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

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 01:35 AM Apr 2016

I see two charges against Sanders that don't make much sense together (re party affiliation)

1. "Sanders is a Democrat come lately!"

2. "Sanders is going to mount a third party run I know it!"

I think you can realistically be outraged about one, and only one, of those.

13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I see two charges against Sanders that don't make much sense together (re party affiliation) (Original Post) Recursion Apr 2016 OP
When you're throwing crap against the wall consistency is one of the lower priority criteria Fumesucker Apr 2016 #1
There's a joke in there Lordquinton Apr 2016 #3
I don't see it. Or maybe I don't understand what you mean JonLeibowitz Apr 2016 #2
1 is empirically true, Sanders has only been a Democrat a year, maybe a little less SFnomad Apr 2016 #4
I agree, that is an obviously factual statement Recursion Apr 2016 #6
the idea you have to have been a long-standing democrat is anti-democratic snowy owl Apr 2016 #5
At this point, I pay it no mind Aerows Apr 2016 #7
Sanders gave Dems the majority in 2010 Waiting For Everyman Apr 2016 #8
It's a fair question Recursion Apr 2016 #9
Not to mention the DSCC has contributed to his senatorial campaign azurnoir Apr 2016 #10
The DSCC made that call on their own Recursion Apr 2016 #11
even though he was helping them raise funds? interesting that azurnoir Apr 2016 #12
So do the blue dogs Recursion Apr 2016 #13

JonLeibowitz

(6,282 posts)
2. I don't see it. Or maybe I don't understand what you mean
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 01:47 AM
Apr 2016

(Let's ignore anti-spoiler ballot provisions)

If he's a Democrat come lately then he doesn't have longtime fealty to the party. Therefore, he won't burn as many bridges if he leaves the party and runs Indy. So actually case (1) makes case (2) more likely.

Or is the argument not of whether both are simultaneously possible, but whether you can be outraged at both simultaneously? That I do agree with -- because people love to complain about Nader but then when Sanders joins the party to avoid a Nader situation he gets slammed.

If that's your point, I agree.

 

SFnomad

(3,473 posts)
4. 1 is empirically true, Sanders has only been a Democrat a year, maybe a little less
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 01:53 AM
Apr 2016

For number 2, Sanders has stated he will not do that ... I have no reason not to believe him.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
6. I agree, that is an obviously factual statement
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 04:52 AM
Apr 2016

But he has two options, then, to run for President: to join the Democratic party, or to seek a third party ballot ticket (I hope we can all agree that at least practically a GOP run is not even worth looking at*).

Accepting that, if he wants to run for President, which we all agree is his right (I hope), he can either do so as a Democrat or as an independent or "minor" party candidate. It seems weird to criticize him for taking either option

* Actually now that I say that, had there been no Trump, a Sanders campaign on the GOP side would have at least been quite fascinating. I want to think more on that.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
7. At this point, I pay it no mind
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 04:55 AM
Apr 2016

Clinton supporters are looking for things to get outraged and offended about, and yes I'm a raging sexist for pointing it out.

Waiting For Everyman

(9,385 posts)
8. Sanders gave Dems the majority in 2010
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 05:05 AM
Apr 2016

What is that worth? A big "fuck you"?

What was he called on that day?

He voted with them for 26 years, what is that worth?

These strutting, finger-pointing Dems give me a big pain somewhere. Including she who will not be President.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
11. The DSCC made that call on their own
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 05:43 AM
Apr 2016

IIRC (and I was at least slightly connected in '06) there were complaints and prognostications at the time, but he was considered the best chance since he pledged the caucus vote.

Oh, that elusive caucus vote... Same thing the Blue Dogs get in on.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»I see two charges against...