C­an the Sanders Movement Go Local?

It's all about Congress. It's not about town-hall politics in Latte-land.

If you are a Bernie supporter who actually will work to get something to go your way, the keys to it are Congressional support, plain and simple.

You aren't going to change Congress from Burlington VT, or Boulder CO. It's exceedingly unlikely you will change congress by getting all the Democrats in Oklahoma together in your living room and singing "kumbayah." (There are 5 congressional districts in OK, all Republican, none of them winning by less than 13% in the last election.)

Do you folks have any idea of electoral politics at all? Do you even understand what a political party really does (big fat hint: tries to win congress, more critical in the long haul than the presidency)?

Please read this WaPo article and think about it:
http://tinyurl.com/gpjff6l

Bernie Sanders is doing the very best thing that anyone in my lifetime has done for the Democratic Party. If the Democratic Party cannot embrace the young people in our nation, then I think it is only a matter of time before a third party claims those voters. They are not a part of the machine, where entrenched powers feed the media, and the machine. Both political parties have engaged in blatant voter suppression, gerrymandering, and identity politics, and put up the most easy to manipulate candidates they can find. They are surprised when young people (who by the way are not nearly that young nor are they given the respect they deserve) turn their backs on them. Bernie is bringing them back and I say halleluia. These "young" people are not the future, they are the present and they intend to deal with it. To the extent that I can afford it, I will be making contributions around the country, and especially in my own state, to people who I think will support President Sanders efforts. Can we do it. Oh yes, oh yes, and Bernie is where it all starts.

True, that we can't rely on Sanders to single-handedly remake the Country into a functional democracy...but we have to start somewhere, and he has reignited Progressive ideals, without which no such movement would stand a chance of again becoming a major force in America. (The Occupy movement was a start, but had no national figure of Bernie's stature around which to coalesce, and so died out.)

For years now, the Left has been vilified by the Republicans, and dismissed by the Democrats-in Name-only. (Including both Obama and Hillary.)

The Left, by the way, did not abandon Obama in the midterm elections--he abandoned US the moment he was elected, when he turned his back on his Progressive campaign oratory, and began trying to appease the Republicans! By the time the midterms arrived, his former supporters shrugged, and thought, "Why bother?"

The fact is, neither Obama nor the Clintons are genuine Progressives, though they adopt progressive language and promises when it suits their purposes. All three were seduced by the Democratic Leadership Council (though Obama has been careful to distance himself publicly from it) into becoming "New Democrats," which is code for "Republican Lite!"

Sanders is the first true Progressive to emerge in American politics since FDR--and under similar circumstances. Perhaps this time we might correct course BEFORE creating another Great Depression, driven by the fathomless greed of self-absorbed Plutocrats, and their minions.

At the national level a candidate such as Bernie Sanders can be heard thanks to his individual donors and the media attention which comes from being the alternative to Hillary Clinton. However, it appears much more difficult for a populist progressive to be heard in a race for Congress or for a state legislative seat. The lack of media attention and the presence of big money have greater effects down ballot. It may be true that big money hasn't bought the Presidency yet but media such as The New York Times need to look closer at its impact on other races.

**For the past several years, I have been screaming this till I'm hoarse!** The 'C' in my initials doesn't stand for 'Cassandra' but I often think it should.
And the NYT is only just figuring this out now?!?
While 'liberals' or 'progressives' or whatever the nom du jour may be mouthed the slogan 'think globally, act locally,' and patted themselves on the back for voting for the 'first black president', while not bothering with those 'little' state and local elections (after all, who cares who's mayor of Wasilla, Alaska?), the Tea Party has been building the real grassroots movement.
Then one day you wake up and find your school board, town council, county freeholder board, and state legislature are all overrun by right-wing extremists. And those lower office-holders are the ones who move on to the national posts.
One reason the Democrats have such a shallow talent pool for the 2016 primaries is that the 'progressive' movement hasn't been grooming and promoting candidates. Instead we have Hillary the Inevitable, cranky crackpot Sanders and his equally tired polemics (and, briefly, one interesting guy who got pushed out too early as the media focused on those two in an either/or horserace).
Getting involved at the lower levels is where pols hone their skills and learn 'the art of the possible'. The enthusiasm for Sanders indicates, sadly, just how unfamiliar with 'the possible' voters, especially younger ones, are.

I din't see much wisdom in these posts. Democracy works well only from the middle: center-left to center-right. The Democratic party is now, and should be, the centrist party with a slight tilt to the left. It would be obtuse to mimic the Republican party and move the Democratic party well left of center. Dysfunctional governance, which is what we have now, means not solving important issues with compromise and consensus. Making the party more liberal would only exacerbate, not mitigate, this.

Idealism might seem noble, but it's merely shortsighted and unrealistic. Practical approaches to complicated issues requires avoiding becoming mired in ideological purity, like so many clueless conservatives. Don't make the same mistake. Being progressive should mean being pragmatic. A lot of you here don't seem to recognize this.

Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism

Of course, Yes They Can.

The Sanders contingent of the Democratic Party has always been an active arm of progressive policy. They are good for the party, keeping the DNC from straying too far to the center, which they fear Hillary will do. It will be up to them to keep up the good fight, to not give up because their beloved candidate loses.

It was in the cards. Sanders started at an extreme disadvantage. Hillary had long ago sown up support from the DNC hierarchy. It was a fait accompli from the get-go. What's puzzling is the ignorance of Sanders supporters to the machinations of the Democratic Party's by-laws since '72. Where have they been? Their heads in the sand? Doesn't say much about supposed smart highly educated (I love the highly educated) progressives backing Sanders. But that's now water under the bridge.

"Think Global, Act Local" should be the clarion call of all Sanders supporters. They have initiative, chutzpah, and a sense of supreme optimism synonymous with youthful idealistic supporters. The problem is what usually occurs is this enthusiasm quickly fades. Their candidate loses, they become disheartened, pack up their tents, head home and grump about how life isn't fair. This is what happened to many fans of Ralph Nader. They burnt out (no pun intended). Maybe it won't happen this time. But I remain a skeptic. Let's see what the Bern Feelers do by 2020. The proof is in the eating of Ben and Jerry's pudding, or yogurt.

DD
Manhattan

Young man.....as the song goes....it's time to take on the Party of Godzilla...by going to the local nest and getting rid of the bad eggs !!
USA needs a pleasant, but strongly positive repeat of what the youngsters did in the 60's......only this time, as you mature, stick around and don't get lazy or greedy as that generation did, and leave.

Ms. Khimm is right to point at the structural problem of the Democratic Party. Just the fact that both candidates are as old as they are indicates a structural problem.
Ms. Khimm and Joe Trippi suggest that centralizing information about voters is the key for progressives. That's one idea. But centralization has drawbacks too. It does not fit well with the Democratic Party's historical character as a coalition of labor, feminist, environmental, and civil rights organizations. I don't think it's possible for the Democratic Party to change its character as a coalition. If it did so, it would cater to wealthy donors even more than now.
Theda Skocpol (with Alexander Hertel-Fernandez) has another analysis, focused on the interstate organizations that the right has assembled, such as ALEC, Americans for Prosperity, and the National Federation of Independent Business (the last of which played a big role in defeating the 1993 health reform).
Another part of the story is also the long-run success of the right in destroying the organizations that are allied with the Democratic Party. Reagan era conservative activists aimed to "defund the left," and they did. The recent attack on Planned Parenthood is only the most recent example. The destruction of ACORN was an major defeat, because that organization at least had the aim of mobilizing poor people. The decline of labor union power is obvious.
A single charismatic candidate isn't going to turn this all around.

The good points, if somewhat Eastern regionally skewed, made by this article clearly display one fact that the overwhelming bias of the New York Times ignores: Since it is so much harder for an insurgent campaign, not from within the party establishment, the lead in the polls, the immense citizen contributions, the unprecedented support for Sanders, which the newspaper studiously ignores, is all the more significant for how independent of the party establishment it is. As often referred to in Europe, the 'extra-parliamentary' opposition - which would mean, here, non-party opposition - must and will increase in this country to oppose the corporate monopoly on political parties. It is not coincidence that voters are streaming to candidates who are not mouthpieces for large donors and banks and corporation lobbies: it reads! People are supporting one who does not take that money and one who uses his own. They are tired of puppets, from Cruz, through Rubio and Kasich, to Clinton!

The base historical issue for the Democratic Party has always been that it's characterized itself as the ultimate "big tent," full of agendas, interests and issues for most democrats, if not others. Where it's failed is that democrats only participate and become engaged when their individual issues surface to attention on a local or national level. Once addressed successfully or unsuccessfully, they leave the tent.

By contrast, Republicans have been corralled by party leaders into advocating for 4-5 core principles/beliefs, meaning KISS. The ultimate irony is that many of these issues, primarily social, were used to incite the flock to get out and vote but never to be addressed by those they put into office. This inattention and dissing of their voters has been a major factor in bringing about the rise of Trumpf.

The challenge for Democrats is how to take its flock from being a communal group with diverse interests/beliefs and develop a core explanation of what it means to be a liberal-Democrat. To explain, define why all members have to become involved in pushing that belief/philosophy and purpose, if for no other reason than to prevent the opposing political force from taking over.

The current question is can Bernie's revolutionary group be made to understand this or whether they're just currently in the tent to get their agenda addressed?

I think that if the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate Hillary- we will get Trump for President- I would hold my nose and vote for her- but I would not send one dollar or call one person. She is a war hawk and a DNC person. Her buddy Debbie Wasserman-Schulz just voted on a bill that hurts the agency created by Elizabeth Warren. She will soon be in trouble for putting her $675,000 into her nonprofit- when she should be paying taxes on it. It isn't the fake Bengazi thing- or most of what the Republicans have been attacking her for- but she is for income inequality- and then there are the things that she and Bill did- building prisons- destroying welfare etc. In the end we get Trump. And the TPP- does anyone believe that she will continue to oppose it? Never, because Hillary is corporate through and through- she just got $333,000 from Walmart- why do they still like her? It is because she is on their side.

Vote for Bernie!

So, "the movement that has coalesced around Mr. Sanders can bring change to state and local governments around the country, regardless of what happens with his presidential bid"?

Don't bet on it. The reason the Republicans have been so successful in overturning the paradigm that government is a good thing is not because they have deployed legions of young people to do grass-roots organizing.

it is because the Republicans have been phenomenally successful with a top-down approach that has poured uncounted millions into the American opinion-making apparatus at the highest levels.

Republican money, raised strategically from donors who are in general agreement about how they want to shape America, has funded right-leaning think tanks who produce made-to-order studies. The reports are fed to the media, where they are distilled into conventional wisdom and are distributed throughout the nation by talk shows, newspapers, the web and other channels.

At the same time, Republicans tend the policy-making establishment through lobbyists, politicians at all levels and allies in academia.

With the notable exception of this year's presidential race, Republicans have stayed on-message year in and year out. For proof you need look no further than Congress, which has managed to thwart our twice-elected Democratic president at almost every turn.

How can Bernie's naive, inexperienced, underfunded and under organized supporters possibly make any headway against the Republicans?

I am a Hillary supporter for president in this 2016 election but, yes, I sincerely hope the Progressive revolution takes off at the local level and spreads into Congress. A Democratic president can only do so much and voter frustration and gridlock will continue until that happens, as we have seen the last 7+ years.

I commend you for addressing the conflict within the Sanders campaign between creating a real grassroots movement based on local activists working together on the issues and the "official" Sanders campaign.
The official campaign is top down, oriented to cold calling and door knocking, in other words toward traditional methods of electioneering. It works off of the Internet and seems to have absorbed the commercial effects of Internet websites where there is no one to call and no way to suggest improvements from the bottom up. The answer to the question of who do I talk to at the local level is a big blank.
Frankly I don't think Bernie is even aware of the problem.
When it was suggested to his campaign that they use the Dem database to indentify activists and get them together to organize locally, the orders coming down from campaign central were to get people on the phone to cold call strangers.
The campaign did not establish links to intellectuals or give them a way to tie into policy roles and they succeeded in alienating people like Paul Krugman.
You cannot run a "grassroots" campaign without understanding how to manage participatory democracy and there has been zero attention to this fact from the grab the brass ring folks at campaign central.
Bernie isn't responsible for this. I watched him take the time to speak out on local issues and his campaign staff then ignore the activists he energized.
Wake up Bernie!

Samantha Bee nailed it on her show. The Democratic Party only pays attention to national elections. Where was the turnout in 2010? The Democrats have focused on national presidential elections because that's how they get $$$$$ but turned their backs on state legislatures. And guess what, in 2000 the Republicans who now control 31 states, got to reapportion districts, pass voter suppression laws, outlaw abortion and birth control, weaken or destroy labor unions. It's not just up to Sanders, but the ENTIRE Democratic Party to win back the country town by town, county by county, state by state, as well as the presidency.

Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy did work and Democrats retook the Congress under his leadership. President Obama benefitted greatly from it.
Then Tim Kaine took over and abandoned it, followed by the devastating losses of 2010. Any yet nobody connected the dots.

The local Democratic Party in many places is more a closed club than an open party designed to welcome citizens in to participate. I have worked in a small local group for Bernie Sanders campaign and the amount of support from the local Democratic Party was totally non-existent and all the local Democrats had endorsed Hillary Clinton. Essentially the local Democratic Party apparatus was an extension of the Clinton Campaign and I have heard similar stories elsewhere in the country.

The Sanders Campaign and the Clinton Campaign are a study in contrasts: one is insider dominated with big money and the other is outsider and grass roots. Wall Street versus Main Street.

Election results are showing younger voters are breaking very hard for Bernie and rejecting Hillary. The Party elders that have had their thumbs on the scale for Hillary are playing with fire as they are opposing the future of their own party.

There *is* a grassroots movement in our country already, but unfortunately its members support Trump. Sanders' movement will continue to grow among young white Democrats and older Democrats, groups who believe he could beat Trump (or Rubio or Kasich).

We need an independent political organization that can have an in and out strategy with the Democrats. Support progressive Democrats, but run against Republican lite and centrist Democrats. Will Bernie convene a national convention of progressives after the general election? At that point we'll see if he's a socialist or a Democrat.

“... the party apparatus is ill equipped to capitalize on that momentum...” Of course. The party is busy at gaining elections. Progressiveness is only a trademark.

I'll vote for progressive candidates wherever possible locally, as always. But this morning I'm researching how to write in Bernie Sanders in November. There's really not a dime's worth of difference between Trump and Clinton.

I live in the sad state of 'Wiskochsin' and can only hope this comes true. And FYI: I'm 71 years old.

Don’t let me rain on your Hillary coronation to hard but here are the facts.
Hillary was expected to win all those southern state’s primaries, that Republicans win anyway, in the general election.

2008 Massachusetts primary Hillary 56%--Obama 41%
2016 Massachusetts primary Hillary 50%--Sanders 49%

In 2008 Barack Obama never took the delegate lead away from Clinton until after 36 primaries were run.

In the new CNN/ORC Poll In presidential Matchups its HC 52% Trump 44% HC 47% Rubio 50%
HC 48% Cruz 49% Sanders 55% Trump 43% Sanders 53% Rubio 45% Sanders 57% Cruz 40%

Favorability/Unfavorability Clinton 42%/55% Sanders 57%/33% Trump 37%/60% Cruz 36%/48% Rubio 44%/38%

So I would tell you ESTABLISHMENT types to put on your rain gear and put up your umbrella, the longer this primary runs, the stronger the Sanders Storm gets.

I don’t have a hidden agenda like the likes of MSNBC and the rest of the establishment media, therefore I can present the data they like to hide from you so they can pronounce their coronation. Keep an eye on the ESTABLISHMENT MEDIA, their job is to keep the status quo in DC so you won’t get this analysis. Also watch them and see when they stop putting the anti-democratic “super-delegate” thumb on the scale for Hillary in the delegate count, just as they did in 2008.

The Sanders Storm is Surging.

Democrats and progressives need get their BIG money donors to start a two-year "college" for socially conscious individuals who want to be part of the political system in America - just as the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson and friends own the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, newspapers, university "chairs" and other paths that "condition" young people to their thinking. Too many politicians don't understand economics or the history of America except from the limited perspective they were taught at home and K-12 - and the Koch brothers. Once people understand what made America great, including the importance of keeping religion out of politics and the need for civil and equal rights for all Americans, they will realize the great treasure they have been gifted by accident of birth and work to make it even better.

The author is correct that the problem for Progressives is ' structural ', and Trippi is correct that " we've been going about this all wrong ".

The problem is in red states, where Dems didn't show up in enough numbers in 2010, so that GOPers' sent to the state houses were able to gerrymander new congressional district lines drawn up on 2010's census data.

Only court cases can challenge/change those lines, and Dems should be getting donors to finance such suits in numerous red states, to enforce the favorable SCOTUS opinion for fair district lines:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/us/supreme-court-upholds-creation-of-a...

And the problem is that Dems need to act quickly, since Repubs know demographics (not to mention the tide of history) and now Scalia's demise, are working against them, so they're planning a li'l ole Constitutional Convention before 2020 to take advantage of all the state houses they control, doing an end run around Dems in Washington D.C.:

(see link in post below)

replacing the wisdom of Madison, Jefferson and Franklin with scribblings from the A.L.E.C./Chamber of Commerce/Koch Bros./Adelson wish list that have been uttered by Cruz as well as Rubio on the campaign trail.

It's not going to matter if blue state houses are made still bluer; battles have to be fought forcing red states to have fair congressional district lines.

The Democratic party apparatus--led by Rep. Wasserman-Schultz in Florida--is doing everything it can to prevent the movement from going local. She loves the hundreds of millions Hillary is expected to bring in from lobbyists and special interests. The party exists to raise money and keep itself cozy with the Establishment.

The party loves money so much it has abolished the prohibition against taking lobbyist bribes put in place under Obama. The party could not help itself, salivating over all of the lobbyist cash poised to lather the Hillary Victory Fund. Fundraisers with lobbyists are already calendared for March 21.

Bernie's movement is about bringing democracy back to America. Taking money out of politics. Hillary embodies just the opposite.

We hear a lot of talk about how the Democrats want to overturn Citizens United. Baloney. They have become very comfortable with the millions flowing in from special interests and have no intention of turning off the spigot. Don't believe me? Then why are they opening up their coffers to lobbyist money?

I know everyone does it and how could they ever beat the Republicans if they don't also take special interest cash? And there you have it. The bipartisan support of money controlling politics.

RIP public financing of campaigns.

I agree with John S. Bernie Sanders has gone a good way to openly defining the progressive wing of the Democratic party which seems to be "coming out of the closet" in this election cycle. Interestingly (but not suprisingly) given the power of the Black Lives Matter movement and the still limping economy, Trump has done the same for the Republican party. The question for American voters is: the contents of which closet do you prefer? Populist social progressivism or populist fear mongering and race baiting?

Obama (and I suspect Sanders) are for unions. Obama's healthcare webpage denounces superior health care plans called "platinum" like NJ state employees have and calls it "unfair" as it is preferential. These plans for these people were negotiated by unions. Any socialist wants all the same therefore they do not advocate unions.

It isn't that progressives are choosing to work outside the party, it's that the DNC is ignoring them. The "Republican Lite" DNC has clearly favored Hillary Clinton and the status quo over Sanders and change, setting the stage — IMO — for the demise of the Party. It's time the DNC picked up the progressive banner and became the party of the people again, or we will go on without them.

The only reason I remain a registered Democrat is that Florida has a closed Primary, and I want to be able to push the Party left. Otherwise, I'd be an Independent. Financially, I support individual candidates, not the Party.

We need a reason beyond that Republicans are worse to get behind the Democratic Party.

Turning a few more state legislatures blue will make an excellent step along the way toward state-by-state constitutional conventions. Which are the only way to pass iron-clad measures to keep money out of politics. A two-prong approach:
1) limiting the amounts put in by large corporations and wealthy donors
2) substantial public financing of elections

The greatest hope that the Democratic Party has for the future is demonstrated by the enormous number of young people who have been inspired by Bernie Sanders to become involved in politics again.
A new "generation gap" seems to have appeared, and all for the good of the party. Analyzing the voting patterns thus far, it's clear that the old guard of Democrats and the timeworn Clinton "brand" is what is keeping Hillary at the top.
College-educated and disaffected youth of all stripes who have had to confront the hard reality of the collapse of the "American Dream" are waking up and seeing through the smoke and mirrors of corporate oligarchy and its political control of the economy. As a member of the "old" generation gap of the 60s, I welcome the fresh air that these intelligent and talented young people are bringing to politics in this country. I do hope that Ms. Khimm's vision of the future comes to pass.

The Sanders movement MUST go forward regardless of the outcome of the Presidential election, because all politics, in the end, is local. It is not helpful to have regressive labor laws at the state level (New York's version of "hired at will" is notoriously anti worker), and local legislators and elected judges, can bring about real change. Conservative state legislators skirt existing laws, for example, by cutting funds for needed government services, like water quality. Result? Well, you know that answer. Budget cutting is almost an art form in Washington. States send people like Mitch McConnell to Washington, not the President, and it is the electorate who is to blame for the inaction and gridlock in Washington. Sanders will prevail in a Clinton administration if his supporters have the energy, the drive, and the passion to run for local offices and begin to bring change one step at a time, by sending local elected official to state capitals, to the House and Senate.

Progressive Democrats haven't worked with the party establishment because

(1) the party establishment moved to so far to the right that, for example, they adopted the Heritage Foundation health care plan and continued Bush's regime changes, and

(2) the party establishment not only ignored but insulted the progressive Democrats. For example, when they tried to hold Obama to his promise of a public option in his health care plan, Rahm Emanuel's statement to them was probably unprintable in the New York Times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel#White_House_Chief_of_Staff Emanuel later apologized to the handicapped organizations for using the word "retarded," but never apologized to the progressives.

The Democratic Party adopted a policy of capitulating to the Republicans and telling their own progressives to get lost. So they did. And the Democrats lost elections. Rahm Emanuel isn't really that smart.

American citizens need a union, independent of the DNC, which suffers from a grassroots allergy. This union needs to fund itself with dues, not donations, and pay local organizers, rather than relying on student & trustafarian volunteers alone. It needs to function as both a lobby & a service org, like AARP,( or the Black Panthers at their occasional local best). and develop social and cultural pleasures that connect people, like Mardi Gras & rap contests. It needs to take control of political education & communication away from sensationalistic media, not only to focus on issues, but to work through the feelings of frustration & impotence we see curdling into self-destructive populist impulses. The decline of labor unions has left a power vacuum for billionaires like trump, bloomberg & the Koch bros to fill however they like. It's not enough to organize people around elections. They are sporadic, and the results they can deliver are often imperceptible to a harried, underpayed or underemployed citizen, unlike, say, the comforts of weekly religious worship. Sanders has the right idea...we have to organize; but he's wrong to think that candidates alone should be the focus.

Hats off to Melissa Stevens.

It hurts like hell to have to admit that Bernie's campaign is in its waning hours, but that appears to be the case. As long as he is still in the race I'll be supporting him to the bitter end. With regard to Hillary Clinton, the Dems ought to be a bit more careful what they wish for.

People say to me that progressives such as I are crazy to support Bernie. That we'll be cutting off our noses to spite our faces just as we did back in 2000 when a lot of us turned to Ralph Nader.

SCREAMING REALITY CHECK!

This is not 2000. Back then, very few observers (myself excepted) could perceive what a complete fool and incompetent George Dubya Bush was. Things are a lot different today. One look at the clown bus that is the 2016 Republican primary is all one needs to wash away any lingering doubt about Bernie's electability. (Spell Check is telling me that "electability" is not a proper word. Screw them). Two months ago, the only GOP candidate even remotely qualified for the presidency (very remotely), George Pataki, dropped out of the race. He wasn't even registering in the polls. What does that tell you about "the party of Abraham Lincoln"? It's a pretty bleak picture to be sure.

And you thought that 2012 was a laugh riot. Ain't politics a hoot-and-and-a-half?

http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan

If indeed Bernie Sanders' campaign statement that "...this is not about electing Bernie Sanders for president, It is about creating a grass-roots political movement in this country,” is an honest goal for his campaign, then he could yet become positive,and historic figure. If however, his innuendos against Hillary Clinton lead to a widespread belief that Hillary Clinton is corrupt, which secondarily leads to defeat for the Presidential ticket in November, then Mr. Sanders will have done a deep disservice to his country, the Democratic Party, as well as any hopes that a liberal and small-d democratic movement will proceed within the next ten to twenty years. So, please be careful Mr. Sanders and your followers, because the adverts and messages that you send forth about Hillary Clinton could easily encourage young Democrats to believe in the Republican propaganda against Hillary Clinton, which has been well funded by the right wing and its corporate masters for the past twenty years..

Progressives have been completely outmaneuvered at the state level by the "Kochtopus"and other billionaire oligarchs. In her brilliant expose "Dark Money", Jane Mayer chronicles how the Koch brothers have developed national organizations like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the State Policy Network, and the State Government Leadership Foundation.They have spent hundreds of millions of dollars advising Republicans at the state level on laws,policies, and gerrymandering to further Conservative and Republican interests. The Republicans now control 31 state legislatures and 70% of state legislative seats. The Koch brothers presciently understood years ago the dispositive influence of money at the local level. Today the Republicans are a metaphorical jet compared to the Progressive Bi Plane when it comes to policies,strategy, and financing at the state and local level.This was all facilitated by the insidious, and democracy destroying,Citizens United decision.

Anything's possible. But the trending is still in favor of Republicans. Nothing is forever, but turning the statehouses blue will take a generation and that's if Dems start communicating the right messages. As it stands, far from doing that it seems like the end of history and the last Democrat.

Sanders still has a very good chance at making an excellent showing in the primaries and even winning it. The fat lady hasn't sung yet. Sander's supporters fully expect more wins in the primaries. Even he is isn't the nominee, this movement has some legs to it now. The left has woken up. The young are on the move, in particular.

Bernard Sanders is on the right path to saving the Democratic Party. I will support his efforts during the 2016 primary and general elections and afterwards.

The very strong showing of Senator Sanders during the Democratic primary (i.e., winning two-thirds of the key states Democrats must carry to win the general election) is a testament to Democrats desire for a political revolution; a political revolution that will undo the status quo of a rigged economy that serves only Wall Street and the One Percent. A rigged economy where Wall Street firms and One Percenters undermines democracy, and that provides funds to Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign and that she defends.

Moreover urgently, Republicans are turning out in record numbers to select a candidate who they believe can defeat the candidate they think will win the Democratic Party's nomination, Mrs. Hillary Clinton. This does not bode well for a Democratic Party led by Mrs. Clinton. Conversely, Senator Bernard Sanders is getting Democrats and Independents excited about his campaign. Dems and Indies are a winning combination for the general election.

Aside: To facilitate the return of moderates to the Republican Party and improved race relations, African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans living in the former states of the Confederacy should consider joining the Republican Party and voting for Republicans who would support their interests. This could change the dynamics for both parties.