Toward 2020

[Porsupah Ree]

It remains, as they note, to be seen just how they'll define and enforce this, but it's a surprising development from a party that's been very cozy with big money for a long while now.

The DNC will require presidential nominees' funding to come primarily from small-money, grassroots donors

The DNC has announced a new rule for participating in the primary debates for the 2020 presidential nomination: candidates must raise the majority of their money from "grassroots" donors who make small-money donation.

They have yet to define what this will mean, and there's a lot of potential ways this could go wrong, but as Bernie Sanders' 2016 digital fundraising manager writes in a detailed analysis in The Intercept, some of the most obvious problems (billionaires gladly losing money in fundraising appeals, spending $2 in advertising to raise $1 in small-money donation) don't seem to work. There's also a lot of potential Super PAC shenanigans that would need to be headed off.

 

[Kara Spengler]

I am guessing they are trying to copy Bernie? The big question is if they will do the deep stuff (his platform) and not just surface things though. What attracted people was not as much small donations as it was what he stood for (and had a track record of not backing down from).

 

[Essence Lumin]

I am guessing they are trying to copy Bernie? The big question is if they will do the deep stuff (his platform) and not just surface things though. What attracted people was not as much small donations as it was what he stood for (and had a track record of not backing down from).

It's a mystery. They sure fucked over Bernie.

 

[Porsupah Ree]

All quite closely linked, ne? But certainly, it was a matter of his campaign actually resonating with people in a positive manner, just, regrettably, not to the extent required.

Wouldn't it be fun to see Kamala Harris prevail? Not just a woman, but a POC (Tamil & Jamaican) too - hell, she'd wipe out half the Trumpets just through apopleptic aneurisms. = Plus, more seriously, she's not as old as some of the other front runners, especially Biden and Bernie.

 

[Kara Spengler]

All quite closely linked, ne? But certainly, it was a matter of his campaign actually resonating with people in a positive manner, just, regrettably, not to the extent required.

Wouldn't it be fun to see Kamala Harris prevail? Not just a woman, but a POC (Tamil & Jamaican) too - hell, she'd wipe out half the Trumpets just through apopleptic aneurisms. = Plus, more seriously, she's not as old as some of the other front runners, especially Biden and Bernie.

My big worry is the Ds go to their old playbook and back some mainstream person, basically Hillary but with a different name. If the Rs are going to run to the radical right and nominate people in the mold of donnie now the Ds should run just as far to the left. Quit trying to appeal to the mythical undecided voter and giving someone the left hates because 'what are you going to do, vote for the R'. Make that person decide between raving zenophobia and cool and collected person who puts forth things like medicare for all.

 

[Shiloh Lyric]

I was a Bernie supporter for the 2016 Primaries.

I would really rather he not run again. After the last 2 years especially, I've pretty much had my fill of old mostly-white men making the bulk of the decisions. Speaking as a middle-aged white female and someone who likes Joe Biden, too.

I'm pulling for Kamala Harris, and she could pick any number of VP running mates who would be fine with me...Amy Klobuchar, Beto O'Rourke or Joe Kennedy are my first picks, though.

I like the idea of grassroots donations. I wish that were just the way of things. Most, if not all, of our country's problems can be traced to big, mainly dark, money in politics. Special interests rule the day, especially the ones with deep pocketbooks. If we want officeholders answerable to "We, The People", then WE, the individuals, should be where they get the bulk of their money.

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

Wouldn't it be fun to see Kamala Harris prevail? Not just a woman, but a POC (Tamil & Jamaican) too - hell, she'd wipe out half the Trumpets just through apopleptic aneurisms. = Plus, more seriously, she's not as old as some of the other front runners, especially Biden and Bernie.

I'd like to see Kamala Harris run with Beto O'Rourke. I think that pairing would have a good chance of winning against Trump.

 

[danielravennest]

Plus, more seriously, she's not as old as some of the other front runners, especially Biden and Bernie.

I'm thinking of it as "The living in 2020, not the undead" i.e. candidates over 70. Trump - 72. Biden - 76. Sanders - 77. All too old.

 

[Beebo Brink]

They sure fucked over Bernie.

"They" being who? The Democratic party? The party that Bernie used in the same way that Trump used the GOP?

And I say that as a fervent Bernie fan, but that doesn't gloss over the realities. He is NOT a Democrat, but he ran as a Democrat in order to take advantage of the party machinery. Expecting them to treat him like a trusted member is just not reasonable.

I've been following Bernie's career since he ran for mayor in neighboring Burlington (I lived across the lake in Plattsburgh at the time). There is much to admire in the man, but I suspect he would have made a lousy president (better than Trump, but that's such a low bar it's almost impossible to fail). His focus is very narrow, foreign policy experience non-existent, and his team was very small. Sanders would have had some of the same problems scaling up to run a country that Trump has had, and Bernie's inner circle was mostly white men. As far as I can tell, his heart may be in the right place, but diversity is just not front and center in his mind, it's more a side issue to economic inequality.

He played a pivotal role in the 2016 election, bringing focus to issues that I wanted to see emphasized. He challenged Clinton in a way that helped focus her own campaign, rather than treating the nomination as a given. I'm glad he ran then. Please god, don't let him run again.

 

[Essence Lumin]

"They" being who? The Democratic party? The party that Bernie used in the same way that Trump used the GOP?

Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC - for example - Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC

And I say that as a fervent Bernie fan, but that doesn't gloss over the realities. He is NOT a Democrat,

Whatever that means. In my book if you are a member of the Democratic party you are a democrat. Forgetting about Bernie, the members at both ends of the party don't seem to have anything in common.

I've been following Bernie's career since he ran for mayor in neighboring Burlington (I lived across the lake in Plattsburgh at the time). There is much to admire in the man, but I suspect he would have made a lousy president (better than Trump, but that's such a low bar it's almost impossible to fail). His focus is very narrow, foreign policy experience non-existent, and his team was very small. Sanders would have had some of the same problems scaling up to run a country that Trump has had, and Bernie's inner circle was mostly white men. As far as I can tell, his heart may be in the right place, but diversity is just not front and center in his mind, it's more a side issue to economic inequality.

True enough. There weren't other good options though. In my opinion Hillary was a much worse option other than the fact she had a better chance of beating the orange one.

Please god, don't let him run again.

I agree on that but pray there is a progressive candidate who does run.

 

[Kara Spengler]

"They" being who? The Democratic party? The party that Bernie used in the same way that Trump used the GOP?

And I say that as a fervent Bernie fan, but that doesn't gloss over the realities. He is NOT a Democrat, but he ran as a Democrat in order to take advantage of the party machinery. Expecting them to treat him like a trusted member is just not reasonable.

*GROAN*

Every time I hear that argument I just ask one thing and the person stops pushing the issue once they take the thought to the logical conclusion.

Forget that he caucuses with the Ds and raises money for them. Would you rather he had ran as an independent and NOT be subject to the D primaries? A shortcut to a general election candidacy?

 

[Cristalle]

My focus is not on personality or identity, but policy. So far Bernie is the only one who lines up all the way on policy. Beto, Kamala and whoever else the Democratic Party Illuminati are trying to shove down our throats don't quite do it for me. Could I live with Kamala if she won? Yes. Anything is better than what we have now. But the Democratic Party loyalists seem to have their heads up their asses if they think warmed over centrism is a winning strategy in the long run.

Further: the "they" of the Democratic Party said that they would be neutral brokers. If they aren't going to be neutral, change the fucking rules so that it's clear that it's not a neutral broker, and that the process isn't actually democratic.

 

[Brian]

Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC - for example - Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC

Donna Brazile Wrote A Thing. Oh.

 

[Brian]

Every time I hear that argument I just ask one thing and the person stops pushing the issue once they take the thought to the logical conclusion.

Forget that he caucuses with the Ds and raises money for them. Would you rather he had ran as an independent and NOT be subject to the D primaries? A shortcut to a general election candidacy?

But you're not listening to the answer.
Yes. Run under whatever banner you want, but don't expect the Democratic Party to hand over theirs.
Would we rather 3rd parties compete in the General? Not in this non-parliamentary system. But if that's what happens, it happens.

 

[Brian]

It remains, as they note, to be seen just how they'll define and enforce this, but it's a surprising development from a party that's been very cozy with big money for a long while now.

The DNC will require presidential nominees' funding to come primarily from small-money, grassroots donors

I was trying to verify it. It sounds to me like it's a personal interpretation of a motivating discussion advising to have grassroots movements.

But hey, they sound nice -

Generally, the DNC is a fucking pro-establishment dumpster fire (which may explain why it's foundering),

Altogether, the source trail seems a dead end in The Intercept where it's attributed. They're no better than Fox News.

 

[Kara Spengler]

My focus is not on personality or identity, but policy. So far Bernie is the only one who lines up all the way on policy. Beto, Kamala and whoever else the Democratic Party Illuminati are trying to shove down our throats don't quite do it for me. Could I live with Kamala if she won? Yes. Anything is better than what we have now. But the Democratic Party loyalists seem to have their heads up their asses if they think warmed over centrism is a winning strategy in the long run.

Further: the "they" of the Democratic Party said that they would be neutral brokers. If they aren't going to be neutral, change the fucking rules so that it's clear that it's not a neutral broker, and that the process isn't actually democratic.

Same here. Since I come from the 'Bernie Country' part of NH I admit to being biased towards him as a person but I am also more for policies than personalities. My mind would be more at ease if he enthusiastically supported someone else with the same policies (Hillary does not meet that criteria, sorry!) and threw his weight behind them. If he did that, vs what he did with HRC, I think a lot of Bernie supporters would wholeheartedly go for the new person.

Anyone over age 70 should not be running for president in an ideal world. They should be top level advisers and senior senators, where their knowledge and wisdom can be put to use without bringing up the 'are they too old' question.

 

[Kara Spengler]

Would we rather 3rd parties compete in the General? Not in this non-parliamentary system. But if that's what happens, it happens.

You can not have it both ways. Either he competes against Ds in the primary or he does so in the general. Choose. This is not an authoritarian regime or something, he can run if he wants to.

In all ways but the label he affixes to himself he is a D. Are DINOs more of a D than he is simply because they took the name?

 

[Beebo Brink]

Forget that he caucuses with the Ds and raises money for them. Would you rather he had ran as an independent and NOT be subject to the D primaries? A shortcut to a general election candidacy?

It was perfectly within Sanders rights to run as the Independent that he was. Whether or not I liked that option is irrelevant. Evidently, HE didn't like it -- and with very good reason. A third-party candidacy is a spoiler campaign, with little to no hope of winning. Sanders wanted to win and he made a pragmatic decision to run as a Democrat, using the party machinery to propel him to greater visibility and give him a fighting chance at actually winning the presidency.

Good on him. Again, he was acting perfectly within his rights either way.

On an equally practical level, it was a move that ruffled some feathers. I'm with Brian in thinking that the DNC reaction falls short of sabotage and falls within the normal friction of opposing candidates.

Sanders lost. If you're going to blame anyone, I'd take a bead on Corporate Media that was too busy falling over laughing at Trump -- but couldn't resist focusing huge chunks of media time on him.

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

IMHO one big part of the problem is the mediocre down to nothing permeability of the parties for real newcomers and normal people in politics. If parties would still work bottom-up, like originally intended, and operating well obviously there would be much more choice between opinions, people, race, age.

But since it is not, the system is mostly reproducing itself nowadays; Trump was is an anomaly to this, because he simply had so much money&popularity by himself, that he didn't really would have needed a party at all.

 

[Kara Spengler]

he simply had so much money

Citation needed.