If Sanders runs as an Ind he will give us a GOP President.

[CK_John]

The king maker Perot 2.0 or Nader 2.0. Also if we lose the Senate in 2014 it may not matter.

[polichick]

1. Or maybe the fools who vote for the corporate Dem will give us a GOP prez...

There are different ways to look at this stuff.

[MineralMan]

3. Either way...

Neither is a good outcome. What I remember is 1972. Do you remember 1972?

[polichick]

6. Sure, but different times. We now have two corporate parties...

and it's a charade that pits Americans against Americans while the 1% sponsors steal the country.

We have to change the game.

[MineralMan]

8. Not as different as you think.

Not at all. A narrow field of view is just that.

[polichick]

10. In 1972 this party was a whole other animal.

[MineralMan]

14. Well, sort of. The wing of the party that

controlled the nomination was, at least. Not so much the general membership. The combination didn't work out well. See if you can figure out why that was.

[polichick]

19. I'm not into games. What's different now is the middle class is disappearing...

and both parties are enabling it. We're not going to change that by choosing a corporate Dem over a corporate RepubliCon. We have to do something else.

[MineralMan]

25. Good luck with that. I prefer to make the changes at the

Congressional level. That's doable. The Presidency is a big picture election, and the national electorate isn't buying anything but the center. So it has been. So it will be in 2016.

You want real progressives in office? Put them in Congress. Put them in your state legislature. You're not getting one into the Presidency in 2016. It's not going to happen.

If you think I'm wrong, then go right ahead and tilt at that windmill. I'm working on Congressional elections.

[polichick]

26. Yeah, I've heard it. Still, we have a president to elect.

[MineralMan]

53. In 2016, we will, yes. But, you've already said that if it's Hillary

you won't vote for her, so you might as well focus on Congress, I'd think.

My own congressional district has a good progressive as its representative, and she will win easily. My neighboring district, though, currently has Michele Bachmann. We can elect a democrat to that district, so that's where my efforts are going. We have another Republican district in Minnesota that can also be turned in 2014, and it's near enough to me for me to work in it, too.

So, should I get all stressed out about 2016 when these two districts can help us regain Congress? I don't think so, especially since the Democratic candidate for President is almost certain to be a moderate Democrat anyhow. I don't have the time to waste on wild goose chases, so I'll vote for the Democrat for President, and leave it to the national convention to select the candidate.

My time and energy are limited.

You will do as you see fit, as well, I'm sure.

[polichick]

56. Honestly, after a lot of years I'm no longer willing to be a good worker bee for...

this sell-out party.

[MineralMan]

57. :shrug:

I'll take you at your word and won't bother trying to convince you otherwise.

[polichick]

59. For me DU is a place to talk with others about the direction the party is going...

and what can be done about it. (Among other things, of course.)

I'd like to be involved in a populist movement, and it would be nice if it came by way of the Dems. (Seems unlikely, but there still are people like Sanders and Warren.) It WILL happen somewhere and I'll be there.

I don't think of posting on DU as activism - when I'm working on the ground I never have time to post.

[L0oniX]

65. Didn't we get thrown under the bus the last time?

[polichick]

67. In about a thousand different ways.

[Skidmore]

132. The public remains disengaged.

And ill informed. Couple those with voter suppression and see how many actually vote. So many people don't even know who their own representatives are and some can't even tell you who the vice-president is. I don't see a huge uprising of people with informed support for "progressive" politics. In the end, it is a game of numbers. Factions and coalitions are in fact numbers.

[polichick]

135. Wish I could disengage - may try that until...

there is enough pain for a powerful populist movement.

[Tarheel_Dem]

73. Yeah, and ya know what else happened in "1972"?

Was George McGovern doomed to lose in 1972?

Former senator and 1972 Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern died this weekend at age 90. While celebrated for his work fighting world hunger after leaving the Senate, his loss to Richard Nixon has gone down in history as one of the most lopsided defeats in U.S. history. McGovern lost every state but Massachusetts, and D.C., including his native South Dakota, and lost the popular vote by 23.2 points, the fourth largest margin ever.

What happened? The common story is that McGovern was too left-wing and handicapped by having to replace his running mate after he was revealed to be suffering from depression (a big deal at the time). He also suffered from not having organized labor's backing. AFL-CIO leader George Meany declined to endorse McGovern, calling him "an apologist for the Communist world."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/10/22/was-george-mcgovern-doomed-to-lose-in-1972/

[polichick]

75. So what? We should be afraid to run anyone but a corporatist forevermore?

[Tarheel_Dem]

82. Nope. You should run whoever the hell you want, and we'll shoot 'em down one by one! That's....

what a primary's for. Remember? The eventual nominee won't be decided by DU, but I predict a McGovern type liberal has no better chance of winning a national election, than your garden variety teabagger. I further predict that the party (that's us) won't choose one.

[polichick]

83. Who's a "McGovern type liberal" these days?

[Tarheel_Dem]

87. Did you forget the topic that this thread was devoted to?

[polichick]

90. The middle class was strong in 1972; it's in shambles now...

If Sanders ran a smart populist campaign, he'd draw Dems, old school Republicans and Indies.

[Tarheel_Dem]

93. Then he should go for it. However, the topic of this thread warns that if he runs as an Indie....

he throws the election to the hardcore rightwing. Oh, and here's another morsel for you:

4 way tie for Republicans in 2016, Clinton improved in general election matches
September 25, 2013

On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton continues to be dominant. 67% of primary voters want her to be the party standard bearer in 2016 to 12% for Joe Biden and 4% for Elizabeth Warren, with nobody else polling above 2%. Clinton has over 60% support from liberals, moderates, men, women, whites, African Americans, young voters, and seniors alike.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/hillary-clinton/

And please don't take this as campaigning for Hillary....far from it. But, I'm not in love with any of the rumors & offerings so far.

[polichick]

94. I'll grant you she's likely to get the nomination - I just think if she does...

a lot of people will give up on this party. We're at a turning point. People are hurting and fed up. The party has to decide who it represents: 1% or 99% - on edit: make that 1% or 100%

[CK_John]

97. I personally think Bill de Blasio and Cory Booker will have more influence than Hillary in 2016.

[polichick]

99. They seem pretty different but I agree that de Blasio will be important.

[Tarheel_Dem]

100. You seem to have some romanticized vision of a time gone by. You have a lot more faith in "people"

than I do. Given the choice between a Democrat, and a crazy assed teabaggin' Republican, "people" will probably go with the Democrat. Just ask these folks, who seem to be overrepresented here at DU.



The Presidential Nomination of the Green Party was primarily fought for by two of its candidates, Jill Stein who was Chair of the Green-Rainbow Party in Massachusetts, and Roseanne Barr a noted Comedian. While Barr unexpectedly proved to be a formidable opponent for Stein, her campaign was fatally injured when she lost the party's California presidential primary. While Stein managed to comfortably carry the nomination at Baltimore, Barr sought and later attained the Peace and Freedom Party's nomination. Cheri Honkala, and anti-poverty advocate from Pennsylvania, was nominated to be Stein's running-mate. Stein and Honkala received 469,583 votes (0.36% of the National Popular vote).



Sanders won't run as an Independent as I don't think he wants to be despised like Nader.

[polichick]

103. I do tend to think people are smarter than they are...

second time I've admitted that today.

I like HRC as a person - I'd love to hang with her in a book club or something - but if this party is going to be relevant for the long term it needs to make a change. The stage is set perfectly for a populist movement - hope somebody smart and honest makes the most of that.

[Drale]

153. a person is smart

people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.

[CK_John]

7. I also remember 52.

[MineralMan]

11. Actually, I do, too, even though I was only 7.

Thanks for the reminder.

[AAO]

154. Wow, you're 68? You don't post a day over 47!!

[MineralMan]

165. LOL!

[tiredtoo]

20. I remember 1972 but

I was a Republican then and thought it was great. Did not switch parties until Saint Ronnie's actions helped me see the light.
Sanders will not run as a third party candidate, he is too wise for that. He and Elizabeth should continue with their pressure from the left on any and all candidates seeking the Democratic nomination but that is all.
I also remember 1992 (Perot) and 2000 (Nader).

[socialist_n_TN]

167. Why is everyone putting in Perot in '92 into this scaremongering?......

Perot in '92 threw the election to Bill Clinton, a Democrat.

[tiredtoo]

168. I put Perot in 92 in

just to give another example of third party candidates and the results of such action.

[CK_John]

4. Maybe, maybe it's 3 yrs away and everybody mentioned to run is over 65.

long range planning is not an american virtue.

[polichick]

9. We don't know yet who will run. What we do know is that there are a lot of voters...

on our side who are done with corporate candidates.

[MineralMan]

27. A lot of voters? Maybe 5%.

[polichick]

31. Think again. Put another corporate partner on the ticket and...

young voters will tell you exactly what to do with it - and I won't blame them a bit.

[MineralMan]

48. Like Hillary Clinton, you mean?

OK. That's probably what will happen, and we'll see.

[Tarheel_Dem]

78. Wrong Again!

"It showed 65% of Democrats and independents who lean toward that party say they would likely back Clinton as their presidential nominee. Vice President Joe Biden comes in a distant second, at 10%, with freshman Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts at 7%, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo at 6%, and Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley at 2%."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/politics/2016-poll-deep-dive/index.html

[polichick]

81. Yeah, you're wrong again alright. I said YOUNG voters.

[Tarheel_Dem]

85. I'm sorry, but I'm gonna need to see some proof of that. With heavy Latino and AA participation,

it's hard for me to see anyone beating HRC in the primaries. There are no Barack Obama's waiting in the wings for 2016. He was a force of nature. You were around in 1972, which by my calculation makes you a boomer, yet you deign to speak for "YOUNG" voters? Show me proof!

[polichick]

91. I'm talking about the general - they're not going to the polls for a corporatist again.

[Tarheel_Dem]

95. I heard that in 2012 as well. I don't expect a whole helluva lot from "young voters", I mean....

one only need look no further than OWS to see that they get bored easily.

[polichick]

98. I only need look no further than OWS to see that they get what's going on.

[Tarheel_Dem]

101. They are a clueless non-entity.

[polichick]

105. You miss entirely that NOBODY was talking about income disparity and...

the uneven distribution of wealth before OWS. They changed the conversation - that's huge.

[Tarheel_Dem]

106. But where are their candidates? Remember, they didn't wanna be "political".

No matter what one thinks of the teanutters, they actually recruited, fundraised, and elected their nutjobs.

[polichick]

107. To overlook how important that change of conversation was is just idiotic.

[Tarheel_Dem]

108. !!!

[dionysus]

142. what are you doin karate chopping at me?! OWS is the sweet bebe jesus and dems are the debbil!

that's it.. PUT EM UP!!1!!1!

[Tarheel_Dem]

147. I'm sorry, but OWS is a flop, just as a Bernie Sanders candidacy would be.

[dionysus]

149. you're the debbil.

[Tarheel_Dem]

164. !!!

[dionysus]

141. no one ever talked about income desparity before OWS?

[polichick]

145. Until OWS Pres. Obama was all about deficit reduction. Like it or not.

[Bluenorthwest]

137. The vast numbers of potential voters who do not bother to register or to vote indicate that those

potential voters are not motivated to vote. They don't see the point, are not attracted to the candidates nor to the issues as presented to them in their States. It is way, way more than 5% and those apathetic voters should be our white hot focus in every election.

[MineralMan]

139. Unregistered people are always an issue.

One of the things I do in my own precinct is try to get people to register to vote. In talking to those people who aren't registered, I hear why they aren't. Mostly, it's general apathy about elections. "It doesn't matter" is the most frequently reason I hear. When I try to explain why it really does matter, that rarely changes people's minds. Occasionally, it works, but not often.

I don't think recruiting apathetic voters works very well at all. There's more to the apathy than any candidate can solve. The most successful I've ever been, though, was during Obama's first campaign. And that was mostly with people of color.

5% can, indeed, make a big difference in an election. But, it is usually the difference between not voting for a candidate at all due to disagreement with something about that candidate. The opposing candidate benefits from the fewer votes. Rather than help to improve things, such failures to vote end up supporting an even worse candidate. And there it is.

[libdem4life]

115. Could I please jump in here and ask where one billion dollars is going to come from? Really.

Because that's what it takes to win. So, please, instruct me how the young'uns, or even us politically weary seniors are going to pull that little feat of fairy magic off without some ... Evil Corporate Cash complete with political IOUs.

Please...it's on The Internets. A billion dollars and 60 million voters for either party...even the Pure One. That's a lot of moolah and an even more hefty communication challenge...sans money, that is.

[polichick]

116. People contributed so much to Obama because he ran as a populist...

That's why they contributed so much for Elizabeth Warren to run for the Senate too.

A lot of people, especially young voters, got burned by Obama so it won't be easy to get them to contribute. imo the best bet is for Dems to draft a real populist to run - if people choose from the get-go, not as much money will be necessary because there will be less convincing to do. That's what all the money is for: CONvincing.

[libdem4life]

119. A billion dollars..with all due respect, just not relevant. One billion dollars...nine zeros...10 di

Hell, my check only has four digits a month. However, Elizabeth Warren is an Economist and she can compute...really well. She knows the math. She's not, uh, uninformed as to the relevancy of mathematical zeros and how they just aren't a keystroke on a computer or don't just magically fall from unburned enthusiast's skies. Someone needs for 60 million people to vote for them, too, and the money upfront to take the message to potential voters. And if you think Obama made it where he is with populist's donations, no further comment would suffice.

I don't mean to be a Debbie Downer, but the conversation has to change into the realms of reality. That's all.

[polichick]

130. Obama played people - that was obvious with his first personnel choices...

What is the billion for? Ads to con people. But the people can choose not to be conned - and with grassroots internet campaigning you don't need as many ads.

The only way out of this mess is to go around the establishment. If we don't, the corporate takeover of this country will soon be complete.

[pnwmom]

29. No, it will be the people who vote for the guy with 3% of the vote.

We love Sanders but he'd have virtually no chance as a national candidate.

[polichick]

32. Blame whoever you want. If Dems need young voters to come to the polls...

they'd better think twice about choosing another corporate candidate.

They aren't falling for that shit again - and that's a good thing.

[L0oniX]

64. ^^^^this^^^^

[mike_c]

86. BINGO!

Ding ding ding.

[cali]

2. No he won't. He's just not a spoiler type of person.

[CK_John]

12. I don't see him switching paries either.

[polichick]

15. He wants to influence the conversation...

and it'll be interesting to see how he decides to do that.

[libdem4life]

120. Agreed...and not a moment too soon. Just hope some Democrat steals his thunder once he comes out

with it.

[polichick]

131. I hope he gets elected.

[libdem4life]

146. So do I. And if not, he's going to change the conversation...which we desperately need.

[tularetom]

5. It doesn't matter

Because it looks as if we will wind up with a republican president no matter who wins.

If things proceed like it appears they will.

[Timmy5835]

13. So you reallllly think....

Someone like Ted Cruz could get elected President???? really....

[Fumesucker]

17. ...

[icymist]

35. Man, you really have a morbid sense of humor!

I love it!

[ChisolmTrailDem]

18. I may be going out on a limb here but I think tularetom is referring to

the way DU is splitting already on 2016 and seems not to want to discuss 2014 at all and so perhaps can't work together to elect a Dem president in 2016.

That's the way I see it even if I'm wrong tularetom sees it that way...

[CK_John]

23. Yes, pay attention to the electoral college.

[tularetom]

44. Of course not but somebody like Christie could

Or even a candidate who calls herself a Democrat but is really a republican.

[Chan790]

72. Only against Hillary. n/t

[Fumesucker]

16. I'm not sure if Lieberman is available for the VP spot again

And Joebituary is not one of his nicknames so stop saying that.

[kentuck]

21. Right! Because??

Most moderate Democrats will not vote for liberals but expect all liberals to support them because only they can win in a country as conservative as the good ol' USA. What's good for the goose is not good for the gander.

[cascadiance]

24. This is the problem with the bipartisan corporatist stances on not passing Instant Runoff Voting...

... that would keep the corporate lobbyists from "buying the field", as it would permit a third party candidate that is strong to take an election without them giving money to him/her to get favors...

Not sure if 2016 is the time, but perhaps in other races in 2014, independents should run on a one issue "trumps all" issue even though they talk about the other issues that separate them from corporatists. That is, if the PTB parties pass IRV in legislation at local levels, the independents would pull out and endorse those that made the effort to pass this legislation and are at least moderately supporting their issues. That way, in the future, like in 2016 in the same locales, third parties could launch strong campaigns and not be the blamed "spoiler" for just trying to allow the 99% to be heard.

[CK_John]

33. The only change at the local level will be voter-id restrictions and voter suppression.

[villager]

28. Hmm... Perot gave us Clinton though, yes?

[CK_John]

34. yes. but Bernie would not help the Dem ticket.

[cascadiance]

38. Might also encourage Cruz to run against Christie too...

... if Sanders is already diluting the progressive votes. Arguably Buchanan might have "taken" some of Bush's votes away though perhaps not as many as Nader did in 2000.

We fundamentally need IRV. Australia does it, and they also fine people if they DON'T vote! That sure as hell increases turnout!

We're one of the few countries today that doesn't have a parliamentary system or some form of IRV with a non-parliamentary system on the planet today.

[CK_John]

43. And that will never change.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. So, if the Dems want the votes that Sanders might take..they should run a leftist candidate.

[polichick]

68. Exactly.

[L0oniX]

166. Do we really want another repeat of that trick?

We professional lefties all got thrown under the bus ...remember? They got the lefty vote and then gave us the finger ...and an offer of SS CPI to the repukes.

[SunSeeker]

36. Perot stripped away GOP votes. Bernie would only strip away Dem votes.

Bernie running as an Independent would be a gift to the GOP. I am fine with him running as a Dem in the Dem primary, but come the general election, we can't split the Dem vote. I don't see Bernie doing that anyway. He knows perfectly well his running as an Independent against the Dem candidate will get the GOP candidate elected. He is not a self-absorbed megalomaniac like Nader.

[cascadiance]

123. Perot probably also stripped away some Dems and many Indies that hated NAFTA...

... like many of us lefties hate it as well today. He had some other areas that he wasn't as good at, but I'd seriously give someone like a Perot consideration in this election if he/she ran against free trade deals like the TPP amongst other things that the corporatists keep throwing at us.

[ZombieHorde]

30. I would likely vote for Sanders. nt

[CK_John]

37. If he gets on the ballot in your state, getting on 20 states would be a miracle.

[ZombieHorde]

58. Sure. I don't think I would write him in.

Though really, my Presidential vote doesn't matter since I live in Montana. We elect many Dems locally, but our Presidential electoral votes go the Republicans. I could vote for anyone for President, and it wouldn't matter. If we used a popular vote system, then my vote probably would matter.

[Chan790]

74. If he didn't, I'd write him in. n/t

[ieoeja]

39. The only time I know of Sanders mentioning a presidential run, he talked about the Dem primary.

So if he runs, it will probably be within the Democratic primaries. Where he would have a great chance at winning.

[rurallib]

40. But maybe if he is out there as a possible primary challenge

Hillary will moderate her pro-corporate stances.
Frankly, right now I am not sure where she stands. Nor do I care right now.

Right now we have 2014 staring us in the face. let's cross that bridge first. We need to keep what we got and help the tea party self immolate

[SunSeeker]

41. No, even if we lose the Senate in 2014, we MUST elect a Dem president.

A Republican president will appoint more Scalias and result in abortion made illegal and an immediate halt to gay rights progress...among other disasters. It ALWAYS makes a huge difference whether the POTUS is a Dem or a Republican. It ALWAYS matters.

Otherwise, I agree with the rest of your post, that if Bernie runs as an Independent in 2016 we will have a GOP president.

[winter is coming]

45. If we MUST elect a Dem and Sanders looks likely to draw a significant number of voters,

maybe the "acceptable" Dem candidates need to adopt some of Bernie's positions. Bernie's a nice guy, but he's not Mr. Charisma, so it must be his policies people find appealing. So which position does Bernie hold that's so anathema to the Dem leadership that they'd rather risk losing an election than back the position?

[SunSeeker]

70. What is your definition of significant numbers?

I don't see Bernie getting much more than Nader numbers. Has anyone taken a nationwide poll on Bernie?

[winter is coming]

109. I don't know if anyone's polled Bernie or not, nor do I have a hard definition of

"significant". The OP was implying the Bernie would run as an Independent and draw enough Dem voters to cost us the election. If Dems don't fear that is true, then why complain? If they do fear it's true, then what is Bernie offering that the Dems aren't?

[GoneFishin]

79. His position that he works for the voters not huge corporations. n/t

[Vashta Nerada]

42. Uh huh.

So, in your world, we should only vote for either a conserva-dem or Tea Partier.

I'll take my chances with Sanders.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. No. It's up to the candidates to convince the voters to vote for them.

If the Democrats fail to do that...it's their fault, not the voters' or Sanders.

[LanternWaste]

47. Some people vote their convictions, others vote with a sense of the inevitable.

Some people vote their convictions, others vote with a sense of the inevitable, and yet still others may vote because the find candidate most closely mirrors their own platforms...

Far be it from me to ever instruct (or lacking the courage of my convictions, merely imply that same instruction) on how someone else should base their vote.

[Fumesucker]

55. I'm starting to think that most people actually vote for who they think the "winner" will be

Why "waste" your vote on a "loser" when you could vote for a "winner"?

[randome]

62. It's the same way Congress behaves.

They won't put something up for a vote unless they're fairly certain it will pass.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[polichick]

76. That's probably true.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. [i]"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone,....

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." --John Quincy Adams

[Capt. Obvious]

50. Pre-emptive Nadering of DU

[jeff47]

51. Not necessarily.

It depends what Sanders does. He could stay in the race enough to drag the debate left, and then support the Democratic candidate.

[Erose999]

89. Hillary needs a challenger on her left. Somebody's gotta do it even if they are doomed to lose. Its

about the debate. If Bernie is on the ballot in GA he's got my vote.

I'll support Hillary in the general, but goddammit, I'd tired of corporate dems.

[riqster]

110. I supported Kucinich in the 2008 primary

To keep the party from going even further to the Right. Sanders can do the same, running as a Dem.

[Kelvin Mace]

52. Depends on who the Tea Party runs

If Palin and Ted Cruz are on the Tea Party slate, I think Saunders would win.

[phleshdef]

60. I think if Bernie ran, it wouldn't be to win, it would be to inject his ideas into the narrative.

And I think if it looked like he was gonna help push a Republican into office, he would step aside and endorse the Democrat later in the race. That's just based on my own personal opinion about the kind of person Sanders is, I could be wrong.

[IDemo]

129. You're not wrong

Why do people on a presumably politically savvy site think Bernie is going to run the Democratic candidate, whoever that may be, off the electoral map with a vain fight to the finish? He's attempting to steer the dialogue toward the issues that matter to people.

[L0oniX]

61. If Democrats don't become more progressive they will give us a GOP POTUS.

[G_j]

66. sigh...

Then people can post "Fuck Sanders"
endlessly for the next umpteen years..

[liberal_at_heart]

69. I'm getting tired of trashing your threads. I think I'll just put you on ignore.

[CK_John]

77. Do I upset your brain or what? Do what you have to.

[Tarheel_Dem]

71. +1000

[Roselma]

80. Exactly. My Republican in-laws are happy

about it, because they think he'll get on the ballot in many states, thus delivering the presidency to a Republican.

[tarheelsunc]

84. Exactly. Sanders could be the difference between a President Clinton and a President Cruz. eom

[JEB]

88. You "moderate" appeasers of the Far Right chose Lieberman as a VP candidate.

That worked out swell, driving voters away from the sold out Democratic Party. Third party candidates are filling a vacuum. I'm fed up with the 30+ year slide to Corporatism.

[unblock]

92. i love bernie but he wouldn't make a dent in a national election.

[bluestate10]

121. There are many on DU that are convinced that he would. I agree with you. I don't

see sane voters repeating the mistake of 2000 when Nader led people over a cliff and we got GW Bush. I don't see Indies voting for Bernie, I don't see 95% of Democrats voting for Bernie.

[Cleita]

96. For one thing, the facts and evidence are out there that Nader didn't lose Gore

the Presidency. The Supreme Court did. Second, I doubt if Bernie will do anything that will put another Republican in the White House. I think he might change his party to the Democrats if he does run.

[bluestate10]

122. Keep convincing yourself Mame. nt

[marmar]

102. Honestly, I'm sick of the centrist scare tactics.

[polichick]

118. Me too. And the "centrists" move further right every year.

[Phlem]

162. +100000

Bullies.

Then they shower you with shit if you don't agree.

-p

[ChangeUp106]

104. One of the reasons I love Bernie

is that while he exposes groups like the Koch Brothers and attacks the corruption in politics, he still believes in the system and understands how it works. Much unlike many liberals on YouTube who hate the government and distrust everyone as much as the average Tea person.

He would not let it get to a point where he helps the Republican candidate.

[IrishAyes]

111. All too true.

I like and appreciate Bernie Sanders very much; but I won't feel so fond of him if he runs for the presidency in '16 because then he almost might as well shoot all of us in the head and get it over with.

[bluestate10]

124. The thing is, Sanders claims to be for the best policies. Yet if he creates a 3 way race

he could insure the election of a conservative republican who would legislate absolutely ZERO of the policy Bernie claims he is for. I just hope Sanders don't have a Nader sized ego, because if he does, he will suffer Nader's fate.

[IrishAyes]

144. And worse, so will we.

[AverageJoe90]

112. I hate to say it, but you may be right.

I like Sanders, but we need to *strongly* discourage him from making a 3rd-party run in '16, if we want to avoid another 2000 type situation, especially if the Court remains conservative.

[tammywammy]

113. Considering your prediction track record, I'd now expect the exact opposite to happen. n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

114. LOL

[libdem4life]

117. Finally...to the end of the thread with some of the nuttiest logic yet. No offense to the OP.

Sanders will define the Left and what an old time Liberal used to be, and still is in the far Northeast Liberal country. No doubt...take it to the bank.

Why, you ask? There is no Democrat able or willing to carry this political water. Please prove me wrong. Bernie is an elder statesman, a man of conscience, from a comfortably liberal state, and is going to get some important speaking engagements when this is all over, with an extra zero attached. He is no fool.

He is respected and a national political lifer and deserves the respect, unlike Nader and Perot who were merely opportunistic Johnny-come-latelys for jilted Democrats...Liberals and Environmentalists. No comparison there. He is only pertinent because Liberal Dems are still in the shadows. I know, I'm one of them. We have not come much farther than a Rush Limbaugh pejorative until very recently...and it's still uphill.

And we currently have Hillary...like it or not but it's fact. Equal the inconvenient fact that corporations own the entire globe. I blame Nixon Shock and the Industrial Revolution, but I digress. Hillary can't fix it. Newbie Elizabeth Warren can't fix it.

So, thinking people deal with the hand they hold...not the one they dream about.

We're in a proverbial pickle. Moaning and groaning doesn't help. Hillary is maybe/maybe not there, but likely there. Who else can come up with the necessary billion dollars...not one answer because the obvious answer is damn inconvenient.

Four options... Vote Democrat, Republican, Independent or go home and become irrelevant.

[Jamaal510]

125. I like and respect Bernie

a ton for being so vocal about issues relevant to the poor, and saying things that many other politicians will not. If he were to run as a Dem, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. With that said, if he were to become president some day, he would still need a Congress that will work with him. Otherwise, he'd be in the same boat as Pres. O, where he either has to make not-too-good deals with the GOP (and sometimes even with a few Blue Dogs) in order to get things done, or face a perennial stalemate. With him being a declared socialist and being further to the Left overall than most Dems, he might face even more resistance from the Right than O has.

[greenman3610]

126. because there's not a dime's worth of difference between Al Gore and George Bush. remember?

[99Forever]

127. Then nominate Sanders at the top of the Democratic ticket.

Problem solved.

No need to thank me.

[LWolf]

128. No.

If we end up with a GOP president, it will be voters who "gave us" that gift.

If Democrats are worried about a Sanders run, they have some options:

1. invite him to run as a Democrat
2. endorse him regardless
3. nominate a non-neoliberal left-of-center candidate that will keep voters in the Democratic fold
4. or keep pushing mainstream corporate candidates, leaving the left under the bus, and attempting to bully them into shutting up and getting in line...because that works so well.

[woo me with science]

169. +100000

[Alkene]

133. Don't worry about it;

when the time comes, we'll be told what our "acceptable" choices are.

Nothing says freedom like the right to choose your favorite corporate figurehead.

That, and your preferred flavor of snacks.

[mmonk]

134. America is almost gone along with it's middle class. At some point, a real liberal needs to run

and have a podium.

[H2O Man]

136. lions & tigers & bears!

Oh, my!

[Morphia]

138. If the TPP passes it will not matter who runs

Or wins.

[Orsino]

140. This is always the establishment's excuse. n/t

[Marrah_G]

143. This no longer works on me

I will vote for whichever candidate best represents my views.

[HappyMe]

148. Whatever.

This kind of 'scare tactic' crap doesn't work for me.

[woo me with science]

150. This doesn't work anymore.

[hrmjustin]

151. Yes if he runs as an independant he would cause a Republican to win.

I don't think he would do such a thing.

[SomethingFishy]

152. Fuck that shit. VOTE FOR HIM and it won't be a problem.

Unfucking believable. If we get a guy as progressive as Sanders, who could really make a difference and people don't vote for him because he's not a Democrat then the people who don't vote for him are to blame for the GOP president. Play all the fucking word games you want. If you vote for, not the best person for the job, but for the person you think can win, then you get what you fucking deserve.

The only reason third parties don't work is because people sit there and say they won't. If fucking Ross Perot can get 20% of the vote Sanders could sweep the floor with any candidate in front of him. Provided people don't sit there and play the "Nader" game.

Well thanks, that was the post that disgusted me enough to make me bail out today. At least I lasted longer than the 10 minutes I can usually stand on here.

[lostincalifornia]

157. To some degree you are correct, however, the way the system is a 3rd party could force the election

To go to the house who would elect the president, and whoever is the majority party would most likely win, even if the 3rd party got most of the votes

Kinda sucks

[lostincalifornia]

155. Has he announced?

[HappyMe]

156. No, but then nobody has.

[lostincalifornia]

159. I am waiting to see who announces for the 2020 election

[HappyMe]

161. I am too.

But in a couple of days, I'm going to pull a name out of my ass and start a bunch of OPs calling for them to be labeled the inevitable candidate we should be bowing down to.

[lostincalifornia]

163. Excellent

[Agschmid]

158. Noted.

[AZ Progressive]

160. The Simpsons take on this