comment: >
  
  All of Bernie's ideas are impossible. That's why he puts them forward.
context: Super PACs shouldnt be a thing period, but as long as they are its nigh suicidal (in reference fo election chances) to not use them when your opposition is, youre kneecapping yourself from the word go.
  Now if Citizens United could be overturned, and we passed some laws with actual teeth (that we actually enforced) to stop dark money flows, then we could do away with super pacs, but until then they are a necessary evil. >
  
  What opposition is using them during the primaries if the democratic party bans their use? >
  
  The problem is what comes after the primary: a general election they'll be moving onto without having established a war chest. >
  
  Super PACs could still solicit donations, they just wouldn't be able to spend them until the general. >
  
  Imagine having all this extra money to spend in the Generals… >
  
  Or, you know, #End Citizens united >
  
  He's right. >
  
  So Bernie still doesn't know how Super PACs work? The DNC can't ban Super PAC spending. If a Super PAC wants to buy a pro-Bernie or anti-Bernie ad during the primary season, then that's their right under current law, and there's nothing the DNC can do to stop it. >
  
  He knows perfectly well what he's doing. >
  
  An absolutely fabulous idea that will never be done >
  
  Kyrsten Cinema had GOP superpac money funneled through other pacs to her campaign. Remember that at the next tiebreaker vote. >
  
  Who’s gonna replace Bernie? >
  
  No. That’s just sacrificing our ability to build fundraising networks.  I would support banning this for all elections. It would be glorious for our country. 
  Only banning for part of the process would be damaging to our national prospects >
  
  I happen to see the other side of the argument. Bernie was always portrayed as being impractical, the truth is he was and is quite willing to compromise and accept incremental change if that's all that is realistically possible. 
  Bernie also would like to PAC money in elections. The argument centrist democrats have used to take PAC money has been " the other side is taking PAC money so we have to in order to compete." By limiting it to dem primaries only there really is no valid argument anymore. If anything it means the primary winner will have even more money available for the general election because that PAC money wasn't wasted on a primary race. >
  
  The truth was that Bernie IS impractical. I want the progressive wing of the party to WIN.  We have now backed Bernie for a decade, and he lost. 
  I’m afraid that we are going to be stuck talking about Sanders for the next decade.  
  He cannot win the primary. It is time to move on. >
  
  Oh for sure we need younger leaders, doesn't mean he isn't right. >
  
  Yep this is what we need to be focusing on. It’s like he intentionally chooses things that will never change because he has no idea how to actually do anything. >
  
  This can happen though as this is the primary which will be democrats only and they won’t need republicans to do anything. This give the Democratic Party the moral high ground in the primary process plus in the general elections if the republicans don’t join in this process it will give democrats even more money to fight against the other party. It’s a great idea and it is doable. >
  
  The DNC can't control third party organizations. >
  
  Love you, Bernie! >
  
  But Bernie, don't you see how that unilaterally gives Republicans a huge advantage? The idea is to ban superpac money for EVERYONE at the same time.      
  Bernie: "Sorry but I just can't see beyond the tunnel vision of my particular vanity issue at the moment, and refuse to accept that there may be unintended consequences to my feel-good focus, that will hurt more than help."     
  We know....that's why you were never the nominee.  Because you can never see the "whole board." >
  
  You notice it's about primaries right? Republicans dont generally run in those. If anything this is a compromise towards banning super pac money outright. Incremental progress and all that. >
  
  How can you ban SuperPacs? Anyone can create one and the DNC has no authority over election laws. >
  
  The DNC has control over its own primary elections. 
  And well, in theory they could try and request their members in congress to try and push for changes to election laws outright, and it'd also be easier to get their members to agree if their members are less reliant on super pac money to begin with. >
  
  They have control over the nominating process.  The states control the actual election - and neither the DNC or the states have an ability to ban election spending without a major overall at the state and federal level.  This is not something that can be accomplished by the DNC.