I sense some people aren't happy with party rules

[gratuitous]

You want the Democratic party tailored to suit you? Great. Just remember that the rules that are in place now were hammered out over the years by party activists who have been here for a long time before you got interested in politics. But if you want things in the party to change, come on in. Go to meetings. Build your credibility. Serve on committees. Phone bank. Canvass neighborhoods. Give money. Solicit donations.

But don't come striding in the front door three months in and expect everything to be ordered to your specification. You've got a lot of work ahead of you before that happy day.

[MFM008]

1. Thats what ive said

You SAY your a democrat.
You want to run as a democrat.
You agree to democrat rules and regulations and run in the framework of being a democrat.
You start out all democraty
then as you fall behind the other democrat
you start thinking you are more important than the rules.
You love the crowds, people interview you, the lights
the yelling, the signs, you begin to believe your spin.
you get 100% percent of the delegates from the state of denial.

[gratuitous]

3. I wouldn't apply it any particular candidate

But there are a lot of folks interested in politics for the first time this go-round. Some of party politics doesn't make any sense to a newcomer. This is just a reminder that politics has been going on for a while prior to 2016, and there is a rhyme and a reason why things are the way they are.

[KPN]

12. The parties have rigged the system to preserve their hierarchical, authoritative control

and power. They have been self-serving, which in itself is only natural and not necessarily bad, so long as they are true to the purposes they claim and expectations they create among voters. For a very long time now, that hasn't been the case -- they just haven't done that very well if at all.

So, that's the "rhyme and reason" as many of us see it. We are going to demand change whether we've participated beyond just voting in the past or not. You don't really think it's just first timers for whom party politics today doesn't make sense, do you?

[TeamPooka]

21. Your premise is false and I can prove it. The GOP has changed radically in the last 8 years

due to the active takeover of the Republican Party by their Tea Party faction.
They moved in and took over by getting involved, going to meetings in Off year election cycles and pushing their agenda in the primaries.
Tea Partiers own Washington DC right now.
Liberals can take over the DNC too.
You just have to do the work over a longer period of time.
It starts at the local state level and moves up.
You can say the parties are rigged to protect the insiders but Republicans like Eric Cantor will prove your premise wrong.
What you do/did this year is fine. But, it's not just about who is going to be President this time, so if I see everyone supporting Bernie now still here and actively working on their liberal causes in 2018 I'll be impressed.

[Amimnoch]

47. How sensible. I love it.

I've been saying since this began that the place to start the movement wasn't with the office of the POTUS. It's changing congress. The tea partiers, for all of their crazy notions did get that part right. You change congress, you change the entire conversation and formulation of laws. You elect a POTUS and nothing else.. You have very close to nothing.

[TeamPooka]

48. that's right. nt

[KPN]

57. OK, can't argue with that. But you misinterpret and assign faulty definitions to my premise.

The Tea Party did not take the long arduous road of playing the party game. They didn't work years and years within the Party according to party tradition and establishment "rules" to accomplish what they have. They were a movement that took over the Party (with the GOP's naive assistance) -- in relatively short and efficient fashion. Eight years is a blink of an eye. The same thing may well happen to the Democratic Party -- soon, that is if the Party doesn't drive the Bernie/Occupy element out. ... Bottom line, it took a movement in the GOP and it will take a movement to change the D Party.

The Democratic Party is rigged -- as is the GOP. The only difference between the two at this point in that regard is the GOP lost control of an outside movement it aided, abetted and invited into it with open arms. The Democratic Party is doing everything it can to stifle the current progressive movement. Anyone who can't see that isn't paying attention or is in denial in my view.

By the way, I and many other Bernie supporters here keep saying for quite a while now that you folks just don't get it. It's not about Bernie, it's not about this election. It's about a corrupt system that works against the average American's economic interests. We aim to change that -- by working within the Party if possible, but otherwise if not -- and soon. The otherwise may come sooner than later depending on how the convention goes and how the Party responds to Berners going forward.

[reACTIONary]

50. All effective organizations are....

..... hierarchical and have authoitative decision making procedures. And those that aren't effective wither away.

[brush]

51. Yes. Occupy anyone?

[TreasonousBastard]

2. A--Men! I remember when I lived in Elizabeth, NJ and there were...

three, count 'em, THREE, Democratic parties battling it out.

I'm now a member of two town committees, and the difference is night and day. Each one has to be dealt with in a different way.

And I have seen so many people walk in the door when we have a candidate who sparkles in their eyes-- they are clueless what to do but lecture us on how things oughtta be.

[glowing]

4. Yes, you young-ins, know your place, even though

We refuse to leave you an inhabitable planet...

[aikoaiko]

5. Sure that is the classic establishment route to change

But organizational change also happens fast sometimes when newcomers point out the problems with existing systems.


We need both.

[KPN]

13. Exactly!

[kayakjohnny]

6. It's not the rules.

It's the party.

[kayakjohnny]

7. And yet another poster failing to see the irony in his own username.

[kayakjohnny]

8. As in...

gra·tu·i·tous
ɡrəˈt(y)o͞oədəs/
adjective
adjective: gratuitous

1.
uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted.

[Skittles]

18. so you think I am a bag of candy?

[passiveporcupine]

22. Yes...you are!

And don't let anyone carry you around if they are wearing a hoodie.

[Skittles]

31. Skittles was my cat

but I am pleased that my DU name now also honors Trayvon, albeit in a very poignant, tragic way - yes indeed

[passiveporcupine]

34. What an adorable cat name

Last edited Sun Jun 5, 2016, 08:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Was it a calico?

BTW, my favorite name I've ever heard for a cat was "Ouch".

I should have used my favorite cat's name...Hoochie!

BTW, I'd be proud to wear your moniker too!

[kayakjohnny]

26. Oh that was good.

Did not see that coming.

I think I know what's next.

[kayakjohnny]

28. A particular scheduling....

[Skittles]

32. you're on the list

but way down, since you readily conceded the error of your ways

[kayakjohnny]

36. You are funny!

And you always have been.

May we all go out in a glorious blaze, if we are to go.

And may someone always be there to administer a proper ass-kicking,

if we should be so deserving.

You have been one of my faves...

Love, love. love you.....

[Skittles]

38. awwwwwwww

BACK AT YA BABE!

[Surya Gayatri]

9. A-friggin'-men! A massive K & R.

[KPN]

14. Hahaha. Silly believer you.

Do you really think the parties are out for you and your welfare? The parties have rigged the system to preserve their hierarchical, authoritative control and power. Participating in their game is the long, torturous and probably impossible way to achieve real change in party politics. The only thing that will really achieve that is a mass of people so great that it can overwhelm the vested interests that inhabit the two parties in large numbers. A popular mass movement is a much more expedient and effective way to upset that apple cart.

The parties have been self-serving, which in itself is only natural and not necessarily bad, so long as they are true to the purposes they claim and expectations they create among voters. For a very long time now, that hasn't been the case -- neither party has done that very well, if at all, where the average American is concerned.

Here's hoping your apple cart gets upset!

[A Simple Game]

20. And what is the main argument against Bernie? That he isn't really a Democrat.

So what, tell me why Hillary is the better candidate, don't tell me who has been a party member the longest. That doesn't qualify anyone for any job. Few Hillary supporters argue that she is better on the issues. None dare tell the truth, they are voting for the woman.

I doubt either present majority party will be a major party in 10 years. It is just too easy to see major party candidates as being for the candidate including their family and friends first, the party second, donors third and the Country last if at all.

[KPN]

56. You either didn't read my post and upstream posts or responded to the wrong post?

Bernie's head and shoulders the better candidate ... and would be the better President imo.

[A Simple Game]

61. I responded to your post because I agreed with it, and yes Bernie is the only major party candidate

worth voting for this election.

Sorry if you didn't see my agreement about party politics. Party before Country has given us the quality of candidates, other than Bernie, that we see today.

It's possible I misread your post, or that you misread mine, either way no big deal.

[Javaman]

64. +1000. nt

[w4rma]

10. Democrats lost 900+ state legislative, 13 Senate, 69 U.S. House seats and 12 governorships.

Since President Obama’s election, Democrats have lost more than 900 state legislative seats, 13 Senate seats, 69 U.S. House seats and 12 governorships.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/democrats-release-autopsy-report-after-2014-election-failures

Whatever the DNC is doing, they are doing it wrong. At this rate, the only "Democrats" left will be the most hardheaded, obtuse, variety who doesn't want to grow the party as long as they are the biggest fish in their small ponds.

[KPN]

15. I think we're already there, no?

[justiceischeap]

16. We've lost these positions mostly because of GOP gerrymandering

The DNC has no control over how Republucans get to draw their district lines this time around. It's been very effective for them.

[truebluegreen]

33. Hard to lose governorships and Senate seats

due to gerrymandering. Just sayin.'

[elljay]

41. They got to gerrymander

in the first place because Dems didn't bother to show up to vote. There is a level of personal responsibility that those non-voters need to take, but also some responsibility goes to our very inept DNC. They seem to have no clue how to get current Dems to vote nor how to attract the many independent voters. I'd suggest they take some lessons from the Sanders campaign, but we all know that they won't, which is why they need to go if the party is to flourish.

[passiveporcupine]

30. Could not have said it better!

[appalachiablue]

45. + 5. Disaster- DNC, DWS, Dem. Party unless & until there's major, progressive change.

[Omaha Steve]

46. FIRE DWS! Donate to Democratic Underground for Tim Canova FL-23 here

Donate to Democratic Underground for Tim Canova FL-23 here: https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/du4timcanova

[MisterP]

11. these were all people drummed out by decades of their critical needs going unmet,

of decades of meetings and committees and donations and door-knocking and then being told "thanks for the ballots and the dollars, cogs: don't come back for another 22 months"

these are votes of legitimation, not representations

there's only one candidate who's had every rule bent and broken for her sake

[KPN]

17. Spot on!

[ConservativeDemocrat]

40. "Their critical needs going unmet" = "Outvoted because people thought them kooks"

Like the nutcase belief that "there's only one candidate who's had every rule bent and broken for her sake".

I guarantee you, I've done more for the Democratic party and the center left, than all these counterproductive crybabies.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[avaistheone1]

60. +10000%

[TBF]

19. Why would you assume we haven't been around

and haven't been involved? After all of this obvious election fraud you are going to be lucky to have a party remaining (and I say that as someone who has lived within the beltway, voted for every democratic candidate for president since 1992, and served as a precinct chair). This time I not only donated to Bernie but maxed out. If the nomination is stolen from him I will be changing my registration to unaffiliated here in TX.

I won't even go into what this will do to the new folks who only found the party because of Bernie. This is a whole generation of young folks you are screwing over. What a strategy. Makes me wonder who the "leaders" of the party really support.

[w4rma]

24. Apathy in the primaries. Obedience in the general. They want to be the biggest fish in a small pond.

They support themselves and their golden parachutes, after they "retire" from "public service".

[TBF]

63. Sadly that seems to be the case -

I would like to give some of these folks more credit than that, but I can't come up with why they would pick the lesser candidate to run against Trump in the general.

[Omaha Steve]

23. I sense some people don't know party history like Hillary trying to change rules in 08 mid-primary

Now criticize her too or I suggest you self delete your OP for being wrong!

OS

http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2008/june/clinton_candidacy/hillary_timeline_09.html

May 31, 2008 The Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee decides to give only half-votes to delegates from Michigan and Florida. Both states held unsanctioned primaries, which Clinton won. The move dashes Clinton's hope that a rule change would help her close the delegate gap with Obama

http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20080529/Opinion/805290418

The tight primary fight between Obama and Clinton is the reason why this has become a radioactive issue. Despite public statements to the contrary last year and now that Obama is on the verge of clinching the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton has insisted on counting the beauty contest votes as legitimate and seating the delegations according to those votes.

While claiming to speak for the disenfranchised voters in Florida and Michigan — and while counting these votes into her overall popular vote total to make the case for her nomination — Clinton often fails to note the obvious: These major rule changes as the contest nears the end would benefit her and her alone.

[Jopin Klobe]

39. Thank you ...

... now, if this country only had Media that would actually work for all Americans, we would actually have investigative reporting ...

... I expect you'll be getting a legal letterhead from Brock whining, "Stop being mean* to Hillary." ...

*(telling the truth about)

[retrowire]

43. This. nt

[passiveporcupine]

25. "I sense some people aren't happy with party rules" ???

I sense some people are scared of "losing control of 'their' protected system" and are desperate to rewrite the rules. I sense some people don't even know the party rules or they wouldn't be so upset about people challenging the way things are being done (against party rules).

And some people are so afraid they might not win, they have to enforce what they "think" are party rules, in spite of what the spokesperson for the DNC has said they are.

[bluestateguy]

27. I'd like to see many changes in 2020

Eliminate superdelegates for 1st round convention balloting. We only should need SD's in the event of a 2nd ballot at the convention.

Get rid of caucuses. Undemocratic and very difficult for shift workers and workers not lucky enough to control their own work schedules.

Promote closed primaries, by penalizing states have open or semi-open primaries, by way of deducting some of their delegates. But, states that simply can't have closed primaries because they don't have party registration (Michigan, Texas, etc.) would be exempted from this penalty.

Have a lottery to determine which states get to go first (if they want to go first, that is). What makes Iowa and New Hampshire so special?

[elljay]

44. I would add

remove the impediments to Independents registering as Dems. We should be encouraging them, not preventing them from voting because they didn't register as a Democrat 6 months before like in NY. That was ridiculous.

[Scootaloo]

29. What is a Democrat to you?

Is it merely anyone with the right registration, or does it actually mean something besides carrying a card?

[Jopin Klobe]

35. To quote Debbie Wasserwhocares ...

DNC chair says superdelegates ensure elites don’t have to run “against grassroots activists” ...
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/13/un_democratic_party_dnc_chair_says_superdelegates_ensure_elites_dont_have_to_run_against_grassroots_activists/

... and, then, they send out e-mails, letters and fliers begging for money to "help the grassroots efforts of the Democratic Party" ...

... because, you see, they think that we're as ignorant as the congenital idiots on the so-called "Republican" side ...

... and we're not ...

... and we won't slavishly pledge our loyalty to anyone or any organization that thinks they can get away with it ...

... by the by ... how're those transcripts of positive speeches to the thieves who stole our tax money to fund their God damned looting coming along? ...

[davidthegnome]

37. Party activists?

That's not all good, you know. Some of those party activists are lobbyists, some join the political game to make money and build influence - certainly not to serve their fellow human beings. Frankly, I encourage everyone to get on board and do what they can to encourage changes that they believe in - particularly those of a progressive sort. There's a lot of things that can be done to create positive change - and some of them can happen quickly - some of them should, a couple of them have to, if we are to have a future.

The future of politics, I think... social media. It's going to be a lot harder to hide the kind of crap that goes on behind closed doors - and how certain "party activists" from our own ranks support conservative policies and ideologies. Or how we ended up with a system of "super delegates". It's not a good system, it's financially corrupt, it's broken, it's shady, crooked - and altogether rather broken. So I welcome new blood both young and own to help us bring about the changes we not only desire - but need.

No one reasonable expects everything about the party to change to suit them. To speak of the many injustices, flawed politics, closed door deals, dirty money politics and so on and so forth... is but to acknowledge the truth and to condemn corruption and those who both participate in it and encourage it. To not demand change, to not work for it, is, I think, about as undemocratic as we can be.

The things you are suggesting are not bad ideas - but it seems you have a certain level of contempt for new democrats. I suspect that a lot who join up are just realizing the truth about our political system and it's many, many issues. Of course they're angry, of course they're upset. Of course they want change NOW. So do I. We needed it yesterday. We needed it before 2000 when an election was stolen right out of our hands. We needed it before the Iraq war when an entire Nation was manipulated into engaging in an unjust... even criminal war.

Do you know who the democratic party is tailored to suit right now? It's not democrats in general, young or old. It's not the general public. It's the haves and the have mores. Things need to change - and I welcome those who want to bring that change - I'll be there to help them in that fight.

As regards credibility... the democratic party has a lot... a whole lot of work to do, to rebuild it's own. Perhaps new people with some notion of integrity and justice might help with that.

[retrowire]

42. That's right Hillary Supporters.

A contested convention is totally playing by the rules so stop crying about it.

[reACTIONary]

52. Contested ? Go for it.....

..... Hillary wins, easy, on the first vote. Some contest!

[jtuck004]

49. I dropped out of high school in '71, 'cause Democrats were beating up on black kids.

It was safer to be in the nuclear program.

Salt of the earth, the sons and daughters of those who were rescued by FDR and WWII. Democrats through and through. Try driving through campaigning with a republican sign on your car you might will get a dusting of buckshot.

But there they were, teaching their kids, the ones who are late 50's and into their 60s today, how to hate these kids who just wanted to read and study.

Now, of course, we don't do such things, We just put tens of thousands of black folk in jail, if we don't kill them. And we start in grade school now. So much more civilized, eh? Pay the cops to do it for you.

So when you come tell me how the rules were established by democrats who have been around a long time and paid the price, just know that doesn't mean a damn thing to me.

'Cause hearts don't change, not really, According to a very smart democrat today, that is.

[Octafish]

53. If I make a big contribution, will I get to the head of the line?

Last edited Sun Jun 5, 2016, 09:03 PM - Edit history (1)

I noticed the rich guy got cuts.

[Maedhros]

54. I seriously doubt that the Superdelegate rules were installed by "party activists"

since they were specifically put in place to prevent activists from exercising their power:

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/13/un_democratic_party_dnc_chair_says_superdelegates_ensure_elites_dont_have_to_run_against_grassroots_activists/

“What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it’s all rigged?” Tapper asked the DNC chair.

“Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists,” Wasserman Schultz calmly explained.

So, unfortunately, the premise of your argument is false and therefore your conclusion is false.

The Democratic Party Establishment made rules to insure their control of the nomination process. We have been watching them actively use it to do just that. It is reasonable for liberals and progressives to question and even denounce the Superdelegate rules. To insist that the rules be followed without question, and to denigrate those who refuse to do so, is the reaction of an authoritarian, not a progressive. Authoritarians insist on the status quo, progressives insist on improving it.

I am unmoved by your post.

[Quantess]

55. Your tone is sure to soothe everyone.

Whisper more sweet nothings in my ear, sweetie! How can I resist your charms? Was that cupid's arrow I felt?

How can I possibly resist voting for the candidate, after all that wonderful motivation you just gave everyone?

[Hekate]

58. Good post. Too bad the usual suspects can't hear you over the din of slogans ...

....proclaiming eternal victimhood.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

59. K&R nt

[Bluenorthwest]

62. Third generation Democrat here to say you are full of arrogant gasses.

Note dear OP, the entire point of the democratic process is that voters seek to tailor law and regulation to suit ourselves. And dear one, all the 'Party rules' you think of as Moses made got invented in my lifetime, redone and invented again.

Do you even have any vague idea of the history of the Primary process itself? Probably not.

And here's a tip. The 'I lecture you as if I have that right' tone is never going to work. Try leading by example. Tell others about all of your hard work for the Party and explain that this is why you have the right to carry on as if the universe centers itself upon you, calibrating daily to align with your current mood. That might go over better.