The Democratic nominee in 2020 needs to be a democrat. End of story.

to run for POTUS.. especially I'm thinking by next year.

Which are all stellar.

Example the other way....How many of the braver Republicans like Steve Schmidt or Ana Navarro are proud to identify with Trump, just because he is a Republican?

Sorry, but character and commitment to Democratic issues, and also 'likeability' with voters, are much more important.

political ambitions because they don’t want to work within n the Democratic Party

What I don't understand..is the lack of understanding by some who dismiss Sanders only because of his reluctance to wear the D. His own ambitions, are ambitions the majority of Americans want as well, like single payer health care. And he already DOES work within the Democratic party. And that kind of work is much much more important than anything else.

He is an anomaly. A free radical. Its not something to get all hand-wringy about. Just accept the exception. Its not like he has spurned anyone else to follow him into dropping the D and taking the I. Mostly because it would usually be the death knell for such a candidate. They'd have an even lesser chance than the local Green party candidate if they tried it. Especially in this partisan atmosphere.

I even think it would be better in a lot of ways if he'd just relent to the pressure. But there are other advantages to having such a popular Independent cheer on our party, with a certain segment of the population.

Sanders might be a stubborn old fool, but he's OUR stubborn old fool. Who is damn popular with the voters.


From a party that celebrates diversity. That champions the minority member. That is usually forgiving of the odd, the queer, the blacksheep of the family...yet acts so damn petulant about Bernie freakin Sanders. I am somewhat perplexed by that.

Last edited Mon Aug 27, 2018, 02:39 PM - Edit history (1)

so called self-identified progressives not only refused to vote for the Democratic nominee by either not voting or voting third party, but encouraging and undermining others to do the same, and contributed not only to who occupies the WH now, but to those Democrats running in those critical swing states who lost against the incumbent, establishment, republican, and those Democrats were progressive by any standard.

They are the one's who choose NOT to work within the Democratic party. It was either their way or nothing.

Tell it to those who will be losing their healthcare, civil rights, worker's rights, environmental rights, etc. because the SC, and other institutions are being dismantled.


They will be paying the consequences of those liars, frauds, and deceptors who deceived enough people that there was no difference between the two parties, but even worse, not only have no remorse for their actions, but are proud to be part of it.

Sanders does not fit into any of your descriptions, neither do the vast majority of his supporters in the last primary.

He never "refused to vote for the Democratic nominee by either not voting or voting third party"

And literally begged everyone to vote Democratic. Why wouldn't he?, he had negotiated a more progressive platform for the election.

Also, Sanders DOES work within the Democratic Party. For him, it is their way, in the practical day to day, whether he wears their letter or not.

Stop with this bitter fantasy that just because Hillary had a little competition in the primary, someone dared to go up against HRC, and as what happens in competitions brought up issues where they differed, that it took just enough polish off her name to be the reason she lost. I'd argue that if there was no competition for her, she may have been a larger target, would have been painted as the pre-anointed, as someone that didn't earn it etc...

You have every right to get mad at who you want to. Sarandon for falling for what Sanders would have brought as President a little too hard. (beating Trump for one thing - I agree there) To the point where she was IMO too stubbornly frustrated and vocalized her Green vote. Or to Stein, that dared start a third party, one that was a world wide party that began as one who put the environment first, as is her right in a western free democracy. Who got about 1% of the vote. The Libertarian Party got 3%, so if you removed third parties, it would go even worse for us btw.

But this conflation of Bernie Sanders, who champions Democratic issues, more than some actual blue dog Democrats, being in the same gang as one of his runaway fans, or as the same as another party's president, is so far off the mark.

Kamala Harris is past it long ago. She has co-sponsored the Medicare for All bill that Sanders introduced. She co-sponsored the Free Tuition for Colleges bill with Sanders.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/94605363-132.html

Link to tweet

no desire to work within the Democratic party, and push the false memo it is either their way or nothing


I also am from California and am a strong supporter of Senator Harris, and her positions

But you began this little tif with your remarks about

"I do not want people who don't want to be Democrats using the Democratic Party for their own political ambitions because they don’t want to work within n the Democratic Party"

Sorry, I took that as you were referring to Bernie Sanders. Its so prevalent in here with a few, to use any excuse to bring up their antagonism towards him. I didn't see how Stein would be considered as "using" the Democratic Party for their own ambitions, and its a bit of a stretch to say Sarandon was/is either.

I just find it odd that some say they respect Harris, Warren, and others, but then, in effect, do not respect these women's judgement or choice in who they work with. Do not trust their judge of character about Sanders, and their decision to work with him, instead of ostracizing him.

from my perspective Bernie plays it both ways.

On the one hand there is no question he aligns with the Democrats in Congress, and adding his name to the number of Democrats in the Senate is critical.

What is a conundrum for me is that he appears to want to be both a part of it and not part of it, and I cannot understand that. Because of MY confusion, I rarely bring Bernie in my conversations, because frankly I am confused about it. Not about where he stands on the issues, but why he desires to remain in a somewhat nebulous area.

I will give you an example where controversy sometimes appears her. That is with Representative Occana. I have absolutely no issue that she refers to herself as a Democratic Socialist, because not only is she a registered Democrat, but she identifies herself as a Democrat, along with being a Democratic Socialist, and that is cool with me, because she is part of the Democratic party, and working toward her vision of the Democratic party. She doesn't run away from identifying herself as a Democrat. At least that is how I see it

In regard to Sarandon and Stein, I believe they get more attention than they deserve. I believe they are divisive forces, and while I used to be very receptive to the goals of the Green Party, because I felt when push comes to shove they would do the right thing, but 2000 changed that for me.


When push comes to shove with Bernie, he does the right thing. The ACA wasn't his ideal, but he realized it was a path better than what existed, and perhaps an open door, and did the right thing.

But it is Democrats, liberals, progressives, whatever, that historically champion the outsider, the different, the queer. That's why I find it odd that so many Democrats can't bring themselves to just accept Bernie's odd and stubborn decisions about party affiliation, as an acceptable anomaly. He adopted this decision decades ago, and did it as a perhaps more radical younger man. But is now not going to change no matter how many angry messages there are on message boards. So its a matter of accepting the one oddball, who can be grumpy and critical, but is also very important to our chances going forward.

I have a niece that is going through a gender identity process. I shouldn't even use the word "niece". "They" are non-gender specific at present. At one point they even had their breasts removed. I am over 50 myself, and had to learn how to deal with this new issue that seemed foreign to me and the generation I grew up in, as they have always been a close family member to me, and its important for me to be understanding, and accepting.

I think this is a trait of every liberal. To be accepting of the minority, the queer or ostracized. That not everyone has to be fitted into a box. Especially if they are working for us and on our side. And Sanders is. I kind of wish he'd just give in and accept the D, but on the other hand, he walks like a donkey, and talks like a donkey, so what if he wants to be a zebra? Also, he is still very popular with the general public. And his "I" status can draw in votes from others who identify with "I". I just ask why not look at the silver lining, instead of the dark part of the cloud that some see as raining on the parade?

Anyways, nice chat.

more liberal than Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, as well as Mazie Hirono and Cory Booker

(Bernie Sanders comes in at #11)

https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate

That Harris voted against Gorsuch is, to me, far more important than her formal party identification.

progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2016 by either voting third party or not voting, had instead voted VOTED FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE, instead went out of their way to undermine, lie, and distort the false equivalency between the Democrats and the republicans.


EVERY DEMOCRAT RUNNING for Senate in those critical swing states lost to the establishment, incumbent, republican, and those swing state Democrats were progressive by any measure.


That some seem to have a great diffculty understanding what NUMBERS MEAN, and what having the MAJORITY MEANS in Congress is mind boggling indeed. West Virgina is NOT California, and that some seem to ignore that and push either their way or they willl take their marbles and go home, and thus contribute to losing the MAJORITY in Congress, and thus the agenda, which is the BOTTOM LINE where change is occurs at best exposes their naivate and ignorance.

Because of that mindset, most likely the ACA will be repealed now, we lost TWO SC nominees, and the dismantling of Civil Rights, workers rights, environmental rights, etc. etc. etc. is now being dismantled.

Great job helping further that mindset and setting the path for a republican majority in both Houses.


It is the BIG PICTURE that counts, and always has. The MAJORITY PARTY CONTROLS THE AGENDA, and Manchin's conservative agenda would NOT have seen the light of day if the DEMOCRATS HAD THE MAJORITY


That is why the Ralph Nader's, Jill Stein's, and third party's serve ONLY spolers, because some cannot grasp what having the majority in Congress means

You're welcome to vent about the Greens all you want, although it's kind of pointless to do it here, where none of Stein's supporters are allowed to disagree with you. I voted for Clinton in November. In fact, I've never voted for any Green Party candidate in any election in my life, so I'm the wrong person with whom you should have this discussion.

The actual topic I addressed was the comparative importance of formal party identification. Joe Manchin formally identifies as a Democrat but voted to let Trump fill the stolen seat. Angus King and Bernie Sanders do not formally identify as Democrats but both of them voted against confirming Gorsuch. To my mind, both King and Sanders are better Senators than Manchin. That's because I don't consider formal party identification to be the "[m]ost important thing" about a Senator, as you do per your #3. I give more weight to the Senator's record on key votes. (There are of course other votes in which the D-after-his-name "Democrat" Joe Manchin has gone wrong. I mention Gorsuch only as one example.)

Incidentally, although your excursion into the 2016 election is irrelevant to the point I addressed, I'll take the time to correct one factual error in your post. You write, "EVERY DEMOCRAT RUNNING for Senate in those critical swing states lost to the establishment, incumbent, republican...." Obviously, many Republican incumbents defeated challengers, but that was not true in every swing state. New Hampshire, which Clinton carried by less than half a percent, must be considered a swing state. In the Senate race, Democrat Maggie Hassan won a squeaker to oust the incumbent Republican, Kelly Ayotte.

the preferable progressive Democrat because of republican cross over votes.

My other point was that total numbers count to get the majority. The views of Manchin are representative to his constituents in West Virgina, and not the Democratic party as a whole, but if it is between Manchin and a republican, I will take the Democrat, purely based on getting the majority in the Senate, with the desire, and most likely result that Manchin's conservative agenda would be controlled by the progressive and moderate Democrats in the Senate if we had the majority

it has the feel of you know what.

This is a brilliant article from 538.

Me

pelted by the Rain when I went out for a run but it was worth it! We so Dodged.

In the days after Hillary Clinton’s defeat, the two people who seemed like the Democratic Party’s most obvious 2020 candidates, then-Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, hinted that Clinton had gone too far in talking about issues of identity. “It is not good enough for somebody to say, ‘I’m a woman; vote for me,’” Sanders said. Other liberals lamented that the party had lost white voters in such states as Ohio and Iowa who had supported Barack Obama, and they said Democrats needed to dial back the identity talk to win them back.

But that view never took hold among party activists. Liberal-leaning women were emboldened to talk about gender more, not less, after the 2016 election. We’ve had women’s marches and women running for office in greater numbers than ever — all while emphasizing their gender. President Trump’s moves kept identity issues at the forefront, too, and gave Democrats an opportunity both to defend groups they view as disadvantaged and to attack the policies of a president they hate.

The Democratic Party hasn’t simply maintained its liberalism on identity; the party is perhaps further to the left on those issues than it was even one or two years ago. Biden and Sanders are still viable presidential contenders. But in this environment, so is a woman who is the daughter of two immigrants (one from Jamaica and the other from India); who grew up in Oakland, graduated from Howard and rose through the political ranks of the most liberal of liberal bastions, San Francisco; who was just elected to the Senate in 2016 and, in that job, declared that “California represents the future” and pushed Democrats toward a government shutdown last year to defend undocumented immigrants; and who regularly invokes slavery in her stump speech. (“We are a nation of immigrants. Unless you are Native American or your people were kidnapped and placed on a slave ship, your people are immigrants.”)

Sen. Kamala Harris has not officially said she is running in 2020, but she hasn’t denied it, either, and she’s showing many of the signs of someone who is preparing for a run, including campaigning for her Democratic colleagues in key races and signing a deal to write a book. The Californian ranks low in polls of the potential Democratic 2020 field, and she doesn’t have the name recognition of other contenders. (Her first name is still widely mispronounced — it’s COM-ma-la.) But betting markets have her near the top, reflecting the view among political insiders that Harris could win the Democratic nomination with a coalition of well-educated whites and blacks, the way Obama did in 2008.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-rise-of-kamala-harris-tells-us-about-the-democratic-party/

Thank You, pnwmom!

what so many of us have been thinking and saying!

I Love It!

in positions they have not ever or rarely held is not saying to just support someone because they are a woman.

...allegedly said people should vote for Clinton simply because she's a woman. If not many, how about 10? 5? 3?

If you think that no one mentioned or gave any weight to Clinton's gender, and that I'm just making the whole thing up, you go right and believe that. I shall resolutely bear up under the burden of your disapproval.

The idea that people were saying Clinton should be nominated simply because she's a woman has been a false meme since day 1. You are not the first person on DU who has failed to provide a shred of evidence for that assertion.

She’s fierce and very quick on her feet, I could see her exciting our base.

...or whoever is POTUS.

awhile to get to know her being out of state and not following her that closely.. and just recently I've been thinking she could have what it takes to be our candidate and Win!

Really hoping she's our nominee. I'm supporting her.

I want to see the restoration of law and order and she speaks strongly to that. Not sure that a truth and reconciliation approach is the right approach after all this madness. Many of these people, including some traitors and collaborators, need prison.

Should our Republic and Constitution survive, that is.

at the moment. She's a fresh face with little political baggage. I am OK with her on the important policy issues she has discussed. I would like to see some in-depth coverage of her positions on the economy in general and trade in particular. Also a more complete picture of her position on immigration.

Strong and unafraid

I would be proud to have her as my President.

Reason? Her home state of CA. Whoever the Democratic Party nominee is, they should be from the a non-coastal state, and more towards the middle of the country. That is what separates her from Obama, just as a start. I'm sure some will disagree, but that's fine. However, what I said has historical merit. Carter (although it does have Atlantic coastline, is mostly considered non-coastal), Bill Clinton (AR), Al Gore (TN, and would have been prez if his campaign asked for a statewide recount of FL), Barack Obama (IL), Hillary Clinton (IL and AR, even though her address was no longer those states). We need somebody with a zipcode that isn't a coastal state or we lose.

Just my opinion too, tony.

The VP candidate would more than likely be a white male,age doesn't matter, and from the Midwest/Plains or the South. Is it always fair? No, but it offers the balance that might appeal to those who don't want a coastal liberal.

(Personally, I am one of her biggest cheerleaders and will gladly canvass if she chooses to primary. And I would love to see another women or minority on the GE ticket with her but I live in Missouri. I know if it is a woman or minority in the top it will be a white male on the veep line.)

I call BS. She can win.

If being from a coastal or inland state was an important factor, much less overriding all others, it'd be discussed ad nauseum every time presidential candidates were the subject. Plus, that analysis all goes one direction: coast bad, no other factors relevant, California itself irrelevant.

And Xmas74 is right, of course..

Just thinking of it, though, thank goodness we didn't have to go through that. Just imagine 2 years of constant argument and spinning of whether Hillary was from Illinois or New York.

Last edited Sun Aug 26, 2018, 11:09 AM - Edit history (1)

You stated Gore would have been President if his campaign had asked for a statewide recount. That is a media myth. There was no provision in Florida election law for a candidate to ask for a statewide recount. Requests had to be made on a county by county basis. With the Bush campaign going to court to fight every request, the Gore campaign didn’t have the time or resources to ask for a recount in all 67 Florida counties. Gore did offertory Bush a proposal for the two campaigns to request recounts in all counties but Bush refused. Finally, the last order of the Florida Supreme Court was to recount all the under votes in the entire state. This was the recount the U.S. Supreme Court stopped, handing the election to Bush.

You can't get more coastal than Hawaii. He won twice.

Trump is incredibly coastal. It's not about where they're from. It's whether they push the right buttons, or, in 2020, whether the Republican's previous support for Trump triggers a gag reflex in sufficient voters.

She is one of several on my list. How about a running mate, Jason Kander former SOS Missouri. Military veteran.

He said he plans to stay awhile while his child is young. My kid has talked about volunteering with his campaign.
http://jasonkander.com

Give him a decade and he will be running for national office-bet on it. I've met him several times and you feel like you're seeing the future of the party and possibly the country in him.

(He's also cute and funny. The other day he posted that he will never forget his anniversary date since it is also his area code-816.)

I said she could be the one.

going for her!

The two party system is horrible. We need more participation in our politics, especially from poor and working class people. Having people from smaller parties run in the Democratic primaries is an alternative to having them run as “spoiler” third party candidates. I consider someone like Alexandria Octavio Cortez to be both a Democratic Socialist (DSA) and a Democrat (DEMOCRAT).

So it’s a new model that can bring in new voting blocs under the mother party.

So we need to loosen up and embrace it. It’s a big tent. It will invigorate the Democratic Party.

Third Party Underground is a couple of stops on the bus later.

Davids, Gretchen Whitmer, and Lacy Clay beat the BS/AOC candidates..

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

....Tammy Duckworth say?

it. I wonder if there will be any acknowledge of that from you know who?

after waving their Green party signs around at the convention.

Icaria, the Democratic Party is already made up of the many cooperating factions you describe. Our party membership represents every interest in our highly diverse nation -- except wealthy anti-progressive/anti-liberal forces and those white people who are opposed to diversity itself.

-- And except those who are politically involved but reject the grand coalition that is the Democratic Party. Inability to respect the views of others enough to cooperate and compromise is a defining characteristic of most of these people. They don't recognize compromise as admirable but rather see it as proof of lack of principle, weakness of purpose, and of course corruption.

Thus they reject at the party level the cooperation between many groups with competing goals that is the very essence of democracy. That's the #1 reason most are outside the coalition.

(Btw, Icaria, your first sentence ("The two party system is horrible." ) seems to be in direct conflict with your rosy picture of persuading third party people to join one of the two parties. Perhaps you need to reconcile your beliefs with your goal or choose a new goal?)

Mahalo

with perhaps the patter of mercifully dwindling rain making it extra nice.

in my bed after getting pelted by the rain today when I was out running. Intermittent rain all day and high winds.

We're so grateful we dodged that hurricane, but were we ever prepared. Everyone here took their preparations for the potential damages from Hurricane Lane very seriously. Rental cars were moved from the Dock where the Ships come in to a large empty field inland. Stores were closed, windows were crisscrossed with tape, and most were home with their families on Saturday.

It is extra nice to be on the other side of the last few days here on Kauai.. Thank You!

I actually love that feeling of being well prepared and snugging in during a nice big storm, but there is of course no such thing as a nice hurricane, even when you're not on an island, and with this government? Just...thank goodness.

?ver=6

NO running in rainy weather
NO running in cold weather

For the last 15 years or so I've been relegated to walking (age!) but I can still do four miles in an hour.

Glad you "weathered" the storm safely!

(and always have been) they'd have to abandon their cherished "establishment" narratives and we can't have that I guess.

magnificent, almost endlessly diverse coalition of individual and group interests?

Right. They can't have (admit) that.

those who wish to destroy it and build something different need to establish their own party. We have respect for the differing goals and vision of our varied groups. Having a minority try to steamroll our base to impose their own agenda is divisive and unproductive. Democracy is reaching a consensus through cooperation, mutual respect, and compromise. That also means not throwing out the old simply because new upstarts think they invented the wheel.

If you think the two-party system is "horrible," then it sounds like you don't want to be a member of either and would be happier with your own.

and are doing a great job of campaigning for all the Dems and activating left-leaning unaffiliated voters. They're the core of our local activists and have won over the older, longtime and sometimes more conservative Democrats with their commitment.


This is a discussion board, and I hope people who disagree with you don't run you off the board. Welcome!

The Democratic party already is a big tent. It includes new voters and the more seasoned participants who are in their 70's; those from the heartland, as well as those from NY and California; citizens who have spent their lives living in the US, as well as those who have lived in places like England and Denmark. All are welcome in the party, but some Democrats are troubled by those who wish to hijack the party's institutional expertise and structure in order to exploit them for idiosyncratic goals.

some really weird ideas out there about what the Dem Party is all about. I can't imagine who's putting those thoughts in their heads?

I hope things have settled down and that you are safe and (relatively) dry.

now, lapucelle..

Thank you for asking!

only thing third parties have accomplished is helping George Bush and trump occupy the WH, and start the unravelling of every progressive program started.

Anyone can be a Democrat, but people who DO NOT WANT TO REGISTER as a Democrats or work within the Democratic, then they DON'T GET TO CHOOSE WHO THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE IS.

Every Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states lost to the incumbent, establishment, republican, and those Democrats were progressive by any standard

Those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee by either voting third party or not voting. who deceived and spread lies regarding the false equivalency of the two parties to the naivee, were one of the factors that contributed to where we are today, and that is not forgotten.

AOC identifies as a Democrat, but for those who refuse to, they don't get to tell the Democratic who they should choose

...but, whatever.

...until her role in ejecting Al Franken from the Senate. She will never get my support.

Let me temper that by saying that if she were the Democratic nominee I would probably vote for her. Needless to say, I would *never* vote for her opponent.

Maybe you should peddle this somewhere else.

Love this OP! Thanks, pmwmom!

I also like Joe Biden

That being said she would have a tough go of it against Trump and that's a frightful proposition. Fighting the patriarchy and racism simultaneously will be difficult. OTOH she doesn't have Hillary's baggage, be it undeserved. Many women who would have/ should have voted for her didn't. Trump's attacks on her will bring women out to vote in droves.