Sanders booed by house democrats

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

The guy still threatens a floor fight over TPP language while he knows very well that any flat out rejection will be a personal rebuke against Obama.
I think it's pretty clear by now that he doesn't give a shiite about anything else than himself.

Sometimes, a president pursues a policy that is out-and-out in contradiction to the bulk of his party.

Bush championing immigration reform got him sternly rebuked by his party.

I don't see why it would be out of the question for Obama's TPP to be rebuked by the Democrats.

Unity goes both ways.

If the president is pushing bad policy, he should be rebuked. Policy should trump party unity.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Uhh since when does DCCC = HFA or the DNC? I suspect DCCC wants the list for itself, like all of the other orgs (MoveOn, the WFP, hell, Planned Parenthood Action and pretty much any lefty/democratic organization in DC).

But also, email lists are political currency these days. To the extent that Bernie has built a movement of progs within the Dem party at all over the past year, that would be totally dissolved if he handed it to any of those organizations. I understand that YOU don't want progs as an independent force within the party, but clearly the progs want to be.

The cause is the same. We need Democrats in Congress to implement a progressive agenda. I realize Bernie thinks it's as easy as waving a magic wand, but that's not quite how it works.

Though it's almost impossible to do that(gaining the house of reps) with a democrat in the white house.

Sadly, it has more to do with gerrymandering and low turnout.  In 2014 the republicans won 57% of the seats in the House with only 52% of the popular vote.  In 2012, democrats actually got more votes than republicans in the House but republicans still had a massive majority.  Obama might have contributed to increased R turnout, but I doubt it would have been much better for dems even if Romney or McCain were president.

These same obstacles were overcome in 2006. We almost NEED a hated republican president to retake the house.

[Ebowed]

These idiots just have to prove Sanders' point, don't they?  You couldn't assemble a more out of touch collection of buffoons unless you were looking at the GOP caucus.

It honestly makes me wonder whether the Democratic party is even worth trying to reform.  Are a group of people who have devoted their lives to politics seriously unable to see something in it other than winning elections?  That's madness.  Even the lunatics on the other side of the aisle will admit that they are trying to reshape the country to fit their perverse theological hellscape.  A bit of ambition never killed anybody.

Bernie is not a Democrat. Who set him up as the savior of that party? And why are his standards the ones that should be used? The guy has gall.

Other than the blatant factual error you opened with, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here - do you agree that the only purpose to governing is to win elections?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Uhh since when does DCCC = HFA or the DNC? I suspect DCCC wants the list for itself, like all of the other orgs (MoveOn, the WFP, hell, Planned Parenthood Action and pretty much any lefty/democratic organization in DC).

But also, email lists are political currency these days. To the extent that Bernie has built a movement of progs within the Dem party at all over the past year, that would be totally dissolved if he handed it to any of those organizations. I understand that YOU don't want progs as an independent force within the party, but clearly the progs want to be.

The cause is the same. We need Democrats in Congress to implement a progressive agenda. I realize Bernie thinks it's as easy as waving a magic wand, but that's not quite how it works.

Though it's almost impossible to do that(gaining the house of reps) with a democrat in the white house.

Sadly, it has more to do with gerrymandering and low turnout.  In 2014 the republicans won 57% of the seats in the House with only 52% of the popular vote.  In 2012, democrats actually got more votes than republicans in the House but republicans still had a massive majority.  Obama might have contributed to increased R turnout, but I doubt it would have been much better for dems even if Romney or McCain were president.

These same obstacles were overcome in 2006. We almost NEED a hated republican president to retake the house.

The 2006 district lines look rather easy compared to the current district lines.

[Landslide Lyndon]

These idiots just have to prove Sanders' point, don't they?  You couldn't assemble a more out of touch collection of buffoons unless you were looking at the GOP caucus.

It honestly makes me wonder whether the Democratic party is even worth trying to reform.  Are a group of people who have devoted their lives to politics seriously unable to see something in it other than winning elections?  That's madness.  Even the lunatics on the other side of the aisle will admit that they are trying to reshape the country to fit their perverse theological hellscape.  A bit of ambition never killed anybody.

Bernie is not a Democrat. Who set him up as the savior of that party? And why are his standards the ones that should be used? The guy has gall.

Other than the blatant factual error you opened with, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here - do you agree that the only purpose to governing is to win elections?

What's the error? The guy was caucusing with the Democrats, he was getting all the privileges, and yet he never lifted a finger to help the party, or at least some of his colleagues.
Like a Pelosi staffer said yesterday 'He was member of a club without paying any dues".

[DS0816]

Good. Socialism should be shot down at all times.

Yeah, like that time Bernie got rural health clinics inserted into the ACA.

Because no one should want people in Appalachia getting dental care, apparently.

I don't know if he had declared himself a socialist in 2009 or not. But he has now, and he should be shamed into resigning from Congress over his fundamentally anti-american ideology that is just one step away from communism.

You obviously have a very little idea what the socialism actually is.

Your grammar is terrible.

Anyone who calls themselves a socialist is a socialist and is dangerous to america.

You make as much sense as this one supposedly homosexual Republican forum member—who ended up banned—who claimed traditional values as an excuse to be against same-sex couples legally being married.

That person was a useless troll.

Perhaps you are that person.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

You guys do realize that Democrats had a Senate Majority from 2007 to 2009 thanks to Sanders vote?

Yeah, never helped the party at all.

[DS0816]

You guys do realize that Democrats had a Senate Majority from 2007 to 2009 thanks to Sanders vote?

Yeah, never helped the party at all.

A hell of a lot of “Democrats” exposed themselves in 2016 as frauds.

[Brittain33]

You guys do realize that Democrats had a Senate Majority from 2007 to 2009 thanks to Sanders vote?

Yeah, never helped the party at all.

Kalwejt, you could make the exact same argument about Joe Lieberman during that time period.

[Landslide Lyndon]

You guys do realize that Democrats had a Senate Majority from 2007 to 2009 thanks to Sanders vote?

Yeah, never helped the party at all.

Kalwejt, you could make the exact same argument about Joe Lieberman during that time period.

Or Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh and Blanche Lincoln.

[Virginiá]

Sadly, it has more to do with gerrymandering and low turnout.  In 2014 the republicans won 57% of the seats in the House with only 52% of the popular vote.  In 2012, democrats actually got more votes than republicans in the House but republicans still had a massive majority.  Obama might have contributed to increased R turnout, but I doubt it would have been much better for dems even if Romney or McCain were president.

That is definitely part of the problem. One overlooked issue is that the Democratic coalition ("Coalition of the Ascendant") has become more urban, which leads to a lot of wasted votes due to Democrats being naturally packed into fewer districts where they regularly deliver landslides to candidates representing those districts. On top of this, it makes gerrymandering against Democrats especially brutal because they are already so compacted to begin with. So even without gerrymandering, Democrats still need to over-perform in the House PV to win a majority. It's just the way the political geography is right now.

Had 2014 been higher turnout, perhaps more in line with average midterm turnout, we could have stemmed the bleeding a little bit, but it's very likely that Democrats would have still lost at least a handful of House seats. Notable benefits would definitely be seen in places like Nevada, where low turnout really wiped Democrats out downballot. Sandoval won in a massive blowout in 2014 despite only getting like 4 thousand more votes than in 2010. He won by 53.36% in 2010, and 70% in 2014. Where the hell did the Democrats go?

It's going to be a while before Democrats can begin crafting a reliable majority in the House.

These same obstacles were overcome in 2006. We almost NEED a hated republican president to retake the house.

You're right that we will most likely need a hated Republican president, at least to win it in the near future, but Democrats didn't have the exact same issues in 2006. Urbanization and highly effective + widespread gerrymandering was not par for the course in '06. At least not nearly the same level as it is right now.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Sadly, it has more to do with gerrymandering and low turnout.  In 2014 the republicans won 57% of the seats in the House with only 52% of the popular vote.  In 2012, democrats actually got more votes than republicans in the House but republicans still had a massive majority.  Obama might have contributed to increased R turnout, but I doubt it would have been much better for dems even if Romney or McCain were president.

That is definitely part of the problem. One overlooked issue is that the Democratic coalition ("Coalition of the Ascendant") has become more urban, which leads to a lot of wasted votes due to Democrats being naturally packed into fewer districts where they regularly deliver landslides to candidates representing those districts. On top of this, it makes gerrymandering against Democrats especially brutal because they are already so compacted to begin with. So even without gerrymandering, Democrats still need to over-perform in the House PV to win a majority. It's just the way the political geography is right now.

Had 2014 been higher turnout, perhaps more in line with average midterm turnout, we could have stemmed the bleeding a little bit, but it's very likely that Democrats would have still lost at least a handful of House seats. However, notable effects would be seen in places like Nevada, where low turnout really wiped Democrats out downballot. Sandoval won in a massive blowout in 2014 despite only getting like 4 thousand more votes than in 2010. He won by 53.36% in 2010, and 70% in 2014. Where the hell did the Democrats go?

It's going to be a while before Democrats can begin crafting a reliable majority in the House.

These same obstacles were overcome in 2006. We almost NEED a hated republican president to retake the house.

You're right that we will most likely need a hated Republican president, at least to win it in the near future, but Democrats didn't have the exact same issues in 2006. Urbanization and highly effective + widespread gerrymandering was not par for the course in '06. At least not nearly the same level as it is right now.

Nevada was simply due to Sandoval's opponent being a some guy. The state party refused to endorse Sandoval's opponent and left his name off of pamphlets and the like. People were still encouraged to come out for Downballot, but not enough people cared about that to save anything besides NV-1.