Is Bernie the new Nader?

[Bernin4U]

Edit 2: This was never intended to suggest that Bernie is really any such "new Nader", or even that Nader was ever a "spoiler" to Gore. My intended points are that (1) whatever happens, they'll try to blame us for any difficulties their deeply flawed candidate will experience, and (2) I was curious to hear others' thoughts on the idea that Bernie must be careful to bend, but not break the will of the Dem party.

- - - - -

Remember kids, if Hillary loses, it will be on all of us.

Never mind how much she, DWS, the DNC, etc, sucks (oh wait, that term is sexist now, right?).

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/is-sanders-2016-becoming-nader-2000-213893

Edit to add:

The moral victory of exercising influence over the platform may have looked ephemeral in the years that followed: The defeat of Dukakis was blamed on excessive liberalism, leading to the 1992 nomination of Bill Clinton who took the party in a moderate direction. But Jackson in 2000 enthused at how much he was able to influence the White House in the Clinton years as well as catapult his top staffers into the Democratic Party apparatus. And had he not kept his supporters inside the Democratic tent, neither Clinton’s presidency nor Obama’s more liberal administration would have been possible.

Sanders never endorsed Nader, but he did endorse Jackson in 1988. If he wants his 2016 campaign to leave a lasting legacy on the Democratic Party, he’ll walk Jackson’s path at the convention, and do everything he can to prevent his supporters from walking Nader’s.

[libdem4life]

1. My take is that win or lose...he's going to be a Leader of a much more

important movement than the Status Quo candidate who, at present, is still leading.

Her loss, however, would not be on us, IMO. It will be a Trump who doesn't treat her long history with kid gloves, like Bernie has done. Trump doesn't have a record to defend...he's been pretty open about his flaws...as opposed to the enforced Democratic taboo of the mere mention of hers. Just referring to everything as a vast Right Wing Republican Conspiracy no longer holds much water. She's upped the ante with The Foundation.

This is no longer a political disagreement, it is a cultural/societal movement to energize We, the People to take on They, the Corporatists/DC Beltway.

In simple terms, a class/caste war.

[sarge43]

2. If Sanders isn't the Democratic nominee,

he will not continue to campaign. No doubt he'll still speak about the issues, but he won't go third party or do anything to harm Clinton's campaign. He isn't a spoiler. If Clinton loses the election, it all on her.

[Bernin4U]

3. Of course they'll look to him as a spoiler.

Because it's a lot easier than looking in a mirror.

Al Gore should have been a shoe-in. But he was a pretty terrible campaigner, and he didn't exactly get any help from the Clintons. But of course the lazy way is just to blame Nader.

The bigger issue is this:

While I really don't care how much these idiots want to yell and point fingers (after all, who cares what someone thinks of you when they've already proven their judgement to be invalid?), the problem with that is that by doing that, they're refusing to take any responsibility. Like small children who don't make the correlation between their own actions and getting what they want.

Otoh, the article mentions that Bernie needs to bend the Dem party without breaking it. Does anyone here believe this will work? Is there any evidence?

[sarge43]

5. Naturally they'll always find an excuse to shift the blame

No, there isn't any evidence that the Democratic party establishment will listen to Sanders, let alone bend to him. The Nevada coupe told us it will do everything it can ensuring he has no say, now or in the future. It's not even trying to hide its intent anymore.

[Kittycat]

9. She'll shift blame because she has never taken ownership

For her failures. She's a terrible leader, incapable of making a good decision without poll testing it, and the only true convictions she has shown are right of center. That is not the type of democratic leader this country needs nor wants. Lying and twisting her positions for her audience to buy votes is politicking at its worst. And when push comes to shove, she plays in the mud, as evident in NV. She won't be a good leader, because she has t earned the respect of her own party, let alone the Amerocan people. She. Has this country ever elected anyone with such horrific favorables?

It's like this. I was at my son's scout event last night with people from all ends of the political spectrum (all ends). I walked over after helping serve to sit down and eat, mid conversation. The most right leaning person at the table talking to democrats, and said they had no one to vote for. Response back, neither do we. I stepped up, and said, I've already voted for my person - but I'm afraid I don't have anyone this fall either. The concensus from 12 adults that I could hear - about 60:40, none of us supported the front runners. Everyone at the table said they didn't even want to vote for either of them. I piped up and said, well, we can always write in Donald Duck, just to lighten mood, because holy heck. At that moment, everyone was shoulders slumped and not looking pretty depressed at a celebratory event for our kids.

For the record, we're in IL. And life here pretty much sucks with our REPUBLICAN governor. So don't assume we're always blue.

[TBF]

6. "Bernie needs to bend the Dem party without breaking it".

This is not anything to do with Bernie. This has to do with the democratic party being completely owned by the "Third Way" (DLC, whatever they are calling themselves now) - these folks freaked after Mondale and decided they were not going to lose that big again. In doing so they took money from the Koch Bros. amongst others. They are no longer the party of FDR - they are the party of Bill Clinton, et al. While they may throw a few crumbs to the peons they are in it to win it (and whatever comes with it - they will sell out where needed to maintain victory).

If the earlier primaries weren't clear enough for you, we saw in the Nevada convention this weekend just how far they will go. Blatant cheating on camera, cops brought in to protect their cheating - this is what we're dealing with. She is hell bent on stealing the nomination, and when she does there will be a mass exodus from the party.

This is not "Nader" ... this is a suicide mission.

Bernie won't be part of it and most of the rest of us will just quietly slip away with him - we'll vote Green or write him in (depending upon our local laws and who is on our ballot). This isn't on us, and it's not on Bernie.

[TexasBushwhacker]

10. Gore didn't win his home state

If he had, Nader, butterfly ballots etc wouldn't have mattered.

[basselope]

20. Al Gore's problem was he wasn't being Al Gore.

I heard him campaigning (when he ran in 88) and really liked him. He seemed moderate, but not corporate. Very reasonable, practical, but without the stench of selling out.

I DIDN'T vote for Clinton in 1992 b/c he had the stench of sell out all over him and even though he put Gore on the ticket, I couldn't help but feel it was all a giant sell out.

Sadly, I turned out to be right.

In 2000, I felt like I was watching Al Gore run against himself. He was saying things he didn't believe in because he was stuck in this idiotic concept of democrats trying to win republican voters. This was simply uninspiring to watch. I voted for him hoping that if he got into office he would do what he WANTED and not the things he felt he had to say in order to win.

When he decided not to run in 2004, it was like he was suddenly free.. and suddenly far more liberal than he ever was, coming out strongly for Single Payer.. sick of incrementalism, etc..

[Time for change]

18. I think maybe he should run as an independent if he doesn't get the Democratic nomination

The reason he said he wouldn't do that is that he doesn't want to be a spoiler. That's reasonable.

But what if his running is the best way to stop a Trump presidency? It's possible, and I believe it should be looked into with some polling. Trump and Clinton are both very weak candidates. Either of them could win. But Bernie would easily beat them both alone, and I believe he could beat them both together. If it looks like he won't make it, and if it looks like he might take a state away from Clinton, he could always drop out of particular states and throw his support to her.

So there are two big reasons for him to give this serious consideration:
1) to decrease the possibility of a Trump Presidency
2) even to concede the presidency to Clinton would do terrible damage to our country, especially given the amount of election fraud we've seen in this race.

[onecaliberal]

4. Nader is NO Bernie. And this isn't the same situation. The country is exponentially more screwed

than it was, and people are tired of voting for more of the same. Blaming the victim is so pathetic, I get sick of hearing it.

[99th_Monkey]

14. Well said. nt

[LiberalArkie]

7. Let me stick this here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7836141

Nader was only a problem because Gore was chosen because he was next in line.

From Wiki

A common claim is that Nader's candidacy acted as a spoiler in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, in which 537 votes gave George W. Bush a crucial and controversial victory in Florida (Nader received almost 100,000 votes in Florida, from which a slight decrease in favour of Gore would have altered the outcome).

Now if Gore had been an exciting vibrant candidate, well we know that Bush would have lost. It was never Naders fault, it was the Democratic party choosing a candidate, because it was his time to run.

[Art_from_Ark]

19. Tthe Florida vote counting was never finished

The person in charge of counting the votes was Bush's campaign co-chair for the state. And his brother was governor. Together they removed tens of thousands of voters from the rolls before the election. 10,000 Gore votes mysteriously disappeared in Volusia County. Republicans were shipped in from DC to disrupt the vote counting in Miami-Dade. The Florida state legislature announced that it was going to go with Bush, regardless of the actual vote tallies. The fix was in from the beginning. It wouldn't have mattered if 538 Nader voters had switched and voted for Gore, he was still going to lose Florida, by design.

[LiberalElite]

8. please leave the

Nader fantasies in GDP or Her group. Thanks.

[Bernin4U]

11. The issue here (maybe I should start a new thread?) is what will it take for them to get the clue?

That they need to be responsible for their choices? Or does the answer to that have a lot to do with a certain species of large 4-legged mammals sprouting wings and taking flight?

[onecaliberal]

17. I am responsible for my choices. I choose to NOT vote for the people killing the god damn planet ok

[LiberalElite]

22. at a certain point you do have to

know when to hold and when to fold 'em. (credit: Kenny Rogers) Whoever is left over there will not get the clue. They are probably on someone's payroll posting for dollars and wasting our time. Trying to get them to take responsibility, or see the light even, is a hopeless cause. Posting about us possibly being blamed for what is still a hypothetical situation and bringing up Nader's ghost is just dispiriting and pointless, IMO. Let THEM do it.

[TexasBushwhacker]

12. Why the fuck would it be on us?

If she's such a strong candidate, why is Bernie doing so well? If she's such a strong candidate why are her favorability ratings and trustworthiness ratings so low? Thank goodness Trump is the GOP candidate because his negatives are even worse. If she loses she has no one to blame but her.

[Bernin4U]

13. Of course it isn't on us! But will that stop them for a second

...if it ends up with Trump defeating her in Nov?

[winter is coming]

15. If Hillary loses, it's on her.

Anyone who wants to claim otherwise can fuck right off.

[HereSince1628]

16. You can bet if the dem nominee loses, Clinton supporters won't take any responsibility

And that will be true regardless of who the dem nominee turns out to be.

[CobaltBlue]

21. Bernin4U—No political party wins or loses every single election…

If Hillary Clinton ends up the general-election, Democratic presidential nominee for 2016…it is not up to me, as a primaries voter for Bernie Sanders, to prop up Hillary Clinton and her campaign. It is Hillary Clinton, and everyone who follows her, to get her elected. And if she does not win, and “Democrats” try pedaling the narrative that it is all Bernie Sanders primaries voters who cost Hillary Clinton the election, I will gladly let them know it is the Hillary Clinton primaries voters who are solely responsible.

[MisterP]

23. if anyone's the "Nader" it's CLINTON

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-sanders

[riderinthestorm]

24. It's a myth that Nader cost Gore the election.

Here's the actual ballot analysis.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/lewis/pdf/greenreform9.pdf

Here's another good summation.

http://disinfo.com/2010/11/debunked-the-myth-that-ralph-nader-cost-al-gore-the-2000-election/

This has been solidly debunked.

Feel free to copy and use the links. Obviously it's the meme of the moment.

[eridani]

25. Everyone who has tried to be a cat herder has turned out to be lousy at it

Bernie won't have better luck at tht thqn anyone else.

[PATRICK]

26. Bewildering

Does anyone think the Clinton campaign is welcoming the Sanders constituency into its executive fold? How exactly do followers of Nader equate now to followers of Sanders who certainly is no Nader?

Maybe the party has not degenerated so far from its "liberal" past that they are only dead reflexes binding them to the bloc constituencies to perform at the behest of the glorious Big Money machine. I clearly remember the griping that the party bent to much to appease Jackson and that putting him and the black constituency in its place(politically, I hope not racially) was a key achievement of Clinton's claim to leadership. I mean a lot more than the vacuous Sister Souljah put down our racist media rejoiced in.

This suggests something of submission, or a two way street. Neither seems very prominent in the cards at the moment. By simply running a decent campaign and by not having any party establishment permission or support Sanders has already let the cat out of the bag on one or both things: Clinton has a troubling vote attraction problem and the American Democrats(the people) want progressive measures, wrongs righted and common sense duties performed. The argument that both things have gutted the soft center fudge faith of Big Donor centrism is very strong. So who is going to be blamed for showing- before November- that the leadership has pigheadedly marched down a fatal roadkill path(as in other "shoe-in" mentality years)? The one who showed the obvious when there was still time not to double down on doom.

A trivial amount of political skills and concentrating on truth real hard could settle all this, but such trivial matter is rare in the modern political brainpan thanks to the utter rot of corrupt money.

Talking about Nader and never the ideas and causes that are the real point of it all. Just keep it personal and insulting so we all stay stupid. And die the same way, fingers pointed collegially at one another in the final pose.

[LWolf]

27. When Clinton loses,

Sanders and his supporters will be blamed no matter what he, or we, do.

They are already setting us up to be that scapegoat. And they will never, ever, take responsibility for their own losses.