Do you really care

[timmymoff]

that Bernie Sanders was/is an independent running as a democrat, if so why? Is it because you believe fracking is a good democratic platform? Do you think tar sands and the keystone pipeline are a good portion of the democratic environmental platform? Is that why you care, you dislike his stances opposing them? Is it because you think Wall St. was good to us and bailing them and the banks out was necessary and they deserved to reward themselves with bonuses of our tax dollars? Why do you care how he labels himself, and if the democratic party members think these are excellent platforms to cherish are you getting out there in support of poisoning water for energy? I think it is really just a way to attempt to slam someone who holds truer democratic principles than those of the current frontrunner.

[Henhouse]

1. I would add Congress and the Supreme Court to the list because without those you won't get the other

[timmymoff]

2. I am asking about a title

and policy stances. I guarantee with Clinton as the nominee we can expect far worse results in the house and senate elections. I guess I am misunderstanding your post.

[MisterP]

3. anyone with a fleck of principle has been drummed out of the party: it's shriveled

to 26% of the electorate, and that was deliberate since the goal is to have a party of people who just vote by default, who don't hold those they elect to account so that the Rahms and Brocks can frolic and play for ever and ever on fields green with Other People's Money; the point is, all that's supposed to be left over are the sort of "progressive" that chants "send them BACK!" "kick their ASS and take their GAS!" "drill HERE drill NOW!" "let them DIE!"

so when people who got pushed out try to dismantle the electoral combine harvester the Clintons and Chicagoans built there's going to be maximum pushback (though by people without the voter enthusiasm and strength to actually back it up)

[PeaceNikki]

4. I have mixed feelings on it.

On one hand, he has spent his whole political career equating Democrats with Republicans and has done a significant amount of bashing Democrats. But now he has no problem calling himself one to gain the money and resources to run.

On the other hand, he's definitely been an ally on many many Democratic causes and caucased with us. On addition, I am glad he's smart enough to not run this party and be a huge spoiler.

I'm summary, sure, I "care". But I don't hate or love it.

[Gwhittey]

5. Sanders is not a "True Democrat"

It is not policy of the Demcrat party to help Vets. And Sanders has done too much fucking with the nice system the of ignoring vets issues by him working for passing many bills helping out Vets. I mean we can not spend money on Vets who are wounded and worthless to our wars for profit.

http://vetsforbernie.org/bernies-veterans-bills/

[xfundy]

34. "Democrat party"

Pee-yoo.

[geek tragedy]

6. Because he doesn't care about electing down ticket candidates

and building the party GOTV apparatus. He'd be willing to starve all Democrats but his own campaign of the funds they need to compete.

He's a fine fit as an Independent Senator from Vermont. He's not someone who has any business being in charge of a large, geographically diverse party.

[timmymoff]

8. want to know who is starving democrats?

The DNC and their shenanigans. they've earned every bit of disdain people feel towards them. the sooner you guys understand that the sooner we can grow. Hell a group of Bernie supporters are joining with the democratic party here, but not in the third way, we are making them shift due to stagnation. It isn't that Hillary is as bad as the gop it is more than Bernie's platform is better. The party is the one hurting themselves and this "coronation" that was planned is a large part of it.

[geek tragedy]

10. There is no coronation.

Clinton will be spending this month fighting in New York for the nomination.

She is winning because more people are voting for her.

[timmymoff]

13. There is no coronation

but not for a lack of initially trying.

[dogman]

11. Of course, who would want the Party returned to the people?

DWS and her minions are doing such a bang-up job. The elections of 2010 and 2014 are proof of how well it's being done now.

[geek tragedy]

12. The people are voting for Clinton nt

[timmymoff]

14. Seems

they are voting for both, otherwise it would be over.

[geek tragedy]

18. Majority are voting for Clinton. nt

[dogman]

19. Which candidate is expanding the Party?

The Party is not big enough to win on its own.

[timmymoff]

21. They don't want to ruffle any republican

feathers, they want to work with them. coopt them convince them. Strive to keep steering us right.

[geek tragedy]

23. Donald Trump or Ted Cruz are going to grow our party

a lot more than either of our own candidates will.

[dogman]

25. We surely have to hope so.

Independents will still most likely determine the outcome.

[geek tragedy]

26. Yes, but most independents aren't independent.

A lot of independents don't register as Republicans because they think Republicans don't cut taxes and spending enough. Hard to believe but true.

Other independents are like Bernie Sanders who think Democrats aren't liberal enough.

And then there are the people in the middle.

[Half-Century Man]

32. Are you seriously suggesting the proper way to grow party membership is with hate?

That the "fear the other" meme is something to be intentionally cultivated?

No wonder ever since the nineties, the party membership has plummeted.

[artislife]

24. That was the complaint of the H supporters of 2008

That the Obama boys were all about electing him but not helping down tickets. Lots of teeth gnashing then. I guess this is the cry of the h supporters no matter which year it is.

[Hydra]

29. Must not be enough money in the pot for new talking points

Too much money put aside for bonuses at the end?

[artislife]

35. I think you are on to something! nt

[Avalux]

7. It seems that being a Democrat = loyalty to the Clintons and DLC.

The have hijacked the Democratic Party and thrust it to the right, requiring a litmus test for any candidate running as a Democrat, and sinking those who won't follow their rules. Oh yeah - that goes for voters too.

They can call Bernie whatever they wish, but we know he is the only one who can restore the Democratic Party.

[SusanCalvin]

9. That's the definition some are using, for sure. nt

[randome]

15. He's a loner who has failed to build coalitions or even to make many friends in Congress.

It's one thing to proclaim that you are "not business as usual" (and what politician doesn't say that?), it's quite another to prove you have what it takes to make a team work. He doesn't have the charisma and he doesn't have the patience to build a team. He's a loner. That doesn't work for turning the heavy ship of statecraft in the direction it needs to go.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[dogman]

22. That is why the Democrats gave him a committee chairmanship right?

Is this why he is known as the amendment king? Your lack of knowledge about him does not make your suppositions a fact.

[TM99]

27. And yet he and a Democrat

have co-chaired the progressive caucus which he founded decades ago.

And yet he is the 'amendment king' which requires solid and positive working relationships with both sides of the aisle.

So in other words, you are factually incorrect and like most Clinton supporters, you are pushing a 'reality' (I use that term lightly) that is solely your own.

[randome]

33. Serving on a committee hardly qualifies one as a leader.

Why does he have so few Congressional endorsements? Are they all afraid of Clinton? I hardly think so. If he can't rally the Democratic Party to his side, then he has no end game, no strategy. Talking is one thing, actually leading is another.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[TM99]

36. Two completely different points but thanks for trying

to conflate them.

He has been a mayor, founder of the progressive caucus, and chair of several committees over the years. He has more executive experience than Clinton.

He has endorsements from those willing to stand up to the Clinton Machine. Google TYT and the Clinton control for the facts yet again to counter your fantasies.

[livetohike]

16. I care. He is 74 years old and never a registered Democrat. Why now?

It makes him look like a user.

[timmymoff]

20. or the democrats are the users

and he is fixing it. After all they were more than happy to use his votes. the real thing is he is more of a democrat than the current democrats. he is better on economic justice. He is better on social justice. He is stronger on privacy etc. Better foreign policy without a doubt.

[Dem2]

17. I don't care at all

He's been caucusing with Democrats since forever, so it's no issue for me.

[ladjf]

28. Very good post. nt

[Hydra]

30. I'm an Independent Socialist that supports non-RW Dem policies

The Dem establishment touts the need for Indy support to win elections- but damn if they don't tell us to shut up about what we support and want from our Gov't!

That's mostly how I read this latest talking point. "How DARE Bernie come in and talk about how we used to care about people and had policies that actually worked for someone other than the 1%. That was so Pre-Reagan. Money(Mammon) our God now."

[CharlotteVale]

31. What I care about is that every single "Democrat" in Congress isn't just like Bernie!