So, Sanders joins the party just long enough to get through the election in 2020. He’s not going to have to worry about any presidential election after that. Otherwise, this new rule will do an excellent job of encouraging more 3rd party candidates to run on the left and weaken the chances of the Democrats to win the EC. They should call this the “We want more Ralph Naders” rule. It will also do an excellent job of encouraging folks who support Sanders to vote for 3rd party candidates. Who needs all those Bernie Bros anyway!!
Not sure what is wrong with saying that to run to be the representative of a party you need to be of that party. That really is as it should be.
OTOH a tactic of running for a party’s nomination knowing that you will decline the nomination and run as an independent, specifically to cut off threats that might split your vote … which apparently is what Sanders does in his Senate runs seems unethical.
I can understand (even if I do not agree with it) regarding a risk in the short term from those who feel it is targeted at Sanders specifically. But long term? I think it helps a party to not allow those who are not of it to take advantage of its infrastructure for their own purposes. Having those who do not feel enough part of the party to even declare themselves to be of it in your process sets up a cohort who will then do as many Sander supporters did, and sit out the general. They are for the personality not for the values the party represents and if not that personality then screw it.
How did he poison the well exactly? Didn’t 90%+ of Bernie voters vote for Hillary?
Sanders represents a pressing need within the democrat party. Progressives who actually act like progressives. A lot of democrats talk a big talk but when in power, they do whatever is in the interest of the rich and powerful first and foremost.
There is a deep desire among the public for politicians who will take on the rich and powerful. We have serious problems that can only be solved by making the rich and powerful unhappy. Our broken healthcare system. Financial instability in the banking industry. Regulatory capture. Corporate control of the media. Income inequality. A culture of bribery.
Sweeping that under the rug will just lower turnout. People aren’t going to line up around the block to vote for a democrat who ignores the wants of the public.
Liberals now make up half of all democratic voters, and I’d assume they are the majority of primary voters or midterm voters.
Ignoring them won’t make this issue go away.
Having said that, Sanders wasn’t perfect and Hillary would have been a much better president than Trump. But the public need to be listened to about this.
We have had tons of True Scotsman lefties run for President in the Democratic primaries. Before 2016, I guess nobody saw the need to have a rule closing the “Air Bud Loophole” - there isn’t anything in the rule book saying a dog can’t play basketball.
And most of those lefties have lost primaries in a generally convincing way. Let’s not pretend that radicalism is mainstream.
I agree that Sanders represents that pressing need. And the best thing he could do about it is to join the party. Change it from within. Not take his toys and go home when he’s not given his way 100%.
While he doesn’t do what’s in the interest of the rich and powerful first and foremost, he does what’s best for HIM first and foremost. He’s hardly the only senator that does it, but his image among the Bernie Bros and reality doesn’t line up.
I’m very angry at Bernie, but I’ve been pushing for him for decades. He’s let me down by not being what I wanted him to be. He’s an illusion. There’s no substance. I guess not seeing it was forgivable when I was a teen in VT, but I see through him now.
What a great principle for the Democratic Party to stand on. After all the important thing is remaining in power. No need to follow the GOP and pretend they stand for something else, just go out and announce to the world the only important thing is maintaining an exclusive club. What a shame they can’t run Hillary again. Oh wait they can lose another presidential election, no worries there, no consequences to Bush and Trump becoming president were there?
Why? Are you saying Bernie Sanders didn’t work for and support the Democratic Party, going back to the time when Hillary was a Republican? Is it because Democrats only represent their membership and not the rest of the country? Or is it just because they love to lose elections and put insane Republican morons in office?
I don’t see how this — directly — has anything to do with principle. (And I don’t mean that in a snide sense; I mean I don’t see how principle enters into it.)
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the Democrats have some principles they’re genuinely plugging away for. Whatever they are — something about gun control, say, and something about affirmative action, and something about illegal immigration, and so on, and so on — that’s where we can talk principles, right? If, say, you think they’re wrong to champion those principles; or if you think they’re right to champion those, but note that they didn’t do what they could for those principles.
I’m with you.
But after we discuss all of that, imagine the Democrats debate whether the rule we’re talking about will or won’t help their odds of advancing those principles. If the answer is “will”, then how is it a matter of principle to choose “won’t”? And if it’s “won’t”, then how is it a matter of principle to choose “will”?