2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNew Hampshire PROBABLY WILL Allow Bernie Sanders on the Ballot.
He has the support of the Democratic Party chair in that state, and is nationally recognized as a Democratic candidate in the Primaries. It would be very difficult for the NH Secretary of State to justify not putting his name on the ballot. That would lead to a major uproar, and rightly so. I doubt very much that the NH SoS is an idiot. That seems very unlikely.
So, my conclusion is that Bernie's name WILL be on the ballot. It takes a real stretch to claim that it MAY NOT be.
Common sense rules, really. We don't need to go beyond that common sense unless something actually occurs. I don't understand the need for outrage when nothing has actually happened.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)I love they are giving free press to Bernie! And making themselves look scared of Bernie and his People. They should be, right?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)What independent and impartial polling firm says this about their polling results, the results being trumped up and trumpeted on Fox and RW media like the propaganda jackpot it is, along with this handy kind of cut and paste commentary from Quinnipac:
"At the moment Dr. Ben Carson is delivering a troubling diagnosis to Secretary Hillary Clinton," Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, said in a statement. "Clinton gets crushed on character issues, pounded by Carson and closely challenged by Sen. Ted Cruz, Donald Trump and Sen. Marco Rubio."
It is getting strange out there in the world of political polling, which seems to be awash in cash for polling contracts.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I do know that is not the topic of this thread, however, so I'm not going to spend time on it. This thread is about Bernie Sanders and the New Hampshire primary ballot. Perhaps you posted in the wrong thread.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Looks like that is happening, so good!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)MineralMan
(146,192 posts)That would be a dumbass move. It's one state, with a very small contingent of delegates anyhow. If one candidate challenged Sander's right to be on the ballot, that would be a very stupid thing to do. I don't know of a candidate who would do such a thing.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)but anyone could...
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)It's his decision to make, I believe. I suppose it could be taken to court, but I don't see any such thing happening, frankly.
Bernie Sanders is a candidate in the primaries. You can see him in the news and in the debates. It's obvious. Using some technicality to keep him of the ballot would be a chump move. I'm pretty sure the NH SoS isn't a chump.
Much ado about nothing, I think.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)but he is still not a Democrat.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)He is running for the Democratic nomination and has caucused with Democrats for a very long time. The argument that he is not a Democrat is a waste of time. It will fail. Let the voters decide if that is important to them. Trust the voters to make the best decision.
I'm a Clinton supporter, and I know that foolish arguments against Sanders are just...well...foolish. They are mistakes.
Don't make mistakes and cause harm to the candidate you prefer. Sanders is a candidate in the Democratic Primaries. It is that simple. The voters will decide what is important.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)I'm totally loving your posts in here!
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I have nothing against Bernie Sanders. He's a great guy, and if he wins the nomination, I'll be supporting him.
His name belongs on the NH ballot because he's a candidate for the Democratic nomination. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Common sense.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)there are Hillary supporters who would like nothing better than to see him restricted from the ballot if it didn't reflect poorly on their candidate.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)supporters of Hillary Clinton really have nothing to worry about. There's no possible valid reason to try to keep Sanders off any ballot. The voters will decide. I predict the nominee will be known clearly on March 2, 2016.
I'm just not concerned with any of this silliness, really.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Democratic socialism is usually distinguished from both the Soviet model of a centralized economy and social democracy.[2] A distinction is also made between democratic socialism and social democracy in that the former is committed to systemic transformation of the economy while the latter is not.[3] However, "democratic socialism" is sometimes improperly used as a synonym for social democracy, where "social democracy" usually refers to support for political democracy, regulation of the capitalist economy, and a welfare state.[4]
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I'm a philosophical Socialist and a practical Democrat. It's the only way it works here in the USA.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and so are Europeans and Nordic countries...
They would not like being called "Socialists" I assure you!
Democratic socialism is usually distinguished from both the Soviet model of a centralized economy and social democracy.[2] A distinction is also made between democratic socialism and social democracy in that the former is committed to systemic transformation of the economy while the latter is not.[3] However, "democratic socialism" is sometimes improperly used as a synonym for social democracy, where "social democracy" usually refers to support for political democracy, regulation of the capitalist economy, and a welfare state.[4]
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Remember when Sanders said he'd do a "major address" on what Democratic Socialism is? Hasn't happened. US voters are not going to listen to such a speech and will not understand it if they do.
We have a two-party system, and that's it. You're a Democrat or a Republican. Yes, the terms "Socialist" and "Teabagger" are used to call some candidate some negative name. It's guaranteed that whoever the Democratic nominee is, the opposition will try to attach the "Socialist" label to that candidate.
In US politics, the fine points of political philosophy are simply not relevant. Even on DU, we don't agree on terms like "liberal" and "progressive," so they get bandied about as labels willy-nilly. It's ridiculous.
In our elections, we're pretty evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, with each person understanding those words in a different way. All attempts to draw finer distinctions than that are simply ignored and have no value in a campaign.
We have people here arguing whether Bernie Sanders is actually a Democrat, with some people pretending that it makes any difference at all. It doesn't. Bernie's running for the Democratic nomination. If he gets it he'll be he Democratic nominee, just as Hillary will if she is the nominee. The voters will do as they always do and vote for the Democrat or the Republican.
The rest is excess verbiage. It doesn't matter in any real way. Some people may have time for discussion of such fine distinctions. I do not. There's an election to win about a year from now. There are more important things to be doing, like keeping the Republicans from gaining control of all three branches of federal government. Now that's something worth talking about.
I believe that Hillary has the best chance of beating whichever GOP clown car occupant gets the nod. I think Bernie Sanders is a great guy, but that he cannot win next November. That's why I support Clinton. Nothing else. We must win.
Once elected, whoever wins will be subject to all of the limitations on the President in the Constitution, and those limitations are many and serious. Our Presidents are not able to do what they want without cooperation from Congress. That's why it's so important not to let the regressive party control all three branches. That issue overrides everything else, in my opinion.
So, don't look for me to discuss political nuances. I don't have time for that.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)do you accept Capitalism?
Would you rather see Capitalism Regulated instead of eliminated?
That is all there is to
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Yes, I think it should be regulated. So does Bernie Sanders. So do most European countries. Who is suggesting ending Capitalism?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)NO Bernie doesn't IF he calls himself a Democratic Socialist...
Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system, involving a combination of political democracy (usually multi-party representative democracy) with social ownership of the means of production. Although sometimes used synonymously with "socialism", the adjective "democratic" is sometimes added to distinguish itself from other models of socialism which democratic socialists perceive to be undemocratic.[1]
Democratic socialism is usually distinguished from both the Soviet model of a centralized economy and social democracy.[2] A distinction is also made between democratic socialism and social democracy in that the former is committed to systemic transformation of the economy while the latter is not.[3] However, "democratic socialism" is sometimes improperly used as a synonym for social democracy, where "social democracy" usually refers to support for political democracy, regulation of the capitalist economy, and a welfare state.[4]
Democratic socialism rejects the social democratic view of reform through state intervention within capitalism, seeing capitalism as inherently incompatible with the democratic values of freedom, equality, and solidarity. Democratic socialists believe that the economic contradictions inherent to capitalism can only be solved by transitioning from capitalism to socialism, by superseding private property with some form of social ownership, with any attempt to address the economic contradictions of capitalism through reforms only being likely to generate more problems elsewhere in the capitalist economy.[5][6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I live in the United States. I am a Democrat. I don't draw such distinctions. I define myself. You define yourself.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)becuase Democratic Socialists do NOT agree with Capitalism at all...and because they have Capitalism Europe and the Nordic countries are Socialist Democracies...Not Democratic Socialist States...
Words have meaning
By the way...he also was a member of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_People%27s_Socialist_League_(1907)
840high
(17,196 posts)LiberalArkie
(15,686 posts)Senior Sanders Campaign Advisor Tad Devine confirmed for the first time that Sen. Bernie Sanders is a Democrat on MSNBCs Hardball.
Transcript via MSNBCs Hardball:
CM: If he gets the nomination of the Democratic Party, will he become a Democrat?
Devine: He is. Hes running as a Democrat. In this campaign he decided to run for the Democratic Party nomination. Hes running as a Democrat.
CM: He is a Democrat? Is he a member of the Democratic Party?
Devine: He cant technically be a member of the party because theres no registration in Vermont.
CM: Is he a Democrat?
Devine: Yes, hes running as a Democrat.
CM: I thought he was a Socialist. Which is it?
Devine: Well, his philosophy is Democratic Socialist.
CM: Oh, I thought that his title was Socialist?
Devine: No.
If Sanders could register as a Democrat, he would, but that isnt how things work in Vermont. Sen. Sanders has had a long and close relationship with the Democratic Party. Sanders is a friend of both President Obama and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Sanders has such a good relationship with the Democratic Party that he was given an important promotion to Ranking Member on the Senate Budget Committee.
The fact is that Senator Sanders is not as far out of the mainstream of the Democratic Party as the media and many of his opponents like to suggest that he is.
Note: I was told that in several states he will have to go there and register in that state as a Democratic Member.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/11/03/time-bernie-sanders-campaign-confirms-democrat.html
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Um no..
Check his campaign wikipedia page....still says Independent...
LiberalArkie
(15,686 posts)I guess to Reid he is a Democrat. I know Reids opinions do matter as he is leaving office, but at least I consider him a good Democrat and would not place someone who wasn't a good Democrat in that position.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)His seat is as an Independent....says so on his campaign wiki...
He cant be Independent and Democrat at the same time...
LiberalArkie
(15,686 posts)Bernie Sanders for President
Bernie Sanders 2016 logo.svg
Campaign U.S. presidential election, 2016
Candidate Bernie Sanders
U.S. Senator (2007present)
U.S. Representative (19912007)
Mayor of Burlington (19811989)
Affiliation Democratic Party
(serves as Independent in Senate)
Status Announced: April 30, 2015
Formal launch: May 26, 2015
Headquarters 131 Church Street Suite 300
Burlington, Vermont
Key people Jeff Weaver, campaign manager[1]
Symone D. Sanders, press secretary[2][3]
Receipts US$41,463,783 (2015-09-30[4])
Slogan A Future To Believe In
A Political Revolution Is Coming
Not For Sale
LiberalArkie
(15,686 posts)Jeff Weaver is a Democratic political advisor. He was Sen. Bernie Sanders' (D-Vt.) chief of staff and former congressional campaign manager. In May 2015, Weaver was appointed campaign manager for Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign.
http://ballotpedia.org/Jeff_Weaver
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)The ribbons location is in the code at the end of this week's "Gravity Falls"
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Democratic socialism is usually distinguished from both the Soviet model of a centralized economy and social democracy.[2] A distinction is also made between democratic socialism and social democracy in that the former is committed to systemic transformation of the economy while the latter is not.[3] However, "democratic socialism" is sometimes improperly used as a synonym for social democracy, where "social democracy" usually refers to support for political democracy, regulation of the capitalist economy, and a welfare state.[4]
Has he or has he not described himself as ^^^ on multiple occasions?
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)But please don't let that stop you.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and you know I am right...
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)just...knock it off.
That works right?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I do as I please..
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)LiberalArkie
(15,686 posts)Senior Sanders Campaign Advisor Tad Devine confirmed for the first time that Sen. Bernie Sanders is a Democrat on MSNBCs Hardball.
Transcript via MSNBCs Hardball:
CM: If he gets the nomination of the Democratic Party, will he become a Democrat?
Devine: He is. Hes running as a Democrat. In this campaign he decided to run for the Democratic Party nomination. Hes running as a Democrat.
CM: He is a Democrat? Is he a member of the Democratic Party?
Devine: He cant technically be a member of the party because theres no registration in Vermont.
CM: Is he a Democrat?
Devine: Yes, hes running as a Democrat.
CM: I thought he was a Socialist. Which is it?
Devine: Well, his philosophy is Democratic Socialist.
CM: Oh, I thought that his title was Socialist?
Devine: No.
If Sanders could register as a Democrat, he would, but that isnt how things work in Vermont. Sen. Sanders has had a long and close relationship with the Democratic Party. Sanders is a friend of both President Obama and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Sanders has such a good relationship with the Democratic Party that he was given an important promotion to Ranking Member on the Senate Budget Committee.
The fact is that Senator Sanders is not as far out of the mainstream of the Democratic Party as the media and many of his opponents like to suggest that he is.
Note: I was told that in several states he will have to go there and register in that state as a Democratic Member.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/11/03/time-bernie-sanders-campaign-confirms-democrat.html
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)LiberalArkie
(15,686 posts)Old age you know.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)A Progressive that gets things done in fact
LiberalArkie
(15,686 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Any Joe Blow could walk in off the street and take Bernie off the NH Ballot?
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)reverse a decision. It's a waste of time. Neither of the other candidates would attempt such a stupid thing, and it doesn't matter anyhow.
Bernie's a candidate on the Democratic ticket. That's the fact of the matter. So, his name will be on the ballot.
I don't vote in New Hampshire. If I did, I'd vote for Hillary Clinton. The voters in that state will make their own decisions.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)I confess complete ignorance about NH law on this subject, and thought maybe you
might care to clarify who "anyone" refers to: any candidate? any Democrat? any registered
voter? .. assuming of course that they had the money to pay for a legal challenge.
I'm not trying to be snarky, just being an incurably curious political junky.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I'm far from an expert on NH election laws, and don't have time to research them.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)So I'll take your advise, and not worry about it too much, unless I hear otherwise.
Gothmog
(144,005 posts)First, as a Clinton supporter I support having Sanders on the ballot in New Hampshire.
Second, there is a technical argument to keep Sanders off but the same argument could have been used to keep Al Gore and others off. In Vermont (as in Texas) you do not register to vote as a member of a particular party. That decision is made each year when you decide which primary to vote in. Sanders can not register as a member of the Democratic Party in Vermont and has held office as a technical member of another party. There is a very technical argument that Sanders does not meet the requirements to be on the New Hampshire ballot as a Democrat but that same analysis could have kept Al Gore and others off the NH ballot but was waived.
The fact that a DNC member is vouching for Sanders should help and it is clear that neither of the two remaining candidates will object. I think that it is very likely that Sanders will be on the NH ballot and that is the right thing to happen.
BTW, in Texas there is no issue that Sanders will qualify so long as he pays $2500 and file the correct form with the Texas Democratic Party between Nov. 14 and Dec. 14 unless the Texas primary is delayed due to the Texas redistricting lawsuit.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)good to know. I appreciate your taking the time to fill me in.
djean111
(14,255 posts)happen, sorry.......................
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)No I didn't did I?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Instinctive automatic reflexive outrage?
Here, have some pie.
HOW DARE YOU!!
It's pie, you like pie.
Oh, okay, thanks.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I'm for saving outrage for occasions when something outrageous actually happens. I'm odd that way, I guess.
Dr. Doolittle
(43 posts)Despite polls after polls saying Clinton is inevitable and we proles should sit at home and not vote.
Enthusiasm factor, remember? That's why the Republicans had better turnout than Dems in the off-years.
If Clinton is the nominee, it will be a repeat.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)It's certainly possible that Bernie will beat Clinton in NH, although by no means certain. The other three states, though, will be won by Hillary Clinton. I can't imagine your scenario occurring.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)and unfair light, and make the NH elections appear rigged. The NH SoS knows that.
Although I'm generally opposed to a non-Democrat running for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, Sanders has voted 98% of the time with Democrats - beating conservaDems Manchin and Webb - so, in my honest opinion, he's more than earned his right to run in the Democratic presidential primary and should be on ALL ballots in ALL 50 States. But that's just my opinion.
Dr. Doolittle
(43 posts)I've been waiting for someone to discuss issues that Hillary has been avoiding since she announced... and only gave us vague informatiom.
We are expected to vote for her based on platitudes and vague information? I'll pass. Bernie has provided detailed information that I have read and agreed with him.
Clinton? "See me later".
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I'm perfectly content with the voters in each state deciding how their delegates are assigned. That's how democratic processes work. Of course he'll be on the ballot in NH and should be, too.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)There's a difference between a good win and a bad win. I want my candidate's win to be decisive and clean.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Nothing for other candidates. And that is only one example.
Pretending that the DNC's role in this has been business and usual and/or even handed is ludicrous.
Since when is stating what is patently obvious "outrage" -- DU's favorite word for "I didn't want you to post what you posted, but, now that you have, I'll try to dismiss it as an unwarranted emotion."
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Candidates should hand out their own buttons, anyhow. I don't see the Minnesota DFL handing out buttons at our caucuses and conventions. We have tables for candidates to do that, along with bumper stickers, yard signs and the like. What states' official party organizations are handing out only Hillary buttons? Show me, please.
merrily
(45,251 posts)does not give out materials or campaign for for any candidate, that's one thing. I have no problem with that. However, if the party office displays and gives out materials for only one candidate, that's a problem and it's not answered by "Candidates should hand out their own buttons." Another disingenuous reply.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Show me, please. That's my question. Lacking evidence of such, how do I know such a thing is happening?
Give me an example, with a link, and I'll comment on it. I would be opposed to a state Party handing out only one candidate's materials, but I know of no such state. If you do, show me.
LiberalArkie
(15,686 posts)It Bernie did not provide any, then none will be given away. It will be up to the candidates to provide them.
merrily
(45,251 posts)candidate's stuff was removed and Hillary's was given out to anyone asking for materials. I am going to assume that all candidates provided materials in other states, too.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)MineralMan
(146,192 posts)But some people are trying to say that he will be kept off the ballot. I'm not sure what the reason for that might be. It's outrage without a reason to be outraged.
randome
(34,845 posts)The image of an old man being escorted into the room and helped signing papers inevitably comes to mind.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
djean111
(14,255 posts)That's kinda tricky, considering one of his opponents is only a very few years younger. And has had health problems.
The worst thing that could happen, IMO, is not being able to vote for Bernie.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)That was a low damn blow.
randome
(34,845 posts)I did NOT mean to mock his age. My bad.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
djean111
(14,255 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)And it has absolutely nothing to do with the party.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)a tough nut for any candidate. I assume the Sanders organization is working on that right now. I think the state will be a loss for him in the primary anyhow by a wide margin, so I guess I can see them not going all-out to be on that ballot if they think they probably won't get the nomination, though.
I don't really know the primary ballot access laws in every state. I just don't have time to do the research.
Gothmog
(144,005 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)to media I posted last night that I thought the Secretary's statements were kabuki and today's news has only convinced me that I was correct.
(http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251764490 Thread is now locked, so I can't link directly to my Rely 57.)
Sanders has been recognized as a candidate for the Democratic nomination by the DNC, he has done everything he needs to do under Vermont law to become a Democrat and the Vermont Democratic Party has recognized him as a Democrat. There was no legitimate reason whatever to question for the press whether he belonged on the ballot. However, it did give the DNC the opportunity to stand up for him after the blatant bias of DWS and the DNC against him has been the subject of much press. So, two birds with one stone: damage Sanders more and try to polish up the turd the reputation of DWS has become.
It's all ginned up bs, both the questioning and the "rescue." So, two turd birds with one stone: (1) Make headlines questioning Sanders bona fides as a Democrat yet again, and polish up the turd that DWS's reputation has become by having the DNC stand by his side and appear neutral.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)My question: Why are we wasting time with this petty bullshit? It's a distraction that is not needed and that serves only to divide the Democratic Party further. Perhaps that's the goal. I don't know. I'm sick of it, though.
Here's my bottom line: If we lose control of all three branches of federal government to the Republicans, it will be a disaster. As far as I'm concerned, nothing else matters much. That loss would cost us so much more than arguing over which Democratic nominee will be on the ballot that it's the only thing that should be in the dialog, as far as I am concerned.
Arguing political nuances is a waste of everyone's time.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Why are we wasting time with this petty bullshit? It's a distraction that is not needed and that serves only to divide the Democratic Party further. Perhaps that's the goal. I don't know. I'm sick of it, though.
Sorry, but to whose OP did I respond again? If you did not want replies from all sides of this, why did you post the OP? So we could all just applaud the DNC for this kabuki?
I find it highly disingenuous and highly inappropriate for you to maintain twice that my reply to your OP is a waste of time and characterize my response as petty bullshit, especially since you posted the OP and did not claim any other reply to it was a waste of time or bullshit.
If you don't want candid discussion of all aspects of this, you should self delete your OP, having made the mistake of posting in the first instance without be open to certain kinds of replies.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I'm not going to self-delete anything. You posted your opinion. The discussion is open. I disagree with your opinion, but not with your posting of that opinion. How's that for candid?
merrily
(45,251 posts)If an on topic reply is a waste of time, then so is your OP. Sorry if you can't make that connection.
merrily
(45,251 posts)You've made one highly inappropriate reply and one highly disingenuous reply. I will not reply to a third.
still_one
(91,968 posts)still_one
(91,968 posts)MineralMan
(146,192 posts)still_one
(91,968 posts)From Trading Places:
"Randolph Duke: Pay up, Mortimer. I've won the bet.
Mortimer Duke: Here, one dollar.
Randolph Duke: We took a perfectly useless psychopath like Valentine, and turned him into a successful executive. And during the same time, we turned an honest, hard-working man into a violently, deranged, would-be killer!"
Response to still_one (Reply #64)
still_one This message was self-deleted by its author.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)and O'Malley will have to follow the rules. I don't see where the problem is on following the rules of each state.