The “Democrat Party” trope is a conscious tactic by Republicans to troll Democrats.
Yeah, those that use it that way get all excited and wound up, fantasizing about Democrats being bothered by the usage.
Hey, if it keeps them occupied: a win!
No, it is only arrogant; and it is also a thing democracy has never functioned and never will function and never should function without.
So what? We’re the bigger, better party, We’ll take “Democrat” and own it. Fuck 'em.
I vacillate on this. Sometimes I’m with you, but it seems like only the absolute biggest assholes use this term, like Rush Limbaugh. They get such glee from such a stupid thing. I know we should ignore it, but it’s obnoxious.
/tangent
I really didn’t mean to open this as a whole hijack. I just wanted to throw some well-deserved shade at doorhinge for his (presumed) willful ignorance. Sorry.
That depends on what you do with that attitude. If your attitude is then “lets disenfranchise people because we know what’s best” which seems to be Bernie’s current plan, than its undemocratic.
Not that I have an issue with that - parties set their own rules - but it seems like a strange argument from Progressives.
No, that’s Hillary’s if it is any Dem’s.
His senate web site still describes him as the longest serving independent member of Congress in American history.
How about if they require all the candidates to be equally unambiguous Democrats?
How about if they require all the presidential candidates to take equal time time off from campaigning for themselves to raise money for the rest of the party?
Personally, I’m not a loyal democrat either. But then, I’m not running for an office where I would be taking the party’s money, a fair deal of that raised by Hillary Clinton, if nominated – at the same time I’m attacking her for raising said funds.
Maybe he would be doing better if he was a social democrat like Hillary, rather than an old-time socialist, as he is.
If Bernie was the democratic nominee, Trump would IMHO cream him in November. In America, socialists don’t beat capitalists.
Who is Hillary disenfranchising?
Clinton has roughly 60 percent of the Democratic vote. Even if all of the upper 10 percent were Democrats (we know they aren’t), that leaves half the party disagreeing with you, and therefore “deluded”.
Maybe it’s time to go blow off some steam before posting again, hmm?
All those non-Democrats who didn’t get to tell Democrats who the party’s candidate should be in closed primaries…
Rules she made up, too :rolleyes:
Just as you are entitled to your opinion, the millions of voters who have voted for Bernie, or intend to vote for Bernie, are entitled to theirs. It’s only fair. Unlike how the DNC, state political machines, Democrat party bosses, big money donors, and Hillary worshipers have treated the Bernie campaign.
The actions of the pro-Hillary Democrat powerbrokers and Democrat establishment-types, may be fueling the next great 3rd-party grassroot anti-SSDD establishment political party. Tea Party II has a nice ring to it. 
If the Bernie supporters could form a limited partnership with the Trump supporters, they would create a political organization that could take back the U.S. election process from big money and return it to the voters.
Nope. I’ve seen this movie before. Trying to build a 3rd party around the most fickle voters won’t work.
In the American electoral system, third parties are a waste of time, period.
Depends on how pissed off the voters become. And how many pissed off voters there are. A few thousand? Nah. Nine million? That’s a pretty good start. The Tea Party started with zero voters and were able to get the candidates of their choice elected to local and national offices. I’m sure there are more than enough anti-SSDD Bernie supporters who would be willing to lead the way.
You’re dealing with two very different groups. The tea party voters are much older and they’re reliable voters. They also tend to be the type that sees everything through a political lens, seeing everything as Obama’s fault and spend endless time watching Fox news.
The Bernie Bros are young and not actively engaged in politics. They found a cult hero, but they’re also likely to quickly turn on Bernie if he ‘sells out.’ Very similar to a hipster who turns on his favorite Indie band once they become popular.
I think third parties are valid, but not currently viable at the Presidential level. People who want to support a third party should be doing it at their state and local levels. Not only to increase support at the Presidential level, but also to get more independents in Congress who are sympathetic to the libertarian or socialist policies. It’s possible that Bernie’s campaign, win or lose, could energize voters to do exactly that. However, plenty of people don’t bother to vote on non-President years, so it’s an uphill battle.
Now, if we moved away from the “first past the post” system we have now, third parties could both be more viable while also not stealing votes from another party. But we probably won’t be changing the system any time soon, if ever.
Sounds like wishful thinking. Nine million Sanders voters aren’t pissed off. Hell, I would have voted for him in the primary (WA had caucus, and I couldn’t make it), but I’m not pissed off at all. As I said before, the Democratic Party had an interesting primary season, Sanders did better than expected. Clinton won (or will soon win). This is how the process works, and is supposed to work. The entire premise of the OP is, in my opinion, flawed.