• Sanders Rejects Effort to Draft Him Into Starting a New Political Party
    24 replies, posted
[URL="http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/sanders-rejects-effort-draft-him-starting-new-political-party-n719931"]http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/sanders-rejects-effort-draft-him-starting-new-political-party-n719931[/URL] [QUOTE]WASHINGTON — Sen. Bernie Sanders rejected a movement to draft him into starting a new political party, telling "Meet The Press" on Sunday that his focus right now is on the Democratic Party as a whole. "Right now I am working to bring fundamental reform to the Democratic Party, to open the door to the Democratic Party," said Sanders, who lost the Democratic presidential nomination to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last year. A group of former staff members and delegates for Sanders launched an effort last week called "Draft Bernie for A People's Party," which they called a "nationwide effort" to convince the senator "to found a new party rooted in the progressive principles that awoke a political revolution during his campaign for the presidency." The Vermont senator doubled down on referring to the president as a "pathological liar," and asked whether he can work with a pathological liar, he said, "it makes life very difficult ... it is very harsh but that's the truth." Sanders called the protests continuing to swell up around the country "a spontaneous and grassroots uprising among the American people," repeating that he felt it was an opportunity to usher in an increasingly progressive ideology within the Democratic Party. But catering to the party's liberal base and focusing on sheer resistance won't help the party in the long run, former Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., argued on Sunday's "Meet The Press." Webb has been quite optimistic about what the Trump administration could accomplish, recently writing an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal saying the president is "positioned to bring two much-needed adjustments to our governing process." He felt Democrats are too preoccupied with opposing the president and winning election in 2018 that "they don't have a message." "There is a campaign going on on the Hill and in academia to personally discredit not only Donald Trump but the people who are around him," Webb said, predicting that the end result will slow down the governing process and "there will not be a record of accomplishment in that." Over the last few years, he said, the Democratic Party has "moved very far to the left." Webb on Sunday would not say whether he still even considers himself a Democrat. "I'm not in the system right now," he said. Webb pointed out that he did not endorse Hillary Clinton before the election and would not confirm who he voted for, saying only, "I'm comfortable with my vote and my vote is private to me." [/QUOTE] Im almost disagree him on this move (and may cause disillusion with half of his remaining supporters) and sound very possible of reforming party but yet again history show other wise when trying reform the party since 1968 isn't very easy. PS I may heard by some Bernie Supporter that 14 million people left Democratic Party?
Maybe I'm completely off but would be cool to have had a return of the Bullmoose Party given how similiar Roosevelt's and Sanders' hopes were/are.
It's going to be next to impossible to run a successful third party with FPTP voting in place. After that's improved, then maybe you could do it. But look to history if you want to see how this has worked before. He's got a huge movement but not enough to overthrow the current Democratic and Republican footholds.
[QUOTE=ChadMcGoatMan;51823192]PS I may heard by some Bernie Supporter that 14 million people left Democratic Party?[/QUOTE] How would you even determine that? Most voters aren't card-carrying, dues-paying party members of any party, so I doubt there's even 14 million people officially in the Democratic Party. Or rather, in each state party, since that's what people join. Going by total votes in the last election is also wrong, because that has more to do with individual candidates than with the party. Maybe there's a poll of "party affiliation" that could give useful data but I can see a lot of reasons for people to switch from a party to "unaffiliated" shortly after an election, so I'd take any such results with a grain of salt, unless I could see 10+ years of history.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;51823264]How would you even determine that? Most voters aren't card-carrying, dues-paying party members of any party, so I doubt there's even 14 million people officially in the Democratic Party. Or rather, in each state party, since that's what people join. Going by total votes in the last election is also wrong, because that has more to do with individual candidates than with the party. Maybe there's a poll of "party affiliation" that could give useful data but I can see a lot of reasons for people to switch from a party to "unaffiliated" shortly after an election, so I'd take any such results with a grain of salt, unless I could see 10+ years of history.[/QUOTE] Yea, Maybe that and Its likely from Gallup. [editline]14th February 2017[/editline] Yea found it, But technically proves my point that Democratic Party "membership" goes down. [URL="http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/Party-Affiliation.aspx"]http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/Party-Affiliation.aspx[/URL]
[QUOTE=Selek;51823209]Maybe I'm completely off but would be cool to have had a return of the Bullmoose Party given how similiar Roosevelt's and Sanders' hopes were/are.[/QUOTE] And would completely fuck the vote just like Bull Moose did. The only reasonable chance of getting rid of Trump is to get the Democrats on track, not split them up.
[QUOTE=OpethRockr55;51823339]And would completely fuck the vote just like Bull Moose did. The only reasonable chance of getting rid of Trump is to get the Democrats on track, not split them up.[/QUOTE] This. We can worry about this apparently growing schism later, but right now the important part is to keep everyone on the same page so that the vote doesn't split and give the republicans the government for decades. My hope is that once the Trump situation is dealt with, the old guard will keep on under the presumption that identity politics will be enough and the Bernie folks can sweep in on an economic platform that favors the working class and prove what [I]works.[/I]
If Sanders went to join some third party nobody's ever heard of, he's be effectively sealing himself off. He'd have no chance of getting anywhere or spreading his message.
[QUOTE=froztshock;51823368]This. We can worry about this apparently growing schism later, but right now the important part is to keep everyone on the same page so that the vote doesn't split and give the republicans the government for decades. My hope is that once the Trump situation is dealt with, the old guard will keep on under the presumption that identity politics will be enough and the Bernie folks can sweep in on an economic platform that favors the working class and prove what [I]works.[/I][/QUOTE] This not be avoidable, Schism will happen some way than other eventually if Demcratic Establishment didnt got alot new seats around 2018 election (it will trigger "DemexitP2") and 2020 election (trigger "DemexitP3") without new ways getting votes from Millennials and other future generations because majority Baby Boomer voters are super reactionary on clinging past and by mean keep voting Republican for supposedly "fixing" America and most Establishment Democrats are same boat as them. [editline]14th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51823407]If Sanders went to join some third party [B]nobody's ever heard of[/B], he's be effectively sealing himself off. He'd have no chance of getting anywhere or spreading his message.[/QUOTE] Never Heard off, Because Mainstream media belong to Bi-Partisan establishment and buy out since 1996 and Its technically unavoidable since Internet can opinionally focus on third party candidates if only you have "informative yet rebellous and free will personality"-type of voter.
[QUOTE=OpethRockr55;51823339]And would completely fuck the vote just like Bull Moose did. The only reasonable chance of getting rid of Trump is to get the Democrats on track, not split them up.[/QUOTE] Sanders should covertly create and finance the water filter party to fight against gay frogs and split trump's vote.
I don't think the democratic party is unsalvageable?
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51823582]I don't think the democratic party is unsalvageable?[/QUOTE] If Democratic Establishment/DNC keep being jerks, denying of want be retired of politics altogether and let new politicans take their place, ignore any real issues that this country faces except ONLY when republicans try do something of those real issues and trying ignore Sanders advice of ether fixing or reform party, Well maybe no.
[QUOTE=ChadMcGoatMan;51823624]If Democratic Establishment/DNC keep being jerks, denying of want be retired of politics altogether, ignore any real issues that this country faces except ONLY when republicans try do something of those real issues and trying ignore Sanders advice of ether fixing or reform party, Well maybe no.[/QUOTE] Wait until the DNC chairperson gets chosen before you proclaim the sky is falling. Keith Ellison seems to have the mojo.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51823637]Wait until the DNC chairperson gets chosen before you proclaim the sky is falling. Keith Ellison seems to have the mojo.[/QUOTE] :tinfoil: Well sure and wait time will tell if they elected Ellison (and maybe rarely [Sam] Ronan an very late new DNC candidate), But if they elected Perez by Rigging (because it very possible they can do that, and this is their party) well one big step of first time ever fall of party in hundreds of year. :tinfoil:
[media]https://twitter.com/michaelwhitney/status/831858978061746177[/media]
[QUOTE=Potus;51825752][media]https://twitter.com/michaelwhitney/status/831858978061746177[/media][/QUOTE] Yea they need criticism [for corporated centrists Democrats] to improving them.
[QUOTE=Potus;51825752]tweet[/QUOTE] On the one hand, a brazen attempt by people in power to keep grips on their power. On the other hand, if there is one time Democrats cannot afford to be split it's the two years between November 2016 and November 2018
Where At the point in which they haven't learned from the Primary, and that the DNC feels threatened, I was going to say that the old guard needed to stay in the heartland but I'm going to get ignored and ridiculed again. Basically Both Candidates would likely spell doom for the DNC, Tom Peraz would continue on the internal Dem Civil war, and Keith would diminish chances of dems bouncing back becasue we are stupid people and GOP will put out Keith wants Sharia Law for USA, and too many people will believe them.
As much as I'd love to see a new political party challenge the 2 party dichotomy we have right now, it just doesn't seem possible with first past the post. It makes more sense to try and salvage one of the "viable" parties and take it in a decent direction.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51826902]Where At the point in which they haven't learned from the Primary, and that the DNC feels threatened, I was going to say that the old guard needed to stay in the heartland but I'm going to get ignored and ridiculed again. Basically Both Candidates would likely spell doom for the DNC, Tom Peraz would continue on the internal Dem Civil war, and Keith would diminish chances of dems bouncing back becasue we are [B]stupid people and GOP will put out Keith wants Sharia Law for USA, and too many people will believe them[/B].[/QUOTE] Definitely people with fetish on neoliberal/right-wing identity politics and establishment Dems have in common And only Democratic politicians are ones voting to new DNC not people except encouraged them to changed their minds
[QUOTE=Selek;51823209]Maybe I'm completely off but would be cool to have had a return of the Bullmoose Party given how similiar Roosevelt's and Sanders' hopes were/are.[/QUOTE] Oh good, then the republicans can have a supermajority in most state legislatures and perhaps even congress. if you want new parties, change the system first.
[QUOTE=srobins;51826965]As much as I'd love to see a new political party challenge the 2 party dichotomy we have right now, it just doesn't seem possible with first past the post. It makes more sense to try and salvage one of the "viable" parties and take it in a decent direction.[/QUOTE] Well reform voting system to non-FPTP system along still against Trump and big distraction [The establishment] in same time.
[QUOTE=ChadMcGoatMan;51827010]Well reform voting system to non-FPTP system along still against Trump and big distraction [The establishment] in same time.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah, I don't disagree. It'd be wonderful to overhaul our voting system but I honestly have no idea how that process would even work. It's not even something being discussed in our current political climate as far as I'm aware, so I'm not holding my breath.
[QUOTE=srobins;51827404]Oh yeah, I don't disagree. It'd be wonderful to overhaul our voting system but I honestly have no idea how that process would even work. It's not even something being discussed in our current political climate as far as I'm aware, so I'm not holding my breath.[/QUOTE] K, And also update your Avatar profile Well you can join or support an election reform groups like Fairvote, Justice Democrats or Our Revolution to make spread in smaller/state wide scale first
Third Parties simply can't succeed in FPTP even if someone with the popularity of Sanders was involved. Gutting FPTP should be a priority in the next administration if the cycle of Democrats and Republicans is to be shaken. We'd see the removal of Red/Blue states along with removing prioritizing of swing states, and we'd see a priority of advertising to the US in general instead of one's base.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.