A rule adopted Friday by the Democratic National Committee's rules and bylaws panel would require that any person who runs for the party's presidential nomination must fully commit to the Democratic Party. Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers and a member of the DNC, said the party “changed the rules to ensure to run for President as a Democrat you need to be A Democrat," in a tweet along with a photo of the rule's language after it was included in the proposed draft call for the 2020 Democratic convention at a meeting in Providence, R.I., Yahoo News reported. “At the time a presidential candidate announces their candidacy publicly, they must publicly affirm that they are a Democrat,” the rule stipulates. “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.” While at first glance the rule would appear designed to bar an outsider like Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who competed against and lost to Hillary Clinton for the 2016 nomination, the self-proclaimed democratic socialist may still be able to run for the Democratic ticket in 2020. The Vermont Democratic Party passed a resolution in May supporting Sanders' strategy of competing in the state's Democratic primary, but opting to decline the nomination after he wins. The resolution says he could be considered a member of the Democratic Party “for all purposes and entitled to all the rights and privileges that come with such membership at the state and federal level.” A source who spoke to Yahoo News said the DNC rule isn't aimed at Sanders, nor would it guarantee that he is barred from the 2020 contest. Further, the source described the move as a necessary one to help progress in committee one of Sanders' priorities: getting rid of superdelegates.....snip~ https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...eing-democrats Poor Bernie.....such is the way of Democrats. What say ye.
Translation: They fully expect Bernie to make another play (and this time win) so are cutting him out. I do understand the logic but the Dems need to understand that centralism is dead in America. The Repubs swallow that pill and run everything now, the Dems could have had the WH had they done the same.
I think the Demos will lay their hat with Kamala Harris. Bernie wont stand a chance against Trump and an Economy rolling along.
the far left Bernie Boi types won't be duped into sending their money to the DNC again, yet they'll still vote for the Bernie types which puts the Democrat Party at a crossroads....back towards the center and abandoning them altogether, or putting up Democrats who will appeal to the lunatic fringe.
You can't have people representing the party who don't represent the party. Not hard to understand that one. The Rs demanded the same thing of trump. Remember. It was an issue.
Its their party why on earth would anyone expect them to allow someone to run as their candidate who isn't a member of their party. Come on people this isn't rocket science. Honestly it shouldn't have taken Bernie Sanders to point out such a glaring oversight.
As I've said, the logic of this is sound. The problem is that the BASE isn't centralist anymore. Centralists ATM are a lock becuase the Repubs went far right but that alone won't win elections. Centralists aren't enthusiastic voters, they don't donate unless they have lots of money to blow, they don't volunteer unless they have a personal stake in a politician and if IF they advocate policy changes, it's bandwagoning of what the far right/left has gotten started. Centralism as a mainstream political movement died with the Great Recession. Hillary herself was forced to admit she lost becuase she was a center-right capitalist while the Dem base are now largely moderate socialists. The Repubs kicked and screamed but eventually accepted that fact when the TP happened and have been reworded with single party rule and control of most states. The Dems on the other hand put up traditional corporate backed politicians that change policy positions with every poll and only win against pedophiles, Klansmen and open Trump supporters in solid blue areas. If the Dems want to stay relevant, they'll have to embrace the left.
Kamala Harris is a member of the Mulatto Mafia. She only represent MS-13, illegal aliens, Marxist of color and reconquista socialist. Kamala Harris is a cop killer who aids and abets cop killers to kill cops in her name.
They say she is the female version of BO the peep. But Terry McAuliffe and Eric Holder are saying they will run against Trump.
It's a fair point, and I honestly can't criticize a rule that if you want to run for the nomination of a political party, that you actually have to be a member of that party. It's just that this was clearly aimed at ONE candidate, so it's funny!
Barack Obama is a member of the Mulatto Mafia along with Erick Holder, Loretta Lynch, Valerie Jarrett and Kamala Harris.
This is a move along the same lines as them creating super delegates after a grassroots dem got beat long ago. They wanted to exclude any grassroots. Of course you don't see regular dems in a grassroots movement today, it takes people like sanders to run as a dem. Now the DNC wants to insure their corporate democratic party is fully protected.
Given that Sanders happily agreed to the rule in 2016, it's obviously totally wrong to claim the rule targeted Sanders. Thus, it's what our nutty conservative MSM did.
No, that's totally wrong. The superdelegates were created in response to McGovern's win in 1972. McGovern was the opposite of a grassroots candidate. He had little support among rank-and-file dems. What he did know how to do was manipulate caucuses and conventions, so he won without any significant grassroots support. Thus, the superdelegates were created to prevent that from happening again.
Yes, we get it. The modern GOP welcomes all racists with open arms. No need to keep advertising it. It's not like anyone doesn't know it.
What the rule is for is people like this, Republicans threatening to run as Democrats for the purpose of sabotaging the Democrats. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/05/howard-schultz-rips-democrats-for-veering-too-far-left.html --- "I think we got to get away from these falsehoods and start talking about the truth and not false promises" said Schultz, whose Monday announcement that he's stepping down as executive chairman of Starbucks is driving speculation that he may run for president in the 2020 election. ---
You'll notice that blacks who belong the GOP are actually black not Mulatto's who belong to the Mulatto Mafia..
Both parties are corrupt and bloodthirsty. Bernie's strong showing is proof of that. If the democrats had a decent candidate Bernie would not have been necessary. But the DNC is also screwing progressives who are democrats so the problem for them is Bernie's message , not his party affiliation. Except for the Green and Libertarian party who both did much better in 2016 than 2012 sane independents have nowhere to go..
I think you are misjudging the electorate. The left is already too radical and doubling down on their leftness isn't going to win elections.
It is as if the Democratic Party wishes to distance itself further from the "will of the people". 2016 Hillary stacked DNC was just a harbinger. https://www.yahoo.com/news/eye-bern...s-2020-presidential-candidates-225841348.html WASHINGTON — 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. 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.” It is plainly wrong to change the rules over one person. And I use to be a Democrat! Moi Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
The left is too radical but folks Sig Hailing at Repub rallies isn't? The fact is that fascism and socialism are now the dominant ideologies in America and that's going to become increasingly obvious over the next 2 election cycles. The Repubs have accepted this and have thus won control of most states and the country. The Dems haven't and passed over the candidate with approval numbers currently over 50% (and that's according to FOX pollsters) and who was leading Trump by 20 points during the Primaries for the most hated Dem in America (but the poster child of Establishment politics) and... Well the results go without saying. The left may be too radical for Repubs but they're ripe for the taking for the Dems. As it stands, leftists either vote 3rd party or stay home and it's going to cost Dems elections once the Repubs figure out how to message. Right now the David Dukes of the world are dominating the Repub ticket giving the Dems some breathing room, once the Francisco Fancos of the world (charismatic, able to articulate policy and able to competently manage the bureaucracy once elected) start showing up on the ticket, the Dems are going to get crushed if they're still clinging to the center.
The only thing he did was agree to back the Dem nominee if it wasn't him. Once he conceded the race he endorsed Hillary. He never promised to be a liberal.
And look at this . https://nypost.com/2018/06/09/democratic-parties-accused-of-funneling-84m-into-clinton-campaign/
