And, of course, by repelling possible converts by being willing to abandon America to the Republicans.

These people are delusional but never more so if they imagine camera crews are going to follow them around. Tulsi Gabbard didn't push onto the stage alongside Sanders because she wants to put a leash on her new billionaire buddy Sheldon Adelson. She did it because that's where the cameras were pointed. In the GE they'll be on Hillary and tRump.

Sanders is not the only one in danger of failing into obscurity, but in their case I suspect it is inevitable. He doesn't need them to return to the Senate and to the campaign trail on stage with Hillary and her VP as an honored Democratic lion.

Embracing Kissinger and Kagan, being pro-war and pro-fracking. If you're going to throw the fascist word about, be careful you're not living in a glass house.

overstatement. The pro-fracking thing DOES bother me. There must be pressure brought to her to change her mind on this.

I'm afraid that since many pro-Bernie progressives have gummed up the works on this election and declared her the enemy that they will end up being viewed as enemies instead of allies. They have lost any influence they may have had. This will especially be true if they continue to act as enemies, protest the convention, Bernie fails to endorse her and if Republicans play a greater role in her winning than progressives. She will owe them and NOT progressives.

As someone who considered themselves a progressive in the past (I no longer use that term because I have been told over and over again that one can't be progressive and be a Hillary supporter), I find this concerning.

far left and far right movements usually fail. Mercifully. If this plays out the usual way, they'll end up exiling themselves to the shadows for at least several years.

In this era of mass communication and information tech, though, the Kochopus has all their names and addresses, as will Bernie and others, of course, so it's possible they could be offered a new leader at some point and it could play out quite differently.

In both cases in the 20th c. where a movement of this type (Reagan's movement conservatives and the Tea Party) has managed to both remain cohesive and not fall-in-line with the establishment over several election-terms...they've ended up ousting the establishment and taking over their party.

Both times. As in 2 for 2.

So...since I have little doubt "the people" can keep this anger up for a while...goodbye Clintonism!

between the far right and the far left. The far right has much more cohesiveness and a larger base. But keep dreaming.

and denser in the less-dense parts of the nation. We have a real chance at ending the neo-lib scourge and forcing Hillary to give her own LBJ-like speech forswearing a 2nd term.

"If you will it, it is no dream." -Theodor Herzl

The far left has more supporters and cohesion. It Looks like the right has more because they use their money to buy up what support they don't have.

Trump would never had made it if his rich friends that own Comcast and GE hadn't given him constant free publicity while ignoring a real movement on the left.

In a capitalist economy it's always about the money. That's why Bernie's movement is so powerful. It's the economy stupid.

The far left has the youth which hasn't figured out how politics works yet. As they get older they wise up.

conservative moving farther right, but not at all extremist.

The initial energy that became the "Tea Party" was angry and worried populist, but that energy was secretly "astroturfed" into a movement by ultra-right-wing pupeteers. Specifically, it was organized, funded, and directed by the Kochs and their operatives working behind the names of activist organizations they also created, funded and directed. The Kochs then proceeded to turn the already strongly conservative TP sharply right. Many fell away as this happened, leaving a far right core with strong extremist traits, mostly strong social conservatives of the John Bircher type, who were then refocused by the Kochs on the economic issues they wanted addressed.

Thus, the "Tea Party" candidates who swept the 2010 elections and have been causing chaos in state and federal legislatures were actually chosen, funded, and instructed by those ultraconservative billionaires and others who joined them in putting anti-regulation conservatives in office. Btw, the only people those "tea party-type public servants" have had to please are the people who will either pay to reelect them or pay to elect someone else if they don't come through for them (the "primaried" thing). Come campaign time, if they do please, enough money will be provided to convince the voters they are doing a good job.

Not exactly a peoples' movement.

But back to my point, the extremists of the right-wing TP "movement" would never have gotten anywhere near effective numbers in Congress and state legislatures on their own. They would almost certainly have self destructed. They were so focused on their extremist ideology and excited at actually "winning" that they didn't even know or stop to care who the orders and money were coming from and why.

Left-wing extremists share all the same vulnerabilities to manipulation, btw, and don't the Kochs and many, many others like them know it. The Kochs and the several hundred billionaires and megamillionaires who have joined them to subvert and rewrite our democracy also already have a very large political machine in place that is skilled in mass manipulation.

You should be looking around very nervously. Do you know that Charles Koch "agrees" with many here that the Democratic primary was "rigged." He's said so because he wants you to know he's on your side...

it started on the heels of Goldwater's defeat in 1968 and rose to ascendancy through the 1970s. It was indeed an extremist reaction to the "too-moderate, too-compliant, mainstream" of the GOP of Nixon, Eisenhower and Ford...William F. Buckley, who was as much a part of that revolution as anybody, described it as such.

by the people who voted for Reagan.

I'll repeat something else because this is very serious: "You should be looking around very nervously. Do you know that Charles Koch "agrees" with many here on DU that the Democratic primary was "rigged?" He's said so because he wants you to know he's on your side... "

The man's a genuine boogie and so powerful he has gotten away with a number of "depraved indifference" murders and many years of very large workplace and environmental crimes. You should be very afraid to realize that he and his giant organization are already planning how to put Bernie's movement to work for them, taking advantage of the weaknesses of its members. It's anti-establishment, so are they. It's anti-Democrat, so are they. Many of its members love to be lied to, they're very good liars.

With so much in in common, there is a real foundation to build on.

It's an old New England truism. It means, quite simply, sometimes things are so obvious (like the DNC chairwoman was in the tank from day-one for Clinton) that even the misguided, blind and wrong-headed can see them.

If Charles Koch can see what you can't...I'd suggest an eye-exam.

Chan790.

It not a populist movement, it's a marketing campaign.

and corporate influence and support efforts to reverse Climate change. We are building a national campaign to elect House members in the next midterm elections. Like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, we will also work on state and local elections to defeat the Chamber's candidates.

Our revolution is morphing into something different now that the Primary is over. We do not wish to live under corporate rule which is where things are now!

The party will be ours once again.

It's selfish unless they don't spend a part of their life doing what you want them to do, rather than that they actually believe in?

help their movement?

If they don't think Democrats will do enough, why do think Republicans will do more?

Instead of actually addressing social injustice, exacerbate it to the point where The People (it's always capitalized) will revolt and seize on the "revolutionaries" and the "revolutionary" ideology as their saviors and new overlords.

There's a good reason why that sounds really stupid.

I think they're thinking, hey, we didn't spend a year gaining MILLLLLLIONS of supporters just to hand it over to the winner. We're gonna take our email list and phone numbers and build a party of our own! The People's Party!! Fine, let 'em. By the time November rolls around they'll be trying to get rid of anyone who didn't already flee long ago.

Hopefully not all the speakers were as clueless.

Getting Hillary elected is part of the movement. If Trump won, we'd be back to 2004 levels of despair, with a mix of three conservative justices for good measure.

Supporting Hillary does not advance the movement, it's capitulation.

There is no reason to not merely hope she beats Trump while never stopping work to end her faction of the party longer term and remaining focused on that singular goal.

it's equally misguided.

was that we would see higher turnouts by not being centrist.

Now its just throw the election?

It's that if you're serious about that centrist-blah of a nominee, you're doing it without our help...we'll cheer for you, but it's not our fight because our fight is to clean up the tent, then move it to sunnier progressive pastures. Supporting you invites more centrist and GOP rats into the tent.

You got your nominee...now you go get her a win. We've got other agenda items focused on the long-term health of the party.

way to move the party from the center to the left.

"You got your nominee...now you go get her a win. We've got other agenda items focused on the long-term health of the party."

That's you last sentence.

Care to walk that back, because that's about the most f_cked up thing I've heard in a while coming from someone supposed to be a Democrat?

Winning the White House is the most important thing for the health of the party now. If you don't participate in that how the hell are your agenda items helping if Trump is in the White House?

Your "agenda items" have a much greater chance of being successful if Clinton, a Democrat wins, as her winning coattails will also sweep other Dems into office who can assist in your agenda items.

Come on, don't let your anti-Clinton bias cloud your judgment. Defeating Trump should be at the top of any Dem's agenda, then get on with the other things.

This is just no-brainer, pragmatic politics for the win.

You have your priority...it's a short-term one--beating Trump. You'll probably have our votes, but that's all you'll have. Certainly not putting the effort into the campaign of someone I consider emblematic of what's wrong with the Democratic party. Not writing LTTEs, doing voter-registration and GOTV, making calls, etc. like I did for Obama and even Kerry. (Who I didn't particularly like.) You're not getting my effort...just the 20 seconds it takes to show my driver's license to the registrar of voters, get my ballot, fill in the circle and put it into the optical reader. That's all Clinton deserves. She doesn't represent my interests even a little bit. Backing or working for Clinton does nothing to progress the interests or concerns of progressives. She's an anti-progressive Democrat who has spent her career trying to drown progressivism out. She's reaping the fruits of her life's work. She wouldn't even have my vote if the GOP nominee wasn't so distinctly godawful, even for the GOP.

I have other agenda items. They're much longer term and focused on making the Democratic party hostile enough for neoliberals that there will never be another Hillary Clinton-style Democratic Presidential nominee. I'm preparing for Nov. 10, 2016 when I start beating the drum for a 2020 primary. (Even if we lose that primary, it keeps Hillary honest and forces her to stay to the left of where she wants to be.) I have local elections to worry about. I have to do work to make sure we get progressives on the ballot everywhere in 2018. I have to work to keep the revolution alive for 2020. I have to make sure that we send representatives to the state party organization and DNC that will be hostile to any attempt at centrism on the part of Clinton's DNC-chair choice.

Our goals are not the same. I may support your goals as furthering my goals...but my goals are ultimately to kill Clintonism and reform the Democratic party away from what Hillary represents.

Carry on with the other stuff and good luck with it. Maybe start another party even that stands for your agenda items.

But is you can't spare an hour or so to vote for the only party in a position to advance your agenda, then you need not be taken seriously.

...or any other sort of ethic, and that Clinton is capable of the doing the job would be a waste of a lot of effort. It's too low a bar to set for American political discourse.

We have real problems to solve, and Trump isn't one of them. We need Clinton on board on some of the issues Sanders is raising--that will make the five months worth spending.

He is certainly a problem for minorities and LGBT. This is why Democrats will be working hard to keep him out of the Oval Office.

Economic opportunites and education for all are solutions, along with media divestment and some sort of Fairness Doctrine.

Those are how you defang Trumpism. Attacking Trump personally while failing to address the real problems behind his rise is just marking time until the next rich demagogue drops by to waste our time and efforts.

37 of the 50 state houses as was the case in 2010, then the Republicans will continue to redistrict us right out of the House and there won't be a movement. A president only has as much power as that which exists in Congress.

How many people showed up for this People's Summit thing in Chicago?

WaPo said that 3000 were expected to attend, but I haven't seen any actual attendance figures:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/17/thousands-of-sanders-supporters-gather-in-chicago-to-ask-now-what/

Of people who vote every, fucking, time.

That's what it will take. You can fart-ins and hassle lines, but in the end, winning in election day matters.