2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThis message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (Segami) on Wed Nov 4, 2015, 02:22 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Remember back in 2008 when MI and FL moved their primaries up without DNC approval? The penalty was loss of their delegates, and all presidential candidates were supposed to remove their names from the primary ballots in those states.
Obama did.
Team Clinton didn't quite manage to file the paperwork. So she was on the ballot in those states while Obama wasn't.
It's so utterly surprising that there would be another name-on-ballot stunt!!
Segami
(14,923 posts)dust it off and use it again.......who would ever suspect?...
Segami
(14,923 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)And it doesnt sound like they have any confidence in their own polling, otherwise she would win "easily".
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)get even more support for Bernie.
Shameful, undemocratic behavior. I'm stunned.
Spread it all over Social Media. There should be a way to get as many people there as possible, AND THE PRESS if they try to deprive the people of their right to vote for a candidate of THEIR choice. It sure won't get any votes for THEIR candidate.
These people really are ruthless.
CheshireDog
(63 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)a public statement demanding that this not be done, this totally undemocratic attempt to suppress voters, in her name.
If she doesn't she owns it.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)That is just ridiculous.
I'm sure he will be allowed on the ballot, and he will lose NH anyway.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)He will be on the ballot in NH and he will lose NH anyways.
She aint afraid, she aint concocting a way to keep Bernie off the ballot.
And she doesn't need to meddle in his internal campaign issues.
To think otherwise is just ridiculous.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)was in response to a claim that she had nothing to do with. NOW she does since she knows about and she can do the honorable thing or not.
The consequences of appearing to want to suppress the vote, whether she 'has to' or not, will be what she has to deal with, whether she wants them or not.
She can control what SHE chooses to do, she can't control the consequences.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)And we can see her campaign pulled ballot shenanigans in 2008.
In fact, she floated using "won the popular vote!!" via MI and FL results as the way to get superdelegates to overturn the results.....and then Obama won too many "regular" delegates for that to work.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)bullshit move from her fixer, Debbie Schulz. PERIOD.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)But reality never stopped the conspiracy theories from flying.
Beowulf42
(204 posts)Hillary may not have anything to do with this, but she has to realize that these shenanigans are being done by her supporters and she will get the blame. That's the reality. DWS of the DCC and now this? Who is going to see it any other way. With friends like this Hillary doesn't need any Republicans.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)we did not vote for Clinton and believed that 'sucking sound' and voted for Perot in the 90's.
The establishment counts continually on our votes, until they do not have them. It is already an uphill battle with the corporate donations and media.
President Carson or Trump, guess the Dems want to allow that to happen.
We are our own worst enemy, people get tired of always being cornered, like hogs lead to slaughter.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)not sure how many times my vote can be taken for granted, us old people just get tired.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)I feel like it once I get in the booth.
To some that may seem counterproductive, but just voting for the D or R is not always productive. I know too many people who wish they had voted against their party, such as Bush, they'll never live it down! Nice people in many ways, but they took a wrong turn based upon some letter they associated themselves with years ago.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)views. The man was talking about sending the troops into 'neighborhoods' to go after drug dealers. The military, closing down neighborhoods. Is that something you supported?
I also remember his nasty comments about Asians. Individuals whom he spoke of using slurs.
But he said 'sucking sound' and so Martial Law for Drug Wars is somehow ok? I don't get that. A billionaire who made voting machines and wanted troops released in our cities.
I voted for Bill Clinton. I was thrilled to do so. Defeating the Reagan/Bush Machine was a matter of life and death for millions of people.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)Fuck me.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Segami
(14,923 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)This post brought to you by -----
Shit!
Eat Shit New Hampshire Democratic Party Leaders . . . 8 Billion Flies Can't Be Wrong!!!
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Is it worth destroying the party to try to put a terrible candidate in the White House?
The party barely tries to even be competitive in the down ballot races or in off year elections.
The party organizations (DNC, DSCC, DCCC) are a joke.
Half our candidates campaign against the president and the national party and consistently lose when they do.
We're always hearing that the republicans are self destructing, but at this rate, they'll be around long after the Dems have vaporized.
But hey, we'll finally have a woman president. Or not. Frankly, if they try to pull this and the Clinton campaign lets them, it's the kiss of death for her presidential hopes.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)candidate to vote for, the one they want. And they will try to bully voters into voting for the nominee no matter who wins the primary and if they don't get their way they will blame the voters. I will have no part of it. They will not force this on me.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)Agreed - will not participate in a process that systematically eliminates participation by both candidates and voters.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)The chairman of the party is personally escorting Sanders to the SoS office and has sworn to use party money to take the case to court, but don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant against the party.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
pa28
(6,145 posts)Keeping him off any ballot at this point would tear the party to ribbons.
Krytan11c
(271 posts)WTF is that supposed to mean.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)People just didn't think it would be a big deal. NPR ran a good story, including possible legal challenges. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/24/416929786/this-quirky-new-hampshire-law-might-keep-sanders-off-the-ballot
still_one
(92,219 posts)and he aligns himself with the Democrats in Congress. If somehow they ruled against him, he could have a massive write-in campaign, and if he got the most votes, which he very well might, he would win the primary
shenmue
(38,506 posts)still_one
(92,219 posts)Congress, and probably the most important:
The Chairman of the Democratic party in NH will insure Bernie is regarded as a Democrat and gets on the ballot.
MADem
(135,425 posts)And Sanders has made a deal with the DNC.
That deal might not be honored by state parties, though.
Or maybe it will, and this is all political theater to rile up the masses...? Get them interested in an election?
See Bernie's "I" here at the senate.gov website: http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/
still_one
(92,219 posts)be going to NH to insure the SOS puts him on the ballot as a Democrat
This is really a non-issue.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251764812
MADem
(135,425 posts)Fight the power, save the poor victim, etc. Get people out there riled and rallying, so they believe that their "people power" made the difference.
still_one
(92,219 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)He got elected to the Senate as an Indie, but he's a Democrat now.
MADem
(135,425 posts)He's an INDEPENDENT who is running under the umbrella of the DNC.
http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/
Scroll down. There's that I you were looking for.
He only agreed to caucus with the Democrats on PROCEDURAL matters. He'll vote with us on rules, but he is not subject to the usual arm-twisting that most D-senators get on votes important to the White House.
He takes no direction from Harry Reid or the Democratic whips in the Senate.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Terrible Bernie, he voted against DOMA, defying Bill Clinton. So horrible to not be a public part of a Party that shits on minorities for sport.
nilram
(2,888 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)exactly one candidate that this move would benefit--heck, there's exactly one candidate that repeating "Sanders isn't a Democratic candidate" would benefit
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)He is not more "left" than FDR was. He is a Democrat. We Democrats want the chance to vote for him.
murielm99
(30,745 posts)I don't like it.
Dr. Doolittle
(43 posts)still_one
(92,219 posts)is Constitutional. Second, there is no doubt he is running as a Democrat as evidenced by his participation in the Democratic debates, and his alignment with the Democrats in Congress. This garbage was first brought up in June by NH Republican congressman Charlie Bass. I can not see Bernie NOT being permitted to be on the ballot. If that actually happen, which I do not think it will, there would be a massive write-in vote for him, which he would win because of the outrage this would generate.
"former NH Republican congressman Charlie Bass has penned a WaPo op-ed suggesting that Bernie Sanders robust poll numbers in NH may not matter because he will not be elgible to run for president in the Granite State as a Democrat. Heres the logic:
[S]tate law makes clear that candidates must be registered members of the party on whose ballot line they wish to appear.
This is a problem for Sanders, who is not a registered Democrat. One might ask why the good senator cant simply change his registration in his home state from socialist or independent to Democrat. The answer is that Vermont doesnt have a party registration system, so he cant. Similar issues arose with the candidacies of Al Gore and both George H.W. and George W. Bush because, like Vermont, Tennessee and Texas do not register voters by party. But Gore and the Bushes qualified for New Hampshires primary ballots because they could show that they had previously appeared on ballots as a Democrat and Republicans, respectively. In his last election, Sanders likewise won the Democratic primary in Vermont, but he declined the nomination and asked that his name not appear on the general election ballot as a Democrat.
In short, Sanders is not a Democrat, has not been elected as a Democrat, has never served as a Democrat and cannot plausibly claim, at least in New Hampshire, to be a Democrat.
According to Bass, a State Ballot Law Commission would rule on any challenge to Sanders ballot access, and he thinks it would be compelled to exclude Bernie. Presumably the courts could offer a way around the Commission; Im not sure what the legal or constitutional rationale would be, but it would be a mite strange to hold that an independent could not contest a primary in which independent voters are allowed to participate. And even if Bernie was to be excluded, he could always run a write-in campaign (which have been known to succeed in NH, viz. Henry Cabot Lodge in 1964)."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_06/ballot_access_problem_for_bern056172.php
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Segami
(14,923 posts)slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)looking at past history that is a slim bet.
still_one
(92,219 posts)establishment
He isn't sure?
You've got to be kidding.
Bombard this fool with calls and mails.
Of all the nerve.
jfern
(5,204 posts)"Loud mean young white male Berniebros attacking the good Bill Gardner"
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)I'll leave it at that to avoid the wrath of the alert brigade.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The headline in the Daily Kos was: "BREAKING NEWS: New Hampshire Democratic Establishment May Not Let Bernie Sanders on the Ballot!" Segami, I appreciate your changing your post to remove that unsupported assertion.
This is not the state Democratic Party establishment. The comment (which was merely noncommittal, waiting to see what was filed) came from the Secretary of State. The New Hampshire Secretary of State is chosen by the state legislature. The incumbent who made this comment, Bill Gardner, has been in office since 1976. Per his Wikipedia bio, "He has been kept in office by both Democratic and Republican legislatures since then."
In short, he's not the state Democratic Party establishment. The OP reports that the state chair wants Sanders on the ballot. Now, it's conceivable that the state chair is saying that for public consumption, while privately ordering his docile minion Gardner to help Hillary Clinton tick off millions of people by excluding Sanders. But no one should propound such a CT without some fairly good evidence.
still_one
(92,219 posts)Godhumor
(6,437 posts)Bernie will be on the ballot in New Hampshire. But, in the mean time, I am enjoying tremendously theSlightations being levied on everything from Clinton faking polls to the DNC being "scared to death" of Bernie becoming president. And I know, just know, that when Bernie qualifies for the ballot there will be someone who believes that it was done so only with extreme reluctance.
For a bit more of an evenhanded view on the situation, let's go to public radio:
Sanders and his supporters have mostly brushed aside questions about any potential threats to his place on the New Hampshire ballot, which requires candidates to declare that they are a registered member of either the Republican or Democratic party. That said, the campaign has been bracing for the possibility however slim of being blocked.
So when Sanders shows up to the Secretary of States office Thursday afternoon to file for the primary, hell be escorted by New Hampshire Democratic Chairman Ray Buckley and prepared for a potential challenge to his eligibility.
...
"If they're going to run in the primary, they have to be a registered member of the party," Gardner told CNN when first asked in April. "Our declaration of candidacy form that they have to fill out says 'I am a registered member of the party.' "
...
Despite the lingering uncertainty from the Secretary of States office, Buckley was as confident as ever when asked earlier this week about the filing process that awaits Sanders. The party chairman has consistently stated plans to defend Sanders place on the ballot. Last month, Buckley released a letter addressed to the Secretary of State explaining that the state party considers Senator Bernie Sanders to be a member of the Democratic Party.
http://nhpr.org/post/sanders-campaign-preparing-possible-ballot-challenge-nh
Just relax. Your candidate is fine and will continue to be fine.
Edit: Sought changes to remove unwanted 2 am snark.
still_one
(92,219 posts)However, the final link in your OP, which I realize is not from you, but from daily's, still distorts their headline with "Democratic Establishment", when in fact there is no evidence to suggest that.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)more does this clown want?
The majority of voters in Massachusetts are registered unenrolled (aka, indie). The day he Sanders barred from the ballot is the day I go to Boston City Hall to change my voter registration to unenrolled.
There is just so much undemocratic crap I can take. I think independents who change their voter registration previously, but changed it back to vote for Bernie in the primary will change back. And Millennials will upchuck. The party is shooting itself in the foot with this nonsense.
Left Coast2020
(2,397 posts)I'm sure he'll be on it, but it'll stir up one hell of a hornets nest if he isn't.
merrily
(45,251 posts)NH probably has no legal reason to keep him off the ballot, but it doesn't need legal reasons for a press release. This is to impress on Democrats "This guy has not been a Democrat for years, like Hillary," even though there is no legal reason for it.
Either way, it's bullshit.
brooklynite
(94,598 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)I am older and wiser, now. If Bernie is kept off ANY ballots, the DNC can take complete ownership of saying Hello! to President Trump or Rubio or Jeb! or whichever bag of noxious gas rises to the "top".
I do not think anything like this happens without Debbie Wasserman-DINO knowing about or approving it. No matter what she dribbles out about it. And there will be a backlash - the newly political folks will see the election as a complete charade, and refuse to play the DNC game. Rahm Emanuel (DINO) and his contemptuous well, who else they gonna vote for! won't play so well when it is played again.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)I've learned that Bernie not being a Democrat is Hillary's fault.
Unbelievable.
Sid
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)To the office of the SoS, and promising to use party funds for a court challenge should Sanders not be on the ballot, are the ones making sure Sanders doesn't get on the ballot.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I love it when people make news. Everyone seems to be following the Fox model. Truly a made up and non-existent story.
moobu2
(4,822 posts)when he reject the Democratic nomination for the seat he holds now....twice.
Bernie can't even follow the law like everybody else has to....It's all about him getting attention to him.