The survey suggests Democratic voters want to ditch the current party leadership and embrace the grassroots
Time for a divorce.
Who knows, we may actually be heading for a 3-party system - The Republicans seem to be going through the same mitosis on the right that the Democrats are going though on the left. Perhaps we’ll end up with Liberals/Centrists/Conservatives at the end of the day.
It should be obvious by now, down to every toad and tobacco plant, that the D “leadership” has no more respect for its base than does Brand R. The familiar split—with D voters wanting and not getting peace, and R voters wanting and not getting fiscal responsibility—points to the utter failure of a system which claims to represent all 330 million of us with only two allowed parties.
For starters, focusing our finite resources on peace instead of war would be fiscally responsible, yet neither party is going to touch that line of reasoning with a ten-foot pole. The same is true with regard to climate disruption, health care and taxation: common sense, like common courtesy, has become oxymoronic.
52%? That’s a very small majority. It’s a significant amount, but I’m still alarmed that the other half doesn’t want more progressive policies. Why don’t they just join the Republicans and become a moderate.
Interesting. However, I am not sure how much confidence to have in a poll conducted online although that was adjusted for (hopefully accurately). I would think a telephone poll would provide results that were more reliable. And after the results of the last election I am not sure what to believe when it comes to polls. In any case, it is another data point. More to think about going forward.
Yes! Go Bernie! Go Bernie! Go Bernie! And all those Dems, Progs, Independents, who support his platform. Time to accompany and work with the younger folks to a place where they can survive climate change and thrive into the next era, with renewable energy and no more WARS!!!
“Consistent with previous surveys, the new Harvard-Harris poll also found that Sanders is far and away the most popular politician in the country, while President Donald Trump remains broadly unpopular.”
Does anyone doubt my contention that American presidents are selected not elected?
The meaning of 52% depends somewhat on the margin of error. If it was 4% then it would be 48% to 56%.
Dislodging the money-sucking barracudas of both parties from the gravy train is the problem. I still think that the left needs to fight fire with fire and quit bringing a knife to a gunfight. If rafts of money is what it takes to buy back our government, let’s organize progressive organizations to raise rafts of money to fund progressive candidates and primary corporate democrats out of office, run progressives against republicans anywhere and everywhere, and, if necessary, simply buy back politicians who are now owned by corporations and billionaires. Ten dollars, two times a year from the progressive majority in this country would raise 4 billion dollars a year to buy our country back. A four-billion dollar war chest, year in and year out is easily attainable with the proper organization and would go a long way to counter the money spent by regressive forces. It is impossible to undo the damage already done without being in power, so attaining power for progressives must be the first step. If out-spending the opposition is what it takes, so be it. Once we have progressive governance, then we can take the necessary steps to rebuild our institutions.
The 1% will always be able to outgun the 99% with their huge money supply and ongoing control of gubmit that continues to make the 1% wealthier and the 99% poorer.
A progressive third party is just as good a solution as trying to outspend the 1%. The reason the 1% put so much effort into discrediting third parties is so they can concentrate their financial resources within the two corporate parties.
Long story short…until all private money in politics is made illegal, progressives will be fighting what is tantamount to an ever escalating arms race that we can’t win.
The Democratic Party is much like the nation itself - they are not controlled by the people but by an inside elite that has no interest in democracy or sharing power.
Perhaps. 4.4 billion spent in 2016 for all candidates. 4 billion a year for progressives alone would go a long way to evening the playing field.
“until all private money in politics is made illegal” This will NEVER happen as long as progressives remain frozen out of office. A third party might be viable, but it will need to be well-funded to gain traction against the monied interests. Instead of crying about the unfairness of the current rules of the game, rules that we will be unable to change unless and until progressives gain power, play by the rules now to gain the power to change the rules later. 4 billion $ a year is easily do-able to gain the power necessary to change the rules.
The 1% gets such a high rate of return on investment (ROI) owning gubmit that they can up the ante way beyond $4 billion.
It wasn’t that long ago that EMILY’s List (Early Money Is Like Yeast) was going to give us better candidates. And what was the culmination of all those good intentions? The sore loser Hillary Rottenhams Clinton.
Instead of pouring yet more money down the “two-party” rat hole, let’s start by voting exclusively Green, independent or write-in and see how long it takes for Brand D to smell the coffee.
The more " moderate " positions of Centrist ideas could be a $12.50 minimum wage or a Public Option ( unspecified ) rather than Single Payer, for example. Hard to tell by the data the article offers here. $12.50 and Public Option policy have already been vetted by the Clintonista Wing in the 2016 primary, etc. That’s the incremental view.
The biggest " takeaway " is the surge in young people wanting much more progressive and bottom up policies than the DNC is currently supporting with their more incrementalist approach. Just more intra-party hashing out.
The real test will be where the $$$ is divvied up and which wing gets to control the checkbook in 2018.
There’s always that to consider, but in any case I still think that chunk of Dems needs to reconsider the other party!
Without funding, third parties will be lost in a sea of duopoly monied campaigns. I did not say use the money necessarily to fund D’s, but progressives. And, the notion of taking over one of two political brands is not far-fetched. Look at what is happening to the republicans. They have been overrun by the far-right tea party. They did it with organized money and primaries to oust the merely right-wing R’s. Simply voting third-party will not wake up anybody. The republicans, bankrolled and organized, will laugh all the way into office at an unorganized and splintered left. It’s time to bankroll candidates that people will be excited to vote for (with the emphasis on BANKROLL).
I figure there are about 200 million more or less progressive supporters in this country. If twenty dollars a year is not enough, give forty. Bernie Sanders did it without the support of wealth. Believe it or not, 200 million people can consistently outspend the wealthy without even a financial struggle.
Tom Steyer and The Environmental Wing have the $$$ to kick start the Progressive Wing. It will be interesting to see if Nader’s suggestion of a Billionaire(s) group to run a candidate or slate in 2020 is a serious option.
Public Financing of elections is the real winner, of course. Which currently has large, well-funded opposition from various special interests.