DNC panel adopts rule requiring candidates to run, serve as a Democrat

[musette_sf]

Source: The Hill

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.

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

---

Link to tweet

[stonecutter357]

1. K&R !

[COLGATE4]

128. Yours, X another 10000000000

[Lil Missy]

2. Good.

[George II]

3. Can they extend that to the Vermont Democratic Party?

This may go down as the "shit or get off the pot" rule.

[rpannier]

122. Would you extend that to Maine as well?

Since Angus King will again likely get the support of the Democratic Party
Both King and Sanders caucus with the Democrats
The Party does not run anyone against them because they do so. Plus, the Democratic Candidate would lose to Sanders in VT and in Maine, it could likely hand the Senate seat to a Republican -- similar to what happened in the Maine Governor's race

[Gothmog]

130. That was my question also

[corbettkroehler]

173. And Mine n/t

[beachbum bob]

4. Clarity keeps carpet baggers gets out...about time

We must unite behind one candidate to take our country back....

[SkatmanRoth]

5. Independent candidates from Northeastern States need not apply

What do we do when voters look and then vote out side of the Democratic Party because we prefer an excluded candidate who is perceived to be the superior choice?

[louis c]

23. Isn't that just what they did in 2016?

Why should we provide the platform for them to do just that again?

Too many Sanders supporters were temporary Democrats and abandoned the party right after the convention. Remember the Sanders delegates booing Hillary at the convention? I do.

You want to start a third party, be my guest. What happened in 2106 was tantamount to Bernie running third party. His supporters abandoned the party and the country in our time of need.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

52. None of the Sanders supporters I knew were temporary Democrats.

And his supporters did not abandon the party.

Sorry to rain on your parade.

[brush]

97. Ahhh...Sanders did though.

[ChiTownDenny]

132. Susan Sarandon, for starters. n/t

[still_one]

178. Sarandon was Green in 2000, and so was Michael Moore, and they both supported Nader, and

said that a “vote for Gore was a vote for a Republican”. I believe that was at Madison Square Garden

[George II]

53. They didn't just boo Hillary Clinton, they booed the great American John Lewis. Very sad.

[democrank]

57. "THEY" booed John Lewis? How many did?

How many Bernie Sanders supporters booed John Lewis? All of them? Most of them?

[George II]

59. Many.

[ehrnst]

182. They certainly weren't Hillary supporters, were they? (nt)

[ehrnst]

189. Judge for yourself.

?t=1m22s

[shanny]

54. A higher percentage of Bernie supporters voted for Hillary in the general

than Hillary supporters voted for Obama in '08. Were the PUMAs temporary Democrats too?

And in what bizarro world does running in the Democratic primary equate to running as a third-party in the general? That is precisely what Bernie did NOT do.

smdh

[George II]

60. How do you know that?

[CentralMass]

89. Here is a related article from the WAPO

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/

"How many Sanders voters voted for Donald Trump?

Two surveys estimate that 12 percent of Sanders voters voted for Trump. A third survey suggests it was 6 percent.

First, the political scientist Brian Schaffner analyzed the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, which was conducted by YouGov and interviewed 64,600 Americans in October-November 2016. In that survey, Schaffner found that 12 percent of people who voted in the primary and reported voting for Sanders also voted in November and reported voting for Trump."

"Schaffner examined only voters whose turnout in the primary and general election could be validated using voter file data. This excludes people who said they voted but actually did not — although it also excludes people who voted in caucuses or party-run primaries, for which validated turnout data are not as readily available.

Second, the same 12 percent figure emerges in the 2016 VOTER Survey, which was also conducted by YouGov and overseen by the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group (of which I am research director). In 2016, this survey interviewed 8,000 respondents in July, when they were asked their primary vote preference, and then in December, when they were asked their general election preference. This has the advantage of measuring primary preference closer to the primaries themselves and then tracking people over time. But their turnout in both elections has not been validated as of yet.

The third survey is the RAND Presidential Election Panel Survey, which interviewed the same group of about 3,000 Americans six times during the campaign. Again, this survey has the advantage of tracking voters over time, but nobody’s turnout has been validated. Among voters who reported supporting Sanders as of March 2016, 6 percent then reported voting for Trump in November."


"Another useful comparison is to 2008, when the question was whether Clinton supporters would vote for Barack Obama or John McCain (R-Ariz.) Based on data from the 2008 Cooperative Campaign Analysis Project, a YouGov survey that also interviewed respondents multiple times during the campaign, 24 percent of people who supported Clinton in the primary as of March 2008 then reported voting for McCain in the general election.

An analysis of a different 2008 survey by the political scientists Michael Henderson, Sunshine Hillygus and Trevor Thompson produced a similar estimate: 25 percent. (Unsurprisingly, Clinton voters who supported McCain were more likely to have negative views of African Americans, relative to those who supported Obama.)

[lapucelle]

116. Yes, but it was Sanders to Trump voters who gave Trump his margin of victory

in 2016. From the same article.

Even if we assume that the overall percentage of Sanders supporters who voted for Trump was 6 percent and not 12 percent, and assume therefore that we can cut every state estimate in half, the estimated number of Sanders-Trump voters would still exceed Trump’s margin of victory.

[Tom Rinaldo]

120. I thought it was Jill Stein's 1,457,226 votes that gave Trump his margin

Or perhaps it was youth support for the Libertarians helping Johnson gain 4,489,235 votes. Or the write in total, which was 1,154,084.

Or maybe it was the millions upon millions of Registered Democrats who didn't bother to vote.

Or maybe it was the tens of millions of Americans who were too apathetic and/or uninspired to vote.

The fact remains that there are always some defections after a primary. This time the percentage was relatively low, much lower than in 2008. Maybe some of the very same people who defected from Hillary to the GOP in 2008 defected from Bernie to the GOP in 2016.

[louis c]

206. And the Bernie supporters were in every one of those camps

[CentralMass]

134. T there has been much analysis on why Hillary lost in those states.

One was that she chose not to campaign there. It was a confluence of things. However the point stands Hillary voters voted for McCain by a 2:1 margin over Bernie voters who voted for tRump.

The article above also states
"Save now
×
Monkey Cage Analysis
Did enough Bernie Sanders supporters vote for Trump to cost Clinton the election?
By John Sides
August 24, 2017
Email the author

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) delivers remarks in the Wells Fargo Center on the first day of the 2016 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia on July 25, 2016. (Shawn Thew/European Pressphoto Agency)
On Tuesday night, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was in Detroit to host a town hall meeting with Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.). It felt, writes The Washington Post’s Dave Weigel, like a “campaign rally.” Indeed, Sanders is still being discussed as a front-runner for the Democratic nomination in 2020.

New data is shedding light, however, on Sanders’s role in the last election — and on how many Sanders voters ended up supporting Trump. It’s a question many in the party will be asking about a candidate who may want to compete again for the Democratic nomination.

How many Sanders voters voted for Donald Trump?

Two surveys estimate that 12 percent of Sanders voters voted for Trump. A third survey suggests it was 6 percent.

First, the political scientist Brian Schaffner analyzed the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, which was conducted by YouGov and interviewed 64,600 Americans in October-November 2016. In that survey, Schaffner found that 12 percent of people who voted in the primary and reported voting for Sanders also voted in November and reported voting for Trump.


Schaffner examined only voters whose turnout in the primary and general election could be validated using voter file data. This excludes people who said they voted but actually did not — although it also excludes people who voted in caucuses or party-run primaries, for which validated turnout data are not as readily available.

Second, the same 12 percent figure emerges in the 2016 VOTER Survey, which was also conducted by YouGov and overseen by the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group (of which I am research director). In 2016, this survey interviewed 8,000 respondents in July, when they were asked their primary vote preference, and then in December, when they were asked their general election preference. This has the advantage of measuring primary preference closer to the primaries themselves and then tracking people over time. But their turnout in both elections has not been validated as of yet.

The third survey is the RAND Presidential Election Panel Survey, which interviewed the same group of about 3,000 Americans six times during the campaign. Again, this survey has the advantage of tracking voters over time, but nobody’s turnout has been validated. Among voters who reported supporting Sanders as of March 2016, 6 percent then reported voting for Trump in November.

ADVERTISEMENT

There is no way to know whether 12 percent or 6 percent or some other estimate is The Truth, and there are enough differences among these surveys that we cannot easily pinpoint why the numbers differ. So we should take these estimates with some caution.

1:57
Sanders delegates walk out, protest after Democrats nominate Clinton
Delegates supporting Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) walk out in protest, despite Sanders's calls for unity within the party. (Peter Stevenson, Adriana Usero, Dalton Bennett, David Bruns, Jayne Orenstein, Alice Li/The Washington Post)

How does this compare to other elections?

It’s a perennial question whether supporters of losing primary candidates will vote for their party’s nominee in the general election. So let’s compare the Democratic primary with the Republican primary. In the VOTER Survey, only 3 percent of those supporting Texas Sen. Ted Cruz reported voting for Hillary Clinton, as did 10 percent of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s supporters and 32 percent of Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s supporters. So Sanders supporters were about as likely to vote for Trump as Rubio’s supporters were to vote for Clinton, and far less likely than Kasich supporters were to vote for Clinton.


Another useful comparison is to 2008, when the question was whether Clinton supporters would vote for Barack Obama or John McCain (R-Ariz.) Based on data from the 2008 Cooperative Campaign Analysis Project, a YouGov survey that also interviewed respondents multiple times during the campaign, 24 percent of people who supported Clinton in the primary as of March 2008 then reported voting for McCain in the general election.

An analysis of a different 2008 survey by the political scientists Michael Henderson, Sunshine Hillygus and Trevor Thompson produced a similar estimate: 25 percent. (Unsurprisingly, Clinton voters who supported McCain were more likely to have negative views of African Americans, relative to those who supported Obama.)

Thus, the 6 percent or 12 percent of Sanders supporters who may have supported Trump does not look especially large in comparison with these other examples.


Was this enough to cost Clinton support in key states?

This is a huge hypothetical, of course. Clinton’s losses in the Rust Belt, which cost her an electoral college majority, can be attributed to many factors. And a lot depends on the exact number of Sanders supporters who did not vote for her.

Schaffner generated some state-level estimates, which G. Elliott Morris quickly noted were large enough to exceed Trump’s margin of victory in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.


Even if we assume that the overall percentage of Sanders supporters who voted for Trump was 6 percent and not 12 percent, and assume therefore that we can cut every state estimate in half, the estimated number of Sanders-Trump voters would still exceed Trump’s margin of victory.

But again, attach a lot of caveats to that analysis.

What kinds of Sanders voters supported Trump?

Perhaps the most important feature of Sanders-Trump voters is this: They weren’t really Democrats to begin with.

Of course, we know that many Sanders voters did not readily identify with the Democratic Party as of 2016, and Schaffner found that Sanders-Trump voters were even less likely to identify as Democrats. Sanders-Trump voters didn’t much approve of Obama either.

In fact, this was true well before 2016. In the VOTER Survey, we know how Sanders-Trump voters voted in 2012, based on an earlier interview in November 2012. Only 35 percent of them reported voting for Obama, compared with 95 percent of Sanders-Clinton voters. In other words, Sanders-Trump voters were predisposed to support Republicans in presidential general elections well before Trump’s candidacy."

[louis c]

180. If you read the article more carefully you will notice

that some bigots (and I remember at the urging of Rush Limbugh) entered the later primaries to vote against Obama. McCain had locked up the Repub nomination and Rush was trying to cause confusion. These were not real Hilary supporters

That distorts the numbers. I know a Puma who worked on the Hilary campaign in 2008 who sent an email to me blasting Obama after the nomination was wrapped up. I haven't talk to her since and she has never participated in the Dem City Committee since. I haven't run into a single Sanders supporters who has done the same thing as I did in similar circumstances.

[BlueMTexpat]

66. Where in the world

do you get such information from?

I voted for Hillary in the primary in 2008 and proudly voted for Prez O in the GE! I also proudly voted for him again in 2012.

Everyone I know who believes as I do did the same and I believe that we represent the majority of Hillary supporters from 2008.

I realize that my information is anecdotal. But it is factual that Hillary specifically threw her support to Prez O - and requested that her supporters do the same - from the moment that she conceded the primaries to him and that was WELL before the Dem Convention of 2008! She was also much closer to Prez O at the primary level in 2008 than was the case with Dem candidates in 2016. Hillary also campaigned enthusiastically for Prez O from her concession on, specifically not contesting the convention in any way

Of course, I and those like me have always been Democrats, not simply opportunists.

[shanny]

75. well oh my goodness it was common knowledge at the time (PUMAs anyone?)

and easy to find with the google:

Another useful comparison is to 2008, when the question was whether Clinton supporters would vote for Barack Obama or John McCain (R-Ariz.) Based on data from the 2008 Cooperative Campaign Analysis Project, a YouGov survey that also interviewed respondents multiple times during the campaign, 24 percent of people who supported Clinton in the primary as of March 2008 then reported voting for McCain in the general election.

An analysis of a different 2008 survey by the political scientists Michael Henderson, Sunshine Hillygus and Trevor Thompson produced a similar estimate: 25 percent. (Unsurprisingly, Clinton voters who supported McCain were more likely to have negative views of African Americans, relative to those who supported Obama.)

Thus, the 6 percent or 12 percent of Sanders supporters who may have supported Trump does not look especially large in comparison with these other examples.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/

[BlueMTexpat]

88. Well, I knew about the PUMAs, of course.

They made more noise than sense and were definitely in the minority. Of course, those who were making noise got the press coverage and attention.

As for your examples from The Google with "percentages," people can - and do - say anything after the fact. Just because they say it doesn't always make it true. So I don't take those stated percentages to heart, especially given the broad-based coalition that supported BHO in 2008, nor do I take to heart the stated percentages of Bernie primary voters who did not support HRC in the general in 2016.

I firmly believe that the overwhelming majority of Bernie primary voters DID support HRC in the GE because they understood the consequences of electing Trump, if nothing else, just as the overwhelming majority of 2008 voters understood the consequences of McCain-Palin. But we all know the loudest and most attention-seeking of those who did not and who, like the 2008 PUMAs, unfortunately got - and continue to get - most of the press coverage.

It's also interesting because whenever there are "open" primaries (which I personally abhor), people of either/any party can participate in the primary voting. At least some who were not Dems likely supported HRC over BHO in the 2008 primaries, partly in hopes that she would be defeated by any GOPer male in the GE if she were the candidate.

They had the smears all ready for her then and cranked them out again in 2016, along with new ones. Too many fell for them, especially many who should have known better.

To me, the bottom line points about both experiences are these:

- ANY voter who voted for Hillary in the 2008 primary and then voted for McCain in the GE was NOT a true Democrat, no matter how they style/d themselves now or then. After all, McCain chose the worst candidate ever (until Trump) as his VP and she was - and is - every single thing that Hillary is not. There was more racism at play relating to "PUMA" votes in 2008, just as your excerpt suggests.

- ANY voter who supported Bernie in the primaries (as was their privilege and absolute right) but then did NOT vote for HRC in 2016 was NEITHER "progressive" NOR a Democrat, no matter how they style themselves. HRC also did not get the same GE coalition in 2016 that supported BHO in 2008. But in 2016, misogyny played a huge part, just as it would have in 2008 had she been the GE candidate. More white males supported Trump than did any other demographic group.

We need no more "opportunist" Dems - either as candidates or as voters.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

114. Notice that the actual poll numbers strongly suggest

that at least twice as many Hillary supporters voted for McCain in '08 than Bernie supporters voted for Trump.

I recall the PUMAs quite well. They were far more divisive in my opinion than the die-hard Bernie supporters. Most were like me: extremely disappointed that Bernie didn't get the nomination, but voted for Hillary.

[lapucelle]

117. That article has been cited several times this week.

The real takeaway is not that the percentage of Clinton to McCain voters is greater than that of the Sanders to Trump voters. It's that the number of Sanders to Trump voters exceeds Trump's margin of victory.

The Sanders to Trump voter was instrumental in putting Trump in the White House.

"Schaffner generated some state-level estimates, which G. Elliott Morris quickly noted were large enough to exceed Trump’s margin of victory in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

Link to tweet

Even if we assume that the overall percentage of Sanders supporters who voted for Trump was 6 percent and not 12 percent, and assume therefore that we can cut every state estimate in half, the estimated number of Sanders-Trump voters would still exceed Trump’s margin of victory."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4dcac47792f6

[BlueMTexpat]

121. Good points!

[LeFleur1]

135. It Wasn't Just That They Voted for Trump

Too many Sanders supporters stayed home and didn't vote at all. Were they Democrats? Some of them were, especially younger, disappointed voters. I have no statistics.

[BlueMTexpat]

202. I hope that they learned a lesson.

But because the same folks who helped sabotage Al Gore in 2000 were among the most vociferous in sabotaging and smearing HRC in 2016, I have very little confidence that some of them ever will learn.

[shanny]

139. Well then that would indicate to me that Obama was a far stronger candidate than Clinton

since he won--by a mile--without many of his primary opponent's voters and she didn't (despite winning the popular vote).

Is that what you are saying? Was that the problem?

[lapucelle]

140. The data shows that the Sanders to Trump voter

was instrumental in putting Trump in the White House.

What other data might possibly "indicate" in the eyes of layman begs the question of the impact of the Sanders to Trump voter.

[shanny]

160. Part of the picture? Sure. All of it? Not by a mile.

there are lots of factors that put tRump in the White House--as I hear on this board constantly: Jill Stein! Comey! RussiaRussiaRussia! Bernie Bros! Susan Sarandon! Voter suppression and the new Jim Crow! Oh and don't overlook the Obama-to-Trump voters, those racist assholes. Nobody ever mentions the seriously challenged Democratic Party, of course--despite those 1000 lost state leg seats, lost governorships, lost House, Senate....the silence on that issue is deafening. Any thoughts on how all of that happened? No? 'Course not

But as usual, people like to focus on Bernie. 'Cause he had the effrontery to run against Hillary in the primary. What an insult, what an unprecedented perversion of democracy!

It's simple, convenient and doesn't require any self-examination. Shit, even the Pukes do an autopsy when they lose.


Whoosh.

[joshcryer]

191. Obama had Clinton campaigning for him.

Unlike Clinton and Sanders, where Sanders sat on his hands all the way up until the convention and showed up in a total of one mutual campaign appearance after she won the nomination.

[shanny]

192. And yet, a lower percentage Bernie voters supported the other party on election day.

[LostOne4Ever]

145. That is because Obama was able to excite more people to come out to vote.

The PUMAs would have sunk the Dems in 2008 had Obama not been as charismatic. Also let’s not forget the stunt that James Commey pulled.

[radical noodle]

74. I can answer that...

PUMAs who did not vote for Obama were NOT Democrats.

[shanny]

86. No true Scotsman, eh?

[Tom Rinaldo]

96. Except that I knew some who were

Granted we are talking about relatively small numbers of people.

[radical noodle]

141. Anyone who could have voted for Palin

was not really a Democrat.

[Tom Rinaldo]

153. I understand your logic, it revolves around the word "really"

Let's just say that they acted like solid Democrats before that, and perhaps some of them think they are solid Democrats now. The people I know who I am referring to were strong backers of Hillary and active bloggers on behalf of her throughout the 2008 primaries. Some of them I knew online during earlier election cycles, and they were behaving like Democrats then also. Voting for a ticket with Palin on it makes as much sense as voting for Trump: None. I understand and agree with the anger toward all those, let's say "prior", Democrats.

[radical noodle]

161. There you go...

that works for me too. They are no longer Democrats after doing something like that. I supported Hillary in the primary of 2008, but even though I was disappointed, once she started to campaign for Obama, that was it. She was totally into her support for him, and so was I. Voting for McCain/Palin would have meant giving up reason.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

76. Never let facts get in the way of a good Bernie bashing!!

[shanny]

77. +1

[LiberalLovinLug]

83. +2

[Gothmog]

131. Really?

What is new about this threat? http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320

Bernie Sanders supporters switched their allegiance to Donald Trump in large enough numbers last November to sway the election for the real estate billionaire, according to an analysis of voter data released Tuesday by the blog Political Wire. Since Trump’s shock victory over Hillary Clinton, much discussion has focused on the degree to which passionate Sanders supporters’ refusal to embrace Clinton led to the Republican winding up in the White House.

Here is some more https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/24/16194086/bernie-trump-voters-study

About 12 percent of Bernie Sanders supporters from the Democratic primary crossed party lines and voted for Donald Trump in the general election, a new analysis says.

In several key states — Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan — the number of Sanders to Trump defectors were greater than Trump’s margin of victory, according to new numbers released Wednesday by UMass professor Brian Schaffner.

Link to tweet

[shanny]

133. Yeah really.

Look it up. I already did, for another poster, just to be kind. You can do it too! I have faith.

[Gothmog]

198. Sanders voters were the margin of victory for trump in the real world

[Honeycombe8]

167. The provision isn't about supporters. It's about candidates.

Yu can't control people's minds...they can be one thing one day and another thing the next. They have that right.

But this rule I suppose would have prevented Sanders from proclaiming himself something other than a Democrat, and if elected, not serving as a self-proclaimed Democrat. He may have had to actually join/register as a Democrat, as well.

This is only for the Presidential races.

[Hortensis]

203. Yes, but remembering 90% of Sanders voters were LOYAL Democrats

who share our goals and supported our nominee and still do; they are us. Sanders was only the favorite choice for those, Hillary a very good #2 for almost all of them (according to many polls).

Which leaves the others, Sanders' small minority of genuinely subversive dissidents who supported him BECAUSE he opposed the the vast majority of Democrats and supported his deluded effort to use the superdelegates to overset democracy and steal the election.

But they're a pissant 10% of 40% of all who voted in the Democratic primary. Because that number includes hostile non-Democratic infiltrators, they were actually much less than even 4% of registered Democrat voters.

Which is why it's valuable to break Sanders' subversive populists and radicals out from the rest, never to feed their silly notion that they are more than what they are. Maybe they could "take over" the Green Party and squabble under that rock.

Frog and Scorpion: "Why?" "Because it's my nature."

[Progressive dog]

179. Join the independent candidates party

but don't pretend to be a Democrat.It's really simple, if you don't like the members of the club, don't join.

[ehrnst]

184. So if Jill Stein decides to hop on board for the money and the marketing resources

of an actual major party, you'll be good with that?

[sheshe2]

6. I wonder what prompted them to move on this now?

Hmmm. Interesting development.

Good on you DNC.

[MrPool]

11. Maybe Mr Perez got the hint? N/T

[brush]

99. To head off another divisive campaign like in 2016

We sure don't need that again.

[ehrnst]

185. Perhaps a majority of Democrats?

Makes sense.

[sheshe2]

190. Yup.

That makes sense to me as well, ehrnst.

[Devil Child]

7. Good move and no valid reason to not support this rules change

You want to run as a Democratic candidate then join the party. I say this as an unapologetic fan and supporter of Sen. Sander's 2016 run and possible 2020 run.

[aeromanKC]

8. What a concept!!

Imagine to actually having to be a Democrat to run on the Democratic Ticket!!?? What a Concept!!

[MrPool]

9. Meanwhile John Zogby has gone

into full meltdown mode and Nina Turner is throwing her box of donuts against the wall in disgust.

[sheshe2]

46. I am I am I am

holding back a Lol~

[Kahuna7]

110. James Zogby. I just checked his twitter feed...

I don't think he's addressed it yet. Don't know what old Nina is doing as she blocked me long ago.

[MrPool]

168. Probably having a rage in with Knomi Knonst or whatever

thats twits name is.

[Kahuna7]

186. Yep. LOL......

Most likely thinking of ways to passive aggressively attack Democrats. You know that's coming.

[Me.]

138. Howdy Mr. Pool

Like your style

[MrPool]

164. Cheers! n/t

[pnwmom]

10. Not enough. They should require the release of 5 years of tax returns. n/t

[musette_sf]

14. agreed n/t

[MrPool]

15. Nah 15 years only seems fair

others did 30 It seems.

[Tarheel_Dem]

16. +1. Personally, I think 10 years should be the minimum requirement. n/t

[Cha]

17. Yes, Full Tax Returns and No Caucuses!

[deurbano]

28. No caucuses!

[Cha]

32. No Open Primaries!

[BlueMTexpat]

70. Great minds, LOL ...! eom

[Cha]

72. Cheers to that, BlueMT!

[brush]

100. Yes. No open primaries. Now we're getting somewhere. No more divisive interlopers.

[Cha]

175. Yes, that lesson was a Global

devastating one to learn.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

51. This

[Tarheel_Dem]

12. K&R!!

[Wwcd]

13. Thank you Dems. Another reason to support the Party that looks out for the security of all

Usurpers, Users of our great Party can gtfo.
Good luck finding a new home that's as generous as the Democratic Party.
You won't.

Bye

[shanny]

87. How is this different than what occurred in2015-16?

[Squinch]

102. Are you saying in 2016 you were rejected and ignored and stuff? Is that what you mean?

Or are you really asking how a primary of Democrats is different from a primary of Democrats and non-Democrats?

OR are you saying that one candidate saying, "Sure, sure, I'll be a Democrat for 10 minutes," was meaningful?

[shanny]

112. lol

FYI anybody can join the Democratic Party, as Bernie did.. We're a big tent, remember? Hell, we're offering honorary memberships to never-Trump Republicans whose ONLY policy agreement with us is we all hate tRump.

If Bernie had won the nomination and the election, he would have served as a Democrat. And been more "Democratic" than some currently serving D politicians--you know who they are.

Btw, are you complaining about pols needing to serve as whatever party they ran with and thinking that applies to Bernie? When that is EXACTLY what he is doing in Vermont? He ran as an independent and he is serving as an independent.

Just a thought, cherishing anger like this is bad for your health.

[Squinch]

123. A bit of wild projection at the end there. You might want to watch that. I think it reveals

more than you probably want to reveal.

But anyway, so I guess the answer is that you thought that "Democrat for 10 minutes" thing was meaningful.

Kay.

[shanny]

136. "more than I want to reveal"? that's a laugh--it was friendly advice; take it, or don't

I think the fact that an individual has caucused with, voted with and campaigned for democratic ideals his whole life is WAY more important than whatever letter is posted after his name.

And yes, I realize that for some people, particularly here, the color of the jersey and the letters on the hat are the most important issue. I just find that pathetic, and tedious.

[Squinch]

143. I care deeply to know what you find pathetic, and tedious.

As to the rest, I am a Democrat. I vote for Democrats.

[Honeycombe8]

169. They're not kicking out non-Dems. This is ONLY about Presidential candidates. Very narrow.

Democrats WANT all votes, and the platform has a lot in common with some third parties and with independents.

But this is about ONLY Presidential candidates. This makes sense. If you're going to get the funding and support of the Dem Party organization, yu need to be a full fledged Democrat. That makes perfect sense. Then when you serve, you have to be a self-proclaimed Democrat. I would think this is elementary, but apparently, a provision was needed to make this clear.

This isn't about other races, or about supporters.

[Maven]

18. K&R!!!

[FloridaBlues]

19. I have to agree with the DNC this is fundamental

[Jim Lane]

20. This is cause for celebration -- by Jill Stein and the Greens.

I had previously predicted that the Greens' share of the popular vote would decline from 2016 to 2020. If this stupid decision holds up, I'll have to reconsider that prediction.

If I were a Green Party acolyte, asked what the Democratic Party could do to help drive progressives (especially young progressives) into the arms of the Greens, something like this would be at the top of my list.

[louis c]

21. Gee, imagine the Democratic Party requiring...

… a person to be a Democrat to belong to the party.

If you're inclined to vote for Jill Stein, as many Sanders supporters did in 2016, they will do it again if their candidate loses in the primary.

We may as well know up front if our party's temporary members are going to desert us when the primaries are over.

[Jim Lane]

35. You make two important mistakes.

You write:

If you're inclined to vote for Jill Stein, as many Sanders supporters did in 2016, they will do it again if their candidate loses in the primary.

First, it was not "many" in percentage terms. Bernie got about 13 million votes. Stein got about 1 million. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of Sanders supporters did not vote for Stein.

In fact, people who voted for Sanders in the primaries voted for Clinton in the general election at a higher rate than that at which people who voted for Clinton in the 2008 primaries voted for Obama in the general election.

Second, you refer to a situation in which progressives are upset because "their candidate loses in the primary." The situation I'm addressing, however, is one in which their candidate doesn't lose in the primary -- because he isn't even allowed to run. Obviously, under those circumstances, the Greens would go on and on and on about how the oligarchs of the DNC had prevented a free and open contest for the nomination. You're free to dismiss that charge, but I think it would resonate with a lot of voters.

People who feel that their candidate lost the nomination fairly and squarely can usually reconcile themselves to voting for the winner. People who feel that they've been cheated are much less likely to do so.

If the full DNC adopts this rule, it will gain scores of admiring posts on DU, but will lose hundreds of thousands of votes in the real world. I think that's a pretty stupid trade.

[shanny]

55. +1

[sheshe2]

63. Interesting post.

People who feel that their candidate lost the nomination fairly and squarely can usually reconcile themselves to voting for the winner. People who feel that they've been cheated are much less likely to do so.

Hmmm. Interesting statement. Which one are you? A person that feel their candidate lost fairly and squarely and have reconciled themselves for voting for the winner? Or are you feeling cheated? How were you cheated? How exactly were you and Bernie cheated. Who stole the election from you? And why the hell are you still refighting a primary that is long over?

If the full DNC adopts this rule, it will gain scores of admiring posts on DU, but will lose hundreds of thousands of votes in the real world. I think that's a pretty stupid trade

Now it is threats? 2020 coming up and you say hundreds of thousands will withold their vote for a true Democrat if the DNC says a Independent running as a Dem they need to run in our party as a Democrat and STAY a Democrat once elected.

We have a White Supremisist in the Oval office. He is destroying our rights, our Constitution is being ripped to shreads, freedom of speach our first amendment right gone when you can not kneel at a ball game for black lives. Our environment is being destroyed. Most of Puetro Rico is without power for 9 months now after the 'Resident threw roles of papertowels at them. Trade is being destroyed, our world standing is gone, nations mock us and we are now isolated. Our heathcare and saftey nets gone, the uptick of hate crimes and racism is born again, not that it ever died, yet louder and angrier now...and here you are going on about how you feel cheated that BS lost and may lose again if the DNC changes its rules. Well the DNC is part of our Democratic Party. We decide what is best for us. Join it or not.

[Sparkly]

67. +

[sheshe2]

71. Hey!

[Jim Lane]

73. Apparently, though, not interesting enough for you to read it with any care.

Your whole first paragraph, hectoring me about the 2016 general election, ignores the distinction that I drew. Bernie ran in the 2016 primaries; after the convention, he endorsed Clinton, and the overwhelming majority of his supporters (including your humble servant) voted for her. As should have been obvious, I was talking about a hypothetical election in which Bernie might not be allowed to run.

Then you go on at length about how bad Trump is. Duh, that’s exactly why I think the Democratic Party needs to prioritize winning, as opposed to those who would prioritize their unquenchable hatred of Bernie Sanders.

You write:

Now it is threats? 2020 coming up and you say hundreds of thousands will withold their vote for a true Democrat if the DNC says a Independent running as a Dem they need to run in our party as a Democrat and STAY a Democrat once elected.

No, it’s not threats. It’s a prediction. It’s rather elementary logic that I can predict something will happen without endorsing it. The subject of my prediction is a possible 2020 race from which Bernie Sanders is excluded by rule, before a single vote is cast, and regardless of how much support he has from people who don’t share the popular DU preoccupation with party labels. Condemn those people’s choice all you want – that’s your right – but that’s different from saying that no one will make that choice. My prediction is that an exclusion of that sort would alienate many voters and would therefore make it harder to defeat Trump (or whomever the Republicans nominate).

You write:

Well the DNC is part of our Democratic Party. We decide what is best for us. Join it or not.

I registered to vote as soon as I was eligible. I registered as a Democrat. Every time I’ve moved, I’ve registered at my new location pretty quickly, and always as a Democrat. This is my party, too, and I have as much right as any other Democrat to offer my opinion about what my party should do. Yes, "We decide," and I am part of the We.

[sheshe2]

78. "Your whole first paragraph, hectoring me about the 2016 general election, ignores the distinction t

Jim Lane
73. Apparently, though, not interesting enough for you to read it with any care.

Your whole first paragraph, hectoring me about the 2016 general election, ignores the distinction that I drew. Bernie ran in the 2016 primaries; after the convention, he endorsed Clinton, and the overwhelming majority of his supporters (including your humble servant) voted for her. As should have been obvious, I was talking about a hypothetical election in which Bernie might not be allowed to run.

Hmmm...My first paragraph. After your first comment here:

People who feel that their candidate lost the nomination fairly and squarely can usually reconcile themselves to voting for the winner. People who feel that they've been cheated are much less likely to do so.

Then my first paragraph that you refer to.


Hmmm. Interesting statement. Which one are you? A person that feel their candidate lost fairly and squarely and have reconciled themselves for voting for the winner? Or are you feeling cheated? How were you cheated? How exactly were you and Bernie cheated. Who stole the election from you? And why the hell are you still refighting a primary that is long over?

Then off you go! I think that it is you that is not reading it right. I never said any of what you just posted, Your response is OTT. I think you should back away and calm down. I never hectored you about the 2016 general election. You made that up.

As for the rest of your post, If BS wants a 2020 run if the rules apply then he runs and stays a Dem. Your comments boarder abusive. I am done.

[Jim Lane]

165. Your comment about "refighting a primary" obviously referred to 2016.

If that's what you meant, it's a misreading of my post.

If you meant something else, you'll have to explain it to me, because it went over my head.

[Squinch]

104. It's ALWAYS threats, She. Usually threatening actions that hurt them as much as everyone else, but

it seems that there is a personality type for which that fleeting feeling of, "Hah! We showed them!" is worth the long winter of "Shit, this is armageddon."

[sheshe2]

147. Yes

And these people don't seem to realize the damage of that long winter may be hard to recover from. In some cases the damage may be permanent. They don't seem to care how many people will actually die because of their selfish vote. Just look at Puerto Rico and the new report that came out of the body count possibly in the thousands.

[MrPool]

64. You make the mistake that Democrats and Liberals

really care what petulant cry babies and their hurt feelings who would support #Putins2ndAsset matters one iota. Your need to explain Stein and her supporters to Democrats is galling. Unless of course this site is now called Green Underground.

[Jim Lane]

81. Some care. Some don't. I'm among those who do.

As has been frequently pointed out on DU, if everyone who voted for Stein had instead voted for Clinton, then Clinton would have become President. That leaves us with two choices:

1) Decide that they are petulant cry babies and ignore them.
2) Try to minimize the number of people who, in 2020, make the mistake of voting for a no-hoper Green candidate, instead of helping us oust the Republicans.

I want to oust the Republicans, so I prefer the second approach. Screaming insults at these voters is unlikely to help. Flipping their votes will require paying some attention to what motivates them – or, to put it another way, caring about what they think. This doesn’t mean that the Democratic Party must adopt the Green Party platform, but a good start would be not handing the Green Party diehards a reason to call the Democratic Party process unfair.

[sheshe2]

85. Hmmm

This doesn’t mean that the Democratic Party must adopt the Green Party platform, but a good start would be not handing the Green Party diehards a reason to call the Democratic Party process unfair.

The Green Party?

Jill Stein Loooooves her some Russia. Woah. She dines with Putin. And she loves fur coats too! Lol!

Who the hell cares what the green party thinks? I don't

PS Where is the recount money?

[SunSeeker]

25. Not having the rule didn't stop idiots from voting for Stein in 2016.

And Stein sure fucked us.

Having the rule will not make more people run to the Greens. Either you want to fuck this country or you don't. A rule requiring a Democratic candidate be a Democrat will not change that--but it will prevent those ratfuckers from using us to their benefit and then screwing us.

[Cha]

34. Mahalo, SunSeeker!

[sheshe2]

150. +++

[Kahuna7]

187. Exactly! I've always felt that Democrats should just leave the immature..

voters alone, and let them figure it out for themselves. Either they will or they won't. There's not much we can do to make them change either way. They showed us that in 2016.

[JI7]

27. People who support Jill Stein are not Progressives.

[Kahuna7]

188. They're anarchists. nt

[Cha]

33. Oh FUCK OFF 3rd Party Jill Stein LIES.. that's all she

does is LIE.. what's she's gonna do... LIE some MORE?

[Jim Lane]

37. No, the point is that Stein wouldn't have to lie more. This time she could just tell the truth.

I'm not clear on whether this is the Democratic Party's final word, and, if so, whether it can be enforced.

Assuming the answer to both questions is Yes, then here's the problem: A scrupulously honest account of the DNC action would alienate many voters and make them more likely to vote Green (or at least not vote Democratic).

I'm not here to address whether Jill Stein will get into Heaven. I don't even believe in the place. I'm saying only that the adoption of such a rule would reduce the chance of defeating the Republican nominee in 2020.

[Cha]

40. Jill Stein wouldn't know the truth if she bumped into it.

That's all she knows are LIES and DAMN LIES.

[brush]

105. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Let the Greens do what they do and us Democrats will do what we do—try to oust repugs not cozy up to them and Putin.

[George II]

41. It's not a question of "progressives", it's a question of DEMOCRATS! If you are a....

..."progressive" but not a DEMOCRAT, use someone else's resources, contact lists, etc. to promote your candidacy.

[lunasun]

79. ++++exactly!

[KitSileya]

92. To be honest, in today's situation

no one who doesn't support the Democratic party and votes for the Democratic candidate deserves to be called progressive. The GOP is such a clear and present danger to democracy itself - the US stands on the brink of fascism, as close to becoming a dictatorship as it's ever been before - that to insist on not voting for the ONE and ONLY opponent that has ANY chance of stopping it is the opposite of progressive. It is selfish, and self-centered, and narcissistic, and egotistical, and conceited. To put your own feelings over the very lives of the hundreds and thousands that will die because of the GOP (how many million Americans will be screwed very shortly because of pre-existing conditions alone?) is not only selfish, it is bone-chillingly sociopathic.

[brush]

108. Well said and to the point.

[sheshe2]

151. Truth!

Thank you, Kit.It is selfish, and self-centered, and narcissistic, and egotistical, and conceited. To put your own feelings over the very lives of the hundreds and thousands that will die because of the GOP (how many million Americans will be screwed very shortly because of pre-existing conditions alone?) is not only selfish, it is bone-chillingly sociopathic.

It is selfish, and self-centered, and narcissistic, and egotistical, and conceited. To put your own feelings over the very lives of the hundreds and thousands that will die because of the GOP (how many million Americans will be screwed very shortly because of pre-existing conditions alone?) is not only selfish, it is bone-chillingly sociopathic.

[SunSeeker]

155. Indeed. nt

[mcar]

193. So selfish

We have a sociopath in the WH and crooks controlling Congress and some are threatening to withhold their vote because Demlcrats aren't being nice to the (i.e. doing exactly what they want)?

[brush]

101. How is it a loss for Dems? If they were Dems they'll already be registered as Dems.

Last edited Sat Jun 9, 2018, 02:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Anyone who want to be Green is welcome to it. We'll concern ourselves with Democrats.

[rpannier]

125. +1 and I add as I did to the person

Why would it somehow upset them, as it only applies to Presidential candidates
Not sure why the person carrying the flag of the Party should not be a member

[Squinch]

103. You have to reconsider your prediction????!!!!! The horrors!!!!!

Color me terrified.

[rpannier]

124. Not sure why, as it only refers to the person running for President

It has no effect on any other races

[Jim Lane]

127. Yes, that's its scope, and I'm talking primarily about the race for President.

There could be some spillover effect on other races, if it alienates some people from the Democratic Party and they take out their frustrations downticket. You're right, though, that any such effect would be less than the effect on the battle against Trump (or maybe Pence).

[Honeycombe8]

170. This is elementary and something that is a given.

As a candidate in the Presidential race, if you want the backing and funding of the Democratic Party organization, you need to be a self-proclaimed Democrat, and serve in that capacity. This is a very basic thing for any organization.

I'm surprised this rule wasn't already in their rules...and even more surprised that a rule is needed at all. It's a given that the Presidential candidate should be a Democrat, if s/he wants to run and serve through the Democratic Party.

This doesn't apply to other races.

[pecosbob]

22. Then there's no longer any excuse to have superdelegates

[George II]

30. What does that have to do with this rule?

[Lucky Luciano]

48. I understood superdelegates were set up to block undesirable candidates from winning. nt

[brush]

109. You raise a good question. We'll have to see how this develops.

We certainly don't want a "trump-like" candidate to emerge from our primaries so I wouldn't ditch the super delegate system just yet.

There will be less chance of that now though that candidates will have to be registered as a Democrat.

Also the issue of open primaries and caucuses has to be resolved—I say get rid of them too.

[trixie2]

24. I can't believe this wasn't a rule already

Now can we get rid of the posts dedicated to "others"?

[workinclasszero]

95. IKR?

Finally you have to be a democrat to run as a democrat!

Why this wasn't the norm before now is !

[SunSeeker]

26. K & R

[samnsara]

29. can they also add that tax returns are to be provided if they are to get funding from the DNC..

[George II]

31. That will probably be dealt with either via state Democratic Parties or legislatures....

...just one or two states like California or New York imposing that requirement would eliminate a candidate from any possibility of getting the nomination.

Democrats for the Democratic Party. Period!

[meow2u3]

36. Question is, will this stop repukes running as Democrats from running and switching parties?

We have a problem with phony Democrats, many of whom are actually repunks. Will the DNC, DCCC, DSCC, and state Democratic parties follow suit and implement rules requiring Democratic candidates to be Democratic candidates?

[LiberalFighter]

45. That is determined by state laws.

[JaneQPublic]

38. RW Larouche followers won as IL Dems, 1986

I mention this ancient history to illustrate what can happen without a rule like this one.

Older folks like me might recall the nutjob and perennial POTUS candidate Lyndon Larouche.

Downstate folKs like my dad unwittingly voted for them knowing nothing about them other than they weren't from Chicago.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/1986/03/20/us/2-conservative-extremists-upset-democrats-in-the-illinois-primary.html

[murielm99]

61. I remember this.

What a mess.

[TheBlackAdder]

39. Will Bernie join or run on the Ralph Nader "Give the Election to Trump 2020" Independent ticket?

[Squinch]

106. I bet I know.

[chillfactor]

42. amen!

I agree 100%!

[AlexSFCA]

43. too little too late; watch bernie launcing indepenent run

and that’s exactly how trump is going to win the second term to complete transition to autoritarianism. Bernie is a fan of trump when it comes to trade and it’s one of the his top issues

[BlueMTexpat]

69. ...

[brush]

111. I say let him run as an independent, see how far he gets.

[LostOne4Ever]

149. If Bernie wanted to run as an I for president he would have done so in '16 after the primary

And he sure WOULDN’T have told his supporter “you have to be realistic” at the convention or thrown his support behind Hillary

[Snackshack]

44. Good.

This will make people happy but the big tent just got smaller.

[Tribalceltic]

47. Good

[LudwigPastorius]

49. Certainly seems reasonable to me.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

50. Absolutely

[NBachers]

56. I'll withhold my more *$!&emphatic%#* comments, and leave it at, "This sounds like a fine idea."

[LenaBaby61]

58. DNC panel adopts rule requiring candidates to run, serve as a Democrat.

[murielm99]

62. It's about damn time.

[Cryptoad]

65. Amen,,,,,,,,!

[BlueMTexpat]

68. That is a good beginning!

Now -

- primaries, NOT caucuses (I realize that this may need to happen at the state, rather than the national, level. But primaries are far MORE democratic than caucuses.)
- no open primaries (Again, this probably requires state action. If primaries are "open," they are effectively "general" elections, not primaries and results can thus be skewed.)
- a minimum of five years of income tax returns (10 would be better)

If, and only if, the first two are adopted and implemented, they could supersede the need for SDs - who ultimately have NEVER disregarded the final results in the primary season. I am getting SO sick and tired of all the mostly ignorant malarkey about them.

I also remember "Dem" electors from 2016 who actually voted against HRC at the EC. Something also needs doing there perhaps.

[ChrisTee]

80. I am glad to see Democrats doing this but unfortunate there was the need to state an obvious.

[OnDoutside]

82. While I 100% agree with this, and am on record during 2016

questioning how could a non Dem run in a Den primary, the reality is that this will just force any user of the Democratic Party, to join five minutes before running. I have a follow up

Shouldn't they be a member for a minimum period too, like 2 years ?

Say they sign up, and get elected, if they then behave as a Repug or a Jill Stein nut job, there's no comeback for the party ?

[LiberalLovinLug]

84. Great! Let's shrink the tent!

Just in time too!
Brilliant!

[Sienna86]

98. I share your thoughts

My opinion is this will alienate independents who would vote for a Democratic candidate.

[mcar]

119. Any Independent who would decline to vote for a Democrat

because a politician doesn't get the financial and logistical support of the DNC if they aren't a Democrat was never going to vote D anyway.

This whole outlook makes voters seem childish and petulant. Meanwhile, we have a white supremacist sociopath in the WH and House Rs just voted to take healthcare away from children.

[LiberalLovinLug]

158. Unpacking what you said

I've written and deleted a few times responding. I've finally realized it's because there is no logic to it.

The candidate would not be a Democrat for that voter to not vote for under these new rules. There would be no Democrat to not vote for.

If a politician, let's call him Bernie, is voted for by someone that calls themselves an independent, it wouldn't or shouldn't matter to them whether the DNC suports them or not. It's because they like that candidate. And certainly those that would not vote for him BECAUSE he was NOT supported by the DNC would be an insignificant percent of those voters.

BUT.. the point I will make is that IF you contend there are those that wouldn't vote for this candidate regardless, then you are also admitting that there are OTHER Independents that WOULD vote for him.

THOSE are the voters that we would lose.

[Hortensis]

207. Not our supportive voters. Potentially subversive voters

handed a loss are feeling it. They should take a good look at themselves. Democrats committed to defeating the massive threats to the nation we inherited understand the why of this extremely well.

Agree 1000% with that last. Who people expend their passion and energy opposing, the Democratic Party or the Republicans busily committing atrocities and betraying our nation, is as much a litmus on the left as it is for the rest of the electorate.

[LiberalLovinLug]

146. Exactly

[Squinch]

107. LOL!

[Adrahil]

144. FOR FUCK'S SAKE

It's too goddammed much to ask someone seeking the nomination of this party to actually BELONG to the party.

I swear to Jeebus....

[Squinch]

148. Nope. No good. That's just us being elitist, doncha know.

Can you believe the depth of this shit?

[sheshe2]

154. Honey I Shrunk the Tent

[Squinch]

162. Blahahahaha!

[MrsCoffee]

90. K&R!

The message is being sent. The Democratic Party will not be held hostage!

Now let’s get on with tax returns. 10 year minimum. Transparency and accountability shouldn’t be a problem for any Democratic candidate. No dog ate my homework excuses!!

Let the vetting begin!

[bucolic_frolic]

93. GREAT! No Potemkin Democrats

We as a party, and as Americans, whether voter or elected or appointed official, must now tie down every loose end and dot every i and cross every t. Laws and for that matter rules, should never be ambiguous, subject to fringe interpretation, or unequally applied. That's where lawyers get their well-earned skepticism.

[Calista241]

94. Didn't Sanders change his affiliation for the purpose of running in the primary?

I don't see how this would stop him from doing the same thing again.

[brush]

113. We'll see. If he tries that again he'll really reveal his agenda of just...

using the party's national apparatus that he doesn't have access to as an independent.

I don't get why that indy stance is so important to him, especially seeing what disruption it caused for him and the Democratic Party in 2016.

I mean, why go thru that again?

[Jim Lane]

126. No. Another urban myth on DU.

Vermont doesn't have partisan voter registration. Before, during, and after the campaign -- indeed, at all times since his first election to the Senate -- Bernie has been a registered voter with no party affiliation (like Pat Leahy), has been on the Senate rolls as an independent, has been a member of the Democratic caucus, has voted to help the Democrats organize the Senate, and has been treated as a full caucus member by the Democratic leadership (e.g., chairing a committee when the Democrats, with his help, had the majority, and being the ranking minority member when they did not).

None of that has changed.

[SunSeeker]

159. Wrong, Jim Lane. Bernie insists on being labeled an Independent.

Leahy labels himself a Democrat. That is how he is listed in Senate vote tallies. Big difference. Leahy has never held himself out as an Independent; he is a proud member of the Democratic Party.

This is not about Vermont registration rules. This is about Democratic Party rules.

[Jim Lane]

163. What I wrote is 100% correct. Please read more carefully.

I did NOT say that Bernie Sanders and Pat Leahy are alike in all respects. I said they are alike in not being registered to vote as Democrats. Neither of them is so registered, because, under Vermont registration rules, they can't be.

I was addressing the urban myth about Bernie purportedly "changing" something and then changing back. Bernie changed nothing. His status has been constant before, during, and after his presidential campaign.

[SunSeeker]

171. I know what you wrote, and what you were implying. And you're wrong.

Bernie did indeed change during the primary to say he was a Democrat:

Responding to Boxer’s criticism during that night’s town hall in New Hampshire, Sanders said, "Of course I am a Democrat and running for the Democratic nomination."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/feb/23/bernie-sanders-democrat/

This is a fact.

Then, after the primary, he went back to calling himself an Independent [at 1:10]:

This is also a fact.

Those facts demonstrate his status, i.e. whether he was holding himself out as a member of the Democratic Party, was not "constant." You are wrong.

[Jim Lane]

172. The context makes clear what he meant.

Thanks for reminding me that I waste too much of my time addressing people whose minds are irretrievably made up.

I really need a 12-step program.

[SunSeeker]

174. His WORDS make clear what he meant: "I am a Democrat."

Take your personal insults elsewhere.

[Cha]

176. You need to look in the mirror.

[SunSeeker]

157. The requirement that the candidate "serve as a Democrat" is the clincher.

The candidate would not only have to run as a Democrat, but he now has to promise that if he won, he would then continue to hold office as a Democrat, i.e. not leave the party after the election, after using our infrastructure.

[Bradical79]

208. Not sure if that was official?

I don't know how that works exactly. He was an independent again after he lost.

[Paladin]

115. Good. About damned time for this. (nt)

[Bleacher Creature]

118. Amen to that! My only complaint is that it took too long to do it. NT

[Gothmog]

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

Link to tweet

[dembotoz]

137. will they enforce this for lower posts?

on the practical side how the hell do you enforce this.
you decide to run for office.
you register as a dem with the election commission....election commission doesn't give a fig if you are a party member
you gather signatures to get on the ballot....
you submit your signatures to the election commission again proof of party membership not requested
you get on the ballot as a dem...again no proof is required
lets say you win....
you are an elected dem official with no proof of party membership required.


you would be shocked at how many dem elected officials are not members of any state or local dem party.
i know i was

so good luck with this

[EricMaundry]

142. I support this. A lot.

[LostOne4Ever]

152. Seems like the DNC is trying to mend fences on both sides

Making this rule and preventing Superdelegates from voting in the first round. Hopefully this ameliorates most of the contentiousness of the last primary.

[sheshe2]

156. Excellent

[Honeycombe8]

166. Of course. Hard to believe this provision wasn't already in the rules. nt

[pecosbob]

177. This rule has been on the books since 2016 and was not aimed directly at Sanders

Ya'll still aren't done grinding axes yet? Two years is plenty...move on.

For the record I did not support Sanders for President, although I do suport some of the policies he speaks about, such as single-payer. I wish there were more Dems that spoke out as he does instead of crapping themselves every time they hear the word liberal.

[ehrnst]

181. Makes sense for a Democratic nominee.

If they are going to benefit from the resources of the Democratic party, they should actually be a Democrat, and not just becoming one at the last minute for "funding and marketing."

[Skid Rogue]

183. I would like to see a rule...

that states that a candidate for President must be registered as a Democrat for at least one year prior to the official start of the election process.

[MrsCoffee]

194. Or a rule that says they have to remain a Democrat even if they lose after using the party.

[TomCADem]

195. It Is About Time! Stop Ignoring Long Time Democrats in Favor of Social Media...

...and outsiders. The most egregious example is when Cornel West was invited to help write the Democratic platform, then he proceeded to endorse and campaign for Jill Stein of the Green Party.

[DinahMoeHum]

196. They're talking to/about YOU, BERNIE. . .

Either shit or get off the pot.

[Gothmog]

197. From my twitter feed

Link to tweet

[R B Garr]

200. Thank Gawd for this! Enough is enough.

[Gothmog]

199. 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.

[R B Garr]

201. Great news! It goes to character, too. To use resources

that you actively and openly criticize to boost your profile is duplicitous and shameful.

[harun]

204. *yawn*, means nothing.

[yurbud]

205. now they just need a rule that says Democrats actually have to support DEMOCRATIC policies not

be the "me too" party on austerity, wars, violating civil liberties, and letting Wall Street off the hook.

There should be a rule that says they will NEVER, in any way, profit from their time in office once they leave office, in inflated speaking fees, corporate lobbying, serving as corporate execs or board members, or setting up foundations, presidential libraries, PAC's or any other backend graft.

[NurseJackie]

209. Good grief!

need a rule that says Democrats actually have to support DEMOCRATIC policies not

Good grief! Give me a fucking break! Never pass up an opportunity to smear Democrats and the Democratic party with veiled accusations and insinuations, eh? How charming.

in inflated speaking fees,

How clever! I wonder who THAT backhanded smear refers to?

or setting up foundations, presidential libraries,

Oh no, I feel faint!

[yurbud]

210. but you faint when someone who supports Democratic policies more faithfully than our "leaders" wants

to run as a Democrat?

[NurseJackie]

213. I only support real Democrats...

... I can't think of anyone who matches your description. What I'm trying to say is that as far as I'm concerned, there are ZERO non-Democrats that I'd prefer over genuine Democrats in any nationwide election.

[yurbud]

214. how do you define a "genuine" Democrat? What's the "litmus test" centrists that are ok?

Since centrists don't seem to like progressive ones?

[NurseJackie]

216. "how do you define a "genuine" Democrat?" --- ROFL!

214. how do you define a "genuine" Democrat? What's the "litmus test" centrists that are ok?

I have no "litmus test". What a silly thing to say about me. There's nothing at all subjective about this. My position on this is obvious and consistent. My meaning is clear to reasonably intelligent people. I'm sure it's clear to you. (BTW: It serves no useful purpose to play these types of word games with me. Don't insult my intelligence. I may not be the smartest person here, but I'm definitely smarter than you're giving me credit for.)

Since centrists don't seem to like progressive ones?

Aw.

[yurbud]

211. some miss now opportunity to smear the party base. How many times can a big donor vote for you?

[NurseJackie]

212. Nobody is doing that.

211. some miss now opportunity to smear the party base.

Nobody is doing that.

But I have to also take exception to (and challenge) your use of, and your likely definition of what "party base" really means. The "base" can only be correctly used when describing the most LOYAL Democrats who consistently support, donate and volunteer to help the party. The "base" is also correctly used when describing the actual VOTERS who always turn out and show up for every election and who ALWAYS vote for Democrats (and ONLY Democrats!)

It's easy to see from the bitter context of the "smear the party base" comment that someone here (not me) believes that the "base" refers to the extreme far left liberal "fringe". Oh, you know who I mean... those are the ones that who make threats to vote "third party" or who use their votes as weapons. Those are the ones who are LEAST likely to consistently vote for only Democrats and who brag that they "won't be taken for granted" and that "their vote has to be earned" or something. They hold grudges against party leadership and are often heard complaining about having to "hold-their-nose" to vote. They accuse the party of being corrupt or corporatists or feeble or ideologically bankrupt.

All I'm trying to say is that it's wrong to use the phrase "the base" to try and describe those malcontents. I've even heard people describe Sarandon and Stein as "the base". Anyway, here's the thing... it's an insult to we LOYAL Democrats who genuinely ARE the base and who ALWAYS support the Democratic party and Democratic candidates.

[Blue_Tires]

215. The fact that a rule like this wasn't already in place is a travesty....