4th in Iowa. 3rd in PA.
No candidate is likely to get enough delegates to lock up the nomination prior to the convention. B.S. will never be the consensus candidate. He has a ceiling and won’t exceed that. Enough people think of him as a disagreeable, aged career politician, with little legislative accomplishments, who pales in comparison to Elizabeth Warren when evaluating their substantive positions on a wide range of issues.
But he’ll claim the process is "rigged, so there’s that.
I have seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears
Thanks but no thanks
No Bernie for me
That is highly unfair since he regularly caucuses with the Democrats and mostly votes the way we would want a Democrat to vote. Consequently, the connection is not quite as occasional as your post would suggest.
If he didn’t caucus with the Dems, he’d either have to go it alone or caucus with the GOP.
He’s still not a Democrat.
He still feels compelled to take on the party designation and political infrastructure only when it suits him. Coincidentally, that compulsion appears to run on a four-year cycle.
A point of little matter since the party grants him some privileges within committee assignments, and is allowing him to run as one.
And he did his utmost to denigrate the party and it’s eventual nominee during the last election cycle. The Democratic Party is much too gracious to him, IMHO.
But the implication of the post is that he only has some connection to Democrats once every 4 years (for the last two presidential cycles). That implication is simply untrue.
That’s why he caucuses with the Dems.
He wants the perks, but still won’t join the party—except when he wants to run for president.
He is, as noted, a quadrennial Democrat.
Except for most of his votes. At least grant him credit where it is due.
It’s not. He will only feel the need to accept the designation as Democrat if the party ordains him as the nominee. In the meantime, he uses the party infrastructure for his own designs, including those neat little $37 checks.
His votes are at least as reliable as those of Joe Manchin, who is supposed to be a Democrat. Is the label that important to you? If so, feel free to vote for someone else.
I suspect that it is a combination of factors. First, Bernie is even older than Biden. Second, Bernie does not have Biden’s nice guy personae. Third, there are a lot of people who still blame Bernie for Hillary’s loss. (They are wrong, but don’t try to convince them of that.)
My understanding is that votes are “Yes” or “No” on legislative issues. There is no “Democratic” or “Republican” vote, although the parties typically align based on those issues. I’m assuming B.S. is voting according to conscience, not party.
He remains an “Independent” because it serves his purposes (especially fundraising) of being seen as an “outsider” despite his actually just being another career politician with little in the way of accomplishments.
He’s a Democrat only when it serves his own purposes. That currently seems to run along a four-year cycle.
And based on his actual record, that conscience overwhelmingly coincides with the majority of the Democratic party. I call that person an ally.
He’s an ally (except when it’s inconvenient), not a Democrat.
So, is Manchin a Democrat? An ally 98% of the time is an ally I am happy to have. (I don’t know the actual count, and give the number just as a guess that I think is at least in the ballpark.)
I believe he’s registered as such. His votes are often problematic but he does represent West Virginia, so there’s that.
And Bernie represents Vermont, so there’s that. I really don’t understand this vehement opposition to Bernie simply based on the label. To me, actual votes are far more important. I get it if someone simply doesn’t like Bernie. Every voter gets to make his or her own choice, and the reasons do not need to be deeply thought out or defensible.
Perhaps. But as the nominee of the party? His arrogance, his deliberate scorching of the party in 2016, and his lack of intellectual prowess answer that question easily.