General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFellow Sanders supporters - PLEASE don't adopt the behaviors you criticized
Accept that many Democrats are understandably angry that another election was stolen. Yes, another election, given that the 2000 results were validated by the SCOTUS, if validated is indeed even the proper word for outright electoral theft by a right wing SCOTUS.
And accept that, judging by the many posts here, the anger needs an outlet.
But recognize that, in spite of the total lack of a (D) after Sanders' name, he is articulating positions in the mold of the positions advocated by FDR in the 1930s, updated for 2017.
Know that, just as Sanders is a very popular politician, know also that Sanders' positions are increasingly popular with the public at large.
And be thankful that he, along with many Democrats, and partly inspired by the Occupy Movement, are all helping to change and reframe the terms of debate in this country. We all need for the debate to be properly framed so our positions are not seen as unrealistic and unachievable, but as the only responses to the increasing problem of inequality and stagnation for the bottom 90%.
Response to guillaumeb (Original post)
Weekend Warrior This message was self-deleted by its author.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Response to guillaumeb (Reply #2)
Weekend Warrior This message was self-deleted by its author.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,019 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)"Already kneeling under my solid oak desk as I type."
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)OK I can fix that.. Senator Bernard Sanders (D)
10-9-8-7-6-
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And if Sanders were to declare as a Democrat, or had declared prior to 2016, would it change any of the post-election rhetoric?
pangaia
(24,324 posts)moriah
(8,311 posts)I know it was a surrogate who promised for him he'd stay with the party. And he probably has his reasons that I *want* to believe are good for seemingly only being willing to stand in the doorflaps vs actually come inside of our big tent.
It's just a lot easier to accept constructive criticism, and feel it's actually meant to be constructive, from someone who is making those criticisms "from within" the Party. From without, especially criticisms that apply more to Republicans than the majority of Democrats (being bought and paid for), it comes off as more "both parties are the same" than "we need to not be hypocrites and clean our own house".
It may not make a lot of sense. But emotional reactions rarely do. And that's why I generally am not verbose about this.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)I try to stay out of the whole back and forth as well. It is just terrible.
Emotions respond to stimuli the quickest, the body a little slower, and the brain the slowest.
Interesting that it IS so hard to accept constructive criticism from 'the other side' of an issue. Someone on the other side can say the exact same thing as someone on 'my side' and it is easier to accept the opinion when expressed by the latter.
I think for all of us to see that problem is a good thing..
brush
(53,850 posts)by switching back to being an independent. That was pretty low.
Most Democrats like his policies and those of us on the left of the party have advocated most of what he's proposed all along, except us being somewhat pragmatic, urged a practical way to pay for them.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But I have read many responses at DU about the supposed impossibility of Medicare for All.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)It was an over reach in hindsight, but everyone thought she would win.
stevepal
(109 posts)Do we want fair elections or not?
I personally think, if the primaries had used hand counted paper ballots, Sanders would have won. But I have no idea if my opinion is correct or not. When votes are counted on unverifiable or unverified computers, there's no way to know.
I personally think, if the presidential election had included hand counted paper ballots, HRC would now be president. But I have no idea if my opinion is correct or not. When votes are counted on unverifiable or unverified computers, there's no way to know.
Doesn't it make more sense to aim our efforts IN ONE VOICE in getting people to see that as long as we use computers and not hand-counted paper ballots, we will NEVER know if a candidate won or if a foreign hacker (Russian, e.g.) was responsible for the results.
I also think that the Democrat Party, even if it wins a few elections in the future despite the computers, will wither and die, as it's already doing if the elections continue to be stolen due to the computers.
Why not speak IN ONE VOICE in behalf of obvious and absolutely necessary reforms rather than flog some issue to death that we have no way of knowing is true or not?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And in spite of all of the various GOP tactics, Clinton won the popular vote and would have won Wisconsin and Pennsylvania absent the same GOP tactics and tricks.
brush
(53,850 posts)was secured.
Of course it's possible. Many other countries have some form of affordable, universal care.
It can happen here but of course not while repugs are in charge.
Btw, notice you didn't touch him not staying a Dem.
That's a huge part of the animus.
If he had stayed it wouldn't be there.
That move comes off as a lack of loyalty and an-in-it-for-myself mindset.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You write:
Btw, notice you didn't touch him not staying a Dem.
That's a huge part of the animus.
If he had stayed it wouldn't be there.
You also charged in #13 that his "switching back to being an independent ... was pretty low."
For starters, the facts as I understand them are to the contrary. Vermont does not have partisan voter registration, so he did not change his registration -- he couldn't. For the rest, when he was considering running for President, he was a Senator who had been elected as an independent and who caucused with the Democrats. Throughout his campaign, he was a Senator who had been elected as an independent and who caucused with the Democrats. Now that the campaign is over, he is a Senator who had been elected as an independent and who caucuses with the Democrats. The only thing that's changed is that, at the request of Chuck Schumer, the Minority Leader, Bernie accepted a leadership post in the Democratic caucus. In other words, he moved in the opposite direction from what you imply.
As for the "huge part of the animus," that can't so readily be disproved; we're all just guessing about how people would have acted in a hypothetical situation. My personal guess, having observed and experienced the animus, is that it would be virulent and constant regardless of party affiliation.
brush
(53,850 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Lovely photo of fall foliage on the home page. One thing I like is that, instead of a stereotypical bright sunny day, the Vermont Democratic Party chose one with clouds, perhaps a storm rolling in. It lends the photo some drama.
Then I clicked through to http://www.vtdemocrats.org/elected-officials/senator-bernie-sanders for a photo and brief bio of Bernie. At the bottom of that page I note that the Vermont Democratic Party helpfully provides a hyperlink to Bernie's campaign website.
My conclusion is that, despite all the he's-not-a-Democrat fulminations on DU, the Vermont Democratic Party doesn't have a problem with him. That reinforces my view that the fulminations are largely pretextual. Bernie Sanders could get a donkey tattooed on one forearm and a big blue D in a circle on the other and people here would still be attacking him relentlessly.
brush
(53,850 posts)Deny it all you want but IMO many rank and file Democrats don't like the disloyalty and the continual bashing of the party.
And we've all heard a thousand time that he caucuses with the party and he's on this committee and that and blah blah blah...all he had to do was stay in the party and it wouldn't be so obvious that he used us.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You accused Bernie of "switching back to being an independent" after the election. I said that there was no such "switching". Instead of your vague phrase "be a Dem in Vermont", let's be more precise.
Start with voter registration. I said that he had not changed his party registration and then changed it back. See my #41: "Vermont does not have partisan voter registration, so he did not change his registration -- he couldn't." That's a very easy fact to confirm. You just go to the FAQ page on the Vermont Secretary of State's website and you find:
No. There is no party registration in Vermont.
All registered voters can vote in the primary electionbut can only vote on one ballot. You will be given a ballot for each of the major parties. You mark one of the ballots and put the remaining unvoted ballots into a discard bin. Which ballot you chose to vote is private and not recorded (except during the presidential primary, where voters must publicly take one ballot or the other, and their choice is recorded on the entrance checklist). [emphasis added]
Therefore, Bernie did not change his party registration.
Registration aside, the phrase "be a Dem in Vermont" could be read more broadly, as indicating a general alignment with the Vermont Democratic Party. Here again, we do not find any "switching back to being an independent" after the election. As your link shows, the Vermont Democratic Party still considers him to be one of theirs, to the extent of promoting him on their website along with Patrick Leahy. That's how they treat him now, after the election. If they had had him on their website during the 2016 campaign and then dropped him, it would be worth asking why, to see if there had been some kind of "switching" -- but that didn't happen. As far as I can tell, the party has treated him the same way all along and he's related to the party the same way all along.
brush
(53,850 posts)That's the bottom line and the rank and file Democrats know it.
It was a huge mistake on his part as he won't be able to pull that again in 2020.
It would totally splinter the party.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)At least, until the next time you post something misleading. You might want to consider putting me on Ignore.
brush
(53,850 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Your interpretation and inference of existing facts are not facts in and of themselves...
You might want to consider the two wholly separate concepts as, well... separate.
madokie
(51,076 posts)the rich and corps pay their fair share of taxes.
See that was easy
brush
(53,850 posts)I notice that no one want to tackle the issue of him apparently just using the part then reverting back to being an indepent.
That's what galls Dems the most, his lack of loyalty.
madokie
(51,076 posts)brush
(53,850 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Which is why it's been done to keep Medicare, a popular program, fully and safely funded.
And why SCHIP has been fully re-authorized....
So, so easy.
StrictlyRockers
(3,855 posts)It's about getting Americans to think about public policy that hasn't been considered part of reasonable debate before. It's about dreaming big & expanding the frame of what we support & argue for. America has great wealth & should take care of its citizens.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)framing the debate and establishing what is possible and necessary is part of winning.
President Obama knew that the ACA was inadequate to the task, but by passing the ACA, Democrats opened the door to Medicare for All.
StrictlyRockers
(3,855 posts)the backlash will be swift & terrible. You don't have to be good at 3-D chess to figure this out.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)it will be a constant struggle to stay in place.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)and not simply a "hope and aspiration" bill.
And they are slamming anyone with any expertise on health care policy as "hating on Bernie!!!!!!!!!!!!" and should be primaried.
That won't help Democrats in 2018 one bit.
StrictlyRockers
(3,855 posts)I wonder why they would be so divisive? It sounds lame.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)StrictlyRockers
(3,855 posts)That's extra lame. I'm into unity.
#StrongerTogether
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)StrictlyRockers
(3,855 posts)good day
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Divisiveness can and will block out efforts to change in a way that is clear minded.
Eko
(7,351 posts)sanity. Not a big fan of Sanders, his ideas just not the way he goes about them. Regardless, great post.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I acknowledge the anger, and agree with the anger. But at a certain point, we must do more.
question everything
(47,534 posts)Not sure how it is in Vermont, but since he runs as an Independent, can a Democrat, as well as a Republican run against him?
And if so, who will his supporters here support?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)The second is purely theoretical.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)That includes yourself. I have posted what he does and was shocked at how many of his supporters told me I was full of shit. Sanders runs as a democrat in the state primary, turns down the nomination, and runs as an independent in the general. He has a track record of doing it. It gives him access and support from the party. He likes being a Democrat for short periods of time during elections.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)providing that one adheres to the appropriate rules and forms.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)People can do a lot of things. That's normally an answer of last resort.
question everything
(47,534 posts)And then, I suppose it is up to the participants in the primary.
Were I running against him I would made sure that the ones who vote for him realize the plan. And, perhaps, they don't care..
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)And I'm the happiest person in the world.
I really dislike Lieberman. From his politics to his personality.
I saw Lieberman and Gore when they were on the Presidential ticket. It had to be one of the most polite and tame campaign stops in history.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You make it sound as if Bernie is pulling some con job and misleading Democrats. In his first Senate election, in 2006, here's what actually happened:
After winning the 2006 election, he caucused with the Democrats in the Senate. He was the 51st vote, so all those Democrats who chaired committees and subcommittees in 2007-08 would not agree with your implication that he was a Democrat only "for short periods of time during elections."
You're right about one point: that he has a track record. In 2012 he did exactly as he had done in 2006. If the Democrats of Vermont had been filled with righteous anger over the issue of party affiliation, as so many DUers are, it was perfectly open to them to nominate someone else who would run against Bernie in the general election. They didn't do it. They gave him their nomination, knowing that he would decline it.
Incidentally, even without being on the Democratic line, and thus even without that "access and support from the party," he squeaked by in the general election with 71% of the vote.
My prediction for 2018: The irrational hatred of Bernie Sanders is so great that there will be many posts on DU expressing the hope that a "real" Democrat will take him on. There's a chance that someone will file to run against him in the Democratic primary. That challenger, if there is one, will receive enthusiastic support on DU but will get stomped. The Democrats of Vermont will know that if Bernie wins the primary he will decline the nomination. Nevertheless, to the bewilderment and consternation of many DUers, the Democrats of Vermont will overwhelmingly vote for him in the primary anyway. In the general election, he will win in another landslide.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)In that wall of text you didn't dispute it at all.
Complete deflection with a lack of relevance. As I stated above, most aren't aware of this. Just because you aren't doesn't mean it isn't true. No wall of text is necessary. It's a simple fact.
"Sanders entered into an agreement with the Democratic Party, much as he had as a congressman, to be listed in their primary but to decline the nomination should he win, which he did."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders#Elections_2
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)he will be the senator from Vermont again and it won't be because the people who voted for him were ignorant.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)Deflection.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)He never ran for his Congressional seat on the Democratic line, he's never run for his Senate seat on the Democratic line, and he's never said he would do so -- so there is no meaningful sense in which it would be true to say that he was a Democrat only "for short periods of time during elections."
Furthermore, "Every word I stated is one hundred percent accurate" isn't always a complete defense. Consider Bush's infamous "Sixteen Words" deception. Every word he stated was one hundred percent accurate in the sense that British intelligence had indeed promulgated the report that he cited. Bush was lying, all the same, when you look at the entire context, what was omitted, and what was implied without being said.
That's why I wrote, "You make it sound as if Bernie is pulling some con job...." (emphasis added) Your selection of facts and your choice of wording gave a false impression. I'm sorry if you found a "wall of text" inconvenient, but it's not uncommon that giving a fuller and more accurate picture takes more than sixteen words.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)That is correct. During the primaries. Completely accurate.
The rest is a continuation of your deflection that has nothing to do with the factual point I made. One you have attempted to argue against twice, even though it is completely accurate, and you are doing so by way of deflection.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Maybe you should move to Vermont and run against him in the Democratic primary. If there's widespread agreement with your charges, you'll win in a landslide.
Of course, if Vermonters think he's been honest with them, your candidacy will go nowhere, despite the anticipated hosannas on DU.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)Your assertion makes absolutely no sense.
I didn't make an insinuation. I stated a fact.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)Pretty good gig he has set up.
As people go to the google to see if something so absurd is actually true. What do you know? It is.
madokie
(51,076 posts)I call bullshit but by all means prove me wrong
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)rgbecker
(4,834 posts)Vermont that won't, for whatever reason, vote for a Democrat? Maybe Sanders knows what it takes to get elected in Vermont and he doesn't want to be pigeonholed out of office. Let's get practical, its all about getting the votes, I am told, no Medicare for All today.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)You might be right about Sanders strategy and thought process. He seems to thrive off of thinking forces are against him. That might just add to his fire.
LakeArenal
(28,845 posts)Just stop.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Please be specific.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ProfessorPlum
(11,276 posts)Because I too had an election stolen from me, and am angry about it. Because I am also a Clinton supporter. As so many Sanders supporters are.
and I agree with Sanders that what this country needs is more of is updated New Deal, and less of making the elite eliter.
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)Op, can you please elaborate for the ones who might have missed something??
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)for an election that was stolen. Similar to blaming Nader when the SCOTUS actually gave the 2000 election to Bush.
ProfessorPlum
(11,276 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I voted for Clinton in the general election, and I am glad that she wrote her book and said what she said. Her grace and good manners in the whole affair are incredible.
ProfessorPlum
(11,276 posts)But whatever. Yeah people are mad. Me too.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)But whatever.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)Sanders supporters criticized a lot of behaviors.
:shrugs:
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And in my view it is time to recognize the validity of some of the criticisms as we build for 2018.