Numbers Monday: Bernie Sanders Leapfrogs to Top of 2016 Pack

[Jesus Malverde]

On Wednesday, the day before Thanksgiving, Salon published an interview with Sanders about 2016 and what a certified socialist would bring to the table. The piece, entitled "Why I Might Run in 2016," quoted Sanders saying he might run so the issues he cares about get more attention. Mainly, he wants to represent the middle class. "I think being involved in debates and being out there around the country allows — gives you the opportunity to talk about these issues in a way that you otherwise could not," he said of seeking the highest office. Another newsworthy part of the piece was Sanders sounding wishy-washy about former secretary of State. "Based on the kind of centrist positions that we have seen her take in the past...it remains to be seen whether she will be a forceful advocate for working families," Sanders said.

That interview reverberated around the Internet so much that Sanders is now sitting pretty at No. 4 in TrendPo's ranking of political figures, higher than all other 2016 hopefuls. The list looks at presidents, members of congress, governors, mayors, state legislators and pundits with the top spots occupied by President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and House Speaker John Boehner. Hillary Clinton is right on Sanders' heels, ranked at No. 5, Vice President Joe Biden is following her at No. 10 and Chris Christie, who remains the buzziest Republican, is at No. 11.

Online buzz, as it's measured by TrendPo, a D.C.-based political analytics startup, isn't equivalent to being ahead in the polls, it just shows that Sanders is getting more news mentions and attracting a greater following on social media than most of his political peers.

"The longer he does that, the longer he can solidify a true presidential run," explained TrendPo's J.D. Chang. "Whether or not he's a viable candidate will play out in the upcoming weeks and months."

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/12/02/numbers-monday-bernie-sanders-leapfrogs-to-top-of-2016-pack

[NYC_SKP]

1. Recommended. (nt)

[Freddie Stubbs]

2. Would he become a Democrat, or continue to be an independent?

[sabrina 1]

4. Would it matter? If he ran as an Independent and won, why would that be a bad thing?

If he won and had a truly Progressive Congress to work with, that would bring about some of the much needed changes this country is crying out for.

Put it this way, if Sanders ran against a Blue Dog, as a citizen, who would you support?

[Le Taz Hot]

6. What will really be frustrating

is that, if he does decide to run as an independent, we won't be able to talk about his candidacy on DU even though he'll be a vital part of the 2016 campaign. In that Sanders is to the left of 90% of the Democrats in Congress and the Senate, I'm not sure how that's going to work.

[sabrina 1]

9. Well, that is a very small thing. Internet forums represent a tiny % of the

voting population and a lot of people would probably leave forums that forbade discussion of a presidential candidate whose only 'fault' was the letter after his name.

Thinking about the country is what citizens are supposed to do. Most here chose to be Democrats believing that their party best represents the country and most still believe that. However if people are not provided with what they, AS CITIZENS, view as the best choice for the country, they have an obligation to do what is right. People have been willing to go to jail to stand up for what they believe in. I don't see it as a big deal to refrain from posting on an internet forum if it should come to that.

[Le Taz Hot]

10. I just find it kind of ironic

that, on a supposed liberal website, we won't be able to discuss the most liberal candidate out there. I realize when we sign up we agree to the rules, I got that, I just am noting the irony of it all.

I'll be out campaigning for/voting my conscience. I've refused to vote for Republican-lite for more than a decade and I'm not likely to start anytime soon.

[merrily]

15. It's Democratic Underground, not Liberal Underground.

On the other hand, DU does allow you to keep your voting plans to yourself.

Everyone should vote his or her conscience, or what is the point of having a conscience? Or morals or principles or ethics.

According to his wiki, Sanders made a deal with the Democrats. They don't help anyone who runs against him in Vermont, they give him desirable Committee assignments and they describe him as an ally. In return, he votes with Democrats on "procedural matters," which I take it includes cloture.

Should he run for President as an Independent, all that would end. And I don't think they will run any liberal. So, if Sanders ever should get the Democratic nomination, I would wonder if he made another deal.

[A Simple Game]

38. Please read the About page linked at the bottom of this page.

Liberal is mentioned before Democrat. There are other exceptions.

[merrily]

56. Exceptions to what?

The poster was talking about not voting for the Democratic candidate if said candidate were, in her eyes, "Pub Lite." That kind of discussion is not encouraged at this site.

BTW, when I followed the link, I saw that Democratic is mentioned before liberal. Not that I place any significance on something mechanical like that anyway.

The stated goal here is to elect Democrats to office, not to elect liberals.

And no matter how many times "liberal" is used on the about page (and it is an amusing amount), I do not consider center right Democrats liberal.

But, the point was about what the DU rules allow and don't allow.

About Democratic Underground
Mission Statement

Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change by:

Interacting with friendly, like-minded people;
Sharing news and information, free from the corporate media filter;
Participating in lively, thought-provoking discussions;
Helping elect more Democrats to political office at all levels of American government; and
Having fun!

FYI, I always read the TOS on a board before I post. I may forget them later, but I do at least make an effort to know the rules before using someone's board.

And while the About page is nice, the TOS tell you what you actually can get banned for, including this.

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

The TOS does not say, "Vote for the most liberal candidate."

They also don't say "Don't bother voting Democratic if the Dem is a conservadem." Voting is exactly what the Le Taz Hot's post and my response to her was about. Hence my statement, this is Democratic Underground, not Liberal Underground.

[mother earth]

89. I'm guessing, if Sanders runs, DU is going to have to adapt big time & quickly, or

I suspect a new "underground" might be established, one that espouses the virtues of a Sanders presidency.
There could be an amendment made for the sake of this special independent, the likes of whom are quite rare, indeed.

Bernie speaks for me.

[navarth]

90. +1

[sabrina 1]

96. I think you are right. Times have changed since people had ultimate faith in the two party system.

When there is a shift as big as the one that is currently happening, good business people adjust and go with the flow.

If the current forums do not serve the people who made them successful, that will create a vacuum and vacuums generally are filled.

There are few people I know who will vote against their consciences again. If someone like Sanders does run as an Independent, it may be be the start of a new era in politics. It's happened before, no reason to believe it can't happen again.

When the system isn't working for a majority of the people, that is when things traditionally change. Forward thinking people recognize the facts of the situation and move with the changing times.

[erronis]

132. Two party system? No, we've lost faith in a captive political system

While I do believe there are some good folks on both the democratic and republican side, most of them have been corrupted by the WashDC corrosive atmosphere and bought/threatened by huge monied interests.

While a vermonter, I don't think that Bernie can change the facts on the ground with an in-party or third-party joust. Obama probably thought he could make some much larger changes than he was able to (and I give him lots of credits for trying).

Look to some of the other entrenched political systems (some western democracies, some not so) and you'll see a need for mass protests to effect a real change.

[sabrina 1]

149. What has happened is over the past ten years or so the people have awakened to the

power money has over our electoral system. OWS was a symptom of the corruption that many people were not aware of, or not aware of just how corrupting an effect it has had on the system.

Dems rather than fight it, decided to participate in it, leaving people with nowhere to go.

No singe person can change the system. But what people are going to be looking at closely this time, is which candidate is receiving the most money from Big Corps.

I remember being happy when Dems began to get backing from the same people who had backed Bush. I misunderstood that at the time. I thought it meant they had lost faith in the Republicans.

I didn't understand that the Big Corps were BUYING both parties.

And I was not alone. But since then, millions of people have had the same awakening, most of all young voters and their numbers are growing.

It will take time, it took time for all of us to 'get' what was really going on. And now the effects of all of it are being felt by millions of people. See the polls on Congress, across party lines.

Protests in the form of refusing to vote for Corporate Candidates. Making their funding PUBLIC, making it a huge issue in Congressional races, make it POISON for a Candidate to take funding from Corporations.

But something has to change and now it's up to the people.

[merrily]

155. Agree on need for mass protests. I just don't see the masses agreeing--YET.

But, here is a call for action (and having fun with it), beginning this coming spring.

http://anoninsiders.net/anonymous-call-crowdsourced-worldwide-wave-action-2110/

And here is something near to my heart, a call to stop shopping.

www.revbilly.com

[merrily]

153. Right now, the TOS are clear as to third party candidates.

Whether anything changes if Sanders runs will depend on Skinner and what his motives and goals for this board are. So far, they seem to be pro-Democratic Party, whether right, center right, or left, and not necessarily pro-left.



FYI, there was once a leftunderground.com. It did not get anything like the traffic that this board gets. The owner abandoned it and the spammers took over, so that no one could post anymore.

Some posters questioned the motives of the owner in starting the board because he started it just as this latest version of DU was gearing up. But, he could have gotten sick (or even worse). Anyway, he did not pay the bill, so the host shut it down at the end of the first year.

[PatrynXX]

141. my hope there aren't more independents like me

who think this particular conversation is a put off smh why not put out the call that Dems don't need independent or Republican voters

[JDPriestly]

150. I think that candidates who support the middle class and its values and who

want to reign in the excesses of the big financial sector of our economy -- get it into balance with the economy of main stream, strengthen small businesses and families -- would attract a lot of independent and old-fashioned Republican voters.

If you consider yourself an independent or Republican, what do you personally hope for in a president?

[A Simple Game]

195. Exceptions to what? You should know you put it in bold in your reply.

Democratic is mentioned before liberal? Only if you count the site name, other than that it is the fourth bullet point out of five. Do you know anything about the importance of how mission statements are structured?

And no matter how many times "liberal" is used on the about page (and it is an amusing amount), I do not consider center right Democrats liberal.

Nice to see you find the word liberal amusing especially on a liberal site. Nice to see you don't consider DINO's liberals.

The assumption is that the Democratic candidate will be the most liberal candidate, that isn't always true. But I doubt you care, do you?

I gave up placing importance on a letter at least 20 years ago, many seem to be doing the same thing. It doesn't matter which side you are on, partisan politics is bad for the Country. Party should never come before Country.

[merrily]

196. Again, to what? To what are there exceptions?

1. Why did you not answer the specific question that I asked you with specifics? To what statement of mine in Reply 15 are there "exceptions" and what are those "exceptions?"

For instance, I said that the name of the site is "Democratic Underground," not "Liberal Underground." Are you saying there are exceptions to that? That the site has other names? If not, what are you saying?



2. At the about link to which you directed me is a brief description of the site intended for people who are unfamiliar with the site and have not yet joined. At the TOS are the things for which you get banned. Which, along with the very name of the site and the stated purpose of the site being to elect more Democrats, do you think express the nature of the site more?

3. No, I don't find the word "liberal" amusing. My earlier post clearly said I found it amusing how many times the brief intro to DU uses the word. Maybe as in the Shakespearean protesting too much.


4. Interesting that you do not find the name of the site or the TOS, especially the kinds of posts for which you can be banned, and the purpose of the site, as stated in the TOS by the owner of the site, more compelling than than a couple of lines of intro to the site.

Surely, after reading the TOS, you understood that this is indeed a Democratic site, be the Dem conservative or center right, or very mildly left, and not a liberal site?

If you don't get that yet, try backing the Socialist party or the Green Party candidate in the next election. Or try suggesting that people not vote for some conservadem in a general election. You'll learn very quickly that this is a Democratic site, with a capital D, not a liberal site. Much as the very name of the site tells you, along with the TOS.

5. What is your point, anyway? That Le Taz Hot or anyone can safely post on this site that they consider a Democratic candidate "Pub Lite" and therefore will not be voting for that Democrat in the general election? Because that was the context of my reply to Le Taz Hot. And, if you think that, you need to read the TOS again.

[A Simple Game]

198. You clearly don't understand what a mission statement is or what the word EXCEPT means. n/t

[LWolf]

162. Someone who

has been here for a year "explains" DU to someone who has been here for 12.

It's true, of course, that anyone can choose not to post about voting plans, or about the election at all. I usually take breaks from DU during campaign season, because I'm more interested in issues than party, more interested in issues than candidates, and party and candidate take precedence in the discussion. There aren't enough people who want to talk about anything else, and that conversation is too strictly censored for my taste. So, when the primaries are over, I'm pretty much done until after election day. It's highly unlikely that the Democratic Party will nominate anyone I'm interested in discussing.

Still, LTH has been here long enough to remember when DU's self-identification in the "About" section was as the "premier left-wing" discussion site on the web. That was before the election of a Democratic centrist, which has moved the site to the center, while, in the "about" statements, "left-wing" has been watered down to "liberal."

Even then, partisan concerns were the priority, but these days I'm often shocked and appalled by what positions "Democrats" take, on DU and in real life. I miss the DU that was "left-wing," and many of the left-wing posters that have been ejected, or chosen to leave of their own accord.

When I joined, I was pretty moderate, at least at DU. Now I'm too far left for the site, and have to censor myself because of it, yet I haven't actually shifted my positions on anything.

[merrily]

165. Sorry if my reply to Le Taz Hot offended you, but I have no idea why it did.

There was an emoticon in my reply to LTH. I was not lecturing LTH, but attempting conversation.

I am sure LTH knows the rules.

I have no intention of waiting 12 years to feel comfortable posting whatever I want to post to whomever I want to post.

I am probably too left for the site too. However, I try to obey site rules. In nine years of posting on various boards, I've never been banned.

There may come a time when I want to say something so badly that it outweighs my interest in using a board. But that day has not come yet.

[LWolf]

166. It didn't offend me.

I just noticed the irony, and gave you some background.

I don't disagree with what you said.

[merrily]

197. Oh good. I hate to offend anyone

unintentionally.

[NorthCarolina]

126. Bernie caucuses with the Democrats, and he's hands down a favorite choice

for the majority of Democrats using this site. If this site chooses to ignore that simple fact then they will quickly become inconsequential. Third way is DEAD, as dead as the GOP. Progress is on the move and like they say, get on board or get the hell out of the way.

[Tigress DEM]

151. IF he took Elizabeth Warren as his VEEP and Ran as a DEM --- I could see a BIG Win!! nt

[NorthCarolina]

161. He likely could not run as a Dem. The party elite

would be abhorrent to the idea of a true Liberal running, especially since he would still BE a liberal even after the campaign was over unlike the usual candidates they profer. Don't forget, these GOP bred Dems would be working to derail any run by a progressive like Bernie (or Warren for that matter), and from the inside they would have even more leverage against him in their effort to supplant THEIR corporate candidate (likely Hillary). I think it's time to forget about any desire for a true peoples candidate running on TODAYS Democratic party ticket. For my money I just hope Bernie runs, and if he does I could care less what party letter he has after his name. The idea of voting "party" has become stale, impractical, dangerous, and mostly just stupid (well, it's always been a stupid idea which has brought us to where we are right now). The time has come for the people to choose their own candidate, and to vote based on issues and policies, NOT party.

[Le Taz Hot]

169. ^^This^^

The Party Bosses would starve his campaign and he would have NO support even though, theoretically, The Party is not supposed to show favoritism to any Democratic candidate in the primaries -- but we all know that's not how it works. There's a reason Bernie, if he runs, should run third-party and that is that he won't be beholden to any party bosses.

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. I think that if he ran as in independent, he would split the vote and help elect a Republican

How likely is it that this country is going to elect a "truly Progressive Congress?"

I am planning on supporting the Democratic nominee in 2006, whomever she is.

[Le Taz Hot]

11. Then maybe the Democrats need to think about

running a more liberal, less 1%-friendly candidate. The onus is on the party to respond to the wants/needs of the voters, not the other way around.

[Dopers_Greed]

14. Exactly

Some Repugs are going to attempt a more moderate, populist campaign this time around. No matter how big of a lie we know that is...many voters will still believe them. The Dems need to properly counter them.

[merrily]

17. Why would they start now?

I kid.

[Freddie Stubbs]

77. The Clinton/Obama model seems to work pretty well

The Mondale/Dukakis one, not so much.

[Le Taz Hot]

82. History is replete with those

who bucked conventional wisdom and were successful.

[Freddie Stubbs]

157. And with many more who were not sucessful

[Le Taz Hot]

159. And yet, someone always breaks the mold. n/t

[Enthusiast]

92. Voters assumed that Clinton/Obama were far more liberal than they actually were.

That's why it worked so well. The nation has moved far to the left since Mondale/Dukakis. Look at the issues, at how they poll, not MSM dialog.

[Freddie Stubbs]

158. Clinton was elected in 1992 promising to cut taxes and to "end welfare as we know it"

[frylock]

109. seems to work pretty well for who?

[Freddie Stubbs]

160. The Democratic presidential candidates, the Democratic Party, and the american people

[frylock]

182. yes yes, trade agreements are great for the american working class

[WowSeriously]

177. The FDR model was a total failure.

[Enthusiast]

91. A massive plus one! nt

[frylock]

108. but it's time to give hillary her lifetime achievement award

[Holly_Hobby]

124. LOL! n/t

[sabrina 1]

12. That would depend on who the nominee is.

Times are different now than they were back when Perot ran.

People have a lot more to think about in their personal lives. Partisan politics has disappointed a lot of people over the past decade or so and to even try to deny that is bad politics.

So the onus is on the Party to provide a true Progressive candidate in order to ensure the people don't feel the need to look elsewhere. That is a fact whether people want to believe it or not. The vote won't be split if Democrats can get behind their own candidate and that depends on who that candidate is.

I eg, have never and will never support anyone who voted for Bush's deadly, criminal war. Anyone who made such a tragically wrong decision is not someone I trust with such a powerful position. I want someone who made the RIGHT decision back then, who had the intelligence and foresight to make the CORRECT judgement, and the courage to vote against it. Assuming they were in a position to vote back then.

People cannot be asked to vote against their consciences or better judgment, or bullied into it and if Dems don't realize that, then sure, if Sanders runs, the vote would be split and that would be the fault of the party leadership.

So, give the people someone who is as appealing as Bernie and the vote will not be split whether he runs or not.

[MADem]

58. Of course he would. Also, he was born a couple of months BEFORE "a day that will live in infamy"

so he is no spring chicken, and he won't be any more spry three years from now.

I think this "buzz" is just a load of hooey, and I think a lot of the push for it is coming from the right. Sanders is no doubt amused, and the truth of the matter is, there isn't a Senator on the Hill who doesn't look in the mirror and see a potential president looking back, but he's not stupid. He knows how to weigh a situation, to do a cost-benefit analysis. And he knows that pigs will fly before he'd ever be elected POTUS.

If he's rooting for President Christie, he'll run and split the vote.

[JDPriestly]

68. I would like to see him and Elizabeth Warren run in the Democratic Primaries.

I want to see progressive ideas on the political market. Hillary is an abomination of a candidate in my view. Run her, and watch people run away from the Democratic Party. By the she voted for the Iraq War.

[MADem]

71. I wouldn't. I don't want "President Christie."

People won't run away from the Democratic Party...that kind of fear-mongering is not supported by any facts, or any polls.

It's irresponsible, aside from being untrue, to say things like that.

[blue14u]

105. MADem, while we are all

just speculating at this point. I do feel people will leave the

party as they have in the past if Hillary is the candidate.

I don't see how she can recover from the past and get the left to

go vote for her. There is just to much negativity surrounding her.

[MADem]

122. I don't. I think the bulk of the "negativity" comes from right wing nut jobs who are

absolutely, positively, flat-out ballistically BULLSHIT that a woman has potential to be POTUS, and a Democratic woman who was related to the POTUS who presided over one of the greatest periods of peace and prosperity, to boot.

Some people here may be thinking they're standing on some kind of failing, flailing principle, but they're being fed a load of pie in the sky in the hopes that the way will be cleared for Ted Cruz or some other maniac.

I know a lot of reliable, registered Democratic voters. Not people who claim they will vote--people who actually show up and vote. I know a lot of them because I drive them to the polls. I know that, should HRC run, I will personally deliver at least a hundred votes to the polls for her. And many of those voters, older than Bernie, wouldn't vote for him on a bet. "Nice enough guy, but no damned way...besides, he's NOT a Democrat!"

You do need to appreciate that the views of some here at DU aren't aligned with the views of the majority of Dems in this country--in fact they are well to the left of the mainstream, and very much in the minority, much like the Tea Party is well to the right of the GOP (only the TP have more mass and a bigger chunk of the party's votes and organization). This is why, "trending" polls notwithstanding (and Kim Kardashian is "trending" now....but really, who gives a shit?), the overwhelming view of Democrats who are reliable voters is that HRC is the one to support, and HRC is the one that Chris Christie will try--and hopefully fail--to beat.


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-defeats-chris-christie-2016-presidential-race-poll-article-1.1514313

Hillary Clinton defeats Chris Christie in 2016 presidential race: poll
The ex-secretary of state would triumph over New Jersey's reelected governor 44% to 34% in a hypothetical election, according to an NBC News poll. The survey also found Clinton would benefit from a unified party, with 66% of die-hard and leaning Democrats voting for the former senator, while only 32% of Republican and Republican-leaning participants would do the same for Christie.

That said, she's not declaring yet. We'll just have to wait. Once she declares, we're off to the races, and it is important to not peak too soon.

[blue14u]

127. Wow, 100 votes is awesome. I thought

I was delivering a lot. I can only claim about 16 registered college students,(I only had to drive one of them myself), and two adults at this time. We all supported President Obama, and they look to me as a guide for voting. They are not that supportive of Hillary right now. They lean toward Elizabeth Warren, one reason being she would be the first woman in history to vote for as POTUS, and they see her as a clean slate. They are put out with the old party past and looking for something fresh and less connected to old politics as usual. They were very excited to vote for Obama, for POTUS also. I have not mentioned Sanders to them yet, but I will to get some feedback from them, and share what I think.

Believe me, I do get that the loyal HRC group is out on DU when these kind of posts
show up here. I have been insulted, and cussed for not agreeing with them.

If the RW runs a Tea party fanatic like Cruz, they will continue to see a decline
in their support from voters. I agree 100%. All day, I read and listen
to politics. I enjoy them, campaign, and always vote.

Thank you for the link. Its very recent, and I like to have current statistics..

[MADem]

129. I do it all day, from polls open to polls closing, and I borrow a van so I can haul

six or seven at a pop (I only use a van during presidential races, other times I use my own car and sometimes drop my passengers off at the grocery store or the doctor's office). A van definitely speeds up the process! I coordinate ahead of time, too, and everyone is pretty cooperative and is ready to go when I roll up to their places. I like to break records, and they know this, so some of them recruit others who are too lazy to vote but will go if it is a bit of a social outing.

[reACTIONary]

130. +1 (nt)

[blue14u]

107. I am going

to have to agree with you JDPriestly..

Hillary, from what I have seen on DU is not a popular

candidate. Yes, some will vote for her b/c of the "D"

behind her name. Closing my eyes and holding my nose is not

my ideal of a vote anymore. Her past, and corporate connections will do her

in.imo

[jeff47]

8. Yep, it would matter

Running as an independent has the danger of splitting the "left" vote - some voting for Sanders, some voting for the Democratic nominee. Exactly what the Republicans claim Perot did in 1992 that resulted in Clinton's election.

Splitting the left while keeping the right unified would be bad.

[Joel thakkar]

44. He needs to run as a democratic candidate

I am sure that there are many hardcore democratic voters who will vote for the party no matter what. Thus, if he runs as an independent, he will obviously cut the votes.

[FourScore]

47. It's a nice fantasy. Truth is, it would fracture the democrats and hand the election to republicans.

Theoretically, we could not even support him here on DU since he would not be a democrat. Or am I wrong about that?

[totodeinhere]

65. It is too early to make a prediction like yours. Clinton and Obama had a spirited contest

in 2008 which made the party stronger, not weaker. Perhaps the same dynamic would play out this time. I think that many Democrats while generally supportive of Hillary Clinton do not want a Clinton coronation. We need a bona fide choice in the primaries.

[FourScore]

191. Clinton and Obama are both democrats. Sanders is independent.

so your analogy doesn't work.

[sabrina 1]

102. I don't agree. I think you are basing your opinion on ten years ago, twenty years ago.

Every once in a while in history there have been huge shifts in public opinion and huge changes have occurred as a result of those shifts.

If this was four years or eight years ago, I would agree. But we are in a whole different era now, with at least two new generations who are a growing voter bloc and who are extremely unhappy with what has been done over the past few decades, to THEIR future.

I could see that demographic totally getting behind someone outside the system they view as having stolen their futures.

And most progressives, sick of voting against something, would be happy to vote FOR something for a change. Unions and other very disappointed, though mostly reliable Dem voters, have already warned the Party that if they continue to be unrepresented, they are already working on 'where to go'. Bernie would give them the answer to that question.

[FourScore]

192. Maybe...but doubtful. In any case, the risk of it splitting the ticket is very high. n/t

[JDPriestly]

61. Yes. I would like to see him run as a Democrat so that he could debate with other Democrats

like Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren (should she, I hope, run also).

[pnwmom]

86. Do you think a self-identified socialist could win nationally? n/t

[sabrina 1]

99. Yes, polls show that a majority of Americans support socialist policies so long as there is no

reference to either of the two parties.

Bernie will appeal to the young generation who are way more informed on the issues and far less committed to partisan politics than their parents and grandparents. That demographic is growing and having more of an impact on the future of elections.

Nearly all Progressives, Unions, other traditional Democratic voters would get behind him. They have already begun to form a coalition since before the last election, warning Dems that that election would be the last time they would vote against their own interests and/or contribute the substantial funds they have in the past. They formed the coalition to prepare for the eventuality of not being fully represented, again. All they need is someone they can get behind. I believe they raised over $10 million dollars at their first meeting to discuss where they wanted to go in the future. They got sick of hearing 'where are they going to go'? each time they protested some of the policies they Party they supported helped implement, AGAINST their interests.

And then there are the moderate Repubicans who sometimes cross party lines, the ones who are not 'obsessive' as Pope Francis stated, about women and Gays.

If he runs I believe it might spark a movement that could be historical considering the timing. If it had happened four or eight years ago, no. But we are in different times with a whole new generation not affiliated yet and already feeling the pain of the policies implemented by the two party system for their futures, that weren't there ten years ago.

To combat this, all the Dems have to do is to start listening rather than attacking those who have tried to warn them and provide a candidate that people can vote FOR for once, rather than forcing people to vote AGAINST the 'other guy'.

[pnwmom]

104. But that's exactly the problem. Americans support socialist policies

but they're terrified of the word. Unfortunately, Bernie's associated with the word, and his opponents will use it against him.

Also, in three more years he'll be 75. Reagan, the oldest President, was elected at age 69 and developed Alzheimers during office.

[sabrina 1]

106. In RL that is not the case. The only people who fear the word are the Ditto Heads from

Faux and the rapidly shrinking old, Limbaugh, Right Wing Noise Machine audience. I often marvel at how different people are in the real world. I have so many friends who I am sure would identify as Consersvatives, but none of the even LISTEN to that thrash and in fact a few who do identify their politics make it clear that they despise that element in their party.

On most issues, Conservatives I know in RL, agree with US. They are FOR Social Safety Nets, they are opposed to all of our 'foreign adventures', many are not particularly interested one way or the other in the issues both parties use in every election, Gays and Women. Why? Because many of them have RELATIVES and friends, some I know have children, who are Gay. And of all of them have or had Mothers, Wives, Sisters etc.

The old Noise Machine is rusting and in no way represents more than a small minority of extremists.

A good campaign with good management re explaining the issues, rather than just 'I will do this and/or I will do that' type promises, could easily attract enough votes from across the political spectrum.

People who have been frequenting internet forums sometimes lose touch with the real world. It has changed while we were all falling for the 'divide and conquer, team player' routine. It isn't about that for a majority of people. It is about what they and their families, elderly parents, children, need.

I think we've crossed a line in the past number of years and real Conservatives are no longer allowing themselves to be defined by the loonies who took over their party. They have the same basic needs we have. They love SS and all of them know that their own parents are more secure with it than without it.

[pnwmom]

119. RL? n/t

[reACTIONary]

134. Real Life, I think. (nt)

[pnwmom]

136. I should have been able to figure that out. Thanks! n/t

[truebluegreen]

171. Older Americans are terrified of the word

not so much Gen X and younger.

[harun]

170. Absolutely, if nominated.

[lumberjack_jeff]

120. If he runs as an independent, I won't support him.

I only support third party candidates if they split the republican ticket.

[sabrina 1]

143. What about supporting the candidate who is best for the country? THAT is what most people want.

All the Dem Party has to do is to provide a real choice and there would be no split in the party. The very fact that you are worried about a split if Sanders runs proves that even you know that people have had it with not having a say in who the Dem Nominee is.

If you don't want the party split, them place the blame where it belongs.

Already Sanders is ahead in the polls. That should tell the Party leadership something. THEY have the power to make sure the vote is NOT split. They are who you need to pressure. You can't influence the voters, you CAN help influence the Party to stop fielding candidates the base only votes for, or did, to stop the Republicans. Tell them to provide a candidate the people can vote FOR.

[NorthCarolina]

179. Your type of thinking is what enabled the current corporate ownership of America.

Last edited Wed Dec 4, 2013, 03:16 PM - Edit history (1)

On the plus side, corporate conservadems LOVE your thinking. In fact, they rely on it to help make their corporatist candidates viable. I have a good feeling your line of thinking is fast becoming a thing of the past with most voters though, so go ahead and carry-on if that's what makes you happy.

[lumberjack_jeff]

188. A third party challenge elected GW Bush.

Nader's wrinkly suits seemed cute at the time.

If Sanders runs as a democrat he can do some good. If he runs as a socialist or independent he won't.

[stevenleser]

164. It would matter because independents can't win. You can't win without a major party infrastructure.

A quick glance at the history of independent and third party Presidential runs will tell you that.

I'm in favor of Sanders running, even though I would support Hillary. I think his addition to the race would be a positive one, but he should run as a Democrat, not as a spoiler to give the race to the Republican.

[L0oniX]

173. Thank goodness the 1% still own the 2 party system.

[WowSeriously]

176. If he doesn't run with the Democrats his voice won't be heard.

The primaries would be his platform. Otherwise he'll be ignored by the media.

[aggiesal]

183. Splitting the democratic vote . . .

I agree that it shouldn't matter as long as we get our progressive agenda implemented, but the electorate is stupid, and will look for the (D) or (R) next to a candidates name.

We risk the chance of splitting the democratic vote and allowing a Republican into the WH.
Might be too risky.

[sabrina 1]

184. But there wouldn't be any chance of splitting the vote if Democrats were responding to

their members and providing real, Progressive Dem Candidates. The very fact that there is a risk of a split vote IF Dems have a choice of someone who actually represents them and has a consistent record of doing so, shows that Dem Party needs to stop catering to Corporate interests and start representing those whose votes they both need and take, then ignore after they win.

If there is a choice between Sanders and a Third Way Candidate, I will be supporting Sanders. Sick to death of voting AGAINST something.

Your own comment completely demonstrates why a Sanders run or someone like him, is so needed.

How about eg, you don't worry about 'splitting the vote and letting a Republican win'?? That would be more vote FOR something instead of for FEAR of 'letting a Republican win.

A Republican won't win if those who vote out of fear rather than for the best interests of the country, were to change THEIR strategy.

How long are we going to keep voting to stop Repubicans from winning?

Sure, we get a few crumbs when Dems win. But we also even more Corporate policies implemented.

It's time to start having the guts to take that risk if there is an opportunity rather than cowering in fear of our team losting. I have done that up to now. And I see how little respect we have received from the party leadership.

You don't get progress without risk. And you sure don't get it by being afraid.

[SidDithers]

5. If he ran as an Independent, say hello to President Christie...nt

Sid

[merrily]

27. OK. Looks like a fun thing to do.

Good thing Democrats ran a strong candidate against Christie for Governor.

[Arkana]

70. You're not seriously going to hold this against Obama, are you?

Like, not seriously, right? You can't honestly be equating "doing his job as President" with "supports everything Christie does and says".

[totodeinhere]

67. Not necessarily. In 1992 Ross Perot ran as an independent and in that

contest the Democrat won, even beating an incumbent Republican president.

[loyalsister]

114. He ran from the right

Would be Bush voters voted for him. Voters who most often vote for Democrats might be inclined to vote for Sanders.

[A Simple Game]

39. Doesn't matter, he would probably still be the best candidate. A D doesn't mean everything. n/t

[FourScore]

50. Yeah, in perfect political utopian-land, maybe. n/t

[A Simple Game]

84. I've never seen one of them there political utopias, what would one look like? n/t

[FourScore]

193. Come to think of it, a "political utopia" is an oxymoron, isn't it?

Good call!

[Freddie Stubbs]

78. He's like Dennis Kucinich without the Hollywood good looks

[A Simple Game]

85. I don't think so, but maybe the country is ready for a liberal in the White House again. n/t

[sabrina 1]

103. If that is true, it makes him even more appealing. Thanks, I hadn't thought about it, but on the

he and Kucinich are very close. That is EXCELLENT! Now I want him to run even more.

He looks like everyone's idea of a reliable, older statesman. He creates an image of trust. He LOOKS like people's idea of a President.

Kucinich might be appointed to a cabinet position if Bernie ran and won. THAT is what this country needs.

Secretary of the Dept of Diplomacy. Yes, I like that for Kucinich.

[AAO]

142. Why not a Department of Peace to compete with the Pentagon?

[Freddie Stubbs]

156. Would Kucinich be willing to give up his fat paycheck from Fox News?

[NorthCarolina]

181. LOL

I don't think mudslinging and name association will work against a Bernie run. The corporate dems will need to better than just ad hominem attacks the likes of which were used against Kucinich, to derail a Sanders candidacy. Voters are more aware this go around, and that will make the corporate thugs job MUCH tougher than penning simple posts on an anonymous board to create false equivalencies and associations as they have employed in the past.

[closeupready]

3. Gawd, I just LOVE that! K&R

[840high]

13. k/r

[loudsue]

16. The rightwing media we have in this country would destroy Bernie Sanders.

You think they gave Howard Dean a hard time for telling it like it is? Just you wait! They are pushing Hillary as hard as they can at this point, to insure a republican president.

[merrily]

18. Don't know about that, but the media and people like Mark Shields have been pushing her

since before the 2012 election was a done deal.

Someone's desperate to have her in the oval office.

[loudsue]

20. Someone with a whole lot of money and influence in the corporate media.

Scary, isn't it?

[merrily]

22. I guess I am numb.

I used to be oblivious. Then, I started looking into things. Now, I know them, but haven't a clue what to do about them, which can be very depressing. So, oblivious is starting to look good from where I am now. . But, you can't unring a bell.

[Jesus Malverde]

34. The media is a business. They need close primaries, and neck and neck elections

Otherwise no one will watch their ads. That is the core of their business. If these candidates and scenarios don't exist, the media will invent them. It's good for business. That includes DU.

The media will give the necessary deference to make this a horserace.

I'm not clear that their really is an activist agenda on the part of the media. I think it's more pandering to preferred audiences and currying favors to the existing order.

[CorrectOfCenter]

19. He needs to run as a Democrat or sit down and shut up.

No more third party spoilers.

[cali]

21. My Senator certainly does NOT need to "sit down and shut up"

He's done a fuck of a lot more for people in this country than most so-called dems.

And you clearly don't have a clue as to who he is. I do. Bernie will not play the role of spoiler

[CorrectOfCenter]

24. If he doesn't run as a Democrat, he certainly does need to sit down and shut up.

No more Naders. No more electing Republican presidents by siphoning away votes from Democrats.

And I've heard all the pathetic attempts to explain why Nader wasn't a spoiler, but I reject them all... so spare me if that's your next move.

[Kelvin Mace]

26. If Democrats wish to get elected

then they need to stop championing the GOP agenda.

[Enthusiast]

93. Plus 1,000,000! nt

[SomeGuyInEagan]

140. Can't echo this loud enough! N/t

[deutsey]

163. What an idea!

[cali]

28. One more time: Bernie will not play the role of spoiler

Comparing him to Nader just reveals how ignorant you are as who he is.

And spare me your lack of knowledge, dear, as well as your silly leaping to conclusions. Sorry, hon but bzzzzt. I do think that Nader was a factor and was a spoiler.

fail.

[Old and In the Way]

32. That's how we ended up with a teabagger governor in Maine.

But, hey, for some, it is better to keep your vote pure and accept the regressive consequences than acknowledge the political reality of how our system works.

[cali]

37. and yet in Vermont, the VT Progressive Party has strengthened liberal control

not led to LePage. Hell, we don't even have anything like him here. I find that contrast interesting.

Again, Bernie would never play the spoiler. It's just not who he is and there's certainly no indication of that kind of behavior in his history.

[Old and In the Way]

42. 62% of Maine voters did not cast a vote for LePage.

If we had instant run-off, I'd be more than happy to vote for the most progressive candidate in the field. But we don't.

[cali]

49. I'm aware of that, yet Maine produces politicians like LePage

and frankly, I'm shocked that that many people voted for him.

[frylock]

112. or we can keep voting for the lesser of two evils and continue our rightward shift

[sabrina 1]

148. If the Dems don't put forward a candidate that everyone can get behind, and if someone like Sanders

gets enough of the vote and is good for the country, then those who choose party politics over what is best for the country, THEY are the ones who will be responsible for handing the country over to Republicans.

All the party has to do is to provide a candidate that people don't have to hold their noses to vote for. It's really very simple. No more Corporate Candidates. People have been trying to tell them this for a long time now and have been told to STFU. That they have 'nowhere to go'. Well maybe those days are over and our party needs to start worrying more about serving the people and EARNING those votes. This kind of comment is precisely why Dems could lose. Do you WANT them to lose?

[Old and In the Way]

168. Do you know anything about Libby Mitchell - the Democrat who lost?

She was a damn good candidate and person. Elliott Cutler was a younger version of Nader. We've had a couple of Independent Governors in my lifetime. They make good referee's, but really don't bring much done in terms of making a difference in policy and change...see Jim Longley and Angus King. I am still waiting for someone to tell me what great Independent party of one person every made a difference, good or bad, in our society. Other than being a great talker.

And it could happen again! Nader-lite is running...again!

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/08/30/2557811/stupid-election-rule-wind-reelecting-tea-party-governor-voters-hate/

Here's an interesting perspective on Elliott...and who is supporting Michaud - the Democrat - in the race. Who would you be advocating for?

http://www.dirigoblue.com/2013/11/eliot-cutler-confuses-independent-with-passive-aggressive-in-attacks-against-non-supporters/

[Enthusiast]

95. I resent you coming in here and saying that.

Many of us love Bernie. Sit down and shut up? He is almost the only liberal voice out there and you tell him to shut up.

Many of us don't believe the 2,000 "loss" was a result of Nader.

Gore won the election anyway. The FAR RIGHT WING SUPREME COURT ruled that Florida must stop counting the votes. Gore won!

[frylock]

111. no more DINOS, no more clintons, more more third way bullshit

[NuclearDem]

137. Gore won the popular vote by nearly 500,000

The Supreme Court gave Bush the election, not Nader.

So bullshit.

[morningfog]

145. Since you proudly announce that you reject reality, so be it.

I'll spare you and let you embrace your willful ignorance.

[sabrina 1]

146. Who are you to tell any citizen they need to 'sit down and shut up'?? He and anyone else who

wants to run for any office, has an absolute right to do so. If you are afraid of that, then your anger is misdirected but proves that you even you know people need a candidate they can be enthusiastic about. All the Dem Party leadership needs to do is to provide such a candidate. Now start pressuring them to get behind a Progressive Democrat and put your energy into something that is worth the effort.

[merrily]

23. Like Ross Perot, who probably got Clinton elected?

No one owes Democrats or Republicans a clear field.

[CorrectOfCenter]

25. Ballot access should be difficult to obtain for third parties.

They can have fun in the primaries, but without a strong showing... they should be omitted in the general elections.

[cali]

30. ugh. how democratic of you. how liberal. NOT

I regularly vote third party and here in Vermont we have the only viable third party in the country. The Vermont Progressive Party has elected more third party members to state government than all other third parties combined. And no, the result of this has not been to turn VT into a republican state.

[CorrectOfCenter]

74. Thank you for that anecdotal spiel.

That's not representative of the U.S. or its political system at large.

Shame on anyone voting for anyone other than Democratic candidates.

[frylock]

115. you decry anecotal spiel, yet your posts are bereft of any stats, numbers or anything..

it's just more bullshit "reality" from the Reality-based Real World Realists.

[merrily]

31. It already is, for primaries and the general. Democrats and Republicans managed to work together

on that very undemocratic task.

Ditto on keeping them out of debates.

[NuclearDem]

87. Jesus Christ, are you kidding?

Yeah, just make people hate the democratic process and the two party system even more. That'll get them out on Election Day!

[blue14u]

100. Great point. When I

am being told to "sit down and shut the fuck up" b/c I may like Bernie

over a centrist, I'm not inclined to get out the vote either.

BTW good job jury. I had no ideal DU was a place where it is ok to

tell someone to "shut the fuck up" b/c their opinion is different from

yours!! I will keep that in mind next time my opinion is different from

another posters!

[frylock]

113. better yet; let's just annoint whoever it is the TPTB deem suitable

[sabrina 1]

147. What utter nonsense. Are you aware that this is a Democracy? Bernie HAS a 'strong showing'

In fact it appears his showing is stronger than anyone else in the running right now. Place your anger where it belongs, the people get to choose who runs and who wins in a Democracy. Explain please why you are under the impression that a small group of people get to decide who the people get to vote for? Has the Constitution been changed?

[Pitagoras]

43. Prove that Perot got Clinton elected

Please. Not with a hypothesis, but with numbers.

[L0oniX]

174. Yeah. Romney got Obama elected too and so did McCain and Sara the dingbat.

[blue14u]

33. Oh there it is

Last edited Tue Dec 3, 2013, 06:08 PM - Edit history (1)

again, the sit down and shut up wing of the

Democratic party...

If you think for one minute that Democrats are going to continue NOT TO RUN this party, (not the centrist), you need to enjoy your short

lived time here. Apparently, your not paying attention, or you have

been hoodwinked into believing the left wing of this party is going to

sit by and STFU!!! hahahahahahahahahaha NO, not a chance in hell!!!

[CorrectOfCenter]

73. Bernie Sanders is not part of this party.

Stop calling him the left wing of this party.

If he wants to run as a Democrat, I will vote for him in the primaries.

If he doesn't, then I reiterate:

Sit down and shut the fuck up.

[frylock]

116. Sanders left your shit party some time ago..

and he did so for a reason.

[L0oniX]

175. Let us all know when most of the Dems and repukes are NOT owned by the 1%.

[sabrina 1]

185. 'Sit down and shut up'?? That's exactly why Sanders is getting so much support from

Democrats AND Independents. People have had enough of the Dem Part Leadership telling its base to 'sit down and shut up' assuming 'they have nowhere to go'.

Thanks for clear demonstration of why Dems absolutely need to fear a real Progressive candidate running for ANYTHING against any Corporate 'Dem' they run from now on.

Rahm Emanuel comes to mind. That man turned of more of the young and independent vote and LOST the 2010 election with his abusive and arrogant treatment of those who got him to where he was.

Keep talking that way to voters and GUARANTEE a Bernie Sanders win.

In fact he should hire people like you to demonstrate why real change is so badly needed.

And btw, fyi, lots of US Citizens are 'not of this party', and without them 'this party' cannot win.

Seems to me you don't want Dems to win frankly.

[NuclearDem]

66. I was wondering when the party loyalists would show up and cry Nader.

Maybe the party can stop kicking out leftists and then subsequently blaming them when piece of shit third wayers lose.

[CorrectOfCenter]

75. By all means, nominate another George McGovern.

* Paid for by the Christie for President Committee

[NuclearDem]

76. Because 1972 and 2016 are totally the same thing.

I mean, sure we have the internet and social media, but hey, context-free left bashing is fun too.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

88. I hope the Democrats do run someone with integrity of McGovern again.

Instead of the usual crop of 3rd Way CEO wannabees.

[blue14u]

123. Let me see.. The

words pompous ass come to mind all of a sudden..

I love Bernie and he speaks about the issues many of us care about..

For that reason, I may have to leave DU at the cut-off if he

chooses to run.. Otherwise I plan to vote Democrat in all other races.

[frylock]

110. duly noted

[Egalitarian Thug]

131. How very democratic of you.

[Pitagoras]

29. When I saw the article, I thought Sanders had taken the lead in a poll

That was not the case. Turns out he leads in "online buzz."

This is yet another example of linkbait. An accurate title (i.e., Sanders leads in online buzz&quot would have been less shocking, attracting less attention, so the website went with the chopped-up article instead.

[sharp_stick]

40. Yep

linkbait and nothing more, but it will get some people all hot and bothered about his new "momentum" and others hot and bothered about the first group getting hot and bothered.

Welcome to DU

[Jesus Malverde]

46. A very appropriate welcome.

[SunSeeker]

121. Exactly. By those standards Miley Cyrus should run. nt

[Old and In the Way]

35. Republican operatives and the corporate media will be fully supporting Bernie's run in 2016.

Provided, of course, that he runs as an Independent.

[frylock]

118. but they won't do that for hillary..

nope.

[sharp_stick]

36. Leapfrogs to the top

of something that can't even be called an internet poll. This is probably the most disingenuous headline I've seen since hearing about Allan Keyes confirming all of his prognostications of the last 6 years in his self published bit of lunacy.

[cali]

41. I've noted a lot of barely veiled antagonism toward Bernie

from the usual conservadem sources here at DU. These people haven't really been brave enough to directly knock him very much, though their dislike is obvious, but this gives them the opportunity to courageously step forward to metaphorically spit on him.

Conservadems- better than repukes but that's about the best that can be said for them.

[Jesus Malverde]

57. I think it's less about hatred for Bernie than love for their own candidate...

and being threatened by someone who speaks clearly and forcefully on issues that matter. They need to destroy that which threatens them.

Same as those who support Bernie don't hate warren nor Hillary but none the less will need to attack them.

In order of baggage, I would say warren has the least, as she's relatively unknown.

Sanders probably has said a few doozy's over the years, but is a straight arrow and the change people wanted.

Clinton and Biden likely have the most skeletons in their closets, due to their long public service and interactions with the elites.

[msongs]

45. will dems run another closet republican...again? nt

[fbc]

48. He'd make a great VP... Warren/Sanders 2016

[cali]

52. as long as we're playing silly fantasy teams, I'd say you have that wrong

It should be reversed. Warren has run exactly one campaign-and that wasn't exactly a stellar one despite her win. She's held elected office for a very short period of time. Contrast her experience and his and it's clear that Bernie has far more. He has executive experience, he was a U.S. rep for years and now he's been a U.S. Senator for years.

[fbc]

80. true, but...

You make very valid points, but I think Warren is probably more electable. I think she would appeal to many in the center where Sander's "socialist" label may turn many people off. In fact, it would probably keep him off the ballot as a VP too.

But yeah, in a more perfect world, Sanders/Warren would be a great combo for eight years, with Warren/? for another eight years after that.

[JDPriestly]

152. Thing is, she has the message people are waiting for.

4.4 million foreclosures between 2008 and May of 2013.

http://www.corelogic.com/research/foreclosure-report/national-foreclosure-report-may-2013.pdf

The population of the US is 317,104,210 as of November 2013.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

That is a little over 1 out of a hundred Americans having been foreclosed. Nearly every American knows someone, a friend, a co-worker, a former co-worker, a family member, who was foreclosed. And many, many more people were scared to death that through some mishap, a lost job, an illness, any reason to miss a payment, they could face severe bank penalties and ultimately foreclosure. Millions of retirees and other Americans are getting next to nothing in interest on their hard-earned life savings. Millions of American seniors are worried about the threat of Social Security cuts. Millions of parents are worried about whether their kids will be able to afford to go to college. Millions and millions of Americans are worried about low wages, the retirement fund default threats, difficulty in getting a job, etc. The economy at the top is recovering. The economy for the rest of us is barely limping along.

Those are the issues in the hearts of ordinary Americans today.

Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are speaking to and about those issues. That will get the voters' attention. We shall see when the primary is over how America responds to the various candidates. It's an open field. I favor Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders because they are speaking to Americans' hearts, and that is what wins elections. The rest of the stuff is not so important.

[blue14u]

139. Welcome to DU fbc!!!

Warren/ Sanders is a winning ticket from where

I sit..

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. If he runs, I'll vote for him. And, my nose won't suffer.

[democrank]

53. Up here in Vermont

Bernie appeals to a vast cross-section of voters. I`ve seen Bernie stickers and NRA stickers on the same pickup trucks. Folks here know Bernie has their back and speaks up for them in a principled, courageous way. He has done more for veterans and "the little guy" than almost any other politician I can think of.

I`ll vote for Bernie every chance I get.

[Enthusiast]

97. Exactly. Voters want principled and courageous.

Principled! Wouldn't that be a dramatic change.

[LongTomH]

54. If Bernie ran as a Democrat, that could make the debates interesting for a change!

If not Bernie, then we need another good Liberal in the race to articulate issues that really matter to the middle class.

And, no, I don't think there's any way of pushing Sec. Clinton to the left. The best we can do, is to get some good liberals elected to Congress to limit her DLC agenda.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. The way to avoid "splitting" the vote is for the Democrats to run someone as leftist as Bernie.

The way to "split" the vote is for the Democrats to run another 3rd Way part time liberal.

[Enthusiast]

98. +1 a whole bunch.......nt

[L0oniX]

172. ^^^^this^^^^

[Beacool]

186. You assume that moderate and conservative Democrats would vote for a Leftist.

They might and they might not. Remember Reagan?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

187. And, the moderate and conservative Democrats assume Leftist would vote for a Centrist.

They might and they might not. Remember McGovern?

[DFW]

59. "higher than all other 2016 hopefuls?"

OK, which other announced "hopefuls" are there?

And if they haven't announced, how does anyone know they're hopeful?

This is punditry for the bored, and a useless distraction from 2014.

[grahamhgreen]

60. **** Bernie/Hillary 2013 **** Can we all live with that :))

[MyNameGoesHere]

62. I would vote for him

if he actually would put up and join the party he professes to be politically aligned with. SPUSA. Saying that you are a Social Democrat and then working in between the lines of Democrat and Independent is a little too convenient.

[NCTraveler]

63. Somewhat misleading headline.

Should read "Sanders moves up to fourth, right behind Boehner, in a startup companies tracking of politicians trending on the web and social media."

Guess that wouldn't get the same response.

[Half-Century Man]

64. It is three years away.

Changes most probably will happen, to how people define themselves and to web sites which are concerned with progression.

What I know is just having Mr. Sanders as part of the discussions around presidential issues will keep the discussion focused where it is needed. Any viable Democrat will have to move left, and the fading remnants of the reflublacans will huddle deeper right.

Enjoy the ride, mind the big rocks.

[go west young man]

69. Sanders and Warren.

That would be one bad ass Democratic ticket. Throw in Alan Grayson as Chief of Staff and we would be truly rocking! And the US would truly have a chance at a complete recovery in all areas.

[urbuddha]

72. Love Bernie Sanders !... but...

Whoever gets the nomination has to be strong enough to beat the Republican nominee. The Democrats must stay in Washington.
Sanders agrees with my ideas and would be the ideal president. The Republicans have invested too much in stealing elections and we have to make certain they do not succeed.

[Jefferson23]

79. I hope he runs as a Democratic candidate..please Bernie..just do it. n/t

[Beacool]

81. The article means very little in actual practice.

"Online buzz, as it's measured by TrendPo, a D.C.-based political analytics startup, isn't equivalent to being ahead in the polls, it just shows that Sanders is getting more news mentions and attracting a greater following on social media than most of his political peers."

Bernie Sanders is a fine senator, but he has as much chance of winning a general election as I do. Aside form the fact that he's an Independent and would be 75 years old on election day in 2016.

[Enthusiast]

101. Bernie could win it all.

He could even overcome the massive influx of corporate money.

[Beacool]

138. That's a delusion of the Left.

He's as electable as Nader or Ron Paul.

[Enthusiast]

154. No, things have changed dramatically.

Democrats do not want another corporate sell out.

[Beacool]

167. Whatever.......

I'm not going to argue with people who seem to live a different reality. In the real world, there's no major push from Democratic voters for a Warren run, let alone a Bernie run. The pundits and people on LW sites like this one keep pushing that story, but average folks don't consider the Clintons some kind of corporate evil people. Quite the contrary, they are very popular within the party.

[Laelth]

83. +276 for Elizabeth Warren.

Ha!



-Laelth

[ReRe]

94. K&R

Go, Bernie!!!!!

Hard question right now as to how I would vote, if Sen Sanders runs either as a Dem or Ind. Need to know who the R candidates? I'd vote for Bernie in the Primary, either as a Dem or an IN. If he doesn't win the candidacy, then I'd vote for the Dem candidate. If he runs as an Ind, of course he will win in the primary and be a candidate. Question is, would they let him participate the the Presidential debates? I honestly think that Sen Sanders would win the general election if it was a 3-party race. How on earth would the Dem and R candidates run against Bernie? I might be wrong, but I don't think Bernie has any skeletons in his closet, like the Dem and R will have in theirs. After thinking this through here, I hope, if Bernie runs, that he runs as an Independent.

[cheapdate]

117. Senator Sanders voted "yea" for the Affordable Care Act.

He also voted "yea" for the omnibus appropriations bill that included the infamous provision favorable to Monsanto (earning the bill the nickname "The Monsanto Act" - even though the provision was only one of hundreds of provisions in the bill and was not by any means the last word in the fight over GMOs.)

I realize this is not the point of the OP, but I'm making this point because I get impatient with some people who seem to constantly rail against elected leaders, including many Democratic leaders, for not taking revolutionary principled stands (a la Ted Cruz) on every single issue every time.

I love Bernie Sanders. He might be my favorite elected official. My point is that government by consensus in a pluralistic society requires compromise.

[MADem]

133. Hillary Clinton gave him ten grand towards his Senate campaign....

They must not hate each other!

[me b zola]

125. If you build it, we will come

I long to vote for the issues that made me become a Democrat as a young woman. Go, Bernie, go!

[littlewolf]

128. K&R nt

[agentS]

135. Strategically, I don't like it.

Sanders and Clinton are too old for the damn job, to be honest. Obama's not aging well and Bush + Cheney looked like they were about to collapse on the last days. This is not a job for the old. Do we really want another Reagan in office?

That said, we need to decide this pick in terms of our potential opponents.
If it's Christie, we need to come with our A game in FUNDING. That's Booker, Clinton, and Castro (mayor of San Antonio). They've got the connects and access to money and name recog, and they have favorable demographics- meaning they're not white men. Hillary C. can beat anybody, but her weakness is her strength- she's a big target with a LOT of baggage. The other don't have as much baggage.

If it's not Christie, then yeah we can run Sanders or Biden or even KPete. Funding won't matter as much BECAUSE the GOP candidates will suck and commit a lot of RMoney 'unforced errors' in the debates and stuff. All the money in the world can't help you if the media is reporting gaff after gaff.

And our primaries are not as poisonous as the GOP. Yeah ours gets rough and nasty, but we don't turn whole swaths of the population against us in the primaries. Sanders and Clinton can debate each other without becoming ass-holish or crowds shouting "LET DEM DIE" and we'll be happy with either one. The GOP has the opposite problem and this gives us a ton of material. Why would we need to spend 10 mill on attack ads when Cruz or Paul will embarrass themselves on TV for us?

[blkmusclmachine]

144. The DEM Apparatus in DC is neither Liberal nor Progressive. It's 100% Corporatist, 1%ers, w/slightly

more "moderate" views on Social Issues. But, boy howdy, can they ever be cowed by their friends across the isle! Ugh.

[polichick]

178. So it's time for Dem voters to go around them.

[L0oniX]

180. When parties hold the military and corporations (whatsthedif) over the poor and elderly...

then there is no party of the people. People first. Killing?

[great white snark]

189. As much as I like him I don't think he'd leave his safe Bernie bubble.

Nor do I think he'd hurt the party he caucuses with.

[woo me with science]

190. K&R

[polichick]

194. Go Bernie!!!

[woo me with science]

199. kick