Between super delegates, anointings, exclusivity clauses about debates, and keeping people off ballots, maybe a name change should be considered.

That would be pretty obvious game playing.

What am I saying? Of course they'll try to keep him off.

We'll all just know why.

Some might as well be Republicans

Democratic Party Leader's prime objective. The billionaires have a lot of influence with the Democratic Party Leadership.

The DNC thinks he is crazy and wants to mold the debates to favor Clinton.

I don't think they have integrity but it would be big mistake to leave him off the ballot and tip their hand that they didn't give a crap about Democrats that support Sen Sanders. I think there would be a big backlash.

Hence the "of course they would leave him off "

There is no doubt in my mind that the DNC and DLC are working for Clinton. And some corporations, LLCs we're even more familiar with. Possibly through the DLC.

I agree with you 100%

Last edited Fri Jun 19, 2015, 04:08 PM - Edit history (1)

I wasn't sure because of what I first said in that reply. But, I should have known.

you never know with these sleazy underhanded "leaders."

as far as I know, parties can do anything they want.

And if he is, after the primary I will change my affiliation and try to convince everyone I know to do so. If the party doesn't work for its members, it doesn't deserve support.

The only practical effect is that you exclude yourself from voting in future Democratic primaries for any office. (New York has closed primaries.)

The Democratic Party doesn't derive ballot position, financial support, or anything else of value based on how many people are registered as Democrats.

And if anyone is smart enough to come up with a third or fourth party that isn't owned, I'm there. The party is not working for the people, it is working for the donors. And THAT is the crux of this election.

They get their financial support the old fashioned way- from big money donors

Too

He has to do that anyway.

Or am I missing something?

DUer cali, who lives in Vermont, has reported that Vermont doesn't have party registration for individual voters.

New York isn't the only state that restricts primary participation to members of that party. My guess is that, when Howard Dean sought the Democratic nomination, nobody bothered about this rule. They considered him a "real" Democrat even if he didn't technically comply because he wasn't registered as a Democrat (because he couldn't register as a Democrat). Another factor that year was that, although many people were supporting one of the other candidates, there was no single candidate who had heavy support among the Democratic Party functionaries and to whose candidacy Dean might have been seen as a threat. This year, in New York and elsewhere, there is such an Establishment candidate.

Sanders is, by his own choice, counted as a Democrat for Senate purposes -- determining the number of seats each party gets on committees and, of greatest concern to everyone in the Senate, determining which party organizes the Senate. Committee chairships, subcommittee chairships, and appointing Majority rather than Minority staffers are hugely important. Regardless of what is or is not (or could not be) written on a piece of paper at a Board of Elections office in Vermont, Sanders is a Democrat when it matters.

. . . ANY candidate from Vermont could be disqualified from appearing as a candidate on New York's ballot by either party. Now THAT would pose an interesting conundrum for the courts!

It is true that votes when they register can not declare a party. (We just moved here in 2012 and registered quickly to vote in the town meeting day election.

The difference with Dean is that he was a DEMOCRATIC governor. Sanders ran as an independent.

The real problem is that, everyone had always said that people like him and Nader should have contested the primary rather than running as independent in the general election.

I could be wrong, but I suspect that it is in some ways too late to make the decision that he can not run as a Democrat now -- weeks after he effectively entered the race. The fact is that HRC will need the left to win against the Republican. If they both run, she is VERY VERY likely to win the nomination -- and his supporters will for the most part vote for her. Now, consider what happens if NY and other states ban him, many of his supporters may react with anger that the game is rigged. Many will blame Clinton, even though she may nothing to do with this.

. . . if there is no individual party affiliation in VT? I think a more likely explanation is simply that nobody bothered to enforce this obscene rule.

The difference is the parties do have candidates. It is the voters who do not have a designation. This means in the primaries in Burlington, I can take any (just one!) ballot to vote in the Progressive, the Democratic, or the Republican primary.

Suppose there were an Eisenhower type living in Vermont -- no record in electoral politics but commanding enormous respect and admiration. (No, Donald, I'm not talking about you.) There would be no basis for saying that such a person was eligible for any primary in New York.

With Sanders, the situation is that, in his last Senate election, he won the Democratic primary but declined the nomination. (This was a deal with the Democratic Party leadership.) Thus he appeared on the ballot only as an Independent but not running against any Democrat. As I mentioned, though, he's recorded as a Democrat in the Senate for procedural purposes.

So, what's the eligibility criterion in New York (and other states with such laws) -- individual registration, ballot line in most recent election if any, ballot line in any election anytime, categorization in public office, other? You're assuming it's the second but there's probably no basis for that answer in the law. There's probably no basis for any answer. It amounts to asking what the Legislature intended on a subject that never even crossed a single legislator's mind. New York has party registration. Nobody was thinking about the one outlier case (Presidential primary) when a non-New Yorker might run.

Another issue is whether Sanders or O'Malley or Chafee or any other candidate from outside New York would even be running at all. For any other office, the candidates run in a primary, and the winner is the nominee. This primary, though, doesn't pick the Democratic nominee for President. It elects delegates who'll go to the Convention. Maybe the non-New Yorker candidates are OK, regardless of party registration issues, as long as all their delegates are registered Democrats. (If Hillary Clinton wants to be a delegate, she'd presumably have to prove her party registration, but she might choose not to be a delegate.)

You write: "I could be wrong, but I suspect that it is in some ways too late to make the decision that he can not run as a Democrat now -- weeks after he effectively entered the race."

The procedure in New York (unless it's changed lately) is that anyone who wants to run in a Presidential primary must submit enough petition signatures from enrolled members of that party. The rules on petitioning are very precise, including the requirement that all the necessary signatures be gathered during a specified time period. Petitions are subject to challenge for failing to meet one of the requirements. The Board of Elections reviews submitted petitions, reviews and rules on challenges, and announces whether the candidate has qualified for the ballot. Then, quite often, everyone goes to court.

I don't see how Sanders's announcement would trigger a deadline -- binding on Democratic Party officials, Clinton campaign operatives, or anyone else -- for raising the eligibility issue. (If I announce that I'm running for the Republican nomination, does the GOP have to issue a press release pointing out that I'm a registered Democrat? If so, we should all announce, and keep them busy that way.)

My prediction about the process and the timing: Sanders will submit plenty of petition signatures. The Board of Elections will hear the argument that he's ineligible, along with any challenges that might reduce his valid signatures below the threshold. The Board will rule on whether he's to appear on the primary ballot. Somebody won't like the decision and will take it to court. Somebody won't like that court's decision and will file an appeal. Until a few days before the primary, it won't be completely clear that people will be able to vote for Sanders, meaning that his campaign will suffer somewhat even if he ultimately wins on the issue. Clinton and everyone on her staff will swear up and down that they had absolutely nothing to do with the challenge.

ETA: I meant to mention that I completely agree with you about the Nader campaign. Sanders is doing what Nader should have done -- run in the Democratic primaries so as not to split the vote in the general election. I also strongly agree with you that pulling a maneuver like this against Sanders would generate a lot of animosity. Some people would switch from "OK, we lost the nomination fight, I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary" to "That's the last straw, I'm voting Green or writing in Paul Wellstone."

I could very easily see myself leaving the Party and never looking back. What difference will it make when we continue to have the option of two flavors of corporatists? Sooner or later we will be ecologically doomed without the "revolution" Bernie is calling for.

and would probably cause a nationwide scandal with people threatening to leave the party. Not what they need, I would be surprised if they DIDN'T think of it, especially as his popularity grows, but if they do it, they will regret it imo.

you stay and fight. Fight for control of the Party. The Oligarchs would love nothing better than have all the progressives leave the Democratic Party. Having said that, I have no foggy fracking idea how to pull it off.

that's where I'll be and I expect you will be too. We don't have much time to turn this thing around. Each time the Democratic Party puts up another corporatist, do-nothing lackey, it becomes increasingly irrelevant. I hope to hell it's relevant next year.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3131160/Will-child-witness-end-humanity-Mankind-extinct-100-years-climate-change-warns-expert.html

So it's not like he can re-register as a democrat.

Thanks for posting this Playinghardball.

to just register as a Democrat? It sounds like he may run into the same in a few other states as well.

Jim Lane explains it
Though I'm still a little confused

There's no way for him to "register as a Democrat" in Vermont. Because Vermont doesn't have party-based registration.

I can't stand my Governor. He's nothing like his father.

Mario. I didn't vote for him either time. Good that at least we have other parties to choose.

You have to change parties like a year before an election to run. I don't know if that applies to federal office or not, but on former State Senator quit the repuke party a couple of years ago, and decided to run as a Dem about a year later, but she was still listed, after the deadline as an Independent (a political party in Florida, not No Party Affiliation). She had to run as a Independent Party candidate.

Can't imagine how she might have any influence...

Like a gig as the US Ambassador to Fiji.



Nobody in New York would tolerate that kind of influence peddling.

They're too devoted to honest government there.

That would cause a major disturbance in The Force.

Democracy NOW!!!!

We have some weird laws up here...

The McGovern team was so consumed with fighting a rear-guard action that it was forced to rush its VP choice without sufficiently vetting him. The consequences proved disastrous. New York is obviously trying to undermine Bernie's efforts by forcing him to divert his attention in order to extinguish some political wastebasket fires.

Unfortunately I don't know if that option exists in New York, those votes might get thrown out. So option 2, vote for O'Malley at least that way Bernie still has a chance in other states.

can to make if harder for Bernie.

And just wait until the "superdelegates" kick in at the National Convention.

I'm sure they know they'll make Bernie's supporters angry but they're also assuming that we'll forget any and all dirty tricks they play because they're still of the mindset of "Where else ya gonna go?"

If the third way democrats want to destroy the party, I can't think of a better way than denying progressives the opportunity to vote for our preferred candidate.

It sounds like the type of sneaky cheating crap the republicans would pull.

maybe the destruction of the Democratic Party is the best chance to save America. The GOP is going to keep alienating voters, so the chance for a new dominant party could be the answer.

victory if they were stupid enough to divide the party that way

Despite protestations from advocates of the Inevitable One that the primaries are a foregone conclusion, the Democratic Party elites are deathly afraid that the will of the people will force the Party to stray from its well-financed script.

Last edited Fri Jun 19, 2015, 02:32 AM - Edit history (1)

Some how, some way, if they do this bullshit...then it's either time for our version of the Tea Party or voting some big changes in.

Don't even go there NY Dems Elites.

will lose big in 2016. Fuck 'em if they are that short-sightedly stupid.

I will do everything possible to encourage all Greens, independents, and libertarians that I know to vote principle over party bullshit like this. I and many others will fight to keep HRC out of the White House in 2016.

Mark my words, she will lose and lose big if this occurs.

I have signed the petition, but really against the Third Wayer's and their deep pockets, I don't expect it will do much good.

I gotta believe that there will be a lot of very PO'd people that might want to go after them... I don't think their lives would be very pretty after they tried to pull something like this!

Fingers crossed!

GO BERNIEEEE

be on the ballot?

That would show she really cares about the voters and democracy.

Which is why I for one will be very surprised if she even speaks out on Bernie's behalf . . . but I'd love to be proven wrong.

but it will 'gosh, Darn it, I just have no say in the matter'.

I can't imagine a bigger insult to the Party's liberal and progressive wing. I, for one, would never again vote for a Democrat. I'm sure there would be others.

and they ain't pretty. If they're going to keep us from having a great candidate who truly fights for all the ideals and principles the Dem Party is supposed to stand for and strive for then the people need to leave the party and join or start another.

and we've collectively taken it without a whimper, so maybe they think they might get away with it?

... that can't be traced off the primary ballot. Challenge the FUCKING Supreme Court to come after us to overturn those laws. That way, someone like Bernie who gets more TRACEABLE funding will be the one that is allowed on the ballot to balance this shit out!

The NY Democratic Party should welcome Sanders onto the D ballot in the primary. This is Clinton home turf, and she should wipe the floor with Sanders, If she doesn't, she can come out and say how nice it is that Democrats are open-minded enough to make a good showing for Sanders. If Sanders is kept off the ballot, it smells of insider dealing and power brokering and back room deals, which is the last thing Clinton wants. I doubt if her campaign staff or the NY party regulars are much concerned about this, but they should be.

Bernie would be lucky to come within 30 points. She should be fighting right alongside Bernie to get him on the ballot.

They won't do it, and if they were stupid enough to do that the anger they would generate within the party would hurt the eventual Democratic nominee because it would create a major party split