What She Said: Amanda Marcotte On the Fight



Why don't you quote someone with intelligence? Ahhh, because defeatism and sanctimonious is so hip.


November 2016? When all of the liberal sheep were "with HER" too deep to understand how fucked they were? Months after Bernie got squeezed out? Fuck off


I'd like people, especially lawmakers, to emphasize the illegitimacy of Trump and everything his administration does.


@1: I hope you're wearing a swim cap. You'll need it to keep all that sand out of your hair with your head all down in it like that.
@2: Nuh huh. None of your bullshit. You know perfectly well we wouldn't be in this mess if Clinton was in the White House, so I suggest you shut your pie hole and get to work.


I have been hearing that Kavanaugh seems to respect established law and isn't much of an "activist" so Roe is likely safe for his vote. 30+ years of standing certainly seems like established precedent to me, but someone correct me if I'm wrong. Now, whether he would put a sitting president (that he likes, anyway) above the law? Well, that's another matter...

@2: Why yes, it was childish purity-based thinking that fractured the liberal vote and let Trump (and W before him) secure victory, exactly like you're displaying. Perfect example, thanks.


@4: You'll feel better after a good lunch.


Kavanaugh's a Republican partisan hack. Why would he vote to overturn Roe? That's about the only thing that drives the Republican vote anymore.


Damn, that's a dark post.

@5, listen to people like Slate's Dahlia Lithwick have to say, and it sounds like people like Roberts don't want Roe overturned. They want it gutted. Meaning they want it to remain as an empty shell to shield them from accusations of trampling precedent, and so they can still claim abortion is legal in this country. But they will make so many exceptions and caviats to Roe that it becomes toothless. Kavanaugh, I suspect will move against abortion rights in that mode.

So in 10 years, expect Roe to be standing, but abortions will be legal in only 20 or so states AND only in the first 6 weeks AND if pregnancy is result of rape/incest, or mother's health at stake.

In other words, Kavanaugh is a fucking disaster. So pissed at dems for not shutting down the whole gov until Mitch McConnell yielded on his extra-constitutional theft of a supreme court justice. That was a hill worth dying on, but dems, as usual, took the "pragmatic" way forward, and didn't rock the boat when the boat very much deserved to be rocked. Fuck.


Take that, liberals!


Amazing. For once I agree with Amanda Marcotte. Too bad she is the type of person that is part of the reasonable left's problem. She was seeking purity and calling out people, attacking her own side and now she's complaining. The republicans have been playing dirty and winning while we turn our sword on each other.
@2 Clinton got more votes in the primary. Deal with with.


Go on the offense. Campaign for an enlargement of the court and frog marching the thieves to jail when progressives take power.

Roe versus Wade is unfortunately a very small part of what a federalist Society SC will do to cement the neoliberal order (deregulation, privatization and outsourcing). They may even give up overturning Roe v wade as a gauge of their "good intent" and overcome opposition to their nominee.


@10. "Clinton got more votes in the primary."

True. She also got more debate questions ahead of the debate, but true. And here we are now, with Trump in the white house, and Roe v. Wade on the chopping block. Hopefully the conservatives that voted for Clinton in the primary have learned from their mistake. From the look of it, they've only doubled down.


It probably feels good to type those hollow words into Twitter though.


"Clinton got more votes in the primary. Deal with it."

Yes, we're all dealing with aftermath of that mistake, and likely will be for another 6 years.


At least you guys are going to have to find a medium other than Facebook to have your caustic mindsets formed by Russian propaganda the next time around.


No idea about this guy but I suspect that Roberts would be too squirmy about the fact that the court has his name on it to outright kill Roe. Chip away at it until basically nothing is left? That's another matter.


@13: You're so funny. You don't even realize that you're describing yourself....


We don't have to speculate about what they'll do. We can just look at what they've done in long time red states. They will leave Roe in place to avoid the constitutional challenge and backlash, and they will slowly erode it away until it's meaningless- the restrictions, defunding and accessibility barriers will be too great for most women to actually exercise any reproductive rights. This is what they do with everything- environmental regulations, voters rights, public schools, etc.

Also I'm happy if liberals start to realize that this is not a ship we can turn around. The crash has already happened. Stop bailing water out of a sinking ship- we are going to have to build a new one. Impeachment or not, indictments or not, we've already lost and there is no going back. And for those of you that are just realizing this, fantastic and welcome, but it's been this way for much of the world for years now, and yes the Democrats are complicit in making this happen. This point actually matters because you can't expect them to save us. They voted just a couple weeks ago for billions more for defense spending. They voted a few months ago for the surveillance bills. They take money from private prisons, they voted to continue the war in Yemen, all of this has happened in the last few months. Voting for lesser evils and ignoring this shit gives you a slow creep right- look at Doug Jones who everyone was celebrating now saying he will not take a stand against SCOTUS nomination. Russians don't make them do this, neither do Bernie Bros, neither do Stein voters. This is what the Dem party is- rotten from the core. If we are going to have a real resistance, it has to be people against the ruling class- that includes the Dems. There is no resistance that considers itself on the side of state police and millionaire "less evil" politicians. I keep waiting for the "resistance" to realize this.


I get what Marcotte is saying, but there isn't a "the fight". There's a continuous struggle stretching off into eternity.

You can't destroy the New Deal without re-creating the conditions that led to the New Deal.


She's 100% right.

And democrats will probably not win the midterms. And Trump, if he runs, is probably going to be re-elected.

Because, as we see in this very thread, the left are petulant crybabies and the so-called "center" refuses to wake up to reality.

While the right being venal, ignorant, monsters will nonetheless show up in November and continue to goose-step America over the cliff screaming it was liberals fault all the way to the bottom. The Overton Window has moved too far for us to just correct with one elections or two what the far right has done.

The reality is it's going to take decades to undo Trump (If ever). America is gong to have to hit bottom to change. That's the truth.

And the truth is you have to fight anyway. But fighting means making sacrifices you don't want to make. The doing the shit you feel you are above doing. Like supporting moderate democrats. Or supporting socialists, even - if you think they can win. IOW. It means WINNING. Winning at any cost. So be prepared to throw out all your sacred little darling causes. Because you have to win first.

If you don't, you lose without fighting. Which is the worst of all outcomes.


The liberal Taliban - Bernie was the only answer. There is no such thing as compromise. No swallowing your stupid pride convinced that you know best. No thought about electing a candidate to prevent the ruin of this country as we know it. Blaming people who voted for Clinton as the problem. Doubling down on that opinion even though the evidence is there. Voting for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson because "well fuck it, Clinton and Trump are the same." Fuck you. You are the reason we are in this mess. Stop attacking other liberals and put your energy where it is needed.


@16: The difference being that I don't need to delude myself into thinking I am doing anything but goofing off.

Twitter is just a Skinner box for morons.


Dr Zaius, We have supported moderate Democrats. They had 8 years in the White HOuse- the beginning of which they had both houses of congress. They did nothing. They exacerbated all the problems that Bush created, increased the powers of the executive branch, then handed this over to Trump. Even in 2016, we tried the moderate approach. Clinton ran, playing to the centrists, trying to fix the system. If she had won, things would be better, but still broken. All these problems would still be there- just not at the level they are at now. Even still, we tried that approach. We ran a moderate candidate. She lost. In places where the moderates win, they frequently compromise with Republicans and call it taking the high road.

I don't know what's so difficult about this. The first step to fixing everything is to stop electing candidates who take corporate money. We must get money out of politics. We can't do this by continuing to vote for candidates who take corporate money but promise to be less evil. This continues the slow slog right.

It's not about moderate Dems vs socialists. It's about corporate Dems vs candidates who do not take big money. There are several Dems running without big money and only a small handful of them are socialists.

I voted for Clinton. I voted for Obama. In both cases, I voted them as lesser evil to lessen / slow the sort of brutality that we are living under anyway. We tried that strategy- it doesn't work. It leads to this. Now we need to collectively try a new thing- we have to build a new thing. The first step towards doing that is not voting for anyone who takes big money. I will not vote for corporate funded Dems again. If everyone would do this, they would all be voted out or would quit because they lose what they are in it for in the first place. So when people say that refusing to vote lesser evil has caused this situation, I think we need to reveal that strategy for what it is: refusing to hold Dems to any standard is what made this happen - there is no real opposition force.


@21 "They did nothing."

Laughably false. But you sure can fill up a lot of page for someone who is obviously not paying the least amount of attention.

St. Bernie won a bunch on non-democratic caucuses you nitwits. Is that totally lost on you?


@21: I entirely agree with your assessment of Twitter


I especially appreciate people who use the term “adulting” calling me a conservative when Every.Single.Rally. their candidate held was streamed for free by FOX.



@21 spends a shitload of time goofing off at work.



The only way you're going to get the kind of candidates you seek - in large enough numbers to make any sort of appreciable difference - is to get big money out of politics completely. Otherwise, you're simply ceding the field to any candidate who DOES accept large amounts of corporate cash, which means literally every member of the GOP, and yes, most Democrats, because they can't compete against conservatives with large buckets of cash - without raising large buckets of cash themselves. At the national level the ONLY way to accomplish that is to elect enough Democrats into Congress to create a veto-proof majority, and to elect a Democrat into the Executive Branch to enact new legislation reversing "Citizens United v. FEC", and then stack the Supreme Court with a liberal majority of justices who will defend it - something which, unfortunately, given present circumstances, is probably now another full generation away - if it can be done at all after the current administration finishes taking a wrecking ball to the Constitution.


It's weird the way liberals like Rhizome and Get Friggin Real, etc keep focusing on Bernie. I really do think it's the biggest split here- the difference between people focusing on individuals (Hilary or Bernie or Trump) vs people focusing on systems (corporate funding of elections, the creation of institutions like ICE). You know that on the left, people are largely critical of Bernie? He has not been strong against imperialism, he has not unequivocally come out in favor of ICE abolition, he has supported candidates with imperfect reproductive rights records, it took him a long time to respond to the BLM movement to the point that they had to shut down one of his rallies, etc. It's weird that people keep deflecting to talk about St Bernie or whatever as if he's individually favored on the left. He was better by far than anyone else in the Dem party at that time, that's all.

Also, what did they do when they had both houses and the white house? Obama expanded the powers of the Patriot Act. He bailed out the banks with taxpayer money and did not pass any reform. He could've spent his first two years passing universal health care, and instead he compromised and passed Obamacare. This one thing I will give him because a single player plan then probably would've failed even with their control of both houses because plenty of Dems didn't want it either- again look at who funds them. He expanded the surveliance state. He ramped up ICE's powers, increased their raids, deported more people than anyone else combined. He put immigrant children in prison with their mothers and separated them from their fathers and put them in prison alone. He invaded Libya for regime change, destroyed that civilization, there are slave markets there, the weapons/funding he sent there ended up in the hands of ISIS. He supported regime change in Haiti and Honduras. He started a damaging and bloody drone program. He gave the POTUS the right to execute American citizens abroad without due process. He increased the defense budget by millions and supported anti-union legislation. The worst of this he did while Hilary was Sec of State. He supported legislation and funding that helped destroy public schools.

What can we add in the good column? Gay marriage, his SCOTUS appointments, the Iran Deal. He was good on climate change. These things all matter. That is why I voted for Hilary despite all the evil mentioned above.

But can't you see how constantly making these compromises with the corporate funded Dems- voting for the lesser evil again and again for decades- has led us to where we are? Why in the world aren't people demanding more? They aren't going to walk away from their millions voluntarily. We have to make them do it. And we can't make them do it if we keep voting for them.


COMTE when they had a liberal majority, why didn't they do any of that? Also I agree with your strategy as the only way forward LAST TIME which is why I voted for Hilary last time around. It didn't work out that way. That ship has now sailed. We all agree now that there is nothing that can be done in at least a generation to recover this. If we are talking about a long-term decades long strategy, I see no reason why we should compromise at all on voting for corporate Dems. They are not the same. Plenty of them keep compromising with the GOP.

Also I'm not talking about Dems beating Conservatives. The GOP is like a cult now- there's no getting those people to vote Dem, you can't even have a conversation with them. In purple areas, especially in local races, it probably still makes sense to vote corporate Dem if your only alternative is a Rep for that one election. But that's not what I said. I'm talking about primarying Dems in traditionally blue places. No one should vote for a Dem who receives corporate money when there is an alternative. Ever. Even if it means voting third party. Also in places that are strongly red- which includes most rural regions of the country- there is no reason for the liberals who happen to live there to vote for corporate Dems. They should vote for the candidate without big money. This is what we are seeing across the country too, if you look at the last primary results. In red rural areas, the people who do vote blue vote to the left. This actually matters- it's the strategy the tea party used for years and it got them to where they are now.

On top of all this, we should be investing in grassroots political movements and alternative institutions because even if moderates get what they want, it's going to be decades before we undo the damage of what has been done. The party's over. We need to stop focusing on elections and start focusing on fighting institutions and building alternatives. Voting strategically should be only one tiny bit of what we do.


@27 Yes you are not paying attention. There are a million and one things that do not make headlines that differentiate the parties radically. Just look at all the shit Trump's merry minions are reversing to get some idea. Environmental regulations, banking regulations, educational initiatives, funding for scientific research, international aid aimed at promoting women's rights and human rights the list goes on and on. Indeed Obama was not Christ incarnate and did not miraculously institute a warm fuzzy socialist heaven of eternal peace on earth. It is in fact quite possible to be critical of Democrats for not showing enough spine or simply being on the wrong side of numerous issues while at the same time recognizing that there are vast differences between the parties and it is absolutely critical for the future of the human race that we do everything possible to get the one currently in power out, hopefully permanently.


IMO this is what happens when the Democrats abandoned the Big Tent approach in favor of forming a suicide pact with identity politics and the Diversity® racket. The result is not so much a political party in the conventional sense but a very loose amalgam of Hezbollah-like splinter factions that are in a state of constant dispute.


What difference does it make? There ain't no time machine, no going back in time and taking things seriously then. The only move is the your move.


I vote for the dem candidate in every election because the core dem philosophy and ideology is better than the core republican philosophy and ideology.

However, I also realize that it doesn't matter.

Doesn't matter if you're a democrat, a liberal, a republican, conservative, socialist, libertarian, anarchist, whig, tory, whatever... The real ruler of this planet is money. Big corporations, big donors, the ultra wealthy... they get what they want. The rest of us fight for their scraps. It's how it's always been. It's how it'll always be. THAT'S human nature. Like George Carlin said, "It's a big club, and you ain't in it."

So, the fight to "fix" the democrat party is cute and all, and I hope those of you in it have fun, but keep in mind every commenter here will be long dead and things will be pretty much the same as they are now. Liberals will think it's not liberal enough and conservatives will think it's not conservative enough and the wealthy will be laughing.



At no point have I ever claimed the parties are the same. In fact, I've stated repeatedly that the Dems are less evil and that this is the reason I've voted Dem in every presidential election that my vote mattered in deciding who was president.

I really wish people would stop pointing that out. YES the GOP is one of the most evil organizations in the history of humanity- and at this moment they pose not only a threat to the future of the US (which I think they have succeeded in destroying) but also in the future of the species.

WTF this has to do with anything I've said above, I don't know. The strategy of running corporate funded moderate candidates who will take swing votes and compromise with the GOP to eventually bring about long term change has FAILED. It is over. Stop beating the drum for it. It's finished.

Now we need to talk about what sort of opposition to build and what is the most strategic way to do that, and continuing to pretend that lesser evil Dems who are corporate funded and compromise with Reps is in any way an effective strategy is fucking foolish.


Amanda Marcotte: Wahhhhh! Why didn’t Hillary win?!!? Why did the polls that said Hillary would lose to Trump turn out to be true?!? Sanders isn’t a real Democrat! Drop dead Bernie Bros! Wahhhhh!!! Now I’m going to pout in my $10 latte until 2019 when I have to push Hillary or Joe Biden or some other centrist who will inevitably lose to Trump. Wahhhhh!!!

Dan: Wahhhhh!!! Why did I listen to my boyfriend? Why did I go bitankual! What is confirmation bias? Wahhhh!!!

Lissa: Wahhhh!!! Stop pointing out that we chose wrong! It was her turn! Who cares that nobody liked her and she had an enthusiasm gap! You’re jerks for pointing it out! Wahhhhh!!!


All y’all are crybabies who are doing nothing but relitigating the 2016 election for the DNC centrists like Alan “don’t impeach Trump” Dershowitz, DNC megadonor and Hillary super-supporter.

Why is this coming back around? Because people like Ocasio-Cortez are winning primaries. Have you seen Chuckie and Nancy falling head over heels to distance themselves from a Democratic Candidate’s policies?! Or how about fucking This American Life had a full hour dedicated to how the Democratic Primaries are rigged for centrists who kowtow to corporate interests. Because Alan Fucking Dershowitz is publishing columns about how we shouldn’t impeach Trump and the NYTimes is publishing op-eds titles “The Liberal Case For Brett Kavanaugh.” The DNC is unwilling and unable to properly resist and they need a scapegoat.

Because the DNC is seeming like a corporate whore with these real life examples, they started having trolls like Amanda Marcotte fire off at the mouth against Bernie supporters to push the Overton Window further right. And Danny Boy decided to make that troll into a troll post and here you are crying on it and here I am adding to the fracas. Fuck. Centrists suck.


Also, don't pooh-pooh away Obama's atrocities. It's not a matter of "he's not Jesus"- some of the shit he did was downright evil. Nonjudicial executions of American citizens abroad at the discretion of the POTUS with no oversight? Expansion of ICE and for-profit immigrant detention centers? Destruction of Libya? Bank bailouts with public money to pad the runway for corporate crash? Increased defense budgets and weapons sales to some of the most brutal regimes in the world? These are not "unchristlike" they are evil.


You know raindrop @1 you can fuck right off. She has got intelligence and she’s talking the truth. Look at the new pick by the conman your POTUS for Supreme Court Judge, these fuckers want to control women.
The time to fight though was decades ago when we knew global warming, damage to our planet, was happening because of human activity.


The Coalition between the centre-left and the left is now over.
The GOP will be in control for the foreseeable future.

I understand that it feels good to blame people and point fingers, but we all need to realize that's what got us here.
Mistakes were made, but we must move past this.
If there is any hope to save the coalition, we must stop fighting with each other.

We have a very simple choice.
We can either put aside our differences and attempt to work together, or we can forever split apart.
If we work together there is the slightest chance that we may begin to see progress.
If we split apart we are giving the government to the Republicans for at least a generation, if not more.


@2 - Oh, for fuck’s sake. Bernie Sanders wasn’t pushed out. He LOST because he alienated a majority of Democrats who weren’t straight white males. He pissed off black voters for, after ignoring them his entire elected career, spending his entire campaign distorting
the record of and attacking the first black president of the US. Latinx voters didn’t trust him on immigration after his 2007 vote — even though he supported amnesty, he also advocated reducing LEGAL immigration and campaigned on blaming Mexicans for stealing jobs from Americans. He sponsored legislation to dump nuclear waste on the primarily Latinx community of Sierra Blanca, TX (and the RNC already had ads cut about that). Women weren’t so fond of his attacks on Planned Parenthood. Disabled activists were upset about how he tried to explain their issues would be inexplicably addressed by breaking up the big banks. And all of the above and more were turned off by how dismissive he was on any issue that didn’t involve Wall Street, basically labeling everything else as “identity politics.” He went farther than any Democrat who didn’t win the nomination since 1968, so the idea that he was “pushed out” is silly. He lost because Democrats didn’t vote for him. Period.


Christ. Reading this thread it’s clear. America is doomed. Just listen to yourselves. It’s a master class in history rhyming all same stupid leftist tropes and mistakes.

Well. All you assholes deserve everything you’re going to get. Get used to losing.


@33 Eh you want to see failure you just might if people with your mindset were to succeed in getting a bunch of fringe left candidates through their primaries in districts in which they are totally out of sync with the politics of their constituents. I know this does absolutely no good but I have to keep repeating it: put your contamination suit on now and again and venture outside of your hermetically sealed coastal bubble. Middle America is not anxiously awaiting is your socialist revolution. I can tell you that is a fact.

The fundamental problem in this country is not money in politics it is the appalling ignorance of the electorate. For evidence of that look no further than the current occupant of the White House who was considerably outspent in the election that put him there.


@37 I think that statement is a bit over-dramatic. Slog comments is not exactly an accurate barometer of the condition of the 'left'. Our resident fringies certainly have an out-sized idea of how many Americans share their views but just about all evidence out there indicates that it is actually a barely perceptible sliver of the electorate. Not saying that their hyperactivity on social media can't give them influence beyond their numbers however. That may well have been a factor in 2016.


It's because, as Misanthrope says, the situation is not really lib vs con. The problem is corporate power & wealthy ruling class vs the public- individuals and institutions.

The problem is three-fold. Problem One is getting people to see this clearly. I've found that conservatives actually see it more clearly- they know that a lot of the battles we are fighting amongst ourselves are just a way for the ruling class to keep us busy. Liberals tend to have a hard time seeing this as they really are invested in thinking that someone like Hilary or Obama are generally good people on their side.

The second problem is, once you see the truth for what it is, what the fuck can you do about it? Because regardless of the fact that I know damn well that the ruling class is redistributing wealth from the public sector to the private sphere, it still fucking matters if I have reproductive rights. Likewise, conservatives who see this clearly are easily duped into thinking that Trump is an outsider on their side- because they don't understand power and think it's about a political class rather than an economic one. Plus they really do have racists resentments.

So it's annoying when someone points out something like that and then just says, yeah we are all fucked, as if solving problem one will immediately lead to a discussion of what to do about problem two.

Then it leads to problem three which is even if we can agree on "what to do about it" (for example, let's say we think the answer is socialism or overturning citizens united or whatever), people will still have no idea of what strategy to use. And we will argue over that.

Earnestly, the only thing I see going forward is to take these problems each one step at a time. And this is why the Hilary supporters and moderate Dems do need to be addressed- they still can't see Problem One. And I fail to see how you can move on to any talk about two or three without first solving problem one.


Rhizome, I live in a rural county in Texas. My background is biracial and I've spent a huge chunk of my life in India where half my family lives. I'm married to an immigrant. All my neighbors are conservatives. I couldn't be farther from a coastal bubble. Also I have not said anything about a socialist revolution but they are the ones with boots on the ground actually doing shit and making changes. I do not think they will win. I think it's going to get much more grim than most Americans can imagine, and I think I have some insight precisely because I've lived in parts of the world where public infrastructure has collapsed meanwhile pockets of private wealth are thriving and everyone outside is organized tribally or barely surviving.




I'm not basing this on slog comments.

I'm basing this on the 2016 election, and on the fact that all over this country people on the left are still relitigating the 2016 election.

The Democratic party is pulling itself apart, and if you can't see that for yourself there is absolutely nothing I can say that will change your mind.

And just so you know, I don't live on the coast, I live in Michigan.
I live in what used to be John Conyers congressional district.

If anyone is living in a bubble, it's you.


@17: Thanks again. Yes, a "slow creep right."

To everyone annoyed at Bernie voters who didn't just give up and unify behind Clinton: You know, I also get angry at people who don't do what I want them to do just because I want it (@19, so ironic that you call us petulant) - but then (and especially if I want something from them - if I'm seeking "unity") I try to understand why those other people want what they want, and maybe try to accommodate their needs.

This party hasn't been unified for years.

I voted for Bernie, then held my nose and voted for Clinton. But I've got plenty of friends who didn't (or who didn't vote at all), and I completely understand their position. Because I've also got friends who voted for Clinton for "strategic" reasons, who - if pressed - would admit that it was for economic reasons. And some folks eventually get tired of that (along with some other Repub-lite policies that the Dems have adopted over the years). The left wants real change - a core difference in how we operate in this country, in how we treat the poor and powerless. (Not just a transfer of wealth from the 1% to the 10%, but for real.) And if you don't want that, well ... that's fine for you, but don't pretend we all have the same goals.

If you ignore the left (if you ignore the poor), if you keep slowly creeping right and taking them for granted, you'll eventually lose them. Because they know their own interests (they're not stupid), and eventually they get tired of unilaterally supporting yours. They see which way this country is going (either quickly or slowly), and you can't bully them into blindness.

And then at some point you've crept so far right that there are more people on your left than there are in the middle. And the Right you've been courting will never vote for you, but you know that (you expect that), so when you don't win from the middle (as you define it) you blame us.

Harry Truman said more than 50 years ago, "If it's a choice between a genuine Republican and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time." It isn't news, and it isn't our fault. Get over it.


@43 Hey we can agree on one thing: it is likely to be grim. Cannot agree on who is to blame however. This seems to be a comfy explanation on the left: it is faceless corporations and the wealthy behind everything. Well not only is there the distinct stench of conspiracy theory surrounding that argument I think it is just willfully blind, or maybe willfully lazy. Our venal and ignorant electorate has given us the kakistocracy we are living under. Stupidity costs nothing, no one has to buy it.


@34: Again, Nope. I supported Sanders and voted for him in the primary. Clinton won the nomination, and because I am an adult and knew that if Trump gained the White House he would pack the Supreme Court in addition to all the other fucked up things he promised.
And lo! Here we are.
You couldn't get "enthused" about protecting gay marriage.
You couldn't get "enthused" about protecting the Voting Rights act.
You couldn't get "enthused" about the plight of refugees.
You couldn't get "enthused" about half of the citizens of this country losing the right to physical autonomy.
Poor, poor you.
You got what you wanted! Why so butt hurt? This is what that looks like, and now, NOW, we have to fight tooth and nail to hold onto 60 years of civil rights because you couldn't get "enthused"
And as far as Ocasio-Cortez goes, god bless her. She has her work cut out for her and we had better do everything that in our power to help her and every single candidate coming up to clean up this mess.
So quit your bawling. Too bad if you don't want to own your part in this shit show. IDGAF. Shut your yap, and get to work.


@44 Relitigating it where exactly (aside from Slog comments, or OK Slate comments, HuffPost comments)?

The fringe left is like 3% of the population at best. A loud 3%, I'll grant you that, but just a little skeptical that a tiny cadre of cranks is going to tear apart the Democratic party.


Here's all you need.to know about the.Bernie.Bots still pouting: they insisted that.the 3 million MORE voters in the Democratic primary who supported Clinton have their.votes STOLEN from them.

That ALL Clinton.voters have their votes stolen from them to support the Bernie.Bot tantrums fueled by Russian propaganda.

The Bernie Bots have finally gotten what they wanted: to destroy American Democracy -- one.way or the other.


@Rhizome re: "The fundamental problem in this country is not money in politics it is the appalling ignorance of the electorate. For evidence of that look no further than the current occupant of the White House who was considerably outspent in the election that put him there."

Yes the fundamental problem is money in politics. That is why we have no opposition party. It makes sense that you are going to have Republican party serving the corporate masters who fund them. To have a viable opposition to this, you'd have to create a party that fights those same corporate interests. You can't do this if your opposition party also serves those corporate interests. What you end up with is a fundamentalist corporate party and a moderate corporate party. Given the choice, of course I'd prefer the moderates, but that doesn't mean they aren't also serving those masters.

Second, liberals never respond to this point which fucking shocks me but here it is again: the difference only applies domestically. Democrats will stand up for the rights of Americans in many cases- they are better on civil liberties. But they do not stand up for human rights abroad. Even now, weeks before the primary, when they are supposedly the resistance, they are voting with Republicans to give BILLIONS more to the military machine. This seems to not bother liberals very much. A few months ago they approved the weapons sales to KSA and voted to continue the US enabled genocide there. The Dems did this because it serves their corporate masters. So those differences between the two parties fall apart when you talk about the affect on non-Americans, and you can't change this so long as Lockheed, Raytheon, Boeing, etc all continue to literally fund both parties.

Finally, building on Liberte's point, the reason the Dems will not move left is because of corporate funding. They instead choose to court centrists and moderate Republicans because courting leftists would mean they'd have to give up their corporate funding. So it's literally the reason we don't have an opposition party. Now I read these threads and I see that people think the left is alternately fringe cry babies while also being important enough to cause the Dems to lose the election if the leftists don't vote for them. You have to figure out which it is. If Dems lose elections because leftists won't vote for them then it might be a good idea to move left?

As to the idea that not taking corporate funding would cause them to win magically all the time against the Repubs or even against centrists- no of course not. It will enable them to build a genuine opposition party that makes winning and building alternatives a possibility. Right now, there is no possibility. It's not a magic fix- it's opening a door. Right now there is no door. We have to build a mass movement, and elections are only one small part of that.


Anyone who blames people for not voting for Hillary is missing the point in the biggest possible way. It is not the citizens' responsibility to vote for the 'right' candidate/party. It is the candidate/party's responsibility to inspire people to vote for them. The Democrats are failing horribly at this. People don't want what they represent. They represent a system that has failed the populace. As long as that is the case, they will continue to lose and the Republicans will continue to win. Left wing economic populism. That's how you get people to vote for you when the core problem is that the rich people took all the money.


Rhizome: "This seems to be a comfy explanation on the left: it is faceless corporations and the wealthy behind everything. Well not only is there the distinct stench of conspiracy theory surrounding that argument I think it is just willfully blind, or maybe willfully lazy."

As I said, I've found that it's liberals and centrists who have the hardest time seeing our economic system for what it is and how our political disputes come out of this. It's not a conspiracy theory- it's literally how our system works. All you have to do is look at the tax system, the campaign donations, the legislation and SCOTUS decisions, the police enforcement, the money behind the various media propaganda machines, the think tank funding, the lobbying, the push for deregulation in various industries and sectors, the moving of public money to the private sphere, the increasing privatization of what used to be public sector services, etc. You know all this- it's in plain sight.

And this is at the core of why Hilary voters can't understand why people oppose voting for them. From this end, it feels EXACTLY like trying to convince a Republican that Trump is not actually on their side. Centrists Dems are not on yours. It's possible that the conversation is just as futile.


It’s great you guys talk about “The Mess”, because it’s going to take a lot of grunt to get thru this. America has always fascinated me, and I do feel a lot of awe for your strength courage greed and ability to live in a democracy that is anything but.
Hillary won. End of fucking story. Get rid of this idiot Electoral College bs, stand up against all the ‘you can’t vote because of whatever’ bs and scream loud about all the gerrymandering, bs.
How you all haven’t gone stark crazy with such a dishonest form of democracy. Like I said. America. Just been reading a book on The Beats in Paris late 50’s. America and creativity. Waiting waiting for some decent resistance music.


Obama saved your fucking arses. Remember the state of your economy when he won?
Rudd in Australia completely saved our arses when shit went down everywhere else. You know what he did. He gave all pensioners etc a few bonuses, along the way, keep things moving. Poor people spend every penny they get.


And forget any old people to run for POTUS. Please. Got to be strong contenders who are young. Find them.


@51: You do realize that, had Clinton won, we still could have worked toward left wing economic populism right? And that it would have been a hell of a lot easier right? But here we are! It just goes to show that stigginit isn't the exclusive property of the Right.



"On top of all this, we should be investing in grassroots political movements and alternative institutions because even if moderates get what they want, it's going to be decades before we undo the damage of what has been done. The party's over. We need to stop focusing on elections and start focusing on fighting institutions and building alternatives. Voting strategically should be only one tiny bit of what we do."

Which is precisely what the fringe-left is NOT doing to any great degree; fielding large numbers of candidates at the local level, which is what they NEED to be doing to start generating the kind of grass-roots traction that is crucial to building a viable national party structure. It's not enough - far from it - to simply field a marginal presidential candidate every four years and think that in and of itself is going to be enough. It's not, it's never going to be.

As for de-emphasizing focus on elections - it's not an either/or proposition. We need to be focusing on BOTH elections (since that's the fundamental mechanism by which governmental change occurs) AND building alternatives to existing socio-political institutions and structures.



Yes of course, that is why I voted for her. But she lost. Time to figure out a better strategy. We tried that one. It didn't work. And now here we are and things are worse.

I don't understand why people keep coming back to this. Then they complain about lefties bringing up Bernie. YOU liberals and Hilary supporters are the ones who keep bringing it up. The left has moved on. They have swollen the ranks of loads of left of Dem organizations- Justice Dems, the DSA, Our Revolution, One America, etc. They are running candidates and getting them elected. They are shutting down ICE facilities, shaming Trump officials into resigning. It's you liberals who keep bringing up Hilary and Bernie. So we keep hashing it out trying to get you to understand so we can move on.

Yes things would've been better if Hilary won. They'd still be on the path to where we are now, but we wouldn't be living in this accelerated hellscape. But she didn't win. She lost. And that was two years ago. So what the fuck does that have to do with anything I said?


@ COMTE I didnt' say it was an either/or. In the post you quoted, I literally said "on top of this".

I don't know what you are calling the "fringe" left as anyone can call anything on a spectrum outside mainstream fringe. But it's the left forming unions, public banks, city councils, tenants orgs, bail funds, etc.


@52 There are all sorts of groups lobbying for their interests and sure enough those with money are going to have an out-sized influence. Trouble is your entire construct is cartoonish: there are all these nefarious ill-defined dark shadowy forces pulling the strings behind everything. Reality is not that simple, or interesting. Like for instance your pet theme here: foreign policy. Well I would say for the most part you simply varnish over the fact that international politics is extremely complex or you are too lazy to look into it, like most of the armchair generalisimos who will hold forth until they are out of breath about, for instance, the Obama administration's botched intervention in Libya. You see, with that for instance, not particularly as simple as it might seem. For one thing, it was arguably more of a European driven intervention than one lead by the US. And if you think about it for maybe two seconds you can sort of see where the European motivation was coming from. Not too far over there to the east of Libya what do we have? An intractable conflict, the festering open sore of Syria. What do the Europeans want to prevent more than anything: another Syria. For sure the rationale of a 'humanitarian intervention' was bunk but so are the arguments of most of the armchair generalisimos. There are often no good options. None. That's reality. And I am for sure critical of aspects of Obama's foreign policy, such as the enthusiasm for assassination by drone, but again very easy for the armchair critics to completely dispense with bothersome realities such as: any administration is going to be super paranoid about avoiding domestic terror attacks or major attacks on US citizens/interests abroad. Fact of the matter is the vast majority of the population expects them to be super paranoid about such things.


@52: Why don't you go and explain all that to women who will be losing their right to personhood. I'm sure they'll see that their sacrifice is for the greater good.
Because again EmmaLiz, Clinton getting elected would not have prevented us from fighting against our current arguably corrupt economic/political system.
But no. Now we have to re-fight battles that our grandparents already won and won't that just keep us busy! Too busy to fight the system that is in place. Weren't we clever. Weren't we pure.


Also it's the left orgs and non corporate Dems running challenges to Cruz and Ryan, all the seats in NY which have recently gotten coverage, and loads of city councils and local level positions across the country. I think Justice Dems has endorsed like 75 candidates and the DSA has gotten like 50 elected. I agree it's a drop in the bucket, but it's how the Tea Party started out. The biggest obstacle to many of these races have been corporate Dems.


@56 No. I do not recognize that at all. The Democratic party and especially the Clinton/Obama/Biden DLC folks that run the party are 100% opposed to economic populism. That's the problem. Any tiny little scraps of economic populism they say they will give us (but then usually don't) is forced upon them by the Sanders wing of the party.

Also, she didn't win. She lost. To a lunatic. And that is the biggest issue of them all. The Democrats are losers! That's all they do is lose. They lost 1000 seats during Obama's tenure. That's a failed political party. You are continuing to support failure. You are in the wrong.



27,834,835 votes were cast in the 2016 Democratic primary.
12,029,699 of those people voted for Bernie Sanders.
Most of those 12 million people are still unhappy with the Democratic establishment, even though the vast majority of them voted for Hillary Clinton in the general election.

If you think the problem is "The Fringe Left", then you're not looking at things clearly.


49% of eligible voters can't be bothered to do so, and it seems the other 51% are Drama Queens on speed telling us the end of the world has arrived.


@32: Hey MoltenGal, defeatism is not intelligence. The good Dr. sums it up nicely in the last two paragraphs of @19.


The people are not sorry for you or your student loans.

63, this one is so glaringly obvious I won’t even say it.



You STARTED the paragraph with that, but later you also said, "We need to stop focusing on elections and start focusing on fighting institutions and building alternatives" - sounds pretty either/or to me. But, be that as it may.

@50 you said: "If Dems lose elections because leftists won't vote for them then it might be a good idea to move left?" This misses the obvious point that if the Democratic Party moves farther to the left they may pick up leftists, but they also run the risk - a very real one given the current state of our political environment - of losing centrists, and there are many more of them than of the former, so the result - lost elections - isn't necessarily going to change by doing so. That's the kind of cold, hard calculation a mainstream political organization has to perform, and given the 2016 results I for one don't see any evidence that shifting as far left as you seem to be suggesting would have resulted in net more votes, particularly in swing states where centrists essentially hold sway, than what they otherwise received. If you can demonstrate the outcome would have been any different using your strategy, I would definitely like to see how that would have been the case.


And one more fucking time.
I. Supported. Sanders.
I. Voted. For. Him. In. The. Primary.
I. Want. And. Wanted. Change.
But because I am an adult, and because I would rather have fought for our future than to keep from losing what we already had, I voted for Clinton.
And this what, as a progressive, makes me so blindingly angry. That people like Misanthrope and Original Andrew, were not only willing to sell out 60 years of hard won civil rights, but also to make it THAT MUCH HARDER for us to make any gains.
And I will never let them forget it.


@63 Populism: a euphemism for demagoguery. Every fascist was a 'populist'. And no politician who is going to feed people a bunch of fairy-tales in order to get elected is going to govern competently or effectively.


I rather like that raindrip. MoltenGal. Look mate, you’re not a woman, correct? Then you don’t see it. These fuckers want to take every freedom from women, whatever colour or creed. So how bout you cut the pious bs and think.
Fuck em. Nothing defeatism about her words. She’s saying the truth. Damage has been done by letting big don into the WH. Now, it’s time for resistance.
I hope American Women rise like one to squash this beast headed by trump.


@70 I don't agree with your statement at all.



"And I will never let them forget it."

So you want to alienate them forever?

Both of my children decided not to vote in 2016.
What am I supposed to do?
Am I supposed to just write them off forever?


@69 Doesn't sound particularly productive towards your stated aims.


72 Ensure their understanding of grammar and syntax are sufficient to find Igor in the “news”.



@64 OK, that's about 4% of the population.

The majority of the population is unhappy with politicians in general, always. Can't say I entirely disagree but I maintain that the fringe left (and I mean the fringe left, not just the never appeased 'throw the bums out' crowd) wildly overestimates their numbers. They can sink elections though, sure. I'm not in the camp that says they sank the last one however. The exurban white meatheads that turned out in droves for Trump were not motivated by arguments being made by urban leftists they were motivated by loathing of urban leftists.



Again, I voted for Clinton. I agree it would be better if she were elected. But unless you have a time machine, there's nothing we can do about that now. So instead of repeatedly saying that if Clinton had won, things would be different, why not start to analyze why she lost and what we can do about it going forward? Because saying that things would be peachy if Clinton won is A) not true and B) irrelevant. If you want to try the smae strategy again next time you will have the same results.


What caused the USSR to collapse? Among many things, it was their attempt to both fund their massive military and also invest in social programs. Do you think it was a conspiracy theory to point out that the people who controlled the Soviet state in the 60s-80s were also the people who profited from it? The US is the only country in the world that can run such a massive deficit and still be wealthy. It has a deficit nearly five times greater than the next largest. This is not a problem like conservatives make it out to be with their worries about deficit spending- if they thought so they wouldn't invest so much in the military. It's not a problem SO LONG as capitalism continues to expand because the dollar is the capitalist world's default currency. This means all around the world, people invest surpluses in the US, buying their debt, trading in dollars, etc. I'm sure you know this. So think through what it requires for a second. In this unique situation, the US is also capable of investing huge amounts of money in both the military- trillions, with a military presence in a 1/3 of the worlds countries, by far the greatest arms exporter, occupations and regime changes and coups and election interference everywhere. I know damn well why they do this- it's because without doing it they'd lose regional hegemony in some places and the US share of control of global wealth would start to decline which would be catastrophic not just for US domestic economics but also global capitalism. While they are doing this, they are also investing heavily in infrastructure and welfare state programs- taxpayers fund both, both the military and the domestic infrastructure. It's impossible to pay for all of this - a very expensive state AND by far the greatest and most expensive military in the history of the world (greater than just about everyone else combined)- without running a massive deficit. Impossible. The Soviets tried, and it broke them. So this is all fine and dandy so long as capital continues to expand and the wealthy continue to invest their surpluses in dollars. Now the problem is that the rest of the world is rising too and now the share of wealth and places you can invest is likewise declining - simultaneously, corporations and the ruling class here in the US have been reducing what they pay in taxes and their investments in social infratructure and welfare programs. So people who are not rich are having to subsidize that wealth- you cut taxes on the rich and you give corporations massive tax breaks so that they continue to do business in your town but you still have to fund roads and schools etc- so now you are going to pay for that with property taxes and sales taxes increases etc. This is a requirement short term because it increases the profits of the very rich- they are the ones who LITERALLY (and you can't call this an exaggeration or a conspiracy theory) fund elections and lobby groups and influence legislation and foreign policy, and if you don't give them what they want, they will go somewhere cheaper- there's nothing corporate sponsored politicians can advocate for otherwise. Longer term, it's a requirement to keep dollar based capitalism expanding- first there was investment and growth in Japan and Germany then secondary states around that (Trump is trying something similar with KSA right now) and this requires fighting to maintain that hegemony. Then there was an investment in China. Now it's in the urban building boom. I don't know where they will go next. So all at the same time, you have 1) the share of global wealth that the US controls shrinking (as other states rise up), 2) the cost of maintaining what we have left is rising (military costs), 3) the wealth that is generated domestically is also at a higher cost, the very rich are hoarding more of it than they ever have since the pre New Deal days through regressive taxes and subsidies, and 4) the social infrastructure defunded and privatized more than it has ever been since pre New Deal days yet still requiring even more investments. The political class in this country is doing what they have been purchased to do- buffer these losses by creating policies that support the very rich to help them maximize their profits within this situation. There is no opposition doing the same for public infrastructure or people- we just eat the loss and fund the rich's. Neither in labor nor in any political group with power- you can't look at the recent SCOTUS decision about labor, the tax bill, citizens united, etc, and see otherwise. And so you have literally very rich people fighting for short term control of massive wealth because the expansion is accelerated and the need to for shorter and shorter term returns is likewise accelerated. It would be a conspiracy theory if I thought there were smart evil rich people at the top pulling the strings of all of this. Instead, I see it for what it is- unstable race to the bottom with very wealthy fighting over the last remnants of it for the purpose of short term profit. The rest of us have already lost.

Foreign policy is not a pet project. It's literally life and death for millions of people including people I know and love, and the cause of the massive refugee and immigration crisis around the world that yes obviously affects everyone's life here. What the US could do with those 'hard decisions' is not intervene. They don't have to carry out wars for regime change or interfere in others politics, and you can't make a serious humanitarian argument that US interference has helped- the histories of Central America, Southeast Asia, Middle East and North Africa demonstrate otherwise. So they could choose to not intervene. The reason they don't is that it another power would step in, be it Chinese or Russian, and accelerate the loss of US hegemony and share of global wealth and slowly but surely chip away at the unique position that allows capitalist expansion and the running of a US deficit. This is why both our corporate parties have the same foreign policy. The question is how you feel about living in a state that literally requires the destruction of millions of lives around the world. I have a hard time voting for that, and I see the urgency to create an alternative system, not just reform the one we have. I also have no idea how to do that, and I'm not sure that socialist projects will be sufficient. But at least they are advocating for the prioritization of the public sphere and the end to imperialism. As I have lived in other countries, including those that the US has destroyed, I can see what is going to happen. We are going to end up with some sort of corporate control oligarchy that sets trade laws and regulation policy and tax policy and that operates in pockets of wealth- people who can afford to purchase infrastructural services will have them and will be able to shop and have a nice life, and the rest of us will be outside at each other's throats. This is how it is in much of the world, only we have millions of guns and fragmented communities with already despairing levels of alienation, isolation and individual violence.

Now you were basically taunting me to explain a very complicated subject, and I have done my best. I suggest instead you read about it if you are really curious why so many of us on the left see this in terms of extremely wealthy corporations vs public sector.


Glad I was watcing the France-Belgium game when this was raging on.


@COMTE- yes that is a risk and it is a gamble. But the point is that we already tried it the other way. The Dems tried to run centrist and see if they could win that way, and they lost. So instead of catering to a tiny pool of mythical centrist swing voters AGAIN, try it the other way. See if running to the left picks up not just the lefties but also a few of the remaining HALF THE POPULATION who are disaffected. Maybe if you give them something to vote for? It will put some moderates in the position that leftists have been in my entire life: they will be forced to vote for who they think is the lesser evil. Just like with leftists, you will lose some of them. Just like with leftists, the majority of them will hold their nose and vote for the Dems. But you might pick up some of the disaffected who until now don't vote at all.

But really that is beside the point- because the point that I'm making is greater than that. I don't think a leftist Dem party would win all the elections and suddenly sweep the country. But they would be capable of winning some seats and that would be enough to form an actual opposition party which currently does not exist.


@10, exactly correct. And I'm not seeing here any specific suggestions on strategy.

What I'm increasingly seeing on the left is a lot of venting with no specific goal, anger without a defined political strategy, nastiness which is supposedly okay because we liberal and leftists are "right."

Yes, the left is truly becoming more right every day -- and not in a good way.


COMTE I meant we (the public, commenters, whatever) should stop focusing so much on elections. Most people do nothing political other than vote. It should be a tiny percentage of what YOU as an individual does.

For a movement of many individuals, running candidates is important, but not the only thing they should do, and I'd say at this moment in history, not even the most important thing. But definitely important - one of several tactics.

Sorry for the confusion.


@72: I'm not writing anybody off. There is too much work to do. Your children were fools and they will pay the price for selling out both their future and the rights others had already won for them right along with the rest of us. Now they have to work that much harder. Just like you and me.


So, every American commenting here is a member of NARAL Pro-Choice America, right?


Put up or shut up.



"OK, that's about 4% of the population."

Only 5% of the population voted for Hillary in the Democratic primary.
Only 9% of the population voted in the Democratic primary.

44.4% of the people that participated in the Democratic primary voted for Bernie.
That significant, whether you think so or not.


@69 As early as January 2016, you were falling for Dan’s Bernie Bro schtick. You kept claiming you liked both equally, but you were quick to say saying that progressives could be misogynists and actively preparing progressives for a Hillary win.

I’m not letting you forget that. I also don’t believe you primaried for Bernie. If everybody who claimed they primaried for Bernie actually primaried for Bernie, he would have won in a landslide. Besides, you were going around throwing invective at anybody who dared speak out against Hillary even as she threw away the election.

I’m not buying your More Progressive Than Thou Act. Especially not in conjunction with your Kumbaya under a Corporate Party schtick you’re playing today. Besides, you know perfectly well that we wouldn’t have nearly the liberal activist anger under Clinton to fight for meaningful change. Any criticism of her policies would have continued to be met with accusations of misogyny and other forms of slander. There were many many liberals who said “I hate being angry. Under Clinton, I would be enjoying a latte right now.” And that’s a huge problem.


@73: Yeah, because setting things up so we have to re-fight battles we won 50-60 years ago is going to get all our progressive goals accomplished. Cuz that's where we are now. All that energy we could have been using to foster the change we wanted now has to be split and redirected so black people don't get their voting rights stripped from them, women aren't forced to be incubators for a start.


@76 Whew! Indeed just about everything about this society is unsustainable. In truth, the sustainability of deficits and debts has more to do with the size of the economy which is incurring the deficit and debt however, not the size of the deficit or debt compared to that of other countries.

So you've written a tome there and then boiled it down to a simple solution (from what I can glean anyway): we just need to 'not intervene'. Hey why didn't anyone think of that? I don't know, maybe see previous comment about armchair critics being too lazy to acknowledge the complexity of international politics. Rwanda: don't intervene? You are aware that many many of your compatriots on the far left were screeching about Obama's reluctance to intervene in Syria weren't you? I am all for avoiding conflicts at pretty much all cost but I'll repeat what I said above: any demagogue who is going to feed people fairy-tales in order to get elected is not going to govern competently or effectively. That it all comes down to something as simple as 'don't intervene', always, is a fairy-tale.


Are you serious? Half the left is Assadists, unfortunately. You think they wanted Obama to intervene? I don't know what you are calling "the left" here but Syria could be a great example of how leftist foreign policy can be flawed, but certainly not in the way you think.

I did not write a tome about noninterventionism. If you can only pull that thread out of it and try to look at it in isolation, then I don't know what to tell you. About Rwanda in particular, there is a difference between US intervention and interference and a genuine global force- the UN could in theory be a body that could intervene in preventing genocides when needed. Worth noting that it is usually the US that prevents it from being that body (both in Rwanda where the US refused to acknowledge it was a genocide and in the slaughter in Yemen right now that the UN has been condemning, and in Libya where the US pushed for regime change despite their charter). But this is all nit picking- the larger economic view went straight over your head and you focused on trees and not forests- the point is an understanding of the military industrial complex as the backbone of dollar capitalism. This is not a conspiracy theory, it's literally how our system works and it's why we don't have an opposition party. You asked about this and I explained it best I could.


@76: Our comments crossed. I saw that you had said that. Sorry for the confusion. I agree with most of what you're saying and I'm not yelling at you. I agree that we have to go forward and work with what we've got. I'm just furious in general, and in particular at people who should have known better. People who said they wanted change and then made it that much harder to get it.


@85 You are just looking for someone to take your anger out on. You've chosen to fight for the corporate centrists. You are on the wrong side.


@84: LOL I did indeed vote for Sanders in the primary my dear. Whether you believe it or not means fuck all to me.
I think you're right that there wouldn't be the same urgency under Clinton that we're seeing now. The middle would be complacent like they always are when it's not their ox being gored. Not for nothing was that sign about how white women would be brunching instead of marching if Clinton had won mercilessly mocked.
But that wouldn't have stopped you from continuing to work for change right? Well me neither, but you're right, I'm working harder now and I could work harder still. So thank you for that reminder.
Let's not pretend that there wasn't a lot of misogyny in the mix in 2016. Any time a woman runs, left, right, or center it rears its head. Take a look at what Ocasio-Ortiz is facing. Pointing that out, and objecting to it from people who are supposed to know better, makes me more of a progressive not less.


@89: Oh you are hilarious! XOXO


@90 The invective thrown at Ocasio-Cortez is mostly not misogyny. Nancy Pelosi was not being misogynistic when she said Ocasion-Cortez’s politics wouldn’t fly in the Midwest. This is centrism trying to reassert itself. It’s the same centrism that accused Berners of misogyny in 2016 in order to assert itself by getting Hillary nominated.

Not all criticism of women is based in misogyny. If I said that Sarah Huckabee Sanders deserves every ounce of invective she gets, just as Mitch McConnell should get, that’s not misogyny. Shouting misogyny at every turn is a crutch.

That said, this administration has taught me how complacent our Democratic politicians are. We’ve had bipartisan filibusters broken by Democrats, and yet we’re still hearing the same old broken tune “Vote Blue No Matter Who.” That shit ain’t playing in the heartland.


Rhizome, in your comparisons by the way, you are missing out on the unique thing about the US- it's exceptional ability to print the capitalist world's default currency. This is why the US can run the deficit as large as it is, why it can fund the programs and military I named, and why the rest of the world must participate in this- either as allies or client states or as states where we maintain a military presence to fight for hegemony or else you are listed as enemies. All the other stuff you named explains slight variations (there are surplus and deficit states around the world but none with an extreme like the US) but it doesn't explain how capitalism as we know it is imperialistic and how this is driven by corporations and the very wealthy fighting for short term profit through an accelerating system that requires growth. There is no other country on the planet that has an economy that works like the US- it's an outlier. This is the key to understanding why the things I'm talking about are not conspiracy theories and also why there is no solution to be found from within the current system and also why there is no opposition party and also why there can't be one if they take corporate money.

If that's too big picture for you, look at your own microcosm of local taxes. What social programs do you fund? How much of your money goes to defense contracts? How much do you pay in taxes? How much do you pay for services on top of that to private providers? Now compare those things to the the tax subsidies and incentives given to the corporations that exist in your city. Then ask what percentage of their necessary costs do you pay on top of that. Then ask yourself what you could do if you wanted to change this - what collective groups could you join? What incentives or subsidies are those groups given? Who funds them? Etc.

It's not this way by accident. You don't need something to be a conspiracy theory for it to be fucking you over.


@54 cont: PM Rudd stimulated our economy not just by this means, ie giving extra money to those on Centrelink payments / our social security: welfare, also thru money for new buildings for schools, new houses for remote Aboriginal communities etc. etc. Helped to kept people working until things righted again. Then we have tougher laws round lending etc than the US, so we were not subjected to the same horrors.


@92: lucky she’s not in the Midwest then. She’s in NY. And what a strong independent young woman she is.


Try getting someone like turtle head Mitch winning in the Liberal districts.


Nancy should step aside, another one past their used by date. And she wanted her boy to win, keeps it all cosy with the money people.