DNC rule change angers Sanders supporters

[DonViejo]

By DAVID SIDERS 06/08/2018 11:32 PM EDT

Democratic National Committee officials on Friday moved forward with a proposal to force the party’s presidential candidates to identify as Democrats, a move that drew immediate criticism from a top official in Bernie Sanders’ 2016 campaign.

The prospective rule change, approved by the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, would not necessarily impact Sanders, the independent Vermont senator who ran for president as a Democrat.

Sources familiar with the discussion said officials believed the rule change could help garner support for a separate bid to reduce the influence of superdelegates in the party’s presidential nomination process — a priority of Sanders’ supporters after the 2016 election. Both proposals are scheduled to be considered by the full DNC in August. Still, Mark Longabaugh, a senior adviser to Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign, bristled at the DNC committee’s action.

“I really don’t get the motivation for the resolution at all,” he said. “You know, Bernie Sanders got 13 million votes in 2016. Thousands, if not millions, of those votes were young people and independents he brought into the Democratic Party. And I’m just stunned that the Democratic Party’s rules committee would want to try to make the Democratic Party an exclusive club, for which we want to exclude voters and large segments of the American electorate.”

more
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/08/dnc-rule-change-sanders-supporters-634998

[samnsara]

1. nothing stopping them from running as I or make up a party name for themselves

[manor321]

2. What fucking morons

"...for which we want to exclude voters and large segments of the American electorate."

The rule is for the candidate, not the voters, dipshit.

This extremely commonsense and logical rule reveals the true intentions of these attackers: they want to destroy the Democratic party.

[trueblue2007]

72. i agree with you. destruction of the Democrtic party is WRONG !!! And don't hate on Dem candidate

Look at the hurt that was thrown at Hillary. Horrible, just horrible.

[Squinch]

3. Lol. No kidding. Can't piss into the tent when the flaps are closed.

[Garrett78]

4. I don't think either rule change is impactful, and let's talk about how caucuses exclude people.

Regarding the superdelegate rule change, it won't have any impact on the nomination result.

Regarding the rule that candidates must be Democrats, all someone has to do is be party-affiliated. It doesn't say they have to have been party-affiliated for X amount of time before seeking the nomination, or that they have to remain party-affiliated after running.

Now, if we really want to address the exclusion of people, we'll get rid of disenfranchising caucuses. That is far more important and would be far more impactful than either of the above rule changes.

[tonyt53]

8. Ain't this the truth!

[Garrett78]

11. It's rather embarrassing that the Democratic Party still allows for caucuses.

I wish individual states would do away with that which is clearly anti-democratic.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

43. In Washington the state passed a primary via the initiative process

The state Democratic part still uses caucuses to choose delegates.

In 2016 Bernie Sanders won the caucuses. Hillary won the primary.

[Garrett78]

45. Why bother, though, if the caucus determines the delegates?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

47. I guess those who don't have time to caucus still want their voice heard

In spite of it having no overall effect.

The difference in the vote count though I think confirms what you say about caucuses not being Democratic.

[NurseJackie]

10. "get rid of disenfranchising caucuses" --- Lord, YES... please and thank you!

get rid of disenfranchising caucuses

Lord, YES... please and thank you!

[Cha]

40. And, more!

[jmowreader]

67. Add one more thing

Candidate must have won at least one election for state legislator, governor or Member of Congress.

[Cha]

70. Yes, that would be NICE!

[Me.]

118. Spread The Word

[Cha]

119. No disenfranchised Caucuses.. NO OPEN Primaries so

Repubs and such can RF.

That would be a Beautiful Thing, Me!

[Me.]

121. ...

[stevenleser]

18. I've read your posts on this, I disagree based on the wording. See this pic of the text

I think you are focusing on the underlined text from lines 24-39. However, look at the text in lines 19-24:

...accomplishment, public writings and/or public statements affirmatively demonstrates that they are faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States and will participate in the Convention in good faith.
--------------------------------
I would like to see lines 1-19 but if this is any indication, the rule seems much more broad in scope to mean that anyone who has been crapping all over the party and its platform is excluded.

[Garrett78]

19. Without saying candidates must be party-affiliated for X amount of time before and after...

...this doesn't really change things. The phrase "in good faith" is ambiguous.

This rule could have been in place years ago and it wouldn't have kept Sanders out in 2016.

[stevenleser]

20. I disagree. Moreover, we haven't seen lines 1-18. If 19-24 is any indication, there are more

requirements that are more firmly set.

Based on 19-24 alone, I can see challenges being mounted to Sanders' candidacy right off the bat in 2016 if this rule was in place. He is clearly not eligible under this rule. He has not been faithful to the party's interests.

[Garrett78]

21. Sanders would simply point to his voting record.

Again, "faithful to the party's interests" is too ambiguous.

Sure, let's see what lines 1-18 say, but 19-39 are not going to be sufficient to do what people seem to think this 'rule' will accomplish.

[stevenleser]

22. It's not too ambiguous. If I say "Faithful to McDonalds interests" and I crap all over McDonald's

food, any judge or jury would make that decision pretty easily.

You can't be faithful to an organization's interests and then do nothing but criticize it. This isn't hard.

[Garrett78]

23. Apples and oranges. Again, Sanders could easily counter that argument. But that aside...

The last thing we want is a public court battle over keeping someone from running. That would spell disaster.

Do away with caucuses, and fringe candidates won't stand a chance.

Besides, the race in 2016 was over by the 2nd week of March. Much of what Sanders says bugs me, but he's not going to get nominated. And, again, a public battle over keeping him from running would be a horrible mistake.

[stevenleser]

25. It's not apples and oranges and I for one would welcome that fight because we need to stop this.

once and for all. If it means one more lost election because of the fight but then it never happens again, I am OK with that.

The other thing is, just the fact that this rule is in place and there is a question as to whether someone is eligible will cause real problems for that person in raising money and in various folks taking their candidacy seriously.

[Garrett78]

26. A political party and a corporation are not equivalent. So, yes, it's apples and oranges.

Regardless, a court battle over this would be an absolute disaster. Republicans would twist it into "Democratic Party voter suppression" or some such nonsense, and it would alienate people like nothing else.

The rule will have to stipulate that candidates must have been party-affiliated for X amount of time if we hope to keep the likes of Sanders out. In the meantime, if Sanders wants to run and lose, we have to let him. But we can certainly counter his nonsense claims at every turn.

[stevenleser]

28. Nope, it's not. It's not hard to determine whether someone's criticism is, according to the text of

this rule, "...accomplishment, public writings and/or public statements affirmatively demonstrates that they are faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States"

It's very easy to see that Sander's writings in the 20-30 years before running were anything but that, his attempt to primary the sitting President of the party was anything but that. This is not hard at all.

[Garrett78]

30. Regardless, a court battle would be a disaster.

Republicans would twist it into "Democratic Party voter suppression" or some such nonsense, and it would alienate people like nothing else.

I still think the rule will have to stipulate that candidates must have been party-affiliated for X amount of time if we really hope to keep the likes of Sanders out. In the meantime, if Sanders wants to run and lose, then so be it. But we can certainly counter his nonsense claims at every turn.

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. Ted Kennedy actually did primary a sitting Democratic President

Ted certainly took it a lot further than just saying that a primary challenge would be warranted. And before that Senator Eugene McCarthy ran against LBJ while he was serving as a Democratic President. Would they have violated these proposed rule changes?

[stevenleser]

89. Nope, that was an amplification to the rule breaking, not the rule breaking itself.

Was that really so hard to understand?

[EffieBlack]

113. Probably

But I’m not sure what Kennedy and McCarthy did 39 and 50 years ago, respectively, in different times, within a different party and under different rules - has to do with this particular rule change in 2018.

[Tom Rinaldo]

114. There's too much political amnesia. Democrats have long attacked prevailing mainstream Democrats.

The assumption here seems to be that Democrats typically stand united behind our leaders, and should not put up with any criticism of them or of the policies that the Democratic Party has embraced. That is historically inaccurate. And it didn't end 39 years ago. Bill Clinton ran as a "New Democrat" in 1992, positioning himself as an agent of change against tired and discredited Democratic Ideology.

My point in bringing this up is not to cast judgement for or against the wisdom or necessity of the positions Bill Clinton took in 1992 - that is a different debate, and that was a different time. My point is that both Eugene McCarthy and Ted Kennedy challenged Democratic leadership and/or orthodoxy from the Left, and then Bill Clinton did so from the Right starting in 1992 (actually earlier than that). These were not exactly marginal figures in Democratic Party history.

I found a campaign commercial for Clinton/Gore 1992. Here is the link (transcription below):
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1992/leaders-2

"There's a new generation of Democrats: Bill Clinton and Al Gore. They don't think the way the old Democratic Party did. They've called for an end of Welfare as we know it, so Welfare can be a second chance, not a way of life. They've sent a strong signal to criminals by supporting the death penalty. And they've rejected the old tax and spend politics. Clinton's balanced 12 budgets. And they've proposed a new plan investing in people detailing 140 Billion dollars in spending cuts they'd make right now. Clinton - Gore: for people, for a change"

Bill Clinton explicitly ran as an insurgent against "the old Democratic Party". In attempting to distance himself from it he validated Republican talking points about Democrats and "Tax and Spend politics". He was running as much against the Party of Walter Mondale as he was against any Republican.

In many ways criticisms that Bernie Sanders has made more recently about centrist tendencies among some Democrats is mild in comparison to the way Bill Clinton laced into "Big government" "tax and spend" "old Democrats" in his day.

[mythology]

120. You are greatly overstating when you say he attempted "to primary" Obama

He said he thought it would be good for small d democracy for there to be a primary. He didn't run, he didn't endorse any of the people who did.

Which just serves to underscore just how ambiguous the suggested rule is. You think that saying what Sanders said is harmful to the party (difficult to argue when it had no noticeable impact on Obama's reelection) is objectively harmful, I would argue an unbiased person would disagree. You have an end goal in mind, no Sanders, and working backwards from that conclusion. Your standard isn't something you can objectively measure. In April 2008, the Democratic primary was effectively over as there was no plausible path for Clinton to catch up. Was her staying in the election detrimental to the Democratic party since Obama was going to be the nominee?

If in 2000 a candidate said the party should endorse marriage equality, that would have gone against the party platform and against the conventional wisdom at the time that marriage equality was something that would cost us votes?

[workinclasszero]

5. Somebody running as a democrat has to be a democrat?

Wow let me get my fainting couch and clutch muh pearls!

[Cha]

41. Anything to complain about..

[oasis]

6. It's not an "exclusive club" dumbass, it's a political party. If you care

to join, sign up, if not then stfu.

[BlueMTexpat]

7. Surprise, surprise!

The Dem party would like its candidates to be ... Dems! Seems logical to me!

The only thing that I don't like about this rule is that it may not prevent what actually happened in 2016, when an I candidate changed registration to D ONLY for the purposes of the Presidential nomination/election and, when unsuccessful, immediately reverted to I.

But it's a start.

[Garrett78]

13. "...it may not prevent..." No, it absolutely won't prevent that.

Unless the rule change stipulates that a candidate must have been party-affiliated for X amount of time prior to seeking the nomination, or that the candidate must remain party-affiliated after running.

And the superdelegate thing is much ado about nothing. They exist in case the potential nominee is someone who is, more than likely, unelectable.

Of course, if there's a fear that the voters will select a fringe candidate who can't win the general election, the best thing the party can do is get rid of caucuses, which disenfranchise so many people. There's certainly a correlation between those who are most likely to take part in caucuses (a very long and public process that many don't have the time or inclination to take part in) and support for fringe candidates.

[BlueMTexpat]

14. I heartily second your

thoughts on caucuses!

[Demsrule86]

9. Democrat should run in the Democratic primary...about time the DNC stopped letting some walk all

over them and blackmail them.

[JCanete]

99. who is they...oh, you mean we? Not all of us see it at all like you see it. Sanders only has power

in any way over the Democratic party by virtue of Democratic voters, so any alternative argument to that makes no sense whatsoever. He can't blackmail or walk all over the democratic party. His power within it is proportionate to the will of democratic voters.

[Demsrule86]

115. No I don't mean you.

I am talking the idea of allowing independents to vote in Democratic primaries...I actually meant Jane and Sen. Sanders and Our revolution...also the Greens. There has been statements lately that are thinly veiled threats by some of these folks. I am sick of it. I am against open primaries. Here in Ohio the GOP uses our open primary system to screw with Democratic candidates. I believe you need to join the party in order to participate in primaries

[JCanete]

116. I meant "they" as in "the democrats," in which case, I make up who they is as much as you do. What

Jane said wasn't a thinly veiled threat, or not the way I heard it. It was her opinion on the current state of things.

I belive that you can use that as your criteria to vote or not vote for a candidate and the rest of us can continue to use ours, and I don't want our leadership making that decision for us.

[Takket]

12. "Exclusive club" oh, do shut the fuck up

This smacks of the right wing “elitist” dog whistle.

[Cha]

42. Oh, they're big on that "elitist" crap.

[NY_20th]

15. Michael Bloomberg, Howard Schultz, Mark Cuban

disavowed Republicans such as Richard Painter. The rule is not just about Bernie Sanders, it's to prevent a Trump like situation.

If you recall, there was concern in the Republican party that Trump would decide to run as an Independent if he did not win the nomination. That's why they drafted their loyalty pledge.

This new rule will prevent a situation like that from occurring in our party.

[UTUSN]

16. Excellent point.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

44. Bingo

[Blue_true]

46. Painter went the full way and changed his registration to democrat a while back.

Well before he decided to run for office.

[NCTraveler]

17. Maybe they should start describing themselves as Warren supporters.

Just one of many great Democrats.

[Downtown Hound]

24. Tough shit Bernie Bros

No more of this being a temporary Democrat deal and then whining about how corrupt Hillary cheated and denied you your rightful victory by miraculously forcing millions of more people to vote for her than him. Want Democratic money and support? Be a Democrat. Join us in the fight against Republicans, instead of joining the Republicans in the fight against us.

If you don't like it, then form your own party.

[MrsCoffee]

27. Tough shit. The party will not be held hostage by Sanders, his wife, bros or Their NeveRevolution.

I think the message is crystal clear and I approve this message.

[ismnotwasm]

29. Why are they upset?

I know a few of them think a third party is a good idea, I mean there are ready quite a number of parties, depending on how one defines them, perhaps they are thinking of a new one?

[ChrisTee]

31. 13 million from open primary and caucus.

They admit in the article Sanders votes were largely outside party voters, in a party primary.

To put 13 million up when it is knowingly not the base does not win the argument.

[emulatorloo]

32. Boo Hoo. Wanna run as a Dem, join the party. It ain't gonna kill you.

[VOX]

33. Everybody flash their "Democratic Party Exclusive Platinum Club" membership card!

Shhh, don’t let on, but you can actually qualify by merely ticking the box next to “Democratic Party” on the party-affiliation section of your application form. VERY exclusive club indeed.

And yes, membership has its privileges. Don’t beg for a daily ride to work and then stiff the carpool fund on gas money.

[rusty fender]

34. They hate Dems, so what's

the problem

[Bondor]

35. Here is why this rule is a super bad idea:

Personally, I respect Bernie Sanders' moral vision more than I trust the Democratic party's. Sure, they are better than Repugs, but IMO Bernie is more true to the ideals I think the Dem party is about than are many Dems -- Looking at you, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. And others.

Drive out Bernie and you might drive out me. Multiply that by a few million votes, and you start to see why a rules change aimed at excluding Bernie might just be a bad idea. Could almost have been proposed just to hurt the Dem party, if i were thinking conspiracy.

But intentional or no, the dems are sure to lose votes over a rule like that. Just Sayin'.

[DFW]

36. The DNC can't "drive Bernie out"

He IS out. Proudly so, and of his own free will.

The DNC is merely saying, and not only to Sanders, if you wish to join us, welcome, but do so because you mean it and intend to stay.

The Democratic Party is not a port of convenience, whose hospitality is to be taken advantage of in a storm, and then abandoned once the tempest has passed.

[spooky3]

78. +1

[sprinkleeninow]

102. 👏

[still_one]

108. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[ehrnst]

109. +1000 (nt)

[R B Garr]

38. Bernie can't claim any fame to being the moral czar.

Telling people you are better than them is insulting and superficial. I don’t trust the “morals” of a man who savagely maligned a woman knowing she could not respond to him so as to not upset his supporters. Calling millions of people vile names just to promote his brand. I could go on and get even more specific about his morals, but.......

He has extended more olive branches to Trump supporters than rank and file Dems. There isn’t going to be a way to handle another round of this unnecessary divisiveness. This rule is about damm time, but it also keeps those like Trump out. Look at the disaster he is. Reality star mafia men don’t need to sit in the White House.

[Cha]

76. Mahalo for explaining that so explicitly

and Well, RB

[spooky3]

77. I know that I will not be enthusiastic about any candidate who has

a weak record of getting things done while in office. I'll vote for the Dem nominee no matter who it is, but hope that really effective people will come forward in the primaries.

[R B Garr]

87. Mahalo Cha. Thanks, I sure have a lot more to say

about the so-called morals, but......

[Cha]

88. I know..

it's freaking ridiculous.

[Wwcd]

91. K & R

[ehrnst]

110. Excellent analysis. (nt)

[NY_20th]

39. No one is driving Bernie Sanders out.

The rule is in place to prevent a Trump like situation happening in our party.

Right now you should be focused on your local and State 2018 primaries. Most change happens locally.

You also need to understand that Bernie Sanders might not be on the 2020 ballot by his own choice. You need to pay attention to other politicians and to learn about their positions. Keeping a mindset of what appears to be "Bernie or bust" is not going to help you in the long run, nor is it going to help legislate positions that are important to you.

[Blue_true]

48. Sorry, if you feel that way, please leave for good.

I don't trust the moral vision of someone that claims he is a common man, but resists making his tax returns public. I guess different people have different standards for moral vision. Mine is a person that has nothing that he or she wants to hide.

[Cha]

50. "... moral vision.. " GMAFB! The Democratic Party is

is Brilliant.. we have Amazingly MORAL LEADERS out there Fighting on the Front Lines Against Fascism.

There's no time for Fucking 3rd parties with their Fucking LIES like Jill Stein.

The Rule is.. You have to be a Dem to run for POTUS.

If that's too hard for you then too bad.

[Blue_true]

51. Why not join the party and change it from inside, if it needs changing,

I really resent these insinuations of "you do what I want or else". Democracies don't work like that. Join the party, present your ideas and vision, win primaries and nominations, that is how change happens.

[TCJ70]

53. I would refer you to this thread...

...where Sanders suggests just that and it’s referred to as “pure poison” by our fellow DUers.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10710442

[emulatorloo]

55. There is no thread I know of where Sanders suggests he will join the Democratic Party.

If you can find a direct quote where Bernie says he’s ready to join the party and work from within I am sure it would be celebrated here.

[Blue_true]

61. That is incorrect.

Bernie started out be saying that there is essentially no difference between democrats and republicans. He said nothing about him and his followers joining the party and doing the hard work of developing grassroots support. He celebrated people that register as Independents, because the two parties does nothing for them (which is a bald faced untruth). When Bernie says that he will join the party and fight to change the things that he sees as wrong, then good, but he is NOT saying that, he is saying my party is as morally bankrupt as the Republican Party, that claim is completely absurd.

[emulatorloo]

54. All Bernie has to do is join the party and say "I am a Democrat." It won't kill him.

Additionally there are lots of Democratic politicians who are left liberals/progressives.

[EffieBlack]

56. How do you "drive out" a person from a party he doesn't belong to?

[grantcart]

65. Permanent persecution complex

The foundation of white privilege

[Hekate]

105. LOL! Well spotted, grantcart.

[Wwcd]

92. Still waiting on that answer .....

Figures.

Hey EffieBlack

[Demsrule86]

62. So your vote is determined by this? Doubt there are a few million.

I would never consider not voting for the only party that can stop Trump and the GOP...for any reason.

[GulfCoast66]

74. The Dems? Careful with your tells.

I assume you are a member of the Democratic Party? And will vote for our candidate?

If not, this is not the site for you.

[Bondor]

93. of course i will vote for the Dem

..and i am not saying Bernie is always right. I am sure we can all agree there are worlds of difference between Bernie and Trump in so many ways.

Frankly, I hope to see the center of gravity for the Democratic party shifted to the left. I like Bernie and Warren because they help us do that. IMO those people are real progressives, and IMO progressive ideas are what the Democratic party is about. I am sure some others will disagree vehemently.

To me, the ideas of justice and fairness and truth are more important than a particular organization. Where i believe the organization lives by those values great. Where the two might diverge, i follow what i think is true. The D's are WAAAY WAAY better than the R's on that count, but we are not entirely pristine either.

My point is that there is good common ground between most Bernie supporters and the Democratic party, and putting in place a policy almost guaranteed to alienate Bernie supporters is not a great idea, strategically speaking. Not threatening here. It is true that my vote will go to the D every time. However, some politicians deserve more from me than others. Winning by rigging things is how the R's play. I do not think it should be how D's play. If someone wins the majority of Dem primary votes, they should be the nominee of the Dem party. Period.

[Adrahil]

80. How can we "drive out" Bernie?

He's not a Democrat.

In fact, he could solve the problem just by saying he IS a Democrat.

[onetexan]

106. Bingo

[Hekate]

104. Bernie left us of his own free will, sneering all the way. So, enjoy your stay at DU, Bondor...

Nobody is chaining you down.

[EffieBlack]

49. Of course it does

[Kajun Gal]

52. And this is one problem with the Democrat party. Crazy!

[MrsCoffee]

58. Democrat Party?

[Cha]

59. What Problem is that? What's "Crazy!"?

And, FYI.. it's the Democratic Party.

[YOHABLO]

57. The Democratic Party might be shooting itself in the foot. This could really do more harm than good.

[Cha]

60. No. You have to be a Dem to run for POTUS.

Good on the Democratic Party!

[Blue_true]

63. I doubt it. nt

[Kajun Gal]

64. That's what I mean.

[Cha]

84. Well, The Democratic Party is Not "shooting itself in the foot".

[uponit7771]

81. How?!?! The demo base is loyal to democrtatic party

[RandySF]

66. The Democratic Party is not a bikeshare program.

[gibraltar72]

68. Scroom.

[pnwmom]

69. The Democratic party is NOT an exclusive club. Literally anyone can join.

Even those who think they're too special.

[trueblue2007]

71. TOO BAD, they better suck it up. Sanders is not a Democrat and he should not run in our elections

as a Dem if he is AN INDEPENDENT!!! If he wants to join, more power to him but no Independent can destroy our party.
Not saying Sanders is doing that but the constant criticism is very bad.

Join the Dems, Bernie !!!

[still_one]

73. This is a typical Politico to stir up shit. I wonder who these Sanders supporters are?

Last edited Mon Jun 11, 2018, 02:03 AM - Edit history (1)

Were these so-called Sanders supporters who are upset by this, also the ones who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election?

I wonder............

[NurseJackie]

75. I don't know who they are... but it was "thousands if not millions"

I wonder who these Sanders supporters are?

I don't know who they are... but apparently it was "thousands if not millions" ... no wait, maybe it was billions if not gazillions!

also the ones who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee

They're likely the same ones who actually think having to declare a party affiliation in order to vote in closed primaries is some form of "disenfranchisement".

[Wwcd]

79. K & R 🤣

[still_one]

94. As usual Jackie, excellent incite. You put a smile on my face. Thanks

[Cha]

85. Well.. unfortunately I've

seen some who are all mad.. seems like they didn't even understand that you only had to be a Dem to run for POTUS

[still_one]

95. Not rocket science Cha, is it?

[Cha]

96. No, but you

would have thought it was. lol

[Wwcd]

82. So what if they're mad.

The Party is simply evolving.
They'll always do what's right for their great & enduring Party of All people.

It's what they should be doing.

VOTE BLUE

[chillfactor]

83. I agree with the new rule...

you are either a Democrat or you are not.....no in-between.

[betsuni]

86. When are they not angry?

[Wwcd]

90. "Well, ummm there was that one time...wait, no."

I think that was the answer from Quora, btw

[Cha]

97. Touche'

[AtomicKitten]

98. I don't know a single Sanders supporter upset by this rule change.

The intent is petty because Sanders has a better record voting with Democrats than most Democrats.

[stopbush]

100. If Sanders doesn't like the DNC rules, then he shouldn't be a D.

Oh, wait...he isn’t a D.

[RandySF]

101. I don't have the time or energy to wipe their noses.

We have a real war to fight.

[Hekate]

103. Deary deary me...

[YOHABLO]

107. I think this will end up causing far more alienation by some. We have to focus on winning.

[Renew Deal]

111. How does anyone know that?

They are perpetually angry.

[disillusioned73]

112. Politico being Politico...

"Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont, infuriated many establishment Democrats when he ran against Hillary Clinton as a Democrat in 2016"

[Gothmog]

117. Economist--Berned out

This article makes me smile https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/06/09/berned-out

None of Mr Sanders’s other big ideas—including free college and massive public works—is getting much play. Nor have Sanders-endorsed candidates fared well in the primaries. Our Revolution, a group Mr Sanders formed to promote his acolytes, has been a failure. “It doesn’t do anything,” gripes a strategist for one of its candidates.

Rumpled, crumpled, Trumpled

The energy on the left is focused on opposing Mr Trump’s attack on liberal democracy, not on carrying forward Mr Sanders’s revolution. The success of moderate candidates in the Democratic primaries suggests this is making the party more pragmatic and mindful of party unity than Mr Sanders, an ideologue who is not a Democratic Party member, might like.