Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bigtree

(85,813 posts)
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:44 PM Jun 2014

What effect would Bernie running as an independent have on the Democratic race?

. . . if Bernie Sanders runs as an independent we'll risk having a Nader-like conflict which will likely do little more than divide folks off from the party. I think I know what the end result will be; an advantage for a unified republican party.

I'd vote for Bernie running as a Democrat, but I'm not sure about voting for an independent candidacy, at this point. I do remember, though, that our party came together after a long-drawn out primary. I think that competition was healthy and helpful for our party's chances in November 2008.

A Sanders candidacy as an independent could have the same effect in organizing Democrats around much of his progressive agenda. Many strong primary challenges have convinced rival candidacies to adopt planks of an agenda made popular by lesser ranked challengers. It's a completely worthwhile effort.

I do worry about the spoiler effect, though, and remember the outright outrage folks here expressed when Hillary played out her own campaign to the very end. Of course, Sen. Sanders will need to broaden his appeal; attract votes outside of our party to win the general election, if that's his aim.

If he isn't in it to actually win (as an independent), he'll need to address what responsibility he's willing to assume for the ultimate defeat of the republican opponent.

54 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
What effect would Bernie running as an independent have on the Democratic race? (Original Post) bigtree Jun 2014 OP
I doubt Bernie Sanders would do that. MineralMan Jun 2014 #1
he'll gain my full support bigtree Jun 2014 #2
He'll get my vote in the Minnesota primary if he does. MineralMan Jun 2014 #7
Would the Clintons allow that tho? Whisp Jun 2014 #6
They would have no choice, frankly. MineralMan Jun 2014 #11
The 'Clinton Mafia' and all that rot AgingAmerican Jun 2014 #36
My thoughts exactly. arcane1 Jun 2014 #10
Yup. It would be a pleasure to vote for him in the primary. MineralMan Jun 2014 #13
yes. nt BootinUp Jun 2014 #31
Maybe Hillary will be the independent running. InAbLuEsTaTe Jun 2014 #52
I'm not voting for an Independent in a Presidential race. Wait Wut Jun 2014 #3
see :NADAR 2000 MFM008 Jun 2014 #4
I don't think he'd want to be a spoiler. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #5
Republican president in 2016 bradla Jun 2014 #8
It will certainly effect my vote. No nose holding required. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2014 #9
He has said repeatedly that if he were to run, it would be as a Democrat. Bluenorthwest Jun 2014 #12
Bernie: 'The question you asked is extremely important, it requires a whole lot of discussion.' bigtree Jun 2014 #14
Bernie will NOT run as an independent. Period. I know Bernie. He's my Senator cali Jun 2014 #15
Bernie said in March that he's not decided on that . . . says it 'needs discussion' bigtree Jun 2014 #16
So let him discuss it Armstead Jun 2014 #32
news today says he's heading to New Hampshire bigtree Jun 2014 #42
You obviously have permission to discuss anything you want Armstead Jun 2014 #43
one thread about this is an 'odd obsession'? bigtree Jun 2014 #44
Well numerrous people have pointed out that he hasn't made a decision... Armstead Jun 2014 #45
did you even read my post? bigtree Jun 2014 #47
All of those scenerios are a long way down the road Armstead Jun 2014 #49
Has he implied that he would run as an independent? tritsofme Jun 2014 #17
Is there some reason to think he's going to run as an independent, LWolf Jun 2014 #18
Bernie: 'The question you asked is extremely important, it requires a whole lot of discussion' bigtree Jun 2014 #19
So...No. LWolf Jun 2014 #20
he actually did expound on his thinking on the subject - no derision, just answered bigtree Jun 2014 #21
Yes. He expounded on the fact that he doesn't have an answer at this time. nt LWolf Jun 2014 #22
and he welcomed discussion of the issue bigtree Jun 2014 #23
It's all in the way its framed. LWolf Jun 2014 #28
you believe what you're posting is inviolable because you support Sanders? bigtree Jun 2014 #35
I don't believe anything anyone says, in any format, is "inviolable." LWolf Jun 2014 #37
I'm not selling fear, I posed a question, gave my opinion bigtree Jun 2014 #40
No. LWolf Jun 2014 #46
bernie believes it's campaign season. He's heading to New Hampshire to test the waters bigtree Jun 2014 #48
Maybe he's just trying LWolf Jun 2014 #53
Fear-mongering seems to be the weapon du jour or semaine or mois, for Hillary supporters. djean111 Jun 2014 #27
Hillary Clinton isn't the candidate I intend to work for in the next election bigtree Jun 2014 #38
I am mindful of the fear-mongering when anyone criticizes Hillary, here - djean111 Jun 2014 #39
the history of a strong independent candidacy has played itself out several times in several ways bigtree Jun 2014 #41
Bernie Schwartz? OilemFirchen Jun 2014 #24
But Hillary is beloved and will get 700 million votes! leftstreet Jun 2014 #25
It will be yet another reason for Hillary to wander off MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #26
Bernie is running as a Democrat ChangeUp106 Jun 2014 #29
I don't believe he would purposefully hand it to the repukes. BootinUp Jun 2014 #30
The question is "What effect..." WhaTHellsgoingonhere Jun 2014 #33
I'm not going to worry about it at this point. scarletwoman Jun 2014 #34
Whatever he does, it should be played very close to the vest and maximum leverage must be maintained TheKentuckian Jun 2014 #50
well, he's 72 bigtree Jun 2014 #51
I'm talking about leaning on the party with a trigger finger on the destruct button to extract TheKentuckian Jun 2014 #54

MineralMan

(146,116 posts)
1. I doubt Bernie Sanders would do that.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:45 PM
Jun 2014

If he runs, I'm sure he'll run as a Democrat. I hope he does. He'll make the primary race a lot more interesting and will certainly affect the debates in a serious way. That would be a good thing. I doubt that he can overcome Hillary Clinton's strong name recognition factor and her very palpable support by Democrats, but he could certainly influence the campaign in a positive way and expose some issues that might go unexposed for many Democrats.

MineralMan

(146,116 posts)
11. They would have no choice, frankly.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:50 PM
Jun 2014

If he switches parties to become a Democrat and can get on the ballot in the primaries, they won't have anything to say about it. He'd have to get a certain percentage of votes in the early primaries to avoid being dumped in the debates, as Kucinich was, but beyond that, I can't see an issue for him.

MineralMan

(146,116 posts)
13. Yup. It would be a pleasure to vote for him in the primary.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:51 PM
Jun 2014

Who knows? He might surprise everyone. I hope we get to find out.

Wait Wut

(8,492 posts)
3. I'm not voting for an Independent in a Presidential race.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:47 PM
Jun 2014

Ever. It would be incredibly difficult to convince me to vote Indie in any race, actually.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
5. I don't think he'd want to be a spoiler.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:48 PM
Jun 2014

So if it turns out that more folks on the left want him that a DLC option, I hope the people who can 'do math' will rally behind Bernie, just as they hope that if the DLC type draws more support, his fans would rally behind their person.

bigtree

(85,813 posts)
14. Bernie: 'The question you asked is extremely important, it requires a whole lot of discussion.'
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 05:04 PM
Jun 2014

Nation, Mar 06, 2014

Q. If and when you do start a full-fledged campaign, and if you want to run against conventional politics, how far do you go? Do you go to the point of running as an independent? That’s a great challenge to conventional politics, but it is also one where we have seen some honorable, some capable people stumble.

A. 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.


http://www.thenation.com/blog/178717/bernie-sanders-i-am-prepared-run-president-united-states

. . . I'll just reserve judgment until he decides. No harm in looking at the possibilities, though . . . as Bernie says, "it requires a whole lot of discussion".

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
15. Bernie will NOT run as an independent. Period. I know Bernie. He's my Senator
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 05:08 PM
Jun 2014

I've met with him both in VT and in D.C. I know members of his staff. I would be shocked if Bernie ran as an independent. Doing so would run counter to just about everything I know about him. He's very different from Nader and he cares about keeping republicans out of the White House.

He would NEVER play the spoiler so I think concern about that is very misplaced.

bigtree

(85,813 posts)
16. Bernie said in March that he's not decided on that . . . says it 'needs discussion'
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 05:14 PM
Jun 2014

Q. You’re not really saying whether you could run as a Democrat?

A. I want to hear what progressives have to say about that. The more radical approach would be to run as an independent, and essentially when you’re doing that you’re not just running for president of the United States, you’re running to build a new political movement in America—which presumably would lead to other candidates running outside of the Democratic Party, essentially starting a third party. That idea has been talked about in this country for decades and decades and decades, from Eugene Debs forward—without much success. And I say that as the longest serving independent in the history of the United States Congress. In Vermont, I think we have had more success than in any other state in the country in terms of progressive third-party politics. During my tenure as mayor of Burlington, I defeated Democrats and Republicans and helped start a third-party movement. Today, there is a statewide progressive party which now has three people in the state Senate, out of 30, and a number of representatives in the state Legislature. But that process has taken 30 years. So it is not easy.

If you look back to Nader’s candidacy in 2000, the hope of Nader was not just that he might be elected president but that he would create a strong third party. Nader was a very strong candidate, very smart, very articulate. But the strong third-party did not emerge. The fact is that is very difficult to do . . . more.



. . . so, I'm asking the same question as Bernie: how do progressives feel about that . . . especially those who advocate against party politics?

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
32. So let him discuss it
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 08:43 PM
Jun 2014

He hasn't even said he's going to run. Not has Hillary or anyone else.

Let him figure it out before jumping on him for something he hasn't done yet.

bigtree

(85,813 posts)
42. news today says he's heading to New Hampshire
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 09:59 PM
Jun 2014

Do we have permission to discuss the implications of that?

(I'm not really asking your fucking permission)

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
43. You obviously have permission to discuss anything you want
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 10:24 PM
Jun 2014

and I have permission to say you seem to have an odd obsession over it.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
45. Well numerrous people have pointed out that he hasn't made a decision...
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 10:34 PM
Jun 2014

and other have said they doubted he'd want to be a spoiler.

And you seem to have repeated his comments numerous times.

But I take his comments at face value-- he doesnlt generally engage in political double talk, and says whatever's on his mind. So I take him at his word that -- at that time -- he was simply saying he is exploring all the possibilities.

For what it's worth, I hope like hell he runs. But I wouldn't want him to do it as an independent. If he does I'll be disappointed in him because we need every edge we can get.

I'd rather see him shake up the Democratic primary field, and force some honest and real issues into the campaign for a change,and force them rest of them out of their comfort zone.



bigtree

(85,813 posts)
47. did you even read my post?
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 11:31 PM
Jun 2014

Last edited Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:22 AM - Edit history (1)

. . . sounds like you're arguing with what you believe I've said.

I'm good with him running as a Democrat; would consider voting for him.

I think running as an independent would threaten to divide the party, so I wouldn't personally support that.

I think an independent candidacy can also serve to pull the party to the LEFT, so that would be a good thing.

I recall how Hillary's volatile campaign which went almost to the end of the primary, wasn't a detriment to Obama, in the end. I think a Sanders campaign could do the same, if it happened to falter they could close ranks with the party and move forward together. I think Sanders would be understanding of this.

However, Sanders' comity notwithstanding, a strong independent candidacy can splinter the party and that divide can advantage the opposition. I'm going to expect more than just lip service from Sanders or anyone else that they pivot and give full support to our nominee. They'll need to bring all of the folks along who followed them down, as well.

Am I free to make this query of DU now? (I'm not really asking your permission)

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
49. All of those scenerios are a long way down the road
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 11:54 PM
Jun 2014

Personally, I'll cross bridges as they come along.

But I certainly don't want to imply they're not legitimate fodder for discussion.

Personally though, I guess rather than candidate strategery (as GWB used to say) I'd rather see a focus on developing a meaningful set of positions and actions thst will both encourage actual reform in our rapidly decaying nation, and be a weapon against the GOP.

I think Bernie (among others) has the answers for that, and that's what most interests me.

Obviously, your mileage may vary

tritsofme

(17,312 posts)
17. Has he implied that he would run as an independent?
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 05:16 PM
Jun 2014

I thought he was just looking to be one of those guys who runs to come to the debates.

If he runs as a spoiler, he deserves no mercy, but would likely be less relavent to the outcome than Nader, by a few orders of magnitude.

LWolf

(46,179 posts)
18. Is there some reason to think he's going to run as an independent,
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 05:24 PM
Jun 2014

or is this simple fear-mongering speculation?

What makes you think that people who would vote for him will shut up, get in line, and vote for another mainstream Democratic neo-liberal rather than ANY good left-of-center independent or 3rd party candidate? Whether he runs or not, that possibility is always there.

If you really want to rally support for the Democratic candidate, it might be better to spend your time and energy nominating one that can get votes from the left, instead of starting the blame game without cause in an effort to bully the left.

bigtree

(85,813 posts)
19. Bernie: 'The question you asked is extremely important, it requires a whole lot of discussion'
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 05:28 PM
Jun 2014
March 6, 2014

Q. If and when you do start a full-fledged campaign, and if you want to run against conventional politics, how far do you go? Do you go to the point of running as an independent? That’s a great challenge to conventional politics, but it is also one where we have seen some honorable, some capable people stumble.

A. 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.

. . . The question that you asked is extremely important, it requires a whole lot of discussion. It’s one that I have not answered yet.


Q. You’re not really saying whether you could run as a Democrat?

A. I want to hear what progressives have to say about that . . .


http://www.thenation.com/blog/178717/bernie-sanders-i-am-prepared-run-president-united-states

bigtree

(85,813 posts)
21. he actually did expound on his thinking on the subject - no derision, just answered
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 05:36 PM
Jun 2014

He welcomed the question, gave two sides of the argument and said he hadn't decided yet . . .

Bernie:

"The question that you asked is extremely important, it requires a whole lot of discussion. It’s one that I have not answered yet."

"I haven’t reached a conclusion on that yet."

"I want to hear what progressives have to say about that . . ."

bigtree

(85,813 posts)
23. and he welcomed discussion of the issue
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 06:06 PM
Jun 2014

. . . I might be wrong, but you don't seem as welcoming as Bernie to folks discussing this.


"The question that you asked is extremely important, it requires a whole lot of discussion."

"I want to hear what progressives have to say about that . . ."

LWolf

(46,179 posts)
28. It's all in the way its framed.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 08:36 PM
Jun 2014

A substantive discussion? Great.

Campaign propaganda designed to squelch discussion and threaten doom for anyone who actually THINKS about supporting Sanders?

No. Just no.

If I take everything Sanders has said into context, he may or may not run at all, depending on whether or not there's a reasonable choice. I appreciate that, having been pretty much disgusted with what was left on my primary ballot at the end of May in '08.

I LIKE having a choice, and support his efforts to make sure I get one. But then, I'm more of an "independent Democrat" than a lock-stepping partisan. I believe that's where Sanders is heading.

bigtree

(85,813 posts)
35. you believe what you're posting is inviolable because you support Sanders?
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 08:53 PM
Jun 2014

. . . you claim you don't have a problem discussing it, then why lead with the personal invective?

'Independent Democrat' isn't the same as 'Democrat', not for the purposes of whatever Bernie might hope to gain from that identification. I don't know how the party will react to a 'one foot in, one foot out strategy'.

His statement today suggests that he's leaning more to the independent definition.

“I think what we need is a new politics -- a different type of politics than Hillary’s," he said. "A politics that is much more grassroots-oriented, much more having to do with strong coalition-building and grassroots activism than I think Hillary has demonstrated over the years, or supported.”


. . . don't get too caught up in believing you have posters here pegged. Surety is a sure bet that you don't know, and throwing around words like 'propaganda' only invites questions about what you, in your posts, are actually selling.

LWolf

(46,179 posts)
37. I don't believe anything anyone says, in any format, is "inviolable."
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 09:09 PM
Jun 2014

I don't think you are using that word correctly.

Most words can be spun to mean what the hearer wishes. For that matter, words can be manipulated to make listeners hear what the speaker desires them to; that's propaganda.

"Independent Democrat" is a kind of Democrat. One section in a greater group. A part cannot be synonymous with the whole.

I'm not selling anything. It's way too early to start selling, or buying, 2016 candidates. It's campaign season for November 2014.

I'm not endorsing anyone at this point, and won't do so for another 18 months or more. You are the one selling fear of a Sanders candidacy.

bigtree

(85,813 posts)
40. I'm not selling fear, I posed a question, gave my opinion
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 09:38 PM
Jun 2014

You accuse me, but I'm certain you want folks here to accept what you post as sincere.

You saw a question or a statement in my post that you didn't like and, instead of just disagree, you decided, on your own, what my motivation for posting it was. You made your own premise about me, and now you're drawing conclusions from your own invented impressions.

It's almost as fascinating as it is annoying.

There's nothing at all that distinguishes what you post at DU from what you're self-servingly defining as 'propaganda' in my post.

I agree that 'independent Democrat' is just 'Democrat'. I'm not sure that you recognize the debate that's been swirling around his candidacy. Is he going to run as an independent or a Democrat. He hasn't decided yet. It has ramifications in organizing and in other benefits that he, himself, mentioned as important considerations.

I mentioned Nader; SANDERS, himself, brought up Nader and spoke extensively about the danger of an independent candidacy, in the Nation article I posted excerpts from in this thread.

SANDERS said he's aware of and considering all of the ramifications as well as the benefits of either choice. He responded with grace and in detail when he was asked.

You, on the other hand, struck out at me with derision, several times. The contrast between yours and Bernie's response betrays your own partisanship. Am I really to believe that you aren't pressing your own pov in your posts; even in this display of arrogance in accusing me of something nefarious in my query?

How absurd an exercise it is; how ignorant an exercise, as folks here regularly engage in, of pretending they can read minds over the internet and rattling on about what infects their own imagination as if just saying something makes it so.

Take my word for it. As a mind reader, you stink. You know of nothing more substantive about what I believe than you know about Sanders.

LWolf

(46,179 posts)
46. No.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 11:18 PM
Jun 2014

The "opinion" you posted is ubiquitous propaganda heard ad nausem every election season. It's not election season.

I don't have to dislike it to recognize that, or to comment on it. And you aren't an authority on what I have, or have not, posted at DU.

What's "fascinating" in this whole sinkhole of shit is your projection.

bigtree

(85,813 posts)
48. bernie believes it's campaign season. He's heading to New Hampshire to test the waters
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 11:47 PM
Jun 2014

Last edited Wed Jun 25, 2014, 01:59 AM - Edit history (1)

. . . concern about independent candidacies is only 'bullshit' to anyone unconcerned with dividing the party.

Bernie welcomed my opinion, and I've taken time to express it here, with an open mind and willing to consider any argument for or against. If you know some better use for a discussion board maybe you'd better express that.

My OPINION is that an independent candidacy can be productive but threatens to divide the party.

My OPINION is that he should run as a Democrat.


If you don't want to read my opinion don't click on the thread. better yet, put me on ignore. Anything's better than listening to you whine about 'propaganda'. Talk about projection.

LWolf

(46,179 posts)
53. Maybe he's just trying
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 03:05 PM
Jun 2014

to keep the runaway train wreck that the primary usually turns into from gaining speed so early, lol.

Maybe he's listened to all those of us who are sick of what gets shoved down our throats as a nominee every time, knows that those votes are at risk, and is trying to keep left-handed voters from fleeing the ship before the process even gets under way. After all, he IS predicating his possible entry as making sure that there is a decent choice for those of us who aren't neo-liberals or moderate republicans fleeing their own ship.

Post your opinion all you want. You don't, though, get to dictate who will read it, though, or how anyone will respond. If you don't want to hear someone criticize your opinion, don't share it.

If you can't take it, don't post it, but don't tell ME not to post my own thoughts in response.

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
27. Fear-mongering seems to be the weapon du jour or semaine or mois, for Hillary supporters.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 06:42 PM
Jun 2014

Evidently her actual policies do not count for anything, for them.

bigtree

(85,813 posts)
38. Hillary Clinton isn't the candidate I intend to work for in the next election
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 09:13 PM
Jun 2014

Last edited Tue Jun 24, 2014, 09:57 PM - Edit history (3)

. . . she's not even likely to be my second choice; or even the third, if my choices falter. In fact, she was my third choice in the *last primary.

I actually support a more progressive politics than I think a Clinton campaign represents, and I regard matters of war and military involvement overseas as my most pressing concerns. Poverty and other social issues also animate me to participate in and discuss politics here at DU.

I'll say this, though, to your point about 'supporting Hillary'. If you regard defending Mrs. Clinton against the slander du jour as 'support' then so be it. I'm more than willing to stand beside ANY Clinton supporter here, if just to demonstrate that no one needs to allow themselves to be bullied out of that support by cliquish personalizations.

Funny that you regard the same discussion that Bernie welcomed as 'fear-mongering'. I mean, what do you have to fear about such a question? Really. Are you that fucking fragile that a question about his party identification will cause you to melt?

What are you afraid of? You used the word, 'fear'. What's so frightening about asking the same question that Bernie so graciously expounded on when asked of him?

I'll tell you this, I'm not voting for an Independent candidate. I'm not likely to vote for an 'Independent Democrat'. I don't believe the majority of the party will, either.

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
39. I am mindful of the fear-mongering when anyone criticizes Hillary, here -
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 09:19 PM
Jun 2014

"Say hello to President Cruz". As if Hillary has been anointed, with no primary.

bigtree

(85,813 posts)
41. the history of a strong independent candidacy has played itself out several times in several ways
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 09:52 PM
Jun 2014

. . . strong independent candidates muck up the race and can become spoilers; divide the party.

They can, however, pull the party in their direction with a spirited run. I don't think they can expect more than a fraction of the Democratic vote, though.

I'd like to see Sanders run as a Democrat and I think he'd be a good bet for my support. I think Liz Warren would get my attention first, though, if she entered the race.

But, back to the threat of a republican getting in . . .it's real, and you'll find that electability is on the top of a lot of voter's lists, including my own.

leftstreet

(36,063 posts)
25. But Hillary is beloved and will get 700 million votes!
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 06:28 PM
Jun 2014

Are you worried about an Independent unrecognizable candidate, or a high-profile corporate Hedge Fund right-leaning Democratic frontrunner?

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
26. It will be yet another reason for Hillary to wander off
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 06:34 PM
Jun 2014

Bernie probably can't win the Presidency, but he can sure as hell kneecap Hillary using her record.

 

WhaTHellsgoingonhere

(5,252 posts)
33. The question is "What effect..."
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 08:45 PM
Jun 2014

Bernie running will make the other candidates lie about how much they agree with many of his ideas. You know, pander to the lefties, throw us a bone or two. Obama proved that's all you have to do. Blow smoke up our asses and we'll feel heard. Well, everyone will sound like "Hope and Change" if Bernie runs because they'll be force to pander to the left.

TheKentuckian

(24,904 posts)
50. Whatever he does, it should be played very close to the vest and maximum leverage must be maintained
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:57 AM
Jun 2014

There is no point in getting the Kucinich treatment, that doesn't help mold the debate and push issues anywhere but under the carpet.

The more real the possibility of an independent run, the better the opportunity will be to extract concessions that will lead to opportunity and the more quick and apparent he is about not being willing to possibly run independently the quicker he can be hogtied and muzzled.

Hell, I will go so far to say that there is no point in even considering a run if he absolutely won't run independent, unconditionally.

Power people are RUTHLESS if you are not prepared to be to then you are left weak and ripe for the picking.

I'm sorry but few work and sacrifice their own aims in real compromise with "you had me at hello", as soon as you go there your partner status is solely at the discretion of the one that gets what they want no matter what they do.

Once one is a given then what they want becomes inconsequential and compared to the focus that must be placed on those with demands who are willing to walk, inconsequential sounds greatly overstated.
This goes for voters too, if I got you no matter what then logic dictates my focus and compromises go to those that I can get but I have to give to get and the more that are automatic, the more pull the folks with demands are.

I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here and be a "gimmie". I'm not about to allow all the bargaining be done with the wealthy and the corporations and guess what I can't be of any use alone. The fewer automatic votes are available the more actual representation their is.

bigtree

(85,813 posts)
51. well, he's 72
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 01:41 AM
Jun 2014

. . . and it's now or never to propel his ideals and initiatives into an ascendent movement.

Running as an independent would scare the hell out of the party and, as someone said above, force the other Dem candidates to nuzzle up to a progressive idea or two - but not without a careful eye to the protestations from the republican pick at every leftward bid they make.

Still, having a strong, independent candidate who doesn't run a scorched earth race can actually provide some backbone for anyone who's game enough to join in.

You're absolutely right to think that every move he makes toward the party, in that case, would mean capitulation to the party's un-requiting embrace. More likely, Sanders as an independent will provide just the foil a center-leaning candidate needs to deflect conservative fire and to posture against.

Bernie doesn't just need to consider the integrity of his campaign, he will need to consider how it will ultimately be used or advantaged of by the rest of the field. If he starts in the traditional spoiler seat, he may get stuck there.


I think he could rise in the Democrat ranks quite quickly, at least as quickly as he could as an independent candidate; maybe faster. The advantage would be that he could keep his message at the same broadcast level as the rest of the Democratic field.

Instead of having an automatic, built-in opposition to an independent candidacy from what I think would be a sizable number of Democratic voters, he would have an initial free opportunity to draw the support he needs from the party. Many primaries don't accommodate independent candidates or registered independents, so he's be at a disadvantage there organizing through those elections.

If the goal is to shift the party, he needs to stand toe-to-toe and duke it out as a peer. I don't think Kucinich's problem was that he needed to be an independent. I was thrilled by him, but he underperformed with voters. An independent candidacy just amplifies and isolates bad campaigns.

What I think is missing from much of progressive activism is the understanding of what constitutes a successful national campaign that intends to appeal to a diverse electorate that has a myriad of interests and concerns. Most of what's been missing, though, is the long game.

How does an independent candidacy get to a winning end? Bernie speaks of 'coalition politics' as if it was some abstract, instead of a matter of convincing mostly Democratic voters to join his cause. I don't believe there's any better way to do that than to begin his campaign as a Democrat and run to win.


I am considering what Bernie said to the Nation:

The more radical approach would be to run as an independent, and essentially when you’re doing that you’re not just running for president of the United States, you’re running to build a new political movement in America—which presumably would lead to other candidates running outside of the Democratic Party, essentially starting a third party. That idea has been talked about in this country for decades and decades and decades, from Eugene Debs forward—without much success. And I say that as the longest serving independent in the history of the United States Congress. In Vermont, I think we have had more success than in any other state in the country in terms of progressive third-party politics. During my tenure as mayor of Burlington, I defeated Democrats and Republicans and helped start a third-party movement. Today, there is a statewide progressive party which now has three people in the state Senate, out of 30, and a number of representatives in the state Legislature. But that process has taken 30 years. So it is not easy.

If you look back to Nader’s candidacy [in 2000], the hope of Nader was not just that he might be elected president but that he would create a strong third party. Nader was a very strong candidate, very smart, very articulate. But the strong third-party did not emerge. The fact is that is very difficult to do.

TheKentuckian

(24,904 posts)
54. I'm talking about leaning on the party with a trigger finger on the destruct button to extract
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 07:31 PM
Jun 2014

concessions and being willing to push it if they are not granted.

Hardball is a force multiplier.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What effect would Bernie ...