= new reply since forum marked as read
Loved every minute of it.
Nice to see you, too. Hope all is well.
I saw that post. Wonder how crow tastes.
And this weekend...4 events in Iowa...Spread'n the Bern Word!
"thing" from a few disgruntled losers when they talked about income inequality...
and now two years we're all talking about...income inequality 
Nemaste...
Bernie, apparently, is a new force of nature ... This 'phenomena' could break all the rules, and whiz right past the pundits ...
Who knows ... If he keeps gaining ... well ... Let's watch ... If this is a sea change in the electoral mood ... The enthusiasm could sweep the whole of congress if such a wave were to occur ... Like a freekin political tornado ...
It is an extraordinary ride so far .... 
...but they can't do anything about it 
And welcome to DU!
In 2008 we had a very crowded field of extraordinarily capable people who were running very expensive campaigns. It took a fortune to get noticed. Sanders could have run and got some notice, imo, but he'd have been buried behind the popularity of Clinton, Obama, Biden, and Edwards. Plus the other popular candidates.
There was 2004 but Bush was the incumbent, war time, President and our party tried to get united very quickly behind our candidate John Kerry. Sanders could have run and had enormous credibility on the left due to his opposition to the Iraq War Resolution. We can argue about that all day but Sanders running against Kerry for the nomination would have had most Democrats running for their smelling salts. That was a time when it was suggested we were traitors for questioning Bush's methods of protecting the Homeland.
2000 was Gore's year. Sanders could have made a principled run but it would have went nowhere and he does have to balance what would be gained vs. time lost he could have spent representing the people who elected him. Plus he was very much an unknown.
There's an unwritten rule in politics that also applies to the news media. Don't use your family as props and then they'll be considered as off limits to pestering. That's assuming they live law abiding lives and don't publicly embarrass themselves.
Wikipedia will tell you about Sanders immediate family and they've been mentioned here as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders
"His father was a Jewish immigrant from Poland whose family was killed in the Holocaust,[21][23][13] while his mother was born to Jewish parents in New York City."
"Sanders married his "college sweetheart" Deborah Shiling in Baltimore in 1964. They had no children and divorced in 1966. His son, Levi Sanders, was born in 1969 to Susan Campbell Mott. In 1988 Sanders married Jane (O'Meara) Driscoll, a former president of Burlington College, in Burlington, Vermont.[93] With her he has three stepchildren, which he considers as his own.[27][94] Sanders's brother, Larry Sanders, was a Green Party County Councillor representing the East Oxford division on Oxfordshire County Council, in England, until his retirement in 2013.[95][96][97] Larry Sanders ran as a Green Party candidate for Oxford West and Abingdon in the 2015 British general election and came in fifth."
Politicians with the ability to be POTUS are few and far between. For those few there are other considerations. There's the window of opportunity I mentioned. Look at President Obama for another example. Many people thought he needed to step up very quickly to run as the 2008 elections were the perfect window of opportunity. There was tons of discussion about that here at that time.
There are age considerations, and resume considerations. It takes a rare candidate to run when just past 40. Nixon and Kennedy were considered marvels as they were both so young and yet so full of experience.
This is Sanders last chance to make a bid to be POTUS. Same for Clinton probably as well. I explained some of my thinking on why he couldn't run earlier. That leaves why is he running, and does he even really want this.
Sanders is running, imo, partly because he sees the Progressive message as constantly getting short changed. The fundamentals of our nation's capital, where money is speech, have dictated that. Sanders is fairly unique in that he has a lot of good will among Progressives, and he also has the ability to run an unabashed Progressive platform due to his record and his lack of ties to big money. He also has the fairly unique ability to draw crowds and capture the public's imagine, all while running his campaign on the donations from the 99%.
Perhaps the defining moment when it initially came together, when the seed was planted that inspired Sanders to run, and many to support him, was this."On December 10, 2010, Sanders delivered an 8½-hour speech against the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, the proposed extension of the Bush-era tax rates that eventually became law, saying "Enough is enough! ... How many homes can you own?"[70] (A long speech such as this is commonly known as a filibuster, but because it didn't block action, it was not technically a filibuster under Senate rules.[18]) In response to the speech, hundreds of people signed online petitions urging Sanders to run in the 2012 presidential election and pollsters began measuring his support in key primary states.[71] Progressive activists such as Rabbi Michael Lerner and economist David Korten publicly voiced their support for a prospective Sanders run against President Barack Obama."[71]
Sanders's "filibuster" was published in February 2011 by Nation Books as The Speech: A Historic Filibuster on Corporate Greed and the Decline of Our Middle Class, with authorial proceeds going to Vermont nonprofit charitable organizations.
Look at that great Senator at the end of his eight and a half hour speech. That's who we want as President!
on later primaries. 
That's a creative use of the post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy. Nice job!
not 'post hoc, ergo prompter hoc fallacy'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
is it your quote? Can I steal it?
carry the torch...feel the bern!
[center]
[/center][font size="1"].html" target="_blank">Image from WP ClipArt
Terms of Use, Public Domain
[/font]
around the noon hour
& recommend!!!!!!! 
they are truly timeless
He said he's been wrong before, he might be wrong again... But that it's a terrible idea to do your analysis based on one poll, like the Bernistas here are doing.
It is hilarious to me that when a poll (or five) positive for HRC comes out, this place is all crickets, except for those Sanders supporters decrying that polls are all corporate lies.
One poll by a virtually unknown pollster in marked diagreement with other recent polls and suddenly the Sanders supporters are believers in polling.
Those silly Bernistas!
For Serrius.... this could be big news for Bernie. But this would be a 10 point swing from even the most optimistic recent poll, which would be pretty unusual. Possible? Yes. Likely? No.
Like punching Wall Street right in the face! 
rec'ed it last night and lo and behold it is still here! It was not a dream!
All those trying to rain on this lovely bit of info can just FEEL THE BERN. They really do need to consider that they may have to feel it quite often as he thunders across the country.
Morning kick for Senator Sanders!
I think you add up the fact that many voters are basing their vote for Hillary on "inevitableness" or "winnability", and all they need to see is an example, no matter how small, of Bernie doing well over her inevitableness.
plus the reality that as the campaign goes on more people will hear Bernies message, and if Hillary keeps up with her closed door, elite small paid crowds, and sticks to zipping her mouth on important issues like the TPP, it will only garner Bernie more support as the months go by.
This is great news!
Look, as my sig pic signifies, using the logical side of my brain, I still think Hillary, though not the best choice, will probably win in the end. She has too much money, too much media backing, too much name recognition. But the better Bernie does, the more Hillary will be dragged to the left and forced to address issues that are of concern to many here in DU; the abandoning of traditional Democratic values in favor of Third Way corporatism.
Those in her inner third way circle's whispers in her ear about how she has to get more warmongery, pro free trade, and shut up about Wall Street and financial reform may just be forced to advise her otherwise. So even if she lies through her teeth, at least we will have on record what she will claim is her positions when she has to scramble back to the Dem base for more votes.
Shame on you for suggesting they take off their rose colored glasses!
