Because America Needs an Electoral Left: Why Bernie Sanders Should Enter the Presidential Primaries

[xchrom]

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/04/11-1


f Sanders runs, everything will probably not go the way we might want, writes Gallagher, but that's no reason not to support the independent socialist senator from Vermont. (Photo: DonkeyHotey / cc / Text added)

So Bernie Sanders has posed us – the American left – the question: Should he run for president? Well, let’s imagine what we will likely do in 2016 if he doesn’t run for president. Barring the appearance of some other surprise candidate of the left, we will, in our various ways, bemoan the inadequacies of the politics of Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, or whomever else the Democratic Party establishment puts forth, while also being alternately horrified and amused by the Republican contenders. We will lament the fact that our point of view remains absent from the televised debates and, for that matter, from almost all mainstream discussion. In short, we will simply not be a factor in the great quadrennial debate about America’s future. It will, in other words, be business as usual.

And what if Sanders does run? Since he already has substantial national recognition, it will be very difficult to deny him access to the televised debates. So, if and when we tune in, we might actually hear something about the problem of the country’s drift toward an oligarchy of billionaires and corporations buying elections. Or about how we could have rebuilt our highways five times over on what we’ve spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Or a call for a national jobs program to rebuild the infrastructure. Or a Medicare-for-all, single-payer program to supplant the Obama’s administration’s Affordable Care Act.

If Sanders runs, we may not agree with him on everything. And we will almost certainly have issues that we wish he would speak to or emphasize more. And yet the difference between him and the Biden/Clinton/Kerry/Obama mainstream Democratic Party point of view will likely be obvious across the board. A left point of view will enter the discussion in all sorts of places it usually doesn’t, well beyond the debates themselves.

If Sanders runs, everything will probably not go the way we might want. We may even learn that some of our favorite ideas don’t actually play as well before a larger audience as we might have hoped. Some of them may even have to go back to the drawing board. At the same time, far larger numbers of voters will become aware that a dramatically different approach to governing the country does exist.

[99Forever]

1. K&R

[The Magistrate]

2. I Agree, Sir: His Entry In The Primary Would Be A Very Good Thing

[srican69]

9. he should run in the general too

[The Magistrate]

10. If He Does Not Get The Party's Nomination, Sir, He Absolutely Should Not Do That

And being a sound and sensible fellow, he would not do that.

[srican69]

12. If we had instant runoff voting the specter of a puke president would not be an issue

[The Magistrate]

14. But We Do Not, Sir, So the Golfer's Adage Applies: Play It as It Lays

"If wishes were horses beggars would ride."

[Jackpine Radical]

20. I agree. He should not, and will not, run as an independent candidate in the General.

Bernie's too much of a wise old patriot for nonsense like that, and full well understands the consequences of a Republican victory in 2016.

[former9thward]

44. He can't do that.

Most states of any size have 'sore loser' election laws. If you run in a primary and lose you can't then run in the general election as an indie or another party.

[rhett o rick]

57. Right, he should just lay down and let the oligarchs walk all over him and us.

We must draw a line somewhere. Eight more years of the status-quo will be the death of democracy as we know it.

[jwirr]

15. He has already said he will not be a spoiler - if he loses the primary and then runs against Hillary

he will only succeed in taking votes away from her and help the repug. If he wins I will be cheering.

[1StrongBlackMan]

23. Yeah ...

That way we can all unite to bitch and moan about a republican presidency; rather than, split over a Democratic Presidency!

[Cal33]

3. If he should enter the presidential primaries, would it be better for the nation for him

to do so as an Independent or as a Democrat? I would vote for him in the
primaries (unless people like Warren or Grayson also should run). And after
that I'd vote for the Democratic winner, whoever s/he should be.

[el_bryanto]

4. I agree

I think he'd be a key voice within the Democratic primaries, but i'd be much less excited if he ran as a Socialist or as any third party, because he would siphon off votes from whoever runs for the Democrats.

And whoever runs for the Democrats, even if it's another middle of the roader like Clinton, is likely to still be considerably better than whoever the Republicanoids put up.

Bryant

[cascadiance]

39. I think they are saying that he only run in the Democratic primary, but not to "pose" as a Democrat

I think it would be good for him to run in the democratic primary and not apologize for him being a socialist and not necessarily adherent to Democratic Party platform, etc. up and down. Point out where he has been aligned with Democrats largely in the past as a way of building unity, but also point out where he's different to point out how the lack of instant runoff voting and our current state of affairs with heavy corporate influence of both parties through citizen's united, etc. have demanded that he run this way, and give voice to those constituents within the Democratic Party who feel they haven't been represented over the years with this "corporate takeover". It would be a healthy way to change the party from within to be more receptive to its real constituents, and not just the "money constituents".

As others have stated, if someone like Elizabeth Warren enters the fray, my vote will go to her, and quite frankly, from what Bernie has said, I think he'd pull out were she to start running and campaign seriously. I wouldn't be surprised if that were to happen, that he might endorse her upon pulling out too to rally support for her then. I think he's only throwing the prospect of himself running to let those like Warren know that whatever happens, someone like Clinton will have a challenger from the left, whether it is her or Sanders.

[MineralMan]

5. I think he should run, too.

And he should run as a Democrat, which will require him to declare himself a Democrat.

If he runs as an independent, he'll have less impact on the primaries, and his voice won't be heard as often or as widely. It's important to hear alternative voices.

[JDPriestly]

6. Agreed. Sanders would make a great candidate and president.

Finally, the real problems like social injustice and economic injustice would get some attention and notice.

Oddly, Sanders is a good, loving man. Sincere and intelligent. Absolutely first-class.

He would have my vote over Hillary any day.

I want to see a progressive run, a real progressive, someone who cares about our country and will put America first. I think that would sell to more Americans than anyone realizes. We have to get a progressive agenda on the table.

We received an ad for Bernie Sanders the other day and are planning to donate. My husband already may have done that.

Go, Bernie.

(I still like Elizabeth Warren but let's get at least one of them to run.)

[KoKo]

19. I'd like to see them both run...but Bernie probably has best chance to get

Last edited Fri Apr 11, 2014, 12:29 PM - Edit history (1)

a Progressive Message out there and having them both run would split the donations and loyalties.
I'd like to see Elizabeth campaign for Bernie though and she'd be great on the campaign trail.

We really need her in the Senate along with Bernie if the Mid-Terms don't turn out well for Dems holding the Senate which some are predicting.

What a mess we are in. We should have a back bench of strong Democrats running and not be forced into Hillary as the anointed one. What happens if she has health problems along the way to 2016 and then we are left scrambling. Who will she pick for VP in case she has health problems after she wins (if she wins)? Maybe she could pull a fast one and pick Bernie or Elizabeth Warren to run as her VP? Wouldn't that be something! Not gonna happen..but still.

But, in general, it's so depressing I don't want to think to much about it these days. So much can happen between now and 2016 and that we Democrats don't have a "back bench" waiting so that our Primary can have fresh voices is disappointing. Then there's who the Republicans choose. Will they pick someone who isn't crazy or Romney type this time? The odds, historically, of one party holding the White House after two terms aren't in our favor. People usually want a change. That's why Hillary is important, though. People are comfortable with her and many more Republicans like her now than did in the past. So they might choose Comfort over Change. And, that would mean we are into Dynasty territory here in the USA. Clinton/Bush/Clinton and by then Jeb would be seasoned and ready for a go...if he doesn't run in 2016.

[JDPriestly]

26. We will never get a strong majority of common-sense liberals in Congress or a common-sense

president unless we start educating voters, letting them hear our ideas. If either or both Warren or Sanders ran, we could start that process of letting voters know their are solutions to our national problems that they may not have heard or considered.

[KoKo]

38. Oh..agree on that. We need both their voices out there speaking about our ideas..

I just wondered about the fundraising being split between them. But, if they both want to go for it..why not.

[brooklynboy49]

25. I'm with you, JD

My first choice is Warren. Sanders is a very, very close second. Primarily because I think Warren would have a credible shot, whereas that scruffy, grey haired SOCIALIST, Sanders, would be dismissed and virtually ignored by the MSM, and that's who most voters pay attention to, not Chris Matthews or Rachel Maddow. I actually think Bernie is left of Warren and a broader range of issues concern him and have concerned him for many, many years. Were it not for the fact that the Republicans and the media are going to tag Bernie a "socialist" and pound home that evil word at every opportunity, causing his premature withdrawal from the primaries, he would be my first choice. I love the guy.

I would fully and enthusiastically support either, I only hope that one or both announce their candidacy. It's time to stop crappin' around with pie in the sky "bipartisanship" and take it to the enemy. And, let's not kid ourselves, we're at war politically. I'd like nothing better than to see a Warren/Cruz contest and let Americans choose the direction in which they want to see the country head, whatever their verdict may be. It's time for a clear choice to be presented to the country and voted upon in 2016. I do not want to see a Clinton/(Jeb) Bush contest where the choice is the evil of two lessers.

[NorthCarolina]

7. If Sanders runs, he's got my vote. nt

[Trust Buster]

8. It's Hillary's nomination if she wants it.....

.....Sanders would have to run as an Independent a la Ralph Nader and that foolish thinking gave us George Bush in 2000. You want the Right wing to end up with a 6 -3 or 7 - 2 majority on the Supreme Court ?, then keep up that pie in the sky mentality.

[The Magistrate]

11. You Might Try Actually Reading The Article, sir

'More significantly, so far as this question goes, Sanders has simply not been in the habit of backing “third party” presidential campaigns. When many of us (mistakenly) believed it might be possible to utilize the peculiarities of the electoral college system to build up a significant vote and organization for Ralph Nader in the non-swing states in 2000, Sanders was conspicuously absent from the effort.

'But the main reason that I suggest that Sanders will not make an independent or third party bid is what he’s already said on the subject. As he told The Nation, “the dilemma is that, if you run outside of the Democratic Party ... you would be taking votes away from the Democratic candidate and making it easier for some right-wing Republican to get elected—the [Ralph] Nader dilemma.” And while he acknowledged that, like many of us, he might emotionally prefer “the bolder, more radical approach ... running outside of the two-party system,” it seemed to this reader, at least, that he expected most would conclude that “getting involved in primaries state-by-state, building organization capability, rallying people, that for the moment at least ... is the better approach.” '

[Trust Buster]

13. Yes, Sanders is probably too smart to try the Independent approach

But I was not communicating with Sanders with my post.

[blackspade]

16. Nader did not give us Bush.

Gore won.
It was the SCOTUS that gave us Bush.

Hate on Nader all you want, just hate on him for something real.

[The Magistrate]

21. Nader Was A Major Contributing Factor, Sir

Without his efforts, the thing would not have been in reach of the thieves.

Nader voters polled responded that if he had not run, about half would have voted for Mr. Gore, about a third would not have voted, and about a sixth would have voted for Bush. The net, applied to Florida totals, would have put Mr. Gore in a comfortable lead.

There is simply no point to denying the fact of what this splinterist wrecker achieved, and the great damage he and the people who were his dupes did to this country and the world.

[Trust Buster]

27. Exactly right.

Nader allowed his ego to work against his goals. The Florida recount would have been irrelevant if not for Nader.

[questionseverything]

40. if the votes had been counted accurately gore would of won

there were about 175,000 over votes, ballots where more than one choice was selected.......2/3 were for gore, where his name oval was colored in and his name was written in

so it was not "close" at all, it was stolen because of florida repubs inaccurately reporting the vote counts, gore's mistake was not asking for the entire state to be recounted in same manner

[The Magistrate]

41. None Of Which Excludes Nader As A Major Factor In The Outcome, Sir

The wriggles on the subject by his partisans are entertaining at times, but carry no weight. The reason they do not is that the sort of ruses and cheats cited were more or less normal things, that can be found in many elections where partisan officials superintend: Nader was the abnormal factor, the thing that made it different, for it is not normal to have a third party candidate running on the left who enjoys national name recognition, and who concentrates his fire on the Democratic Party candidate, and focuses his efforts on closely contested states. There is no way to avoid the fact that Nader, and his partisans and those he duped, bear a heavy responsibility for the outcome of the election in 2000, and a great share of responsibility for the harm to the country and the world that outcome resulted in.

[questionseverything]

42. i am schocked you said this

the sort of ruses and cheats cited were more or less normal things, that can be found in many elections where partisan officials superintend:

/////////////////////////////////////////////

like we are suppose to accept this?

gore won by over a hundred thousand votes if THE VOTES WERE COUNTED ACCURATELY..........

SO OBVIOUSLY ACCURATELY COUNTING THE VOTES IS ALWAYS THE SOLUTION

/////////////////////

now if you are saying the ptb use the lesser candidates to electronically dump votes into... I could agree there,but again same solution,

ACCURATELY COUNT THE VOTES

[The Magistrate]

43. Realities Have To Be Faced, Sir

And it is a fact that sharp practice of various sorts is a common element in our elections, and has been throughout our history.

Thus, it is an unusual or abnormal feature of a contest which will become the focus of attention when the thing clearly goes badly wrong.

The difficulties Nader partisans have with this are a problem only to themselves. I sympathize with people who do not want to be on the hook of knowing they did a great deal to help deliver the White House to Bush and Co., but they would do better to face up to it and own up to what they did and acknowledge the error and culpability.

"Reality is that which, when you cease to believe in it, continues to exist."

[questionseverything]

45. unreal

the reality is the 2000 election was stolen by repubs

you trying to blame nader because no one bothered to think to count the votes accurately is effectively giving up on every FUTURE ELECTION

thank goodness franken did not listen to people like you

[bvar22]

46. Its a Knee Jerk reaction.

Some people just aren't happy unless they are attacking Liberals.

[The Magistrate]

48. And The Theft, Sir, Was Greatly Assisted By Nader

Denying it has an air of insistence one should look to the west to see the sun's rise at dawn....

[Scootaloo]

51. No, it was not

The theft was "aided" by a court decision demanding that the counting of votes be halted immediately.

It's telling when someone will go to any length imaginable to clear the Republican courts of any wrongdoing as you are doing, sir.

[The Magistrate]

52. Thank You For The Laugh, Sir

Nader put the thing in reach.

This is flat fact, evident to any clear-eyed, objective observer, both at the time and now.

It would never have reached a court were it not for his efforts, the state would have been won on the first count without his presence on the ballot.

[Scootaloo]

53. You have plenty such observers informing you about how wrong your argument is

DU's got no shortage of people who have a very good grasp of what went on in Florida in 2000. And the blame falls solely upon the Republicans and the courts stacked by Republicans. They would have cheated either way, and the apparatus was in place to award them their cheat, either way.

[The Magistrate]

55. Note The Qualifying Adjevctives, Sir: 'Clear-Eyed' And 'Objective'

The 'observers' you say are informing me otherwise conspicuously fail to display those traits in their comments on the matter.

[questionseverything]

54. did nader stop the counting of the votes?

no he did not

dems lose repeatedly because our votes are not accurately counted

Historical Overview of Election Fraud Analysis

31
JAN
Richard Charnin
Jan.31, 2013
Updated: Nov.4,2013

Historical Overview

In the 1968-2012 Presidential elections, the Republicans won the average recorded vote by 48.7-45.8%. The 1968-2012 National True Vote Model (TVM) indicates the Democrats won the True Vote by 49.6-45.0% – a 7.5% margin discrepancy.

In the 1988-2008 elections, the Democrats won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 52-42% – but won the recorded vote by just 48-46%, an 8% margin discrepancy. The state exit poll margin of error was exceeded in 135 of 274 state presidential elections from 1988-2008. The probability of the occurrence is ZERO. Only 14 (5%) would be expected to exceed the MoE at the 95% confidence level. Of the 135 which exceeded the MoE, 131 red-shifted to the Republican. The probability P of that anomaly is ABSOLUTE ZERO (E-116). That is scientific notation for

P= .000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 0000001.

I have written two books on election fraud which prove that the official recorded vote has deviated from the True Vote in every election since 1968 – always favoring the Republicans. Voting machine “glitches” are not due to machine failures; they are caused by malicious programming.

The proof is in the 1988-2008 Unadjusted State Exit Polls Statistical Reference. Not one political scientist, pollster, statistician, mathematician or media pundit has ever rebutted the data or the calculation itself. They have chosen not to discuss the topic. And who can blame them? Job security is everything.

Election forecasters, academics, political scientists and main stream media pundits never discuss this

///////////////////////////////////////////

http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/category/2008-election/

[dreamnightwind]

74. Interesting, thanks

I had not seen that guy's work before, bookmarked for future reading.

[progressoid]

49. 54000 purged voters and the butterfly ballot and Katherine Harris and

[The Magistrate]

50. And The Bag Of Chips Needed To Make All That Work, Sir, Was Nader

He, and his partisans and dupes, bear a great share of the responsibility for putting Bush in the White House, and for all the harm that did the country and the world.

[progressoid]

59. Nadar is an easy target.

Nadar wasn't responsible for purging voters or creating the butterfly ballot.

If either of those things hadn't happened, Gore would have been President, Nadar notwithstanding.

Why not just blame the entire state of Florida. Or Ohio.

[Fuddnik]

85. And add "Democrats" like these to the mix.

Allison Tant, the current Chair of the Florida Democratic Party, was a lobbyist for ChoicePoint in 2000. ChoicePoint was the company that provided the fraudulent voter purge lists.

And her attorney husband was a lawyer representing the Bush Campaign in Bush v Gore during the recount.

[blackspade]

63. Your welcome to believe that, but It is all on SCOTUS....

and no one else.
Nader did have an impact on the voting, but Gore won with a good margin.
It was stopping the recount that was the issue, not Nader.

And what is the constant 'sir' thing? Are you trying to be insulting?

[frylock]

75. nader was a contributing factor to be sure. 300,000+ registered dems that voted for bush in FL..

was a major contributing factor. voter suppression was a major contributing factor. SCOTUS decision was a major contributing factor. milquetoast Gore with his Droopy Dog sidekick was a major contributing factor. senate dems kicking the Congressional Black Caucus in the nuts was a major contributing factor. shit, I could go on and on and on and on.....

[dionysus]

65. he didn't give us bush singlehandedly, but he sure was one of several factors!

[rhett o rick]

58. Ah yes the scapegoat Nader whine. If you dont want that to happen again dont pray

Sen Sanders wont run as an (I), nominate someone that will represent the 99% and that's not Clinton-Sachs. If you nominate Clinton-Sachs, the lose is on you not Nader or Sanders or the moon.

[pffshht]

83. Your concern is noted.

-

[mindwalker_i]

17. If Sanders ran, perhaps we would get someone who makes the case for the left

better than anyone has tried or cared to for a long time. I could see him arguing about the tax system favoring the rich non-workers, talking about climate change, and a host of other issues that the right could only respond to by going into a tizzy fit and yelling "socialism." With him pointing out that the Republicans and screwing over everyone, along with said tizzy, it could possibly change some minds.

[watoos]

18. Bernie should run as a Dem.

He just might surprise everyone, because I think he would win the primary and the General election. This country is further left than the M$M allows us to believe.

[Exposethefrauds]

22. I wish he would run as who he really is a Democratic Socialist

However that is not realistic and running as a Democrat is the more practical way to go.

The majority of America is currently too ignorant to understand beyond R and D so at a minimum his running and being in the debates could be used to push the party to where it really belongs to the left and to teach America what Democratic Socialism really is all about.

Bernie can win as a populist but the Right, Corporate America and Democratic Party Leadership are going to try to destroy him if he gains traction and say wins NH and finishes at least 2nd in MO or UT, SC and NC.

For a historical perspective of how Bernie can win go google Henry A. Wallace if you do not know who he is. The way Bernie will be attacked by the corporate interests will be the same as what happened to Henry.

America and the World would have been a much better place if Henry had followed FDR if he had Bernie would have already been President of the US and would be a elder statesman today.

[ancianita]

24. If he won't cut any deals with globalists as Obama did, they'll make sure he doesn't win primaries.

The sausage making of the campaign will shake us up, but I believe that he's got to meet with certain globalists and be approved to run before he will even get front runner status. I know how that sounds, but my instincts, along with limited info, have worked so far. Our serious concerns about the campaigning, or what he says, will be secondary to what pre-arranged goals he'll have to capitulate to.

Every presidential campaign is set up for us to think that it is what it appears to be, but I've learned over a few elections, that on a global level that's just not so. The 2016 election is between classes of oligarchs. Whether Bernie serves any of them, or makes no promises to any of them, we will see. If he makes no promises, they'll let him 'play,' but they won't let him seriously contend with Clinton.

[Trust Buster]

28. You mean, if he ignores reality.

The Democrat Presidential nominee will have to raise in excess of $1 billion and will need an additional $1 - $3 billion in support from outside PACS. I don't like it but that's the reality of our current system. So many make it sound soooo easy.....it's not.

[ancianita]

30. No. You're right. The money that it takes to win will have to come from independent sources.

The reality of becoming the commander-in-chief of the largest military force on the planet means that there are deals to be made way beyond those that voters ordinarily know about. While I'm sure that Sanders knows this, the reality of it will probably be unpalatable to him. We shall see. I'll be surprised if he makes it through Iowa, really.

[closeupready]

29. Yes! He is the ONLY major lawmaker willing to NAME NAMES and to

shed light on the ugly underside of the American economy and how it's been destroyed by Wall Street.

A race without him would be more akin to softball.

[Trust Buster]

32. The power to reshape the Supreme Court bears no resemblance to "softball".

Just think how dramatically life will change in this country if the Right wing enjoys a 7 - 2 majority on the Supreme Court. Nothing "softball" about that my friend.

[closeupready]

33. "Softball" as in D and R candidates of the Corporate Party debating each other.

Sanders is the only major figure who stands firmly OUTSIDE the Corporate Party, and thus, would be the ONLY one who is willing to shed light on the fucking stupid and un-'free' trade agreements that have decimated American industry, the abuse of H1-B's, the weakening of Social Security, and other kinds of outrageousness that Dems and Republicans in the Corporate Party, with the complicity of our right-wing media, wish to sweep under the rug.

[Trust Buster]

35. Sanders has that luxury now. But, if he wishes to make a serious run...

......for the Presidency, he will have to attract that same corporate money to compete. Sadly, our current political system demands it. Sanders hasn't invented anything new here. He is safe as a Senator to speak his mind.

[Zorra]

31. Go Bernie! nt

[Rowdyboy]

34. His running would make the race 10 times more compelling, ginning up our voters interest

which is going to be crucially important in 2016. If he wins, so be it. If he loses to Clinton then she is a stronger, better prepared, more issue oriented candidate because she had to beat him first. Either way our side benefits from a Sanders candidacy.

[Trust Buster]

36. Our vote is technically irrelevant.

Look, 35% - 40% will vote Democrat if Mickey Mouse is running. Conversely, 35% - 40% will vote Republican if Daffy Duck is running. As the Republicans found out they hard way the last two elections cycles, Presidential elections are won by the candidate who captures the majority of the 20% in the middle. It absolutely escapes why some want to replicate the Republican strategy of the last two election cycles.

[SidDithers]

37. I absolutely agree...

He should become a Democrat, and run in the primary.



Sid

[joshcryer]

47. WTF, dirty socialist pig!

How dare you not fall in line behind the inevitable!

[rhett o rick]

56. But, but, if Senator Sanders runs then the Third Way will have an excuse to whine about

Clinton-Sachs' lose. We will never here the end of it. "If only Nader hadnt run our life would be wonderful." Ooops did I say Nader? I meant "Sanders".

[Spitfire of ATJ]

60. We thought Obama would be a shift to the Left and let's face it....

Hillary will feel like a shift back to the Right.

[colsohlibgal]

61. We Need A True Progressive Major Party

Right now we have what used to be the republican party - the democrats. And what used to be the insane asylum - the republicans.

To be sure we have a few very liberal democrats in congress - just not enough of them and they get beaten down by the pretenders.

[chknltl]

62. President Sanders, Vice President Warren both fully backed/blessed by Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Just dreaming out loud but wouldn't THAT be something wonderful for our nation and for the world.

[erronis]

69. Or Pres. Warren, Sec. of Defense Sanders

There are so many permutations that would be better than anything that the Kock Party has to offer.

Jeez, even Ralph Nader as head of Interior or Commerce; Ed Snowden in charge of the intelligence apparatus (Chelsea Manning would make a great Nat'l Security Adviser); the remaining Berrigan brother as head of DoD; Noam Chomsky as ... (well, you get my drift.)

And then there is the other side to this - the non-reconciliation piece:

- Rumsfeld and Cheney (and henches) to be send to Iraq to manually clean up their messes. (No, not to direct others - get down and dirty and be in harms way - something they were famous for not doing before.)

- Bush (W) to go back into the insane asylum (or zoo) from which he escaped and to be fed bananas and given finger paints to demonstrate his innate talents.

- All the corporate bandits that stole the money from the taxpayers while pretending they were being patriotic - return the money with interest; lose your overseas bank accounts and property; and go live in the Cayman Islands until you rot.

This is too much fun and so unrealistic so I'll go back to caring about Colbert or something.

[dionysus]

64. i say go for it, i'd vote for him.

[woo me with science]

66. K&R

[ecstatic]

67. He is left economically, but not socially

That's my conclusion based on actually listening to him on various shows.

[Trust Buster]

68. This is too funny......

.....Riddle me this. We all know that the center 20% of the country decides Presidential elections. We also watched as Romney's primary opponents forced him to tack further to the Right. The idiot was going around on the stump telling anyone who would listen that he is a "severe" conservative to pander to those farther on the Right.

The result: despite running against an incumbent President with a bad economy. Romney managed to alienate the majority of swing voters and lost an election that historical data suggest was easily winnable.

So now some here think that we should copy the Republican strategy. You want to run Sanders against Hillary and force her to tack farther to the Left and away from that essential middle 20%. You feel that this country is poised for such a move despite that fact that your faces are turning blue from holding your breath in fear that the Democrats will lose the majority in the Senate this fall. A very peculiar logic indeed. I'd highly suggest you approach 2016 with your head instead of your heart because a potential 7 - 2 wing nut majority on the Supreme Court will break that heart of yours.

[allinthegame]

70. About as likely

As President Cruz. We need to think about the Supreme Court and the future of ACA and Medicare instead of Ceding the election to Rand Paul.
Senator Sanders is a great person but don't be so blinded to reality that you wind up like the Tea Party in demanding purity.

[pragmatic_dem]

71. you are using the purity word, conservative talking point, don't be so blindied that

you become a center bagger.

[JI7]

72. i'm all for it

[pragmatic_dem]

73. if democratic leadership doesn't want competition for ideas, if they won't represent liberals then

they should run as Republicans. An unchallenged monopoly of political power NEVER works in the best interests of the majority.

If you are a conservative, then join the Republicans and move the tea party left instead of insisting Democrats become conservatives.

Democratic conservatives are trying to herd liberals to scorched, barren Republican pastures.

You know why, "it's for our own safety".

Right wingers in the Democratic Party are literally trying to eliminate any voice from the left.

These Conservatives are embarrassed by liberals. They don't want to see us in public because we advocate justice and civil rights.

That makes conservatives, especially those with money, very uncomfortable.

[frylock]

76. if Bernie runs as a dem, it will be interesting to see if the librul media tries to Kucinich him..

can't imagine there will be any UFO questions this time around.

[adirondacker]

77. Or Dean him, since he is from the same state. nt

[pffshht]

84. What happened to Dean, anyway?

Was he the one who got Dukakised?

[adirondacker]

86. Trolled by the Third Way. :/

They sent Clinton's buddy Lieberman to monkey wrench the most clean running machine on the lot. Results were 4 years more of an idiot in charge and the start of another depression.

[blkmusclmachine]

78. The Country DESPERATELY needs a viable, non-Corporate, Progressive, Left-of-center political Party

Because the Democrats sure as hell aren't it!!!

[aikoaiko]

79. My question to those who know him better - Can he lead? Can he promote followship?

I liked a lot of things Dennis Kucinich said, but I didn't see him be able to get anyone to follow his lead.

[BlindTiresias]

82. Hmm, thats a good question

I'd characterize him as having a stronger presence than Kucinich, almost a kind of paternal (in a good sense) thing about him. Personally I think Warren might have a better chance but who knows at this point.

[Live and Learn]

80. Love Sanders. nt

[Riftaxe]

81. Good points and all, but he still is not a Democrat

I would vote for him over the corporate approved candidate anyways, hell voting for more of the same has gotten us this far...and that ain't good.