Democrats want 'major role' for Sanders: Reuters/Ipsos poll

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

Politics | Sun Jun 12, 2016 7:28am EDT

Democrats want 'major role' for Sanders: Reuters/Ipsos poll

NEW YORK | BY CHRIS KAHN

Bernie Sanders may have lost his bid to become the Democratic nominee for the White House, but party members don't want the U.S. senator from Vermont to step off the stage.

More than three-quarters of Democrats say Sanders should have a "major role" in shaping the party's positions, while nearly two thirds say Hillary Clinton - who beat him for the nomination - should pick him as her vice-presidential running mate, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

In a sign that Democrats hope their party can unite after a fierce primary season, two-thirds also said that Sanders should endorse Clinton, a former secretary of state and senator who appears bound for a showdown with Republican Donald Trump in November's presidential election.

Sanders, a self-described Democratic socialist, managed to turn his long-shot run into a mass movement with hard-line proposals to combat wealth inequality, increase access to health care and education, and defend the environment.

His challenge to Clinton, one of the best-known figures in American politics, lasted far longer than expected, as he racked up strong results in a number of state nominating contests and stayed in the race even when the delegate count seemed to spell his doom, and yielded record numbers of small donations to his campaign.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-sanders-idUSKCN0YY0F9

[leftofcool]

1. Definitely yes for a major role. No to being VP

[JRLeft]

21. ^ This

[Renew Deal]

2. The only reason it lasted so long was that Bernie wasn't willing to admit it was over

Even though as the politico article reported his campaign knew it was over months ago

[pangaia]

11. This was about much more than winning the nomnation.

Quite a few people do not seem to understand that.

[libdem4life]

35. Indeed. The Reluctant Candidate became the Leader of a Movement

that has yet to really begin, but the framework is set, a Leader is in place, IMO, he and his fledgling movement will ultimately be more important to our political process and each citizen than the Presidency. Now we know it can be done, people will come out of nowhere, as did many of his voters, and consider running for office.

Much easier...it doesn't require first name intimacy with corporate donors...which is, of course, only for The Few.

[Live and Learn]

40. + a gazillion. nt

[HassleCat]

29. We don't need Bernie!

We should penalize him for running in the first place, when we specifically instructed him not to. He failed to obey orders. We don't need rebellion in the ranks, and we don't need voters who support that kind of thing. We only want Democrats who fall in line, Democrats who accept what they are given and keep quiet.

[Live and Learn]

41. Crap, I actually thought you were one of them saying what they actually felt for a moment. nt

[OnDoutside]

3. "A self-described Democratic socialist", please can people just grow up ? He's a Socialist loosely

tied to the Democratic Party as it was his only option. He's a Far Left Socialist to be precise. Many of those Bernie or Bust-ers are similarly dishonest in hiding behind the "Progressive" tag, when they too are Socialists. The Democratic Party needs to be aware that this Primary season is going to result in the empowerment of a far left Tea Party, within the party.

[highprincipleswork]

5. And what are the rest of you, may I ask?

[NorthCarolina]

6. ...

Good one.

[OnDoutside]

7. Grown ups ? :)

[highprincipleswork]

8. You can't be a grownup and a Socialist or the much more moderate Democratic Socialist?

Seriously, the United States might want to get hip with what's going on in the rest of the world. Our insularity becomes a kind of lack of reality otherwise.

[OnDoutside]

13. There's a massive difference between a Democratic Socialist and a Social Democrat.

democratic Socialists are no more tolerant than Socialists, when they don't get their own way. Sticking "Democratic" in front of it is just a smokescreen.

People like myself who are socially to the left, do not think it is wrong to be fiscally to the right. It is not an incompatible position.

[stillwaiting]

15. Fiscally to the right after the shellacking the working, middle, and poverty classes have received

over the last 3 to 4 decades is morally problematic for MANY of us around here.

Sorry if that bothers or offends you, but that is a political opinion that is widespread in the Democratic Party even within people who do not follow socialist or democratic-socialist policies. Even within many HRC supporters minds.

It is an opinion that WILL be expressed.

[OnDoutside]

18. It was mostly a failure of regulation, not only in the US but in Europe and elsewhere.

Being able to balance your outgoings to your income is a good thing, whether it is within a household or nationally. Free trade is a also a good thing. The problem in the US is that there was no large scale attempt to re-train those workers who lost their jobs when whole industries moved away. and it was made all the worse by the polarisation of politics towards the far right in the Reps and now, towards the far left in the Dems.

[highprincipleswork]

22. Retrain my ass. As what?

[seabeckind]

33. Program iPhone apps.

Learn spreadsheets so you can put the tax stuff together to ship to India for processing.

Spray weed killer in old factory parking lots.

Tons of jobs out there.

All it takes is some personal initiative and the means to relocate.

[OnDoutside]

60. Behind your feckless sarcasm, there lies the talent of a gnat. I work

in software development and under the same pressure from cheapo Indian workers. However, if it comes to pass that my job goes east, I won't be sitting on my hands drooling with negativity.

[seabeckind]

62. Of course you won't cause you're awesome

pulled them bootstraps and you're in the clouds.

We stand humbly before you.

[OnDoutside]

59. Well if that's where you store your brains, fair enough

[stillwaiting]

25. Far left in the Dems? Fuh-King-hell.

Bye bye now.

Not my ally.

[pangaia]

39. Oh boy.... this will be fun...

1-

"balance your outgoings to your income is a good thing, whether it is within a household or nationally."

No. A nation is NOT the same as a household, not even close.

2-

"Free trade is a also a good thing.."

I don't think so-called free trade is what you think it is. The words sound good, but... Perhaps you are thinking of FAIR trade...

3-

"re-train those workers who lost their jobs ..."

retrain for.. what? running the fry station at Burger King?

[Snarkoleptic]

17. Good nugget from Huffpo "Stop Calling Yourself ‘Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative’"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jess-coleman/stop-calling-yourself-socially-liberal-and-fiscally-conservative_b_7155550.html

The terms “social” and “fiscal” rights are better understood by political scientists as “negative” and “positive” rights. Negative rights are those that require no action — the right to free speech, the right to marry, the right to smoke pot are all categorized by the government not doing anything, by leaving you alone. On the other hand, positive rights are those that require the government to take action — the right not to be discriminated against in the workplace, the right to receive health care and food if you cannot afford it, and the right to be compensated if you are injured at work all require the government to step in.

Thus, what the “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” person is really saying is: “I support the plight of the marginalized, so long as I don’t have to do anything about it.”

Yet you cannot support one without the other. Social rights mean nothing without economic rights alongside them. Think of the Civil Rights Movement. We tend to refer to the March on Washington, forgetting that organizers advertised the event as the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. Martin Luther King stressed that genuine equality “means economic equality. For we know that it isn’t enough to integrate lunch counters. What does it profit a man to be able to eat at an integrated lunch counter if he doesn’t earn enough money to buy a hamburger and a cup of coffee?”

This sentiment resonates for all marginalized groups. As same-sex marriage was set to head to the Supreme Court, lawyers were not just concerned about securing the right to marry, but also protecting against other forms of discrimination, such as in the workplace. Women, who generally have all the same negative rights as men, are still fighting for wage-equality and maternity leave. In short, you cannot claim to support any form of equality until you support it in all forms. Otherwise, the fight just continues.

[Buns_of_Fire]

24. Perhaps "active" and "passive" rights might be better descriptors.

A minor quibble. I just squinch up a little at referring to free speech as a "negative right."

[pangaia]

42. That's a really fine article.

And Bernie understands this. It seems to me why he spent almost all of his time on the $$$$$ issues !

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

30. Sounds more like a Libertarian to me.

Sometimes defined as a Republican who wants to smoke pot. There's also the "limousine liberals" who are fine with such things as same-sex marriage, equal pay for women, environmentalism, civil rights for PoC, etc., as long as those things remain abstractions that they don't actually have to do anything about and that might affect the contents of their wallets.

[Live and Learn]

43. With such a childish post, I doubt it. nt

[rock]

57. Better one!

[pangaia]

12. Thank you. Saved me the time. LOL !!

[ancianita]

66. Loyal Democrats here, who appreciate his 93% democratic vote record over the 80% average

of the rest of our reps. I always keep in mind that he has more of the spirit of the Democratic Party than do a good many of his hack Democratic Party colleagues.

[tecelote]

9. America has elected a Democratic Socialist President before.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/11/1499818/-America-has-elected-a-Democratic-Socialist-President-before-Many-times

We just want our Democratic party back.

[RufusTFirefly]

14. +1

[brooklynite]

16. Maybe if Sanders hadn't CALLED himself a Democratic Socialist, his campaign would have gone further

[dubyadiprecession]

34. FDR was a democrat, not a democratic socialist...

He never called himself a socialist either, only republicans called him that as an insult.
Stop trying to rewrite history.

[tecelote]

38. You complain about FDR being called a Democratic Socialist...

but can't be bothered to defend Bernie when he is called a Socialist instead of Democratic Socialist?

Have some integrity before telling me what to do or not do.

[Zynx]

52. FDR would have been surprised to hear you call him that.

He was a self-avowed liberal.

[tecelote]

58. FDR would be horrified to hear how far the Democratic Party has fallen from his values.

He was a self-avowed liberal.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. EEEEK!! Socialists!!! Red bait much?

[libdem4life]

36. Could you please describe Far Left Socialist...and then tie it to Bernie?

Thank you in advance. Far Left Tea Party? I have no words.

[RufusTFirefly]

47. Yeah. I'm still scratching my head over that one.

I'd love to hear the explanation for that!



I may be going out a limb here, but it doesn't seem as though we're in the presence of a political scientist or historian.

[libdem4life]

49. Ya think?

[OnDoutside]

61. Far left Socialists are ideologues who are steadfastly unwilling to compromise and who view

anyone who does, as traitors to the cause. That's why the first item on the agenda of any Socialist group is the split.

Tea Party as in an ideological fanatical grouping within a bigger party, whose fanaticism ends up hurting the party's electability. Where Sanders is now, a grouping with the Dems is a definite, how much it hurts its electability is the big question.

[libdem4life]

64. I think you need to do some research about socialism.

You are spouting nigh meaningless rhetoric. Socialism is a social system, not political. Capitalism is a social system. Even Communism.

And ideologue can be from any system or belief or religion.

So, starting from there...perhaps you can find your way. There was an excellent 30 minute video on here with a very good history of real Socialism and explained many reasons for our current beliefs. Bernie and Hillary...night and day.

Perhaps someone will be able to find it so you can watch it.

[libdem4life]

44. Still waiting. Lots of judgments, few facts, unless, of course.......

[Barack_America]

4. Only 2/3 say he should endorse? Interesting.

[rjsquirrel]

10. Yes he should have a major role

if he can support our nominee he should be richly rewarded. He ran a hell of a race. He has a lot of supporters. He is a forceful and articulate voice of conscience.

But he has to support our nominee.

[libdem4life]

50. I'm not at all sure that this is not kind of the same thing PBO did to HRC

to somewhat neutralize the unholy alliance. I think Bernie would make a big mistake. She is known for not forgiving or forgetting...and if she were President...lord love a duck. Obama has class, bipartisanship (to a fault) and is a role model in this matter. No comparison as to including former foes in his administration.

But, no. Bernie has a role he, dare I say we, have yet to define, but his role is as a leader now. He's earned it.

Nor do I think our society is ready for two nigh septuagenarian women at the helm. I am one, so can say that.

The small bit of Progressivism that might seep through is hardly worth the "hair on fire times two Republicans and Democratic "moderates". I dearly love Warren and am glad to see women getting higher in power...as one of the original feminist group. But as far as partnering in any Progressive and meaningful way at this point in our society, see above.

But, as always, I could be wrong. It's JMO.

[woolldog]

23. Way too old to be VP. nt

[Boldine]

28. What is too old?

75 to be VP?
69 to be president?

You can be old at 40 and young at 90.

[woolldog]

31. He would be 75 when his term started. That's too old especially

when Clinton is really old too. Given Clinton's age, a young VP would be the best choice to balance the ticket. Similar to the way Obama picked an older statemen VP to balance out his youth.

[merrily]

26. Remember when Dems named Warren liasion to liberals?

Good times.

[tarheelsunc]

27. Think it goes without saying...

he ONLY deserves a major role if he actually plans to remain a Democrat.

[dubyadiprecession]

32. His role should be.. wait for it...

The senator from vermont!

[MaggieD]

37. I disagree

He spent too much time dissing Democrats and the party during his campaign. I would not favor him having anything but a very minimal role in the party. Also, he is not a Democrat.

[pangaia]

45. He is the real democrat.

My, how times have changed...

[MaggieD]

48. He is the real socialist

The Democratic Party is not socialist. Never has been. Sorry.

[pangaia]

51. Oh, jeeze..

[MaggieD]

55. Most Democrats are not socialists

You're trying to turn the party into something it isn't.

[pangaia]

56. Terms / history /

socialist
democratic socialism
corporatism
TR
FDR
IKE
democrat

the democratic party used to be what it isn't
then it wasn't what it is
then it again was what it now isn't
now it is what it wasn't

it is all not so simple...

[pat_k]

46. With so many articles

...seeking to write off the whole campaign as some sort of transitory, dysfunctional, phenomenon that's now behind us, this poll is great to see.

There's so much "We won, so shut up" (or "We won, get over it&quot and so little reflection on the critical lessons that can be learned from this campaign -- lessons the Democratic Party must learn if we're going to become the powerful force for economic and social justice we can be.

We must continue to challenge those who are stubbornly marching forward to the tune of "No we can't" (fight for real economic justice and social justice). It's the same beltway group think we've been fighting for decades. With the example of the campaign, we have shot at making a dent.

[BobbyDrake]

53. Where's the actual poll though? There's no link I can find to the actual results to back this up.

In other words, there's no verification possible.

[Eric J in MN]

54. Since the modern primary system started in 1972, he won the most states, 22, of any runner-up. NT

NT

[seabeckind]

63. Careful. There's a victory celebration going on.

Don't want anyone to get the idea that the winner isn't universally loved by all.

Not nice to point out the stains on the ermine.

[Beacool]

65. That's incorrect.

In 2008, Hillary won 23 states to Obama's 33. She was ahead in the popular vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008

[Eric J in MN]

68. HRC in 2008 won 20 states plus 3 territories.

Bernie Sanders won 23 contests this year: 22 states plus the Democrats Abroad primary.

So going by contests, she won 23 last time and he won 23 this time.

[Beacool]

69. OK, we stand even.

[Rex]

67. Major role yes, he needs to be involved like HRC was involved in Obama's administration.

Why not make him head of the IRS? That alone would cause half the GOPers in this country to fear for their lives and build a second bunker. You know, so they have a 'safe place' that ironically they spout about toward liberals.