Bernie Sanders Could Be Setting Up a Future Presidential Run by Elizabeth Warren

[DonViejo]

August 21, 2015 By Allen Clifton

One thing I try to always encourage people to do (especially as it relates to politics) is to analyze the bigger picture. Almost nothing in politics is organic; there’s almost always some sort of “end game” – even when it comes to Bernie Sanders. As much as many people like him (myself included), I like to remind people that he’s still essentially a career politician. He’s was first elected to Congress in 1990 and was Mayor of Burlington, Vermont from 1981-1989.

That’s why I find his decision to run for president at 73 years of age interesting. If elected, he would be 75 and instantly become the oldest president ever elected to their first term – topping Ronald Reagan by six years.

So I just can’t help but ask: Why now? If Sanders is this “revolutionary” as many of his supporters claim, someone who’s tired of the status quo, why didn’t he run in 2000 or 2004? Heck, why not in 2008 when the country was reeling from eight years of failed Bush policies? If he truly believes in the issues on which he stands (and I believe that he does), then why wait so late in life to run for probably the most stressful and difficult job in the world?

Most of what he’s running against (corruption on Wall Street, money in politics, income inequality) have been issues for a while now – not just recently. So the timing of his first presidential bid has always struck me as a little strange. I don’t think it’s to “take Hillary Clinton out” – I fully believe him when he says he’ll endorse her if she wins the nomination and I don’t believe he’s someone who would just say that to say it. But let’s face facts, the presidency is hard on everyone who wins the office. Go look at a picture of Barack Obama in 2008 then look at one of him now. It’s only been six years but he looks like he’s aged fifteen years at least.

Read more at: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/bernie-sanders-setting-future-presidential-run-elizabeth-warren/?

[HereSince1628]

1. Recent strong primary challenges by progressives show a shift away from neoliberal dems

which would be consistent with a climate change in the democratic party needed to elect someone like Warren.

Growing movements don't always win, but reaching the threshold where progressives make a difference in political considerations is significant.

[MADem]

2. Wow, that's some serious dream-weaving!

She's already said NO! what--four dozen times or more?

[Garrett78]

17. She said no to running in 2016.

But, as far as I know, Warren hasn't said she won't ever run for POTUS.

[MADem]

18. There's a point in time where the window starts closing.

There's also the issue as to what is the best use of her time and talents. I don't think the Chief Executive gig is in her cards.

[Garrett78]

21. Well, she is 66.

You may be right given her age, and I wish she was running, but it's not out of the question that she'll run in 2020 if a Republican is elected in 2016. By 2024, she'll almost certainly be considered too old.

[MADem]

26. Here's what this story has done. It's eaten up all the air during the Sunday talkers.

No Benghazi, no Planned Parenthood, not even no "Bernie so white/black." It's Trump and Biden, and not much else.

Now, if we find out that Warren was meeting President of the Senate Biden in the context of her Senatorial leadership role (has she been Whipping It Good?) regarding a key upcoming vote, everyone will be SO .... what? Let down? Relieved? Pleased to have solved the puzzle? Doing the D'OH! ????


It's unusual for Warren to not come home at the weekend; she's obviously got work to do if she's staying in the District. As for Biden coming in to meet her, it's not that onerous a ride for him--he takes the train in. Hour and a half. No biggie. He's got living quarters at the Observatory, anyway--that used to be the Chief of Naval Operations' home, but it was commandeered for Nelson Rockefeller, who found it horrible, tacky, rickety and lousy, and threw a ton of his own money into fixing it up right (a rare Republican who used his OWN money to benefit the government). That doomed it for good--the Navy never got it back after that, even though they're still stuck with the maintenance fees!

But that's another "news cycle" not cluttered up with anything messy or "pile on" nasty, and people have short memories.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

3. Well

I don't know what to say?

[virtualobserver]

4. two words explain why he is running

Citizens United- that ruling was the last straw.

and Warren said no.

[LWolf]

5. Why now...

Well, first of all, the POTUS we elected in '08 has been a disappointment in terms of the hope and change for progressive values that helped elect him. Progress on some, but lost ground on others. And while we were not making the progress we'd hoped, the Republican Party has devolved into insanity.

Things have gotten steadily worse for the 99% on most fronts.

And, having listened to him talk about the possibility of running for several months before he announced, I think he was waiting for someone from the left to decide to run...someone who would challenge the neo-liberal Democratic establishment and champion the 99%. When that didn't happen, he did it himself, because we needed a choice...a choice that offered a distinct contrast to that neo-liberal Democratic machine.

He was, and is, correct.

Personally, I'd like to see a Sanders/Warren ticket.

[cali]

6. that's a really crappy article and the author is majorly disingenuous.

Bernie was clear: If no strong progressive ran, he would strongly consider doing so. And Hillary is what? 5 years his junior and she's the one with the history of a health issue.

[musiclawyer]

7. Yeah the premise is wrong

But I do think Warren is in play as VP no matter what she says. Not from HRC but from BSanders
That ticket would be kryptonite to Republicans

[DonViejo]

12. Never happen. Two New England liberals, one from VT, the other from Mass?

Nope, won't fly. Sanders and Castro maybe but, Sanders/Warren won't happen. I thought maybe Sen Gillibrand but, she's just as close to VT as Senator Warren is.

[daybranch]

8. disingenuous trolling by Hillary people

if Warren had run, Bernie would be out campaigning for her. It is about time we started to recognize that Bernie just says what we believe. Warren excites us but her story is little different than Bernie.s and she certainly has not confronted the oligarchy as long as he has and certainly not on as wide a range of issues. Bernie is Bernie. He is no sleeper candidate to help get warren elected later. this sounds like the establishment democrats supporting Hillary telling us not to work for Bernie because after all you can have Warren later. What a farce.

[SheilaT]

9. People do not run for office just to

enable someone else to run. Or for that someone else to win sometime in the future. No one runs unless they honestly believe they can win, even when they knows it's highly unlikely.

It just doesn't work that way. Especially for a "career Politician". Believe Bernie when he says he's running because he sees that someone like him, with his values and standards, needs to be in the White House.

That's also going to be true of everyone currently running. There's no "long game" in American politics. Each elected official is focused on the next campaign, the next election. Yeah, some might try to look ahead at what they hope to accomplish if they are in office more than one term, but that's not at all the same as running now so that someone else can run four years down the road.

Oh, Bernie is quite aware of his age, but he certainly seems to have the stamina of a much younger person.

In short, whoever wrote that article doesn't seem to understand the reality of actually running for office.

[MADem]

20. Well, actually, they do. They're usually called "Stalking horses."

It's a time-honored tradition in politics. Sometimes they serve as "idea catchers" who try out policies that the 'actual' candidate can hone and perfect, and other times they serve to deflect criticism from the 'actual' candidate so that the 'actual' candidate can run the ball right up the middle.

[SheilaT]

22. Please tell me specific elections and specific candidates.

[MADem]

23. You have google. Get to work and elucidate us all.

Here is a link to get you started:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2003/09/what_exactly_is_a_stalking_horse.html

[SheilaT]

24. No, I don't have to get to work to elucidate anyone.

The OP makes the claim that Bernie is running now just to set up a future Elizabeth Warren candidacy. The article you linked simply speculates that Wesley Clark, Ross Perot, and Ralph Nader were stalking horses. Can you show good evidence that a candidate deliberately runs with no intention at all of winning, but instead to insure that another candidate wins?

In your words

Sometimes they serve as "idea catchers" who try out policies that the 'actual' candidate can hone and perfect, and other times they serve to deflect criticism from the 'actual' candidate so that the 'actual' candidate can run the ball right up the middle.

Please name specific candidates or elections where that has happened.

I am saying that those who run do so because they sincerely think they have a chance of winning, not to insure that someone else win. There's a huge difference between unintentionally splitting the vote, and setting out ahead of time to do so. I doubt that in modern American politics anyone, at least not at the national level, runs as a place holder.

Someone initially getting into the race and then dropping out when it's clear he's not going to win, is still not being a stalking horse. It's being realistic.

And I have actually run for office myself. Lost my election, alas, but I was in it to win. I did do well enough that two years later the local Democratic Party saw that the seat was winnable and put money and support behind the man who ran the next time, and he did win. My campaign made his win possible, but trust me, I didn't put in all that work and money just so someone else could win down the road.

[MADem]

25. I was responding to the "That could never happen" charge. I even provided the term for it.

Then you demanded, apropos of nothing, really, a laundry list.

I provided you with a starter link--you want more, you can educate yourself.

Just because YOU are in it to win doesn't mean everyone is. At least half of the GOP Klown Kar is running for VP -- and they KNOW it. When Bill Richardson entered the race way back when, he had no realistic hope of becoming POTUS. He was running for VP in case the Hispanic vote would be a factor, and his fallback gambit was a cabinet post; SECSTATE, particularly. It didn't work out too well for him.

Stalking horses exist--Season Two of House of Cards focused on one. If you want to pretend otherwise, knock yourself out.

[LettuceSea]

10. "Biden meets with Warren in Washington"

http://www.wptz.com/politics/biden-goes-to-washington-for-political-meetings/34861916

[cali]

11. read the whole article. the "author" is embarrassingly transparent

This is a classic bit of slam Bernie under the "I like him but...." banner.

The "author" bashes him for being a "career politician".

Bashes him re his age

Bashes him for not running in 2004

Doesn't disclose he's a "proud hillary supporter" until the end.

And his idiotic theory about Bernie setting up a 2020?. Gee, how old will Warren be then?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. Warren is going to be pretty old in 2024.

If he's slamming Bernie now, he'd likewise be slamming Warren then.

[cheapdate]

13. My lord, what a steaming pile this piece is!

So I just can’t help but ask: Why now?

If he truly believes in the issues on which he stands...

...has always struck me as a little strange

Yes, Mr. Sanders, if that's your real name, why don't you explain, why now?

[Aerows]

15. It's hilarious

My personal thoughts are, if Hillary craters because the FBI investigation with regard to the email situation gets enough ugly traction, that Biden will jump into the race. That's pretty much the only reason I can see for him to do so.

Washington and Wall Street absolutely do not want a Bernie Sanders presidency, which is exactly why our country needs him to win so badly.

The only reason you see Trump being successful and Sanders being successful are because the people are pretty much unanimously fed up with the bullshit that goes on in Washington. Obviously it is for a very different reasons between Republicans and Democrats, but on the whole, "business as usual", in my opinion, has pretty much reached terminal velocity.

[Aerows]

14. I love these articles

It just demonstrates how many inroads that Bernie Sanders has made during this campaign.

The whistling past the graveyard is fascinating.

[PowerToThePeople]

16. In '08 the anger was against Republicans.

After 8 years of Democratic neoliberalism, the anger is at all of them.

I think it is the perfect time for an outsider to run.

[Sunlei]

19. One thing for sure is all four of them will support whoever 'wins' D primary.

[Motown_Johnny]

28. If we win in 2016, she really can't run until 2024

and that is a long ways away. Plus, she will be 75 by then.

Seems unlikely.

[Renew Deal]

29. Bernie Sanders is setting up a future presidential run, but not for Warren. She will be 71 in 2020.

I've been saying for a while that Sanders campaign isn't really about 2016. It's about 2020 and beyond.