Memo to Tim Canova: If you're running for the *Democratic* nomination....
...you might want to try stumping for votes at places other than Joyce Kaufman's (Trump 2016/hang the immigrants/ballots then bullets) radio show.
Truly idiotic. Good riddance.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Tonight's #'s proove that.
Kudos to our fighter in the House..Debbie Wasserman Schultz. A President Hillary will need all the strength & loyalty DWS will bring to the House.
Happy happy day!
Nicely done!
The oligarks and cipatilists are taking over. Fashist croney cipitilists.
Of course YMMV, you want to chase ghosts and ignore extremist Republicans, have at it!
Welcome to DU! Great to see new members!
Response to emulatorloo (Reply #27)
Just like that, it went away.
Yeah verrily, it was a source of amusements to the people, until it was called home. 
And woe fell upon the LeftBartarians, and they were sad. And woe fell upon the puritopians, and they were sad too. And woe fell upon those who had worshiped the Orange One all along, for their ally was now gone, and the others grown weaker. 
operational.
He ran a really dull campaign.
Deserved to lose.
DWS returns to the House where she again brings her loyal fighting spirit.
Great support for her President Clinton & kicking the Repubs where they need to be kicked. She knows all their vulnerable spots.
DWS can NEVER be called wishy washy!
Great night for her. Now she can move on to campaign for Hillary in FL.
More power to you DWS!!
Only the DWS haters couldn't see it. Glad this is over with now and everyone can be friends again.
Also, don't forget the insurance company.
(whatever the hell they're calling themselves these day) behaves that way. 
I don't know why, but they're given a pass by way too many people.
I think that you are using all or nothing statements, concerning litmus test.
We apparently are getting our definitions from different sources.
However - I have found that the wider the number of issues that someone will never compromise on, the more the definition of "litmus test" appears.
The democratic platform is generally my "litmus test" if you want to call it that. One of my basic "litmus" tests is that a candidate have the ability to listen to experts - non-partisan, self funded, reputable organizations in particular - about best practices for public policy.
If a candidate was to promote defunding Planned Parenthood as a way to reduce abortions, then I would know that they are not following the guidance of the medical community on how to reduce abortions. (Bernie's assertion that abortion and contraception are 'social issues" rather than public health issues wasn't what turned me off to Bernie. I happen to know that the president doesn't have much say over this issue.)
If a candidate says that Single Payer is possible within 10 years, then I know that they are not listening to experts in the field of public health policy, and in fact are ignoring attempts to reach out to them to give them data. They are telling voters what they want to hear - just as much as a climate change denier, or Planned Parenthood enemy is telling the public what they want to hear - and if they actually believe it, that's even worse.
I also know that I don't have the background (other than in public health policy) to judge many of the policies that the candidates propose. But if they are going to the right sources for information, then I will have much, much more leeway in trusting what they are proposing for other issues. So I guess I don't think that I have the ability to prescribe a litmus test for certain issues.
I just got sick of people telling me that if I wasn't voting for a candidate promising single payer, I wasn't a progressive - because apparently, that is the "litmus test" of a "true progressive" and that I might as well just throw my vote in with the "corporatist" GOP.
That is what will likely kill any chance that Bernie will have a lasting impact. "Enforcing strict adherence to ideology makes for a more cohesive and passionate movement, but it can also make it hard to achieve anything of significance." That is what happens when adhereing to the "litmus" test becomes more important than adapting to new data, and understanding when you are excluding potential allies. The Democratic Party's strength comes from its alliances of disparate groups (black, lgbtq, women, latinos, new americans) who all have their own differing, but allied priorities. The tea party, and the hardcore Bernie or Bust groups demands of "conforming to the program" won't last.
....including one or two dissenters in the group drastically brought down the pressure to conform, which creates an urge to stamp out dissent. This presents a dilemma: Enforcing strict adherence to ideology makes for a more cohesive and passionate movement, but it can also make it hard to achieve anything of significance.
Another important element of movements is the diffusion of ideas framework developed by Everett Rogers, whose research showed that new ideas are adopted according to a bell curve pattern. First, small groups of innovators and early adopters spearhead the concept and later larger groups in the mainstream catch on. Eventually, even the skeptics join in.
However, in Crossing the Chasm, author Geoffrey Moore pointed out that, while successful ideas do follow the pattern Rogers described, most never make it that far. The problem, he surmised, is that there is a large gap between the mindsets of early adopters and the rest of society, so for a movement to become successful it must adapt itself to the mainstream.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2016/06/10/the-science-behind-bernie-sanders-failed-movement-explained/#22f9f1362dba
yet dares to breathe in the direction of the center from them is "Corporatist Stooge."
They will go the way of Occupy Wall Street if they keep it up.
However, in Crossing the Chasm, author Geoffrey Moore pointed out that, while successful ideas do follow the pattern Rogers described, most never make it that far. The problem, he surmised, is that there is a large gap between the mindsets of early adopters and the rest of society, so for a movement to become successful it must adapt itself to the mainstream.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2016/06/10/the-science-behind-bernie-sanders-failed-movement-explained/#22f9f1362dba
