General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI see lots of people claiming Bernie is going to run for president in 2020. Question is
Should the (I) Independent Senator from VT be allowed to run on the Democratic Party ticket?
My vote is... probably very unsurprising, NO.
we can do it
(12,118 posts)yuiyoshida
(41,763 posts)Bernie Sanders. We need a good democrat that will take us into the White house.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Or as W immortally put it, There's an old saying in Tennessee I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says, fool me once, shame on shame on you. Fool me you can't get fooled again.
trueblue2007
(17,138 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)actors had honorably refused to lie about Hill, we would have won, and we were within reach of controlling both houses of Congress, senate guaranteed. So unfortunately, many of those influenced by their lies are still denying the shameful reality of their own responsibility.
It's not whatever choices present themselves to us, it's THE CHOICES WE MAKE that elect good, progressive government or a Trump and Pence.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,750 posts)I seriously doubt he's considering running in 2020. He made a good run for the 2016 nomination but didn't get it. Time to move on.
Plus, he's already 75. Although I was a very strong Bernie supporter, when he first started running I felt his age was a large negative. Over the course of his campaign it was clear he absolutely had the stamina, which I found quite reassuring.
So while I'm personally quite sad that he's not currently our President, I wouldn't support a new run on his part.
Most of the people currently being bandied about as potential candidates are likewise too old. We absolutely need younger people in the pool.
Response to PoindexterOglethorpe (Reply #3)
Tiggeroshii This message was self-deleted by its author.
RKP5637
(67,032 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)punishment that apparent arthritis his neck and perhaps adjacent areas was giving him. I noticed he generally avoided raising his upper arms. My husband has it just in his shoulder joints. It always hurts, and he has serious problems sleeping when his steroid injections start wearing off. And that's only the problem we can see and guess at.
I was initially interested when Sanders stepped forward after Warren said no, but by now I have Sanders pegged as a zealot. He's passionately committed to what he thinks he can do, and I wouldn't bet much that he wouldn't run again for some purpose even if he thought he couldn't win, but I really don't think he will either. As for winning, the presidency for a man in his 80s who didn't actually know how to accomplish his goals in his 70s? Before Rump, we'd all have agreed totally couldn't happen...
Runningdawg
(4,496 posts)left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)Where?
I've seen nothing.
Maybe someone's just 'stirring the pot' ?
Kahuna7
(2,531 posts)and you will get it from the horse's mouth. Bernie is the one stirring the pot.
Also this:
Bernie Sanders says liberals shouldnt trust Democrats
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/07/bernie-sanders-says-liberals-shouldnt-trust-democrats/
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)Doesn't equal "Lots of people ..."
We need Bernie and his supporters in 2018 and 2020.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)NO ONE needs him piping in how no good any of them are.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's just that we're three years out from 2020 and there's no reason at this point to be trying to get anybody to commit to any presidential candidate yet.
Kahuna7
(2,531 posts)left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)Not "Lots of people"
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Kahuna7
(2,531 posts)So technically, lots of people are saying....
trueblue2007
(17,138 posts)STOP yapping at me Bernie.
I been a liberal & FOR A LONG LONG TIME.
George II
(67,782 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)should be allowed to run as a DEm. He's an indie, says so himself, I believe him, so let him use Our Revolution as his vehicle.
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)No no no no no no no.
I hope the Democratic Party learned its lesson and doesn't allow him to run as a pretend Democrat again.
PubliusEnigma
(1,583 posts)But he is an old, white guy. So he's got that going for him.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,272 posts)BainsBane
(53,003 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)His first run did enough damage and his second losing campaign will only hurt the party.
And we need to ask is it a good idea to nominate someone who's he and his spouse is under federal investigation. I mean it was asked before right?
In all seriousness to move beyond 2016 we need to have new candidates. Hillary said she is not running and Sanders should do the same.
MrsCoffee
(5,801 posts)Kahuna7
(2,531 posts)after the way he has and continues to show disdain for Democrats, he would be allowed to run as a Democrat. I also don't think he would want to.
jrthin
(4,825 posts)Response to boston bean (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Kahuna7
(2,531 posts)Watchfoxheadexplodes
(3,496 posts)bluepen
(620 posts)Blue_Adept
(6,384 posts)I voted for him in the primary the last time around but will not vote for him in the next one if he's on the primary ballot.
ismnotwasm
(41,921 posts)Enough already.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Bernie no longer needs the Democratic Party.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)lapucelle
(18,040 posts)"Bernie no longer needs the Democratic Party."
It's almost as if someone is implying that Sanders exploited the Democratic Party's members, infrastructure, and resources for his own self-serving ambitions.
People need to be more careful. Anti-Sanders sentiments are dangerous.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)The hell with that!
boston bean
(36,186 posts)All that would happen is split up of the democratic vote.
Let him do that. Then maybe we can finally be done with the idea that EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN WANTS BERNIE IF THEY ONLY KNEW IT.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)They have no idea how refreshing and reassuring these "No's" are!
David__77
(23,220 posts)A lot of voices, indeed. I can imagine that many people have concluded that those who supported Sanders and thought Clinton was a terrible candidate aren't needed or wanted. I find that unfortunate.
Many
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)R B Garr
(16,920 posts)they wrote his name in instead of voting for Hillary in the General? Because that is no help. Having to diminish your party to exalt one man makes no sense and is divisive.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Theyre not our enemy and will vote Dem. We need to stop fighting the last election though and get working on 2018.
They'll be far easier to woo back than Trump voters. We're going to need every vote in 2018 to counter gerrymandering, Russian influence, and election fraud.
What are you doing to help us towards that goal?
Me? This spring I helped get 8 Dems elected in local races for seats that had been Republican. I'm also already helping 2 other candidates challenging my Republican state and Congressional reps for 2018. I also joined my local voter integrity group (on top of the work I've been doing for years with my local environment/anti-fracking group).
Every Tuesday since Trump's election, I've stood out on the road for 30 minutes with about 50 other like minded folks and protested my rep Randy Hultgren's refusal to hold a town hall meeting of any sort.
It's beyond time to get focused on 2018. We have no time to waste.
R B Garr
(16,920 posts)that Democrats are just like Republicans. Inferring elected Democrats are corrupt or "establishment" is not a good way to recruit -- that has been proven by now. Democrats are not the same as Republicans. Those are the kinds of things that are important to get across, I've found. Only 70,000 or so people spread across three or four states decided this election, so smearing our candidate(s) may have had an influence. We all are living with those consequences. That's what the Russians counted on -- smearing people will influence voters to avoid them, so it obviously works.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)It's real. It's going to be verified - bank on it.
HRC was cheated out of this election by fraud but sure, keep pounding away at potential allies, driving them permanently away. Fuck them eh? We don't need no stinking 70k +/- votes right?!
Short sighted and crazy stupid.
Good luck with that. Feel free to have the last word. I'm utterly uninterested in banging my head against the hardened DU memes about 2016. I have other, more important, work to do for 2018.
R B Garr
(16,920 posts)Really? I said the Russian's knew who to target with their anti-Hillary, anti-Democrat propaganda. So it's obvious that the Russians hacked our election -- something I also said. I have no interest in demeaning Democrats with lies, which is what is short sighted and crazy stupid. Obviously the smears worked, which is why the Russians copied them.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)I'm just saying that all trashing Bernie does is alienate Bernie supporters. The same can be said for trashing Kamala Harris.
all american girl
(1,788 posts)All those women and POC he couldn't get, because he would be competing against a DEM elected from the DEM primary...so I'm going out on a limb here, but I think most DEMs will stay with the DEM candidate
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)By saying that, you are shitting on Bernie...but that's on you.
all american girl
(1,788 posts)The dude's been out bad mouthing Dems for months now...and that is not on me...when he is saying it, it"s all him
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)what he said was "Do not underestimate the resistance of the Democratic establishment. which in his mind has been resistant to specific policy changes that he want to see enacted
all american girl
(1,788 posts)in the society, for a POC or a woman to get ahead in the political word, you have to be establishment. POC and women have to walk a very fine line...they could never have untidy hair, an ill fitting suit, and yelling at everyone...so yes, they need the establishment to move ahead. So, establishment does mean bad, it's a network for people of liked minds...Bernie can be part of it and help, but he would rather yell at us that we suck.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)He is nudging the Democratic establishment into creating better policy. People don't get the hint if you don't yell.
ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)brush
(53,475 posts)He's alienated too many Dems to be welcomed back.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)That explains everything.
brush
(53,475 posts)using the party's national platform to run then ditching it again and continuing to bad mouth it.
He left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Sometimes hearing the truth hurts
brush
(53,475 posts)And most are emphatic "nos" that leave no doubt as to the posters opinion.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)or are not wanting to argue about this.
Most of the people who argue against Bernie now never wanted him in the first place.
brush
(53,475 posts)That doesn't help the party.
It's just divisive and helps turn some people away from voting for a Dem if it's not Sanders.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)....and there has been some evidence of change. You don't get a party to change by asking nicely.
Response to virtualobserver (Reply #131)
Post removed
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Bernie does.
brush
(53,475 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)brush
(53,475 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)He might be old in 2020, but he will not be old news.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)and it will be enough.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)in the year.
Bernie took time to build momentum.
Bernie is now a powerful national figure and will be fully staffed nationwide and will get plenty of media attention. He will have the pieces in place in order to inform and register voters.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)I thought he got A LOT of media attention. Of course no one, and i mean no one from either party received as much media time as trump, but I don't think Sanders got plenty.
Sanders did well on those undemocratic caucuses, which heavily favor the young, healthy and those who have plenty of time. But general elections don't work that way
And now, you show a picture where he was mobbed by adoring masses, then you write he had no name recognition. Which is it?
Will we finally get to see those taxes?
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)This time all of Bernie's supporters will be registered voters prior to the primaries.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)If he runs, He will run in the Democratic Primary.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Ron Dellums, for example, was always impeccably dressed. Did anybody ever see HIM as establishment? Or any of the large number of progressive African-American or Latino-American women in politics?
In reality, nobody's being called "establishment" for being well-groomed or wearing nice clothes. And Bernie's support wasn't driven by his hairstyle or his clothing choices. It was what he said and what he stood for-it was substance, not style.
I would still like to see Barbara Lee run for president. Everytime I've seen her, she has been personal soft-spoken and impeccable turned-out. But she's not seen as establishment by anybody on the Left.
BTW, I don't know of any rule that people of color or women even HAVE to be soft-spoken or blandly-spoken. Nobody ever held Barack Obama to that. The guy sometimes came off as a Zenmaster but that was his style and his choice.
all american girl
(1,788 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And that includes different standards on anything-issues as well as appearance.
Does that HAVE to mean, though, accepting greater limits on how progressive candidates can be just in the name of getting more candidates who aren't white men into power?
Is changing the identity of those in power, which is an important goal, transformative in and of itself? Is it transformative enough to justify accepting greater restraints on the politically possible?
Why can't we work to elect people on an equally progressive program(I'm not talking about anything stylistic here, I'm talking about substance)no matter who they are?
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)And it is so revolutionary - and yet counter to your ultimate point - that I just had to say something.
In it, you suggest that an attack on "the establishment" is an attack on people of color and women because:
Think about that for a second. What you have said is that - at least a large majority of - women and POC advance in our party ONLY when they toe the establishment line. I disagree that EVERY woman and/or person of color who is prominent in our party got there by not making waves - and I am not here to make waves by singling out individual for whether they did or did not.
I think though that looking at even the people of color known to most white folks who never "advanced" in our party supports your premise. Bobby Seale, Huey Newton, and Eldridge Cleaver never advanced in our Party. Malik el-Shabazz never advanced in our Party. Not even Martin Luther King advanced in our Party. What set them apart from the people of color who did advance was exactly what you described. Most were socialist. Most rejected the legitimacy of social structures like our criminal justice system. In short, they refused to walk that fine line.
So here is my question - why should we as people of color be offended when someone challenges a power structure that includes us ONLY when we "walk a very fine line - [and] never have untidy hair - [and] never have an ill fitting suit?"
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Then maybe I will take your plea seriously.
ismnotwasm
(41,921 posts)obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)stonecutter357
(12,682 posts)Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)if Bernie doesn't run we're going to have our very own marxist clown car. Bernie kinda keeps the leftists in one place and probably slightly less militant.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We had to have a candidate there who at least expressed Occupy values. Without that, there was no chance of getting young people to vote at all.
We were never going to come close to winning on a more of the same program. Why even try it?
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)So did the temper-tantrums at the convention.
An outsider kicked up a lot of shit and hard feelings remain, I think the accusations directed at the character of Bernie and his supporters were ridiculous but the schism that Bernie turned into a ravine is going to haunt us for many cycles to come.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Thanks for admitting the accusations were unjust, but why blame the accusations on the unjustly accused?
Most Sanders voters were Dems, so the "outsider" thing doesn't hold-it's not as though everyone would have cheered for keeping things exactly the same if he hadn't been there.
It's not as though we'd have won in the EC if only the nomination process had been bland and politics-free.
As for what occurred at the convention(none of which made any difference in the fall) HRC's campaign could have prevented all of that if they put their "No TPP" position from the primaries in the platform, rather than replacing that with weasel words about being "against bad trade deals", which was followed by Terry McAuliffe saying on national tv that TPP might be implemented after all. THAT is why people were protesting on the convention floor. And it was those weasel words that gave Trump the Upper Midwest. He could never have carried Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania if the door had been slammed on TPP at Philly.
Instead, we chose to put the meaningless goal of "containing China" ahead of defending working people and ahead uniting the party for victory.
BTW...it's "refighting the primaries" to try and retroactively delegitimize the Sanders campaign. And it serves no good purpose. Why do that, especially when you know that we need the new people that campaign brought in if we are to have any chance of winning in '18 or '20?
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)I will back Bernie Sanders and his supporters to the wall when they're accused of racism or misogyny or any other reality defying attack because those accusations were ridiculous. However if one were to accuse Bernie et al of inciting a riot I will go along with that.
There was no set of circumstances under which Bernie was going to prevail over Hillary Clinton which rendered his campaign mostly an exercise in lobbing bricks at an already weak and unpopular presumptive nominee.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)and bring up the excessive role corporate power plays in American politics. We needed some way of bringing voters with Occupy values into this party, since we knew we couldn't carry the Electoral College without them.
Our eventual nominee could probably have ended Bernie's campaign earlier had her campaign treated the Sanders phenomenon as a valid expression of widespread popular feeling, rather than spending months acting as though it had no right to happen and under no circumstances should be taken seriously. And she would have had a much easier time uniting the party in the fall had her campaign not endlessly slandered Bernie's supporters, in addition to Bernie, as defenders of white privilege and as indifferent to the need to fight racism, sexism, homo-and-transphobia and prejudice against immigrants. Until her campaign invented a divide between social justice and economic justice activists, no divide existed among those two groups. They were distinct movements, but they also related and nearly always allied with each other since at least the mid-1960s.
And it is absolutely clear that the Sanders movement is not responsible for our nominee's troubles in the fall. They warned her campaign that her chances for victory hinged on not looking like she was the candidate of the 1%, on not fudging on trade, and on not treating the Sanders campaign as though everything it supported had been rejected in the primaries and everything it had done was a failure and a waste of time. Over and over, her campaign refused to listen to those warnings.
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)Clinton lost because she was as tone-deaf, oblivious and as alienating as Mitt Romney. Democrats lose collectively because we think our internal hierarchies are sacred and the entire nation must unquestioningly defer to them and vote accordingly.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I understand and accept that more Dems preferred Hillary...but why are so many of them trying to retroactively delegitimize Bernie's presence in the primaries? They are not only refighting a battle they won, in doing so they are putting our chances for victory in '18 and '20 at risk. The political loyalties of a lot of the young people(including more young female people than some would care to admit)
who rallied to Bernie's cause are not firmly established, and if regular Dems keep blaming them for the November result, they could be lost to the Greens or to other minor parties or simply to noninvolvement.
The message these young people were sent last fall, at a time when we desperately needed them, was not that they had made an impressive effort, that they had helped shape the public discussion and the party platform, that what they had done had made a big difference for the better, but that the movement they had built was a total failure and a waste of time, that they'd had no influence on what the party's policy offer(an offer the fall campaign talked about far less than it talked about what a creep Trump is on a personal level) and that they should just shut up and vote for the ticket because they supposedly owed us their votes. Those young people did nothing to deserve such a dismissive, arrogant response.
I don't need to remind you that treating those young people that way had disastrous consequences. Some voted other ways, far too many didn't vote. They should have voted for us, but our party did all it could to drive them away from doing so. We have to learn from that if we are to win in the future.
Why not try to connect with those voters, for the upcoming battles, by actually engaging them on the issues they care about and presenting the party to them as a place where they will be welcome, as a group, to keep working for what they want, while setting up a process of dialog between them and the demographics in the party they ended up accidentally at odds with?
That's all I've been trying to say since November...none of it was an attack on or disrespect towards our nominee(a person I'd still like to see appointed to the Supreme Court by the next Democratic president), nor was it a slam on any of those who preferred our nominee before the primaries. It was and is nothing at all but a sincere attempt to point out what lessons we should take from the recent past, and what ideas I think should be included in our tactical and strategic approaches for the future.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)In and out of his state. Rules can be changed with enough support but as it stands I don't see how he could legitimately be blocked access. If he wasn't allowed to run in the Democratic primary in Vermont for his senate seat we might have a Republican in it.
Response to Weekend Warrior (Reply #34)
Post removed
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)I don't see why it wouldn't be one of the few job requirements.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Turns out it was the first of many. Many American voters were duped into trying to upend the processs WHILE it was going on, because you know the "establishment" is always bad. They were played into normalizing these shortcuts, and now it's an everyday occurrence. I never thought I'd appreciate "norms", but I do now. I miss them.
sellitman
(11,596 posts)I love the guy...but no. His age is a problem and we need to start running fresh faces.
I'd Love a Kamila- Kennedy ticket. That would be unstoppable.
IMHO
ismnotwasm
(41,921 posts)brush
(53,475 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)They just continue the alienation and hurt feelings as far as I can tell.
Flame bait.
LonePirate
(13,386 posts)When given the choice between an Independent and a Democrat, DUers are expected to choose the Democrat.
Bernie should have run as an Independent.
xajj4791
(84 posts)What an actual democrat is? I feel I might not meet that definition.....
ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)Proud Liberal Dem
(24,355 posts)Unless he actually wants to join the party and stops publicly bashing Democrats and even then I still probably wouldn't vote for him unless he's the nominee. I seriously hope that he wouldn't run 3rd Party and potentially allow Trump another 4 years (when we will be damned lucky to get through the next 4 years alive and well) either. We have so many other better potential candidates to choose from. There is also just too much acrimony from the last election on the Sanders/Clinton divide to make him a unity candidate IMHO. It doesn't help that Berners are attacking other qualified potential Democratic contenders far in advance.
trueblue2007
(17,138 posts)they can't be allowed to attack Democrats again.
Progressive dog
(6,862 posts)NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)And I also believe that continued Bernie worship here needs to go. This isn't LeftyUnderground. He's a wedge that's doing damage to our chances next election.
JaneQPublic
(7,113 posts)But it's disingenuous for him to parachute into the party long enough to get a place on primary debate stage, ditch the party when he loses, and then join again just in time to use DNC mics and cameras in the next round of debates.
Plus, did he ever show his taxes and other financial papers last time? He was stalling those disclosures in 2016.
Full disclosure should be a caveat for a Dem run, so we don't end up with big surprises a la Trump.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)Oneironaut
(5,462 posts)I like Bernie, but he would be an awful candidate. We need a newer face in the picture with more energy.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)David__77
(23,220 posts)I'm sure a hardcore anti-Sanders faction would be quite upset.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)There is no good reason to take seriously a claim that anyone in their late 70s would run and believe they actually have a good shot at winning. If we are only supported by people who identify as party of the sacred club that is the Democratic party, we would lose. If we demonize people who don't join the club we lose worse.
I'm for welcoming people who don't join, because I think demanding unconditional conformity is authoritarian.
emulatorloo
(43,982 posts)That being said, he'll be facing a lot of completion this from some heavy hitting Democrats. I believe we are going to have a big diverse field of primary candidates.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)MineralMan
(146,192 posts)about people who are not already Democrats. And, rightly so, I believe. That didn't work out so well, in the end.
unc70
(6,095 posts)So many people here want to stir the pot 2+ years in advance. At the moment, Bernie is working hard for the Democratic party as a member of its Senate leadership. How many topics a day does DU need that stir this pot for no apparent benefit to Democrats and Democratic candidates?
Much the same can be said for the other "outrages" around here, real and "faux". All they do is distract and divide us. We need to be focused on local elections in 2017 and particularly on all the races in 2018.
If you are not a troll, try not acting like one.
Gothmog
(144,005 posts)Several states are in the process of adopting laws that will require a candidate to release tax returns to get onto the ballot. Trump will sue to challenge these laws and all Democrats need to be united on this issue.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Neither of those guys should run, if for no other reason than age.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)It's time for some new blood.
SCantiGOP
(13,856 posts)I am an AARP member myself, but they are too damn old to be running.
One of them could be comfortably ahead in the polls, and then have the stress and strain of the campaign cause them to have a minor stroke or pass out at an appearance and all of the sudden you have people unwilling to vote for them. I remember my parents when they got into their 80's, and that is too old to be given the responsibility of the presidency.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)xajj4791
(84 posts)Attitude. Here I thought the Democratic Party was angry discriminatory? If someone process their capacity for leadership, what does their age matter especially as the constitution does not manage a maximum age..... or is your opinion more important than the constitution? Should we support am amendment to make a maximum age because you think utter pass too old?
I think some disqualifying medical issues come with age but just being old should never be a disqualifier unless it's for Miss teen USA or something as stupid.
Voltaire2
(12,626 posts)So while it is unlikely that Bernie will run again, considering his age, his I status would not and should not bar him from running.
Maven
(10,533 posts)And if necessary I will actively work to make sure that (a) he isn't our nominee, and (b) his campaign goes nowhere if he tries to run as an independent.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Most delegates to the convention are chosen in primaries run by the states. The rules are set by state legislation, not by the DNC. That, of course, is why there are different rules, such as whether they're open, semi-open, or closed.
A complication is that the primaries don't select the nominee; they select the delegates. The DNC could presumably establish a rule that no one would be accredited as a delegate without being a registered Democrat, at least for delegates from states that have partisan registration. (Some states don't. Bernie isn't a registered Democrat, but neither is Pat Leahy.) But then what? That rule wouldn't accomplish the goal of excluding that heinous Bernie Sanders from the process. Suppose a registered Democrat seeks to become a delegate but announces, "I intend to vote for Bernie Sanders" (or, for that matter, for Pat Leahy). Is it your suggestion that the DNC should impose an ideological purity test, under which any Democrat who has expressed an opinion distasteful to the DNC majority will not be seated as a delegate?
Call me a radical, but I prefer the present system, under which the voters have the right to choose the nominee. It's obviously more democratic. It also has the pragmatic advantage of allowing the Democratic Party to remain a big tent. The vast majority of those who voted for Bernie in the primaries then voted for Hillary in the general election. Suppose, in 2016, the DNC, alarmed at Bernie's growing popularity, had implemented a forbidden-opinion rule to exclude his delegates. What would have happened? Well, quite a few of his outraged supporters would have refused to vote for Hillary. Trump would probably have won the popular vote in actuality, not just in his narcissistic dreams.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)We need fresh, exciting new people on the ticket.
DUgosh
(3,052 posts)He is not a Democrat!
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)Either one of them would be pulling defeat from the jaws of victory.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)And won't. Maybe as Governor of NY or Mayor of NYC.
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)But then she did anyway.
(see http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/17/news/la-pn-hillary-clinton-future-20111017 etc.)
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)Should Hillary Clinton be President right now? Yes.
Will she be helping ANYONE if she decides to run again in 2020? Not just no, HELL no.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)Expecting Rain
(811 posts)So Bernie Sanders running "as a Democrat" is like "an offer you can't refuse."
He uses the party to his advantage. Damages our coalition. But we need to walk on eggshells under the threat he goes third party and sinks the Democrats chances even more than he did last time.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,280 posts)he hasn't ruled it out - he'll do what all politicians do, which is try to determine how much support, both ideological and financial, that he has in the party as well as among independent voters. If it doesn't look like he'll have enough of either he won't run. That's probably what will happen. There's also the fact that he'll be 76, which many voters, regardless of anything else, will be skeptical about.
IMO, making a big stink about this right now is divisive.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)tavernier
(12,322 posts)and thank him for his service. Maybe he'll get the hint.
And I'm not being ageist since I am in my seventies as well and still working, but every day brings more and new challenges.
If he decides to indeed attempt one more run, he should do it on his own ticket. Since he demands honesty and integrity of others, why should we expect less from him.
MFM008
(19,776 posts)To be bored by all this in future.....
yuiyoshida
(41,763 posts)on that!
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)The Democratic Party would best be served to embrace his progressive policies and stop hating him like is being done here.
That said, I don't think Bernie would run again, and as one of the more ardent Bernie supporters, I would be in favor of seeing someone new run.
I believe people like Kamala Harris and Sherrod Brown have huge potential.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Divisive theoretical speculation about 2020 is utterly unproductive.
This kind of OP has the Republicans rubbing their hands in glee.
We desperately need to gain seats locally, statewide, and in Congress. Divisive bullshit over whose running in 2020 is a tragedy imo.
SMDH
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)Especially since he never conceded to Hillary, and flip to I again before the damned election.
ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)This is getting out of control.......
If he was to run on the Democratic ticket, and won the primary, would you then not vote for him and insure another 4 years of Trump.. I think not.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)As good as his anti-Big Money message is, I'm not sure he could capture any more of the Dem vote in 2020 than he did before, when voters know he's unlikely to remain a Democrat. While I'm glad the party made room for him once, he's not building a lot of bridges that he would need for a presidential run.
I think Dems should be coopting the best parts of his agenda, and not leave him any room to compete.
stonecutter357
(12,682 posts)LexVegas
(6,005 posts)Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)I think he is too old to run. We need another young, Obama type populist candidate that can make the Democrats and independents enthusiastic to vote again. We learned last year that merely being the most qualified candidate is not enough to win in the states that matter.
brush
(53,475 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)Bernie made a pledge when he ran in the Democratic primaries. It was to support the Democratic nominee for President who emerged from the primaries, and to not run himself as either an Independent or on a Third Party line if he lost the Democratic nomination. He kept that pledge. Stein offered to step aside as the Green presidential nominee and to give that slot to Bernie if he wanted. Bernie did not take that offer. He supported Hillary. Many blast Stein even now for having the nerve to not be a Democrat and still run for President, thus "stealing" rightful Democratic votes.
I can understand where you are coming from, it makes sense on the surface. But in a functional two party governing system not everyone fits neatly into slot A or B. We are mad as hell whenever anyone runs outside of the Democratic Party anywhere to the left of Republicans. Jill Stein gets almost as much hate here as Trump.
We don't get to have it both ways. We can't both blast someone for running against Democrats from the left, like Stein, but also deny someone with values overall consistent with the Democratic Party "tent" to run as a Democrat, even when they pledge to support the eventual Democratic nominee if it is not them. Someone like Bernie can only end up as the Democratic nomination if the official Democratic Convention supports him. Since that's the case AND IF he pledges to support whoever the Convention chooses and to not at any point after the primaries begin to quit and run third party against that person, that seems like a fair bargain to me and a good way of preventing a popular independent leftist challenger in November from handing the presidency to Republicans.
No one has to support him if they don't want to, for whatever reason, including the fact that he identifies as an Independent. It really is that simple.
kentuck
(110,950 posts)Independents could very possibly be the deciding force in the next presidential election. They could be the majority over both the Democratic and the Republican Parties.
Donald Trump has divided the Republicans big time. He does not have any votes guaranteed beyond his radical base. Many Republicans will be looking for another option, any option. Except they will not vote for the Democratic Party. But they would vote for the right Independent.
The Democratic Party is nowhere as united as many on this thread seem to think. Bernie Sanders proved that in the last election. If Democrats cannot take back the House and/or Senate in 2018, many Democrats are likely to leave the Party for the Independent candidate that might be running in 2020.
Independents make up a large proportion of voters in this country. In some states, such as Colorado, there are more registered Independents than Democrats or Republicans. Unfortunately, Democrats are whistling past the graveyard if they think the Party is going to come together and sing Kumbaya for the next election. It is much more complicated than that. There is a real threat hiding in the deep weeds.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)There's nothing to be gained by officially excluding the guy, or by doing what some would want and barring the Our Revolution group as an organization from the party, or by treating Sanders supporters as though they have no place in this party at all other than as disconnected individuals obligated to start all over from nothing and then expect to be told to just shut up and defer to what everybody else wants.
All that can come of that is the permanent absence from political involvement of the huge number of people who were inspired by the guy. We need their votes and we need their trust and enthusiasm if we're to win.
To get their votes and involvement, it is essential to accept that what they support be considered a legitimate part of the Democratic conversation-a conversation about the future, not the past. That doesn't mean supporting everything the Sanders campaign advocated-it mainly just means adding as much of the economic sensibility as possible, and also probably at least a slightly less hawkish foreign policy than we've had in past decades/.
There's no reason to be distrustful of all Sanders supporters or automatically hostile to everything they want.
For one thing, they are just as antiracist, pro-LGBTQ and prochoice as anyone else in the party.
When you subtract the small online 'bro contingent, they are as polite, respectful, open to dialog and cooperation as anybody else.
And they have a lot of energy and commitment they are willing to bring to the party.
Let's stop looking at this through the prism of '16-we need to be past that now.
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)then I don't know what is. Some people on this board still fighting 2016.
And then they go to other threads and complain about people being too "divisive", about circular firing squads, etc.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)trueblue2007
(17,138 posts)He can't be allowed to hurt other Democrats who run for president.
Kingofalldems
(38,361 posts)That shows a total lack of respect.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)whose campaign included Sanders-like ideas on economic justice?
If we don't have a candidate like that, how do we ask(or as some would insist, simply DEMAND)that people who support those ideas vote for our ticket at all?
It's not as though the party can expect loyalty from people whose ideas are proscribed.
What I'm asking here is this...can you separate the ideas from the dislike you feel for the person.
betsuni
(25,135 posts)and "taking it over" and whatnot is about. In that case, there will be less objection to Sanders running as a Democrat in 2020. That's all. Geez, I'm slow.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)It's only going to harden divisions. I also think it virtually impossible for the DNC to take that position since it would alienate so many potential voters. Also, it's simply not worth that level of division over someone whose age means it would be very difficult for him to be a competitive candidate in future elections.
If he is able to run in 2020, the electorate can decide if they want him. I also tend to think if he does run in 2020, it will be as an independent anyway. My sense is he no longer thinks he needs the Democratic party for resources or media exposure, the reason he gave for seeking the Democratic nomination in 2016.
We have far more proximate and important things to worry about than 2020. The continual fixation on presidential candidates weakens the party. We've become a party that looks to the presidency as a parent, waiting for them to tell us what to do. I submit that is a major reason why the party has lost so much ground. Democrats focus so much on the presidency and ignore the local and state races where most of the power is actually held.
It also encourages a top down view of politics in which the people are more subjects than citizens.
Honestly, at this point I can't think of anything that matters less than 2020 presidential candidates.
People need to take seriously the responsibility of self-government and quit looking for national daddy figures.
If this party is going to be stuck in 2016 forever, we deserve to lose.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)JDC
(10,084 posts)If Bernie Runs, I think the DNC will gobble him up. He is probably the most popular politician in the country. It may not feel like it here, but that guy has a a lot of juice that should not be overlooked, nor poo-poo'ed because our feeelings are hurt over Hillary. And mine are.
lovemydogs
(575 posts)It's 2017. I am a Bernie supporter but, man, I don't care about 2020 right now. I am so sick of the whole pie fight over Bernie v. Hillary supporters/Liberal v. progressives. I am sick to death of who is pure and who is a true democrat.
Besides, I believe 2018 is what we need to concern ourselves with.
And other more immediate problems over whether someone thinks someone is running in 3 years
QC
(26,371 posts)standingtall
(2,785 posts)If he would've stayed in the Democratic party after the primary then maybe. I could handle his criticism of Clinton,but his claims the primary was rigged against him leaves a bad taste in my mouth especially sense he had no chance of winning. Many still repeat that claim today it served to foster resentment which lead to people writing in Bernie on election day.
If he runs at all in 2020 he can only be a spoiler. If if runs in the Democratic primary he will be a wedge candidate and if he runs as an independent he doesn't have snowballs chance in hell of winning the presidency.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)JPR = jackpine radicals.
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)Now guess what they count for with the DNC.
TheDebbieDee
(11,119 posts)So we can listen to Bernie supporters cry about the "MILLIONS of Bernie votes that were trashed by the DNC" to throw the primary to their favored candidate - even though the DNC doesn't have anything to do collecting and tabulating the primary votes! That's a function of the state election commission...
There is no way in hell that I will vote for Sen Sanders over ANY Democrat!