side that presents the "liberal, progressive, left" is a liar and/or exceedingly stupid. The R's are already falling off based on their own idiocy and, as we all know, the White Knight awaits in the Wings.

I'll support the Democrat, regardless. A lot less words and much more clear, IMHO.

And to the OP, hope you have your body armor ready.

And I'm not a purist, either. They will all be flawed and can only please a few totally. But it's the system we have at present.

terrifying historical connotation for me.

However, IF I were to be heavily drugged (see other thread on this) into swearing an oath of loyalty to anything, it would be to pay less attention to the WH house race and WAY, WAY more attention to where the people actually still have some power, CONGRESS, and of course THE SENATE.

I intend to support every Liberal/Progressive Dem and to oppose anyone posing as such running against those Liberal/Progressive Dems in order to ensure that no matter what happens with the multi billion dollar WH race, we will have a Liberal/Progressive Democratic Congress in place to make sure the people's interests are protected.

"present" or represent the "liberal, progressive left?"

Why does the OP think this makes any sense?

and uses the Dem party to be seriously considered, I'd go for him. He votes in caucuses with Dems and they accept him as one. So might I. There are exceptions to every rule, and he's one.

public would be "deer in headlights". He's not well known, he looks old (sorry, but true), and there is no way in all of my social progressive dreams, could he raise bushels of money...it's still the donors who hold most of these cards, like it or not. Most people don't even know what a Caucus is...let alone how it would refer to him or their vote.

I agree with you about him, but don't think the exception is for the Presidency.

I'm not going to the "N" word, but his passion and strong beliefs and leadership, I believe, have a better use in the Senate.

In other words, there is no legitimate reason for voting for someone who is NOT "the most liberal/progressive", and anyone who does so is trying to "prevent and block" that candidate's election.

Bottom line: you're a progressive first, a Democrat second. You're welcome to be, but at least have the guts to step up and admit that you're willing to risk the election of a Republican by claiming personal exceptions to voting for someone other than the Democratic nominee.

Right now, that's Hillary Clinton.

Dennis Kucinich never had a prayer of winning so why should I vote for him?

Democracy 101a (remedial)

Democracy post-grad

And while Hillary Clinton is not the most progressive candidate likely to be running, she is A progressive who will receive the support of millions of Democrats INCLUDING progressives.

And no, Clinton is not the most progressive candidate we will have come the Primary. And so I will not be voting for her in the primary. Pretty simple, that.

To be perfectly honest, I'm certain I won't have to worry about whether to vote for Clinton or not in the General. She won't be there, just like she wasn't in 2008. The democratic primary will be going to someone who IS a strong progressive, at least stronger than Clinton. Again.

...How is Bernie Sanders (or the candidate of your choice) going to win a national Primary (they let non-progressives vote too), and where will he/she get the tens of millions needed to compete? -- Point of reference: when Barack Obama announced 8 years ago, he had spent a year securing both financial and political commitments. Hillary Clinton has done so. Who else has?

I don't know if that was calculated for the Primary, but I'd calculate he spent $150 M.

Say I have one dollar.


How many votes (or what percentage of one vote) can I buy with my one dollar?

many will vote. It's a false and argumentative premise. And, it takes Real Big Donors to get to that sum. That is our system.

Maybe after 16 years or so of less pure elected Democrats....and I'll go out on a line and predict that if Hillary or whomever chooses Julian Castro for the VP to engage and empower then secure the mushrooming young Hispanic electorate, we'll get a second Administration ...a real Leftist Progressive, who can make some changes.

And while perhaps you vote according to has the bigger purse, most people don't. People vote on issues.

for advertising, and salaries, and political hacks, et al. You can't vote for someone who doesn't get to the starting line...that would be a candidate...one billion dollars, my friend.

Democracy 101a (remedial)

Representative Republic 101a (remedial)

Votes shouldn't simply be given in the manner you are stating. It would truly make no sense.

First, they have to prove themselves worthy of my vote for the primary. That's what the pre-general campaigning is for (most will of course, have pre-campaign records that speak far louder than any campaign sound byte, of course)

Votes are made according to the virtues of the candidates as perceived by the people casting votes. And contrary to what Brooklynite is trying to argue, dollars do not actually equal votes

Primaries are to present a platform in order to narrow a field of candidates, not to "prove" (whatever that may mean in this context) oneself.

(I'll forgo the petulance of English 101 or Politics 101-- children engage in that type of non-relevance, as it's lack of any premise or conclusion is not really suitable for adults.)

Kucinich was never able to prove himself as a contender. Where did he place? It truly is about proving ones self. Would anyone make it out of a primary if they weren't able to prove they could put a great team together for the general. I have honestly never hear someone say what is being said here. That one purpose of a primary is not to prove ones self.

I would argue that platform is actually secondary. Look at 2008. "Hope and Change" won and much of his platform disappeared down the road. He fully proved himself though.

I liked the platform of Kucinich over that of the person I voted for. It wasn't that I though Kucinich was a joke, it's that I saw the best team he was able to put in place for a Presidential run and to say it was unimpressive would be an understatement.

Funny thing is that a see some here promote Warren, don't get me wrong I like her, they will vote for her in the primary, but if she loses they will not vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination. Now I see those here who say they will vote for Clinton in the primary, but will would vote for whoever else wins the nomination if Hillary loses, which includes Warren.

So who exactly would be the so called "loyalists"? If you are only loyal to one candidate in the party, and won't vote for another democrat that does win the nomination, Hillary, then what does that say?

Those who only will vote for a democrat that meets their "purity" test may not be "real" democrats at all. I have no intention of voting for Hillary in the primary, not sure who is running yet, so I can't say who I will vote for, but no matter who wins the nomination for the democratic party, I sure as hell "WILL" vote for them because I know just how bad things would be if any of the republicans running ended up in the WH.

I know I'm always behind the times, when did Hillary declare her candidacy? How did I miss it? Is there anyone else from the Democratic party who has declared?

I feel like Rip Van Winkle.

issues, far less of a War Hawk, and way far less of a Wall St insider, someone like, say Bernie Sanders running as a Democrat, who would you vote for?

Bernie Sanders can't win.

Hillary Clinton is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-health coverage, pro-progressive taxation, pro-social security, anti-austerity...

...and REAL Democrats (the ones who vote in Primaries) know that.

if only Clinton can win, why did she lose in 2008? If her supporters will vote for whoever defeats her, why did so many of them run off to vote for Palin and McCain in 2008?

Questions to ask yourself, while you're chanting to yourself about how progressives are losers.

To convince me that Bernie Sanders can win, convince me he can organize the campaign and raise the money of a Barack Obama.


And the fiction of PUMA's running off to vote for McCain/Palin never turned into reality...but you knew that.

if so, were they convinced?

a crystal ball....."Bernie Sanders can't win".

I know this is evil of me, but I've always and forever wanted to own a crystal ball....{thinking of breaking into brooklynite's home and stealing hers}

...starting from my days as a Ward Committeeperson in Philly.

Add to that a PolySci degree.

But, feel free to prove me wrong by explaining how Bernie Sanders can win a national Election.

having a combo of good ideas, people's anger, and the GOP picking an idiot to run.

...and a year's preliminary organization, raising financial and political commitments...

Still waiting to see how Bernie Sanders achieves the equivalent role.

Not I. And I don't portend to know what Senator Sanders is doing behind the scenes and whether he will or will not run. I also don't know who else will run, but I'm certainly willing to let the Democratic process proceed, and then and not until then will I make my choice.

Unlike you who, who have already determined the best candidate to represent us, I have a lot more maturity (have been voting now for 45 years & participating in the political world even longer), and know that rushing to "judgement" is always very bad news.

PS I don't really believe in crystal balls, but am always amazed at people who know exactly what is going to happen in advance, so surmise they must have special powers or at least think they are more special than everyone else and know what's best for everyone.

...because I don't just engage in politics in the blogosphere. I do it in the real world with candidates and fundraisers and contributors. I have contacts in the Party and fundraising activities and I'm aware of who IS and IS NOT actively working. Warren is not doing anything (I know her fundraiser permanently). Sanders is talking up his prospective campaign and is making some early forays into Iowa and New Hampshire but is not currently securing the staff and financial commitments he'll need for a serious campaign. Will he run? I'd say probably. But he won't run on anything approaching the scale of organization of Barack Obama.

Well we won't know that until we stop allowing Wall St to choose our candidates for us, will we?

Right now I'm looking at a field of Clinton, Sanders, O'Malley and Webb. Of those four, my opinion (explained before) is that only Clinton has the political experience, fundraising skill and campaign team to win against the the likely Republican (supported by every poll that's come out in the past year).

Still waiting for an explanation of how any other candidate wins.

Is Joe McCarthy around? Mustn't have any traitorous rats in our midst.

I especially note how the people who want to kill a primary have shown up, especially since their anointed one lost the last Primary.

I've been talking about who I'll vote for and why. Point to anyone who's said we shouldn't have a Primary.

and is the ONLY candidate that can win, even before she declared she is running, that seems obvious. And please do not try to play sophist and somehow say all the hymns about how she is the ONLY candidate, or the mocking of those who want to see someone in the primary, to at least HAVE a primary, is somehow not saying we should not have a primary.

...and why should someone's electability be an unacceptable topic for discussion (FWIW, all you need to do to counter the point is to show how your preferred candidate IS electable, right?)

if "being a former first lady" is critical for being elected, you're right, I guess that precludes Sanders.

But if being "pro choice, pro gay rights, pro progressive taxation, pro health care, anti SS privatization, etc." is critical, Sanders is very much in the running. Especially since he's actually cast votes on all of these issues, multiple times, during his rock-solid thirty-four years of political service as mayor and legislator.

....but then I'll deduct from his potential the fact that he self-identifies as a "socialist". May not bother a political activist on a blog, but it WILL be a turn-off to a large portion electorate at large. Scroll back through past discussions, and even a number of his supporters acknowledge that problem

...I'll also discount his potential fundraising skill with the fact that Vermont is a very small State, requiring limited funding for his campaigns. I see no evidence that Sanders is prepared to scale up to the level required for a national campaign,particularly if, as I assume you'll expect him to, he bypasses the deep pockets funders in the Party. Dennis Kucinich tried the populist "no more than $100" approach, and never came close to what would necessary today.

Bottom line, though: I don't HAVE to explain Hillary's electability to you. We both know you won't support her under any circumstance, and for the rest of the crowd, they can accept or reject my analysis as they see fit.

I'm asking you to define your criteria for "electability," period.

However, at this point, I'm pretty sure you don't actually have a definition for the term. No standards or criteria. It's just a meaningless term you try to use to attack candidates other than your own.

As for whether or not I will support Clinton, refer to my OP. Will be be the most liberal candidate on either ballot? We both know she won't be the most liberal candidate in the primaries. And for exactly that reason, I'm not at all worried about whether or not to vote for her in the general - she won't make it there, because a more liberal candidate will win the primary.

I have no idea if that will be Sanders. Hell, I have no idea if Sanders is running (frankly I'm not even certain clinton is; apparently neither are Sanders or Clinton at this point...). all I know, right now, is that I plan to vote for the strongest progressive in the primaries and hten in the general.

I'm sorry you have such a deep anger towards that idea, Brooklynite.

...and while I'm happy to have progressive leadership, I'll take a mainstream Democrat any day over the chance that a Republican will get elected. So, I go with the candidate who can win. And sorry I can't quantify that to your satisfaction, but since I deal with real world politics and research hundreds of candidates each year, I think I'm pretty good at judging who's competetive and who's not. You on the other hand tell me that a more liberal Democrat WILL win, but offer no reasoning whatsoever as to how What am I to assume from that?

Let's also pledge our lobbying effort on some of the many days in between.

Yours sounds good if one was inclined to make one as you are.

Unlike the fair weather Democrats some of us drop the "ME" mode after the primaries-then it's about what's best for the country.

and vote Democratic in November.

because the Democrat is NEVER the furthest left or most progressive candidate on the ballot. You have just pledged to contribute to GOP victory.

Moreover, the furthest left candidate will not even run for the Democratic nomination. Have you ever voted before? Have you read a ballot? Have you not seen Communist Party, Socialist Worker Party, and Green Party candidates on the ballot? I don't think there has ever been an election where the furthest left candidate was a Democrat. Why should this one be different?

Additionally, liberal and left are not the same thing. Communists and socialists are leftists, but they are not liberals because they reject the legitimacy of capitalism. Liberals may be to the left of Republicans, but they are not on the left of the political spectrum in any but the most provincial sense.