As seen from this article.

enough support to get him out without risking someone worse.

Social conservative bigots, how can it be a good thing to have a Democrat
who has the same or similar voting record be a good alternative to this guy?

of Walter is he is like someone you'd have to your house for dinner or a pot luck for a good conversation to engage in issues and discussion and we would agree on almost everything but he'd tell you right in your face where he differs and why... and you would say: Walter....you know we just "Agree to Disagree" and you'd still be glad to have invited him because you could work with him on what you agree on and not be enemies and, you wouldn't have a problem having dinner with him again

Used to be there were people like that around and you could get along and find common ground on some issues and you'd just back off where you differed know there were boundaries. But, you could still find so much in common that the differences were not something to get into battle over

The times have changed but, we've lost some sense of civility and with it many relationships that have been abandoned because of entrenchment over ideology.

But, then, I also understand that sometimes issues can be so heated that the only way to deal is to drop the relationship because the differences are so overwhelming that to continue the relationship is too painful. I had an experience like that after voting for the Clintons Twice..and defending them...when there was little left to defend. So its sometimes a fine line we walk.

---

Of course the X factor in this perplexing equation is independent voters, who have consistently been the largest chunk of the electorate since the early ’90s, and now represent more than 40 percent of the total. Mainstream political science generally behaves as if independents don’t matter or don’t exist; there are only Democratic or Republican “leaners” who for mysterious reasons choose to stand aloof from either party. There’s some crude validity to that when it comes to gaming out electoral scenarios, no doubt, but not when it comes to considering American politics as a system that no longer works, and that most people despise. As the CBS poll reveals, that big unaffiliated chunk of the electorate is where both Trump and Clinton have overwhelmingly unfavorable numbers, and where both parties are perceived with undisguised hostility.

It’s also independent voters who decide presidential elections, a political truism that has typically led both parties to nominate boring, middle-ground candidates who are just barely acceptable to the ideological base but not too scary for the apocryphal suburban swing voter. But that really hasn’t worked too well, at least not since the devious triangulation regime of Bill Clinton. Who was, after his own stealthy fashion — I mean this sincerely! — one of the most destructive presidents in recent history. If President Kerry and President Romney accomplished great things, I guess I missed them.

What independents “really” want, and whether it’s useful or possible to make any general statements about them, is a bigger question than I can hope to answer here. It’s safe to say that by definition they are dubious about the Republicrat duopoly, and many of them are eager for alternative options. Independent voters overwhelmingly supported Obama in 2008, when he ran as a non-ideological agent of historic change, and they have been the bedrock of Bernie Sanders’ support this year. If all the Democratic primaries and caucuses had been closed to independent voters in 2008, Obama would probably have lost to Hillary Clinton. To turn that question upside down, if there were a nationwide open primary between Clinton and Sanders, the outcome would be very much in doubt. Indeed, the Sanders demographic is strikingly similar to the Obama ’08 demographic, with the obvious (and fatal) subtraction of most of the African-American vote.

If there’s a Democratic advantage amid the carnage of 2016, it resides in another paradox whose long-term consequences are unclear. What Jeb Bush recently and plaintively described as “regular-order democracy” has been conclusively demolished on the Republican side, where the nominee will presumably be one of two men who are loathed by the party leadership and nearly certain to lose in November. The Democratic process, on the other hand, has functioned approximately as it was designed to — as witness that result in Wyoming, where Sanders won roughly 56 percent of the vote and came away with 39 percent of the delegates. The establishment candidate with all the corporate dollars and the deep institutional roots is (probably) going to vanquish the crowd-funded rebel outsider, although not without a few hair-raising plot twists along the way.

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/17/two_despised_frontrunners_two_dying_parties_and_a_deeply_broken_system_how_did_we_get_here/

It is difficult, intentionally so, but it has been done 3 or four times before in this country too, depending on how you count, and generally what you have in those circumstances is a President acting as Tribune of the People: Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy R., and FDR, but failing to rein in the money in politics, so it all starts again. Bernie, if successful, would be the 5th, or so.

November is six months away. This is still the 3rd inning. Billions are yet to be spent.

What a hell of a time it is in politics, and I remain fascinated with the Obama Doctrine
additive..the most revealing indicator for the future of U.S. foreign policy politics thus far.

The guy is the president of the most powerful nation on earth and what he said was
a mouthful for the Democratic Party.

Rhetoric is strong especially during election cycles and the candidate Kasich? His tune is changing,
on social and economic and foreign policy...not suggesting he should be considered a reliable/honest
voice, but that he is saying things that are more in line with a centrist point of view more than he did
when he first entered.

Seems like someone over there is listening, somewhat. If you want to stay in the game
you'd better change.

speaking from wildly different political positions, who have called out the DC consensus, violated the taboos on what may be discussed.

You have the Panama Papers dropped like a fresh turd right into the middle of that circulating mess.

You have the glaring failure of that policy happening as we speak on the global stage, in places too many to list here.

You have the prospect of stagflation, at best, economically.

And most of all, as you point out, they are talking about making concessions now, doing what the public wants here and there, and that is how I know something is happening.

When I heard Kasich comment on North Carolina bigotry law, he said in effect,
why can't we all get along? We don't need a new law every time we disagree
with someone. Ya know what, get over it!, he said.

My oh my, get over it? If they're wiling to leave the bigots behind while seeking
out the centrists, that's a guy who wants to stay in the game..and fine by me.
Again, this is not my endorsement for Kasich by any stretch but he's going further
to the center than previously.

Trump and trade deals and the GOP doesn't own him, that's how he threatens them, imo.
The thing is not whether Trump is totally honest about what he'll do to correct that?
Which he likely won't be, considering he is not for a minimum wage increase, its the
fact that he talks about how shitty they are, that he could say at a Republican
National debate, GW Bush and 9/11 and all the rest and he's their front runner...freakin'
amazing. Loyalty to party seems to have evaporated for good.

especially for issues that the right fucking created themselves...

regarding campaign finance should not come at the expense of agreeing to
any socially bigoted laws to keep them happy nor restrictions for allowing
loop holes for corruption and to disenfranchise voters ability to vote.

The Working Families Party has lent its considerable mobilizing power to the Democratic challenger's campaign.

—By Pema Levy
| Mon Apr. 18, 2016 6:00 AM EDT

As Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton battle for a win in Tuesday's Democratic presidential primary in New York, Clinton's home-state advantage has given her an edge in the polls, but Sanders has a secret weapon.

It's called the Working Families Party, a progressive party backed by labor unions and community activists whose New York chapter has gone all-in for Sanders. The party is known across the state, and particularly in New York City, for its impressive get-out-the-vote efforts. If Sanders tops Clinton in her home state, or even beats expectations and comes close, he will have the WFP to thank.

In New York, where the party was founded in 1998, it has become a major presence. Third parties enjoy substantial influence in the Empire State due to fusion voting, which lets candidates appear on the ballot for multiple parties. At times, the WFP runs its own candidates; at others, it backs progressive Democrats in primary races. In Tuesday's Democratic primary, only registered Democrats, not the small number of progressives registered with the WFP, can vote for the Democratic nominee. The party's biggest successes have come in New York City, where WFP-backed candidates hold substantial power, including Mayor Bill de Blasio and City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito.

"They have the best political operation in New York," says Bill O'Reilly, a Republican consultant in the state. "They are a mighty machine."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/bernie-sanders-has-secret-weapon-new-york

Thanks for that OP.

Monthly debits for about ten years, back in the late 90s and oughts. But I stopped after a while, because I live in California and pols here need what I have to give, and I am not awash in money any more.

They are the real deal, WFP, if you want to take on the man, you have to have a vote machine, because they will have the big money, and WFP gets that.

I am acquainted with Ms Levy too, it is good to see a smart kid making a name for herself, but I'm not getting into it more than that here ...