Please. rec

And the Left, and students and minorities and women, will come out and vote for Democrats. Everyone who can, call Bernie, go to events he is at, and give something, even $5.

was bought by corporate $$ long ago. Bernie is an Independent and should run as an Independent. We have two corporate owned parties and Bernie would be just another Corpracrat if he ran as a Democrat.
It is a know fact that billionaires are standing by waiting for Hillary's decision....
Bernie's campaign would be financed by the working class and yes he could do it as an I

They're right.

Than by status quo "liberals" who prefer the slow death of creeping conservatism and lesser of two lessers Democracy.

Sid

over and over and over and over and over and over?



Sid

but an attempt to split the vote (a la Tea party), is the dumbest idea on this thread.

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.

No longer going to just eat whatever corporate tool the Dems put up.

The republicans

...next problem?

If Bernie wants my vote, he needs a D behind his name. Electing Democrats matters.

Just sayin...

Bernie does!!

Run as a Democrat and give 'em hell, Bernie!!

14 Senators with (D) to their name voted to block Obama's nominee to the Civil Rights Commission.

... But it's still better than them being R's and you know it.

It's just as bad!

Take a look at some recent filibusters and tell me party affiliation doesn't matter.

If you vote for the party, and not the person, it's just as bad as what the RepubliCONs have been doing... Marching in lock step to their leader.
This is wrong!

from the democratic wing of the democratic party. He sure talks and acts more like a democrat than Hillary. What idea does he have you do not like??

... But if if wants my vote, he needs to run a Democrat. I am voting to Democratic nominee in the Generals because it matter that democrats win. Remember 2000? We could have President Gore rather than Dubya if it weren't for Ralph Nader. Hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive today because Gore would not have invaded Iraq. The U.S. Would not have engaged in torture and extreme rendition.

Yes. Electing Democrats MATTERS.

Bernie ran as an indy on the left, Hillary ran on the Dems, and Christie ran on the Cons, you would vote for Hil?

Sorry, I would vote for Bernie. I would invite Rand to run as an indy on the right too!

If Bernie gets the nomination, I will donate till it hurts, and work as hard as I can for him.

You vote for the Party, not the person?

Yes, policy matters.

... surely he would have killed MILLIONS.

.... voting for Nader, or not at all, because someone didn't like Lieberman gave Dubya and Darth Cheney. That administration is responsible for hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded. Nader had no hope of winning, so voting for him was essentially a protest vote. Not voting at all was just plain dumb.

Would Gore/Liberman have been the perfect admin? No. I didn't vote for Gore in the primaries, and I sure as hell don't like Lieberman. Would they have been MILES better than Dubya and Darth? You bet.

Vote your conscience in the primaries, if you must (I personally consider electability in the generals in my calculations), but in the generals, almost any Dem is better than almost any Repug. And realistically, at the Presidential level, the winner is going to be a Democrat or Republican, at least for the foreseeable future.

... the didn't like Lieberman, it's that Lieberman inspired no additional voters to turn out for their ticket.

Gore would have won had he chosen a progressive who could have inspired some of the electorate who didn't bother instead of a neo-con who inspired no one.

Blaming Nader is a copout when Gore picked a guy who did not help the ticket in any way.

That's not a cop out. That's the numbers.

In this thread (and particularly my comment), we're talking about people potentially voting for Sanders running as an independent. Assuming Clinton as the party nominee, each vote for Sanders would be a vote NOT going to Clinton. Why on earth would we want to do that in the general election? Bernie won't win running as an independent, and people who think he would are kidding themselves.

... a progressive running mate could have inspired a couple thousand of them?

Do you believe Lieberman got any of the mythical "moderate Republicans" to vote for Gore?

In my humble opinion, the "both parties are too much alike, why bother?" issue had far more impact than Ralphie's 1,635 supporters.

We're talking about people potentially voting for Bernie Sanders as an indeendent candidate.

And whatever you think about turn-out, the plain truth is that is those voting Nader voted Gore in 2000, we would not have had President W.

But Gore still won remember?

Can we all finally accept the fact that Nader did not cause Gore to lose? Gore won Florida and the Presidency , but the corrupt SCOTUS interfered and crowned Shrubya king..

Why we didn't take to the streets with torches and pitchforks still amazes me...

All that matters is the color of the jersey, not the quality of the player.

I'm not interested in noble defeats. REAL PEOPLE are affected when someone like Dubya gets elected because people voted for Nader instead of Gore.

Yes. Winning matters. And in some cases, what team their playing for matters more than the fact that aren't ideologically perfect.

To abuse the old saying, if the mountain will not come to Mohammed, then Mohammed must go to the mountain. That is if the Democratic party is not going to figure out how the fuck to be liberal, then people with an interest in liberal policies are just going to have to look elsewhere.

Sorry, I'm not content to sit around yanking my pud and going "YAY I'M ON THE WINNING TEAM!"

Big Corporatist-style Democratic running of the nation into the arms of the Banksters, the NSA Surveillance types and Big Prison et al.

Bernie would be a welcome relief from Big Corporations and their control.

In 2012 Bernie Sanders got...207,000 votes. Yep, Hillary is definitely the weak link.

Your ability to crystallize this and turn it around fairly in my mind is very appreciated. Republicans are the party of big business and everyone in business knows business has too main imperatives, first is to stay in business and second is to make a profit. Republicans know these rules well and any thought that they will fail to evolve to something that allows them to continue to exist is just garbage. Republicans have used social issues and hate to bring voters to the polls, but you should not believe that accomplishing the social dreams they spouted were the goal or the intent. Getting more elected offices was the intent. Getting more votes than Democrats is only a necessity where they have not Gerrymandered. Now we will watch as Republicans move toward more of society , respecting gay rights and non secular government, and eventually womens' rights as they need to win elected office. This is to be as expected, elected office is the goal which allows them to remain corrupt, selling the political representation they amass to the highest bidder for profit either in terms of money or increased power. When they achieve and maintain their ability to sustain the first imperative, they will continually revise the election system to push voter influence out of the process so they can pursue the profits they receive from corporations without the unwelcome intrusions by voters.
It is this second imperative that makes corruption necessary. They cannot be rewarded by money for doing what voters really want and therefore must be unrepresentative in their actions in order to satisfy big money and corporations. But they walk a line here and still must crate enough supporters to get elected eben in the rigged Gerrymandered districts they support. They will , I think the term is pivot, on social issues but economics is what big business and big money donors care about primarily. This is what unites them. You will not see republicans working against the obvious and very harmful economic inequality. They will fight hard to protect big business and big business profits because without them they are lost in the wilderness. They have continued to spout but never support an ideology. They will throw any ideology they claim under the bus in order to help their donors. So just watch as they move to the middle on social issues and do not let them lie to enough people that they should vote for the man.They are serpents and will not change. We must prevent these evil people from being elected or re-elected in 2014.

If I'm going to throw my vote away, it will at least be on someone I want to be president and reflects my values.

No more lesser of two evils, it is still evil. I have voted for the lesser of two evils since 1972 in all but one election (Carter), where has it gotten the United States?

I would work for Bernie if he ran, and get 100,000 people to vote for him. If there were enough people like me, who would go out and campaign for him tirelessly, Bernie would win in a heartbeat!

He has to prove he can beat Hilary first, otherwise splitting the dem vote will only benefit whatever figurehead has an (R) next to their name.

Also, if Bernie runs as a dem, he will not get any support from dem offices if the DNC endorses Hilary, which I expect they will do.

Bernie has a huge hill to climb.

I'm just trying to point out that regardless if Bernie runs as an (I) or a (D)
he's going to have a tough time.

I personally would rather have Bernie over Hillary.

Hillary will no doubt be the corporates' choice, so Bernie will get bad press at every turn (TV, Radio, Newspaper)

For me, policy is a requirement. Democrats usually support policies I support. But not always, and certainly not lately.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your comments.

Bernie would NOT catch the majority of Independents because he would not capture any of the two largest groups that make up Independents ... the Millennial and disenfranchised republicans.

You might be able to use the movement to exert more control over State Parties (although I would argue that the Ron Paul Republicans were a lot more politically worked up then the Progressive Democrats are at this point) bu I would argue that he had very little influence on the Republican nomination. Mitt Romney felt a lot more pressure to pretend to be a Tea Party kook than he did to become a libertarian.

Same delusional mindset. The Freepers think that either Cruz, Rand or Palin are sure bets to win the WH. Here, they think that an old Socialist is viable in a general election.

It's amusing, but far removed from reality.

Bernie Sanders getting elected is far removed from reality? Yeah, kind of like America having a Black President.. Never happen.

I know he is; I read it here.

Explain to us a position Obama took that was as radical as Bernie's. And if there is one, why do we need a radical like Bernie?

Bernie Sanders getting elected is no more far fetched than Obama getting elected and tried to turn it into a policy fight.

Congrats. Thats what the party needs. More infighting. Have a nice day.

You support an OP that proposes Bernie Sanders run for President as a progressive.

I suggest that he's too left wing to be an attractive candidate.

How is that "infighting"?

stating that President Sanders is no more far fetched than President Obama.

You chose to take that to mean that I wanted to debate policy. You were wrong. I'm happy to debate policy when the time comes. Right now we don't even know if the man is going to run. All I am saying is it's not impossible for him to get elected.

Or are only your opinions relevant?

if you are going to use the word impossible.

Have a nice day.

People get so caught up in labels that they don't really pay any attention to the messages (and better yet the actions) that these potential candidates are identified with.

As far as I can tell, Bernie has been straightforward about his positions and has backed them up with votes and explanations about how he reached these positions. Most of them are just common sense, as long as you care about the common person.

I can't say anything about Hilary because I really don't follow politicos that closely. I would want to believe that she has strong positions of her own but most of what I read recently is her Dept. of State pronouncements.

Progressive/democrat/liberal/conservative/right-wing/whatever. These are intended to numb your mind, to pigeon-hole a person/position so you don't have to think about it any more. Those that attach the labels are trying to own your own conscious.

--- Think for yourselves. Eschew stereotypes. Analyze past actions, not current words. Be sentient!

for the Reality-based analysis.

The real question is are 'regular' Democrats ready.

Yes I am, but I cannot speak for my fellow REGULAR Democrats. I do believe if he runs as independent, it will split the democratic vote, causing a loss in 2016. I think he needs to join the democratic party.....(IMO)..

as long as regular Democrats embrace his progressive solutions.

All I know is that this Sanders guy needs moderate Democrats to accept his progressive solutions if he is going to have a chance of becoming President.

Not all that PC savvy here, but will try to look where they stand on actual solutions to those things.

It's not pretty.

not yours (of course), but a turd nonetheless...

A few talking heads at the top of a "Presumed" majority.

I might be wrong, but I afraid I'm not.

what with their RadicalPragmaticConservativeCentrism and all. They're essentially Republicans who believe in "gay marriage." BFD.

Elizabeth Warren, Third Way and the Battle Over American Liberalism
http://billmoyers.com/2013/12/11/elizabeth-warren-third-way-and-the-battle-over-american-liberalism/

And yes, they throw around gay marriage as if everything is an either/or.

"Turd Way?"

Run, Bernie! But change parties NOW and run as a Democrat, echoing others here. "...Descriptive if not conclusive...". Come on Bernie, give it up. Don't leave us hanging. You are just about our last great hope of getting a real Democrat in the White House.

I bet you he switches parties soon. He should know he can't run as and Independent, as it would be too dangerous of splitting the vote and the Repubs squeaking thru. Bernie knows this, if anyone does.

He's going to do the right thing.

The thought of anything like another Bush presidency shakes me to the core.

My hope is that Bernie runs as a Dem. If he wins, hooray.
If he loses hopefully he will have moved the Dem candidate to the left forcing said person to adopt policies that are real old traditional Dem policies. That will then hopefully force issues to be brought up that haven't seen the light of a good debate for a long time.

Someone like Dragon Lady Feinstein would welcome him into the party with welcome arms.

As tired as the phrase "thinking in the box" or "outside the box" itself is.

And as much as I love Bernie, seems he's stuck in same, from the article - though I suppose one could argue that seeking feedback from his natural "base" in itself a novelty in these times.

Seems to me that the record of BO in the WH should disabuse any "progressive" of the notion that any sort of progress is to be made inside the conventional political structure, including that of the Democratic Party. It sure did me. The persistence of this fantasy seems to me a prime example of "hope springs eternal" - no matter the concrete realities.

Do I have an "outside the box" solution? No, so don't ask me for one. I don't claim to be brilliant or a master strategist or anything else - just an on-the-ground grunt in the never-ending struggles just to keep from falling further behind in our rights, our livelihoods, our ordinary human desire for a degree of comfort and meaningfulness in our lives. I don't have an answer.

But I am quite convinced that electing a President is not it.

The Democratic Party Bosses will "Dean" him right out of the gate. Personally, I think he should run as an independent but then again, I hate political parties and so did at least four of the Founding Fathers:


"A pure democracy . . . can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction . . . . There is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party . . . . Hence it is that such democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been a short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." --James Madison

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under it leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble opinion, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." --John Adams

However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796

"And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable preeminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters?" Benjamin Franklin

Congressional races which is where the power could more easily be turned back to the people, not overnight, but we have two Congressional elections 2014 and 2016 where the people have a chance to start removing the millionaires who are beholden to Corporations and start replacing them with people who represent them.

And as someone else said to me, and I agree, start at the local level, electing people who are more concerned about the people than about corporate donors.

If we had a Congress that truly represented US, rather than rubber stamping Corporate legislation, who is in the WH would be far less important.

Emphasis should be on Congress now.

I know it's not fair for me to say that I want both, the WH and Congress. I totally agree that we need to work hard to fix Congress. That alone is an undaunting task but the WH can shape America's opinion of the party. America needs to hear Sen Sanders and I think they will like the message. And at some point we will have to take on the corporatish Democratic Party machine. If Clinton-Sachs becomes president she will teach Americans that Wall Street rules and that 25% poverty for American children is just the cost.

on edit: Also, it may be time to r3bel. It looks like the political system is fixed beyond repair. We cant wait too long to decide that we must work outside the political system. No violence, as that's counter productive, but civil disobedience. Unless we think we can repair the "fixed" political system, we must start thinking of r3bellion.

my thoughts and not assumed that people would know where I was coming from. I was thinking about how impossible it is to get someone like Bernie elected to the WH and even if we succeeded, unless he had a Congress to work with, he would alone could not implement real progressive policies.

Otoh, even if a Republican ended up in the WH, IF we had a truly Progressive Congress s/he would not be able to do what, say, Bush was able to do.

So my point was that no matter what, Congress is key, with a Great president or with a terrible president, Congress holds the power to either support or block their initiatives.

We don't spend enough time on Congress, all the focus is on the WH race and while we're busy with that, Third Way and Republicans are being backed by both parties.

No problem I am always interested in your thoughts, Rhett .... one thing is certain, we the people have to change what we have been doing.

as a DEmocrat he would get a forum. That's huge. Would die for a debate with him and Clinton-Sachs. At this point we can not defeat Citizens United (how ironic that it will help Clinton-Sacs) but we must try to get our message out there.

We must develop a strategy. I wish I knew we had someone working on it.

would do it so poor Bernie doesn't have too.

a lot of stigma that comes with running third party.. some lefties seem to take offense to that...

to be honest tho, I kinda hate the thought of losing Bernie or Elizabeth from the senate.. we need as many liberal minded lawmakers as we can get in congress

somebody HAS to challenge Hillary tho.. or the left will be marginalized so quickly we wont even feel our heads spin.
im fine with Hillary winning the nomination, and would obviously vote for her in a general over a republican.. but it shouldn't be given to her.. and if the left doesn't put up an opposition within the party , im seriously debating unregistering with the democratic party.

against Ron Paul (who should run as an independent as well) and let them split the votes.

With Sanders the clear winner! Yes!

sorry. but I can't and won't.

I'll vote for Bernie no matter what party he runs with.

Someone above mentioned splitting the vote if he ran as a Dem. That's where I was going with that. Sorry it wasn't clear enough for you.

to battle the billionaire backed opposition.

That's what "revolution" would look like today in the U.S. - a critical mass of people working around the bought-and-paid-for system.