'16 Democratic Nomination Thread

[DMT]

It's like the Ring. Bernie got closer than he ever expected and couldn't resist abandoning everything to claim the ultimate prize.

He has zero chance of winning. For him to continue his efforts to sabotage Clinton is becoming more unforgivable each passing day. And I not only voted for him but volunteered.

[heyelander]

Sanders is the other side of the Trump coin. As GitH has said, his supporters are out to break the system, not support it.

[DMT]

I am a Sanders supporter, as is my wife, my mother, my mother-in-law, and multiple other people in my family and circle of friends. None of us subscribe to the notion that we should be out to break the system, mostly because we are not little children or edgy teenagers. The people who get hurt when you "break the system", whatever the fuck that really means, are those who need the system the most --- the disabled, children, the poor, and the elderly. And those are the groups that Bernie Sanders the candidate purports to want to help the most.

Yet, by continuing to tacitly encourage his reckless supporters who are out to 'break the system', he is undermining his platform IMO.

[heyelander]

Yet, by continuing to tacitly encourage his reckless supporters who are out to 'break the system', he is undermining his platform IMO.

But at least they will be proven right.

[baldgriff]

We all understand that the DNC can run their party however they want - and play by whatever rules they want (including the SuperDelegate thing being in existence for the last 40ish years.

That said, there have been so many instances - across multiple states - where either the voters or delegates have been disenfranchised to the benefit of HRC that it doesnt surprise me that these new political activists are frustrated by a process that has seemed to "play favorites". If your candidate wasnt getting a fair shake, due to rule changes, "mis-communications", and potential voter tampering/fraud - well it may seem reasonable to blow the existing system up.

The DNC's convention could well be more interesting to watch than the RNC's.

Gonna be interesting either way.

As an aside - I dont see HRC having the charisma that could potentially bring the party together.

[Ken]

How about this, I saw you for what? 4-5 minutes in Dallas? I knew immediately you weren't thrilled to see me, not that you were unhappy, just non-plussed. I knew you'd decline my offer to join us for a drink before I asked, but asked anyway. And I knew there was no way you'd visit the next day even if it was to just say hi if by chance you had to drop your son off.

I knew this all withing a few minutes.

I get it, I'm not your favorite guy. I do appreciate your efforts to play nice here and your civility in person. But we both know how it is.

And even if I'm wrong about your feelings toward me, I wasn't wrong in my immediate assessment of your mood and demeanor going forward.

Well, this is a bit awkward... I like you both. It was good to finally meet you this year, Doig, and I enjoyed the company/beer after the AL only auction.

And Lucky, it's good to see you at the auction every year, and I enjoy our email correspondence afterwards. Good conversations every time.

Sorry to see you two not getting along!

-Ken

[Hodor]

Well, this is a bit awkward... I like you both. It was good to finally meet you this year, Doig, and I enjoyed the company/beer after the AL only auction.

And Lucky, it's good to see you at the auction every year, and I enjoy our email correspondence afterwards. Good conversations every time.

Sorry to see you two not getting along!

-Ken

Ahh that's okay, people like you or they don't.

I'm not the kind of person who isn't completely transparent. In fact I am probably too candid.

Lucky is a great guy and it's my loss not to have him as a friend. But as they say, it is what it is and I am definitely an acquired taste.

[chancellor]

It's like the Ring. Bernie got closer than he ever expected and couldn't resist abandoning everything to claim the ultimate prize.

He has zero chance of winning. For him to continue his efforts to sabotage Clinton is becoming more unforgivable each passing day. And I not only voted for him but volunteered.

Meh. I disagree. If Hillary can't manage to handle the challenge of Sanders through the convention, she sure as heck isn't handling Trump. Now, if Bernie would not endorse her or run third party, that would be unforgivable

[Lucky]

Ahh that's okay, people like you or they don't.

I'm not the kind of person who isn't completely transparent. In fact I am probably too candid.

Lucky is a great guy and it's my loss not to have him as a friend. But as they say, it is what it is and I am definitely an acquired taste.

I know I have a tendency to rub people the wrong way, but I think I'm too old to change very much.

It probably sounds contradictory, but I didn't mean anything personal. As you said, it is what it is.

[Lucky]

We all understand that the DNC can run their party however they want - and play by whatever rules they want (including the SuperDelegate thing being in existence for the last 40ish years.

That said, there have been so many instances - across multiple states - where either the voters or delegates have been disenfranchised to the benefit of HRC that it doesnt surprise me that these new political activists are frustrated by a process that has seemed to "play favorites". If your candidate wasnt getting a fair shake, due to rule changes, "mis-communications", and potential voter tampering/fraud - well it may seem reasonable to blow the existing system up.

The DNC's convention could well be more interesting to watch than the RNC's.

Gonna be interesting either way.

As an aside - I dont see HRC having the charisma that could potentially bring the party together.

With apologies, bg, but this is part of the problem I have with the Sanders supporters, and maybe part of what eld was talking about.

"[P]otential voter tampering/fraud"? What does that mean, anyway? I have read more than a dozen articles claiming that HRC was responsible for voter fraud, when the author was talking about 1) Maricopa County (Republicans) reducing the number of polling places, 2) various counties purging inactive voters from the rolls, which they do every cycle, and which unfortunately hit quite a few Bernie supporters this year, 3) closed primaries, which although are a bad thing, IMO, have been around forever and were not invented this year to screw Bernie, and 4) superdelegates, which, despite what Jane seemed to think, were not an unconstitutional plot against her husband, and do not count for or against anyone until the convention.

And help me out with this...why in the wide world of sports would anyone want to register as an Independent in a state like New York? Unless there is a big Independent Party Convention, you're not going to need that membership card. Why wouldn't you join the party which most closely represented your beliefs so you could vote in their primary? And hey, if joining the Democratic Party just so you can vote in the primary violates your principles, then you just need to STFU and wait until your party has a primary. You'll notice Bernie didn't wait. He joined the party so he could run as a Dem. And what if you were just too uninformed to know that you had to be a Democrat to vote in a Democratic primary? I don't think you should advertise that fact by claiming you were somehow screwed out of your "right" to vote.

Of course, backwards states like Arkansas have "open" primaries. You can vote in the primaries of the Republican, Democratic, or any other parties which have primaries on the day set aside for this purpose. There is no party registration, but you cannot vote cross ballots. The only restriction is that if you vote in the Democratic primary and there is a run-off in a Republican race, you cannot vote in that run-off, and vice versa. Of course, there are some people who just can't understand why not.

[In the Corn]

The Democratic Party needs to take their share of the blame on this raging fire from people feeling the Bern. They didn't have to allow him to run under their banner. They took him in and gave him a platform. He has done an exceedingly good job of using said platform, just as Trump did with the Republican Party.

Sanders, seeming the maverick, might just decide after the convention, "I don't need your f-in' party. I'm running independent." if the Party doesn't do something to appease him and his followers.

[Lucky]

The Democratic Party needs to take their share of the blame on this raging fire from people feeling the Bern. They didn't have to allow him to run under their banner. They took him in and gave him a platform. He has done an exceedingly good job of using said platform, just as Trump did with the Republican Party.

Sanders, seeming the maverick, might just decide after the convention, "I don't need your f-in' party. I'm running independent." if the Party doesn't do something to appease him and his followers.

ITC, so far as I recall, the Democratic Party has always allowed members of the Party to run for any office for which they were eligible. Bernie had joined the Party, so he could run. Had he been a Nazi, or something worse, I'm sure they wouldn't have let him join the Party, but he had fine record as a Senator and had caucused with the Party for years, so there was absolutely no reason to refuse him membership, and then by extension, the right to run as a candidate for the Presidency. I don't think the Party regrets it. I think they regret that it has become more acrimonious than anyone expected.

[chancellor]

I know I have a tendency to rub people the wrong way, but I think I'm too old to change very much.

Shoot, I wish I'd have the opportunity to meet you in person. And I'd buy.

[In the Corn]

ITC, so far as I recall, the Democratic Party has always allowed members of the Party to run for any office for which they were eligible. Bernie had joined the Party, so he could run. Had he been a Nazi, or something worse, I'm sure they wouldn't have let him join the Party, but he had fine record as a Senator and had caucused with the Party for years, so there was absolutely no reason to refuse him membership, and then by extension, the right to run as a candidate for the Presidency. I don't think the Party regrets it. I think they regret that it has become more acrimonious than anyone expected.

Lucky, my point being that they knew full well they were bringing in an outsider, even when they allowed him to caucus with them in Congress. I'm sure his voting record aligned with the Democrats, but a leopard only changes it's spots when it doesn't want to be devoured. Bernie, and his advisors, at some point have realized he has a stronger voice than they originally thought. They may feel he has created enough buzz that he doesn't need the party anymore to win.

[Lucky]

Lucky, my point being that they knew full well they were bringing in an outsider, even when they allowed him to caucus with them in Congress. I'm sure his voting record aligned with the Democrats, but a leopard only changes it's spots when it doesn't want to be devoured. Bernie, and his advisors, at some point have realized he has a stronger voice than they originally thought. They may feel he has created enough buzz that he doesn't need the party anymore to win.

I don't disagree with that. They did know full well what they were bringing in. But your post said they didn't have to allow him to run under their banner, and my understanding is that denying a bona fide member a chance to seek office would be contrary to the principles of the Party.

I've run the numbers three or four times, and I don't think there is any way Bernie can win in the Electoral College. He would have to take, if I remember my most recent calculations, Hillary's support down to 20%, while knocking around 18% off Trump's support, losing nothing to Trump nor Hillary from his own supporters by leaving the Party, and also adding around 5 million additional voters who would all vote for him. These could be switched around a little, but I thought this was his most likely scenario, assuming we would go well over the 131 million voters we had in 2008.

But I'm not a big numbers guy. I work more in bullsh*t.