General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Sic semper Naderus. (A response to the recent pro-Nader posts) [View all]Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You're talking about the Party establishment as if it were all-powerful. It's been decades since that was true. The Democratic nominee for most offices is the winner of a primary in which any Democrat can run. For the Presidency, the Party establishment has some formal influence, through the superdelegates, but the vast majority of Convention delegates will still be chosen in primaries or caucuses.
I completely agree with you that the Democratic Party should nominate progressive candidates (although with due regard for the need to tack right in some states and districts). We have to face the fact, though, that our preferred progressives don't always win the primary. Even in those instances, the more conservative Democrat who does win is almost always far preferable to the Republican. A third-party challenge from the left in the general election can't accomplish anything significant except to help the Republican.
That's why saying that the Democrats should nominate liberals is accurate but incomplete. When they don't, if you decide to stomp off in disgust and vote for Nader or his ilk, that's your choice, but it's pointless to say that the blame falls on the Democrats who disagreed with you in the primary.