Sanders, or ANY progressive for President in 2020.

[realmirage]

Sanders will run as a Democrat and I predict he will get the nomination.

I also predict he will be the next President.

The rules do not prevent this, despite the fantasies of some articles.

Do not fear change! Progressivism is a vision for the near future that asks, "why wait for all the things you really want?" Confidence and courage bring about change. Not fear of losing.

If you do not ask for the things you want you will never get them.

Progressives in 2020 and beyond.

This IS the future of the party.

[LexVegas]

1. ...

[Bfd]

3. ...

Last edited Mon Nov 19, 2018, 06:07 PM - Edit history (1)

[Small-Axe]

54. ...

[Bfd]

55. Done.

😉

[Small-Axe]

57. I see what you did. And like it!

[Gothmog]

74. I am also laughing at the OP

[Bfd]

2. Get in line bernie. Democrats have already got far better candidates than you

Start with Rep Swalwell. Media name recognition doesn't mean much when a record of works will be scrutinized in 2020.


Media won't save bernie.

[NurseJackie]

148. He won't be the Democratic party's nominee. I think he'll run third-party, however.

[Bfd]

156. Of course he will. Because he has depleted all availible Dem capital

And that is where he was always headed, afterall.

For someone who soundly decries big billion dollar corporations, he doesn't seem to ever touch Big Media.
Why is that?

We've seen it coming since day 1.

[Sunlei]

193. No, he won't run as a spoiler because he knows a third party vote hands the vote to R.

[NurseJackie]

194. I wish I shared your confidence.

[Sunlei]

196. he said so. Bernie also said to his fans-"JOIN THE D PARTY" (when asked about 3rd party)

He full well knows what a spoiler is and how the republican party manipulates for less votes for the D candidates using the spoilers.

That's exactly how Republican party drained some Clinton votes from many smaller districts. It doesn't take many spoiler votes to win some tiny districts.

[NurseJackie]

207. Oh, yes... I'm sure he's well aware of that.

He full well knows what a spoiler is

Oh, yes... I'm sure he's well aware of that.

[Wintryjade]

208. He said that in 2015. He has not said this lately. He also said he would stay a Dem.

That didn't happen either. It is not my fault because of his decisions I do not trust what he said three years ago.

[Sunlei]

209. nope, He repeated those things again- after he lost the primary.

[Wintryjade]

211. Ok, 2016 though I didn't hear what you are referring to, so I can't really gauge it. Has he said

anything after two years of campaigning and off the back of the 2018 election and how many books and books tours?

[Wintryjade]

205. I do not have the confidence he won't. I want it to come out sooner than later, that he is running

or not. And what party. And if he can even run as a Democrat. Twice in two years he has adopted the Democratic D after his name to use our resources. Twice he has then walked away from the party. I want it said out loud. I think we should at least be afforded the courtesy to know whether or not he was going to play at being a Dem or not.

[NurseJackie]

210. Don't hold your breath. Best to expect the worst and you'll never be disappointed, but hopefully...

I think we should at least be afforded the courtesy to know whether or not he was going to play at being a Dem or not.

Don't hold your breath. Best to expect the worst and you'll never be disappointed, but hopefully we'll be prepared to fight against two candidates.

I also believe that doing so would deny him and his supporters of any "ally" status (and the privileges and benefits that come with that.) And I'll just leave it at that.

[Wintryjade]

213. I think it will be real clear real fast because we have done this a couple times in the last 2 years

We are well versed on his routine. I think people with have a lot less patience this time around.

What is it that Bush said about Fool me once, ?

[Sunlei]

212. what resourses did he use? and whats the 'twice' walk away?

[Wintryjade]

214. If you have no concept of why he used the Democratic party and his gains, I won't bother.

Twice as in running for President in 2016 and then his senate seat in 2018. Put a big toe in as a Democrat only to pull it back out again to put that "I" behind his name.

[Sunlei]

215. Appreciate you 'not bothering'.

Thanks


Based on analysis of multiple outside rankings, Sanders is an average Democratic member of Congress, meaning he will vote with the Democratic Party on the majority of bills.

https://ballotpedia.org/Bernie_Sanders

[Wintryjade]

219. This is not about his votes. That is not want I am talking about, clearly.

[NurseJackie]

220. Nobody cares about that.

Based on analysis of multiple outside rankings, Sanders is an average Democratic member of Congress, meaning he will vote with the Democratic Party on the majority of bills.

Nobody cares about that. One's "voting record" is not an valid way to measure his dedication or loyalty to the Democratic party. In reality, it's the smears and lies and attacks on the party that are the biggest turn-off and which reveal much. And I have to tell you, it's not very flattering.

It's divisive for Bernie to claim that Democrats are "feeble"... or that the Democratic party is "ideologically bankrupt". Same thing goes for the false accusations that Democrats are "corrupt" and that there is no-difference-between-Democrats-and-the-GOP with the outright lie that the Democratic party is "the party of the one-percent". Good grief! What absurd nonsense! Such things only perpetuate the feelings of distrust and suspicion about him. It divides and weakens the party... and a weak Democratic party ONLY benefits the GOP and Russia. It stokes resentment and anger.

When he says those horrible things, it's very divisive and it really serves no good purpose. There's no need for anyone to do that. Yet, these type of things are repeated often. Why? Who benefits? Not Democrats. Not the Democratic party. So... who?

After his recent highly offensive comments about people who refuse to vote for black candidates aren't actually being racist... that seems highly unlikely. Without the vote of AA's and other POC, he won't stand a chance of winning the DEMOCRATIC nomination in 2020.

We can do better.

[Wintryjade]

223. I have been a Democrat for a lifetime. Stating I want to elect a Democrat should not be a

challenging concept. For anyone. Our Democratic Leaders are beyond outstanding. We have a huge pool of excellent candidates. This is not brain surgery.

[Sunlei]

224. The USA needs to discuss those things that you find "highly offensive". I agree with him.

I'll vote for him again in the D primary if he's just vs Hillary again. I love Hillary (voted for her) but I want more progressive, quickly to catch up to other first world nations. We're so behind in many things like education costs and medical care.

[NurseJackie]

225. You "agree" with him, huh? Does that mean you believe the Democratic party is corrupt?

The USA needs to discuss those things that you find "highly offensive". I agree with him.

You "agree" with him, huh? Does that mean you believe the Democratic party is corrupt?

Do you believe that there's no difference between the Democratic party and the GOP... and that the Democratic party is the "party of the one-percent"?

Do you agree that Democrats are "feeble"?

Do you agree that Democrats are "ideologically bankrupt"?

How about when people refuse to vote for a candidate because of their skin color, do you agree with Bernie that they aren't actually racists for feeling "uncomfortable" about voting for an AA or any other POC?

All I'm trying to say here is... How is it possible that any loyal Democrat would not find that to be offensive when anyone "gives cover" or "makes excuses" for racist behavior? What good purpose does it serve?

[Maven]

4. LOL

Sanders will not be our nominee, and he will never be President.

Love,
A Progressive

[grantcart]

12. +1

[Me.]

5. 2 Words

Tax Returns

[brush]

6. Nah, he had his shot, and Dems don't want all that divisiveness again.

That's a prescription for another term for trump.

Plus he's not a Democrat. No more jumping in and out of the party for one's convenience.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

97. Bernie votes more with the Democratic majority than most Democrats...

he's been an authentic progressive from Day 1. Bernie's a leader on so many progressive issues that have become mainstream. That's why, if he chooses to run in 2020, he's a lock to win the nomination.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!

[brush]

99. Nope. We have several younger real Democrats for 2020.

[Trumpocalypse]

109. He may be an authentic progressive

But Democrats want an authentic Democrat.

[brush]

143. Now that's what I'm talking about. You got a laugh out of me with that line.

[Bfd]

111. No he doesn't & no he hasn't been an authentic progressive "from day 1", either.

He's no Paul Wellstone.

[betsuni]

113. How's it even possible for Bernie to vote more with the Dem majority than most Dems?

Most Democrats don't vote with the Democratic majority?

[George II]

150. No he hasn't, and no he hasn't. Sorry. Oh, and no he won't.

[NurseJackie]

163. True, concise and directly to the point.

Well done!

[NurseJackie]

162. Nobody cares about that. It's the smears and lies and attacks on the party...

Bernie votes more with the Democratic majority than most Democrats...

Nobody cares about that. One's "voting record" is not an valid way to measure his dedication or loyalty to the Democratic party. In reality, it's the smears and lies and attacks on the party that are the biggest turn-off and which reveal much.

When he says those horrible things, it's very divisive and it really serves no good purpose. It's divisive for Bernie to claim that Democrats are "feeble"... or that the Democratic party is "ideologically bankrupt". Same thing goes for the false accusations that Democrats are "corrupt" and that there is no-difference-between-Democrats-and-the-GOP with the outright lie that the Democratic party is "the party of the one-percent". Good grief! What absurd nonsense! Such things only perpetuate the feelings of distrust and suspicion about him. It divides and weakens the party... and a weak Democratic party ONLY benefits the GOP and Russia. It stokes resentment and anger.

There's no need for anyone to do that. Yet, these type of things are repeated often. Why? Who benefits? Not Democrats. Not the Democratic party. So... who?

That's why, if he chooses to run in 2020, he's a lock to win the nomination.

After his recent highly offensive comments about people who refuse to vote for black candidates aren't actually being racist... that seems highly unlikely.

Without the vote of AA's and other POC, he won't stand a chance of winning the DEMOCRATIC nomination in 2020.

[TheFarseer]

181. Thank you

I get real tired of people acting like Bernie is enemy number 1 for Dems when he votes with the Democrats more than so called “real” democrats. I’d sure as hell rather have a senate full of Bernie Sanders than Joe Manchins, Joe Donnellys, Joe Liebermans and Heidi Heitkamps.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

229. Without a doubt... Bernie is one of the leading voices of the progressive movement in this country.

But, of course, that will never be good enough for some.

[Trumpocalypse]

271. This is Democratic Underground.

Not Progressive Underground. We support Democrats, not Independents who attack the Democratic Party regardless of how progressive they are.

[Jim Lane]

125. Absolutely right. One failed campaign for the nomination is a lifetime bar.

The Republican Party often nominates "the guy whose turn it is" because he finished second last time (Romney, McCain, Bush41, and Reagan all fit that mold).

The Democratic Party, however, is the party of new ideas. Obviously, we would never give the nomination to a tired old retread who had already been rejected once. In fact, it's hard to imagine what kind of politician could be so self-centered as to say, "I had my shot but that won't stop me. Even though I lost my first campaign for the Democratic nomination, I'll try again." Such arrogance would be breathtaking.

It's a good thing that the Democratic Party would never take such a candidate seriously, let alone nominate such a candidate.

Anyone rejecting your "he had his shot" theory must be completely ignorant of modern political history, wouldn't you say?

[brush]

142. Completely agree. The "too good to stay in the Party" irks me the most.

[Mike Nelson]

7. I think it will be someone else...

… but I will be happy to support the Democrat, in any case!

[Tavarious Jackson]

8. It depends on what the definition of progressive is.

Last edited Mon Nov 19, 2018, 04:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Is it progressive to vote against the Brady bill 5 times? Is it progressive to dump waste in a latino neighborhood? Is it progressive to say economic anxiety matters more than racism or sexism? Is it progressive to be a nationalist and anti global community? I don't think those things spell PROGRESS.

[sheshe2]

27. +1

[Bfd]

30. ++++ a million True Progressives need to do some serious vetting of those who claim their label.

It has a proud legacy.

[shanny]

35. why yes, they do...and Bernie fits the bill better than anyone else at this time

[uponit7771]

38. Depends on what you feel is important

[shanny]

40. no duh

[Bfd]

42. Fits what bill? Please See post#8, and explain his progressivness

He is simply not. Did he decide to call himself Progressive as he did Democrat?

8. It depends on what the definition of progressive is.
Last edited Mon Nov 19, 2018, 03:56 PM -

Is it progressive to vote against the Brady bill 5 times? Is it progressive to dump waste in a latino neighborhood? Is it progressive to say economic anxiety matters more than racism or sexism? Is it progressive to be a nationalist and anti global community? I don't think those things spell PROGRESS.

He is an Indepeneent. Meaning he can go wherever he chooses but even the most general vetting would show us his inconsistencies.
At this point it's impossibe to know what he is

[shanny]

44. lol Indenpeneet it is.

[Bfd]

48. Wherever the media wind blows ...

Inconsistant & unreliable

[shanny]

49. yeah definitely--since the 60s

ciao baby I don't have time for this

[Bfd]

51. Me neither. We're all quite over his antics.

2020 will be like "bernie who?"

[Wintryjade]

43. I disagree and facts tell us otherwise.

[shanny]

46. I disagree and facts tell us otherwise.

[Bfd]

58. You didn't answer for the facts in post#8 yet.

Progressive for convenience is no Progressive. Nor Democrat either.

He's got a record that deserves an explanation.
As was pointed out in post #8.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

278. Bernie doesn't just fit the bill... he's been leading the progressive parade for DECADES.

[uponit7771]

37. +1, there are too many issues that are progressive at all that are important to me on that list

[Small-Axe]

59. Populism is being conflated with being "progressive"...

when it is the antithesis.

[Wintryjade]

78. I agree. This is what has been very frustrating the last three years.

[lunamagica]

102. WORD

[LakeArenal]

9. Nope..

[demmiblue]

10. As a strong supporter of liberals/progressives, I am not a fool regarding...

people coming here trying to stir shit.

Yet people will fall for it (especially the invisibles).

And don't get me started with the Clinton will run types. As if we didn't learn our lesson the first time.

[shanny]

36. not to mention the second

[brush]

144. At least Hillary has said she won't run again. The other guy hasn't.

Sad.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

159. Glad to hear.

[Wintryjade]

11. He does not even come close to having the base. I predict, if he can run as Democrat,

he will not even be in the top two positions.

[BannonsLiver]

13. I think Bernie will run too

And I predict he will fall flat on his face. I also predict many of his supporters will blame everyone and anything but Bernie for that.

[Andy823]

15. Here we go again

Another flame bait post designed to stir the pot and cause divisions on the board.

[BannonsLiver]

16. Lol

I must have missed the part where I started the OP. I think Bernie will lose if he runs again, like last time. I’m sorry if that upsets you.

[Andy823]

18. Sorry about that

It was meant for the OP. Again I apologize.

[Charlotte Little]

89. Make that two "flame baits" then

Because I completely agree with the opinion that Bernie will fail.

Has DU been taken over by Berniebros and AOCbots tonight or what?

[smirkymonkey]

153. Exactly.

I can't believe so many people are taking the bait again

[realmirage]

170. yup

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

276. What else is new?!

[Sunlei]

218. Not if he Teams-up(very publicly early primary) with ANY of the other popular Ds.

Run their/his/hers D primaries- campaigns like it's votes for positions of VP & President.

[BannonsLiver]

284. That makes absolutely no sense at all.

[mrsv]

14. No he won't!

He's not a Dem and he's not Dem. I'm hoping Beto runs. He's a Dem

[Bettie]

17. I don't think he should run again

and I doubt he'd get the nomination at this point.

[jcgoldie]

19. I won't vote for Sanders in the primary

And it has nothing to do with wanting anyone less "progressive". Bernie does not have a monopoly on that term. On matters of race and gender, Bernie is not so progressive in my opinion. That said, if he wins the nomination, I would have zero reservations voting for him against Trump. I do not believe he can win the nomination, however.

[ornotna]

20. LOL

[DFW]

28. Si, si, nada mas que la misma mierda, como siempre

Y siempre viene de las mismas dos o tres personas. Olvídatelo. ¡Es nada más que la mierda que señalaste!

[Tipperary]

53. Exactamente.

[Andy823]

21. Flame bait

This thread is meant to stir things up cause divisions here on DU.

[Docreed2003]

22. ...

A).

B). Bernie Sanders isn't the end all be all only progressive out there

[Rizen]

23. Vote in the primaries

if you want a progressive. For some reason progressives didn't get this concept last time then fell strait into the trap of blaming the DNC for Bernie's loss. I voted for Sanders then Clinton in the main 2016 election. Progressives need to take responsibility.

[Adrahil]

24. He's old news.

We have better progressive candidates that are actual Democrats.

[JCanete]

25. I predict a 200 post thread. I think you could make a compelling argument about what we need our

leaders to sound like and advocate for without invoking Sanders name as an inevitable. Also, people will bristle fairly, that you are distinguishing certain democrats as progressives and are excluding the rest from that title. There are different ways to fight for progessive values and some are more insider. In fact, while I think that we need a loud left-wing pressure on the insiders, ultimatelly, at the end of the day, it will be those who can navigate that field who will be doing most of the policy making to realize that progressive agenda.

While a Sanders presidency, or somebody in that ideistic camp is possible, its still an absoulte long shot, if more likely than its ever been. That said, a strong showing will affect the party as a whole, as it has done recently.

[realmirage]

172. well...

it's not about excluding anyone so much as it is supporting those who are bold, plain speaking, and confident in their approach and style. It's also about wanting a laser beam focus on the middle class and an end to corporate influence. There are A LOT of people who care deeply about that and think progressives have the right approach within the Democratic Party.

I disagree that Sanders is a long shot, since he currently has the largest base of Democratic voters among those who might run in 2020. Of course that doesn't mean someone else can't steal the spotlight. But until then, this is where we are.

[JCanete]

185. Well I agree with you on style and advocacy, particularly as it pertains to what we need and

what will work today versus 10 to 20 years ago. But a lot of money trumps a lot of things...and Sanders is going to have a hard time repeating his massive individual donor windfall that he got last time. Sadly, a lot of progressive emergences are often short-lived because they peter out...it requires ALL volunteer, ALL small donor action, and last time there was a Sanders fever that started to take hold. Maybe there's some carry over, and I agree that he's definitely popular, but I'm not convinced we can see a repeat.

That said, there has been an impact. All of the serious potential candidates (except for Biden...and I don't know what the hell he's thinking) are signaling that they are going to embrace more left-wing politics, at least on the surface. Things that were unicorns are now part of individual platforms, as well as the Democratic Platform. So its not like any of this has been a failure. Its just hard to capture that kind of lightning twice.

[realmirage]

187. Why do you think

his supporters aren't still there waiting?

I've seen nothing to indicate they wouldn't do the same in 2020?

[JCanete]

189. It is possible, and I will support him as I did last time with the little I can afford. And his

popularity has grown...but I'm just saying, things DO peter out. Its hard to sustain them when you don't have deep pockets to sustain them, though sure, maybe the small donations will keep rolling in. And, granted, Sanders hasn't petered out and he's even got a bit of a team now, with Cortez, etc. propagating the Democratic Socialist brand, and the issues the brand is all about have gained in popularity over time.

And in that way Sanders does transcend cult of personality. He's got a policy brand, so maybe those who really do want to vote on a candidate's position on issues and combating corporate greed will stick around, and maybe even some of those who have just become enamoured with the Bernie anti-establishment fervor too...but with every campagin there are also a lot of bandwagonners, who want something new and will jump on to the next shiny thing(who for that matter, want to be on the winning side and may not jump back on if they don't think Sanders is going to win). I'm not convinced that no Sanders supporters fit into that mold. Hell, obviously some do because some literally voted for Trump in the GE. That is not an issues voter.

[realmirage]

198. As Obama proved

in 2008 there is no such thing as a sure thing in primaries. So we shall see I guess.. I agree that Sanders popularity isn't just about personality, it's about his ability to speak plainly and confidently without flinching about issues the middle class cares about. He doesn't sound prepped or overly cautious. He comes off as a real person, which is what I think a lot of people respond to. But it's not just about the style, it's as you say... the issues and ideas. He asked for things outright like "free" college and healthcare for all.. He doesn't shy away from saying what needs to be said. We need more people like that and we'll definitely need younger candidates to take over since Sanders won't be around forever.

[ismnotwasm]

26. Nope.

[beachbum bob]

29. lol, sanders is not a democrat and such should be excluded from consideration any more than Ralph

Nader was a democrat

and no, we do not need a "progressive" to be the nominee, what we need is some one who can win

[Wintryjade]

45. This is what I do not get. 2016 he used Democratic resources and filed under the Democratic Party.

Then he walked away from the party twice in the last two years. I do not get why he gets to just use our resources with his whim of running, with no repercussions walking away from the party at will.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

230. A non-progressive will achieve the same result.

[Garrett78]

232. Name a non-progressive who is likely to seek the Democratic Party nomination. Then explain.

[marylandblue]

31. Bernie actually won the war, but was killed in battle.

He made progressive ideas mainstream. Now universal healthcare, $15 minimum wage and more are on the table, thanks to him. But he is too tarnished to win in the primary.

The DNC is going to be openly against him because he ISN'T a Democrat, by definition. It will not be a secret this time. And he will have younger, more telegenic competitors running on his platform, so even if he made it in with the new rules, he will not get the attention he had before.

[Wintryjade]

47. False story. Not factually true. The Democratic Party already had these issues and had

been fighting for them for years, well before we heard from Sanders in 2015.

[marylandblue]

60. I understand that, but it wasn't getting a lot of traction

Lot's of reasons for it, but the bottom line is that any thing deemed "too far left" got little attention and a lot of resistance. Democratic candidates took an incrementalist approach while Republicans just marched ever further right.

Bernie was the first to show there was a national market for a real progressive candidate. Now a lot of progressive ideas are coming forward and they are no longer immediately dismissed. Socialist is no longer a dirty word.

My view is that the Dem nomination will go to the most progressive candidate since McGovern. But we will win this time.

[Wintryjade]

77. Depends who has the power. Voting out the ability to progress in 2010 was a shot in the foot

to any progressive agenda.

And progressive is the moving forward in a progressive manner, just what the Democratic Party has been doing and working toward. 2016 was a real blow not allowing HRC in office to further move forward with each and every one of these issues. My point is Sanders does not own these issues. As a lifetime Democrat, I find it offensive for people to now suggest this is the Sanders effect when really, I view Sanders as being a roadblock to our progression forward.

And yes, I think socialism would garner the same resistance as we have always seen. Simply using talking points and a cheer doesn't convince me that we have come a long way on socialism, here in the United States.

[marylandblue]

98. Well, I actually supported Clinton in 2016, so I understand

But I don't think she was the best candidate we could have run. Sanders wasn't the best either and he is not a team player, but everyone else seemed too scared to take on the Clinton machine.

So I see both missed opportunities and as well as the obvious barriers.

On the other hand, I think Trumpism is the end stage Reaganism, so 2020 is going to be a significant realignment in favor of progressivism. I don't see Sanders as a big factor going forward.

[Wintryjade]

104. I agree with you about 2020.

I had to dispel a lot of the fabrication and caricatures created about HRC and once I did that, I got very excited about her run. A missed opportunity for us as a nation, I feel. But then, I still feel that with the Kerry loss.

I do not think Sanders will be a factor in 2020 either and we have so many strong Democrats.

[Bfd]

114. Clinton Machine? What do you call the operation that put bernie in the headlines?

He didn't get there by accident one day as he strolled through life.
The machine that brought bernie sanders on board is every bit the size & depth of the Clinton reach.

[marylandblue]

119. You are right, and I didn't say anything that implied otherwise.

Or even suggested that there was anything really wrong with it. Political machines work. Except in 2016 her machine lost by a fluke to an idiot. Unfortunately.

[Bfd]

121. It did. A well calculated organized fluke at that.

[betsuni]

115. LOL Clinton Machine.

[marylandblue]

117. Whatever, you know what I mean.

I like her. She's not a saint. Saints usually don't do well in politics.

[brush]

145. Yes. That what the Party has been about all along.

[Small-Axe]

61. The Big Lie all over again.

[marylandblue]

65. Whatever. There are bigger lies out there.

I don't usually participate on Bernie or Clinton threads. Too many people just don't want to hear things that don't match their preconceptions.

I don't know why that is, it's not like it really matters anymore. He'll run or not. He'll win or not. And you'll have a lot of choices this time around. That's all we know today.

[Small-Axe]

66. Not really, given the consequences.

[marylandblue]

67. Which are what? That's a real question.

Like I said, I don't participate in these threads. I thought it was safe to try again after 2 years, but it seems there are still raw feelings. And a lot of confusion for people like me.

[RelativelyJones]

32. Yeah, whatever.

[betsuni]

33. Thanks for posting your letter to Santa, I guess.

"If you do not ask for things you want you will never get them."

[AlexSFCA]

34. Bernie supports trump's trade policy, he has zero chance

he is another type of nationalist who voted against immigration reform. His only purpose in 2016 was to make sure Hilary does not become president because his entire movement would be destroyed if that happened. Now he is enjoying every day as he continues to feel relevant.

[JCanete]

68. That's all utter nonsense. Trump is considering a diffrerent trade policy that will almost certainly

be shittier than the ones proposed. Sanders would support trade policy that didn't tie the hands of governments for the interests of big business.

And yeah, he voted against a visa program that would have put these immigrants under the thumb of corporations, keeping them in this category of third class citizen with no bargaining power or leverage. Something like amnesty would make far more sense.

Sanders is not a nationalist, nor are his policies anything like Trump's, and I shouldn't have to say it here.

[lunamagica]

105. Please, when he voted against immigration reform the last thing on hismind was

helping immigrants. He was motivated by nationalism.

Watch him taking about it with Lou Dobbs. They sound like two peas in a pod,

[JCanete]

106. Please quote him. I've seen this interview. Don't just say it says something that I didn't hear.

pull it out and make the case. Do you know what nationalism is?

[lunamagica]

118. Lou Dobbs talks about "ethnic-centric groups which have very little regaard for the traditions

in this country, the values of this country."

Sanders doesn't contradict him, and he goes on to say that "we don't need millions of people coming into this country " He also note that some are coming to work as lifeguards: "I guess we can't find American workers to work as lifeguards".

Please, point out where he was concerned about "keeping them in this category of third class citizen with no bargaining power or leverage. Something like amnesty would make far more sense.", because I don't see that at all. He shares Dobbs hostility towards immigrants taking away jobs from Americans, with no concern for immigrants

[JCanete]

122. No he doesn't share that hostility. His focus is over and over again, and the greedy institutions

looking to use these visas as a way to circumvent better wages.

If you want to say he should have contradicted Dobbs race-baiting bullshit, I TOTALLY agree. And while it makes sense to me to look for allies to get in the way of what you think is bad legislation, and finding ways to appeal to people who wouldn't otherwise hear you, I think Dobbs was a dicey choice for this reason.

I'm happy to say there's room for criticism.

That's not at all the same as saying that what he was promoting was Nationalism. That's just not true and you can't back it up. And even if you thought there was such an undertone in this one interview, which I did not hear out of his mouth at all, you'd still probably want to back the argument that he's a nationalist up with anything else over the course of Sanders career that would corroborate your argument.

[TexasTowelie]

131. Yet, Bernie was quiet about the EB-5 visa program at Jay Peak in Vermont.

Bernie Sanders Won't Talk About Alleged Corporate Corruption In His Home State

Virtually every prominent Vermont politician condemned the alleged multimillion-dollar fraud in the Northeast Kingdom after federal authorities charged the developers last week, but Vermonters have yet to hear what Sen. Bernie Sanders thinks about it – or how he might vote on a key reform bill.

Sanders, a Democratic candidate for president, has been silent about the fraud allegations and the federal EB-5 program, even though he endorsed the EB-5-funded projects as an example of good government in the past.

http://digital.vpr.net/post/bernie-sanders-wont-talk-about-alleged-corporate-corruption-his-home-state#stream/0


It appears that Bernie wasn't focused on the greedy institutions in his own state or the foreign investors that were swindled out of millions.

[JCanete]

107. by the way, the thing that was on his mind was how corporations were finding new ways to skirt

paying decent wages, for jobs that we could absolutely fill. I have no problem at all with us welcoming in workers, who have all the bargaining rights afforded to American citizens, but a guest worker visa program IS just another form of exploitation, and that kind of implementation DOES and has hurt American workers.

[lunamagica]

120. All right then, just fess up and admit what the real motivation was, but please, dont try to

rewrite history now and claim he was acting out of concern for immigrants, because that is a LIE.

[JCanete]

124. I said it was bad for immigrants...it wasn't good for them or the American worker.

Downward pressure, engineered by big corporations and sanctioned, even promoted by our government, is no win for anybody but the fat-cats.

What Sanders didn't do was to vote against this bill because he was promoting an anti-immigrant agenda...he was arguing against an exploitation agenda that the American worker loses from, and frankly, if you are going to talk to Dobb's audience, this would be the way to get them to see reason on a bill like this. The ends of putting the pressure on to stop such a measure matters, and Sanders was taking aim high, not low. Kicking up, not down.

[MyNameGoesHere]

39. He'll have to find those tax returns first

[Kahuna7]

41. Nope. Nope. Nope. He will not be our next president. nt

[Bfd]

50. And why should he?

I have yet to hear one good reason to consider him.

[Tipperary]

52. Nope. Not a chance in hell.

[Squinch]

56. .

[treestar]

62. But this time he has to run against

A big group.

[realmirage]

174. There's usually a big group...

And since Sanders has already established a sizable base, it's hard to deny that he's the likeliest candidate right now. Not guaranteed though by any means.

[treestar]

226. Only Hillary and Martin O'Malley

is going to be different from Harris, Booker, Swalwell, Biden, Gillibrand, Klobucher, Avenatti, O'Rourke, and the may other persons proposed - some of them might even draw Bernie's previous base away.

[Garrett78]

234. And O'Malley dropped out after Iowa.

Sanders was essentially in a 1-on-1 race against someone who is, sadly, very polarizing. He was *the* Clinton alternative.

Furthermore, there will be fewer caucuses in 2020.

Sanders has no chance.

[realmirage]

241. Fair enough. Neither of us has a crystal ball.

But you cannot say that Sanders does not still have a very large following. That’s just reality. Whether that translates into a primary win no one can ever know for sure. But right now he has the biggest base.

[Garrett78]

247. No crystal ball needed. We have recent history as a guide.

Women and persons of color made it clear that they don't want Sanders to be the nominee, regardless of his popularity. The race was over by Super Tuesday, because the writing was all over the wall.

There were 13 closed primaries (only accessible by Democrats, who are the most likely to turn out and vote Dem in the general). Clinton won 12 of those 13. Oregon (in mid-May, long after the race was decided) was the lone exception. Sanders won just 7 primaries outside of New England. Including the open primary of Michigan, which Sanders won by just 1.4%. The other 6 were Oklahoma, Wisconsin (open), Indiana (open), West Virginia, Oregon and Montana (open). Not exactly the most diverse states.

There is broad support for Bernie's positions. Most Democrats have more or less the same positions. But his dismissal of so-called "identity politics" - his failure to really grasp structural racism and sexism - and his buying into the false (and inherently racist) "white working class/economic anxiety" narrative, leaves him reliant upon naive white millennials and others who also don't have a grasp of oppression theory (and the role race, as well as gender, plays in US life/politics).

[realmirage]

248. I get it that you very much dislike the man

and that nothing I say will make you see the reality - that he still has a massive following, more than any other at this point.

So as I said, we’ll know in 2 years.

[Garrett78]

250. My issue with Sanders is precisely that which I mentioned in that last post.

But it's not accurate to say I very much dislike the man. Nor have I said anything about him not having a large following. You're ignoring facts, ignoring my fact-based argument and misrepresenting what I'm saying. So, yeah, we're done.

[realmirage]

252. I did nothing of the sort.

But yes, time to move on.

[Garrett78]

254. Of course you did. You haven't once responded to the facts I've laid out.

And you've misrepresented my argument with your classic cop-out: "nothing we say will change one another's minds and you obviously hate Bernie." Rubbish.

As I asked once before, do you understand why it is that every thinking person knew the 2016 race was over by Super Tuesday? Do you know why we all knew, as early as the 2nd week in March, that Clinton would end up with a substantial victory? Do you grasp the concept of demographic support?

[realmirage]

257. You dismissed

solid data from two good sources as “lazy reporting” in about 2 seconds so I’m not sure where you’re coming from with your assertion there.

You are not interested at all in the good data I linked to so there’s no point. It is also plainly obvious solid logic that he has, currently, the largest support base of any 2020 candidate so far. People can ignore that fact but they can’t change it.

[Garrett78]

258. Once again, you're misrepresenting. What I dismissed is the assertion that "independent"...

...is synonymous with "swing voter."

You've yet to respond to the points made about demographics, closed primaries, and so on. And you refuse to answer straightforward questions asked in my last post.

[Garrett78]

233. I'm forced to conclude that you're just trolling. Likeliest candidate? You can't believe that.

Do you understand why it was clear, by Super Tuesday, that Sanders had no chance of winning the 2016 nomination? Because that's also why he has no chance of winning the 2020 nomination.

[Demsrule86]

63. First of all Sen. Sanders will not get the nomination. Secondly if he did he would lose.

I am not sure he will even run.

[JCanete]

69. Why would he lose? I have no idea why you believe that. You could very well be right that he won't

get the nom, but why in the fuck would you think that Trump at this point could beat anybody, let alone Sanders? Sanders does hold high popularity numbers, whereas trump is vastly unpopular.

[Polybius]

71. Let's not underestimate Trump like we did in 2016

All of those "thank you for your concern" posts were beyond sickening. We must all work hard in 2020 and act like we're 10 points behind. I for one want the strongest candidate to win the Democratic nomination. Sanders is popular in Vermont. If he were to get the nomination, national attention would be on him and the attack campaign would be relentless.

[JCanete]

91. That's fine, but that's not what Demsrule's post was suggesting. It was just a flat-out assumption

that Sanders couldn't beat Trump, based on what I have no idea.


Sanders is popular beyond Vermont. If he showed that he was popular enough among democrats to win the nom, I have no idea why anybody would come away from that result thinking that he couldn't beat Trump.

I have no reason to believe that he's a shoe-in or even likely to win the democratic nomination, but against Trump, I think he'd have a solid shot.

[Demsrule86]

149. I would just add in the interests of clarity... I do believe the Republicans had a reason

for saying nice things about Sen. Sanders. There will be relentless attacks on Sen. Sanders in that quarter. I believe the fact that Sen. Sanders is not a Democrat will lose him votes in a 2020 primary and that there might not be sufficient enthusiasm in a general...I find his comments about identity politics problematic (people of colors are an important demographic) Women are also important. Can he generate enthusiasm among women? I am not sure. Also, I think he would take a good issue for us- health care including Medicare for all and give the GOP a chance to demonetize single payer while the GOP candidate runs on improving the ACA which is popular and a known quantity making it hard to demonetize ....not what I want to see happen. and Lastly, I am sad to say, we live in a center left country and being a Democratic Socialist which is not widely understood would hurt Sen. Sanders. We have to consider down ballot races in purple and red states as well.

[JCanete]

167. You realize that single payer is popular right? nt

[Gothmog]

75. How can sanders win without support from key groups in the base?

After sanders stunts at the National convention, do you think that African American voters will be supporting sanders? There are a ton of Clinton staffers who will be glad to tell voters that sanders delegates had a plan to boo Congressman John Lewis at the National Convention and sanders knew about this stunt and refused to stop it. I think that this would be an effective ad if sanders runs

[JCanete]

84. You may not be aware of this but Sanders is plenty popular among

African Americans. His likeability rating amongst that demographic is high, or at least was high as of post 2016 election.

But as to whether or not Sanders would win our own primary, I'm not placing any bets on that. The statement was about whether or not he would win in a GE versus Trump. Totally different issue.

That would be a stupid ad, because it has nothing to do with Sanders himself. You can't place things at the feet of Sanders that he hasn't personally ginned up. People were mad because Lewis, for whatever reasons, as amazing of a man as he is, decided to speak on Sanders record of civil rights in a way that cast doubt on his previous contribution, for no reason but to pump up clinton. There were plenty of ways to talk about that, but Lewis's seemed pointed....seemed to be intended to undermine any claims made to Sanders Civil Rights record. He could have just said that he has personally worked with Clinton for decades and can't speak to Sanders own history. That would have been more than fine.

I agree that booing him was inappropriate and its hard to parse out the reasons for that booing at a man with such a storied and important and risk-taking history, so people shouldn't have let their disatisfaction with one statement turn into that. Its bad optics and disrespectful. But Sanders didn't boo him, nor did Sanders have mean or critical words to say about him in the wake of that. So why would this be a good ad? You could find shitty clinton supporters too if you wanted to make an ad of it. What would that say about clinton?

[Gothmog]

85. Not in the real world

Do you really believe this? That is so cute and adorable. In the real world, sanders is not popular with Jewish, Latino and African American voters. sanders would be less popular if he runs after ads talking about sanders approving the attacks on Congressman John Lewis were aired. African Americans and others like me think that Congressman John Lewis is a national treasure. The Texas delegation shared a bus to the convention site with the Georgia delegation and they were very mad at sanders for this stunt.

I would love to see sanders run so that we can see his tax returns. If sanders ran in 2020, he would not be the nominee. There are a large number of real democrats who have very long memories

[JCanete]

90. Okay, there's no point continuing. Where do you get your real world data? Your own sense of

the world isn't at all as compelling as actual polls that say the opposite. If you have a different poll or data that says otherwise, maybe produce it?

But the study I saw? Across the broken down demographics, the one he was least popular among was actually white males, and maybe look at the demographics of Democratic Socialists and those progressive candidates who were elected.

Feel free to wax on about shit you don't support, but I'm not going to take it seriously, nor respond further, unless you produce some data point.

[Gothmog]

94. I am not to relitigate the 2016 primaries

You are wrong here. This candidate is not popular with Jewish, Latino or African American voters in the real world and I am amused greatly by these claims. The real world is a nice place. I like the real world. Come visit

I am sure that sanders will be even less popular with these groups if sanders runs in 2020.

BTW, thank you for admitting that you were totally and completely wrong about AOC and Jake Tapper

[Gothmog]

256. sanders cannot win without the support of African American voters

Last edited Wed Nov 21, 2018, 11:11 AM - Edit history (1)

Link to tweet

[Demsrule86]

151. He just said that folks who refuse to vote for people of color are not necessarily racist!

How could he be popular? This just happened.

[JCanete]

164. You don't personally get to decide how peopel reacted to that, or whether or not he's fallen out of

favor with a certain group of people. You are welcome to show me poll numbers, but your post has no scientific value.

[Demsrule86]

147. I believe his viewpoints will not carry independents which is essential...and his views on

identity politics and recent comments about race in terms of voting...would not enthuse one of our most important demographics...people of color. Also, I object as a woman to some of his comments. Maybe others do also...don't know. In short, he has baggage. This adds up to a loss for us so I hope he doesn't run as we need to win in 20. I also don't think Sanders is as popular as you think with Democrats. Had he remained a Democrat after his recent election maybe...but he didn't. I voted for Sen. Sanders in the 16 primary by the way. I wouldn't vote for him in a primary again...of course I would in a general...but I don't think it would be enough. I want new candidates for 20. No one (including Hillary Clinton whom I still like) who was a candidate in 16 should run.

[JCanete]

165. He was stilll doing absolutley fine after his defining of identity politics among people of

color. Again, what you believe, since you seem so objective around Sanders, isn't as relevant as what evidenced you can cite.

[samnsara]

64. nope nope and nope

[Polybius]

70. If we lose 2020, would you support Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in 2024?

She'll be 35 and eligible for President that year.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

96. I sure as hell would support Alexandria... an authentic progressive, strong female

Last edited Wed Nov 21, 2018, 12:32 AM - Edit history (1)

candidate is what we need for once.

[Polybius]

171. How do you think she would do in 2024 against, say Marco Rubio?

How is she going to carry any swing states at all against a medium-right candidate?

[pwb]

72. we will see

[Gothmog]

73. sanders will not be the nominee for so long as African American voters are key to the base

sanders will not be the nominee. Many democrats have very long memories.

[Wintryjade]

79. Also the female base rejected Sanders.

[ProudLib72]

93. Ya think?!

“I think you know there are a lot of white folks out there who are not necessarily racist who felt uncomfortable for the first time in their lives about whether or not they wanted to vote for an African-American. I think next time around, by the way, it will be a lot easier for them to do that.” - Bernie Sanders 2018

[Gothmog]

95. That quote will kill sanders if he runs in 2020

I like living in the real world

[Tarheel_Dem]

76. Yup, and click your heels and.....

[Dolly123Jimmy]

80. Really?

If we want to win in 2020 we need to run a middle of the road democrat...

If we go to far left we will loose...

Im a progressive but we need to be smarter / realistic ...

trump would give bernie one of his nick names and bernie would be toast before you can say socialism

[elocs]

81. "Sanders will run as a Democrat and I predict he will get the nomination."

"I also predict he will be the next President."

Well I'm sure you will be the first one to post here to admit you were wrong.
I remember my first presidential vote in 1972 when we were all young and naive and certain that George McGovern was the candidate to nominate and how could he NOT beat Nixon.
Since we felt that way we were certain everybody else would as well.
We all remember how that turned out, at least the ones here who were alive at the time and I certainly don't want to go through that again.
McGovern was the candidate that Nixon wanted to run against and if by some bizarre twist of fate, Bernie was to get the nomination, Trump would be crying...tears of joy.
If Sanders were to run for the nomination in 2020 I would work my butt off to make sure he does not get it.

[MrsCoffee]

82. No "progressive" with a shitty record on gun control is going to win in 2020.

[yardwork]

86. I like your post best!

[NurseJackie]

83. No words...

... just

[Meowmee]

87. I predict

You are wrong 😹

[GulfCoast66]

88. I don't always favor progressives. But when I do I choose members of the Democratic Party. NT

[JCanete]

129. I find the first part of that statement particularly painful. nt

[GulfCoast66]

146. I am a liberal. Not a progressive, which has shifting meanings in my mind

Some self titled progressives come way too close to economic nationalism for my taste.

[ucrdem]

92. It really needs to be someone with a law degree.

I get that Bernie has passion and boldness. But it takes much more to write good legislation. Bill, Hillary, and Barack are all lawyers and while it didn't necessarily help them win, it sure helped them come up with good policies. I'm including Hillary even though she didn't make it because she had great policy proposals and loved to talk about them.

[mtnsnake]

100. Well, I suspect we'll find someone younger who can get young voters as excited as Bernie can

like maybe someone like Eric Swalwell or Andrew Gillum, but if we can't find someone like them, then hey, why not Bernie?

[MrsCoffee]

140. How about someone that will get them to actually vote?

[realmirage]

176. Sanders did in the primaries

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/20/more-young-people-voted-for-bernie-sanders-than-trump-and-clinton-combined-by-a-lot/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fa5cd9c89dde

[realmirage]

175. Exactly!

It doesn't have to be Sanders, but I think it needs to be someone with his approach.

[lunamagica]

101. I predict you are wrong

[mvd]

103. I would back Bernie again, but someone new and progressive would be nice

I agree that the people can certainly relate to progressive issues. The polls indicate it. Like with any candidate, we just need the right messenger.

[realmirage]

169. I'd like to see anyone with Sanders' fresh approach gain popularity

It's just logical that Sanders has the best chance right now because he's already built a solid base, unlike some of the other candidates. But it's very possible that some other progressive will spark interest and get the nomination. Either way, we need people in office that take a bold approach. Fearless and outspoken that speak to the middle class directly on issues they care about.

Corporations and the wealthy have hijacked our democracy and this is no time for cowards.

[Trumpocalypse]

108. And I predict

You will be very disappointed. Most real Democrats will never vote for Sanders. They blame him for 2016.

[Garrett78]

110. Sanders was *the* Clinton alternative in 2016. A 1-on-1 race against a polarizing figure.

Remember, we were down to 2 candidates after Iowa. You couldn't ask for a better situation if you're Sanders, yet the race was essentially over by Super Tuesday. Whether or not people like Sanders or many of his positions, whether or not Sanders does well in straw polls (in the same way that Ron Paul used to), the core of the Democratic electorate does not want Bernie Sanders to be our nominee for POTUS. He's done nothing to change that reality.

2020 will not be a 1-on-1 race between someone considered to be "establishment" and someone considered to be "anti-establishment" (in a climate that favors the latter). Sanders may start off well by virtue of the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary - 2 states that don't represent our electorate - kicking things off, but there is virtually no chance Sanders will be the nominee.

[JCanete]

166. Lots of factors...first, You could have absolutely asked for a better scenario. Sanders campaign

could have been covered earlier, like after he started raising a lot money from small donors. Had it been a republican that would have been huge news. He would have been a media darling. from his first 100,000. He started in media blackout. And nation-wide, aside from those of us who used to listen to him on Hartmann and thus paid attention to his congressional and Senate career, most people had no idea who he was. He had a ridiculous amount of ground to cover under those circumstances, and a whole party that had essentially backed Clinton early as a shoe-in, and a superdelegate count that was being reported by the media in the vote totals to make him look hopelessly out of the running nearly before he'd started to boot.

Now, I'm not under any particular illusions about how the next primary will play out, but we know that Sanders IS popular, and that he is situated in a different political spectrum than say, Booker, Harris, and even Biden. The three of them could potentially split their votes, whereas Sanders, if Warren isn't in the race, could do quite well among the lefties in the party. If on the other hand Warren and Sanders both ran, then they would likely split the votes of that further left voting block. As somebody pointed out in another thread, an O'Rourke wildcard would be far harder to speculate on, since O'Rourke is not so different policy-wise from the first three I mentioned, but also enjoys a great deal of popularity with young voters and Sanders fans.

I have no idea what you mean by what the core electorate wants, but I think you have no idea and are just wildly speculating. I've already given you plenty of reason to question your use of the 2016 election as proof of that, and Sanders DID consistently beat Trump in polls matching the two against each other.

That said, you very well may be right that if he ran, he would not ultimately be our nominee, but our field would have to thin fast...which it very well might.

[Garrett78]

228. Sanders was campaigning as *the* Clinton alternative for nearly a year before Iowa.

Those claiming a media blackout of Sanders are revising history. Recently, a poster claimed that the media misled the public regarding Sanders's victory in the NH primary by suggesting that they called it a tie by virtue of superdelegates being counted. I replied with links to headlines and videos from numerous major media outlets that make it clear that wasn't the case (words like "landslide" were used to describe Bernie's win). The wonderful world of the Internet and archived articles/videos make attempting to revise history problematic.

Did Clinton have an advantage in terms of money and name recognition and campaign experience? Of course she did. So, no, I'm not suggesting Sanders was ever the favorite or anything like that. But, under the given circumstances, Sanders had a very favorable situation. After Iowa (and, really, before Iowa), it was a 1-on-1 race between a polarizing "establishment" candidate and Sanders. That's a pretty sweet deal if you're Bernie.

I know some like to point to misleading data about Bernie's support among Black millennials (based on just a portion of the states and a minuscule sample size), but for the most part, Bernie's support comes from white millennials. Black folks and women made it clear by Super Tuesday that Clinton had the nomination wrapped up. I think it's fair to say Sanders hasn't done anything to change that dynamic. Also - and this is no small factor - there will be fewer caucuses in 2020.

Sanders is lucky in the sense that Iowa and New Hampshire kick things off, but he will once again get crushed, in particular, by persons of color and women. Splitting of the vote will only help him so much and for so long. Just as in 2016, it won't be long before it's clear that Sanders has no shot.

[Wintryjade]

231. Not to mention HRC worked for and earned that recognition. It was not just handed to her.

There was valid, given reasons Clinton had that recognition in her various roles and accomplishments and work.

[Garrett78]

235. Absolutely. And decades of attacks turned her into a very polarizing figure.

If you're running as an anti-establishment outsider (never mind how long Sanders has been in Washington, D.C.) who faces a deficit in terms of name recognition and campaign infrastructure, you can't ask for a better situation. Which is what I mean by "given the circumstances." Of course Clinton had advantages, but it's not like Sanders didn't have a relatively favorable situation. Had he run for the first time in 2008 or 2020, he wouldn't have had nearly as much success. He was savvy enough to choose 2016.

[Wintryjade]

238. Also, the lack of vetting Sanders. Sanders had a lot of advantages in 2016.

Last edited Wed Nov 21, 2018, 01:55 AM - Edit history (1)

And Clinton's hands were tied in a lot of ways, not because of anything she did, but for that favored position she earned.

[Garrett78]

242. For sure. And the media loves boosting underdogs. And 'horse race' coverage.

Not to mention all of the nonsense about Clinton's emails.

Clinton was put in a position where she had to be defensive, whereas Sanders had nothing to lose and could attack at will. Clinton and every thinking person knew the race was over by Super Tuesday, but she had to continue going through the motions.

[Wintryjade]

245. Right.

[JCanete]

267. Not revising history garret, I was there, and since sanders WAS on my radar, I remember what

kind of coverage he was getting at the time, which was almost nothing until the mainstream media begrudgingly caught up to social media because it was about to look absurd.

It doesn't matter if he was campaigning all that time. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it does it make a sound? Thankfully we have alternative channels these days via the internet and he suddenly caught fire.

As to being an alternative to Clinton, given baggage that Clinton both rightfully and totally unfairly carried, I agree that the reason he caught on is that conditions were ripe. But other things have also made conditions ripe, like Occupy Wall Street and a general frustration with a business as usual that has continued to be best for the richest Americans.

But that still all happened too late, and the narrative was always that Clinton had it in the bag...just look at the numbers once we add the superdelegates into them...so no, these weren't entirely ideal circumstances.

[Garrett78]

269. The media has a vested interest in propping up underdogs and making a race seem close.

Here's an article on this issue of a supposed "media blackout" of Sanders: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/09/23/is-the-media-biased-against-bernie-sanders-not-really/?utm_term=.ac76e46014f2

[JCanete]

282. I agree with you that the media likes a horesrace, which is why it propped up trump,

which is why it breathlessly covered a non-story when Clinton was dominating Trump towards the end of the GE, but they liked making things close when it seemed things weren't close. Unfortunately they gave the election to Trump. So sure, with Sanders, AND with his prosecution of the race up to the convention, there was coverage, and there was no reason not to try to make it a horse-race for those who really are disdainful of left-wing candidates(and most of the media establishment really is) because he seemed out of the fight.

And the blog literally states that the expected front-runner should get more coverage, but that is an establishment bias that is a self-fulfilling prophecy. You see that right? As to Sanders gaining equal coverage by SEPTEMBER? Impressive. Totally nothing skewed about that. So he literally was getting equal coverage by the time of the convention. Cool.


Also I'd be very interested to know how they rate a negative story. The worst thing you could do is be dismissive or simply state that the race is foregone, and I'm not sure either of those things rate as negative based upon the study, nor that a simple name mention in a story, while not negative or positive, is valuable coverage, nor am I sure where they would put a totally balderdash story about Sanders getting most of his support from white males. Is that considered negative, or just stating "facts"...like after his Hawaii win.

[dgauss]

112. I've always agreed with Bernie Sanders policy positions.

I used to think the majority or people on this site did as well. That majority is gone.

So I wonder what "Underground" even means anymore.

[Bfd]

116. I am told they moved to another site of their own. JBR maybe, I think that's it.

I wasn't around here back then. Mostly on DKOS in election 2016.

Check for a site called JBR. Guess that's where some said a lot of his old fans went.

[Garrett78]

123. There's a lot of agreement over policy positions. That's not the issue.

Sure, there's some disagreement over specifics and a bit of pragmatism vs. idealism at play, but the crux of the conflict has been misdiagnosed: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11436338.

Playing into the "far left" vs. moderate narrative is a mistake (some on DU have fallen into that trap, and it doesn't serve us well). The media narrative says that what a majority would call right wing extremism is mainstream, while very popular positions (held by virtually all Democrats) are crazy (a synonym for 'far left').

Sanders simply doesn't have the support of the core of our electorate. He's from the whitest state in the US and it shows. He vastly underestimates the role racism and sexism play in Republican support.

[realmirage]

178. I think people care more about money

and financial security than they do about identity politics. When it comes down to it people almost always vote to pad their wallets. The middle class has been getting crushed and trump has been race baiting... using certain groups as the target to blame. But any person who comes along and speaks plainly about how they're going to help the middle class will get support.

[sheshe2]

222. I disagree with your assessment 100%.

realmirage
178. I think people care more about money

and financial security than they do about identity politics.
When it comes down to it people almost always vote to pad their wallets. The middle class has been getting crushed and trump has been race baiting... using certain groups as the target to blame. But any person who comes along and speaks plainly about how they're going to help the middle class will get support.

I think people care more about money

and financial security than they do about identity politics.

NO!

Ask that of our majority voters. Black women. It is NOT about the money over identity politics no matter how 'plainly' it is explained to them. Trickle down identity politics never works as it never happens.

[Garrett78]

227. Your reply has left me virtually speechless.

I don't know how anyone who has paid attention to politics in recent decades could believe as you do.

[realmirage]

239. Some people are just racist to the core

and can’t be reached. Everyone knows that. Trump appeals to the worst in humans, and has had some success in that. But I’m not cynical enough to paint all people who have ever voted for a republican with that same brush. That’s crazy. Many of them will respond to common sense plain speak about middle class economic issues. Particularly moderates and independents. That’s how you counter trump’s racist bullshit. You appeal to the ones who don’t have their heads completely up their arses.

We will definitely needs independents if we’re going to win in 2020.

[Garrett78]

243. The vast majority of so-called independents are highly partisan. They aren't 'middle of the road'.

And they also aren't as reliable in terms of voting.

Absent racism and sexism, there would not be a viable Republican Party. The reason Republicans vote against their economic interests is because they are voting *for* their perceived social/cultural interests. Clinton's campaign focused very heavily on economics. The Democratic Party platform is clearly better for anyone who isn't filthy rich.

[realmirage]

246. You might want to read this

Your statement about independents is not supported by the facts.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/opinion/midterms-independents-swing-voters-.html

And this -

“Independents – often swing voters – are voting 55-41 percent for Democratic vs. Republican House candidates in preliminary exit poll results. In 2016, independents backed Donald Trump by 47-41 percent, and they voted Republican by a 14-point margin in the last midterms in 2014.”

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/election-2018-exit-poll-analysis-56-percent-country/story?id=59006586

[Garrett78]

249. Lazy reporting. Numerous studies demonstrate exactly what I said. For instance:

https://www.thenation.com/article/what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-independent-voters/

While around four-in-10 voters say they’re independents, very few are actually swing voters. In fact, according to an analysis of voting patterns conducted by Michigan State University political scientist Corwin Smidt, those who identify as independents today are more stable in their support for one or the other party than were “strong partisans” back in the 1970s. According to Dan Hopkins, a professor of government at the University of Pennsylvania, “independents who lean toward the Democrats are less likely to back GOP candidates than are weak Democrats.”

While most independents vote like partisans, on average they’re slightly more likely to just stay home in November. “Typically independents are less active and less engaged in politics than are strong partisans,” says Smidt.

At the same time, Sanders’s superior performance among independent voters is largely a matter of demographics, not the fact that they identify as independents. Younger people, whites and men—groups that skew toward Sanders—are significantly more likely to identify as independents than older voters, people of color and women.

Among partisan Democrats, Clinton’s supporters tend to be more moderate than those backing Sanders, but there’s virtually no ideological gap between the two candidates’ independent supporters. That’s consistent with Pew’s broader finding that the ideological “positions of those who identify as Democrats and those [independents] who lean toward the Democratic Party are nearly identical.” And while 8 percent of Dem-leaning independents have a “very negative” view of the party, according to Pew, that’s also true of 4 percent of those who identify as Democrats.

Millennials have played an outsized role in Sanders’s success. According to Pew, they’re the group that’s most likely to identify as independents—almost half of them do—but when pushed, they’re also the age cohort that leans most toward the Democratic party. That’s especially true among younger people of color. White millennials are almost evenly split in their partisan leanings—they favor Republicans by a 45-43 margin—while non-whites in this age group identify as or lean toward Democrats by a massive 61-23 margin.

Sanders, like Trump, insists that his appeal among independents in the primaries would give him a distinct advantage in the general election. But in an era in which there’s exactly zero overlap between the two parties’ congressional voting records, the reality is that polarization will drive the vast majority of Dem-leaning independents into the arms of the party when they’re faced with the stark choice of a general election.

[realmirage]

251. It wasn't lazy reporting.

They were interviews with real human beings that voted.

As I said elsewhere, nothing I say will convince you of the reality- that Sanders has built a massive base, much larger than any candidate running in 2020. Nothing more to say. Have a good evening.

[Garrett78]

253. Studies make clear very few independents are actually swing voters, contrary to what many assume.

The NY Times author is buying into a popular but false notion about so-called "independents." Period.

[pnwmom]

134. This site began when George Bush had gotten elected despite

losing the popular vote. It is still an apt name, especially while we have yet another GOP President who won without the popular vote.

[Squinch]

139. Poor you.

Name a policy position Sanders has that is not part of the Democratic Party platform.

I have no problem with his policies and find them well represented by Democrats who don't bash Democrats. I like candidates who actually do the work to get those policies implemented, however imperfectly. I don't like candidates whose biggest claim to fame is how loudly they complain about the imperfections.

[George II]

161. For decades I've pretty much had the same or similar policy positions.....

....policy positions are one thing, getting them implemented is something entirely different.

I haven't gotten any of those passed in Congress or implemented. Sanders?

[Bfd]

168. K & R

[ehrnst]

141. We can on disagree on tactics/legislation. We just need to agree on the goals.

If one doesn't agree with Sanders on ways to get to those goals, that's no crime. Democrats are a coalition of groups. That is our strength and expecting everyone to walk lockstep behind one elected official's opinions on specific tactics isn't realistic, that's just dogma.

Don't confuse specific ways to accomplish a policy with disagreeing on the policy itself.

For instance - Universal Health Care. It can be acheived in more ways than one, as we see in the rest of the developed world. To say that one disagrees that single payer is the only way to get there isn't disagreeing on the policy of UHC.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

273. They're you again ehrnst... making WAY too much sense!!

[George II]

160. This site has been around since about 2001, I joined in 2005, I never heard of him until....

....late 2015. And I live only about 80 miles from Vermont and grew up in the same general neighborhood in Brooklyn and time frame ('40s-'60s) as him.

[realmirage]

177. They don't post much

but they lurk. I hear from many of them. I think once 2020 gets closer you'll see more of their presence and the "underground" will be back.

[emulatorloo]

216. The majority of DU'ers are left liberal and progressives

and share the same core values.

There are other progressive and left liberal politicians than Senator Sanders. Not every progressive believes Sanders is the best choice for President.

[LBM20]

126. ALL Dems are "progressive" compared to the R's. Proressive means progress, not purity.

[BlueStater]

127. Where did the original poster go?

Kind of where how he just left this thread here and then immediately abandoned it.

[betsuni]

128. Like a mirage...

[JCanete]

130. Yeah, agreed. I mean, life could have been calling, so I'd give the poster a reasonable amount of

time to return to the thread, but I'm no fan of hit-and-runs like that and a thread like this sucks up a lot of oxygen here.

[obamanut2012]

136. It's their "thing" to post these tyoe of OPs

Check their posting history. I find them amusing and like to kick them.

[realmirage]

183. Who is they?

[realmirage]

179. miss me?

[stonecutter357]

132. Sanders IS NOT the future of the party !

[sunonmars]

138. He's not even part of the bloody party.

[democratisphere]

133. ADAM SCHIFF.

A true blue Democrat for POTUS.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

152. +1

Schiff Swalwell sounds good to me. Enough of the Independent clap-trap.

[Adrahil]

157. I like Adam..... I would consider him, but...

I think he is incredibly valuable in the House, right now.

[realmirage]

180. I'd vote for him

[obamanut2012]

135. Was hoping your Weekly OP would drop before Thanksgiving!

[Nonhlanhla]

137. No, just no

1. He's too divisive
2. He's too old (not being ageist here, just realistic)
3. He does not connect well with voters of color
4. He's pissed off plenty of women voters who will never forgive him for the way he undermined Hillary
5. He does not have concrete plans to get things done
6. He's not a Democrat
7. He's too divisive (I already said it, but it needs to be said again)

I agree with much of his rhetoric when it comes to things like workers rights or health care, but I do not see anything in him that makes me think he would be a good head of the Democratic Party (of which he is NOT a member except when it suits him), or a good president.

[borgesian]

154. If he maintains a decent percentage of his supporters, his odds of securing...

...the nomination look pretty good, especially in a crowded primary, and all signs point to a crowded primary.

[realmirage]

173. I agree with you

It's just logical. But as Obama showed, it doesn't matter who the front runner is, Sanders could still be out shined by someone. But for now, any person who has seen a few elections can tell you Sanders is the front runner right now. And when those people who don't like him are able to put aside their feelings, they'll see he has some great ideas.

[dubyadiprecession]

155. 😂

[brooklynite]

158. I have no confidence that Sanders knows how to campaign outside of safe liberal States

My sense is that he feels his issues speak for themselves.

[realmirage]

182. The polling and the results from 2015 would ease

your fears about that. Seriously, check them out when you have a little time to spare.

[brooklynite]

184. What results from 2015?

[realmirage]

186. 2016 I meant

[brooklynite]

188. Sanders lost...

More to the point, the only Battleground State he won (by 1.5%) was Michigan. What evidence do you have that he would have been successful in the GE?

[realmirage]

195. I'm not talking about that.

You were asking about his ability to draw support in states that aren't solidly liberal.

[pansypoo53219]

190. anybody who can communicate to dimwits.

[whistler162]

191. Yipeeee.... another over 70 politician!

[realmirage]

199. What does the age matter if they have wisdom and the right ideas?

[Sunlei]

192. I ask Sanders & Clinton to both run in D party. TEAM-up early & let primary voters choose

let D primary voters choose who will be VP in the team by the number of primary votes.

The Dream Team 2020

I agree with OP "If you do not ask for the things you want you will never get them."

[Hekate]

197. Balderdash

[realmirage]

200. Never played the game.

[Hekate]

202. Ah, so. What game do you play here?

[realmirage]

203. I don't play board games here.

[Hekate]

204. Yet this is a board. And you play games.

[realmirage]

206. Yeah but not Balderdash. Looks boring.

[NastyRiffraff]

201. Not this again

(sigh) I'm really sick of that has-been. I wish he'd just stay in his beach house.

Funny that some of the same people who say Nancy Pelosi is too old are all in for ol' Bernie.

[joet67]

217. Good luck with that. DU has a bad taste in its' mouth

about Bernie

[realmirage]

221. And plenty who support him. It's all good

We’re a big tent party, right?

[joet67]

286. you will hear crues of "$hes not a Democratic ". among otheesand Pantsuits

Pantsuit Nationa seems to own the space

[BlueTsunami2018]

236. Bernie fumbled his chance. But yes on a progressive otherwise.

I’m all for it, the country wants it. Kitchen table issues are all progressive issues.

[Garrett78]

237. Name a non-progressive who is likely to seek the Democratic Party nomination.

Then explain what makes that person (or those persons) non-progressive/regressive.

[Garrett78]

240. There were 13 closed primaries in 2016, including DC. Clinton won 12 of those 13.

Outside of New England (where Sanders won 3 primaries, including his home state), Sanders won just 7 primaries (4 open, 2 semi-closed and 1 closed). 4 of those 7 took place long after it was more than evident that Clinton was going to win. 1 of those 7 was Michigan, an open primary that Sanders won by 1.4%. The other 6 were Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Indiana, West Virginia, Oregon and Montana (not a lot of diversity in those states).

It couldn't be any clearer that the Democratic Party base (those most likely to turn out and vote for the Democratic nominee in November) did not want Sanders to be the nominee for president. And he hasn't done anything to change that dynamic. In fact, I think he's probably hurt his standing with the base.

Caucuses are disenfranchising and, thankfully, there will be fewer of them going forward.

No non-progressive will get the Democratic Party nomination, unless one's definition of 'non-progressive' is anyone who doesn't agree 100% with Bernie Sanders.

Sanders will benefit initially from a crowded field and the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire kick things off, but he will not be the nominee.

[realmirage]

244. I should copy and paste your post

for another member who claims Sanders cannot win any states in 2020 that aren’t solidly liberal.

The reality is still that Sanders has the largest base and so it’s just logical to assume he is the current front runner.

[Garrett78]

255. If that's the conclusion you draw from reading my post, I don't know what to say.

You must be trolling.

[betsuni]

260. Yes.

You've been very patient and responding with facts. You are a saint.

[Lunabell]

259. Sanders needs to sit down and let the younger generation shine.

and let a millennial progressive take the reins. I love his ideas, but he needs to step aside.

[realmirage]

261. Ageism? Really?

[jcmaine72]

262. It's disgusting to see something like that posted in a forum for Democrats, isn't it?

Shame on them.

[realmirage]

279. Exactly. Since when did attacking people because they're old

become acceptable? Really shitty thing to do.

[Lunabell]

264. LMAO not ageism

Youthism!!!!!!

[jcmaine72]

265. No, it was Ageism.

You praise Sanders, but then stated that you believe he should step aside because of his age. That's Ageism.

Try this one on for size: "Maxine Waters needs to sit down and let white people shine.

and let a white progressive take the reins. I love her ideas, but she needs to step aside."

That's racist, isn't it? Those are your words, expressing the same bigotry, only directed at a different group of Americans. Is that acceptable to you?

[Lunabell]

266. Well, if you think so alert on it and let a jury decide.

N/t

[jcmaine72]

270. That would prove nothing. Your comment was Ageist. Period!

[jcmaine72]

263. I'm a Progressive and a Socialist. I will support Bernie again if he runs in 2020.

However, as I did in '16, if he loses the primary, I will support whomever wins the Democratic nomination wholeheartedly and unconditionally.

[MFM008]

268. In case no one has noticed

Democrats win with younger candidates.
Kennedy. Clinton. Obama.
Just look at history.
An O Rourke/Harris ticket or vice versa.
Just an example .....
would terrify the republicans.

[Adrahil]

275. +1000 NT

[MineralMan]

272. Is that you, Bernie?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

274. Well then.

[TeamPooka]

277. Everybody just vote for whatever Democrat is the candidate this time, okay?

[realmirage]

280. Very good idea

[jrthin]

281. He's going to show his taxes?

[realmirage]

283. Will trump show his?

Why make it possible for the repukes to distort our candidates’ returns when they don’t even show theirs?

I’m not saying it’s a great situation, but I’m tired of always being the good guys and then getting our asses kicked by the side that doesn’t play fair. Fire with fire is sometimes required.

[Small-Axe]

285. That's an excuse?

No better than Trump?

That dog won't hunt.