Progressivism is NOT just about economic rights.

[MineralMan]

For some, it appears to be, though. For me, anyone who is not 100% involved in protecting human rights in all areas is not a progressive. While such people may have progressive views in some areas, if they support measures that deny people other rights, including reproductive rights and civil rights for every individual, regardless of any descriptive adjective that may be applied to an individual, they are not progressives, really.

While the right to earn a living wage at a job that is not exploitative is important, it does not override the other rights individuals have. It is just one part of progressive ideals. I could never endorse any political candidate who is not in support of the full range of human rights. Never.

I'm sorry to see that some are willing to endorse a candidate who supports legislation that denies women the right to control their own reproductive choices. In Nebraska, a true progressive should be running for the office that Heath Mello is seeking. Anyone who could sponsor an anti-choice law should not be embraced and endorsed by people who call themselves progressives, just because that person might defeat a Republican. It is one thing to vote for such a person, but entirely another thing to endorse that person as a progressive.

That's my considered opinion. Yours might be different. Thanks for reading.

[stonecutter357]

1. K&R!

[L. Coyote]

2. Progressivism is NOT just a wedge to divide Democrats.

The world is complex, people's minds tend to simplify an incomprehensibly complex really with mental symbols, simple words to which they attach simple ideas. That makes it easy to manipulate their emotions, thinking, and political actions. Recognition of complexity is progressive. It is also difficult.

[MineralMan]

4. While you are correct, some are using the term "progressive" to

drive that wedge. When it comes to binary politics and elections, I encourage people to vote for Democrats instead of Republicans, on general principles. However, my active endorsement of a particular candidate is harder to come by. If the Democrat on the ballot is not fully in favor of progressive values, I may vote for that candidate and encourage others to vote for the Democrat. However, I will not endorse that candidate specifically. I endorse beating Republicans in elections.

There is a difference, albeit a difficult one to explain.

[JHan]

9. I get the difference..

I'd never enthusiastically stomp for Manchin, but I would go all out for a Gillibrand. Still I'd rather a Manchin holding a dem senate seat than some extremist republican.

[MineralMan]

13. Exactly. I vote for Democrats in general elections.

My vote, however, is not an endorsement of an individual candidate. It is simply a choice in a binary situation.

Candidates I endorse receive my actual support during campaigns. I will vote for someone who will vote with other Democrats on legislation, but I will never endorse a candidate who does not support a full range of progressive ideals.

[Adrahil]

3. Not to harp on the issue, but....

Sanders' subjugation of social justice in favor of economic justice is right in line with classical socialist theory that racism and sexism is is caused by pitting the working classes against each other. This theory is not completely wrong. But it ignores the fact that racism and sexism embeds itself in culture and becomes on tenuously connected with economics. Sanders is an old school social democrats, and you hear this old school theory echo in his speeches all the time. He really IS convinced that if we just solve the economic woes of the working and lower-middle classes, then racism and sexism will reduce dramatically. But he's wrong. And we have tons of evidence to prove it at this point.

[MineralMan]

6. This thread is NOT about Senator Sanders.

One of my favorite Minnesota members of the House also endorsed Mello. I am disappointed by that. While I always hope for Democrats to win in individual elections, I do not endorse Democratic candidate specifically unless they demonstrate support for progressive values across the board.

This thread is about personal support for individual candidates, rather than about support for Democrats who run against Republicans in general. I always prefer that a Democrat wins, but I do not necessarily agree with all Democratic candidates on all issues. There is a distinct difference.

[Adrahil]

10. I think it applies to most social democrats

Sanders is just the loudest voice in the room. And it's more a reflection on my opinion that Sanders and some other social democrats DO care about social justice, they just think the issue is solved through economics.

I agree that except in VERY exceptional circumstances, I will always support the Democrat, even when I have some significant disagreements with them.

[MineralMan]

14. On the other hand, calling a candidate who has actively SPONSORED

legislation that restricts reproductive rights for women a progressive is simply wrong-headed, and ignores some very basic tenets of progressivism. I believe such misnaming is a real problem. Instead, people could encourage voting for that Democrat in an election without endorsing that candidate as a progressive.

[LakeArenal]

56. Give it up Adrahil...

This is not a Sanders post.. Nice wedge you threw in.

[delisen]

8. Strongly Agree

[HopeAgain]

30. Always gotta go there....

[Adrahil]

44. Do you disagree with my assessment? If so, why?

Keep in mind that I mostly agree with the "progressive" agenda on economics.

[HopeAgain]

47. I'm just tired of seeing everything go to Sanders

We get it, you don't like him.

[Adrahil]

49. Actually you're wrong.

I like him a lot. I agree with him on most issues. I wish he was a Democrat and personally committed to its success instead of risking nothing as an outsider.

He does exasperate and anger me at times with his seeming tone deafness to American party politics.

[MicaelS]

31. Economic Justice will ALWAYS be more important to me

Than Social Justice because Economic Justice affects many more people. I am NOT saying that Social Justice is unimportant, rather it takes second place to Economic Justice. The fact that Sanders became so popular was because he articulated the view that Economic Justice was and is important. To me, he is the first candidate in a long time to explicitly articulate that view. The push back against him is very telling.

I think that many of the upper class / wealthy Democrats don’t give a damn about Economic Justice, because real Economic Justice would hurt their pocketbook. It’s easy for them to be in favor of Social Justice because Social Justice does not affect their pocketbook, plus it makes them appear to be Liberal / Progressive.

The real touchstone of anyone is how an issue affects their pocketbook. If a person is not explicitly in favor of Economic Justice, then they sure as hell are not a Progressive, no matter what they call themselves.

I also believe that one of the reason Democrats have lost support in the past decades is that they have appeared to be only in favor of Social Justice, while not caring about Economic Justice. This is because I have spoken to a number of people who have articulated just this position.

If all this makes me a Social Democrat, then so be it.

[Adrahil]

46. You misunderstand me.

Social Democrats (at least many, those who subscribe to classical socialist theory) do not believe they are separate issues. They believe that social injustice is CAUSED by economic injustice and the manipulation of the working classes by the capitalist class. However, I think that theory is incomplete and outdated. I believe it is impossible to address economic injustice without addressing social justice.

[LakeArenal]

57. How do we get to someone who goes off topic.. Repeatedly.

[fun n serious]

59. Actually, you can not have Economic Justice without Social Justice.

They go hand and hand. Bernie is wrong on this. Democrats were never only in favor of social justice.. it went together with economic justice. In my opinion, what happened was many WHITES did not like the many successes of Social Justice the democrats have accomplished. If that is the case, they need to go elsewhere and Democrats need to reach to new voters. The democrats have not been bad on economic justice.. the numbers just are not there. Every time Democrats make any kind of economic success a republican comes and ruins it.. We come back and fix again. We are always fixing their mess instead of progressing to higher grounds.

[DemocraticSocialist8]

64. I agree with many of your points, but I think both are equal

While economic justice does impact more people, it doesn't solve the social justice issues. It just makes social inequality less of a burden. Great example of this can be shown when you look at America during its economic boom pre-Civil Rights and racism/sexism still permeated society. People can have money and still hate "the other." They just become more dangerous when they're poor AND they hate "the other." Because they become desperate and their hatred is magnified...case in point...Donald Trump.

[bettyellen]

65. If you add women and people of color -it's MORE people than the remainder...

Not only that, we are the majority of Dems. Our basic human rights matter greatly. It's disturbing to see people willing to gamble them away. And we are the majority of reliable Dems, so don't even think about it.

[forjusticethunders]

73. Black Lives Matter.

If you don't understand why I need to say that directly to you, well, tough.

[lies]

5. The problem with that is...

I don't think you're progressive if you support policies which result in as many people dying at the end of a gun every 4-5 weeks as did on 9/11.

But Democrats don't agree.

I can either NOT vote for a single Democrat - or in fact any US politician - or accept that in some respects I have to choose from candidates that I don't agree with on everything.

To you, progressive means one thing, but the people you'd support don't match my ideals.

So am I wrong automatically?

Or...?

Everyone is focused on women's reproductive rights, and that's good, but I'd also wonder if this specific argument would even be occurring right now if Sanders wasn't involved?

For example, I don't remember endless threads trashing the beliefs of these Democrats:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrats_for_Life_of_America#Pro-life_Democrats_in_recent_elections

And of course that's just a partial list of the endless number of pro-life Democrats over the years.

Another example is this sort of language from Hillary Clinton, remember her?

"In her 2008 presidential run, Hillary Clinton said abortion should be “safe, legal and rare, and by rare, I mean rare.” Abortion “should not in any way be diminished as a moral issue,” she added.

From that same article:

"In a 2015 CNN poll, Democrats' views on abortion ranged across: "legal under any circumstances" (48 percent), "legal under most circumstances" (19 percent), "legal under certain circumstances" (22 percent) and "illegal in all circumstances" (9 percent)."

So that's 10% of Dems that want it to be illegal. And another 20% that want access to abortion curtailed in some circumstances.

That's not my opinion, btw.

So what can be done?

Tell 30% of Dems to get over it?

And on and on...

I'm 100% pro-choice, but I know what it's like to have a minority opinion about an issue critical to me... no one cares about my opinion and I just get on with it. Democrats need to decide if they're going to have a big tent, or if they're basically a series of purity tests... I for one would love them to stop taking money from corporations and lobbyists, but that won't happen. I would love them to fight back against the mistaken notion that guns are a right, but they won't. I'd love them to have a different foriegn policy than Republicans, but they don't and won't

So I, and many others, vote for the best we can get.

[MineralMan]

7. There is a difference between voting for a Democratic candidate

and endorsing that particular individual. It is always preferable to have a Democrat in any given office. However, I may support voting for a Democratic candidate with whom I disagree on particular issues. There are many Democrats for whom I would vote in a particular election but not would endorse nor refer to as a "progressive."

[lies]

11. That's not a difference

We all have - to a greater or lesser degree - disagreements about what makes someone a progressive.

If you think someone is, by your standard, then you'll endorse them - if that's a thing people care about in your case...

If you don't, you won't.

Sanders is wildly more progressive from an economic perspective than MANY democrats who get endorsements from other democrats, even ones that claim to be 'progressive'.

I'd also remind you that a lot of the 'Bernie is responsible for Trump' rhetoric from some Democrats is predicated on the notion that 'progressive' is a bullshit term, and that - in at least one case - a term that is connected to racism and an attempt at 'purity'.

In other words, there's plenty of Dems who are opposed to the term, and people that label themselves that, and those people exist at all levels of the party, including leadership.

[MineralMan]

16. You reinforce my position that progressivism is not just economic.

This thread is not about Senator Sanders. It is about progressivism in general and endorsement of candidates in particular.

[lies]

66. A couple things

I have a hard time believing this isn't about Sanders. Nothing personal, but there's been a bunch of posts about this here and stories in the media, and the once consistent is that the story is to some degree about Sanders.

The other thing is that while TO ME it's not just about economics, to OTHERS it's not just about women's reproductive rights.

Progressivism is a wide variety of things to wide variety of people.

Saying that, it IS hard, because pretty much every US politician disagrees with my definition of progressivism. Though in Europe that's not the case.

Hard to be too rigid about these things when you realise that decent people on the left don't agree, but all share some basic common goals and beliefs.

[Eliot Rosewater]

32. Been reading you, making it too complicated, seriously

Democrats caucus with Democrats and the vast majority of the time vote party line once they get to the house or senate.

In every American election you have TWO and ONLY two choices, at this time. One is for a democrat who is part of a party that are NOT fascists or oligarchic, or you can vote for a republican who is part of a party who are fascists and oligarchic.

Hopefully this simplifies it for you, or let me make it even simpler:

You must vote in every election and always for a democrat, period. Otherwise you are assisting fascists and oligarchs.

WHEN the time comes we have a viable THREE PARTY system, we can talk about options.

[lies]

67. No

Frankly that's a crazy position, to think you can tell me who I must vote for.

So, no thanks to that.

Second, demanding people vote for people they don't like or don't trust, to protect the party, etc., is just simple-minded. It's also why we have loads and loads of shitty politicians, and loads of them get reelected... because people like you vote for people based on things unrelated to their ability, positions, personal integrity, etc.

[Eliot Rosewater]

68. Thought so, this post is VERY familiar, saw it A LOT last year

[lies]

69. yes

People that cared about quality and integrity didn't all evaporate in 2016.

We're not going anywhere.

[Eliot Rosewater]

70. Oh fuck that, people responsible for trump have no quality or integrity

[lies]

72. You're extremely confused

There's many many reasons Trump is President. Morality is not one of those reasons.

[MicaelS]

41. You are splitting hairs.

As long as you vote for the Democratic candidate, your lack of endorsement means very little. It might mean a great deal to you, but to me it is negligible.

[brewens]

24. I'm not really aware of pro choice people even really saying what needs to be said. I agree with my

best conservative friend about abortion. We both would rather not see any late term abortions, so getting it done early should be all the more easily accomplished and free. That's right, paid for by us taxpayers. If ever a program would run in the black, that'd be one. If some girl has nothing going for her, wants nothing to do with the guy that got her pregnant, and want to fix it, so be it. In many cases, that saves us a whole shit ton of money in social services and medical bills in the long run. How many pro choice progressives even dare make that last point?

[musette_sf]

61. "a series of purity tests"

The protection and defense of sacred civil, human and Constitutional rights of half of America's citizens is NOT, ahem, a "purity test".

If this little misogynistic weasel Mello were, with the support of Sen Sanders, shitting on the civil, human and Constitutional rights of people of color, LGBT, or Muslims, DU would (rightly) be screaming for Sen Sanders' head on a pike. But women? Women are ALWAYS "the expendable crew member". I now see that to Sen Sanders, and to some liars who call themselves "progressives", our civil, human and Constitutional rights are just a "single issue" that shouldn't be part of a "purity test".

Was I mistaken in my decades-old belief that the term "progressive" included mandatory support and defense of the sacred civil, human and Constitutional rights of half of America's citizens?

As for so-called "DFL", they're not Democrats. And neither is that little misogynistic weasel Mello. If they WERE Democrats, they would support the official party platform.

[Yavin4]

12. Economic rights are tied to Social rights

If a woman does not have control over her body, then she does not have any economic rights.

[MineralMan]

15. There is a relationship between the two, but

Last edited Fri Apr 21, 2017, 11:08 AM - Edit history (2)

they are neither identical nor solely dependent on each other. The right to have control over one's body and reproduction is independent of economic rights. Both a woman living in poverty and a woman of wealth should have exactly the same reproductive rights.

While economic issues are affected by reproductive rights, they are not necessarily dependent on them. The two are separate things, when rights are being discussed, in my opinion. If a wealthy woman wishes to abort a fetus, as is her right, laws making that illegal have the same effect on her as they do on a woman living in poverty.

Along the same line, a person's race may well affect that person's economic potential, but simply raising that person's economic status does not ensure equal treatment under the law. Not by any means. The two are related, but are also independent of each other.

[Yavin4]

17. If a woman is forced to carry a child to term....

her ability to earn a living is limited, whether she's wealthy or not.

[MineralMan]

18. That is true, assuming that she is trying to earn a living.

However, regardless of that, being forced to carry a fetus to term is far more than just an economic thing. All you need to do is think about that for a minute, and you'll realize that reproductive choice is a separate right from its economic impact. You should be able to immediately see multiple situations where forced gestation violates a woman's rights in many ways.

All human rights are independent from economic realities, despite the fact that economic factors often affect people's human rights as well. Simply aiding people to achieve economic stability does not change the fact that bigotry and intolerance will still exist and have an impact on those people.

There is evidence of that constantly in view.

[delisen]

19. I think Human Rights is the Overriding Issue of the 21st Century

Human Rights and Human Dignity, and the right of Self-Determination need to be the bedrock foundation of the Democratic Party.

Technology, barring a world wide catastrophe, is poised to dramatically change the nature of work, income, and the ability to provide for oneself and family. Automation, and now rapidly increasing robotization is the driver of our economy.

Income will be essential for people to survive and prosper individually, and contribute to society.

We should be skeptical of compromising on Human Rights. Our self worth must not be seen as based upon economic worth or the 21th century will be a century of increased and unnecessary suffering

The Democratic Party compromised on Human Rights when it ignored and downgraded human rights in exchange for the votes of southern segregationists-the Dixiecrats.

To return to downgrading human rights makes us more like the modern Republican Party which endorses a philosophy of economic exploitation and denial of civil rights through voter suppression and barriers to full citizenship.

Compromise on human rights is not progress.

[MineralMan]

22. Well put. Thanks!

[Eliot Rosewater]

34. Now you, buddy.

Are either a brother from another mother, or we are aliens put here without our knowledge.

Cuz we seem to agree on so much. I would be the HAIR on FIRE version of you.

[MineralMan]

38. My hair is also on fire, but I keep my hat on,

so as not to alarm people.

[Eliot Rosewater]

42. OK, that is a new one.

So there ARE older white guys like me out there, I am NOT crazy!

[MineralMan]

45. There are more of us than you imagine.

Of that I'm certain.

[Progressive dog]

20. I agree nt

[Iggo]

21. It's not JUST about anything.

It IS about economic rights. It's just not JUST about economic rights.

[MineralMan]

23. Exactly. Just as I said in the title of this OP.

Thanks!

[Iggo]

25. .

[ehrnst]

28. ....

[ehrnst]

26. Trickle down civil rights isn't going to work any more than trickle down economics

Last edited Fri Apr 21, 2017, 11:44 AM - Edit history (1)

Just as soon as we get a higher minimum wage, universal health care, bring back jobs to the white working class men in the midwest, then everyone will be so happy that racism, sexism, nationalism and xenophobia will "be righted."

You know, just like what happened in Europe....

[BumRushDaShow]

29. THIS.

[MineralMan]

35. Absolutely.

[Eliot Rosewater]

36. Thank you for reminding people what this is really about.

Drill down to it and almost every vote for trump was about racism and misogyny and hatred of other religions.

[Demsrule86]

27. K&R I posted something similar.

You are right!

[HopeAgain]

33. But do you also agree...

that "fully progressive individuals:"

Don't believe in the death penalty being used, ever.

Think that gun ownership should be strictly regulated.

Believe that affirmative action is a necessary way to overcome centuries of invidious discrimination.

Those are just some of my closely held views and I'm not sure why reproductive rights would take precedence over any of those. I am certainly pro-choice, but I also strongly personally believe in those things above. I just think we have to realize there is NO one set of liberal ideals that fits all.

[MineralMan]

39. Yes, I agree with those things.

Progressivism is not a zero-sum philosophy.

[Eliot Rosewater]

40. Agree, and the point is still simple.

Vote in every election

Vote for a democrat


Or you are helping fascists and oligarchs...we can talk about 3rd party options once we are no longer a TWO party system.

Thank you.

[HopeAgain]

50. But we need to improve the two party system or we will end up with oligarchs and fascists...

I'm not sure we aren't there already after January.

My point is that economics is the issue of the day. Each generation, economic equality is getting worse. We are quickly becoming like many third world countries where there is very little middle class. That's what my children are concerned with and we need to give them good reasons not to vote independent.

[Eliot Rosewater]

53. Of course, lets improve eerything we can, cancer research, cocoa puffs, how fast a toaster works.

But do you agree or not that you must always vote and must always vote for a democrat?

[HopeAgain]

62. I have never voted otherwise

But I also refuse to condemn those who do not. We have come to the point where all politics is of the "Fox News" variety... nothing is true that doesn't support our position.

If Republicans hadn't gone off the rails to right wing-ism, who knows? I didn't like voting for my congresswoman after seeing her leaked emails and I had swore I would never vote for anyone who voted for the resolution on the Iraq war. Obviously, I had to go back on that promise to myself, but I wasn't happy about it (and no I don't want a discussion on that issue).

I'm saying that this hard-line, no compromise attitude in politics is ruining this country; and I'm sure the Republicans are much worse, but maybe not in everybody's mind. Instead of condemning independent voting liberals, we should be trying to woo them. It felt like, to me, this last election had a democratic air of vote entitlement. If we don't re-learn the art of compromise, I believe this country as a whole will be in trouble.

[yallerdawg]

37. I can support a terrible "Democrat" as long as they toss us a bone occasionally.

In a deep red state, running for office in the Bible Belt, anywhere with a conservative constituency where Democrats never get elected - like GA District 6 - you don't have to have pure progressive policies.

The biggest impact these additional "DINO's" could do for us is Congressional majorities. That is control of bills, nominations, investigations. That is the whole ball of wax!

[MineralMan]

43. I will VOTE FOR such a Democrat, rather than letting a Republican win,

but I will not endorse such a Democrat.

[yallerdawg]

51. Will you defend them...

and support their liberal, progressive positions that differentiate them from the Republicans, as slim as those differences may be?

Or are they on their own until you see their name with the (D) on the ballot?

I'm asking because here in the South, our Democrats are mostly economic and social conservatives, and you have to dig real deep to make the distinction. But merely the (D) is the killer.

[MineralMan]

52. I don't live in a part of the country where such distinctions are needed.

I realize that many do, however. When I think about that, I am led to look at a candidate's voting history. If they consistently vote, most of the time, in support of progressive bills and with the Democratic caucus, then I could vote for them. I would not live in a red state, frankly, however. Since I work for myself and from my own property, I can live wherever I wish. I realize that not everyone can do that, but I choose to live in a place where progressivism is more highly valued than in other places.

When it comes to supporting candidates for office, I look first at those in my own area. I recognize that I can have almost no impact on races outside of that area, so I focus my limited abilities to support candidates on those who represent me.

It is difficult, in some parts of the United States to elect progressive candidates. I recognize that. I am always hopeful that those elected to federal legislative offices from those states will, at least, vote with the Democratic Caucus most of the time. That way, I have a better chance of not being disappointed.

[bekkilyn]

48. I agree. Being progressive is

about BOTH social and economic justice. Being that it is a human rights issue, there should be NO compromise when it comes to choice, and the idea of having standards is NOT a "purity test".

(I don't like this whole "purity test" label that's arisen any more than I like the "PC" label. People tossing around the "purity test" label to demean and diminish the idea of having standards that should not be compromised is no better to me than people tossing around the "PC" label to diminish the ideas of being polite and respectful.)

Now from what I read in a different post, Mello holds a personal belief based on his religion that abortion is morally wrong. I don't have a problem with this concept at all. I'm personally not "pro-abortion" in many cases myself and believe it should be more of a last resort thing. If I were voting in this election, my main question to consider would be whether or not this guy plans to legislate his personal belief into law, and I will NOT vote for an known anti-choice candidate, so I would need to be assured that he isn't going to change his tune once he's put into office. (Governor McCrory in NC said the same type of thing in that he would support no further anti-abortion legislation and one of the very first things he did was break that promise.)

So maybe this guy is progressive and maybe he's not when it comes to how he would do his job, but I'd have to look at his voting record, which is definitely something I would do if I was voting in this election.

Might end up disagreeing with Bernie on this one, as much as I love him!

[QC]

54. Did anyone say it was? n/t

[MineralMan]

58. I don't know. I am saying that it is not.

I don't believe I referred to anyone in particular who was saying otherwise.

[Honeycombe8]

55. One can be a Democrat w/o being progressive. And that's okay.

It's a big tent. Democrats run the spectrum from far left to left of center.

The problem with speaking AGAINST a Democratic politician in an election against a Republican, no matter where you are on the spectrum of the Dem Party, is that the effect is the same as campaigning FOR the Republican, who is WORSE on the issue that the person says they care so much about.

Everyone has a right to speak. But the effect of the words is just a fact. Just so they understand what they're doing.

By the same token, not speaking FOR a Democrat in a tight race against a Republican, when you CAN make a difference when every vote counts, is the same as helping the Republican...who has a WORSE view of those human rights than the Democrat.

Waiting for 100% means you'll be waiting forever and handing it over to the opposition in the meantime.

The effect of waiting for 100% is just a reality, no matter how one feels about speaking for or against a candidate. Like eating fudge = gaining weight. That's just the reality, regardless how you feel about fudge.

There is nothing wrong with endorsing the BETTER candidate, out of two you don't like. Nothing wrong with pointing out all that is right with that candidate, and how you disagree with him/her or how he/she doesn't hold to the Dem. Party platform, and then pointing out how terrible the Republican opponent is. Endorsers do that all the time.

Taking a stance on an issue and standing firm and never giving...that's what activists do. That's their purpose. That's not what politicians do, if they want their party to win.

When the progressive Democrat has a bill in Congress, he relies on the support of his party members. The more Democrats, the better. Regardless of their particular views on specific issues. The same is true on getting Democratic governors and other officials. Politicians tend to be more pragmatic. Politicians tend to keep their eye on the ball in play. You have to play ball with the ball that's on the field. The politician doesn't get to create his own special ball. This is why Cruz, who clearly hated Trump, ended up supporting him. Trump, to Cruz and other Republicans, was better than having Hillary Clinton.

[MineralMan]

60. OK. But my practice is to endorse only those candidates

who have expressed progressive viewpoints across a broad spectrum of issues. I will, however, always recommend voting for the Democrat in any election, whether I consider that candidate to be a progressive or not.

I always encourage voting for Democrats. I prefer progressives, however, and will actively endorse such candidates.

There is a difference between encouraging voting for Democrats and supporting an individual candidate as a progressive, I believe. I'm fully aware that there are places where a progressive cannot win an election, but where a different sort of Democrat might. I don't live in such a place, though. My efforts and money are used locally, since they are both limited.

[zentrum]

63. Perez, the Head of the DNC itself

......Is on a national tour with Bernie. By design. And glad for it.

The purpose of the tour is to transform the perception of the Democratic Party and to transform its direction. Even though Bernie is saying, out loud, that the Democrat Party did not, in the last election, address enough of the pain people are actually feeling—Perez appears with him. And says he agrees with him in many ways.

The point is that the Party has to move left. And further, they have to admit that they have lost young voters because, rightly or wrongly, they are seen as the “other” corporate party and so—to get back into office——they must convince these voters that it is a new party serious about their issues. Which, among other issues, are hugely economic.

The Bernie undermining has to stop. It’s not what the DNC and the Party as a whole wants at this point. We can keep rooting for the Democratic Party team name here, or move on to catch up with what the Party itself actually wants to do.

Which is use and apply the Bernie critique to the content to the Party.

I am a woman, pro-choice and would never not back a Democratic candidate who was running against a Repug in this time of crisis, even if that Democratic candidate, was anti-choice. Because I know women will be better off with that candidate than any Repug.

[mcar]

71. I agree completely

I get Democrats wanting to support Mello since he's the guy running. But to support him and not support Ossoff makes no sense at all.

It's also curious to me that many people online who previously pushed purity in candidates now seem OK with an anti-choicer. So, getting contributions from corporations is bad. Being paid for giving a speech to financial entities or corporations (gasp) is a deal breaker. But being anti-choice is eh, he's the best we got?

[we can do it]

74. Thank you!