Latest Breaking News

LiberalLovinLug

(14,563 posts)

158. Unpacking what you said

Sat Jun 9, 2018, 01:29 PM

Jun 2018

I've written and deleted a few times responding. I've finally realized it's because there is no logic to it.

The candidate would not be a Democrat for that voter to not vote for under these new rules. There would be no Democrat to not vote for.

If a politician, let's call him Bernie, is voted for by someone that calls themselves an independent, it wouldn't or shouldn't matter to them whether the DNC suports them or not. It's because they like that candidate. And certainly those that would not vote for him BECAUSE he was NOT supported by the DNC would be an insignificant percent of those voters.

BUT.. the point I will make is that IF you contend there are those that wouldn't vote for this candidate regardless, then you are also admitting that there are OTHER Independents that WOULD vote for him.

THOSE are the voters that we would lose.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

216 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

DNC panel adopts rule requiring candidates to run, serve as a Democrat [View all] musette_sf Jun 2018 OP

K&R ! stonecutter357 Jun 2018 #1

Yours, X another 10000000000 COLGATE4 Jun 2018 #128

Good. Lil Missy Jun 2018 #2

Can they extend that to the Vermont Democratic Party? George II Jun 2018 #3

Would you extend that to Maine as well? rpannier Jun 2018 #122

That was my question also Gothmog Jun 2018 #130

And Mine n/t corbettkroehler Jun 2018 #173

Clarity keeps carpet baggers gets out...about time beachbum bob Jun 2018 #4

Independent candidates from Northeastern States need not apply SkatmanRoth Jun 2018 #5

Isn't that just what they did in 2016? louis c Jun 2018 #23

None of the Sanders supporters I knew were temporary Democrats. PoindexterOglethorpe Jun 2018 #52

Ahhh...Sanders did though. brush Jun 2018 #97

Susan Sarandon, for starters. n/t ChiTownDenny Jun 2018 #132

Sarandon was Green in 2000, and so was Michael Moore, and they both supported Nader, and still_one Jun 2018 #178

They didn't just boo Hillary Clinton, they booed the great American John Lewis. Very sad. George II Jun 2018 #53

"THEY" booed John Lewis? How many did? democrank Jun 2018 #57

Many. George II Jun 2018 #59

They certainly weren't Hillary supporters, were they? (nt) ehrnst Jun 2018 #182

Judge for yourself. ehrnst Jun 2018 #189

A higher percentage of Bernie supporters voted for Hillary in the general shanny Jun 2018 #54

How do you know that? George II Jun 2018 #60

Here is a related article from the WAPO CentralMass Jun 2018 #89

Yes, but it was Sanders to Trump voters who gave Trump his margin of victory lapucelle Jun 2018 #116

I thought it was Jill Stein's 1,457,226 votes that gave Trump his margin Tom Rinaldo Jun 2018 #120

And the Bernie supporters were in every one of those camps louis c Jun 2018 #206

T there has been much analysis on why Hillary lost in those states. CentralMass Jun 2018 #134

If you read the article more carefully you will notice louis c Jun 2018 #180

Where in the world BlueMTexpat Jun 2018 #66

well oh my goodness it was common knowledge at the time (PUMAs anyone?) shanny Jun 2018 #75

Well, I knew about the PUMAs, of course. BlueMTexpat Jun 2018 #88

Notice that the actual poll numbers strongly suggest PoindexterOglethorpe Jun 2018 #114

That article has been cited several times this week. lapucelle Jun 2018 #117

Good points! BlueMTexpat Jun 2018 #121

It Wasn't Just That They Voted for Trump LeFleur1 Jun 2018 #135

I hope that they learned a lesson. BlueMTexpat Jun 2018 #202

Well then that would indicate to me that Obama was a far stronger candidate than Clinton shanny Jun 2018 #139

The data shows that the Sanders to Trump voter lapucelle Jun 2018 #140

Part of the picture? Sure. All of it? Not by a mile. shanny Jun 2018 #160

Obama had Clinton campaigning for him. joshcryer Jun 2018 #191

And yet, a lower percentage Bernie voters supported the other party on election day. shanny Jun 2018 #192

That is because Obama was able to excite more people to come out to vote. LostOne4Ever Jun 2018 #145

I can answer that... radical noodle Jun 2018 #74

No true Scotsman, eh? shanny Jun 2018 #86

Except that I knew some who were Tom Rinaldo Jun 2018 #96

Anyone who could have voted for Palin radical noodle Jun 2018 #141

I understand your logic, it revolves around the word "really" Tom Rinaldo Jun 2018 #153

There you go... radical noodle Jun 2018 #161

Never let facts get in the way of a good Bernie bashing!! InAbLuEsTaTe Jun 2018 #76

+1 shanny Jun 2018 #77

+2 LiberalLovinLug Jun 2018 #83

Really? Gothmog Jun 2018 #131

Yeah really. shanny Jun 2018 #133

Sanders voters were the margin of victory for trump in the real world Gothmog Jun 2018 #198

The provision isn't about supporters. It's about candidates. Honeycombe8 Jun 2018 #167

Yes, but remembering 90% of Sanders voters were LOYAL Democrats Hortensis Jun 2018 #203

Join the independent candidates party Progressive dog Jun 2018 #179

So if Jill Stein decides to hop on board for the money and the marketing resources ehrnst Jun 2018 #184

I wonder what prompted them to move on this now? sheshe2 Jun 2018 #6

Maybe Mr Perez got the hint? N/T MrPool Jun 2018 #11

To head off another divisive campaign like in 2016 brush Jun 2018 #99

Perhaps a majority of Democrats? ehrnst Jun 2018 #185

Yup. sheshe2 Jun 2018 #190

Good move and no valid reason to not support this rules change Devil Child Jun 2018 #7

What a concept!! aeromanKC Jun 2018 #8

Meanwhile John Zogby has gone MrPool Jun 2018 #9

I am I am I am sheshe2 Jun 2018 #46

James Zogby. I just checked his twitter feed... Kahuna7 Jun 2018 #110

Probably having a rage in with Knomi Knonst or whatever MrPool Jun 2018 #168

Yep. LOL...... Kahuna7 Jun 2018 #186

Howdy Mr. Pool Me. Jun 2018 #138

Cheers! n/t MrPool Jun 2018 #164

Not enough. They should require the release of 5 years of tax returns. n/t pnwmom Jun 2018 #10

agreed n/t musette_sf Jun 2018 #14

Nah 15 years only seems fair MrPool Jun 2018 #15

+1. Personally, I think 10 years should be the minimum requirement. n/t Tarheel_Dem Jun 2018 #16

Yes, Full Tax Returns and No Caucuses! Cha Jun 2018 #17

No caucuses! deurbano Jun 2018 #28

No Open Primaries! Cha Jun 2018 #32

Great minds, LOL ...! eom BlueMTexpat Jun 2018 #70

Cheers to that, BlueMT! Cha Jun 2018 #72

Yes. No open primaries. Now we're getting somewhere. No more divisive interlopers. brush Jun 2018 #100

Yes, that lesson was a Global Cha Jun 2018 #175

This Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jun 2018 #51

K&R!! Tarheel_Dem Jun 2018 #12

Thank you Dems. Another reason to support the Party that looks out for the security of all Wwcd Jun 2018 #13

How is this different than what occurred in2015-16? shanny Jun 2018 #87

Are you saying in 2016 you were rejected and ignored and stuff? Is that what you mean? Squinch Jun 2018 #102

lol shanny Jun 2018 #112

A bit of wild projection at the end there. You might want to watch that. I think it reveals Squinch Jun 2018 #123

"more than I want to reveal"? that's a laugh--it was friendly advice; take it, or don't shanny Jun 2018 #136

I care deeply to know what you find pathetic, and tedious. Squinch Jun 2018 #143

They're not kicking out non-Dems. This is ONLY about Presidential candidates. Very narrow. Honeycombe8 Jun 2018 #169

K&R!!! Maven Jun 2018 #18

I have to agree with the DNC this is fundamental FloridaBlues Jun 2018 #19

This is cause for celebration -- by Jill Stein and the Greens. Jim Lane Jun 2018 #20

Gee, imagine the Democratic Party requiring... louis c Jun 2018 #21

You make two important mistakes. Jim Lane Jun 2018 #35

+1 shanny Jun 2018 #55

Interesting post. sheshe2 Jun 2018 #63

+ Sparkly Jun 2018 #67

Hey! sheshe2 Jun 2018 #71

Apparently, though, not interesting enough for you to read it with any care. Jim Lane Jun 2018 #73

"Your whole first paragraph, hectoring me about the 2016 general election, ignores the distinction t sheshe2 Jun 2018 #78

Your comment about "refighting a primary" obviously referred to 2016. Jim Lane Jun 2018 #165

It's ALWAYS threats, She. Usually threatening actions that hurt them as much as everyone else, but Squinch Jun 2018 #104

Yes sheshe2 Jun 2018 #147

You make the mistake that Democrats and Liberals MrPool Jun 2018 #64

Some care. Some don't. I'm among those who do. Jim Lane Jun 2018 #81

Hmmm sheshe2 Jun 2018 #85

Not having the rule didn't stop idiots from voting for Stein in 2016. SunSeeker Jun 2018 #25

Mahalo, SunSeeker! Cha Jun 2018 #34

+++ sheshe2 Jun 2018 #150

Exactly! I've always felt that Democrats should just leave the immature.. Kahuna7 Jun 2018 #187

People who support Jill Stein are not Progressives. JI7 Jun 2018 #27

They're anarchists. nt Kahuna7 Jun 2018 #188

Oh FUCK OFF 3rd Party Jill Stein LIES.. that's all she Cha Jun 2018 #33

No, the point is that Stein wouldn't have to lie more. This time she could just tell the truth. Jim Lane Jun 2018 #37

Jill Stein wouldn't know the truth if she bumped into it. Cha Jun 2018 #40

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. brush Jun 2018 #105

It's not a question of "progressives", it's a question of DEMOCRATS! If you are a.... George II Jun 2018 #41

++++exactly! lunasun Jun 2018 #79

To be honest, in today's situation KitSileya Jun 2018 #92

Well said and to the point. brush Jun 2018 #108

Truth! sheshe2 Jun 2018 #151

Indeed. nt SunSeeker Jun 2018 #155

So selfish mcar Jun 2018 #193

How is it a loss for Dems? If they were Dems they'll already be registered as Dems. brush Jun 2018 #101

+1 and I add as I did to the person rpannier Jun 2018 #125

You have to reconsider your prediction????!!!!! The horrors!!!!! Squinch Jun 2018 #103

Not sure why, as it only refers to the person running for President rpannier Jun 2018 #124

Yes, that's its scope, and I'm talking primarily about the race for President. Jim Lane Jun 2018 #127

This is elementary and something that is a given. Honeycombe8 Jun 2018 #170

Then there's no longer any excuse to have superdelegates pecosbob Jun 2018 #22

What does that have to do with this rule? George II Jun 2018 #30

I understood superdelegates were set up to block undesirable candidates from winning. nt Lucky Luciano Jun 2018 #48

You raise a good question. We'll have to see how this develops. brush Jun 2018 #109

I can't believe this wasn't a rule already trixie2 Jun 2018 #24

IKR? workinclasszero Jun 2018 #95

K & R SunSeeker Jun 2018 #26

can they also add that tax returns are to be provided if they are to get funding from the DNC.. samnsara Jun 2018 #29

That will probably be dealt with either via state Democratic Parties or legislatures.... George II Jun 2018 #31

Question is, will this stop repukes running as Democrats from running and switching parties? meow2u3 Jun 2018 #36

That is determined by state laws. LiberalFighter Jun 2018 #45

RW Larouche followers won as IL Dems, 1986 JaneQPublic Jun 2018 #38

I remember this. murielm99 Jun 2018 #61

Will Bernie join or run on the Ralph Nader "Give the Election to Trump 2020" Independent ticket? TheBlackAdder Jun 2018 #39

I bet I know. Squinch Jun 2018 #106

amen! chillfactor Jun 2018 #42

too little too late; watch bernie launcing indepenent run AlexSFCA Jun 2018 #43

... BlueMTexpat Jun 2018 #69

I say let him run as an independent, see how far he gets. brush Jun 2018 #111

If Bernie wanted to run as an I for president he would have done so in '16 after the primary LostOne4Ever Jun 2018 #149

Good. Snackshack Jun 2018 #44

Good Tribalceltic Jun 2018 #47

Certainly seems reasonable to me. LudwigPastorius Jun 2018 #49

Absolutely Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jun 2018 #50

I'll withhold my more *$!&emphatic%#* comments, and leave it at, "This sounds like a fine idea." NBachers Jun 2018 #56

DNC panel adopts rule requiring candidates to run, serve as a Democrat. LenaBaby61 Jun 2018 #58

It's about damn time. murielm99 Jun 2018 #62

Amen,,,,,,,,! Cryptoad Jun 2018 #65

That is a good beginning! BlueMTexpat Jun 2018 #68

I am glad to see Democrats doing this but unfortunate there was the need to state an obvious. ChrisTee Jun 2018 #80

While I 100% agree with this, and am on record during 2016 OnDoutside Jun 2018 #82

Great! Let's shrink the tent! LiberalLovinLug Jun 2018 #84

I share your thoughts Sienna86 Jun 2018 #98

Any Independent who would decline to vote for a Democrat mcar Jun 2018 #119

Unpacking what you said LiberalLovinLug Jun 2018 #158

Not our supportive voters. Potentially subversive voters Hortensis Jun 2018 #207

Exactly LiberalLovinLug Jun 2018 #146

LOL! Squinch Jun 2018 #107

FOR FUCK'S SAKE Adrahil Jun 2018 #144

Nope. No good. That's just us being elitist, doncha know. Squinch Jun 2018 #148

Honey I Shrunk the Tent sheshe2 Jun 2018 #154

Blahahahaha! Squinch Jun 2018 #162

K&R! MrsCoffee Jun 2018 #90

Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2018 #91

GREAT! No Potemkin Democrats bucolic_frolic Jun 2018 #93

Didn't Sanders change his affiliation for the purpose of running in the primary? Calista241 Jun 2018 #94

We'll see. If he tries that again he'll really reveal his agenda of just... brush Jun 2018 #113

No. Another urban myth on DU. Jim Lane Jun 2018 #126

Wrong, Jim Lane. Bernie insists on being labeled an Independent. SunSeeker Jun 2018 #159

What I wrote is 100% correct. Please read more carefully. Jim Lane Jun 2018 #163

I know what you wrote, and what you were implying. And you're wrong. SunSeeker Jun 2018 #171

The context makes clear what he meant. Jim Lane Jun 2018 #172

His WORDS make clear what he meant: "I am a Democrat." SunSeeker Jun 2018 #174

You need to look in the mirror. Cha Jun 2018 #176

The requirement that the candidate "serve as a Democrat" is the clincher. SunSeeker Jun 2018 #157

Not sure if that was official? Bradical79 Jun 2018 #208

Good. About damned time for this. (nt) Paladin Jun 2018 #115

Amen to that! My only complaint is that it took too long to do it. NT Bleacher Creature Jun 2018 #118

A DNC committee has adopted a rule that presidential candidates must be party members. Gothmog Jun 2018 #129

will they enforce this for lower posts? dembotoz Jun 2018 #137

I support this. A lot. EricMaundry Jun 2018 #142

Seems like the DNC is trying to mend fences on both sides LostOne4Ever Jun 2018 #152

Excellent sheshe2 Jun 2018 #156

Of course. Hard to believe this provision wasn't already in the rules. nt Honeycombe8 Jun 2018 #166

This rule has been on the books since 2016 and was not aimed directly at Sanders pecosbob Jun 2018 #177

Makes sense for a Democratic nominee. ehrnst Jun 2018 #181

I would like to see a rule... Skid Rogue Jun 2018 #183

Or a rule that says they have to remain a Democrat even if they lose after using the party. MrsCoffee Jun 2018 #194

It Is About Time! Stop Ignoring Long Time Democrats in Favor of Social Media... TomCADem Jun 2018 #195

They're talking to/about YOU, BERNIE. . . DinahMoeHum Jun 2018 #196

From my twitter feed Gothmog Jun 2018 #197

Thank Gawd for this! Enough is enough. R B Garr Jun 2018 #200

Politico- DNC rule change angers Sanders supporters Gothmog Jun 2018 #199

Great news! It goes to character, too. To use resources R B Garr Jun 2018 #201

*yawn*, means nothing. harun Jun 2018 #204

now they just need a rule that says Democrats actually have to support DEMOCRATIC policies not yurbud Jun 2018 #205

Good grief! NurseJackie Jun 2018 #209

but you faint when someone who supports Democratic policies more faithfully than our "leaders" wants yurbud Jun 2018 #210

I only support real Democrats... NurseJackie Jun 2018 #213

how do you define a "genuine" Democrat? What's the "litmus test" centrists that are ok? yurbud Jun 2018 #214

"how do you define a "genuine" Democrat?" --- ROFL! NurseJackie Jun 2018 #216

some miss now opportunity to smear the party base. How many times can a big donor vote for you? yurbud Jun 2018 #211

Nobody is doing that. NurseJackie Jun 2018 #212

The fact that a rule like this wasn't already in place is a travesty.... Blue_Tires Jun 2018 #215