SUPERDELEGATES
nan said:
LOST said:They had no problem letting him run last time when they thought he would be easy for their secretly chosen nominee to beat. Now that he's popular they will try anything to keep him off the ballot. What an odd idea--a major political party that would rather lose than let a person who supports working people over donors win.
What an odd idea? One must belong to a political party in order to be its nominee!
There is nothing in the new rules that would keep him off the ballot as a democrat, just as he ran last time. You are brewing up controversy where there is none.
nan said:Now that he's popular they will try anything to keep him off the ballot.
What exactly are they doing?
dave23 said:
nan said: Now that he's popular they will try anything to keep him off the ballot.What exactly are they doing?
The DNC has been trying to sabotage Progressives running as Democrats all over the country. One of them recorded the conversation and it was clear that the decision of who will run is handled by the party behind closed doors. They are not exactly getting rid of Superdelegates, although that was recommended by their own committee. I'm not sure why they put this new rule in place and how it might affect a Progressive like Bernie Sanders trying to run, but I am sure they will do what they can to keep him out. Just watch.
nan said:
dave23 said:The DNC has been trying to sabotage Progressives running as Democrats all over the country. One of them recorded the conversation and it was clear that the decision of who will run is handled by the party behind closed doors. They are not exactly getting rid of Superdelegates, although that was recommended by their own committee. I'm not sure why they put this new rule in place and how it might affect a Progressive like Bernie Sanders trying to run, but I am sure they will do what they can to keep him out. Just watch.
nan said: Now that he's popular they will try anything to keep him off the ballot.What exactly are they doing?
Wow! What a factual presentation. Kinda like 90% of the garbage you post.
Trump in a nutshell:
“Sometimes I get the impression that the U.S. president believes that only one side wins and the other loses,” Merkel said, adding that she believes in “win-win” situations.
nan said:
dave23 said:The DNC has been trying to sabotage Progressives running as Democrats all over the country. One of them recorded the conversation and it was clear that the decision of who will run is handled by the party behind closed doors. They are not exactly getting rid of Superdelegates, although that was recommended by their own committee. I'm not sure why they put this new rule in place and how it might affect a Progressive like Bernie Sanders trying to run, but I am sure they will do what they can to keep him out. Just watch.
nan said: Now that he's popular they will try anything to keep him off the ballot.What exactly are they doing?
If Bernie doesn't want to rejoin the Democratic Party, why should he get to run for the nomination?
Dennis_Seelbach said:
nan said:Wow! What a factual presentation. Kinda like 90% of the garbage you post.
dave23 said:The DNC has been trying to sabotage Progressives running as Democrats all over the country. One of them recorded the conversation and it was clear that the decision of who will run is handled by the party behind closed doors. They are not exactly getting rid of Superdelegates, although that was recommended by their own committee. I'm not sure why they put this new rule in place and how it might affect a Progressive like Bernie Sanders trying to run, but I am sure they will do what they can to keep him out. Just watch.
nan said: Now that he's popular they will try anything to keep him off the ballot.What exactly are they doing?
Personal attacks show that you have nothing to say. What part is not factual? I will be happy to provide linked references.
South_Mountaineer said:
nan said:If Bernie doesn't want to rejoin the Democratic Party, why should he get to run for the nomination?
dave23 said:The DNC has been trying to sabotage Progressives running as Democrats all over the country. One of them recorded the conversation and it was clear that the decision of who will run is handled by the party behind closed doors. They are not exactly getting rid of Superdelegates, although that was recommended by their own committee. I'm not sure why they put this new rule in place and how it might affect a Progressive like Bernie Sanders trying to run, but I am sure they will do what they can to keep him out. Just watch.
nan said: Now that he's popular they will try anything to keep him off the ballot.What exactly are they doing?
Maybe because he's a very popular politician and they might want to win for a change? A bigger problem is why they let Democrats like Joe Manchin remain Democrats when he says he probably will be supporting Trump. Bernie Sanders is more of a Democrat than Joe Manchin.
This is the wording of the rules change:
“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.”
The Sanders allies think that Sanders wouldn't be affected by the rules change because of the unique rule in Vermont: Sanders runs as a Democrat in the Vermont primary for US senator and then declines the Democratic nomination after he wins. The move allows him to fend off any Democratic challengers and then runs as an independent in the general election. Last month, the Vermont Democratic Party passed a resolution supporting this strategy and said that Sanders would still be considered a member of the party "for all purposes and entitled to all of the rights and privileges that come with such membership at the state and federal level." The feeling is that could protect Sanders against the DNC rules change.
During the 2016 primary election, in response to criticism that Sanders wasn't a Democrat, the argument was that Vermont doesn't have any registered parties and therefore Sanders couldn't register as a Democrat.
That was a red herring. Vermont has a Democratic Party and the other senator from Vermont, Patrick Leahy, is a Democrat.
nan said:
South_Mountaineer said:Maybe because he's a very popular politician and they might want to win for a change? A bigger problem is why they let Democrats like Joe Manchin remain Democrats when he says he probably will be supporting Trump. Bernie Sanders is more of a Democrat than Joe Manchin.
nan said:If Bernie doesn't want to rejoin the Democratic Party, why should he get to run for the nomination?
dave23 said:The DNC has been trying to sabotage Progressives running as Democrats all over the country. One of them recorded the conversation and it was clear that the decision of who will run is handled by the party behind closed doors. They are not exactly getting rid of Superdelegates, although that was recommended by their own committee. I'm not sure why they put this new rule in place and how it might affect a Progressive like Bernie Sanders trying to run, but I am sure they will do what they can to keep him out. Just watch.
nan said: Now that he's popular they will try anything to keep him off the ballot.What exactly are they doing?
If Bernie needs the democratic party to win, then why shouldn't he offer something in return (aka, registering as a dem)? Also, what has he done to change the demographics of his voters? What has he done to win the south? Has he been reaching out the the groups of people who didn't vote for him?
cramer said:
This is the wording of the rules change:
“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.”
The Sanders allies think that Sanders wouldn't be affected by the rules change because of the unique rule in Vermont: Sanders runs as a Democrat in the Vermont primary for US senator and then declines the Democratic nomination after he wins. The move allows him to fend off any Democratic challengers and then runs as an independent in the general election. Last month, the Vermont Democratic Party passed a resolution supporting this strategy and said that Sanders would still be considered a member of the party "for all purposes and entitled to all of the rights and privileges that come with such membership at the state and federal level." The feeling is that could protect Sanders against the DNC rules change.
It sounds like the Dem leadership is embracing a purity test (and a form of loyalty test). Purity tests are often employed to keep out new ideas and allow the existing power structure to condemn new ideas.
Morality based on purity and loyalty are generally found among the right wing (not the left wing). Interesting times that we are in now. NYU professor, Jonathan Haidt, believes that morality is generally based on the following attributes (which he calls Moral Foundation theory):
- Care: cherishing and protecting others; opposite of harm
- Fairness or proportionality: rendering justice according to shared rules; opposite of cheating
- Loyalty or ingroup: standing with your group, family, nation; opposite of betrayal
- Authority or respect: submitting to tradition and legitimate authority; opposite of subversion
- Sanctity or purity: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions; opposite of degradation
According to Haidt, Leftists generally focus exclusively on the first two (namely, care and fairness). Whereas, those of the right wing persuasion generally focus on all five attributes. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory
RealityForAll said:
cramer said:
This is the wording of the rules change:
“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.”
sounds like the Dem leadership is embracing a purity test. Purity tests are often employed to keep put new ideas and allow the existing power structure to condemn new ideas.
Given that this will not keep Sander from running as a Dem, just as he did last time, it is a pretty crappy attempt.
nan said:Maybe because he's a very popular politician and they might want to win for a change? A bigger problem is why they let Democrats like Joe Manchin remain Democrats when he says he probably will be supporting Trump. Bernie Sanders is more of a Democrat than Joe Manchin.
Dems have won 6 of the last 7 presidential popular votes. There's plenty of legitimate criticism to be aimed at the Democratic national party, but you exaggerate their struggles. Perhaps Bernie ought to run on a third party ticket to truly gauge his popularity.
I supported Bernie but still understand that for him to be the democratic nominee he needs to compromise with other democratic leaders.
And Nan, I find your dismissal of topics (vs actual positions) moronic. The topics need to be discussed and it is clear no matter what position it will be better than the current administration (which has the support of the republican party) - especially on environmental issues, gun control, healthcare, etc.
RealityForAll said:
cramer said:It sounds like the Dem leadership is embracing a purity test (and a form of loyalty test). Purity tests are often employed to keep out new ideas and allow the existing power structure to condemn new ideas.
This is the wording of the rules change:
“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.”
The Sanders allies think that Sanders wouldn't be affected by the rules change because of the unique rule in Vermont: Sanders runs as a Democrat in the Vermont primary for US senator and then declines the Democratic nomination after he wins. The move allows him to fend off any Democratic challengers and then runs as an independent in the general election. Last month, the Vermont Democratic Party passed a resolution supporting this strategy and said that Sanders would still be considered a member of the party "for all purposes and entitled to all of the rights and privileges that come with such membership at the state and federal level." The feeling is that could protect Sanders against the DNC rules change.
Morality based on purity and loyalty are generally found among the right wing (not the left wing). Interesting times that we are in now. NYU professor, Jonathan Haidt, believes that morality is generally based on the following attributes (which he calls Moral Foundation theory):
According to Haidt, Leftists generally focus exclusively on the first two (namely, care and fairness). Whereas, those of the right wing persuasion generally focus on all five attributes. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory
- Care: cherishing and protecting others; opposite of harm
- Fairness or proportionality: rendering justice according to shared rules; opposite of cheating
- Loyalty or ingroup: standing with your group, family, nation; opposite of betrayal
- Authority or respect: submitting to tradition and legitimate authority; opposite of subversion
- Sanctity or purity: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions; opposite of degradation
it's nothing like that at all.
It's requiring that someone running as a Democrat actually BE a Democrat.
ml1 said:
RealityForAll said:it's nothing like that at all.
cramer said:It sounds like the Dem leadership is embracing a purity test (and a form of loyalty test). Purity tests are often employed to keep out new ideas and allow the existing power structure to condemn new ideas.
This is the wording of the rules change:
“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.”
The Sanders allies think that Sanders wouldn't be affected by the rules change because of the unique rule in Vermont: Sanders runs as a Democrat in the Vermont primary for US senator and then declines the Democratic nomination after he wins. The move allows him to fend off any Democratic challengers and then runs as an independent in the general election. Last month, the Vermont Democratic Party passed a resolution supporting this strategy and said that Sanders would still be considered a member of the party "for all purposes and entitled to all of the rights and privileges that come with such membership at the state and federal level." The feeling is that could protect Sanders against the DNC rules change.
Morality based on purity and loyalty are generally found among the right wing (not the left wing). Interesting times that we are in now. NYU professor, Jonathan Haidt, believes that morality is generally based on the following attributes (which he calls Moral Foundation theory):
According to Haidt, Leftists generally focus exclusively on the first two (namely, care and fairness). Whereas, those of the right wing persuasion generally focus on all five attributes. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory
- Care: cherishing and protecting others; opposite of harm
- Fairness or proportionality: rendering justice according to shared rules; opposite of cheating
- Loyalty or ingroup: standing with your group, family, nation; opposite of betrayal
- Authority or respect: submitting to tradition and legitimate authority; opposite of subversion
- Sanctity or purity: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions; opposite of degradation
It's requiring that someone running as a Democrat actually BE a Democrat.
Gallup. As of October 2017, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrat, 24% identified as Republican, and 42% as Independent. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states
It might make sense to allow new voices that would be more likely to attract the largest group (which has no party), the independents.
there's nothing stopping anyone who is a member of the Democratic Party from supporting policies that would attract independent voters.
ml1 said:
there's nothing stopping anyone who is a member of the Democratic Party from supporting policies that would attract independent voters.
Why create a purity/loyalty test if none was needed before?
When did the new problem arise (that gave rise to the purity/loyalty test)?
There is no purity test, but there is a search for electable people who mostly align with the broader Democratic platform.
RealityForAll said:
ml1 said:Why create a purity/loyalty test if none was needed before?
there's nothing stopping anyone who is a member of the Democratic Party from supporting policies that would attract independent voters.
When did the new problem arise (that gave rise to the purity/loyalty test)?
it's not a purity test. I don't know why you would interpret it that way.
The purity/loyalty and that the Democratic party is not welcoming to independents is a meme propagated by the right wing. Its to create dissension, to slacken the midterm Democratic turnout.
ps - some will be very concerned over the inclusiveness of Democratic party.
RealityForAll said:
ml1 said:Why create a purity/loyalty test if none was needed before?
there's nothing stopping anyone who is a member of the Democratic Party from supporting policies that would attract independent voters.
When did the new problem arise (that gave rise to the purity/loyalty test)?
The problem arose because there had been no rules before and it was only because Debbie Wasserman Schultz allowed it that Sanders was able to run as a Democrat in 2016.
Query - What would have happened if Wasserman Schultz had not allowed Sanders to run as a Democrat? Would the results of the general election been different?
cramer said:
RealityForAll said:The problem arose because there had been no rules before and it was only because Debbie Wasserman Schultz allowed it that Sanders was able to run as a Democrat in 2016.
ml1 said:Why create a purity/loyalty test if none was needed before?
there's nothing stopping anyone who is a member of the Democratic Party from supporting policies that would attract independent voters.
When did the new problem arise (that gave rise to the purity/loyalty test)?
Query - What would have happened if Wasserman Schultz had not allowed Sanders to run as a Democrat? Would the results of the general election been different?
If there were no rules before, then why are rules needed now?
My conclusion: to block one individual, Bernie Sanders.
PS When you say "What would have happened if Wasserman Schultz had not allowed Sanders to run as a Democrat?" that presupposes that DWS had the authority to bar Sanders from running in the Dem primaries in 2016. Clearly, DWS lacked such power or authority. Otherwise, there would be no need for a rule change. Your statement (set forth in bold above) is at a minimum misleading.
In April 2016, Sanders campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, said that Sanders would remain a Democrat whether or not he won the nomination.
cramer said:
In April 2016, Sanders campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, said that Sanders would remain a Democrat whether or not he won the nomination.
https://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/bernie-sanders-democrat-independent-222228
To run as an independent and have any shot at all, it would take a lot of money. Bloomberg/Bezos/Schultz could all run an independent. Bernie had no chance except as a Democrat. And yes, DSW and the dem party machine would have preferred that he not run. I would have preferred Clinton had not run again.
RealityForAll said:
If there were no rules before, then why are rules needed now?
My conclusion: to block one individual, Bernie Sanders.
there was likely no rule because it hadn't occurred to anyone that someone who didn't belong to the party would seek its nomination.
and it doesn't block anyone. It merely requires Sanders (or anyone else) to join the party if he seeks its nomination for president.
I supported Sanders in '16, and I think it would be good for the party if he runs again. But I also believe he should join the Democratic Party if he wants to run for office as a Democrat.
It's really pretty simple, elementary stuff. It's actually kind of nutty that anyone should think otherwise. Why on earth would anyone think it's unusual for a political party to want its nominees to be members?
mikescott said:
And yes, DSW and the dem party machine would have preferred that he not run. I would have preferred Clinton had not run again.
Great, another one who swallowed the Designer Shoe Warehouse conspiracy hook, line and sinker.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Rentals
Advertisement
They had no problem letting him run last time when they thought he would be easy for their secretly chosen nominee to beat. Now that he's popular they will try anything to keep him off the ballot. What an odd idea--a major political party that would rather lose than let a person who supports working people over donors win.