Democrats divide on Bernie's 2020 plans

[DonViejo]

Many are furious that Sanders appears to be running for president again, or planning to drag out his decision on whether to run.

By EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE and GABRIEL DEBENEDETTI 05/16/17 05:11 AM EDT

Many top Democrats are furious that Bernie Sanders appears to be running for president again, or at least planning to drag out his decision long enough to freeze the race around him.

He’s frustrating alumni of his 2016 campaign, some of whom would like him to run again, by showing no interest in raising early money or locking down lower level staff — moves they say would indicate he recognizes the need for a different kind of campaign operation in 2020. Outside of his tighter-than-ever inner circle, friends and staffers who’d be happy to back him again say they rarely, if ever, speak to Sanders these days.

Sanders hasn’t made any decision, and he tends to dismiss the discussion about 2020 as dumb. He hasn't even fully committed to running for re-election to the Senate next year. Weighing on him throughout it all and clouding his outlook, people close to him say, is the toll on his family from the ongoing FBI investigation into potential bank fraud at the small Vermont college where his wife was the president.

But the senator, who’ll be 79 the next time the New Hampshire primary rolls around, is continuing to put himself at the center of the conversation. He’s introduced a Medicare-for-all bill this week that he hopes will force others to sign on. He’s joining Ohio Gov. John Kasich for a CNN town hall tonight that’s being held on the evening of the Center for American Progress forward-looking Ideas Conference — an event Sanders wasn’t invited to. Some of his moves, like collecting names and email addresses via RSVPs to his “unity tour” with new Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez for his Friends of Bernie Sanders group — a mailing list the DNC itself won’t have any access to — have alienated his allies on the left.

more
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/16/bernie-sanders-democrats-2020-238425

[Blue_Adept]

1. Ugh

I'm just done with Bernie. This does nothing to draw me back to his side.

[nikibatts]

30. We have learned nothing!

And we owe Hillary a huge apology. Sorry, Hillary.

[Eliot Rosewater]

2. That is the problem, when you put out a Medicare For All Bill, that we of course ALL

would love, or most of us anyway, it creates a new STANDARD that newer progressives think is now the required minimum for who they can and cannot vote for in 2018 and beyond.

Do I need to explain why that is SUICIDE?

Doing this NOW when there is a -0% chance of is passing, not zero but MINUS zero, creates an issue as I outlined.

[yurbud]

4. whether it passes or not, it gets the issue out there, and makes Dems being corrupted by insurance

industry harder.

[bettyellen]

8. But he trashes Dems for being pragmatic and then eventually gets around to it himself...

It's sort of bizarre how it works out. Medicare for now is dead in the water, it's confusing for people to hear this floated now.

[yurbud]

15. "pragmatic" is too often a euphemism for corrupt. Is it confusing because you want a candidate who

won't even try to do even if they get a filibuster proof majority?

[bettyellen]

23. the broadbrushing of anyone who takes campaign contributions as "corrupt" is bullshit.

If you can't be honest enough to admit thats an unfair allegation I've got nothing for you. The USSC can get money out of politics, not Sanders.

[yurbud]

136. outside the beltway, taking money and after office, taking JOBS from industries they served

while in office is seen as corruption whether it is legal at the moment or not.

The lies people tell each other in Washington don't hold water outside.

[Steven Maurer]

29. Is throwing women's control of their own bodies under the bus not corrupt then?

Because Bernie seems to get all "pragmatic" about that. While throwing the word corrupt at any Democrat who also did well in business, no matter what their opinions are.

A small tent is fine, right up until it makes you a perpetual loser. A big tent is better, because you can actually fix things - even if the solutions aren't the most perfect.

A selectively "big tent for me, but you're corrupt" isn't.

Sanders - AND ALL HIS SUPPORTERS - need to understand that.

[yurbud]

17. considering how Democrats got their asses handed to them at nearly all levels in 2016...

just about any other "strategy" might be better unless a pre-condition is that the politician has a viable career as a lobbyist, consultant, corporate lawyer, or do-nothing board member when they leave office.

[bettyellen]

32. That's quite an exaggeration

[yurbud]

49. how many governorships and state legislatures do they control? How did they do in House & Senate?

[bettyellen]

57. 2012 was worse because they had a backlash on Obamacare

We HAD the truly economically anxious voters w HRC. Yet we pretend to need to chase them still. Interesting.

[yurbud]

141. I think Obamacare was overall positive, but it was complicated enough that most people couldn't tell

if it would be good or bad for them

[Demsrule86]

109. That is untrue...Hillary won more votes...and we made gains in the Senate...and

we have a gerrymandered House...but it looks like we may take the House next year and maybe the Senate...the news out of Georgia and Montana is good as well...so stop running Democrats down...after eight years it is not uncommon for the party who held the presidency to lose. This was perfect storm election...lies about Hillary, Comey,voter suppression and the Russians...and she still won three million more votes.

[Demsrule86]

148. I hate to read posts like yours because it is not true.

We barely lost 2016, and if you are right which I don't think you are...why didn't Feingold win? Also, it is not unusual for the president's party to lose the presidency after eight years...in fact it happens more often than not...this was a perfect storm of circumstance, and I doubt it will be repeated again. The idea that we had such a horrible loss...why we must do xyz...run left, accept abortion in Democrats (no 1000 times), move right, adjust so we can get the Trump supporters..blah blah is simply not true...no we need to stay focused on 18 and let Trump help us take the house...the contrast could not be more bleak...and we run on saving health care period...not a specific plan. WE do use a 50 state strategy which means Ossoff should have been endorsed by all party leaders...why wasn't he?

[mvd]

9. Message deleted by DU the Administrators

[Eliot Rosewater]

10. and harder to elect them and electing more GOP instead which is what happens in purple states

[yurbud]

21. wow. people in purple and red states don't like Medicare? and LOVE private insurance?

who knew.

[Eliot Rosewater]

22. So republicans are going to vote for democrats?

[yurbud]

41. swing voters might. masquerading as Republican lites won't fool Repubs anymore

and if Trump showed anything, it's that GOP base sure as hell isn't voting for them for their economic policies or budget austerity, so maybe Democratic candidates could put some more daylight between them and the GOP on such things.

[Eliot Rosewater]

43. Then how do you explain Joe Manchin and several others in similar situations?

Purity will kill the party.

[JCanete]

115. I explain Manchin as somebody who just added his consent to Gorsuch's

Supreme Court bid. I think I'd rather have some idea of who is actually on our side, than to fill seats with people who are going to screw their constituents at that level. That isn't an example of compromising progressive ideals in order to cater to the needs of the people in his state. It is throwing them to the wolves.

What's he good for, and why would you simply assume we can't get someone else if we actually put money into progressive ideas and build up actual progressive reservoirs in these states? If we don't even get these ideas to people, of course they're going to keep thinking they're commie pinko liberal nanny-state blah blah blah...we need actual outreach, and having our local party and its leaders represent those values is kind of how you push things in that direction.

[bettyellen]

33. They care more about their cultural anxiety- how do you prose we deal

With that? Supporting RW crap when I told comes to civil rights for women and POC?

[yurbud]

45. if you have a real economic agenda for them, they might put that in the backseat like some did

when they voted for Obama.

[bettyellen]

63. We actually DID get the "economically anxious" voters. We just need more who don't hate us as the

Rust/Bible Belt does.

[Demsrule86]

110. More people still have employer insurance...and those who oppose it would throw everything but the

kitchen sink at any such effort. Read about Clinton's health care efforts...any health bill will get whoever proposes it tossed out of office.

[yurbud]

134. I made a point about this discussing UNCLE TOM'S CABIN with my students

Slaves who had relatively "good" masters were only a debt or death away from ending up in the hands of the worst one.

Likewise, someone who doesn't worry about health insurance costs is one firing away from finding out why they should be.

[Demsrule86]

137. Oh please spare me...the fact is unless we have a super majority and probably not even then,

there will never be a big health care single payer bill...it is the third rail of politics. What could happen is that Medicare, a less scary plan that people are familiar with and like, could be extended to more people by gradually lowering the age requirement...this will lower premiums for the young...or a perhaps public option to force Insurance companies to compete, but it will be done gradually or not at all...reality bites sometimes. The ACA must be saved because those who secretly believe that if the ACA goes, we get single payer are just plain wrong...we get nothing and millions die.

[yurbud]

138. I agree about gradually lowering the age of Medicare...that should have been built into ACA

at the very least, triggered by a year every year premiums increase by more than a set amount.

[Demsrule86]

150. It is the easiest least dangerous way to keep our elected...and I wonder if it can be done

by executive order...do you know?

[yurbud]

151. If we should have learned anything from the Bush years forward...

it is not a matter of what is constitutional or legal, but what a president is willing to do and dare Congress (and their patrons) and even the Supreme Court to undo.

[yurbud]

139. Why don't Democrats ever learn the right lessons from Republicans?

Putting up the bill and making noise about it, even if it doesn't gets passed, draws a contrast between you and the Republicans.

You can say, "Those bastards didn't let us have it, but give us a Democratic Congress, and we can do it."

That is essentially what they did with a BAD policy idea, repealing Obamacare, and they even got their base to vote based on that bad policy.

You guys think the rest of us are impressed with the sausage-making and getting "things" done.

No one gives a shit about either.

It's better to do nothing than make things worse, or make so much sausage that it takes a ph.d. to figure out if it helps or hurts people.

[Demsrule86]

149. I don't think anyone noticed the single payer bill outside of already committed Democrats.

We should be working to save the ACA. You want single payer down the road...save the ACA...it won't happen otherwise. I would love single payer...I have employer based insurance and have paid $16,000 out of pocket in the last two years...but it is more important to stop Trumpcare and save the ACA then it is push single payer which has no chance at the moment.

[yurbud]

153. Arguably, one way to save single payer is to tell Republicans, "You fuck up ACA, you've set us up...

for the most popular social program ever, Medicare for all."

[Demsrule86]

158. They won't believe you...they know how unlikely we will have the power to do that.

You need a super majority.

[yurbud]

154. I would argue that Democrats should have (& still could) use that to rein in insurance co. greed

"Look, you guys keep bleeding employers and individual policyholders dry, you are going to force our hand, and we'll have to put you out of business. So decide on a reasonable level of profit, and reasonable executive compensation, or your board and execs next job will be asking people if they want to supersize their chalupa."

[Demsrule86]

157. Your suggestions have merit when we have power again ...not now.

[yurbud]

159. If Dems win strictly on being not Trump, they can say they have a mandate to do A,B, & C instead of

X, Y, & Z.

Also, anything that will get pushback from some industry should be worked out and on the next Democratic president's desk on day one, so lobbyists don't have time to "persuade" a majority to block it.

[sheshe2]

74. Message deleted by DU the Administrators

[Cha]

89. Put up or delete your post.. What Dems are "corrupted"

"..whether it passes or not, it gets the issue out there, and makes Dems being corrupted by insurance industry harder."

[Demsrule86]

108. No it makes the ACA a little less safe and since everyone knows single payer is a non-starter for

at least four years...it is irresponsible.

[yurbud]

140. or it gives people a reason to vote for Democrats.

[Demsrule86]

146. They had that reason in 16 and it didn't work.

We don't need reasons to vote for Democrats...Trump give us reasons as do the asshats in Congress...our job now is to protect Americans from losing their health care...and writing stupid bills that go nowhere is not much different than voting to repeal the ACA over 50 times. Be useful.

[yurbud]

155. you don't generate enthusiasm by calling the base of party activists stupid...also, repealing ACA...

was bad POLICY.

Don't forget that the rest of us notice such things. It's not just who wins or loses, but what they won or lost.

And too much complaining from centrist Dems about single payer might us progressives think you're more concerned about keeping insurance companies alive than the rest of us.

You can't keep shitting on people and expect them to follow you.

[Demsrule86]

156. I am a liberal Democrat who has had to pay out $16,000 in medical in the last two years who would

love love single payer...but it can't happen right now and we must save the ACA...or we get nothing...Single payer will not happen if the GOP succeeds in destroying the ACA. First of all how dare you claim to be progressive and yet somehow I am not...that is not acceptable...and an insult...in fact it is in TOS ablout not insinuating some Democrats are not progressive or 'real' Democrats. I truly resent the purity test for progressives...it is very selective and pretty much opinion...Anti -choice candidates are in and reaching out to Trump supporters is fine (against both)...the next day...it is different... Ossoff= no endorsement but Quist is endorsed and gets rallies and cash...here is the thing, I have been progressive my entire life...and always vote for Dems. who are the only avenue for progressive policy...now that makes me a progressive...those who did not vote for Hillary Clinton can not claim to be progressive but are enablers of the GOP...and no I am not talking about you. I would never judge you in such a way.

[yurbud]

160. if we can do wars and trade deals and privatize public education at the same time...

we can defend ACA AND prepare for the improvements further down the road.

[yurbud]

161. Justice Dems have only one non-negotiable: corruption

no pac or lobbyist money.

On everything else, they are willing to flex for local conditions.

[mvd]

7. Message deleted by DU the Administrators

[JCanete]

112. you do need to explain why it is suicide, to me. When we aren't in control

there is 0 chance of passing anything. When we are in control, why would we have 0 chance of passing this, unless those of us who supposedly want something like this aren't actually in control?

[Eliot Rosewater]

125. Sure, I will explain.

When you say we need Medicare for all, and we do, but if you then say any Democrat who does not support that is bad, and many will do that, then you create a situation, AGAIN, where republicans win over democrats due to 3rd party votes or non votes because sometimes the democrat running wont be the perfect candidate.

As imperfect as they will be, often, they will always be better than any republican for reasons having to do with how the two party system works.

[JCanete]

131. but it hurts our whole product..it hurts our whole brand. If we are more consistent

and better, and we offer the public the best solutions rather than watered down things that appeal to these red-state democrats for reasons so far not proven to me to be pragmatic(unless you're talking about the money that funds campaigns-and that's a problem), then you are making it harder, not easier for democrats to win races and hold seats, and you are making it easier, not harder, for people to say "they're all the same" and "they're all bought."

[ismnotwasm]

3. Oh for Gods sake.

[cynatnite]

135. We really need some new faces for the Dem party. n/t

[oasis]

5. Since a Dem candidate's age is no big deal, Biden should be considered

the top choice.

[StevieM]

12. I don't think age should disqualify either Sanders or Biden. My two favorite candidates are

Elizabeth Warren, who will be 71 in 2020, and Jay Inslee, the governor of Washington, who will be 69.

[mvd]

14. Message deleted by DU the Administrators

[oasis]

16. An Inslee/Warren or Biden/ Becerra ticket work work for me. nt

[StevieM]

18. I like Xavier Becerra a lot too!! I had wanted him to be HRC's running mate in 2016.

Inslee/Becerra would be an interesting ticket.

[oasis]

25. Yup, that has the look of a winning combo, but the #1 job

of the DNC should be to focus on voter suppression. If Democrats don't have access to ballots, it doesn't matter who is on our ticket.

[brush]

83. I like Becerra also, don't know much about Inslee.

[yurbud]

47. i would rather have a good president for a year or two than a shitty one for eight

[sheshe2]

75. Message deleted by DU the Administrators

[brush]

31. Since Sanders is not a Dem we don't have to worry. He's certainly not going to be allowed to...

to run as a Dem again and attack the party through out another campaign.

[oasis]

36. As Sergei Lavrov would put it, "Bernie is not yet a Democrat?....

..... you're kidding me".

[yurbud]

44. if Democrats try that, they could find themselves coming in third in a presidential election

[brush]

66. Not a chance. His diviseness and campaigh-long attacks on the party helped trump to get in

Let him run as an independent and see how far he gets.

Plus, he'll be looking at 80 in 2020. Why even try it. Time for younger candidates. People will be afraid of him dying in office.

Again, he's not a Dem.

[yurbud]

67. some people were leery of Hillary without Bernie in the picture. As an educator, I didn't look

forward to eight more years of letting Wall Street call the shots on public education policy as largely happened with Arne Duncan.

[yurbud]

68. No one cares about party labels. DLC/centrists have tarnished the Democratic brand by buying into

trade deals, various privatization schemes, and endless wars.

[stevenleser]

70. You are projecting your viewpoint onto other people

Party label does matter because they know what the two parties stand for. Those who support Democrats stand for women having control over their bodies, equality for all minorities, a higher minimum wage, controls on banks that actually matter, etc.

That's what supporting the Democratic Party means and hence party ID is important for many people.

[yurbud]

73. that's what it should mean and more, but particularly on economic issues...

when Wall Street objects or even clears their throats, the needs of the rest of us go out the window.

[SunSeeker]

100. That is not true about Democrats; that is true of all Republicans & most Libertarians/Indies.

Why are you here if you have such a dark, negative view of Democrats?

[sheshe2]

111. Message deleted by DU the Administrators

[Jamaal510]

81. +1

[maxsolomon]

34. The candidate's age IS a big deal

who said it wasn't? was that a decision DU made that I wasn't informed of?

running a candidate who makes * look like a fat, tired old man is a recipe for victory. see: JFK, Clinton, Obama.

[oasis]

40. "who said it wasn't." You asked.

Well, Bernie for one. That's what the OP is about.

If Bernie's candidacy is in play when the 2020 election season rolls around, then why shouldn't Biden, Kerry or Hillary get a long look?

[maxsolomon]

50. 79 years old. 79. SEVENTY-NINE.

if TOO OLD isn't an issue, then sure, consider all 3. they'll all lose to Gavin Newsome or Kirsten Gillebrand in the primary, and if they don't, * will beat them.

again.

dems win with youth.

[yurbud]

46. that is assuming issues don't matter. Sanders didn't get as far as he did on charm and looks

[Samantha]

122. Making an issue of a candidate's age is showing a prejudice which is simply wrong

The practice of ageism is no different than discriminating against people because of their nationality, skin color, gender and other attributes frequently discussed.

It is often reported Sanders is the most popular politician in the Country. To champion the optics of looks over the value of being a proven commodity (which Sanders is) is extremely misdirected.

Sam

[maxsolomon]

127. concern over sander's age is not ageism. it's not "looks", it's health.

it has practical consequences besides electability. see: Reagan.

would you say it didn't matter if he was 85 instead? how about 89?

[Samantha]

130. Adverse health issues impact people of all ages

People live longer today and most have better health care than in decades past. Looking at the schedule Bernie keeps, it appears he is more than capable of meeting people's expectations.

Sam

[maxsolomon]

133. DUers have consistently held to this line

that age doesn't matter. I believe it does, and that doesn't mean I'm an Ageist. I'm a realist.

people get old, they decline, they die. that's a stone cold fact, and men do it before women.

2020 is a long time from now, let alone 2029, the theoretical end of a sanders presidency.

god love him, but the odds that Bernie makes it to 87 are not good. they're not good for any man. 87 year old men are the exception, not the rule.

I want to win. I want Trump humiliated and thrown on the trash heap of history. I don't need Sanders to be the one who does it. pass the torch to the next generation.

[bettyellen]

6. He's using the unity tour to build up another list he won't share? It's quite a one way street

This is transparently self serving and divisive. This should not be happening.

[Cha]

77. Oh you mean the Orwellean "untiy" tour?

[NCTraveler]

11. Sanders doesn't need to change a thing in order to easily win the next primary.

Last edited Tue May 16, 2017, 04:28 PM - Edit history (2)

I think many of us already know this. If Sanders enters, he wins easily. I feel there will be a minimum of eight Democrats running in the next primary, then add Sanders name to the mix. If he gets the primary voters he had last time around he wins with little effort. If he loses ten percent of them he wins with little effort. There is a chance he could lose twenty percent of them in the early states and still win it with ease.

A sixteen person Republican field is the only way Trump had a shot. Many Democrats will be salivating at the opportunity to take on Trump. Our field might be rather large.

[Else You Are Mad]

28. I completely agree. Nt.

[yurbud]

48. Democrats will have to try very hard to lose in 2020, but it can be done.

Bush should have been beatable in 2004, but Kerry didn't, in part because the party didn't do enough to stop voter suppression and violations of people's civil rights through voter purges (as happened again in 2016).

[Steven Maurer]

64. You underestimate the anger most Democrats have for him

The anti-Sanders vote is much a majority of the pro-Sanders vote, at least in the primary.

And in the general? I've already spoken to older women voters who feel so betrayed by the "bros", that it will take an absolute ton of effort to bring them around to vote in the general.

[NCTraveler]

84. I think many underestimate the size of his base.

They are still there for him. This won't be a two person race. All he has to do is hold his base if the field is large. I don't think those angered by his actions, of which I am one, will unite around a single individual.

[Steven Maurer]

107. I disagree. Stick a fork in Sanders.

It's not just the ill will that Sanders, perhaps not entirely deservedly, has earned. It's more that his schtick is going to wear poorly on the public as it continues.

You can demonize a single person (Hillary Clinton), and get people to think "Hey - there may be something wrong with her". Especially if you can get the GOP smear machine involved. But when you start trying to demonize every single rival Democrat, which is what he'd have to do, pretty soon people will stop thinking "It's her" and start thinking "No, it's Sanders".

And the man can't keep his mouth shut. Bashing President Obama from earning some money on the speech circuit isn't the best way for him to get credibility. Yet, that's exactly what he did.

In short, most of Sanders' voters aren't die hard for him. And those that are aren't anywhere near a majority of the party.

[JCanete]

116. Well right now he has an 80% likability rating among democrats.

What we're underestimating is the next 3 years of Democratic leadership working behind the scenes, and with their friends in the media to take that number down into the 40's, hey, with articles like this shit burger.

[OilemFirchen]

65. Really?

There were six candidates in the 2016 Primary and Sanders lost. Two more will make the difference?

#BernieMathIsStillAThing

[NCTraveler]

85. There were really only two candidates in '16.

The media did an amazing job to make sure of that.

[stevenleser]

71. Message deleted by DU the Administrators

[NCTraveler]

93. "This is what everyone thought about Hillary in 2008."

I don't see the connection in argument. One was imagined(Clinton being inevitable) and one truly happened(Sanders receiving votes nationally).

[Cha]

78. NO.. BS does Not Win "automatically"

That's BALONEY. Sorry, you don't even know.

[NCTraveler]

94. Nothing is ever automatic in politics.

That said, I think it's a solid argument for how Sanders wins if he enters. I still think he is working to hold his coalition together for different reasons.

[Cha]

95. He's too divisive...

ain't gonna happen.

[brush]

80. Bet you one thing, he won't be invited to run as a Dem. Plus he'll be looking at 80.

Time for younger blood who is proud of being a Democrat — unlike a certain someone.

[NCTraveler]

92. "he won't be invited to run as a Dem."

Agree. I would rather not see him run. That said, he is holding his coalition together for some reason. He is making moves that look very similar to a politician campaigning. As a career politician he has never done this outside of the state of Vermont until recently.

[JCanete]

117. ugh...time for Democrats to focus less on the label and more on the brand.

I don't give a shit about how proud someone is to be a democrat, unless that person is making sure that being a democrat is something to continue to be proud of. Being better than the crazy ass repubs, and being actually competent, is a good enough reason to vote democrat, its not a good enough reason to blanketly praise our leadership in and of itself.

[brush]

119. Well, a lot of Democrats care. And no one is looking forward to voting for someone who's looking...

at 80.

[LanternWaste]

91. This is nothing at all like saying "it's his turn..."

This is nothing at all like saying "it's his turn...", and a distinction lacking an relevant difference will soon be created and alleged.

[LisaM]

101. A lot of his wins came from caucuses, though.

I don't know what the tone is in other states, but people in Washington state are pretty fed up with the caucus system. For a primary held here a few weeks after the caucuses, the numbers were significantly different - far more people participated and Sanders actually lost (of course this was tweaked somewhat by the fact that it was not going to count, but the point holds).

He got delegates from caucuses, but he lost by millions of votes.

[mwooldri]

13. Please let's get through the midterms first!

2020 is too early. Also we got to clean up the electoral processes a bit - minimize foreign influences, electoral rigging etc.

[still_one]

27. That is exactly right. I don't know who is proliferating these stories, or even if Sanders is

really interested, but there sure seems to be an effort by certain elements to try to sow division between Democrats, and I suspect it is an attempt to try an mess things up in the midterms, so Democrats do not focus on 2018.

and it isn't just Bernie, they have been doing this since trump took office, with slights against Hillary, Pelosi, and Perez and other Democrats. Things are getting distorted and made up, and I really believe it is to divide the Democrats in 2018

I hope we focus and do not fall for this garbage

[geek tragedy]

19. "he tends to dismiss the discussion about 2020 as dumb" Bernie is right nt

[yurbud]

20. funniest line in that article: "The fact that Tom Perez has given Sanders a platform..."

It is more the other way around.

Few people would show up to hear Tom Perez speak if Sanders wasn't with him.

My only question about their joint speaking tour was whether it was for Bernie to give the centrists some credibility or give Tom Perez a reality check of the public response when he tried to mouth the usual empty platitudes that too many people see through now, so he would take the message back inside the DC bubble.

[JTFrog]

24. Never gonna happen.

Keep on dreaming dividers.

We aren't falling for that shit again.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

26. At 79 how healthy will he be?

Personally I think we need new blood but I'd rather deal with 2018 first.

[maxsolomon]

35. Ya think?

He makes Trump look vital.

I know DU commenters skew to retired, but 79 is TOO OLD TO START THE HARDEST JOB IN THE WORLD.

[disillusioned73]

37. I'll take Bernie at 100..

over Trump @ any age..

Too early for 2020 talk though..

[msongs]

38. the most successful con artists have a knack for finding easy marks. nt

[Abu Pepe]

39. My grandfather is 79

and we don't let him touch the remote control.

[RedWedge]

42. Message deleted by DU the Administrators

[Starry Messenger]

51. I'm not worried about it, since he can't organize for shit.

[LAGC]

60. That's odd.

For someone who can't organize for shit, it sure is amazing how he came up with 46% of the delegates last time around.

And won most of those swing states Hillary narrowly lost.

[Starry Messenger]

79. 54% is a larger number than 46%, last time I checked.

[Trial_By_Fire]

52. Politico must be laughing their ass off when they publish these kinds of articles...

They know that people, like people on DU, will behave like a dog with a bone
on anything Sanders.

It's all propaganda and a huge diversion from what's really going on.

[QC]

82. It certainly inspired the usual Pavlovian frenzy here, didn't it?

Even though Bernie himself slaps down questions about whether he's running in 2020 as foolish distractions from the things that matter.

[JI7]

53. this article sounds pointless

[riversedge]

54. It is Politico. They want to divide Dems.

[Nanjeanne]

55. So this is what I get from this article . . .

Markos Moulitsas and Donna Brazile don't want the Democratic Party to listen too much to Bernie. Since I don't listen to Markos or Brazile - as a Democrat - that thrills me.

Allies of Sanders want him to run in 2020 and are upset that he hasn't declared.

I like Bernie and supported him in the primary but I don't want him to run in 2020 so I'm still hoping I can find a Democrat who is younger, charismatic person with policies similar to Bernie's to support.

I'm thrilled he is out there talking about issues that matter. The support for Medicare for All has increased tremendously because of Bernie and others speaking about it. Whether it happens completely, slowly or through a public option first -- It only helps to change the way people are viewing the ACA and the good it does as well as what it needs to become in order to actually be affordable. And it helps show the callous disregard the Republicans have for us.

I can't wait to watch the CNN Debate with John Kasich about healthcare. I think it's an important outreach.

I'm thrilled that he gets press and attention - and that it helps focus on things he is pushing for in the Senate. I love that he and Rep Marcy Kaptur from Ohio introduced legislation to protect the pensions of up to 10 million workers and retirees. The Keep Our Pension Promises Act would reverse a provision passed in 2014 that could result in deep pension cuts for millions of retirees and workers in multi-employer pension plans.

I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to get from that article but it's no surprise to me that people like Brazile and Moulitsas aren't supporters of Sanders. And I'm fine with that!

[Deb]

56. the more the merrier, the sooner the better

bring them all on, we need hope and a break from this GOP hell

[Oneironaut]

58. No more Bernie, Hillary, etc. Not even Warren. A new face, please!

We need someone with energy. Of course, the DNC will stick us with someone who has the energy of paint drying.

[Warren DeMontague]

62. I wouldn't mind having Warren in the mix, but agree with the rest ofit.

[Historic NY]

59. I'm not forget old fish....

find something fresh.

[Warren DeMontague]

61. "planning to drag out his decision on whether to run."?? It's may of 2017, for fuck's sake.

Personally, I don't want Bernie or Hillary or Biden to run, I'd like to see some new names, some younger names, some west coast names, etc.

but really, this is churn and angst for nothing. It's too early for "decisions" about 2020.

[bettyellen]

103. That's becasue his name became synonymous with dragging shit out....

Also holding mailing lists hostage, which apparently is still a thing.

[Warren DeMontague]

121. moving on is good.

Healthy, even.

[bettyellen]

128. Yeah, it would be great if the games ended and he squashed speculation

But I doubt it will happen, so some people will be in limbo for years waiting. Not a good thing.

[Gothmog]

69. I liked this quite

from article cited

Sanders hasn’t made any decision, and he tends to dismiss the discussion about 2020 as dumb. He hasn't even fully committed to running for re-election to the Senate next year.

Weighing on him throughout it all and clouding his outlook, people close to him say, is the toll on his family from the ongoing FBI investigation into potential bank fraud at the small Vermont college where his wife was the president.

[Cha]

88. Message deleted by DU the Administrators

[NurseJackie]

96. Message deleted by DU the Administrators

[Cha]

114. Message deleted by DU the Administrators

[LAS14]

72. At some point isn't "too old" a reasonable assessment????? nt

[Me.]

76. What A Showboater

And spoiler

[Blue_Tires]

86. Can we PLEASE fucking focus on 2018 FIRST?

[Cha]

87. Yeah, and forget about BS' whatever.

[Nanjeanne]

90. Bernie agrees with you.

As he tweeted

Link to tweet

[BainsBane]

97. It's time to make way for new talent

and new ideas.

[JCanete]

118. I don't think it will be Sanders next time around, but what ideas would you like to hear?

What about his platform would you like us not to work towards? Serious question. We aren't talking about his "divisiveness" to the party here, or his "defacing" of the democratic brand..we're talking about the underlying principles. What here is anathema to you?

[BainsBane]

120. I'd like someone who focuses on

Moving the country forward rather than turning the clock back half a century. Someone who understands that there is no such thing as economic justice without vigorous protection of equal rights.

[JCanete]

123. Who is trying to move the country back half a century? I have a feeling that when it comes to civil

rights, you'll find Sanders has typically been ahead of public opinion as well as mainstream establishment opinion. You'll have to be more specific about his own record, and not just point to 1 or 2 candidates that he has endorsed to make that case I think.

I agree with you, the two have to be done together. I disagree with you if you think we can get anywhere on either without pushing vigorously for both.

[BainsBane]

129. No, actually I won't have to be more specific

because I do not have the right to answer those questions honestly on this site.

[JCanete]

132. fair enough. nt

[redgreenandblue]

143. The record of Sanders is pretty clear.

He was historically ahead of mainstream Democrats on pretty much all social issues.

So, not sure what you think the "true answer" is.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

98. No thanks

I didn't vote for him in the primaries and was mad at how his supporters treated Hillary before, during, and after the primaries, which helped enable Trump to win in November. His appeals to try to understand Trump voters and cater to them in the wake of Trump's elections and his continued attacks on Democrats are creating unnecessary divisiveness (during a time in which we need unity more than ever) makes me opposed to another Democratic candidacy for him (or a candidacy of any sort). IMHO he is hurting more than helping the Democratic Party and the progressive cause in general.

[LAGC]

99. It's precisely those traits that make Bernie such a great candidate.

We do need to win some of those swing-state Trump voters back if we hope to recapture the presidency.

Bernie speaks to their frustrations, and helps them realize that Trump sold them a false bill of goods.

[GitRDun]

102. No way

Bernie's appeal is to largely whites. Whatever shenanigans the DNC engaged in, another shot will NOT broaden his appeal.

He's already run one unsuccessful campaign...why do we need to see another?

[serbbral]

104. I like Bernie and all, but..............

I am going to say it, he would be just too old. Sorry.

[Afromania]

105. Message deleted by DU the Administrators

[serbbral]

106. Agreed

[JCanete]

113. shitty article throwing a lot of blatant shade, from the jet comments

clearly aimed at coloring him as some out of touch elitist(its the dems jet..jesus)
to Sanders "not bothering to learn anything about Perez ahead of time," crap.

He should be refusing to field questions about 2020. That is over 3 years away, and it is the kind of media distraction that ignores the shit we're dealing with in the present. And who ever announces their intentions this early?

And as Cenk pointed out on TYT, if the Dem base isn't happy with Bernie's divisiveness(with that 80% dem base approval rating that sounds so divisive) , then why are people speaking anonymously for fear of angering Bernie or his fans? Hell, if he's the problem they say then they should be putting their names to the criticism. Sounds more like he's a problem for the Dem leadership, not for Democrats.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

124. lol he's going to lose in 2020 for the same reasons he lost in 2016

Because young white college educated men are not the base of the party.

Wonder who he'll blame this time, now that poor Debbie is not around as his punching bag.

[redgreenandblue]

142. Fun fact: Sanders narrowly won African Americans below the age of 30 in the primaries.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/huge-split-between-older-younger-blacks-democratic-primary-n580996

The "Bernie has a problem with black people" narrative was always a baseless smear.

Ironically, the demographic he has the biggest problem with is old people (of all races).

[luvMIdog]

126. We need someone younger ! Are we TRYING to lose or what?

I think we have just got to get smarter and run someone that is not that old. A LOT of people will not vote for someone that old because they think the person might not be able to make it. We need someone much younger.

[oberliner]

144. This is Politico making up a story where none exists

"Sanders hasn’t made any decision, and he tends to dismiss the discussion about 2020 as dumb."

[GBizzle]

147. I love Bernie. I really hope the FBI looking into his wife turns up nothing.

It is disturbing to hear that, although I know nothing has been proven yet, and even if she did something, that doesn't necessarily mean he's involved.

But if there is something there, I think it's unlikely he'd run again, even if he wanted to, and even if he's completely innocent. We'd hear about it more often than we heard about Hillary's e-mails, and I'm sure it would take a toll on him personally.

I have no problem with his age, as long as he's still sharp. So far I have no reason to think otherwise.

[Fiendish Thingy]

152. This is a shit-stirring article by a RW blog

I see too many have already taken the bait.

The primaries will come soon enough- keeping the grassroots progressive base energized, motivated, and involved should be the priority moving forward.

When its primary time, there will be plenty of opportunities to air and debate differences; it is a waste of energy and resources to keep picking scabs off of old wounds, sowing division (which was the purpose of this article), rather than focusing on the momentum that the SPECIAL PROSECUTOR brings to the Dems chances of retaking the house in 2018.

Our energies should be spent Ensuring that Dems obstruct Ryan and McConnels legislative agenda and keeping the spotlight on the dumpster fire that is the Trump administration, and all those who support him.