For the neoconservatives who want Progressives to "form their own party,":

[Brainster]

I get that history and foreign affairs aren't your strong suit but this has been tried before, with the only twist being the lefties kept the old party name and the centrists left. I give you Labour and the SDP. This brilliant move contributed to keep a right wing Thatcherite government in power for 17 years. Oh and it wasn't the radical left who came out on top in the end, it was those very neo-liberals you despise so much. But hey go right ahead and split the opposition, the Republicans will toast the names of those who lead the split for decades to come.

It also happened here in the US after the 1968 election. The left wing took over the Democrats following Humphrey's defeat, and made it much more responsive to the will of the base. The result was that the Democrats only won one presidential election out of the next five (and that one a squeaker). It was only when they went with an early DLC leader named Bill Clinton that they were able to break that string.

Politicians on either major party's wing have one basic mathematical problem to overcome. They have to show that for every vote they lose in the center, they pick up two new votes from their edge of the political spectrum. This is because when you lose a vote in the center, you are probably losing it to the other major party's candidate so it's a net loss of two votes. If you gain a vote on the fringe, however, that's probably someone who would otherwise vote Green or Libertarian, and thus it's only a net gain of one vote.

This is where they usually posit some form of the "lost tribe" theory. See, there's this lost tribe of hardcore leftists (or conservatives) who don't usually come out to vote because the Democrats (or Republicans) keep nominating milquetoast candidates who fail to energize them.

 

[Trakar]

I think you may mean "millstone round their neck" figuratively a lodestone is "a person or thing that is the focus of attention or attraction". Or "something that attracts strongly".

You don't believe that Trump leading the GOP, is a lodestone drawing attention to the negative aspects of American conservatism? Though, given my phrasing of the GOP having to bear that burden, I see your point, and "millstone" is perhaps even more appropriate. I was merely thinking along the lines of how much Trump exemplifies the errors and flaws of the conservatism he tries to implement, exposing the problems and complications of both social and economic conservatism.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lodestone-
- My usage was, at best, awkward, the example from this reference that most closely aligns with my intent was:

The director pays close attention to the details of this ramshackle house, which begins as an emotional lodestone for C and eventually becomes something approaching a prison.
—
david sims, The Atlantic, "A Ghost Story Is a Haunting Modern Fable," 6 July 2017

After your remarks, however, I see that my wording should have more clearly depicted a GOP dominated Congress lured into supporting the Trump lodestone and then due to the consequences of that support they are now forced to bear the weight of the Trump millstone for the next few national elections. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Trakar]

 

[Trakar]

I do think it's going to be pretty much a knock-down, drag-out fight for the heart and soul of the Democrats next time around. The last election makes it harder for the DLC-types to argue that their way is the only one that results in an electable candidate.

I don't foresee a big fight, either the DNC embraces progressives and enjoys their support and participation, or they don't. I, and many like me, will only support clearly progressive candidates and public policy, it is up to the DNC whether they want progressive votes, or not.

 

[Trakar]

You really don't like moderates, do you?

I have nothing against moderates, I really do not like Conservative or Neoliberal public policy, I am actually ideologically situated near the middle of the American Left, between the neoliberal extremists on the Rightwing of the Left, and the Anarchist extremists on the Leftwing of the Left. If you categorize someone who takes a middle position between extremists as a moderate, I could be considered a moderate myself.

 

[Trakar]

You do remember Sanders lost the primary, right Trakar?

You do remember that Hillary and the DNC lost the general election and gave this nation a federal government completely dominated by Republicans, right SG?

 

[Trakar]

Trump's "win" in the EC states was ~70-100,000 across 3-4 states. That missing 10% Bernie purists could have made a significant difference.

Not according to Hillary, remember she abandoned them and said she would prefer to convince centrist Republicans to vote for her,...(that didn't work out too well last time, are you sure this is the path you think the DNC should continue to pursue?)

 

[portlandatheist]

Nothing says "progressive" as well as 19th century protectionism.

 

[Trakar]

I thought that Trakar broke with Bernie because he did not agree with Bernie's stand on Nuclear Power......

I think if there is any new party it will be centrists like me who think both parties have become too extreme.

As I've stated before, I think the Neoliberals and the Neoconservatives are a match waiting to figure out how to tie the knot. A common ideology divided by which party they individually choose to join. My understanding is that there is no large "middle-ground" electorate of Centrist moderates, just some overlap in a small population of socially progressive/fiscally conservative (neolibs) and socially conservative/fiscally progressive (neocon) voters, but I wish you well in your journey. Send postcards!

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Yes, the NYC's Board of Elections did it, not the DNC, nor did they do it on behalf of the DNC nor Clinton. While Democrats seem to have been the worst affected, the areas were (such as parts of Brooklyn) often heavily Black in population, and Blacks tended to vote in greater numbers for Clinton than Sanders.

Hey, stop injecting facts into the discussion, it spoils the narrative!

 

[ChristianProgressive]

Not according to Hillary, remember she abandoned them and said she would prefer to convince centrist Republicans to vote for her,...(that didn't work out too well last time, are you sure this is the path you think the DNC should continue to pursue?)

Well she turned out to be wrong about that, didn't she?

As for what path, I agree that the Democrat leadership needs to abandon neoliberalism and return to traditional New Deal progressivism. That being said, progressives need to understand that no matter what, the worst Democrat is better than the "best" Republican and show up and vote regardless of whether the nominee gives them everything they want.

 

[Trakar]

Well she turned out to be wrong about that, didn't she?

As for what path, I agree that the Democrat leadership needs to abandon neoliberalism and return to traditional New Deal progressivism. That being said, progressives need to understand that no matter what, the worst Democrat is better than the "best" Republican and show up and vote regardless of whether the nominee gives them everything they want.

Sounds like a very Democratic position. While in general, I'm a lot more open to listening to the rightwing of the Left than the leftwing of the Right, I'm not really a big fan of either American party. I vote for people not parties. Both of America's political parties seem to offer right of center public-policy "solutions" whereas I almost exclusively prefer Left economics, social, and foreign policy. Too bad the Democrats don't often run actual progressive candidates nor push progressive policies. If the Democrats want my vote and participation they need to earn it, and merely being marginally more progressive in some particulars with the lip-service they offer over the other guy, isn't going to earn my support or vote. I don't vote against people, and I generally only vote for people who share my opinion on the major issues that are important to me. I have no problem supporting progressive Democratic candidates, but, neoliberal corporatists wearing the cloak of the Democratic party don't even make it out of the starting blocks as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Travis]

Not according to Hillary, remember she abandoned them and said she would prefer to convince centrist Republicans to vote for her,...(that didn't work out too well last time, are you sure this is the path you think the DNC should continue to pursue?)

Please point to when she abandoned them.

 

[Trakar]

Please point to when she abandoned them.

Personally, she abandoned this progressive not long after she entered the Arkansas governor's mansion as the first lady back in 1979. But that was more an issue of personality than politics, I didn't really get to know her politics in detail before her term as Secretary of State and even supported her in 2007 against Obama, because she seemed the lessor evil. That all said, you may have a point, she was apparently never with Progressives to begin with, she just liked/likes using progressive talk to try and get progressives to support her political and financial agenda.

EDIT Sorry, left this initial link out of my posting:
Republicans turned off by Trump still don't want to vote for Clinton, but her campaign keeps trying - http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-gop-voters-20161007-snap-story.html


The following is a short list of the actions and decisions she has made which abandoned progressives in her push for a political career of her own making:

The Problem With Hillary, Chez, Is I Don’t Vote Republican - https://www.huffingtonpost.com/russ-belville/the-problem-with-hillary-clinton_b_9349590.html

WikiLeaks poisons Hillary’s relationship with left After learning how Clinton feels about them, liberals vow to push back against her agenda and appointments. - https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/wikileaks-hilary-clinton-progressives-230009

Hillary the Hawk - https://www.thecairoreview.com/essays/hillary-the-hawk/

12 Examples of Hillary Violating Progressives' Trust - https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...mples-of-Hillary-Violating-Progressives-Trust

Clintonism screwed Democrats: How Bill, Hillary and the Democratic Leadership Council gutted Progressivism - https://www.salon.com/2016/04/30/cl...atic_leadership_council_gutted_progressivism/

Betraying Progressives, DNC Platform Backs Fracking, TPP, and Israel Occupation: Appointees by Clinton and Wasserman Schulz resoundingly reject numerous proposals put forth by Sanders surrogates - https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...form-backs-fracking-tpp-and-israel-occupation

Hillary Clinton, With Little Notice, Vows to Embrace an Extremist Agenda on Israel - https://theintercept.com/2016/02/18...ows-to-embrace-an-extremist-agenda-on-israel/

Clinton has no regrets over Goldman Sachs speaking fees - http://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...ts-over-goldman-sachs-speaking-fees-1.2522272

Veepstakes: Hillary Clinton Enrages Her Liberal Base - https://www.fitsnews.com/2016/07/22/veepstakes-hillary-clinton-enrages-her-liberal-base/

Hillary's Lack of a Progressive Vision Leaves the Door Open for Trump
By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page
25 June 16 - http://readersupportednews.org/opin...ressive-vision-leaves-the-door-open-for-trump

Panel Of Clinton Reps Support Hidden Agenda, Blocks Progressive Goals
June 26, 2016 - http://thebernreport.com/panel-clinton-reps-support-hidden-agenda-blocks-progressive-goals/

While this is far from a complete compendium, it is illustrative of the types of issues, decisions and statements by Hillary that separate and alienate Progressives who actually care about progressive issues.

 

[dudalb]

I do think it's going to be pretty much a knock-down, drag-out fight for the heart and soul of the Democrats next time around. The last election makes it harder for the DLC-types to argue that their way is the only one that results in an electable candidate.

Have you taken a look at what is going on in your own party?

 

[Brainster]

Have you taken a look at what is going on in your own party?

Sure. But I tend to look at Trump as a unique, one-off kind of guy. I don't really see him remaking the party in his image. He'll probably get a couple of challengers in 2020 (Kasich, for example), but I suspect they will discover that it is very hard to defeat a sitting president in the primaries. Reagan came close to doing it against Ford in 1976. Johnson in 1968 could have won the nomination; note that his designated successor, Humphrey, got the nod from the party despite not winning a single primary.

 

[Trakar]

...He'll probably get a couple of challengers in 2020 (Kasich, for example), but I suspect they will discover that it is very hard to defeat a sitting president in the primaries...

Especially true in the GOP, but a good general, historically supported, RoT in both parties, though I personally suspect that Trump may be an exception to this as he isn't really a member of the ruling GOP party. Of course, there is a good chance that Trump will resign and walk away in 2019, especially if the GOP loses one, or both, houses of congress in 2018.

 

[theprestige]

"Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue..."

Extremism, on the other hand, rarely leads to justice.

 

[Trakar]

Extremism, on the other hand, rarely leads to justice.

I find that many self-proclaimed "moderates" consider all opinions that vary from their own to be "extreme."

 

[PhantomWolf]

I find that many self-proclaimed "moderates" consider all opinions that vary from their own to be "extreme."

The reality is that no one section of the political spectrum has all the answers. That's the problem with those at the extremes, they aren't willing to accept that they don't have all the answers at their position, and the idea that the other side of the spectrum might have a better answer to certain things is total blasphemy.

Moderates will often realise that there are answers to issues all over the spectrum, and that the best idea is to take the ones that will work, even if that means compromising.