happening.

Question is, will that money get what it wants?

Occasionally, the grassroots do win one.

We have not (so far) experienced anything like the crisis in Greece. If things ever got that bad, people in the U.S. might unify around a true left party. As it is, however, things are certainly rough, but they're not that bad. And by "bad" I mean Greece-bad (25% unemployment, 30% decline in stock values, dysfunctional credit market, 12% prime interest rate, junk status for govt. bonds, etc.).

Greece is in a depression. They're teetering on default or bankruptcy. Their options are few, and none of them good.

The question is, do things have to get THAT bad before real change can happen?

It took the Great Depression to make the progressive New Deal possible.

I think the metaphorical "pendulum" has finally begun to swing back to the "left" after being stuck to the "right" for an almost unprecedented duration. I think Obama has helped in some ways to make the swing to the left easier.

The hope for change is with the younger generation, but only if they work for it.

At the end of 2014 the unemployment rate was down to 5.6 percent (lowest since 1999--the last time a Democratic adminstration was in power), and economic growth is the highest it's been in a decade:

is nearly as strong.

Without getting big money out of the government, nothing will change.

More like fully democratic, driven from below rather than above.

We lost in 2010 and 2014 because the party didn't engage those left out in the cold, didn't make it clear that we'd put human dignity and human needs first. The people who want profit for the few and low taxes for the rich called the tune in our party as well as in the GOP-and since most people who put profits and low taxes first were always going to vote GOP no matter what,our party left itself, in too many places, without an electorate.

We are most likely to win by enlarging the electorate as much as possible, and since most of those who don't vote make the choice not to vote because their interests aren't explicitly represented by either party, we can only gain by only representing the interests of those who've been gamed out of hope since 1980 or so.

You're conflating ideology and turnout. We won by building a center-left coalition. No reason we can't again. Conversely, running a candidate like Sanders (an self-decried socialist) has the potential to scare away independents and moderate Republicans who might vote Democratic given another candidate.

Funny how the Republican party NEVER says they need to move to the center. EVER. They push further and further to the right EVERY TIME.

I would vote for Sanders because he actually supports democratic policies and ideas.

...and not supported by historical facts.

I know which side I stand with. Its the 99% in this country and I have many tens of millions of very pissed off American citizens that stand shoulder to shoulder with me against the very tiny but vocal propaganda of the 1%.

Lets put it to a test.

50 plus Million living on food stamps
millions in poverty/underemployment
Close to a million homeless
Millions who are disabled/permanently unemployed due to age discrimination

VS.

The very tiny 1% who control 50% of the wealth and the police state.


I know who I stand with each and every day. Do you?

Plenty of "the 99%" don't identify as liberal and seem happy to vote Republican. Show me a pathway that wins the battleground States we need for a Presidential win, running a candidate you consider sufficiently progressive.

The 1% own and control the voting machines, gerrymandering, right wing media, etc.

Again I ask which side will you choose? Because I would not hesitate as tens of millions of my fellow American citizens would not either.

If you choose to stand with and appease racists, bigots and the 1%, that is your choice and yours alone.

I dont stand with anyone who wishes to divide the 99%, do you?

...because the 99% lose if a Republican wins.

we ALL lose.

I agree with you that if we have two republican candidates running we ALL lose, except the 1%.

Im getting a good feeling I dont stand with the 1%, your side. Thank you for being honest, as you yourself describe yourself as a 1%.

Id rather have you standing against me than pretending to be with me. Much easier that way.

But aren't you glad that we didn't give an inch on progressive purity?

If you believe there no significant difference between a Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama Democrat (the kind Elizabeth Warren would support) and any of the Republicans running in 2016, I refer you back to my "naive" comment.

thanks to the 1%, whom Obama and Hillary both fully support and continue to support.
Like I said, I'm glad to have the person in front of me instead of in back of be stabbing the 99% in the back.


Please continue your righteous rant on "progressive purity". The enemy within becomes clearer with every work spoken.
Oh and I don't support Warren.

I support Sanders.

voted for. It's hard for me to believe that people would continue to care so little that they'd keep ignoring primaries and party elections (with the few who show up voting for the establishment Dems for the most part), yet they'd suddenly care enough to build and elect a third party.

"I think it'd be too difficult to swim across that river; let's try swimming across the ocean instead."

Eh...

That's probably a hint