I wish Sanders supporters realized the incredible power they hold

[TV and credit cards]

I mean look at the tea party, in 8 years they've managed to put quite a few people in congress and they sure as hell aren't loved by the RNC.

Good article in HufPo on that...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kimberley-a-johnson/its-time-for-progressives-to-take-a-cue-from-the-tea-party_b_9789778.html

I wondered about this. Mock them and I have, the far right has managed to push forward their agenda. And the far left? They managed to wiggle their fingers at Wall Street for a summer and were pretty much pepper sprayed out of the news stream.

This article forgets the key points that the Tea Party movement had quite a bit of help from media and corporate interests. I remember arguing with an early TP supporter who vehemently claimed that the TP was a fiscal movement and not interested in social politics, which at the genesis was a correct assessment. As the weight of the R machine fell behind these candidates they became something quite different from what it was in the initial weeks.

The TP was utilized and supported by the RNC - they simply missed their opportunity for their nacht der langen messer.

And I knew it would turn into a social movement as this is always the case. When they're bitching is directed at Monied America, deflect towards social issues. Keep them focused on abortion and immigrants and away from the 1%.



There's commonality in these movements but for their social differences never the twain shall meet.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Do you go to party meetings in your precinct? Because if you don't then how do you figure that part of the process is rigged, and if you do, then please explain what part is rigged.

It's really irksome to hear the complaints about "super delegates". Super delegates are party leaders and elected officials who devote their time and energy to the democratic party. The reason they are for one candidate or another is usually y because that candidate has helped them in the past, campaigning for them, speaking at fundraisers, etc. Sanders has some, because he has helped democrats in the past, however Clinton has more because she has been in the party for many years. If this is what you are calling "rigged", then change the party rules. The rules that the party uses in each state are determined by members of the party in that state. In many cases they are voted upon at the state conventions.

Why don't they just go to the polls and vote like everybody else. You seem to put your faith in the elite. They are sell outs just like Clinton and they all have profit agendas for those who have supported them in politics with major contributions of MONEY. They should have no place just going to the convention and voting because they got elected in the same rigged system. You may get tired of hearing about this but there is no fairness in this and you well know it. It would be interesting to see just how many of these super delegates are in the 1%. I would estimate probably all of them.

People focus on the super delegates claiming that they are so anti-democratic. Sure they are designed to give the establishment a voice. However, it has been demonstrated time after time that they will change their vote to the more popular candidate (like with Obama in 2004). Bottom line here: Clinton has millions of more popular votes than Bernie. Millions. It would be more of an issue if the super delegates were going with the candidate with less support.

 

[Kusa]

<snip>

 

[Playball40]

Why don't they just go to the polls and vote like everybody else. You seem to put your faith in the elite. They are sell outs just like Clinton and they all have profit agendas for those who have supported them in politics with major contributions of MONEY. They should have no place just going to the convention and voting because they got elected in the same rigged system. You may get tired of hearing about this but there is no fairness in this and you well know it. It would be interesting to see just how many of these super delegates are in the 1%. I would estimate probably all of them.

People focus on the super delegates claiming that they are so anti-democratic. Sure they are designed to give the establishment a voice. However, it has been demonstrated time after time that they will change their vote to the more popular candidate (like with Obama in 2004). Bottom line here: Clinton has millions of more popular votes than Bernie. Millions. It would be more of an issue if the super delegates were going with the candidate with less support.

Would this still hold true if so many states did not hold closed primaries?

 

[Harry Bosch]

<snip>

Living in a society that allows multiple views is probably difficult for you. My apologies to the cross that you must bear.

- - - Updated - - -

People focus on the super delegates claiming that they are so anti-democratic. Sure they are designed to give the establishment a voice. However, it has been demonstrated time after time that they will change their vote to the more popular candidate (like with Obama in 2004). Bottom line here: Clinton has millions of more popular votes than Bernie. Millions. It would be more of an issue if the super delegates were going with the candidate with less support.

Would this still hold true if so many states did not hold closed primaries?

That's a good question. I actually prefer open primaries. However, I recognize that parties are private entities and can offer what they wish to offer.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Living in a society that allows multiple views is probably difficult for you. My apologies to the cross that you must bear.

All the Democrats could get cancer and then they'd complain about how no one does any work any more because all of the Democrats died of cancer.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Do you go to party meetings in your precinct? Because if you don't then how do you figure that part of the process is rigged, and if you do, then please explain what part is rigged.

It's really irksome to hear the complaints about "super delegates". Super delegates are party leaders and elected officials who devote their time and energy to the democratic party. The reason they are for one candidate or another is usually y because that candidate has helped them in the past, campaigning for them, speaking at fundraisers, etc. Sanders has some, because he has helped democrats in the past, however Clinton has more because she has been in the party for many years. If this is what you are calling "rigged", then change the party rules. The rules that the party uses in each state are determined by members of the party in that state. In many cases they are voted upon at the state conventions.

Why don't they just go to the polls and vote like everybody else. You seem to put your faith in the elite. They are sell outs just like Clinton and they all have profit agendas for those who have supported them in politics with major contributions of MONEY. They should have no place just going to the convention and voting because they got elected in the same rigged system. You may get tired of hearing about this but there is no fairness in this and you well know it. It would be interesting to see just how many of these super delegates are in the 1%. I would estimate probably all of them.

Of course there are likely a lot in the 1%. Of course, the rich run the show.

The trouble isn't the 1%. It is the portion of the 99% that are towing the line for a half dozen billions who want to control the country because of ego and the corporations that are cutting too many corners because Americans want everything now and cheap.

The top 1% consists of a lot of Americans that actually work for a living. You want to complain about those trying to pull the strings of America, that'd be the 0.1 and 0.01%.

 

[Kusa]

Living in a society that allows multiple views is probably difficult for you. My apologies to the cross that you must bear.

All the Democrats could get cancer and then they'd complain about how no one does any work any more because all of the Democrats died of cancer.

<snip>

 

[Rhea]

That is typical of Democrats in general, not just Bernie supporters. That's why Dems get creamed so often in midterms.

Bernie supporters are aware of the deeply entrenched rigging of our political system. There are a number of congressional candidates on board with Bernie. I am sure Bernie will put his campaign fund to good use whatever that may entail. The idea that Bernie supporters are not interested in congress is FALSE. What he has been saying all along is that the system needs to be changed and unrigged. .

This statement is flat out wrong. In the sense that anyone who thinks this is wrong. As a local politician, it is absolutely NOT RIGGED to get into politics. The only thing that is “rigged” is not being able to leapfrog the bottom 10 layers and land magically successful on the top tier.

It would be magical dreaming to think one could.
Run. For. Mayor. Run for school board. Run for county legislator.

…As, you know, Bernie did. And he won. From there, he took the reputation and recognition he gained from YEARS OF PUBLIC WORK to get his next seat. Then the same on to the next. He’s making a decent run at president because he put in years of lower level work to gain recognition for his “party.”

All you have to do is copy his playbook. It’s the one the Dems and Repubs are using. It’s the one the Green party is using. If the Green party had the actual support of all these progressives in local elections, you would HAVE candidates with recognition and experience.

It’s insane to expect voters to understand the minute differences in each candidate. This is where the party platform helps the candidate. Get enough ideas that you all share and you can pool resources to mic the same message to many markets.

Get enough people to feel part of that “party” and you will get people voting who are not invested in scores of hours of volunteering.

Bernie knew he couldn’t take any shortcuts to massive recognition needed for a statewide or district-wide (or nationwide!) campaign. Those congressional candidates needed the support of state houses, state senates, county legislatures and town mayors.

The Extremist Republican playbook actually started with School Board elections. Copy that. Go do it. Do the work. Don’t whine about failing to get a marathon medal when you’re trying to hop off the subway on mile 21.

Bernie supporters who are complaining about a rigged system are not demonstrably interested in congress. Or it would be fuill of their candidates, wouldn’t it? And they would certainly never step back from using coattails in a Democratic sweep year to gain progressive seats. They have not done so. They need to start. I would support them. I _am_ supporting them, when they do it. I have one in my district for state office and I support her fully. I ran for local election, have you? Have any other of these “system rigged” Bernie supporters?

 

[Rhea]

People focus on the super delegates claiming that they are so anti-democratic. Sure they are designed to give the establishment a voice. However, it has been demonstrated time after time that they will change their vote to the more popular candidate (like with Obama in 2004). Bottom line here: Clinton has millions of more popular votes than Bernie. Millions. It would be more of an issue if the super delegates were going with the candidate with less support.

Would this still hold true if so many states did not hold closed primaries?

Bottom line: Bernie does best in states that are "partially closed," that is, they allow independents but not repubs to vote for him.

He does best of all when there is full-on voter suppression of the sort that makes only one hour available for voting on a single day and you have to argue publicly to do it.... the caucus system. Where they get less than 25% of the voters who can participate in the "rigged" primary that they complain is so very unfair to the ones who "can't vote."

Note to the listeners: Bernie and "system is rigged" people are completely silent on the suppressed-voter caucus process. Have you wondered why?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Would this still hold true if so many states did not hold closed primaries?

Bottom line: Bernie does best in states that are "partially closed," that is, they allow independents but not repubs to vote for him.

He does best of all when there is full-on voter suppression of the sort that makes only one hour available for voting on a single day and you have to argue publicly to do it.... the caucus system. Where they get less than 25% of the voters who can participate in the "rigged" primary that they complain is so very unfair to the ones who "can't vote."

Note to the listeners: Bernie and "system is rigged" people are completely silent on the suppressed-voter caucus process. Have you wondered why?

Yeah. There is an inconsistency to this. Especially based on how odd the caucus process is to begin with. The give a speech thing is nice, but the whole after math is awash is sillyness. Granted, caucuses (caucii?) are how Obama was able to get the nomination. Some Sanders supporters simply don't get it, the more older than younger people and the minorities (other than really young) didn't go for Sanders. That isn't obstruction. There are just more older people (Clinton's base) than younger people (Sander's base).

I like Sanders in general, but he was never going to be the candidate and he has actually made a substantial difference in the campaign, one that benefits the Democrat Party, and one that may benefit the American people. He did great, let's not get too grumpy about him not winning the candidacy. He couldn't have enacted most of the changes he wants anyways.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Bernie supporters are aware of the deeply entrenched rigging of our political system. There are a number of congressional candidates on board with Bernie. I am sure Bernie will put his campaign fund to good use whatever that may entail. The idea that Bernie supporters are not interested in congress is FALSE. What he has been saying all along is that the system needs to be changed and unrigged. .

This statement is flat out wrong. In the sense that anyone who thinks this is wrong. As a local politician, it is absolutely NOT RIGGED to get into politics. The only thing that is “rigged” is not being able to leapfrog the bottom 10 layers and land magically successful on the top tier.

It would be magical dreaming to think one could.
Run. For. Mayor. Run for school board. Run for county legislator.

…As, you know, Bernie did. And he won. From there, he took the reputation and recognition he gained from YEARS OF PUBLIC WORK to get his next seat. Then the same on to the next. He’s making a decent run at president because he put in years of lower level work to gain recognition for his “party.”

All you have to do is copy his playbook. It’s the one the Dems and Repubs are using. It’s the one the Green party is using. If the Green party had the actual support of all these progressives in local elections, you would HAVE candidates with recognition and experience.

It’s insane to expect voters to understand the minute differences in each candidate. This is where the party platform helps the candidate. Get enough ideas that you all share and you can pool resources to mic the same message to many markets.

Get enough people to feel part of that “party” and you will get people voting who are not invested in scores of hours of volunteering.

Bernie knew he couldn’t take any shortcuts to massive recognition needed for a statewide or district-wide (or nationwide!) campaign. Those congressional candidates needed the support of state houses, state senates, county legislatures and town mayors.

The Extremist Republican playbook actually started with School Board elections. Copy that. Go do it. Do the work. Don’t whine about failing to get a marathon medal when you’re trying to hop off the subway on mile 21.

Bernie supporters who are complaining about a rigged system are not demonstrably interested in congress. Or it would be fuill of their candidates, wouldn’t it? And they would certainly never step back from using coattails in a Democratic sweep year to gain progressive seats. They have not done so. They need to start. I would support them. I _am_ supporting them, when they do it. I have one in my district for state office and I support her fully. I ran for local election, have you? Have any other of these “system rigged” Bernie supporters?

I thought that this was a great post. Totally agree. It's what I most dislike about the "Bernie Bros" that they don't seem to want to work to establish a party and build support. Real politics starts at the bottom. It even starts well before congress. There is some movement (in Seattle) but it is weak and unorganized. If they want real change, they should start at the bottom and work up. It's not fun. It's not easy. But as the religious right demonstrated in the 1980s and 1990s, it can be done.

 

[Terrell]

This statement is flat out wrong. In the sense that anyone who thinks this is wrong. As a local politician, it is absolutely NOT RIGGED to get into politics. The only thing that is “rigged” is not being able to leapfrog the bottom 10 layers and land magically successful on the top tier.

It would be magical dreaming to think one could.
Run. For. Mayor. Run for school board. Run for county legislator.

…As, you know, Bernie did. And he won. From there, he took the reputation and recognition he gained from YEARS OF PUBLIC WORK to get his next seat. Then the same on to the next. He’s making a decent run at president because he put in years of lower level work to gain recognition for his “party.”

All you have to do is copy his playbook. It’s the one the Dems and Repubs are using. It’s the one the Green party is using. If the Green party had the actual support of all these progressives in local elections, you would HAVE candidates with recognition and experience.

It’s insane to expect voters to understand the minute differences in each candidate. This is where the party platform helps the candidate. Get enough ideas that you all share and you can pool resources to mic the same message to many markets.

Get enough people to feel part of that “party” and you will get people voting who are not invested in scores of hours of volunteering.

Bernie knew he couldn’t take any shortcuts to massive recognition needed for a statewide or district-wide (or nationwide!) campaign. Those congressional candidates needed the support of state houses, state senates, county legislatures and town mayors.

The Extremist Republican playbook actually started with School Board elections. Copy that. Go do it. Do the work. Don’t whine about failing to get a marathon medal when you’re trying to hop off the subway on mile 21.

Bernie supporters who are complaining about a rigged system are not demonstrably interested in congress. Or it would be fuill of their candidates, wouldn’t it? And they would certainly never step back from using coattails in a Democratic sweep year to gain progressive seats. They have not done so. They need to start. I would support them. I _am_ supporting them, when they do it. I have one in my district for state office and I support her fully. I ran for local election, have you? Have any other of these “system rigged” Bernie supporters?

I thought that this was a great post. Totally agree. It's what I most dislike about the "Bernie Bros" that they don't seem to want to work to establish a party and build support. Real politics starts at the bottom. It even starts well before congress. There is some movement (in Seattle) but it is weak and unorganized. If they want real change, they should start at the bottom and work up. It's not fun. It's not easy. But as the religious right demonstrated in the 1980s and 1990s, it can be done.

Same here, I'd also apply that to those who are talking about the Greens. Seems to me some people think that voting for the Green party is magically going to make the Democrats move leftward. They've not laid out how this is supposed to happen, nor have they laid out why the Dems should move left if they're not willing to show themselves to be a consistent and reliable vote. I also agree with you on how the religious & social conservatives got their way with the Republicans; it's past time left leaning voters learn this lesson.

 

[Rhea]

I thought that this was a great post. Totally agree. It's what I most dislike about the "Bernie Bros" that they don't seem to want to work to establish a party and build support. Real politics starts at the bottom. It even starts well before congress. There is some movement (in Seattle) but it is weak and unorganized. If they want real change, they should start at the bottom and work up. It's not fun. It's not easy. But as the religious right demonstrated in the 1980s and 1990s, it can be done.

Same here, I'd also apply that to those who are talking about the Greens. Seems to me some people think that voting for the Green party is magically going to make the Democrats move leftward. They've not laid out how this is supposed to happen, nor have they laid out why the Dems should move left if they're not willing to show themselves to be a consistent and reliable vote. I also agree with you on how the religious & social conservatives got their way with the Republicans; it's past time left leaning voters learn this lesson.

So here's one way it happens... IN local, district and state elections, work to get the green party on ballots. THEN, the Green party can endorse people who they like AND ALSO they can endorse Democrats or Republicans who match their platform. Then, people can go to the poll, see Jane Q. Public on the Dem line _and_ the Green line, and they can vote green while still voting for a safe candidate if they wish. get Green on the ballot at every chance, even if it's a candidate of convenience. This way you build up the number of votes given to Greens. This can build party recognition. At some point, you have enough recognition to field a separate candidate in some places. Do that. While co-endorsing other candidates on the ballot. More Green action, more Green activity. Ultimately some Green-only candidates. But meanwhile lots of Green recognition.

And _that_ makes the Dem party move leftward. If the Dem candidate runs on both lines, and it turns out that fully 1/3 of the votes she receives are on the green line, that will move her.


Also, talk to voters about doing this at every election. "You can vote Green for the major candidates and send a message about the makeup of the constituency. Use the Green Line whenever you can."


Go ahead and start. Any time.

 

[Terrell]

Same here, I'd also apply that to those who are talking about the Greens. Seems to me some people think that voting for the Green party is magically going to make the Democrats move leftward. They've not laid out how this is supposed to happen, nor have they laid out why the Dems should move left if they're not willing to show themselves to be a consistent and reliable vote. I also agree with you on how the religious & social conservatives got their way with the Republicans; it's past time left leaning voters learn this lesson.

So here's one way it happens... IN local, district and state elections, work to get the green party on ballots. THEN, the Green party can endorse people who they like AND ALSO they can endorse Democrats or Republicans who match their platform. Then, people can go to the poll, see Jane Q. Public on the Dem line _and_ the Green line, and they can vote green while still voting for a safe candidate if they wish. get Green on the ballot at every chance, even if it's a candidate of convenience. This way you build up the number of votes given to Greens. This can build party recognition. At some point, you have enough recognition to field a separate candidate in some places. Do that. While co-endorsing other candidates on the ballot. More Green action, more Green activity. Ultimately some Green-only candidates. But meanwhile lots of Green recognition.

And _that_ makes the Dem party move leftward. If the Dem candidate runs on both lines, and it turns out that fully 1/3 of the votes she receives are on the green line, that will move her.


Also, talk to voters about doing this at every election. "You can vote Green for the major candidates and send a message about the makeup of the constituency. Use the Green Line whenever you can."


Go ahead and start. Any time.

Agreed. Same can be done with democratic primaries starting at the local level. Of course long term strategy is required, they cannot have it all at once. Some of the die-hard "Bernie or bust" and "will never vote for Hillary" crowds haven't laid that out as their plan.

Those of us who favor pragmatism, or simply are okay with a moderate Democratic party, aren't that worried about them following the strategy you laid out here, or what I said here.

It's the 3rd party "protest vote" that I don't support since it only helps the Republicans given how our system is designed. I think you & I are on the same page. I do think that doing this via Democratic primaries is a safer bet though, even if it takes longer.

 

[Rhea]

It's the 3rd party "protest vote" that I don't support since it only helps the Republicans given how our system is designed. I think you & I are on the same page. I do think that doing this via Democratic primaries is a safer bet though, even if it takes longer.

Oops, yeah, I agree we're on the same page. I was speaking in the voice toward those who say things are rigged, still.

And yes doing this in the primaries is also helpful.

http://www.gp.org/ballotaccess

The map below shows the Green Party's ballot access status for 2016 (the Presidential election). As of July 2015, we are on the ballot in 20 states, reaching 55% of the population. In play for 2015 is 9% of the population. In 2016, we'll be fighting for another 26% of the population. About another 10% of the population lives in states with the most challenging ballot access laws.

Our Ballot Access Committee, along with local Greens, is working hard to get the Green Party on the ballot in as many states as possible for our Presidential candidate. If you would like to support these important efforts, please consider donating to the Ballot Access committee here, or making a general donation to the Green Party here.

But even aside from ballot access, that fist step is party recognition through local and district elections, not jumping straight to the presidency.

 

[J842P]

I'm probably not going to vote. I wasn't going to vote anyway, until Bernie announced his candidacy. Quite honestly, I'm tired of supporting progressive causes. They don't really affect me, anyway. I was born into the upper-middle class, escaped college debt because my father paid for my schooling, and I have all the right connections. I was about done with the Democratic party anyway, and Bernie's run made me hopeful once more, but I think I won't let that happen ever again. It seems the people want either Trump or a New Democrat. Well fuck the people. Let them eat Trump. It won't affect me either way. At this point, I just feel like letting the wildfire burn and stop trying to prevent it.