Sanders to run as a Democrat -- but not accept nomination (2018 Senate)

[karynnj]

461. No one "chooses" his or her own opponents

certainly not in the democracy that is Vermont! the reason he has no strong opponent is because there is seriously no one in Vermont that could beat him - in either party. (Pat Leahy is similarly very popular, but he holds the other Senate seat. Beyond that, the next most popular is Peter Welch, who is fantastic and is the only member of the House from Vermont, but there is no way he wants to abandon his house seat to run against Bernie.

I don't think he "wonders" about his level of support here in Vermont - he likely sees enough Bernie stickers on cars to know that he is well liked. We like our entire Congressional delegation.

In 2016, the Democratic party WANTED Santers to run as a Democrat in the primary instead of as an independent. I suspect the reason was pretty obvious - he would run, get a Kuchinich like 5%, and he would not be there in the fall. This was also Bernie's preference - because he did not want to be a "Nader" who would help the Republicans win.

Sanders opts to caucus with the Democrats. You might have forgotten or never thought of the significance of that. Sanders was elected in 2006, replacing Jeffords, a Republican turned Independent who opted to caucus with the Democrats. In 2001, when Jeffords shifted, it gave us the majority, which was lost in the 2002 midterm. In November 2006, we had ended up with 51 Senators, counting newly elected Bernie Sanders. Having the majority is a BIG deal - you control the agenda and all the committee chairs are yours. With the Republicans in power, you act as a break on his power and, while you can't pass much, you can stop some bad things from happening. (From the other side, imagine where we would be had we kept the Senate in 2014.)

I personally do not get the inchoate hatred from some here for Sanders and the strange idea that his primary challenge was why Clinton lost. As to 2020, I have no idea if he will run. However, if he does, I will predict that he will not get anywhere near the over 40% he got in 2016. I strongly believe that that was the result of a very constrained choice - Bernie or Hillary. Both had extremely committed, emotionally involved supported who passionately wanted their choice to win. In addition, there were many who wished they had another choice, but they didn't. Some of his support was from people who simply wanted someone other than Clinton. Juat as some of Clinton's support were people who absolutely thought Bernie should not be our nominee.

2020 is likely to have a large, strong field. Initially, I suspect - that as in 1992 where the potential candidates other than Cuomo, who was playing with the idea of running, were called the 7 dwarfs - some will wish we had a Bill Clinton, an Obama, a HRC rather than the more plebeian choices. Yet almost any of the 1992 choices would once nominated would have gained stature, as Clinton did, by winning the nomination. Here is where I think Iowa and NH play an important role. I know that CA has moved up its primary, but its size means that most people will not be able to really meet the candidates. It is good that they can in Iowa and NH and that winning in those states gives previously little known candidates a chance to be taken seriously.

In this broader field, the people who picked Bernie in 2016 will likely have several favorites and it is not clear that with all those choices, Bernie will even get a majority of those who voted for him last time.