scoundrel DWS change the rules to allow the superdelegates to vote before the convention?

I keep seeing Hillarycrats saying the primary is over. Seems to me that we had more voters who did not want to be disenfranchised, but maybe that's how the Hillarycrats prefer it.

No wonder she divides the party and can't even beat Trump.

Johnson has picked a strong running mate and the Libertarian vote will be a much bigger factor than usual this election in light of the historic unfavorable numbers for both major party front-runners.

It would be wise to (a) subtly define Johnson-Weld as the alternative conservative who shares much more than Trump in common with traditional Republicans and (b) implicitly promote Johnson's and Weld's profiles.

If we don't define Johnson-Weld as the conservative alternative to Trump, the Republicans will define the ticket as a middle-ground choice (to take evenly from both parties instead of taking predominantly from the Republicans).

IMPORTANTLY, this should be a primary issue. Our primary is ongoing and theirs is effectively over. If we wait until after the convention to start defining Johnson-Weld, we will have failed to capitalize on the primacy opportunity we have to introduce currently unknown Johnson-Weld with our picture of what his role in the Fall will be about.

politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies.

"In the United States, "Third Way" adherents embrace fiscal conservatism to a greater extent than traditional social liberals, and advocate some replacement of welfare with workfare, and sometimes have a stronger preference for market solutions to traditional problems (as in pollution markets), while rejecting pure laissez-faire economics and other libertarian positions. The Third Way style of governing was firmly adopted and partly redefined during the administration of President Bill Clinton…  Clinton, Blair, Prodi, Gerhard Schröder and other leading Third Way adherents organized conferences to promote the Third Way philosophy in 1997 at Chequers in England.  The Third Way think tank and the Democratic Leadership Council are adherents of Third Way politics."

"Neoliberal" - favoring international trade agreements to benefit the corporate sector globally, deregulation of the banking and financial sectors, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy (as with the movement toward private prisons).

"The Clinton Administration embraced neoliberalism by pursuing international trade agreements that would benefit the corporate sector globally (normalization of trade with China for example). Domestically, Clinton fostered such neoliberal reforms as the corporate takeover of health care in the form of the HMO, the reduction of welfare subsidies, and the implementation of 'Workfare'."

"The high rate (compared to Europe) of incarceration in the U.S. – specifically 1 in 37 American adults is in the prison system – heavily promoted by the Clinton administration, is the neoliberal U.S. policy tool for keeping unemployment statistics low, while stimulating economic growth through the maintenance of a contemporary slave population and the promotion of prison construction and 'militarized policing.'"

Why do you pretend that Democrats in red states like Texas or blue states like California will affect SCOTUS nominations, LGBTQ equality, immigration reform, and other progressive causes by voting for or against a neoliberal-neocon third-way candidate at the top of the ticket?

We both know this argument is total bullshit in the 45 + states (over 90% of contests) that will not be battleground states in November.

The path to unity is not via threats or hollow fear mongering arguments, but in fixing the broken party rules and ineffective leadership, adopting a progressive platform, including a progressive on the ticket, and finding a central role for the Sanders-Warren wing of the party at the convention and beyond.

A true leader could accomplish this easily - this simple task will require 1/10th the compromise and good will that governing with a Republican House will require. A leader who cannot cooperate with allies will probably fail in November before we get a chance to see how poorly she fares working with a hostile House of Representatives.

Makes you wonder how she's going to bring Paul Ryan and a nation that's chock-full of Republucans "to heel" (as she likes to say) much less how she'd find common ground with antagonistic leaders in Russia and China.

Yeah, we got a foolproof plan working here.

Assume Hillary is the nominee. If there is meaningful party rules reform, a progressive platform, a ticket with a progressive VP nominee, and a useful roll for the FDR-Sanders-Warren wing of the party at the convention and beyond, there will be a greater degree of unity.

If DWS and lobbyists continue to have dominance at the DNC, if the platform is all double-talk and centrist pablum, if the VP nominee is a neocon or a neoliberal, and if the HRC-DWS wing of FDR's party freezes out the FDR-Sanders-Warren wing of the party at the convention and beyond, there will still be some unity but not as much.

Regardless of whether Hillary is nominated, the movement led by Sanders will go forward; the question is whether it goes on within the Democratic Party or parallel to the Democratic Party.

Any Sanders supporter who might vote for Trump doesn't understand what the movement is about. In fact, these voters probably don't care that there is a Sanders-led movement or care what our movement is about. They probably don't have the luxury of reading about and debating the candidates on the internet. They are low information voters who cannot afford the luxury of the time and resources to access information which you take for granted.

They are fucked and they want the fucking to stop.

1. They hear Sanders has a plan to stop the fucking.

2. They hear Hillary says the fucking in the new normal so get used to it.

3. They hear Trump says he see that the fucking is going on and he says he agrees with them that the fucking is bad and he is making false promises about stopping the fucking.

Of these 3 options, Trump's sounds second best to many low information voters who just want the fucking to stop.

If you do not understand this fact, you do not understand the Sanders supporters who would vote for Trump. These people are not spending their free time on DU. They are working a second (or third) job for minimum wage (or worse).

Hillary is not appealing to these voters who would be Democrats if they saw any hope in the Democratic platform. This is how Reagan persuaded a generation of union members to vote for a union-busting candidate: they saw a Democratic Party that they believed had abandoned them. We're doing that again.

Elizabeth Warren to run, and when she didn't but Sanders did, we have been really pleased with his movement and the issues he raises. We're still pulling for Sanders to win the nomination, but if he doesn't win, we will vote Hillary or write-in Sanders or vote Jill Stein depending on what vote advances this movement.

If Hillary picks a progressive running mate, puts progressives on the platform and rules committees, does not breach her promises to progressives by "turning to the right" for the general election, and gives Sanders or other representatives of the FDR-Warren-Sanders wing of the party prominent roles at the convention, we're totally on board and will contribute, canvas, and campaign for her.

Even if she doesn't do this, if the race is close and we live in one of the couple of states where a vote for Hillary might make a difference between a disappointing Hillary administration and a disastrous Trump administration, we'll pinch our noses, but if the race isn't that close generally or in our states, we won't feel any need to pinch our noses. Under these circumstances, many of us who see that our vote will not make a difference between a Trump administration or a less disappointing alternative will write-in Sanders or vote Jill Stein and focus on down-ballot progressive Democrats instead of a no-win choice at the top of the ticket.

Finally, we cannot ignore those who are desperately left behind by the economic recovery that has pushed so many out into the cold. These people need change. They are holding a losing hand and need to shuffle the deck to get a new deal. They love the change Sanders advocates, and they see that Hillary doesn't get it. Trump gets that the current system is totally broken for them and he offers change (not the change they want from Sanders but at least a reshuffling of the deck), and Hillary is the country's number one figure arguing for the status quo establishment. "Change" is the number one issue - and sometimes the only issue - for these people. Some of these people will vote for Trump if the choice is Hillary versus Trump.