Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

dana_b

(11,546 posts)
Thu May 26, 2016, 03:16 PM May 2016

Q&A: Bernie Sanders on the Future of the Democratic Party

Sam Frizell @Sam_Frizell 6:30 AM ET

In a wide-ranging interview with TIME for this week’s cover story, Bernie Sanders opened up about his frustrations with Hillary Clinton and laid out a new vision for the Democratic Party.

snip

He denied that he is hurting Clinton’s bid against presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, suggesting that she is a weak candidate in a general election. That a person like [Donald Trump] is actually beating or close to Hillary Clinton in national polls is pathetic,” Sanders told TIME. He also expressed deep bitterness about the campaign against the Clintons, who he said have repeatedly distorted his record. He had especially harsh words for David Brock, the operative leading the pro-Clinton super PAC Correct the Record.

“What the Clinton people do very well which is what modern politics is about is you spin,” Sanders said. “I don’t think you hire scum of the Earth to be on your team just because the other side does it.” “They play very dirty,” he added.

snip
How would you rewrite the Democratic Party’s rules for primaries?

There are some obvious no-brainers to me. Independents, people who classify themselves as independents, are the fastest growing part of American politics. More and more people, especially young people consider themselves independents. They are not enamored with either political party. So the idea that you could go to New York State and compete. And I competed in the New York primary there and 3 million independents were denied the right to vote in either the Democrat or Republican primary is totally absurd given the context of American politics today. We ended up breaking even in Kentucky, a closed primary. And I think we’re going to end up doing a lot better in California, because it’s going to be semi-open. But in general if you want to win national elections, general elections with the strongest candidate, how do you deny that group of Americans, who are the largest group, from participating? They are going to vote in the general election, right? They have a right to vote in the New York State primary the Kentucky primary and many other primaries. So opening up the primary process to all people seems to me to make a lot of sense.

One of the problems we’re dealing with, Secretary Clinton received the support of over 400 superdelegates before anybody else announced for the race. That’s called an anointment. Then you raise all kinds of money on top of that. You try to end the nominating process before the first ballot is cast. I think they have been shocked that as we sit here in late May we have a shot to win the California primary on June 7. That I think they never believed would happen. They wanted to end this thing before the first ballot was cast. That is totally absurd and it’s absurd for two reasons. It is clearly undemocratic. It is a way for the establishment to push their candidate forward. I am the strongest candidate to beat Donald Trump. That is objectively the truth. You may like me, you may not like me, but that is the fact. But not to take that into consideration and say, “I support Hillary Clinton,” back in April 2015, that’s a pretty dumb process. I think we have to absolutely rethink the role of superdelegates. I can’t give you a definitive answer, but we have to make that process far, far more democratic. The role of superdelegates, if any, should be discussed. I can’t give you a definitive answer.

http://time.com/4348664/bernie-sanders-time-interview-democratic-party-hillary-clinton/

There's LOTS more at the link

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Q&A: Bernie Sanders on the Future of the Democratic Party (Original Post) dana_b May 2016 OP
Bernie - not a Socialist Democrat, but a Carpetbagger Democrat. He could have run as an independent tonyt53 May 2016 #1
Would you have rathered him done so? democrattotheend May 2016 #3
Mark the spot, tony it all looks the same RobertEarl May 2016 #4
You're right, he's not. He is a Democratic Socialist which is a very Progressive Democrat. JimDandy May 2016 #5
He's right about most of it democrattotheend May 2016 #2
Looks like this is how he will unify the party fun n serious May 2016 #6
If you are talking about me, you got that very wrong democrattotheend May 2016 #8
"but a much bigger part of me was mad that he lost" dana_b May 2016 #7
 

tonyt53

(5,737 posts)
1. Bernie - not a Socialist Democrat, but a Carpetbagger Democrat. He could have run as an independent
Thu May 26, 2016, 03:19 PM
May 2016

Now he wants to tell the Democratic Party to to operate. As a lifelong Democrat, I'll say Bernie can kiss my ass.

democrattotheend

(11,605 posts)
3. Would you have rathered him done so?
Thu May 26, 2016, 03:27 PM
May 2016

Mount a third party bid and act as a spoiler like Ralph Nader? I doubt most "lifelong Democrats" would really want that.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
4. Mark the spot, tony it all looks the same
Thu May 26, 2016, 03:32 PM
May 2016

People like you make me embarrassed to be in the same party

But we will crush the same old same old and bring the revolution to your TV and you will love it or leave it

JimDandy

(7,318 posts)
5. You're right, he's not. He is a Democratic Socialist which is a very Progressive Democrat.
Thu May 26, 2016, 03:35 PM
May 2016

As a lifelong Democrat until last week, I hope he leaves the party too!

democrattotheend

(11,605 posts)
2. He's right about most of it
Thu May 26, 2016, 03:26 PM
May 2016

The cold truth is, superdelegates were put in place after 1972 precisely to give the establishment more control and prevent candidates like Bernie from getting the nomination.

I also agree with him about it feeling like an anointment. Both in 2008 and even moreso in 2016, it felt like the party establishment was setting things up to enable Hillary to quickly lock up the nomination. The air of inevitability she projected both times was part of the reason I did not support her.

I don't 100% agree with him about not stooping to the other side's level in terms of negative campaigning. I used to, but on the day after the 2004 election, my primary sentiment wasn't "I'm glad that Kerry took the high road and didn't resort to the same lowlife Swiftboat-type attacks on Bush that were lobbed at him." Part of me felt that way, but a much bigger part of me was mad that he lost and that the Republican chickenhawks got away with their cheap attacks on his military service.

As much as I share Bernie's vision of a campaign based on issues rather than attacks, I can't support hamstringing ourselves and letting them get away with crap like what they pulled in 2004.

democrattotheend

(11,605 posts)
8. If you are talking about me, you got that very wrong
Thu May 26, 2016, 04:01 PM
May 2016

I love the guy! I don't agree with him on everything and I never did.

dana_b

(11,546 posts)
7. "but a much bigger part of me was mad that he lost"
Thu May 26, 2016, 03:46 PM
May 2016

me too. I remember feeling devastated after that loss and if Kerry had taken the "low" road, more lives may have been saved.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Q&A: Bernie Sanders on th...