Is the (D) behind the name more important than the voting record?

[guillaumeb]

We all know that Bernie Sanders is registered as an Independent. We also know that he caucuses with the Democrats. But in the grand scheme of things, is the label more important than the voting record?

In the Senate, Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) voted against the rest of the Democrats more than 25 percent of the time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/11/here-are-the-members-of-congress-who-vote-against-their-party-the-most/?utm_term=.b0faee03cf6d

So does this make Manchin 75% Democrat and 25% GOP?

By contrast:

Smith points out that Sanders voted with Democrats more consistently than many other Democrats: Ninety-eight percent of the time at the writing of Smith’s article. Sanders’ support for Democrats soon was reflected in their financing of his campaigns.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/bernie-sanders-voting-record-antithetical-to-his-purported-anti-war-stance/208066/

So does this make Sanders 98% a Democrat and 2% GOP? If so, by the measure of voting record, Sanders is more of a Democrat than a few with the (D) behind their names.

Personally, I think politicians should be judged by how they vote, a clear reflection of supporting a Party's positions, rather than by how they label themselves.

[elleng]

1. Actions speak louder than words.

[guillaumeb]

3. Agreed ellen.

And voting records are records of actions.

[elleng]

10. They are indeed.

[Shandris]

18. Just popping in to agree with this.

I don't care how many letters a person has after their name. Actions will always be more powerful than words alone.

Action is the top of the triangle, after all. Idea - Thought - Action. Words are a shoddy replacement for any of the three, but particularly the last.

[SharonAnn]

126. A (D) behind the name means it counts when determining the Majority Party. That's important.

[elleng]

137. Yes, that's important, to that extent.

[Leith]

187. That's What I Was Thinking, Too

So, it looks like "yeah." We need to get our majorities back.

[boston bean]

2. If one wants to have a say in party politics and how it is run and control aspects of it....

Probably best if one joins said party.

Otherwise they will be perceived as bomb throwers with no real skin in the game.

Does that help to explain??

[guillaumeb]

5. If one judges solely by the voting record,

Sanders is a Democrat. And to me, the voting record is the only true indicator.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

8. Ditto!

[boston bean]

11. That is not the sole measuremen is it??

If it were why was the primary so contentious? They both voted the same high ninety percent of the time.

Yet one was a dem one still refuses the join.

[guillaumeb]

14. Agreed. And I cannot answer for Sanders' decisions.

But many posters here insist that Sanders should have no voice in Party decisions. And given that US political parties are not parliamentary style parties, there is no litmus test for who can be in the party.

[boston bean]

30. Unless you self select out.

[guillaumeb]

38. A nice point. eom

[Demsrule86]

20. No that means he caucuses with the Democrats...you can't be a member unless you join.

[boston bean]

27. How is Pat Leahy a Democrat??

[bravenak]

51. No. He refuses the label so no he is absolutely not.

It is important when trying to tell a team how to play that you actually wear the uniform.

[boston bean]

94. It's not a label. It's a membership. Damn he should just join... but he won't, why?

The answer to that is obvious.... if you ask me.

[bravenak]

95. I Have my own ideas about why and they are not nice things.

Some folks love attention

[sammythecat]

220. Don't all prominent politicians love attention.

Seems that a politician who avoids, or just doesn't seek, attention would be a pretty piss poor representative.

[BlueStateLib]

81. Voting record's count unless your name is Hillary

keith Ellison and hillary clinton have about the same vote ranking

keith Ellison http://voteview.com/HOUSE_SORT113.HTM
hillary http://voteview.com/SENATE_SORT107.HTM

[crazycatlady]

4. Manchin represents a 70% Trump state

If he loses in 2018, he is replaced by a Republican.

I'd rather have a Democrat from a red state that votes with us 75% of the time than a Republican voting with us 0%.

As Frank Underwood says, vote your district.

[guillaumeb]

7. Susan Collins votes with the GOP about 80% of the time.

SO is she a left wing Republican, or a right wing Democrat?

[crazycatlady]

19. And I'm sure the tea party talks about primarying her

The ideological position drove her moderate GOP senate colleague Olympia Snowe into retirement.

[guillaumeb]

29. Agreed. But for some reason, some states respect non-lockstep politicians.

Too few states.

[crazycatlady]

42. Maine is pretty unique in that way

As for Manchin--- none of his deflecting so far has been the deciding vote. A 53-47 deflect isn't as important than when Mike Pence breaks the tie.

[Demsrule86]

23. She is a member of the GOP...so she is a GOP.

We would do well to replace her but it would be very hard. But maybe in Trump's era, we could do it.

[guillaumeb]

33. One hopes that Trump might convince Collins to switch parties.

It happened with Jim Jeffords.

[mythology]

34. Neither because your choices are utterly inaccurate

She's slightly more moderate than the rest of the Republican party. That doesn't make her a right wing Democrat or a left wing Republican. The parties are more polarized than at any time in recent memory. It's actually objectively really silly to be comparing the parties under the circumstances.

[wildeyed]

68. She is a Republican. She caucuses with the GOP.

Her voting record has nothing to do with it.

[guillaumeb]

96. And Sanders caucuses with the Democrats. eom

[wildeyed]

154. But declares as an Independent.

[guillaumeb]

163. Should the focus be on the label, or the position? eom

[wildeyed]

174. Depends.

We are talking about Bernie Sanders, right?

On the national stage, Sanders functions as an activist, not a politician. Activists work outside of party structures to hold politicians accountable but they don't do the hard work of finding consensus and implementing policy. I have huge respect for activists. Activists play an important role in our democracy. But it is not the activist's job to get involved in the nitty-gritty of making the sausage. And it is not their job to be liked by politicians.

Sanders wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to be the activist who holds Democrats' feet to the fire on the big moral issues. As a result, he is not well liked by rank and file Dems. He identifies as independent, criticizes them publicly and is a general PITA. Which is ok if he is an activist. Not his job to be liked. But when he ALSO wants to make party policy, then there is conflict.

Ironically, if Clinton won, he would be on much better footing. But because he failed to deliver his base on election day, his brand is degraded. In essence, he failed to hold his caucus together. No greater crime in the political party arena.

Nothing is as cut and dried in politics as you are making it out to be. Sanders represents a constituency that would normally be under the Dem coalition umbrella and he caucuses with Dems. In that sense he is part of the Democratic Party. But he is not part of group who runs the party day-to-day. He doesn't have sweat equity in actually running the party. And he does not consistently deliver votes to the party, the only thing that the party really respects. So in that sense, he is not part of the Democratic Party.

It's really two separate things that are called by the same name, now that I think about it. We should call all the groups represented by the Democrats the 'Democratic Coalition' and call the people who run the fundraising, crunch electoral math and do the vote whipping on a day to day basis the 'Democratic Party'. It would be more correct and less confusing, don't you think? Bernie is def a coalition member, def not a party member.

[guillaumeb]

180. I am talking about Sanders, but this is applicable to Kshama Sawant and others

who embrace positions that self-declared Democrats embrace.

As to your points about running the Party, those who run the Party do not do so in a vacuum.

And if I were to embrace your position, there would be very few members of the Democratic Party. I was a union officer and representative for many years. Does this mean that I was a real union member, as opposed to those who had no position?

I would say that, in any organization, some members are more active than others. But as the DNC decision demonstrates, the Party is doing what it can to harmonize the various elements from Manchin et al on the center right to Sanders on the left.

[wildeyed]

188. According to my new definition,

they were Union Coalition members, you were Union Party. You were a leader. You did the work. They offered some support through dues and voting but did not lead or do the work. All are important. No one is more or less real than anyone else, just different. The problem with Sanders et al in my eyes is they want to lead the party but do not want to do the work that entails.

I am explicitly saying there is a loose Democratic Coalition that is very large and inclusive. The actual Democratic Party apparatus IS separate and much smaller. Coalition members who want a say in how the apparatus is run need to join the smaller party group and do the work. A copy of Roberts Rules of Order also helps

Example: I am coalition member but not a party member. I generally support the Democratic Party. I donate money and vote in every election. I am not more or less real than the precinct chairs. But they get to vote at party meetings that decide policy and I don't. On the plus side. I don't have to go to the boring meetings. If I really cared, I COULD be a chair, go to meetings and vote.

It's not hard to be a member of the smaller party group. Just show up and do the work. Anyone can do it. Most local parties would be grateful for the help. If there are very few members of the Democratic Party apparatus, it is because there are very few who show up to volunteer.

[guillaumeb]

189. Your definition is a good one.

And both types of members are vital.

My opinion remains that the choice of Perez and Ellison, and the close vote, indicates that the Party apparatus sees the need for a big tent approach.

As to deciding policy, while in theory it is the apparatus that decides policy, in actuality, what a Presidential candidate runs on becomes the de facto policy.

[JHan]

196. insightful , thanks +++

[still_one]

9. and numbers matter in determining who controls Congress

[Salviati]

75. Right, I'll take the most liberal democrat that we can elect in each state.

And if Manchin is the best we can do there at the moment, I'll take him. That being said, there will inevitably be some issues where he is out of the mainstream of the Democratic Party on, and the best thing for us to do is to minimize his say on those issues, while giving him an appropriate level of responsibility on issues we can trust him on.

[treestar]

130. +1

Bernie's district is different from Manchin's. There is no way Bernie or a facsimile could win in that state, so the comparison in invalid.

[alarimer]

146. Except that the 25% might include a critical vote on ACA, for instance.

What do you say then, if (more likely when) Manchin or some other Democrat decides to vote with Republicans on tearing down the ACA? Or any number of important issues like SS or Medicare. If they are out solely to save their own careers, I don't think the Democratic Party needs them.

[still_one]

6. Your example is fine for a state such as Vermont, or New York, or California, but

it does not necessarily apply to a red state, and here is why.

The views of the populace of different states are not all the same. While there should be a certain minimum standard, such as civil rights, there are going to be issues where there will be differences. For example, gun control views in a blue state will not be the same as in a red state.

[guillaumeb]

12. How then does a Democratic Senator like Manchin get elected in a red state?

Is the state red, blue, or purple?

[SaschaHM]

13. President Obama has never won West Virginia.

[guillaumeb]

16. My mistake. You are correct.

I will correct my statement.

[Demsrule86]

25. It used to be blue...then more purple ...we are lucky to get Manchin...and he is endangered...

no doubt. Pretty red state these days.

[guillaumeb]

35. It was blue when Robert Byrd was a Senator.

But Southern Democrats were much more common pre-VRA.

[still_one]

36. What I am talking about is why Dean's 50 state strategy was so successful

[guillaumeb]

41. Tailoring the message to each particular state?

Yes, it was successful.

[still_one]

52. exactly

[boston bean]

53. We weren't purists. We had conservative democrats.

[radical noodle]

78. Having a Democrat that's liked in a red state

is like gold. They may not always vote the way you and I would, but they are there to represent their constituents. The "D" after their name helps get us to a majority.

We should never be purists about much other than equality for all. JMHO

[SaschaHM]

15. When is comes to party matters, yes. Sanders, by his own choice, is an Independent.

Why is that such a hard thing? If he wants to join the party, fine. If he doesn't, that's fine as well. Democrats don't have some sort of monopoly on issues. Sanders, by virtue of being an independent, has no skin in the game when it comes to the ups and downs of the Democratic party. He can distance himself whenever he wants. That's fine, but let's not pretend that he has any loyalty to Dems beyond aligning with them on most issues and to a national party, loyalty matters.

It's a mutually beneficial relationship that has worked out for close to 20 years. Let's not act like he's wearing a secret "D" shirt under his suit.

[guillaumeb]

21. I agree. And given that he votes with the Democrats nearly all of the time,

what he calls himself does not matter.

But given his 98% support, one would think that Democrats would welcome his opinions. And the Party does.

[Demsrule86]

32. No...he should join the party if he wants to have a say in how it is run.

It is not his business really.

[SaschaHM]

40. Of course, they have to keep Bernie happy.

Wouldn't want him to return to his days of lumping Democrats and Republicans in together because as an Independent, he can do that.

[Go Vols]

175. Yep

In his(Bernie) very first year in the House, he co-founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus. He led this group for its first eight years. Its primary devotion is to advance liberal causes and is currently the largest organization within the Democratic congressional caucus.

[Demsrule86]

17. No Bernie Sanders is an independent...and that sends a message.

He should join the party. Bernie is an independent who votes with us...we have a couple of those...not a Democrat...Joe Manchin comes from a red state...we can't do better there and he votes with us more often than not.

[guillaumeb]

24. Does it send a message that Independents are natural Democrats?

And as I asked above, how does a Democrat get elected in a red or purple state?

[Demsrule86]

37. It is not that hard...some will never get elected in a red state

But an attractive candidate who is more conservative than blue state Democrats but still a Democrat can win sometimes...especially in the House...we have a chance to pick up a seat in GA. You have to choose candidates that can compete in conservative districts and states...this is what Howard Dean did.

[guillaumeb]

97. Agreed. The 50 state strategy in action.

A strategy that should never have been abandoned.

[wildeyed]

71. They campaign hard and get more votes.

Why is that hard to understand?

My impressions, WV has a history of sending conservative Dems to DC. Historically, Democrats have done so much for that state. Read up on what FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt did to combat poverty there. Robert Byrd was a powerful Dem Senator who brought a ridiculous about of federal money into the state for roads, etc. It makes me kind of furious with them that they show zero loyalty to the Dems now, but they are also a majority white state with some racist tendencies, so their support is spotty now that we include POC as full coalition members.

[theglammistress]

22. If you want to lecture others on how to be a Democrat...

...then you better have a big D behind your name.

And of course voting history matters.

Bernie needs to join the party.

[guillaumeb]

26. Some hear a lecture, others hear good advice.

I hear generally good advice.

[Demsrule86]

39. I hear a lecture and division in Bernie's words.

[Demsrule86]

46. What sort of message do you suppose Bernie sends by refusing to join?

[ciaobaby]

85. his message is that he does not care what you think he should do.

[Demsrule86]

89. Is that a positive unifying message? Wil that help take down Trump? nt

[mythology]

28. This is an irrelevant comparison.

Vermont and West Virginia aren't going to elect the same potential replacement Senator. If Sanders loses in Vermont, it will likely be to a Democrat, meaning the voting pattern likely wouldn't change much. If Manchin loses in West Virginia, it will be to a Republican who will vote with the Democrats a hell of a lot less.

In this case, they are largely equal because of the make up of the Senate. What percentage of that 25% was Manchin a deciding vote to either kill a filibuster or pass a law? In the event where he wasn't, he was probably given free reign to vote against a bill in the interest of trying to hold the seat.

[guillaumeb]

50. True.

And his votes to confirm some of Trump's Cabinet picks were equally irrelevant because the GOP controls the Senate.

But by any measure except label, Sanders IS a Democrat.

[NanceGreggs]

84. The "measure" is BEING a Democrat ...

... or choosing NOT to be a Democrat.

Bernie has repeatedly chosen NOT to be a Democrat.

Why some people insist that he is something he has consistently said he is NOT is beyond me.

Shouldn't the man be taken at his own word, as opposed to being labelled as something he doesn't want to be?

[guillaumeb]

99. His voting record is one of supporting Democratic Party positions 90+% of the time.

I feel that is enough to allow him to have a voice.

Others disagree.

[KPN]

139. What is a Democrat Nance?

Aside from the label, how would you describe what a democrat is in terms of what they stand for? In terms of principles and values?

[NanceGreggs]

155. Being an actual member ...

... of a group, organization, union, or political party is not a "label" one can affix to one's self or others at will.

Have you ever joined a union? If you're not a member, you don't get to go to union meetings, vote, or tell those who ARE members how they should be running their own organization.

I can stand with the "principles and values" of any union, association, or organization - but that doesn't make me a "member", nor does it give me the right to lecture them on what I, a non-member, think about their actions or direction.

Bernie has identified himself as an Independent for decades. Why his supporters keep insisting he's not what he himself says he is is beyond me. Don't you take him at his own word?

[KPN]

199. You are making stuff up now. I haven't seen anyone say Bernie

is not what he says he is -- that he's actually a democrat despite his registration as an independent. I HAVE on the other hand seen people defend his views, as well as his right to express those views about and influence the Party. Two different things.

As a 45-year member of the Party, I am unapologetic about believing and appreciating that supporting/promoting fundamental Democratic Party principles is more important than calling oneself a democrat. I happen to think and believe that Bernie is right about what's fundamentally wrong with the country, what needs to change, and where the Party needs to go in order to successfully foster those changes. So ... I welcome him ... and I find it shortsighted to bar or decline his leadership capacity on the condition he is/has been a registered member of the Party.

When it comes down to it, I suspect we basically differ on foundational and urgency of priorities for the Party. Bernie personifies a set of priorities/urgencies and, as a result, is an target. That's how it strikes me.

[NanceGreggs]

200. He himself says ...

... that he is NOT a Democrat, but an Independent.

Again, why do you not take him at his own word?

[KPN]

203. I do. If he said otherwise I'd feel the way the way I did about

Lieberman.

I don't have an issue with it. There are millions of Independents who align with the Democratic Party. I don't have an issue with them either. Some of them actually attend local Democratic Party EC meetings.

[NanceGreggs]

204. Yes, they align with the Party.

But they don't lecture the Party about how things should be done their way.

[KPN]

215. I guess I just don't see it as lecturing.

Why? Because I happen to agree with him about the urgent need to get big business/money out of politics -- especially out of elections, as well as his view that the Democratic Party needs to transform itself back into a Party that favors the working class over big business. So, instead of seeing lecturing, i.e., scolding, dressing down or berating, I see a leader who is frankly courageous in his willingness to actually stand up for the working class, his willingness to endure the heat and grief he is obviously getting for keeping pressure on the Party establishment. You may call that divisive. I call it building the Party. I call it holding the Party's feet to the fire; holding the establishment accountable. Something we frankly haven't done much of lately, particularly on the economic policy front.

[QC]

31. If the party is nothing more than a clique, like the one in Heathers,

or a church, then yes, the letter is all that matters.

If the party is a means of making things happen in the real world, then actions should count a lot more than the letter on the team jersey.

[guillaumeb]

43. Agreed. eom

[Demsrule86]

44. It is an organization with members who decide to join and those who don't are not Democrats.

They have an I next to their names...

[LovingA2andMI]

65. The Comparison To "Heathers".....

Golden!!

Also, meantime, Get Well Shannen Doherty!

[BainsBane]

73. It's an organization

And an easy one to join. There aren't even dues like for most organizations.

I can sympathize or agree with the goals of a union, the AARP, or the Quantas Club, but I'm only a member when I officially join.

[alarimer]

147. It's what it has become. Just team sports.

And I think this is one reason why party membership has been falling across the board.

[UTUSN]

45. The "D" is a rough, mostly reliabe, guide. Rule: Just about any Dem is better than any Repuke.

[Demsrule86]

48. Absolutley...

We have the worst cabinet ever...the worst policies...a yellow dog would be better than Trump.

[guillaumeb]

55. No doubt.

My point here is that those who insist that Sanders should not voice an opinion about Democratic policies are ignoring the fact of his voting record, or insisting that he should have no voice in a Party that he supports 98% of the time.

[Progressive dog]

47. Yes it is

Political parties require team play and mutual support between members. Just like governance in a democracy, they require compromise.

[guillaumeb]

56. But is the 98% voter more of a tem member than the 75% voter?

And Sanders has been appointed to positions by the Democrats, making him a de facto team member.

[Progressive dog]

60. It's not about how someone votes

It is about supporting the party.

[guillaumeb]

62. Leading to the next question:

Supporting the party means voting party positions. And Sanders' does that nearly all of the time.

So is he a Democrat in all but name?

[BainsBane]

72. He is the one to answer that question.

And he has gone back to being clear on the matter. http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/306528-sanders-wont-join-democratic-party

There is nothing magic about being a Democrat. It only requires joining the party. He alone made that decision.

[ciaobaby]

87. It should be about how one votes.

[Cary]

49. What is important is true representation of their constituents

And then there is getting along with people to get things done.

[guillaumeb]

58. True, and working with like minded political colleagues to get things done. eom

[DuckBurp]

54. An (R) behind the name is certainly a deal breaker.

If that answers your question.

[guillaumeb]

59. True, but that is because there are no sane GOP politicians in Congress. eom

[lapucelle]

57. Manchin represents a particular constituency.

I don't like him, but I would rather have a blue dog than a Republican.

I don't like Sanders's voting record on guns. He has frequently said that he votes the way he does because he serves at the pleasure of the people of Vermont, and these votes reflect their values. In other words, Sanders represents a particular constituency.

Either apply purity tests across the board or don't apply them at all. Sanders has repeatedly and explicitly made it clear that he is not a Democrat. I take him at his word.

[guillaumeb]

61. But his voting record makes it clear that he is a Democrat,

in all but name.

And for me, results count. So when he does criticize policies, I respect his criticism as being intended to be constructive.

[lapucelle]

64. His voting record (for the most part) aligns with Democrats,

and that's a good thing for us, but Sanders has made it explicitly clear that he is not a Democrat. He rejects the party in favor of independent status.

[bekkilyn]

63. I vote for people, not letters

I'd even vote for an R if the R was more progressive than the D. (Not that it's ever actually happened considering the overall awfulness of the Republican party, but theoretically speaking.) While I did finally join the Democratic party this year for local reasons, it certainly wasn't due to the snobbishness and antagonism of many D's on this site.

Simply being a registered Democrat isn't enough to get my vote, especially if there's actual competition for it.

[ciaobaby]

86. +1

[guillaumeb]

100. Agreed. I have never found a GOP politician to support,

but I suppose that it could happen.

[NurseJackie]

66. I support Democrats. I vote to elect Democrats. I donate to Democrats.

I'm a loyal Democrat. Hell yes, the "D" is important. Very important.

[guillaumeb]

102. So the voting record counts for nothing?

Even if the Independent supports Democratic Party positions more than some Democrats?

[NurseJackie]

109. It doesn't give someone Carte Blanche to run roughshod and start calling the shots...

...if that's what you have in mind. Actually, it's pretty clear to me what what this is all about (no matter how you, or others, try to frame it or couch your arguments). And in that regard, in my opinion, the "voting record" of the non-Democrat politician doesn't count for the purpose of trying to "guide" or "shape" the party.

Democrats first. All others second. No exceptions.

[guillaumeb]

115. I do not have this in mind at all.

And I suspect that Sanders does not also.

I see the issue as more nuanced than a label only argument.

And the action of the DNC of naming both Perez and Ellison as Chair and Co-Chair, respectively, appears in my view to support my position.

[NurseJackie]

124. Huh? Co-chair? WTF?! There's NO SUCH THING as "co-chair" ... they are NOT equals.

Perez is in charge. Ellison is the deputy chair. You understand what a "deputy" position is, right? It's subordinate to someone else who has a higher and more authoritative position.

For example: Sheriff Andy Taylor was in charge. Deputy Barney Fife was next in line. (Deputy Fife was NOT the one in charge.) Get it?

...appears in my view to support my position.

Huh? What position do you think that this "supports"?

I do not have this in mind at all.

I have my doubts about that.

And I suspect that Sanders does not also.

Really? You "suspect" that about Sanders? (I think you haven't been paying close enough attention to the things he's been saying and doing.)

I see the issue as more nuanced than a label only argument.

What does that even MEAN?

[guillaumeb]

127. It means........

that the wiser heads in the DNC agree that cohesion is a better strategy than purity tests and division.

It means that the DNC recognizes that the Sanders wing is welcome and needed.

[NurseJackie]

133. There's no such thing as the "Sanders Wing". They're either Democrats or not...

... they'll either vote for Democrats, or they won't.

If this (so-called) "Sanders Wing" believes it has power and influence, then their first order of business should be to get Bernie Sanders to actually join (permanently) the Democratic party.

If the "Sanders Wing" could convince him to do that, and if Bernie actually did that, I think he'd earn more respect and he'd have the moral authority to have more influence in guiding and shaping the party. But he hasn't, and he won't, so he doesn't.

Why do some people even want to bother perpetuating the idea of a "Sanders Wing". It's an unnecessary construct. That's pretty much a RELIC from the primary, wouldn't you say? Why do some people continue to draw lines of division in this way? Us and them. We and they. It's not helping. In fact, I think it's hurting.

127. It means...that the wiser heads in the DNC agree that cohesion is a better strategy than purity tests and division.

Considering everything you've posted so far... that's a very amusing thing for you to say.

[guillaumeb]

134. Do you see the Democratic Party as a monolith?

With one approved position on everything?

Because if you do, I would suggest that your ideology is unsupported and actually disproved by a reading of the actual history of the Democratic Party from 1965 onward.

Edited to add:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028713184

A post about Sanders giving the keynote speech in Kansas at the Democratic party convention.

[NurseJackie]

138. I believe that's called a strawman argument. I've never said or suggested such a thing ...

... yet you imply that I have. Then your blast forward and knocking down the strawman that you (yourself) created. Nice work! Look at him! What a mess! Straw pieces all over the place!

It's a mistake to describe the Democratic party as a flawed "monolith" in order to to defend or justify giving OUTSIDERS and non-Democrats control and influence.

With one approved position on everything?

Oh brother! GMAB and

Edited to add: yawn.

A post about Sanders giving the keynote speech in Kansas at the Democratic party convention.

Too little, too late. I mean, it's nice and all ... but it ain't all that. And it doesn't give him Carte Blanche to direct and coach someone else's team from the sidelines. (Not even from the sidelines... from the bleachers.)

[guillaumeb]

159. Constructing your own straw man?

Who here said that Sanders should direct and coach?

[NurseJackie]

178. He's the one saying it himself. Just listen to his own words.

Pay attention.

[guillaumeb]

183. He is offering an opinion, and advice.

And the DNC is listening.

[NurseJackie]

195. Unsolicited advice. The worst and most unappreciated...

... kind of advice. Very rude. Sad.

And the DNC is listening.

[guillaumeb]

210. Obviously unsolicited by you. But the DNC is listening.

People can ignore the significance of a unanimous choice of Ellison as the number 2, but the delegates made a statement.

[NurseJackie]

216. This isn't about me. And, the #2 slot is a consolation prize of little authority.

Perez is still the one in charge. Not Keith. Keith is just a deputy-chair, not a co-chair (as some have incorrectly claimed to imply that Keith has equal authority. He doesn't.)

In my opinion, the DNC "statement" was little more than an acknowledgement of Keith's participation and a desire to move things along by giving the congeniality prize to the 2nd runner up ... and to rally around and to grant the request of the actual winner: Perez.

Hype it up all and spin it all you want. But in my opinion, it's meaningless, and I think you're overdoing it a bit. Ultimately I remain unimpressed and unconvinced. It was a "show of unity" and "good sportsmanship" but I'm skeptical about its sincerity.

But, looking back, I'm pretty sure that it's the Sarandon's of the world that really harmed Keith and turned focus away from Keith the man, and made it about Keith the proxy. That was a shame and unfair to him. People like Sarandon who did such things really did Keith no favors.

[guillaumeb]

219. Let us really simplify the issue here: The Democrats are losing the battle.

They can either change strategies, or they can continue to lose.
Any focus on Sarandon and Ellison is focusing on the wrong things.

[NurseJackie]

222. Naturally you'd say that to avoid uncomfortable facts.

The "unanimous" proclamation of Keith as deputy-chair carries less weight and less meaning than you suppose. Efforts to inflate Keith into being more important (and more powerful, and more significant) than he actually is are (in my opinion) coming from a place of fear and doubt... or one of anger and resentment. It's just unrealistic to make such claims and (in my opinion) serve no useful purpose... other than, perhaps, to serve as a distraction in a message board ping-pong game.

Any focus on Sarandon and Ellison is focusing on the wrong things.

You're half-right.

We really shouldn't be focusing so much attention on the runner-up (Keith). It's the actual WINNER (Perez) of the contest who deserves our enthusiastic support.

Democrats First

[guillaumeb]

226. Avoidance as in how you are avoiding how Democrats have steadily

lost power and positions over the last 6 years?

One of the definitions of insanity is repeating the same failed actions and expecting a different outcome.

[NurseJackie]

231. Keith was not your magic-bullet. He didn't have superhuman powers.

His was a candidacy that was doomed to failure. If he hadn't failed in the selection process, he'd have been a failure as party chair. As a man, he was fine. As a divisive symbol of the continued proxy fight, it would have had devastating consequences. Toxic and divisive non-Dem celebs (such as Sarandon) doomed him. You can publicly deny it all you want, but in your heart, you know it's true.

One of the definitions of insanity is repeating the same failed actions and expecting a different outcome.

So now you're saying that those who supported Perez are insane? You're sloganeering and hurling insults. This type of behavior exhibits a disconnect from what's actually happening and a skewed perspective of history.

I think it's probably best if you just accept Perez's victory and Keith's deputy-chair position. I think we've come full circle now, and you're beginning to repeat yourself. It's unclear to me what you think can be accomplished by continuing. Are you "expecting a different outcome"??

#DemocratsFirst

[guillaumeb]

233. An interesting response.

First, you continue to personalize, reducing a philosophical difference to a battle of political people.

As to your comment:

So now you're saying that those who supported Perez are insane? You're sloganeering and hurling insults. This type of behavior exhibits a disconnect from what's actually happening and a skewed perspective of history.

I would suggest that you return to my post and reread the entire thing. You might realize that I said nothing like what you thought you saw.

And I am happy with the results because they show that the DNC realizes that unity is much preferred over endless fighting over the last election.

[NurseJackie]

234. See above.

[KPN]

140. Sound xenophobic actually.

[NurseJackie]

144. Really? How so? To what other parties should I consider giving control of the Democratic party?

When I said "Democrats first. All others second. No exceptions." it should be pretty clear to most reasonable people what it means within the context of this thread and the discussion.

Now if you want to pretend that it's just a stand-alone declaration that is devoid of any context... you're free so to do, but it's unclear to me why you'd want to do such a thing. (Other than to try and needle me by accusing me of being "xenophobic".)

Sound xenophobic actually.

Now, I'm not sure if such an accusation rises to being a "rule breaking" attack or flaming insult, KPN ... but it does strike me as being a bit silly and pointless. But, I'm not your keeper. Knock yourself out and carry on if it brings you joy. I can handle it.

[KPN]

149. How so?

I am assuming that you can handle it as you say so I am assuming safe ground re: "rule breaking". Briefly, it struck me as I described it because it struck me as, well, small minded in nature as well as an overly simplistic view. It struck me as something like GW's statement at the WTC that "You're either with us or against us." I just don't view the world through that prism -- and I AM a reasonable person. As for context, I did mean it within the context of the thread, so no, it doesn't stand alone.

[NurseJackie]

150. Oh brother!

Actually, hurling insults ("Small-minded"? "Simplistic"? "Xenophobic"?) and declaring yourself to be a "reasonable person" is very amusing. Thanks for the chuckle.

It struck me as something like GW's statement at the WTC that "You're either with us or against us."

I'm afraid I can't attest to your frame of mind or why you'd consider my party loyalty to be something that you can fairly characterize in that manner.

The fact that you view it in this manner reflects more about you than it does about me.

I just don't view the world through that prism

My prism is the one of party loyalty. I have no idea what prism you're using.

As for context, I did mean it within the context of the thread, so no, it doesn't stand alone.

In that case, you're stretching. You're reaching. You're trying to find ways to be unnecessarily offended. You're playing games. (Ugh.)

[KPN]

153. And you are just an innocent bystander with nothing but

the noblest intentions here in this discussion. Talk about game playing.

I have a different opinion than you on some things obviously. Perhaps xenophobic was a poor descriptor, but frankly as a lifelong democrat I feel the "with us or against us" tenor of your statement was/is offensive.

[NurseJackie]

156. I'll take you at your word that you are a "lifelong Democrat" ... and therefore

... my "xenophobic" philosophy doesn't really apply to you, does it? So, why would you want to "own it" (so to speak) ... why this fake outrage over something that (by your own self-characterization) doesn't apply to you?

Talk about game playing.

I'm not the one hurling insults like "small-minded" and "simplistic".

but frankly as a lifelong democrat I feel the "with us or against us" tenor of your statement was/is offensive.

Offensive to whom? People who aren't Democrats? Exactly whose honor are you defending?

I said "Democrats first. All others second. No exceptions." I honestly can't see why any Democrat would have a problem with this sentiment, or why any Democrat would find this offensive. Especially in the context of who gets to control, guide, shape and create policy and planks. Democratic party business is up to Democrats.

Why is that offensive? Why would any Democrat have a problem with that? Why would any Democrat argue differently?

And you are just an innocent bystander with nothing but the noblest intentions here in this discussion.

You sought-out me, you responded to me, not the other way around. Don't make this into something it's not. Don't start up again with your veiled insults accusing me of lacking character or having other less-than-honorable "motives". I see exactly what you're doing.

[KPN]

202. Oh spare me the psychological analysis.

Offensive to who? To me and others who share my views on this. Fake outrage? How about if I state it this way: I find it objectionable when people object on the basis of a relatively insignificant detail in comparison to the larger issue, rather than object to and engage on the larger issue itself. If anything is even close to fake, it's that. I find it objectionable because I see the D vs the I in this case, i.e., given Bernie's track record -- he's voted with the Democratic Party over the course of his career at a higher rate than all but a few others in Congress, as a relatively insignificant detail. In my view, to discount him and his message on that basis is either exactly what it appears to be -- discounting the message for the messenger -- or its just a convenient way to discount the message and, ultimately, those who support it without actually discounting it.

Take issue with Bernie's positions on the Party if you want. I can accept that. You are right -- Democratic Party business IS up to Democrats. We get to decide as a Party where the Party goes in the future. That includes all of us regardless of who's views we share.

[NurseJackie]

206. Well...

Offensive to who? To me and others who share my views on this. Fake outrage?

So you're offended that someone feels differently than you do? You're offended that someone dislikes your favorite politician? You're offended that someone puts party above celebrity? Wow! That's a lot of "being offended" there. It must be hard work. How do you manage?

-- or its just a convenient way to discount the message and, ultimately, those who support it without actually discounting it.

I and many others have plainly stated that the same (ahem) "advice" and direction coming from politicians who were actual party members would carry more weight.

Dishing and smearing and criticizing is the easy party... especially from the sidelines (to use a sports metaphor). It's like listening to an "armchair quarterback" or having to listen to some older/retired former player during the post-game show droning on and on and on about what the ACTUAL coach and the ACTUAL players needed to do instead.

Non-Democrats who refuse to join, but who behave as you describe, are snubbing the party that I love and to which I'm loyal. When people do that, I just can't take them seriously. I question their motives.

In my view, to discount him and his message on that basis is either exactly what it appears to be -- discounting the message for the messenger

No. That's wrong. I'm "discounting the message" because of the behavior of the messenger and the outward indicators that they lack sincerity or commitment. I guess there will always be people who feel victimized for no good reason.

Take issue with Bernie's positions on the Party if you want. I can accept that. You are right

In my personal life, I'm not into open marriages or polygamy. It would be unsettling and difficult to trust or depend on someone who will come-and-go as they please, on a whim, carousing and canoodling with whoever they happen to fancy. I've always believed that making a sincere commitment, one that's public and official, is important. It shows character an sincerity. I think it's important to have high standards. I've always regarded people who flit around and who wander in-and-out as it suits THEIR needs (without regard for any others in the relationship) as being selfish and unreliable. And, continuing with the analogy of family-relationships, I think it's safe to assume that most intelligent parents are not going to accept child-rearing advice from meddling strangers in the grocery store checkout. What's their compelling interest? What's their demonstrable "stake" in the well-being of someone else's children? And even within the family itself, people need to know their place and proceed with tact and caution. (Just ask any nosy busy-body know-it-all Mother-in-Law who has attempted to give "advice" the daughter-in-law on child-rearing and on how to be a "good wife" ... and she'll tell you what it's like to be rebuffed and ignored. She is "technically" a family member, yet that type of tactless and rudely presented "advice" is unwelcome. Gee. I wonder why. Hmmm.)

Now, politically (but hypothetically) speaking, I personally would distrust anyone who spends an inordinate amount of effort in snubbing our party but won't take a moment to officially commit. Absent any obvious reasons, I would find that type of behavior disturbing and puzzling and frankly, in my opinion, suspicious. These are my opinions, but if there was a politician wouldn't commit to our great party, then there would be no good reason for me to commit to him or her in return. My opinion on this matter would remain the same no matter what his or her voting record may be, and no matter how many (or how few) bills he or she has actually passed.

So, again, hypothetically speaking, in a situation like that...there's no compelling reason for me to give more weight or respect to his or her criticism and "advice" than I'd give to a stranger on the street.

Democrats First! Family First!


-----
Hello, alerter! These are my opinions and my analogies to explain my opinions. None of these opinions break any rules. My loyalty to the party is not against the rules.

[KPN]

221. You conveniently ignored my implied admission that "offended" was perhaps an inaccurate

characterization on my part. Why? I answered your question as clearly and openly as I could. Was that a waste of my time?

Let me just cut to the chase here and be clear that I obviously have a different opinion than you. We have different opinions. That's fine. I stand by my perspective and explanation re: reaction to message vs messenger. I understand what you are saying, but I simply disagree with it. That's all.

[NurseJackie]

223. Okay. See ya 'round.

[wildeyed]

67. I don't understand your question.

Manchin is a conservative Dem from a bright red state. He is the equivalent of finding cash on the sidewalk when it comes to the math of who controls the Senate. He represents very conservative voters who split their ticket to send him to Washington. If he decided to toe the Dem line, they would vote straight GOP.

Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat by choice. It's not like anyone forced him to not be a Democrat. He does caucus with the Democrats, which is great. He is from a state that seems to have a pretty strong independent streak and so his lack of party affiliation seems like a good fit for his constituents.

What you are suggesting is that conformity be the sole arbiter of 'belonging' in a party that seeks to unit huge geographical, cultural and religious divides. Sanders is right for his constituents BECAUSE he is independent. Manchin is right for his constituents too. Voting in a way that acknowledges their conservative preferences does not make him less of a Democrat.

There is not one flavor of Democrat. Because we have a two party system, the parties are a coalition of various causes and groups. It is not a single, defined flavor like you find in multi-party systems.

Trying to throw coalition members off Democratic Island because they do not maintain an acceptable level of purity for people who are not actual constituents always mystifies me. We cannot win big elections if we do that. We need ALL the coalition members.

[BainsBane]

74. Well said.

[ciaobaby]

88. So True !

[guillaumeb]

103. And if we need all coalition members,

we need Sanders, and his supporters.

Otherwise the choice DOES become rejecting people based on labels.

And if W. Virginia was truly a bright red state, Manchin could not be elected.

[wildeyed]

158. Sanders and his supporters need to learn to work within the party framework

and also how to do electoral math if they want to be truly influential in party politics. Bring the votes and you win the day. It's that simple. They seem to want the party to give them power they haven't earned. Doesn't work that way. I don't really care much about internal party politics. If Sanders coalition can win by getting the most votes, more power to them. But the way they try to shame others into voting their agenda is ineffective and annoying. They should try another tactic next time. Just my .02.

As far as the other thing, I vote for Republicans all the time in local races because I respect them and/or think they are effective at what they do, even if I don't go along with their ideology 100%. I never do that in state or national races because liberals need every single vote there. But locally, Democrats control everything, so my vote is extra. Even if the Rep wins, Dems still control the show. Plus they need a bit of shaking up since they have so much unchecked power. My vote does not make me less liberal. It's a calculated choice when I split a ticket. It is no different if you are from West Virginia. If you know your state and senate is safe GOP, but you like Manchin and want to shake up your leaders a bit, it makes sense. Doesn't make the voters less conservative.

I think Manchin's seat is 'endangered' anyway. So soon the Democratic Party Purity Police can be happy that another DINO has fallen to a Rep and we are one seat farther from having any actual political power to enact our pure and progressive policies.

[guillaumeb]

164. This:

I think Manchin's seat is 'endangered' anyway. So soon the Democratic Party Purity Police can be happy that another DINO has fallen to a Rep and we are one seat farther from having any actual political power to enact our pure and progressive policies

is an interesting attempt to frame an argument but it does not really answer the question.

If Manchin cannot get re-elected in his state, that might reflect a failure on the part of the Party to organize and energize voters in that state.

[wildeyed]

176. No. It reflects the nature of the electorate in West Virginia.

Have you been there? It is poor and rural but the Appalachian version, not the deep south. It is very white, which means you don't have the built in 20%+ POC Dem vote that most southern states have. They are mostly socially conservative Scots-Irish. They have had some viscous fights with the 'corporate elite' mining companies in the past. During the Revolution they kicked British ass. They love their guns. Like REALLY love their guns. Do not trust government much. This not a new thing. The GOP taps into that. The Dems want to win there, they need to tap into that populist/rebellious vein, add a strong undercurrent of moral Christianity using the words of Jesus and leave the guns alone. It is what it is.

You need to spend time there to understand. I am trying to be polite, so I didn't use the ROFL smilie, but you are way off base with the idea that the Democratic Party can go in there to "organize and energize". If that happens, it will be a movement lead by locals who grew up there and understand the culture. There will be a strong religious component as well. And it might be happening already. But we, as urban liberals, are not welcome. They straight up distrust us and think we laugh at them. Which is true, mostly.

Where do you live?

[guillaumeb]

182. I have driven through numerous times.

Voting reflects the voting pattern of those who vote. Not all vote. Approximately 41% of registered voters did not vote in 2016, so we do not really know how well anyone could do. We only know what did happen.

If, a very big if, but if Democrats could motivate the unmotivated, the electoral map might look quite different.

[wildeyed]

193. The Democrat who motivates that block is not 'progressive'.

It is a socially conservative group who distrusts government. This goes waaaay back before Democrats vs Republicans. Dems need to radically re-brand in that part of the world. Communicate that government messing in people's personal lives is just another form of Big Government interference. That the way you treat the least of us, the sick, the poor and the strangers, is the way you treat Jesus. But the stuff about how they vote against their economic self-interest? Not gonna fly.

Winning in a state like that stretches the "big tent". There are pockets of liberals who moved there for the amazing outdoor recreational opportunities, but not enough to really move the needle.

You should spend some time there, get to know people. It's a wild, beautiful, infuriating place.

[guillaumeb]

208. When we drove through, the views from the Byrd highway were spectacular.

But when you drive away from the highway, the devastation of much of the area is immediately obvious. To me, the State is a plantation style economy where the rich owners extract the wealth and the people living there are left with a ruined land.

And for all the talk of bringing back coal, economics dictates what is mined, and coal cannot compete against natural gas or solar.

[wildeyed]

224. The problem is, they vote for the ruined land and rich owners.

My feeling is to them, it represents the pride of doing hard work. The mines ripped them off and stole their health, but they had pride in their labor and were able to eke out a living. They want that back, I guess.

WV has world class rock climbing and paddling. Decent skiing and great mountain bike trails too. It is convenient to much of the east coast, thanks to Senator Byrd's powerful position on appropriations committee and the roads projects he funded. But locals don't want to switch to a recreation/clean energy economy. That brings weird liberal outsiders who they feel look down on them (probably true). They still want to blow the tops off of the mountains and strip mine to get the last few morsels of coal, despite that fact it is not sustainable work and the recreation jobs are.

I thought urban poverty was bad until I went back into a few of those hollers. I met a guy once whose cheek was eaten away with cancer and had made his own prothesis for his missing leg. I was a broke college student back then, but I re-evaluated. I realized I owned a decent car and had close $1000 worth of outdoor gear on my body at the time (mostly given to me by the sales reps or bought at wholesale) and that maybe I needed to do the thing we now call 'check your privilege'. Most people there are not that poor, but it does exist.

[guillaumeb]

228. On a personal note:

My family is still mainly in Quebec and N Brunswick. At the far north end of the Appalachians are the Laurentides. The same scenery, the same mainly poor families and few jobs. Sometimes pride is all that there is. In our area, one either farmed or worked in the few mills in the area. Or both.

On the positive side, mountain music is, in my opinion, the best type of music.

[truebluegreen]

69. Apparently it is for some.

Not for me.

[BainsBane]

70. It depends what the context is

Being a Democrat is not an ideology but membership in the party. As a voter you may well weigh voting record as a primary issue, but when it comes to administrative organs like the DNC, that is a matter for members of the party.

The comparison between Manchin and Sanders is pointless. There aren't running against each other. WV voters decide on Manchin and VT voters on Sanders.

If this is all about purging the party of the red state Dems people despise, I'm not disposed to be so helpful to Donald Trump and the GOP.

Here is a key difference between Manchin and Sanders: Manchin, although a registered Democrat, doesn't try to control the party, whereas Bernie feels entitled to decide internal party positions and dictate its direction despite not joining the party. He also spends a lot of time criticizing the party in ways that haven't varied between the 1960s and now, even to the point of denouncing a "status quo" already upended by the election and the Trump administration.

I might make the analogy of neighbors. If I have a neighbor whom I happen to agree with on most issues who spends his time telling me off about my housework, I am going to find him more annoying than the neighbor with whom I share few common opinions but doesn't lecture me. Manners matter, and It's my damn house.

[guillaumeb]

104. To your "key difference" point:

Manchin votes against the Democratic Party position approximately 25% of the time. This is a deliberate decision by Manchin that is in essence a criticism of the Party in all but name.

So is Manchin, by his votes, showing that for him winning elections is more important than helping the Democratic Party?

[BainsBane]

116. He's representing his constituents

which don't include you, me, or the vast majority of DU. I prefer him to a Republican, but I understand that some prefer we remain a permanent minority.

There is no logical reason to compare the two other than some pointless exercise on a message board. The fact is some people will never like Manchin or Sanders, and they don't have to. My feelings about Sanders have nothing to do with (most of) his positions on issues. They aren't going to change because Sanders isn't going to change.

Now, if at some point Bernie supporters decide something besides reverence for Bernie matters--like an issue--we can establish common ground, yet issues and policy rarely make an appearance. In fact, many posters avoid them like the plague even when consistently asked. So here we have a party divide about nothing of substance. It's pointless, yet for some it's everything. I say we take Perez and Ellison's example and move on.

[guillaumeb]

117. Agreed on the DNC example.

One hopes that the DNC's actions will demonstrate that working together is far more important than endless debates about policy. Debate is essential, but at a certain point debate must give way to electoral work.

[BainsBane]

152. debate about policy

is a lot better than debate about personalities.

[guillaumeb]

162. But the corporate media much prefers a focus on personality.

Less analysis is needed.

[JNelson6563]

76. I agree completely.

Voting record far outweighs the party affiliation when it comes to how much I support one candidate over another.

However, this does not compare to the issue of a non-party member dictating policy for a party. That is another thing altogether.

[JustAnotherGen]

77. Sanders is adamant

He is not Democratic party member. My opinion means nothing. He has said it - we need to leave him be.

[napi21]

79. To regain the majority, the "D is more important. Yes, someties I'd like to see the Dems vote in

lockstep with their fellow Dems, but when we get Dems elected in usually Pub districts, it becomes more difficult. After all, those Reps are supposed to vote the way their constituents want. Sometimes that means they sometimes have to vote for what their costituents asked them to do.

I was right there with you when, after Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy we had quite a few wins in RED areas. I think it was a mistake for us to constantly gripe against those Dems (from red areas) who failed to stick with every Dem vote.

Bad as that was, it's worse losing the majority. THEN we have no power at all.

[TygrBright]

80. There's a good deal more to a pol than voting record. Consider also:

What bills will they sponsor?

What will they co-sponsor?

What committee work will they do? How will they vote on things other than recorded "bill" votes- things like procedural motions, committee agendas, etc.

What will they support behind the scenes to help out a colleague?

What trade-offs will they make between two potentially risky options on a bill, and why?

What amendments will they offer, support, fight for?

How well will they help Party leadership maintain a strategy?

What caucuses will they participate in, and how will they balance potential conflicts between them?

How helpful will they be to colleagues when it's fundraising time?

How hard will they campaign?

Will they work to build the Party in their district? In their State?

Can they be a reliable spokesperson on an issue?

There can be a whole lot of reasons for an elected official to vote against their Party, and some of them are pretty good. Some of them are even sanctioned by the Party, encouraged, appreciated.

Understanding the bigger picture can change how you look at a voting record.

peaceably,
Bright

[guillaumeb]

106. Agreed. Nice additions to the conversation.

And judging by his positions, and his votes, Sanders is effectively a Democrat. I cannot explain why he self-identifies as an Independent, but he is so supportive of the Democratic Party that for all purposes he is a Democrat.

[BobTheSubgenius]

82. In general, I agree with this.

I think a voting record is way more important than a label. That being said, Sanders, or anyone else, choosing to not "wear" a (D) also says something.

[guillaumeb]

108. Agreed. eom

[EffieBlack]

83. Cognitive Dissonance:

On the one hand, we're told that it doesn't matter whether Sanders actually joins the Democratic Party because he votes with the party 99% of the time.

On the other hand, we're told that the party is completely screwed up, it's lost its way, it doesn't keep to Democratic principles, etc.

But if the party's such a misguided mess, why does Sanders vote with it 99% of the time?

[guillaumeb]

110. Two different issues.

My point is that 90% plus support indicates that the Senator is functionally a Democrat in all but label.

And a judgement of "misguided mess" is not one that I share.

[madokie]

90. a vote trumps all

[stevenleser]

92. Nope, it doesn't. It's actually weaker than the symbolic act of not joining. Because it influences

many other votes.

[madokie]

93. Bull

[stevenleser]

101. And that response is indicative you have no counter, so its an acknowledgement that I'm right. nt

[madokie]

118. Man o man

you're free to read into what I meant even though it also is bullshit. I chose to not say more due to what I preceive asyou're not open to a counter argument.

You let me speak for myself from here on out if you don't mind

I put words in my mouth, you put words in yours

peace

[guillaumeb]

112. So when manchin voted for 2 Trump cabinet nominees.

was this also a symbolic act that will work against the Democratic Party by giving the impression of deep division?

And could this not also influence other Democrats to vote against the Party?

[stevenleser]

122. Nope. Presidential nominees are usually approved.

President have the right to chose their own subordinates. Congress in general defers to that prerogative. There are always exceptions.

[guillaumeb]

125. And given that nearly all of the Democratic Senators voted one way,

and Manchin voted another, I would argue that Manchin was, again, an exception.

[madokie]

119. Not in my mind it doesn't

Each vote stands on its own merits.

Unless you believe that every one can be so easily swayed by someone else's opinion

I say Bull to the premise of your statements

[guillaumeb]

111. Agreed. eom

[madokie]

120. Peace

[stevenleser]

91. Since you asked, both are important.

Sanders not registering as a Democrat is an important symbolic action that has consequences.

One of those consequences is, it is a message to everyone that he considers the Democratic Party as not good enough to join. That impacts independents, possibly persuadable Republicans, and various others and their votes.

Just being a Democrat means you support the party and its candidates and general ideological bent.

[DanTex]

98. Exactly this. Good post.

[guillaumeb]

113. How is this "symbolic action" different from another Senator

non-symbolically deliberately voting against the Democratic Party position?

Your argument would be stronger if the US had a parliamentary system where absolute support of platform is required for continued membership. But in the US, Party affiliation is no guarantee at all of where an individual Congress person stands on any particular issue.

The GOP is far more of a parliamentary type party than the Democratic Party.

[KPN]

141. It means that? Really?

Seems to me that there are plenty of registered democrats -- and, unfortunately, past democrats/now independents, who actually have been questioning the party's ideological bent for a couple decades now or more.

I'm a good example. 45 year registered, contributing, voting Democratic Party member.

[ret5hd]

105. Churchill to FDR: "Fuck off! We don't need allies!"

Oh wait...that never happened.

[guillaumeb]

114. Nice observation. eom

[Faux pas]

107. NOPE

[meadowlander]

121. Committee memberships are detemined by the majority party.

We need (D) asses on seats and, when we have an established majority, then we can look at how they vote.

[guillaumeb]

128. The Democrats need voters to come out and vote.

Especially the 41% who did not vote. And they need to look at the enthusiasm that Sanders generated with his message, and incorporate what was essentially the FDR message into the Party.

[randome]

123. Thread after thread stating essentially that we should like Sanders. We don't.

Get over him, please. It's embarrassing.

[guillaumeb]

129. The pronouns "you" and "we" are not identical.

unless you are employing the royal we.

[Blue Idaho]

131. Apples and Oranges...

The votes cast from safe heavily democratic regions can't be compared to votes from purple or red districts. I'd rather have a Democrat in a republican district that votes with Democratic positions 75% than a republican that will vote against us 100% of the time.

[guillaumeb]

132. But both Sanders and Manchin support Democratic positions.

One approximately 75% of the time, Manchin, and one approximately 95% of the time. Sanders.

So, in my opinion, both should have input into positions and strategy. Especially since Sanders caucuses with the Democrats.

[Blue Idaho]

151. Absolutely!

But their voting record taken out of context can't be used as some sort of Democratic purity test. No way Sanders could win in Manchin's district and vise-versa.

To your larger point - Democrats should listen to all voices that support the larger "democratic" agenda. Once all voices are heard, decisions need to be made - once made - we all need to work for the greater good in as ego-less fashion as possible.

[guillaumeb]

161. A great post. eom

[Blue Idaho]

171. Thanks!

Let's give 'em hell!

[KPN]

135. No. But it sure seems like a lot of folks feel that way, no?

Ellen's right. Actions speak louder than words.

[guillaumeb]

136. If you have read this post, or many similarly themed posts,

yes, it is obvious that a lot of people seem to obsessed with the label rather than with the actions.



And this recent post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028713184

concerns Bernie Sanders being the keynote speaker at the Democratic Convention in Kansas. This, and the DNC decision to select Perez and Ellison gives me hope that the DNC is more concerned with unity than supposed party purity.

[KPN]

142. Thanks. Missed that post.

Bernie has done a huge favor for the Democratic Party in my view. It's too bad some don't appreciate the sleeping giant he awakened.

[guillaumeb]

160. A sleeping giant that could be the link between the Party,

the Revolution, and Indivisible.

[NurseJackie]

148. Just checking ... You do understand that they are not "co-chairs", right? You kinda ...

... dodged me when I corrected you about that earlier. It's a mistake to attribute additional authority to Keith (that he does not actually possess) and it's also a mistake to portray Perez as having less authority and autonomy that he actually does.

gives me hope that the DNC is more concerned with unity than supposed party purity.

You say this as if it's an accepted "fact" that the DNC has ever been "concerned" about "party purity".

These are echo-chamber notions that bounce around until they're accepted as fact. What evidence or proof do you have to support that "party purity" has been a priority of the DNC?

yes, it is obvious that a lot of people seem to obsessed with the label rather than with the actions.

You act as if that's a bad thing. It's not. I'm concerned with both. As a party, when it comes to deciding our own fate, shaping policy and plotting our course and direction, we should avoid giving non-Democrats the reigns.

[guillaumeb]

167. The voting totals were quite close. Indicating that the Party is supportive of both.

And I am not advocating giving anyone full control of the Party. Some might call that a straw man argument.

And the comment about Party purity is aimed more at arguments here around who is a Democrat, or who is the better Democrat.

[NurseJackie]

181. It wasn't that close. The same proportions in a national election would be ...

... characterized as a "mandate" for the winner. So, don't even try that with me.

And I am not advocating giving anyone full control of the Party. Some might call that a straw man argument.

Someone else would be doing that. It's not really your "job" to advocate FOR anything. I get the impression that you'd rather just sit back and snipe from the sidelines trying to squelch and distract anyone who criticizes.

And the comment about Party purity is aimed more at arguments here around who is a Democrat, or who is the better Democrat.

Ahhh... I see. Okay. Whatevs. It's all background noise. Static.




Ssssssssssssss. They're here!

[guillaumeb]

185. You claim that it was not that close. Reality says otherwise.

Here's the final tally, 218 needed. 435 total voted:
Perez 235
Ellison 200

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/25/517203708/live-blog-dnc-chair-race-to-begin-shortly-heres-what-to-expect

As to your impressions, it might be better to do more research prior to assigning motivation based on your impressions.

[NurseJackie]

194. You're giving it more significance ...

... than it really means. You're grasping at anything to find comfort. But alas it changes nothing. Does it? Perez is still the chair. Sarandon's guy is not. Awwww.

[guillaumeb]

209. No, you are denying the significance.

Democratic Party leaders recognize, even if some few at DU do not, that unity is important. And the choice of Ellison as number 2, a unanimous choice, I might add, shows that the DNC knows that future success depends on blending both groups.

[NurseJackie]

213. Now you're just being contrary for its own sake.

Self flattery and exaggeration and backhanded insults will probably not serve you very well. Is this how you expect to achieve this "unity" think that's supposedly so important to you? "Blending" doesn't happen from the top-down. If that so-called "wing" wants power and influence, they need to do it from the ground up. No short-cuts. No cutting in line.

Democrats First

[Proud Liberal Dem]

143. Both matter IMHO

And when we have Democrats cast bad votes, we should call them out on it, but we need to get over these notions of demanding 100% purity in all of our Democrats, especially those whom represent Republican districts or Republican states. I'll be happy to cut Joe Manchin 25% slack if it means him staying a member of the Democratic Party and preventing a Republican from being in that seat and adding to Republican numbers. Democrats are not (and never have been) a lock-step, small tent, purity-driven party like the GOP has become and we need to accept that in order to win a majority IMHO. And we also know that somebody with an "R" after their name will vote for "R" policies and "R" leadership" virtually 100% of the time, so we need to keep that in mind as well.

[alarimer]

145. No.

I've said it before. Manchin and Heitkamp (and possibly others) will not be there for critical votes on, say, the ACA. They will vote to save their skin first and foremost.

I'd take a principled independent over Democrats like that.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

157. The D behind the names shows investment in a political party one we have all signed up at DU

to further

So when someone without a D behind their name spends all their time criticizing those with a D behind their name, it matters to me.

Sanders voting record is a reflection of Vermont. Manchin's record is a record of WV, Manchin is more liberal than most of his state. Sanders is not.

Pretending WV and VT should have similar senators is not reflective of reality.

[guillaumeb]

165. If Sanders spent all of his time criticizing, I would agree.

But he does not, and his approximately 95% plus voting record and support of Democratic positions shows that.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

166. no one is arguing that Sanders is not liberal. what we are arguing is whether he furthers

the future of the democratic party.

his voting shows he's liberal.

his recent talks about the DNC being rigged etc does not demonstrate his commitment to the furthering the democratic party

[guillaumeb]

168. Agreed. I am not defending everything that Sanders says, or everything that any

Democratic politician says. Talk about rigging the primaries is not helpful. Clinton won more votes. Anything else concerning Sanders vs Trump is, in my view, sheer speculation based on the wishes of the one making the claim.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

169. glad we are agreed

[guillaumeb]

170. And I also. I respect your positions, and your (generally) polite style. eom

[La Lioness Priyanka]

172. i dunno about the polite. i have been raging quite a bit since the election

[guillaumeb]

173. Raging is one thing. Being insulting to others is another.

And given the level of illegality surrounding everything about Trump, the rage is certainly understandable.

[Tarheel_Dem]

177. Call me when Vermont and W. Va. become ideologically equivalent. Until then, it doesn't....

matter how BS votes, he doesn't have to run in a coal state.

[guillaumeb]

184. A coal state, but not simply a coal state.

Any more than Vermont is a maple sugar state.

[Tarheel_Dem]

198. Oh yeah, the "maple sugar" lobby in DC is huge & they have buckets of money to throw at our....

representatives.

Nice try, but your analogy could use a little something called equivalence.

[guillaumeb]

211. Maple sugar loses out to southern subsidized cane sugar.

The Southern sugar strategy.

[Tarheel_Dem]

227. Well, alrighty then!

[NanceGreggs]

179. Apples and Oranges.

Being a registered member of a party is not a "label" - it is either a fact or it isn't.

Bernie has chosen NOT to be a member of the Democratic Party. His "voting record" doesn't change that fact.

The constant cries of well, he's kinda-sorta a Democrat because he votes with Dems is like being kinda-sorta pregnant. You either are or you aren't.

Personally, I think politicians who refuse to be a member of a party should refrain from telling that party how they should be conducting its own business.

[guillaumeb]

186. Your end point might be a valid one if Sanders were criticizing a winning strategy.

But the Democratic Party has steadily lost power on a State and National level over the past 6 years. So business as usual is not a successful model.

[NanceGreggs]

190. And what "winning strategy" ...

... was Bernie using when he lost the Dem nomination?

[guillaumeb]

191. A whole different argument that (probably) neither of us wishes to visit.

In my view, a winning strategy involves motivating the unmotivated.

The how is the big question.

[NanceGreggs]

192. I think it's a very relevant argument.

But I can understand why some people don't want to recognize that Bernie's own "winning strategy" fell far short of winning.

[guillaumeb]

207. It might be relevant but to discuss it would then involve the various claims

made by both sides. As we both know, Clinton received more votes in the primary, and in the general election for that matter.

I personally think that the Sanders message resonated strongly with voters, but I also feel that the Democrats need to find a way to motivate the unmotivated.

[pnwmom]

197. It didn't used to but it does now, with the parties so far apart.

There is a huge gulf now between the Dems and the R's. No Dem, no matter what his or her individual voting record looks like, is very close to any R, no matter how "moderate."

And the D or R beside a name is what determines who controls House and Senate leadership.

[Alice11111]

201. No

[delisen]

205. If Sanders had the W VA electorate he'd be voting more like Manchin or he'd be gone.

[guillaumeb]

212. That is speculation.

What if the Sanders message motivated the voters who do not bother to vote?

[moriah]

214. If we're going for a "Fifty State" strategy, we have to consider the (D) for some states.

ANY Democrat would be better than my state's Cotton and Boozman.

When Boozman ran against Blanche Lincoln, 5 of the 6 folks we were sending to Washington were Dems. They might have been more moderate Dems, but they almost always caucused with Dems. They were there when we needed a majority on a vote to end a filibuster, etc.

Now we are sending all six as Republicans. Absolutely idiotic, wildly conservative Republicans.

We have to accept that some Democrats from what used to be Blue states for representation will not match the ferocity of Democrats from blue states in Presidential elections if we want to get a majority in Congress.

[guillaumeb]

229. Tom Cotton? My sympathies moriah.

I agree with your analysis.

[moriah]

232. Thanks for your sympathies.

It's people like him that make me wish I'd become a transplant surgeon and go "The Fourth Procedure" on his ass.

[lagomorph777]

217. Only the votes matter.

Well, advocacy and sponsoring bills too. It's all about the actions; if you vote against justice, you are not a Dem.

[NCTraveler]

218. Overall and almost always, yes. All D's are much better than all R's across the board. nt.

[Blue_Tires]

225. Manchin and Sanders are two very different people

representing two very different constituencies...

[guillaumeb]

230. They are.

Part of the challenge is to try to change those constituencies, and to motivate those who do not vote.

[Gothmog]

235. Yes-control of committees and congress are very important matters

[guillaumeb]

236. Support for the platform is also very important.

And attempting to improve the platform is important.

[Gothmog]

237. You cannot investigate or control the agenda without a majority

[guillaumeb]

238. Mitch McConnell said it well:

Winners make policy. But a platform can inspire voters.