Sanders weighs Clinton challenge

[DonViejo]

Source: The Hill

Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) is gearing up for a presidential primary challenge against Hillary Clinton and hopes to capitalize on Democratic concerns over Clinton’s coziness with Wall Street banks. Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Senate Democrats, plans to travel to two crucial presidential battleground states next month.

He will speak at an AFL-CIO breakfast hosted in Manchester, N.H., over Labor Day weekend and then travel to Iowa in mid-September, when Clinton will be there building support for her own 2016 campaign. Sanders plans to return to New Hampshire, which neighbors his home state, on Sept. 27 to speak at the Stafford County Democrats annual dinner near Durham, according to his staff.

“I’ll be going to New Hampshire, and I’ll be going to Iowa. That’s part of my trying to ascertain the kind of support that exists for a presidential run,” he said Monday in an interview.

Sanders has not said whether he would run as an independent or a Democrat.


Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/215939-sanders-weighs-clinton-challenge#ixzz3BWvMsiRg

[earthside]

1. Run! Bernie, Run! n/t

[Vincardog]

27. + 1,000 run Bernie RUN

[840high]

51. ++++++

[Scuba]

58. + another

[Autumn]

2. Go for it Bernie, I will support you 110%

We need Bernie.

[Louisiana1976]

3. If Sanders goes against Hillary in the primary I'll vote for him.

[daleanime]

22. +1

[yurbud]

61. I usually vote for what's left of what's left.

[frylock]

65. we don't get much of a choice either by the time the primaries come to CA

[yurbud]

114. yep. That's why I said "what's left." I mailed in my primary ballot for Edwards...

and by the day of the actual primary, he was knocked out.

[frylock]

137. i did the same exact thing. mailed my ballot the day before edwards dropped out..

now I make a habit of filling out my absentee the night before, and physically dropping it off at my polling place in the morning.

[Cal33]

127. I would, too.

[True Blue Door]

4. Far better person, and far better Democrat (despite not technically being one)...

...but not a better candidate, either primary or general.

Hillary Clinton thinks being right is meaningless. Sanders thinks it's all there is. Neither of them are correct.

[SamKnause]

5. I wish we could elect

1,000s like Bernie Sanders, Alan Grayson, Elizabeth Warren.

I wish we could fill every county, state, municipal, township, and federal government position with clones of these three individuals.

[JDPriestly]

9. My feeling.

Sanders is great. I want to see how he gets along in Iowa. It really is a kind of thermometer for the political mood of the country. Sanders is the most highly qualified for the presidency in terms of experience, character, loyalty to America, ideals and ability to compromise without completely losing sight of his values. I don't know how his New York accent will sell in middle America -- but I sure hope it does. Sanders has the gift of bringing people together.

Although he has labeled himself a socialist, his values are right down middle America -- family, country, enterprise and economic success, but still caring about people who are having a rough time. In fact, having lived in democratic socialist countries, I would say he is far to the right of most people in them. But he is way to the left for the US -- and, in my opinion, that is where the hearts and minds of Americans really are. The only reason Bernie has not been elected so far is that he never ran. He has so much common sense and such great problem solving ability.

That he gets elected in a fairly conservative state and that he gets along well with people in Congress, that he works so hard for veterans and farmers, all are proof that he stands with the American people.

I think he could do very well in the election. The catch is that Americans are not used to such humility and such care in avoiding hyperbole. His humility could be a drawback because Americans aren't used to that. But he has a great sense of humor so I think people will be drawn to him and trust him because of that even if he doesn't promise to deliver the moon in ten seconds or less. He has to watch the wonky talk. When he shows the empathy for others that is so natural to him, people just fall in love with him.

I wish Bernie well.

[ms liberty]

41. I agree. n/t.

[RufusTFirefly]

11. Yes. Implicit in your statement are troubling questions:

Why are there not more leaders like Sanders, Grayson, and Warren?
Why do we have to pin our hopes on so few people to express the ideas felt so strongly by so many?

(You may consider these to be rhetorical questions.)

[SamKnause]

13. The simple answers;

the game is rigged
the media lies
the Supreme Court does the bidding of corporations
destructive trade deals
tax loopholes for the elites
warmongering the world over


I view the majority of politicians as traitors.

They are traitors to this country and its citizens.

[SoapBox]

19. Exactly!

[wendylaroux]

25. Well said!!

[Dustlawyer]

56. They have to sell their soul and our office for the almighty campaign dollar. This is how the

elite run our government, they hold the keys to get in and stay in. Wonder why Obama didn't go after Wall Street, they were his earliest backers.
Bernie has mentioned that we need to get rid of the campaign cash and move towards Publicly Funded Elections. That would be the simple solution to our problems, not easy mind you, but simple to understand.

[harun]

88. It's due to voters racism and fear. I pin more blame on the voters than

the politicians.

Spend two minutes watching Congress on CSPAN and I think my argument will be made for me.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

79. If only. Go Bernie!

[Plucketeer]

6. Dear Bernie Sanders

our checkbook is poised!

[Bjorn Against]

7. That headline sucks

He is not weighing a "Clinton challenge" he is weighing a run for the Presidency. Clinton is not the nominee and this race does not belong to her.

[VanGoghRocks]

91. Hillary is, for better or worse, the presumptive Dem nominee in 2016, as polls show her beating

Liz Warren even in Massachusetts, were the primary held today! I've not seen any head-to-head polling pitting HRC against Sanders, but I'll wager she defeats him handily as well, if only b/c her name recognition is that much greater.

[Bjorn Against]

95. They said the same thing in 2008

Polls mean nothing this early, we don't even know who the candidates are yet. It is not uncommon for underdogs to win the primaries.

[VanGoghRocks]

96. That is most certainly true! But such is HRC's 'pull' currently that Warren has

said she has no intention of seeking the nomination in 2016. A Sanders win against HRC in Iowa or New Hampshire, though, could prompt Warren to pull a RFK '68 and get into the ring. Now that would be an interesting 3-way race!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

151. Actually, Warren promised her constituents that she wouldn't pull a Palin

and quit on them midway through a first term in office. I think that's why she has repeatedly said she won't run for Pres in 2016, far more than HRC's 'pull'.

[2banon]

99. to your point...

It's interesting that the article actually states when and where HRC will be launching her campaign.

He will speak at an AFL-CIO breakfast hosted in Manchester, N.H., over Labor Day weekend and then travel to Iowa in mid-September, when Clinton will be there building support for her own 2016 campaign.

Given that the source is The Hill, sort of lends a bit more credibility behind that statement over and above HRC's public responses to the question.

[cosmicone]

8. Unless Bernie officially becomes a democrat

support for him on DU is unwarranted.

[hopemountain]

14. wrong. my congressman runs as an independent/democrat

and he wins hands down.

you might recognize his name: our esteemed congressman peter defazio.

[pnwmom]

17. It's a different thing to run nationally. If he runs 3rd party he will toss the election

to the Rethugs.

[hopemountain]

20. how is this so, pnwmom? please explain

and thank you for helping us get this straight.

[pnwmom]

24. Ralph Nader, 2000. Took more than 97,000 votes in Florida, the state that decided the election.

As you know, but go ahead and feign ignorance.

[hopemountain]

28. i was sincerely asking, pnwmom and NOT

feigning anything. but thank your for your reply. i was sincerely trying to understand how defazio can claim two parties and why a presidential candidate may not. i remember the nader run - but he did not run as a democrat and i was under the impression bernie sanders could run as a democrat and as a former independent.

[pnwmom]

30. If Bernie runs as a Democrat, I will have no problem with that. But if he loses the primary

and then leaves the party to run as an Independent -- thus increasing the likelihood a Rethug will win -- I will lose all respect for him. He cannot win as an Independent. He doesn't have the national support and political structure he would need. All he would do is drain progressive votes from the Democrat, whether it's Hillary, or Joe Biden, or whoever.

[Adrahil]

77. This. So fuggin' this.

In my opinion, he can't win nationally even as a Democrat, but if he runs as an independent in the generals, he's just heading it to the GOP, and I'll never forgive him. The Supreme Court nominations alone will ruin this nation for the remainder of my life, and a good chunk of my daughters'.

[VanGoghRocks]

93. Bernie can't 'leave' the party, since he's not a member of it currently. Don't know enough

about electoral law to know whether he would have to become a Dem to run in the Dem primaries and caucuses against HRC.

[pnwmom]

103. Only declared Democrats can run in the primary. If he left it afterwards, he'd be a turncoat,

just like any other.

[VanGoghRocks]

115. Maybe I'm not being clear enough: can Sanders even run against HRC in

Dem primaries and caucuses, since he's not a Dem? Or is the thinking that Sanders would declare himself a Dem in order to run against her. Seems like that would make him a turncoat to his 'Socialist' credentials (since the Dem Party is, for better or worse, a 'capitalist' party), but I suppose people here are willing to look the other way in that regard in order for HRC to face a serious left-wing challenger?

[pnwmom]

116. He would have to declare himself a Democrat in order to run in the Democratic primaries.

I think he's an Independent now, so I doubt if other Independents will feel he turned on them.

[VanGoghRocks]

119. Yeah, I take your point. And my understanding seems to match yours, i.e., that he

must declare himself a Dem if he wishes to compete for the Democratic nomination.

I'm thinking maybe the Democratic Party should forbid him from declaring himself a Dem unless he promises ahead of time not to mount a 3rd-party candidacy in the General Election should he lose the Dem nomination to HRC. I mean, I'm no big fan of HRC and probly like Sanders a bit more, but I also believe in such a thing as 'party discipline'. IOW, Sanders doesn't get to compete against HRC in the primaries but then, having lost fair and square, get to play spoiler in the General Election.

I'm stilll noodling this out, so consider my thoughts on this subject highly provisional for now.

[ReRe]

31. Here's MY sincere answer:

... he'll split the vote, and Dems will lose, IF he runs as an Independent.

I hope he runs as a Democrat so it will give Americans a choice in the Primary, and besides he'll hold Hill's feet to the fire in the debates (if the M$M doesn't pull one of it's pretend-he-is-not-there ignoring shenanigans.)

[BlueCaliDem]

106. The affect of holding HRC's feet to the fire is a very GOOD one,

and I'll vote for him in the primaries, too, IF he changes Party and joins the Democratic Party. Otherwise? No. I don't want another Nader helping to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for Democrats.

[ReRe]

108. Same here.

[A Simple Game]

35. I thought that everyone knew by now, Gore won Florida and the election.

Nice try, Nader had nothing to do with Bush winning.

[RufusTFirefly]

38. Speaking of "Nice try."

The truth makes no difference to pathetic scapegoaters.

Besides, blaming Nader helps to discourage any efforts to restore the Democratic Party to its core ideals.



"You're going to vote for Hillary. And you're going to like it!"

[pnwmom]

44. SCOTUS would never have heard the case if Nader hadn't drawn 97000 votes in Florida.

Nice try. You sure must think everyone else is dumb.

[A Simple Game]

57. So it was SCOTUS that did it? Now I am confused. Someone needs to make up their mind. n/t

[pnwmom]

62. Nope. Nader grabbed the Rethug ball and kicked it to SCOTUS.

So they were jointly responsible.

[A Simple Game]

63. Nader appealed to SCOTUS? I thought it was Bush and Cheney that appealed to the Supremes.

You learn something everyday.

[pnwmom]

64. They would have had nothing to appeal if Nader hadn't gotten 97,000 votes in Florida.

The Bush/Gore contest wouldn't have been close.

[A Simple Game]

75. So how do you feel about Ohio in 2004? Nader steal that one too? n/t

[pnwmom]

111. Bush wouldn't have been running as an incumbent -- Gore would have. n/t

[LanternWaste]

109. It's a horrible thing when we have more than two candidates to choose from and vote for...

It's a horrible thing when we have more than two candidates to choose from and vote for...

[pnwmom]

112. It is when it splits the progressive vote and tosses the election far to the right of both.

[HERVEPA]

102. Why don't you stop acting like a schmuck.

[A Simple Game]

122. And why don't you refute what I said? n/t

[HERVEPA]

126. Nader doesn't run, Gore is president.

It's that fucking simple. SC not controllable. Butterfly ballot not controllable. Gore not leaning on Clinton more dumb. If Nader wasn't a schmuck, if he didn't run, and he knew he had no chance of winning or changing minds, and he took rethug money, if he didn't run, which HE could control, Bush not president. Is that fucking simple enough for you!

[A Simple Game]

135. Supreme court didn't stop the recount, Gore is President.

Nader had nothing to do with it, what is so hard to understand, Gore got more votes and won, it's a fact.

Who else would you have not run for President, and why do you get to decide?

[jaded_old_cynic]

143. First off, let me say I am not a fan of Nader.

That being said, he has just as much right to run for President as anyone else has. The blame actually lies with Gore himself, in addition to SCOTUS. One could say that if he had won his home state, none of those things would have been an issue.

He ran a crappy campaign by distancing himself from Clinton, and choosing Lieberman as his running mate. Still, all things considered, even with the bad campaigning, he STILL won. If anything, SCOTUS robbed us of his Presidency, not Nader. Nobody here can predict what would have happened had Nader not run, or if the people who voted for Nader would have instead voted for Gore or even voted at all! Those who voted for Nader were extremely disillusioned by the Status Quo and I find it difficult to believe they would have chosen Gore. The question is moot anyway, because we have no knowledge of what any alternative outcomes would have been had Nader decided not to run.

[Jim Lane]

123. I know -- it's just sooooo confusing when someone says an event has more than one cause.

It's so much simpler and more comforting to say it was SCOTUS and only SCOTUS, and that someone you admire had absolutely nothing to do with the disastrous result.

Enjoy your mental nap.

Of course, the interesting thing is that this purported confusion is never brought up in any context other than exonerating Nader. It was the fault of SCOTUS, it was the fault of Harris's voter purge, it was the fault of Gore for picking Lieberman and for not carrying Tennessee, it was the fault of the butterfly ballot, and so forth. The Naderites don't get confused when they want to throw rocks at any of these targets. It's only when someone criticizes Saint Ralph that we hear this argument.

Nader's decision to run in the general election was one cause of the result. It was what lawyers call a but-for cause, in that, if he hadn't run, Gore would have become President.

And, just to forestall the response that some people seem to have programmed into their word processors, I am NOT saying that Nader did not have a right to run. He had a right under the Constitution to run, and he had a right under the Constitution to not run (or to run in the primaries instead of the general). In choosing how to exercise his undisputed rights, he chose wrongly.

[pnwmom]

144. Yes, he had the right to run. But if he had cared more for his progressive causes

and less for his ego, then he wouldn't have run -- or at least, he wouldn't have aimed his campaign efforts on the swing states.

[TheNutcracker]

66. Austrialia has 15 parties running, and no shit and shittier forever on ballots

[ms liberty]

46. yes...by 500 and some votes.

With no Nader, and the potential for over 80 - 90,000 more votes, there would not have been recounts.

[A Simple Game]

82. You seem to be missing the problem, Gore lost because they stopped the recounts.

Let's please get our Nader stories straight.

Gore won, plain and simple, the Supreme members that stopped the recount should have been impeached. If you don't blame the right people the problem doesn't get fixed. Blaming Nader just lets the Supreme Court of the hook and that is wrong.

[ms liberty]

105. I'm not "missing" the problem...

Yes, Gore won. If the recounts had not been stopped by SCOTUS, they would have shown that. But if Nader had not been on the ballot, Gore would have won by at least 70,500 votes, because people would have voted for Gore rather than W. Florida would have been called for Gore, and he would have been declared the winner. There would have been no SCOTUS in the mix at all.

[A Simple Game]

128. You can deal in "If's" all day if you want, but in the end it was the Supreme Court that cost Gore

the election.

If Bush hadn't run,
If Gore had not worn earth tones,
If Gore had embraced Clinton,
If Bush's DWI's had been exposed earlier,
If etc.

There are a million ifs, but it comes down to one fact, the Supreme Court made a bad ruling and you and others are letting them get away with it by blaming Nader.

[ms liberty]

131. You mistake me, again...

If I wanted to if this to death, I would have mentioned some of the things you if'd in you comments. Mine was a straight up assessment of the situation as it was at the time, and yes...Nader bears some responsibility. Your mistake is that unlike me, you appear to let Nader off the hook for any responsibility for the situation. I fully believe that SCOTUS was responsible...as was Nader, Katherine Harris, that butterfly ballot woman (Teresa somebody?), and yes, Al Gore himself. It was a veritable perfect storm of bad judgements, all coming together at the worst possible time. BUT...Nader does bear his share of the blame.

[A Simple Game]

136. Nader ran and yet Gore still won, you can't deny that fact.

Nader didn't deny Gore the Presidency the Supreme Court did.

[Jim Lane]

124. Does blaming the Supreme Court let Katherine Harris off the hook?

You write:

Blaming Nader just lets the Supreme Court of the hook and that is wrong.

Hence my question. You obviously blame the Supreme Court (and I agree). But you imply that no one is allowed to blame more than one actor. In that case, your blaming the Supreme Court lets Katherine Harris off the hook for her illegal voter purge, and that is wrong.

[A Simple Game]

129. Ah, yes you're right Ms. Harris has lots to be ashamed of as do many others.

Lots of blame to be passed around in Florida for the 2000 election, but the subject was about Nader's impact on the election and I don't want to write a novel.

[Jim Lane]

139. I understand not wanting to write a novel, especially with Nader now less relevant than Sarah Palin.

Nevertheless, if you care to spare another moment, I'd be interested in your reaction to one simple question about Nader's impact.

Proposition: If Nader had chosen not to run in the 2000 general election, Al Gore would have become President in 2001.

This proposition means only what it says. It is not intended to exclude other hypotheticals -- for example, that if Harris's voter purge had been reversed before the election rather than after, Gore would have become President. The proposition is also not intended as the be-all and end-all of judging Nader. For example, a progressive could consistently believe that Nader's run was harmful in the short run but that it was a good idea because of its long-run benefits.

I agree with the proposition. Do you agree with it, disagree with it, or find that no short answer will adequately set forth your view?

[A Simple Game]

140. You are probably right, if Nader hadn't run Gore would have most likely won.

But we are assuming, most likely correctly, that Nader voters would have voted for Gore and not Bush, or didn't just stay home which I think may have been the stronger possibility. I really think there were less Gore votes there than many think, but who knows?

But do you want to live in a country where a Nader doesn't or can't run? I'm 63 and still remember in grade school being told that one of the wonderful things about this country is the fact that anyone born here can grow up to be President. And lo and behold they went and elected an Irish Catholic, at 10 years of age I was an Irish Catholic. Do you have any idea how much hope that can give to a young kid from a poor family? I used to believe that and wish I still could, people that discourage those that would run for President don't seem to share that value America used to have and I believe should have. You know what? Many thought a black man could never be elected to President, many still think they shouldn't. I really believe that type of thinking is harmful to our Country. As soon as you think someone shouldn't run for President you are opening a door for someone else to make that decision for them and you. I don't want to live in that Country. The fact that President Obama could get elected tells me that it may still be possible for a poor young Irish Catholic to become President and that is more important than you and many others seem to understand. Please do not discourage people from wanting to be President, it's not what this Country should be about.

[Jim Lane]

145. Nader should have run -- in the primaries.

If Nader had run in Democratic primaries, he would have been in several televised debates with Bradley and Gore. It would have been a much better platform for getting his ideas out and influencing the public's attitudes. As it was, most of his television coverage consisted of brief snips of him out in the parking lot at a Bush-Gore debate, complaining that he wasn't included.

In the primaries he would have gotten the votes of many progressive Democrats (including me!) who, even knowing he wouldn't win, were willing to support him at the cost of giving up our chance to influence the Bradley versus Gore contest, but were not willing to give up our chance to influence the Bush versus Gore contest, because of the enormous differences between those two.

As a candidate in the primaries, he also would have helped build the progressive infrastructure within the Democratic Party. People drawn to his campaign would have learned about the party organization, campaign mechanics, etc. Some subsequent primaries that in real life were won by conservaDems would instead have gone to progressives, thanks to the help of the Naderite Democrats. Instead, his chosen tactic was to try to build the Green Party, helping it get to the 5% threshold for financing -- a goal that most sensible people said at the time was hopeless, and which time has shown to be a fantasy.

Anyone has the right to run. A candidate like Nader even has the Constitutional right to make a monumentally stupid decision about how to run. I have the Constitutional right to point out that it was monumentally stupid. Do you want to live in a country where a Jim Lane doesn't or can't criticize leaders? I ask that silly question because it's on a par with yours. Nothing in my post suggested that Catholics or blacks or Arab-Americans should be excluded from high office. But even a blind lesbian atheist who wants to be President is going to have to pay attention to things like the election laws, existing party loyalties, and the likely coverage decisions of the mass media.

[A Simple Game]

150. Nader had a right to run, period. No law says you have to join a party.

I am unaffiliated, would you condemn me? If you want debates push for open debates even in the primaries.

I didn't suggest that you wanted to exclude Catholics or blacks, but yours is the attitude that allowed that to happen in the past.

[Jim Lane]

160. What the hell IS it with the Naderites and this “right to run” straw man????

In my very first post in this thread, #123, I wrote:

And, just to forestall the response that some people seem to have programmed into their word processors, I am NOT saying that Nader did not have a right to run. He had a right under the Constitution to run, and he had a right under the Constitution to not run (or to run in the primaries instead of the general). In choosing how to exercise his undisputed rights, he chose wrongly.

When, in your #140, you started veering toward that territory (by lumping me in with the bigots who said that a Catholic or a black shouldn’t be President), I responded:

Anyone has the right to run. A candidate like Nader even has the Constitutional right to make a monumentally stupid decision about how to run. I have the Constitutional right to point out that it was monumentally stupid.

Nevertheless, I now find you boldly proclaiming, “Nader had a right to run, period.”

I must tell you, I find it very depressing that so many people on DU continue to battle this straw man. I don’t remember seeing one single post on DU, by anyone, in which it was actually argued that Nader did not have a right to run. That fact apparently has no effect on Nader boosters, though. Any criticism of Nader’s decision to run is met with the assertion that he had a right to run.

When William Kristol says we should bomb someone just to see what happens, we can all criticize his statement. No one feels compelled to point out that he had a right to make the statement. No one pretends that criticism of Kristol is a veiled implication that he was not exercising a legal right. Presumably the difference is that Kristol doesn’t have a legion of adherents who consider any criticism to be sacrilege that must be resisted by fair means or foul.

You conclude by writing:

I didn't suggest that you wanted to exclude Catholics or blacks, but yours is the attitude that allowed that to happen in the past.

Associating me with past bigotry is totally uncalled for. My attitude, as I stated in #145, is that any candidate, regardless of demographics, should “pay attention to things like the election laws, existing party loyalties, and the likely coverage decisions of the mass media.” In particular, when Al Smith, John F. Kennedy, Shirley Chisholm, and Barack Obama ran, they all had the brains to run as Democrats, instead of petulantly stomping off to run a third-party campaign whose main practical effect would be to benefit the Republicans.

[Adrahil]

78. Oh come on....

Do you think they could have gotten away with that hanging chad bullshit without the votes Nader sucked away?

[A Simple Game]

85. Yes Oh come on... Let's keep blaming Nader instead of who really stole the election.

The Supreme Court members that voted to stop the recount stole the election, they should be impeached. Blaming Nader who was a valid candidate for President and letting the Supreme Court off the hook doesn't fix the problem.

Who would you allow to run for President? There are several minor party candidates for President every election, which ones would you kick off the ballot?

Gore should have beat Bush in a landslide, everyone knows it but the Nader blamers. If you have to blame a candidate, the blame lies with Gore. Who do you blame for Gore losing Tennessee? Quick, how many votes did Nader get in Tennessee?

[beerandjesus]

87. +1

SO sick of these apologies for the shitty candidate Gore was in 2000.

I think half the issue is that 2014 Gore is so much more appealing. I'd vote for him today. I voted for Nader in 2000.



....Here come the flames!

[Adrahil]

90. <sigh> It isn't about just one thing, but the Nader apologists just can't accept that he had some

responsibility. He did. We have a two party system, for better or worse, and which party wins DOES matter.

[A Simple Game]

98. We do not have a two party system, show me where it say we do.

If we have a two party system were the Democratic and Republican parties the first two parties? Are they the only parties? I bet you could name at least five parties off the top of your head.

And it is about one thing, freedom. You, I, and Nader have a right to run for office if we meet the qualifications. Do you deny that he could legally run? Who else would you say can't or shouldn't run? Maybe you would like to limit who can vote instead, that would help wouldn't it, that is as long as you could decide who gets to vote? Where would you draw the line? Would you be happy if someone else could decide who could run or vote?

I didn't vote for Nader but certainly think he was a better choice than Bush although not as good as Gore.

Bottom line, Nader had a right to run for President, period, that's it! Did he have good or bad intentions? I don't know, I doubt you know, and it doesn't matter.

Bottom line two is you don't get to decide who can or can't run and neither do I, and like it or not that is a good thing. You should look past the top two lines on your ballot, lots more than two candidates for President, there is no limit to the number of parties and candidates, that's the way it always has been and hopefully always will be. Tell me, why do you think limiting our options is a good thing? Really, I would like you to answer this post and give me any reasons you can think of.

The third bottom line is that the Supreme Court was the problem and because the talking heads said "look over there at Nader", they got away with what should have been an impeachable offense.

Last bottom line. Gore won, we all now it by now, Nader stole nothing, Bush and the Supreme Court were the thieves. Keep blaming Nader and the system will never get fixed, not that I think it will anyway.

[truedelphi]

50. Unless Warren is the candidate, the election will be decided more by the stay at homes,

Than by anything that Bernie will do.

People are mad; they are fed up. They understand the game of three card monty that goes on, by all the Big Corporate politicians all the time.

They also are sick and tired of the meme "lesser of Two Evils."

[ZombieHorde]

68. If he runs 3rd party,

the Democratic nominee will give the election to the Republicans. The Democrats will siphon off too many votes from the liberal candidate.

[pnwmom]

70. He doesn't have the national support and campaign organization to win. The Democratic candidate will

have a decent chance, no matter who that candidate is. All Sanders would do as a third party candidate is throw the election to the Rethugs.

[ZombieHorde]

71. Not yet. nt

[pnwmom]

72. Not in time for the election. How would he get himself on the ballots of 50 states?

Even Nader couldn't do that, and he was much higher profile than Sanders.

[ZombieHorde]

73. Stranger things have happened. nt

[Adrahil]

76. Exactly. People seem to forget that Ralph Nader gave us Dubya. NT

[BlueCaliDem]

104. Rep. Defazio is a member of the Democratic Party. Sen. Sanders is NOT.

That's the difference.

Senator Sanders hasn't announced that he'll join the Democratic Party, either, so support for him on Democratic Underground is cosmicone states, unwarranted.

[NorthCarolina]

53. Bullcrap. nt

[VanGoghRocks]

92. He caucuses with Senate Dems. Isn't that enough to allow support for him?

[cosmicone]

141. He still identifies himself as an independent.

It would be against DU policy to support a non-democrat against a card-carrying democrat. But ah well ...

[VanGoghRocks]

142. Yeah, I take your point. I'm a firm believer in 'party discipline' (else

why have a political party?). My thoughts on this topic continue to evolve.

Thanks for responding. Helping me clarify my thinking on this issue.

[caraher]

157. But since officially nobody is in the race yet there's no problem

Your point would only be relevant if Sanders were running in the general election against a Democrat. At the moment there is no conflict between DU rules and ideals and excitement about his possible candidacy - as a Democrat, of course!

[RufusTFirefly]

10. DU Rec!

Run Bernie Run!

[George II]

12. How soon before January does someone have to become a registered Democrat....

...to run in primaries?

Forget about the nomination itself, practically speaking can he get enough support to win a majority of electoral votes?

If he runs as an independent that will throw the election to whoever comes out of the republican party as their nominee, and he will go down in history as just another Ralph Nader.

[Voice for Peace]

29. I think there are a lot of usually republican voters who are

- sick of being broke
- sick of fracking in their neighborhoods
- sick of politics-as-usual

Though the Money will paint Bernie as a dangerous communist, no doubt.

[George II]

39. Remember, many of them voted for Romney in 2012....

....and I've intentionally avoided that "big matzo ball" out there (borrowed from Seinfeld) - there still are a lot of religious bigots who would never consider voting for a Jewish candidate (not to mention a "socialist", which many voters don't even understand). Maybe on the East and West coasts and Florida, but there's a huge chunk of voters in between.

[Voice for Peace]

42. How will AIPAC paint Bernie? The Jewish Defense League?

I am curious.

[George II]

49. I don't know, but you have to expect any campaign against Sanders...

...is going to get ugly - a Brooklyn born Jewish self-admitted Socialist?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

152. Well, we've had a Catholic President, seems like it would be a good time for our first

Jewish President.

[George II]

158. Yes, for many....but not "middle America"

[Adrahil]

80. That'd be lovely, but I don't see any real evidence for that.

If that were true, we can expect to take the House in November, right?

[Voice for Peace]

110. if they vote.. I don't know. takes a dreamer to make a dream come true, right?

[hopemountain]

15. he will have my vote nt

[KamaAina]

16. Go, Bernie, Go!

[Robbins]

18. Run

I will support him by donating money and voting for him In Primary here In missouri.

I believe In Vermont he runs in democratic primarys but technically declines nomination but party unofficialy supports him.

He is one to vote for and not just lesser or 2 conservatives or vote for the non-republican.

[SoapBox]

21. I would vote for Bernie

over Hillary.

But...would either one be able to win? Since about half (hmmm, or more?) of America is really stupid, could they see beyond the anti ads run against both? Could they see through the KKKoch Terrorist ads showing Ryan, wrapped in the flag, holding a cross and bible?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

153. Demographics in national elections keep getting worse for Repubs.

Which is why they keep pushing ever more disenfranchisement schemes.

The question is not 'Can we win with any candidate?' but 'Will our chosen candidate screw up badly enough to lose?'

[WillyT]

23. Woo Hoo !!! - K & R !!!

[99th_Monkey]

26. Oh Boy!

[ReRe]

32. K&R

Hit the road, Bernie! Go for it. Get your toe in the water and see if the temp is right! You will have my support, and I'll probably drag about 10 votes (without even trying) with me. And hell, if you run as a Democrat, I will promise to bring MORE votes with me!

[Z_California]

33. Just one problem with Bernie

I just don't think this country will elect a self described socialist. And that's because we're stupid.

[RufusTFirefly]

45. We weren't supposed to be ready for a Catholic President either. Or an African-American one.

1960 and 2008 proved the conventional wisdom wrong.

Of course, "progress" hasn't come without its disappointments.

"It’s like you’re looking for John Coltrane and you get Kenny G in brown skin." -- Cornel West

[Enrique]

107. they've been calling Obama a socialist for 6 years

i'd like to see the attacks on Bernie "we were bullshitting you about Obama, but Sanders really IS a socialist!"

[flamingdem]

34. Could be a good thing

or could end up shredding Hillary, which wouldn't be good for Democrats..

[Thinkingabout]

36. From his positions of defense of the US, I suspect he will have a big change on his position if he

Would ever be elected president. I do not see anything which says he is willing to take the needed action in our time of defense.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

154. Defense from what?

Who is attacking us?

[Thinkingabout]

156. Didn't know anyone was attacking us.

[OutNow]

37. Of course I will support Berne Sanders

I've been a supporter of Bernie Sanders for decades. When he was mayor of Burlington, Vermont. When he was a member of Congress from Vermont and Democrats tried very hard to defeat him. When he ran and was elected to the US Senate. He would be the best President ever.

I hope he runs and will support him in the primary. My front yard will sport two campaign signs, since my wife is a supporter of Hillary Clinton. After the primary one of the yard signs will leave and one will stay. Regardless of which sign remains, Sanders or Clinton, we will both vote for the Democratic nominee.

And I expect many others families will have a similar situation.

[cantbeserious]

40. Bernie - Please Spare Many The Pain Of A HRC Candidacy

eom

[NorthCarolina]

54. Many?? How about America's (remaining) middle class and poor. nt

[cantbeserious]

59. Just Allowing Room For All The HRC Supporters To Breath - Some Become Vituperative

eom

[riqster]

43. Run as a Dem, please!

[pnwmom]

47. A self-labeled socialist with no national structure who will be 75 in 2016.

Dream on. There will never be a President Bernie Sanders.

[karynnj]

48. He MIGHT succeed in getting poor people to rethink why socialism is "evil"

I remember the first time I heard Sanders speak at length. It was back when he was a Senator. I had put the tv on CSPAN because I wanted to hear something that was to happen soon. In fact, CSPAN is obligated to cover the floor of the House if it is in use - something I then did not know.

I was cooking, so I was listening, not watching. I had no idea who was speaking. However, everything he said made sense. This was the 1990s and he was essentially already saying things that people would now link to occupy wall street. When I looked to see who it was, I realized it was the guy who I sometimes noticed was speaking in local in meetings according to signs I saw when we vacationed in VT. This was the "Bernie" who was almost always referred to by his first name.

I wonder how many people ACTUALLY hearing him might at least come away with a better view of what he -- and socialists - like those in Sweden, Norway, Denmark (not scary countries) support.

A second random thought. Assume that he does challenge and he becomes 2016's version of Gene McCarthy. Few remember that McCarthy lost to Johnson - before Johnson left the race. McCarthy's strength had made him see that he was vulnerable. Here, whether HRC left the race or not, could it pull a younger person with the same values - like Sherrod Brown into the race. This happens ONLY if what the country is looking for is a government that helps those who need it - and it would be looking for someone quite populist.

Here, not that Rand Paul gets attention even here. On some issues, he attacks people on both sides, but his hatred of government leads him to be against any program that aids people. If there is a real felt need for an activist, progressive, populist President -- Bernie could be a person who might show how big that group becomes.

[brooklynite]

147. Sweden, Norway, Denmark etc. aren't Socialist...

....they all have Capitalist economies, private property rights and stock markets. They are arguably SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC nations, but not Socialist, and I can't imagine Sander advocating anything vaguely socialist in a Presidential campaign.

[karynnj]

149. Sanders' socialism is the same democratic socialism that is in Scandinavia

I went to a Burlington town hall where he had the Danish ambassador speak on their healthcare system.

I think your definition is too extreme. The point I was trying to make was triggered by a long ago conversation with a British English teacher, who taught the top level students. In one class they were studying things like advertising, propaganda etc. She showed the class both the original Obama HOPE poster from 2008 and a nasty RW one with Obama and socialism on it. The class loved the first one and understood the message. They had trouble with the ugly image and a word that they had mostly positive associations with.

The point here is that socialism is equated to communism and that is equated to evil. Obviously the end result socialism = evil was not seen in this upscale British grammar school (high school).

[PDittie]

52. Sounds to me as if

he's going to run (and run as a Democrat, not something else like Green or indy).

[MsLeopard]

55. Bernie said early on

That he would run if only to bring the conversation around to progressive principles and policies that will never get mentioned without someone like him in the race. I don't think he thinks he has a credible chance of winning, but we need him to raise the issues we proles care about. No one else being talked about as a candidate now will do it.

[Stellar]

84. Sen Sanders makes a valid point.

Hillary need to respond to his/the peoples concerns. She shouldn't have it so easy.

[Nihil]

86. That alone isn't going to make much difference.

> if only to bring the conversation around to progressive principles and policies
> that will never get mentioned without someone like him in the race.

Whilst I agree that such things will simply be "off the table" (hah!) if the cheerleaders
get their way for their appointed candidate, it wouldn't make more than a very small
dent in the short-term memory of the US public anyway.

All Clinton needs to do is nod, purse her lips and mutter some PR crap about "understanding
the point" and take no notice of it whatsoever 10 mins after the debate.

Hell, it didn't take Candidate Obama long to "forget" some of the attitudes he displayed
to the mugs - sorry, "voters" - who saw him in action and Clinton cares even less about
the 99% than he does.



Best of luck to Sanders but he's going to be swamped by the plutarchy.

[MsLeopard]

97. Sadly, I agree..... nt

[brooklynite]

148. When Bernie Sanders endorses Clinton after the Primaries, how will you react?

[Nihil]

159. With the same cynical attitude that I have towards the cheerleaders before the event.

For a nation that likes to celebrate their great victory against royal succession
and the concept of hereditary rulers, you don't half love the dynastic plutocracy
with which you have replaced it in the last half century.

[BenzoDia]

60. Not a fan of Hillary, but she'll clean his clock unfortunately.

edit:
But maybe he'll at least push her towards the left side of the issues.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

83. Keep dreamin - Hillary is bought and paid for by Wall Street. End of story.

[Phlem]

67. I wish him the best and I hope he goes full bore.

Hillary needs to be challenged and oh BTW if he makes to candidacy, I think I might tear up.

[wildbilln864]

69. just do it Bernie! n/t

[JonLP24]

74. Oh I hope so

My concern is he won't be taken seriously but he is just what this country needs.

[Stellar]

81. I love Bernie Sanders, but...

I'm concerned, not so much about his age (72), but his health. President Obama has aged nearly 15 years since he was elected in 2009. What would this do to my Bernie.

If he get's a good running mate, I will be happier.

[VanGoghRocks]

94. If Sanders really wanted to fire up the base, he'd pre-announce Kshama Sawant of Socialist

Alternative (and the Seattle City Council) as his running mate. (Not sure whether Constitution prohibits Veeps from being non-Native Born). Sawant will give it to those fascist Republicans, allowing Bernie to remain above the fray! And she'd make a great Prez in the event Sanders couldn't serve out his full term(s).

[davidpdx]

89. If he runs as a Democrat I'd consider supporting him

[candelista]

100. A little sugar for the left....

...makes the medicine go down.

[woo me with science]

101. Yes, Bernie!

[yurbud]

113. if he loses in the primaries, he should run as an independent.

[brooklynite]

118. Endorsing a third-party candidate is a violation of the TOS.

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.

[yurbud]

120. it's not even primary season yet. And if the Democratic candidate loses, it will have a lot more to

do with the DLC than a few words I post on DU about Bernie.

[brooklynite]

121. Perhaps so...still a violation of TOS

It's Skinner's world, and we choose to live in it.

[herding cats]

132. Don't let them bother you.

Sanders knows if he loses in the primary his bid that round is done. He'd never attempt to divide the vote like that in presidential GE assuring a win by the Republicans. He's not a fool.

When I see things like this I tend to just shake my head and move on. My theory is; sometimes people just toss out some sensational silliness to fish for reactions.

[brooklynite]

117. As a Clinton supporter, I'll say "good for him".

I have no problem with competition for the nomination, and you won't find anyone here who supports Hillary who does either. I still won't vote for him, because in the real world of American politics, I see no way he wins a national election where close to half the voters supported Mitt Romney in 2012. But, the more, the merrier.

[Jim Lane]

125. Sanders on the third-party question

In March, asked whether he would run in the Democratic primaries or run in the general election, he responded:

That’s an excellent question, and I haven’t reached a conclusion on that yet. Clearly, there are things to be said on both sides of that important question. Number one: there is today more and more alienation from the Republican and Democratic parties than we have seen in the modern history of this country. In fact, most people now consider themselves to be “independent,” whatever that may mean. And the number of people who identify as Democrats or Republicans is at a historically low point. In that sense, running outside the two-party system can be a positive politically.

On the other hand, given the nature of the political system, given the nature of media in America, it would be much more difficult to get adequate coverage from the mainstream media running outside of the two-party system. It would certainly be very hard if not impossible to get into debates. It would require building an entire political infrastructure outside of the two-party system: to get on the ballot, to do all the things that would be required for a serious campaign.

The question that you asked is extremely important, it requires a whole lot of discussion. It’s one that I have not answered yet. (from "Bernie Sanders: 'I Am Prepared to Run for President of the United States'")

My recollection is that, more recently, he's ruled out running except as a Democrat, but I can't quickly find a link to support that. The second paragraph of the excerpted quotation leaves me thinking that he has a clear vision of the practicalities and that it's therefore very unlikely that he'd emulate Nader's third-party or independent runs.

As for his eligibility to run, I think that state laws vary. He'd presumably just change his registration so as to avoid all that hassle.

[Zorra]

130. Count me in! nt

[Zen Democrat]

133. Run Bernie!!! America needs you.

[bunnies]

138. Just bought tickets to the September dinner.

Ill video it and post it for everyone. Thanks for the heads up!

[loyalsister]

146. i think he would be a great addition to the debate

But, he really only adds in a positive way if there are no candidates other than himself and Hillary. If there is another candidate who has a shot, I would hate to see him split the more progressive than Hillary vote.

[Owl]

155. Yes!!!

[wordpix]

161. went to a Ready for Warren party last night

Considering it was in a small town in the backwaters of CT, there was a good turnout. I love Bernie but would love Eliz. to be the first woman pres. even more. She has fire in her belly and is ticked off about the 1%, income inequality, environmental violations, student debt, etc.

Our hostess of the eve. said her 3 grown kids had incurred about $500,000 in debt altogether getting through college, law school, etc.
Now they have to start their adult lives with this debt burden.

The hostess is a lawyer herself and her husband is an eye doctor and they can't shoulder this financial burden easily, either. Think about the teacher, plumber, etc. trying to help out college grads with this kind of debt. Terrible.

[damnedifIknow]

162. Got my vote