The DNC is the problem. Or is it?

[Rhea]

Again, per the OP:

[they say,]We don’t need the DNC; the DNC is bad and structurally problematic in a way that we don’t need for beating the GOP.
I feel that anti-Dem progressives should be able to point to ample evidence of accomplishing this in Congressional and Senatorial races, Governor’s races, hell – even mayoral and city council races.

But they can’t. Or can they? What’s the evidence of succeeding without the DNC?
As a former elected official, blue (in a 3:1 Red:Blue district,) I am VERY AWARE of voter opinions and dynamics. And I just do NOT see any evidence AT ALL that either the DNC is “the problem” or that a DNC that is purged of moderates is viable.

I am interested in a real discussion on WHY the anti-DNC progressives do not have a portfolio of successfully elected officials, given their claims that they have a winning coalition. Serious answers, please, I really want to know.

Why do the progressives not have a portfolio of successfully elected officials in a progressive party. Can we not even elect a dog-catcher in a progressive party? If not, then the DNC is not what the problem is.

And if the DNC is not what the problem is for progressives in general (only, perhaps for those trying to parachute their party into the top job without doing the drudge work of building an ACTUAL base) then it should be easy to get people onto ballots and into elections where the DNC is not in power. For example, in my town it takes TWO signatures. TWO. To get on the ballot in the conservative party or the Green party. (granted, it has to be a specific two people, but they are friendly.) So why can't the progressives get someone onto ballots in the Sanders Party? Why can't they establish a known portfolio of candidates in easy offices?

WHY DON'T THEY have a portfolio of non-DNC office-holders?

This is an important question. What keeps them from fielding candidates in local and county offices? There's no DNC presence there at all. No one in their way, no one stopping them. In fact, there are many offices where no democrat is even running? So - whither the Sanders Party candidates?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And you are here claiming that the timing of the debates cost Sanders THIS MUCH?

That you are quantifying it makes me suspect you agree that the DNC is corrupt and biased. Just not enough to cost Sanders the primary in 2016? What's wrong with full democratic process without super-delegates, full transparency, not taking funding from people running in the race, and generally not being corrupt or having conflicts of interest or even the appearance thereof?

Criticism and movements to make the process less corrupt and more fair are GOOD, not bad. Why do you think not having clear conflicts of interest in the DNC would help the GOP?

say no. Convince the voters using your campaign. Don't blame the DNC

Convince the voters, yes, aboslutely. And Bernie is doing exactly that.

But also fix the DNC. Don't hide the corruption in it. End that corruption and make the DNC fully transparent an unbiased.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I am interested in a real discussion on WHY the anti-DNC progressives do not have a portfolio of successfully elected officials, given their claims that they have a winning coalition. Serious answers, please, I really want to know.

I think you may be getting your answer at the convention if Bernie keeps on the roll he's now on. Perhaps you can join him in pushing actual and fully progressive liberal policies instead of standing against.

Why do the progressives not have a portfolio of successfully elected officials in a progressive party. Can we not even elect a dog-catcher in a progressive party? If not, then the DNC is not what the problem is.

That's not how logic works. I haven't heard anybody claim the DNC is the only problem. That doesn't make it not a big problem.

 

[Jarhyn]

I am interested in a real discussion on WHY the anti-DNC progressives do not have a portfolio of successfully elected officials, given their claims that they have a winning coalition. Serious answers, please, I really want to know.

I think you may be getting your answer at the convention if Bernie keeps on the roll he's now on. Perhaps you can join him in pushing actual and fully progressive liberal policies instead of standing against.

Why do the progressives not have a portfolio of successfully elected officials in a progressive party. Can we not even elect a dog-catcher in a progressive party? If not, then the DNC is not what the problem is.

That's not how logic works. I haven't heard anybody claim the DNC is the only problem. That doesn't make it not a big problem.

And, multiple things can be problems at the same time.

Democracy has many functional units. One unit is the mechanism of corruption of the party. One unit is the me hanism of how elections happen. One unit is the function of money.

To abstract this, imagine that you have a function that adds A and B a function that multiplies A and B, and a function. That takes the modulo of A and B. If any of these functions is broken, the outcome will be wrong.

Part of the problem is that the FPTP system prevents third parties from gaining traction (it pushes towards a binary challenge). Part of the problem is the parties themselves (hysteresis effects prevent breaking equilibrium in favor of change), and then the function of money in politics creates a slow downward (rightward) pull that drags the position of power independent of any hysteresis effects.

So you end up with two parties, both resistant to change, except the slow corrupting change that money produces, as the confluence of three broken systems within democracy.

Bernie represents an effect that can overcome the hysteresis and shift the party through populist interests, which can then be applied to correct the influence of money and press alternatives to FPTP to prevent it from being an issue in the future.

Rhea is being critical of someone using the only method capable of righting the ship: you can't correct the problem of parties before you correct FPTP, and you can't correct the corruption of parties before you correct the money problem, and you can't correct the money problem without impacting the party. Thus the only solution is to coopt an existing binary party first and then leverage that towards the other two issues.

She can throw a tantrum all she wants, but this is THE way. There is no other, and it is a function of how democracy in the US was founded. So it's what is going to happen and she best accept that or join the conservatives.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I am interested in a real discussion on WHY the anti-DNC progressives do not have a portfolio of successfully elected officials, given their claims that they have a winning coalition. Serious answers, please, I really want to know.

I think you may be getting your answer at the convention if Bernie keeps on the roll he's now on. Perhaps you can join him in pushing actual and fully progressive liberal policies instead of standing against.

The question was why do Prog candidates not do well overall. The arguments have been that Prog candidates will enhance turnout. This hasn't been witnessed yet, but it continues to be repeated.

Why do the progressives not have a portfolio of successfully elected officials in a progressive party. Can we not even elect a dog-catcher in a progressive party? If not, then the DNC is not what the problem is.

That's not how logic works.

The question was, if the progressive movement is on the verge of taking off, why does the Green Party have zero elected officials across the nation in the State Legislature or better? The Green Party currently holds one mayorship in the United States, and over about 150 elected positions below that... far below it.

 

[Jarhyn]

The question was why do Prog candidates not do well overall. The arguments have been that Prog candidates will enhance turnout. This hasn't been witnessed yet, but it continues to be repeated.

Why do the progressives not have a portfolio of successfully elected officials in a progressive party. Can we not even elect a dog-catcher in a progressive party? If not, then the DNC is not what the problem is.

That's not how logic works.

The question was, if the progressive movement is on the verge of taking off, why does the Green Party have zero elected officials across the nation in the State Legislature or better? The Green Party currently holds one mayorship in the United States, and over about 150 elected positions below that... far below it.

Prog candidates do not do well because rather than participating in the DNC and pushing the DNC platform, they go third party and end up spoiling elections because FPTP OR being forced to compromise their prog principles because basic party mechanics create hysteresis: to change the party at all, requires a large insider effect.

The green party is, in a FPTP ecosystem, DOA. Progressives must join and modify the infrastructure of one of the two primary parties. And we are doing that, and making headway by primarying incumbents.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The question was why do Prog candidates not do well overall. The arguments have been that Prog candidates will enhance turnout. This hasn't been witnessed yet, but it continues to be repeated.

The question was, if the progressive movement is on the verge of taking off, why does the Green Party have zero elected officials across the nation in the State Legislature or better? The Green Party currently holds one mayorship in the United States, and over about 150 elected positions below that... far below it.

Prog candidates do not do well because rather than participating in the DNC and pushing the DNC platform, they go third party and end up spoiling elections because FPTP OR being forced to compromise their prog principles because basic party mechanics create hysteresis: to change the party at all, requires a large insider effect.

The green party is, in a FPTP ecosystem, DOA. Progressives must join and modify the infrastructure of one of the two primary parties. And we are doing that, and making headway by primarying incumbents.

The first link went to Sanders backed candidates in 2018 and speaks to great difficulties in winning even the primary and if that, the harder general election. If the 'everyone is ready for Prog candidates' statement were correct over a much broader area, why does Sanders have a not great track record on backing progressive candidates?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Sanders-backed candidates != progressive democrats. Sanders-backed candidates are a small subset of progressive democrats, i.e. Sanders-backed candidates c= Progressives.

The actual progressive members of the democratic party in Congress anyway are the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Here is their webpage:

Caucus Members
Co-Chairs
Mark Pocan
Pramila Jayapal

Chair Emeriti
Raúl Grijalva
Barbara Lee

First Vice Chair
Ro Khanna

Vice Chairs
David Cicilline
Katherine Clark
Debbie Dingell
Veronica Escobar
Ruben Gallego
Sheila Jackson Lee
Joe Neguse
Donald Norcross
Jan Schakowsky
Mark Takano

Whip
Ilhan Omar

Deputy Whips
Mark DeSaulnier
Lloyd Doggett
Deb Haaland
Adriano Espaillat
Andy Levin

Special Order Hour Conveners
Katie Porter
Rashida Tlaib

PAC Co-Chair
Jamie Raskin

Senate Member
Bernie Sanders

House Members
Alma Adams
Nanette Barragán
Karen Bass
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Don Beyer
Earl Blumenauer
Lisa Blunt Rochester
Suzanne Bonamici
Brendan Boyle
André Carson
Matt Cartwright
Judy Chu
Gil Cisneros
Yvette Clarke
Wm.Lacy Clay
Steve Cohen
Angie Craig
Madeleine Dean
Peter DeFazio
Rosa DeLauro
Dwight Evans
Lois Frankel
Marcia Fudge
Tulsi Gabbard
Jesus "Chuy" Garcia
Sylvia Garcia
Jimmy Gomez
Eleanor Holmes Norton
Steven Horsford
Jared Huffman
Hakeem Jeffries
Hank Johnson
Joe Kennedy III
Dan Kildee
Andy Kim
Brenda Lawrence
Barbara Lee
Grace Meng
Mike Levin
John Lewis
Ted Lieu
David Loebsack
Zoe Lofgren
Alan Lowenthal
Carolyn Maloney
James McGovern
Gwen Moore
Joe Morelle
Debbie Mucarsel-Powell
Jerrold Nadler
Grace Napolitano
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Frank Pallone
Jimmy Panetta
Chellie Pingree
Ayanna Pressley
Lucille Roybal-Allard
Linda Sanchez
Mary Gay Scanlon
José Serrano
Brad Sherman
Adam Smith
Darren Soto
Bennie Thompson
Lori Trahan
Juan Vargas
Nydia Velázquez
Maxine Waters
Bonnie Watson Coleman
Peter Welch
Frederica Wilson
John Yarmuth

https://cpc-grijalva.house.gov/caucus-members/

As far as the op, the DNC isn't the Democratic Party but claims to be, various insiders within the ranks of the DNC have been problematic but NOT ALWAYS. It's hard to say that the DNC is THE problem.

Instead, what I would argue is that the DLC has been a major problem for progressives in the Democratic Party. The Democratic Leadership Council in the past heavily influenced the DNC and while it is officially no longer around, its members like Hillary Clinton still have a lot of influence. There still is a Third Way ideology, too, that while once was used to betray organized labor and that's why we lost these middle class white people in the rust belt, by the way, their ideology is still there-still ever corporate and elitist, like Rahm Emanuel for example.

Here is Wikipedia on the DLC:

The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was a non-profit 501(c)(4) corporation[1] founded in 1985 that, upon its formation, argued the United States Democratic Party should shift away from the leftward turn it took in the late 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. One of its main purposes was to win back white middle class voters with ideas that addressed their concerns.[2] The DLC hailed President Bill Clinton as proof of the viability of Third Way politicians and as a DLC success story.
The DLC's affiliated think tank was the Progressive Policy Institute. Democrats who adhered to the DLC's philosophy often called themselves New Democrats. This term is also used by other groups who have similar views on where the party should go in the future, like NDN[3] and Third Way.[4]
On February 7, 2011, Politico reported that the DLC would dissolve, and would do so as early as the following week.[5] On July 5 of that year, DLC founder Al From announced in a statement on the organization's website that the historical records of the DLC have been purchased by the Clinton Foundation.[6] The DLC's last chairman was former Representative Harold Ford of Tennessee, and its vice chair was Senator Thomas R. Carper of Delaware. Its CEO was Bruce Reed.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

And that is why trying to sow distrust in the party helps only the GOP

Which, of course, is the entire point.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

This is a stupid approach. It is like saying your criticizing Trump only helps enemies of Amurrca.

No. It makes sense to criticize and try to fix problems with your own party.

 

[Rhea]

I am interested in a real discussion on WHY the anti-DNC progressives do not have a portfolio of successfully elected officials, given their claims that they have a winning coalition. Serious answers, please, I really want to know.

I think you may be getting your answer at the convention if Bernie keeps on the roll he's now on. Perhaps you can join him in pushing actual and fully progressive liberal policies instead of standing against.

Jolly,

I did not sit on the sidelines whining.
I ran for office. I won. I ran again and won again.
I spent 8 years enacting progressive goals in a red red red town.

I’m not some blowhard person on the sidelines in a foreign country complaining about a rigged system in America.

And I think the whining from Bernie supporters just perplexes me when most town and county positions HAVE NO PRIMARY because there is no one else running. And the zillions of hate-DNC-progressives (I am a glad for DNC progressive) anyway zillions of the anti-DNC are telling us all how incredibly popular they are, but they aren’t bothering to run for local office to build the progressive Sanders Party.

WHY NOT?
Why are Dems running for local offices but Greens aren’t? If they are SO DAMN POPULAR it should be ridiculously easy to flush the GOP off the school board and the town board.

But they don’t, or can’t.

Are they maybe not as popular as they think?
Are they bad at math?

 

[Rhea]

Rhea is being critical of someone using the only method capable of righting the ship: you can't correct the problem of parties before you correct FPTP, and you can't correct the corruption of parties before you correct the money problem, and you can't correct the money problem without impacting the party. Thus the only solution is to coopt an existing binary party first and then leverage that towards the other two issues.

Why is it not a method to right the ship to take all these uge numbers of popular progressives, form a party and start getting eected to towns and school boards? Why no county legislators? Why no town clerks?


Why do you people think that parachuting into the CEO position is the only way to right the ship?

Where is the evidence that this is the only way to right the ship? Where is the evidence that you’ve even tried anything else? You want to tear down the only known bulwark against the GOP, and you’ve never even tried to work from the grassroots up, like the GOP did, like the DNC did.

You have no evidence that this is the only way and you’re sneering at the people who did actual work in the trenches.

She can throw a tantrum all she wants, but this is THE way. There is no other, and it is a function of how democracy in the US was founded. So it's what is going to happen and she best accept that or join the conservatives.

Bullshit. It is not the only way, and I am not throwing a tantrum. I’m calmly asking for a shred of evidence that an anti-DNC movement has enough people to call themselves a movement.

I was mad at what GW Bush was doing. I ran for office, I served in it for 8 years, I made a difference. Did you?

 

[PyramidHead]

I'm willing to bet that Mayor Bloomberg will be a better advocate for taking down the influence of money in politics than will Mayor Butigieg. No chance any serving senator present or past will do so including most notably Sen. Sanders. He's way to confrontational and narrow belief driven. Billionaire Steyer might succeed hes' saying the right things about the right problems.

Sometimes one has to have been successful in some arena to have the strength to bring corruption in that arena down effectively.

DNC can be bought. So the billionaires will buy it as a first step to eliminating financial corruption in government. Saviors come in strange clothes sometimes.

I want to find a well that has no bottom and jump into it while screaming "we are doomed" at the top of my lungs until I asphyxiate in mid-fall

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It isn't an anti-DNC movement. That's what you are missing, Rhea. It's not about destroying the Democratic Party or the DNC. It is about changing them from within and making them better, more transparent, and getting rid of the corruption.

And why should people form or join third, potentially vote splitting parties, in a system that is decidedly stacked against that approach? Why not make the change within one of the existing two big parties? It simply makes more sense that way.

Conservative Democrats are still welcome to challenge the progressive Democrats in the primaries. You aren't being kicked out.

 

[Rhea]

You’re never going to answer the question about why the ones who say the DNC is the problem can’t manage tk get a candidate elected in an election that has no dnc influence, are you?

Is the question to hard to answer with your lack of understanding of the American system?

Why are the school, town and county positions NOT filled with progressives? Why? They are as numerous as the grains of sand in the Mohave.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There are 129 Green Party members elected to local positions of varying power (all but one below to well-below Mayor).

However, there are over 500,000 local positions in the US on about 87,000 elected bodies (same link).

Yes, running as a third party in the US is harder than the Astros not trying to cheat in Baseball. Which is definitely a reason to support modifying how voting in done in the US. This would provide an option to expand the electorate's influence. Of course, the DNC and RNC don't want that.

But until that happens, the whole... trust us the votes are there, they just haven't voted before doesn't line up with the history of voting or even recent elections. Generally the prog primary candidate either doesn't win the primary or loses the general election.

 

[marc]

You’re never going to answer the question about why the ones who say the DNC is the problem can’t manage tk get a candidate elected in an election that has no dnc influence, are you?

Because the US is a two party system. If a progressive runs as an independent or third party all that would do is split the Dem vote, and guarantee a Rep victory in the majority of races. Also the way the system is set up now running for congress is expensive. Without an organization like the dnc to back you up it is very difficult to set up and fund an organization that can compete with the two parties.

Why are the school, town and county positions NOT filled with progressives? Why? They are as numerous as the grains of sand in the Mohave.

How do you know they arn't? In polling on individual policy positions the liberal/progressive policies tend to poll very well. But since most people have to run as a member of a party, and parties tend to support candidates that toe the party line (and reasoning to dismiss the more progressive positions). There is also the possibility of since the major parties do not promote some of the more liberal/progressive policies, a lot of people might not be familiar with them as an option, and so haven't sought to push them.

Then there is the sad fact that a lot of people don't put much thought into politics at all. I've got a relative that posts plenty of fluffy feel good memes about loving one another, not caring about politics, be respectful of everyone, and then a meme about praying for Rush, the antithesis of all her fluffy posts. It won't be until an election is near that she says she would look into the candidates, but honestly all that matters to her is if they are anti-abortion. I'm sure there are plenty of democrats that are just as low information voters.

 

[Elixir]

You’re never going to answer the question about why the ones who say the DNC is the problem can’t manage tk get a candidate elected in an election that has no dnc influence, are you?

Because the US is a two party system. If a progressive runs as an independent or third party all that would do is split the Dem vote, and guarantee a Rep victory in the majority of races. Also the way the system is set up now running for congress is expensive. Without an organization like the dnc to back you up it is very difficult to set up and fund an organization that can compete with the two parties.

Why are the school, town and county positions NOT filled with progressives? Why? They are as numerous as the grains of sand in the Mohave.

How do you know they arn't? In polling on individual policy positions the liberal/progressive policies tend to poll very well. But since most people have to run as a member of a party, and parties tend to support candidates that toe the party line (and reasoning to dismiss the more progressive positions). There is also the possibility of since the major parties do not promote some of the more liberal/progressive policies, a lot of people might not be familiar with them as an option, and so haven't sought to push them.

Then there is the sad fact that a lot of people don't put much thought into politics at all. I've got a relative that posts plenty of fluffy feel good memes about loving one another, not caring about politics, be respectful of everyone, and then a meme about praying for Rush, the antithesis of all her fluffy posts. It won't be until an election is near that she says she would look into the candidates, but honestly all that matters to her is if they are anti-abortion. I'm sure there are plenty of democrats that are just as low information voters.

I'm not sure there as many stupid/regressive democrats as there are republicans. In fact I can't think of a dem administration in my lifetime that wasn't better than the best republican administration, with one exception.
(Eisenhower's administration being the exception, and he'd be called a radical leftist by the crime syndicate currently in power.)

 

[Elixir]

I want to find a well that has no bottom ...

That's where our problems begin; people demanding impossible things!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You’re never going to answer the question about why the ones who say the DNC is the problem can’t manage tk get a candidate elected in an election that has no dnc influence, are you?

No. I'm not. I'm not them and I'm no more psychic than you are. I do understand why they would want to run as Democrats rather than as Greens or as any other party though. Apparently you'd rather ignore that so ok whatever.

Is the question to hard to answer with your lack of understanding of the American system?

This has nothing to do with my or your lack of understanding of anything.

Why are the school, town and county positions NOT filled with progressives? Why?

How you do you know they are not? As noted by others above, they very well may be. Just because somebody runs as a Democrat doesn't mean they are not progressive. The progressive Democrats are growing in number quickly and hopefully they will soon take majority control of the party. But again, the conservative Democrats are still welcome. Its a big tent, right? And if you don't feel welcome, you can always go join the Republicans along with the other conservatives.

And all of that is a derail from your initial complaint about people saying the DNC is a problem. It IS a problem and it needs to be fixed and made more transparent and Democratic and less corrupt, and this change must be made by the Democrats themselves, including the progressive ones.