General Discussion

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)

93. Suppose a candidate who doesn't meet your criterion wins the primary.

Thu Nov 30, 2017, 08:29 AM

Nov 2017

Would you argue that the party should ignore the will of the voters, and refuse to support a duly chosen nominee because he or she didn't meet the standard that you personally find appropriate?

I believe in democracy. I believe in the selection of party nominees through primaries rather than by bosses in smoke-filled rooms. For the bosses to disregard the will of the voters would be justified only in the most extraordinary cases, such as when important information comes to light after the primary (example: Roy Moore, whom the Alabama Republican Party should not be supporting). Otherwise, if it's something like party label, the solution is for those who are upset about it to back a different candidate and to make their case to the voters.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

111 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The DNC and/or state orgs should change their rules [View all] pnwmom Nov 2017 OP

100% On THis Me. Nov 2017 #1

Hillary Clinton provided 10 years; no rules necessary. brooklynite Nov 2017 #2

I think they've made something like 30 years public? Hortensis Nov 2017 #22

Five minimum, yes, seems reasonable... but, of course, the more transparency, the better. InAbLuEsTaTe Nov 2017 #102

Not everyone does...I think five years should be the minimum required. Demsrule86 Nov 2017 #68

That should be the minimum. NCTraveler Nov 2017 #3

Any candidate who only provides "summaries" ... NurseJackie Nov 2017 #64

He is one of the least transparent. NCTraveler Nov 2017 #65

Agreed Gothmog Nov 2017 #4

Unconditional GulfCoast66 Nov 2017 #5

The Democratic party CAN set qualifications for party backing. pnwmom Nov 2017 #6

Indeed. (nt) ehrnst Nov 2017 #50

Ballot access laws are going to be an issue Gothmog Nov 2017 #8

True...but, the party can set the rules. Demsrule86 Nov 2017 #70

Exactly! rogue emissary Nov 2017 #7

Why not work on campaign finance laws... -je Nov 2017 #9

Why not? Because private people are entitled to privacy. Public servants need to give pnwmom Nov 2017 #11

Running for president should have the same low standards as having any old job? bettyellen Nov 2017 #51

ahh..the old, go for the "extreme" example. BoneyardDem Nov 2017 #81

that may not mean what you think it means... -je Nov 2017 #89

now you're knocking on the conspiracy theory door... BoneyardDem Nov 2017 #90

notice the deflection of this post -je Nov 2017 #91

I directly responded and you deflected with yet another extreme example BoneyardDem Nov 2017 #96

I'll go you one better RandomAccess Nov 2017 #10

The GOP will block this Gothmog Nov 2017 #79

No reason a candidate shouldn't do this mcar Nov 2017 #12

No GOOD reason, you mean. n/t pnwmom Nov 2017 #13

So public servants have no absolute right to privacy then? -je Nov 2017 #14

No, they don't have an "absolute right to privacy." pnwmom Nov 2017 #16

Does the U.S. constitution have an entitlement to the right to privacy for citizens? -je Nov 2017 #17

Some of the important things we'd learn from his tax returns. pnwmom Nov 2017 #18

sorry red herring -je Nov 2017 #19

You're mixing issues. EVERYONE has a right to privacy, but EVERYONE doesn't necessarily.... George II Nov 2017 #61

I think most people dont have a clue whats actually on a tax return Lee-Lee Nov 2017 #24

I don't support this - I'm too much of a small d democrat. Ultimately, it's up to the voters to Midwestern Democrat Nov 2017 #15

Then you should have no problem letting big D Democrats decide who can run for our partys stevenleser Nov 2017 #21

Exactly. Adrahil Nov 2017 #73

I'm open to letting the American people vote on this Tavarious Jackson Nov 2017 #23

There should also be a rule that they had to have become a Democrat stevenleser Nov 2017 #20

I keep asking how the DNC could set such a rule and I keep not getting an answer. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #25

Its very simple. Any delegates awarded to non sanctioned candidates arent seated stevenleser Nov 2017 #27

That would be a very simple DISASTER for the Democrats Jim Lane Nov 2017 #32

Nope, you are creating a totally unrealistic scenario to force your point stevenleser Nov 2017 #35

Fortunately, I think most Democratic Party leaders are too smart to follow your suggestion. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #36

Fortunately, I think most of them realize the disaster that happened in 2016 precisely because such stevenleser Nov 2017 #55

I was the DNC RBC meeting in May 2008. lapucelle Nov 2017 #49

Thanks for the account. I am totally not surprised that it was misrepresented by the other poster. stevenleser Nov 2017 #56

As explained in #57, "the other poster" (a/k/a "that person") didn't misrepresent a thing. (n/t) Jim Lane Nov 2017 #66

Yes, it was. nt stevenleser Nov 2017 #95

The RBC decision you cite was overturned at the Convention Jim Lane Nov 2017 #57

That's not quite accurate. lapucelle Nov 2017 #86

Thanks, your clip of Ickes strongly SUPPORTS the point I made Jim Lane Nov 2017 #92

Ickes is not the Democratic Party. What actually happened refutes your point. nt stevenleser Nov 2017 #94

Actually it doesn't illustrate your claim in any way. lapucelle Nov 2017 #97

The convention did not proceed as you describe Jim Lane Nov 2017 #98

As any lawyer could tell you, lapucelle Nov 2017 #99

Thank you for recognizing the question of precedent Jim Lane Nov 2017 #100

And thank you for recognizing that a possible disaster was averted in 2008 lapucelle Nov 2017 #101

There are two separate issues-(i) state law on ballot access and (ii) party rules/platform Gothmog Nov 2017 #28

Actually the actual delegates are chosen at the state conventions Gothmog Nov 2017 #31

The method of delegate selection is a separate question. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #33

Re-read my post-there are two sets of rules (i) ballot access laws and (ii) state/DNC rules Gothmog Nov 2017 #34

If you vote in a GOP primary removed? -je Nov 2017 #37

The party is allowed under the right of association to set rules for its leaders Gothmog Nov 2017 #38

I get the rule you are stating. -je Nov 2017 #39

The Republican party tried this "tactic" in my county last September. lapucelle Nov 2017 #48

I saw Limbaugh's operation chaos in operation in 2008 and it was disgusting Gothmog Nov 2017 #58

"Re-read my post" is usually unhelpful, and such is the case here Jim Lane Nov 2017 #42

Nicely done good post. -je Nov 2017 #43

You need to read the material posted Gothmog Nov 2017 #54

Access to the data base and access to the ballot are totally different questions Jim Lane Nov 2017 #62

Again you need to read the material posted Gothmog Nov 2017 #75

Your information about STATE LAWS directly supports my point. Thank you. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #87

We could start by... Adrahil Nov 2017 #74

Who is "We"? That's not a nitpick -- it's my whole question. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #78

It's not complicated.... Adrahil Nov 2017 #83

Suppose a candidate who doesn't meet your criterion wins the primary. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #93

Openness and transparency. yallerdawg Nov 2017 #26

Democratic members of Congress have forced votes on this issue Gothmog Nov 2017 #29

I know I would never support one. yallerdawg Nov 2017 #30

How does all this tax return thing get Dem's elected? -je Nov 2017 #40

It reduces the chances of a corrupt candidate being elected. And it gives the Democrat pnwmom Nov 2017 #41

What about the moral standing... -je Nov 2017 #44

All of that is far more likely to be accomplished by a non-corrupt President. n/t pnwmom Nov 2017 #45

dismissing local political offices and congressional midterms? -je Nov 2017 #46

Yeah that's what you're doing when you call for releasing income/taxes of every US citizen. n/t pnwmom Nov 2017 #47

You don't seriously think it's an either or proposition? It's not, that's ridiculous in fact. bettyellen Nov 2017 #52

Trump has made the refusal to release tax returns an issue Gothmog Nov 2017 #59

A Democratic candidate who supports Trumps position on releasing tax returns is not a moral person Gothmog Nov 2017 #60

running a democrat candidate against sitting democrats -je Dec 2017 #103

2016 is over-I am talking about 2020 Gothmog Dec 2017 #104

"a democrat candidate"? Really? George II Dec 2017 #105

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2017 #107

As in "just a fucking idiot"? Really? George II Dec 2017 #109

That person disrupted... poorly. nt stevenleser Dec 2017 #110

Whats a Democrat candidate? lapucelle Dec 2017 #106

Post removed Post removed Dec 2017 #108

Either admins or MIRT had enough of that persons schtick and... stevenleser Dec 2017 #111

This should be a no brainer. The main reason some are arguing against it is because a certain MrsCoffee Nov 2017 #53

that act of arguing against transparency, seem so transparent BoneyardDem Nov 2017 #63

Yep Gothmog Nov 2017 #84

I agree. Demsrule86 Nov 2017 #67

It would just be symbolic. Our people historically have always released years of returns voluntarily phleshdef Nov 2017 #69

Bernie was the exception. He only released 2 pages of one year's return. n/t pnwmom Nov 2017 #71

Bernie was never nominated so thats a non-point. phleshdef Nov 2017 #72

New Jersey and other states will have ballot access laws in place by 2020 Gothmog Nov 2017 #77

No. phleshdef Nov 2017 #80

Same here Gothmog Nov 2017 #82

No, it's not. I think the Dem party should require people participating in its primaries pnwmom Nov 2017 #85

Agreed. Clean up your house before running for office. LisaM Nov 2017 #76

It would be nice, but it's not that big of a priority now imo... Blue_Tires Nov 2017 #88