Bernie is definitely damaging the party. There's a difference between pushing for change and fostering an atmosphere of leaving the party if the candidate one wants doesn't end up the nominee.
He's transforming the party. The country needs a lot of work and democrats are just as guilty of sitting on their asses as republicans. Look at midterms. Democrats never go out to vote and we're then stuck with republicans. It's the laziest ****ing base and no one even attempts to energize them.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bloo
I think that's fair, but he is coming off way to aggressive with his message, in my opinion. To me, if he wants to get this message across, he shouldn't be suing the party and talking about its corruption openly in the way he has been. If he wants to improve it and rejuvenate it, then antagonizing them is not the appropriate way to go. I'm not even a hardcore Democrat, I was going to register as Independent, but there's no point since my state has closed primaries, so I registered with the Democrats 2 years ago to save myself the trouble of having to do it later.
Hmm... Do you have a link?
I'd agree that it's aggressive but it'll benefit the party more in the end. He's basically set it up to where they have to begin adopting his ideas. (Which is ideas they do have but don't say out loud because they're scared of being called socialists, etc).
10:42
Speaking of Jane, they need to use her more. She's a very good advocate for him.
I feel like primaries, in general, should be open. Not because it benefits Bernie but because what if you're a republican and you see the trash they're offering on their side? You're basically told to either vote for them or stay home.
You should be able to vote for whoever you want.
The whole primary needs changed in general. Caucuses need to go, all primaries need to be open, super-delegates need to go (they're making the party look bad this time around), and the states that vote first need to be changed. Iowa being first is just .
Hmm. I like the idea in practice but there would be people abusing the system. For example you have Trump, who's terrible, on the republican side. Let's say in your party you like either choice but you know one of the republican candidates would be "easier" to beat in November. You could literally just vote for that loser of a candidate and sabatoge the other party. Same thing vice versa. Closed primaries (or semi closed) would be preferred. Caucuses though can definitely help insurgent candidates by allowing people to educate others about why their candidate is better. Pretty archaic some rules and it should be limited (we have way too many. Maybe smaller states can have them) but we don't need to get rid of them entirely.
Overall we can agree the democratic process isn't the best
And I'm sorry, but I shouldn't have to end up voting for Hillary out of fear from another candidate.
No one should have to vote out of fear. That is also not a democracy.
LOL tell that to hispanics, muslims, blacks and women who'll actually have to deal with a Trump presidency directly.
Of course, naive, white liberals could care less bc the presidency doesn't affect them either way, they're just having fun @ his rallies yelling about 'free stuff'
A Susan Sarandon sized heap of selfishness
Not gonna lie, if Warren had ran, it would have been a hard choice for me between her and Hillary
Hillary is more well-rounded, to me, and I'd prefer her to be in the presidential seat. I would LOVE to see Warren be a part of Hillary's administration.
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
I'd love to hear where Bernie said that.
When he said that people would need to vote in an entirely new Congress that would pass his legislation... It's practically the same thing. I've already given you the link to this video in this thread a few days ago...
LOL tell that to hispanics, muslims, blacks and women who'll actually have to deal with a Trump presidency directly.
Of course, naive, white liberals could care less bc the presidency doesn't affect them either way, they're just having fun @ his rallies yelling about 'free stuff'
A Susan Sarandon sized heap of selfishness
He's transforming the party. The country needs a lot of work and democrats are just as guilty of sitting on their asses as republicans. Look at midterms. Democrats never go out to vote and we're then stuck with republicans. It's the laziest ****ing base and no one even attempts to energize them.
I'd agree that it's aggressive but it'll benefit the party more in the end. He's basically set it up to where they have to begin adopting his ideas. (Which is ideas they do have but don't say out loud because they're scared of being called socialists, etc).
10:42
Speaking of Jane, they need to use her more. She's a very good advocate for him.
I'll have to watch this when I'm not busy studying (though I'm doing a terrible job because this thread is a massive distraction ).
He's transforming the party. The country needs a lot of work and democrats are just as guilty of sitting on their asses as republicans. Look at midterms. Democrats never go out to vote and we're then stuck with republicans. It's the laziest ****ing base and no one even attempts to energize them.
I'd agree that it's aggressive but it'll benefit the party more in the end. He's basically set it up to where they have to begin adopting his ideas. (Which is ideas they do have but don't say out loud because they're scared of being called socialists, etc).
10:42
Speaking of Jane, they need to use her more. She's a very good advocate for him.
Right. Down ticket dems have turnout problems and he's not for fundraising for them. Hillary fundraiser, endorses and does joint events with them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen Bernie do that. So how can you/he complain about it without actually making an effort?
Never been a fan of Warren (and she faked being an Indian to get minority scholarships, kinda disgusting).
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
Me either. I think Bernie type candidates just don't appeal to me idk
I think she's very knowledgeable on economic issues (more so than Bernie) and I think she would be a great asset to help appeal to very left Democrats. I'm personally left of center and not as left as I thought I was (this election showed me that), but I think she'd make a great asset to a presidential administration.
I swear Jane would make a better campaign manager than Jeff Weaver.
But I do find it odd that Bernie's team has gone more negative. He basically decided not to go negative last year so it didn't hurt Hillary. I guess it was because he thought he stood no chance and just wanted to move her to the left, but still. They must know something we don't because otherwise I don't get why he's still doing it.
I swear Jane would make a better campaign manager than Jeff Weaver.
But I do find it odd that Bernie's team has gone more negative. He basically decided not to go negative last year so it didn't hurt Hillary. I guess it was because he thought he stood no chance and just wanted to move her to the left, but still. They must know something we don't because otherwise I don't get why he's still doing it.
I think it's a fundraising thing. They see that their audience absolutely goes crazy when he trash talks Hillary, so he does it in the hopes that they'll throw more money at him.
Right. Down ticket dems have turnout problems and he's not for fundraising for them. Hillary fundraiser, endorses and does joint events with them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen Bernie do that. So how can you/he complain about it without actually making an effort?
His wife literally said in that interview that he does try to help down ticket dems. And the problem with down ticket dems goes beyond fundraising.
I swear Jane would make a better campaign manager than Jeff Weaver.
But I do find it odd that Bernie's team has gone more negative. He basically decided not to go negative last year so it didn't hurt Hillary. I guess it was because he thought he stood no chance and just wanted to move her to the left, but still. They must know something we don't because otherwise I don't get why he's still doing it.
I swear Jane would make a better campaign manager than Jeff Weaver.
But I do find it odd that Bernie's team has gone more negative. He basically decided not to go negative last year so it didn't hurt Hillary. I guess it was because he thought he stood no chance and just wanted to move her to the left, but still. They must know something we don't because otherwise I don't get why he's still doing it.
I agree with you. I think because doing what he did so far hasn't worked so he's trying a different approach to see if he could win. I don't like it but he's in it to win it right? So maybe internal polls show a slightly more negative (it's still light punches to me) works better
.
