The Will of Bernie

Bernie Sanders and his wife Jane seem to think that the Democratic nomination isn't about nominating a Democrat. (scroll down to 7:45 am entry.) They think non-Democrats should be allowed to dictate who the Democratic nominee should be:

In an interview with MSNBC's "Morning Joe" Thursday, Jane Sanders noted that Bernie Sanders won Rhode Island on Tuesday, which was an open primary, allowing independents as well as Democrats to vote for her husband.

"If you close the primary and you only have people who have been in the Democratic Party for years, what you are doing is effectively shutting the door on the millions of people that Bernie has brought in to the political process during this election," she said.

This isn't rocket science. There's a Democratic nominee and a Republican nominee. The Democrats nominate a Democrat and the Republicans nominate a Republican. If an outsider wants to participate, he can run as a third party candidate after being nominated by that party. [More...]

The Sanders are just plain wrong. His supporters, newly minted Democrats who registered solely to support him, do not represent the will of the Democrats. It's the will of the Democrats that matters with respect to the Democratic party nomination process. Not the will of outsiders. Sanders should have sought the nomination of a third party. He's never been a Democrat.

She also said that his campaign intends to continue through the final contest in California, despite a revelation Wednesday that the campaign plans to lay off hundreds of field staffers and other aides.

Sanders could care less about unifying the Democratic party now that it's clear he can't win. He just wants his place in the history books as someone who shook up the Democratic party. He's already earned that. Now is the time for him to think of someone besides himself. He can lobby for platform changes after he withdraws.

< House Committee Passes Bill Requiring Women to Register for Draft | Accused Planned Parenthood Shooter Found Incompetent >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I don't mind if they register to support Bernie... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by magster on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 02:05:10 PM EST
    ... as long as its not the same day. 30 days in advance seems fair. I otherwise absolutely agree that open primaries have no place in the nominating process.

    Once the registration is made and participation done, it's a foot in the door for future participation in the party, especially if the participation involved caucusing or phone banks, where personal relationships and identity can form.

    I am good with that too (none / 0) (#11)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 03:40:36 PM EST
    You ought to be able to know a month ahead of time which party's primary you want to participate in.

    And if the the localities have the poll worker staff to support same day registration, then I'd be okay with that too. I don't like to see people having to wait forever to vote because of people signing up at the last minute and the polling place was not prepared for a crowd because of so many late registrants. Some people can't afford to stand in line for hours. They are just as disenfranchised as people who could not vote because they were not registered Dem.


    I have come around to agree with this (none / 0) (#24)
    by Steve13209 on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 05:08:45 PM EST
    so long as registration can be done a month or so before the primary. I think we expand the opportunities for voting (hours, early voting, etc). This should be a Democratic Party priority since it's obvious that the more voters there are, the better the Dems do.

    new rule (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by athyrio on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 04:39:32 PM EST
    perhaps the democratic party should have a new rule saying that an individual shouldn't be allowed to run for president until he/she has been a member for 4 years and has to contribute to the downticket all of those years....

    Or at least (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 05:53:59 PM EST
    Like a transgender they have to live as a democrat for a year before the surgery.

    Ha! that is probably a good idea! (none / 0) (#41)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 06:16:24 AM EST
    I don't know about that (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 06:15:43 AM EST
    I'd rather leave it up to the voters and delegates to see if it matters to them.

    Yes, Sanders serves a purpose (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 09:29:24 AM EST
    He energizes the Leftier Left. He gives them power, he gives them push. When the entrenched leadership becomes too moderate on very important people destroying issues, let a Sanders be able to challenge them and shake them up every single time. And the degree of that Sanderesque candidates success is usually directly proportional to the failure of those who already hold the power. When challenging becomes more difficult, our abilities to be dysfunctional become stronger.

    The periodic insurgency is important (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 11:03:08 AM EST
    Sanders acted as this season's energizing moment for our Democratic Party; and, he served well in that role.  Now, imo, he has an equally important challenge because the energy of the young will need a renewed focus, a direction in the transition that is much broader than Senator Sanders.  

    In my memory, the awakening of a sense of active participation in government came during the Vietnam War ... as I'm guessing it came for a number of people who visit this site.  Transitions from the intensity of demonstrations, marches, the fervor of a cause to the actuality of progress via a government that represents the totality of the public can be difficult at any age ... especially for the young and new voters.  We all (or most all) survive their political initiation, and usually benefit and grow from the lessons learned.  But, at first, it feels like hopes dashed when everything doesn't go the way the newly-engaged dreamed.  So ... the real issue now is the manner of transition, isn't it?

    The process of transition: Senator Sanders has shown an ability to enliven and mobilize the political energy of the young in these recent months ... now that the pathway for him has been defined somewhat differently than he may have planned, the challenge he faces is even more significant.  Sanders today has the opportunity to show true leadership by helping his followers invigorate the larger Democratic polity by joining forces, by taking the longer view. At this juncture, Sanders is best positioned to encourage the unity essential to real forward movement.  A lot will be riding on the attitude that the Senator decides to adopt, the role he decides to fulfill.


    He's been a great teacher thusfar (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 11:14:32 AM EST
    He has an incredible opportunity before him

    And now (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 07:54:46 PM EST
    Jane Sanders went on FOX and asked the FBI to speed up the email investigation

    She also said that Bernie would have won over black voters if Hillary hadn't run  (apoarently, she thinks Biden would've sat out).

    Why not announce a running mate? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by ExPatObserver on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 08:14:16 PM EST
    Perhaps Pat Comey? wink wink

    Meanwhile (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by FlJoe on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 08:15:32 PM EST
    Bernie continues to bash the Democratic party Bernie Sanders, Shifting Tone, Takes On Democratic Party He is flat out refusing to become a team player and switch to a more positive tone.  

    The both of them are bitter losers and would rather burn down the house rather than gracefully play out the string.



    Translation (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 08:10:38 PM EST
    we're running out of money fast and we need a white knight to come and save us.

    Rachel (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by sallywally on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 08:37:08 PM EST
    Is "excited" to have Jane on tonight. I can't stand to watch it but I'm pretty sure the Sanders's are seeking to reformulate the Democratic party or something equally egregious and arrogant. I thought I heard something like that today....

    Just called by Hillary's campaign in Portland (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Cashmere on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 03:56:12 PM EST
    asking if I was supporting Hillary and I was happy to say yes, two supporters in my house.  She was ecstatic.  We received ballots yesterday.  The caller mentioned that most people were saying they will vote Hillary in November, but will vote Bernie in the primary.

    Most (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by FlJoe on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 06:04:27 PM EST
    us here are quite capable of finding our own personal liberalism without some troll wandering in with the same old holier than thou BS.

    the comment you are replying to (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Apr 30, 2016 at 02:11:05 AM EST
    was deleted as a personal attack. The commenter is a troll and about to be banned.

    Kapow! (none / 0) (#88)
    by NYShooter on Sat Apr 30, 2016 at 01:42:57 AM EST


    You were saying?

    (When the Klempit family's having a little friendly rumble amongst itself, don't need no outsider Zekes stick'en their grubby noses in it.)


    Jane sanders and taxes, one more time... (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by vml68 on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 09:16:25 PM EST
    I lost interest in this issue after Hillary won the NY primary.
    But, after watching this video of Jane being very confrontational, I am curious all over again!

    This is the first clip of Jane (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by ExPatObserver on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 10:01:50 PM EST
    Sanders I have seen. She has all the gravitas one would expect---that is, if a candidate were running for local school board.

    She definitely (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 30, 2016 at 09:41:44 AM EST
    acts like she has something to hide. She didn't release the worksheets that go along with 2014 either.

    Amazing ... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Nemi on Sat Apr 30, 2016 at 02:36:16 PM EST
    Jane Sanders is practically running circles around them in that video ... and they let her! Not only is she disavowing their questions as unimportant but instead of answering their questions she is asking ... no, demanding, insisting that they answer her questions!

    It really is amazing to witness how much airtime she's given and how much uninterrupted speaking time, not only in that clip, as if the pundits have reduced themselves to microphone holders, when they have her on their show. I can see how it is 'Gefundenes Fressen' for Fox News to have her on and for them not to interrupt her, but what about the rest? Why does she apparently have such a command over them? It is sort of a 'sight to behold', but a befuddling one for sure.


    what has been bugging me (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by athyrio on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 10:50:37 PM EST
    for a while now is Jane Sanders has been saying things about Hillary giving high priced speeches and no one else has in republican races as well as Bernie...what no one mentions is that senators and congress persons aren't allowed to give paid speeches for a buck or a million bucks...Hillary gave those speeches as a private citizen...

    Right. The only legitimate way (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by ExPatObserver on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 11:42:55 PM EST
    to funnel income to your family is by paying them as campaign staff.

    I saw a tweet that Jane was paid $80,000 (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 30, 2016 at 11:38:04 AM EST
    by the campaign. Does not seem like the campaign is getting its money's worth. I'd call that bad financial management by te guy that wants to be chair of the budget committee.

    The old adage... (1.00 / 1) (#9)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 03:19:26 PM EST
    "you catch more flies with honey" comes to mind.

    Closed primaries, closed doors, and restricted access is no way to welcome potential new Democrats, or bring back constituencies who left the Democrats because the Democrats failed to address their issues and concerns.

    But the (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 04:11:04 PM EST
    same people do not have a problem with caucuses which are way more exclusionary than closed primaries. The problem with open primaries is they encourage Democrat for a day voters.

    The honey-catching advice (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by christinep on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 04:51:49 PM EST
    makes sense in the General Election.  The primary season, however, is about mission, building consensus, developing a candidate reflecting that mutuality of interests ... the Democratic Party interests.  It would seem that the party positioning, preaching, persuasion (or honey-catching phase) best follows the actual party consolidation.  

    Because Independents often differ so much among themselves--in practice--I would think it makes more sense for various Independents either to join the Ds or Rs early on in the electoral cycle or to join/form yet another party rather than form party identity to a fluctuating, changeable portion(s) of the electorate choosing the label of Independent.  Trying to have it both ways makes life and politics unnecessarily difficult for those who chose to choose a party.


    Would you feel more positive (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 04:13:28 PM EST
    re HRC if NY had an open primary?

    Why so many prefer Bernie (1.00 / 2) (#58)
    by newclearfishin on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 02:02:18 PM EST
    Many surveys show that the public supports most of what Senator Sanders advocates but Mrs. Clinton, like her husband, knows how to influence a lot of people to vote against their own economic interest.

    Bernie has wasted a great opportunity, so get ready for coups, wars, and whatever else the most well-off
    want, and good luck to everybody else.

    Or (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 02:11:09 PM EST
    They think Clinton's proposals are much more realistic. I fear it is Bernie who wants many people to vote againstbtheir best interests.  

    Vox put this calculator out to give a rough estimate of how someone would fare under each of the candidates' proposed tax plans.

    Now, my preferred candidate, based on this alone, should be Ted Cruz.  If I voted against my own own economic interests, the Bernie Sanders would be my guy. With Hillary, I stay the same.

    See what I did there?  Not sure how you can say that HRC is trying to snooker us, but Bernie is pure in his arguments.


    Realistic proposals? (1.00 / 3) (#62)
    by newclearfishin on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 02:40:26 PM EST

    I agree that Mrs. Clinton's proposals are not likely to be met with much opposition by registered Republicans in the House and Senate?  Why would they be?  The fact that conservatives are comfortable with another conservative President Clinton doesn't concern you?  Everybody to their own taste...said the old lady as she kissed the cow.

    Since Hillary (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 02:51:25 PM EST
    is a liberal, and always has been, and had put forth a pretty liberal agenda, your comment makes no sense.

    Goldwater Girl (1.00 / 2) (#67)
    by newclearfishin on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 03:16:34 PM EST

    Mrs. Clinton was a Goldwater supporter.  She served on the Walmart Board of Directors.  Maybe she became exposed to liberal ideas then.  You know, support for wages high enough that taxpayers wouldn't have to pony up for FOOD stamps & medicaid for Walmart employees.

    You obviously don't know much about Hillary's
    liberal (sic) history - here and abroad - coups in Honduras, Libya, Clinton foundation involvement in Haiti, and on and on.

    Time to educate yourself.


    She was a Goldwater Girl (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 03:36:12 PM EST
    when she was 16.

    While on Wal-Mart's board, she pushed for more women in management and more environmentally friendly policies. She, unlike Bernie, has a long history of working for civil rights.

    I suggest it is YOU who need t9 brush up on their history.


    OMG! A 16 year old Clinton, daughter of (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by caseyOR on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 03:36:25 PM EST
    a Republican father, supported the GOP candidate. Get a grip. She is hardly the first person who's earliest political views were influenced by their parents. And, like many people, as she got older those views changed.

    Her entire adult life has been spent working for and supporting liberal, yes liberal, policies.

    If Goldwater Girl is your best shot, well, good luck with that.


    Reagan (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by athyrio on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 10:34:47 PM EST
    was a democrat first in California....and he was already an adult

    Elizabeth Warren (5.00 / 8) (#70)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 03:41:27 PM EST
    By contrast, was a Republican until she was 47, so I guess she's not liberal either, then?

    Dear newc.... (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 04:24:15 PM EST
    Your patois gives you away.  What Repub do you support, btw.  

    Walmart (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Apr 30, 2016 at 09:46:33 AM EST
    My recollection is Hillary served on Walmart's board when Sam Walton was still alive and Walmart advertised made in America.   A somewhat different Walmart than today's. I was never a fan of Walmart, but like the Goldwater girl meme context is required.

    Also Hillary was ranked as the 12th most liberal senator. Not as left as Sanders, but then most Democrats aren't as left as Bernie either.  


    you are trolling (none / 0) (#90)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Apr 30, 2016 at 02:09:37 AM EST
    you are also new and limited to four comments a day. See our comment rules. And save your comments on your own computer. Baseless attacks and posting your opinion as fact will result in your comment being deleted.

    They (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 02:37:07 PM EST
    might generally like what he's offering in the broadest sense but they sure don't want to pay for any of it.

    And frankly voting for Bernie would be against my economic interest from what I read. Isn't kind of condescending to make such an assumption?


    Isn't this site "Talk Left"? (1.00 / 1) (#63)
    by newclearfishin on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 02:44:52 PM EST

    You're at least a centrist, right?  How would voting for Bernie be a vote against your interest?

    Um (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 02:48:44 PM EST
    I posted a tax calculator and said, using that measure alone, voting for Bernie would "be against my interests".

    You know, because I'd be paying a LOT more in taxes

    (And no, I don't make over $200,000. Nor am I even in the same time zone as being in top 1, 5, or 20, or more)


    Paying more in taxes (none / 0) (#97)
    by Steve13209 on Mon May 02, 2016 at 10:52:57 AM EST
    is not necessarily a bad thing, if you are a progressive. I mean the whole idea is to make the country better for all.

    If taxes are what you base your vote on...well, you know where I am going.


    Apparently (none / 0) (#98)
    by jbindc on Mon May 02, 2016 at 10:57:03 AM EST
    Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. I highlighted the relevant portion so you see it better.

    I wrote:

    I posted a tax calculator and said, using that measure alone, voting for Bernie would "be against my interests"

    It (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by FlJoe on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 04:07:35 PM EST
    is in my absolutely best interest to beat the living crap out of the Republicans in the fall, Hillary is  much better positioned to do that. IMO Sanders would never stand up to the conservative hate machine.

    It is in my absolutely best interest to have the next president to be experienced in all facets of the job, with well thought out plans that will move the country in the direction we all want. That person is Hillary.


    Yes, that too in addition to my other reasons (none / 0) (#81)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 08:47:47 PM EST
    about just not preferring him as a president.

    Because (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 06:09:24 PM EST
    his insurance plan would cost me a lot more money than I'm currently paying. Yes, I realize that I am fortunate to have that and yes, I am thankful that my husband works for a good company because it has not always been that way. And I am self employed so I would have to pay the entire tax Bernie is offering up with no employer to possibly foot part of the bill.

    Even besides that it's a moot point because Bernie would be eaten alive by the GOP in about two weeks.


    We need to have some lunch (none / 0) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 07:09:37 PM EST
    Next month when I'm in your going purple neck of the South.

    I would love (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 07:33:02 PM EST
    that. Message me the date.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by sallywally on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 07:40:28 PM EST
    I would wager that most Democrats support the Sanders's goals, including Hillary Clinton. There is a difference  in how best, most effectively to get there. I'm not so sure the Sanderses are actually democratic (small d) or whether they are, as they seem, seriously "my way or the highway" on every level.

    There is also something really distressing in their desire to involve themselves, apparently, with both Republican and Democratic voters (parties?) and to influence them ... it smacks to me of an excessive self-importance and a possibly malignant desire for control.


    We are electing a president, not a policy paper (5.00 / 6) (#80)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 08:46:04 PM EST
    Many of us, though we agree with Bernie's positions on the issues (most of them anyway) do not think he would be a very good president, for a number of reasons. He does not seem to work well with colleagues, has little depth on any issue besides the economy, or at least is not well versed enough to be articulate about anything else, and I don't think he has the energy for the long haul.

    For me all of that outweighs his minor differences with Clinton's policies.


    If Elizabeth Warren were running instead of Bernie (none / 0) (#1)
    by Steve13209 on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 01:56:53 PM EST
    would none of your comments apply, since she's a Democrat? Would you be saying Warren should withdraw even though Clinton doesn't have a majority of the delegates yet?

    I ask in all seriousness, since Bernie Sanders has been a defacto Democrat for years. His policy positions are no different from several other DC Democrats.

    yes it's because he's never (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 02:01:22 PM EST
    run as a Democrat before. I happen to agree with his policy views. I just don't think they are original or that he's had any success implementing them or is likely to if President.

    The Democratic nomination should go to a Democrat.


    An add on here (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by christinep on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 04:14:08 PM EST
    First, thank you, Jeralyn ... what you said needed to be said.

    What both Sanders are saying, now, is disingenuous.  BS is BSing us by this near conflation of primary & general election politics and voting processes.  That Sanders is whining about rules as he is losing/has lost the Democratic contest for the nomination is not new in the annals of presidential primaries over the years.  What is different is the level of complaining and persistent arguments about his wanting to change the rules of the game that have reached a level of self-interest not seen in the Democratic Party primary season in my memory.  

    As for the Whys:  Isn't it highly likely that Sanders opted to run as a Democrat for the party's nomination in view of the money and structure that the party would bring to him?  Even his demonstrated ability for fundraising might not have covered anywhere near the full costs of an independent party presidential run.  After all, even in his venture here to run as a Democrat, the reports in recent days showed that he has expended over $46 Million in his apparently unsuccessful pursuit (cf. approx. 28M spending for HRC campaign.)  That is a very hefty burn or Bern rate ... as Ga6th has wisely observed in earlier comments at TL.


    He ran as a Democrat (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Steve13209 on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 05:10:40 PM EST
    because the system is set up that only the Republican or Democratic nominees have a realistic chance of winning a national election.

    So don't say Bernie Sanders isn't pragmatic. :)


    He's very pragmatic (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by smott on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 05:59:17 PM EST
    If he didn't criticize it in others, it would be easier to take.

    More like (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Nemi on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 07:47:43 AM EST

    He ran (none / 0) (#26)
    by FlJoe on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 05:53:42 PM EST
    as a Democrat because it gave him a bigger soapbox, IMO he used it wisely and effectively to start. He knew he was climbing a steep mountain to begin with, but now that reaching the summit is an impossible dream it seems all he wants to do is rage against the mountain rather than face reality.

    He ran as Democrat so as not to be Nader (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Coral on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 06:49:27 PM EST
    A third-party run in the general risks getting a Republican elected by splitting the liberal-moderate Democratic vote.

    I do applaud Bernie for running in the primaries. I do not applaud his personal attacks on HRC and his whining about Democratic Party rules in various states or dismissal of portions of the electorate that don't vote for him.

    I agree with many of his goals and ideals, but don't find his policy strategies very deep or well-thought out. On the whole, the debate has been good for Democrats and for the country.

    HRC fund-raising for Democrats down-ballot is very important. If the Sanders faction is really serious about real change in direction, they would be getting to work to elect progressive Democrats in local and state elections, especially in some of those states that Bernie has dismissed as conservative. I'd love to see some real Democratic effort in those areas. I think they are ripe for change.


    OK (none / 0) (#10)
    by Steve13209 on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 03:30:39 PM EST
    I understand your opinion now. However, if the Democratic Party let Sanders run in their primary, I think that is a de facto acknowledgement that he is a Democrat, no?

    I guess an a member of the Democratic Party, I need to convince the leaders to support candidates more in line with my policy views.

    I think Bernie's candidacy was a convenient shortcut to that end for many like-minded people. But I do understand that the Party is a private entity.


    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 03:42:51 PM EST
    Keep voting in Dem primaries and local elections and they will get the message about what policy views you support. A big bang every 4 years does not get the job done.

    they let him run as a Democrat, (4.75 / 4) (#39)
    by cpinva on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 10:11:55 PM EST
    because he formally changed his party affiliation from Independent to Democrat. barring any rule against it, he was then free to run for office as a Democrat, as would any other person, in a similar situation.

    whether the party rules should be changed or not, I don't know. what I do know is that the rules were in place when Sen. Sanders decided to change his party affiliation, and run as Democrat. it's a little late to be complaining about them now.


    It would (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 02:38:13 PM EST
    be different with Warren IMO. She has run for elected office  as a Democrat and she has been a Democrat for 20 years. Bernie himself has declined numerous times to run as a Democrat and he himself has said that the only reason he ran as a D is because of money.

    I think I read... (none / 0) (#6)
    by magster on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 02:44:28 PM EST
    ... that he's committed to staying a Dem from henceforth. Better late than never.

    I think he's gunning for a chairmanship of the Budget Committee if Dems take back the Senate.


    If he wants the Dems to win the Senate (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by CoralGables on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 02:55:54 PM EST
    he'd better get on board quickly. And by taking that route Jane won't have to worry about tax returns anymore.

    He's still late (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 02:59:15 PM EST
    He's late to down ticket races. He's just late as hell however you dice him or parse him on this cloud of Democrat ante up issues ;)

    He's filed paperwork (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 04:59:38 PM EST
    To run as an Independent for Senate in Vermont in 2018

    Sanders actually filed that paperwork ... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 08:24:19 PM EST
    ... for re-election long before he decided to seek the Democratic presidential nomination.

    Prior to qualifying Sanders for our own caucus ballot, the Hawaii Democratic Party asked the Vermont Democratic Party for clarification of the senator's status as a member of good standing in his state party, since our own state law requires all candidates running for public office on a particular party slate to be a card-carrying member of that party. If he was not a member, then we were not going to list him for members' consideration in our March 26 presidential preference poll.

    Vermont Democrats assured us that Sanders was now indeed a formal member of the party, and that if he failed to gain the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, he would be amending his re-election paperwork for the 2018 Senate race to reflect that change of party status.

    I'll have take them at their word at this point. (And really, what choice do we have?) Bernie Sanders is a Democrat.



    Now, another condition from Sanders? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Towanda on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 12:05:06 PM EST
    That he will amend his paperwork only "if"?

    Why not amend it now?  Or is that paperwork lost with his tax returns that are promised, too?  

    Perhaps he can amend online, just like he can find his returns online, since they used TurboTax. . . .

    Based on the above and more, I just don't believe anything, anymore, from either of the Sanderses.


    No, it's not another condition. (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 01:40:44 PM EST
    Sanders has likely has been busy and hasn't gotten around to it. Like I said, I'll take him at his word.

    Anyway, our party's state convention has yet to meet, and we've informed his campaign of our state law regarding a candidate being a member of good standing in his / her party, and that if we detect bad faith on his part regarding his party membership, we reserve the right to strip him of his Hawaii delegates.

    As far as I know, we're the only state party that has formally inquired with Vermont Democrats regarding Bernie's standing as a member, based upon his earlier 2014 filing for re-election to the U.S. Senate. If you or anybody else wishes to do so, by all means, please feel free to join us.



    But has Sanders (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Nemi on Sat Apr 30, 2016 at 08:26:51 AM EST
    himself ever said that he will stay a Democrat (D)? He's admitted it was to get more exposure and better chances of raising money in the current election and when Jeff Weaver was asked directly he answered 'Yes', but apart from that?

    Not exactly a man of principles ... at least not if they are unfavorable to his chances of winning:

    The biggest argument was over running as a Democrat. Over and over, Bernie Sanders said he didn't want to. He'd spent his whole life purposefully outside the Democratic Party. He treasured his status as the longest-serving independent in Congress. Running as a Democrat wasn't who he was. He didn't want to do it that way.

    His longtime consultant Tad Devine and the rest of the group came down hard: this is never going to have a chance of working unless you get over it. Suck it up, they told him.

    So that's what he did eventually, and

    [The campaign] liked the feeling of fighting with the Clinton campaign. They liked the feeling of fighting the Democratic establishment head-on, not just battling them over ideas.

    Bernie Sanders is at war not only with Hillary Clinton but with the Democratic Party ... as he's been his whole political career. So, playing the devil's advocate: If he is to stay a capital letter Democrat, which I still doubt - I mean after 35 years in office and opposition! - my guess is, that it will be because he figures that it will be easier to destroy from within.


    Your point about Sen. Warren is irrelevant. (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 08:11:50 PM EST
    Look, as Democrats we have the right to pick our party's nominee, just as Republicans have a similar right to their own choice. I've never been a fan of open primaries, which allow outsiders to parachute into a given race for the expressed purpose of influencing the outcome to their own desire or benefit.

    The most egregious instance of this which I remember is the 2002 California GOP gubernatorial primary between L.A. Mayor Richard Riordan and billionaire Bill Simon. That year, California had an open primary ballot, which allowed voters to literally choose which primary race they'd vote on an individual contest-by-contest basis, meaning that you could vote in the GOP primary for governor and the Democratic primary for lieutenant governor or U.S. senator on the same ballot. (The open ballot has since been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.)

    Democratic Gov. Gray Davis was running for re-election and unopposed in the primary. Hoping to avoid a campaign against Riordan, a popular moderate who was unabashedly pro-LGBT rights long before many Democrats themselves hopped on that bandwagon, he urged California Democrats to vote in the GOP gubernatorial primary for Bill Simon, an intransigent far-right ideologue whose extremist political views were clearly out of step with most if the state's electorate.

    As a result, Simon won that GOP primary in an upset. And given the number of registered Republican and Democratic voters at the time, it's pretty clear that Democratic crossover votes delivered him that victory, thus ensuring Davis's re-election the following November. And I'm sorry, but while I may be a Democrat myself, that simply violated my sense of fair play on so many levels because we effectively chose the GOP's gubernatorial nominee for the Republicans.

    (And that wanton interference likely had a huge unintended blowback on Gov. Davis's own eventual political fate, because it fueled the Republican anger which led to the successful effort to recall him from office only nine months after he began his second term in Jan. 2003, and Californians ended up with Arnold Schwarzenegger as their governor.)

    If you want to have a say in the nominating process, fine. Then join the party of your choice as a card-carrying member, or at least change your party preference on your voter registration. If you're not willing to do either of those, then you've no cause to complain about the primary outcome. Because as card-carrying Democrats, we're really under no obligation to accommodate your transient political desires, particularly if that desire constitutes a one-time fling.



    You realize when you see this (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 02:20:08 PM EST
    Headline on a legal website, the first thought is likely that he died?

    Take it away jokesters....

    Prince is slopping over into TL (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 04:09:38 PM EST

    Talk about will problems ;) (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 06:08:33 PM EST
    Double edge sword (none / 0) (#13)
    by ragebot on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 04:07:14 PM EST
    The upside of a closed primary is, as Jerlyn points out, only party members have a voice in selecting the candidate.

    The down side is you lost a possibly good measure of how a general election might go.

    Bernie seems to do better in open primaries while Hillary does better in closed primaries.  One result of this is a feeling among some/many Bernie supporters that the establishment Democrats have rigged the primary process in favor of Hillary.  On the other hand lots of folks would say that the establishment Democrats have good reason to support Hillary over Bernie for multiple reasons.  Hillary has raised a ton of dollars for down ticket races.  Hillary also is probably a better candidate than Bernie in terms of realistically being elected.

    You live by the sword and you die by the sword.  It will be interesting to see if the Democrats live or die with the primary winner (probably Hillary).

    "Rigged" is incorrect (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by christinep on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 04:31:07 PM EST
    Both Sanders and Trump have employed that word about their new-found parties when it suits them, when it provides leverage among those who want to impose their own positions and take advantage of the resources a party structure has developed.

    The argument about shaping a primary to the concerns of one whose primary need is the commandeering a party in his own interests/views is rehashed during primary election seasons from time to time.  The reason it gets any traction in the media at all, imo, is that rules disputes (usually between winner & loser) is a natural story of conflict and controversy.  Different organizations and clubs have different rules ... as do different sports ....  The key is the ability of the organization to determine what rules work best for it in the preliminary and strategic stages so as to put forth in the general election the candidate best reflecting the overall position of the Democratic Party.  


    An open primary (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by sallywally on Sat Apr 30, 2016 at 01:43:22 AM EST
    would not give a snapshot of a general election, only a picture of the votes for two or more candidates from the same party. A view of the general would require the candidate who would run against the Dems to be included - in essence a mini-general.

    A closed primary assures no one is going to come in and mislead about their political values to manipulate the outcome of the contest - something unlikely to have a disinterested motive.


    I assume Jane and Bernie agree on (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 04:11:38 PM EST
    what she says b/4 she says it?

    Not sure about that...do Bill and Hill? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 04:33:07 PM EST
    Apparently not, since she could have said (none / 0) (#50)
    by Towanda on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 12:07:40 PM EST
    on Fox News what he said about the emails.  Instead, she used an intriguingly ambiguous line -- as evidenced by the response on pro-Sanders sites.

    Has Jane been appearing on Fox (none / 0) (#87)
    by sallywally on Sat Apr 30, 2016 at 12:58:39 AM EST
    all along? I wonder what the motivation is for that and what they are looking to achieve.

    Bernie's Party History (none / 0) (#31)
    by RickyJim on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 07:16:08 PM EST
    I think a good part of the story is in this article.  Apparently the only time he had run previously with a party label was between 1972 and 1976 when he ran four times for governor and senator as the "nominee of the anti-capitalist, anti-war Liberty Union Party of Vermont".  The closest the article comes to explaining why Sanders avoids labeling himself as a Democrat is, "Socialist is the political and economic philosophy I hold, not a party I run under," he explained in 1988, when he unsuccessfully ran for Congress.  

    I don't really get it. Are there really no Democrats in Congress who share his political and economic philosophy?

    No kidding? What about (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by sallywally on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 02:48:14 PM EST
    Warren, Sherrod Brown -- and it's my understanding that Clinton is as liberal as Warren and her issues are nearly identical to Bernie's with differences in ways of execution.

    If Clinton has been this liberal, why are people calling her centrist and neoliberal?

    She has shown signs of hawkishness, but hasn't she also argued for the supremacy of diplomacy as well?


    Why should I pay for a Democratic primary? (none / 0) (#45)
    by parse on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 11:05:07 AM EST
    The Democrats nominate a Democrat and the Republicans nominate a Republican. If an outsider wants to participate, he can run as a third party candidate after being nominated by that party.

    If the party primaries are really just private affairs that don't need to reflect the interests of people outside those parties, why should those elections be financed with public funds and allowed the free use of public facilities?

    Nobody is (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 11:46:04 AM EST
    making you be an independent. It's something you choose to be. If you want to vote in the D primary just register as a D in states that have closed primaries.

    It sounds like you want to have it both ways. You want to be an independent because it requires nothing of you, no commitment to a party, yet also want to have a say in who a party picks.


    I don't want to have a say in who the parties pick (none / 0) (#52)
    by parse on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 12:45:18 PM EST
    I just don't want to pay for an election that I'm not allowed to participate in

    You're confused on a couple of matters (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 12:55:05 PM EST
    1. You ARE allowed to participate!  You voluntarily choose NOT to because you don't want to adhere to the rules. (And there have only been 6 closed primaries so far, so most people who have wanted to play by the rules got to participate).

    2. This is a nominating process, not an election, as we commonly think of elections. Because of that, the parties get to set their own rules.

    How do you feel about (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by ding7777 on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    childless taxpayers paying a school tax?

    The rationale for free public education (none / 0) (#59)
    by parse on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 02:09:59 PM EST
    As I understand it, the rationale for public support of education is that in a democracy, society as a whole benefits from having its citizens educated. That seems reasonable to me, and, as a childless taxpayer myself, I don't have a problem paying a school tax.

    Here you go then (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 01:23:20 PM EST

    From a great distance, the news that volunteers associated with Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign are turning their attentions to the herculean task of organizing progressives for midterm elections would seem to be exciting news for all Democrats. Without question, the close alignment of the two parties with groups of voters who do (older white people) and don't (younger and minority people) participate in non-presidential elections has been a big part -- along with the normal backlash against the party controlling the White House -- of the massive Republican gains of 2010 and 2014. The prospect of heightened midterm turnout from under-30 voters alone could be a big and important deal for the Donkey Party.

    But the closer you get to the Sandernistas' Brand New Congress initiative -- the new project by recently laid-off Bernie staffers to create a revolution in Congress beginning with the 2018 elections -- the less it looks like the instrument for a difficult but achievable task and the more it looks like the product of a very strange set of beliefs about American politics. It's not focused on boosting progressive turnout in general elections, but on recruiting and running candidates in Republican as well as Democratic primaries who meet a rigid set of policy litmus tests. The idea is very explicitly that people alive with the Bern can literally elect a "brand-new Congress" in one election cycle to turn public policy 180 degrees. Or so says key organizer Zack Exley:

    "We want a supermajority in Congress that is fighting for jobs, criminal justice reform and the environment," Exley said. "Most Americans actually want that, and I think we get it by running Dems in blue areas, Republicans in deep red areas, and by running independents wherever we didn't defeat incumbents."

    Republicans, too?



    And (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 12:57:26 PM EST
    You pay for lots of things you don't participate in - like the conventions.  Lots of taxpayer $$ goes for that.

    Because the two parties (none / 0) (#47)
    by Steve13209 on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 11:21:09 AM EST
    run the State Govts. Pretty nice gig, eh?

    Shades of conspiracy thinking (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 12:22:21 PM EST
    It is all about where the voters are, Steve.  No giant conspiracy theory (that echoes Repub thinking.)  People get what they vote for ... or don't vote for.  Responsibility displacement is a fascinating dodge.

    The system in place (none / 0) (#99)
    by Steve13209 on Mon May 02, 2016 at 10:57:34 AM EST
    makes the voter have to register in one of the two major parties to have any chance of their vote being worth anything.

    It is hardly a conspiracy theory to complain about  the systemic problem with the de facto two party system when it affects our basic right to vote for the candidate of our choice.


    What mystery people designed (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by christinep on Tue May 03, 2016 at 12:08:52 PM EST
    the system, I wonder? What year? Do we know names & timeframe?  You see, "the system" dodge--while an easy one used throughout time to suggest conspiracy--tells us nothing.  IMO, it may well have occurred and likely did result over time as a system with which most/more people are comfortable.

    The multi-party allure ... on the surface, it does make some sense.  Certainly, we consumers of all things are used to near overwhelming numbers when we go shopping or seeking anything.  Why not the same shopping approach when selecting our government officials?  I'm guessing that it has a lot to do with longstanding cultural tradition in this country as well as with a certain satisfaction level to date.  Occasionally, people like Perot and Nader and the Dixiecrats and even other international organizations such as the Greens try out the third-party route ... and don't forget the periodic flirtation as to third-party from Michael Bloomberg.  After some jostling here & there, the efforts fade or go away altogether.

    Those third-parties ... We talk about, criticize, belly-ache, threaten to leave; yet, we are don't follow the European example of--say--Italy, Greece, Britain, and the rest.  It could have something to do with internal feelings of ease, stability, the devil-you-know. It probably has something to do with a lot of things none of us has researched.  One thing that I do know: No amorphous system prevents an alternative party establishment ... there are the $$$$$ people & funders who tease it and there are individuals who want to align with something other than the present party structure that has evolved ... if the demand is really there it will occur, and if you want the alternative enough, that path is open to you without actual impediment.  But then, often times, there is a wanting-one's-cake-&-eating-it-too component to decisions.


    I think you (none / 0) (#101)
    by jbindc on Mon May 02, 2016 at 11:41:21 AM EST
    Should be much more upset about the systemic problem with caucuses and how it affects fairness.

    Your statement, is a bit misleading, however.  There is no "basic right to vote" in the traditional sense (meaning, cutoff dates are unfair) in a political party's nominating process.  The Supreme Court said so in 1973 in Rosario v. Rockefeller (my emphasis in bold)

    Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of New York Election Law § 186, which requires a voter to enroll in the party of his choice at least 30 days before the general election in order to vote in the next party primary. Though eligible to enroll before the previous general election, petitioners failed to do so, and were therefore ineligible to vote in the 1972 primary. The Court of Appeals, reversing the District Court, upheld the New York scheme, which it found to be a permissible deterrent against the practice of primary election "raiding" by opposing party members.

    Held: New York's delayed-enrollment scheme did not violate petitioners' constitutional rights. Pp. 410 U. S. 756-762.

    (a) Section 186 did not absolutely prohibit petitioners from voting in the 1972 primary, but merely imposed a time deadline on their enrollment, which they chose to disregard. Pp. 410 U. S. 756-758.

    (b) The statute does not deprive voters of their right under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to associate with the party of their choice or subsequently to change to another party, provided that the statutory time limit for doing so is observed. Pp. 410 U. S. 758-759.

    (c) The cut-off date for enrollment, which occurs about eight months before a presidential, and 11 months before a nonpresidential, primary, is not arbitrary when viewed in light of the legitimate state purpose of avoiding disruptive party raiding. Pp. 410 U. S. 760-761.

    458 F.2d 649, affirmed.

    STEWART, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE, BLACKMUN, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. POWELL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 410 U. S. 763.

    The systemic problem is so ingrained (none / 0) (#103)
    by Steve13209 on Mon May 02, 2016 at 04:25:36 PM EST
    that you don't seem to understand that I am talking about the American citizen's right to vote, not the right to vote for a political party. Having to siphon our votes through a political party is not necessarily what the Founders where thinking.

    Yes, they wanted representatives to be voted into Congress, but we've allowed the two major parties to be the arbiters of the two allowable candidates for President.

    BTW, caucuses suck just a little more than primaries.


    "Fascinating"..Speaking of Republican (none / 0) (#100)
    by jondee on Mon May 02, 2016 at 11:29:51 AM EST
    thinking, Christine, the unavoidable implication of your statement is that individuals and groups who perceive themselves to be underrepresented in government are solely "responsible" for that state of affairs. They should quit whining and pull themselves up by their own political bootstraps.

    Even more Republican is this self-interested I'm Alright Jack mentality that sanctions the status quo the minute it starts working in one's favor.


    You (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by FlJoe on Mon May 02, 2016 at 11:51:41 AM EST
    could flip that right around and say that people are only starting to whine when the status quo the minute when it does not favor them. Seeing as the status quo has been around for 30+ years it's obvious who is crying sour grapes.

    jondee: please see my respnse to Steve (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by christinep on Tue May 03, 2016 at 12:20:42 PM EST
    As a strong, lifelong Democrat, I support and have no qualms about supporting the positive primary approach of the Democratic Party. Etc.

    Over the years, however, I've moved more toward the primary ballot rather than our Colorado caucus structure. Given the two-party predominant system and my alignment with it, the closed primary is best designed to ensure the selection of a general election candidate representing the outlook & overall philosophy of the Democratic Party. IMO, that approach is best suited in finding a candidate who actually represents the big tent of the Democratic Party.