Why is the GOP where it is? Simply --GOP fascists turned out!! Why are the Democrats where they are? Don't ask a Democrat! You are likely to get a denial that he/she is a Democrat --rather, a 'progressive'! Don't bother asking what a 'progressive' is. But if you want to know the truth, here goes: a 'progressive' is a Democrat who does not want or dare to admit that he/she is a Democrat! This deplorable situation has resulted because a critical mass of 'Dems' committed what in politics is the unpardonable sin: they allowed the opposition [GOP] to define them! That's why Clinton found it necessary to 'triangulate' a center. Definition of a center in politics: something that is neither here nor there nor sharp but blurry in the middle!
Bottom line: 'progressive' does not mean a thing and will not result in a net gain of votes! The word owes is very existence to the fact that 'liberals' let the GOP get away with branding the word 'liberal'. Liberal is a perfectly good word! It means FREE! Again --LIBERAL means free! Anyone who runs away from 'freedom' deserves to lose an election and until progressives regain the courage of their convictions, they will continue to get 'ass whuppins' at the hands of ruthless and well-financed right wing nuts!
Things can change but only if Democrats regain their party by turning out. The PRIMARIES are more important than the general election. Sadly --the process itself is designed to REDUCE your choices to only two. I don't like it --but that's the way it is! Whining about it on FB will not change a thing. It's a SOP; someone threw us a BONE!
If you want to change America, so-called 'progressives' must --first --take back the Democratic party. But NO ONE is going to tolerate a long lecture on the kinds of reforms that are necessary AFTER the primaries are over!
[Condorcet] He divided the decision process into three stages. In the first stage, one “discusses the principles that will serve as the basis for decision in a general issue; one examines the various aspects of this issue and the consequences of different ways to make the decision.” At this stage, the opinions are personal, and no attempts are made to form a majority. After this follows a second discussion in which “the question is clarified, opinions approach and combine with each other to a small number of more general opinions.” In this way the decision is reduced to a choice between a manageable set of alternatives. The third stage consists of the actual choice between these alternatives. --Decision Theory: A Brief Introduction, Condorcet, , pp. 342-343)Condorcet's distinction between the "first and second discussion" seems to me to be analagous to the U.S. primary process. In the first case, Democrats (for example) choose between other Democratic hopefuls. Invariably --enough to skew the validity of the primary as a barometer of public opinion --decisions will turn upon which candidate is perceived to have a better chance of winning in the general election.
Seen on FB: "ALL PARTIES SUCK" Well, that's an excuse to sit out the primaries! If you don't like the DEMS, then organize to take them back. That requires that you get involved. Taking back a party begins in the neighborhoods. It is done precinct by precinct. Sorry --there are no magic wands. There is NO INSTANT GRATIFICATION! That's the way it is. That's the system we inherited.
The French waged a real revolution shortly after 'we' separated from England. I can tell you this --no one was sitting at home pissing and moaning about "...oh golly gee...all the parties are the same...oh woe is me..." They MANNED THE BARRICADES.