A word of advice about controlling the Democratic Party message

[BainsBane]

38. my problem with your analsysis

And other discussions I've seen about the issue of money and politics is that it places responsibility on a few, or one, select Democrats rather than the system. In your case you are arguing that the party as a whole is too corporate. What needs to be repaired is the campaign finance system, and my personal belief is that the only long-term solution is public financing of elections, which would require a constitutional amendment. That may not be possible, but advocating for unilateral disarmament isn't a winning strategy either. Now someone like Sanders could raised enormous amounts of money and outspend his competitor, but money is most influential in house races and at the state level where voters pay less attention. Having a high profile figure who convinces his supporters he's somehow above the system may help that politician, but it does nothing to address the systemic problem. In fact, I believe that argument set back reform because it means that now even self-proclaimed progressives focus on individuals--claiming some are perfect and others corrupt-- rather than seeking a comprehensive solution. Some used that argument against Clinton in the GE and actually voted against the policies they claimed to support. Trump took advantage of that rhetorical strategy to put himself in power, only to turn govt directly over to the extremely wealthy.

The media operates based on profit, but it turns out the most influential media outlets are not on television. They are right wing and fake news websites. Their ability to persuade voters depends on readers' inability to discern fact from fiction and a desire to use "news" to confirm their anger and biases. That tendency cuts across the political spectrum.

I have no insight into how to communicate with such voters. My own approach to information and politics couldn't be more different. I look at issues, policy proposals, and candidates voting records , and I do fact checking. I don't decide a politician is a hero and refuse to look at anything that contradicts that view. I despise being pandered to, and the more a politician promises, the less I trust him. As much as I would personally love single payer, I knew a GOP congress that had voted 50x to repeal Obamacare would not pass it. And unlike many others, I don't fault a politician for leveling with voters. It is my desire to not be pandered to that prompts you and some others to assume I'm centrist, but the fact is I approach politics pragmatically. I don't see any reason to change that. So people here can talk about what they want politicians to promise them and continue to care more about rhetoric than policy. That is not how I make my political decisions. My views are also on informed by my knowledge of history, and the construction of an ideal past where Democrats were the mythical heroes of the people and not tied to moneyed interests drives me batty because I know it to be false.

So I understand many are concerned more with rhetoric than policy, but I am not, and I will never agree to subsume knowledge for belief. I don't see politicians as heroes, though in defeat Clinton emerges for me as a symbol of the struggle of women for full citizenship.