General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSanders won't promise to serve full Senate term as he considers 2020 run
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) declined to pledge to serve a full six-year term if he is reelected this November, as is expected.
“Right now, my focus is on the year 2018, but if you’re asking me to make an absolute pledge as to whether I’ll be running for president or not, I’m not going to make that pledge. The simple truth is I have not made that decision. But I’m not going to sit here and tell you that I may not run. I may. But on the other hand, I may not,” he said at a forum Monday night in Vermont.
“If I’m elected president of the United States? Mmm. Probably impossible to be a senator and a president at the same time. So the answer to that is probably no. But I haven’t made that decision as to whether I’ll run … If I run and win, the likelihood is I will not be Vermont’s senator” he responded when asked again if he would commit to serving a full term.
Should Sanders run in 2020, he would likely join a crowded Democratic field. Sanders himself has visited crucial states in a presidential campaign such as Iowa, New Hampshire and North Carolina.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/413819-sanders-wont-promise-to-serve-full-senate-term-as-he-considers-2020-run
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Me.
(35,454 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)the field just got a whole fucking lot smaller. Such a silly point.
Me.
(35,454 posts)Then you never will...eom
JCanete
(5,272 posts)What of Sherrod Brown? Chris Murphy? Elizabeth Warren?
If Gillibrand, who has said she WILL serve out her 6 year term if reelected, later changes her mind and decides to run for President, you will say "this is so wrong"?
Me.
(35,454 posts)who will run as a Dem and then cut and run
JCanete
(5,272 posts)against the Republican AND the Dem, or would you just prefer that nobody ever challenge the Democratic insiders? If you've got a third choice I'd love to hear that too.
Me.
(35,454 posts)A Dem, a real one, will run and that is who I will vote for. Any other supposition is just pie in the sky and wishful thinking.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)I suggest you reevaluate your criteria.
kerry-is-my-prez
(8,133 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)What will you do if BS doesn't get another shot?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)nt
Me.
(35,454 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)....and in some states (if not all by then) he'll have to release his tax returns.
He hasn't given any indication that he'll do either.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)shot if he takes it.
George II
(67,782 posts)....I would have voted for Lieberman over Sanders at least Lieberman at the time was a Democratic Senator, although I voted for Ned Lamont in both the DEMOCRATIC primary and as the DEMOCRATIC nominee in general election.
Are you equating Independent Senator Sanders in 2018 to Unaffiliated* Senator Lieberman in 2006?
*In Connecticut, people are "Unaffiliated" in lieu of "Independent".
JCanete
(5,272 posts)he was wearing a democratic jersey or an independent one...We KNEW what kind of a person and legislator he was. If you would have voted for him over Sanders, then I guess policy takes a back seat to window dressing.
George II
(67,782 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)Response to JCanete (Reply #11)
Post removed
Bfd
(1,406 posts)BS has way too much baggage to consider another run.
Way too much & we haven't seen his tax trail as of yet.
He's not running for Pres in 2020. He can't for certain personal reasons.
He'll do some good campaigning for whomever goes up against the Repub in the finale', however.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)discussion from whether or not its reasonable for him to decline to lie to say that he will definitely serve out his full Senate term. I don't know who the field is, and I feel like you should probably speak to reporting on your own eye-rolls, but I respect your own perspective.
Bfd
(1,406 posts)The field did not get a lot smaller when bernie spoke.
A percentage takes him serious & like any potential candidate, a percentage doesn't care 2 bits about them.
Its simply how it is.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Me.'s umbrage at Sanders refusal to say whether or not he would serve out his full six years. My point was if that was a criterion that Presidential hopefuls who were also Senators had to follow, the field would be a lot smaller.
trueblue2007
(17,223 posts)
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)
karynnj
(59,504 posts)What about Elizabeth Warren this year? I don't remember it being an issue with Kerry in 2002. This is not unusual at all.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)But rather because he is an independant?
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)This isn’t difficult, so no need to distract with a non point about Independents.
Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)But because he ran as a Democrat?
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)the string, or is this just a way to divide Democrats again, as if there is something wrong with supporting Democrats. Post #34 lays out his strategy. Nice deal he has going there.
Thekaspervote
(32,771 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)criticism, suddenly the goal posts get moved without anybody having the integrity to admit that either their own claim, or the claim of a poster they've rushed in to defend, is bogus or was ill conceived.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)I seriously doubt that either Clinton or Bernie would get the number of votes/delegates in the primaries that they got in 2016. Bernie benefitted from being the only viable alternative after O'Malley dropped out very early in the primaries. Both had devoted supporters, but, as in ANY race, there were also many choosing between two choices that they could support, but would have preferred other (in many cases not known) choices.
I suspect that even if some Democratic leaders have NO intention of running, they would play with the idea with the media because they then get more coverage and are heard more. Not to mention, it is nearly impossible for any politician who has ever run to say "no" strongly enough that the media won't ask again. Hillary has said "no" pretty strongly, but the media tries to get statements that they then suggest as her leaving open the door - such as asking her if she would like to be President, right after she denied she was running. Obviously she wanted to be President and thought she would be a good one - that's why she ran. It's not just Hillary, the media did the same to Kerry - he answered Morning Joe that he was not planning a run or talking to anyone - to which MJ said - You didn't rule it out. As he has done his book tour, he diverts the question to saying no one should be talking of 2020 - 2018 is too important. While that ends the conversation, the pundits have suggested it means he is running. (One good clue is that in 2006 when he really considered the idea, he reopened his Johnkerry.com blog on his never closed Johnkerry.com site - he closed that site when he became Secretary of State and it is still not there and - to my knowledge, there is no alternative site.)
In fact, we will know by mid next year who is actually hiring people and putting together a team. We will know who is visiting NH and Iowa AFTER THE 2018 election. (While it is true that anyone interested in 2020 - not in a race of their own - will be out now, so are people like Obama.)
jalan48
(13,869 posts)him do this. How this could affect voter turnout is unknown.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)according to polling, that he's welcome to run as a dem.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)He doesn’t want to be a Democrat. So many great Dems, though, so we’re good.
Me.
(35,454 posts)then switched back to being an indie leaving any Dem who wanted to vote for a real DEm without a candidate. He says he isn't a Dem and I too believe him especially considering his back and forth indie/Dem switcheroos.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)That is the entire point.
I bet there are plenty of good Democrats in Vermont who could run and serve, but the system is rigged.
How this is at all acceptable to anyone?
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)about this special established arrangement...
JCanete
(5,272 posts)whether independent or Democratic in affiliation, don't compete against each other in the GE.
Do you have an issue with that logic?
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)Why doesn’t he welcome the competition for his own seat the same way he expects to be welcomed by Democrats?? You could also surmise that switching back and forth between parties is a self-serving strategy about competition.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)which would be the perfect opportunity for a democrat to compete with him. That is welcoming competition, or tell me how it isn't.
AND to belabor what is to me an obvious point, unlike a certain Democrat we knew, when Sanders lost the primary to Clinton, he did NOT simply shed its skin and run as an independent in the GE.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)you want to present. Look at the hypocrisy. He’s the Establishment politician in Vermont, but that’s okay.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)much of the political machinery that exists and its reliance on very big private-interests to stay lubed and running. Getting a ticket and boarding that train doesn't make you automatically establishment, if you are literally trying to man the brakes.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)“Staying lubed and running” — look how you made it all about your own ideations. You are the one with the double standards.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)what is the contradiction. My point was that the establishment has very establishment ideas about how to win elections, and about what policies can be or should be enacted that allows democrats to maintain or gain power, and that one of the things that we have a real hard time breaking away from, save 6 Senators who have pledged to take no pac money, is big money.
That very thing is the most regressive agent in our politics, and yet, we as a party don't have the will to turn our backs on it, nor to be so "radical" in our policy that it breaks away from us.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)We know why. It’s already public fact. We know who is smeared as “Establishment”, and we know why.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)do that?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)love for you to articulate it to me. You want to take issue with him running as a democrat, it kind of behooves you to demonstrate how a different approach would have been good for us Democrats or the nation. If you can't do that, then trying to read his mind, as you've accused me of doing, is entirely beside the point and something neither of us can do. If you can justify to me that there was a legitimate alternative course of action that wasn't harmful to liberal causes and to the Democratic party's chances in the GE, then maybe you have some semblance of a point.
Helpful hint: I will not accept "not running" as a reasonable answer. In a democracy, I want choices, and unfortunately, the only proper time to truly present choices is in the Primary system, given the broken nature of our two-party system.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)as a Democrat. It’s a waste of time for you to ignore what the man said, yet you persist with these convoluted distractions. You keep trying to distract from what he said himself and the facts we know. We know why he needed to run as a Democrat.
jalan48
(13,869 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)not win the primary, but I assure he'll be allowed to participate if he's interested.
George II
(67,782 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)I highly doubt he'd have a problem running as a democrat.
George II
(67,782 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)I saw, he had a favorability among democrats of about 80 percent.
George II
(67,782 posts)...all 50 states or or a highly limited group of people from which to choose.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)Vermont population is around 600,000
About half of the population votes = about 300,000
About 200,000 people in Vermont vote for Bernie. So in his state, he has a high approval rating -- in the real world that means that less than 200,000 people are being held up as a standard for the entire nation.
Why do we have to keep going through this.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)I'll go looking for the earlier poll for you guys.
trueblue2007
(17,223 posts)jalan48
(13,869 posts)
helpisontheway
(5,008 posts)
grantcart
(53,061 posts)He can make much more as a possible Presidential Candidate than he can as just a Senator.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)more seriously. This means that his strong voice on the issues that matter most to him get more coverage. I seriously doubt that he would come close to the percent of votes/delegates he got in 2016. That quickly became a two candidate choice. I assume that if one or two strong alternatives had been added - neither HRC or Bernie would have gotten the % of primary votes they did. Both likely got some votes from people thinking the other was not what they wanted -- even as many voted for a candidate they had strong alleigance to.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)caught the attention of the Russians who used Trump, Stein and Sanders to run our candidate into the ground with negativity to turn people against her. All it took was 75,000 people nationwide. Reality.
progressoid
(49,991 posts)annual rate of basic pay for level II of the Executive Schedule.2 Certain types of outside earned
income, however, are prohibited. A Member may not receive compensation for affiliating with or
being employed by a firm, partnership, association, corporation, or other entity providing
professional services involving a fiduciary relationship; allowing his/her name to be used by such
a firm, partnership, association, corporation, or other entity; practicing a profession involving a
fiduciary relationship; serving as a member or officer of the board of an association, corporation,
or other entity; and teaching without prior notification to and approval of the Senate Select
Committee on Ethics, in the case of Senators, or the House Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct, in the case of Representatives.
"Representatives and Senators are also prohibited from accepting honoraria. The acceptance of
honoraria by Representatives was prohibited effective January 1, 1991.
The acceptance of honoraria by Senators was prohibited effective August 14, 1991"
http://library.clerk.house.gov/reference-files/112_20120104_Salary.pdf
grantcart
(53,061 posts)He made more money in the two years he was a viable Presidential candidate than he did in the last decade as a Senator.
Where he got the income isn't germane to the point that the difference between being just a Senator and being a Presidential candidate has made Sen. Sanders very rich.
How much of an increase? 500% increase
According to what has been released we know that he made $ 200,000 in 2014 but that skyrocketed to a minimum of $ 1,000,000 in both 2017 and 2018.
Now that Sen. Sanders is making 7 figures a year as a possible Presidential candidate it makes no sense for him to close the door on another run and face a reduction in personal income.
I doubt that any of the candidates who are in their late 70s (Sanders will be 78) really think they are likely to be candidates but its better to never to say never, especially when it dramatically impacts on your personal income.
progressoid
(49,991 posts)Well let's round them all up. No more books for liberals!
The Obamas, Elizabeth Warren, the Clintons, Booker, Harris, etc. Why do they do it?
Let's not forget Jimmy Carter. That bleeding heart liberal has published something like 30 books for over 4 decades. What's he up to?
grantcart
(53,061 posts)At no point did I say it was bad, wrong or stupid.
Another responder said she would only worry if he gave speeches to Goldman Sachs.
I wish he would and pocket the most he can from it.
My only criticism of Sanders is unlike the long list of Democrats that you listed us that he is not transparent about it and won't release his taxes.
$200,000 to live and work in DC while maintaining a second household is really tight if you don't have some outside income.
I do note that Sanders' stump speech evolved from railing against 'millionaires and billionaires' to just billionaires about the time he became a millionaire.
If he does re enter the race he won't even have to write another book, he can gain substantial revenues from new editions of his previous works.
progressoid
(49,991 posts)Chip on my shoulder. That's funny.
Unlike the majority of DU, I'm not obsessed with Bernie one way or another. I supported him in the primary and then supported Hillary in the general. No big deal.
However, I do kind of enjoy watching people rend their garments anytime he is mentioned. The only reason I found this thread was because I was asked to be on a jury.
Regardless, if he is looking to cash in on his fame, he'd be better off NOT running and just go on a speaking tour. He could easily bring in buttload of $ doing that.
George II
(67,782 posts)....in those other 0.2 decades of the 4 you mention?
progressoid
(49,991 posts)Or
https://www.thriftbooks.com/a/jimmy-carter/206697/?mkwid=s|dm&pcrid=263432259749&pkw=&pmt=b&plc=&pgrid=36735142255&ptaid=dsa-39612206060&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIu8u21vWv3gIVw7rACh1LEgv6EAAYAiAAEgLc8_D_BwE
Or
http://www.simonandschuster.com/authors/Jimmy-Carter/1929911
George II
(67,782 posts)"lucrative speaking/book fees"
progressoid
(49,991 posts)And I responded to the speaking fees portion of the comment.
jalan48
(13,869 posts)Response to left-of-center2012 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)I will vote for someone else when the democratic primary comes to my state though.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)he wouldn't run.
The guy never stopped campaigning
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Go shit on Democrats in your own state. They can tolerate your bullshit, I will not.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)democratic allies against TOS of this site?
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)still going this. Read what the facts are about how Sanders, Trump, and Stein were used by the Russians because of their attacks on Hillary. No more feigned obtuseness. The facts are out there.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)hurt by Russian attacks, but its pretty obvious, particularly given the timing of major revelations that the intention was never to elevate Sanders primary chances.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)It’s long past time to give up this obtuseness. We know what was done to our candidate.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)1) His constant attack on the Democratic "establishment."
2) His support of primaries against Democratic incumbents.
3) His refusal to JOIN the Democratic Party, while insisting on trying to influence our internal matters.
4) His anti-Democratic shenanigans in VT. Running as a Democrat in the primaries and then refusing the nomination and running as an Independent.... apparently he's too good to be a Democrat. If VT Democrats tolerate that, that's up to them. I won't.
5) His refusal, despite his promises, to release his tax returns. I want to see what he is hiding.
6) His dismissal of "identity politics."
I have more, but that will do.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)voters choosing the representative who will represent them? Having a choice? That is a truly sad thing to take issue with. Incumbency is not a coronation.
Sanders has every right to not identify as a Democrat. He has his reasons. Be thankful that you can continue to try to use that as a battleaxe against him, as dull as it is. He runs in the Democratic primaries, which is a respectful move that doesn't split the votes in the GE or in his home senatorial election, and thus does not cause spoilers.
Whereas, we can go back to 2008 and there are Democratic senators who endorsed Lieberman and literally refused to say who they'd support should Lieberman lose the primary. But you have a problem with Sanders, who did bow out and didnt' run as an independent after losing the primary.
I've also got a problem with our current status quo. Its legitimate to point it out. I'm not calling our democratic politicians who would disagree with me bullshitters.
Democrats have set up standards that a Democratic candidate must release those tax returns, so if he does run in the future you can start salivating to see whatever damaging information you think those returns contain.
His dismissal of people using race or gender as THE reason they should be voted for over their record and defined policies regarding the actual needs and interests of those groups.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I don't have a problem with DEMOCRATS running in a DEMOCRATIC primary.
Sanders is not a Democrat, which is he at pains to point out ALL THE TIME.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)We know why. It’s too late for this kind of dodgeball. Reality is known to us.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Even if you were right and you had me pegged, you'd just be bashing your head against the wall. Thus, if you have a point, you should be making it so that other readers can glean it. You aren't going to convince me, when I truly don't know what you're talking about(or, if you choose to believe it, when I won't admit to what you're talking about) to somehow accept your accusations and lay bare my soul.
If what is important to you is your semi-public characterization of me, I guess you could hold to that being conveyed to other readers, but sans facts, its only going to resonate with those who already agree with you, and they don't need any convincing anyway.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)“Establishment” smear?? It’s all over the internet. Why do you keep insisting people refight the primaries by posting links to old news/common knowledge. No more obtuseness.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)There is big money that goes along with it. That's all pretty obvious. Pretending it doesn't exist is delusional.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)a smear.
You just contradicted yourself, but thanks for remembering why he really ran as a Democrat. 
JCanete
(5,272 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)anti-Establishment candidate? You can see how you are contradicting yourself by answering that.
You should quit refighting the primaries and read the Mueller indictments. The current facts are there—current news.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)candidate means that calling the establishment the establishment is a smear?
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)That very same establishment he joined when it was useful and convenient, and discarded after it no longer assists his agenda.
Sounds to me like little more than simply another politician, grubbing for votes.
But I get it... those sacred cows are SACRED! and its nothing more than blasphemous to place Sanders onto the same plane of existence as other politicians... grubbing for votes by any means necessary, just like Sanders.
"That's all pretty obvious" indeed... 
JCanete
(5,272 posts)It is a very typical thing to want to paint everybody who gets elected as establishment, because, technically, hey...look at them, they're in that very elite body. It is typical because the purpose of doing so is to attempt to undercut any criticism of the establishment and politics as usual.
You know its not the case that all politicians are equal in this regard. You also know that its counter-productive for our overall liberal cause to play spoiler to democrats, even if said politicians or activists are to the left of the party at large. You know, or I hope you know, that inspite of the bullshit about purism that has been bandied about, Sanders and many of us on the left have never attempted to eschew pragmatism. It is not pragmatic to attempt to effect change while literally shunning the mechanisms of power, which is why...um, you kind of have to run for Senate, or support your candidate with your hard earned dollars or your time or both.
that said, there are certain mechanisms of power that are in the way of change. Embracing them, say big corporate money, makes you beholden to a big money agenda. That may be the only way to win in some scenarios, but ultimately, is it winning if it ties your hands? That's the debate that we need to continue to have.
awesomerwb1
(4,268 posts)SolidBlueDem
(61 posts)If he could not beat Hillary -- who beat him badly --, lol at him beating Biden, Harris or whoever else runs in 2020.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)But as in 2016, he'll do plenty of damage to the nominee before he admits defeat.
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)except for recent history that completely contradicts you.. 
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)And since Bernie did so much damage the last time out, I doubt the Dems will allow them to hump our party again for his own gain. Fuck that.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Despite the implications that it's "his turn", I think we can safely disregard his position in 2020.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)We don't need any other reason for disallowing him to be listed as a Dem for the primaries or debates. I'm still pissed we allowed it last time out.
Initech
(100,079 posts)Sorry Bernie but you have put us through enough shit. Time to move on. 
nolabear
(41,984 posts)🤦🏼?♀️
RandiFan1290
(6,235 posts)One of the proudest votes I've ever cast for for a Presidential candidate.
Thank you for standing up for US, Bernie!
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)sunonmars
(8,656 posts)
justhanginon
(3,290 posts)
JI7
(89,250 posts)sunonmars
(8,656 posts)AlexSFCA
(6,137 posts)His hope message is every bit as inspiring as Obama in 2008.
still_one
(92,213 posts)considering running in 2020
The headline was a LIE, but anything to create division among Democrats, as this one is also trying to do
As far as I am aware no Democrat has announced they are running for the nomination in 2020, though there is plenty of speculation, and there are also plenty of well qualified people within that speculation.
still_one
(92,213 posts)polarizing figures for some within the party
Whoever the Democratic party chooses it will be a new face that was NOT part of 2016.
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)Thank you.
I voted for both of them, Sanders in the primaries then Clinton in the election. But it's time to move on.
MrsCoffee
(5,803 posts)
Cha
(297,275 posts)
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)
WhiteTara
(29,718 posts) WhiteTara
(29,718 posts)and then switches back to (I) after he gets the democratic votes. Sneaky, eh?
Omaha Steve
(99,655 posts)
WhiteTara
(29,718 posts)kerfuffle during the primaries.
Omaha Steve
(99,655 posts)I don't know how he could block somebody from running.
WhiteTara
(29,718 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,655 posts)But kept from winning. First I've heard about this. But my memory ain't so great.....
WhiteTara
(29,718 posts)that offended some Vermonters. Nice to see you out and about!
Omaha Steve
(99,655 posts) Me.
(35,454 posts)and then kicked the win to the side so Dems who wanted to vote for a Dem had no candidate
WhiteTara
(29,718 posts)a lawsuit too. Democrats deserve better.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)hopeforchange2008
(610 posts)
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)I like him a little less now but still agree with him most of the time in terms of policy. I would prefer he not run and limit his involvement to GOTV, campaigning for tight race candidates and fund raising. He will not get my primary vote.
zonkers
(5,865 posts)did happen, that would be fine with me.
we can do it
(12,188 posts)Demsrule86
(68,582 posts)his full term.
StuckInTexas
(66 posts)in which the entire basis of our democracy is under attack by a fascists, would be dictator, you think it's a good idea to post this rubbish from the hill about Senator Sanders on the one left leaning website where he is a controversial figure due to said website being filled with supporters of his primary opponent from the 2016 primary? Congrats, like a moth to flame you've manage to distract the usual suspects at a time we can not afford such bullshit distractions.
Squinch
(50,954 posts)but whose moments had passed, and you'd see them and think, "Well, that's a little sad."
I remember that.
Raven123
(4,844 posts)Gothmog
(145,291 posts)I really doubt that sanders will release either five or ten years of complete tax returns to comply with ballot access laws in key blue states or if he will agree to abide by the new DNC rules that requires him to formally join the party and agree to run and govern as a member of the democratic party.
If sanders does run, there are a large number of voters with long memories who will not forgive or forget 2016. I can see some fun commercials showing Congressman John Lewis being booed at the National Convention by sanders delegates after sanders refused to stop this planned stunt
BannonsLiver
(16,387 posts)If you were a voter who didn’t want to support Clinton in the primaries there was basically one option. Bernie.
I have trouble seeing Bernie doing as well with 3 or 4 more candidates in that race. I don’t think it would have changed the eventual outcome. Clinton was the best candidate in the primary, but I definitely think it would have altered bernie’s trajectory quite a bit.
Bettie
(16,110 posts)We need new people...this has nothing to do with age and everything to do with not having the same people run every cycle.
kerry-is-my-prez
(8,133 posts)We cannot afford another 6 years of this guy and the damage to the environment he will cause.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,861 posts)And I'm someone who strongly supported him two years ago and was very sorry he didn't get the Democratic nomination. That was his only possible shot at it, and it's over.
If he actually runs he will only embarrass himself.
ismnotwasm
(41,986 posts)Bfd
(1,406 posts) helpisontheway
(5,008 posts)to screw this up for us again. He needs to go sit down somewhere. He is not a democrat anyway..
elocs
(22,578 posts)As an old man of 66 I really look forward to voting for a Democratic candidate for president who is younger than me with some fresh new ideas. If we don't have some fresh, young blood, what is the future of the Democratic Party anyways?
BannonsLiver
(16,387 posts)This won’t be a tiny field of candidates like 2016. He may (will) find it to be tougher sledding with a wider field.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Everyone should be held to a pledge that they will absolutely support the 2020 Democratic Party nominee, and strongly encourage ALL of their supporters to do so.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)be competing for the same voters, whereas Sanders and Warren would probably have that same kind of conflict.
MrsCoffee
(5,803 posts)It’s like the dude puts on a size 20 shoe just to make sure he doesn’t miss any.
Sorry, but he won’t put himself and his family through the vetting he didn’t get last run. He couldn’t even handle showing his tax returns. Why would he play games if he had nothing to hide? It takes quite the cognitive dissonance to think otherwise.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Warren, whereas if both of them aren't in play, the other candidates are more likely to have this problem.
Regarding cognitive dissonance, It takes nothing of the sort. its pretty obvious that he has been positioning himself for a possible run. I think if Warren runs he won't, or possibly if some unknown player emerges on the scene who he can get behind, but I think you're holding onto that tax return issue far tighter than you should, and I doubt its going to yield the goods you so hope for.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)and double standards on your part when you condemn all manner of politicians and corporations as being corrupt with no proof whatsoever, all while the accused have been more transparent than Bernie has. That is the type of cognitive dissonance on full display, so the dissonance on display is more obvious than you think.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)hasn't. Its just not the only thing I'm weighing. I also have no problem with the Democratic Party establishing new tenets that require our candidates to show some odd years of tax returns in order to run in the primary. If Sanders has something questionable in his tax returns, this may either hurt him if he shows it, and we can evaluate from there how bad the offense is, or he won't run.
If he runs, shows his tax returns and there was nothing amiss, then all the hubub and extrapolation is going to fizzle. I will say though, that while speculation has been hyperbolic and has tended to come to conclusions, Sanders isn't blameless in that, since he hasn't simply released his taxes in full.
Whether Sanders has specifically accused anybody of being corrupt....he has never gone so far as to say Clinton has changed her votes for campaign money. He has talked, quite fairly, about the revolving door in Washington, and the insestuousness of being a once and future regulator going to Wall Street and getting paid bucko bucks to speak. How do you have no problem with that? That's insanity to me.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)cognitive dissonance. Completely different standards for one politician -- just because.
The very fact that he has chosen to withhold his taxes is a double standard in itself that cannot be dismissed and also shows the dissonance in his own platform.
You spent two paragraphs denying the obvious by speculating on what may or may not be in his taxes. That's not entirely the point, but I see why you distracted. How can someone proclaiming that there is something sinister in not being transparent then choose to not be transparent himself. It makes no sense.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)I have the same standards. I think one thing is obviously more egregious than the others, but should something actually be appalling that is demonstrated in Sanders tax returns that we as of yet don't know about, which I think we should get to see, that will severely damage Sanders, not only in the race, but in my eyes.
I think you have a point that Sanders not showing his tax returns does damage to his own messaging. I have no interest in pretending otherwise. And I said in my last post that sanders isn't blameless in any said speculation, because he hasn't released the long forms of all these years of taxes. I also said I think he should release them and that I have no problem with him being required to do so if he intends to run in the democratic primaries in 2020.
But it still amounts to one piece of which I weigh in the total. All I've ever seen you do is to declare that all criticisms of clinton are smears. Is there anything you aren't in lock step with?
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)poster about how disappointed they would be in Sanders returns -- so then why hasn't he released them -- but it's more about the double standards. The double standards of transparency, which I'm glad to see you acknowledge, but we differ in how much damage it has caused to Sanders.
You keep denying the Mueller indictments, as it is obvious you prefer to keep things on a personal basis as if pointing fingers at voters on the internet will deflect the focus. I know what smears there were about Clinton, largely because I saw it for myself, but it was also confirmed in the Mueller indictments. Read which candidates were helped to harm Hillary. Why do we have to keep going through this?? There are known facts out there now. Known facts -- it's not an internet sparring dealio -- known facts contained in the Mueller indictments.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)are you making? What point of mine are you challenging with that information? I'm still at a loss. I get that overall you are suggesting that Sanders campaign success amounts to the grand Russian conspiracy to defame Clinton, but I don't think anything bears out that that is why he was as successful as he was. That he was capable of generating early small dollar campaign revenue from dedicated supporters who have known him for years is what blew into a sudden wildfire of a campaign. That he was used, like everything that can be used is used, as a way to attempt to wedge democratic voters, or attack the frontrunner, by those who wanted her attacked, is not a surprise, but in the end those Sanders supporters came out for Clinton, so it would be hard to make the case that it was effective with the very supporters who were drawn to Sanders.
Of course he pulled in some independents who were very unlikely to move from him to Clinton, and I assume most of them didn't.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)by examined facts; whereas, the harm done to Clinton is well contained in the indictments.
It's very obvious that the known facts about the election interference are not something you acknowledge. Look at your use of the derogatory term "grand Russian conspiracy to defame Clinton." What a huge tell that is. That explains your continued use of convoluted distractions that refuse to accept the reality of what is known to us now. Look up who benefitted from the Russian interference. There is no need for me to continue to indulge your indifference to known facts.
Why do you keep insisting that people refight the primaries?? We are well past that. Look at the Mueller indictments for the lessons learned for the next election cycle. You really should read the indictments. Read and acknowledge the harm done to Democrats and how you keep trying to make this about Hillary vs. Bernie, but it is much larger. She was our candidate and the attacks on her were used by the Russians from all three of her opponents. Those are the facts. That is the reality. Refighting who liked Bernie more when the facts show clearly how he had an advantage is a waste of time.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Russian interference, which I don't intend to be at all. Its pretty obvious that there are some serious democracy threatening concerns regarding Trump's relationship with Russia and its influence here at home. Hacking and releasing information that is one-sided, possibly using information that compromises republicans as leverage, even potentially hacking our elections without any Republican watchdogs doing a fucking thing about ensuring our election safety going forward...
As to russian smear campaigns themselves, I still contend our own media has been the far bigger culprit of propelling Trump into the White House...that is of course, assuming no direct vote changing by russian hackers, but I well recognize that selectively releasing hacked information that harms Clinton and Democrats is something we have to be circumspect about, even if we take umbrage at the content of those revelations. Wikileaks clearly operates as a tool to only attack democrats, and may very well get its information from russian hacking, which damages its credibility.
But as to whether or not any of this actually contributed to Sanders success, I think its you lacking evidence to back up that point. And certainly, some of this information was sat on. If wiki and/or the russians had wanted sanders to win, they would have released the Wasserman Shultz emails earlier. They wanted a damaged Clinton going into the GE, they didn't want Sanders who has far less polarizing baggage than Clinton does(much of which is entirely a condition of FOX and Republican demonizing over decades).
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)Obviously I have specific answers to your questions, but they would of course be deleted...
Your observations about Wasserman/Schultz also reveal your biases, and they are wrong, as none of the emails were really that bad. How ridiculous to claim that there was a conspiracy against Sanders...lol.
You should read the Mueller indictments instead of refighting the primaries and dragging Wasserman Schultz conspiracy theories into this two years later now. None of that was proven and all overblown as a cynical campaign strategy i.e., establishment vs. one little Senator, lol. 
Look in this thread to see your contradictions about that where you go back and forth about what establishment is.
You should read the Mueller indictments and speak of current news/events that are known facts now. No need to recycle disproven or worn out divisive accusations about other Democrats. No third party distractions please.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)they did become a scandal, and they were timed after Sanders was out of the running. I don't think we're refighting the primaries here, by the way. This isn't a discussion about who should have won, or even about whether anybody cheated. Its a discussion you brought up about the Mueller indictments, which kind of have information in them that involve the primaries.
Point to two things I've said that contradict each other, that I haven't literally addressed, for instance my grand Russian conspiracy remark, which I retract. That was specifically meant as referring to trying to help Sanders, not as a statement of whether or not Russia has been getting into our shit.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)You omitted the salient reason, and it had to do in large part because......he was unknown; right? Hillary was not unknown; right? Seriously, this is a waste of time, but it's obviously a strategy to keep disproven myths and other completely irrelevant worn out talking points alive for a certain image. The Mueller indictments are the current standards, not some disproven campaign strategies from years ago now. We know who the Russian's helped to harm Hillary. That is the current cycle we are in. No third party talking points please.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)that he's known? The reality is the apparatus really isn't there to run third party. It is entirely reasonable to use the two party system. It is entirely unreasonable for you to question that choice unless you have a legitimate alternative that wouldn't blow up in all of our faces. If you don't have a better solution I don't care what Sanders said about his reasons, there's still no better option, so to make hay of a choice that is the only real choice is silly as fuck to me.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)Vermont. He runs as a Democrat and then switches back to Independent. He ran as a Democrat because he needs the party more than the other way around. I see you went onto another distraction, though. You asked about where you contradicted yourself.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)because you have no counter to it. I think unless you make an actual case for once, I'm going to stop responding to that same accusation.
And no, how is me addressing your accusation that I'm contradicting myself, somehow flipped around so that its me trying to create a distraction? And how is it that you've decided to run away from proving your own accusation with evidence? its all in the posts. You can cut and paste right?
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)but there are a lot of contradictions so the best thing to do is go back about three posts where I spelled it out for you where it started. It's all still there. Then it's been two days now of these digressions where you want to refight the primaries, but there is no need for that because we know what happened as has been confirmed by the Mueller indictments. No need to ignore reality.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)having a conversation with you. There's nothing in what you just said that I can address. That said, its really easy to stand by my assertion that you have made claims and then refused to back them up, instead telling me that calling out your claims is me attempting to distract. I take it we're done here.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)primary fights that have been disproven on their face, and then you come back and claim some kind of victory.
You spent two days omitting the most salient news of our day, so why would I "address" your distractions. Reality only.
madville
(7,410 posts)I think after this midterm election Bernie switches to being a Democrats on paper.
Bernie pulls about 30% of the primary votes. Someone like Biden can pull about 20%. The rest of the crowded field of 5-10 candidates will split up the remaining 50%, a couple of them like Harris and Warren able to draw 10%.
Bernie could be leading by the convention. The other candidates holding delegates could also combine all of theirs behind one candidate and still defeat Bernie though, severely fracturing the party and causing a huge fight the media will hype and profit from.
Plus there are the states that let any voter vote in any primary, that will help Bernie also.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)result in a Trump win, provided that he isn't being impeached before that time...well, probably even if he is, since his one shot of staying out of prison is to stay in power and to flaunt the law.
Given what you just painted, I think a likely remedy to that will be heavy party leadership pressure on many of the candidates to bow out early and get behind one of the other mainstream options, so that one will stand a far better chance against, or even have a solid edge over Sanders in the Primary.
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)this site will not survive 2020.. 
KCDebbie
(664 posts)STFU!
Doodley
(9,092 posts)
Thirties Child
(543 posts)I'm 83, remember what it was like to be 78, which you would be at inauguration. I was a fairly sharp 78-year-old, but the key word is fairly.
