General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
Hey Bernie, If You’re Going To Run For President in 2016, Do It As a Democrat
http://www.alternet.org/election-2014/hey-bernie-if-youre-going-run-president-2016-do-it-democrat
Maybe you’ve heard. Vermont’s Independent U.S. Senator, Bernie Sanders, might run for president in 2016. He told Time.com that America’s problems are the worst since the ‘30s Great Depression, that someone has to fight for average Americans against big money, and clearly, that he would make a better president than Hillary Clinton.
“I am prepared to be that candidate,” Bernie told Time in early March. “If there are other candidates who come forward who can do it better than me, that’s fine. I don’t again wake up with a burning ambition to be President of the United States.”
Two weeks later, Bernie sat down with The Nation’s John Nichols and confirmed that he might not be losing sleep over it, but he was “seriously” exploring a run. America needs “a political revolution,” Bernie said, which he described as an updated version of Rev. Jesse Jackson’s 1980s Rainbow Coalition. Then Bernie raised the first tough question he’d face—would he run as a Democrat—as Jackson did in 1984?
“The dilemma is that if you run outside the Democratic Party, then what you’re doing—and you have to think hard about this—is, you’re not just running a race for president, you’re really running to build an entire political movement,” Bernie said. “In doing that, you would be taking votes away from the Democratic candidate and making it easier for some right-wing Republican to get elected—the [Ralph] Nader dilemma.”
***the only reason - and it's not that big a reason to me - for him to rum as a dem is the primary debates. his voice would have a bigger audience in that case.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
roseBudd
(8,718 posts)Who doesn't wish Bush never happened?
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)
newfie11
(8,159 posts)Does there need to be approval first or can anyone run as a Dem in the primaries?
rogerashton
(3,920 posts)It varies from state to state. In PA he would have to submit a pretty ridiculous number of petitions, and other candidates (Hillary?) could ask a judge to disallow them as fake or imperfect, so it is necessary to get about double the minimum number. But a petition drive can be a way to build a movement. I remember petitioning to get Gene McCarthy on the ballot back in 67 -- that was a movement-building moment.
roseBudd
(8,718 posts)Sanders has as much chance of winning a general as Kuccinich.
But hey. Purity!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)will privately thank him for his help!
2banon
(7,321 posts)Either you love our appointed leader or you're guilty of treason! got it.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)... Our opponents across the aisle frequent, I know that at least some of the folks over here advocating this kind of stuff are agent provocateurs, looking to divide us, or even better introduce a Nader-like vote splitter. That's not to say some advocates of this are perfectly serious, as they certainly are.
not all of DU's "left" are really on the left.
Sid
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)The agent provocateur works his fiendish plot by implanting doubts about the Party's leadership and direction in the minds of the gullible cadre while facilitating antagonizing activity from the lumpen proletariat
pipoman
(16,038 posts)more of the same President. I would be quite fine with a liberal President. In fact, I'm not sure one can "fight for average Americans against big money" and be a party candidate.
roseBudd
(8,718 posts)The middle class can't wait for idealist utopia
pipoman
(16,038 posts)
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)
NYC Liberal
(20,134 posts)right now.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)And without him, we'd still be up to our butts in. Afghanistan and probably Iraq. And we wouldn't have the ACA, which while not perfect, has considerably expanded access to health care. Elizabeth Warren would probably not be a Senator. The list goes on. Winning elections matters.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)After all, he can "run as a democrat" until the cows come home, doesn't mean a fucking thing if the party doesn't throw in for him.
roseBudd
(8,718 posts)Because there could not possibly any down side </sarcasm>
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)So if the people telling him to run as a Democrat are serious, they ought to focus more of their effort on pressing the party to accept his candidacy if he does.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)To make sure their preferred centrist candidate is unchallenged from the left in a general. In a primary, Bernie's cut off from a lot of people who would vote for him, but aren't registered Dems. This gives the DLC candidate of choice a strong advantage.
A better system for voters as a whole would be like what's going on in parts of California, where the 'primary' is open to all, and the top two vote getters advance to a final runoff vote. That way you see the will of all the people, not simply whichever two candidates are picked by the two biggest parties around, so that you can only choose 'candidate blue' or 'candidate red'.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)DU is not that....
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)The cheerleaders are all over this thread and, as you can see, they don't actually deal in political reality. For the Third Way it's all about locking everyone out but Hillary. They're scared as hell about Elizabeth Warren. It's why they're insistent that she's not running and stop saying that!11!11!! 
Having said that, I live in a purple part of California and a couple of times now my "choice" has been between Republican A and Republican B as the Democrats didn't get their flaky shit together long enough to come up with a viable candidate -- a common occurrence in the red/purple parts of California. Thank goddess for third parties and write-ins.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)roseBudd
(8,718 posts)You inhabit a land of make believe.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)you might just happen to inhabit a similar, but slightly different land of make believe.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Why should he be forced to only getting a shot at the Presidency if he can pass the test of one party's voters, if he feels his overall appeal is more to people who aren't registered with a given party?
I would suspect Bernie wins a lot more 'Indie' voters than any given Dem candidate. If he runs in the Dem primary, he's handicapping himself in his chances of actually getting to a general election by giving home field advantage to people who have been 'declared Democrats' for decades.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)(and don't forget....they are willing to cheat to make it happen)
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)It's amazing to me that these folks can't see that as the 100% outcome.
Of course, it could be that that outcome is EXACTLY what they hope for.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)they cheat!
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)#1 - It puts progressive ideas front and center with one of the best advocates for them ever.
#2 - It makes Hillary look more moderate
#3 - It makes the eventual Republican nominee look more extreme and out of touch and to put it succinctly, wrong on all the issues.
Particularly if the Hillary and Sanders campaigns handle this the right way, it could be an amazing success. I don't think Bernie has a chance against her, nor do I think anyone else does on either side of the aisle. But if they concentrate on issue disagreements and why they believe their version is the right one and avoid personal attacks and mud slinging, it would be a huge win for both of them and the party and left politics in the US in general.
2banon
(7,321 posts)Moderate Republican you mean?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Get it all out. It will be OK.
2banon
(7,321 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)off for whoever. At the end of the day though, it won't matter.
2banon
(7,321 posts)At the end of the day it won't matter. The Corporate Masters will have their way, and the end of the day..
I'm just vainly trying to cling on to a bit of hope, for a critical mass of serious resistance to the agenda of the Corporate Masters and status quo political gamesmanship, propagating the : 'you're a traitor if you don't participate in supporting our pre-determined candidate', meme.
Just clinging on to a bit of hope for resistance to the endless through-to-eternity of more-of-the-same mentality and attitudes.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)No Democrat is close and she is outpolling Republicans in their home states where it should be able to be assumed that they have at least decent name recognition.
Add the fact that she represents the first potential female President in the US which will excite a large swath of women across the political spectrum (as well as men like me who very much want to see a woman become President) and you have a monumentally difficult climb for anyone wanting to seriously challenge her.
All of that is long before we get into any discussion of money and finance or 'corporate support'. True, the financial aspect is yet another factor where she will be way out ahead of anyone else. But that's quite different from a Romney type on the Republican side, who wasn't that popular to begin with and used money and the establishment branch of his party to force his way to the nomination.
Hillary is around 50 points ahead of her closest opponents in the primary with grassroots voters. You can't make a legitimate argument that corporate or money factors will force her nomination with that kind of grassroots support.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)to run. Their voices must be heard. I am not against Hillary, I will vote for her if she wins the primary but I want more discussion on the issues and this is a good way to accomplish that.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I want our Primaries to be energizing, interesting and extended. The 2008 Primary drove DUers around the bend, but they did not understand how incredibly healthy the process was for our Party.
How many good candidates can we put on a stage at once? The more the merrier.
MADem
(135,425 posts)many in the mix, particularly as the race progresses. At the outset it's not uncommon to see a lot of exploratory efforts; that said, they should start dropping by the wayside as the months pass...if you are still seeing a lot of candidates on the ballot right before election, it's suggestive of disarray.
gopiscrap
(23,724 posts)I would love to see the Democratic Party have a 2016 of Sanders/Warren!
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)Or President Christie, President Walker, etc. Welcome to George McGovern or Walter Mondale.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)ran someone from the right-wing of the party ever again.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)But when was the last time a flaming liberal was elected president? Certainly not in my lifetime.
I work for Democratic campaigns for a living and we were talking about 2016 with each other (all staff) last night. Elizabeth Warren does not have the power to expand the electoral map like Obama did (did John Kerry think he could put a state like North Carolina in play?) In fact she's too liberal for many people I work with (who are employed by a state Democratic Party) to vote for.
In 2008 I was for an Edwards/Kucinich ticket. I would have been like that then with Warren and Sanders, but I've worked on campaigns in 6 states, and I have doubt that they could carry any of the 6 states I've worked in (KY, WI, NJ, VA, NC, SC). They'd carry maybe some of the New England states, DC, and perhaps California. They couldn't even carry deep blue New York.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)The situation we are in now is that what was once considered conservative (example: maintaining but not cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits) is now denounced with a straight face by "moderate" pundits on the mainstream networks as "far left." This is the price that is paid for allowing the range of discussion to move steadily and consistently to the right. When Barry Goldwater was nominated in 1964- he was denounced by the moderate mainstream pundits as an extremist kook - only to find himself later in life marginalized by the Republican Party for being too liberal even though he hadn't changed one little bit.
When Bob Dole was selected by President Gerald Ford to be his Vice Presidential running mate in 1976 - he was selected specifically because President Ford wanted to appease the right-wing of the Republican Party by selecting someone who was considered at the time to be a staunch hard nosed conservative. Many of Bob Dole's positions especially the positions he held back when he was a sop to appease the right-wing would today be to the left of the establishment Democratic Party's positions.
If we don't change the fundamental range of discussion - I can see no hope to ending this never ending drift into ever more extreme right-wing dominance. I don't expect a Sanders or Warren candidacy for the Democratic nomination to result in either winning the nomination. I do expect it to result in pushing the range of discussion at least somewhat back to what was once considered moderate conservatism.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)Because then the Supreme Court gets even more corporate because it would ensure a GOP presidency just as soon as a Sarah Palin nomination ensures a Democratic presidency.
I've sat in candidate recruitment meetings at the local, state legislative, and congressional level. What makes an attractive candidate is one who does well on the opposing party's turf. When recruiting state legislative candidates, my own state looks to mayors and council members of traditionally GOP towns. While I haven't sat in on presidential recruiting meetings, the same logic can apply. You need a statewide elected official in a red or purple state that's a successful Democrat. I see Warren and Sanders as elected statewide in some of the most liberal states in the country (the fact that EW's election was closer than Claire McCaskill's and underperformed Obama by double digits and that raises red flags to me). When looking for a presidential nominee, I look for someone who can win statewide in a red or purple state (Of the 2008 nominees, only Bill Richardson, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, and perhaps Rudy Guiliani met that description) (Guiliani's city is higher in population than many states).
FWIW I haven't made a decision about 2016 myself yet either and I have no dog in this fight. My energy right now is focusing on turning a red state blue in 2014 by electing a Democratic governor in a southern state.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Last edited Sun May 4, 2014, 06:02 PM - Edit history (2)
of only minimizing the damage, going backwards on economic matters but admittedly significantly less backwards than the Republicans assure that - we can never, never, never move the country forward - We can at best only reduce the damage, temporarily. There is a reality that Sen. Sanders and Sen. Warren are highly articulate spokespeople for the progressive cause. They are candidates that make people think. No one can accuse Sarah Palin of that. I simply cannot embrace the philosophy that the purpose of the Democrat Party is to be liberal on social issues while dismantling the great economic achievements of an earlier progressive era - but dismantling them significantly slower than the Republicans. By embracing a gradualist shift to the right on economic issues we have created a political culture where a progressive agenda is treated in the mainstream media as something that is as far beyond the pale of respectable opinion as Goldwater/Reaganite conservatism was in 1964. This strategy may at times work for certain elections - but in the big picture we are left only with a message once articulated so well by Bill Maher, "Vote Democratic - We are pathetic - but the other guys are nuts." How long can that message remain viable? How far backwards do we have to drift? Or do we just admit it that Reagnism won and it is up to us to carry out that agenda but in a more watered down form?
2banon
(7,321 posts)Not in your wildest wet dreams. In fact, what they WILL do, is everything under the sun to undermine his bid at every turn during the primaries.. What a dumbass question/notion!
And Sanders knows this all too well.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)He has my vote.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Then again plenty of conservatives are sure that if they had run a "real" conservative in 2008 or 2012 they would have won too...
2banon
(7,321 posts)Unless HRC changes her party affiliation to Republican, you know you will simply be trotted out as the example of someone "too far left" in order to dress Hillary as the "moderate" Democrat, thus continuing the ridiculous charade for the money grabbing media circus clowns and the "horse race" that passes for "democratic" elections.
Don't pimp yourself out to these charlatans. Please don't.
mother earth
(6,002 posts)lifetime, which is exactly what the pre-BS is alluding to. It's downright shameful that any two names are all we can draw from.
Not to mention, a doubly fantastic ticket would be Sanders/Warren. If she's not running for prez, I'd bet she be willing to take that spot.