Here's why Bernie shouldn't run

[Cyrano]

1968!

That was that horrible summer of the Democratic Presidential Convention in Chicago. Martin was dead. Bobby was dead. The Democratic Party was split over the Vietnam War. That summer of ugly, violent street scenes was being broadcast around the world. The Democratic Party fully and totally self-destructed. And Richard Nixon became president.

I like Bernie's message. I like that he's pushed the Democratic Party to the left. I don't like him continuing further as, not intentionally, he's splitting the Democratic Party. You see it here on DU with every Bernie/someone else post.

One absolute certainty is we must win the presidency in 2020. I don't care if our candidate is Kamala, Elizabeth Warren, Beto, or Mickey Mouse. I. Don't. Give. A. Shit. I want a Democrat to occupy the White House. I want the Republicans out of power, in the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. And I want us to control as many state governorships and state legislatures as possible.

It's time for Bernie to step aside and take pride in what he's accomplished. He's done as much as he can do. Trying to do more could fuck us beyond repair in 2020. -- "Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to relive it."

[UniteFightBack]

1. Word...as long as they are not Republican....that is my only disqualifier. And fractured as we were

Nixon barely won.

If the chips fall where Bernie is the nominee then you damn skippy I'll be behind him.....that is not what's going to happen though but if it does he has my vote.

[Me.]

2. Word...As Long As They're A DEm...A Real One

[UniteFightBack]

4. Well the party is going to choose....just as they did last time. That's one thing that has also

annoyed me a little...like I voted for Hillary because the Primary was on at a bad time.......what?

I voted for her back in 2008 (and I'm from NY so before that) - and I wish all my fellow Dem's did too because I believe if they did we would of just elected a Mr. President Obama in 2016. But I digress - brought home the leftover champagne from work so pardon me for prattling on.

[Me.]

8. It's Not The Same As Choosing The Primary Winner

It will be a question of who's allowed to run in the Dem primary. Already Bloomberg has switched over to being a Dem again and pledged 100 mil for his campaign. And having had him as Mayor there's no way I want that cheater as Pres.

I don't understand the Primary was at a bad time thing....Interesting thought about her in '08 & PBO in '16...would've suited me just fine.

[Cha]

5. he's too Divisive.

[jcgoldie]

36. I agree

Ironic that he keeps saying he will only run if he's the best candidate to beat Trump when its pretty obvious that him dividing the party is probably one of the only ways we do not beat Trump again.

[Cha]

40. Yeah, that should enter his head.

[katmondoo]

68. He helped elect Trump by being wishy washy at the end when he lost the nomination

He couldn't let go of Hillary never really supported her, never went after Trump with any enthusiasm, I have no use for him anymore.

[aikoaiko]

6. Its funny. In another thread I said if the vote were today I'd vote for Bernie

But I also think there is wisdom in what you say. Bernie Hatred Syndrome is real. I suspect those who suffer from it will do anything to keep Bernie from winning the nomination which in turn will lead to retaliation.

For what its worth, I think Bernie largely agrees with you and is practically begging the Democratic party to put forward people who will speak to economic justice issues as well as social justice issues.

But if we don't, I think he feels a moral obligation to get in the race and voice those concerns and ideas.

So far other potential candidates are absent or silent. I really hope that changes after the new year begins

[brooklynite]

7. "will do anything to keep Bernie from winning the nomination..."

You men, encourage people to vote for another candidate? When will the madness end?

[aikoaiko]

10. If only that were all that were done. Well, I remember other persuasive means being used.

Things that I hope we don't see repeated.

[Demsrule86]

19. What persuasive means? A primary is held every four years. Someone wins, and someone loses...

multiple someones sometimes. Better known candidates have more of a chance...and so it goes. If Sen. Sanders or anyone else wants to be the 2020 nominee, he /she must win a primary.

[marlakay]

9. Totally agree

I think Bernie is hoping for someone else to run with some of his ideas.

He is not a bad guy and I don’t believe he wants to stir up trouble.

I really can’t blame anyone not wanting to run against Trump though it will be low down and dirty.

[seaglass]

13. Isn't Tulsi the Bernie replacement? n/t

[aikoaiko]

23. I wouldn't know, but Elizabeth Warren seems more aligned and a stronger candidate.

But who knows. None of the usual suspects are speaking for themselves.

[Bucky]

51. I'd love it if Warren ran. I thought she should've run 4 years ago

We've got a bumper crop of great contenders this time around. We definitely need a fresh face and, which is one reason why Beto O'Rourke is catching on. My head tells me Kamala Harris is the best qualified, but I'm a wonk and always want to talk about issues.

I would vote and volunteer enthusiastically even if we nominated Gilbert Gottfried. So I'll take whoever we nominate.

[aikoaiko]

24. That isn't hard to acknowledge. Most were shown the door in liberal online media/forums

I'd be happy if more irrational haters were shown the door, too.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

27. You pretty much summed it up for me... it's all about economic justice (+social issues)

Any primary candidate who touts that progressive agenda will get my full consideration and potential vote.

[BannonsLiver]

35. "Bernie Hatred Syndrome"

So much woe

[aikoaiko]

38. On cue. Its so easy.

[BannonsLiver]

39. To play the victim? Yes, I agree. That's quite easy.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

61. Yup... sad to see when we need to unite against a common foe.

[shanny]

83. +1

[NurseJackie]

11. The attacks and smears against Democrats and the Democratic party are intentional.

The attacks and smears against Democrats and the Democratic party are intentional. It's not some one-off poorly chosen turn of a phrase, it's not an accidental mis-speak... we know this when it's repeated more than once or when it's defended. Fact of the matter is: Democrats are NOT "feeble"; Democrats are NOT "ideologically bankrupt"; and the Democratic Party is NOT the "party of the one percent"; or that it's "not racist" when someone won't vote for POC because they are POC. Yes indeed, those things are divisive and cause suspicion and distrust. It weakens the party.

All I'm saying here is that I completely agree with the overall premise of your OP. I simply take issue with the very generous and forgiving phrase "not intentionally" because all evidence reveals something entirely different.

We DEMOCRATS have a tremendous pool of talent from which to choose. The sweet cream will rise to the top... the sour cream will go on my baked potato.

I want a Democrat to occupy the White House.

Yes. I do to... a DEMOCRAT!

[George II]

44. One only need look at the email he sent just yesterday to his followers to see how this will go.....

.....more than a year from now.

Here it is (less the two links for $3 contributions)

Subject: If I Run

Sisters and Brothers -

Let me take this opportunity to wish you a very happy holiday season and a wonderful new year.

Whenever I am asked about running for president in 2020, I answer that if I am the best candidate to beat Donald Trump, then I will probably run. That is the truth.

If that happens, the political, financial and media elite of this country will stop at nothing to defeat us. You know that. We’ve lived through it together once before. Our ideas terrify them. So what they will do is try to divide us up with attacks — some old, some new — and our political opponents will spend obscene sums of money on ads to defeat us.

I just did not expect the attack ads to begin before I even made a decision. But they have…

Right now, a group of Wall Street Democrats known as the Third Way is running ads in early primary states — Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada — calling me out by name and saying our ideas, like Medicare for all, are a path to defeat in 2020.

They not only want to discourage or defeat a Sanders candidacy, they want to make sure that the progressive agenda is not advanced by anyone. They want us to go back to their failed corporate approach which has led to a massive level of income and wealth inequality, a bloated military budget and a failure to address the crises of climate change, a broken criminal justice system and inhumane immigration policies.

Last time we ran, we made the financial elite pay a price for their attacks on our progressive agenda. It is just as important we do it again today:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX help us fight back and send a message that we will NOT let the political and financial elite of this country buy this election and scare candidates from supporting a progressive agenda.

Our agenda terrifies the political and financial establishment of this country.

But the truth is, their agenda should terrify all of us.

Our ideas will lift people out of poverty, they will guarantee health care as a right for every man, woman and child, and they will make certain that every person in this country with the ability and the desire can get the education they need, regardless of the income of their family.

Ours is not a radical agenda. It's the agenda the American people want.

Their agenda, paid for by wealthy campaign contributors, has led to record levels of inequality, a health care system that costs more per capita than any other developed nation while leaving millions uninsured and underinsured, and grotesque amounts of student debt that rob many of our young people of their futures.

Theirs is the agenda that made Donald Trump possible. Ours is the agenda that will defeat him.

And that’s why it’s so important progressives stand up to their attacks today:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX as a way of saying we will NOT let the political and financial elite scare candidates from supporting a progressive agenda. Make them pay a price for their attacks.

In 2016 we faced the kitchen sink. If we run again, you should expect no less. But the political revolution is stronger and larger than ever, and they will be no match for us if we’re in this fight together.

[NurseJackie]

47. My expectations are very low.

I'll not elaborate any further for obvious reasons.

[Jim Lane]

12. Bernie isn't "splitting the Democratic Party" -- it's already split.

Many Democrats support single-payer health care. Many others hope that it will never, ever happen.

Many Democrats supported the TPP. Many others opposed it. That particular proposal isn't a current controversy but there will be other trade deals.

The point is that Bernie Sanders could vanish in a puff of smoke tomorrow and there would still be substantive disagreements on the left. With or without Bernie in the 2020 race, there will be multiple candidates for the nomination, and they'll be presenting their differing views on many policy issues.

It's true that Bernie is "divisive" in the sense that there are some people who greatly admire him and others who are consumed by their hatred for him. But anyone who wins the nomination will have friends and enemies, electoral strengths and electoral weaknesses.

Many of the Clinton 2008 voters refused to support Obama over McCain. The Bernie 2016 voters went Democratic in the general election at a higher rate, but it still wasn't unanimous (about 90% IIRC). If your criterion for a 2020 nominee is that it be someone who can corral the votes of 100% of the people who voted in the Democratic primaries, then you are doomed to disappointment. Neither Bernie nor anyone else can hit that mark.

[Demsrule86]

17. We will always have areas of disagreement.

But if you don't vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is then the GOP wins and all sides lose. We will be a big tent party with the left left *those who threw the election to Trump-Greens and JPR types- voting for Democrats or at least not trying to ruin the election...repeat of 16. Because if we don't, the GOP will set policy and get a sixth SCOTUS judge.

So I can vote for a Democrat who believes in the TPP (I don't) or other things. I absolutely don't believe in purity, and it makes me sick to see the same folks starting the same shit (not you) and some already (not you) falling for it. I would like to add, that I will vote for any person (Democrat or even Sen. Sanders whom frankly I do not like) who makes it to the general. However, I will not vote for Sen. Sanders in the primary. Already he is divisive in my opinion and we don't need this in 2020.

[Demsrule86]

18. I would also add that the Democratic party is not 'split'. We are doing just fine and will find ways

to win that don't include the purity crowd if we have to. There was a fair amount of cheating in 16 and Hillary still won the popular vote enormously and those who do not vote for Democrats when the other choice who can win is a Republican ( no message voting for shitty Greens) are not progressive and never were.

[JCanete]

62. sure...just don't keep up the meme that Sanders or his supporters are purists. Its not true and

you can see by his record and the fact that he endorsed and campaigned for Clinton and that 80 percent of his voters voted for Clinton, that it isn't true. As to greens...I'd caution not to generalize. I'm skeptical of some of them myself, but that doesn't mean there aren't actually well intentioned folks who run on the ticket or vote green. Saying greens aren't progressive is based on what exactly? Thinking its their right to run as a 3rd party?

[Demsrule86]

67. Well intentioned our not, they helped Bush 2 get elected twice in my view and helped Trump

get elected. I do find that Sanders and supporters are purist in certain ways...obviously not abortion rights (not you) or what has been referred to as identity politics...but economically and of course Medicare for all. I also see a contingent of Sanders supporters (or Russians) online absolutely savaging other candidates...such as Beto. Interesting that Sanders claims he is being attacked. I could find no such articles except for one mild tweet, but there are plenty of such articles about Beto. I really really disliked the fund raising letter-thought it was divisive-the third way is certainly a dog whistle. And we absolutely need moderates to win the presidency and the Senate. I don't think Sanders should run. We risk a repeat of the divisive nonsense from the 16 election. We need new faces that can win support from all sides...maybe Sherrod Brown or some other candidate. I would say any person who call himself/herself a progressive and does not vote for the Democratic candidate needs to turn in his /her progressive care. They are not progressive. You fight hard in primaries (if it is doesn't destroy the election chances) and then vote Democratic in the general or you enable Republicans. Hope you had a great Christmas and Happy new year to you and yours.

[JCanete]

69. But you finding Sanders as a purist doesn't mean anything in the face of the evidence. Don't you see

Last edited Sun Dec 30, 2018, 11:09 AM - Edit history (1)

that? His willingness to at the end of the day, take what we can get proves that over and over. Its about what we fight for from the outset that is at issue. I haven't looked into the roots of the fundraising letter or what it refers to, so I won't comment on that until I have. I would not be surprised though, and if you look at things Biden has said recently, he has certainly attempted to distinguish himself as the "adult" by suggesting that championing these big ideas is folly.

You and I simply disagree on a lot of things. You think we shouldn't have any primaries against sitting incumbants. You think the left is divisive. You think that it was folly for us to primary people like Manchin, so I'd be interested in you addressing what we got in him regarding the votes on Supreme Court Justices. Only the most important place where we could have used somebody who would draw a hard line. If that's the opposite of divisive...well shit.

And, as I've said time and time again, you have no proof that Sanders was a divisive influence in the election. There is solid evidence that he actually affected the democratic platform and pulled our candidate then, and our future candidates to the left on policies, which we sorely need, and the numbers are clear. Sanders supporters supported Clinton at the same rate Clinton supporters supported Obama, which suggests that he's no more divisive than anybody who has the "gall" to put his or her name into the hat.

[R B Garr]

71. You should read the Mueller indictments. You keep insisting

Sanders had no influence, but he did. Read the Mueller indictments. Read how three opposition campaigns against Hillary were helped by the Russians: Trump, Stein. and Sanders. Known facts now. Their attacks on our nominee helped Trump, so the Russians helped them. Known facts.

Of course Sanders’ and a faction of his fans are considered purists. Look at how they are attacking Beto now for not being “progressive” enough. The same thing was done to Hillary. No need to tell people what they see happening is not really happening. There was just a panel on MSNBC discussing this very thing.

[JCanete]

73. They have an opinion about Beto's record....God Forbid. As to the indictments.

Put up your argument already, or fine, just keep repeating no argument at all and I'll keep ignoring it because there's nothing to respond to.

[R B Garr]

74. Of course you would characterize a historic investigation

into a foreign attack on our elections as being “nothing”. That is a part of the denial process...very familiar.

Now at least you acknowledge there are “purists” , which you characterize as having opinions. The word games aside, they are attacking Beto for not being progressive enough, which they did to Hillary, also. The pattern of attacking Democrats is how Sanders helped the Russians lift Trump. You should read the Mueller indictments...

[JCanete]

75. That's not what I characterized as nothing. I characterized your lack of an actual point as nothing.

Make a charge and back it up with evidence. Don't just keep saying your charge is in the indictments. If you can't articulate your argument I cannot respond to it.

[R B Garr]

77. This is just an admission that you want to be appealed to

so that you can deny obvious truths. There are two years of news out there, and it is undeniable and part of our national dialogue — how could you miss it or deny it... No one has to make a claim. It is out there in the form of 24-hour news. For instance, a huge development is that Democrats have gained control of the House and will now start investigating Trump. No need for links since it’s common knowledge news. Common knowledge news that Tad Devine used to work with Paul Manafort -/ both ran the opposition campaigns against Clinton. Common knowledge.

[JCanete]

81. How about tell me what you are saying. You kind of have to appeal to somebody with an argument

or why are you engaging that person at all? The Mueller indictment says a lot of things. What I want you to explain to me is what you think it says about Sanders and his campaign. That you have failed to go on record saying, so what am I supposed to say?

"Whelp" you said look at the Mueller indictments, and it turns out there are Mueller indictments. I guess you were right all along Garr." Tell me what you see in those indictments...or don't. but its absolutely ridiculous of you to think that I should respond to a veiled and vague accusation.

[R B Garr]

84. No one has to revise what Mueller says when it's so

obvious. Your only recourse is to make it personal as if someone on a website has to distill it for you in the same manner you are putting so much effort into dispelling. There is nothing vague about the national dialogue: Trump, Stein, Sanders campaign were used by the Russians because of the harm they caused Hillary. That is now the national dialogue, but instead all you want is for someone to present it in little sentences that cover teo years of news.

If anyone is vague, it’s you— constant denials of common knowledge and current regular news to favor some favorite talking points that have failed in two election cycles now.

[Demsrule86]

85. I believe Sen. Sanders contributed to our loss in 16. There were other factors of course.

I would prefer a progressive in West Virginia, but that is not possible and primarying the only Democrat who could win there is foolish. He is better than a Republicans.Have you looked at the Senate? Do you ever want to confirm a judge again. Without the Joe Manchins of the party, we have no shot at a majority. We won back the house in large part my running moderates in red and purple areas. I am not pleased about this. But it is what it is. And the elected official must not be a deciding vote on important issues including abortion rights. Sen. Sanders endorse Hugh Mello who sponsored bill to take away a woman's right to choose. And was part of a successful attmept to stop women from being able to use health insurance for abortion. He should not have been endorsed. I have mixed feelings about the Virginia candidate. He repented and without his vote which cost him the election,we would not have the ACA...but the rules concerning abortion in the ACA were negatively impacted because of him and others like him in the house.

[disillusioned73]

94. Well said..

[WeekiWater]

14. You are asking Sanders to put his legendary ego aside.

He might not run but that would only be if his internals show him without a chance of winning the primary. They would have to be really lopsided. So much is clearly about self and not progress.

[Jim Lane]

31. As opposed to the humble, self-effacing public servants who usually run?

I don't know where you get this "legendary ego" bit. Bernie Sanders is less egotistical than most politicians, and certainly less than just about every would-be President in either major party.

In 2015 it was widely thought that he wouldn't run if Elizabeth Warren ran. His reason for getting into the race -- at a time when he was in the low single digits in the polls -- wasn't that he was burning with personal ambition. Instead, he wanted views to the left of Hillary Clinton's to be represented in the primaries.

[BannonsLiver]

33. And then he got addicted to the adulation

Which makes him just another pol now. The end.

[Jim Lane]

46. And the evidence for that attack on Bernie is ... what, exactly?

This year he did a fair amount of traveling to appear on behalf of Democratic candidates. That's what he would do if he craved the thrill of speaking to large crowds. BUT it's also what he would do if he were continuing the work he began, of advancing progressive ideas because he sincerely believes in them.

I'm sure there are plenty of Republicans who START with the premise that anything negative about Bernie (that socialist!) is true. They would be happy to accept the bash-Bernie interpretation, with no need for any further proof. Among Democrats, however, he has high favorabiity ratings. That suggests that many Democrats would need to see something more than an unsupported smear before they would give it any credence.

[BannonsLiver]

87. Bernie's toast

The allegations of sexual assault on his 2016 campaign among its staff and the fact Warren is getting in and will compete for voters with him creates some pretty strong (and awesome!) headwinds.

[disillusioned73]

95. "headwinds"...

or some might say - NARRATIVE

[BannonsLiver]

97. Have you thought about what it's going to be like

In that moment next year when it becomes clear Bernie won’t be the nominee?

The schadenfreude is going to be high grade for sure.

[WeekiWater]

48. Bernie Sanders disagrees with you. His ego is no secret

“I fully admit to having a big ego” Bernie Sanders on This Week being interviewed by Martha Radditz
Sanders doesn’t even hide that he is full of himself.

[Jim Lane]

49. In my experience, people with outsized egos don't admit to it.

In fact, they generally aren't even aware of it.

Someone who IS aware of his ego is probably not "addicted to adulation".

Anyway, I know that many DUers will never in a million years support Bernie for the nomination. I'll leave them to find the candidate who, in their opinion, is completely ego-free. Happy hunting!

[WeekiWater]

50. It's not just outsized.

It’s a part of his being. So he doesn’t have a major ego because he says he does. That’s a work or art.

[OnDoutside]

16. I think he should run if he wants, but I believe the new wave of Democratic candidates will push way

past him (and Biden for that matter).

[JudyM]

21. Good post. Blame without honest reflection continues to be truly absurd.

[MrsCoffee]

22. 'She couldn't win, despite the fact that she did, we shoulda seen it coming.....'

Oh come on....

[MineralMan]

25. We desperately need a WINNER as our nominee.

By that I mean someone who has not run for that office and lost in either primary or general election. Today, that means that Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton should not put their names forward again for the presidency.

We need, instead, someone with a recognized history of winning elections to lower offices, and someone whose name is recognized nationwide already.

[Jim Lane]

32. What do Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush have in common?

Each of them ran for President and lost, in either primary or general election, but thereafter won.

In 2016, I opposed Hillary Clinton in the primaries. Nevertheless, I didn't think that her unsuccessful 2008 run was a reason she shouldn't be nominated.

Follow-up question: What do Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama have in common? Each of them entered the race for the Democratic nomination at a time when he was not the nationwide leader in name recognition, but he nevertheless won the nomination and the election.

Name recognition can be very helpful but it can also be a double-edged sword. Hillary's fans on this board will be quick to point out (correctly, IMO) that she had been the subject of more than two decades' worth of attacks from Fox and its ilk. In 2016 she had high name recognition but also high unfavorables. Among the numerous people mentioned for the Democratic nomination in 2020, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden probably have the highest name recognition, but each of them has also ticked off a lot of people along the way.

If Trump is the GOP nominee in 2020, then many voters, repulsed by his whirligig administration (even aside from policy matters), will be looking for someone with experience in lower offices. They'll want some stability. That will be an advantage for candidates like Biden and Sanders who are known quantities. Would that offset their negatives? This far in advance, it's impossible to say. But I wouldn't rule out either of them just because of their prior unsuccessful runs.

[Bucky]

52. Those are terrible examples, historically ignorant examples

First off, you're citing Republicans mostly 4 times when the country look for someone with steady experience.. So sure, Republicans have always had a "work your way to the top", "it's his turn" mentality for nominations. But Democrats have not. We're much more experimental, throwing out the old and bringing in the new.

That's why successful Democratic nominee tend to be younger. in the past 80 years, Democrats have taken the White House from Republicans five times. Here were their ages.

50- Franklin Roosevelt
50- Jimmy Carter
47- Barack Obama
46- Bill Clinton
43- Jack Kennedy

You site LBJ as an example of a seasoned candidate getting the nomination on a second try. But surely you recognize the unpleasant and highly unusual circumstances that let him get the nomination.

He lost in 1960 to JFK, and then one in 1964 without any opposition for the nomination. The nation's sympathy swept him into office for term of his own. What's Republican nominate someone widely recognized as a lunatic in '64.

Democrats get swept in the office when "politics as usual" has damaged the economy ('32, '76, '60, '92 & '08). Trump is doing everything you can to set up exactly that dynamic. That is when Democrats always turn to a fresh face in a sense of renewal. I think Bernie could have ended up as an honorary youngster in 2016. Polling certainly showed him way ahead of Trump, where Clinton was only barely beating him in the same surveys.

Historically, the reassurance we provide isn't from some established figure; that was Hillary Clinton's main weakness (although she didn't actually lose lose). People wanted change and her argument that she was an outsider because she was a woman was patently ridiculous.

The country turns to the Democrats when we're ready for change in fresh blood on the job. This is absolutely the case with the 2020 election. People still want change, all the social disaffection that got Trump is still there. We have to bring in an outsider. People still distrust Washington DC, so anyone with any longevity in Congress is coming from a disadvantage. The voters don't want reassurance from an insider, they want hope.

[Jim Lane]

54. I think Trump has taken the glow off the "outsider" role

You write, "We have to bring in an outsider. People still distrust Washington DC, so anyone with any longevity in Congress is coming from a disadvantage."

I don't think we win in 2020 by trying to out-Trump Trump. A lot of the people who wanted an outsider in 2016 have been turned off by the chaos and incompetence of this administration. This is why I've given zero credence to the idea of a nominee like Oprah Winfrey, Tom Steyer, or Michael Avenatti. We're living through the first administration in U.S. history to be headed by someone with no prior experience in government, and few of the swing voters will be eager to repeat the experiment.

Longevity in Congress is a disadvantage in some voters' eyes, but that's nothing new. Congress has long had a poor image. That's part of the reason that governors have had more success in parlaying their experience into a trip to the White House. In the last century, I think that Harding, Kennedy, and Obama were the only sitting members of Congress to be elected President.

So, while I agree with you that Hillary Clinton's message wasn't well suited to the mood of the electorate in 2016, I think the mood in 2020 will be significantly different. People who want "fresh blood on the job" will also (inconsistently) want a return to stability.

My general point, in response to MineralMan's post, is to be skeptical of blanket exclusions. The candidate most likely to win might be someone who's run before and lost, or someone who's had extensive experience in government.

[Bucky]

89. Running as an outsider is not "out-Trumping Trump". Clinton and Obama both did it before.

as did Reagan & Dubya. Shit, as did Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt.

I think you can have both a "stability" and a "fresh face" message. Hell, I'd be surprised if any candidate didn't push that image. It's a natural when people see Washington as broken by the insiders. Trump is certainly vulnerable on corruption perceptions.

It's interesting that you compare it to Hillary's packaging. Remember how hard she pushed that "When you're a woman you're always an outsider" message? Of course it was a dud as it played so hard against her strengths (that she'd been there and knew the system) and the bum messaging reinforced her greatest weakness (that she isn't candid & trustworthy).

I don't think the national mood will be all that different in 2020. People wanted fresh change and reform. They were lied to and they didn't get what they paid for (which is kind of a theme in Trump's life, no?). They'll be even less trusting of Washington now. That's why long timers like Biden & Sanders (and I fear even Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown) may not be suited for the moment. If people are open to an experienced candidate, it's gotta be someone who at least has a track record of fighting the system.

Warren has that. She's on my short list (I mentioned her as a primary preference in my DU profile in 2014 or so), before the collapse of western civilization). Beto has that. I think Kamala Harris has that (along with the requisite toughness voters are looking for). But I'm a little surprised at the lack of governors on the short lists. Seems like 15 years ago, being governor was the default path to the White House. Why aren't Patrick & Cuomo getting more heat?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

59. Hillary lost the 2008 primary and no one suggested she should be barred from running in 2016...

So Bernie deserves a second chance too... hope he decides to run... it might just be his turn, his time to shine. He would kick Mushroom Head's azz!!

[samnsara]

26. i think what sticks in my mind is how one side so totally villanized the other side that when it..

… was time to support, it was next to impossible for some. Thus they voted for trump or not at all. I will not give any support to a candidate who uses those tactics again...in the primaries. Of course in the general I will vote for whomever has the Dem nomination.

[Adrahil]

28. Bernie is the classic guy who...

... shows up at your party uninvited because he says your party is boring and needs him.

... he brings drinks and snack, but only he and his buddies can have them.

... constantly complains about the hosts drinks and snacks.

... and when the party is over, and he wasn't elected party king, he gets mad, takes all snacks and drinks, and says he didn't really like your party anyway.

[JCanete]

58. quit with the bullshit. He was welcomed in, and if he weren't he wouldn't have pulled as

many votes as he did. Yes, he was in-fact invited. `

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

63. Thank you for setting the record straight JC...it's a shame we can't move on & unite in a way so as

to give us the best chance to defeat the DickTator-in-Chief. FFS, we need to keep our eyes on the prize!!

[Merrill1066]

29. too old

Bernie would be 80 by the time he takes office. I just can't see a guy that old winning a national election, regardless of his positions.

[Joe941]

43. Ageism.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

64. Why the ageism?! Bernie has the energy and stamina of a 50-year-old...

He could've out-campaigned The Shroom, that's for sure.

[Stellar]

92. I personally will vote for the last Democrat standing.

Hell, Joe Biden is 76 years old, a year younger than Bernie (my preference for President). It makes me NO difference how old or young as long as their ideas remain fresh and new.
If it's about age, hopefully, they will have a younger 'progressive' Vice President on the ticket with them.

[dlk]

30. Ultimately, it's About the Math-If Someone Can't Win a Primary, They Can't win a General Election

The divide and conquer tactic is very effective, as the Russians have long known.

[JCanete]

60. That's not true. Where did you get that from? So Clinton shouldn't have run? So Trump didn't lose a

previous primary and then run again? So Biden shouldn't run?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

65. If only we had known.

[BannonsLiver]

34. I'm not losing much sleep over Bernie

He won’t be the nominee. And it’ll be a big enough gap that he won’t be able to whine about the DNC taking it from him this time.

[question everything]

53. No longer hero worshiping

[tavernier]

37. I have Bernie Bern-out.

I greatly admired him at first, but not so much now. I didn’t admire his methods so much toward the end.

[ProgLibDem]

41. It's rather undemocratic to suggest that someone shouldn't run for office...

That decision is made in what is known as 'The Primaries'... It is as simple as that.

In our democracy, anybody fulfilling the requirements as per our Constitution, can run for any government office.
I encourage anybody who want to run for office to do so...period...

[Eliot Rosewater]

42. Uh huh

[Electrical Arc]

45. Silence

All candidates should run and state their case.

[ehrnst]

66. Welcome to DU.

Pro tip: People here aren't silent on Democratic nominees.

[Me.]

88. All Candidates Should Run If They So Choose

Under the banner of a party they actually belong to and self-avowed non-Dems can't run under the banner of a party they don't belong to. And why would they want to if they don't like the party in the first place? That would be hypocritical.

[delisen]

55. If Dems want to win we need to face truth about Russia, and build

a strong party.

Putin choose the president because our party was weakened and because he was able to exploit prejudice. The prejudice is still with us. Putin is still at work.

and a lot of people still think that all that is needed to win is to run a personality.

If we don't get a lot smarter fast, and face up to how we were conned, we are not going to achieve a better stronger country.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

56. Oh look, another thread bashing Bernie...

... and please don't forget he's not a Democrat.

[JCanete]

57. The problem with the argument is that you could smply flip it and say the other camp is

splitting the democratic party, or at least causing voter disaffection. This is nothing more than a matter of framing. How is Sanders capable of splitting the democratic party? If anything he would only be indicative of a divide amongst us that exists and will manifest in one form or another.

And at the end of the day nothing about Sanders run actually split the party. Sanders voters voted for Clinton by and large, in the same numbers Clinton voters voted for Obama. Most of us are on the same page and will probably, even if it doesn't really float out boat, vote for the Democratic candidate no matter who it is. As to those who won't....I'm not sure there's evidence to suggest that simply by not offering a candidate that pulls the party as a whole to the left, they would be more likely to vote for the democratic nominee.

[Generic Brad]

70. He should if he runs as a Democrat

Would we let a Republican compete for the Democratic party nomination in our primaries and caucuses? No. The same goes for Independents.

If he joins the party - all the power to him. If he does not, he is still welcome to run for President - just not as a Democrat.

[Vinca]

72. Everyone should run who wants to run. Let the primaries sort it out. My only concern is 3rd parties.

If Bernie happened to run as an Independent, Trump would be elected. On the other hand, 3rd parties would be a good thing on the other side. If Jeff Flake runs as an Independent he might help save the democracy.

[CentralMass]

78. If he wants run as a Dem and meets the qualifications, then I think that he should run.

[Tribalceltic]

79. then he should have remained a Democrat

The Fact that he is not a member of the Democratic Party speaks Volumes

[Time for change]

80. He's divisive???!!!

In what way is he divisive?

Because he doesn't accept corporate PAC money and criticizes those who do?
Because he has views to the left of most other candidates?
Because he ran against the DNC's pre-anointed candidate in 2016?

I agree that it is of great importance that Trump not win a second term, and so does Bernie.

In 2016, polls of Bernie vs. Trump consistently had Bernie significantly ahead (with such polling virtually ceasing after Clinton received the nomination), usually by double digits:
https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-sanders
His polling against Trump was consistently far better than Clinton's.

Consistent with those numbers, an electoral prediction by 270 to win had Bernie winning in a landslide, including every state that Clinton won, plus 6 additional states (PA, MI, WI, NC, AZ, IA), with substantial wins predicted in PA, MI and WI, and 7 states that Clinton won called toss-ups: Sanders 311, Trump 128.
https://www.270towin.com/maps/sanders-trump-electoral-map

A more recent poll for 2020 had Bernie and Biden beating Trump by 12, with no other candidate beating Trump by more than 4:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/22/trump-2020-democrats-matchup-790890

[shanny]

82. Anyone who thinks Bernie should not run should vote for somebody else in the primaries.

And if whoever we nominate can't beat rump in 2020 we have already lost.

[Cyrano]

86. I'm the OP of this thread which became another Bernie/other war

Fuck the Bernie/other DU war.

My original post was about winning back control of the government at the national and state levels. This thread was not for or against Bernie. It was about who controls the government.

I'm not for or against Bernie. I'm a devout Democrat. But it seems that every pro/anti Bernie DUer jumped into this thread and made it about something other than my OP.

I ask anyone who gives a damn to go back to the top and read the original post.

My message was this: I. Don't. Give. A. Shit. Who. Wins. the presidency in 2020. As long as it's a Democrat. And we must also hold onto the House, take back the Senate, and win every governorship and state legislature that we can.

Headline aside, this thread is not about Bernie. It's about us and our country. This is what we all should care about. Come January 21st of 2021, a Democratic president must be the one taking the oath of office. Whoever she or he is.

[disillusioned73]

96. "Here's why Bernie shouldn't run"

That is the ACTUAL title of your OP.. what did you expect??

[Meowmee]

90. My reasons would be

Divisive
not a democrat
Already lost a primary
Ego is more imp than the good of the country and people
His “ideas” are not his own
Would never win a general due to being jewish- antisemitism rules in this country

There are many more but these are the main ones

[Bucky]

91. I think you're wrong about him being all ego

I don't care for the weight of his candidacy in the 2020 process, but I think it's a little naive to think he's not sincere in wanting his policies to prevail in the US government.

As for saying "he would never win," there's actual polling data from 2016 showing him outperforming Hillary Clinton by an average of 9 percentage points in match ups against Trump. Where Clinton beat Trump by 3% in June polling, Sanders was beating him by 12% on average. Clinton ended up underperforming in November with a 2.1% popular vote margin with a lackluster campaign style. The worse he would have done (correlatively speaking) then would be a 10% victory margin. That would've been epic in the Electoral College and probably would have coat-tailed in Democratic House two years earlier that what history has given us.

[Meowmee]

93. I don't think I'm wrong

But of course we can disagree. I think it is naive to think he would not be ripped to shreds in a ge if he by some miracle won a primary. As far as the ego, he stands by the right policies on many issues but his words and actions often don't back it up from my observations.