Except the centrist wing of the Democratic party which is still nominally in control of party policy and power is nothing to write home about either. It can even be argued that it GAVE us Trump.

But I'm with you, I'd even vote for a muddle-headed individual like Gabbard over Trump. I'd have to hold my nose (again), but it's not a perfect world.

That said, I predict Gabbard's candidacy is effectively doomed. She'd be a dark horse even if her policy positions were coherent.

@mordant oh, i don't think there is much of a centrist wing and it's definitely not in charge. it's manchin, donnelly, um heitkamp is out now, right? and one other, i forget who. that's not much of a wing at all. mccaskill was almost centrist but really more progressive than she looked and she's out now. i liked her, and i am quite well left of center. one other "ist" i am not, though, is purist!

g

@genessa I regarded Clinton as a plutocrat / centrist Dem and plenty of her cronies still run the DNC; even Wasserman-Schultz managed to get re-elected to congress. Perez is only a bit left of them. Basically they're the people who have a faux pragmatism argument, anything bold and sufficient to any urgency has to be run through focus groups to find the 496 reasons why it's not doable. They only support a timid incrementalism that ultimately goes nowhere.

Am I a purist? No ... like I said, I held my nose and voted for Clinton and not the Citrus Caligula. But it looks to me like the Dems will continue to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and the basic reason why is that too many are still in bed with corporate donors who want to see the wealthy stay that way (and the poor stay that way, and the middle class become poor apparently).

@mordant we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. it's not how i view clinton (or perez, for that matter).

g