Why shouldn't we assume that a HRC nomination means no progressive will EVER get the nom later?

[Ken Burch]

Why shouldn't we assume that, If HRC is the nominee, every presidential nominee we get for the rest of eternity won't be exactly like her, with all the same lethal problems?

What possible reason should we think that, if HRC does get it, it will be not permanently impossible to get an actual progressive as our standardbearer in any future election?

I've never heard any HRC supporter make any case for how settling for the corporate status quo one more time this year could ever lead to us freeing ourselves from these pointless constraints at any point in the future.

[msongs]

1. oh my oh my don't you know the line about assuming lol nt

[Ken Burch]

4. Not an answer.

HRC's campaign is about preventing the party from changing at all. And where we are now isn't worth much of anything.

There's no way a HRC presidency now can ever lead to a more progressive administration later.

Her whole time in office will be about locking the centrism into stone.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. The establishment Dems have overused the "vote for the lesser of two evils" ploy.

It's not selling as well as it used to.

[PatrickforO]

3. Well you're right. The longer it takes for us to break this Third Way cycle, the

harder it will ultimately prove to take back our government and have it serve us and our needs instead of the needs of corporate oligarchs and other billionaire parasites.

In a way, we're like the frogs in the pan of slowly heating water. Right now, we've noticed the water is getting hot and it is time to get out. Hopefully we'll be able to. If not, neoliberal capitalism will drag us all down and the world will begin a whole new age, perhaps absent of humankind. The world, after all, would be quite content without us.