2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie Sanders Could Be Setting Up a Future Presidential Run by Elizabeth Warren
August 21, 2015 By Allen Clifton
One thing I try to always encourage people to do (especially as it relates to politics) is to analyze the bigger picture. Almost nothing in politics is organic; theres almost always some sort of end game even when it comes to Bernie Sanders. As much as many people like him (myself included), I like to remind people that hes still essentially a career politician. Hes was first elected to Congress in 1990 and was Mayor of Burlington, Vermont from 1981-1989.
Thats why I find his decision to run for president at 73 years of age interesting. If elected, he would be 75 and instantly become the oldest president ever elected to their first term topping Ronald Reagan by six years.
So I just cant help but ask: Why now? If Sanders is this revolutionary as many of his supporters claim, someone whos tired of the status quo, why didnt he run in 2000 or 2004? Heck, why not in 2008 when the country was reeling from eight years of failed Bush policies? If he truly believes in the issues on which he stands (and I believe that he does), then why wait so late in life to run for probably the most stressful and difficult job in the world?
Most of what hes running against (corruption on Wall Street, money in politics, income inequality) have been issues for a while now not just recently. So the timing of his first presidential bid has always struck me as a little strange. I dont think its to take Hillary Clinton out I fully believe him when he says hell endorse her if she wins the nomination and I dont believe hes someone who would just say that to say it. But lets face facts, the presidency is hard on everyone who wins the office. Go look at a picture of Barack Obama in 2008 then look at one of him now. Its only been six years but he looks like hes aged fifteen years at least.
Read more at: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/bernie-sanders-setting-future-presidential-run-elizabeth-warren/?
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)which would be consistent with a climate change in the democratic party needed to elect someone like Warren.
Growing movements don't always win, but reaching the threshold where progressives make a difference in political considerations is significant.
MADem
(135,425 posts)She's already said NO! what--four dozen times or more?
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)But, as far as I know, Warren hasn't said she won't ever run for POTUS.
MADem
(135,425 posts)There's also the issue as to what is the best use of her time and talents. I don't think the Chief Executive gig is in her cards.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)You may be right given her age, and I wish she was running, but it's not out of the question that she'll run in 2020 if a Republican is elected in 2016. By 2024, she'll almost certainly be considered too old.
MADem
(135,425 posts)No Benghazi, no Planned Parenthood, not even no "Bernie so white/black." It's Trump and Biden, and not much else.
Now, if we find out that Warren was meeting President of the Senate Biden in the context of her Senatorial leadership role (has she been Whipping It Good?) regarding a key upcoming vote, everyone will be SO .... what? Let down? Relieved? Pleased to have solved the puzzle? Doing the D'OH! ????
It's unusual for Warren to not come home at the weekend; she's obviously got work to do if she's staying in the District. As for Biden coming in to meet her, it's not that onerous a ride for him--he takes the train in. Hour and a half. No biggie. He's got living quarters at the Observatory, anyway--that used to be the Chief of Naval Operations' home, but it was commandeered for Nelson Rockefeller, who found it horrible, tacky, rickety and lousy, and threw a ton of his own money into fixing it up right (a rare Republican who used his OWN money to benefit the government). That doomed it for good--the Navy never got it back after that, even though they're still stuck with the maintenance fees!
But that's another "news cycle" not cluttered up with anything messy or "pile on" nasty, and people have short memories.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)I don't know what to say?
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Citizens United- that ruling was the last straw.
and Warren said no.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Well, first of all, the POTUS we elected in '08 has been a disappointment in terms of the hope and change for progressive values that helped elect him. Progress on some, but lost ground on others. And while we were not making the progress we'd hoped, the Republican Party has devolved into insanity.
Things have gotten steadily worse for the 99% on most fronts.
And, having listened to him talk about the possibility of running for several months before he announced, I think he was waiting for someone from the left to decide to run...someone who would challenge the neo-liberal Democratic establishment and champion the 99%. When that didn't happen, he did it himself, because we needed a choice...a choice that offered a distinct contrast to that neo-liberal Democratic machine.
He was, and is, correct.
Personally, I'd like to see a Sanders/Warren ticket.
cali
(114,904 posts)Bernie was clear: If no strong progressive ran, he would strongly consider doing so. And Hillary is what? 5 years his junior and she's the one with the history of a health issue.
musiclawyer
(2,335 posts)But I do think Warren is in play as VP no matter what she says. Not from HRC but from BSanders
That ticket would be kryptonite to Republicans
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)Nope, won't fly. Sanders and Castro maybe but, Sanders/Warren won't happen. I thought maybe Sen Gillibrand but, she's just as close to VT as Senator Warren is.
daybranch
(1,309 posts)if Warren had run, Bernie would be out campaigning for her. It is about time we started to recognize that Bernie just says what we believe. Warren excites us but her story is little different than Bernie.s and she certainly has not confronted the oligarchy as long as he has and certainly not on as wide a range of issues. Bernie is Bernie. He is no sleeper candidate to help get warren elected later. this sounds like the establishment democrats supporting Hillary telling us not to work for Bernie because after all you can have Warren later. What a farce.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)enable someone else to run. Or for that someone else to win sometime in the future. No one runs unless they honestly believe they can win, even when they knows it's highly unlikely.
It just doesn't work that way. Especially for a "career Politician". Believe Bernie when he says he's running because he sees that someone like him, with his values and standards, needs to be in the White House.
That's also going to be true of everyone currently running. There's no "long game" in American politics. Each elected official is focused on the next campaign, the next election. Yeah, some might try to look ahead at what they hope to accomplish if they are in office more than one term, but that's not at all the same as running now so that someone else can run four years down the road.
Oh, Bernie is quite aware of his age, but he certainly seems to have the stamina of a much younger person.
In short, whoever wrote that article doesn't seem to understand the reality of actually running for office.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It's a time-honored tradition in politics. Sometimes they serve as "idea catchers" who try out policies that the 'actual' candidate can hone and perfect, and other times they serve to deflect criticism from the 'actual' candidate so that the 'actual' candidate can run the ball right up the middle.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Here is a link to get you started:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2003/09/what_exactly_is_a_stalking_horse.html
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)The OP makes the claim that Bernie is running now just to set up a future Elizabeth Warren candidacy. The article you linked simply speculates that Wesley Clark, Ross Perot, and Ralph Nader were stalking horses. Can you show good evidence that a candidate deliberately runs with no intention at all of winning, but instead to insure that another candidate wins?
In your words
Please name specific candidates or elections where that has happened.
I am saying that those who run do so because they sincerely think they have a chance of winning, not to insure that someone else win. There's a huge difference between unintentionally splitting the vote, and setting out ahead of time to do so. I doubt that in modern American politics anyone, at least not at the national level, runs as a place holder.
Someone initially getting into the race and then dropping out when it's clear he's not going to win, is still not being a stalking horse. It's being realistic.
And I have actually run for office myself. Lost my election, alas, but I was in it to win. I did do well enough that two years later the local Democratic Party saw that the seat was winnable and put money and support behind the man who ran the next time, and he did win. My campaign made his win possible, but trust me, I didn't put in all that work and money just so someone else could win down the road.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Then you demanded, apropos of nothing, really, a laundry list.
I provided you with a starter link--you want more, you can educate yourself.
Just because YOU are in it to win doesn't mean everyone is. At least half of the GOP Klown Kar is running for VP -- and they KNOW it. When Bill Richardson entered the race way back when, he had no realistic hope of becoming POTUS. He was running for VP in case the Hispanic vote would be a factor, and his fallback gambit was a cabinet post; SECSTATE, particularly. It didn't work out too well for him.
Stalking horses exist--Season Two of House of Cards focused on one. If you want to pretend otherwise, knock yourself out.
LettuceSea
(337 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)This is a classic bit of slam Bernie under the "I like him but...." banner.
The "author" bashes him for being a "career politician".
Bashes him re his age
Bashes him for not running in 2004
Doesn't disclose he's a "proud hillary supporter" until the end.
And his idiotic theory about Bernie setting up a 2020?. Gee, how old will Warren be then?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)If he's slamming Bernie now, he'd likewise be slamming Warren then.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)If he truly believes in the issues on which he stands...
...has always struck me as a little strange
Yes, Mr. Sanders, if that's your real name, why don't you explain, why now?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)My personal thoughts are, if Hillary craters because the FBI investigation with regard to the email situation gets enough ugly traction, that Biden will jump into the race. That's pretty much the only reason I can see for him to do so.
Washington and Wall Street absolutely do not want a Bernie Sanders presidency, which is exactly why our country needs him to win so badly.
The only reason you see Trump being successful and Sanders being successful are because the people are pretty much unanimously fed up with the bullshit that goes on in Washington. Obviously it is for a very different reasons between Republicans and Democrats, but on the whole, "business as usual", in my opinion, has pretty much reached terminal velocity.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)It just demonstrates how many inroads that Bernie Sanders has made during this campaign.
The whistling past the graveyard is fascinating.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)After 8 years of Democratic neoliberalism, the anger is at all of them.
I think it is the perfect time for an outsider to run.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)and that is a long ways away. Plus, she will be 75 by then.
Seems unlikely.
Renew Deal
(81,881 posts)I've been saying for a while that Sanders campaign isn't really about 2016. It's about 2020 and beyond.