How do Progressives work for change in a Clinton presidency?

[Prism]

Clinton is very status quo. I was a very early supporter of Obama in 2008 because I always perceived him as the more liberal of the two. However, he is an Establishment figure. For those who might say, "But he was black!" Yes, but before he ever announced, he had a sit-down with powerful donors and the Chicago Machine. They agreed to support him. There's a reason Penny Pritzker of all people is head of the Department of Commerce. When he came into office, his appointments reflected those connections, from Emmanuel to Geithner. Seriously, Emmanuel? Chicago Machine.

And for the record, I like second term Obama much, much more than I cared for first term Obama. On foreign policy alone, he and Secretary Kerry have been making incredibly wise choices. Obviously there are differences (TPP), but the man is trying in many ways.

But here is the Progressive conundrum.

So Clinton is in office. Progressives want more. Clinton supporters will probably reply, "Elect more progressives to Congress!" And they will be absolutely correct. We should elect more progressives to Congress.

However.

Then the DNC and Establishment come in and knee-cap Progressives in primaries. Claire McCaskill is a glorious unfurling brown flag of bullshit in that regard. Progressives tried to run a primary candidate, and both Obama and the DNC came down hard for her. And that act repeats itself constantly across the nation. Grassroots try to get more liberal politicians in, and D.C. vaults in to protect their own.

When our own party only wants candidates who will "play ball" and brings every force to bear to ensure that happens, where do Progressives turn?

That is very much at the heart of the frustration in this primary. If people thought, "The President and Party want to be more liberal, they just don't have the electoral support!" you'd see probably 90% of Sanders' supporters going, "How do we make this happen?" But the President and the Party have not been receptive to the hard tugs towards liberalism. They've resisted it in favor of momentary power.

Where has this gotten them? Republicans, both federally and on the state level, are more powerful today than they've been in generations.

So we vote Clinton in. Ok. How do we, as Progressives, make her act against every instinct she's ever displayed, every Establishment quid pro quo she's ever committed, and every bit of short-sighted DC fuckery we've ever experienced?

If you want the same shit, you're about to get the same shit. (Well, unless Trump gets in. Then it's like spinning a wheel at the bar. You might get free shots. But you also might get assaulted in the back alley).

So what is the strategy here to make, not just Hillary, but the entire country down to the state level, more liberal?

[libdem4life]

1. There is none. The PTB Do Not Want Progressives who actually think

and ask questions...Why? What for? Who for? Why not?

[CorporatistNation]

109. If You Try And Define The "Phenomenon," The Term Is FASCISM!

Check it out...

[tonyt53]

2. I have asked before, but got no real answer - What exactly separates a progressive and a Democrat?

Your assertions that you can "make" Hillary do anything is nonsense. Remember that over 3 million more have voter for her than for Bernie. Hillary also understands that nothing will get done without a change in the SCOTUS and to get there it will take at least a majority of Democrats holding seats in the Senate. So, what exactly is a progressive that separates them from a Democrat?

[Prism]

9. Oh god, a lot

As a gay man, let me hit you with just one reality.

Democrats were pissed at gay people in 2004. When Bush came out with his FMA. When Gavin Newsome supported same sex marriage. The cry was, "Shut up, you're costing us!"

Now, Democrats were pissed. Progressives knew the justness of the cause.

In the fullness of time, it turns out Progressives were right to press. We didn't back down. We didn't waver. We didn't shut up. And here we are. Marriage equality in all 50 states. Even though, for the entirety of Obama's first term, there were a lot of DUers who were pissed at LGBTers for being angry and insistent.

If Democratic partisans had had their way, we would've shut up and gone away for a bit. Newp. We won. And DU certainly reflected that sensibility. There were a lot of posters here who did not want to deal with LGBTers.

It's partisanship vs ideology. "What benefits the party now vs. what is the right thing?" And, just glancing at history, the right thing kind of gets validated every single time.

So why not just have the party do the right thing to begin with?

[tonyt53]

14. 2004? This is 2016. Sounds very much like you are only concerned about a single issue.

So that is what a progressive is? Now I know.

[QC]

28. Prism just wants a pony.

[2banon]

81. And THIS TOO ^^^^^10000%

[ruggerson]

54. sounds like you carry some hostility regarding his "single issue."

n/t

[QC]

79. Good to see you again! n/t

[ruggerson]

100. you too

[larkrake]

56. no, single issue is a trap, but we have to acknowledge LGBT did succeed swiftly

because they worked the system. Can we learn from that? Maybe

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. You cannot be that dense

ok, Mass Incarceration... and the war on drugs. These are two that the establishment talks a pretty game about about but wants to do noting about.

Oh and right now the big thing is... free trade and how that has been costing the middle class

Health care for all...

I can go on. but people want a pony!!!!

[Doctor_J]

80. Yes he can

[larkrake]

52. because 3rd way is in control of the Party today

We cant expect them to support anyone who might upset their plans. The public has to fund these races, through Bernie if necessary

[2banon]

76. This!^^^^^^10000!

[Doctor_J]

40. A Democrat is something than anyone can call himself/herself

A progressive is what someone is.

[MyNameGoesHere]

3. OMG you do it the way Americans have been doing it for over

200 years. The world, even the small world of Sanders supporters won't magically end when he officially loses his bid. You do what we always have done and don't whine about it.

[Prism]

7. Was there an answer in all that?

I feel like you didn't really answer anything at all.

[MyNameGoesHere]

8. If you need an answer you are lost already.

you have abdicated your role as we the people.

[Prism]

12. So . . . no answer then

I asked a fairly specific question. When you have a Democratic Establishment hostile to Progressives, how do Progressives work within the system to effect change?

Is there a thought you'd like to contribute there?

[Ned_Devine]

27. "...don't whine about it." I think was your answer

Because that's how we liberals talk to each other, right? With total condescension.

[Prism]

30. Absolutely

We're fine.

[KansDem]

4. A "Clinton presidency" will mean "more of the same"...

...and bankers and Wall Street are ecstatic.

[Jitter65]

5. Same way they would in a Sanders administration. nt

[Prism]

6. I doubt a Sanders administration would mess with progressives in primaries

As stated in my OP.

[TCJ70]

10. Sanders wouldn't need to be pulled kicking and screaming...

...Clinton will.

[Doctor_J]

39. .

In a Sanders administration we would have a president who wants to move the country to the left. A Clinton administration will move it decidedly to the right.

[Attorney in Texas]

11. Between now and the convention, you will see whether progressives can work inside the party to

restore FDR's vision for the party or whether we need to go outside of the party to have any hope of restoring that vision.

I'm more committed to FDR's vision than I am committed to a donkey mascot.

[Prism]

13. We're in the same boat

I'm a liberal before I'm a Democrat. Ideas are important. Policies are important. If you surrender all the policies, but still carry the label, what's the point?

"Free stuff!" really crystallized this for me. So, lowered education costs and universal health care are not Democratic ideals? Ok, that's new to me . . .

[Attorney in Texas]

24. Hillary has a choice: unite and embrace the progressives or ignore the left and embrace centrists.

Bill pretty much invented the Third Way neoliberal path so you can see her turning that direction.

But I think Hillary is not stupid, and I think she understands that she is not as natural a politician as her husband or Obama (or Sanders for that matter) and so I think she must see that she's going to have to work harder to unite the party than Bill or Obama did. I think Hillary is smart enough to understand that the division between her and Obama in 2008 was more personal than ideological and so fixing that rift was easier than fixing the current ideological rift.

Hopefully, Hillary will ask herself these questions

1. "What will help more to get me elected, a united party or me putting my thumb on the platform to strip it of the aspirations that will rally the base?"

2. "What will help more to get me elected, a united party with rules reformed to limit the voice of lobbyists and to increase the voice of the grassroots progressives regardless of their party registration or me facing the boos and walkouts every time DWS opens her payday-extortion-loving mouth at the convention?"

3. "What will help more to get me elected, a party united and excited by a progressive running mate pick or me picking the modern-day equivalent of Joe Lieberman (Tim Kaine, Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, etc.) who will do nothing except exacerbate the party divide?"

4. "What will help more to get me elected and to help me govern effectively, a party united as a result of me asking Sanders to devote his campaign structure to the Senate and House races in New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin and in the rest of the country where Sanders kicked my butt and we have close congressional races we need to win or to shut the progressives out of FDR's party so we can make more room for lobbyists and corporate sponsors and Third Way neoliberals?"

If Hillary answers these 4 questions smartly, we win in November and we take back the Senate. If she answers these questions foolishly, we lose the presidency and fail to take back the Senate but our silver lining is that Jill Stein pulls the Green Party closer to the goal of automatic qualification for the ballot in all 50 states in 2020.

[Prism]

31. I very, very much agree with your sentiment

Obama and Hillary were fairly close on policy. Hilariously, the parts they weren't so close on, "Mandate!" became part of Obama's legislation anyway.

And so it was easier to ease into him for her supporters.

But man, we're experiencing a real break this primary. We're not niggling over shitty details. We're debating whole hog visions of the country. And how Hillary gets progressives on board will be interesting as hell. She's banking fear of Trump is enough. Well, maybe . . .

[Attorney in Texas]

37. Fear of Trump is - at the moment - the only arrow in her quiver. I don't see that having any effect

whatsoever in the 45 non-battleground states.

Hillary isn't going to win Texas so nobody's going to motivate my vote based on "fear of Trump" because if I could vote for Hillary 10,000 times it still wouldn't make a lick of difference in Texas.

If Hillary embraces progressives in the platform and in the party rules reform and in her running mate and at the convention and beyond, I'll vote for, donate to, and campaign for Hillary.

If Hillary goes another way, I'll vote for, donate to, and campaign for down-ballot Democrats while at the top of the ticket I'll either write-in Sanders or (more likely) vote for, donate to, and campaign for Jill Stein (I don't say that lightly: I know Ralph Nader personally and I'm a huge fan and I agree with him ideologically and yet I still voted for Gore-Lieberman despite my qualms so this would be the first time I ever voted for anyone other than the Democratic presidential nominee).

[Prism]

44. We're rowing in the same direction

I'm in California. Unless there's some 52-48% poll before election day, I don't care. I have down ballot Dems I enjoy. My Congress critter, Mark DeSaulnier, who I really like because he's an advocate of veteran's affairs, and he indirectly helped my dad, a Vietnam veteran. He's a good egg.

On the Senate side, we have Kamala Harris, who I love. Not amazing - she's Establishment like crazy - but she stuck up for the poor, PoC's, and the LGBT community throughout her tenure, so I want to reward her and encourage that in the Senate.

I have a lot of downticket options. But Hillary . . . uh . . .

[nadinbrzezinski]

88. I prefer Loretta Sanchez and I will keep my reasons to myself

but part of it, what you said about Harris, and Establishment. Do I expect Sanchez to win? Nope.

[JonLeibowitz]

95. I voted Sanchez but I think I regret that now. She dissed Liz Warren today.

Probably will vote Harris in November

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. Harris will be on the ballot

you heard it here first in November, against one of the Republcians,

The federal elections work as usual.

As to Sanchez dissing warren, well in DC if you want a friend get a dog. Alliances and friendships are of convenience, To a lesser extent same applies to city hall.

Oh and even though he denies ten ways to Sunday, start finding out all you can about my lovely mayor, Kevin Faulconer. He will be running for Governor in 2018 against Newson, and given his environmental record, he has a better chance than usual for the governor for a republcians, and would do less damage than usual, but not precisely the best. He still believes in a few trickle down economics less taxes fairies. But then again, so do a majority of Dems anymore.

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. This election is not normal

at all

So what would happen if let's say Jill Stein wins Oregon and WA, and Gary Johnson NK, SK, any real libertarian bent state? New Jersey...

I think it would actually be an earthquake for both national parties. I do not say this mildly, this election has been all but normal.

[BillZBubb]

111. I disagree. Hillary's calculus will be much easier.

She's not going ask herself any questions and she's not going to change who she is and who she serves. Introspection's not her thing. She's going to think what is the easiest path for me to win the White House. trump makes this pretty easy (at least she'll think so). Her view will be:

trump is going to turn off the middle and the left. He'll get the die hard right.
I may turn off the left, but where are they going to go? At least not to trump.
So, I've got the centrists of my party and if I can get centrist and center right independents, I win.
I'm dropping all this progressive poppycock and playing to the center-right where I feel at home.

She's actually already started that with her neocon foreign policy speech today.

[QC]

29. "Offering free stuff to gullible people" no less,

as one suspiciously right-wing-sounding new arrival put it today.

But I just can't imagine why anyone might think the party is hostile to progressive ideas.

[Prism]

32. Shush, you communist

I mean, I hope you got cake today. But I also hope you're on a list somewhere.

[QC]

33. As a matter of fact I did get a cake!

[Ghost Dog]

41. We are all, definitely, on lists...

This medium just lends itself to that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

93. I should FOIA my FBI file just for shits and giggles

[larkrake]

86. is this sarcasm?

[QC]

94. Sadly, no.

Someone said it in perfect seriousness.

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. So my little diddy after the Eisenhower group

deployed might really, really apply in this communist country of ours!!!!

The free stuff is in next five year plan (And on a mind blowing WTF moment, my mayor and city council issues one every year)

[larkrake]

58. absolutely- is the Party too corrupted? I suspect so

[cheapdate]

15. I have a simplistic outlook on this question.

If there is mass public support for liberal/progressive/green/left politics coupled with the drive/determination/strategy/organization to see it through, then it will rise above any and all obstacles and succeed.

I think that the greater difficulty is in unity/solidarity/message/platform/alliance/coalition/leadership, more so than institutional obstacles.

The public is pluralistic and heterogeneous. It includes: Teabaggers/Blue Dogs/Rhinos/libertarians/leftists/Fundies/people who love Hillary Clinton/people who hate Hillary Clinton/etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

I live in the deep red South, so maybe that colors my view. But when you talk to real people, you might find they support environmental protection, but they're skittish when you talk about reducing the military. Or they oppose free trade agreements like the TPP, but they're not happy with marriage equality.

[Prism]

17. I don't think your view is simplistic at all

It hearkens back to the thought, "All politics are local." And it takes a talented politician to navigate and harness that thought in order to drive politics forward. But the party always shits on progressives in this way.

And I think there's an assumption. When I say Progressive, I think people read into it as some Atheistic, abortion-loving, sodomy recommending San Francisco politician who is just going against the grain in Alabama. (sarcasm, of course).

But that's not it. There are talented politicians out there who can say, "Hey, you're getting screwed. Ok, you hate that, but this over here is actually really important to you and your family. Let's focus on that." But they're wrecked in utero by people who want the same ole same ole.

[auntpurl]

23. I sooooo agree with this post!

I just couldn't state it any better. Well said.

[StevieM]

16. I kind of like Obama's first term. Obamacare, the stimulus, Dodd/Frank, Sotomayer&Kagan.

As for how progressives work for change in a Clinton presidency, I think the best way is to work to take back the Congress. That will enable us to pass legislation like a minimum wage increase and to appoint liberal justices to the Supreme Court.

[Prism]

18. Just one example

Whose minimum wage increase? $15 an hour? Clinton is against that. She wants it to be regional. Which, I'm willing to listen actually. I moved from Chicago to San Francisco. Believe me, I get the cost of living differences. But she needs to articulate what she means.

Supreme Court is a given. Do I think a Hillary Clinton Supreme Court will do away with Citizens United? No. Do I think they'd uphold a challenge to gay marriage? Yes. Not that I can envision any more challenges making it to them.

Taking back Congress. I would adore a Democratic Congress, but one that at least feigns to put Progressive ideals forward. Obamacare has been a corporate friendly system of winners and losers. If you won, great. If you lost, fuck you, and how dare you say otherwise.

Sour taste does not begin to describe it.

[StevieM]

22. She supports a $12 federal minimum wage, which is more than any other recent

Democratic presidential nominee has supported.

I cannot imagine that Hillary's Supreme Court nominees will be any different than Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayer, Elena Kagan or Merrick Garland. The liberals on the court all opposed Citizens United and I can't even begin to imagine that Hillary's appointments would side with the Republicans against them.

I think this is a good example of how people who don't like Hillary Clinton are coming to conclusions that are not reasonable from my point of view.

[tonyt53]

26. No, they sure aren't. Mine either. I'm standing with you.

[Prism]

34. I think Obama is a liberal at heart

I do. He may have felt compromised by political realities. Seriously. How does he get Geithner or Emmanuel on his team, with his expressed idealism? Penny Pritzker? She's a Chicago heiress. He made deals. Fine. But I think he knows our system is fucked. I honestly feel he's been a reluctant participant. A participant nonetheless, but I feel like he knows this is all shit. He's just salvaging his name.

Enter Hillary. The system has benefited the Clintons to an absurd degree. I don't trust her Supreme Court nominations. I don't trust who she appoints. I don't trust her counsel. She isn't reluctant. She's involved whole hog from the start.

For the Supreme Court, I imagine she'll nominate social liberals (awesome for my community) who will protect business (awww, and I thought I could afford rent).

And I hate fighting between those two thoughts and having it declared Democratic. "Well, we're against racism, and sexism, and homophobia!" Which, wooooo! "But we will also economically fuck you all," Ohhhhhhhhh . . . .

[StevieM]

47. As I said, I cannot even begin to imagine that Hillary's Supreme Court appointments

will be any different than those of Barack Obama or Bill Clinton.

And I just don't think there is any reason to believe that they will be.

[floriduck]

42. Please clarify.

With your statement, "She supports a $12 federal minimum wage, which is more than any other recent Democratic presidential nominee has supported" (except Bernie Sanders).

Are you saying before this election cycle? Or that Bernie is not a Democrat?

Thanks.

[StevieM]

46. The nominee is the candidate who is officially chosen by the party. In other words,

Dukakis was a nominee, Gephardt and Jackson were not. Clinton was a nominee, Brown and Tsongas were not.

I wasn't suggesting that Bernie is not a Democrat. He has joined the party.

[floriduck]

49. Got it. Thanks.

[libdem4life]

118. Pretty sure. he joined the party because

there was.not a real Democrat as a choice...Coronation plans notwithstanding.

[larkrake]

61. no, she will give is corp friendly and global trade judges

she wont change her spots

[StevieM]

65. As I have said, I find it unimaginable that her judges will be any different than the ones

appointed by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. And I just can't think of any legitimate reason to think otherwise.

[840high]

96. Sadly - yes.

[randome]

19. Petitions will at least garner a response.

If Clinton continues with Obama's practice, that is. But they need to be specific and be widely disseminated on social media.

I still think physical demonstrations are the best way to get one's points across but this doesn't seem to be the age of demonstrations, does it? Even OWS had only marginal impact.

And of course following local elections.

Maybe one of the key changes to push for is in the area of voting. Enough with the restrictions. Expand the time for elections to an entire week or so.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Prism]

21. Closed primaries are also a trick

My boyfriend is very, very liberal. But he hates the parties. He won't register. And so he can end up closed out. Fortunately, California has a mechanism for No Party Preference. So he gets to vote for Bernie. But there are many out there who could not.

[randome]

25. Eh. I think there's legitimate opinion on both sides of closed primaries.

I sort of lean toward keeping them closed because the Democratic Party nominee should be decided by Democrats. Independents get too much leeway, I think.

Although I could also see letting Independents be the one exception to the rule. But from a strictly organizational standpoint, it seems to make sense for Democrats to decide their nominee and not outsiders.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[floriduck]

43. I get your point but it becomes a double edged sword.

We need Independent voters since they are nearly one half of the electorate. By locking them out, it creates hard feelings with many of them. But we seem to be more afraid of those who misuse there vote to go against the leading candidate or the Party's preferred candidate.

[Prism]

48. But there's a large population of liberals who couldn't participate

Like my boyfriend. He's disgusted with the DNC. He wants no part. But he's a liberal. Should his vote not count? I mean, there are lots of stories about "Oh, Trump supporters are messing with us in open primaries!" Really? Does anyone actually believe more than maybe five Trump supporters thought that far?

Boyfriend gets to vote. And he got a shit ballot, btw. Bernie wasn't on it. So we turned it in and got him a proper ballot. I did not have this problem as a registered Democrat. They accepted me no problem.

Liberal independents have trouble. Should they?

[randome]

50. But if he wants to vote Democratic, why not be part of the Democratic Party?

I don't get this fake idea of independence when no one is really independent. Most people who call themselves 'independent' fall into either conservative or progressive camps. So what's the point?

But like I said, I wouldn't have a problem with making an exception for Independents to be allowed to vote in Democratic primaries. It just goes against what I think is common sense. Either make a commitment or stay on the sidelines. You shouldn't expect to have your cake and eat it, too.

But that's more like my idea of a well-organized world and people are anything but organized or perfect.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[larkrake]

105. You cannot commit to a Party that has taken a right turn away from the ideals

I'm a democrat, but the Party in no longer. I am still loyal to democratic morals and ethics so I should have a voice, Discriminating against Indys and progressives will only shrink the party, and the DNC will find in short order that the majority swings to Indys (they are already the majority block, but if Progressives are forced to join then, they will rise above 50%)

Anyway, no Democrat is going to tolerate the "My way or the Hiway" the DNC is presenting to us this year. That is not in our DNA.

I do not view it as an exception. That kind of labeling stops growth and grows resentment. The DNC should see Progressives and Indys as allies, not the enemy

[larkrake]

83. Primaries should include non party folk

its the best way to win them

[Waiting For Everyman]

20. That's exactly it, Prism.

Short answer: it doesn't work.

We play ball, and our own party screw us, over and over again. But now, the population is more on our side, the electorate is becoming more progressive.

The abusive and fraudulent tactics being played right now by the establishment Dems are not very smart.

Tactically on our part, it may be quicker to accomplish a general overhaul, by having most swept out all at once and then coming back with a new roster in the next election, rather than picking them off one or two at a time by running challengers, taking lots of election cycles.

In other words, moving back leftward to our FDR roots can be done the pleasant way as we're trying to do right now, or the painful way, but it's getting done. They still aren't listening though, which isn't a great sign.

"You're the same old story, it's the same bold crime, and you got some heavy dues to pay" (Steve Miller, "Space Cowboy", 1969)

[Garrett78]

35. Prism and others, I have a reading recommendation.

I've posted this before, but I'm sure most haven't read it. Some may appreciate this: http://www.swans.com/library/art11/jhuato01.html

[hobbit709]

36. By being brought to heel.

[Doctor_J]

38. We don't. that's the point. The far right has won.

They have all the money, all the tv, all the radio, all the newspapers. If there is any chance of them losing an election, they just take away people's right to vote. Electing Clinton will signal the end of all of the gains we made in the 20th century.

[dreamnightwind]

45. We HAVE to build new progressive infrastructure

Whether it will be in the party or outside of the party is the question.

The fundamental organizing principle needs to be electing candidates without corporate money. Bernie's campaign has showed us the way, unfortunately he was up against a very rigged contest, but a fundraising and campaign model based on the people now exists and hopefully we will continue it forward to many new campaigns.

[larkrake]

64. Organizing is the only way, like herding cats?

[dreamnightwind]

69. We have shown that, given leadership, we can organize

The left always underestimates the value of someone or some organization to organize around, IMHO. Bernie's campaign is a great example. The huge surge of the left this campaign would not have happened, at all, without him running.

So far I know of berniecrats and the UPP (United Progressive Party) as new entities to organize around, the first is within the party and the second is outside of it. I can see either path working, no reason not to pursue both.

[larkrake]

73. Thats why I adore Bernie, he has been very smart with this movement

He inspires organization so we need a Bernie associate in every state to make inroads

[EndElectoral]

53. Her approach is a hawkish foreign policy and domestically incrementalism.

Honestly, only way Progressives could work in a HRC Presidency is to affect the Senate and House races.

[larkrake]

66. true. She is going to stress foreign policy and totally ignore infrastructure

she is radically a hawk so we do need the congress, both houses, to temper her killer instinct

[LonePirate]

55. Progressives need to find races where the Repub has no opponent and run in those races.

Running against existing Dem office holders will be met with the incumbent calling in all chips to maintain their position. That's just the way politics works in this country. If the progressive candidate wins the race, guess what, they become the incumbent, establishment candidate who can use the powers of their office to thwart the candidacy of the likely younger and more progressive candidate in the next race.

[larkrake]

71. a Smart theory

[Maedhros]

57. I hope to see less of what I saw with Obama.

Namely, that "progressives" self-policed their criticism of Obama's bad acts - to the point of remaining silent - from the misguided notion that criticism from the Left somehow aided the Republicans.

We must not repeat the same mistake with Hillary. When she does heinous shit, which she will, we have to hold her accountable and demand answers. If she starts another bullshit war, she must be primaried.

[lmbradford]

60. Here is my two cents

I know this is going to piss off a bunch of people but the way I see reality is mine alone.

I think if we can get her to select a progressive VP, we may be in business. If the indictment comes down, and I think it must based on the testimony that I've read so far, we get Elizabeth or another true progressive to take over because obviously the Repugs will impeach. Then we have at least some workable parts in government and the midterms look pretty good to us as progressives.

OK...1, 2, 3 ready for incoming!!!

[larkrake]

67. does VP have any power? and will Hill weigh his opinion at all?

I have not seen that in her, but I could be wrong

[Doctor_J]

77. Hillary's running mate will be another conservative, possibly a republican

She'll need to choose a conservative to carry on the turd way agenda in case she gets run out of office by the republicans or has health issues or something else.

[JI7]

62. there are mayors governors and many other local and state elections

Many people are already working in getting progress and have been doing it.

[larkrake]

68. Im working on it in Colorado, Bernie's list really helps

[Blaukraut]

63. It really DOES start at the local level!

As I said in another post - remember the teaparty uprising in '10? That would not have happened, had it not been for the perfect storm of the census happening in '10, along with gerrymandering in favor of Republicans. We need to turn that tide in '20. The next census falls right on schedule - a presidential election year. Typically favoring our side in turnout. In the meantime, keep Hillary's feet to the fire. In '18, work our tails off on the local and state level to hold position, if not gain a few seats.

This is a war. We win some battles, and we'll lose some. The bigger picture is voter turnout at all levels. This has been the formula since I can remember. Historically, Dem voters tend to slack in off term elections, which has proven costly. We have to figure out a way to engage our side. The first thing to realize which helps not to throw in the towel in disgust, is that change doesn't happen overnight. It's long fought for, and has many backward steps involved. Frustrating, yes. But it's doable.

[larkrake]

70. then we work on enthusiasm

[Blaukraut]

74. I agree! But the enthusiasm has to extend to the unsexy local and state elections

My own daughters are cases in point as to what elections they consider 'worthy'. And goodness knows they don't suffer from lack of education on the matter. It starts with your school councillor and mayor and goes from there. How can we get people interested in those elections? This is an honest question.

[larkrake]

78. It is an honest question. Certainly not with Trump and Hill. Their negs are dismal

[Blaukraut]

98. But are Hillary's negs due to a bruising primary, in part?

This is what we still have to wait and see. I'm hoping for the best, of course. Hold no animosity toward either camp - except the Republicans. I want our side to succeed, whichever way possible.

[larkrake]

112. No, she has always had negative likability. Her attacks on trump

will give her a bump, but as soon as her policies come back into the light, she will be down again. She can trigger Trumps rage, but he did not respond today, he knows her plans. When he starts showing old vids, her numbers will fall fast.

We can all hope she finds his buttons.

[1StrongBlackMan]

72. The same way every other constituency works to accomplish their policy agenda ...

It starts with recognizing accomplishing one's policy agenda takes more than running one agenda candidate during one election cycle ...

it includes recognizing that accomplishing one's policy agenda requires working through friends, not calling them names when you don't get 100% agreement on tactics and/or timing ...

it includes recognizing that accomplishing one's policy agenda requires accepting you will not get all that you want at the first, second, or even 15th ask ... and, accepting that when that doesn't happen, the answer isn't to stomp off in a huff ... and spend the next 4 years (until the next election) calling the people that could be friends, names.

And, that's just a start.

[larkrake]

75. I agree, pettyness isnt constructive

The DNC will fight us tho, with big bucks and ads

[1StrongBlackMan]

101. Not when there is CRITICAL MASS of people ...

supporting the agenda of well socialized (i.e., well known) candidates, that has earned a reputation for playing well in the sand box. Think: Ellison, Grijalva, and most of the Progressive Caucus.

They don't seem to be fought by the DNC.

[larkrake]

114. as long as they fall in line, or they consider them "Fringe"I dont think they will see progressives

as fringe ever again after Bernie steamrolled them

[1StrongBlackMan]

117. This is exactly what I am talking about in Post #72. ...

Working with other to help them accomplish their agenda (though less progressive than you) is not "falling in line."

It is that mentality, that earns some the label "fringe".

[Agnosticsherbet]

82. If you want better legislation, we need control of the House of Representatives. The House controls

the Legislative agenda.

[larkrake]

84. and the funding

[Agnosticsherbet]

89. All funding bills must be initiated by the House. It is in the Constitution.

[larkrake]

106. thats what I just said

[larkrake]

85. can we do that in four years, statistically?

[Agnosticsherbet]

90. From what I have read, the best chance of winning back the House will be after the 2020 Census.

But to do that, we need to get control of Governorships and State Legislatures. At this time, Republicans control 31 of the states.

[aikoaiko]

92. I'm too cynical right now. I expect HRC vindictiveness to be insurmountable.

But if we could get:

1. Rid of the fucking superdelagates

2. Semi-open primaries with Democrats and independents (I wonder if there was a way to also include Greens, too).

We would accomplish things in the future.

[Armstead]

97. I;'ve been wondering that myself. And the answer depresses me...

Not a goddam thing. The people that hold the reins don't give a damn about the "progressives" other than as human voting units.

As long as they know we don't want Republicans, they'll continue to do their usual bait and switch.

Only thing that will change it is if enough of the Democratic population at large starts to demand better, and change the template. The Bernie campaign has been a great start.

It's too bad too many of the rank and file chose to go with the stale same-old stuff.

[ancianita]

120. Not acceptable. Bernie didn't lose unless progressives fail to go through that political door

and act like activist citizens all the time, not just in election cycles.

This is the defeatism of perfectionists.

[Armstead]

124. You make a false assumption about "perfectionists"

[ancianita]

130. Then I join Rebecca Solnit, Obama and others, who claim that "better" creates new leverage

influence from which to obtain more of what we want from government.

One concludes from perfectionists' speech and behavior, which tend toward the ideas of "winning" or "being done" and then sitting back and enjoying the results as permanent, then become undone when economic and social change dynamics always up the ante on political effort.

[Buddyblazon]

102. You don't....

Now shut up and eat your corporate porridge or there will be no dessert.

[1StrongBlackMan]

103. There is a group that can serve as a models/mentors ... the membership of the Progressive Caucus.

They seem to have figured it out.

[larkrake]

107. web site? contact?

[ancianita]

104. For one thing -- and probably first off -- a progressive has to lead the party and the Senate.

Downticket and future progressive candidates have to get party vetting, prepping and funding, which Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has refused to give them.

The new platform and progressive party chair must spearhead 50-state legislative majorities.

People have to get out their Roberts Rules and get moving to county and state meetings to DRIVE spending of our tax money.

And everyone should reread or retake a civics course for adults, not the theory but the reality.

I'm not done yet, but I'll stop for now.

[larkrake]

108. We cant involve the party, we would be undercut continually

3rd way will go to war to prevent Progressives

[ancianita]

119. That's defeatism. Right now we've got a foot in the door and we need to open it and go through.

If everyone here keeps wailing about how cockblocked we are, then they're giving the perfectionist's perrennial excuse to do nothing.

That's unacceptable.

Progressives actually be good by doing good in spite of conditions, rather than waiting for conditions to be most opportune.

Conditions will never be right or opportune for progressives. The space for political change potential from Bernie's efforts are the best we're going to have.

We have to act with downticket, personal citizen activism.

Or progressives aren't serious. Just posers.

[1StrongBlackMan]

127. I'm seeing that you have an up hill battle ...

While I agree with what you are advocating, it's not the DNC or the "Establishment" that stands as the (primary) obstacle.

I wish you luck and endurance ... we will all benefit with your success.

[ancianita]

132. We all need to cultivate and support endurance.It's what has made the underdogs win in our history.

[1StrongBlackMan]

136. Absolutely! You will not get a single argument from me ...

I've seen it happen too many times. AND it is a testament to those willing to put in the hard work ... as opposed to those making excuses ... on the internet.

[larkrake]

146. You think we have a foot in the door? If so, I agree with you

I pray I am wrong about the DNC shafting Bernie. They denied him a progressive on the committee. That makes me doubt they will come around

[ancianita]

148. Being on the platform committee is a foot in the door. 3 - 4 Bernie demonstrations in Philadelphia

shows the nation a sizable progressive movement and that's voice and presence that the last months of media blackout won't erase.

I'll bet media owners won't give those demonstrations air time nationally, but some media groups will.

I hope these sore winners of the Hillary camp don't try to get DWS to close the door on further progressive involvement in the party. That would be the politics of spite, a common practice of the GOP.

With a Hillary win or loss, this party chair has got. to. go.

[cherokeeprogressive]

110. Work. For coins.

[creeksneakers2]

113. My advice

Replace hopelessness with hope. Sanders supporters here were talking about what they'd do when Hillary wins back in February when Bernie's chances were still very good. You also seem resigned to losing primaries. Progressives won 20 primaries this year and can win many more in the future by copying the model. The establishment has no more or less of a right to contest primaries than you do. They don't always win.

Form a movement from the convention on. Support voting for Hillary. You will get more done with Hillary than you will with Trump. If you have a movement, she'll have to listen to you.

Work with less hostility to moderates. If we don't work together we both lose.

You don't have to believe in incrementalism but you have to expect that progress will probably take time. Younger folks are on your side and as they are joined by still younger people the odds long run are in your favor.

[larkrake]

115. well put

[ancianita]

134. Good advice.

[John Poet]

116. By supporting a primary challenger in 2020,

or maybe spending four years threatening to do so.

[leeroysphitz]

121. Wait for four to eight years. n/t

[Todays_Illusion]

122. The only problem as we have seen from the campaign. There is no plan to be more liberal, the plan is

what you are seeing now. Drive Bernie Sanders and his voters out of the dialog.l

A vote will be held up as evidence that her ideas are supported by all the voters.

She will call it a mandate from the Democratic and proceed with the globalist agenda, suppression of the 7 billion of us.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

123. By holding their feet to the fire.

[1StrongBlackMan]

131. And, what does that look like? ...

shouting on the internet has proven ineffective.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

135. I tell my senators, congresswoman, and the prez..

that their votes, policies, and actions decide my vote.

And, remind them, that they're accountable as public servants to me...their boss.

[1StrongBlackMan]

138. Would the better, albeit, much more difficult, tact be ...

Write and call your senators, congresswoman, and the prez telling them that their votes, policies, and actions decide your vote ...

While working to identify the candidate of your choice, convince them to run, and work your butt off to get them elected ... probably 2 election cycles from now ... because that's about how long it takes to grow a viable candidate.

Oh, yeah ... You should probably leave the "remind them, that they're accountable as public servants to me...their boss" part ... it's about as effective as when you yell that at any other worker ... whose check is not signed by you.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

139. Sounds good.

I've been voting since 1966. About the only thing that gets a politician's attention is withholding ones vote from them. Eventually, they might get the message that if he/she wants the votes of the left they have to appeal to the left...or do without our votes. Even Hillary has sorta, kinda, temporarily, shifted to the left and thrown a few crumbs in our direction. Certainly, not enough to capture my vote, but perhaps enough to persuade some waverers that she might be on the level.

[1StrongBlackMan]

141. No ... No ... No ...

I've been voting since 1966. About the only thing that gets a politician's attention is withholding ones vote from them.

No, matter how long you've been voting, the dynamic doesn't/hasn't changed ...the ONLY thing that gets a politician's attention is a well socialized opposition candidate with a strong message.

Period.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

142. Which results in the lesser candidate getting fewer votes.

The candidates have to convince voters to vote for them. If they don't, they don't get their votes.

I voted for Sanders, and my state caucus, voted overwhelmingly for him. But, in other primaries and caucuses he failed to convince enough Democrats to vote for him. I'm convinced Hillary will win the nomination. Will she be able to convince enough Democrats, Republicans, and Independents to vote for her? Will she "pivot" right to pick up the "moderates" and Republicans? Will she pivot left to grab the progressives and liberals?

We'll see. My guess is that she'll tap dance both ways as damage control.

She's very fortunate to have Trump as her opponent. She'll play the "lesser of two evils" card to some effect.

[1StrongBlackMan]

143. You do understand that that "better" candidate doesn't just appear. right? ...

I've read a number of posts today and have come to realize that too many in the electorate believe that their engagement ends with voting (and typing stuff on the internet) for there to be any political change, anytime soon.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

144. I've grown very cynical about the value of politics as an agent of change.

As I see it, politicians have 2 primary interests: Gaining office and retaining office if they get it. And, they will do, say, bargain, nearly anything to achieve those goals. Bernie offered a bit of fresh air in that formula because he seldom plays by those rules.

The real change occurs when social movements erupt, labor, suffrage, civil rights, peace, etc. Then the politicians see votes or non-votes looming and "pivot" in whatever direction seems more profitable to them. Those "pivots" frequently cause a great deal of damage. i.e., Iraq, Syria, Libya, and other examples of "protecting" us from the current bogeymen.

Now, I vote for the most decent candidate. Bernie is one running in the establishment parties. There are others, not of the establishment, as decent or even more decent. Will one of them win? I don't believe in miracles. But, I do believe in doing the right thing.

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost. John Quincy Adams

[1StrongBlackMan]

145. Social movements errupt, only ...

after years, decades, of people putting in the hard work ... and, continuing the hard work beyond the election cycle.

[MineralMan]

125. Vote in mid-term legislative elections. That's how.

Don't stay home and sit on your hands. Get progressive legislators, state and federal, nominated and elected.

That has always been how to do it. Pity people don't get that. When turnouts are low minority groups of voters can make changes.

I've been saying this since the 1960s. Nobody listens.

[1StrongBlackMan]

129. And recognize that the 2018 legislative elections action clock ...

started ticking about 6 months ago.

[MineralMan]

133. Yup. It's too late for the 2016 legislative elections

already. As usual, we're all so focused on who will be President that we've forgotten the legislators who are up for election this year.

And then, if we don't absolutely love whoever we elect as President, we have a snit and forget about the whole thing until the next presidential election. I have never gotten that. It makes zero sense, really.

[1StrongBlackMan]

137. Instant gratification ... nano-second society! ...

But there is nothing stopping anyone from convincing that dream candidate to hit the campaign trail today for 2016 .. it will get them and their ideas, the exposure that they will need to (possibly) be successful in 2018. But that requires 29 months of sustained (and, smart) hard-work!

It's far easier to forget about the whole thing until the next presidential election ... except, of course, screaming on the internet about our unprogressive representation.

[larkrake]

147. its not too late for this year, and 2018 can be the turning point but not if Hill regrows hate for

Democrats. We do think too much about the Presidency. Congress and local elections turn the tides

[portlander23]

126. We don't work in the presidency, we'll be outside.

[HooptieWagon]

128. You don't vote for status quo expecting change.

That's just foolish. If a voter is against war, fracking, 'free' trade agreements, privatization, increased wealth inequity, cuts to SS and social safety net, and other non-progressive issues; then they probably should think long and hard before voting for a candidate who is well-paid to support those issues.

[Ferd Berfel]

140. CLinton has been pushing out Progressives since the 80's

when her and Wild Bill sold the party to the Koch Bros. Talk is cheap and the Dark Side is strong with this one.

after about 40 years of this, (and after what we've seen during this Primary fiasco, What is left to build on?

The neo-Democrat party that has emerged under the DLC, BLue Dog Third Way neocon crowd, has taken up station where the Re-publican Party Once stood before it went off the deep end. We now have the insane Fascist Republican party on the Reich, The NeoDemocrat Party - Center RIGHT, and ..... Nothing on the Left. (Perhaps the Greens)

Dunno where to go from here but teaming up with Wall Street and the 1% and the MIC won't work.

[2banon]

149. Her victory will be the final nails in the coffin for anything progressive

If we thought Rahm et al gave us a taste of what was in store for us, we ain't seen nothing yet.

I do not expect for her administration to do anything less than make every attempt to marginalize progressive policy framing us as "outliers" and "fringe" just as her surrogates love to do. All the while claiming to be "Progressive".

No, the revolution will press on as the struggles for socio-economic, justice and equality issues in addition to environmental issues and matters of war and peace are advanced despite the systemic challenges which are many and seemingly monolithic.

[yurbud]

150. the answer is a violation of the terms of service.

[LonePirate]

151. Showing up to vote in the mid-term elections is a good start.

Staying home like many did in 2010 and 2014 certainly doesn't help.

[cloudythescribbler]

152. Bernie has opened the DOOR OF OPPORTUNITY for the progressive wing of the Dems to mobilize

This has to be systematically done, with Bernie using his lists and his activists across the country to START a broad movement of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. The key will be the mobilization of black and latino progressive grassroots either into this network or in alliance with it. The opposition of the Democratic Party elite should be taken for granted, although that should be contested both at the Convention and after.

The particulars of the strategy depend on a wide range of specifics. Crucial will be the proper openness and outreach to movements like Black Lives Matter, in any electoral inclinations it has, but also in all the nonelectoral work too. There should be ballot measures and other efforts to pursue those concerns that INEVITABLY will not be adequately addressed in a Hillary Clinton Administration.

However, unlike Obama, even if Hillary gets overwhelming support from black & latino voters and wins in Nov, she will NOT have the kind of teflon as president that Obama has enjoyed in the black community. In the 90s there simply was no serious and systematic progressive opposition -- the Rainbow Coalition, which was a huge potential in the 80s, never survived sufficiently to constitute a serious moblization lever in the 90s against Bill Clinton's rightward shift. And of course, the victory of the GOP in 2004 as in 2010 in Congress was all the more damaging to progressives -- many stayed home being disappointed, and only got a more RW govt as a result.

There needs also to be MUCH more moblization in state-level politics, especially in the key states that the GOP captured (WI, MI, OH, PA, VA, FL ...) and then gerrymandered to hell. This runs into the teeth of ALEC & of the Koch's money, but again there needs to be very strategic broad mobilization. Am not versatile enough in organizing to give all the needed specifics here