....but much comfier sitting at home behind a keyboard and blogging.

for change later.

What I am saying here is that we who are in the party now should change its internal political culture to make them welcome on their own terms, because nothing but good can come of the party changing the way it treats activists and idealists.

IT was wrong to make anyone be silent and "pay their dues" in the past. Time to admit that and make the changes we know need to be made.

Should we throw away all the "followers" ?

I thought we were supposed to be a "big tent".

Their hubris prevents them from doing anything other than supporting corporations. Their number one goal is to keep progressives neutralized. Mr. Goldman-Sachs made it clear that the Oligarchy didn't care if it was Bush or Clinton. Both would play ball with Wall Street. Now that Bush is out, bingo-bango the Olgarchy wants Clinton or bust.

In 2000 they did the same thing, it was Gore or Bust and it turned out bust. While the 99% suffered for their (the Elite's) hubris, the Ruling Oligarchy was fine as were the Democratic Elite. The Democratic Elite didn't even oppose Bush very hard. Why? Because they work for the Oligarchy and the Oligarchy was happy.

have more activist cred than 50 year old labor activists who are registered Democrats?

It's not like everybody in that demographic prefers HRC, or even a huge majority.

A lot of people in our age group, particularly in the Bill years, basically shut up and gave up, though.

(My salutations to those who did not).

And some of the indies for Bernie are in that age group as well.

Bernie is not exclusively the candidate of young white dudes. Never has been.

What I want is for the young idealists and the often-silenced and disempowered older activists, of all races, genders, sexual orientations, ethnicities and creeds(including the creed of personal conscience) to finally get our share of the decision-making power in this party AND the country.

Is that such a bad thing? And have we ever really prospered as a party by telling people to shut up, know their place, and get in the back of the line?

those who refuse to join, exclude themselves

If people want a voice in governing the party, all they have to do is sign a form saying they want to belong to the party.

If they turn their noses up at the idea of being a Democrat, then they're not terribly sympathetic as victims here.

It's about the party essentially refusing to be open to anything or anyone beyond a safe timid "comfort zone".

What matters is reaching out to these people. What is the harm of going the extra mile to connect with them?

Yes, you and I had to eat a lot of shit sandwiches and pay a lot of "dues". The point is, we shouldn't have had to and they shouldn't have to.

We should WANT to get as many energetic progressive people in our tent as possible.

after they refused to field anything but conservadems. I won't miss you come November if Hillary is nominated. The turd way dems have pushed the activist dems towards Bernie's team. All across the nation we are taking over the right wing democratic parties. Infusing our people and pushing our agenda. I truly have no interest in voting for a candidate who supports idas of the last thirty years. Good luck in November and enjoy the bed you made.

I appreciate you standing up for Independents. I haven't seen any of the nasty posts against Independents. The ignore function has saved my sanity.

Maybe this is the wrong forum to post it in.
Winning is all that matters.
One day maybe the party can win by doing liberal like things and growing our party by finding our own center and NOT the center line that the Republicans and the right leaning Democrats have drawn for us, but one we draw ourselves.
I find it fascinating that during this primary that for the first time ever the majority of voters on the dem side referred to themselves as Liberals.
That is freaking Huge!!
America and its youth are trending left and NOT right and we would be wise as a party to give them something worth voting for.

sure is inspiring to liberals.

You said it all.

but left the party of the third way.

when we saw the Clintons and Third Way take over.

I would consider staying in the party beyond the every four year need to register in order to vote in the primaries if they were not the dominant voice on the left.

what the New Democrat movement in the 90s was about. And this is because the average independent is more centrist than the average Democrat.

Bernie fans aren't actually interested in drawing more independents into the party overall, they are only interested in drawing the small number of independents that come from the far left into the party.

The thing to look for isn't what people label themselves(a lot of people label themselves "centrist", "moderate", or even "conservative" not out of ideology but because they see those terms as synonyms for "sensible" or "normal". When the polls then ask what ideas and proposals people actually support, a lot of the people who label themselves "centrist" or "conservative" actually support a lot of left-of-center ideas...single-payer healthcare, a cut in the war budget, reproductive choice without stigma, and making it easier to unionize a workplace.

For some strange reason, the far left thinks that everyone in America agrees with them, and no amount of data can convince them otherwise.

As far as people supporting Single Payer, the real takeaway from those polls is that people don't understand what single payer is. For example, if you explain to them that they won't be able to keep their current insurance, suddenly they don't like it anymore.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/02/people-have-no-idea-what-single-payer-means/471045/

"Far left" means the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade...not Occupy or the people who support Bernie.

We don't back anything sectarian or extremist.

And a progressive political party is NEVER supposed to use viciously anti-left rhetoric like that.

Most of what Bernie supports is supported by a majority of the American people.

Nader got 2.75% of the popular vote. By what definition is that not the "far left"?

And the only thing you can define 2.7% as is a really small percentage of the vote.

Bernie's support is mainstream, broadbased, legitimate, and real.

You don't get over 1,000 pledged delegates(so far)without being part of a very large group of honorable people of good will.

Which is why, in the real world, a huge majority of Bernie supporters are going to vote for Hillary if Bernie doesn't get the nomination.

But the internet -- reddit/twitter/DU -- is not the real world. So catering to the HA Goodmans and Seth Abramsons and the rest of the internet Bernie following is not in the best interests of the Democratic Party.