That's not bipartisan, that's third party. They're talking of creating a progressive left-of-centre party, but I guess don't want to say so,
The structure is specifically to avoid the necessity of bipartisanship, which is good, since the last qualifier would hardly be possible otherwise. Another tell is the second to last qualifier. Neither party is going to go along with that, necessitating an independent candidate in nearly every race, with perhaps the occasional Dem hold-out
Put 500+ candidates together under one website with unified policy and you have a party, not a bipartisan effort.
Good for them, hope they do it. Winning 10% of the races out of the gate will change the face of US politics for the better, faster than most any other thing to be done.
It's been done before. A century ago The Nonpartisan League did just this and ignited change in Minnesota eventually leading to the merger of farming and labor interests with the Democratic party. That is why Minnesota has the Democratic Farmer Labor Party. Though I like the idea, with the two main parties so entrenched, I sadly don't see a plan like this succeeding.
bipartisan candidates ... based on Bernie Sanders' political platform
I detect an oxymoron.
It seems visitors can't sign up for the BNC mailing list, without also making a donation.
IF they gain seats, and then don't get suckered into joining an existing party it would definitely have an effect on those two, and things in general.
Up here, the NDP has this role. Although they work tirelessly to gain government, they don't skimp on effort as opposition either. This forces the hand of the 2 "major" parties for the good of the people. There would not be universal health care up here if it weren't for the third party. Indigenous rights/matters would be far worse for indigenous peoples without the NDP. Almost every equity-seeking group would be crippled without them. Labour* would be in the same state as it is in the US but for the NDP.
*The Liberals and Conservatives have made great and terrible progress on this front, with support from below.
Sounds like a rather ingenious plan to suck votes away from Democrats and keep the GOP in power in Congress.
I'm supporting the Clinton campaign; but I see a clear path for connecting the passion the Sanders campaign has elicited, with the existing political structures, especially at the local town committee level.
It's a great instinct, and I'm really happy to see the continuation of the platform - it's great to see folks internalizing the idea that this isn't just about one presidential election.
I don't know that this is a third party (that would kind of suck)....A "we'll support a candidate from any party who agrees with our platform" might be solid, though you'd have to make it pretty lucrative to make it worthwhile, and you'd still mostly just attract Democrats. The idea might be to make a sort of progressive-left Tea Party, which would be cool - it'd be good to see folks like Wasserman-Schultz facing opposition from people espousing a Bernie-like economic message, and, through 2018 and beyond, it could have some real success in changing the national dialogue.
But if the strategy is to 3rd party it, that's got a critical flaw.
Agreed, although the gerrymander is so intense right now, they don't even have to. I suppose they could hand some dark blue districts to the GOP, so that's nice if you're a Republican.
There is appeal for independents among the right as much as for the (not really left) left. A third option has as much the possibility of making a centrist Democrat a viable candidate against an unpopular but entrenched Republican incumbent in one race as it does of eroding Democratic support in another.
What it sounds like is the bed the Dems made catching fire. Well deserved with how they have crawled to the right and capitulated on so many matters over time.
Given what you've got now, the worst that will happen is that the Dems might have to reign in their corporatism a bit, or pretend to like our Liberals, and actually look to a few of the peoples interests instead, if only on the surface. Drag them back a bit from the edge they seem to enjoy peering down from.
I'll admit, I didn't catch anything after I saw that ridiculous Venn diagram. Not sure I could trust my representation to such people.
I like the idea of local elections being forefront. We get such big turnouts for the presidential race, but the local elections can put in people who are very damaging. (Bathroom bills anyone?)
Down in Australia, they're in the process of dumping the entire government -- the leaders and the entire legislature -- because they've decided there's no way to get around the exact same sort of blockade that the GOP has been using against Obama for the past eight years. Faced with no hope of fixing it and getting anything done ever again, they're starting from scratch. I kind of like the idea.
She is. Tim Canova's primary challenge is exactly this.
Never have I intensely wanted to live in Hollywood, Florida more than in this very moment.
I propose a deal with the devil: Tell the Tea Party that if they go their own way, we'll go ours.
The big benefit from Bernie's candidacy will be getting more people like him into local offices. In 2018, the entire house of representatives is up for grabs. A HUGE chunk of those red-state governors are up for re-election. The Senate's got some folks up for re-election, too (including Bernie himself, if I'm not mistaken). Here's the map. Imagine if Bernie-style politicans can ride the populist Trump wave even in red states! Organizations like this can be key in helping that happen.
...but they're not going to do it from outside the political parties. Just ask the Greens.
His last Senate election was 2012, so I guess he's up again in 2018?
The senior senator, Patrick Leahy, is up for reelection this year.
Just going to point out to all the enthusiasm for Sanders, the big talk, that all seems to stop at "it can't be done" with regard to working outside or in opposition to a 2-party system.
What,, are you fucking political creationists?
I mean really, you should think for a second with what was before cornering yourselves with what can't be.
Is it because it'd be difficult? Because when you herald a beginning by pointing out the end you're looking pretty damn silly.
Parties are born, they get old and die and new parties come along, just like people, like nations, like cultures.
I don't know who said it first... "If everybody who said 'I'd vote for Bernie but he can't win' actually voted for Bernie, he'd win."