No third party, no third way.

[EEO]

We need to send enough progressives to the polls to overwhelm the defenses constructed against what most Americans want, against allowing democracy to play its course. The Republicans have only remained relevant due to unethical and often illegal tactics, which take full advantage of low-information American voters. The only way to break the back of the Republicans is to mobilize in every city in this country and educate. Educate by clearly communicating what we stand for and put the GOP on the defensive to force them to explain why the Republicans are against things like social programs, business regulations, and healthcare for all (some Democrats will need to account of their own records, as well).

I firmly believe this must be done under the banner of the Democratic Party, but as a new faction within the party dubbed the Roosevelt Party. We need to expose conservatism for its fear mongering and socially selfish ways, and remove Republicans in Democratic Party clothing from the party. No third way, no third party. If our history has taught us anything it is that both don't work. Roosevelt Democrats need to fight conservatives in whatever party they may be in, and be as tenacious as someone like Senator Bernie Sanders.

[merrily]

1. You are advocating that Dems copy the Tea Party, but without Koch money and organization,

without Fox News and without the rest of the media to claim every gathering of 12 people who can't spell is a massive demonstration.



I don't know if I am on board. It's going to take more persuading for me. Besides, we already are two factions, one of which has taken the name New Democrats. Do we really need a third faction? I would rather see us working together on things like voter registration. Where is our unified master plan on that? Youth groups? College groups? Voter education? Can't we agree these are good things and work on them?

[JDPriestly]

6. We already have these things in California.

Where is our unified master plan on that? Youth groups? College groups? Voter education? Can't we agree these are good things and work on them?

Our state Democratic Party has a plan to register voters, work with different age groups and educate voters. And guess what, Democrats are winning in California.

That's not the problem. The problem is motivating those who will never join a political group, who get their news from TV and talk radio and who, if registered, don't vote regularly.

The Third Way Democrats are not all that interested in your ideas about grass-roots organization. They are focused on getting lots of money from the corporate donors to fund TV ads and other forms of paid campaigning.

That is why strengthening our grass-roots activists is good. If people want to call themselves Roosevelt Democrats, why not? After all the Third Way calls itself Third Way. We have DFA, and Move-On supports a lot of Democratic candidates very effectively.

The bureaucracy of the Democratic Party should not foolishly try to discourage Progressives. We are the people who stand on street corners handing out Democratic Party literature. We are selling tee-shirts and buttons and registering voters. Don't discourage us. We are the soul of the party. I cannot picture the Wall Street donors talking to voters at my local farmers' market. That's what I can do better than they can. And it's that one on one voter information that is needed. We cannot compete with Republicans when it comes to spending money on TV ads and buying radio stations.

[Enthusiast]

19. PLUS ONE, a whole bunch!

[sabrina 1]

9. People are working on voter registration. But what choices are they being given regarding who to

vote for? I definitely will no longer do a single thing to help and DLC/Third Way candidate to get elected, and I am far from alone. We did that, registered millions of voters, and then presented them with Republican Lite to continue the policies that have so harmed the Working Class.

Just voting is not the answer.

Providing Candidates who are not Corporate backed, that would make those votes worthwhile. Two elections now have demonstrated that until Democrats begin the process of responding the clear demands of those whose votes they want, the people will respond as they have already.

I agree with those who will no longer play the 'lesser evil' game at election time. NOW is the time to let the party leadership know without a doubt, that if they do not listen to the voters, (see the success of the Progressive Ballot issues across the country) then the people will have to take matters into their own hands, WHICH they are DOING.

That means starting all over again at the local and state levels where the people have more say in what their representatives do. And that process has started with success as demonstrated in this last election.

I will not eg, support Hillary or any other DLC/Third Way candidate. No more playing that game. IF we are given only that choice, then the thing to do is write in a candidate for the WH and spend the money, time and energy on Progressive Congressional Candidates which the current leadership rarely supports.

[ReRe]

12. [phone]

[Enthusiast]

20. I'm with you, sabrina 1!

[Enthusiast]

21. I'm with you, sabrina 1!

[JDPriestly]

22. Providing candidates that are not corporate backed. Good idea.

How about some of the DUers. Why don't some of you who are young run for office?

Another suggestion. Why don't we have a discussion about how to improve the law at the state levels that govern the formation of corporations and other business forms that protect their passive owners from liability?

The Republicans talk a lot about how people nowadays don't take responsibility for themselves and rely on the government to do it. But a lot of voters don't understand the extent to which the law doesn't just permit, but rather provides for the corporate form of business organization which encourages on the one hand risk-taking which is positive because it promotes innovation, but on the other irresponsibility, tax breaks and advantage-taking of real people on the other.

I don't know how to start this conversation, but it is one we need to have.

The corporate form encourages risk-taking and therefore innovation. But why are we allowing entities organized to take big risks without incurring big losses to be involved in our election process.

That is, when you or I take a risk, say, buy a house or drive a bulldozer, we pay a huge financial or personal loss if we make a mistake that hurts us or someone or something. But if a corporation takes a big risk, spills a lot of oil or kills an employee, the people who own the corporation don't get hurt in most situations. The corporation is relatively immune to the consequences of its (or its leadership's mistakes). The owners of the corporation just take the corporation into bankruptcy court, lose their investment and usually walk away free. The "mindset" of the corporate management is completely different from the mindset of us real humans. Why in the world are corporations allowed the free speech right to become involved in our election process? And how could we keep them out of it?

The Constitution was not written to restrain the government from limiting the rights of corporations. There weren't many corporations at the time the Constitution was written. And most definitely the Founding Fathers did not want to limit the right of the government to limit the rights of the East India Trading Company. That Company which founded America was one of the things that the American Revolution was revolting against if I am not mistaken.

We need candidates who will challenge the personhood of corporations.

[Zorra]

2. Talking to MSM Democrats who are friends, family, and acquaintances

is the best way that I have found to spread the populist Democratic agenda.

Many folks vaguely see what is going on, and presenting them with a logical and factual populist alternative can help them make the leap from MSM Democrat to populist Democrat.

A friend, an MSM Democrat, was talking about Hillary as the next President, which gave me an opening to bring up Bernie Sanders. He had never even heard of Bernie Sanders. I explained the difference between Corporatist Hillary and Bernie. A week later he said he saw Bernie on some show, and later told me how Bernie seemed like a great candidate, and my friend is now recognizing the there are alternatives, and he is now totally in our corner.

Many Democrats are not aware of alternatives because the MSM does not inform them of the alternatives.

[merrily]

4. Many Democrats to this day do not realize how the party has changed

to the extent that there are "New Democrats." Some know they are not happy with the Party any longer, but they have no idea exactly why.

[RufusTFirefly]

5. Yes! That's because it's been done to them gradually

... And with total corporate media complicity




Many people are still under the mistaken belief that if things changed they would've heard about it.

[Historic NY]

10. It changed when the GOP'ers tagged Dems as Libs...

and the ducked the term, it changed when we heard the term Ronald Reagan Democrats, the Blue Dawgs, it changed when the party got branded as the abortion party....many fled the party to run with Republicans. We keep allowing ourselves to be branded. IMO Barack Obama brought back some of the past. He talked some of the old talk. Money is killing the party becasue it takes obscene amounts to run a campaign that competes or overwhelms the opposition. The whisy washy candidates hurt our brand and boy there were some real winners ran in the election last month. Sure makes one wonder if they were chosen by the Republicans.

The only path to reform, is the voting booth in each and every election from the state house to the white house and everything in between. Taking back Republican seats starts in everyones home towns. I've seen some real moonbats, yes try to run our local Democrats and frankly they scare me. The party here has run Republicans....that turned and then returned after the elections. They focus on very narrow issues w/o looking at the big picture. Somebody has to pay for populist reforms.

[BrotherIvan]

13. ^^This!^^

I have many registered Dem friends who get their information from MSM and know very little of what is going on. They are the people who put approval ratings high for people or policy that third wayers love to quote on here. They are not Republicans, and don't vote Republican, but they vote with the party because that is supposed to be in line with their values. They don't really take the time to dig into the issues.

I had a friend--who would definitely score on the liberal side of the scale--bring up how we need to "strengthen Social Secrurity" because it was going broke. I asked him where he got that information. Turns out he had listened to a segment on NPR (he hadn't really noticed as it had moved slowly right politically). Once I told him the truth, he was angry that he had been duped by the propaganda. It was an easy argument.

I think education is the most important thing we can do. If we educate our circle of acquaintances, we can effect change. I would like somewhere a sort of handout or even a small business card sized thing I can give to people. Also a short bio of Senator Sanders would be nice as I don't think he's even on the radar yet. Showing that he is one of the last honest politicians and letting him run a campaign like Robert Redford in The Candidate. He has the truth on his side (as do we), and that is his most powerful weapon. It would be a great way to start now so people begin paying attention.

I think that is the most important thing this group can do.

[merrily]

3. PS. I forgot to say that naming it after any President could be a mistake.

FDR was a phenom, but there was internment and a refusal to risk the solid South for doing the right thing as to equal rights.

[EEO]

7. There are three major Roosevelts in history. The group is not named only for FDR.

Taken together those three bring a lot to the table in terms of progressive ideals.

[merrily]

24. I think FDR would be the one who leapt to most minds, no matter what.

First, I think the group itself is a mixed bag. Second, I think naming it after anyone is problematic. That is all.

[rhett o rick]

16. I don't think the name should include the word "Party" as the connotation is that it's a third

party. Would Caucus work? The Progressive Reform Caucus.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

8. Too many Dems in "red states" are brainwashed into believing they have to ask permission.

[wandy]

11. One thing for sure. No third way, no third party.................

One of the things I find almost as good as the daily funnies is when the 'Ultra Right Wing' faction of the GOP starts yammering about becoming their own party. One group (financial conservative) wants to put an end to the "Free Stuff". Another group (social conservative) wants closer alignment between state and invisible cloud sprite.
Laughing my tail off I think great! Have it your way.
Traditional Teapublicans vote for Mitt Romney.
Financial Conservative vote for Ted Cruz.
Social Conservative vote for Mike *uckabee.
Split that vote 3 ways.
Go ahead and shoot yourselves I don't mind!

One of our problems and something we need to work toward is to turn the "meh, I'm a dem" types into educated informed Democrats.

It amasses how many people don't know why they register Democrat.

[ReRe]

15. I think you've got something there....

Education is the key. "What does it mean to be a Democrat" classes. On the local (county) level, all over the USA. Once a month, preferably in the homes of the Democratic leaders of the county, round-robin style. Or, the informal meetings could be held at Public Libraries, or at the High School. Study the Democratic Platform. Study the history of the Party, biographies of former Party members who expressed strong Democratic Party values, government/civics, etc., etc., etc. Read, chapter by chapter, and discuss Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, (book club-style.)

[paulkienitz]

14. I think the electorate is nearing a tipping point

or maybe two tipping points: one where progressiveness will become more mainstream in the democratic party, and if not that, at least to where the republican minority sinks to the point where gerrymandering and suppression can't hold it up anymore. I'm quite hopeful about progressive values being able to have a much bigger impact in the coming decade or two.

So I agree, we want to work in the party.

But on the other hand, if the third wayers in charge really won't listen, a third party vote may be the only club that can hit them hard enough to make them pay attention. If there's like a seven percent green party vote instead of one percent, just once, that will make them rethink their priorities tout-suite.

[rhett o rick]

17. I think getting coverage in the Corp-Media is a must. nm

[Eleanors38]

18. At this point, an overhaul of the Democratic Party

seems the best approach. Further, the democratization of the Party in the early 70s, though short-lived, showed it can be done and WAS done. The immediate task is to plan a course of action, starting with the statement of principles currently discussed, a name, and plans for outreach to similar groups. We must be willing to break our infernal addiction to fatuous debate using smart phones, and instead get busy with meaningful three- dimensional work.

[demwing]

23. Kicked & Rec'd /nt

[jeepers]

25. Third party arguement

There are three distinct socio economic groups in the United States, the rich, the comfortable and the poor. we call the republicans the party of the rich and I would argue that the democratic party is the party of the comfortable. The poor don't have a political party. Does that seem odd to you? Where do you suppose the idea of a third party being spoilers comes from? top down or bottom up, and spoilers for who.?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. Shrug.

I want more folks who are progressive elected. I don't really care what 'party' they label themselves as.

It's not like anyone elected on a leftist platform is ever going to caucus with or help Republicans.

So I've got no problem seeing more Democratic Socialists like Bernie Sanders get elected.

[TheKentuckian]

27. How is this any different in practical application than now?

As long as the party knows in the end it will have your vote then everything else said or done is preamble and justification for the final preordained event.

No Turd Way by definition requires all options be on the table and seriously so unless you are running a constant "leave the line blank" or write in campaigns.

You cannot serve two masters with conflicting aims. What is the priority?