I'm of the opinion the "not a Democrat" line only applies to Sen. Sanders and not others who have had different allegiances.

But at least he's helped the party in a lot of places where others never showed up.

Now that the centrists have shown that they don't really care about the "D", maybe they'll stop trying to use that against Bernie.

It's because he's been places Bernie was nowhere to be seen.

Or endorsing W? Those kinds of places?

Yes, I think I'm starting to understand.

as no meaningful gun reform is happening with Moscow Mitch in charge.

Or when he endorsed Scott Brown versus Elizabeth Warren?

Or how about when he donated to McCain?

Or how about when he donated to Orrin Hatch?

Or Richard Shelby? He’s a real beauty!

Or Peter King? Even more lovely!



Oh yeah, and he helped repigs keep the House in New York!

Bloomberg is a Democrat at present, as is Sanders. Party ID is up to the individual. There's no such thing as a "real" Democrat, as much as we'd like to believe otherwise. Big tent and all that.

Should Sanders not win the nomination, it appears he'll switch back to an I, which he's been for significantly longer periods than he's been a D, of course. I suspect Bloomberg will remain a D in similar circumstances.

mayor of New York. He's a liberal.

Sanders is an independent socialist who joins the Democratic Party when it suits his political ambitions, and who's already planning to run again as an independent for the Senate in NH if this presidential run fails, if it will.

And Bloomberg is not a "liberal" he's a centrist.

for many more years than Sanders has.

Some people call him center-right, and I would tend to agree. But calling him progressive or liberal is ludicrous. This is a guy who endorsed George W Bush.

Bloomberg is currently a Democrat, as is Sanders.

Sanders appears to have chosen to no longer be a Democrat should he not win the nomination or the presidency, as he has already registered for his next Senate run as an Independent. He has identified as an I significantly longer than he has identified as a D.

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/416/201903049145600416/201903049145600416.pdf

As an aside, there's no such thing as a "real" Democrat. Just because one might want to pretend that everyone one doesn't agree with isn't a real Democrat doesn't make it true. Party ID is up to the individual.

So, yes, most are okay with him.

Even Gabbard, for all of her faults didn't actually put Trump into office.

Neither of those, through their own actions, the actions of their campaign staff, or the actions of their surrogates was a large part of the torpedoing of Merrick Garland

People don't see Bloomberg or gabbard or Warren on the TV and think about their culpability in the children in cages, the decline of our international image, the elimination of pro-environmental policies. People don't look at them and think "Damn, that's the SOB that cost us the chance to have the first woman President in the history of the US."

Don't even bother arguing, all of the points have been made, but it doesn't change the fact that MANY do feel that way, and that IS the root cause of so much venom that he receives vs all the other candidates.

If he had even a SHRED of decency, he would have foregone running again this time around, supported Warren, and put the people, the country, and the entire fucking world ahead of his damnable ego and been half the human being Hillary Clinton is.

The closest to actually getting a Republican get elected president would be Bloomberg, who endorsed George W Bush. I wouldn't go so far as to say that he "put Bush into office", but he was definitely on Bush's side.

will correct me but that is what I read so of course he was with Bu$h

He still gives to R candidates although he is imo very core issues orientated
for instance he is very much gun control and that’s why $$ in to Pat Toomey Rep. +Fitzpatrick 2018 because he knew it was a grab for gun control by getting all the suburban voters who anyaway they knew the dem was for gun control didn’t matter if the area leans R

He has some core issues like that and I would say don’t expect him to tow the dem party line literally.

That he hates trump and has a lot of money to flood airwaves and many of his issues appeal I am open to hearing what he can bring but he is not a party vote

But yeah the difference in how the two candidates are criticized for not being a dem 👀

And it certainly allows a lot of lazy minds the pretense that a topic is now dated due to an irrational and irrelevant condition.





I know... I know... "Bernie's suRGinG. Laterally!!!!" That's the party line.

Bloomberg had been a Democrat from the time he got politically aware, around the time he was in college (let's guess 20 years old)

In 2001, due to the unique political climate in New York City, he became a republican so he could be nominated, run, and be elected Mayor of New York City.

From 2007 to 2018 he was an Independent (sound familiar?)

In 2018 he returned to the Democratic Party.

So he was a non-Democrat for less than 17 years, a Democrat for more than 40 years.

As Mayor, he was more like a Democrat than some Democrats would have been.

He didn't decide when he was over 70 years old to become a "Democrat" so he could use the Democratic Party for about a year, go back to being and independent and then three years later become a Democrat again (for who knows how long this time around)

There is absolutely NO comparison between Bloomberg's Democratic credibility and Sanders' "Democratic" credibility.

Bloomberg has been a democrat for over 40 years, Sanders drops in for a year or so every once in a while to be a "Democrat" for his benefit.

He's been either Republican or Independent for his entire political career.

No, he didn't decide to become a Democrat at 70 so he could use the Democratic Party for a presidential bid. He did that when he was 77. When he was 73, he was still considering a third-party bid as an independent. He didn't leave the Republican party until he was 67. And even then, he still ran against a Democrat.

If Bloomberg gets the nomination, this will be the first time in his entire life that he's not trying to defeat a Democrat.

Yes, way back, before he was involved politics, he was a Democrat, the same way that way back before Warren was involved in politics, she was a Republican. But let's be serious.

....vote for Hillary Clinton. They voted for Jill Stein.

Bloomberg was a Democrat from about 20-years old and only became a republican in 2001 when he was 59-years old. Then six years later, in 2007, he became and Independent and in 2018, when he was 76 he became a Democrat again. For all intents and purposes, from the time he left the republican party (after ONLY 5 years!) he was a Democrat. He served as a Democrat would, he contributed hundreds of million of dollars to DEMOCRATS, and he supported Democratic candidates.

Say what you will but he's a much better Democrat than many Democrats.

Here's a former Republican who endorsed George W Bush, and switched to D from independent for the sole purpose of running for president, and yet the people slamming Bernie for not being a "true Democrat" don't mind.

Both were previously Independent, one previously a Republican, but somehow the Democratic purity thing only matters if it's Bernie.

That's Sanders of course. But he is a Democrat right up until he tears the registration up again.

We have everything in our party from those represented by Sanders ideologically defining the socialist left, even if he always votes what DanTex calls "centrist,"* to those represented by a pair of hard-core conservatives who vote as Kevin McCarthy says. Anyone can register Democrat for unworthy, dishonorable reasons, though, and we also have conservatives and far-lefters who register Democrat just so they can vote to defeat us in the primaries.

But, the very large majority of Democrats are liberal Democrats who will vote Democrat and nothing but.

* A few votes are with the Republican caucus, a few far left, but the vast majority are what DanTex characterizes as "centrist." A centrist Sanders. Who knew?

The difference is that Sanders never ran as a Republican, and never endorsed George W Bush, and didn't implement stop-and-frisk, and all that.

But both are independent. And the centrists are only outraged at one of them for not being a "true Democrat".

He's outraged at himself for not being a "true Democrat"? I assure you he's not.

What he is is a senator who's voted overwhelmingly as what you're calling "centrist" for going on 3 decades.

So in the real world, what's more real? Sanders' 30-year "centrist" Democratic voting record that's kept his elite $174K job and limousine service. Or his outraged rhetoric that those who do what he does are really the same as Republicans and need to be kicked out of government?

money Bloomberg is spending to unseat Donald Trump, I am not really a fan. However, I would say there are many differences between Bloomberg and Sanders. Right now Bloomberg is going after Donald Trump, not fellow Democrats. I find that very important at a time when we need to be united.

Personally, I wouldn't vote for either one of them in a primary. If they were the only two choices though, I would have to pick Bloomberg. Unlike Bernie, I think Bloomberg could actually get things done.

A day or two ago he accused Bernie of wanting to turn America into a kibbutz.

continue to use his $$$ to troll Trump.