General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNote to Our Revolution: Democratic Voters Decide for Themselves
Once they do, it's time to support the Democrat who won each primary. Get over yourselves, please!
all american girl
(1,788 posts)MineralMan
(146,356 posts)The voters are telling us who they want as candidates in the General Election. It's their choice, not anyone else's. The sooner we learn that, the sooner we'll come together and help Democrats who win primaries succeed in November.
GOTV!
all american girl
(1,788 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)shit-kickers around here? I used to agree and recommend most of your posts, but you've changed lately.
You used to know that most people really don't like allying with movements that don't move anything. That OR actually needs attention like this to make people think it's still a viable way to resist whatever they're resisting. And that every response is taken by dissenters as validation of themselves and their views, whatever they are and no matter what's being said by anyone. It's an existential thing:
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)MineralMan
(146,356 posts)I don't think Democrats are having any of that, frankly, and primary election results seem to be demonstrating that.
DFW
(54,527 posts)History has a precedent for this, trying to make people hold your beliefs. Indeed, the modern term comes from the Latin word for "make," i.e. facere, and no one holds the exclusive rights to it, either.
yardwork
(61,821 posts)DownriverDem
(6,240 posts)Who are these purity folks? They sure seem to be politically naive. We need to focus on beating the crap out of the repubs. We must be united or it's all over folks.
MineralMan
(146,356 posts)Pluvious
(4,351 posts)We must be vigilant.
We must be focused on one goal: Make America Sane Again !!
And HURRY !!!
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)We are sick and tired of immigrants coming into the country and getting benefits that Americans do not get
what Im seeing is not paying taxes, what Im seeing is getting a lot of freebies that Americans do not get. Tezlyn Figaro
Getting over themselves might mean voting Republican or Libretarian.
sheshe2
(84,101 posts)Bio: Tezlyn Figaro specializes in public relations, communications & political strategy in national, regional & local print, television and radio platforms. Tezlyn joined the national executive staff of Bernie 2016 as the National Racial Justice Director within the National African American Outreach department.
About tezlynfigaro
tezlynfigaro.wordpress.com/about/
She was the Racial Justice Director and she said that?
She has written numerous bios for herself across the internet. Not sure about the one you have up. Its a way that she advertises her company.
sheshe2
(84,101 posts)What a disgusting person.
Demsrule86
(68,868 posts)fire this Trump supporting person.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Everything I'm reading leads me to believe she shifted positions.
From her own consulting business website.
Since 2015, Tezlyn has acted as the personal director of communications for former Ohio State Senator and current President of Our Revolution, Nina Turner. As a senior advisor she oversees media relations, media coaching and rapid response communications for Senator Turners personal media appearances. Tezlyn is also the current director of strategic outreach for Our Revolution.
https://tezlynfigaro.com/about-tezlyn
Her site has a 2018 copyright.
Demsrule86
(68,868 posts)Exotica
(1,461 posts)The Bernie Sanders-inspired Our Revolution has cut ties with group president Nina Turner's personal consultant, following a public airing of anger from board members and staff over past anti-immigrant and pro-Donald Trump comments.
Turner announced that the group would stop paying Tezlyn Figaro on Wednesday afternoon. Turner had said as recently as Tuesday afternoon that Figaro would stay on, despite the complaints published in a POLITICO article on Monday.
An Our Revolution spokesperson declined to explain what had changed.
"Consistent with my practice of not disclosing employment matters, I will not comment further on Tezlyn Figaro other than to say that she is no longer with the organization. We wish her well," Turner said in a statement provided by the spokesperson.
Snip
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Its linked as a reply. Other places show there is more to the story. I have provided links.
Exotica
(1,461 posts)isn't possible) and any and all of her little remaining credibility would be eviscerated and she would be sacked by the board (which may happen yet anyway). Figaro's bios on websites may have not been updated yet as this happened only 2 weeks ago, and some people are procrastinators about maintaining up to date CV's. The 2018 copyright on her sites is probably auto-updated (or manually updated) at the beginning of each year.
Overall, OR is a huge fail, and I do believe some in it have ulterior motives to try and keep attacking the Democratic Party and any candidates it doesn't like to try and force capitulation and a lurch to the hard left (the US version of hard left).
Progressive dog
(6,934 posts)to see from an American, but my votes can help keep people like that away from my party and out of our government.
brush
(53,978 posts)about the thinking in that group. How could that even come from the mind of a Dem?
And to be so strong being wrong. Undocumented workers pay huge taxes when they purchase stuff, not to mention the fact that SS monies are often taken from their wages that they don't get back in returns.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Many of them are of like mind on this topic.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10700501
brush
(53,978 posts)Possibly moved her to a lower profile job but kept her on the payroll, which seems to be what's importantgotta keep those donations rolling in so that can continue.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)She also states on her linkedin page that she is currently working for them. It seems to be up to date.
MineralMan
(146,356 posts)What's clear, though, is that Democrats are not buying their message. We have a de facto two-party system in this country. In almost every general election, the winner will be a Democrat or a Republican. Voters who choose third parties are voting against both of the parties with a chance to win.
That's not how we make progress. When Democrats win, we make progress. When Republicans win, we go backwards.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)or something.
MineralMan
(146,356 posts)They're not for use by anyone except their individual owners.
stonecutter357
(12,699 posts)bunny planet
(10,875 posts)however in NJ, where I live.....this is a slightly worrisome result considering Menendez will not be running unopposed in November, and due to his corruption trial being front and center here....the primary was not exactly a rout for him...
Patrick Murray
?
@PollsterPatrick
Follow Follow @PollsterPatrick
More
For those of you outside NJ following the #NJSen D primary - Know this: Lisa McCormack was a paper candidate, with no money, no organization, no media, and no campaign appearances. And she's getting 43% of the vote against @SenatorMenendez. Huge protest vote.
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/06/what_the_hell_happened_to_bob_menendez_in_tuesdays.html
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Of course, you'd think doing that well before the primary would have been best.
JustAnotherGen
(32,062 posts)I'm the party - and I'm now a (as of last night) an elected county committee official.
It will be viewed as weakness.
Now we've already started today using the language of the cruel in our district AND tomorrow we meet in our borough to look at strategy ahead of next weeks county committee meeting.
Strength, cruelty, determination, bringing the other side to heel.
If anything - there isn't a Trump Voter in NJ who should be upset about this NON Issue.
It's a non Issue - #ShowMeTheConviction
If their Monster can be President - then Bob can be a Senator.
brush
(53,978 posts)peggysue2
(10,854 posts)Menendez might not be the perfect candidate but . . . he's a f*cking Prince compared to the Traitor-in-Chief. Despite all the hand-wringing, bed-wetting and headlines claiming the Dems can't do anything right, the Democratic Party had a great night. Now we put shoulder-to-shoulder, support our candidates and . . . save the damn country. #ShowMeTheConviction, indeed!
mcar
(42,478 posts)Go get 'em!
brush
(53,978 posts)But since that didn't happen we have to give him the presumption of innocent and back the Dem.
Demsrule86
(68,868 posts)JustAnotherGen
(32,062 posts)A greedy Pharma company executive? Bob Hugin can go fuck himself - My Bob is better.
Demsrule86
(68,868 posts)exception for murdering big Pharma companies who literally allow folks to die by withholding medicine for profit.
JustAnotherGen
(32,062 posts)We cannot lose a SINGLE seat. Get in touch with your borough/township/city committee - most are meeting this week. County Committee meetings are mostly taking place next week.
We cannot under any circumstances show any weakness to our enemies.
rownesheck
(2,343 posts)in the primary, but enthusiastically voted for Hillary in the general. Since then, I've watched Bernie and Nina Turner and others from that group do nothing but piss me off. I'm done with them. They need to go away, or become republicans. That's who they seem to be working for anyway.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)All I'm trying to say is that Nina Turner and Bernie's "Our Revolution" are literally HELPING the GOP every time they do something to DAMAGE the Democratic party. And don't get me started on Jane Sanders' recent "third party" threats, lord!
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)yardwork
(61,821 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)Did Sanders kick everybody's puppy or something?
Orsino
(37,428 posts)While he walks free, there will be no forgiveness.
(Also, some of us are disenchanted with his pretending to be a Dem again while not bothering to conceal his plan to bail on the party once he locks us out of his Senate seat. And he needs to show his taxes if he's going to run for president.)
Demsrule86
(68,868 posts)own (doomed) presidential campaign before the midterms. He is not really helping with 18...and then the Jane Sanders comments which were probably scripted and approved ....about how Democrats need to move left (support her husband) or there will be a third party challenge...I perceived it as a threat. As another poster noted, 'you have a nice party, be a shame if something happened to it'. I think the third party remarks ended any shot he had at the nomination in 20
Cha
(298,139 posts)all the news about his attacking the Democratic Party went right over his head.
And, there's this.. speaking of "our revolution".
J. Sanders: If the Democratic party doesn't become progressive, there will be a third party
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10695176
Threats. While we're out there Winning Elections.
Demsrule86
(68,868 posts)I don't kindly to what I perceive to be threats.
MineralMan
(146,356 posts)It is about encouraging unified support for Democrats who win primary elections, so they'll win in the General Election.
Our Revolution's endorsed primary candidates are not winning. The voters are speaking for themselves, and we need to listen to them. They know their own districts and states. We need to win in November, not lose.
BeyondGeography
(39,399 posts)On the one hand, people bitch about Bernie not being a Dem, on the other hand, when new candidates on the left run as Dems too many people here heap scorn and ridicule upon them and celebrate their losses.
The optimistic view is OR expands the party. The realistic view is we need every vote we can get. Do you think we optimize our result in November without appealing to the many people who are voting for OR candidates, or that they will automatically fall in line? We still need to win their votes, or maybe some people need to relearn 2016 all over again, I guess.
MineralMan
(146,356 posts)I will be supporting the Democratic general election candidates for every office. How about you?
BeyondGeography
(39,399 posts)Progressive dog
(6,934 posts)believe in accepting elections that they didn't win.
Demsrule86
(68,868 posts)dembotoz
(16,866 posts)Demsrule86
(68,868 posts)And they produce nothing good.
dembotoz
(16,866 posts)remind me of the trumpers who claim teacher are over paid cause they get the summer off
Demsrule86
(68,868 posts)I just feel bad to see people throwing good money after bad so Ms.Turner can enjoy more than a few luxuries and do nothing...the books need to opened...no transparency with this group...same is true with Stein.
dembotoz
(16,866 posts)Demsrule86
(68,868 posts)time to time with his comments about Democrats works with us...and is not on the level of Stein. I voted for Sen. Sanders in Ohio actually.
dembotoz
(16,866 posts)so much. make that not at all
where are the others????????? no where to be seen....hard to rally around an empty chair.
it would be nice to see a national dems name on something other than a fundraising email
in a vacuum you end up with independent groups because the parties silence is not golden.
so in my state you have an independent running for gov as a dem. he has been around for a while.
I have talked to him rather often. He says and believes the right things. supports the right stuff.....
but he is not a party member....He is catching hell from the state....deep dark secret? in my state in the past there
were a whole bunch of dem office holders who were not party members....i know this because i sat in on meetings where
folks would rant about how so and so expected us to work for him but couldn't join the damn party....the party should not be something that wakes from a coma every election cycle to rally the troops for the last 6 weeks.
sanders is pounding the pavement...where the hell is the rest of them.
OnDoutside
(19,988 posts)Demsrule86
(68,868 posts)OnDoutside
(19,988 posts)comfortable with being the party of protest rather than the party of government. They make a career out of raging against the storm. What I have noticed though is far left parties rebranding to less overtly socialist names....progressives, anti austerity, people before profit etc.
Demsrule86
(68,868 posts)funding.
OnDoutside
(19,988 posts)Demsrule86
(68,868 posts)brush
(53,978 posts)HenryWallace
(332 posts)What utter hubris; demanding fealty is how we got in this mess!
Your ability to say the wrong thing at the wrong time knows no bounds!
MineralMan
(146,356 posts)Seriously. I don't believe I've ever seen another post of yours. I'm not demanding anything. I'm asking for support for Democratic candidates in general elections. That is what's needed.
I'm in no position to demand fealty from anyone.
wasupaloopa
(4,516 posts)asking for fealty to their candidate selections and no body is paying attention.
Our revolution is still fighting the 2016 primary and we are now in 2018.
HenryWallace
(332 posts)As an organization Our Revolution makes issues based endorsements (rather than Party based endorsements). Many Democrats, including myself, find this helpful.
The original poster, despite his backtrack, implied that there exists some type of arrogance involved with supporting objective issues rather that strict partisanship. Obviously I disagree.
As to your Our revolution is still fighting the 2016 primary and we are now in 2018; it seems ironic being posted on a site that for 18 months have been fixated on all thing Russian!
wasupaloopa
(4,516 posts)is different. We can't have a one size fits all list of issues. That's why Our Revolution is not winning most races. The list of issues comes from the 2016 primaries and is why I said they are still fighting the 2016 primary.
If we vote on candidates based on whether they support this or that Our Revolution issue we could lose in November. We need as many Dem wins in House races as possible to retake the House.
Once we get in power we can debate what issues we want to press. Our Revolution is the wrong solution at the wrong time.
HenryWallace
(332 posts)As to the rest:
We can't have a one size fits all list of issues. That's why Our Revolution is not winning most races. The list of issues comes from the 2016 primaries and is why I said they are still fighting the 2016 primary.
... (We'll have to agree to disagree) What you call "one size" they call winnable issues with broad popular support (if embraced they would ultimately lead to national majorities with the ability to actually implement progressive legislation).
.... OR backed candidates are in fact winning elections and, more importantly, changing the narrative (venture off this site once in a while).
..... Few people would criticize Sanders for having consistent positions; its why most voters love him (why stop at 2016, how about 1981).
If we vote on candidates based on whether they support this or that Our Revolution issue we could lose in November. We need as many Dem wins in House races as possible to retake the House.
... No one is asking you to boycott non-OR Democrats. Just understand these outliers sow the seeds of our next loss (they will prevent to passage of meaningful legislation). The American people are becoming increasingly desperate and simply stopping the clown show isn't going to be good enough.
Once we get in power we can debate what issues we want to press. Our Revolution is the wrong solution at the wrong time.
... Sorry, I thing we tried that in 2006....
I remain unconvinced.
wasupaloopa
(4,516 posts)they have a list of Bernie's issues and are matching that with a list of candidates that they support.
If those candidates are not strong enough to win their races they should not be who we vote for because we need to get back into power before we can do anything.
Our Revolution is about issues over winning and in November 2016 we need to WIN! It is that important. Win first then argue about issues.
HenryWallace
(332 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Quit pouting and belly-aching.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,157 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)mcar
(42,478 posts)That's an...interesting comment. Should Democrats not discuss the interference in the 2016 election by a foreign adversary? Especially since one can assume they are poised to do it again?
Response to mcar (Reply #89)
Post removed
mcar
(42,478 posts)As I firmly believe it affected the outcome. How can you say that it didn't?
Cha
(298,139 posts)trump into office or Hillary would have won. 'Course there were other reasons.. like Jill Stein's Lies that assisted the Russians.
Doesn't fit their agenda. They call the Investigation by Bob Mueller a "distraction".. when it's there to reclaim the very bedrock of our Democratic existence.. the integrity of our Country's VOTING Rights for Clean Elections.
How can they not care about the integrity of our Country's Voting systems? Do they want it to happen again?
Robert Mueller
Mahalo, mcar
mcar
(42,478 posts)It is increasingly more futile to even try to engage with that ilk.
Cha
(298,139 posts)The main thing is to make sure their agenda doesn't work.
JustAnotherGen
(32,062 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Demsrule86
(68,868 posts)we have kids essentially in concentration camps...I hope Stein folks are proud.
KPN
(15,680 posts)If you don't mind me asking, that is.
MineralMan
(146,356 posts)What else?
KPN
(15,680 posts)MineralMan
(146,356 posts)That's irrelevant to my post, though.
KPN
(15,680 posts)marble falls
(57,647 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)no matter what the results actually are, as if that has anything to do with the OP...
But since you brought it up, the fact that they haven't sent out a self-congratulatory press release claiming validation by this point might be construed as them "bellyaching" by that metric, tho.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)vlyons
(10,252 posts)of letting the Dem candidates decide the best issues and strategies to win their constituents.
MineralMan
(146,356 posts)At least successful ones do.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)But I will gladly support whoever wins.
karynnj
(59,511 posts)It is good advice to everyone, in every race, especially this midterm. The message would be stronger if it were not calling out people before they do anything unhelpful as well as calling for supporting our primary winners..
This is a time, when after the primaries, we need to back people will be in our caucus. It may come down to one Congressperson or one Senator. As to some here - and there have been such people since the beginning of DU - who see themselves as liberal, progressive, on the left etc, but not Democrats, the message should be that we NEED you and YOU (the lefties - not the OP) need to have the Democrats control at least one house of Congress to have any check on Trump.
I know that through the years, there have been many who say that those who are not Democrats should realize that we are "Democratic underground" - not progressive underground etc. While we must and should rule out anyone endorsing a non Democratic candidate, we can and should be as welcoming as we can to people reading here who are not aligned to the Democratic party, but who share many of our values. We can't win with just people who self identify as Democrats.
MineralMan
(146,356 posts)I don't communicate with Our Revolution anyhow.
karynnj
(59,511 posts)What I meant was that you started, "Note to Our revolution". I do understand why. I think (and could be wrong) that it is a concern that they could either encourage third parties or not voting. My comment was that when asking them to understand why they need to vote for the candidates, it just seemed it read more like an attack.
MineralMan
(146,356 posts)Our Revolution is doing nothing, really, to help Democrats get elected to offices across the country. We shall see how that organization behaves as the General Elections approach. Nina Turner has stated publicly that she will support 3rd party candidates in some cases. I find that attitude thoroughly deplorable, frankly.
We're in a political war for survival, politicly, right now. Choosing sides is going to be essential. I'll welcome anyone who chooses the Democratic side in November and condemn anyone who doesn't. It's pretty simple, really.
Demsrule86
(68,868 posts)ones who can stop the right wing. And I don't want people who don't like the party or they would join coming here and taking shots at the Democratic Party.
Gothmog
(146,024 posts)I think that the Our Revolution group is a joke and that they are out to hurt democrats and the Democratic party
MineralMan
(146,356 posts)It looks to me that their relevance is fading fast. Hasten the day.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Their attacks on our party are a clear demonstration that "Our Revolution" wants to take over the party for their own means.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)and then laugh at our inability to win elections...
Eliot Rosewater
(31,157 posts)If so, then what they will accomplish with that is MORE republicans being elected.
period
Hekate
(91,055 posts)Gothmog
(146,024 posts)Sanders did not do well https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2018/06/06/analysis-how-did-bernie-sanders-democrats-do-primaries/676864002/
As of Wednesday afternoon, only seven of 31 candidates endorsed by Our Revolution -- a political group affiliated with Vermonts independent senator -- had been declared winners. Another two races were undecided.
At best, fewer than one-third of the endorsed candidates won.
The endorsement and support of Our Revolution is not very valuable
MineralMan
(146,356 posts)Cha
(298,139 posts)paper, Goth.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)I love to tell them I would never vote for a candidate that doesn't have the good enough sense to recognize the threat that the Republicans present.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)what you just said? How does advocating for candidates, the way so many organizations do, somehow become an affront to that obvious fact that voters are in control of their own vote?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)have the ability to change the way people vote...
JCanete
(5,272 posts)And another component of this(and it is used egregiously), is that these numbers are added in early when these delegates commit unofficially to a candidate, so these inflated numbers for that candidate are reported by "responsible" news agencies who demonstrate to the audience that a given challenger is impossibly behind in vote totals already, nearly out the gate. That does depress votes for the other candidate because most people don't like to throw away their vote, nor do most people typically want to jump on the bandwagon of an inevitable "loser".
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Sat Jun 9, 2018, 09:13 AM - Edit history (1)
Is your own vote that affected by the SDs? If not, why do you assume that most other Democrats's votes would be?
Do you think that number of pledged delegates for a candidate should also be kept secret until all the primaries are done?
Because I would imagine that the number of pledged delegates would have an even greater influence in supressing the vote for a particular candidate, if your data is accurate.
I look forward to looking at the data on which you are basing your claims, and am sure that it will not be "stupid shit," as you put it.
I also would like to hear your views on the validity of caucuses, where a small group of people can nullify the preferences of thousands of residents, and effectively suppress their ability to choose a candidate, yes?
I know that there have been candidates who asked Superdelegates to nullify and overturn the popular vote, even when it wasn't a razor close finish, but the SD's have not done so.
Why do you think SDs would be so distainful of the public vote, or so opposite to it?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)more warriors fans nationally right now than Vikings fans. Fair weather IS a thing and not everybody is as dedicated to paying attention to politics and policies, etc. as you and I. And I know exactly how it was reported, although you are right, this was both supers and pledged delegates, pledged delegates being another strange institution.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/politics/superdelegates-hillary-clinton-nomination/index.html , in CNN's own words, declaring a clinched election really before its actually clinched.
This is late in the process and I have no qualms saying that Clinton was likely to win this thing regardless, but given that the DNC itself has said that these delegates and superdelegates should not be reported on early because superdelegates may change their mind, and given that a large portion of those superdelegates (at 10,000 votes a piece) aren't at all required to represent actual voters in their states-their 10,000 votes are their votes(people awarded superdelegate status based upon being part of the institution of our government as it has been and has operated(which absolutely gives an edge to the most insider candidates), I'm not sure how you could defend this, except by saying that you like that this is what it does.
I don't necessarily think Super-Delegates would be disdainful of the public vote(although as far as I know they are not bound in any way to vote with the public(1/3 of them aren't now after an agreement with the Sanders Campaign and the DNC)), but if they never intended to vote contrary to it, then they are symbolic and pointless, and if they ever do, they break the democratic process that I think the Democratic party should bind itself to.
As to caucuses, I can think of a couple things off the top of my head that are totally egregious about them in their current form, and they absolutely should be changed. 1) apparently these voting periods are particularly restricted, and of course any time that happens, it is a suppressor of votes and this could and should be changed. 2) I remember the absurd detail of delegates needing to show up to cast their vote after the popular vote totals were tallied in order for those votes to actually be included, which is just a baffling process to me.
I don't have a problem with these being open to non-party members. I think this is an opportunity to include and maybe bring those who wouldn't otherwise be democrats into the party. Apparently caucuses tend to operate more on the extremes than standard elections, and that's not a surprise to me since those who feel too left for democrats or right for republicans may not have gone affiliated, and since I want us to be more progressive, obviously I see a benefit here. I understand the potential for stacking(voting for the person you think your preferred candidate can beat) though as well, so I wouldn't ever suggest that the institution shouldn't be eyed closely, and even abandoned if this ever started to be a major trend, though I grant, it would be hard to tell.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)in any statistics or study.
You didn't answer my questions. Here they are again:
1. Why do you think that SDs have this enormous ability to influence votes, even though they clearly didn't influence you? Why do you think the majority of other Democrats are influenced?
2. I also would like to hear your views on the validity of caucuses, where a small group of people can nullify the preferences of thousands of residents, and effectively suppress their ability to choose a candidate, and suppress the wishes of perhaps a very, very large number of voters?
I am of the opinion that whoever is the Democratic nominee should feel a stake in the Democratic platform and party. They should have been working to strengthen the party for a period of time - those who have done so should be the ones reap the benefits of the party resources for POTUS, not those who join at the last minute for "the funding and the marketing" resources.
Apparently the DNC feels the same, as they indicated yesterday and I feel that's a very, very good thing.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)I put those of us who follow politics into an entirely different category from the most of the population that is attempting to piece together a choice based on far less information. Suggesting because some of us approach politics one way then how can we say other approach it another is a strange argument to me. I know that for myself, I do absolutely sometimes take my less preferred choice due to the likelihood that that person might actually get into the running. Having less information than you and I, means that anybody else who sees numbers that include superdelegates and delegates are even less likely(and I had a hard time working out the details of pledged and super delegates myself) to understand that those votes are not final and that some are infact beholden to the popular vote that comes in down the line.
As to 2. I don't know enough about caucuses. How can they do that? The same way pledged delegates can? If so, obviously I find that attrocious and it should be changed. No argument from me on that.
You are of the opinion then that people who have spent their lives in politics under a different brand should just run that way and play spoiler, which makes no sense at all, or that they should just not run at all because spoilers are distasteful and too costlly, which is an undemocratic position to hold. Running within one of the two major parties is the responsible thing to do typically. I don't begrudge 3rd parties and I've said why many times, but they make me nervous for their potential consequences.
Arguably sanders has a stake in the Democratic platform since he was involved at some level in what was ultimately roled out post primary. Arguably he's involved in it because he wants to bring independent progressives into the democrtatic party.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)But you don't know enough about caucuses to even comment?
https://www.vox.com/2016/5/2/11535648/bernie-sanders-closed-primaries-caucuses
Only if he's planning on using the Democratic party to run for something, as we have seen from his comments on the Party when he's not.
And he worked on the Platform by the grace of Democratic leaders, who went above and beyond letting someone who has trashed the Democratic Party so often have that sort of role.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)plenty of things I think you and I could agree with as to what should change about them.
what does any of that have to do with my assessment of Superdelegates?
It was not simply by the grace of democratic leaders, you are kidding yourself. Seriously. This was a choice made that was political. It was smart politics, not simpy a gesture of good faith.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I had heard something to the effect in discussions as to why he wouldn't tell Nina why he agreed that she wouldn't speak.
See my post for my question if you forgot it.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)had an interest in repairing any rift from the primary and had every reason to be conciliatory and to show voters that they were going to embrace a more progressive agenda that was a nod to Sanders unprecedented campaign.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And I think that this is the result of the majority of Democrats' response to that campaign.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142079406
Not going to answer that question about caucuses, I see.
I'm not surprised you're avoiding doing that.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)primaries is because he is most alligned to it while still being philosophically separate(and there may be some political value in having an i next to his name-I wouldn't be surprised), but to run as an independent would mean that the only mechanism of a challenge that a democrat would have to him would be to battle him in the GE, potentially splitting the vote and giving the election to a republican. By running as a democrat, while he went uncontested, somebody could take up the mantle and run against him in the primary, and there would be no vote splitting, regardless of the outcome come election time.
The same could be said of the national election obviously. It wouldn't make near as much sense for Sanders to do this at that level though.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I think the DNC is responding to feedback from the majority.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)being asked.