And 2/3 of the country found her unlikeable/unfavorable at the time. It's all going to be spread out thin this go around, lots of potential options. I do think Bernie has a slight chance if Biden doesn't run but I think Joe is going to come in and win the first three primary contests then its pretty much over.

One of the best Senators on the Senate. Let that be your legacy.

So folks can ridicule, blame and divide some more? Really?

If so, many, if not most, people are DUing wrong.

from a new congress member —- no problemo.

Yet besides the two threads, it was covered by TPM And The Hill.

A right leaning centralist. Gee, I wonder why he doesn't want Bernie to run?

But not so much if there are similar articles on a quote from a politician you like.

Got it.

“Principle over ego”

Very necessary editorial. It’s long past time for the reality checks here.

Thanks for posting this info from a Vermont newspaper!

...to stay in the race long.

So what is the harm in him running?

It doesn't say that he "won't have" supporters, votes or donations.

The paper said that it would cause problems if he ran again as a Democrat, in addition to not being a likely winner.

Are you saying that newspaper endorsements subvert Democracy?

Perhaps you missed these "democracy supressing" posts on DU during the General.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141592446

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10383529


Some papers won't endorse a candidate, in any election, but the majority do. Perhaps you forgot about the newspapers who got death threats for endorsing Hillary, when they had traditionally endorsed conservative candidates?

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/10141583776

And no, "having supporters and votes and donors" doesn't guarantee a nomination. You seem to think that it's all or nothing.

Getting THE MAJORITY of votes is the final arbiter of who wins a nomination.

was "not allowing democracy" or preventing people from voting for Trump?

Or is it just when they critique a politician you like?

Now go ahead and move the goalposts again, because you can't make the case newspapers that criticize Trump are good for democracy, and at the same time make the case that those that criticize Sanders are "bad" for it.

isn't "preventing democracy" or preventing people from voting.

I suppose you are just as opposed to newspaper editors criticizing Trump?

their own politicians running for higher office?

Why? (Still sounds like a DT supporter.)

Or just when it's Bernie they're talking about?

And how your arguments about newspaper editors "preventing democracy" only seem to apply to those that criticize Sanders.

Not seeing the difference...

I’m sure somewhere some papers have said to potential candidates not to run, but it’s really unusual for the reason I give.

Listen I know how you think and feel about Bernie and I can see why you would support the paper.

I’ll stop the back and forth now.

Listen I know how you think and feel about Bernie and I can see why you would be fine with any paper for doing this for any potential POTUS candidate but Berni.

Nobody said "boo" about this editorial begging Hillary not to run again! Oddly enough, I could just roll-my-eyes and laugh it off without becoming emotionally overwrought. Still, I wonder why I never heard any complaints about how this editorial board had overstepped and was acting inappropriately and "denying people the opportunity to vote for the person they wanted".

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article221656845.html

because REASONS.

And if it had been the reaction would not have been to laugh it off. As absolutely everyone knows.

I thought the crying smiley indicated sadness. Although I'm not sure why my truthful accurate post would cause sadness.

I suppose another reason someone would post such a thing is to taunt the person it's aimed at. However, I'm quite sure nobody here would be childish enough to do that, so there must be another meaning to the crying thing that eludes me. Oh well.

Here are some more. Have at it!



You're welcome.

lol

...I've always wanted to use these two, but never got around to it, so I'll just drop them here.

Last edited Mon Jan 7, 2019, 07:41 PM - Edit history (2)

And each time, the standard is different for an editorial panel urging Sanders not to run - calling is "preventing democracy."

But no objection to any editorials doing the same with DT.

Is that clearer?

disenfranchise!

and favor the nominee with the loudest and most aggressive delegates, and because they are funded and run by parties, rather than states, caucuses would be the obviously easiest mechanism by which a party could move the results in favor of a particular candidate.

Ironic, isn't it?

It is highly critical of the job he's doing for his constituents in Vermont, who are the people who sent him to Washington as their Senator in the first place.

It's also critical of the treatment of women in his last campaign for the nomination in 2016.

Of Vermont re-elected him easily.

Odd that.

They can't do that, can they? I mean, they can't say that DT shouldn't run for POTUS in 2020, can they?

Odd that.

Remember, Vermont is a tiny state (second smallest in the country with respect to population), he was re-elected with only 180,000 votes. That's less than Kirsten Gillibrand got in just Manhattan..

accomplishments. What are the accomplishments.

Can you clarify?

Perhaps you are unclear on the date he conceded?

Clinton conceded to Obama four days after losing the primaries, and spent the rest of the time before the Convention vigorously campaigning for him and calling on her supporters to do the same.

In 2016, the race was over on March 15, yet he stayed in until the convention.



Sid

And for that I’m glad.

His support was growing even after March. Sure, foreseeably not enough to win, but he was gaining support.

If the paper is correct we won’t see that this time.

Weird huh?

The OP seemed to think they shouldn't.

by voters? Are they also nefariously attempting to stop "participation by voters?"

That sounds oddly similar to the right wing claims of "election interference" on the part of Democrats who 'are against making sure voters are actually who they are" when they point out that the voter ID requirements aren't actually detering participation by "illegals" and double voters. And just as fact-based.

Curious to see what you have to say about an editorial board allegedly "attempting to limit participation" by voters for a candidate that you don't like.


.

I am not sure why you seem to be in attack mode. Sanders had every right to stay in the 2016 process as Clinton did in 2008.

What that has to do with what you are going on about, I haven't a clue and don't wish to.

But clearly you don't want to acknowlege or stand behind what you claimed the editorial board was doing/intending to 'prevent participation in the primaries/caucuses,' by voters or Sanders, and don't wish to respond to my questions asking for backup or clarification for those claims.

I can't say I'm surprised. I guess one would say I'm just blowing up one figure here or one word there, and missing the forest for the trees by my focus on the factual issues concerning what you said.

Please kindly re-read my posts for understanding. If you are still confused, then please, ask someone else.

Posting while enraged can often do that. I notice that you start dropping in the word "fucking" when losing your temper.

If you aren't sure how to do that, then please ask someone.

Not me tho. You "don't seem to comprehend" things that I post.

You are talking about a different topic than I. I was responding to post 14.

It is my view that Sanders in 2016 and Clinton in 2008 waiting to concede was correct.
Whatever it is you are trying to put in my mouth besides that assessment are your and yours alone.

If that is still too much to grasp, then grasp this: I don't owe you explanations for things I didn't say or for things you have misinterpreted.

If you care to respond further, please respond to my point, which is (once again): It is my view that Sanders in 2016 and Clinton in 2008 waiting to concede was correct.

Is that what I'm "failing to grasp?"

Because I don't see your approval as evidence of something being objectively "correct?"

Well at least you are acknowledging the difference between your opinion and fact, and you seem much calmer now.

No "fuck" or "fucking" punctuating your responses, which is a plus.

BTW, no one owes you agreement for being a "long time DUer." And not agreeing with your opinion is not the definition of trolling.

Lockstep to a manifesto is something that one doesn't find among Democrats, and it's been our strength. See also Ralph Nader.

It is certainly your right to disagree.

It is not your right to be disagreeable.

Please re-read for understanding. If you have any question, ask someone else because I am done with your intentional misinterpretations and attacks.

Please stop arbitrarily attacking people on DU just because you don't understand their posts. Especially stop arbitrarily attacking me.

Bye

That would make it easier to avoid threads and posts that you aren't able to comprehend.

Why you are going into full troll attack mode rather than simply realizing you misunderstood my post, is beyond me, however.

that you lose your temper and comprehension is replaced by sentences punctuated with "fuck" and "fucking?"

And you start in with enraged attacks like "if that's beyond your comprehension..."

Interesting definition of someone else being a "troll." Even if you have deemed some of their "trolling" to be "worthy of note."

I don't think it's correct, and I'm a long time DUer. One's comprehension is impaired when one is emotional. That may be why some of the things things people post that don't support your opinions is, as you put it, "beyond your comprehension." This might help you understand that process:

https://blogs.psychcentral.com/parenting-tips/2013/10/the-anatomy-of-an-argument-when-emotions-take-the-wheel/