To those saying that Democrats

[Blue Idaho]

Should do everything in their power to please independents - even at the expense of pleasing most Demorats are arguing that the tail should wag the dog.

If anyone wants to join in with our party and our values - they are more than welcome. But those demanding wholesale changes to prove we are worthy of their vote should find another party to support.

[BlueCaliDem]

1. I agree. There's nothing wrong in asking and pushing for progressive changes, but *demanding* those

changes won't be heard or taken seriously.

[TwilightZone]

2. They want the change but not the work that goes along with it.

As many of us have been saying all election season, progress is very difficult and takes years, if not decades, of hard work. Those who think they can just wave a magic wand and get everything handed to them overnight are seriously misguided, at best.

[Blue Idaho]

3. I think what many of them want

Is an existing national party machine with staff and offices in each state that they can co-opt for their own purposes. I'm all for change, but let's make sure the vast majority of party members agree with the direction of that change.

Saying "the party" needs to remake itself in their image really is the tail wagging the dog.

[TwilightZone]

5. Agreed, which is essentially what Sanders attempted to do.

He could pretend (barely) to be a Democrat for a while and take advantage of what others spent decades building.

The problem, of course, was that he convincingly lost the primary - and lost Dems nearly 2:1 - but still thought that the party should remake itself in his image. He, and seemingly many of his supporters, didn't (and, perhaps, still doesn't) seem to understand why those who spent decades building the party might take issue with that.

[Blue Idaho]

9. Yup...

Sen. Sanders will be running as an independent again this fall for re-election to his seat in the Senate. What does that tell you?

[yallerdawg]

4. Bill Maher said choice is like an airplane menu.

Chicken or fish.

If you want pizza or a hamburger - sorry, chicken or fish. That is all that is on this airplane.

If you don't like smelly, offensive, sketchy fish (Trump), then you only have one choice remaining (Hillary).

[TwilightZone]

6. Some of them just want the plane to crash.

[Blue Idaho]

7. Welcome to the two party system...

It's been with us for quite some time. Not saying that's good, just saying it's a fact. Unfortunately the problem with most "third parties" is they want to show up once every four years and compete for the most important political job in America. Nobody knows them and nobody trusts them. I don't see that ever working. If you want a viable third choice (pizza) you got to start at the grass roots level and build a structure from there. It takes time... Lots and lots of time. Run people for dog catcher, city council, state offices, and then on to the national scene with congress members. Build an infrastructure and build a name people trust.

It takes a huge organization to run a successful campaign. Without troops on the ground, you'll never get there. You also need to be inclusive - appealing to a wide diversity of the population. For at least the next 15 - 20 years, you better hope the baby boomers like your candidate. We outnumber everyone else and we vote like clockwork.

You can run the leanest, meanest, slickest, coolest, social media campaign with no local footprint but that will only net you the youngest voting block. The people least likely to show up in November and vote. All the apps in the world won't get you where you want to go.

Now take the U.K. As an example. They have at least 4 truly viable parties and probably a dozen others. I think that's cool. But they work their asses off to make that happen. It's also true that close to 80% of Britons vote in their national elections. Compare that to our statistics. It may just be we are too lazy or too disaffected to have more than a two party system.

I'm sure you know all this too - I wish it weren't true but it is.

[yallerdawg]

11. I think our US Constitution established the two party system.

We believe wholeheartedly in democratic majority rule. Yes/no. Either/or. Up/down.

We even believe in supermajority! 2/3, 3/5 for 'absolutely sure'!

In a presidential election, if we have more than two parties, and no candidate secures half the electoral vote, 'we the people' lose our choice. It goes to the House for 'majority rule' again.

Bush 2.0 arguably defeated Gore by 'majority rule' - in the Supreme Court.

If we have anything resembling parliamentary democracy, it has to be in the context of the Big Tent coalition - a 'buffet' of choice within the two parties.

Which just about explains why the winning party is the one that appeals to the most people!

[Blue Idaho]

13. Thank you for that!

Peesonally I'm all in favor of big tents as long as nobody it trying to burn it down from the inside...

[NurseJackie]

8. Why would any sane group try to conform to the demands of a handful of whiny individuals ...

... at the expense of losing an entire ROOMFUL of other voters?

Do the math. Elections aren't won by appealing to the extremes and the wishy-washy unreliable voters.

I'll bet Hillary and the DNC knows what the numbers are too.

[Blue Idaho]

10. There will be the necessary navel gazing after this election...

I suspect the Democratic Party will be asking itself just how advisable it is to allow non-Democrats to run for office using their money, their infrastructure, their staff.

A quick look at what the tea party has done to the republicans should be enough to re-think this dumb idea.

[beachbumbob]

12. Good luck to those who put ego first and America second...

They will need it in life...

[DemonGoddess]

14. K&R!