Dem Leadership Against Bernie again, already

[Kulindahr]

"The big Dem donors are not worried he’s going to lose the general election, they’re worried he’s going to win.”

This is ludicrous: they're obviously not democrats; in fact they resemble Mexico's PRI (Partido Revolucionario Institucional), aiming for leaders not because they will benefit the country or the people, but because they will benefit the party elite.

I may register Democrat for the primary just to vote for Bernie precisely because the elite don't want him.

 

[TX-Beau]

Bernie isn't a Democrat and never has been why is he entitled to be the candidate for the Democratic party?

If Bernie supporters hate the Dems so much where is the Bernie Party? Why do they insist the Dems MUST appoint him? If Bernie wants to be the Democratic candidate so badly WHY does he refuse to join the party?

The Dems ARE obviously Dems, it's Bernie who's not.

I wasn't wild about Hillary and voted for Bernie, but I don't have to do that this time. there are plenty of actual Democrats to choose from, and the Berniebros were so poisonous last time around, he'd tainted for a lot of us.

 

[Alnitak]

"The big Dem donors are not worried he’s going to lose the general election, they’re worried he’s going to win.”

This is ludicrous: they're obviously not democrats; in fact they resemble Mexico's PRI (Partido Revolucionario Institucional), aiming for leaders not because they will benefit the country or the people, but because they will benefit the party elite.

I may register Democrat for the primary just to vote for Bernie precisely because the elite don't want him.

Our electoral system guarantees two elite parties.

Bernie Sanders had to become a Democrat just to get enough attention. That's unfortunate, and doesn't happen in other countries.

 

[TX-Beau]

Bernie has not become a Democrat. If he wants the support of the party, that is step 1.

 

[Alnitak]

Bernie has not become a Democrat. If he wants the support of the party, that is step 1.

It's true there is no party membership in the United States.

 

[TX-Beau]

It's true there is no party membership in the United States.

Actually there is party membership in the US, it's why Bernie's name has an (I) after it.

Democrats need new blood, not Bernie, not Warren, and definitely not Biden. The field is huge and a bunch of them are eminently qualified without the baggage of the past. Bernie failed to get the establishment support, and he failed to get the most votes last time. against someone as unpopular as Hillary, how exactly is he going to do against people who don't have her negatives.

 

[Alnitak]

Actually there is party membership in the US, it's why Bernie's name has an (I) after it.

Democrats need new blood, not Bernie, not Warren, and definitely not Biden. The field is huge and a bunch of them are eminently qualified without the baggage of the past. Bernie failed to get the establishment support, and he failed to get the most votes last time. against someone as unpopular as Hillary, how exactly is he going to do against people who don't have her negatives.

Show me the membership application and member ID numbers. You won't find them.

There is party registration, but no membership in this country.

 

[TX-Beau]

Show me the membership application and member ID numbers. You won't find them.

There is party registration, but no membership in this country.

That is semantic hair splitting, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

I suggest Bernie start here:

https://www.wikihow.com/Become-a-Registered-Democrat

 

[Alnitak]

That is semantic hair splitting, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

I suggest Bernie start here:

https://www.wikihow.com/Become-a-Registered-Democrat

Exactly why the difference is important explains why Bernie Sanders relied upon rising through the Democratic primary process.

If it were to the advantage of the two elite parties to require paid and selective membership, they would do it.

 

[mikey3000]

Why the heck would one want to register in a party? It's none of anyone's business who I vote for.

 

[MystikWizard]

"The big Dem donors are not worried he’s going to lose the general election, they’re worried he’s going to win.”

This is ludicrous: they're obviously not democrats; in fact they resemble Mexico's PRI (Partido Revolucionario Institucional), aiming for leaders not because they will benefit the country or the people, but because they will benefit the party elite.

I may register Democrat for the primary just to vote for Bernie precisely because the elite don't want him.

I changed my affiliation from Independent back to Democrat just to vote for him in the Primaries. My state requires you to be of the party affiliation to vote in the Primaries. Will be going back to Independent once the Primaries are over.

 

[CoolBlue71]

"The big Dem donors are not worried he’s going to lose the general election, they’re worried he’s going to win.”

This is ludicrous: they're obviously not democrats; in fact they resemble Mexico's PRI (Partido Revolucionario Institucional), aiming for leaders not because they will benefit the country or the people, but because they will benefit the party elite.

I may register Democrat for the primary just to vote for Bernie precisely because the elite don't want him.

You have me thinking of this following report:

‘Stop Sanders’ Democrats Are Agonizing Over His Momentum’
By Jonathan Martin
April 16, 2019 | https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/bernie-sanders-democratic-party.html

Washington — When Leah Daughtry, a former Democratic Party official, addressed a closed-door gathering of about 100 wealthy liberal donors in San Francisco last month, all it took was a review of the 2020 primary rules to throw a scare in them.

Democrats are likely to go into their convention next summer without having settled on a presidential nominee, said Ms. Daughtry, who ran her party’s conventions in 2008 and 2016, the last two times the nomination was contested. And Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is well positioned to be one of the last candidates standing, she noted.

There is a lot more to that than what I have quoted.

What has been obvious to me, for some time, is that Democratic Party Establishment wants to control precisely who may win major-office nominations—and they want more and more corporate Democrats and little to no actually progressive Democrats—because they are motivated to generate more and more money from millionaires and billionaires to give campaign contributions. To mislead the entire party—meaning, those people who self-identify as Democratic voters who are among the have-nots—the party establishment pays lip service to opportunity and diversity but, in reality, have no intention to deliver actually progressive policies, ones truly on the left, unless their billionaire and millionaire campaign contributors allow for them to do that. That is not leadership. That is management.



Consider this recent message from President Obama (covered in plenty of videos but, of course, I will include just one):

 

[cityboy-stl]

Why the heck would one want to register in a party? It's none of anyone's business who I vote for.

It depends upon state law. We don't have party registration in Missouri. When I go to vote in a primary election I simply ask for a ballot for the party for which I want to vote. If I want to vote one party in a certain primary and a different party in another primary I can do so without changing registration. I just request whatever ballot I want at the time. You can only have a ballot for one party of course. Party registration is unfair in my opinion because it locks you into a party and requires a burdensome, paper-work, registration change if you want to vote differently. However, whether a state has party registration or not, this all only applies to primary candidate selection elections; you can vote however you want in the general elections.

 

[MystikWizard]

Principles before party.

And if the parties want to cite that the will of the voters doesn't matters and select their candidates via backroom deals, not pay any attention to their own charter rules (as Wasserman-Schultz indicated), then Independents should temporarily change their party affiliations if living in states like mine to have an influence on the outcome.

 

[offthewall14420]

Political parties are just tribalism. Bernie is consistent. He wouldn't even back his son's run for office.

The Podestas and Clinton centrists are cancerous growths on the Democratic party. They rigged the primaries against Bernie. He has no obligation to them.

 

[rareboy]

Apparently 20% of Bernie supporters have said they will vote for Trump if Buttigeig or Warren get the nomination.

People have to keep in mind. Sanders voters are not necessarily Democrat voters.

 

[Sausy]

Warren, who is the scourge of Wall Street and just came out with a major policy outlining free tuition for public community and four year colleges ISN'T sufficiently progressive? I grant Buttigieg doesn't seem to be as dedicated to waging ideological battles but he is hardly conservative...centrist in Dem politics still gets played by McConnell, Trump and the rest of the Republican crowd as loopy liberal or secretly socialist. There is a question on whether the sample was in error but if true, even if you don't like the rest of the Democratic choices to actually go out there and support Trump...fuck you, I have no use for you now that it's clear what he has done and intends to do to our institutions and to us. The most disgraceful, unpresidential piece of shit to ever occupy the office and the faster we get him out the better.

This isn't what Bernie wants, and not what the country can longer afford.

 

[opinterph]

If I want to vote one party in a certain primary and a different party in another primary I can do so without changing registration. I just request whatever ballot I want at the time.

It’s the same in my state. I wonder if the lack of party registration sometimes distorts outcomes.

On Super Tuesday 2004, all the Republicans in my district flocked to the polls to vote their support for John Kerry, who won the state with 47 percent of the vote from among the 9 Democratic Party candidates. The Republicans didn't waste their vote, because their party's ballot featured only one candidate -- the incumbent president.

 

[Alnitak]

Political parties are just tribalism. Bernie is consistent. He wouldn't even back his son's run for office.

The Podestas and Clinton centrists are cancerous growths on the Democratic party. They rigged the primaries against Bernie. He has no obligation to them.

The fact that a third party candidate has to run for nomination of a major party to have a good chance is a problem that needs to be addressed in our electoral system, but I don't see 50 years registered and 12 years dedicated public service under a Democratic ticket as a 'cancerous growth' on said party. I will also observe that nobody called Hillary a cancer or a harpy or any such names on the left until she ran for president. While secretary she was quite popular. Also, parties have no obligation to be fair or even public. They are, as you said, essentially tribal clubs and always have been, which is why Washington warned against them.

 

[CoolBlue71]

Warren, who is the scourge of Wall Street and just came out with a major policy outlining free tuition for public community and four year colleges ISN'T sufficiently progressive?

Elizabeth Warren has policy ideas which are sufficiently progressive. But, does one believe Elizabeth Warren will actually deliver? Not only that, she has been waffling on Medicare for All. Once a candidate does that, what he or she is really saying is, “I may speak of this given issue. I may, for a moment, sound like I have passion. But, I don’t have real conviction.” For that to be the case—especially given the urgency for this single payer system that is the solution (especially for people who are in debt, perhaps bankruptcy, with unaffordable medical bills)—means she is, ultimately, is not a sufficient progressive. And that is not actual leadership.

You want Donald Trump unseated. That means a Democratic pickup of the presidency. That also means requiring the Democratic “challenger” to unseat that incumbent Republican U.S. president. That is not going to happen with a “Vote Blue No Matter Who” or lip-service “progressive” candidate. That will also not happen with a party establishment-approved safe choice. (Think 1996 Bob Dole, 2004 John Kerry, and 2012 Mitt Romney.) This will happen with someone who is authentic, someone who has real convictions, someone who is convincing in showing us the U.S. needs to change direction. That includes a vision, an agenda, and that will give the voters their motivation for voting to unseat an incumbent U.S. president in favor of the opposition-party challenger.