RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Walker writes: "The Democratic National Committee's rules and bylaws committee adopted a new rule on Friday that would prevent outsiders like Bernie Sanders from seeking the party's nomination in the 2020 presidential race. The move seems to be the latest salvo in the ongoing jockeying over the party's future that emerged following the at times bitter primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Sanders in 2016."

Bernie Sanders. (photo: Antonella Crescimbeni)
Bernie Sanders. (photo: Antonella Crescimbeni)

DNC Signals Its Opposition to Bernie Sanders in 2020 Early

By Hunter Walker, Yahoo News

09 June 18


he Democratic National Committee’s rules and bylaws committee adopted a new rule on Friday that would prevent outsiders like Bernie Sanders from seeking the party’s nomination in the 2020 presidential race. The move seems to be the latest salvo in the ongoing jockeying over the party’s future that emerged following the at times bitter primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Sanders in 2016.

But while the rule change left some of Sanders’s top allies thinking the party was being driven by “spite,” it likely won’t affect him directly and could pave the way for one of his favorite reforms.

DNC member Randi Weingarten, who is president of the American Federation of Teachers, posted a photo of the rules change shortly after it was added to the proposed draft call for the 2020 Democratic convention. Weingarten, who attended Friday’s DNC meeting in Providence, R.I., wrote that the party “changed the rules to ensure to run for President as a Democrat you need to be A Democrat.”

The new rule would force candidates in Democratic presidential primaries to state that they are Democrats, accept the party’s nomination if they win the 2020 primary and to “run and serve” as a member.

“At the time a presidential candidate announces their candidacy publicly, they must publicly affirm that they are a Democrat,” the rule says. “Each candidate pursuing the Democratic nomination shall affirm, in writing, to the National Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee that they: A. are a member of the Democratic Party; B. will accept the Democratic nomination; and C. will run and serve as a member of the Democratic Party.”

The rule seems like a clear response to Sanders, who caucuses with Democrats in the Senate but has steadfastly maintained his status as an independent. Sanders ran to the left of Clinton and identifies himself as a “democratic socialist.”

During the 2016 primary, Clinton and her supporters regularly criticized Sanders for his lack of an official affiliation with the party. After an unexpectedly close race, Sanders ultimately lost to Clinton. His base of support included younger voters and independents, whom many Democrats see as vital to the party if it hopes to avoid a repeat of its defeat to Trump in 2016. Many Sanders supporters angrily felt the DNC stacked the deck in Clinton’s favor, a perception that was amplified by hacked emails from party leaders that were published by Wikileaks in the lead-up to the party’s 2016 convention.

In the wake of Clinton’s loss to Trump, the party assembled a unity commission with members appointed by both Clinton and Sanders. The Sanders wing focused on recommendations designed to open up the party’s nominating process and make it more inclusive to what Sanders termed “the working people and young people of our country.” One of the commission’s proposals that was particularly important to Sanders was the elimination of the unelected Democratic superdelegates who are able to vote for a nominee regardless of who won the race in their home state. Sanders and many of his supporters viewed these superdelegates as a way for the Democratic Party establishment to control the nominating process irrespective of the will of the party’s voters.

With Sanders’s independent status and push for inclusivity, the new rule change would seem to be a slap in the face and a potential roadblock should the Vermont senator decide to mount another presidential run in 2020. However, Sanders allies do not believe he would be affected by the measure thanks to a unique rule in his home state.

Sanders, who is currently running for reelection, typically runs in the state’s Democratic primary but declines the party’s nomination after winning. The move allows him to fend off Democratic challengers in the state while still running as an independent. Last month, the Vermont Democratic Party passed a resolution supporting this strategy and proclaiming that Sanders would still be considered a member of the party “for all purposes and entitled to all the rights and privileges that come with such membership at the state and federal level.” That membership could inoculate him against the DNC’s rules change.

Even if Sanders himself would be unaffected by the shift, one of his top allies expressed dismay at the new rule. Mark Longabaugh, who was a senior adviser to Sanders’s 2016 presidential campaign, told Yahoo News he was baffled by the party’s decision.

“I don’t have any worries that Bernie Sanders could meet the criteria to run as a Democrat in 2020, but it always puzzles me that there are some Democrats who want to do this and promote this. I scratch my head and ask why they would want to make the party more narrow and more exclusive,” Longabaugh said.

Longabaugh suggested the move could only have been motivated by lingering animus from the primary race between Clinton and Sanders.

“We just came off a devastating presidential loss in 2016. It would seem to me the actual impetus would be to expand the Democratic Party. I just for the life of me don’t see any motivation for this beyond personal spite,” said Longabaugh.

Jeff Weaver, who was Sanders’s campaign manager, similarly expressed confidence that Sanders wouldn’t be affected by the rules change. However, Weaver also suggested it was to exclude people from the party’s presidential nominating process.

“Do they really want Bernie and millions outside the party?” Weaver asked in a text message.

One source familiar with the discussions told Yahoo News the rules change was not aimed at Sanders and wouldn’t necessarily affect him. In fact, the source described it as a step that was designed to make it easier for party leaders to accept one of Sanders’s main priorities — the end of superdelegates.

Committee members are continuing to discuss the proposal to eliminate superdelegates. They will meet again to make a final vote on the proposal in the coming weeks before all proposed changes head to the DNC for a final vote in August.

“With the full DNC heading toward the path of essentially eliminating superdelegates on the first ballot, people felt this would help garner support for the superdelegate proposal,” the source said.

Last December, DNC Chairman Tom Perez told Yahoo News he was open to proposals to drastically reduce the number of superdelegates.

Maria Cardona, a veteran strategist who has worked for Clinton, was one of the backers of the rules change.

“The entire committee backed this. It was unanimous,” Cardona told Yahoo News in a text message, adding, “It was done to ensure that the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party is actually a Democrat.” your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+75 # dusty 2018-06-09 11:46
How about every Democratic Party having to declare that they are not capitalists and not in the pocket of capitalists and Wall Street and in favor of public funding of elections?
+24 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2018-06-09 17:59
Or how about not DINOs and Republican-lite s. Seriously, the rulers of the democratic party are now neo-cons and neo-libs. They are not "Democrats" in any sense of the word.
-15 # ericlipps 2018-06-10 06:09
Quoting dusty:
How about every Democratic Party having to declare that they are not capitalists and not in the pocket of capitalists and Wall Street and in favor of public funding of elections?

The Democrats might agree with everything else you suggest, but there's no way in hell they'll declare that they are "not capitalists."

Doing so would dynamite the party by playing into the hands of the Republicans, who have been calling the Democratic Party socialist, if not Communist.

Like it or not, the socialist label is poison to most Americans. Bernie Sanders' insistence on calling himself a socialist is one reason he lost to Clinton in 2016. (And please don't start in about how he really won but was robbed by the DNC and Crooked Hillary; the Senator himself has rejected that claim.)
0 # Robbee 2018-06-11 10:16
Quoting dusty 2018-06-09 11:46:
How about every Democratic Party having to declare that they are not capitalists and not in the pocket of capitalists and Wall Street and in favor of public funding of elections?

- socialism can mean taking over the means of production - bernie is not that kind of socialist - bernie self-identifies as a democratic socialist, like in northern europe - bernie does not pass this test of declaring himself opposed to capitalism, not that there's anything wrong with that?

- bernie stands for revoking bank's use of deposits to invest for commercial gain - banks should return to banking! loaning out deposits to pay interest to depositors! - restore glass/seagal!

- bernie has not yet come out for a constitutional amendment that grants we the people the right to public funding, only, of federal, state and local elections - for leadership on public funding, for the right to public funding, we're all still waiting on bernie! - go bernie!
-41 # No Go 2018-06-09 13:20
“It was done to ensure that the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party is actually a Democrat.”

Sounds reasonable.

Political parties and their policy platforms are the basis on which citizens can exercise their franchise in direct relation to a set of clearly articulated policies to which the party and its candidates are presumed to adhere.

A voter should compare the Democratic Party platform to the Republican Party platform, and make a choice accordingly.
+50 # politicaleconomist 2018-06-09 16:44
Bernie is the most Democratic of Democratic Senators as a study of 20 years of voting shows:
-5 # Robbee 2018-06-10 10:40
Quoting politicaleconomist:
Bernie is the most Democratic of Democratic Senators as a study of 20 years of voting shows:

- The new rule would force candidates in Democratic presidential primaries to state that they are Democrats, accept the party’s nomination if they win the 2020 primary and to “run and serve” as a member.

and this is a problem, how?
-6 # Robbee 2018-06-10 10:59
i'm sick of self-styled "true progressives" hating on other progressives! particularly ones who self-fulfilling prophesy that other progressives are beyond hope of persuasion! - fuck off!

dickhead stands for democracy on life support!

"Next time, we must resolve to MAKE OUR VOTE COUNT!" - (caps in original) - bernie
+28 # economagic 2018-06-09 17:01
No, a voter should compare the Democratic party platform with what the neoliberal DLC Democrats have done and continue to do once in office. A voter should also read the Democratic party platform "critically," or "between the lines" as we used to say, with a careful eye for what is left unsaid, what is ambiguous, what is code for a nod and a wink, and so forth. Yes, the Good Old Boy network has been firmly entrenched in the Democratic party more or less forever, and it did not go away just because the Dixiecrats did.
+38 # Texas Aggie 2018-06-09 19:41
So what you're saying is that someone who calls himself a Christian because he goes to church every Sunday actually is a Christian despite being a pervert, a thief and a murderer? Calling yourself something doesn't make you that thing, and not calling yourself something doesn't mean that you aren't that thing.

There is no doubt that Mr Sanders upholds the traditions and aspirations of the Democratic Party much better than Hillary did. That makes him more of a Democrat than she was.

And it removes the possibility of actually finding someone who can win by instead substituting more people like Hillary.
+9 # NAVYVET 2018-06-10 16:26
Agree, but I was forced to reregister as a Democrat in order to vote in my benighted state's primary. It's obviously time to shed the word "Democrat" again! After we moved to Florida when I was a kid, I recall my dad, a LaFollette Progressive, kept his registration as a Republican, so no one could accuse him of being a Southern Democrat! He voted for anyone who was FDR Liberal progressive and preferred peace to war--but in the 50s there weren't many in the South. And apparently still aren't.
+42 # Caliban 2018-06-09 13:34
To the DNC:

1. Eliminate the whole class of un-democratical ly selected power brokers called "super-delegate s" NOW. There is nothing "super" about them except the stench of privilege.

2. Nominate the eventual winner of vigorous, voter-centered PRIMARIES in every state. Great primaries build voter support by engaging voters in debates over the issues. Time to catch on to the one valid lesson the GOP had to teach in 2016.
+47 # PABLO DIABLO 2018-06-09 13:49
The DNC is doing this to insure a Trump win in 2020 so the Democrats can continue to rake in corporate cash for themselves. Bernie would upset the status quo which is making the rich get richer. They funnel cash to both parties to insure their not changing anything.
-13 # ericlipps 2018-06-10 06:13
The DNC is doing this to insure a Trump win in 2020 so the Democrats can continue to rake in corporate cash for themselves. Bernie would upset the status quo which is making the rich get richer. They funnel cash to both parties to insure their not changing anything.

Or in other words, it's all a plot. Just like vaccination, fluoridation and the international Jewish bankers' conspiracy.
+40 # Adoregon 2018-06-09 13:50
Oh, for crying out loud!!

Bernie Sanders can form his own party and win the presidency.

He don't need no stinking Democrats.
+8 # politicaleconomist 2018-06-09 19:20
We in the movement to Draft Bernie for a Peoples Party tried that in the year following the election. For reasons of his own Bernie did not and has not signed on ... at least not yet. While the Movement for a Peoples Party still exists, it could use Bernie's support. I wish he would give it before the ripeness of the time expires.
-5 # ericlipps 2018-06-10 06:15
Quoting Adoregon:
Oh, for crying out loud!!

Bernie Sanders can form his own party and win the presidency.

He don't need no stinking Democrats.

I know some Sanders followers think he walks on water, heals the sick and raises the dead, but show me the last time--or even the first--that a third-party candidate won the presidency.
+6 # librarian1984 2018-06-10 16:14
How is anything normal anymore. It's an age of miracles, eric.
+8 # NAVYVET 2018-06-10 16:28
Yes, Abe Lincoln did, killing off the Whig Party.
+51 # 2018-06-09 13:54
the corporate democrats are far more comfortable with trump than with bernie.

pelosi, schumer, tom perez, diane f. and the rest of these brain-dead corporatists must go!!!!
+29 # EDR 2018-06-09 14:08
Anyone who still believes that the Democratic Party is a viable alternative to the Republican brand of unrestrained capitalism and a solution to our current march toward fascism is truly a part of the problem and part of a solution.
+17 # tedrey 2018-06-09 16:00
If you meant to write is *not* "part of a solution", then I quite agree.
+33 # REDPILLED 2018-06-09 14:10
Since Jimmy Carter & Bill Clinton, the Democrats have become 'Republicans Lite'.

It's time all progressives woke up and started our own party, the Progressive People's Party.

Progressives would include former Democrats, members of the DSA, Working Families Party, Green Party, and any other left groups.

No corporate money is one rule we can agree on. I would hope we could also agree to be anti-imperialis t, as well, because corporations and imperialism go hand-in-hand.
+9 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2018-06-09 18:01
I second this proposal. Looks like the corporate DINOs are pushing for a schism.
-18 # ericlipps 2018-06-10 06:18
Oh, please. The Bernieites are the ones "pushing for a schism," by saying (shrieking, really) "Give us Bernie or we walk, and if that means Republican presidents forever, tough."
+9 # librarian1984 2018-06-10 16:31
Progressives consistently back establishment candidates, even after the progressive is cheated -- not just Sanders but Tilleman, Moser, etc They get no funding or support, partly because they don't take PAC money, which is how consultants get paid, partly because they are anti-corruption , partly because the donors don't want progressive policies implemented.

It is the consultants, the Hillbots, the ignorant and the corrupt who don't want change for this failing party. Which one are you?

The party says we can unite when progressives shut up and do as we're told. That's not compromise. I know you ate it but Sanders is the most popular politician in the country and he won at least 43% of the primary vote, so why isn't he the de facto leader of the party?

Refusing to continue LOTE voting or accept candidates who cheated is not pushing for a schism, it's demanding the party improve. It's trying to SAVE it.

Please, tell me why we should continue to follow people who've lost a thousand seats in the past decade? Progressives were right about everything that happened in 2016, so don't pretend YOU'RE the rational one -- and to resort to childish name calling and insults is to admit you have no rational argument to make.

How can you say voters wanting to be able to choose their candidate is anti-democratic ? None of us are saying it must be Sanders. We're saying we want a fair elections but we can't even get that -- and you DEFEND that?
+1 # Lgfoot 2018-06-11 21:44
!00% accurate.
+12 # goodsensecynic 2018-06-10 08:10
Bill Clinton wasn't "Republican-lite"?

Repeal Glass-Steagall!

Impose "workfare"!

Create the school-to-priso n pipeline!

Oh, yeah, you're right, he was Republican, not Republican-lite.

He and Toady Blair created the "third way" as a way to fight Thatcher/Reagan ... by mimicking them.
+6 # NAVYVET 2018-06-10 16:31
Clinton??? The whole DLC was and is THE problem! All of them Dinos except, possibly, Al Gore, who apparently got some wisdom out of his own lackluster campaign.
+46 # vt143 2018-06-09 14:26
You know, F*&#K the DNC. I mean it. They're the reason we have Trump as President and they are the reason he will be re-elected. We are doomed because of their bullying tactics.
+17 # Texas Aggie 2018-06-09 19:45
Not just their bullying tactics, but more by their allegiance to the neoliberal screed that means everything is based on its short term economic value and return on investment. That would include everything from education to the safety net to medical care to rules and regulations governing the financial and the corporate sectors.
+32 # Blackjack 2018-06-09 14:46
So who is surprised by this? Dems would rather have a Repuke elected than to have Bernie elected. Run, Bernie, run, as a Third Party candidate, if necessary. I didn't leave the Dem Party; it left me years ago and Bernie reinvigorated it and me. He is the only winning candidate the Dems have, so naturally, they will screw him . . .again!
-20 # ericlipps 2018-06-10 06:21
Bernie wouldn't win. Even if he had by some miracle secured the Democratic nomination, Trump's people would have red-baited him into the ground. It would have been 1972 all over again--and George McGovern didn't race around the country doing the GOP's work for it by calling HIMSELF a socialist.
+13 # librarian1984 2018-06-10 16:36
Is the GOP like the 1972 GOP? Would Trump have been nominated or elected in 1972?

Would Obama have been elected in 1972? Hell, would Reagan be elected today? No. Move on.

Watch Sanders get a standing ovation from coal miners in WV and try to make your tired old argument.

Geez, eric. IT is NOT 1972 anymore!
+12 # NAVYVET 2018-06-10 16:37
You haven't met the young people I know--black or white or any other complexion. "Socialist" has become a word they like. This is a very shrewd generation, since if they were as dumb as my own youth during the button-down huckster 1950s, or the greedyguts Me Generation of the 1980s, they are certain they will be dead before age 40.
+37 # hectormaria 2018-06-09 15:01
Incredible! Bernie is more of a Democrat than people like Manchin, Heitkamp, Donnelly- these Blue Dogs piss all over the Dem's tent and they are welcomed with open arms: Incredible! DINOs controll the party: we are screwed.
+43 # Farafalla 2018-06-09 15:04
I’m so pissed that this nasty move was spearheaded by my union, the AFT. They endorsed Clinton in 2016 after saying they had polled the membership, which was a big lie. I never got polled. Now they say the rule change is to ensure that a real Democrat gets nominated. So these corporate assholes don’t think Bernie and his base are real Democrats. It’s just the opposite, the DNC and DLC and DCCC are all corporate liberals who hate real democracy. Who are they going to shove down our throats next time, Joe Biden?
+15 # economagic 2018-06-09 17:08
Well said. Randi Weingarten has always seemed to me to be more loyal to party than to principle. But of course she is not even the tip of the iceberg, the Big Three of Pelosi, Feinstein, and Schumer, with Steny Hoyer and a few others bringing up the rear.
+2 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2018-06-09 18:03
Looks like Farfella is gettin' woke.
+32 # reo100 2018-06-09 15:20
-29 # mblockhart 2018-06-09 16:10
The sour grapes of 2016 need to be resolved. Clinton got more votes in more states, thus getting more pledged delegates than Sanders did. Neither the unpledged "super" delegates nor the DNC were responsible for that. It's an insult to Sanders to claim the outcome was due to those factors. He did very well and brought forward lots of good recommendations most of which were adopted by the Democratic Party. However, his behavior after losing the nomination, without a doubt, played a role in Trump's victory. His tepid support for Clinton and launching Our Revolution only a couple of months before the General Election distracted his supporters from what was Job One - electing a Democrat as President.
-1 # Ken Halt 2018-06-11 20:21
Please search for and read the Stanford report "Democracy Lost Election Justice USA: The Fatally Flawed 2016 Democratic Primaries". The DLC pulled out all the stops and cheated shamelessly for their Wall St darling. Contrary to what you allege, Bernie campaigned energetically for HRC. It has never been about Bernie, it is about his agenda in support of We The People, and he saw quite clearly that it would fare better under HRC than under Trump. Bernie got the longest and loudest welcome when he appeared onstage at the Dem convention and if the playing field had been level he might have been the D candidate.
+2 # JCM 2018-06-09 16:16
Any 3rd party Democratically inclined person running for president would splinter the Democratic vote insuring the republicans win. Simple math and history.
+1 # RLF 2018-06-10 09:02
I'm with you JCM. I think the outcome of this will be left wing third party candidates splitting the party and handing elections to Republicans...w hich may be their actual intent. Corruption at least of spirit seems everywhere in the Dem. party.
+9 # librarian1984 2018-06-10 16:46
Oh there's corruption all right, but it's not coming from progressives.

Your defending them no matter how corrupt they are guarantees their continuing inability to appeal to voters, their continuing losses.

Approval of the Dems has gone down 9 points in just the past two months. Is that progressives' fault? Or is it the corruption that keeps cropping up? Is it the tone deafness of Pelosi and Schumer? Is it their refusal to propose any policy that will actually help people?

There is a lot of corruption but you are looking for it in all the wrong places.

Michelle Obama recently blamed women for not sufficiently supporting Hillary. Not asking why Hillary failed. Not asking why the party didn't appeal to voters, but blaming the people. What utter bullshit.

Don't blame voters. Blame the politicians. Demand reform from the party. THEN voters will support them, including Independents, and they'll start winning again.
+2 # JCM 2018-06-10 18:03
Since Citizens United, the Democratic Party has gone downhill. However, in comparison they are still far superior in where they would take the country, if in total control as the republicans are now. They still tend to legislate according to their platform: reduce pollution, regulate the financial industry, provide healthcare, strengthen the safety net, improve education, strengthen civil rights, tax the wealthiest, rebuild infrastructure, empower workers, etc. Unfortunately, it has been a very long time for them to be able to pass anything due to the republican’s opposition but the Democrats are still blamed even by other Democrats.
-1 # librarian1984 2018-06-11 16:19
With respect, is your initial statement based on evidence or wistful memories?

When they had a supermajority the Dems under Obama didn't give us single payer healthcare. They took it (and the public option) off the table even before they introduced the legislation -- they didn't get one GOP vote so they could have given us real healthcare. Instead they made the Bush tax cuts permanent.

And Obama and Clinton BOTH volunteered to 'reform' Social Security. I have the distinct feeling HRC was going to get that job done.

Obama bailed out the banks but let millions lose their homes, decided not to investigate WS (or war crimes), then gave multiple WS speeches for $500,000 a pop. Hillary wouldn't show us her WS speeches. Pelosi has tripled her net worth since first being elected to Congress.

Democrats just joined the GOP to give the CIA to a torturer, deregulate WS and give Trump enhanced military powers -- even though they tell us he's crazy.

Both parties cheat on elections. Both use the naughty boy slush fund.

Tell me how they are better, please. Do Democrats stop the wars? Raise wages? End poverty? Fix our elections?

They get FEMA running. That's not good enough.

We need to stop falling for the LOTE metric. That's the ONLY thing that will pressure tham to reform.

Do we think the GOP can't find somebody worse -- and Democrats can't find a way to lose to it?

They are losers. Why do we continue to support them? THEY LOSE.
0 # Robbee 2018-06-13 08:09
Quoting librarian1984 2018-06-11 16:19:
Tell me how they are better, please. Do Democrats stop the wars? Raise wages? End poverty? Fix our elections? They get FEMA running. That's not good enough.
- salute this truthy rhetorical flourish!

the last thing lib wants is to debate what good dems do!
0 # librarian1984 2018-06-11 17:07
No that's precisely what they DON'T do. Obama allowed arctic drilling twice and made no major initiatives for a green economy, which would have provided jobs. He went from two wars to eight, built two giant drone bases in Africa and committed to a trillion dollar nuke makeover. Did you want ANY of that?

When the ACA was implemented there were still 30 million people without any health coverage at all and millions more underinsured. It was a Republican plan developed at the Heritage Fdn that protected the insurance companies. If w'd gone to single payer it would have been so popular the GOP wouldn't have dared go after it. Hell, I'd wager Trump wouldn't have won, because people would be hoping and changing.

Obama promised to stand with unions but then declined to do so on multiple occasions.

How is it the GOP manages to get things through even when they're in the minority? How did they steal a SCOTUS seat?

We lost a THOUSAND legislative seats since Obama was elected!

I am amazed that people demand nothing better of our feckless party. When does the 'holding their feet to the fire' begin?
+1 # JCM 2018-06-12 22:07
You always make it sound that Obama worked in a vacuum.
The democratic only had 60 votes for about 3 months and there were a couple of blue dogs messing things up. The ACA was the best he could do. Not going into everything you said it still doesn't change anything. What the republicans are doing is far worse than what the Dems would do. The Dems wouldn't be destroying our government. Why don't you spend more time criticizing the repubs or you still think rump is at least honest.
0 # Caliban 2018-08-31 11:39
Well said, #JCM. The ACA was achievable, and Obama accepted it on that basis. The plan was -- and, for many Democrats, still is -- to use the ACA as the first step in the climb towards tax-supported healthcare for all.

Keep fighting the bad-mouther types. They are worse than Republicans because they pretend to be so much better than those who honestly and progressively work within the system to help the sick and deprived.
+28 # politicaleconomist 2018-06-09 16:18
Ironically, Sanders was judged to be the most partisan senator in a study that covered 20 years of data (

In other words, Sanders is the Senator who is the most "Democratic" of all the senators in the US Congress.

It is not Sanders who is out-of-line with the Democratic message but the wing of the Democratic Party that wants to exclude him!
+12 # tedrey 2018-06-10 09:28
I imagine that one reason Sanders votes more Democratically than members of the party is that he consistently votes for limitations on Wall Street and big banks, Medicare for all, money-out-of politics, and all the other issues that Democrats are supposed to stand for but cosistently are ordered by their "Democratic" leaders to oppose. Think so?
+21 # jimallyn 2018-06-09 16:27
The rule doesn't require that candidates actually BE a Democrat, it requires that they SAY they are a Democrat. This allows the party to run candidates like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Tim Kaine, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and so on. If the candidates had to actually BE Democrats, all of those people would be disqualified.
+16 # bobmiller101 2018-06-09 16:38
What I suggest is rather than just deleting requests for donations from DNC and all other Democrat solicitations for donations, send a reply that you will NOT support, in any way, Democrat candidates as long as these rules, favoring "establishment" candidates, remain in effect. Just deleting them doesn't represent our TRUE FEELINGS! THEY NEED TO KNOW HOW ANGRY WE ARE!
+12 # Texas Aggie 2018-06-09 19:49
In the snail mail solicitations with the "surveys" that they send, instead of sending money, send a print out of articles chastising the neoliberal wing of the party that is running things. Eventually they will get the idea if enough outrage lands in their mailbox.
+7 # tedrey 2018-06-10 09:32
bobmiller-- I have done that for a long time. The fact that they continue to solicit me, years after I hoave left the party and told them why, suggests that they do not read their mail or let it register with them.
0 # Caliban 2018-07-03 10:31
This is not just a Dem thing. In my experience, once on a mailing list equals always on that mailing list. It's probably easier to escape from jail than from a donor roll -- particularly if you have ever actually sent money.

But nobody can force you to pay anything (I hope).
+7 # DrD 2018-06-09 16:52
Good - that settles that. Now the way is paved for Bernie to run as third party - without the accusation of spoiler.

Bernie - please run under the 'Movement for a People's Party' !! The Democratic Party will never change - WE need to create the change! Invite Tulsi as your VP to create a winning ticket and start the campaign!!
+4 # Rcomm 2018-06-09 17:04
vt143, you forgot they are also responsible for Gorsuch; I don't know which is worse.

I am truly ashamed to be a registered Democrat; I would change except my state of Michigan penalizes anyone not registered as a republican or democrat.

No matter how Bernie runs I will vote for him unless God runs on the democrat ticket and that won't happen since he will probably run a second time as a republican unless he's in jail..
+7 # jwb110 2018-06-09 17:09
It's all about the money and the donors to the DNC. The same donors that give to the GOP. That looks like a one party system to me. The DNC lost a lot of individuals who gave to the Party and certainly the unions and their members are not doing well under DNC tutelage. I am not so sure that Sanders can raise the money and run and win. The DNC seems in a different kind of shambles that the GOP. If the DNC uses its head, and that is never likely, they can make connections (remember the Tea Party) that could win then seats and branches of the gov't. A Sanders Alliance could turn the tide in all of this.
I am holding out for Bernie and you can be sure I am not the only one.
+9 # Mainiac 2018-06-09 17:12
It would be far easier to take over the Democratic Party than to set up a third one. Lots of rules in many states to make the process a difficult one.
+6 # librarian1984 2018-06-10 06:53
Agreed, but what's the alternative when the party destroys any insurgency by cheating, lying and co-opting the vocabulary? Too many progressive movements have tried, only to whither away under their relentless attacks. They are very good at killing insurgencies.

I think we have to do both -- fight like hell to get true progressives inside the party but also work on a new one, which will take time. Movement for a People's Party seems to be making a good start. Abraham Lincoln was elected from a 5-year old party.

We should also try to dismantle the rules and mechanisms put in place by the establishment to prevent third parties gaining influence. This progressive movement seems broad and deep. We have enough people and passion to work on two fronts.
+2 # grebs430 2018-06-09 17:24
i guess it'll be trump in 2020. big surprise and thanks a ton you stinking dems!
+7 # Moxa 2018-06-09 17:49
In spite of all the DNC bullshit--or BECAUSE of it--if you live in a closed primary state, it is vitally important to remain a Democrat on paper, unless you are a committed member of another party. I fear that with so many people leaving the party or simply never joining, Bernie's base will not be able to vote for him in the primary. What a shame it would be if he lost because so many of his supporters could not vote for him!
+3 # lfeuille 2018-06-09 19:36
Apparantly, it will not affect Bernie personally since he has a unusual arrangement with the Vermont Dem Party that allows him to run in the Dem primary but sill call himself an independent. I don't understand it but it should let him run as a Dem in 2020. The problem is that it is so complicated that most people will assume he is being barred when he is not and it is a deterrent to other independents who want to run as Dems. Some think this will make it easier to get rid of super delegates but I'm skeptical.
+4 # Texas Aggie 2018-06-09 19:54
" It would seem to me the actual impetus would be to expand the Democratic Party."

No sht, Dick Tracey, and where did you leave your squad car? The thought patterns of the leadership truly amaze any rational individual. You have to wonder what their actual goal is when you see how much they do to ignore reality when it stares them in the face and try to maintain their power. Maybe that is the main problem, their power vs. people's well-being.
+5 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2018-06-10 06:25
Expanding the Democratic party would be the only way to beat Trump in 2020. To expand the party, the corporate controlled leaders would have to make important compromises and concessions to the progressive faction within the party. Such compromises might eventually lead to permanent changes in the party and a loss of total control by people like the Clintons, Podestas, and Soros.

What a huge dilemma: make concessions and beat Trump. Or hold on to power and lose to Trump in 2020. Of course, the the latter option is chosen, the progressives will be blamed.

This is crunch time for the corporatists who have controlled the Demo party since the 1990s. My hunch is that they won't give an inch. They'll put Trump back in office and try to blame and marginalize the progressives and Sanders supporters. But they may also find an Obama-like sock puppet who fools everyone.
-1 # PABLO DIABLO 2018-06-09 20:27
Maybe the DNC can run Chelsea Clinton in 2020.
+4 # jabber1 2018-06-09 20:50
This just about does it for me. I am done with the democrats. They really don't care about me or people like me. They are all in for themselves and their rich supporters. What's the use. We are already a plutocracy owned by oligarchs and religious zealots. Might as well let the republiCONs destroy the country. At least they will do it quickly.
+5 # Jayceecool 2018-06-09 21:51
I admit that I thought national Democrats could not be more corrupt and or incompetent than in 2016. I was clearly wrong...
-1 # treerapper 2018-06-10 02:38
Everyone who despises these manipulations by small people wanting to be important should post a message to the idiotic DNC facebook page and let them know what assholes they are. Time to bail...
0 # Caliban 2018-07-03 10:40
No, # treerapper --

It's time to join and reform.
+2 # relegn 2018-06-10 06:14
Let the DNC make all the rules they want the real decision will be made by voters who if there is no Progressive candidate on the ticket will stay home and the Democratic Party will continue to lose elections. Of course that may be just what some of their wealthy donors want.
+3 # jcdav 2018-06-10 07:37
Well, looks like the DINO DNC wants to purge any progressives from the party. The ONLY thing I find acceptable is a BINDING platform along progressive (Sanders or Peoples platform) lines so I guess my hopes of seeing the DNC turn to supporting the PEOPLE are trashed...they are too interested in following Bill Clinton's "triangulation" sellout to Banks, Wall St. and the MIC.
+3 # Blackjack 2018-06-10 16:20
Sometimes people who at one time might have had a good idea or two, become blinded by wealth and power, simply will not let go of it, and drag others into their web. That is the Clintons. They have waaaay overstayed their welcome and it is time for them to shut up and go home! That would be the absolute best thing they could do for the party and country they claim to love! And they could do us a further favor by including Joe Biden in their departure plans. Then, if the Dems are lucky enough to win back the House in Nov., they can dethrone Pelosi and replace her with a true Progressive. Same thing for Schumer if Dems take over the Senate, though unlikely. Dem leadership is presently AWFUL!
-1 # dquandle 2018-06-13 01:37
The Clintons never had a good idea.
+1 # Ken Halt 2018-06-11 20:07
The 99% desperately need a political power bloc that represents their interests, which neither of the 2 major parties do at this time. Bernie, a savvy pol, is trying to democratize the DP, and given his long record of fighting for We The People, I will support him within or without the DP. Without the sabotage of the DP Bernie could well have been the D candidate in '16 and probably would have trounced Trump, as reliable polling suggested, the same polls that predicted HRC's defeat. Those in doubt should consult the Stanford report "Demcoracy Lost: Election Justice USA: The Fatally Flawed 2016 Democratic Primaries". Establishment Ds are directly responsible for the Trump presidency, they'd rather lose to an R than win with a progressive.
+1 # Robbee 2018-06-13 07:48
Quoting Ken Halt 2018-06-11 20:07:
Establishment Ds are directly responsible for the Trump presidency, they'd rather lose to an R than win with a progressive.

- how sneaky of them! - not to support hillary or vote for her?

who are these low-lifes who'd "rather lose to an R than win with a progressive"? any names?

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.