Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So the Democrats are insisting that anyone who wants to run and a Democrat actually be a Democrat.
What exactly is the huge scandal here?
Exactly. Posters here act as if it's his due somehow to be handed all of the Democrats' infrastructure, which the party has spent decades establishing and putting into place, all of their databases, all of the party people on the ground in the states who do all the hard work, while firmly and repeatedly declaring that he is not, and has no intention of, becoming a Democrat.
Why should he be handed those benefits when he won't commit to the party he is taking them from?
Nope. If he wants the benefits he must first join the party.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 24 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,558 posts, read 16,548,014 times
Reputation: 6042
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
There isn't a single state that voted for Hillary that Sanders would have lost. Sanders beat Hillary in both Michigan and Wisconsin. That leaves Pennsylvania. Sanders wouldn't have taken it for granted like Hillary and most others did.
If you go back and look you will see where I argued that Hillary could lose both Pa. and Michigan to Trump and I was told I was crazy that it would never happen. It did. Now no one saw Wisconsin.
I dont get why you keep bringing up the bold. Clinton beat Sanders in every other swing state. As for the rest, you are making an assumption based on your own preference.
You also assume Clinton people would have backed Bernie in the general, and based on Bernie's own base not fully backing Clinton, that clearly wasnt a guarantee.
Well the popularity of the outsider Trump surprised the GOP and Bernie did the same for the DNC. If not for back door shenanigans at the DNC by Hillary and the Dems we just might have Bernie in the WH.
I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP did something similar in the future to keep another outsider from entering the race.
The RNC basically did the same thing when it required its primary candidates to swear loyalty to the Republican party in order to participate in the debates. This was targeted at Trump, who was threating to go independent if the RNC pulled what we can now call a "Bernie" on Trump, the way that the DNC did to Bernie Sanders. Trump eventually agreed, but not before he had made it effectively impossible for the RNC to pull this kind of stunt without a very public full-on rebellion across the Republican voting base and a likely lasting split in the party.
The DNC is now addressing the same issues with this rule change. It is of course a very rational and reasonable requirement, regardless of the fact that the self proclaimed socialist (Independent) Bernie Sanders does not like it.
The elephant in the room is that if Bernie Sanders runs in the general election as an independent, Trump will win in a landslide that will make his electoral college thrashing of Hillary Clinton look like a close contest in comparison.
Last edited by Spartacus713; 06-10-2018 at 12:45 PM..
I dont get why you keep bringing up the bold. Clinton beat Sanders in every other swing state. As for the rest, you are making an assumption based on your own preference.
You also assume Clinton people would have backed Bernie in the general, and based on Bernie's own base not fully backing Clinton, that clearly wasnt a guarantee.
It's the Sanders voters who crossed over or voted third party who gave us Donald Trump.
And for that, he should be rewarded with all of the benefits of the Democratic Party?
It's the Sanders voters who crossed over or voted third party who gave us Donald Trump.
And for that, he should be rewarded with all of the benefits of the Democratic Party?
Just so I'm clear: it appears that Democrats (or the DNC leadership) are more concerned with punishment than with having a president who has voted with them in the Senate and who would do their bidding in the White House. All because he and his supporters helped to derail the "chosen one" in Hillary Clinton
There isn't a single state that voted for Hillary that Sanders would have lost. Sanders beat Hillary in both Michigan and Wisconsin. That leaves Pennsylvania. Sanders wouldn't have taken it for granted like Hillary and most others did.
If you go back and look you will see where I argued that Hillary could lose both Pa. and Michigan to Trump and I was told I was crazy that it would never happen. It did. Now no one saw Wisconsin.
I think Hillary ran stronger in Virginia than Sanders would have run. I'm not sure he would have lost it but I think she was better matched for the state. I think Nevada and Colorado were also stronger for her than him but think those are now Dem states at the Presidential level.
The unspoken truth about Clinton is that she actually spiked the number of people voting against her. I read a book where her campaign manager mentioned staying out of Wisconsin and Michigan were strategic decisions based on the primary- when she actually lost ground while campaigning in those states. So not having the threat of an HRC presidency could very well have taken away that last 0.5 % surge Trump needed to win the states.
What is interesting about the whole argument is that Sanders' camp did have a lot of success in moving the Democratic platform to the left at the convention. I think the biggest problem Dems had in 2016 was that neither Clinton nor Sanders loyalists could fathom their pick losing. Never entered their minds...
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 24 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,558 posts, read 16,548,014 times
Reputation: 6042
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
Just so I'm clear: it appears that Democrats (or the DNC leadership) are more concerned with punishment than with having a president who has voted with them in the Senate and who would do their bidding in the White House. All because he and his supporters helped to derail the "chosen one" in Hillary Clinton
Your post contradicts itself. He purposefully derailed a democratic candidate simply because they did not agree on a couple of issues.
That is clearly not "doing the bidding" of the party, as you put it.
I dont get why you keep bringing up the bold. Clinton beat Sanders in every other swing state. As for the rest, you are making an assumption based on your own preference.
Yes you do understand.
Quote:
You also assume Clinton people would have backed Bernie in the general, and based on Bernie's own base not fully backing Clinton, that clearly wasnt a guarantee.
Just so I'm clear: it appears that Democrats (or the DNC leadership) are more concerned with punishment than with having a president who has voted with them in the Senate and who would do their bidding in the White House. All because he and his supporters helped to derail the "chosen one" in Hillary Clinton
No, you are not clear. We aren't trying to punish Sanders, we are telling him that if he wants to use the party's infrastructure and receive all its benefits, he has to join the party.
Why is this so hard for so many of you to understand?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
