HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Today Sanders AFFIRMED th...

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:30 PM

 

Today Sanders AFFIRMED that he said that there should be a primary opponent to Barack Obama.

Oddly, some Hillary supporters claim that he DENIED that he said that there should be a primary opponent to Barack Obama. And so they accuse him of lying. Affirming is denying, up is down, black is white.

No. No. Look, this is media stuff. What ends up happening -- I do and have done for years a radio show every single Friday, with Thom Hartmann. Somebody asked me years ago, do you think there should be a primary opponent to Barack Obama? And I don't know exactly the words that I said-- I said "Sure, what's wrong with a primary situation?" The idea that I worked against Barack Obama--one second George--the idea that I worked against Barack Obama is categorically false.

199 replies, 8171 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 199 replies Author Time Post
Reply Today Sanders AFFIRMED that he said that there should be a primary opponent to Barack Obama. (Original post)
Vattel Nov 2015 OP
Gothmog Nov 2015 #1
Historic NY Nov 2015 #92
Gothmog Nov 2015 #135
JDPriestly Nov 2015 #153
TiberiusB Nov 2015 #173
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #2
bravenak Nov 2015 #8
Scuba Nov 2015 #86
bravenak Nov 2015 #159
jalan48 Nov 2015 #88
TiberiusB Nov 2015 #166
bravenak Nov 2015 #168
TiberiusB Nov 2015 #172
bravenak Nov 2015 #174
TiberiusB Nov 2015 #177
bravenak Nov 2015 #178
mhatrw Nov 2015 #198
bravenak Nov 2015 #199
azmom Nov 2015 #9
earthside Nov 2015 #27
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #30
earthside Nov 2015 #33
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #34
Ned_Devine Nov 2015 #163
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #164
Ned_Devine Nov 2015 #167
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #183
TiberiusB Nov 2015 #179
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #182
Ned_Devine Nov 2015 #190
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #192
Ned_Devine Nov 2015 #194
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #196
bowens43 Nov 2015 #36
askew Nov 2015 #64
PosterChild Nov 2015 #120
askew Nov 2015 #143
thesquanderer Nov 2015 #48
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #53
thesquanderer Nov 2015 #63
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #67
thesquanderer Nov 2015 #85
PosterChild Nov 2015 #125
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #138
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #140
Dragonfli Nov 2015 #89
left lowrider Nov 2015 #54
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #59
Fawke Em Nov 2015 #76
LiberalArkie Nov 2015 #95
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #155
Babel_17 Nov 2015 #102
Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2015 #109
winter is coming Nov 2015 #127
shawn703 Nov 2015 #154
jkbRN Nov 2015 #162
azmom Nov 2015 #3
Scuba Nov 2015 #87
Jack Rabbit Nov 2015 #90
mindwalker_i Nov 2015 #100
Jack Rabbit Nov 2015 #170
mindwalker_i Nov 2015 #189
AzDar Nov 2015 #150
HerbChestnut Nov 2015 #4
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #10
beam me up scottie Nov 2015 #14
Hydra Nov 2015 #18
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #19
Hydra Nov 2015 #29
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #31
Hydra Nov 2015 #39
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #42
Hydra Nov 2015 #55
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #60
smiley Nov 2015 #103
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #105
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #106
angrychair Nov 2015 #165
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #184
angrychair Nov 2015 #188
beam me up scottie Nov 2015 #61
Hydra Nov 2015 #97
beam me up scottie Nov 2015 #101
Laser102 Nov 2015 #148
stevenleser Nov 2015 #186
Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2015 #111
bobbobbins01 Nov 2015 #5
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #12
bobbobbins01 Nov 2015 #17
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #22
bobbobbins01 Nov 2015 #26
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #32
bobbobbins01 Nov 2015 #35
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #94
bobbobbins01 Nov 2015 #98
PosterChild Nov 2015 #139
TiberiusB Nov 2015 #180
PosterChild Nov 2015 #187
askew Nov 2015 #71
beam me up scottie Nov 2015 #104
Babel_17 Nov 2015 #112
beam me up scottie Nov 2015 #129
askew Nov 2015 #113
beam me up scottie Nov 2015 #121
askew Nov 2015 #142
beam me up scottie Nov 2015 #144
askew Nov 2015 #161
TiberiusB Nov 2015 #171
Vattel Nov 2015 #191
azmom Nov 2015 #28
passiveporcupine Nov 2015 #146
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #156
HerbChestnut Nov 2015 #13
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #24
Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2015 #6
JoePhilly Nov 2015 #41
Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2015 #52
askew Nov 2015 #77
Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2015 #82
askew Nov 2015 #91
Fuddnik Nov 2015 #149
askew Nov 2015 #157
bravenak Nov 2015 #7
Scootaloo Nov 2015 #38
bravenak Nov 2015 #46
Scootaloo Nov 2015 #70
bravenak Nov 2015 #72
Scootaloo Nov 2015 #75
bravenak Nov 2015 #78
Scootaloo Nov 2015 #84
beam me up scottie Nov 2015 #11
Autumn Nov 2015 #45
in_cog_ni_to Nov 2015 #15
stevenleser Nov 2015 #16
Vattel Nov 2015 #21
stevenleser Nov 2015 #25
JonLeibowitz Nov 2015 #43
stevenleser Nov 2015 #49
JonLeibowitz Nov 2015 #57
stevenleser Nov 2015 #58
JonLeibowitz Nov 2015 #62
Vattel Nov 2015 #65
artislife Nov 2015 #74
Autumn Nov 2015 #40
Autumn Nov 2015 #20
Old Codger Nov 2015 #23
JoePhilly Nov 2015 #37
Hydra Nov 2015 #44
JoePhilly Nov 2015 #50
Historic NY Nov 2015 #66
Doctor_J Nov 2015 #47
askew Nov 2015 #51
Historic NY Nov 2015 #68
99th_Monkey Nov 2015 #56
Le Taz Hot Nov 2015 #69
Vattel Nov 2015 #73
askew Nov 2015 #81
Vattel Nov 2015 #107
askew Nov 2015 #110
Vattel Nov 2015 #115
askew Nov 2015 #118
Vattel Nov 2015 #193
askew Nov 2015 #195
Vattel Nov 2015 #197
MisterP Nov 2015 #83
Cheese Sandwich Nov 2015 #79
LineReply .
RandySF Nov 2015 #80
jfern Nov 2015 #93
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #96
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #99
jfern Nov 2015 #108
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #116
jfern Nov 2015 #119
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #122
jfern Nov 2015 #123
Babel_17 Nov 2015 #114
Vattel Nov 2015 #117
Babel_17 Nov 2015 #126
Vattel Nov 2015 #132
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #131
jeff47 Nov 2015 #133
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #128
Babel_17 Nov 2015 #130
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #134
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #136
Babel_17 Nov 2015 #141
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #145
Babel_17 Nov 2015 #151
Babel_17 Nov 2015 #137
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #147
Babel_17 Nov 2015 #152
jtuck004 Nov 2015 #124
Spitfire of ATJ Nov 2015 #158
Vattel Nov 2015 #169
Spitfire of ATJ Nov 2015 #175
jkbRN Nov 2015 #160
Hekate Nov 2015 #176
Live and Learn Nov 2015 #181
Enthusiast Nov 2015 #185

Response to Vattel (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:32 PM

1. This is consistent with other statements by Sanders

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:40 PM

92. Well on the Tom Hartmann show he said there should be a challenge..

In 2011, Sanders said more than once that a challenge from the left might help President Obama get back on track after, Sanders said, the president had veered far to the right, selling out the left on issues like entitlement programs in the interests of cutting deals with Republican leaders. At one point, he Sanders said he was “giving thought” to encouraging a progressive to run against Obama, telling a radio caller, “I don’t want to tell you more than that, but this is an issue we are beginning to talk about a little bit.”



He's been saying things different lately....

http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/the-obama-campaign-remembers-2012-very-differently-from-bern?utm_term=.jpP3ymnGj#.sb2Rp1rWw

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Historic NY (Reply #92)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:33 PM

135. If Thom Hartman runs for office, he can defend this position

In the meantime, it will be fun watching Sanders explain this position to votes who supported President Obama. Sanders is at 8% African American support in South Carolina. This position will no doubt help Sanders win the support of the South Carolina African American community

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #135)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 12:10 AM

153. I supported Obama, but his stand on Social Security was a real problem for me.

There is nothing wrong with a primary challenge. I'm with Sanders on that.

Obama appointed Rahm Emmanuel, Geithner and other conservative Democrats to top offices. He appointed very few progressives or strong liberals.

I'm glad Bernie is running. I think he is a strong candidate.

Obama has made mistakes.

If African-Americans vote for Hillary because they are peeved at Bernie for his stance on primarying Obama, they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

Bernie will be the best president for African-Americans and minorities that has ever sat in the White House. He works from his moral principles and keeps them in his focus. Hillary does not do that. That is why Hillary has changed her stands on so many issues while most often (although not always) took the right stand in the first place.

If African-Americans want to take that route of cutting off their noses to spite their faces, they will be making the same mistake that poor white people in conservative states make.

That's sad. I'm not the one whose children are endangered when they leave the house. I'm not the one whose house was foreclosed. I'm not the one who is working for minimum wage. But I want to vote for the candidate who has the best policies to help people who do. And that is Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Historic NY (Reply #92)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 02:13 AM

173. No, he has not...yeesh, this gets tiring

Sanders talked about a hypothetical primary challenge in 2011. 2011 is not 2012. He did actually support Obama's re-election in 2012.

You can argue about how amazing or stellar Sanders was or wasn't in his support, but you can't claim that him talking about a primary challenge in 2011 is somehow the same as NOT campaigning for Obama in 2012. You can even try to debate whether or not his comments in 2011 had any impact at all on the 2012 campaign. I'd say they didn't, not even in the slightest, or people wouldn't have to work so hard to dredge anything up now. You can't, however, claim that Sanders is somehow misrepresenting his statements from 2011.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:32 PM

2. So EVERY President should be Primaried?

 

Or just THIS one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:34 PM

8. Just the black one maybe, and then the woman too maybe. Idk.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:32 PM

86. Also the one who campaigned as a progressive and governed as a "moderate Republican."

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #86)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 12:28 AM

159. So he called for Bill Clinton to be primaried also, then? Or just Obama?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:33 PM

88. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #8)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 12:49 AM

166. Wow

Bernie Sanders can't have an opinion that isn't either racist or sexist? Because he's, oh, I don't know, white? A man? Ooookay, then...

Think about the insanity present in this thread. Sanders is lying about saying he thought Obama should be primaried, and if not about that, then he's lying about supporting Obama's campaign in 2012.

Sanders said, in 2011, not during the 2012 campaign, that he thought a primary challenger might help pull Obama back to the left. He never actually went ahead and started, or supported, any such challenge. In 2012, he then supported Obama during the actual campaign. Now, when asked about his 2011 statements about his thoughts on a primary challenge to Obama, he says, effectively, "Yeah, sure. That was in 2011. In 2012, I still supported his campaign."

Again, no primary ever happened.

So,

1.) He didn't lie about discussing, in 2011, his thoughts on the value in a primary challenge to Obama to push him to the left.
2.) He did support Obama during his campaign in 2012 and never backed any sort of opposition.
3.) 2011 is NOT 2012, and an interview about a hypothetical challenge is not the same as taking action to undermine a campaign.
4.) Unless you think he was going to call for a primary opponent for Bush junior, a Republican (hint: Bernie Sanders doesn't caucus with the GOP), then you must think that he's racist/sexist because he didn't call for a primary against Bill Clinton during his re-election (or do you think he should have tried to primary Clinton before he was actually President?). Otherwise, there have been no other Democratic Presidents to primary. Of course, the total number of President's Bernie Sanders has actually openly called out to be primaried still stands at zero, regardless. The number he has actually primaried may be even lower.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TiberiusB (Reply #166)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 12:54 AM

168. Did I call him racist? No. I did not. Stop beating that strawman.

 

Bernie Sanders needs black voters, a demographic he is not polling well with. He needs to pretend that he never wanted Obama primaried but it is not true. He did and he said it would be a good idea. Black voters are finding that out and not goung for Bernie.
So all this hollering about folks calling Bernie racist is just jibber jabber to cover for the fact that he screwed up by saying that.
After the way his grassroots handled BLM, I cannot understand why folks think blacks should give Bernie the time of day. They opposed Obama just like Bernie did. Now they want our votes. Don't make me laugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #168)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 02:06 AM

172. Yeah, you did

Straight up, you came out and suggested he only wants to primary black, and, maybe, someday, female presidents. You even tried to suggest that the fact that he didn't try to primary Clinton (or call for one), counted as evidence. Of course, he really only had one chance to primary Clinton before the 8 Bush years, but whatever. If Sanders has actually said or done anything to lead you to believe he has a problem with Obama because of his race or Hillary Clinton because of her gender, let's hear it. Otherwise, it kinda seems you are suggesting something potentially unsavory. To be honest, I don't actually think that's the case. I think this is yet another instance of "you shall never speak ill of Hillary or Obama" over-reaction, but that doesn't make it okay.

I also refuted the whole proposition that Mr. Sanders lied. Because he didn't. The complaint seems to be more along the lines of "why doesn't Bernie scream from the rooftops that he clearly hates Obama (*cough* and doesn't respect African Americans *cough*)." The plan seems to be to undermine his position with African Americans and women by painting his every utterance as suspect. So much for the straw man.

Also, he didn't "screw up." He voiced his opinion (oh no!) that he felt the President had moved to far rightward and might benefit from a challenger to push him to the left. How dare he have principles. He never made any serious attempt to have Obama primaried.

And I assume by your use of the term "grassroots" that you blame all Bernie Sanders supporters for the actions of a few? The candidate doesn't matter just look at the angry people on the Internet? Forget that he actually opposed a number of Clinton policies openly, including welfare reform and the three-strikes law. Policies which had a disastrous impact on the African American community. Some of his supporters are jerks, so, out he goes. Care to apply that same litmus test to Hillary supporters?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TiberiusB (Reply #172)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 02:20 AM

174. Straight up I asked if that was his reason, why didn't he call for a primary of Mr. DLC.?

 

What's up with that? Clinton was to the RIGHT of Obama, why no call for orimary? I am telling you how it looks to US. Funny that it can look fine and dandy to you, but oppressed minorities might have a complex, huh? So tell me that. Why? No? Call? For? Primary? Of? Clinton?

Ain't no need to undermine his postions with African Americans at all. Because he has no position with us. Got it? He has no position with us. He has built NO relationships with our community so I have no idea why y'all think he is all up in our good graces. Besides, with his grassroots going all out on BLM this Summer? All we gotta do is watch them continue undermining their own candidate. They are GOOD at it. I was a supporter until all those BLM posts and race nagging posts and race baiter posts and the letters sent to my home from a self described fan. They are doing the undermining FOR ME. Think on it. We see them and think they got their marching orders from HIM. We are not pleased or amused.

The actions of a few? Ok. So, you guys just let a FEW bad apples ruin the whole thing and never thought about getting rid of them instead of expecting the rest of us to fight through the garbage to get to the wonderful Bernie. Hahahahaha! My godness! That is soo funny!! We should FIGHT his Grassroots for the chance to be on his team and completely uncomfortable. No. He should be a leader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #174)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 04:24 AM

177. Well, there is a very likely reason why Clinton didn't get the same scrutiny

You're forgetting that Clinton's re-election was 20 years ago. This would have been the first opportunity for a much younger, much greener, Bernie Sanders to even consider calling for a primary challenger to anybody, and he would have gotten zero attention even if he had. He wasn't running for President and the country wasn't still suffering from the reign of Bush the lesser. If the situation were flipped, and Clinton was President in 2011, Bernie might have considered a primary challenge for Clinton. However, and I'll repeat this for the umpteenth time. Bernie never called for Obama to be primaried. He only said he was looking at the possibility. In 2011. Not 2012. And much of that seemed to come from his concern over Obama's apparent willingness to use Social Security as a bargaining chip, among other issues.

If you jump on a candidate and suggest his actions are based on race or gender, it will at the very least appear that you are trying to undermine his credibility as a liberal/progressive (or, ideally, what people might think of as a "decent human being". That was my point. I tried to make it clear that I didn't think that was what you really thought, but that is absolutely the way it reads.

Why isn't Bernie Sanders in your good graces (you specifically, not the entire AA community)? He's done at least as much as any other candidate. He may not be ideal, but you can't really claim he hasn't done anything of value (or at least tried to). Vermont isn't the most racially diverse state, unfortunately, so the lack of visible minority outreach isn't really surprising, but he has been trying, particularly as of late. Why does Hillary Clinton's long standing support of welfare reform and her early support for 3 strikes not seem to count against her? I can understand the position that she has evolved on these issues (3 strikes, anyway), but why does that get a pass and opposing 3 strikes and welfare reform from the start gets a "he has no position with us"? I understand that you were personally attacked, but do you really think that Bernie Sanders' base is nothing but a bunch of knuckle dragging race baiters? Why would Bernie Sanders benefit from having anyone attack the African American community, BLM or otherwise? It would seem rather inept to coordinate such a plan and then fail to warn your minions not to call themselves out as avid Bernie supporters. Still, I imagine you can only take so much abuse in someone's name before you begin to resent the only real face in the crowd. In this case, that face belongs to Bernie Sanders.

Finally, I can't stop people posting in threads, and I can't reply to racial insults if I never see them (I'm not on DU nearly as much as some). I would hope, and though I've been warned many times about the danger of assuming anything, I also assume, that at least someone has your back. It's not hard to imagine that any attack from out of the Internet can feel like an all out assault from whatever mob they claim to represent, and, sadly, it isn't hard to see any messages of support getting lost among the vitriol. No one is letting the bad apples have their way (at least, I would hope not). You are still here, fighting. I'd call that a sort of victory.

So, in the big picture, you are already "on the team", regardless of who you stand with, Hillary, Bernie, or Martin.

“And the little screaming fact that sounds through all history: repression works only to strengthen and knit the repressed.”
― John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TiberiusB (Reply #177)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 04:26 AM

178. Bernie has no control over his grassroots. Period.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #8)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 03:23 PM

198. and the one fighting the Vietnam War? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mhatrw (Reply #198)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 03:46 PM

199. Is the vietnam war still going on? Cause i do not get it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:35 PM

9. THIS one? What do you mean by that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:46 PM

27. Was he asked about every Democratic President?

The hatred for Bernie is making some folks here irrational.

It is amazing that there are some so obsessed with tearing down Sen. Sanders that they are trying to turn this rather esoteric political comment into one of sexism and racism.

Besides, there isn't anything wrong or evil about a sitting President of any party being primaried -- to be against that notion is to be against freedom and democracy.

Maybe it would have been good if Obama had had some opposition from the left in 2012.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthside (Reply #27)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:47 PM

30. So are you saying it IS just about THIS one?

 

Things that make you go hmmmmm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #30)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:50 PM

33. Good grief. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthside (Reply #33)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:51 PM

34. grief indeed...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthside (Reply #33)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 12:31 AM

163. Don't you just want to say...

 

..."fuck off" to these HRC supporters? It's like they keep pushing you with this elementary school "tag, you're it, no quitsies". It would be so much easier to just say "It's way past your bedtime! You have kindergarten tomorrow!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ned_Devine (Reply #163)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 12:37 AM

164. Do you now???

 

I mean what the fuck do WE know about being a Democrat?... Independents know so much more about how to run a Political Party after all....it just makes perfect sense...who could possibly accept this:

A primary challenge occurs in U.S. politics when an incumbent elected official is challenged in an upcoming primary election by a member of his own political party. Such events, known informally as "being primaried," are noteworthy and not frequent in the United States, as tradition dictates that members of a political party support officeholders of the same party, both for party unity and to minimize the possibility of loss of the seat to an opposing party.

In addition, officeholders are frequently seen as de facto leaders of their political party, eligible to establish policy and administer affairs as they see fit. A primary challenge thus interferes with this "spoil of office," and is largely discouraged.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_challenge


It just boggles ones mind..



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #164)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 12:52 AM

167. If I recall, even Howard Dean was...

 

...speculating a run for 2012 because of some of the positions Barack had taken. Last I checked, he was supporting HRC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ned_Devine (Reply #167)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 07:06 AM

183. Care to back that up then?

 

Everybody wanted to Primary him.....yeah right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #164)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 04:42 AM

179. And that proves what, exactly?

That Democrats should be seen and not heard? If a political leader is seen as acting against the public interest, then a primary should be considered. Simply being in the party shouldn't mean "shut up and do as you're told".

Also..again...who got primaried?

I only ask because it seems like people seem to be struggling with the difference between talking about the vague possibility of something and actually going ahead with a primary challenge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TiberiusB (Reply #179)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 07:06 AM

182. It proves that this meme every President should be

 

Primaried.....as a form of performance review...is utter horseshit...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #182)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 12:15 PM

190. I like the way you purposely miss the point so it fits your narrative

 

No one actually faced a primary challenger. It's the idea that when the leader of the democratic party starts shifting rightward and goes against bread and butter democratic values, i.e. Keystone XL, or TPP, there should be the threat of a primary to set him/her back on the right course. As a progressive minded liberal, I think it's a great idea. I love Barack, but there are definitely some issues I think have drifted away from our core ideals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ned_Devine (Reply #190)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 12:19 PM

192. I did not miss any points....

 

Did you not read how RARE they are? Its ONLY done when MEMBERS of the party believe egregious violations have occurred...it is never done as a form of review as some suggested....

.. To flippantly suggest that the first Black President should be "primaried" just for grins and giggles would tend to raise the IRE of all other Democrats. To suggest that ACTUAL Democrats (since he wasn't one then) should Primary a sitting President and leader of the party.....and then LIE about by claiming you "campaigned FOR the President" as if it never happened it after joining the party...is the epitome of hypocrisy!

to reiterate.....Primaring a sitting President (not to mention the first Black President...who WON the Popular vote) is exceedingly rare and frowned upon by the entire party. It's not something you just say half-heartedly....it is taken VERY seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #192)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 12:25 PM

194. What about when Howard Dean hinted at doing it?

 

I haven't been following politics long enough to know if there was any chatter about someone on the left running against Clinton back in '96. I know that Ted Kennedy did run an actual campaign against Carter after his first term. It has nothing to do with the first black president, so enough with that narrative. It's about liberal ideals. And again, no one actually ran a primary against him. It was a mere suggestion. But you can blow off steam all you like. You're pretty good at the fake outrage stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ned_Devine (Reply #194)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 12:27 PM

196. Prove that then....don't just say it...prove it.

 

as I said....it is EXCEEDINGLY Rare and other party members discourage it.

A primary challenge occurs in U.S. politics when an incumbent elected official is challenged in an upcoming primary election by a member of his own political party. Such events, known informally as "being primaried," are noteworthy and not frequent in the United States, as tradition dictates that members of a political party support officeholders of the same party, both for party unity and to minimize the possibility of loss of the seat to an opposing party.

In addition, officeholders are frequently seen as de facto leaders of their political party, eligible to establish policy and administer affairs as they see fit. A primary challenge thus interferes with this "spoil of office," and is largely discouraged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:53 PM

36. defeinatly this one. Obama has been for the most part a disater

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #36)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:11 PM

64. He's achieved more than any other president since LBJ.

Dug us out from a recession, etc. And is incredibly popular with Democratic base. Too many of Bernie's supporters don't understand how out of step they are with their views of Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askew (Reply #64)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:22 PM

120. LBJ, and maybe all the way back to FDR. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PosterChild (Reply #120)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:43 PM

143. Yep, which is why I find the idea that he should have been primaried absolutely offensive.

He wasn't perfect but he's a better president than we've had in decades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:01 PM

48. Probably any president who veers rightward.

Here's the full context of what he said, in his own words:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #48)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:03 PM

53. Who decides that?

 

You???

Oh and real "Rightward"...


http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #53)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:10 PM

63. I thought you were asking who *SANDERS* thought should be primaried, no?

i.e. was it just Obama, or would it be any president. Based on the recording I provided, I infer that his answer would be, any president who veers rightward. And if you want to hear why he felt Obama was veering that way, again, just listen to what he said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #63)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:12 PM

67. I am....asking that

 

so compared to Sanders ALL of them are Rightward....JEEBUS!!!

Who IS to the Left of Bernie running for President in say...EVER?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #67)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:30 PM

85. I dont know who would be sufficiently left... FDR? (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #67)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:26 PM

125. In say ever? Eugene Debbs,,,

Debbs is bernie's model, not as some have sugested, fdr.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PosterChild (Reply #125)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:35 PM

138. yeah.....in the annals of dustbins...Eugene Debbs?

 

all you got I guess....

The Socialist (opposes all Capitalism) candidate is it!

Debs was noted for his oratory, and his speech denouncing American participation in World War I led to his second arrest in 1918. He was convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 and sentenced to a term of 10 years. President Warren G. Harding commuted his sentence in December 1921. Debs died in 1926, not long after being admitted to a sanatorium.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PosterChild (Reply #125)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:38 PM

140. Even more importantly for Bernie's "model"...

 

Debs ran as a Socialist candidate for President of the United States five times, including 1900 (earning 0.63% of the popular vote), 1904 (2.98%), 1908 (2.83%), 1912 (5.99%), and 1920 (3.41%), the last time from a prison cell. He was also a candidate for United States Congress from his native Indiana in 1916.

Note....those were during some "interesting" years in American history too regarding the public in those days...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #53)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:35 PM

89. I'll raise you one that is real that does not come with a disclaimer and is based on methodology

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:04 PM

54. Umm- Hillary isn't president.

 

Yes her corporate friends bought and paid for it but it isn't hers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left lowrider (Reply #54)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:07 PM

59. Where have I said she is?

 

I said...."or just this one" meaning President Obama....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:20 PM

76. Why not?

If a sitting president has a primary challenger, it gives that president some practice for debating with Republicans.

I see nothing wrong with an open airing of new ideas. In fact, this used to happen more often than it does now. It's not a personal issue.

I see this as no big deal, but I'm familiar with history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:49 PM

95. I think most Democratic presidents have had challengers even on their second term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #95)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 12:14 AM

155. actually no they didn't....damn few do...because...

 

A primary challenge occurs in U.S. politics when an incumbent elected official is challenged in an upcoming primary election by a member of his own political party. Such events, known informally as "being primaried," are noteworthy and not frequent in the United States, as tradition dictates that members of a political party support officeholders of the same party, both for party unity and to minimize the possibility of loss of the seat to an opposing party.

In addition, officeholders are frequently seen as de facto leaders of their political party, eligible to establish policy and administer affairs as they see fit. A primary challenge thus interferes with this "spoil of office," and is largely discouraged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:02 PM

102. Well, Kennedy thought it was helpful to primary Carter

Given that Kennedy was instrumental in advancing President Obama, that's decently semi-symmetrical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:09 PM

109. Depends

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:27 PM

127. Yes. Every President. The term is four years, not eight. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 12:11 AM

154. Sanders made Clinton flip flop on TPP in a primary

If Obama faced a primary challenge in 2008 from someone who was to his left, maybe we wouldn't have this disaster on the horizon now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 12:30 AM

162. It's called a democracy, get over it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:33 PM

3. After seeing the TPP, maybe someone

Should have. It's a damn shame Obama is supporting this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azmom (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:32 PM

87. /\_/\_This_/\_/\

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azmom (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:38 PM

90. +1

Actually, it's a damn shame anybody who doesn't live on Park Avenue is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azmom (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:58 PM

100. ^^ This^^ !

I was thinking the same thing. The problem is that there is a "group of folks" here who consider any action, or even the thought of action, against The Democrat (tm) to be treason against The Party. It doesn't matter whether The Democrat or The Party are acting like republicans. For them, it's a religion.

nobody should listen to them. They're cheerleaders, not being that process information and make decisions. Why argue with them? Their point of view won't change, regardless of the issue. Remember Snowden and him exposing that Obama (The Democrat) was doing it? That was treason to tell us about it. Furthermore, can you trust anything they say to be factually correct or, especially, to provide a fair analysis of the issue?

Here's a test: if you can replace them with a basic program like this one:

10 PRINT <blank> . "is good"
20 GOTO 10

Then they offer no value.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_i (Reply #100)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 01:32 AM

170. WOW, I haven't seen BASIC in years

My native language is FORTRAN.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Rabbit (Reply #170)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 11:26 AM

189. I slipped in a little Perl just for completeness

The dot joining two strings is from Perl

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azmom (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:54 PM

150. ^ Absolutely. Especially after his forgotten 're-negotiate NAFTA' campaign promise...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:33 PM

4. Thank you.

 

Those threads are ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:36 PM

10. So is Bernie saying EVERY President should be Primaried?

 

Or just THIS one????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:39 PM

14. Probably any president who puts SS on the chopping block.

Why do you think he did it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:42 PM

18. What's wrong with having more points of view every election?

Or do you prefer the dynasty system we're currently trying to run?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hydra (Reply #18)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:43 PM

19. EVERY President? Or just this one?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #19)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:46 PM

29. Sure, every president on our side should be subject to review about what they've done for 4 years

And what they are planning to do for the next for if they win. Look what happened when President Obama debated Mitt the first time- it's like he forgot how to do his act and couldn't believe Mitt dared to steal it from him.

Lack of hard questions is a sign we aren't expecting much from our reps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hydra (Reply #29)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:48 PM

31. Primaried is not "reviewed".....

 

OMG....the cognitive dissonance on DU today...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #31)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:55 PM

39. Oh, so we're not allowed to review our candidates when they are seeking rehire by us?

The President is a public servant hired by us. I'd rather we bring them in every 6 months for review, but that's probably never going to be in the cards, considering how they are trying to make the office "Imperial."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hydra (Reply #39)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:57 PM

42. That is not a freaking review...that's splitting the party!

 

thats trying to make the sitting LEADER of the party look bad? Can you not see it from how badly things are going for Bernie right now? Like I said...the cognitive dissonance going on DU is palpable..


Whether you freaking like it or not....President Obama is our Leader...not only of the country...but also of our party. You do not Primary them unless you are saying that they are incompetent. PERIOD. When Bernie suggested that...THAT is what he was saying. This is not a review process....this is an election...and that is how we beat Republicans!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #42)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:05 PM

55. *LMAO*

Last edited Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:51 PM - Edit history (1)

OMG, really?! The party will be split because President Obama's policies and ability were SO WEAK that they could not withstand scrutiny? A primary from the left would have been so devastating to his Admin that he would have lost and it would have brought our party down completely?

I never, ever thought I'd see the day when a rep for the establishment would put that out there so plainly.

Thank you for confirming that our party simply can't handle life outside the DC bubble and the people in it anymore.

edit: Typo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hydra (Reply #55)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:08 PM

60. Yes really!

 

Let me guess...you are an "Independent"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #60)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:02 PM

103. Indy butting in here....

and proud of it!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smiley (Reply #103)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:04 PM

105. That's fine....

 

but see I was making a point.....that of course an Indy would see no point in having an actual LEADER of the Party....Understand?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smiley (Reply #103)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:06 PM

106. Because an Independent is going to disagree with this..

 

A primary challenge occurs in U.S. politics when an incumbent elected official is challenged in an upcoming primary election by a member of his own political party. Such events, known informally as "being primaried," are noteworthy and not frequent in the United States, as tradition dictates that members of a political party support officeholders of the same party, both for party unity and to minimize the possibility of loss of the seat to an opposing party.

In addition, officeholders are frequently seen as de facto leaders of their political party, eligible to establish policy and administer affairs as they see fit. A primary challenge thus interferes with this "spoil of office," and is largely discouraged.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_challenge

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #106)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 12:47 AM

165. Slight interjection VR

I have no opinion of this primary argument (neither side is doing themselves any favors right now) but I like to strongly disagree on the manner you frame the roll of a party leader or president. You keep saying "our leader, our leader", with the level of difference you seem to give the office, that is an awkward way to phrase it, both in my opinion and in the opinion of our Founding Fathers. He is our representative, he, like every president and member of Congress, serves at the will of the people.
Thomas Paine stated:
"Government is not a trade which any man or body of men has a right to set up and exercise for his own emolument, but is altogether a trust, in right of those by whom that trust is delegated, and by whom it is always resumable. It has of itself no rights; they are altogether duties" .
(bold mine)

I don't care who wins this primary argument. I do care, as our Constitutional scholar president likely would agree, he holds no rights to office, only duties to those he has chosen to serve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Reply #165)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 07:14 AM

184. Whatever does that have to do with it?

 

Just cannot grok interparty politics can you?

Rule number one....you do not Primary without believing the President is incompetent. Its not a friendly review...its not Tiddly Winks....

So suggesting it.......and saying you supported the campaign...is a bit hypocritical

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #184)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 10:56 AM

188. Again, don't care who wins this

"Debate" (really people screaming at each other).
I just don't like the "our leader" stuff. A president, a member of Congress, are representatives of the people. Not our leaders. We, as a society, have slipped into giving way to many privileges and difference to people that are there to serve, not be served. How the hell do you think we got things like Citizens United and presidents and members of Congress leaving office wealthier than when they went in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hydra (Reply #55)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:08 PM

61. Performance art, it has to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #61)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:54 PM

97. Regardless of intent, it's very revealing

As I told them before, they are doing an excellent job of doing my advocacy for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hydra (Reply #97)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:58 PM

101. Well they won't be here long.

They've spent more time on vacation than posting in the past few months.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #42)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:53 PM

148. Well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #42)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 07:48 AM

186. They don't do political strategy. It doesn't exist in their version of reality.

 

Then they complain that the fix is in when Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean and soon Bernie Sanders don't get nominated nor elected.

They don't understand why those people lost/are losing and thus don't understand why a primary challenge to an incumbent would be an issue. Not only that they get offended and indignant when you try to explain it to them.

You have done a good job here trying. Anyone willing to learn something would have gotten it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #19)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:11 PM

111. For Obama

some were worried that he was getting pulled too far to the right and some still are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:33 PM

5. Its like half the people on this site are just plugging their ears.

And going LALALALALALALA. Its plain as day right in the interview....I can only attribute this foolishness to people being willfully obtuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobbobbins01 (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:36 PM

12. lalalalalal is right....I have asked this twice...

 

Is Sanders saying EVERY President should be Primaried...or just THIS one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #12)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:41 PM

17. I don't think he's been asked that question

What difference would it make?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobbobbins01 (Reply #17)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:44 PM

22. Perhaps his supporters should....My God if Hillary had of said that.....

 

holy hell would break loose....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #22)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:46 PM

26. Well yes, because she is to the right of Obama

So her calling for him to have a primary opponent would mean his policies were too liberal for her. Which I imagine most progressives would take issue with. Obama on the other hand moved right, and the primary call was to try and bring him back to the left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobbobbins01 (Reply #26)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:49 PM

32. cool so it is just about Him and Her...things that make you go hmmmm

 

not a single glaring thing about that position at all!


(and bullshit she is NOT to the Right of Obama...ridiculous.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #32)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:52 PM

35. No...it has nothing to do with him or her at all...

Its about left and right...if you campaign left and move right...progressives will complain. You just used her as a hypothetical. Anyone to the right of Obama calling for him to have a primary would elicit the same response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobbobbins01 (Reply #35)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:45 PM

94. Who do we use as a yardstick? Bernie Sanders?

 

When you Primary your fellow Democrat (particularly first Black President...not saying racist...just sayin') You are opposing them....you are not "reviewing them".....an election is not Tiddly Winks....you are saying you do not believe that they are doing a good job....what else is there to say about that?

There is starting to be some inconsistencies in the things Senator Sanders says....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #94)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:54 PM

98. Criticism and Accountability does not equal opposition.

That is why the term constructive criticism exists. Why would we use Bernie Sanders as the yardstick? Obama made campaign promises, he then moved to the right of them...He was his own yard stick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobbobbins01 (Reply #98)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:36 PM

139. A primary is not criticism it's opposition. Pure and simple. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PosterChild (Reply #139)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 04:57 AM

180. And, once again, what primary are you referring to?

Last edited Mon Nov 9, 2015, 10:14 AM - Edit history (1)

If someone else besides Bernie is the candidate you are referring to, you might want to mention it since it sounds a bit like you think Bernie actually primaried Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TiberiusB (Reply #180)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 10:33 AM

187. Let's be straight here....

.... according to bernie and according to news reports he advocated a primary challenge to a sitting democratic president. A primary challenge is not "constructve criticism", as was posited above. It's opposition.

Of course bernie had an excuse to be in opposition. He wasn't a Democrat at the time. And in my humble opinion, he isn't now either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #22)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:14 PM

71. Well after Hillary race-baiting her way through the 2008 election, it would be

political suicide for her to suggest primarying Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askew (Reply #71)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:03 PM

104. Inconvenient fact, ignore the actual racist campaign and pretend Bernie is the one with a problem.

Because he wanted to turn Obama left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #104)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:12 PM

112. Like Kennedy's goal when running against Carter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy#1980_presidential_campaign

Kennedy did form a more coherent message about why he was running, saying at Georgetown University: "I believe we must not permit the dream of social progress to be shattered by those whose premises have failed."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Babel_17 (Reply #112)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:29 PM

129. I would expect nothing less from Bernie and Obama did tell us to hold his feet to the fire.

His supporters refuse to admit his failures and want to turn Bernie's criticism into racism.

And HC supporters are doing the same thing, they'll exploit anything to distract from the issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #104)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:15 PM

113. Bernie needs to own the fact that he wanted to primary Obama and that he has been

of a thorn in the side of the Obama admin at times. Just own it and explain why and let the chips fall where they may. What he is doing now is just making it worse. He needs AA voters to win the nomination and he won't get it by trying to play down his primary comments. They are an insult to AA voters and need to be explained. Sanders is my 2nd choice for the nomination and I want him to fix this problem.

That said, Hillary's race-baiting 2008 campaign is the #1 reason I won't support her. What she and Bill did was unforgivable IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askew (Reply #113)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:23 PM

121. He did own it and he has also been very honest about his opposition to some of Obama's policies.

The HC supporters who are trying to turn his suggesting primary opposition for Obama into something it's not are the ones who are insulting everyone. His opposition to Obama has nothing to do with racism, just like his statements about Hillary have nothing to do with sexism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #121)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:42 PM

142. He hasn't owned it. He said that's he's been loyal and worked hard for him which just isn't true.

While O'Malley was running all over the country campaigning for Obama, Bernie did almost nothing. Compare that to Pelosi or other liberals who worked their ass off for Obama. Bernie is going to have to win the AA vote in the primary on his own not by clinging to Obama's coattails which he is trying to do now. Anyone who talks about a primary for a sitting president isn't loyal period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askew (Reply #142)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:45 PM

144. And I disagree about the loyalty, I stand by Bernie and his reasons for suggesting it.

If you want to disagree that's fine, but it has nothing to do with racism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #144)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 12:30 AM

161. I don't think he's racist, but I think this quote sums up a lot of issues w/ some white progressives

have with AA voters from O'Malley:

It never ceases to surprise me how readily dismissive white liberal people can be of the opinions of black people, when they express it in their vote," he says, taking a long pull on his beer.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-martin-omalley-could-be-the-future-of-the-democratic-party-20151106#ixzz3qxucX72W
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook


O'Malley was talking about white progressives dismissing AA voters who turned out in record numbers to vote O'Malley in as Mayor twice and Governor twice. AA voters knew exactly what they were voting for and some white progressives think it is ok to dismiss those votes to prove their argument. Same phenomenon with AA voters and Obama. AA voters love Obama and overwhelmingly voted for him in the primary and general elections. Sanders is going to have to have a better answer for why he wanted to primary the first AA president or he is going to turn off those voters before he even gets a chance to win their vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askew (Reply #161)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 01:35 AM

171. No offense, but people have to stop stretching the facts a bit about the "wanting to primary" thing

Once again, Sanders has never said he "wanted" to primary Obama. He spoke about reviewing the merits if it might push Obama more to the left in his bid for re-election, but he never said he "wanted" it, which heavily suggests enthusiasm. He explained his reasoning rather clearly in 2011, and it had nothing to do with Obama's race. Plus, it never went any farther. Reading these threads, you'd think Obama was actually primaried by Sanders or some Sanders sponsored candidate.

It's a bit dismaying to see thread after thread attacking Bernie Sanders and trying to spin his every statement as evidence of some deep, unforgivable flaw. Briefly considering the merits of a primary in 2011 to push the party in a more progressive direction does not make someone racist. In some circles, though, any criticism of Obama or Hillary is verboten and ironclad evidence of racism, sexism, and probably some other third "-ism".

As for O'Malley and the African American community, I wouldn't go running to Baltimore if you want to hear anything positive. His zero tolerance, tough on crime police policies are blamed for a lot of misery in that city among minorities and the poor during his tenure. He's got solid liberal cred on a number of issues, but his record in Baltimore on crime is a problematic anchor around his neck to some degree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TiberiusB (Reply #171)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 12:18 PM

191. Nicely stated points, all spot on. Welcome to DU!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #12)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:46 PM

28. THIS one is no way to refer to president Obama.

Cut that shit out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #12)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:49 PM

146. Your record is broken

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to passiveporcupine (Reply #146)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 12:15 AM

156. how else does one respond to this drivel?

 

when you repeatedly post the same meme over and over...expect the response to get tedious as well...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobbobbins01 (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:37 PM

13. There certainly are a lot of criticisms against Bernie that...

 

at the very least bend the truth. Some are just outright factually wrong. There's folk on this site that support Hillary to such a degree that they'll say anything to make Bernie look bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:46 PM

24. I think Bernie is the one bending the truth here....that is what we are pointing out

 

You don't stand your candidate up as the bastion of "honesty and purity" and then think he is going to get a pass when it turns out he is not so "honest and pure" after all. That's politics...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:34 PM

6. He was right. Obama should have been primaried.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:57 PM

41. He should run on that.

Hillary will win by 50%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #41)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:03 PM

52. Or, maybe not.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:20 PM

77. Then, stand up and say that. Don't cling to Obama now and pretend that you are big

supporter of his. Bernie can't have it both ways. He wants to be able to get AA voters support by saying he is a big Obama backer and then face no consequences for the anti-Obama rhetoric he has spewed for the past 7 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askew (Reply #77)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:26 PM

82. I'm not a big supporter of Obama.

 

Nor was I in 2008 or 2012.

Sanders support or non support of Obama is a matter of indifference to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #82)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:38 PM

91. And you are not representative of the Dem base.

The base loves Obama and supported him in 2008 and 2012. Bernie can't win the primary without those voters which is why he is desperately re-writing his history and saying he's been loyal to Obama. It won't work though. O'Malley is really the only candidate who can claim that. Hillary ran a race-baiting race against him in 2008 and then came out in 2014/2015 and attacked him on multiple issues during her book tour. When she realized how poorly that played, she did a 180 and started clinging to him desperately just like Sanders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askew (Reply #91)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:53 PM

149. I think she is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Reply #149)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 12:21 AM

157. Polls and election results show you are wrong.

Obama is beloved by the Dem base and you can't win the Dem nod without understanding that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:34 PM

7. Now can you see why we don't want him? Cause we don't.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:55 PM

38. Is that the royal we?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #38)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:00 PM

46. Should be. We as in the majority of blacks.

 

We do not want him. Us. The majority. Why? Because he did not realize that we are more loyal to Obama than to his Bernie ideology. Not all of us are far left. Many of us are conservative, we just vote democratic because of the racism in republicans. Many are anti abortion. Very religious. Capitalist. People seems to like to think that just because we are 'poor' we want their socialist fantasy. We don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #46)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:14 PM

70. How's the fishing up there in Alaska this year?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #70)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:17 PM

72. My brother in law keeps stuffing my freezer.

 

Must be awesome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #72)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:19 PM

75. Uncle-in-law ain't sharing shit. 'course shipping it down ain't cheap.

 

I want my copper river salmon goddammit. I can't at this british columbia stuff. And the farmed shit? HURK! HUUUUUURK!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #75)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:21 PM

78. You know what's fucked up?

 

I fucking hate Salmon. People keep shoving that crap at me and my face looked disgusted. Now Halibut? Yummm. Salmon? My god. I just feed it to my mom's dogs. Sorry. I should have sent it your way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #78)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:29 PM

84. Red is good. Pink is cat food.

 

And halibut is fucking amazing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:36 PM

11. Shhhhhhh, they're on a roll!

It takes so little to make them happy, why ruin it?

I feel sorry for them, every time they try to distract from the issues they look even more foolish.

Pearl clutching over butts, red baiting, memes like "bankster Bernie", they really have nothing else to cling to.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:00 PM

45. Sounds like a Fox Snooze roll

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:40 PM

15. I agree with him!

Obama should have been Primaried. ALL presidents running for a second term should be Primaried! They aren't freakin' kings. This is one of those WTF difference does it make moments - if someone SAYS he should be primaried. It's not like Bernie was out recruiting people to run against Obama. This is nothing but more poutrage from the Clinton crusaders OVER NOTHING.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:41 PM

16. So which is it? In another OP Sanders supporters are vigorously arguing he never said it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #16)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:43 PM

21. The quote is in my OP

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #21)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:46 PM

25. I happen to think you are right and the other Sanders supporter is wrong. But what this shows is

 

something I have been saying for a long time.

No matter how silly something is, some (i.e. many) Sanders folks here will say it if they think it will support or defend him. There is no support for the opposite position to your OP yet you have a large amount of Sanders supporters defending it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #25)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:58 PM

43. So what?

I happen to think a great deal of Sanders voters may not be thinking through everything they say and have a Messiah complex when it comes to Bernie.

I still support Bernie because I have thought through the issues and come to the same conclusion. Your comments on supporters reflects nothing on Sanders the candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #43)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:01 PM

49. The "so what" is your first sentence in your message text. And remember you said it, not me.

 

And it reflects about 80-90% of Bernie's most vocal supporters here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #49)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:06 PM

57. It's not an offensive sentence, it is asking you to defend why it is relevant

You need to draw a link to how it reflects poorly on the policies or candidate. Otherwise it is just noise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #57)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:06 PM

58. The first sentence in your message text, not your title. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #58)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:09 PM

62. ..

Oh yes, I misunderstood, apologies.

I still maintain it has nothing to do with Sanders the candidate.

Cheers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #25)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:11 PM

65. I could say the same sort of thing about many Clinton supporters.

 

But I don't think it would be useful to debate whose side is worse. I tend to think that, on average, Sanders supporters on DU are nicer and smarter and more honest than Clinton supporters. You see things differently. My perception is no doubt colored by my support of Sanders and yours by your support of Clinton.

Perhaps we can agree that both camps are responsible for some intelligent discussion and some nonsense. Occasionally I have contributed to the nonsense myself. But occasionally I have also defended Clinton this primary season, and maybe there needs to be more calling out of people on one's own side when certain lines are crossed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #25)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:18 PM

74. Thank you for putting the fly swat in your sig line

 

Now I can put your posts into the ignore column. Have a great life railing against Bernie when he is president!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #16)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:56 PM

40. Looks like the Bernie supporters in that thread are saying that Bernie did say it

I don't see any Bernie supporters denying Bernie said that it would be a good idea to have a primary.

Here's the quote for you
I think one of the reasons the president has been able to move so far to the right is that there is no primary opposition to him and I think it would do this country a good deal of service if people started thinking about candidates out there to begin contrasting what is a progressive agenda as opposed to what Obama is doing and I think it would be a good idea if President Obama faced some primary opposition.


Yep he said it, it's there
I think it would be a good idea if President Obama faced some primary opposition


.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:43 PM

20. The words "Sure what's wrong with a primary situation" means I said no such thing

because obviously Bernie didn't say part of exactly what he said some time back in one of many many interviews. Get with the program.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:45 PM

23. ok

 

who really gives a shit...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:54 PM

37. Most of Bernie's DU supporters wanted a primary for Obama.

They wasted a lot of time on it.

Time they should have spent building up some acceptable liberal alternatives to Hillary in 2016.

Bernie will now downplay his comments in this regard. He knows it would cost him votes to push this point.

His DU supporters should be pushing him to step up and not down play his view here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #37)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:58 PM

44. A good point, but Sander will do what he thinks is the right thing n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hydra (Reply #44)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:01 PM

50. Yes ...

... he should ignore them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #37)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:12 PM

66. You mean the non Democrats...the same people now claiming their loyal to BS...

they didn't vote for Obama to begin with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:01 PM

47. in Orwell's world, and the Clinton supporters', up is down,

 

And admitting something is denying it. I think since the candidate herself has gotten so far by fabricating an alternate reality, her fan club believes that is a viable option for them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:01 PM

51. Obama's ex-aides who aren't affiliated with any candidate now call BS on Bernie.

They felt he did work against Obama unlike O'Malley who worked his ass off to help re-elect him.
Their take on Sanders’ role: In 2008, he got on board with Obama late. In 2012, he was either attacking the president from the left or doing little to get him elected. As for “vigorously” supporting him, they said, Sanders was not someone they thought of as a top surrogate.
“Every indication we had was that he was considering a primary challenge,” said one senior official from Obama’s 2012 campaign.
“Being annoying,” another said when asked to recall how they remembered Sanders in 2012.
A third senior Obama campaign aide from 2012 said Sanders was simply not often top of mind.
“Have no recollection of him being any kind of factor whatsoever, supporter or not,” the aide said in an email to BuzzFeed News.


http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/the-obama-campaign-remembers-2012-very-differently-from-bern#.rbE4BJ1mD

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askew (Reply #51)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:13 PM

68. Careful what you say...

many are still out there with OFA and other groups.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:05 PM

56. Thank you Bernie

 

And Vatell for setting recor straight fast

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:13 PM

69. So what?

What is the problem with primary challengers? If the incumbent is strong enough it shouldn't be a problem. But it's become blasphemy to even consider a primary challenger that might represent other voters' positions better than the Democratic incumbent. Again, if the incumbent is strong enough, there should be nothing to fear.

This is so much ado about nothing. But isn't it always?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #69)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:18 PM

73. I definitely agree that it is much ado about nothing.

 

Last edited Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:01 PM - Edit history (1)

Sanders thought a primary challenge to Obama might help move Obama to the left. He did not for a second think that Obama would the lose the primary if challenged. So he was not trying to cause him not to be reelected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #69)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:22 PM

81. If it is much ado about nothing, then why is Bernie trying to play it down and pretend

like he's been loyal to Obama for these past 7 years? It's because it isn't nothing and saying the first AA president should be primaried is going to kill him with AA voters and the Dem base who love Obama. Bernie supporters don't get that their views about Obama aren't shared by the majority of the party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askew (Reply #81)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:06 PM

107. He has been loyal.

 

Loyalty doesn't require acting like those on DU who defend anything and everything he does. Disagreement is healthy and a primary opponent for Obama would have allowed more discussion of issues where Obama and many progressives disagreed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #107)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:11 PM

110. your position isn't going to be shared by Dem base who know that primarying the first AA

president would have permanently split the party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askew (Reply #110)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:15 PM

115. Why would it have permanently split the party?

 

Maybe you are right, but I guess I would need to hear more to be convinced of that. No one could have mounted a serious challenge to Obama. I think Bernie just thought the more progressive wing of the party would at least have had a chance to be heard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #115)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:20 PM

118. Seriously? Primarying the first AA president because he isn't "left" enough would absolutely

split the party. The most loyal part of the Dem base is AA voters. They vote for Dems by a huge margin. Primarying Obama over a difference in ideology would have ripped the party apart especially one who had accomplished so much in a short time. He got use healthcare after 90 years of failure. He passed the biggest stimulus bill in history. He repealed DADT. Did an executive order on immigration. Pulled the economy out of recession. No, he wasn't perfect but he was light-years better than Bill when he ran for re-election and no one primaried him.

It's the same reason that Hillary finally gave in and conceded to Obama in the primary. AA leaders sat her down and explained that if she tried to take the nomination from the person who won it with the voters through the use of superdelegates, we'd lose the AA vote forever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askew (Reply #118)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 12:21 PM

193. Meh, no challenger to Obama would have had enough support to split the party.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #193)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 12:27 PM

195. Just having a group of white progressives backing a white savior over Obama would have

been enough to split the party permanently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askew (Reply #195)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 12:28 PM

197. I doubt it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #69)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:27 PM

83. they say "don't vote third-party, vote in the primaries!" then they foreclose on primaries or

sabotage them

back in 2006-7 they were screaming about an imminent "progressive purity purge" and then started kicking out lefties like Kucinich and Grayson (though I'm pleased that Duckworth has refused to stay an "icebreaker," unlike Obama)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:22 PM

79. They know it's not true. The point is to get you to talk about it.

 

To make folks like yourself say Bernie wanted to primary Obama. It's bait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:22 PM

80. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:44 PM

93. Having a primary opponent and being primaried are 2 different things

Obama did have primary opponents. But they had nothing to with Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jfern (Reply #93)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:53 PM

96. Well according to Websters....

 

primaried
Tweet adjective pri·maried \ˈprīˌmerēd, -m(?rēd\
Definition of PRIMARIED

of a bird
: having primaries —usually used in combination <ten-primaried>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jfern (Reply #93)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:55 PM

99. But then...

 

A primary challenge occurs in U.S. politics when an incumbent elected official is challenged in an upcoming primary election by a member of his own political party. Such events, known informally as "being primaried," are noteworthy and not frequent in the United States, as tradition dictates that members of a political party support officeholders of the same party, both for party unity and to minimize the possibility of loss of the seat to an opposing party.

In addition, officeholders are frequently seen as de facto leaders of their political party, "eligible to establish policy and administer affairs as they see fit". A primary challenge thus interferes with this "spoil of office," and is largely discouraged.

I encourage you to read more here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_challenge

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #99)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:08 PM

108. In any case Bernie never said that Obama should be defeated

He just said he shouldn't run unopposed in the primary. And he didn't run unopposed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jfern (Reply #108)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:16 PM

116. Okay...that explanation I posted.... just means you run fake Primaries against them?

 

Come on man. If you are an Independent....you just won't understand that....BECAUSE you are an Independent. Not a member of a party..."unaffiliated".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #116)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:20 PM

119. What does being an independent have to do with it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jfern (Reply #119)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:24 PM

122. Because you don't understand the dynamics of being a member OF a party...

 

Its kind of the anathema of being an Independent....You are not into the Party member "vibe". You cannot understand ruffling feathers by threatening a "primary election" of a President as a result. That is a big faux pas!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #122)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:26 PM

123. Feathers need to be ruffled in DC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:15 PM

114. I can't get this thread to load, but, has anyone else mentioned Kennedy?

Kennedy finally decided to seek the Democratic nomination in the 1980 presidential election by launching an unusual, insurgent campaign against the incumbent Carter, a member of his own party.


Kennedy did form a more coherent message about why he was running, saying at Georgetown University: "I believe we must not permit the dream of social progress to be shattered by those whose premises have failed."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy#1980_presidential_campaign

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Babel_17 (Reply #114)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:18 PM

117. One difference there is that Carter was in a much weaker position than Obama.

 

I don't think Obama would have been hurt by a primary challenge. But I am open to evidence to the contrary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #117)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:26 PM

126. Yes, that's true. Here we're talking about a run just to get a message out

Yes, that's true. Here we're talking about a run just to get a message out, and challenge conventional thinking. It helps when you get challenged from the left. It reminds the Independents just how moderate you are. If your challenger polls extremely well on an issue or two, you incorporate those positions.

This is how the real world is compelled to operate. You listen to your team, and in meetings they don't just "yes" you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Babel_17 (Reply #126)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:31 PM

132. Well-said

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #117)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:31 PM

131. Its just not done....generally speaking....and when it is...its pretty extreme.

 

it IS making a statement of extreme opposition because:

A primary challenge occurs in U.S. politics when an incumbent elected official is challenged in an upcoming primary election by a member of his own political party. Such events, known informally as "being primaried," are noteworthy and not frequent in the United States, as tradition dictates that members of a political party support officeholders of the same party, both for party unity and to minimize the possibility of loss of the seat to an opposing party.

In addition, officeholders are frequently seen as de facto leaders of their political party, eligible to establish policy and administer affairs as they see fit. A primary challenge thus interferes with this "spoil of office," and is largely discouraged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #117)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:31 PM

133. Well, upthread people are claiming it would have destroyed the entire party. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #128)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:30 PM

130. Ted Kennedy (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Babel_17 (Reply #130)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:32 PM

134. Equal but still not to his Left!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #134)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:33 PM

136. I take that back...I mispoke

 

Here is Bernie

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #136)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:40 PM

141. Ok, now I think I get a sense of what you're saying. But ...

But Sanders wasn't saying he was toying with the idea of making a run. He implied/said that a primary challenge would be a good thing. Presumably he was speaking about the principle of such a run. You hash out what our platform should be, you excite the base. Sanders, or anyone otherwise acceptable to the voters, had virtually zero chance of pulling an upset.

If some good Progressive felt it their duty to mount such a campaign, Sanders would have nodded in approval. That's how I see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Babel_17 (Reply #141)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:45 PM

145. Exactly and THAT is practically verboten....its frowned upon....hardly ever happens

 

Understand..It therefore means something to even mention it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #145)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:57 PM

151. So Kennedy's deadly serious run to eliminate Carter was ...?

treason, punishable by whatever it is we Democrats do?

Sanders mentioning how it could be helpful if someone ran a (foreordained) token challenge is blasphemy. Kennedy causing Carter to scramble like mad earns him a higher spot in our party's pantheon. Hmm ...

Even Governor Cuomo was well served by his primary challenge. He needed that wake up call.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_gubernatorial_election,_2014#Democratic_primary

Progressive minor parties saw an opportunity to make headway in the state due to Cuomo's relatively conservative stances on taxes and spending.[7][8] A poll commissioned by businessman and progressive political activist Bill Samuels in March 2014 indicated that even an unknown left-wing third-party challenger on the Working Families Party line could garner between 6% and 13% of the vote without threatening Cuomo's chances of winning re-election.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zephyr_Teachout#2014_New_York_gubernatorial_campaign

2014 New York gubernatorial campaign
Teachout shaking hands with National Writers Union (UAW Local 1981) president Larry Goldbetter at the "We Will Not Go Back" march and rally held on August 23, 2014.

Zephyr Teachout and running mate Tim Wu faced off against incumbent Andrew Cuomo and comedian Randy Credico in the Democratic primary election on September 9, 2014.

During the Working Families Party convention to nominate a candidate for the 2014 gubernatorial election, Teachout lost a nomination bid against incumbent Governor Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo's margin of victory was much closer than expected, especially since the Working Families Party traditionally cross-endorses the Democratic Party candidate.[8]

After losing the Working Families Party nomination to Cuomo, she announced that she would be running for the Democratic nomination for governor.[9] Her running mate, Lieutenant Governor candidate Tim Wu, is a Columbia University law professor who coined the phrase "net neutrality".[10] [10][11][12] Their campaign raised $800,000, a small amount for New York state politics.[13] As of 4 days before the primary election polls showed their likely voter share at 26%, in line with the predictions of political professionals.[14] She and Wu lost to Cuomo and his running mate, former U.S. Representative Kathy Hochul in the primary on September 9, 2014,[15] but surprised experts and pollsters by capturing over 34% of the vote, with an especially strong showing in upstate New York.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #134)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:34 PM

137. My original post had two quotes

What is your point, that Kennedy was to the left of Carter? Ok, and ...? I don't follow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Babel_17 (Reply #137)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:49 PM

147. The discussion is WHO is to the Left of Bernie Sanders that has run for President

 

They have thrown everything up....so far the only eligible entry is poor old Socialist Eugene Debs.....though he is also apparently who Bernie is modeling his "political philosophy around" (trying to be generous there)....it didn't really work out so well for old Eugene.....no...not at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #147)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 12:00 AM

152. It is? News to me :)

I'm going by the OP. What I posted goes to what I see as deriving from it's premise.

You're branching into an off topic discussion/sub thread argument. No offense, but I'm not game for that. Maybe in another thread? Have a good evening!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:26 PM

124. "The 1 Percent’s Earnings Could Be Stagnating — At $671,000". Whew, better. So, back to Dancing with

 

the Opponents, and lies, and dirty tricks, and all that important stuff.


?w=610&h=475

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-1-percents-earnings-could-be-stagnating-at-671000/




Though it does say "Could"...


"All other income groups have now returned to their pre-recession incomes. But that won't provide much comfort for the middle class: the bottom 90 percent made $33,297 in annual income last year, just $20 more than they took home in 2007."

From: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-1-percents-very-good-year/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Original post)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 12:27 AM

158. This "loyalty" stuff is getting silly. Liberals question authority. It's how we roll.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #158)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 12:58 AM

169. Ikr? I sincerely doubt that Obama wants a bunch of lap dogs.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #169)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 03:05 AM

175. Remember the "team of rivals"?

 

All that did was leave "Loyal Busies" in positions to sabotage his agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Original post)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 12:29 AM

160. Are you crying?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Original post)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 04:09 AM

176. And he will support the next Dem prez in the same fashion, no doubt.

Real supportive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Original post)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 05:00 AM

181. Gawd forbid we be given a choice in a Democracy.

What could Bernie have been thinking?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Original post)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 07:27 AM

185. Well done, Bernie!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread