General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBernie Sanders: 選 Am Prepared to Run for President of the United States'
Bernie Sanders says he is prepared to run for president of the United States. Thats not a formal announcement. A lot can change between now and 2016, and the populist senator from Vermont bristles at the whole notion of a permanent campaign. But Sanders has begun talking with savvy progressive political strategists, traveling to unexpected locations such as Alabama and entertaining the process questions that this most issue-focused member of the Senate has traditionally avoided.
...
In his first extended conversation about presidential politics, Sanders discussed with The Nation the economic and environmental concerns that have led him to consider a 2016 run; the difficult question of whether to run as a Democrat or an independent; his frustration with the narrow messaging of prominent Democrats, including Hillary Clinton; and his sense that political and media elites are missing the signs that America is headed toward a critical juncture where electoral expectations could be exploded.
More at link...
Warren/Sanders 2016!
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Even though Bernie is an indy, it would be a very old school, traditional Democratic ticket.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)loyalsister
(13,390 posts)There is no one in the Senate who are as liberal and loud as them. Relegating themselves to a position where they can only sign or veto legislation would be really stupid and counter to our interests.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)You are definitely right.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)You are so right. We really need both in the Senate.
Not likely that Sanders or Warren will be able to hoodwink the Republicans like Bush did the Dems and be any more effective than Obama. That's not to say that Obama/Clinton and Warren/Sanders represent the same interests, but as POTUS, they'll be equally ineffective.
Hmmm...
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Sanders goes for the WH.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)anymore than all the other lefties did. What a waste of money and time for him to run. Would be like the Rethugs running Santorum...not a chance.
I just hope he stays out there and preaches his views in hopes he can make some undecideds decided.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)but sorry ---no Clinton love, money or time coming from me.
She's a waste of my time and my money.
Sorry, but she has nothing to preach. Nothing.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)I'm sorry, but I will not vote for Clinton. She's a waste of time and money as far as moving ahead goes.
I'm notsettling for 'not the republican' any more. I don't give a crap about 'woman!1' either. I want what is best, and she isn't it.
She will not get a dime from me, nor will I work for her, nor will I vote for her.
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)But don't cry when we have another Conservative SCJ and women loose all their rights and Row vs. Wade is overturned and the Social saftey net is demolished.
As I said, I just love Sanders and Warren but Sanders is too far left to win a GENERAL election and Warren can do the most good for our country right where she is. We NEED them both in the Senate.
Something to consider is we don't know what Hillary's platform will be. We're all just speculating. Also I just had a scary thought. If Warren were to run and win...MA could vote in a ReThug Senator like when they elected Scott Brown. I hope they learned their lesson but who knows.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)We don't NEED Clinton as a damn president.
There are more issues other than Roe V.Wade.
If dumbasses can't handle a more progressive platform, then oh well. Ol' girl Clinton ain't the be all and end all of everything. She sure as hell isn't who I want for president.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Too far left is a right wing myth. Look at the polls issue by issue. Bernie, dead center.
Raksha
(7,167 posts)Re "She will not get a dime from me, nor will I work for her, nor will I vote for her."
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Raksha
(7,167 posts)From what he has said previously, I don't think he'd consider running if he didn't believe he had a fair shot at actually winning. I have already decided I will NOT vote for Hillary Clinton or any other corporate Democrat in 2016. No way, no how, not under any circumstances. Barack Obama's Trojan horse candidacy in 2008 cured me of that "lesser of two evils" bullshit permanently. I voted for Jill Stein in 2012 and haven't regretted it for one minute.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)obnoxiousdrunk
(2,910 posts)both will be in the Senate.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)We need them in the White House, too.
It's a bit of a conundrum.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)and I don't care what political party he represents (and no, he's not going to run as a Republican or Libertarian). The question is, if he runs, will he continue to be an independent? If so, we won't be able to discuss his candidacy here on DU which is pretty ironic when you think about it.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)Even former Republicans running AS an "Independent" and EVEN WHEN THEY'RE RUNNING AGAINST A DEMOCRAT. We'll just have to see what the admin decides.
It would be nice if they would throw it open to a vote. I think that Bernie would win if they did.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I think the role and soul of DU is pretty clearly expressed in the TOS.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)I think we all know this which is why, in my original post, I mentioned the irony of it. If/When the corporate-friendly Hilary is the "Democratic" nominee, the real progressive, Bernie Sanders, assuming he's running as an independent, can't even be discussed on DU. I'm sure you find nothing wrong with that but those of us who count ourselves as progressives can certainly see the irony in the situation.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)matter, that's a short-sighted election strategy for the progressive cause.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)of multi-tasking, i.e., currently, actively working for 2014 candidates while looking toward 2016. The beauty of it, of course, is that it serves as both a short-sighted and long-sighted strategy simultaneously.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)but I have yet to hear from the candidate as to what she represents other than she's not a Republican. So, as soon as she is ready to put out some sort of position paper and if I find she represents at least some progressive policies I'm ready to support her with feet on the ground.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)In return I get 3-4 e-mails a week wanting money (which I sent once). Additionally, she sent my e-mail address, unauthorized, to the DCCC in which I now get 8-10 e-mails a week wanting money. Three times I've sent a professional, respectful letter to her campaign asking her for position papers. All have been met with requests for money.
I see a candidate/volunteer relationship as being mutually beneficial. She provides me with reasons I should support her campaign and I, in turn, and if I feel I can support her, will be there with my volunteer hours and a little money (what I can afford to give). So far it's been a little one sided so, at the moment, we're at a stand off.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Unfortunately.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)I don't understand your response.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)I don't see why we couldn't discuss his candidacy here. Articles about him has been posted and discussed here before.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)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.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)for president that I feel I can support - it's all good. As of now, there isn't.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)The current "top" candidates - and by top I mean most viable, definitely not most desirable - are corporate Dems, such as Clinton, who are for big business, free trade and war.
Clinton hardly represents what the working people of this country really need, especially when compared to Sanders.
So do we support Republican lite values with the label of "Democrat" or do we support true Democratic Party values with a different label? Support the veneer or the substance?
I support true Democratic Party values. I want real and authentic Democratic policy enacted.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)"real" Democratic values. I await the thread in ATA.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)I'm not the one who brought up the subject and didn't complain, I'm discussing. Isn't that what DU is for?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)is not. A 'discussion' would involve getting my views on that matter.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)to be snide and combative instead. Why?
You are free to add to the discussion at any time. Just as you were free to do so after my first post. I'm really quite baffled by your responses so far.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)assumption that precludes discussion on what is desirable. As for the TOS, I think it's appropriate to debate the TOS with the people who made it.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)I know you're not stupid.
I posted my opinion. I even asked questions in my post. That's how discussions work on message boards. You are free to post your opinion and answer/ask questions if you like. You are free to ignore my post. You are free to act as you are now and attempt to pick a fight if you like.
But you are absolutely wrong in your criticism/assessment of me and I really don't know what your purpose in doing so is.
So I ask you again, why are you being so combative? You seem to want a fight. I don't get it.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)I would want to know who will be in his Cabinet?Who will have his ear??
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)lark
(23,155 posts)It wouldl be one of the few times I actually got to vote for someone and not just against the "R".
Gman
(24,780 posts)Happens again. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
cali
(114,904 posts)Gman
(24,780 posts)From the eventual nominee if he doesn't get the nomination. Makes better sense
Concessions mean squat.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Hillary.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)What I meant that it lessens his chances for being on the ballot because most likely Hillary will win, but also he would be put in the position of spoiler if he runs as a independent. I wonder what his game plan is to get around these two dilemmas? I would like to see him run as a democrat even if there's a good chance he will lose to Hillary.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)I have to say, I'm just not enamored of the idea of a 'not the republican' kind of voting scenario. Either way, he has my support. His ideas are closest to what I would like to see, and I'm not up for any more compromising or 'inevitable' crap.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Even if he's not running.
cali
(114,904 posts)it's the reasonable conclusion.
and he wants to run against Hillary- that's the whole point. he doesn't think he can win. he thinks he can influence the direction of the party and push the candidates into standing up for the 99%.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Most of brainwashed Middle America don't get Bernie.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)If more progressive candidates don't start stepping up, I think we are kind of screwed.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)have a candidate who has the moral guts to remove the screw.
I think Sanders is just that candidate.
Gman
(24,780 posts)It's the spoiler role in the GE that I worry about. But he has tremendously more sense than Nader and knows the consequences all to well were he the spoiler.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)From http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/12/23-0
I don't see him as being self-centered enough to run as a spoiler candidate, either, so I'd say it's safe to take him at his word. That means he'll either run as an Independent for a while and then drop out before the general, or he'll run as a Dem. I think the "run as a Dem" option is far more likely, as he wouldn't be able to be in the Dem debates otherwise.
Gman
(24,780 posts)to push the issues he favors and which are right. LIke I said above, I'd like to see him get concessions from whoever wins the nomination, likely Hillary. And I really can't see him as a spoiler either He's not ego driven.
Raksha
(7,167 posts)I read it on The Nation earlier, before it was posted on DU. Bernie hasn't decided yet whether he'll run as a Democrat or an Independent, but if he runs (which he also hasn't decided yet) he would run to win the presidency, not "to push the candidates into standing up for the 99%." That's the kind of objective Dennis Kucinich might have had, but this isn't 2008 or even 2012.
As Bernie said in the interview, he believes the time is ripe for a real political revolution in this country. I think he's right. As you can see from this thread, there is widespread disgust with traditional Democratic politics as usual among the Democratic grassroots, or at least the netroots. I believe there are a significant number of us who won't touch a corporate Third Way Democrat with a 10-foot pole. We've been betrayed one time too many, thank you very much.
cali
(114,904 posts)He clearly wants to directly challenge Hillary- if she runs. He can't do that if he doesn't run as a dem. she'll just ignore him.
Nay
(12,051 posts)push all the candidates into pointed discussion of important issues rather than the social issues that have derailed real progress on economic reform. If he can do that, I'd be happy.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Nah it could not be third way policies...not at all.
By the way, Gore won, the presidency was stolen by five votes at the SCOTUS and all that.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)that voting debacle.
Gman
(24,780 posts)It would never had gone to the SCOTUS because Gore would have won beyond a challenge.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Not Mr Nader. In fact, both Mr Gore and Mr Nader wanted it to continue. They both understood the misstep of the Court. Perhaps we remember two alternate universes, in mine I prefer to blame the thief. In this case the United States Supreme Court.
But back to the original question, why does this keep happening? It started with the 1992 election, and since our guy won, I hear no complaints about Perot getting involved. But conservatives complain that Perot cost Senior the Presidency.
Gman
(24,780 posts)would have happened.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I doubt you really want to ask that question, at the core really.
Raksha
(7,167 posts)Had nothing to do with Nader being the spoiler, and it can't be said too often.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Gman
(24,780 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)I think what you are referring to is the Supreme Court effect.
Gman
(24,780 posts)It's called cause and effect. Nader ran, took votes from Gore. If ended up in the SCOTUS because Nader took votes from Gore. you know the rest.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)The reality is, it was stolen. Gore won, he received more votes, the SCOTUS stepped in to give it to bush. When you blame Nader, you legitimize bush and whitewash the theft. Don't do it.
Gman
(24,780 posts)I don't know if it's guilt or what that they won't face the truth.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Btw, I was a gore voter. Just not a simpleton or an idiot.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)CK_John
(10,005 posts)HappyMe
(20,277 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)of Representatives for 15 years and being a Senator for 8 years, just isn't enough experience.
what a laughable claim
pa28
(6,145 posts)Experiencing the corruption of DC for a few more years won't make him more ready. That's some epic point missing right there.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)If he runs in the general, he'll certainly throw the election to the Republicans and I can't forgive that.
Aldo Leopold
(685 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)positions.
Will he primary Hillary or run Independent? By running in the primary he could at least force her to talk about the issues and state a position. The only thing I know she is for is women's issues. So is he.
cali
(114,904 posts)and yes, if he runs, I'm 99% sure he'll run as a dem in order to challenge her and influence the direction of the party.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)the people want. How does she stand on TPP? The Keystone Pipeline? Cutting back on our empire building? Climate change? Taking on Wall Street, the big banks and the corporations?
So often our leaders in the Democratic Party act like they think everything is just dandy. They seem to be ignoring our real problems. Bernie does not and that is why I wish he could win. We need someone like him on our side.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)I am just cynical enough to wonder if Dems will just pay lip service to what the new direction would be, and then back to business as usual.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Which is one of my measures of how I vote.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)Some would accuse him of splitting the Party.
Go figure.
It's time to stand up and make some waves.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)I hope Sanders is prepared.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)Just like how now they decided they "like" Bill Clinton and say they wish Obama were more like him.
If we get some real socialists in the race we can begin to move the political spectrum back over the left.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)get dragged a little more left, but some will kick and scream the entire time.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Do they go straight to "Hitler"? Or just "al-Qaeda"?
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)They probably think Vermont is part of Canada.
Bernie Sanders : Canadian Kenyan
pa28
(6,145 posts)If an actual socialist runs the language will be exactly the same. What's the difference really?
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)HappyMe
(20,277 posts)for the WH - Clinton.
To call that person a socialist is an insult to socialists.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)The word has few real negative connotations anymore. It no longer has that "fear word" quality anymore...the GOP ruined it for themselves. They called Bill a socialist. They called Obama a socialist. They call Hillary a socialist.
For a lot of Americans, if that's what socialism is...they're not really opposed to it, not like they were when socialist looked like "Uncle Joe" and Cousin Lenin.
So there's that. I expect Bernie will start talking and a lot of what he's saying will sound good to a lot of people.
Raksha
(7,167 posts)I imagine that's what scares the Right more than anything--or if it doesn't, it should!
12kbush
(49 posts)It would be great to have Bernie as a presidential candidate 2016.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)I won't be supporting him, but I absolutely do support his right to put forth his vision for the party and the country.
I will also be supporting the Democratic nominee, whoever it is. So if he does somehow manage to win the nomination, I'll do my best to see him made President.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
City Lights
(25,171 posts)Go Bernie!
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Maybe neither would win, but it will change the conversation and bring the Dem Party back leftwards where it is supposed to be. Enough of this corporate Republican lite Dem leadership. It's not working.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)That would be two voices that could pull Hillary to the left.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)Can he stay in his senate seat, if he runs for the WH? Different states have different laws. I would hate to see him lose altogether. If he can do it: Please, Bernie run! The country needs an honest debate, if not much more.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)I will e-mail him to find out where I can contribute to his run. I don't have much to spare, but this would be just too important for me to be reasonable.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
Aerows
(39,961 posts)You are a beacon of light in the dark corruption that is our government, Sen. Sanders!
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Ever since Jimmy Carter, I just have been unable to give up on the ridiculous notion that a POTUS doesn't have to be a person who views murder as an acceptable option and who somehow seems to lose their ethics in service of "pragmatism".
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)tavalon
(27,985 posts)But damn, it would be nice to have primaries with him and Warren.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)And I do not Hillary one fucking bit.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I hope we get several great candidates that will run. I'm not sure if I'd vote for him, but I support a full field of candidates.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)I hope he goes for it.