Trump will use scapegoating to maintain his grip on power. Minority groups will be intentionally targeted to divert the public's attention from what is really going on and through the use of the media become the reason for our problems. I would suggest we start working on building bridges between different groups within our Party instead of continuing to divide. Who's going to stand up for the scapegoats?

the question is whether we should try to woo them into the party or have them come on their own.

We are old, not perfect but our hearts are in the right place. I have a feeling that elite, corporate Democrats won't be in the streets when the shit hits the fan. I could be wrong but money is a great insulator.

sentence you wrote (after building up a head of steam about progressives' "negative" qualities):

and am not singling them out except for the purposes of my post

who fit the description in the OP

Where is it? What happened this movement alleged to become a reality by all the ones whose conscience wouldn't allow them to vote for our Dem nominee?

exactly are the non-progressive Dems doing? just playing devil's advocate but right now the strongest voices in the party tend to be the progressives.

So-called non-progressive Dems didn't declare any start of a movement.

is a bad thing? To declare a movement is a bad thing? Sorry, I dont understand your response....

be starting?

as for the movement I think you are truly splitting hairs here. Bernie has been very vocal about dealing with Trump since the election. If you are hanging your hat on waiting for a movement I am not sure what to tell you. What is your definition of a movement? With all due respect this sounds like nothing more than sour grapes...

With the existing $27 dollar donation structure already in place there was supposed to be local chapters, conventions, a 2018 slate of candidates, yet all we hear now are crickets.

All of that talk seems to have gone completely silent.

If you have no information on that, just say so.

How am I anti-dem? Did you not read I happily voted for Hillary in the election?

This is exactly the BS that progressives get frustrated about. So b/c someone likes Bernie more than Hillary they are anti-dem? The last I checked HRC's favor-ability was only surpassed by the psychopath she lost to...

This is exactly the reason this party is in such dire straights. Why is it that if anyone dare say anything about a Clinton people paint a brad stroke and cut them down? As for the "movement" you like to hang your hat on I am not sure and I don't have an answer. How do you know that the "movement" is not underway and being planned?

So being labeled as an anti-dem what is the plan of the Dem party? I have heard squat about that one as well...

why are you even engaging?

b/c you keep responding.... and I think you might misunderstand the definition of nascent. If not you are saying the young "movement" is showing signs of potential.

unless you have some info on whether it is actually nascent or not.

Guess you don't so why keep responding without answering a simple question?

in the last post... reading issues????

It's existence proves the movement exists.

Most Sanders supporters were busy working for Hillary in the fall.

Just getting started...

https://ourrevolution.com

most people try to get through every day. We have gone forward the past eight years, while others remained behind the previous eight years to spend 16yrs building the movement that never happened. Those that felt let down by Obama went out of their way to bash Clinton at every possible minute during the primary's and the general election. They hitched themselves to Sanders or the Greens. Well the movement stalled with the November 8th flush....Bernie the other guy that didn't release his taxes went on to cash in and buy another house, write a book, and continue to trash talk the election. They will all now live another 4 or 8 years of talking about resisting and firing up a movement. We will be bombarded by the same bullshit again, all while they want purity tests to find the perfect candidate. The search for FDR, his time came and went, most of those clamoring for him don't seem to know much beyond the PBS special, because many weren't even alive. A centralist would look pretty good now in the WH, compared to the largest collection of wealth now collected together in Herr Trumps uber military-financial composite administration.

What I mean by that is if they are racist. Screw them. They need to change.

We need a better way to fight the misinformation that exists out there. Likely if social media was not as prevalent and cable news and radio was more like it was in 2008 Hillary would have won this year.

Comey never should had been FBI director either.

State and county parties need to do a better job with their own grassroots so the national party can hook in better.

okie-dokie

I think part of what you call "racial insensitivity" was simply justified resentment at the way anti-oppression politics(a set of issues Bernie was always just as committed to as HRC) was manipulated to try to make young progressives feel that they owed it to people of color to support the less-progressive candidate(as well as the despicable claims that the Sanders campaign didn't try to win POC support-or in some versions, didn't even WANT POC support, and that whole Sanders project was a "whites-only" thing) or that the Sanders campaign wanted the party to treat social justice issues as LESS important than economic justice issues(they wanted BOTH sets of issues given equal priority), or that economic justice would somehow only benefit white people.

There was NO difference between Bernie and HRC on social justice/anti-racism/anti-oppression issues, Bernie never deserved to be accused of not caring about those issues, and since Bernie will never run for president again, there's not any good reason to keep attacking with primary talking points on that issue.

My view of things seem really different than your "observations". Maybe you see a different world over on FB. Or maybe you are projecting, or still fighting the primaries, or ...

BTW I have self-identified as a progressive since the 1960's when I hung out with Paul Wellstone, et al. Among other things, back then it meant we opposed segregation and the war.

I was pointing out a profile I've seen on Facebook, probably a dozen of these people at least, so self-identified "progressives"

that being said I do not know a single bernie supporter who stayed home or voted for the donald

and yes , Hillary was fatally flawed. She proved that by losing to the worst candidate ever to run for the office.

I know several Bernie supporters who wrote in Bernie's name because they could not bring themselves to vote for Hillary (albeit in "safe" states).

after I SWORE I would never vote for her due to what I still view as her corporate coziness and her personal enrichment from public office.

But in the end, as flawed as she was as a candidate, she was still imminently preferable to Trump, so I swallowed my pride and voted for her. I live in a swing state that voted narrowly for Trump, and I was not going to play any role in his election.

I would hope the HRC supporters would have done the same had Senator Sanders won the nomination. I have no way of knowing, but posts like the OP don't lend themselves to supporting that assertion.

Bottom line for me is that our party is evolving from centrist to center-Left, and many of the old DLC/3rd Way types are not happy about losing their control over the party. We have to decide if we can patch things up or if we need to go out back and put the boxing gloves on and settle this the old fashioned way. If there's going to be a fight, so be it, as long as it's a fair fight.

That's why having Keith Ellison in charge of the DNC matters. We spent this cycle living with a Clinton operative dirty-dogging Democrats not named "Clinton". And now we are told that us progressives are the problem... I don't think I can really respond with how I truly feel about that notion without violating the TOS in a manner which might end my DU affiliation. Let's just say I disagree very strongly and leave it at that...

But mercifully in very small numbers

... I can hardly speak to them any more, in fact, I haven't since before the election. Hillary turned off more than just Bernie voters.

Before you jump down my throat, I voted for Bernie in the Primary, but Hillary (as much as it pained me) in the General. Every progressive I know did just that.

...Hillary was broadly unappealing to many groups of people. I know someone will respond to this saying "30YEARSOFREPUBLICANPROPAGANDA!!!" and they won't be wrong, but it doesn't matter. She is perceived negatively by a large segment of the population...and perception matters quite a bit in an election.

There seems one additional spot for worst: the guy who lost to the woman who lost to the guy who won.

Though no doubt, that type of measured consistency and mental discipline is very inconvenient to the magical thinking associated with your bias.

hey, but she won the majority which gets us nowhere.

He talked about the difference between liberals and progressives, said progressives are liberal on combating sexism, racism, and homophobia. "But you have many 'liberals' who are not progressive when it comes to taking on Wall Street, or fighting for a trade policy that works for American workers. So what I think progressivism is about is accepting all of the fights that liberals have engaged in, to create a diverse society, a non-racist society, but at the same time, what a progressive stands for is understanding that this country, in many respects, is moving toward an oligarchic form of society, and that you have a handful of billionaires who control our economic and political life, and if you are not prepared to engage in that struggle, well, I don't think you're doing serious politics."

Okay, I'm stupid. Who are these liberals embracing oligarchy? Is this another "Why didn't Democrats stop (in this case the billionaires) from ruining America"? Why are trade policies always bad? So "liberal" means "identity politics" but otherwise same as Republicans because they hug oligarchy tightly in a passionate embrace? Do progressives think only they know what's been going on in the economy since the '70s? I don't get it, my struggle.

To him, those issues are a distraction. It became clear early on, and it's easy to see when you pay attention to what he says. That's exactly why he lost my support. You simply cannot separate the two. If you focus only on economic justice, then it becomes economic justice only for some.

And I think Rachel's tone on Bernie, which prior had been very enthusiastic, turned far less enthusiastic after that.

He dismissed abortion as one of the distracting issues.

Very early on, when he first announced, I was excited about him, thinking he'd give a shot of progressive energy to the Dem race. That lasted all of about two seconds before I realized it was a con and Hillary didn't need it anyway.

He wasn't saying that social issues aren't important, he was saying that people can disagree over some issues such as abortion yet still work together to try and improve life for everyone. When he went and spoke at Liberty University he made his point very clearly, they were never going to agree on everything, but that didnt mean they couldn't find common ground.

Another one of his outreach stunts that some of his fans love for some reason.

Oh? People can disagree on abortion? Wow. Who knew. Give him a cookie for stating the obvious. But here's the thing. No, we can't work together and improve life for everyone as long as women don't have free access to abortion. That's the point. He thinks everything can be fine and dandy without it. He's wrong. He dismisses abortion as an unimportant side issue that can be dealt with once the big important things are decided when we all work together! He's wrong. He's dismissive and he's wrong. He's no liberal, progressive hero of the people.

His point of disagreement with yours is simply that for you a supporter has to agree on every social issue you do or else they are the enemy. To him he'd rather win the votes of people who share his belief in protecting the most vulnerable in society, even if they can't agree on certain issues such as abortion. That doesn't mean he's going to stop fighting for it, and it certainly doesn't mean he dismisses it in any way, but it doesn't have to be the kind of purity test that you guys appear to be so fond of currently.

We saw this 'with us or against us' mentality here constantly during the primary and then general. We apparently didn't need the votes of anyone who didn't conform 100% to the ideal. Well guess what, your purity test way of thinking just handed government to the party who want to completely strip women of their reproductive rights. Way to go..

We disagree with them about an important issue, but if they share every other issues with us we're supposed to just caalled them the enemy? That's exactly where the party has lost its way.

If we get elected then we're not going to move an inch on abortion, so what the hell does it matter if they disagree on that point with us, but still vote for us? Are those votes worth less?

I'm not making anyone an enemy. How about you explain to me how a woman is supposed to be on equal footing economically if she's forced to make babies against her will. Should be easy enough if I'm wrong.

Can we both agree it's Republicans in power? So if we can get pro-life people to vote for us, by attracting them on economic grounds, then those are votes lost to the Republicans. Not every pro-life voter has abortion as their number one reason for voting. For many of them it's way down the list. Just because they vote for us because we will improve their live economically, doesn't mean we have to compromise in any way on abortion.

reach out... something that maybe the HRC campaign should have done more of in Michigan and PA. I supported Bernie in the primary but happily voted for HRC. The in-fighting amongst the Dem party is the real issue going forward. It is truly embarrassing to watch and only makes things darker for the future.

This party needs a voice and right now we don't have one.

Only his supporters are able to infer and translate accurately what he meant. Absolutism is cool!

I don't have to twist his words. He's very clear where he stands.

like it or not but people tend to look at the economy as the most important topic when considering a vote. I understand what you are saying but to say he had no social causes is not accurate: Black Live Matter, the environment, LGBT...

A lot of those people aren't Dems. Furthermore, more than a few are sexist jerks, just as many left men were 40, 45, and 50 years ago.

DU is not indicative of voters as a whole.

Bernie feels vindicated by Hillary's defeat? Getting a little carried away, are we?

this line of thinking is nothing more than trying to deflect the blame of a poorly run campaign. If you dont have the gut to actually blame yourself for the shortfalls might as well blame someone else.

He's been in the House and Senate for 20+ years relentlessly fighting for the little guy and those who are drowned out by big money. He has been on the right side of history fighting for the common person when it wasn't popular to do so. He has been consistent, has never changed his message, and has never sold out to big money interests (something that so few of our politicians can say). If you think his having lost the primary suddenly made him abandon what he has fought the establishment for for so long (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, healthcare for all, clean energy, etc.), then you clearly need to step back and reevaluate.

They expected him to fade away after the first couple primary contests. Fringe candidate and all that.

about alienating a large group of the Democratic party... a bit overboard on this one IMO.

The reason the Dems are in the current position has nothing to do with progressives. If it weren't for the progressives this party would not have a voice. Sorry, but this line of thinking is exactly what is wrong with our party and frankly there is a reason that progressives are becoming frustrated.

Blame it on everyone else except the actual candidate that lost to the worst candidate in history. Yes, she won the majority vote so we have that as a consolation prize. Yippee for us!

"progressives".

I look at it this way - on both sides of the aisle there will always be the fringe types. I myself tend to be more progressive but also understand the reality and the climate we are facing. Personally, the entire party needs to come together and stop alienating based on who you supported in the primaries. The Dems that voted Trump are undeniable idiots - LOL.

I know a lot of Bernie supporters and they all voted HRC. This is not to say this is the case across the board b/c it simply is not true. My concern for the party is where do we go from here. Is the party moving to a more progressive policy or are we going to band together and become a unified party with a strong message. We are not very good at getting our message across and this election id proof positive that we need to do something to bring back the working class voters.

Not saying I have all the answers but I do believe a unified party is a heck of a lot better for the future of this country. How we get there is up for debate but the division in the party right now is very scary.

Also I voted for Bernie in the primary, then voted for Hillary in the GE.

I was fairly happy to vote for her. I actually read a lot of negative stuff on her and wrote my own posts against here, then I really had a change of heart during the GE, in part because of the threat of Trump, but I also I saw how much propaganda had been written about HRC.

What drives me nuts about these "progressives" I mention in the OP is I share 90% of positions and other similarities with them.
But they cannot be convinced to cast a practical vote to keep a conservative out of power.

Be whiney ass gop voters because they have condemned us to the tender mercies of the maggot and his wrecking crew.
People will die but hey... as long as THEY feel vindicated.

then gave up. Too many of the same "I'm a true Dem" exchanges that are tearing the party apart right now.

Sad.

I know the obvious answer is they just didn't like HRC. But it bugs me to hell they couldn't be persuaded to cast a practical vote to block Trump.

There were supposedly more Bernie supporters who later voted for Hillary than Hillary supporters who later voted for Obama in '08.

She received about the same number of total votes as Obama in 2012. Trump outperformed Romney.

I also suspect there's many voters who are so swayed by the influence of money in politics that they actually bought Trump's "self-funded campaign" and "fighting special interests" BS. A Pew Research poll indicated as much -- he was beating Hillary by 20% on that issue! Some of them might be reached again, especially since Trump is a pathological liar who only cares about himself (and that will be proven later), although it's probably better to focus on poor non-voters.

He surely caused some racists, who probably felt betrayed by Republicans distancing themselves from overt racism over the years, to wipe the dust off their their grandpa's old hood too.

No turning the clock back. No use crying over spilled milk. All those cliches actually hold true here. The Monday morning quarterbacking won't change the outcome of the election.

The best we can do is attempt to move forward as a cohesive unit. Hopefully a leader emerges that can bring the unity the Dems so badly need now.

We're never going to get a pacifist president, but we do need to work on the assumption that we're coming to the end of the time in which war can actually liberate anyone from oppression, can make anyone's life better(other than people who own stocks in weapons companies). It can be a defense of our "interests", but whose interests are those, really?

And is it any more legitimate for OUR country to seek to order the world around and impose our dominance on it(which is what imperialism is, effectively-and you can be an "imperialist" without setting up a formal colonial structure)than it is for anyone ELSE to do it? An empire is an empire is an empire...and the world really doesn't need empires anymore.

We need to defend the country from external attack...but we can't do anything more in the Arab/Muslim world by military means, and it should be our objective to actually CREATE non-violent methods of conflict resolution, if the world is to survive.

If our military can help fight a conflict somewhere where millions are being murdered, what do we do? - We intervened in WW2.

I know you are not arguing against this - but I wouldn't adopt a flat out principle of no intervention.

However we could do with questioning the moral assumptions of american exceptionalism, the excuse we use to expand out military industrial complex. We're hypocrites.

But we're also an empire, despite protestations to the contrary by many, and it's not pretty, it's not nice so we can't be naive either.

It's not as though much of anyone in the Democratic coalition benefits from the consolidation of wealth into the hands of the few.

all of the Sanders supporters that I know said that they voted for Clinton.

BTW, Hillary lost in '08 because of her hawkish views. That should have been enough for us to vote against her in the '16 primary. But power seems to have been the only reason we elected her instead. Then we lost against a pervert! Sounds like we are being told to repeat history and lose again!

couldn't bring themselves to (horror) cast a vote for her, even against Trump.

I realize her positions and history turned people off. But as Bernie said, she was stil lightyears better than Trump.

a few younger people i know knew nothing about th system, were more disappointed in Obama and has their heads filled with the "both parties the same" nonsense.
Only a few older white guys would say such a thing. And I'd tell them well for you- quite possibly since your not brown, female or poor. Shut them up good.