Yesterday it was what an ineffective failure he is as a Senator.

Can't wait to see what tomorrow's message of the day is.

and it was so well timed that even you think it was planned.

How coolio is that?

ps, don't give up your day job, the mind reading thing isn't working for you.

fwiw, I deleted my post so that you can feel truly important.

nah... I deleted it so that all the responses can be put into one place.

Must be a full moon or close to it lol.....do you remember the title of that third one, I haven't found it yet.

that he is interested in advancing the interests of the party as well as seeking its nomination.

Mean to you?
See cause I'm not real happy with the "real" Democrats who continue to privatize public goods and pull threads from the social safety net.

I think he represents Democratic values better than most of those with a (D) next to their name.

Exhibit A: Joe Manchin (D)

And that the revolution still has a lot of work to do to represent the traditional values it once did when it was stronger earlier and represented people more than it did "corporate people".

I think the symbolism that could be had if he became president, and if we could get newer majorities of more progressive Democrats in congress would be a perfect day for him to become a Democrat THEN and then illustrate that the big change that is needed now will have finally happened (hopefully then!). That won't then get lost on the people if they feel they've finally won the revolution then that they've fought so hard to win!

I think him staying independent now also attracts more disaffected liberals and other non-Democratic voters for the general election that perhaps feel that both Democrats and Republicans are "lost causes" because of the corporate masters they serve. If he stays independent, even if running as a Democrat, I think they will feel more drawn to him as someone that wants to change this equation than if he joined the Democrats and from the outsider's point of view might be viewed as a "surrender" to the corporate elements of the Democratic Party.

I don't vote for parties - I vote for principles.

Has anyone asked him "Are you a Democrat?"

Sid

But apparently did caucus often, and is therefore running as a Dem.

It just doesn't make sense

And since VT does not register people by party, perhaps you can explain how he would register as a Democrat? Lie about his place of residence?

just not seeing them on the same level of importance. And it's coolio if you do. Really, you don't have to convince me how unimportant this issue is to you. I get it.

I was waving "Buh bye"

Sid

Then again, you want the Dems to be centrist(which is the same as being conservative) on every issue other than LGBTQ rights...as though racism is part of the past and New Deal/economic egalitarian values are no longer needed).

There will be a percentage of Democratic voters who will want their nominee to proudly say "I'm a Democrat".

I don't know if that percentage will be large, small, insignificant or other, but it's naive to believe they don't exist.

Oh, and thanks for telling me what I want. Next time I need to formulate an opinion, I'll just come ask you what it is.



Sid

You would treat progressive posters and what they stand for with respect, rather than constantly copping this "Folks ike me are the only real grown-ups in the party and everyone else should just shut up and take what we give them" attitude. You're not entitked to it and no one here deserves it from you.

because I respect them.

There are also plenty of posters that I don't respect, and I'm really not concerned what they think of my "attitude". They don't know me. I don't seek, or need, their validation.

Sid

you might be very surprised to learn what other members of Congress/the Democratic Party are also Democratic Socialists, e.g., Barney Frank.

Kapish.. and sorry about mixing that up.. will change the op.. But Democrats comes in all shapes and sizes and philosophical bends.. There is no denying that.. but we are united by our platform.. and as one of those little ole white haired ladies that calls her neighbors.. I may be calling for him if he gets the nomination.

And as a proud party member, it would be nice if he would embrace me...

but he is and has always been a Turd Way tool of the bankers and the corporate set. I have never even considered him to be even especially liberal much less a democratic socialist.

I loved listening to him bust the nuts between the eyes with his ever ready verbal 2x4 between the eyes as much as anyone or more and I respect that because he isn't a coward like many of his general ideology but I've never for a second thought if this guy had a free hand on the economy that the course would change. Maybe he fits in some plausible definition of a democratic socialist but he'd have to be a pretty conservative one on fiscal matters.

I'm not trying to shit on the guy at all, I just don't buy the connection after watching him much of my life. I think such a train of thought is born of Democrats actually being a fairly conservative party at this point, arguably the 2nd most conservative governing level party in the West while we like to pretend at being liberal (or at this point even moderate) so anyone left of Tim Kaine or Rahm gets to be "socialist".

Outspoken moderate is about far as I can go and that is a stretch.

.... not officially registering as such adds an unnecessary complication to his campaign and a potential obstacle to his nomination.

We all know he's a socialist and some of us like him precisely because of that. He can be a socialist... and simultaneously be a registered member of the Democratic Party.


Much as I am.... come to think of it.

You see, the state that he represents as Senator, does not allow for partisan registration. All Vermonters are technically independent.

Now, he could have chosen to run as a Democrat sometime in his past and gotten that magic (D) behind his name (as has Dean and Leahy) but he didn't and it is too late for that.

This has been explained so many times it it getting quite ridiculous.

Howard dean was registered. I think it's more that Vermont doesn't require party registration, rather than the idea that Bernie can't register. I put a link up thread to an earlier DU thread that had those ballots posted.

No. There is literally no place on the voter registration form where you put down your party affiliation.

Here's the form: https://www.sec.state.vt.us/media/33935/VTVoterApp.pdf

I provided a link in my post #11 to actual ballots from Vermont. Party affiliation is quite apparent.

Point out where on the form he can do that for me.

Has Bernie even declared as a Dem?

Sanders did not ask to run in the Democratic primary for Senate. Instead, the Democrats ran no one against him.

Still waiting for how Sanders can register as a Democrat.

Many who have concerns.

Now, Jessie Helms, he was a man who wore that D after his name with pride!!!*

(*until 1970 when he switched parties.)

So, you going to abandon the claim he needs to register as a Democrat, or you gonna try again in a couple weeks?

Bernie lost me in the earliest days because of this. Bernie supporters didn't help any reconsideration. As it turns out it no longer matters to my final and preferred candidate choice. I am now just fine and dandy with Clinton.

But I'm telling you there are many Dems who are not decided for whom it's still a very big deal and very well may be the same deal breaker that it originally was for me.

if they aren't wearing the right letterman jacket.

They don't feel bad for throwing the election, there is something freeing and exhilarating about just throwing karma to the wind.

The long term health of the Dem party is at play and a Bernie Presidency is disasterous since he is not into party building. If for some reason Bernie wins the GE, his is a one term POTUS and the Dem Party will require at least 2 following Republican Presidencies to build any sort of a unified reputation and make another strong bid for the WH.

the whole thing sucks....right?

Clearly, the way to fix the status quo is by voting for the status quo. It'll totally revitalize the party to do exactly the same thing that has destroyed our party's health.

We are in the beginnings of a political realignment. The surge to the right embodied by Reagan is ending, because the generations behind that surge are dying. The following generations want something different.

We had two choices: Lead that wave, or be fragmented by it. Our party has chosen the latter, because our party is lead by the same generations that brought us Reagan and has steadfastly ignored "the kids". They weren't needed in a winning coalition. Until now.

Now, "the kids" are needed. And the party leadership is responding by demanding "the kids" fall in line. That will not work.

So what's going to happen over the next 30-ish years: The Republican party will wither away as it heads further and further into insanity. The Democratic party will split into two parties. One will take over the "traditional" position of the Republican party (ie. Ike). This party will also pick up the sane former-Republicans. The other party will take over the "traditional" position of the Democratic party (ie. FDR). We don't know yet which party will end up with the "Democratic" name.

Btw, that split will allow Republicans to win sometimes, despite their insanity. Just like Maine's governor.

Our party had an option to not split, and for us to not go through the massive disruption we are entering. Unfortunately, our party decided to turn further to the right instead.

So no, the letter after Sanders's name is really not important to a vast swath of voters. Because they've been desperately trying to make having a "D" be meaningful for 30 years, and been crushed repeatedly by the leadership.

And don't give me shit like "well, you didn't run anyone". We did. Lots of times. We were actively sabotaged by the entrenched parts of the party.

Not one option to select party affiliation. (Unlike many states that allow to state their affiliation)

https://www.sec.state.vt.us/media/33935/VTVoterApp.pdf

A candidate can state their party affiliation on the ballot. But every candidate as no party affiliation as a registered voter.

Howard Dean was never a registered Democrat but that did not prohibit him from running as a Democrat and being listed on the BALLOT as a democrat.

Similarly, Bernie was never a registered Democrat but that does not prohibit him from running as a Democratic candidate.

I am not so stupid that I cannot discern between a voter registration form and a ballot.

interesting that the same thought occurred to both at the sale time.

Did you also read MineralMan's post regarding the two party system? It was excellent. I will delete my post

sample Vermont Ballots from the past http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251419448

here is my original post:

I must have been typing when yours went up, and did not realize you had op'ed on the same subject.. must be on all our minds I guess.. but yours was up first.. I just checked the time

As long as you don't mind the party being called the "Democrat Party," I guess it's okay to butcher "Democratic Socialist," which is not a party label for him, but a political philosophy.

I'm a member of the Democratic Party, and I support what the party gets correct, and don't support what it doesn't.

I just care about issues. I don't really care who moves them, as long as they are moving and in the best direction. If my party is giving ground, changing direction to go where I don't want to, or sluggish on forward movement, then it needs a prod in the ass, which I am happy to do while helping clean up the fucking crap.

who are truly embracing being democrats. i think it's everyone else that needs to work harder at it.

Senator Sanders is an Independent.. with very good ideas... It would be nice if he is running in my party for the head of my ticket, that he would embrace me.. and be a Democrat..

And he has in the past been an advocate of a third party.

So I think it's been a matter of basic principle to him, and a point of pride to reprsent independent/third party politics in Congress.

Of course, now that he's running for the Democratic nomination, he probably go through the motions.

But, he chose not to run as a third party candidate. You all should be relieved about that.

Not while too many Democrats in power embrace right wing Republican policies. Bernie doesn't and shouldnt embrace those things.

So my question ends up being "What the hell are you talking about???"

It can appeal to a lot of people that have been totally left out of politics because they don't relate to either party really, or they see the parties as corrupt.

I don't even know what it means to "be a Democrat", except I guess to participate in party meetings and elections. He's running in the election as a Democrat and following the party rules. That's a lot more participation than you would see from most self-identified Democrats.

So much for the Big Tent.

Oh, and just which "party" does Bernie belong in? The Independent Party,
to run against a Democrat in the GE? < -- are you fucking serious?

A) If Bernie did this, then there might be some justification for trying to label
him a "spoiler" who's openly "ruining it" for a Democrat running for POTUS in
the GE.
B) Bernie has made it very clear, that -- due in large part to his LOYALTY to
the Democratic party, esp. it's historic FDR-like wing -- he's already ruled this
option out.

Yet you still insist on questioning his "loyalty" to the Party.

Absolutely big tent.. Be a proud Socialist who is a Democrat.. I know lots of Socialists who are Democrats and support our party platform..

He is running for the head of the Democratic Party.. Identify as a Democrat, its the Democratic Party.... what is so hard about that??

I am a Democrat..

We both know Bernie is biggering the Big Tent in a major way.

Hell, one of the other misdirected accusations hurled at Bernie -- from the far-Left no less -- is that
he's "really a closet 3rd-Way stalking-horse to herd Independents, Greens, & pissed off Republicans
into the Big Tent.

Now I don't buy into this ^ crap mind you, but it's telling that -- from their perspective -- that's what
it looks like, because there ARE people outside the Party that Bernie is drawing into the Democratic
fold. <-- I think this is common knowledge, and pretty-much undeniable.

Last edited Mon Aug 3, 2015, 11:38 PM - Edit history (1)

I have said if before, but not here in GDP.

I am a member of the democratic party. I am not ashamed of saying that.

Having said that, there is something that bothers me: While Sanders always caucused with Dems when he was elected to office as a representative and later as a Senator, he was never a part of trying to build and change the infra-structure of the Democratic party to what his vision is. He has always made it clear that he is not a member of the party. HE has even done as far to say that he is not a liberal…

The party has been very happy to have him caucus with us, but…

He has not helped with the legwork in building the party platform.

He is reaping the gains of the party without having contributed to the party as a member. Just to be clear, I am talking about PARTY politics. If anyone wants to know why party partisans are reluctant to say that he is a viable candidate, I think it's because he has never been willing to say he is a Democrat. I respect that — He's not.

Right now, to the best of my knowledge (and his words), he is running as a Democrat because this is his best chance to be elected on a national scale. I think is the first time he has ever run as a Dem — and he still is not an official member of the Democratic party. (I know, in advance — as a resident of Vermont he doesn't have to register in a party).

Sanders wants a political revolution in a party that he never wanted to be a part of. That really bothers me.

That is not a slam, this is a fact.

Considering we have O'Malley, and Clinton — both of which have been life long members of the party I affiliate with; both of which have worked to change and make the platform better, both of which have campaigned to get other Dems elected in local, state and federal elections — I feel a little uneasy about a man that is running for the nomination of the Democratic party that hasn't dome that. He hasn't gone out of his way to be a part of the party that he is asking the nomination for.

My personal preference for the nomination is Martin O'Malley; he has a track record with working across party lines to get things done. I like that. I appreciate that. I want that in a president. I would be fine with Clinton as well — and yes, even Sanders — however the issue I am responding to you about is something that I am honestly saying makes me feel uncomfortable.

His not being a part of helping to build and change the Democratic Party platform will become an issue for people who are Democrats. I agree with almost everything that Bernie stands for; Most Dems do — but he never wanted to be a part of the party I am in. Now he wants my vote. I don't know if I like that.

I know that we have a lot of people here on DU that do not care about party politics. I get that.
I happen to care about party politics because we still have a two party system, Sanders wants to have it both ways right now. If he wins, my concern is what is he going to do to help get other democrats elected in all levels of government? It's not just about the office of President, the way I see it, it is who the candidate can bring along and help get elected.

Right now, as I see it, O'Malley and Clinton have a record of doing just that. I am not seeing where Sanders has helped to build and change the party after all of his years in federal governance.

I am a liberal.
I am a progressive.
I'm a member of the Democratic party and I am looking forward to our primaries.

but that's ok —

When you talk principles, I assume you are talking about yours. There is a reason why SoS Clinton is not my first choice, and that happens to be directly connected to my personal feelings. I will vote for whoever the Democratic party ends up nominating. My principles and my political allegiance has always been with the Democratic party.

Being a Democrat is not a bad thing especially when it doesn't make me feel like I have to choose principles over a personality.


just to make this clear: I am talking about the infrastructure need to get more democrats, liberal and progressive ones at that, elected. This is about a lot more than just the office of President — it is about local State and federal levels.

That's called party infratructure.

Bernie Sanders is a co-founder and was the first elected Chair of that caucus, which is extremely useful to many Democrats particularly those with issues not swiftly embraced by the the more centrist types.

That's called Party infrastructure where I come from.

I am talking larger and more far reaching than a caucus. I credited him for whom he caucus' with.

... it would be "unprincipled" of Sanders to become a Democrat? Or is it "unprincipled" of Democrats to believe that a candidate who wants to run on the Democratic ticket should actually be one of them?

... Bernie is not a member of the Democratic Party. That's the fact of the matter.

"DNC has him up as a part of the fundraising programs they do to collect dollars."

Why are you bringing that up? Should the Democrats allow him all of the benefits of running on their ticket, but be precluded from any benefits themselves?

Frightened of Bernie being the nominee? That is not going to happen - he won't come close to the support HRC has, despite all the wishful thinking in the world.

" I know he will lead a very large flushing of DINO's and Republicans away from the halls of Congress."

I take it you're very, very new to politics.

you are so freaking funny.

I sincerely disagree with your thesis. However, if you are correct, how exactly will sanders do that?

You see, I am not frightened by him. I just disagree with him.

IF the party is saying he is welcome, ok. My point is that there is a reason why I am skeptical.

You are now are talking in circles. First you accuse me of being for party above principle (to which I respond with respect) and now you are thinking I am a purist?


have a nice evening.

You'd think of all people, mocratic socialists would recognize that. Individual principles are important, but as is typically the case, we are stronger as a group than as individuals. The same is true of unions. That's the principle of collective bargaining. You may not agree with everything the union does, or even who leads the union, but you are still better off together.

The party is the same. We are stronger together. And i admit i'm not so much a fan of someone who won't even embrace an identity as a member of the party he is seeking the nomination for!

Party politics means comprimise for sure. But Democrats generally recognize that collective action works.

Except maybe becuase they think Sanders is not all that intereted in stengthening the Democratic party, which many of us think the party's Presidential nominee ought to be.

I'm fine with Sanders running. But I want him to run AS a Democrat, not merely for the Democratic nomination.

I don't think that's too much to ask when you're asking for the party nomination, do you?

Again, the party, working together, is what we need to fight the Republicans. I want to know that Bernie is anxious to participate in the party now.

I am a Democrat.. We have a lot of people running to head up our ticket and be the head of our party.. We have a huge platform.. And as I said to someone earlier.. I am that little old white haired lady that calls on all the neighbors during the election..

Personally I am supporting Gov. O'Malley in the primaries.. but who wins the top of the ticket gets my vote.. and all the work that I will be putting in for the general elections

And I think Senator Sanders should support me since he is running to head up my party by being a Democrat..

I think he has great ideas.. (Senator Sanders)..

I have had the same misgivings about BS from the beginning.

your words mean a lot to me.

I hope you don't mind the lazy version, but I am going to simply C&P part of a PM conversation I just had a few minutes ago that in some respects mirrors your thoughts:

Bernie is a 'Democrat' in the mold of FDR/LBJ .... He holds solid progressive principles that the party has lost sight of ...

I'm more inclined to vote for Bernie and his democratic principles than any other 'official' member of the Democratic Party that fails to live up to those haughty, FDR/LBJ New Deal/Great Society principles ... ...

HE wasn't and did not want to be a part of changing that.

Quite honestly, LBJ and FDR had to compromise to get some major legislation passed. this is a pretty good essay regarding what these two Presidents had to do to get Social security and later Medicare, passed.

I said what I said.

You want to try to pin that one me, go ahead.

I never suggested what you seem think think I said.

Read my words.

They pretty much speak for me.

once will have to do

So you will not see this.. but I will not put you on ignore..

Don't think the DNC has been in this position we've always had a registered dem as candidate or nominee if he makes it that far.

their voter registration forms for party affiliation. Neither Obama or Dean have ever been, as a candidate, a registered Democrat.

House, for Governor and for President. Bernie Sanders had the same opportunity to run as a Democrat for Mayor, US House and Senator and he did not. This was not an accident, it was a clear choice that Sanders made for himself. Sanders supporters should accept this, not attempt to diminish the choice he made.

eom

That's a fact. How is pointing out that fact an "attack"?

Bernie does not belong to the Democratic Party ... Yet, he embodies the spirit of FDR and the New Deal policies he engendered ...

I would posit that Bernie represents all that I expect from the Democratic Party that now refuses to embrace the same, people-centered platform that made the Democratic Party a voice of the people in days gone by ...

I don't care if he decides to carry the moniker 'current member of the Democratic Party' ... He has already earned my vote by embracing those policies we hold dear as Liberal Democrats ...

... that you feel represents your ideals.

However, I do have a problem with a candidate who wants the benefits of running on the Democratic ticket, but who, at the same time, eschews being a member of the Party he wants to support him.

I have always taken pride in being a Democrat. It's my Party - warts and all. It is my political family, if you will, and just as with any family, it has its good points and bad, its ups and downs, its inner squabbles, and it goes through changes as the times change, the demographics change, etc. But in my view, the Party still represents my ideals.

So perhaps you can understand how some of we Democrats feel when someone wants to sit down with the family for Sunday dinner, but doesn't want to be seen as "part of the family" other than when they're hungry.

It may strike some as an old fashioned idea - but I believe that if you want the support of Democrats, you should BE a Democrat - and not a kind-sorta-Democrat only when it is politically expedient to be so.

The current meme of "BS is more of a Democrat than some Democrats" is meaningless. You're either a member of this Party or you're not, and taking the "yeah, but" position of "he's just as good as" doesn't cut it.

If, in some bizarro-world happenstance, BS became the Dem nominee, I would vote for him - just to keep a Republican out of the Oval Office. But that would be my only reason for voting for him.

... as a Democrat in 1982 and was elected lieutenant governor in 1986.

Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination on November 5, 1996, and won the race for the 13th Senate district, with 82 percent of the vote.

Neither Dean nor Obama refused to be identified as Democrats - which BS is still refusing to do. In fact, both have been very outspoken champions of the Party.

I don't hear BS talking-up the Party he wants to support him in his political ambitions. On the contrary, he has steadfastly refused to be identified as a "Democrat" - despite the fact that he wants to be the Party's nominee.

... that the Party he wants to support him has no right to raise money as a result of his wanting to be that Party's nominee.

Do you need me to provide other examples of hypocrisy for you to get it?

... "if you want to run as a Democrat, the Democratic Party has a right to raise money by using your name" do you NOT get?

get to complain about a form he literally can not fill out?" do you not understand?

Here's the Vermont voter registration form. Let me know when you find a place for Sanders (or Dean) to register as a Democrat.

It's a matter of BS refusing to be identified with the Party he wants to elect him to the WH.

And the DNC is so upset that they have accepted his paperwork to run in the primary, and are fundraising off his presence in the primary.

Oh wait, that doesn't make any sense. Oh well, we must be back in high school and having the right letterman jacket is the only important measure.

Remember back when you were young, and all the old people were telling you how politics "really works" and that your issues were not important, and there was only one "proper" way to change things? You aren't the young person in that scenario anymore.

... you keep bringing up the DNC and being "upset".

Apparently the DNC is fine with this, and no one is "upset" - other than the BS supporters who go ballistic every time someone has the temerity to mention that Bernie is not a Democrat.

I've been told here several times - as have others - that pointing out the oh-so-obvious FACT that BS is not a member of our party is a "smear" or an "attack".

As for the high school analogy, Bernie wants to be elected Student Council president in a school he refused to attend. Just because the principal is allowing it doesn't mean the voting students can't express their negative view of the candidate on those grounds.

I sure hope Bernie has a thicker skin than his followers.

... bring it up at all.

But I've come to expect the useless hyperbole on DU - like people being "terrified" by Bernie's campaign, or the HRC camp "shaking in their boots" over Bernie, or BS "lobbing a crippling blow at the Kochs" by introducing a bill that will go nowhere - or posting the phrase "over and over" as though it meant something.

We are allowed to defend the party here on DU, right?

eom

That has been a pretty easy label to slap on people in the past few months.

I don't like to make people my enemies, to put it more bluntly.

However you do recognize that third way / DLC Democrats exist and exert considerable influence on the party, correct?

eom

It's not terribly complicated.

like he did many years back before he became a Republican?

Is being a member of the party the only way you measure candidates?

It's not him. For the most part, he has spent the last 24 years being a good representative for his state and supporter of the democratic in the house and senate.

It's an observable notion that so easily slips through the observations of those who should know better.

It's willful ignorance. People intentionally ignore, or at the least refuse to acknowledge, that which doesn't fit within their point of view.

He is a Democrat. He uses another label, but has marched side by side with Democrats all along.