Senator from Minnesota after the last of Norm Coleman’s challenges came to an end) to August 25, 2009 (when Ted Kennedy died, although Kennedy’s illness had kept him from voting for several weeks before that date at least); and
◾From September 25, 2009 (when Paul Kirk was appointed to replace Kennedy) to February 4, 2010 (when Scott Brown took office after defeating Martha Coakley);
◾For one day in September 2009, Republicans lacked 40 votes due to the resignation of Mel Martinez, who was replaced the next day by George LeMieux

So, to the extent there was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate it lasted during two brief periods which lasted for a total of just over five months when counted altogether (and Congress was in its traditional summer recess for most of the July-August 2009 time frame).

It’s important to keep this fact in mind when discussing what could have happened in the 111th Congress, I think, and it’s probably something I haven’t kept in mind myself in the past.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-really-have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/

[Gore1FL]

370. The GOP seems to do wonders with less than 60.

It didn't help that we had Democratic-caucused Senators that put up a resistance when had a pretty sizable majority.

[sheshe2]

372. Never read my post.

Got it.

[Gore1FL]

373. I read your post. It had to do with having a filibuster proof majority.

It had nothing to do with my previous assertions or points -- which you clearly never read.

Got it...

[sheshe2]

374. No ya didn't...

You posted a few very short sentences...easy to read. I posted a link that explains the filibuster proof majority when there was not one. Hmmm. Stop making stuff up.

[Gore1FL]

375. I never said anything about filibuster-proof. Filibuster-proof has NOTHING to do with my point.

I pointed out we had 60 Senators (at one point we did) but we were still hindered by our own caucus. I never suggested we had a 60-Senator the entirety of the time. I lived through it . I remember the ongoings of 2009-2011.

I suggested that we had to cow-tow to members of our own caucus to even get their votes. We were compromised away from good progressive ideas because of our own membership.

Quit being contrary to be contrary. I'll be more than happy to have a conversation about the issues of Senate Dem/GOP seat balance if you so desire, but it has nothing to do with the premise of my argument. I would prefer to discuss that. If you insist on having a continued obnoxious and confrontational tone in such a discussion, I will consider such posts unworthy of my response no matter the topic.

[sheshe2]

377. Well...

"If you insist on having a continued obnoxious and confrontational tone in such a discussion, I will consider such posts unworthy of my response no matter the topic."

Sorry you find facts an "obnoxious and confrontational tone"

Done with your games. Bye.

[Gore1FL]

378. Facts that are topical aren't a problem.

Arguing something I never mentioned is a little weird, but also not a factor in your obnoxious and confrontation tone.

Your obnoxious and confrontational tone comes from the way you present the non-topical facts that you insist have something to do with anything I mentioned.

Bye yourself. I hope you wake up less angry!

[zentrum]

369. Absolutely right.

The poster absolutely does not see and will not acknowledge the role of progressives in getting the party to enact a more progressive agenda.

[progressoid]

122. Oh bullshit.

Obama and most Democrats were afraid of gay rights. It took decades of fighting, protesting, and a lot of Hollywood leftists to get them to see the light.

He even admitted it.

[Warren DeMontague]

136. 10 years ago the "sensible" people were all against gay marriage.

"be happy with a civil union, and can it. Stop rocking the boat! Stop demanding a pony!"

Same kind of shit I've heard when talking about pot legalization. Which is a similar situation where finally the polls will force the leaders to do what they've known in their hearts they should have done all along.

What's funny is, the people who dare to lead on these issues always come out looking better in the long run. That's what I mean about vision.

[Exilednight]

226. The middle of the road brought about gay marriage equality?

If you're being serious, then it helps me understand how the establishment lost us the last election.

If not, then that's a good joke.

[DanTex]

232. It was Supreme Court justices nominated by Democrats, not the Green Party.

In fact, without the Green Party, there would be more liberals on the Supreme Court right now.

You really think the far left had anything to do with marriage equality? Now that is truly a joke. Especially since the far left is now telling us that social issues don't matter.

[Exilednight]

237. There's a lot that is factually wrong with your statement.

1. There is no "far left" political party that has enough members to sway an election.

2. The Green Party is not left on the political spectrum. They're just a bunch of noise makers that will never vote for the Democratic nominee, no matter who it may be.

3. Kennedy, a Reagan appointees which is far from being liberal, was the deciding vote. As most followers of the SC very well know, if this case had been brought in front of him ten years earlier he would voted against it. Public opinion, pushed by what you call the "far left", was shifted; and it is often said, rightly so, that he didn't want to be on the wrong side of history.

Ignorance of hear facts is why we keep losing.

[DanTex]

238. Factually, it was the Supreme Court that established gay marriage.

And, factually, it was Democrats who nominated all but one of the justices who supported that decision.

It is also a fact that the Green party threw the presidency to W in 2000. And it is a fact that W appointed two justices, who if not for the Green Party's assist to the GOP, would instead have been appointed by Gore.

Whether you want to consider the Greens "far left" or not is, I suppose, a matter of opinion, but they position themselves to the left of the Democrats, effectively making themselves far left.

And the far left had nothing to do with pushing gay rights as a cause. Quite the contrary, the far left has been insisting that social issues like LGBT rights and choice don't matter.

[Exilednight]

239. Show me hard facts, not just simplistic math, but actual proof that Nader voters

would have voted for Gore.

I keep hearing "if Nader hadn't run, then Gore would have won". But no one can provide nothing more than simplistic math to try and prove this hypothesis. Where's the solid evidence that Nader voters would have even bothered to vote, much less for Gore?

[DanTex]

240. Math isn't "simplistic" just because you don't like what it implies. It's math.

Nader got 97,000 votes in FL. If only 1% of those had gone to Gore, it would have precluded the whole recount fiasco.

It's plainly obvious that without Nader there would not have been Bush. Sure, not all Nader voters would have gone Gore, but more than 1% for sure.

And beyond that, imagine if the Greens, rather than trying to help Republicans, had actually tried to help the Dems. Imagine Nader in 2000 and Stein this year, going around talking about the dangers of a GOP presidency! I know, it's hard to imagine the far left doing anything that could possibly have a positive impact on the country. But in theory, they could have done that. Nobody forced them to team up with the GOP.

[Exilednight]

246. That's conjecture, not proof.

[DanTex]

249. No, it's not a mathematical proof. Such things don't exist outside of mathematics.

Instead it's a logical argument. In order for it to be incorrect, it would have to be the case that less than 1% of Nader voters would have gone Gore in the absence of the Green option. Which no sane person believes.

[Exilednight]

253. I disagree with your sanity argument. No sane person would have voted

for Nader to begin with.

You're attempting to inject sanity on those who, at the time, were not of same values.

[DanTex]

257. I knew sane people who voted for Nader. Young and naive.

[Exilednight]

258. Sanity is a subjective term.

[Chevy]

376. Don't forget the hundreds if not thousands

of Jewish people who votes went to Pat Buchanan by mistake because of the ballot lay out.

[Progressive dog]

198. The far left didn't free the slaves

and didn't win the revolutionary war--it didn't even exist here.

[Gore1FL]

225. The political spectrum has existed for a long time. The far left is not a new phenomena.

The revolution and freeing the slaves were considered quite radically progressive in their time. It wasn't the middle-of-the-road politicians that made either happen.

[Eliot Rosewater]

228. Nothing remotely "left" at all about people who would vote or not vote

thus causing trump.

Nothing "left" at all to focus on your own personal financial issue and make that the be all of everything.

Most of this so called far left is not left at all.

I am left, I believe ownership of land by anyone or anything other than the collective is absurd, for instance. The collective can be a government or whatever.

I am left, I believe allowing for profit companies to be involved in any form of energy, absurd. I could go on (and when I say I could go on I really mean it, just ask me), but I wont find hardly any REAL far left people here, just a bunch of folks who have identified their financial cause.

A real leftist would forego financial anything for civil and human rights, I dont see any of these "new" progressives doing that at all.

[Gore1FL]

255. The "far left" is defined by the political spectrum of the day.

If you had the positions you hold today in 1776 or 1865 someone would complaining about your scary far-left ideas.

To suggest otherwise is beyond ridiculous.

[Eliot Rosewater]

283. I dont have a clue what that response means.

My positions are left, period.

Very few if any of the new progressives who are allegedly far left, are not overly left at all, they have just narrowed in on their financial interests.

[Gore1FL]

300. We were talking abut slavery in this sub-thread.

While slavery is eschewed by the entirety of the left, the abolitionists during slavery were considered far to the left. I'm not sure why that was difficult to understand.

[Progressive dog]

235. The founding fathers and Abraham Lincoln were not far left

You must mean the French revolutionaries who invented the reign of terror, which resulted in Napoleon. They put Thomas Paine and Lafayette in prison, they tried to subvert the US government and demanded bribes from us. That is a true achievement of the far left. They also gave us the Russian revolution, Lenin Stalin etc.. That's where the far left deserves credit.

[Gore1FL]

254. LOL yeah... American abolitionists and American Revolutionaries are middle of the road types...

Pretty sure that our Founding Fathers weren't involved with the Reign of terror or the Russian revolution...

[Progressive dog]

270. you missed the part where I was talking about the far left

You're the one who thinks the US revolutionaries were far left, not me or anyone who knows anything about them.

[Gore1FL]

299. FFS.... They were classical liberals.

Anyone who reads the writings of Franklin, Madison, and Jefferson recognize that for their time they were pretty radical. In fact, they were radical enough to overthrow Monarchy rule and form a new nation on premise of self-governing.

http://factmyth.com/factoids/americas-founding-fathers-were-liberals/

https://www.nolanchart.com/article7326-classical-liberalism-and-the-radical-roots-of-the-american-revolution-html

[Progressive dog]

327. For FS they weren't far left

You are defending an outrageous claim by pretending that "liberal for the time" is a synonym for far left. That is pathetic.

[Gore1FL]

334. Ah yes, history will always remember Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison as "middle of the road."

It certainly explains their activism.

Have a nice day in denial land.

[Progressive dog]

346. Actually, Franklin spent years trying to

get the King to govern Pennsylvania. Madison wrote some of the Federalist papers, which you obviously have no clue about. Jefferson did ally himself with the far left French revolutionaries for a while, so you can claim that as some sort of a Jefferson connection with the far left.
But Jefferson and Madison both owned slaves. Washington, our first President and contender for the wealthiest man in the USA also was a slaveholder, but at least he freed them in his will. Maybe you could say Washington's wealth made him far left.
It is obvious that being a activist does not make one far left. Being active doesn't have anything to do with why you are active.

[Gore1FL]

347. They were Classical Liberals. I provided links.

Trying to apply modern values to 1776 is absurd. To suggest that those who overthrew Tories and based a new government on the philosophies of John Lock, "Father of Liberalism," were anything other than pretty far out to the left in their day is strange denial of reality on your part.

They were liberal for their day. Likewise for abolitionists in the pre-Civil War era. You can find hard right conservatives today that are against slavery. In their day, abolitionist were pretty god-damned progressive, however.

Being an activist doesn't make one left. Being a liberal and being an activist for liberal ideas however does put one in a further leftward category than being middle-of-the-road. I am at a loss as to why this is is so hard for you to grok.

[Progressive dog]

364. Again "classical liberal" is not the same as far left

The claim I have repeatedly disputed is that the founding fathers and the civil war leaders were not far left. I'm going to assume that since you won't even acknowledge what I actually have written, you must either be unable to comprehend simple words or you don't live in a reality based world.

[Gore1FL]

365. I am saying they were far left for their era, which is how one should gauge it.

The far left for this era won't seem all that far left in 150-250 years.

It's awesome, however that you feel the need to attack me with phrases like "unable to comprehend simple words" when it's clear you are simply being obtuse.

So here is a challenge for you to prove your point: Name the Americans, who in 1776, were more left that our founding fathers. Then, if you dare, name the Americans who were more left of the abolitionists in the 1850s.

If you can't then I am pretty sure we are done here.

[Progressive dog]

383. They were not far left for any era

Alex Hamilton-banker, George Washington- land speculator, John Adams-attorney, I could go on but the leaders of the revolution were not far left and making that ridiculous claim does not make it so.
I certainly hope that you are done.
The actual political left-right spectrum was invented by the French revolutionaries. The first actual far left were the people who used the guillotine as a political tool. These were the people who imprisoned Lafayette and Thomas Paine and probably would have executed them if not for their inability to even get along with each other. The history of the far left is a history of lies, hatred, and destruction. There is no comparison of Robespierre to Jefferson.

[Gore1FL]

384. LOL! We aren't talking about seating arrangements in the French National assembly in 1789.

We are talking about the progressive thinkers and liberalism in the United States (or what would become the United States).

Who in America were more progressive in the American Revolutionary period than the founding fathers?

Who in America were more progressive just prior to the Civil War than the abolitionists?

[Progressive dog]

385. Again you are pretending that liberal and far left are synonyms

They are not and never have been. Then you try to confine political thought to the United States so that your wild claims will seem slightly less wild. The French revolutionaries chose where to sit.
The first example of rule by the far left was Robespierre and the reign of terror. That is the signature achievement of the far left.
The early progressives of America would have been horrified to be named as members of the far left as would be many Americans today. Fortunately, they understand where the term came from and run from actual achievements of the far left.

[Gore1FL]

386. I am taking this in the context of what is being discussed in this thread. I ask a third time:

Who in what would become the United States in the 1770s was more liberal/progressive than our Founding Fathers?

Who in the United States in the 1850s was more liberal/progressive than the abolitionists?

Your continued attempts at leveraging pedanticism to create obtuse responses is not earning you debate points. If you don't like the terms used, take it up with the OP. In the meantime, answer the two questions above.

[Progressive dog]

388. It would be nice if the far left, for once, did some introspection.

That is the actual title of the OP, you must be able to read enough of it to notice the "far left" in it. Or maybe not.

[Gore1FL]

389. *Far Left* is a relative term

Do you think he was he talking about the French National Assembly of 1789 causing the election loss in 2016, or have you abandoned that line of argument?

Do you think the OP was speaking of those on the left edge of the standard of the era? If so, who was on the most left edge in the standard of the era of the U.S. Revolution and the era just before the U.S. Civil war?

[Progressive dog]

390. There is no point repeating arguments

that you obviously don't comprehend. The term far left is provably derived from the French National assemblies of the revolution, so the factions that sat at the far left are what was referred to. That is what the term means, it has a definition that allows us to communicate. Since the term did not exist at the time of our revolution and the term was coined by the French in reference to their revolutionary assemblages, why would you want to know who sat in a different French assembly.
This is not rocket science. Of course there is some ambiguity in how far, far left means. All the people at the far left were not identical. Some of Robespierre's accomplices in the reign of terror might not have been as thrilled when they used the guillotine to revenge themselves. Some might have been more delighted. Does it really matter?

[Gore1FL]

391. You aren't making arguments, you are avoiding answering two pretty simple questions.

Who was more liberal that the founding fathers in the colonies in 1776? Who was more liberal than the abolitionists in the 1850's United States?

It's a pretty simple couple of questions that would, if answered, prove your point. It's telling that you can or will not do so.

I contend that Founding Fathers and Abolitionists represent the most liberal of their respective eras. Please demonstrate otherwise, or quit wasting my time.

[Progressive dog]

392. Yes, you would think that those were simple questions

BTW Most of Europe had no slaves by the 1850's. Of course you didn't know that.
Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist and neither were most Americans. The abolitionists were not responsible for the slaves being freed so whether they were progressive has no bearing on progressive accomplishments and even less on far left accomplishments, since the abolitionists weren't far left.

[Gore1FL]

393. Europe wasn't in the United States in the 1850s. It still isn't. I never mentioned Lincoln.

Who was more liberal that the founding fathers in the colonies in 1776?

Who was more liberal than the abolitionists in the 1850's United States?

If you think the abolitionist movement didn't play a role in freeing the slaves, you know less about history than pretend to in your efforts to be obtuse.

If you don't want to answer the questions, you don't have to. Please quit wasting my time if you won't or can't. Your not impressing me or anyone else in your attempts to avoid them.

[Progressive dog]

394. So you go from far left to progressive and from

progressive to progressive in the United states- maybe you can find a progressive family to prove your point to your satisfaction. And now it doesn't have to be an achievement, they just had to have played a part. That is about the weakest defense of the far left that anyone could possibly make.

[Gore1FL]

395. My assertion has never changed.

I've meant the same thing from my first post. You are the one muddying the waters. Left, liberal, and progressive are synonymous for the purposes of this thread. The definition of what is left, liberal, or progressive changes with the era. We are talking about U.S. Politics.

Answer the questions or quit wasting my time.

[Progressive dog]

396. You've meant the same thing, but

others only get to read your words, not what you think you said.

[Gore1FL]

397. I accept your concession.

You obviously can't answer the questions.

[Progressive dog]

398. I concede nothing

to your imagined position of command but I expect nothing less from the far left.

[Gore1FL]

399. Your failure to come up with an answer was a concession

You chose to waste time making pointless arguments over the course of days. You are interested only in wasting time. I have better things to do than argue with someone who is not seriously interested in this discussion.

Thanks for playing. Having not offered one piece of contrary evidence, you lose.

Ta ta!

[Progressive dog]

400. No it wasn't but I'm not surprised that you would make that claim

I would call your arguments Spiceresque.

[Gore1FL]

403. Resorting to name-calling isn't the same as providing answers

Sorry. You have not met the challenge.

Should one day you decide to answer the questions and not simply waste time, I'll be convinced you are interested in the topic.

Until that time you have failed.

[Progressive dog]

406. I'm glad that you realize that

And I wonder why you think that I can be commanded to answer your silly supposed questions. I am not commanding you to do anything, so I'm not responsible for any time that you took away from your more important occupations, whatever they might be. Ill bet you are much more successful at performing them than you are at being a propagandist for the far left.

[Gore1FL]

407. If you don't want to have a discussion, then don't waste my time.

If you can't prove your point, then don't waste my time.

If you can't be civil, then don't waste my time.

If your whole purpose in posting is to spew obtuse nonsense, then don't waste my time.

Time wasters make DU suck. Don't make DU suck.

[Progressive dog]

408. I'm not forcing you to reply and I don't work for you

Don't blame me for your obsession with defending the far right.

[Gore1FL]

416. I am not defending the far right.

I am defending the left, liberals, progressives, et al who, in the fine tradition of our founding fathers and abolitionists, are our natural allies in the fight against the far right.

I know you don't work for me. If you did, I would fire you for being an obtuse time-waster.

Kindly stop wasting my time with your efforts to make DU suck.

[Progressive dog]

419. You have your own definition of far right

You would not need to defend progressives from most Democrats including me. You need to go back and look at my post that you responded to originally before making claims that are contradicted by your previous responses.

[Gore1FL]

420. You have your own definitions for everything.

It helps you in your efforts to waste time and to act poorly towards other progressives.

Please refrain from wasting my time any further.

[Progressive dog]

421. Do you really think that when someone

responds to your nonsense, you don't have a choice as to whether to "waste your time." You may be far left but you are not a victim.

[Gore1FL]

422. Please refrain from further wasting my time

You are arguing to argue. You prefer to argue semantics than substance. You are insulting, disrespectful, name-calling, etc. and unwilling to address the substance of the conversation.

If and until you are able and willing to have a meaningful conversation, please troll someone else.

[Progressive dog]

424. No, actually I just think that it's humorous when

someone can find unique ways to claim victim status.

[Gore1FL]

425. Please refrain from wasting my time nt

[mcar]

74. This!

The same people who constantly tell the Democratic party it must change and always offer "constructive" criticism (like corporatist, 3rd Way, DLC sellout) seems completely incapable of investigating why they never win anything. Ever.

But they know best.

[LakeArenal]

76. I thought we were done debating who contributed what to the past election..

Talk about divisive.. In the end the popular vote went to our candidate. Far left, near left, middle left, upper left and many here downer left. Sheesh..

[Gore1FL]

80. There are many people here more interested in pointing fingers than fixing problems.

I've been here since 2001. I've seen this before, but never at the levels we are experiencing now.

[Eliot Rosewater]

348. Bullshit. Some of us know the 3rd party progressive nonsense is going to REPEAT

and we are doing everything we can to try and stop it.

Some here are here on purpose to make that happen. Not pointing fingers, but that is a fact.

It gets harder everyday to figure who is just too stubborn to understand we have a TWO party system and what that means and who is here with an agenda, either way it all hurts.

[Gore1FL]

349. Stopping it by helping us lose future elections, too! Bravo! nt

[Eliot Rosewater]

361. I know who is doing this and why, so dont waste your time with me.

[Gore1FL]

362. I would hope you'd know who and why.

Last edited Tue Apr 18, 2017, 10:17 PM - Edit history (1)

"Who" is me. "Why" is my displeasure at your desire to see a continued split in the Democratic party.

It's never a waste of time to stop someone from making mistakes like this, however. If you don't want me to spend time doing so, please quit engaging in such actions.

[tiredtoo]

78. Divisive post

This is exactly what the far right want to see.
Shame on you.

[DanTex]

82. Actually, what the far right wants to see is Jill Stein's 2016 campaign.

And all the far left articles encouraging people to abandon the Democratic Party.

But maybe I'm wrong. Tell me, what have the far left accomplished in the last 30 years, aside from electing W?

[Gore1FL]

88. What has the middle of the road accomplished?

I answered your question five times now.

[tiredtoo]

95. More and more Republican control of our country. EOM

[StubbornThings]

220. THIS

[jimlup]

81. Seems a bit odd to say this

don't think you've really noticed much ... the "far left" doesn't exist in the United States.

[klook]

85. It would be nice if we could join forces to defeat the Republicans. (n/t)

[Gore1FL]

91. +1

You mean 6 months of tantrums isn't beneficial?

[NoMoreRepugs]

93. Lots of divisive comments to what in my

opinion should have been more of a thought provoking thread. Dems have a looooong ways to go b4 we are a serious threat to the Rethugs - no big fight is won while there are so many wrangling over what in the end is minutia. Get elected than get into the particulars, don't run to a third party candidate or not vote because the candidate isn't 99+% pure in ones own estimation. Ramblings of an old fart, sorry.

[nevergiveup]

96. I consider myself far left.

I voted for Bernie and sent him money during the primaries..... and it was a no-brainer voting for Hillary in the general. I think we should all concentrate on what we have in common and unite so we can save our country from a mad man. The fact of the matter is that at this point we need each other.

[Gore1FL]

100. +1

[Saviolo]

101. You keep asking in your thread "What has the "far left" accomplished?"

But I'm not sure what your definition of the "far left" is. Are you talking about the communist party?

There are positions that are mainstream today that even a few years ago were radically far left. Weed legalization was hippie bullshit only a few years ago, and so was federal recognition of gay marriage. Those were positions that only the "far left" were pushing for for years. The moderate left stood up and said, "Just wait your turn on these issues, and they'll come around eventually." but the "far left" continued to push for them.

Or are you referring to the mostly white suburban "alt-left" population of anti-vaxxers and Green Party voters who listened to Susan Sarandon and "just couldn't trust" Hillary Clinton, even when faced with the horrifying and disgusting alternative. Because if that's the group you're talking about, they're not really the "far left" any more than the "alt-right" is about economic uncertainty and not racism, white nationalism, and isolationism.

[DanTex]

107. My definition, basically, is the Green Party/CounterPunch/CommonDreams/etc. nt

[Saviolo]

114. I didn't realize the Green Party

... cared so much about Blue Dog Democrats.

But as I said, the far left of the Democratic party has helped push for things like weed decriminalization, gay marriage, and even the Voting Rights Act. Even Ralph Nader helped bring about seat belt legislation, but that was n '75.

From his wiki page:

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, through his ongoing work with Public Citizen, Nader continued to be involved in issues of consumer rights and public accountability. His work testifying before Congress, drafting model legislation, and organizing citizen letter-writing and protest efforts, earned him direct credit for the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Clean Water Act, Consumer Product Safety Act, and Whistleblower Protection Act

Your question "what has the far left accomoplished" is disingenuous. It is conscientious people from across the spectrum that get progressive things accomplished.

Sadly, on the right, the group that drags the party the furthest into the asylum is what gets things accomplished.

[DanTex]

115. Good for Ralph on the seatbelts. But the damage he did in 2000 was hundreds of times worse.

Too bad, seriously. He could have been a force for good, instead of a force for the GOP, which is what the far left has become.

[Saviolo]

123. He shouldn't have run in 2000, true

But to say he hasn't accomplished -anything- is facile. The most progressive policies that have been enacted were brought to fruition by a coalition of progressives, far-left activists, and mainstream Democratic politicians (and sometimes mainstream Republican politicians with a conscience).

Also, no-one I know who has any political knowledge at all and calls themself a leftist has any joy in Trump being elected. The only people I see who were excited about that were MAGA hat wearers, and even some of them are starting to have big time buyer's remorse.

[ornotna]

104. Oh come on! You can hit that horse harder than that. Put a little shoulder into it.

[Justice]

108. Hillary was required to be perfect, unlike all the Dem nominees

Nominees Before her.

Hillary won the nomination because she got more votes than Bernie.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

113. The far left more consistently votes for the Democrats, so I don't get it.

It reminds me of someone whining about a candidate not getting as many votes from African Americans as a previous candidate.

[askyagerz]

117. The most popular politician in the country

is also the most socialist. A hard left turn is coming. Whether that turns out to be a good thing or a bad thing I guess we will see. I truly believe trump will create the biggest progressive push in history. Radical progressive ideas like single payer are starting to sound a lot better to the average joe

[Cha]

135. In his state with his constituents.. Not in my state.. we like our own Senators

"According to the same survey, three-quarters of Vermont residents approve of Sen. Sanders. Twenty-one percent disapprove and four percent did not know. Sanders remains the most popular U.S. senator, but the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate's approval rating is down 12 points from September when his approval rating was 87 percent."

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/04/11/mitch-mcconnell-bernie-sanders-americas-least-most-popular-senators/22035570/

Of course they like him in Vermont.. and McConnell is reviled in Kentucky.

[askyagerz]

138. National Fox poll. That says a lot right there

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/03/15/bernie-sanders-remains-one-of-americas-most-popular-politicians/

[Cha]

141. I didn't see the poll.. nor any of my

friends. BS is too divisive the way he insults our Democratic Party with his accusations of "feeble" "can't fight back" "party of the elite".. always taking pot shots.

.. he insults Dems Who are out there on the Front Lines Fighting for our Very Lives..

BS on Rachel's"the Democratic Party is feeble" and "cannot fight back"..

He's Wrong and Divisive.. only helping trump, the gop, and the m$m.

Dems have our BACKs and I have theirs.

Truth.. Our Dems ARE Fighting for us..

Democratic Congressman Calls for 'Total and Complete Shutdown' of Trump Agenda in Congress

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028837680

Maxine Waters‏ Tweets: Meet Donald Trump's Kremlin Klan

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028839413

Top Dem calls for investigation into House Intelligence chairman

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141736108

Schumer: Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch nomination

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141736192

Al Franken: What was Merrick Garland about?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028836324

Woah. Rep Schiff: New evidence of Trump/Russia collusion "would merit a grand jury investigation"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028840444

Thanks to Franken and Klobuchar for helping Dems understand why Gorsuch must be filibustered

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028838216

[askyagerz]

142. It's called opinions

Adults can handle other people's opinions and still make informed decisions. This is America and its like a lot of you want your politicians to read from a script. Considering the majority of Bernie people voted for Hillary in the election really makes this whole thing a moot point. Obviously they are smart enough to know what needs to be done and don't need a bunch of centrist dems telling them to quite down and hold hands. Can't anyone handle a debate anymore?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

152. So true... starts at the top.

[PatrickforO]

118. Hmm. Obama did tell us not to let perfect be the enemy of the good.

I suppose if we talked, Dan, you would consider me a member of this 'far left.' I've never felt that way - I just want our taxes to be used for programs that actually benefit us, instead of being siphoned off to corporate profit, either through tax cuts yielding a higher net, or government contracts for all sorts of 'defense' and 'national security' projects that don't really make us any safer and don't really benefit any of us much at all.

But I am a Democrat, not a Green or a Socialist or any other 'far left' party. Why? Because this is a two-party system and the Democrats come closest to my way of thinking.

So, where do I stand? Well, I still feel our party (yes, it is mine, too) made some fundamental mistakes during this election cycle. In spite of the rather virulent denials of this in some quarters on this site, the fact remains that we lost terribly, and to an incompetent, immoral disaster of a man.

You know what I've always said? People don't really care much about ideology. They really don't. if we used our tax monies to pay for Medicare for all Americans, strengthening Social Security and did something positive about the fiduciary responsibility of executives in publicly owned corporations ONLY being to increase value for shareholders, and expanded that responsibility to workers, consumers, communities and the environment, we would be lots better off.

Oh, I know...some of you are reading this and laughing at my idealism. A real unicorn, eh? Still, when we see what is, why can we not imagine and act upon what should be?

To my mind, Dan, we must stop classifying ourselves. This has always been a problem of the socialists - you get on those sites and they insist, downright insist, on ideological purity. But you cannot eat ideological purity. Nor can you use it to your benefit in everyday life. No, as Obama said, we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

So, let's roll up our sleeves, quit blaming one another, and do great things!

[askyagerz]

139. I consider myself pretty left

And also have never once voted for a third party just like the majority of us lefties. I understand this is a two party system and know what needs to be done. But that said, if someone wants to vote for a third party it's their right to do so and shouldnt have someone blaming them because there are too many republican zombies

[PatrickforO]

312. Good point. I believe the onus is on us as a party to have a great

message (we do!) and get it out effectively (we clearly didn't - at least not convincingly to the Independent voters).

[askyagerz]

320. Exactly

The burden is on us to make people excited for our message. Blaming the extreme left on trump is disingenuous. We also didn't get enough independents or moderate republicans. At least blame those people first lol. I feel the left pretty much as a whole usually holds its hand out to the democratic party. Why some want to keep slapping it away is beyond me

[Akamai]

119. Bullshit! I sure don't talk to many people were delighted at the loss of the 2016 election.

if you do, maybe you're talking to a bunch of Russians.

I sure as hell starts a lot of people were Bernie's supporters who are just truly depressed in a very, very big way that the candidate they supported the elections--Hillary--did not win.

[colsohlibgal]

127. I Am About As Far Left As One Can Be

However I did work and vote for Hillary once Bernie dropped out.

But we get frustrated too. The movie "Inside Job" points out a few reasons why. They show Obama, running in 2008, stridently saying he would go hard after Wall Street and hold the guilty parties accountable to the max.

Of course after he won he did nothing of the sort....no real jail time for rampant and obvious financial fraud for any big exec. They got to, for the most part, keep their massive ill gotten dollars. A firm or two got fined a few million, peanuts to them, usually with no admission of guilt. Then he hired as his financial team the same folks who crashed it, the in and out of Goldman crowd.

If the democrats get control of it all......then we will see what happens, no more excuses.

The whole political baseline has moved rightward since my youth....republicans like Rockefeller and Ike were in many ways left of a great deal of today's democrats.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

128. Yeah, it disappointed me too.

When Geithner was appointed Sec. of the Treasury, I thought, "Uh oh."

Then what followed was pretty much as you described.

I was happy with Obama overall, but that part was very disappointing to me.

[ProfessorPlum]

175. Well said

[Cha]

134. 3rd party Elitist Assholes like stein and sarandon are

perfect.. haven't you heard?

they don't need no stinking "introspection".

[JustAnotherGen]

144. Truth

And don't forget December 10, 2015. And what happened to that money the Green Party Candidate raised post election? New fur coat for Putin's daughter?

She's not a Democratic Party member - so she fair game.

[Gothmog]

401. Stein and Sarandon are two sad people who are proud of their efforts to elect trump

[ismnotwasm]

146. K&R

For visibility

[The Big Ragu]

148. This stinks like right wing ideological drivel.

Lemme guess, Rahm Emmanuel is your standard bearer?

[JCanete]

149. The far left in the country doesn't have the same money at its disposal. The far left, those of it

who are active, wants the American people to start to demand a system where the money isn't buying influence. They are doing what they can with what they have.

It's totally legit to say that their strategy isn't workable, just as they say taking corporate money isn't workable, but when too much of the country is too oblivious to the problem, and the things the far left want, are NOT the things the Democratic party wants, at least as of now, a message with no actual amplification is going to have a hard time showing successes that would excite you.

The question is whether amplification typically comes with a filter on the message. Also, can lesser amplification be heard amidst the amp stacks that come with being corporately supported parties, talking about entirely different matters. But saying "your way isn't working" while standing in the way of that approach, is something that both sides would say the other has done. The difference of course, is that the far left mostly turned out for Clinton, and some small percentage went green, so they stood in the way like a person trying to halt a steam-roller. On the other hand, lefties are marginalized by both parties alike, at least when they can be safely discarded. When they are not they change the world. They change people's minds...they push on the edges of normalcy and what is, in favor of what should and could be.

It takes the people at the margins saying the things that are unpopular for them to enter into the main-stream. Just because at the end of the day, the establishment politicians are the ones that finally decide enough work has been done that they can listen and respond to that will without political consequences, doesn't mean that you can give all that credit to the person who waited for the time to be right. People had to make the time right.

It's actually more and more offensive as I think about it, you entirely dismissing how our system works, and the efforts and impact of the left. You haven't seen anything lately? Well that's charming. Keep standing with your back pressed against the door, and you aren't likely to see anything for a while to come.

[Vinca]

150. If we were smart we would lean left rather than right. Trying to be GOP lite is why we lose.

Of course the bona fide left doesn't have many victories. We're blocked by politicians pandering to centrists and Republicans. But ask people on the street if they agree with the ideas the left pushes and they usually agree. We might actually win if we promoted leftist ideas rather than trying to hold hands and sing kumbayah with GOP voters who will, in the end, vote for the real thing. A bigger problem with this post, though, is the neverending attempt to slice and dice the Democratic party. And then we wonder why everyone doesn't get behind the party's candidate after the primary.

[NCTraveler]

153. For many of those you are talking about it is personality based.

There is a recent example. Jackpine crazies. Ideologically they are not right or left. They don't posses the ability to think deeply about issues. They simply look at something and form how they will be against it. They are anti-intellectual at best.

There will be no introspection as it is all about self image.

[FDRsGhost]

158. The "far left" thing

Okay well, I don't know about this. I get the whole Green thing but what about those of us who are NOT "centrists" and are far left? Hm? Common Dreams and Counterpunch? As opposed to Addicting Info who has been shown to faking news several times? How about the MSM who royally screwed Hillary by having Trump 24-7?

Nader and Florida but yet let's not forget a conservative SCOTUS and Katherine Harris either.

You say the far left constantly complain yet you are doing just that. This post is very divisive in a day and age when we need to a lot more inclusive. We're looking at the biggest possible shit fest you've ever seen in your life; a potential constitutional convention from Republicans and we only need to lose ONE more state for this to happen. Red states are already calling for it and if you think things are bad now, just wait. Anything and everything we fight for will be dead for the rest of our life times. We only have 26% of the electorate and we MUST expand and GTVO & that means including many more people who you we all may not agree with. That's how we make sure we don't have the biggest screw job ever in our history.

So what issues define "far left"? Because honestly, in today's political climate, it seems that FDR's Second Bill Of Rights would be considered "far left" by many. I consider health care. shelter and education as a basic human right.

[DanTex]

164. I agree about expanding the party.

And I'm not a centrist either. In terms of issue-by-issue, my views are closer to Jill Stein than Joe Manchin.

But you know what? Joe Manchin is actually working with us Democrats, as opposed to Stein and other far lefties that are effectively working as a tool of the GOP. Like you said, we need to expand the party in order to win, and that means precisely welcoming people like Manchin or Heitkamp or other centrist Dems that can actually win in red states. Even though I disagree with them about a lot of things.

The ideological purity that the far left demands is the opposite of expanding the party.

[FDRsGhost]

172. Manchin however is a sitting senator

Jill Stein has no power. Sort of apples and oranges there a bit. Manchin also voted for Sessions and Gorusch, along with a host of other Trump appointees. IMHO every single Democrat should have opposed EVERY Trump nominee. That goes for everybody.

You say "ideologically purity" yet you are doing that very thing here with how we need conservatives in the party. Hm. I would disagree and say we need a left turn hard. Look at Thompson in KS who only lost by 2 points, a state Hillary lost by 20 to Trump. We won the Governorships in NC and LA, as red as it gets and we can continue if we run progressive candidates. I also believe that running conservative Dems has contributed to us losing over 1,000 seats & many states. We tried the old way, we've had our asses kicked bad.

[DanTex]

179. Sure, I think Manchin should have opposed Sessions and Gorsuch.

Of course, it wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference. What would have made a difference is winning last November.

And you say that Jill Stein has no power, but what do you think would have happened if last year she and the rest of the far left went around forcefully campaigning for Hillary, making the case to disgruntled lefties that national elections are too important to waste votes on write-ins or third parties. Nobody can say for sure, but I'm guessing that it could easily have delivered the tiny number of votes that Hillary needed in those states.

I have no problem with people who are ideologically on the left in the Democratic Party. You will never hear me say that any elected Dem should be primaried for being too far left. And I would support a turn to the left nationwide if I actually thought it would win us more votes. But I don't. We're not going to get a progressive Dem senator elected in West Virginia.

Sure, in progressive districts and states, nominate progressives. But reality is, in order to become a majority party again, we are going to need some people like Joe Manchin.

[FDRsGhost]

182. Last November? Nothing. Now? Everything.

The message right now is so vital. Incredibly so. Manchin and others got some bad press for voting for Sessions and Gorsuch and that hurts us and it let's the narrative of "both parties are the same" continue. We simply can't afford this anymore.

Jill Stein has no power and there are more than 2 political parties in America. The question is HOW to get their voters to come into our camp. THAT is the issue and keep in mind, millions left our party last year and 50% of Dem voters stayed home. This is FAR more damaging than Jill Stein ever was.

How can you not think it won't win us more votes when the old way (your way, if you will) has cost us over 1,000 seats and several states Dan? That's both a fact and a reality we can't deny.

No, in all states nominate progressives. We don't need a "no public option v2.0" any time soon and to continue losing. Remember, constitutional convention.

[DanTex]

186. The people to blame for the "both parties are the same" narrative are the idiots pushing it.

The Dems have been close to unanimous in opposing Trump at every turn, and the GOP has been close to unanimous in supporting him. Anyone who pushes "both parties are the same" in light of this is either an outright troll or a complete idiot.

Here's the problem with enforcing ideological purity the way you want to. If we run an Elizabeth Warren in West Virginia we will lose the seat. Then there is one less Dem in the senate. Instead of a Manchin, who votes with Dems most of the time but not always, we will get a conservative Republican that votes with the Dems never. It's not hard to see which of those is better.

And speaking of winning elections: Joe Manchin has actually done that. So has Heidi Heitkamp. And Claire McCaskill. In red states no less. I don't see how you are in a position to lecture people like that about how to win elections in their states. They already know how, they've done it.

Meanwhile, Russ Feingold (who I think is great) lost his race. And that was in Wisconsin, much more friendly ground for progressives than those other three states.

There is simply no logic at all behind purging the party of centrists from red states. It will just result in a bigger GOP majority.

[NurseJackie]

193. They are blinded by vanity...

It's not hard to see which of those is better.

Rational people can see and understand the difference. In my opinion, the ones you describe are blinded by vanity and are poisoned by an insatiable desire for revenge. They are too emotional to see that success in politics is also achieved through compromise, finding common ground, accepting our limitations, understanding the terrain, planning ahead strategically, cooperation, and unity.

[bekkilyn]

167. What far left? There's barely a left at all in the U.S. (nt)

[DanTex]

190. That's something else that US leftists should think about.

Instead of throwing elections to the GOP like Nader/Stein do, maybe they should try to figure out why they've failed to build up any kind of effective leftist movement.

[bekkilyn]

204. I think you're giving these people way too much power

There's always going to be some people who will vote for whatever 3rd party is available. If they didn't vote Green, they would have voted Libertarian or something else for their protest, but the amount of people who did these things is insignificant compared to the greater whole.

While it might be true that if all of them voted for Hillary in the general election in the three important states that she lost, what are the real chances that they ever would have done that? Many of them might have just stayed home rather than vote at all, and there's not a single state in this country where a small minority won't vote for a 3rd party of some sort, so refusing to just take this into account isn't productive.

Maybe you can win their votes, or maybe it's a better strategy to focus more on the apathetic people who don't vote because they aren't excited by the choices provided to them, or no one has demonstrated that it makes any difference who wins...what whatever reasons people have for not voting.

Or maybe focus on all those people who voted for Obama...twice...and yet decided that this time around they would vote for 45.

Or maybe have our candidates actually visit those states next time.

But putting all your focus and vitriol on a few people who really don't make that much of a difference in the larger scheme of things isn't helpful and you're making it sound like the small number of people who voted 3rd party are crucial to Democrats winning elections when it's probably better to just go with the assumption that there are always going to be 3rd party voters and put focus on other things that are more in your control, like giving them reasons why they should trust and vote for your chosen candidates. Trying to scare people into it doesn't work because if people view your candidates as just slightly less crappy than the ones you are using as a scare tactic isn't motivating enough. We've seen this in action zillions of times. At *best* it might work short-term, but then next election people go right back to the way they were before.

It's all about marketing strategy and while we can't easily control things like Russian interference, GOP propaganda, hackers, etc. we *can* control how we present our candidates to people and the strategies we employ to *earn* people's votes. It doesn't help to keep blaming things out of our control when he haven't done nearly enough to improve the things that we can control.

And also, I would suspect that the vast majority of the people on this site do tend to vote Democratic at least most of the time and did vote for Hillary in the general election, but posts like your OP come off as an attack on people who support progressive policies such as universal health care, paid family leave, immigration, etc. And hence you get all the people jumping into these threads arguing to the death because some person or issue that was extremely important to them was just maligned. (And when you leave things open such as "far left" without giving people more specifics, then people just assume it means whatever they think it means, and so for example, you just attacked single payer healthcare, even if that's not what you meant.)

As far as what the "far left" has accomplished, FDR accomplished quite a bit. So did Eisenhower. They both supported policies and ideas that are considered extreme and unrealistic today when you get into discussions with the "sensible" people. MLK and other civil rights leaders accomplished a lot of great things and we need more. Being "sensible" about it isn't going to cut it. People are tired of waiting for the "right time" for civil rights, gender rights, healthcare rights, family rights, etc. We need good candidates who *unapologetically* support these things in both words and actions.

However, I would agree that people who belong to an official Communist Party in this country probably haven't accomplished very much, and I doubt people in our country would support their views in any widespread ways no matter how much they try to build up support because they really are "far left" and aren't presenting the social and economic policies that people want in this country.

[DanTex]

206. Not all my focus and vitriol, just some of it.

Sure, maybe in 2016 the far left didn't have a decisive impact, it's hard to know for sure. But in 2000 it certainly did. So that makes, let's say, 1.5 presidential elections thrown to the GOP in 16 years. I'd say that's pretty consequential.

And I have no idea how anyone could construe this as an attack on people who support universal healthcare, family leave, and immigration. I support all those things, as do most Democrats, including Hillary Clinton. I'm not attacking the policy beliefs of, say, the Green Party, I'm attacking their strategy. Which, for close to two decades, has been to falsely draw equivalences between the Democrats and Republicans, and do everything in their power to help Republicans win elections with their third party spoiler campaigns.

I hope we can agree that this is a very stupid strategy.

Contrast that with someone like MLK. Sure, his ideas might have been considered "far left" in his time (although he still got criticism from people like Malcolm X for being too compromising). But the enormous difference is that MLK was actually effective, wheras today's far left is hopelessly ineffective at everything except for electing Republicans. MLK had his disagreements with LBJ, but he still managed to work with him on Civil Rights issues.

It would be a truly great thing if today's had a visionary leader like MLK, who could convince them to stop helping Republicans get elected, and instead pursue activism in a way that had some hope of ever accomplishing something good. In fact, that's the point of my OP. The far left needs to look in the mirror and understand that what they have been doing for the last 20 years is worse than ineffective, it actually contributes to the opposite of all the goals they claim to stand for. They need to take a page out of MLK's book, rather than harping on false equivalencies and intentionally running spoiler campaigns.

[bekkilyn]

213. You're still giving them too much power

The Green party is NOTHING other than maybe a protest vote. They have no power and no real influence. Most of the people who voted for them were Democrats or Independents who were just voting because they didn't like Hillary, but have no real clue what social or economic policies the Green party even proposes. (Yes, *some* do but not very many) Had there been no green party, those same people would have voted for any other 3rd party that was out there, whether the party was considered progressive or not.

Some of the people voting Green may have even been conservative Republicans who just didn't like 45, and since they couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hillary, voted Green or Libertarian because they knew it was a "safe" vote and that neither of those parties would win. We wouldn't have had their votes anyway.

Nevertheless, they were still a very, very insignificant amount of people and not really worth the time and energy to get all worked up over them. I think they might have gotten a total of 1 electoral vote and weren't even on the ballot in all 50 states.

There is also too much emphasis here on the presidential election. Green party has practically no significance anywhere and yet we would do much better to put our main focus on state and local elections than keep giving most of our attention to the presidential election. If we had control of the rest of the country, 45 would have very little power even if somehow the Greens were responsible for electing him into office, though I don't at all believe that's the case. Again, giving them too much power.

Consistently give people good, likable candidates with integrity and strength for us to vote *for* and people will vote for them. Maybe not at first because they don't currently trust the Democratic party anymore in a lot of states, but if we start consistently doing what we say we are going to do and unapologetically support the social and economic policies we say we are going to support, it will change. If we move forward with real integrity, GOP propaganda won't be able to easily stand up to it, so we really need to stop compromising ourselves. It turns people off big time.

Nobody cares about the Greens other than as as protest tool and even that's an insignificant number. Why waste time and energy on them at the cost of supporting candidates who are going to *actively* push for the social and economic policies we want? That this entire *country* wants? And if the people who are supposed to represent us aren't doing this (their jobs), then we get rid of them and replace them with people who will do it.

The Democratic party has some real opportunities here and I really hope we don't waste it.

[DanTex]

230. There's no denying that they threw the 2000 election to W. That's an obvious fact.

Being able to sway a presidential election is quite a bit of power. Like I said, maybe their effect wasn't decisive in 2016. But it cannot be rationally denied that it was decisive in 2000, where with a few hundred more votes, there wouldn't have been a recount or SCOTUS or anything.

And, sure, some of the Greens might not have voted for the Dem in either 2016 or 2000. But some would have. Moreover, without the constant false-equivalence rhetoric coming out of lefty media, there would be less people on the left dissatisfied with the Dems.

Yes, there are a lot of things the Dems should be doing better. And there are a lot of discussions here and elsewhere about those things.

My point is that the far left is constantly telling the Dems what it thinks they should do. Why doesn't the far left worry about what *they* are doing, before lecturing others. Because their strategy in the last few decades has been a dismal failure.

[bekkilyn]

234. I view them as more of a symptom that a lot of people are dissatisfied with Dems

rather than them being a reason people are dissatisfied with Dems. I don't for a moment believe there would be less dissatisfaction without the Greens.

However, I would grant that there would be a bit less dissatisfaction without the constant barrage of right-wing propaganda from both right-wing and corporate mainstream media.

Unfortunately, Dems have given us a lot of good reasons to be dissatisfied with the party on their own, so people on both sides have been looking for alternatives...even terrible ones like 45. That's something we seriously need to fix.

[DanTex]

236. Do they not have any responsibility for their actions?

Calling them a "symptom" is letting them off the hook. Nobody forced Nader to run in 2000. Nobody forced Jill Stein to go around lying about the lack of differences between Hillary and Trump. And it's not just the Greens. It's the Greens and the chorus of lefty media voices repeating their talking points. You know who I mean, CounterPunch, Jacobin, some people on TYT and other youtube lefties, etc.

By calling them a "symptom", it absolves them of responsibility for their own actions. You brought up MLK a few posts ago, and that is a good point. He would have been considered "far left" by many at the time. But in addition to his political views, he was very intelligent and effective, in contrast to today's left. He didn't try to fight racism by helping even more racist people get elected. He didn't let LBJ's flaws prevent him from seeing the good that could be accomplished by working within the system.

Today's far left acts as though the Dems have free will and personal responsibility, but leftists and Greens do not. Because, let's be honest, the Green Party has been an utter failure at every level. Sure, the Dems lost last election. But before that, they held the presidency for 8 years. The Dems are an astounding success compared to the Greens or the far left.

There are countless articles about what the Dems should do to get out of their hole. Lefty media especially loves this topic. But why not articles about what the Greens and the rest of the far left need to do differently? Not one of them has the courage to say "look, running spoiler campaigns like we have for 20 years is obviously not working, let's try something different". Not one of them has the courage to say "OK, we tried to falsely claim that the Dems and the GOP are no different, and that accomplished nothing, let's stop with that stupidity."

[bekkilyn]

244. The Greens aren't asking what they can do differently

because they really don't matter in the larger scheme of things. They don't have any real power outside of possibly running a spoiler campaign *IF* they can get someone fairly popular to do it. They tried with Bernie from what I understand and he wouldn't join with them.

People aren't thinking that the Dems and GOP are no different because of an insignificant number of Greens. It's because they don't see much difference in their lives no matter who they vote for because people on both sides have sold them out over the years. A lot of people in the country don' really have a party that represents them anymore because the GOP is to whacky and the Dems have gone from supporting the "little guy" to suburban and coastal elites where they get most of their votes. So to a significant number of people, it hasn't mattered who they voted for in their minds. Again, the Greens are a symptom of this way of thinking.

And what good would it really do when a group as insignificant and powerless as the greens self-reflects? They could do a complete 180 and decide that Hillary is the greatest candidate since sliced bread, but who would really care? It would have little if any impact.

Alternately, the Democratic party has a great deal of power by comparison. Even if they have lost a huge amount of power compared to the GOP, they are still one of the two most powerful political parties in this country. It makes a HUGE difference for the Democratic party to self reflect and makes a huge difference to the lives of everyone in this country, including Greens.

If Dems do things differently, they can make big changes to the symptoms. If Greens do things differently, no one's going to notice because they have no real impact on much of anything. They, like everyone else, must resort to pleading with the Dems to improve for the sake of all of us.

[DanTex]

248. Well I think they should be. Because I think that they could be a force for good instead of a force

for bad, which is what they are now. Again, your example of MLK illustrates what someone outside the mainstream with ideas whose time have come can accomplish.

And, insignificant as the Greens may be, they most certainly turned the 2000 election to W. That can't be ignored. It has had a massive effect on recent US history. Sure, in order for the Greens to be in the position to throw the election, a lot of other things had to happen. But still, the Greens played a decisive role there. Which means that it can't be argued that they are irrelevant. They changed the course of the US presidency, for worse.

Also, since far lefties tend to be intellectuals, they write a lot, which means they have a larger media presence than their small numbers indicate. Examples? Chris Hedges. Robert Scheer. RT lefties like Abby Martin. Some of the lefties on TYT. People who write for Jacobin or CounterPunch. And so on. Individually, sure, none of them have much influence. But collectively they do, particularly on left-leaning young people and intellectuals, who in turn go on to influence others. Then combine far left media with the Green Party, an organization dedicated to helping Republicans win elections by duping impressionable progressives. It adds up to a non-trivial amount of influence. And the sad thing is that the far left has positioned itself in such a way that the only influence it can have is in a right-wing direction.

And the thing is, the "both parties are the same" narrative they are pushing is patently and obviously false. And most of them are smart enough to know that. Chris Hedges, for example, is a Pulitzer winner and best-selling author, and he's no dope. He knows he is lying when he says Hillary and Trump are equally bad. Nader is no dummy either, he was well aware that the difference between Gore and Bush was enormous.

So, yeah, I think it's time for the Greens and their cheerleaders to cut the BS. I actually do believe that people outside the mainstream can make a difference, like MLK did. It's just sad that so many left-leaning intellectuals and activists outside the mainstream today are dedicated to helping Republicans. Imagine of they were on our side, instead of Trump's side.

[bekkilyn]

266. Okay, but then you need to give them reasons to be allies

You need to hear what their concerns are. For example, money in politics, because that's where a lot of the "both sides are the same" are coming from. Then rather than immediately scoff and get defensive, i.e. "No, we don't do that." or go the other direction with excuses like, "We need to take dirty money or we won't win," and instead find out if there is any common ground on that issue and go from there. We need to be both honest with them and with ourselves rather than just getting defensive or trying to pull the GOP into it. (We already *know* they're terrible.)

Note, I have no idea if "money in politics" is an issue with Greens because I really don't pay that party much mind, so it's just an example that is a huge dealbreaker issue for a lot of progressives in general.

I agree with you very much about working with outsiders. (After all, the Democratic party is only about 25% of the voting population. 25% Republican. And 40% Independent/Unaffiliated.) There are a great number of left-leaning Independents that do not associate with political parties that may prove to be easier allies than Greens. Many on TYT fit this description as well as many people here on this site. I don't think most people who voted Green in the 2016 election are actually Green even though they may have voted Green this one time. I'm not familiar with the other media groups you mentioned other than TYT so I can't speak for them specifically.

Yes, you could argue that they should be giving us reasons, but then it has the appearance of the majority group being the bully. I think this is where the Democratic party has failed in general. We have tried to bully people into supporting the party and our candidates and then dismissing them when they say no. Instead, we need to find out what issues are important to them and decide whether or not its enough common ground to work with.

However, if the Greens are so "far left" that their main motivation is anarchy or something so completely foreign to our goals, then there would be too much compromise to ally with them in the same way it is too much compromise to ally with the tea party on most issues. We can't be everything to everyone. We need to decide our issues and policies and then unapologetically and vocally support them in both word and deed, and then let the cards fall where they may.

And yes, we will lose some people, but could gain even more than we lose. A lot of people right now are just frustrated and are really hungry for candidates who will truly be on their side. If the Democratic party can back these types of candidates and gain people's trust, then it could even sway a few "moderate" Greens by default without force or bullying.

It's really going to be up to the majority party to lead by example on this, and also to remember that the real enemy is the GOP establishment and the wealthy 1% that controls everything on the backs of the rest of us, including a lot of duped Republicans.

[DanTex]

269. As if Trump is not enough of a reason? An outright racist? Really? And W before him?

I'm racking my brain trying to think of how any progressive person could need more of a "reason" to vote Democratic beyond the glaring differences between the parties and their candidates that were already completely obvious.

Money in politics: Dems are in favor of overturning CU. Republicans are not. So that settles that one.

And it's the same with every other issue. Environment. Labor. Taxes. Whatever.

[bekkilyn]

273. It's not enough of a reason

Yes, I agree with you that it *should* be, but it's not a winning campaign strategy, at least when Democrats do it. We have to give solid reason for people to vote *for* our candidates other than that we're not as bad as the other guy. We also have to make sure that the message is really getting out to people rather than just assuming it's obvious to people who don't keep up with all of this stuff.

As far as money in politics goes, your answer doesn't just settle that one. Not by far. At least not with the people you say you're trying to attract. Also, there's been too many cases where Democrats will say one thing while trying to get elected and then do something different once they are elected. For example, there's a mayor...I can't remember if it was Baltimore or somewhere in Washington state...but one of the things she campaigned on was raising the minimum wage to $15 and then when she actually had that chance to do it and make a real difference in her town/city, she vetoed it and gave the usual right-wing talking point that it would hinder job growth. Then there's the lady in NY who campaigned as a Bernie progressive and then did a 180 and joined the IDC "Democrats" who caucus with the Republicans. We have to stop doing stuff like this!

People rightfully lose trust in us and then when we *say* we're for overturning CU or protecting the environment, then people don't believe us even when we do mean it.

(And yes, I know the Republicans do it too and are worse, but that's where people get frustrated and start talking about both parties being the same. The Democratic party right now is kind of like what's said about women having to work 10 times harder to appear half as good.)

[DanTex]

274. You are treating the far left as if they had no free will or responsibility.

Sure, the Dems can do things better. And to their credit, they are doing the very introspection that you are suggesting.

But is the far left? Have they thought about whether promoting false equivalences and running spoiler campaigns is really a good strategy?

It's a particularly important question to resolve before we, as Dems, consider taking their advice. If they insist on being a pro-GOP force in politics as they have been for the last 2 decades, I'm not particularly inclined to try to accommodate them.

[bekkilyn]

278. Maybe we don't need to accommodate them if they are pro-GOP

That may be our best choice so that we don't risk compromising our own values. However, we don't want to make the mistake of lumping in everyone who just voted for the Green candidate this time in with them. There's a difference between Green party loyalists and people who just wanted to protest something at some point or another.

As far as whether or not running spoiler campaigns is working for them depends a lot on their goals, and I don't know enough about Greens to know what their real goals are and I typically don't vote 3rd party unless it's an Independent I really like in some of our local elections.

[DanTex]

279. I agree. We don't have to accommodate them.

Frankly, I think of Green voters a lot like Trump voters. Some are a lost cause. Some may not be. A few may actually be intelligent and reasonable but misguided.

The target of this OP wasn't Green voters, really, but instead the far left "establishment" so to speak. The Green Party, for example, several lefty media outlets, including RT which is of course run by the Russian government but for some (not so mysterious) reason airs a lot of shows trying to convince progressives not to vote for Democrats.

I can muster some sympathy for naive 20-year olds who voted Green or didn't vote because they bought into the far left propaganda, in the same way that I can sympathize with some ignorant Trump voters who actually believed they would be "winning" once he got into office. But I can't sympathize with the people who created that propaganda, either from the far right or the far left.

[bekkilyn]

282. There are a few "irredeemables" on both sides

We do need to be careful to distinguish between what is really baseless propaganda and what may be valid, yet unpleasant, criticism that we need to ultimately resolve while moving forward. I think we have great opportunity here despite all the awful things that have happened. I certainly wasn't in the "burn it all down" camp, but now that it's happened despite our efforts, we can change it into something really positive in ways we might not have been able to do before. People seem to be more open now to different possibilities.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

176. Why can't we be friends?

[Gore1FL]

301. +1

Exactly. we are all on the same team--or we should be.

[Demsrule86]

183. I see no point in a op like this one. Why rehash the past? Time to move forward.

[JCanete]

359. thanks for trying. nt

[Zen Democrat]

184. Couldn't disagree more. The Democrats have ONLY been successful when embracing liberalism.

The country is liberal and doesn't know it. Look at the issue polls! We're a stronger party without the Blanche Lincolns and Ben Nelsons who were economically conservative and thwarted the liberals at every turn.

The Left went down with McGovern. If you recall, that was a rigged election with Nixon, CREEP, Segretti, et al, in full swing. 1972 was an illegal election and Nxon had to resign because of it.

There's a backlash to the Crazy Right and it's single payer, voting rights, free state college tuition, and paths to citizenship for immigrants of long-standing, especially Dreamers.

Get with the program. We are moving FORWARD which is what Progressives do. If you want to go back to Third Way Dems, get out of the way and don't block up the halls -- finally, the times they are a'changing!

[DanTex]

191. Bill Clinton was successful, and he didn't embrace liberalism.

Obama was successful and he both ran and governed from the center-left (much to the consternation of the far left, which criticized him to no end for it).

Say what you will about Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson, they aren't my favorite either. But without them, we wouldn't have gotten Obamacare through the Senate. Sure, maybe we could have done better than Nelson in Florida, but we're not going to get a progressive elected to the Senate from Arkansas.

[Zen Democrat]

427. Bill Clinton was popular, a great public speaker, and yet what did he accomplish for Dems?

Healthcare, No.
LGBT rights, No.
Kicking poor moms off welfare, Yes.
Repealing Glass-Steagel, Yes.
3 Strikes and you're out, Yes.

I could make a really long list, but a Republican boss of mine said that Bill Clinton was the best Republican in the White House since Reagan. He talked like a Democrat, but he caved every single time to Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, et al. Obama was far to the left of Bill Clinton.

[Sancho]

188. I agree this has been a problem since McGovern....so I'm going back to the 70s.

the far left has progressive values that most of us might embrace, but are often unable to compromise or accept practical candidates.

The one new wrinkle that I think is overlooked has been the election manipulations in the last 2 decades, but that being said, throwing elections to the crazy repubs is often the consequence of protest votes.

[beachbum bob]

195. the far left got george w bush and donald trump both elected...

[WomenRising2017]

197. I think it's time to stop calling the Nader/Stein voters left

All they do is help elect Republicans and there is nothing left, liberal or progressive about that.

The Democratic Party is the left. People who want to enact more liberal and progressive policies vote for Democrats.

[MineralMan]

199. More importantly, we should all be more focused on actual outcomes,

rather than political theories. That's my opinion. Elections are not about theories. They are binary choices with predictable outcomes, depending on which candidate prevails.

Once primaries are over, the whole thing becomes binary, in reality.

[Kentonio]

323. We spent most of the primaries being told we werent allowed a choice.

That to vote progressive was just handing the election to the repugs.

[MineralMan]

336. To which "we" do you refer?

Of course we had a choice. A solid majority of primary voters chose Hillary Clinton. However, many millions of people voted for the other candidate, so the choice was clearly there and was made.

Nobody can tell you how you must think or vote.

[Kentonio]

338. Oh come on

You were here during the primaries. It was a daily occurance of Sanders supporters being told they should 'get in line' or they'd hand the election to the GOP. If anyone genuinely wants to know why progressives are so pissed off, they might want to remember these times and ask when exactly the last time was that the moderate wing of the party actually engaged openly with the progressive wing, instead of just calling us 'fucking retarded' or accusing us of wanting ponies and rainbows like we were a bunch of fucking children.

[MineralMan]

339. You know, I've always assumed that every member of DU is

capable of making decisions. Politics tends to lead people to support their favorite candidates enthusiastically. Personally, when someone tells me I should "get in line," I simply shrug and refuse to take that advice. It's a matter of no concern at all for me.

Our presidential primaries and general elections are collective things. Each individual's opinion and vote is equal to each other individual. In the end, the collective group makes a majority decision. I vote. You vote. We all vote. Those votes are counted and the results made public.

It was not only Sanders supporters who were strongly urged to do something, either. Not by a long shot. Yes, I was here during the primaries. The primaries are long since over. The general election is over, as well. We move on to the next opportunity to elect people to serve as our voices in state houses and Congress, and as leaders.

If you're annoyed that someone on DU told you to "do something" you didn't want to do, I assume that you ignored that and voted as you chose. So did I. So it goes.

All of the past is in the past. If we dwell on that and do not look forward, we will fail.

[Kentonio]

342. It's not about what someone on DU said

It's about the entire attitude of the third way Dems towards the progressive wing of the party. They claimed the only way to become electable again was to move right, and they've met any attempt to reverse that with fire and fury. The resentment that has caused has built up into a powerful force.

[MineralMan]

343. I see. Please pardon my error.

It seemed to me as though you were specifically talking about DU in your reply above. If that was not the case, I hope you'll accept my apology for misunderstanding you.

[Kentonio]

345. No apology required.

I need to take things less emotionally, recently with everything that's going on I've been leading with my temper too much. Hard not to feel constantly furious these last months.

[Gothmog]

200. Great post

It is great to see you posting again

[dembotoz]

201. if you mean fall in line behind whatever gop lite the party is offering? nope

i have to sleep at night

[NCTraveler]

202. K&R

I love that some are making a public scene of trashing this. Pure display of their blinders and why your op is necessary.

[betsuni]

203. K&R

[Eyeball_Kid]

205. Ok, Dan. Just WHO is the "far left"? Who are you sourcing?

I suspect that you're overestimating the weight of opinion-making on the periphery of political discussion. Further, there is a positive aspect to "extreme" points of view. If there is indeed a "center", it benefits from addressing the counterpoints exposed by dissenting groups, left or right. For example, for decades the prevailing political view was that single payer health insurance was viewed as radical and malevolently socialist. Yet the discussion remained in the periphery until the need for a change in perspective gained ground. Now the notion of single payer is gaining legitimacy as one of the few common sense solutions for the nation's health care. The "far left" (whoever they are) doesn't need introspection. Once a "far left" political idea hits the mainstream, that's when it gains power. At that point, it's time for the "center" to be introspective.

[DanTex]

208. The Green Party and it's supporters, and many lefty media outlets.

Places like CounterPunch, Jacobin, and so on.

I have no problem with lefty political views. I do have a problem with the political strategy that the far left has been using for 20 years now. This strategy consists of (a) drawing false equivalences between the Democrats and Republicans and (b) running spoiler campaigns in order to help Republicans win elections.

The first of those is flatly dishonest: whatever problems the Dems have, there's an ocean of difference between them and the GOP. And the second of those is counterproductive, because it has the effect of putting people (like W and Trump) into office who then go on to enact policies that are the exact opposite of what the far left claims to be fighting for.

It should be pretty clear by now that this strategy of lying combined with electoral sabotage is not an effective one in terms of moving progressive policy goals forward. Time for them to try something different.

[CrispyQ]

207. I miss unrec.

This is such a piece of shit post - divisive, mean-spirited - what is the point? I consider myself far left & I did the right thing & voted for the adult in the room, even though I believe the repubs would have gone even more obstructionist on HRC than they did with Obama.




Obama is simply an icon for Democratic leadership in this cartoon. They've been doing this shit for 35+ years & that's why the far left is pissed. The dems reach out more to moderate republicans & the stupid undecided voters than they do the people who were once their base. I'm told I should get with the program & support blue dog dems who want to take my reproductive rights away because, hey, they're better than repubs. WTF? We stand for something or we stand for nothing.

Keep blaming the far left for Trump & Bush & keep losing.

[DanTex]

209. The point is that before telling the Dems what to do, the left should look in the mirror.

I'm not talking about their policy goals, things like clean energy, living wage, etc. Those are laudible.

I'm talking about their political strategy. Which for 20 years has been to draw false equivalences between the Dems and the GOP, and then run spoiler campaigns which help Republicans win elections. And the latter is intentional: both Nader and Stein made it clear that they would rather see the Republican candidate win than the Democratic candidate.

Yes, the Dems did get crushed in this election, and yes they need to make some changes. But you know what? They controlled the White House for 8 years and got a huge amount done in that time. And they also controlled the White House for 8 years leading up to 2000. So at least they have been doing some things right, politically, in the last few decades.

Compare that to the far left. What have they accomplished? Absolutely nothing. They have contributed to two Republican victories in presidential campaigns, and they have also succeeded in alienating the Democratic Party, which is the only vehicle through which any of their policy goals might become reality.

So I think it's time for the far left to rethink its strategy. Not its ideals, but the way it goes about trying to get those ideals into reality. The whole false equivalency/electoral sabotage thing they've been trying has been a total failure.

[Kentonio]

324. Rethink their strategy? Are you frikkin kidding me?

Every damn election we're told to shut up, not rock the boat, and not try and advance our agenda or else we're 'handing the election to the GOP'. Every goddamn time! And every time, most of us bite our lips and vote for candidates that don't particularly represent us, but who are still much better than the alternative. And as the party loses seats year after year at every level up and down the country, the same people failing over and over blame us for their shitty political strategies and candidates and insist we have to continue down a road of failure, because WE'RE the ones who supposedly want the free ponies and rainbows.

Give me a fucking break.

[DanTex]

351. Yes, rethink it. Is their current strategy accomplishing anything?

How many more elections do they have to throw to the GOP before they realize that pushing lies about "both parties are the same", and running spoiler candidates to help Republicans get elected doesn't accomplish what they want to accomplish.

[Kentonio]

355. How about you rethink your damn strategy

That has so far handed countless seats at every level of government to the repugs? Or do we just have to ignore that, because its an inconvenient truth?

[DanTex]

356. Well, the Dems held the White House for eight years and enacted many historic reforms.

Millions of people now have health coverage thanks to the Democratic Party. And millions of auto workers still have their jobs. And the economy was stopped from falling into a second great depression.

When the far left does anything comparable to what Obama accomplished, let me know. In fact, let me know when they accomplish a single thing other than writing idiotic articles on lefty websites and helping Republicans win elections.

[Kentonio]

357. Obama ran as a progressive for christs sake

And because we went back to being moderates we lost god knows how many state seats, governerships, not to mention the senate and the house AND the damn white house now.

Actually go talk to someone else, I'm sick of this blind nonsense that ignores the devastation that has been caused to our party and the pathetic blame slinging at the part of the party who never stops fighting for progressive values, even when its our own supposed allies who are non-stop attacking us.

[DanTex]

358. And governed as one too.

Of course, that didn't stop the far left from bashing him at every turn.

[WomenRising2017]

210. We just ran on the most progressive platform ever.

One that strongly supported reproductive rights.

If Nader/Stein voters cared about reproductive rights they would not have contributed to the Bush and Trump elections.

[CrispyQ]

211. Most on DU who identify with the far left got in line behind HRC.

So again, what is the point of a post like this but to stir up hostilities? And again, keep blaming the far left for democratic losses & the dems will continue to lose. The dems problem is much bigger than the small group of constituents who identify as far left.

[WomenRising2017]

214. The post is addressing people who are pleased

that we lost the election. i.e. Stein voters.

The Nader/Stein voters are responsible for Bush and Trump.

Since you voted for Hillary Clinton, I'm not sure why you are taking offense.

[bekkilyn]

218. Maybe instead of saying "far left" the OP should have just specified "Green" or "Nader/Stein"

I still don't believe the Greens significantly contributed one way or the other to 2016 in any real way, and that it's a waste of time and energy focusing attention on them, but at least there wouldn't be a lot of progressive, liberal, etc. people thinking the OP was complaining specifically about them and their views.

When I first scanned through the OP, my first thought was that it was another Bernie-bashing thread, though it actually turned out to be something else.

[WomenRising2017]

222. I'm left and I wasn't offended at all

Jill Stein actively campaigned for Trump. So she did indeed contribute to his election. It is a mistake to ignore that. There is nothing left, liberal or progressive about her view on Trump.

[bekkilyn]

224. Agreed, but why keep giving power and attention to her?

the problem with the OP was that it was referencing "far left" and people didn't know what was meant by that and assumed all sorts of different things, whereas if it had just referenced Green/Stein from the beginning, it would have been clear to everyone.

If Stein is pro-45, just treat her as another faction of the GOP and move on. Just because people say they are progressive or left doesn't mean they are in actuality.

I personally don't know what she (or the Greens) stands for as I don't even give her a second thought except when people here bring her up as some object of vitriol.

[Gore1FL]

227. They keep doing it because it is easier to point fingers than to solve the underlying problems. nt

[PotatoChip]

223. They didn't vote for Trump, so how are they responsible for him?

They voted for their party's nominee just like Dems did. Why would they vote for some other party's nominee?

Lol, can you imagine how outraged DU would be if the Greens got all pissy over Dems not voting for Stein or Nader?

[Act_of_Reparation]

217. "Far Left"?

Okay, man. Whatever you say.

[StubbornThings]

221. Are Democrats no longer "far left"? Damn, how things have changed.

Considering the party is to the left of Nixon, I guess that makes sense. Just can't believe someone on Democratic UNDERGROUND would use those words like that.

[Kentonio]

229. Ah yes, us horrible monsters on the 'far left' and our crazy ideas.

Until of course those ideas become widely accepted, at which point they are no longer allowed to be considered our ideas, just part of the Democratic mainstream. Can't go giving those nutjobs on the left any credit now can we, after all we're the ones everyone gets to blame after every electoral defeat.

[Ken Burch]

241. It's not fair to imply that people on the left are gleeful that Trump is in.

(And I say that as a person who spent most of the fall trying to persuade people on the left to vote for the Clinton-Kaine ticket).

I can agree with you somewhat on the attitude some people on the left have taken on some things, but nobody other than the reactionaries are thrilled that we're in this situation.

By "working WITH the Democratic Party" it sounds as though what you're saying is that everybody to your left should just shut up and settle for whatever the party accomplishes without pushing it to go any further. I hope I'm not reading that correctly.

[DanTex]

243. True. For example, I am on the left, and I am not the least bit gleeful.

But you know the kind of people I am talking about (and I'm not talking about you).

I'm not suggesting that people stop trying to push the party leftward. That's fine, and in fact I would welcome that, if it were politically feasible, because my personal views are to the left of the average elected Democrat.

It's the methods I object to, not the objective. Trying to push the party to the left by running spoiler campaigns that can have no effect other than help Republicans is stupid. Pushing a "both parties are the same" narrative, when it's totally obvious that isn't true, and what they actually mean is "there's a huge difference between the Dems and the GOP but I still think the Dems should move further left" is also stupid.

Seriously, the far left has been using the combination of false equivalences and spoiler campaigns as the centerpiece of their political strategy for at least 16 years. That has accomplished nothing. Time for them to try something new. If they actually care about any of the issues they pretend to care about, time for them to look in the mirror and change their approach.

[Ken Burch]

245. And we don't have many "far left" types on THIS board, so why are you calling them out here?

My point, throughout the fall campaign, was that we'd have taken a lot more of the votes that either went to Los Verdes, or that didn't turn up at the polls, by running ads that pointed out that a lot of Sanders policies were part of the platform, that THAT campaign hadn't ended in absolute failure and had, in fact, made a positive difference.

Ads like that weren't run and speeches like that weren't given, however.

Instead, the usual "you have to, you have to, you HAVE to" tone was taken, with an additional subtext "you lost, so nothing you did was worth a damn".

Since we were dealing with a lot of new voters and activists, whose efforts we as a party desperately needed to validate if we were to bring them in and add them to our vote totals, this tactic did us far more harm than good.

For the future, let's try a positive approach based on trying to win the argument in the fall.

[DanTex]

256. We don't have many Republicans on this board, but people call out the GOP here all the time.

What makes you think I'm calling out anyone on DU? I'm not, I'm calling out people like Ralph Nader and Jill Stein. And Chris Hedges and Robert Scheer and Abby Martin and Mike Malloy and so on (but not Noam Chomsky, who emphasized the importance of voting for Hillary).

Yes, I agree that more emphasis on the progressiveness of the Hillary campaign, and the similarities with Bernie's ideas, would have been good. On the other hand, with the far-left media in their crazed Hillary-bashing state, would it have helped? I don't know.

Because you are right, there are a lot of new voters. Many of them young and left-leaning, many who follow alternative media, maybe TYT or RT or whatever. And many of them were fed the "Hillary and Trump are the same" lie by far lefties who should know better.

This is who I am calling out. People who push lies to left-leaning young people, with the effect of depressing Democratic turnout and helping Republicans win elections. People like Nader, who used his celebrity and progressive credentials to push Bush into the White House. People like Hedges, who uses his Pulitzer and the credibility he gets from his (impressive) journalist career and best-selling authorship to push the lie that the Democrats are no different from Republicans.

I know that you know what I am talking about. As a Bernie supporter, you did, as you have said, try to talk to others about the importance of electing Democrats. There is no doubt that people forwarded articles by Hedges or Nader or many of those other people to you in response. These people made your efforts more difficult. So I don't see why you have a problem with me calling them out.

[Gore1FL]

303. The right will never be in our political coalition.

The left, however, is required if we are ever going to win elections.

[bekkilyn]

247. We can only control what we do

They'll do what they do and we'll just need to work around it just like GOP may need to work around Libertarians taking some of their voters. We don't need to focus on a single tree only to miss the entire forest.

[DanTex]

251. Sure, of course.

And what I'm doing right now, is expressing my opinion that the far left voices in this country should do some introspection to figure out whether or not they are truly serving the causes that they profess to believe in.

[bekkilyn]

267. I would argue that more introspection is needed all around

However, we can only control our own introspection regardless of what we think others should do.

Also it's possible that they have done the introspection and still decided they are right, and maybe they are right coming from where they are coming from. We can't assume that just because they have a view different from ours or from the majority that they are wrong.

Some people who voted Green are just as convinced that the Democratic party gave us 45 as many in the Democratic party are convinced it was them. Maybe there's some truth to both views.

My personal view is that there are a lot of different causes for 45 that all came together into one big whole. Maybe in a much longer-term sense, it will actually turn out to be a positive thing for the country assuming we all survive it in the meantime! None of us would be here or in other places arguing so passionately about these things if we didn't care and weren't engaged in what was going on, even if we don't always agree.

[CrispyQ]

250. The GOP controls the White House, Congress, SCOTUS & 33 state legislatures.

Maybe it's time for the Democratic Party to try something new.

[DanTex]

252. True, 2016 didn't go as well for Dems as 2008 or 1992 did.

Maybe running the most progressive campaign in decades (or maybe ever) wasn't the silver bullet after all.

[PotatoChip]

259. Obama's 2008 campaign was far more progressive.

The 2016 campaign was about Trump and how horrible he is.

[DanTex]

260. Actually, no, it wasn't. Obama had more charisma, but in terms of issues, 2016 was more progressive

[PotatoChip]

262. We had a reasonably progressive platform, but it was rarely talked about.

With the exception of Bernie during his numerous campaign stops for Hill.

[DanTex]

263. Yes, it was talked about all the time. In all the debates, in rallies, etc.

The problem is the media ignored it. And the far left ignored it too.

[PotatoChip]

265. Of course the "far left" ignored it. The Greens had their own platform to run on. (nt)

[bekkilyn]

271. The platform wasn't the problem

There are a number of different causes such as voter suppression, Comey, possible Russian interference, right-wing propaganda, etc. for the loss, but I think Hillary's campaign made a very crucial mistake by ignoring strategies to win electoral votes in states the campaign ignored. I think had the campaign put more focus there, she could have gotten those electoral votes and squeezed out a win, and that's even if every 3rd party voter still voted 3rd party.

[DanTex]

272. Yeah, I agree, she could have done many things better, including more resources in those states.

And a bigger problem, in my opinion, is that she lacked the stage charisma of Obama or even Bill Clinton. Which is sad to say, because she would have been great as president. But the skills needed to get elected are not the same as the skills needed to do well in the job.

[bekkilyn]

275. Overall, I think she would have done a good job

But yes, she did lack the stage charisma. Still, she managed to win the popular vote, so it may not have been that much of an obstacle had other things gone better. Well hindsight and all that.

[tiptonic]

298. Crushed

Not sure 'crushed' is the right word. Maybe 'robbed' would be better.

[zentrum]

304. You always need a far left

....at the back of the center-left, putting pressure on it.

One reason why this far right coup has got itself into the WH and onto the SC---is by constant pressure from the far right that makes the more center-right seem more acceptable. Introspect on that.

FDR accomplished what he did because of pressure from the far left.

Try reading "Death of the Liberal Class" by Chris Hedges, and "Listen, Liberal!" by Thomas Frank. Very, you know-- introspective books.

[DanTex]

335. Chris Hedges is a perfect example of the stupidity and impotence of the far left.

And also of an utter lack of introspection. He goes on and on about how bad everything is, and how it keeps getting worse.

And what does he do about it? First, he backed Nader in 2000. He backed Stein in 2016. He actually attacked Bernie Sanders for supporting Hillary Clinton in the general election.

The supreme irony is that people like Chris Hedges are a cause of all the problems that he complains about. If not for Nader, there wouldn't have been a W presidency. That means no Iraq War. It means no tax cuts for the rich. It means not losing 8 years in the race to slow down climate change.

You'd think that would be cause for introspection, right? I mean, if I put W into office, even if it was "accidental" (which it wasn't, Nader made it clear that he wanted W to win), I would be doing some serious questioning after that. But not far left idiots like Chris Hedges. Instead of learning from the 2000 debacle that he helped cause, Chris Hedges doubled down on it, doing everything within his power to move the country to the right and put as many Republicans as he can into office.

[zentrum]

366. "The Stupidity of the Left". Wow.

Actually—-it’s been convincingly debated that Nader did not cost Gore the election. Math and exit polls dispute the premise quite well. What emerges as far more causal was Gore not demanding and I mean, demanding—-a full hand count of Florida’s election. He backed down because of pressure from the Dem establishment. Very well-bred of him.

In any event, collapsing the left into the Greens, Nader and Stein is a cheap shot. The left has never lead with the Green banner. The left’s commitment towards environmental protection is simply a natural by-product of protecting workers, addressing pollution in minority neighborhoods, regulating business, de-escalating the military industrial complex globally, etc. Neo-liberals know that quite well, which is why they like to conflate Greens with the left as a way to diminish the social/economic/justice analysis of the latter.

Dems stayed home in surprisingly large numbers in 2016 in different locations. Bernie and the left did not cost the Dems the drip, drip attrition of the house, and the Senate, and the State Houses and Boards of Ed., and Commissions and countless other local offices across the country. Bernie was not the reason the DNC decided to not pour resources into the ground operation in the states that 45 won, though the local Dems were frantically begging for help. The left is not the reason the Mainstream Dems did not deal with voter suppression in Congress for the last two decades. The left and Bernie are not the reason we are subject to gerrymandering, which we are, because the Dems ceded control of local state governments, slowly, over time, under the eyes of the DNC.

No doubt Hedges is a purist, but Hedges is not hurting anything. He’s part of the spine you always need at your back, as I said, to mount a strong pre-DLC Democratic argument. Every damn thing you say the left did not accomplish, was accomplished by the Congressional Democrats because of pressure from us. As Obama said, “Make me!” We tried. We lefties tried for single payer/medicare for all and didn’t get it. But now it’s on the mainstream table. And everyone is talking about it as the Dem answer to “fixing” the ACA. Thanks lefties!

Not sure what you’re recommending—-that the Democratic Party keep doing what it did in 2016 and see how that pans out? You’re harrumphing against lefties now for what exactly? Really?Did you see Feinstein’s recent town hall, the first she’s held in 25 years? Clearly, there is huge discontent out there, and demands for a leftward change are in the air. Bernie did not create that. Nor did the Russians.

I get where you’re coming from, but I’m done, because frankly I’m too tired making calls for Ossoff today, to continue a useless argument over Democratic strategies which have not been working for us since O’s first mid-terms.The losses for Dems over many years ain’t because of the left. Rather blame Citizen’s United—-a neoliberal wet dream if ever there was one. Meantime, glad we have Bernie, Warren, Ellison, Barbara Lee. Glad we have Perez instead of the old DNC. And now we may have Ossoff! Progress!

[DanTex]

381. Yes. The far left in this country is quite stupid.

And a good example of this is their continued denial of responsibility for 2000. The math clearly and uncontrovertibly shows that Nader cost Gore Florida: if even 1% of the Nader votes had gone to Gore, there's no recount and no SCOTUS. If Nader isn't on the ballot (not to mention if he doesn't go around telling his naive/ignorant followers that there's no difference between Bush and Gore), Gore wins comfortably.

In any event, collapsing the left into the Greens, Nader and Stein is a cheap shot.

No it's not. The Green Party is the political vehicle of the far left. It is through the Green Party that the far left actually accomplishes anything at all. What they accomplish is throwing elections to Republicans. And, by their own words, they do this on purpose. Nader and Stein both made it clear that they preferred the GOP candidate to the Dem.

No doubt Hedges is a purist, but Hedges is not hurting anything.

Yes, he and the rest of the far-left authors like him are definitely hurting the country. Because he has an audience. And he tells that audience that they should not vote for the Democratic Party. He couldn't be a more useful ally of the right-wing in this country if he tried: pretend to care about progressive causes, and then go around depressing Democratic turnout.

I saw one interview with him that was just mind-boggling. He pointed out (correctly) that the clock is running out on climate change, the earth is at risk. And then, when asked about the single most important thing in the entire world that could affect that trajectory -- whether Clinton or Trump become president -- he said he would vote Green. Truly idiotic. If Chris Hedges is part of our "spine", then we're pretty well screwed.

Every damn thing you say the left did not accomplish, was accomplished by the Congressional Democrats because of pressure from us.

That's a joke. One of the delusions that far leftists tell themselves. They act like they are the only people with progressive views, and mainstream Dems are inherently evil and untrustworthy and only do progressive things because of "pressure" from Susan Sarandon types. Wrong. Obama enacted progressive policies them because of his own progressive beliefs. Same goes for Hillary and congressional Dems. Sorry, the far left doesn't get to, on one hand, continually help Republicans get elected, and on the other hand, claim credit for the accomplishments of the Democratic Party that they despise.

Not sure what you’re recommending—-that the Democratic Party keep doing what it did in 2016 and see how that pans out?

No, I'm recommending they do what they did in 2008. Find a charismatic candidate and run on a platform that can win nationally. I find it fairly ironic that the far left keeps trying to use Trump's victory as a sign that the party needs to dive to the left, because the 2016 platform and campaign were the most progressive that the Dems have ever run. More so than 2008 and certainly more so than 1992. If anything, the lesson from 2016 versus those victory years is: don't bother trying to placate the far left, it won't get us votes.

[Orsino]

387. If only as a scapegoat when centrism fails. n/t

[athena]

305. I'm watching the Ken Burns documentary of the Roosevelts.

It's amazing. Apparently, during FDR's presidency, the left was unhappy with FDR because he wasn't socialist enough for their taste. There were many Bernie-like politicians criticizing his policies for not being liberal enough, and threatening to primary him. And yet, today, FDR is revered by the ultra-left as a liberal hero. The Nation keeps publishing articles about how we need a "New New Deal".

If HRC had won the presidency, she would have gotten a lot of good stuff done, and a hundred years from now, she would have been similarly admired by the left. But it seems that at any given time, liberals always feel that their leaders are just not liberal enough for them. Unlike right-wingers, we liberals are never happy and too easily lose sight of the forest for the trees.

Just imagine if the right wing were anything like the left wing. They would be marching in the streets against Trump for not being conservative enough for them. But instead, they're all behind him. We might learn something from them. It's easier to change the system from within than from without.

[Saviolo]

352. Some that crossed my timeline recently:

Link to tweet

[joshcryer]

307. The mantra of the non-empathetic left is to crush the Democrats.

It has been forever.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028330218

[Hortensis]

360. Yes. For all the noise here, they are a minority who

would BE the Democrats if only they could. But then, they would be a party, and they can't.

This stuff does get tedious. I moved to DU from a mixed forum because I was just tired of those who, ultimately, are doomed to ineffectual frustration and are far better at attacking those who can instead of building.

[Mosby]

350. This thread should be locked

I think I have served on four juries now, the last two I indicated that I thought the alerter alerted in bad faith.

[Gothmog]

353. I am really enjoying this thread

[DanTex]

354. Me too.

[JHan]

380. you got some creative spin offs, well done.

[Worktodo]

382. Politics is broken

Only motivated people vote, and most people are motivated more by what they hate than what they want. The "anti-" party is more motivated. Right now the Democrats (and everybody on the left) is the anti-Trump party.

With that in mind, let's look at the GOP. This party's platform continues to be engineered around wedge issues and dislike. Anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, anti-tax, anti-government, anti-LGBT, etc. This isn't an accident, it's intentional, and it works. Look at GWB versus Kerry in 2004 which they tried to frame as a referendum on marriage equality.

So in those terms I think the political spectrum is squashed into "the party of devisive issues" and "everybody else".

Long term I have to wonder, is it all a matter of framing? Is it just a matter of being "against climate change" and "against poisioning people" versus "pro-environment"?

I do think Democrats need to wake up to the Occupy Wall Street crowd. I'm against corruption in our financial system (2008 anyone?) and Obama's kid gloves with Wall Street was a disappointment. That issue was a major motivating factor for Bernie voters.

So it's not really "left" or "right" IMHO-- that has itself become a RW tool where "conservative" only means "anti-liberal" (check out Medicare Part D which Republicans passed which was definitely not conservative, or Regan and Bush's deficits.)

Going forward "the Left" just needs to reframe the debate and figure out what we don't like (and a lot of people don't like Trump but we need to go beyond just that.) Second we need to run races and not let seats go uncontested. If there's a progressive party that wants to win seats there are plenty of races to run that are winnable.

Final note- the Green Party really nerf'd itself with Stein. I'm sorry but the whole "Dinner with Putin" damaged the reputation of that whole party in a way that needs to be acknowledged before it can be repaired.

[gtar100]

402. Another useless bash democrats thread.

Far, middle, near, WTF! I'm glad not everyone thinks the same way.

Thread going to my trash bin.

[bigtree]

409. we're in the midst of life-altering fascism

...and you can't find anything to complain about, except progressive opposition.

I don't think you know squat about anyone 'far left' of wherever you're standing - not based on what you're trying to sell in this op.

[DanTex]

410. Yes. That's what makes it so egregious that the far left helped bring this about.

Jill Stein, Cornel West, Chris Hedges, Susan Sarandon, Ralph Nader, and so on. They claim to be "progressive opposition" while helping the GOP in every election. It needs to end.

[bigtree]

411. those folks are individuals with their own agendas

...I'd recommend addressing specific issues and individual opinion, rather than trying to define an ideology by pointing to a handful of opportunists.

[DanTex]

412. They, and others like them, are the far left.

The strategy that the far left has adopted for the last 20+ years is, in effect, "after Hitler, our turn." I don't care about their ideology, I care about their actions, which have helped bring about the very fascism you are talking about.

[bigtree]

413. I don't think you've provided any evidence of that, outside of pointing to a handful of individuals

...but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

Your definition of 'far left' is going to hinge on where you stand. What I see is a party which is challenged to form coalitions of support from many disparate and diverse factions to advance ANY ideology or agenda into action or law.

That's not a substitute for progressive pressure from outside the political center which serves to keep legislators focused on keeping progressive ideals and concerns at the forefront of whatever compromises that are made in our political system.

It's natural for politicians to be satisfied with their compromised politics, not so much for those of us still striving for progressive policy which doesn't compromise our basic values and marginalize our concerns.

[DanTex]

414. That's the sense in which I'm using the term "far left".

Sure, there can be other definitions, but that's the one I'm using. I'm not talking about people like Elizabeth Warren, who is on the progressive end of the Democratic Party. I'm talking about the CounterPunch/Jacobin/Green Party far left.

What they are engaging in is not "progressive pressure", it is outright political sabotage: luring naive left-leaning voters into not voting for the Democratic Party in order to help bring electoral success to Republicans.

[bigtree]

415. then address those individuals and their individual agendas, statements, actions

Last edited Thu Apr 20, 2017, 08:50 AM - Edit history (1)

...the individuals you point to aren't organized in any great or influential numbers or widely represented in our party politics.

What you've done here is group them according to your own politics. You've defined them as an ideology. They're not. They're individuals with individual agendas.


Caroline O.‏ @RVAwonk 9h9 hours ago
Anyone who is more concerned with dividing up the opposition to Trump than actually opposing Trump should be viewed with skepticism.

[DanTex]

417. Actually, yes, the individuals I am pointing to are organized.

And they are far from the only ones. There are numerous far left publications, many of which get posted here on DU. In fact, someone in this very thread told me to read a Chris Hedges book.

We can debate just how influential the far left is in national politics. Certainly they are completely useless in terms of accomplishing any of the things they claim to be in favor of. However, they decisively tipped the scales towards the Republicans in at least one, and probably two of the last 5 presidential elections (2000 for sure, 2016 likely). They have proven themselves to be effective allies of the GOP, doing exactly what that tweet is talking about: dividing the opposition and paving the road for right-wing victories.

And if you've been on DU for a while, which you have, then you've witnessed the creep of destructive far-left ideology here in the last years of the Obama administration, and through the presidential campaign.

[bigtree]

418. you overstate their individual influence

...and misrepresent progressiveness by suggesting they are the antithesis of what you describe as the 'far left'.

You've provided zero evidence that these individuals 'tipped the scales' in elections in favor of republicans.

More evidence available that the left influenced the 2016 Democratic field, and ultimately the nominee, to adopt the most progressive platform and policy positioning in our party's history.

[DanTex]

426. But not their collective influence.

The vote totals in Florida show clearly that Nader tipped the scales for Bush. 2016 is more debatable, since we can't know exactly what would have happened if Stein, West, Hedges, and the rest of them hadn't gone around convincing their naive followers that Hillary was worse than Trump.

You're right, the Dems did run the most progressive platform in the party's history. Considerably to the left of the successful runs in 92, 96, 08, and 12. And, yes, people like Cornel West were there, and the Dems listened to his input. Then what did the far left do? They went right back to bashing the Democratic Party like they've done for decades, and helping the Republican candidate win the election.

[Foamfollower]

423. Jettison them, move a little to the right and pick up the win in the center.

They sat it out or went Green. They are unreliable. Go after the center where elections are won.