If it's impossible to ever elect a progressive President - there is no hope of saving our country

[Douglas Carpenter]

and the future is indeed bleak as truly the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer and the middle class will grow smaller and smaller and more indentured to debt than ever before.

Actually the Republicans elected two Presidents well to the right of Goldwater - Reagan and Bush Jr. The difference is when Goldwater lost in 1964 by a landslide - that campaign and that loss was the basis to build the modern right-wing Republican Party so right-wing that poor old Barry Goldwater was not longer welcomed in the movement he helped create. He was too liberal for the new Republican Party

IN contrast when George McGovern who lost by a comparable landslide in 1972 - The Democrats never nominated a progressive again. Instead of using the incredible accomplishment of nominating a progressive as a basis to build a new movement like the Republicans used the in 1964 loss to build a movement - This loss became the constant excuse for why the Democratic Party must forever keep moving farther and farther to the right - perhaps liberal on many social issue but farther and farther to the right on the economic issues that determine how we actually live. Because only moving farther to the right can they raise the enormous sums of money from special interest lobbyist to fund their campaigns.

There is not a shred of evidence that the American people as a whole are pro-Wall Street, pro-investments banks, pro-insurance company and pro-out sourcing. There is not a shred of evidence that a message of economic justice and equity is unsellable in any region of the country.

But frankly, I think most professional Republican politicians whether elected officials or professional operatives are movement conservatives - people who are ideologically driven. Most Democratic professional politicians whether elected officials or professional operatives are not. They are career goal driven and base their career plans on a balancing act between raising money from lobbyist and satisfying demographic and constituent blocks.

The message that it is impossible to ever elect a progressive on the national level and for progressivism to win on a national level is a message to give up all hope of moving our country forward and seeking a newer world. I for one am not prepared to do that - yet anyway.

[Kelvin Mace]

1. We have been a de facto police state since 2001

People keep arguing this point with me, despite the overwhelming evidence. This country is in a steep decline and accelerating.

[Indydem]

2. A progressive president?

How about a progressive in almost any race, anywhere in the country?

The "Democrats" and the "progressives" are about to have a schism and it will only be good for Democrats.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. The Progressive Caucus is the largest caucus within the Democratic Party in Congress

Someone is electing them, somewhere.

[MineralMan]

9. Yes. Some are electing them. We need to elect more of them,

along with others who will vote with the Progressive caucus. We need Democratic majorities in Congress and in our state legislatures. Until we get those and they are stable, we will continue to be stalled.

Let Presidents ride the coattails of a Democratic congress, rather than trying to do the reverse. We have a far better chance of electing Democratic members of Congress, generally, than Presidents.

[fxstc]

14. exactly

[Indydem]

12. And the Third Way Coalition has 53.

I am beginning to believe that "progressivism" as formulated in 2014, is poison to the Democratic party, and needs to form it's own party and find it's own path.

Too many self-identified Progressives are against everything that made the Democratic Party great.

It worries me.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. Congress, not presidents, write the laws.

Perhaps instead of fixating on one big electoral win -- while still complaining about an obstructionist Congress -- we work incrementally where resources can be better focused and the results have more substance.

[hifiguy]

4. It's important to keep trying,

even if the chances of success in the modern US are about as small a non-zero number as can be imagined.

The primary problem is that the kind of republic envisioned by Madison and Jefferson can only maintain itself where there is an educated, thoughtful and engaged populace (and probably one not as large as the current US population is). Modern concentrations of wealth, media control and mass-market loony religion have as their first purposes keeping people ignorant, misinformed, and obedient. All of which are antithetical to what is necessary in order for Mr. Madison's carefully wrought mechanism to work. The reification of stupidity and subservience is what is in TPTB's best interests.

Michio Kaku, the theoretical physicist, has observed that the next 50-100 years will be the most dangerous time in human history, and I agree. The twin pathologies of greed and belief in Bronze Age superstition are the problems posing the greatest threats to the long term existence of the human species. Whether we can conquer them is the question upon which the fate of humanity hangs.

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. For progressive or liberal change progressives or liberals must control Congress and the agenda.

The President doesn't legislate or raise funds.

The left is moribund in the US. There should be an organization that ranks all members of the US Congress (and even state Senagors and House Members) on their standing as liberals or progressives. There are many groups on the right that do this for Conseratives. Not so much on the left.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. It's done all over the place it's just that Democrats don't currently care to talk about such things

as it does not fit the narrative. In the Senate, for example, Elizabeth Warren is about the 30th most liberal not the most. She's in the 'somewhat liberal' category. Wanted to repeal the estate tax along with Republicans, probably because she is so wealthy.
Here's National Journal
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2013-vote-ratings

Here's That's My Congress, which ranks them all every which way.
http://thatsmycongress.com/senate/index.html

[Agnosticsherbet]

11. This is because if someone supports policies that agree with many on the left,

we often assume they are just like us. Obama was called a Progressive in 2008. Listening to his complete message showed that he was center to center left, but few people did that.

[Rex]

7. Bender says

[MineralMan]

8. The answer is to elect progressives to Congress and state legislatures.

They are the bodies that write the laws and pass the budgets. Presidents can only sign or veto what is passed legislatively. Our focus on the Presidency is, I think, misplaced. If we turned out the kinds of numbers that turn out for Presidential elections, we'd have a Democratic House and Senate. That is how we will move this country forward. Elect Progressives and those who will vote with the Progressives to Congress and to as many state legislatures as possible.

[Douglas Carpenter]

13. the simple reality is that national elections set the political mood and range of debate for the

whole country. The 1964 Goldwater campaign put in place the skeleton of what would become the new rightwing. The election of Ronald Reagan in in 1980 legitimized as mainstream a political movement that was once seen by the vast majority of Republicans as right-wing extremist. Even Pat Robertson's run in the primaries and caucuses in 1988 - created much of what is now the mobilized religious rights. Of course we have to elect progressives at all levels - but national campaigns do set the national tone and create at the national level the parameters of debate.

[baldguy]

15. It's not impossible to elect a real progressive President.

The question is: can we prevent the phoney "progressives" from attacking her once she's there?

[Douglas Carpenter]

17. Sen. Warren has already made it clear she is not running - I tend to believe her

[malaise]

16. You can have a progressive President and a ReTHUG House

and enough ReTHUGs in the Senate to make that President's agenda impossible to achieve.
Ask Obama.