Bernie Sanders: I will probably run in 2020 if I'm the best candidate to beat Trump

[Mrs. Overall]

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/418224-bernie-sanders-i-will-run-in-2020-if-it-turns-out-im-the-best-candidate-to


Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said he will probably run for president in 2020 if he is the best candidate to beat President Trump.

"I’m not one of those sons of multimillionaires whose parents told them they were going to become president of the United States," Sanders told New York Magazine. "I don’t wake up in the morning with any burning desire that I have to be president."

"If there’s somebody else who appears who can, for whatever reason, do a better job than me, I’ll work my ass off to elect him or her," he added. "If it turns out that I am the best candidate to beat Donald Trump, then I will probably run.”

Sanders made similar remarks last week, saying his team was "looking at" the possibility of a 2020 run. "It’s a decision that impacts your family," Sanders said on MSNBC's "PoliticsNation with Al Sharpton."

[katmondoo]

1. He didn't do much to end Trump in 2016

[empedocles]

2. Did hurt Dems in 2016?

[Adrahil]

9. I think so, yes. NT

[Fullduplexxx]

30. He helped give us trump

[JCanete]

57. you have no numbers to back that up, and that is hardly the picture the numbers actually paint. nt

[Gothmog]

120. Do you tire of being wrong?

Here is some more on this topic http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320

Bernie Sanders supporters switched their allegiance to Donald Trump in large enough numbers last November to sway the election for the real estate billionaire, according to an analysis of voter data released Tuesday by the blog Political Wire. Since Trump’s shock victory over Hillary Clinton, much discussion has focused on the degree to which passionate Sanders supporters’ refusal to embrace Clinton led to the Republican winding up in the White House.

Here is some more https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/24/16194086/bernie-trump-voters-study

About 12 percent of Bernie Sanders supporters from the Democratic primary crossed party lines and voted for Donald Trump in the general election, a new analysis says.

In several key states — Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan — the number of Sanders to Trump defectors were greater than Trump’s margin of victory, according to new numbers released Wednesday by UMass professor Brian Schaffner.

Link to tweet

[George II]

131. +1,000,000

[JCanete]

198. I know you've seen the refutation of the nonsense you just _+100000'd in the past, but

don't let that phase you.

[George II]

209. I saw what you said, but I wouldn't characterize it was "refutation" since....

....no concrete facts were presented by you but they were by Gothmog.

So, lacking facts of refutation my "+1,000,000" stands.

[JCanete]

221. The issue is that those concrete facts, while concrete don't say what you or he are saying they say.

So what value have they to your argument?

[Gothmog]

260. Have you considered complaining to the experts at the Washington Post?

The article from the Monkey Cage experts was well done. It would be amusing to see if you can convince the Washington Post's experts about your claim. Here is the link to the Washington Post article https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.52c2907a3381

[JCanete]

262. First, wapo has a reason to present their facts the way they do. They like the status quo,

hell they're owned by one of the richest men in the world.

Second, even their framing doesn't amount to your outlandish claim that Sanders is the reason votes went from Clinton to Trump. You don't have any evidence these voters would have been there for Clinton, and don't you see? That's the crux of the whole thing. If you can't show that then you can't support your argument that Sanders hurt Clinton by running in the GE. All you can support is that Sanders attracted certain voters that Clinton did not.

[Gothmog]

264. So you are admitting that you have no facts to refute the Washington Post's excellant analysis

Thank you for admitting that you have no facts to contradict the Washington Post analysis and that you know the real experts at the WP would be amused by your attempt. I like the Monkey Cage articles from the Washington Post in large part because I like math and facts.

Thank you for admitting that you were wrong and that you have no facts to refute the Washington Post's excellent analysis of the numbers set forth in this thread.

[Gothmog]

265. I live in the real world and I like using facts

In the real world one has to use fact to back up an argument. I am amused when people disagree with facts but cannot back up their arguments with facts

[JCanete]

267. Quit lying about what I'm saying. Please. I've never refuted the facts in the article.

I've refuted your use of them. Can you make that distinction or not?

[Gothmog]

268. The experts at the Washington Post disagrees

The experts on the Monkey Cage blog of the Washington Post disagreed with your claims. I am really amused that you think that you refuted anything

Again, facts are important in the real world. You should consider reading up and attempting to use facts to back up your arguments.

[sheshe2]

151. Yikes!!!!

Thank you, Gothmog.

[JCanete]

200. you seriously haven't seen that study before? Its still a lousy argument too, and I've

posted the reasons why to him.

[at140]

154. How is it Bernie's fault if...

some of his supporters did not vote for Hillary?
May be they were turned off with what happened during primaries.

[Gothmog]

164. sanders was aided by Russia which pushed anti-Clinton stories

Russia was helping sanders for a reason https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/17/indictment-russians-also-tried-help-bernie-sanders-jill-stein-presidential-campaigns/348051002/

WASHINGTON – It turns out Donald Trump wasn’t the only candidate the Russians allegedly tried to help during the 2016 presidential campaign.

A 37-page indictment resulting from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation shows that Russian nationals and businesses also worked to boost the campaigns of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Green party nominee Jill Stein in an effort to damage Democrat Hillary Clinton.

The Russians “engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump,” according to the indictment, which was issued Friday.

[at140]

169. I don't understand how Russians benefit with Bernie as POTUS

versus Hillary or anyone else. We just have to wait until Mueller's report comes out of his extensive investigation of Russian interference. USA Today is never as reliable as SC Mueller.
I

[Gothmog]

172. Read the mueller indictment

Helping sanders weakened Clinton and helped trump and Putin

[George II]

212. They didn't want him, but they wanted to severely damage Clinton's general election candidacy.

[at140]

216. Russians were familiar with Clinton...

She was a stable operator as secretary of state. Whereas Trump was an unknown quantity, shoot from the hips type, belligerent, America before Russia mentality dude. Why would Russians not prefer Clinton over Trump or Bernie who was also a largely unknown quantity.

I guess we just have to wait until Mueller makes his findings public.

[George II]

218. Putin absolutely despises Hillary Clinton. That overrides just about anything else.

[not_the_one]

230. Just like how

turdface hates anything and everything Obama...

They are both big on revenge.

[Caliman73]

220. Russians were likely familiar with Trump.

Trump had long standing business dealings in Russia before the elections. They likely knew they could use those dealings to maneuver him. Sanders was a viable candidate for the early parts of the primary, but would likely never have won the primary. Russia likely knew it would be between Clinton and a Republican. They threw in behind Trump because he was a political novice who was already somewhat in their sphere of influence. They did not want Sanders as a candidate in the general but would likely have preferred him to Clinton. Their goal was to weaken Clinton specifically and to throw the elections into chaos generally.

Clinton was a "stable operator" but she was stably against Putin's incursions into Ukraine and his attempts to destabilize the EU. Clinton would have joined forcefully with Germany and France to battle the far right influences in Europe and would likely have worked to get Britain to rethink Brexit.

[LiberalFighter]

173. What did Sanders and his campaign say about Hillary?

[at140]

174. Were they competing in the primary?

Hello....every primary election since George Washington had opponents attacking each other in primaries.

Republicans were doing the same thing in primaries as well. Remember "low energy Bush", "lying Ted",
"Little Marco", etc. etc.

That is how American elections work. After the primaries are over, all usually get behind the winner.

[sfwriter]

155. Wow, that makes it look like Bernie could beat Trump in those states.

If Bernie can carry that many extra votes for the Democrats, then that's pretty convincing evidence FOR the op as well, you know.

[Gothmog]

163. sander would lose a ton of African American support if he was the nominee

bernie has some serious issues with the African American segment of the party's base. sanders will not be the party's nominee

[JCanete]

199. Doubtful, and you also have no evidence to back up that claim. Just an opinion. If you have data

about Sanders chances with people of color in a GE, I suggest you present it.

[at140]

217. Crickets!

[Gothmog]

237. You do know that sanders delegates booed Congressman John Lewis??

I am not going to re-litigate the primaries. I know how many African American, Jewish and Latino voters felt about sanders but there is no need to go over these facts given sanders own actions.

I was at the convention and the Clinton campaign had a great whipping infrastructure. My whip was great and he is now working for the DNC. I was told by the Clinton campaign that the sanders delegates were going to boo Congressman John Lewis on the first night of the convention. I was informed of this by my whip about 20 to 30 minutes before it happened. According to my whip, sanders was asked to stop this stunt and refused. There are a ton of former Clinton and DNC staffers who will be glad to discuss this incident if there is a need.

This incident is ready made for a TV commercial if sanders runs. The Texas delegation and the Georgia delegation shared a bus to the convention site and there were some pissed Georgia delegates on Tuesday.

In addition, this video will show up in some fun ads.

In addition, the comments by sanders on his supporters not voting for African Americans will not help sanders. https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211400567

Do you really think that sanders will do better with African Americans if he runs??

I still doubt that sanders will run. I think that the latest sanders comments are just part of attempt to sell his last book.

[George II]

211. How do you figure that? Those weren't "general election" votes.

[Liberty Belle]

157. That shows in the primary he pulled in crossover voters, who

Dems lost with Hilary as the nominee.

While I think Sanders is too old now and there are probably better choices this time around, his sincerity and independence own over many voters who would not otherwise have voted Democratic.

We will never know what would have happen if he'd become the Democratic nominee, but it's quite possible that he would have beaten Trump.

[George II]

213. There are specific concrete reasons for that, but I'm not going to get into it.

[JCanete]

197. I know you don't, since I can refute this very argument, never have my refutation challenged, and

yet you or somebody else will just regurgitate the same argument up a week or a month later, to be smacked down again.

So Sanders voters came in for Clinton at the same rate that Clinton voters came in for Obama.
If you want to make the case that Clinton was bad for Obama, well, its a silly argument but feel free.

Also, Sanders pulled people into his pool of voters who would have never voted for Clinton, so how is it him to blame that he couldn't get them to stay for her? They wouldn't have voted for her anyway. There's no evidence at all that Sanders presence in the race cost Clinton votes. So please stop dragging us all back onto the same bullshit ferris wheel of nonsense.

[Gothmog]

238. Did enough Bernie Sanders supporters vote for Trump to cost Clinton the election?

The real world is a nice place even if magic does not work. I like the real world because facts matter i the real world. There are studies that back up these claims https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.972422d03243

New data is shedding light, however, on Sanders’s role in the last election — and on how many Sanders voters ended up supporting Trump. It’s a question many in the party will be asking about a candidate who may want to compete again for the Democratic nomination.

Two surveys estimate that 12 percent of Sanders voters voted for Trump. A third survey suggests it was 6 percent.

First, the political scientist Brian Schaffner analyzed the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, which was conducted by YouGov and interviewed 64,600 Americans in October-November 2016. In that survey, Schaffner found that 12 percent of people who voted in the primary and reported voting for Sanders also voted in November and reported voting for Trump.

Schaffner examined only voters whose turnout in the primary and general election could be validated using voter file data. This excludes people who said they voted but actually did not — although it also excludes people who voted in caucuses or party-run primaries, for which validated turnout data are not as readily available.

Facts are good things. In the real world facts matter.

[JCanete]

240. And how does who Sanders supporters-a small percentage of them-voting for Trump, prove

that Sanders hurt Clinton by being in the race? You are making the baseless claim that he drove them away from Clinton into Trump's arms. You are suggesting without any evidence whatsoever, that had Sanders not been in the race, these voters would have voted for Clinton over Trump.

[Gothmog]

245. Look at the margins of trump's victory

This is also from the Washington Post article

Link to tweet

[JCanete]

247. explained in another post. nt

Last edited Wed Nov 28, 2018, 05:54 AM - Edit history (1)

[Gothmog]

254. Not really

Facts do not cease to exist simply because these facts hurt your feelings

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

162. They know tRump's collusion with the Russians stole the election from Hillary...

but, why miss an opportunity to blame Bernie?!?! BTW, in case you forgot, Bernie's not a Democrat.

[Gothmog]

165. Russia helped sanders a great deal and pushed anti-Clinton stories

Putin and Russia flooded sites like JPR and other sanders sites with fake news to hurt Clinton https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-fake-news-russia_us_58c34d97e4b0ed71826cdb36

Last June, John Mattes started noticing something coursing like a virus through the Facebook page he helped administer for Bernie Sanders fans in San Diego. People with no apparent ties to California were friending the page and sharing links from unfamiliar sites full of anti-Hillary Clinton propaganda.

The stories they posted weren’t the normal complaints he was used to seeing as the Vermont senator and the former secretary of state fought out the Democratic presidential primary. These stories alleged that Clinton had murdered her political opponents and used body doubles.

Mattes, 66, had been a television reporter and Senate investigator in previous lives. He put his expertise in unmasking fraudsters to work. At first, he suspected that the sites were created by the old Clinton haters from the ‘90s ― what Hillary Clinton had dubbed “the vast right-wing conspiracy.”

But when Mattes started tracking down the sites’ domain registrations, the trail led to Macedonia and Albania. In mid-September, he emailed a few of his private investigator friends with a list of the sites. “Very creepy and i do not think Koch brothers,” he wrote.

At one point, JPR had a half dozen threads on the greatest page of that website pushing the pizzagate story. After being laughed at on DU, the JPR site eventually ban pizzagate stories which were replaced by numerous other stories from Russia including some claiming that Clinton was dying

See also Russia Duped Bernie Fans via Facebook, San Diego Dems Toldhttps://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2017/03/23/russia-duped-bernie-fans-via-facebook-san-diego-dems-told/

Oliver Mitov was dispatched by the Kremlin to get Bernie Sanders fans to vote third-party in the November election, write in the Democratic primary loser for president — or not vote at all.

John Mattes speaks to San Diego Democrats for Equality, the the predominantly gay club in Hillcrest. Photo by Ken Stone
But investigative journalist John Mattes, describing how fake stories on Facebook helped defeat Hillary Clinton, isn’t sure who Mitov is.

“He may be a bot. He may be a person [or four]. He may be living in Macedonia, laughing,” Mattes told a rapt audience of 90 Thursday night in Hillcrest.
But Mitov’s thousands of posts — and similar ones from Albania and elsewhere — duped just enough of the 13 million Sanders supporters to hand the election to Donald Trump and prove Russia could hack American democracy, said the 66-year-old resident of Pacific Beach.
A major Sanders organizer in Southern California himself, Mattes admitted that “we were played.”

Again, Mueller has documented the support that Russia gave to Sanders. I trust Mueller on this.

Again, many voters will want to know why Putin and Russia put some much effort into promoting sanders if sanders runs again. If sanders runs in 2020 he will need to provide a better answer to this question than he has so far

[George II]

215. What numbers are that of which you speak?

[JCanete]

223. Some study that actually shows that Sanders running hurt Clinton? Numbers that extrapolate

his negative impact versus what she might have enjoyed had he not been in the race. I will never make the bold statement as FACT that Sanders didnt' hurt Clinton and that in-fact he helped her by being in the race, because I have no evidence to prove that. Maybe people making the opposite claim should cite evidence that actually corroborates the claim. And nope, sorry, that study that Goth posted only shows that 2016's numbers were in line with 2008's.

[George II]

228. And that study of yours is............? Thanks in advance.

[JCanete]

231. I said I didn't have any such numbers. I said I wouldn't make the bold claim that I KNOW

Sanders being in the race helped Clinton, or that he certainly didn't hurt her by being in the race, because there are no such numbers to suggest either, other than the study that Goth posted which shows that Sanders voters came in for Clinton at the same rate Clinton voters came in for Obama. So hey...I guess I could point to that one. Thanks Gothmog!

[Gothmog]

239. I subscribe to the Washington Post

I like facts. You may want to look at sources like the Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.972422d03243

[JCanete]

241. They are facts. I didn't deny them. They just don't add up to what you are saying they add up to. nt

[Gothmog]

244. Why not?

I like facts and I like living in the real world. You need to show why these facts do not support my claim

[JCanete]

248. ugh.. I did explain it. Your claim is predicated on an unverifiable assumption that had Sanders not

Last edited Wed Nov 28, 2018, 07:17 AM - Edit history (1)

been in the race, those voters who had voted for Sanders and then voted for Trump would have simply voted for Clinton in the GE. Its a question of whether you are seeing a causality or simply a correlation. You have numbers that reflect a correlation, except that those numbers aren't out of line with the last democratic primary. 80 percent of Clinton voters went for Obama. And regardless, they don't speak to causality.

[Gothmog]

249. The fact that you think that you disproved anything is really cute and adorable

Have you considered reading up on the issues and attempting to use facts in these discussions. In the real world, one uses facts to support their conclusions or arguments

The facts show that sanders voters were the margin of victory for trump in the general election.

[Gothmog]

250. Again, the fact that you think that proved anything is really cute and adorable

In the real world facts are important. Here the Washington Post has studies that show that sanders helped to elect trump. You may not like these facts but you have done nothing to disprove these facts.

Again, the real world is nice place even if magic does not work in the real world. Facts are still facts even if you dislike these facts.

[JCanete]

255. I give up. Instead of actually dealing with my criticism of your conclusions, you just go back to

how your conclusions are conclusive. You didn't bother to address my argument, so I can't take this seriously.

[Gothmog]

256. You should consider reading up on the issues and using facts to support your claims

Facts are used in the real world to support claims. If you read up on the issues, you would be able to use some facts to back up your claims. The fact that you think that you made an argument is really cute and adorable.

I like living in the real world where facts matter. Just because you do not like a fact does mean that such fact can be ignored. I and a large number of hardcore democrats know that sanders helped to elect trump. We have long memories.

I think that sanders is out trying to sell his latest book which is getting bad reviews. I really doubt that sanders will run and if sanders does run, he has a very small chance of being the nominee. I would love to see five or ten years of sanders tax returns

Have you bought a copy of sanders book yet?

[JCanete]

257. you should consider using facts THAT support your claims. nt

[Gothmog]

258. I did and you failed to refute these facts

I am amused that you are offended by the facts presented. The Washington Post did a great job of describing a number of studies that all back up my conclusion. Facts are good things and in the real world one has to use facts to back up their arguments.

Have you purchase sanders' latest book yet? The reviews are bad and if you wait it will be in the discount racks soon.

I doubt that sanders will run and if he does I will love to see his tax returns. The fact that sanders would have to agree in writing that he is a member of the party and will run and govern as a member of the party will be nice to see also.

I and a large number of real democrats have long memories and will use the facts presented in this thread if sanders runs

[JCanete]

261. just random nonsense. What does Sanders book have to do with anything here?

One last time, I guess for fuck's sake....

all you've shown with your numbers is that some voters who were enticed by Sanders weren't enticed by Clinton, and for God knows what reasons, preferred Trump. Your numbers don't show that Sanders is the reason they preferred Trump, and that logic doesn't even follow at a cursory level. Do you understand that? Either actually address this point rather than talking past it, or understand that your failure to do so will be why you have the last word.

[Gothmog]

263. The comments that gave rise to the OP were in connection with sandes latest book tour

sanders is trying to get his supporters to buy his latest book. The interview on which the OP is based is part of that book tour. I really doubt that sanders will run in 2020 but he does want to sell his current book. This book is getting bad reviews and so sanders is trying to generate media coverage to help him sell this book

If sanders runs in 2020, he will have to join the Democratic Party and sign a contract agreeing to be a member of the party, to run as a member of the party and to govern as a member of the party if elected. In addition, sanders will have to release five to ten years of tax returns to get onto the ballot in a number of states. I personally doubt that sanders will run in 2020

Again, if book sales and reviews are bad, you will see sanders doing more interviews to get more press coverage. I am amused that sanders latest book is getting bad reviews.

Again, in the real world one way to attempt to boost book sales is to make controversial statements during the book tour. No one would be buying sanders latest book if sanders admitted that he does not want to comply with the DNC rules or that he will not release his tax returns.

If you like sanders, go buy his book

[Gothmog]

259. Here is the study

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.52c2907a3381 The Washington Post did a great job on this issue

[MrsCoffee]

87. Yes.

IMHO.

[Cha]

126. Hell Yes.. and he sure as better Hell Not

do again.

[KitSileya]

194. He most certainly hurt the Dems by refusing to concede when he could not mathematically win

Because there was quite a lot of funding for down-ticket candidates that Hillary raised that couldn't be released until we had a nominee, which meant that in many crucial elections they were not able to go full bore until after the convention. It was in their candidate contracts, only Bernie raised almost nothing for other candidates, while Hillary saved our bacon on that one, raising quite a lot. He certainly knew this money was tied up until we had a nominee, he signed the contract, after all, but I guess that was less important to him.

His refusal to admit he lost hurt us, and to add insult to injury, his supporters used the fact that the funds weren't released (because of him, remember) as a cudgel against Hillary, saying it was proof of how corrupt she was. ("See, she claimed to be raising money for down-ticket candidates, but none of it has reached their campaigns. She lied!&quot

[Cha]

196. Thank You, Kit!

[George II]

246. Aside from that, his support for Clinton was lukewarm throughout the general election campaign....

...whereas in 2008 Hillary Clinton was on the trail campaigning for Obama just a day or two after the convention closed, in 2016 Sanders didn't make a campaign appearance until Labor Day Weekend, almost six weeks after the convention ended.

He clearly had more important priorities than getting a Democrat elected president.

[Gothmog]

266. I was active in the Super Tuesday primaries and it was clear that sanders lost

After the Super Tuesday primaries, it was clear that sanders had no mathematical chance of being the nominee and sanders did indeed hurt the party by staying in long past the date he was mathematically eliminated

This video is still amusing as to the math involve

[ghostsinthemachine]

3. He helped Trump actually

By NOT BEING A DEMOCRAT he ran against Hillary, running her down long before Trump got to her. So many Bernie people spread the anti Hillary memes.
I Bernie, BUT, if you arent a registered Democrat, you can't expect the Democratic party to do anything but see he doesnt win.
We cant allow him to run from the left, sniping at the front running Democrat.

[JCanete]

59. No...by not being a democrat? Are you kidding me with that shit? He ran as a democrat IN the primary

He didn't run her down. His voters came in for her. And Sanders isn't any more responsible for every Sanders person than Clinton was for ever Clinton person. Like she's not responsible for you here.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

171. Indeed, Bernie helped Hillary immensely... he certainly helped her

hone her already formidable debating skills, after which, she absolutely SMOKED tRump in the debates. Then, after his full-throated endorcement, Bernie's supporters voted for her in droves, as should be expected...they should be commended for maintaining party unity, which has not always been the case.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

181. Why would you say such a thing that is so easily verifiable as being untrue?!?!

[Wintryjade]

185. Deleted. I googled.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

186. Fair enough... no worries. I was just a little surprised, because you seem

very fair minded in your posts. I say that even though we may disagree on some issues. Have a good night.

[Wintryjade]

187. Thank you.

[karynnj]

89. No he didn't "run her down" any more than O'Malley did

What he - and briefly O'Malley did was the norm differenciation with the front runner that (or even close competitor) does in any race. NOTHING either brought against Clinton were not already Clinton negatives. He avoided making an issue of the way she left the State Department without leaving them an archive of her email. He did call her because she gave (perfectly legal, but tone deaf) talks with Goldman Sachs and others that she argued could not be made public) ... after O'Malley did.

NOTHING that Bernie said was something that Clinton would nothave faced against any Republican. For all the ways that she is capable, intelligent and experienced, there were big negatives that started to grow when the email story exploded in spring 2015 - BEFORE Sanders announced a run. The reason that story hurt were they fell into memes that had long existed - exasperated because she had to revise her account a few times. (The meme - she is secretive and not transparent. ) This is when her trustworthy and honest scores fell.

In fact, the BERNIE attacks on HRC were mild compared to all the attacks on Obama by HRC, BC, and others in 2008. The worst might be that she claimed that she AND JOHN MCCAIN were ready for the 3 am call ... unlike Barack Obama. They were mild even compared to the attacks by Howard Dean on Kerry in the primaries. They were maybe most similar to Bill Bradley's attacks on Gore -- that his reputation was tarnished by his association with Bill Clinton. For those older, remember that Bill Clinton and Bob Kerrey both went after each other in far more personal ways at a point where neither was a clear frontrunner.

2020 will likely have a broad field as it is an open race. Even in 2008 when most assumed that HRC was a shoe in, there were at least 8 candidates who announced they were running - including some - like Vilsack, who dropped out immediately. To be a successful nominee the number one thing that they have to do is to communicate why they would be the best chanceto beat Trump AND to be the best President.

[R B Garr]

106. This totally goes against now known facts that contradict

these excuses. Read the Mueller indictments. We KNOW that his attacks on her helped Trump and that’s why Russia helped Bernie and others. Seriously, this continued failure to acknowledge the serious undermining of Hillary is not helping. You don’t get to rewrite what we see now in the news. NOT mild attacks to insinuate Hillary was corrupt or whatever smear came to mind, all without proof, just purity musings.

[Cha]

130. I know, right! WTH.. trying to rewrite History

with GASLIGHTING.

[R B Garr]

253. LOL, sorry, Cha! It looks like I fat fingered the responses in My Posts to

respond to you instead of the response below yours and in another thread. I fixed it. So much for phone typing and small screens!

And, yes, tired of the gaslighting.

[Cha]

269. No worries, RB!

Thank You for all you do to Undo the Gaslighting.

[Cha]

127. BULL!

[Jim Lane]

195. Please enlighten me about something

If you claim that Bernie did indeed "run her down" by criticizing her....

Then would you say that Clinton's infamous "3:00 a.m. phone call" ad in 2008 constituted running Obama down?

And, if so, would you say that it was an improper campaign tactic on Clinton's part?

TIA.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

182. Of course, everyone knows the truth of what you're saying...

but hey, it's Bernie... so, truth be damned.

[BeyondGeography]

104. If HRC could be "run down" by a "gadfly" from VT

as people here have been known to call him, maybe there were other problems on her end. Just a thought.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

183. Excellent point!

[George II]

214. He certainly didn't enthusiastically campaign for Clinton.

[leftynyc]

4. How many more of these

imbecilic articles are going to be posted here for the sole purpose of dividing Democrats? BERNIE IS NOT A DEMOCRAT.

[Mrs. Overall]

7. I didn't post this to divide Democrats. Bernie Sanders is an issue that we may have to deal

with in 2020 in terms of him running as a Dem or Independent.

Each time he is interviewed in the past few weeks he hints more strongly that he is running.

[Hortensis]

18. Sure. In considering this statement and wondering

how seriously to take it, we might ask ourselves what would happen if he said he was not running, or even just the eventual effects of not teasing possibilities to keep that door open in the public mind.

I don't see a successor to him on the horizon yet. ??? anyone? He has to know he'll have no following to hand over to someone he approves, and therefore no power base, if he lets them wander off on their own searches.

That said, I do believe he'll run again in the primary if someone else doesn't grab his flag and following and push out ahead. He won't do nothing.

[Me.]

40. I Believe He'll Try To Run

The money is too good for him not to. That said, there are at least 20 possible Dem candidates so he shouldn't count on being able to pull his usual bait & switch scheme.

[Hortensis]

48. :) I'm imagining someone claiming Democratic

ideas as revolutionary and defending possession against 20 candidates all running on them.

Eww...now I'm imagining all too well 21 candidates claiming minor tweaks as major differences, all saying, "Only I can do it!"

Distraction, need distraction!

[Me.]

52. Well, The ONe The Cons Fear Is......

Kamala..that's why they're trying to take away her seat on Judiciary. Seems like women are destined to be his Nemesis. Maybe one should primary him next time around...

[Hortensis]

76. :) She is very redoubtable and belongs on judiciary for

all the right professional reasons, plus she's female and a POC. She'd do and look just as good on a debate stage during the primaries. Thinking we may not let them move her out of the spotlight.

[Eliot Rosewater]

53. If I had the time I would find the posts I have here and elsewhere that say

"there is NO chance, none, he isnt running again"

[Hortensis]

78. :) Are you that sure he won't run in the primary, Eliot,

knowing he'll lose but making the most of that opportunity to play one final time on the big stage? I think he's a true believer in himself and may bitterly regret he didn't somehow become a national figure far earlier in his career. Critically important work still to be done, and what if he can't find anyone worthy to carry it on?

And let's not forget that others may already have decided to provide some powerful wind beneath his wings one more time. Opportunities someone with a strong sense of duty might feel he couldn't pass up.

[lapucelle]

136. As of this AM, he couldn't sell out the 1500 seat Town Hall for the kick-off of his book tour today

Hundreds of seats were still available at full price as of this morning. Dozens more were also available at resale outlets like Stub Hub at prices as low as $6. A free copy of the new $27.99 book came with each ticket.

The book is also available at Amazon for $18.29.

[George II]

144. VividSeats has 248 tickets available (an hour after the start) with $45 Orchestra tickets...

...going for $5 as of mid-afternoon. Stub Hub had 297 available starting at $6.

Barring duplicates that could be upwards of 500, 33% of the venue.

[lapucelle]

150. ...

[sheshe2]

160. Sad.

[Cha]

145. Selling his book at Amazon! Better

hurry up and sell his tickets for his big kick off tour today!

[lapucelle]

153. I wonder how they manage such deep discounts.

[sheshe2]

161. He was on The View and NPR today as well selling his book.

Didn't listen to either.

[Cha]

166. ...

*** ******* *******.

[sheshe2]

167. ummmhmm

Exactly, Cha.

[betsuni]

179. I saw him on The View, he talked about unity and bipartisanship.

Clearly blamed Republicans for blocking Democratic legislature. Talked about bipartisanship in the Senate for campaign finance reform, immigration reform. The country is not divided, we agree on the important issues. Trump has authoritarian tendencies, loves Putin and the Saudi crown prince and the leader of North Korea.

Not one attack on Democrats! If only he could be like this all the time. He seemed almost ... ahem ... centrist.

[sheshe2]

189. Wow.

Seriously?

Now that is something I could stand behind. He stood for Democrats. Awesome. That is a huge change for him. Hope he can keep that up. We are in critical times here and the clock is ticking.

[betsuni]

191. He's optimistic that the Senate can pass legislation with bipartisan support.

I hope he's right. I hope he keeps up this positive message of unity.

[Garrett78]

201. The country is divided. It's silly to deny that.

And there is not nearly enough Republican support to bring about campaign finance reform or comprehensive immigration reform. Not a chance. If there was, we'd have those things by now.

And the divide is growing, as the Republican Party is becoming even more extreme and the Democratic Party is slowly moving leftward.

If the following graph continued beyond 2013, the divide would be even more pronounced:

[betsuni]

205. It's an odd mix of cynicism toward Democrats (beholden to corporations and wealthy donors)

and optimism that Republicans are simply misguided and will see the light when things are explained logically to them.

I'll throw him a bone for every interview he doesn't blame Democrats for what Republicans have done.

[George II]

180. My wife missed the first half of the View today. She asked, "did I miss anything?"

I told her Sanders was on. I can't give her response!

[Me.]

148. Yikes!

[Gothmog]

193. This is not a good sign

[leftynyc]

23. IGNORE HIM

He's NOT a Democrat and the party will not allow him to use it again. If he wants to run as an independent, he can raise money that way.

[samnsara]

56. if hes the nominee i will vote for him but not donate nor support.....

...its 'too soon'....

[JCanete]

60. He's not an issue to deal with. He's another potential candidate in the democratic field.

Really strange framing.

[Mrs. Overall]

65. What I meant was if he runs as an Independent (that would make it the "issue").

Of course I would support him if he is the Democratic candidate.

But, Bernie has obviously become a divisive topic among Democrats and that, too, can be considered an "issue" that needs to be dealt with among those Dems who are still angry at him. Bernie is a very explosive topic in my household.

I didn't mean for this to come off as "strange framing."

[JCanete]

68. Okay, but I think it highly highly improbable that he would run as an independent. He knows that

would split the vote, and certainly more on the left than on the right. I'm not aware of him indicating anywhere that that would be his plan.

[ehrnst]

208. He doesn't run as an Independent because "it would split the vote," Dems have $$ and Marketing.

He stated this.

[JCanete]

222. Nonsense, that has nothing to do with why he runs as a democrat in Vermont. I know that

he said this, and I think its entirely reasonable to use the only apparatus that is practical to run for President, which is our 2 party system, but he had the money in 2016...post primary, he could have run in the GE...done a big fat Lieberman. He didn't because that would split the vote. Sure, it wouldn't do him any favors, but hey, even if his motivation were entirely selfish and he didn't want to do damage to himself, he STILL wouldn't be running in the GE, so all of the claims that that is going to happen make no sense.

If that does ever happen, I promise you I'll eat my words, but there's no evidence out there that it will.

[ehrnst]

225. I'm talking about him running for POTUS. (ntt)

[George II]

149. There are obstacles to him running as a Democrat, not the least of which is the requirement....

....in some states that he release his income tax returns.

Then there is the party rule that he JOIN the Democratic Party, run as a Democrat, and if elected serve as a Democrat.

[displacedtexan]

224. And if he loses the nomination again

will he go back to being an Independent in the senate?

Second verse same as the first?

[George II]

226. Most likely. After all, he's negotiated a methodology whereby he gets the "Democratic"...

...nomination every two or now six years for quite some time, then the next day declines the nomination and runs as an Independent.

Who can be sure he wouldn't do that the day after the Democratic National Convention? Thankfully that is most likely a moot point.

[Cha]

132. Exactly.. thanks Mrs Overall. The fact

that BS is divisive is not your fault.

[Mrs. Overall]

210. Thank you, Cha.

I appreciate your comment!

[Cha]

234. No worries, mate!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

188. Oh, Bernie's running all right... he's ranked only behind Biden in potential candidates

running against the Dotard in 2020. Why wouldn't he given his highly successful showing last time? He certainly deserves a second shot at the nomination, like others have had.

[trueblue2007]

192. in terms of him running as a Dem ...... But Sanders IS NOT a Democrat. He is an Independent.

[Power 2 the People]

5. Go Bernie!

[R B Garr]

17. Go Biden!

Go Hillary! Go Democrats!

[pandr32]

32. +1000

[Eliot Rosewater]

55. Yes, I only support DEMOCRATS. That is until something better comes along and I can ASSURE

you nothing better has.

[Wintryjade]

102. "I only support DEMOCRATS." Why shouldn't we be allowed, expected to say and feel this?

Yes. I support Democrats and have for a lifetime. End of story. The only question in 2015 was, is Sanders now a Democrat. By the end of 2016 he gave us the answer. And again, in 2018.

I support Democrats. Just like you.

[LakeArenal]

156. Go Biden

[George II]

152. Yes, GO Bernie.

[DFW]

6. That is reassuring

As he is in no way the best candidate to beat Trump, that means he is probably not running.

One less obstacle to worry about! (Well, don't laugh. He MIGHT have meant it....)

[Garrett78]

25. He can't get nominated, yet I'm sure he thinks he's the best candidate.

[DFW]

49. I don't care if he thinks he's Caligula's horse

Just as long as he doesn't diminish our nominee's chance to toss 45 out with the rest of the garbage in 2020.

[PubliusEnigma]

8. Old Man Yells At Cloud

[brush]

10. I'm glad we have several attractive, young potential candidates.

And that's all I will say.

[LonePirate]

11. So that means he's not running. That's good news for the party!

[Hortensis]

12. He won't be. If there were nothing else, he'd still be 79

in 2020 and 87 at the end of his second term. He's doing what pols do to remain relevant in the minds of the public.

[sarcasmo]

13. As a third party Independent candidate?

[MineralMan]

14. You're not the best candidate, Bernie.

You lost once. You would lose again. If you want to run, become a Democrat now, not later. Release your IRS filings now, not later. In reality, for 2020, you're not "all that."

[shanny]

41. You're not saying Hillary shouldn't have run again, are you?

[MineralMan]

42. Why would I say that. Anyone can run for President.

I have no control of that in any way. That's why we have primaries. Hillary ran. Bernie ran. Hillary won in the primaries and became the nominee. That's how it works.

I'm just a guy who votes in Minnesota.

[shanny]

43. Because she lost once. Like Bernie.

[MineralMan]

44. That doesn't matter. She can run. Bernie can run.

Both, I think, would lose in the primaries in 2020. Should they run? Not my call, is it?

I'm not going to suggest whether or not anyone should run in 2020. I'm not qualified to do that. When the primaries roll around, I'll vote for the candidate on my ballot who I think can win in November. Then, in November, I'll vote for the Democratic nominee, like I always to.

As I said, I'm just one voter in Minnesota. None of those decisions candidates make have anything to do with me.

[krawhitham]

51. YEP

[kstewart33]

62. Bernie's toast before he launches his campaign.

The reason: Booker, Harris, Warren and a few other who definitely are running are as progressive as Bernie is, and they are running on some of the same ideas. This time, he won't be able to differentiate himself enough to get the essential media interest.

And many Dems who deeply resent his staying in the 2016 race as long as he did, won't support him.

It's a new day.

[Go Vols]

117. Yep

And, following the 2016 election, a parade of would-be 2020 aspirants -- Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand -- signed onto Sanders' "Medicare For All" single-payer health care proposal. It's a role he played in 2016, albeit a somewhat unlikely one. Clinton, once she realized that Sanders posed a real threat to her chances, moved hard left on virtually every issue -- ensuring there was no space between her and the Vermont senator.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/29/politics/bernie-sanders-2020-analysis/index.html

[Wintryjade]

121. Sanders adopted Clinton college and minimum wage progression. Clinton really did not do much moving

It is just that people write a script for her that she is not reading from.

[Eliot Rosewater]

64. minimum 5 or 7 years FULL tax returns before even considering allowing anyone to run

and claim they are doing so as a D.

But as I recall he never became a D. There is a lesson there.

[Wintryjade]

83. He won't put out his taxes. After successfully not doing it in 2016, he is comfortable that is not

an issue now, I am sure. And Trump did it. So now when a person refuses to do it, the ground has been softened on this issue. The boundaries pushed.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

184. You're right about that, but, I do think the right thing for Bernie & others to do is put out

at least three years of tax returns.

[MineralMan]

84. He did claim to be a Democrat for the duration of the campaign.

As soon as it was over, he reverted back to his independent status.

For me, that is the primary reason I don't think he should run. The tax returns are the other. His policy ideas are fine, for the most part, but he doesn't have the solid, long-term identity as a Democrat I'm looking for. That matters to me. It may not matter to others, but it does to me, and I have one vote.

[Wintryjade]

88. His policy platforms are the Democratic Party's position for a couple decades.

The taxes do not even carry that much weight. It is he is a Independent and the last two years has used the Democratic Party only to go back to Independent that has me saying a flat no. He is not a Democrat. As a lifetime Democrat, I want a Democrat. Not tough, nor should I be expected to feel any other way.

[MineralMan]

90. Well, with some variations, that is true.

The taxes are important to me, because I believe candidates for office should be transparent as to their financial obligations, attachments and dealings. Reluctance to reveal tax filings is, for me, a point of concern. My curiosity about why one would not make them public is based on experience with candidates who had financial connections or transactions to hide.

[Wintryjade]

99. I believe they should be transparent, also. Another thing I admires our Democrat Leaders,

consistently. I do resent Sanders bring in a softening to that rule, in the Democratic name, while not a Democrat.

And that would take me to resenting him using our party.

Just another reason.

He went from attacking millionaires and billionaires, to just billionaires. But, this is just one of the many contradictions I see with Sanders, that his supporters ignore.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

15. A: You're not.

Glad I could help, Senator.

[redstatebluegirl]

16. Some states are requiring showing your tax return before they can be on the ballot.

Bernie will never do that, so he isn't running.

[R B Garr]

19. Amen. The hypocrisy about transparency will not survive

like before.

[Eliot Rosewater]

66. Which states have done that if you know? Are they substantial enough to make it so

a person could not win without them or does it matter which side they are on, are these red states? Cant be, right?

[redstatebluegirl]

98. According to Axios there are 25 that have either done it or are preparing to do it. It is aimed at

at Trump but would clearly hurt Bernie as well.

I tried to attach the link but was unsuccessful.

[Eliot Rosewater]

109. Thanks, and it may well turn out to be unconstitutional. The interesting thing will be to see WHO

sues. Think about it.

[MoonRiver]

20. Then he won't be running.

Whew, that's a relief!

[aikoaiko]

21. The midterms are over. It's time for the Democratic Party to get its act together

With regard to giving Democratic voters an idea of who is in this race.

We have five short months before people like Bernie start announcing their candidacy officially.

DNC, it’s go time.

Having said that I welcome Bernie running as a Democrat if everyone else gets cold feet or there aren’t any serious contenders.

[realmirage]

85. This is how we win. People need to WAKE UP TO THIS FACT.

[still_one]

22. Sorry Bernie, you are not the best candidate. Whether justified or not you would create division

among Democrats. Similar reasoning would apply if Hillary was running, which she isn't, but the division in that case would be among different groups.

We need new faces that were NOT part of 2016. Whether right or wrong the ghosts of 2016 I suspect will haunt us if we don't select people who were NOT part of that election.

[qazplm135]

24. so I read that as

if polling shows me in the lead or maybe 2nd, I'll jump in. If it shows me closer to 3-5th, then I'll sit it out.

[R B Garr]

26. Yeah, it's more like he's waiting to see which Democrat he

has to run against. Hillary had three opponents, Trump, Stein and Sanders.

[JCanete]

74. ...right...because polling showed him first or second last time around. The shit people make up here

Fuck...I wish people would just construct their arguments based upon some history...some evidence.

[qazplm135]

79. uh pretty much from the start he was the only viable alternative

he could see the field was cleaned out for Hillary.

He could see NO ONE of any note was running.

He could see that he could fill an empty space as an alternative to Hillary.

But yeah, sure...evidence and history.

[JCanete]

93. no evidence that he was going to be more than a blip when he ran. yeah, sure, technically thats

coming in second...

[qazplm135]

94. I just gave all the factors that laid out he was going to be more than

a "blip."

It was going to be Hillary v Someone. There was no other "Someone" except for Sanders. He was clearly going to be the alternative from the start. It sure as heck wasn't going to be Martin O'Malley.

He probably didn't think he was going to have a shot at winning, but he most definitely believed he had a shot at coalescing the anti-Hillary/far left vote which would make him a formidable player at the table.

Now? He doesn't have that.

[JCanete]

96. Actually we had no idea how loud that segment would be. That he generated all that

small dollar revenue was as far as I know, unprecedented, and he needed that to break through the media's tendency to invisible progressive candidates who almost never have massive war chests.

[qazplm135]

97. riiight

because Bernie Sanders ISNT a highly intelligent and highly experienced politician who had a pretty good idea of at least the potential of being able to generate influence via coalescing the anti-Hillary vote.

He was just a pure, holy dude who got into it for the righteousness of it and well gosh darn it, it just resonated so much!

Who could have known that there would be a progressive backlash to Hillary Clinton and that the only progressive in the field might benefit from that?!

[JCanete]

105. Yes of course, he saw at least the potential of being able to generate influence. That's not knowing

that he's guaranteed to do so, which really is the claim you were making here...that he's just seeing whether or not he's already going to be a big shot on stage before he throws his hat in.

[qazplm135]

110. lol

he was GUARANTEED to attract all of the progressive attention in 2016 because. There. Was. No. Other. Option.

[Wintryjade]

111. I can argue HRC was more progressive than Sanders, in reality.

[qazplm135]

112. Well...I was a Hillary supporter

and she got unfairly labeled as a neoliberal/corporatist/whatever, but no, in no universe is she more progressive than Sanders.

Certainly not on economic policy, at best it's a push on social policy as they both had issues there.

[Wintryjade]

113. You did not hear my argument. Without any knowledge of what I would argue,

making the point I could easy, one handed and with a blindfold win the argument HRC was more progressive. you state I am wrong, lol. That certainly is not the winning argument, for sure.

[qazplm135]

115. I haven't heard your argument on anti-gravity either

and yet...

[Wintryjade]

122. Really? This is your argument. Hm. Whatever, lol.

[JCanete]

114. that's not an effective logic. Yeah, and Freaks and Geeks was guaranteed to attract anybody

who loved well-written coming-of-age comedies, but it got cancelled before most people even knew what it was. Over the years its post-mortem audience grew, but in the moment people didn't know about it. Only those like us on DU who follow politics religiously knew about Sanders pre 2016.

[Wintryjade]

123. And again, no consideration to what the argument is. Interesting.

[qazplm135]

124. nope

Antigravity. Magic. Ghosts. I don't need to hear arguments about things that on their face aren't true. It's a waste of time.

[Wintryjade]

125. That says a lot about you and your position.

[qazplm135]

142. no I think it says more about how silly

your position is.

[Wintryjade]

158. You can't think that since you do not know. Lol.

[qazplm135]

175. Lol sure I can

Just like I can know the position of someone who believes in ghosts without needing to know their "reasoning" behind why they believe that.

[awesomerwb1]

27. Probably no.

[LexVegas]

28. ...

[vishnura]

29. Bernie's run!

I supported Bernie, but now I think he should take his marbles and go home. The Dems needs a revitalization which will move the USA ahead! They should start building that NOW!

[Bleacher Creature]

31. He's not. Next.

I have no idea who will be our nominee, but I am 100% sure that it won't be an old white guy with a history of questionable rhetoric about people of color and who is (and stay with me here) not a Democrat.

[JonLP24]

34. He has a 100% lifetime grades from the NAACP

And he recently called our criminal justice system racist.

https://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/27110/bernie-sanders/13#.W_wqm81lD3A

[George II]

135. He talks the talk but other prominent potential candidates walk the walk.

[JonLP24]

137. He does as evidenced by his ratings

He voted against confirming Kavanaugh recently. He is on our side.

[George II]

140. I'm not going to go through all of his votes, but there are many that were NOT in line...

...with the Democrats' votes, including the Magnitzky Act and Russia Sanctions, which are front and center in recent world news.

He remains the only Senator to vote against both.

Magnitzky Act votes:

House - 365 to 43
Senate - 92-4

Russia Sanctions votes:

House - 419 to 3
Senate - 98-2

[JonLP24]

143. I disagree with his vote against the Magnistky Act

The other vote included Iran sanctions for the Republicans he opposed it on that principle.

[George II]

146. The only other Senator to vote against the Russia sanctions was Rand Paul. That tells me a lot.

[JonLP24]

147. Rand Paul is Russia friendly

Here is Sanders statement on the matter


"I am strongly supportive of the sanctions on Russia included in this bill. It is unacceptable for Russia to interfere in our elections here in the United States, or anywhere around the world. There must be consequences for such actions. I also have deep concerns about the policies and activities of the Iranian government, especially their support for the brutal Assad regime in Syria. I have voted for sanctions on Iran in the past, and I believe sanctions were an important tool for bringing Iran to the negotiating table. But I believe that these new sanctions could endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed between the United States, its partners and Iran in 2015. That is not a risk worth taking, particularly at a time of heightened tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia and its allies. I think the United States must play a more even-handed role in the Middle East, and find ways to address not only Iran's activities, but also Saudi Arabia's decades-long support for radical extremism."

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-statement-on-iran-and-russia-sanctions

The last sentence is a huge plus considering Saudis role in spreading Wahabbism. It shows to me he gets it.

[JCanete]

63. ooh thankfully finally somebody pointed out the irrelevant detail that he doesn't put a d after his

name.

[realmirage]

33. Very reasonable of him

I’d vote for him or any human being the party nominates. That’s because I want to fucking WIN. So yeah, I won’t be tearing him down.

[Small-Axe]

35. No Senator Sanders, you are not the best candidate.

Please go away.

[WeekiWater]

36. Staged comments designed to hold his dwindling base together while keeping money coming in. N/T

[Kurt V.]

37. he's not running then.

[comradebillyboy]

38. Bernie never stopped running so he will run.

He believes he's morally superior to all the actual Democrats and will run a scorched earth campaign if he isn't handed the nomination.

[JCanete]

72. scorched earth would be running 3rd party in the General. Did he do that last time? This is silly.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

190. Spot on as usual!

[Wintryjade]

75. Right.

[Cha]

138. Dead On!

[SidDithers]

39. Hey Bernie. You aren't...nt

Sid

[JaneQPublic]

45. By his own analysis, he's always the best.

He's nearly as big a megalomaniac as Trump.

He'll probably run even if Warren, Harris, Booker, and/or Gillibrand run -- all of whom are rated as more progressive than Bernie by Progressive Punch:

https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate

[Small-Axe]

58. Thank you for your truth telling!

[JCanete]

73. oh jesus..are you pulling out that stupid metric? Do you understand it before you just quote it

Last edited Mon Nov 26, 2018, 04:05 PM - Edit history (1)

as evidence of most progressive? Please don't regurgitate that mythology. It isn't what the numbers prove, and even the designers of the metric admit this in their write-up. Sadly, the only reason they still call it what they do is because this gives cover to any democrat who votes party line more than any democrat and then labels them more progressive. Thusly, a vote against the Iraq War would not have meritted any points towards progressivism, because it would not have been a vote WITH party.

Only votes that are both in line with the party and out of line with the republican party count. Any bipartisan votes that pull 10 or 20 republicans still counts towards a progressive vote, by the way...and how likely is it that anything that pulls republican politicians is going to be a progressive issue?

[boston bean]

46. He won't be doing it as a Democrat.

[JCanete]

61. says who? You?

[boston bean]

67. Yep.

[JCanete]

69. heh...okay. Make sure you let him know then. nt

[boston bean]

70. He will figure it out soon enough.

[Wintryjade]

80. This is where I am, keep asking. I really can't see the Democratic party welcoming him for the 3rd

time in two years to use the Democratic Party and it's resources, only to walk away from the Democratic Party to put an "I" behind his name. We have not heard anything from the party that he is welcome to run in our party under our name using our resources once again. Has there been a nod from the Democratic Party? I want to know. Does he just assume he can? Is he planning on running as Independent because ego allows him to believe he has the votes from white middle class with Democrats, Independent and Republican?

I would like that conversation first.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

47. My goodness, that's needy.

[krawhitham]

50. NOPE, and I voted for him in the primary last time

He will never get my vote again, NEVER, not even against trump

His campaign said he would stay a Democrat for life and days after he lost he backtracked. Apparently he would lie about anything to get votes

In an interview on Bloomberg’s “With All Due Respect,” host Mark Halperin asked campaign manager Jeff Weaver if the Independent senator will stay in the Democratic Party if he doesn't become the nominee.

“Well, he is a Democrat, he said he’s a Democrat and he’s gonna be supporting the Democratic nominee, whoever that is,” Weaver responded.

“But he’s a member of the Democratic Party now for life?” Halperin pressed.

“Yes, he is,” Weaver said.

I will only vote for Democrats

https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/277086-sanders-will-be-democrat-for-life-campaign-says
https://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/bernie-sanders-democrat-independent-222228

[samnsara]

54. i need anti acid now...or a shot of tequila..

[Wintryjade]

71. As an Independent or a Democrat and does the Democratic Party simply allow him to run

as a Democrat again?

[LanternWaste]

77. Maybe he thinks it's "his turn..."

"A very little little let us do, and all shall be done!"
W.S.

[DavidDvorkin]

81. Run away, Bernie.

[andym]

82. Let's see what happens: but I think he will pass on his mantle to a younger progressive

In the coming election, I don't think Sanders will run, but if he does, I think his support peaked in 2016 and many of his mainstream supporters will be seeking someone new.

I like Bernie's policies with the exception of his economic populism, which is not well-grounded economically. Trump's tariffs will soon convince many Americans of just how problematic that kind of economic policy is.

Some folks blame him for Hillary Clinton losing, but I don't. It's time to let bygones by bygones. Why do I think he played little role in Trump's election? Two reasons: the media kept reporting on the email investigations which far overshadowed any criticism from Bernie. Also, Sander's most fanatical supporters were never going to vote for Hillary anyway-- they are on the left fringe and would never support Hillary if only because she is married to Bill who was rather moderate. Fortunately, this will all soon be water under the bridge as a new primary season begins.

[Wintryjade]

86. He didn't have the votes then and he especially does not have the votes now.

How he runs the campaign and pumps his supporters is the only issue in causing chaos in our Democratic primaries but he is not a threat for a win. He does not have it.

[andym]

91. i agree Bernie just won't have the votes

As for his riling up his supporters, I don't think it matters. Don't let a site like DU which before Obama and 2016 was extremely liberal in its outlook be your guide to how people at large perceive things.

Bernie's most avid supporters in the primaries were left-wing progressives who tend not to vote Democratic but rather third party and cross-over Independents who like his economic populism and probably later voted for Trump on economic grounds. The former may get riled up again if he votes, but they are not voting Democratic anyway and are rather small in numbers. The latter may still vote for Trump, or stay home.

[Wintryjade]

101. I do not define them as progressives. I see progressive with our Democratic Leaders.

I see Sanders supporters angry that we only PROGRESS. Lol. So, that point I argue.And crossover middle class white and especially white men. I get that. I see that.I do recognize what we are looking at.

[JCanete]

95. Interesting...I totally disagree with you on Sanders economic populism, and think its

inaccurate to say that his approach would look anything like Trump's.

Tariffs could come in entirely different forms, for the RIGHT reasons. You put tariffs on goods because you don't want nations who pay their workers poorly and ignore environmental damage to have a leg up on nations doing the right thing. You don't just randomly put tariffs on Canadian goods. There are ways this could be done. Back 20, 30 years ago when we had more leverage than we do now, this is how it should have been done. We should have helped third nations in other ways than to simply exploit their workforce and environment. We could have built up their infrastructure.


As to whether Sanders has peaked, I think it possible. That year was phenomenological. It remains to be seen if that kind of groundswell support can be repeated for the same person 4 years later. And I think he'd rather put his support behind a different candidate who doesn't rake it in from large donors.

[Kahuna7]

92. Bernie has never been vetted. The gop would love to run against him so that

Last edited Mon Nov 26, 2018, 05:54 PM - Edit history (1)

they can label him, a seizer of private industry wannabe, income redistributing, commie. Not even a socialist. Straight to commie. And they would then frame all of the Dems who run to the socialist left, the same.

Really, bernie supporters don't really realize how easy Clinton went on him.

[Eric J in MN]

229. Bernie and Biden are the only likely candidates

...who ran for president before. They’ve been vetted more than the other likely candidates.

[Kahuna7]

233. You think bernie was vetted? Hillary never laid a hand on him. And

bernie was putin's preferred Democratic candidate.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/26/facebook-russia-trump-sanders-stein-243172

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/17/indictment-russians-also-tried-help-bernie-sanders-jill-stein-presidential-campaigns/348051002/

I don't blow smoke.

[Marrah_Goodman]

100. Good

I want him to run. I want Beto to run. I want Kamala to run. I want any and all of our qualified people who want the job to run. I want to see all our best out there fighting for the top spot. May the best win.

[Joediss]

103. Bernie

No Bernie shouldn't run no more than Hillary shouldn't run

[emulatorloo]

107. Biden is ahead of Bernie in all 2020 polling I've seen n/t

[Cha]

141. If it were only a choice between

those two.. Joe Biden would be exponentially the better candidate.

Thankfully it's not.

[Gothmog]

243. I would support Joe if he ran

[JI7]

116. I really can't see any way he would win the nomination

the only way would be if he was the only one who decided to run and that's not going to happen.

I can't see him beating any of the candidates who may run.

[Gothmog]

119. sanders wil not be the nominee

There are far too many democrats with long memories who remember how sanders helped to elect trump

[Gothmog]

118. Oh Goodie, we get to see five or ten years of sanders tax returns

I am looking forward to seeing these tax returns

[pnwmom]

207. That's the first thing I thought of myself. He can't say

he doesn't have time, if he gets started now.

[George II]

128. "I will probably run in 2020 if I'm the best candidate to beat Trump"....

Who makes that assessment?

[Cha]

133. I hope Not BS. there's So Many

Brilliant Dems who will Run.. and one of them will beat trump.

Never BS.

[fleabiscuit]

204. Hmm...

Do you suppose BS meant he could beat Dump in blowing out all the birthday candles on his cake before Dump blew out his?

Either way, it would be a conflagration.

[TEB]

129. Stop Bernie

You do nothing for us

[Cha]

134. So he's running as an Independent?

Oh yeah.. we know what we call that.

[VOX]

139. Smacks a bit of 45's "I alone can fix it."

Will there ever actually be, in Bernie's mind, "somebody else...who can, for whatever reason, do a better job than me"?

For some reason I have my doubts.

[roody]

168. Good. My bumper sticker will get

another go-round.

[Renew Deal]

170. He'll lose again

[Garrett78]

176. 2016 was tailor-made for Sanders, and the race was over by Super Tuesday.

Of course Clinton had an advantage in terms of name recognition (though Sanders was not lacking in name recognition by the time the primaries started) and campaign infrastructure, but under the circumstances, Sanders couldn't have asked for a much better scenario. Sanders, framed as anti-establishment, was in a 1-on-1 race against a very polarizing candidate who was considered uber-establishment in an anti-establishment environment. Sanders was *the* Clinton alternative. Anyone who was opposed to Clinton had 1 and only 1 option. O'Malley was gone right after the Iowa caucus.

Some have been revising history by suggesting the media treated Sanders horribly. One can look back at archived websites and videos from news outlets to prove that's bullshit. The media loves a horse race. The media loves underdogs. And the media was relentless in talking about Clinton "scandals."

2020 won't be a 1-on-1 race, and there will be fewer caucuses. Sanders has no chance. And if he's going to go around suggesting that there's not much difference between the 2 parties, then all he can do is cause harm by seeking the nomination.

[Wintryjade]

178. Yes.

[fleabiscuit]

202. Hahahahaha... LMFAO! Didn't set the bar very high. Hahaha... nt

[Cha]

236. Really.. Good point, flea.

[RandySF]

203. I'll pass.

[pnwmom]

206. I hope he's prepared to release 5 - 10 years of tax returns.

He can't say he and Jane are too busy if they start now.

[Tom Rinaldo]

219. I like Bernie AND I fully agree with you on that. n/t

[OhZone]

227. * Help Trump n/t

[Joe941]

232. I stand with Bernie.

[Cha]

235. BS is too divisive.

[Gothmog]

242. Sanders is busy selling his latest book

I still doubt that sanders will run in 2020 and to me the comments contained in the OP are consistent with sanders' attempt to sell more of this book. If sanders runs, he would have to actually join the Democratic Party and agree in writing to run and serve as a member of the Democratic Party. In addition sanders will have to release five to ten years of tax returns to get onto the ballot in Maryland and some other states.

I still have my strong doubts about sanders not running but his latest book is getting bad reviews and so maybe sanders will have to run to sell yet another book

[AlexSFCA]

251. and that's how we get pence;

trump wins reelection and gets indited soon after; pence becomes prez. Third party candidates like Bloomberg will run if Bernie does, which will take away independent votes from dem victory. I sure hope there will be more viable candidate that Bernie decides not to run and impose further division within dem party. We need a uniter like Beto, Sharrod, etc.

[brewens]

252. He should if that's the case, but it probably won't be just like 2016. He may not be our

best bet again this time. Hopefully someone even better emerges.