DNC Rule Change: Want Dem nomination for President? Must be a Democrat and run and serve as a Dem

[stevenleser]

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/391459-dnc-panel-adopts-rule-requiring-candidates-to-run-serve-as-a-democrat

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) adopted a new rule on Friday aimed at keeping outsider candidates like Bernie Sanders from trying to clinch the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020.

The new rule, adopted by the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, requires all Democratic presidential candidates to be a member of the Democratic Party, Yahoo News reported.

A presidential candidate running for the Democratic nomination must be a member of the party, accept the Democratic nomination and “run and serve” as a member.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good.

You want access to the Party's resources? You want to take advantage of all that the Party has to offer?

Be a Democrat. Simple.

I'm totally done with this "Democrats bad! Democrats bad! Oh I want to be President so give me access to your party's resources and support me for President". No, sorry, it doesn't work that way.

[Zambero]

1. Fair enough

Open primaries are intended to offer VOTERS a broader choice, not as political carte blanche for the candidates themselves.

[brush]

222. Open primaries and disenfranchising caucuses need to be ditched also.

[leftstreet]

2. "run and serve" How will this apply to Manchin?

DEMOCRATIC SENATOR SAYS HE COULD SUPPORT TRUMP IN 2020 ELECTION

.... “I’m open to supporting the person who I think is best for my country and my state,” Manchin told Politico. “If his policies are best, I’ll be right there.”

http://www.newsweek.com/democratic-senator-wont-rule-out-endorsing-trump-2020-961202

Hmm...

[theaocp]

5. Clap louder.

He's got the jersey. Just remember that a corrupt D is better than ANYbody else. Apparently. Myopic BS, but there it is.

[pecosbob]

141. Myopic BS that gave us candidates that are besties with payday lenders and private prisons

and extractive industries.

[stevenleser]

7. This isn't complicated. Register as a Democrat, stay that way, and caucus with Democrats. nt

[thesquanderer]

98. I don't think there is a way to Register as a Dem in, say, Vermont. (n/t)

[brer cat]

121. Sen. Leahy is a Democrat. nt

[George II]

122. This comes up all the time, but Patrick Leahy has RUN as a Democrat for decades. See:

https://www.sec.state.vt.us/media/913590/2018primaryconsentfinal.pdf

I join in a petition to place on the Vermont primary ballot of the ________________________Party
name of_______________________________________,

People confuse voter registration with candidate registration.

[thesquanderer]

127. That's not the same as *registering* as a Dem, which is what SL wanted in the comment I replied to.

You can't register as a Dem in VT. But yes, you can run as one.

(The comment I replied to was: "This isn't complicated. Register as a Democrat, stay that way, and caucus with Democrats. nt" )

[George II]

128. But this entire discussion is about candidates...

...who run, not voters who vote.

Even the comment you replied to is referring to candidates. Perhaps the word "register" isn't 100% correct, but many who "file" to run use the word "register" interchangeably. But the point doesn't change.

[Demsrule86]

149. Yes there is too...that is simply untrue. Sen. Sander is running in the Democratic primary

in Vermont but will refuse to serve as one when he wins.

[thesquanderer]

159. You can RUN as a Dem without REGISTERING as a Dem.

In fact, there's no other way to do it.

But I guess SL was just being loose with the language, and didn't mean to use the word "register" literally.

[Demsrule86]

166. He could register if he chose...in fact he did in 16 and promised to remain a Dem...it is on google.

[thesquanderer]

172. Not in Vermont, though. I think it was NH?

Of course at this point, not being a resident of NH nor running for anything in NH, it would be pointless (and probably impossible) for him to register a a Dem in NH.

[brush]

223. Ahhh...fyi, there is a Democratic Party in Vermont. A certain senator...

prefers not to join it.

[thesquanderer]

227. You cannot "register" as a Democrat, that was my point. But also...

as far as I know, you cannot even "join" the party. However, anyone is free to "participate" in their activities.

http://www.vtdemocrats.org/

http://www.vtdemocrats.org/about/bylaws

[QC]

23. He has the Circle D on his jersey. n/t

[NurseJackie]

66. It's West fucking Virginia... I'll take it! And I'll be glad to have it! It is what it is.

They'll NEVER in a million years elect a Vermont-style politician to hold that position.

23. He has the Circle D on his jersey. n/t

That "Circle-D jersey" that puts us one warm-body closer to having control of the Senate.

All I'm saying is that the Manchin haters need to just get over it, move on, and accept reality... that's the best you can hope for... be thankful for what you've got.

[leftstreet]

85. Would you take a left-leaning indie in a really blue state?

if it gives another warm body

[Tavarious Jackson]

90. I think this means Presidential nominees

Manchin would NEVER win a dem primary. NEVER. I'm in Portland OR and I am more left than any New York politician and NY is a blue state.

[Hekate]

91. Is that putative candidate a registered Democrat already?

Or is that person holding their metaphorical skirts above the mud and refusing to register and serve as a Democrat?

"Independents" will not give us the numbers to be the majority in either the House or Senate. It does not matter who they caucus with -- if we are still in the minority we still lack all power to effect change.

[thesquanderer]

97. If they caucus with the Dems, they give you the same numbers as if they were Dems (n/t)

[Hekate]

106. Not for purposes of electing Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leader

[Demsrule86]

164. I don't believe in open primaries and if you won't join the party...I won't caucus with you.

[thesquanderer]

173. All the Dems in Congress have a different perspective.

None refuse to caucus with Inds who wish to caucus with them. It would be kind of self-defeating. But I think you're drifting from candidates/office-holders to voters...

[George II]

123. No.

[Demsrule86]

151. Absolutely not. I vote for Democrats. The lefty leaning independent can fuck off.

[leftstreet]

153. No, I mean if they join the party

In the same way Manchin is technically a Democrat

[Demsrule86]

165. Manchin is a Democrat...dangerous ground there...I will vote for Democrats but not independents.

[leftstreet]

178. Excellent!

So if an Independent joins the Democratic party, s/he has your vote

That's all I was asking

There's often chatter about Democrats in red states and why they must vote the way they do, blah, blah, blah...but you never really see the same discussions about very blue states

[skylucy]

108. +10000 and AMEN!

[brer cat]

142. Personally, I think the Manchin haters

need to move to WVA and straighten those folks out. Shouldn't take them too many decades to do it, and it would be very meaningful community service.

[pecosbob]

140. I've had posts removed for talking about Manchin.

[Demsrule86]

152. He is a Democrat and if we are to get a majority, or even hold the line we need red state Democrats.

You know the drill.

[PatrickforO]

209. Well, this IS Democratic Underground, and the ground rules are

very clear. We don't bash Democrats, though we can attack their stances on issues.

Still...that did get me banned from the Obama room on here - still a sore spot because I think Obama is one of the great, greats and I volunteered for his campaign in both '08 and '12. I just disagreed with him about the ISDS provisions of the TPP, and the secrecy with which that was negotiated and drafted.

In all, I think Obama was the best president in my lifetime, and I was born when Ike was president, so that's saying something. But Obama had it all.

I even offered to be a moderator in that room so I could reinstate myself.

Oh my God Let me back IN, please!

[pecosbob]

211. I met Jimmy Carter twice while he was in office and I was in the service

He'll always be my favorite president. I'm humbled when I remember him. I've grown too old and too cynical as I watched the country go center right for twenty years and then center left for another twenty and now unabashed robber baron. Only constant over all that time is the working stiff still can't catch a break. Even the banks steal from you these days. I should just shut up and lurk.

[PatrickforO]

213. No, don't lurk! You're cool.

I suspect you're a bit older than me, because I can remember disliking Carter because of his response to the Iran hostage crisis. I mean, what we saw on the ground then was every day...Ted Koppel, The Iran Hostage Crisis, Day XXX!

I'm ashamed to say that I voted for Reagan in November 1980, and can remember I was gratified when the hostages were released just as Reagan was about to enter office.

Then, of course, he proved he was a snake, but I was loyal to him until the Contra deal.

As to Carter - he is a truly GREAT man. And by that, I mean a mahatma, a great soul. I believe he's distinguished himself far more AFTER he left office than he did while in office.

[ChrisTee]

239. I was not quite old enough to vote but even I knew then that Reagan was pulling the strings on the

Iran hostage situation to effect the election at the cost of hostages and was really pissed he was getting away with it, adding a black mark to Carter.

Ironic that is what you were mad at Carter for and voted Reagan, when Reagan was the responsible person.

[PatrickforO]

243. Indeed. Same thing with Nixon, though I was in my early teens at that time.

He sabotaged the Vietnam peace talks to aid in his election. I remember my dad yelling about how stupid it was the Vietnamese were arguing with us about the shape of the table. (Yes, I grew up in a Republican family).

So, yeah, Republicans are known for crooked shit like this. The cornerstone of the whole Southern Strategy is to keep people of color from voting. Same with the national gerrymandering strategy, and they have cheated in three presidential elections. It's getting worse.

Funny that you, who are only a couple years younger than me seemingly, had the necessary cynicism to see Reagan pulling those strings to get elected - because I sure as hell wouldn't put that past Atwater or Rove to mess with whatever diplomatic efforts were going on and at the same time have their candidate bluster his way into winning.

Credulous me, I just thought it was because Carter was wimpy and Reagan was strong. Plus, the failed helicopter rescue didn't do Carter much good at all. I think that, as much as the hostage crisis itself, contributed to his defeat.

[ChrisTee]

246. I was in northern California and I have always been politically/current events oriented.

My family was half and half, minus the religion aspect. Very reasonable conversation.

I was just starting college, so I was doing research, listening. My mom was huge having the Nixon hearings on. She was obsessed with the coverage, so at about 12, that is a strong memory for me. We were on vacation and she stayed in the room watching. We swam and would bring her greasy hamburgers from the diner across the street. I had a blast, while halfway aware of what was going on.

We had the gas lines, too, in northern California. That was not everywhere.

Thanks for the memory lane, lol.

[Demsrule86]

148. Manchin is a Democrat who is fighting a tough battle...He is a Democrat.

[progressoid]

171. Indeed. n/t

[highplainsdem]

3. Good.

[kstewart33]

100. I agree.

It's time to stop letting non-Democrats, whomever they may be, enjoy the party's $$$$ and benefits without joining the party.

This has never made sense, and it's time to correct it.

[theaocp]

4. What a charade.

Fine. Put on the jersey and keep being progressive. The haters will continue to hate. What an unbelievable waste of time and resources arguing over what you stand for. All sides, please STFU and fight against the fascists. They're laughing at us.

[stevenleser]

6. The "fascists" are only laughing because a divisive primary race allowed Trump to win.

The primary was divisive exactly because an outsider who likes to crap on the party every chance he got ran a divisive candidacy.

[theaocp]

30. Take back the media.

MFer had a free audience. That's the "fascists'" choice. What's with the quotes?

[Susan Calvin]

150. Yep. That too. nt

[True Blue American]

94. Right on!

[thesquanderer]

99. Sounds like someone here is refighting the primaries. (n/t)

[Blue_true]

115. Sounds like someone is making a threat.

Steve is right, dead right.

[thesquanderer]

118. Nope, I didn't alert on it. I think it breaks the rule, though. (n/t)

[MrPool]

206. Current news why is this difficult

to understand? If it wasn't for the mudslingers this wouldn't be a topic.

[thesquanderer]

217. The OP is current news. The post I was replying to was not.

That's what I said was breaking that rule. Also the rule that says

"Do not post disrespectful nicknames, insults, or highly inflammatory attacks against any Democratic public figures...This rule also applies to Independents who align themselves with Democrats (eg: Bernie Sanders)."

The post in question referred to Sanders as someone "who likes to crap on the party every chance he gets"

*This* is the kind of divisive rhetoric we don't need. Like him or not, Sanders and his agenda represent the preferences of a significant portion of our party. Sure, he's been critical of the party. He's also been supportive of it. And the party is more than just the DNC.

[Susan Calvin]

235. "And the party is more than just the DNC." - AMEN!

[MrPool]

249. Find just one time when he has said something nice about

any Dem that isn't one of his chosen candidates them maybe he would be given more latitude.
As for the DNC could care less they have enabled all of this in the first place by pandering to his crowd of Susan Sarandons.
Is Susan Sarandon a bad name? Or do we have to go running and check the rules again to defend his lordship.
Oh sorry is lordship allowed?

[thesquanderer]

257. Well, he has said nice things about Hillary Clinton. ;-)

Seriously, I don't keep track of his statements, but your request to "find just one time when he has said something nice about any Dem that isn't one of his chosen candidates" is almost inherently contradictory. You seem to be basically asking for instances where he has complimented Dems who he doesn't like. If he likes them, he presumably says good things. If he doesn't like them, I expect he probably doesn't say much. What's the issue there?

[Susan Calvin]

147. That is not why Trump won.

He won on gerrymandering, vote suppression, and Russian interference. The last being the least.

The real divisiveness re Dems was the thumb on the scale.

[stevenleser]

221. Not the thumb on the scale BS again. Hillary won by 4 million votes. It wasn't close.

The people chose her over Sanders by a lot. She beat Sanders by a wider margin than Obama beat her in 2008.

[Susan Calvin]

234. So there was no need for the thumb. nt

[stevenleser]

236. There was no thumb. This is made up BS. nt

[disillusioned73]

266. No, not really "made up BS" - take that up with..

Elizabeth Warren & former DNC chair Donna Brazile if you have an issue with the "thumb" statements;

[link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/02/ex-dnc-chair-goes-at-the-clintons-alleging-hillarys-campaign-hijacked-dnc-during-primary-with-bernie-sanders/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b9d7708d26f1|

[stevenleser]

272. That's not a thumb on scale. First of all that's her opinion, which she took back and said was wrong

as did Donna Brazille.

Second, there is no path from anything anyone at the DNC did to four million additional votes for Hillary over Bernie, or any additional states for Bernie.

[Ninsianna]

250. The only thumb on the scale was against Hillary.

Even with the thumb, Bernie and Trump failed to win voters.

[ChrisTee]

253. Here is a thumb HRC had not many recognize.HRC had to coddle Sanders and his supporters while

they attacked her.

That was quite a demand we put on this woman running a national campaign while running as the first women President, ever.

[MrPool]

256. This is a lie

and should not be allowed on a Democratic site.

[Susan Calvin]

260. Oh please. I was alive and paying attention.

And I have voted (and worked and donated) Democratic since age 18.

As someone said earlier, the DNC is not the entire party. Nor the Senate and House versions.

Boil it down, it is individual voters. (And systems to suppress same, of course.)

[stevenleser]

262. No, you weren't paying attention. You invented reasons for your candidate losing because

you didn't want to believe they lost.

It's that simple.

[Susan Calvin]

284. OFFS.

Yes, he lost.

He might not have won even in a fair fight.

We will never know, because it wasn't.

[disillusioned73]

267. This revionist history now..

is becoming insulting..

[stevenleser]

273. Your attempt to nullify what the voters chose is what is insulting. nt

[disillusioned73]

275. Your attempt to recruit the ill informed/ underinformed

into your manufactured bubble is insulting..

[BootinUp]

8. Damn u and ur common sense.

[manor321]

9. This is literally the most commonsense rule mankind has ever created. n/t

[ChrisTee]

11. Being forced to state an obvious. I agree. One would think it is a given.

[Garrett78]

12. Does the rule stipulate the candidates must be party-affiliated for X amount of time...

...before and after running?

If not, this rule doesn't really accomplish anything. If all you have to do is register as a Dem to seek the nomination, this 'rule' won't do what folks seem to think it will. For instance, it wouldn't have kept Sanders out in 2016.

[stevenleser]

14. I actually responded to you in the other thread to tell you why I disagreed with you

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]

16. And my thoughts remain the same.

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]

17. And I disagree, as I said in the other thread...

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." He spent years crapping all over it in public and then was an independent until he wanted the nomination.

I think lawsuits would have been filed and I think any impartial judge would have found that he clearly was not faithful to the party's interests.

[Garrett78]

21. Phrases like "faithful to the party's interests" are too ambiguous.

And 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]

22. Ambiguous to whom? To a DNC grievance committee? To a court? It's not ambiguous.

It's very straightforward. If I call someone or some organization bad things, I am not faithful to that person or that organization's interests.

You can try to play word-games all you want 'Oh, I am just trying to uphold the organizations own standards' an impartial judge or body evaluating that isn't going to buy it.

[Garrett78]

24. Let's pretend we agree...do you think a public court case would be wise?

[stevenleser]

25. Yes. I'm playing the long game here. This has to be stopped permanently. A court battle could very

well hurt us for one election cycle. Then it would be over and we wouldn't have this nonsense again.

[Garrett78]

28. We can't afford to be hurt for one election cycle, and certainly not the 2020 cycle.

[stevenleser]

29. We can't afford to be hurt for multiple election cycles including 2020 by similar nonsense. nt

[Garrett78]

34. I'm not suggesting we not push back against nonsense claims.

But a court battle would be unwise.

[stevenleser]

77. Have you considered a career in acting? Because that drama was almost Oscar worthy.

The rule is, you want our party's nomination? Be a Democrat, and don't crap on the Democratic party.

That's what you thought was worthy of all that drama.

[Plucketeer]

89. Oscar, eh?

OK - get your best Bogie voice goin'. Now set your mental vision screen to black and white (you know your good at that!)

OK, now Bogie's at an intimate corner table - with a drink in one hand and a cigarette in the other. Sharing that table with him is a gaudy, floosie who's just loosed an utterance that pegged her 2-digit IQ. Bogie leans close to her and says: "Babe - the word is out that ignorance is blissful. An' I gotta say, doll, I envy the hell out of you."

[brush]

225. In some states you have to register months before the election.

[Drahthaardogs]

13. Good.

This is fair

[cloudbase]

15. A quote from LBJ:

"It’s probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in."

[stevenleser]

18. The problem is, the person most recently in question was inside pissing on everyone inside. nt

[DFW]

20. GMTA n/t

[kstewart33]

101. Bingo.

Well said.

[progressoid]

175. I didn't get pissed on.

[stevenleser]

181. You're not an elected official of the party. nt

[progressoid]

182. So the tent is only for party officials?

[stevenleser]

230. No, but the analogy is. nt

[brush]

226. He was first outside pissing in and continued once he was let in.

We don't need a replay of that crap again.

It's like how chaos follows trump, divisiveness follows a certain senator from a small state. And they both seem to love to wallow in the attention it gets them.

[stevenleser]

229. Even more accurate than what I wrote. Thank you for that amplification. 100% correct.

and you distinction matters.

He was invited in and still crapped all over the furniture.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

276. Because him running as an independent would have been better?

Is that what you wanted?

[DFW]

19. Just curious

What did LBJ say about letting someone into the tent, and then watching him piss on everyone inside?

[progressoid]

176. I didn't get pissed on.

[ChrisTee]

184. Ya, you did. You just processed it as a spring rain.

[progressoid]

189. Thanks for the analysis doctor.

[ChrisTee]

190. Sure.

[Cha]

205. Yes, I wonder what LBJ would have to say about that?

I want this, too..

DFW

I finally figured out what DFW stands for.. lol

[MrPool]

207. LBJ would of

kicked Sanders in the coconuts and tell him to get the hell out of his office.

[Cha]

208. lol..

LBJ! MrPool

[brush]

228. Heehee. I can see that now. LBJ towering over him.

[MrPool]

248. Apparantley LBJ

had quite the waggy finger as well while he was dressing down someone.

[NastyRiffraff]

244. Oh god, he definitely would have!

I can easily picture that.

[smirkymonkey]

26. I totally agree. Now he can run as an independent and will split the vote guaranteeing

another four years of Trump. This sucks. I would rather have him run against other dems first and let the party decide than have him out there as a free agent who can only cause us damage.

[stevenleser]

32. That's up to him. You can't live your life or run an organization out of fear of blackmail as to

what certain bad actors might do.

[smirkymonkey]

36. All I care about is that Trump gets voted OUT.

That is the ONLY thing that matters at this point!

[stevenleser]

49. Until the next crazy GOP candidate, and the next. This is the second time this has happened.

We had someone divisive running for President and because of that the party divided and a crappy GOP President was installed.

2020 isn't as important as taking steps so that the next five times this would happen, doesnt happen.

[DFW]

215. While I agree with your goal and general position

The fact is that last time, when Sanders ran as a "Democrat," he split the party rather effectively, and then decided that he'd have more impact in a Hillary administration than in a Trump administration (DUH) and backed her in the general. But it would be naïve to say that much damage wasn't already done. If he runs as an independent, he knows full well what the likely consequences will be, and will adopt Nader's line from after the 2000 election: "Bush's win had nothing to do with me. Gore was a bad candidate." So if Sanders runs as an independent in 2020, splits our vote, and says "Trump's re-election had nothing to do with me. Harris/Booker/Kennedy/Biden/(whoever) was a bad candidate," are we supposed to nod our head in sad resignation, watching as what was left of our country is irrevocably lost?

I do not consider Sanders to be an idiot. I think he is quite compos mentis, and realizes full well what will happen if he mounts a third party run. Maybe somehow he can justify the consequences. For my part, I'm just happy my daughter who lives in the States has kept her German passport current.

[redgreenandblue]

269. Your side of this argument is the one which is in favor of blackmail. nt

[stevenleser]

271. No amount of spin will make this statement of yours correct. nt

[theaocp]

33. STFU

You're arguing reality instead of what ppl want to see. How dare you.

[Cha]

204. The REALITY is.. You have to be a Democrat to run for

for POTUS in the Democratic Party.

I want this, too..

[Cuthbert Allgood]

277. That is a LOT of imposition on state's rights to determine voting.

That has historically and constitutionally been a state issue.

For example, here in Wisconsin we don't register for a party. We have to pick. Now the state of Wisconsin will have to put in place a mechanism to register as a member of a party. Who's going to pay for that?

And Iowa probably doesn't want to get rid of the caucus. What if they tell the DNC to fuck off?

[Blue_true]

116. I don't think Bernie will have the impact that he expects running as an Indy.

I don't see him getting 1% of the vote that way. There are many ways that we can neutralize him politically if he tries the Indy route. And I think we should take off the gloves and go right at him, not let him take potshots without answering back.

[MrPool]

252. He will be neutralized regardless

his free ride is over even NeverTrumpers are on to his shtick. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
But in Mr Sanders case the enemy of my enemy is still my enemy because they will stab you in the back and slap your face.

[Blue_true]

255. His refusal to make his tax returns public will absolutely doom his chances.

He didn't get vetted on that because the Press was all over someone else, but that is different now because he is the large target. A socalled man of the people is so resistant to making his tax returns public. Why is that? If he is what he claims to be, there is no logical reason.

[Ninsianna]

251. he can't split votes, he simply does not have as much support as his

online bot army claims. It's why his endorsement is the kiss of death and why he needs to rig the primary in VT ro survive. Even those who supported him are waking up to what he is and how he operates, and it is not as advertised.

[ChrisTee]

258. I agree with this. Running as Independent will show how little support he has.

[Cha]

202. We already tried that.. it didn't work.

[NastyRiffraff]

27. It's amazing to me that this is even needed

but obviously it had to be done, for many reasons. You can't (or shouldn't) have it both ways; able to use the Democratic party and its resources at your pleasure, without the bother of being a Democrat. Want to be an independent, a Green, or whatever, fine. THAT'S your right; but you don't have a right to use the party as your personal piggybank and abandon it after you got what you wanted out of it.

[Sophia4]

45. Yeah. If they are Green or Independent, they should just stay that way.

Democrats can win without any new voters. Let them convert publicly first.

Sarcasm!

Politics is not about exclusion. It's about persuasion and inclusion.

People who are outside the Democratic Party and want to run will still do so and still draw votes to themselves if they are attractive candidates.

But this measure is a "we'll show them" measure. It is just for show.

And what it shows is how helplessly and foolishly bitter we Democrats are.

Instead of this silly snubbing of others who are different, we should have a stronger outreach program to educate the public about how workable our policies are. But that would take a lot of creativity and work. Excluding others publicly and loudly takes no work and no creativity.

It's not that so many people who aren't registered Democratic want to run as Democrats. It's that so many Democrats are angry and incapable of reaching out to non-Democrats to persuade them to become Democrats.

When I was a little girl, a neighbor girl would get together with a couple of us, a family of sisters and leave the other of us sisters out. So my mother told us, when she does that, if you are left out, just play with the sisters that are left out and have a good time, and she will want to play with you. That, finding ourselves left out, could happen to us Democrats if we become too cliquey within ourselves.

This business is silly. Has no substance. Why aren't we dealing with real issues like prison reform or making sure everyone gets health insurance or taxing the very, very wealthy or moving away from fossil fuels or improving our industrial base, something useful.

[stevenleser]

46. Again, the blackmail argument. As if we are asking so much.

Be a Democrat, don't crap on the party. You're making it seem like we are asking so much.

Look, if someone can't deal with those simple rules, they really can't handle the Presidency. You have a ton of rules restricting what you are able to do as President as Trump is finding out.

[Sophia4]

51. It is a silly, childish rule. We should be focused on including people and persuading

them in a positive way to become part of our Democratic Party. We should be able to persuade them by pointing out that they can win as Democrats.

But we are too bitter and foolish. Bitter and foolish.

And divided. And this provision will divide us all the more.

Republicans hold on to their coal mining, and we hold on to our separation from the rest of the country. What will come of all this provincialism. I've never seen it in my country before. We have been the country that adopted new ways of looking at the world. And here we are receding into our shells. Trump was the first symptom of that in this century. It is getting worse. Fear. Fear. Fear. Fear of the other.

[stevenleser]

54. Pretty basic actually. You want organization X's support, join and don't denigrate organization X.

All of the flailing in the world won't change how straightforward and reasonable that is.

[Blue_true]

117. So we let someone into our house.

Who wants to boss us around, eat our best food and sleep in our best beds without giving a shit about what we thinks about issues? Bernie has called the Democratic Party bankrupt of ideas, the very same party that has been the ONLY reason why the nation made ANY progress toward inclusion and equality for the last six decades. I honestly don't think that we should have a career politician who has accomplished almost nothing telling us what to do, and sure as hell not letting him or his followers blackmail us. If they want to set up their own party with their own platform, then they should get at it, chop, chop.

[mcar]

131. +1000!

[ehrnst]

137. +1000 (nt)

[susanr516]

138. Indeed n/t

[R B Garr]

143. Exactly! put your money where your mouth is.

If it’s so fricken bad that three years later you still have to degrade and lie about my party, then do what you have to do, already. Pip pip!

[Cha]

188. Teach It, Blue!

[ehrnst]

144. "Bitter and foolish?" Speak for yourself, not Democrats.

[Demsrule86]

155. No. Done with Greens...join the party or sit at home vote for your hopeless candidates who spoil

occasionally but never win...accept that you are really a Republican enabler and responsible for every shiity thing they do .

[sheshe2]

183. Wow

Steven said:

stevenleser (32,640 posts)
46. Again, the blackmail argument. As if we are asking so much.

Be a Democrat, don't crap on the party. You're making it seem like we are asking so much.

Look, if someone can't deal with those simple rules, they really can't handle the Presidency. You have a ton of rules restricting what you are able to do as President as Trump is finding out.

And then you respond with this:

Sophia4
51. It is a silly, childish rule. We should be focused on including people and persuading

them in a positive way to become part of our Democratic Party. We should be able to persuade them by pointing out that they can win as Democrats.

But we are too bitter and foolish. Bitter and foolish.

And divided. And this provision will divide us all the more.

It is a silly childish rule to ask the Democratic Candidates for PRESIDENT

actually be a Democrat? Are you serious? The OP is about the Presidency and not the individual voters. Democrats and our party are bitter and foolish? You said that twice to make your point. Democrats are bitter and foolish?

Sorry, wrong party, that would be the Republicans, the Democrats are neither bitter or foolish.

And divided.

Nope. We are not divided, though there are some seeking to divide us. Our base is strong. We are together to oust the Republican blight. Others on 'our side' not so much.

[Cha]

186. No, you're Wrong once Again, Sophia. You must

be speaking for your self when you say "childish, bitter, and foolish".

Because we're not.. the Democratic Party is not At All.. we're Going Forward with Democrats

[sheshe2]

193. "We"?

I am neither bitter or foolish.

[George II]

242. Expecting a candidate to be a Democrat in order to be the Democratic nominee is childish?

[ChrisTee]

247. Right? Lol.

[ut oh]

212. So I think those anti-abortion Dems are crapping on the party

can we boot them?

[stevenleser]

231. They're not so no. nt

[NastyRiffraff]

68. The Democratic party welcomes anyone

but if you don't want to be a Democrat, that's your choice and your right. But you don't get to use the party's resources because you want to run for something, without being a member. Nobody's saying you can't run, but you can't stick "Democrat" after your name temporarily and go back to whatever you were before after you used the party's resources. That's dishonest at best.

BTW, as to your point about all the stuff we should be doing instead, it's actually possible to do those things AND correct what needs to be corrected within the party. Aren't you one of the ones who says the Democratic party must be open to change? Well, this is a change.

[Sophia4]

75. And, after all, having the word "Democrat" after your name permanently is what it is

all about.

This is a silly, superficial issue. Democrats should be focused on bringing people who are registered as independent or decline to state into the Democratic fold and getting them to vote Democratic above all, not on defining more narrowly who is or is not a Democrat.

This is an offensive waste of time that reveals how really divided we are as a Party, how angry and closed off. It's a bad sign. And it won't change anything significant. We should be focusing on how good we are and how much better we would do in Congress and the White House for Americans than the Republicans.

[NastyRiffraff]

80. But we're not talking about voters

Of course the party should woo independents, etc. But we're talking about CANDIDATES here. Candidates who want to gobble at the party's trough but don't want to be a member.

[sheshe2]

194. ++++++++++++++++++

[csziggy]

86. What did allowing an independent to run as a Democrat do for us in 2016?

An Independent who has repeatedly pretended to be a Democrat to block the nomination of a real Democrat in his state. One who has stated that he will again pretend to be a Democrat for the primaries but who will then - yet again - run and serve as an independent.

The same person who when he LOST the Democratic nomination never clearly asked his followers to vlote for the Democratic nominee. Who NEVER disavowed any of the conspiracy theories attributed to that nominee or to the Democratic Party. Who NEVER acknowledged that the Democratic Party plank was changed to meet his demands

The same person who since the election has done nothing but criticize the Democratic Party and has done nothing to encourage his followers to join the party that he sometimes pretends to support - when he can get money and other benefits out of it.

You say, "We should be focusing on how good we are and how much better we would do in Congress and the White House for Americans than the Republicans." If that fake Democrat had been doing that since he lost the primaries in 2016 we would all be better off right now. He has not done one thing to bring the Democratic Party together with the progressives that supported him. Not. One. Damn. Thing.

And THAT is why we need this rule.

[thesquanderer]

104. Sanders is not the reason Trump beat Clinton in 2016.

There are plenty of reasons Trump won, Sanders is only one of them at best (worst).

James Comey's pre-election nonsense, misogyny, not putting enough effort into states like Wisconsin, cambridge analytica/russian shenanigans, having an "establishment" candidate in a year when people found lots of appeal in an "outsider," having a candidate who had sky-high unfavorables outside the base (even before Bernie entered the race), even picking a competent but uninspiring VP, were among the many things contributing to the loss, all having nothing whatsoever to do with anything Sanders did or did not do.

[stevenleser]

133. Yes of course, folks being divisive could never possibly have affected the election.

[ehrnst]

139. +1000 (nt)

[thesquanderer]

146. Every non-incumbent primary involves competitors.

You really want to blame Clinton's loss on Sanders? Competition is part of the deal. Why should she have been entitled to anything else?

And you think that, for example, Sanders was tougher on Clinton in 2016 than Clinton was on Obama in 2008? Or that Sanders was tougher on Clinton than the other Republican nominees (and practically the entire Republican leadership, for that matter) were on Trump? His own party mostly didn't want him to get the nomination! Seriously, compared to all of that, I'd say Clinton barely got her clothes ruffled... her path to the nomination was practically unfettered by comparison.

Look at that list of other factors I provided.

James Comey's pre-election nonsense, misogyny, not putting enough effort into states like Wisconsin, cambridge analytica/russian shenanigans, having an "establishment" candidate in a year when people found lots of appeal in an "outsider," having a candidate who had sky-high unfavorables outside the base (even before Bernie entered the race), even picking a competent but uninspiring VP

With all those other things going against her, you're going to pin her loss simply on having some reasonably competent competition, which is something any non-incumbent candidate should expect and be prepared for from the start? Sheesh. right back at ya'.

[progressoid]

177. +1

[R B Garr]

210. Trump copied Sanders attacks on her.

That certainly wasn’t helping Democrats. It was recognizing divisiveness and using it. There’s something else that’s obvious about that, but.......

[thesquanderer]

219. You think Trump couldn't/didn't come up with similar attacks regardless?

Trump basically "copied" one thing from Sanders... Clinton's ties to Wall Street and the "establishment." Oh, I'm sure Trump and his strategists would NEVER have come up with that otherwise, right? And "lock her up" did not come from the Sanders campaign.

Look, every primary provides some ammunition that can be used by the other candidate in the general, no news there. That doesn't entitle any candidate to no criticism from his/her primary opponents. Sanders was not particularly tough on Clinton. And to the extent that you still think this is an issue, the Republicans provided plenty of ammunition Clinton could use against Trump. And again, Clinton was pretty tough on Obama in 2008.

Does anyone think Clinton was more wounded by her primary process than Trump was by his? Trump was insulted every which way, and his party was dragged kicking and screaming into supporting him. Where are the prominent Dems who said they would not support our candidate in November? Compared to, for example Bush and Romney who refused to support Trump? I mean, not only did they not campaign for him, they wouldn't even vote for him! Sorry, in terms of intra-party squabbling, we had it easy compared to what happened on their side.

[R B Garr]

238. OMG, how completely off base. The fact that you neglect to

mention Trump’s racist core fan base shows how off this is. The man himself is a walking psycho racist misogynistic pig, and his fans love him all the more. He was not hurt by his primary. Look at the news all around and you’ll see how much they love his vulgar lies and stick with him. Fail.

More comments are out of touch, but the crooked Hillary was just a dressed up version of Sanders superficial attacks that he was asked to prove, but he couldn’t. Name a policy she changed for Wall Street and he couldn’t. The only reason to bring this up now is because of Sanders’ recent comments about Democrats.

The rest I can’t even say but it’s very obvious. Hint: Trump is a con man, and he copied Sanders attacks.

[stevenleser]

232. Sanders didn't just criticize Clinton, he criticized the Party. His supporters accused the party of

all kinds of BS.

That's the difference.

[thesquanderer]

259. Two things...

1. I don't think one should attribute to Sanders things you don't like about his supporters. I would offer Clinton and any other candidate the same consideration, as every campaign has its more fanatical followers.

2. More to the point, allowing for your premise that the difference is that Sanders criticized the party and not merely his competitor, I think it's plain silly to suggest that those criticisms cost Clinton the election. Sanders certainly did nothing to suggest that voters would be better off voting either for a Republican in general or Trump in particular. The number of voters who chose not to vote Dem because Sanders was critical of the party is probably not even a blip among all those other reasons people decided not to vote for her.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

278. Would that include HRC supporters tell BS supporters that they aren't needed?

Because there was a lot of division going both ways. Nice that you only look at one side of that.

[stevenleser]

281. Nope, it wouldn't. nt

[Cha]

192. I think you need to brush up on what actually

transpired and then get back to us.

[R B Garr]

240. People who advocate for or vote for third party candidates

like Jill Stein really do not bring very credible complaints about “divided” Democrats.

[Hekate]

93. Did you ever return to your OP that got so many replies? 214 thoughtful replies so far...

...many many of them disagreeing with your stance, which amounts to blackmail, watering down Democratic strengths.



https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10702345

Indefatigable.

[Cha]

113. Still no answer as to why the hit and run on

the stupid questions.

Maybe that's the reason?

[Demsrule86]

158. I remember that ...I don't believe the OP posted any replies but I could be wrong.

[kstewart33]

102. Yep. A thousand yeps. nt

[unitedwethrive]

31. Sounds resonable

Would anyone think twice about this if the repubs did the same thing?

[Sophia4]

37. We'd probably ridicule them and point out how provincial that rule is.

[stevenleser]

41. No, we wouldn't. At least not most of us. nt

[stevenleser]

57. Oh we know what comes of folks attacking the Democratic party from the left alright.

and

[Sophia4]

69. Or are they the result of Democrats attacking likeminded people.

Attacking people who agree with you in principle is not smart in my book.

The point in politics is to find common ground, shared values and ideas with potential voters, not to drive them away with rules that might threaten them or exclude them.

Differentiation does not invite voters who might otherwise join with us to vote for us.

If I were an registered as an independent, thinking about voting Democratic, this action might discourage me.

I've been a lifelong, very active Democrat. I think this is a defeatist measure. I have talked to voters, trying to persuade them to re-register as Democrats. This kind of measure divides the world all the more into "us" and "them." When you try to persuade people to join the Democratic Party, you point out all the ideas they share with other Democrats. This is about winning votes and elections, not excluding voters and candidates. It's a counterproductive move in my view. Makes utterly no sense if you think in terms of grass-roots, Democratic Party work like registering voters and tabling and going door-to-door.

[Hekate]

96. I understand you are concerned, Sophia4. Very concerned. Also not a student of history, it seems.

[sheshe2]

120. Well then tell Bernie that.

Sophia4
69. Or are they the result of Democrats attacking likeminded people.

Attacking people who agree with you in principle is not smart in my book.

I agree. It is not smart and I wish he would stop.

The point in politics is to find common ground, shared values and ideas with potential voters, not to drive them away with rules that might threaten them or exclude them.

He doesn't even try that and drives away voters by making social justice second to economic justice. That is a fact and he is wrong here.

[NastyRiffraff]

167. +1000

[sheshe2]

168. :)

[Gothmog]

195. I really like this measure and hope that is passes

I would also like to get rid of open primaries and caucuses

[thesquanderer]

109. W and Trump were both attacked by flanks of their own parties.

The Tea Party had little use for W. and of course Trump had plenty of pushback from members of his own party who would have preferred almost anyone else as their nominee.

[sheshe2]

119. Hmm

Sophia4
47. This action is shortsighted (we don't know what good might come of allowing

outsiders to run, we just don't know)

The Democratic Party has no problem with outsiders running, they have to become and stay Democrats. Not sure why you don't get that, it is the Democratic Party after all and we have been around for a very long time. True, "we don't know what good might come of allowing

outsiders to run, we just don't know"...however we have seen the damage.

and reveals our fear (of someone unlike us coming in and doing things better than we are) and division (because that's what this is really about -- a foolishly divided and bitter party).

It reveals our fear? Oh and who exactly is 'us'? Your next comment, that the Democratic Party are just "foolishly divided" and just a plain "bitter party". You don't seem to like Democrats all that much. We are not foolishly divided or bitter.

[ChrisTee]

129. "Someone coming in doing it better." I have not heard one person ever, having this concern (or fear)

of Sanders stepping into any position and "doing it better". We do consistently see that he accomplishes little to nothing. Over the last couple years of him jockeying for presidency, he is still accomplishing little to nothing. I really do not think many people educated on Sanders is "fearful" he will do better at anything. He simply does not do the hard work and follow thru.

No one has stated these concerns.

[sheshe2]

174. Welcome to DU, ChrisTee.

[Cha]

136. Too bad you don't like the Brilliant Rule that

in the Democratic Party one actually has to be a Democrat to run for POTUS.

We've learned our lesson.. the hard fucking way.

[sheshe2]

179. Hey, Cha.

Guess she did not understand that the rule applies to our Democratic Presidential candidates and not the voters themselves. Rules are rules. Why is this so hard?

[Cha]

180. I have no idea why that's

so incomprehensible.

she:

[Cha]

201. P.S. Especially since it's right in the Title

Message!

[Gothmog]

197. I agree with your analysis

[Cha]

198. My analysis.. Thank You, Goth!

We want this, too..

[Gothmog]

196. I am so glad that several blue states will have ballot access laws in place for 2020

All candidates will have to release their tax returns to get onto the ballot.

I really doubt that sanders will release his tax returns

[stevenleser]

38. The blackmail angle will never be persuasive. nt

[unitedwethrive]

39. Exactly. Why not start a new party if your aim is to present differing ideas?

If the ideas are popular enough, there should be no problem raising money and building a 'machine' in a short amount of time.

[stevenleser]

43. Of course they won't do that because they know they don't have the numbers. The Green party has

tried to do this in the 18 years since Nader. They were going to create this amazing third party that was going to contend for control of congress and the Presidency in a few years.

I told them they were crazy. A year or two later they came back and said look, we got a mayor here and a few state reps there, it's happening!

No, it wasn't and no it didn't.

[drray23]

84. not a very good argument.

Voters dont have to be member of the party to vote for the democratic candidate. This rule applies to actual candidates.
If you want to represent the democratic party, you should be a democrat.

Would you run for president of the local rotary club if you weren't a member of it ?

[Cha]

134. No, you have it all Wrong, Sophia.. The Democratic

Party is a Huge Tent. You just have to be a member of the Democratic Party to run for POTUS.

No more of this pretending just to throw cheap pot shots.

See how that works?

[Adrahil]

135. It's not unreasonable...

... to expect a candidate seeking the party’s nomination to be a member of the party.

[kentuck]

40. I dont think that is too much to ask?

That if you want Democrats to support you, then you should support the Democrats.

[Gore1FL]

42. I don't think a bunch of left-leaning third-party candidates is the way to go.

Rules like this betray people's misunderstanding or disregard of the realities of the electoral college. When we win, we do it by party-building. Alienation results in 2016s.

[stevenleser]

44. Again, the blackmail argument is not persuasive. nt

[Gore1FL]

59. No one is threatening blackmail. Words matter. Don't go Fox News on me. nt

[stevenleser]

61. It's blackmail. "You need to do what I say or X bad things will happen". nt

[Gore1FL]

65. Attracting flies with honey rather than vinegar is blackmail. Got it.

Being inclusive rather than divisive is a good and proven political strategy. Try it sometime.

[ChrisTee]

241. Sanders could not be more exclusive.

[Gore1FL]

279. What does Sanders have to do with this?

I am talking about the approach the DNC should take to win elections.

[JohnnyRingo]

48. Actually, "win elections" should still be the superseding rule.

There are too many states where the new rule would result in a second place finish. That helps no one. California has effective republicans in office because they don't run or serve like an Alabama republican. Maine republicans don't govern like Arizona republicans.

Strong democratic values mean nothing when you're not in power. That's probably the biggest lesson we can learn from Bernie.

[stevenleser]

52. You're interpretation is incorrect. Those differing Republicans register Republican & don't crap on

their party. They have different positions on certain issues. as Manchin does on our side, but like Manchin, they register as their party, they don't speak ill of their party and they caucus with their party.

That's why it is effective and that's why it doesn't divide their party.

[DesertRat]

53. Welcome to DU

myohmyohmy

[Fresh_Start]

58. Bullshit

Democrats are Progressive.

There is no war on progressives.

There is a war on democrats...with fake progressives being part of the opposition.

[Adrahil]

67. How is this a "war on progressives?" That's utter nonsense.

And anyone who opposes this just has a gross misunderstanding of U.S. Electoral politics.

[LostOne4Ever]

55. Between this and the super delegate change

Looks like a decent amount of the contentious issues from 2016 will be resolved this time.

That can only help us.

[DesertRat]

56. Be a Democrat. Simple.

[guillaumeb]

60. So Joe Manchin, Dan Lipinski, Heidi Heitkamp,

Claire McCaskill and quite a few others are to be preferred over actual progressives?

If the US had a parliamentary system, where politicians had to embrace the party platform, that would be logical, but the US does not have such a system.

What is simple is that this is a "get Sanders" move disguised as some type of principle.

[stevenleser]

63. All of that depends. Register as a Democrat, Caucus as a Democrat, don't attack the party.

If a Progressive follows those rules and Manchin doesn't, then the Progressive is preferred.

This isn't hard or nefarious no matter how some try to make it so.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

82. The whole idea is stupid.

I’m a lifelong Democrat. Wait, I just changed to independent. Oh, I’m back to being a Democrat.

That was easy.

Even more silly when we have people here salivating over a guy like Richard Painter, who oversaw “ethics” while George Bush was President, a lifelong Republican, running as a Democrat. And that’s all hunky dory.

Oh and Elizabeth Warren just criticized The Democratic Party. Are we going to try and sue her off the ballot?

Just what we need - some jailhouse lawyer filling lawsuits. The “liberal media” will crucify us.



Quick! Call Jonnie Cochran!

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/warren-says-democrats-lack-guts-to-take-on-billionaire-class

Warren Says Democrats Lack Guts to Take on ‘Billionaire Class’

[QC]

87. Is there some way to alert on Eliz. Warren? n/t

[Demsrule86]

161. No but because of her remarks, I won't vote for her in a primary.

[Demsrule86]

160. Yes...They can win in their states....your version of progressive can't.

You want a majority you going to win a majority without winning those states?

[erlewyne]

62. I am a Democrat

I do not like the DNC

[stevenleser]

64. And? nt

[NurseJackie]

72. Aw.

[Sienna86]

216. Same here.

I possess strong Democratic values, but there is no love here for the DNC.

[stopbush]

70. The only problem I see with this rule is that it should state

that if you are currently holding office, you must have self identified as a D for two years prior to announcing that you are running for President. Not caucus with the Ds, identify as a D, and with all that doing so entails.

So, if Sanders wants to run in 2020, he would need to identify now as a D, or forget it.

[stevenleser]

76. I agree. See my #14 above, I am very curious as to what lines 1-18 say.

from 19-24 it looks like the rule was pretty broad.

[Demsrule86]

162. agree.

[George II]

71. Speaking of "taking" and "giving", a month or so ago Elizabeth Warren spoke...

...at a Democratic Party fundraiser in MA.

Very quietly (although it got out) she made contributions to each and every State Democratic Party (all 50!) and the DNC.

That's what it means to be a Democrat!

[krawhitham]

73. Good

[loyalsister]

78. Like Chris Koster

who ran for and served aa AG as a Democrat after having spent a career in the MO general assembly as a republican. Voting against abortion rights, against LGBT rights, and in favor of deep Medicaid cuts. He then lost his gubernatorial race to a republican candidate who was a Democrat until he saw he couldn't out raise Koster. Go team.
This new rule is not a magic bullet for winning elections or in furthering a Democratic agenda. I'm not a loyalist to Bernie and I would have rather had a candidate with a solid progressive record than what we had running in '16.

[marylandblue]

79. Worthless

What is to stop Sanders from doing what he did before? He became a Democrat when he started and left the party after the campaign ended. He could do the same again, even if he wins, he could become an independent on inauguration day. They will be forced to accept it.

[dlk]

81. This is a No-Brainer

[Civic Justice]

83. 100%

[Hekate]

88. About time

[snort]

92. Think like a Liberal

function like an Authoritarian. Cool.

[bettyellen]

112. So flouting rules is cool and unauthoritarian? Trump wants no rules, and he's

Aiming to be a dictator. Groups have bylaws and standards- get over it.

[Cha]

114. "Authoritarian" my

Democratic

The Democratic Party states you must be a Democrat to run for Office. too bad if that's too hard for some to comprehend.

[stonecutter357]

95. K&R !

[stevenleser]

105. Oh please. That was an already tired line 36 months ago.

The drama, the horrors! An organization doesn’t want to support someone who maligns it.

Can you believe the nerve?!?!

[Gothmog]

107. A DNC committee has adopted a rule that presidential candidates must be party members.

Link to tweet

[snort]

110. .

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/6/9/1770608/-Irresponsible-press-get-the-DNC-Rules-Bylaws-Committee-wrong-Progressives-let-s-talk

[sheshe2]

111. Excellent!

[ucrdem]

125. Aint it though!

[sheshe2]

126. It sure is, ucrdem.

[ucrdem]

124. Very smart move. Can a DU rule change be far behind?

[grantcart]

130. About time

[betsuni]

132. K&R

[blue cat]

145. Thank you for posting this!

Good news.

[dembotoz]

154. don't think they can enforce that.

primary elections are generally run by the state election commission.
not the party.
you get enough signatures you get on the ballot
pretty simple

the national party is not supposed to interfere with the state primary.....looks really bad if they do.

so you plan not to seat the delegation legally won by a candidate in a primary?
wow....holy pr nightmare batman......

[Demsrule86]

163. The national party makes the rules...let me remind you in 08, Hillary could count the votes in

Florida or Michigan as they were being punished for rule breaking.

[dembotoz]

214. But the State runs the election

[stevenleser]

233. Yes they can. If there is a question on eligibility it will affect whether someone gets votes and

other support.

Few people are going to want to fork over donations or work tons of time on a campaign if there is a question of eligibility. So the person might be able to get on a state ballot, sure, but a large percentage of folks who would otherwise support them will deem it not worth the effort.

[dembotoz]

254. remains to be seen...running a renegade populist campaign did ok for clown trump

just how early the dnc --you say finger prints, i might say claw marks show up in the process is a matter of question.

to tell a campaign that they can not play after a good showing in a few primaries would be a pr nightmare.

being on the ground a SHOVE THIS UP THE DNC's ASS could be a fun thing to organize on.
and believe me there is enough distrust of the dnc to make it viable

[stevenleser]

261. Nope, it doesn't and Trump didn't face eligibility questions. People don't like to waste time and

money.

[dembotoz]

263. you put too much trust is peoples affection for the dnc

[stevenleser]

282. Nope, I am not considering that one way or the other . I think you underestimate

How people don’t like to waste time and money.

[dembotoz]

283. Time will tell

[Sunsky]

156. Wonderful nt

[cstanleytech]

169. I hope they wrote it so you have been registered as a Democrat for atleast the last 5 years

and if in the House or Senate have voted with the party on atleast 80% of the things the party has voted on.

[Roy Rolling]

170. "Give me access to your party's resources"

That says it all. Certain people feel superior in allocating "resources", as if that is the only way to win. That's what Republicans say, and if they want a Democratic Party that only stands for the same methods as Republicans they can set those rules.

A better way would be to energize card-carrying Democrats behind important issues.

[murielm99]

185. K&R

Very good move.

[Gothmog]

191. From my twitter feed

Link to tweet

[Scurrilous]

199. K&R

[Gothmog]

200. Politico- DNC rule change angers Sanders supporters

This is an interesting article https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/08/dnc-rule-change-sanders-supporters-634998

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.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

203. To listen to all the Berner's and the Jill Steinistas

We're going to hell for that.

[DinahMoeHum]

218. Hey, BERNIE!!! They're talking about/to YOU.

Either shit or get off the pot.

[Progressive dog]

220. Overdue rule change

If you think you're too special to support the Democratic party as a member, the you shouldn't expect the party to support you.

[Kurt V.]

224. LOL

[dlk]

237. This Will Disappoint the Freeloaders

[dalton99a]

245. About time

[disillusioned73]

264. What a disaster..

instead of focusing on policy - contrast republicans on economic issues heading into 2018, this is what we get... disaster

leadership is lacking...

[redgreenandblue]

265. And people wonder why the DNC gets accused of "rigging".

If your response to the candidacy of a person you don't like is to tamper with the rules to keep "those kind of people" out in the future (instead of perhaps reflecting upon why that candidacy happened in the first place), well, those aren't instincts very much in line with the idea of democracy. The behavior of the DNC makes it much harder to argue against Republican voter suppression in the future and provided Trump with a massive load of ammunition. Congratulations.

[betsuni]

268. LOL

[disillusioned73]

270. Bingo..

[Lil Missy]

274. Not unreasonable Rule. Non-Democratic candidates can start own Party instead of leaching of Dems