Sunday Funnies

Battleground Texas struggles to maintain relevance

If you're still wondering why Democrats in Texas cannot seem to find any traction despite the fact that the world's worst conservatives run this state lock. stock, and Jade Helm gun barrel... look no further than here.

It’s mid-summer, after the legislative session and before the proper start of next year’s election cycle, which means the state’s political organizations are in full churn. Politicos of all stripes are leaving politics for policy or vice versa, getting fired and promoted, and maybe leaving the game—or the state—altogether. That’s a normal part of life in politics, where jobs are often short-term and so is loyalty.

The same holds true at the high-profile organizing group Battleground Texas, where political director Cliff Walker will be stepping down next week. It’s the latest of a number of departures by Battleground senior staff since last year’s crushing electoral defeats. Walker, who had been with the organization since the beginning in 2013, was the highest-profile Texan in the group. As the relationship between Battleground and other parts of the Democratic coalition suffered during last year’s election due to mutual distrust, it fell to Walker, respected by other Texas Dems, to try to repair things.

But since November, a lot of Battleground’s founding notables have been looking for other work. A number of Obama campaign veterans have left for greener pastures in other states, including former Campaigns Director Ramsey Reid, former Communications Director Erica Sackin, and former Field Director Victoria Zyp. Former Digital Director Christina Oliver left the organization for a job at an Austin consulting firm owned by Republican U.S. Senator John Cornyn’s former campaign manager. The departure of Walker means that a large part of the original Battleground brain trust is now gone.

That italic emphasis at the end there is mine.  I'm sure Ms Oliver is wonderful person with a fine family, as Ross Perot used to 'compliment' his political opponents.  Bless her heart (as the good Christians say), she just needs to put food on her family.

As wildly successful as BGTX was in the 2014 cycle, this self-implosion may not be a bad thing.  Texas is a goddamned tough state to be a liberal in, has been for almost a generation now.  I feel sure that wide-eyed Team Bluers think they can conquer it with the tools that work in places like Chicago or Los Angeles or New York, and then watch in horror as their battleships get sunk.

Political organizations like Battleground experience a high rate of turnover naturally. And for years, there’s been something of a conveyor belt taking talented Democratic political staffers away from Texas, or out of politics altogether—options that offer more rewarding work, and usually, bigger paychecks. Former Texas Democratic Party chief Will Hailer, who party leaders expected to stay for longer than one election cycle, jumped ship shortly after last year’s election for a Washington, D.C. consulting firm.

So Battleground’s staffing issues aren’t unique—a statement from the group called them “really normal transitions,” and pointed to the continuity of Executive Director Jenn Brown’s leadership—but they could pose a greater threat to the organization than progressive groups with deeper roots in Texas. One of the talking points when the group launched concerned Battleground’s ability to attract top talent from across the nation and fuse it with in-state know-how, helped along by a dedicated source of donor money. But it will most likely be harder for Battleground to recruit top talent now.

Whatever is left of the organization should probably be leveraged by the last of the deep-pocketed, legal eagle, azure-blue activist Mohicans, Steve Mostyn.  He's got a real good thing going with the Texas Organizing Project, so perhaps he can simply consolidate one outfit with the other, despite their somewhat divergent efforts (TOP is minority-focused while BGTX has been decidedly Anglo, IMHO).

Jeff Rotkoff, who represents one of Battleground’s largest backers, Houston mega-donor Steve Mostyn, praised Walker’s work and career and predicted he would “continue to be an important member of [the] community in whatever comes next for him.”

[...]

Brown is currently developing what a statement from the group called a new “strategic plan for the organization.” In it, she’ll need to come up with fixes for a host of unresolved issues regarding Battleground’s place in the Democratic coalition. In particular, some Texas Democrats worried that Battleground would turn into an adjunct of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, to the detriment of efforts in local and legislative races. That has echoes of one of the major conflicts of the 2014 cycle—some candidates felt that Battleground’s focus on a divisive top-ticket candidate, Wendy Davis, hurt down-ballot efforts.

First question: Does anybody know who Mostyn is supporting for president?  Second question: with Clinton's new point person's boots on the ground here, and a promise to roll out a 50-state strategy and build the Democratic bench and all that, who's going to be held accountable if/when a Clinton-Castro ticket still can't carry Texas against the likes of, say... Donald Trump?

Ultimately, Hillary Clinton is going to use Texas the way every other Democratic presidential nominee has used us for the past twenty years: as an ATM plugged into the elites, and as a farm system for fresh-faced young people who are willing to work for nothing, subsist on pizza for a year, and walk lots of blocks and make hundreds of phones calls in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Nevada, and Colorado.

Please, someone make a case for how I am wrong.

Alan Grayson bids to replace Rubio in US Senate

Another Sanders Democrat steps up.

I announced today that I’m running for the Senate. If you read these e-mails, then there’s a good chance that you and I think alike. We are kindred spirits. We see things the same way.

So in a way, it’s sort of like you’re running for the Senate. I’m just doing it for you.

Think about it. You and I have a lot of shared beliefs, a lot of shared values. You and I see what needs to be done, and how to do it. If I make it to the Senate, there’s a good chance that I’ll do that job just as you would.

And one thing is for sure: You deserve your support. As the Jewish scholar Hillel asked, “If I will not be for myself, who will be for me?” 

A little heavy on the ask, but he's certainly going to to need all the help he can get in Florida.  Grayson is the toughest Democrat I've ever seen, and that includes Bernie Sanders and David Van Os.  He's a 1940s-style, FDR, New Deal Democrat.  He and Elizabeth Warren together would slay.

Do you know what I really like the best of all about him?  He calls out the Democratic Party on its own bullshit.

As you may have heard, Democratic turnout dropped off a cliff again last year, just like it did in 2010. I was wondering why, so I asked. I polled Florida non-voters. I found that the main reason why they didn't vote last year was simple: They couldn't see any difference between the candidates. When there is no difference between the candidates, Democrats don't vote, and Democrats lose. 

Couldn't see any difference between the candidates.  And Democratic activists keep saying there is, and pointing to the various statistics that demonstrate what a fabulous president Barack Obama has been, or mention something about Obamacare or the stock market or jobs reports or even the Supreme Court.  Activist Democrats -- the kind that read blogs -- don't seem to get that inactive Democrats -- the ones that don't -- are in fundamental disagreement with their primary selling point.

The customer ain't buyin' what you're sellin', guys.  Whose fault is that?

By way of background, the top race in Florida last year was the race for Governor. The Republican incumbent was Rick Scott, whose hospital chain perpetrated the largest Medicare fraud in history. (That is not a misprint.) Nevertheless, because he had an (R) next to his name on the 2010 ballot, he won. He has been a horrible governor, easily one of the worst in the country. Everyone knew that the Democrats had a chance to bring him down last year, especially since our Democratic President had carried Florida twice in a row. There are 500,000 more registered Democrats than registered Republicans in Florida.

The Democratic nominee was Charlie Crist, a REPUBLICAN former governor. Crist was so far to the right that he was known as "Chain-Gang Charlie." In 2010, when Scott was first elected, Crist killed the Democrat's chances for a US Senate seat from Florida by dropping out of his own Republican primary, where he was 25 points down, and running as an "independent." That "stinking maneuver" (as Yitzhak Rabin would have put it) made Marco Rubio the junior senator from Florida.

Rather than shunning Crist for blowing that 2010 Senate race for the Democrats, the Democrats actually recruited him. They crowned someone who was a Republican just a few years earlier, and a conservative Republican at that, as the "Democratic" nominee for governor.

Political strategists called this a brilliant move by the Democratic Party. And Democratic voters were appalled, as my own little poll showed. Democratic voters stayed home in droves, and the Democrats lost. 

This is legacy now in Florida.  As we have been continually reminded, here most recently, Florida Democrats will not vote for a conservative Democrat.  And if you think Florida is the only state where this happens... then I have some prime South Florida real estate you orthodox Democrats may be interested in.  You're already standing in it, in fact.

Getting back to our poll, we focused on people who actually could have voted, not permanent residents, convicted felons whose rights had not been restored or children. We offered the non-voters 12 different reasons to explain why they hadn't voted. Reason #1, the most "popular," was that "people did not like either choice for Governor." Forty-one percent of the Democratic non-voters said that this was the main reason why people didn't vote.

By the way, the non-voters were overwhelmingly Democratic, whether or not they were registered as such. When asked whom they had had favored in the 2012 Presidential race, they chose Obama over Romney by 17 points. President Obama won Florida -- among the actual voters -- by less than one point.

So, let's be honest. When we put up a pseudo-Democrat or a neo-Democrat or a quasi-Democrat or a semi-Democrat for Team Blue, our voters are not amused. They are not fooled. And we only hurt ourselves.

The voters deserve a choice. In fact, they insist on it. Or they simply won't vote. 

I hate to point this out -- well, not really -- but if you think Hillary Clinton is going to win the state of Florida against Jeb Bush in 2016, you might ought to think again.  That's one swing state already lost to the Freak Party.  How many more can you stand?

And are you sure you want to advance a primary attack where you insist Bernie Sanders is a socialist (and not a Democratic socialist in the EU model), AND is also using Republican talking points to describe the economy?  His FB settings may not let you see that, so here's the OP.

Bernie Sanders says that the "real unemployment rate" is 10.5 percent. In other news, my "real height" is 6'2'', my car's "real gas mileage" is 50 mpg and my "real GPA" is a 4.0. See how easy lying is, no wonder he does it!

Methinks thou doth project too much.  Anyways, Imma let Alan finish.

The net worth of the average American household dropped by more than one-third in ten years. The decline from the 2007 peak was almost 50 percent, in just six years. (Most of that loss was in the value of one’s home — home is where the heartache is.)

That’s why everyone is so angry.

The net worth decline of someone at the 25th percentile (meaning that three-quarters of all household are richer than you) was even more extreme — from $10,129 to $3200. And among the bottom five percent, whose net worth is negative, their debt tripled.

Only the top 10 percent of all Americans improved their standards of living during that decade. As the study summarized, “wealth inequality increased significantly from 2003 through 2013; by some metrics inequality roughly doubled.”

By the way, this is not an isolated study. Other studies have shown declining hourly wages going all the way back to 1974. That’s more than four decades of worse-and-worse.

Look at what’s been in the headlines lately: Fast Track. Obamacare. Power plant emissions. Marriage equality. Greece. Entirely absent from the airwaves is any discussion of what’s really on people’s minds, i.e., this.

So, to sum it up, people’s lives are circling the drain, and nobody’s even talking about it, much less doing something about it. That’s why everyone is so angry. And I’m hoping against hope that my party, the Democratic Party, wakes up and does something about it.  (My emphasis.)

Speaking for myself, I’ll try my best to do something about it. But you knew that already.

I can't be convinced that Alan Grayson was inspired to run for Marco Rubio's Senate seat because Hillary Clinton has indicated than when she is president, we're going to attack Iran.  Susie Madrak at Crooks and Liars may believe that Clinton will build a Democratic bench but Sanders won't "because, well, he isn't a Democrat", but that's another laughable premise.  As far as bench depth goes, any Democrat elected in 2016 had better be running for something that has a four-year term, because two years from now they're going to get wiped out.  This is historical; it's also what happens in a Clinton presidential midterm (see 1994).

My personal, humble opinion is that Hillary Clinton supporters need to calm their asses down, because what I am seeing from them recently suggests widespread panic, fear, and loathing of another primary defeat at their own hands.  I have to think that outcome cannot be what they want, but their behavior suggests otherwise.

Old-school ad hominem isn't going to get it done this time, y'all.  Please remember that it didn't work out well for Clinton against Obama in 2008, either.  Sanders isn't going down that road, to his credit.  If you do and she does, there's going to be a cleaving of the Democratic Party that will be slow to heal once the primary dust is settled.

Hell, maybe Hillary Clinton snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in November, 2016 is just what has to happen, though.  I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it.  Let the GOP screw things up so monstrously while they screw over everybody but the wealthiest, bring God into the Constitution and the Supreme Court while getting involved in a half a dozen fresh wars across the world, while the Earth cooks a little hotter in the climate oven and the robots take all our jobs and....

Maybe it has to all burn down before we go.

(Too dramatic?  If so, then you understand why I'm for Sanders until he's pushed out, and then for Jill Stein, and Alan Grayson.  And for every other Democrat like them, and against every Democrat that isn't.)

Money changes everything

Especially for Adrian Garcia, at least from my POV.

City Councilman Stephen Costello raised $1.8 million in the reporting period that ended June 30, his campaign announced Wednesday, putting him atop the field of top-tier contenders.

The candidates' campaign finance reports are not due until next Wednesday, but already this year's announced hauls top $6 million.

Former Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia was first out of the gate with his figures, announcing Tuesday that he raised $1.5 million since announcing his candidacy in May. According to his campaign, Garcia neither contributed his own money nor transferred funds from his sheriff's account.

Garcia gets the gold star, both for his effort and for the spin applied.  I personally don't feel any differently about him as a candidate, but it seems apparent that I am in the rapidly shrinking minority in this regard.  Strong polling and strong fundraising always does a lot to flip the script in the media's eye.

Former mayor of Kemah (Bill) King followed with a statement Wednesday morning saying he raised $1.25 million, $750,000 of which came from donors, meaning King likely supplied $500,000 for his own bid.

Costello also financed his own campaign to the tune of $250,000 and transferred $262,000 from his city council account, according to his release.

State Rep. Sylvester Turner reported raising $750,000 in the nine days between the end of the state legislative fundraising blackout and the close of the reporting period. Turner started the race with $900,000 from his legislative account already in the bank.

Meanwhile, 2013 mayoral runner-up Ben Hall raised nearly $800,000, according to his campaign, $500,000 of which he donated himself.

Former Congressman and City Councilman Chris Bell ended the reporting period with the lowest number of the group, having raised $400,000. 

John Coby had a fun post from a couple of weeks ago about who wasn't going to get elected mayor of Houston.  He's pretty close to my thinking.  I won't have much more to say about fundraising but I'll link to Charles when he does, probably make fun of him a little about how he focuses so much on it for the benefit of access to the various consultants.  Will try not to not be mean about that.  Update: Via Charles, Stace has more.

If you want to be really impressed -- or really revolted -- about somebody's fundraising, however, just read this story about Greg Abbott from Jonathan Tilove at the Statesman.

Gov. Greg Abbott’s campaign committee raised $8.25 million the last nine days of June.

That’s very good. Nearly $1 million a day. At that pace, he could run for president.

But, to put it in context, those were the first nine days Abbott could receive contributions since being elected governor, so it reflects a certain pent-up energy.

I'm trying to render a mental image of the kind of people -- and their PACs -- that would give Abbott a million dollars a day and do so feeling their 'pent-up energy'.  "God, we are just aching in our hearts to donate to our good Governor George Wallace, and the day(s) have finally arrived!  Quick, Maw!  Scratch out a check for a couple hundred thousand so that Greg can fight Operation Jade Helm, the gays, and defend that good Christian man Ken Paxton from those evil libruls who are trying to take him down!"

To avoid the indelicate impression that influence might be being bought or sold, state officeholders in Texas cannot receive contributions during biennial legislative sessions and the veto period that follows. The prohibition extends from Dec. 14 to June 21.

Even so, the fundraising numbers – released by his campaign Wednesday ahead of next week’s filing deadline with the Texas Ethics Commission – only enhance Abbott’s reputation as an epic fundraiser and a politician who knows that the best way to discourage a serious challenge, or defeat an opponent, is with a big pile of cash.

Abbott’s campaign committee has $17.7 million in cash on hand. Two years ago, as he embarked on his campaign for governor, he had $20 million in the bank. Abbott is not up for re-election until 2018.

Doesn't it just warm your heart to see such good government in action?

What should progressives do if/when Bernie Sanders is defeated for the Democratic nomination? (Part two of two)

In Part One I detailed the postulate that no matter how much momentum Bernie Sanders is able to generate, he will eventually be blocked from the presidential nomination by the establishment and corporate Democratic Party machine.  For Sanders supporters, the $64,000 question is: what are you going to do if and/or when that happens?  What are your options besides not voting (an inappropriate and even irrational option, IMO).

I identify these three:

1) Take Bernie Sanders' endorsement and vote for Hillary Clinton.

2) Write in Sanders' name.

3) Vote for the Green Party's Jill Stein.

I'm not going to tell you what to do.  I'm going to tell you what I'm going to do.  You can take that for whatever it is worth to you.

First let me summarize what first appeared as a reply to a comment in Part One.  One of my regular readers here, a blogger and terrific writer in her own right, advanced the theory that Sanders is a stalking horse, aka sheepdog, for progressive voters.  In fact she mentions it as "a guard for a Nader effect", i.e. a repeat of a still-common paranoia and urban legend among shallow-thinking blue partisans that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the 2000 election.  I -- and many others, like Jim Hightower -- have previously debunked this myth, unmasking the terrible Nader demon as the hideous and horrifying "monster under the bed" for too many rank-and-file Democrats.

Interestingly enough, an unscientific survey of some hard-core Democrats (not published anywhere, just in a private discussion) revealed that Clinton supporters believe that the most important reason they have for voting for Hillary is "the Supreme Court".  If you've traveled anywhere online where political discussions are being had, you see this premise mentioned often, complete with the ages of certain Justices referenced.

This business of predicting which potential SCOTUS judges might be replaced in the next presidential term is folly.  A fool's errand.  If you don't think so, then ask John Sununu about David Souter being a slam dunk.  Or any Republican you know today about Chief Justice John Roberts.

We can go further back, if you like, to Gerald Ford and Justice John Paul Stevens, but I believe that's enough to convey the message.  It's just as silly as blaming Ralph Nader for Samuel Alito.

To be clear: it's not a completely unreasonable premise given that so many Justices wind up reflecting the politics of their appointees, but it's only valid in the general election cycle and not the primary one.  You know, the cycle we're in for the next twelve months.  In the primary season, it is a positively ridiculous idea.  To demonstrate: wouldn't it be fair to say that Bernie Sanders' Supreme nominees would be even better than Clinton's (unless you want more Anthony Kennedys on the Court, that is)?  The immediate response I've gotten from Clintonites is: "But Bernie can't win" (yes, I already know this, I remind them, but that's a separate discussion).

If Yellow Dogs are able to grasp that concept -- not always the case, in my experience -- we delve a little deeper.  It is well known by now that in 2000, there was some large number, variously referenced as between 250,000 and 300,000 registered Democrats in the state of Florida who cast their ballots for George W. Bush.  I feel certain that their reasons for doing so were many and varied, just as I know that "the Supreme Court" premise fell on their deaf ears.  So even if the primordial fear of an ultraconservative  "SCOTUS" works for many liberals who pay attention to politics, there is empirical evidence that the contention fails for many, many others.  About three times as many Democrats in Florida than there were total votes for Nader, and the hard numbers prove it.

So it is apparently a weak and unconvincing argument, one that extends in my projection to the kind of soft Democrat, the one who votes irregularly and usually only in presidential years, and with those voters we know of as 'low-information', the kind who report to pollsters in the waning days of general elections as "undecided".

So if "SCOTUS" is a joke excuse in the primary, and a failing one in the general... how is it valid at all?  It's not motivating turnout, it's not swaying the potential Democratic voters in need of the most encouragement.  It's a dry well, so why do Dems keep going back to it?

The only answer I have for that is habit.  Lazy reasoning, perhaps.

So back to the original question.

1.  Should Sanders supporters move on over to Clinton, even f they have to hold their nose (because of SCOTUS or "they've always voted for Dems" or some similarly sheep-like excuse)?

My suggestion is no, as you probably have guessed.  Here's my olive branch to the Hillary fans: if Clinton's been your gal all along, good on ya.  For whatever reason: that you like her, that it's time for a woman president, that she's experienced, and so on like that.  Those are all well and good enough reasons to vote for anybody.  If she has NOT been your first option, again for whatever reasons are self-important, you should be able to recognize that she's not going to be your best option even if you believe that she's your only remaining option.  This is the old "lesser of two evils" shit sandwich.

Despite who she claims to be, despite the wildly varying, free-range political animal she has been in the past, Hillary Clinton today is who she is.  She may have taken her "listening tours", she may have evolved over the decades from Goldwater Girl to McGovern field worker in South Texas to staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee investigating the Watergate impeachment inquiry, allegedly fired -- this is disputed -- for unethical behavior.  (Read that link, it's worth it.)  Apparently Clinton thought that it was a good idea not to impeach Richard Nixon, because then it would be easier for Sen. Ted Kennedy to defeat him and be elected president in 1976.  And actively performed sabotage on the impeachment proceedings.

Where have we seen this kind of hilarious, seemingly LSD-induced Democratic partisan logic before?  Oh yeah, I just blogged it: Ralph Nader and the Supreme Court.

Beyond her cozy relationship with Wall Street, Hillary Clinton is more than likely to advance American military activity in the Middle East -- and around the world -- as much so as any Republican, including Lindsey Graham.  It's always been her first instinct.

What was striking about Hillary Clinton’s remarks, which to its credit, the Atlantic reproduced in full, was how often she depicted the US policy of aggression as morally desirable as well as necessary to protect Christians in the US from jihadis.

With Clinton you get more wars, more drone assassinations, more bombings in more places -- certainly across western Syria and northern Iraq, where ISIS holds control, absolutely in Yemen and elsewhere in the Saudi peninsula, perhaps even an attack on Iran or in the Ukraine as a proxy war with Russia.  Escalating tensions with South Korea and China are also a given.  Does all this sound like someone worth voting for if you're an actual progressive and not a pretend one, or just a social one?

The nation's weapons manufacturers are the winners in 2016, no matter who goes into the White House, with the exception IMO of Sanders.   (My friend Socratic Gadfly hotly disputes this, and so do others.)

But if more war is what you want, then go for it.

2.  Should Sanders acolytes cast a write-in ballot for him as a protest vote?

That might send a message, but I doubt that the telegram gets received.  This piece is something I agreed with, right to very end, until he recommended writing in Sanders.  (Note that many commenters also disagree with that.)  It's written in a much harsher tone than I can occasionally muster.

...Bernie Sanders voters grotesquely morphing into Hillary Clinton voters takes the political bait-and-switch to a whole new galaxy. Not merely will such a switch exhibit an astonishing failure to learn from the egregious prior examples of Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and even “Dubya” Bush. Such a switch will replace a rare honest politician offering real prospects of overhauling U.S. government from functioning as a predatory machine (whose only face for many innocent, terrorized Arabs, is the predator drone) with a deeply corrupt one who’s the virtual indentured servant of plutocratic predators. So much so that the fittest form of address for President Clinton II—in splendid parody of the “Madam President” moniker now fondly polished by her supporters—would be “Madam Predator.”

Now, one scarcely expects average “low-information voters,” daily victims of mainstream media propaganda, to “grok” the hideous aptness of the “Madam Predator” label. But for early Sanders supporters—far more idealistic, politically aware, and policy-demanding than average voters—the damning truthfulness of the label should be self-evident. For Hillary Clinton is provably in bed with military, surveillance, financial, and fossil fuel predators who menace not just the peace, freedom, and well-being of U.S. and global citizens, but (through ramped-up drilling and fracking) the very survival of our species.

So why do so many Sanders supporters—the ones I’m apt to call Bernie’s sheep—act as if the switch from delightedly voting for Bernie to choking back one’s vomit to vote for Hillary will be anything but a harrowing electoral tragedy? A tragedy we should, very arguably, refuse to take part in.

Read it all if you think you can handle it.  Like I wrote at the top, it's brutally direct, but it's also a little misguided at the very end.

Indeed, it depends on a free, responsible citizen’s act of political interpretation: that we take Bernie’s scarcely acknowledged call for a political revolution vastly more seriously than his pledge that, should he lose, he’ll support Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Viewed in other terms, it means true Sanders supporters must combine support for Bernie’s campaign with Chris Hedges’ emphasis on the “moral imperative of revolt.”

[...]

A political revolution supporting Bernie Sanders—but in terms of Chris Hedges’ “moral imperative of revolt”—must be even more outspoken. Where the corporatist media has criminally abdicated its democratic responsibility of truth-telling, Bernie’s revolution must “be the media.” Therefore it must take relish in bird-dogging Hillary—brandishing such slogans as “Madam Predator” or “Show Us the Anti-Money.”

Revolt Against Plutocracy aspires to be the needed political revolution, leveraging Bernie Sanders’ historic campaign to fulfill Chris Hedges’ “moral imperative of revolt.” We categorically refuse to vote for “Madam Predator” Hillary Clinton, strongly endorsing a pledge to write in Bernie Sanders in November 2016 should he (God forbid) lose the Democratic nomination to her. And in the toxic atmosphere of party and media censorship, we alone (among supporters of electable candidates) intend to sustain the revolutionary tradition of “speaking truth to power”—which Democrats’ tight muzzle on Bernie keeps him from doing.  

Sorry dude; no can do.  Your distinguishing Sanders as an 'electable' candidate as a write-in is just false.  Seven states don't allow write-in presidential candidates at all; even Texas will only count write-in votes if the candidate's name has been properly 'declared', a legal obstacle almost as tough as ballot access.  And see that link for more of the onerous requirements in other states.  But if you prefer, you Sanders die-hards can go that route.  You have a significantly less chance of being successful as....

3.  Voting for the Green Party's presidential nominee, to be determined at the party's national meeting in a couple of weeks in the summer of 2016, and likely to be Dr. Jill Stein.

This is what I'm going to do.

As of February 2015, the GP has qualified for ballot access in twenty states, and is expected to be qualified for 40+ in time for the 2016 election.  Their concurrent 'Plan B' is the same write-in strategy as the one recommended in Patrick Walker's piece excerpted above; they'll just have to execute it in far fewer states.  So while Sanders' name won't appear on any November ballots (assuming Clinton defeats him for the nomination), Stein's name will be seen on roughly 4 out of 5.  That is by easy definition far more 'electable' than Sanders as a write-in.

If you want real, actual progressive populist political revolution -- that is to say, ballot box revolution and not torches and pitchforks -- then Stein and the Greens are your best, most logical choice.  What the Green Party represents is clearly communicated and completely in line with what Bernie Sanders represents.  You cannot find a better mission statement in any Democratic Party platform since at least the 1940s.

Finally, it sends the message the Democrats really need to understand: stop taking your progressive populist base for granted.  Green votes do not belong to the Democratic Party.  We have other options.  You must conform to our issues and beliefs or else we will abandon you.

That's absolutely the most critical message that people of our political persuasion can send, and that can be received.

Update: There are plenty of supporters of Bernie Sanders -- the kind of people who demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of everything I have written -- unwilling to so much as entertain the idea of the option I'm taking.  There's no question that until Sanders is eliminated, these folks won't be thinking or acting rationally, perhaps long after that.  And as Katy in the comments has noted, the Electoral College swing states are the only places where a vote for Stein might jeopardize a Democratic nominee, be that person Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.  So in Texas -- and California, and New York and about 37 other states -- a vote for any third party comes with a clean conscience.  Hear that, Republicans?  This is your chance to act smarter than the Democrats.  If you don't like your nominee, you also have an option called "Libertarian Party'.

So that's how I see it.  How do you see it?