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.
To close, internal party conflict isn't even inherently a bad thing in a presidential year, which Donald Trump showed in 2016.
The problem with your argument is
On the high end, both parties were fractured.
On the low end, Bernie created an alternative for Dems in Jill Stein and Gary Johnson(polls say he was the second choice of many Bernie people), where as Republicans had no national alternative.
If by your own logic, Sanders derailed the Democratic nominee, then how is he doing the bidding of the party ?????
seems like a contradiction. You are simply arguing that his senate vote is more important for some reason.
He does the party's bidding on a daily basis in the Senate. His presidential platform was overwhelmingly in step with the Democrat Party platform. To this point, I mentioned that he would have done the party's bidding in the White House. That he mounted a challenge to win the Democrat Party nomination (this thing isn't supposed to be a coronation)--and weakened Hillary in the process--and demanded certain concessions at the convention doesn't change this fact. That you are misquoting me in this regard doesn't change things. He would've been happy to have been the party's standard bearer and to have taken the fight to Trump directly.
Presidential nominating contests are often nasty events. People pour their hearts and souls into the process to better their party and country; this is true even for those people we disagree with. What you see as not doing the bidding of during the presidential election (even though I didn't write that--yet it is still the basis of your contradiction claim--but I'll play), others see as working to strengthen the party and ensure that the party stays true to its values. But that's a judgement call and not something that is objectively one way or the other as you try to make it seem. And sometimes it takes losing a presidential election for some to see that. Acknowledging that hindsight is only 2020, my argument is that this rules change issue makes it more likely that the Dems will also lose 2020.
Put more simply: candidates duke it out during primary season. While one candidate's strengths may weaken another candidate from the same party, that has no inherent bearing on how said candidate will rule if elected as far as policy is concerned. My argument is merely that Sander's Senate votes give a great indication of how'd he would have governed.
On the low end, Bernie created an alternative for Dems in Jill Stein and Gary Johnson(polls say he was the second choice of many Bernie people), where as Republicans had no national alternative.
More than a few disillusioned Republicans went over to Gary Johnson.
yes there is a difference between the far left liberals and the democrats, why dont the liberals get their party established in all 50 states
there is a liberal party here in NY
in NY you have the democratic party, the liberal party, the republican party, and the conservative party.....
… now most times the two are combines as far as nominations...for example
when Obama ran, he had the democratic nomination, the liberal nomination, the green nomination, and even the socialist nomination
now to Bernie Sanders..... he is a leftwing new York(he is born and raised in NY) democrat, or to be exact he is a farther to the left liberal, he caucused with the Democratic Party ... A self-described democratic socialist and a New Deal-era American progressive,
While at the University of Chicago, Sanders joined the Young People's Socialist League (the youth affiliate of the Socialist Party of America),....both Hillary and Obama had a very similar paths in college with the socialist path
so for the DNC to write off sanders... brings a few questions, one being is the DNC going back to their roots, or is this personal
Its because Sanders doesnt obey Wall Street. If a candidate doesnt obey Wall Street, the party managers and the establishment will never accept that person. They are afraid of losing the power they grabbed when they hijacked the party from the New Deal democrats in the 1980s.
They would have tried and they would've failed. Just as Vermont Republicans tried and failed. And I write this as one who voted for and still supports President Trump.
Oh, right. Because 95% White and 57% Democratic/29% GOP Vermont is absolutely representative of the rest of the US.
Bernie would have gotten creamed in a general election - and Trump and the GOP wouldn't have even had to lie, they would have just shown video of Bernie himself saying things that would have killed him as a candidate.
The entire premise that Bernie would have won is the most delusional of millennial entitlement opinion that we've ever seen in American politics. The generation who received participation trophies also thinks everyone loved their preferred candidate, regardless of actual things like, you know, votes.
They would have tried and they would've failed. Just as Vermont Republicans tried and failed. And I write this as one who voted for and still supports President Trump.
True. Sanders regularly gets huge support among Vermont republicans in election after election.
Bernie would have gotten creamed in a general election - and Trump and the GOP wouldn't have even had to lie, they would have just shown video of Bernie himself saying things that would have killed him as a candidate.
The entire premise that Bernie would have won is the most delusional of millennial entitlement opinion that we've ever seen in American politics. The generation who received participation trophies also thinks everyone loved their preferred candidate, regardless of actual things like, you know, votes.
I think sanders actually had a chance to beat trump... unlike elitist hitlery
but the dnc screwed sanders, told biden to sit down... all for the fascist pig of hitlery
Last edited by workingclasshero; 06-10-2018 at 03:29 PM..
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?
I believe there are no party affiliated registrations in Vermont so he can't register (d) even if he wants to. So basically they are saying "screw off Vermont"
Party Affiliation: There is no party registration in Vermont. All registered voters can vote in the primary election-but can only vote one ballot. You will be given a ballot for each of the major parties. You mark one of the ballots and put the remaining unvoted ballots into a discard bin.
I believe there are no party affiliated registrations in Vermont so he can't register (d) even if he wants to. So basically they are saying "screw off Vermont"
Running/serving for a political office as a Democrat or Republican is a different process than registering to vote.
For example, the current Governor of Vermont is a Republican. The other US Senator in Vermont is Patrick Leahy, a Democrat.
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.
