as people know he will not get the nomination, and that likely also reflects a decline in his influence as those people turn to Hillary to stop the GOP.

PLUS the very agitation that is exciting some people into supporting him is likely to be irritating the kind of people who prefer using hammers and nails to make improvements over sledge hammers and bulldozers.

What the Republicans have been doing and plan to do in future already had a lot of people alarmed before the nuclear idiot took over the Republican Party. A WHOLE LOT OF DEMOCRATS are not going to like this jumped-up radical senator attacking and weakening their own party when we desperately need it to be strong.

to "justify" their attacks on the very kind of people who brought them everything they say they value and want to achieve.

It is very interesting that what DU's Sanderistas say they value were mostly enacted by previous generations, while the progressive achievements of current DUers like SCHIP and the tremendous advances of the ACA are viciously attacked. They also refuse to "know" that we are all that have stood between progressivism itself and the Republicans' determination to destroy all those earlier progressive programs. To put it mildly, the contempt for and attacks on current living liberals and their progressive achievements put the Sanderista's real motivations in question.

What IS the answer to that question? WHY would people claim to support what the Democrats built out of one side of their face and work to sabotage the Democratic Party out the other? Individual Sanderistas may not know the answer themselves, but postings like the eagerness here for taking down the DNC when it is engaged in a tremendous battle for the future of our nation definitely show which side to believe.

attacks on the Dem Party where he requested to become a member for his own ambitious ends.

This is MY party, too, Hortensis. We're on the same side!

And, "persona non grata" is now Sanders position at the party.

initial pronouns. After I posted I thought again, realized whoops, and came back to find this message. We do agree entirely!

and every day when I come on I find more hostility and maliciousness that have to be cleaned out before I can relax and just enjoy reading discussion of the issues. That's what I was doing--hurrying to get the latest weeding taken care of--when I blew right past your name.

Bigtree's right, of course. President Obama has endorsed Wasserman-Schultz, who's Jewish in a strongly Jewish district. Her opponent sounds okay on policy, but he is an unknown in this district and most of his donations have come from out of state. It seems unlikely that he would be running at this time if Sanders' attacks didn't encourage him to believe her seat might be vulnerable.

How dubious is it that Sanders is drumming up money to try and unseat a sitting Dem Congresswoman (DWS), and doing practically NOTHING to help new Dems running against Repubs?

Says everything I need to know about this self-important poseur.

at a critical time.

Last edited Sun May 22, 2016, 08:27 PM - Edit history (1)

It's a defense of the party from the person who has done all she can to weaken it. It's largely DWS' fault that we are in a minority in both houses of Congress and near collapse in most state legislatures.

There is no good reason for anyone who cares about this party to be loyal to DWS. In that position and as a member of Congress, she has no redeeming qualities.

TRY TO BRING DOWN the chair of a national party while said party is fighting a National General Election.

Most people would agree that DWS has NOT been the most saavy or energetic of chairs, but, for God's sake, any idiot knows you DO NOT CHANGE HORSES in the middle of the proverbial stream!

The new President traditionally appoints a new DNC Chair, but AFTER the election, and for good reason.

GET REAL, for Christ's sake!

She's absolutely horrible. She's supported republicans over democrats in the past.

It wouldn't harm the party for Tim Canova to win that primary.

And it wouldn't make the party stronger for DWS to stay in Congress. She's basically a conservative on everything except a few safe issues.

It's not a well-worn and hackneyed expression for nothing. It's proved its truth over the centuries.

And this wouldn't even BE "changing horses".

And she doesn't have to be re-elected to Congress to be chair of the DNC. She would still be in that job. It doesn't hurt the party for DWS to lose the primary.

DWS is not the Democratic Party incarnate.

Figurative language is your friend, if you can find your way to embrace it.

Then again, that truism will probably just fly right over, figuratively speaking.

The strength of the Democratic Party is not bound up in DWS being re-elected to Congress.

You simply don't offer an unchallengable argument. Your view is not one in the "it goes without saying" category.

And I've been politically active since 1976, so don't patronize me by calling me a "neophyte".

Almost no one out there in the electorate is going to base the decision of which party they support in November on whether or not the current chair of the DNC wins her primary for re-election.

She should have resigned the Congressional seat when she became DNC chair anyway. It's a full-time job in itself.

running for office DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE to the crucial and delicate unification of said party, a sine qua non for fighting on a united front in the General Election.

This is NOT THE MOMENT to score revenge points against the Party whose infrastructure and network you need.

Either Bernie is purposely playing stupid, or his ever-growing ego is pushing him to increasingly extreme behavior and rhetoric.

Since she's national chair, perhaps she should tend to the party, and skip getting herself re-elected to congress, no?

And why is it so difficult to grasp that dems are only 27% of the voting public? Independents, the, loath corrupt liar Hillary. And Bernie is still raising tens of millions.

Jumped up Senator? Better than a corrupt neocon liar.

...that "loathing".

Oops. Sorry about the truth bomb. Didn't mean to interrupt your false narrative.

....has gotten 3 million (14%) less votes than Clinton.

disease for as much influence he now has with the Democratic Party.

he'll soon be as welcome as an Ebola survivor in the local village.

Bernie's ten million voters and his fundraising guarantee him power.

His supporters will move onto the next shiny object.

not just vanish. Your fevered fantasy is just that.

I'd prefer they'd stay engaged. Pick a house or state house race and get involved for progressive change. Get involved in their local party and put progressives in power locally. Love for that to happen. In reality, most will go to whatever the new flavor of the week is.

The Democrats have never primaried him. In fact they have always supported his elections. He could easily be defeated without the support of the Democratic party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Vermont,_2006

The 2006 United States Senate election in Vermont was held on November 7, 2006. Incumbent independent Senator Jim Jeffords decided to retire rather than seek re-election to a fourth term in office and Bernie Sanders was elected to succeed him.

Sanders represented Vermont's at-large House district as an independent, won the Democratic primary and then dropped out to run as an independent. Many Democratic politicians across the country endorsed Sanders, and no Democrat was on the ballot. The state committee of the Vermont Democratic Party voted unanimously to endorse Sanders.[1]

Sanders won the open seat with 65% of the vote.

Even after 30 years in the "Establishment", he's never had to run the gauntlet of a negative, personally destructive campaign. He has NO idea what would hit him in a GE.

He remains a 74-year-old "adolescent" in many ways, both in his naïve utopian politics, and in his lack of experience with down and dirty national campaigning.

in my state, is something else. You are so wrong. And Hilly still has terrible judgment and still is an appalling liar and a hawk.

I'm a Vermonter. That post is pure bullshit.

I know Vermont politics inside and out. He didn't win because the VT dem party supported him.

Blinded by the light of the halo.

But that doesn't stop hilly fans from making it all up.

Carry on,.

If you're referring to dem voters, that's true, if you're referring to the party, you are incorrect. He would have been elected to the house even if they vigorously opposed him.

Btw, yesterday the VDP unanimously endorsed Bernie for President.

Flatlanders don't seem to have a clue about Vermont politics. That's understandable, but many think they do and spout off.

but DWS will just become another RW Corporate stooge like Barney and Howard.

oh that would tear it

and now I am saying, fuck that. Sanders doesn't get to demand she be fired. Standing with DWS.

You're wasting your time. Hillary will dump her when she wins the election.

...but that's not what Sanders and his supporters are aiming for. They want her congressional seat taken away.

Interesting how there doesn't seem to be any republican congressional candidate Sanders seems interested in campaigning against.

She was going to accuse obama of sexism

She lost three elections.

Should I go on?

She did this to herself, and this was before Bernie. And she'll still have these problems after bernie is gone.


She needs to go.

"Was going to..." is nonsense. And she is not solely responsible for losing elections.

All that being said, if Sanders wants to support her opponent, more power to him. But to do it in this public way, insulting a 'fellow' Democrat, is a childish way of doing so.

It highlights his apparent inability to finesse his comments or to actually work with others for a common goal. All he knows how to do is make public accusations and then move onto the next scheduled speech.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

Have around a 90% chance of reelection due to the perks of incumbency

Do you actually support DWS?

has seen major losses during her "leadership." She has routinely palled around with Republicans, when necessary. That seems to be the ever-changing bar of political support or financing...when it's necessary. Especially when it's easier.

A Cabinet level seat. Take that to the bank.

The day after the election, IF Hillary wins, Debbie quits her job at the DNC to take over as the leader of Hillary's transition team. This will be followed shortly by an announcement of her Cabinet appointment. If not the Cabinet, possibly USSC.

It's like this... as Co-Chair of Hillary's 2008 campaign, DWS fell short and couldn't push her over the top. In keeping with the Peter Principle, DWS was promoted to DNC chair after some backroom dealings (yes, the kind with tumblers filled with whisky and the smoke of good Cuban cigars) involving people representing someone named Obama, and people representing someone named Clinton.

As chair of the DNC, she'll be credited with making "herstory", and rewarded handsomely. Very handsomely indeed.

I don't think she has the qualification for any. Hillary will want to put more women in top positions but I don't think she will just put anyone there.

Now if for USSC you mean United States Sentencing Commission that might be a position that would perfect and hide her. If you mean United States Security Coordinator. I sure as hell hope not.

If she doesn't lose her primary she will be back as a House member. I would not support her for the Democratic Leader of the House either.

The president. And it would be for some small country where most of the relationship is just formalities.

I agree that i don't see any cabinet position she would be qualified for.

She received a Bachelor of Arts in 1988 and a Master of Arts... both in Political Science, from the University of Florida in Gainesville.

I was thinking since the USSC is nothing but a political game these days, a seat for Debbie would be a good fit.

no matter which candidate you support.
If her performance was graded it would be an F for failure.
She was head of the DNC when several hundred Democratic seats were lost.
Unbelievable that HRC supporters on this site defend her.
A Republican could not have done worse running the DNC.

...typical of the Sanders campaign, which can't seem to do much more than attack Democrats.

I don't support Wasserman at the DNC, but I'll be damned if I'll spend a moment of time sticking my nose in her district looking to primary her. It's pathetic that Sanders is looking to vote her out of her congressional seat as a way to address her DNC leadership. It's not as if a senator from Vermont has any special insight into the needs of her district.

This is just vindictive and heavy handed politics against this Democrat from someone who has spent a career keeping our party at arms-length. If anything, this opposition from Sanders and his fans will help the congresswoman.

She is terrible at her job. The facts bear that out. All Democrats should be calling for her removal.
You claim you don't support her, but are doing just that.

...I don't have a word to say about here service to her district, but DO NOT support her at the DNC and expect her to either step down or be replaced. I'll advocate for that alongside of anyone here.

What I don't support is Sanders or anyone else sticking their nose into her district and working to undermine or corrupt the influence of her voters there. I'm not surprised to find Sanders supporters ignorant or dismissive of the role of representatives in Congress. You seem to think you know better than voters in her district. I don't believe you know anything of substance on her representation of her constituents beyond yours and your candidate's assault against the Democratic party.

Oh, and I'm not running for anything, so, you should know I couldn't care less about what you think I support. You look to have as much insight into that as you do this congresswoman.

You mean like Biden stumping for her? big, it happens all the time in every election.

...you're not from there, Sanders isn't from there.

Good luck with telling her constituents you know better than they.

Bernie has been enormously successful given he was a small state senator with almost zero recognition on the national stage running against the most famous woman in the world. Why has Hillary done so badly?

Clinton hasn't done 'badly'. Maybe she hasn't done as well as you would have expected but that's because Sanders was a great opponent. I don't see the problem with admitting that and at the same time acknowledging that Clinton has, for all intents and purposes, won the primary.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

Hillary won in DWS's district 75%-35%. What possible influence does Bernie have in her district in Fla.?

At first I thought she should step down in the name of party unity but now I oppose it because it would reward bullying. That would create a horrible precedent.

He'll probably end up a foot note in history.

You're right--- Sanders keeps fighting..... FOR US!

because the fights he wages are the wrong ones at the wrong time.

This feud is fairly one sided, as I don't think Schultz is really all that angry at Sanders.

That is right smack in the middle of DWS' district. The district was made for someone like her when the state legislature created it.

... personal vindictiveness on BS's part, which he is no stranger to engaging in.

It's reminds me of when he declared Planned Parenthood to be part of the evil "Establishment" - on the day they endorsed HRC.

Bernie is now, always has been, and always will be in it for Bernie.

Last edited Sun May 22, 2016, 08:12 PM - Edit history (1)

Incumbents usually win. George W. Bush won in 2004.

But people who voted for John Kerry were right to support the more liberal candidate.

Will not go far.