... did you (or do you still) disagree with? The period under discussion here, you may recall, was the rise of the "Reagan Democrats". In 84, 88 and 92, my Presidential votes went to 3rd party candidates.

The question, I guess, is how we define "Democratic Underground". Are we the "underground" of the Democratic Party, or are we the "underground" that strives to return democratic ideals to this nation's governing philosophy?

If you ask me that question, I'll opt for the small-d ideals over the Big-D party - EVERY time!

BTW - this was intended as a reply to the OP. To quote Rick Perry - Oops!

curb or do you work to help your brother realize his potential?

n/t

I am somewhere between undecided and Hillary with a hope that Biden enters the race, but I like everything Bernie said in your post. If I thought Bernie could win the general election he would have my unqualified support, so your bashing isn't getting any converts, at least not me.

And, I live in SC so I actually get to vote while it still matters (if you recall, it was SC that essentially pushed Obama to the nomination.)

I am really getting sick of the supporters on both sides acting like right wing radio in bashing one or the other Democratic candidate.

Just wait and see.

The states in which Hillary is strong will not vote Democratic anyway.

We need to watch the polls in the blue states and in swing states.

And we need to remember, as I am discovering as I go out and campaign for Bernie, that Bernie is drawing a lot of support from voters who don't normally vote, the very voters who agree with the statements that Bernie made way back in 1985.

The fact that we are being rationed to only 6 debates in a year in which we have such a big decision to make about our candidate is an indication of the decadence and corruption within the DNC.

That is, if the loss in 2014 was not enough to prove the incompetence in the DNC leadership.

So we shall see. Thus far, Democrats are responding to Bernie's campaign, and the DNC is proving itself utterly hot for corporate money, and utterly frigid for giving our candidates opportunities to debate and reach the American voters without that hotly desired corporate cash.

There's nothing wrong with a healthy debate... its necessary even... but there's a difference between citing facts and launching smears campaigns.

Might as well keep that trend going

I have lived with addiction. The addict will destroy all lives around them as well as their own. I would cut them loose.

You can't cut them loose because they are one of the two power players in the USA and God help us all the other one is worse.

I feel the same way he does. Maybe he can save the party before it turns into the Third Way Party. Hmmm..TWP - will always remind me of Television Without Pity, which was the website that got me addicted to the internet.

I am voting for issues and ideas, NOT the "D" on the jersey. Truthfully, if Bernie was not running, I would have been completely disengaged this time.

Ideas NOT the "D"...

Exactly.

“He plays it both ways,” said former Vermont Governor Madeleine Kunin, a Democrat who once successfully fended off Sanders from the left in a reelection bid. “He wants to be different, and yet he wants to belong—for political purposes.”

The 'Not Hillary' Party would be all over Hillary if she was 'calculating' like that.

Jamie Dimon? Or the Kochs?
This election is making it so more clear to me, the difference between doing good for people and obeisance to a party and its owners. Unsettling, really.

She says Sanders "wants to belong--for political purposes"? By caucusing with the Democrats, he served the political purposes of all the Democrats who wanted to chair committees or subcommittees, instead of being in the minority.

Sanders ran as a third-party candidate in Vermont but chose not to do so for a nationwide run. That's not inconsistency -- it's a sensible recognition that the circumstances are different. Would that Ralph Nader had understood that.

Is Hillary Clinton playing it both ways because she has more staff in Iowa than in New Jersey, even though late-voting New Jersey has many more Convention delegates? No, she's just sensibly recognizing that different political circumstances call for different tactics.

I also play it both ways, I want to like the Democratic party but I'll vote for the best candidate no matter what party they are from.

Be thankful that Bernie is not running as an Independent or Socialist. He should run as a Democrat because as a third party candidate, he'd take a lot of votes from Hillary.

I'll vote for Hillary if she wins but I wish she was financed by the people like Bernie instead of owned by her corporate donors.

Who is NEVER wrong!

Her dealings with people bare no influence over what she has to say about them. She "fended off" Sanders in an election. Was he trying to kiss her or something? Or was it an election... where y'know, you try to convince people to vote for you? Is she upset that Sanders doesn't just sit in the "independent" corner and not try to engage the rest of the political landscape? This is "calculating"?

Kunin was a good governor, a bit like Dean in centrist positions. Both were very well liked, though neither were capable of enacting the change we need on the large scale.The disparity in wealth has only gotten worse in the past 30 years, and there's only one candidate who has addressed that issue all his life. His message is the basis of what the Democratic Party was, the FDR party, not the corporate or DLC wing.

And very easy to find considering he's repeated it many times.

He doesn't like the party, doesn't want to be a part of the party, but he'll go ahead and use them if he thinks it will get him elected?

I am not trying to be argumentative, but I'm curious how others see those comments.

He's running for office. There are only three options for president 1)Runs as a Democrat 2)Run as a Republican 3) Run as an Independent/Third-Party Candidate.

He iss running because there is a need to addess the issue he is raising, aa lot of people pressed him to run.

What would you prefer? That he run as a third party spoiler, and help the chances of the GOP?

He caucuses with the Dems and has always as far as I know.

I can see taking his view as a slight negative, but it does not strike me as a deal breaker.

And then Hillary's supporters will all whine he's not being a good Democrat cause she will then lose.

(I really don't, I'm just making a point.)

Would be if both he and Trump lost their party's nomination, and BOTH ran as independents.

It grows and changes, otherwise none of us would be Democrats. Bernie will help it change for the better.

But even if he doesn't, he's already made a significant impact for the better! He's had a huge impact on the narrative for the democratic party. He's set the tone for what's important. He's adapted and expended into areas he's needed to expand into...adding those vital areas to the set tone. I hope he makes it to the White House... but even if he doesn't, each day he's out there, each day he's getting his message to the people, he's actively changing it for the better!

it's broken.

they moved AWAY from the interests of the people whose interests they once upheld. For many years, I have seen the Democratic Party as the 'lesser of two evils.' The reason I'm for Bernie, is that he is for me. He cares about the issues I care about. Most other Democrats, not so much. My own Senator, not so much.

I talk about Bernie, who is clear btw, on where HE stands. I am not able to answer with certainty because I have not been able to find a definitive answer from her campaign. These are HUGE issues for Democrats. So it's important to know where all the candidates stand on these issues.

Far from hurting Sanders, I think this article demonstrates precisely why it is so good for the national Democratic Party that he is pursuing the presidential nomination.

The current party is moribund ... just look at the center, moderate, establishment, very wealthy Hillary Clinton: this is what has become of the Democratic Party?

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is the chair of the DNC?

Where are the new, bold ideas? Where is the excitement? Where is the progressivism and populism that really makes Democrats different from Repuglicans?

I'm not looking for 'party registration purity' -- I want a leader who will challenge the American people to better things. (And that sure as hell isn't Mrs. Clinton.)

Good for Sanders!

Why on earth would the Democrats in Congress beg Bernie to caucus with them in both the House and Senate...especially when the Senate has a Majority of one?

Perhaps you'd like it better if Bernie ran as an Independent so we could have a President Trump.

Bernie has always caucused with the Democrats.

This is how the DLC/THIRD WAY thanks him for helping the Democratic Party for 25 years. Sheesh.

He's been attacking the party his entire career, but now he wants to use the party to further his own ambitions. The least he could do is actually join it.

so weirdly underhanded and nefarious. Which, i guess, is your aim.
I sincerely doubt you have changed a single mind or swayed a single opinion.

On the other hand, with Hillary - I think she just wants to be president. Matter of pride and ambition.

They way they go about it is through politics. In this instance, not only do I think it would be appropriate for Bernie to join the party who's resources he intends on using for his presidential ambitions, but I also think it would make him more effective in making people's lives better. After all, basically everything good that has happened in the government for the past century came from the Democratic Party. He could be a valuable asset.

not have accepted his running FOR the Democratic nomination. Plus - they are using him because if he were to run as Third Party, he would definitely hurt them. I would say that the Democratic Party is using Bernie, not the other way around.

some miracle he doesn't become president, he could help build and maintain the same party infrastructure that he's now availing himself in his own presidential run.

before I would believe he could do that. He is running to help the United States, not the Third Way Central that the Democratic Party has become. Like I said, he would then be answerable to Wasserman-DINO, Pelosi, Wall Street.
No thanks. Actually, most days I think the Democratic Party has left ME, on its greasy ooze to the right.

Of course, if Bernie was actually a member of the party during the last few decades, he might have been able to influence its direction before this, and move it away from the Third Way stuff in the first place.

Whatever Bernie does is fine with me. I will leave it at that. he has got my vote and my support, and I will spread the Bernie word. There is literally nothing that could make me feel that way about any of the other candidates. Nothing.

so if he's a "third way corporatist" then the label has completely lost its meaning.

I hear you about Bernie. A lot of his supporters seem to have that kind of religious devotion, where "literally nothing" will influence their views, and it's just go Bernie go and everyone except for Bernie is horrible no matter what the facts are.

I cannot support someone who is for the TPP, has pushed fracking around the world, is a warhawk, wants more and more H-1B visas, and is quite happy with cluster bombs. Women's and children's rights? These things will all hurt women and children.

Those are ISSUES, I think being for those issues is horrible, I don't care about the actual person.
I believe the HRC supporters are the religious devotion sector, especially if they think her stance on those issues is quite all right.

With those issues in mind, how do you think I could possible support Hillary? All that is left is "because it is her turn" and "because she is a woman" and "because she really really wants this". Blargh.

Most of us just realize that the difference between the GOP and any Dem is much greater than the difference between the Dem candidates. The whole key is winning the white house. Sure, Hillary isn't perfect, but then nobody is. I don't agree with her on everything, nor do I agree with Bernie on everything. The thing is Hillary has a much better shot at the GE than Bernie, so she's the logical choice.

I think the reason many Bernie supporters are so maniacally devoted is that his appeal comes from his supposed purity and perfection. People don't want to accept that he too is a flawed human politician.

believed by Hillary supporters, evidently because they cannot accept that anyone would not support Hillary.. Hillary's stance on the TPP, fracking, cluster bombs, military intervention, and H-1B are too bad for me to support, especially when I can support a candidate who is against those things. Why is that so hard to understand?

Some of it comes down to ideological purity versus pragmatism. If I believed that Bernie or O'Malley could actually win, I might support one of them instead.

Hillary supporters by and large like all of the candidates but are realistic about their chances of beating the GOP. The Hillary haters pick a couple issues, pretend they are black and white, and ignore everything else in order to conclude that Hillary is evil.

No, you are wrong, and adios.

Thoughtful perseverance dj. So many of us feel the exact same as you do and appreciate you for stating what you did.

nt

He was pressured by a lot of people to run, and decided to after Warren made it clear she was not running.

He's doing it to advance principals. Something the Corporate Wing of the Democratic Party seems to have forgotten about.

If he was doing this "simply to further hos own ambitions, he wold have prepped for it years ago by becoming a good Corporate Lap Dog, joined the Democratic Party, suppressed his principals nd just started mouthing standard centrist platitudes."

Sanders himself answered that question with his usual candor the other day. I paraphrase slightly:

"I've got a big ego. You have to to be in Congress. But did I wake up every morning and look in the mirror and say I should be president? No. But this is too important."

It's so bizarre that people take offense to such an obviously true statement. Both Hillary and Bernie want to be president. Yes, both of them are doing it to advance principles, but if someone wants to be president, describing that as an "ambition" is obviously accurate.

resources of that same party to further his own ambitions. He wants to be president, suddenly decides that the Democratic Party isn't so bad after all. In fact, it's pretty good, and it also has coalitions and relationships and fundraising networks and all those other things that require a lot of work to build and maintain. Work that was done by people that he has been dumping on for decades. And without which, he wouldn't have a chance at being president.

Yes, I think it would be good for him to now join the party, and recognize all that.

He's only running because he doesn't feel the country (or earth in general) stand a chance with the alternatives. I feel the same way.

neck out for this run. I don't think he wanted to at all. My feeling is that he looked around and said, "If I don't do this, no one is going to."

his country in a time of class war. I really think, while he is completely invested in his run for president, he would have been very happy without it. I think he is making a sacrifice to become president, and I hope this isn't overstating, but I think his sacrifice is similar to George Washington's. He will be a reluctant president, but he will serve his country with everything he has.

His run is in no way about personal ambition. His run is about duty to country.

when very few people, even on here, believe that.

Of course, I think there are right wing types who DO believe that, and will do everything they can to destroy his candidacy.

You're just pushing your Hillary crap. She doesn't thrill me, and of course I'd vote for her if she won the nomination, but many of her supporters here are incredibly obnoxious.
Bernie supporters at least post some valid stuff about Hillary sometimes. The anti-Bernie stuff is almost all crap.

For some bizarre reasons, I'm more interested in the policies he stands for and would promote.
Call me crazy.

Not until after he exercises the RW demons out of it first.

Only Hillary supporters care about this non 'issue'.

really what kind of a post is that? intolerant of disagreement today?

The fact that the bigot Kim Davis fills your qualifications for what defines a Democrat says all that needs to be said about the standards you apply and those you fail to apply.

He should remake the party from within, as an 'I'.

No purity tests necessary.

although in 1980 the Party had finally agreed to add 'sexual orientation' to the non discrimination section of the Party Platform, there was no other specific support for LGBT and no mention of us as a part of this Party by a nominee for President until Bill Clinton in 1992.

If you were not being critical of this Party in 85, you were on the wrong side of history. CA, NY and Oregon all had Republicans in Senate seats. Not anymore, and you're welcome.

face that the Democratic Party is NOT ideologically bankrupt? Is there one single person here who is seriously that delusional.

Is full of them! Otherwise, they'd be voting for Bernie. Obviously their allegiance is to the "party" and not the country as a whole.

You can't support
TPP
XL pipeline
Wall street thieves
Wars, wars, wars and more wars
Fracking
Citizens United - BIG money buying the government

And expect people to believe you are voting for what's best for the good old United States of America. It's illogical.

Jefferson quote. Fortunately, not everyone has the mind of a Jeffersonian politician. We political junkies are shades and hues of our brief American history, European influences, wars and conquests. "Enlighten the people" was a quaint idea of a "free press".

"oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits..." Wishing will not make it so. Our MSM has become nothing more than another reality show. Instead of collecting on the fees for political ads, they play free infomercials for their clan at our expense.

Our 2 party system doesn't leave much choice, does it?

All we can hope for is big changes in the Democratic party. And that is what we are working for now.

Hillary Clinton not being the nominee.

LAME

You ARE aware this is a primary right?

Being independent is a positive attribute for most people.

That Bernie's unnamed opponent was once a Republican.
It doesn't matter if this unnamed opponent has values that are decidedly not those of the Party.
It doesn't matter if this unnamed opponent does not actually support WE THE PEOPLE, but puts more value in them, the corporations.

No, that doesn't matter at all.

And Sanders was right in 1988 as far as tweedle dee and tweedle dum on many issues.
The greed has to stop somewhere, so how about running on the party who he caucuses with, and has supported, though not without sacrificing his values. Yeah, some may call it not loyal, but not loyal to whom? The party, or the people?

it would be cut in half. Is that really what you want?

question is relevant.
I think most of us here have said at on time or the other that the Democratic Party isn't what it should be or isn't what it use to be.
So even Dems make the same critiques of their party.

Where it belongs... instead of center right where it feels it has to run to win elections.

Left wing of the party the progressive wing of the pary is embracing Sanders with open arms.

We need a party that will fight corruption that will fight corporate greed and one that will fight for the people. Sanders is going to take us there.

Bernie doesn't run as a Democrat, but runs as an Independent. He splits the vote, bada bing, bada boom, President Trump. As for his quotes from 1985, should we also hold Hillary to her beliefs back when she was a Goldwater girl? One of the 2 candidates was a Republican and it wasn't Bernie.

Why am I still a member of a party that reflects less and less of my values every year? Bernie is the ONLY reason as to why I am still a party member.

It is extreamly likely if Bernie is not the party nominee I will end my relationship with the party because I will have no reason to remain in a party that does not reflect my values


If anything the party should be kissing Bernies for keeping people in the party who most likely would have left this election cycle

Really? Ideas are less important than team membership? Your post illustrates what Bernie was talking about.

It's been part of the rotation for quite a while now.

My thought was that now that Bernie is winning with ideas the strategy is to amp up the non-Democrat angle.

Although a Hillary supporter, I do like Bernie and will support him 100% if he wins OUR nomination.

That said, I have asked this question before. He has abhorred the two-party system almost all his political life, so why run as a Dem instead of an Independent? He has said before that if you are a Repub (gosh forbid) or a Dem then you are beholden to that political ideology which is why he is an Independent.

So it perplexed me that he ran as a Dem.

and he has said he has absolutely no interest or intention of doing that.

Democrat party is the only part that is relevant in this party. Ours dates back to FDR and his values.

and elsewhere.

One way to do that is to lead by example.

If we were to never, not once, criticize Bernie OUTSIDE of the issues, we could maybe turn this thing around.

Certain Bernie supporters will NEVER do the right thing, but we can and should.

When I say we I am both a Bernie and Hillary supporter.

If the damage to Hillary continues, we may lose the WH And the country to people who are so dangerous it is unimaginable, this is a serious issue and we must change NOW.

p.s.

Using "certain" because I dont believe any liberal would support Bernie and attack Hillary to the point of risking the WH to the cons, so in using that word I am talking about a very limited group of people, may even be less of them here than it seems like.

To answer your question....

Maybe because the status quo isn't working any more. Maybe because the Party has lost its way on the road to being Repug Lite. BUT still recognizing that it's better than the conservative alternatives. Maybe it's a way to implement improvements to the country and the Party.

. . . and that would have supported a Republican victory.

Sanders is a Democratic Socialist by his own admission. While there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, I still don't understand how he can run as a Democrat. As you've pointed out, he's admitted that he's not a Democrat.

Recently, he implied that both Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton are not progressive enough. He made his case by using the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) as an example. He said Barrack Obama effectively conceded his progressive credentials by compromising too much with Republicans, which resulted in Obamacare.

The interesting thing about Sanders' tacit accusation is that he himself voted for Obamacare. So, what does that say about Bernie Sanders' so-called progressive credentials?

To me, it speaks volumes. It foreshadows what I suspect will happen should he, by some huge miracle, win the White House. Bernie Sanders will either become the moderate Democrat that he subtly accuses Clinton and Obama of being, or he will get absolutely nothing done. Of course, my opinion is that, should Sanders win the nomination, we will have a President Trump or Carson, but that's a whole other topic.

Of course, I agree that the ACA was the best Obama could achieve considering allthe players. But, Sanders has used the ACA to portray Barrack Obama as less progressive than he should be. Yet, Sanders voted for the bill. That implies that Obama shouldn't have compromised as much as he did with Republicans. In fact, by voting for the ACA, Sanders compromised his own progressive credentials. At least, that's what I think.

What is the alternative? To veto every major bill?

If he's likely to only get more moderate bills to sign, what's the point of him being president? If you think he can just veto bills he doesn't like, don't forget Congress can override. Hillary Clinton, who's telling the truth about being a moderate Democrat and who will work with the other side, could do a much better job of being President.

It's not a good idea for Democrats to risk losing the White House by nominating Bernie Sanders. He's not even a Democrat!

There's too much at stake. For example, there's the Supreme Court. He may draw large crowds, and he's likely taking support away from Hillary Clinton. But, it's also very likely that his candidacy will generate a huge voter turnout for the GOP candidate. I think Clinton will be much more appealing to swing voters than Bernie Sanders.

:whereisthejerkoffsmileywhenyouneedit:

A new poster and a snarky and unkind response.

There were policies which Obama didn't try hard enough to get Congress to pass, such as a public option in Obamacare.

than many so-called self-professed Democrats.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/911-bernie-sanders-iraq-hillary-clinton_b_8121026.html

Party affiliation means nothing to me - it's the candidate's ideas that matter.

That's why I will never vote for Hillary. Her ideas are horrible.

he is a political opportunist - what do you expect?

You do know that HRC, your expressed candidate, was an actual "carpetbagger" when she ran for Senator in NY. She had no connection with the state at all until she ran. She was a resident of Arkansas. However, rather than run for Senate in Arkansas, she picked a state with an open seat to run in. That action is what carpetbagger means.

To help you, here is a link to the dictionary definition of carpetbagger. I am also posting the definition.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/carpetbagger

According to the site, the political definition of a carpetbagger is "a political candidate who runs for office in a place where he or she has lived only for a short time". I am sure all dictionary sites will define it similarly.

To some extent, Bernie running as a Democratic Party candidate could be thought of as something akin to carpetbagging since he is not a member of the party long although he has caucused for years.

However, your candidate was actually a "carpetbagger" under the actual dictionary definition. Are you going to call her names as well like "a political opportunist"

So by this reasoning Bernie was a carpet bagger from NY.

Remember what Emerson said about "consistency." This country's leaders cannot and should not be held to all their ideas of the past when those ideas don't serve to move us forward. Bernie knows that. Even Hillary's slowly getting it.

likes of

"
House members
James Clyburn (Southern South Carolina)
John Dingell (Ann Arbor, Detroit's western suburbs, Michigan)
Ron Kind (Southwestern Wisconsin, La Crosse, Eau Claire)
Joseph Crowley (NYC, Bronx, Queens)
Allyson Schwartz (Northeast Philly, eastern Montgomery County, Pennsylvania)
Jared Polis (Boulder, Colorado)

Senators
Thomas Carper (Delaware)
Claire McCaskill (Missouri)
Mark Udall (Colorado)
Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire)
Kay Hagan (North Carolina)
Chris Coons (Delaware)
" (Kos list of 3rd Way enablers)