Progressives (Liberals)

Isn't Bloody Sunday a song by U2?

You might’ve surprised yourself. One indelible lesson I took from my years in the Army was that I didn’t really know what I could do until I tried it. Most times I could do more, accomplish more, endure more than I had estimated.

Either that or [Trump] simply to sow confusion and discord. Either is effective. It's like the Russian election interference.

(I still can do it like an elf!)

All it took was 2 Sanders primary victories, and now "he's running against the Democratic Party"... Sad, really.

Even someone with a low IQ as I have got this.

Out-of-context quotes dating from 2015 are worth nothing.

They just show you still resent him from 2016 and can't evolve.

[... But I think he has shifted his criticism to the "Democratic establishment", which is basically signaling an intended takeover of the party. He can do this by carrying out his threat to ban corporate contributions — which looks "progressive" but actually weakens the ability of the DNC to coordinate and support candidates around the country. Personally, I don't think corporate donations and SuperPACs are necessarily undemocratic — if they are transparent.

Looked it up, you get a partisan answer when you click on Wikipedia but I found a Quora question and answer on Fact-Check in 2007 which speaks to what you are talking about. Sometimes, I just miss these things. Not sure why.

https://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/the-democratic-or-democrat-party/

Do you believe "superdelegates" with 2 votes/capita are Democratic?

1. Elected members of the Democratic National Committee: "the chairs and vice chairs of each state and territorial Democratic Party; 212 national committeemen and committeewomen elected to represent their states; top officials of the DNC itself and several of its auxiliary groups (such as the Democratic Attorneys General Association, the National Federation of Democratic Women and the Young Democrats of America); and 75 at-large members who are nominated by the party chairman and chosen by the full DNC." Most of the at-large members "are local party leaders, officeholders and donors or representatives of important Democratic constituencies, such as organized labor." There were 437 DNC members (with 433 votes) who were superdelegates at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.
2. Democratic Governors (including territorial governors and the Mayor of the District of Columbia). There were 21 Democratic Governors who were superdelegates at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.
3. Democratic Members of Congress. There were 191 U.S. Representatives (including non-voting delegates from Washington, D.C. and territories) and 47 U.S. Senators (including Washington, D.C. shadow senators) who were superdelegates at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.
4. Distinguished party leaders (consisting of current and former Presidents, Vice Presidents, congressional leaders, and DNC chairs). There were 20 of these who were superdelegates at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.

Nonsense, the issue is grammatical.

I am feeling well disposed to the Republican Party this week, which may indicate either an acute attack of summer euphoria or advanced arteriosclerosis, although I prefer to ascribe it to a sensible terror of having Washington occupied exclusively by Democrats. Whatever the case, this passing twinge of good will prompts a small suggestion for their conduct of the campaign, a suggestion which they will doubtless resent.

Since the middle of the 1950's, they have been running persistently against “the Democrat Party.” It is time to forget it, yet throughout their convention last month, they kept hacking away at “the Democrat Party” with a zeal that was dispiriting to witness.

The origin of this illiterate phrase goes back, I believe. to the era of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. At some point in the 1950's, I recall a suggestion sheet being circulated to Republican campaign orators, which urged them to abjure the use of “Democratic Party” in favor of “the Democrat Party.” This was a time when words and phrases were first having magical psychological powers ascribed to them in a systematic way by marketing students, and the theory was that “Democrat Party” was a whiz‐bang that could blow the Democratic Party right out of the (trenches.

Part of the theory was that it would somehow lift the cloud from the public mind and reveal that, despite its name, the Democratic Party was not a democratic instrument. Moreover, “Democrat Party” sounded peculiar —only a tin ear can hear it ‘without a wince of pain—and might make the Democratic Party an object of ridicule. Finally, it was thought to be a phrase which so maddened Democrats that it would send them climbing walls and, presumably, distract their energies from the business of getting elected.

If all this sounds silly now, it is a happy indication that we have progressed slightly in 20 years, but at the time this sort of psychological mumbo jumbo about the language was taken very seriously. It was, after all, a time when automobiles were sold as sex symbols.

Ford, of course, folded the Edsel after its sexually suggestive radiator grill failed to produce results. “The Democrat Party” obviously succeeded no better. When it was first unleashed, the Republicans held the White House and a standoff in Congress. Alter a generation of being used on the Democrats, it is hack again this year against the Congress that has become perpetually Democratic and a Carter who looks unbeatable.

The chief trouble with “the Democrat Party” is that it makes the Republicans saying it sound both illiterate and coy, and so is like a shotgun that is all kick and no fire. I suspect the old‐timers like Barry Goldwater still believe It drives Democrats wild.

If so, this is the most persuasive argument for abandoning it. A party whose membership is down to 22 percent of the electorate, as the Republican Party is, hardly needs ways to irritate voters from the opposing party whom it must seduce if it is to succeed.

This is idiocy of the sort once mythically ascribed to the Marine garrison on Wake Island, when, surrounded by the Japanese fleet and about to be overrun, they were said to have been asked if there was anything they needed and to have replied, “Yes—send us more Japs.”

It is time to retire “the Democrat Party” to the Republican hall of fame. If Republicans refuse, as they probably will, voters will have to defend themselves by speaking only in the England language, a Republican corruption of English in which all adjectives are turned into nouns.

Then perhaps members of the Republic Party will cheer and happiness tears will dampen their rose cheeks. (Some have ash cheeks, which result from years of ending up on the defeat side of elections), and the joy tears they shed will make for an emotion scene that will be a movement sight to friends of the grandness, oldness party,

Is this all the Republicans have to offer the country? What a dumbness idea.