2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHas the seed been planted for a new political Party in this country?
The USA Party? The Union Socialists of America Party? What would be their platform?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)(*Note - I am not advocating anything here, just supplying information I have found on the net)
http://integralpostmetaphysicalnonduality.blogspot.com/2016/03/new-logo-for-progressive-party.html
https://www.behance.net/gallery/35435877/Progressive-Party-Logo
kentuck
(111,053 posts)
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)I guess I just stole it.
Locrian
(4,522 posts)
brooklynite
(94,363 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)a party of FDR and workers. Back to its' foundations.
Response to kentuck (Original post)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
bvf
(6,604 posts)
bvf
(6,604 posts)I've watched my party become absorbed into the right-winged blob that defines it today.
It is my hope that newer generations become so immune to Orwellian definition that a third party with real teeth comes to the fore.
Here's hoping. Thanks for the OP.
kentuck
(111,053 posts)We were persuaded that we had no choice. If we did not triangulate and compromise, we really could not win as a political Party. I would agree that the Party changed about that time. A Third Party would actually be returning to what the Democratic Party used to be, regardless of what it might call itself.
bvf
(6,604 posts)When I saw, to my horror, what it really meant, it made me sick.
kentuck
(111,053 posts)and some loved it.
Response to bvf (Reply #7)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Say "hi" to Bullwinkle. Jay Ward is shaking his head in shame.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Bernie has changed the playing field and a lot of people are interested. More than a lot. I'd rather they work within the party, but I guess the future may prove that to be impossible...because of money controlling everything.
Bernie did it the right way by staying in the party. Maybe in 2020 someone new will take up his flag within the Democratic party. The energy will still be there.
goldent
(1,582 posts)Technically within the democratic party but with a different agenda and not under control of the party leadership?
Response to goldent (Reply #9)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
goldent
(1,582 posts)as opposed to the tea party which didn't have any clear or obvious leader (as I remember). The tea party just had a clear and obvious enemy (Pres Obama). I'm not sure how the Tea Party evolved, but I know the it got very involved in congressional races and had some success there. These kind of races are much less exciting and flashy compared to presidential elections and that is the challenge.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Win any congressional elections like the Reprehensible Tea Party has? As much as I detest them they have at least been able to get organized. Bernie has paid virtually no attention to using his popularity to help down ballot progressives. We'll see if he can have any effect on the mid terms. I have my doubts.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Don't worry, the purity party as you like to call them will sooner or later leave both business parties alone. Anyhow, real change never is done in congress first.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Say goodbye to the status quo.
Land of Enchantment
(1,217 posts)On Sun May 1, 2016, 05:56 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
There are several variations of this flying around
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1877110
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
No 3rd party advocating aloud! TOS violation! she IS our nominee no matter what math you use
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun May 1, 2016, 06:06 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Advocating a third parte violates The terms of service.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Promoting third party not matter how much the poster denies it.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree with alerter. TOS violation.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There has been an all out attack today on Bernie supporters. I got my first hide today over a CARTOON-and all it read was LOL. This is fucking ridiculous. Leave it ALONE and grow up.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
I was juror #4. This is ridiculous. I reposted a freaking cartoon of Hillary taking a lie detector test that has been floating around DU for days.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)there are too many thin-skinned cowards here. Too many looking to censor
If you don't like what someone says - hit IGNORE and let the rest of make our own decisions.
FOr fuck sake.
kentuck
(111,053 posts)It sounds like some folks would like to shut off all forms of speech they might disagree with?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)How about we use TODAY'S math. You know, the math of the MOMENT?
What a dick.
dgibby
(9,474 posts)needs to be able to differentiate between "aloud" and "allowed".
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,781 posts)There is the 2016 election -- and I'd love to have as many Sanders supporters as possible join Hillary supporters in the fight against the GOP. But there is also the future. Right now, the left-of-center side of the political spectrum (by which I mean everyone from moderate Democrats to Socialists) is divided pretty much along the same lines that it cleaved along in 2000. The difference is that neither Trump nor Cruz will be able to credibly sell themselves as a moderate in the manner of George W. Bush in 2000.
I think it's time to admit openly that progressive independents and the far left wing of the Democratic party have many views in common with more centrist Democrats (especially on social issues), but that economically we're on different pages, and that even on problems where we agree, we disagree about solutions.
As I said in a post below, the Green Party seems to be a natural home for Sanders supporters who are unhappy with the direction of the party, and after the election, organizing that party for the 2018 midterms should be a goal of Sanders supporters.
I think we should also be honest about something else: whoever gets elected here is likely a one-termer. Statistically, we have not had three consecutive two-full-term Presidents since Jefferson/Madison/Monroe. Not only is the nation severely divided, but both parties are severely divided. After Madison/Jefferson/Monroe, John Quincy Adams served a term, then Jackson served two full terms, and then we had a string of presidents that failed to serve two-full-terms that lasted until U.S. Grant. I think we are on the verge of entering another such period in American politics, and one solution Americans might well see to breaking political gridlock is introducing new parties to the equation.
JMHO.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)mix in a little Warren and leave it at that for starters.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Rebuild America for the 21st Century and Create Jobs for All.
America’s public infrastructure – from roads to rail to water and energy systems – is increasingly dangerous to our health and a drag on our economy. National investment in rebuilding America will create millions of high-quality jobs, bid wages up, help close the racial jobs gap, and make America a better place to live and work.
Raise Wages, Empower Workers and Reverse Inequality.
Inequality has reached new extremes, as more and more jobs become contingent and part-time, with low pay and few benefits. We should lift the floor under every worker by guaranteeing a living wage, paid sick and vacation days, and affordable health care. We should empower workers to form unions and bargain collectively. We must curb perverse CEO compensation policies that give executives personal incentives to plunder their own companies.
Invest in a Green Economy.
Catastrophic climate change is a clear and present danger. The United States should lead the global green revolution that builds strong and resilient communities. Public investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency can create jobs and opportunity, particularly in communities of color that have borne the worst consequences of toxic corporate practices.
Eliminate Institutionalized Racism to Open Opportunity to All.
In a society of increasing diversity, ending systemic racial disparities is vital to building economic prosperity. This begins with comprehensive immigration reform, expanded voting rights and an end to mass incarceration and the systematic criminalization of people of color.
Guarantee Women’s Economic Equality.
We will ensure that women are guaranteed the same pay, protections and opportunities as men in the workplace and in society. Families must have access to high-quality child care and paid leave from the workplace for childbirth, illness and vacation. Women must also be guaranteed affordable health care and a secure retirement – with Social Security credit for work in the household.
Provide a High-Quality Education to Every Child
Every child must have the right to high-quality, free public education from preschool to college. This requires providing the basics – preschool, smaller classes, summer and after-school programs, and skilled teachers. Free four-year, post-high school education should be available for all who seek it. We must also provide relief to the generation now burdened with a student debt that they may never pay off.
Expand Shared Security for the 21st Century.
No child should go hungry in America. Health care should be a right, not a privilege. Every worker deserves a secure retirement. A job should be available to everyone willing and able to work. We will strengthen and expand America’s shared security programs – Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment, food support and housing assistance. Greater shared security makes the economy more robust by enabling entrepreneurs and workers to take risks, knowing that they can survive failure.
Enforce Fair Taxes on Corporations and the Wealthy.
Our tax code rigs the rules to favor the few. Multinationals pay lower tax rates than small domestic businesses. Billionaire investors pay lower rates than their secretaries. Top income tax rates have been lowered even as working people face ever-higher sales taxes and fees. It is time for the rich and corporations to pay their fair share of taxes so that we can invest in an economy that will work for all.
Forge a Global Strategy that Works for Working People.
Our global trade and tax policies are rigged by multinational companies to drive down pay and worker protections while harming the environment. We need more but balanced trade, global standards that protect the rights of workers, consumers and the environment. That requires a crackdown on tax havens, currency manipulation, and deals that allow corporation to trample basic labor rights here and abroad.
Make Wall Street Serve the Real Economy.
Financial deregulation has devastated our economy and protected banks that are too big to fail, too big to manage and too big to jail. The financial casino fosters ever more dangerous speculation, while investment in the real economy lags. The resulting booms and busts devastate families and small businesses. We need to break up the big banks, levy a speculation tax, and provide low-income families with safe and affordable banking services. We should crack down on payday lenders and other schemes that exploit vulnerable working families.
Change Priorities to Address Real Security Needs.
Our current national security policies commit us to policing the world. The result costs lives and drains public resources. We need a real security policy that makes military intervention a last resort, and focuses on global threats like climate change, poverty and inequality. We should reduce military budgets and properly support humanitarian programs.
Fight for Democracy and Curb the Power of Big Money.
From big-money politics to the assault on the right to vote and a corrupted lobby culture in Washington, our democracy is under assault. It is no accident that the assault has escalated as a new majority of people of color, young people and working women has begun to emerge. We need to close the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington, and expose the entrenched interests that buy our legislators. We need public financing of elections that bans corporate and big money. We must guarantee the right to vote, with easy access to registration and the polls.
https://populism2015.org/the-new-populist-agenda/
Populists rock!
redwitch
(14,941 posts)The Green Party has been working on it for a long time. Getting progressive Dems elected is hard enough really. Overturn Citizens United. Work on making it illegal for people to leave office and immediately lobby against us and for corporations. I love the idea of The Progressive Party, love the bird as the avatar too.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)I though all you needed was x number of signatures to get on the ballot. X is different in every state.
I collected about 120 signatures to get Bernie on - I think the number needed was 5k (could be wrong about that)
In Illinois they put two primary contenders - NO ONE I Know EVER HEARD OF - on the ballot above Bernie. So Bernie was at the bottom, 5th on my ballot behind Clinton, O'Malley, Unknonw 1, Unknown2 Bernie
Point being that even the 2 unknowns made it (and above Bernie)
nemo137
(3,297 posts)Really, the bigger problem is our voting system (way too few reps, first-past-the-post-voting) and our 50 state election apparatuses.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)why ballot access was a problem (the subject of my initial reply)
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)so that the Republicans win everything while the other 2 fight to the death.
Wouldn't it be better to persuade other Democrats you have good ideas, rather than giving Republicans an extra, say, decade of total power, with the Supreme Court nominations and constitutional amendments it would hand them?
redwitch
(14,941 posts)And this will be hard enough.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)The old coalition is in tatters...so where do you want FDR Dems to go to?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)If they stay in the Democratic Party, and win what primaries and general elections they can, they'll have some influence. If they don't, then they'd win tiny numbers of elections, so would the remaining Democrats, and the USA would be fucked, by the all-powerful Republicans.
At least wait until the Republicans have torn themselves apart, before giving up power. That way, your opponents are in chaos too. However, it would obviously be better to take advantage of that to do some good for the country, rather than form the circular firing circle for giggles.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)We have two right wing business friendly parties. Own it, or not, that is the reality. The democratic coalition is in taters. Some will need a new home. Get some popcorn, history is lots of fun when you get to live through it.
Oh and one last thing, enjoy the influx of tje republicans you seem to hate
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)It could do with winning the House too, and more state governorships and legislatures, but there are no 'tatters' in reality.
Dissolving the Democratic party would be the one sure way to get an 'influx of Republicans'. You might find that an amusing spectator sport, but I don't think most people would.
By the way, "physics/nature abhors a vacuum" was something put to rest in the seventeenth century or so, once people understood things like mercury barometers, water pumps, and outer space. It's not a very good simile for anything.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)History is instructive. Pick up a book and read into 1824. This is the echo we are living though. It was the moment we had, for all effects a single party in the US. It had some good things, some not so much.
So you win. You get to keep your neoliberal, business friendly party. The Rs are in more obvious trouble. But both parties are in trouble. So it is what it is. You will get even more republicans in and the labor and working class folks who would love to get some hearing, sooner or later will conclude this is not their home and will leave. Some incidentally will conclude like many millions, that voting is indeed a waste of time...but will continue to put pressure in other ways. At DU you are seeing the leading edge of that.
For me, staring in 2000, our elections are so clean I feel I am back in Mexico, where you truly cannot tell if your vote will count, so meh, I will only pretend to vote, and for whom, well I will pretend the vote is still well...secret. Or so we like to pretend. The day it is obvious it no longer is, am afraid I will join the millions.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)You'll see that they've created network diagrams for each House of Representatives from 1949 to 2011. They've drawn dots for each representative, and lines connecting pairs of representatives who vote together a given number of times. Finally, the dots for each representative are placed according to how frequently the Representatives vote together overall.
What we're left with is a picture of political mitosis. Similar voting between Democrats and Republicans was fairly common up through the 1980s. But starting in the 1990s the parties began pulling apart from each other, like a single cell dividing into two.
Not only that, but within parties Representatives are voting more similarly too -- that's illustrated with the dots in each party's cluster becoming more tightly packed together over time. Starting in the 2000s, there are hardly any links between the parties at all.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/23/a-stunning-visualization-of-our-divided-congress/
So 1824, when there was only one significant party, is extremely unlike the present situation.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)These two sites promote purity though. Not me saying it, I just notice it, but Ornstein has for years now. That said, the Ds is a business friendly center right party, that sometimes throws bones to the base. The Rs are a far right party that occasionally throw bones to the base. Even center left voters have no viable voice that actually matters.
Never the less, things like 15 an hour came from the streets (and it is not enough due to implementation) not the governor mansion. Bown relented in California when in qualified for the November ballot, after years of marches and demands.
You won. Increasingly the progressives will have to find a new home. And yes, policy wise...it is indeed unipolar, chamber of commerce friendly. Will the donkeys be pulled left with the rise of a new coalition? Or for that matter the Rs? Time will tell. I don't expect that to happen in my lifetime. We are almost finished with the party realignment. And I also don't expect, because of this, to see social security. The new deal is done for. It will be on the chopping block.
You won! Party like it is 1929. Because you know what? This will further radicalize the population, but oligarchies behave in very predictable ways And then there is climate change and it's effects on the globe. Not that it matters to the chamber types. That is a wrench that has not been seen in history before. Well maybe, the Maya saw something similar locally. The collapse of that biome led to population crashes and the end of the Classic. We are on the same bloody road. This time it might be species extinction. Slow incrementalism is not the way, alas it will be the way...because Americans today would not go to the moon. We lack imagination any more
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)I'm not American. You are. This is about your party - I'm British.
You're just asserting, without evidence, that progressives 'have to' leave the Democratic party. Even when you've admitted that the Republicans are on the far right, and thus quite different from the Democrats, you think that means progressives can't work with the centre. There's no logic to what you're asserting. You point out the minimum wage increase which is succeeding, and then take that as a reason to stop getting the Democratic party to support that, and split up the coalition instead.
You just seem to be happier when things are going badly.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Happy I guess I will have to add this
By the way it is not my party. I saw the writing on the wall and like large majorities have left it.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Physics and politics abhor a vacuum...so either the Rs will go home to being the party of labor, or they go away and another party rises. We are finally aping 1824
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Economic populism is the only Dixiecrat plank the Republicans have not yet adopted. Once they have embraced that we should see elections swing based on events of the time.
Though labor is so far behind right now that Republicans may be the majority party for quite some time until balance is restored to that particular issue.
brooklynite
(94,363 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)Who's Kshama Sawant?
It starts at the bottom and works upwards.
brooklynite
(94,363 posts)Might want to work on that.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)
PufPuf23
(8,755 posts)This will take time and effort.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Last edited Mon May 2, 2016, 12:05 PM - Edit history (1)
As others have pointed out in this thread, the new-party route requires that an enormous effort be put into getting ballot access. If that project succeeds, it means that the people who are against the Republicans split their votes between the Democrats and the new party, enabling the Republican to win with a plurality short of a majority.
The Democratic Party's internal processes are far from perfect, but a clear majority of the voters could still take it over. (You complain about the superdelegates? I don't like the current rules but even those superdelegates can be ousted. Primary the elected officials. The party apparatchiks who hold DNC positions will be harder to oust but even that project is easier than nationwide ballot access for a new party. Anyway, a new party that could win in November could win the presidential nomination even against the 15-20% of the delegates who aren't chosen in primaries or caucuses.)
The seed that SHOULD be planted this year is that even the party establishment's overwhelming favorite can be given a close race by a candidate who lacked name recognition, who had other factors against him (age, religion), and who started out with almost no money, but whose campaign was powered by progressive ideas. That's something to build on -- within the Democratic Party.
kentuck
(111,053 posts)Bernie's campaign has been powered by progressive ideas. "that's something to build on -- within the Democratic Party." Very true.
redwitch
(14,941 posts)Bernie Sanders is doing incredibly well against all odds. The seed has been planted for substantive change.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)The media takes her seriously. And there's a certain commanding magic when she speaks with clarity & common sense for "We the People".
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)She would have been fringed out by the media and the party would have made sure of the predictable result. My view, they were not ready in 2008. This reminds me more and more of tje PRI
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)everybody else at the back.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)You must be or you are really that naive. There is actually a candidate for President already running as a socialist. There always is. He even already has a vice president named. There are a number of parties that will be represented in the election. I would suggest one other name for the party you suggest, " The Naive".
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,781 posts)IIRC, Sanders originally ran as a Green when he ran for Congress in Vermont back in the 90s (I'm sure someone can confirm or correct this). I recall the Greens were the hot up and coming thing in Europe at the time.
Just as the Tea Party represents the seed of what may well become a separate entity that represents a more strident and further right -of-center vision for the nation than the Republicans, the Greens represent a more socialized, leftist vision of America than most Democrats are not currently prepared to embrace. So I think the Green party serves as a viable home for progressive independents that don't feel at home in the Democratic Party. The real question is finding someone with the ability to organize it, and to start putting up serious candidates for offices other than President.