Bernie Sanders: “If I were to run for president, do you know how much money the Kochs would spend?

[kpete]

“If I were to run for president of the United States, do you know how much money the Koch brothers would spend, the military-industrial complex, the drug companies, the private insurance companies, corporate America?” he added. “It would be me, it would be my wife getting attacked, my kids getting attacked. So before I do that I have got to know, number one, is the message – is America ready for a candidate to take on the billionaire class and an agenda that works for working people?”

“If I were to run, we would need an unprecedented grassroots movement,” Sanders said. “Can we do that? Can we get millions of people involved? I don’t know if we can.”

Sander’s second concern was that he wouldn’t have enough active support from the American people to push his agenda through Congress.

“Here is the second thing, equally important,” he remarked. “And I’m the only — I think probably one of the few politicians who will say this, that no matter who is elected president of the United States, the best person in the world elected president, that president will fail unless there is the active involvement 365 days a year of the people. OK? You want to raise the minimum wage? We bring 2 million workers down to Washington, D.C., who understand who is going to vote against them, who is going to vote for them, we raise the minimum wage.”


MORE:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/bernie-sanders-sounds-skeptical-on-2016-id-need-an-unprecedented-movement-to-defeat-the-billionaires/

[louis-t]

3. This has been a paid political announcement from

whoever the Hell you are.

[hfojvt]

2. they wouldn't spend a nickel

The M$M would do all their work for free flinging the S-word around.

[merrily]

32. The MSM would not be the only ones, nor would Republicans.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. Not much, by the standards of these things, I suspect.

They wouldn't feel that they needed to.

[Nye Bevan]

24. Good point. They wouldn't waste their money attacking him unless he looked like he might win (nt)

[sabrina 1]

149. Yes they would. They KNOW someone like Bernie Sanders would have broad public

appeal if they DID NOT spend billions if necessary to try to discredit him.

They spent MILLIONS just trying to discredit ONE documentary. But someone like Bernie is a HUGE threat to their agenda.

We are already seeing some of the results of that spending on the internet whenever Bernie is mentioned as a possible candidate. 'Oh, he can't win, so don't waste your vote on someone who doesn't have a chance'. That's how it starts, try to dampen the enthusiasm for any actual candidate the people WANT.

Bernie knows the deal. He's watched it up close. He is correct.

And sadly, many Dems will join in the 'you know, I can't waste my vote even though I love him, b ecause the Repubs might win if I do'. THAT is why we never win. Defeatism and the MONEY that generates that defeatism deliberately.

[merrily]

35. Yes, they would. His ideas are dangerous to them. They don't want anyone thinking them or

spreading them, much like many DUers. The ideas are more of a threat to them than the man. They usually are.

[Dont call me Shirley]

44. Watch this GE tv commercial with dirty fuzzy little Bad Idea characters

http://m.

This is petrifying to free thought.

[merrily]

49. Don't need to. I read the New Testament.

Just kidding.

The video would be great-if Sesame Street produced it. Not so much if you see the G.E. logo.

[Dont call me Shirley]

52. The point is to sway immature thinkers into believing that ideas are bad things. That ideas should

be left up to the "all-wise" corporations. That they are the only ones who have the intelligence to be able to handle ideas.

Basically telling us not to have individual free thought because it is scary and dangerous.

What is scary and dangerous is the meme this commercial is promoting.

[merrily]

53. Yes, I got it.

[F4lconF16]

66. I hadn't seen that.

That is terrifying. Ideas are the enemy? Corporate propaganda is getting scarier and more blatant every day.

[Dont call me Shirley]

75. On the surface this commercial looks benign, but look deeper

http://m.

The cover page looks like a human skull. Ends with their human energy logo

[F4lconF16]

76. I think your link might be broken.

I hate oil companies' ads. They're full of so much bullshit:
-oil companies + environment = good
-natural gas = "clean" energy
-fracking + drilling = good
-liberals and conservatives and oil companies are all one big happy family while burning oil (probably truer than I want to admit)
-oil companies are the ones making clean energy happen

But you know what the biggest lie in there is? It's also the thing that scares me most:

CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE.

Bull. Shit. These ads always feature announcers who tell the audience that "We're all in this together", that "We all use oil, energy", that "We need each other". They speak as a corporation, yet pretend to be one of us. It's subtle, but there. Terrifying, if you ask me.

[Dont call me Shirley]

92. Here's the link.

It's the "Human Energy" part that is so insidious. It begs a thoughtful person to question, what does the company truly mean by that? Slavery?

[JonLP24]

112. They pour heavy money into elections they're already likely to win

They just drill & drill "terrorist loving liberal" image into voters' heads.

[JDPriestly]

141. Go door-to-door. Talk about issues.

Give people a questionnaire. You don't even have to ask them to check it off for real. Let them enjoy their privacy. Americans agree with Bernie Sanders. That's why Bernie Sanders needs grass-roots campaigners. It's fun going door-to-door. Just take a list of his statements on the issues. Knock on the door and as people how they feel about those issues. Tell them what Bernie Sanders thinks. Republicans -- middle class Republicans agree with Bernie Sanders on the issues -- much more than they agree with the Republican Party on the issues, that is the economic issues. We just have to get out there and talk to people.

In 1987, a young candidate for office knocked on our door. One of my daughters and my husband were home. The candidate introduced herself and shook the hands of my daughter and my husband. Who do you think my husband and I voted for? That young candidate. She has been elected to one office after the other here in California. She does well for people and people vote for her. That's how elections are won against all odds. It is a matter of people talking to other people and letting voters know that the Democrat is on the side of the people. Bernie Sanders is on the side of all of us. We will vote for him. Just knock on doors. And if a building is off limits to solicitation, find someone in the building who will knock for you.

[AndyTiedye]

152. We Need Millions More Like You, Who Have Ability to Persuade Total Strangers

For you going door-to-door is "fun". For others it is exhausting and futile.

[JDPriestly]

153. You just smile and say you are a neighbor. I tell them where I live.

If they disagree with me or say something ugly, I make light of it and do not take it personally. I remain friendly and hand them a brochure if they will take it. It's fun.

If you get a list from your Democratic Party office, you can see where Democrats live -- that is people who are registered as Democrats. You want to reach them and get them excited about your candidate.

Yesterday I went to a meeting that had nothing to do with politics. To my surprise, a woman I know who is not particularly interested in politics but who is a businesswoman blurted out that she likes Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. I was amazed. I wondered how she ever even heard of them. She is not a poor soul. She is upper middle class by my standard. And very enthusiastic about Bernie Sanders.

On the other hand, one of my other friends had never heard of Bernie Sanders -- confused his name with Barney Frannk. But hey, that one of my friends knows about Bernie Sanders and really likes him, especially that friend, reinforced my belief that his message will appeal to people across economic and party lines. He just makes sense.

His biggest problem is that people think he can't win. That is what he needs to address. He needs to point out how many people agree with him on the issues.

[woo me with science]

121. Bwah ha ha ha ha!

Yeah, none of those corporatists and corporate politicians are worried about losing control of the narrative. They would *never* be worried about something like that...

Just like they would never be concerned with pouring resources into online propaganda machines...

Obama taps "cognitive infiltrator" Cass Sunstein for Committee to create "trust" in NSA:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023512796

Salon: Obama confidant’s spine-chilling proposal: Cass Sunstein wants the government to "cognitively infiltrate" anti-government groups
http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/

The US government's online campaigns of disinformation, manipulation, and smear.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024560097

Snowden: ‘Training Guide’ for GCHQ, NSA Agents Infiltrating and Disrupting Alternative Media Online
http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/25/snowden-training-guide-for-gchq-nsa-agents-infiltrating-and-disrupting-alternative-media-online/

The influx of corporate propaganda-spouting posters is blatant and unnatural.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3189367

U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News To Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023262111

The goal of the propaganda assaults across the internet is not to convince anyone of anything.*
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801

The government figured out sockpuppet management but not "persona management."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023358242

The Gentleman's Guide To Forum Spies (spooks, feds, etc.)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4159454

Seventeen techniques for truth suppression.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4249741

Just do some Googling on astroturfing - big organizations have some sophisticated tools.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1208351

[badtoworse]

5. He won't get that grassroots movement.

Socialism sells in places like DU, but that's about it.

[arcane1]

15. That's because most people are too stupid to know what it means.

It's a "bad word" is all these idiots know.

[badtoworse]

17. Maybe, but there are many people who do know what means...

...and also think it's a bad word.

[arcane1]

19. Yeah but they are hypocrites, at minimum.

Perhaps a Sanders candidacy will show them how wrong and misguided they are. Assuming they enjoy things like public roads, the internet, etc.

[merrily]

36. Traffic lights. Medicare. Social Security. Food that is safe to eat. Etc.

[badtoworse]

63. The need for direct government ownership and oversight is greatly overestimated

There definitely are things for which the government needs to be responsible and which should not be done by private industry. The justice system, national defense, emergency management and many regulatory functions (environmental, securities and banking, utility regulation, etc.) are examples of what the government and only the government should be doing.

I don't have a problem with the government owning the roads, but there's no reason why the guy filling the potholes or plowing the snow has to be a government employee. We absolutely need to have mandatory saving for retirement, but there is no reason why the government needs to manage the system. Australia requires workers to contribute to qualified retirement plans, but the government does not manage the plans and can't take your money and spend it as fast as you deposit it - it's your money. IIRC, Chile also has a privately run plan where worker contribution is mandatory. I'd prefer such a plan to what we have here.

It should be mandatory that our kids be educated, but there is no reason why the government needs to run the schools. I could see the government in a regulatory role with education (i.e. setting standards, minimum curricula, safety, etc.). I grew up in NYC (Queens) and saw just how crappy the city schools were (and IMO still are). Many other large cities offer their kids a similar public "education". Why should we force parents to fund and/or send their kids to such schools? To me, this is an example of socialism at its worst.

I could go on, but I don't think I need to. I think the government is already way too large and way too intrusive. A socialist government would expand government ownership and management to many more areas in the economy. Sorry, I don't want that.

[blackspade]

86. I somewhat agreed until you got to schools....

Things like schools and prisons should never be privately run. When you ad a profit motive to such things they come apart at he seems.

[badtoworse]

93. Who said there had to be profit in the schools?

Lots of private schools are not run for profit. The important issue is which school will provide children with the best education.

Would you choose to send your kids to a crappy, inner-city public school over a great private school just because the private school was a for profit school? I wouldn't and I doubt many parents would either. I have no problem with a public school being available provided it was funded. at least in substantial part, by tuition paid by the attending students. Such a school would have to provide quality or parents would send their kids elsehwhere and it would close. What I see as grossly unfair is a situation where parents can't afford a private school after paying school tax and are forced to send their kids to a bad public school.

For me, prisons are in a gray area because they are an extension of the law enforcement process which I agree should be run by the government. At the same time, I wouldn't have a problem with the operation of a prison being contracted out, provided the appropriate safeguards and oversight were in place. The priority is to protect society and rehabilitate the convict. If the job is being done well and at reasonable cost, why does it matter who is paying the people doing the job?

[olegramps]

97. What really makes some inter-city schools crappy?

Isn't poverty the major cause? If it was really the teaching staffs' fault, then why do schools in middle class and upper class areas excel? I hardly accept that all intercity schools are staffed with incompetent teachers.

One major issue is parental involvement. This can be attributed to a number of issues such as parents having to work two or more jobs to survive, lack of basic academic achievement of the parents who were raised in a similar environment, the prevalence of gangs and drugs, and basic lack of community involvement. It really takes the whole village to raise a child and when its a dysfunctional village this is the results that you can expect. In every case that I have read when a person in this environment succeeds it can be attributed to a some dedicated person, a parent or teacher for example, who is dedicated to the task.

[badtoworse]

123. There's a lot of truth in your post, but it doesn't change anything as far as schools go.

There are inner city parents who are deeply concerned about their kids' education. There were demonstrations in NYC last September when DeBlasio tried to close the city's charter schools. Did you happen to see the people who were demonstrating? They looked pretty involved to me. My guess is that many (most?) of them are now enjoying the fruits of the "education" they got in a NYC public school and didn't want to send their kids there. I don't see why they should have to.

[olegramps]

127. They represent a small percentage of the total school population.

A certain percentage have found a way out of the dilemma but that doesn't address the over 90 % who are in a dysfunctional situation. These are parents are actively involved in the children's education, but it doesn't even scratch the surface of the major problems. Private schools are not the panacea in all cases. Take for instance fundamentalist Christian schools that engage in brain washing, unreasonable sex education along with denial of evolution and science in general. I don't see why I have to support these either.

I forgot to provide the enrollment figures for NY City Public Schools. There are over 2,700,000 enrolled in public schools. There is only 21,000 seats available for Charter Schools.

[badtoworse]

128. That way out of the dilemma needs to be expanded

I'll be offline for a while, so I need to cut off the discussion. I enjoyed the discussion.

[dotymed]

126. How do you feel about a living wage as a minimum wage?

about the "trickle down theory" of economics?
About higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations?

[badtoworse]

129. The minimum wage should be raised.

Corporate taxes are too high - USA's corporate taxes are the highest in the industrialized world. Why do you think companies are moving offshore and taking jobs with them?

Don't have time to get into it now - I'll be away for a while w/o internet. Maybe down the road.

[JDPriestly]

143. Actuallly, there are reasons why government needs to do all those things, education,

snow-plowing, etc

The reasons are 1) these jobs affect all of us in the public sphere of our lives. For example, if the snow is plowed well on our street by people who answer to us, by people we can fire because they are government employees, by people who are paid decently and whose pay is not reduced because part of what we pay them goes to the CEO of some country, we all benefit. This is particularly true in the area of education. While some private schools are excellent, especially when it comes to on-line schools, many of them are scams.

2) when the job is done by public employees, the voters can vote out the government officials who hire incompetent employees. The quality of work is more apparent and more subject to public information disclosure laws. Note that the hospital in Texas in which ebola was spread was a private hospital. Private ownership insures that the owners will cut corners when it comes to the quality of the work. Public employees answer to the public. That is one reason that people have the false impression that government employees do not do good work. Government employees' work is scrutinized, easily scrutinized by newspapers and media because, with the exception of the work records of police officers, the information about work performance may be, not directly, but indirectly obtained through public records requests about the performance of the department doing and managing the work.

3) the civil service system -- public employment -- was developed at a time of great corruption in our government. Tammany Hall is the key word to Google on this. We developed a public servant system that placed certain public employees above politics. We protected their jobs and made the appointments merit-based. Prior to that time, they were simply political -- rewards for political favors in some cases. Private contractors can get their jobs through a bidding process. Some awards are made with no bidding process at all. (That is shameful in my opinion.) Some requests for proposals or bids are tailored to elicit a bid from a company so that no other company or non-profit can qualify for the contract. That is corruption in my opinion.

I could go on. It is very popular to say nasty things about public employees. But much of the criticism is just people repeating right-wing propaganda. Stupid people who are simply not very aware of the history of public employment versus private contracting in our country.

I am not saying that all government work should be done by public servants. Building a highway is one-time thing. That should be contracted out. But shoveling snow could best be done by a government agency.

[badtoworse]

157. I'm in Italy right now and haven't been on the net for a week.

I'll respond next week when I get back

[rhett o rick]

158. The problem with your view point is that jobs that provided for needed services

should be government run by government employees or heavily regulated. Your example of the guys who fill pot holes shouldn't have to be government employees. I only agree if the government gets to insure that the company filling pot holes is regulated as to how much of the citizens money goes to pot hole filling and how much goes to owners. And that the owners of the company aren't related to the people letting the contract. The idea of free competition is a fantasy.

[badtoworse]

159. Government contracts usually go out for bids

That's how you insure that the people are getting the best price

[rhett o rick]

160. I don't have a problem with competition for non-essential services and products.

In a perfect world, you might be right, but in the real world, other than electronic products and other non-essential products, there is very little honest competition.

Capitalism abhors competition.

[Diclotican]

27. badtoworse

badtoworse

I guess universal Healt care - who is a bi-product of socialism is a bad idea I guess - its better to go broke because of a couple of hundred thousand in hospital bills - than to be able to come back to life - and live the rest of your natural life in a healthy body... Without the burden of paying of a medical bill whos hould never have been there in the first place.

I doubt many americans would know what socialism was - if it so was to bit them in the ass to be honest... the ignorance is something to behold - when even universal healt care is out of the questing - because it is to similar to socialism

Diclotican

[MontyPow]

29. Enjoying your socialist created internet?

And Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist, which different from a Socialist.

[MoonchildCA]

33. Exactly! No one seems to get that.

[MontyPow]

47. I think the understanding of the commons has

Never been properly explained. I think part of that is the fear of being labeled socialist. People such as Bernie Sanders are good at articulating the benefit of socialized commons, and what should be considered commons.

What can you do?

[merrily]

45. He's an independent who was a Democratic Socialist, not a Socialist.

The two are not synonyms. Facts matter. To some people, anyway.

Someone better tell Schumer how bad Democratic Socialists are how much worse they are then Democrats. The DSCC doesn't even bother to run a candidate against Sanders and Schumer called him a valuable ally.

[Live and Learn]

82. Yeah, and there are those that know what Communism and Capitalism

mean too and think they are bad words. Truth is, no one system is the answer and the people in power can f-up any system. Checking power (like the Constitution attempted to do) is a big part of the solution but the checks need to be updated continually too.

[PatrickforO]

74. Sanders isn't really a socialist in any pure sense.

He is a populist. See, that's the problem; anytime anyone starts advocating things like cutting the gross military bloat - I mean budget, sorry - and putting in place single payer healthcare, affordable college education, subsidized childcare, raise the minimum wage, expand Social Security - you know, things that would actually HELP the American people, they automatically get called a...

<GASP>

Socialist!

<GASP>

But Sanders is a populist. Warren is a populist. The Koch's would spend a lot because his ideas are dangerous to them. Warren's are dangerous to them. If the populist message actually began getting out, people would start supporting it.

[joshcryer]

85. Sanders is more of a pragmatist than 90% of DU.

[Cha]

144. Bernie is very Pragmatic at times.. you can tell he actually thinks and looks at the whole picture.

I like that about him.

[joshcryer]

145. He's a statesman.

He wouldn't let progress be delayed by ideology. In fact, he would condemn such efforts. Which is why if he runs he runs as a Democrat, much to the dismay of those wanting him to be a spoiler.

[Dustlawyer]

88. I understand what Bernie's concerns are, even among those who supposedly support his ideas,

most of those people are not willing to get out and march, the most he might expect is a $5 check from them, and that won't do it. He would have to have a core group of committed people willing to do what was necessary to save our Democracy. Too many say "We cannot split the ticket" "Bernie will cost us the election" as if getting another corporate Democrat is all that great! "But the If the Republicans get in life as we know it will end", yea, well they will get in sooner or later, so why don't we support the first candidate supporting things that will protect us from them, such as Publicly Funded Elections and getting rid of campaign contributions.
Most people, even here at DU, aren't willing to put boots on the ground and stand behind their ideals. Things haven't gotten bad enough for them yet. It is a shame that we will wait until it really is too late to do anything about climate change. People see it, know it, but they just cannot believe it yet, cannot accept it is true!

[frylock]

132. but populism sells everywhere

[JDPriestly]

142. False. His political view is mainstream America.

If you call that socialism, so be it. Because he advocates what Americans want.

He will get a grassroots movement. He talks common sense. Everyone else talks gobbeldy-gook.

[bluestateguy]

154. True, and

"So, educate the people!" the idealists say.

But anyone who has been through a presidential campaign in their lifetime knows that campaigns are just about the worst venue to educate people. There's just too much noise.

[Ed Suspicious]

156. That's why I get out there very publicly on Facebook, especially on insane threads that are seen

by nutters and mushy middlers, I get out there and declare my socialist tendencies proudly as socialist. I say things like "Even socialist me shook George Bush Sr.'s hand when he came through town all those years ago. Surely Reagan-Democrat Obama can't be that horribly objectionable to your republican sensibilities." as I sit back and watch their own more thoughtful/less reactionary friends like my post lending credence to the socialist brand and to the idea that Obama is not an extremist in the way the right tries to frame him and that it is crazy the way the nutters attack the president, it's is not even rational.

I don't know if it's a good idea, but I feel like it says socialism is OK. I'm on your friends list and I'm an admitted socialist, you're not afraid of me are you? It says socialism is not what they would have you think it is. Even somebody as opposed to republican policy as A socialist might be, they respect you and they respect the system, and they respect the country even though they poorly chose the president a few election cycles ago.

I think it normalizes a demonized brand. It makes the demonizers look unhinged.

Speaking well of or even acknowledging socialism as an option will help make Bernie more palatable to those in the middle.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Sounds like another good reason for him to run.

[G_j]

25. exactly!

[Xyzse]

7. Dude, if they spend that much for this, I would think that would be great.

The closer they are to insolvency the better.
Not that it would happen, but I want them to waste money.

Is that bad?

[PeteSelman]

12. They could drop ten billion and not even feel it.

They make money so fast it's near impossible to bring them to insolvency.

They have 83 thousand million dollars between them.

Think about that.

[Xyzse]

18. I do.

Like I mentioned, "Not that it would happen, but I want them to waste money. "

Heck, that money would then be actually going around the economy rather than just being stuck in their accounts.

[VanillaRhapsody]

30. and if it worked?

You're willing to accept that outcome I am sure.. .for me I ain't gambling with the progress we have made and that ironically Bernie said we should defend...

[Xyzse]

42. What do you mean? That Bernie run?

If he runs, he goes through the primaries. If he wins the primaries, I will vote for him.

Otherwise it would probably be another Democratic candidate.

One thing that I must mention is that, sure there is support for Senator Sanders here, but I don't know how well he would play everywhere else.

If Republicans are willing to go and spend against a candidate who draws much attention, it is money taken out elsewhere, and goes to the economy.

If he runs as an Independent, I can't vote for him, but it takes away money from the Kochs regardless, and perhaps bring the conversation to a more progressive tone.

As long as he can bow out early enough if his chances are slim, then I could respect that.

[VanillaRhapsody]

62. he doesn't even get a chance at the Primaries UNTIL he BECOMES a Democrat....

there is no other possible way for him to win. AND even if he does that...he has to win the Primary to boot which means beating Hillary Clinton. Even if he survived all that.....he still wouldn't win....AND we would be left holding the Republican President bag...

[F4lconF16]

70. If he can win the primaries

He can win the general. He's already stated he'd run as a Democrat.

It's people like you that prevent us from even having a chance at a true democracy. It's sad.

[VanillaRhapsody]

73. No he has not.....

he cannot win the Primary....do you think Hillary is just going to GTFO of his way?

Wow just wow.....

And its people like me....with their damn feet on the ground.....who understand how things really happen...much to my own chagrin at times..

[Tommymac]

89. Proof he cannot win please. My crystal ball was repo-ed yesterday eom

[VanillaRhapsody]

90. first he is not a Democrat

Second...historical records are my proof.

[JEB]

114. I thought Hillary was a Repub.

Except for a few social issues. Bernie is a far superior candidate. Give the people some credit. They can figure that out.

[VanillaRhapsody]

115. welllll.....there you go "thinking again"....

http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

[JEB]

117. Hillary is a corporate candidate

and a war hawk.

[VanillaRhapsody]

131. no she isnt thats a lie...

My proof..
http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

[VanillaRhapsody]

116. and this is Democratic Underground

We have a Primary Election to choose our candidate...

[Tommymac]

133. Ah, so only Democrats can win the Presidency. Nice straw man.

Again, I'll ask for - statistics polls links - to stuff this scarecrow you are building.



Otherwise your opinion holds just as much water as mine - and my opinion is Bernie can Shock the World if the People wake up.

[VanillaRhapsody]

135. and THIS is Democratic Underground.....

its about electing DEMOCRATS....perhaps you were confused...


You want statistics?

Okay....remember you asked for them!

Democratic Presidential Primary 2016
McClatchy-Marist Poll

September 24–29, 2014

408 Democrats and Democratic leaning independents

Margin of error: +/- 4.9



D Hillary Clinton 64%
D Joe Biden 15%
D Elizabeth Warren 8%
Undecided 6%
O Bernie Sanders 4%
D Martin O'Malley 2%
D Jim Webb 1%

You know what they say....he who last.... 's harder!

[Tommymac]

138. Bernie Sanders is the Best 'Democrat' in Congress...even though he is not a member of the Party.

His voting record speaks for itself - and the Democrats are proud to have him caucus with them.

As far as historical examples of the reliability of early polls, and low rated candidates who emerging from the pack and eventually beat the pre-anointed front runner, lets take look at an early CNN survey from November 2006.

Poll: Clinton leads '08 Democratic pack, Kerry slips

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/20/2008.poll
POSTED: 5:59 p.m. EST, November 20, 2006
(CNN) -- Recently re-elected Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York is twice as popular as her nearest Democratic rivals in the 2008 presidential race, according to a new CNN poll.

Clinton was favored by 33 percent of people asked who they were "most likely to support for the Democratic nomination for president in the year 2008."

The poll, conducted by telephone Friday through Sunday by Opinion Research Corp., interviewed 530 registered voters who described themselves as Democrats or independents who lean to the Democratic Party. (Read the complete poll results -- PDF)

Clinton was ranked first among 10 potential Democratic candidates. (Poll)

Second place for "likely" support was nearly even among Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois (15 percent), former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina (14 percent) and former Vice President Al Gore (14 percent), given the poll's margin of error or plus or minus 4 percentage points. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic nominee in 2004, lost support, dropping from 12 percent in late October to 7 percent in the latest poll.

Who is laughing last?

Have a Progressively good day. Cheers!

[VanillaRhapsody]

146. You asked if HE could get elected President...

thats what I am laughing at!

and why I am still laughing harder.....YOU got nothing! He is a Vermont Socialist Congressman! Getting elected as Congressman in Vermont.....is MUCH different than getting elected to President of the United States!

so yeah...

[VanillaRhapsody]

147. and its still Front-runner 64%.......Bernie...4%!

Your math skills are lacking...

but good luck making up a 60 point spread!

[Xyzse]

96. That's very true.

Which is why I mentioned that if he goes through primaries as a Democrat.

I also gave you my view if he runs as an Independent. I will not vote for an Independent in the Presidential level.
However, if he manages to move the tone to a more progressive agenda, then I am all for it.
If and only if he leaves the race at a minimum of 3 weeks before the actual election.

[VanillaRhapsody]

100. oh yeah....3 weeks...what a window

[Xyzse]

101. I mean, 3 weeks before the election happens.

He's more than welcome to campaign all the way till then.

Either way, this is really just speculation. I am not one to block any one from trying to go for the nomination or the Presidency.
Would I think it ill advised? Maybe, but I don't really see the big deal with this.

He mentions stuff like that, but I can't really take him seriously.
If Kochs use up money to campaign against him, from here till geeze, 2 years from now, that is money spent elsewhere, rather than places that would do more harm.

It is even possible that he would not even be in the general public's consciousness within a year from now.
I don't know who is going to be running.

[VanillaRhapsody]

105. he can do whatever he wants..

But as long as he is not a Dem he is Third Party and subject to rules about such on DU.

[Xyzse]

108. I understand.

Well, as mentioned only way I can vote for him is if he primaries as a Democrat.
Otherwise, he's a NO for me.

[rhett o rick]

8. There it is folks. We are screwed. Sen Sanders is telling us the truth and most of us can't handle

it. He is saying that whoever runs for the 99% has to be ready to sacrifice their lives and family. The American Oligarchy will not allow them to win at whatever cost. It might be worth it for a candidate if they thought the majority of Americans supported them, but that will not be the case. A large share of eligible voters just don't care. It doesn't matter if they have good excuses, like they don't trust the system, they just won't vote. Another large block of voters will vote for some clown because they are idiots. And then we come to the Democratic Party where a candidate for the 99% will get some support, but even in the Democratic Party there are those that idolize the American Aristocracy and believe the rhetoric they espouse.

The glaring truth is that Sen Sanders could sacrifice everything and do very little to get our democracy back.

Maybe we should drink the cool-aid and vote for HRC and the American Aristocracy.

[arcane1]

16. And sadly, not many people want to actively participate. Nevertheless, I won't give up!

[LawDeeDah]

23. The glaring truth is that Barack Obama could sacrifice everything and do very little to get

our democracy back.

I think that is the way things have been going and mostly likely would go that way for a President Sanders. Very sad but the truth. I know this has been said a billion times in thousands of politics forums, but for true change you have to start local and build up. What is the point of having a good President when the Congress and Senate and governorships, etc., are infested with the criminally insane greedy and without basic human decency.

[arcane1]

39. "You have to start local and build up" EXACTLY!! +100

[merrily]

43. As if we haven't been trying on the local level?

[rhett o rick]

68. Not to discourage local actions, but we've been doing that for decades and we only

get so far. When the politicians get to Washington, they get bought out by the Oligarchs.

[LawDeeDah]

71. I didn't mean to sound like nothing is being done. The struggle is eternal.

It's just the fight seems so impossible sometimes with the power the vampires have.

[merrily]

37. Grape or cherry?

[rhett o rick]

65. Cherry

[MannyGoldstein]

61. FDR was only 63 when he died

His body was exhausted, it broke.

Leading the good fight for meaningful change against entrenched dark forces is brutal, brutal work. It needs to be done again, as it needed to be done in 1933. But it whoever leads the thing, along with the people close to them, must realize the incredible struggle ahead. They'll not likely to be killed by an assassin, but they may otherwise give their life for the good cause.

[ozone_man]

69. Oh come on, do you really fold up so easily?

This is about the long haul, about expressing your mind as to where things ought to be, not party line dogma. The times are changing and HC does not represent change.

[rhett o rick]

139. I am not sure you got my point which is that the American Oligarchs have so much power

they can scare progressives to the point of not running.

[VanillaRhapsody]

110. soooooo....I think YOU have been doing much

More than drinking "kool-aid" if you think telling Actual Democrats that they are drinking Koolaid for supporting a Dem over an Independent right here on of all places Demicratic Underground

[Ampersand Unicode]

134. So to run for the 99% you basically need to have nothing to lose?

Fine then, I'm throwing my hat into the ring. I can't think of a single person who'd shed a tear if I got Oswalded on the campaign trail.

Except I just turned old enough to vote. Damn you, constitution, only trusting people over 30...

[VanillaRhapsody]

136. ONLY because YOU think YOU are the voice of the Democrats....YOU are NOT!

YOU are a Democrat leaning Independent....that is all!

and guess what else.....64% of Democrats AND Democratic Leaning Independents support Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders!

[SheilaT]

9. Maybe what we should hope for is

that candidates like Bernie would get the Koch brothers to spend so much money they'd go bankrupt.

A girl can dream, can't she?

[PeteSelman]

13. Impossible.

Even in a dream.

[A HERETIC I AM]

26. Just a little perspective on how much 80 billion dollars can generate in interest

If you had 80 billion dollars invested in just about the safest long term bond in the world - the 30 year US treasury, the current coupon rate (the percentage paid of a $1000 face vaue bond) is 3.125%. That means for every million you hold in those bonds, they will pay $31,250 per year in interest.
A hundred million pays $3,125,000 per year
A billion pays $31,250,000

That is the equivalent of $85, 616.44 PER DAY in interest payments.

Times 80 equals $6,849,315.07 PER DAY. (Yes, that's almost seven million dollars a day)
(Source)
http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/

The Koch brothers are getting a WAY better return than 3.125% on their money.

It would be virtually impossible to make them go broke by simply spending money on a political campaign.

[SheilaT]

28. Ahh, but wouldn't it be great if we

could get them to spend it all?

Okay, I know perfectly well you are absolutely right and my little silly wish about getting them to spend it all just isn't going to happen.

But you're doing the math (and thank you for that) points out how vast the sums of money are that people like the Koch brothers have access to.

Heck, if they gave away five million dollars a day to someone, in a little over a year's time every single person in this country could have a million dollars.

[merrily]

40. If Bernie wins, it will matter less how much money the Koch's have.

You cannot buy a politician who refuses to be bought. And Bernie's financial records show he hasn't been bought in all his years in state and federal politics.

[grahamhgreen]

10. Wow! First 5 posts out of the gate are anti, almost as if they're already after him.....

[merrily]

41. Almost?

[adirondacker]

46. If they're not gettin paid, they're gettin played. nt

[merrily]

54. +1 adirondacker, I am so stealing that and you can't stop me.

If my memory allows, I will give you credit, though. Either way, I'm stealing it.

[adirondacker]

109. !

You are always my guest, and want to say I Always enjoy reading your comments. Real democrats need a voice too and I thank you for being one of them.

[merrily]

111. Awww, thank you so much! Back at you. We all need a voice.

Still stealin, though.

[djean111]

104. Bernie is not Hillary, so yeah, that will happen.

I expect to see that cute little Hillary is a liberal chart, eventually, if this OP has legs.

[sadoldgirl]

11. Of course he is telling the truth,

so does that mean he will stop trying? I hope not, but fear it.

[merrily]

56. It means he needs to hear from Americans who want him to run.

[arcane1]

14. "unless there is the active involvement 365 days a year of the people" PREACH IT!!!

The one point that too many people overlook. We are ALL responsible!

[wilsonbooks]

22. And the battle has been going on forever

and will never end. We must continue the struggle.

[The Traveler]

20. Truths of this sort are jagged pills

and the truth will only set ya free if you accept and then act on it.

I think Senator Sanders is trying to exert some real leadership. The question is ... do the American people retain the capacity to recognize, and follow, good leadership? Do we as a people care enough about our fellow citizens to get involved and stand together? Or do we just want to let the "elites" work it all out for us?

I want him to run ... as a Democrat. But I sure understand his reluctance.

Trav

[merrily]

51. He isn't expressing any reluctance to run.

He's asking America if it wants him to run.

[Renew Deal]

21. Nothing, because he would lose in the primaries

But if he got the nomination... Plenty. I don't think the Koch's differentiate between Democrats.

[merrily]

50. Disagree on both counts. They don't want him with a megaphone to spread his ideas.

The spread of the ideas is far more dangerous to them than any one person. Just ask Herod.

And, yes, the Koch's do differentiate between Democrats. They didn't stay that rich by being willfully ignorant about politics. They donated to the DLC.

[jeepers]

59. Do you think Bernie will call for riots in the streets?

The American constitution was written 250 years go by a bunch of wealthy white guys for a bunch of wealthy white guys and is enforced by a bunch of wealthy white guys. It needs to be up dated. It needs to be changed. Change will not come from the legislature. Not ever. It must come from the people. It is the one remedy called for in the Declaration of Independence and cited in the preamble to the Constitution open to the people.
I dream of such an independent movement happening over the course of a presidential campaign, largely happening on the internet and on alternative media, while they are still free, and involving as many American voices as wish to participate.
Senator Sanders goal is something greater than himself and greater than the presidency. He is looking for justice. We can write a million letters, post a billion scripts. We need to act.

[BeyondGeography]

31. Nice cut-and-paste from the 2008 Obama campaign

Last edited Thu Oct 16, 2014, 09:05 PM - Edit history (1)

“Here is the second thing, equally important,” he remarked. “And I’m the only — I think probably one of the few politicians who will say this, (WRONG) that no matter who is elected president of the United States, the best person in the world elected president, that president will fail unless there is the active involvement 365 days a year of the people...

A somewhat workmanlike version of we are the change we have been waiting for (or change happens from the bottom up), but Obama said basically the same thing repeatedly throughout 2007-08.

I'm not getting on Bernie's case. Like Obama before him, he's just offering a reality check for anyone who thinks he or any President can wave a magic wand.

[WillyT]

34. K & R !!!

[Enthusiast]

38. Kicked and recommended!

Thank you, kpete.

I am squarely against Fascism.

[Dreamer Tatum]

48. None. In fact I'm sure they hope he does run.

He would have no prayer of winning.

[Tarheel_Dem]

57. +1. Bernie's support, such as it is, comes from VT and forums like this. Like it or not,

HRC beats all comers, inside & outside the party. And this time, she'll have much of the Obama coalition to boot.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

[merrily]

58. You are mistaken about how much the Koch's would spend.

Whether he has a chance of winning or not, running would give him more of a megaphone than anyone has been willing to give him so far. The last thing they want is someone with those ideas and a megaphone.

As far as his chances of winning, I find people who don't want him to win say he has no chance, much as with Obama in 2007.

[brooklynite]

98. Do you think big business worried much about Dennis Kucinich?

[merrily]

102. Because Kuciinich and Sanders are the same? And the Koch brothers make up all of big business?

And every election is just like every election before it?

[brooklynite]

103. So if Sanders and the Koch brothers are all anamolous entities...

..what basis do you have to assume they'll care for a minute about a left-wing candidate with no proved ability to attract voters beyond his limited Vermont constituency.

[merrily]

107. I did not say Sanders and Koch brothers are all anomolous entities.

However, if I am posting that I think the Koch brothers will do X, I mean the Koch brothers. And that is not the same as saying every wealthy male or every wealthy person or all of big business. And, if I am posting about Sanders in 2016, that is not the same as posting about Kucinich in 2008. Hell, we're both Democratic posters on DU who have lived in or near Manhattan, and you and I can't be equated that way, nor does what we do equal what everyone in NY does. What about any of that is so hard to understand?

what basis do you have to assume they'll care for a minute about a left-wing candidate with no proved ability to attract voters beyond his limited Vermont constituency.

At least as much basis as you have to assume they won't.

No proven ability to yadda yadda Vermont. Funny how many times that same thing has been posted on DU in almost the same wording. I see a lot of total coincidences like that in the posts of certain posters. Like "the more the merrier in the Democratic primary" (but not Sanders). But I digress.


No proven ability to attract voters outside Illinois. Obama 2008. No proven ability to attract voters outside New York. Hillary (2008).No proven ability to attract voters outside Arkansas. Bubba. No proven ability to attract voters outside California. Reagan, Brown. No proven ability to attract voters outside Georgia. CA on and on and on.

Change the name of the state and you can make the identical statement about each and every politician who has not theretofore run for President, including Ted Kennedy when he ran against Carter and Bobby Kennedy when he ran and LBJ, etc. But a group of posters says it about Sanders, as though it were some kind of novel and insurrmountable obstacle. And, of course, since Hillary did lose a Presidential primary, too, like Ted Kennedy, that kind of comment does double duty. Disses Sanders and makes it seem as though losing a Presidential primary in the past is the best bet for the Presidency.

Candidly, I don't think a lot of posting tactics of that kind.

[brooklynite]

119. I have no objection at all if Sanders gets in the Primary...

I'll simply work to make sure someone else gets nominated because my 35 years of political experience (including working for liberals like Carter, Mondale and Dukakis) convinced me that he won't be able to win a natoinal election. For that reason, I see no reason to assume that the Koch Brothers or the Chamber of Commerce or any other RW group will feel compelled to spend a dollar more than they would with any conventional Democratic candidate.

[scarystuffyo]

55. He might have a chance in the primary but for some strange reason

many democrats support Hillary and want to see her POTUS

Makes no sense if you're a democrat and vote for Hillary in a primary

People that think she won't run are delusional , she's already raising a war chest

[merrily]

60. We are supposed to buy that she is a sure shot in the general--and no one

else can possibly win the general. IMO, that is anything but the truth. Either of those parts.

[rhett o rick]

67. It all depends on the Ruling Oligarchs. I think they wanted Obama to win in 2008.

They "helped" the Republicans pick a couple of real losers. I am thinking they might run Jeb and be happy with whichever one wins.

[merrily]

72. Certainly, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy wanted Obama to be the nominee.

We can find links to support all that.

The DNC's adverse rulings on a state or two didn't hurt Obama, either.

And I had the feeling at least MSNBC was pulling for Obama as nominee, too.

I don't know about the networks. It was pretty clear they were not for Dean in 2004, but I did not notice anything blatant on behalf of Obama in 2008. However, some program recently re-ran the reaction from media after Obama's 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention that nominated Kerry. They guys in the news booths (forgot who they were) didn't even let him finish before they started saying he'd be President. It was a great speech, yes, but I don't recall news people going from "Who is this guy?" to "Oval Office" on the basis of one speech.

What also helped, Bush's entire administration and global economic collapse in June 2008. That trumped any October surprise I can recall.

As far as the losers on the Republican side, I don't know who picked them.

[INdemo]

83. Yes but just how many Democrats that were still living in the 60's

just didn't show up to vote for Obama.Obama's grass roots organization and Howard Deans's 50 state strategy is what palyed a very big part in the outcome of 2008

So Hillary does have the edge with millionaires and billionaires lined up for her campaign but that should tell voters something about whom she would give here attention to

[merrily]

84. I may not be understanding.

Do you mean how many people who were Democratic voters in the '60s and are still alive now did not vote for Obama? I am not sure anyone knows the answer to that. Can you give some context for that question?

Obama's grass roots organization and Howard Deans's 50 state strategy is what palyed a very big part in the outcome of 2008

2008 primary or general? My reply 72 was about the primary, but, if you mean the general, yes. Dean's strategy definitely helped a lot. His "reward" was to be passed over for Health, and to be replaced in the DNC by Tim Kaine, who already had a full time job as Governor and who, IMO, did a really crappy job.

"Don't give 'em back the keys." Even Jon Stewart could not believe his ears.

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/x3j2f8/tim-kaine

The bulk of Obama's grass roots organization was the Democratic Party's grass roots organization. But, yes, definitely, the enthusiasm for both Obama personally and for getting rid of Bush, most definitely amped up the Party's usual.

[INdemo]

95. No I meant how many Democrats just didn't vote because they refused to vote for

an African-American because of how they carried their Prejudices forward with them from that era. Going back to the 2008 election
I don't how many Democrats I heard say "you know I have voted for a Democrat all my voting life and I refuse to vote for Obama"
Even in Congress those that served in both houses refused to allow the Presidents agenda to move forward just because he is black.And even the media showed their bigotry.

But in spite of all this President Obama prevailed. But just where would we be if he had co-operation from Congress ?

[merrily]

99. Ah, thanks for the explanation. That clears up my question.

Thank goodness, my experience is so very different from yours. Then again, I have lived in blue states all my life and my family (down to kids of first cousins) and friends are all Democrats. I have one close-ish relative who is Republican and one lifelong friend whom I met in elementary school who somehow became Republicans; and that's it.

In 2008, every Democrat I knew well enough to talk politics to IRL was very excited about Obama, both because we liked him for President and because, on top of that, we were getting to vote for the first African American to head the ticket of a major party. We knew it was a great and important moment in American history. Same thing for those I met in line while waiting to vote, but I am not sure the very young ones got the history part as deeply.

In the convenience store I walked into right after I voted, was ranting about how he'd never seen anything like this before in his life, meaning, I guess, how long the line to vote was, and "I'm not voting for him, so I don't care." Could have been an angry racist Republican or Democrat or just an angry man. I have no clue. Some of the younger store employees had their backs to him, but I could see their faces and they were mocking him.

I am so glad I live in blue state. I hope like anything it stays that way.

[Babel_17]

64. Senator Sanders spares us the BS. That's good.

Senator Sanders spares us the BS. That's good.

That could serve as the preamble to what Sanders might lay out as his plan for the majority of Americans to take back their government. And that plan could serve anyone who deserves, and wins, the nomination.

[Le Taz Hot]

77. I'm ready.

Where do I sign up?

[Beartracks]

78. So, a Sanders candidacy would pour million$ into the economy?

==============

[hedgehog]

106. +1

[dionysus]

79. unfortunately, i don't think so. our electorate is shallow and lazy. lack of name recognition alone

would do him in

[TheKentuckian]

80. Yes, it is critical to not diffuse the electorate and particularly your own support

in favor of a game of go along to get along inside baseball bullshit and corporate taint licking.

[liberal_at_heart]

81. I have never gotten out and worked for a campaign before. I would work for Bernie.

[TRoN33]

87. As his fellow Vermonter I'd be 110% behind him.

If I have a chance, I'd hit the campaign road with him.

[marym625]

91. I'm in.

[Reter]

94. Assuming he runs as a Democrat, they would spend it all on him, so he gets the Democratic nomination

They wouldn't have to spend a dime in the general.

[Orsino]

113. The same amount they are going to spend anyway. n/t

[polichick]

118. Bless him for speaking the truth. Is the country ready? imo no, the party...

isn't even ready.

[dotymed]

120. I have began telling people who will listen

about Bernie and what he stands for; us.
I will not stop.

[JEB]

122. How much did Hillary cost?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

124. Kochs might spend to support Bernie's campaign

If his campaign is alive at the end, he splits the Dem vote.

Sweet for Kochs.

[adirondacker]

137. They sure paid Cuomo handsomely. nt

[LynneSin]

125. Kochs are going to spend that much on any Democrat running for President

I don't think Sanders is any more special because he is Bernie Sanders. Kochs just like to waste their money on political campaigns thinking somehow that makes them 'King Makers'

[indepat]

130. TPTB will never allow anyone of Senator Sanders' philosophical bent to be nominated, much

less elected, for the interests of TPTB will be protected at all costs. As much as I like, admire, and trust BHO, he has not made a dent in TPTB's power, control, and fortunes, with the MIC complex continuing to expand and the propensity to use our armed forces to exert hegemony around the globe unabated.

[brooklynite]

148. Great excuse!

Saves you from having to do any work, and when Sanders fails to ignite a national electorate, you have an easy answer.

[JDPriestly]

140. Go, Bernie. Run, Bernie. We will support you. I know how to register voters. I am

indefatigable when it comes to campaigning. Run, Bernie, run.

[redruddyred]

150. I'll work for you bernie.

I'll work for you for free.

[drynberg]

151. IF NOT NOW, WHEN? WE ARE IN THE LAST DAYS OF THE OLD SHIT, WE GOTTA

Have an alternative for the Nation and World to have a chance...please run Bernie, and maybe if you do, Elizabeth may be willing to entertain being your running mate. If not, I'm sure another great candidate will appear. We need your Truth right now...it's now or never.

[woo me with science]

155. kick