The DNC feels Sanders qualifies to be a Democratic candidate for president.

[thesquanderer]

That should be the end of it. Why do any people here feel that candidates need to pass a purity test more strict than the party itself cares about? Even the Democratic Party does not have the kind of "blind loyalty to a word" that some folks here in the bleachers have. What matters is the positions a candidate has, and his or her ability to beat Trump. If the DNC feels someone can run as a Dem, that's good enough for me.


(I am deciding between Warren and Sanders, and will add Brown to the mix if he officially declares.)

[Tiggeroshii]

1. brown!!

oh how that will complicate things for me if he does...

[jodymarie aimee]

2. I posted this early today...and crickets....

DU: you teach me something everyday, you put your terrific minds around me in a mental hug...

My feelings for DU are superlatives...I believe the majority of us are exceedingly well informed, intellectually curious, brilliant, open minded, inclusive, generous.....all in all just swell folks. And it is an honor to be among you...you teach me something everyday, you make me laugh when I need it, you put your terrific minds around me in a mental hug, you are truly my brothers and sisters.

So I want to say when the tiny rabid minority of us gets all mobby and attacks one person and DEMANDS we all do likewise, and hate that target it is shameful. This behavior is not democratic, it is not even adult, it is not us. Stop it, I implore you.

[mac56]

37. THIS

[samnsara]

3. i sure hope the DNC requires tax returns for any candidate to be considered

[HopeAgain]

76. New Jersey is trying to pass a law on this

for any candidate to appear on their ballot. I hope it passes.

[Trumpocalypse]

4. Not yet

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/19/politics/dnc-candidate-affirmation/index.html

[Cha]

5. Yeah, so where does the OP get

his information from?

[sheshe2]

8. Good question, Cha.

[thesquanderer]

18. See post #15

post #15

[MrsCoffee]

14. .

[thesquanderer]

17. See post #15

post #15

[thesquanderer]

16. See post #15

post #15

[Autumn]

20. So none of our candidates have signed the affirmation oath yet.

They will meet next week with the the 2020 campaigns hand to hand out forms for the candidates to sign and certify they will run and serve as members of the Democratic Party.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

6. Where did the DNC say that Sanders qualifies to run as a Democrat?

There is a requirement of a written declaration that one is a Democrat to qualify.

The requirement is that the declaration must be made when one declares as a candidate. That time has passed.

Did he make the declaration that he's a member of the party? If not, he's disqualified under the rules as I understand them.

[unc70]

9. A little soon to be making pronouncements

Maybe hang around DU for a few days before deciding who DU or the DNC accept as candidates. Bernie is explicitly included by the DU TOS. That makes it a moot point around here.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

10. The rules say there should be a signed affirmation on announcement.

No declaration!

How can he run under DNC rules?!

Maybe the DNC will allow BS a "tardy?"

[Autumn]

19. They made the rule. Do you know that he hasn't signed it? Or are you just assuming he hasn't?

[George II]

58. He didn't publicly affirm that he is a Democrat when he announced on Tue as is required by the rule.

[Maven]

11. Do you have a link to confirm that? nt

[thesquanderer]

15. Link here...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/20/politics/bernie-sanders-sign-dnc-affirmation-run-as-democrat/index.html

But we knew the DNC would be fine with him. Yes, they added a form to sign. This was based on a rule from August, so obviously, Sanders knew he'd have to comply, and it would have made no sense for him to enter the race without the intent to comply. So the acknowledgement by the DNC that he was a viable candidate for the Dem nomination was never in doubt.

The DNC had no issue with his running in 2016. Dems in congress give him prestigious committee positions. The fact is, the party is just fine with his credentials.

[Skidmore]

21. I don't believe a word

he says on this after the shell game he pulled in 2016. He's sneaky and dishonest.

[thesquanderer]

22. What shell game? What was sneaky/dishonest? (n/t)

[shanny]

79. crickets

[SidDithers]

31. +1...nt

Sid

[Gothmog]

12. Here are the rules and the oath

This is the actual rule that governs whether sanders can run as a member of the Democratic party https://www.thegreenpapers.com/P20/2019-01-03-2020_Call_for_the_Convention_12.21.18_w-attachments.pdf

The term “presidential candidate” herein shall mean any person who, as determined by the National Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee, has accrued delegates in the nominating process and plans to seek the nomination, has established substantial support for their nomination as the Democratic candidate for the Office of the President of the United States, is a bona fide Democrat whose record of public service, accomplishment, public writings and/or public statements affirmatively demonstrates that the candidate is faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States, and will participate in the Convention in good faith. At the time a presidential candidate announces their candidacy publicly, they must publicly affirm that they are a Democrat. Each candidate pursuing the Democratic nomination shall affirm, in writing, to the National Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee that they:

A. are a member of the Democratic Party;

B. will accept the Democratic nomination; and

C. will run and serve as a member of the Democratic Party.

This requirement of written affirmation shall not supplant any necessary qualifications a candidate must satisfy at the state level, but is in addition to such affirmations required by individual states and territories. The written affirmation shall be done via an approved format by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee appended to this Call

There is an oath that sanders and other candidates will have to take
https://www.thegreenpapers.com/P20/2019-01-03-2020_Call_for_the_Convention_12.21.18_w-attachments.pdf

Presidential Candidate Written Affirmation

Pursuant to Article IV of the Call for the 2020 Democratic National Convention, I hereby affirm that, upon publicly announcing my candidacy for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States in the 2020 election, I am a member of the Democratic Party. I will run as a Democrat, accept the nomination of my Party, and I will serve as a Democrat if elected. I understand that signing this form does not supplant any legal or Party requirement by any state or territory to qualify for ballot placement in that jurisdiction.

Further, I acknowledge that in submitting this form to the National Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee, I am subject to the provisions of Rule 13.K of the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2020 Democratic National Convention and Article VI of the Call for the 2020 Democratic National Convention that authorize the National Chairperson to determine whether a presidential candidate has established substantial support for their nomination as the Democratic candidate for the Office of the President of the United States, is a bona fide Democrat whose record of public service, accomplishments, public writings and/or public statements affirmatively demonstrate that the candidate is faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States, and will participate in the Convention in good faith.
___________________

NOTARY AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF ______________
COUNTY OF _______________
I, ____________________________________, a Notary Public, do hereby certify that on this ____day of ___________________, 20____, personally appeared before me ______________________________, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and swore and acknowledged to me that they executed the same for the purpose and in the capacity therein expressed, and that the statements contained therein are true and correct. _______________________________________________ Notary Public, State of __________________ Name, Typed or Printed: __________________________________________ My Commission Expires: ___________________________

Has sanders signed this oath?

[Shemp Howard]

13. OK. But that doesn't matter to me.

I'm happy to hear that the DNC has accepted Bernie. But I am a bottom-up kind of person. I think that registered Democrats should vote to decide who is, and who isn't, a Democrat. It shouldn't be left to party bureaucrats.

If Bernie is not a true Democrat (whatever that means), then Democrat voters will not allow him to advance in the primaries. It's just that simple.

[ehrnst]

24. We don't have elections to decide which party a candiate is in...

The candidate must declare prior to elections, which is when voters come in.

[leftynyc]

23. I don't give a fuck what the DNC says

about it. I know how I feel about his using my party for his own ego and then crapping all over it again. No thanks.

[thesquanderer]

25. It's not your party. It's theirs. They make the rules. They determine who can run as a D.

All this other talk here reminds me of sports fans who think they know better than the team's players/managers/owners. I understand, people can get psychically invested in the teams/parties they support. But the people in charge have to look at a bigger picture than simply making people feel good about being part of some club. They need to accomplish things. They need to win. And they make their decisions accordingly. And if we want to really support the greater goals of the Dem party, I don't think we should really aspire to be this guy...

[leftynyc]

27. Uh - no

It's not THEIR party. It's the party of all of us who have raised money, voted in every election, kept myself informed and I don't give a fuck what the DNC has to say about anything. We have MANY good DEMOCRATS running and hopefully Bernie will be a footnote soon enough.

[thesquanderer]

32. You can support the Mets, buy tickets to the games, follow their moves...

...you still have no say in their operation. And if they want to acquire an available Yankee, they will acquire a Yankee, no matter what the fans think about it. And if they win with that Yankee, all will be forgiven.

[leftynyc]

33. LMAO

Let me know when we forgo primaries and actual voting and the DNC picks our candidate and not the voters. Bernie would get his butt handed to him.

[thesquanderer]

34. But through its rules, the DNC does in effect pre-screen who we're actually ALLOWED to vote for.

And if the Super Delegate system hadn't taken even THAT much control out of the hands of the voters, Hillary may not have won the nomination in 2016.

They own the bat and the ball. We are allowed to have our say only to the extent that they permit it. Heck, for over 100 years, the Dem party did indeed pick its candidates with no primaries at all.

If the Mets wanted to let their fans choose which of two prospects they would sign, they have that prerogative. But ultimately, it's their choice as to how much control they're willing to concede. They own the bats and balls.

[leftynyc]

35. You're ALLOWED to vote for anyone you choose

They only have an effect on who runs AS A DEMOCRAT. And thankfully they've largely done away with the caucus system which was highly undemocratic and the only reason Bernie was in the race as long as he was.

[thesquanderer]

38. e: "They only have an effect on who runs AS A DEMOCRAT"

But that's the point, that's exactly what we're talking about. THEY determine who can and who cannot be on the ballot as a Democrat! Therefore, again, through its rules, the DNC does in effect pre-screen who we're actually ALLOWED to vote for, (in the Democratic primary, which is the context of this entire conversation).

Okay, not counting write-ins. But realistically, if you're not on the ballot, you have no chance of winning. So again, it's under their control.

[ehrnst]

41. Not having 300+ candidates on the POTUS primary ballot is a good thing.

You think?

And yes, I want someone who is vetted. Thoroughly vetted, like Hillary was.

I want 10 years of tax returns, and if I had my way, the candidate would need to have run for office for the last 10 years as a Democrat.

[Eliot Rosewater]

45. I wish I understood how it works, ATTACKING the DNC and bringing up supers and 2016

yet there it is.

If I didnt have to follow that rule I could go on for WEEKS about what we better not repeat.

[thesquanderer]

54. For clarity, who do you think is attacking the DNC?

If you think I am, you have misinterpreted the intent of my posts.

[lapucelle]

59. "We are allowed to have our say only to the extent that they permit it"

"...through its rules, the DNC does in effect pre-screen who we're actually ALLOWED to vote for"

That isn't true.

Find out if your state allows write in candidates. If it does, then write in the name of the person you want.

If your state does not allow write-in candidates, work hard and get the law changed.

Distorting the actual situation in a way that allows the DNC to be blamed might be construed as misleading.

[thesquanderer]

60. Of course you can write someone in.

But as I said in another post, realistically, if you're not on the ballot, you have no chance of winning. So for all intents and purposes, the list of viable candidates you can vote for is controlled by the DNC.

And that's not intended as a criticism of the DNC.

[lapucelle]

61. FDR won the New Jersey presidential primary as a write-in, as did LBJ in New Hampshire.

Lisa Murkowski defeated both a Democrat and a Republican as a write-in candidate.

Vermont's only congressman is currently serving after winning his election as a write-in as well, which obviates the claim that, "realistically, if you're not on the ballot, you have no chance of winning".

I'm not the one who brought up the DNC in the context of "pre-screening who we are allowed to vote for". In general, people who do not intend to imply criticism should be careful about how they frame their narratives.

[thesquanderer]

63. My OP was in SUPPORT of the DNC.

It is THEIR JOB to pre-screen who we can vote for (i.e. make sure they meet certain qualifications).

And as I said about the DNC in post #25, "the people in charge have to look at a bigger picture than simply making people feel good about being part of some club. They need to accomplish things. They need to win." This is not a criticism!

My point was, if they say Bernie meets the qualifications, that's good enough for him to be on the ballot. And if they say no, that's fine too. But the belly-aching around here that he shouldn't be allowed to run because he's not a Dem is ridiculous, IMO. Also please see my post 62 which spells this out more clearly.

And do you seriously think anyone has ANY chance of becoming the Democratic nominee based on a 50-state write-in strategy and not being on the ballot? Come on.

[thesquanderer]

48. You seem to think I was arguing against the DNC. I was not.

And if the DNC wants to implement your suggested rules (10 years of tax return, 10 years of running for office s a Dem), they are free to do so. Though that second requirement might have prevented Obama from running, since when he declared, I think he had not yet run for office for 10 years.

[ehrnst]

36. No, anyone can be a write-in candidate.

And if you give everyone on the bus a brake, the bus wouldn't go anywhere. If every single Democrat was given a say on who is the POTUS primary ballot, there would be hundreds, if not thousands....

If a candidate isn't the choice of the majority of Democrats, they don't get the nomination. Getting on the ballot is, and should be, difficult.

See also: Trump.

And Superdelegates have nothing to do with who gets on the primary ballot. Where did you get that?

[thesquanderer]

44. I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.

I was not suggesting that every single Dem should have a say on who is on the ballot. In fact, my argument is the exact opposite... that the DNC has that say. And if they say someone qualifies, they qualify. And if they say someone doesn't qualify, they don't. Some folks here in the bleachers are moaning that Sanders should not qualify because he's not a Dem. Well, whether or not he qualifies is up to the DNC. And if the DNC determines he meets their qualifications and lets him on the ballot, then he belongs on the ballot. And if someone here doesn't like it, they don't have to vote for him. That's the piece of it that is actually your decision to make. It's not up to anyone here to determine what options the rest of us have. That's up to the DNC.

I didn't say anything about Super Delegates determining who is on the ballot, I don't know where that came from.

The DNC can make the rules about who is and who isn't on the ballot. They can make rules that reduce the impact of the popular vote on determining who gets the nomination (which is what the Super Delegate system did). They can give the individual voter as much or as little power as they choose.

[ehrnst]

46. How does the Superdelegate system "reduce the impact of the popular vote?"

And I was referring to this statement you made:

34. But through its rules, the DNC does in effect pre-screen who we're actually ALLOWED to vote for.

And if the Super Delegate system hadn't taken even THAT much control out of the hands of the voters, Hillary may not have won the nomination in 2016.

[thesquanderer]

49. The Super Delegate system can reduces the impact of the popular vote...

...because it gives a candidate additional delegates that have nothing to do with how anyone voted in the primaries.

[ehrnst]

74. Still not seeing how that impacts the popular vote.

Can you explain how that is?

[thesquanderer]

87. okay...

The reason super delegates can reduce the relevance of the popular vote (that is, the votes of people who had voted in the primaries) is that they allow someone to win the nomination even if they won fewer pledged delegates from the primaries.

Example: To keep the math simple, let's say there are 400 super delegates, and you need 2000 delegates to get the nomination, and the two top contenders arrive at the convention with 1900 and 1800 delegates. If 300 super delegates go for the candidate who came in with 1800 (hence giving that candidate 2100), and the other 100 go to the candidate who came in with 1900 (giving that candidate 2000), then the candidate who came in with less primary-voter support becomes the nominee. (I know it's not that simple, because you also get into caucuses, and the fact that voters-represented-per-delegate is not a constant across states, but I'm just illustrating the concept.)

[George II]

57. Why are we discussing the 2016 nomination now?

[Gothmog]

86. The new rules were adopted for a reason

These new rules were adopted for a reason https://medium.com/@blairdurkee/scorched-earth-politics-bernie-sanders-and-the-dishonest-campaign-that-gave-us-trump-eb0bc82ab2c1

When rumors of his candidacy began to spread in early 2015, some discussion took place over whether Sanders could even run as a Democrat. As it turned out, there was no rule that required Democratic candidates to be registered with the party. He could run as a Democrat and maintain his affiliation as an Independent at the same time. But it wasn’t the rules that made his decision a curiosity. It was his long and well-documented history of spurning and castigating the Democratic Party. He had run against Democrats in his home state of Vermont and very openly expressed his disgust with the party, going so far as to call it “ideologically bankrupt.” He often affirmed his belief that “you don’t change the system from within the Democratic Party” and, in 1990, even declared that it would be “hypocritical” for him to run as a Democrat based on the things he had said.

The DNC had to add new rules and a new oath to deal with this issue. I really like the new oath that is now required which was not required earlier T
https://www.thegreenpapers.com/P20/2019-01-03-2020_Call_for_the_Convention_12.21.18_w-attachments.pdf

Presidential Candidate Written Affirmation

Pursuant to Article IV of the Call for the 2020 Democratic National Convention, I hereby affirm that, upon publicly announcing my candidacy for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States in the 2020 election, I am a member of the Democratic Party. I will run as a Democrat, accept the nomination of my Party, and I will serve as a Democrat if elected. I understand that signing this form does not supplant any legal or Party requirement by any state or territory to qualify for ballot placement in that jurisdiction.

Further, I acknowledge that in submitting this form to the National Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee, I am subject to the provisions of Rule 13.K of the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2020 Democratic National Convention and Article VI of the Call for the 2020 Democratic National Convention that authorize the National Chairperson to determine whether a presidential candidate has established substantial support for their nomination as the Democratic candidate for the Office of the President of the United States, is a bona fide Democrat whose record of public service, accomplishments, public writings and/or public statements affirmatively demonstrate that the candidate is faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States, and will participate in the Convention in good faith.
___________________

NOTARY AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF ______________
COUNTY OF _______________
I, ____________________________________, a Notary Public, do hereby certify that on this ____day of ___________________, 20____, personally appeared before me ______________________________, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and swore and acknowledged to me that they executed the same for the purpose and in the capacity therein expressed, and that the statements contained therein are true and correct. _______________________________________________ Notary Public, State of __________________ Name, Typed or Printed: __________________________________________ My Commission Expires: ___________________________

[George II]

56. The Mets don't represent us in Washington nor will they vie for the Presidency.

[thesquanderer]

62. I thought an analogy may help make the point clearer, that's all.

Analogies are never perfect.

But essentially, I am ok with the DNC running their organization, as I am ok with the Mets running their organization. It is up to them, not to us in the bleachers, to make the decisions for their organization.

If you don't think the DNC is doing the right thing, that's your prerogative, of course. All of us probably sometimes agree with their decisions and sometimes disagree. But ultimately, these things are their decisions.

My main point remains... once Bernie signs the form... the DNC is fine with his running as a Dem, just as they were fine with his running as a Dem last time, just as all the Dems in Congress are fine with giving him good committee assignments, just as the Dem party does not "primary" him or run against him in his local races. He represents traditional Democratic values better than some red-state Dems do. Skinner lists him in the TOS as someone people here are not allowed to bad-mouth (good luck with that). The only people who have a problem with Bernie running as a Dem are out in the bleachers, not the folks actually dealing with these things as real issues.

Sure, there are reasons one might not support Bernie. Maybe you find his positions too extreme, maybe you don't like that he ran against Hillary, maybe you think he's too old, whatever. But to complain that he isn't a Dem when the Dem party itself has shown over and over again that they are fine with it seems to me like about the weakest possible argument.

[George II]

64. I used a sports analogy back during the Convention, too - my analogy was.....

....that the Commissioner of the NFL doesn't tell MLB how to adjust their rules or play their games.

Because of what happened shortly before, during, and after the 2016 Convention and the lukewarm campaigning for Clinton in the fall, many Democrats are skeptical of what he says and how he follows that up.

Just to hit a few bullet points:

- A day or two before the Convention, even though Sanders had already "endorsed" Clinton, Jeff Weaver was still saying "we're going to win this on the floor"

- During the Convention Sanders' delegates did what they could to disrupt the proceedings, and we all know that civil rights icon John Lewis was booed outside the Convention hall and while he was speaking from the podium. Nothing was done to control it

- After the Convention closed, it was about five weeks before he made an appearance on behalf of Clinton (it was ~ Labor Day weekend, the convention ended in late July) and he made very few significant campaign appearances on behalf of Clinton

So, with just this you can understand why so many Democrats are skeptical of his sincerity. As the saying goes, "the proof is in the pudding".

[thesquanderer]

65. Well at least those reasons to dislike Sanders aren't "he's not a Dem." So thanks for that.

That said, Weaver is not Sanders. Sanders' supporters and delegates are not Sanders. Sanders did not control the security outside the Convention hall. Some individuals can get carried away in their enthusiasm.

The only point you made there that I find worth consideration is about the timing/amount of his campaigning for Clinton... and before I'd judge that, I'd want to know about any conversations they had about it. If Hillary wanted more support and he declined to provide it, I'd agree with you. But do we know that's the case?

[George II]

66. Jeff Weaver was his campaign manager, the top spokesperson for him and the campaign....

I seriously doubt he would have said anything that wasn't cleared beforehand.

Campaigns / delegations have whips who are there to control the behavior of the delegates. Booing someone like John Lewis isn't "enthusiasm", it's essentially the reverse of enthusiasm. Nothing appeared to have been done to control them.

As for the campaign itself, contrast his participation with Clinton's in 2008. After taking a day or two off after that Convention, Hillary Clinton joined Obama on a bus tour and spent several days campaigning with him. She enthusiastically campaigned for Obama throughout the fall (although Bill was conspicuously absent for some reason)

[thesquanderer]

68. That's a lot of conjecture.

first point, "seriously doubt" is conjecture... and IIRC, there had been other instances of Weaver saying something that wasn't quite what the campaign wanted.

second point, how much info do you have about Bernie's whips, how many there were, where they were located, what they were authorized to do if people misbehaved, whether or not they actually attempted to do anything... conjecture. As is your statement about how it "appeared" since things are not always as they appear.

Third point: Contrasting with Hillary in 2008 is irrelevant. I assume she did what Obama wanted her to do. My question is, what did Hillary want Bernie to do, and do we have any evidence that he didn't do as much as she wanted? Unless that's in her book, we don't know. So really, more conjecture, I think.

[LongtimeAZDem]

28. So, if the DNC chair says that Sanders does not qualify, you'll accept that? Good to know

Article VI of the Call for the 2020 Democratic National Convention that authorize the National Chairperson to determine whether a presidential candidate has established substantial support for their nomination as the Democratic candidate for the Office of the President of the United States, is a bona fide Democrat whose record of public service, accomplishments, public writings and/or public statements affirmatively demonstrate that the candidate is faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States, and will participate in the Convention in good faith.

[thesquanderer]

30. re: "So, if the DNC chair says that Sanders does not qualify, you'll accept that?"

Of course, absolutely, no question!

[Amimnoch]

39. +100

The DNC may get to determine that he can run in our party's primary, but I get to determine if I will consider his fair-weather wearing of my party's name when it comes time to cast my ballot, and I refuse to ever accept him as a member of the Democratic Party, and after his behavior in 2016 he will NEVER be worthy of my vote.. period.


NEVER BS.

[lapucelle]

78. BS alone determines whether he gets to run...by choosing whether or not to follow the rules

his representatives at the DNC had a large part in negotiating and crafting in June 2018 and then voted on, ratified, and adopted last August.

His representatives came out of those meeting triumphant that they had gotten the rule changes they fought so hard for. They loved the new rules!

I don't want his campaign or his supporters blaming the DNC for "their rules" if BS chooses not to follow them.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

82. I do! DNC makes the rules and as long as Bernie follows them, that should end the conversation.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!

[lancelyons]

26. I dont have a problem with Sanders IF

I dont have a problem with Bernie. He talks about things that we are interested in and have in common.

The problem I have is the divisiveness coming from his camp.

His camp says they will not share names, etc of donors but want the Democratic party to share their names with him.

A speaker for his campaign came out and said NO they will not share their lists.

This burns Democrats like myself. His supporters seem to like to throw around his name all the time and in peoples faces while they will also disparage other Dem candidates.

If this stuff is smoothed out and he becomes a team player for both sides benefit then we are OK.

[magicarpet]

29. Force Bernie to run as a third party candidate,...

.... split the Demo vote,... team trDump will thank us profusely for his second term.

[Amimnoch]

40. yeah, like that didn't already happen.

He didn't run third party, but it was called "Bernie or Bust", and effectively it already happened. NEVER BS!

[CrossingTheRubicon]

53. Exactly!

[thesquanderer]

85. "Bernie or Buster"ers did not cost Hillary the election...

...because these are people who weren't going to vote for Hillary anyway. In the list of top reasons Trump won, bernie isn't on the list. (Comey, for example?)

[backscatter712]

42. I'm fine with letting Bernie run under the same rules as everyone else in this race.

He can win or lose on his own merits.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

83. Exactly!! How can this possibly be a problem for some people?!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!

[Blue_Tires]

43. Wow... A Sanders fan accusing *ME* of ideological puritanism?

This is going to be one long-assed primary season, isn't it?

I'd take the time to address your strawman questions (as I have in other threads) but it's not like you'd read them or give a shit anyways so why bother?

[Eliot Rosewater]

47. There is a REASON

The INSTANT he announced THOUSANDS of social media stuff happened

didnt it

[Blue_Tires]

50. +1

[thesquanderer]

52. Your post says it was in response to me, but it wasn't, was it? (n/t)

[Me.]

51. They'll Feel He Qualifies If He Signs The Form

And this 'purity' business is just nonsense. If he doesn't want to be a Dem, fine. But then why should the Dems want him to represent their party? And most don't, else he would've won the primary last time.

[standingtall]

55. A bit more complicated than to say Democrats dont have a blind loyalty to a word

They probably will make an exception allow him run in the primary again and they should, but not because they find it is acceptable that a candidate or our parties nomination, but because if they don't allow him to he might run as 3rd party candidate in the general.

[lapucelle]

67. The DNC has a codified set of rules for anyone who wants to run for the nomination.

It's not about what the DNC "feels". Whether or not he will actually qualify under DNC rules is unknown by the public.

The question that many informed people have at this point is whether or not BS has affirmed in writing that he is a member of the Democratic Party. All candidates are required to submit a written affirmation at the time of their announcement.

Page 9, Article VI.

https://www.demrulz.org/wp-content/files/2020_Call_for_the_Convention_12.21.18_w-attachments.pdf

[thesquanderer]

69. replace "feels" with "believes"- whatever. The point is IT'S UP TO THEM.

Sanders has already said he will sign the form. (Whether any other candidate already has, I don't know.)

It is up to the DNC to determine who qualifies. If he's "enough" of a Dem for the DNC (and enough of a Dem for committee assignments and the rest of what I spoke about in post 62), I think it's silly to say (to use a Sanders catch phrase) "not good enough!" Sure, don't vote for him if you don't like him, but he has every right to run if the party approves.

[lapucelle]

70. The DNC will follow the rules that they voted on, ratified, and adopted in August 2018.

It has nothing to do with what they believe or feel.

The rules determine who qualifies. In effect, it's entirely in the candidate's hands. It has nothing to do with anyone's subjective measure of being "enough of a Democrat".

Each candidate pursuing the Democratic nomination shall affirm, in writing, to the National Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee that they:

A. are a member of the Democratic Party;

B. will accept the Democratic nomination;and

C. will run and serve as a member of the Democratic Party.

I'm not sure why, but this time around, the DNC wants the promises in writing.

[thesquanderer]

71. Believe, feel, think, determine, conclude, decide.

In everyday speak, these words are largely interchangeable. Did you really not understand what I meant? Then pick one of the others from that list. We don't disagree here. You're just arguing my choice of word. Again the point is, IT'S UP TO THE DNC. They make the rules as to what qualifies someone to run for President as a Democrat, and they will see whether someone has met those necessary qualifications. If they do, they are entitled to be a Democratic candidate. (Even if some people here don't like the guy and feel he isn't "enough" of a Dem.)

[lapucelle]

72. The point is that the general public doesn't yet know if BS has qualified or will qualify

by signing the written affirmation.

I do know exactly what you mean, and your headline is inaccurate. We know nothing about the DNC's take on his announcement.

BS has not publicly affirmed that he is a member of the Democratic Party, and the DNC has not publicly announced that he has met that threshold.

It will be interesting to see how this develops.

[apnu]

73. My opinion is a Democrat is one who's in the party 100% of the time

In the trenches, doing the tedious work of the party. Being on committees, helping steer things, donations, phone banking -- all of it.

Its not Bernie's politics or policies I disagree with its his contempt for the party until it suits him to be a Democrat.

[LongtimeAZDem]

77. +1

[Adrahil]

75. Well gee... I guess if THEY feel that way, I'd better be quiet!

Nice try. I get to express my opinion that NO, that NON-DEMOCRAT should NOT be eligible for the nomination.

[thesquanderer]

81. Sure, you're entitled to your opinion...

...but in this case, it's not shared by those actually in the trenches. Please see post62

[Adrahil]

84. We are either a party or we are not.

I think there is a very good chance that the BS of BS sinks us in 2020.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

80. Close call between Bernie and Elizabeth... they're BOTH great!!

So, I just hope they're both on the ticket. I'll take 'em in either order, but for now its:
Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!