Perhaps it is all wishful thinking - But if Bernie Sanders did run for President in 2016 - would you

[Douglas Carpenter]

Last edited Wed Oct 30, 2013, 04:40 AM - Edit history (1)

support him in the primaries - assuming he ran seeking the Democratic nomination for President?

Some of you may have seen this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023933909

33 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	No, Hillary is still a safer bet
	2 (6%)
	I can't say - maybe
	1 (3%)
	I like Bernie - but I think he should stick with the Senate -
	3 (9%)
	He is way too far left for the American public - this would be snatching defeat from almost certain victory and handing the White House to the Republicans on a silver platter
	1 (3%)
	Yes, I would support him for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States
	12 (36%)
	I would not only support Sen. Sanders for President - I would give every moment of my spare time and every bit of money I could possibly afford to trying to elect him President
	14 (42%)
	I don't know why people put butter on things when margarine taste so much better
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Autumn]

1. Yes, hell yes.

[el_bryanto]

2. It's easy enough to say that I would since I think it's not likely

But I would. He'd certainly be a breath of fresh air.

Bryant

[Recursion]

3. Were he the Democratic nominee, unhesitatingly

Were he running a third party campaign, I would oppose him strongly.

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. the question I am asking people is - if he was seeking the Democratic nomination would you support

him in the primaries? I don't believe Sen. Sanders would risk being a spoiler and risk throwing an election to the Republicans.

[Recursion]

7. Oh, sorry, I totally misunderstood your question

Yes, I totally agree that he wouldn't.

I would take his candidacy seriously, but obviously I'd have to know who else was running. O'Malley, Warren, Tester, and Schweizer all are interesting too, to say nothing of Clinton.

As it is, if he runs, I'll lean towards Schweizer, but here's to a wide-open field of outstanding Democratic candidates!

[sabrina 1]

26. Why, would he be a different person if he changed the letter after his name?

[Art_from_Ark]

74. He wouldn't be a different person

but he wouldn't have a chance if he didn't have a D by his name. The only 3rd party presidential candidate to get more votes than a major party candidate in a presidential election since the Civil War was Theodore Roosevelt-- and he had been a popular Republican President earlier.

[joshcryer]

67. Good point. That is where my vote stands.

If he ran as a third party he would be another Perot.

[polichick]

4. Yes, I would support Bernie - volunteer and contribute money too, but...

probably not give EVERY minute and dollar I have.

[NuclearDem]

5. I selected pass

Because there's no "If Bernie ran I would drop to my knees and acknowledge there is a God" option.

[Autumn]

8. Now that's great. I would join right in, and my knees are

so arthritic I would require a crane to get me back on my feet.

[polichick]

9. Ha! That's what I would do if he won.

[ancianita]

10. I could see him run against Hillary as Biden ran against Obama -- then being chosen as her VP.

Knowing that Vice President Sanders is a heartbeat away from the presidency would seriously change the dynamic of a Hillary Clinton presidency.

But if, as a Democrat, he were to beat her in several primaries, I'd be a full donor for him as I was for Obama.

[PeteSelman]

11. Absolutely. Sanders is what a standard Democrat should be.

The fact that he's an independent and considered fringe speaks volumes about this party.

[polichick]

12. So true - and sad for all of us.

[closeupready]

70. 1000% true, that - on every level. Thanks.

[Enthusiast]

76. And in reality he isn't fringe at all.

The policies he promotes are right in line with a majority of the American people. Of course the media wants us to believe he is some wild eyed radical.

[Nye Bevan]

13. I would prefer Hillary Clinton (nt)

[Demo_Chris]

17. Curious as to why...

Just a few unchallenged bullet points will do. Thanks in advance.

[Nye Bevan]

22. Mostly her vast experience in both foreign and domestic policy.

I also think having Bill as an impartial advisor without an agenda of his own will be a huge asset to her.

Also, she is "pre-vetted"; anything negative about her is "old news".

[Demo_Chris]

24. thanks. nt

[Ken Burch]

29. Even though, on foreign policy, she's an unquestioning supporter of the right-wing status quo?

Even though, if she'd been president in 1973, she would have overthrown Allende too(and probably would have kept us in Vietnam as long as Nixon did)?

Even though the poor have no place in her notion of how to deal with the world(and can't have any place other than as economic cannon-fodder, given her support for "free trade&quot ?

Why elect Scoop Jackson in a pantsuit?

[Chan790]

35. Scoop Jackson in a pantsuit is not a pretty mental image. n/t

[Ken Burch]

41. Bourbon can help, my friend.

n/t.

[Enthusiast]

77. But not enough, unfortunately.......nt

[Nye Bevan]

38. Well, Bernie Sanders voted in favor of confirming her as Secretary of State.

So he seems to think she is OK on foreign policy.

Actually, only David Vitter and Jim DeMint voted against her.

[Ken Burch]

40. I'm thinking Bernie believes that the president should get most of his appointees confirmed.

And he probably knew she'd be confirmed anyway and that, if she somehow didn't, she'd be replaced by another hawk as nominee.

(BTW, Vitter and DeMint would vote "no" for ANY Obama nominees...even if he nominated THEM...just because Obama was the one doing the nominating).

[OmahaBlueDog]

51. I vote with Nye - Hillary!

I supported her in 2008 (prior to the convention) and I support her in 2016.

At this point, she has unmatched experience, and Bill as 1st Gentleman will essentially be like having a second Sec State.

[onehandle]

14. I only vote for Democrats. nt

[Ken Burch]

42. The OP was talking about Bernie running in the Dem primaries...at least that was my understanding.

If Bernie did THAT, rather than running third-party, what would you do?

[MADem]

15. No. He is too old (72) and he will not win. I will vote for the Democrat, always.

More to the point, I doubt quite strongly that he'd even run a vanity campaign. He's a no-nonsense type of guy. He doesn't grandstand like some other 3rd party "actors" (in every sense of the world) who run "Cult of Personality" campaigns.

[Douglas Carpenter]

46. he could conceivably take the approach that his campaign - win or lose could possibly alter

Last edited Wed Oct 30, 2013, 06:29 AM - Edit history (1)

the political paradigm. Gene McCarthy did not even win the New Hampshire primary in 1968 - but his campaign did push opposition to the Vietnam war into the mainstream of electoral politics. So, Sen. Sander's case it may not be an issue of "cult of personality" or vanity campaign as much as a campaign to mainstream his economic message.

[MADem]

48. Yes--his candidacy would alter the paradigm, and throw the election to Chris Christie,

who would not otherwise win.

It would put a guy with emotional and personal control issues in the White House with his finger on the button.

It is a bit spurious to compare 1968 to today, for a couple of reasons: first of all, LBJ, who was the incumbent, and who, after realizing he would not win (BECAUSE of the strong showing by McCarthy in that NH primary and one other), Sherman'd that election, won NH, and second, we didn't have anything CLOSE to a fifty state primary system back then--in fact, it was mostly smoke-filled rooms and horse-trading and wheeling-dealing; the whole primary thing was a way to make people believe they had an important role in picking the candidates. RFK, who was born and raised in the Bay State, would have won Massachusetts in a walk...if his name was on the MA ballot (it wasn't). He'd barely declared at the time MA held their primary, and it wasn't clear if he was "serious" or running to make one of those "mainstreamed message" points. It was a different system back then, a lot of games were played. 68 did play a role in changing the system to where we're at today, such as it is....

Gold denotes a state won by Lyndon B. Johnson. Purple denotes a state won by Robert Kennedy Green denotes a state won by Eugene McCarthy. Blue denotes a state won by George Smathers. Orange denotes a state won by Stephen M. Young. Grey denotes a state that did not hold a primary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1968

I don't think BS should "run to make a point." All he'll do is take votes away from the Democratic ticket and put a Republican in the WH. No "conversation" will be advanced, no "message" will be mainstreamed. The message will be "The wingnuts win, the people lose."

Enough of that nonsense! We need to be disciplined and vote for a candidate who will win, and will give us more of what we want than the other candidate.

[Douglas Carpenter]

52. My OP asks if Sen. Sanders agreed to seek the Democratic Party nomination - would people support

him in the primaries? He did indicate in one recent interview which I link to at the top - that he has not ruled it out - whatever that means, I don't know. I do not think there is any possibility whatsoever that he will run a third party candidacy that he knows would likely throw the election to the Republicans. I think Sen. Sander's economic message resonates across the entire political spectrum with almost everybody except the rich. If he did seek the Democratic Party nomination - which admittedly might just be wishful thinking - but if he did - and he has not yet ruled it out - I think he could fundamentally alter the range of debate. In admittedly an even more unlikely scenario that - if he actually pulled off such a coup and won the nomination - I see no reason why the power of his economic message would not resonate on election day.

[MADem]

53. That will NEVER happen because the DNC would not give it to him. He is not a Democrat.

He'd have to first, change his party registration. Do you honestly--in the "real world" as opposed to the flights of fancy we see here on DU on occasion--EVER think he'd do that? In a million years?

And do you think that the DNC and the House and Senate PACS would say "Oh well, yeah, sure....this guy hasn't paid his dues, hasn't done a thing to strengthen the party, but we're gonna put the wealth we've accrued through 20 hour days of eating rubber chicken, ass kissing, gladhanding fat cats to get these donations, behind this third party upstart? This ELDERLY third party, late-to-our-party, upstart, running against the crazy-angry-once fat/now beefy Governor of NJ?" Yeah, that's a winner, NOT--what a way to make a wheezy, asthmatic overweight guy look like the "fit and vigorous one" in a compare/contrast exercise!

And if you think BS has a serious intent of seeking the presidency I have a bridge for sale in Boston--it's a beauty, almost brand new! Every Senator, at some point in their career, looks in the mirror and sees a potential President looking back at them. It's the hubris of the upper chamber; 100 lawyers, all thinking they're the smartest guy (or gal) in the room. No one says "No, nay, never" when asked if they'll run--they always demur.

It's just a silly exercise to believe that the people who have done the hard work---and it IS hard work to keep a party funded--scooping up dough to keep our DNC running, will just step aside for the former mayor from Burlington to step on up there and "own the road," because a minority of people well to the left of the mainstream have an idea in their head that he is the answer to their prayers.

I can't help but notice that a lot of the people who regard Bernie as an Answered Prayer felt the same way about Barack Obama before he had any kind of national track record, and they're the same people who now think POTUS is "evil" and a "corporatist" and a "sellout" and whatever. They'd likely think the same thing of their hero when he got all pragmatic on them, too.

BS is not a "dream candidate." He's a wise old dude who is a fine voice in the Senate, someone who can challenge the status quo and advance the debate there. He's not a potential Leader of the Free World.

[Douglas Carpenter]

54. I only know that he said that he has not ruled it out. I don't know if he would seriously

contemplate a run or not. I have serious doubt of that. I kind of doubt that Sen. Warren would run either. But based on what Sen. Sanders has said - I have to think it is possible. Sen. Sanders has a remarkable ability to keep the focus on bread and butter issues that strikes a chord with the vast majority of ordinary Americans. I do think he would have a fair possibility of winning some primaries and shaking up the status quo. If he were to win enough primaries - then that does put him in the positions of being a viable candidate for the nomination. But at the very least his economic message could extend the range of debate. Anyone who even early in the 2008 election process thought Barack Obama was some kind of great leftwing hope - were truly not paying attention to either his actual words, his actual positions or his actual record. Sen. Sanders is a bona fide Social Democrat and it is a crime that the American body politic does not have within its mainstream of debate the social-democratic perspective. It would be extremely valuable for the future of the Democratic Party, the future of the country and the future of the world to see the social democratic perspective mainstreamed within American electoral politics,

[MADem]

55. Let's go to that link where that foolish flag was raised, shall we?

It was here that the language was cherry picked to make it appear that BS running was an actual possibility, and not a distant, faint chance:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023933909

The thread headline (replete with dot-dot-dots) read:

"Bernie Sanders talks about...the possibility of a presidential run...."


Of course, if you click on the link, Bernie wasn't "talking about" that at all. He was talking about OTHER stuff, and was, briefly, ASKED the question all Senators get in a non-incumbent election cycle.

http://inthesetimes.com/article/15784/social_democracy_in_the_south/

Here's the ACTUAL headline, without the dots and the allusions:

Social Democracy in the South
Bernie Sanders talks about economic justice—and the possibility of a presidential run—on a three-day road trip.

Oh, so now it's not "a Presidential run" but the "possibility" of one.

So would that be a strong possibility, or a weak one?

Let's go to the text!!!

Sixteen--yes, SIXTEEN paragraphs in, we come to this sub-head, consisting of three brief paragraphs and a declarative sentence:

Presidential ambitions or lefty pipe dream?

One couldn’t help but notice the vaguely presidential tinge of the whole affair—the wide-reaching stump speeches delivered in unfamiliar territory coupled with the fact that Sanders was greeted with a rock star reception that few other senators are capable of generating—let alone in the immediate aftermath of a government shutdown that left an already deeply unpopular Congress with its lowest approval ratings in the history of polling.

I asked the Senator if he was contemplating a presidential run in 2016. Some left-wing Democrats urged him to challenge Obama in the primary last election, and there’s once again talk of him mounting a campaign—like last time, all of it speculative. He says he doesn’t want to.

“I suppose if you’re running for president, probably going to Mississippi and Alabama is not the place most candidates would go. You go to Iowa and New Hampshire or something like that,” Sanders says with a laugh. “But what I do think is there needs to be a progressive voice in the presidential process. I hope very much there will be a voice coming up to do that.”

But when pressed to say if he’s completely decided against running, he acknowledges he hasn’t. “I haven’t ruled it out.”

No sitting Senator--and even former ones--ever "rule it out." They believe in their hearts that they, with their long terms and their positions in the upper chamber, are the cream of the crop, the chosen few, and the best pile of presidential timber in town. They have more gravitas than those in the rambunctious House, they serve in the "cooling saucer" where laws are dissected and made to -- ostensibly -- be 'all that they can be.'

But if his pointing out that he's playing Wrong Way Horrigan by going to the deep south as a Presidential Feeler Patrol isn't evidence enough, and "He says he doesn't want to" also isn't clear enough for some folks, well, I guess there's no convincing the "Pipe Dream" (to quote the article) crowd.

[Douglas Carpenter]

56. maybe it is a leftwing pipe dream - or maybe it is possible that he recognizes that no one else is

is going to make the case for progressivism on the national scale within electoral politics and might seriously consider doing it. I don't know. I hope he runs because no one else will be raising the progressive flag if he doesn't. And he is one of the most affective spokesperson for the cause I have seen in America in my lifetime. But I will be a lot more surprised if he runs than if he doesn't.

[MADem]

58. He's more pragmatic. Age does bring wisdom, and he is a septuagenarian.

I see what he is doing--he's going to the deep south, where the GOP always wins, and is trying to stir up some business from the other side of the spectrum, to get a little momentum working. He wants to flip the legislative majority in the House and keep it in the Senate. Otherwise, he'll get nothing on HIS OWN agenda accomplished, and he knows it.

He won't run. He doesn't have the interest, he doesn't have the motivation, he doesn't have the stamina, he doesn't have the time, and he most certainly does not have the money.

[Douglas Carpenter]

59. you are probably right... but I cannot help but ask myself ..how long will we have to wait for

a real national figure to emerge who will push an agenda forward toward a progressive future? For almost 40 years the Democrats have essentially been only playing defense except perhaps on social issues where there have had some great successes. But on the core issues of democracy, economics and even foreign policy - the struggle has been to minimize the damage. In most of the rest of the advanced western democratic world - it is not even controversial in the slightest to believe in socialist healthcare and in a very comprehensive social security system. Even the conservatives everywhere else in the western democratic world wouldn't dare challenge such a basic social contract. How long do we have to wait for a national messenger to emerge to simply push the basic assumptions of modern liberal western democracy into the mainstream of American political discussion?

[MADem]

61. We'll wait a long time, I suspect. The best hope is gains by steady inches, not by leaps and

bounds.

Any time you go too far in one direction or the other, you have people who feel bitter, resentful, not-listened-to, and disenfranchised. You've got to pull those people along, and that takes time, because a lot of them have been sold a bill of goods, and they will feel foolish for a bit while they process the fact that they've been fucked over by their "heroes." Trying to shove an agenda down their throats just won't work. They'll dig in and double down, rather than admit they were deceived. Looking for a "savior" who will "talk sense" to the masses and make them see things your way just isn't going to happen.

There's a real divide in this country. A lot of the wingnuts on the right feel that anytime you give a poor person something, it TAKES something from them. They don't realize that what it "takes" is the likelihood that they will get robbed, burgled or otherwise ripped off by people who are desperate in their poverty. Their likelihood of injury or death by violence goes down with every person lifted out of poverty. People who are doing well are far less likely to engage in petty, or other, thefts, or any other crimes, for that matter. So these folks on the right with their "I've got MINE" 'tudes need to be disabused of that notion, and once they see the ACA working, they just might start to grab a clue.

Once the ACA takes hold, people will eventually figure out that it's a good deal, and they'll embrace it. It will become the paradigm, and then the trick will be to take it to the next level, and "offer" a government-centered program. If that works well, people will migrate on their own.

I think a lot of people just don't realize that even passing the ACA was a HUGE game-changer (well, a few people realized it--those assholes who kept trying to repeal it forty times in the House). It is going to change the way people think and feel about the role of government (albeit government-lite) in our lives. No more "drowning in the bathtub" talk--now it'll be more about "A rising tide lifts all boats."

It's not going to happen in a minute, though, it's going to take a while--we have a long journey down a rough road. It's more important, IMO, to support the folks who are trying to shepherd us down that long road, rather than b-word at them that the process isn't happening fast enough. The nation isn't going to suddenly lurch to the left and the whole process of pulling them towards a more just society where everyone has a modicum of dignity in their lives ain't gonna happen any faster; we need to nudge, not shove, and when possible, praise, not blame. All excessive griping or infighting does is give the far right something to sink their teeth into (see, the left doesn't like it EITHER, e.g.) and give them cheap shot opportunities at trying out the "Divide and Conquer" game.

Probably TLDR, this essay, but it's my POV on the issue!

[Demo_Chris]

16. Go Bernie! Bernie / Warren 2016! nt

[polichick]

19. What a great combo! Too good to be true? Probably, but it sure...

would be wonderful!

[Demo_Chris]

20. I would go to WORK to get them elected...

Hell, I would finally be excited again, something I haven't felt since President Obama's first run.

[Scuba]

37. If that was our ticket I'd give up sex to work on the campaign instead!

[Demo_Chris]

44. Heh-heh! nt

[woo me with science]

73. [phone]

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Oh dangerous poll

[HereSince1628]

21. I think it's unlikely Sanders would shift from independent to democrat

He's made being an independent central to his political life.

[treestar]

23. He'd be another Nader

The direct path to a Republican President. And if we thought Dubya was bad, the people they seem to have left are worse.

[Ken Burch]

30. The OP specified it was about Bernie running as a Dem, not third-party.

If he was running as a Dem, he COULDN'T be the next Nader. Simple logic tells us that.

[morningfog]

25. I would support him even if he ran as an independent or as a demsocialist,

[rock]

27. Why not ask me if I would vote for Mr Magoo in 2020?

We should wait until the target is a little closer. At this stage, so much of the election is sheer speculation.

[Chan790]

36. for those of us bent on ending Hillary before she can declare...

waiting is certain defeat. Now is the time to drive her out of even considering a run.

[Peacetrain]

28. I am a Democrat.. and I do not apologize for it

If Bernie Sanders is the official Democratic canidate.. I would most certainly support him..I will support the Democratic nominee.. period..

[Douglas Carpenter]

47. the question I am asking people is - if Sen. Sanders were to seek the Democratic Party nomination -

would they support him in the primaries?

[krawhitham]

31. I'm voting for Joe

[gopiscrap]

32. Absolutely YES!!!

[SamYeager]

33. He's not a Democrat. n/t

[hootinholler]

34. Unless Liz Warren is running n/t

[TheKentuckian]

39. Absolutely

[quinnox]

43. Depends on who else is running

If I didn't like any of the other candidates, then sure, I can see supporting him. But let's get real, he would be a protest vote. No chance the guy would win.

[Wilms]

45. Currently 79% for Sanders to run for President.

[Egalitarian Thug]

49. If he ran I would do almost anything to help as long as he's the top of the ticket. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. He'll get my vote.

[grantcart]

57. He would be a great addition for the debates, but couldn't win. I hope he runs simply to

improve the quality of the campaign.

Hillary may or may not have health issues. If she runs she will get the nomination.

[fadedrose]

60. I would support Sanders only until he loses the nomination..

After that, I'd go with whoever he supported.....

There's a few I like, and only one I don't.

[beaglelover]

62. Running Bernie Sanders as the Democratic nominee

in the general election is synonomouos to the Repulicans running Ted Cruz in the general election. Neither one can win. I do like Bernie a lot but he would never win the presidency.

[bigwillq]

63. Bernie would get my vote (nt)

[scheming daemons]

64. I would leave the country, because it would mean a GOP President

Nominating Bernie Sanders, as wonderful ad he is, would guarantee the GOP gets the White House.

[Douglas Carpenter]

65. I think Bernie Sanders' economic message resonates with almost everybody except the rich. I doubt

Last edited Thu Oct 31, 2013, 11:44 AM - Edit history (1)

that there are very many self-identified conservatives - except wealthy conservatives who do not find themselves agreeing with Bernie much of the time on most issues.. Because Sen. Sanders keeps the focus on bread and butter issues and speaks in very connecting language. he is quite different than other left-wing politicians. If we were to compare him for example to the very admirable - but difficult to sell on the national scale - the late Sen. George McGovern - McGovern felt morally compelled to always keep the War in Vietnam the central issue. Well many Americans never had and never will have a big problem going around the world and slaughtering lots of natives. The late Sen. George McGovern had to convince patriotic Americans raised on the folklore of World War II that the most romantic patriotic folklore of all - that American military power was an instrument to keep us free while it spread freedom and democracy around the world was a complete and utter lie. That was not an easy message to sell in the heartland even for the prairie populist, World War II hero and small town Methodist minister and history teacher. Sen. Bernie Sanders simply has to reinforce to people what they see with their own two eyes every single day - the rich getting richer and the system being gamed against them. I think that outside of the rich - pretty much everyone already agrees and doesn't need any convincing at all - They only need a spokesperson who says it loudly and clearly. Although admittedly, how that would actually cash out in an election when the defenders of an unjust order have almost unlimited resources at their disposal - is hard to say.

[liberal_at_heart]

75. bread and butter issues. That is what the people are hungry to hear from our leaders. A

message largely absent from the conversation on both political sides.

[AzDar]

66. Bernie!

[Douglas Carpenter]

68. well 83% of DU would support Bernie in the primaries - I hope he sees this

[Vashta Nerada]

69. You mean a guy who will represent the 99% instead of the 1% (like HRC)?

Hell yeah I would support him.

[marmar]

71. The Hillary blitzkrieg yesterday is making me hope more and more that Bernie will run.

[woo me with science]

72. I'd crawl through broken glass to see him elected.

[B Calm]

78. Only one problem with Bernie, he would not run as a democrat

but as a socialist. Be honest, what do you really think his chances are nation wide as a socialist?

[Douglas Carpenter]

80. nationwide as any kind of third party - his chances would be no more than 0%

If he became convinced that he could alter the range of debate by registering as a Democrat and seeking the Democratic Party nomination - winning the nomination would be a longshot - but influencing the range of discussion would be very possible - if not likely,

[beachbum bob]

79. why support a candidate that would give the presidency to the republicans...same nader

mindset that cost this country our future in 2000.