Would you rather of had Bernie run for President as an independent?!

[Joe941]

I hear a lot of condescending remarks about how Bernie isn't a Democrat and such. He ran under the (D) label so the vote would not be split. He was a team player even though the system was stacked against him. Do you honestly believe it would have been better for him to run for pres under the (I)? Oh my...

[comradebillyboy]

1. Yes, he should run as what he is

which is an I.

[NurseJackie]

2. Yes.

"This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man."

Generally speaking, I believe that if someone is truthful about their identity and purpose it allows for honest and open discussions that are unencumbered by artificial restraints.

[uponit7771]

3. At this point yes, more bad than good came out of him running as a dem

[GeneMcM]

120. Yes. And my preferece is he work directly for the GOP and "help' them out for a change.

[Doodley]

4. Yes, he should have run as an Independent.

[handmade34]

5. yes n/t

[Cuthbert Allgood]

6. Everyone saying yes to this is crazy

These are the same people that would have been screaming Nadar if he did run as an independent. He ran as a Dem so as not to split the vote. Had he run as an independent, Clinton would likely not have won the popular vote. And by "likely not," I mean would not have.

[Garrett78]

10. Agreed.

It's like those who think any constructive criticism is from a Russian bot, or that DU posts impact election results when probably 98% of the US population has never even heard of DU.

Some have gone off the deep end.

[kcr]

32. You're right, because time machines don't exist.

20/20 hindsight is amazingly accurate, isn't it? I used to think that running within the party to move it to the left was the way to go. I haven't completely changed my mind, but I've since amended my position. I still think that's possible, but it has to be done in good faith. He would do less damage as a fringe 3rd party outsider. I want good, progressive candidates in the Dem party, not spoilers who only want to trash it.

[brush]

36. Nationally he would have been just a blip on the radar if he'd run as an independent.

Nobody would've heard of him, which is why he ran as a Democrat.

Without the Dem label he would've been just another 3rd party candidate lumped in with Stein and Johnson.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

37. Yet Stein is basically the anti-christ on here who cost Clinton the election

because of people voting for Stein instead of Clinton. And Sanders is CERTAINLY a bigger name pre-primary than Stein is even now. But, yeah, sure, he would have been just a blip.

It would be nice if there was some consistency in the arguments.

[brush]

44. Just look at the early, southern primaries where he lost state after state.

Nobody knew who Bernie Sanders was.

He gained name recognition and national exposure from being on the Dem primary ticket as the campaign progressed, but it's evident — early on, outside of the north east, few had heard of the independent senator from the small state of Vermont.

That would've remained so without the "D" by his name (for fundraising) and without participating in the Democratic Party TV debates.

Stein did not have that exposure and subsequently bled off a comparatively few votes from Clinton.

Sanders as an independent would've had the same minor effect, but because he was allowed to run as a Dem and gain all the national exposure from using the party's national apparatus, the disloyal-to-the-party Sanders supporters who turned against Clinton when Sanders didn't get the nomination had a much bigger effect in the close election by staying home, writing in Sanders, turning to trump or voting for Stein, ironically, than Stein's 3rd party run did.

Again, he would've been just a blip without the Democratic Party label.

[JCanete]

50. and being a blip is really what the democratic process is about...The fact that his exposure has

made him so popular goes to show that the system as is, does not typically privilege the choices the voters actually want. You just said it. Sanders would have been a blip, because it is about money and exposure and it is about viability. Nobody believes third parties are viable. That siphons voters back towards the two parties even if their hearts are elsewhere. It is a credit to the party that it did not use some litmus test to bar Sanders from the primary because at least that gives some level of control back to the voters in the party. If a candidate doesn't resonate with democrats that candidate doesn't go anywhere. If, in-spite of all of the practical forces still against such a candidate, that person emerges with support, well that is the democratic voters talking.

Also, Sanders absolutely had further reach already than Stein, even from the beginning, which is why he was raising the money he was, even as an unknown. He would have gotten more support in the GE than she did. People in liberal circles have known his name for a long time now and have listened to him on Harmann, etc. for years. And there is no evidence I"m aware of that shows Sanders turned people towards Stein, nor influenced them not to vote. He brought people into the process, and most of his supporters voted for Clinton. It is much more likely, had Sanders run as independent, that all the people saying that's what he should have done, would be singing a slightly different vitriolic tune about how third parties play spoiler. No question, running as a Democrat helped Sanders gain traction, and I appreciate you being one of the few on the board who has actually acknowledged that in the early state races Sanders was still an unknown, not "REJECTED" by those voters, as a lot of people like to say here.

[brush]

58. He was known by politically active progressives and liberals, not to rank and file Dems.

Which is why he got so far behind in delegate and super delegate count in the early, southern primaries (most voters didn't know who he was) — thus his lost of the nomination.

I don't know how you can say he'd have gotten more support in the GE than Hillary when he didn't get more support in the primaries though.

That doesn't make sense, especially considering what happened in the GE. The repug vote suppression, vote hacking machine and other dirty tricks would've have been directed towards Sanders just as it was on Clinton, not to mention the massive Russians/Assange interference.

And I still think as an independent he would've been a blip only known by politically active progressives and liberals who listen to Thom Hartman, and of course in Vermont and New England.

Unfortunately 3rd party candidates in the US rarely gain much traction, billionaire Ross Perot being the rare exception, billionaire and being willing to spend his money being the key there.

I said unfortunately because I actually would like it if we had a parliamentary system with multiple partys — say the Democratic Party, a farther left party, the Liberal Party, the Greens (ugh),and of course the repugs and teaparty types on the right.

The parties to the left of the repugs could form coalitions and win every time since we know the rights base is just around 30% of the voters — no more of that electoral college crap swinging elections to repug cheaters.

[JCanete]

67. not than Hillary, no. I meant than stein. He would have more likely played spoiler, in the mold of

Nader, and all those people here saying he should have run as independent would have had no kinder things to say about him. Basically, he shouldn't have run at all is the real message.

[brush]

70. "Basically, he shouldn't have run at all is the real message." Wow, I really did misunderstand.

I think you're right on that. Hillary would probably be president now.

[JCanete]

73. heh, I didn't mean that was my message, and I disagree that would have been the result. nt

[brush]

74. Well what are you saying. Be clear.

[JCanete]

77. I meant anybody saying he should have run as an independent is really saying he shouldn't have run.

Had he run as an independent they would have no good things to say about that action.

[Ken Burch]

82. Is there a reason that you can't accept that Bernie's ideas resonated?

That his support grew because what he offered was and is popular?

Why, at this point, would you still seem to refuse to take the Sanders phenomenon seriously?

Why still insist that nothing about it was valid.

If he had stayed out, HRC would have had the same showing in the fall or possibly done worse.

The showing John Kerry made in 2004 proves Democratic presidential nominees don't do better in the fall when he primaries are a debate-free formality and there's no free speech at the convention.

[brush]

116. No one said his ideas didn't resonate. I'm saying as an independence who would've even been...

exposed to them?

[Demsrule86]

122. If that were true. he would have been the nominee...he wasn't.

[shanny]

126. Under the rules, no he wasn't.

But despite starting with virtually no name recognition, and a 60% deficit in the polls, and virtually no money, and ignored by the media (consider the difference in coverage of mega-rallies, Bernie's and Trump's)....hmmm. I think he did quite well.

Maybe it was his message.

[Ken Burch]

132. Winning the nomination isn't the only test of resonance.

There were huge numbers of people all across the country who said things like "my hearts with Bernie, my head is with Hillary".

And many of those ideas were added to the platform as a measure of the resonance and popularity-had they been mentioned in the fall campaign, they would only have added to out vote total by increasing the turnout (I say that as someone who did all I could to get first-time voters who'd backed Bernie to back the ticket in the fall).

I get it that some people have issues with Bernie as a person and as a candidate-I have some myself, which is why I've repeated argued that he shouldn't run again.

But why would anyone hold a grudge against the IDEAS of the Sanders campaign and those who continue support them? Why does there seem to be this insistence that the party proscribe the ideas, pressure the supporters to break up organizationally and only be allowed in as silenced, powerless individuals from whom support for our ticket and whatever our platform might be because they somehow simply owe it to us? Why stay with "Stop_____!" politics they never work for us and when most voters hate us for using them? We have a lot of good things to offer, most of which are genuinely popular...why not campaign mainly FOR what we would do for the merits of our candidates and with confidence stand for? If we did that, the voters would see it as leadership and rally to us.

And what harm would there be in simply adding a number of the economic ideas to the platform, while centering and strengthening the commitment to social justice-a commitment Sanders SUPPORTERS always shared, whatever Bernie's personal shortcomings on that-and going forward as the party of justice for the many?

This is the argument some of us have been making for decades-and our "pros" have been rejecting. The result of that rejection has been a Republican Ascendancy that never needed to happen. What's the point in "staying the course"?

[Jim Lane]

85. Clinton loses those Southern states with or without Bernie on the ballot

His running as an independent (or Green) in November would have swung some other states, though.

The most obvious example is New Hampshire. Here are the numbers:

2016 Democratic primary
Clinton 95,355 votes
Sanders 152,193 votes

2016 general election
Clinton 348,526 votes
Trump 345,790 votes

We can never know for sure about a hypothetical election, but I think it highly likely that Bernie on the November ballot would have cost Clinton a net of at least 3,000 votes and thus delivered the state to Trump.

If you ask how Clinton might have won the electoral vote, one of the many what-ifs is that, through a combination of campaigning in Wisconsin and succeeding in addressing the voter suppression there, she carries that state, instead of losing it narrowly. Here are the numbers:

2016 Democratic primary
Clinton 433,739 votes
Sanders 570,192 votes

2016 general election
Clinton 1,382,536 votes
Trump 1,405,284 votes

You can think about the what-ifs that would have let Clinton make up a 23,000-vote deficit, but it's a lot harder to envision that outcome if the 570,000 Sanders voters have the chance to vote for him in November. In real life, most of them voted for Clinton. If Bernie had been on the ballot, they wouldn't all have voted for him, but quite a few would have, making it immensely more difficult for Clinton to flip the state.

[brush]

117. Check your headline. It makes no sense.

And him running in November...how? He lost the primaries.

Or do you mean as an independent?

[Jim Lane]

130. Yes, I mean as an independent, per the OP.

My point is that, in the bright red Southern states, it wouldn't matter whether Bernie endorsed Clinton (as he actually did) or instead ran in November as an independent. Either way, Trump was carrying those states.

Florida is a Southern state that is not bright red. She lost by only 1.2%, so you can think about how she might have turned it around in the actual matchup. If Bernie had been on the November ballot as an independent, however, Trump's lead over Clinton would have been much greater. Bernie lost the primary but still got more than half a million votes, about five times as many as Trump's margin over Clinton in November. If Bernie had chosen an independent run, Clinton's task in Florida, as in many other states, would have been hopeless. Trump would have won the popular vote in reality (instead of just in his own imagination) and would have padded his Electoral College lead, as Bernie's "spoiler" effect would have cost Clinton some close states like New Hampshire.

[karynnj]

123. You can never know how something not done would have gone

Your scenario might be the most likely. One question is whether without Sanders, HRC would easily win every contest or if someone else might have hained traction.

Imagine that were the case. A very quiet Democratic primary. The Trump circus. You still end up with 2 nominees under water on favorability. It is possible that Sanders FDR like announcement would go viral. Could that energy lead to getting on enough ballots ( or getting him the line of an existing third party).

Imagine he, not Stein, gets that line. It is very easy to imagine that he would win far more votes than she did. However, I doubt he could win even one state. What he would likely do as an independent is to take more votes from HRC than Trump. Look at the 1980 results when a liberal Republican, John Anderson ran as an alternative to Reagan and Carter. Consider that he took enough MA vores that Reagan won MA!

[brush]

124. Good points. Perot is an even more recent example. He took away enough votes from HW Bush...

Last edited Sat Nov 4, 2017, 12:21 AM - Edit history (1)

for Bill Clinton to win. Perot though, being a billionaire, had the money to spend on his campaign and he did.

Sanders didn't have that kind of dough and wouldn't have raised the money he did without being on the Dem ticket. He's even said as much HuffPo excerpt on the Donna Brazile mess:

"Sanders himself said were he not allowed into the Democratic Primary he couldn’t have run. “He was deemed “extremely disgraceful” by Donna Brazile, vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, when he said “In terms of media coverage, you had to run within the Democratic Party,” he observed, adding that he couldn’t raise money outside the major two-party process."

[Joe941]

48. It is very interesting to me.

[Garrett78]

7. No. Clinton wouldn't have won the popular vote and the Dem Party would have been hurt more.

Clinton not winning the popular vote might not seem like a big deal. Some will say it doesn't matter. But I think it does. It matters in terms of the narrative. It matters in terms of the effort to one day do away with the electoral college, which is a vestige of slavery.

And it would have encouraged future Independent runs.

[flying_wahini]

12. I kindly disagree...

I believe that there were (are) a LOT of people would have voted for Bernie so
they would not have to vote for Trump. Especially young first time voting Republicans.
It would have been a third option even if it split some
Hillary voters that lots of moderate Republicans would have jumped ship.

Just my opinion.

[Garrett78]

15. Very few Trump voters would have voted for Sanders.

It would have been primarily nonvoters and Stein voters who would have voted for Sanders.

[louis c]

19. I don't agree.

Many "rust belt" voters may have left Trump for Bernie.

Non-bigots who voted for Trump based on the trade issues and economic despair would have voted Bernie instead of Trump.

[TexasBushwhacker]

22. You might be surprised

I have a friend who is evangelical Christian Republican and he HATED Trump. He also hated Clinton. He told me he would have no problem voting for Bernie if he was the Democratic nominee. He ended up holding his nose and voting for Trump because he likes Mike Pence.

I think there are plenty of military members and their families who have no fondness for Bone Spurs either.

I also think that some Greens and Libertarians would have voted for Sanders as a viable option that wasn't a traditional Republican or Democrat.

[Demsrule86]

41. I don't buy that...talk is cheap.

[GeneMcM]

127. yep here we go again. that instantance without any evidence at all.

I am stuck in a Midwest burb ; have been here for almost 20 years and travel all through it for my work.There's just something too rich about coastal white Bernie fans telling me how popular he'd be here.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

23. There were Obama to Trump voters

A lot of them were about "change." My guess is they would have gone to Sanders.

[Demsrule86]

40. I don't think that is true.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

46. Which part?

That there were Obama to Trump voters? Or that those people might have gone Sanders? The first one is pretty much just true. The second is certainly opinion which could be discussed.

[Demsrule86]

53. That is refighting the primary...and if Sen. Sanders had not run at all, Hillary Clinton would be

in the white House. But honestly, let it go. What does it matter with Trump squatting in the White House...Sen. Sanders will not run in 20 and let's work on winning 18 and then getting a candidate all Democrats can rally behind.

[emulatorloo]

80. No there were Republicans who switched to Obama and then switched back to voting Republican

Have seen a study from Washington Post, posted it here a couple times.

DU search sucks. It was titled something like "the myth of the Dem Obama to Trump voter"

Ok link to original article (cannot find my OP)

There’s no such thing as a Trump Democrat

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-trump-democrat/2017/08/04/0d5d06bc-7920-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.82b97c833dcd


By Dana Milbank Opinion writer August 4

Do you believe in mermaids, unicorns and fairies?

If so, you may have taken interest in a new mythical creature that appeared during the 2016 election: the Trump Democrat.

It has become an article of faith that an unusually large number of people who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 or 2012 switched sides and voted for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. It follows that Democrats, to win in the future, need to get these lost partisans to come home.


But new data, and an analysis by AFL-CIO political director Michael Podhorzer that he shared with me, puts all this into question. The number of Obama-to-Trump voters turns out to be smaller than thought. And those Obama voters who did switch to Trump were largely Republican voters to start with. The aberration wasn’t their votes for Trump but their votes for Obama.

More at link

[MadCrow]

31. My son is now an ardent Trump supporter

But he would have voted for Bernie if he had been the nominee. He just felt that Hillary was TOO establishment. My grandsons in college were ardent Bernie supporters, as I was, (I did vote for Hillary) and told me that the support for Clinton on the college campuses was tepid even amongst the women. Hillary did not generate the same passion and enthusiasm that Bernie did. Therefore the vote in my family was split among Hillary, Trump and other 3rd party candidates If we want to win in 2020 we need to find a candidate, not Hillary or Bernie, who can unite ALL democrats, and we need to find a message that we can agree on and that will resound to the American public . Just being anti-Trump will not do it !

[Demsrule86]

39. Your son is a right winger...you have my sympathies...and I don't think anyone who could vote

for Trump would ever vote for Bernie...Trump is a racist, a bully...and if your son supports him after all the racist remarks Trump has made...I don't believe your son would ever vote for Bernie who has his faults but is not a racist.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

42. I'm doing a project for a customer who says...

"They dared me to vote for trump by nominating Clinton. So I did"

25 years of made up scandals and other bullshit took their toll. The email fiasco played right in to their hands.

[Demsrule86]

55. I find that to be bullshit...talk is cheap.The righties would love to keep the Bernie/Hillary

divide going as shown by Trump's tweets today. That is what this is...are we going to fall for it yet again? Let it go. It really doesn't matter at this point. vote Democratic and save the world.

[delisen]

102. and we don't know what ammo was waiting for another candidate

with less national and international experience.

[MadCrow]

128. I was a Bernie supporter

I live in WV and the Bernie supporters in our area met in the local UMWA headquarters. The leader of the group was a long time union organizer and our members varied in age from young first time voters to retired teachers like myself. My daughter, my grandson and myself were delegates to the WV state Democratic convention. We also approved the most progressive Democratic platform in WV history. Bernie won the WV Democratic primary. I think he could have won this state with his message, because he appealed to the working class and the miners in a way that Hillary did not. Trump low-life that he is, still appealed to the miners because he was the one who seemed to be talking to their concerns. They wanted change. Hillary appeared to be the epitome of the status quo, Bernie wasn't an option, and that left Trump. They wanted to make a point and they sure did. But belittling all Trump supporters is no way to resolve our differences.





.

[lunamagica]

59. The "passion" for Sanders on the campuses wasn't enough to motivate them them to vote for him

[Demsrule86]

121. exactly...

[Joe941]

49. I think people are looking for someone to blame.

Of course Russia but why do we need another person to blame?

[R B Garr]

8. His claims of not splitting the vote are not believable when you match them

up to what else he said about needing the Democratic party to get the media attention he needed to gain name recognition and to get into the debates. It sounds like an excuse. Who would he have debated as an Independent?? Why did he need the name recognition if he could have done it on his own.

Plus, one of his most inflammatory accusations about the DNC rigging the system would have been nonexistent, and he obviously needed that to generate the anti-establishment theme he benefitted from.

[MrsCoffee]

9. Yes.

The posing and bashing are not appreciated.

[highplainsdem]

11. I admire Bernie as a gadfly and visionary. I never thought he had much chance as a

presidential candidate, and whether running as a temporary Democrat or an Independent, he made it harder for the Democratic candidate and IMO contributed to Trump's electoral victory.

[seaglass]

13. Better for him in what way? Not financially. Not electorally. No, it wouldn't have been

better for him in any way. Still it would have been the right thing to do.

[EffieBlack]

16. Thats what he is, isnt he?

If being an Independent is good enough for his day-to-day political life, it should be good enough for him to run under for president. He can’t expect to be a “cafeteria Democrat,” picking and choosing when and why he’ll align with (i.e., use) us and when and why he’ll insist we’re full of crap and expect true Democrats to embrace him.

[Kirk Lover]

24. As an independent he can pick and choose what Dem positions he wants to embrace...but just don't

expect to run as a Democrat though.

[mythology]

17. He also ran as a Democrat for the publicity

I don't blame Sanders for Clinton losing, but don't ascribe purely non-self interest to Sanders running as a Democrat.

[coolsandy]

20. And spent most of the money he received as publicity instead of helping the party and the DNC.

And for Donna t say she was surprised about the financial woes of the DNC is hogwash. As early as 2013 they were sending signals and begging for help from supporters. Unlike the GOP whose base is largely the 1% who can afford to keep paying into the coffers of the GOP, the Democratic base is largely working men and women who just can make ends meet and whose disposable income does not allow for much giving to a political party. Bernie raised the money and kept most of it for his own anti-establishment campaign. The available pot of funds is only so big and what was contributed to HRC hurt the DNC even more. Could Obama have done more for raising money for the DNC? Perhaps but we the party base kind of picked up our marbles and went home after 2012. We just didn't put our money where our hearts are.

Bernie wanted to primary Obama in 2012..that would have also resulted in the same kind of disaster as happened in 2016,

http://fortune.com/2013/09/30/the-dnc-is-nearly-broke/

[louis c]

18. What difference did it make? (NT)

[Fresh_Start]

21. Absolutely..he would have disappeared from the scene

instead of being propped up through the convention

[Blaukraut]

25. Yes. It would have been more honest in the end.

If his message resonated with enough voters, he could have possibly won the election. As it was, the voters were split anyway, and the damage that was done to the Democratic party was a lot worse than it might have been, had he run as an Independent.

[LexVegas]

26. "the system was stacked against him"

[NCTraveler]

27. No doubt about it. Primaries are fully being re-fought.

It's pretty clear that one side was desperate for it.

"Aren't you glad the rich white male didn't hurt us even worse?"

That really is what your op brings to the table. That's how far the desperation to re-fight the primaries is to those appearing to be on the left.

I think some seriously bad news is about to break on Jane and Bernie. This level of desperation makes little sense if the people pushing it are truly on the left. Burlington College? Uretsky wrapped up in the Mueller investigation? More rape fantasies found? Someone got a hold of their taxes?

Something is about to break.

[radical noodle]

28. Knowing what we know now...

Yes.

[WhiteTara]

29. Yes, he would have been honest

but he wouldn't because he needed the DNC to start his campaign.

[pandr32]

56. And his candidate profile got help from Russia

We cannot pretend his "grass-roots populism" wasn't by deliberate design. The evidence that Russia was behind it is there.

[WhiteTara]

72. Scary, isn't it?

He's so popular too.

[pandr32]

114. Many do not want to acknowledge Russia's hand

They would rather think that the surge of social media-driven attention to Sanders was organic in nature and that they were the first to "get" Sanders even though his stump speech has changed little over the decades as a career politician.

[delisen]

113. and Bernie and supporters have been much too slow to acknowledge

the Russian input and keep clinging to their narrative even when facts point away from it.

I consider Trump to promote an evil version of a false narrative the faces backwards into a mythical past.

I consider Sanders to be a liberal version of the false narrative that faces backwards into a mythical past.

[pandr32]

115. I believe Sanders has been mum about it as well.

Except to say that Russian interference isn't what "keeps Americans up every day.".
Sanders has lived his whole life in a democratic/capitalist country and spent most of his career in politics.

[Rene]

30. hey should have gotten off the stage if he wasn't going to join the Democrat party

He's proven every day since he joined the Senate......right up to today and into the future that no other Senators listen to him......he's all mouth / no LEADER.
His 'single-payer' milarkey will destroy many insurance companies and eliminate all those industry's jobs.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

45. "Democrat" Party?

[delisen]

101. Good catch.

[DavidDvorkin]

33. I'd rather he had run away over the horizon.

[moda253]

34. Condescending remarks?????

It is the fucking truth. He IS NOT A DEMOCRAT!!!!!

And Fuck him!

[Codeine]

35. Have had. nt

[Joe941]

47. Indeed. Good catch.

[Demsrule86]

38. Yes, I would have rather Sen. Sanders run as an independent...the damage to the party would not have

been as great.

[Tavarious Jackson]

43. Yes.

I rather him be honest and run as what he believes in and not be fake for media attention.

[liquid diamond]

51. Yes. Even if we lost last election as a result,

the division in our party would not persist like it has. It’s been a year since we lost the general election, and we’re still infighting.

[guillaumeb]

52. Ralph Nader updated for 2016?

If Sanders had run as an Independent, and if Trump had still won, one suspects that the same general arguments would have been made here and elsewhere about splitting the progressive vote, and enabling Trump.

The same rage would still have been directed against Sanders.

[Jim Lane]

86. Of course it would have split the progressive vote.

Drawing the Nader comparison, you write: "The same rage would still have been directed against Sanders."

Absolutely. I would add: "and justifiably so."

[delisen]

109. We always need to be prepared for the third party

[guillaumeb]

110. And Democrats can hope to appeal to the third party voters.

Or some of them.

[democratisphere]

54. Bernie is not a Democrat. Bernie is not Presidential material as he could not

even win the primary. Running as an Independent would likely insure redumbliCONs will rule for decades into the future.

[Reiyuki]

57. Sanders does not define as Democrat, but his voting record is 95% democrat

98% voting record with Democratic party (vs Democratic congressperson average of 93%)
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/8/31/1417001/-Bernie-Not-Democrat-Enough-Let-s-See-How-He-Stacks-Up

And also here:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357


Ironically, despite not being a Democrat, Sanders' voting record is better than most registered Democrats.

[NurseJackie]

66. I'm reminded of this quote from a recent Daily Beast post

https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanders-sits-out-a-tight-race-in-virginia-after-his-candidate-falls-short

To get the big picture, I called Bill Galston, a political scientist with the Brookings Institution, who reminded me that Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat, that he became one solely for the purpose of running for president, and he isn’t one anymore. “He’s loyal to a movement, and he’s loyal to a set of ideas. He’s not loyal to a party, and he’s unconcerned by the progress Democrats care about that he might impede. Incremental change is not the business he’s in,” says Galston.

Ironically, despite not being a Democrat, Sanders' voting record is better than most registered Democrats.

There's nothing "ironic" about that. Where's the "irony"? It's important to recognize that what plays well in Vermont doesn't always have the same appeal in Peoria.

[delisen]

111. So I guess Bernie is part of the establishment he

denounces.

[Ken Burch]

60. It's a useless question. He wouldn't have run as an independent under any circumstances

Bernie proved that by refusing Stein's offer to let him run on the Green ballot line.

[NurseJackie]

71. Actually it's an interesting question. He may have, and he still may.

It's a useless question.

Actually it's an interesting question. He may have, and he still may. Except for the obvious discomfort it causes you, there's really no reason to be so dismissive about it. Why are you trying to shut down the conversation? Are you afraid of what people may say, or the conclusions at which readers may arrive?

He wouldn't have run as an independent under any circumstances

There's no way to be sure that such an absolute statement will always be true. Based on what we know of the man, I can easily imagine "circumstances" (however remote or unlikely) where it could actually happen.

Bernie proved that by refusing Stein's offer to let him run on the Green ballot line.

That is a post hoc fallacy that proves nothing of the sort. It only "proves" that he didn't want to be on the Green ballot. Or maybe it "proves" that he didn't like Jill Stein. Or maybe it proves that he doesn't like the color green.

However, the fact that he didn't join-up with Stein does NOT "prove" that he would never consider an independent run for the presidency. And, based on his behavior, words and actions... he does appear to be ramping up for an independent run.

[Ken Burch]

75. The guy has based his entire political strategy on working in alliance with Dems.

There's been no point at which he sought to do this party harm.

He would regard it as political self-destructive to run as a third-party presidential candidate.

There was also the fact that, in 2016, he announced throughout the primaries that he would endorse whoever the Dem nominee was and campaign hard for that nominee,

We agree that Bernie should not run again...and I think he realizes that seeking the presidency at age 79 would not be plausible...I'm just saying he has shown himself to be a person of his word. The dude doesn't lie and he isn't a saboteur.

The way to make sure he doesn't run again-as I truly think he wishes not to run-would be for this party to accept the basic validity of his views on economics and the need to put corporate power in some sort of check, as we keep on working to put institutional bigotry in check and defend choice, and to accept that his supporters have a legitimate place in this party as a group.

The worst way to keep him out is to disregard the ideas of his supporters and to demand that they just disband and give up fighting for what they believe in. He lost the primary, agreed, but 43% of the primary vote-plus the statements of large numbers of HRC primary voters that they agreed with at least some of the Sanders ideas-does show that the ideas his campaign championed have significant support and resonance.

What's the harm in admitting they have some valid points and that we need them, just as we need to turn nonvoters into voters and to unsuppress suppressed voters?

What's the harm in making the party into a broad front, in which the Sanders/Clinton division becomes a thing of the past and we all work together on the shared assumption that all progressives have a right to be here and a right to work respectfully and constructively for what we wish the party to stand for?

[NurseJackie]

76. LOL!

[Ken Burch]

79. When you respond like that, it's an admission that you have no argument against what I've said.

Why reduce yourself to this?

[NurseJackie]

81. LOL! It's an "admission" of no such thing.

When you respond like that, it's an admission that you have no argument against what I've said.

It's a mistake to flatter one's self by assuming that everything they write is deserving of a detailed rebuttal. Sometimes, the "LOL" is the only thing needed and expresses my feelings entirely and completely.

Why reduce yourself to this?

Nobody is being reduced to anything. I am, however, having a good laugh.

[Ken Burch]

87. There's nothing to laugh about.

It's not silly simply to be to the left of your personal comfort zone

We agree on the need to defend choice and fight social oppression.

Our only disagreements are on the need to keep corporate power in check, to push back on corporate control of politics and life, and to reduce unjust concentrations of wealth in the hands of the few, and about the need to pull back on the use of force.

It's not as though the only way to defend choice and fight social oppression is to be "centrist" on economic issues and casual about the idea of military intervention as a tool of our foreign policy.

[NurseJackie]

88. LOL

There's nothing to laugh about.

Oh, contraire!

It's not silly simply to be to the left of your personal comfort zone

It's not about me, no matter how how hard your try. LOL!

We agree on the need to defend choice and fight social oppression.

Nobody was talking about this. You're changing the subject. LOL!

Our only disagreements are on the need to keep corporate power in check, to push back on corporate control of politics and life, and to reduce unjust concentrations of wealth in the hands of the few, and about the need to pull back on the use of force.

Wrong! LOL!

It's not as though the only way to defend choice and fight social oppression is to be "centrist" on economic issues and casual about the idea of military intervention as a tool of our foreign policy.

Nobody was talking about this. This is a change of subject diversion. LOL!



https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9791319

[Ken Burch]

91. Ok...if you're saying "wrong", what ELSE do you think we disagree about?

I honestly don't know what else you think I support or oppose. Would you mind just saying what you THINK my views and objectives are?

And I honestly don't have any idea why you think you need to try to ridicule me into silence. I've been posting here for years now and you've never said precisely why you see me as someone who needs to be shut up or driven away. I've campaigned for the party in the fall and I haven't posted anything that harmed the chances of any of our nominees.

I supported Bernie in the primaries. A lot of folks did. Doing so was not a betrayal of this party and was not a crime against humanity. And doing so did not cause Trump. I campaigned hard for Hillary in the fall and so did most Sanders campaign people. The result was not our fault and we mourned it as much as anyone else in this party.

I'm just as much a positive, constructive and loyal member of this party as you are, and you've never had any reason to target me and what I post. All I do is express legitimate views you happen to disagree with. Why can't you just accept that posts you disagree with are simply part of what happens on a discussion board?

[NurseJackie]

92. Oh brother!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9791319

[Ken Burch]

106. OK...I hadn't thought of an assessment of what a particular politician might do

when I asked that question. Fine, I'll stipulate that we disagree on that point.

I'm not sure why you think the guy would have forgotten what usually happens to third-party presidential candidates and decide to blow the remainder of his political career to bits by turning into being the next Nader. by acting recklessly when he's never been reckless before, but I accept that you believe that.

Let me ask it this way, to clarify: On the issues of the day, on what we support and oppose in terms of ideas, would you actually say we disagree on anything beyond the things I listed.

We are both solidly pro-choice. We are both solidly against any form of institutional bigotry and social oppression.

I support a more egalitarian and small-d set of economic values than you might. You are more open to the frequent use of military force, especially in the Arab/Muslim world, than I am.

Neither of us thinks Bernie should run again, but we have different ideas on how to prevent that happening.

Beyond that, I can't honestly think of anything we are at odds about in terms of the major issues that affect this country and the world.

What views do I hold that you feel have no place in the spectrum of ideas within the Democratic Party?

What views do you see me as holding that are so impermissible that what you call "snark" and what a lot of other people see as pointless personal derision is the only effective way to respond?

Why isn't it enough for you to do what most people do here when facing posters they don't totally agree with and simply respond to what they've posted on the merits of the issue? What do you think you would lose if you treated everyone here with a basic level of human respect and dignity?

It's not like DU would be a better place if nobody here disagreed with you. OR if nobody disagreed with me.

[moriah]

61. No, I don't wish he'd run as a spoiler. But I do wish...

... that if he was going to make the choice to run for President, and do it leading the only major party that does anything to address income inequality and has progressive leanings -- even if it's not perfect -- that he would make a commitment to that Party vs continue to stand on the edge of the Big Tent.

Why?

Because he has legitimate criticisms of the Party, and criticism from the "outside" -- especially when the Big Other's mountain isn't even getting equal time, let alone proportionate time, to our (in comparison) molehill on those problems in that criticism -- feels like an attack vs constructive criticism. I think he would be a better advocate for progress working within the Party than standing outside it because of that. We have room for him, but he won't step in.

In a way, he's kind of like the Party's "friend with benefits" vs even going steady. I have no issues with friends with benefits --they can be fun and beneficial -- but I'm not nearly as likely to arrange or change my life to suit them or take their concerns to heart compared to how I would act with a serious monogamous partner.

[lunamagica]

62. Yes.because it would have shown honesty. The fact that he changed to independent when he didn't get

the nomination shows that he was just using the party for his own benefit. that being dishonest

[VOX]

63. Not if it meant Bernie would be a Ralph Nader II.

And he was peeling previous votes away from the Democratic candidate. In that case, I’d rather he not be relegated to a spoiler role, in which case everybody loses.

But that’s just my opinion. Of course he’s free to run as an independent anytime.

[pnwmom]

64. No. I'd rather that he had conceded by early May when the mathematical loss occurred,

and had given full throated support to Hillary between then and the election.

Instead, he fought her to the convention. After the convention he spent July and August writing his book, and in September he only did two campaign events for her -- still too busy writing. He could have done much more than he did to encourage his supporters to vote for Hillary, and that could have made a difference despite the Russian interference.

[NurseJackie]

89. This is the sad, pathetic and unvarnished truth. So many things could have been...

... but, stubbornness and hurt feelings and anger and bitterness come at a very high price. I wonder if anyone has any regrets about it.

[Jim Lane]

90. I'm tired of these endless falsehoods about Bernie's campaigning for Hillary.

There've been multiple threads refuting the smears. I don't have the patience to compile a complete list of Bernie's campaign events for Hillary, or to dig out that video in which she effusively thanks him for his support. I'll just quickly refute your specific charges.

"After the convention he spent July and August writing his book...." False. Per this C-SPAN report of a July 12 rally:

Senator Bernie Sanders Campaign Event with Hillary Clinton Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) campaigned with Democratic presumptive presidential nominee Hillary Clinton at a rally in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. He endorsed and congratulated Secretary Clinton for winning the nominating process and said he would do everything to make certain she becomes the next president.

"{I}n September he only did two campaign events for her -- still too busy writing." False. Per this list of Clinton speeches in September 2016, he appeared for her on September 5 in Lebanon, New Hampshire; on September 17 at two events in Ohio, one in Kent and one in Akron; and on September 28 in Durham, New Hampshire.

And, please, no goalpost moving about "Well it was only four events in September." I stress that this isn't a complete list. I stopped investigating when I had enough to refute your statement. He did many more events during the campaign.

[pnwmom]

97. You're right. He finally endorsed her on July 12, more than 2 months after her win was certain.

But he did very little campaigning for her till October. Here is an article written on September 30.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/09/30/bernie-sanders-step-up-campaign-schedule-hillary-clinton/91342564/

Sanders spent most of August writing a book but has since campaigned for Clinton in Ohio (once) and New Hampshire (twice). An event Wednesday in the Granite State was the first joint appearance for Sanders and Clinton since he endorsed her in July. The event aimed to win more support for Clinton from millennials who supported Sanders in the primaries. Clinton is underperforming among young adults, a significant percentage of whom have turned to third-party candidates.

[Jim Lane]

98. Just the links I gave show that the quotation from "USA Today" is false.

Beyond that, it's a mistake to look only at "joint appearance{s} for Sanders and Clinton...." He did events that were not joint appearances. It's a traditional function of campaign surrogates to appear separately from the candidate, enabling the campaign to be in two places at once.

[treestar]

65. No.

I would rather he he not run at all.

[Kirk Lover]

68. Yes. If you are an independent then you should run as one. If you want to run as a Dem than you

should switch parties. Isn't that what Trashbag did?

[Blue_Tires]

69. YES!

If he and his people were going to bitch and moan 17 months later and move to eliminate every facet of an electoral primary that didn't help him, then yes...

But if he stayed independent he wouldn't have been able to tap into the party's immense resources and manpower, and that's the bottom line...

[mainstreetonce]

78. Yes

Either you are an independent or you are not

[LittleBlue]

83. At this point yes. From what I've seen the last few days, this party is in terminal decline

There are too many people who can't accept the lessons we must learn from the Hillary loss, and are determined to perpetuate the system that led to catastrophic defeat in 2016. Example: Donna Brazile writes a book blaming Hillary/DNC. DU's response: white men! Hillary haters! Russians! Putin! Blargel blargel! It's like they've twisted it in their heads that Putin wrote the book and not Brazile.

Perhaps it's time to start over. There is too much delusion on the left to take responsibility for what happened in 2016. Trump, ironically, is the only one saving this party from non-existence. If someone like Pence had won, we'd already have become a regional party.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

84. It would have made the Russians' jobs a lot easier. nt

[CTyankee]

93. At the time I thought he was fine running as a Dem.

Right now, I don't care. He's been a leader for reform (I voted for him in the CT primary, voted HRC of course in the general). I believed and still do that he has been a catalyst for a change in the way we think about lots of things in our political lives today.

Let's look forward not back. No time for that now. We must prepare for the future of our Democratic Party. Onward.

[David__77]

94. No. I was glad to vote for him in the Democratic primary.

...

[mikehiggins]

95. If Bernie had won the nomination Jeb Bush would be in the WHite House today.

Most GOPukes and most Dems KNEW Hillary couldn't lose so all of the "legit" Republican candidates threw the fight. If they had to run against a Socialist from New England they would have gone for the gold. Jeb would have had a good chance in a case like that. As it was, faced with the unstoppable Clinton juggernaut all the big timers chickened out.

And so it goes...

[StevieM]

96. The system was not remotely stacked against him. He had every opportunity to win.

He just didn't.

[LostOne4Ever]

99. How many peeps who say yes also attack Jill Stein for running as a green?

How many say that if you aren’t for the Democratic Party you are working for the Republicans?

How many have posted about how Bernie is not a dem and wish they could bash him?

How many of them are saying yes because they wish to ban Bernie and his supporters from the site?

How many of them told Bernie supporters “we don’t need you” during the end of the primary?

Inquiring minds want to know...

Had Bernie run as an indep it would have given Dump the popular vote and legitimacy. It would have been a disaster.

But this reveals something. These people want to run liberals out of the party. They attack liberals for voting third party and tell us if we want change we have to do it thru the Democratic Party, and when one does so they now claim he should have run as an independent.

Fuck that noise!!! I hope Bernie runs for the democratic nomination again and again! We liberals and progressives aren’t going anywhere!!!

[Kirk Lover]

105. I see your points. I'll just speak for myself but I don't want to run liberals out of the party but

I'm much more relaxed and have very little purity tests. I would accept and welcome almost anyone into the party because we share some common goals. I feel the ultra liberals are the ones who can be very intolerant..which I understand - they want everybody to 'be as good as them'...but they need to get freakin real here. I'm sorry but a super left candidate is never going to win a general election at this point in time....WE NEED TO GET REAL and start beating them at their own game. WE NEED TO WIN and if that means *god forbid* a centrist candidate....well them I'm all for it...because guess what....I want to win!! The worst Democrat is better than the best Republican any day (totally being dramatic there).

[LostOne4Ever]

134. From my point of view, the purity tests havent been from the liberals on this site

But from the centrists.

All the intolerant far leftist permanently left this site for JPR and voted Jill Stein. The “far left” liberals on here are all like me- voted Sanders in the primary and Clinton in the General. We complain a lot, but are no purists.

That said, I have seen attack after attack upon Bernie and his supporters for not toeing the line. Bernie is attacked over and over and over for not being a democrat. He/we are attacked over and over and over for any perceived deviation from the party line. For instance, one of the few issues where he was to the right of Clinton was on guns. Yet we are called the purists?

I and many like me had issues with Moderate nominees like Clinton, Kerry, and others before them. And honestly, Clinton wasn’t that far from Sanders. Regardless, We held our noses and voted for them. How purist is that? Bernie even endorsed and stumped for Clinton over and over again! Where is the purist in that?

But, on the other hand, how many people have been supporting things like super delegates? A tool to keep liberal upstarts out? It seems to me that if there is an intolerance here it is against strong liberal candidates like Sanders.

And I disagree about liberal candidates can’t win. Obama won, and he was to the left of Clinton. It goes back to the idea that a hard right or hard left canadite can’t win. Trump shattered that idea.

I firmly believe that a part of the reason we lost States that went to Obama was that there was a strong mood in the country against your typical politician. It wasn’t about experience or ideology but being different. Sometimes there are election years like that. For a long time only governors could get elected because they were Washington outsiders.

Each year, what the people want changes slightly. It is entirely possible that after Trump people will want a polished politician in 2020 rather than another potentially inept outsider. Or, they may want someone as ideologically different from Trump as possible. The former case hurts a Bernie like canadite, and the latter helps them. We have to listen to the people and give them what they want.

Maybe that will be a strong liberal. Maybe it will be a moderate. We need to let the party decide. Having canadite like Bernie only gives us more options and chances to win. Thus going back to the original point of the thread: Bernie running as an independent would have only hurt us.

That is what I love most about Sanders and HATE about Stein. He did it the right way. He worked for change through the dem party and was a team player when he lost. Stein tried to give the election to the repigs and depending on how many of her supporters would have voted dem had she not run... quite possibly succeeded.

So again, how many of the “yes” posters in this thread have also attacked Stein? Cause if they have, then the good of the party isn’t their real concern...

[lunamagica]

125. It is not about the things you listed. It's about integrity and honesty. He changed back to

independent as soon as he could. He is not a Democrat, he just says he is when it's convenient to him. He used the Democratic party.

That is just wrong. Is dishonest.

[LostOne4Ever]

133. He never said he was going to be a democrat if he lost

Just that he would be a democrat if he became president. I see no dishonesty.

And political parties are nothing more than a tool to be used to instigate political change. The Democratic Party used to be the socially Conservative party of slavery and the south. Back then none of us would have had anything to do with it (I hope at least.).

Now it is the party of civil rights (at least when it is popular) and moderate economic policies.

If they want Sen. Sanders as a full member officially rather than a member just in spirit, why don’t they move his way and get all the corporate money out and run campaigns the way he did? By and for the people.

I and most voters like me (Sander primary and Clinton general voters) aren’t liberals because we are democrats; rather we are democrats because we are liberal. I don’t care about if a D after a person’s name, I care that they are going to promote liberal social and (to a lesser degree) economic policies. So long as it doesn’t risk giving a seat to an even worse republican I will vote for a liberal independent over Zell Miller Democrat any day of the week.

I see NOTHING wrong with what he did.

[Adrahil]

100. A "team player?" Not hardly.

He's always does what HE wants to do. And frankly, he was right that he couldn't win as an independent. And
I was okay with him joining the party and running. Only he never really joined the party. We were just an organization he hoped to leverage. I've lost so much respect for him.

[delisen]

107. In the words of some of his supporters he

saw the Democratic Party as a vehicle (to get hime where he personally wanted to go).

[Adrahil]

108. He reminds me of....

The cool kid who "befriends" a nerd who's family has a pool in the back yard. He never cared about the party.

[NastyRiffraff]

103. I'd rather he not have run at all

but if he did run, it should have been as an Independent, which is what he was and is, as he himself said numerous times. It's not condescending to call him what he has made clear what he is. "Independent" is not an insult, although to hear some here whine, it seems that it is.

Talk to Bernie about that.

[kentuck]

104. Is a Democratic Socialist a "Democrat"?

He should have run as a Democratic Socialist.

[Peachhead22]

112. Jill Stein was an I...

Last edited Fri Nov 3, 2017, 08:01 PM - Edit history (1)

...and arguably she pulled enough votes from Hillary in key areas to swing the election. The vast majority of Bernie supporters in the primary went on to vote for Hillary (in the general). Even though they felt they had been wronged by the DNC. He brought many, many new voters in to the Dem fold. And if they aren't run off in the name of "party unity" they'll likely stay Dems for the foreseeable future.

If Bernie ran as an I, either after losing the primary or ran as a 3rd party candidate from the beginning, Hillary would have lost by significantly more and the people Bernie brought into the Democratic party wouldn't be here.

Don't cut off your nose to spite your face. Don't mistake DU for what's happening in the wider world. The majority of progressives aren't insisting on "100% my way or else" they just want to be heard and respected just like folks in any other wing of the party.

edited to add (in the general)

[kentuck]

118. I'm not sure that Jill Stein took votes away from Democrats?

Or took them from the Republican Party?

[Kentonio]

119. Prefered having a spoiler candidate? No of course not.

He was the single best candidate I've had the privilege of supporting in a primary, and despite him losing in the end he still managed to give a voice to many of us who had been lacking one for so long.

[Snackshack]

129. Yes.

Unfortunately the way system is built it is almost impossible for a third party candidate to run for president.

[ucrdem]

131. hell yes.

The endless primaries and the fractious convention killed us. Exactly as I predicted in fact but that's life I guess.

[MineralMan]

136. I Would of {sic} Still Voted for Hillary Clinton.

And she would have {not sic} still won the popular vote, and maybe the Electoral College as well.

[romanic]

137. I think it would've been a grand statement if he had done so.

Would it have split the votes? Sure. But sometimes you have to go your own way. I think Bernie would habe garnered a lot of support regardless, just not as much without the D label.