Democratic caucuses and primaries

Cabbage said:
Not necessarily. I think 2016 is more likely to inspire such a decision instead of being subject to such a decision. I can't think of any event in the past 50 years that would be more likely to inspire a "candidates had to be long-term members of the party" rule than the 2016 primaries.
Click to expand...
While Sanders may have been the most obvious case, there have been other cases. I am thinking about Joe Lieberman, who maintained a democratic membership but also flirted with the republican party. Plus you also have Trump, who prior to his current association with the Republicans, drifted between various Democrats and Reform party causes. And David Duke, who had run in both Democratic and Republican primaries. I could imagine some Democrats being concerned pre-2016 about a party hijack, or at least letting in candidates who could prove to be embarrasing.

ETA: Also, forgot about Lyndon Larouche... who seemed to bounce back and forth between the Democrats and various 3rd parties. Ultimately his 1996 campaign was cut short, in part because the Democrats had a rule about candidates being a registered voter; Larouche, being a felon, would not qualify.

Even if Larouche (or Duke) were not viable contenders, I could imagine the Democrats wanting to set up rules to keep them from causing problems in the primaries. (Including rules about length of party membership)
 
Last edited:
Segnosaur said:
While Sanders may have been the most obvious case, there have been other cases. I am thinking about Joe Lieberman, who maintained a democratic membership but also flirted with the republican party. Plus you also have Trump, who prior to his current association with the Republicans, drifted between various Democrats and Reform party causes. And David Duke, who had run in both Democratic and Republican primaries. I could imagine some Democrats being concerned pre-2016 about a party hijack, or at least letting in candidates who could prove to be embarrasing.
Click to expand...


You also have Trump? I was specifically thinking of Trump--He was in 2016 too, you know. And I am not denying there were previous instances, but I guarantee you can't find one more notable than 2016 Trump in the past 50 years or more.
 
Cabbage said:
While Sanders may have been the most obvious case, there have been other cases. I am thinking about Joe Lieberman, who maintained a democratic membership but also flirted with the republican party. Plus you also have Trump, who prior to his current association with the Republicans, drifted between various Democrats and Reform party causes.
Click to expand...
You also have Trump? I was specifically thinking of Trump--He was in 2016 too, you know. And I am not denying there were previous instances, but I guarantee you can't find one more notable than 2016 Trump in the past 50 years or more.
Click to expand...
Sorry, since the discussion had been primarily about Sanders and the feasibility of a rule requiring long-term party membership, I had assumed you were referring to Sanders when you were talking about how "they wouldn't have thought of putting in a rule before 2016".

My reference to Trump was not about his 2016 politics, but about his politics from years ago.
 
In a thread about democratic electoral procedure, we're invoking "Trump happened" as a potentially valid reason for preventing/subverting the will of the voters because of some candidate's lack of declared affiliation for whichever team (despite behaving bluer/redder than most of the blue/red team on most days).

#ThisIsAmerica
 
Last edited:
Delphic Oracle said:
In a thread about democratic electoral procedure, we're invoking "Trump happened" as a potentially valid reason for preventing/subverting the will of the voters because of some candidate's lack of declared affiliation for whichever team (despite behaving bluer/redder than most of the blue/red team on most days).

#ThisIsAmerica
Click to expand...


If you are referring to my posts, I think you misunderstand: I am not supporting "preventing/subverting the will of the voters" in any way whatsoever; it is undeniable, however, that "Trump happened" might inspire certain people in appropriate positions to prevent or subvert the will of the voters. I neither condone nor have any control over that.
 
I see the whole debate about Sanders not being a party man as larger than just him. I see it as a small battle by the centrist dems to resist the growing progressive wing of the party.

You see it with AOC and her battle with party leadership. They are taking moves to make it more difficult for progressive candidates to challenge mainstream dems in primaries. They are blacklisting people who make primary challenges possible and attempting to ostracize AOC for not cooperating in this effort.

You don't see all this hand-wringing about party loyalty when Mike Bloomberg is buying his way into the race. The former Republican was an independent until 2018, for christ's sake. And yet, the D's accept him with open arms. Because they are not threatened by his ideology.

It's not about party loyalty. It's about the centrist wing trying to undermine the growing progressive wing of the party.

Sanders may have been an independent for many years, but he caucused with the Democrats. Outside of his core issues, he voted with Democrats. Leadership even allowed him to take on leadership roles on committees as if he were a party man.

The establishment doesn't hate Bernie because he's an independent. They hate him because he represents the threat of the growing progressive wing.

People like Bernie and AOC are dragging the centrist wing, kicking and screaming, to the left.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
People like Bernie and AOC are dragging the centrist wing, kicking and screaming, to the left.
Click to expand...

Like, in real life or just on paper?

What bills are the Dems getting passed into law with all this kicking and screaming?
 
Last edited:
Cabbage said:
If you are referring to my posts, I think you misunderstand: I am not supporting "preventing/subverting the will of the voters" in any way whatsoever; it is undeniable, however, that "Trump happened" might inspire certain people in appropriate positions to prevent or subvert the will of the voters. I neither condone nor have any control over that.
Click to expand...
No, not you specifically. It's a mish-mash of language about non-members "hijacking" a party and discussions about how parties should have control over who appears on the ballot. Draw a thread through those two and it can go bad places.

More of a heading off at the pass than anything.
 
d4m10n said:
Like, in real life or just on paper?

What bills are the Dems getting passed into law with all this kicking and screaming?
Click to expand...
Because the wing that cooperates with passing NDAAs that have implications on domestic freedoms or giving more tax breaks to the mega rich is really making my life better?

What prevents progressive policy becoming law right now is Senate math.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Because the wing that cooperates with passing NDAAs that have implications on domestic freedoms or giving more tax breaks to the mega rich is really making my life better?
Click to expand...

I don't know anything about what makes your life better. Weird question, IMO.

As to tax cuts, which Dems voted for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017WP?
 
d4m10n said:
Like, in real life or just on paper?

What bills are the Dems getting passed into law with all this kicking and screaming?
Click to expand...

Taking over seats via primary challenge is a necessary step towards building up political power.
 
d4m10n said:
I don't know anything about what makes your life better. Weird question, IMO.

As to tax cuts, which Dems voted for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017WP?
Click to expand...
At quick glance, passed R controlled House despite a few defectors, then party line in the Senate. Could make hay over who voted for cloture motions if I cared to look.

What does that have to do with the progressive wing having ability to enact legislation? The whole party was in minority at that point, so it's a non sequitur to the larger discussion.
 
It looks like the Iowa numbers will never be correct, but at least this time we will know they aren't correct.

But when the party delivers its updated results, which it has promised to do on Monday, they may hardly reassure candidates and voters. Internal emails from Saturday night reveal that the party will not correct even blatant errors in the official handwritten tally sheets from individual precincts.

Those records, known as “caucus math worksheets,” could not be changed even if they contained mistakes, according to the lawyer for the Iowa Democratic Party, because they were a legal record and altering them would be a crime.

“The incorrect math on the Caucus Math Worksheets must not be changed to ensure the integrity of the process,” wrote the party lawyer, Shayla McCormally, according to an email sent by Troy Price, the chairman of the party, to its central committee members. The lawyer said correcting the math would introduce “personal opinion” into the official record of results.
Click to expand...

Linky.

But the Iowa Dems are going to be releasing these as the "correct results" on Monday.
 
Last edited:
applecorped said:
“lying, dog-faced pony soldier.” - Biden


lol

https://news.grabien.com/story-biden-calls-skeptical-new-hampshire-voter-lying-dog-faced-po
Click to expand...

Ziggurat said:
Biden's actual words are converging on his Bad Lip Reading.
Click to expand...

I notice a few headlines are trying to play up the “jokingly”, and explain that it’s a John Wayne quote. That’s Biden! Always at the cutting edge of popular culture. That’s what makes him the most electable candidate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom