Bernie Sanders summons team to discuss 2020

[DonViejo]

Source: Politico

Although the Vermont senator hasn’t made a decision, sources say he wants to be ready if he throws his hat in the ring.

By GABRIEL DEBENEDETTI 01/25/2018 11:09 AM EST

Bernie Sanders convened his top political advisers in Washington on Saturday for a planning meeting that included a discussion of the feasibility and shape of a possible 2020 presidential campaign, half a dozen senior Democrats familiar with the gathering confirmed to POLITICO.

The top-line message the Vermont senator received from the operatives gathered during the government shutdown was a more formal version of the one they’ve been giving him regularly for months: You would be one of the front-runners for the Democratic nomination. And if you want to run, it’s time to start seriously planning accordingly.

The Democratic socialist's response to the series of presentations, according to multiple Democrats: I haven’t yet made a decision about 2020, but I still think beating Donald Trump is the most important thing for this country. And I want to be ready if I do decide to run.

Sanders regularly speaks with a close group of advisers and periodically brings top allies in to discuss his political maneuvers, but Saturday’s get-together included planning for the rest of 2018 as well as a specifically slated 2020 component, said Democrats familiar with the session, which was scheduled for the one-year anniversary of Trump’s inauguration. Part of the discussion included gaming out how the rest of the field might look, since 2016’s landscape — effectively pitting Sanders directly against Hillary Clinton — was far more straightforward than the expected 2020 free-for-all.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/25/bernie-sanders-2020-team-meeting-368148

[dlwickham]

1. he's a democratic socialist

small D

[Eliot Rosewater]

6. I used to think he was.

[Cryptoad]

2. Is he ready to join the Party yet??????

[yurbud]

24. I think it's more like is the party ready to rejoin him. He's a New Deal, Great Society Democrat

Not a Rahm Emanuel corporate concierge one.

If the Democratic Party does not start to look and ACT more like their progressive base, the party will die.

Or worse, they will live, but continue to keep the dying but still dangerous GOP alive by not putting enough daylight between Democrats and Republicans on economic, education, foreign policy, regulation & prosecution of Wall Street and banks, and a host of other issues where policy is not the result of study or good arguments but is bought.

[tinrobot]

35. He's not any sort of "Democrat" at all.

He's an Independent. He left the Democratic party right after the election.

Until he joins the party outside of primary season and stays, he's not a Democrat.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

54. Yeah, he's only caucused with the Party, been one of the most reliable votes for the Party...

... in the last 20 plus years, has held chairmanships with the Party, and sits on the Democratic Senate Leadership with the other Party leaders.

Lol.

Where do you come up with this shit?

[tinrobot]

74. LOL. He's the one who came up with it - he's been a self-declared "independent" his entire career.

Well, except for a short time during the '16 primaries...

It's great that he votes with Democrats, but please don't infer that he is a member of the party simply because of that. He's not.

[QC]

108. But why can't he be more like that nice Joe Manchin!

Now there's a Democrat you can set your watch by!

[Adrahil]

160. He's the one who won't actually call himself a Democrat.

He wants to join the party and STAY in it? Fine.

But this being a democrat when it serves his interests? I don't get how his fans can't see through this self-serving bullshit. It's like a cult of personality.

And where are his fuckin' tax returns he promised to show us?

[onetexan]

129. that's correct, he's no Democrat

He's a self proclaimed "democratic socialist" whatever that means. He has no business running as a Democrat. The Democratic party should not allow this man who promises pipe dreams to run as a candidate again.

[shellyleit]

184. He's an independent

So he should run as one, or better yet, be talked out of running. His best work is on the sidelines advising a progressive Democrat.
Instead he will probably demand all of the Democratic party's resources and respect, just like last time.

[onetexan]

186. they had better not let him run this time

a leopard never changes his spots

[KPN]

37. Looks that way to me too.

Democrat since birth here, registered as D for 46+ years now, and loyal D voter throughout those 46+ years.

Will say though that, notwithstanding some inconceivable event (like 2016), because the vast majority of voters are anti-Trump and probably driven by fear to vote against him, 2020 should be a shoe-in (like 2016 again) so we may prevail anyway without returning to FDR era progressivism. But after that -- 2022, 2024 and beyond -- watch out. Your outlook is dead on at that point in my view.

[delisen]

44. What progressive base?

What the Democratic Party needs is to stop taking women for granted.

Bernie's energies can be be put to work by supporting female candidates and getting children and equal rights to the top of his personal political agenda.

Yet another male president is not going to advance democracy.

[NurseJackie]

65. I know! Right? They don't know what "base" means. The party base is LOYAL and RELIABLE ...

... the base votes, volunteers, donates, works, contributes. The word "base" is not a measure of how far left someone is... it's describes how RELIABLE they are.

People who don't vote (or who "protest vote" to "send a message'') are NOT the party's "base".

[yurbud]

69. You've got it exactly backwards. It's not how loyal people are to the party, it's how loyal

the party is to us.

If we vote for Democrats, donate money, and volunteer our time, we're not doing that so they will privatize public education, protect Wall Street criminals, get their healthcare reform from the Heritage Foundation, and spend our tax dollars continuing neocon foreign policy by quieter means.

You have to give people clear policies that will actually help them and that you actually pursue year after year until you get them.

When you get a supermajority, you better do something super instead of acting like you miss having to triangulate.

If Democratic politicians can't or won't take care of their constituents, they should be primaried and replaced.

[NurseJackie]

75. LOL!

What you're describing is a philosophy and tactic. You're describing malcontents. It does not describe the base of the Democratic party. They try to flatter themselves by falsely claiming to be the base, but they're not.

we're not doing that so they will privatize public education, protect Wall Street criminals, get their healthcare reform from the Heritage Foundation, and spend our tax dollars continuing neocon foreign policy by quieter means.
( ... )
When you get a supermajority, you better do something super instead of acting like you miss having to triangulate.

Ah... there it is, the backhanded smearing and attacking Democrats. Just so you know: the actual base doesn't smear or denigrate the party.

If Democratic politicians can't or won't take care of their constituents, they should be primaried and replaced.

Which one/s did you have in mind? I know of no Democrat who matches that cynical description.

[Cha]

91. Mahalo, Jackie!

[yurbud]

138. which of those few issues I mentioned were inaccurate? Insults aren't evidence.

[NurseJackie]

142. Facts aren't insults.

Insults aren't evidence.

Facts aren't insults. These kinds of attempts by anyone to (re)define what constitutes as "base" of the party are self-serving and wrong.

People who don't vote (or who "protest vote" to "send a message'') are NOT the party's "base". People who do things to intentionally weaken and divide the party are NOT the "base".

The "base" of the Democratic party is not a measurement of how "left" someone is. It describes those who consistently support the Democratic party. Anyone who is approaching the fringe of the leftmost left, but cannot be relied upon to support the party, is NOT the "base" of the party.

138. which of those few issues I mentioned were inaccurate?

Oh, that's easy! ... All of them.

[emulatorloo]

78. Please name potential 2020 candidates who support privatizing public education

and “neocon foreign policy.”

Bernie?
Biden?
Harris?
Booker?
Warren?
Gillibrand?

You can’t because there aren’t any.

[NurseJackie]

95. You are absolutely correct. That poster was simply smearing Democrats...

... with false accusations and fear-mongering. We've seen it before and we'll see it again (unfortunately).

The only solution is to point it out every time. Name it. Label it. Call it what it is.

[yurbud]

112. If you follow education reform at all, you know Booker is a darling of privatizers

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Cory_Booker_Education.htm


http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/02/booker_and_devos_served_together_now_he_voted_agai.html

[George II]

133. The first line of your first link contains "beholden", all I needed to know it's not objective.

[yurbud]

137. lately, it seems fashionable here to say if someone is on RT, they are "beholden" to Russia

Why wouldn't a politician who gets money from public education privatizers and does their bidding until very recently be "beholden" to them?

[George II]

139. No politician receives money from business entities. It's illegal.

[yurbud]

179. yep. It has to go to their superpac or foundation & no pol ever notices which industry

major donors own, do they?

[lapucelle]

154. From your links...

Fundamental right to high quality public education
I believe that access to a high quality public education is a fundamental American right and that fully realizing the genius of our children is vital to the health of our economy and a strong and secure future for our country. Knowing this, I pulled together stakeholders from across our city and nation to develop strategies and take action for our kids. I then went out and raised over $200 million to launch initiatives that would help our public schools meet their enormous obligations".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"WASHINGTON: As mayor of Newark, Cory Booker joined Betsy DeVos on the board of Alliance for School Choice, which advocated using taxpayer dollars for charter, private and religious schools.

He's known her for years.

But when DeVos was nominated to be U.S. secretary of education by President Donald Trump, Booker (D-N.J.) voted no.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Booker has a 100% rating from the NEA whose mission is

"to advocate for education professionals and to unite our members and the nation to fulfill the promise of public education to prepare every student to succeed in a diverse and interdependent world."

https://votesmart.org/interest-group/1015/rating/8825?p=2&of=#.WmuwijdOnIV

[emulatorloo]

187. See lapucelles quotes from your links and stop playing cutesy games

[shanny]

128. You've got it exactly right.

Unlike some here who think we exist to serve the party instead of the other way around (I can hear the erudite "LOL" response now).

[NurseJackie]

143. Wrong.

Unlike some here who think we exist to serve the party instead of the other way around

Nobody thinks you "exist to serve the party". But the fact is this... the far-far left is NOT the base of the party. It's just a "wing" of the party (assuming they actually bothered to join the party in the first place) but they're definitely not the BASE of the party.

No need for them to flatter themselves or try to afford themselves the notion that they are somehow more deserving than those who DO support the party and who DO support Democrats.

(I can hear the erudite "LOL" response now).

You can?

[shanny]

144. LOL

[Cha]

90. The Democratic Party's Base is African American Women and

and Men.. in that order.

You're exactly right, Jackie.. it's not the foot stompers who don't show up for elections to teach the Democratic Party one of their stupid lessons that have brought us the Fascistrumps.

[NurseJackie]

96. Heh-heh... "foot stompers" ... exactly! LOL!

Whenever people start to smear Democrats, I'm always reminded of this:




, Cha!

[Cha]

99. Lol@Varuca Salt!

Jackie.. good job!

[yurbud]

68. Great! So you'll vote for Tulsi Gabbard or Elizabeth Warren?

[delisen]

77. I vote for women in the mode of H Clinton.

[Demsrule86]

119. No, I will vote for someone who can win...I don't care for Tulsi...She met with Trump.

And I don't think either can win a general. We need to nominate a candidate who can win. I like Sherrod Brown (if we get a Dem Governor) and Joe Kennedy III. That is a dream ticket and brings the MidWest on board.

[Old Vet]

93. Boy you got that right, Women are gonna be the game changer next time.

Iam so proud of all the strong women who have had enough bullshit and are gonna make history....

[Kimchijeon]

73. You are so right

[George II]

107. Neither The New Deal (1932) nor the Great Society (1964) would work today. This is...

....the New Millennium, time for new ideas.

[yurbud]

113. neoliberalism belongs on the trash heap of history

[Demsrule86]

120. No such thing...made up BS to trash Democrats. The country has turned right. it is going to take

sometime to lay the groundwork for a truly liberal candidate. Had Hillary been elected, it might have been different.

[ehrnst]

124. Demanding that progressives walk lockstep with a manifesto belongs on the trash heap of history

People who think that not doing so = "neoliberalism" don't understand the term.

[Demsrule86]

117. Absolutely against Sen. Sanders running...wrong candidate for 20. I don't think he can win a primary

much less a general. There is that Vermont college thing too. Of course I would vote for him should he win a primary, but I don't see him winning a general either. He is invaluable in the Senate. Let him stay there...also Vermont has a GOP Senator so he would be replaced with a Republican which would end any shot at the Senate...assuming we don't take it this year...it is a tough slog.

[karynnj]

135. Vermont does not have a Republican Senator

I assume you meant Governor. We do have a moderate Republican governor. Vermont has 2 year terms, so he is up in 2018.

[Demsrule86]

164. I meant governor...sorry...who would appoint a Senator should Sanders win the presidency...not

likely in my view but a reason why he shouldn't run.

[Cha]

89. Bounce back again when it suits? Nah,

he needs to stick to what he is now.

[Cryptoad]

105. Summons???????

Like King Salomon ?

[chwaliszewski]

4. Love me some Bernie!

[KPN]

40. Dobry! Bardzo dobrza!

[brush]

60. The age window has closed on him..been there, done that. Several new, younger candidates will emerge

[NurseJackie]

64. Closed. Slammed. Shut. Locked. Alarmed. Barred. Shades pulled. Lights out.

Several new, younger candidates will emerge

You're not the only one who feels this way. I share your initial feelings as well as your confidence and optimism about who our party will choose.

[brush]

67. Yes, 2020 won't be a two-way, polarizing split like 2016 (sorry O'Malley) that damaged us.

Love the title of your post, btw.

[leftofcool]

5. NO!

[Sam McGee]

7. Memo to Bernie:

STFD, STFU -- NOW!!!

[Runningdawg]

8. Lets hope they are meeting to discuss who to support

NOT Bernies next loosing campaign.

[murielm99]

9. Let's see him

release his taxes first.

[mcar]

22. Yes!

[oasis]

31. Maybe he'll release his tax returns during his announcement for prez.

[MrsCoffee]

42. And change his party affiliation for good.

Enough of just using the party when it suits him and trashing it the rest of the time.

[brush]

55. Nailed it. K&R

Last edited Mon Jan 29, 2018, 11:34 PM - Edit history (1)

[delisen]

66. Bernie is the Hit and Run Candidate

[Maven]

79. +1

[stonecutter357]

10. lol.

[Codeine]

11. Pfft. nt

[Jim Lane]

12. I'm one of Bernie's two million donors from last time.

And I'm ready to pony up again unless someone better is in the race -- and right now I don't see much likelihood of that.

Andrew Cuomo will probably run. He has a full-fledged "D" after his name. He's also been complicit in allowing continued Republican control of the New York State Senate. To me, such actions are a lot more important than a party label.

[radical noodle]

14. How has Cuomo

been complicit in allowing continued Republican control of the NY State Senate? Don't New Yorkers vote for their State Senators?

[Jim Lane]

19. You ask if New Yorkers vote for their State Senators.

That's an understandable question. What happens is that New Yorkers vote for Democrats and then somehow the Republicans end up in charge. In the closely divided Senate, a handful of people are elected as Democrats but then caucus with the Republicans (calling themselves the "Independent Democratic Conference", or IDC).

Cuomo has not lifted a finger against these turncoats. His public position -- that this was a legislative matter and none of his business -- was bad enough. In fact, however, he was lying. Behind the scenes he was actively working to help the IDC. See "Another Cuomo noninterference story falls apart" for Politico's revealing account of the whole shabby story.

It's all political maneuvering. If the Legislature were to send Cuomo strongly progressive legislation, as it might under Democratic control, then he'd have to either sign it or veto it. Either choice might lose him some support (from progressives or from rich donors). The current setup means that he can piously lament the Senate's conservatism while not facing the prospect of actually doing anything that would hurt his campaign contributions.

[radical noodle]

25. Interesting

The public continues to vote for these IDC Democrats?

[Jim Lane]

51. The IDC "Democrats" have Cuomo's tacit support.

He's done nothing to encourage serious primary challengers to them. Many of the local Democratic Party organizations do what Cuomo tells them to do, which means propping up the IDC candidates because they have that "Democrat" label.

Also, of course, these Republicans in Democratic clothing are very well funded.

Another reason they're hard to oust is that they have the name recognition that results from long incumbency -- incumbency that they achieved in the first place by running as actual Democrats.

If a good Democrat loses an election to a Republican, that's unfortunate, but we know we can't win them all. This IDC situation is even more galling. They use our party line and then, unlike Bernie Sanders, they actively collaborate with the Republicans.

[Demsrule86]

118. I don't think Sen. Sanders can win a general. And I honestly doubt he can win even a primary...I

don't want a repeat of 16. I sincerely hope he doesn't run. Of course I will vote for whoever the Dem candidate is but...we need to win in 20 or we are toast. Sen. Sanders would also cost us his Senate seat as there is a GOP governor...all around bad idea.

[Jim Lane]

132. About Vermont law

First, Vermont elects its Governor for two-year terms. The current Governor is, as you say, a Republican, but there will be another election this fall. You can't assume that, if Bernie resigns to move to the White House, the Governor will be a Republican.

Second, although the Governor appoints an interim Senator, the vacancy would be filled by special election, held within three months following the vacancy.

The chance that Bernie's election would cost us his Senate seat is slim.

[Demsrule86]

165. You can't assume he won't be a Republican. All that Sen. Sanders running would do is cause division.

[Jim Lane]

167. Ah, yes, division.

If Sanders announces, and there's also a candidate who's more conservative, which of them is guilty of causing division?

It seems to me that this denunciation of "division" usually comes in the context of support for one candidate in the primary and opposition to another. In practice, the call for unity seems to mean "The candidate I don't like should drop out so that the candidate I do like will win."

And, BTW, as to your subject line, it's absolutely clear from my post that I wasn't assuming anything about the party affiliation of the Governor (as, by contrast, you were). It's also clear that the party affiliation will be of limited significance, given that there must be a special election within three months of the vacancy. If this happy situation arises, President-Elect Sanders can resign his Senate seat in November and the voters of the strongly blue state of Vermont will pick his successor in February. Problem solved.

[comradebillyboy]

13. I'd rather support a Democrat as our nominee.

[radical noodle]

23. Absolutely agree n/t

[redstatebluegirl]

76. Yes.

[Gothmog]

92. Agreed

[DinahMoeHum]

15. Unless he officially declares himself a Democrat. . .

Last edited Thu Jan 25, 2018, 05:39 PM - Edit history (1)

. . .I'm not supporting him this time.

Yes, I voted for him in the primary, but voted for HRC in the general election instead of pissing and moaning because I didn't get the unicorn I was promised.

And BTW, I am heavily involved in my local Democratic Party committee as a district leader as well as a member of Indivisible.

I've also become rather disillusioned with the likes of Brand New Congress and Our Revolution, since all they seem to be doing is asking me for $$$. Unless they are also in the business of endorsing Democratic candidates for the general elections, I'd rather liase with the Working Families Party.

Yes, Bernie, I and my other colleagues can quit you.

[DURHAM D]

16. Was Linda Sarsour there? nt

[nini]

17. I guess he's got more damage to throw out there

I hope his other half doesn't get convicted during the campaign.

I'd like to see his full tax return too.

[dlk]

18. After the Last Election, It's Doubtful the DNC Would Support a Non-Democrat for President

Bernie would need to join the party he wants to represent.

[Jim Lane]

20. The DNC didn't support him last time, either.

Bernie went up against the candidate who had more early support (polls, name recognition, endorsements, money) than any other non-incumbent in recent history, including her support from the DNC. Under those adverse circumstances, he pulled more than 40 percent of the vote.

It's widely expected that 2020 will be a much more open race with a large field. Furthermore, the DNC will be under closer scrutiny about compliance with its own neutrality rule.

I suspect you're referring to the widespread idea on
DU that the DNC will pass a rule against Bernie and that all the state and territorial election authorities will dutifully obey and bar him from the ballot. Contrary to this widespread idea, the DNC actually has no such power. If the DNC were to exercise its power at the convention -- by refusing to seat duly elected delegates because they support a candidate whom the party oligarchs dislike -- the PR hit would be enormous.

People who oppose Bernie's ideas are certainly free to support other candidates. They should not, however, count on a deus ex machina solution from the DNC.

[LuvLoogie]

32. Bernie doesn't have any ideas beyond progressive taxation hammer.

[R B Garr]

85. LOL! The 2020 anti-DNC conspiracies are starting already!

"party oligarchs"

[KPN]

41. Did the DNC support him last time?

Didn't seem so.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

21. .

[lunamagica]

26. I can't wait to see those tax returns!

[samnsara]

27. nooooo

[Tarheel_Dem]

28. NTSA...

[jrthin]

29. I believe if he runs, 45 gets another term. Bernie

as he did in 2016 will split the dems vote.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

48. Bull shit.

The easiest way to beat trump -- hands down --is run someone with a less than 50% unfavorable rating among registered voters.

A ham sandwich with a positive approval rating can beat trump in the popular vote AND The Electoral College.

Bernie is the most popular politician in the country.

[TexasTowelie]

84. Are you referring to the Harvard-Harris poll that only offered a limited selection (excluding Biden)

or the much newer Harvard-Harris poll (Jan. 18) that shows Joe Biden ahead?

Former Vice President Joe Biden has a double-digit lead over the next closest contender in a new poll of potential 2020 Democratic presidential candidates.

According to the latest data from Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll, provided exclusively to The Hill, Biden has 27 percent among Democrats.

The next closest candidate is Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), at 16 percent, followed by 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and media mogul Oprah Winfrey, each at 13 percent.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/369555-poll-biden-holds-double-digit-lead-over-field-of-2020-dem-presidential

How about the CNN poll (Jan. 23) that shows that Biden has a larger margin of victory than Bernie?

Washington (CNN) -- President Donald Trump faces an uphill climb to re-election in 2020 against a slate of prominent potential Democratic hopefuls, according to new polling from CNN conducted by SSRS.

In a series of hypothetical 2020 one-on-one contests Trump trails Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders by a 55% to 42% margin among registered voters. He lags further behind former Vice President Joe Biden by a wide 57% to 40% split, and trails television personality Oprah Winfrey by a 51% to 42% divide.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/23/politics/2020-trump-biden-sanders-winfrey/index.html

Based upon those two more recent polls, it appears that Joe Biden is the most popular politician in the country.

[herding cats]

140. Biden does have a considerable lead over Bernie in recent polling. But...

I want someone younger and with less baggage being towed if possible. The Anita Hill isssue will dog Biden, and Bernie was far too devisive in 2016.

I’ll vote for the nominee, but I’d really rather it wasn’t either of those two.

[George II]

88. "Bernie is the most popular politician in the country" - care to explain?

[NurseJackie]

100. Actually, Bernie is NOT the "most popular" politician. (Post #84 explains why... with LINKS!)

[woodsprite]

62. He would (should) only split the Dems vote during a primary.

If he (or any of the others for that matter) wins the primary, we need to vote for them. None of this Jill Stein crap or purity crap. It's more important to pull the US out of the cesspool that the Republicans and Trump have created.

I don't care if Buddy the Singing/Piano Playing Beagle is heading up the Dem ticket.

He/She/It gets my vote, and I will be out there encourage anybody and everybody who will listen to do the exact same if they want to save our country.


** That being said, I bought 2 "Hindsight is 2020" stickers in January 2017.

[Demsrule86]

121. I think so too...hope he doesn't do it. Even running in the primary will cause division.

[lapfog_1]

30. I have a deal... no Clinton and no Bernie in 2020

I'll go a step further...

No Biden, no Pelosi, no Difi.

Not for President and not for Speaker or Majority Leader either. I'm sitting on the fence on Schumer.

And that is tough for me because I love Biden.

But it is time for new leaders.

Not sure who that is yet, but they have about 2 years to make themselves into national leaders.

[Freddie]

34. THANK YOU!!

A new face and under 70 please!! Bernie will be pushing 80 in 2020. Historically Dems win with a fresh (relatively) young person - PBO, Bill Clinton in 92, JFK. There's lots of possibilities out there, Tammy Duckworth for one.

[hueymahl]

47. Agreed

Though I might make an exception for Biden. Might. Probably won't. And no to Schumer too. Need new blood. Let them be advisors to the new blood's campaigns.

[Heartstrings]

57. Yes!

New blood, fresh faces.....

[obnoxiousdrunk]

58. +100 .. n/t

[LongTomH]

33. I walked precincts in Iowa for Bernie when the temperatures were in single digits, and I was 71.....

.......years old. If he runs again in 2020, I swear I'll do it again, at 75, even if I have to use a cane!!!!!

[NurseJackie]

36. It'll be a waste of time. He'll never get our party's nomination.

Besides, he's not even a member of our party. He joined and then he quit... now he's thinking of joining again? I have to be honest and let you know that this type of inconsistency and indecisiveness do not impress me or give me confidence.

[Tarheel_Dem]

45. Just the thought of Susan Sarandon, Nina Turner & Jane Sanders returning to the national stage....

is enough to make me . He can't win the nomination, but he and his campaign folks can wreak so much havoc that we have a replay of '16. I don't think Democrats are in the mood for a replay of that.

[Cha]

53. I know right.. ugh!

ssandon and her Hillary is more dangerous than trump bullshit.

Hillary Clinton was more dangerous than Donald Trump: Susan Sarandon

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/hillary-clinton-was-more-dangerous-than-donald-trump-susan-sarandon/articleshow/61830158.cms

I didn't scroll down any further because there was a pic and I couldn't stand to look at her fucking face. gd privileged asshole.

[Tarheel_Dem]

61. I could vomit everytime her name is mentioned.

[Jim Lane]

83. He'll be crushed to know he's "lost" your support.

The fact is that the people who despised Bernie in 2015-16 despise him now. That's OK, it's a free country. But don't pretend that some post-convention development plays any role in it.

I'll even go out on a limb and say that if Bernie lobbied the Vermont legislature to establish partisan voter registration, and then registered as a Democrat, and then got a kicking donkey logo tattooed on one butt check and a "D" in a circle on the other... you and almost all the other people having conniptions about nominal party identification would STILL despise him.

Those of us who are to the left of Hillary Clinton will just have to hope that enough voters care about trivialities like single-payer health care instead of the really important stuff, like party labels.

[lapucelle]

97. Harris, Booker, and Warren are all co-sponsors of single payer legislation.

Similarly, they all voted for Russian sanctions and have mainstream Democratic party positions on gun control legislation.

And none of them have to concoct reasons to spin away their votes on the the 1994 Crime Bill.

[Jim Lane]

109. You're in luck. I've spared you a long post.

I got partway through writing a long post to correct the record (if I may borrow that phrase) about health care, the crime bill, and the sanctions bill. Then I decided, what's the point. Haters gonna hate. There are quite a few DUers for whom Bernie Is Evil has become a bedrock political principle. (BTW, I'm not the reverse -- I don't think Bernie is perfect, and, contrary to the personal attacks that appeared on DU, Bernie's supporters are not a cult and we don't consider him a messiah.)

I'm losing interest in playing whack-a-mole with the various denunciations of Bernie. My time would be wasted on people whose minds are already made up.

[lapucelle]

134. The record, as I stated it, is already correct. Any further "corrections" are unnecessary. N/T

Last edited Fri Jan 26, 2018, 11:35 AM - Edit history (1)

[R B Garr]

86. Exactly, a waste of time -- the divisiveness alone is astounding.

Look at all the 2020 conspiracy theories busting out on this little thread already -- 2 and a half years out!

[lunasun]

101. Why would he want the party's nomination? He has already said how damaged the dem party is

Bashed and publicly talked about all the mistakes Dems make as a party.
Clearly he would not run on that party's ticket and have to work with party leaders no way .
He sort of burned his bridges no?
He would go independently probably something like the revolution party

[NurseJackie]

102. Agreed. Burned bridges is an understatement.

[tymorial]

38. And awayyyy we go

3
2
1

Commence infighting.

[SamKnause]

39. I love Bernie !!!

He will have my support.

[KPN]

43. Good to see/hear.

[left-of-center2012]

46. Yeah Bernie!

He must be doing something correct to have such a huge base of support.

[Cha]

49. Oh HELL NO.

[comradebillyboy]

59. I concur.

[BlueStater]

50. Jesus, get lost.

I only supported you in 2016 because you and Hillary were LITERALLY the only two choices.

So sick of these egotistical, power-hungry septuagenarians that can't accept their White House days are coming to a close.

[underpants]

52. Just wanted to check in to see I'm going to get jury alerts for

[Phoenix61]

56. No, just no

Could we please leave the past where it belongs. No more reruns or recycles. No more old, white guys. We can do better. I know we can. And how about we focus on 2018 and get the worst of this current disaster behind us.

[True_Blue]

111. ITA! We need to focus on 2018

We need to get control of the House and Senate in 2018, otherwise there might not be an America left by 2020.

[Joediss]

63. Democrat

If he going to run as a democrat , he needs to join the party...... Or maybe he wants to split the party and elect another republican.

[Fiendish Thingy]

71. I hope he runs, if only to drive the narrative to the left

And far away from corporatist, neoliberal Third Way nonsense.

There are many other potential candidates, many of them women, who I would be happy to see run and get the nomination, as long as they have a record of promoting policies aligned with Bernie’s, and the core traditional Democratic Party values from the FDR/New Deal era.

[Demsrule86]

122. No, we need a candidate who can win a general. That is the purpose of a primary...not to

'drive the narrative'. We are going to lose a great deal of liberal policy if we don't win and stop the GOP takeover of the courts.

[Fiendish Thingy]

136. We are going to lose a great deal of liberal policy...

If we continue to elect Third Way neoliberal corporatist who will support Goldman-Sach’s priorities while giving only lip service to the needs of working families.

[Eliot Rosewater]

155. Nonsense

[R B Garr]

156. LOL

"corporations third way neoliberal goldman sachs". That's more than a trifecta right there! That's a quadfecta.

[brer cat]

157. It appears that some are paid by

the disparaging word rather than by post.

[R B Garr]

158. Yes it does...nt

[Demsrule86]

163. I take exception to your post...and would like to say...any Democrat is better than any GOP.

working families won't lose with any Democrat...third way is particularly bad...I find your entire post divisive and untrue...basically .

[Fiendish Thingy]

170. Faulty premise

This isn't about democrats being better than republicans, it's about electing democrats who will do the best job protecting the rights and improving the lives of Americans.

You're not suggesting you'd be satisfied with a bunch of Zell Millers and Liebermans in congress would you?

[Demsrule86]

174. Lieberman left the party so he should not be considered...and yes I would rather have Miller than

any Republican. Zell Miller started the pre-K program in Georgia and the Hope Scholarship. Name me on Republican who would have done that?

[Fiendish Thingy]

182. Again, faulty premise

The question I pose to you isn't whether you'd prefer Zell Miller to any Republican, the question you keep dodging is: would you be OK with a congress filled with Democrats like Zell Miller?

Did you forget that Zell Miller supported Bush in 2004?

My point is, we must not be content with electing just any old Democrat, we must strive to elect Democrats who will unwaveringly uphold the values of the New Deal, and prioritize the economic well being of the poor and middle class over the profits of the banksters and corporations. We've had enough defecting Bluedogs who get us into wars, or loosen regulations on protections for consumers, etc.

[betsuni]

172. Still doing the Third Way/neoliberal/corporatist/Goldman-Sach's/lip service to working families

thingy?

[LiberalLovinLug]

72. GO BERNIE GO!!!

But you may want to stay away from reading DU.

[Maven]

82. Nope. And this time, we're ready for his promising-the-moon, channeling-white-anger-on-the-left,

dividing-the-Dems bullshit.

[NurseJackie]

98. Excellent description. Right on target!

Empty calories.

[JCanete]

110. who is we? And what is promising the moon? Advocating for things we could afford and should have?

That's not exactly saying that he can walk on water or that he can unilaterally achieve them, so the whole moon bs is just that.

[Eliot Rosewater]

152. If you really want UHC you have to have veto proof majorities in both houses first

and the WH.

When you have that, we can then work on UHC. I am all for that.

But SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much work to do first, like vote for ANY democrat.

If you have the WH and both houses you dont technically need veto proof majorities but you might because you never know who will support and who wont.

But you CANT even have a god damn VOTE unless you are in control.

[JCanete]

153. that does nothing if the people you elected don't want universal health care and the people

that elected them aren't really aware that it is an option that they should be pushing for since hey, those who we elected have no interest in talking about what is a challenging and risky thing for them to get done, so no, that is not the end-game in and of itself.

It is always the messaging that these big issues have to be pushed down the road for the sake of the election cycle and the majority. Then, in those rare occasions when we have the majority, we fumble or we settle for a field goal and await the opposing teams kick-off return for a touchdown. When we implement policies we need to make them out of reach of Republican meddling. We need to make them popular by informing the public about them, and we need to stand by those policies. That will get us reelected. Whatever the hell we did with the troubled ACA(though I grant it is amazing that we even did this) from omitting price-caps to running away from it and Obama at the congressional and state level was a condition of just who our elected officials are and how much effort they put into trying to live in the middle ground.

You may say thats pragmatic, but if pragmatism loses you a 1000 seats in 30 years(and I know I'm getting redundant on this point) then is it really pragmatic? Losing is losing. Letting the other team move us down the field 2/3's of the time and never going for the big plays when we have the ball is why we are where we are.

[MuseRider]

87. I would prefer younger candidates

but I suspect he will do what he did the last time and see who is running then if nobody is running on the left he will do it again.

[Beacool]

94. No offense, but no Sanders or Biden.

They are already way too old. Sanders would be 79 and Biden 78 years old. Can we get some new blood?

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

103. No. His time is past.

He might possibly have gotten the nomination in 2016, but he didn't. I supported him, but I was concerned he was already too old. And he'll be much too old in 2020.

Same with Biden and most of the names that get tossed around here for our nominee that year.

I want to see people not over 50, maybe 55, to be running.

[BlueIdaho]

104. Dear Bernie - Age Matters.

I say the same to Joe Biden. We need some young lions and lionesses to carry the message forward to into the next generation. The torch must be passed.

[Yavin4]

106. Dear Bernie, why not summon a team for the 2018 mid-terms first

If there's a Republican controlled congress in 2020, your presidency won't matter.

[oberliner]

114. He started an organization currently devoted to electing progressive candidates in 2018

[Demsrule86]

123. Our revolution is not electing Democratic candidates. In fact some of their ill advised actions have

put Democratic senators at risk and reduced our chances of taking the House and/or the Senate. They also will support a so called progressive house candidate running in the GOP party because apparently as a progressive she feels more 'comfortable' in the Republican Party. This is not a Democratic organization by an means. In fact, Sen. Sanders should distance himself from these Democratic party haters. Nina Turner is in charge of this group.

[oberliner]

131. Thanks for the info

Good to know! I do appreciate, though, that there was at least an effort made to focus on progressive candidates at all levels. Sorry to hear that it isn't what it's cracked up be.

[Demsrule86]

166. It really isn't. Nina Turner is from Ohio...I voted for her...very disappointing. She was

on the radio today dissing Democrats...a GOP show I think...it was the POTUS channel.

[oberliner]

169. That is disappointing

Speaking of Ohio - didn't something similar happen with Kucinich?

[Demsrule86]

175. Yes it did...he became involved with Fox News.

[oberliner]

178. How and why did that transformation happen?

Do you have any insights into that one?

[Cha]

115. Thank Goodness we got Doug Jones elected

in large part by the African American Women in Alabama.. and men!

Link to tweet

Black Americans are our Democratic Base.. I appreciate them so much!

[NurseJackie]

145. DU really does need a "like" button for individual posts...

... so instead I'll just have to reply and thank you for posting that!

[Cha]

146. That's a pretty good Like button

you've got going for yourself, Jackie! May I borrow it for your posts.. plural?



Mahalo to you, Jackie girl!

[Demsrule86]

116. Don't do it Sen.Sanders...you will only cause division...you won't win a primary or a general in my

opinion...we need fresh faces.

[ehrnst]

125. Was there ever a doubt?

He was still ready to take Hillary's place, according to Donna Brazile, when he had been diagnosed with cancer.

If he's still breathing, he will run.

[JNelson6563]

126. Which party is he in again?

Ah yes, party of one. Now I remember.

Regardless of that bullshit game I am of the mind that we should move on to the next generation. I'd like America to be done with boomers.

On edit:. This is more along the lines we should be talking about. https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210146444

[Cha]

148. Mahalo for your link, Julie!

I agree completely!

[Vinca]

127. I love Bernie, but it would be nice to let the younger generation have a chance.

We have a glut of talent in their 40's and 50's and it's their turn.

[Docreed2003]

130. Sigh....

Full disclosure, I really like Bernie. But I don’t want to see him run in 2020. For two reasons: first, I don’t think he’s the right candidate for 2020 and second, the mere mention of his name brings out so much vitriol from so many, especially here on this site, and it would be a rehash of 2016 all over again.

[herding cats]

141. After 2016 Im a pass on a Bernie 2020 run.

Initially I enthusiastically welcomed him running in 2016, but after all the drama and division I don’t want him in the 2020 race.

It’s time to turn a page and look to younger less tainted candidates.

[Blue_Tires]

147. If he has the same morons advising him from 2016

he might as well concede now...

[NurseJackie]

150. Ha!! :-D

[BoneyardDem]

149. the non establishment guy that has used politics as his only visible means of support for decades?

I had a belly full in the last Primary. A little tired of the constant attempts at dividing a party he has already said he carries much disdain for.

[Mike Nelson]

151. I think he should have...

...remained a Democrat. But he gets to decide that, not me... As an Independent, I hope he decides against running - he could throw the election to Pence.

[SidDithers]

159. No...

Sid

[brooklynite]

161. I'm no more convinced now that Sanders can win a GE than I was in 2016...

[CrawlingChaos]

162. YES!!!! GO BERNIE!!

If you thought he had a lot of support in 2016, just imagine 2020!!

In this inestimable mess we're in, I believe he may be the last and only hope for this country. GO BERNIE!!!

[mpcamb]

168. 167 voices so far...

One thing always seemed clear to me- that Bernie talked like an old line Democrat.
The people, the people, the people...
What would be best for the average person, family, the poor, the down-on-their-luck individual?
That's the forgotten one, the one we as a party lost to this soulless maniac currently in power.

I also think he's too old now, tho I value his opinions and cherish those 60's ideals that ring thru so many of his statements. I also think someone from another generation needs to be in the forefront. Boomers are done. Somehow we got only the worst or most damaged of that generation- Bush, Trump, Clinton, tho l'd still easily pick Clinton over his opponents.

But back to Bernie. He's got THE important issue right. We're labor. We work. Many of us work paycheck to paycheck. Our jobs are constantly at peril. At peril from some auditor whose name we don't know and whose eyes we never look into. And as such, we need to be united and we need to protect one another. The R's are good at stirring the pot and at the same time fomenting solutions where they turn people 180* from the solution that would help. They're smart and have lawyers, guns and money to back it up. It's fun to portray them as the morons they truly are but those nasty little shits keep beating us where it counts.
So. Where does this rant leave us? I think it causes us to return to being the party of FDR and taking care of the downtrodden. I think keeping the largest good for the largest number is where one should start. 25 BILLION for a wall that is a monument to stupidity and its chief propagator when our streets, roads and bridges rust rot and decay? THAT is an insult to EVERY paycheck earning, tax-paying American!

Anyone who votes for it should be tarred and feather and run out of the party.
For openers!

[Bigredhunk]

171. -

Please no 70+er's. I wasn't a fan of HRC or BS's ages in the LAST election. In 2020 BS will be 79 years old. Midway through the 1st year of his presidency he'd be 80. Seriously? 80 years old and running the country? 2024...83 years old and running the country????

[betsuni]

173. Why haven't I seen these words yet: anointed, coronation, Chosen One, etc.?

[volstork]

176. Politically, I stand closer to Sanders

than any other candidate I have seen in my 40 years of voting life. That being said, there is NO WAY a man who will be almost 80 years old at the time of the election should run for president.
There are younger, more vibrant candidates who need to step forward and be considered. It is time for the Boomers to make way for the Gen Xers. We need youth and vitality coupled with a progressive Democratic message.

[lapucelle]

177. Revoution Messaging reps were at the meeting. Was Old Towne Media there as well? N/T

[Lil Missy]

180. I prefer a Democrat. n/t

[madville]

181. He has a good chance in a large field

He'll come in with an automatic 25% of the primary vote. There might be 5-6 other legitimate candidates fighting over the remaining 75. I would expect most to win their home states but for Bernie to win a majority of states overall.

[LudwigPastorius]

183. I have to say, I agree with this:

Biden 2020 or Sanders 2020 is a really bad idea, for reasons that go beyond the anomaly that either would make the oldest man ever elected president (Trump) the youth candidate in his reelection bid. There are certainly octogenarians who are physically fit, sharp as a tack, and as competent at work as any whippersnapper. But it’s no secret that when people, particularly men, get to that age, the risk of mortality rises significantly (a 75-year-old man has a 22 percent chance of dying within six years), and along with it the possibility of cognitive deterioration (an estimated 15 percent of people between the ages of 80 and 84 suffer from some form of dementia). If voters fear any of that happening, it could (particularly with some encouragement from the kind of intensely hostile conservative media that Sanders and Biden were spared in 2016) affect their electability in ways that are not easy to anticipate in scope and power. And even more obviously, if a 77- or 79-year-old candidate suffers from any real or perceived impairment, the issue could take over the campaign to an extent that makes Hillary Clinton’s email problem look minor.

Setting some “cap” on the age of presidential candidates is inherently an arbitrary exercise. But in terms of 2020, the logical rule would be that Democrats should not consider as nominees anyone older than Trump himself, who will turn 74 during the general-election campaign. Democrats should let him be the one to parry questions and concerns about age and health.

Disqualifying Biden and particularly Sanders (or better yet, quietly encouraging them to disqualify themselves by deciding not to run) will upset a lot of loyal supporters. But it’s not like the bench will be empty of potential candidates from every conceivable background (there are certainly still plenty of available white men other than Biden and Sanders) and ideological persuasion. Indeed, taking these two out of the race would help the odds of finally electing the first woman as POTUS; Elizabeth Warren, for example, does not run afoul of the younger-than-Trump rule. And the Sanders enthusiasts most likely to be angered by efforts to talk their champion out of a 2020 run might want to give a longer look to Jeff Merkley, Sherrod Brown, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand, or Keith Ellison — as well as Warren.

If nothing else, this is a subject that demands discussion among political activists and the news media. Perhaps an aging country has all but abandoned the idea that you can be too old to run for president. If not, we need to know that now instead of in the heat of a campaign.

Read more: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/10/democrats-shouldnt-run-anyone-in-20-whos-older-than-trump.html

[shellyleit]

185. Good idea on age restrictions

. . . .and it could be waived if they agreed to pick a female VP. Then if they die of "old age" we'll finally get a woman president.

But, personally I think they (Biden and Sanders) are both too old to run. The Democratic party can do better than elderly white men as prez. candidates, especially if one isn't even a Democrat (Sanders).