Run, Bernie, Run!

[ChisolmTrailDem]

As a Liberal Democrat, please!

Big Ed making the point now, after listing a litany of campaign-like travel by the senator from Vermont in the next few days as he conducts town halls in primary states, that in the equivalent time before the election of 2006, Barack Obama enjoyed on a 1% recognition in polls as people's choice for President. 2016 is still more than two years and, as he pointed at the pic of Obama, said anything can happen. Barack Obama is proof that Hillary is not a given.

[WinkyDink]

1. I'm down with the fund-raisers if they call them "Weekend at Bernie's"!

[ChisolmTrailDem]

2. He just all but confirmed that he is exploring the possibilty of running for president.

Big Ed asked: "Democrat, Independent, what?"

Bernie: "That's what I'm exploring and talking to people about."

[WinkyDink]

5. PLEASE, Universe, have him become a Democrat! (Well, he IS what one ought to be already!)

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. A frank concern about a Sander's candidacy ...

Will he be able to live down the "Socialist" label ... This is America, where terms have meanings beyond their meaning (even when most of those meaning are wrong-headed).

[WinkyDink]

6. In a nation where a Purple Heart = cowardice and 9/11 = "kept us safe," does reality matter?

[Cleita]

7. He should own it and turn it back from being a dirty word.

Also, he indicated on Ed's show that he is trying to determine how to run, as a Democrat or Independent. Running as a Democrat might wash away some of the socialist label.

[1StrongBlackMan]

15. No it won't ...

If he announces as a Democrat, it will be used to beat him up and make him seem dishonest ... just as is done for/to anyone that changes party affiliation shortly before an election. Further, I suspect dark money ads will scream: "He's a ... a ... SOCIALIST!!!! Just like (President) Obama!!!!"

And I can't honestly say that all of those ads will have come from gop operatives.

[Cleita]

19. I'm sure camp Hillary will try to smear him if they feel he's a threat. That true. eom

[1StrongBlackMan]

23. That would be a violation of ...

what little campaign finance regulation we have ... after Citizen's United.

[Cleita]

27. If you say so.

Have a nice day.

[1StrongBlackMan]

32. I guess you didn't hear my sarcastic tone. eom.

[Cleita]

41. Maybe too subtle for me. Use the emoticon to dispel all doubt. n/t

[pnwmom]

33. No, the "socialist" label will be used to smear Democrats, as it always is. They say Obama is a

communist, Hillary is a socialist, etc. This will just prove it to the Rethugs.

[Cleita]

38. This is our problem. When we refuse to own it, they will continue to make it into a dirty word.

Bernie is very good at educating people about the meaning of words. I think once he explains what his socialism is about, it will ruin anything they have to throw at him.

My daughter in law once accused me of being a communist. I said close but I'm actually a socialist and very proud of it. Then I proceeded to educate her on the difference. She's has said nothing about it since then because I took the wind out of her sails.

I hope they do accuse him of it because it will bring the politics of socialism out in the open and if we are smart we will explain it to death to them until they are unable to ever say it again as a slur.

[pnwmom]

39. Your daughter-in-law is a reasonable, rational person. The people who accuse Dems of being

communists are not.

[Cleita]

40. Not all ignorant people are tea baggers. They are misinformed because they weren't taught the

real meaning of the terms in school. Instead they were taught all commies were evil. Communism was conflated with socialism. They are not the same. They were Russia and China and now North Korea. It's time to educate them.

[pnwmom]

42. But a "firebrand" is less likely to change minds. Angry politicians tend to turn people off,

especially in national campaigns. That's why people like Bill Clinton and Reagan do so well. They weren't perceived as angry.

[Cleita]

44. Bernie is not angry. Where do you get that?

He gets passionate sometimes when talking about vets but when talking about social issues he's quite measured and calm.

[pnwmom]

45. Did you read about his most recent Town Hall? He told a questioner to shut up.

That isn't something Clinton or Reagan would have done, and it doesn't come across well on national TV.

New Yorkers (and I guess Vermonters) don't always realize how behavior that seems normal to them comes across to the rest of the country.

Here's an old story about that.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2690.html

Six months into his first term, I went down and spent a week in Washington to get a sense of how he was faring. I filled plenty of notebooks with criticism from members of Congress who were tired of Sanders' unrelenting attacks on them and on the institution. Rep. Barney Frank, a liberal Democrat, denounced Sanders as completely ineffective "because he offends just about everyone. His holier-than-thou attitude-saying in a very loud voice he is smarter than everyone else and purer than everyone else-really undercuts his effectiveness. To him, anybody who disagrees with his is a crook." Even Senators Jim Jeffords and Pat Leahy admitted to being upset with Sanders. Jeffords was the more outspoken, saying, "Obviously, I disagree with his style and I think he is counterproductive."

[Cleita]

48. I stand corrected and maybe the asshole needed to shut up.

Bernie will never be President anyway because the DNC will push him out of the way for someone more Wall Street friendly like Hillary. It's what they did to Howard Dean so they could insert John Kerry, much more Wall Street friendly. He says he's running to make them debate the issues that need debating and not sweep them under the rug. He knows he won't win.

[pnwmom]

49. I think Elizabeth Warren could be a successful national candidate, if she had the organization.

But I don't see how Sanders could be. The media would make mincemeat out of him -- just like what they did with Dean, only worse. Dean was a physician, not a "socialist."

[Cleita]

50. They did the same to Dennis Kucinich and will do the same to Warren if she runs.

Elizabeth has already endorsed Hillary so she's out. Maybe if Hillary becomes the candidate she'll offer Elizabeth Warren the Veep spot. It could work.

[merrily]

76. LOL! Barney Frank has zero room to talk about offending people.

That is a dialogue with a constituent. Apparently, Barney was pissed off because Sanders was calling out politicians.

Sorry, but I think it is a good thing for politicians to be called out and a bad thing for a politician to be as arrogant with a constituent as Barney was in that video. (Besides, wasn't Barney calling out Bernie--and to the media, no less? How is that different from Bernie calling out politicians?)


Besides, now that Sanders has made a deal with Dems, Barney might not bad mouth him as much, if asked again.

[1StrongBlackMan]

82. I guess this explains ...

Sanders' less than stellar legislative record.

[mimi85]

135. I am a huge fan of Bernies, however

he doesn't have a chance of getting the nomination or the White House.

I think we should be concentrating on the very close mid-terms first, before all this speculation. I DO know that I would write-in somebody else if Hillary is the nominee. Too much baggage.

[1StrongBlackMan]

136. I agree with your first three points ...

but baggage or not, if HRC runs and survives the Democratic primary I will not non-vote vote by writing anyone in.

[JaydenD]

131. When the repugs can make a big deal about a tan suit

this shouldn't scare anyone into being forever afraid of *gasp, what will the rethugs think!

as I said earlier in this thread, Fuck em all, and Go Go Bernie.

[JaydenD]

130. Let's not worry so much about what the reThugs will say. Fuck em all. Go Bernie.

[jwirr]

8. I agree this is a concern and it is what they would use against him in the general. Can we educate

the voters enough to overcome that? I hope so.

[1StrongBlackMan]

16. I am far less optimistic ...

we can't even move people of the Democrat = Republican narrative, even as people LIVE the difference. (But it doesn't help that much of the narrative is promoted by the left and libertarians.)

[jwirr]

24. I see what you are saying. Maybe we cannot educated a people who do not want to be educated.

Hopefully we can work it out in the primary. I know that Bernie does not want to lose the election to the rethugs. When he first started talking about this he wanted to get in the primary to debate the issues with Hillary who does not seem to be as progressive as we would like. Hopefully that is all that happens.

[1StrongBlackMan]

26. I would love for him to be in the primaries ...

or otherwise debate the candidates on the issues ... but I need to hear far more about the issues beyond economics.

I want to hear from HRC on economic (and Bernie being there will make that interesting); and I need to hear from Sanders on the other 70% +/- of issues Presidents face.

[jwirr]

36. Oh, yes economics is not the only issue. I want to know a lot of other things she things. This world

is not just about the hard times we are having right now. We saw that in Ferguson MO this month. We have to refight some of the issues we dealt with in the 60s and 70s. We need a SCOTUS that wants to go forward and not back.... so much.

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. I'm pretty comfortable ...

that I know where HRC stands on most issues; but, have less comfort in where she is on economic policy ... beyond the empty "populist" platitudes.

[pnwmom]

43. If we were going to educate people on that, we should have started years ago. n/t

[ChisolmTrailDem]

9. Can't be as bad with that element as being black was.... nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. I don't know about that ...

Black ... Female ... Socialist ... Gay ... Non-Christian ... all equally undesirable with that set

[Jim Lane]

46. He could do a lot of good just by destigmatizing that label

I agree with you that the "Socialist" label, like his age, will cut against his actually being elected.

Still, can you picture the debates? People tune in to hear the wild-eyed Socialist call for government to make all economic decisions for everyone about everything. Instead, they hear him say that big business and rich individuals have too much power, that we should raise the minimum wage, that we should reform the tax code so that the rich pay their fair share, etc. Quite a few people would think, "Huh, that's interesting, I agree with everything this Socialist is saying."

The label also plays a role in the general election. Assuming the Democratic nominee is not Sanders, it's nevertheless certain that the Republicans will smear him or her as advocating socialism. It makes a nice comeback if the candidate can say, "No, there was a genuine Socialist running in the primaries, and I'm the one who beat him." It would be harder for the Republicans to paint any mainstream Democrat as a socialist when voters have seen the real thing.

[Dustlawyer]

55. Probably not in our time now, but I will support him all I can until he withdraws or we have

the election. I agree with Bernie close to 100% of the time, especially when he states, "I want to move toward Publicly Funded Elections!" I truly believe that if we could get PFE enacted on the Federal, State, and Local levels we could solve most of our problems. Too bad SCOTUS would kill it 5-4!

[1StrongBlackMan]

60. Which is why we MUST have a Democratic President ...

in 2016 AND, more immediately, must work our collective butts off to flip the House and expand the Senate, in 2014.

[Bohunk68]

95. That is beginning to seem like a possible happening.

Heard an item on RMS last night that a fellow named Wang disagrees with Silver and all the other poll pundits. He says that Dems have a 70% chance of taking more seats in the Senate. While Silver is much vaunted, Mr. Wang has an even better record of his predictions. His record: 100% of his predictions have come true. Silver and the others come close to that, but 100% is 100%

[1StrongBlackMan]

96. I suspect that Silver will disappoint ...

this election season. It seems to be the pattern ... a relatively unknown breaks away from the predictive pack by using a "different" predictive model; then, buoyed by his/her success (new found celebrity status), falls back to the crowd.

The predictor that will be closest is the one that accurately predicts, first, African-American turn-out, then, the youth turn-out. I suspect Silver is using a flawed model because (when last I heard) he was still talking about the historically low mid-term turn-outs among these groups ... He is discounting what is really going on on the ground, in places like NC and GA and VA, even, MS.

[merrily]

77. He has run and self-identified as an Independent for years.

I did not look at his wiki this morning, but the last time I looked his history as a "Democratic Socialist" was not even mentioned.

[1StrongBlackMan]

80. Look again ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

And even if that source were scrubbed, there are far to many pundits with memories.

[merrily]

83. I do not know who changed his wiki or why, but it does not reflect the reality.

He runs as an Indie and is listed as an Indie in the Senate rolls. I have never heard him describe himself as a Democratic Socialist, have you?

And, as I said, he runs as an Indie, not as a Democratic Socialist.

From your link:

Sanders caucuses with the Democratic Party and is counted as a Democrat for the purposes of committee assignments, but because he does not belong to a formal political party, he appears as an independent on the ballot. He was also the only independent member of the House during most of his service and is the longest-serving independent in U.S. Congressional history.

When he runs as an Indie, he "self-describing" as an Indie, not as a Democratic Sociaist.

I am not saying or implying that no one will remember that he once ran as a Democratic Socialist nor am I suggesting that he rely on collective amnesia. I do have a brain, for pity sake, though I and perhaps others may try to disguise that fact on occasion. I am saying there is a basis for a narrative about not being a Democratic Socialist anymore. That is not a switch he would have to make right before an election either, ala Spector.

Running in a primary does not mean he'll be the nominee. So, no matter what, I hope he runs.

[1StrongBlackMan]

92. Why are you attempting to distance Sanders from his Democratic Socialist belief ...

when Sanders doesn't?

[merrily]

116. Erm, you raised a point. I responded. But: how is running as an Indie

instead of as a Democratic Socialist not distancing oneself from the Democratic Socialist label.

He used to run as a Democratic Socialist. He does not anymore.

[Vincardog]

101. He should embrace it and EDUCATE people what he wants to do. GIVE US A REASON

TO VOTE.

[1StrongBlackMan]

102. For me, the GOP and SCOTUS is reason enough. eom.

[Vincardog]

103. I set my sites higher. We need strong leadership in opposition to the Corporate

Take over of the USA.

[1StrongBlackMan]

106. I agree ...

but absent that strong AND CAPABLE leadership in opposition to the Corporate Take over of the USA, the GOP and SCOTUS, is reason enough for me.

And, honestly, Bernie's lack of legislative out-put makes me question whether he is that strong and capable leader.

60 Sponsored Bills (Ranks 9 of 100) 1 Made Into Law

187 Co-Sponsored Bills (Ranks 63 of 100) 1 Made Into Law.

http://www.opencongress.org/people/money/400357_Bernie_Sanders

[Vincardog]

107. I believe you criticism speaks more to the disfunction of our Legislative

Branch than his potential in the Executive.

He could have sponsored a lot more PO name changes.

[1StrongBlackMan]

109. The legislature would have changed with a Sanders Presidency. eom.

[Vincardog]

111. Hopefully it WILL change with a Sanders Presidency.

[1StrongBlackMan]

120. And, if it doesn't? eom

[Vincardog]

121. It won't be due to lack of effort on MY part. Can you say the same?

[1StrongBlackMan]

122. Yes ...

I am working a Democratic candidates (House) campaign and doing a little for a Democratic Candidate's Governor's race. And you?

[Vincardog]

123. I am a local precinct captain and support every liberal Candidate I can

[1StrongBlackMan]

124. Very good ...

Get Out The DEMOCRATIC Vote 2014, and beyond!

[Cleita]

4. Him going to Iowa for an appearance seems to indicate he's going

run. Otherwise why bother in a state that would get him no votes for the Senate?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

11. He said he's exploring his options but he's also trying to

begin a revolution because things can't keep going the way they're going or we're going to end up in an oligarchic society where the rich buy and control the strings of government. He said there's time to save us and he used the word "revolution".

[Cleita]

12. Both he and Thom Hartmann, whose show he's a regular on, have

been using the R word a lot. I wonder what they know that we don't?

[1StrongBlackMan]

20. The "R" word? eom.

[Cleita]

25. Revolution?

[1StrongBlackMan]

31. Running? ...

Raconteur?

[Tarheel_Dem]

10. Meh. Bernie should stick with his independence. He should not cynically take on a label just for...

access to Democratic money and mailing lists. Wonder how much he's donated to the DNC, DCCC, DSCC over the years?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

13. He'll be in N. Carolina in the next day or two. Perhaps you could

go see what he has to say and then ask him that question yourself?

One of his goals is to give people such as yourself a voice, that is why he's going to NC and NH and Iowa, to see what people's problems are and to encourage them to change the paradigm that exists in this nation.

[Tarheel_Dem]

17. I know what he has to say. He's been saying the same shit for a couple of decades, but his.....

legislative successes are a bit light, if you know what I mean. If Bernie can't persuade the government body he's inhabited for these many years, what makes anyone think he can do it better from the White House?

[1StrongBlackMan]

22. Why you keep whacking at the bee hive with that stick of truth ...

While I love his economic message ... can anyone point to any successful legislation, progressive or otherwise, he has penned?

[Tarheel_Dem]

29. I've asked that question nearly everytime one of these Bernie/Kooch lovefests get underway.

Show me the legislation. I'm not talking about proposals, or naming post offices, or cutting ribbons at the Piggly Wiggly. I mean actual, verifiable legislation that Bernie has walked through the House or Senate, and convinced his Repuke colleagues to sign on, and then sent to the POTUS for his signature. And if that hasn't happened, then the question then becomes...WHY? And what difference does it make whether he's lame in the Congress or the White House?

Bernie's red-faced, spittle laced "messages" have become all too predictable. Stop speechifying & show me the legislation! Again, if he's been Independent all this time, it's the height of cynicism to co-opt the Democratic label to take advantage of the infrastructure that has been built by "Democrats".

[1StrongBlackMan]

35. You're gonna get sent to bed without dinner! ...

Just like that time you told your little sister that Mom and Dad are Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy!

[adirondacker]

14. Some Dems like to support Independants...

"Former President William Jefferson Clinton made an appearance in support of Senator Joseph Lieberman's re-election in the face of a stiff primary challenge from Greenwich Business man and former selectman, Ned Lamont in 2006. (L) Senator Chris Dodd, PresidentClinton, and Senator Lieberman, a powerful triad of Demmocratic power browkers, at the Palace Theatre in Waterbury. Photo: File Photo"

[Tarheel_Dem]

21. Was Liebermann running for POTUS on the "Democratic" ticket in that photo op?

Or are you trying to pass off some apples & oranges sorta stuff here?

[adirondacker]

51. I think he was running for endorser of McCain and Palin at the time, while supporting the decider*.

Talk about a WASTE of money!

I'm trying to figure out where the purity litmus goal posts stand in the current election cycle. I figure if President Obama went through the bother to campaign for Bernie while he was a senator, he likely passed the friends of dems test a long time ago.

regarding legislative success...
wikipedia
"Republicans have attacked Sanders as "an ineffective extremist" for successfully sponsoring only one law and 15 amendments in his eight terms in the House.[29][30] Sanders responded by saying that he had passed "the most floor amendments of any member of the House since 1996".[31]"

[Tarheel_Dem]

56. Care to elaborate what those amendments were? How many bills has he authored? Naming post....

offices & train stations don't count. I want to know how much "socialist" legislation the great Orator has actually authored, run it through both houses of Congress, and signed into law by a sitting POTUS? Simple question. For all his bile & passion, one law in his long career is kinda paltry, doncha think? What makes anyone think he'll improve on that exemplary track record once he's in the WH?

Bernie will wear the exact same "extremist" label that follows Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, et al. Sorry, but that's just fact. He won't be taken seriously, by serious minded voters.

[adirondacker]

62. "Bernie will wear the exact same "extremist" label that follows Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin,"

probably by the Lieberman supporters, but apparently Senator Barack Obama had a different opinion.

[Tarheel_Dem]

64. Senator Barack Obama knew what the rest of us knew, that Bernie belongs in....

Congress. The presidency? Not so much.

[adirondacker]

65. Someone has to bring sanity to the party

[Tarheel_Dem]

66. "Someone" coulda done that years ago by joining "the party". Joining now just reeks of desparation.

If it's money and mailing lists he's after, why not go with his own party? Oh, that's right....he's a party of ONE! He should own his party label, it was good enough to get him elected to the US House & the US Senate, so why not?

[adirondacker]

67. Why would you want him to split the party up and become a pariah like Mr. Nader?

To be quite honest, I think his ambitions are to steer the debates more than win the title. Either way is fine by me.

[Tarheel_Dem]

68. He should hold true to his values, and his party affiliation. I prefer Bernie leave my party alone.

[NCTraveler]

99. Did he run on Clinton's ticket? Was it someone else? nt.

[merrily]

84. If Bernie runs as a Dem, he will not do so cynically. I cannot think of a single thing he

Last edited Wed Feb 7, 2018, 12:03 AM - Edit history (1)

has done cynically.

It would not be a far leap. He has a deal with the Democratic Caucus to the extent that the Party does not run anyone against him. (They used to but Bernie would win anyway, including once when the Republicans and Democrats finally decided to gang up against him and both backed the same candidate for Mayor of Burlington. Bernie won anyway.

[Tarheel_Dem]

100. "Bernie won anyway". That's exactly my point. He ran on his own ticket and his own money.

What's the problem with that same strategy now?

[merrily]

110. I don't think that was the point of your prior post, but there's no probem with ANY strategy.

[Tarheel_Dem]

117. It's been "my point" all along. Switching to access Dem dollars & infrastructure is beneath Bernie.

Or, at least, it should be. Being such a principled politician and all, doncha think?

[merrily]

118. You think it "should" be. Principled people can disagree about that.

And, I can always be wrong, but I don't see principles as being your issue in this.

[Tarheel_Dem]

119. My "principles" weren't at issue. I was born a Democrat, and have never shunned the label.

Those are my principles. Bernie should stick to his own principles, his own party, and his own $$$$.

[merrily]

133. Everyone, include you, me and Bernie, is entited to his or her own opinion on this matter and

on all matters.

Fact is, Bernie will not get any help whatever from the Democratic Party unless the Party wants to help him and thinks that helping Bernie will benefit the Party. So, if he does get that help (which I consider very unlikely anyway), your beef about that will be with the Democratic Party.

[sadoldgirl]

28. This might give him a chance

to explain what his definition of socialism is. People might just learn and like that.

[pnwmom]

30. Sanders has been around for decades, so his low visibility is more of a factor than it was for Obama

who came onto the scene with a big splash -- that unforgettable speech.

Just recently, Sanders showed some temper at a Town Meeting. That is unlikely to endear him as much to a national audience as it does to his fervent supporters here.

[merrily]

85. Bernie did not seek the national spotlight. No reason to assume it will elude him if he seeks it.

[pnwmom]

90. He'll get a spotlight all right, because the media loves a horserace. But eventually

they'll turn him into a Howard Dean. His abrasive firebrand style won't work for most of the country.

And he doesn't have a national campaign organization. Hillary can build on Bill's.

[merrily]

108. I don't think the media turned on Dean all on its own. But never mind that.

pwnmom, I get that you want Hillary. But, respectfully, you don't have a crystal ball.

[Politicalboi]

34. 2014 will be a telling election

If the country shocks the shit out of us and goes Blue, then he may have a chance. If the GOP wins both house and senate, Bernie is the last thing we need in 2016.

[WillyT]

47. K & R !!!

[bluestateguy]

52. I got nothing against Barry Sanders

But this country is not going to elect a socialist any time soon.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

53. Who knows, you may be right. But that was also said about electing a black man. nt

[orpupilofnature57]

58. And our punishment is Neo-Liberal centrists or Neo-Con radicals, Both who serve 1%

[merrily]

86. He's not a socialist. He's not Barry either.

[orpupilofnature57]

54. A true servant of the People or the 1% ,,

Last edited Wed Aug 27, 2014, 08:26 PM - Edit history (1)

That help others rather than themselves .

[Laelth]

57. Bernie Sanders will turn 75 in 2016.

"If you ask me what my dream is as a political person, it is to allow this state to do what no other state in the union has done: to stand up to the establishment, the big-monied people, the Democrats and Republicans and show the rest of the country that it can be done. If that happens, my life's work will have been successful."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2690.html

-Laelth

[merrily]

87. Yes, he is a few years older than both Hilary and Warren. None of them is young, though.

And of the 3, only Bernie has mentioned running.

Well, Hillary does mention it all the time, but in a wink wink way. I guess we are supposed to find that adorable?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

59. "Barack Obama is proof that Hillary is not a given."

The Beltway Media claimed 2008 was going to be Hillary vs Rudy.

It doesn't MATTER how many times they are WRONG. They're "expertise" is supposed to be unquestioned and they own the hall.

[orpupilofnature57]

61. Subscribing to " Expertise " is harmful to your brain .

[Spitfire of ATJ]

63. I know,...to listen to them Libaralism is wildly unpopular because they can cite a poll about Obama.

[brooklynite]

69. Let's step back from "expertise".....lets look at FACTS

It is a FACT that, while unannounced, both Obama and Clinton were lining up political and financial support in the year before their announcements. Visits to Iowa notwithstanding, Sanders is achieving nothing close to that; RFH has ligned up several million dollars and close to a million supporters encouraging her to run.

It is a FACT that Obama's ability to line up such support was enhanced by his national profile (in part due to his speech at the 2004 Convention) and the impact of his being prospectively the first Black President. Sanders has nothing close to that profile.

It is a FACT that Obama ran as a mainstream Democrat, and that outside of the IWR, had no substantive policy differences with Clinton. Sanders will, by design, be running as a far more left-focused candidate which is likely to limit his appeal among Democrats in Red and Purple States.

Again, welcome him to the fray; I just don't think supporters should blind themselves to the obstacles he'll face in running.

[adirondacker]

70. The fray may very well be the Wall Street Wing this time around...

“The big question that most progressives have for Hillary is, ‘Where is she now compared to the past "said Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America, a liberal advocacy group. “In the past she sided with the Wall Street wing of the party. The reality is that the corporate, Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party is going away.

“The future of our party is the Warren wing, which is fighting to break up the big banks, expand Social Security and fighting economic inequality,” he said.

Liberal Democrats hope a challenge from Sanders or another populist candidate will force Clinton to move to the left on financial regulations, corporate tax reform and expanding Social Security."

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/08/28/bernie-sanders-i-want-know-if-ordinary-people-are-ready-stand-and-fight

[Spitfire of ATJ]

71. Funny how the Republicans don't worry about someone being too Conservative.

[brooklynite]

72. Funny how the Republicans have lost 5 of the last 6 Presidential elections

[Spitfire of ATJ]

73. Exactly. The argument is that we need to go to the Right to follow their success.

[brooklynite]

75. or, the argument is we need to go to the center where the most votes are

[merrily]

78. If you drop labels and don't try to change minds, USians poll liberal by something like 70%

Poll on issues, rather than labels, and don't propagandize and USians poll liberal overwhelmingly.

All parties have done their best to make "liberal" into a dirty word and to make words like "middle," "moderate," centrist" etc. sound like the only rational, reasonable position. They have also done their best to pretend center left is liberal--and liberal is extreme and undesirable. That did not come from the people.

[winter is coming]

91. +1. To move to the true center, we'd need to go left. n/t

[Spitfire of ATJ]

97. The media has been taken over by the Right....

The cover of Time when the Republicans won in 1994:



The cover of Time when the Democrats won in 2006:



Reading shit like this in the doctors office waiting room is NOT the way to get informed.

[merrily]

113. We are center right.

Last edited Mon Sep 1, 2014, 12:47 PM - Edit history (1)

I think, if it hadn't been for things like Occupy and re-activation of the 99% byword, strikes by fast food workers, etc., we'd be even further right than we are now

ETA: By "We are center right," I do not mean the majority of Americans. I mean where the politicians have put the country.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

98. It's time the hand wringing over being "hurt" comes to an end.

[merrily]

112. I'm very sorry but I am not sure what your reply to me means.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

127. The majority is with us but too many Dems are afraid of a fight....

Many seem to be more interested in getting the Republican to admit they're good enough.

[merrily]

132. Ah, thanks for the explanation.

If you mean that elected Dems are afraid of a fight, I don't agree that is their reason for tacking right.

I don't think it's fear or cowardice or inability to meet the right blow for blow or a desire for approval from Republicans. I think they are doing what they want and trying to get us to think otherwise.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

137. The Republicans blamed the media for the loss of Vietnam and for Watergate....

They made it a point to infiltrate the media by eliminating the fairness doctrine under Reagan and the media consolidation which was signed under Clinton but had been in the works long before. They're the ones that conduct the polls and they're the ones who the politicians listen to. The media kept saying the country shifted to the right and the Democrats believed it to the point where they let the Blue Dogs rise to power. One of the things that concerns me is if Hillary wins then a bunch of these Conservadems will sweep back into power and all the gains made to shift the party to the Liberal side will be undone.

[merrily]

138. Sorry, spitfire, but the fairness doctrine was not eliminated under Reagan.

After Reagain, FCC could have resuscitated it any time, without any act of congress or additional rulemaking processes. Until 2011, that is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

(Regardless of wiki's failure to explain this and make it seem as though 2 Republicans could kill the Fairness Doctrine, the FCC is under no legal obligation to obey a Committee of Congress. Congress as a whole, yes. A committee, no. Besides, every Senate Committee that matters has Democratic members, too. )


And so what if something had been in the works long before Clinton signed it? The Constitution gives him a veto for a reason.

The media kept saying the country shifted to the right and the Democrats believed it to the point where they let the Blue Dogs rise to power.

You think a brilliant man like Clinton, who just may be the smartest man I've ever speak, especially on politics, just swallowed whatever the media said? Briliiant Democrats like him, Gore, Nunn, Robb, etc. who had been in politics and government for decades just said, "Well, if someone like Chuck Todd (or whichever dullard who never ran for office was bloviating on TV back then) says the country moved right, it must be true? No point taking our own polls, listening to our constituents or making up our own minds? After all, how could corporate media possibly have its own agenda?"

Sorry, we see this very, very differently. I don't see politicians like Clinton and Gore as sheeple, or gullible or victims or anything of the kind. We have to agree to disagree.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

140. You assume Clinton was a Liberal.

[merrily]

141. Oh, no I don't. He was a founding member of the DLC and the first Presidential

candidate endorsed by the DLC. IMO, his win played a pivotal role in the takeover of the Democrat Party by the DLC/Third Way/New Democrat contingent and philosophy.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

143. If Hillary wins then all those people will return.

[merrily]

144. Yes, but a lot of them returned to Obama's administration and

several are running Democratic think tanks, which means the philosophy is pervasive.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

145. Obama had a lot of very Liberal people on his team....

Many of them much more Liberal than he was.

We haven't had a Liberal on the ticket since Michael Dukakis who was told riding in a tank was a good idea.

This is what happens when you try to avoid Right Wing criticism.

[merrily]

146. Obama practically duplicated the Clinton admin team when Obama got into the White house,

plus Gates and Geithner. Sorry but, I followed his hires very closely. They were what started me regretting my campaign donations to him.

Michael Dukakis is a good man who did not make a good candidate. Not sure what he has to do with Clinton or Obama?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

147. The DLC used the Dukakis loss and the Clinton win to justify their shifting the party to the right.

[merrily]

148. They used McGovern and Mondale more.

While he was the nominee, McGovern instituted some good reforms in the Party. After he lost, the conservatives in the Party revoked them and tried to get Super Delegates instituted, the purpose being to prevent primary voters from picking someone the PTB of the Party considered too liberal. They failed, but tried again after Mondale lost and succeeded. However, IMO, they found other ways, including a cooperative corporate media, to swing primaries so that have not had to use that club yet.


McGovern and Mondale are the two they cite whenever they want examples of the meme that liberals can't win elections and it's bs. So many things go on before and during an election that it's laughable to say, for example, that McGovern lost because he was a liberal. IMO, most of America couldn't tell the difference between a liberal, a traditional Democrat and a center right Democrat without a cheat sheet.

I have been meaning to look up Mondale because I am not sure he was even that liberal compared to, say Humphrey or McGovern.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

152. You will discover a lot of the folks under Carter were members of the Trilateral Commission.

[merrily]

154. I am not familiar with that. Was/is it something like the Bilderburgs?

Carter was very proud of the de-regulation that a Democratic Congress and he achieved during his administration. I have seen people blame Reagan for deregulation under Carter. Even more astoundingly (to me), a poster on another leftist board claimed Reagan had revised the Bankuptcy Act to make it friendlier to corporations. I replied that had happened in 1978 and she replied, "I know." (Her reply is what astounded me.)

I have a soft spot in my heart for Carter anyway. Besides, I think he became more liberal as he got older, something that does not often happen as people age.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

156. The Trilateral Commission was dismissed as a conspiracy theory during the Vietnam war...

Then the web came along and so did their website.

It's an organization combining big business and politics between Europe, N. America and Asia.

Because,...ya know,...politicians are all supposed to sell out their citizens in the name of commerce.

[merrily]

157. There are certainly many organizations like that today!

Because,...ya know,...politicians are all supposed to sell out their citizens in the name of commerce.

No, no, no. You've got it all wrong. Politicians are so in love for the middle class (however one defines "middle class.&quot The onliest reason politicians ever do anything for big business is because they love the middle class so much they want big business to create wonderful jobs for us. So, they have no choice but to help the job creators. But only for our benefit.

Do you need the sarcasm emote?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

160. It goes back to what is considered "fact"....

That what's good for Wall Street is good for Main Street.

Even if what's good for Wall Street is to rape Main Street. (Hey, it was askin' for it. It was wearin' a short profit margin.)

[merrily]

149. Here is my reply to someone who cited Mondale and McGovern.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025448785#post57

(If you click, it takes a second to go from the Op to my reply-not sure why)



And here is my reply who said most of the votes are in the center.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5459780

Politicians tend to attach a meme to a win or loss and never let go of it.

For example, from Carter's loss, they took the "lesson" that Carter lost because Kennedy had challenged him in a primary and therefore no Democrat should ever challenge an incumbent again.

The hostage situation, Ted Koppel's nightly digs at Carter and people waiting on gasoline lines for hours during the Carter administration had nothing to do with Carter's loss. Neither did Reagan's popularity since he was the sweet Gipper in the movies and head of the actors' union and the friendly host of GE Theater.

Nooooo. It was only because Kennedy challenged Carter. Makes my eyelashes hurt. Meanwhile, IMO, Kennedy would have had a better chance to beat Ronnie than Carter did. The Kennedy name still carried a ton of weight then.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

150. The major gas lines everyone remembers were in 1973 under Nixon...

The 79 crisis wasn't that big a deal but Republicans counted on years later here in the United States of Amnesia that people would remember it happened under Carter if they kept saying "Remember the gas lines under Carter?" over and over.

But then, to listen to Republicans ALL things bad happen under Democrats and Republicans make money rain from Heaven.

[merrily]

155. I don't think those were the ones they remembered when they voted against Carter. Maybe, but I

don't think so. Carter was a one termer. It was too recent. And I certainly don't remember gas lines from the Nixon era.

But then, to listen to Republicans ALL things bad happen under Democrats and Republicans make money rain from Heaven.

True, but to listen to Democrats, ALL bad things happened under Republicans and ALL good things happened under Democrats. As I posted elsewhere, a Democratic poster on another board blamed Reagan for the Bankruptcy Reform Act, knowing (or so she said when I pointed out her mistake) that it actually had been Carter and a Democratic Congress.

So, it works both ways. Or, depending upon your point of view, is dysfunctional both ways. My point of view is that each of the above phenomena work great for professional politicians who are Republicans or Democrats. For the rest of us, not so much.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

158. People voted against Carter because the media was railing about the hostages....

Many of us believe the attempt to rescue them was sabotaged from within.

[merrily]

161. I think it was both, the hostages and the gas lines. And more.

And, somehow, Carter failed to inspire. He did much better at that during his post-Presidency--a post-Presidency being a time of public service being something he practically invented (though Roosevelt did give Hoover stuff to do).

Plus, as I said, Reagan had been in the hearts of Americans since the Gipper. and, having emerged from the Sixties and Seventies--demonstrations, drugs, free love, etc., a lot of Americans, especially the Word War II generation, were very happy to see someone who reminded them of the comfort of "good old days," that nice, affable host of GE theater who had said hi to them every week in their living rooms. And a union man and former Democrat, to boot. And he could quip, I have to give him that.

It's really hard, I think, and also a mistake, to decide that one thing or the other cost someone a Presidential election or won someone a Presidential election. The zeitgeist at any given time is so much more complex than that I know professional strategists and pundits get paid to do single out one or a few causes--and they do single them out. Doesn't mean they're right or that it can be done. It's so much more complicated than one, two or three things.

Besides, the people who bloviate about politics are often the same ones who helped someone lose an election. For example, I have to laugh at McCain's campaign manager being an "expert" on the talking head shows after picking Palin, to name just one thing botched in that campaign. Or Gore's Presidential campaign manager. Or Teddy Kennedy's primary campaign manager (who was also Kerry's Presidential campaign manager).

[Spitfire of ATJ]

162. There was no manditory rationing under Carter. There was panic buying by a hysterical public....

Carter had to fight against a media that felt like Reagan was PERFECT for the job.

Back to the Future II summed it up when Doc Brown said, "It's no wonder your president is an actor, he has to look good on TV."

Thus was born the Republican ideal of having a complete IDIOT to toss in front of the cameras while the power behind the throne committed just about every facet of avarice and corruption in the US code, including starting wars for fun and profit.

[merrily]

163. There were gas lines and a lousy economy and Koppel and media and the hostages and more.

That is what I am saying. There were a lot of things going on. Narrowing all that down to the primary and concluding from Carter's loss in the general that no Democrat should ever challenge an incumbent Democratic President was either disingenuous or stoooooopid.

At that time, Kennedy would probably have had a better chance than Carter to defeat Reagan. One could just as easily--and just as stooooopidly have concluded from the Carter-Kennedy-Reagan event that Democrats should never again re-nominate a less than popular incumbent.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

164. True, then Reagan and Daddy Bush spent the next 12 years blaming Carter for everything.

[merrily]

165. Republican posters still refuse to give him credit for anything, even peace

between Egypt and Israel or getting the hostages home without a bloody and expensive war (in which the hostages would have probably been the first casualties).

[Spitfire of ATJ]

166. Well sure,...they claimed trickle down didn't work because Carter left them in a hole...

They would have blamed Carter for Iran-Contra if they thought they could get away with it.

[merrily]

168. Meh. In private, when no sane person is around to contradict them, they probably do find a way to

blame for Iran Contra. It's not hard for the fact-free.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

170. They still say Ollie was a patriot.

[merrily]

171. And that's where sane people can hear them. Imagine what they say in private.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

172. In private? They'd like to haul every Democrat out for public execution by hanging for treason.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

93. By "center" that means further to the Right than Reagan.

[brooklynite]

104. GAy rights, reproductive rights, opposing Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, health care coverage...

...DEFINITELY a pro-Reagan platform.

[merrily]

115. It isn't 1980 anymore either, though. In the 1990s, Clinton signed DOMA and asked Congress to pass

DADT, which made it trickier to repeal than if he had signed an executive order. (Not that he should have done DADT at all.)

Now that society is changing its mind about gays and courts are as well, yes, we finally got rid of DADT after the 2010. But, throughout 2010, the D of J was still defending DOMA, filing briefs comparing homosexuality to bestiality and incest.

Organizations like HRC and gay fundraisers and bundlers for the Party were putting on a lot of pressure, especially as the 2012 campaign season approached.

As far as health care, the economy was buckling without it. Even the conservative Heritage Foundation wanted health care with an individual mandate. (Nixon had proposed health care with just an employer mandate, but Kennedy had blocked it.)

And the Dem Party has been for reproductive rights since at least Roe v. Wade, before the center right folk took over the Party. And, speaking of Roe v Wade, while reproductive rights are not absolute, they are a Constitutional right, not something elected officials handed out.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

125. Reagan was a Marxist compared to today's GOP.

[merrily]

134. correcting my prior post: USians poll traditional Democrat, as opposed to New Democrat.

FDR said he was not a liberal; and "I take him at his word."

[merrily]

81. It is a fact that Obama ran to the left of Hillary and won both the primary and the General--

the general quite impressively, including the state of Indiana.

I do not agree that your version of what you call facts is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

[merrily]

89. The media also said Obama would be President as soon as he finished his 2004 speech.

Reid, Pelosi and Dean, however, never said Hillary would be President in 2008. Neither did Ted Kennedy.

And pretty soon, the media fell in line. Matthews leg tingling for Obama, being just one example.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

94. Matthews had more than a leg tingle over Rudy. Not to mention Bush in a flight suit.

[merrily]

114. When Bush was in a flight suit, MSNBC was very different than it is now.

Tucker Carlson, Don Imus, etc. And Matthews fell in line. As Bush's poll numbers started skidding to the hopper, MSNBC decided to change direction; and Matthews changed with it. However, my point was about the primary. Hillary didn't make Matthews leg tingle. Obama did. But, for at least a year now, Matthews has been talking as though the 2016 Democratic primary is over and Hillary won.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

126. Tweety has "issues"....

http://www.salon.com/2007/06/14/matthews_17/

[undergroundpanther]

74. Bernie..pplllllleeeeeeasaassssee RUN!

Bernie you will do alot to help this country. And I know you will deconstruct that stupidity called the "free market".Tell it like.it IS.And watch the roaches on the right and third way dinos run and hide...

[merrily]

79. I am all for Bernie running. Whether he wins or loses, people need to hear again what they knew in

1935.

[msanthrope]

88. If he runs, he'll fold quick--he doesn't have the ground organization. And woe to him if he

thinks he's going to be able to use the Greens---they are always bad news.

[Tarheel_Dem]

128. +1

[adirondacker]

139. -1

right wing policies are Always bad news.

[NCTraveler]

105. Would love it if he ran as a Democrat.

It would be great to have him in the debates. He would be heard by more people than if he ran as an Independent. That being said, it would be great if he made a run for it under any ticket. I just think his voice would be heard more if he ran with the Democrats. He is a gem.

[JaydenD]

129. I like this news

[wildbilln864]

142. K & r. n/t

[99th_Monkey]

151. Hell Yah!!! Go Bernie! ~nt

[MissDeeds]

153. I support Bernie Sanders completely

I find it troubling in reading posts on DU this weekend that some seem to think he's unelectable. Look at our last two presidents, Bush and Obama. How many would have thought that either of them would be elected once, let alone twice?

Bernie's age has been brought up time and time again - aren't we better than using ageism here? And (gasp!) he's Jewish! Well, Kennedy was Catholic, and Romney, a Mormon, won the Republican nomination. As for him not being a Democrat - please. A "D" behind one's name does not make them a Democrat. Bernie Sanders is more of a Democrat than many of our elected representatives who claim to be on our side.

The old tired arguments don't work anymore. This country is ripe for a change and Bernie Sanders may be exactly what is needed at this time.

[brooklynite]

159. I understand why you might disagree, but why is it troubling?

The ability to win a national election with a broad based electorate is completely relevant to the discussion, and the Democrats have history of two unrepentant liberals losing 49 of 50 States. The fact that Bernie is a self-described Socialist whose political base is one of the smallest, bluest States in the nation raises serious concerns that he may not be able to expand the appeal he has among liberal, ACTIVIST Democrats.

[Unvanguard]

169. Obama always seemed eminently electable to me.

He was a good speaker with a lot of political talent, who effectively transmitted a skillfully crafted message that was able to please both liberals and moderates. Sanders, on the other hand, has a strong ideological cast, which would only be reaffirmed in a primary where he presented himself as the candidate of the left, and genuinely left-wing candidates are going to have a lot of difficulty winning an election in this country.

[Unvanguard]

167. He should run, I would vote for him, he would lose the primary but that's fine

He would probably lose a general election anyway.