Sanders will run in 2020 if he's still kicking

[Norbert9]

He's got more energy than any 70 year old I know. He's the most popular senator. The party will take his platform and run with it.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/328214-poll-sanders-most-popular-senator-in-the-us

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/dems-populist-agenda-sanders-trump-237114

[JTFrog]

1. He will do it as an Independent then. nt

[still_one]

2. Lol. You are right, he refuses to register as a Democrat, unlike the other Senator from Vermont

[Ken Burch]

47. We've been over this...in Vermont, nobody is registered as anything but independent.

So Bernie CAN'T "register" as a Democrat.

That said, while I still admire the guy, I don't think he will run again. This was never about ego for him. It was about the ideals he stood for.

[still_one]

55. Patrick Leahy is from Vermont and identifies as a Democrat. Bernie is from Vermont and

does not want to be identified as a Democrat

In order to identify as a Democrat you do it through the FEC filing.

As for your second paragraph, there is a lot to admire Bernie for, but he never wanted to be identified as a Democrat. Patrick Leahy does.

Whether he runs or not in 2020, that's up to him.

[Ken Burch]

59. Stop saying "register" then-it sets up a standard it's not possible for the guy to meet.

And Bernie's been organizing with us every since he's been in Congress, so you could argue that he does identify with us.

I don't think Bernie will run again(he would probably see the need of having a younger figure who could appeal to the demographics he didn't connect run as the candidate of Sanders values), but at the same time it seems absurd and pointlessly divisive to have people here still campaigning against him. He's not running for anything at the moment(other than possibly re-election to the Senate)and there's no reason for anyone to want him defeated in that effort-especially since anyone who ostentatiously "identified" as a Democrat would automatically be running from a position sharply to his right.

[WinkyDink]

132. Wait; Sanders can't do what every Democratic politician has done?

[Ken Burch]

140. He can't register to vote as a Democrat. Everyone in Vermont is a registered independent.

Using the term "register" implies voter registration.

In the Senate, Bernie votes with the leadership a lot more than some of the others there who attack him as disloyal.

At some point, you're going to have to accept that November wasn't HIS fault.

[Samantha]

83. Bernie identifies himself as a Democratic Socialist -- and he has for decades (eom)

[JHan]

92. Not quite, Bernie is a social democrat : there are some key differences.

Democratic socialist - believes the means of production should always be controlled by the workforce , does not believe in private control of capital.

social democrat : allows for private enterprise and a strong expansive social safety net. Scandinavian countries are model social democracies where there are free markets/trade liberalization but also a vast safety net. In some respects, Scandinavian countries have a freer market than the U.S ( and this is one of few areas where Sanders' views shift from the norm in these countries) otherwise he is a social democrat.

[Samantha]

118. I quote what Bernie says himself

These are interesting questions that need to be answered with this historical presidential election fully underway. Bernie Sanders (I), the U.S. senator from Vermont, has billed himself as a democratic socialist while seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. His opponents, however, have labeled him a communist and even a Soviet sympathizer, while others claim he isn’t a socialist at all.

(bold emphasis added)

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/271652-what-does-sanders-mean-by-democratic-socialism

But thank you for the information.

Sam

[SCantiGOP]

135. Doesn't matter

He would be 79 on Election Day.

[Samantha]

137. Age is not a factor

Ageism is a discrimination in the same family as all other prejudices we unfortunately see and hear practiced in our society.

Sam

[SCantiGOP]

138. Age is not a factor?

Reality doesn't count for some reason? An 80 year old is not electable; that's a fact not a predjudice.
Guess I shouldn't be concerned if an 85 year old surgeon is going to operate on me.

[Samantha]

139. The reality is we are living to be older and leading healthier lifestyles than in earlier times

I see your comment "An 80 year old is not electable; that's a fact not a prejudice" as simply an opinion. Many of Sanders' supporters still are actively working on his goals, hoping to advance his issues, and openly voicing the passionate desire to see him run in 2020. And they do know his age....

Sam

[Demsrule86]

66. Hi Ken...how are you?

You are parsing words...he could join the Democratic Party which has nothing to do with his state...Sen. Leahy is a Democrat you know. And this would do much to unite the party.

[LP2K12]

4. We've heard that before...

[JTFrog]

23. We don't support third party spoilers here.

And I'm pretty sure Bernie won't be welcome to run as a Democrat again. After suggesting that Obama be primaried, that Hillary wasn't qualified to run for president and his constant attacks on the party, I just don't see it happening.

So good luck with that.

[virtualobserver]

31. The man touring now with the DNC chair, & the most popular politician in the US......

won't be welcome.

You are pretty funny.

[brush]

34. He'll be nearing 80. And Dems won't want the disruption he caused again.

Plus he'll be nearing 80 so there's not much chance of him being successful at anything but a third party spoiler.

We need younger blood, and that excludes Hillary as well.

[DemocraticSocialist8]

37. The only thing you're right about is his age...everything else isn't supported by the data

The Dems would be crazy to brush Bernie off again given his popularity and the popularity of his policy positions. Don't be stubborn just to be stubborn. I don't think he should run though. 80 is steep age-wise.

[brush]

44. He's not even a Democrat...again.

[virtualobserver]

38. By disruption, do you mean running a competitive campaign?

He will be more popular, not less, by 2020.

Whether he runs or not will be HIS decision.

[brush]

49. Instead of disruption maybe I should've said diviseness, but that's in the past.

And speaking of the past, let's leave both Sanders and Hillary there and get some new blood in.

And btw, Bernie will be pushing 80 in 2020, not ideal.

[virtualobserver]

53. That will be up to them, of course.

I can see Hillary running again. If Bernie keeps touring, it will be like a permanent campaign for him.

I guess we will see.

[Ken Burch]

48. Trump would still have taken it even if Bernie hadn't run at all.

None of HRC's difficulties in the fall were caused by Bernie.

And Bernie wanted Hillary to win and worked for her in the fall.

[Demsrule86]

67. We will never agree on that and we will never know who was right.

[JTFrog]

41. Why didn't he just stay in the party then?

Why would he join only when it's convenient and beneficial to him? In the meantime, maybe he could at least not constantly trash talk the party and it's members if he plans on trying it again. I'm not a fan of his divisive rhetoric.

You think I'm funny? Well, I certainly don't think any of this is funny.

[virtualobserver]

42. It is just a label

He caucuses with the party and he tours with the head of the DNC.

Do you see any other Senators or former candidates touring the country?
Actions speak louder than labels.

[JTFrog]

43. Weak. nt

[virtualobserver]

46. no, what is weak is when Heitkamp, Manchin, and Donnelly vote for Gorsuch.

What good does that label do for us when they vote that way?

[synergie]

98. I think it's pretty weak when people eschew the label when they don't profit from it

and yeah let's excoriate them for that single vote. Can we also do the same for the guy that voted "that way" against the Brady Bill?

Pretty darned weak to jettison women's basic human rights (mustn't be too rigid on those) and to vote against background checks and waiting periods to purchase firearms. But I guess only very special senators get to excuse his votes as being in the best interests of his constituents right?

Gotta love those mutable standards, not weak at all.

[virtualobserver]

100. Back to that nonsense again

I'll put Bernie's voting record up against any Democratic politician.

[synergie]

105. Yes, because apparently voting with republicans makes you something untrustworthy.

Sure thing, but doing so makes it quite clear that the standards applied here are bogus and his voting record fails badly, if it was evaluated by the standards one uses for Democrats.

Comistenfy and honesty are hard, I guess, hence why they are never applied in these comparisons.

Can't trust a guy who votes in such a way, can we?

[virtualobserver]

108. his voting with Democrats at or near 100% for years is what I call consistency

Both Hillary and Bernie were at 95-100%

Heitkamp, Donnelly, and Manchin vote at 60%

Those are my honest standards. Your evaluation fails badly.

[EffieBlack]

84. If it's "just a label," why is he so resistant to applying to himself?

[virtualobserver]

85. He isn't resistant. It just doesn't matter.

The is no great movement out there calling on him to do it.

It is just a label, and I proved in my previous post just how little it means to Heidi and Joe and Joe.

[synergie]

96. What? After all that time he's spent smearing that label?

[delisen]

127. Sanders sees us as corporation with capital worth and potential for hostile takeover.

He sees a ripe target for takeover and wants to acquire the Democratic Party.

He's got a complaint list on the party like Kravis had on RJR Nabisco. He sees unexpected opportunity.

Schumer is like a member of the Board of Directors who convinces the company to give the targeter an inside position to placate him -sort of a merger to prevent the hostile takeover attempt which can lead to open warfare and doom us all.

Yes I am being satirical but not entirely.

[virtualobserver]

128. I do think that Schumer actually likes what Bernie is doing

so I don't see it as an attempt to placate on his part, but in terms of the party leaders generally, I tend to agree.

Do you trust the party establishment to retake Congress and the Presidency?

[stonecutter357]

51. Democratic party Members only from now on.......thanks.

[obamanut2012]

65. Zero evidence he is the most popular politician -- very doubtful

Actually.

Proof?

And yeah, Bernie won't ever be running as a DEm again.

[virtualobserver]

82. a number of polls have indicated that he is....

Biden is the only other one that looks strong.

President Obama would also be there, but he can't run in 2020.

Whether Bernie runs as a Dem in 2020, would be HIS choice, and no one elses.

[obamanut2012]

102. nope, no evidence as I suspected

[virtualobserver]

103. If polls don't convince you, there is no evidence that would convince you

[synergie]

106. So you have no evidence?

In order for polls to mean something, you need to know something about methodology, questions asked, how they were asked, how many people act.

If one is just tossing out percentages, then one is not using evidence, just throwing out numbers they don't understand. If random polls with no methodology convinces you so easily, then the poll I just conducted indicate that a whopping 100% of the constituents of polled agree that the contortions devoted followers of politicians are truly ridiculous. The numbers are unchanged from last year, when the same poll asked the same constituents the same question.
If that poll did not convince you, well then NO evidence would. <dramatic sigh>

Must believe all polls, they are sacred, and who needs methodology, amirite?

[virtualobserver]

109. whatever

If you don't believe that the polls reflect reality, that is fine with me.

[synergie]

110. So glad you agree that my poll reflects reality.

[virtualobserver]

116. I think that it reflects the fact that you "poll" yourself.

That is the reality.

[synergie]

95. Obama is term limited, and not touring with the DNC chair.

[elleng]

32. Seems you've missed somethings.

Tom Perez writes 'Bernie Sanders and I are hitting the road.'

'As Democrats, we believe that every hardworking American should have an opportunity to get ahead. We believe in standing up for working people, that you should get a fair wage for a hard day's work, and that access to health care is a right, not a privilege.

Those are our party's values, and they're America's values -- they're what most people voted for last November.

We need to turn our party around and get back on track to take on Donald Trump and win elections. But that doesn't mean changing what it means to be a Democrat.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028914480

[JTFrog]

35. I have no problem with Sanders and Perez hitting the road.

I do have a problem with Sanders trying to run as a Democrat again. If he was going to do that, he should have just stayed in the party. Joining the party only when it's convenient and beneficial to him is bullshit.

[bekkilyn]

54. So you would rather him split the Democratic vote to guarantee a Republican win? (nt)

[Ken Burch]

71. Running in Democratic presidential primaries is NOT "splitting the Democratic vote"

And the result in November would have been the same if Bernie hadn't entered the primaries.

HRC would not have taken any additional votes in the fall if she'd been nominated with no primary opposition, OR if she had run on a platform further to the right in the fall. The issues voters had with her existed long before Bernie decided to enter the race.

More to the point, it wasn't Bernie's fault that HRC's fall campaign was run like every non-Obama fall Democratic campaign since 1980-focusing predominately-as those who ran the campaign have admitted-on attacking the opposition candidate, rather than making a positive case for our own nominee and our own platform.

If the party had made a positive case for the nominee and the platform, it could have withstood the Russian interference and the Comey slur.

The lesson is that we can't win if we don't TRY to win the argument on the issues.

[bekkilyn]

73. If Bernie hadn't entered the primaries

He would have entered as an Independent. Hillary would have been the Democratic nominee. 45 would have been the Republican nominee.

Bernie and Hillary would have split the Democratic vote and 45 would have won *both* the popular vote and electoral college.

So I'm asking...is that *really* what people want to happen in 2020 should Bernie decide to run but not be "allowed" to run as a Democrat?

[WinkyDink]

122. It's pretty much the definition!

[Ken Burch]

125. The point of a Democratic primary is to give Dem voters a chance to decide who the Dem nominee is.

Last edited Sun Apr 16, 2017, 04:48 AM - Edit history (2)

There pretty much has to be MORE than one candidate in the primaries, or they cease to be democratic.

We can't just let whoever decides they are the "pros" choose who runs on our line.

The "pros" will always choose the safe and bland...and the safe and bland always lose.

The "pros" gave us Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry. They'd have been good presidents, but as candidates....

[WinkyDink]

130. "but as candidates..." what? They at least GOT the nomination! You'll notice Bernie did not.

[Ken Burch]

60. He's not a third-party spoiler.

In fact, Bernie specifically REFUSED to be a third-party spoiler when he turned down Stein's offer to give him the Green ballot line in November.
If you don't like the guy, fine-but don't call him what he's not.

[WinkyDink]

131. Look, this game of semantics is one you cannot and will not win. Not registered as a Democrat? Then

officially you are not one.

Bernie wanted it all ways, just like Nader who took support from the Greens while not joining officially.

[Me.]

3. Sigh

Just what we need, more divisiveness, and 4 more years of 45, from Sanders

[Chasstev365]

5. No Bernie; No Hillary in 2020!

That ship had sailed!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. Unfortunately

I have to agree. We have to figure out a good consensus candidate and back them up 100% Trump CANNOT be allowed to win another 4-year term when we will all be lucky just to survive the first 4 years!

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

17. Yup.. time for someone new.

We don't need a rematch with Trump with the same people. We need to start over with someone else. It's too easy for Trump to win against the people he already went up against in the last election. They'll dredge up the same old bullshit from the last election. No thanks. We need someone new to change the conversation.

[Norbert9]

19. I had no idea Sanders ran against Trump. Link?

[Skittles]

61. he couldn't even win with Democrats

[samnsara]

30. i agree.. love them both but....

...its time to pass the torch to another, younger generation.

[bathroommonkey76]

39. I'd welcome Bernie with open arms

And I'm sure there are a lot more Dems out there who would do the same.

[FloridaBlues]

62. Yes both ships have sailed! Agree but I think Bernie has stars in eyes for 2020

There will be more candidates in 2020 to chose other than Bernie and one other candidate. Time for a change will have emerged long before the start of next presidential race.
First out let's take back at least one chamber of congress!

[LenaBaby61]

64. No Bernie; No Hillary in 2020!

I love, trust and respect Hillary and I very much respect and for the most part trust Bernie, but ...

As you said, both of their ships have sailed. Plus, I thought we needed NEW blood at the top of the Dem ticket for 2020?

[Demsrule86]

6. Ah...another divisive post...I seriously doubt if Sanders will run

as an independent in 2020 at 80 years old.

[KittyWampus]

8. It's so transparent.

[Demsrule86]

14. It sure is transparent.

[JHan]

57. I've decided today to stop falling for it.

Bigger fish to fry, even if others don't realise it.

[Demsrule86]

68. You are right.

[Demsrule86]

7. Welcome to DU...we so love these sort of posts really.

[athena]

10. Welcome to DU.

And welcome to ignore.

[L. Coyote]

12. Premature speculation.

And not a good idea either.

[WinkyDink]

123. I hear there's a cure for that: New blood!

[treestar]

13. He is not 70. He is 74.

He will be 78 then. And if he ran he would give Donald his second term.

[Demsrule86]

15. Yes he would not win.

Time to move into the future.

[SCantiGOP]

134. He is 75

He was born in 1941. Would be 79 on election day. Not a can have someone that old can be elected.

[bettyellen]

16. Divisive crap. Again and again. No thanks.

[MineralMan]

20. Will he? Nothing in either of those two articles

suggests that he will do that. Why do you say he will? Has he said so?

Sorry, but your links don't support your statement at all.

[Calculating]

21. Why not?

I mean if Orrin Hatch can keep running into his 80's I'm not sure why Bernie can't.

[Norbert9]

22. Exactly. The divisiveness is coming from a bunch of sour grapes here.

The site isn't the inclusive welcoming place I thought it was when I joined a few months ago.

[MineralMan]

24. Please see, and respond to, my reply #20.

[stonecutter357]

56. seems legit !

[seaglass]

25. Lol. n/t

[Paladin]

26. Take a hike, Bernie. The Democratic Party can't stand any more of your "help." (nt)

[elleng]

27. Watch what you suggest around here, re: Senator Sanders.

In case you haven't noticed it, there's a 'significant' contingent around here who, it appears, can't/won't recognize his true Democratic roots and inclinations, and who do little but dump/dump/dump. Too damn bad, because they are the same ones who, it appears, fail to recognize the need for CHANGE in the U.S. electorate.

[Gothmog]

28. I hope that Sanders does not run

[samnsara]

29. cant i just have a pres YOUNGER than me?..and a Dem?

[NCTraveler]

33. Has little to do with energy, more to do with ego.

I believe he will win the primary easily.

[elleng]

36. Determination.

[NCTraveler]

40. Determination can be a part of it.

That can be negative or positive. Really doesn't say much. Still, I think he is personally determined to become President. I stated so in my post. I simply elaborated on determination with one word.

[nikibatts]

45. Please stop with the Bernie crap. He has already accomplished his long held dream.

He has all but destroyed the "establishment" Democratic party and he is proud of it. He is still sticking the needle in every chance he gets. i guess having 45 for President didn't satisfy him enough?

[Jim Lane]

50. I would vote for Bernie in the primary over Booker, Cuomo, and their ilk.

And I would vote for Bernie as the Democratic nominee in the general election over any conceivable field of opposing candidates.

My guess, however, is that he won't run. We're likely to have a fairly large field. Bernie will support a progressive who's younger than he is and who has some of the same strengths but without the weaknesses (such as age and the smear campaign using the word "socialist" in every sentence).

BTW, as to the comments in this thread implying that he wouldn't even be allowed to run, is that what you folks are actually suggesting? Some people seem to think that the DNC can issue an edict "BERNIE SANDERS HATH NOT SWORN FEALTY AND HENCE HE SHALL NOT APPEAR ON ANY PRIMARY OR CAUCUS BALLOT" and 50+ election officials around the country will leap to obey. I don't think it works that way. Suppose a group of registered Democrats, in a state that has partisan registration (which Vermont doesn't, BTW) want to be candidates for the position that's at issue in the primary, namely that of delegate to the Democratic National Convention. Can the state party keep them off the ballot because they've announced that, if elected, they will take actions (voting for Bernie) that the party oligarchs don't like? I've never seen any legal analysis of that. It seems to be just an implicit assumption of the anti-Bernie crowd.

[JTFrog]

63. If he wants to actually be a Democrat then that's fine. Do it and tough it out.

Don't bail when he thinks it's more convenient or better optics for him not to be a Democrat. This asinine trashing the party until you want to use them for money and media is absolute bullshit.

[Jim Lane]

69. If you want to cast your vote for the Presidency based on the (D) or (I) after the name....

then that's fine. Your vote is yours to cast on whatever basis seems right to you.

Some of us, however, consider that formal identification to be close to meaningless. Bernie caucuses with the Democrats. He thus contributes to their quest for the majority (and to getting Democrats into committee and subcommittee chairships) just as much as he would if the Senate website identified him as a Democrat. Note also that he can't personally register as a Democrat because Vermont doesn't have partisan registration. (Well, I suppose he could register as a Democrat by moving back to Brooklyn. That would also answer the criticism, leveled against him in apparent seriousness by some people on this very website, that his choice to move to a heavily white state showed him to be a racist. That may be the only anti-Bernie argument that makes yours look sensible by comparison.)

As for what he says about the Democratic Party, I personally see a difference between "asinine trashing" and "valid criticism". Presumably some people take umbrage at any criticism and would label it as "asinine trashing" regardless of its merit. I don't agree.

[JTFrog]

75. Regardless of its merit? Presumptuous indeed.

Calling to primary a sitting Democratic President, claiming our Democratic nominee was not qualified to be President, calling the party corrupt and the primaries rigged. Dude is not doling out any valid fucking criticism there.

Democratic party "corruption" has kept Bernie Sanders in Washington for the last twenty five years. He whines about "rigged" Democratic party processes, about insiders, about the party keeping the little guy out of power. Bernie Sanders is actually fine with all of that. As long as it benefits him. Take a look at his electoral history sometime. Did he go off about corruption when the Dems turned their back on Dolores Sandoval for him? How about all the other times he has benefited?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

[Jim Lane]

79. I can't answer your post without getting my answer removed.

I base this conclusion not on the stated ToS but on my experience of how they're actually applied. I'll say only that, IMO, I was not being presumptuous.

We're having lovely weather here in the NYC area. I hope that, wherever you are, Mother Nature is treating you equally well.

[Warren DeMontague]

97. I don't have a problem with Booker, but Cuomo is tone-deaf on the topic of pot legalization.

Apparently he's never ventured west of Iowa.

[stonecutter357]

52. we need to make sure it's Democratic party Members only.

[Tarheel_Dem]

58. I sure as hell hope not. After his 2016 stunts, I don't think the Democratic party is that stupid.

[Jim Lane]

70. Are you implying that the Democratic Party has the power to bar him?

If so, please see my query in the last paragraph of #50. My guess is that there is no such power but I really don't know and I'd be grateful for enlightenment.

If, instead, you mean that no Democrat would vote for him in 2020, I beg to differ. There are literally millions of Democrats who think that "2016 stunts" is a ridiculous way to characterize one of the finest Presidential campaigns in modern history. Disagree with us if you will, but don't pretend that we aren't out there.

[Tarheel_Dem]

74. There are "millions of you", and there were millions more of us who said no. Some us said Hell No!

[JTFrog]

76. Damn straight! nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

77. They like to omit that little factoid. To be precise, +3,775,437 more of us said HELL NO!

[Jim Lane]

78. I'm still waiting for an answer to my question.

I know that some people here really really love dumping on Bernie Sanders. I respectfully submit that the daily quota of ritualistic denunciation has now been satisfied. My hope is that someone who can convey information, as well as (or maybe even in lieu of) vitriol, will answer my question about the legalities of the process. Thanks in advance.

[Tarheel_Dem]

80. Donald Trump probably could've legally run as a Democrat had he wanted to, but he would not....

have been embraced by the party's many factions, much like Sanders. So sure, he CAN run. But I'm almost certain that the party's rank-n-file would reject him again. Try as they may, Perez & Ellison won't be able to fix the many hard feelings from Sanders disastrous run in '16. If you want to talk "vitriol", I suggest you google "Susan Sarandon 2016 primary campaign". That won't be forgotten soon, nor should it.

[Jim Lane]

87. About vitriol, I don't need to use Google.

Last edited Thu Apr 13, 2017, 01:02 AM - Edit history (1)

Right here on DU, Bernie supporters were called terrible human beings, cultists, bedbugs, and a whole bunch of other vile names.

I'm not saying that all virtue was on our side and all vice on the Clinton side. That's a childish attitude. More specifically, it's a childish attitude that was held by some Sanders people, and the mirror image of which was held by some Clinton people.

Certainly there are still hard feelings. I hope that, for 2020, the Democratic Party can do a better job of enforcing its own rules requiring DNC neutrality. That would remove one cause of the hard feelings. Nevertheless, to the extent that there's resentment because "someone dared to disagree with and even criticize my preferred candidate!" -- a form of resentment that's found on both sides -- people on both sides just need to get over it. That's how campaigns work.

In 2008, Clinton herself attacked Obama with that disgusting "3:00 a.m. phone call" ad, which was picked up and used against Obama by McCain in the general election campaign. Fortunately, neither Clinton nor Obama followed your "Never Forget!" motto. She campaigned for him (as Bernie did for her this time), and he appointed her to his Cabinet. By the time the 2020 race gets underway, anyone who's still prioritizing grudges from 2015-16 will be widely regarded as a crank.

ETA: I meant to mention that one cause of hard feelings has been, if not eliminated, at least ameliorated. That's the superdelegate system. The reforms approved at the 2016 Democratic National Convention make the system significantly less undemocratic. That's a definite step forward.

[Tarheel_Dem]

89. Fortunately, "the cranks" will be back to voting for Greens again, and staying out of Dem party....

politics, and I wish them a speedy exit. Many people, including one of our primary candidates, returned to their previous party labels after they lost. Let's hope they stay put.

[Jim Lane]

90. Evidently you see all vice on only one side.

Currently, the people I described -- the ones cherishing grievances and prioritizing the refighting of old battles above all else -- can be found on both sides of the Clinton-Sanders divide.

My prediction is that, with the passage of time, their numbers will dwindle.

[Tarheel_Dem]

91. The numbers may dwindle, but only if Sanders stays on the sidelines.

[Jim Lane]

94. In other words, you're going to prioritize refighting past battles.

Duly noted.

[bekkilyn]

104. Some people would rather keep losing to Republicans than support a progressive. (nt)

[Tarheel_Dem]

115. It matters to me who "the progressive" is. Anthony Weiner's "a progressive", but I don't want him..

to be POTUS.

[Warren DeMontague]

72. There's nothing in either of those links saying Sanders plans to run again.

Personally, I feel very strongly that NEITHER Hillary or Bernie should run again.

[madokie]

81. And I'll vote for him

The only politician I ever gave money too, well on the national level that is

[butdiduvote]

86. If Bernie runs again, there are millions of us who will do everything in our power to destroy him

Far too many Hillary supporters allowed ourselves to be intimidated into silence this past election. We've learned our lesson. We won't be quiet next time. The way Bernie conducted himself in the primary was shameful, and we won't forget it.

[Expecting Rain]

88. Well said!

We shall fight on the beaches,
We shall fight on the landing grounds,
We shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
We shall fight in the hills;
We shall never surrender!

And never (ever) forget.

[VOX]

93. I only vote for Democrats.

From George McGovern on. And it's why I've stuck with DU for 15 years.

[RandiFan1290]

99. You must have missed the Charlie Crist 3rd party Senate run

His minions were allowed to campaign against our Democratic nominee on DU and helped elect Marco Rubio in Florida.

[Ken Burch]

124. To hear the Crist supporters 'round here that year, you'd have thought it was disloyalty...

...for Democrats to support the Democratic nominee in Florida.

[HoneyBadger]

101. In a 10 person primary, Bernie has a huge head start

In a primary against 1 candidate (Hillary), he did not. She had primary campaign structure in place for a decade.

I think that that he could easily win the 2020 primary. His ground game is already ahead of what his competition (ie not Hillary) could hope to achieve.

[seaglass]

107. He has not grown his base and has futher alienated the Democratic base.

He's not trying to appeal to the voters who chose Hillary over him, the majority of Dems. If he continues to appease wwc Trump voters that will turn off more of the base. I do not see success in his future.

[HoneyBadger]

112. Yes, but he has a ground game in place

Big heads up over the other potential contenders, except maybe Biden

[seaglass]

113. He needs voters. n/t

[HoneyBadger]

114. Regardless of who wins the popular vote, superdelegates and the electoral college both

Have a disproportionate effect on the outcome of the election vs the popular vote.

Bernie had his issues with the DNC and superdelegates. He is barnstorming with the DNC right now. Expect him to seek similar influence with the superdelegates. With that, even if he splits the popular vote evenly with the other 9 contenders, he still probably wins the primary after a couple of rounds.

[seaglass]

117. The EC has nothing to do with primaries. Super delegates will go with a winner. He does not

have the personality to make many friends with his peers. I doubt that he will in such a short time build the type of network needed that he has eschewed his entire political career.

[tallahasseedem]

111. God, I hope not.

We need a viable candidate.

[Lil Missy]

119. Not as a Democrat he won't. n/t

[phleshdef]

120. I supported Bernie in the primary and of course Hillary in the general.

But we need some new people to step up. The only exception for me is if a healthy Joe Biden goes for it, then I might consider him. Thats because I believe he is the anti-Trump in every possible way short of Barack Obama.

But I'm looking at other players like Jay Inslee, Kirsten Gillibrand, Gavin Newsome, Al Franken, Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren (though I really don't think she is interested).

[WinkyDink]

121. I'll vote for Joe Kennedy III, TYVM. Or Joe Biden! (Anyway, as my mother would say, "We should all

live so long.&quot

[democratisphere]

126. ****crickets****. ****crickets****. ****crickets****.

[delisen]

129. the fact that he is 75 is not a barrier to me; but his lack of foreign policy experience and

old fashioned economic analysis is.

he is the most popular senator as far as constituency is concerned-that being residents of Vermont.

Mitch McDonnell's constituency gives Mitch the lowest approval. Is there any way we can help the residents of Kentucky-they are suffering.

[WinkyDink]

133. We can tell them to stop voting for him.

[delisen]

136. I speak only for myself and never tell other people how to vote