2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Berkut]

At the end of the day, he lost the primary, and by a quite comfortable margin so I don't think hypotetical foul play made a difference.

The part that I find laughable is the idea that he was robbed somehow because the DNC didn't act like a neutral third party when it came to nominating the representative of the *Democratic* Party, and he wasn't actually a Democrat.

I mean, WTF? The DNC has no obligation to help nominate someone who isn't even part of their own party, nor do they have any obligation to act as some kind of strictly neutral arbiter between their own parties nominees, for that matter.

I don't think Clinton (or the DNC) did anything *wrong* in how they made sure she was the only possible credible candidate, and then made sure the outsider was marginalized.

I think it was foolish and directly led to leaving the door open for exactly what we have now though...

[celedhring]

Anyhow, wasn't Bloomberg going to run if it became Trump vs Sanders? Wonder how that would've turned out. Probably in a Trump presidency all the same.

[derspiess]

The part that I find laughable is the idea that he was robbed somehow because the DNC didn't act like a neutral third party when it came to nominating the representative of the *Democratic* Party, and he wasn't actually a Democrat.

He was a Democrat in all but name.  He's always caucused with them in the Senate.

[CountDeMoney]

The part that I find laughable is the idea that he was robbed somehow because the DNC didn't act like a neutral third party when it came to nominating the representative of the *Democratic* Party, and he wasn't actually a Democrat.

He was a Democrat in all but name.  He's always caucused with them in the Senate.

Never raised a single dime for any Democrats, not even in his own state.

[Grey Fox]

The part that I find laughable is the idea that he was robbed somehow because the DNC didn't act like a neutral third party when it came to nominating the representative of the *Democratic* Party, and he wasn't actually a Democrat.

He was a Democrat in all but name.  He's always caucused with them in the Senate.

You take that back, right now.

Take. it. back.

[Berkut]

The part that I find laughable is the idea that he was robbed somehow because the DNC didn't act like a neutral third party when it came to nominating the representative of the *Democratic* Party, and he wasn't actually a Democrat.

He was a Democrat in all but name.  He's always caucused with them in the Senate.

That name matters. Voting with the Dems doesn't make him a Dem, and it doesn't make him someone the DNC would or should hold any particular loyalty to as a member of the *party*.

Did he attend Party meetings? Drive policy?

Did he raise money for his fellow Democrats?

Was he there doing the hard work of being a loyal party member for the good of the Party, rather than just himself, in the manner that earns loyalty and support?

You know Clinton did all those things.

Bernie was never a Democrat in anything other than name.

[derspiess]

What about a lifelong Democrat that never did those things?  Or a political newcomer?  It should be about putting forth the best candidate, not a reward for service to the party-- I'm sure they have plaques and whatnot for that.

IMO the most important factors should be: 1) can he/she win in the general, and 2) would his/her platform generally reflect that of the party?

All that said, the Democrat Party can make whatever rules it wants for its primary.  It just looks bad the way they handled it.

[Berkut]

What about a lifelong Democrat that never did those things?  Or a political newcomer?  It should be about putting forth the best candidate, not a reward for service to the party-- I'm sure they have plaques and whatnot for that.

Bullshit. These are human beings running these parties. They have relationships, loyalty and personal vested interest. It isn't any different from any other human organization. They are not cyborgs.

A Democrat who "never did any of those things" probably should not expect a bunch of people to throw their support behind them rather than Democrats who had done those things and they had personal relationships built up over years or decades with - that is just foolish.

It isn't written in stone, of course. Obama proved that in 2008 when he snatched it away from Clinton the first time. All that time and work and money didn't get the nomination for Clinton in 2008 in the face of a charismatic, smart, young black guy. Shrug.

So she made sure that would not happen again, and she had the support of the DNC to do that, because she did in fact have that loyalty and commitment.

I agree that this was a terrible error on the part of the DNC, but it is a perfectly understandable, probably even inevitable, error.

On the other hand, the RNC nominated a human nightmare who isn't really a Republican either, against just about everything the Party could do to stop him, and nobody seems to be bitching about that. I guess the bar for behavior from the GOP is now so low that nobody even expects anything based on any kind of principal or ethic from them anymore.

[Razgovory]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyTwoBIo8kQ&t=12s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf_XrfpdOsM

How the hell could you not nominate this guy? Jesus.

Cause we aren't socialists.

[CountDeMoney]

I'm going to thoroughly enjoy my tax dollars promoting Melania's line of fashion jewelry.

[frunk]

On the other hand, the RNC nominated a human nightmare who isn't really a Republican either, against just about everything the Party could do to stop him, and nobody seems to be bitching about that. I guess the bar for behavior from the GOP is now so low that nobody even expects anything based on any kind of principal or ethic from them anymore.

I don't think the RNC did much of anything to stop him during the primary.  The RNC didn't really dig into his past to get any ammunition on him.  Consider the Howard Stern interviews that Trump did that they never brought up.  It's not like those were remotely secret.

[Maximus]

I still find the idea that Bernie was some kind of dangerous extremist pretty laughable, but hey, America.

At the end of the day, he lost the primary, and by a quite comfortable margin so I don't think hypotetical foul play made a difference.

Yea, he was easily the most moderate contender, globally and historically.

[garbon]

I still find the idea that Bernie was some kind of dangerous extremist pretty laughable, but hey, America.

At the end of the day, he lost the primary, and by a quite comfortable margin so I don't think hypotetical foul play made a difference.

Yea, he was easily the most moderate contender, globally and historically.

Who cares about globally? He was not the most moderate in the US.

[Maximus]

Who cares about globally? He was not the most moderate in the US.

He was, from a historical perspective

[garbon]

Who cares about globally? He was not the most moderate in the US.

He was, from a historical perspective

I don't see how that's true at all. I think most candidates post-Eisenhower are less moderate than historical candidates in the US.