2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHow Bernie Could Run as an Independent without Risking a GOP Victory
Bernie Sanders has said that, should he fail to win the Democratic nomination he would not run for President in the general election because he would fear taking votes away from Hillary and risking a Republican victory.
But there is a way to do it, not only without risking a Republican victory, but by decreasing, perhaps substantially, the probability of a Republican victory.
This election is too important for him not to run. It looks like the nominee of both major parties is going to be either a conservative President who is beholding to the wealthy corporate interests that fund their campaigns or (in the case of Donald Trump) a radical right wing nut case. This would leave the vast majority of Americans unrepresented by whoever wins.
Additionally, it is becoming more and more evident that this election is being stolen from Bernie, with massive purging of registered voters, huge deviations of official vote counts from exit polls, and sworn testimony of a fake audit in Chigago, in which the hand counted vote didnt match the machine count, so the auditors fixed the discrepancy by changing the hand count (which favored Bernie) to match the machine count (which favored Hillary), in order to get rid of the it.
This is very depressing. I have little doubt that if not for election fraud, Bernie would be well on his way to the Democratic nomination by now. But this issue goes way beyond Bernie. If such things are allowed to stand, we have no democracy left.
Why running as an Independent, with certain precautions, will markedly reduce the likelihood of a Republican victory
There are several reasons:
1) Dropping out of states where his presence risks a Republican victory
It has been suggested that Bernie could run only in states that are solidly blue or solidly red. Im not sure that that alone would assure that the Republican doesnt win a solidly blue state, if Hillary and Bernie split the vote between them.
However, if polling shows that that is a possibility, Bernie could drop out of the race in those states. Or better yet, whoever is losing in the polling between him and Hillary by a certain date could drop out. In fact, with such a plan he could run in all 50 states, and drop out when and where needed.
2) Bernie would be the only anti-establishment candidate in the race
There is very strong anti-establishment sentiment in this country. This is manifested by record low favorability ratings for Congress in recent years, often dropping down into single digits and rarely rising above 20%, and by negative net favorability ratings of all current Presidential candidates of either party except for Bernie.
Consequently, the vote may be split among the establishment candidates rather than by Party. The likelihood of this happening is especially great because of Bernies huge popularity and the fact that both the Democratic and Republican Parties today make up only a minority of our population (26% Republicans, 29% Democrats, and 42% independents).
3) Hillary would be highly vulnerable should she win the Democratic nomination
First we have the fact that she has a net negative favorability rating of minus 14%. Second, there is an impending indictment against her. Should that occur, and many believe it will, that could make her ratings go so negative that she has no chance of winning. Third, Bernie does far better in national head to head polling against any of the Republican candidates than Hillary does. And fourth, I have heard that some have transcripts or videos of her speeches to Wall Street (for which she has received vast amounts of money), and they are waiting for her nomination before releasing them (It would be counterproductive to release them prior to her nomination, because that could prevent her nomination).
4) More exposure for a non-Republican could combine the strengths of both Bernie and Hillary
Bernie has increased his popularity tremendously since announcing his candidacy. He has risen from single digits in national polling of Democrats to draw almost even with Hillary. Add to that the fact that he has much more popularity than Hillary among independents, and we can see why he does so much better than Hillary against potential Republican candidates.
Should they both run simultaneously, more people will get to know him better, and he is likely to rise even further in the polls. Should he or Hillary drop out of states near the end if one or the other is jeopardizing a victory over the Republican by the other, the one would throw their support to the other and thereby add immensely to their vote total. To consolidate that support, they could even agree to make the other one their running mate.
A monumental example of a third party victory that changed our country for the better
The 1860 Presidential race was a time where change was in the air, and the ingrained and evil institution of slavery was the biggest issue of the time. Because of turmoil among the major parties, there were four apparently viable candidates who ran in the election. The Republican Party was the only anti-slavery party, and in fact anti-slavery was the cause that gave birth to their party, which ran its first Presidential candidate four years earlier and made a respectable showing with 33% of the popular vote.
Abe Lincoln was nominated for President by the anti-slavery Republican Party. Two of the other parties that ran that year were highly pro-slavery, and the other just avoided the issue altogether. That made the Republican candidate stand out as running in the only party that was avowedly anti-slavery.
Because of his anti-slavery stance, Lincoln was not even on the ballot in any of the Southern slavery states. But he still managed to win almost 40% of the national vote, and he won the electoral votes of every state in the country that was neither a slavery nor a border slavery state.
I have heard many people say that the Civil War was fought not to abolish slavery, but to save the Union, i.e. prevent our country from disintegrating. That statement is only partially true, because the only reason that the Union threatened to disintegrate was over the slavery issue. Abe Lincoln had been passionately against slavery all of his adult life (though he was careful about how he worded the issue in campaign speeches). The Civil War was fought because the South attempted to secede from the Union because they could not tolerate a Party in power as anti-slavery as the Republican Party or a President as anti-slavery as Lincoln. As we all know, the Civil War ended that horrible stain on our country (though anti-black policies and laws continued to plague our country as they still do today).
The issue of election fraud in our country
I have little doubt that Bernie would win the presidency in a fair election, whether it be a two way or a three way race. He is truly a political phenomenon. However, there are numerous examples of election fraud in our country in recent years, and it always favors the more conservative, pro-establishment candidate. This is an issue that needs to be addressed vigorously no matter who runs. If Bernie runs, either as a Democrat or an Independent, he needs to take this issue very seriously and devote large amounts of his campaign money to lawyers and IT people who can figure out how to prevent it from ruining the election, as it has so far tremendously hurt his Democratic primary campaign, except in caucus states, where fraud is so much more difficult to pull off. His own staff needs to do that because, sadly, neither our own government nor our national news media takes this issue seriously. That is why our countrys election system is rated last among Western democracies.
A petition
There is a petition circulating at another site that I belong to, urging Bernie to run as an independent. It has 13,391 signatures so far. I am not including it in this post because it doesnt contain an option to comment on safeguards (against making a Republican victory more likely) such as those that I mentioned above, even though the author of the petition discussed some of those safeguards in his or her post and in the petition itself. I have suggested that s/he add that option to the petition, and if that happens I will get back with you all about it.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)dlwickham
(3,316 posts)The powers that be have made that perfectly clear
sister_rosa_refried
(447 posts)As the young people say.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)No words
sister_rosa_refried
(447 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Its BU not DU
At least the TPTB on this site should be honest and drop the democratic party supporting fiction.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)Please. We can almost always count on any 4-3 vote in favor of something Bernie to be a bogus vote.
Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)What four partisans saw this OP as kosher?
Jeez. This place.....
Time for change
(13,714 posts)DU rules specify no advocating against third party spoiler candidate.
I thought I made it extremely clear in my post that I am NOT advocating that Bernie run as a spoiler candidate. I am advocating that he run to WIN.
And the way I am advocating that he run will pose no risk at all of a Republican victory -- to the contrary, it will decrease the likelihood of a Republican victory substantially.
If you have disagreements with my arguments as to why this poses no risk of a Republican victory, then please discuss them, rather than make comments that suggest you haven't even read the OP.
Time for change
(13,714 posts)Tens or hundreds of thousands of voters, maybe more, have been purged/disenfranchised in these primaries. Don't they deserve a say in who our next president will be?
Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)Vey
Yes. Yes they deserve a vote. Yes. God bless
Time for change
(13,714 posts)if they were purged and couldn't vote in the primaries
and the GE offers them only two candidates who they have no confidence in?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)And he knows that. He isn't stupid and he's a good person. He isn't going to run third party.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
YOUR COMMENTS
Don't hide this post. Let the admins see it in all its glory.
JURY RESULTS
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Tue Apr 26, 2016, 01:56 AM, and voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Someone sure has a lot of passion for Bernie and has done more research on running as a third party candidate than any I have seen....everyone is entitled to their opinion - don't hide it...I lived through the Ross Perot era..and we saw what Ralph Nader did in 2000...I just don't agree with a third party run..too much is at stake this go 'round...I will vote Democratic all the way down the ballot..no matter who wins this Democratic nomination for President...
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Why alert, then?
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: As alerter said -- no hide, leave for admins.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Community standards
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Against TOS, promoting for a third party run and against the DNA nominee. This does not belong on DU.
Thank you.
Time for change
(13,714 posts)The DU rules talk about 3rd Party spoiler candidates.
I am not in any way recommending that he run as a spoiler candidate. The point is, that with the safeguards I discuss in the OP, the chances of a Republican win cannot be increased by his presence in the race, and likely they will be very much decreased.
sister_rosa_refried
(447 posts)And if Sister Clara Vision had balls she would be Brother I Can't See Shit.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)That made me snort coffee through my nose. Thank you.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)So post away!
George II
(67,782 posts)IamMab
(1,359 posts)Gidney N Cloyd
(19,840 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)All I can say it that Bernie has shown he can raise the funds needed to run a national race, hasn't he?
George II
(67,782 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)He is doing an incredible job considering the Democratic Party has stacked the deck for Hillary, and the only thing they gave Bernie are the knives they left sticking out of his back.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)I am so disgusted that I ever trusted them. I will do what I can to see they all are fired from heading the party any longer.
aikoaiko
(34,172 posts)Thank you, Time for Change.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)So basically even the Bernie people recognize this as against the TOS.
aikoaiko
(34,172 posts)And the OP is still flying after nearly 48 hours. The admins could have taken it down or locked it if they agreed with you.
So maybe its not against the TOS.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)And yes, I was playing on your use of the word "dangerous" for humor. Sue me.
Ina actually, there's nothing dangerous or thrilling about it. The most vociferous #bustedbernie people who keep threatening to not support the nominee seem to me to be the types that always vote third party hack anyway. The vast majority of true democrats will come around.
I sometimes wonder if the admins even visit this site more than once a week. They certainly don't seem engaged in it in any substantive way and I'm sure they have busy lives that justify their absence but I doubt 48 hours is long enough to know whether this passes the smell test.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Basically Bernie would get a few independents, Hillary would get the base, and Cruz or Trump would win.
Anyhow TFC I know you feel passionately but this is kind of a risky OP and lesser heads have rolled for less, but I guess you know that.
Time for change
(13,714 posts)The idea is that if polling suggested that Bernie's presence in a particular state would increase the likelihood of a Republican victory, he would withdraw from the race and throw his support to Hillary. That would decrease the likelihood of a Republican victory in any state.
But I think that the more likely scenario is that Bernie would just win outright, getting far more votes in enough states to win in the Electoral College.
This country is very ready for a non-establishment candidate who will represent their constituents rather than wealthy special interests. Nader had no such plan when he ran. If he did, all he would have had to do was withdraw from Florida and New Hampshire (both where polling showed that his presence in the race could (and did) result in a Republican victory, and Gore would have won).
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Bookmarking!
Time for change
(13,714 posts)Thank you.
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)the strong reactions indicate you are on to something
azmom
(5,208 posts)Gothmog
(145,321 posts)Sanders and the traitor Nader share a love of stating that there is no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties and have even used the same sad terminology. Sanders first used the same terminology of stating that there are no differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican party when he ran as a spoiler for governor. http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/04/when-bernie-sanders-ran-against-vermont/kNP6xUupbQ3Qbg9UUelvVM/story.html?p1=Article_Trending_Most_Viewed
After Sanders used this termination, Nader joined in first http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jun/30/ralph-nader/nader-almost-said-gore-bush-but-not-quite/
"The only difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush is the velocity with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door," he told supporters in California a month later.
"It's a Tweedle Dee, Tweedle Dum vote," Nader said in Philadelphia four days before the election, repeating a favorite refrain of his. "Both parties are selling our government to big business paymasters. ...That's a pretty serious similarity."
Nader also failed to challenge Sam Donaldson on ABC's This Week when Donaldson said, "You don't think it matters. You've said it doesn't matter to you who is the president of the United States, Bush or Gore."
Nader replied, "Because it's the permanent corporate government that's running the show here ... you can see they're morphing more and more on more and more issues into one corporate party."
BTW, it is way too late to get onto the ballot in many states and sore loser laws would disqualify sanders in a number of states
Time for change
(13,714 posts)The first filing deadline is in Texas, May 9. The next one is in NC, June 9. Most are much later than that.
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates
More importantly, you are very wrong about Sanders thinking that there is no difference between the Democratic Party, regardless of any isolated quote you might cite. Yes, it is true that he has criticized the Democratic Party a good deal -- and rightly so. Many Americans are disgusted with both parties, because both depend upon money from wealthy and powerful individuals and corporations, with the understanding that they will be repaid by the candidate in the form of favoring the rich and powerful over the vast majority of American. The disgust is growing, and currently only 29% of Americans are Democrats, 26% Republicans and 42% independents.
But to say that Bernie sees no difference between the two parties is utterly ridiculous and ignorant. As a Senator, he has caucused with the Democrats for years and generally votes with them. When he doesn't vote with them it is almost always on an issue where he his vote is to the left of the Democratic Party (such as the Iraq War or a trade deal that powerful corporations are trying to push on us at the expense of everyone else), not with the Republicans.
Gothmog
(145,321 posts)Sanders could not get on the Texas ballot because he filed for and ran in Texas democratic primary. If he did try, he would need a ton of signatures that could be obtained by May 9. Bloomberg set a deadline for himself of March 2 to decide to run because he would need all of that time to get necessary signatures. If Sanders did try, he would have to get signatures of people who did not vote in either the Texas or GOP primary. There is no practical way for Sanders to do this even if he was eligible
Sander is clear that he has repeatedly stated that there is no difference between the GOP and the Democratic Party. Sander has also stated that he is only running in the Democratic primary because he can get free press and raise funds http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/bernie-sanders-independent-media-coverage-220747
During a town hall-style event in Columbus, Ohio, the independent Vermont senator said, In terms of media coverage, you have to run within the Democratic Party. He then took a dig at MNSBC, telling Todd, the network would not have me on his program if he ran as an independent.
Money also played a role in his decision to run as a Democrat, Sanders added.
To run as an independent, you need you could be a billionaire," he said. "If you're a billionaire, you can do that. I'm not a billionaire. So the structure of American politics today is such that I thought the right ethic was to run within the Democratic Party.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/bernie-sanders-independent-media-coverage-220747#ixzz46xxCUdys
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Sanders has refused to raise money for down ballot candidate and does not appear to be committed to the Democratic Party
Time for change
(13,714 posts)Then after I prove you wrong about that, you come up with another explanation for him not being eligible to run. I'll believe that if and when I hear it from a reliable source.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Response to Time for change (Original post)
one_voice This message was self-deleted by its author.
JCMach1
(27,559 posts)anything that would even remotely indicate he would bolt the party he recently joined.
In fact, he has said multiple things to the contrary.
Time for change
(13,714 posts)He has said that he would not form an independent party to run in this election because he does not want to take votes away from Hillary that would risk a Republican victory.
But the scenario I described here not only would not risk a Republican victory, it would decrease the likelihood of a Republican victory. And he has tons of supporters who are begging him to run, and specifying why he needs to run in order to save our democracy.
JCMach1
(27,559 posts)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 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.
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)just sayin'.
nice OP.
bigtree
(85,998 posts)...dishonest to portray Sanders as the primary victim of any voting fraud or misconduct -- even more sophistry to claim his failing campaign is due to fraud or misconduct.
You rhetorically link incidents of voter irregularity across the nation in a seamless thread of innuendo against Hillary Clinton and her campaign with zero evidence of any complicity. Moreover, you haven't shown any resolution of what are essentially disputes in individual states which are more than likely the result of some administrative error, or have every chance of being proven outright false.
That prevarication (and obvious bias toward your candidate of choice) taints your entire effort.
Time for change
(13,714 posts)An investigation of purged voters in AZ (i.e. those who were duly registered as Dems prior to coming out to the polls to vote) found 113 Bernie would be voters and 2 would be Hillary voters:
https://anonymousinvestigationsblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/26/anonymous-report-was-arizonas-voter-registration-database-hacked/
Then there's the fact that election day voting in Maricopa County AZ (which favored Bernie by more than 60%) made up less than 15% of the county voters (due to massive voter suppression) on election day, while early voters (who favored Hillary by more than 60%) made up more than 85% of the voters.
Then there is the massive exit poll discrepancies in which Hillery beat the exit polls in the official count in every state but one, and all but two were outside the margin of error.
Then there's the massive voter suppression in NY, which hasn't been investigated thoroughly yet, but it looks to me like evidence is accumulating there that it was targeted against Bernie voters. We'll see if and when the provisional ballots (for purged voters) are counted, and after more investigation there.
bigtree
(85,998 posts)...even if all you say is true about AZ it's STILL not clear that he would have won that county. Citing exit polls to determine actual votes has been discredited in so many instances to make it not only unconvincing, but a measure which is virtually impossible to prove.
I'm smh over citing 'investigated' voter suppression in NY, even though you've admitted 'evidence' hasn't yet been adjudicated into more than charges. You present this flimsy, anecdotal ranting and go on to basically accuse Hillary Clinton of stealing the election. You're going to have to invalidate many more votes than you can conjure up from exit polls and imagined Bernie counties before you can make this a credible, supportable charge.
Right now, it reads like smelly sour grapes.
Time for change
(13,714 posts)them.
Are you aware that Maryland was called for Clinton with 0.0% of the votes counted? What do you think they were using to call that election so soon. There is so much to say about the invalid criticism of exit polls, which are used to monitor elections in other countries, which have far better election systems than we do. I will be posting on that soon.
iwannaknow
(210 posts)In a three way race, it would definitely be worth investigating. I wouldn't be surprised if sanders campaign is already weighing this option. Given Sanders' popularity with Left and independents, it might actually be a feasible course of action. And if the Hillary camp has reason to believe a 3 way race is possible, even more concessions on her part could be coming.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)Trump and Hillary would play Jane on a loop insisting that he won't be a spoiler. I think Bernie cares too much for his wife to make her the butt of so many public jokes.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)That must have taken some time to write, I think.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)I think he took the time to explain in depth how he could technically do it.
He didn't say anywhere Bernie should do this.
It's a pretty fascinating read actually if you take the time.