Bernie Sanders Announces Deadline on Presidential Decision

[adirondacker]

'I don't want to do it unless we can win this thing,' Sanders told Associated Press.
by
Nadia Prupis, staff writer

"Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) announced Friday that he will decide by March if he will enter the 2016 presidential race—and whether he'll run on a Democrat or Independent platform.

In an interview with the Associated Press, Sanders said his nomination would be more than a political game. "I don't want to do it unless I can do it well," he said. "I don't want to do it unless we can win this thing."

Sanders said he would make a "gut decision" about running and acknowledged that Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton would be his primary opponent.

Although Sanders is a socialist, his views on many issues regularly align with Senate Democrats. Still, he has criticized his colleagues in the past for their weaker approach to issues he sees as particularly dire, such as the income inequality, climate change, and campaign finance reform.

In an interview with C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" program in November, Sanders attributed the Republican midterm sweep of the Senate to lackluster campaigns on the Democrat side, stating, "I think many of the Democratic candidates did not run on an agenda which resonated with working people.""

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/12/26/bernie-sanders-announces-deadline-presidential-decision

[djean111]

1. "I think many of the Democratic candidates did not run on an agenda which resonated with working

people.""
They sure as fuck didn't. And, when they do, they are (IMO and all that) mostly lying.

[George II]

7. Possibly, but who is Sanders to criticize? He's not a Democrat!!!!

[djean111]

8. That literally has fuck all to do with what he said. Going after the messenger is

getting pretty boring and passe these days, you know. Not to mention been played out to death.
Oh, and I guess we won't see you complaining about anything the GOP does, because you are not a Republican, right?

[George II]

10. BIG difference - he's criticizing Democrats and presumably going to use that....

....as rationale to run for President probably as a DEMOCRAT.

I know he's been caucusing with the Democrats, but to me its not right to stay on the outside looking in and criticizing.

[djean111]

11. I think his rationale is that we need a president who is for the 99%.

IMO, if he caucuses with the Democrats, and votes with them, and, likely, votes FOR them, and is affected by what happens afters elections - then he can criticize. Right now, some Democrats have made the party a place that does not seem hospitable to those who support the traditional non-corporate Democratic platform.
Personally, the "D" on the jersey does not mean as much as it used to, to me.

[JDPriestly]

13. If you read Elizabeth Warren's book, A Fighting Chance, you read this explanation about the

in-crowd in the Democratic Party. If you want to be "in" it, you don't criticize. If the in-crowd in the Democratic Party is beyond criticism it means that we will continue to have the status quo of lost elections in those elections in which we don't have a huge personality to run for the top job. We lost 2010 and 2014. We won when Obama, who is broadly loved, ran.

We are not winning on principles and the loyalty of Democratic Party members but on the personality of our top candidate. That will not help us win in 2016, not with Hillary anyway.

People recognize Hillary's name and remember Bill Clinton fondly, but Hillary just does not have charisma, that indefinable essence that makes a candidate win an election in which the stances she takes do not define her as a great hope. Hillary's personality, in other words, is not going to carry her to win in 2016 unless the Republican candidate is even worse (a possibility).

Here are the famous words from Elizabeth Warren, A Fighting Chance, pages 105-106. Larry Summers invited Elizabeth Warren to meet and they did meet at the Bombay Club. Here is what happened.

"When Larry arrived for our dinner, he ordered a Diet Coke as soon as he sat down. He glanced at the menu, ordered quickly, and soon the food started coming.

"It was a long dinner, with plenty of intense back-and-forth about everything from the bailout, to deregulation, to the foreclosure crisis. I also talked to Larry about an idea I'd been working on for a new consumer financial agency, and he seemed interested. We didn't agree on everything, but I give Larry full credit. I'll take honest conversation and debate any day of the week over the duck-and-cover stuff I so often saw in Washington that spring.

"Late in the evenin, Larry leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice. By now, I'd lost count of Larry's Diet Cokes, and our table was strewn with bits of food and spilled sauces. Larry's tone was in the friendly-advice category. He teed it up this way: I had to make a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can way whatever they want. But people on the inside don't listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People -- powerful people -- listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule. They don't criticize other insiders."

Elizabeth Warren adds that she "had been warned."

Many of us rank and file members believe that this warning and the culture that attempts to silence outsiders who criticize the insiders are what are limiting the Democratic Party, and what could make it irrelevant in 2016.

So far, when we win elections, it is mostly due to Republicans' fielding horrible candidates -- like the 2012 crowd that talked about legitimate rape and other topics insulting to women of today.

The lack of self-criticism and striving to do better in the leadership of our party is very frustrating. Obama is finally taking it upon himself to act and lead in the areas of immigration and recognition of Cuba.

The trade-off is that we are likely to get the TPP. The TPP is the perfect example of an awful policy, and a dangerous commitment that is going to hurt Americans and America as a country in so many ways. But the insiders, the inside-Democrats are refusing to rock the boat and criticize even the fact that the provisions of the agreement are being kept secret and out of bounds for the kind of discussion that we need if we are to claim to be a democracy or a democratic republic, much less the agreement itself.

It is inconceivable to me that the insiders in the Democratic Party could betray the working people of America, our country and us voters with their lack of criticism of this horrible agreement -- too awful to even reveal to us what it says.

They are all afraid of being pushed to the outside, of being deprived of money and institutional support they need to get elected, of losing the sponsorship of the Democratic Party.

Sanders has been Independent. He is a long-term Independent who agrees for the most part with Democrats. I hope he will run as a Democrat who is not an insider of the Party, as one who can criticize what is going on in the Party.

[Enthusiast]

15. +1 an entire shit load.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

46. That. And I'll raise you a huge shitload!

[DonCoquixote]

17. a good quote

"People recognize Hillary's name and remember Bill Clinton fondly, but Hillary just does not have charisma, that indefinable essence that makes a candidate win an election in which the stances she takes do not define her as a great hope. Hillary's personality, in other words, is not going to carry her to win in 2016 unless the Republican candidate is even worse (a possibility). "

and with Jeb, the other guy can be a whole lot worse, as I know being from Florida. That said, Hillary could have defined herself a lot better by now, but does not, and will not, because she is still trying to win the big donors. She will not adress Glass-Steagall, the Telecommuncations act, or a review of so called "welfare reform" because a) the big donots like them and B) it woudl require her making a sharp turn from her Husband.

Granted,if she wanted to diverge from Bill, she could, and get a LOT of cheers, but her ace in the hole, her outrigth codependent flaw, is that she depends on Bill to be the Charismatic one, that "minister of splaining stuff" as Obama put it. Bill Clinton has become larger than life, and Hillary knows where her meal ticket is. Bill will also push farther to the right, as he did when he called Obama a "wuss" for not supporting the "rebels" who,oddly enough, later turned out to be ISIS.

[Aquavit]

25. uh....

"but to me its not right to stay on the outside looking in and criticizing."

....says the person with the Canadian flag for an avatar...

[George II]

29. Born in Brooklyn and lived in NYC area all my life (67 years)!

[Ken Burch]

37. Why the Canadian flag, then?

Canada has a government to the far right of ours at this point.

[George II]

42. Not that it's any of your business, but it's a tribute to my mother....

...who was born in Canada and became a naturalized citizen of the United States when she was 48 years old.

[Ken Burch]

43. It wasn't meant as a hostile question. Sorry.

And my condolences on the loss of your mother.

[George II]

20. I'm not an independent looking for the "republican" presidential nomination!

[Ken Burch]

19. It's enough that he organizes with Dems in the Senate.

We can assume that any Dem that ever took his Senate seat would be too centrist to be worth anything.
And I say that AS a Dem.

[George II]

21. "organizing with dems" is one thing, BEING a Democrat is another....

....I like Bernie Sanders, think he has some great ideas, but if he want to run for President he's got to shit or get off the "independent" pot!

[Ken Burch]

22. The assumption is that he'd run as a Dem.

Obviously, if he went third-party, no support of his candidacy would be allowed on DU.

[George II]

23. Your "obviously" isn't true, but if he runs as a third-party candidate, he'll get no more than 10%..

....of the popular vote and zero Electoral Votes.

Let's face reality. No offense intended, but Bernie Sanders is a Jewish man from Brooklyn and an avowed Socialist and is an Independent. What chance does he have with "middle America"? What chance does he have to win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016? Sure, there's a longshot that he could win the California, New York, and perhaps a smattering of additional electoral votes, but that's about all.

The only role he could play in 2016 as an Independent is as a spoiler, and most likely would hand the republican candidate the Presidency. Anyone here remember 2000?????

[Ken Burch]

24. He's not going to run as an independent presidential candidate.

If you knew anything about Bernie's career, you would know he has always had a strong practical streak.

So it's time to stop treating the guy like he can't be trusted not to be this year's Nader. Just admit he's not like that already.

And I'd watch it with comments like "Bernie Sanders is a Jewish man from Brooklyn". That's inflammatory in the way you use it.

Besides, Hillary is doomed in "middle America", too. Middle America doesn't want Wall Street toadies who love wars.
Middle America doesn't want any more globalization and is sick of seeing its kids come home dead from Afghanistan. And Middle America wants stronger unions now, not more WalMart economics.

[NanceGreggs]

27. "And I'd watch it with comments like ...

... "Bernie Sanders is a Jewish man from Brooklyn".

When did stating the truth (not to mention the obvious) become inflammatory? And I raise that point as a Brooklynite AND a Jew.

Bernie Sanders IS a Jew, and he IS from Brooklyn. Exactly how did the poster you've responded to "use" those well-known facts "in a way" as to be "inflammatory"?

Has DU now become so devoid of reason that stating actual truths is to be regarded as suspect? *







* Who am I kidding? Of course it has.

[Ken Burch]

28. But it's in how its said.

Lieberman was Jewish too, and nobody used that as a means to discredit him.

Besides, if we're STILL at a stage where Jewishness disqualifies someone from the presidency, all hope of a progressive future is lost.

[George II]

31. Man, you TOTALLY missed the point.....

The man's "Jewishness" (that can be taken as inflammatory too, by the way!) does not disqualify him from the presidency. Did I ever say that? And I never discredited Sanders, either - that is YOUR take on my simple statement of fact.

But I will say, there are many areas of the country where the facts that he is Jewish, he's from Brooklyn, and is a SOCIALIST (which I consider myself as well) would disqualify him from the presidency in their minds. This is a reality, whether we like it or not.

[Ken Burch]

34. Your whole series of posts there were viciously hostile to Bernie Sanders.

You are treating him as if he's the enemy of the Democratic Party, and that Dems can ONLY win by promising to be half-ugly on the issues, as they did in 1992 and 1996.

Your whole tone is venomous to a man who is only guilty of fighting for the Democratic party is supposed to stand for.

[George II]

35. Now it's "viciously hostile" and "venomous"? Please explain yourself.

I haven't said a single BAD thing about Bernie Sanders here or anywhere else.

I admire him, and think he would be a very good president. But in order to be a very good president he'll have to win the election in 2016. My honest opinion is that he won't win the election.

[Ken Burch]

36. You were implying that he'd go third-party against the Dem nominee.

You used "socialism" in McCarthyite terms.

Obviously, you want us to lower ourselves to HRC and just give up, which is the alternative to Bernie or Elizabeth Warren running-agreeing to accept a corporate centrist as nominee without challenge, which is what both of those people staying out of the race means, is the same as ceasing to fight for progressive change at all.

A Supreme Court justice isn't worth making the party more-than-half right wing again, as another Clinton nomination means.

[George II]

39. This gets more bizarre.....

Sure, I think in one of my posts I mentioned the consequences if he did run as an independent (which he IS by the way, he's not yet a Democrat!) - that the republican candidate would be almost assured of victory. I didn't "imply" that he'd go third-party against the Dem nominee, I mentioned the possibility of him doing it, especially since he is not a member of either major party.

In addition, he wouldn't be running against the Dem nominee, he'd be running against ALL nominees, Democratic, republican, and whoever else might enter the race, but that wasn't the point anyway.

I didn't use "socialism" in McCarthyite terms, in fact if you weren't blinded by what you THOUGHT I said you would have seen that I said I consider myself a socialist. And he says he is a socialist. The "McCarthyite" tactic was to call someone who was NOT one a socialist, known as red-baiting back in the '50s. Considering myself socialist (I'm a Democrat, with socialist philosophies) obviously I don't have a problem with that, but millions of Americans consider it a negative factor for one to be "socialist".

Finally, I still would like to know how what I've said in this discussion can be characterized as "viciously hostile" and "venomous".

[Ken Burch]

40. Just admit that there's no chance he'd go third-party in '16.

Just accept that if he did run, he'd run as a Dem(and that it doesn't matter whether he's registered as a Dem now...it goes without saying that he would register as such if he did ran).

Stop implying that Dems can't trust the guy. If he hasn't fucked over the party yet, he's never going to.

[George II]

41. And so it coninues.....when did I say or "imply" that Democrats can't trust him?

Once again, you come to bizarre and false conclusions about what I said.

Now can we address your characterization of what I said that was "viciously hostile" and "venomous"?

[NanceGreggs]

38. And exactly "how" was it said, Ken?

Sanders is a Jew, and he's from Brooklyn. Those are statements of fact.

No one said that his being Jewish discredits him in any way. And no one said that one's Jewishness disqualifies Sanders, or anyone else, from the presidency.

The fact that you deign to interpret simple statements of fact as having some negative connotation speaks for itself.

You might try responding to what people actually say instead of responding to what YOU have decided they're saying. I know that's out of vogue here on DU these days, but you might want to try it sometime.

[George II]

32. Thank you.

[George II]

30. Did you see my comment BEFORE the one you isolated as "inflammatory"?????

I guess you conveniently ignored it. I also noted that he is a Socialist (you ignored THAT too!)

I said no offense intended - I suspected that some would take that as offensive, even though it's a statement of fact and was NOT made to be inflammatory or insulting.

I guess I should thank you for confirming my trepidation.

Now, the reason I mentioned all of that is I can't imagine very many voters in the Deep South, Midwest, and Southwest casting their votes for him BECAUSE of his background (I'll resist mentioning what it is again) and political position. Those aren't big factors with voters on the two coasts but there are huge groups of voters in the middle of the country who would never vote for someone who is a Socialist, is a native New Yorker (Brooklyn, like myself) or not a Christian (you like that better?)

Remember, we're dealing with the American electorate who for the most part consider superficial aspects of a candidate rather than their real substance and policy positions.

[Ken Burch]

33. The voters you're talking about won't vote anything but Republican.

Hell, people like the ones you're describing never voted for BILL Clinton. HRC will never get those votes, either.

There's no way to get far enough to the right to appease any voters like that and still be different than the Republicans.

You know I'm right on this.

[appalachiablue]

45. If these middle American types you describe can't see the clear message Bernie brings for helping

working people in this country, if they remain that bigoted and rigid then they deserve to suffer and decline even more. And unfortunately they'll drag down the rest of us who want change. Things are so bad in this country I'd vote for a reformed wife beater, fraudster and Neo-Nazi if I thought they were sincere, honest and willing to help this sick, decaying country. Forget the boogeyman labels-

[rpannier]

47. So if you're not a Democrat you can't criticize

I take it you've never criticized a group you don't belong to? (like maybe the Republicans)

[George II]

48. No, but....

....he presumably wants to be the LEADER of the group that he doesn't belong to. Big difference.

It's similar to the old adage, "if you don't vote you can't complain about those who are elected".

See my post #20, too.

[Enthusiast]

14. +1 an entire shit load.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. OK, Senator.......we await your decision. n/t

[NorthCarolina]

3. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

make this a reality.

[antigop]

4. OK, Bernie, what proof do you need that "we can win this thing"? Let your supporters know.

Do you want donations? An email of support?

How are you going to decide whether you have proof or not?

Do tell...

[PDittie]

5. Translation: he's not running

"unless we can win this thing" IMHO tells me he's not running as a Democrat, a Green, or an indy. This Bloomberg piece suggests the same (in terms of his nonverbal communication, at the rallies he's gone to in Iowa and other places).

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2014-12-19/what-kind-of-revolutionary-exactly-is-bernie-sanders

So I'm left wondering if this was just an academic exercise, and he's learned what he needed from it.

[George II]

6. The headline (not yours) is a misnomer - it's not a "deadline", and....

...I agree with the post above mine, he's not going to run.

[raouldukelives]

9. With every dollar in Wall St essentially being a vote against Sen. Sanders.

Against any form of open, fair & representational democracy, I'd say his chances are very slim.
We will get what the corporate supporters desire. More of the same.
Democracy may well be a lost cause, but sometimes, those are the only causes worth fighting for.

[JDPriestly]

12. I have two questions for Bernie Sanders.

1. If he runs, will he run as a Democrat?

2. Has he discussed or will he discuss with Elizabeth Warren whether she will run?

If re runs as a Democrat I will support him and canvas for him.

If Elizabeth Warren runs, then Bernie's chance of winning would be reduced. Warren and Sanders need to get together and talk through the strategy on this. I like both of them. But I don't want to see both of them run.

And I would be inclined to vote for a Democrat. I'm in California, so my vote for a third party would not jeopardize a Democratic win. If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic candidate -- well I probably would ask myself whether the Democratic Party really wants or deserves my vote. She is not my kind of Democrat -- not at all.

[Enthusiast]

16. Bernie should run as a Democrat with Elizabeth as a running mate.

They should agree, right from the start. They are not far apart on the issues. The people are starving for truth. Their words would be gobbled up. Hillary's act would quickly become swallowed up. I'm just saying.

[blkmusclmachine]

26. +1 on Hillary. She'll run to Obama's right. And lose.

[MADem]

18. Sounds like, absent a massive uprising of checkbook waving acolytes, he's backing away.

I always thought his goal was to run to "push the conversation" but now he's changing the criteria to "I don't want to do it unless we can win this thing."

I think this may be his way of backing off of the exhausting, soul-draining
"adventure" while saving face.

He can't win this thing, unless George Soros and Bill Gates and Mike Bloomberg agree to fund his campaign entirely. He doesn't have the money, the donors, and the cash machine. He doesn't have the Big Name Backers who will mold his image and present him to the bulk of the nation who have never heard of him.

I'm sure the messenger will be lined up against the wall and shot for saying this, but thanks to Citizen's United, without money, and lots of it, there's no hope of him succeeding, and it's getting less and less likely that he'll even run.

[Douglas Carpenter]

44. Of course his positon is that he wants to win. Nobody can launch a credible campaign for President

only on the basis that they want to send a message. I'm sure he is enough of a realist to understand that his campaign is longshot - But no one seeking to be taken seriously as a credible candidate can begin their campaign by publicly announcing in advance that they have no chance of winning.