2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe Bernie Sanders primary campaign should be a lesson for progressives.
There have been progressives active in this country for just about forever. It should be a unified movement, but it's actually several movements, each with a fairly narrow set of beliefs. The progressive "movement" is made up of many individual groups, from environmentalists and anarcho-syndicalists to animal rights activists and other more or less single-issue-focused groups.
That's been going on for years. Normally, progressives don't field a presidential candidate with any hint of viability. This year, Bernie gave them a chance to come together and try an end run for the White House. But, they've always been around, and often try to get people elected to legislative offices. Typically, that's less than successful, but most congressional and state legislative races have progressive candidates running, right through the primary. Those candidates could be more successful, if only people understood how to make them successful. It's actually pretty simple.
The problem is that in most areas, there just aren't enough progressives who actually work together to overcome the Democratic Party's endorsed incumbent or candidate. It's easy to run for office in most states. Getting past the primary, on the other hand, is usually very difficult, indeed, if there is a solid Democrat running who can get endorsed by the local Democratic Party organization.
It would be easier if more people bothered to show up to primaries where legislative offices were being contested, but we're not very good about doing that, really. That's especially true in mid-term elections, unfortunately. So, in Democratic legislative districts, it's usually a well-known, long-time Democrat who gets the nod in the primary.
If you want to know why that is, volunteer as a poll worker in a mid-term legislative primary election and watch who is coming through the door to vote. You'll see the same faces at every primary election. They're almost all long-time democrats who vote in all elections, reliably and out of a sense of responsibility to participate. They're the actual base of the Democratic Party - the voters who can always be counted on to come to the polling place, no matter what offices are up for grabs. They even show up for odd-year city and county elections. When they do, they vote for the Democrats they know and skip the ones they don't.
And there you have it. If progressives want to elect more progressive legislators, they're going to have to do the hard work of bringing enough enough voters together who agree with them and get them to those under-attended primaries. It should be easy to do, given the low turnout for primaries, but it rarely seems to happen, really. The solid, reliable base, though, does turn out and vote for their solid, reliable candidates. That's why they're treated as the base.
Don't tell anyone, but I just explained how to have a real voter revolution in this country. It's a secret, though, so don't spread the word around. Thanks.
Note: This material in this OP was posted in another thread as a reply. Some people suggested that I make it an OP. As always, this is my opinion. Thanks for reading it.
Blaukraut
(5,693 posts)It's not enough to get excited and motivated every four years and not even have any idea who is running down ticket. We need to stay involved and build the infrastructure of a movement starting with the the 'lowliest' local elections.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)They have established, active organizations that meet regularly - every year. Those organizations are not large on a local basis. In fact, there a lot like a typical service club. They do the organizing and keep track of things like filing deadlines and many other details. Then, when election time approaches, they do all the scut work of actually putting things together.
A small group with a big impact. That's the Democratic Party organization in your city, county and legislative districts. Just a small group of people who give a crap about this stuff and are willing to get together when needed to do all the actual work that is involved in getting people elected.
You'd be surprised at how small the active group is in any area. That's how it works.
Blaukraut
(5,693 posts)but they are extremely effective because they work exactly as you described.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)It's really just a matter of organization and hard work. You have to combine both to make it all come together.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)they just got involve. There should be NO uncontested government offices at the state or local levels. But it seems to be far easier for Independents and so-called "progressives" to leave the heavy lifting to base Democrats and just sit back and complain about how bad or wrong they are if when they are elected.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)A challenge might not succeed, but there's no real reason someone shouldn't try. I'm always surprised when there aren't primary challengers, even for candidates I think are doing a great job. There's probably always someone out there who could do it better, but unless they file and make their case, nobody will know.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)MineralMan
(146,308 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I'm not sure your unsupported thesis is consistent with recent history.
Do you have any real historical data to back up your assertions?
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)But, yes, as a matter of fact. But, see, I'm talking about legislative and local elections here. The organizations can be much, much smaller and still be effective. Then, those small organizations get together in larger areas and do the same thing in larger districts or entire states.
It's sort of like your local Rotary Club, but political. The local club has delegates to the regional club, and so on to the state club, the national club and finally to Rotary International. Political parties work exactly the same way, with each organizational level acting on issues relating to the area they represent.
It's not rocket science. The Democratic Party is just a big ol' club. You can join it or start a whole new club. To compete, though, that new club is going to have to have the scope and organization needed to compete. There's just too much work to be done for it to be a casual association.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)So you don't have anything to support your assertions?
The reason I ask is because I've had this same discussion with two folks who, ya know, actually got elected. One at the local level and one at the Federal/Congressional level. And they both say you're full of it. (Well, I may be paraphrasing a bit). Furthermore, they actually support the fact that if you're not aligned with the money/power, you're gonna ultimately lose. Worse, as the federal level guy said, at that level it basically is all about either "working" the power, or being worked by it. His lament was that lately it was more getting "worked" by it.
Ya know, it's fairly similar to what Hillary claims, that progress comes by working the power and she knows how to do that. It is the slam against Bernie that he doesn't know how and that's why he is where he is. Heck, they just had a 60 minutes episode about how the party "requires" them to work the phones for hours each day.
So, again, do you have anything to support this assertion of yours?
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)I helped them get elected.
brush
(53,778 posts)zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)DLC
Marr
(20,317 posts)An increasing number of the people they take for granted are fed up with dressed-up trickle-down economics-- including an overwhelming majority of millennials, the people who are the future of the party.
You want to talk about taking over the party over the long term? I'll see your retread 'hippies are lazy' speech and up you a generation of people who don't like your politics.
brush
(53,778 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)But thanks.
hollysmom
(5,946 posts)the reasonable candidate does not want someone to attack them for just trying to serve, the negativity that money brings with advertising is strong. The rich used to only bother with the top elections, but not they are permeating the local election as well, people who are from different parties feel that way to win is to run under what ever party wins in the district.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)@ 36 seconds here:
??
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)Why do you ask?
Response to MineralMan (Reply #13)
Post removed
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)I hope you feel better now, after writing that.
"old shrew nagging," eh? That's a first-time insult here on DU for me. Congratulations.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)I have zero interest in your daily nagging.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)Perhaps you are more interested than you claim. Who can say? In any case, thanks for your time.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Do it tomorrow, and I might post yet again. That's how a message board works. You'd know that, given your experience with message boards.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)so you'll probably get another chance. There is a way, of course, to never see another post of mine on DU. A lot of people use the Ignore feature. I don't. If I find someone's postings to be offensive, I usually just skip reading their threads.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)I may very well take you up on your offer tomorrow, or the day after. Or perhaps I won't bother ever again. We'll see how I feel.
I don't know you, so obviously, it can't be a personal thing.
Cheers.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)We all do that here.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)Never. I just noticed that your first post was hidden. It wasn't my alert. It never is.
Hekate
(90,686 posts)tsk
Cha
(297,232 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)KPN
(15,645 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)You can't fight City Hall, so burn the motherfucker down.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Challenges to the annointed one are not inherently illegitimate.
KPN
(15,645 posts)MineralMan has a precise view of the world. It's blinders on all the way.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)In this present day the threshold to trigger larger public activism hasn't been met yet, sadly that bar seems much higher than one would expect...
throughout this nation and society there have been many movements / revolutions that tipped the policy scales and changed elected officials in power through elections
Jimmy Carter is a result of '68 convention, that 'power' within the DEM party shocked and terrified the establishment, to your point....
You speak to establishment politics, that's fine, but at least be honest about it without the troll aspect in your OP concerning progressive ideology
Back to Jimmy Carter, he was not the candidate establishment wanted, they couldn't stop him so they devised the SDs to combat that type of revolution / movement within the DEM party
Now to present, we have two candidates in this primary that won't have enough delegates to earn the nomination until the convention and when SD will be able to cast their vote to stop Bernie....
During that convention those progressives that HAVE built delegates to send to convention will have a say in the platform and planks that are built for the candidate to take to GE... so you did avoid stating that bit....
You're entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts...
jalan48
(13,865 posts)Time for the establishment to start making some serious changes.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)You can not say if we just elect this one candidate we can go home.
People should think in terms of 1, 5 and ten years.
A movement needs to develop a relationship with elected officials that they did not back. Even a small step in the direction people want to go should be rewarded.
No candidate should ever be critical to a movement.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Telling 'progressives' how to win - you're tired of the whining, too?
JSup
(740 posts)Hekate
(90,686 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Also known as "the base." POC and women make up an increasingly large percentage of Democrats, as US demographics continue to shift.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511829582
jfern
(5,204 posts)Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)I agree progressives should show up and do the work, but the onus is ultimately on the candidates to earn the votes, not the other way around. A representative government means the people make the rules, they call the shots.
The script has been backwards for far too long.