General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSanders to run as a Democrat -- but not accept nomination (2018 Senate)
The Vermont senator announces his complicated reelection plans for another term.https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/21/bernie-sanders-democrat-independent-vermont-601844
Bernie Sanders is running for the Democratic nomination in Vermont — but he won’t accept it if he wins. The famously independent senator, who briefly joined the Democratic Party to run in the 2016 New Hampshire presidential primary only to un-enroll later, officially announced Monday that he would seek a third term in the Senate this fall. He also said that he’ll pull the same maneuver that he did in his 2006 and 2012 Senate races: Running as a Democrat, declining the nomination when he wins and then running as an independent.
The move makes it virtually impossible for another Democrat to seek the party’s nod. And it allows Sanders to loom large in the party primary in August, but still preserve his independence. But the move also comes at a time when Sanders supporters are pushing for changes to the presidential nominating process as part of the Democratic National Committee unity reform commission. One priority is to open up the party’s primaries to voters who aren’t registered as Democrats.
A Sanders spokeswoman did not answer when asked whether the senator considered doing things differently in light of his new party and Senate leadership roles.
The Vermont Democratic Party passed a resolution over the weekend supporting Sanders’ move, proclaiming that he could still be considered a member of the party “for all purposes and entitled to all the rights and privileges that come with such membership at the state and federal level.”
snip
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Me.
(35,454 posts)"The move makes it virtually impossible for another Democrat to seek the party’s nod"
It wouldn't be another Democrat, it would be A Democrat
Eliot Rosewater
(34,282 posts)sunRISEnow
(217 posts)Good point.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)all want to run under the Democratic name because of their unelectability.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)Did you see the last paragraph?
The Vermont Democratic Party passed a resolution over the weekend supporting Sanders’ move, proclaiming that he could still be considered a member of the party “for all purposes and entitled to all the rights and privileges that come with such membership at the state and federal level.”
I know that here at DU there is a lot of angst over what a meany Senator Sanders is, but Vermont seems to love him. I for one will be quite surprised if he does not return as the junior Senator from Vermont.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)I do not expect them to change it up now. I do expect them to stand strong against this crap in 2020 and before when Sanders throws his hat into the ring.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)I sincerely hope Senator Sanders does not run for President in 2020, but I think he is a very good Senator and I support Vermont Democrats in this decision.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)I am fine with Bernie as a senator.
tazkcmo
(7,419 posts)He had a major impact in healthcare generally and the VA in particular. Veterans especially are aware of his impact.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)Bernie did photo op in support of HRC, standing behind her as she researched, created, spoke, presented, pushed for. Obama took a huge step forward presenting us the first step. True progressive, progressing on the HC issues.
There is no Bernie in the healthcare issue. HRC, then Obama. Facts matter.
tazkcmo
(7,419 posts)Your Bernie hatred is strong.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)not in either 1990's push or 2008 push for HC, there would not be one single change the way it progressed and developed.
That is not hate, to state the fact that Bernie had no impact on HC.
That would be the very definition of having no impact.
karynnj
(60,767 posts)It was Bernie's provision and accepted into the bill. It is a very good thing especially for rural areas. Not to mention, you kind of ignored Ted Kennedy, who was the lead sponsor of CHIP, which was the biggest gain in healthcare in the 1990s. Clinton was impressive, but her program never even came to a vote.
Bernie was instrumental on the VA healthcare bill.
Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)what nonsense.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)Basic and simple to understand.
Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)You wrote that he "sold his vote to the Democratic Party". He did no such thing.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)Republican caucus if the VDP ran somebody against him?
I'd like to see that.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)It is not about Bernie voting republican, but about the Democratic vote winning one way or another.
Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)Sanders has not "sold his vote". The only thing going on here is that the VDP and Sanders are making sure that NO REPUBLICAN can win this seat.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Post hoc ergo prompter hoc.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Last edited Tue May 22, 2018, 04:38 AM - Edit history (1)
Get it? I'll provide a vote-count example if you need.
I've really never doubted Sanders' sincerity as he badmouths Democrats as the only slightly less intolerable choice of two bad ones. Some people are just wired to be oppositional, spinning reality as needed to support their claims, and this one's been demonstrating this syndrome for over 40 years.
He's also been voting reliably WITH Democrats his entire 27 years in congress.
What smells here?
I think we should conclude that Sanders values his elite position as a U.S. Senator more than anything else.
Sanders votes with the Democratic caucus so he can keep being a senator. Base pay's only $174,000 a year, but the perks and benefits are spectacular.
Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)in the Senate but unless the VDP does his bidding he would vote Republican? And he’s doing all of this running around the country tirelessly promoting a progressive agenda for the 174,000 dollars and the “perks”?
But I’m putting a “dishonest twist” on it?
Ok.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)A massive hypocrisy that Democrats in Vermont are apparently comfortable with as long as this so-called "Independent" votes with the Democratic caucus. If he sabotaged the party by voting his constantly avowed moral superiority, refusing to be part of what he constantly claims is corrupt, he'd be out.
Simple as that.
Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)if he could get away with it?
Seriously?
You don’t think that just maybe your hatred if Bernie is clouding your objectivity?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)The idea that manuevering to prevent funding from going to any other Democratic candidate, when you have stated that you will not run as a Democrat in the GE, is indeed using the establishment to ensure that you are the party nominee prior to the primary vote?
And that's perfectly acceptable to some people, but only for one candidate?
Yeah, that's a tough one for some people.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)instead of always laying blame at the feet of Bernie, just to bash him over and over again. If there's a candidate who can out-Bernie Bernie in Vermont, no doubt the funding for that candidate's election will flow in like water over Niagara Falls. Can we at least agree on that?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)A politician being given the nomination by the political establishment, and this being supported by those that claim that because this is what superdelgates have the power to do - they think superdelegates should be abolished.
If pointing out that irony seems to you to be "having a beef" with someone being pretty much guaranteed the nomination by the establishment, then I think it's a case of "if the beef fits, then eat it."
What do you mean by "out-Bernie Bernie"? Do you mean an independent candidate? Green Party candidate?
And where would this "Niagra Falls" of money come from? You mean like when candidate Tom Perriello in Virginia got Niagra Falls $$ - most of his money - from out of state to challenge Northam? Even that and Bernie/Our Revolution's endorsement couldn't win that one for him.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)that's fine, and a perfectly understandable reaction... I think my reaction is as well. (Sure sounded like a "beef" though... my apologies.)
Here's where I have a problem with your arguments Erhnst... why do mention things like "Green Party candidate"... to inject some nefarious intent? All I meant by "out-Bernie Bernie" is another DEMOCRATIC candidate who the DEMOCRATIC Party finds just as, if not more acceptable than Bernie, to support in the primary election. When have I EVER stated, or even so much as suggested, going with a Green Party candidate? (Never!)
Indeed, it is a large number of DUers who want to ban BERNIE from seeking a Democratic Party nomination, which could have the disastrous effect of pushing him to accept the nomination of an established independent organization like the Green Party... especially if Bernie decides to run for President in 2020.
You should be all over that Ernst... why aren't you with me in condemning that disastrous possibility for the Democratic Party, which would all but guarantee the re-election of the Pussy-Grabber-in-Chief?
I also like that not-so-subtle dig at Bernie at the end of your post regarding an election that has nothing to do with the Vermont Senate race. It's like the saying, "build it and they will come"... if there's a Democratic candidate who is preferable to Bernie, and chooses to challenge him in the Democratic Party primary, let that person enter the race and the contributions will flow in... if not, they won't.
Bernie himself proved that it can be done
... without even taking dirty corporate cash. So, as Bernie has also shown, it's not like campaign contributions is the be all, end all. Bernie has proven you can be out spent by huge margins and still compete... so, if there's a Democrat with a message and a plan that yes, can out-Bernie Bernie, have at it. Far be it for Bernie to be one who expects to be coronated... no doubt, he would welcome all comers.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I was asking what you meant by the vague phrase "out-Bernie Bernie" and I truly didn't know - to the left of him? Is that clearer? No "nefarious intent."
I have not heard anyone advocating "banning" Bernie from jumping on to the ticket. I have heard opposition to him doing so, and upset that he might do so, but the Democratic party welcomes those who have not been Democrats before the deadline to register as one. I myself advocate that in order to run as a Democrat, one should have been a member of the party, and having run as one in the last 3 elections to office. Why 3? It's a number, and hopefully, anyone running for POTUS as a Democrat will have actually run for and won office as a Democrat. Not just Bernie, but anyone. Is that clearer?
But only if it's the Vermont Democratic party, not the DNC or superdelegates, right?
As I stated above, I'm not for banning him. You assumed that, and it's innaccurate. Is that clearer?
Any "dig" was at the double standards among those object to the possibility of superdelegates making it possible for the party establishment to determine the nominee independently of a popular vote being fine with the Vermont Party being able to do the same thing prior to the primary. Is that clearer?
You have still not stated where this $$ would come from. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept behind EMILY's list, or you would understand that doesn't happen to candidates that don't have major early backing. And conversely, why would Bernie need to ticket jump, in every election in Vermont, to get the establishment to prevent someone else from sharing in the funding streams that he gets, if indeed he was as overwhemingly popular as he is said to be? If there's a Democratic candidate who is preferable to Bernie, and chooses to challenge him in the Democratic Party primary, let that person enter the race as a Democrat. The "Niagra Falls" contributions will flow in to Bernie, the Independent... if not, they won't. Bernie himself proved that it can be done ... without even taking dirty corporate cash.. Right?
Except of course, if they are Democrats. Then he uses the establishment to cut them off from "establishment cash and support," just long enough to get the establishment nomination, then drop the D and run as the "anti-establishment" independent.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)"No nefarious intent"... okay, thank you. I wasn't sure, so, thanks for clarifying. I thought "out-Bernie Bernie" was clear on its face, given the context, but, appreciate sometimes the message can get garbled when communicating like this in short bursts.
I most certainly have heard people here wanting to ban Bernie from the Democratic Party ticket in 2020 - surprised you haven't seen that and will highlight for you next time that view is expressed - but, in any case, the views you express on this topic are not unreasonable... not that other reasonable people can't disagree.
I strongly disagree with your comment about the DNC and superdelegates... that's a "comparing apples and oranges" type argument and would likely lead to a strike if I freely expressed my views, as it would require multiple references to the 2016 election and views taken by participants in that election... so that's all I'll say on that topic.
Glad to hear your not for banning Bernie from the Democratic Party ticket... obviously, that would be ruinous to the party's chances in 2020 should Bernie decide to run.
Sorry, misunderstood that superdelegates "double standard" as a dig at Bernie... I still disagree for reasons that are better left unsaid... though I do understand and respect your point. These are more issues that need to be taken up the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, not any particular candidate themselves. (Can we at least agree on that?)
Regarding campaign contributions, where did Bernie get his the last time he ran for elected office? (Sure came out of nowhere - 60 points down! - and almost won!)
Right? No wrong... anyone can run in the Democratic Party primary who wants to for all the reasons I've given you. Guess we'll just have to disagree on that one.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)The unauthorized Democratic candidate in 1990, Delores Sandoval, an African American faculty member at the University of Vermont, was amazed that the official party treated her as a nonperson and Bernie kept outflanking her to her right. She opposed the Gulf build-up, Bernie supported it. She supported decriminalization of drug use and Bernie defended the war on drugs, and so on.
In 1993, Sandoval lamented the state party’s coordination against her much in the same way that Sanders now blasts the Democratic establishment.
“This lack of state party support even after the primary brings forth the question: were the voters deprived of their civil rights in not having their voice count when the Democratic party did not support the candidate of their Party and of their choice?” Sandoval wrote in a response to a Federal Elections Commission complaint against her campaign.
In her complaint, Sandoval reported that the Vermont Democratic party “did not even provide one dollar of financial support,” nor did it attempt to align her campaign with any relevant Political Action Committees.
http://www.talkmedianews.com/featured/2016/05/30/when-bernie-was-the-man/
Like that?
Demsrule86
(71,491 posts)he didn't win. Also, as I posted before this means one of two things. Sen. Sanders will not run in 20 or Sen. Sanders will run as an independent in 20. If he was running in the Democratic Primary, it would make sense to accept the Democratic nomination in Vermont. Thus it is independent or bust I think. I sincerely hope he does not run at all. We really need to win in 20.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)And, yes, I too wish Bernie would stick with the Democratic Party should he secure the Senate nomination... just don't think all the blame lies with him for the situation at hand.
Not sure what Bernie will do in 2020, or what's even best for our party in that regard... but, one thing IS for sure, we abso-fuckin-lutely have to defeat that scumbag occupying the Oval Office and to do that, we all have to unite in that common purpose.
Demsrule86
(71,491 posts)there or any GOP scumbag. I will vote for any Democrat and would of course vote for Senator Sanders in a general.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)Demsrule86
(71,491 posts)We have met the enemy and it is not any of us ... Trump is he enemy and all Republicans of course.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)even when we may disagree. And, sometimes, in those cases, your intellectually honest arguments have caused me rethink and even change my position.
Gothmog
(174,622 posts)Sanders needs to run as a democrat if he wins the party's nomination. Otherwise, the party needs to replace him on the ballot
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)each of his Senate runs - so how exactly would that work? Why would you say that, knowing this?
Gothmog
(174,622 posts)If Sanders runs in the Democratic Primary, then he needs to run in the general election. If the Vermont party allows Sanders to withdraw, then the party is making an ignorant decision and is hurting down ballot candidate.
If Sanders is such a strong candidate, then why is sanders engaging in this disgusting and sad tactic?
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)but, to blame Bernie entirely for going along with the Democratic Party on this just seems a bit extreme to me. While I disagree with your position, it's certainly a reasonable one to take, on which reasonable people, like myself, CAN disagree.
Gothmog
(174,622 posts)The Vermont party is hurting down ballot candidate because they want to make sanders happy. That is a very dumb move in my opinion. If the party simply told sanders that they will replace him if he does not run as a Democrat after winning the primary then there would be no problem. The Vermont Party has given in to sanders demands and these actions are bad for down ballot candidates in Vermont
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)1. Bernie IS a Democrat for all intents and purposes, considering he votes with Senate Democrats at a higher percentage rate than any other Democrat; and
2. It's not so much that the Vermont Democratic Party wants to make BERNIE happy, as it does the overwhelmingly independent Vermont VOTERS happy.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)particularly in this very thread discussing Bernie's action to specifically make the statement he is NOT a Democrat. He is going to all this trouble, even a press conference for him to make the statement he is NOT a Democrat.
This is what people are talking about gas lighting. We say, he is not a Democrat. Sanders makes a very loud statement he is not a Democrat.
You say, "Bernie IS a Democrat"
No. Bernie is not a Democrat.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)I did not say "Bernie is a Democrat"... which you falsely quote me TWICE as saying... why make that up? You purposefully cut off the sentence, where I said:
"Bernie is a Democrat FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES" not "Bernie is a Democrat," and to make that point clearer the quote continues... "considering he VOTES WITH THE SENATE DEMOCRATS AT A HIGHER PERCENTAGE RATE THAN ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT. "
And then after misquoting me twice, you got the nerve to accuse me of gaslighting?!?! All you've accomplished is expose the weakness of your argument. You're some piece of work sunRise... now I've seen it all!!
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)If you have link you need to post it every time you make the claim, TIA 
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)ucrdem
(15,720 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)quoted correctly would be completely. sunRISEnow said that InAbLuEsTaTe wrote that Bernie is a Democrat. While InAbLuEsTaTe did write those words there is a qualifier which was "for all intents and purposes" leaving that out is a dishonest omission that changes the statement.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)ucrdem
(15,720 posts)In any case the qualifier doesn't change anything, and it sure doesn't give the quotee some kind of get-out-of-jail free card. The claim is false, the poster made it, then accused another poster and myself of lying when we called him on it. And that is a very familiar pattern.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)you claimed I said Bernie is a Democrat, which is not true, because you left out the rest of the sentence... "FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, CONSIDERING HE VOTES WITH THE SENATE DEMOCRATS AT A HIGHER PERCENTAGE RATE THAN ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT." That is a 100% true, but if you disagree, take issue with what I actually said, not with what I didn't say. Why is that so hard?!
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)"BERNIE IS A DEMOCRAT, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, CONSIDERING HE VOTES WITH THE SENATE DEMOCRATS AT A HIGHER PERCENTAGE RATE THAN ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT."
That's what I actually said... claiming I only said the first 4 words is untrue, i.e. a lie. So, let me repeat it for you... I said: "BERNIE IS A DEMOCRAT" and then the quote continues... "FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, CONSIDERING HE VOTES WITH THE SENATE DEMOCRATS AT A HIGHER PERCENTAGE RATE THAN ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT."
Now, that's the truth.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The infamous Romney campaign ad, quoting Obama as saying "You didn't build that", had the same words in the same order as Obama's speech. Does that mean his quotation was correct? Nope. Romney was still lying, because of the way he selectively edited out the context.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)See, these Bernie haters can't take issue with what I actually said, so they have to misquote and make up fake arguments... talk about gaslighting!!
I included not just the qualifier "FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES," but also included the basis for that qualifier, as the sentence continues: "CONSIDERING [BERNIE] VOTES WITH THE SENATE DEMOCRATS AT A HIGHER PERCENTAGE RATE THAN ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT."
It's kinda amusing in a way - and sad at the same time - the extent to which some here will make just make crap up just to get in their daily dose of Bernie bashing.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)disheartened. It is so hard to have a conversation if the other party ignores the words you say and responds to an emotional message they mistakenly attribute to what you wrote.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)from the party.
Stating Bernie IS a Democrat.... for all intent and purpose is giving Sanders ownership and access and a part in the Democratic Party.
Many of us have an issue with that. He purposely and stridently insists he is OUTside the Democratic Party. He gets no ownership being outside the party.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)that reasonable people can differ on... would have been nice had you stated that up front, and been intellectually honest about what I said, instead of misquoting me and then falsely accusing me of gaslighting people.
Indeed, it would have been even nicer if you had at least taken ownership of your mistake, and maybe even apologized - though I have zero expectation of that - for that misquote and gaslighting accusation, instead of acting like that never happened.
But, I'll give you another chance and would even be willing to spot you a "mulligan."
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)Because I did not add an explanation does not mean I changed my argument nor that I misquoted you while copy and pasting. It only means I took the time to dot the i's and cross the t's for you so you could follow.
So, who gives whom the mulligan?
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)you wrote in several iterations "You say, "Bernie IS a Democrat"", but InAbLuEsTaTe wrote "Bernie IS a Democrat for all intents and purposes" that changes the meaning of what was written meaning you did in fact misquote InAbLuEsTaTe.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)meaning is, by definition, misquoting. The fact you can't even begin to see how someone might object to that, and to then be falsely accused of gaslighting, is beyond me and shows you're incapable of having an intellectually honest conversation.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)is not the same as "Bernie is a Democrat for all intents and purposes" when you can get a handle how the English language works try to interpret that again.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)The phrase "Bernie is a Democrat" is not the same as "Bernie IS a Democrat for all intents and purposes" which was even further explained by "considering he votes with Senate Democrats at a higher percentage rate than any other Democrat". You keep leaving the last part off and telling us it doesn't mean what it means. I am not saying that Senator Sanders is a Democrat nor is InAbLuEsTaTe, but he does caucus vote with Senate Democrats. That is what InAbLuEsTaTe meant and it is quite clear.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)So, I get this game to make Bernie an "honorary" part of the Democratic Party so he can use it at will. I do not need to go round and round.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)We went through this once before with the math.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)than English. The equation is InAbLuEsTaTe wrote 24 words to form a complete statement. While sunRISEnow copied 4 of those words and claimed the meaning of those 4 words was the same as the 24 words that InAbLuEsTaTe wrote. That leaves sunRISEnow at -20.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)that I "claimed Bernie is a Democrat," as if it's not widely known that he's an Independent. Which is PRECISELY why I added the qualifying statement after those 4 words:
"...FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, CONSIDERING HE VOTES WITH THE SENATE DEMOCRATS AT A HIGHER PERCENTAGE RATE THAN ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT."
But, I guess it's a lot easier to misquote what I said, than to have an intellectually honest discussion about what I actually said.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)Bernie can use the resources, use the party and through attacking and assaulting our Democratic Party/Leaders, maybe get closer to the goal of Presidency, thru the Democratic Party. Taking ownership of our party that he gave the finger to stating he will reject the Democratic position when he wins, and run as an Independent.
We get it. That is why the Democratic base across the nation is consistently calling this out and we will continue to. Bernie does not have nor will he get ownership of the Democratic party. That is the intent in "Bernie is a Democrat... "...FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES".
No, he is not a Democrat.
We have a tough road ahead that we need to be united and strong. We have the momentum and we have the people and we have a strong argument on our side. Tighten up the language, the message, the rules because our party is being infiltrated in many different ways.
trueblue2007
(19,068 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)do not know what is meant by "We went through this once before with the math".
Gothmog
(174,622 posts)If Bernie was a really a Democrat, he would not be engaging in this stunt which will hurt the Vermont Democratic party in down ballot races. Sanders does not care about the Vermont Democratic Party or he would not be engaging in this stunt.
Sanders is hurting the Vermont Democratic Party because Sanders does not care about the party or the candidates who are down ballot. The Vermont Party could force the issue by telling sanders that they will replace him on the ballot if Sanders wins the primary and pulls this stunt. If Sanders runs in the primary as a member of the Democratic Party, then he needs to run in the general election as a member of the Democratic Party.
If sanders is really so popular, then why is Sanders trying to hurt the Vermont Democratic Party and is engaging in this stunt. If the Vermont Party calls sanders bluff, Sanders should decide to run in the general election as a member of the Democratic Party.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)that the Vermont Democratic Party is not the initiator of the deal?
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)of Bernie's 3 Senate runs. Should take their beef up with the Vermont Democratic Party!
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)so my understanding may be flawed. Back in the late 1980s Bernie ran for congress as an Independent there was a Democratic candidate and a Republican won. It was in the election in 1991 that he made the deal with the Vermont Democratic Party that apparently holds today. One thing I notice no one who is critical of this lives in Vermont. Shouldn't they be trusted to handle their own business.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)Gothmog
(174,622 posts)You do know that parties care about down ballot races. This disgusting stunt by sanders will hurt down ballot candidates. Are you saying that the Vermont Democratic party does not care about doen ballot candidates?
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)you are commenting on something you don't understand so you are making up leading questions that have no basis. I believe that if the state party were being harmed down ballot they could be trusted to handle that. As a result I think there must be mutually beneficial reasons that the two parties have made this deal since 1991. To be clear I'm asking you why don't you trust the Vermont Democratic Party to handle party business in a competent way?
Gothmog
(174,622 posts)I am glad that this stunt is not allowed in Texas. One cannot file more than one application to be on a ballot in Texas.
I am sad that the vermont party is favoring a non-democrat over its down ballot candidates
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)that the Vermont Democratic Party has allowed down ballot candidates to suffer? Just because you think it might doesn't mean it has. I trust the Vermont Democratic Party to know what they are doing for their state. Why do you think you know better than they?
Gothmog
(174,622 posts)This is somewhat basic. I am amused that you are not aware of the coat tail effect. Here is an explanation that is somewhat basic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coattail_effect
This theory is prevalent at all levels of government. A popular statewide candidate for governor or senator can attract support for down ballot races of their party as well.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)any evidence that it is happening in this case?
Gothmog
(174,622 posts)Pretending that the coat tail effect does not exist is amusing to me.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)doesn't exist, I said prove that what the Vermont Democratic Party is doing is harming downstream Democrats. As with all other rhetorical challenges you failed.
karynnj
(60,767 posts)He has campaigned for lots of Democrats in VT.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)and the Democratic establishment as "Bashing bernie"
Another instance of trying on shoes....
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)instead of specifically to the comment I replied to. In any case, why don't you take it up with the Vermont Democratic Party when you're done bashing Bernie? I'm sure they could splain its decade-old policy to you.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I think others here are trying to misrepresent it, and dismiss the suppression that it's had on potential Democratic challengers. Some here tried to accuse the DNC of doing worse to Bernie, but when you look at the facts, that doesn't hold up.
You accusing those that point out the factual effects of that deal with the Vermont Democratic establishment of "bashing Bernie" proves my point about lacing up those shoes. You weren't referring to the the person you replied to, but anyone who isn't in agreement with you.
Is that clearer?
I don't live in Vermont, so telling me "to take it up with" the Vermont Democratic establishment is moot and irrelevant, even though it might serve as a way to end a post feeling triumphant.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)The Bernie Bashers know who they are... nuff said. Maybe not you on this issue, I won't speak for you... but then please don't speak for me either. Thank you.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Very clearly.
Thank you.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)There's no point in asking "please don't speak for me either." My experience is that, when someone "disagrees" with me in a thread like this one, much of the time (perhaps even most of the time) the purported disagreement is with something I didn't actually say.
I currently have no one on Ignore. Threads like this one are causing me to reconsider that decision. Dealing with one straw-man argument after another is just so unproductive and aggravating.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)The truth, however, is on our side and will always prevail. But, just imagine if this crap was pulled with their favorite candidate?!?! You'd never hear the end of it!!
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Some of the posts in this thread about Sanders would have been removed rather promptly if they'd been about anyone else -- and quite properly removed, too.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)... according to the Bashers, it's just pointing out facts, dontcha know?!?! Riiiight... just try that with... oh, nevermind.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)The unauthorized Democratic candidate in 1990, Delores Sandoval, an African American faculty member at the University of Vermont, was amazed that the official party treated her as a nonperson and Bernie kept outflanking her to her right. She opposed the Gulf build-up, Bernie supported it. She supported decriminalization of drug use and Bernie defended the war on drugs, and so on.
In 1993, Sandoval lamented the state party’s coordination against her much in the same way that Sanders now blasts the Democratic establishment.
“This lack of state party support even after the primary brings forth the question: were the voters deprived of their civil rights in not having their voice count when the Democratic party did not support the candidate of their Party and of their choice?” Sandoval wrote in a response to a Federal Elections Commission complaint against her campaign.
In her complaint, Sandoval reported that the Vermont Democratic party “did not even provide one dollar of financial support,” nor did it attempt to align her campaign with any relevant Political Action Committees.
http://www.talkmedianews.com/featured/2016/05/30/when-bernie-was-the-man/
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)Thanks for the article.
Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Speaking about Bernie facts, that brings up a question we should already be concerned about:
This isn't some frivolous issue but goes to democracy itself, the right of the people to choose.
Sanders' contemptuous machinations in Vermont are also at least ethically questionable. He runs in the primary as a Democrat to knock out any viable competition, like for those voters who strongly object to his ethics. Then he spits on the party by running in the GE as "Iindependent," claiming the party's too corrupt to be part of.
However some Vermont Dems got comfortable with this sleazy trap, what happens in Vermont should definitely stay in Vermont. Repeatedly using and abusing the Democratic Party like this is emphatically not okay.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)It can abolish the superdelegate rule.
Problem solved.
Speaking about Bernie facts, the Sanders appointees to the Unity and Reform Commission have been the ones pushing this idea. Opposition has come from the Clinton appointees. That's a generalization but a fairly accurate one.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)and other, far more dangerous power-seekers from being nominated.
In this era of seditious billionaires, growing extremism on both sides, cyber warfare, and oversetting of democracy by mass manipulation, the very fact of a serious push to abolish the superdelegate safety check altogether is a huge flashing warning sign: Danger!
Everyone really needs to ask WHO would benefit from opening our elections up to outside voters and abolishing superdelegates, thus throwing the doors open to hostile takeover.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)If a candidate you like wins enough pledged delegates, then it's bad for an opponent to "ask the superdelegates to override the vote, effectively appointing him the candidate".
In fact, "This isn't some frivolous issue but goes to democracy itself, the right of the people to choose."
OTOH, if a candidate you dislike wins enough pledged delegates, then it's a good thing that we have superdelegates, so that they can "help prevent ... dangerous power-seekers from being nominated." They would presumably do that by overriding the vote and by not respecting the right of the people to choose.
The problem for the DNC will be how to codify your position into the rules. Are you available to serve as Vice Chair for Superdelegate Management, so that you can tell the superdelegates when they should respect the right of the people to choose and when they should override the vote?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)by the DNC will also be my position. The defenses remain up.
Those who don't like that are just another warning sign. Nations fall when the far left joins with the right to take down the government, but they'll have to fight us. They won't be taking out the Democratic Party from within first.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Anyone can run for President without a party. The Democratic Party is a private organization that can have whatever rules it likes to choose it’s standard bearer.
This has nothing to do with Democracy. You can run as an independent. Nothing stopping you.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The issue is: If superdelegates help deny the nomination to the candidate who won the most pledged delegates, should that outcome be denounced as undemocratic?
It appears to me that, to Hortensis, the answer is Yes if the candidate thus blocked is one Hortensis likes, but No otherwise. This is a blatant double standard.
Your post is a complete non sequitur. I said nothing about the right of a political party to set its own rules. I said nothing about a candidate's right to run as an independent. In fact, I really don't know what factual assertion of mine you're branding as untrue (and as to which you're accusing me of deliberate untruth).
Incidentally, although it's clear that each party can set its own rules about superdelegates, your general statement is too sweeping. You write:
That's true within fairly broad limits. There are exceptions, though. During the Jim Crow era, there were states in which the Democratic Party decided to choose its standard-bearer in a "whites only" primary. That was held to violate the Constitution.
The superdelegate system is not unconstitutional, but members of the Democratic Party are free to conclude that it's inadvisable. They are free to work to change it.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)If a candidate you don't like wins enough pledged delegates, then it's good for an opponent to "ask the superdelegates to override the vote, effectively appointing him the candidate".
OTOH, if a candidate you like is selected, then it's a bad thing that we have superdelegates, so that they can "help prevent ... dangerous power-seekers from being nominated." They would presumably do that by overriding the vote and by not respecting the right of the people to choose.
Right?
I mean, what is happening in VT is the establishment choosing Bernie to be the nominee prior to the primary, and actually preventing funding from going to that candidate.
The DNC doesn't do that.
Is that clearer?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The establishment is not "actually preventing funding from going to" any candidate.
Anyone who wants to donate to a Sanders opponent is free to do so.
I'm not aware of any arrangement between the Vermont Democratic Party and the Sanders campaign that's comparable to the 2015 arrangement between the DNC and the Clinton campaign (whereby the DNC, obligated by its rules to remain neutral, gave one campaign veto power over some key DNC staffing decisions).
If you go beyond Bernie-bashing and come up with any evidence that there was an agreement of that type, then I'll join you in condemning it. Maybe, in return, he'll join me in condemning the Clinton-DNC agreement?
Meanwhile, I think what's happened in Vermont is that a party entity (an executive committee or a state convention or some such) has expressed its preference for one of the candidates. The number of superdelegate votes thereby going to that candidate is zero. Unlike the 2015-16 situation, the Democratic nomination in 2018 will be decided solely by the voters who go to the polls.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Wed May 23, 2018, 11:21 AM - Edit history (4)
The Vermont Democratic establishment has allowed no authorized Democratic candidate to run against Bernie since 1990.
Still not clear on what "scenario" were you accusing me of "not recoiling in horror from?" The DNC allows as authorized candidates all who fill out the paperwork as a Democrat by the deadline. Vermont does not for anyone but Bernie Sanders.
Actually, "2015-2016 situation" which you use as a euphemism for the Democratic primary, was, contrary to your claim, decided soley by the voters, by a very substantial mandate at the polls. Math is math, no matter what the russian bots on Social media, Donald Trump, and your peers at JPR might say.
I am saying that the false accusations that you are making about DNC don't seem to be as offensive to many people here on this thread when a different candidate is clearly actually chosen prior to the primaries in VT. Is that clearer?
Of course anyone can donate. So why does Bernie have a deal with the Vermont Democratic establishment to block authorization of any other candidate from running against him? That's a basic for raising money. I know that there is some sort of fantasy that there is money floating in the ether for any "really good candidate without party backing" but clearly, the deal Bernie has with the Vermont Democratic establishment doesn't provide any support for that, does it?
Unlike the Vermont situation, there was no Clinton-DNC agreement that prevented Bernie from running as an authorized Democratic candidate, or prevent subsequent party funding of Bernie's primary campaign. Wasn't that the reason that Bernie ran as Democrat in 2016 - funding and marketing unavailable to a non-major party authorized candidate? (Yes, the Vermont Senate campaign is not POTUS, but it costs far, far more than a run for a congressional district).
He added that to run a campaign outside the major two-party process, “you need… to be a billionaire.”
I think that my pointing out of the contradiction of what many here say is being presented as "Bernie bashing." It sound more to me like some here are lacing up a well fitting shoe and wearing it.
The only "misstatements of fact" and "bashing" going on here is your barely veiled attempts to perpetuate debunked lies about the DNC.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You write: "The Vermont Democratic establishment has allowed no authorized Democratic candidate to run against Bernie since 1990."
There is no such thing as the “authorized Democratic candidate” except in the sense that the state government has confirmed a would-be candidate’s ballot qualification. The Vermont Democratic Party can endorse a candidate, but it has no power to allow or disallow opponents.
Here’s a case in point: the 2006 Senate primary. A week before the voting, a Vermont newspaper ran this article -- https://web.archive.org/web/20160304053850/http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060911/NEWS/609110332/0/BUSINESS -- about the race. Key excerpts:
. . . .
Even though he's not a Democrat, Sanders has the support of the party. In January, the state committee of the Vermont Democratic Party voted 48-0 to back Sanders, who is still occasionally referred to as a socialist.
. . . .
It was Democratic party activists who circulated the petitions needed to get Sanders' name on the primary ballot. If he wins Tuesday, he will decline the nomination, said Sanders chief of staff Jeff Weaver.
The article goes on to name and describe the four candidates who were authorized to run against Bernie and who appeared on the primary ballot.
You write: "The DNC allows as authorized candidates all who fill out the paperwork as a Democrat by the deadline. Vermont does not for anyone but Bernie Sanders."
As you can see from the evidence of 2006, that statement about Vermont is simply false.
The rule was the same in 2012. Anyone could have run against Bernie in the primary. IIRC, no one did. But that wasn’t because of some sinister antidemocratic connivance by the Vermont Democratic Party. It was because no one wanted to go on a kamikaze mission against an extremely popular Senator. That’s why, as the article in the OP states, Bernie’s candidacy this year “makes it virtually impossible for another Democrat to seek the party’s nod.”
You ask, “So why does Bernie have a deal with the Vermont Democratic establishment to block authorization of any other candidate from running against him?” That’s easy. He doesn’t. It’s “virtually impossible” because he’s overwhelmingly popular, not impossible because there’s some sort of “deal” that somehow deprives Vermonters of their constitutional rights.
As for the superdelegate situation, here are the facts: In 2015-16, because of the DNC's superdelegate rule, Hillary Clinton started out with a big delegate lead over all her rivals before one single vote had been cast. The DNC also has a neutrality rule, and there are arguments about whether that rule was violated, but there's no dispute that Clinton's big superdelegate lead was fully in accordance with the rules.
The Vermont Democratic Party has no such rules. As for neutrality, there is no general principle that party entities must always be neutral. The DNC has a specific rule about the Presidential race, but, for example, the DCCC's attack on Laura Moser, a candidate in the Democratic primary, was, AFAIK, permitted under the rules. (Whether it was wise is another question.) Similarly, the Vermont Democratic Party is allowed to endorse an incumbent for re-election. Also, Vermont has no superdelegate rule. In the 2018 Senate contest, Bernie and each of his opponents will start with the same number of votes, namely zero. Vermont Democratic Party officials can vote for him but each of them gets only one vote, just like everyone else.
I'm not the one repeating the Russian Bot and JPR lies about the DNC.
Is that clearer?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I pointed out that you had flat-out lied in your criticism of the Vermont Democratic Party.
You don't even try to defend your statements. You figure that, at least with many DUers, all you have to do is invoke Russia and JPR and you'll have won the argument, facts and logic be damned.
I think we're at the end of this road. People who respond to such McCarthyism will agree with you. People who look at evidence will agree with me.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Classical false equivalency.
And you double down on the false equivalency, and make your statements the metric of "evidence." Where have I heard that before?
I must have really hit a nerve, Jim. You keep saying "We're done, because you're wrong, you're lying," then you keep coming back, contradicting your grandiose accusations. Which is it, honey?
See you soon.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)It's clear to me that you keep adhering to your lies about the Vermont Democratic Party, even after I provide conclusive evidence disproving what you wrote.
It's not completely clear to my why you do this, so I'll keep my strong suspicions to myself.
Hit a nerve? Well, I've spent years as a lawyer, specifically a litigator. By long habit, I know that if I say something false, my adversary will jump on it and make me look foolish. So I don't do it. Many, many times I've presented the evidence to refute what the other side said, with the result that my client won.
In a forum like DU, by contrast, there is no judge to issue decisions. Irresponsible people can just keep saying whatever they want. (Insert your favored shoe metaphor here.) So I do get frustrated and overreact.
It's like that Woody Allen movie where he brings in Marshall McLuhan from off-camera to refute some blowhard standing on line in front of him. Afterwards, Allen turns to the camera and says, "If only real life were like that." I can relate.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)that you are "done" because I am "lying, and a McCarthyite."
Well, if you're a lawyer, then clearly I'm wrong. I mean pulling out the "I'm a lawyer" card just ends all discussion, doesn't it?
I hope, for the sake of your clients, that you don't overreact like this in your litigation.
Well, it's sad that you feel a need for a "judge" to make sure that "irresponsible people" (those that make points that get on your nerves) be quiet when you get upset, instead of "saying whatever they want."
The fact that you relate to, and quote an abusive, misogynist filmmaker just says so much.
And why keep your "strong suspicions" to yourself? I mean, if your statements are your self-described metric for "respect for evidence" what could possibly go wrong with "saying whatever you want?"
I have my own suspicions.
And if you want people to take you seriously at all, you don't keep saying "I'm done," then keep on posting...
Just sayin'
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Thu May 24, 2018, 07:35 AM - Edit history (1)
1) You did say something false - that the DNC chose the candidate prior to the primary, and created obstacles more onerous to challengers than what the deal between the Vermont Democratic establishment and Bernie does. And you misrepresented my statements by saying that challenger will not get any funding whatsoever, when I was clearly talking about funding from Vermont Democratic Party.
2) I did jump on it and made you look foolish.
3) You got frustrated and overreacted, calling me a liar, a McCarthyite, and falsely equated anyone who agreed with me with not caring about evidence.
I rest my case.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)
Go Bernie Go!!!
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I personally am far less inclined to give mulligans to the kind of posts we've seen here.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)rather than the worst. Would be nice to get the same courtesy from everyone, when I make a mistake - hard to believe, but it does happen!! (haha!!) - though there are a few, and I'm grateful for that.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)....has a right to dictate that organization's rule.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)potentially benefit from throwing the gates wide open to destroyers. These days, the motives of anyone at any level, pretending to be an ally or otherwise, who advocates have to be considered highly questionable.
And they can also go hold their breath waiting for it to happen. 
You think that Superdelegates should be abolished, because they have the 'potential' to override the primary vote, but the Vermont Democratic establishment actually choosing the candidate prior to the primary is OK. A candidate who says that they will not accept the Democratic nomination.
And the Sanders appointees to the Unity and Reform Commission have been the ones pushing abolishing Superdelegate, while Sanders essentially getting the "benefit" that they say superdelegates give a candidate prior to the primary.
That's some whiplash.
But only if you don't point out that the litmus test (as per many here) for the "ethical practices" concerning primaries seems to be "does Senator Sanders benefit?"
Sorry, your post is just too full of straw men and distortions for me to bother responding.
I know it's easier for you to put words in my mouth and then answer the argument you're all revved up to answer, regardless of whether I actually said it, but you don't need me for that game. Go ahead and "refute" my views on astrology while you're at it.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I understand.
Eliot Rosewater
(34,282 posts)progressives who in the FACE of ACTUAL NAZI'S are busy criticizing democrats and working to make it hard for them to win the same way ...oops
Cant talk about that, can I.
If these people are successful I hope they dont complain when Roe is reversed and women start dying in alleys because THEY will be partially to blame.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)ETA: I am also dismayed by Gothmog's criticism of the Vermont Democratic Party in #460.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)If you think it's criticism, then lace that shoe up and wear it.
Is that clearer?
Clearly not.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Seriously. For people wired to dissent, their inner demons driving them to sabotage their own goals, elections are just one frustrating loss after another. No one appreciates them.
Eliot Rosewater
(34,282 posts)The payment was arranged by intermediaries acting for Ukraine's leader, Petro Poroshenko, the sources said, though Mr Cohen was not registered as a representative of Ukraine as required by US law.
Mr Cohen denies the allegation.
The meeting at the White House was last June. Shortly after the Ukrainian president returned home, his country's anti-corruption agency stopped its investigation into Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44215656
this is elsewhere on DU, while rump does this we have ALLEGED liberals fighting the DEMOCRATS, if you can believe that NONSENSE
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)they'll chop it to pieces to build a phony "strawman." Sometimes, I don't even recognize myself... not kidding!! I'll be thinking, when the hell did I say that?!?! (Which, of course, I didn't.)
LiberalFighter
(53,544 posts)get to determine how this plays at DNC level.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)would you care to elaborate? I don't see the role the DNC has to play in this election.
Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)What is exactly do you think the DNC should do?
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)look @ response # 217 - they are here to protect us from the "far leftists".. 
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)as long as they register as one by the deadline.
The Vermont Democratic leadership, however, does, effectively choosing the candidate before the primary. At least for one candidate.
That's a very big difference.
brush
(61,033 posts)nomination in 2016, a maneuver which would've would've destroyed the party and made us a national laughing stock.
Can you imagine our nominee rejecting our nomination to run instead as an independent?
What's that phrase about not trusting someone as far as you can throw them?
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)LiberalFighter
(53,544 posts)BlueTsunami2018
(4,833 posts)He needed the party apparatus if he wanted to win. If he abandoned the party at the convention and went solo, the party would have abandoned him.
The supposition is ludacris on its face. Whatever you think of Bernie Sanders, he actually gives a shit about the country and its future.
brush
(61,033 posts)make him thing the same couldn't happen nationally?
Right. 
BlueTsunami2018
(4,833 posts)In what world would it make sense to do that on a national basis?
He does it in Vermont because he can win that way. The people love him there. Abandoning the party and it’s national infrastructure in a Presidebtial election would be political suicide.
It’s a ludicrous supposition.
brush
(61,033 posts)much younger, attractive progressives in 2020 who are actual democrats without the baggage of continually attacking the party, not to mention the contrariness of refusing to concede when he had already lost.
What was Maya Angelou's quote?: "When someone shows you who they are, believe them."
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)but perhaps a sense of duty. There's a difference between thinking you're putting your country first and actually doing it. He has an extremely strong belief in himself, after all, and a corresponding huge contempt for all who disagree with him. People like that normally severely overestimate their own abilities and how much the world needs them.
That said, I agree entirely that of course he wouldn't re-identify for the GE for the reasons you said. In Vermont he's able to use and then spit on our party, then vote with it while calling everyone else corrupt and get enthusiastically reelected.
(We're going on a road tour soon but won't drinking the water in Vermont.)
Demsrule86
(71,491 posts)candidates...no I think his support may have dropped even in Vermont.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)Demsrule86
(71,491 posts)karynnj
(60,767 posts)If they get the signatures and file, they will be on the ballot.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)
lapucelle
(20,932 posts)don't even know how elections actually work:
But the move also comes at a time when Sanders supporters are pushing for changes to the presidential nominating process as part of the Democratic National Committee unity reform commission. One priority is to open up the party’s primaries to voters who aren’t registered as Democrats.
State law determines voter eligibility in primary elections, not national, state, or local parties.
We had a Republicans running in Democratic primaries for county elections in my area last year, with Republican candidates running unopposed in their primaries. I'm glad my state has closed primaries.
Me.
(35,454 posts)I don't want either a Con or, Indie, running as a DEm. I will be furious if the DNC falls for this.
dawg day
(7,947 posts)And the main import of it is that we rtfck the other party's primaries. It's fun! Here's how it works:
GOP primary: Two candidates running:
1- is "establishment" and within the bounds of the crazy GOP, pretty normal. In our conservative state, he (always HE, natch) can probably win the general election against the Democrat.
2- really crazy guy who rants about how Ebola is God's punishment for gay marriage (or the like-- like disputing that women should be able to say they were raped if they were wearing shorts, you know).
Many Democrats cross over on primary day (avoiding the Democratic party's usual boring primary) and vote for #2.
#2 is too crazy even for our conservative voters, and Democratic candidate easily wins general election. #1 plausible GOP candidate is considered a big loser and never runs again.
This is all very fun when we're scuttling the chances of a plausible GOP candidate... not so fun when a nutcase (I mean, certifiable in this case) gets nominated over a good Democrat for Congress. (This happened a few elections ago, and of course the nutcase lost in the general, because the party really was not going to support a man best known for stalking teenaged movie stars and pretending to be their agents.)
I realize for some reason Sanders thinks if only non-Democrats can vote in Democratic primaries, he would now be president or something. But far more likely is what we see in my state-- interference by the other party's voters.
Changing the rules for presidential primaries also changes the rules for state and local candidates, and in those cases, the "non-establishment candidate" won't be nice Senator Sanders, but Carey the Coal Mine Owner Who Wants to Pollute Your Air Bigly, and Barney the Creep Who Wants to Lower the Age of Sexual Consent to 11.
Just something to keep in mind-- open primaries are not more "democratic." Easy (up to the day of the primary) registration is more democratic, and would accomplish the "freedom" thing without inviting the destruction of the plausible candidates.
lapucelle
(20,932 posts)We might have wound up with the serving Republican comptroller (who was still contributing to the RNC and had never given a dime to a Democratic candidate) as our "Democratic" candidate for county executive.
People gotta wake up. Local Republicans learned the lessons of 2016 well.
LiberalFighter
(53,544 posts)That could backfire.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)That's right, in every single state Republican voters chose someone else. How'd McCain win the nomination? Non-Republican voters using OPEN PRIMARIES in 23 states to overset the will of Republican voters.
In 2016, Republican and unaligned conservatives swarmed Democratic open primaries with the same intent -- to throw the nomination to a weak candidate.
In the WV primary, spoiler Republican invaders combined with spoiler conservative Democratic voters to make up 37% and 43% in 2 districts reported (according to exit polls) of those who voted for the candidate running behind -- but who had no intention of voting for any Democrat for president in the GE. Those percentages are only those who were gleefully and proudly hostile to both candidates when asked.
WV probably defined the top of the range for the 23 states where this happened, but it suggests the average spoiler vote in those 23 states had to have been huge, 15-25% perhaps. This phenomenon went almost entirely unreported by the MSM over the months these 23 primaries occurred.
The plot to cost Democrats the election didn't fail, though. This illusion of a close race combined with false claims of stolen elections in every state where the leading candidate got more than 50% of the vote to Democrats undermined the confidence of enough voters that it cost us the presidency.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts) Gothmog
(174,622 posts)Why is it being allowed to happen?
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)on the positive side, people who don't 'like' Sanders can hope Republican party runs a few ringers- fake Ds to drag out Mrs Sanders charity bank again.
Me.
(35,454 posts)BS runs for Senate in the Dem primary with the full support of the State Dem Party, wins the primary, then declines the nom and becomes an Indie again, leaving the Dem side of the ledger vacant. It's an outrageous piece of chicanery. And that's why no DEm runs. And, what, by the way, is the difference between him and the ringers/fake Ds you mention?
trueblue2007
(19,068 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)They need to dump him before he does more damage.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)and continues to out Democrat the Democrats by voting with the Democrats more than any other Democrat... riiiigghht!! Oh the damage that will cause!!
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)sunRISEnow
(217 posts)All of us in the party can clearly see Bernie consistently bashes us and our Democratic Leaders. No gas lighting on this one and it has nothing to do with running as a Democrat.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)sunRISEnow
(217 posts)Mostly Bernie is late to the show. He picks up and takes ownership of issues. I think the base sees this and I think it will be called out as we move forward. I have been involved in the local party for a lot of years. Mostly, our Democrats are not falling for this. It is a very real manipulation and we see it. I think you will continually here this more and more from the base. I disagree that the democrats are "falling into line". If anything, they humor him. But mostly, they continue to do the work while Bernie talks.
sheshe2
(95,739 posts)Thank you.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)the Democratic party of Vermont, they're the ones who made the deal. Regardless how much it offends you Senator Sanders is going to be Senator Sanders in the next term. He is going to caucus with Democrats and get on committees as well. You can be mad about it, but you are not going to change it.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)The Vermont Dems can’t really do a damn thing about it.
But nationally.... running up to 2020, it will be an issue. How many damn times can Dems allow themselves to be exploited this way? No more, I hope.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)are the victims here?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I think they made a deal many years ago, but back then he was a nobody. He was better than nothing, still is.
I don’t see how any Dem org is happy with his behavior here- why do you think they would be happy w being used and then discarded? It doesn’t make him look good, either.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)I don't presume to know what drives Vermont politics. I am observing from afar and my observation is this has been a wining formula for both the Democratic Party and Senator Sanders. So I imagine nobody wants to make a change when what they are doing is working. It just seems a waste to get upset that Senator Sanders is going to run for the Senate the same way he won the seat he currently holds.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)in doing it again now... and likely in 20? It’s kind of obvious he is using their resources while too often stabbing them in the back. At this point, it seems pretty damned cynical and Machiavellian.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)nothing you say resonates with me in the least. For my part I will be happy that he returns to the Senate and caucuses with the Democrats sorry it doesn't seem to rest well with you.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)position or another presidential run.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)I will be 100% sad if he runs for President again.
Demsrule86
(71,491 posts)I believe he has burned his bridges with many Democrats and will be out quickly in a 20 presidential primary so hopefully his presence in the primary won't spoil the 20 presidential general election for Democrats. We really need to win. If I lived in Vermont, I would not vote for him in the primary...of course I would in the General. I don't vote independent in a primary ever. Also, he is barely in Vermont. I would choose a Democrat in the Vermont primary.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)to run for President again? How does that help the Democratic Party? All that will do is divide people and guaran-damn-tee that the Nazi-in-Chief gets re-elected... talk about being exploited! No more is right!
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Place for him on the ballot and the party- it is his choice.
He’d never do that because it would reduce his TV appearances drastically.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)although I strongly disagree, as I think it would be disastrous for the Democratic Party... would guaran-damn-tee the re-election of the Traitor-in-Chief.
Have to say, however, and this hurts me to do so, even if the Democrats barred Bernie from running in 2020, as you would like, should he decide to give the presidency another run, or he otherwise deserted the Party to run as an Independent - would hate to see either scenario - I would have to vote for the Democratic nominee regardless.
Demsrule86
(71,491 posts)I think there would be less damage to the party if he ran as an independent. Thus in 22 and 24, hopefully we can pick up the remnants of what was once a robust progressive movement and work hard to stop further carnage by the Republican. The loss of the courts will be a blow that last for at least a generation. This will sadly be Sen. Sander's legacy should it come to pass. I hope it will not happen. I hope for the good of the country, Sen. Sanders will choose not to run in 20.
Demsrule86
(71,491 posts)this...quite risky if you think about it.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)only to block any democratic primary challengers from getting funding to run?
This makes him the nominee chosen by the party, before the primary.
Doesn't it?
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)You are smart. I am shaking my head in amazement at Bernie's boldness in doing exactly what you state. He had a press conference, right?
Demsrule86
(71,491 posts)I just don't get it. I assume he is not feeling that secure in Vermont if he went to these lengths.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)Demsrule86
(71,491 posts)losing. Of course we would rather have Sen. Sanders than a Republican. And Vermont did elect a Republican governor in 16.
aikoaiko
(34,213 posts)Really.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)Really.
aikoaiko
(34,213 posts)Again, I only ask that you speak for yourself and not for Democrats as if we're a homogenous group.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)not going to work for me. I can handle you stating yours. I ask you to be able to allow me the same courtesy.
aikoaiko
(34,213 posts)Some Democrats are tired of Bernie, but some are not.
I hope we can agree on that.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)universal healthcare, affordable education, combating climate change, protection and expansion of Social Security, medicare and medicaid? If so I hope you're wrong.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)sunRISEnow
(217 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)"Hillary Clinton must become President" after conceding the nomination.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)He's endorsed Democratic Presidential Candidates for years. He backed Jesse Jackson in '84 and 88, supported Mondale and Dukakis after they won their primaries and even supported Bill Clinton, who was far to the right of him, in 1992 AND 96. If the rhetoric you're referring to are his criticisms of the party's strategy or their policy shortcoming then fine, but he never said there was no difference between Democrats and repukes.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)If you are going to argue he did not say it, when fact and quote has proved it out repeatedly, I see no reason to read your posts. Gas lighting 101. I see it. I do not engage in it.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)sunRISEnow
(217 posts)Example:
Sanders is not a Democrat.
Supporter: uh hu.
Fact: Sanders is not a Democrat. He says consistently for all of his political existence, he is not a Democrat. His actions prove out he is not a Democrat giving strong credit to his life time statements.
I am not going to link you quotes and research on the zillion ways Bernie has made it clear he is not a part, nor desires to be a part of the Democratic Party.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)I said that he never said there was no difference between the two parties. His support for Democratic candidates over the years would make no sense in that case.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)Gas lighting is going to be a strong part of my conversation over the next couple years. With the influence of false stories being made from all directions, I am going to focus on gas lighting. I think that needs to be a huge part of the Democratic Party message.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Because theres no need for me to do that, you can just scroll up the page.
Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)of one nonsense claim, the poster responds with “gaslighting”.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Apparently, some Vermonters hold the idiosyncratic view that actual performance in office is more important than party identification. A constant barrage of posts on DU, informing all and sundry that BERNIE ISN'T A DEMOCRAT, has inexplicably failed to have much impact in the real world.
brush
(61,033 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I agree with you that there were some voters who held it against Bernie. (My guess, however, is that the vast majority of those who commented on party identification were actually people who opposed Bernie for other reasons, then seized on that as an argument or justification. Most of the Hillary voters would have voted for Hillary against even a lifelong Democrat.)
The flip side is that, for other voters, Bernie's status was a plus. It added to his credibility as someone who was not a run-of-the-mill politician, which helped him with the voters who were tired of business as usual. Of course, most of them, also, would have voted the same way, i.e., favoring a lifelong Democrat who was a little-known democratic socialist running against a more establishment candidate.
karynnj
(60,767 posts)He FAR out performed how well anyone expected the most progressive Democrat in the Senate to do. In addition, in 2014, HRC polled as the choice of over 70 percent of Democrats. It was not expected to be like a normal open primary without an incumbent. People thought it would be more like 2000 with the VP running than 2004, 1988, or 1992.
brush
(61,033 posts)He wouldn't have started off so far behind in superdelates, which a big reason why he lost.
karynnj
(60,767 posts)I think that in 2016, it was clear the party and people like the President supported HRC. In many ways, she was the heir to a two term president, as Al Gore or GHWB were.
brush
(61,033 posts)Last edited Wed May 23, 2018, 10:58 PM - Edit history (1)
with loyalties and pledged superdelegates which comes from working within the party and helping other Dems with bills, fund raise, run and win.
Not having that history within the party made him a long shot from the jump.
And then there was that continual blasting of the party the whole campaign. On hindsight it's clear to see now that he sabotaged his own campaign by turning off so many Democrats loyal to their party with the constant bashing.
It wasn't the smartest way to get long-time Democrats to vote for him.
Maybe his campaign's thinking was to go for new voters and independents. But they weren't the ones most likely to vote, and independents couldn't vote in Dem primaries in many states anyway.
karynnj
(60,767 posts)As to Bernie, he did not attack the Democratic party. His announcement speech echoed FDR. He criticized some of HRC's previous actions or votes. Every opponent in every race did that.
brush
(61,033 posts)Were you out of the country with no internet during the campaign?
karynnj
(60,767 posts)He did not attack Hillary harder than she attacked Obama in 2008 or than Dean attacked Kerry in 2004.
Did he question her position on trade? Yes, because he has always been against the trade deals, while Clinton has always been part of the wing of the party that fought for them and she had supported TPP until the primaries. (disclaimer - I was FOR TPP and wished she would have opted to run saying she was for it, but some changes were needed (the usual wiggle room).
Did he back Obama against Clinton when she argued in her book that we should have been more aggressive than Obama in Syria? Yes, it was a policy difference. Sanders, in this was actually more honest than Dean was in defining Kerry as pro war, when their positions as stated in 2002/early 2003 were very similar. Clinton, planning for a general election, intentionally defined herself as more hawkish trying to differentiate herself from Obama on foreign policy.
Did he question her secret highly paid talks before Goldman Sachs and others - yes, as did O'Malley, who made that an issue before Sanders did. Knowing she was running for President, I can not believe that she thought it a good idea to give those talks -- though she had every right to do so. Then, once she did and they became an issue, she should have put out the transcripts and spoke of how they represented her opinion circa 2013/2014. (It hurt her when wikileaks put them out because of praise of TPP - which she was publicly praising in 2013/2014 as well.
Note he consistently refused to make her use of the email server an issue. (I do not give him a lot of credit on that. The story was everywhere and he would gain nothing speaking about it -- and would lose some people.)
On the first three issues, trade, hawkishness, and wall street, Bernie had decades of consistent views (too consistent in my opinion) that defined who he is -- and he spoke about them. Every one of these issues would have debated by ANY opponent. Not to mention, these issues would ALL have been addressed by any Republican to some degree. (Where it differed is that a Jeb Bush would have hit her from the right on trade and matched her on hawkishness.)
I started posting on DU in the wake of 2004 and quickly found a home in DU JK. Even in internal debates, there was absolutely no talk that Dean, Kuchinich, or Edwards had harmed Kerry with their primary attacks. ANY strong advocate for a candidate will see things that seem below the belt. Some are generic, in any race between a governor and Senator, expect the governor to say that the Senator has no executive experience and flip flops (the nature of Senate votes makes this happen) and the Senator will say the Governor has no foreign policy experience.
You could find accounts of Dean supporters carrying flip flops, Trippi (on Dean's campaign) distorted Kerry's positions on Iraq, Dean falsely accused Kerry of being too close to lobbyists (Kerry, who had a reputation as clean put out a 15 year list of every meeting he had with lobbyists and said he could defend all of them - no one in 2008 did so when they were challenged to do so), one of the opponents used a push poll suggesting that Kerry was hiding that his cancer had returned. (I suspect that the windsurfing during the RNC was to preclude similar rumours - like Clinton 2016)
The key thing is that anything opposition research could find will be used in the general election. None of the things that Clinton supporters suggest hurt Clinton because Bernie said them were hard to find.
brush
(61,033 posts)campaign.
Why are you switching it to "he did not attack Clinton"?
karynnj
(60,767 posts)He argued for what he believed in and against things like income inequality - something many many mainstream Democrats have argued has been a problem for decades - including Clinton in 2016. There were very strong speeches given in the early 1990s speaking of the 1970s and 1980s - when there was large economic gains, that almost entirely went to the top income earners. Yet, that trend accelerated during the Clinton years.
There are multiple wings of the Democratic party. Where Bernie argued that we had not done enough for those lower on the distribution, he was speaking from a wing of the party that was seen as the loser in 1992 -- when the new Democrats (DLC) argued that the Democratic party had to change. Would you say that Clinton and Gore, as the first winning DLC nominees, were attacking the party when they said very negative things about the unions and liberals?
brush
(61,033 posts)Pls. stop trying to rewrite history.
karynnj
(60,767 posts)In the general election, he attacked Trump often and very hard. He actually divided his time between helping the Vermont Democrats - who greatly appreciated his ability to get crowds for them and to generate excitement and campaigning - mostly in states in the rust belt - for Hillary.
brush
(61,033 posts)Let me spell it out. During the Democratic Party presidential primary of 2016 he, allegedly then a Democrat, bashed the party continually.
The primary, get it? Not the general.
brush
(61,033 posts)if he gotten the Dem nomination in 2016.
It would've made the party a national laughing stock and destroyed it—just imagine our nominee rejecting our nomination and running as an independent.
The party would've been no longer viable nationally.
We dodged that bullet in 2016 but I'm betting he'll try again. Fortunately for us we have younger, attractive, actual Dems who will run.
Sorry, Senator. Been there, done that, no time for switcheroo charades.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)brush
(61,033 posts)in 2016 if he had gotten the nomination?
And why would we trust someone with a history of doing that in 2020?
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)brush
(61,033 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)brush
(61,033 posts)co-sponsors to work with him to get passed?
None, right. He doesn't work well with others. We saw in glaring light in the 2016 campaign.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)brush
(61,033 posts)and not what you want in a president.
Hassin Bin Sober
(27,371 posts)https://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-gets-it-done-sanders-record-pushing-through-major-reforms-will-surprise-you
Sanders did something particularly original, which was that he passed amendments that were exclusively progressive, advancing goals such as reducing poverty and helping the environment, and he was able to get bipartisan coalitions of Republicans who wanted to shrink government or hold it accountable and progressives who wanted to use it to empower Americans.
Here are a few examples of the amendments Sanders passed by building unusual but effective coalitions:
Corporate Crime Accountability (February 1995): A Sanders amendment to the Victims Justice Act of 1995 required “offenders who are convicted of fraud and other white-collar crimes to give notice to victims and other persons in cases where there are multiple victims eligible to receive restitution.”
Saving Money, for Colleges and Taxpayers (April 1998): In an amendment to H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, Sanders made a change to the law that allowed the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education to make competitive grants available to colleges and universities that cooperated to reduce costs through joint purchases of goods and services.
Holding IRS Accountable, Protecting Pensions (July 2002): Sanders' amendment to the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2003 stopped the IRS from being able to use funds that “violate current pension age discrimination laws.” Although he faced stiff GOP opposition, his amendment still succeeded along a 308 to 121 vote.
Expanding Free Health Care (November 2001): You wouldn't think Republicans would agree to an expansion of funds for community health centers, which provide some free services. But Sanders was able to win a $100 million increase in funding with an amendment.
Getting Tough On Child Labor (July 2001): A Sanders amendment to the general appropriations bill prohibited the importation of goods made with child labor.
Increasing Funding for Heating for the Poor (September 2004): Sanders won a $22 million increase for the low-income home energy assistance program and related weatherization assistance program.
Fighting Corporate Welfare and Protecting Against Nuclear Disasters (June 2005): A Sanders amendment brought together a bipartisan coalition that outnumbered a bipartisan coalition on the other side to successfully prohibit the Export-Import Bank from providing loans for nuclear projects in China.
Once Sanders made it to the Senate in 2006, his ability to use amendments to advance a progressive agenda was empowered. Here are some of the amendments he passed in the Senate:
Greening the U.S. Government (June 2007): A Sanders amendment made a change to the law so at least 30 percent of the hot water demand in newer federal buildings is provided through solar water heaters.
Protecting Our Troops (October 2007): Sanders used an amendment to win $10 million for operation and maintenance of the Army National Guard, which had been stretched thin and overextended by the war in Iraq.
Restricting the Bailout to Protect U.S. Workers (Feburary 2009): A Sanders amendment required the banking bailout to utilize stricter H-1B hiring standards to ensure bailout funds weren't used to displace American workers.
Helping Veterans' Kids (July 2009): A Sanders amendment required the Comptroller General to put together comprehensive reporting on financial assistance for child care available to parents in the Armed Forces.
Exposing Corruption in the Military-Industrial Complex (November 2012): A Sanders amendment required “public availability of the database of senior Department officials seeking employment with defense contractors” – an important step toward transparency that revealed the corruption of the revolving door in action.
Support for Treating Autism in Military Health Care: Sanders worked with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) to pass an amendment by a vote of 66-29 ensuring that the military's TRICARE system would be able to treat autism.
Using the Power of a Senator
While Sanders was an amendment king who was able to bring bipartisan coalitions together to make serious changes to laws, he also knew how to be a thorn in the side of the establishment until it offered up something in return. Sanders was able to get the first-ever audit of funds given out by the Federal Reserve, which made transparent over $2 trillion of funds handed out by the secretive organization. This was a cause that Republican congressman Ron Paul (TX) had been pursuing for decades, but Sanders was able to get the votes to do it by forging a compromise that required an audit for the bailout period alone.
When the Affordable Care Act was in danger of not having the votes to pass, Sanders used his leverage to win enough funding for free health treatment for 10 million Americans through Community Health Centers. This gutsy move—holding out until the funds were put into the bill—has even Republican members of Congress requesting the funds, which have helped millions of Americans who otherwise would not have access.
Another moment came when Sanders, who was then chair of the Veterans committee, worked with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), to overhaul the Veterans Administration. McCain praised Sanders' work on the bill in an interview with National Journal. Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) even went so far as to say the bill would never have passed without Sanders' ability to bring the parties to a deal.
brush
(61,033 posts)
Autumn
(48,723 posts)race and the one before that. Those Vermont Dems are smart enough to want keep that seat in their hands.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)It appears he needs outside help to do so.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)with only a 75% approval rating, the highest in the nation. If only Bernie had outside help to get him over the finish line, he might just have a chance.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)If he could win so overwhelmingly and confidently as an Independent, why does he make sure there are no Democratic opponents?
Can you clarify?
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)Name ONE Democratic candidate who you would like to see win who is locked out from running against Bernie in the Vermont Senate Democratic Primary. Just one will do.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Here it is again:
If he is so popular as an Independent, why does he feel a need to eliminate the possibility of a Democratic challenger by running as a Democrat then switching?
I don't live in Vermont, as you seem to think, and don't know the situation there, or other potential Democratic candidates, so your hail-mary-attempt-to-derail-and-get-me-on-the-defensive question doesn't even apply to me.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)Which challenger is eliminated? You still have not identified that person. The Democratic challenger is free to challenge, as the word "challenger" implies... whomever your preferred Democratic challenger is to defeat Bernie, that person is absolutely free to run against him. It's not like the Democratic Party anoints its candidates... it's a free and open primary, as it should be... is called "democracy."
Okay, so are you also advocating Bernie run as an Independent in 2020, should he decide to run for President again? I assume you are, but, unlike others here, I don't want to put words in your mouth. It's a simple yes or no question. If so, please splain how that would be good for the Democratic Party in defeating the Nazi-in-Chief in 2020.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)"Any" Democratic challenger. Is that clearer?
So, again... Why is he doing this (running as a Democrat) if he is so popular in Vermont as an Independent? Why does he need this manuver to eliminate the possibility of any primary Democratic challenger, especially if, as you say, there is "no Democratic challenger?"
Can you explain that? That is the question....
This conversation, as hard as you keep trying to derail it, is about the Vermont primary, and not the 2020 GE.
Is that clearer?
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)in the Democratic primary, that makes it so? Comon, you're smarter than that Ehrnst. So, why do you disagree with every positive thing ever said in articles about Bernie?
So, why won't you answer my related question, instead of avoiding it? It's okay, that was a rhetorical question... the reason is obvious.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)You can't explain why Bernie feel a need to make a manuver to block any other Democrat from running against him, if he is as popular as an Independent as you say he is, and has no potential opponents. Why rely on the Democratic establishment to cut out competition?
I can see why you would avoid that. The reason is obvious. Cmon, you're smarter than that, bLuE.
Your continued demand that I 'name' a potential opponent when I have answered "any Democratic opponent" shows some real desperation to derail the discussion. It would be like me demanding of you, "When did you quit supporting Democrats? Give me a date. Simple question!"
That fallacy is called a false dillema.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)splain your reasoning for how Bernie is blocking any other Democrat from running against him in the Democratic primary and using that ridiculous ploy to avoid answering another simple question.
But, you don't need to do that... just admit you have no answer... it really is okay.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)From the OP....
The move makes it virtually impossible for another Democrat to seek the party’s nod.
Now that this has been explained to you yet again, you have the opportunity to answer my question about why he would feel a need to pull that maneuver if he was as popular as you say he is, and make it financially impossible for ANY other Democrat to challenge him. Perhaps it's because that was how he was able to get elected Senator in the first place - with the help of the Democratic establishment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders#Elections_2
I understand that cognitive dissonance is difficult, bLuE, so I won't hold my breath for your explanation.
And please do sound the horn as you approach an intersection.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)numerous times, you win that argument!
Okay, now, just explain how that is if any Democrat can run against Bernie in the Democratic Primary... the answer why is NOT because the article says so.
No need to resort to insults just because you can't answer a simple question.
Maybe it's virtually impossible because Bernie is so damn popular with Democrats... could that be? It's okay to admit that Ehrnst... or is it?
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)what matters is Senator Sanders is goimg to return to the US Senate with the aid and blessing of the Vermont Democratic Parry. When he gets there he will cacus with the Senate Democrats.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)"the blessing and aid" of the Democratic establishment in order to get enough votes in the primary to go on to the general election?
Since bLue can't seem to answer the question, perhaps you can.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)will be wild speculation as I am not Senator Sanders nor do I have any communication with him. Given that, I believe the Democratic Party there doesn't feel confident that they can get the state to go for both Senators being Democrats. I have heard that when Senator Sanders ran for US Congress the first time he lost to a Republican and at that point the deal was struck. It proved to be a winner and continues to this day. Senator Sanders might not be able to win the seat without the help of the VDP, but it is far from clear that the VDP can do it without him.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)but that he can't defeat a Democratic primary challenger, so any Democratic challenger must be nuetralized financially.
That sounds very much like the Democratic leadership picking him as the nominee, even before the primary, doesn't it?
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)are the ones who insure there will be no challenger and yes it does seem as though they are king making doesn't it. I guess the Vermont Democratic Party feels they have a winner with a winning formula and don't want to change it. Since you know so much better you should probably give them a call and let them know what's what.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)that Bernie is fine being the choice of the Democratic establishment before the primary.
Don't you?
I never said that I knew better than anyone. I'm just pointing out that it seems contradictory to claim that he's the anti-establishment candidate, the most popular one in Vermont, but still feels a need to engage the establishment to guarantee no primary challengers will have funding.
karynnj
(60,767 posts)The REASON it is virtually impossible for them to win with Sanders on the Democratic primary ballot is that more people would vote for Sanders.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)A former Hillary Clinton staffer announced his intention to move to Vermont and run against Bernie in the Democratic primary. My guess is that he was joking, though.
As to the Vermonters who've announced, I don't know if any will have the inclination to go through with it and the ability to get enough signatures. What's clear is that, as you say, any challenger(s) getting enough signatures and paying whatever filing fee there may be WILL be on the Democratic primary ballot. The Vermont Democratic Party will not and cannot disallow anyone from running.
It's also clear that it's hard for any candidate for any office in any state to attract funding when that candidate looks like a sure loser. That will be the big problem for anyone running against Bernie in the Democratic primary.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)The unauthorized Democratic candidate in 1990, Delores Sandoval, an African American faculty member at the University of Vermont, was amazed that the official party treated her as a nonperson and Bernie kept outflanking her to her right. She opposed the Gulf build-up, Bernie supported it. She supported decriminalization of drug use and Bernie defended the war on drugs, and so on.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1990/08/22/challenge-from-the-left-in-vermont/f10e03d5-0540-4c54-9c89-bd926503e5d7/
In 1993, Sandoval lamented the state party’s coordination against her much in the same way that Sanders now blasts the Democratic establishment.
“This lack of state party support even after the primary brings forth the question: were the voters deprived of their civil rights in not having their voice count when the Democratic party did not support the candidate of their Party and of their choice?” Sandoval wrote in a response to a Federal Elections Commission complaint against her campaign.
In her complaint, Sandoval reported that the Vermont Democratic party “did not even provide one dollar of financial support,” nor did it attempt to align her campaign with any relevant Political Action Committees.
http://www.talkmedianews.com/featured/2016/05/30/when-bernie-was-the-man/
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Why does he feel the need to block any Democratic candidate from being authorized to run, especially since he plans to decline the nomination?
Why use the establishment to cut off competition, in order to run in the general as an anti-establishment candidate?
karynnj
(60,767 posts)Weak candidate. Consider the party would have to spend money on that candidate. The party prefers he be an OPTION on their primary ballot. That does not preclude anyone else running or even winning. However, it is May 2018 and no one viable is running against him.
By the way, he does not need a primary to run as an independent. This means that people who want him in any party can write him in.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)The unauthorized Democratic candidate in 1990, Delores Sandoval, an African American faculty member at the University of Vermont, was amazed that the official party treated her as a nonperson and Bernie kept outflanking her to her right. She opposed the Gulf build-up, Bernie supported it. She supported decriminalization of drug use and Bernie defended the war on drugs, and so on.
In 1993, Sandoval lamented the state party’s coordination against her much in the same way that Sanders now blasts the Democratic establishment.
“This lack of state party support even after the primary brings forth the question: were the voters deprived of their civil rights in not having their voice count when the Democratic party did not support the candidate of their Party and of their choice?” Sandoval wrote in a response to a Federal Elections Commission complaint against her campaign.
In her complaint, Sandoval reported that the Vermont Democratic party “did not even provide one dollar of financial support,” nor did it attempt to align her campaign with any relevant Political Action Committees.
http://www.talkmedianews.com/featured/2016/05/30/when-bernie-was-the-man/
Ironic, isn't it?
karynnj
(60,767 posts)Not to mention this article, written during the 2016 primaries, is inaccurate. Bernie was against the first Gulf War and voted against it in early 1991 when he became a Congressman. Not to mention, Madeline Kunin, is a strong liberal and has for decades worked to get women into politics. The fact that Kunin did not endorse her (or Bernie) and the fact that even with the Democratic party line, Bernie got 56% of the vote to her 3% suggests that Bernie was by far the stronger candidate.
Bernie had been an excellent mayor of Burlington, the biggest town in the state and a left/progressive/Democratic stronghold. She was also from Burlington, but was far less known and did not have the experience that Sanders did in government. It may be that as Burlington was BERNIE"S base, it left her without a natural base.
The NYT explains the difference from the 1988 election:
Mr. Sanders's contest with Mr. Smith was remarkably similar to the 1988 Congressional race, with one important exception. In that race, a Democratic candidate, Paul Poirier, won a large chunk of votes that might otherwise have gone to Mr. Sanders.
In this election, Dolores Sandoval, the Democratic candidate, was not supported by any of the state's major Democratic figures, including the Governor, Madeleine Kunin, and she did not make a dent in Mr. Sanders's tally.
https://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/07/us/the-1990-elections-the-message-vermont-socialist-ex-mayor-elected-to-house.html
Looking up Poirier's bio ( https://legislature.vermont.gov/people/single/2018/14683 ), before 1990, he had been a member of teh VT House and had chaired some important committees and had been the majority leader. Unlike Sandoval, he had strong political ties to the Democratic party.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)that candidate isn't as strong as another one that does have their endorsement?
Interesting. Some here have said that promotes a sense of inevitability of a candidate's nomination and skews support for a challenger.
I quoted an article concerning an election in 1990. Why is when it was published a factor in judging the facts that it presents? Are you implying that nothing written during 2015 - 2016 primary concerning Bernie Sanders should be mentioned or quoted? Or just some can be quoted? I have seen numerous articles on both candidates referenced that were published during that time period here on DU since 2017. Can you clarify why you object to this reference?
Unauthorized candidate : A candidate which does not have the party approval to run as a Democrat. The party refuses to extend the funding and marketing that the party extends to authorized primary candidates.
The article addresses what Sanders said during the campaign in 1990 - the buildup to the war. His vote opposing the invasion was in 1991, after he was elected.
Staffers said that in August of 1990, he made statements to the effect of not wanting a war to "cost him the election." If you like, I will send you those sources (written far, far earlier than 2015) in a private message.
I hope that clarifies things.
George II
(67,782 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Sacred cows are indeed, more important than party or platform.
Hassin Bin Sober
(27,371 posts) Autumn
(48,723 posts) Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I'll think of them in a moment....
Autumn
(48,723 posts) 
karynnj
(60,767 posts)Have fun - it's a beautiful time of year in Vermont and the summer is very pleasant too. It really is the decision of the people of Vermont ... and so far he has no significant primary opponent.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)But from what I understand his secret is to also appeal to many who might normally vote for the GOP. Doesn’t really translate when you scale up for large populations.
Demsrule86
(71,491 posts)thought his level of support might really be...maybe we will get into 20 and not have a damaging primary. This actually makes me hopeful that a primary run by Sanders won't hurt our chances in the general. Although this signals he won't run as a Democrat in 20. Maybe, he won't run at all (please, please ), or he will run as an independent which would really hurt our chances to beat Trump or whoever is the general candidate. I have always thought that Sen. Sanders really dislikes the Democratic Party so this might be his parting shot. I hope not.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)using him and his comments that actually hurt Democrats. If we did not have all that escalating and saturating conversation, I think we would have seen little more than a ripple.
Demsrule86
(71,491 posts)had such a great way to divide us.
karynnj
(60,767 posts)I do know people who were pulled into the process in the primaries by Bernie who otherwise would never have voted --- and most were persuaded by Bernie or people like a daughter of mine who was a fantastic advocate for HRC -- purposely listing HRC's positions on a huge number of issues where they were close to Bernie's. NO ONE knows the net affect. In fact a HIGHER percent of HRC primary supporters in 2008 said they voted for McCain.
You could also have said that once the email issue was handled poorly in spring 2015, Biden or some other Democrat with less baggage should have entered.
Demsrule86
(71,491 posts)forces...08 was not close and that was the difference. Also, some who claimed to be Hillary supporters in 08 were later shown to be GOP trolls.
karynnj
(60,767 posts)certainly not in the democracy that is Vermont! the reason he has no strong opponent is because there is seriously no one in Vermont that could beat him - in either party. (Pat Leahy is similarly very popular, but he holds the other Senate seat. Beyond that, the next most popular is Peter Welch, who is fantastic and is the only member of the House from Vermont, but there is no way he wants to abandon his house seat to run against Bernie.
I don't think he "wonders" about his level of support here in Vermont - he likely sees enough Bernie stickers on cars to know that he is well liked. We like our entire Congressional delegation.
In 2016, the Democratic party WANTED Santers to run as a Democrat in the primary instead of as an independent. I suspect the reason was pretty obvious - he would run, get a Kuchinich like 5%, and he would not be there in the fall. This was also Bernie's preference - because he did not want to be a "Nader" who would help the Republicans win.
Sanders opts to caucus with the Democrats. You might have forgotten or never thought of the significance of that. Sanders was elected in 2006, replacing Jeffords, a Republican turned Independent who opted to caucus with the Democrats. In 2001, when Jeffords shifted, it gave us the majority, which was lost in the 2002 midterm. In November 2006, we had ended up with 51 Senators, counting newly elected Bernie Sanders. Having the majority is a BIG deal - you control the agenda and all the committee chairs are yours. With the Republicans in power, you act as a break on his power and, while you can't pass much, you can stop some bad things from happening. (From the other side, imagine where we would be had we kept the Senate in 2014.)
I personally do not get the inchoate hatred from some here for Sanders and the strange idea that his primary challenge was why Clinton lost. As to 2020, I have no idea if he will run. However, if he does, I will predict that he will not get anywhere near the over 40% he got in 2016. I strongly believe that that was the result of a very constrained choice - Bernie or Hillary. Both had extremely committed, emotionally involved supported who passionately wanted their choice to win. In addition, there were many who wished they had another choice, but they didn't. Some of his support was from people who simply wanted someone other than Clinton. Juat as some of Clinton's support were people who absolutely thought Bernie should not be our nominee.
2020 is likely to have a large, strong field. Initially, I suspect - that as in 1992 where the potential candidates other than Cuomo, who was playing with the idea of running, were called the 7 dwarfs - some will wish we had a Bill Clinton, an Obama, a HRC rather than the more plebeian choices. Yet almost any of the 1992 choices would once nominated would have gained stature, as Clinton did, by winning the nomination. Here is where I think Iowa and NH play an important role. I know that CA has moved up its primary, but its size means that most people will not be able to really meet the candidates. It is good that they can in Iowa and NH and that winning in those states gives previously little known candidates a chance to be taken seriously.
In this broader field, the people who picked Bernie in 2016 will likely have several favorites and it is not clear that with all those choices, Bernie will even get a majority of those who voted for him last time.
Demsrule86
(71,491 posts)viable Democratic candidates in Vermont...I find it offensive myself...and I wonder how confident he is this year about his election chances. If a Democrat had done this...those defending this would be very angry.
karynnj
(60,767 posts)Tell me exactly who you think would have run who the Vermont Democratic party told not to run? Do you think that the party is that powerful in Vermont? Have you seen the list of Democrats willing to run against the Republican governor who has a lower approval rating than Bernie? If there were a powerful Democrat wanting that seat, who could beat Bernie - he could do so - and he would be the nominee.
He has a 72% approval rate. No one who has had a rating that high in the May before the election that I can think of has lost.
There is more reason to think that the "powers that be" cleared the field for Hillary in 2016.
Demsrule86
(71,491 posts)WASHINGTON -- Vermont's Democratic Party is maneuvering to keep the Democratic candidates for the state's open US Senate seat off the November ballot, as party leaders seek to clear the way for independent Representative Bernard Sanders in his bid for the Senate.
State Democratic leaders are spearheading efforts to gather signatures to put Sanders on the ballot as a Democrat, even though Sanders has repeatedly said he would turn down the party's nomination if he wins the primary. At least three other candidates have announced their intention to run for the Democratic nomination in the Sept. 12 primary, but party leaders prefer Sanders to any of
them.
And why this particular election?
http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/07/13/party_shuns_vermont_democrats_in_race/
karynnj
(60,767 posts)Have you looked at the three opponents? None of them are serious candidates for a Senate seat. The Democratic leaders want him on the ballot because they do not want to risk anyone else narrowly winning the Democratic nomination. If Sanders is on ballot, he wins easily in both the primary and the general election.
As to the three opponents, they will be on the ballot and they can campaign. People can vote for them and they could win if enough people vote for them, but that is super unlikely.
Gothmog
(174,622 posts)Sanders is hurting the party
Eliot Rosewater
(34,282 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
NightWatcher
(39,370 posts)He's a dangerous wedge issue and he needs to stop for the good of the country.
Squinch
(58,182 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)Squinch
(58,182 posts)shanny
(6,709 posts)
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)His bros think it is fine but if anyone else did this, there would be hell to pay.
Me.
(35,454 posts)Main Phone Number:
202-863-8000
9-5
aikoaiko
(34,213 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)
Sid
Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)Anyone want to guess why they support this?
Exotica
(1,461 posts)CONTACT US: INFO@VTDEMOCRATS.ORG
MONTPELIER OFFICE:
73 MAIN STREET, SUITE 400
MONTPELIER, VT 05602
802-229-1783
TWITTER: @VTDEMS
FACEBOOK: FACEBOOK.COM/VTDEMS/
MAILING ADDRESS:
PO BOX 1220
MONTPELIER, VT 05601
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)we have a winner.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)
mvd
(65,828 posts)Sanders caucuses with us and votes with us. And honestly, he's likely more progressive than the Democratic challenger would be.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Last edited Tue May 22, 2018, 05:14 AM - Edit history (1)
n/t
Demsrule86
(71,491 posts)safeguard. Does Sen. Sanders think his support among Democrats has dropped and thus must use these methods to increase his chances?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)He's always been completely honest about his intention not to accept the Democratic Party line on the November ballot. Despite this, he has consistently won the Democratic primary and has consistently been supported by the Vermont Democratic Party. This year is no different.
MrsCoffee
(5,825 posts)Can't wait to relive his spoiler routine in 2020. I wonder if Tad will be starring in the sequel.
ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Are there any other Democratic public figures or Independents who align themselves with Democrats whom you consider assholes?
My personal opinion is that there are no Democratic public figures or Independents who align themselves with Democrats who are assholes, but I'm ready to be enlightened if I'm wrong.
ProudLib72
(17,984 posts) Adrahil
(13,340 posts)There is no reason to do this, other than to poke Democrats in the eye.
Me.
(35,454 posts)letting him run as a Dem after he has kicked Dems around the way he has. Have they no pride that they would let him step all over them?
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)the Democratic party of Vermont? I thought we supported Democrats.
Bernie Sanders, according to his own words, is NOT A DEM so I would like to see a Dem with the nomination for the Dem Party. Let him run as he is, an Independent, and take his chances.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)doesn't agree with you. It is their show and for my part I support the Democrats in Vermont and believe that they know how to handle their own affairs. You apparently think you know better than those on the ground.
Me.
(35,454 posts)Dems should support Dems...send them to Congress or the WH. You and the Dems who are in charge (cause we don't actually know if all the Dems in Vermont support this concession to an Independent) in Vermont apparently disagree with that concept. BS isn't a Dem, won't be one and will trash DEms on a regular basis nevertheless and then continue to ask for their favor. If that's fine with you, then that's fine with you. Not with me.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)Seeing the Dems willing to be deceitfully scammed, yet again, is very difficult to watch
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)but I do understand this is giving you a sad.
Me.
(35,454 posts)but that is exactly what's happening
janterry
(4,429 posts)Easily, imo.
He's very popular here (I'm in VT)
so why run as a Dem?
shanny
(6,709 posts)in the primary, instead of as an Independent in the presidential race. Hmmmm. What could it be?
.
.
.
.
.
.
For people who get upset about the possibility of splitting the left vote, it seems it would be obvious.
seaglass
(8,185 posts) shanny
(6,709 posts) seaglass
(8,185 posts)shanny
(6,709 posts)either in the general in 2016, or potentially in the Vermont election.
Do you not understand what you read?
seaglass
(8,185 posts)to avoid splitting the vote and that is the same reason he would run as a Dem in the VT Senate race.
If I misunderstood what you were saying, my apologies. If not, well...
shanny
(6,709 posts)to avoid splitting the vote in the general.
And he is running in the Vermont Democratic primary--as he has since 2006, with the blessing of the party--but will not accept that nomination, and will be on the ballot in Vermont as an Independent, as he always has been. By running in the primary and winning it, he will prevent a three-party race that could split the vote and allow the R to win.
R B Garr
(17,936 posts)and he admittedly needed the Democrats for the media and our election apparatus to boost his profile and get into the debates. He had no mainstream national name recognition.
No more of this revisionist history.
Cha
(316,599 posts)can't he just run as the Independent he says he is?
Me.
(35,454 posts)and we can guess, but I'd also like to know why this is being allowed in the first place? Is the Dem Party going to be shadowed by him and his unhappy band forever? Does it have to do with cold hard cash?
Cha
(316,599 posts)for the Democratic party in VT.
It's not a good look.
Cuthbert Allgood
(5,339 posts)How is this not obvious to everyone?
Cha
(316,599 posts)he's not going to run as an Indy for potus? Latch on to the Dems again?
George II
(67,782 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)what are they?
Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)sunRISEnow
(217 posts)guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)My US House Representative is Dan Lipinski, IL 3rd, a fairly conservative Democrat who voted against the ACA because he is anti-choice. He runs as a Democrat, and has the (D) after his name, but I would much rather have Sanders as my Representative because I agree with his positions far more than I agree with Lipinski's positions.
Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)It is tediously pathetic. I don't know why I bother responding, other than I have an allergy to vapid bullshit.
Sanders is hugely popular in Vermont, but if there were an actual three way race a Republican could conceivably win. The VDP and Sanders have agreed to go through this dance every six years in order to make sure that doesn't happen.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)Bernie has done it TWICE before for precisely the same reason. I think some here pretend not to get it... never wantin' to let a good opportunity to bash Bernie go to waste!!
shanny
(6,709 posts)and bonus points for "tediously pathetic".
Me.
(35,454 posts)which is the least you'd expect of a DEm Party, one has to wonder what they are.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)what makes you feel that you have a better assessment of the race?
Me.
(35,454 posts)and sorry if my support of the DEm party bothers you but I expect Dems to run and support Dems and certainly not someone who has a history of bashing Dems then wanting to ride their coattails. And, now that I think of it, I wonder how many members who decided this are actually OR members.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Interesting analysis.
Me.
(35,454 posts)By the way, does anyone know how many members of the deciding body, if any, are OR members?
You can knock me all you want about this, and of course, support whoever you want, but for me, it will be a DEm every time. And the fact that he will run as a Dem and then decline the nom once he has it is BEYOND messed up.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)have a reason for doing this. I am not knocking your support for the Democratic Party, or mine, but Sanders is quite popular and if he were to identify as a Democrat he would be one of the most popular Democrats today.
Me.
(35,454 posts)He's an avowed non-Dem
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)but if he asked me for advice, I would advise him differently.
Me.
(35,454 posts)"I would advise him differently"
Me.
(35,454 posts)Yours was the declarative statement. And I do...wonder that is.
brer cat
(27,337 posts)guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Do the voters in West Virginia?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Kind of support or would strongly discourage it. The Vermont Democratic Party doesn’t have such bylaws, which is a mistake as you can see here.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)for the Vermont Democratic Parry and Senator Sanders. The US Senate Democratic cacus seems happy with the arrangement as well. Your feeling that it's a mistake is far from universal.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)kind of thing from happening.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)Are you saying you don't think Senator Sanders will be returning to the US Senate as an Independent who will join the Democratic caucus? I'm pretty sure he will and when he does that will look like working to me.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)hinder non-Democrats from winning the general election.
So no, it's not working.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)Senator Sanders will be returning to the US Senate as Senator Sanders so you must be saying something else isn't working.
George II
(67,782 posts)...missing a seat in the Senate that they might well have.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)and it seems the Democrats in the Senate have solid respect for him. He has never been Democratic Senator Sanders by the way so there won't be any change in that when he is reelected.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)sunRISEnow
(217 posts)A loop hole. A loop hole that needs to be shored up, especially when we see the party being harmed or taken advantaged of. Smart business. It is an interesting conversation and something I had not considered.
With outside forces being an influence in our votes, it is very important for the Democratic Party to look around for ways to protect ourselves.
Thank you all, for this conversation.
Get rid of the caucus and open primaries, too.
I think these are self evident.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)doesn't seem to find it so self evident and I'm sure they would not characterise their agreement with Senator Sanders as a loop hole.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)since we are seeing the manipulation of our party, that harms our party, maybe we should have that conversation. It was not an issue in the past. Today, it may be an issue. This would be the true progressive, able to go with the flow of changing issues. Where as the more established staid politician will have only one message for 50 years.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)I'm not from Vermont and I like Senator Sanders.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)These conversations are about making a strong and tight Democratic Party as we head to 2018 and 2020. With all the outside influence, it is important we pay attention to what is going on within the party and toward the party. Smart politics. This is what we do.
We have a lot of work with all the interference from outside forces. To shore things up. Because there will be criminal, manipulation, fake stories/bots and other nations playing in 2018 and 2020. Right?
This conversation is a good thing.
KPN
(17,131 posts)How is it hurting our party?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)corruption that prevents voters from having a choice. The fact that Vermonters are also comfortable with the trap they've fallen into doesn't make it right. Sanders' maneuverings now act to keep other candidates from offering them a viable choice.
Don't bother arguing. Sanders' only Democratic challenger for the U.S. Senate (!) is a sadly inadequate joke who or may not actually be running.
KPN
(17,131 posts)And you know this how?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Do you need a link to prove my contention that Vermont does not have these rules in their bylaws?
KPN
(17,131 posts)weren't working. But if they aren't in the bylaws, it's moot.
George II
(67,782 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)the Vermont Democratic Party. Even back when he was a congressman they agreed to get out of his way. They seem to think it is working. Perhaps you don't understand politics in Vermont, I know I don't.
George II
(67,782 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)why the Vermont Democratic Party keeps on making this deal.
George II
(67,782 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)I don't understand how any State Dem Party would permit this. I called the DNC this morning and they seemed clueless about this...or they were pretending.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)then when he does, he's criticized for it. Bernie is dammed if he does, damned if he don't.
All Democrats are free to challenge Bernie in the primary, though they know they can't out Democrat him. So what if he then runs under an Independent banner?! They will have had their chance to defeat Bernie, fair and square.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)sunRISEnow
(217 posts)race.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)precisely why Bernie is the most popular politician among all the potential 2020 candidates.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)Nor do many. We see the hypocrisy in his bashing of the party he uses.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)gotta respect that too!
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)are skewed and manipulated. But if you look at all other tells, the story is different. It goes a long way to respecting another's point of view, though, in conversation even in disagreement. Thank you for that.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
Exotica
(1,461 posts)The other is enabling groups like Our Revolution to attack our party (he does it as well, but not as bad as some of his surrogates and offshoots).
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Not straightforward.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I'll give him the same consideration of any party leader. But he has not done that and is expressing his intention to never do that.
He refusing the nomination, after essentially lock out other candidates, id a big FUCK YOU to the democratic party.
What other possible reason does he have to refuse the nomination?
I'm so fucking tired....
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)as the Democratic Party nominee for Vermont Senator. You can't be serious!!
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)He runs in the Democratic Primary to win it. But instead of accepting the nomination, he refuses it and runs as an I?
I'll ask you directly: WHY DOES HE DO THAT?
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)While at same time preventing a Republican from winning with a plurality of the vote. Bernie should be LAUDED for his wise decision, not bashed.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Why not run as Democrat if he wins the primary?
C'mon... you know the answer....
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)I respect the view of the Vermont Democratic Party. Why can't you?!?!
So answer my question... how is Bernie locking out any Democrat who is free to run against him in the Democratic Party primary? C'mon, you know the answer... he's not.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)But by refusing the nomination after winning the primary, he ensures no Democrat will win.
And you STILL didn't answer my question? Why not just run as a Democrat, having won the nomination?
Why won't you answer that?
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)Vermont Democratic Party? This isn't the first time Senator Sanders has run exactly this same way. They have made this same deal with him the last two times he ran successfully. You expect them to mess with success? In 2019 Senator Sanders will join his fellow Senators as a returning incumbent and he will caucus with the Democratic Party.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)as a Democrat, I guess you won't be voting for him.
brush
(61,033 posts)A maneuver which would've destroyed the party and made us a national laughing stock.
Can you imagine our nominee rejecting our nomination to run instead as an independent?
We dodged that bullet but you can bet he's going to try it again.
He won't get close this time though. Too many are tired of his charades and there will be too many younger, attractive, actual Democrats running.
Been there and done that, Senator.
Cuthbert Allgood
(5,339 posts)You can't run for President in the country without the backing of one of the two major parties.
But please, continue with your bashing of Sanders. It obviously makes you feel better.
brush
(61,033 posts)He's always favoring open primaries so independents can vote in Dem primaries, perhaps his imagined base? And who would the Dems back if having a choice between him or wingers? Certainly not the repugs, just as proven in Vermont.
So were the two times he did it in Vermont trial runs for a national campaign?
But we don't have to worry about it. 2016 was his best chance because in 2020 we will have younger, attractive, actual Democrats with the same progressive policies as the independent from Vermont and without the baggage of his constant bashing of the Democratic Party.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)All else the same?
Speaking of Republicans, arguing whatever dishonest position works for their party at the moment is what they do. We're all supposed to support democracy, not join them in their abandonment of the principles of democracy we inherited.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)which might splain, as the article does, why "The Vermont Democratic Party passed a resolution over the weekend supporting Sanders’ move, proclaiming that he could still be considered a member of the party “for all purposes and entitled to all the rights and privileges that come with such membership at the state and federal level.”
seaglass
(8,185 posts)honestly as an Independent? This can't be true!
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)Can't wait to hear this one.
seaglass
(8,185 posts)he might lose if he doesn't. It's not logical.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)Autumn
(48,723 posts)Bernie is very popular and any Dem that would run against him would lose.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)against him in the Democratic Party primary because he's scared he'll lose!!
Autumn
(48,723 posts)when one could learn so much here? I miss it.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)If the establishment chooses you to be the candidate before the primary, that's just fine.
Depending.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)Gee, what can it be about Democrats that he's so eager to move away from. . . .
DFW
(59,713 posts)What's next? Declining to take his Senate seat if elected?
For someone who seems rather confident of re-election as an independent, he seems rather sacred of the prospect of running against both a Democrat and a Republican.
We still need his vote in the Senate, but we do NOT need his divisive tactics. "I bet you think this song is about you...."
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)who he is and go from there. There are lots of Democratic progressives who have similar policies. Support them.Amplify them.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)in 2019 to caucus with the Democratic Party. Hope that doesn't hurt your fee fees too much.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)you see no difference between Senator Sanders and Senator Cruz? OK.
Va Lefty
(6,252 posts)guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)He is a consistent voice and vote for Democratic positions.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)lapucelle
(20,932 posts)Gothmog
(174,622 posts)Sanders is hurting the party.
In Texas, the form to be on the ballot includes a promise to run. Vermont forms appear to be silent on this but there is an implied promise to run on the ticket if nominated. The Vermont state party should replace sanders on the ballot if he pulls this stunt
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts) Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)With Flake and Paul voting Nay, the nomination of Gina Haspel would have failed if every member of the Democratic caucus had also voted Nay. It was a rare opportunity for us to have the nice thing of defeating a horrible Trump nominee.
But we didn't have that nice thing because six members of the caucus -- six DU-approved D-after-their-names Democrats -- voted Yea.
And that was quite obviously Bernie's fault.
manor321
(3,344 posts)
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)Obviously there is something very wrong with the people of Vermont. Maybe the DNC can step in and force the party to run somebody unpopular to make the race competitive.
RhodeIslandOne
(5,042 posts)And saw it was smart to take a knee on this even back then.
He is not losing, to anyone.
RhodeIslandOne
(5,042 posts)I'm glad you all showed up to the party now and are properly outraged!
The truth is, he's not losing, to anyone.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)so your argument is moot
LisaM
(29,475 posts)he'd better hand over those email lists if, once again, he wants to use the resources and cache of the Democratic party. I get that in New England especially, Independents are different and caucus with the major parties after they are elected. But with him, it seems to be a one-way street. The Democratic party helps him - he should do something in return.
Autumn
(48,723 posts)switching back to Independent, they have been fine with it for years and will continue to be fine with it as long as he chooses to run. Those Vermont Democrats are smart
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)In this context, I interpret "hand over" to mean "provide to the DNC free of charge" (i.e., not sell or rent).
Is it your position that all those who sought the Democratic Party's nomination in 2016 should hand over their email lists?
LisaM
(29,475 posts)Hillary turned hers over. It would help the Democrats immensely, and I don't actually see why Sanders, at 74 (or is it 75), mostly likely running in his last Senate campaign, can't or won't turn them over. Of course he doesn't have to, I guess. But since he has sought help from the Democratic party, it would be a unifying gesture to give something in return. I don't expect him to. It would just be nice.
shanny
(6,709 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)She got some seven-figure sum for it, IIRC. I'm not saying this was illegal or unethical -- I'm just saying that it's not the most obvious meaning of "turned hers over."
As for Bernie's list, it has slightly more than four people. You can see more detail in this article: "Bernie Sanders Becomes the First Presidential Candidate to Reach Two Million Individual Campaign Contributions: In 2008, Obama Had Just One Million".
LisaM
(29,475 posts)For President.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You were obviously not demanding that Bernie Sanders give the DNC the email addresses for the four people who ran against him for the Democratic nomination for President.
I interpreted your comment in #68 as meaning that Bernie should provide to the DNC, free of charge, his list of email addresses of people who donated to his campaign.
If that's not what you meant, you'll have to explain your actual meaning in a way that my limited brain can grasp.
If that is what you meant, then my follow-up question is whether you would apply the same standard to the other candidates in that race.
JI7
(93,142 posts)
snowybirdie
(6,553 posts)So tired of seeing posts on his every utterance and thought. He's not a Democrat!
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)I'd say Bernie is as big a Democrat as you can get!!
AlexSFCA
(6,319 posts)SidDithers
(44,333 posts)as a Senator from Vermont.
Sid
Squinch
(58,182 posts)
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)Oh wait...that only applies to Diane Feinstein et al.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)Uncle Joe
(64,158 posts)
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)All the best my friend!!
Uncle Joe
(64,158 posts) mountain grammy
(28,662 posts)and they know they will will Bernie Sanders.
BlueTsunami2018
(4,833 posts)Bernie Sanders was universally loved here, the closest person to our (general) ideology in all of Congress.
All of a sudden his methods are a problem now? Why? I don’t remember any outrage the last time he ran, or the time before. It was all cheers for Bernie.
RandiFan1290
(6,661 posts)
LostOne4Ever
(9,733 posts)They are a loud but vocal minority in democratic politics and on DU.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)most people I talk to working in Dem politics love Bernie and don't give a shit about this type of thing. DU is the only place I hear this stuff.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)because they were mainstream progressive Democrats who pollsters said were basically quite happy with their second choice.
You're talking about the<10% remnant loyalists out of the putative 45% primary voters or so who, at least at that time, refused to support the Democratic nominee. Some more moved to support, but others did not and thereby helped elect Trump and throw both houses of congress and many state positions to the Republicans.
An incomplete explanation for the enduring hostility toward him, he earned it big time. There were also his contemptible ethical crimes and unforgivable betrayals of the party.
Oh, and if you're still somehow imagining his <10% of 45% is somehow a majority, don't forget to also SUBTRACT from the primary vote all the conservatives who flooded in to spoiler vote and then flooded right back to Trump. It's far worse than you think. That's why Pew measures and evaluates his GENUINE primary voters when reporting on him; the rest were trumpsters.
Today's remnant is called a niche faction, and it's on its own against all the others -- Sanders' own choice and his consequences. Don't be surprised at continued rejection as this plays out. The anger of those who watched the months of lying attacks and other betrayals that culminated in Trump's election isn't going away, and many times more other Democrats are now unhappy with the role he's playing than will ever visit DU.
Btw, while we're on the subject, what do you think of his having Russia's support and not taking a stand against it?
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)and caucus n mostly rural, very red areas.
You were right on it. Thank you. It is important we recognize that 45% is not a solid number to draw conclusion with.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)along with what we also now know was full awareness that Russia was also using him as a weapon against Democrats and employing thousands of fake social media supporters and millions of bots to improve his numbers.
In fact, how many posts on DU today are from genuine supporters?
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
grantcart
(53,061 posts)R B Garr
(17,936 posts)vetted.
Exotica
(1,461 posts)
QC
(26,371 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts) Doodley
(11,584 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)putting up any bullshit attack they can think of.
brush
(61,033 posts)which could be a repeat of the divisive 2016 run.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)make another presidential run in 2020 I have no idea. My concern is 2018 at this point and I am pretty sure that Senator Sanders is going to return as a US Senator. The Vermont Democratic Party has made their choice and they are sticking with Senator Sanders.
brush
(61,033 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)
Crutchez_CuiBono
(7,725 posts)Or just hit the road w the above nuttiness.
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)
Gothmog
(174,622 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Fortunately, the Vermont Democratic Party has better sense than that.
Gothmog
(174,622 posts)Last edited Tue May 22, 2018, 05:45 AM - Edit history (1)
It is ssnders who wants to leave the party without a candidate on the ballot. This is sanders decision. The party has the right to have a candidate on the ballot and not having a candidate on the ballot can hurt down ballot races
If Sanders runs a democrat in the primary, then he needs to run as a democrat in the general election or the party gets to select somone to be on the ballot
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)If he declines the Democratic nomination, then there will be two possible responses for progressives in Vermont.
1) The important thing is to have a progressive Senator. Let's support Bernie's independent run, as we did in 2006 and 2012. If he wins, as he did in those years, he'll caucus with the Democrats, as he did after those victories.
2) No, having a Senator who represents our views isn't all that important. What really really matters is not having a member of the Democratic caucus who's listed on the Senate website as an independent. Better someone like Joe Manchin, who votes to repeal Obama-era environmental protections and who votes to confirm people like Gina Haspel but who at least identifies as a Democrat. (Say, did you know Bernie isn't a Democrat?) Therefore, let's finagle a way to overrule the primary voters and put someone on the ballot even if that someone couldn't get enough votes to win the primary, and if our candidate splits the anti-Trump vote and lets some RWNJ become a Senator, well, at least we'll have cleared up that party identification matter, which, when you come right down to it, is more important than the global climate crisis or CIA torture or other such minor distractions.
With the decision being up to the Vermont Democratic Party, I have complete confidence that the first option will be chosen. Fortunately for progressives and for the country, the Vermont Democratic Party is not composed of a bunch of raging haters who are still refighting the 2016 primary.
Gothmog
(174,622 posts)If Sanders is the party's nominee in the primary, then he needs to run as a democrat on the ballot. This is sanders decision. The party has the right to have a candidate on the ballot and not having a full slate can hurt down ballot candidates.
I would urge the Vermont party to do the right thing and replace sanders on the ballot if he pulls this arrogant and dumb stunt.
In Texas, the application to be on the ballot requires one to run if nominated. Tom DeLay withdrew after winning the GOP primary in 2006. The local Democrats sued and kept the GOP from putting anyone on the ballot and the Democrats won that seat in 2006. That win was due to DeLay.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)As others have tried to explain in this thread, what happened in 2006 and 2012 was that Bernie won the Democratic primary, declined the nomination, and appeared on the ballot as an independent.
The Vermont Democratic Party cannot prevent him from appearing on the ballot as an independent, i.e., it cannot replace him on the ballot.
This year, it will again be common knowledge that, if Bernie wins the Democratic primary, he'll decline the nomination. Anyone who wants to vote against him in the primary for that reason is perfectly free to do so. Of course, anyone who wants to vote for him in the Democratic primary is also free to do so. May the candidate with the most votes win, regardless of his or her popularity on an online message board.
There may be some who would urge the party to find a way to overrule the voters, nominate someone who couldn't win the primary, and thus split the vote in the general election. I don't know whether that's feasible under Vermont election law. I do know that, feasible or not, it would be a terrible idea. I also know that it will nevertheless have its advocates among the Bernie-bashers.
Gothmog
(174,622 posts)The Vermont Party could adopt a rule to replace sanders on the ballot and should if Sanders pulls this asshole stunt. The party should not let sanders do this. In the real world this hurts down ballot candidates.
In Texas, there is in effect a contract to run on the ticket. For example, when I applied to be a delegate to the national convention, I signed a pledge to support the nominee of the party. I take contracts like this seriously.
The Vermont Party is making a major mistake if they go along with this stunt.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)So here's the hypothetical for you, counselor:
I assume that Texas law provides for an independent to qualify for the ballot. (If it doesn't, we can end the discussion here. Vermont allows a candidate to appear on the general-election ballot without being the nominee of a recognized political party. That's obviously critical. If Texas has no such law, then your situation there is distinguishable.)
Let's suppose that Pete Progressive meets the requirements for appearing on the Texas ballot as an independent -- is legally eligible to hold office (in this case, U.S. citizen at least 30 years old), submits enough petition signatures (possibly with a distribution requirement), pays the filing fee, whatever else. Absent any additional facts, Pete will be on the ballot as an independent.
Pete also enters the Democratic primary for the same office. Assume that Pete qualifies for the primary ballot under the applicable rules of signatures and/or fees and/or whatever. (If one of the rules in Texas is that the would-be candidate be a registered voter in that party, note that Vermont doesn't have partisan voter registration. There is no one in Vermont who is registered to vote as a Democrat.)
Contrary to what some of the Bernie-bashers here will snarl, there is no bait and switch in Pete's case, because he makes it known that, if he wins the Democratic primary, he'll decline the nomination. Some of the people voting in the Democratic primary don't like this, and therefore vote for one of Pete's opponents. Nevertheless, a clear majority of the voters vote for Pete. Government officials declare him the winner. He is informed that he'll appear on the November ballot as the Democratic nominee and as an independent. He formally declines the Democratic nomination, however, so the state board of elections or Secretary of State or whoever runs such things in Texas announces that the general-election ballot for that office will include Pete as an independent, will also include everyone else who qualified as a party nominee or independent, and will not include anyone identified as the Democratic nominee.
Now, if you tell me that, under those circumstances, the Texas Democratic Party could override the will of the voters and place on the ballot, as the Democratic nominee, someone who lost to Pete or who didn't even run in the primary, I'd find that credible. I wouldn't call it "replacing" Pete as the Democratic nominee, because to my mind that word connotes removing a named Democratic nominee. It would apply if, for example, if the primary winner plans to run in the general election as the Democratic nominee, but dies soon after the primary and there's still time to put the substitute candidate's name on the ballot before the ballots are printed. One candidate's name is removed from the "Democratic" column on the ballot and another's is substituted. If, instead of being a change from one name to another, the change is from a blank spot on the ballot to a named candidate, I wouldn't call that "replacing" anyone, but that's a pretty minor semantic dispute.
If, however, you can tell me that the Texas Democratic Party, by tossing around words like "stunt", could somehow remove Pete from the general-election ballot entirely, even though he had duly qualified as an independent candidate, then I'm extremely dubious. It would be a violation of fundamental democratic principles if a party committee could be given that kind of control over nonmembers. I know the old saying that no man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the Texas legislature is in session, but I have to doubt that even Texas would pass such a law. I also doubt that, if passed, it would survive a constitutional challenge.
I've spelled out the circumstances of this hypothetical in excruciating detail in the hope that you might actually address it. Obviously I can't compel you, nor can I prevent you from answering a dozen other questions that I didn't ask but that you want to opine on. My point is this: If Vermont law is as I believe it to be -- that the Vermont Democratic Party cannot prevent Bernie Sanders from appearing on the general-election ballot as an independent candidate -- then for the party to override the will of the primary voters and put someone else on the ballot as the Democratic nominee would split the vote and would certainly be a very bad idea.
George II
(67,782 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)In 2006, there was a contested Democratic primary. Bernie won it but declined the nomination, appearing on the general-election ballot only as an independent.
I don't know whether the Vermont Democratic Party had the option of following your advice and giving the ballot line to the second-place finisher, thus splitting the vote. What I do know is that that didn't happen.
Here's what did happen, from Wikipedia:
I predict that this year will be similar. The Vermonters who vote in the Democratic primary will know that Bernie plans to decline the nomination if he wins. Nevertheless, a majority of them will decide that this matter of formal party identification is of trifling importance. Bernie will win the primary, the Vermont Democratic Party will not try to subvert the will of the voters, and Bernie will win re-election as an independent.
The safest prediction of all is that, if the foregoing occurs, there will much consternation in some quarters.
Gothmog
(174,622 posts)The Vermont Party is hurting down ballot candidates just to make a non-democrat happy.
I am glad that this disgusting stunt is not allowed in Texas
Gothmog
(174,622 posts)Here the Vermont Democratic Party is deliberating hurting down ballot candidates in order to make a non-democrat happy. This stunt hurts down ballot candidates for the benefit of a person who claims to not be a democrat but is running in the Democratic primary. If Sanders runs in the Democratic Primary in Vermont, then he needs to run in the general election.
In Texas, the Green and Libertarian parties are on the ballot and independents can qualify with signatures. But under Texas law, one cannot run on more than one party at a time. If you file with one party, then you are excluded from being on the other party ballot. In Texas you cannot be on the ballot more than once https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/EL/htm/EL.141.htm
(1) are not permitted by law to be held by the same person; and
(2) are to be voted on at one or more elections held on the same day.
(b) If a person files more than one application for a place on a ballot in violation of this section, each application filed subsequent to the first one filed is invalid.
(c) This section does not apply to candidacy for the office of president or vice-president of the United States and another office.
Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.
Sanders could not pull this disgusting stunt in Texas. If Sanders filed to run in the Democratic Primary, then he cannot apply to run as an independent in Texas.
The Vermont Democratic Party is hurting down ballot candidates by not objecting to this stunt. The Vermont Party should exclude Sanders from the primary or replace him on the general election ballot if he pulls this disgusting stunt
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You write:
In this thread, in response to this reiterated demand that the Vermont Democratic Party exclude Sanders from the primary ballot, I keep asking whether, under Vermont law, the party even has the power to exclude Sanders or anyone else from the ballot. No one has given me any reason to believe that Vermont has such a law.
As a general rule, I would be against a structure in which party officials can block a candidate from the ballot. If they don't like that candidate, let them recruit an opponent and appeal to the voters.
As for "replace him on the general election ballot": I've pointed out that "replace" is misleading. If the Vermont Democratic Party takes no action, Bernie will likely win the primary, and will then appear on the general-election ballot only as an independent. To my mind, "replace" means "remove him from the ballot and substitute someone else." AFAIK, there is absolutely nothing the Vermont Democratic Party can do to prevent Bernie or anyone else from appearing on the general-election ballot as an independent.
As I understand it, therefore, the proposal is: If Bernie, having announced his intention to decline the nomination, nevertheless wins the primary and keeps his promise, then the Vermont Democratic Party should override the wishes of the voters. The party should say, "We know that you peasants were OK with Bernie's plan, but we know better than you, so we're going to give the Democratic Party line to someone you rejected in the primary, tough shit on you." That would be grotesquely undemocratic. I don't expect the Bernie-bashers to be swayed by that consideration, however, so I'll get more pragmatic: Under Vermont law, does the Vermont Democratic Party even have the power to set aside the primary results in that fashion?
Of course, the question is academic. The Vermont Democratic Party has made clear that it doesn't share the obsession of some DUers over the question of formal party identification. Bernie caucuses with the Democrats and he carries forward the ideals of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, and those substantive matters are evidently deemed to be more important.
Presumably, the Vermont Democratic Party is familiar with the downballot races in its own state. If my choice is between, on the one hand, the overwhelming view of the many Democratic Party leaders in Vermont, and, on the reiterated but unsubstantiated posts of a non-Vermonter, well, call me crazy, but I'm going to go on the working assumption that the former view is correct. I'm not claiming that the Democratic Party is perfect, but I emphatically reject the criticism that an entire state party leadership has taken leave of its senses.
Gothmog
(174,622 posts)Sanders is using very questionable tactics here. The concept that he would run in the Democratic Primary and then decline to run in the general is a way to cheat and hurt the Democratic Party. In Texas there are mechanisms to replace a candidate. I attended a meeting of precinct chairs a while back to select a new candidate when the nominee had died.
Again, it is clear that sanders is afraid of having a real democrat on the ballot and so is relying on this disgusting tactic to cheat and have an easier time. If sanders is such a strong candidate, then sanders should not to cheat and use this disgusting tactic.
I am sad that the Vermont Democratic Party does not care about down ballot races. Letting Sanders use this disgusting tactic will hurt down ballot candidate
It is sad that sanders is not the strong candidate that his supporters are claiming. If sanders was really so strong, then he would not have to cheat and use this disgusting tactic.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I call for the appointment of a special prosecutor. The allegations against Bernie Sanders are:
1) He did something as a candidate in Vermont that he couldn't have done in Texas.
2) He did something as a candidate that Gothmog and numerous other DUers disapprove of.
Open-and-shut case of cheating, right there.
SMH
ETA: Just because I was struck by a sudden fear of encountering really bad reading comprehension, let me state expressly that this is sarcasm. I am not accusing a member of the Democratic caucus of cheating.
Gothmog
(174,622 posts)Sanders is such a weak candidate that he has to cheat to be elected. Your posts amuse me. I really loved your posts on the DNC fraud case where you were wrong on every claim made. I never claimed that sanders broke the law. This claim makes as much sense as the DNC fraud lawsuit.
Here Sanders is using a process that is not allowed in any other state to keep from facing a Democrat on the ballot. Sanders could run as a Democrat but sanders is special and does not want to do this. This is an admission from sanders that he is really a weak candidate and can only win by using a procedure to keep a real Democrat off the ballot in the general election. In most states, Sanders would not be allowed to run into positions or the Vermont Democratic Party could replace him on the ballot if sanders pulled this disgusting stunt.
BTW, I actually work in politics in the real world. I got an e-mail this morning that all of members of the County Executive Committee have to meet on June 13 to select the candidate on the ballot for a position where the current office holder died. The members of the GOP county executive committee will be meeting on the same date to select their candidate. Again, I live in the real world and I am on the County Executive Committee and have participated in the selection of replacement candidates before. A good friend lost in race in 2016 by less than 2 percent but he is now running for District Attorney. It will be fun to see who runs.
Again, if Sanders is really such a strong candidate, then Sanders should not have to cheat and use this disgusting stunt. If Sanders wins the Democratic primary, then Sanders should run as a Democrat in the General Election or the Vermont Democratic Party should replace sanders so as to protect down ballot candidates. By relying on this disgusting stunt, sanders is admitting that he is a weak candidate.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You write, "I really loved your posts on the DNC fraud case where you were wrong on every claim made."
Do you see those little things that are kind of up in the air near the top of the line in the preceding paragraph? They're called quotation marks. They indicate that the material between them is a verbatim quotation.
Your favorite sport about the DNC fraud lawsuit was to make up some statement, falsely claim that I said it, and then triumphantly refute your own invention.
I'll be glad to discuss the suit with you (although a different thread would probably be a better place). Just link to the post of mine that you're referencing and quote -- verbatim -- the statement of mine that you assert is wrong. As of right now, I stand by everything I wrote, but I'm prepared to learn that I made a mistake in what I wrote. My only condition is that the discussion must be about something I actually wrote, not one of your straw-man arguments.
As for the actual subject of this thread, your idiosyncratic use of the word "cheat" is absurd. Your assertion that Vermont is the only state where this could happen is probably false, but I'm not going to go research 48 states' laws to find out, because it's irrelevant. I support the right of the Vermont Democratic Party to make its decisions in the context of Vermont law, even if Texans are displeased.
Gothmog
(174,622 posts)Sanders is such a weak candidate that he has to cheat to have a chance of winning. Vermont is the only state that would allow a candidate to file two applications on the ballot or which would not replace sanders if he "declined" to run as a Democrat after winning the Democratic primary. That is a clear sign that sanders is too weak to win without cheating
As for the DNC fraud case, I discussed the briefs on this case a while and notified you about the thread but you hid. Here is the link to my last thread https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210544462 I posted an invite for you to participate in that thread but you declined. That lawsuit is a joke filed by an idiot who is only trying to sell book.
Again, if sanders was really a strong candidate, then he should not use this disgusting stunt. Sanders should run and an indie and not run in the Democratic primary. If sanders runs in the Democratic Primary, then he needs to run in the general election as a Democrat or be replaced on the ballot.
I am looking forward to attending the County Executive Committee party meeting in a couple of weeks to pick a candidate. Again most states have mechanisms to replace candidates and are willing to use these mechanisms. It is sad that the Vermont Democratic Party is letting sanders cheat. The Vermont Democratic Party is hurting its down ballot candidates by agreeing to participate in this disgusting stunt.
Gothmog
(174,622 posts)A candidate who won the Virginia primary just withdrew and now the party is selecting a new candidate https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/rep-garrett-announces-he-is-an-alcoholic-and-will-not-seek-re-election/2018/05/28/40e8839a-62b2-11e8-99d2-0d678ec08c2f_story.html?utm_term=.9191e1711d14
Republican observers of Virginia politics have said possible candidates from the General Assembly could be state Sen. William M. Stanley Jr. (Franklin), Sen. Jill Holtzman Vogel (Fauquier), Sen. Bryce E. Reeves (Spotsylvania) and Del. Robert B. Bell (Albemarle). Tech executive Michael Del Rosso and businessman and developer Jim McKelvey sought the GOP nomination in 2016 and could also be interested.
If sanders pulls this disgusting stunt, then the Vermont Democratic Party should use a similar procedure to replace sanders. I have a meeting of my county's Democratic Party County Executive Committee to select a candidate in June
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)is going to do as they have and they don't care what you have to say about it. Good for you going to your Democratic Party County Executive Committee. Since they won't be meeting in Vermont it won't have any effect on Senator Sanders bid.
Gothmog
(174,622 posts)The vermont party will be hurting down ballot candidates by consenting to this disgusting stunt by sanders. Other state parties are doing the right thing in this circumstance. Again, I have a meeting in two weeks to vote on a replacement candidate for the November 2018 ballot
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)Gothmog
(174,622 posts)This is what is done by other parties who care about down ballot candidates. For example the Virginia RNC is now replacing a candidate who won the primary but withdrew due to personal issues. The Vermont Democratic Party needs to do the same if Sanders wins the primary and then screws the Democratic Party by refusing to run on the Democratic ticket.
The Vermont Party should attempt to help down ballot candidates
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)Are you going to punish them if the don't? What evidence do you have that the Vermont Democratic Party is not adequately supporting their down ballot candidates? Not what theories do you have what evidence do you have.
Gothmog
(174,622 posts)Vermont is hurting its down ballot candidates in order to favor a non-democrat.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I don't live in Vermont. It's obvious that the Vermont Democratic Party is in desperate need of your incomparable wisdom. IIRC, the Democratic Party's state convention voted unanimously or nearly so to back Bernie, even knowing that he would be pulling what you're pleased to call a "stunt".
Even worse, the Vermont Democratic Party compounded its error by featuring Bernie as one of the speakers at its recent fundraising dinner.
Given that you know Vermont law and the political situation in Vermont better than any of the Democratic Party activists there, it really behooves you to enlighten them before it's too late.
Gothmog
(174,622 posts)All candidates in Vermont needs to file tax returns except for federal candidates. I am amazed at the extremes that sanders goes to keep his tax returns secret.
Luckily, sanders will not be able to hide his tax returns if runs in 2020.
karynnj
(60,767 posts)Why can't we be more like Texas.
As someone who has lived in Vermont for 5 plus years, I assure you Vermont's democracy is extremely healthy.
Gothmog
(174,622 posts)It is impossible to pull this disgusting stunt under Texas law.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)move to Vermont.
Gothmog
(174,622 posts)I am supporting a candidate who was attacked by Our Revolution because he is an Asian http://www.indoamerican-news.com/local-democrats-infighting-attempts-to-smear-sri-kulkarni/
But Beaton, who is backing candidate Steve Brown in the primary, is throwing out all sorts of minor issues to sideline Kulkarni’s bid. He has challenged Kulkarni’s full name, his residency in the district, his voting record and even his registration application saying he wanted to run in Massachusetts.
Inspite of these diversions, the Indian American community as well as the rest of the South And East Asian communities are staunchly behind Kulkarni and they have shown it by the sheer numbers who have come to his events and are donating funds to his campaign, sensing a chance to have an Asian in Congress from the Metroplex. They came together last night, Tuesday, February 20, at Madras Pavlion to rally behind Kulkarni and push back against these charges.
Encouraged, Kulkarni is counting on their support. “We’re pushing back against this stigmatization and slander,” Kulkarni said. “The Asian communities need to come out and vote to get us over the top in the primary.”
From another article http://www.indiawest.com/news/global_indian/texas-congressional-candidate-sri-kulkarni-acknowledges-teen-drug-arrest-youthful/article_54a39be6-1e55-11e8-8db1-6f520552146f.html
The letter suggested that Kulkarni, whose full first name is Srinivas, is running under an assumed name and that he had previously registered with the Federal Election Commission to run for a congressional seat in Massachusetts.,,,,
Fort Bend County's past Democratic chair, Don Bankston, a member of the party's state executive committee, said the attack on Kulkarni is off base and potentially slanderous, according to the report.
That candidate won on Tuesday and will be headed to the general election despite the efforts of Our Revolution. According to the NYT and a professor, Sri has a chance
Link to tweet
From the NYT article
“The suburban counties that led Republicans to dominance here 25 years ago are getting significantly less Republican fast,” he said, adding that Fort Bend County, in the 22nd, is roughly 20 percent Asian-American now. The first-place finisher in the district’s Democratic primary, Sri Preston Kulkarni, is Indian-American. Murray said that if Kulkarni wins his runoff, that could be a significant boost to Democrats’ chances to nab this House seat.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)California. It doesn't mean that either of us can dictate to Vermont how to run their elections.
Gothmog
(174,622 posts)It is sad that the Vermont Democratic Party is going along with this disgusting stunt. Evidently sanders is too weak of a candidate to win without cheating. The Vermont Democratic Party is hurting down ballot candidates by not have a real Democrat on the general election ballot.
Eliot Rosewater
(34,282 posts)Tax returns, for starters.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)They have to vote each race. I betcha that does affect the down ballot. Good point.
Gothmog
(174,622 posts)Vermont does not appear to have straight ticket voting but it is important for parties to have a full slate of candidates.
This stunt by sanders would deprive the Vermont party of a full slate. The Vermont Democratic Party needs to replace sanders on the ballot if sanders pulls this stunt
Donkees
(33,392 posts)Published on May 9, 2018
https://www.vermontpbs.org/beyondbernie/
From Gov. Phil Scott to former presidential candidate Howard Dean, politicians and the journalists who cover them explain what makes Vermonters tick and how ‘who’ is more important than their party affiliation when it comes to politics in Vermont.
Gothmog
(174,622 posts)Sanders stunt should not deprive the party of a candidate on the ballot
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)This is the way its been done with all his past Senate campaigns. Whats the difference now?
Gothmog
(174,622 posts)Sanders should not be able to decline the nomination. If sanders runs in the primary as a Democrat, then he needs to buck up and run in the general election as a Democrat
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Gothmog
(174,622 posts)If sanders runs as a democrat in the primary, then he needs go run as a democrat in the general election. Otherwise the Vermont Democratic Party needs to replace sanders on the ballot
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Is it silly that Bernie is so insistent on running as an Left-Independent as opposed to a Democrat? Perhaps. But in the bigger picture, a Sanders win as either a (D) or an (I) is ultimately a victory for the Vermont Dem Party and more importantly, the people of Vermont.
Gothmog
(174,622 posts)If he runs in the primary ad a democrat, then he needs to run the general election as a democrat. If sanders tries this stunt, then the Vermont Democratic Party needs to replace sanders on the ballot
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)you should try to get over it. Senator Sanders is going to return to the Senate in 2019 even if you hold your breath till you turn blue. The Vermont Democratic Parry gives not one single fuck what you think. Neither does the Democratic caucus in the Senate which will welcome him with open arms.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)by ensuring that he has no Democratic challengers?
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)work with him in this way? They both get something out of it.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Obviously being an Independent is important to Senator Sanders. At the same time, had Bernie Sanders run solely as an Independent instead of utilizing the Democratic Party's nominating process, the same people criticizing him now would berate him as a spoiler. There is no real problem with what he's doing.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)the Democratic base.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)By running as a Dem, he is guaranteed to be chosen as the nominee, even before the primary.
Every time he comes up for re-election.
Ironic, isn't it?
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)cannot be 100% certainty that the left vote will not be split giving a right-winger enough of an advantage to take the race, therefore, I do not want to risk that.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)If your view prevails among Vermont voters, then whoever defeats Bernie in the Democratic primary will appear on the general-election ballot as the Democratic nominee. Bernie isn't doing anything to block those people from voting as seems best to them.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)to eliminate financial support for any Democrat who challenges him.
Who would this primary challenger be that you say people could vote for?
A write-in?
(I'm not a Vermont resident, BTW, so who runs or doesn't run against him is not my issue)
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)As a general rule (not just Vermont), the Democratic Party can't exclude a candidate from the Democratic primary just because the party leaders dislike that candidate.
You write:
A write-in?
No, it wouldn't have to be a write-in. It would be someone who complied with Vermont law as to ballot access. I'm guessing that would mean petition signatures plus a filing fee, which is the most common pattern.
In 2006, Bernie had the support of the party establishment. Nevertheless, three other candidates somehow managed to run in the primary against him (unsuccessfully). Someone who thinks that Vermonters would respond to a campaign based on the party-identification issue can go ahead and run against him in this year's Democratic primary. If such a person gets a majority of the votes in the primary, then he or she will be the Democratic nominee. It's not very complicated.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)then they pretty much have the same chance as a write-in.
This is a case where the party establishment chooses the candidate/nominee before the primary.
It's not very complicated.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)What you describe as "the party establishment chooses the candidate/nominee before the primary" is actually party leaders or entities making an endorsement. I don't recall your previously recoiling in horror from that scenario. Apparently party endorsement in favor of Bernie Sanders is a threat to democracy, while party endorsement of someone running against Bernie Sanders is noble and virtuous.
You despise Bernie Sanders, fine, that's your right. But, as Sanders himself proved, a candidate who has little support from party leaders can still run in a primary against their choice.
In 2012, Sanders had no opposition in the Democratic primary. This year, because of all the people who are fixated on refighting 2016 and wreaking vengeance on him for opposing their chosen candidate, the primary will probably be contested. IIRC two Vermonters have already announced. A Clinton staffer has announced plans to move to Vermont and run, but I suspect that he was just making some kind of silly joke. Whatever, Bernie will be on the ballot, other candidate(s) will be on the ballot, and the voters will decide. As you say, it's not very complicated.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)No, I'm describing what is in the OP:
The move makes it virtually impossible for another Democrat to seek the party’s nod.
I hope that's clearer for you.
What scenario? You mean when he did this in all his previous runs in Vermont since he lost that congressional race? Please clarify where the party establishment chooses the nominee before the primary, outside of Vermont, and other than Senator Sanders.
The "party nod" is pretty much the make or break for most candidates. That's exactly why an "anti-establishment" candidate decides to use that establishment tool to edge out grassroots challengers, before changing lanes to run as an independent.
There is an independent candidate running, and a Democrat - who has no electoral experience. No one with any experience as a Democrat would run without the "party nod." They know better.
Actually, that was a response to a different poster who used that phrase. Is that clearer?
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Love You Bernie!
Vinca
(53,298 posts)If another candidate emerges and splits the vote on the left, it's a guarantee a Republican wins. End of story. Don doesn't need another soldier in Washington.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I guess not?
Vinca
(53,298 posts)who would beat him - and a Republican - if Bernie still runs as an Independent. Bernie gets voters from both parties, but if anyone would get an advantage by having a third candidate in the race it would be a Republican. Hmmm . . . I'll have to see if Bernie is on the schedule for the June "Strolling of the Heifers" event in Brattleboro. Sometimes he not only marches, but participates in the milking contest. The people love him.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Why does he need the Democratic establishment to make it possible for him to run unopposed by a Democrat?
Vinca
(53,298 posts)The reason, of course, is to end up with control of Congress. (Think hold your nose and vote Manchin, for example.) That will probably sway some people who would normally vote for Bernie. I predict either a Bernie win by a narrower margin than he usually gets or a GOP senator from Vermont.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)in the primary? Even as the incumbent?
I hear in other places on this thread that he's above 74% approval.
Vinca
(53,298 posts)Bernie as an Independent, and a Republican, the Republican has a shot at winning if the vote on the left is split. Therefore, it makes sense to stick with Bernie since Vermonters will most likely vote for him over a Republican and an unknown Democrat would have a steeper hill to climb. I know many Democrats here are anxious to wave so long to Bernie, but he's still a sure thing in Vermont.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)but he's "a sure thing" over a GOP in the general?
Vinca
(53,298 posts)Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go beat another dead horse.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)It helps to identify cognitive bias - which we all have.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)in Vermont has no takers, what's the big deal? The point of him running as a democrat is that any challenge would be in the primary and would not split the votes during a GE run. That seems reasonable to me.
klook
(13,494 posts)Trashing thread. Not participating in another circular firing squad.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And the Democratic establishment makes it possible for him.
Interesting.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)shouting from the rooftops that he run as an Independent? Don't think that'll go over too well, but to each their own.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Or did I hit a sore spot?
Civic Justice
(870 posts)disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,933 posts)and why is the Vermont Democratic Party going along with it?
Gothmog
(174,622 posts)The Vermont Democratic Party needs to be prepared to put a new candidate on the ballot is sanders pulls this stunt
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)Proud Liberal Dem
(24,933 posts)I mean, Sanders is practically guaranteed re-election no matter if he runs as an Independent or a Democrat. Or is the criticism about him "not being a Democrat telling Democrats what to do" getting to him so he's trying to do something about it?
Gothmog
(174,622 posts)Sanders needs to run in the Democratic primary to win by keeping a democratic candidate off the ballot.
If sander is so popular, then do not run in the Democratic Primary and see what happens
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)And if the Vermont Democratic Party doesn’t recognize that they need a brain transplant.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)More accommodation from our party for his ego, that hurts our party. We take it on the chin. And we have been for over two years.
ThirdEye
(204 posts)...I can see why this will piss off many otherwise like minded people. hrmph.
Ultimately he's going to win the general election by a large margin by simply running, don't see why he has to do this.
I'm only going to feel good about this as a Vermonter if the Democratic party comes out and says they're ok with it. Maybe publicly declare they're behind whatever message he's trying to send. Otherwise, it just seems cynical and I'm angry about it.
R B Garr
(17,936 posts)as part of his appeal, and he knows it and exploits it — others noticed it, too, like those who used the inherent divisiveness to help the GOP.
ieoeja2
(10 posts)Did not even have to read the full article. It was in the excerpt in the OP. So you can "feel good about this".
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)ThirdEye
(204 posts)Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)Exotica
(1,461 posts)It is bound to cause division, and IMHO, the biggest damage is that he is self-removing his core issues (some of which I agree with) from the Democratic party umbrella after using the party to assure his re-election.
Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)and the party is merely a means instead of an ends... How odd...
But this IS 90% on the party because they should have drawn a line a long ass time ago..
ehrnst
(32,640 posts) sunRISEnow
(217 posts)Him accusing HRC of doing this while the party allowed him to run in our primary and coddled him thru out, taking jabs on the chin.
I mean really, this is what I am reading, right? I am laughing here. You brought this point to clarity. Interesting.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Clearly.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)like the complaints about 'superdelegates'?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)R B Garr
(17,936 posts)of course. 
brush
(61,033 posts)Party yet is not a Democrat.
That makes perfect sense .
Hassin Bin Sober
(27,371 posts)From 538. How often a member votes with Trump’s position:
Joe Manchin III D WV
61.1%
Bernard Sanders I VT
11.1%
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/
brush
(61,033 posts)Just vote with them in the Senate but attack them in public.
What's the harm?
Exotica
(1,461 posts) 
JustAnotherGen
(37,503 posts)From the Democratic Party - fine by me.
As someone up above wrote- he probably doesn't need to run campaign ads, do events etc. etc. if he has a 75% approval rating.
If that's the case, he doesn't even need to try. I'd rather see that money go to our Democratic House Races where we have to fight. He can do it alone -so let him go it alone.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)
CTyankee
(67,765 posts)Now I wish I hadn't.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
Hope you're doing well!
CTyankee
(67,765 posts)
Kahuna7
(2,531 posts)
budkin
(6,849 posts)Hate on me all you want but I love everything the guy stands for. And yes, I voted for Hillary with no reservations.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)to defeat the Nazi-in-Chief in 2020... including the progressive vision, the fearless tenacity to take on that lying sack o' shit, the popularity to bring in Democrats & Independents who are long-time voters & new ones, old & young voters, multiracial voters, with the energy to employ a 50-state strategy, holding huge rallies, and to work the media like no one's business. That's not to say there aren't other qualified candidates whom we could put up, but Bernie clearly checks the most boxes and certainly deserves a second, fair shot at the nomination. Just hope he runs... not a sure bet. Go Bernie!!
Gothmog
(174,622 posts)This stunt by sanders is really disgusting. I agree with the Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/05/21/bernie-sanders-is-still-borrowing-the-democratic-party/?utm_term=.3c06f5f8c4b7
This is also the kind of gamesmanship that some Democrats might balk at — including a lot of people who were pretty upset about how the 2016 Democratic primary went down. Sanders will still be running for and winning those Democratic primary votes fair and square, mind you, but he’ll be doing so for the purposes of manipulating the general election matchup.
It all suggests a guy who is still very much using the Democratic Party when it’s convenient for him — which is perhaps what those readers are really upset about.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)I would really like to hear from the Vermont Democratic Party.
Gothmog
(174,622 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(34,282 posts)Exotica
(1,461 posts) jalan48
(14,914 posts)