First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last

DNC adopts rule that prevents independents from seeking party nomination

Post Reply
29795 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 6/17/18 , edited 6/17/18
In the DNC's latest middle finger to Bernie Sanders they adopted a rule that would require an individual be a democrat in order to seek the party nomination. Meaning Sanders will have to run as a independent or become a democrat.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/eye-bernie-sanders-democratic-national-committee-adopts-new-restrictions-2020-presidential-candidates-225841348.html

If democrats want to have any hope of beating Trump in 2020 they'd need to not split the vote, which is what this will do. They are their own worst enemies.
10564 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
29 / M / Enemy Territory
Offline
Posted 6/17/18 , edited 6/17/18
Bernie registered as a Democrat last time. No reason he can’t do it again.
75736 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
35 / M / Seattle
Online
Posted 6/17/18 , edited 6/17/18
I didn't realize that Bernie was an Independent, but after looking at his profile, he was only a Democrat for the duration of the presidential campaign process and after Hillary defeated him, he went back to being an independent. That was quite a kneejerk reaction there after losing to Trump for the presidency. Even though Trump has established a bad reputation as a president, the Democrats aren't exactly doing themselves any favors with this.
16315 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/17/18 , edited 6/17/18
Bernie Sanders sucked, he was just better than Hillary. Which if the Democrats do not figure out how to get some fresh leaders (younger than 70) Shumer, Pelosi, Clinton, Sanders all are like in their 80's. The republicans will crush them again. Some Democrats need to grow a pair and get out there and run for office!
16315 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/17/18 , edited 6/17/18
IF you want to vote for something that matters - I started a poll on the Anime thread - it may move to the Poll thread. But please vote for what Crunchy roll should focus on! This matters!
59839 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
60 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 6/17/18 , edited 6/17/18

MysticGon wrote:

In the DNC's latest middle finger to Bernie Sanders they adopted a rule that would require an individual be a democrat in order to seek the party nomination. Meaning Sanders will have to run as a independent or become a democrat.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/eye-bernie-sanders-democratic-national-committee-adopts-new-restrictions-2020-presidential-candidates-225841348.html

If democrats want to have any hope of beating Trump in 2020 they'd need to not split the vote, which is what this will do. They are their own worst enemies.

I'm failing to see the issue here. It's the Democratic Party, not the party of "We'll happily accept anyone who can get enough votes". Senator Sanders only joined the party the last time around because he thought he could win. When he didn't, he cheerfully ran back to being an independent. He caucuses with the Democrats on most Senate issues, but he's still an independent (much as Joe Lieberman was).

No group is going to be happy about opportunists taking advantage of lax membership rules. The rule itself is intended to remove the need for super-delegates, which were blatantly obnoxious to most of the party members.

Senator Sanders ran on a rather socialistic platform last time around (I even agreed with some of it) - which resonated with a lot of people in both positive and negative ways. He was, however, rather short on details of how to pay for his ideas, and how to avoid increasing the national debt during implementation, (This is not unusual for any campaign - they're always composed of far more promises of easy living and security than they are of the hard work required to make such things happen. What's sad is that voters fall for such promises every single time.)

It's still a long way to the next presidential campaign, and a lot can happen between the mid-term elections (which will be seen as a bellwether for both major political parties regardless of outcome) and the actual election.

To those who say the Democrats need younger folks in the wings, that's true of both parties. The problem is that in today's hyper-partisan atmosphere, you need decades of party loyalty to even think about running for higher office in most cases. While there are certainly exceptions to this, most of the challengers to incumbents or 'first time attempts' actually do have long histories with their political affiliates.
4445 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
Online
Posted 6/17/18 , edited 6/17/18

geauxtigers1989 wrote:

Bernie registered as a Democrat last time. No reason he can’t do it again.


Pretty much this.
runec 
43105 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/17/18 , edited 6/17/18

MysticGon wrote:
In the DNC's latest middle finger to Bernie Sanders they adopted a rule that would require an individual be a democrat in order to seek the party nomination. Meaning Sanders will have to run as a independent or become a democrat.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/eye-bernie-sanders-democratic-national-committee-adopts-new-restrictions-2020-presidential-candidates-225841348.html

If democrats want to have any hope of beating Trump in 2020 they'd need to not split the vote, which is what this will do. They are their own worst enemies.


I fail to see the problem here. Why is a political party wanting its nominees to actually be part of the party a bad thing? Sanders flipped to Dem to make use of their platform and infrastructure to run then bailed afterwards. Letting Sanders do that in the first place split the vote and its not like Sanders is going to have a serious run at 2020 if he runs at all.

This is also all assuming that Trump actually makes it to 2020. ;p

10564 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
29 / M / Enemy Territory
Offline
Posted 6/17/18 , edited 6/17/18

runec wrote:

I fail to see the problem here. Why is a political party wanting its nominees to actually be part of the party a bad thing? Sanders flipped to Dem to make use of their platform and infrastructure to run then bailed afterwards. Letting Sanders do that in the first place split the vote and its not like Sanders is going to have a serious run at 2020 if he runs at all.


I wouldn’t say Sanders has no chance; he’s polling second only to Biden right now (not that it means a whole lot this far out, but still...)
29795 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 6/17/18 , edited 6/17/18
Bernie and Trump define 2016. Where both parties were drifting towards the shame shade of gray ala European style politics (prior to 2016) they had strong visions that mobilized voters. Pie in the sky perhaps but it is what got people excited about the process. If it takes an independent to change and reinvigorate your platform I don't see how making barriers to them beneficial for your party. I know Bernie was written off as a joke because Hillary's nomination was a formality before he picked up steam. I think things would have gone even more in Trump's favor if Hillary cruised unchallenged to her nomination.
38563 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 6/17/18 , edited 6/17/18

MeanderCat wrote:

I'm failing to see the issue here. It's the Democratic Party, not the party of "We'll happily accept anyone who can get enough votes". Senator Sanders only joined the party the last time around because he thought he could win. When he didn't, he cheerfully ran back to being an independent. He caucuses with the Democrats on most Senate issues, but he's still an independent (much as Joe Lieberman was).

No group is going to be happy about opportunists taking advantage of lax membership rules. The rule itself is intended to remove the need for super-delegates, which were blatantly obnoxious to most of the party members.


If Sanders caucuses with Democrats on most issues, has helped raise money for and been helped in raising money by Democrats, endorsed and campaigned for a rival Democratic presidential candidate, contributed to the Democratic Party's national platform, holds a leadership position in the Democratic National Committee (even if it is an "outreach" position), claimed 22 state primaries the last time he ran for President on the Democratic ticket, is popular with a staggering simple majority of registered Democrats (including Democrats' most reliable voting bloc among Black voters) even now, and has even registered as a Democrat whenever he sought the party's nomination at any level, that's close enough to being a Democrat to be allowed to run in Presidential primaries if you ask me. Doesn't sound like an "opportunist" at all.


Senator Sanders ran on a rather socialistic platform last time around (I even agreed with some of it) - which resonated with a lot of people in both positive and negative ways. He was, however, rather short on details of how to pay for his ideas, and how to avoid increasing the national debt during implementation, (This is not unusual for any campaign - they're always composed of far more promises of easy living and security than they are of the hard work required to make such things happen. What's sad is that voters fall for such promises every single time.)


Actually, he had plans for what specific taxes, at what specific rates, and on what specific sorts of transactions and assets, to fund his proposals for things like tuition free public university and Medicare for All. He had specific legislation in mind to call upon for breaking up oversized financial institutions and specific areas of law for pursuing litigation against executives responsible for the economic crash. He had established rates for his proposed changes to federal income tax brackets, a specifically proposed corporate income tax rate, a list of which specific businesses he considered most problematic, the guy had plenty of details in his proposals.

Remember that "disastrous" interview Sanders had with the New York Daily News? That's where the idea that he didn't have specifics really started gaining steam in general discourse. Let's run through it to see if that's the case. I'll provide a shortened paraphrased summary of the questions and answers for those who can't or don't want to follow the link.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306



So apart from not knowing that subway tokens aren't a thing anymore he had pretty solid, specific answers to nearly every question, including the ones regarding how he'd break up large financial institutions (which is the part where everyone started carrying on about how he didn't have any specific ideas in the pro-Clinton press). He's right, the President wouldn't be unilaterally responsible for determining the broken up institutions' structures. They'd have to determine which assets they'd be selling to whom, which personnel would be retained and let go, how to divide executive positions between personnel who remained, where to keep branches and offices open and where to close them, that's not the President's job. It would be if Sanders were saying he wanted to nationalise the largest financial institutions in the process of downscaling them, but that's not what he proposed.

And yeah, he might have to face a rivalrous legislature. Of course he would face at least some rivalry, even from Democrats; he'd be endangering the gravy train for a lot of those politicians' paymasters. But there's one thing politicians fear more than losing their donors, and that's earning sufficient ire from their constituents to get them out of a job even if they take corporate cash. Senators and high level people in the House might be able to fall back on cushy lobbying and consulting jobs after being removed from office, but the rest have far less value to those paymasters. Sanders is absolutely right to say that with sufficient enthusiasm and a judicious use of the bully pulpit a rivalrous legislature could be forced to do things it doesn't want to do.

Finally, though Sanders called himself a socialist and I do believe he is personally one after having read "Our Revolution" since he considers expanding workplace democracy so important, the proposals he put forward for the 2016 campaign season were nothing more than milquetoast social democracy. Kinder capitalism modeled after the systems in the Nordic states. He called it socialism to grab eyeballs and draw a distinction between himself and Clinton.


It's still a long way to the next presidential campaign, and a lot can happen between the mid-term elections (which will be seen as a bellwether for both major political parties regardless of outcome) and the actual election.

To those who say the Democrats need younger folks in the wings, that's true of both parties. The problem is that in today's hyper-partisan atmosphere, you need decades of party loyalty to even think about running for higher office in most cases. While there are certainly exceptions to this, most of the challengers to incumbents or 'first time attempts' actually do have long histories with their political affiliates.


Recent polling suggests Millennials generally think very poorly of the Democratic Party at this point, and both major parties' general approval figures are abysmal. The Democrats are going to have to stand for something instead of trying to be such a big tent that they constantly contradict themselves, or else people are going to keep walking away from them. Over time they could actually risk dying as a political institution. Staying on the present course and demanding unquestioning loyalty will get them nowhere in the long run.
6370 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
F / BuBbLeS!
Offline
Posted 6/17/18 , edited 6/17/18
you know, since the democrats are struggling so bad, well the radicals aren't helping matters much, but, one would think they would almost be going out of their way not to hurt themselves even further. nuclear toxic running is only going to get them so far until even the low information voters will stop listening to them. from what I can tell Bernie and Biden are in some trouble, one is the issues with the wife (Sanders) then there's all the groping (Biden). and, thank goodness for laws, presidents can only serve 8 years total. minus that rare moment when the previous count is impeachment and by some miracle the dude gets elected again and can serve longer. I believe that happened in the past, but hasn't happened in a good long while.
19445 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 6/17/18 , edited 6/17/18
To change the 2-Party System to a Multi-Party System in the USA will require Party Fidelity, so instead of the Democratic Party you would have the Socialists and Liberals (or more). The Republicans would have to split into Fiscal-Responsible and Social-Conservative Parties (or more). Then other Parties might stand a chance, what we have are two mega-Parties sharing power in 8 to 12 year cycles.
29795 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 6/17/18 , edited 6/17/18

Jamming777 wrote:

To change the 2-Party System to a Multi-Party System in the USA will require Party Fidelity, so instead of the Democratic Party you would have the Socialists and Liberals (or more). The Republicans would have to split into Fiscal-Responsible and Social-Conservative Parties (or more). Then other Parties might stand a chance, what we have are two mega-Parties sharing power in 8 to 12 year cycles.


A-fucking-men.
runec 
43105 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/17/18 , edited 6/17/18

BlueOni wrote:
If Sanders caucuses with Democrats on most issues, has helped raise money for and been helped in raising money by Democrats, endorsed and campaigned for a rival Democratic presidential candidate, contributed to the Democratic Party's national platform, holds a leadership position in the Democratic National Committee (even if it is an "outreach" position), claimed 22 state primaries the last time he ran for President on the Democratic ticket, is popular with a staggering simple majority of registered Democrats (including Democrats' most reliable voting bloc among Black voters) even now, and has even registered as a Democrat whenever he sought the party's nomination at any level, that's close enough to being a Democrat to be allowed to run in Presidential primaries if you ask me. Doesn't sound like an "opportunist" at all.


Sanders was roundly criticized for not helping the party or down ticket Dems ( and indeed Clinton blew him out of the water in terms of fundraising for the party or down tickets in the 2016 election ). He also basically went kicking and screaming to that endorsement as he actively refused to help unite the party. Dragging things out all the way to the DNC despite having lost the primary and making a bitter divide in the party all the worse. Prior to 2016 he was largely critical of the party. He was still critical of it during and after 2016. He even sued the party over access to its voter data and only ended up revealing his campaign had indeed accessed unauthorized data on Hillary's campaign from the party. He blamed that on the party too.

As for Black voters. Hillary crushed Sanders on the Black vote. Sanders bungled handling those voting blocs on more than a few occasions during the campaign. He also pretty much gave up the black south vote. So that voting bloc is going to remember if he actually comes around knocking this time. Sanders and the black vote was probably one of his campaign's biggest missteps.

So yeah, the party never had and still doesn't have any real reason to warm up to Sanders. He gained immeasurably benefit from hopping on the train for 2016 but still complained about the service the entire ride.

His popularity or lack thereof is separate from his relationship with the party though.



geauxtigers1989 wrote:
I wouldn’t say Sanders has no chance; he’s polling second only to Biden right now (not that it means a whole lot this far out, but still...)


To be blunt: Biden and Sanders are wishful thinking what could have beens for moderate and progressive Dems alike. They'll both be 77-78 by the time 2020 rolls around and even Generic Dem Candidate B currently beats Trump in polling. Though between the two Biden polls significantly higher than Sanders vs Trump.

Still, those sorts of polls are fairly meaningless. Clinton polled higher than either Biden or Sanders going into 2008 and look how that turned out ( Well, okay it turned out pretty good. Just not for Clinton. ). Both of them are also untested in a general election where the real closet skeleton digging begins. Biden has definitely got baggage and Sanders never underwent the full brunt of the GOP's shit machine ( which would have half the country convinced he was a literal Nazi by November because of the dreaded S word. )

Regardless, I don't think the Dems as a party are going to get anywhere in the long term by doubling down on trying to elect the oldest and whitest dudes they can find.






First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.