Will Bernie Sanders remain a Democrat after the Convention?

[MineralMan]

I expect that he will not. He has staunchly defended being an Independent Senator for many years, and ran as a Democrat for President, primarily because he would not have gained the same traction as an Independent, Green, or Democratic Socialist candidate. But why would he abandon his Independent status after the convention, which will end his chances of being the Democratic Party nominee?

I don't see any reason for him to run as a Democrat in 2018 to keep his Senate seat. He has never needed that party membership to be elected in the past. So, my guess is that, if he decides to run for another term, he does so with Independent status. I'm sure he'll still vote with the Democratic Caucus, as he has almost always done in the past, but a formal change of his status as Senator isn't really a requirement.

That he is not succeeding in pushing the Democratic Party Platform much in his direction is another thing that is likely to influence his decision. The platform will not reflect his views precisely, since the apparent nominee has more influence in it and wants to keep it more general in nature, rather than calling for specific actions in some areas.

Senator Sander's reluctance to strongly endorse Hillary Clinton's candidacy may also be an indication that he intends to return to his independent Democratic Socialism stance following the convention. I have zero problem with this. His voice in the Senate has been a strong one and he has succeeded in bending legislation to the left with his amendments. I hope he will run again in Vermont for that seat when his current term expires.

He has stated that he will vote for Clinton in November. That may well be his endorsement, in the end, and it is politically sufficient, really. I don't see him as a strong campaigner for her election, since he is generally not willing to speak in favor of anything that is not in line with his positions. His primary campaign supporters, too, will probably vote for Clinton, but with somewhat less enthusiasm. That's fine, too. A few may do otherwise, but a few might do otherwise, regardless of the outcome.

In any case, I encourage Bernie Sanders to do as he thinks best and as best suits his positions. That he will vote for Hillary is not surprising, and is endorsement enough for me.

That's my opinion. Others might hold different opinions.

Hillary 2016!

[tonyt53]

1. He will change back to independent, but might wait a bit.

He will want to see what committee(s) he is placed on and the positions on those committees. After that, he will change back to independent.

[MohRokTah]

4. He has already started a committee for an INDEPENDENT run for re-election to the Senate.

HE's already changed back.

[tonyt53]

9. Not on paper though

[stopbush]

19. It appears that his Senate re-election committee filed the required paperwork

with the Senate last October for Sanders to run as an Indy in 2018. Not sure what this all means, but see for yourself here (check out the second page of the pdf for details):

http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/344/201510160200258344/201510160200258344.pdf

Instructions for why one needs to fill out FEC Form 1 (Federal Election Committee) are here:

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/forms/fecfrm1i.pdf

[LongtimeAZDem]

33. So, he submitted paperwork identifying as an Independant on 10/15/15

Pretty cut and dried; he clearly never considered himself a Democrat.

[stopbush]

38. On the surface, that would appear to be true.

I notice this is an "amended" filing. I wonder if that has to do with him reidentifying as an Indy, as he had changed his party affiliation to D in (I believe) April, 2015.

However, not knowing the ins and outs of how these things work, it could be that the committee had to file paperwork simply because they had received donations that exceeded a certain $ amount. The instructions gave them only 10 days to do so.

And I don't think this is set in stone. He could always file another amended form changing his party status from I to D.

[LongtimeAZDem]

46. His Senate website press releases never stopped identifying him as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

So it looks like he was a Democrat for all of 6 months, and that it was nothing more than a technicality, despite the fact that his campaign claimed in April that he would be a "Democrat for life":

'“Well, he is a Democrat. He’s said he’s a Democrat, and he’s gonna be [supporting] the Democratic nominee, whoever that is,” Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver told Bloomberg Politics’ “With All Due Respect.”

“But he’s a member of the Democratic Party now for life?” Halperin pressed.

“Yes, he is,” Weaver said. “Yes, he is.”

Sanders’ Senate office has identified him as an independent as recently as April 1.'

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/bernie-sanders-democrat-independent-222228

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

2. He will remain a Democrat and he will push the party to new progressive heights...

Do not forget, after his where do we go from here speech he had 11,000 people sign up to get involved in their local politics. I suspect his plans with the Democratic party are more long-reaching goals. Getting large amounts of progressive people into the party as elected officials will drive the party left.

[BlueCaliDem]

6. His Vermont constituents don't want a Democrat. They want an Independent. He'll do as they say. That

said, the DNC and the Democratic Party know this, so don't expect them to accept anything he pushes to have changed within the Democratic Party. Why should longtime Democrats listen to an Independent?

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

12. I'm not sure why it is an Us vs Them with you...

Independent people who make up at least a 3rd of the electorate can offer up good policy ideas and positions. You would reject good policies in the Democratic platform simply because an independent suggested them?

[cosmicone]

16. For the same reason I don't want people from outside

to decide the policies of my homeowners' association. If you want to change the policies, buy a house here and become a member. Then more power to you.

It is a lot easier to become a democrat that to become a member of the HOA.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

20. Does your HOA govern over non-HOA homes though?

At the end of the day when someone is elected to an office regardless of their party they are obligated to represent all of their constituents even the Independents and Republicans. Comparing it to an HOA is not a fair comparison. An elected official should be willing to listen to all ideas and implement good policies regardless of who suggested them in the first place.

edit: also fact of the matter is that Bernie became a Democrat so in effect he would be a member of the HOA in your example anyways.

[cosmicone]

55. That is a good point of difference. However,

we democrats want our person to govern all the people just as all other parties do.

We should not give up that decision to outsiders. We welcome them to register as democrats and join. It is their choice. If they want a say in who will govern them, they should pick a side to have a voice.

[BlueCaliDem]

28. Not only with me, but with Democrats of all colors and stripes. Independents are people who don't

want to associate themselves with a Party; don't canvass, call, and work for the Party. So why should they get to decide what the Party's platform should be? Makes NO sense. If they offer advice? Sure. Why not? But pushing to the point of demanding that a political Party that's not their own and a Party of which they perceive they have no skin in the game, must adopt their vision for said Party is beyond arrogant.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

36. Bernie is a Democrat for now though...

I'm registered an independent but requested Dem ballot to vote Bernie, and I donated and phonebanked for Bernie so to suggest Independents don't put skin in the game is misguided. But we will have to agree to disagree, to me a good idea is a good idea regardless of who suggested it, and I am thankful Bernie is pushing for good ideas into the Democratic Party platform regardless of how some view him with open contempt and disdain regularly suggesting he isn't really a Democrat.

[BlueCaliDem]

45. "A good idea is a good idea regardless who suggested it". Yes. And I made that clear in my post.

However, even you admit that you only requested a Democratic ballot to vote for Sanders; donated and phonebanked solely for Sanders who is widely known to be an Independent, so my suggestion that Independents don't put skin in the game for the Democratic Party is not misguided but underscored by your own words.

The Democratic Party and longtime Democrats like me resent being told how to run our Party, especially after President Obama's successful eight years as our Party leader without Sanders' input. I hope you and other Independents can understand that.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

48. Technically Bernie was a Democrat, and still is one, when I voted for him and volunteered for him.nt

[CajunBlazer]

93. Okay, fair enough....

....but as an independent, are you going to donate and man the phone bank for for Hillary Clinton, or are were you only "all in" for Sanders? If not, I think that is is the lack of commitment by independents who want to have input to platform without willing to do the things that committed Democrats expect of themselves which is concern to some in this conversation.

[MineralMan]

7. Yes, I'm aware of that, and will be interested to see how

many of those people actually do run for office. However, I doubt that will influence Bernie's own decision all that much. He has never felt comfortable being part of the Democratic Party, or he would have become a member earlier. Realistically, he probably won't run again after his next term, assuming he runs again at all.

[MohRokTah]

3. The DNC should move to alter rules for running for the nomination.

The new rule should be that in order to run for a Democratic nomination, one must be able to demonstrate they have been active within the party since the last presidential race with no breaks and should also declare any elected person who is listed as anything other than Democrat shall be ineligible for the Democratic nomination.

That would force Sanders to either remain a Democrat or would preclude him from attempting to primary President Clinton in 2020.

[brush]

8. I don't think we have to worry about Sanders primarying Clinton in 2020.

This was his last rodeo. He's 74.

[MineralMan]

10. I can't imagine that Sanders would undertake another

presidential campaign at all. I don't think that is even a consideration for him, really.

[LiberalFighter]

49. I'm not sure that can be entirely accomplished.

Getting on the ballot is done at the state level and would require changing state laws. Unless states have a provision that can remove someone from the ballot based on those requirements it wouldn't be possible that way.

BUT, the DNC can restrict access to voter data. Not sure if there are other ways.

[MohRokTah]

65. Anybody can be in the state ballot.

Regardless of the outcome, the national organization is the ruling body on seating delegates and providing rules for eligibility to gain the nomination.

If somebody who is ineligible wins a state primary, their delegates will not be given credentials. It's as simple as that. It will be as if they never existed on that state ballot and other delegates will be credentialed in their stead.

For example, no LaRouche delegate was EVER going to be seated in ANY Democratic National Convention, regardless of any state primary or caucus result. It simply was never going to happen since the idiocy of LaRouche was laid bare.

[pangaia]

52. You mean if I want to run for town supervisor as a Democrat,

I have to have been active in the Democratic Party since the last election?

[MohRokTah]

64. You obviously did not read the post.

Presidential nomination.

State Democratic Party organizations are the governing bodies for all other primaries.

[pangaia]

111. Sorry I missed something....

[MineralMan]

73. In many, if not most, such positions are officially non-partisan.

Political parties often endorse candidates for such offices, but no political labels usually appear on the ballot in such jurisdictions. That's the case here in Minnesota, where I live, and in California, where I lived for decades. Most local offices were designated as non-partisan.

[BlueCaliDem]

5. I believe I saw a segment on MSNBC of Vermonters who strongly support Sanders shouting that he not

become a Democrat. They were pretty upset that it was even a suggestion. So I believe you're right - Sanders will not be a Democrat after the Convention. If I can see that, I'm certain diehard Democratic pols know it, too.

And that's okay. If his constituents don't want him to run as a Democrat, he shouldn't or he could lose his Senate seat.

[MineralMan]

11. Yes. I don't really see any reason for him to

drop his independent status following the Convention.

[LiberalFighter]

51. Yet Patrick Leahy was re-elected with a 60-31 margin in an off year.

During the last presidential election year he ran it was a margin of 71 - 25.

[BlueCaliDem]

56. True. I totally forgot about the senior Senator from Vermont. I guess those constituents who were

upset that he might want to become a Democrat and wanted him to remain an Independent were from his days in the House, rather than the Senate. I guess you can say he can now remain a Democrat if he so chooses. It wouldn't harm him politically.

[geek tragedy]

13. he'd have to become one to remain one. nt

[MineralMan]

15. He did become one to run for President.

At least he claimed to become a Democrat. There really wasn't an alternative. Now that his campaign has effectively ended, and will officially end next month, he no longer needs to call himself a Democrat. He never did before, so I doubt he will continue to do so. That's not a criticism in any way, of course. He knows his own mind, clearly, and will do as he chooses, as he has always done.

[geek tragedy]

17. Did he even claim to be a Democrat?

He's pretty obviously still an Independent who disdains both parties, that's how he's been his entire life.

[MineralMan]

21. Well, he tried to change the Democratic Party

to one he could lead. Had he won, he would have been the Democratic Party's leader. He did not, so it will reflect the nominee's positions. He may well not accede to those positions wholeheartedly. He's a man with strong beliefs.

[BlueCaliDem]

31. Yes. And Jeff Weaver reaffirmed it that Sanders is a Democrat now. I don't think he'll be one after

the Democratic Convention, though. His Vermont constituents won't have it.

[geek tragedy]

35. Eh, in my opinion he is an Independent, has always been an Independent, and

will always be an Independent.

I think what's going on now tends to validate that.

[BlueCaliDem]

39. According to Jeff Weaver, Sanders is a Democrat for life.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/videos/2016-04-20/bernie-sanders-is-a-democrat-for-life-says-jeff-weaver

Apr 20, 2016 3:43 PM PDT

On “With All Due Respect,” Jeff Weaver, campaign manager for Bernie Sanders, discusses the New York primary, superdelegates and the future of the Vermont senator’s presidential run. Asked by host Mark Halperin if Sanders now will be a member of the Democratic Party “for life,” Weaver responded, “Yes he is, yes he is.”

But will Vermonters accept that statement as truth?

[geek tragedy]

42. It has been suggested to me that Jeff Weaver's statements

and reality sometimes differ.

[BlueCaliDem]

59. True. I've heard the same things. eom

[WhiteTara]

32. I don't think he became a Democrat. I think

he used the Democrat moniker to run for president and that is all.

[charlyvi]

89. I agree. I think he realized his policy goals

could not be accomplished unless he tried to implement them through one of the major political parties. Though why he waited so long to so is baffling to me. Think of what he could have accomplished had he been a Democrat for the past 20 yrs; then again, he wouldn't have been Bernie.

[yallerdawg]

14. Sanders might have become a Democrat if he won the nomination.

His "out" now is our failure to adopt his policies as the Democratic Party platform.

I have never heard him describe himself as a Democrat, or speak of "our" party.

He ran to be the Democratic nominee. That never made him a Democrat.

[MineralMan]

18. That's too fine a distinction.

Had he won the nomination, the Democratic Party would have changed to support his agenda, since a Democratic President is the de facto leader of the party. He did not win, however, and the party's platform will be more closely aligned with Clinton's positions. The candidate's positions become the Party's positions, rather than the reverse.

[DemonGoddess]

22. Exactly

[longship]

23. Bernie Sanders has caucused with the Democrats his entire political career.

QED!

[MineralMan]

24. Yes, he has, and I referred to that in my original post.

However, actual membership in the Democratic Party is a different thing than that. It's a fine distinction, but a real one in a political sense.

While he voted with Democrats, he remained outside of the party itself.

[longship]

50. There is no party registration in Vermont.

Just like in twenty-some other states. And you know that, MM.

So you can stop ringing that cockamaimie "Bernie isn't a Democrat" bell.

If he caucuses with the Democrats, he's a Democrat. And since he cannot legally register as one, it really does not matter that he calls himself an independent -- he's from Vermont, for Christ sakes, where they take their independence seriously.

It is not about labels, MM. It is about actions. I know of few Democrats as loyal to the party than Bernie Sanders, no matter what he calls himself.

That's enough for me. Why do you have to stir this pot over and over again?

The primary is over. Bernie did not win. Let it go. Please!

[MineralMan]

58. Nor is there in Minnesota, but all of our Democratic

House and Senate members identify as Democrats. All hold membership in Minnesota's DFL (Democratic Farmer Labor) Party. One needn't be registered in a state as a Democrat to call oneself a Democrat.

My state also once had an Independent as a Governor. Party identification is quite important to many voters, as well.

I'm stirring no pot at all. The primaries are over.

[longship]

63. No, they identify as Democratic-Farmer-Labor party.

Which if I am not mistaken is not exactly the Democratic Party. One could make that argument if one was cynical enough and one wanted to parse the language so finely. Gladly, I am not one of those pedants. I am satisfied that the DFL is wholly aligned with the national party, just as Bernie Sanders has been throughout his career.

My good friend, please stop wearing yourself out with this narrative. Bernie Sanders' loyalties are beyond question here. Just as they have been throughout his entire political career.

Again. Please stop ringing that cockamamie bell. Let's move on.

My best regards to you.


And yes, you are pot stirring here.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

99. But he refuses to endorse the Democratic nominee. He has all kinds of excuses why not to. He

has supporters (who he influences) who will not even vote for the Dem nominee. Why should we not question his loyalty? I don't tell my friends or my boyfriend that they have to do this, this, and that in order to be my friend and if they don't, I'm going to dump them.

[longship]

106. That's irrelevant.

There are many Democrats who have not yet endorsed Hillary Clinton. You know although Hillary Clinton has clearly won the nomination, we aren't the GOP. Democrats are not an ideological cabal. Disagreements are allowed.

I have no doubt that Bernie will support Secy Clinton. I certainly am.

What needs to happen is to set aside primary fever here and please just let things play out.

Relax! It's going to work out. The Democrats have this one! At least as long as we stay united.

Bernie will be there, too. Trust!

[CrowCityDem]

25. If he doesn't, he can kiss any 'changes' he's trying for goodbye.

The party won't be doing the bidding of someone who is walking away from them, nor should they.

[MoonRiver]

26. Did he become a Democrat?

[Native]

29. +1 According to his FB page he's still an Independent.

[MoonRiver]

40. That's what I thought. So, he can't "remain" a Democrat. eom

[PJMcK]

27. Intriguing analysis

You've thought this out and expressed your ideas clearly, MineralMan. Thanks for the thoughtfulness of your opinion.

Ultimately, it really doesn't matter what Senator Sanders calls himself. If he caucuses with the Senate Democrats and continues pushing the issues to the left, then his party affiliation is of secondary interest. He has much good to accomplish, I think.

By the way, I liked your last sentence:

"Others might hold different opinions."

D'ya think?

[liberal N proud]

30. Since he has not fully committed to the Democratic party

I wouldn't expect him to stick around. He has wanted to have the best of both worlds all along, remain independent while trying to become the Democratic nominee. With that out of the picture and his chances of having any real impact, I think he will drift right back to obscurity where he can criticize everyone.

[libodem]

34. Probably not

Pretty sure, we will all run like lemmings off a cliff after him, and be swallowed by the sea. There is no place for us in the party. We are a dispensible annoyance. It's been made very clear.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

109. It's your choice. You all have a long list of demands that MUST be met otherwise you will not vote

for the Dem candidate. As a student of psychology and social work, I know what that means - many supporters (and Bernie) will NEVER really support Hillary. There will always be an excuse not to. And it's part of a person's identity and a source of pride that they will never succumb.

[Txbluedog]

37. It really doesn't matter in the end.....

Unless the dems need his vote in the Senate, he will be yesterday's news. And he knows this.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

41. Does it matter?

[woolldog]

43. I hope Howard Dean runs against him and wins. nt

[yallerdawg]

44. What does Bernie say?

[MaggieD]

47. He never changed to being a Democrat in the first place

Are we still pretending he did? I think he declared it in a few states to get on the primary ballot, but he never changed the label on his name. It remained (I) and never changed to (D).

This whole shtick about "Bernie is a Democrat" is amusing to me. He has never said he was a Democrat and has explicitly said he only wanted to run in our primary because he wanted to use the party structure to advance himself. All he did the whole campaign was diss Dems just as he has done for 30 years. Definitely NOT a Democrat - now or then.

I hope that is a lesson learned by the party - do not let people who are not Democrats run in your presidential primary!

[LongtimeAZDem]

53. His FEC filings show he wants it both ways

His Presidential campaign entry says Democrat, but his Senate campaign entry says Independent.

[Sheepshank]

54. I'm pretty sure that this candidacy will be a principal driving force.....

...in ensuring there will not a Democratic Open Primary in every state. In fact, they will likely ask states that currently have open Primaries to make some changes.

[Native]

57. Per DU's TOS: Bashing rules also apply to Independents who align themselves with Democrats, and

Bernie is cited as an example. That said, how bad does it have to get before he is no longer considered aligned with the Democratic party. It is one thing to hope for change in the party, and to work toward effecting that change, but when your efforts run counter to the main goal, getting a democrat in the White House, how can we continue to say he's aligned with us?

Not casting aspersions, just wondering when and what he'd have to do for that call to be made.

[Surya Gayatri]

60. In a word, NO! His failure to endorse is one huge signal.

[Svafa]

75. Didn't realize the deadline to endorse had already passed!

[morningfog]

61. Yes. He said he will and will support Hillary. Old news.

[AgingAmerican]

62. Last night fully 1/3 of threads in this forum were about Sanders

and 3/4 of those were from people who supported Hillary during the primaries, wailing about Sanders and his former supporters.

Tick Tock?

[Squinch]

66. He already registered to run as an Independent. So no.

[MariaThinks]

67. Good questions. I don't think he will. Maybe that's why he's not endorsing Hillary

Which is offensive on both counts. He's used the Democratic Party to raise his visibility but wants to give nothing back.

[MineralMan]

69. I see a statement of intent to vote for someone as an endorsement.

A rather weak endorsement, but an endorsement nevertheless. If someone intends for vote for a candidate, that means that they believe that candidate is the better choice, I'm sure.

A strong endorsement is a different kind of statement, usually including a willingness to actively support the person being endorsed. I suspect that Senator Sanders will make a statement of that kind either during or after the convention. In the meantime, anyone who is closely following Bernie will know that he intends to vote for Clinton in November.

I do accept that as an endorsement of sorts, anyhow.

[CrowCityDem]

77. He's made clear it wasn't an endorsement.

[MineralMan]

80. And I made it clear that I SEE it as an endorsement.

I decide how I interpret what people say. Whether Sanders considers it an endorsement or not is up to him. I interpret it as an endorsement for my own thinking about the election.

[MineralMan]

71. OK, but there's a lot of nuance in politics.

As a close follower of politics, I tend to look for nuanced positions as indicators of possibilities. Bernie Sanders is still trying to influence the candidate and the party toward his own positions. I can't fault him for that in any way. I'm just musing about what he's likely to do down the road and looking for comments on that.

I hold no animus toward Senator Sanders. In fact, I greatly admire his campaign and his political positions. I'd have gladly voted for him, had he won the nomination. Right now, though, I'm wondering what his intentions are for the future, both near and distant.

[MineralMan]

91. I tend not to assign fault to politicians, especially

to runners-up in primary elections. People make the decisions they make. Movement politics is always interesting, and has some influence over time, but rarely is the deciding factor in presidential elections. We live in too diverse a nation to really make our only national election a movement politics thing. The numbers of people who are involved in any "movement" is just too small on a national basis to have a major impact.

Now, a Sanders-style candidate may well become a party nominee at some point. He came closer than I expected in this cycle. However, I think much of his primary appeal was more of a populist appeal than one based on actual positions. Many who championed him were looking at single issues, like education costs, big money capitalism, etc. He came closer than I expected, but also did not win the nomination, as I also expected.

Will the nation swing leftward in coming elections? Maybe. As someone who will be 71 years old next month, I don't expect to see that swing during my lifetime. Back in the 1960s, I expected it, but it didn't really happen. It should have, but didn't. I don't think it's any more likely now, either. In fact, I expect another rightward swing somewhere down the road. Our politics oscillate with some regularity.

[MineralMan]

95. It's all about the discussion, as far as I'm concerned.

Here's what I'm seeing:

Socially, we've moved steadily toward more acceptance and tolerance in my lifetime. My parents, at 91 years of age, represent almost 100 years of change. And that change has uniformly been positive with regard to social issues. My mother was born just after women could vote, for example. I was a civil rights activist in the mid 1960s. We've now had a black President and will probably soon have a female President. LGBT people can marry the person they love. Women can control their own reproduction. Racial and religious diversity in this country have become well-established, despite continued negativity among some. More people have post-secondary education, and we live longer, healthier lives.

We still have much room for improvement, and we've not attained economic justice for many. It's been many decades since we had a global war, although we continue to skirmish in various places. We're making progress with environmental issues, but face a global climate challenge. We still need many progressive changes.

It's a cyclical world we live in. We push forward, and then get scared and retreat. The cycle continues. That will continue, I'm sure, and we're far from out of the woods in many areas. Will we get smart soon enough? I don't know, and I'll be gone before knowing. I'll keep watching, though, for signs of progress.

[Autumn]

70. No I don't believe he will remain a democrat. nt

[MineralMan]

72. Thanks for your reply.

I sort of expect the same thing. Frankly, I think that's too bad, really. But, I think that's probably what he will decide.

[Autumn]

76. He has always been an Independent. I had no problem with it then and I have no

problem with him becoming one again. He has always caucused with dems and I don't expect that to change now.

[Svafa]

74. Who cares?

This "party name above all else" mentality is petty and ridiculous. As far as policies and positions go, Sanders is more of a Democrat than most of the Democrats who label themselves as such. Stop being petty and pay attention to things that are actually important rather than labels.

[MineralMan]

78. That's as may be.

However, we do have political parties, and two of them are represented in almost every partisan office by the vast majority of office-holders. Are they just labels? I don't think so. They represent political realities and affect choices voters make in almost every election.

The thing is that most people do not consider politics most of the time. Only elections cause the vast majority of people to make real choices about their government. Then, they tend to vote primarily based on party affiliations of candidates.

It's easy to say, "Who cares," but that only reflects your opinions. For a huge percentage of voters in this country, party labels have great influence on how they vote. Often, those voters may not even know the details of what the party supports on various issues. Instead, they believe that one party better represents them, base on past experience.

I care about party labels, because people use them to make voting decisions. So, in answer to your question, "I care." That's who.

[Svafa]

86. And those political parties are dying out. Every year, the number of people

who identify as Democrats or Republicans continues to fall. Perhaps those people who "may not even know the details of what the party supports" should educate themselves about each candidate and what he or she brings to the table instead just voting lock-step down the line. The two-party system and the implication that everyone should choose one side or the other is, by your own admission, contributing to political illiteracy and laziness. I want an educated and informed populace who actually know wth they're voting for instead of just checking every D or R on the ballot. Fortunately, given the statistics on party identification, it looks like we are heading more and more in that direction. You may care, but you're in the minority; more and more people are putting actual policy, proposals, and ideals ahead of strict party identification.

[MineralMan]

90. I think you're jumping the gun on that, really.

I think that a majority of voters do not look at actual policy, proposals and ideals very closely or broadly. I do not think the number of voters that do is rising, either.

I do look at those things closely, and suppose that you do as well. But, I've been involved in politics for over 50 years, and I'm not really seeing much change in how people make voting decisions. Frankly, as long as majorities decide who wins an office, two parties will dominate our political choices.

Most voters' decisions are made based on minor factors that don't influence yours or my decisions. I'm pretty cynical about the depth at which most people consider their voting choices. Even those who don't align themselves with any party generally do make their choices at the ballot box based on very broad criteria, and political party affiliation of candidates is often the many reason for their choices.

Do I wish it were different? Sure. Do I think it will be so? Not a chance.

[Kelvin Mace]

79. Don't understand why it matters

He will vote for HRC unless she self-destructs, so I don't understand why it sticks in your craw. He was a staunch Democratic ally long before he was a Democrat.

[MineralMan]

81. There is nothing "sticking in my craw."

I'm curious about what he will do. That's all. I follow politics closely. So, I'm interested in such things. I'm glad he will vote for her. So will I. So will most of his supporters. Had he won the nomination, I'd be voting for him.

You may be misinterpreting my question, actually.

[Kelvin Mace]

83. Don't see that it makes the slightest difference

[MineralMan]

85. It might in a very close election.

[ismnotwasm]

82. Doubtful

He does some good as an independent anyway by all reports.

[MineralMan]

84. Yup. He's been a great Senator.

BTW, I love your new sig line image. Using a sword as a mirror is a very dramatic image of unexpected power.

[ismnotwasm]

104. And she's surrounded by enemies!

[MineralMan]

108. Well, pivoting and striking is the answer, then.

Anyhow, I've been meaning to comment on that GIF for some time. You always have the coolest signature line graphics, I think.

[floriduck]

88. I thought you were busy helping Democrats get elected and didn't have much time to spend here.

Yet you decide to stir the pot once again by bringing up the runner up. Now tell me why you care what Mr. Sanders does going forward? How will that improve your life, Hillary's life or the lives of DU members and other Democrats?

MM, you have a way of disrupting a more calm site. And you couldn't wait for the primaries to end so the Berners would go away or calm down. Your stirring is not calming me down now, sir

[Her Sister]

94. Oh goodness! You're overeacting! I just read the OP and the writer could've not been any nicer

or tried to be more respectful!

Geesh!

Peace, person!

[floriduck]

97. Share with me the value of predicting Bernie's actions in the middle of a Hillary Clinton GE

campaign? He has stated his primary objective was to help Democrats get elected. How does this OP relate to that?

Yes, I'm touchy on this topic when the someone states one thing and does the opposite.
Sorry if that offends you.

[Her Sister]

101. Well, personally, it's not that important to me if he does or not.

But still think you are jumping off a cliff with your reaction to the OP. Made me chuckle at you, sorry to say that.

People can say one thing, but their actions could be screaming something else!

[floriduck]

102. If I made you chuckle, then I added some value. Thanks. ;-)

[Her Sister]

103. Now you did!

[MineralMan]

98. Indeed I am doing that, as always.

What Bernie Sanders does may well have an impact, still, in the 2016 election. Hence my interest in what he will decide.

You appear to have read something into my OP that was not intended. I thought I was pretty clear. It would materially help elect Hillary Clinton if Bernie Sanders enthusiastically endorsed her and stayed in the Democratic Party, I think. Will he do those things? That was my question.

Rather than try to answer it, you assumed that I was attacking Senator Sanders. I was not, and did not attack him in any way. I asked a question that I thought was relevant to helping elect Democrats. No disruption was intended. Just the opposite, in fact.

[floriduck]

100. Then I guess I did misread it. I don't expect him to endorse since they differ on important issues.

But he said he would help defeat Trump. And I know he will do that.

[MineralMan]

107. Electing Hillary is how Trump will be defeated.

It's pretty simple, really. In fact, that is the only way he can be defeated. Now, I believe that Clinton will win, whether or not Bernie Sanders issues a strong endorsement. As I said, his declaration of intention to vote for her is endorsement enough for me. However, I do not just want her to win; I want her to win in an overwhelming landslide that also creates a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and possibly even a majority in the House. Both goals are achievable if there is a landslide Democratic win.

A strong, enthusiastic endorsement by Sanders could help with that, if it energized the vast majority of Sanders supporters and got them to the polls. There is much more at stake than just the White House, to be quite frank. Progressive actions depend heavily on Congressional action. They always have.

So, if I'm impatient to have Sanders get solidly behind Hillary's campaign, that is why. I do not know what he will do, frankly. I remain hopeful, though.

My only priority is, and always has been, to turn our federal and state governments into Democratic strongholds. With the Trump candidacy, we have a unique opportunity to do so. His candidacy is very, very likely to suppress Republican turnout. If we fail to take advantage of that, it will be a wasted opportunity.

So, any help Senator Sanders can lend to a landslide victory and the down-ticket gains will be appreciated. He makes his own decisions. I hope he makes the decision to help move the nation forward. That's what I hope. By becoming a Democrat officially and endorsing the Democratic nominee enthusiastically, he could help with that goal.

That's why I work to get Democrats elected to every possible office. Every year. Every election. Real progress depends on the makeup of all branches of government, not just the presidency. That's the fundamental thing that never changes.

[MyNameGoesHere]

96. Remain a Democrat?

I am not even sure what that means.

[Android3.14]

105. Of course he will, but the real question is whether Hillary will

Cue the pivot to the right.

[lovemydog]

110. That's right about where I'm at on all this, MM.

I don't really care too much what he does, so long as he doesn't actively campaign against Clinton. I respect him that he kept his word that he wouldn't be a spoiler to help elect a republican. He certainly has a strong audience who enjoy hearing what he has to say. I think he ran a pretty good campaign. If it gets more people engaged and voting, and especially more involved locally, then that's great. I appreciate that he stated he will vote for Clinton in November. I don't expect much more than that from him. He's always been fiercely independent and I think he'll continue being that in the Senate. Regardless of whether he's a democrat or an independent who caucuses with democrats.