General Discussion

There has been a lot of talk about that since the election. Some say that you should never criticize any sitting Democrat, no matter what they do, though I think that is an extreme view even here.

So, to that end, Democrats have to adhere, most of the time, to what they allegedly stand for. Part of the reason they lose is because they (not all but too many) do not do that. You cannot be "for the people" and then vote in favor of things that your corporate donors favor, when that is in direct opposition to what voters actually need.

It's this kind of thing that breeds cynicism of voters. And the Tea Party is not what you think it is. It is not grassroots or spontaneous. I don't think we need it. I mean, perhaps progressives can form something cohesive instead of each group working on its pet issue, but not a fake grassroots organization bankrolled by corporations. I would not favor that at all.

Here's an article on the origins of the Tea Party:

http://time.com/secret-origins-of-the-tea-party/

What didn’t become public until nearly 20 years later was that these themes of a Tea Party anti-tax, anti-regulation, and antigovernment revolt were then developed almost simultaneously by two of the largest tobacco companies—Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds—under the guise of political and business coalitions to fight excise taxes of all sorts, including cigarette taxes. In successive phases in the 1990s, with the Kochs’ CSE as its core mobilization network partner, Philip Morris and RJR helped create state-based anti-tax and anti-regulation propaganda campaigns such as Get Government Off Our Back, Enough is Enough, and Citizens Against Regressive Taxation.

Clearly there are other issues progressives need to work on, especially gerrymandering and voter suppression. It seems like it would be enough to solve those two issues to give the Democratic Party at least a fighting chance. Right now, something like 90% of incumbents win, almost no matter what they do so change is incredibly difficult.