A word of advice about controlling the Democratic Party message

[JCanete]

40. So, the premise I was responding to was basically "if your ideas are so hot prove it

by getting elected on them." My statement was that that would not be an effective gauge of whether or not the ideas were hot, or even whether they appealed to the people, because there are gatekeepers that are the funders of campaigns.

I never did, nor would I, make the argument that people should not do what BainesBane or you are suggesting. We absolutely need to do that, but the reasons implicit in the post seem to be for the purposes of giving cause to dismiss any ideas that can't survive our political process as it stands, giving no consideration for the implicit biases within that system that could make an idea DOA.

You have effectively told me that people running for office have to craft a message that appeals across a spectrum, which is not something I knew I was calling into question. The problem is, and you only keep reinforcing it post after post, that one of those hurdles are the people with the purse strings.

You keep saying I'm wrong and then you keep showing me how I'm right. "Major donors are looking at the message and the elect-ability." The operative wording here is MAJOR DONORS, who are making a judgement about a message according to their sensibilities. I know that organizations such as labor contribute to campaigns, but these are very politically complicated decisions...its always better to support the candidate you think is most likely to win, because you kind of need them to remember you should they get into office, and fondly at that.

This is the system we have. Again, no bones with that assessment. I'll just repeat what I said at the beginning incase it got lost in the deluge. Because of that gatekeeping capacity, a platform that doesn't end up gaining traction can not simply be said to be unappealing to the public. That is not a fair or reasonable metric to impose.