It's an assumption that your views are universal.
I didn't say the party didn't need to change. What I said is that a 50 state strategy is inconsistent with the impulse to purge everyone who doesn't meet progressive criteria. Additionally, that particular approach to politics is very much tied to the white male bourgeoisie. Other people besides you count, and their concerns matter. The assumption that the party only needs to do what a faction of progressives demand to win comes from an ideology rooted in race, class, and gender privilege, the kind of privilege that leaves people unable to see beyond themselves.
the thesis that their message was not fully supported by the national campaign or possible that non-establish Democrats got their shot in areas with the “longest odds”;
This again is based on the assumption that there should be one message based on what you and your like-minded friends want, with no conception of differences of local issues. It's also a cop out. The part about the longest odds is patently false. Feingold (whom I like very much) lost in Wisconsin and Teachout in New York state. Those aren't even close to the longest odds. To claim so is absurd.
You have no evidence. What you have are assumptions that come out of a movement determined largely by a certain class, race, and gender.
I also wonder how you all will define progressive when Bernie isn't around anymore, it's clear that issues matter far less than connections to him. We see that through the support for conservatives like Tulsi Gabbard, those who are anti-choice or object to the Iran nuclear deal. And as we know immigration and guns are not considered important to the "progressive" cause because of Bernie's own record on the issues and whom those issues impact. So we have an absence of anything approaching ideological consistency other than what is most important to the white, male bourgeoisie. Your reference to 1948 hardly dispels that impression.
It would be nice if people would think less in terms of wielding control over the party and nebulous labels like "progressive" and "left" and more in terms of problems and solutions, along with an understanding that the concerns of others in the country matter as well. That message has been communicated regularly for over a year now, and the answer has consistently been: your concerns are a distraction, divisive. What really matters is what we want. It didn't work among Democrats, and it isn't going to work in red states. I would suggest you could try to encourage some candidates that fit your criteria to run to test the idea, but you've already decided the failures are never the candidates' but always someone else. That leaves us in the realml of faith, and no amount of empirical evidence will influence it in anyway.
= new reply since forum marked as read
need to be there at EVERY ELECTION, no matter how "minor" - school boards, commissioners, city councils. Register of Wills, etc.
