The thing I like about Bernie is that he knows how to make progress. Sure the ACA could have been better, but Bernie knew single payer had no chance and he supported the ACA.

When it comes to governing, he knows it can't be an all or nothing approach.

Progressives are about making progress.

Bernie knows this.

but he didn't just vote for it. He got over 2 billion dollars for Community Health Centers that serve everyone on a sliding scale, and turn away no one.

He would make a great president. His views are to the left of many other members of Congress, but not really to the left of those of many, many Americans. He is an honest, good man. That's something that cannot be said of all in D.C. In fact that cannot be said of many men or women in D.C.

Bernie Sanders has years of experience serving the people of Vermont very well. He would make a great president. And if he runs just to allow the American people to hear a point of view other than the one pounded into our brains by the oligarchs and their mainstream media, it would be worth it.

I will support either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. Let's see which one really runs.

It's time Americans heard some new ideas and a fresh point of view.

Capitalism is failing a lot of people. It needs to be regulated and renewed to give an opportunity to move up to the many people with merit who are left out by the protection racket run by the oligarchs.

The Oligarchs have won and we the people are left standing in the ashes of Empire.

You shouldn't pretend that it doesn't.

eom

You make a futile gesture against the overwhelming tide flowing against you and hope the tiny eddy of effort you mde grows into something mighty.

Doesn't work out that way very often.

In mine, it's more like "fuck those people", and I keep on fighting.

YMMV, of course.

That's how I look at it.

He might have been right.

eom

But I have kids and grandkids. I fight for them.

I hope he does join in.

important to Bernie, but I'd like to hear someone else discuss those issues as well -- someone who actually has a chance to win the nomination. We need a candidate who believes in those principles to represent us in the general election, and Bernie isn't the right person to be our nominee. By all means, Bernie should be out there talking about the issues that are near and dear to him, but please, let's hear it from someone else as well, someone who could be a real contender for the nomination and the general election.

Assessment...let's hope this post is rec'd repeatedly

He seems to be interested in running solely to fill the gap. I doubt that Elizabeth Warren (for example) will run, but if she were to run, she'd be someone who had a chance to win the general election, and I think Sanders would defer to her.

The question is whether there will be a candidate meeting your description. Maybe Martin O'Malley? I've heard that he's exploring a run. I haven't heard that about Sherrod Brown, Kirsten Gillibrand, Alan Grayson, or Sheldon Whitehouse, to name some others who've been mentioned as possible progressive candidates. Brian Schweitzer I'm not sure about, either whether he'd run or whether he'd be a good representative for our side.

It might turn out to be Sanders by default, able to do no more than raise some issues. I agree with you that a progressive candidate who could win the nomination and the election would be the best thing but that may not be an option.

I have been a bit afraid to actually say he doesn't have a chance of winning, but I believe it.
But we do need his voice loud and clear.

And not only do we need another such candidate who CAN win, we need other visible people telling the truth.

Bernie's impact would be far greater, and even more beneficial.

He was the ONLY candidate offering anything really different on POLICY,
yet when his turn came, he was asked about Flying Saucers or other ridiculous questions
by the "moderators". The Debates have been turned into Campaign Opportunities by the candidats with the most money.

I don't think America is ready for a 'socialist' in the White House. Imagine how he'd be painted? Of course I wouldn't have thought America was ready for an African American in the White Hose...so who knows.
By all means, let him impact the debate. But let's be realistic...and he has that crazy hair!

Hey, maybe we can benefit from the boy who cried wolf syndrome and slip one under the wire!

It seems that all of the posters here want Senator Sanders to express his Progressive views. They are certain
that our votes count.
If that is the case it seems we would unite our votes and elect Bernie Sanders. Because everyone also agrees that
the other candidates are corporatists who need to hear and hopefully use these Progressive Ideas as a part of their platform.

Why not UNITE as one and use our vast numbers to elect a real Progressive with a proven track record?
No matter what TPTB and their wholly owned MSM has to say, IF we all join together, our numbers (85-90%) would be
"the shot heard around the world" and we can get the real Progressive President we need.
Instead the posters are advocating electing a corporatist who has been exposed to Bernies real Progressivism.
To me, that makes no sense. Unite and elect the "real thing" not "our" corporate approved candidate even though he/she
has been in exposed to debates with a real, representative of "we the people."

Mike Gravel ring a bell? HE won't be pulling enough support to make it in the debates very long.

Doesn't matter much. I'm for Hillary

It would be fantastic if "he can impact the debate; change the focus and the sound bite driven drivel of uber hawk corporatist candidates."

How does he influence the Democrats then?

A potential run by Bernie Sanders as a Democrat scares the ever loving shit out of you, doesn't it?

Becoming President isn't just a matter of having the right positions; it's organization, fundraising and crafting a message that up to 35 million Democrats (not all eastern liberals) find appealing.

IN 2012, Sanders got 212,000 votes; in 2006 he got 171,000. That's about the size of the population of Rochester. To win the Election, he'll need to win states like Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Wisconisn; all States that have happily voted for Tea Party Republicans in the recent past. Explain how Sanders raises the money and crafts a national campaign that will match the 17 million votes that, say, Hillary Clinton will get.

the one that explicitly states that it is about the DEBATE, and it's the DEBATE that scares you. that's why you're front and center in every thread about 2016 to remind everyone that Bernie isn't a Democrat, or that Elizabeth Warren has said she isn't going to run. every fucking thread.

he's my Senator. I know him.

per the Terms.....

ellipses not withstanding...

just as Harry Reid did. Just as tons of other dem politicians do

If he runs for President, he'll run as a dem. I know far more about him than you do.

Then we'll be able to endorse him for that office and you can rant and rage and it won't do a bit of good.

you can vote for whomever you like.....but this site says IN its Terms of Service that it is to promote the elections of DEMOCRATS.

Unless he does become a Democrat.....he is unendorsable by DU. Until then.....it is just theoretical. And unless you know him personally.....

And that hypothetical situation is what I support.

Were he to run as an independent, well, I'd be cursing him for helping Repubes win.

if he were going to become a Democrat....I think he would have done that by now.

why on earth do you make comments about things you know nothing whatsoever about, vanilla?

I know that Bernie Sanders was elected BY his constituents under the party he currently calls himself.....

I know that he has caucused with Democrats for his entire career.....

I know that he could have switched parties at any time along the way.....and sadly he has never changed his affiliation....


But somehow YOU know him better.....

Charlie Crist for the Senate. DU allowed negative campaigning against the Democratic nominee for that office. Crist later became a Democrat. But then he was still just a Republican who had said Palin was more qualified than Obama.
If you don't like that, take it up with Skinner. He makes the rules.

Here you go for your edification....seems YOU should take it up with Skinner...

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.

Bernie is on the DEMOCRATIC caucus, and is more in line with liberals than any Democrat currently serving in Congress.

Why you wouldn't want to support him is the problem.

And, he may very well run as a Democrat.

per the Terms of Service....

He won't change parties to do this. If he were going to change parties he would have done so by now. And not to mention the fact that his constituents voted for him with his current label. Would it be fair to them?

but that is not going to happen is it? I am a realist not a dreamer...

it says right there plain as day....for the support of DEMOCRATS!

And no he is not running as a Democrat. He has constituents back home that voted for him with his current party affiliation.

Facts are important when trying to make an argument.

and that would mean it isn't a FACT wouldnt it? Right now Bernie is NOT a Democrat....THAT is a FACT!

You should try to understand what a FACT is before throwing that word around.....

Like the quote from this link.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2014/hey-bernie-if-youre-going-run-president-2016-do-it-democrat

“The dilemma is that if you run outside the Democratic Party, then what you’re doing—and you have to think hard about this—is, you’re not just running a race for president, you’re really running to build an entire political movement,” Bernie said. “In doing that, you would be taking votes away from the Democratic candidate and making it easier for some right-wing Republican to get elected—the [Ralph] Nader dilemma.”

Bernie said that he planned to keep talking to activists, which a spokeswoman at his campaign committee said he’s doing. “The bolder, more radical approach is running outside of the two-party system,” he told Nichols, before backtracking a bit and saying that he would study running as an Independent or a Democrat. “Those are the options that progressives around the country are going to have to wrestle with. And that’s certainly something that I will be listening to.”

said that he is going to run as a Democrat....


its not something YOU are hearing either...its wishful thinking.

and won't you be in tizzy if he becomes a dem. they hysterics from some of you will be epic- and most amusing.

and what about the people that actually voted for him back home that are not electing a Democrat?

and pssst....don't hold your breath expecting apoplexy from me. I have said time and time again....I always vote for whomever wins the Primary....I have no problem with Bernie Sanders if it could happen.....but you are really talking about a really long shot in this case...

and as a Vermonter- someone who's been here for 35 years, I can tell you that the VAST majority people here support Bernie. We have 3 parties in Vermont anyway. The Vermont Progressive Party is by far and away the most successful 3rd party in this country. There are progs in both houses of the legislature.

Bernie is a very pragmatic guy. As I said in the OP, his reason for running is to influence the debate, to put under the national spotlight, those issues and concerns he has long spoken. You really seem to have trouble grasping my very simple op.

We had this shit back in 2006 when he first ran, "he's not really a Democrat, you can't say anything good about him". For god's sake, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer helped clear the field to ensure he wouldn't get any Democratic opposition when he decided to run for Senate. They know he's a team player and that he's absurdly popular in Vermont.

but he hasn't....what on God's green earth makes you think he would do so now? And just to appease Democratic Underground so that DU can endorse him? He wouldn't have the party wind in his sails if he does that.....so why would he?

stop with the nonsense, nilla

Bernie Sanders isn't even a candidate yet.

Second of all, the man has some serious Democratic bona fides. He's caucused with the Democratic Party for over two decades in congress, he was endorsed by all of the DSCC as soon as he announced his candidacy in 2006, and maintains a very close working relationship with both the national and state parties.

Unless/until there's a Democrat running against him, DUers are free to support him. They can support him entering a Democratic primary, and they could support him in his last race in VT (since there was no Democratic candidate running against him).

The rule is that we support Democratic nominees once the general election season begins. That doesn't apply to the current conversation.

He knows and understands if he should choose to run as a third party candidate it would usher in a Republican as president. He is not stupid and knows he would rather have a Democrat as president.

where she stands on many of the issues. What I do know is that in the past she has been for saving the safety net issues. That I like about her but what is she going to say about TPP and KXL and issues that do not make her popular with the corporations?

I would like to see both Bernie and Elizabeth run against her in the primary.

With Warren and Sanders she would have to be more detailed than if she was debating a Biden or Kerry. Add to that: I want to have them on stage with her when foreign policy is being talked about.

The party would greatly benefit from it. The verbiage coming from our party leaders needs to dramatically change. It has bugged me more than just about everything else over the last couple of years. It is something that is 100% in our(party leaders) control.

If you really want to change people's minds and attack the problems that confront us, support grassroots organizing: build the people-power we need from the bottom up; get people involved in issues; help folk to explore the possibilities for action; start reconstructing communities where people talk to one another, instead of just hearing what passes through the corporate media filters

is not the same thing as your vague "making a point".

And my community and my state as a whole is model for just what you claim you want.

Not that I'm convinced at all by your rhetoric.

I like Sanders as a politician, and in many ways I wish the rest of the US was more like Vermont

But one constant lesson about Presidential politics, that is overlooked again and again, year after year, is that national politics is an entirely different ballgame than state politics. Almost everyone, who primarily deals with state campaigns, seems to miss this point, until bitter experience shoves the fact down their throats. Carter, a brilliant and energetic man with excellent ideas and high ideals, seems only partially have assimilated the idea in his four White House years, for example

We can pretty well predict coverage of the 2016 campaign from experience. The press will initially hype long-shot candidates, but coverage will soon focus on "who can win." Then, as the press corps becomes bored following the top few candidates from speech to speech, coverage will reduce to "horse-race" issues and attempts to create stories by looking for alleged gaffes and "gotcha!" moments. Most issues will pushed to the back of the bus

No one will get much more than early superficial "flash-in-the-pan" coverage without a serious run. And only a good national ground-game can really get anyone's issues into the public eye. If Sanders runs merely to "influence the debate," he will be quickly dismissed as not being a real candidate, and the tendency to report one-sentence soundbites followed by hours of talking-heads commentary on such soundbites will quickly reduce him to a cartoon, remembered across the nation only for some misleading interpretations of two or three sentences he utters. Presidential politics does not closely resemble state politics

virtually no one took him seriously initially. Look, I get that you are for hillary but stop being so scared.

and yes, there are most definitely parallels between state and presidential politics that are valid.

why are you so scared of bernie? and yes, you certainly come off as just that.

because despite her real qualifications I oppose political dynasties, I believe that a Clinton campaign would energize the rightwing, and I think she would be extraordinarily vulnerable to attacks on grounds of age; (3) my response to the OP argues against pseudo-campaigns waged simply to make points

deliberately misconstruing, putting words in others' mouths and deliberate obtuseness do not for a good discussion make.

bye

is very welcome in the debates. I think he'd make a great President also but won't be our nominee most likely.

but she will remain bought and paid for. Having Bernie in the debates would not change her indebtedness to her corporate donors one iota if she made it to the White House.

The Democratic Party has choices to make about which candidates they will fund and support. Their choices will make clear their actual intentions, and voters will respond accordingly.

This country cannot afford another corporatist and warmonger in the White House.

it would make me pleased - plus he gives the left a voice.

Last edited Mon May 19, 2014, 02:24 AM - Edit history (1)

And, one that requires little or no injury to the nose.

Sanders is a bit better in public than Gravel was, so I could see it working better.

Just like Mike Gravel, Hillary Clinton failed to win the nomination.

“I would not run an educational campaign. It’s not just to raise these issues,” he said. “Obviously if I did not think I had a reasonable chance to win I wouldn’t run.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/bernie-sanders-2016-election-100020.html#ixzz32A1JZybI

I mean I know right wing dems like you despise and fear Bernie, but there's really no need, vanilla. Bernie has assured you folks that he won't be a spoiler.

Calm down. He won't hurt anyone by running as a Democrat. Relax. Hillary will be just fine, Vanilla.

Bernie is not a Democrat....thus I can only admire him from afar. He is not a Democrat so I cannot put my support behind him. Nor can Democratic Underground...

By the way so that you know.....I didn't support President Obama in the Primaries.....but when he won that....I supported his campaign...

I AM a life-long Democrat...

Surely you wouldn't suggest that I'm less a democrat than you because I've supported and voted for Bernie.

And yes, I realize that you right wing dems are also dems.

Your hair may not be on fire, but you should check your pants. They look to be merrily flaming away.

thus I don't support him on "Democratic Underground"

and sorry, 'nilla, but I have seedlings to transplant and "discussing" anything with you is silly. You don't hew to an honest point.

Have a lovely day, 'nilla.

if he doesn't become a Democrat and runs against them.....watch and see what happens here!

I'm sick of the status quo. I'd be happy to hear what he has to say. I hope when the time comes I will have a chance to vote for him, but the options are usually whittled down to two candidates by the time my state votes in primaries. I really wish they would let us have nationwide primaries at the same time. As it stands now, a few key states get to decide for the rest of us and people drop out before some of us have a chance to vote for who we really would have liked to vote for.

I'm going to be brutally honest here. He doesn't stand a chance for several reasons, some are admittedly petty (his age, accent, etc.) and some technical (most democrats and liberals are socially liberal and fiscally centrist while Bernie seems to be socially libertarian and fiscally left wing). There's a mis-match there that will NEVER resonate outside the pages of GD on DU.

You'd be better off throwing your support behind someone like Senator Warren whose only obstacles are superficial. The things we love about her are also the things that would be a huge challenge for her if she were to run for President. Warren would be a humble, unassuming presence standing beside charismatic Goliaths like Hillary and Bill Clinton. Obama won because he and Michelle were able to match the star power of the Clintons, while also presenting something new. However, Senator Warren does have one big advantage, and that is her sincere message. Even though she is left of center when it comes to fiscal issues, she has a way of articulating issues with so much passion and common sense that she could easily shift public opinion if the media covered her more and mainstream Americans gave her a chance.